PDA

View Full Version : How do you want to run with Allied rules?



prowla
03-07-2012, 10:31
What do you think would be the best way for your local gaming group to run Allied rules?

I've been thinking that the Battle Brothers rule is a bit too beardy for my tastes, and would prefer if allies would be run as 2nd or 3rd tier only. Then again, it's a bit annoying to try to run with just your own army, if your opponents are bringing allies on the table, so perhaps it might be nice to treat the allies as an "expansion" - IMO a WD expansion should have been the way allies should had been brought to the game in the first place.

Some of the options overlap, so it's a multiple choice poll.

Lord Damocles
03-07-2012, 10:47
Personally I'd prefer no allies at all; but since they're 'standard rules' in the main rulebook, they ought to be allowed as default (otherwise who's to stop anyone claiming that Snap Fire should be scrapped, or Flyers, or Wound allocation, or...)

Spell_of_Destruction
03-07-2012, 11:29
Personally I'd prefer no allies at all; but since they're 'standard rules' in the main rulebook, they ought to be allowed as default (otherwise who's to stop anyone claiming that Snap Fire should be scrapped, or Flyers, or Wound allocation, or...)

Nothing wrong with house ruling it IMO. I don't think it's quite the same as omitting core rules because the whole ally thing is brand new (even in 2nd ed I don't recall seeing many people use them). We're still working out if Allies will lead to broken combos and we'll probably be trying to figure this out for the next couple of months. Nothing wrong with deciding to limit players to a single codex which should in theory be balanced with its own strengths and weaknesses. I think that the idea that players can simply cover up weaknesses in a particular codex by using allies from another codex is part of what concerns people.

Personally I would be inclined to say that 'Brothers in Arms' allies are fine but anything beyond that should be limited to scenarios and fluff lists. At least in friendly games. Hard to begrudge CSMs from using Daemons particularly if they lose Daemons altogether in the new codex.

TheWarmaster
03-07-2012, 12:22
Allies should be allowed as default, as per the rulebook. It doesn't say "ask for your opponent's permission" anywhere, so that's how I'm gonna play it.
I'm not saying this because I'm hunting for cheese, but because I want to do an Space Marine force with maybe a bit of guard on the side, or maybe IG with a detachment of Sisters, something fluffy.

Azazel
03-07-2012, 12:24
Personally I won't be using any Allied Detachments in my armies. I'm a bit of a purist and prefer to play my armies wholly from one Codex.

That said I wouldn't hold it against anyone for taking Allies, infact I'm glad its become possible.

x-esiv-4c
03-07-2012, 12:26
I would run them as they are written in the rulebook.

Johnnya10
03-07-2012, 13:50
I'm happy to work with the book. I like the rules. Plus, like many other CSM players, I can now take proper Daemons - though I am waiting for the dearly needed model update on Nurgle Daemons to go with my Death Guard force. One Greater Daemon and some Plaguebearers, and I'm set. Happy to play to the book of course.

Spiney Norman
03-07-2012, 14:20
By common agreement we usually run by the rules as presented in the book because House rules tend to be subjective and rarely please everyone.

Having said that, some of the alliance options in the book are the epitomy of stupidity, Eldar & Dark Eldar being battle brothers is one of them. About the only sensible ally selection is the Tyranid one.

RandomThoughts
05-07-2012, 11:32
Personally, I want to ignore the allies matrix and house rule that all races may form tier two alliances.

But it's up to the player to provide a bit of narrative for really outlandish, weird allainces.

Dreadknight1994
05-07-2012, 12:54
spiney norman how is chaos marines and daemons not a sensible option?

