Jump to content

Are the four Grand Alliances still fit for purpose?


Recommended Posts

  • Subscriber

Recently I've been wondering if the original framework of four grand alliances still best represent the way armies/races break down in the mortal realms both in terms of gaming and lore. 

They were created during the initial AoS 1.0 period when things were in flux and I don't think even GW had settled on what they wanted AoS to become. Now as we enter AoS 3.0 where individual factions have much stronger identity and the realms are being fleshed out more, are they still a useful tool for grouping factions for a game?

How often do people play matched play with a grand alliance? Rather than a main faction (with associated allegiance abilities) and maybe some allies or mercenaries, which have their own rules anyway. 

Could they be updated to have their own unique updated allegiance abilities? Will we get more examples of units like Kragnos that don't fit within a specific army, but instead are part of the overall alliance?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tbh the whole concept has been bobbins for a while now and it seems like GW are quietly putting it to sleep this edition. Personally id rather just see a more natural set of ally choices for each army and perhaps subtly split order into two factions, one following Morathi (Possibly Malerion later), one following Sigmar in a bit of a cold war with each other.

Also, defining your "Grand Alliance" purely by race is poor too, Sylvaneth could have been an interesting "destruction" faction as a natural force even if they dont get on with greenskins, but Elves. Equally i think Idoneth could have easily been a Death faction, tithing souls to daddy Nagash for aid and protection after Teclis turned on them (Though that would be quite a different story!) you could even have an "order" Orc or Ogre or even Undead (Settera style!) faction potentially down the line, to mix things up a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I'd say good riddance. That whole 4 grand alliances thing felt pretty forced right from the start anyways. Some GAs are a natural fit (at times at least) but stuff like Destruction or Order feel off since day 1. Half of the Order factions don't feel like they'd be allied to each other and Destruction should be more capricious. 

Still hating the idea of Kragnos too, some random BS guy coming and uniting the one GA that should be defined by being destruction incarnate. So yeah, I like the thought of the armies becoming more of their own thing instead of being cogs in their respective machines. It fits with Chaos and Death (at least temporarily) but outside of that the old Warhammer Fantasy way was superior, where each race was on its own and had a couple of fitting "brothers in arms".

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it really matters, yes battletomes are assigned to a "order battletome" but you're only using your battletome outside of allies, so that "order battletome" might as well not be there, it can just be SCE + their allies, which it essentially already is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually really genuinely love the idea of grand alliances and think that conceptually they are fantastic. Ironically enough the only one that causes pause is the sheer disorder found within Order. However, in terms of gameplay function I will say that it very much appears that GW is moving away from the grand alliances and overall it is a good thing as armies grow and foster more of an identity in lore and on the tabletop, but I hope they don't abandon Grand Alliances entirely for a few specific reasons. 

It is still a useful tool for compiling similar armies for marketing purposes such as on their website and things like the Grand Alliance Warcry tomes. I like playing in group games such as 2v2, and it makes deciding who allies with who a little easier. For example my friends and I have been planing a post lockdown game with Slaves to Darkness/Disciples of Tzeentch vs Ossiarchs/Soulblight. I actually think that the concept of Grand Alliances could be expanded specifically for allied matches, for example sharing a grand alliance could give the ability to issue generic commands to 'friendly' armies. Finally, I think it would be a really good basis for the eventual Apocalypse equivalent in Age of Sigmar. If someone collects primarily death but does not have 4000 points of a single army they might field an army between their Soulblight, Nighthaunt and FEC. 

Edited by Neverchosen
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes and no.  Personally I still like the loose grouping of allegiances under what I'd call broad ideologies.  However now that the various allegiances have had more background and lore added, I don't think fielding a min-maxed grand alliance army should be a thing any more.

What I'd personally love to see is some of the cool things we read about in books becoming an actual thing - both for narrative and matched play.  We've had mixed allegiances appear in Firestorm and Malign Sorceries - let's see them have their own battletome and actually be fully fledged out.

Some factions should be able to "cross the threshold", Shyish Ogors fighting for Nagash, Orruk tribes fallen to Chaos, FEC who believe their holy knights of Sigmar etc.  It wouldn't require a huge change in rules, just a tweak here and there.

Lastly, we actually need a proper mercenary system, let's see the return of some units being able to be fielded as Dogs of War with a wide range of factions (though not all).  Let's see big monsters and war machines be added that can be fielded in multiple armies - why is a manticore only Chaos and Hypogryf only Order?

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RuneBrush said:

Lastly, we actually need a proper mercenary system, let's see the return of some units being able to be fielded as Dogs of War with a wide range of factions (though not all).  Let's see big monsters and war machines be added that can be fielded in multiple armies - why is a manticore only Chaos and Hypogryf only Order?

I would love to see that! 
Mercenary companies seems too awesome to just forget they even exist. Maybe every army could have 1-2 units like Bundo or Big Drokk. I don't even mind new units that are exclusive mercenaries like like old Regiments of Renown.

