Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
amysrevenge

Crazy question: Do we still need Grand Alliances?

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, amysrevenge said:

Will we still need Grand Alliances, even at a conceptual level?  

Absolutely, we will still need them. I just love Free Cities and mixed faction armies like this one (by Chris Peach).

As a matter of fact, what I'd love GW to do is to update the Grand Alliances books with new lore, new mixed faction batallions and Free Cities (or their Chaos/Death/destruction equivalents) rules. No need to copy/paste all the unit warscrolls though.

An example for an updated Chaos Grand Alliance book, I'd love to read stories and rules about a dark anarchic city inhabited by weird and varied scums who worship the powers of the ruin. Like human mutants, daemon-possessed madmen, corrupted ogors, runt beastmen rejected by their herd, drug-addicted skavens, etc. And apart from the basic lowlife inhabitants, this forsaken city would have its own militia which would work, in game terms, as a mixed faction chaos army with its own allegiance abilities.

Similar stuff can be done with the other GAs. Like Undead Dynasties for Death. Or Waaagh! for Destruction.

And something else that would be really awesome: GW could publish exclusive warscrolls in the White Dwarf for city related heroes. Like the top aelf corsair of Anvilguard for example, or the chief of the sylvaneths of the Living City. With hobby tutorials about how to create and convert those heroes.

  • Like 6
  • LOVE IT! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one that actually kind of hopes there would be 2.0-2.5 versions of GA books? Would be a nice way to flesh out many neglected units and add in mixed faction battalions without having to worry about "well we need to make an entire new allegiance abilities/items".

 

Kind of like a more unit orientated Firestorm book.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kenshin620 said:

Am I the only one that actually kind of hopes there would be 2.0-2.5 versions of GA books? Would be a nice way to flesh out many neglected units and add in mixed faction battalions without having to worry about "well we need to make an entire new allegiance abilities/items".

 

Kind of like a more unit orientated Firestorm book.

 

I would love this. If not making a Free Cities BT or similar, at least make a book compiling the 4 GA giving them a few bits to play with. I don't think it will be probable, as the general direction of the game goes elsewhere, but GA armies certainly don't get attention required consider how large their scope is.

Updating terrible warscrolls, adding a few items & abilities as well as specific batallions could be a smart move to have an "official" update to a lot of the smaller factions without the need of endless scraps in yearly GHB or full blown BT for each. Making this with thematic stuff à la Firestorm and all 4 GA are good to go in a single book. Nice and easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess where I'm going is that it is a huuuge stretch between what is happening in the lore and the 4 arbitrary GAs, the GAs are often misleading or unintuitive for new players, and there are ways other than GA Order/Chaos/Death/Destruction to allow for mixed armies.

Lore-wise, the only broad allegiances that truly make sense today are Chaos, Nagash, and Sigmar, with a lot of other smaller sub allegiances you could lump together as Other but it wouldn't make sense to group them.  These sort of line up with the current GAs, but they don't line up exactly.  And the Other category would include more that just what is in GA Destruction.  I would debate about putting one or both of the new Aelf factions in Other, and FEC.  You'd have to update the lore but you could even put Skaven in there once Slaanesh comes back and boots the Horned Rat out of the Chaos pantheon.

 

The distinction in motivations between Beasts of Chaos and Bonesplitters is so minutely subtle that a new player will not be able to spot it.  Us oldtimers can see, sort of, the distinction between "burn it all to the ground so that nothing is standing" and "burn it all to the ground because burn it all to the ground that's why" but it's so slight...  And yet this is a cornerstone of the difference between Chaos and Destruction.

Here is a conversation I have overheard exactly three times in the last 8 months or so, with brand new players:  "How the hell are these evil murder Elves good guys?"  "Ummm actually 'Order' doesn't mean 'good guys' it means blah blah cities blah blah handwaving.  Silly new person."  In places where it is obvious, we don't need the GAs to tell new people what's going on ("normal" Dwarves and Men and Elves are good guys, duh).  In places where it isn't obvious, the GAs don't always help (the murder Elves and the soul stealing Elves like to build cities and follow their own internal rules - they murder and steal souls for reasons - you know, good guys) .

 

For mixed allegiance armies, I would prefer a tiered ally system over a GA system.  Like, your closest allies are tier 1, and you can use their battleline. Medium allies are tier 2, and you can have as many as you like but their battleline don't count.  Your farthest allies are tier 3, and you can have just 1 or 2 units of those.  Depending on how broad you define Tier 3 allies, you can even start to do things from the lore like have Mannfred helping out your Stormcasts...

