Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 TheKbob wrote:
As much as I hate, I'd love to see what the game would look like if allies were dropped completely. Maybe get a local tournament to try doing a zero allies tournament.

Do Grey Knights suddenly crawl back out on top? Does Tau become the big ticket even though it cannot effectively run O'vesa Star like before?

That's kinda what I would like to see even though it cripples SoB into some really boring lists.

Removing allies greatly improves the enjoyment factor of a tournament IMO. We had one locally with no allies, no fortifications, just one codex fighting another and it was really good.

It doesn't fix imbalance from codex to codex but there is certainly less foolishness and more sanity.

I hate allies, they're the absolute worst part of 6th edition.

Me and my mates don't use allies either the last thing we need is an arms race sucking the little fun that's left in 40k.

Personally I love allies, and don't see them to be a problem, mainly because I use them to make my army more 'fluffy' rather than to make it more powerful. I would never consider taking allies that just don't fit. In the top 16 Adepticon lists everyone was taking Inquisitors. There was even an Eldar, Dark Eldar and Inquisition army.

So, as I'm not a fan of banning anything, how about instead players are required to justify their alliances by having to write background for it? If they can justify an Eldar, Dark Eldar and Inquisition alliance through writing some decent fluff then fair enough.

Define "decent". What if the TO doesn't like your fluff, or it doesn't fit with their idea of the fluff? Don't get me wrong, I love an excuse to get to writing, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here.

So then lists are now forced to get through a judge to determine if the owner is:
a.) Able to cite enough similar sources to justify the army
or
b.) Able to write good fan fiction.
Again, arbitrary house ruling and judging doesn't justify/fix the problem of the ally system.

If only there was a matrix of some kind that the owners of the 40K franchise endorsed that including varying levels of cooperation. Perhaps if they also had a chart of some kind, like a primary FOC yet smaller, that could be used as a means to limit the ally size as well. I mean you may as well force all armies to only go against armies that would make sense fluff wise.

Personally I hate writing. My entire summary for why my Tau allied with Iron Warriors would be because the Iron Warriors thought it would be funny and wanted to have a giggle at the Imperium's expense.

I really like allies...if they make sense. Imperial shouldn't be allowed to ally with xenos for example.

I would run what I thought was a pretty good, fluffy list. Drop pod Marines with Elysian drop troop allies.

It was hard for my opponents to play against but I seldom won. It made for really interesting/tactical games. Lots of models all over the table.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I really like allies...if they make sense. Imperial shouldn't be allowed to ally with xenos for example.

It's not quite that simple, though, a we have examples from the fluff of imperial forces allying with Xenos. They don't like it, but it happens when there is a good reason for it.

 insaniak wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I really like allies...if they make sense. Imperial shouldn't be allowed to ally with xenos for example.

It's not quite that simple, though, a we have examples from the fluff of imperial forces allying with Xenos. They don't like it, but it happens when there is a good reason for it.

A good, recent example is in the Tyranid codex, Hive Fleet Gorgon.

Tau forces fleeing the Tyranids find their fallback planet in a war with the Imperium. Once the Tyranids show up, the Cadian leader decides to ally with the Tau temporarily to fight off the Tyranids, before turning their guns back on the Tau.

Originally, each army in 40k had a distinct play style.

And so adding allies (opponents permission,) in this setting allowed for more diverse tactical options.And give a good feel for how other armies play.

However, now practically every army has the option to cover every play style.
Adding allies only has 2 main functions.

The original one of allowing payers to play with other units while they build up other armies.
And to allow the few remaining strategic holes in some army to be easily filled.

This basically boils down to promoting GW plc corporate management view of the GW hobby.('Customers buying GW product.')
Which gives no thought at all to game play issues.

By the reasoning that Allies allow holes to be filled, that should make the game much less rock-paper-scissors and more strategy and tactics.

However, they doesn't seem to be happening.

A little perspective (or my 2 cents on the 'hate' posts...)

Most game companies are in SURVIVAL MODE, as slow economic recovery is hurting entertainment industry hard. Hollywood and network tv have both tightened their belts and gotten more cutthroat about what gets made and what gets the chopping block. White Wolf Games Studio can't fund all the projects they want to do so some of their games are now funded by Kickstarter. I hold little doubt that GW had to make more than a few painful decisions in recent years (painful for/to them, not just the fanbase). Sadly, both the Buffalo GW store and my favorite game store (Sage's Quest) are both dead and gone.

Inflation sucks, and sucks worse in a recession. Sad but true. Prices going up was gonna happen eventually, but recent/present conditions have forced their hand. Raising the bar (what they 'hoped' to do with the new books) was going to cost money, but rising costs of everything (staff/labor, paper, ink, etc...) demanded more investment & risk. As i myself am one of the millions of victims of the recession in the U.S., i had sticker-shock when i tried getting back into the hobby. I didn't like it, but at least i understand it.

Rules. Games evolve. Hopefully for the better, sometimes for the worse. For any and all the reasons mentioned in past posts and then some, some players will love some/all changes and others will hate. When WWGS released 3rd edtition as "Revised Edition" the game had some changes i considered major and wrong, to such a degree i openly flouted my dislike of 'Despised Edtion', even though there was some good content that i did add to my 2nd Ed games. When a few yrs later they killed the entire WoD-universe to launch a NEW WoD (completely rebooting all game lines with something almost completely different) i was initially furious, but i eventually got over it. When i can get players together, we still play the 'old' WoD. I suspect the same may be true for more than a few groups of players (whether its minis battles, Inquisitor or rpg). I haven't heard anything about revival/support for the Warhammer rpg, but i'm still interested in it. I may even have a copy of it somewhere in my collection...

When bad times abound, the 'angry mob' mentality spreads like wildfire, and misery is fuel feeding the flames. Regretably, that's human nature. To lash out with rage rather than think things through. Yes, it is prefered, even helpful, when the wronged party rationally explains why they feel/think they are wronged and how things might be made right. My impression of DakkaDakka is there's a good mix of people here! And this is far from my 1st forum.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I really like allies...if they make sense. Imperial shouldn't be allowed to ally with xenos for example.

Okay, i get the Xenophobic/Xeno-hate is actively cultivated in the Imperium, but 'canon fluff' has established that the early (Pre-Crusades & Crusades-eras) Imperium made many alien allies. They simply haven't been elaborated on as they can't even field anything close to matching either the IG or IN. Those allies might at best have their own police force.

Also in 'canon fluff' IN and SM have joined forces with Tau against Tyranids on at least a few occassions. Eldar have joined imperial forces fighting Dark Eldar or Chaos forces too many times for me to count.

I'll post fluff for my Tomb Kings Legion of Loyal SM and the Nehekharan Sector in another thread, but although i have yet to see this Allies Rule it soulds like it could be a great thing. But i don't think ANY rule should be forced on players. I like tournaments, but prefere casual play. Players should discuss which rules are being used for play before the set armies/fleets on the table. Tournaments have their rules & special conditions clearly stated, not open for discussion. Pick your poison/beast.