# How do you feel about Allies?



## Straken's_Fist (Aug 15, 2012)

Hey all,

Just wondering now a few months have passed in 6th edition how people feel about using allies.

Some people in my meta are refusing to play with the allies rules - even if in friendly games - and are even refusing to play in tournaments that allow allies.
I admit at first I was very weary of the allies matrix because of the non-fluffy win at all costs combinations it could lead too. But now I am really unsure as to where I stand on the issue.

I did play with allies for the first time this week, and I did feel a little bit bad about it afterwards because the list was very powerful for a friendly game (it was tournament calibre in retrospect) and I apologised profusely as I gave my opponent a bit of a hammering. I also don't want to end up with a reputation at the local gaming nights here of someone who plays overpowered lists. 

That said, the more I think about it the more I feel I was perhaps made to feel that way by certain people in my meta who are just plain against allies.
Should I feel bad about playing Guard and Space Wolves as allies - a perfectly legitimate list from a fluff perspective - when numerous others are playing combinations that are MUCH more hard to justify in terms of fluff? Necrons and Guard, Blood Angels and Necrons, Daemons and Orks and so forth...

Should fluff even matter at all? After all, the allies matrix is part of the rules, and so like it or not, people are going to be taking allies frequently from now on. Isn't refusing to play someone who is using allies at worst ragequitting or at the least very judgemental and self-righteous? Surely, it would be a bit like a Daemon player turning up and then refusing to play out of hand simply because his opponent bought Grey Knights. That would be considered very rude by most people. 

As I said, I still don't know where I stand on this. So I am interested to how you guys feel about it. Should allies be banned in tournies? Do you not allow them even in friendlies in your meta? Do you think it's okay under certain conditions? If so, how do you justify and define those conditions? 

Thanks. 

SF


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

It is part of the game, a part I like honestly. GW is making efforts to keep it balanced, you can not ally DW. I would not be surprised if the either quickly release new dexs or eventually FAQ it so you can't ally loganwing/ nipplewing/ draigowing/ ect ect.


----------



## DivineEdge (May 31, 2012)

Well, I prefer allies to axis, if anyone is asking. 

It takes the game to a whole new place dynamic-wise. 

And it is great for collectors/painters/newbs as well, you can start a new army small by allying it in to your existing one, and build up from there. No longer must you play 500 point games. 

I always allow allies, just like I always allow forgeworld models or double force org (though the last one creates spam I don't like dealing with). 

Allies are a part of 6th edition. You can't cherrypick rules to use. But I personally like the idea of having a small contingent of your force not be your force. And sure, in some situations they may be unfluffy, but to the people I play with who view fluff as a real issue, they always have some story about why they allied up. Which is great - gives more people another way to play and experience the game. 

I don't use them too much. Reason being I play mostly nids. But it gives, like I said, a lot of flexibility game-wise. 

There isn't really anybody in my store who refuses to play against them. Well, we have one or two tools that won't, or won't play with forgeworld stuff, or won't play against necron air lists or lists with a vendetta - all while playing the 27/27 screamers/flamers. Takes a real kind of idiot not to notice the hypocrisy, but then again, they are. 

With the whole new forging a narrative stuff, allies expand the game. I think they have made it better in pretty much every concievable way. Sure, we don't get allies and everyone can take TH/SS or whatever now, but it is a part of the game. 

As a matter of fact, I really hope it gets into 9th ed. fantasy.


----------



## Mossy Toes (Jun 8, 2009)

Generally I like allies. My meta doesn't use them too much, but they've been enjoyable to play against/with a few times.



DivineEdge said:


> Well, we have one or two tools that won't, or won't play with forgeworld stuff, or won't play against necron air lists or lists with a vendetta - all while playing the 27/27 screamers/flamers.


*facepalm*


----------



## GrimzagGorwazza (Aug 5, 2010)

I like allies but then i mainly play apochalypse games anyway. I have had a hankering to start an imperial force for a while now but could never get over the idea of having to do an army all in the same uniform, my orks have a set colour scheme per fction but i can change it up from model to model with no problem. Now i can start a space marine army and not be too mad if it doesn't get more than 500 points because it's still viable to use as an ally in larger games.
Maybe i should do a digga army to ally with my orks........


----------



## DeathKlokk (Jun 9, 2008)

It depends. If you're using it as a crutch ,I hate Allies. if you're using it to add a flavorful new dimension to your army, I love Allies.

