Friday Poll on Allies. Where do you stand?

I think this will only turn into a flame war of epic scale. I am popping popcorn right now.

Allies like any other advantage goes back to the same core issue. People (particularly in a competitive setting with prestigious and prizes on the line) are going to take strong options. I don't see any complaints of people allying in Sisters of Battle with Ad mech. It's a few units from a few factions that create the soup issue and most of those have more to do with CP than anything else.

I want to be a force with allies in it to be equally powerful to a force without allies.

There is no option for that.

 Jidmah wrote:
I want to be a force with allies in it to be equally powerful to a force without allies.

There is no option for that.

I think it's this option:
"Allies should be allowed in all play, but nerfed so as to present little if any benefit in all play"
It's just worded oddly.

-

 Galef wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I want to be a force with allies in it to be equally powerful to a force without allies.

There is no option for that.

I think it's this option:
"Allies should be allowed in all play, but nerfed so as to present little if any benefit in all play"
It's just worded oddly.

-

Allies are something I think 7th handled better than 8th because of the way army organization works now. In 7th if I took a bunch of guardsmen with my marines, all I got was a bunch of guardsmen with my marines. Now if I take guard or other cheaper allies, I get a ton of CP to make the rest of my army better in addition to getting the units I took. That's the core problem right now.

One of the core problems the game has at this point is that there's this idea that certain elements of the game should be intentionally overpriced for what they do, because "that faction is supposed to be bad at that."

As an example here: Ork shooting focused units like Flash Gitz and Deffcoptas. Tau melee support through Kroot allies. Non-infiltrated Genestealer Cult units like their Leman Russes and Transports.

It is one thing when an army simply lacks a given thing - say, Psykers, or heavy elite melee units in the Tau, or transports for the Admech. It creates a system where allies will always be the best however when the logic is "well, Custodes are an Elite Melee Army, so we'll make sure their Elite Melee are better FOR THEIR POINTS than the elite melee options available in the Guard."

No problem with allies here. Would be odd to see alliances between CSM and their Daemons banned. Or between Harlequins and other Eldar. Or within the Imperium.
I wouldn't be opposed to some kind of CP restriction for the respective detachment.

By far the best way to remove Allie bonuses would be to remove CPs from detachments all together.
Have Battle Forged give 3CPs per 500pts of an army limit. S 2000pt games, everyone would start with 12CPs.
WL traits and abilities that generate further CPs have already been addressed by the latest FAQ.

Done.

Allies need to change, there has to be costs to allies.

I voted and it seems to be the majority but doesn't quite reflect my actual view, which is that allies should be an option but not the only sensible option.

I'd like there to be an opportunity cost for taking an allied detachment - so the decision is...

Take a tiny amount of allies with a tiny (or no) penalty (ala Age of Sigmar)

Take a medium-large amount of allies and have a medium-large penalty.

I guess you could call that a "nerf" but for me it's the wrong language to use.

One thing to consider is that certain factions were clearly designed at this point to not be full stand alone armies. Even when they had a codex, Inqusition and assassins as a quick example are clearly never going to be fielded alone.

Having allied forces in abstract is cool...but...

They need to have drawbacks, being able to cherrypick the best units for each role from multiple armies, interacting in synergistic ways that dramatically increase an armies power beyond what any mono-army could offer, is a serious gameplay and balance issue.

The allies system is broken and needs major toning down. Allied forces should not be able to share CP's, if anything they should be treated as aux detachments and reduce CP's (harder to coordinate disparate forces with their own logistics and command structures).

The fact that Soup dominates, regardless of Imperial/Xenos/Chaos, speaks volumes.

 Galef wrote:
By far the best way to remove Allie bonuses would be to remove CPs from detachments all together.
Have Battle Forged give 3CPs per 500pts of an army limit. S 2000pt games, everyone would start with 12CPs.
WL traits and abilities that generate further CPs have already been addressed by the latest FAQ.

Done.

CP is not the only benefit from allies. Being able to mitigate weaknesses of your army is a major benefit that makes any army with allies superior to any army without. Unless you buff orks, tau or necrons to the level of an imperial, chaos or eldar allied army, at which point someone playing a mono-army from of those ally-armies will be unable to defeat one of the factions which cannot ally.

An Imperium mono-army must be just as powerful as a knight-blood angel-custodes alliance, to archive that you need to have a drawback to allies.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Allies need to change, there has to be costs to allies.

There definitely should NOT be a cost to bring Allies, but they also should be giving out such blatant bonuses either.
Mono-Factions lists should be just as powerful as Soup.

 Jidmah wrote:

CP is not the only benefit from allies. Being able to mitigate weaknesses of your army is a major benefit that makes any army with allies superior to any army without. Unless you buff orks, tau or necrons to the level of an imperial, chaos or eldar allied army, at which point someone playing a mono-army from of those ally-armies will be unable to defeat one of the factions which cannot ally.

This has always been the issue with Allies since they were introduced in 5th ed (6th ed?) I can't remember anymore.

-

 Galef wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Allies need to change, there has to be costs to allies.

There definitely should NOT be a cost to bring Allies, but they also should be giving out such blatant bonuses either.
Mono-Factions lists should be just as powerful as Soup.

-

Other games have sufficiently proven that allies without drawbacks are strictly superior to armies not taking allies. There is no need to go through all the mistakes to learn those lessons again.

 Galef wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Allies need to change, there has to be costs to allies.

There definitely should NOT be a cost to bring Allies, but they also should be giving out such blatant bonuses either.
Mono-Factions lists should be just as powerful as Soup.
-

How would you make mon-faction as powerful as soup without introducing any sort of cost to taking allies?

I don't understand your viewpoint here, or what you think that would look like.

I think what I am miscommunicating is that to me, cost = you pay something, which I disagree should happen
If you all mean cost = less bonuses, then yeah, I'm down.

There are several ways we could so this:
"Allied" detachments give no CPs. You can define "Allied" as those detachments that do not share a non-Battle Bro keyword with your Warlord.
Those detachments still have access to their own Stratagems, but as they lack a "commander", they gain "command" points. Any HQs for those Factions have given up their command to your Warlord.

Or Battle Forged lists that share at least 1 non-Battle Brother keyword for all units in all detachment receive a good deal MORE CPs than lists that do not.

The list can go on, there are so many potential fixes and GW seems to refuse to acknowledge any of them
The Warhammer Community article that accompanied the latest FAQ even said "Soup is still off the menu" which we all know far from true.

-

 Galef wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Allies need to change, there has to be costs to allies.

There definitely should NOT be a cost to bring Allies, but they also should be giving out such blatant bonuses either.
Mono-Factions lists should be just as powerful as Soup.

 Jidmah wrote:

CP is not the only benefit from allies. Being able to mitigate weaknesses of your army is a major benefit that makes any army with allies superior to any army without. Unless you buff orks, tau or necrons to the level of an imperial, chaos or eldar allied army, at which point someone playing a mono-army from of those ally-armies will be unable to defeat one of the factions which cannot ally.

This has always been the issue with Allies since they were introduced in 5th ed (6th ed?) I can't remember anymore.

-

You have been able to take allies sense second edition. But they in general were pretty careful that they didn't do much for you, making them pretty rare in 2nd-4th iirc.

I am going to go ahead and say this poll sucks, because it doesn't allow for the option of "allies should be left as is and monofaction armies should be given a bonus".

Allies are fine. They work exactly as intended and some armies are unplayable without them (Inquisition, Sisters of Silence, Assassins, and arguably GSC (who lack the big bugs of Nids for durability or long range shooting of Guard whom they can ally in to even be playable now that Cult Ambush can't happen until Turn 2). No, instead we should be looking at a bonus for mono-faction armies so that they get a bonus for their lack of diversity (likely something like +3 CP).

Weird poll - literally no option for 'I think they're fine as they are'.

I'd prefer them to stay as they are but to have a slight buff to mono-faction lists (perhaps a bonus 3 CP or similar).

Oh wow - ninjad by someone who has the same opinion and proposed the exact same fix haha.

 Galef wrote:
I think what I am miscommunicating is that to me, cost = you pay something, which I disagree should happen
If you all mean cost = less bonuses, then yeah, I'm down.

There are several ways we could so this:
"Allied" detachments give no CPs. You can define "Allied" as those detachments that do not share a non-Battle Bro keyword with your Warlord.
Those detachments still have access to their own Stratagems, but as they lack a "commander", they gain "command" points. Any HQs for those Factions have given up their command to your Warlord.

Or Battle Forged lists that share at least 1 non-Battle Brother keyword for all units in all detachment receive a good deal MORE CPs than lists that do not.

The list can go on, there are so many potential fixes and GW seems to refuse to acknowledge any of them
The Warhammer Community article that accompanied the latest FAQ even said "Soup is still off the menu" which we all know far from true.

-

Ah, I see.

So yeah, gaining 0 CP for an allied battalion and 5 CP for a same faction battalion is a cost in my book.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I am going to go ahead and say this poll sucks, because it doesn't allow for the option of "allies should be left as is and monofaction armies should be given a bonus".

Allies are fine. They work exactly as intended and some armies are unplayable without them (Inquisition, Sisters of Silence, Assassins, and arguably GSC (who lack the big bugs of Nids for durability or long range shooting of Guard whom they can ally in to even be playable now that Cult Ambush can't happen until Turn 2). No, instead we should be looking at a bonus for mono-faction armies so that they get a bonus for their lack of diversity (likely something like +3 CP).

I thought I had covered that option with the Allowed, but nerfed to give no benefit.

First option is silly as it's one that's literally impossible to do

Indeed. The best fix would be to give additional CPs to army lists that contain only units that share a non-Battle Brother keyword with your Warlord.

The "fluff" explanation for this is that your units are more efficient at taking orders from your WL as he would be you same sub-faction.

Maybe the BF CPs earned are ONLY earned for lists like this and they get +5CPs? So you can either take ALL BAs and get 5CPs + any your detachments bring, OR you could take a Guard Battalion to get 5CPs + any your BAs bring.

-

Double CP for all detachments that share all faction keywords with your Warlord?

tneva82 wrote:
First option is silly as it's one that's literally impossible to do

Yeah. GW has no success in removing things from games.

 Jidmah wrote:
Double CP for all detachments that share all faction keywords with your Warlord?

That's a good idea too! A really good idea, actually!
But I would bump Battalions back down to only 3CPs per pre-FAQ BRB with this change

-

 DoomMouse wrote:
Weird poll - literally no option for 'I think they're fine as they are'.

I'd prefer them to stay as they are but to have a slight buff to mono-faction lists (perhaps a bonus 3 CP or similar).

Oh wow - ninjad by someone who has the same opinion and proposed the exact same fix haha.

Great minds think alike?

Seriously though, I feel like allies aren't the problem now that the CP battery has lost it's rechargability when compared to how it was, I feel like it's that monofaction armies aren't given enough support to make them feel like they can compete with a mixed army. Plus when your only allies are other Septs, Hive Fleets, Dynasties or Clans from the same book it makes it hard to shore up holes in your army the same way (even if allies cost you some "toys" it tends to be a stronger list regardless), and free CP feels like the easiest and most straight forward buff you can give to make up for that. Otherwise we'd be looking at something like, an extra warlord (or an extra warlord trait on your warlord), a free relic, or some other options that I'm sure would end up being horribly abused.

 Galef wrote:
This has always been the issue with Allies since they were introduced in 5th ed (6th ed?) I can't remember anymore.

They were a general thing in 2nd edition, restricted to specific 'allied faction' books from 3rd to 5th, and then with 6e onwards you started to get taudar, etc.


There are a bunch of competing issues with allies that are going to screw someone over no matter which way GW goes - you have factions with no allies, factions who aren't particularly playable except as allies, factions that have been chopped up into several pieces, and others that get cherry picked in ways that either make them better out of their faction than as part of it or which cover some integral drawback of another faction.


Solutions like handing out CPs to mono factions just beat on the factions who can't play mono. GW need to expand or consolidate the outliers into credible stand-alones so that allies become a clear benefit for all rather than a necessity for some.

Reemule wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I am going to go ahead and say this poll sucks, because it doesn't allow for the option of "allies should be left as is and monofaction armies should be given a bonus".

Allies are fine. They work exactly as intended and some armies are unplayable without them (Inquisition, Sisters of Silence, Assassins, and arguably GSC (who lack the big bugs of Nids for durability or long range shooting of Guard whom they can ally in to even be playable now that Cult Ambush can't happen until Turn 2). No, instead we should be looking at a bonus for mono-faction armies so that they get a bonus for their lack of diversity (likely something like +3 CP).

I thought I had covered that option with the Allowed, but nerfed to give no benefit.

How is "leave them unchanged" and "nerf them to give you nothing" the same? No, leave allies alone now that we have CP batteries fixed and focus on buffing monofaction armies a bit instead. Not every change to the game has to be a nerf.

 Galef wrote:
I think what I am miscommunicating is that to me, cost = you pay something, which I disagree should happen
If you all mean cost = less bonuses, then yeah, I'm down.

There are several ways we could so this:
"Allied" detachments give no CPs. You can define "Allied" as those detachments that do not share a non-Battle Bro keyword with your Warlord.
Those detachments still have access to their own Stratagems, but as they lack a "commander", they gain "command" points. Any HQs for those Factions have given up their command to your Warlord.

Or Battle Forged lists that share at least 1 non-Battle Brother keyword for all units in all detachment receive a good deal MORE CPs than lists that do not.

The list can go on, there are so many potential fixes and GW seems to refuse to acknowledge any of them
The Warhammer Community article that accompanied the latest FAQ even said "Soup is still off the menu" which we all know far from true.

-

GW is still using the meaning of soup quite literally, as it was originally coined, and where it actually made sense.

The community sitting here arguing that Heretic Astartes with Daemons, or GSC with Nids is soup doesn't mean GW is wrong when they say soup detachments are gone.

Secondary to that - soup isn't a problem. IG funding unlimited BA/IK shenanigans is the problem.

I am of the persuasion that allies need to be opened up to all factions. It is nto an option here, but everybody but Tyranids used to be able to ally, now several books cannot ally at all. I have no issue with soup as long as everybody has some sort of helping. Orks have captured forgeworlds and guardsman and work as merc so should have the ability to work with pat the least guard, renegade/chaos marines etc. (anybody they can/have worked for). Tau have human helpers aka guard knights and mech, could hire orks though they dislike them. Necrons get blood angels obviously. craftworld and ynarri mqake sense as imperial allies. and the list goes on.

