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.

The following special rules apply to all matched play games:

Strategic Limits:
Detachments where all units don't share a faction keyword with your Warlord do not generate command points. In addition, this keyword cannot be CHAOS, IMPERIUM, AELDARI, YNNARI, TYRANIDS, or any bracketed keywords (e.g. <CHAPTER>, <MARK OF CHAOS> etc.).

No more DKOK Battalions to rack up CP, less CP to spend on Aeldari Superfriends, but allows for different flavours of Space Marine or Chaos Marine to work together.

I'd still prefer detachments costing CP instead, but yeah that works.

Good proposal. Anything that mitigates the abuse of souping is welcome.

Who's taking DkoK battalions? I've never seen the loyal 32 as DKoK

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The following special rules apply to all matched play games:

Strategic Limits:
Detachments where all units don't share a faction keyword with your Warlord do not generate command points. In addition, this keyword cannot be CHAOS, IMPERIUM, AELDARI, YNNARI, TYRANIDS, or any bracketed keywords (e.g. <CHAPTER>, <MARK OF CHAOS> etc.).

No more DKOK Battalions to rack up CP, less CP to spend on Aeldari Superfriends, but allows for different flavours of Space Marine or Chaos Marine to work together.

Won't that just encourage you to make a character in your biggest CP generating detachment your warlord? You might give up a warlord trait (if you weren't already making a guard commander your warlord), but this would often just shave a couple of CP off your total from your non-brigade/non-batallion detachments. So I think I'd actually be MORE inclined to field the loyal 32 with this rule than less. IIRC, the entire loyal 32 cost just slightly more than the troop tax for three tactical squads and are probably a lot more useful. Meanwhile, fluffy players who wanted to field some BT or GK alongside their sisters or DW alongside their skitarri are take a kick to their overall CP because of something happening in the tournament play meta.

Also, Ynnari require a Ynnari special character be your warlord. These characters do not have the Asuryani, Drukhari, or Harlequin traits. So without some clarification, it would be impossible to generate CP from ANY detachments in a ynnari army. If you allowed the Ynnari keyword to qualify for purposes of your proposed rule, you'd have to pay an HQ tax and give up your faction traits, but you'd at least be able to generate CP. Unless thoroughly punishing ynnari players is the point, in which case, this proposal seems more spiteful than helpful.

Wrong Section, idk how It got here.

 kinratha wrote:
Who's taking DkoK battalions? I've never seen the loyal 32 as DKoK

They will when CA nerfs Codex Guard.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 kinratha wrote:
Who's taking DkoK battalions? I've never seen the loyal 32 as DKoK

They will when CA nerfs Codex Guard.

But then DkOk are probably going to go up as well. And even if they don't aren't they still 6 or 8 points compared to the probable 5 of post CA guard?

A DKOK minimum battalion is only 1 point more than the current Codex one. GW are incompetent so most likely won't up the cost of DKOK in CA.

DKOK is FW right? I don't think FW stuff will be touched significantly in this CA because FW has basically the same catalogue and the same rules since CA 2017.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The following special rules apply to all matched play games:

Strategic Limits:
Detachments where all units don't share a faction keyword with your Warlord do not generate command points. In addition, this keyword cannot be CHAOS, IMPERIUM, AELDARI, YNNARI, TYRANIDS, or any bracketed keywords (e.g. <CHAPTER>, <MARK OF CHAOS> etc.).

No more DKOK Battalions to rack up CP, less CP to spend on Aeldari Superfriends, but allows for different flavours of Space Marine or Chaos Marine to work together.

I'd reword it (too many negatives, just read confusingly to me), and add in an additional rider:

Strategic Limits:
Only Detachments that share a Faction Keyword with your Warlord can generate Command Points. In addition, you may only use a stratagem to gain an extra relic(s) for the same Faction as your Warlord. This Keyword cannot be CHAOS, IMPERIUM, AELDARI, YNNARI, TYRANIDS, or any bracketed keywords (e.g. <CHAPTER>, <MARK OF CHAOS> etc.).

Though I suppose you could, instead of making them not generate any CP, allow them to generate a maximum of 1 CP. So it doesn't hurt Vanguard/Spearhead detachments, but a battalion is less effective - not quite killing soup, just giving it a mild concussion.