Like most things in the game, it depends on how it's used or abused.


----------



## Sephyr (Jan 18, 2010)

A good idea, poorly implemented. It should either be more limited or far more balanced, in my opinion.

Armies with a crappy Allied Matrix get nothing tocompensated for it. Likwise, very competitive armies (IG, SW) pay no cost for getting the chance to shore up their few weaknesses.

And really, Nids should be able to get -something- in return for being left out. An extra slot or two somewhere, a free t-shirt. Something.


----------



## LTKage (May 2, 2012)

It is an interesting system that makes the game more dynamic but it can be easily abused. A bit of column A, column B.


----------



## Sothot (Jul 22, 2011)

I like it, I've been plugging away on a small force of Necron worshippers since 5th edition, and when 6th came out with allies I felt like it was destined to be. IG with Necrons are desperate allies, which when I roll a 1 for proximity I declare that the men are so in awe of their Necron Overlords that they temporarily forget the battle. Adds a bit more fluff to the bizarre frequency I seem to do that with, but dems the breaks... I do agree that Tyranids should not be able to ally, but should also get the extra additions to their force org chart to compensate. Perhaps, if rumours are true, Master Ward will give them something in their new book?


----------



## Fallen (Oct 7, 2008)

i like allies, and i think that they have been widely accepted by the local group. the random forrests, and random objectives still have a resistance to them, mostly for pick up games/tournies, simply to reduce the amount of chance in those games and to not make the game(s) last even longer at the FLGS.

forge world also has a bit of resistance, but mainly because people dont know what it does. but at least more people are buying IA books...so i can only assume shortly there will be more FW.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Allies are great, they add a real "other dimension" to the game for me.

Sadly they need a fair deal of fleshing out for the various ways the interact with each other and I also get the feeling they are being wound back a bit too.

The new rules in the CSM and DA Codices limiting troop unlocks to the primary detachment makes allies a bit pointless IMO


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

I love allies and have been using them since it was included in my Daemonhunters and Witchhunters codex. Use them in every single army I play with.


----------



## JAMOB (Dec 30, 2010)

I don't generally do it but I have no problem with it. The only thing that annoys me is that the death corps of Krieg are battle brothers (I think) with demons. Or at least can ally... My friend is very annoying about this


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

JAMOB said:


> I don't generally do it but I have no problem with it. The only thing that annoys me is that the death corps of Krieg are battle brothers (I think) with demons. Or at least can ally... My friend is very annoying about this


IG are Allies of Convenience with Daemons, not sure if DKoK have a different rule ?


----------



## Archon Dan (Feb 6, 2012)

Fallen said:


> i like allies, and i think that they have been widely accepted by the local group. the random forrests, and random objectives still have a resistance to them, mostly for pick up games/tournies, simply to reduce the amount of chance in those games and to not make the game(s) last even longer at the FLGS.
> 
> forge world also has a bit of resistance, but mainly because people dont know what it does. but at least more people are buying IA books...so i can only assume shortly there will be more FW.


I wish more people would use the random terrain and objectives. It adds diversity to the games and makes you adapt your tactics on the fly. I've recently come to see their underuse as annoying. Sure, in a standard game one list might beat everything but where's the challenge? A forest being Brainleaf Fronds suddenly makes it not very appealing for a unit of snipers to camp in. Likewise I might be able to deal with said snipers in 5+ cover but if Ironbark is rolled I could be in trouble. And if somebody is massing Flyers it sure would be nice for your objectives to become Skyfire Nexuses. My point being, can you adapt to the unexpected and random and still win?


I like the Allies rules. Some of it is quite silly of course. I could have a group of GK, led by an Ordo Xenos Inquisitor ally with my DE. Guess he won't be going home ever again. And while I like the idea of Eldar granting psychic defense to my DE, a fluff-based list is more compelling. Having Drazhar leading an army of incubi and Striking Scorpions is pretty cool, given fluff history of the two groups. Throw in an Avatar and you have the Warhost of Khaine.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

Thing is, I just wouldn't bother using the random terrain. Many of the results are counterproductive.