Rick Blaine
05-07-2012, 13:41
The rules are the rules. But if I could pick, I'd allow all combinations at Tier 2. The chart is pretty crappy as far as fluff goes already, so fluff is a poor excuse to deny some armies the combos they need to stay competitive. In fact, strange combos could enrich the fluff if appropriate modelling was enforced. Tyranid allies in an Eldar army, for example, should be converted with some mind-control implants or something.

grimnar1031
05-07-2012, 16:37
I dont like the idea of allies and I personally wont be using them, a army is balanced with good and bad points, what is the use of just taking a model or unit to negate the armys weaknesses e.g. a Nurgle space marine force with Epidemus as a single allied model (all models with the mark of Nurgle...) the idea is to work with the armys weaknesses and to exploit the enemys weaknesses, if a army can just buy some models out of a different codex then where is the weaknesses, it may also open the door to power armys, Dark eldar with a portal and eldar allies with a wraithlord, farseer Wraithguard squad starting 15" from your table edge in turn 2???

What are your thoughts?

Dreadknight1994
05-07-2012, 17:38
So would you say i was exploiting the enemys weakness by allying kairos into my mone tzeench army?

loveless
05-07-2012, 17:49
The fewer house rules the better in my mind. That way it's far easier for new players to slot into the group, and it's easier to hit up a standard tournament.

That said, don't you need a certain points level to ally?

Egaeus
05-07-2012, 17:53
I chose "use as is" mostly because, as Spiney Norman mentioned, House Rules tend to be just as arbitrary. Although if I were to create my own rules I would allow all armies to ally and try to find some way to use the different levels to adjust what could and could not be taken in an allied detachment or just have a standard set of rules for how allies interact.

The thing is, it's a game and so really all the rules are fairly "arbitrary"...heck, we're into 6th Edition now which has many different rules than previous editions, many of which seem to be there merely for the sake of change as opposed to attempting to create an objectively better game.

RandomThoughts
06-07-2012, 07:32
I dont like the idea of allies and I personally wont be using them, a army is balanced with good and bad points, what is the use of just taking a model or unit to negate the armys weaknesses e.g. a Nurgle space marine force with Epidemus as a single allied model (all models with the mark of Nurgle...) the idea is to work with the armys weaknesses and to exploit the enemys weaknesses, if a army can just buy some models out of a different codex then where is the weaknesses, it may also open the door to power armys, Dark eldar with a portal and eldar allies with a wraithlord, farseer Wraithguard squad starting 15" from your table edge in turn 2???

What are your thoughts?

Are you familiar with magic the gathering? There are five colors (factions)), most decks (armies) are composed of two colors, a few are pure one-color.

Each combination of colors has its own set of strengths and weaknesses.

Same thing in 40K. The rules say you can't combine more than two codices. Each combo of two codices plays differently, with different strengths and weaknesses. Imperial Guard + Blood Angels plays different than Imperial Guard + Grey Knights plays different than Imperial Guard + Orks plays different than Imperial Guard + Eldar. Each of these combinations is unique with their own strengths and weaknesses.


That said, don't you need a certain points level to ally?

No.

squeekenator
06-07-2012, 09:15
I only ever play with total strangers, so I don't have much choice but to play by the rules, but even if I did have that choice I'd use the allies rules as written. I personally don't plan on taking allies (unless I end up making that traitor Guard army I always wanted, but gosh it's expensive, so that's unlikely), but if my opponents want to then that's totally fine with me. In a world of Grey Knights vs Grey Knights, adding allies isn't likely to make the games I see any less jarring from a fluff perspective, and they might add a bit of diversity. Maybe we'll see Grey Knights plus angry bluey-grey Space Marine allies against Grey Knights plus angry red Space Marine allies, and wouldn't that be an exciting turn of events!

IcedCrow
06-07-2012, 13:32
If you want to use house rules, use house rules.

That being said, I love the ally rules and will be using them.

Stonerhino
06-07-2012, 17:41
Allies are the new "Count as". Something by default should not be allowed untill both players agree. It would be different if there was better fluff rules applied to who can ally with who and some better drawbacks. 40K players as a group are not mature enough to handle this type of responcibility. However the two people setting across the table from each other usually are. So it should be discussed prior to each game. Just as you should discuss what type of armies you are bringing, fluffy vs ultra competitive.

