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.

 Crimson wrote:
Except many factions really only work properly with allies. Except many people have collections which rely on allies.

No faction should require allies to function. If you can't accept that your faction has weaknesses (and yes, every faction should) then you are the problem, not reasonable list construction rules. Every major faction is capable of fielding a list without allies, every model from those factions is usable without allies.

It is just arbitrary. If you can bring models from two books, Codex Astra Militarum and IA Index Astra Militarum then other players should be allowed to bring models from two books as well, Codex Adeptus Mechanicus and Codex Space Marines, for example.

This is exactly the problem with FW bans and the reasoning behind them, you're obsessing over which book rules are printed in instead of which faction they belong to. IG is a single faction no matter how many pieces of paper GW splits the rules between. Admech and space marines are two separate factions even if GW glued their pieces of paper together. It would be nice if GW consolidated all rules for a faction into a single book, but the fact that they don't is not relevant to anything but frustration over the total purchase price for those books.

Forgeworld's rules aren't written by the GW rules team for 8th edition.

FW does not engage in playtesting with the community.
FW does not engage in playtesting with GW.
GW does not playtest FW rules.

There is no quality control for FW rules.

Your entire argument hinges on a false equivalence.

And this is why we need "Tournament Play" and "Matched Play," with tournament play only to be used specifically for larger, organized events. So you FW guys can still play 40k in pick up games all day long under matched play.

But we aren't allowed in 40k tournaments... for reasons?

happy_inquisitor wrote:

meleti wrote:
Every time I see a tournament with GW's missions I see a bunch of 120 Plaguebearer lists because they don't need to actually kill things to win.

Well I've played in one of their tournaments at warhammer world this year and I did not see a single list like that.

What, you've never seen the Nurgle spam lists at a GT heat? Go check the tournament results and those lists, alongside stuff like Boyz spam, were dominant. It's because the format gives players an incentive to take a list that doesn't give up many kill points, even if it's not actually killing much itself either.

 Marmatag wrote:
Forgeworld's rules aren't written by the GW rules team for 8th edition.

Just going to stop you here, they absolutely are written by the GW rules team. Every rule author at GW is part of the GW rules team. You don't get to define "GW rules team" in your own arbitrary and narrow way just because it's convenient for your argument.

 Peregrine wrote:

No faction should require allies to function.

If you can't accept that your faction has weaknesses (and yes, every faction should) then you are the problem, not reasonable list construction rules.

Every major faction is capable of fielding a list without allies, every model from those factions is usable without allies.

Field list and field functioning list is different. Also, minor factions exist. Imperial Guard has like twenty times more options than Harlequins or Custodes.

This is exactly the problem with FW bans and the reasoning behind them, you're obsessing over which book rules are printed in instead of which faction they belong to. IG is a single faction no matter how many pieces of paper GW splits the rules between. Admech and space marines are two separate factions even if GW glued their pieces of paper together. It would be nice if GW consolidated all rules for a faction into a single book, but the fact that they don't is not relevant to anything but frustration over the total purchase price for those books.

'Faction' is just word printed on datasheet. It is arbitrary. Cult Mech and Skitraii used to be different factions, now they're the same. Inquisitors and Grey Knights used to be the same faction, now they're different. Your whole idea that there is some solid mechanical faction identity and that each faction has carefully calculated strengths and weakness is pure fantasy. It is how you'd like it to be, but it isn't how it is. FW doesn't stop think to for one minute whether a new unit they introduce unduly plugs a carefully constructed weakness of the faction thus wrecking the balance.

Frankly, you're just being a selfish hypocrite. You would casually introduce restrictions that wreck other people's armies, whilst not accepting restrictions on your own.

 Crimson wrote:
{nonsense meme instead of productive content}

It's good game design. If you're selling a faction as a separate entity then it should be able to stand on its own. The codex is "Codex: Space Marines", not "Codex: Some Space Marine Units For Your Imperial Soup". And the game worked just fine for several editions without allies.

Field list and field functioning list is differnt. Also, minor factions exist. Imperial Guard has like twunty times more options than Harlequins or Custodes.