Strategic Limits:
Only Detachments that share a Faction Keyword with your Warlord can generate Command Points as normal, all others generate a maximum of +1 Command Point. In addition, you may only use a stratagem to gain an extra relic(s) for the same Faction as your Warlord. This Keyword cannot be CHAOS, IMPERIUM, AELDARI, YNNARI, TYRANIDS, or any bracketed keywords (e.g. <CHAPTER>, <MARK OF CHAOS> etc.).

I like the limiting to 1CP idea. Restricting Stratagems might end the amount of 30 point Warlords hiding in the back lines.

How about you fix the individual codices first before deciding to gut allies?

Because then nothing ever gets done. You can't "fix" codexes because it simply is not possible to do so without re-doing the codexes every week.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Because then nothing ever gets done. You can't "fix" codexes because it simply is not possible to do so without re-doing the codexes every week.

If you can balance the codices as mono in the first place, you can actually start placing limits on how powerful allies might be

Otherwise I want to hear your ideas for how to fix Grey Knights and Custodes. If you can't fix these armies as mono, how can you say we need to kill allies?

 kinratha wrote:
Who's taking DkoK battalions? I've never seen the loyal 32 as DKoK

unrelated, but i always first jump to Daemonkin of khorne when I see DKoK.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Because then nothing ever gets done. You can't "fix" codexes because it simply is not possible to do so without re-doing the codexes every week.

If you can balance the codices as mono in the first place, you can actually start placing limits on how powerful allies might be

Otherwise I want to hear your ideas for how to fix Grey Knights and Custodes. If you can't fix these armies as mono, how can you say we need to kill allies?

Custard Creams have never been intended to be run solo. Grey Knights are paying for the sins of Matt Ward. I agree they need to be fixed but Fixing allies doesn't have to come after some magical never going to happen state of "perfect" balance.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Because then nothing ever gets done. You can't "fix" codexes because it simply is not possible to do so without re-doing the codexes every week.

If you can balance the codices as mono in the first place, you can actually start placing limits on how powerful allies might be

Otherwise I want to hear your ideas for how to fix Grey Knights and Custodes. If you can't fix these armies as mono, how can you say we need to kill allies?

Custodes is relatively easy add some points to bikes, reduce some points from foot custodes and bobs your uncle.

GK are something that on a conceptual level don't exactly make much sence, but can be fixed with rules and points changes.

However non of the above address the fundamental mechanics being that the 32 CP farm is always going to be a better way to get CP than any other factions codex why take a custides detachment when The 32 are cheaper?
Why go mono knights when their strategums are being recosted around have the 32 kicking around.
Why take any named ultramarine warlord give they have to take a heavily nerfed trait that IG just no longer bother with after they got it nerfed.

The 32 are also taken because they're a super good choice. Any interaction with CP is a bonus on top.

They already killed the CP farm anyway. The lists that needed it no longer function for more than a couple of turns. I think Allies were already hit enough.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The 32 are also taken because they're a super good choice. Any interaction with CP is a bonus on top.

They already killed the CP farm anyway. The lists that needed it no longer function for more than a couple of turns. I think Allies were already hit enough.

You totally fail to address in anyway how taking a 180 point battalion has been disincentivesed by the changes GW has made.

Mainly because they haven't, the changes actually made it more important than ever.

All named Ultramarines got their mandatory warlord trait nerfed.
Knight strategums are being recosted around having atleast 1 guard battalion in every list.
Soup hasn't been nerfed it's just been normalised, thats the definition of not nerfed.

Ice_can wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The 32 are also taken because they're a super good choice. Any interaction with CP is a bonus on top.

They already killed the CP farm anyway. The lists that needed it no longer function for more than a couple of turns. I think Allies were already hit enough.

You totally fail to address in anyway how taking a 180 point battalion has been disincentivesed by the changes GW has made.

Mainly because they haven't, the changes actually made it more important than ever.

All named Ultramarines got their mandatory warlord trait nerfed.
Knight strategums are being recosted around having atleast 1 guard battalion in every list.
Soup hasn't been nerfed it's just been normalised, thats the definition of not nerfed.

Seeing as a pure Knight army wouldn't really function by itself anyway, it makes sense to price the Strategems like they have at least one allied detachment.

Also the concept of CP farming had to go. CP are supposed to be a limited resource. Hell I'd wager GW went WAY further than I would've (I would've just made those abilities not able to recoup more than once a turn rather than the blanket once per turn they did), and I'd have done that with or without allies being a thing. You'll start seeing much less of the Knights and Blood Angels together, and that means the nerf did the right thing.


