Allies taking the uniqueness out of armies?

[imperialpower]

After getting back into 40k it seems to me that people are just cherry-picking units to cover tactical gaps in their armies it was very obvious to me that it would happen and hey if you want a hard as nails army then go for it. I just get the impression that the individual traits of the seperate races that made them unique and made the player have to tacticly play better to overcome weaknesses is not realy there anymore, what do you think?

[Mr Mystery]

After getting back into 40k it seems to me that people are just cherry-picking units to cover tactical gaps in their armies it was very obvious to me that it would happen and hey if you want a hard as nails army then go for it. I just get the impression that the individual traits of the seperate races that made them unique and made the player have to tacticly play better to overcome weaknesses is not realy there anymore, what do you think?

It's inevitable some will pick for advantage, but I'm yet to see it. And it's not as if it's free points. To really cover your tactical deficiency, you'll be spending a good amount of points to do so, thus weakening the area your strength lies in.

[KrewL RaiN]

To me, this is GW maximizing their sales. More money = they dont care if the "uniqueness" of some armies goes away. Just slap together a fluffy allies matrix to justify it. It's like nerfbatting the Carnifex to sell more Trigons.

I like the allies thing just for hobby fun. There will be a lot of creativity coming out, like Guardsmen who work with Tau for the Greater Good. Said guard could be using Tau technology. Then you have crap that comes up like Epidermis killing allied Grots to max the tally. Always two sides of the coin with everything.

[ElectricPaladin]

That's true, but the Allies system also opens up some awesome possibilities. There are factions in the world of 40k that fight side by side, and now you can represent that all by yourself without needing to wait for the rare team game.

Can it be used to game the system and create mechanically awesome but logically improbably armies? Sure. But I can see one of those at the FLGS when some guy makes, say, a single Space Marine army that contains three quarters of all the Vindicators in existence, or a Blood Angels army composed almost entirely of Death Company marines, or whatever. As far as I know, no edition of 40k has ever really addressed that issue.

So, can this new system be abused? Yes. Is it any more exploitable than anything else in this game? No.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Mod powers ACTIVATE.
Double thread begone!

[Kyban]

It depends on how you look at uniqueness. I think it makes it more unique, there are now tons of different lists you can take. You can remove the weaknesses of some armies by complimenting them but that still doesn't make them amazing lists, some of the best lists can be ones that focus entirely on one aspect.

[Kyban]

Mod powers ACTIVATE.

It would be more helpful if you added why, did you move the thread? :confused:

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

He posted the same thread twice.

[KrewL RaiN]

Mod powers ACTIVATE.

Hax!


Blarg, noticed my first sentence in my last post sounded a bit bitter. My brain just isn't working right today lol. Guess my frustration with trying to get my armies up to 6th ed is slipping though ($$ wise, getting frustrated, even with my "corner cutting" with sculpting etc).

The thing that really jumped out with the allies system is Chaos Marines can take REAL Daemons and not those turds in their codex lol. Fluff wise, yes allies is awesome. Tactically, you can be sacrificing some things to try and hole up weaknesses. I don't think its super game changing, plus its too early to really say if it is.

[imperialpower]

Yes I agree fluff wise it's a good thing I'm currently converting some Orks into native vanguard for my praetorian guard army, I suppose it depends on the player I have always played for fun and some of my best games have been valliant defeats but some people just don't like to lose I suppose

[Rev. Tiberius Jackhammer]

As has been said before, very win-focused players will use it to make statistically superior armies, but I don't see why that's necessarily a bad thing. I'm in the fluff-focused camp, but different players like different things in this game, and I think Allies improved the game for all.

[da_WaaaghMaster]

I think everybody wins with the ally rules. Powergamers will be powergamers (Eldrad in every list), there's no controlling that. The rest of us that like to model, convert and make fun/fluffy lists get just as much use out of these rules. Powergamers usually stick to the tourney scene anyways, and I avoid that like the plague.

[fuzzbuket]

i like it like i liked the allies with the old GK.

i dont have to spend as much money and as a painter it means i can have lots of little armies :D (Wooo)


also am i the only one who think epidermus grots is actually quite fluffy? if some orks have a pact with daemons they better have a sacrifice: who better to sacrifice than grotz

[DarkLink]

It's inevitable some will pick for advantage, but I'm yet to see it. And it's not as if it's free points. To really cover your tactical deficiency, you'll be spending a good amount of points to do so, thus weakening the area your strength lies in.