----------



## DarKKKKK (Feb 22, 2008)

The idea looked awesome at first. Now looking into it further, it's unbalanced between armies. Clearly some armies have a better matrices than others. The matrix seemed pretty generous in terms of some of the combinations (especially with Necrons). It needs to be more limited or rework the balance. I would lean towards more of a limitation as some armies barely have 1-2 allies to work with, i.e. Tyranids and Dark Eldar. I haven't played against allies yet and I don't factor that in when making my lists. I'm pretty hesitant on playing allies because as we have seen, some combinations are just overpowered to the point that it just _feels dirty_.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

So what combos are dirty?


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

I have actively wanted allies since 2nd edition. I always hated how monochromatic interspecies relations seemed on the table as opposed to their world. It loosens up the grimderp a bit and so that's probably been my #1 want except for better writing. I've had resistance whenever I wanted to have allies from certain people up until 6th finally came along to validate it. And even when 6th arrived, some tried to say they wouldn't play against someone who used allies, whereupon we said they would not be welcome at our club anymore unless they gave up their narrowminded positions. I've done enough fighting.

I also think the execution is perfect. Previously when speaking of allies or using "unofficial" allies such as in the world campaigns, it has been way too restricted. As a Tau player I expect to be able to ally with anyone except Nids and that's what I've got.

A bit bittersweet that the concept arrives just as it looks like my principles force me to give up the hobby though.


----------



## Straken's_Fist (Aug 15, 2012)

Rune Priests and Primaris Psykers leading Guard blobs and casting FNP, relentless and possibly 4+ invulnerable saves while giving them re-rolls to hit is quite dirty. 
But hey, at least it's perfectly legitimate from a fluff perspective: I can see massive waves of guard infantry being blessed by psykers before battle and being led into the fray by rune priests. Is this cheesey filth? What about the same but with Azrael leading a blob for the automatic 4+ invulnerable.

I have to say I do share my concerns of a friend in that we might see inevitable Guard allies in all competitive lists due to what you can do with a couple of psykers thrown into a blob with power axes. But surely this is better than seeing unfulffy Orks and Daemons combinations?

At least with guard and wolves you could model your guard allied detachment to be the Fenrisian 1st and give them wolfy-viking conversions.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

That is more a Psyker thing than a ally thing.


----------



## Mokuren (Mar 29, 2011)

I love allies, but the execution could've been better.

As it stands now, some armies, who also happen to be farther from cheese hill, are thoroughly punished for not being liked by writers, while others are complete whores and go hand in hand with anyone giving them ample ways to supplement their weaknesses any way they like.

But still, it's not _bad_, I mean I like it a lot and I like how it's been handled, it's just that the allies matrix is, well, a bit odd to me, as are certain limitations on joining other squads and that thing where you can never ever no matter what ever fit any model ever into a transport that isn't in their codex. Ever.


----------



## neferhet (Oct 24, 2012)

Tyranids "feel"
http://img2.ranker.com/list_img/899...-feel-and-quot-meme.jpg?version=1357984862000


----------



## AAAAAAAAARRRGGHH (Apr 17, 2009)

I both like it and hate it.

As a concept I like it. But then again, I'm a huge apocalypse fan so to me allies isn't that far fetched an inclusion to the rules. It allows players more gaming freedom with their minis (which they paid good money to get), is wonderfully fluffy and can bring new dimensions to the game. 

Unfortunately I don't think the execution of the allies matrix is very good. The rules given for them is somewhat restricted making the inclusion of allies rather boring. There are very few fun combos and neat tricks you can pull off with allies. I feel the rules for using them is rather restrictive and poorly written and doesn't enable enough teamwork between the allied armies.

At the same time I despise the allies matrix. It's totally unbalanced, clearly favouring imperial armies over anyone else (while some random xeno armies get many more options than others with no explanation as to why) and it seems it's just something that is oddly attached to the rulebook after 5 minutes of work. It also reeks of lazyness when it comes to GW's approach to their armies.
The way allies has been incorporated into the rules suggests that GW aren't too bothered with making the different armies balanced (both internally and externally) so instead just slaps and allies matrix into the book and tells people to fix things themselves. The typical practice of making us do their work.

So to sum up my rant:
1. Allies should have more freedom to coorporate with each other ruleswise. Like Death Guard allying in Epidemius.
2. It matrix should be more restrictive as to who can ally with who. It's just bad game design when you obviously favour some factions over others. Also it should be so to prevent too abusive combos as these can be expected if you implemented my point 1 into the game.
3. As with everything, GW should actually playtest it thoroughly before printing. This more a general complaint with GW than actual problems with the allies system. 
4. Allies is a good concept but as things are now it's just a half-baked potato. Maybe when GW makes some actually good rules for it we can all enjoy some cross-army action. Until then allies belong on the apocalypse table.


