Is there a way to negate the disadvantages of having a multi-faction army??

[ChaosUnited]

Any advice in this regard would be immense. I really want a Khorne/Nurgle/chaos dwarf army... 

[BaldoBeardo]

Pays your money, takes your choice. Having a single faction army has the disadvantage of limited unit options, but the advantages of better synergy and in some cases better allegiance traits and options.
Multi-faction forces can pick what they want, so you don't need other abilities/boons to fill the gaps in your options.
That's the design model for AoS, so there aren't any options to counter it - barring the usual discuss-with-opponent caveat.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[chord]

Nope this is by GW's design it seems.   

[stato]

The very fact you get flexibility in your unit choice is the benefit of not sticking single faction.  You lose any faction specific bonus but its entirely possible to build fun and/or competitive grand alliance forces without being pure faction.  Look at what options you have in the different factions you want to run, work out the strengths/weaknesess and use them to guide your choices.  Of course you could just build a force that looks cool or you enjoy and not worry the rest. 

[Criti]

What disadvantage? By and large, mixed armies seem to be among the most powerful options right now. 

[Guest]

I'm kind of tired of the erroneous line that 'the advantage of multi-faction armies is that you can pick the most powerful unit combinations' and variations thereof - as if this is the only plausible motivation for doing it and that this automatically puts mixed armies on par with single-faction allegiance abilities.

What about the large number of people who bought into the whole 'collect what you like' ethos that AoS originally espoused, and who genuinely just want to mix factions so that they can either A) collect whatever models take their fancy, or B) build a themed army? These people get no such comparable benefit from mixing factions.

The only way that mixing factions has any inherent advantage is if you limit the composition of your army to benefit from the small number of cross-faction synergies that exist. In it's own way that's just as restrictive (perhaps even more so) as sticking to a single faction in order to benefit from better allegiance abilities.

People who want to collect what appeals to them the most or create cool and perfectly valid cross-faction themes are basically hung out to dry. There is no gameplay advantage to engaging with the hobby in this way - GW is actively disincentivising it. So can we put to rest the idea that mixed faction armies offer some kind of inherent advantage that single faction armies don't? For 90% of hobbyists who want to collect and play in this way, it simply isn't true.

[chord]

9 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

I'm kind of tired of the erroneous line that 'the advantage of multi-faction armies is that you can pick the most powerful unit combinations' and variations thereof - as if this is the only plausible motivation for doing it and that this automatically puts mixed armies on par with single-faction allegiance abilities.

What about the large number of people who bought into the whole 'collect what you like' ethos that AoS originally espoused, and who genuinely just want to mix factions so that they can either A) collect whatever models take their fancy, or B) build a themed army? These people get no such comparable benefit from mixing factions.

The only way that mixing factions has any inherent advantage is if you limit the composition of your army to benefit from the small number of cross-faction synergies that exist. In it's own way that's just as restrictive (perhaps even more so) as sticking to a single faction in order to benefit from better allegiance abilities.

People who want to collect what appeals to them the most or create cool and perfectly valid cross-faction themes are basically hung out to dry. There is no gameplay advantage to engaging with the hobby in this way - GW is actively disincentivising it. So can we put to rest the idea that mixed faction armies offer some kind of inherent advantage that single faction armies don't? For 90% of hobbyists who want to collect and play in this way, it simply isn't true.

Agreed, the units with cross faction synergies is a low number

[Spirit of Grungni]

21 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

I'm kind of tired of the erroneous line that 'the advantage of multi-faction armies is that you can pick the most powerful unit combinations' and variations thereof - as if this is the only plausible motivation for doing it and that this automatically puts mixed armies on par with single-faction allegiance abilities.

The line isn't erroneous. It IS the advantage. Pointing out that it's the advantage doesn't imply that it's the only plausible motivation at all. That's apples to oranges. (Saying it's A reason isn't necessarily saying it's the ONLY reason.)

I don't think anyone said that mixing factions' best options automatically puts them on par with single faction either. Still, you've got to admit, Freeguild and SCE, or Ogors and Grots, or Nurgle and Skaven are all great pairs. 

As far as the rule of cool goes, I believe you are correct. Picking whatever you want because you like the model is rarely a recipe for a competitive list in AoS...but I don't remember it being a recipe for a competitive list in 7th or 8th either.

