Free Cities Abilities - What's the beef?

[Guest]

Posted this on Twitter but I'd like to open up a wider discussion:

The fact that many competitive events choose to use allegiance abilities, many of which are extremely powerful, whilst choosing to ban free cities abilities none of which are as powerful as, say, Tzeentch or Nurgle, is a source of bafflement to me. Free cities abilities are allegiance abilities in all but name. The most powerful of them, Anvilgard, looks to be mid-tier stuff at best. The community didn't even get a chance to test their strength before our TO overlords declared them heretical, and a critical mass of the community blindly agreed. I'm struggling to come up with a rationale for this inconsistent and kneejerk reaction. I'm convinced it can be traced back to a few influential people passing judgement from on high. That, and the usual amplification of internet negativity.

But the question remains, why react like this in the first place? Why ban free cities abilities whilst allowing the  game-breaking absurdity that is destiny dice? The only thing I can come up with is that certain key influencers have an innate distrust and bias against anything that carries the whiff of 'narrative' rather than 'competitive'. But guess what guys - NONE of this stuff is balanced, and all of it is written and designed to represent the fiction on the tabletop. In this sense, allegiance abilities are no less 'narrative' than free cities abilities. It's a completely arbitrary and false distinction, unsupported by any rational evidence, and it's a sad case of people in a position of influence shutting doors unnecessarily when they could and should be opening them.  This is why the whole 'but it's an extra layer of free stuff' argument doesn't cut any ice with me - they're all extra layers of free stuff. They question is how do they stack up in combination with each other? Again, free cities abilities plus basic Order allegiance abilities are feeble in comparison to the allegiance abilities enjoyed by certain factions. In case it needs reiterating, the basic Order abilities are pathetic - the addition of a single extra free cities ability doesn't even begin to compete with the advantages that competitive players are happy to grant to Tzeentch, Nurgle, Vanguard Stormcast et al without a second thought.

If Games Workshop, with all of their years of expertise and months of play-testing, declare a set of rules fit for matched play, it takes real arrogance on an outside individual's part to decide that they know better and decide they're going to be part of a movement to sideline them. Some will say 'but it's up to TO's to create the kind of event they want' and that's true, but there should be consistency in what they choose to accept and reject. Free cities are a type of allegiance ability. They're essentially an addendum to the general Order abilities. So banning a set of allegiance abilities for certain types of army just because they seem a bit useful (not powerful, just useful) is like banning the Balewind Vortex only for Seraphon because you dislike the Kroaknado. Doesn't seem so reasonable now, does it?

 

TL;DR: Free cities abilities have been shafted based on a either a non-existent or at least a highly dubious rationale, and deserve to be given a proper shot.

[stato]

I see a lot of people saying they are banned at events, but the few events ive been looking to attend this year still allow it (in the UK). 

At which events is Firestorm is banned? 

[Twitch of Izalith]

@Jamie the Jasper I couldn't agree with you more. I made a lot of the same comments at the time AnvilguardGate was kicking off - These things need to be out in the wider gaming community before they can be declared "broken".

I'm not sure about you last paragraph though - I don't think GW playtests extensively at all and its only recently they appear to be taking tournament play seriously. Their games have never been designed with competition in mind and have always been forced in to that environment by the fanbase.

53 minutes ago, stato said:

I see a lot of people saying they are banned at events, but the few events ive been looking to attend this year still allow it (in the UK). 

At which events is Firestorm is banned? 

I think that's also a good point. There are plenty of tournaments when the Firestorm allegiances are allowed or at least not specifically prohibited. Notably GW's own GT. I'm still not aware of these allegiances showing up though. That may be partly due to an assumption that they are not allowed (how many people actually read the event pack in detail?) and that assumption may be due to the attitude of some event organisers at the time Firestorm was released. It may also be due to Firestorm not being particularly popular with competitive players and it not being on their radar.

Its also worth pointing out that it was not only the abilities themselves but the fact they were biased towards Order armies which some people felt was unfair. 

I'm only personally aware of Adepticon making a public statement outwith their event pack but i'm sure some other people with more knowledge can give an idea of the overall picture.

_

Whatever the facts there does seem to be a perception that these rules are narrative play only - which I agree is a shame because I like to see diverse lists. 

The OP is right though. Everything about Warhammer is inherently unfair. One 140 point unit does not equal another 140 point unit and some allegiance abilities and artefacts etc are better than others  - but this is what makes the game interesting and engaging.

