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.

I've been flicking through my old 4th ed. Codex SM and noticed that one of the divergent chapter disadvantages, We Stand Alone, prohibited the army from using Allies. Were Allies actually a thing in 4th edition? I can't find any mention of them in the core book, though it might just be tucked away somewhere.

Off the top of my head, the only way for Allies to be a thing in 4th edition were through the Daemonhunters and Witchhunters books, giving you limited access to Inquisition, Grey Knights or Sisters of Battle forces.

Yes, which also included Assassins.

Also within the Apocalypse expansion, but Apocalypse specifically overrode the normal rules on army composition and let you be pretty flexible with allies if you felt like justifying it. Of course, if your Chapter lore was to reject allies, then perhaps you would not want to ally in Apocalypse, or maybe add a rule that your forces cannot benefit from the strategic assets of allied forces and vice versa.

Thanks :-) It's only supposed to be a minor disadvantage, so it's reasonable that you only lose access to a couple of units you probably weren't taking anyway.

antia wrote:
Thanks :-) It's only supposed to be a minor disadvantage, so it's reasonable that you only lose access to a couple of units you probably weren't taking anyway.

Which is one problem with the system.

A disadvantage should only be worth something if it’s actually a drawback. Giving up the option for something you weren’t going to do anyway, but a power boost id just free power.

I loved the system for it’s flavor and flexibility, but it could be gamed for free bonuses.

 Nevelon wrote:

antia wrote:
Thanks :-) It's only supposed to be a minor disadvantage, so it's reasonable that you only lose access to a couple of units you probably weren't taking anyway.

Which is one problem with the system.

A disadvantage should only be worth something if it’s actually a drawback. Giving up the option for something you weren’t going to do anyway, but a power boost id just free power.

I loved the system for it’s flavor and flexibility, but it could be gamed for free bonuses.

I mean one could argue that, from a narrative perspective, "drawbacks you weren't going to use anyways" are fine. If you built your Imperial Guard army as a tank company, for example, then a rule saying "You cannot take Infantry Platoons as compulsory troops" is warranted, even if its not a "real drawback". What would work instead, something like "your tanks can't have sponsons?" Why?

This led me to research, as exhaustively as I could, all the ways to get allies in 4th edition 40k. Putting it here for reference, just in case somebody else goes searching.
The primary way, in the core rulebook, is to take multiple detachments. This is recommended for very big games, where the force org. chart becomes a hindrance. This is also how you get a super-heavy vehicle into an army; it is recommended that a detachment limit is set as well as a points limit in these games.
Other than that there are various army-specific rules for allies, as mentioned in the replies above. These are:
Daemonhunters/Grey Knights, in Codex - Daemonhunters.
Deathwatch, in Chapter Approved - Deathwatch Kill-Teams (plus there's an Ordo Xenos inquisitor in Imperial Armour Volume 4)
The Relictors chapter in WD 295 had special interactions with radical inquisitors
Witch Hunters/Sisters of Battle in Codex - Witch Hunters
Assassins from Codex - Assassins can only be taken as allies
Kroot mercenaries from Chapter Approved 2004
Cursed Founding Chapters from Chapter Approved 2004
The Lost and The Damned in Eye of Terror can take Chaos Space Marines as allies.
Harlequins, although included as a unit in the 4th ed. Eldar codex, had their own army list with rules for allies in CJ 39. They could be taken in an Elite slot or as an allied detachment by an Eldar or Dark Eldar army, or by any non-Chaos army that was fighting against Chaos (as an Elite).


Sort-of allies that I don't think the rules consider allies:
Enslavers (from WD292 or the old GW website) could be taken to lead almost any army
Witch Hunters and Daemonhunters let their enemy take heretics and daemons as part of their army.


