View Full Version : Would you like allies to return?

11-12-2009, 07:27
Greetings everyone.
In previous eds of Warhammer armies could take units/characters from other armies using an ally system. I really ejoyed this for it allowed alot more flexibility with theming your armies and new tactics for games.
Currently each book can't take allies (Besides DOW) but with 8th ed on its way mabye it will present an opportunity for them to bring some allying back (In mabye a similar way to how they did it with the WOTR book).
I.e Armies can spend upto 25% of their pts value on units/characters from an allies army. (Army restrictions are still the same of course)

Empire allies are: Dwarfs, High Elves, Bretonnia.
WOC Allies are: Daemons and Beasts. Same way with beasts and daemons for their allies.
Bretonnia allies are: Empire, dwarfs and Woodies.
HE allies are: The empire and Lizardmen.


Would you like allies to return and if so how would you like it incorporated.


P.s: Yes I know 40k didn't get an ally system in 5th ed but if I can remember they never had an ally system to begin with. Plus there are less bonds between the armies.

11-12-2009, 07:37
´Morning GrimgorIronHide...

Well, though I like the idea, I still think that the allies contingent, that was introduced in the earlier editions makes it a lot harder to balance the game..

Some units/characters are very specifically build to the army they belong to. Making them join another army really allows for power build IMO...

So even though i like the idea, i think it would only unbalance the game even more... :)

11-12-2009, 07:54
Yes very much so.... at this point who even cares about balance?

I say throw in allies in fact any two races which can be generally considered too ally (ei Dwarves & Empire) should be able to take units from other armies.... these units must have a general as well. The "allied" list takes up 1 slot higher than it did before.


Empire Army

Empire General (primary general)

Dwarf Thane (allies general)
Empire Wizard
Empire Wizard

Empire Swordsmen
Empire Swordsmen
Empire Swordsmen

Dwarf Warriors
Dwarf Thunderers
Empire Pistoliers

Empire Steamtank
Dwarf Ironbreakers

11-12-2009, 08:01
I'd rather have variant lists that mixed elements from different lists, to be honest. Such as the Dark Elf / Slaanesh Chaos list from the Storm of Chaos. That gives more control over what can or can't be included and means you can avoid allies just being an option to include the good stuff from two lists.

I have not-so-fond memories of a Wood Elf opponent wanting to include a single allied Bretonnian Hero on warhorse with the counter-charge virtue to lead his Wardancers back in 5th edition, and no particular desire to return to those days.

11-12-2009, 08:08
I believe the General's Compendium has rules for allies - is there anything that book can't do? :D Might just be for larger games, but I think that's where they are best suited so that you have a proper allied force instead of some random High Elf unit in your Empire army.
And FYI, 2nd ed 40K had the same allies rules as 4th/5th ed WFB (25%).

11-12-2009, 08:19
Those are rules for multi-player battles (i.e. more than one player with one army each per side) and not rules for one player fielding elements from multiple army lists.

And they aren't very good rules either.
(They fit with the rest of the book, then. Hah! ;))

Lord Solar Plexus
11-12-2009, 09:26
No allies for me. Playing a 2:2 is good fun but allies in one single list more often than not just distract from any theme. While variety is nice, chaos is not.

11-12-2009, 11:35
I would like to see allies, but there would need to be core troops taken first before special and rare units become available. When 6th ed was new, we hung onto allies as a home rule, but my dwarf opponent used it as an opportunity to take an Empire Helblaster Volley Gun or two. It wouldn't have been so bad if they had been accompanied by a State Troop Regiment or two, but they never were.

11-12-2009, 11:47
I would like to see allies, but there would need to be core troops taken first before special and rare units become available. When 6th ed was new, we hung onto allies as a home rule, but my dwarf opponent used it as an opportunity to take an Empire Helblaster Volley Gun or two. It wouldn't have been so bad if they had been accompanied by a State Troop Regiment or two, but they never were.

So something like the old Chaos Warbands rules with a character accompanied by an equal or greater point value of troops within the normal restrictions. So your 500 point allied contingent can have a Character upto 250 points but must then match it or better in troops with that small bit having to conform to it's own restrictions. Throw in that allies don't benefit from the General or BSB and you should be pretty good to go.

Although this could end up with annoying combos like a WoC army with allied Sorceress and crossbowmen to add some ranged attacks.

11-12-2009, 12:39
If it's a fun game with your mates you can just agree to take allies anyway though.

