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.

Necrons also don't have access to Allies cheese that Eldar and especially IoM have.

I mean, we have AoC in Tau and CSM, but have you ever seen anyone actually play Necrons allied with Tau or CSM? I haven't...I've only played in a handful torunaments, which is where I'd expect to find such lists meet the table, but all the Necron armies I've seen in that setting have been straight Necrons with no allies.

I wonder if there was any thought into making Necrons stronger because they don't have any BB...perhaps I am giving too much credit here, but its possible.

 jasper76 wrote:
Necrons also don't have access to Allies cheese that Eldar and especially IoM have.

I mean, we have AoC in Tau and CSM, but have you ever seen anyone actually play Necrons allied with Tau or CSM? I haven't...I've only played in a handful torunaments, which is where I'd expect to find such lists meet the table, but all the Necron armies I've seen in that setting have been straight Necrons with no allies.

I wonder if there was any thought into making Necrons stronger because they don't have any BB...perhaps I am giving too much credit here, but its possible.

It is very likely, but this one of those examples of why I want the ally matrix to either go away or change.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Necrons also don't have access to Allies cheese that Eldar and especially IoM have.

I mean, we have AoC in Tau and CSM, but have you ever seen anyone actually play Necrons allied with Tau or CSM? I haven't...I've only played in a handful torunaments, which is where I'd expect to find such lists meet the table, but all the Necron armies I've seen in that setting have been straight Necrons with no allies.

I wonder if there was any thought into making Necrons stronger because they don't have any BB...perhaps I am giving too much credit here, but its possible.

It is very likely, but this one of those examples of why I want the ally matrix to either go away or change.

How would you like it to change? I think its at least a little more intuitive than the one in 6th.

 jasper76 wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Necrons also don't have access to Allies cheese that Eldar and especially IoM have.

I mean, we have AoC in Tau and CSM, but have you ever seen anyone actually play Necrons allied with Tau or CSM? I haven't...I've only played in a handful torunaments, which is where I'd expect to find such lists meet the table, but all the Necron armies I've seen in that setting have been straight Necrons with no allies.

I wonder if there was any thought into making Necrons stronger because they don't have any BB...perhaps I am giving too much credit here, but its possible.

It is very likely, but this one of those examples of why I want the ally matrix to either go away or change.

How would you like it to change? I think its at least a little more intuitive than the one in 6th.

Come the Apocalypse needs to not be a thing. It makes me cringe when I see Tyranids allying in Adamantium Lance. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Oh yeah, I agree with you completely about CtA allies.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Necrons also don't have access to Allies cheese that Eldar and especially IoM have.

I mean, we have AoC in Tau and CSM, but have you ever seen anyone actually play Necrons allied with Tau or CSM? I haven't...I've only played in a handful torunaments, which is where I'd expect to find such lists meet the table, but all the Necron armies I've seen in that setting have been straight Necrons with no allies.

I wonder if there was any thought into making Necrons stronger because they don't have any BB...perhaps I am giving too much credit here, but its possible.

It is very likely, but this one of those examples of why I want the ally matrix to either go away or change.

How would you like it to change? I think its at least a little more intuitive than the one in 6th.

Come the Apocalypse needs to not be a thing. It makes me cringe when I see Tyranids allying in Adamantium Lance. It just doesn't make sense to me.

You're not the only one. The sooner that goes away, the better off the game will be.

 Vaktathi wrote:

You're not the only one. The sooner that goes away, the better off the game will be.

I was about to say just use th matrix from 6th edition, but Taudar.....no thank you. Just take the current ally rules, and remove the CTA, we'll be set.

 Vaktathi wrote:
You're not the only one. The sooner that goes away, the better off the game will be.

Unless your a Tyranid player.

 adamsouza wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
You're not the only one. The sooner that goes away, the better off the game will be.

Unless your a Tyranid player.

To me, this game is all about its fluff. Its rules are terrible and nobody would touch 40k with a 50 foot pole if you stuck a different universe to the rules. Now, to a degree, fluff and rules must remain separate, but things like Tyranids with Knight allies and the like simply kill the point of playing for me.

That said, I'd also be fine with getting rid of most BB benefits, or even dropping allies in general as they're almost exclusively used in the overwhelmingly vast majority of instances just to make more powerful armies and get synergies not built into any single book. But really, there's not much that will make me feel bad about not allowing Tyranids to ally with armies they wouldn't differentiate from any other food or threat, though the same applies to things like CSM's and Grey Knights or Orks and Eldar and whatnot. I just can't bring myself to feel bad about that.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
You're not the only one. The sooner that goes away, the better off the game will be.

Unless your a Tyranid player.

To me, this game is all about its fluff. Its rules are terrible and nobody would touch 40k with a 50 foot pole if you stuck a different universe to the rules. Now, to a degree, fluff and rules must remain separate, but things like Tyranids with Knight allies and the like simply kill the point of playing for me.

That said, I'd also be fine with getting rid of most BB benefits, or even dropping allies in general as they're almost exclusively used in the overwhelmingly vast majority of instances just to make more powerful armies and get synergies not built into any single book. But really, there's not much that will make me feel bad about not allowing Tyranids to ally with armies they wouldn't differentiate from any other food or threat, though the same applies to things like CSM's and Grey Knights or Orks and Eldar and whatnot. I just can't bring myself to feel bad about that.

Tyranids shouldn't be able to ally with anything. GW needs to put more restrictions on what you can bring in your army, not less, which is why Unbound was such a frowned upon idea. Fantasy has a great way to build an army, it's fluffy and makes sense. The amount of exploitation in this game simply from the CAD and Allied Detachments is appauling. If we get rid of the Ally matrix, or at least limit it severely, as well as put more restrictions on the CAD and other detachments, this game would be a lot better off, in more ways than one.