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.

Where is the "limited to X points" option, like they have in AoS?

 Marmatag wrote:
Where is the "limited to X points" option, like they have in AoS?

Not biased against allies enough so the OP left it out.

Naw, I was staying away from all the proposed fixes. I'm more wondering where people were with where the Ally idea ends up. Specfic points, specific fixes, all that should come under nerfed to be in line with the Mono faction option.

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.

Yes the game would continue, but you would essentially kill off half a dozen factions.

HoundsofDemos wrote:


Yes the game would continue, but you would essentially kill off half a dozen factions.

Man I hate it when people do this.

Define Kill a 1/2 dozen factions?

As in they won't show at the top tables in TOurney? Already done! This exists already ready don't try to pretend this happens as a consequence.

As in Casual Players won't keep playing them in their basement league? Bull. Yes they will.

If you meant "this would radically change the top factions around" Well now you might be right. But what is wrong with that?

Reemule wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:


Yes the game would continue, but you would essentially kill off half a dozen factions.

Man I hate it when people do this.

Define Kill a 1/2 dozen factions?

As in they won't show at the top tables in TOurney? Already done! This exists already ready don't try to pretend this happens as a consequence.

As in Casual Players won't keep playing them in their basement league? Bull. Yes they will.

If you meant "this would radically change the top factions around" Well now you might be right. But what is wrong with that?

You hate when people point out the flaws in your desire to kill allies off in the game? Maybe it's because your biased and don't want to back down from your biases in order to see alternative viewpoints.

Actually I've always pretty much advocated for keeping allies. I've at times spoke about reducing allies, or even removing them, but it was to make a point that it is unlikely.

I hate it when; he in this case, and you in other cases, have spouted silliness to try to justify a none existent point. As he did when he says this is going to "kill a 1/2 dozen factions" and like you did when you said "Factions that Can't play Mono"

Not my fault if your poor at communication.

Reemule wrote:
Actually I've always pretty much advocated for keeping allies. I've at times spoke about reducing allies, or even removing them, but it was to make a point that it is unlikely.

I hate it when; he in this case, and you in other cases, have spouted silliness to try to justify a none existent point. As he did when he says this is going to "kill a 1/2 dozen factions" and like you did when you said "Factions that Can't play Mono"

Not my fault if your poor at communication.

It's not are fault that you can't see a forest for the trees and insist that being able to put something on the table in any form, regardless of how functionally unplayable it is on it's own, is the same as actually playing with any semblence of a chance of winning. You have yet to demonstrate why mono-faction Inquisition, Assassins or Sisters of Silence can be played at any level with a chance of winning, have continued to ignore two codexes that only exist to be allied to a larger faction and ignore how some armies (namely GSC) need allies in the current rules due to their core mechanic being nerfed and their inability to see a codex for two-three months minimum.

You claim to be supportive of allies but made a biased poll against allies and any statement that supports allies made in this thread has you attacking or dismissing it with faulty logic.

In short: grox droppings hold more weight than your claims, expecialy more weight than your claims of advocating for allies when you've done nothing but advocate for the nerfing or removal of them. And that's pretty amazing since the grox isn't even real.

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I want to be a force with allies in it to be equally powerful to a force without allies.

There is no option for that.

I think it's this option:
"Allies should be allowed in all play, but nerfed so as to present little if any benefit in all play"
It's just worded oddly.

-

Allies are something I think 7th handled better than 8th because of the way army organization works now. In 7th if I took a bunch of guardsmen with my marines, all I got was a bunch of guardsmen with my marines. Now if I take guard or other cheaper allies, I get a ton of CP to make the rest of my army better in addition to getting the units I took. That's the core problem right now.

Actually what happened is nobody cared because Infantry were terrible compared to how stupid they are now.

The problem will always be the problem units. Eldar could literally ally with anyone in 7th, but they weren't topping because they had access to those allies, yes? It was Scatterbikes, Aspect Shrine formations, and Wraithknights.

