Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 ChargerIIC wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
And seriously, that Ynnari list finishing 4th at SoCal was losing its game to Genestealer cult, but Daniel threatened to attack Nick so Nick resigned and said screw this. Tastey Taste did a blog about it and you can see the argument starting in one of his videos where he walks down the line of the top tables.

Daniel was getting stomped and *lost his mind* which forced his opponent to be an adult and walk away.

Ynnari are good but beatable, acting like they're this god mode faction is hilarious.

You got a link for that? Google isn't showing anything and I have trouble believing the drama-loving 40k community would miss something like that.

I already told you where to find it.

http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2018/10/26/socal-open-2018-coverage/

Second to last video, he goes down the top tables. You can hear Nick and Daniel arguing. You can also get a look at the Ork list that was undefeated and competing for 3rd place (it lost to the almost-mono DE army shown in the video by 2 points). It'll give you a look at the buildings everyone was talking about.

Last video, he talks about it.

 Marmatag wrote:

 ChargerIIC wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
And seriously, that Ynnari list finishing 4th at SoCal was losing its game to Genestealer cult, but Daniel threatened to attack Nick so Nick resigned and said screw this. Tastey Taste did a blog about it and you can see the argument starting in one of his videos where he walks down the line of the top tables.

Daniel was getting stomped and *lost his mind* which forced his opponent to be an adult and walk away.

Ynnari are good but beatable, acting like they're this god mode faction is hilarious.

You got a link for that? Google isn't showing anything and I have trouble believing the drama-loving 40k community would miss something like that.

I already told you where to find it.

http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2018/10/26/socal-open-2018-coverage/

Second to last video, he goes down the top tables. You can hear Nick and Daniel arguing. You can also get a look at the Ork list that was undefeated and competing for 3rd place (it lost to the almost-mono DE army shown in the video by 2 points). It'll give you a look at the buildings everyone was talking about.

Last video, he talks about it.

So you're argument is because the optimized army loses on occasion it's perfectly fine?

On topic:

Eldar and Space Marines would dominate, espeically built-in soup factions like Blood Angels/Space Wolves/Dark Angels, who get their own stuff + all the Space Marine goodies.

Eldar get better with soup, but they have a huge suite of tough mono-book lists that can and are performing on the tournament scene already.

Imperial Guard probably comes in third, since their faction is still centered around indirect firepower and the forgiveness of cheap models.

Necrons and Orks would be unaffected since they neither experience soup now nor would they do particularly different in a non-soup. Necron players would be particularly bitter, since people keep stating that they'd be doing it for Necrons, when in reality Necrons need cost and stat adjustments.

Tyranid players would be out of luck for soup, but they are a pretty adaptive community and the GSC half doesn't have a codex yet. GSC players would be screwed, but people seem to enjoy seeing the other Xenos Soup faction suffer.

You'd be pretty much banning Inquisition/Imperial agencts from the game, but the anti-soup crowd seems to be considering that a benefit and the affected players would either need to sell their collections and get into a 'proper' faction, or just leave the game entirely. Same for the handful of Ynari players who bought into the idea of having a wide, supported faction with options. They'd have to go space marine or GTFO.

Chaos has always been built in soup and it'd be pretty much impossible to de-soup them without making them unplayable. It'd become a faction of isolated islands, with a duplicitiy of datasheets shoved into incredibly complicated codexes. I suspect Chaos will rebel the hardest, even if they aren't the worst affected.

The game has never really had a true mono-faction mode, so it's not really an achievable goal in the first place. It's more of a Trump-style 'I just had this great 5 minute idea on how to fix everything!' twitter shot.

Since my post is generally in the negative, that makes me responsible for suggesting an alternative. Xenos-friendly mercenaries. There are several (including Necron and Ork aligned humans) in the fluff and having a couple options that could hop from one Xenos faction to another helps give those factions some of the flexability they desire. Besides, it's silly that we don't have human auxiliaries for Tau. I mean, really?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The game went many years and editions without allies just fine without allies being needed for fluffy armies.

That's completely subjective. To me, the single BEST mechanic in 8th is how easy it is to ally because it's so freeing from a hobby perspective.

7th had just the right amount of freedom. My stand-in Assassins for my Necrons are basically unusable now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:


Allies will always exist in this game. And they should. It is the opposite of fluffy if you can't have allies.