Regarding the Loyal 32, they're just too good on their own merit. I'm all for a 5 point hike on the Commanders and Infantry squads themselves (so half a point more each), which keeps them in line with being good mathematically. You can get almost the same thing with AdMech for only a few more points, but nobody does that because of how effective Guard are for not only the CP generation but also just for their own merit.

I brought this up in a different thread, and the question you're asking is "how do I stop players from taking this", but you need to ask yourself first "Why do players want to take this". When you do that, you don't create overeationary nerfs like the one in the OP.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
How about you fix the individual codices first before deciding to gut allies?

That would be great, but it's pure utopia. I also think that problems in 40k don't come from the rules but from the codexes but never forget that 40k isn't just a game, it's a business, and GW only wants to profit more and more. Maybe creating a system that isn't completely balanced is more profitable for the company because it encourages people to buy more. The allies system was designed only to let people buy more from their store since adding a book and a few units can be affordable, it's not like starting a second full army.

Maybe with a completely balanced system players would be ok with their 2500 points of stuff without adding anything else for years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The 32 are also taken because they're a super good choice. Any interaction with CP is a bonus on top.

They already killed the CP farm anyway. The lists that needed it no longer function for more than a couple of turns. I think Allies were already hit enough.

They weren't hit enough since elite armies are still highly encouraged to add the 32 loyals. They provide lots of CPs for a small cost. When I play SW it's hard to build a competitive list with also lots of CPs, it's usually 8 or 9, and you're already bringing some tax units. Adding a cheap battallion for armies that can't really have more than a single battallion is extremely powerful. Faction locking would hit allies, now those 32 dudes must use their own CPs. This way players may chose to add allies but because those specific units may be useful on the battlefield, not to dispose of more CPs for their superheroes.

I'd also add a tax in terms of points: if you bring a detachment from a different book it costs 100 points (just an example) in addition to the points costs of the units listed in it.

 Blackie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
How about you fix the individual codices first before deciding to gut allies?

That would be great, but it's pure utopia. I also think that problems in 40k don't come from the rules but from the codexes but never forget that 40k isn't just a game, it's a business, and GW only wants to profit more and more. Maybe creating a system that isn't completely balanced is more profitable for the company because it encourages people to buy more. The allies system was designed only to let people buy more from their store since adding a book and a few units can be affordable, it's not like starting a second full army.

Maybe with a completely balanced system players would be ok with their 2500 points of stuff without adding anything else for years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The 32 are also taken because they're a super good choice. Any interaction with CP is a bonus on top.

They already killed the CP farm anyway. The lists that needed it no longer function for more than a couple of turns. I think Allies were already hit enough.

They weren't hit enough since elite armies are still highly encouraged to add the 32 loyals. They provide lots of CPs for a small cost. When I play SW it's hard to build a competitive list with also lots of CPs, it's usually 8 or 9, and you're already bringing some tax units. Adding a cheap battallion for armies that can't really have more than a single battallion is extremely powerful. Faction locking would hit allies, now those 32 dudes must use their own CPs. This way players may chose to add allies but because those specific units may be useful on the battlefield, not to dispose of more CPs for their superheroes.

I'd also add a tax in terms of points: if you bring a detachment from a different book it costs 100 points (just an example) in addition to the points costs of the units listed in it.

1. You sound like Martel with the whole "GW is a business so profit". This is the proposed rules subforum. I don't care about whatever profit and I instead offer critiques for fixes here. They're either amazing, have good framework, or are trash. It's simply in this case it's the latter, only because "but allies are broken!!!" Spoiler Alert: allies aren't broken. Units are broken. If you have no incentive to use units in your own codex to fulfill a role, you have to turn to another codex. Why use Marine artillery that's garbage if I can use the Guard stuff instead that is NOT garbage?

2. They're encouraged to add bodies, period. Even if you removed the bonus CP from the Loyal 32, Knight players and Deathwatch players are still required to take them because of how bad their armies function on their own. So that means, until you've come up with THE perfect way to fix these armies, allies are almost required to remain. Allies have basically always been in this game. You simply didn't care until some units became absurd and over the top when it came to Imperial and Chaos armies.

3. Additional points for a detachment is absurd in the same way free transports from Gladius was absurd. Make stuff their actual worth.

I do not care for GW profits either but asking for more internal balances between the codexes, well, it's not gonna happen, simple.