I've seen it, but it's not nearly as bad as people have made it out to be. For example, the notorious idea of taking a Farseer and a handful of rangers just for Runes of Warding isn't actually all that potent. You're spending 300+pts for Runes of Warding, which is good but at that cost not that good, and since allies are actually enemy units Runes hits your own psykers as well. So for some armies, it's a cool little option, but far from game breaking.

There are one or two nasty combos you can do, but not really anything nastier than stuff that currently exists in the game.


On the other hand, you get cool stuff like Tau allied with Gks, with the Tau battlesuits converted to look like mini-Dreadknights and the Fire Warriors as Stormtroopers, making for a pretty awesome themed army.

[Black Hydra]

I think people have deviated a bit from the original post. It wasn't about WAAC so much as diluting the uniqueness of each army. As someone pointed out before, it could be that GW doesn't care about armies' unique aspects to sell more. But that really doesn't seem to be what they intended. After all now we can create properly themed armies.

I mostly agree with the unique aspect of army being sort of diluted. I really don't feel like running any allies with my Necrons even if they make my army better. I do want to play good enough to have engaging matches, but I chose the Necrons because I like them, and yes I admit it also because they won't get updated for a while so my money is secure on that end. But I really do like the models and lore. The fluff allows us to make any kind of Necron force. And allying at best seems to be out of convenience which is properly reflected in the allies chart.

So my point is, even if it is technically possible to ally Necrons with other armies, it just doesn't feel completely right to me. On the other hand I'd ally my CSM with Vraksian Renegades because it is fluffy and good.

It's about taste in the end. How much of your army you want to stay as one army or if you're competitive. It's not a bad thing at all, but I do think some armies don't need allies whatsoever.

[DarkLink]

It's not like you have to use allies. And as I mentioned, there's now a wealth of counts-as possibilities. Chaos cultists, GK Dreadknight army, etc. All allies does is add options, and that's not a bad thing.

[Black Hydra]

Well I'm not saying we have to use allies. I'm just saying that I won't use them with my Necrons because I want to play them for what they are. And I agree with the counts-as rule which I did mention in the previous post. Like I said it's all about preferences.

[eldargal]

I don't see how more combinations can be seen as making armies less unique. If I want to I can have an Imperial Guard force backed with Space Marines, like the background often has them. Or a combined radical Ordo Xenos and eldar strike force. Or Imperial Guard thath ave defected to the Tau Empire. Or Grey Knights allied with eldar to purge a daemonic incursion etc. All things I could not do before that are supported in the bakground to some degree and would be great fun for a narrative campaign.

[Black Hydra]

EG- you realize you just mentioned all the obvious choices right? Not that you're wrong. But I wanted to play Necrons for the Necrons. True I could make units counts-as while modeling them to look Necron-y but that doesn't always work. I don't know. It's not bad but I don't want "inferior beings" in my Necron army if you know what I mean. <- don't take that one too seriously folks, it's a reference.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

I wouldn't exactly see the Ordo Malleus and the Eldar as best of friends.... (not an obvious choice)

As for Necrons, yeah, I can't see them allying with anyone, everyone else is inferior.

EDIT:
As for me, allies means that I can buy mini armies, for example:
My Guardians of Celeres stand ready with the Cadian Helljumpers to cleanse the galaxy. :D

[eldargal]

Yes, that was my point.:) It's easy to just look at some of the choices in power gaming terms and condemn it as the hommogenisation of the game but the opposite is true, it is giving players more variety and the ability to explore aspects of the background which hitherto would be reliant on houserules. Which many people/clubs seem to object to.

EG- you realize you just mentioned all the obvious choices right? Not that you're wrong. But I wanted to play Necrons for the Necrons. True I could make units counts-as while modeling them to look Necron-y but that doesn't always work. I don't know. It's not bad but I don't want "inferior beings" in my Necron army if you know what I mean. <- don't take that one too seriously folks, it's a reference.

