Allies in 40K

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.

**ClockworkZion**

Reemule wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:

Your BS detector is faulty if you feel that people are claiming things that are unreasonable just because they mean that no one will win games with mono-Sisters of Silence or mono-Assassins lists based on the idea of nerfing allies like you propose. And you're STILL ignoring the fact that you'd throw out two armies (Gellerpox and RT) that only function below a certain points threshold if you don't have allies.

Both are examples of armies that are "unplayable" for different reasons. One is unplayable because you'll be dead by turn 2 tops and is more one note than a brown note, and the second is unplayable because at higher point levels the game is commonly played at they can't be fielded due to a lack of options.

And regardless of what GW is going to do, claiming to not be biased against allies while only taking a position that argues against allies is just intellectually dishonest, much like how you keep relying on frankly insulting arguements to claim that armies are playable as long as you can build a legal list with them, regardless of if they can actually be played with a chance of winning or not..

Ohh my. So your trying to gut it out on your claim that they don't count as factions, even though they kinda do, as they can't play as certain point levels.

No dice. They are factions. If they can play at some point level or not is immaterial. Just as if a faction is effective or not at some level as a mono faction is immaterial.

I never said they weren't factions. I said they can't function on their own properly, but I never said they weren't factions.

Please stop putting words in my mouth, they taste awful and they're too salty.

**Crimson**

Silentz wrote:
Posted before but... I'm running a tournament in Feb and my anti-soup rules are as follows...

The detachment your warlord is in is your primary detachment, which must be a Battalion, Brigade or Super Heavy Detachment

You only get CP for detachments which exactly match your primary detachment. No exceptions.

You only get the 3CP for battleforged if your entire army has matching detachments - there are exceptions for stuff like NURGLE and DEATH GUARD, to allow MILITARUM TEMPESTUS to co-exist with guard, to allow Drukhari covens and cabals to fight together... that sort of thing.

So take soup all you want but you will be short of CP.

The best soup you can do is a guard brigade plus extras for 12cp total. Alongside the CP farm nerf I think this is limiting enough.

Yeah, this is crazy.

**LunarSol**

Those poll choices are terrible. They're all skewed towards a pretty heavy bias of "allies should be banned". The only difference they make is whether you think they should be banned everywhere that matters, or whether you also think its important law enforcement takes the effort to raid people's basements to ensure no one is playing allies at home.

**Audustum**

Where's the option to say "the end of mono-dexes is over and allies should be expanded so everyone has varied options"?

**Crimson**

Frankly, allies are mostly fine. The real problem is poor balancing which allies make apparent. If a potential ally codex has an unit that is way more point effective than a similar unit in your codex, then yeah, in competitive setting people are gonna use the ally option instead. But the real problem is that that other unit is better for its points while it shouldn't, not that you can take it in the first place.

**A.T.**

Reemule wrote:
Cool. So it comes down to that GW doesn't mean for a list of Codex, and some others to function unless played in a soup format?
Where is this list? What Factions are on it? Where is the release for GW that plainly said don't play these forces alone? With that list we can address this much better.
Except that list don't exist. And its something that GW has never said. Its a list that some people have come up with and say exists, but if you try to pin them down they can't even agree whats on the list.

The list, such as it was, ceased to when 6th edition replaced it with the allies matrix and the generally permissive allies system that persists into 8th

Prior to that - assassins, sisters of battle, inquisition, ministorum, mutants and traitors(WH), and (until 5e) the GK were explicitly allied forces. The harlequins were also duplicated across two books as in-built allies and the chaos marines had generic daemon stand-in units in the absence of fully allied daemons. Deathwatch would have also been on that list but the ordo xenos codex didn't make it.

And then you have newer factions such as Talons of the Emperor being chopped up based on the model release schedule and the new eldar Ynnari as a few examples, and the rogue trader factions that are literally unplayable in a normal 1500-2000pt 40k game without soup.

**Sunny Side Up**

Allies are not the problem, but the lack of balance.