Those minor factions shouldn't exist at all. Harlequins are just GW's cash grab of taking them out of the Eldar book and making a separate book to buy, put them back where they belong and the problem is solved. Custodes have fewer units, especially if you reject FW rules, but they also cost a ton of points per model and don't have room in a list for tons of different units. They're perfectly capable of fielding a reasonable list without allies.

'Faction' is just word printed on datasheet. It is arbitrary. Cult Mech and Skitraii used to be different factions, now they're the same. Inquisitors and Grey Knights used to be the same faction, now they're different. Your whole idea that there is some solid mechanical faction identity and that each faction has carefully calculated strengths and weakness is pure fantasy. It is how you'd like it to be, but it isn't how it is. FW doesn't stop think to for one minute whether a new unit they introduce unduly plugs a carefully constructed weakness of the faction thus wrecking the balance.

"Faction" is far more than a word on a datasheet. IG and space marines are clearly different armies, each with their own codex. That's how it worked for most of the game's existence, and it will work just fine once we get rid of soup.

You would casually introduce restrictions that wreck other people's armies, whilst not accepting restrictions on your own.

If your army is "wrecked" because you can't take soup then it's your fault for building an army based on exploiting GW's balance mistakes. It's like people who bought a ton of scatter laser jetbikes in 6th complaining that their army is "wrecked", or Riptide spam players whining that they don't get formation buffs anymore. Allies were a disaster for the game and GW should never have allowed it to get to that point. If you exploit their mistake you don't really have much sympathy if GW fixes the mistake and your exploit army is no longer legal.

 Peregrine wrote:

It's good game design. If you're selling a faction as a separate entity then it should be able to stand on its own. The codex is "Codex: Space Marines", not "Codex: Some Space Marine Units For Your Imperial Soup". And the game worked just fine for several editions without allies.

Most of the editions of this game have had allies. And again, what you think is good game design... Well, I don't need to repost the pic. Personally I think it is good game design to allow people to build the sort of armies they want.

"Faction" is far more than a word on a datasheet. IG and space marines are clearly different armies, each with their own codex.

And Blood Angels and Dark Angels are different armies with different codices... except they have more shared units than unique ones. Oh and one time they used to share a codex. Tempestus Militarum used to be different codex, now it is in IG codex. Chaos marines have IG-like mooks in their codex, loyalists gotta ally theirs. Factions may have some identity as ideas, but as game concepts they're hella vague and arbitrary, and they most definitely do not have some carefully balanced strengths and weakness.

That's how it worked for most of the game's existence, and it will work just fine once we get rid of soup.

No.

If your army is "wrecked" because you can't take soup then it's your fault for building an army based on exploiting GW's balance mistakes.

More like people building fun armies based on the models they like, organised in a way GW said they could.

In any case, you disagree with the fundamental design principles GW is goig with, so the discussion is pretty pointless. Perhaps in Peregrine's perfect game banning allies wouldn't cause problems, but we're talking about 40K here.

 Crimson wrote:
Personally I think it is good game design to allow people to build the sort of armies they want.

So you're fine with people bringing Tau in their Imperial soup list? Can my Necron army take an IG detachment for a CP battery? Oh wait, "build the sort of armies they want" only applies for some factions.

And Blood Angels and Dark Angels are different armies with different codices... except they have more shared units than unique ones.

You got me on that one. I have argued for a long time that all space marine armies should be consolidated into a single codex, each with their own chapter tactics rule.

Tempestus Militarum used to be different codex, now it is in IG codex.

Only because GW pulled a cash grab by trying to sell another codex with a single unit that was already in the IG codex. They were never a real faction.

Chaos marines have IG-like mooks in their codex, loyalists gotta ally theirs.

That would be one of those faction differences I mentioned. CSM get cultists, loyalists don't get a horde unit. You aren't entitled to have every possible unit you want, that's part of committing to a single faction instead of allowing soup.

More like people building fun armies based on the models they like, organised in a way GW said they could.

And guess what: you can still use those armies you like. You might not be able to use all of them at once, but that's no different from not being able to use all four of your Baneblades at once in a 1000 point game.