What you could do even further with this sort of tiered ally system is start to make new factions out of cobbled together existing keywords.  Make a tiered ally list for Hammerhal, or the other Free Cities. 

Super fast example #1... Tier 1: Dispossessed, Swifthawk Agents, Free Peoples, Ironweld Arsenal, Collegiate Arcane.  Tier 2: Stormcast, Sylvaneth. Tier 3: Daughters of Khaine, Gutbusters (woo old school Ogre mercenaries), Tomb Kings (I'm dreaming here of non-Nagash undead).  Whip out some command traits and artefacts, and you've got yourself an entire new army in like 4 pages of a campaign supplement.

Super fast example #2... Tier 1: Legions of Azorgh, Ironjaws. Tier 2: Beast of Chaos, Gitmob. Tier 3: Free Peoples (ie. slaves forced to fight).  You got yourself some traditional Chaos Dwarves right there.

You could have mixed lists, even better ones, themed in the lore, not universally and forever handcuffed by GA.  In my mind removing the GAs expands the options, it doesn't limit the options.  Every argument for keeping the GAs in the name of allowing for the freedom of mixed GA armies sounds to me like an argument to abolish the GAs and allow for mixed all-faction armies in the name of allowing for freedom - all the mixed Order you like is no more or less appropriate than all the mixed Order/Destruction/etc. you like.

  • Like 2
  • LOVE IT! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

The distinction in motivations between Beasts of Chaos and Bonesplitters is so minutely subtle that a new player will not be able to spot it.  Us oldtimers can see, sort of, the distinction between "burn it all to the ground so that nothing is standing" and "burn it all to the ground because burn it all to the ground that's why" but it's so slight...  And yet this is a cornerstone of the difference between Chaos and Destruction.

 

I know it's a small distinction, but I disagree that it's irrelevant. Not to get political, but that's sort of like the old horshoe theory chestnut: equating the violent extremes of the left and right violent dissidence eg. Lenin's October revolution and Mussolini's march on Rome, they're both e same, right? Sorry for the slightly inappropriate comparison with a plastic toy game, but it stands: the ideological groupings of the alliances supercede the more superficial similarities in method and approach to war.  

 

29 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

 Here is a conversation I have overheard exactly three times in the last 8 months or so, with brand new players:  "How the hell are these evil murder Elves good guys?"  "Ummm actually 'Order' doesn't mean 'good guys' it means blah blah cities blah blah handwaving.  Silly new person."  In places where it is obvious, we don't need the GAs to tell new people what's going on ("normal" Dwarves and Men and Elves are good guys, duh).  In places where it isn't obvious, the GAs don't always help (the murder Elves and the soul stealing Elves like to build cities and follow their own internal rules - they murder and steal souls for reasons - you know, good guys) .

 

I can see how someone gets confused but I think it's reasonable for someone getting into AoS to at least be exposed to D&D alignment. D&D alignment is completely caricatured ethics so most kids find it easy to grasp, so you can say "Order is fighting an existential threat in Chaos, so even though it tends toward lawful good and neutral good, it'll ally with more lawful neutral (IDK) and sometimes even lawful evil (DoK) to fight them. I don't put much stock in D&D alignment, but that's how I'd explain it.

As for your tiered ally system, I don't disagree it would provide more nuance. It could easily end up a bit clunky, though, and I think the idea behind GAs is for someone to read, say, Wardens of the Everqueen and think "I want to play that" and just do it, not have to wade through means-tested rules. I do take your point about the real lore alliances between Death and Order that the current rules disallow.

I'd personally like to see the GAs remain, but a fifth pseudo-GA is added representing mercenaries and wild-cards (sort of like the Warmahordes system, except most of the models are from other Grand Alliances), so that a Fyreslayer army can hire Ogres or Tzeentch can ally in some Free Peoples who have been tempted by Chaos. I think that's where a taxonomy of what association can or can't be made between factions comes in, but it's an opt-in complication rather than something weighing down the entirety of the ally system. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Klamm said:

I'd personally like to see the GAs remain, but a fifth pseudo-GA is added representing mercenaries and wild-cards (sort of like the Warmahordes system, except most of the models are from other Grand Alliances), so that a Fyreslayer army can hire Ogres or Tzeentch can ally in some Free Peoples who have been tempted by Chaos. I think that's where a taxonomy of what association can or can't be made between factions comes in, but it's an opt-in complication rather than something weighing down the entirety of the ally system. 