If people were actually serious about making it fair then tournaments would be fought using identical army lists which would be a much truer test of gaming ability (dice permitting) It would also be very dull.

 

[Double Misfire]

I'd heard of Firestorm Allegiances being banned at events, but not really going to larger events outside of Warhammer World hadn't really come into direct contact with it.

I think the original ban was a reaction to the Firestorm Allegiances as originally published, when they could be taken on top of any set of allegiance abilities, and not just the four default grand alliance ones (for example Tempest's Eye Allegiance abilities slapped on top of the boutique allegiance abilities for Kharadron or Stormcast), something GW themselves quickly realised was unbalanced and corrected in the FAQ errata.

Now Firestorm Allegiances can only be taken on top of the basic allegiance abilities for their respective grand alliances, at the "cost" of not being able to take special/named characters, and having a much more restricted array of units to choose from in a mixed force (bye bye 60 point Skink battleline), something that imo's pretty self balancing, and no longer gives already powerful factions like Stormcast or Tzeentch something for "free" on top of their existing allegiance abilities.

[Killax]

Didn't know this was a thing. I agree with @Double Misfire that I can believe/understand that they did it before linking the Cities to Grand Allegiances.

So yeah, if you want to know why this occurs at Tournaments I'd say contact the Tournament Organizers who make up such rules. I am certain they will give you an awnser or reconsider it if you don't colour the question too much  

[Trout]

I never purchased the Firestorm box. I recall there was some discussion over whether these abilities required painting units a certain way. Did this turn out to be the case? If so, that might explain why they aren't used much even in tournaments that don't ban them.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Trout said:

I never purchased the Firestorm box. I recall there was some discussion over whether these abilities required painting units a certain way. Did this turn out to be the case? If so, that might explain why they aren't used much even in tournaments that don't ban them.

That got amended. If you paint your models as a specific stormhost or free city then you can only use their specific rules. If you make up your own stormhost or free city you can use any rules you like. Exactly the same as it's always been in 40K.

[Lucio]

Wasn't the issue that you got them on top of your normal allegience abilities, so they provided *some* armies with a bonus but not all?

[Ollie Grimwood]

1 hour ago, Lucio said:

Wasn't the issue that you got them on top of your normal allegience abilities, so they provided *some* armies with a bonus but not all?

I think the issue power wise was indeed that initially that you could add the City abilities on top of existing allegiance abilities, such as Stormcast and Sylvaneth ones which were already powerful (this also wasn’t idea in a narrative sense either). This has since been faq’d so you can only take them with the Grand Alliance abilities. Which is more satisfactory all round. 

[PlasticCraic]

I can tell you they are not widely used in competitive gaming in Australia.  They were disallowed at CanCon, they are disallowed at a one-day event I'm going to in Melbourne this weekend, and I already know they are disallowed at 2 GTs I'm going to in June.  So although I can't speak for every event in every state, that's 4 out of 4 I'm aware of where they are not allowed, including the showcase national event.

I think the initial launch was pretty badly fumbled, and a lot of people wrote them off because of that.  That might not objectively be a good reason to keep ignoring them now that the rules have changed, but I do believe that the reality is that it's behind a lot of the ongoing disdain.  The reality is that they explicitly acknowledged the rules were broken when issuing a rapid FAQ in time for their own event, so the rules as they stand now were definitely not subject to months of playtesting, they absolutely were made up on the hoof.  They also put people's noses out of joint with the painting requirements which again adds to the stigma that some people still see around them.

That being said I think it's an absolutely legit premise to say we as a community should look at the rules as they are post-FAQ on their own merits.  In that light, I do personally believe that they should continue to be disallowed, for a few reasons:

Firstly, GH17 generally moved more towards rewarding specific factions and away from the Mixed GA that was very strong at the end of Original GH.  This seems to have been a conscious design choice and one I personally support (and it's also more narrative!) - giving bonuses, incentives and freebies back to mixed GA armies (or one of them in particular) is in direct conflict with this philosophy.

Secondly, although you are speculating that they aren't even very good, there was a lot of informed opinion that one in particular (Anvilguard) was potentially very, very good.  And moreso than that, it would not be good in an engaging way - deploy, auto-delete your opponent's army, pack your models away.  It is of course far from invincible, but in the large number of cases where it does work, it is a pretty unengaging way to play and would just give people on the other end of it bad experiences.

