Rethinking the Grand Alliances

[Kitty]

Can I see some opinions on why people think Grand Alliances work better than an ally grid/chart like we have seen in previous editions (WHFB and WH40K)?

I think this simple change would make it so much more simpler, and could still be easily perceived.

[Skreech Verminking]

17 minutes ago, Kitty said:

Can I see some opinions on why people think Grand Alliances work better than an ally grid/chart like we have seen in previous editions (WHFB and WH40K)?

I think this simple change would make it so much more simpler, and could still be easily perceived.

Well I usually play a verminus army.

and since their only battleline option, which also is the usual chaos battleline,

are clanrats (and Stormvermins  if you take a only verminus are)

it really just doesn’t make sense to play them as their own army, so I usually Mix

a bunch of other units from other skaven clans into my army. It makes also fluffwise more sense, then to play each clan individual. (With the exception of maybe clan pestilence)

also playing a mixed Skaven army

allows me to combine some very nasty combos, which would really be hard to do with just 400points of Allies.

as for other army’s, I myself am not really sure, a friend of mine plays Beastclaw raiders. Well he told me that the only reason he is playing his own crappy (I’m not sure if it is crappy, it just how he called it) allegiance is because it’s better than the of the grand destruction one.

the same probably goes for many army’s which have some kind of an allegiance. 

We will probably hardly ever see an mixed order army consisting mostly of daughters of khaine or just deepkins,  since their trait is just better than rerolling battleshock.

But hey the traits are crappy but at least they have changed some artifacts and commandtraits to a better side?

[Ravinsild]

44 minutes ago, Kitty said:

Can I see some opinions on why people think Grand Alliances work better than an ally grid/chart like we have seen in previous editions (WHFB and WH40K)?

I think this simple change would make it so much more simpler, and could still be easily perceived.

Because we also have an ally/grid chart so I don’t know what all the fuss is about. 

And it works perfectly fine. Aside from a super one time rare occasion in Fury of Gork do you really think Ironjawz should be allies of SCE or BCR or anything in destruction, death or chaos? No. So what does removing the Grand Allegiances really do? 

Here’s an example of the ally table. It’s been sorted out in a very ordered and structured manner and the GA’s bring flavor and a sense of faction identity and the grand scope of what’s going on and a general idea of what each faction represents. 

I’m just really not seeing the alleged “problem” here. 

[Kitty]

On 8/1/2018 at 12:39 AM, Ravinsild said:

Here’s an example of the ally table. It’s been sorted out in a very ordered and structured manner and the GA’s bring flavor and a sense of faction identity and the grand scope of what’s going on and a general idea of what each faction represents. 

See, I would much rather work of this kind of table than continue to use Grand Alliances. It makes more sense for the most part and helps break up the super groups... Whether that means bringing it back to the old days were chaos of different gods can't ally (you could have a special rule in which with Archaon or Be'lakor you could) that may be too far... I don't know.