----------



## JAMOB (Dec 30, 2010)

Magpie_Oz said:


> IG are Allies of Convenience with Daemons, not sure if DKoK have a different rule ?


Oh ok, I wasnt sure. either way they follow the same matrix as IG... If you thin about it DCoK allying with Demons makes <0 sense...

Still though, I like the idea of allies but it could've/should've been done better


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

AAAAAAAAARRRGGHH said:


> I both like it and hate it.
> 
> As a concept I like it. But then again, I'm a huge apocalypse fan so to me allies isn't that far fetched an inclusion to the rules. It allows players more gaming freedom with their minis (which they paid good money to get), is wonderfully fluffy and can bring new dimensions to the game.
> 
> ...


Actually, I think you're right, Allies could be more synergistic. The only real synergy is repairing your main detachment's vehicle with your allied techmarine (etc) or buffing your main detachment's, say, Fire Warriors with an allied psyker's Premonition...

However, I think this can be and might even be what they're planning, mended by a change in wording in each codex.

Like, a Farseer's Guide (or other psychic ability) says "any eldar unit", but in the next codex they might write it as "any friendly unit". So I don't think the battle is lost for synergy just because the framework didn't take into account older codices.

For instance, some restrictions are actually written into Codex: Chaos Space Marines specifically with allies in mind. "If your *main detachment* contains Typhus you may take Plaguemarines as troops".

Obviously they are still "writing it in", so I assume there will be a lot more diversity as we go along.

I can't wait to see what happens to Tau and allies, seeing as how they're masters of diplomacy.


----------



## iamtheeviltwin (Nov 12, 2012)

Magpie_Oz said:


> Allies are great, they add a real "other dimension" to the game for me.
> 
> Sadly they need a fair deal of fleshing out for the various ways the interact with each other and I also get the feeling they are being wound back a bit too.
> 
> The new rules in the CSM and DA Codices limiting troop unlocks to the primary detachment makes allies a bit pointless IMO


I like that the FoC reorganizations can't be taken via allies. It makes allied forces have to take a minimum level of standard troops before and limits you from just taking an allied force to access "special" formations or multiple non-troops units.

I imagine we will be seeing more of these limitations as 6ed codexes roll forward.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

I didn't like allies when they were rumoured. I didn't like them when they were released. I don't like them now. Reasons:

Fluffwise, races need severe extenuating circumstances in order to work together. Even Marines and Guard will almost never fight together, because they have completely different styles of warfare - the speartip and the rolling boulder. They may both be on the planet fighting the same enemies, but rarely on the same field. Ergo 90% of the time, no race would fight alongside another race. And that's what the core rules should support - what happens 90% of the time. Supplements should provide the other 10%, just like they do for urban warfare (cities of death), armoured columns (spearhead), planetary landings (planetstrike) and special occasions (battle missions). We could easily have had another supplement called "Brothers in Arms" which included rules for every Ally combination, along with special rules outlining their relationship with each other in much more fun and in-depth ways than "You're fine unless you're desperate, in which case you suck on a certain dice roll". You could have had rules for detaching Space Marines from units to lead Guardsmen, Dark Eldar getting Power from Pain from dying Ally units, Orks being competitive etc etc. That's the fluff reason.

Competitively, they encourage lazy codex design and unbalanced lists. GW can't even write consecutive Codices of equivalent power, never mind trying to do it in combination with cherry picking from a second codex. This leads to even more broken combos than we had already, and consequently more complaints about OPness of certain units/armies.

Tactically, and during list writing, they make every army play the same. The whole point is that each book is defined by both their strengths and their weaknesses. Dark Eldar are glass cannons. Marines are expensive generalists. Nids are weak hordes. Eldar are fast and specialised but can't win stand-up fights. As soon as you start using another army to shore up your weaknesses, you lose the flavour of the army. It takes out some of the skill. Instead of having to make the best use of units available in your book, you can choose whatever you please from 4 or more other codices, and it's pretty much a no-brainer that adding cheap disposable troops (Guard blob), Air Superiority (Vendettas) and excellent Artillery (Manticore) to any army that doesn't normally have them is a good thing.

So no, I don't like them. However, they are part of the rulebook. I don't like random terrain, random objectives, random Warlord Traits or random Psychic Powers either, but they too are part of the rules. So I'll use them until we get something better in 7th (I pray).

