Are allies a faux pas ?

[D3L]

I've been lucky enough to "play" in 2 and "net list" in 3 countries, while not a complete and comprehensive global picture, I can admit, its a larger sample than most have, I have seen the direct action of people declining to play allies, and or griping about their presence, indeed most tournaments require 3 detachments restricted to one codex... (Even in 8th)For a reason

Khorne Deamonkin isn't a faction, its fluffy, but not a codex

Wow the amount of personal insults is outstanding. It's nothing to do with me being old, nor grumpy (though in the spirit of Christmas I'll take that as a complement), nae, it's an experience that most people don't like allies. (now, being old and grump, is the reason I hate special characters, but that's a different topic)

There are two groups who have recommended allies to me or the groups I've been connected to in the past... are Store managers/staff for extra revenue (who dont last long) and/or power gamers (who ironically also dont last long, before they move onto another gaming platform)

Take from that what you will. Or don't, I'm not your mother.

[DuskRaider]

That's the unfortunate thing about the allies ability... it killed the uniqueness of certain armies like Khorne Daemonkin, Vraks Renegades & Heretics, Tyrant's Legion, etc... I guess it's nice more people can experience it, but that was the pull of those older lists. The ability to combine various armies into one unique and cohesive force. 

[Lexington]

I alway kinda wonder if 8th would work a lot better - Allies and all - if the CP/Strategems system was removed entirely.

[Finkmilkana]

I alway kinda wonder if 8th would work a lot better - Allies and all - if the CP/Strategems system was removed entirely.

I don’t think that would change too much besides making the game more bland and leading to people taking no troops but the very best. I mean, it would pretty much just mean a reversion to index only gameplay (+ a few chapter tactics that on their own won’t change the overall game that much).

[Panzer]

Yeah not a fan of the idea to remove a whole feature just because another feature didn't get adjusted properly. There are more than enough ways to fix the CP generation problem of cheap allied detachments without removing Stratagems and CP from the game. That's the kind of heavy handed balancing the community repeatedly said they don't want to see from GW.

[DuskRaider]

Te best way to fix CP is not discontinue allied forces pooling them (each detachment can only use its own) and put a cap on regeneration. This would probably cause a lot of the WAAC garbage alliances to dry up.

[Panzer]

Either that or make it so that detachments generate CP based on points spend instead of slots filled. That would make all factions about equal and remove the biggest reason to exploit allies.

 

EDIT: thought I was posting in a different thread. 

[Lexington]

I don’t think that would change too much besides making the game more bland and leading to people taking no troops but the very best.

It would definitely remove a particular dimension from the game (tho, really, it’d be the same 40K most of us played for ages before 8th), but it would absolutely be a significant change. Almost every major balance issue 8th has had since the first Codexes has revolves around CP in some way, the core of which is typically cheap allies that allow you to pump almost unlimited CP into different forces. Take that out, and a lot of the distaste for allies would disappear.

[Closet Skeleton]

I've been lucky enough to "play" in 2 and "net list" in 3 countries, while not a complete and comprehensive global picture, I can admit, its a larger sample than most have, I have seen the direct action of people declining to play allies, and or griping about their presence, indeed most tournaments require 3 detachments restricted to one codex... (Even in 8th)For a reason

I've been to at least 10 Welsh/English tournaments this year and precisely zero of them forced you to play mono-Codex. I have one coming up next year that lets you play as many factions as you want but only your primary faction detachments can grant CP.

 

In my eyes there's a big difference between someone who prefers to play mono-Codex games and asks his opponents to oblige him and someone who disparages players with different opinions. If you have regular opponents talk to them about what kind of games you like and try to self-balance because that's the only kind of balance the game is every going to have. I look down on net listers and power gamers but I know that showing up to a tournament and then spending the whole game whining about my opponent's army choice is just being an arse (I whine a little when I'm getting thrashed by a bad match up but I can't help my entire personality).

 

If i get my arse kicked because I cared more about theme than winning then its not the rules writers or my opponent's choice.