Ordo Malleus and eldar aren't exactly bosom buddies, but the GK codex mentions them co-operating in a small sense. After the GK cleansed the hulk of Malantai they contacted the eldar and had them retrieve soulstones so there would be no further daemonic incursions.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Ordo Malleus and eldar aren't exactly bosom buddies, but the GK codex mentions them co-operating in a small sense. After the GK cleansed the hulk of Malantai they contacted the eldar and had them retrieve soulstones so there would be no further daemonic incursions.

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwh! So cute and fluffy. :3

Bless them Grey Kuuuuuuuhhhhhhhh-nig-uts. (said like the French from Monty Python)

[eldargal]

Well it is quite fluffy really, the Ordo Malleus are there to fight Chaos, who knows more about Chaos than anyone? Eldar. The GK don't answer to anyone, they don't have to worry about some puritan Inquisitor having a hissy fit about them consorting with xenos.:)

[pauljc]

After getting back into 40k it seems to me that people are just cherry-picking units to cover tactical gaps in their armies it was very obvious to me that it would happen and hey if you want a hard as nails army then go for it. I just get the impression that the individual traits of the seperate races that made them unique and made the player have to tacticly play better to overcome weaknesses is not realy there anymore, what do you think?

I disagree. It is still here, but now people simply have more options. Fluff options, competitive options, or just sh*ts and giggles options. Nobody is forced to use Allies, or play against an allied force if they don't like it.

But more options are better.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

True enough.
Now I'm picturing a Farseer and a Librarian skipping through fields.

LCB2. xD

[Wildeybeast]

I don't see how more combinations can be seen as making armies less unique. If I want to I can have an Imperial Guard force backed with Space Marines, like the background often has them. Or a combined radical Ordo Xenos and eldar strike force. Or Imperial Guard thath ave defected to the Tau Empire. Or Grey Knights allied with eldar to purge a daemonic incursion etc. All things I could not do before that are supported in the bakground to some degree and would be great fun for a narrative campaign.

But you could do that anyway with counts as models. For example, I've kit bashed some IG troopers with Nids bitz box to make genestealer cultists. I just use them as Gaunts in my nids army, no need for IG allies (not that I can have, stupid unbalanced ally matrix). You could quite easily make some Guevesa auxillaries for Tau and just use fire warrior stats.

I personally do not like the ally matix. It is in there for solely commercial reasons, not gaming ones and as such does not belong. As already mentioned, the matrix is all kinds of stupid, based on fluff rather game balance (and incorrect fluff at that IMO).

And as to the OP, I feel it has the potential to break the game by making up for shortcomings in an army. It was exactly why they took Dogs of War out of fantasy in ages past, they created all sorts of beardy combinations. Anyone want some cannons for your high elves? Go right ahead. I'm not saying they necessarily do break the game, but they open up the potential for some really nasty stuff. I don't understand why they didn't just use the ally system from fantasy. (Actually I do -- money).

But these are just my thoughts, I can get why people are excited about lots of fluffy combos, so each to their own, but my gaming group won't be using them.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Oooooh. Grey Knights (mostly Inquisition) and the Red Hunters... That'd be a nice fluffy army.

Why do I keep coming back to Grey Knights....

*sigh*

[eldargal]

But counts-as isn't the same as each allied force bringing their own codices flavour to the overall army.:) I agree the Allies matrix could be better, but it is still a nice tool for letting people explore different facts of the background as I said. I love counts-as, but the allies system is nice because it lets you have, say, and eldar/radical inquisitor army that feels and plays like that, rather than simply playing like an eldar/imperium army.

Our group are actually making a new allies matrix to allow some of the impossible options under teh current one. Like tyranids allying with Guard for genestealer cults. The caveat is you have to model them such, not just throw in some immaculate Guard models and say they are genestealer cultists.

I also don't agree it was done only for commercial purposes, I think narrative gaming was a consideration as well. I'm sure the marketing department didn't object to it though.:)

[Wildeybeast]

But counts-as isn't the same as each allied force bringing their own codices flavour to the overall army.:) I agree the Allies matrix could be better, but it is still a nice tool for letting people explore different facts of the background as I said. I love counts-as, but the allies system is nice because it lets you have, say, and eldar/radical inquisitor army that feels and plays like that, rather than simply playing like an eldar/imperium army.

Our group are actually making a new allies matrix to allow some of the impossible options under teh current one. Like tyranids allying with Guard for genestealer cults. The caveat is you have to model them such, not just throw in some immaculate Guard models and say they are genestealer cultists.