The fact that Steam Tanks sold out as soon as the Lord Ordinator warscroll leaked tells me that a lot of people have their eye on Greywater Fastness.  Sitting on the backline and nuking your opponent with artillery is certainly a specific playstyle, but again whether it's a good thing for the game and gives people good experiences is debatable.  I wouldn't want to do that to someone at an event.

Thirdly (and probably least importantly) I don't think it's healthy for the game to have people needing to have another book on the table.  A lot of people do find the "12 books on the table" thing with 40K off putting and it creates another barrier to new players.  

These are bolt-on rules, easily added in or not, and not embedded into the fabric of the game in any way.  For the reasons above I personally would support any TO who chose not to allow them in their event.

[PlasticCraic]

Not trying to have a go at you by the way @Jamie the Jasper, hopefully it doesn't come across that way!  

In all honesty I think the biggest reason they aren't used is the botched launch, which isn't a good reason to continue to ignore them. 

But hopefully the other reasons I've put across are a constructive explanation for why I personally think it's better for the game that they not be allowed in player packs.

[someone2040]

I get the feeling that sadly, Firestorm has probably put a stigma on bolt on rules that isn't easily going to be overcome in the future. Which is a bit unfortunate, but that's on GW I guess for botching up the release.

I personally think the biggest issue people had with Firestorm at the time was the unbalanced nature in which the rewards (extra allegiance abilities) were given out. In a self fulfilling prophecy, order is the largest grand alliance with the most options, hence order won the season of war, hence order received even more benefits in firestorm. The fact you could use Vanguard Wing with Anvilguard I think put a huge amount of people off as you had the potential to auto-destroy enemy units (and I daresay, this in particular is the reason it was FAQd).

I think it's also a lot easier to write off this book because it is an add-on. The primary purposes of this book wasn't to add new allegiances to the game, but to provide rules for the map based campaigns. If this was some form of 'allegiances' compendium, I don't think it would've been written off as easily as it was.

 

I think @PlasticCraic makes some pretty good points on why people would not want to allow them. That being said, I think I will argue on one point.

 Firestorm abilities aren't exactly freebies. You have to give up unit flexibility (a big reason you might take a GA list) to take that allegiance. You can't run Byron Orde's mixed Order army for example under a Firestorm allegiance.

Additionally, I would actually argue that Legions of Nagash is basically the same thing as Firestorm. You give up access to all Death units for much better allegiance abilities than GA: Death.

Lastly, it's a pet peeve of mine when people think mixed armies aren't narrative (or are somehow less narrative as allegiance armies). There's nothing particularly narrative about taking a Kunnin' Ruk with 60 arrer boyz in Bonesplitterz either, no matter how much WarhammerTV went on about it when it was doing well in the tournament scene. Narrative is really about making a backstory for your army and unifying your army through it. Pretty sure more people remember Duncan and Peachy's free cities armies more than some Vanguard Wing or Kunnin' Ruk flying around.

[PlasticCraic]

5 minutes ago, someone2040 said:

The fact you could use Vanguard Wing with Anvilguard I think put a huge amount of people off as you had the potential to auto-destroy enemy units (and I daresay, this in particular is the reason it was FAQd).

That's not speculation bud, they specifically quoted that as being the example that forced their hand:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/10/06/firestorm-matched-play-rules-update/

[PlasticCraic]

24 minutes ago, someone2040 said:

Lastly, it's a pet peeve of mine when people think mixed armies aren't narrative (or are somehow less narrative as allegiance armies). There's nothing particularly narrative about taking a Kunnin' Ruk with 60 arrer boyz in Bonesplitterz either, no matter how much WarhammerTV went on about it when it was doing well in the tournament scene. Narrative is really about making a backstory for your army and unifying your army through it. Pretty sure more people remember Duncan and Peachy's free cities armies more than some Vanguard Wing or Kunnin' Ruk flying around.

I'm not sure I agree with that, Bonesplitterz are hunters after all, I think it's totally thematic that they would be running around with bows and arrows.

I think the thing is that a mono-theme army automatically has a reason they are fighting together (they are all on the same side).  Whereas some (not all) mixed GA armies are actively theme-breaking, for example the classic Letter Bomb.  Khorne units, who actively hate all magic, being flung around the battlefield by their mate Sayl using...erm...magic.