I think that's it, but if anybody knows of more I'd be interested, and add them to my list.
Thanks to A.T. and Haighus for the extra entries!
Note that most of these are from 3rd edition books; none of them had been superseded by newer books at the end of 4th edition, however (arguably the L&tD and Harlequins had been, but they were only replaced in a very limited form).

A.T also suggested the Hereticus Strike Force from Citadel Journal 49, but I can't find anything about allying in those rules.

Nevelon wrote:

antia wrote:
Thanks :-) It's only supposed to be a minor disadvantage, so it's reasonable that you only lose access to a couple of units you probably weren't taking anyway.

Which is one problem with the system.

A disadvantage should only be worth something if it’s actually a drawback. Giving up the option for something you weren’t going to do anyway, but a power boost id just free power.

I loved the system for it’s flavor and flexibility, but it could be gamed for free bonuses.

The 3.5Ed IG codex and 4Ed Marine codex didn't hand out a lot of freebies, though- all the significant improvements you had to pay for.

I'd really like to see that system come back, though preferably with a points cost for anything that conferred a straight upgrade. Make it so even if you're giving up things you wouldn't take anyways, you still have to pay for whatever power boosts you do get.

Personally, the only SM doctrine option I don't like (now that I know Allies are a real thing) is Suffer Not The Alien To Live, which gives you Preferred Enemy to one xenos faction at the cost of one point per model. Either your opponent is random, so the odds are you won't be fighting your preferred enemy and the points are wasted, or you know your opponent in advance and it feels cheesy to take Preferred Enemy (Tyranids) just because your brother plays Tyranids.

antia wrote:
Personally, the only SM doctrine option I don't like (now that I know Allies are a real thing) is Suffer Not The Alien To Live, which gives you Preferred Enemy to one xenos faction at the cost of one point per model. Either your opponent is random, so the odds are you won't be fighting your preferred enemy and the points are wasted, or you know your opponent in advance and it feels cheesy to take Preferred Enemy (Tyranids) just because your brother plays Tyranids.

This perk required specific modelling like head trophies on bases designating a xenos species. So Ork hunters won´t become Eldar hunters next week. 4th SM codex was great as it allowed you to create custom chapters. Mine were the Grave Diggers:

Perk:
- Apothecaries as Sgt.
- Dreads as Elite/Heavy

Drawback:
- No allies
- Limited access to vehicles

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

antia wrote:
Thanks :-) It's only supposed to be a minor disadvantage, so it's reasonable that you only lose access to a couple of units you probably weren't taking anyway.

Which is one problem with the system.

A disadvantage should only be worth something if it’s actually a drawback. Giving up the option for something you weren’t going to do anyway, but a power boost id just free power.

I loved the system for it’s flavor and flexibility, but it could be gamed for free bonuses.

I mean one could argue that, from a narrative perspective, "drawbacks you weren't going to use anyways" are fine. If you built your Imperial Guard army as a tank company, for example, then a rule saying "You cannot take Infantry Platoons as compulsory troops" is warranted, even if its not a "real drawback". What would work instead, something like "your tanks can't have sponsons?" Why?

If you have drawback that isn't drawback it should then give you advantage that isn't advantage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Strg Alt wrote:

antia wrote:
Personally, the only SM doctrine option I don't like (now that I know Allies are a real thing) is Suffer Not The Alien To Live, which gives you Preferred Enemy to one xenos faction at the cost of one point per model. Either your opponent is random, so the odds are you won't be fighting your preferred enemy and the points are wasted, or you know your opponent in advance and it feels cheesy to take Preferred Enemy (Tyranids) just because your brother plays Tyranids.

This perk required specific modelling like head trophies on bases designating a xenos species. So Ork hunters won´t become Eldar hunters next week. 4th SM codex was great as it allowed you to create custom chapters. Mine were the Grave Diggers:

Perk:
- Apothecaries as Sgt.
- Dreads as Elite/Heavy

Drawback:
- No allies
- Limited access to vehicles

And was it enforced? Or is it case of red white scars/whatever is flavour of the month...