You're not wrong.  I'm not standing here saying "I demand the GAs be torn down".  I just think they are less and less relevant as we progress through the story and the development of the game rules, and they could either be supplemented or replaced by something better - better for the lore, better for helping new players get their feet on the ground, and better for making awesome mixed armies.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, amysrevenge said:

I guess where I'm going is that it is a huuuge stretch between what is happening in the lore and the 4 arbitrary GAs, the GAs are often misleading or unintuitive for new players, and there are ways other than GA Order/Chaos/Death/Destruction to allow for mixed armies.

Lore-wise, the only broad allegiances that truly make sense today are Chaos, Nagash, and Sigmar, with a lot of other smaller sub allegiances you could lump together as Other but it wouldn't make sense to group them.  These sort of line up with the current GAs, but they don't line up exactly.  And the Other category would include more that just what is in GA Destruction.  I would debate about putting one or both of the new Aelf factions in Other, and FEC.  You'd have to update the lore but you could even put Skaven in there once Slaanesh comes back and boots the Horned Rat out of the Chaos pantheon.

 

The distinction in motivations between Beasts of Chaos and Bonesplitters is so minutely subtle that a new player will not be able to spot it.  Us oldtimers can see, sort of, the distinction between "burn it all to the ground so that nothing is standing" and "burn it all to the ground because burn it all to the ground that's why" but it's so slight...  And yet this is a cornerstone of the difference between Chaos and Destruction.

Here is a conversation I have overheard exactly three times in the last 8 months or so, with brand new players:  "How the hell are these evil murder Elves good guys?"  "Ummm actually 'Order' doesn't mean 'good guys' it means blah blah cities blah blah handwaving.  Silly new person."  In places where it is obvious, we don't need the GAs to tell new people what's going on ("normal" Dwarves and Men and Elves are good guys, duh).  In places where it isn't obvious, the GAs don't always help (the murder Elves and the soul stealing Elves like to build cities and follow their own internal rules - they murder and steal souls for reasons - you know, good guys) .

 

For mixed allegiance armies, I would prefer a tiered ally system over a GA system.  Like, your closest allies are tier 1, and you can use their battleline. Medium allies are tier 2, and you can have as many as you like but their battleline don't count.  Your farthest allies are tier 3, and you can have just 1 or 2 units of those.  Depending on how broad you define Tier 3 allies, you can even start to do things from the lore like have Mannfred helping out your Stormcasts...

What you could do even further with this sort of tiered ally system is start to make new factions out of cobbled together existing keywords.  Make a tiered ally list for Hammerhal, or the other Free Cities. 

Super fast example #1... Tier 1: Dispossessed, Swifthawk Agents, Free Peoples, Ironweld Arsenal, Collegiate Arcane.  Tier 2: Stormcast, Sylvaneth. Tier 3: Daughters of Khaine, Gutbusters (woo old school Ogre mercenaries), Tomb Kings (I'm dreaming here of non-Nagash undead).  Whip out some command traits and artefacts, and you've got yourself an entire new army in like 4 pages of a campaign supplement.

Super fast example #2... Tier 1: Legions of Azorgh, Ironjaws. Tier 2: Beast of Chaos, Gitmob. Tier 3: Free Peoples (ie. slaves forced to fight).  You got yourself some traditional Chaos Dwarves right there.

You could have mixed lists, even better ones, themed in the lore, not universally and forever handcuffed by GA.  In my mind removing the GAs expands the options, it doesn't limit the options.  Every argument for keeping the GAs in the name of allowing for the freedom of mixed GA armies sounds to me like an argument to abolish the GAs and allow for mixed all-faction armies in the name of allowing for freedom - all the mixed Order you like is no more or less appropriate than all the mixed Order/Destruction/etc. you like.

No, each grand alliance has an established identity,  This is not going to change anytime soon.   Destruction is Gorkamorka's alliance.   Order builds civilzation and opposes Chaos( Death and Destruction), Chaos serve the dark gods and death is Nagash.

You also don't seem to know much about the lore if you think  Legions of Azorgh with Ironjaws would be Tier 1.  You seem to be stuck in the old world. 