On the other end of the spectrum I think you are absolutely right, however, that a well-crafted mixed army can be the most thematic of all.

Probably where I would say the disconnect comes in is that there is a conception that Narrative army = Army that is fun to play with and against.  Although I would argue that a Kunnin Rukk is thematic in its own way, having played both with and against it, I totally agree that it is no way fun!  I guess my point is that just because it is a horrible, horrible build does not mean that it is not narrative.  There would probably be some correlation between armies being thematic and being fun, but I don't think Narrative Army (necessarily) equals Good army to play - and I'd actually say that Kunnin Rukk is one of the examples that demonstrates that?

[PlasticCraic]

Having said all that, I'm probably splitting hairs here.  I think the key thing is that we both agree that Kunnin Rukk is not a good thing!

[Killax]

9 hours ago, PlasticCraic said:

Firstly, GH17 generally moved more towards rewarding specific factions and away from the Mixed GA that was very strong at the end of Original GH.  This seems to have been a conscious design choice and one I personally support (and it's also more narrative!) - giving bonuses, incentives and freebies back to mixed GA armies (or one of them in particular) is in direct conflict with this philosophy.

Secondly, although you are speculating that they aren't even very good, there was a lot of informed opinion that one in particular (Anvilguard) was potentially very, very good.  And moreso than that, it would not be good in an engaging way - deploy, auto-delete your opponent's army, pack your models away.  It is of course far from invincible, but in the large number of cases where it does work, it is a pretty unengaging way to play and would just give people on the other end of it bad experiences.

The fact that Steam Tanks sold out as soon as the Lord Ordinator warscroll leaked tells me that a lot of people have their eye on Greywater Fastness.  Sitting on the backline and nuking your opponent with artillery is certainly a specific playstyle, but again whether it's a good thing for the game and gives people good experiences is debatable.  I wouldn't want to do that to someone at an event.

Thirdly (and probably least importantly) I don't think it's healthy for the game to have people needing to have another book on the table.  A lot of people do find the "12 books on the table" thing with 40K off putting and it creates another barrier to new players.  

These are bolt-on rules, easily added in or not, and not embedded into the fabric of the game in any way.  For the reasons above I personally would support any TO who chose not to allow them in their event.

Thanks for your insight! While I do think the third reason is a great one, I also think that FAQ/Errata allready are worthy of a small book on their own and I think that one Battalion page from the Firestorm book really covers all there is allready. But yes, it can cause some confustion.

For your first point and second point I completely agree, but it's also a subjective standpoint offcourse.
What might be the larger issue here is that Order in itself is allready in a great place, call it mixed or one of the other Allegiances. So from my perspective it doesn't really need this on top of it either. However indeed, some of the Order allegiances would love it. Typically those who do not have a newer Battletome yet. The fact that indeed is presenting itself more and more is that the focus is going to Allegiances rather than Grand Allegiances. This isn't ****** better or worse but does have to account for a lot of things. Especially the mentioned Lord Ordinator. However one thing to thake from that (in my opinion) is the crux to the game that remains the Shooting phase. Which is a totally different discussion but comes up almost every time, be it directly or indirect. The Warmachine combo is so good beause it virtually deletes any Hero that presents itself in LoS. Not even the Monsters are save anymore soon.

As above though, I think every TO is very happy to awnser questions too, so @Jamie the Jasper if you want to know what the beef is I'd again say contat the TO's. I think it's very likely that the awnser will be a mix of the above quoted points. 

My problem with the opening post at hand is the following:

19 hours ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

1. But the question remains, why react like this in the first place?
2. Why ban free cities abilities whilst allowing the  game-breaking absurdity that is destiny dice?

1. The first question assumes that every piece of content made for Age of Sigmar should be useful for competitive play/matched play. In quite a lot of cases specific pieces cannot be used. Be it older models, Galrauch's Warscroll... You name it. It is also not exclusive to Order to not have acces to stuff like this. It applies for all. What was ever so slightly odd about Firestorm however is that I believe there where 4 relevant Battalions for Order in that book and 1 for each other Grand Allegiance. This in itself isn't how ideally balanced design works. It leaves Order with another advantage that really isn't needed...