So if you need me, I'll be painting up my new Grey Hunters, Rune Priest, Lone Wolf, TWC and Long Fangs...


----------



## Taggerung (Jun 5, 2008)

Magpie_Oz said:


> IG are Allies of Convenience with Daemons, not sure if DKoK have a different rule ?


DKOK share the exact same chart as IG with the exception that DKOK can ally with IG.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

iamtheeviltwin said:


> I like that the FoC reorganizations can't be taken via allies. It makes allied forces have to take a minimum level of standard troops before and limits you from just taking an allied force to access "special" formations or multiple non-troops units.
> 
> I imagine we will be seeing more of these limitations as 6ed codexes roll forward.


The thing for me is that it changes allies from being a "specialist attachment brought in to help you out" to just "some guys who happened to be there at the time."
To me Commander Dante turning up with some Nipple Wingers if much more likely that him just turning up with some regular dudes who are just the same as your own troops.


----------



## Khorne's Fist (Jul 18, 2008)

Taggerung said:


> DKOK share the exact same chart as IG with the exception that DKOK can ally with IG.


But even with their FW rules DKoK _are _Imperial Guard... Why would they have to be allies?

I think allies are great. TBH it baffled me in previous editions why the rules weren't there for it. SMs are rarely in a combat zone unsupported by IG, CSM and demons all work for the sames bosses, so to speak. Why they were precluded from allying for so long was just dumb.

I do have a couple of problems with the allies chart though. DE being battle brothers with craft world eldar is nonsense, as is SMs and Tau. No self respecting Astartes will suffer the xenos to live, never mind happily fight side by side with them.


----------



## Grins1878 (May 10, 2010)

To be honest, me and r kid played allies all through fifth. Army wise ours are quite fluffy, with his Black Templar Company also having a regiment of IG with Yarrick. 

I've recently started a small IG force for my Space Wolves, but they're only going to be three or four squads of infantry and HQs. May be a chimera or three. 

I like the allies idea, but the table is a bit ropey to me! Hah! Sensible allies only!


----------



## Taggerung (Jun 5, 2008)

Khorne's Fist said:


> But even with their FW rules DKoK _are _Imperial Guard... Why would they have to be allies?


To add in certain things they can't take normally. Hydra's would be the first thing that comes to mind since DKOK have no option for AA other than taking Imperial Navy stuff.


----------



## Sothot (Jul 22, 2011)

It never says allies are friends, or that they even like each other. I think the level of allies only means to indicate how well they work together. Therefore Craftworld/Dark Eldar, Space Marines /Tau makes perfect sense to me. They fight as a seamless force. While I'm fully prepared to take advantage of my table, I do think Necrons should have been a fair bit more limited in their options.


----------



## Khorne's Fist (Jul 18, 2008)

Sothot said:


> I think the level of allies only means to indicate how well they work together.


Gonna disagree with you here. If that was the case DA and SW would be battle brothers as they should work well together while not exactly getting along. Same with GK and every other SM chapter. By your reasoning SMs and CSMs should be battle brothers because they are basically the same thing. Which is never gonna happen. The table is first and foremost a measure of wether they like each other or not. Which is why Nids have no allies.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

If it came down to how well they work together Space Marines and Tau would have to be the absolute worst. 

Different language, different culture, different tactical doctrine and completely different technology. I doubt they'd even share a radio frequency.

Like Khorne says that would make CSM battle brothers, which ain't going to happen.


----------



## Straken's_Fist (Aug 15, 2012)

Sethis said:


> As soon as you start using another army to shore up your weaknesses, you lose the flavour of the army. It takes out some of the skill. Instead of having to make the best use of units available in your book, you can choose whatever you please from 4 or more other codices, and it's pretty much a no-brainer that adding cheap disposable troops (Guard blob), Air Superiority (Vendettas) and excellent Artillery (Manticore) to any army that doesn't normally have them is a good thing.



Well, in this example it's a null point because people played blob guard in 5th successfully with Straken builds amongst others. Yeah, Guard's weakness is always deemed to be awful assault, but blob guard builds were built around it and many were extremely competitive. 

Yet, no one complained about people using Straken and Yarrick for blobs back then. So why should people complain if they use allies such as Azrael, Rune Priests, Naaj Stormcaller etc to achieve more or less the same effect? What is it that is _really_ irking people about it? 