To be fair, the game went most of its recent existence without them for the 14 years of 3E/4E/5E (not counting WH/DH that was available in a very limited capacity).

More to the point, the unfortunate reality is that in the overwhelming majority of cases, allies are used as power combos and crutches, not for fluff, most of the allies combos ive seen on tables over the last few editions have been unimaginative fluff abortions, and the rate that Allies are used makes little sense within the framework of the 40k universe (e.g. Celestine does not always accompany a grip of Guardsmen, Mortarian and Magnus sharing the same field should be an inconceivably rare event, etc).

Bu can't that be said about everythng, and use it as an argument agaisnt most options? In a competitive scene everything is a fluff abortion.
Special Characters are always used in the most broken combo possible, they aren't fluffy, ban them. Forgeworld? You don't see the fluffy options, just the OP ones. Ban it. Super heavies? Ban them. Relics? The same OP ones are always used, ban them.
Most armies in the competitive scene aren't based aroud fluff but by how competitive they are. Should we ban competitive play?

At the end of the day, allies have a place both in narrative and casual play (There they allow to fluffy lists), and competitive play (There they allow for broken combos, but everything in competitive play is based around building broken combos, allies are a tool like Forgeworld or Special Characters or Reliqs or Subfaction rules)

The original statement was that allies are fundamental to fluffy play. The results we see on tables strongly disagree was my point, allies are far more commonly used as power crutches than for anything fluffy, usually quite the opposite.

If we want to talk about that other stuff, we can, but thats a different conversation and bucket of worms. Each faction is designed inherently as a complete self contained force not only in background but as a game faction as well, and its own product release, with only a few exceptions (and of those many are unnecessarily forced). Allies end up creating a whole lot more issues than internal book issues do, and with a lot less game design justification for their existence and poor actual results in terms of reflecting their intent on the table.

People can play whatever they want. I'm not going to show up and tell you that you cant play whatever Soup list you're running, but lets not pretend like fluff is really what drives its utilization. The allies mechanics are overwhelmingly used as mix-n-match power crutches as opposed to any well thought out coherent background representation. The game went many years and editions without allies just fine without allies being needed for fluffy armies.

Except allies HAVE always existed, just in differing capacities.

Nobody complained about Grey Knights and Sisters, right? I almost feel like you'll just say "no that doesn't count", but it does. There was a way to throw in Guard and Marines, and a way to throw in Grey Knights and Sisters.

That's allies. It doesn't matter how you want to interpret it.

I specifically noted that example earlier. That said, there were also very tight limits on what you could and could not mix and how it could be done, and it was specifically just through just the WH and DH books, it was all handled within those isolated examples that had a lot of thought put into that interaction. A vastly different situation to what we have now where you can take stuff from wildly disparate armies in whatever manner you want. I'm fine with the former, not so much the latter.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Should we ban competitive play?

Ideally? Yes.

Then we can go back to concentrating on having fun with our toy soldiers, and not worrying about "the meta", the latest tournament shenanigans, or other people trying to eek out that extra 0.001% performance from a list as they've decided it determines the size of their e-peen...

Maybe in an ideal world, but we've seen time and time again that competetive play and the "meta" are the things that largely keep GW afloat. Tournament players spend a lot more than casual players expanding, adjusting and changing their armies on the regular after all.

No, we need a solid game rewritten from the ground up, rebalanced in a way that allows both horde and elite armies to share the table without gimping one or the other.

For every meta chasing tournament player there a lots of casual players that buy whatever they like, thats whats keeping GW afloat.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 ChargerIIC wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
And seriously, that Ynnari list finishing 4th at SoCal was losing its game to Genestealer cult, but Daniel threatened to attack Nick so Nick resigned and said screw this. Tastey Taste did a blog about it and you can see the argument starting in one of his videos where he walks down the line of the top tables.

Daniel was getting stomped and *lost his mind* which forced his opponent to be an adult and walk away.

Ynnari are good but beatable, acting like they're this god mode faction is hilarious.

You got a link for that? Google isn't showing anything and I have trouble believing the drama-loving 40k community would miss something like that.

I already told you where to find it.

http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2018/10/26/socal-open-2018-coverage/

Second to last video, he goes down the top tables. You can hear Nick and Daniel arguing. You can also get a look at the Ork list that was undefeated and competing for 3rd place (it lost to the almost-mono DE army shown in the video by 2 points). It'll give you a look at the buildings everyone was talking about.

