What do you think about an allied detachment

[FormelyKnownAsSmashyPants]

I was brainstorming while in the shower, where most of my great ideas take place and was thinking about soup, the special benefits that you get from mono armies as the PA series has been coming out, the old allied detachment from sixth edition and the auxiliary support detachment and thought to myself why don’t GW create an allied detachment, perhaps with the same minimum unit requirements of the patrol detachment and the maximum unit requirements of the battalion detachment. It would have to be made up of units from a different army to that in which your warlord comes from and still unlocks the various army special rules, including faction traits, doctrines and the like, relics, warlord traits and stratagems, but actually comes at cost in CP, say 3 CP. So you could take IG and SM, or CSM and daemons or traitor guard when they become a thing and not lose out on your various special rules, but you be left with less CP to play with. This would mean people can still play fluffy and fun armies made up of more than one faction or even sub faction, but we wouldn’t see loyal 32 CP farming and the like any more. What do y’all think? Edited January 31, 2020 by Captain Smashy Pants

[MrZakalwe]

think the mono-army benefits are there specifically to balance against that sort of mix and match approach. 

[FormelyKnownAsSmashyPants]

Could be wrong but I thought it was to counter the abuse we saw with things like the loyal 32. With what I proposed there’d be a cost involved. They could even make it so the allied detachment didn’t get all of its benefit, for xample if I took a Dark Angels primary detachment, the one with the warlord in it, and a Blood angels allied detachment, then Dark Angels could get full special rules including Relentl ss Hunt, but the Blood Angels would not be able to get Savage Echos or vice verca. Moot point really, unless GW search forums for ideas and the thread takes off. I just think it would be a cool feature when they update to 8,5 or 9 or whatever.

[jaxom]

I'm disappointed that GW 40k design team doesn't seem to want to do more with specialist detachments because I think they'd be a good way to handle this sort of thing. You lose the mono-faction benefits, but get tailored stratagems which replace their utility (and these sort of armies tend to have a decent amount of CP it's not like replacing a passive benefit with CP dependent benefits is a huge deal). Narrative/lore elements provide a good basis for how the various groups interact with each other and thus a basis for what those stratagems would be. 

[Irbis]

IMO allied detachment from 6th was much better than mix and match nonsense we have now. Just limit allies to small detachment of a handful of units giving 1 CP (or do 25% army limit like in AoS), done, no need to do anything else like CP penalties. It really bothers me GW tried to do all these bandaid, circular workarounds when AoS system works perfectly and is really fluffy to boot...

[Schlitzaf]

AoS ally rules awful. Its last thing I want ported over from AoS tbf. What so bad about allies you’d need them nerfbatted? Soup is already gone dodo’d for most part nowadays.

 

I’d be down for an allied specific detachment, that does +3 CP. But frankly speaking I’d also rather we saw a return of classic Detachment/Force Org of 1 HQ and 2 Troops for 3 CP.