I also don't agree it was done only for commercial purposes, I think narrative gaming was a consideration as well. I'm sure the marketing department didn't object to it though.:)

Your idea shows just how stupid the ally matrix is. GW could have said Nids can ally with anyone other than Chaos and Necrons because the the cult thing will work on pretty much any organic race (though you would hope the likes of Marines and Eldar would notice an infestation).

I can't help but be sceptical about the motivations of the ally system. The terrain options were obviously included because they had made all this lovely terrain that many people don't buy because they don't want to pay £50 quid for a model that does nothing other than sit there and look pretty. That was a purely commercial decision, nothing to do with narrative gaming, which makes me highly suspicious of the ally matrix

[eldargal]

I wouldn't go that far, I'd say the 'nid thing was certainly silly but also understandable to an extent. Most people see the allies matrix as literally being 'these races are best friends' so imagine the fuss if tyranids could ally? It's bad enough people not knowing the difference between Necrons and Blood Angels working together to avoid mutual annihilation and friendship.:rolleyes:

Again I think you're being a bit harsh. GW sales were quite good, the new rules will boost them but frankly that is only a good thing. I think half the rules/army complaints on many forums come about because of people not using enough tactics. Giving buildings a role in the game is also great for narrative gamers and something we already had in Planetstrike. I think the key thing is they have found a way to boost the options people have both in terms of tactics and narrative AND boost their sales. Nothing wrong with that. Don't forget we have xenos terrain rumour to be incoming too, if it took terrain rules to convince them they could people to buy it enough to warrant producing it so be it.

[Wildeybeast]

They could have put a couple of pages in explaining why these races would ally so the stupid people get it, they did it for 'why would Demonhunters fight non-demons'. :rolleyes:

I am excited about seeing some Xenos terrain, I must admit. Perhaps I am being harsh and overly cynical, but I just can't shake the feeling that commercial origins, rather than gaming ones, underly these additions. They took Dogs of War out because they broke the game and the Warhammer ally matrix is based on two people's playing together so why change it? But hey, if it works for other people, enjoy the allies, hte beuaty of the game is my group can choose not to use it if we wish while yours embrace and modify it to suit your gaming. :)

[eldargal]

Yes but how many people actually read those pages? Arguments about whether or not GK would fight non-daemons were prevalent on Arseer right up to when the latest GK book was released. Then they had other things to moan about.:rolleyes:

Well I'm sure commercial considerations were taken into account, but I think in general we got something that worked for everyone.

[Wildeybeast]

Yes but how many people actually read those pages? Arguments about whether or not GK would fight non-daemons were prevalent on Arseer right up to when the latest GK book was released. Then they had other things to moan about.:rolleyes:

Well I'm sure commercial considerations were taken into account, but I think in general we got something that worked for everyone.

Except Nids. :p

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Nids have no friends.
"Nobody likes you"

[eldargal]

True.:p But they haven't had a break since 2008, new pretty plastic kits not withstanding.

Except Nids. :p

[Wildeybeast]

Nids have no friends.
"Nobody likes you"

Friends, food, what's the difference?


True.:p But they haven't had a break since 2008, new pretty plastic kits not withstanding.

Good point, we should be used to it by now. Still, we're faring better than Eldar by all accounts. :D

[eldargal]

Well, for a 2006 codex intended for 4th edition they aren't doing too badly. ;)'nids have a book intended for 5th and they were quite sub-par. I'm glad 6th have boosted them a bit.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Friends, food, what's the difference?

Sounds like Zoidberg? :D

[Wildeybeast]

Sounds like Zoidberg? :D

Help friends, a guinea pig tricked me!

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Hahahaha!

Now I want orange Ymgarl Genestealers. :p

[Chumbalaya]

So let me get this straight, a for-profit company released a product that promotes other products in order to make sales?

Call the cops!

On topic, allies are a whole new mess of options for every army. Each Codex does its own thing, but now you can add in other elements to make your particular army even more unique.

[Kyban]

Except Nids. :p

Of course the most obvious allies would be IG and that could result in some extremely nasty lists so they probably chose to forgo it for balance reasons.

