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.

Then the mixing option becomes a non-choice.

If you're forced into picking a specific character to get some units in the mixing list, why play the mixing list when you can just play the normal list.

Unless other armies are getting the same treatment, locking options behind anything is a losing game in the current day and age.

 tauist wrote:
This is why I said there should be big drawbacks and risks for souping an army together like that. If taken as is, with all current buffs and all, its just never going to result in anything else than broken lists all the way down

Going waaay back the old 3e Witch Hunters did it somewhat by accident - the army ran on faith points, generated by sororitas units only. The more you allied in from other books the fewer faith points you had effectively watering down the power of your units.

On the flip side pure sisters had gaping holes in their line-up so it was always a choice of how much power you wanted to trade out for flexibility and missing capabilities... at least for the sisters as none of the allied factions had any corresponding loss of strength from being pulled in. No such thing as 'chapter points'.

 Gert wrote:
Then the mixing option becomes a non-choice.

If you're forced into picking a specific character to get some units in the mixing list, why play the mixing list when you can just play the normal list.

Unless other armies are getting the same treatment, locking options behind anything is a losing game in the current day and age.

It also potentially creates this situation where you have to ask yourself whether you're setting points costs for units based on their performance in a mixed list or in a "pure" list. Like, are you charging X points for that warpsmith because he's worth X points, or because the daemon engines he unlocks suddenly give EC a shooting game that they didn't have access to before.

There's definitely room for improvement with how the 10e Ynnari work, but I think they're kind of on the right track. If you want to mix in units from other factions, give them modified rules and points costs appropriate for when they're included in the mixed army versus when they're used in a "pure" army.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
There's definitely room for improvement with how the 10e Ynnari work, but I think they're kind of on the right track. If you want to mix in units from other factions, give them modified rules and points costs appropriate for when they're included in the mixed army versus when they're used in a "pure" army.

I think in most respects the 10th edition detachments are the best way of including allies in 40k. You have a limited roster and rules so you can control roughly what the army can look like.
It can therefore exist as a unique thing in itself, rather than a flavourless greatest hits.

That is however presumably at odds with the desire of the thread.

I think the issue is its unclear whether GW really "thinks" about these things. I remember when Imperial Agents was announced, and we were getting an Imperialis Fleet detachment. In my head this would be agents plus a really carefully curated list of units drawn from across the Imperial codexes, to give you something of a "counts as" Imperial Navy force. The conversion opportunities were obvious. (I'm far too lazy for that, but the idea fired something).

Instead the result was a phoned in nothing. That killed any interest. But the problem with my vision is that you'd always have special pleading all the way down for almost every unit. Should for example there be "Imperial Navy sentinels"? Probably. Should there be "Imperial Navy Leman Russ"? Maybe not. If you can take 90% of Guard units, at what point is this not just "Guard+"? Especially if you then argue for a token Ad Mech/Sisters/Marines inclusion as well.

As an aside, I've always been really fond of the Loyal 32. Like, I'm not going to argue its good game design, but I love every Imperium faction having a bunch of random guardsman.

Tyel wrote:
I think in most respects the 10th edition detachments are the best way of including allies in 40k. You have a limited roster and rules so you can control roughly what the army can look like.
It can therefore exist as a unique thing in itself, rather than a flavourless greatest hits.

That is however presumably at odds with the desire of the thread.

Yeah. With all respect to Mad Doc, I'm basically arguing against the proposed idea. I just think there are better ways to make chaos feel like a bunch of ragtag monsters forming a temporary alliance. And I think having a cap on how many different sources your units come from probably makes sense in a game that is best played at 2k or less (imho.)

LunarSol wrote:As an aside, I've always been really fond of the Loyal 32. Like, I'm not going to argue its good game design, but I love every Imperium faction having a bunch of random guardsman.

I do get what you mean. The ratio is maybe backwards (you should probably have a few marines or whatever helping out a bunch of guardsmen rather than the other way around), but the sense that guard were omnipresent due to their expendability was nice in a way.

In an alternate timeline, I feel like there's a version of the marine codex where a bunch of guard units are included so that you can easily convey the idea that marines are few in number and usually operating alongside non-astartes during large-scale battles.

Is alright, I don’t take disagreement personally

I do think 40K could do with a bit more soup. Imperial Armies often fight alongside one another, the whole being more than the sum of its parts as a result. And an Ork Waaaagh! is a hodge podge of warbands, clans and kults.

I get why this isn’t often if ever represented on the table top. But I’d still love the option.

With the ability to take multiple detachments in 11th I’m hoping for sensible ally rules.

I suspect I’ll be disapointed, but am not really vested in it personally.

Mixed armies are fluffy as heck, but open a pandora’s box of balance and abuse issues.

As a fan thing then?

How about you pick your Main. That can have a single Unique, and must have at least as many points in units as it does characters. At least 50% of your points must be spent here.

Dreadblades work as is.

Beyond that, you can warband in allies. If you’re God Marked, you can’t warband in your God’s main rival (no Khorne if you’re Slaanesh etc).

These warbands can’t contain any Unique units. And each character chosen must be accompanied by at least their own points in other units.

Stratagems can’t be applied outside of their own Codex.

 Nevelon wrote:
With the ability to take multiple detachments in 11th I’m hoping for sensible ally rules.

I suspect I’ll be disapointed, but am not really vested in it personally.

Mixed armies are fluffy as heck, but open a pandora’s box of balance and abuse issues.

Agreed for the hope here, and the worry.