Castellan & co. wouldn't be an issue, if it's point for point equally survivable and killy as heavy support from the Grey Knight or Custodes Codex. Guardsman wouldn't be as popular, if all other Codexes could field equal smite-catching bodies and CP for equal points. Etc.. Smash-Captains wouldn't be an issue if other imperial Codexes can field equally efficient and mobile CC powerhouses at equal points. Etc..

**Stux**

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Allies are not the problem, but the lack of balance.

Castellan & co. wouldn't be an issue, if it's point for point equally survivable and killy as heavy support from the Grey Knight or Custodes Codex. Guardsman wouldn't be as popular, if all other Codexes could field equal smite-catching bodies and CP for equal points. Etc.. Smash-Captains wouldn't be an issue if other imperial Codexes can field equally efficient and mobile CC powerhouses at equal points. Etc..

The kind of balance you allude to results in homogeneity. If everyone has equal access to the same kinda of units the differences between factions fall away.

That's not acceptable to me. I would rather balance come from each faction having equally powerful strategies, but approaching them in different ways.

If that means reigning in allies, so be it.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Morgasm the Powerfull wrote:
HoundsofDemos wrote:
Again as usual, allies as a whole isn't a problem. The fact that I can mix say Ad Mech and Sisters of Battle to recreate scenes from Hammer and Anvil is fun, fluffy and nice to officially be supported by the rules. The real problem is and always will be that any given edition has winners and losers. This edition favors a ton cheap infantry to get you a bunch of CP and then a few stomp/smash models that can take advantage of those via Strats. Yes soup is strong right now, but most soup lists tend to have the same ingredients give or take an option.

The easiest fix would be to limit CP generated to any given detachment to only that detachment and possibly give some CP bonus if you only take from one codex.

It'd be nice if something fluffy like Orks looting a Knight was also officially supported.

It was in 6th and 7th.

**SYKOJAK**

I am for mono factions only. Its hard enough to balance codex to codex, without including Soup Shenanigans on top of that.

**Arachnofiend**

6th and 7th also supported fluff abominations like Necrons being allies of convenience with Chaos, so let's not go down that particular rabbit hole.

**Kaiyanwang**

I would go back on the 3rd edition route.
Create as a first step a solid, comprehensive mono-faction codex.
In case, later, release mini-codices that add something but also remove something.
Such codices can include SPECIFIC units from a close faction.

Bring back 0-1s.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Arachnofiend wrote:
6th and 7th also supported fluff abominations like Necrons being allies of convenience with Chaos, so let's not go down that particular rabbit hole.

Allies
OF CONVENIENCE

There's hardly an issue with that, especially with how their current fluff works.

**Arachnofiend**

If Necrons are "allies of convenience" with twisted warpspawn who's powers they adopted their cursed forms specifically to combat against then they're allies of convenience with anyone.

Make no mistake, the ally matrix was designed for Imperial use and just haphazardly threw all the "bad guy" factions together to give the illusion that it was fair.

**AnomanderRake**

Allies seem to serve as a crutch GW uses as an excuse to not write functional standalone army books (see: "Buy some Guardsmen to make your Imperial army better!"). I don't have anything against the concept of Allies, but i have an immense distaste for the current implementation and I would really like to see more restrictive Allies rules, fewer distinct army books, and more army books that work without Allies.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Arachnofiend wrote:
If Necrons are "allies of convenience" with twisted warpspawn who's powers they adopted their cursed forms specifically to combat against then they're allies of convenience with anyone.

Make no mistake, the ally matrix was designed for Imperial use and just haphazardly threw all the "bad guy" factions together to give the illusion that it was fair.

Well yeah Necrons WOULD be Allies of Convenience with everyone besides Tyranids, who are harder to make deals with obviously.

**Audustum**

They could also just split us into Sigmar style Grand Alliances and be done with it.

IMPERIUM

CHAOS

AELDARI

TYRANID (including the Astra Militarum Genestealers can take)

UNALIGNED

Then everyone gets to pick and choose around to some extent!

**BaconCatBug**

Audustum wrote:
They could also just split us into Sigmar style Grand Alliances and be done with it.

IMPERIUM

CHAOS

AELDARI

TYRANID (including the Astra Militarum Genestealers can take)

UNALIGNED

Then everyone gets to pick and choose around to some extent!

