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.

So I am having 2 problems with allying in 8th edition. While the ridiculous cheese that came in the form of formations is no longer the case, 8th edition ally rules still seem to suck. Here are why:

+ Allies no longer reflect the lore, or at the very least, the very simplified to the point of brainless version of it. I don't see how the Ynnari would ally with Drukhairi now that Vect is prosecuting anyone who joins them. I am also not seeing why Aeldari cannot ally with any Imperial force even though the Gathering Storm explicitly shows such alliance. What about Ork mercenaries fighting for Chaos or Imperium? Honestly, they should allow all factions to ally with one another, with severe restriction on unlikely allies such as Tyranids with anyone else.

+ Astra Militarum CP farm. Yep. The weirdest thing about the Imperial soup is that the Astra Militarum Brigade can generate 6CP for a low cost. Plus the Astra Militarum has a relic that lets you recover your used CP. It's competitive in tournaments, but it just looks really weird. I cannot suggest anything to this other than increasing the requirements for a Brigade detachment.

Do you look forward to changes in ally rules in the next FAQ?

I think it's a curse of over simplification. To make it easier to understand alliances for new players and old players learning 8th, they simply made it into keyword based set ups. If you have Imperium, you can ally! In the most basic sense I get it, and on a technical basis you CAN play just about whatever you want in narrative and open play. Sure, you can't play Ork allies with Chaos in Matched tournaments, but that's entirely possible in open.

tyranids should never be able to ally with anyone. And I say that as a Tyranids player.

GSC at the maximum. I don't even think AM + GSC + Tyranids makes sense personally.

If you want to play narratively fluffy armies that don't follow the army building rules that's fine so long as your opponent is cool with it.

 SHUPPET wrote:
tyranids should never be able to ally with anyone. And I say that as a Tyranids player.

GSC at the maximum. I don't even think AM + GSC + Tyranids makes sense personally.

It does since the AM regiment is Brood Brothers

 SHUPPET wrote:
tyranids should never be able to ally with anyone. And I say that as a Tyranids player.

I started 40k right at the very end of 7th. I was having a tough time choosing between nids and guard. I decided nids because they looked awesome and are more aggressive. I already have 3k points of nids. My genestealers and broodlord make for an easy detachment link. Now it's just a matter of when I want to flush out more of nids/gsc or buy some guard. I love it. I also dream about getting some deathwatch to Ally with the future guard that I will inevitably buy. So as a new tyranids player I beg to differ.

I think it's mostly because 8th seems to be catering towards the competitive tournament players rather than the casual players. All the changes may not be thematically sound but they're all at least trying to make the game more balanced.

 mrhappyface wrote:
I think it's mostly because 8th seems to be catering towards the competitive tournament players rather than the casual players. All the changes may not be thematically sound but they're all at least trying to make the game more balanced.

Nothing prevents a casual player from fielding an army with no common keyword.

 Jidmah wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:
I think it's mostly because 8th seems to be catering towards the competitive tournament players rather than the casual players. All the changes may not be thematically sound but they're all at least trying to make the game more balanced.

Nothing prevents a casual player from fielding an army with no common keyword.

Where are all of these local wargaming groups that allow people to ignore the rules of 40k?

 mrhappyface wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:
I think it's mostly because 8th seems to be catering towards the competitive tournament players rather than the casual players. All the changes may not be thematically sound but they're all at least trying to make the game more balanced.

Nothing prevents a casual player from fielding an army with no common keyword.

Where are all of these local wargaming groups that allow people to ignore the rules of 40k?

It's not so much formal groups, it's talking to a friend who plays and saying:

"Hey, I have this idea for a fluffy army I'd like to run, you mind if we have a game with it?"

I've always felt that unless the game is, at its core, built around alliances between major factions; then alliance shouldn't be part of the formal competitive rules/balance for the game.

That is to say that Narrative is ignored totally and each army stands on its own 100% on the battlefield. Much like how Warmachine or Hordes play.


This way each army retains its own internal balance, visual identity and balance with other factions. You also avoid odd imbalances - for example Marine/Imperial armies have a glut of ally options whilst armies like Tyranids have almost no alliance options. Balance wise that's a nightmare when dealing with major factions because it means that Imperials can bolster themselves and fix weak points in one army with another; whilst an army like Tyranids has almost no choices.


Now, of course, you might introduce armies that are designed to be allied with - eg Custodes or Mercenary factions; or Genstealers and AM (since most of the Cultist army is basically Imperials with a few extra decals and claws). However those armies are already built around those mechanics at their core; they don't try to be full armies on their own and in stead are made to be part of another force.


Overall I think Lore and alliances should be separate to the core game mechanics. This leaves the lore able to form and break faction alliances without affecting game balance one bit. IT also keeps each faction within its own identity; and honestly most players (the vast majority I would say) are sold on whole army views rather than on bits here and there that they cobble into an army.