 

 

 

It would definitely remove a particular dimension from the game (tho, really, it’d be the same 40K most of us played for ages before 8th), but it would absolutely be a significant change. Almost every major balance issue 8th has had since the first Codexes has revolves around CP in some way, the core of which is typically cheap allies that allow you to pump almost unlimited CP into different forces. Take that out, and a lot of the distaste for allies would disappear.

 

 

I don't care about the loyal 32 because of CP abuse because I'm never going to be high enough in a tournament to have to fight broken combo after broken combo. I dislike the loyal 32 because they're bland and I see them in every list.

 

Ynarri are horrendously overpowered and that has little to do with allies and nothing to do with CP. Basically the only time allies have mattered is the Castellan/Smash Captains list. Knights don't need the loyal 32 because they can get plenty of CP on their own and can crush most armies, the only reason they take guard is because it gives them an advantage against other knight lists. The list that really counters knights is the pure guard artillery list and that gets countered by Alaitoc so badly that it never actually ruins the day of high table Knight players.

[Claws and Effect]

I guess my local meta is more laid back than some. I don't see a whole lot of cheesy ally abuse in my area.

 

The last tourney I played in (Khornehusker RTT in Omaha, Nebraska), only 1 player had a cheesy list of 3 Knights and the Doomed 32 (they were Krieg).

 

He ended up winning it, but the allies had less to do with it than the fact that no one had a good answer to 3 Knights.

[Gederas]

Khorne Deamonkin isn't a faction, its fluffy, but not a codex

Good to know the codex (7th edition, but still a codex) sitting next to me doesn't exist.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3hVlem6KCa8/VRYGSPk3hcI/AAAAAAAAJZI/l8L2jugkcLs/s1600/CodexDaemonkin01.jpg

 

See, I hate to be rude, but by your own logic, The Inquisition isn't a faction either because they lack an 8th Edition codex. And I don't see "most people" disliking allies. I see people disliking allies when it's done to game the system. You're the one claiming "most people", so back it up. Show numbers.

 

And while the personal insults are a bit much, I can understand where they come from. Just because you're not a power gamer doesn't prevent you from being "That Guy", and by saying you won't play ANYONE who uses allies means you're just as much of That Guy as the -hole with 3 Knights and the Loyal 32, or the Tyranid player with 60+ Genestealers in a sub 1500 point game (yes, I experienced that second one. It's not fun).

 

So because of wanting to play the army that got me into 40k, I'm a power-gamer because I use a a list with Chaos Space Marines (World Eaters) and Khorne Daemons? I'm just as bad as the people sticking the Loyal 32 into their armies for WAAC purposes?

 

That's the unfortunate thing about the allies ability... it killed the uniqueness of certain armies like Khorne Daemonkin, Vraks Renegades & Heretics, Tyrant's Legion, etc... I guess it's nice more people can experience it, but that was the pull of those older lists. The ability to combine various armies into one unique and cohesive force. 

Eeeyup. I started playing 7th with the Khorne Daemonkin and felt I was unique. Then 8th Edition came along and killed my army and it's uniqueness

 

Te best way to fix CP is not discontinue allied forces pooling them (each detachment can only use its own) and put a cap on regeneration. This would probably cause a lot of the WAAC garbage alliances to dry up.

That would require the GW rules writers to have a modicum of common sense and obvious problem solving skills. Which, if 8th edition is any indication, they lack

[Panzer]

 

Khorne Deamonkin isn't a faction, its fluffy, but not a codex

Good to know the codex (7th edition, but still a codex) sitting next to me doesn't exist.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3hVlem6KCa8/VRYGSPk3hcI/AAAAAAAAJZI/l8L2jugkcLs/s1600/CodexDaemonkin01.jpg

 

See, I hate to be rude, but by your own logic, The Inquisition isn't a faction either because they lack an 8th Edition codex. And I don't see "most people" disliking allies. I see people disliking allies when it's done to game the system. You're the one claiming "most people", so back it up. Show numbers.

 

And while the personal insults are a bit much, I can understand where they come from. Just because you're not a power gamer doesn't prevent you from being "That Guy", and by saying you won't play ANYONE who uses allies means you're just as much of That Guy as the -hole with 3 Knights and the Loyal 32, or the Tyranid player with 60+ Genestealers in a sub 1500 point game (yes, I experienced that second one. It's not fun).

