Jump to content

Allegiances and Factions and Allies


Gilby

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 290
  • Created
  • Last Reply
53 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

- Factions are as important for being allied to as being allied with.
- Faction determines what you can take and still maintain a specific allegiance.
- Factions are not specific keywords.

GW have already issued an errata for the GHB.

- Partially correct but not completely, because Faction allies are not always in line with each other. Meaning Faction Slaves to Darkness for example can Ally with Brayherds but Faction Brayherds cannot Ally with Slaves to Darkness.
- The current issue with Factions determinating this is that not all Factions are an Allegiance and Allegiance rules do not further incorporate Faction or Ally rules.
- Factions (and Allies) indeed are not specific Keywords. This is also where the issue starts as Allegiances are tied to specific Keywords and as a rule can only work if the "starting units with Keyword X" condition is met. Allies rules currently allow for this to be ignored but also suggest that Allies can have a different Allegiance which suggests that an army can have multiple Allegiances. These are two contraditing rules.

All in all I'm looking forward to the Errata, I just wish that Generals Handbook designers would have chosen to be more specific. Either choose Allegiances to be Factions aswell or basically do not make a difference between the two. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what your saying is that pitched battle tables define the faction and therefore who they ally with? And those allies you pick must be from corresponding pitched battle table? So death lords can't ally a mourngol because its part of monstrous arcanum despite having night haunt keyword?

 

If that's the case why on the fw FAQ and compendium post the Friday before ghb2 releases did they say that destruction forces could ally with new and improved squig gobbo or whatever it's called when that model is part of monstrous arcanum which noone can ally with?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Jaehaerys said:

1. So what your saying is that pitched battle tables define the faction and therefore who they ally with?
2. And those allies you pick must be from corresponding pitched battle table?
3. So death lords can't ally a mourngol because its part of monstrous arcanum despite having night haunt keyword?
- If that's the case why on the fw FAQ and compendium post the Friday before ghb2 releases did they say that destruction forces could ally with new and improved squig gobbo or whatever it's called when that model is part of monstrous arcanum which noone can ally with?

 

1. Yes, this is what Factions and Allies suggests as per PBP
2. Yes
3. This is what we're trying to figure out aswell. The GH2017 refers to it being able to ally with Nighthaunt Faction but the Mourngul isn't listed under the Nighthaunt Faction.
- If you pick Chaos, Order, Destruction or Death as Allegiance the intention seems to be that you can use all units with that Keyword.
So if you pick Death as your Allegiance you can pick all Death units.
- The intention of GH2017 also seems to be that if you pick the Allegiance such as Deathlords (for the purpose of Battleline Morghasts) you indeed cannot make use of a Mourngul because he is not listed under the Nighthaunt Faction and the Monsterous Arcanum Faction isn't listed under potential Allies for Deathlords, despite having the Nighthaunt Keyword.
*The issue that is created is that Factions and Allegiances are not the same, as Factions do not have to contain Keywords to be a Faction, where Allegiance do have to contain an army with Keywords in order to be in effect. However Allies allow you to ignore this Allegiance rule (partially).

As before, this issue isn't exclusive to Chaos because GH2017 simply said does not give the same clearity Allegiances used to give us. Because Allies can partially ignore Allegiance rules in some cases and then there is also the suggestion that Allies can have their own Allegiance which would contradict the "One Allegiance per army" rule.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Killax said:

1. Yes, this is what Factions and Allies suggests as per PBP
2. Yes
3. This is what we're trying to figure out aswell. The GH2017 refers to it being able to ally with Nighthaunt Faction but the Mourngul isn't listed under the Nighthaunt Faction.
- If you pick Chaos, Order, Destruction or Death as Allegiance the intention seems to be that you can use all units with that Keyword.
So if you pick Death as your Allegiance you can pick all Death units.
- The intention of GH2017 also seems to be that if you pick the Allegiance such as Deathlords (for the purpose of Battleline Morghasts) you indeed cannot make use of a Mourngul because he is not listed under the Nighthaunt Faction and the Monsterous Arcanum Faction isn't listed under potential Allies for Deathlords, despite having the Nighthaunt Keyword.
*The issue that is created is that Factions and Allegiances are not the same, as Factions do not have to contain Keywords to be a Faction, where Allegiance do have to contain an army with Keywords in order to be in effect. However Allies allow you to ignore this Allegiance rule (partially).

As before, this issue isn't exclusive to Chaos because GH2017 simply said does not give the same clearity Allegiances used to give us. Because Allies can partially ignore Allegiance rules in some cases and then there is also the suggestion that Allies can have their own Allegiance which would contradict the "One Allegiance per army" rule.
 

