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.

Unit's that can make alliance's happen because in WHFB you can't take ally detachment say like in WH40K (unless pacts like in storm of magic) but you can treat another player as a ally in the case of 2v2. Anyway back on topic i am of corse talking about nagash his rules that make both VC and TK become one army could this just be testing the waters and we would start to see such leaders.

Lords that make All elfs as one army
Lords that make Bretonnia and Empire one army
Lords that make all Chaos units one army depending on what god they prey too

But i am not sure about the relationship with Beastmen/Ogre Kingdoms/Skaven/Lizardmen and Dwarfs for them to have such a leader?

No

I don't see why not. Especially if it's just 2 armies and the requirement is essentially pouring all your points into a lord. That's rather expensive and not always cost-effective.

 DukeRustfield wrote:
I don't see why not. Especially if it's just 2 armies and the requirement is essentially pouring all your points into a lord.
That's rather expensive and not always cost-effective.

How long will it take to be abused?

It took me five minutes to write a list for End Times that defeats Nagash and any undead legion list on turn one.

Yes because banishment can wreck Nagash's face in.

I don't want to see allies introduced. If they want to expand on end times & do stuff like that fine but I am 100% against allies in regular games / tournaments.

@TDA, to be fair there isnt much that can easily stand up to a triple S9/10 Banishment list...

But yeah, forget allies. Give us characters that allow slightly different organisations, much like a SM chapter master allows bikes as troops, sort of deal...

 japehlio wrote:
@TDA, to be fair there isnt much that can easily stand up to a triple S9/10 Banishment list...

But yeah, forget allies. Give us characters that allow slightly different organisations, much like a SM chapter master allows bikes as troops, sort of deal...

There's no Light magic!

Level 4 life with the hex scroll, and Morathi.

Oh? Nagash has to roll a six to be able to do anything? Thanks. Let me take this one-three turns to clean up the army.

Yeah, but does he not need to roll a 6 to be affected by the scroll in the first place?

 japehlio wrote:
Yeah, but does he not need to roll a 6 to be affected by the scroll in the first place?

True, if it goes off great, poof, dead nagash. However I think banishment would be the more reliable option.

I play chaos i think it should be acceptable for DoC and WoC of the same god restrictions in place
To use this all models must be of that god so to take DoC with WoC you need a lord of nurgle or a Greater Daemon.
Models that cant be of that god if taken will be dis-allowed to take the other army sounds fair right?

Because seeing a huge pack of warriors with a great unclean one towering behind it with nurglings and plaguebearers does look awesome

I'd love it if they'd go back to how the 6th edition books allowed the books to function together. Modifying the categories based on the book and Chaos God your lord served.

 Kaligoth wrote:
Unit's that can make alliance's happen because in WHFB you can't take ally detachment say like in WH40K (unless pacts like in storm of magic) but you can treat another player as a ally in the case of 2v2. Anyway back on topic i am of corse talking about nagash his rules that make both VC and TK become one army could this just be testing the waters and we would start to see such leaders.

Nooo.... you dont need Nagash or any Mortarchs or anything to use a combined undead army... its a new army list, no special uber characters required.

I wouldn't be surprised if we see this happen with other armies - chaos is a fantastic example - but characters doing it? Nope.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 DukeRustfield wrote:
I don't see why not. Especially if it's just 2 armies and the requirement is essentially pouring all your points into a lord.
That's rather expensive and not always cost-effective.

How long will it take to be abused?

It took me five minutes to write a list for End Times that defeats Nagash and any undead legion list on turn one.

Dude, that's the opposite of abused. It's totally fine to add new units/powers/whatever that in the end...suck. Just like 6 dieing mega spells can lose you the game. But you don't HAVE to do that.

 DukeRustfield wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 DukeRustfield wrote:
I don't see why not. Especially if it's just 2 armies and the requirement is essentially pouring all your points into a lord.
That's rather expensive and not always cost-effective.

How long will it take to be abused?

It took me five minutes to write a list for End Times that defeats Nagash and any undead legion list on turn one.

