Are allies a faux pas ?

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I would like to know how frater feel about the use of allies. Personally I really enjoy using them and think they can bring some tasty flavor to a list. The soup lists are the competitive lists such as IK and Lucky 32 but I see some really cool builds too.

[CaptainMarsh]

Allies can be lots of fun.

[Vykes]

I think that it's gonna depend on the composition and the environments.  Some forces lend themselves quite naturally to being fun and fluffy feeling allies (even if they are pretty hard, like knights and Deathwatch for Imperials, or Harlequins in Craftworld/Dark Eldar formations).  Depends how you play, what you play, where you play, who you play: 'tis a season as they say. 

 

Personally, I don't use allies too much but have always wanted too: a small Alpha Legion Effrit kill team, Skitarii exploration groups, an assassin, etc.  It's all well and cool, and it can be narrative and cinematic fun, too.  Seriously, a single knight striding through ruins surrounded by big squads of guardsmen or astartes for me is just awesome looking.  

[Kinstryfe]

Allies can be a ton of fun, and very flavorful, and unfortunately can also be terrible and abused. One of my guard armies I wanted to be different than my others, so they're heavily converted to show an admech influence and I try to run armigers instead of tanks. I justified some fluff reason like "they're from a marshy world", but it makes them look and play differently than my other guard without being (from what I've gathered) too abusive of allies rules. Similarly things like my Khornate Guard packing some Daemons when they're played as R&H doesn't seem to be too bad, and it's usually an enjoyable game. So I hope I'm not wrong and that some allies are fun.

 

Actually, almost all allies are fun except when they're the loyal 32 over and over and over. By the same token though, if someone shows up with 32 guardsmen converted up to match their other army, or even painted well to match I'm pretty happy with it. It's when is 32 ugly spray painted used models from the bargain bin that it tends to irk me.

[Aarik]

From what I've seen, allies are pretty common and it's expected that you will encounter them (if not use them yourself) in any casually competitive or more setting.

 

But I do think that it's underrated how much they contribute to the hobby side of things. As Kinstryfe said, they can be used to make flavorful, themed forces. But they also make collecting a lot easier/open. I can dabble in different armies to paint models that I think are cool without having to feel like I'm wasting my time and money because I can't use them in the game unless I have 1500+ points of that army painted up. I can paint us some Custodes to go with my space marines, or convert up a few squads of guardsman or paint some skitarii and use them to hold objectives and get CP. I can paint some Khorne berserkers and be able to slot them into a small WE attachment allied to my main Chaos army without having to commit to a whole separate WE army. Or do the same with all four flavors of daemons. I can paint up a knight, or some armigers, and dabble in that without having to commit to a whole army. It allows people to use their collections more easily.

 

And for this reason, I don't think allies will be going away or even getting more restricted any time soon. We have three (arguably four) AOS-style "grand alliances" that people can ally within: Imperium, Chaos, Eldar, and arguably now Tyranids with GSC. And I would not be surprised to see efforts made to expand some of the remaining factions. For example, Tau with an expanded Kroot codex, or with new allied races. I don't have a great idea about Orks or Necrons, though.

[MARK0SIAN]

I really like allies! I think they add a good l, extra dimension to the game as well as being fun and fluffy. As others have said, the conversion side of things is great, I’ve really enjoyed converting some skitarri to make a mechanicum influenced Guard Regiment to go with other mechanicum forces.

 

Allies are also the only realistic way to play some armies, particularly imperial ones.

 

The only problems that allies create could be easily solved by giving each army the same access to CP.

[Trevak Dal]

I think the Guard should go back to being the Ally almost everybody could battle brother with. If everybody can loyal 32, it's less of an issue.

 

That said...the root of the problem is command points, powerful strategems and cp generation. Armies like Grey Knights are outnumbered and outgunned in models ability and in command point abilities.

 

I think allies can add uniqueness to an army build, but if you are going try hard all the lists end up looking the same (loyal 32 + the :cuss you really want to play)

 

I think dark eldar should be 'chaos' eldar and alignable with chaos daemons and marines. They aren't so GW is continuing to save me money by not giving me rules for what I want to play or do.

[Cryptix]

I think the Guard should go back to being the Ally almost everybody could battle brother with. If everybody can loyal 32, it's less of an issue.