Rules have specific rules for using successor chapters but instead people just say what chapter to get max bonuses

Ah yes. Chapter Traits. That wonderful system which penalised White Scars for trying to take transports.

antia wrote:
This led me to research, as exhaustively as I could, all the ways to get allies in 4th edition 40k. Putting it here for reference, just in case somebody else goes searching.
The primary way, in the core rulebook, is to take multiple detachments. This is recommended for very big games, where the force org. chart becomes a hindrance. This is also how you get a super-heavy vehicle into an army; it is recommended that a detachment limit is set as well as a points limit in these games.
Other than that there are various army-specific rules for allies, as mentioned in the replies above. These are:
Daemonhunters/Grey Knights, in Codex - Daemonhunters.
Deathwatch, in Chapter Approved - Deathwatch Kill-Teams (plus there's an Ordo Xenos inquisitor in Imperial Armour Volume 4)
The Relictors chapter in WD 295 had special interactions with radical inquisitors
Witch Hunters/Sisters of Battle in Codex - Witch Hunters
Assassins from Codex - Assassins can only be taken as allies
Kroot mercenaries from Chapter Approved 2004
Cursed Founding Chapters from Chapter Approved 2004


I think that's it, but if anybody knows of more I'd be interested, and add them to my list.
Note that most of these are from 3rd edition books; they were all still valid at the end of 4th edition, however.

Thanks for finding this! I'm aware of all of these besides the Relictors (I'd like to hear more), and I don't in particular remember any ally rules regarding the Cursed Founding.

tneva82 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

antia wrote:
Thanks :-) It's only supposed to be a minor disadvantage, so it's reasonable that you only lose access to a couple of units you probably weren't taking anyway.

Which is one problem with the system.

A disadvantage should only be worth something if it’s actually a drawback. Giving up the option for something you weren’t going to do anyway, but a power boost id just free power.

I loved the system for it’s flavor and flexibility, but it could be gamed for free bonuses.

I mean one could argue that, from a narrative perspective, "drawbacks you weren't going to use anyways" are fine. If you built your Imperial Guard army as a tank company, for example, then a rule saying "You cannot take Infantry Platoons as compulsory troops" is warranted, even if its not a "real drawback". What would work instead, something like "your tanks can't have sponsons?" Why?

If you have drawback that isn't drawback it should then give you advantage that isn't advantage.

Or just give everyone the same advantage-without-drawback to encourage fluffy armies.

The problem isn't that there weren't drawbacks. The problem was that sometimes they were and sometimes they weren't.

IG doctrines are a perfect example of it done right but from the same era. Mechanized Doctrine made all your units buy Chimeras (something you were likely to do anyways), even if they normally couldn't. The "drawback" was as soon as you lock in doctrines, you lost certain Rare Troops (if you didn't subsequently spend some of your doctrine slots to re-acquire access). This is a drawback in the same vein (Take X but you can't take Y) and yet is praised as one of the best systems in the same era.

It resulted in fluffly, mechanized armies that didn't include weird edge-case troopers. You could predict how an army would function based on the list of Doctrines it chose (e.g. Carapace Armor, Mechanized, Die Hards, Rare Troops: Storm Troopers, and Rare Troops: Techpriest Enginseers is a visibly different army from Warrior Weapons, Conscript Squads, Rare Troops: Ogryns, Chem-Inalers, and Light Infantry).

Great was the woe when all of the Guard Players taking Iron Discipline couldn't take Priests or Ogryns...

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Great was the woe when all of the Guard Players taking Iron Discipline couldn't take Priests or Ogryns...

To be fair, it was still the best doctrine/chapter tactics/etc system that we have had. It just needed another balance pass or 3. Like bare minimum, I still cannot fathom why you get 6 regimental traits, and lose 12 units - you can actually make the world's worst regiment by making a custom regiment and only buying back half the lost units. Why not let a doctrine point unlock TWO units?