I liked the 7ed system more, on the basis that yes it was broken, but at least every one had some, if ever so restricted means of getting allies.

A.T. wrote:

 Galef wrote:
This has always been the issue with Allies since they were introduced in 5th ed (6th ed?) I can't remember anymore.

They were a general thing in 2nd edition, restricted to specific 'allied faction' books from 3rd to 5th, and then with 6e onwards you started to get taudar, etc.

I started in 4th, which only allowed units from your own Codex to be in your army. I kinda liked it from a competitive standpoint as I always knew what units X faction was likely to bring.

A.T. wrote:
Solutions like handing out CPs to mono factions just beat on the factions who can't play mono. GW need to expand or consolidate the outliers into credible stand-alones so that allies become a clear benefit for all rather than a necessity for some.

Definitely the "outliers" would need special exception, but off the top of my head, those are ONLY Imperium units. Releasing a single Codex: Agents of the Imperium for these units and give them a rule the excludes them from counting as the WL faction would fix this. Or give them all an AGENTS of the IMPERIUM keyword that they can share with a Warlord.

For Example, If we implement the change that detachments receive 2x CPs if they share at least 1 non-BB keyword with your WL, those units now act just like every other army with HQ, Elites, Troops, etc and have a single non-BB keyword to share.

-

Reemule wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
First option is silly as it's one that's literally impossible to do

Yeah. GW has no success in removing things from games.

What gw can do to remove allies from 2 player who want to use in game modes that are all about players agree what kind of game they want to play...nobody can remove anything from game modes that not just allow but encourage players to come up with new rules

A.T. wrote:

Solutions like handing out CPs to mono factions just beat on the factions who can't play mono. .

Wait, what factions can't play Mono?

Lemondish wrote:

 Galef wrote:
I think what I am miscommunicating is that to me, cost = you pay something, which I disagree should happen
If you all mean cost = less bonuses, then yeah, I'm down.

There are several ways we could so this:
"Allied" detachments give no CPs. You can define "Allied" as those detachments that do not share a non-Battle Bro keyword with your Warlord.
Those detachments still have access to their own Stratagems, but as they lack a "commander", they gain "command" points. Any HQs for those Factions have given up their command to your Warlord.

Or Battle Forged lists that share at least 1 non-Battle Brother keyword for all units in all detachment receive a good deal MORE CPs than lists that do not.

The list can go on, there are so many potential fixes and GW seems to refuse to acknowledge any of them
The Warhammer Community article that accompanied the latest FAQ even said "Soup is still off the menu" which we all know far from true.

-

GW is still using the meaning of soup quite literally, as it was originally coined, and where it actually made sense.

The community sitting here arguing that Heretic Astartes with Daemons, or GSC with Nids is soup doesn't mean GW is wrong when they say soup detachments are gone.

Secondary to that - soup isn't a problem. IG funding unlimited BA/IK shenanigans is the problem.

It -was- the problem. Now you get 1 maybe 2 turns of max support out of the same list, and if you go Guard/IK with most of the points in the Guard you're looking at around 4 turns but you lose your melee punch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
I am of the persuasion that allies need to be opened up to all factions. It is nto an option here, but everybody but Tyranids used to be able to ally, now several books cannot ally at all. I have no issue with soup as long as everybody has some sort of helping. Orks have captured forgeworlds and guardsman and work as merc so should have the ability to work with pat the least guard, renegade/chaos marines etc. (anybody they can/have worked for). Tau have human helpers aka guard knights and mech, could hire orks though they dislike them. Necrons get blood angels obviously. craftworld and ynarri mqake sense as imperial allies. and the list goes on.

Necrons worked with the BA one time, and it was more akin of someone contracting a pest exterminator than them becoming best buddies forever.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I am going to go ahead and say this poll sucks, because it doesn't allow for the option of "allies should be left as is and monofaction armies should be given a bonus".

Allies are fine. They work exactly as intended and some armies are unplayable without them (Inquisition, Sisters of Silence, Assassins, and arguably GSC (who lack the big bugs of Nids for durability or long range shooting of Guard whom they can ally in to even be playable now that Cult Ambush can't happen until Turn 2). No, instead we should be looking at a bonus for mono-faction armies so that they get a bonus for their lack of diversity (likely something like +3 CP).

I thought I had covered that option with the Allowed, but nerfed to give no benefit.

How is "leave them unchanged" and "nerf them to give you nothing" the same? No, leave allies alone now that we have CP batteries fixed and focus on buffing monofaction armies a bit instead. Not every change to the game has to be a nerf.

If thev give benefit then not to take allies would be stupid. You are at disadvantaged

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

 Galef wrote:
I think what I am miscommunicating is that to me, cost = you pay something, which I disagree should happen
If you all mean cost = less bonuses, then yeah, I'm down.

There are several ways we could so this:
"Allied" detachments give no CPs. You can define "Allied" as those detachments that do not share a non-Battle Bro keyword with your Warlord.
Those detachments still have access to their own Stratagems, but as they lack a "commander", they gain "command" points. Any HQs for those Factions have given up their command to your Warlord.

Or Battle Forged lists that share at least 1 non-Battle Brother keyword for all units in all detachment receive a good deal MORE CPs than lists that do not.

The list can go on, there are so many potential fixes and GW seems to refuse to acknowledge any of them
The Warhammer Community article that accompanied the latest FAQ even said "Soup is still off the menu" which we all know far from true.

-

GW is still using the meaning of soup quite literally, as it was originally coined, and where it actually made sense.

The community sitting here arguing that Heretic Astartes with Daemons, or GSC with Nids is soup doesn't mean GW is wrong when they say soup detachments are gone.

Secondary to that - soup isn't a problem. IG funding unlimited BA/IK shenanigans is the problem.

It -was- the problem. Now you get 1 maybe 2 turns of max support out of the same list, and if you go Guard/IK with most of the points in the Guard you're looking at around 4 turns but you lose your melee punch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
I am of the persuasion that allies need to be opened up to all factions. It is nto an option here, but everybody but Tyranids used to be able to ally, now several books cannot ally at all. I have no issue with soup as long as everybody has some sort of helping. Orks have captured forgeworlds and guardsman and work as merc so should have the ability to work with pat the least guard, renegade/chaos marines etc. (anybody they can/have worked for). Tau have human helpers aka guard knights and mech, could hire orks though they dislike them. Necrons get blood angels obviously. craftworld and ynarri mqake sense as imperial allies. and the list goes on.

Necrons worked with the BA one time, and it was more akin of someone contracting a pest exterminator than them becoming best buddies forever.

that was the joke

Reemule wrote:

A.T. wrote:

Solutions like handing out CPs to mono factions just beat on the factions who can't play mono. .

Wait, what factions can't play Mono?

Inquisition only has the FW Landraider if they play mono (making their transport rule useless), the new RT faction can only field that one detachment since they have named characters everywhere (including as their only HQ), and of course there are Assassins.

And that's not even getting into the armies that need allies to shore up problems right now, like the GSC.

 ClockworkZion wrote:


How is "leave them unchanged" and "nerf them to give you nothing" the same? No, leave allies alone now that we have CP batteries fixed and focus on buffing monofaction armies a bit instead. Not every change to the game has to be a nerf.

In the long run, is there much difference between:

1. I can take allies that give me no benefit over taking mono faction due to me getting bonuses for being mono faction.
2. I can take allies that give me no benefit over taking mono faction due to me getting no bonuses from taking those allies that I currently get like; CP, stratagems, and ability to do stuff I can't do now.

Lemondish wrote:

Secondary to that - soup isn't a problem. IG funding unlimited BA/IK shenanigans is the problem.

The fact that Allied armies of all kinds, be it Imperial, Xenos, or Chaos, is what reigns supreme in tournaments, with monolists making only very rare appearances at top tables, strongly suggests otherwise.

tneva82 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I am going to go ahead and say this poll sucks, because it doesn't allow for the option of "allies should be left as is and monofaction armies should be given a bonus".

Allies are fine. They work exactly as intended and some armies are unplayable without them (Inquisition, Sisters of Silence, Assassins, and arguably GSC (who lack the big bugs of Nids for durability or long range shooting of Guard whom they can ally in to even be playable now that Cult Ambush can't happen until Turn 2). No, instead we should be looking at a bonus for mono-faction armies so that they get a bonus for their lack of diversity (likely something like +3 CP).

I thought I had covered that option with the Allowed, but nerfed to give no benefit.

How is "leave them unchanged" and "nerf them to give you nothing" the same? No, leave allies alone now that we have CP batteries fixed and focus on buffing monofaction armies a bit instead. Not every change to the game has to be a nerf.

If thev give benefit then not to take allies would be stupid. You are at disadvantaged

Allies allow you to plug weaknesses in your faction, if not taking allies means trading that strength with extra resources (like CP) then it's a fair trade.

Actually I think we can get even more nuanced for the CP thing: +0 if you only share a single faction keyword, +2 if you share two, +3 if you share 3. You automatically get +3 if you only have one detachement.

So "the list" that we saw at Nova would get nothing but a Dark Angels and Space Wolves list would get 2 (Imperium, Astartes), while two detachments of Ultramarines would get +3 (Imperium, Astartes, Ultramarines).

Basically the more flexible you make your army the more it costs you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Reemule wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:


How is "leave them unchanged" and "nerf them to give you nothing" the same? No, leave allies alone now that we have CP batteries fixed and focus on buffing monofaction armies a bit instead. Not every change to the game has to be a nerf.

In the long run, is there much difference between:

1. I can take allies that give me no benefit over taking mono faction due to me getting bonuses for being mono faction.
2. I can take allies that give me no benefit over taking mono faction due to me getting no bonuses from taking those allies that I currently get like; CP, stratagems, and ability to do stuff I can't do now.

There is a massive difference between being given a bonus for going monofaction and being stripped of all your CP just because you dared to take an Assassin in your Marine army.

There needs to be some sort of drawback to taking allies over taking a mono army. Currently, the opposite is true, with allied armies getting extra benefits at no cost.

I think part of the issue might stem from the detachment system, in that allied units use the exact same detachments as non-allied units.

It would seem more sensible if allies were much more restricted in the detachments they were allowed to use - perhaps being limited to Patrols and Auxiliary Support Detachments (so that you can't just gain 5-12 CP by including some cheap IG allies).

In this scenario, your primary faction would be determined by your warlord and the following rules would apply:
- As above, secondary factions cannot be organised into any detachments except for Patrols and Auxiliary Support Detachments.
- You may only use rulebook stratagems and stratagems from your primary faction.

(The latter rule would prevent people getting around the first rule by declaring IG their primary detachment and then still using them as a battery for Knights or whatever.)

It would also stop Eldar from just allying in, for example, 3 Ravagers and an HQ with no troops. Now, getting 3 Ravagers would force them to either take a 2 units of troops and an extra HQ or else take 1 unit of troops and also lose a CP (by putting the 3rd Ravager in an ASD).

This would also prove an interesting experiment for IG in that we'd get to see whether tournament lists still take them as allies even when they don't generate any CPs.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Reemule wrote:

A.T. wrote:

Solutions like handing out CPs to mono factions just beat on the factions who can't play mono. .

Wait, what factions can't play Mono?

Inquisition only has the FW Landraider if they play mono (making their transport rule useless), the new RT faction can only field that one detachment since they have named characters everywhere (including as their only HQ), and of course there are Assassins.

And that's not even getting into the armies that need allies to shore up problems right now, like the GSC.

I'm dismissing your claim here. What you meant to say is I can't play some factions mono faction because you don't want to.

At this time each faction has the ability to field a detachment of some kind, allowing them to field as mono if truly desired. Now I would agree some of them aren't able to be of any use, and are just of no use in the game, but that wasn't the point, and it is nothing new.

Reemule wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Reemule wrote:

A.T. wrote:

Solutions like handing out CPs to mono factions just beat on the factions who can't play mono. .

Wait, what factions can't play Mono?

Inquisition only has the FW Landraider if they play mono (making their transport rule useless), the new RT faction can only field that one detachment since they have named characters everywhere (including as their only HQ), and of course there are Assassins.

And that's not even getting into the armies that need allies to shore up problems right now, like the GSC.

I'm dismissing your claim here. What you meant to say is I can't play some factions mono faction because you don't want to.

At this time each faction has the ability to field a detachment of some kind, allowing them to field as mono if truly desired. Now I would agree some of them aren't able to be of any use, and are just of no use in the game, but that wasn't the point, and it is nothing new.

Pre-"Battle Brothers" you could take transports from any codex in an Inquisition army without any issues. Now that soup in that sense is banned they lost their options unless they take allies. The Rogue Trader army is limited to a single detachment due to their only HQ being a character meaning you can't field a full army of them in large games, and I assume the Gellerpox are likely the same.

Even if you want to dismiss the first, the second and third are legitimate problems. And who the heck is running an all assassins or all Sisters of Silence army instead of taking those as allies?

Seriously, some factions need allies to even see games above 1k, some need allies because their army only works if you take them as part of something bigger, and then some need allies to shore up the giant holes in their lists made by FAQ changes. Just because you don't want to admit that there are armies screwed over by the idea of getting rid of allies more than their are armies that are actually buffed by it doesn't make my point invalid, it just makes you refusing to admit when you're wrong.

While formations ultimately proved to be a problem, alternative FOC and removing CP from army construction would solve a lot of ally issues. Right now you have a ton of factions (particularly on the IOM side) that don't work as stand alone armies and arguably never will for both fluff and crunch reasons. GW has done a very poor job this edition though of figuring out have to make those factions viable while also not having it to easy to soup your way to victory via unintended army interactions.

 vipoid wrote:
There needs to be some sort of drawback to taking allies over taking a mono army. Currently, the opposite is true, with allied armies getting extra benefits at no cost.

I think part of the issue might stem from the detachment system, in that allied units use the exact same detachments as non-allied units.
.

I would go as far as to say they should create an Allies detachment. You can't take it as a first detachment in the army. It can have 0-3 of HQ, Troop, Elite, FA, HS, Flyer,Dedicated Transport,LOW from any single other faction permitted to ally with your first detachment, and it gives you 1 CP to your CP total. You do not gain access to Allied detachment Stratagems.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

There is a massive difference between being given a bonus for going monofaction and being stripped of all your CP just because you dared to take an Assassin in your Marine army.

Things like Assassins shouldn't be treated as a distinct separate army, they should just be treated as a direct Elites slot plugin for Imperial armies, without having to deal with Allies mechanics.

