PDA

View Full Version : Allies Make Me Cry ;_;



Turrican1983
15-08-2012, 10:46
The whole allies thing, just upsets me.
Just check this list out and tell me that the inclusion of allies hasn't ruined the army collecting aspect of the hobby.

Grey Knights Librarian
Space Wolves Rune Priest (Jaws + LL)

(X6) 5 Grey Knights Squads with Psycannon in a Razorback with Twin Linked Heavy Bolters and Psybolt Ammo

5 Grey Hunters with Aegis Defence Line and Quad Gun

Space Wolves Dreadnought with 2 Twin linked Autocannon
(X3) Grey Knights Dreadnought with 2 Twin linked Autocannon and Psybolt Ammo

Space Wolves Vindicator

Now I gotta collect 2 armies and mash them together if I want to play in tournaments?
What happened to just being able to collect 1 army and have fun with it?

I dunno, I'm just feeling a little downhearted about the way the game is going with more spam than ever before.
Now we get allied spam too! :(

AngelofSorrow
15-08-2012, 11:14
It doesn't matter if you have allies, multiple force Orgs, old, or new codices. Anything can be abused. Allies doesn't make a difference in the long run. If you just use the rules as was clearly intended by the designers all will be fine.


Ready for eternal war!

Born Again
15-08-2012, 11:19
Now I gotta collect 2 armies and mash them together if I want to play in tournaments?


Nope. An army chosen from one book will still be entirely reasonable. Plus, I'm sure many tournaments will disallow allies.


What happened to just being able to collect 1 army and have fun with it?

You can still do that any time you please. If being at the cutting edge of cut-throat tournament metagames isn't something you find enjoyable, then why are you doing it? I don't like it, so I steer clear of them and are happier for it. That doesn't have to keep you out of tournaments, if you like the basic concept - I played in a tournament the other week that didn't have a single army that could be called "WAAC", and I had a great load of fun.


I dunno, I'm just feeling a little downhearted about the way the game is going with more spam than ever before.
Now we get allied spam too! :(

Well I don't see any spam in that list apart from the dreads, and he's only adding in one more than he'd be able to if he didn't ally, so I don't think it's a huge issue. I actually think allies were handled very well so as to stop them getting too out of hand.

ihavetoomuchminis
15-08-2012, 11:23
The problem you mention is more due to the fact that there are 5 nearly identical SM armies with fancy special rules than due to the allies thing. Is not the allies that should make you cry, but the fact that half the armies of WH40k are nearly the same.

Wishing
15-08-2012, 11:27
Now I gotta collect 2 armies and mash them together if I want to play in tournaments?
What happened to just being able to collect 1 army and have fun with it?


This statement doesn't make much sense to me.

What you are saying that with allies, if you want to be hyper-competitive and min/maxed, you can be so most efficiently by allying two forces together. Okay.
Then you say that before allies, you could collect just one army and have fun with it.

"Having fun with it" suggests not being hyper-competitive and min/maxing. You can have fun with allies, or without allies. Similarly, you can be hyper-competitive with allies or without allies. In both cases, you are trying to find the most efficient thing and spamming it. I don't see why this is somehow more fun to do with a single codex than with two codexes.

Yes, you can spam more with two FO charts than with one. But spamming is spamming, whether you are using allies or not. If you don't like spamming, complain about spamming, don't complain about allies.

ObsidianCube
15-08-2012, 13:52
It is kind of disappointing..

williamsond
15-08-2012, 14:35
Unless the allies fit the fluff I think the're generally a bad idea, deamons and chaos marines fine, IG and sisters great, blood angels and necrons...no thanks.

Geep
15-08-2012, 14:54
Allies can be abused, but if anything my gripe with them is restrictiveness. If you're going to allow the, accept that players can abuse both fluff and rules and don't try for the allies matrix.

The reason why this annoys me is 'counts as' armies. Many people spend a lot of time and effort on making unique armies that 'counts as' something uncommon in game (admech armies, genestealer cults, etc.). The restrictive allies table means it may be impossible to ally a 'counts as' army with its natural friends.

PANZERBUNNY
15-08-2012, 15:03
I don't think Genestealers would like Necrons either. ;)

Wishing
15-08-2012, 15:13
The reason why this annoys me is 'counts as' armies. Many people spend a lot of time and effort on making unique armies that 'counts as' something uncommon in game (admech armies, genestealer cults, etc.). The restrictive allies table means it may be impossible to ally a 'counts as' army with its natural friends.

Very very true. If GW are positive towards counts-as, and they tend to be, then at the very least they should add a PS stating that the allies chart is just a suggestion, and that players should feel free to swap armies around the allies chart to reflect the alternative nature of counts-as armies.

Charistoph
15-08-2012, 15:21
I don't think Genestealers would like Necrons either. ;)

That's because Necrons don't have any pants.


Very very true. If GW are positive towards counts-as, and they tend to be, then at the very least they should add a PS stating that the allies chart is just a suggestion, and that players should feel free to swap armies around the allies chart to reflect the alternative nature of counts-as armies.

Aside from "official" tournament play, everything in the game is a "suggestion" and can be altered to suit the players' interests, and even the tournament organizers show they aren't above doing that either.

Wishing
15-08-2012, 15:25
Aside from "official" tournament play, everything in the game is a "suggestion" and can be altered to suit the players' interests, and even the tournament organizers show they aren't above doing that either.

True, but some alterations are ones that GW knows that many players would want to make use of, and can therefore mention in the rulebook to make the option more accessible to people.

The_Klobb_Maniac
15-08-2012, 15:33
The reason why this annoys me is 'counts as' armies. Many people spend a lot of time and effort on making unique armies that 'counts as' something uncommon in game (admech armies, genestealer cults, etc.). The restrictive allies table means it may be impossible to ally a 'counts as' army with its natural friends.
Er... I guess?

Thing is, I could easily argue the opposite. Many counts as armies *benefit* from the allies chart by allowing you new options you never had before. I can now take "war walkers" in my IG army with double MLs but model them like a double ML sentinel. I could similarly add a "Looted Russ" to my Orks army via allies while counts-as-ing the "Guard" as something else (grots with guns!)

Etc..

Sure, you can't do genestealer cults very well, but most everything else (tau with auxillaries, renegade IG, allied legions of marines, eldar/DE forces, etc..) can be done in a nice easy way.

nedius
15-08-2012, 16:33
I quite like allies. They make sense from a fluff, collecting and financial standpoint.

My problem with them is the prescriptive way in which they are done, which is unnecessary. Armies like nids get a raw deal whilst every imperial army is rolling in options. Even the FOC aspect is unnecessary. What is wrong with Iron Warriors just taking a couple of basilisks? Space wolves a Leman Russ or Two? Dark Eldar with the odd wraithlord being some 'count as', Imperial Guard and a genestealer squad for a cult?