 

That said...the root of the problem is command points, powerful strategems and cp generation. Armies like Grey Knights are outnumbered and outgunned in models ability and in command point abilities.

 

I think allies can add uniqueness to an army build, but if you are going try hard all the lists end up looking the same (loyal 32 + the you really want to play)

 

I think dark eldar should be 'chaos' eldar and alignable with chaos daemons and marines. They aren't so GW is continuing to save me money by not giving me rules for what I want to play or do.

It would help if Renegades and Heretics weren't so  garbage. Like, who had the bright idea of making their army wide trait tied to the warlord? Did they actually sit down and think this was okay?!!

[DuskRaider]

I love the idea of allies... but I believe they should make sense. Obviously most Chaos should ally with Chaos, Imperium with Imperium, etc... but there's exceptions of Legions or Chapters or what have you that despise one another or other races like Blood Axes allying with almost anyone, Kroot mercs (fingers crossed they get their own Index at least). Most of what I see (outside of my inner circle of fluff bunnies) is people attempting to just throw together whatever armies they can to beat the tar out of whoever is across the board from them. 

[sairence]

Allies are fine. They make sense and are a lof of fun to use. The only real issue arises from the CP-sharing. If GW would finally address this, everyone could go back to bringing allies for the flavour and their own merits, as opposed command points. As a Guard player it makes me salty that my army's main claim to fame is as a battery for the rest of the Imperium.

[Huggtand]

As many above I think allies are good both for the hobby and playing

 

For me the imperial soup-armies are trying to mimic what the other codices already have in them from the start. As a Chaos, Eldar, Tau, Necron, Orc, and Tyranid player I have access to: 

• Cheap chaff units like guardians, cultist or fire warriors (guard infantry)
• Elite “power amour” units like chaos marines, aspect warriors and tyranid warriors (standard marines)
• Tanks and flyers in all varieties
• Super heavies like wraith knights, riptides and gargants (Knights)

​All of the above in the same codex. It´s only for the imperium that GW have decided to split up the combined arms components in separate codices (I know the fluff reasons  and as a business standpoint they also can sell more as individual factions).

 

Now, I don´t put any evaluation how good the different components are, just that as an army composition the imperial soup is just the same as the standard codices for almost any other faction.

[Charlo]

Allies are awesome and lead to some of the best looking/ constructed armies I've ever seen!

 

But they also lead to things like the Loyal 32 and bunkers of Hellblasters & Azrael supporting Custodes and a Guard Gunline, so YMMV.

 

Imperials (and to an extent Chaos) are spoiled for choice, sure. But then again, you usually find the Xenos 'dexes are stronger anyway so perhaps it's swings and roundabouts.

 

The real issue with them is when you get choices that are SO points efficient it becomes (from a competitive stand point): "Why take anything else?"

 

Which is usually what the Loyal 32, Knights and some other bits are.

[Panzer]

I'd like allies a lot more if it wasn't always feeling like "Yeah I take those because it gives me a huge advantage I couldn't have with just my Marines" instead of "I take those because I think having regular humans and Marines fight side by side is awesome and serves to make my Marines look even better on the board."

I'm all for allies. Everybody should have them if they want to and be able to use them regularly in any way they want. I just don't like that having allies usually means your army automatically becomes that much better than without. Once Mono-list == Soup-list competetive wise I'll be happy but until then I just don't feel good taking some AM with my Marines outside of very specific narrative scenarios.

[autek mor]

from a game perspective, the current system is needed especially with the addition of formations. from a fluff perspective its very bad for obvious reasons. i liked some of the older systems like in 3rd-4th edition. they were more closer to how allies should actually function.

[Marshal Rohr]

The Forge world allied detachment system is the best way to do allies.

[Huggtand]

I'd like allies a lot more of it wasn't always feeling like "Yeah I take those because it gives me a huge advantage I couldn't have with just my Marines" instead of "I take those because I think having regular humans and Marines fight side by side is awesome and serves to make my Marines look even better on the board."

I'm all for allies. Everybody should have them if they want to and be able to use them regularly in any way they want. I just don't like that having allies usually means your army automatically becomes that much better than without. Once Mono-list == Soup-list competetive wise I'll be happy but until then I just don't feel good taking some AM with my Marines outside of very specific narrative scenarios.

 

I agree with both points but the latter set focus on the dilemma.