Same thing with stuff like Harlequins, they should have just been included in Eldar/DE armies the way Stormtroopers were in the IG codex instead of being spun off into distinct separate armies.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

There is a massive difference between being given a bonus for going monofaction and being stripped of all your CP just because you dared to take an Assassin in your Marine army.

Things like Assassins shouldn't be treated as a distinct separate army, they should just be treated as a direct Elites slot plugin for Imperial armies, without having to deal with Allies mechanics.

Same thing with stuff like Harlequins, they should have just been included in Eldar/DE armies the way Stormtroopers were in the IG codex instead of being spun off into distinct separate armies.

And up until we got "Battle Brothers" and bonuses to armies that require them to be in a pure detachment that would have worked. As the rules work now they can't really be plugged in the same way.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Reemule wrote:

A.T. wrote:

Solutions like handing out CPs to mono factions just beat on the factions who can't play mono. .

Wait, what factions can't play Mono?

Inquisition only has the FW Landraider if they play mono (making their transport rule useless), the new RT faction can only field that one detachment since they have named characters everywhere (including as their only HQ), and of course there are Assassins.

And that's not even getting into the armies that need allies to shore up problems right now, like the GSC.

I'm dismissing your claim here. What you meant to say is I can't play some factions mono faction because you don't want to.

At this time each faction has the ability to field a detachment of some kind, allowing them to field as mono if truly desired. Now I would agree some of them aren't able to be of any use, and are just of no use in the game, but that wasn't the point, and it is nothing new.

Pre-"Battle Brothers" you could take transports from any codex in an Inquisition army without any issues. Now that soup in that sense is banned they lost their options unless they take allies. The Rogue Trader army is limited to a single detachment due to their only HQ being a character meaning you can't field a full army of them in large games, and I assume the Gellerpox are likely the same.

Even if you want to dismiss the first, the second and third are legitimate problems. And who the heck is running an all assassins or all Sisters of Silence army instead of taking those as allies?

Seriously, some factions need allies to even see games above 1k, some need allies because their army only works if you take them as part of something bigger, and then some need allies to shore up the giant holes in their lists made by FAQ changes. Just because you don't want to admit that there are armies screwed over by the idea of getting rid of allies more than their are armies that are actually buffed by it doesn't make my point invalid, it just makes you refusing to admit when you're wrong.

Your missing the point. You said there is factions that can't be fielded. That isn't true.

Does this open up some design space for GW to fill with new models for some of the holes in the line? It sure does. But that doesn't equate to you can't field X variable Faction Mono faction.

Reemule wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Reemule wrote:

A.T. wrote:

Solutions like handing out CPs to mono factions just beat on the factions who can't play mono. .

Wait, what factions can't play Mono?

Inquisition only has the FW Landraider if they play mono (making their transport rule useless), the new RT faction can only field that one detachment since they have named characters everywhere (including as their only HQ), and of course there are Assassins.

And that's not even getting into the armies that need allies to shore up problems right now, like the GSC.

I'm dismissing your claim here. What you meant to say is I can't play some factions mono faction because you don't want to.

At this time each faction has the ability to field a detachment of some kind, allowing them to field as mono if truly desired. Now I would agree some of them aren't able to be of any use, and are just of no use in the game, but that wasn't the point, and it is nothing new.

Pre-"Battle Brothers" you could take transports from any codex in an Inquisition army without any issues. Now that soup in that sense is banned they lost their options unless they take allies. The Rogue Trader army is limited to a single detachment due to their only HQ being a character meaning you can't field a full army of them in large games, and I assume the Gellerpox are likely the same.

Even if you want to dismiss the first, the second and third are legitimate problems. And who the heck is running an all assassins or all Sisters of Silence army instead of taking those as allies?

Seriously, some factions need allies to even see games above 1k, some need allies because their army only works if you take them as part of something bigger, and then some need allies to shore up the giant holes in their lists made by FAQ changes. Just because you don't want to admit that there are armies screwed over by the idea of getting rid of allies more than their are armies that are actually buffed by it doesn't make my point invalid, it just makes you refusing to admit when you're wrong.

Your missing the point. You said there is factions that can't be fielded. That isn't true.

Does this open up some design space for GW to fill with new models for some of the holes in the line? It sure does. But that doesn't equate to you can't field X variable Faction Mono faction.

If we're playing a 2k game please enlighten me on how Gellerpox or the RT factions could be run at 2k points.

Or are you trying to argue that being able to put something on the table without using anywhere close to the full amount of points the game size calls for is "fielding" them?

Allying should be good, but not better than playing Mono, and certainly not the default choice in all cases where its available, to be competitive. Penalizing it too much, makes it never the choice, however, and I don't want to see it go that far.
Part of the problem is that some factions are pretty crappy as stand alone forces, that might want to be addressed as well.

Stratagems from factions (not including Battle Brothers ones) other than your Warlords faction, could cost +1 CP to use.
Perhaps also preventing Relics being taken on factions other than that of the Warlord.

Reemule wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Reemule wrote:

A.T. wrote:

Solutions like handing out CPs to mono factions just beat on the factions who can't play mono. .

Wait, what factions can't play Mono?

Inquisition only has the FW Landraider if they play mono (making their transport rule useless), the new RT faction can only field that one detachment since they have named characters everywhere (including as their only HQ), and of course there are Assassins.

And that's not even getting into the armies that need allies to shore up problems right now, like the GSC.

I'm dismissing your claim here. What you meant to say is I can't play some factions mono faction because you don't want to.

At this time each faction has the ability to field a detachment of some kind, allowing them to field as mono if truly desired. Now I would agree some of them aren't able to be of any use, and are just of no use in the game, but that wasn't the point, and it is nothing new.

Pre-"Battle Brothers" you could take transports from any codex in an Inquisition army without any issues. Now that soup in that sense is banned they lost their options unless they take allies. The Rogue Trader army is limited to a single detachment due to their only HQ being a character meaning you can't field a full army of them in large games, and I assume the Gellerpox are likely the same.

Even if you want to dismiss the first, the second and third are legitimate problems. And who the heck is running an all assassins or all Sisters of Silence army instead of taking those as allies?

Seriously, some factions need allies to even see games above 1k, some need allies because their army only works if you take them as part of something bigger, and then some need allies to shore up the giant holes in their lists made by FAQ changes. Just because you don't want to admit that there are armies screwed over by the idea of getting rid of allies more than their are armies that are actually buffed by it doesn't make my point invalid, it just makes you refusing to admit when you're wrong.

Your missing the point. You said there is factions that can't be fielded. That isn't true.

Does this open up some design space for GW to fill with new models for some of the holes in the line? It sure does. But that doesn't equate to you can't field X variable Faction Mono faction.

Your arguing semantics. Can I field a 2000 point Inquisition army. Yes but it doesn't work game wise and thematically makes no sense. Can I field a 2000 point Assassins or Rogue trader army or Gellerpox. Not really. As more and more sub factions come out GW needs to tweak the allies rules to make it more balanced and the community for their part need to accept that allies are not going away.

I think asassins, inquisition, rogue traders etc. shoudl be added to some kind of a forces of the imperium book and literally be plug and play with whatever army you want. IE an assasin can slot into an elite for any imperial army, but does not get thier faction bonus (just cost the model as no faction/chapter/army bonus). Want an inquisitor in the army... sure, they are the HQ and probably have to be the warlord (being thier position that would also make sense) they slot into the HQ slot of any imperium army but also do not get faction bonus. rogue traders traated the same way mayeb with some cool new troop (crew) options.

That poll is more loaded than a Texan shotgun.

Even the old rule in 8th was fine, it just looked bad because we didn't have codexes. Is there really a single army that would run a hodgepodge and have no Trait?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
That poll is more loaded than a Texan shotgun.

Even the old rule in 8th was fine, it just looked bad because we didn't have codexes. Is there really a single army that would run a hodgepodge and have no Trait?

Inquisition, but that's because they don't have traits and running hodgepodge at least lets them spam transports for gun support elements.

HoundsofDemos wrote:


Your arguing semantics. Can I field a 2000 point Inquisition army. Yes but it doesn't work game wise and thematically makes no sense. Can I field a 2000 point Assassins or Rogue trader army or Gellerpox. Not really. As more and more sub factions come out GW needs to tweak the allies rules to make it more balanced and the community for their part need to accept that allies are not going away.

Has 40K released a Gellerpox faction? I thought they were just KT, with some people extrapolating what they could do in 40K.

But that just aside...

To the real point, where you say that Inquisition army can do 2K points, makes no sense... ectra.

All those qualifiers apply for someone else I'm sure when they talk about Grey Knights. 2K points of them doesn't work game wise, and thematically doesn't make sense.

The real point is that GW could place a no allies rule and the game would continue. Some people wouldn't like it, but some people would like it.

Reality is that GW doesn't seem likely to do anything that drastic. All indications from the FAQs is they prefer to make light changes that long reaching implications.

Reemule wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:


Your arguing semantics. Can I field a 2000 point Inquisition army. Yes but it doesn't work game wise and thematically makes no sense. Can I field a 2000 point Assassins or Rogue trader army or Gellerpox. Not really. As more and more sub factions come out GW needs to tweak the allies rules to make it more balanced and the community for their part need to accept that allies are not going away.

Has 40K released a Gellerpox faction? I thought they were just KT, with some people extrapolating what they could do in 40K.

But that just aside...

To the real point, where you say that Inquisition army can do 2K points, makes no sense... ectra.

All those qualifiers apply for someone else I'm sure when they talk about Grey Knights. 2K points of them doesn't work game wise, and thematically doesn't make sense.

The real point is that GW could place a no allies rule and the game would continue. Some people wouldn't like it, but some people would like it.

Reality is that GW doesn't seem likely to do anything that drastic. All indications from the FAQs is they prefer to make light changes that long reaching implications.

Both the Gellerpox and RT armies got 40k rules that allow you to field them as detachments. So yes, they got a faction release.

Where is the "limited to X points" option, like they have in AoS?

 Marmatag wrote:
Where is the "limited to X points" option, like they have in AoS?

Not biased against allies enough so the OP left it out.

Naw, I was staying away from all the proposed fixes. I'm more wondering where people were with where the Ally idea ends up. Specfic points, specific fixes, all that should come under nerfed to be in line with the Mono faction option.

Reemule wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:


Your arguing semantics. Can I field a 2000 point Inquisition army. Yes but it doesn't work game wise and thematically makes no sense. Can I field a 2000 point Assassins or Rogue trader army or Gellerpox. Not really. As more and more sub factions come out GW needs to tweak the allies rules to make it more balanced and the community for their part need to accept that allies are not going away.

Has 40K released a Gellerpox faction? I thought they were just KT, with some people extrapolating what they could do in 40K.

But that just aside...

To the real point, where you say that Inquisition army can do 2K points, makes no sense... ectra.

All those qualifiers apply for someone else I'm sure when they talk about Grey Knights. 2K points of them doesn't work game wise, and thematically doesn't make sense.

The real point is that GW could place a no allies rule and the game would continue. Some people wouldn't like it, but some people would like it.

Reality is that GW doesn't seem likely to do anything that drastic. All indications from the FAQs is they prefer to make light changes that long reaching implications.

Yes the game would continue, but you would essentially kill off half a dozen factions.

HoundsofDemos wrote:


Yes the game would continue, but you would essentially kill off half a dozen factions.

Man I hate it when people do this.

Define Kill a 1/2 dozen factions?

As in they won't show at the top tables in TOurney? Already done! This exists already ready don't try to pretend this happens as a consequence.

As in Casual Players won't keep playing them in their basement league? Bull. Yes they will.

If you meant "this would radically change the top factions around" Well now you might be right. But what is wrong with that?

Reemule wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:


Yes the game would continue, but you would essentially kill off half a dozen factions.

Man I hate it when people do this.

Define Kill a 1/2 dozen factions?

As in they won't show at the top tables in TOurney? Already done! This exists already ready don't try to pretend this happens as a consequence.

As in Casual Players won't keep playing them in their basement league? Bull. Yes they will.

If you meant "this would radically change the top factions around" Well now you might be right. But what is wrong with that?

You hate when people point out the flaws in your desire to kill allies off in the game? Maybe it's because your biased and don't want to back down from your biases in order to see alternative viewpoints.

Actually I've always pretty much advocated for keeping allies. I've at times spoke about reducing allies, or even removing them, but it was to make a point that it is unlikely.

I hate it when; he in this case, and you in other cases, have spouted silliness to try to justify a none existent point. As he did when he says this is going to "kill a 1/2 dozen factions" and like you did when you said "Factions that Can't play Mono"

Not my fault if your poor at communication.

Reemule wrote:
Actually I've always pretty much advocated for keeping allies. I've at times spoke about reducing allies, or even removing them, but it was to make a point that it is unlikely.

I hate it when; he in this case, and you in other cases, have spouted silliness to try to justify a none existent point. As he did when he says this is going to "kill a 1/2 dozen factions" and like you did when you said "Factions that Can't play Mono"

Not my fault if your poor at communication.

It's not are fault that you can't see a forest for the trees and insist that being able to put something on the table in any form, regardless of how functionally unplayable it is on it's own, is the same as actually playing with any semblence of a chance of winning. You have yet to demonstrate why mono-faction Inquisition, Assassins or Sisters of Silence can be played at any level with a chance of winning, have continued to ignore two codexes that only exist to be allied to a larger faction and ignore how some armies (namely GSC) need allies in the current rules due to their core mechanic being nerfed and their inability to see a codex for two-three months minimum.

You claim to be supportive of allies but made a biased poll against allies and any statement that supports allies made in this thread has you attacking or dismissing it with faulty logic.

In short: grox droppings hold more weight than your claims, expecialy more weight than your claims of advocating for allies when you've done nothing but advocate for the nerfing or removal of them. And that's pretty amazing since the grox isn't even real.

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I want to be a force with allies in it to be equally powerful to a force without allies.

There is no option for that.

I think it's this option:
"Allies should be allowed in all play, but nerfed so as to present little if any benefit in all play"
It's just worded oddly.

-

Allies are something I think 7th handled better than 8th because of the way army organization works now. In 7th if I took a bunch of guardsmen with my marines, all I got was a bunch of guardsmen with my marines. Now if I take guard or other cheaper allies, I get a ton of CP to make the rest of my army better in addition to getting the units I took. That's the core problem right now.

Actually what happened is nobody cared because Infantry were terrible compared to how stupid they are now.

The problem will always be the problem units. Eldar could literally ally with anyone in 7th, but they weren't topping because they had access to those allies, yes? It was Scatterbikes, Aspect Shrine formations, and Wraithknights.