Allies should have been built in as part of the narrative side of things, and been more flexible. There should be no 'no-go' alliances. Grey Knights and Greater Deamons? Oh no... that's not really a greater deamon, it's a Dreadknight variant, I'm just using the rules as a count as... it's all doable. Or maybe they are not grey knights, maybe they're thousand sons just using the gk rules. Sure, I'd raise my eyes at grey knights and actual deamons, but then just dont claim thats what they are and expect happy fluffy players...

Battleworthy Arts
15-08-2012, 16:40
Aside from a few small things that clearly should not be allowed to interact (fortune + shadow field, anyone?), I have found allies to be not a big deal. The folks who will use it to find those little broken combos should not take away from all the cool fluff-inspired allies, or people who are using it to build a second army slowly.

Draconis
15-08-2012, 16:43
I dont understand the complaints. If you want to buy 5 devestators from the army you play or include space wolves and have 5 long fangs, you're still buying a squad with missile launchers at roughly the same price. So why does that matter? If you were going to buy a librarian from your army or buy a librarian from another army, why does it matter?

nedius
15-08-2012, 16:44
The folks who will use it to find those little broken combos should not take away from all the cool fluff-inspired allies, or people who are using it to build a second army slowly.

This puts what I tried to say much more succinctly.

Konovalev
15-08-2012, 16:45
The problem you mention is more due to the fact that there are 5 nearly identical SM armies with fancy special rules than due to the allies thing. Is not the allies that should make you cry, but the fact that half the armies of WH40k are nearly the same.

This. The allies system has exacerbated the space marine syndrome.

Scribe of Khorne
15-08-2012, 16:47
Fluff Based - You mean I can bring CSM and Daemons in a legit list? This is AWESOME!

Competitive Based - You mean I can bring something to fill the holes in an older book to make it more competitive? This is AWESOME!

I love the allies system.

Faeslayer
15-08-2012, 16:52
The folks who will use it to find those little broken combos should not take away from all the cool fluff-inspired allies, or people who are using it to build a second army slowly.

I totally agree. I'm starting a second army, and they're going to be fighting alongside my orks for a while... I love the thought of being able to try out my new army in a good-sized game after putting together only a few units, as I can't just grab an entire army at once. By the time I have a full army, some of the units will already be seasoned vets!

wanderingblade
15-08-2012, 17:15
I quite like allies. They make sense from a fluff, collecting and financial standpoint.

My problem with them is the prescriptive way in which they are done, which is unnecessary. Armies like nids get a raw deal whilst every imperial army is rolling in options. Even the FOC aspect is unnecessary. What is wrong with Iron Warriors just taking a couple of basilisks? Space wolves a Leman Russ or Two? Dark Eldar with the odd wraithlord being some 'count as', Imperial Guard and a genestealer squad for a cult?


Nothing to stop you house ruling that and playing it that way at home, or with like minded people anywhere. I think it's correct that for casual, pick-up play between strangers, there's a few restrictions to keep things roughly balanced and what not.


I dont understand the complaints. If you want to buy 5 devestators from the army you play or include space wolves and have 5 long fangs, you're still buying a squad with missile launchers at roughly the same price. So why does that matter? If you were going to buy a librarian from your army or buy a librarian from another army, why does it matter?

a) 35 points isn't an entirely insignificant amount to a Space Marine army. In WAAC play, the savings from carefully selected allies can probably come to a fair bit. Enough to make allies compulsory unless banned? I don't know, but you'd certainly need to be a fool not to look at them.

b) I can understand a gamer who cares mainly about the background getting annoyed by consistent mixed detatchments, or consistent "Counts As" homebrew marine chapters/other stuff that doesn't include the iconic stuff and so on.

I don't necessarily agree with it, but I do understand it. For some people, it does not fit their game, particularly the more 'cynical' 'slap some grey paint on some squads and use them as SW instead of SM' and so on. I am pro-ally. I'm considering my own 'Count As' homebrew chapter. But there are a few negative issues to this all, and I can understand the man getting het up by them.

althathir
15-08-2012, 17:53
The whole allies thing, just upsets me.
Just check this list out and tell me that the inclusion of allies hasn't ruined the army collecting aspect of the hobby.

Grey Knights Librarian
Space Wolves Rune Priest (Jaws + LL)

(X6) 5 Grey Knights Squads with Psycannon in a Razorback with Twin Linked Heavy Bolters and Psybolt Ammo

5 Grey Hunters with Aegis Defence Line and Quad Gun

Space Wolves Dreadnought with 2 Twin linked Autocannon
(X3) Grey Knights Dreadnought with 2 Twin linked Autocannon and Psybolt Ammo

Space Wolves Vindicator

Now I gotta collect 2 armies and mash them together if I want to play in tournaments?
What happened to just being able to collect 1 army and have fun with it?

I dunno, I'm just feeling a little downhearted about the way the game is going with more spam than ever before.
Now we get allied spam too! :(

You realize that they aren't battle brothers right? Cause in that list every time a GK unit successfully uses a psychic power within 24 inches of the rune priest he rolls to cancel it on a 4+ (you don't choose to use it, it happens whenever an enemy psycher successfully uses a power). So that libby is gonna be kinda bad, and its a slight nerf to everything else, there will be some cheesey ally combinations but for the most part I don't think your gonna have to allies to combat it.

Haravikk
15-08-2012, 17:55
Allies are intended for fun, casual games. I think it's fully reasonable that they'll be blanket banned or otherwise restricted in serious tournaments.
Like most everything in the game though it's really up to the player(s) involved.

althathir
15-08-2012, 18:06
I actually think Allies were meant for tournies, its a fast fix for alot of armies that have weaknesses. Take eldar right now our big weakness is not having durable troops (that aren't super expensive). Now if im in a tourney I can ally belial and 2 squads of deathwatch, add a couple of squads of jetbikes and I don't have to rely on the weakest part of my army (the newer dexes seem to benefit much less from taking allies).

In fun pickup games there are tons of ways to make the game more balanced. Its tougher to do it tournies without rules like this.

Glen_Savet
15-08-2012, 18:10
I dislike that the Black Templar are battle brothers with Grey Knights, but not with Sisters of Battle. Obnoxiousness!

althathir
15-08-2012, 18:23
I dislike that the Black Templar are battle brothers with Grey Knights, but not with Sisters of Battle. Obnoxiousness!

Um grey knights aren't battle brothers with anyone, they're allies of convenience w/ BT (who are desperate allies with sisters). So its kinda worse :)

Threeshades
15-08-2012, 18:27
Er... I guess?

Thing is, I could easily argue the opposite. Many counts as armies *benefit* from the allies chart by allowing you new options you never had before. I can now take "war walkers" in my IG army with double MLs but model them like a double ML sentinel. I could similarly add a "Looted Russ" to my Orks army via allies while counts-as-ing the "Guard" as something else (grots with guns!)