[stato]

24 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

What about the large number of people who bought into the whole 'collect what you like' ethos that AoS originally espoused, and who genuinely just want to mix factions so that they can either A) collect whatever models take their fancy, or B) build a themed army? These people get no such comparable benefit from mixing factions.

The only way that mixing factions has any inherent advantage is if you limit the composition of your army to benefit from the small number of cross-faction synergies that exist. In it's own way that's just as restrictive (perhaps even more so) as sticking to a single faction in order to benefit from better allegiance abilities.

I appreciate a few people are really hating on GW creating alliegance abilities, but to say you cant play mixed faction (or only where synergies match) is just false.

I have a limited number of AoS models so my first 2000pt tournament i had to call on most of them.  I ended up with a bunch of Bretonnian knights, a block of archers (brought in to fill up points) and some dwarf warriors. And you know what, I lost my first game against mixed chaos, beat a sylvaneth list and then lost against another sylvaneth list.  The game I won was because I worked out what my few synergies were AND I played my army as an army, thats to say i played to its strengths and defended against its weaknesses, while also aiming to hit my opponents weakness.  

For my 2nd tournament (this weekend, 1000pt) im taking my knights again but still need a second battleline so putting in a unit of Kharadron company im nearly finished painting. I think it will be a good combo as the Knights give good synergy (in terms of buff but also playability) and the Kharadrons fill the weakness of a Knight only list.

Even if you take a total scattergun appraoch to collecting you can still build strengths and try to defend against weaknesses, either through list building or deployment and tactics.  I accept some people, like me, will be limited or have no options in terms of models but it doesnt automatically mean you have a ****** army. 

 

 

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, Spirit of Grungni said:

The line isn't erroneous. It IS the advantage. Pointing out that it's the advantage doesn't imply that it's the only plausible motivation at all. That's apples to oranges. (Saying it's A reason isn't necessarily saying it's the ONLY reason.)

It's a possible advantage, but there are far more mixed faction army compositions to which it doesn't apply than to which it does. So stating it as an advantage without clarification is misleading. Anecdotally, it seems to me that when the prospect of starting a mixed faction army is raised on these boards it's because someone wants to collect the models they like the most or create a cool theme - telling these people that mixed faction armies have a particular advantage when in most specific cases they will most likely be at a significant disadvantage isn't helpful.

 

31 minutes ago, Spirit of Grungni said:

I don't think anyone said that mixing factions' best options automatically puts them on par with single faction either. Still, you've got to admit, Freeguild and SCE, or Ogors and Grots, or Nurgle and Skaven are all great pairs.

If someone says that 'the advantage of single faction is the allegiance abilities, whereas the advantage of mixed faction is the synergies', then whether intentionally or not they're using a rhetorical turn of phrase that implies parity. Again, that could mislead someone who wants to collect a mixed faction army with a cool theme but also doesn't want to be slammed in every game.

And yes, the pairings you mentioned are all good - both from a gameplay perspective and thematically. But for every thematic mixed faction army that can hold its own on the tabletop, there are many more that will be steamrollered by a single faction army with their outrageously good allegiance abilities every time.

 

31 minutes ago, Spirit of Grungni said:

As far as the rule of cool goes, I believe you are correct. Picking whatever you want because you like the model is rarely a recipe for a competitive list in AoS...but I don't remember it being a recipe for a competitive list in 7th or 8th either.

 

Before allegiance abilities came along, I'd say that just about any legal army composition had at least a fighting chance of beating any other legal army composition. While there were already various synergies that could be exploited, the choice between single faction or mixed faction was largely a thematic one rather than a strategic one. Allegiance abilities turned that on its head. If they'd just been cool little thematic bonuses the impact wouldn't have been so great, but they offer multiple substantial rewards for limiting your army to a single faction. Outside of a few specific power combos, the majority of mixed faction players now have to resign themselves to being at a major disadvantage. Before allegiance abilities the playing field was much more level and your options as a collector and player were much more open.

Allegiance abilities could have been a bit of thematic fun, but instead they're an absolute gift to power gamers and a straight-jacket for everyone else.

 

To answer @ChaosUnited's original question - the only way I can think of to negate the disadvantage of a mixed faction army is to agree with your opponent beforehand that allegiance abilities will not be used. This will put you both on the more even playing field that existed in AoS before they were introduced. Remember, like every aspect of AoS beyond the 4 pages of core rules, allegiance abilities are an optional rules module - no-one is forcing you to use them.