Dude, that's the opposite of abused. It's totally fine to add new units/powers/whatever that in the end...suck. Just like 6 dieing mega spells can lose you the game. But you don't HAVE to do that.

That's not what I meant.

Look at The Empire. Under normal percentages, they're bent because of the cheap choices across the book. Giving them access to 50% lords just makes playing against them unfun.
The game will be: altar sixdices banishment, Nagash dies. Second altar just uses the remaining dice to cast a second banishment at the next major threat. Repeat every turn.

In my opinion 'The End Times' series will be much like what 'Apocalypse' was for 40K up untill 7th (maybe even 6th to a smaller extent). The real question still remains. Is this a test run for some kind of 9th edition that will bringing 'Unbound' armies to the field, while stating 'forging a narative'? Please I hope not.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

That's not what I meant.

Look at The Empire. Under normal percentages, they're bent because of the cheap choices across the book. Giving them access to 50% lords just makes playing against them unfun.
The game will be: altar sixdices banishment, Nagash dies. Second altar just uses the remaining dice to cast a second banishment at the next major threat. Repeat every turn.

Not everyone is a powergamer.

...no. But a good game is designed in such a way that power-gamers and ones more interested in, say, a cool narrative, build the same lists.

Having a unit that can declare two army's joining forcis by ruling is far more balanced then say 40k unbound because at least you can limmit what you take with said ruling. After all you need to spend points on that model to activate that ruling so you loose a % of a slot making that 50% justifyed.

 Kaligoth wrote:
Having a unit that can declare two army's joining forcis by ruling is far more balanced then say 40k unbound because at least you can limmit what you take with said ruling. After all you need to spend points on that model to activate that ruling so you loose a % of a slot making that 50% justifyed.

But, different armies have units that can make different armies bent. For instance, imagine a high elf army built of nothing but dragon princes, reavers, phoenixes, and warlocks, with eight bolt throwers.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 Kaligoth wrote:
Having a unit that can declare two army's joining forcis by ruling is far more balanced then say 40k unbound because at least you can limmit what you take with said ruling. After all you need to spend points on that model to activate that ruling so you loose a % of a slot making that 50% justifyed.

But, different armies have units that can make different armies bent. For instance, imagine a high elf army built of nothing but dragon princes, reavers, phoenixes, and warlocks, with eight bolt throwers.

And on the opposite end of the spectrum, imagine a High Elf army that is Ellyrian Reavers, Shadow Warriors, and Alith-Anar with nothing else.
Or a Wood Elf list that was nothing but Waywatchers and Waystalkers.

For every "power list" you throw out there, there is a fluffy and fun list that can be thrown out there as well.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 Kaligoth wrote:
Having a unit that can declare two army's joining forcis by ruling is far more balanced then say 40k unbound because at least you can limmit what you take with said ruling. After all you need to spend points on that model to activate that ruling so you loose a % of a slot making that 50% justifyed.

But, different armies have units that can make different armies bent. For instance, imagine a high elf army built of nothing but dragon princes, reavers, phoenixes, and warlocks, with eight bolt throwers.

And on the opposite end of the spectrum, imagine a High Elf army that is Ellyrian Reavers, Shadow Warriors, and Alith-Anar with nothing else.
Or a Wood Elf list that was nothing but Waywatchers and Waystalkers.

For every "power list" you throw out there, there is a fluffy and fun list that can be thrown out there as well.

Arguing that you can make fluff lists doesn't change the fact that it's a bad idea. A single nurgle prince is dirty enough in a mono nurgle warriors list. Adding a second breaks it and keeps fluff.

Lists aren't always split into power and fluff. And I speak as someone who runs a fluffy fast cav wood elf list, a fluffy black knight bus, and a fluffy double banishment empire list. All of which are considered to be power lists at first.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 Kaligoth wrote:
Having a unit that can declare two army's joining forcis by ruling is far more balanced then say 40k unbound because at least you can limmit what you take with said ruling. After all you need to spend points on that model to activate that ruling so you loose a % of a slot making that 50% justifyed.