Etc..

Sure, you can't do genestealer cults very well, but most everything else (tau with auxillaries, renegade IG, allied legions of marines, eldar/DE forces, etc..) can be done in a nice easy way.
I agree, there are more counts-as possibilities now than there were before, not less. Sure there could be even more if the ally chart were opened up, but still saying the ally chart has hurt counts-as is turning the facts upside down.

By the way, for your looted russ ally, just use the guardsmen (or better yet penal legions) for diggaz. And a squad of ogryns woldnt hurt the old school style either.

MrdrumMachine
15-08-2012, 18:31
Allies are intended for fun, casual games. I think it's fully reasonable that they'll be blanket banned or otherwise restricted in serious tournaments.
Like most everything in the game though it's really up to the player(s) involved.

I really don't see major tournaments in the states banning allies, they allow for so much more variation between armies it's really the most excited I've been in years to go to tournaments. Tau and Orks have a lot of synergy that by themselves can't be achieved unlike other stand alone codecies like guard or almost all the SM variants. I love being able to take my 4 armies and combine them in several different ways that previously only power armored armies were able to do (today my rainbow marines are blood angels/space wolves/salamanders!). Now I can say I'm playing Codex Torks or Taucrons or Necrorks and I've got so many army builds I can try between them with minimal further investment that this is really one of the best times I've ever had with the game.

Dark Aly
15-08-2012, 18:43
I suppose my ravenwing could have some saim han allies for a bit of pace.

Plecohead
15-08-2012, 19:13
Couldn't be put better Williamsond :)

MajorWesJanson
15-08-2012, 19:26
You realize that they aren't battle brothers right? Cause in that list every time a GK unit successfully uses a psychic power within 24 inches of the rune priest he rolls to cancel it on a 4+ (you don't choose to use it, it happens whenever an enemy psycher successfully uses a power). So that libby is gonna be kinda bad, and its a slight nerf to everything else, there will be some cheesey ally combinations but for the most part I don't think your gonna have to allies to combat it.

Nope. Not true.

Erik_Morkai
15-08-2012, 19:48
Nope. Not true.

What part?

Vaktathi
15-08-2012, 21:32
The designers never intended for 6th edition to be a balanced ruleset, the allies rules weren't implemented with any sort of balance considerations in mind, and the design staff said as much at their Open Day event a few weeks ago.

This is simply the reality of 6th edition. It's a framework designed to allow usage of most Citadel Miniatures products in imaginary cinematic battles, it is not a balanced tactical wargame. Make of that what you will.

SpikeyFreak
15-08-2012, 21:52
I dont understand the complaints. If you want to buy 5 devestators from the army you play or include space wolves and have 5 long fangs, you're still buying a squad with missile launchers at roughly the same price. So why does that matter? If you were going to buy a librarian from your army or buy a librarian from another army, why does it matter?

This is how I feel. 2000 points is 2000 points. Do you buy a land raider or a couple broadsides? Either way it's about the same as far as money/work goes.

Sexiest_hero
15-08-2012, 22:15
It sucks for multiplayer games, I fought DE allied with eldar teamed with Eldar allied wit DE. I just got pissed and shot them all to hell.

Vaktathi
15-08-2012, 22:21
This is how I feel. 2000 points is 2000 points. Do you buy a land raider or a couple broadsides? Either way it's about the same as far as money/work goes.2000pts isn't just 2000pts. The long fangs example is a great one, you get an extra heavy weapon and an extra dude for 20 fewer points and the ability to engage 2 targets, all for the loss of one dude firing at +1BS. The Long Fangs are a clearly superior investment in points (hence why you tended to see them fielded in triplicate in SW armies in 5th and you almost never saw Devastators fielded).

The other issue is that armies are generally designed and balanced around a certain set of capabilities. Giving a gunline sudden access to a highly capable counter-assault unit, or giving a deathstar list access to large numbers of horde troops and cheap fire support tosses any semblance of balance out the window.

Lets not forget that access to, and quality of, allies is not universal. IG can ally with almost everyone and have IIRC 6 or 7 Battle Brothers. Tyranids can't ally with anyone.

tiger g
15-08-2012, 22:38
The designers never intended for 6th edition to be a balanced ruleset, the allies rules weren't implemented with any sort of balance considerations in mind, and the design staff said as much at their Open Day event a few weeks ago.

This is simply the reality of 6th edition. It's a framework designed to allow usage of most Citadel Miniatures products in imaginary cinematic battles, it is not a balanced tactical wargame. Make of that what you will.

Great Point

Monospot
15-08-2012, 22:44
As a fluffy, narrative games of 23+ years of 40K, allies make me giddy. Now just come up with an Allies/Mercs codex, bring back my genestealer cults (oh leaked list be true), and let me field my vulture kroot, and I will be doubly giddy.

Seriously, though, Allies add a whole new set of tools to the gamer's box. As with any tool, they can be horribly abused by ultra-competative WAAC types, or they can be appropriately applied to a fun game. I personally feel that they add balance to the game by providing options for armies that are weak in a given area (except the poor bugs). Also, I feel that having the ability to let the 40K universe's actual allies (i.e. the Imperium) interact in a positive fashion on the tabletop really enhances the game.

MajorWesJanson
15-08-2012, 22:50
What part?

Hmm. Guess by RaW that does happen. I was wrong, and apparently we are doing it wrong with SW allies at my FLGS.

agurus1
16-08-2012, 01:06
I don't think its stupid if people don't try and abuse it (always going to happen but most people at least where I play are pretty cool). I personally am looking forward to having a couple of cheap platoons of Traitor Guard in for my Iron Warrior's

mughi3
16-08-2012, 01:51
So i see that people have noticed how easily allies as written can be abused......is it any suprise that WAAC gamers that play tournaments would exploit this? our group are not tourney players and it took us all of 10 minutes to make some seriously messed up combinations.

One thing it does do is allows you to buy more and different models that you would not normally be able you use in your core army codex list so it is a WIN/WIN for GW marketing strategy.

Looking to see assault terminators showing up in a tau army...who sucks in CC now fool!
:p

tiger g
16-08-2012, 03:09
Still waiting tournament reports from people that the allies ruined

Soupcat
16-08-2012, 03:25
I really don't see the issue with allies. All these supposed "killer combos" I keep on seeing have all been foiled by those pesky rules.
Take for example OPs list, not only does the rune priest hamper the rest of the grey knights, the SW half does not really do anything to assist the list in any signification way...

Machinehead
16-08-2012, 03:30
Only problem I have with the allies rules is that Tyranids are written out of them completely. There is just no reason to not give an entire army an option from the core rulebook

CreativeNameToStandOut
16-08-2012, 04:07
I think, with less foc restrictions, allies, and counts as, that most players would prefer gw just release stats with special rules so that they can make their armies unfettered by the restrictions of a foc andseperate factions. Its stupid there's an foc I want to bring the best 6 special characters with as many heavy weapons as I can. my army real fluffy too, it's the expendables of the 40k universe.