All legislating for it will mean is that WAAC players satisfy any minimum requirement and start turning up with Dwarf armies w/ High Elf Mages, WoC with DE Crossbowmen, WE with Dwarf/Empire Cannons etc. for pick up and play and tournaments.

11-12-2009, 12:43
Or a dwarf army that can take knights...

while it would be fun, it's impossible really to make any decent rules that will not be exploited. So make some house rules to keep things fair, but I sure don't want any official rules on this, I think it would just cause problems...

11-12-2009, 12:44
With restrictions, only core units may be used for whole army.
Hero only choices no lords etc....

11-12-2009, 13:03
This would still allow Dwarfs with lots of Knights tho.

11-12-2009, 13:09
I think it would be a lot of fun to play with allies when you are casually playing with your friends and such, but once you hit tournies, I agree it would unbalance the game. There are a lot of win at all costs players out there.

The Red Scourge
11-12-2009, 13:36
Allowing allies would really be poor for balance in already unbalanced game.

Not that I'm against the idea of allied armies, but as a base rule I'd keep it on a case by case basis, where a scenario is constructed for the battle to ensure a good fight :)

Bard Harlock
11-12-2009, 14:35
I dislike the idea of allies in Warhammer Fantasy Battles again. I do like the way it is implemented in War of the Rings but I also feel it makes much more sense there because in that age of Tolkien's world there was a lot of mixing, obviously. So many of the Warhammer races seem so xenophobic and insular that it doesn't make nearly as much sense from a fluff standpoint.

Then, of course, there would be cookie-cutter army builds from the WAAC crowd trying to fill in the one or two weaknesses of their army; like Warriors of Chaos commanders always picking up a unit of crossbowmen or Wood Elves picking up some war machines, etc. I am personally a fan of each army having a weakness or two and trying to work around that with tactics on the table, and not at list composition time.

11-12-2009, 14:44
The chances that it is unbalancing and that it wouldn't take too long to figure out some interesting combinations. It should be okay for a test run to see where it would be abused, though this would require quite a number of games and it would likely end up tailoring exceptions for each combination what can or cannot be taken.

11-12-2009, 15:06
The unbalancing would be massive, and more people would complain. Plus I dont think all armies have allies. Do TK, Skaven (no body trusts them not even their own kin), and woodelves are close. Dont think VC have any either. Some armies would gain huge advantages (tough LM with ASF SM, EotG and the star dragon yes please). I think the idea is good but its not very balanced.

11-12-2009, 18:56
Well, though I like the idea, I still think that the allies contingent, that was introduced in the earlier editions makes it a lot harder to balance the game..

Balance, what balance? There currently is no balance to preserve in WFB. The only balance comes from community imposed restraint, that would not change with allies.

11-12-2009, 19:05
I don't like the idea.
bypassing an armies weakness by adding another armies strength seems like a bit of a cop out to me.
Dwarfs with cavalry, chaos with ranged firepower, high elves with cannons.
It'd be a mess.

11-12-2009, 19:06
Forget about allies and just fix the DoW situation.

Lord Malorne
11-12-2009, 19:07
OP: I would like the options, yes.

Lord Malorneian

11-12-2009, 19:34
If you want to take allies, or ally with a mate then you can anyway. The rules aren't absolutely set in stone

Lord Malorne
11-12-2009, 19:36
If you want to take allies, or ally with a mate then you can anyway. The rules aren't absolutely set in stone

Yes they are, my enemy won't let me use DoW wizards as rare choices!

Lord Malorneule

11-12-2009, 19:38
Yes they are, my enemy won't let me use DoW wizards as rare choices!

Lord MalorneG's

thats because theyre still characters

Lord Malorne
11-12-2009, 20:01
But the rules are not set instone and they are a unit ;), you get my point I hope ;).

Lord Malorneule

11-12-2009, 20:36
I love options, though the Fifteenth Commandment clearly states that though shalt not use thy tome to chastise the unruly.

Whitwort Stormbringer
12-12-2009, 02:14
Allies were one of my favorite aspects of the force composition in the good ol' days, I'd definitely be in favor of reintroducing the concept officially. True, balance issues are almost certain to arise if it's too loose and unrestrictive.

I kind of like Phelix's suggestion that all allied units are moved up one tier in the force organization chart - so a unit that is core in its parent list is special for allied armies, special -> rare. I would keep allied heroes as heroes instead of lords, so that they're not too hard to work into an army, and leave out allied lords altogether. This also means that races hold on to the more specialized stuff (rare units) and the truly powerful characters (lords) to lead or be used in their own armies.

