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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

*facepalm*

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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


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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

So what combos are dirty?

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

That is more a Psyker thing than a ally thing.

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

I both like it and hate it.

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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