The core of any problems that people have (shooting having no risk compared to melee, powerful Psykers, etc.) always goes back to the core problem of both poor external balance and poor internal balance. If you have no incentive to run a pure army because most of your options are terrible (Blood Angels), how else are you going to compete with even a pure Eldar or Dark Eldar army?

Poll is weird. . . didn't really see an option that spoke to me.

Allies are mostly fine, but could probably use some tweaking.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I want to be a force with allies in it to be equally powerful to a force without allies.

There is no option for that.

I think it's this option:
"Allies should be allowed in all play, but nerfed so as to present little if any benefit in all play"
It's just worded oddly.

-

Allies are something I think 7th handled better than 8th because of the way army organization works now. In 7th if I took a bunch of guardsmen with my marines, all I got was a bunch of guardsmen with my marines. Now if I take guard or other cheaper allies, I get a ton of CP to make the rest of my army better in addition to getting the units I took. That's the core problem right now.

Actually what happened is nobody cared because Infantry were terrible compared to how stupid they are now.

The problem will always be the problem units. Eldar could literally ally with anyone in 7th, but they weren't topping because they had access to those allies, yes? It was Scatterbikes, Aspect Shrine formations, and Wraithknights.

The core of any problems that people have (shooting having no risk compared to melee, powerful Psykers, etc.) always goes back to the core problem of both poor external balance and poor internal balance. If you have no incentive to run a pure army because most of your options are terrible (Blood Angels), how else are you going to compete with even a pure Eldar or Dark Eldar army?

7th handled allies much worse than this.

In 8th if you take DA and SW you get DA and SW. In 7th you could mix them togehter in a single unit of doom.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Reemule wrote:
Actually I've always pretty much advocated for keeping allies. I've at times spoke about reducing allies, or even removing them, but it was to make a point that it is unlikely.

I hate it when; he in this case, and you in other cases, have spouted silliness to try to justify a none existent point. As he did when he says this is going to "kill a 1/2 dozen factions" and like you did when you said "Factions that Can't play Mono"

Not my fault if your poor at communication.

It's not are fault that you can't see a forest for the trees and insist that being able to put something on the table in any form, regardless of how functionally unplayable it is on it's own, is the same as actually playing with any semblence of a chance of winning. You have yet to demonstrate why mono-faction Inquisition, Assassins or Sisters of Silence can be played at any level with a chance of winning, have continued to ignore two codexes that only exist to be allied to a larger faction and ignore how some armies (namely GSC) need allies in the current rules due to their core mechanic being nerfed and their inability to see a codex for two-three months minimum.

You claim to be supportive of allies but made a biased poll against allies and any statement that supports allies made in this thread has you attacking or dismissing it with faulty logic.

In short: grox droppings hold more weight than your claims, expecialy more weight than your claims of advocating for allies when you've done nothing but advocate for the nerfing or removal of them. And that's pretty amazing since the grox isn't even real.

There are people that actually claim they play sisters of silence or assasins? Well I guess everything is possible.

I don't think that ally, by the sole fact of existing make weak or bad factions playable. They may make weaker, but still ok factions catch up to the good lists in casual settings. But all ally do for a GK player is show he that he should play as few GK models as possible. And am assuming that we do agree that if someone decides to play a faction the goal is to play the faction.

If someone decides to play IW, his army should consists of nurglings, demon princes, mortyrion and magnus.

Reemule wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:


Yes the game would continue, but you would essentially kill off half a dozen factions.

Man I hate it when people do this.

Define Kill a 1/2 dozen factions?

As in they won't show at the top tables in TOurney? Already done! This exists already ready don't try to pretend this happens as a consequence.

As in Casual Players won't keep playing them in their basement league? Bull. Yes they will.

If you meant "this would radically change the top factions around" Well now you might be right. But what is wrong with that?

If there was a hard rule that your entire detachment had to be one codex, then GSC, Inquisition, Sisters of Silence, Gellerpox, Rogue Trader, Assassins, Custodes, and a few others I'm probably missing don't work anymore. They were not designed to be stand alone forces. Knights would also have some issues as well. You can not get ride of/ significantly curtail allies with out invalidating a good chunk of currently supported armies.