It's part of being a good opponite.

Misfratz
06-07-2012, 18:50
Personally I'd prefer no allies at all; but since they're 'standard rules' in the main rulebook, they ought to be allowed as default (otherwise who's to stop anyone claiming that Snap Fire should be scrapped, or Flyers, or Wound allocation, or...)It's your game now. You can play with whatever rules you want. I wish people would be more flexible about trying something new and freeing themselves to play how they want, to make the game better for them.

I like allies. I may find that the rule-sharing of battle brothers is too much, but I'll have to see.

Lord Damocles
06-07-2012, 18:55
It's your game now. You can play with whatever rules you want. I wish people would be more flexible about trying something new and freeing themselves to play how they want, to make the game better for them.
Er, yeah, great.

Contrary to popular belief, you always could play however you wanted - adding or ignoring whatever rules you desired.


What you can't do, however, is roll up to a pick up game and expect your opponant to agree to play 'your game'.

Theocracity
06-07-2012, 19:03
Personally I'm not likely to use much in the way of allies - not because I have a problem with the idea, but because the matrix of 'forces I own' and 'forces my Orks would ally with fluff-wise' isn't a very easy fit. I could borrow some from friends to make a force, but it's really not too important to me.

I'm all for allies as they exist, though I might make some ad-hoc changes to the chart for our local gaming group. I understand GW's logic behind Nids having no allies, for example, but if we feel like running a game with a Genestealer cult I'd have no problem altering it.

owen matthew
06-07-2012, 19:08
Personally I'd prefer no allies at all; but since they're 'standard rules' in the main rulebook, they ought to be allowed as default (otherwise who's to stop anyone claiming that Snap Fire should be scrapped, or Flyers, or Wound allocation, or...)

This is good logic.

I really hate that they did this, and am not excited to see how it changes the landscape of the game. They did so many other things very well, though...

I voted "No allies by default, but may be agreed by both players before the game"

IJW
06-07-2012, 19:38
Allies are the new "Count as". Something by default should not be allowed untill both players agree.

You're going to have to explain that further. Are you suggesting that my counts-as Squat force using the Ork codex is something that by default isn't allowed? :(

Minsc
06-07-2012, 19:43
We won't play with them unless both sides agree too at my gamingclub.
The allies-rules are unbalanced and will probably be banned/restricted at most tournaments.

Same thing with 2 FoC's at 2000 pts. Both players will have to agree.

Both the allies- and dual FoC-rules are disgusting tricks by GW to try and sell more model's ("Oop, I can field 6 predators now" *runs of and buys 3 more*), and I'm alittle concerned that 75% of the warseer-community seem so fine with the ally rules just because they are in the rulebook.

The most common sentence in the 6th Ed. rulebook seems to be "both players should agree before the battle..." anyway.

Poncho160
06-07-2012, 20:00
Im looking at the allies rules as an oppurtunity to make lots of conversions, so all the models fit into my armies.

IJW
06-07-2012, 20:05
I'm alittle concerned that 75% of the warseer-community seem so fine with the ally rules just because they are in the rulebook.

More likely that that type of balance simply doesn't exist in 40k so why get worried about a little extra unbalancing from allies. ;)

sturguard
06-07-2012, 20:11
More likely that that type of balance simply doesn't exist in 40k so why get worried about a little extra unbalancing from allies. ;)

Using that logic, everyone should be okay with using the FW models stamped for 40k use.

Darnok
06-07-2012, 20:23
I consider myself to be pretty liberal on this topic, but I still have some personal restrictions on allies.

