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.

Reemule wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I am going to go ahead and say this poll sucks, because it doesn't allow for the option of "allies should be left as is and monofaction armies should be given a bonus".

Allies are fine. They work exactly as intended and some armies are unplayable without them (Inquisition, Sisters of Silence, Assassins, and arguably GSC (who lack the big bugs of Nids for durability or long range shooting of Guard whom they can ally in to even be playable now that Cult Ambush can't happen until Turn 2). No, instead we should be looking at a bonus for mono-faction armies so that they get a bonus for their lack of diversity (likely something like +3 CP).

I thought I had covered that option with the Allowed, but nerfed to give no benefit.

How is "leave them unchanged" and "nerf them to give you nothing" the same? No, leave allies alone now that we have CP batteries fixed and focus on buffing monofaction armies a bit instead. Not every change to the game has to be a nerf.

 Galef wrote:
I think what I am miscommunicating is that to me, cost = you pay something, which I disagree should happen
If you all mean cost = less bonuses, then yeah, I'm down.

There are several ways we could so this:
"Allied" detachments give no CPs. You can define "Allied" as those detachments that do not share a non-Battle Bro keyword with your Warlord.
Those detachments still have access to their own Stratagems, but as they lack a "commander", they gain "command" points. Any HQs for those Factions have given up their command to your Warlord.

Or Battle Forged lists that share at least 1 non-Battle Brother keyword for all units in all detachment receive a good deal MORE CPs than lists that do not.

The list can go on, there are so many potential fixes and GW seems to refuse to acknowledge any of them
The Warhammer Community article that accompanied the latest FAQ even said "Soup is still off the menu" which we all know far from true.

-

GW is still using the meaning of soup quite literally, as it was originally coined, and where it actually made sense.

The community sitting here arguing that Heretic Astartes with Daemons, or GSC with Nids is soup doesn't mean GW is wrong when they say soup detachments are gone.

Secondary to that - soup isn't a problem. IG funding unlimited BA/IK shenanigans is the problem.

I am of the persuasion that allies need to be opened up to all factions. It is nto an option here, but everybody but Tyranids used to be able to ally, now several books cannot ally at all. I have no issue with soup as long as everybody has some sort of helping. Orks have captured forgeworlds and guardsman and work as merc so should have the ability to work with pat the least guard, renegade/chaos marines etc. (anybody they can/have worked for). Tau have human helpers aka guard knights and mech, could hire orks though they dislike them. Necrons get blood angels obviously. craftworld and ynarri mqake sense as imperial allies. and the list goes on.

I liked the 7ed system more, on the basis that yes it was broken, but at least every one had some, if ever so restricted means of getting allies.

A.T. wrote:

 Galef wrote:
This has always been the issue with Allies since they were introduced in 5th ed (6th ed?) I can't remember anymore.

They were a general thing in 2nd edition, restricted to specific 'allied faction' books from 3rd to 5th, and then with 6e onwards you started to get taudar, etc.

I started in 4th, which only allowed units from your own Codex to be in your army. I kinda liked it from a competitive standpoint as I always knew what units X faction was likely to bring.

A.T. wrote:
Solutions like handing out CPs to mono factions just beat on the factions who can't play mono. GW need to expand or consolidate the outliers into credible stand-alones so that allies become a clear benefit for all rather than a necessity for some.

Definitely the "outliers" would need special exception, but off the top of my head, those are ONLY Imperium units. Releasing a single Codex: Agents of the Imperium for these units and give them a rule the excludes them from counting as the WL faction would fix this. Or give them all an AGENTS of the IMPERIUM keyword that they can share with a Warlord.

For Example, If we implement the change that detachments receive 2x CPs if they share at least 1 non-BB keyword with your WL, those units now act just like every other army with HQ, Elites, Troops, etc and have a single non-BB keyword to share.

-

Reemule wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
First option is silly as it's one that's literally impossible to do

Yeah. GW has no success in removing things from games.