The core of any problems that people have (shooting having no risk compared to melee, powerful Psykers, etc.) always goes back to the core problem of both poor external balance and poor internal balance. If you have no incentive to run a pure army because most of your options are terrible (Blood Angels), how else are you going to compete with even a pure Eldar or Dark Eldar army?

Poll is weird. . . didn't really see an option that spoke to me.

Allies are mostly fine, but could probably use some tweaking.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I want to be a force with allies in it to be equally powerful to a force without allies.

There is no option for that.

I think it's this option:
"Allies should be allowed in all play, but nerfed so as to present little if any benefit in all play"
It's just worded oddly.

-

Allies are something I think 7th handled better than 8th because of the way army organization works now. In 7th if I took a bunch of guardsmen with my marines, all I got was a bunch of guardsmen with my marines. Now if I take guard or other cheaper allies, I get a ton of CP to make the rest of my army better in addition to getting the units I took. That's the core problem right now.

Actually what happened is nobody cared because Infantry were terrible compared to how stupid they are now.

The problem will always be the problem units. Eldar could literally ally with anyone in 7th, but they weren't topping because they had access to those allies, yes? It was Scatterbikes, Aspect Shrine formations, and Wraithknights.

The core of any problems that people have (shooting having no risk compared to melee, powerful Psykers, etc.) always goes back to the core problem of both poor external balance and poor internal balance. If you have no incentive to run a pure army because most of your options are terrible (Blood Angels), how else are you going to compete with even a pure Eldar or Dark Eldar army?

7th handled allies much worse than this.

In 8th if you take DA and SW you get DA and SW. In 7th you could mix them togehter in a single unit of doom.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Reemule wrote:
Actually I've always pretty much advocated for keeping allies. I've at times spoke about reducing allies, or even removing them, but it was to make a point that it is unlikely.

I hate it when; he in this case, and you in other cases, have spouted silliness to try to justify a none existent point. As he did when he says this is going to "kill a 1/2 dozen factions" and like you did when you said "Factions that Can't play Mono"

Not my fault if your poor at communication.

It's not are fault that you can't see a forest for the trees and insist that being able to put something on the table in any form, regardless of how functionally unplayable it is on it's own, is the same as actually playing with any semblence of a chance of winning. You have yet to demonstrate why mono-faction Inquisition, Assassins or Sisters of Silence can be played at any level with a chance of winning, have continued to ignore two codexes that only exist to be allied to a larger faction and ignore how some armies (namely GSC) need allies in the current rules due to their core mechanic being nerfed and their inability to see a codex for two-three months minimum.

You claim to be supportive of allies but made a biased poll against allies and any statement that supports allies made in this thread has you attacking or dismissing it with faulty logic.

In short: grox droppings hold more weight than your claims, expecialy more weight than your claims of advocating for allies when you've done nothing but advocate for the nerfing or removal of them. And that's pretty amazing since the grox isn't even real.

There are people that actually claim they play sisters of silence or assasins? Well I guess everything is possible.

I don't think that ally, by the sole fact of existing make weak or bad factions playable. They may make weaker, but still ok factions catch up to the good lists in casual settings. But all ally do for a GK player is show he that he should play as few GK models as possible. And am assuming that we do agree that if someone decides to play a faction the goal is to play the faction.

If someone decides to play IW, his army should consists of nurglings, demon princes, mortyrion and magnus.

Reemule wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:


Yes the game would continue, but you would essentially kill off half a dozen factions.

Man I hate it when people do this.

Define Kill a 1/2 dozen factions?

As in they won't show at the top tables in TOurney? Already done! This exists already ready don't try to pretend this happens as a consequence.

As in Casual Players won't keep playing them in their basement league? Bull. Yes they will.

If you meant "this would radically change the top factions around" Well now you might be right. But what is wrong with that?

If there was a hard rule that your entire detachment had to be one codex, then GSC, Inquisition, Sisters of Silence, Gellerpox, Rogue Trader, Assassins, Custodes, and a few others I'm probably missing don't work anymore. They were not designed to be stand alone forces. Knights would also have some issues as well. You can not get ride of/ significantly curtail allies with out invalidating a good chunk of currently supported armies.

The problem is that those factions arent really armies, and treating them as such was a mistake. The Inquisition for example, is not a battlefield force in and of itself, rather it coopts other forces for specific objectives/campaigns.

Karol wrote:
There are people that actually claim they play sisters of silence or assasins? Well I guess everything is possible.

Point was that they are factions that only function really when paired with another army. I mean if you really go all in on Sisters how do you deal with tanks? How about hordes? Knights? Ect. You're such a one-trick-anti-psychic-pony that you lack the means to deal with anything beyond basic psykers and infantry. Assassins are arguably the same problem amplified since they're meant to be thrown at specific targets and lack the means to deal with things like tanks or Knights effectively.

And yes, I'm still salty we didn't get a Talons of the Emperor style codex when the Custodes dropped to prevent this issue for the Sisters of Silence.

Karol wrote:
I don't think that ally, by the sole fact of existing make weak or bad factions playable. They may make weaker, but still ok factions catch up to the good lists in casual settings. But all ally do for a GK player is show he that he should play as few GK models as possible. And am assuming that we do agree that if someone decides to play a faction the goal is to play the faction.

If someone decides to play IW, his army should consists of nurglings, demon princes, mortyrion and magnus.

You're right, the goal should be to make mono-armies playable at some level, and that's a large part of why I say mono-faction armies should get a buff (like free CP) to balance the build more. You're trading CP for versatility at that point and it at least costs you something to make that build meaning for some armies it's less desirable to take allies. As for broken codexes like GK they just need a complete redo (actually all Marines do since they all suffer from the same problems regarding durability this edition).

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Reemule wrote:
Actually I've always pretty much advocated for keeping allies. I've at times spoke about reducing allies, or even removing them, but it was to make a point that it is unlikely.

I hate it when; he in this case, and you in other cases, have spouted silliness to try to justify a none existent point. As he did when he says this is going to "kill a 1/2 dozen factions" and like you did when you said "Factions that Can't play Mono"

Not my fault if your poor at communication.

It's not are fault that you can't see a forest for the trees and insist that being able to put something on the table in any form, regardless of how functionally unplayable it is on it's own, is the same as actually playing with any semblence of a chance of winning. You have yet to demonstrate why mono-faction Inquisition, Assassins or Sisters of Silence can be played at any level with a chance of winning, have continued to ignore two codexes that only exist to be allied to a larger faction and ignore how some armies (namely GSC) need allies in the current rules due to their core mechanic being nerfed and their inability to see a codex for two-three months minimum.

You claim to be supportive of allies but made a biased poll against allies and any statement that supports allies made in this thread has you attacking or dismissing it with faulty logic.

In short: grox droppings hold more weight than your claims, expecialy more weight than your claims of advocating for allies when you've done nothing but advocate for the nerfing or removal of them. And that's pretty amazing since the grox isn't even real.

Ohh so you meant to say "Factions that can't play EFFECTIVELY Mono faction." Why didn't you say what you meant? Why didn't you Type that out instead of saying something you didn't mean and then get mad when people took just what you said CLockwork? How come Lad? Why aren't you better at this?

 Vaktathi wrote:
The problem is that those factions arent really armies, and treating them as such was a mistake. The Inquisition for example, is not a battlefield force in and of itself, rather it coopts other forces for specific objectives/campaigns.

I disagree. Taking an allies system like AoS's and allowing us to mix and match things isn't a problem. Heck, with the Imperium that's a feature, not a bug after all. The problem was not expanding that to other factions (Orks, Tau, Necrons), some of which are known for working along side humans (Eldar, Tau and Orks have all done so in various points in history) and I'd love for Necrons to go full space Egypt and start taking human slaves to work for them (I mean nothing gets the ego going quite as much as having a captive audience to listen to your insane ramblings and agree with your every claim, and with mindshackle scarabs that's even more possible than ever).

And that's not even going into Traitor Guard which needs some proper love as well.

Basically I'm saying there should be more play in the allies system than we currently have (maybe split it into broader groups like AoS "Order", "Chaos", "Destruction" set up) and bonuses should be tied to how many shared keywords you have in your list. Basically I'm saying copy AoS, but don't do so many tiny subfactions.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The problem is that those factions arent really armies, and treating them as such was a mistake. The Inquisition for example, is not a battlefield force in and of itself, rather it coopts other forces for specific objectives/campaigns.

I agree they are not meant to be armies by themselves. Which means you need some sort of mechanic to allow them to ally other armies or you delete them from the game. I really miss the 6th/7th Edition Inquisition, it's probably the one time GW got them right as a faction since I started playing.

Reemule wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Reemule wrote:
Actually I've always pretty much advocated for keeping allies. I've at times spoke about reducing allies, or even removing them, but it was to make a point that it is unlikely.

I hate it when; he in this case, and you in other cases, have spouted silliness to try to justify a none existent point. As he did when he says this is going to "kill a 1/2 dozen factions" and like you did when you said "Factions that Can't play Mono"

Not my fault if your poor at communication.

It's not are fault that you can't see a forest for the trees and insist that being able to put something on the table in any form, regardless of how functionally unplayable it is on it's own, is the same as actually playing with any semblence of a chance of winning. You have yet to demonstrate why mono-faction Inquisition, Assassins or Sisters of Silence can be played at any level with a chance of winning, have continued to ignore two codexes that only exist to be allied to a larger faction and ignore how some armies (namely GSC) need allies in the current rules due to their core mechanic being nerfed and their inability to see a codex for two-three months minimum.

You claim to be supportive of allies but made a biased poll against allies and any statement that supports allies made in this thread has you attacking or dismissing it with faulty logic.

In short: grox droppings hold more weight than your claims, expecialy more weight than your claims of advocating for allies when you've done nothing but advocate for the nerfing or removal of them. And that's pretty amazing since the grox isn't even real.

Ohh so you meant to say "Factions that can't play EFFECTIVELY Mono faction." Why didn't you say what you meant? Why didn't you Type that out instead of saying something you didn't mean and then get mad when people took just what you said CLockwork? How come Lad? Why aren't you better at this?

Why didn't you use contextual clues given by the statments instead of being intentionally obtuse and pedantic?

Seriously, if you're going to criticize me for not using a single word, I'm going to mock you for being too thick to understand the meaning of my posts based on context. I mean it's only fair.

Honestly though, please try to be less of a troll if you want a real discussion about things and aren't just trying to get an echo chamber on what you think allies should be like.

Point was that they are factions that only function really when paired with another army. I mean if you really go all in on Sisters how do you deal with tanks? How about hordes? Knights? Ect. You're such a one-trick-anti-psychic-pony that you lack the means to deal with anything beyond basic psykers and infantry. Assassins are arguably the same problem amplified since they're meant to be thrown at specific targets and lack the means to deal with things like tanks or Knights effectively.

A one unit thing is not a faction, even if GW calls it one. Expecting SoS be mono playable or ally playable is wondering why an 8th league team has no chance vs Galacticos.

You're right, the goal should be to make mono-armies playable at some level, and that's a large part of why I say mono-faction armies should get a buff (like free CP) to balance the build more. You're trading CP for versatility at that point and it at least costs you something to make that build meaning for some armies it's less desirable to take allies. As for broken codexes like GK they just need a complete redo (actually all Marines do since they all suffer from the same problems regarding durability this edition).

But everyone seems to tell me GW wants people to soup. In fact the way they nerf stuff in 6 month cycles the "safe" way to play w40k or any other of their game is to pick 3-4 large factions and buy 3-4 boxs of every unit they have. What does not help people with bad codex is people with good or ok books, going around and telling people with bad books, that all is just fine and they just need to soup it up. Lets say I had the money to buy the good stuff 2-3 months ago. Bought in to some BA cmds and a ravellan, how would I feel right now? like waking up with your hand int the chamber pot. And the list would be nothing like the version of the IG tournament build, it would still be bad because of how inefficient CP wise are GK as a base for an army.

HoundsofDemos wrote:

Reemule wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:


Yes the game would continue, but you would essentially kill off half a dozen factions.

Man I hate it when people do this.

Define Kill a 1/2 dozen factions?

As in they won't show at the top tables in TOurney? Already done! This exists already ready don't try to pretend this happens as a consequence.

As in Casual Players won't keep playing them in their basement league? Bull. Yes they will.

If you meant "this would radically change the top factions around" Well now you might be right. But what is wrong with that?

If there was a hard rule that your entire detachment had to be one codex, then GSC, Inquisition, Sisters of Silence, Gellerpox, Rogue Trader, Assassins, Custodes, and a few others I'm probably missing don't work anymore. They were not designed to be stand alone forces. Knights would also have some issues as well. You can not get ride of/ significantly curtail allies with out invalidating a good chunk of currently supported armies.

Cool. So it comes down to that GW doesn't mean for a list of Codex, and some others to function unless played in a soup format?

Where is this list? What Factions are on it? Where is the release for GW that plainly said don't play these forces alone? With that list we can address this much better.

Except that list don't exist. And its something that GW has never said. Its a list that some people have come up with and say exists, but if you try to pin them down they can't even agree whats on the list.

And to point out some further flaws in your post...

If there was a hard rule that your entire detachment had to be one codex,

This rule already exists. Called Band of Brothers. It is optional, but not in Matched play that I've heard of. Pretty much just universally used.

You can not get ride of/ significantly curtail allies with out invalidating a good chunk of currently supported armies.

Define Invalidated? How about the guy that played Straigh Ultramarines at the Tourny and did well a bit ago? Was he invalidated with Vanilla marines only? Or the guy that won 4 of 6 with Straight knights? Invalidated? Or the guy that won 1 of 6 with Custodes/Guard/Smash captain? Was he validated and failed some how?

Where are you going with this?

 Galef wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I want to be a force with allies in it to be equally powerful to a force without allies.

There is no option for that.

I think it's this option:
"Allies should be allowed in all play, but nerfed so as to present little if any benefit in all play"
It's just worded oddly.

-

Yeah it aligns mostly with how I feel but I would have worded like.

"Allies should be allowed in all play but should not offer an unfair advantage over mono codex play"

Karol wrote:

Point was that they are factions that only function really when paired with another army. I mean if you really go all in on Sisters how do you deal with tanks? How about hordes? Knights? Ect. You're such a one-trick-anti-psychic-pony that you lack the means to deal with anything beyond basic psykers and infantry. Assassins are arguably the same problem amplified since they're meant to be thrown at specific targets and lack the means to deal with things like tanks or Knights effectively.