That said, yeah, the allies matrix is extremely flawed from a fluff perspective, and not everyone is going to agree on the levels of alliances (like not everyone is happy about Ward's Blood Angels+Necrons fluff). 
But I do agree with what someone else mentioned earlier about how GW look likely to slowly improve and synergise the matrix with each new codex release as evidenced by the fact that in the new CSM codex it has several entries such as: "In a *primary detachment* that includes Ahriman Thousand Sons are treated as Troop choices instead of elites". Or words to that effect. 

This could well be an indicator that the new Chaos Daemons codex will have changes that work better with CSM and will bring greater balance (eventually) to the whole allies matrix....Well, we can only hope so anyway. I am not exactly full of confidence when it comes to GW's ability to playtest before releasing.


----------



## Squire (Jan 15, 2013)

It's a cool idea for fluffy games, but I'd be keen to see tournaments ban allies. Too much potential for cheese. It's difficult enough to write codices that are internally balanced as well as balanced against the other armies in the game, it's not going to be possible to write fair rules when there are now so many ally possibilities to bear in mind


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Straken's_Fist said:


> Well, in this example it's a null point because people played blob guard in 5th successfully with Straken builds amongst others. Yeah, Guard's weakness is always deemed to be awful assault, but blob guard builds were built around it and many were extremely competitive.
> 
> Yet, no one complained about people using Straken and Yarrick for blobs back then. So why should people complain if they use allies such as Azrael, Rune Priests, Naaj Stormcaller etc to achieve more or less the same effect? What is it that is _really_ irking people about it?


:dunno:

It isn't a null point at all. Firstly, I wasn't talking about improving blobs. I was talking about using blobs to improve other armies that do not have access to dirt cheap yet effective infantry.

Secondly, despite being able to make a blob viable in combat, the rest of the IG army remained weak to it. The easiest way to take down 12+ AV12 chassis is to assault them with kraks, and once you opened them up those Vets and CCSs were tasty softness. If you add in allies such as (for example) 20 Grey Hunters and some TWC then suddenly you've fixed one of the major weaknesses of the codex. And IG weren't weak to begin with. Nor were SW if it comes to it.

Thirdly, Straken and Yarrick are both very inefficient ways to improve the squads they join/are near. A Rune Priest is 100pts and is very efficient for his points even when he *isn't* passing out ATSKNF to 30+ guardsmen sat on an objective and twin linking their 90 lasgun shots (for example).


----------



## Warlord_Winters (May 2, 2012)

well the thought of having pure destruction in the terms of Space Marine troops and IG tanks seems BEAST!!! personally id just stick with one army. I like the uniformity of it


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

Squire said:


> It's a cool idea for fluffy games, but I'd be keen to see tournaments ban allies. Too much potential for cheese. It's difficult enough to write codices that are internally balanced as well as balanced against the other armies in the game, it's not going to be possible to write fair rules when there are now so many ally possibilities to bear in mind


Couldn't disagree more. Without allies, all the armies that would (proven time and again) appear at tournaments is Dark Eldar, Grey Knights, IG and Necons. And maybe Space Wolves. Those are a third of the game.

Lately I've seen even Tau get play, more and more Eldar etc.

For variety, allies is a godsend and especially for those boring as hell tournaments.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

You mean you find "IG gunline" boring, but find "IG gunline with 1x unit of Crisis Suits, 1x Min firewarrior squad in devilfish and as many Broadsides as you can afford" super duper interesting?

Power builds are power builds. So long as GW makes unbalanced codices, there will always be a "most competitive" army list, or at the very least tiers of quality. The fact that you can now add 2-5 power units from another codex doesn't make it "interesting", in fact it makes it even more unbalanced and boring, because suddenly EVERYONE has Manticores and Vendettas instead of just IG players, so instead of facing off to them in, oh, 1-in-5 games, you now get to see them 1-in-3 instead. Exciting stuff. :suicide:


----------



## Straken's_Fist (Aug 15, 2012)

Sethis said:


> Thirdly, Straken and Yarrick are both very inefficient ways to improve the squads they join/are near. A Rune Priest is 100pts and is very efficient for his points even when he *isn't* passing out ATSKNF to 30+ guardsmen sat on an objective and twin linking their 90 lasgun shots (for example).