AoSRealms-May12-FactionInfograph7wv.jpg.36d22de2ae90a09168b31f6a7a380528.jpg.b88a10216ecc13e20744c0821b30d2b8.jpg

Edited by xking
  • Like 3
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, xking said:

 You also don't seem to know much about the lore if you think  Legions of Azorgh with Ironjaws would be Tier 1. 

*could be

The lore restriction preventing mixing between GAs is "You don't mix between GAs, except when you do, which turns out to be more often than you might think.".  The game restriction is "You don't mix between GAs."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Brad Gamma said:

The grand alliances were one of the biggest things that drew me to Age of Sigmar. They provide a framework for making some brilliantly createive mixed armies, without going as far as saying that anything can team up with anything (which we have open play for).

My current dwarf army is 50% dispossesed, 50% ironweld arsenal 50% kharadron overlords. Its not particularly good, but I'm glad it exists.

This seems to be missing the point of grand alliances entirely. It is most certainly an army composition role. Deepkin are unavailable as allies to Fyreslayers if they want to maintain the full benefits of being a Fyreslayers army. Deepkin ARE available as part of a larger GA order force that also includes Fyreslayers. So you can compose your army differently and still be matched play viable, while sacrificing some army-specific rules and gaining GA specific rules. It's perhaps the most interesting compositional choice that's ever existed in a warhammer game.

I would be very sad if they removed it.

Yes i hope they dont remove also.

 

My usual list is something as 20% order draconis,20% stormcast,10% ironweld arsenal,20% fyreslayers and 30% dispossesed.

Sure if they mix every dwarf(that i dont think they gonna do it)in one battletome i gonna can play them, but my dragonlord wont play anymore as it is my unique elf unit that i owm

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, amysrevenge said:

*could be

The lore restriction preventing mixing between GAs is "You don't mix between GAs, except when you do, which turns out to be more often than you might think.".  The game restriction is "You don't mix between GAs."

 Grand alliances don't  mix in the lore, an Ogre in a free guild army is not a Gutbuster and not Destruction alliance. They are free guild and Order alliance.   Grand alliances are more then an army periodically fighting alongside an another army. They also represent beliefs, end goals, `etc .   

Chaos want enslave the mortal realms to the will of the dark gods or Break them down into primordial chaos,   Gorkamorka/Destruction wants a endless waaagh and a world were survival of the fittest is the only rule or "mushroom hell",   Death/Nagash wants eliminate all life and create a universe were there is only the will of Nagash.    And Order opposes the other Grand alliances and build civilization.  Even Volturnos the High King of the Deep seeks to build relationships with surface dwellers, As the Idoneth Deepkin can not stand alone against Nagash and slaanesh.

Now people in a Grand alliances may periodically interact nonviolently with each other, But that  is not "mixing"

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, amysrevenge said:

with a lot of other smaller sub allegiances you could lump together as Other

Grand Alliance Miscellaneous?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading the posts above I think some might be missing the point of the original poster. I think there are definitely good reasons against having Grand Alliances. It must make the game much harder to balance and therefore easier to abuse for one. Good question - I don't think it is a crazy one.

Edited by Greyshadow
  • LOVE IT! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, amysrevenge said:

Here is a conversation I have overheard exactly three times in the last 8 months or so, with brand new players:  "How the hell are these evil murder Elves good guys?"  "Ummm actually 'Order' doesn't mean 'good guys' it means blah blah cities blah blah handwaving.  Silly new person."

That's not an issue with the game or with GW. That's an issue with ignorance.

Forget the game. Anyone who thinks order= good doesn't know English, our world, or history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Order is actually much like a real world alliance than is typical to see in many fantasies. It's actually a very modern and mature take on fantasy alliances because you've got forces in there who really don't like each other or who have vastly different ideals and world views. You've even got some who hunt other order members (Idoneth). So you've got a lot of contention and not a perfect "we are good lets go do good stuff". It's more a "Here we are those who will build civilizations standing against the tides of death, chaos and destruction who would see all we build crumble into dust."

It's like how in WW2 the Allies had the Soviets on their side against the ******. The Soviets had a vastly different world view, were not the nice happy allies and near the end of the war Allies were making alliances with German units and groups in a bid to resist a massive potential Soviet invasion push.