This is my point. They clearly stated in a community post that some destruction can ally to use squig from monstrous arcane. How is that possible using the faction rules you describe?

Isn't everyone just trying to analyse this too much?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jaehaerys said:

This is my point. They clearly stated in a community post that some destruction can ally to use squig from monstrous arcane. How is that possible using the faction rules you describe?

It isn't, at least not with the suggested methods in this thread. (and I cannot think of one that wouldn't have its issues elsewhere)

8 minutes ago, Jaehaerys said:

Isn't everyone just trying to analyse this too much?

Probably, but there is a lot of ambiguity right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Killax said:

...
I personally don't think it's interesting that the Slaughterbrute in Monsters of Chaos is looking for a Slaves to Darkness Hero while Slaves to Darkness as a Faction cannot Ally with Monsters of Chaos....

It is interesting. If you have an GA Army, then it works. If you have a pure StoD Army, it doesn't.

However StoD is a keyword as well as a Faction list. So you can have Allegiance:StoD as well as Faction:StoD.

But StoD and Monsters of Chaos are joint Allies with other factions. So... a Blades of Khorne faction army, with Allied Slaves to Darkness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hobgoblinclub said:

Other than the chaos gods, is there an example where allegiance and faction don't correspond directly? 

This appears to be everything that has "battleline if" and/or Allegiances listed in the GHB.

All the "Grots" don't match:

Faction: Gitmob Grots / Allegiance: Gitmob

Faction: Moonclan Grots / Allegiance: Moonclan

Faction: Spiderfang Grots / Allegiance: Spiderfang

 

Several factions have missing 's':

Faction: Wanderers / Allegiance: Wanderer (note missing 's')

Faction: Brayherds / Allegiance: Brayherd (note missing 's')

Faction: Warherds / Allegiance: Warherd

 

All of the Skaven (except Masterclan) don't match:

Faction: Clans Pestilins / Allegiance: Pestilins (note: The Allegiance Abilities section on p.144 lists "Allegiance Abilities: Skaven Pestilins")

Faction: Clans Skyre / Allegiance: Skyre (similar to Pestilins, the Allegiance abilities list under "Skaven Skyre" not just Skyre)

Faction: Clans Moulder / Allegiance: Moulder

Faction: Clans Eshin / Allegiance : Eshin

Faction: Clans Verminous / Allegiance: Verminous

I didn't see any more, but I didn't start digging into the Warscrolls themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Squirrelmaster said:

Forgeworld stuff.

Legion and Tamurkhan's Horde match.

Here's the current list of units from Forgeworld Monstrous Arcanum (which all don't match)

Squig Gobba

Basilisk

Bonegrinder Gargant

Brood Horror

Carmine Dragon

Colossal Squig

Curs’d Ettin

Dread Maw

Dread Saurian

Incarnate Elemental of Beasts

Incarnate Elemental of Fire

Magma Dragon

Merwyrm

Mourngul

Preyton

Rogue Idol

Warpfire Dragon

Exalted Greater Daemon of Khorne

Exalted Greater Daemon of Nurgle

Exalted Greater Daemon of Slaanesh

Exalted Greater Daemon of Tzeentch

Mazarall the Butcher

Skaarac the Bloodborn

Skaven Warlord on Brood Horror

Troggoth Hag

Warpgnaw Verminlord

Fimir Warriors

Skin Wolves

Wolf Rats

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/8/2017 at 0:07 PM, Killax said:

- Factions (and Allies) indeed are not specific Keywords. This is also where the issue starts as Allegiances are tied to specific Keywords and as a rule can only work if the "starting units with Keyword X" condition is met. Allies rules currently allow for this to be ignored but also suggest that Allies can have a different Allegiance which suggests that an army can have multiple Allegiances. These are two contraditing rules.

All in all I'm looking forward to the Errata, I just wish that Generals Handbook designers would have chosen to be more specific. Either choose Allegiances to be Factions aswell or basically do not make a difference between the two. 

I know this remains a slight tangent on the original thread, but I'll say it again.

1. Army's must pick one Allegiance in order to qualify for allegiance abilities.

2. Allies are treated as part of the army in all ways, except their allegiance can be ignored when selecting the army's allegiance.

3. Your Allies are not a separate army, therefore do not qualify for separate Allegiance Abilities.

If you use the logic you've suggested, you could use both the Stormcast and Order Allegiance abilities in a Stormcast Army. Obviously you can't do this, because you have to choose one Allegiance for the Army in order to qualify for the Allegiance Abilities and ignore the other Allegiances for which you might qualify.