2. The issue I have with many of these "But why then Tzeentch has this?"-topics is that it works on the policy of X is so so Y must also have this. 
While I agree that Destiny Dice are very strong I cannot say we see competitive events being completely taken over by Tzeentch. What I see is that consistantly one of the Grand Allegiance Order Armies thake the number 1 spot on these competitive events with a multitude of different Allegiances... Be it Stormcast, Seraphon, Fyreslayers or mixed Order, no matter how you look at the standings Order does objectively better as all other Grand Allegiances. Now with the Order Herald comming up, it should be clear to see that from the Malign Portents Heralds nothing really comes close to the Order Herald. We see a Grot Wizard working with some charge options for Grots and Orks, we see a Darkoath Warqueen working with some additional movement for Slaves to Darkness and the Knight of Shrouds has something for Nighthaunt... If we want to talk about unbalanced design going in favour of Order this is just another example...

My short vision on this is that realistically speaking Grand Allegiance Order and all Allegiances that fall under it don't need Firestorm content to be top competitive. I expect that somewhere down the lines even Tournament Organizers see how extremely well Order is doing with all it's Allegiances allready and might simply not be interested in giving that another boost while, like the Heralds, the other Grand Allegiances have no competitive use for the Battalion or Heralds.

Lastly, despite Tzeentch being so feared/seen as the boogyman, several Order lists can beat Tzeentch consistantly. Stormcast, Seraphon, Fireslayers and mixed have no massive issue with it because they play a very similar game due to other bonusses aquired. 

 

[Guest]

54 minutes ago, Killax said:

Thanks for your insight! While I do think the third reason is a great one, I also think that FAQ/Errata allready are worthy of a small book on their own and I think that one Battalion page from the Firestorm book really covers all there is allready. But yes, it can cause some confustion.

For your first point and second point I completely agree, but it's also a subjective standpoint offcourse.
What might be the larger issue here is that Order in itself is allready in a great place, call it mixed or one of the other Allegiances. So from my perspective it doesn't really need this on top of it either. However indeed, some of the Order allegiances would love it. Typically those who do not have a newer Battletome yet. The fact that indeed is presenting itself more and more is that the focus is going to Allegiances rather than Grand Allegiances. This isn't ****** better or worse but does have to account for a lot of things. Especially the mentioned Lord Ordinator. However one thing to thake from that (in my opinion) is the crux to the game that remains the Shooting phase. Which is a totally different discussion but comes up almost every time, be it directly or indirect. The Warmachine combo is so good beause it virtually deletes any Hero that presents itself in LoS. Not even the Monsters are save anymore soon.

As above though, I think every TO is very happy to awnser questions too, so @Jamie the Jasper if you want to know what the beef is I'd again say contat the TO's. I think it's very likely that the awnser will be a mix of the above quoted points. 

My problem with the opening post at hand is the following:

1. The first question assumes that every piece of content made for Age of Sigmar should be useful for competitive play/matched play. In quite a lot of cases specific pieces cannot be used. Be it older models, Galrauch's Warscroll... You name it. It is also not exclusive to Order to not have acces to stuff like this. It applies for all. What was ever so slightly odd about Firestorm however is that I believe there where 4 relevant Battalions for Order in that book and 1 for each other Grand Allegiance. This in itself isn't how ideally balanced design works. It leaves Order with another advantage that really isn't needed...

2. The issue I have with many of these "But why then Tzeentch has this?"-topics is that it works on the policy of X is so so Y must also have this. 
While I agree that Destiny Dice are very strong I cannot say we see competitive events being completely taken over by Tzeentch. What I see is that consistantly one of the Grand Allegiance Order Armies thake the number 1 spot on these competitive events with a multitude of different Allegiances... Be it Stormcast, Seraphon, Fyreslayers or mixed Order, no matter how you look at the standings Order does objectively better as all other Grand Allegiances. Now with the Order Herald comming up, it should be clear to see that from the Malign Portents Heralds nothing really comes close to the Order Herald. We see a Grot Wizard working with some charge options for Grots and Orks, we see a Darkoath Warqueen working with some additional movement for Slaves to Darkness and the Knight of Shrouds has something for Nighthaunt... If we want to talk about unbalanced design going in favour of Order this is just another example...

My short vision on this is that realistically speaking Grand Allegiance Order and all Allegiances that fall under it don't need Firestorm content to be top competitive. I expect that somewhere down the lines even Tournament Organizers see how extremely well Order is doing with all it's Allegiances allready and might simply not be interested in giving that another boost while, like the Heralds, the other Grand Allegiances have no competitive use for the Battalion or Heralds.