[Trout]

2 hours ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

It's a possible advantage, but there are far more mixed faction army compositions to which it doesn't apply than to which it does. So stating it as an advantage without clarification is misleading. Anecdotally, it seems to me that when the prospect of starting a mixed faction army is raised on these boards it's because someone wants to collect the models they like the most or create a cool theme - telling these people that mixed faction armies have a particular advantage when in most specific cases they will most likely be at a significant disadvantage isn't helpful.

 

If someone says that 'the advantage of single faction is the allegiance abilities, whereas the advantage of mixed faction is the synergies', then whether intentionally or not they're using a rhetorical turn of phrase that implies parity. Again, that could mislead someone who wants to collect a mixed faction army with a cool theme but also doesn't want to be slammed in every game.

And yes, the pairings you mentioned are all good - both from a gameplay perspective and thematically. But for every thematic mixed faction army that can hold its own on the tabletop, there are many more that will be steamrollered by a single faction army with their outrageously good allegiance abilities every time.

 

 

Before allegiance abilities came along, I'd say that just about any legal army composition had at least a fighting chance of beating any other legal army composition. While there were already various synergies that could be exploited, the choice between single faction or mixed faction was largely a thematic one rather than a strategic one. Allegiance abilities turned that on its head. If they'd just been cool little thematic bonuses the impact wouldn't have been so great, but they offer multiple substantial rewards for limiting your army to a single faction. Outside of a few specific power combos, the majority of mixed faction players now have to resign themselves to being at a major disadvantage. Before allegiance abilities the playing field was much more level and your options as a collector and player were much more open.

Allegiance abilities could have been a bit of thematic fun, but instead they're an absolute gift to power gamers and a straight-jacket for everyone else.

 

To answer @ChaosUnited's original question - the only way I can think of to negate the disadvantage of a mixed faction army is to agree with your opponent beforehand that allegiance abilities will not be used. This will put you both on the more even playing field that existed in AoS before they were introduced. Remember, like every aspect of AoS beyond the 4 pages of core rules, allegiance abilities are an optional rules module - no-one is forcing you to use them.

Allegiance abilities are also an optional rule. Just don't use them in your games.

[Jamopower]

3 hours ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

 

What about the large number of people who bought into the whole 'collect what you like' ethos that AoS originally espoused, and who genuinely just want to mix factions so that they can either A) collect whatever models take their fancy, or B) build a themed army? These people get no such comparable benefit from mixing factions.

 

They (and I'm one of them) still get one big advantage: being able to play that army they have. I don't care too much if my enemies get better benefits on sticking to the same allegiance, as the main principles of building the armies that I have in the first place has been A) collecting whatever models take my fancy and B) building a themed armies  

 

That said, it would still be fun if there would be more units like Loremaster or hurricanum that have grand alliance wide bonuses, but having too much of them would just make the smaller allegiances worse. Good middle ground would be more units that target all free people, all skaven, all death wizards, etc., but I'm not holding my breath for those as understandably the focus of GW is in doing completely new stuff, not making new rules for old stuff.

[Squirrelmaster]

@Jamie the Jasper I'm confused — you seem to be arguing a position of "I don't want to play competitively but I don't want to lose against people who do".

Yes, there are some multi-faction armies that will lose to some single-faction armies. There are also some single-faction armies that will lose to some single-faction armies, and some single-faction armies that will lose to some multi-faction armies. If your opponent takes a "competitive" army and you don't, you should expect to lose, most of the time.

If you want to just bring whatever models appeal to you aesthetically, but still want a "balanced" game, I suggest you find an opponent who does the same, and disregard the matched play rules in their entirety. Any army-selection system will inevitably create "strong" builds and "weak" builds.

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, Squirrelmaster said:

@Jamie the Jasper I'm confused — you seem to be arguing a position of "I don't want to play competitively but I don't want to lose against people who do".

Not really. My line on this and other related subjects is pretty clear and consistent - I'm instinctively wary of any official material that promotes competitive play and narrower choice over narrative/open play and broader choice, whether directly or indirectly.

The attitudes and preferences of competitive players already dominate heavily and set the mood music for the community at large, so anything (like allegiance abilities) that skews broader attitudes and community behaviour away from a more relaxed, open, creative and inclusive style of hobbying needs to be called out in my view, for whatever good it will do.

I honestly believe that allegiance abilities are the single highest impact change since AoS began - moreso even than the introduction of points. At least with points and matched play rules there was a clear degree of separation from narrative and open. Allegiance abilities are much more insidious because they encourage competitive and restrictive army composition even within narrative and open play.