A one unit thing is not a faction, even if GW calls it one. Expecting SoS be mono playable or ally playable is wondering why an 8th league team has no chance vs Galacticos.

You're right, the goal should be to make mono-armies playable at some level, and that's a large part of why I say mono-faction armies should get a buff (like free CP) to balance the build more. You're trading CP for versatility at that point and it at least costs you something to make that build meaning for some armies it's less desirable to take allies. As for broken codexes like GK they just need a complete redo (actually all Marines do since they all suffer from the same problems regarding durability this edition).

But everyone seems to tell me GW wants people to soup. In fact the way they nerf stuff in 6 month cycles the "safe" way to play w40k or any other of their game is to pick 3-4 large factions and buy 3-4 boxs of every unit they have. What does not help people with bad codex is people with good or ok books, going around and telling people with bad books, that all is just fine and they just need to soup it up. Lets say I had the money to buy the good stuff 2-3 months ago. Bought in to some BA cmds and a ravellan, how would I feel right now? like waking up with your hand int the chamber pot. And the list would be nothing like the version of the IG tournament build, it would still be bad because of how inefficient CP wise are GK as a base for an army.

Factions are determined by keywords, even if you don't agree with the way it pans out for smaller factions.

It's definitely possible GW wants people to ally, but they need to open it up across all armies to make it happen with an semblence of balance if we're not changing anything else.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The problem is that those factions arent really armies, and treating them as such was a mistake. The Inquisition for example, is not a battlefield force in and of itself, rather it coopts other forces for specific objectives/campaigns.

I disagree. Taking an allies system like AoS's and allowing us to mix and match things isn't a problem.

Im not familiar with AoS allies system as I havent looked at the rules in a couple of years, but the current system is absolutely a huge balance problem as evidenced by universal tournament results where allies lists dominate everything. Mix-n-match allows you to take the best thing for each role you may need, usually from forces that dont need others in order to function, and unintended synergies abound plentifully, resulting in forces much more powerful than the base sum of their parts, and I can count on one hand over multiple editions the number of times Ive seen allies in a list purely for fun/fluff as opposed to increasing power, be it tournaments, leagues or pickup play.

 ClockworkZion wrote:


Seriously, if you're going to criticize me for not using a single word, I'm going to mock you for being too thick to understand the meaning of my posts based on context. I mean it's only fair.

Honestly though, please try to be less of a troll if you want a real discussion about things and aren't just trying to get an echo chamber on what you think allies should be like.

Ohh I'm totally being obtuse. It is what I do when my B.S. detector goes off. And I know what you meant when you typed it out, just as I'm sure you knew what you meant when you intentionally left that detail out to try to emphasize your point to ratchet up your view point.

Just as we are both equally aware that poll or no poll, GW isn't going to ban allies. The track record is clear from the past 2 faqs. They aren't going to make sweeping changes like that.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I want to be a force with allies in it to be equally powerful to a force without allies.

There is no option for that.

I think it's this option:
"Allies should be allowed in all play, but nerfed so as to present little if any benefit in all play"
It's just worded oddly.

-

Yeah it aligns mostly with how I feel but I would have worded like.

"Allies should be allowed in all play but should not offer an unfair advantage over mono codex play"

I should have worded it that way. I was trying to make some distinctions between match/open/narrative play. I should have just left that out.

Reemule wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:


Seriously, if you're going to criticize me for not using a single word, I'm going to mock you for being too thick to understand the meaning of my posts based on context. I mean it's only fair.

Honestly though, please try to be less of a troll if you want a real discussion about things and aren't just trying to get an echo chamber on what you think allies should be like.

Ohh I'm totally being obtuse. It is what I do when my B.S. detector goes off. And I know what you meant when you typed it out, just as I'm sure you knew what you meant when you intentionally left that detail out to try to emphasize your point to ratchet up your view point.

Just as we are both equally aware that poll or no poll, GW isn't going to ban allies. The track record is clear from the past 2 faqs. They aren't going to make sweeping changes like that.

Your BS detector is faulty if you feel that people are claiming things that are unreasonable just because they mean that no one will win games with mono-Sisters of Silence or mono-Assassins lists based on the idea of nerfing allies like you propose. And you're STILL ignoring the fact that you'd throw out two armies (Gellerpox and RT) that only function below a certain points threshold if you don't have allies.

Both are examples of armies that are "unplayable" for different reasons. One is unplayable because you'll be dead by turn 2 tops and is more one note than a brown note, and the second is unplayable because at higher point levels the game is commonly played at they can't be fielded due to a lack of options.

And regardless of what GW is going to do, claiming to not be biased against allies while only taking a position that argues against allies is just intellectually dishonest, much like how you keep relying on frankly insulting arguements to claim that armies are playable as long as you can build a legal list with them, regardless of if they can actually be played with a chance of winning or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The problem is that those factions arent really armies, and treating them as such was a mistake. The Inquisition for example, is not a battlefield force in and of itself, rather it coopts other forces for specific objectives/campaigns.

I disagree. Taking an allies system like AoS's and allowing us to mix and match things isn't a problem.

Im not familiar with AoS allies system as I havent looked at the rules in a couple of years, but the current system is absolutely a huge balance problem as evidenced by universal tournament results where allies lists dominate everything. Mix-n-match allows you to take the best thing for each role you may need, usually from forces that dont need others in order to function, and unintended synergies abound plentifully, resulting in forces much more powerful than the base sum of their parts, and I can count on one hand over multiple editions the number of times Ive seen allies in a list purely for fun/fluff as opposed to increasing power, be it tournaments, leagues or pickup play.

Allies in AoS restrict your faction bonuses, and have a % cut off of your total army list. The more different stuff you mix in the less bonuses your army gets.

Posted before but... I'm running a tournament in Feb and my anti-soup rules are as follows...

The detachment your warlord is in is your primary detachment, which must be a Battalion, Brigade or Super Heavy Detachment

You only get CP for detachments which exactly match your primary detachment. No exceptions.

You only get the 3CP for battleforged if your entire army has matching detachments - there are exceptions for stuff like NURGLE and DEATH GUARD, to allow MILITARUM TEMPESTUS to co-exist with guard, to allow Drukhari covens and cabals to fight together... that sort of thing.


So take soup all you want but you will be short of CP.

The best soup you can do is a guard brigade plus extras for 12cp total. Alongside the CP farm nerf I think this is limiting enough.

Again as usual, allies as a whole isn't a problem. The fact that I can mix say Ad Mech and Sisters of Battle to recreate scenes from Hammer and Anvil is fun, fluffy and nice to officially be supported by the rules. The real problem is and always will be that any given edition has winners and losers. This edition favors a ton cheap infantry to get you a bunch of CP and then a few stomp/smash models that can take advantage of those via Strats. Yes soup is strong right now, but most soup lists tend to have the same ingredients give or take an option.

The easiest fix would be to limit CP generated to any given detachment to only that detachment and possibly give some CP bonus if you only take from one codex.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Again as usual, allies as a whole isn't a problem. The fact that I can mix say Ad Mech and Sisters of Battle to recreate scenes from Hammer and Anvil is fun, fluffy and nice to officially be supported by the rules. The real problem is and always will be that any given edition has winners and losers. This edition favors a ton cheap infantry to get you a bunch of CP and then a few stomp/smash models that can take advantage of those via Strats. Yes soup is strong right now, but most soup lists tend to have the same ingredients give or take an option.

The easiest fix would be to limit CP generated to any given detachment to only that detachment and possibly give some CP bonus if you only take from one codex.

It'd be nice if something fluffy like Orks looting a Knight was also officially supported.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Your BS detector is faulty if you feel that people are claiming things that are unreasonable just because they mean that no one will win games with mono-Sisters of Silence or mono-Assassins lists based on the idea of nerfing allies like you propose. And you're STILL ignoring the fact that you'd throw out two armies (Gellerpox and RT) that only function below a certain points threshold if you don't have allies.

Both are examples of armies that are "unplayable" for different reasons. One is unplayable because you'll be dead by turn 2 tops and is more one note than a brown note, and the second is unplayable because at higher point levels the game is commonly played at they can't be fielded due to a lack of options.

And regardless of what GW is going to do, claiming to not be biased against allies while only taking a position that argues against allies is just intellectually dishonest, much like how you keep relying on frankly insulting arguements to claim that armies are playable as long as you can build a legal list with them, regardless of if they can actually be played with a chance of winning or not..

Ohh my. So your trying to gut it out on your claim that they don't count as factions, even though they kinda do, as they can't play as certain point levels.

No dice. They are factions. If they can play at some point level or not is immaterial. Just as if a faction is effective or not at some level as a mono faction is immaterial.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Silentz wrote:
Posted before but... I'm running a tournament in Feb and my anti-soup rules are as follows...

The detachment your warlord is in is your primary detachment, which must be a Battalion, Brigade or Super Heavy Detachment

You only get CP for detachments which exactly match your primary detachment. No exceptions.

You only get the 3CP for battleforged if your entire army has matching detachments - there are exceptions for stuff like NURGLE and DEATH GUARD, to allow MILITARUM TEMPESTUS to co-exist with guard, to allow Drukhari covens and cabals to fight together... that sort of thing.


So take soup all you want but you will be short of CP.

The best soup you can do is a guard brigade plus extras for 12cp total. Alongside the CP farm nerf I think this is limiting enough.

Is sounds well thought out. Are you going to limit Stratagems also?

Reemule wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Your BS detector is faulty if you feel that people are claiming things that are unreasonable just because they mean that no one will win games with mono-Sisters of Silence or mono-Assassins lists based on the idea of nerfing allies like you propose. And you're STILL ignoring the fact that you'd throw out two armies (Gellerpox and RT) that only function below a certain points threshold if you don't have allies.

Both are examples of armies that are "unplayable" for different reasons. One is unplayable because you'll be dead by turn 2 tops and is more one note than a brown note, and the second is unplayable because at higher point levels the game is commonly played at they can't be fielded due to a lack of options.

And regardless of what GW is going to do, claiming to not be biased against allies while only taking a position that argues against allies is just intellectually dishonest, much like how you keep relying on frankly insulting arguements to claim that armies are playable as long as you can build a legal list with them, regardless of if they can actually be played with a chance of winning or not..

Ohh my. So your trying to gut it out on your claim that they don't count as factions, even though they kinda do, as they can't play as certain point levels.

No dice. They are factions. If they can play at some point level or not is immaterial. Just as if a faction is effective or not at some level as a mono faction is immaterial.

I never said they weren't factions. I said they can't function on their own properly, but I never said they weren't factions.

Please stop putting words in my mouth, they taste awful and they're too salty.

 Silentz wrote:
Posted before but... I'm running a tournament in Feb and my anti-soup rules are as follows...

The detachment your warlord is in is your primary detachment, which must be a Battalion, Brigade or Super Heavy Detachment

You only get CP for detachments which exactly match your primary detachment. No exceptions.

You only get the 3CP for battleforged if your entire army has matching detachments - there are exceptions for stuff like NURGLE and DEATH GUARD, to allow MILITARUM TEMPESTUS to co-exist with guard, to allow Drukhari covens and cabals to fight together... that sort of thing.


So take soup all you want but you will be short of CP.

The best soup you can do is a guard brigade plus extras for 12cp total. Alongside the CP farm nerf I think this is limiting enough.

Yeah, this is crazy.

Those poll choices are terrible. They're all skewed towards a pretty heavy bias of "allies should be banned". The only difference they make is whether you think they should be banned everywhere that matters, or whether you also think its important law enforcement takes the effort to raid people's basements to ensure no one is playing allies at home.

Where's the option to say "the end of mono-dexes is over and allies should be expanded so everyone has varied options"?

Frankly, allies are mostly fine. The real problem is poor balancing which allies make apparent. If a potential ally codex has an unit that is way more point effective than a similar unit in your codex, then yeah, in competitive setting people are gonna use the ally option instead. But the real problem is that that other unit is better for its points while it shouldn't, not that you can take it in the first place.

Reemule wrote:
Cool. So it comes down to that GW doesn't mean for a list of Codex, and some others to function unless played in a soup format?
Where is this list? What Factions are on it? Where is the release for GW that plainly said don't play these forces alone? With that list we can address this much better.
Except that list don't exist. And its something that GW has never said. Its a list that some people have come up with and say exists, but if you try to pin them down they can't even agree whats on the list.

The list, such as it was, ceased to when 6th edition replaced it with the allies matrix and the generally permissive allies system that persists into 8th

Prior to that - assassins, sisters of battle, inquisition, ministorum, mutants and traitors(WH), and (until 5e) the GK were explicitly allied forces. The harlequins were also duplicated across two books as in-built allies and the chaos marines had generic daemon stand-in units in the absence of fully allied daemons. Deathwatch would have also been on that list but the ordo xenos codex didn't make it.

And then you have newer factions such as Talons of the Emperor being chopped up based on the model release schedule and the new eldar Ynnari as a few examples, and the rogue trader factions that are literally unplayable in a normal 1500-2000pt 40k game without soup.

Allies are not the problem, but the lack of balance.

Castellan & co. wouldn't be an issue, if it's point for point equally survivable and killy as heavy support from the Grey Knight or Custodes Codex. Guardsman wouldn't be as popular, if all other Codexes could field equal smite-catching bodies and CP for equal points. Etc.. Smash-Captains wouldn't be an issue if other imperial Codexes can field equally efficient and mobile CC powerhouses at equal points. Etc..

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Allies are not the problem, but the lack of balance.

Castellan & co. wouldn't be an issue, if it's point for point equally survivable and killy as heavy support from the Grey Knight or Custodes Codex. Guardsman wouldn't be as popular, if all other Codexes could field equal smite-catching bodies and CP for equal points. Etc.. Smash-Captains wouldn't be an issue if other imperial Codexes can field equally efficient and mobile CC powerhouses at equal points. Etc..

The kind of balance you allude to results in homogeneity. If everyone has equal access to the same kinda of units the differences between factions fall away.

That's not acceptable to me. I would rather balance come from each faction having equally powerful strategies, but approaching them in different ways.

If that means reigning in allies, so be it.

Morgasm the Powerfull wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Again as usual, allies as a whole isn't a problem. The fact that I can mix say Ad Mech and Sisters of Battle to recreate scenes from Hammer and Anvil is fun, fluffy and nice to officially be supported by the rules. The real problem is and always will be that any given edition has winners and losers. This edition favors a ton cheap infantry to get you a bunch of CP and then a few stomp/smash models that can take advantage of those via Strats. Yes soup is strong right now, but most soup lists tend to have the same ingredients give or take an option.

