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.

-

Given that AoS is a lot more free with regards to house ruling I don't see why not, especially among friends. We've already house-ruled that we don't roll for initiative for turns and we stick with measuring distance from base rather than model so this is something that wouldn't be much of an issue with our group.

I think the big thing is now that you can choose rather than just roll randomly for artefacts and "warlord traits", it makes it a much more even playing field since now both players have something useful rather than one being left with a dud based on luck of the dice.

I recalled this being answered on facebook, you do get them the point is you either pick destruction or Ironjaw and you get those command traits and artifacts etc.

Ironjaw is still a destruction army so you can pick the destruction Allegiance stuff. If you pick the ironjaw Allegiance and they get their own stuff it's either or you pick the destruction command traits or the ironjaw one's.

From my understanding from the book our past few games since only Sylvaneth and I guess Bonesplittas, too now, have an allegiance besdies what's in the GHB now. We've been agreeing unless you have these published options yet you take the GA battle, command and artefact traits. But, yeah, just work it out with your mate. We've been opting to roll for these but may try selecting eventually. Seems less fun, imo.

The AOS facebook had this question as well and as mentioned above, you'd pick either the specific or the general trait you want. You are not prevented from choosing Destruction in your example.

That was my reading, you choose the overall grand alliance abilities OR if you have all one sub faction you can instead be that allegiance, but all that gives you is an ability to take better battle line units (not yet seen the newer tomes like sylvaneth). the ability to have better battle line units is itself quite potent in many cases.

of course in any friendly game you play as a you agree.

Bottle isn't talking about which allegiance to pick. As it stands, I can pick Destruction allegiance for the associated benefits, or I could pick Ironjawz allegiance which does not have those benefits but grants Ironjaw units as battleline. This means the only way to run a pure Ironjawz army is to give up the Destruction benefits. What Bottle is saying is to let players still gain the Destruction benefits while taking Ironjaw allegiance since the latter currently does not have any benefits beyond the improved battleline selection.

As for my own response, I wouldn't have a problem with it. As I see it restricting unit choices down to one faction is an appropriate handicap for getting the improved battleline selection from that faction, giving up any allegiance abilities on top of that makes it a pretty inferior option to taking token battleline from outside the faction.

Personally, I'd hate to do the "buy 3 zombie units and merge them in the game" trick in order to be allowed to use my flesh-eater courts to full effect... :s

 Elmir wrote:
Personally, I'd hate to do the "buy 3 zombie units and merge them in the game" trick in order to be allowed to use my flesh-eater courts to full effect... :s

I don't have the wording in front of me, but I suspect that's covered under the 'units can't go above their starting size' bit.

Yep. Merging zombies into a mega horde isn't allowed in a competitive game I don't think.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Bottle isn't talking about which allegiance to pick. As it stands, I can pick Destruction allegiance for the associated benefits, or I could pick Ironjawz allegiance which does not have those benefits but grants Ironjaw units as battleline. This means the only way to run a pure Ironjawz army is to give up the Destruction benefits. What Bottle is saying is to let players still gain the Destruction benefits while taking Ironjaw allegiance since the latter currently does not have any benefits beyond the improved battleline selection.

As for my own response, I wouldn't have a problem with it. As I see it restricting unit choices down to one faction is an appropriate handicap for getting the improved battleline selection from that faction, giving up any allegiance abilities on top of that makes it a pretty inferior option to taking token battleline from outside the faction.

Yep, this is exactly what I mean. Ironjawz will eventually have their own allegiance abilities (presumably) - but at the moment they don't. What I am saying is if a player limits themselves to Ironjawz to unlock the battleline units, they shouldn't be denied access to the wider alliance traits if they don't yet have any alternative.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Elmir wrote:
Personally, I'd hate to do the "buy 3 zombie units and merge them in the game" trick in order to be allowed to use my flesh-eater courts to full effect... :s

I don't have the wording in front of me, but I suspect that's covered under the 'units can't go above their starting size' bit.

Why would it? That rules applies to resurrecting/replenishing models. Just joining 2 existing units together shouldn't be a problem, as that has nothing to do with generating extra models.