What I would like, and what we had before allegiance abilities, is a system that encourages the widest possible range of viable army composition options, without disproportionately rewarding one type of hobbyist over another.

[Squirrelmaster]

55 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

Not really. My line on this and other related subjects is pretty clear and consistent - I'm instinctively wary of any official material that promotes competitive play and narrower choice over narrative/open play and broader choice, whether directly or indirectly.

The attitudes and preferences of competitive players already dominate heavily and set the mood music for the community at large, so anything (like allegiance abilities) that skews broader attitudes and community behaviour away from a more relaxed, open, creative and inclusive style of hobbying needs to be called out in my view, for whatever good it will do.

I honestly believe that allegiance abilities are the single highest impact change since AoS began - moreso even than the introduction of points. At least with points and matched play rules there was a clear degree of separation from narrative and open. Allegiance abilities are much more insidious because they encourage competitive and restrictive army composition even within narrative and open play.

What I would like, and what we had before allegiance abilities, is a system that encourages the widest possible range of viable army composition options, without disproportionately rewarding one type of hobbyist over another.

Has it occurred to you that no single way of playing can satisfy all types of hobbyist, and that GW haven't "promoted" competitive play merely by making it an option? They have provided different styles of play, and supported each equally — if people are choosing to only play competitively, it's because they want to.

If you can find a group of like-minded players, you are free to ignore all of the matched play rules. If you aren't using points but still want to use allegiance abilities, you are free to give multi-faction armies more models to balance them out, or else let them use allegiance abilities despite not having the relevant allegiance. In open or narrative play, you are all free to do whatever you want. GW is not forcing these rules on anyone. They only way they can be a "straitjacket" is if the vast majority of players force them on each other — which only happens if the vast majority of players want to use these rules.

GW have done more to encourage open and narrative play than the owners of any other game I've encountered. They took away the option of competitive play entirely for months. The fact that so many players are choosing competitive play despite this tells me that it's not because GW are "promoting" it or "skewing" attitudes towards it, but because it's what the majority of players want.

It would not be fair for GW to deny the majority of players access to the type of game they want to play, in order to force them to accommodate a minority who don't like it.

[erasercrumbs]

Sadly, there really isn't a benefit to mixing Khorne and Nurgle. I've had some luck by combining the toughness of Nurgle with the brutality of Daemonettes and the ranged firepower of Tzeentch, though.

I'd imagine that some Khorne or Nurgle mixed with Azgorh artillery would be a hoot.

Take this with a grain of salt, because I'm not a tournament player.

[ChaosUnited]

Thanks for everyone's input! I'm knew here and it's nice to know there's such a active and engaging community. 

What I'm gonna do is go for the three/four factions in my army which will probably about 2000-3000 odd points (guess haha) when completed. Maybe I'll get a good hiding, but I think tactically it'll be a strong force so I'm relatively confident I'll give most forces a good go.

In this I'll try and have each faction having its own buffs. So far my force is 6 x skullcrushers, 12 chaos warriors with mark of khorne, 5 warhounds (dawgs so I can ensure my skullcrushers get their charge), a bloodsecrator and a bloodstoker. So now I'll move onto the nurgle section of my force with the same mentality in mind - 20 plague bearers, daemon herald, 5 blightkings (and a glottkin just cause I like the model). Once that's done I'll get some chaos dwarf artillery and maybe a CD hero of some kind for the buff.

Maybe when this is all put together I'll consider a unit or two of Tzaangors skyfires and a shaman all on discs. Its all a long way off, prob take me a good 6-7 months.

[Kramer]

1 hour ago, ChaosUnited said:

Thanks for everyone's input! In knew here and it's nice to know there's such a active and engaging community. 

What I'm gonna do is go for the three/factions in my army which will probably about 2000-3000 odd points (guess haha) when completed. Maybe I'll get a good hiding, but I think tactically it'll be a strong force so I'm relatively confident I'll give most forces a good go.

In this I'll try and have each faction having its own buffs. So far my force is 6 x skullcrushers, 12 chaos warriors with mark of khorne, 5 warhounds (dawgs so I can ensure my skullcrushers get their charge), a bloodsecrator and a bloodstoker. So now I'll move onto the nurgle section of my force with the same mentality in mind - 20 plague bearers, daemon herald, 5 blightkings (and a glottkin just cause I like the model). Once that's done I'll get some chaos dwarf artillery and maybe a CD hero of some kind for the buff.