The easiest fix would be to limit CP generated to any given detachment to only that detachment and possibly give some CP bonus if you only take from one codex.

It'd be nice if something fluffy like Orks looting a Knight was also officially supported.

It was in 6th and 7th.

I am for mono factions only. Its hard enough to balance codex to codex, without including Soup Shenanigans on top of that.

6th and 7th also supported fluff abominations like Necrons being allies of convenience with Chaos, so let's not go down that particular rabbit hole.

I would go back on the 3rd edition route.
Create as a first step a solid, comprehensive mono-faction codex.
In case, later, release mini-codices that add something but also remove something.
Such codices can include SPECIFIC units from a close faction.

Bring back 0-1s.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
6th and 7th also supported fluff abominations like Necrons being allies of convenience with Chaos, so let's not go down that particular rabbit hole.

Allies
OF CONVENIENCE

There's hardly an issue with that, especially with how their current fluff works.

If Necrons are "allies of convenience" with twisted warpspawn who's powers they adopted their cursed forms specifically to combat against then they're allies of convenience with anyone.

Make no mistake, the ally matrix was designed for Imperial use and just haphazardly threw all the "bad guy" factions together to give the illusion that it was fair.

Allies seem to serve as a crutch GW uses as an excuse to not write functional standalone army books (see: "Buy some Guardsmen to make your Imperial army better!"). I don't have anything against the concept of Allies, but i have an immense distaste for the current implementation and I would really like to see more restrictive Allies rules, fewer distinct army books, and more army books that work without Allies.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
If Necrons are "allies of convenience" with twisted warpspawn who's powers they adopted their cursed forms specifically to combat against then they're allies of convenience with anyone.

Make no mistake, the ally matrix was designed for Imperial use and just haphazardly threw all the "bad guy" factions together to give the illusion that it was fair.

Well yeah Necrons WOULD be Allies of Convenience with everyone besides Tyranids, who are harder to make deals with obviously.

They could also just split us into Sigmar style Grand Alliances and be done with it.

IMPERIUM

CHAOS

AELDARI

TYRANID (including the Astra Militarum Genestealers can take)

UNALIGNED

Then everyone gets to pick and choose around to some extent!

Audustum wrote:
They could also just split us into Sigmar style Grand Alliances and be done with it.

IMPERIUM

CHAOS

AELDARI

TYRANID (including the Astra Militarum Genestealers can take)

UNALIGNED

Then everyone gets to pick and choose around to some extent!

... You mean exactly like how it is right now? T'au and Eldar allies should never have been a thing, any more than Necron and Orks being allies.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Audustum wrote:
They could also just split us into Sigmar style Grand Alliances and be done with it.

IMPERIUM

CHAOS

AELDARI

TYRANID (including the Astra Militarum Genestealers can take)

UNALIGNED

Then everyone gets to pick and choose around to some extent!

... You mean exactly like how it is right now? T'au and Eldar allies should never have been a thing, any more than Necron and Orks being allies.

Almost like how it is now. Under the proposed system Tau, Necrons and Orks could ally. That takes the bite out of, what I perceive to be, the most disaffected voices concerning allies.

Audustum wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Audustum wrote:
They could also just split us into Sigmar style Grand Alliances and be done with it.

IMPERIUM

CHAOS

AELDARI

TYRANID (including the Astra Militarum Genestealers can take)

UNALIGNED

Then everyone gets to pick and choose around to some extent!

... You mean exactly like how it is right now? T'au and Eldar allies should never have been a thing, any more than Necron and Orks being allies.

Almost like how it is now. Under the proposed system Tau, Necrons and Orks could ally. That takes the bite out of, what I perceive to be, the most disaffected voices concerning allies.

I think it would require a pretty seismic shift in the fluff for me to be ok with that. I'd need SOMETHING which tied Orks, Necrons, and T'au together more than they each are to any of the other factions...

It's a bizarre alliance for sure. A truce between the Necrons and the T'au is maybe possible. Necrons Lords can be quite pragmatic at times, and the T'au quite naive. If the T'au were desperate enough maybe.

I'm not sure how you get the Orks in on it too though...

Freebootaz can tie Orks to almost anyone (arguable GSC could tie Eldar, Orks and Tau in as well). Tau and Eldar could be sharing an agenda as both have weaponized diplomacy when needed, and Guard really should be able to be tied into Tau as well (like they do with GSC).

Also we need Digga Nobs back.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Allies seem to serve as a crutch GW uses as an excuse to not write functional standalone army books (see: "Buy some Guardsmen to make your Imperial army better!"). I don't have anything against the concept of Allies, but i have an immense distaste for the current implementation and I would really like to see more restrictive Allies rules, fewer distinct army books, and more army books that work without Allies.

That's sort of a corner they've found themselves in after years of giving the same models new paintjobs and calling them a new army. Allies are basically collapsing that bloat back down without actually removing all that stuff from the game.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Freebootaz can tie Orks to almost anyone (arguable GSC could tie Eldar, Orks and Tau in as well). Tau and Eldar could be sharing an agenda as both have weaponized diplomacy when needed, and Guard really should be able to be tied into Tau as well (like they do with GSC).

Also we need Digga Nobs back.

Right, this is basically the lines I was working along. More below in response to Stux though.

 Stux wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Audustum wrote:
They could also just split us into Sigmar style Grand Alliances and be done with it.

IMPERIUM

CHAOS

AELDARI

TYRANID (including the Astra Militarum Genestealers can take)

UNALIGNED

Then everyone gets to pick and choose around to some extent!

... You mean exactly like how it is right now? T'au and Eldar allies should never have been a thing, any more than Necron and Orks being allies.

Almost like how it is now. Under the proposed system Tau, Necrons and Orks could ally. That takes the bite out of, what I perceive to be, the most disaffected voices concerning allies.

I think it would require a pretty seismic shift in the fluff for me to be ok with that. I'd need SOMETHING which tied Orks, Necrons, and T'au together more than they each are to any of the other factions...

It's a bizarre alliance for sure. A truce between the Necrons and the T'au is maybe possible. Necrons Lords can be quite pragmatic at times, and the T'au quite naive. If the T'au were desperate enough maybe.

I'm not sure how you get the Orks in on it too though...

As Clockwork partially covered, Freebootas and the idea of Ork mercenaries in general get you pretty far in allying them to anyone. Blood Axes, specifically, have worked as mercenaries. I've even read that in the second Last Chancers book there were Ork mercenaries in the camp of a renegade Tau commander.

Tau and Necrons are both pragmatic enough to work together if the needs calls for it. It really doesn't seem that crazy to me, especially with how small and 'not a threat' Tau probably appear to the Necron worldview.

I could see Necrons 'steering' a Waaargh or deploying a force alongside it. They would absolutely be fine having some of their units there to push it into colliding with an enemy force. I doubt they'd be above hiring mercenaries either.

Reemule wrote:
Friday Poll on Allies. Where do you stand?

your poll is pretty biased in it's wording dude. for example, there's not a single option for "Allies should exist, but people who play mono faction should be rewarded" (3 CPs per battalion if allied, 6 CPs per battalion if faction pure might be an idea)

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
If Necrons are "allies of convenience" with twisted warpspawn who's powers they adopted their cursed forms specifically to combat against then they're allies of convenience with anyone.

Make no mistake, the ally matrix was designed for Imperial use and just haphazardly threw all the "bad guy" factions together to give the illusion that it was fair.

Well yeah Necrons WOULD be Allies of Convenience with everyone besides Tyranids, who are harder to make deals with obviously.

Except that's not how the matrix works... Necrons are only Allies of Convenience with Chaos Marines and Tau and are otherwise "Desperate Allies" at best with everyone else. You might want to try thinking before you type.

Even weirder is that they're Come the Apocalypse with regular Marines given that there is an actual (albeit much-maligned) example of Necrons and SM allying with each other.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Even weirder is that they're Come the Apocalypse with regular Marines given that there is an actual (albeit much-maligned) example of Necrons and SM allying with each other.

Anything written by Matt Ward is considered non-canon fite me.

I would like to see more smaller factions added in. A xenos mercenary codex is something that has been rumored for years and never materialized.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Even weirder is that they're Come the Apocalypse with regular Marines given that there is an actual (albeit much-maligned) example of Necrons and SM allying with each other.

Anything written by Matt Ward is considered non-canon fite me.

Rumor had it that Ward wrote the Sisters fluff in the WD codex which had a group of Sisters invade a daemon-infested shrine world that had been previous lost the warp, delve down into the catacombs and manage to recover some relics and leave the system before the Grey Knights could even show up to Exterminatus the planet. So not EVERYTHING he wrote was bad, it just needed stronger editorial control.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
If Necrons are "allies of convenience" with twisted warpspawn who's powers they adopted their cursed forms specifically to combat against then they're allies of convenience with anyone.

Make no mistake, the ally matrix was designed for Imperial use and just haphazardly threw all the "bad guy" factions together to give the illusion that it was fair.

Well yeah Necrons WOULD be Allies of Convenience with everyone besides Tyranids, who are harder to make deals with obviously.

Except that's not how the matrix works... Necrons are only Allies of Convenience with Chaos Marines and Tau and are otherwise "Desperate Allies" at best with everyone else. You might want to try thinking before you type.

Even weirder is that they're Come the Apocalypse with regular Marines given that there is an actual (albeit much-maligned) example of Necrons and SM allying with each other.

So the matrix still makes sense. Thanks for the reminder.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Even weirder is that they're Come the Apocalypse with regular Marines given that there is an actual (albeit much-maligned) example of Necrons and SM allying with each other.

Anything written by Matt Ward is considered non-canon fite me.

You follow hyperbole and haven't bothered to form an actual opinion fight me

BrianDavion wrote:

Reemule wrote:
Friday Poll on Allies. Where do you stand?

your poll is pretty biased in it's wording dude. for example, there's not a single option for "Allies should exist, but people who play mono faction should be rewarded" (3 CPs per battalion if allied, 6 CPs per battalion if faction pure might be an idea)

If allies are going down 2 pts per battalion I think thats the second last opinion. Nerfed them to not giving massive benefit

the wording on these options are pretty bad

Allies in 2nd weren’t an issue. They were available and fluffy but weren’t abused badly. Now they are a major problem in 6th, 7th and 8th. But the player base has changed and a toxic style of matched play that is devoid of fluff and abusive of any loophole has made them a problem. The matched play community needs to sort out their house and arrange tournaments that reward fluffy lists played in a dramatic way. Points for painting, stories for armies and get it back to being the “hobby” it used to be.

That’s what I think anyway. I’m not criticising everyone who plays in tournaments I’m sure there are some lovely people who play in them but the style of play and lists aren’t related to the setting at all. I remember when tournaments first started you got pints for gorgeous armies and fair play. The reports of the tournaments were all about showing the beautiful and original armies people came up with. Now I don’t ever see a pic of an army in the reports. Just power play and spam. It’s a shame.

Allies weren't a primary issue in 7th outside just a couple of problematic builds, which were all focused on the issue of Invisibility having been a thing.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Allies weren't a primary issue in 7th outside just a couple of problematic builds, which were all focused on the issue of Invisibility having been a thing.

Allies aren't a primary issue in 8th outside just a couple problematic builds, which are all focused on the issue of CP sharing being a thing.

Lemondish wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Allies weren't a primary issue in 7th outside just a couple of problematic builds, which were all focused on the issue of Invisibility having been a thing.

Allies aren't a primary issue in 8th outside just a couple problematic builds, which are all focused on the issue of CP sharing being a thing.

Shared CP isn't the issue. The issue is problematic units. Slamguinus is broken with allies or with pure Blood Angels.

Lemondish wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Allies weren't a primary issue in 7th outside just a couple of problematic builds, which were all focused on the issue of Invisibility having been a thing.

Allies aren't a primary issue in 8th outside just a couple problematic builds, which are all focused on the issue of CP sharing being a thing.

I pretty much find both of these to be true. Whens the last time you saw Ad Mech allied with Sisters and an Inquisitor causing problems or someone taking Khorne Marines with Khorne Demons to replicate the old Demonkin Book. You don't because those builds don't exploit a few core weaknesses that 8th has. The current cheap Brigade, plus slam captain or custodes and maybe a knight are the issue, not allies as a whole.

HoundsofDemos wrote:


I pretty much find both of these to be true. Whens the last time you saw Ad Mech allied with Sisters and an Inquisitor causing problems or someone taking Khorne Marines with Khorne Demons to replicate the old Demonkin Book. You don't because those builds don't exploit a few core weaknesses that 8th has. The current cheap Brigade, plus slam captain or custodes and maybe a knight are the issue, not allies as a whole.

Absolutely. That's why I'm not so pleased with all these people who're trigger-happily pointing their nerf guns at the soup.

HoundsofDemos wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Allies weren't a primary issue in 7th outside just a couple of problematic builds, which were all focused on the issue of Invisibility having been a thing.

Allies aren't a primary issue in 8th outside just a couple problematic builds, which are all focused on the issue of CP sharing being a thing.

I pretty much find both of these to be true. Whens the last time you saw Ad Mech allied with Sisters and an Inquisitor causing problems or someone taking Khorne Marines with Khorne Demons to replicate the old Demonkin Book. You don't because those builds don't exploit a few core weaknesses that 8th has. The current cheap Brigade, plus slam captain or custodes and maybe a knight are the issue, not allies as a whole.

Also, there was that time where dual Daemon Primarchs reigned supreme until one got hit hard with the nerf bat which looked a lot like a book about getting dust out of armors.
Oh, and that time where brimstone horrors and alpha legion cultists would die and rise again as an army of pox walkers. Tiny, burning pox walkers that claimed to be Alpharius.
And let's not forget when Celestine was blessing everyone with her presence. EVERYONE ALL THE TIME.
I'd also like to take as second mourn for all those conscripts who gave their lives to protect Gulliman and his legendary retinue of assault cannon razorbacks.
Speaking of the big blue one: Remember when he went to Terra and promoted all custodes to captains, gave them jetbikes and change the codex astartes to read "every imperial commander shall be accompanied by exactly three golden bikes, no more, no less".

Yeah, good thing allies have never done anything useful outside of providing CP and casting invisibility.

I disagree with the claim that allies in modern editions were devoid of fluff, most players were playing some kind of fluffy army, and most still do. Tournaments are about exterme optimization and shouldn't be used as the yardstick for how most people use the rules of the game.