The problem is that those factions arent really armies, and treating them as such was a mistake. The Inquisition for example, is not a battlefield force in and of itself, rather it coopts other forces for specific objectives/campaigns.

Karol wrote:
There are people that actually claim they play sisters of silence or assasins? Well I guess everything is possible.

Point was that they are factions that only function really when paired with another army. I mean if you really go all in on Sisters how do you deal with tanks? How about hordes? Knights? Ect. You're such a one-trick-anti-psychic-pony that you lack the means to deal with anything beyond basic psykers and infantry. Assassins are arguably the same problem amplified since they're meant to be thrown at specific targets and lack the means to deal with things like tanks or Knights effectively.

And yes, I'm still salty we didn't get a Talons of the Emperor style codex when the Custodes dropped to prevent this issue for the Sisters of Silence.

Karol wrote:
I don't think that ally, by the sole fact of existing make weak or bad factions playable. They may make weaker, but still ok factions catch up to the good lists in casual settings. But all ally do for a GK player is show he that he should play as few GK models as possible. And am assuming that we do agree that if someone decides to play a faction the goal is to play the faction.

If someone decides to play IW, his army should consists of nurglings, demon princes, mortyrion and magnus.

You're right, the goal should be to make mono-armies playable at some level, and that's a large part of why I say mono-faction armies should get a buff (like free CP) to balance the build more. You're trading CP for versatility at that point and it at least costs you something to make that build meaning for some armies it's less desirable to take allies. As for broken codexes like GK they just need a complete redo (actually all Marines do since they all suffer from the same problems regarding durability this edition).

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Reemule wrote:
Actually I've always pretty much advocated for keeping allies. I've at times spoke about reducing allies, or even removing them, but it was to make a point that it is unlikely.

I hate it when; he in this case, and you in other cases, have spouted silliness to try to justify a none existent point. As he did when he says this is going to "kill a 1/2 dozen factions" and like you did when you said "Factions that Can't play Mono"

Not my fault if your poor at communication.

It's not are fault that you can't see a forest for the trees and insist that being able to put something on the table in any form, regardless of how functionally unplayable it is on it's own, is the same as actually playing with any semblence of a chance of winning. You have yet to demonstrate why mono-faction Inquisition, Assassins or Sisters of Silence can be played at any level with a chance of winning, have continued to ignore two codexes that only exist to be allied to a larger faction and ignore how some armies (namely GSC) need allies in the current rules due to their core mechanic being nerfed and their inability to see a codex for two-three months minimum.

You claim to be supportive of allies but made a biased poll against allies and any statement that supports allies made in this thread has you attacking or dismissing it with faulty logic.

In short: grox droppings hold more weight than your claims, expecialy more weight than your claims of advocating for allies when you've done nothing but advocate for the nerfing or removal of them. And that's pretty amazing since the grox isn't even real.

Ohh so you meant to say "Factions that can't play EFFECTIVELY Mono faction." Why didn't you say what you meant? Why didn't you Type that out instead of saying something you didn't mean and then get mad when people took just what you said CLockwork? How come Lad? Why aren't you better at this?

 Vaktathi wrote:
The problem is that those factions arent really armies, and treating them as such was a mistake. The Inquisition for example, is not a battlefield force in and of itself, rather it coopts other forces for specific objectives/campaigns.

I disagree. Taking an allies system like AoS's and allowing us to mix and match things isn't a problem. Heck, with the Imperium that's a feature, not a bug after all. The problem was not expanding that to other factions (Orks, Tau, Necrons), some of which are known for working along side humans (Eldar, Tau and Orks have all done so in various points in history) and I'd love for Necrons to go full space Egypt and start taking human slaves to work for them (I mean nothing gets the ego going quite as much as having a captive audience to listen to your insane ramblings and agree with your every claim, and with mindshackle scarabs that's even more possible than ever).

And that's not even going into Traitor Guard which needs some proper love as well.