Varulv
16-08-2012, 08:24
Well, I'm sorry, but I can't see the fluff in Black Templars allying Eldar at any level. It also feels wrong with Eldar and Dark Eldar combo, but it might be fluffwise somewhere. But come on, some allies that are allowed are just weird and not fluffy at all.

And besides, Tyranids get no Allies, and no extra FoC, so I guess they are in a turn for the worse.

nedius
16-08-2012, 08:50
Dark eldar might not actually ally with normal eldar very willingly, but they are very likely to be able to access and use much of the same technology. In the same way an IG force can be a chaos cult, tau auxileries etc, the eldar might be pirates, captured technology, or simply a rare DE clade that retains more of their eldar heritage than others.

As for BT and eldar... you're right that fluff wise it's hard to justify, but far from imposible. Perhaps the BT have been forced into a brief alliance, fully planning to furn their bolters on the xenos the moment this battle with the common foe is done - that bit just happens away from the table top. With a bit more imagination than I have right now, it would be possible to create some narrative thread in which the Templars must swallow thier pride to achieve a greater goal.

Charax
16-08-2012, 09:47
I love the allies rules, the two reservations I have are that the options are too restrictive (poor Nids, why no Mind slaves?) and the allies should take up FOC slots from the main army, not get "extra" ones. Of course allies are a good WAAC choice if you get to have a 4th Elite slot.

Varulv
16-08-2012, 10:33
Dark eldar might not actually ally with normal eldar very willingly, but they are very likely to be able to access and use much of the same technology. In the same way an IG force can be a chaos cult, tau auxileries etc, the eldar might be pirates, captured technology, or simply a rare DE clade that retains more of their eldar heritage than others.

As for BT and eldar... you're right that fluff wise it's hard to justify, but far from imposible. Perhaps the BT have been forced into a brief alliance, fully planning to furn their bolters on the xenos the moment this battle with the common foe is done - that bit just happens away from the table top. With a bit more imagination than I have right now, it would be possible to create some narrative thread in which the Templars must swallow thier pride to achieve a greater goal.

You got a fair point, and it might be some Templars out there willing to be heretics for a greater goal, but I feel that my guys rather kill them self than fight alongside with some xenos.

However, you can always use you imagination and I think the rules are justified, it's nothing about that, but some of the ally combinations hurt me fluffwise. However, I will not play with allies even though my opponents will do so. Allies it's great for some campaignsettings though, I agree on that.

Chapters Unwritten
16-08-2012, 14:18
The whole allies thing, just upsets me.
Just check this list out and tell me that the inclusion of allies hasn't ruined the army collecting aspect of the hobby.

Grey Knights Librarian
Space Wolves Rune Priest (Jaws + LL)

(X6) 5 Grey Knights Squads with Psycannon in a Razorback with Twin Linked Heavy Bolters and Psybolt Ammo

5 Grey Hunters with Aegis Defence Line and Quad Gun

Space Wolves Dreadnought with 2 Twin linked Autocannon
(X3) Grey Knights Dreadnought with 2 Twin linked Autocannon and Psybolt Ammo

Space Wolves Vindicator

Now I gotta collect 2 armies and mash them together if I want to play in tournaments?
What happened to just being able to collect 1 army and have fun with it?

I dunno, I'm just feeling a little downhearted about the way the game is going with more spam than ever before.
Now we get allied spam too! :(I'm not really impressed.

For starters it won't all fit. You're 30 points over 2000 (most events are at 1750 or 1850 now to avoid two force orgs, so nice hyperbole there, buddy). And you have a Terminator Librarian standing alone in the field. It's clear you have no idea what you are talking about here and just cranked this out of Army Builder or something.

Secondly, the problem with that list comes from the GK side of it. You added Space Wolves because their name has marquis value in raging people out, but their contributions to that list are bunk. The problem with that list is it is a gross spammy GK list. That this particular list includes allies is not what makes it rock solid.

Thirdly, Razorspam is nerfed to the four corners of the earth. I think that list can be much more easily dealt with than it could before. Acting like it's invincible is foolish. A couple of flyers or a fortress of redemption would shut that entire list down.

Fourth, GK and SWs are Allies of Convenience. So most of their stuff won't work with each other.

And finally, if there were anyone out there who didn't think such a list would be viable, you've now made it so they are aware of it. Good one.

Haravikk
16-08-2012, 15:31
Only problem I have with the allies rules is that Tyranids are written out of them completely.
It is a stupid decision; you'd think they'd have at least made an exception to the norm and let Tyranids take a secondary detachment from the same list for the time being. I'm hopeful that when the next Tyranid codex comes out it'll make some exceptions to the table, maybe with some extra rules to represent cultists etc., since allowing Imperial Guard wouldn't really represent genestealer cults. Either that or just plain get some cultist units in their book and a special secondary detachment option.



I really don't see major tournaments in the states banning allies
I should have really said "some tournaments", but it's like anything, some tournament organisers will just blanket ban them if a broken combo shows up, just like a handful of overpowered special characters potentially banning all special characters. Other tournaments will hopefully take a more relaxed approach, and only counteract anything truly cheesy that shows up.

Kozbot
16-08-2012, 15:35
Meh, had to stop playing higher point games with a few of the power gamers in my gaming group, at 3k points you can get all kinds of nutty with spam, else than that no changes for us at all. We had house-ruled allies long ago. Though I am kind of excited to see which codex gets 'most broken' status and becomes the mandatory ally. I'm betting that each new codex will have one super broken unit that becomes the most have, with each one topping the last, most my friends are betting that someone will just screw up with some sloppy rules writing that makes some special rules interact in some game breaking way ala the magic card game. I can see either happening, from time to time GW seems to forget how special rules interact within a single codex, let alone across codexes.

Narf
16-08-2012, 15:50
See like any of the rules, Aliies are good and bad in equal measure, the reason behind this is what type of player are you?

For me, i want to keep things fluffy, so my wolves at 1500pts will be bringing along a compliment of chapter serfs, this will be a command squad, a mini command squad and two 10 man guardsman squads. Not over powered, but fills an important hole in my list in regards to feet ont he ground, and taking my own objectives in my table half. Fluff wise these guys are my chapter serfs, protecting an important installation, or running search and rescue, who then call in the wolves (who arrive by DP) when they run into an enemy force

However i could instead take a large contigent (2x30) of ork shoota boys, and a big mek with a custome force field, remove all the vehicles from my army, and just walk behind the wall of green, this wall of green would fire 120 Str4, Bs2 shots per shooting phase, and the same bar casualties on overwatch, gaining cover saves from the big mek. And still able to hold their own in combat. Fluff wise i could say the marines are using them as living shields, however they are all armed, which wouldnt make any form of sense.

