Local tournament trial rule.

[MARK0SIAN]

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.

I can’t remember if which thread I’ve said it in now but I think there’s a wide range of strategic buffs you could give to an army composed of a single codex if it was facing an allied force. The idea being, don’t try and compete with allies at their own game, create a counterbalance so that mono lists had a big advantage elsewhere. Things like bonuses to first turn rolls, or deployment maps or allowing first turn reserves or choosing who goes first in deployment are just a few areas that might be worth considering.

[Lexington]

I can’t remember if which thread I’ve said it in now but I think there’s a wide range of strategic buffs you could give to an army composed of a single codex if it was facing an allied force.

The problem with this being that Codexes are more and more just becoming a publishing artifact. They already have no in-game or list-building function besides being a single place for a lot of related units to be printed. With lots of units and rules being published outside of Codexes, this kind of rule would become untenable quickly.

[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.

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.

 

It's the same the other way around. If a change is needed to 'fix' the game I wouldn't expect it to take my themed list into consideration.

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

I can’t remember if which thread I’ve said it in now but I think there’s a wide range of strategic buffs you could give to an army composed of a single codex if it was facing an allied force.

The problem with this being that Codexes are more and more just becoming a publishing artifact. They already have no in-game or list-building function besides being a single place for a lot of related units to be printed. With lots of units and rules being published outside of Codexes, this kind of rule would become untenable quickly.

Yeah, I mainly use codex to keep it simple but with keywords it would be pretty easy to relate it to that army. You could even relate it specifically to the chapter/regiment level of required. I don’t think the fact that the datasheets aren’t always printed in the codex is a real barrier so long as they’ve got the appropriate keywords.

[Captain Idaho]

I suppose we'd need a separate thread for discussions of what can be done to boost armies that are mono-faction (Which I preclude Imperium, Chaos and Eldar from).

 

Might be quite the discussion mind. Some armies need littler boosts than others.