Basically I'm saying there should be more play in the allies system than we currently have (maybe split it into broader groups like AoS "Order", "Chaos", "Destruction" set up) and bonuses should be tied to how many shared keywords you have in your list. Basically I'm saying copy AoS, but don't do so many tiny subfactions.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The problem is that those factions arent really armies, and treating them as such was a mistake. The Inquisition for example, is not a battlefield force in and of itself, rather it coopts other forces for specific objectives/campaigns.

I agree they are not meant to be armies by themselves. Which means you need some sort of mechanic to allow them to ally other armies or you delete them from the game. I really miss the 6th/7th Edition Inquisition, it's probably the one time GW got them right as a faction since I started playing.

Reemule wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Reemule wrote:
Actually I've always pretty much advocated for keeping allies. I've at times spoke about reducing allies, or even removing them, but it was to make a point that it is unlikely.

I hate it when; he in this case, and you in other cases, have spouted silliness to try to justify a none existent point. As he did when he says this is going to "kill a 1/2 dozen factions" and like you did when you said "Factions that Can't play Mono"

Not my fault if your poor at communication.

It's not are fault that you can't see a forest for the trees and insist that being able to put something on the table in any form, regardless of how functionally unplayable it is on it's own, is the same as actually playing with any semblence of a chance of winning. You have yet to demonstrate why mono-faction Inquisition, Assassins or Sisters of Silence can be played at any level with a chance of winning, have continued to ignore two codexes that only exist to be allied to a larger faction and ignore how some armies (namely GSC) need allies in the current rules due to their core mechanic being nerfed and their inability to see a codex for two-three months minimum.

You claim to be supportive of allies but made a biased poll against allies and any statement that supports allies made in this thread has you attacking or dismissing it with faulty logic.

In short: grox droppings hold more weight than your claims, expecialy more weight than your claims of advocating for allies when you've done nothing but advocate for the nerfing or removal of them. And that's pretty amazing since the grox isn't even real.

Ohh so you meant to say "Factions that can't play EFFECTIVELY Mono faction." Why didn't you say what you meant? Why didn't you Type that out instead of saying something you didn't mean and then get mad when people took just what you said CLockwork? How come Lad? Why aren't you better at this?

Why didn't you use contextual clues given by the statments instead of being intentionally obtuse and pedantic?

Seriously, if you're going to criticize me for not using a single word, I'm going to mock you for being too thick to understand the meaning of my posts based on context. I mean it's only fair.

Honestly though, please try to be less of a troll if you want a real discussion about things and aren't just trying to get an echo chamber on what you think allies should be like.

Point was that they are factions that only function really when paired with another army. I mean if you really go all in on Sisters how do you deal with tanks? How about hordes? Knights? Ect. You're such a one-trick-anti-psychic-pony that you lack the means to deal with anything beyond basic psykers and infantry. Assassins are arguably the same problem amplified since they're meant to be thrown at specific targets and lack the means to deal with things like tanks or Knights effectively.

A one unit thing is not a faction, even if GW calls it one. Expecting SoS be mono playable or ally playable is wondering why an 8th league team has no chance vs Galacticos.

You're right, the goal should be to make mono-armies playable at some level, and that's a large part of why I say mono-faction armies should get a buff (like free CP) to balance the build more. You're trading CP for versatility at that point and it at least costs you something to make that build meaning for some armies it's less desirable to take allies. As for broken codexes like GK they just need a complete redo (actually all Marines do since they all suffer from the same problems regarding durability this edition).

But everyone seems to tell me GW wants people to soup. In fact the way they nerf stuff in 6 month cycles the "safe" way to play w40k or any other of their game is to pick 3-4 large factions and buy 3-4 boxs of every unit they have. What does not help people with bad codex is people with good or ok books, going around and telling people with bad books, that all is just fine and they just need to soup it up. Lets say I had the money to buy the good stuff 2-3 months ago. Bought in to some BA cmds and a ravellan, how would I feel right now? like waking up with your hand int the chamber pot. And the list would be nothing like the version of the IG tournament build, it would still be bad because of how inefficient CP wise are GK as a base for an army.