 

Honestly if GW matures this setting as they are doing it could really become quite a powerful icon of lore and fantasy writing for a new age. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Overread said:

Order is actually much like a real world alliance than is typical to see in many fantasies. It's actually a very modern and mature take on fantasy alliances because you've got forces in there who really don't like each other or who have vastly different ideals and world views. You've even got some who hunt other order members (Idoneth). So you've got a lot of contention and not a perfect "we are good lets go do good stuff". It's more a "Here we are those who will build civilizations standing against the tides of death, chaos and destruction who would see all we build crumble into dust."

It's like how in WW2 the Allies had the Soviets on their side against the ******. The Soviets had a vastly different world view, were not the nice happy allies and near the end of the war Allies were making alliances with German units and groups in a bid to resist a massive potential Soviet invasion push.

 

Honestly if GW matures this setting as they are doing it could really become quite a powerful icon of lore and fantasy writing for a new age. 

Yea, I much prefer the nuanced approach to faction building the grand alliances promote. I really hate the standard race based alliances you see in other games as it often mixes two entirely different world views and pits them against factions they actually have more in common with that each other.

I mentioned it earlier for example but what exactly do DoK and IDK have in common in regards to world views for example? DoK kill indiscriminately to gain more power, IDK kill when needed to sustain themselves and hide the rest of the time. DoK worship a god of blood they believe still lives, IDK venerate a god of the sea they know is dead. DoK focuses on emotion and feeling in battle, IDK do everything they can to avoid any sensation.

All they really have in common is that that are aelves and that they can see be seen as evil from the point of view of other factions (but even then, one chose evil and the other was forced into it). If not for this I'd honestly see them being the perfect rivals, with IDK most likely desiring fellow aelf souls over other mortals.

In contrast I can see the Stormcast getting on better with the IDK for example. As explored in Malign Portents briefly, Stormcast can't provide souls for IDK, meaning IDK has little reason to fight them. The Stormcast on the other hand, would see a potential ally in the IDK as they are a race that hates chaos above all else and would thus be more than willing to assist the Stormcast in that role. The actual soul sealing the IDK cover with their memory magics, or even in the case that Stormcast knows about the memory magic, they could potentially see it as a way to lessen the corruption of chaos (no need to slaughter a village exposed to chaos if you can just make them forget chaos exists).

In the same manner, I can't actually really see Overlords and Dispossessed getting on well. If Dispossessed are truly strict with venerating the elders, I could see them viewing Overlords as heretical, as they have mostly abandoned their elders. In contrast, they might get on better with say the Phoenix Temple, who venerate ancient creatures. Whilst not quite ancestor worship, they both clearly place a value on the past, and are both stubborn and unbending as the times change (to a degree).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DoK get on well with Stormcast mostly because DoK not only share a deep seated hatred of Chaos that boarders on fanatical, but that they are also very capable warriors. Also whilst they do a lot of killing its important to note that Khaines teachings do contain rules and restrictions on killing (although I believe Morathi has under-played these a little). So they are not quite the same as Khorne who is into killing anything that moves. DoK are rather caught up in the concept of survival of the fittest in its most basic and crude form - strong survive weak die/serve. 

So whilst Khorne might sweep in and slaughter whole villages for no reason, DoK would rather fight warriors. Of course in combat they get a bit hazy on who is and isn't a foe - there's a great short in the codex of a warrior noting his respect in battle only before a Witch Aelf turns and kills him. The Witch is both lost in bloodlust but also seeing that the enemy were not skilled nor strong enough so she turned on the next nearest target . 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Grand Alliances are cool! Let's me run any combination of forces I like (within the Grand Alliance).  Sure I don't get to use all the spiffy abilities and such but I can buy and play with any odd models I like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they are great from a lore and from a gameplay perspective. I would like to see GA's on the same level as straight factions to encourage more diversity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only issue with the Grand Alliance is despite being conceptual ideas (pro-Sigmar, Pro-Chaos, Pro-Nagash and Waaaggh), they are very much split on racial lines. I'd have liked to have seen Destruction aelves, Death Duardin, Chaos Orruks etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Lucio said:

My only issue with the Grand Alliance is despite being conceptual ideas (pro-Sigmar, Pro-Chaos, Pro-Nagash and Waaaggh), they are very much split on racial lines. I'd have liked to have seen Destruction aelves, Death Duardin, Chaos Orruks etc.