Conversely, each army could have a separate "allies" force organization chart, something like:
<2000: 1 hero, 1 core regiment
2000+: 1 hero, 2 regiments (up to 1 special)
3000+: 2 heroes, 3 regiments (up to 1 special)
4000+: 2 heroes, 4 regiments (up to 2 special)
each +1000: + hero, +1 core regiment

There could always be other restrictions too - dwarfs won't take allies that are magic users, bretonnians won't take allies with black powder weapons, etc.

12-12-2009, 02:25
Personally, I think there are only two reasons to take Allies:

1. For the story. If you are playing a narrative campaign, there are many situations you could envisage where different armies would ally to face a common foe.

I note some good thinking above about simple ways to use the current army structures/restrictions to create such allied armies

2. For the lulz. Strictly amongst friends, I think it could be a bit of harmless fun to see how well heavy cavalry and dwarf infantry mix, or whatever. I can see how this would become very wearing the third, fourth and twentieth times, though.

12-12-2009, 03:12
You could also enforce a strict parallel and separate command structure, which means that contingents have their own commander, characters cannot be intermingled and units do not benefit from the leadership of other contingents.

Tah Kazak Rik
12-12-2009, 04:08
Yeah it would be nice to be able to use a lone hero or a regiment.

Alas I dont believe that GW will bring this idea back.

It would be an interesting dynamic, but with getting rid of Dogs of War gives us the idea that they want solo armies.

12-12-2009, 05:30
Can someone please explain to me how a knight unit with the Dwarfs or Chaos crossbowmen would wreak game balance? Would these armies become unstoppable ala Chaos Demons with the addition of 1 or 2 more mediocre units?

I am in favor of allies. It lets people toy with the story aspect of the game. If it is ever brought back of coarse there will be rules and it will be as balanced as anything else in the game. But it has the advantages of letting players paint and try out new armies before investing a large sum of money into it hopefully this will translate to players picking up a 2nd 3rd or 4th army. Another advantage is it gives the more story driven gamers access to more rules to represent converted miniatures. If I have Marauders armed with bows I want to be able to use the bows.

Several people on here have mentioned that you can just house rule it. But house rules don't work with pick up games down at the store.
I am tired of people thinking I am trying gain some advantage when ever I ask if I can use a Night Goblin allied contingent with my Skaven.

12-12-2009, 10:34
I agree GWR. My gripe with my Dwarf opponent using a Empire Volley gun was that he was using it basically in place of a Dwarf Organ gun. The two are effectively the same thing except the Volley gun was cheaper (at least at the time, don't know about now), and arguably superior. I would have much prefered to have seen him rope in some Knights for his allied troop.
I do however like the idea of allies coming as a contingient, (such as 500pts in a 2000pt army), that in effect is a 'little' army in itself, ie has a Character leading it and a couple of core units backed up by a special or rare choice. And I don't see anything wrong with filling a gap, such as cavalry with Dwarfs, or missile armed Orc or Chaos Dwarfs supporting WoC.

Lord Malorne
12-12-2009, 12:19
I don't like the whole solo army thing GW is doing, do they think people will spend more money as they do not have half and half troops? (troops for either army) because that is stupid, do they do it because it is not fitting in the background... thats not it, maybe it is because it unbalances the game.... nope thats not it, well I am out of ideas.

Lord Malorneelf

12-12-2009, 12:49
If it is ever brought back of coarse there will be rules and it will be as balanced as anything else in the game.

Oh ok well when you put it that way sure why not! :rolleyes:

I think another problem is that some armies dont have allies. Tomb kings do not ally with anyone. Woodelves are the same. Both those armies would not get access to this, which IMO is why it would never work. Skaven are another army, as are VC, and you could make arguments for other armies as well. I just forsee many armies having zero allies, and then you get people complaining that their armies dont get any. And if you do give say the tomb kings alies well now you got people mad at you for fluff. So its a loose loose situation for GW, not doing it is the best course. Noone gets mad.

Lord Malorne
12-12-2009, 12:58
Actualy in the TK books it shows a TK city inhabited by people and the people and the TK's fight off attacks, quite a good read.