First, and most important: allies are now a part of the main rules. That means that I can not and will not deny anybody the right to use them. I would even go so far and ignore some of the restrictions of the allies matrix, as I have another important point to make: it is a game for two or more players. All players involved should agree on what they want from their game. There is the possibility that others do not share my view on this topic, and there is the possibility that somebody comes up with a mixed force I would not accept - wether due to "silly" background or no reasoning at all. I expect my counterpart(s) to put some minimal effort into a game they want to play with me, as we are going to share a few hours playing it! I would just not enjoy a game against an army of grey models and some half-assembled Grey Knights "just because I can!!!" - I reserve my right to refuse to play against such stuff.

In my opinion the mutual agreement of all players to play the game how they want it to be is the most important rule. This can be everything from "strictly by the book" to "housreule extravaganza". This is nothing where I could state one solution for all possible cases, it is up to the guy on the other side.

Having said that: I play in a very small group, and we talk before and after each game about what went well and what not. I'm pretty sure we'll find a way to incorporate allies in all of our armies in a way that suits all of us.

Theocracity
06-07-2012, 20:32
I'm alittle concerned that 75% of the warseer-community seem so fine with the ally rules just because they are in the rulebook.

Isn't it just so frustrating when people disagree with you?


Using that logic, everyone should be okay with using the FW models stamped for 40k use.

...yeah, and? That's not a ridiculous thing to say.

SilentCivilian
06-07-2012, 20:43
Against my friends we have agreed not to use them unless we let our opponents know in advance. That or if we are playing a 2v2 game we will use them then, armies permitting on both sides. As far as a pick up game in my local store i would prefer not too but i am not going to walk away from a game just because my opponent has built his army that way.

Egaeus
06-07-2012, 21:29
Contrary to popular belief, you always could play however you wanted - adding or ignoring whatever rules you desired.

What you can't do, however, is roll up to a pick up game and expect your opponant to agree to play 'your game'.

QFT. Obviously the amount of issue one will have with these rules is going to depend on the venue in which you play. If you play with close friends on a regular basis and you consensually dislike allies then simply don't use them. However if you are used to playing pick-up games with strangers or "game shop acquaintances" then the core rules are probably going to be your default expectation for a game.

And surely there should be some discussion before a game, but how much bargaining should one expect before a game? What is one potentially willing to give up in return for an opponent who wants to use allies to not use them because one doesn't care for those particular rules?

I also found Stonerhino's comment on maturity humorous, mainly as the game is aimed primarily at a younger market, who, as a group or individually, I don't think society expects a great deal of maturity from. And even for us older players we are still essentially playing with toy soldiers (and fictional ones at that)...:p

Stonerhino
06-07-2012, 23:05
You're going to have to explain that further. Are you suggesting that my counts-as Squat force using the Ork codex is something that by default isn't allowed? :(Funny, I had that same army until the last Ork codex came out.

Or are you saying that you pull out your squats without first explaining to the person you're playing what they are and what codex they are using???


I also found Stonerhino's comment on maturity humorous, mainly as the game is aimed primarily at a younger market, who, as a group or individually, I don't think society expects a great deal of maturity from.And how often do you play against these younger opponites??? Honestly, the youngest player I think I have ever played against was early teens (Friend's son). And he was more mature then some mid 20's I played against. He even "Unintentially" cheated less. Maturity is not based on age.

You shouldn't be surprized. The race was on to find the most broken alliance even before the Rulebook was out. Soon, the internet will settle on a few power allies and that will be followed up by crap fluff reasons as to why the person playing that combo; Is just doing it for "Fluff", it has nothing to do with how broken the combo is. Just like most counts as armies.

IJW
07-07-2012, 02:12
Or are you saying that you pull out your squats without first explaining to the person you're playing what they are and what codex they are using???

Sure I do, it's not like I'm trying out a home-made codex which would require explicit discussion with the other player. Maybe we're just getting crossed lines, all my opponents get a printed copy of the army list with a visual cheat-sheet to the units on the back (see my sig) but that's during deployment and has nothing to do with organising who's playing whom.