Lemondish wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Allies weren't a primary issue in 7th outside just a couple of problematic builds, which were all focused on the issue of Invisibility having been a thing.

Allies aren't a primary issue in 8th outside just a couple problematic builds, which are all focused on the issue of CP sharing being a thing.

That's not the case at all. Aeldari just mix and matches whichever units it wants to plug holes, and to give the additional of tools like Vect. Chaos takes the strongest units available split between a free choice of allies. Even Imperium, when you nerf the CP farm, is going to do the exact same thing, and the problem with allies will still persist.

 Jidmah wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Allies weren't a primary issue in 7th outside just a couple of problematic builds, which were all focused on the issue of Invisibility having been a thing.

Allies aren't a primary issue in 8th outside just a couple problematic builds, which are all focused on the issue of CP sharing being a thing.

I pretty much find both of these to be true. Whens the last time you saw Ad Mech allied with Sisters and an Inquisitor causing problems or someone taking Khorne Marines with Khorne Demons to replicate the old Demonkin Book. You don't because those builds don't exploit a few core weaknesses that 8th has. The current cheap Brigade, plus slam captain or custodes and maybe a knight are the issue, not allies as a whole.

Also, there was that time where dual Daemon Primarchs reigned supreme until one got hit hard with the nerf bat which looked a lot like a book about getting dust out of armors.
Oh, and that time where brimstone horrors and alpha legion cultists would die and rise again as an army of pox walkers. Tiny, burning pox walkers that claimed to be Alpharius.
And let's not forget when Celestine was blessing everyone with her presence. EVERYONE ALL THE TIME.
I'd also like to take as second mourn for all those conscripts who gave their lives to protect Gulliman and his legendary retinue of assault cannon razorbacks.
Speaking of the big blue one: Remember when he went to Terra and promoted all custodes to captains, gave them jetbikes and change the codex astartes to read "every imperial commander shall be accompanied by exactly three golden bikes, no more, no less".

Yeah, good thing allies have never done anything useful outside of providing CP and casting invisibility.

Honestly I can't take people seriously that think that Cultists and/or Poxwalker shenanigans were broken.

HoundsofDemos wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Allies weren't a primary issue in 7th outside just a couple of problematic builds, which were all focused on the issue of Invisibility having been a thing.

Allies aren't a primary issue in 8th outside just a couple problematic builds, which are all focused on the issue of CP sharing being a thing.

I pretty much find both of these to be true. Whens the last time you saw Ad Mech allied with Sisters and an Inquisitor causing problems or someone taking Khorne Marines with Khorne Demons to replicate the old Demonkin Book. You don't because those builds don't exploit a few core weaknesses that 8th has. The current cheap Brigade, plus slam captain or custodes and maybe a knight are the issue, not allies as a whole.

When was the last time you saw a Guard list with nothing but Ogryns cause problems at a major? Obviously Guard is super weak and needs some serious buffs.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Allies weren't a primary issue in 7th outside just a couple of problematic builds, which were all focused on the issue of Invisibility having been a thing.

Allies aren't a primary issue in 8th outside just a couple problematic builds, which are all focused on the issue of CP sharing being a thing.

I pretty much find both of these to be true. Whens the last time you saw Ad Mech allied with Sisters and an Inquisitor causing problems or someone taking Khorne Marines with Khorne Demons to replicate the old Demonkin Book. You don't because those builds don't exploit a few core weaknesses that 8th has. The current cheap Brigade, plus slam captain or custodes and maybe a knight are the issue, not allies as a whole.

When was the last time you saw a Guard list with nothing but Ogryns cause problems at a major? Obviously Guard is super weak and needs some serious buffs.

Well yeah some units do need the buffs.

Necrons, Tau and Orks can't soup. Nids can't really either, GCS is a special thing, and honestly, I feel like the GCS ally rules are a wonderful example of how to do allies!

They can't soup YET. I'd imagine that after the existing codexs are out brand new armies will be the majority of new models coming out. GW seems to past the endless regurgitating of existing codexs/models each edition. AoS seems to be the trailblazer here. And 3rd party manufacturers can't compete with you if they don't know what your releasing. Drop a new army and move on.

 Blndmage wrote:
Necrons, Tau and Orks can't soup. Nids can't really either, GCS is a special thing, and honestly, I feel like the GCS ally rules are a wonderful example of how to do allies!

Necrons aren't weak because they can't ally though and you know that.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Honestly I can't take people seriously that think that Cultists and/or Poxwalker shenanigans were broken.

No problem, I don't take people serious that fail at reading and understanding even the simplest posts

 Jidmah wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Allies weren't a primary issue in 7th outside just a couple of problematic builds, which were all focused on the issue of Invisibility having been a thing.

Allies aren't a primary issue in 8th outside just a couple problematic builds, which are all focused on the issue of CP sharing being a thing.

I pretty much find both of these to be true. Whens the last time you saw Ad Mech allied with Sisters and an Inquisitor causing problems or someone taking Khorne Marines with Khorne Demons to replicate the old Demonkin Book. You don't because those builds don't exploit a few core weaknesses that 8th has. The current cheap Brigade, plus slam captain or custodes and maybe a knight are the issue, not allies as a whole.

Also, there was that time where dual Daemon Primarchs reigned supreme until one got hit hard with the nerf bat which looked a lot like a book about getting dust out of armors.
Oh, and that time where brimstone horrors and alpha legion cultists would die and rise again as an army of pox walkers. Tiny, burning pox walkers that claimed to be Alpharius.
And let's not forget when Celestine was blessing everyone with her presence. EVERYONE ALL THE TIME.
I'd also like to take as second mourn for all those conscripts who gave their lives to protect Gulliman and his legendary retinue of assault cannon razorbacks.
Speaking of the big blue one: Remember when he went to Terra and promoted all custodes to captains, gave them jetbikes and change the codex astartes to read "every imperial commander shall be accompanied by exactly three golden bikes, no more, no less".

Yeah, good thing allies have never done anything useful outside of providing CP and casting invisibility.

There were at least as many cases of this type in 7th, except that there they were not fixed.

Actually the current kind of "problems" given by allies are much more welcome than the kind found in 7th.
In 8th you have the problem of armies plugging holes with the help of other armies, which while it could be bad for gaming, it at least makes sense!
In 7th you had Cypher joining every imperial army because for some magical reason his presence could hide 20 Thunderwolves charging at you!

 Crimson Devil wrote:
They can't soup YET. I'd imagine that after the existing codexs are out brand new armies will be the majority of new models coming out. GW seems to past the endless regurgitating of existing codexs/models each edition. AoS seems to be the trailblazer here. And 3rd party manufacturers can't compete with you if they don't know what your releasing. Drop a new army and move on.

There's a close to zero percent chance that Necrons get multi-faction support, and even if they did it wouldn't make a damned lick of sense. Basically their options would be to separate the Canoptek stuff out into its own army, which would require them to isolate some units from the main codex, oir they would have to build a new faction around a dynasty that plays radically different from the "standard" Necrons like the Maynarkh, which again wouldn't actually diversify model options by that much. Necron Codex vs. Maynarkh Codex would basically be the difference between Space Marine Codex vs. Blood Angels Codex.

Necrons certainly don't have the radically different and unique subfaction possibility that Tyranids had with Genestealer Cults.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
There's a close to zero percent chance that Necrons get multi-faction support, and even if they did it wouldn't make a damned lick of sense. Basically their options would be to separate the Canoptek stuff out into its own army, which would require them to isolate some units from the main codex, oir they would have to build a new faction around a dynasty that plays radically different from the "standard" Necrons like the Maynarkh

Both of which are entirely possible. GWs first step will be to fragment the codex into two or more pieces (kroot /canoptek) and their second step would be to have one generic ultracron or ultratau book with several additional cron/tau++ factions using a mix of upgrade sprues and unique units.

They aren't going to do that though, is the thing. Maybe they move the kroot to their own codex because they're distinct enough in both function and aesthetic from Tau that they could be independent, but there's nothing they could add as a Necron subfaction that wouldn't just feel like something that was stolen from the main book.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
They aren't going to do that though, is the thing. Maybe they move the kroot to their own codex because they're distinct enough in both function and aesthetic from Tau that they could be independent, but there's nothing they could add as a Necron subfaction that wouldn't just feel like something that was stolen from the main book.

Kharadron Overlords. Idoneth Deepkin.

If you can't think of a new distinct ally for Necrons, you don't have as much imagination as it seems GW have. If they want Necrons to have distinct allies, they'll think of something.

Whether you like it is another question of course!

 Arachnofiend wrote:
They aren't going to do that though, is the thing. Maybe they move the kroot to their own codex because they're distinct enough in both function and aesthetic from Tau that they could be independent, but there's nothing they could add as a Necron subfaction that wouldn't just feel like something that was stolen from the main book.

Codex C'tan.

Spoletta wrote:
There were at least as many cases of this type in 7th, except that there they were not fixed.

Actually the current kind of "problems" given by allies are much more welcome than the kind found in 7th.
In 8th you have the problem of armies plugging holes with the help of other armies, which while it could be bad for gaming, it at least makes sense!
In 7th you had Cypher joining every imperial army because for some magical reason his presence could hide 20 Thunderwolves charging at you!

Problems are still problems. Just because your car is on fire instead of your house doesn't mean everything is awesome.

Allies are a pain and generally a bad thing.



Yep!
See first up most armies are marketed and sold and bought through a unified identity of the faction itself. A combination of their visual style, playstyle and lore. Whilst those three components will change in priority from person to person and also change for different armies with the same person, they underpin the core of how armies are bought and sold in the hobby.

When you then, long after introducing armies, try to introduce allies with different factions as a formal rule, you can run into a mess.

1) The allies can break internal balance. Essentially because each army was made to stand on its own, yet with its own weaknesses, its possible to use allies to fix designed blind spots in an army; and/or to build up on the strong points. It essentially favours more extreme min-maxing of armed forces which can result in many vanilla armies being unable to compete on an even standing (which is bad because those are the gateway to most new players)

2) The allies can appear useless - if you manage to avoid option 1 then option 2 is that taking allies almost means nothing. This is good for game balance, but can make it rather a farce to even bother.

3) The allies breaks the visual identity of the game.


This can be even worse when you group allies based upon lore elements only not upon game balance. Consider that Marines have a wealth of allies to draw from, whilst Tyranids had nothing until Genestealer Cults came along. That is a huge disparity in allies and gives one army extreme min-max and another not.




Personally I feel that the best way to handle allies is casual style. Have a fixed set of core rules for single armies and then have a bolt on top allies option that lets you have rules to take allies, but which isn't designed to be used at the competitive end of the game.




The other option is to build allies into the game from the very beginning. That's hard to do for something of Warhammer Maturity unless GW goes the Age of Sigmar path and introduces it by shattering armies into sub-factions (which quite honestly might work in time for AoS but its a VERY VERY messy appraoch and can backfire - look at the Elf players who once had a 10K army in points, who now have bits of armies that can't quite work on their own at all).

I have 0 problems with allies losing their chapter/whatever tactics if they are mixed in an army, not just detachment. Even not sharing CP is allright.

I wouldn't like for them to not be able to use stratagems, because stratagems are cool. The same goes for relics and warlord traits (But probably those last two should be limited to the faction of your warlord)

This way you can't take a unit of Dark Heart kabalite warriors to use the Vect stratagem because you don't have CP. And allies actually lose something vs mono armies. But playing an allied force doesn't feel like playing with the indexes, you keep some personality if you build your allied force as that, two complete forces that ally together with their own sinergyes and CP, like a Sisters of Battle batallion+Black Templars batallion. (This for example wouldn't stop Slamguinus with scouts+Imperial Knight+Imperial guard from existing, but it would be much more weak. You wouldn't be able to give relicts or use stratagems with the single Castellan, Imperial Guard would lose their regiment doctrines, and only the BA detachment with your warlord captain would be able to take relicts to make them slamguinus. And Custodes Jetbikes yould lose the +1 to their invul save, and their relics too. An army much more manegable to a pure force that has their sub-faction bonus active and can use stratagems in all of his force)

Of course, some units like Assasins or Sisters of Silence should receive an exception to this to be usable, just like they have an exception and can be used in a vanguard detachment without HQ right now.

The killteam factions have created a good example for factions that are meant to be allied and not to be used for stand-alone armies.

Basically you could create a separate detachments for those kind of mini-factions, for example:

Sisters of Silence Detachment, 1-6 elite choices, 0-6 dedicated transports. Command benefits 3CP, these CP can only be spent on Sisters of Silence stratagems.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
...but there's nothing they could add as a Necron subfaction that wouldn't just feel like something that was stolen from the main book.

No different from splitting chaos marines and daemons, or spinning off harlies from eldar to give a few examples. And GW haven't been adverse in the past to taking one or two units and turning them into a book either (deathwatch for instance).

I started 40k with codex witch hunters and it was a great little army. Loved seeing the great variety of units and aesthetic; being able to take along a few token units of guard i had at the time to represent PDF roped in by the inquisitors made for some great looking setups as well as stories.

Sad times when the codex was split up into the various different elements that made up my army. To me that was like as saying to space marines that scouts and devastators were getting their own codex and you couldnt field them in your army anymore. Made no sense.

Now enter 8th edition. I cannot articulate how incredibly happy i am to be able to field my old witch hunter army again.
I couldnt care less what the competitive types think or do to abuse the game. Let them have their cookie cutter netlists. Im content with allies and am in a warm fuzzy place.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Allies like any other advantage goes back to the same core issue. People (particularly in a competitive setting with prestigious and prizes on the line) are going to take strong options. I don't see any complaints of people allying in Sisters of Battle with Ad mech. It's a few units from a few factions that create the soup issue and most of those have more to do with CP than anything else.

I don't know much about the competitive perspective, but from what I can tell the Imperium of Man has more options for "allies" than the other xenos empires do. Mainly because an Imperial Guard Regiment teaming up with a Tyranid Hive seems kinda odd to me. Perhaps GW could introduce new types of Xeno factions that have better foreign relations with say, the Eldar or the Tau and than with the Imperium.

Sorry if I got anything wrong though. I remember reading my Dark Vengeance rule book, and it said that certain factions would only team up with each other when something is in dire straights and the fate of the universe is on the line or something. Once again, sorry if I misinterpreted what you were trying to say.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The problem is that those factions arent really armies, and treating them as such was a mistake. The Inquisition for example, is not a battlefield force in and of itself, rather it coopts other forces for specific objectives/campaigns.