See two very similar ideas (more feet on the ground) 1 is fluffy and fits, the other makes little sense but is allowed, and this is where things fall down with the allies, it should have been kept fluffy.

On a side note, if your allies are desparate allies, and treated as enemy units, if they get into combat can i now shooting into the combat as it is entirely made up of enemy units?

Erwos
16-08-2012, 17:21
Allies work really well at 1000-1500 points. Higher than that, they start getting easy to abuse, as has been demonstrated.

We're currently doing a slow-growth league at 1250 points, and I am really enjoying my CSM+IG army. Are the IG filling in some holes? You bet. But all allies do are exacerbate the balance problems that already exist; the problem is not really allies per se.

MrdrumMachine
16-08-2012, 18:45
I've yet to see anything in any allies list that the top codecies can't really produce on their own already without any ally help. What allies do allow is for older books like Tau and Orks to put out the same kind of good lists like grey knights and IG, even if they have to borrow from those top books. Of course allies make things different for the already top books, but better than they can already do? I'm not sure. Creating more balanced all comers builds is a great step in the right direction for tournament goers and allows for a wider variety of fluffy builds for those that are into that thing directly in the rules.

SpikeyFreak
16-08-2012, 19:27
2000pts isn't just 2000pts. The long fangs example is a great one, you get an extra heavy weapon and an extra dude for 20 fewer points and the ability to engage 2 targets, all for the loss of one dude firing at +1BS. The Long Fangs are a clearly superior investment in points (hence why you tended to see them fielded in triplicate in SW armies in 5th and you almost never saw Devastators fielded).

The other issue is that armies are generally designed and balanced around a certain set of capabilities. Giving a gunline sudden access to a highly capable counter-assault unit, or giving a deathstar list access to large numbers of horde troops and cheap fire support tosses any semblance of balance out the window.

Lets not forget that access to, and quality of, allies is not universal. IG can ally with almost everyone and have IIRC 6 or 7 Battle Brothers. Tyranids can't ally with anyone.

The OP is complaining about allies ruining the collection aspect, not the balance aspect.


Now I gotta collect 2 armies and mash them together if I want to play in tournaments?


No, you don't have to collect two full armies. You have to collect 2000 points.

brionl
16-08-2012, 20:18
Well, I'm sorry, but I can't see the fluff in Black Templars allying Eldar at any level. It also feels wrong with Eldar and Dark Eldar combo, but it might be fluffwise somewhere. But come on, some allies that are allowed are just weird and not fluffy at all.


In one of the old Eldar codices there is a "Family Tree" of sorts that shows all the various branches. Craftworld, Reavers, Exodites, Dark Eldar, Harlequins. There are lines showing that individuals can move between branches if they really want to. Most of the Dark Eldar depredations are against the Imperium or other non-Eldar, not the Craftworlds or Exodites. There's really no reason they shouldn't team up together. Remember, they already have Harlequins in both Eldar and Dark Eldar army lists.



And besides, Tyranids get no Allies, and no extra FoC, so I guess they are in a turn for the worse.

They get an extra FOC @ 2000 pts, same as everybody else.

Charistoph
16-08-2012, 21:15
And besides, Tyranids get no Allies, and no extra FoC, so I guess they are in a turn for the worse.

Read that part again. No one is excluded.


Allies work really well at 1000-1500 points. Higher than that, they start getting easy to abuse, as has been demonstrated.

We're currently doing a slow-growth league at 1250 points, and I am really enjoying my CSM+IG army. Are the IG filling in some holes? You bet. But all allies do are exacerbate the balance problems that already exist; the problem is not really allies per se.

A point I alluded to earlier, though, you definitely said it better here. And in most cases, the units that people are scared of will be spammed in the Primary Detachment, anyway, and aren't as dangerous as single units on the field. (Yes, there are exceptions, and those exceptions tend to be so costly that the Primary has a hard time spamming THEIR most dangerous units.)

Haravikk
16-08-2012, 23:09
They get an extra FOC @ 2000 pts, same as everybody else.
I think the point was that if an army chooses not to take allies (which Tyranids are forced to do) then they don't get anything in their place. At 2,000 points everyone can go pretty much crazy, but I think we're assuming allies as a secondary detachment here.
It's a fair enough complaint, as it might still be nice to grab an extra Elites choice, for example. The only thing really is the need to rule that you can't take more than one Unique character, or more than the normal limit on restricted (0-1 etc.) units and so-on.
It wouldn't be any more abusable as you'd still need to take a suitable HQ and Troops choice for the secondary detachment, and it needs its own transports, which makes its use for adding extra spam pretty limited.

Schismotive
17-08-2012, 04:57
I personally hate allies; ruins the game in my opinion. It betrays the fluff and the spirit of the game. I don't have the time or money to do it, and personally, I want to play my army! It's cool to see allies armies that are well done, and I don't really care if people do it or not

Thing that always bothered me were those stupid alliances... you know the ones.

rocdocta
17-08-2012, 05:59
Allies are just a way to get people to buy a couple of models that they otherwise wouldnt get. ie they have 2000 pts of marines. now they think hey some tanks would be nice so go out and buy 500 pts of IG. if everyone spends $50 on models that they otherwise wouldnt have gotten its a big cash prize for GW. Its not about making the game any better for the player. Thats what i hate about allies.

sean_scanlon2000
17-08-2012, 06:43
seriously??? yes there are some complaints about the allies chart that can be justified but they do not out weight the benefits that allise bring with them... im sorry if i wish to start a new army allies are the perfect way to do it. sorry i dont haev the time or the money to drop into a new army every time i fancy one. but with allies i can try other books and work in other units and atleast to start an additional army. perhaps i will try tau and not hate them as i do now after using a few of their units. or i will not have a loathing for pansy eldar after i use some of their units as welll. honestly all this complaining and people forget that the points to have fun. if you wanna play with an abusive problem people wont play you. if you wanna play with a fluffy combo then possibly some one will get a kick out of it. its all up to who you play with and what their intentions are. if you don't want hyper competetive then don't go to tournaments... honestly people forget that tournaments are inheriantly competetive... thats their function to find the bset they are not for casual pick up gamers.

Vaktathi
17-08-2012, 06:54
Again, there are major issues of implementation and execution. These armies were never intended nor designed to operate with other forces or have certain capabilities, and not all armies can utilize allies as effectively as others. Some have few allies and no Battle Brothers, others have no allies, while yet others have half a dozen Battle Brothers and can ally with damn near anybody, and an army including allies has more FoC slots to play with than an army without allies (e.g. an army with Allies can bring 4 Heavy Support choices to the table while their opponent without allies can only bring 3). Even assuming the armies were designed with allies in mind, the additional free FoC slots and the highly variable access and quality of allies does give many factions some very real advantages over others.