Last video, he talks about it.

So you're argument is because the optimized army loses on occasion it's perfectly fine?

Where did I say that? Orks win their last game they finish ahead of Ynnari. Does this mean that Orks are better? No, but it does suggest there isn't this massive gulf between "top tier" and "other" as posters on here would suggest.

I doubt Marines would "dominate" since the +1 versions have all the weaknesses of Vanilla (lack of durability, high cost) paired with a need for CP not seen in the Vanilla book. Vanilla only gets worse when your tactic basically boil down to relying on Guilliman to prop the book up since most of the others don't have a lot of impact on the meta (save for Imperial Fists who have some utility due to ignoring cover).

The problem isn't soup its lack of the incentive to play monolist or that cross functional armies are a thing, taking the most powerful units from each codex to build an army is what people are doing. Custodes are one of the few if only races currently that if you play mono get better (but still lack ways to get cheap troops, at this point just give custodes access to 'stormtroopers' or something as a regular troop choice.)

 Asherian Command wrote:
The problem isn't soup its lack of the incentive to play monolist or that cross functional armies are a thing, taking the most powerful units from each codex to build an army is what people are doing. Custodes are one of the few if only races currently that if you play mono get better (but still lack ways to get cheap troops, at this point just give custodes access to 'stormtroopers' or something as a regular troop choice.)

Custodes should have been paired with Sisters of Silence which would have given squishier (and cheaper) bodies to the army to solve the problem.

Also Custodes really need CP. It's a big problem for them.

 Marmatag wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
No soup? What will the Imperium eat? Corpse rations?

Seriously though (and I'm only speaking in terms of competetive play), Marines would be unplayable, Knights would be low tier, Custodes might not even see the table, Eldar would be spanking everyone like it was 7th and generally the meta wouldn't be shifting around as much as it is currently.

Eldar without allies are mediocre.
Dark Eldar without allies are barely mediocre.
Ynnari exist only in the concept of allies.

I can't even with this place sometimes.

Respectfully disagree. CWE and DE are IMO 2 of the strongest mono dex in the game. In your opinion what mono codex is better than DE?

I'm glad dakka has absolutely no influence on balance.

I do find it ironic that:

The competitive community continues to grow, and outside of isolated incidents people have a great time.

Meanwhile, the casual community is just a nonstop cesspool of complaints and nerf threads, using tournament data to grind their axes.

Who enjoys the game more?

 Ratius wrote:
Which armies do you think would/could improve if Soup didnt exist?

This is a loaded question. There are a lot of ways to answer it.

Certain armies would diminish because they no longer have soup options to improve from. Certain armies would improve because they no longer have to face those same soup armies. There's no way to deny that.

But that's not to say the game would be better. The old Force Organization Chart forced players to take sub-optimal load-outs to satisfy FOC requirements, points were being spent on units that were horribly inefficient. It was needlessly dissatisfying.

The 8th edition detachment system is a big improvement precisely because it offers more flexibility over what you collect and use in the game. From that perspective, every army would be diminished because there are fewer options for how to field it. No one really benefits from having less options for how to construct your army.

Also, one of the things that really complicates this question is what you mean when you say soup.

If you mean an army with detachments that each draw from different Codexes: there's not a lot of differences between that and the ally system introduced in 6th edition. I'm not sure it's even worth giving it a name, you've been able to do that for years. (Inquisiton armies could do that going back to 3rd edition.)

If you mean an army with at least one detachment drawing units from different Codexes: I haven't noticed too many armies like that winning tournaments. The most powerful armies appear to have separate detachments for units from each Codex.

From that perspective, soup doesn't make a big difference, I can't see how it really affects the outcome of competitive games. Even if there was no way to mix detachments, presumably there would still be a way to bring in allies from another Codex.

If the question was "how would the outcome of games be affected were players forced to construct their armies using a single Codex," that might be more interesting to talk about.