I think given time we might see those, however I think that GW didn't want to go too far down that pathway otherwise it dilutes the individuality of factions if you feel that there's Chaos Dwarves and Order Dwarves and Death Dwarves etc.... 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my problem, and it's frustrating that nobody can see it.

 

This part of the post is arguing against my notion.  "GAs are nuanced and great."

5 hours ago, Yoshiya said:

Yea, I much prefer the nuanced approach to faction building the grand alliances promote. I really hate the standard race based alliances you see in other games as it often mixes two entirely different world views and pits them against factions they actually have more in common with that each other.

 

And this part of the post goes on to contradict that first part, and basically restate my argument for me.  "Here's why these two factions, perfectly valid in a current GA, shouldn't be allies."

5 hours ago, Yoshiya said:

I mentioned it earlier for example but what exactly do DoK and IDK have in common in regards to world views for example? DoK kill indiscriminately to gain more power, IDK kill when needed to sustain themselves and hide the rest of the time. DoK worship a god of blood they believe still lives, IDK venerate a god of the sea they know is dead. DoK focuses on emotion and feeling in battle, IDK do everything they can to avoid any sensation.

All they really have in common is that that are aelves and that they can see be seen as evil from the point of view of other factions (but even then, one chose evil and the other was forced into it). If not for this I'd honestly see them being the perfect rivals, with IDK most likely desiring fellow aelf souls over other mortals.

In contrast I can see the Stormcast getting on better with the IDK for example. As explored in Malign Portents briefly, Stormcast can't provide souls for IDK, meaning IDK has little reason to fight them. The Stormcast on the other hand, would see a potential ally in the IDK as they are a race that hates chaos above all else and would thus be more than willing to assist the Stormcast in that role. The actual soul sealing the IDK cover with their memory magics, or even in the case that Stormcast knows about the memory magic, they could potentially see it as a way to lessen the corruption of chaos (no need to slaughter a village exposed to chaos if you can just make them forget chaos exists).

In the same manner, I can't actually really see Overlords and Dispossessed getting on well. If Dispossessed are truly strict with venerating the elders, I could see them viewing Overlords as heretical, as they have mostly abandoned their elders. In contrast, they might get on better with say the Phoenix Temple, who venerate ancient creatures. Whilst not quite ancestor worship, they both clearly place a value on the past, and are both stubborn and unbending as the times change (to a degree).

 

What I'm saying is we could be better served by a broad but appropriate ally system.  It doesn't have to be a simple race-based system - make it appropriate!  It might occasionally cross over the currently 100% un-crossable GA boundaries, and it while it would normally be a smaller faction-pool than the current GA system, there could still be the potential for pretty wide "kitchen sink" style armies.  There would be a small portion of the player base who might feel constrained by this ("I demand to follow these specific arbitrary categories as the are, not the proposed ones"), but many current GA armies would still be just fine.

Like I said in my initial post - I don't think it will actually happen.  We'll continue to be handcuffed by the GAs (I consider them to be more limiting than the alternative - as long as it is 100% impossible to have Men and Ogors on the same side, or Stormcast and Skeletons, I'm low-key unhappy) even after the game has moved beyond where they are required.

Edited by amysrevenge
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing is I think that, from a balance point of view, you'd have Grand Alliances with our without what you propose. With the exception of Stormcast most alliance blocks already have limits. Eg in Order whilst you can build a Grand Alliance army; basically most the armies are in niches within it, Dark Aelves are only allying with each other and nothing else. The only one that voids this is Stormcast. 

So we kind of already have what you're saying just that its then stepped up a notch to unique blocks of ally groupings under a single banner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine this:

Black Library puts out a book where a KO admiral and an Ogor Tyrant are forced by circumstance to jointly beat back an incursion of Tzeentch daemons.  On release week, GW releases (sells?) a 4-page PDF of a faction including both KO and Gutbusters, with command traits and artefacts (either unique, or pulled from the constituent factions, or both) and maybe a warscroll battalion or two.  Aethergold-enhanced Leadbelchers!  It could even come with a bespoke Pitched Battle Profile table, with customized points values, and different options for Battleline than the tables in the GHB.

Imagine this:

GW releases a Malign Portents style blockbuster campaign.  It includes 8 or more new allegiances, mixing up existing factions in a way that supports the actual story being told, and allowing for that story to be more nuanced that ever before, in a way that doesn't require all Order to oppose all Death to oppose all Destruction to oppose all Chaos at all times forever.

Edited by amysrevenge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...