In any case, you disagree with the fundamental design principles GW is goig with, so the discussion is pretty pointless. Perhaps in Peregrine's perfect game banning allies wouldn't cause problems, but we're talking about 40K here.

Well yes, I disagree with GW's idiocy and incompetence. That's kind of the whole point here.

Sir Heckington wrote:
But we aren't allowed in 40k tournaments... for reasons?

You aren't allowed in 40k tournaments for the good and health of the game. Sometimes sacrifices have to be made for the (no pun) greater good.

Wayniac wrote:
You aren't allowed in 40k tournaments for the good and health of the game. Sometimes sacrifices have to be made for the (no pun) greater good.

You mean "to pander to obnoxious people who won't get over the fact that FW is part of the game". The health of the game is not being improved by banning FW rules.

 Peregrine wrote:

So you're fine with people bringing Tau in their Imperial soup list? Can my Necron army take an IG detachment for a CP battery?

I actually started to build a small Tau mercenary contingent to go with my Rogue Trader style IG project when the rules allowed these two factions to ally, so sure!

Well yes, I disagree with GW's idiocy and incompetence. That's kind of the whole point here.

But it makes your suggestions worthless. They don't really work for the game as it is.

Wayniac wrote:

Sir Heckington wrote:
But we aren't allowed in 40k tournaments... for reasons?

You aren't allowed in 40k tournaments for the good and health of the game. Sometimes sacrifices have to be made for the (no pun) greater good.

Because my renegades and heretics are SO op...

Maybe instead of all this arguing about FW we should just try to get FW rules better, because being told I cant play in a tournament with my army that I spent basically 2 kidneys for sucks alot.

Sir Heckington wrote:

Because my renegades and heretics are SO op...

Maybe instead of all this arguing about FW we should just try to get FW rules better, because being told I cant play in a tournament with my army that I spent basically 2 kidneys for sucks alot.

Yeah, banning FW sucks. it shouldn't happen.

Though I really think all rules for one game should be written by one team. It is obvious that FW guys have different design sensibilities. Main studio guys should write rules for FWs 40K stuff too. They still wouldn't be good, but at least ti would be more consistent. FW guys could continue to write rules for HH, Titanicus etc.

But still, FWs inconsistent rule quality is not enough reason to ban them outright.

 Crimson wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

So you're fine with people bringing Tau in their Imperial soup list? Can my Necron army take an IG detachment for a CP battery?

I actually started to build a small Tau mercenary contingent to go with my Rogue Trader style IG project when the rules allowed these two factions to ally, so sure!

Well yes, I disagree with GW's idiocy and incompetence. That's kind of the whole point here.

But it makes your suggestions worthless. They don't really work for the game as it is.

Personally I'm sad that I lost the ability to field the 4 Assassin formation with my Necrons. I had a nice Vindicare and Eversor stand-in done, a Callidus in the works, and was planning on doing a Culexus. No point in finishing that!

Personally I'd like to see Allies not bringing any benefits like CP etc.

You nominate a primary faction and only get CP and benefits from that faction. Allies filling in your weaknesses is enough IMO.

Probably an unpopular opinion

 Peregrine wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
You aren't allowed in 40k tournaments for the good and health of the game. Sometimes sacrifices have to be made for the (no pun) greater good.

You mean "to pander to obnoxious people who won't get over the fact that FW is part of the game". The health of the game is not being improved by banning FW rules.

You know, it's really not helping your case in either matter to use opposite sides of the same argument when debating allies and forge world...

 NurglesR0T wrote:
Personally I'd like to see Allies not bringing any benefits like CP etc.

That's too rough. If you have an army made out of about equal parts of two factions, you'd be playing at almost half the CP less than a monofaction. Now mono getting something like 3 CP more might be okay. Though the whole CP battery mess has been caused by an insane disparity of different factions' ability to generate CP, which was a huge mistake. It is probably too late to fix that now though.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
You aren't allowed in 40k tournaments for the good and health of the game. Sometimes sacrifices have to be made for the (no pun) greater good.

You mean "to pander to obnoxious people who won't get over the fact that FW is part of the game". The health of the game is not being improved by banning FW rules.

You know, it's really not helping your case in either matter to use opposite sides of the same argument when debating allies and forge world...