The army has been to a GT heat and several local tournaments without complaint from organisers or players.

Kozbot
07-07-2012, 02:45
I don't know about anyone else but I'm pretty pumped to be able to spam the best options from multiple codexes.

Mikial
07-07-2012, 03:28
I'm good with the allies matrix in the book. Lot's of players have a small force of something or other that they modeled for the fun of it and never built into a large army, and this gives them a better chance of being able to use it on the table.

I'm really glad to see an "official" authorization for there to be an Inquisitor allied with IG. After all, the Inquisition is always co-opting Guard, Marines, SOB and even Arbites for some mission or other.

As far as "unofficial" allies, as long as it makes some sense our group tends to let people have fun. For example, why shouldn't a Nid force have Genestealer cultists IG allies hanging about.

Ruination Drinker
07-07-2012, 08:26
Begun, the arms race has.

Egaeus
07-07-2012, 09:09
And how often do you play against these younger opponites??? Honestly, the youngest player I think I have ever played against was early teens (Friend's son). And he was more mature then some mid 20's I played against. He even "Unintentially" cheated less. Maturity is not based on age.

And if my answer was "rarely, if ever" how would that change the fact that the game is aimed at teens, and in the U.S. (at least) teens aren't legally considered mature. ;) But my comment wasn't intended to be taken seriously...perhaps I needed to word it differently or just another smiley. :p


You shouldn't be surprized. The race was on to find the most broken alliance even before the Rulebook was out. Soon, the internet will settle on a few power allies and that will be followed up by crap fluff reasons as to why the person playing that combo; Is just doing it for "Fluff", it has nothing to do with how broken the combo is. Just like most counts as armies.

Just like there are crap fluff reasons for taking a "power build" army or a special character in a different army or any number of other stupid things that the rules allow. I've said in other Allies threads that I think Allies should have been across the board with appropriate limitations rather than this pseudo-fluff chart that exists, simply because since it's the rules I don't even have to come up with a crap reason for the alliance...the rules allow it.

It really makes me think about Special Characters in the previous editions...back then they required opponent's consent. So you never, ever (at least in my experience) expected to be able to use a SC in a pick-up game, despite the fact that many of them probably weren't all that powerful or game-breaking...it was simply the perception that they might be because you specifically had to be allowed to use them, and because of that they never were used (OK, that's hyperbole...I'm sure once in a while people might allow them if only for something different..but again, I'm mentioning my experience).

Again, it really depends on your venue. If you have regular opponents then you can probably "get away" with a lot more crazy stuff than someone who primarily plays pick-up games with strangers at the LGS. At least with pick-up games you don't generally go in with the idea that your opponent is going to automatically agree to all your house rules without expecting a few of their own in return.

DivineVisitor
07-07-2012, 09:44
The rules are the rules. But if I could pick, I'd allow all combinations at Tier 2. The chart is pretty crappy as far as fluff goes already, so fluff is a poor excuse to deny some armies the combos they need to stay competitive. In fact, strange combos could enrich the fluff if appropriate modelling was enforced. Tyranid allies in an Eldar army, for example, should be converted with some mind-control implants or something.

I like this solution the best, it stops potentially broken combo's that are allowed by those battle brothers rules that affect each other's units and opens up more opportunities to make interesting combinations, conversion opportunities etc.

Then again i play the overwhelming majority of my games with a few close friends who make armies based on background either existing or self generated and never field the latest net lists etc so don't foresee looking across the table at potentially broken combinations or allies that simply should not be.

So far none of us have utilised allies though im building up my Alpha Legion again this edition in preparation for the new Chaos release and will represent them using Imperial Guard ('counts as' Traitor Guard) with a detachment of Alpha Legion allies.

ihavetoomuchminis
07-07-2012, 09:50
I'll allow them by default....but i'll be making my black list of players i don't want to play against.

Von Wibble
07-07-2012, 10:25
I'm absolutely fine with them (its just a shame the matrix seems to have been generated at random, with the concept of a genestealer cult not existing for example).