But, different armies have units that can make different armies bent. For instance, imagine a high elf army built of nothing but dragon princes, reavers, phoenixes, and warlocks, with eight bolt throwers.

You're forgetting the lord-tax. If you have to buy Farty McPointyface to make your super army and he costs 650 and rides a pogostick with 2W, it's a way of balancing it.

You keep pointing out oh noze, nagash can die. That means he's not that great. People have invested a crapload of points in a model that cost them the game. I mean, you can always do that. You can buy 600 zombies and put them in one block. Just because you can do that and someone save-or-dies you to oblivion doesn't mean zombies are OP.

You can conceivably use a lord/item/whatever to merge armies or units. And you can do it easier than actually rewriting the individual armies so they fit. Because not everyone is going to want to use Woc + Doc. So if you weaken them both so they fit, you're going to hurt all the people who just want to play them individually. If you make some daemon that makes it happen, you've got a mechanism and you can put all your rule requirements on that one guy instead of forcing it into the books when they don't need or want them.

Why would Nagash ever want to be within 24" of a wizard/ altar with banishment? The character summons 3x the points when using lore of undeath, has access to 2 caster buff units, has a 36" range on all of his summoning spells, and is M6 so he can even run away if he has to. Sure Nagash is a complete waste of pts if used badly but so is anything else that is even moderately balanced.

The end times also does not require nagash to unlock the joint army list. So I very much doubt joint unlock characters are a thing. I do however see the very likely possibility for allies or further joint books (ie Chaos united, mankind united, or perhaps the old allied armies that repelled chaos will get together).

Yeah, one thing that seem to be escaping people:

1. the ability to combine the Vampire Counts and Tomb King armies is a special rule presented in this new book, and is not specifically connected to the Nagash model.

But that wasn't the question. You can present a question that isn't tied to the current rules. Maybe this isn't the best forum, but it was still a question.

 DukeRustfield wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 Kaligoth wrote:
Having a unit that can declare two army's joining forcis by ruling is far more balanced then say 40k unbound because at least you can limmit what you take with said ruling. After all you need to spend points on that model to activate that ruling so you loose a % of a slot making that 50% justifyed.

But, different armies have units that can make different armies bent. For instance, imagine a high elf army built of nothing but dragon princes, reavers, phoenixes, and warlocks, with eight bolt throwers.

You're forgetting the lord-tax. If you have to buy Farty McPointyface to make your super army and he costs 650 and rides a pogostick with 2W, it's a way of balancing it.

You keep pointing out oh noze, nagash can die. That means he's not that great. People have invested a crapload of points in a model that cost them the game. I mean, you can always do that. You can buy 600 zombies and put them in one block. Just because you can do that and someone save-or-dies you to oblivion doesn't mean zombies are OP.

You can conceivably use a lord/item/whatever to merge armies or units. And you can do it easier than actually rewriting the individual armies so they fit. Because not everyone is going to want to use Woc + Doc. So if you weaken them both so they fit, you're going to hurt all the people who just want to play them individually. If you make some daemon that makes it happen, you've got a mechanism and you can put all your rule requirements on that one guy instead of forcing it into the books when they don't need or want them.

You hit the nail on the head my friend this is what I mean if they did do it this way it would be wayyyyyyy more balanced then the 40k alliance
think of a leader that is very charismatic take for instant a bloodthirster costing about 400+ points they could have a upgrade for him that costs 200 points that allows him to take models marked with khorne from the WoC army book basically this guy is such a powerful war hero that even those of another faction flock under his banner or you could go the way of having a named warlord with this ability costing like 800 points with similar statline.

 Kaligoth wrote:

 DukeRustfield wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 Kaligoth wrote:
Having a unit that can declare two army's joining forcis by ruling is far more balanced then say 40k unbound because at least you can limmit what you take with said ruling. After all you need to spend points on that model to activate that ruling so you loose a % of a slot making that 50% justifyed.