To be fair, we can basically condense the Angels and Space Wolves into the Vanilla codex. That would solve issues of balance AND bloat.

Though I really think all rules for one game should be written by one team. It is obvious that FW guys have different design sensibilities. Main studio guys should write rules for FWs 40K stuff too. They still wouldn't be good, but at least ti would be more consistent. FW guys could continue to write rules for HH, Titanicus etc.

Totally agree here. The rules would be much more nice and neat then what they currently are.

 Crimson wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:
Personally I'd like to see Allies not bringing any benefits like CP etc.

That's too rough. If you have an army made out of about equal parts of two factions, you'd be playing at almost half the CP less than a monofaction. Now mono getting something like 3 CP more might be okay. Though the whole CP battery mess has been caused by an insane disparity of different factions' ability to generate CP, which was a huge mistake. It is probably too late to fix that now though.

Perhaps. But that's what Allies are being used for - either a CP battery or to fill in the weaknesses that are native to your codex that the codex is balanced around (obviously the degree of balance is up for debate around here)

I do concede to your point that perhaps the problem isn't allies in general, but the mechanics that allies are being abused to exploit. Fix the exploits and allies are fine and fluffy.

 Marmatag wrote:
Forgeworld's rules aren't written by the GW rules team for 8th edition.

FW does not engage in playtesting with the community.
FW does not engage in playtesting with GW.
GW does not playtest FW rules.

There is no quality control for FW rules.

Your entire argument hinges on a false equivalence.

And this is why we need "Tournament Play" and "Matched Play," with tournament play only to be used specifically for larger, organized events. So you FW guys can still play 40k in pick up games all day long under matched play.

Here is what happens when you introduce Tournament Play in addition to Matched Play.

(Almost) everyone playing Matched Play moves to play Tournament Play, and when you ask them for a Matched Play game so you can use your FW stuff you get the same answer you get now when you ask for an Open Play game.

People emulate the highest level of competitive play even if they themselves have nothing to do with it. It happens in Warhammer, it happens in gaming, it happens (almost) everywhere.
Its human nature, and trying to fight human nature is a battle your going to lose.

Personally, I'm hoping for nothing to happen to allies. That way people can get the message that they aren't going anywhere and will politely and maturely accept that and move on from the subject.

Lemondish wrote:
Personally, I'm hoping for nothing to happen to allies. That way people can get the message that they aren't going anywhere and will politely and maturely accept that and move on from the subject.

I have the same hope for 4 point guardsmen.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Lemondish wrote:
Personally, I'm hoping for nothing to happen to allies. That way people can get the message that they aren't going anywhere and will politely and maturely accept that and move on from the subject.

I have the same hope for 4 point guardsmen.

You have to be a troll at this point. Infantry are almost universally agreed to be undercosted.

 NurglesR0T wrote:
Personally I'd like to see Allies not bringing any benefits like CP etc.

You nominate a primary faction and only get CP and benefits from that faction. Allies filling in your weaknesses is enough IMO.

Probably an unpopular opinion

I think that would be a good way to work around the CP benefits while also having other factions/allies that you like and/or need. People get to use their allies and their opponent doesn't get overloaded with CPs.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:
Personally I'd like to see Allies not bringing any benefits like CP etc.

That's too rough. If you have an army made out of about equal parts of two factions, you'd be playing at almost half the CP less than a monofaction. Now mono getting something like 3 CP more might be okay. Though the whole CP battery mess has been caused by an insane disparity of different factions' ability to generate CP, which was a huge mistake. It is probably too late to fix that now though.

Perhaps. But that's what Allies are being used for - either a CP battery or to fill in the weaknesses that are native to your codex that the codex is balanced around (obviously the degree of balance is up for debate around here)

I do concede to your point that perhaps the problem isn't allies in general, but the mechanics that allies are being abused to exploit. Fix the exploits and allies are fine and fluffy.

I'd be happy restricting CP to the group that brought it in. If you have three armies via allies, and one of those armies has +5CP, then those 5CP must only be used for that army. (The 3CP starting point should probably go to the group that has the Warlord in it?) For those people only taking allies to increase their CP, this should help against it. For people taking allies for fluff, then that shouldn't be a problem.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Forgeworld's rules aren't written by the GW rules team for 8th edition.

