8th - You're no longer playing Armies, you're playing Factions

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.

**fe40k**

Since it keeps coming up, I'll make this post.

In 8th Edition, you're no longer playing Armies - you're playing Factions.

This is important, because if you choose Imperium or Chaos as your faction, you can mix and match any combination of units that include that keyword (such as mixing Space Marines+IG+Assassins in an "Imperium" list).

Do note however that certain abilities or rules may only be in effect for models that share another keyword as well, such as <Chapter>, <Legion>, <Regiment>, etc. Additionally, some rules may require an entire Detachment in your army to be a certain sub faction, to get access to those special rules.

* Imperium: Space Marines, Astra Militarum, all other sub factions (Imperium indexes 1+2)
* Chaos: Chaos Space Marines, Demons (Chaos index 1)
* Aeldari: Eldar, Dark Eldar, Ynnari (Xenos 1)
* Tyranids: Tyranids, Genestealer Cult, plus Astra Militarum (if you have an entire detachment of GSC only units in your Tyranid/GSC army) (Xenos 2)

**steerpike92**

Oh really.

**fe40k**

@Steerpike92: Yup!

It's one of the biggest changes this edition, and it's an easy one to overlook when it comes to army composition - the <Chapter>, <Regiment>, <Legion>, etc rules can compound this confusion; so I figured I'd make a post since not everyone is familiar with this change yet.

**BrianDavion**

yeah it's definatly a subtle but important change, it's one that was slowly coming to the fore in 7th edition, 8th has really pushed this forward

**tneva82**

Well 8th ed has went into stricter line than 7th ed.

**BrianDavion**

tneva82 wrote:
Well 8th ed has went into stricter line than 7th ed.

ohh agreed. I think it's better, as it avoids the super friends problem of the old allies system

**Grimgold**

For now, Once faction specific stratagems arrive I imagine that will be less the case. Even as it is, a lot of buffs only work for <Chapter> or other equivalent bottom level keywords, so you loose synergy bringing more than one army along.

That's to say nothing of the xenos races like orks, necrons, tau and tyranids who effectively can not take allies with the rules as written. I suspect there will be something fluff wise that will allow some of those factions to work together, maybe an alliance against the Imperium of Man that will function kind of like the Yanari do for the eldar.

**Rippy**

It is definitely a distinction that needs to be made.

steerpike92 wrote:
Oh really.

Oh come on now, that isn't helpful at all and people have varying levels of 8th knowledge and understanding.

**fresus**

I don't know how consistent the rules are about that distinction.
The Ynnari rules say: "With the exception of X, any Aeldari unit can be part of an Ynnari army. Any unit that does so gains the Ynnari keyword. [Stuff about the changes that happen when you become Ynnari]". I suppose "army" means "the sum of all your detachments", and therefore means that if you want to make some units Ynnari, you have to do it for all of your units that can (and if you have units that can't, then you're not allowed to do it at all).
But I couldn't find a definition of "army" in the rulebook. And it's indeed very rarely used.

**silentone2k**

fresus wrote:
But I couldn't find a definition of "army" in the rulebook. And it's indeed very rarely used.

Each type of play defines armies on their own terms;
Pg 188- Open Play; "take the battlefield with any army made up of any Citadel Miniatures from your collection- no restrictions."
Pg 192- Narrative Play; "armies might be modified to better reflect the protagonists of the story" ... "Narrative can be enhanced through the use of Battle-forged armies(pg 240). In these armies..." etc.
Pg 212 Matched Play; ""Armies come in all shapes and sizes, with unique strengths and weaknesses, but to test a general's mettle as a commander, there needs to be a level playing field. This is the goal of matched play." ... which then goes on to talk about armies through 213, then on 214 you have a whole page labeled Choose Armies.
Then there's the entirety of the aforementioned page 240.

I'm not sure what more you want for a definition. I mean "an army is a collection of Citadel Miniatures you bring to the table for play. Its selection and composition is determined by the type of play you agree to with your opponent." Does that really need to be affirmatively stated, or can we interpolate?

**Voss**

I'll stick to armies, thanks. A hodgepodge of random stuff dropped on the table doesn't have any real appeal.

**SuspiciousSucculent**

Something just bugs me about SM taking IG units and vice versa. I would be fine with being able to mix inquisition, assassins, AdMech, and the various subfactions with either SM or IG, but SM and IG both have pretty fleshed out army lists, and don't really need each others' units. It strikes me as a problem for balance and something that should be kept to narrative play, where you have a story reason to field both.