But, different armies have units that can make different armies bent. For instance, imagine a high elf army built of nothing but dragon princes, reavers, phoenixes, and warlocks, with eight bolt throwers.

You're forgetting the lord-tax. If you have to buy Farty McPointyface to make your super army and he costs 650 and rides a pogostick with 2W, it's a way of balancing it.

You keep pointing out oh noze, nagash can die. That means he's not that great. People have invested a crapload of points in a model that cost them the game. I mean, you can always do that. You can buy 600 zombies and put them in one block. Just because you can do that and someone save-or-dies you to oblivion doesn't mean zombies are OP.

You can conceivably use a lord/item/whatever to merge armies or units. And you can do it easier than actually rewriting the individual armies so they fit. Because not everyone is going to want to use Woc + Doc. So if you weaken them both so they fit, you're going to hurt all the people who just want to play them individually. If you make some daemon that makes it happen, you've got a mechanism and you can put all your rule requirements on that one guy instead of forcing it into the books when they don't need or want them.

You hit the nail on the head my friend this is what I mean if they did do it this way it would be wayyyyyyy more balanced then the 40k alliance
think of a leader that is very charismatic take for instant a bloodthirster costing about 400+ points they could have a upgrade for him that costs 200 points that allows him to take models marked with khorne from the WoC army book basically this guy is such a powerful war hero that even those of another faction flock under his banner or you could go the way of having a named warlord with this ability costing like 800 points with similar statline.

How many armies actually view it as a tax?

The armies I play don't; Warriors, Dark Elves, Empire, and Tomb Kings. I'd really love to double the percentages I can get for level 4s, demon princes, dreadlords and high priests.

I honestly think you're going to see ally / mercenary / call it what you will rules in 9th ed, maybe even somewhere in this whole "end times" multi release they have planned.

It's a really low barrier to entry method of getting people to buy more stuff, while removing the "Oh god, i want those mournfang cavalry, but i don't want to spend 800.00 on an entire army to play them" effect.

I don't think it will be model specific when it comes ; i think it'll be a core rule in 9th or at the very least an optional secondary rule for some expansion release.

As maligned as it is on the internet, ally rules in 40k have had the desired effect - getting people to buy more stuff by removing the massive investment deterrent required to play it. Like it or not, and i know many don't, WHFB has to overcome this hurdle to survive. The buy-in to the game is just insanely high for what else is out there, and even if you take the plunge on one army to the tune of 4-8 hundred bucks, that essentially means that for most players (not all, but most) you are now locked out of the entire product line b/c, that would mean another 4-8 hundred bucks investment.

The people willing to do that once are rare enough. THe people willing to do it 2+ times for one game system are a microcosm.

So that's a major hurdle they have to overcome ; getting around the massive, Kiliminjaro sized barrier to entry for most gamers. They can do that in a couple ways ; an easy low hanging fruit way is to raise points you can spend on lords to 50% (i'm not commenting on if that's good or not, there's another thread for that... suffice to say there's winners and losers on both ends of the spectrum). Another is allies.

Like it or not, it has a high propensity of being part of GW's strategy to keep WHFB alive and well. If you like the game, even if you personally don't like the idea of allies, you should really want SOME sort of ally strategy to succeed, because it's going to get people buying things again.

To add to that Haight on a positive note more verity of say core units for example I play mono god nurgle I would love to see a plaguebearer block with 2 blocks of WoC knights of nurgle in my games

 DukeRustfield wrote:
But that wasn't the question. You can present a question that isn't tied to the current rules. Maybe this isn't the best forum, but it was still a question.

Um...well, the OP did say this:

 Kaligoth wrote:
Unit's that can make alliance's happen because in WHFB you can't take ally detachment say like in WH40K (unless pacts like in storm of magic) but you can treat another player as a ally in the case of 2v2. Anyway back on topic i am of corse talking about nagash his rules that make both VC and TK become one army...

So, if it "wasn't the question", it certainly was a large part of the reasoning behind the asking of said question.