I disagree. Taking an allies system like AoS's and allowing us to mix and match things isn't a problem. Heck, with the Imperium that's a feature, not a bug after all. The problem was not expanding that to other factions (Orks, Tau, Necrons), some of which are known for working along side humans (Eldar, Tau and Orks have all done so in various points in history) and I'd love for Necrons to go full space Egypt and start taking human slaves to work for them (I mean nothing gets the ego going quite as much as having a captive audience to listen to your insane ramblings and agree with your every claim, and with mindshackle scarabs that's even more possible than ever).

And that's not even going into Traitor Guard which needs some proper love as well.

Basically I'm saying there should be more play in the allies system than we currently have (maybe split it into broader groups like AoS "Order", "Chaos", "Destruction" set up) and bonuses should be tied to how many shared keywords you have in your list. Basically I'm saying copy AoS, but don't do so many tiny subfactions.

So basically everybody can take anything without hindrance as otherwise some factions will be better.

Say hello to necron tyranid custodes etc comboes)

tneva82 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The problem is that those factions arent really armies, and treating them as such was a mistake. The Inquisition for example, is not a battlefield force in and of itself, rather it coopts other forces for specific objectives/campaigns.

I disagree. Taking an allies system like AoS's and allowing us to mix and match things isn't a problem. Heck, with the Imperium that's a feature, not a bug after all. The problem was not expanding that to other factions (Orks, Tau, Necrons), some of which are known for working along side humans (Eldar, Tau and Orks have all done so in various points in history) and I'd love for Necrons to go full space Egypt and start taking human slaves to work for them (I mean nothing gets the ego going quite as much as having a captive audience to listen to your insane ramblings and agree with your every claim, and with mindshackle scarabs that's even more possible than ever).

And that's not even going into Traitor Guard which needs some proper love as well.

Basically I'm saying there should be more play in the allies system than we currently have (maybe split it into broader groups like AoS "Order", "Chaos", "Destruction" set up) and bonuses should be tied to how many shared keywords you have in your list. Basically I'm saying copy AoS, but don't do so many tiny subfactions.

So basically everybody can take anything without hindrance as otherwise some factions will be better.

Say hello to necron tyranid custodes etc comboes)

AOS still has some restrictions (shared keywords, points limit) and mixing units like that would lock you out of certain bonuses you'd get for having a more concentrated (aka Monocodex) army.

Allies should be allowed for all normal play, using the rules which make the Alliance lore-friendly (no Guilliman and Montarion on the same team).

In tournaments, I am all in for banning allies completely except these specific factions: Genestealer Cults, Inquisition, Harlequins, Lost and Damned and Imperial Knights. These factions have very small unit and loadout choices that running them alone would lead to one dimensional armies.

 K9ofChaos wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Allies like any other advantage goes back to the same core issue. People (particularly in a competitive setting with prestigious and prizes on the line) are going to take strong options. I don't see any complaints of people allying in Sisters of Battle with Ad mech. It's a few units from a few factions that create the soup issue and most of those have more to do with CP than anything else.

I don't know much about the competitive perspective, but from what I can tell the Imperium of Man has more options for "allies" than the other xenos empires do. Mainly because an Imperial Guard Regiment teaming up with a Tyranid Hive seems kinda odd to me. Perhaps GW could introduce new types of Xeno factions that have better foreign relations with say, the Eldar or the Tau and than with the Imperium.

Sorry if I got anything wrong though. I remember reading my Dark Vengeance rule book, and it said that certain factions would only team up with each other when something is in dire straights and the fate of the universe is on the line or something. Once again, sorry if I misinterpreted what you were trying to say.

That's how 6th-7th handled it, and honestly it worked pretty fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bibotot wrote:
Allies should be allowed for all normal play, using the rules which make the Alliance lore-friendly (no Guilliman and Montarion on the same team).

In tournaments, I am all in for banning allies completely except these specific factions: Genestealer Cults, Inquisition, Harlequins, Lost and Damned and Imperial Knights. These factions have very small unit and loadout choices that running them alone would lead to one dimensional armies.

You forgot Daemons.

 K9ofChaos wrote:


I don't know much about the competitive perspective, but from what I can tell the Imperium of Man has more options for "allies" than the other xenos empires do. Mainly because an Imperial Guard Regiment teaming up with a Tyranid Hive seems kinda odd to me. Perhaps GW could introduce new types of Xeno factions that have better foreign relations with say, the Eldar or the Tau and than with the Imperium.

Sorry if I got anything wrong though. I remember reading my Dark Vengeance rule book, and it said that certain factions would only team up with each other when something is in dire straights and the fate of the universe is on the line or something. Once again, sorry if I misinterpreted what you were trying to say.

Tyranids have mind control worms, or the IG in question are members of GSC. Honestly, there's a way to explain any faction combination in the lore

Morgasm the Powerfull wrote:

 K9ofChaos wrote:


I don't know much about the competitive perspective, but from what I can tell the Imperium of Man has more options for "allies" than the other xenos empires do. Mainly because an Imperial Guard Regiment teaming up with a Tyranid Hive seems kinda odd to me. Perhaps GW could introduce new types of Xeno factions that have better foreign relations with say, the Eldar or the Tau and than with the Imperium.

Sorry if I got anything wrong though. I remember reading my Dark Vengeance rule book, and it said that certain factions would only team up with each other when something is in dire straights and the fate of the universe is on the line or something. Once again, sorry if I misinterpreted what you were trying to say.

Tyranids have mind control worms, or the IG in question are members of GSC. Honestly, there's a way to explain any faction combination in the lore

Yeah, IG allying with Tyranids is actually one of the easier alliances to justify. That's the whole point of Cults, to infiltrate Humanity's defences. They use a mixture hybrids, who go out and take up roles throughout the society they are infiltrating, and psychic mind control.

Once the infestation gets deep, local commanders can be indoctrinated into the cult even! Anyone who doesn't go along with them would get BLAMMED, just like the Imperium would do anyway.

Allies are very good when you are not doing min-maxing. Maybe problem are competitive tournaments?

What comes to command points I would pleased to see that you could use command points only for faction who earned them.

 Draco wrote:
Allies are very good when you are not doing min-maxing. Maybe problem are competitive tournaments?

This is the worst logic ever. Most things are pretty fair when you aren't min maxing, it balances itself out. Sounds like you're not playing competitively and don't want to change how your list currently works. That makes sense, and I can empathise, which is why you probably shouldn't restrict yourself to matched play rules if you aren't playing competitively.

The game has to be built and balanced at the min-max competitive end. Otherwise you're basically relying on telling people to build worse armies all the time in order to keep it "fair". That isn't fun for anyone and can be a minefield of arguments (just look at early AoS when there were no points at all and you either used the old points or had to debate/argue over what was fair for you both to take

All Alliances make sense in a way:

Grey Knights with Chaos Space Marines? Those Chaos Space Marines want to redeem themselves.

Space Marines with Orks? Ork mercenaries.

Mechanicus and Tyranids? Artificial Hive Minds.

Warhammer 40k is a very large universe. You can stretch your imagination to make almost any scenario possible. The thing is that it shouldn't translate into tabletop gaming experience. Not only would that be overly convoluted, but it also takes away the identity of each faction if any can become friend with another at certain times.

For this reason, I am 100% against using Astra Militarum in Chaos instead of Lost and Damned or Astra Militrarum and Tau in Tyranids instead of actual Genestealer Cults. GW can release new rules and models, but they should distinguish sub factions from their parents. You should not have the best of both worlds and ruin the faction just so that you can slap the face of every people on the opposite end of the table with your win-at-all-cost list.

bibotot wrote:
All Alliances make sense in a way:

Grey Knights with Chaos Space Marines? Those Chaos Space Marines want to redeem themselves.

Space Marines with Orks? Ork mercenaries.

Mechanicus and Tyranids? Artificial Hive Minds.

Warhammer 40k is a very large universe. You can stretch your imagination to make almost any scenario possible. The thing is that it shouldn't translate into tabletop gaming experience. Not only would that be overly convoluted, but it also takes away the identity of each faction if any can become friend with another at certain times.

There is established lore on this kind of thing and it's not at all part of the universe and none of what you said is even really plausible at all. It's fine if you want to do your own stuff, but if you have minimal knowledge of the lore don't pretend it works lorewise because of some catchphrase. "Necron's caught Red Thirst!". That's your own thing, and you can have fun with your models and universe, but it's no more fluffy than Tau Tyranids. "Tau pheromone domination!"

Considering allies are only LIMITED in Matched play (you can do whatever you want in Narrative and Open play), the limits we have are explicitly for Matched Play and Matched Play alone.

GW in their infinite wisdom think that the current pools of allies are what they want in matched play, so that is what we have. If they feel that matched play needs more alliance limitations, they will make more down the road. Or they can add them as "Organised play suggestions" like the rule of 3.

That is the most gakky part of the ally charade.

All or nothing people. In for a penny in for a pound.

I prefer not to be in btw. Match play= no or highly limited allies for me.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Considering allies are only LIMITED in Matched play (you can do whatever you want in Narrative and Open play), the limits we have are explicitly for Matched Play and Matched Play alone.

GW in their infinite wisdom think that the current pools of allies are what they want in matched play, so that is what we have. If they feel that matched play needs more alliance limitations, they will make more down the road. Or they can add them as "Organised play suggestions" like the rule of 3.

in many areas you will not find anybody willing to play matched or open play. there are a lot of players who consider themselves hardcore and match only. These players often have never been to a tournament beyond a local gamestore. They show up with the flavor of the month netlist, lose to the actual good players but beat the players who came with fluff lists and declare themselves tournament veterans. In my area I can find a few open/narrative options for my army (orks with chaos space marines) in 6th and 7th I could ally them and had fun, its mercenary orks with alpha legion paying them and providing fire support. But only a handful of players actually will play and going into a store I cannot find a match because everybody wants matched play and my armies lack a liek keyword.

only real restriction I would go for, over the current keyword system and "Battle Brothers", detachment limit etc is that one faction must have at least 50% of point, and this one must be the one the warlord comes from, they are the army, the others are 'attached' to it.

 G00fySmiley wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Considering allies are only LIMITED in Matched play (you can do whatever you want in Narrative and Open play), the limits we have are explicitly for Matched Play and Matched Play alone.

GW in their infinite wisdom think that the current pools of allies are what they want in matched play, so that is what we have. If they feel that matched play needs more alliance limitations, they will make more down the road. Or they can add them as "Organised play suggestions" like the rule of 3.

in many areas you will not find anybody willing to play matched or open play. there are a lot of players who consider themselves hardcore and match only. These players often have never been to a tournament beyond a local gamestore. They show up with the flavor of the month netlist, lose to the actual good players but beat the players who came with fluff lists and declare themselves tournament veterans. In my area I can find a few open/narrative options for my army (orks with chaos space marines) in 6th and 7th I could ally them and had fun, its mercenary orks with alpha legion paying them and providing fire support. But only a handful of players actually will play and going into a store I cannot find a match because everybody wants matched play and my armies lack a liek keyword.

Same. I bought AdMech to have some Dark Mechanicum in my Chaos army. Using them was a bit tricky with that CtA 12 inch deployment limit, but it was still cool.

leopard wrote:
only real restriction I would go for, over the current keyword system and "Battle Brothers", detachment limit etc is that one faction must have at least 50% of point, and this one must be the one the warlord comes from, they are the army, the others are 'attached' to it.

That's one of the more sound solutions. Doesn't AoS have a similar system already?

AoS restricts allies based upon their Grand Alliance group and then again based upon specific lists of allowed allies within their Battletomes/rules.

There are ways to get more allies outside of that, but the further out you go the more you lose out on faction specific abilities and traits which are often powerful and very desirable. Essentially AoS lets you take lots of allies, but puts the bonus on having a more mono-faction force with some room in it for taking standard allies.

Most armies are a single core force with the standard 400 points (at 2K full game points) of allies. This was further restricted in making you only allowed to take 1/4 in units as allies as well.


The armies that tend to fare poorly are the tiny ones that are one or two models big; which is mostly a function of them not yet being addressed by GW for adjustment or rebalancing (legacy from the early Kirby days of AoS)



Plus when you take allies the allied units often won't benefit from command traits or faction abilities and mages which are allied in can't use the faction lore nor their own faction spell lore. So they are restricted to the spells on their warscroll and any realm-spell lore (if you and your opponent decide to use realm rules for the battlefield). This not only feels right in terms of how allies are taken, but it also means that min-maxing with allies isn't straight forward nor always going to happen.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

leopard wrote:
only real restriction I would go for, over the current keyword system and "Battle Brothers", detachment limit etc is that one faction must have at least 50% of point, and this one must be the one the warlord comes from, they are the army, the others are 'attached' to it.

That's one of the more sound solutions. Doesn't AoS have a similar system already?

Pretty much, except 80% need to be main faction, up to 20% allies.

The allies rules for GCS are pretty good. What if we used those as a template?

 Blndmage wrote:
The allies rules for GCS are pretty good. What if we used those as a template?

Because it makes perfect sense that a Catachan Jungle Fighter, someone who has learned to kill animals with their bare hands before they can even talk, suddenly forgets how to be Swole because some crispy boys in Green and some ammonia smelling pasty boys in Black showed up and started shouting "orders".

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
The allies rules for GCS are pretty good. What if we used those as a template?

Because it makes perfect sense that a Catachan Jungle Fighter, someone who has learned to kill animals with their bare hands before they can even talk, suddenly forgets how to be Swole because some crispy boys in Green and some ammonia smelling pasty boys in Black showed up and started shouting "orders".

It makes perfect sense that we fire flamers at airplanes

It makes perfect sense that we can only take 3 terminator squads when some factions have entire companies of them

It makes perfect sense that n autogun bullet travels 24" straight without losing any hitting power at all and then and then drops to the floor harmlessly when it goes a millimeter past that length.

I get that your gimmick is to complain about the rules at all times but sometimes you have to recognise this is a game, not a simulation and sometimes rules are made for the sake of gameplay. A force built out of free picking the strongest guys from two separate factions SHOULD be stronger in reality than a force the same size picked from just one. But capturing that just tosses balance out the window. His suggestion really wasn't that bad either, it does make some sense that if you weren't in command of an OP you may not be able to get much use out of your unique battle doctrine as you would otherwise.

I don't think it does nearly enough on its own anyway though, but I think it's one piece that should be considered.

Chapter/Regiment/ETC tactics represent (In general) the coordinate style of fighting of a specific force.

Is just as coherent to make them lose those bonus if they are mixed in the same detachment with others factions than in the same army. Is just a balance decision.