HoundsofDemos wrote:

Reemule wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:


Yes the game would continue, but you would essentially kill off half a dozen factions.

Man I hate it when people do this.

Define Kill a 1/2 dozen factions?

As in they won't show at the top tables in TOurney? Already done! This exists already ready don't try to pretend this happens as a consequence.

As in Casual Players won't keep playing them in their basement league? Bull. Yes they will.

If you meant "this would radically change the top factions around" Well now you might be right. But what is wrong with that?

If there was a hard rule that your entire detachment had to be one codex, then GSC, Inquisition, Sisters of Silence, Gellerpox, Rogue Trader, Assassins, Custodes, and a few others I'm probably missing don't work anymore. They were not designed to be stand alone forces. Knights would also have some issues as well. You can not get ride of/ significantly curtail allies with out invalidating a good chunk of currently supported armies.

Cool. So it comes down to that GW doesn't mean for a list of Codex, and some others to function unless played in a soup format?

Where is this list? What Factions are on it? Where is the release for GW that plainly said don't play these forces alone? With that list we can address this much better.

Except that list don't exist. And its something that GW has never said. Its a list that some people have come up with and say exists, but if you try to pin them down they can't even agree whats on the list.

And to point out some further flaws in your post...

If there was a hard rule that your entire detachment had to be one codex,

This rule already exists. Called Band of Brothers. It is optional, but not in Matched play that I've heard of. Pretty much just universally used.

You can not get ride of/ significantly curtail allies with out invalidating a good chunk of currently supported armies.

Define Invalidated? How about the guy that played Straigh Ultramarines at the Tourny and did well a bit ago? Was he invalidated with Vanilla marines only? Or the guy that won 4 of 6 with Straight knights? Invalidated? Or the guy that won 1 of 6 with Custodes/Guard/Smash captain? Was he validated and failed some how?

Where are you going with this?

 Galef wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I want to be a force with allies in it to be equally powerful to a force without allies.

There is no option for that.

I think it's this option:
"Allies should be allowed in all play, but nerfed so as to present little if any benefit in all play"
It's just worded oddly.

-

Yeah it aligns mostly with how I feel but I would have worded like.

"Allies should be allowed in all play but should not offer an unfair advantage over mono codex play"

Karol wrote:

Point was that they are factions that only function really when paired with another army. I mean if you really go all in on Sisters how do you deal with tanks? How about hordes? Knights? Ect. You're such a one-trick-anti-psychic-pony that you lack the means to deal with anything beyond basic psykers and infantry. Assassins are arguably the same problem amplified since they're meant to be thrown at specific targets and lack the means to deal with things like tanks or Knights effectively.

A one unit thing is not a faction, even if GW calls it one. Expecting SoS be mono playable or ally playable is wondering why an 8th league team has no chance vs Galacticos.

You're right, the goal should be to make mono-armies playable at some level, and that's a large part of why I say mono-faction armies should get a buff (like free CP) to balance the build more. You're trading CP for versatility at that point and it at least costs you something to make that build meaning for some armies it's less desirable to take allies. As for broken codexes like GK they just need a complete redo (actually all Marines do since they all suffer from the same problems regarding durability this edition).

But everyone seems to tell me GW wants people to soup. In fact the way they nerf stuff in 6 month cycles the "safe" way to play w40k or any other of their game is to pick 3-4 large factions and buy 3-4 boxs of every unit they have. What does not help people with bad codex is people with good or ok books, going around and telling people with bad books, that all is just fine and they just need to soup it up. Lets say I had the money to buy the good stuff 2-3 months ago. Bought in to some BA cmds and a ravellan, how would I feel right now? like waking up with your hand int the chamber pot. And the list would be nothing like the version of the IG tournament build, it would still be bad because of how inefficient CP wise are GK as a base for an army.

Factions are determined by keywords, even if you don't agree with the way it pans out for smaller factions.

It's definitely possible GW wants people to ally, but they need to open it up across all armies to make it happen with an semblence of balance if we're not changing anything else.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The problem is that those factions arent really armies, and treating them as such was a mistake. The Inquisition for example, is not a battlefield force in and of itself, rather it coopts other forces for specific objectives/campaigns.