What gw can do to remove allies from 2 player who want to use in game modes that are all about players agree what kind of game they want to play...nobody can remove anything from game modes that not just allow but encourage players to come up with new rules

A.T. wrote:

Solutions like handing out CPs to mono factions just beat on the factions who can't play mono. .

Wait, what factions can't play Mono?

Lemondish wrote:

 Galef wrote:
I think what I am miscommunicating is that to me, cost = you pay something, which I disagree should happen
If you all mean cost = less bonuses, then yeah, I'm down.

There are several ways we could so this:
"Allied" detachments give no CPs. You can define "Allied" as those detachments that do not share a non-Battle Bro keyword with your Warlord.
Those detachments still have access to their own Stratagems, but as they lack a "commander", they gain "command" points. Any HQs for those Factions have given up their command to your Warlord.

Or Battle Forged lists that share at least 1 non-Battle Brother keyword for all units in all detachment receive a good deal MORE CPs than lists that do not.

The list can go on, there are so many potential fixes and GW seems to refuse to acknowledge any of them
The Warhammer Community article that accompanied the latest FAQ even said "Soup is still off the menu" which we all know far from true.

-

GW is still using the meaning of soup quite literally, as it was originally coined, and where it actually made sense.

The community sitting here arguing that Heretic Astartes with Daemons, or GSC with Nids is soup doesn't mean GW is wrong when they say soup detachments are gone.

Secondary to that - soup isn't a problem. IG funding unlimited BA/IK shenanigans is the problem.

It -was- the problem. Now you get 1 maybe 2 turns of max support out of the same list, and if you go Guard/IK with most of the points in the Guard you're looking at around 4 turns but you lose your melee punch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
I am of the persuasion that allies need to be opened up to all factions. It is nto an option here, but everybody but Tyranids used to be able to ally, now several books cannot ally at all. I have no issue with soup as long as everybody has some sort of helping. Orks have captured forgeworlds and guardsman and work as merc so should have the ability to work with pat the least guard, renegade/chaos marines etc. (anybody they can/have worked for). Tau have human helpers aka guard knights and mech, could hire orks though they dislike them. Necrons get blood angels obviously. craftworld and ynarri mqake sense as imperial allies. and the list goes on.

Necrons worked with the BA one time, and it was more akin of someone contracting a pest exterminator than them becoming best buddies forever.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I am going to go ahead and say this poll sucks, because it doesn't allow for the option of "allies should be left as is and monofaction armies should be given a bonus".

Allies are fine. They work exactly as intended and some armies are unplayable without them (Inquisition, Sisters of Silence, Assassins, and arguably GSC (who lack the big bugs of Nids for durability or long range shooting of Guard whom they can ally in to even be playable now that Cult Ambush can't happen until Turn 2). No, instead we should be looking at a bonus for mono-faction armies so that they get a bonus for their lack of diversity (likely something like +3 CP).

I thought I had covered that option with the Allowed, but nerfed to give no benefit.

How is "leave them unchanged" and "nerf them to give you nothing" the same? No, leave allies alone now that we have CP batteries fixed and focus on buffing monofaction armies a bit instead. Not every change to the game has to be a nerf.

If thev give benefit then not to take allies would be stupid. You are at disadvantaged

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

 Galef wrote:
I think what I am miscommunicating is that to me, cost = you pay something, which I disagree should happen
If you all mean cost = less bonuses, then yeah, I'm down.

There are several ways we could so this:
"Allied" detachments give no CPs. You can define "Allied" as those detachments that do not share a non-Battle Bro keyword with your Warlord.
Those detachments still have access to their own Stratagems, but as they lack a "commander", they gain "command" points. Any HQs for those Factions have given up their command to your Warlord.

Or Battle Forged lists that share at least 1 non-Battle Brother keyword for all units in all detachment receive a good deal MORE CPs than lists that do not.