These aren't just concerns of Tournament circles, this makes a very real difference in pickup games as well, as nobody likes to be steamrolled. What's being passed off by some as "no big deal" now would have been instantly turned down by the same people most likely in even a friendly game in previous editions had someone come up and asked "hey, this is a friendly game, mind if I take units from a different codex and take more FoC slots than you? Oh, you want to also? Allright but you can't take it from the book you want and your guys don't operate together as well"

Schismotive
17-08-2012, 08:51
The allies system is also being applied to codices not even meant for 5th ed rules, let alone 6th ed... I would rather see some updated armies instead of typo ridden half-assed FAQ updates, along with a half-assed allies chart that doesn't even make sense. Some armies get shafted (namely tyranids) by not getting any allies, and others get stupid good combos that make playing other armies pointless.

Honestly, I would rather the system be more like one of these two ideas:
1. fairness-wise: all armies get relatively equal allied opportunities, OR
2. fluss-wise: all armies get significantly less allies, and only those that follow the story line.

Black_Cat
17-08-2012, 12:18
I'm an Ork player, and my Orks will not be taking any allies. The personal choice to ignore allies is still available. However, I do plan to play with my existing Deffskulls alongside my budding snakebite clan in 2000pts+games, which will be awesome.

I do not object to allies at all. I think any tool that allows people to field whatever force they want is a good one. The game is, after all, about having fun. I do agree with others the existing chart is too restrictive (or perhaps not restrictive enough), and seems bias towards the imperuim. But, I'm seeing that as a challenge. My Orks don't need help, they will WAAAGH happily by themselves.

However, will I find it displeasing to see some of the odder combinations? Probably, yes. When I play games I like to form a narrative, and if my opponent can't justify why they have taken the army combination they have other than 'I needed more fliers', It probably will be detrimental to my enjoyment. BUT I guess the real question is will this player be any less enjoyable to play against than they were before? Surely if they are a netlisting-powergamer allies hasn't changed that, its just allowed that person to be more experimental?

So, the question I'd like to answer is: Do allies make individuals more or less enjoyable to play against? In my opinion, the glee I see when people realise they can field chaos cultists, or imperial guard to support their space marines outnumbers those that that are looking for broken combinations. I think allies will allow people to be more creative, and make games less predictable. They also allow gamers to try out new armies with minimum investment, increasing that players enthusiasm (who doesn't love trying out new units!). And it is this boosted enthusiasm that, for me, makes allies okay.

PANZERBUNNY
17-08-2012, 12:42
Name a moment in any fluff or product where any living sentient creature ever allied with the Tyranids?

They even eat the Genestealer cults when the swarm gets to a planet.

They aren't capable to fight alongside others. It's not what they do.

I can see them opening up Genestealer cults as an ally if they eventually crank out some rules for them.

That should be enough to give them some humanoid shooty.

Charax
17-08-2012, 13:08
Name a moment in any fluff or product where any living sentient creature ever allied with the Tyranids?

Cortex leeches, Zoats, Genestealer Cults and the Kryptmann short story in WD130. All examples of other races fighting for/alongside the Tyranids

Theocracity
17-08-2012, 14:29
I'm an Ork player, and my Orks will not be taking any allies. The personal choice to ignore allies is still available. However, I do plan to play with my existing Deffskulls alongside my budding snakebite clan in 2000pts+games, which will be awesome.

I do not object to allies at all. I think any tool that allows people to field whatever force they want is a good one. The game is, after all, about having fun. I do agree with others the existing chart is too restrictive (or perhaps not restrictive enough), and seems bias towards the imperuim. But, I'm seeing that as a challenge. My Orks don't need help, they will WAAAGH happily by themselves.

However, will I find it displeasing to see some of the odder combinations? Probably, yes. When I play games I like to form a narrative, and if my opponent can't justify why they have taken the army combination they have other than 'I needed more fliers', It probably will be detrimental to my enjoyment. BUT I guess the real question is will this player be any less enjoyable to play against than they were before? Surely if they are a netlisting-powergamer allies hasn't changed that, its just allowed that person to be more experimental?

So, the question I'd like to answer is: Do allies make individuals more or less enjoyable to play against? In my opinion, the glee I see when people realise they can field chaos cultists, or imperial guard to support their space marines outnumbers those that that are looking for broken combinations. I think allies will allow people to be more creative, and make games less predictable. They also allow gamers to try out new armies with minimum investment, increasing that players enthusiasm (who doesn't love trying out new units!). And it is this boosted enthusiasm that, for me, makes allies okay.

I like the way you think.

I'm not going to use Allies immediately either - mostly because the armies I have don't mesh well and it wouldn't make sense for their fluff. But I like having the option to expand. I also have no problem with Allies for either fluffy or competitive players; both get more options, and anyone who would create annoying combos probably already did so with a single army so not much has changed.

Solonor
17-08-2012, 15:05
Again, there are major issues of implementation and execution. These armies were never intended nor designed to operate with other forces or have certain capabilities, and not all armies can utilize allies as effectively as others. Some have few allies and no Battle Brothers, others have no allies, while yet others have half a dozen Battle Brothers and can ally with damn near anybody, and an army including allies has more FoC slots to play with than an army without allies (e.g. an army with Allies can bring 4 Heavy Support choices to the table while their opponent without allies can only bring 3). Even assuming the armies were designed with allies in mind, the additional free FoC slots and the highly variable access and quality of allies does give many factions some very real advantages over others.

These aren't just concerns of Tournament circles, this makes a very real difference in pickup games as well, as nobody likes to be steamrolled. What's being passed off by some as "no big deal" now would have been instantly turned down by the same people most likely in even a friendly game in previous editions had someone come up and asked "hey, this is a friendly game, mind if I take units from a different codex and take more FoC slots than you? Oh, you want to also? Allright but you can't take it from the book you want and your guys don't operate together as well"

This is the real issue for me, could't have said it better, especially the last paragraph. i think nobody is arguing about the positive side of allies, you can make fluffy buids or alliances not possible before, can expand to a new army better, but 40k isn't a balanced system overall, there are units, armies, items that are clearly better. The true issue is that the Allies system makes the game even more unbalanced. I can only hope that this new system "forces" the future codex writers to think outside the army, since they have to take into account inter-allied army combinations and that in the end the Allies system contributes to an even more balanced game, for now it creates multiple possibilities for many unbalanced games.

arthurfallz
17-08-2012, 15:15
I love the idea, but I can clearly see where there will be room for some abuse. I've raged before about balance issues in Warhammer/40k, but after some reading and rebuttals, I've come to this conclusion: the game isn't balanced. But balance can be achieved by consensus. If you play with a fun, casual group, start working on agreements to change rules that don't suit the group. Offer up changes to make play more fun and fair. And work on it. The GW police won't show up to tell you that you're gaming wrong.