Different units within an army can have multiple different Allegiances, but this does not effect the Allegiance of the Army, nor does it entitle different units to use different Allegiance Abilities. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, hobgoblinclub said:

Cheers fellas. 

So @TheOtherJoshand @Squirrelmaster in all of those cases, ignoring 'factions', do the warscrolls have a keyword that directly matches the allegiance? 

Which allegiance? I'm not quite sure what you're asking. All of these warcrolls have keywords. Some of those keywords correspond to usable allegiances, such as "Slaanesh". I don't think any of them lack a keyword that it feels like they should have, or have a keyword it feels like they shouldn't. Many of them are not listed under any faction, and feel like they should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Squirrelmaster said:

Which allegiance? I'm not quite sure what you're asking. All of these warcrolls have keywords. Some of those keywords correspond to usable allegiances, such as "Slaanesh". I don't think any of them lack a keyword that it feels like they should have, or have a keyword it feels like they shouldn't. Many of them are not listed under any faction, and feel like they should be.

Slaansh is a full faction. The part "Hosts of Slaanesh" is mostly "Daemons of Slaanesh" with 3 mortal units. The point is, that you have to use Slaves of Darkness to get the Mortal Slaanesh part of the slaaneshfaction at the moment. That's the point why saying that Host of Slaanesh + Slaves of Darkness with Mark of Slaanesh is isn't a Host of Slaanesh Faction is just a gamekilling thing. The allies rules are made to give the player more choises by keeping alliance rules or  battleline if units.

These entire faction =/= allegiance discussion kills of the entire idea of having allies in a more specific themed faction rather than the grand alliance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, EMMachine said:

These entire faction =/= allegiance discussion kills of the entire idea of having allies in a more specific themed faction rather than the grand alliance.

Not really. No matter how you interpret it, it's clear that you can have a more specific/restricted army, and some allies, subject to other restrictions, and use a more specific set of allegiance abilities. That part — the underlying concept of what allies are supposed to be — everyone agrees on.

The discussion is down to us not being 100% clear on exactly what the restrictions are. Clearly, I cannot simply take an army with whatever units I like and call it a Slaanesh allegiance. Nor can I simply take 1600pts of Slaanesh units and 400pts of "anything goes", and call that a Slaanesh allegiance. The allies lists in the GHB2017 exist for a reason — to determine what units you can and cannot take as allies. We're just not sure how restrictive that rule is meant to be.

No matter how you interpret them, the allies rules give you more options than if you played without them, but fewer options than if you played them with no restrictions. That much, we're all agreed on.

The only difference, really, is between "I think people should be rewarded for taking a more specific list" and "I think people should be able to take whatever they like and still get all the cool bonuses". GW have apparently decided where the balance should lie between those two, but they haven't communicated that decision to us clearly enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't need allies at all when you don't use a specific allegiane or use specific battleline-if units. So it's the only point you need the entire allies rules for.

In all other cases you take for example chaos allegiance and having the entire chaos pitched battle table a model choises.

So the entire discussion is counterproductive to the entire game philosophy and narrative standpoint and only part of this entire stubborn competitive bs trying to exclude  factions with the phrase (the unit/faction is not competitive enough) so the the same guys will win everytime because there faction was op in first place. It's the biggest gamekiller and the game was never intended as a competitive game. It was intended as a narrative game. And I think that was the point why there weren't any points in first place.

The allies rules could help to bring such factions back to the game, but not when they are excluded first with the entire factions =/= allegeances bs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@EMMachine If you don't want to play competitively, you don't have to use the Matched Play rules at all. Feel free to field whatever you like with whatever rules you like, in keeping with the original narrative game philosophy of AoS, against anyone else who wants to play the same way.

When AoS first came out, there was a local player with a necromancer in his empire army, summoning skeletons to defend his gunline. Was it thematic and narrative? Maybe. Was it in the spirit of the game? Yeah, probably. I'm sure he could have produced a back-story to justify it, if pressed to do so.

Would it be allowed in Matched Play? Absolutely not. Why? Because Matched Play is all about working within a set of restrictions. With allegiance abilities, a player who chooses to impose more restrictions on themselves gets additional bonuses for doing so.

Like it or not, Matched Play is a competitive game. That's the whole point of it. This whole discussion is taking place within that context — that we have all decided we want to use a variant of AoS specifically designed for competitive play, to make some army selections more effective than others.

That is absolutely, unambiguously, GW's intention — in Matched Play, if you want to get the allegiance abilities, you have to stick to a more restrictive list of options. That's how Matched Play is supposed to work, and that's what you're signing up for, if you chose to play Matched Play.