Lastly, despite Tzeentch being so feared/seen as the boogyman, several Order lists can beat Tzeentch consistantly. Stormcast, Seraphon, Fireslayers and mixed have no massive issue with it because they play a very similar game due to other bonusses aquired. 

 

 

The whole premise of your argument seems to be that the Order Grand Alliance has more and better army options than the other grand alliances, therefore any percieved advantage that Order has access to should be removed whenever a suitable excuse presents itself. Free Cities abilities are an extra thing. Order doesn't need an extra thing. So we'll disallow this extra thing.

The flaw in your argument is that you're treating Order as a monolith. You're saying that Order doesn't need Free Cities abilities to be competitive, but you have to look at individual armies and the individual choices available. It's misleading to make generalisations about the whole. That's like saying Chaos already has lots of powerful options, so we should stop Nurgle players using Feculent Gnarlmaws. The success of Chaos armies in general won't suffer, but Nurgle players will. And no one would ever suggest doing this to any abilities found in a battletome. It's only the fact that Free Cities abilities are printed in a different type of book that gives people a convenient excuse to treat them as 'other' or 'extra', when in practice they're no different to the allegiance abilities printed in the battletomes.

I want to run an Anvilgard army because I love their background and I think the idea of a well themed force that mixes different factions together is cool. To do that, I have to restrict myself to the small number of factions permitted in an Anvilgard army - I can't even take allies. No hurricanum, no loremaster, none of that mixed Order shenanigans that some people seem to be imagining. I have to use the basic Order allegiance abilities, which are so useless that I could probably forget to use them and it would have no real impact on the game. So I've voluntarily given myself two significant handicaps just to get access to a single Anvilgard ability, the effectiveness of which is highly random and situational, and which any competent opponent can easily counter (just like most other tricks that an army can pull) or even twist to their own advantage in some cases. People complain about Free Cities armies 'getting something extra for free' but completely ignore the extra restrictions and drawbacks that those armies are forced to take on. That's illogical and frankly unfair.

People imagine an already powerful mixed Order list gaining access to powerful new abilities, but that's complete nonsense. The vast majority of those mixed Order power builds you're talking about probably couldn't take Free Cities abilities anyway because of their composition. Yes, there are probably one or two power builds that you could fit into the Free Cities army composition requirement, but are they going to be more powerful than the top-tier stuff we're seeing at the moment? No way in hell.

Does Order need Free Cities abilities? Does Chaos need destiny dice? Does Destruction need Kunnin Rukk? These are all nonsense questions. You can't justify taking away toys from a single faction or from one type of player by arguing that it's necessary in order to moderate the power of the grand alliance as a whole. I'm not an Order player - I'm an Anvilgard player, I don't see why I should be made to feel like a second class player just because Anvilgard happens to be part of a Grand Alliance in which there are a lot of powerful options that I don't have access to.

[Killax]

54 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

 

The whole premise of your argument seems to be that the Order Grand Alliance has more and better army options than the other grand alliances, therefore any percieved advantage that Order has access to should be removed whenever a suitable excuse presents itself. Free Cities abilities are an extra thing. Order doesn't need an extra thing. So we'll disallow this extra thing.

The flaw in your argument is that you're treating Order as a monolith. You're saying that Order doesn't need Free Cities abilities to be competitive, but you have to look at individual armies and the individual choices available. It's misleading to make generalisations about the whole. That's like saying Chaos already has lots of powerful options, so we should stop Nurgle players using Feculent Gnarlmaws. The success of Chaos armies in general won't suffer, but Nurgle players will. And no one would ever suggest doing this to any abilities found in a battletome. It's only the fact that Free Cities abilities are printed in a different type of book that gives people a convenient excuse to treat them as 'other' or 'extra', when in practice they're no different to the allegiance abilities printed in the battletomes.

I want to run an Anvilgard army because I love their background and I think the idea of a well themed force that mixes different factions together is cool. To do that, I have to restrict myself to the small number of factions permitted in an Anvilgard army - I can't even take allies. No hurricanum, no loremaster, none of that mixed Order shenanigans that some people seem to be imagining. I have to use the basic Order allegiance abilities, which are so useless that I could probably forget to use them and it would have no real impact on the game. So I've voluntarily given myself two significant handicaps just to get access to a single Anvilgard ability, the effectiveness of which is highly random and situational, and which any competent opponent can easily counter (just like most other tricks that an army can pull) or even twist to their own advantage in some cases. People complain about Free Cities armies 'getting something extra for free' but completely ignore the extra restrictions and drawbacks that those armies are forced to take on. That's illogical and frankly unfair.