The list can go on, there are so many potential fixes and GW seems to refuse to acknowledge any of them
The Warhammer Community article that accompanied the latest FAQ even said "Soup is still off the menu" which we all know far from true.

-

GW is still using the meaning of soup quite literally, as it was originally coined, and where it actually made sense.

The community sitting here arguing that Heretic Astartes with Daemons, or GSC with Nids is soup doesn't mean GW is wrong when they say soup detachments are gone.

Secondary to that - soup isn't a problem. IG funding unlimited BA/IK shenanigans is the problem.

It -was- the problem. Now you get 1 maybe 2 turns of max support out of the same list, and if you go Guard/IK with most of the points in the Guard you're looking at around 4 turns but you lose your melee punch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
I am of the persuasion that allies need to be opened up to all factions. It is nto an option here, but everybody but Tyranids used to be able to ally, now several books cannot ally at all. I have no issue with soup as long as everybody has some sort of helping. Orks have captured forgeworlds and guardsman and work as merc so should have the ability to work with pat the least guard, renegade/chaos marines etc. (anybody they can/have worked for). Tau have human helpers aka guard knights and mech, could hire orks though they dislike them. Necrons get blood angels obviously. craftworld and ynarri mqake sense as imperial allies. and the list goes on.

Necrons worked with the BA one time, and it was more akin of someone contracting a pest exterminator than them becoming best buddies forever.

that was the joke

Reemule wrote:

A.T. wrote:

Solutions like handing out CPs to mono factions just beat on the factions who can't play mono. .

Wait, what factions can't play Mono?

Inquisition only has the FW Landraider if they play mono (making their transport rule useless), the new RT faction can only field that one detachment since they have named characters everywhere (including as their only HQ), and of course there are Assassins.

And that's not even getting into the armies that need allies to shore up problems right now, like the GSC.

 ClockworkZion wrote:


How is "leave them unchanged" and "nerf them to give you nothing" the same? No, leave allies alone now that we have CP batteries fixed and focus on buffing monofaction armies a bit instead. Not every change to the game has to be a nerf.

In the long run, is there much difference between:

1. I can take allies that give me no benefit over taking mono faction due to me getting bonuses for being mono faction.
2. I can take allies that give me no benefit over taking mono faction due to me getting no bonuses from taking those allies that I currently get like; CP, stratagems, and ability to do stuff I can't do now.

Lemondish wrote:

Secondary to that - soup isn't a problem. IG funding unlimited BA/IK shenanigans is the problem.

The fact that Allied armies of all kinds, be it Imperial, Xenos, or Chaos, is what reigns supreme in tournaments, with monolists making only very rare appearances at top tables, strongly suggests otherwise.

tneva82 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I am going to go ahead and say this poll sucks, because it doesn't allow for the option of "allies should be left as is and monofaction armies should be given a bonus".

Allies are fine. They work exactly as intended and some armies are unplayable without them (Inquisition, Sisters of Silence, Assassins, and arguably GSC (who lack the big bugs of Nids for durability or long range shooting of Guard whom they can ally in to even be playable now that Cult Ambush can't happen until Turn 2). No, instead we should be looking at a bonus for mono-faction armies so that they get a bonus for their lack of diversity (likely something like +3 CP).

I thought I had covered that option with the Allowed, but nerfed to give no benefit.

How is "leave them unchanged" and "nerf them to give you nothing" the same? No, leave allies alone now that we have CP batteries fixed and focus on buffing monofaction armies a bit instead. Not every change to the game has to be a nerf.

If thev give benefit then not to take allies would be stupid. You are at disadvantaged

Allies allow you to plug weaknesses in your faction, if not taking allies means trading that strength with extra resources (like CP) then it's a fair trade.

Actually I think we can get even more nuanced for the CP thing: +0 if you only share a single faction keyword, +2 if you share two, +3 if you share 3. You automatically get +3 if you only have one detachement.