The tourney thing is another problem. I think tourney organizers need to take a careful look at army lists including allies and possibly give feedback. Or just warn people: it's Warhammer, nothing's changed, and allies means you have less clue about what you're fighting now.

But the allies system in a tourney could work if you stipulate "AoC or DA" only. No Battle Brothers means less compatibility. I don't know for certain, but I'm in the mind (or recent) when it comes to trying to critique GW products, working on solutions rather than bitter griping seems more productive.

Charistoph
17-08-2012, 15:18
The funny thing for me, is that my Chaos Marines warband was specifically designed with the concept of being allied/working with the Tau. And now I can.

Chapters Unwritten
17-08-2012, 16:36
I like the way you think.

I'm not going to use Allies immediately either - mostly because the armies I have don't mesh well and it wouldn't make sense for their fluff. But I like having the option to expand. I also have no problem with Allies for either fluffy or competitive players; both get more options, and anyone who would create annoying combos probably already did so with a single army so not much has changed.This is the reality of the situation. The list in the beginning of this post, as I already stated, is a BS GK list with some Wolves tacked on, it isn't even close to being a problem because of the allies involved. I personally don't find having an extra heavy/fast/elite slot available really a big benefit either; you have to pay an unpleasant premium in an HQ and Troop choice first, and for many ally combos the troops aren't even scoring. You can argue it's an unfair advantage but the only people who can make that argument are the nids; everyone else has this same option and, so long as they have at least ONE battle brother ally, pretty much have the same amount of leverage. More importantly, you can't make this argument unless you make the subsequent logical point that anyone using more of those slots than you has an unfair advantage.

owen matthew
17-08-2012, 16:37
Allies are just a way to get people to buy a couple of models that they otherwise wouldnt get. ie they have 2000 pts of marines. now they think hey some tanks would be nice so go out and buy 500 pts of IG. if everyone spends $50 on models that they otherwise wouldnt have gotten its a big cash prize for GW. Its not about making the game any better for the player. Thats what i hate about allies.

It is GW... I am surprised more people are not mentioning this. It seemed obvious to me in the first read through...

Konovalev
17-08-2012, 16:55
GW doesn't release allies: people whine about not being able to take marine detachments for their guard, dark eldar as mercenaries, daemons with chaos space marines etc
GW does release allies: people whine about being able to take marine detachments for their guard, dark eldar as mercenaries, daemons with chaos space marines etc

Good game whineseer. Truly GW can do nothing right eh?

t-tauri
17-08-2012, 17:11
Several posts removed. Please post in accordance with the posting guidelines.

Chapters Unwritten
17-08-2012, 17:31
GW doesn't release allies: people whine about not being able to take marine detachments for their guard, dark eldar as mercenaries, daemons with chaos space marines etc
GW does release allies: people whine about being able to take marine detachments for their guard, dark eldar as mercenaries, daemons with chaos space marines etc

Good game whineseer. Truly GW can do nothing right eh?How dare they! :)

I'm right there with you. Warseer and 40k players in general like to focus on hyperbolic extreme possibilities and don't really ever let the reality of social situation come into their figuring. There are a lot of things you can do in this game and many of them will ensure you eventually become that guy that no one wants to play. The game, socially at least, is self-policing. The math crowd doesn't get that. Never has.

Vaktathi
17-08-2012, 17:51
GW doesn't release allies: people whine about not being able to take marine detachments for their guard, dark eldar as mercenaries, daemons with chaos space marines etc
GW does release allies: people whine about being able to take marine detachments for their guard, dark eldar as mercenaries, daemons with chaos space marines etc

Good game whineseer. Truly GW can do nothing right eh?
The problem is their execution is done in an inherently flawed manner, as has already been described. The concept of allies in and of itself isn't terrible, but the execution was done in a manner that fundamentally is borked, for instance giving an army with allies access to more FoC slots than an army without allies (especially relevant in terms of heavy weapons availability).

TL;DR people aren't typically complaining about the existence of allies, it's the hamfisted execution.

Surgency
17-08-2012, 17:56
I personally hate allies; ruins the game in my opinion. It betrays the fluff and the spirit of the game.

I know, right? I mean, those Imperial Guard would NEVER ally with Tau... And those Eldar would never even think of helping out a Space Marine force.... /sarcasm

Theres a lot of stuff in the fluff "that would never happen," and they mostly involve forces helping each other out...

As for the spirit of the game? Thats such an elusive concept that you can't say what it actually is. For me, the spirit of the game is having fun. Guess what, I can now field units from 2 armies at the same time! How cool is that!

Still Standing
17-08-2012, 18:26
Yeah, breaking the spirit of the game.... So they removed the option to ally with Imperial Guard from Codex Witch Hunters in preparation for 6th Ed they clearly didn't intend for you to allying them together did they?

K11
17-08-2012, 18:28
I also think allies are awesome cant wait to try out new eldar allies for mech SM list has anyone got any suggestions?

Drasanil
17-08-2012, 18:32
I also think allies are awesome cant wait to try out new eldar allies for mech SM list has anyone got any suggestions?

Don't get a Farseer with runes of warding if you plan on using a Librarian. He'll have ~50% chance to melt his brains out of his ears every time he tries to use a power.

Still Standing
17-08-2012, 18:32
Are you after fun and fluffy or game winning?

For fun and fluffy you can try adding a couple of units of Rangers or a jet bike altarch with two units of guardian jet bikes.

For game winning... Stick with Marines or use Dark Eldar.

Vaktathi
17-08-2012, 18:46
Yeah, breaking the spirit of the game.... So they removed the option to ally with Imperial Guard from Codex Witch Hunters in preparation for 6th Ed they clearly didn't intend for you to allying them together did they?They removed it during 5E, same thing with daemonhunters when they turned it into Grey Knights, and omitted the allies rules from the PDF versions of the books they made available after removing the books from print and circulation several years ago. In large part because they became so abuseable with a book that wasn't designed with allies in mind (IG).

Still Standing
17-08-2012, 18:51
Seems more likely that they removed them be they knew that allies were being done properly with 6th Ed.

Konovalev
17-08-2012, 19:48
giving an army with allies access to more FoC slots than an army without allies (especially relevant in terms of heavy weapons availability)..

People say that but I've yet to see an example where it's actually advantageous to take allies in order to get more HQ/FA/Elite slot choices. Can you come up with any? That is, can you give me some example lists with maxed FoC choices that use allies to get more good units in extra FoC choices? Because I'm just not seeing it.

For example OP's list. I think that list would be stronger as pure GK or pure SW, allies weaken the list in that case. The hunters can't score, and the amount of vehicles and lack of hard troops are a huge vulnerability, the 5 man space marine squads are going to crumble and have a hard time holding an objective. And the grey hunters manning the aegis line is a downright waste of points. Again they can't score, so their only purpose is to fire the quad gun at aircraft, which not every armylist will have, and for those that do a single quad gun is not difficult to destroy.