People imagine an already powerful mixed Order list gaining access to powerful new abilities, but that's complete nonsense. The vast majority of those mixed Order power builds you're talking about probably couldn't take Free Cities abilities anyway because of their composition. Yes, there are probably one or two power builds that you could fit into the Free Cities army composition requirement, but are they going to be more powerful than the top-tier stuff we're seeing at the moment? No way in hell.

Does Order need Free Cities abilities? Does Chaos need destiny dice? Does Destruction need Kunnin Rukk? These are all nonsense questions. You can't justify taking away toys from a single faction or from one type of player by arguing that it's necessary in order to moderate the power of the grand alliance as a whole. I'm not an Order player - I'm an Anvilgard player, I don't see why I should be made to feel like a second class player just because Anvilgard happens to be part of a Grand Alliance in which there are a lot of powerful options that I don't have access to.

Ah again you seem to be overly focused on Order here. NOBODY is currently able to use the Firestorm additional content, not Order, not Chaos, not Destruction not Death. Because of that the discussion around this isn't some sort of anti-Order practice, it's just not used. Like a whole lot of other Warsrolls.

On top of that your creating some sort of strawman argument that Chaos has acces to Desitiny Dice. Tzeentch has that, nobody else in Chaos. Likewise using Kunning Rukk doesn't even remotely compair to what the Order options are capable to do. Funnily enough the Order Herald surpasses Kunning Rukk effects for just being a single model.

If you are bound and set to play Anvilgard do your thing locally, have fun. If you want to know why it isn't used on Tournaments near you, ask the Tournament Oranizer. 

 

[CyderPirate]

I understand your frustration, Jasper, but not all players have your restraint and many will look to maximise the potential from the rules made available to them. So whilst you might feel hamstrung by TOs' decisions to exclude the Free Cities rules because it stops you playing your army in the way you want, when those rules are allowed, it opens the floodgates for some very un-fun armies to appear. 

I don't mean this as a personal slight, but I think your perception of the various abilities might be somewhat biased - which is understandable, everyone has their biases - and that might be colouring how you see this issue.

I do see where you're coming from though. For example, I play Tzeentch (mainly mortals) and have seen how much people hate the fate dice. At first, I didn't really see how frustrating they can be, as my armies tend to be pretty soft and weren't built around the mechanic. It wasn't until I saw another player make the most of the fate dice that I understood why people hate them so much. So whilst the fate dice aren't particularly game-warping in my hands, when given to a more competitive player they become incredibly frustrating to play against.  Your Anvilguard army might be an absolute blast to play against, but give another player those same options and they're opponents are gonna have a bad time. 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Killax said:

Ah again you seem to be overly focused on Order here. NOBODY is currently able to use the Firestorm additional content, not Order, not Chaos, not Destruction not Death. Because of that the discussion around this isn't some sort of anti-Order practice, it's just not used. Like a whole lot of other Warsrolls.

We're not talking about warscrolls, we're talking about allegiance abilities. Name one other allegiance ability besides free cities that has been banned or sidelined. You can't. There isn't one. It's discriminatory.

 

12 minutes ago, Killax said:

On top of that your creating some sort of strawman argument that Chaos has acces to Desitiny Dice. Tzeentch has that, nobody else in Chaos. Likewise using Kunning Rukk doesn't even remotely compair to what the Order options are capable to do. Funnily enough the Order Herald surpasses Kunning Rukk effects for just being a single model.

Are you crazy? You created this exact strawman argument when you argued that Order has access to Free Cities abilities. It doesn't. Free Cities armies have access to Free Cities abilities.  I used the destiny dice and Kunnin Rukk examples not because I believe them to be true and sensible, but to demonstrate the fallacy of your argument. You are literally arguing against yourself here. 

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, CyderPirate said:

I understand your frustration, Jasper, but not all players have your restraint and many will look to maximise the potential from the rules made available to them. So whilst you might feel hamstrung by TOs' decisions to exclude the Free Cities rules because it stops you playing your army in the way you want, when those rules are allowed, it opens the floodgates for some very un-fun armies to appear. 