Also silly things like removing trading your lasguns for swords making your guardsmen more expensive per model was just hilarious. Sacrificing their specialty (ranged combat) in exchange for plugging in the gaps of one of their big weaknesses (melee), and making them bad at both.

I love the doctrine system from that book but man it really needed some love so that there weren't so many auto takes and "why would you ever take that" options.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

antia wrote:
Thanks :-) It's only supposed to be a minor disadvantage, so it's reasonable that you only lose access to a couple of units you probably weren't taking anyway.

Which is one problem with the system.

A disadvantage should only be worth something if it’s actually a drawback. Giving up the option for something you weren’t going to do anyway, but a power boost id just free power.

I loved the system for it’s flavor and flexibility, but it could be gamed for free bonuses.

I mean one could argue that, from a narrative perspective, "drawbacks you weren't going to use anyways" are fine. If you built your Imperial Guard army as a tank company, for example, then a rule saying "You cannot take Infantry Platoons as compulsory troops" is warranted, even if its not a "real drawback". What would work instead, something like "your tanks can't have sponsons?" Why?

If you have drawback that isn't drawback it should then give you advantage that isn't advantage.

Or just give everyone the same advantage-without-drawback to encourage fluffy armies.

The problem isn't that there weren't drawbacks. The problem was that sometimes they were and sometimes they weren't.

IG doctrines are a perfect example of it done right but from the same era. Mechanized Doctrine made all your units buy Chimeras (something you were likely to do anyways), even if they normally couldn't. The "drawback" was as soon as you lock in doctrines, you lost certain Rare Troops (if you didn't subsequently spend some of your doctrine slots to re-acquire access). This is a drawback in the same vein (Take X but you can't take Y) and yet is praised as one of the best systems in the same era.

It resulted in fluffly, mechanized armies that didn't include weird edge-case troopers. You could predict how an army would function based on the list of Doctrines it chose (e.g. Carapace Armor, Mechanized, Die Hards, Rare Troops: Storm Troopers, and Rare Troops: Techpriest Enginseers is a visibly different army from Warrior Weapons, Conscript Squads, Rare Troops: Ogryns, Chem-Inalers, and Light Infantry).

Idk why people will claim a drawback isn´t a drawback. When I told my opponent he was playing against my custom SM he pretty knew what was coming and what was not: Apothecaries in Tactical squads and at most a single vehicle. I mainly took the lack of vehicle advantage because back in the day I loathed painting them. Do modern codices work with such restrictions anymore? I guess not as they want to sell vehicles to everybody.

antia wrote:
I think that's it, but if anybody knows of more I'd be interested, and add them to my list.
Note that most of these are from 3rd edition books; they were all still valid at the end of 4th edition, however.

Gav Thorpes 3e Harlequins had multiple allies rules written into it. IIRC Citadel Journal 39
1) any craftworlds, dark eldar, or exodites army could take harlequins as regular elite units (even if they weren't elite for the harlequins)
2) any of the above could take harlies as an allied detachment, or the other way around
3) _any_ army could take a single harlequin unit as an elites choice

Citadel Journal 49 had the Hereticus Strike Force - an option for the 3rd edition chapter approved sister list combining them with inquisitors, assassins, and drop pods

Daemonhunters and Witch Hunters had advarsaries (printed version but not PDF). Slightly odd as they are additions to the opponents lists but only for pre-agreed games agaisnt WH/DH.
-greater and lesser daemons in the DH book
-renegade humans in the WH book, as well as the option to upgrade one HQ to psyker

And there were the enslavers (a GW website chapter approved article) where you could ally in your opponents army over the course of the game :p