So "the list" that we saw at Nova would get nothing but a Dark Angels and Space Wolves list would get 2 (Imperium, Astartes), while two detachments of Ultramarines would get +3 (Imperium, Astartes, Ultramarines).

Basically the more flexible you make your army the more it costs you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Reemule wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:


How is "leave them unchanged" and "nerf them to give you nothing" the same? No, leave allies alone now that we have CP batteries fixed and focus on buffing monofaction armies a bit instead. Not every change to the game has to be a nerf.

In the long run, is there much difference between:

1. I can take allies that give me no benefit over taking mono faction due to me getting bonuses for being mono faction.
2. I can take allies that give me no benefit over taking mono faction due to me getting no bonuses from taking those allies that I currently get like; CP, stratagems, and ability to do stuff I can't do now.

There is a massive difference between being given a bonus for going monofaction and being stripped of all your CP just because you dared to take an Assassin in your Marine army.

There needs to be some sort of drawback to taking allies over taking a mono army. Currently, the opposite is true, with allied armies getting extra benefits at no cost.

I think part of the issue might stem from the detachment system, in that allied units use the exact same detachments as non-allied units.

It would seem more sensible if allies were much more restricted in the detachments they were allowed to use - perhaps being limited to Patrols and Auxiliary Support Detachments (so that you can't just gain 5-12 CP by including some cheap IG allies).

In this scenario, your primary faction would be determined by your warlord and the following rules would apply:
- As above, secondary factions cannot be organised into any detachments except for Patrols and Auxiliary Support Detachments.
- You may only use rulebook stratagems and stratagems from your primary faction.

(The latter rule would prevent people getting around the first rule by declaring IG their primary detachment and then still using them as a battery for Knights or whatever.)

It would also stop Eldar from just allying in, for example, 3 Ravagers and an HQ with no troops. Now, getting 3 Ravagers would force them to either take a 2 units of troops and an extra HQ or else take 1 unit of troops and also lose a CP (by putting the 3rd Ravager in an ASD).

This would also prove an interesting experiment for IG in that we'd get to see whether tournament lists still take them as allies even when they don't generate any CPs.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Reemule wrote:

A.T. wrote:

Solutions like handing out CPs to mono factions just beat on the factions who can't play mono. .

Wait, what factions can't play Mono?

Inquisition only has the FW Landraider if they play mono (making their transport rule useless), the new RT faction can only field that one detachment since they have named characters everywhere (including as their only HQ), and of course there are Assassins.

And that's not even getting into the armies that need allies to shore up problems right now, like the GSC.

I'm dismissing your claim here. What you meant to say is I can't play some factions mono faction because you don't want to.

At this time each faction has the ability to field a detachment of some kind, allowing them to field as mono if truly desired. Now I would agree some of them aren't able to be of any use, and are just of no use in the game, but that wasn't the point, and it is nothing new.

Reemule wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Reemule wrote:

A.T. wrote:

Solutions like handing out CPs to mono factions just beat on the factions who can't play mono. .

Wait, what factions can't play Mono?

Inquisition only has the FW Landraider if they play mono (making their transport rule useless), the new RT faction can only field that one detachment since they have named characters everywhere (including as their only HQ), and of course there are Assassins.

And that's not even getting into the armies that need allies to shore up problems right now, like the GSC.

I'm dismissing your claim here. What you meant to say is I can't play some factions mono faction because you don't want to.

At this time each faction has the ability to field a detachment of some kind, allowing them to field as mono if truly desired. Now I would agree some of them aren't able to be of any use, and are just of no use in the game, but that wasn't the point, and it is nothing new.

Pre-"Battle Brothers" you could take transports from any codex in an Inquisition army without any issues. Now that soup in that sense is banned they lost their options unless they take allies. The Rogue Trader army is limited to a single detachment due to their only HQ being a character meaning you can't field a full army of them in large games, and I assume the Gellerpox are likely the same.

Even if you want to dismiss the first, the second and third are legitimate problems. And who the heck is running an all assassins or all Sisters of Silence army instead of taking those as allies?