All I see allies as are a way to add flavor to an army. I think anyone looking to min-max will skip allies entirely because of the required HQ and troop choices.

Chapters Unwritten
17-08-2012, 20:02
That's already been the case so far, from what I've seen. Almost no one in my area is "abusing" allies.

The idea that the whole game is not meant for allies is foolish, too. If anything, the reality that allies were being planned for a long time is becoming more apparent.

Still Standing
17-08-2012, 20:04
Ok, how about this list?

Celestine

2x 10 Battle Sisters w/ 2x Melta Guns

3x Exorcists

Commissar Lord

10 Veterans w/ 3x Plasma Guns

Vendetta

Leman Russ Demolisher

Oh look, allies making a Sisters of Battle list much stronger, AND using max HS slots.

Chapters Unwritten
17-08-2012, 20:56
That's both ignoring the fact that any standard IG, GK, or SW list with no allies and no extra FOC could shatter that list, and ignoring the fact that this isn't even close to the case all of the time with allies.

Vaktathi
17-08-2012, 21:04
People say that but I've yet to see an example where it's actually advantageous to take allies in order to get more HQ/FA/Elite slot choices. Can you come up with any? That is, can you give me some example lists with maxed FoC choices that use allies to get more good units in extra FoC choices? Because I'm just not seeing it. Any guard army utilizing it's full HS FoC (very common) and taking say, SW's for some psychic support/defense and counterattack potential and then adding in another long range heavy weapons unit, especially if they put the rest of their FoC slots primarily in blast weapon units? Or for an SW army allying with IG they take their full complement of long fang missile spam and then toss in some Hydras for AA defense they otherwise wouldn't have or a battery of Griffons for some anti-infantry ordnance assistance or a Medusa to make up for not being able to bring a Vindicator. That's just off the top of my head. Then of course there's the ability to pack in 8 scoring units compared to 6 for most armies as well.



For example OP's list. I think that list would be stronger as pure GK or pure SW, allies weaken the list in that case. The hunters can't score, and the amount of vehicles and lack of hard troops are a huge vulnerability, the 5 man space marine squads are going to crumble and have a hard time holding an objective. And the grey hunters manning the aegis line is a downright waste of points. Again they can't score, so their only purpose is to fire the quad gun at aircraft, which not every armylist will have, and for those that do a single quad gun is not difficult to destroy.
Wasn't paying much attention to the OP's list to be honest :p



All I see allies as are a way to add flavor to an army. I think anyone looking to min-max will skip allies entirely because of the required HQ and troop choices.Often times the additional HQ and Troops is exactly what many armies will want however. A min/max'd GK Henchmen shooty list will want some hardy Allies for scoring units and perhaps a killy HQ that'll be cheaper than a kitted GK HQ for example.

The allies list I'm building utilizes DKoK units to get an FNP bubble for plasma vet units while I toss in a couple extra scoring units where otherwise my Vets would have to spend less time shooting and more time taking objectives.

GodlessM
17-08-2012, 21:06
The whole allies thing, just upsets me.
Just check this list out and tell me that the inclusion of allies hasn't ruined the army collecting aspect of the hobby.

The list you posted was illegal, so not a very good point.


Now I gotta collect 2 armies and mash them together if I want to play in tournaments?

Says who? I'm not using any allies and so far no allied lists have taken podium at tournaments here.

Still Standing
17-08-2012, 21:06
That's both ignoring the fact that any standard IG, GK, or SW list with no allies and no extra FOC could shatter that list, and ignoring the fact that this isn't even close to the case all of the time with allies.

That's ignoring that fact that I have shattered standard GK and SW lists in tournament play with lists very similar to that. But that's besides the point.

Chapters Unwritten
17-08-2012, 21:27
I'm sure your anecdotal story is indicative of objective reality. How often could that have happened, anyway? Sixth has been out for what, a month and a half? I'm sure you crushed everyone due to your superior skill and list building and not because the game is still very new and we are still learning the ins and outs of its strategy.

Lord Inquisitor
17-08-2012, 21:31
That's already been the case so far, from what I've seen. Almost no one in my area is "abusing" allies.
I think we need to wait for the first few proper 6th ed GTs to happen before we can really say what the impact of allies will be in terms of min-maxing lists. There are so many combinations. I'm continuously being surprised by fun little combinations I hadn't thought of.


The idea that the whole game is not meant for allies is foolish, too. If anything, the reality that allies were being planned for a long time is becoming more apparent.
This seems likely. And, in fairness, a lot of the really stupid ally combinations were nixed by not being blood brothers or through errata amendments. Combinations with Colonel Straken, for example, were limited to IG units.

The problem is of course that plenty of the older books were not meant for allies. Certainly not the pre-5th books, probably not most of the 5th books until relatively recently. As always with any design change with GW, it's going to take the whole lifetime of the edition for even half the books to catch up, by which point times they are a-changing again...

Still Standing
17-08-2012, 22:01
I'm sure your anecdotal story is indicative of objective reality. How often could that have happened, anyway? Sixth has been out for what, a month and a half? I'm sure you crushed everyone due to your superior skill and list building and not because the game is still very new and we are still learning the ins and outs of its strategy.

If it makes you feel better, as it has made quite a few other people over the years, you can choose to believe that my Sisters win all of their games by me being "lucky".

Chapters Unwritten
18-08-2012, 16:02
It really has nothing to do with me needing to feel better; the game is still far too new for us to even judge what is a fixture of strategy, the way vehicles and melta were in 5th.

I applaud GW on this front; despite all this talk about allies ruling the day, I really only see people using allies who really want them. Same as any other strategy, honestly. We're at a very rare point in the game where there is not a hugely obvious win button. Some will argue that fliers obviously are that big obvious win button, but I personally find them to be brilliantly balanced, at least from the point of view of someone who plays an army without one; they are pretty potent, but bringing them down is very costly to the opponent in a lot of cases, it seems. Passengers get royally decimated, flyers themselves cause damage when they go down, they have limited movement unless they hover which makes them vulnerable...I think people look at the "you need 6s to hit flyers" and lose their minds and cry BS. In all honesty, while they are a very good choice, I have yet to feel totally helpless without one.

Vaktathi
18-08-2012, 21:51
Keep in mind that the design staff came right and and point blank said they didn't design 6th edition to be a balanced ruleset and that the sales dept has a hand in rules direction at the Design Studio Open Day Q&A. In many places people are noting a mass migration to flyers over ground vehicles (I think it's hard to argue that a flyer with a similar role to a ground vehicle of similar cost is not clearly superior)


I'll also note the only new flyer with transport capacity released after 5E hit it's mid-life point (i.e. after work on 6E rules began) doesn't have to worry about it's passengers being killed ;) Though that's really a discussion for another thread.