With my Black Legion army, the only allies I ever use are Daemons. With my Grey Knights army, the only allies I ever use are Guard / Inquisition / Assassins. Having to fight without allies would be a disappointment from a fluff perspective, but (assuming my opponent is also forced to choose from a single Codex), I think the results would remain the same.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
The problem isn't soup its lack of the incentive to play monolist or that cross functional armies are a thing, taking the most powerful units from each codex to build an army is what people are doing. Custodes are one of the few if only races currently that if you play mono get better (but still lack ways to get cheap troops, at this point just give custodes access to 'stormtroopers' or something as a regular troop choice.)

Custodes should have been paired with Sisters of Silence which would have given squishier (and cheaper) bodies to the army to solve the problem.

Also Custodes really need CP. It's a big problem for them.

I was surprised it was TALONS OF THE EMPEROR as a single codex. As it would flesh out the entirety of custodes codex and would allow for cheaper sisters and would provide the way to prevent Psykers and deal with demons as well. This would also have a cross benefit of both of them having rules that coincide with one another.

Plus I really want a Sisters & Custode codex, ever since I saw them in the old horus heresy artwork I've loved their design.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Ratius wrote:
Which armies do you think would/could improve if Soup didnt exist?

This is a loaded question. There are a lot of ways to answer it.

Certain armies would diminish because they no longer have soup options to improve from. Certain armies would improve because they no longer have to face those same soup armies. There's no way to deny that.

But that's not to say the game would be better. The old Force Organization Chart forced players to take sub-optimal load-outs to satisfy FOC requirements, points were being spent on units that were horribly inefficient. It was needlessly dissatisfying.

The 8th edition detachment system is a big improvement precisely because it offers more flexibility over what you collect and use in the game. From that perspective, every army would be diminished because there are fewer options for how to field it. No one really benefits from having less options for how to construct your army.

Also, one of the things that really complicates this question is what you mean when you say soup.

If you mean an army with detachments that each draw from different Codexes: there's not a lot of differences between that and the ally system introduced in 6th edition. I'm not sure it's even worth giving it a name, you've been able to do that for years. (Inquisiton armies could do that going back to 3rd edition.)

If you mean an army with at least one detachment drawing units from different Codexes: I haven't noticed too many armies like that winning tournaments. The most powerful armies appear to have separate detachments for units from each Codex.

From that perspective, soup doesn't make a big difference, I can't see how it really affects the outcome of competitive games. Even if there was no way to mix detachments, presumably there would still be a way to bring in allies from another Codex.

If the question was "how would the outcome of games be affected were players forced to construct their armies using a single Codex," that might be more interesting to talk about.

With my Black Legion army, the only allies I ever use are Daemons. With my Grey Knights army, the only allies I ever use are Guard / Inquisition / Assassins. Having to fight without allies would be a disappointment from a fluff perspective, but (assuming my opponent is also forced to choose from a single Codex), I think the results would remain the same.

I think the big problem is that the codexes for all the races aren't even done yet we are still waiting for Corsairs, Ynnari, The Lost & The Damned, Emperors Children, Talons of the EMP, Sisters of Battle, and the World Eaters.

WE have alot of missing codexes still and some still only use their index or don't even have an entry or are not represented in the slightest (looks at the legion of the damned)

I keep seeing "mostly mono". Mostly mono, is not mono. How is that even an argument?

Allies should be relegated to open/narrative play.

Dandelion wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The game went many years and editions without allies just fine without allies being needed for fluffy armies.

That's completely subjective. To me, the single BEST mechanic in 8th is how easy it is to ally because it's so freeing from a hobby perspective.

I'm on both sides of this. I started in 4E when aliies weren't a thing. All your units had to be from the same Codex. Period.
What I liked about this (as a newer player) was that once I had a general idea of what each army was, I had an idea of what a particular army list may be capable of.
Outside of knowing what the latest "netlists" are, this ability to know what a list can do just by knowing the faction is all but gone and I miss that surety.

But on the other side, having allies allows for fun lists that expand your army without being restricted to a single book.
The problem is that instantly allows players to "plug holes" in an army's weakness.

I like 8E for allies the best as it prevents combos that should never happen, like taking CWE and Necrons together. I did this twice in 7E myself using Scatterbikes, a WK and Necron Wraith formations. It was broken, so after winning 2 local tournies to prove that point, I sold the Necrons so I could go back to playing my Eldar with GK allies

What's funny for me is that I took allies in 7E to "dilute" my CWE as they were considered OP. So allies allowed me to continue using my Eldar, but also throw in some sub-par stuff that I just wanted to play too, like GKs or DE.
In 8E, even though allies seem more restricted (some factions cannot allie with anyone) allies are still used to create advantages

-

 Elbows wrote:
I don't think it's too complex. Generally speaking, soup (which is not units in a detachment like GW states, as the term is more about army detachments now - and has been since the edition started) benefits those armies which can ally.

