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.

At least you can represent traitor guard, I cannot represent Gue'Vesa for my Tau anymore.

 King Pariah wrote:
I believe so but really only for some minor changes.

I'm okay with them all being battle brothers, BUT I'd like to see IG... sorry, AM be allowed something like Allies of Convenience with Chaos for the sake of traitor guard.

I am well aware of FW's Lost and the Damned, but in my area, FW stuff generally isn't approved of outside of Apocalypse. As I intend to run a small contingent of IG with my CSM, I'd like to see the IG and CSM forces not having to maintain 12" of space between their units.

However, if GW cranked out a traitor guard supplement, I probably then wouldn't give a gak about the IoM being all battle brothers and stuffed into one ally slot.

GW already did Traitor Guard in the form of the Renegades and Heretics list.

Now I know you said your local area doesn't like Forge World (are there still such backwards places in the world?), but that's not GW's fault. It's like an area not allowing the Ork codex or something!

SGTPozy wrote:
At least you can represent traitor guard, I cannot represent Gue'Vesa for my Tau anymore.

Well, you sort still can, they just can't get close to one another to properly function... lol

I'm not that familiar with all the IOM has to offer. Can't they take Inquisitors, Assassins, and a IK in any CAD without taking up a FOC slot? On top of their ability to take allies and CAD from any other IoM codex?

I think it would make the most sense to change the benefits Battle Brothers instill in each other. They don't need to have animosity or anything, but I think something more along the lines of "Allies of Convenience" would prevent the cheesiness BB brings about.

Allies should just be done away with. From a fluff perspective the ally chart (mostly) makes sense, but mechanically allies have caused nothing but grief in general. Choosing to ignore a massive swathe of the fluff (Imperial armies not being bros4life with one another in the face of enemy threats) just to mechanically punish certain factions is nonsensical.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Honestly, Drop Pods should never have been made a Fast Attack choice.

All dedicated transports are getting that treatment though.

And to an extent, that's okay, but Drop Pods should never have been given that treatment.

Razorbacks or Rhinos? Fine, whatever. Drop Pods? NOPE.

Happyjew wrote:Just wait until Wave Serpents become Fast Attack.

That assumes that Wave Serpents will and Falcons won't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SGTPozy wrote:
At least you can represent traitor guard, I cannot represent Gue'Vesa for my Tau anymore.

Actually you still can.

It's just now you have to accept that you're getting exactly what was initially described: Guardsmen who were given the choice to join or be executed.
There's also the Gue'Vesa'ui which are the trusted sergeants...but you can't exactly make the Sergeants "Battle Brothers" and the rest of the unit "Allies of Convenience" right?

I know people say "well these guys don't have a good history with X and Y so they shouldn't ally" but I think in the long run from a fluff perspective if a Commander says "you, Dark Angels and Space Wolves, you are teaming up for the assault on the chaos stronghold" they will not say no, they may not enjoy it but they will still do their job. Same with inquisitors, even if inquisitors are untrustworthy trash if one comes up to a commander and says "give me 3 platoons of guard and 1 squad of space marines now!" they will probably comply. Similarly, all IoM armies will work together even on an interpersonal level, such as a space marine leading guardsman, or a cannoness leading a squad of grey knights into battle, because they are doing their job, which is to fight the enemies of mankind.

Heretics and xenos burn the same regardless of who you are standing next to when you pull the trigger!

 generalchaos34 wrote:
I think in the long run from a fluff perspective if a Commander says "you, Dark Angels and Space Wolves, you are teaming up for the assault on the chaos stronghold" they will not say no, they may not enjoy it but they will still do their job. Same with inquisitors, even if inquisitors are untrustworthy trash if one comes up to a commander and says "give me 3 platoons of guard and 1 squad of space marines now!" they will probably comply.

This is one of the reasons I'm against Maelstrom Missions.
SW: Okay, we joined up with you guys. What are we doing out here?
BA: We don't know yet, we just got into position. We haven't received orders yet.
SW: The enemy is in formations across the battlefield! You don't know what we're fighting for and what our mission is?
Inquisitor: Silence! I just received the three mission objectives. 1st objective is to destroy one of their fortified structures.
SW: They don't have any.
Inquisitor: I'm not finished. Surely they must some hidden, remain vigilante until the end of the first round before we verify that the order was given in error. The second order is to destroy their superheavy vehicle or gargantuan creature.
BA: There isn't any....
Inquisitor: None?
SW: This is why we don't like working with you guys.

