Local tournament trial rule.

[MARK0SIAN]

Ive read 30ish BL books in the last few months and there was only one that involved mixed forces. Thats not counting the other 2 dozen of so I've read in years past of which again the case of mixed forces may be 1 as I cant actually think of any. Extrapolate that out. say 1 in 25. At that rate even keeping the ally system in narrative play is making less and less sense.

Unless you’re talking about Horus Heresy novels which I wouldn’t count as they’re set in a completely different time period or possibly pure Guard fiction then I find it really hard to believe that only 1 in 30 of the books you read were focussed solely on a single Imperial force without any allies whatsoever. For example, below is a breakdown of the Space Marine Battles novel series, a series focussed on just the Space Marines and more than half feature them fighting with allies that would be from another codex on the table:

 

Rynn’s World - Local PDF and off world reinforcements

 

Helsreach - Titan Legion, Steel Legion, Militia

 

Purging of Kadilus - Local PDF

 

Battle of the Fang - Space Wolves PDF

 

Legion of the damned - Excoriators, LoD and PDF

 

Wrath of Iron - Titan Legion, Mechanicus, Imperial Guard

 

Siege of Castellax - Iron Warriors human slaves/PDF

 

Death of Antagonis - PDF

 

Death of Integrity - Mechanicus & 2 Chapters

 

Pandorax - DA, Grey Knights l, Inquisition & Catachans

 

Calgar’s Siege - Local PDF

 

The World Engine - pure marine

 

Blades of Damocles - pure marine

 

Tyrant of the hollow worlds - pure marine

 

The Eye of Ezekiel - pure marine

 

Malodrax - pure marine

 

The Gildar Rift - pure marine

 

Fall of Damnos - pure marine

 

Hunt for Voldorius - White Scars and Raven Guard But one codex

 

11 with allies: 8 without.

 

Now you can dislike allies for many excellent reasons but to claim there is no support for the concept in the background/fluff is simply not true.

[Finkmilkana]

If you are looking for lore support, it think it might also be even more important to look for recent studio (gathering storm, vigilus etc) lore instead of black library. Those are what “new players” are mostly going to read and they all feature a lot of “soup”. It would be a very strange business decision from GW to on one hand present soup as being normal in the “beginners lore” and then strongly restrict it in rules. A small incentive for mono-faction could still be a good idea though.

[Panzer]

If you are looking for lore support, it think it might also be even more important to look for recent studio (gathering storm, vigilus etc) lore instead of black library. Those are what “new players” are mostly going to read and they all feature a lot of “soup”. It would be a very strange business decision from GW to on one hand present soup as being normal in the “beginners lore” and then strongly restrict it in rules. A small incentive for mono-faction could still be a good idea though.

 

I don't think super events like Gathering Storm and Vigilus are a good thing to measure things by. Those are important events for the meta plotline and don't represent the majority of engagements in the galaxy.

[Slasher956]

I put this in the LVO thread but it fits here as well:  but what about this as a rule?

 

If your army contains two or more factions then your warlords faction is your primary faction, All other factions in the army are counted as a secondary factions and half the CP generated (rounding up) per formation and add +1 to the cost of any strats used.  This includes if you use the command re-roll or auto pass moral on a unit belonging to a secondary faction.

[Finkmilkana]

I don't think super events like Gathering Storm and Vigilus are a good thing to measure things by. Those are important events for the meta plotline and don't represent the majority of engagements in the galaxy.

Oh, I agree that it doesn’t show how most in-universe engagement are. But it’s what most casual players thing about if they hear ‘40k battle’.

That’s the lore new players get presented, for a lot of players that (and their own codices) are the only lore they will ever read. I would much prefer if GW would publish “Siege of Vraks” style lore events that focus on local campaigns with few participants or focus on even smaller engagements. But since that’s not the case (and won’t be, because then they would need dozens of campaign books to represent all faction every few years), incentivizing the soup they present in the “accessible” lore is simply the only sensible business decision (not from a cynical ‘sell more models’ perspektive, but from a rational ‘satisfy the expectations of casual/new customers’ perspective).

[Finkmilkana]

I put this in the LVO thread but it fits here as well: but what about this as a rule?

 

If your army contains two or more factions then your warlords faction is your primary faction, All other factions in the army are counted as a secondary factions and half the CP generated (rounding up) per formation and add +1 to the cost of any strats used. This includes if you use the command re-roll or auto pass moral on a unit belonging to a secondary faction.

