Well Played, GW. Well Played.

[ElectricPaladin]

So, I'm looking at my Blood Angels collection and thinking about Allies. I'm thinking "I could get a couple of Chimeras, some IG grunts, some badass tank to sit back and shoot at things, and boom, there's an excellent fire support and objective holding section to my army, allowing me to focus on all the air-dropping Blood Angels stuff that I really enjoy."

I could do the same thing with my Tau, acquiring some Eldar stuff to support them (though I'm less likely to do this, as I don't think Eldar+Tau matchup adds to the Tau without just being better than them in the same way that the Imperial Guard adds excellent fire support to the melee-focused Blood Angels).

And then I realized that GW has me thinking about buying into another army. In a minor way - I'm not likely to focus on anything other than my Blood Angels and my Tau, ever - but in a way that will wring money from this stone, nevertheless.

Well played, good sirs. Well played.

[Kyban]

Yeah, I wanted to have a bunch of armies anyway...now I have justification! :p ...and no money!

[Black Hydra]

Yeah, I wanted to have a bunch of armies anyway...now I have justification! :p ...and no money!

Robbery! And now I have a justification! Of course I kid...maybe....

[Wolfshade]

Of course, it does have some advantages, us with larger armies and multiple collections can now mix and match things and even try out new armies without having to buy 1000pts worth :)

[Anggul]

I just find it funny that before GW printed a few pages saying: 'You can put these models down at the same time as you put these models down', hardly anyone would just ask their gaming group: 'Hey, we could ally things, that would be cool right?'

Although understandably, house rules make it harder to play with a random person you'd never met.

[Bean]

Yeah, that's the obvious marketing ploy for this edition. It's hell on balance (balance in games with allies--when either player is actually trying their best to win--is basically a pipe dream) but, all things considered, I actually like it better, as a marketing ploy, than fifth edition's "transports are way better now than they were in 4th!" approach.

[ElectricPaladin]

Yeah, that's the obvious marketing ploy for this edition. It's hell on balance (balance in games with allies--when either player is actually trying their best to win--is basically a pipe dream) but, all things considered, I actually like it better, as a marketing ploy, than fifth edition's "transports are way better now than they were in 4th!" approach.

That's part of what makes this ploy attractive to me. It's not blatant "you need this now." It's more an invitation to check out some other awesome stuff that could work alongside what I already have.

[Chris*ta]

Yeah, that's the obvious marketing ploy for this edition. It's hell on balance (balance in games with allies--when either player is actually trying their best to win--is basically a pipe dream) but, all things considered, I actually like it better, as a marketing ploy, than fifth edition's "transports are way better now than they were in 4th!" approach.

So, not a fan of the whole "you must buy one of these for every squad, and, even though there only as many points as two marines, they cost as much money as a whole squad of them" thing then?

I found it odd that WH40K suddenly became so vehicle-centric after seeing Rogue Trader and the one-vehicle-per-side-maybe period. Arguably the 5th ed thing was more realistic, if you assume that warfare 38,000 years in the future will be the same as it is now. (Obligatory Simpsons quote follows) And that would be nutty!

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

Best thing about allies for me is counts-as uses of them.

For my Enslavers, take for example the rumour of chaos cultists being able to be upgraded to plague-zombies - that would be perfect to ally with my Enslavers, I could counts-as the plague zombies as minions that have been enslaved and model them all with various tentacles and stuff growing out of them.

Another idea I had was a Chaos/Necron force - yep, you guessed it Chaos Androids!! I've been having ideas on how they would look over the past few years.

[the jeske]

That's part of what makes this ploy attractive to me. It's not blatant "you need this now." It's more an invitation to check out some other awesome stuff that could work alongside what I already have.
I have a problem with understanding here . If something makes your list better , then how isnt it "you need this now". why would someone not run a seer in tau/de. Or taken an extra libby in BA/SM army . Very few armies dont get better when run without them .necron , nids because they cant , orcs because of lack of synergy , GK because they already have everything and no battlebrothers so their own stuff is always better and that is more or less it.

[Mr Mystery]

I have a problem with understanding here . If something makes your list better , then how isnt it "you need this now". why would someone not run a seer in tau/de. Or taken an extra libby in BA/SM army . Very few armies dont get better when run without them .necron , nids because they cant , orcs because of lack of synergy , GK because they already have everything and no battlebrothers so their own stuff is always better and that is more or less it.

Which holds true, but only when the player seeks only a gaming advantage.

Me, I intend to add units to my Necrons from armies I have defeated where at least one enemy fell prey to mindshackle scarabs. I'll be picking my favourite unit from my opponents army in terms of visual appeal, rather than how well they compliment my Necrons (which are exceptional all rounds anyway!)

[Bean]

So, not a fan of the whole "you must buy one of these for every squad, and, even though there only as many points as two marines, they cost as much money as a whole squad of them" thing then?


Yeah, lol. Pretty much. I got lucky, actually: got all my Rhinos from one of those Battle company deals that came out with Apocalypse, which was pretty much 106 marines and nine free rhinos. So, I can't really complain, but yeah--it was a little irritating.

[Bean]

I have a problem with understanding here . If something makes your list better , then how isnt it "you need this now". why would someone not run a seer in tau/de. Or taken an extra libby in BA/SM army . Very few armies dont get better when run without them .necron , nids because they cant , orcs because of lack of synergy , GK because they already have everything and no battlebrothers so their own stuff is always better and that is more or less it.

You're not wrong, Jeske. The difference is where players draw the line that divides things they will do for an advantage and things they won't do for an advantage. When it comes to most players, I think that line lies somewhere between the "meching-up" that fifth essentially required and the "ridiculous ally combos" that this edition advocates.