Seriously, some factions need allies to even see games above 1k, some need allies because their army only works if you take them as part of something bigger, and then some need allies to shore up the giant holes in their lists made by FAQ changes. Just because you don't want to admit that there are armies screwed over by the idea of getting rid of allies more than their are armies that are actually buffed by it doesn't make my point invalid, it just makes you refusing to admit when you're wrong.

While formations ultimately proved to be a problem, alternative FOC and removing CP from army construction would solve a lot of ally issues. Right now you have a ton of factions (particularly on the IOM side) that don't work as stand alone armies and arguably never will for both fluff and crunch reasons. GW has done a very poor job this edition though of figuring out have to make those factions viable while also not having it to easy to soup your way to victory via unintended army interactions.

 vipoid wrote:
There needs to be some sort of drawback to taking allies over taking a mono army. Currently, the opposite is true, with allied armies getting extra benefits at no cost.

I think part of the issue might stem from the detachment system, in that allied units use the exact same detachments as non-allied units.
.

I would go as far as to say they should create an Allies detachment. You can't take it as a first detachment in the army. It can have 0-3 of HQ, Troop, Elite, FA, HS, Flyer,Dedicated Transport,LOW from any single other faction permitted to ally with your first detachment, and it gives you 1 CP to your CP total. You do not gain access to Allied detachment Stratagems.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

There is a massive difference between being given a bonus for going monofaction and being stripped of all your CP just because you dared to take an Assassin in your Marine army.

Things like Assassins shouldn't be treated as a distinct separate army, they should just be treated as a direct Elites slot plugin for Imperial armies, without having to deal with Allies mechanics.

Same thing with stuff like Harlequins, they should have just been included in Eldar/DE armies the way Stormtroopers were in the IG codex instead of being spun off into distinct separate armies.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

There is a massive difference between being given a bonus for going monofaction and being stripped of all your CP just because you dared to take an Assassin in your Marine army.

Things like Assassins shouldn't be treated as a distinct separate army, they should just be treated as a direct Elites slot plugin for Imperial armies, without having to deal with Allies mechanics.

Same thing with stuff like Harlequins, they should have just been included in Eldar/DE armies the way Stormtroopers were in the IG codex instead of being spun off into distinct separate armies.

And up until we got "Battle Brothers" and bonuses to armies that require them to be in a pure detachment that would have worked. As the rules work now they can't really be plugged in the same way.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Reemule wrote:

A.T. wrote:

Solutions like handing out CPs to mono factions just beat on the factions who can't play mono. .

Wait, what factions can't play Mono?

Inquisition only has the FW Landraider if they play mono (making their transport rule useless), the new RT faction can only field that one detachment since they have named characters everywhere (including as their only HQ), and of course there are Assassins.

And that's not even getting into the armies that need allies to shore up problems right now, like the GSC.

I'm dismissing your claim here. What you meant to say is I can't play some factions mono faction because you don't want to.

At this time each faction has the ability to field a detachment of some kind, allowing them to field as mono if truly desired. Now I would agree some of them aren't able to be of any use, and are just of no use in the game, but that wasn't the point, and it is nothing new.

Pre-"Battle Brothers" you could take transports from any codex in an Inquisition army without any issues. Now that soup in that sense is banned they lost their options unless they take allies. The Rogue Trader army is limited to a single detachment due to their only HQ being a character meaning you can't field a full army of them in large games, and I assume the Gellerpox are likely the same.

Even if you want to dismiss the first, the second and third are legitimate problems. And who the heck is running an all assassins or all Sisters of Silence army instead of taking those as allies?

Seriously, some factions need allies to even see games above 1k, some need allies because their army only works if you take them as part of something bigger, and then some need allies to shore up the giant holes in their lists made by FAQ changes. Just because you don't want to admit that there are armies screwed over by the idea of getting rid of allies more than their are armies that are actually buffed by it doesn't make my point invalid, it just makes you refusing to admit when you're wrong.