 Savageconvoy wrote:

 generalchaos34 wrote:
I think in the long run from a fluff perspective if a Commander says "you, Dark Angels and Space Wolves, you are teaming up for the assault on the chaos stronghold" they will not say no, they may not enjoy it but they will still do their job. Same with inquisitors, even if inquisitors are untrustworthy trash if one comes up to a commander and says "give me 3 platoons of guard and 1 squad of space marines now!" they will probably comply.

This is one of the reasons I'm against Maelstrom Missions.
SW: Okay, we joined up with you guys. What are we doing out here?
BA: We don't know yet, we just got into position. We haven't received orders yet.
SW: The enemy is in formations across the battlefield! You don't know what we're fighting for and what our mission is?
Inquisitor: Silence! I just received the three mission objectives. 1st objective is to destroy one of their fortified structures.
SW: They don't have any.
Inquisitor: I'm not finished. Surely they must some hidden, remain vigilante until the end of the first round before we verify that the order was given in error. The second order is to destroy their superheavy vehicle or gargantuan creature.
BA: There isn't any....
Inquisitor: None?
SW: This is why we don't like working with you guys.

This is one of my new favourite things and I will be making this joke for the rest of time's existence.

For a more on topic post, I think the only part of the IoM that should be broken up are the AM and then give them some kind of special proviso so they can ally to Chaos, Tau, etc...

I think for the most part, all the Space Marine chapters could lay aside their differences in the face of a mutual enemy, maybe have a couple of special rules regarding things like the customary SW/DA duel that they have after battles.

What about having Imperial armies roll a D6 to determine if their armies are able/willing to cooperate with one another? Have it range from perfect Battle Brothers to bordering on Desperate Allies in terms of penalties. This way, the random nature of the D6 introduces an element of risk of fielding a mixed army. I've come up with a mock-up of such a table in this thread in the Proposed Rules forum.

Because that's exactly what 40k needs, more random rolling.

 Blacksails wrote:
Because that's exactly what 40k needs, more random rolling.

Not just that, but random rolling to see if half your army will act like part of your army or not. Finding out after list making and before deploying that the IC you purchased can't be added to the unit you purchased him for is a bad idea.

 Savageconvoy wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Because that's exactly what 40k needs, more random rolling.

Not just that, but random rolling to see if half your army will act like part of your army or not. Finding out after list making and before deploying that the IC you purchased can't be added to the unit you purchased him for is a bad idea.

As opposed to simply allowing the one faction to have a far wider selection of Independent Characters is so fair and balanced. As mentioned before, the idea is that the random nature is meant to counter-balance the flexibility offered - as in, you shouldn't be able to min/max your army by taking bits and pieces from other factions and plugging them into your own faction like a Slaanesh damned USB device.

Traitor guard is basically a gunline ig with better guns.

I don't think there's a good solution to that problem.

Either you break up the IoM in many tiny bits, making the ally matrix huge.

Or you remove battle brothers for everyone, which is probably fairest to all those factions that don't have anyone as BB.

Or you leave things as is, and the IoM will forever have the highest potential for bs combos.

If battle brothers became allies of convenience, would allies of convenience become desperate? If so, what happens to desperate and then come the apocalypse?

mr. peasant wrote:


As opposed to simply allowing the one faction to have a far wider selection of Independent Characters is so fair and balanced. As mentioned before, the idea is that the random nature is meant to counter-balance the flexibility offered - as in, you shouldn't be able to min/max your army by taking bits and pieces from other factions and plugging them into your own faction like a Slaanesh damned USB device.

Then you fix the actual problem.

A random table is not a fix.

Its not a solution.

Hell, its not even balance.

Its just random.

This idea removes control from the player, and still fails to address the actual problem, which are the allies rules entirely, the battle brothers level of allies, and the amount of allies IoM have access to. Address those problems, and the issues go away. A random table doesn't solve any of that. You can still have ally abuse, given you roll well enough.