 

So because of wanting to play the army that got me into 40k, I'm a power-gamer because I use a a list with Chaos Space Marines (World Eaters) and Khorne Daemons? I'm just as bad as the people sticking the Loyal 32 into their armies for WAAC purposes?

 

 

Well he didn't say it wasn't ever a Codex. Just that it isn't right now which is correct. In the current version of 40k Khorne Daemonkin is not a faction. Also doesn't help that GW in an interview once said that making the Khorne Daemonkin Codex was a mistake they wish they didn't make and that it was mainly just to sell the new Khorne models that came out at that time.

 

And yes the Inquisition is not a faction in the current version of 40k either. Grey Knights are, Deathwatch are and Sisters of Battle are. Inquisition is not. ;)

[Finkmilkana]

And yes the Inquisition is not a faction in the current version of 40k either. Grey Knights are, Deathwatch are and Sisters of Battle are. Inquisition is not. ;)

The existence of the inquisition faction keyword and the inquisition faction section in the index would like to disagree. They don’t have a codex and are almost literally unplayable without allies, but they are still a faction on the same levels as sisters of battle (at least until sisters get a beta codex tomorrow) and to a higher degree than most first founding marine chapters. They even still have a faction filter (Armies of the Imperium=> Inquisition) on the GW webstore...

[PeteySödes]

To add on the loyal 32 thing, I really dont see the issue of the loyal 32 and say 3 knights from a fluff perspective. In fact, thats usually a pretty cool looking army if people take the time.

 

My main thing is the same as everyone with the CP generation and game balance. I would hypothesize that design wise given the recent tweaks, knights werent really meant to have THAT much CP and thus the pretty powerful strats would be used at clinch moments. I just dont know how you can balance a faction like say Orks and ALL of the Imperium without either screwing Orks or a majority of Imperium builds in this example.

 

But nothing im saying hasnt been said 1000 times :P

[Panzer]

To add on the loyal 32 thing, I really dont see the issue of the loyal 32 and say 3 knights from a fluff perspective. In fact, thats usually a pretty cool looking army if people take the time.

 

My main thing is the same as everyone with the CP generation and game balance. I would hypothesize that design wise given the recent tweaks, knights werent really meant to have THAT much CP and thus the pretty powerful strats would be used at clinch moments. I just dont know how you can balance a faction like say Orks and ALL of the Imperium without either screwing Orks or a majority of Imperium builds in this example.

 

But nothing im saying hasnt been said 1000 times

 

Yeah to be honest the 'loyal 32' is exactly what I'd want to ally in for my Marines. Just enough to give them a serious presence due the amount of models but not so much that they'd be stealing my list's main actors spotlight. However since it feels so cheesy due how the CP generation works I just don't feel good taking it in friendly games. So the only option that's left for me would be to take a Patrol detachment and not gain any CP at all for them which is more than fine, but seriously ... how sad is it that one has to do something like that?

[MyD4rkPassenger]

 

To add on the loyal 32 thing, I really dont see the issue of the loyal 32 and say 3 knights from a fluff perspective. In fact, thats usually a pretty cool looking army if people take the time.

 

My main thing is the same as everyone with the CP generation and game balance. I would hypothesize that design wise given the recent tweaks, knights werent really meant to have THAT much CP and thus the pretty powerful strats would be used at clinch moments. I just dont know how you can balance a faction like say Orks and ALL of the Imperium without either screwing Orks or a majority of Imperium builds in this example.

 

But nothing im saying hasnt been said 1000 times

 

Yeah to be honest the 'loyal 32' is exactly what I'd want to ally in for my Marines. Just enough to give them a serious presence due the amount of models but not so much that they'd be stealing my list's main actors spotlight. However since it feels so cheesy due how the CP generation works I just don't feel good taking it in friendly games. So the only option that's left for me would be to take a Patrol detachment and not gain any CP at all for them which is more than fine, but seriously ... how sad is it that one has to do something like that?