Its perfect for me as I was struggling to decide whether to collect Eldar or Dark Eldar - now I can collect both! Also it means if a model comes out that I really like but wouldn't want to just buy to paint and not use in games, there's a good chance it can form part of an alliance.

Finally it means that any codex update will have an effect on a greater amount of players army building. That can only be a good thing.

A caveat though - if people simply try to take the best stuff from 2 lists it could get ridiculous and lead to a bit of an arms race. I think GW missed a huge opportunity for balance by not making all non troops choices 0-1 (with a single exception of players choice benig 0-2).

Bree
07-07-2012, 10:46
Oh assumed this poll was for what type of allies us gamers would choose.

DivineVisitor
07-07-2012, 10:57
The real question is why does the poll add to over 100% :eek:

Leth Shyish'phak
07-07-2012, 12:05
The real question is why does the poll add to over 100% :eek:

This probably has something to do with it:


Multiple Choice Poll.

Erik_Morkai
07-07-2012, 14:18
Am I happy with the ally matrix? No
But I will abide by the rules and will face any threat from abusing combo the same way I always do.

I am happy that it does give the option to make some cooler, more fluffy combos.
Like a traitor guard army. With a small group of Chaos space marine allies pulling the strings from behind.
Or a guard army with a small heroic contingent of Space Marines.

Egaeus
07-07-2012, 18:55
Finally it means that any codex update will have an effect on a greater amount of players army building. That can only be a good thing.

A caveat though - if people simply try to take the best stuff from 2 lists it could get ridiculous and lead to a bit of an arms race. I think GW missed a huge opportunity for balance by not making all non troops choices 0-1 (with a single exception of players choice benig 0-2).

Unless that Codex is Tyranids :mad:, and while I agree that it will have some effect, depending on whom a particular faction can ally with may not have that great an impact at all.

I think your last statement also is gong to have a lot to do with it, as I find it odd to consider that people would be purposely taking "bad" units for allies (unless you're simply trying to be "super fluffy")...I foresee that the allies rules are primarily going to be used to fill "holes" in a primary army...so when a new codex is released I think the primary focus is going to be on the good units (although traditionally isn't that the way it goes anyways?) But that is, I think, most people's basic complaint about the idea of Allies: that it's going to be used primarily as a power-gamer's tool rather than to create "interesting" armies.

Joewrightgm
07-07-2012, 19:01
Blood axes alongside my chaos marines. And the obvious demons. Should be fun.

Depending if cultists are actually in the new chaos codex, I'll just use cultists to soak up gunfire

Rabbitden
07-07-2012, 19:06
I think the ally rules are great and allow for fluffy lists and can add a lot of character to an army. I recently played a game where a small detachment of guard (HQ, 20 Grunts and A Heavy Weapon Team) had to hold out in the middle of the board amongst some make shift defences whilst allied Marines came to their rescue to excort the guard 'admiral of the fleet' off their friendly board edge. The opposing side had a very fast CSM army and had to prevent the admiral's escape. Fun times!

samiens
07-07-2012, 19:23
I played today with a Tau CSM alliance and honestly, I haven't enjoyed 40k so much in a longtime. Allies add variety, and variety is good- im sold!

ReveredChaplainDrake
07-07-2012, 19:39
I don't think allies are really as bad as people are making them out to be. Yeah, they're free FOC slots, but it's not like they're free points. They all come out of your total allowance. Theoretically, a purist codex army will have more synergy, while allies simply allow you to balance your list more. The players I'm worried about, the WAAC crowd, don't seem like the kind who would care about adding units to their list to cover their weaknesses. If the stunning sales of Razorbacks, Venoms, and Chimeras in 5th edition was any indication, they seem to prefer maxing out their own strengths while ignoring any possible weaknesses. And this all assumes that the armies are Battle Brothers. There's less synergy with Allies of Convenience, and fielding Desperate Allies in large quantities is just asking for something to go wrong.