Maybe when this is all put together I'll consider a unit or two of Tzaangors skyfires and a shaman all on discs. Its all a long way off, prob take me a good 6-7 months.

Good for you! 

[Mayple]

15 hours ago, ChaosUnited said:

Thanks for everyone's input! In knew here and it's nice to know there's such a active and engaging community. 

What I'm gonna do is go for the three/factions in my army which will probably about 2000-3000 odd points (guess haha) when completed. Maybe I'll get a good hiding, but I think tactically it'll be a strong force so I'm relatively confident I'll give most forces a good go.

In this I'll try and have each faction having its own buffs. So far my force is 6 x skullcrushers, 12 chaos warriors with mark of khorne, 5 warhounds (dawgs so I can ensure my skullcrushers get their charge), a bloodsecrator and a bloodstoker. So now I'll move onto the nurgle section of my force with the same mentality in mind - 20 plague bearers, daemon herald, 5 blightkings (and a glottkin just cause I like the model). Once that's done I'll get some chaos dwarf artillery and maybe a CD hero of some kind for the buff.

Maybe when this is all put together I'll consider a unit or two of Tzaangors skyfires and a shaman all on discs. Its all a long way off, prob take me a good 6-7 months.

I like your approach. Several smaller, independent groups of units that keep their own set of buffs intended only for themselves will surely make it difficult for most opponents to 'cut the head of the snake'

Let us know how it turns out

[Guest]

17 hours ago, Squirrelmaster said:

Has it occurred to you that no single way of playing can satisfy all types of hobbyist, and that GW haven't "promoted" competitive play merely by making it an option? They have provided different styles of play, and supported each equally — if people are choosing to only play competitively, it's because they want to.

If you can find a group of like-minded players, you are free to ignore all of the matched play rules. If you aren't using points but still want to use allegiance abilities, you are free to give multi-faction armies more models to balance them out, or else let them use allegiance abilities despite not having the relevant allegiance. In open or narrative play, you are all free to do whatever you want. GW is not forcing these rules on anyone. They only way they can be a "straitjacket" is if the vast majority of players force them on each other — which only happens if the vast majority of players want to use these rules.

GW have done more to encourage open and narrative play than the owners of any other game I've encountered. They took away the option of competitive play entirely for months. The fact that so many players are choosing competitive play despite this tells me that it's not because GW are "promoting" it or "skewing" attitudes towards it, but because it's what the majority of players want.

It would not be fair for GW to deny the majority of players access to the type of game they want to play, in order to force them to accommodate a minority who don't like it.

 

I think you've misunderstood my point. I'm not on a mission to create a world in which there is only one way to play that satisfies everyone. Trying to achieve that would be impossible, as you say, and would be a backwards step. The concept of having 3 ways to play is a good one.

My issue is with anything that pushes people towards one of those 3 ways to play over another, when that particular way to play might not be the most fun for them. And lets face it, there are no forces pushing matched players towards open or narrative. People who find open and narrative more satisfying are pushed towards matched play because, as you say, this is the way of the majority. Whether the majority of people play matched because they genuinely prefer it, or because they're pushed in this direction by forces within the community and by mechanics such as allegiance abilities is open to debate. But those forces do exist. You argue as if each individual has a completely free choice about how they play, when in fact this is a community and the decision is largely made for them collectively at various levels.

So, while it's good and right that the 3 ways to play should exist, it's also healthy to foster a system in which people aren't subject to these forces and pressures that push them towards a particular way to play. Or at least to foster a system in which these forces are mitigated as much as possible. Allegiance abilities, almost certainly unintentionally, push hobbyists towards a more restrictive army selection and a more competitive way of approaching the game. There is probably a way of implementing characterful faction rules that doesn't create this push factor, but that isn't what happened, and here we are. Sadly I don't see any prospect of a do-over any time soon, and in fact we seem to be heading towards more allegiance abilities shenanigans rather than less. When you do something that feeds the desires of the competitive side of the community it's impossible to put the genie back in the bottle.

You're right, with AoS GW have been doing more to promote a non-restrictive and non-competitive approach to the hobby than ever before. It's great. But it's still not enough and there's the constant risk of backsliding. When the hobby has been dominated by competitive attitudes for so long, even a small effort to redress the balance can seem like a big swing. But there hasn't been a big swing. The dominance of the competitive mindset is still effortlessly self-perpetuating because it's long-since reached critical mass. Competitive players just need to stand still to get everything their way; casual players need to be running constantly just to hold onto what we've got.