I could understand that this limitation applies to the rule "The newly dead" : At the end of a the combat phase, roll a dice for each model slain by this unit. For each roll of a 6,one of their victims returns to unlife and joins the shambling hordes; add a zombie to this unit.

If somebody claims that this cannot take a unit of say 30 starting zombies to 31: fine...

But "Shambling horde": If two or more units of Zombies from your army are within 1" of each other in your hero phase, they can merge and become a single unit for the rest of the battle.

Nothing in this rule says anything about resurrecting/adding models to a unit. Then why would a rule concerning that ever apply here?

Because the rules that state a unit can never go above their starting size is only viable in competitive play.

The rule doesn't mention resurrection or healing or anything it just says a unit can have models added to it but that it can never be larger than its original size.

Its a fairly clear rule and is only applicable in competitive format.

Actually, I'm rereading this rule again. They even clarify with this sentence at the end of that particular rule

"(ie they (abilities that add models) can replace slain models but not create new models for a unit)"

This is not an ability that creates any new models. I already payed for 2 times 10 zombies. If I merge them into a new unit, the amound of "new models" I generate is exactly zero. So to me, this doesn't add models to a unit.

In any case, I did put that rules question in for a FAQ then. We'll see how it goes.





But as a sort of "conclusion" to the original question of Bottle:

I would just hate to ever face off against somebody with my themed pure Flesh-eater courts army with that allegiance (a limitation that only gives you battle-line crypt horrors... ), only to lose the ability to take command abilities and magic items.

If a rules-lawyer then forces me to add zombies to the army to be able to use those magic items AND then starts complaining that I can't even make those units usefull in games by merging them... Then I think I'd just rather not play against that guy. I'm moving away from 40k because of these kind of players.

Personally the way I see it they can be allegiance ironjawz and still get the destruction allegiance traits and such assuming they all have the destruction keyword of course. The book actually says that if you qualify for more than one allegiance then you can pick which stuff to use. So bottle I would agree that while you are ironjawz that doesn't deny you the destruction abilities since you are that as well. I think you just pick which command stuff you are using not necessarily what allegiance. Your allegiance is more about what is in your list so if it happens to be all ironjawz then you get those guys as battleline but when the ironjawz traits come out you will probably have to pick between them and the destruction traits. Although I did see somewhere where they thought qualifying for multiple allegiances would give all the benefits for both so there is no need to choose. I don't have the book yet but tomorrow when I get it I can look more closely.

Elmir, Ghouls are battleline anyway so no need for zombies.

Technically if you want the Ironjawz only battleline units, you can't have the Destruction traits. That's rough.

 Haechi wrote:
Technically if you want the Ironjawz only battleline units, you can't have the Destruction traits. That's rough.

Yep, that's how I have understood it too. But it's even rougher because Ironjawz will eventually have their own traits - so in the meantime I am more than happy for them to use the generic Destruction ones and have Brutes as battleline.

UPDATE: Just read the FAQ for the GHB and they have errata'd it. You can be Ironjawz allegiance and use destruction abilities now.

They also errata'd the battalions with mixed factions (such as Stormcast and Sylvaneth) to say you can still claim allegiance based on the battalion allegiance and not the units contained within.

Lastly, I think they broke the game with free scenery summons. WTF that Mage platform is now a must buy - see it go for stupid amounts on eBay soon.

YAY!

 Bottle wrote:

 Haechi wrote:
Technically if you want the Ironjawz only battleline units, you can't have the Destruction traits. That's rough.

Yep, that's how I have understood it too. But it's even rougher because Ironjawz will eventually have their own traits - so in the meantime I am more than happy for them to use the generic Destruction ones and have Brutes as battleline.

UPDATE: Just read the FAQ for the GHB and they have errata'd it. You can be Ironjawz allegiance and use destruction abilities now.

They also errata'd the battalions with mixed factions (such as Stormcast and Sylvaneth) to say you can still claim allegiance based on the battalion allegiance and not the units contained within.

Lastly, I think they broke the game with free scenery summons. WTF that Mage platform is now a must buy - see it go for stupid amounts on eBay soon.

Yeah the FAQ cleared a lot of things up and made the RAI official. I particularly am glad for the bit about battalions. In regards to terrain, perhaps you can use the terrain warscroll points from PPC to balance things out.