If you have a problem with ally min/maxing, fix how battle brothers work so you can't whore out ICs and their abilities. Or remove allies entirely. Anything but yet another random table that can have potentially game changing outcomes.

If you think this is a good idea, surely you'd be fine for rolling which armies you can even ally with? Or how many points you're allocated? Or what units you can take?

Random tables are not a solution, nor are they a substitute for game balance.

If they break up the allies Matrix, removing Eldar-Dark Eldar as Battle Brothers and replace with Eldar-Space Marines or Eldar-any Imperial faction, I would be glad.

feth anyone using psychic power on Dark Eldar. And feth anyone who thinks it is a good idea. Absrubael Vect himself forbids his people from messing with the Warp.

 Blacksails wrote:

mr. peasant wrote:


As opposed to simply allowing the one faction to have a far wider selection of Independent Characters is so fair and balanced. As mentioned before, the idea is that the random nature is meant to counter-balance the flexibility offered - as in, you shouldn't be able to min/max your army by taking bits and pieces from other factions and plugging them into your own faction like a Slaanesh damned USB device.

Then you fix the actual problem.

A random table is not a fix.

Its not a solution.

Hell, its not even balance.

Its just random.

This idea removes control from the player, and still fails to address the actual problem, which are the allies rules entirely, the battle brothers level of allies, and the amount of allies IoM have access to. Address those problems, and the issues go away. A random table doesn't solve any of that. You can still have ally abuse, given you roll well enough.

If you have a problem with ally min/maxing, fix how battle brothers work so you can't whore out ICs and their abilities. Or remove allies entirely. Anything but yet another random table that can have potentially game changing outcomes.

If you think this is a good idea, surely you'd be fine for rolling which armies you can even ally with? Or how many points you're allocated? Or what units you can take?

Random tables are not a solution, nor are they a substitute for game balance.

I don't see how this is particularly different from Psychic powers and Warlord traits. The idea isn't to create perfect balance from a mechanical perspective but rather from a metagame perspective. By adding the random element, people are far less likely to build their armies around a particularly broken allied combo. Basically, I want the armies to be able to work together but not to completely rely (or be built around) a particular synergy.

mr. peasant wrote:

I don't see how this is particularly different from Psychic powers and Warlord traits.

The problem still applies to them. By making a list of powers that vary greatly, you cause extreme reliance on the powers that are guaranteed (primaris) or a heavy reliance on psykers that KNOW the powers starting off (The dataslate DP).
Same issue with Warlord traits and why taking special characters can be so beneficial.
Making a scale of powers rewards players who made lucky rolls and punishes ones that didn't just further skews balance. You want to give warlord traits to the commander? Fine. Assign point costs and let them PLAN ahead instead of making the leader of your army wake up and decide what kind of leader he is. You want a psyker that supports? Let him purchase powers for the role, not the roll.

The idea isn't to create perfect balance from a mechanical perspective but rather from a metagame perspective. By adding the random element, people are far less likely to build their armies around a particularly broken allied combo. Basically, I want the armies to be able to work together but not to completely rely (or be built around) a particular synergy.

Yet it doesn't fix the issue. If you roll well, then synergy becomes broken, and it hurts your opponent since he has to roll as well for his allies.
Adding in random dice rolls that affect what your army does before you even deploy is not a good thing in game mechanics or fluff.

mr. peasant wrote:


I don't see how this is particularly different from Psychic powers and Warlord traits.

Exactly! Because warlord traits and psychic powers shouldn't be random either!

The idea isn't to create perfect balance from a mechanical perspective but rather from a metagame perspective.

I'm not looking to create perfect balance either, just regular balance. I also have no clue what you mean by metagame, as a balanced game mechanically is going to be balanced in all other ways. In other words, fix the mechanic, don't put a band-aid on it and call it a successful operation.

By adding the random element, people are far less likely to build their armies around a particularly broken allied combo.

No, they'll just hate the random element for what would otherwise be a fluffy combination. You're punishing players and removing control. Its just plain and simple, a bad idea. Fix the actual problem at play here.