Alongside that you can have some basic alliance rules, but those designed for fun/noncompetitive games. Ergo you admit by design that its moving the game outside of its balanced optimum. And by not being tied to lore it lets the player field what they want - want Tyranids and Custodes; want Eldar and Necron etc.... Because in the end alliances between major factions should more reflect fun and players putting two armies they collect on the table at once; rather than pitching the game towrad an allied structure.

 mrhappyface wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:
I think it's mostly because 8th seems to be catering towards the competitive tournament players rather than the casual players. All the changes may not be thematically sound but they're all at least trying to make the game more balanced.

Nothing prevents a casual player from fielding an army with no common keyword.

Where are all of these local wargaming groups that allow people to ignore the rules of 40k?

Please quote the rule that requires you to have a common faction keyword in all games of 40k,

It might enlighten you.

 Jidmah wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:
I think it's mostly because 8th seems to be catering towards the competitive tournament players rather than the casual players. All the changes may not be thematically sound but they're all at least trying to make the game more balanced.

Nothing prevents a casual player from fielding an army with no common keyword.

Where are all of these local wargaming groups that allow people to ignore the rules of 40k?

Please quote the rule that requires you to have a common faction keyword in all games of 40k,

It might enlighten you.

Oh yes, because we all want to play the mess that is open play.

KurtAngle2 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
tyranids should never be able to ally with anyone. And I say that as a Tyranids player.

GSC at the maximum. I don't even think AM + GSC + Tyranids makes sense personally.

It does since the AM regiment is Brood Brothers

Yeah so a bunch of battle hardened ultra disciplined soldiers pledged to the service of a Xenos hating emporer, wouldn't question a thing when some other am guys said "hey uhh let's be friends with the Tyranid"? That'd be like the number one way to tip your hand about a Genestealers cult lol

Midnightmullen wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
tyranids should never be able to ally with anyone. And I say that as a Tyranids player.

I started 40k right at the very end of 7th. I was having a tough time choosing between nids and guard. I decided nids because they looked awesome and are more aggressive. I already have 3k points of nids. My genestealers and broodlord make for an easy detachment link. Now it's just a matter of when I want to flush out more of nids/gsc or buy some guard. I love it. I also dream about getting some deathwatch to Ally with the future guard that I will inevitably buy. So as a new tyranids player I beg to differ.

Cool so you like both the models, but that's an incredibly bad reason to argue that they fit together thematically as allies, which is what this thread, and my post, are both unmistakably about. Your post doesn't mean anything.





AM working with Nids doesn't make sense, it just feels like transitional rules causing a loophole.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Yeah so a bunch of battle hardened ultra disciplined soldiers pledged to the service of a Xenos hating emporer, wouldn't question a thing when some other am guys said "hey uhh let's be friends with the Tyranid"? That'd be like the number one way to tip your hand about a Genestealers cult lol

You might want to read a novel with genestealer cult in it.

The very reason for the genestealer cult to exist is to infiltrate the planetary defense forces. The battle brother detachment is nothing but a representation of the command chain being compromised by the cult.
All it takes is the cult commander to tell his troops that the marines on the other side are heretics and they will be blasting away. Even loyal troops do that all the time.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mrhappyface wrote:
Oh yes, because we all want to play the mess that is open play.

Moving goalposts now? Almost all events at the local GW stores here are using PL to determine army strength.

 Jidmah wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Yeah so a bunch of battle hardened ultra disciplined soldiers pledged to the service of a Xenos hating emporer, wouldn't question a thing when some other am guys said "hey uhh let's be friends with the Tyranid"? That'd be like the number one way to tip your hand about a Genestealers cult lol

You might want to read a novel with genestealer cult in it.

The very reason for the genestealer cult to exist is to infiltrate the planetary defense forces. The battle brother detachment is nothing but a representation of the command chain being compromised by the cult.
All it takes is the cult commander to tell his troops that the marines on the other side are heretics and they will be blasting away. Even loyal troops do that all the time.

Are you telling me that AM will pick up arms and rush into battle against the emporer with literal invading Tyranids ON THEIR SIDE, like Carnifexes and Lictors and hell even the Swarmlord himself, if their commanding officer tells them? I get it, chain of command and all, but Isn't a big part of their training to expose and reject Genestealers cults and "be forever vigilant" and the like?

I always assumed the brood brothers rules just represent that basically everything from the Imperial Guard is a genestealer cultist. Thats why they are called... brood brothers... and not something else. And thats why you can't take special Characters, and they lose regiment rules.

That baneblade crew? Oh they where replaced by Genestealer cultists pilots 15 years ago. Those Ogryns and that Commisar? Yeah, his mother has 4 arms and the Ogryns are mind controlled/infected by the Patriarch. Etc, etc...