I disagree. Taking an allies system like AoS's and allowing us to mix and match things isn't a problem.

Im not familiar with AoS allies system as I havent looked at the rules in a couple of years, but the current system is absolutely a huge balance problem as evidenced by universal tournament results where allies lists dominate everything. Mix-n-match allows you to take the best thing for each role you may need, usually from forces that dont need others in order to function, and unintended synergies abound plentifully, resulting in forces much more powerful than the base sum of their parts, and I can count on one hand over multiple editions the number of times Ive seen allies in a list purely for fun/fluff as opposed to increasing power, be it tournaments, leagues or pickup play.

 ClockworkZion wrote:


Seriously, if you're going to criticize me for not using a single word, I'm going to mock you for being too thick to understand the meaning of my posts based on context. I mean it's only fair.

Honestly though, please try to be less of a troll if you want a real discussion about things and aren't just trying to get an echo chamber on what you think allies should be like.

Ohh I'm totally being obtuse. It is what I do when my B.S. detector goes off. And I know what you meant when you typed it out, just as I'm sure you knew what you meant when you intentionally left that detail out to try to emphasize your point to ratchet up your view point.

Just as we are both equally aware that poll or no poll, GW isn't going to ban allies. The track record is clear from the past 2 faqs. They aren't going to make sweeping changes like that.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I want to be a force with allies in it to be equally powerful to a force without allies.

There is no option for that.

I think it's this option:
"Allies should be allowed in all play, but nerfed so as to present little if any benefit in all play"
It's just worded oddly.

-

Yeah it aligns mostly with how I feel but I would have worded like.

"Allies should be allowed in all play but should not offer an unfair advantage over mono codex play"

I should have worded it that way. I was trying to make some distinctions between match/open/narrative play. I should have just left that out.

Reemule wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:


Seriously, if you're going to criticize me for not using a single word, I'm going to mock you for being too thick to understand the meaning of my posts based on context. I mean it's only fair.

Honestly though, please try to be less of a troll if you want a real discussion about things and aren't just trying to get an echo chamber on what you think allies should be like.

Ohh I'm totally being obtuse. It is what I do when my B.S. detector goes off. And I know what you meant when you typed it out, just as I'm sure you knew what you meant when you intentionally left that detail out to try to emphasize your point to ratchet up your view point.

Just as we are both equally aware that poll or no poll, GW isn't going to ban allies. The track record is clear from the past 2 faqs. They aren't going to make sweeping changes like that.

Your BS detector is faulty if you feel that people are claiming things that are unreasonable just because they mean that no one will win games with mono-Sisters of Silence or mono-Assassins lists based on the idea of nerfing allies like you propose. And you're STILL ignoring the fact that you'd throw out two armies (Gellerpox and RT) that only function below a certain points threshold if you don't have allies.

Both are examples of armies that are "unplayable" for different reasons. One is unplayable because you'll be dead by turn 2 tops and is more one note than a brown note, and the second is unplayable because at higher point levels the game is commonly played at they can't be fielded due to a lack of options.

And regardless of what GW is going to do, claiming to not be biased against allies while only taking a position that argues against allies is just intellectually dishonest, much like how you keep relying on frankly insulting arguements to claim that armies are playable as long as you can build a legal list with them, regardless of if they can actually be played with a chance of winning or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The problem is that those factions arent really armies, and treating them as such was a mistake. The Inquisition for example, is not a battlefield force in and of itself, rather it coopts other forces for specific objectives/campaigns.

I disagree. Taking an allies system like AoS's and allowing us to mix and match things isn't a problem.

Im not familiar with AoS allies system as I havent looked at the rules in a couple of years, but the current system is absolutely a huge balance problem as evidenced by universal tournament results where allies lists dominate everything. Mix-n-match allows you to take the best thing for each role you may need, usually from forces that dont need others in order to function, and unintended synergies abound plentifully, resulting in forces much more powerful than the base sum of their parts, and I can count on one hand over multiple editions the number of times Ive seen allies in a list purely for fun/fluff as opposed to increasing power, be it tournaments, leagues or pickup play.