Basically, I want the armies to be able to work together but not to completely rely (or be built around) a particular synergy.

Then fix how allies and battle brothers work!

A random table is not a fix.

bibotot wrote:
If they break up the allies Matrix, removing Eldar-Dark Eldar as Battle Brothers and replace with Eldar-Space Marines or Eldar-any Imperial faction, I would be glad.

feth anyone using psychic power on Dark Eldar. And feth anyone who thinks it is a good idea. Absrubael Vect himself forbids his people from messing with the Warp.

So you're unhappy with Dark Eldar using Eldar's psychic shenanigans but it would be okay for IoM armies to use them? Yet another double standard!

SGTPozy wrote:
Yet another double standard!

He's talking about fluff wise it seems.

SGTPozy wrote:

bibotot wrote:
If they break up the allies Matrix, removing Eldar-Dark Eldar as Battle Brothers and replace with Eldar-Space Marines or Eldar-any Imperial faction, I would be glad.

feth anyone using psychic power on Dark Eldar. And feth anyone who thinks it is a good idea. Absrubael Vect himself forbids his people from messing with the Warp.

So you're unhappy with Dark Eldar using Eldar's psychic shenanigans but it would be okay for IoM armies to use them? Yet another double standard!

He means from a fluff standpoint, DE don't touch psychic powers with a bargepole. Calm.

Black Templars don't either, nor do Sisters (AFAIK), so surely they shouldn't be able to battle brother in psykers either. This is another reason why the rules need to change.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but you misunderstood what someone was saying, and then had a go at them for something they probably weren't even thinking about.

Also, fluff=\=rules. Case in point, it's very fluffy for all imperium armies to be battle brothers, but yet you're complaining about that being unbalanced. I'm sure Black Templars probably work with other Space Marine chapters. Maybe ones which use Librarians. Fluff wise it does work.

It's the price the Xenos pay for being filthy, heretical Xenos. They don't get many friends, except other filthy heretics (who are also probably Xenos). Tyranids? They're EXTRA heretical and filthy, so they don't get any friends at all.

 ImAGeek wrote:
I'm not disagreeing with you, but you misunderstood what someone was saying, and then had a go at them for something they probably weren't even thinking about.

Also, fluff=\=rules. Case in point, it's very fluffy for all imperium armies to be battle brothers, but yet you're complaining about that being unbalanced. I'm sure Black Templars probably work with other Space Marine chapters. Maybe ones which use Librarians. Fluff wise it does work.

I didn't misunderstand anything, maybe you guys misunderstood me. Fluffwise, DE hate psykers. As do BT (except for GK psykers), yet it is okay for them to be battle brother with armies with psykers in but it isn't okay for Eldar and DE.

Read BT fluff; they do not like psykers.

IoM ally shenanigans would be fine if every army could do the same, but that is impossible so IoM has a major advantage over everyone else.

Armies without battle brothers cannot effectively counter their weaknesses whilst armies with them can cover all areas. That is not balanced.

SGTPozy wrote:
yet it is okay for them to be battle brother with armies with psykers in but it isn't okay for Eldar and DE.

The one person said that earlier and that was his only statement on the issue and it related to fluff reasons probably relating to a favored army.
Personally I don't mind the idea of most being treated as allies of convenience, where you can take in what would normally be an unfavorable ally in the fluff but working for he duration of a single battle.
Black Templar don't like working with Psykers but what would they do if an Ultramarine detachment showed up with a Librarian to help fight off an Ork invasion?

Armies without battle brothers cannot effectively counter their weaknesses whilst armies with them can cover all areas. That is not balanced.

I don't think there are many that would defend IoM getting almost exclusive access to BB while also getting unique FOC less units like the Inquisitors, assassins, and IK.
I'm not a fan of Battle Brothers at all. I had fun running a full squad of Kroot with a Farseer in 6th, but it's honestly really bad from any perspective when you look at it.
Fluff wise, why would an IC from a different faction jump in and "lead" a unit from another faction? Why does LOS work the same way as one of their own faction's IC?
Mechanic wise it makes several almost broken combos and some broken ones.