Honourable mention to the Grey Knights 'Redeemer Force' apocalypse formation. Should the GK player/team succeed in removing all chaos models from the table the chaos player(s) take control of the GK instead.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

antia wrote:
This led me to research, as exhaustively as I could, all the ways to get allies in 4th edition 40k. Putting it here for reference, just in case somebody else goes searching.
The primary way, in the core rulebook, is to take multiple detachments. This is recommended for very big games, where the force org. chart becomes a hindrance. This is also how you get a super-heavy vehicle into an army; it is recommended that a detachment limit is set as well as a points limit in these games.
Other than that there are various army-specific rules for allies, as mentioned in the replies above. These are:
Daemonhunters/Grey Knights, in Codex - Daemonhunters.
Deathwatch, in Chapter Approved - Deathwatch Kill-Teams (plus there's an Ordo Xenos inquisitor in Imperial Armour Volume 4)
The Relictors chapter in WD 295 had special interactions with radical inquisitors
Witch Hunters/Sisters of Battle in Codex - Witch Hunters
Assassins from Codex - Assassins can only be taken as allies
Kroot mercenaries from Chapter Approved 2004
Cursed Founding Chapters from Chapter Approved 2004


I think that's it, but if anybody knows of more I'd be interested, and add them to my list.
Note that most of these are from 3rd edition books; they were all still valid at the end of 4th edition, however.

Thanks for finding this! I'm aware of all of these besides the Relictors (I'd like to hear more), and I don't in particular remember any ally rules regarding the Cursed Founding.

The Cursed Founding Chapters can be taken on their own or as part of a Codex (as in no doctrines) chapter. I would guess that this is to let you make a custom chapter with weird units along the lines of Wulfen or the Death Company, though it doesn't actually say that.
The Relictors are pretty cool; they're an excommunicated chapter that collected daemon weapons, and chaos relics in general. The only allies they can take are Radical Daemonhunters (i.e. Codex: Daemonhunters without Grey Knights), so you can have a fun force led by a psycho inquisitor and his pet daemonhost, with your SM captain hefting a daemon weapon and his standard bearer using a standard from Codex: CSM. The inquisitor also gets access to their list of relics, which is the 'special interaction' I mentioned.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

A.T. wrote:

antia wrote:
I think that's it, but if anybody knows of more I'd be interested, and add them to my list.
Note that most of these are from 3rd edition books; they were all still valid at the end of 4th edition, however.

Gav Thorpes 3e Harlequins had multiple allies rules written into it. IIRC Citadel Journal 39
1) any craftworlds, dark eldar, or exodites army could take harlequins as regular elite units (even if they weren't elite for the harlequins)
2) any of the above could take harlies as an allied detachment, or the other way around
3) _any_ army could take a single harlequin unit as an elites choice

Citadel Journal 49 had the Hereticus Strike Force - an option for the 3rd edition chapter approved sister list combining them with inquisitors, assassins, and drop pods

Daemonhunters and Witch Hunters had advarsaries (printed version but not PDF). Slightly odd as they are additions to the opponents lists but only for pre-agreed games agaisnt WH/DH.
-greater and lesser daemons in the DH book
-renegade humans in the WH book, as well as the option to upgrade one HQ to psyker

And there were the enslavers (a GW website chapter approved article) where you could ally in your opponents army over the course of the game :p

Honourable mention to the Grey Knights 'Redeemer Force' apocalypse formation. Should the GK player/team succeed in removing all chaos models from the table the chaos player(s) take control of the GK instead.

Thanks! I haven't looked at the Citadel Journals, so I'll go do that. Having a unit of harlequins spontaneously show up to help your army is a fun idea. I was aware of the enslavers (which I saw in WD 292) and inquisitorial adversaries, but it didn't occur to me to list them; I probably should.
The WH at least let your opponent upgrade a character to be a psyker for free; I think expanding on that would have been a much more sensible approach than letting them take a bunch of units they can only ever use against your army. The DH list should probably have just given your opponent a free squad of daemons. That way you can at least guarantee a few daemons to use your powers on, without it being a hassle.