[wayniac]

I think that will always happen.  The AOS "experiment" largely failed; GW tried to create a game free from the shackles of competitive mindset and "optimal" and "best" concepts, and it failed miserably (relatively speaking; I'm sure there are/were a lot of communities that embraced it, but by and large the reaction to AOS pre-GHB was largely negative, that's pretty much a fact) because it showed people didn't want to think of that themselves, and didn't want to have to eyeball a unit's stats to determine if it was good or bad, or worse still just run with it and risk having a bad game to make an informed opinion.  I too lament the fact that, for the most part, matched play takes over everything else because it pretends to offer "balance" where there is none, but I've realized it's part of human nature and part of the nature of playing a game with a "me versus you" mindset from the getgo.

[Guest]

Just now, wayniac said:

I think that will always happen.  The AOS "experiment" largely failed; GW tried to create a game free from the shackles of competitive mindset and "optimal" and "best" concepts, and it failed miserably because it showed people didn't want to think of that themselves, and didn't want to have to eyeball a unit's stats to determine if it was good or bad, or worse still just run with it and risk having a bad game to make an informed opinion.  I too lament the fact that, for the most part, matched play takes over everything else because it pretends to offer "balance" where there is none, but I've realized it's part of human nature and part of the nature of playing a game with a "me versus you" mindset from the getgo.

 

It didn't fail. It wasn't given enough time to find out one way or another - GW lost their nerve. Anecdotally, I'd say things were coming together pretty well. People were slowly starting to discover that you could have a fun and dare I say 'balanced' game without points. People felt empowered to experiment with unlikely unit combinations and themes. The competitive crowd were wonderfully served by TOs, and the various home-brewed points systems were starting to coalesce into some kind of standard for those who wanted it. The initial bitterness was dying down and people were starting to be attracted to the positive community spirit and the exciting idea that AoS could be whatever you wanted it to be.

Everything was heading in a positive direction, for all types of players. But I guess GW couldn't afford to let the experiment run any longer, so they made a grab for all the disenchanted competitive gamers, and predictably it worked. I don't blame them, we are where we are, and the game is still in a great place. But I will always wonder what AoS might have become had it and the community around it been allowed the time and space to develop more slowly and more organically. I will always have this nagging doubt that we were robbed of a new golden age.

[ssharkus]

Sayl, stormfiends, bloodletters and skyfires being chaos meta for a year - yet some people say that multi-faction armies are in disadvantage.... Riiight..

Through allegiance GW made people make more lore-oriented armies. Because a rag-tag group of creatures will never be as cool and consistent as a properly solid Stormcast chamber, Mono-chaos god army or single-clan Skaven force.  Now you have bonuses for that, but you still can play anything you like/have on the shelf.

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, ssharkus said:

Sayl, stormfiends, bloodletters and skyfires being chaos meta for a year - yet some people say that multi-faction armies are in disadvantage.... Riiight..

I wondered how long it would be before someone came out with this chestnut - later than I thought actually. This is just one extreme example and you know it. The overwhelming majority of mixed-faction armies are at a significant disadvantaged when compared to a single-faction army using allegiance abilities.

 

15 minutes ago, ssharkus said:

Through allegiance GW made people make more lore-oriented armies. Because a rag-tag group of creatures will never be as cool and consistent as a properly solid Stormcast chamber, Mono-chaos god army or single-clan Skaven force.  Now you have bonuses for that, but you still can play anything you like/have on the shelf.

Single-faction is far from the only way to build a thematic army. What about Stormcast fighting alongside local militia? What about Sylvaneth allying with Wanderers in common cause? What about the old thematic staple of Orks and Goblins? What about a Bloodbound horde with an enslaved giant? A pack of Skaven with human slaves? Death factions can be thematic in almost any combination. Just think of all the cool themes and awesomely converted armies that will be discourage simply because single-faction allegiance abilities have been made so overwhelmingly tempting.

[ChaosUnited]

The way I see it is that the overall premise of AOS is that there are 4 alliances (althoughI understand that the chaos gods bicker like children) - what is an alliance if nothing more than a rag-tag group of creatures. 

Therefore I feel that buffs should work more frequently across alliances, and not be so limited to factions - that being said I do mean more frequently and not entirely.