Any "army" which has access to 120 datasheets, when the opposing army has access to 20...is inherently at an advantage.

not ALWAYS, depends on the quality of those data sheets, after all using tyhat logic if we get rid of soup space marines will be the top army by virtue of having more data sheets then anyone else

 Galef wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The game went many years and editions without allies just fine without allies being needed for fluffy armies.

That's completely subjective. To me, the single BEST mechanic in 8th is how easy it is to ally because it's so freeing from a hobby perspective.

I'm on both sides of this. I started in 4E when aliies weren't a thing. All your units had to be from the same Codex. Period.

Exceeeept that Codexes Witchhunters and Daemonhunters still had working rules for allies in 4th with their 3rd ed codexes. It's not that there were no allies, they just weren't as common and I recall a lot of people lamenting they couldn't fully match the fluff with cool allied based army lists.

Yay being old I guess?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Galef wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The game went many years and editions without allies just fine without allies being needed for fluffy armies.

That's completely subjective. To me, the single BEST mechanic in 8th is how easy it is to ally because it's so freeing from a hobby perspective.

I'm on both sides of this. I started in 4E when aliies weren't a thing. All your units had to be from the same Codex. Period.

Exceeeept that Codexes Witchhunters and Daemonhunters still had working rules for allies in 4th with their 3rd ed codexes. It's not that there were no allies, they just weren't as common and I recall a lot of people lamenting they couldn't fully match the fluff with cool allied based army lists.

Yay being old I guess?

Fair enough. At my LGS at the time no one took either "Hunters" army. I seem to recall the same codex copy on the wall collecting dust for years.
Still, with Matched play vs Open/Narrative, there can now be levels of play.
Matched play could be far more restrictive, for example by requiring all units share 2 or more faction keywords for an army, and Open/Narrative play can be for using allies.
This will obviously mean some armies just do not see Matched play, but how is that any different that how it is now?

Honestly, I feel the days on 1 consistent mode of play are gone. Even before 8E you had casual play, but different LGSs had different expectations at to what this means and competitive play has had different formats (ITC, ETC, etc) for a while too.

-

Zothos wrote:
I keep seeing "mostly mono". Mostly mono, is not mono. How is that even an argument?

Allies should be relegated to open/narrative play.

How do you guys not see the irony in this?

You don't play competitive. So you want allies relegated to the only mode you play. LOL! It's so comical.

"I can't hang in competitive play because of <reasons> so let's make those <reasons> only apply to me!"

 Galef wrote:
I'm on both sides of this. I started in 4E when aliies weren't a thing. All your units had to be from the same Codex. Period.

Off the top of my head, allied options in 4th edition, either with allied rules or printed/reprinted in another factions dex -

Inquisitors
Assassins
Ministorum (both as allied units and reprinted in the guard book)
Sororitas
Grey Knights
Daemons (until codex daemons, plus generic daemons and daemonic adversaries)
Renegades (in various forms, including adversaries in the WH book)
Deathwatch (later replaced by sternguard, later still spun out into a book)
Legion of the damned
And everything superheavy due to being apoc only.

As of 5th the Harlequins were also double printed in the eldar and dark eldar dex.

GW have split a lot out of books over the years.

A.T. wrote:

GW have split a lot out of books over the years.

This is a huge part of the issue. We have bunch of stuff that never should have been considered an "army" in and of itself, or that never should have been split out of their old parent dex (or at least not in the way that it was). This then results in issues and allowing stuff that wasnt intended to be used like that to piggyback such mechanics.

 Marmatag wrote:

 ChargerIIC wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
And seriously, that Ynnari list finishing 4th at SoCal was losing its game to Genestealer cult, but Daniel threatened to attack Nick so Nick resigned and said screw this. Tastey Taste did a blog about it and you can see the argument starting in one of his videos where he walks down the line of the top tables.

Daniel was getting stomped and *lost his mind* which forced his opponent to be an adult and walk away.

Ynnari are good but beatable, acting like they're this god mode faction is hilarious.