... You mean exactly like how it is right now? T'au and Eldar allies should never have been a thing, any more than Necron and Orks being allies.

**Audustum**

BaconCatBug wrote:
Audustum wrote:
They could also just split us into Sigmar style Grand Alliances and be done with it.

IMPERIUM

CHAOS

AELDARI

TYRANID (including the Astra Militarum Genestealers can take)

UNALIGNED

Then everyone gets to pick and choose around to some extent!

... You mean exactly like how it is right now? T'au and Eldar allies should never have been a thing, any more than Necron and Orks being allies.

Almost like how it is now. Under the proposed system Tau, Necrons and Orks could ally. That takes the bite out of, what I perceive to be, the most disaffected voices concerning allies.

**Stux**

Audustum wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
Audustum wrote:
They could also just split us into Sigmar style Grand Alliances and be done with it.

IMPERIUM

CHAOS

AELDARI

TYRANID (including the Astra Militarum Genestealers can take)

UNALIGNED

Then everyone gets to pick and choose around to some extent!

... You mean exactly like how it is right now? T'au and Eldar allies should never have been a thing, any more than Necron and Orks being allies.

Almost like how it is now. Under the proposed system Tau, Necrons and Orks could ally. That takes the bite out of, what I perceive to be, the most disaffected voices concerning allies.

I think it would require a pretty seismic shift in the fluff for me to be ok with that. I'd need SOMETHING which tied Orks, Necrons, and T'au together more than they each are to any of the other factions...

It's a bizarre alliance for sure. A truce between the Necrons and the T'au is maybe possible. Necrons Lords can be quite pragmatic at times, and the T'au quite naive. If the T'au were desperate enough maybe.

I'm not sure how you get the Orks in on it too though...

**ClockworkZion**

Freebootaz can tie Orks to almost anyone (arguable GSC could tie Eldar, Orks and Tau in as well). Tau and Eldar could be sharing an agenda as both have weaponized diplomacy when needed, and Guard really should be able to be tied into Tau as well (like they do with GSC).

Also we need Digga Nobs back.

**LunarSol**

AnomanderRake wrote:
Allies seem to serve as a crutch GW uses as an excuse to not write functional standalone army books (see: "Buy some Guardsmen to make your Imperial army better!"). I don't have anything against the concept of Allies, but i have an immense distaste for the current implementation and I would really like to see more restrictive Allies rules, fewer distinct army books, and more army books that work without Allies.

That's sort of a corner they've found themselves in after years of giving the same models new paintjobs and calling them a new army. Allies are basically collapsing that bloat back down without actually removing all that stuff from the game.

**Audustum**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Freebootaz can tie Orks to almost anyone (arguable GSC could tie Eldar, Orks and Tau in as well). Tau and Eldar could be sharing an agenda as both have weaponized diplomacy when needed, and Guard really should be able to be tied into Tau as well (like they do with GSC).

Also we need Digga Nobs back.

Right, this is basically the lines I was working along. More below in response to Stux though.

Stux wrote:
Audustum wrote:
BaconCatBug wrote:
Audustum wrote:
They could also just split us into Sigmar style Grand Alliances and be done with it.

IMPERIUM

CHAOS

AELDARI

TYRANID (including the Astra Militarum Genestealers can take)

UNALIGNED

Then everyone gets to pick and choose around to some extent!

... You mean exactly like how it is right now? T'au and Eldar allies should never have been a thing, any more than Necron and Orks being allies.

Almost like how it is now. Under the proposed system Tau, Necrons and Orks could ally. That takes the bite out of, what I perceive to be, the most disaffected voices concerning allies.

I think it would require a pretty seismic shift in the fluff for me to be ok with that. I'd need SOMETHING which tied Orks, Necrons, and T'au together more than they each are to any of the other factions...

It's a bizarre alliance for sure. A truce between the Necrons and the T'au is maybe possible. Necrons Lords can be quite pragmatic at times, and the T'au quite naive. If the T'au were desperate enough maybe.

I'm not sure how you get the Orks in on it too though...

As Clockwork partially covered, Freebootas and the idea of Ork mercenaries in general get you pretty far in allying them to anyone. Blood Axes, specifically, have worked as mercenaries. I've even read that in the second Last Chancers book there were Ork mercenaries in the camp of a renegade Tau commander.