[Rev. Tiberius Jackhammer]

Necrons can have some fun/fluffy allies, even without much counts-as. They have a pretty big ruler-complex going on, would probably loveeee lording it over the lesser species within their domain. A PDF on a surrendered world, fighting alongside their Necron masters to drive off a Waaaaagh!, a Tau colony with unquestionable loyalty to the Overlord after its Ethereal was controlled with Mindshackle Scarabs.

Perhaps years after the PDF drove off the Waaaagh! curious Crypteks rounded up the Feral Orks and have been studying/raising them, eventually them to "dah biggest scraps!", the Orks following their "Tinbosses". Perhaps model a grumpy-looking Necron Overlord covered in the trophies and spoils his Orks have been nailing to him :P

[Kyban]

Necrons can have some fun/fluffy allies, even without much counts-as. They have a pretty big ruler-complex going on, would probably loveeee lording it over the lesser species within their domain. A PDF on a surrendered world, fighting alongside their Necron masters to drive off a Waaaaagh!, a Tau colony with unquestionable loyalty to the Overlord after its Ethereal was controlled with Mindshackle Scarabs.


Necrons are also experts at manipulation. They could have coerced other factions into fighting for them.

[imperialpower]

some good points maybe I am just a bit of a purest and prefer each army to have it's weak points to be overcome tacticly instead of just filling the void with another races units but I see the apeal of making your own fluff to say why a particular race has had to ally with another, each to there own

[Wildeybeast]

So let me get this straight, a for-profit company released a product that promotes other products in order to make sales?

Call the cops!

On topic, allies are a whole new mess of options for every army. Each Codex does its own thing, but now you can add in other elements to make your particular army even more unique.

I have no objections to them making a profit, my worry is when (if) the rules mechanics are being determined on a basis of how to maximise the sales of models rather than in terms of what will make a fun game to play.


Of course the most obvious allies would be IG and that could result in some extremely nasty lists so they probably chose to forgo it for balance reasons.

Because balance was clearly the key factor in determining the rest of the allies matrix. :rolleyes:

[The AKH]

some good points maybe I am just a bit of a purest and prefer each army to have it's weak points to be overcome tacticly instead of just filling the void with another races units but I see the apeal of making your own fluff to say why a particular race has had to ally with another, each to there own

40k is still more complex than Rock-Paper-Scissors - taking an allied contingent that covers up your main army's glaring weaknesses doesn't magically make those weaknesses invalid. At the end of the day, generalship and dice are still the deciding factors in any game.

[Filthspew]

At the end of the day, generalship and dice are still the deciding factors in any game.

Unfortunately not :)

If it was, then every game with equal points armies would be a fun, fair match that either side could win if they are roughly equally skilled players.

Sadly, that is not the case.

GW made a game that is so filled with imbalancing aspects, allies being just one of those, that it is necesary for us as players to make sure that everyones expectations for a game is met for everyone to have fun.

To create that situation, where dice and generalship is the main determining factor for the outcome of the game, we have to add or discard from the GW rules.

Heck, we even have to consider it in our listmaking.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

You say that... but me and my mate can make virtually any army list broken.

[Denzark]

It actually makes armies more unique. Surely? Because instead of IG on its own, it could now have what, IG and a combination of 5-6 allies? IG/SM IG/GK IG/Ork IG Tau IG/SW. So more variety not less, times that for all except nids.

But does it take the uniqueness out of what you will see on the table top? Possibly but only at gatherings of WAAC gamers.

I 100% agree though that the table is skewed. SM fighting with Tau? a Xenos scum? Tell that to the Red Scorpions. The table was over permissive.

[imperialpower]

[QUOTE=Denzark;230305]It actually makes armies more unique. Surely? Because instead of IG on its own, it could now have what, IG and a combination of 5-6 allies? IG/SM IG/GK IG/Ork IG Tau IG/SW. So more variety not less, times that for all except nids.QUOTE]

Maybe the word unique was the wrong description I was commenting more about the seperate strengths each army has so now a ranged army like Tau with a very weak assault abilty can ally with Eldar to fill that weakness in their force instead of drawing from their own units or deploying tactics to cope with the lack of assault ability the Tau have. That is what I meant by 'uniqueness' obviously an army would have more variety with allies not sure if that is realy making them unique more the opposite if there is more than one obvious advantage to fielding a particular army, but like I said I see the appeal of mixing armies and I am sure it will make for some good fluff behind army lists