 

I completely agree it is so thematic to have that beleaguered guard unit saved by a greater force.  On top of the changes people have always been saying, like allied detachments keeping their CP to only their detachment etc, I wonder if the warlord rule from the Middle Earth SBG could be useful here?  To keep people from having a hobbit as their warlord while characters like Aragorn were on the field, it's in the rules that the hero with the highest tier must be the warlord.  I personally wouldn't mind a similar rule with say a HQ with the highest power level must be the warlord of the force.  I don't know much about tournament play and the like but it seems like this could be a way to slightly curb back the cheese.

[Khornestar]

Khorne Daemonkin doesn't need to be a codex in 8th edition. The allies system allows taking some from CSM and some from Daemons. In what way is the lack of a daemonkin codex relevant to that? Some people choose to call it "Khorne Daemonkin" for the sake of nostalgia or description, I guess, but they're just detachments. Should we... not be able to run those detachments because the daemonkin codex doesn't exist in 8th?

 

Gonna be honest, as with 99% of the time I'm really happy GW writes the rules, and not salty players.

[Claws and Effect]

 

 

To add on the loyal 32 thing, I really dont see the issue of the loyal 32 and say 3 knights from a fluff perspective. In fact, thats usually a pretty cool looking army if people take the time.

 

My main thing is the same as everyone with the CP generation and game balance. I would hypothesize that design wise given the recent tweaks, knights werent really meant to have THAT much CP and thus the pretty powerful strats would be used at clinch moments. I just dont know how you can balance a faction like say Orks and ALL of the Imperium without either screwing Orks or a majority of Imperium builds in this example.

 

But nothing im saying hasnt been said 1000 times

Yeah to be honest the 'loyal 32' is exactly what I'd want to ally in for my Marines. Just enough to give them a serious presence due the amount of models but not so much that they'd be stealing my list's main actors spotlight. However since it feels so cheesy due how the CP generation works I just don't feel good taking it in friendly games. So the only option that's left for me would be to take a Patrol detachment and not gain any CP at all for them which is more than fine, but seriously ... how sad is it that one has to do something like that?

My Deathwatch in their current form are literally incapable of fielding a anything more than a single Battalion.

 

I almost have to take the Loyal 32 if I want to get any use out of my Strategems at all (most of the useful ones are at least 2CP).

 

Got stomped at a tournament partly because I was out of CP by the end of the first turn.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Allies were very much a thing back in fourth edition.

[sal of manders]

honestly I wonder why they don't just allot cp based on army size rather than per detachment. Each army gets X cp per Y points / power level, provided said army is battleforged.

[Interrogator Stobz]

Or just get rid of them altogether and leave the rules in the codexes ;)

Make allies more like the old matrix again.

[Gederas]

Khorne Daemonkin doesn't need to be a codex in 8th edition. The allies system allows taking some from CSM and some from Daemons. In what way is the lack of a daemonkin codex relevant to that? Some people choose to call it "Khorne Daemonkin" for the sake of nostalgia or description, I guess, but they're just detachments. Should we... not be able to run those detachments because the daemonkin codex doesn't exist in 8th?

 

Gonna be honest, as with 99% of the time I'm really happy GW writes the rules, and not salty players.

Imo, I want Khorne Daemonkin as a codex again (or even a mini-dex with rules) because Khorne Daemonkin had a very unique army playstyle. It's why I'd prefer them to be an army again.

[Marshal Rohr]

I don’t think anyone would really have a problem with daemonkin forces or inquisition. It’s really just abusive combos.

[Dracos]

I’m not a fan of the Loyal 32 generating CP to be used by my Marines or Knights but I think it’s fluffy as hell and sure would build a detachment of the 32 in a heartbeat if the came out with a truescaled Guard army ;)

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I've been lucky enough to "play" in 2 and "net list" in 3 countries, while not a complete and comprehensive global picture, I can admit, its a larger sample than most have, I have seen the direct action of people declining to play allies, and or griping about their presence, indeed most tournaments require 3 detachments restricted to one codex... (Even in 8th)For a reason.

This is so wrong on so many levels it comes across as a trolling post. It does not really matter how many countries you have played and if the majority was before 6th edition well it doesn’t even matter. 3 countries lol.

 

Next what tournament requires all three detachments from the same codex? That is not the norm at all.