Tau and Necrons are both pragmatic enough to work together if the needs calls for it. It really doesn't seem that crazy to me, especially with how small and 'not a threat' Tau probably appear to the Necron worldview.

I could see Necrons 'steering' a Waaargh or deploying a force alongside it. They would absolutely be fine having some of their units there to push it into colliding with an enemy force. I doubt they'd be above hiring mercenaries either.

**BrianDavion**

Reemule wrote:
Friday Poll on Allies. Where do you stand?

your poll is pretty biased in it's wording dude. for example, there's not a single option for "Allies should exist, but people who play mono faction should be rewarded" (3 CPs per battalion if allied, 6 CPs per battalion if faction pure might be an idea)

**Arachnofiend**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
If Necrons are "allies of convenience" with twisted warpspawn who's powers they adopted their cursed forms specifically to combat against then they're allies of convenience with anyone.

Make no mistake, the ally matrix was designed for Imperial use and just haphazardly threw all the "bad guy" factions together to give the illusion that it was fair.

Well yeah Necrons WOULD be Allies of Convenience with everyone besides Tyranids, who are harder to make deals with obviously.

Except that's not how the matrix works... Necrons are only Allies of Convenience with Chaos Marines and Tau and are otherwise "Desperate Allies" at best with everyone else. You might want to try thinking before you type.

Even weirder is that they're Come the Apocalypse with regular Marines given that there is an actual (albeit much-maligned) example of Necrons and SM allying with each other.

**BaconCatBug**

Arachnofiend wrote:
Even weirder is that they're Come the Apocalypse with regular Marines given that there is an actual (albeit much-maligned) example of Necrons and SM allying with each other.

Anything written by Matt Ward is considered non-canon fite me.

**HoundsofDemos**

I would like to see more smaller factions added in. A xenos mercenary codex is something that has been rumored for years and never materialized.

**ClockworkZion**

BaconCatBug wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Even weirder is that they're Come the Apocalypse with regular Marines given that there is an actual (albeit much-maligned) example of Necrons and SM allying with each other.
Anything written by Matt Ward is considered non-canon fite me.

Rumor had it that Ward wrote the Sisters fluff in the WD codex which had a group of Sisters invade a daemon-infested shrine world that had been previous lost the warp, delve down into the catacombs and manage to recover some relics and leave the system before the Grey Knights could even show up to Exterminatus the planet. So not EVERYTHING he wrote was bad, it just needed stronger editorial control.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Arachnofiend wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
If Necrons are "allies of convenience" with twisted warpspawn who's powers they adopted their cursed forms specifically to combat against then they're allies of convenience with anyone.

Make no mistake, the ally matrix was designed for Imperial use and just haphazardly threw all the "bad guy" factions together to give the illusion that it was fair.

Well yeah Necrons WOULD be Allies of Convenience with everyone besides Tyranids, who are harder to make deals with obviously.

Except that's not how the matrix works... Necrons are only Allies of Convenience with Chaos Marines and Tau and are otherwise "Desperate Allies" at best with everyone else. You might want to try thinking before you type.

Even weirder is that they're Come the Apocalypse with regular Marines given that there is an actual (albeit much-maligned) example of Necrons and SM allying with each other.

So the matrix still makes sense. Thanks for the reminder.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BaconCatBug wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Even weirder is that they're Come the Apocalypse with regular Marines given that there is an actual (albeit much-maligned) example of Necrons and SM allying with each other.
Anything written by Matt Ward is considered non-canon fite me.

You follow hyperbole and haven't bothered to form an actual opinion fight me

**SHUPPET**

BrianDavion wrote:
Reemule wrote:
Friday Poll on Allies. Where do you stand?

your poll is pretty biased in it's wording dude. for example, there's not a single option for "Allies should exist, but people who play mono faction should be rewarded" (3 CPs per battalion if allied, 6 CPs per battalion if faction pure might be an idea)

If allies are going down 2 pts per battalion I think thats the second last opinion. Nerfed them to not giving massive benefit

the wording on these options are pretty bad