But maybe I'm just a grumpy old codger.

**AndrewGPaul**

there's a historical wargaming term, "bathtubbing", which means using a smaller-level force to represent a larger force. For example, playing a game that's supposed to be the battle of El Alamein, but using a company on each side rather than the actual army units that were present. This can mean that you end up with support elements present in smaller quantities than they would really have been used - a squadron of tanks supporting an infantry company (or even one tank supporting a platoon) rather than a company of tanks supporting a battalion of infantgry, or whatever.

In the case of 40k, this is what you end up with when you field a squad or two of Marines alongside an Imperial Guard platoon and a formation of Imperial Knights. It's not "accurate" since it really should be a demi-company of Marines and a Knight Household on the same or related battlefield as an Imperial Guard regiment or army. However, its the only way you can reflect the different Imperial military forces without playing Epic.

**MagicJuggler**

It's probably the whole "flying in the face of fluff" part of it, the idea that the reason that Marines were split into codex chapters and prohibited from maintaining large standing armies od hunan auxiliaries was to prevent potentially dangerous concentrations of power (see Badab) while not being efficient otherwise (super soldiers have a harder time appreciating normal human limits otherwise).

But let's not let such precedent get in the way of freely mix-and-matching armies.

**vipoid**

I like being able to have my IG led by St. Celestine, as I find her a bit more fun and interesting than the IG HQs. I might try Ynnari, if only to get an HQ for my DE that doesn't bore the pants off me. Other than that, I'll probably just stick with using armies.

**Darbagal**

I am seeing different advice on the allies question. Some forums claim that in 8th anyone can ally with anyone else also across factions or at least SM/Tau etc.

Other posts like in this thread states that you can ally freely within your faction but not outside it.

It makes a rather large difference for many armies since allies can make up for weaknesses in the main army.

**vipoid**

In the rulebook it states that all the units in your army must share at least one faction keyword.

So no allying Tau with Eldar or Necrons with Orks.

**fresus**

vipoid wrote:
In the rulebook it states that all the units in your army must share at least one faction keyword.

So no allying Tau with Eldar or Necrons with Orks.

In matched play.

In narrative, you have to share faction keywords within detachment, but you can have two detachments that don't share any faction keyword with one-another.

**auticus**

Internet conversations always assume matched play is the context.

**Draco765**

All those Necron and Ork converted Renegade Knights are now being used as show pieces.

http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=129194

http://www.feedyournerd.com/greggles-tabletop/the-ork-renegade-gork-and-mork-knights-are-complete

**Vector Strike**

Grimgold wrote:
For now, Once faction specific stratagems arrive I imagine that will be less the case. Even as it is, a lot of buffs only work for <Chapter> or other equivalent bottom level keywords, so you loose synergy bringing more than one army along.

That's to say nothing of the xenos races like orks, necrons, tau and tyranids who effectively can not take allies with the rules as written. I suspect there will be something fluff wise that will allow some of those factions to work together, maybe an alliance against the Imperium of Man that will function kind of like the Yanari do for the eldar.

I hope so. T'au can't take any kind of Gue'vesa alongside their forces!

**ZebioLizard2**

Given that most buffs Chaos Space Marines tend to be for <Legion> keywords it'll most likely be more beneficial to stick with such.

At leas till codex's come out and we start to see things for Daemon/CSM armies.

**Elbows**

On the whole I approve.

While open to abuse, it does actually open up far more fluffy and narrative armies than have been seen on the table in earlier editions. It also breaks down the silliness of Chaos being separated into daemons and Space Marine forces, etc. From a fluff standpoint it lets you actually play a more thematic force. I was really hoping that Grey Knights and Deathwatch would disappear as armies in this edition (they should have never been one anyway). Now they can be fielded more fluidly as the small elite units alongside a main army - that they should have been.

**Da Butcha**

I feel like it's doing a much better job of this than 7th. You CAN field an army composed of a very broad array of forces all falling under one broad faction, like Imperium or Chaos, but you are also losing the option to use (or limiting the use) of abilities that key off more specific factions.

If you have a Crimson Fist Chapter Master, then the Steel Legion vehicles and the Deathwatch forces, etc. also in your force can't benefit from some of his abilities. I'm also assuming that the release of Codexes will contain even more granular, faction-specific rules, and possibly stratagems and detachments.

I think that, for the most part, this is a GREAT way to handle it going forward. Broad factions give you a wealth of options for collecting, modeling, and playing, but narrow Faction selections counter the utility of broad choices with more faction-specific benefits.