I don't mean this as a personal slight, but I think your perception of the various abilities might be somewhat biased - which is understandable, everyone has their biases - and that might be colouring how you see this issue.

I do see where you're coming from though. For example, I play Tzeentch (mainly mortals) and have seen how much people hate the fate dice. At first, I didn't really see how frustrating they can be, as my armies tend to be pretty soft and weren't built around the mechanic. It wasn't until I saw another player make the most of the fate dice that I understood why people hate them so much. So whilst the fate dice aren't particularly game-warping in my hands, when given to a more competitive player they become incredibly frustrating to play against.  Your Anvilguard army might be an absolute blast to play against, but give another player those same options and they're opponents are gonna have a bad time. 

 

This just brings us back to the question of why, if what you say is true (and I'm sure it is) Free Cities abilities are banned/sidelined and Tzeentch abilities aren't? They're both types of allegiance ability. Choosing either allegiance has advantages, disadvantages, army composition restrictions, potentially broken lists, etc. Both open the floodgates to un-fun armies (as do many other battletomes). So why ban/sideline one and not the other? Literally the only difference is the format of the book they're presented in - that's a flimsy argument for a discriminatory practice. If the title of Firestorm was Battletome: Free Cities I doubt we'd be having this debate, because the flimsy pretext for discrimination would be removed. Those abilities would just be allowed without question.

 

I'm not arguing for special treatment, I'm just arguing for equal treatment. For consistency in what is permitted and what isn't.

[Jamopower]

If talking about grand alliance order, the best stuff seems to be (from top of my head):

Frostheart phoenixes combined with magic

Loremaster combined with tough monsters

Hurricanum

Skinks

Some shooting options.

 

I don't remember by heart each of the free city compostitions, but I would say that you hardly get any of the good combos to a free city army. With hurricanum you can get something out, but I believe it's only available for Hallowheart, where you would be better off by just allying it to a Stormcast army.

 

[CyderPirate]

8 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

 

 Literally the only difference is the format of the book they're presented in - that's a flimsy argument for a discriminatory practice. If the title of Firestorm was Battletome: Free Cities I doubt we'd be having this debate, because the flimsy pretext for discrimination would be removed. Those abilities would just be allowed without question.

I'm not arguing for special treatment, I'm just arguing for equal treatment. For consistency in what is permitted and what isn't.

 

Yeah, that's pretty much it. If it was Battletome: Free Cities, I doubt there would be an issue -  we'd just have to live with it (for better or worse).

Traditionally, 'supplemental' rules such as those included in the Realmgate Wars books etc have been included/excluded at a TO's discretion, whereas core armybook rules have been an assumed inclusion.  So, if you see Firestorm as 'supplemental' then there is consistency. I'm not saying its fair/unfair, but it is consistent. 

 

[Killax]

25 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

We're not talking about warscrolls, we're talking about allegiance abilities. Name one other allegiance ability besides free cities that has been banned or sidelined. You can't. There isn't one. It's discriminatory.

 

Are you crazy? You created this exact strawman argument when you argued that Order has access to Free Cities abilities. It doesn't. Free Cities armies have access to Free Cities abilities.  I used the destiny dice and Kunnin Rukk examples not because I believe them to be true and sensible, but to demonstrate the fallacy of your argument. You are literally arguing against yourself here. 

 

It's adding rules to the game. I can't play my Chaos Dreadhold in Matched play. Therefor I can't play Chaos Castle. I can't, that doesn't make it discriminatory. It makes it a piece that simply isn't included for Matched Play.  If you think this is an anti-Order policy, again don't even bother making a topic on TGA. Ask Tournament Organizers, ask the AoS Facebook community page, you can even mail the AoS FAQ part for this.

The choice of what a Tournament Organizer adds to the Tournament rulespack is the choice of that TO. Is it discriminatory if I want to meassure from bases instead of models? Is it discriminatory that costs changed from GH2016 to GH2017? 

All that is applied for the event is that what is wished for. You want an event where it's used? Don't waste your time on the forums, go and make that event yourself. It isn't that hard to do if you want it to be available.

[stato]

So so-far we have Firestorm banned in Australia, and Adepticon in the US, what about the LVO? 

We know its allowed in GW GT's. 

Any more confirmed?  a lot of rumours and 'ask your TO' still.