Allies in AoS restrict your faction bonuses, and have a % cut off of your total army list. The more different stuff you mix in the less bonuses your army gets.

Posted before but... I'm running a tournament in Feb and my anti-soup rules are as follows...

The detachment your warlord is in is your primary detachment, which must be a Battalion, Brigade or Super Heavy Detachment

You only get CP for detachments which exactly match your primary detachment. No exceptions.

You only get the 3CP for battleforged if your entire army has matching detachments - there are exceptions for stuff like NURGLE and DEATH GUARD, to allow MILITARUM TEMPESTUS to co-exist with guard, to allow Drukhari covens and cabals to fight together... that sort of thing.


So take soup all you want but you will be short of CP.

The best soup you can do is a guard brigade plus extras for 12cp total. Alongside the CP farm nerf I think this is limiting enough.

Again as usual, allies as a whole isn't a problem. The fact that I can mix say Ad Mech and Sisters of Battle to recreate scenes from Hammer and Anvil is fun, fluffy and nice to officially be supported by the rules. The real problem is and always will be that any given edition has winners and losers. This edition favors a ton cheap infantry to get you a bunch of CP and then a few stomp/smash models that can take advantage of those via Strats. Yes soup is strong right now, but most soup lists tend to have the same ingredients give or take an option.

The easiest fix would be to limit CP generated to any given detachment to only that detachment and possibly give some CP bonus if you only take from one codex.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Again as usual, allies as a whole isn't a problem. The fact that I can mix say Ad Mech and Sisters of Battle to recreate scenes from Hammer and Anvil is fun, fluffy and nice to officially be supported by the rules. The real problem is and always will be that any given edition has winners and losers. This edition favors a ton cheap infantry to get you a bunch of CP and then a few stomp/smash models that can take advantage of those via Strats. Yes soup is strong right now, but most soup lists tend to have the same ingredients give or take an option.

The easiest fix would be to limit CP generated to any given detachment to only that detachment and possibly give some CP bonus if you only take from one codex.

It'd be nice if something fluffy like Orks looting a Knight was also officially supported.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Your BS detector is faulty if you feel that people are claiming things that are unreasonable just because they mean that no one will win games with mono-Sisters of Silence or mono-Assassins lists based on the idea of nerfing allies like you propose. And you're STILL ignoring the fact that you'd throw out two armies (Gellerpox and RT) that only function below a certain points threshold if you don't have allies.

Both are examples of armies that are "unplayable" for different reasons. One is unplayable because you'll be dead by turn 2 tops and is more one note than a brown note, and the second is unplayable because at higher point levels the game is commonly played at they can't be fielded due to a lack of options.

And regardless of what GW is going to do, claiming to not be biased against allies while only taking a position that argues against allies is just intellectually dishonest, much like how you keep relying on frankly insulting arguements to claim that armies are playable as long as you can build a legal list with them, regardless of if they can actually be played with a chance of winning or not..

Ohh my. So your trying to gut it out on your claim that they don't count as factions, even though they kinda do, as they can't play as certain point levels.

No dice. They are factions. If they can play at some point level or not is immaterial. Just as if a faction is effective or not at some level as a mono faction is immaterial.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Silentz wrote:
Posted before but... I'm running a tournament in Feb and my anti-soup rules are as follows...

The detachment your warlord is in is your primary detachment, which must be a Battalion, Brigade or Super Heavy Detachment

You only get CP for detachments which exactly match your primary detachment. No exceptions.

You only get the 3CP for battleforged if your entire army has matching detachments - there are exceptions for stuff like NURGLE and DEATH GUARD, to allow MILITARUM TEMPESTUS to co-exist with guard, to allow Drukhari covens and cabals to fight together... that sort of thing.


So take soup all you want but you will be short of CP.

The best soup you can do is a guard brigade plus extras for 12cp total. Alongside the CP farm nerf I think this is limiting enough.

Is sounds well thought out. Are you going to limit Stratagems also?