For example, I was thinking about adding Space Wolves to my Blood Angels. Should work pretty well on paper, right? I get 5 split-firing missile launchers, some beefy Thunderwolves, Logan Grimnar, and two fat units of scoring Terminators. Sounds like all-win, right? Well let's not forget that I need to sink an awful lot of points into my own army. More than that, I can't do anything truly synergistic. No DOA, no Astorath buffs, no Priest buffs, no Chaplain buffs, nada. Individually, the Long Fangs are defeated by my assault marines, who tie up all the juicy shooting targets in the relatively safer embrace of melee, whereas Space Wolves proper make good use of Long Fangs because Wolves don't often try to initiate charges as fast as they can. The Thunderwolves are a single, big, scary unit that can no longer hide behind wound allocation shenanigans and will inevitably get focus-fired into oblivion. I could've gotten a Stormraven, maybe two, for what they costed, and I've played enough Tyranids to know that "fire magnet" is not a legitimate justification for purchasing a unit. Ditto with terminators, doubly so considering they're scoring, but they're also quite a bit more expensive than my pre-built Terminators are (well, Hammernators anyway). It's like I'm paying a premium in points to make them scoring. 275 points in premiums (i.e. Logan, a mediocre fighter whose true strength is buffing "Space Wolves" with various USRs), to be precise, and I can't even Wolf-Guard out specialists to my squads like proper Space Wolves can.

Okay, try Imperial Guard. Vendettas, yay! And all I have to do to get 3 of them is buy a squishy CCS, a squishy Veteran squad, and maybe some fairly-fragile Chimeras to make the squads not so squishy... Well at that point, those Vendettas are as comparably expensive as Stormravens anyway, and those Vendettas can't split fire between them. My Stormravens are not only individual targets, but with machine spirit, each one can split fire. I could throw in Marbo... if I really insisted on giving away the First Blood victory point. I could throw in Hydras... but it's not like Blood Angels can't do dogfights effectively within their own codex. I could add Russes... big, expensive, non-synergistic tanks which serve to do little more than shoot me out of assault range.

Grey Knights are little better. The way GK play these days, they run a giant Draigobrick and pray the enemy is dumb enough to assault them while they lumber up the field annihilating anything in their way. Potent, but unspeakably expensive. GKs were never much of a melee army, and AP3 force weapons sealed that deal all edition long. Blood Angels have enough problems reaching melee as it is without psycannons blasting away the closest guys all the time. Besides, BA's need to field their base stuff too, and at that point you're practically allying Blood Angels into Grey Knights. Why not just play Grey Knights? The army physically lacks nothing to make it competitive and versatile, so why water it down with a lesser codex at all?

Weak armies can use allies as a crutch to make them more competitive. Strong armies are diluting themselves by using allies. Either way, strong pure armies will still be solid, and after a few months I'm expecting a lot of the powergamer crowd to realize that the grass is not necessarily greener in the other codex.

BooTMGSG
07-07-2012, 20:29
I don't have a problem with the allies rule.

To be honest its best to play with the don't be a jerk rule.
Ok if there is a really cheesey combo that you have descovered you should let it out the the bag for all to see, but just don't turn up with it day after day.

Asura Varuna
08-07-2012, 00:02
It's nice that CSM got some proper daemons back. Both books are rather bland by themselves but combined armies might make them worth playing again.

For me, it's pretty fluffy as well - Word Bearers with a contingent of Daemons to aid them (well, Daemonettes, Seekers and the Masque at least). Adds even more scope for a themed army though in general and loads of space for going out and collecting "one of everything" - exactly what Gamesworkshop would want you to be doing really. Even within the fluffiness though, it can get pretty cheesy. Deathguard army with Epididimus in the allied contingent. Seeing as every unit with an icon of Nurgle adds to his tally...