A bit to restrictive for my personal taste, but mostly reasonable if that’s what you are going for. Needs a precise definition what faction means though, as such restriction really need to apply down to the chapter level.

The only thing I think might not work well is the flat “+1 cost”. That makes 1 CP stratagems punishingly expensive but won’t matter that much for 4 CP stratagems. As such, it might have unforeseen balance consequences and stuff like agents of vect could still be mandatory (though it might also work fine in practice, hard to say).

[Slasher956]

 

A bit to restrictive for my personal taste, but mostly reasonable if that’s what you are going for. Needs a precise definition what faction means though, as such restriction really need to apply down to the chapter level.

The only thing I think might not work well is the flat “+1 cost”. That makes 1 CP stratagems punishingly expensive but won’t matter that much for 4 CP stratagems. As such, it might have unforeseen balance consequences and stuff like agents of vect could still be mandatory (though it might also work fine in practice, hard to say).

 

 

its a off the cuff thought about how to keep soup for flavour yet hinder CP farms etc. so I havent really put massive amount of thought into the full consequences (and as the law of unintended consequences says they'll always be something you dont plan for :p)

 

Factions are loosely defined as sharing the same keywords (which does include <chapter> <regiment> etc) so needs to be tightened up anyway...

 

the CP cost increase is (when combined) with the CP generation penalty just a minor hinderance so as to alter the balance slightly in soup lists not supposed to be a massive issue.

[Slave to Darkness]

The real answer is keep the mixed forces to open or narrative play where they belong and make matched play 1 codex lists only.

Shows who the better gamer is, anybody can run a soup list and do well. How good are people with a mono dex list with weaknesses though? 

 

++ EDIT ++ 

 

I mean for tournies, not 40k in general.

[CaptainMarsh]

I put this in the LVO thread but it fits here as well:  but what about this as a rule?

 

If your army contains two or more factions then your warlords faction is your primary faction, All other factions in the army are counted as a secondary factions and half the CP generated (rounding up) per formation and add +1 to the cost of any strats used.  This includes if you use the command re-roll or auto pass moral on a unit belonging to a secondary faction.

One or the other is fine. Both combined comes across less as a balancing mechanism and more as, "Screw you for using soup, go to hell."

[Cryptix]

I've said this once and say it again: until I can make a Daemonkin army while retaining both my Allegiance and Legion benefits, I will continue to support allies, even if it's considered "soup."

[Captain Idaho]

But why can't there be limits on what you get for such a varied and flexible army?

 

Seems to me, if you like the theme, you won't worry Matched Play balance...

[Lexington]

Why not just eliminate CP and Stratagems entirely?

[Captain Idaho]

From the game or allies? I don't like the former but like the latter.

[Cryptix]

But why can't there be limits on what you get for such a varied and flexible army?

 

Seems to me, if you like the theme, you won't worry Matched Play balance...

Because my "varied and flexible army" has very little ranged attacks or transports? And Daemon HQs are overpriced to account for summoning? And even when you stack all the Daemon benefits and run bloody 60 of them, Possessed and Mutilators still aren't good and 6 Obliterators can't carry an army on its own? And I can't even benefit from any stratagems crossing over because GW hates the idea of fun? Like, you're seriously overestimating the problem soup has in most armies - it's just Imperium and Aeldari after the Cultist nerf (which could have just been fixed by removing the Heretic Astartes keyword from them instead of smashing their use in all armies...)

[Captain Idaho]

So you're saying you want to be competitive? So in other words, you want a narrative theme relevant to you to impose on opponents even in Matched Play.

 

GW created Narrative and Open Play so people can make all the themes and interesting combinations they want but it seems many supposed fans of narrative themes don't want to play those games and instead think it's fair to impose on other players who are playing Matched Play.

 

Seriously, the benefit to an army in shoring up a weakness and varied, flexible armies needs to be the actual benefit to soup. All the bells and whistles shouldn't come with it. It's called fairness. Otherwise everyone who takes mono-faction is punished in Matched Play.

[Lexington]

From the game or allies? I don't like the former but like the latter.

 

From the game. They form an almost entirely unconnected sub-game that seems to cause, like, 90% of 40K's problems.

[Cryptix]

So you're saying you want to be competitive? So in other words, you want a narrative theme relevant to you to impose on opponents even in Matched Play.

 

GW created Narrative and Open Play so people can make all the themes and interesting combinations they want but it seems many supposed fans of narrative themes don't want to play those games and instead think it's fair to impose on other players who are playing Matched Play.