 Jidmah wrote:

Moving goalposts now? Almost all events at the local GW stores here are using PL to determine army strength.

I'll be honest with you, my FLGS mostly uses tournament style matched play.

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Moving goalposts now? Almost all events at the local GW stores here are using PL to determine army strength.

I'll be honest with you, my FLGS mostly uses tournament style matched play.

Jesus GW really need to admit that PL doesn't work for 40k and stop pushing it. When you can have 300plus points advantage over your opponents using PL it's failed as a balancing system.

 Jidmah wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:
Oh yes, because we all want to play the mess that is open play.

Moving goalposts now? Almost all events at the local GW stores here are using PL to determine army strength.

It doesn't move Goal posts; the only way to have the allied armies of old is by playing with the far inferior open play rule set.

And really? Power Levels were immediately shunned by everyone I know except for FLGs running beginner games.

Casual players have the option to field unusual allys against each other if they want to.
Once you do you have already tossed balanced out the window (ork boyz as screens vor AM anyone?), so why bother with points?

 Galas wrote:
I always assumed the brood brothers rules just represent that basically everything from the Imperial Guard is a genestealer cultist. Thats why they are called... brood brothers... and not something else. And thats why you can't take special Characters, and they lose regiment rules.

That baneblade crew? Oh they where replaced by Genestealer cultists pilots 15 years ago. Those Ogryns and that Commisar? Yeah, his mother has 4 arms and the Ogryns are mind controlled/infected by the Patriarch. Etc, etc...

You don't need to assume it, that's literally what they are. The brood brothers guard regiment is compromised by the cult and all those guardsman are cultists with stolen military gear.

Ice_can wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Moving goalposts now? Almost all events at the local GW stores here are using PL to determine army strength.

I'll be honest with you, my FLGS mostly uses tournament style matched play.

Jesus GW really need to admit that PL doesn't work for 40k and stop pushing it. When you can have 300plus points advantage over your opponents using PL it's failed as a balancing system.

It apparently works for some people. If that's what they like, then more power to them.

Point costs have been changed, but PL hasn't been touched. It's a little obvious that GW doesn't consider adjusting PL to balance since it exists for a game type not designed for balance.

That being said, I imagine that the groups using PL for events rather than points are few in number. Of the four regions I have played games in, even pick up games are tallied with points except for one league with a 50PL list cap; but they still used points in pick up games and events.

It makes sense that a GW store would use PL as they exist (at least by their admission) to draw in new players to their hobby.

Ice_can wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Moving goalposts now? Almost all events at the local GW stores here are using PL to determine army strength.

I'll be honest with you, my FLGS mostly uses tournament style matched play.

Jesus GW really need to admit that PL doesn't work for 40k and stop pushing it. When you can have 300plus points advantage over your opponents using PL it's failed as a balancing system.

how effective have points been, really?

Just points has seen some abuses, but shifting composition rules with the rule of 3 and the like has been positive. Also, some points have been adjusted. But all of these balance changes only apply to matched play, which seems to be the standard that people even play pick up games with.

BrianDavion wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Moving goalposts now? Almost all events at the local GW stores here are using PL to determine army strength.

I'll be honest with you, my FLGS mostly uses tournament style matched play.

Jesus GW really need to admit that PL doesn't work for 40k and stop pushing it. When you can have 300plus points advantage over your opponents using PL it's failed as a balancing system.

how effective have points been, really?

More effective than PL.

And the war of Points vs Power RISES AGAIN like the mighty pheonix!

 mrhappyface wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Moving goalposts now? Almost all events at the local GW stores here are using PL to determine army strength.

I'll be honest with you, my FLGS mostly uses tournament style matched play.

Jesus GW really need to admit that PL doesn't work for 40k and stop pushing it. When you can have 300plus points advantage over your opponents using PL it's failed as a balancing system.

how effective have points been, really?

More effective than PL.

I'm sorry but have you slept through all the "X is wrongly costed" etc debates? PL Points, both are GW pulling numbers out of their asses and saying "yeah I think it's this good" points are more granular and SHOULD be better, but GW's shown to be so aweful at points pricing of some things sometimes I wonder "could PLs be any worse?"

BrianDavion wrote:
I'm sorry but have you slept through all the "X is wrongly costed" etc debates? PL Points, both are GW pulling numbers out of their asses and saying "yeah I think it's this good" points are more granular and SHOULD be better, but GW's shown to be so aweful at points pricing of some things sometimes I wonder "could PLs be any worse?"

At least points make an attempt to internally balance units so that you have to make a decision between the cheaper, weaker option or the stronger, more expensive option (even if some of the options are not as cheap or expensive as they should be). With PL, a bare-bones unit of Havocs with bolters cost exactly the same as a fully kitted out Lascannon team.

Points aren't always perfect but Power Levels are completely pointless when having a balanced game.