NagoyaHammer.com

Been thinking that in the light of the new rules I might want to break my GW boycott and buy some marines is only to use the nice puppet wars alternate techno-samurai or horus heads. I´m still trying to decide if I want devastators or terminators with many Gatling guns instead of the puny stormbolters. But 1 SM boss plus 1 scout squad plus 1 5 man squad with triple Hvy bolter comes to a whooping 340ps worth of allies.

Are allies an optional rule or part of the basic rules (my brother insists they are opponent consent only) What do you thing about allies in next NagoyaHammer? Taking them will make me a horrible WAAC monster, do you plan to take allies at all?

M.

PS: What´s the length of the Aegis line, I´m totally making my own trenches for my trenchers!

Allies are a standard part of the game. Due to the minimum cost of extra units, we may not see very much use of them, but you will be able to take them at NagoyaHammer. I dont think they are that cheesey as the most broken combos have already been FAQd. (Melta Vet IG plus Vulkan for example).

The Aegis is about 24" or so for what you can use in one fortification slot.

Yes to allies, this one of the main pulls for me for 6th. Something I've wanted to do in 40k and fantasy for a long time but it was frowned upon. Fantasy rules used to have dogs of war units for allies too back in 6th edition. There were some cool units around.

a resounding yes from me. Allies taken for fluffy reasons are always welcome.

allies taken for non fluffy reasons reeks of douchebaggery.

Fluffy alies yes. But not for power. There is room for a lot of abuce.

I`m still firmly in the "Allies are NG" camp. My local wargaming group has already started using them. It`s obvious we will never see Marines with supporting IG heavy weapons and tanks again (or IG armies without some good Marine assaulting units). ALL armies will now be Allies ("Alliances"). There is simply no reason to ever play an army without allies (unless you were unlucky enough to choose Tyranids as your favorite army).

There used to be some uniqueness to each army in GW armies. That is: if you played Tau, you specialized in superior long ranged firepower and tried to avoid close combat - that was the Tau play-style. Not any more. No armies will have weaknesses or really anything to differentiate themselves. It`s almost like GW thought, "Balancing armies is so difficult...especially after IG, Space Wolves, and Gray Knights...oh well, F*@# it! Everyone can use anything! That`ll make things balanced!" Or as I read on another forum: if you think Long Fangs are too powerfull/undercosted, don`t complain! Buy a box and add them to your army!

And this idea of "allies are fluffy as long as you avoid teh cheezy combos" is hardly going to keep things from getting out of hand. As I stated the first day I heard about the allies rule, I have lot of Tzeentch Chaos Marines (including Termies) and Tzeentch Daemons...so what could be more fluffy than including Fateweaver and lots of Chaos Marines with the mark of Tzeentch? That is certainly more fluffy than Marine Terminators teaming up with lowly Guardsmen.

I think allies (unchecked or unammended) could break 40K. We shall see...

Danguinius

Oh,why so bleak?

Lower points games like the conventional 1500 points shouldnt be all that bad.

I think the xenos ought to have had more battle brother allies, or some something to off set the fact that imperial forces get so many battle brothers.

And tyranids should have had someone to buddy with. Maybe they are due something awesome soon ?

@The Big American: Wah, wha, wah, wah, wah

Seriously big guy, I don't think Allies will be that much of a problem and I don't see that they (at least the un-fluffy combos) will be seen that often , at least around here. You guys down in Chugoku, well that's a different story.

Folks also seem to be disregarding the fact that you still have to take at least an HQ and one troops choice from your allies before you get to those tasty elites, heavies etc. They don't come for free either. I could run some Marines etc with my Eldar but at 1750pts I would have to work hard to get anything 'good' in there. For example, even a 'naked' Wolf Guard Battle leader and 5x Grey Hunters = 125pts. Quite frankly, I'd rather have 5x Pathfinders or a Fire Prism. And that's before I add the 'scary' Long Fangs.

jus wrote:I think the xenos ought to have had more battle brother allies, or some something to off set the fact that imperial forces get so many battle brothers.

And tyranids should have had someone to buddy with. Maybe they are due something awesome soon ?

I guess it is because the allies thing isn't there to balance the game in that way. If you look at the game there are 16 armies (based on codices) but there are only 7 factions. (Imperial, Chaos, Eldar, Tau, Orks, Nids and Crons). So faction members can buddy up like CSM and Daemons, but cross faction support is harder to get.
And Nids having no allies IS in fitting with the fluff. Any potential partners they had would be dissolved, digested and used to breed more bugs.

@Danguinius - The more you talk about your group the more I think you should join a different group.

This is one of the few (perhaps even the only) areas where I agree with GWs attitude completely. In essence, 40k is not a competitive game, at least not in the sense of both sides having an equal shot at winning. The competitive scene which has grown around the game is an offshoot of the game, not the reason for the game's existence. It very much seems that the GW writers see the game as a way to "see what happens if some eldar and some marines get in a fight", not "prove I'm a better tactician than you." Thus, the allies rules were put in to allow greater variation in game scenario, not to allow players to shore up holes in their armies. If all the players around you are using it as an excuse to cheese out their lists, it doesn't mean the rules should be changed, it means the players are playing it wrong.