Your missing the point. You said there is factions that can't be fielded. That isn't true.

Does this open up some design space for GW to fill with new models for some of the holes in the line? It sure does. But that doesn't equate to you can't field X variable Faction Mono faction.

Reemule wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Reemule wrote:

A.T. wrote:

Solutions like handing out CPs to mono factions just beat on the factions who can't play mono. .

Wait, what factions can't play Mono?

Inquisition only has the FW Landraider if they play mono (making their transport rule useless), the new RT faction can only field that one detachment since they have named characters everywhere (including as their only HQ), and of course there are Assassins.

And that's not even getting into the armies that need allies to shore up problems right now, like the GSC.

I'm dismissing your claim here. What you meant to say is I can't play some factions mono faction because you don't want to.

At this time each faction has the ability to field a detachment of some kind, allowing them to field as mono if truly desired. Now I would agree some of them aren't able to be of any use, and are just of no use in the game, but that wasn't the point, and it is nothing new.

Pre-"Battle Brothers" you could take transports from any codex in an Inquisition army without any issues. Now that soup in that sense is banned they lost their options unless they take allies. The Rogue Trader army is limited to a single detachment due to their only HQ being a character meaning you can't field a full army of them in large games, and I assume the Gellerpox are likely the same.

Even if you want to dismiss the first, the second and third are legitimate problems. And who the heck is running an all assassins or all Sisters of Silence army instead of taking those as allies?

Seriously, some factions need allies to even see games above 1k, some need allies because their army only works if you take them as part of something bigger, and then some need allies to shore up the giant holes in their lists made by FAQ changes. Just because you don't want to admit that there are armies screwed over by the idea of getting rid of allies more than their are armies that are actually buffed by it doesn't make my point invalid, it just makes you refusing to admit when you're wrong.

Your missing the point. You said there is factions that can't be fielded. That isn't true.

Does this open up some design space for GW to fill with new models for some of the holes in the line? It sure does. But that doesn't equate to you can't field X variable Faction Mono faction.

If we're playing a 2k game please enlighten me on how Gellerpox or the RT factions could be run at 2k points.

Or are you trying to argue that being able to put something on the table without using anywhere close to the full amount of points the game size calls for is "fielding" them?

Allying should be good, but not better than playing Mono, and certainly not the default choice in all cases where its available, to be competitive. Penalizing it too much, makes it never the choice, however, and I don't want to see it go that far.
Part of the problem is that some factions are pretty crappy as stand alone forces, that might want to be addressed as well.

Stratagems from factions (not including Battle Brothers ones) other than your Warlords faction, could cost +1 CP to use.
Perhaps also preventing Relics being taken on factions other than that of the Warlord.

Reemule wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Reemule wrote:

A.T. wrote:

Solutions like handing out CPs to mono factions just beat on the factions who can't play mono. .

Wait, what factions can't play Mono?

Inquisition only has the FW Landraider if they play mono (making their transport rule useless), the new RT faction can only field that one detachment since they have named characters everywhere (including as their only HQ), and of course there are Assassins.

And that's not even getting into the armies that need allies to shore up problems right now, like the GSC.

I'm dismissing your claim here. What you meant to say is I can't play some factions mono faction because you don't want to.

At this time each faction has the ability to field a detachment of some kind, allowing them to field as mono if truly desired. Now I would agree some of them aren't able to be of any use, and are just of no use in the game, but that wasn't the point, and it is nothing new.

Pre-"Battle Brothers" you could take transports from any codex in an Inquisition army without any issues. Now that soup in that sense is banned they lost their options unless they take allies. The Rogue Trader army is limited to a single detachment due to their only HQ being a character meaning you can't field a full army of them in large games, and I assume the Gellerpox are likely the same.

Even if you want to dismiss the first, the second and third are legitimate problems. And who the heck is running an all assassins or all Sisters of Silence army instead of taking those as allies?