Just going to stop you here, they absolutely are written by the GW rules team. Every rule author at GW is part of the GW rules team. You don't get to define "GW rules team" in your own arbitrary and narrow way just because it's convenient for your argument.

Change "GW rules team" to "Games Workshop Design Studio" then, or "Games Workshop Games Design Team." They are not the same group of people as the Forge World team within the org chart of the company or even located together.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:
Personally I'd like to see Allies not bringing any benefits like CP etc.

That's too rough. If you have an army made out of about equal parts of two factions, you'd be playing at almost half the CP less than a monofaction. Now mono getting something like 3 CP more might be okay. Though the whole CP battery mess has been caused by an insane disparity of different factions' ability to generate CP, which was a huge mistake. It is probably too late to fix that now though.

Perhaps. But that's what Allies are being used for - either a CP battery or to fill in the weaknesses that are native to your codex that the codex is balanced around (obviously the degree of balance is up for debate around here)

I do concede to your point that perhaps the problem isn't allies in general, but the mechanics that allies are being abused to exploit. Fix the exploits and allies are fine and fluffy.

I think the problem is tying CP to troops tbh. GW and the community seem to have made the troops slots into something kinda mythical? Rather than just a force org slot. There's all this effort that goes into forcing people to bring troops for no adequately explainable reason(if you bring up fluff as a reason, slap yourself. This is about competitive balance.) in every way they can think of beside...yunno...just making troops good? Or bad? Like, if they made troops either consistently strong choices, or consistently terrible choices then that would help a lot. If troops were universally strong choices, you'd see double/triple battalion lists all over and at that point everyone has so much CP it wouldn't matter who has more. If troops were universally terrible overpriced garbage, then getting strong bonuses for taking them would make sense and create interesting list building decisions.

Right now GW are subsidizing troops across the board when some units don't need it, other units are so cheap the subsidy is worth more than they cost, and some units are so awful even the subsidy can't help them. Oh, and you also get to pick which of those 3 you want in your list, even if they're not present in your faction.

When you have these, honestly fairly deep, subsidies applied to a force org slot as schizophrenic in its design as troops, it creates a minefield as far as design space goes.

ERJAK wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:
Personally I'd like to see Allies not bringing any benefits like CP etc.

That's too rough. If you have an army made out of about equal parts of two factions, you'd be playing at almost half the CP less than a monofaction. Now mono getting something like 3 CP more might be okay. Though the whole CP battery mess has been caused by an insane disparity of different factions' ability to generate CP, which was a huge mistake. It is probably too late to fix that now though.

Perhaps. But that's what Allies are being used for - either a CP battery or to fill in the weaknesses that are native to your codex that the codex is balanced around (obviously the degree of balance is up for debate around here)

I do concede to your point that perhaps the problem isn't allies in general, but the mechanics that allies are being abused to exploit. Fix the exploits and allies are fine and fluffy.

I think the problem is tying CP to troops tbh. GW and the community seem to have made the troops slots into something kinda mythical? Rather than just a force org slot. There's all this effort that goes into forcing people to bring troops for no adequately explainable reason(if you bring up fluff as a reason, slap yourself. This is about competitive balance.) in every way they can think of beside...yunno...just making troops good? Or bad? Like, if they made troops either consistently strong choices, or consistently terrible choices then that would help a lot. If troops were universally strong choices, you'd see double/triple battalion lists all over and at that point everyone has so much CP it wouldn't matter who has more. If troops were universally terrible overpriced garbage, then getting strong bonuses for taking them would make sense and create interesting list building decisions.

Right now GW are subsidizing troops across the board when some units don't need it, other units are so cheap the subsidy is worth more than they cost, and some units are so awful even the subsidy can't help them. Oh, and you also get to pick which of those 3 you want in your list, even if they're not present in your faction.

When you have these, honestly fairly deep, subsidies applied to a force org slot as schizophrenic in its design as troops, it creates a minefield as far as design space goes.

They could always go back to only having troops able to capture objectives.