 

In a gaming perspective, the non Imperial codices are structurally not mono-list like, for example a marine list. For a fair comparison it would be like dividing up the Eldar aspect warriors, the guardians and the wraithknights in three different codices

[Panzer]

 

In a gaming perspective, the non Imperial codices are structurally not mono-list like, for example a marine list. It would be like dividing up the Eldar aspect warriors, the guardians and the wraithknights in three different codides

 

 

I disagree there. Allies weren't always a thing and the structure of the Codexes didn't change much, if at all, over the editions.

[WarriorFish]

Allied forces are great, let you do some cool themed lists to the lore (whether GW's, or your own). However the nature of it means that the rules need to be fairly tight to make sure it's not something that is too detrimental, or easily exploited.

 

That said I think it's very easy to spot what someone's intentions are, so you'll know the latter when you see it

[Huggtand]

 

 

In a gaming perspective, the non Imperial codices are structurally not mono-list like, for example a marine list. It would be like dividing up the Eldar aspect warriors, the guardians and the wraithknights in three different codides

 

 

I disagree there. Allies weren't always a thing and the structure of the Codexes didn't change much, if at all, over the editions.

 

 

 

I know (started playing -89 ) and back then it wasn´t that big of a problem because the factions where much more similar in structure (most due to fewer options )

 

For the record I don´t really mind that the imperial side is split up since it´s fits the fluff but I really don´t see the differense between someone that takes guards, marines and knights or someone that takes guardians, aspect warriors and wraithknights or a third that takes cultists, chaos marines and renegade knights. The only differense (in my opinion ) is that the eldar and chaos players have the luxury to have all of the options in the same codex.

[Panzer]

 

 

 

In a gaming perspective, the non Imperial codices are structurally not mono-list like, for example a marine list. It would be like dividing up the Eldar aspect warriors, the guardians and the wraithknights in three different codides

 

 

I disagree there. Allies weren't always a thing and the structure of the Codexes didn't change much, if at all, over the editions.

 

 

 

I know (started playing -89 ) and back then it wasn´t that big of a problem because the factions where much more similar in structure (most due to fewer options )

 

For the record I don´t really mind that the imperial side is split up since it´s fits the fluff but I really don´t see the differense between someone that takes guards, marines and knights or someone that takes guardians, aspect warriors and wraithknights or a third that takes cultists, chaos marines and renegade knights. The only differense (in my opinion ) is that the eldar and chaos players have the luxury to have all of the options in the same codex.

 

 

The difference is that Marines on their own are perfectly capable of filling any role on the battlefield without outsourcing it to another group that has nothing to do with their military except for fighting on the same side. At least if they were properly balanced that is. :P

[Huggtand]

I understand your point but marines has always been an elite strike force focusing on specialist ops . They have never been intended to fulfill all roles (at least in 40k) like mass infantry gunline or super heavy support. 

 

And when the focus of the game shifted with start after second ed. from a skirmish between a couple a squads and a support vehicle or two a side to what we have today, with 100 models a side and super heavies like knights, I think the Marines was always going to suffer without their imperial allies.

[DBadger]

If you can fluff it I encourage it. But you gotta fluff it. And not just one line, I wanna read a whole campaign book explaining why your ad mech have kroot.

[Panzer]

If you can fluff it I encourage it. But you gotta fluff it. And not just one line, I wanna read a whole campaign book explaining why your ad mech have kroot.

 

That's not the kind of allies we're talking about lol

[Marshal Rohr]

Kroot in a mechanicus army would be one of the easiest allied justifications.

[PeteySödes]

For me I'm just super torn and seem crazy when i talk about it.

 

Love:

That we can make neato fluff armies like proper 3.5 Word Bearers with CSM and Deamons, Weird Eldar corsair pirate type armies with eldar/dark eldar.

 

Hate:

The balance issues it creates where it becomes a BAD idea for me to run a fully monodex Astartes army. Also not a fan of the stark division in the player base over it. I'm old enough to remember when even in the tournament scene WAAC players were really frowned upon. Now its easier than ever to basically netlist something and you have a larger portion of the community saying "yea ok" and generally the same people upset that its ok.

 

I don't want allies to go away, nor do i believe they ever will, but i do think they need to find a new approach to how its balance. I don't think its impossible.