Seriously, some factions need allies to even see games above 1k, some need allies because their army only works if you take them as part of something bigger, and then some need allies to shore up the giant holes in their lists made by FAQ changes. Just because you don't want to admit that there are armies screwed over by the idea of getting rid of allies more than their are armies that are actually buffed by it doesn't make my point invalid, it just makes you refusing to admit when you're wrong.

Your missing the point. You said there is factions that can't be fielded. That isn't true.

Does this open up some design space for GW to fill with new models for some of the holes in the line? It sure does. But that doesn't equate to you can't field X variable Faction Mono faction.

Your arguing semantics. Can I field a 2000 point Inquisition army. Yes but it doesn't work game wise and thematically makes no sense. Can I field a 2000 point Assassins or Rogue trader army or Gellerpox. Not really. As more and more sub factions come out GW needs to tweak the allies rules to make it more balanced and the community for their part need to accept that allies are not going away.

I think asassins, inquisition, rogue traders etc. shoudl be added to some kind of a forces of the imperium book and literally be plug and play with whatever army you want. IE an assasin can slot into an elite for any imperial army, but does not get thier faction bonus (just cost the model as no faction/chapter/army bonus). Want an inquisitor in the army... sure, they are the HQ and probably have to be the warlord (being thier position that would also make sense) they slot into the HQ slot of any imperium army but also do not get faction bonus. rogue traders traated the same way mayeb with some cool new troop (crew) options.

That poll is more loaded than a Texan shotgun.

Even the old rule in 8th was fine, it just looked bad because we didn't have codexes. Is there really a single army that would run a hodgepodge and have no Trait?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
That poll is more loaded than a Texan shotgun.

Even the old rule in 8th was fine, it just looked bad because we didn't have codexes. Is there really a single army that would run a hodgepodge and have no Trait?

Inquisition, but that's because they don't have traits and running hodgepodge at least lets them spam transports for gun support elements.

HoundsofDemos wrote:


Your arguing semantics. Can I field a 2000 point Inquisition army. Yes but it doesn't work game wise and thematically makes no sense. Can I field a 2000 point Assassins or Rogue trader army or Gellerpox. Not really. As more and more sub factions come out GW needs to tweak the allies rules to make it more balanced and the community for their part need to accept that allies are not going away.

Has 40K released a Gellerpox faction? I thought they were just KT, with some people extrapolating what they could do in 40K.

But that just aside...

To the real point, where you say that Inquisition army can do 2K points, makes no sense... ectra.

All those qualifiers apply for someone else I'm sure when they talk about Grey Knights. 2K points of them doesn't work game wise, and thematically doesn't make sense.

The real point is that GW could place a no allies rule and the game would continue. Some people wouldn't like it, but some people would like it.

Reality is that GW doesn't seem likely to do anything that drastic. All indications from the FAQs is they prefer to make light changes that long reaching implications.

Reemule wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:


Your arguing semantics. Can I field a 2000 point Inquisition army. Yes but it doesn't work game wise and thematically makes no sense. Can I field a 2000 point Assassins or Rogue trader army or Gellerpox. Not really. As more and more sub factions come out GW needs to tweak the allies rules to make it more balanced and the community for their part need to accept that allies are not going away.

Has 40K released a Gellerpox faction? I thought they were just KT, with some people extrapolating what they could do in 40K.

But that just aside...

To the real point, where you say that Inquisition army can do 2K points, makes no sense... ectra.

All those qualifiers apply for someone else I'm sure when they talk about Grey Knights. 2K points of them doesn't work game wise, and thematically doesn't make sense.

The real point is that GW could place a no allies rule and the game would continue. Some people wouldn't like it, but some people would like it.

Reality is that GW doesn't seem likely to do anything that drastic. All indications from the FAQs is they prefer to make light changes that long reaching implications.

Both the Gellerpox and RT armies got 40k rules that allow you to field them as detachments. So yes, they got a faction release.