\

Well this was kind of my point: Straken isn't nearly as effective at powering up blobs or squads anymore because of the furious charge nerf (big problem for I3 IG), so what is wrong with looking elsewhere i.e allies, rune priests, Azrael etc to fill the vacuum? So if people still want to play blob-guard they can without getting their ass kicked. Don't see how that is a bad thing.

Same with Tau - with allies they have the potential to become less sucky. Same with any army or build that was previously poor. So I think I agree with the dude above in that in this area it is a very positive concept.
Just wish GW put more thought behind the allies matrix from a fluff perspective and will strengthen and weaken codices to adjust according to the matrix.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

This is one area where I think 2nd Ed had it right - 25% of your points value as allies, no more. So in a 2000pt game no more than 500pts of allies. Certainly a better idea than "One broken unit from every FOC slot regardless of cost".


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

Lucky me this us 6th ed and they do not agree with you.


----------



## Achaylus72 (Apr 30, 2011)

The game allows Allies, then i would certainly use it if i was a player.


----------



## neferhet (Oct 24, 2012)

A friend of mine plays a Space wolf list with 12 marines on the board and 80+ guards and 3 vendettas. wow. the fun of playing space wolves.


----------



## DarKKKKK (Feb 22, 2008)

Just recently played my first game against an allied army in a 1500 point battle. My Dark Eldar vs Tau with Necron allies. I thought I was really in for it, but I pulled away with a strong victory.

He fielded 3 squads of 12 Fire Warriors with defensive nades, 2 squads of 2 broadsides, and crisis suit commander along with Necron lord with squad of immortals in nightscythe and squad of 6 Wraiths. 

I'm not sure if this composition of Necron and/or Tau units are the normal pick of allies, but Night Fighting for turn one allowed me gain a 1st turn edge in killing off a squad of his broadsides even though I deferred to go second in turns before rolling for night fight.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

Straken's_Fist said:


> \
> 
> Well this was kind of my point: Straken isn't nearly as effective at powering up blobs or squads anymore because of the furious charge nerf (big problem for I3 IG), so what is wrong with looking elsewhere i.e allies, rune priests, Azrael etc to fill the vacuum? So if people still want to play blob-guard they can without getting their ass kicked. Don't see how that is a bad thing.
> 
> ...


Tau are a bit lucky though, on our own we've been comparatively "sucky" for a long time, but this ally system helps us more than any other army. It doesn't take much to patch up Tau shortcomings with an allied detachment. In fact, the only army that can boast the same are the Eldar.

I think Tau and Eldar are the only "C" grade armies that can successfully be brought up to A+ with a strong player behind them using the ally system.

Other than Tau/ Eldar it's all players of B to A grade armies trying to get better than they already are using A+ armies. And I still whoop their asses on a regular basis.


----------



## NephirusDPoM (Jan 20, 2013)

Im as yet still new to the game as far as tabletop goes, but I like the concept behind allies. It makes sense to be able to call on nearby groups who are friendly or at the very least, desperate enough to accomplish the same goal. I dont know how well the armies mesh as all I have are some hand me down 5th ed books and the Dark Vengeance set. So really I have no judgement crunch wise.

As a metagame note, I feel as if allies should be limited in use by the group. A more fluff and story themed group(like my usual D&D group) would want to limit who can and when they can and how they can. Crunch wise gatherings go nuts I say. Build your insane army that defies lore to combat other insane armies that defy lore. That whats games are for. Just don't mix the two varieties.


----------



## Brother Dextus (Jan 30, 2013)

I get why allies are in the game, I get why people use allies to power their armies. I just hate the allies matrix - it simply does not fit with the fluff.... but GW seemigly dont care about fluff imo.
A friend of mine collects CSM (all nurgle) allies with Daemons (all nurgle) and has a secondary ally if he fields his renegade IG. 
I collect BTs and the allies matrix is obscene! The only ones I should be able to ally with are SoB, IG, GKs and other SMs. And NONE of them should be allowed to field any sort of psykers (apart from GK). Anything other than that just does not fit in with their entire philosophy! 

I guess allies are great, but I am a fluff and story kinda guy, so I'm unlikely to be sold on the idea of Dark Eldar allying with Blood Angels or any other alliance that doesnt fit with fluff. Thats why no one can ally with tyranids!


----------



## Warlord_Winters (May 2, 2012)

well I can see any human army works as allies and the CSM and daemons would work as allies but nothing else. not even Eldar and Dark Eldar. 


I don't think I would mess with allies TBH


----------