You got a link for that? Google isn't showing anything and I have trouble believing the drama-loving 40k community would miss something like that.

I already told you where to find it.

http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2018/10/26/socal-open-2018-coverage/

Second to last video, he goes down the top tables. You can hear Nick and Daniel arguing. You can also get a look at the Ork list that was undefeated and competing for 3rd place (it lost to the almost-mono DE army shown in the video by 2 points). It'll give you a look at the buildings everyone was talking about.

Last video, he talks about it.

OMG DRAMAAA!!

Like...how TF do they have that much space between tables? That place must be huge.

A.T. wrote:

 Galef wrote:
I'm on both sides of this. I started in 4E when aliies weren't a thing. All your units had to be from the same Codex. Period.

Off the top of my head, allied options in 4th edition, either with allied rules or printed/reprinted in another factions dex -

Inquisitors
Assassins
Ministorum (both as allied units and reprinted in the guard book)
Sororitas
Grey Knights
Daemons (until codex daemons, plus generic daemons and daemonic adversaries)
Renegades (in various forms, including adversaries in the WH book)
Deathwatch (later replaced by sternguard, later still spun out into a book)
Legion of the damned
And everything superheavy due to being apoc only.

As of 5th the Harlequins were also double printed in the eldar and dark eldar dex.

GW have split a lot out of books over the years.

Like I said, I started in 4E, so aside from Witchhunters and Daemonhunters, I didn't know most of those existed.
So made I shouldn't have used the "Period" in my earlier statement, but the vast majority of player were "codex-bound"

 Vaktathi wrote:

A.T. wrote:

GW have split a lot out of books over the years.

This is a huge part of the issue. We have bunch of stuff that never should have been considered an "army" in and of itself, or that never should have been split out of their old parent dex (or at least not in the way that it was). This then results in issues and allowing stuff that wasnt intended to be used like that to piggyback such mechanics.

Indeed, Harlequins, for example, were at one point just be a single unit entry in both the Eldar and DE Codices. Kinda wish GW would consolidate some stuff rather than give every unit its own Codex.

-

Renegades and Heretics are utterly unplayable without allies.

I think Imperial guard heavily rely on soup.
It's cheap to produce and warms a soldier up in cold weather.
It can be great if you've only got stale bread too.

 Marmatag wrote:
You don't play competitive. So you want allies relegated to the only mode you play. LOL! It's so comical.

"I can't hang in competitive play because of <reasons> so let's make those <reasons> only apply to me!"

That's not how it works, at all. Soup in competitive play and allies in casual/narrative play are not the same thing. In narrative games the only mixed-faction armies you see are ones that fit the story, it doesn't matter if it's theoretically possible to make something overpowered because nobody is going to play against it. The stuff people want banned from competitive play isn't going to be relegated to casual/narrative games, it's going to disappear entirely.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Renegades and Heretics are utterly unplayable without allies.

They are playable, they just suck. Far cry from "factions" like the assassins who absolutely should not exist in the first place. At least you can just play it as a spooky IG conversion and more or less do the same thing you were already doing, similarly crappy factions like Necrons don't have that luxury.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Renegades and Heretics are utterly unplayable without allies.

They are playable, they just suck. Far cry from "factions" like the assassins who absolutely should not exist in the first place. At least you can just play it as a spooky IG conversion and more or less do the same thing you were already doing, similarly crappy factions like Necrons don't have that luxury.

Assassins exist as such so that you can replicate lone assassin missions that happen in the middle of battle. They aren't always going to be accompanied by an Inquisitor.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Renegades and Heretics are utterly unplayable without allies.

They are playable, they just suck. Far cry from "factions" like the assassins who absolutely should not exist in the first place. At least you can just play it as a spooky IG conversion and more or less do the same thing you were already doing, similarly crappy factions like Necrons don't have that luxury.

Right, right. That famous 'ally with Daemons' thing that the Astra Militarum do.

R&H as a monofaction do not merely suck. You literally might as well not bother setting up. It isn't fun. It isn't interesting.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Far cry from "factions" like the assassins who absolutely should not exist in the first place.

I don't get your weird hate in this and other threads for assassins. They are a legacy unit from the rogue trader era, not some plot by GW to ruin games for non-imperial players, and they've been allies for almost the entirety of 40ks history.