 Strg Alt wrote:
This perk required specific modelling like head trophies on bases designating a xenos species. So Ork hunters won´t become Eldar hunters next week

Which was garbage rules writing because A) it was inconsistent (no other perk in any other book required festooning your models with bits that might not even fit whatever backstory you were going for), B) pay to win for obvious reasons, C) it did nothing to stop the problem because thatguys would just abuse it anyway (just magnetize trophies or even simpler, just glue metal spikes on backpacks/banners/pads/etc, and slide whatever trophy bits you want on like beads before fight).

This system only worked when players tried to build armies like GW writers - 100% fluffy and not trying to abuse gak, but the second some WAAAC type tried to break it, a lot of really stinky cheese was possible. And it wasn't even that good at making fluffy armies, because there were tons of chapters this system struggled to replicate or outright refused to do so.

Some were straight illogical, too, why would a chapter lacking terminator armor be able to field 10 man terminator brick but not give a single officer terminator armor? You'd think these would have priority before random mooks? And why it magically stops you from fielding veterans in regular power armor? Why would a chapter lacking vehicle facilities be able to take a predator with autocannon turret, but no lascannon one, when the latter is supposed to be much less maintenance intensive, doesn't require rare ammo and is easier to produce? Why hating heretics makes you a good tank hunter? Is this supposed to be some joke on METUL BOXUS meme from Dawn of War?

 catbarf wrote:
The 3.5Ed IG codex and 4Ed Marine codex didn't hand out a lot of freebies, though- all the significant improvements you had to pay for.

I'd really like to see that system come back, though preferably with a points cost for anything that conferred a straight upgrade. Make it so even if you're giving up things you wouldn't take anyways, you still have to pay for whatever power boosts you do get.

Which was horrible system too (I tried to build 4th edition army just recently and was reminded why I hated it so much). The upgrades were all terribly priced, either so expensive they sent your army straight to the bottom if you tried to take them on fluffy units and most of the time not worth the cost for the small benefit given encouraging bland, flavorless units, or so cheap/broken on certain units it was a must take warping the game balance around it.

I very much preferred 5th edition system instead, characters unlocking traits/slots/bonuses instead, because most of the time, they were much more sensibly priced, fluffy, scaled better and the 'tax' while being substantial point investment discouraging abuse at least gave you fluffy character in the bargain instead of making your points disappear into a black hole. Also, the chapters/characters from 5th edition SM/BA Codex and Badab War FW books are, to this day, the gold standard on characterful, but balanced rules that allowed you to build a lot of company/chapter archetypes (and even allowed you to borrow characters from other chapters if you wanted to 'count as' one as some really unique hero and couldn't build him with generic rules) out of regular FOC without any of them being broken or easily abusable.

Hell, the divergent unlock troop slot system was so good AoS (where it's liked, too) uses it to this day, too bad clowns writing SM books in 6th-9th editions got rid of it. Was much better than current 'just take whatever bro' mess

Are we only talking about allies for Imperial units still? If not, then Chaos Space Marines and Lost and the Damned could also ally together.

@Irbis:

You are feeling well? Xenos hunter modelling requirement was a good decision to abolish Spike ruining the perk. Period. It also encouraged the hobby aspect of the tabletop game a feature which is sorely missed these days as people rather buy overpriced plastic terrain than to build stuff from scratch. If "modern" players have difficulties with it the problem is in the mirror.

The other perks were also okay and the intention was not to create a ROFL-stomping list but rather to spice the SM army with some flavour. People back in the day understood it perfectly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Haighus wrote:
Are we only talking about allies for Imperial units still? If not, then Chaos Space Marines and Lost and the Damned could also ally together.

True. I can field a plague zombie army which evokes Romero movie vibes . 100 diseased corpses with T4, 4+Save and Fearless for 9 pts. is fun. I could even add another 120 from my Lahmia WHFB army for some dire end times fun although you would need to tweak the force org a bit as the maximum amount of zombie units were six (6x30=180 models). In that case Nurgle CSM reinforcements will have difficulties deploying their Rhino in the deployment zone.