The only debate is around how restrictive those restrictions are meant to be. No matter which interpretation you go with, neither your interpretation nor the discussion in general can run contrary to the express purpose of having these rules in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is, what army do you play (Stormcast Eternals, Discriples of Tzeentch, Kharadron Overlords) or another army that is on top of the army board.

Whats the point of excluding a mortal slaanesh Army what wants to use a chimera as allies by saying (uh, slaves of Darkness + Host of Slaanesh is not a Hosts of Slaanesh Army even all models share the keyword slaanesh)

Or excluding the Nighthounts by saying the Mourghul isn't part of it and you can't take allies if you take the Mourghul.

Are you guys really that scared that you could lose against an army that you're calling inferior that has now got an allegiance that could match the weakness of the army but still need models from the allies so they can fight against top-armies not ending in just seal clubbing, but this discussion simply tries to deny that so your top army could stay on top and nothing changes (it's simply cheating the community to stay on top and excluding most of the armies from the game).

I spoped playing tournaments in 8. Edition fantasy and 6. Edtion 40k because the meta created lists over all the years that would never exist in the background (because no army would have the rescorces for such an army) and never wanted to use the 0815 metalists, but losing mostly with the lists I wanted to play because I liked the look of the army. A metachange with changing editions had killed my entire gaming club, crippeling it because of the entire competitive bs. The playstyle is simple cancer for the community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@EMMachine Since you've asked, I've used two armies since AoS came out: Tomb Kings (no Settra, no Royal Warsphinx, no Necro Knights, most of the army purchased before the first GHB was released), and Slaanesh Daemons.

I've never been a remotely top-of-the-board competitive player, nor do I wish to be. Nor do I want to see the same armies stay at the top forever.

56 minutes ago, EMMachine said:

Whats the point of excluding a mortal slaanesh Army what wants to use a chimera as allies by saying (uh, slaves of Darkness + Host of Slaanesh is not a Hosts of Slaanesh Army even all models share the keyword slaanesh)

The same point as not allowing a necromancer in a "Free Peoples" army. The same point as not allowing dark elf bolt throwers in a Slaanesh army. The same point as not allowing you to take 500pts of allies when the rules only let you have 400.

I'm trying my best to play by the rules, unless we both agree in advance to change the rules. That means establishing what the rules are, so that everyone is on equal footing. I'm not arguing for a certain interpretation because it's going to give me an advantage, or because it's going to nerf an army I hate. I'm arguing for the interpretation that makes most sense to me, based on how the rulebook is worded.

I honestly don't know or care what effect these rules will have on the top-of-board meta-game balance. I just want to make sure we're all playing by the same rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q: so im still trying to wrap my head around this especially when it comes to chaos, but if i wanted to run a slaves of darkness list as a slaanesh allegiance, but wanted chaos knights as my  battleline, i would not be able to do so? Like i can build my list as a Slaves to Darkness list, with the intention of making them battleline off that, but as soon as i mark them as slaanesh, and i'm given the option of Slaves or Slaanesh allegiance for choice of abilities, by choosing slaanesh, my list would be illegal as the knights are no longer battleline?

Or for example, if I took slaanesh allegiance, and mixed and matched some slaves and some hosts of slaanesh, because i am not pure hosts of slaanesh, i do not get an ally list? Or is this the case with the name just being a categorization tool, and the true indicator of what units a table is made up of in the pitched battle profiles is the shared keyword of all units in the table, which would be SLAANESH? In this case, as soon as you take your mark on the slaves units, they would be assumed to 'appear' on the hosts of slaanesh list because they now share the keyword?

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, hellalugosi said:

Q: so im still trying to wrap my head around this especially when it comes to chaos, but if i wanted to run a slaves of darkness list as a slaanesh allegiance, but wanted chaos knights as my  battleline, i would not be able to do so? Like i can build my list as a Slaves to Darkness list, with the intention of making them battleline off that, but as soon as i mark them as slaanesh, and i'm given the option of Slaves or Slaanesh allegiance for choice of abilities, by choosing slaanesh, my list would be illegal as the knights are no longer battleline?

Allegiance determines Battleline-if, so no you cannot be Slaanesh allegiance and at the same time use StD allegiance BLif.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Xasz said:

Allegiance determines Battleline-if, so no you cannot be Slaanesh allegiance and at the same time use StD allegiance BLif.

Battleline-if is "has allegiance X", not "is allegiance X". So you could take an StD force, use the StD allegiance to get your battleline-if, then give everything the Mark of Slaanesh and use the Slaanesh abilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only one allegiance applies for your army.

Your army could qualify for 3 different ones, but you have to choose which one counts for abilities and BLifs. Otherwise allegiance would be an even more useless concept.

But I guess you could direct me to some official source for your claim?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...