The allies system is broken because some factions can choose from 40 units and other ones from 200 with no drawbacks. Don't forget to mention aeldari soups, I can't stand them either.

The fact that armies like knignts and deathwatch don't work on their own is becuase they're not real armies. Giving them an independent codex was a mistake. That is something that should be fixed, by condensing stuff into single books. There shouldn't even exist a knight player or a deatwatch player. It's basically like playing an ork army with only gretchins or with just coven stuff. You can do it if you want to, but don't expect to be competitive.

In the perfect world we would have lesser indipendent factions available and more balanced codexes. No need to take allies. Unfortunatly we cannot have that without re-writing the codexes, which is not just playing with some house rules.

 Blackie wrote:
I do not care for GW profits either but asking for more internal balances between the codexes, well, it's not gonna happen, simple.

Then why bother coming into this subforum to say anything? Hell you think it's fine the Marine codices are bad.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I do not care for GW profits either but asking for more internal balances between the codexes, well, it's not gonna happen, simple.

Then why bother coming into this subforum to say anything? Hell you think it's fine the Marine codices are bad.

Because proposals may be useful to improve the quality of gaming. Adopting a few house rules is one thing, playing with a game that is totally re-written by fans is a different matter. Asking for internal balance (also whitout proposing anything) is not an argument for the proposed rules thread, it's pure wishlisting that doesn't add anything to a discussion that may be interesting.

I think soups being auto takes are a huge problem, not the bad marines codexes. Which aren't even that bad IMHO. Like you think soups aren't bad, IMHO they are the main problem of the game, and anything to reduce the power of the soups is welcome.

 Blackie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I do not care for GW profits either but asking for more internal balances between the codexes, well, it's not gonna happen, simple.

Then why bother coming into this subforum to say anything? Hell you think it's fine the Marine codices are bad.

Because proposals may be useful to improve the quality of gaming. Adopting a few house rules is one thing, playing with a game that is totally re-written by fans is a different matter. Asking for internal balance (also whitout proposing anything) is not an argument for the proposed rules thread, it's pure wishlisting that doesn't add anything to a discussion that may be interesting.

I think soups being auto takes are a huge problem, not the bad marines codexes. Which aren't even that bad IMHO. Like you think soups aren't bad, IMHO they are the main problem of the game, and anything to reduce the power of the soups is welcome.

You literally said you were fine with Marine codices being bad in another thread. Try being consistent.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I do not care for GW profits either but asking for more internal balances between the codexes, well, it's not gonna happen, simple.

Then why bother coming into this subforum to say anything? Hell you think it's fine the Marine codices are bad.

Because proposals may be useful to improve the quality of gaming. Adopting a few house rules is one thing, playing with a game that is totally re-written by fans is a different matter. Asking for internal balance (also whitout proposing anything) is not an argument for the proposed rules thread, it's pure wishlisting that doesn't add anything to a discussion that may be interesting.

I think soups being auto takes are a huge problem, not the bad marines codexes. Which aren't even that bad IMHO. Like you think soups aren't bad, IMHO they are the main problem of the game, and anything to reduce the power of the soups is welcome.

You literally said you were fine with Marine codices being bad in another thread. Try being consistent.

I said that the imperium soup is fine as it is, or maybe i'ts even too powerful and should be toned down. If you're ok with soups then your faction is already on top and it doesn't need any help, aka improved stuff that currently doesn't work. Buffing marines is fine as long as the most effective imperium stuff gets punched and becomes less effective. That's what I said.

In a world in which soups don't exist I'm all in favor of marines buffs, but at the current state they belong to a faction that is already top tier and last thing the game needs is to give the imperium more tools to be effective.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The following special rules apply to all matched play games:

Strategic Limits:
Detachments where all units don't share a faction keyword with your Warlord do not generate command points. In addition, this keyword cannot be CHAOS, IMPERIUM, AELDARI, YNNARI, TYRANIDS, or any bracketed keywords (e.g. <CHAPTER>, <MARK OF CHAOS> etc.).

No more DKOK Battalions to rack up CP, less CP to spend on Aeldari Superfriends, but allows for different flavours of Space Marine or Chaos Marine to work together.

I would change it so that different flavors couldn't work either.
Mono armies need some love. Painting everything to look different just so you can keep track of which unit is which is tedious as hell and ruins aesthetic cohesion.