However best fun is to blast all those walking corpses with four Imperial Knights in solo-play.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Great was the woe when all of the Guard Players taking Iron Discipline couldn't take Priests or Ogryns...

Precisely.

I loved my Doctrine Guard, but I'm not about to pretend that the stuff you "gave up" in any way balanced out the massive advantages you got from the stuff you did get.

"Oh no! I can't take the things I wasn't going to take anyway. Whatever shall I do!!!" *clutches pearls*

 Haighus wrote:
Are we only talking about allies for Imperial units still? If not, then Chaos Space Marines and Lost and the Damned could also ally together.

Thanks, I must have missed that. Is that the lost and the damned from the Eye of Terror book?

antia wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
Are we only talking about allies for Imperial units still? If not, then Chaos Space Marines and Lost and the Damned could also ally together.

Thanks, I must have missed that. Is that the lost and the damned from the Eye of Terror book?

Yes.

LatD were from the EoT book, yes, and they were fantastic!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Great was the woe when all of the Guard Players taking Iron Discipline couldn't take Priests or Ogryns...

Precisely.

I loved my Doctrine Guard, but I'm not about to pretend that the stuff you "gave up" in any way balanced out the massive advantages you got from the stuff you did get.

"Oh no! I can't take the things I wasn't going to take anyway. Whatever shall I do!!!" *clutches pearls*

That's rather the point though. To reward you for taking a themed army that held to a specific set of doctrines.

If you were going to do so anyways, enjoy your free rules!

If you weren't, then maybe this convinced you to! (Yay) or you aren't using it, in which case... also yay?

The only people negatively affected by the system* are the folks who wanted an un-themed EVERYTHING army and also themed doctrines.

(*Barring GW's balancing, which could always use another pass.)

The idea of "here is a bonus for a themed army, and the drawback is you have to stay in theme" isn't fundamentally wrong and I have no idea why people think it is.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Great was the woe when all of the Guard Players taking Iron Discipline couldn't take Priests or Ogryns...

Precisely.

I loved my Doctrine Guard, but I'm not about to pretend that the stuff you "gave up" in any way balanced out the massive advantages you got from the stuff you did get.

"Oh no! I can't take the things I wasn't going to take anyway. Whatever shall I do!!!" *clutches pearls*

That's rather the point though. To reward you for taking a themed army that held to a specific set of doctrines.

If you were going to do so anyways, enjoy your free rules!

If you weren't, then maybe this convinced you to! (Yay) or you aren't using it, in which case... also yay?

The only people negatively affected by the system* are the folks who wanted an un-themed EVERYTHING army and also themed doctrines.

(*Barring GW's balancing, which could always use another pass.)

The idea of "here is a bonus for a themed army, and the drawback is you have to stay in theme" isn't fundamentally wrong and I have no idea why people think it is.

I think the issue is the note you have about GW balancing. The sacrifice to unlock doctrines is to remove the 10 worst units in the codex. If the units given up were better, that would be one thing. That and some of the doctrines are just straight up better than others - +2 points per model to remove your lasgun and take a laspistol + ccw. Or the fact that Deep Strike on all Infantry units and Sentinels could deep strike for free with the Drop Troops doctrine. Even things like Cameleoline vs Carapace Armor prices are a bit off. Like I said upthread, even something as simple as using a doctrine point to unlock 2 lost units instead of 1 would be an improvement, that way the default army list IS using the doctrine system, but merely uses its doctrine points to have everything unlocked.

All that said, its still the best form of doctrines/chapter tactics/what have you that GW has done, its just a case of acknowledging the shortcomings of it.

Right. The balance was bad.

But instead of saying "GW goofed", people seem to believe that rules with no drawbacks (or themed drawbacks that are effectively not drawbacks) are axiomatically bad.