 

Seriously, the benefit to an army in shoring up a weakness and varied, flexible armies needs to be the actual benefit to soup. All the bells and whistles shouldn't come with it. It's called fairness. Otherwise everyone who takes mono-faction is punished in Matched Play.

I'm saying I don't want what little viability that the army already has to be taken away. You're the one suggesting that my army gets less CP despite being objectively weaker.

[Captain Idaho]

The problems you've got there is an inefficient selection of units and limited fire support in a shooting game. Whilst I approve of units being better balanced, I think holding back the whole of game in Matched Play just for your army isn't a fair compromise eh... ;)

[MARK0SIAN]

So you're saying you want to be competitive? So in other words, you want a narrative theme relevant to you to impose on opponents even in Matched Play.

 

GW created Narrative and Open Play so people can make all the themes and interesting combinations they want but it seems many supposed fans of narrative themes don't want to play those games and instead think it's fair to impose on other players who are playing Matched Play.

 

They don’t want to play them because they require a lot more coordination before the match and are hilariously imbalanced.

 

There is an issue with allies but as 8th edition is a game designed from the ground up to use allies then people using allies are not imposing their play on anyone, they’re playing the edition as it is intended. If anything, the people wanting to remove allies (not saying that’s you) so their mono-dex list has a better chance are the ones imposing their ideal of the game on an existing ruleset.

 

Now, as I’ve said before, I think there does need to be a serious look at allies and some serious buffs to mono-dex lists but I would rather see them buffed in other areas. But whatever happens, saying people who refuse to play a broken version of the game and want to play matched play within the rules set down by GW are imposing on others isn’t fair.

[Captain Idaho]

I didn't say 8th edition shouldn't use allies though. I said there should be actual limitations unless you're playing Narrative/open play. You can't have your cake and eat it.

 

What are the benefits to using a single faction? There are none. And taking away from allies is much the same as giving to mono-factions - the gap is the same. On that basis, it's cleaner and simpler to remove something than introduce new rules.

[MARK0SIAN]

I didn't say 8th edition shouldn't use allies though. I said there should be actual limitations unless you're playing Narrative/open play. You can't have your cake and eat it.

 

What are the benefits to using a single faction? There are none. And taking away from allies is much the same as giving to mono-factions - the gap is the same. On that basis, it's cleaner and simpler to remove something than introduce new rules.

I agree that’s easier but I don’t support it for the simple reason that GW won’t support nerfs to allies so we need to focus on the buffs to mono-dex lists, even though, as you say, the end result will be the same. The way I see it, every idea we propose that takes something away from what allies have now is a dead-end so we may as well focus on what we can give to mono-Dex lists instead, even though it may mean more rules.

[Panzer]

I agree with Idaho here. If you decide to play a themed army you can't expect the game to change to make your themed army more viable. I play a T'au list without big suits and mostly Pathfinder, Kroot and Stealth Suits. I do that knowing fully well that it's not the optimal kind of list to play and probably never will be. I don't want nor expect the rules to change just so my list can play on top tables.

[PeteySödes]

I think one of the problems we're getting at is how i feel like its far more challenging to create rewards for mono than it is to create a cost for allies.

 

If we look at rules like obsec, that benefits hordes far more than it does elite armies. The mono reward would need to be fashioned on a codex to codex basis. Im not against that but then your balancing whole extra set of things. 

[Captain Idaho]

I agree that’s easier but I don’t support it for the simple reason that GW won’t support nerfs to allies so we need to focus on the buffs to mono-dex lists, even though, as you say, the end result will be the same. The way I see it, every idea we propose that takes something away from what allies have now is a dead-end so we may as well focus on what we can give to mono-Dex lists instead, even though it may mean more rules.

Very possible that this is the case to be fair. GW likely won't want to be SEEN to be limiting allies over mono-Codex armies, so you're likely spot on here.

[MARK0SIAN]

I agree with Idaho here. If you decide to play a themed army you can't expect the game to change to make your themed army more viable. I play a T'au list without big suits and mostly Pathfinder, Kroot and Stealth Suits. I do that knowing fully well that it's not the optimal kind of list to play and probably never will be. I don't want nor expect the rules to change just so my list can play on top tables.

But no one is asking for it to change to make themed lists viable, theyre already viable, what’s being proposed and what all the complaints seem to be about is people wanting changes to stop it being as viable. It’s actually people who want to play purely mono-dex armies that are asking for changes to make them more viable.

 

Now obviously I’m in favour of that, I’m just pointing out that people who want to play allies or thematic lists aren’t imposing that on others, that’s how the game is designed and what the rules encourage.