Lord Malornek95

12-12-2009, 13:12
ya but are those people part of an army book (like say empire) or are they just groups of wanders who happen to live in Khemri? If it is the first then...oh. If it is the latter then that would not really be allies it would be part of an army book or a white dwarf list type idea.

Lord Malorne
12-12-2009, 13:17
As all things, DoW could represent them, what I ams aying is, there is a possibility for alles for all armies, many of which are sensible and not fanfic ********.

Lord Malornek95

Ri-xthoal Lord of Lustira
12-12-2009, 18:01
The only thing LM shouldn't be allies with is Tomb kings and Orge Kingdom. We are not bad guys.

Desert Rain
12-12-2009, 19:29
Personally I don't mind the occasional battle with allies, they can be fun from time to time. I don't, however, want allies to be an official rule so that people play mixed armies all the time. That kind of reduces the need for army books.

12-12-2009, 23:30
Yes they are, my enemy won't let me use DoW wizards as rare choices!

Then he truly is your enemy. ;)

I wouldn't want to see the return of allies to the army composition options. Even with the best of intentions (such as community based restraint) many people would fall foul of the far greater number of balance issues. Even if things aren't ideally balanced at present I wouldn't want to make it any worse, and attempting to cross-correlate the effectiveness of every unit entry in every book would be impossible.

12-12-2009, 23:33
Some players prefer a more monolithic army, I like the patchwork feel of a bunch of mercenaries. The trick to pulling off a successful (defined as not broken) allies/contingent rule set would be ensuring that the results seem fluffy and don't become exercises of min-maxing.

12-12-2009, 23:45
Some players prefer a more monolithic army, I like the patchwork feel of a bunch of mercenaries.

This is exactly why I'd like to see the return of Dogs of War as a standalone army, where races are represented by units which are balanced to work alongside all other available units (well, at least that's the idea I guess).

I wouldn't want Dogs of War cannon being made readily available to all and sundry... keep it as an internally balanced multi-racial list.

12-12-2009, 23:47
Ive often pondered the allies question myself. I can only think of two simple rules for it.

The first one is to have certain units listed in an armies book that may be taken into other armies, like a unit special rule. Something like :-

Questing Vow, Cavalry, Allies (obviously a Questing Knight example)

In this instance, it would allows the armies book writer to select certain units that are likely to turn up in other armies (again, my thinking on Questing Knights is that they are wandering knights, and may just turn up on an Empire battlefield in thier search for the grail). The actual list of allies would appear on the first page of the bestiary of any armies book, something like :-

Bretonnians may ally with Empire, Dwarves, Wood Elves and High Elves.

Or another alternative is to simply allow any unit to be taken in as a choice above what they normally are (like an Empire army including a unit of Knights of the Realm as a Special Choice, or Pegasus Knights as a Rare Choice). This method would obviously exclude characters and rare choices, which is (I think) as it should be.

Anyway, whatever rule is needed would need to be simple, for players, tournaments etc...for everyone.

12-12-2009, 23:59
Can I point out that the allies system is still in place...
Legendary battles solves the problem of overpoweredness.

IMO allies should only be taken in larger games anyway

13-12-2009, 00:02
Current rules list units on your side as friendly; you'd have to refine that meaning into:

1. Your own troops

2. Hired guns

3. Allies

13-12-2009, 23:18
I must say - I don't want an official allies rule. Everyone bandies about "lol there is no balance so who cares?!" but the truth of the matter is there still is some level of game balance. It is by no means perfectly balanced but the last thing they need to do is add another set of weights, which GW will inevitably value incorrectly, to interfere with that scale anymore. The game slides with each new release but as bad as GW is at balancing current content I don't trust them to even come close to balancing rules for allies.

Also - I play Skaven, we have no ready allies at all. At best Skaven would get access to some level of Goblins, and that's in an ideal circumstance.

13-12-2009, 23:23
Id like to see official rules for 2on2 battles. Nothing like coop fun madness.

14-12-2009, 15:46
I used to play Warhammer back in the 3rd edition when allies (and mercenaries) were an important part of the game. At first when I started looking at 7th ed I was pretty bothered by the lack of allies etc (what, I can ONLY have DE's????) but I have to admit, I'm kind of changing my mind now.

The biggest gripe we always had with WFB back then was how it seemed like a small handful of creatures would effectively decide a game and leave the rest of the troops completely obsolete. In my opinion, relatively finely tuned lists like we have just now are the only real way to ensure we don't get back to that.

Not that I've played much of 7th ed yet you understand. :-)