Maybe, in some time, we are going to have an option to build a full mercenary army...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thought is that its a very smart marketing move for new people. It takes what might be 20-30 full factions and breaks them into 4 really easy to understand chunks. Even if many might misinterpret Order as "good" at first, they are nice and easy blocks to help new people orientate themselves within the game. From there it then filters down into full armies/races and then subgroups/factions within them. So it creates a nice way to ease people into the setting and the lore without overwhelming them. 

 

I think for that reason they will remain and lore wise they do work at the top end (the gods and their nations as a whole). Yes once you dig into it there's an insane amount of intermingling that makes most of the GA very fluid. There's also loads of infighting within the GA structure and most factions have a reason or justification to war on most others even within the GAs. 

 

Mercenaries would be nice and its a shame GW has messed around with them (who remembers those dwarf mercenaries who lost their models about a month after the mercenary force was a released as a concept). I think in a way they are hard to balance into the game since it can easily lean into that whole min-max aspect of mixing stuff up. So far we've seen them do well with the Behemoths in having not just a single army, but also different warscrolls for allied versions. Which might be the best way to run a mercenary force in the game. Having two profiles for each model representing then when they fight as a single mercenary force and when they are allied options. It helps allow a merc force to be powerful on its own; but not broken when it gets models taken into other forces. 

 

The big nail on mercenaries right now is GW seems to be pushing AoS a touch more toward a skirmish style game with 3.0. Upping a lot of the points and cutting down on the viability and availability of larger unit blocks. I wonder if that coupled with the loss of banners and some other leader models in more recent kits; is a sign that GW is slowly shifting AoS toward that style of army building. Perhaps leaving the gate open for Old World to then surge in with blocks of infantry with musicians and banners and such. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always liked them. They are solid divisions into broad categories of philosophy, some people don't like them (which is fine) but then look for evidence as to why they are bad. Beastmen and Sylvaneth I see raised a lot as being better candidates for Destruction, but not by actual players of those armies who understand their lore.

There also remain gameplay mechanics that go by grand alliance, and it would be a shame to throw away that keyword in the name of... what's the benefit again?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

I have always liked them. They are solid divisions into broad categories of philosophy, some people don't like them (which is fine) but then look for evidence as to why they are bad. Beastmen and Sylvaneth I see raised a lot as being better candidates for Destruction, but not by actual players of those armies who understand their lore.

There also remain gameplay mechanics that go by grand alliance, and it would be a shame to throw away that keyword in the name of... what's the benefit again?

I don't think that this posts is focused in "moving" some factions from Order to Destruction. From what I understand, we are talking more about the whole concept of Grand Alliance. That means that you can have the same effect with a dedicated matrix as we had with Coalition of death, bringing more granularity to AoS organization system. All this just reinforce what you are talking about: more Lore-accurated:

Quote

Coalition.jpg.4f7acc634804a00963ccc6110a6e7c1f.jpg

That's just an example, don't take as 1:1.
My only complain about using this tables is that they are more dificult to understand than the whole 4 big blocks, but we lost basic GA so it's a diminishing return.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NinthMusketeer said:

I just don't see how that improves anything. The grand alliances would still exist in practice via units/effects that act off the keywords. Removing those keywords reduces granularity because it it removing categories. Nothing is stopping a table like the one you listed right now.

It's all about what you want to accomplish: a minimun tweak to remove GA or a whole redesign.

Imo, GA are not that important anymore, not even in lore and we find more fun moments when we see interactions between some factions from diferent GAs working together.

As an extreme example (without any balance in mind) to illustrate what I'm saying could be to update some abilities/ spells targeting "friendly, allied and/or mercenary"  units to enlarge armies with a bit more granularity with a new matrix (as the one before):
Ex.: Having 1 units of orruks working for (only) KOs with some abilities (or even new CAs)  targeting "mercenary units" or "friendly units" instead of Order (not sure if we still have that targeting, but whatever). 

Edited by Beliman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Up until GHB2021 it was fully matched play legal to run Fyreslayer/FEC mercenaries outside of their Grand Alliance. And GHB 2017(?) had the mercenary rules which did the same. Not only do Grand Alliances not prevent rules as your describe from existing, rules as you describe already exist and are still available for people to use in narrative play such as Path to Glory.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/13/2021 at 7:25 AM, Overread said:

The big nail on mercenaries right now is GW seems to be pushing AoS a touch more toward a skirmish style game with 3.0. Upping a lot of the points and cutting down on the viability and availability of larger unit blocks. I wonder if that coupled with the loss of banners and some other leader models in more recent kits; is a sign that GW is slowly shifting AoS toward that style of army building. Perhaps leaving the gate open for Old World to then surge in with blocks of infantry with musicians and banners and such. 

This is something I've seen a lot, and I just don't think its really true.  They increased points slightly on the 40k side too and its simply a natural consequence of a universally slightly smaller board.  But overall with the removal of paid batallions most armies have remained exactly the same size, if not slightly larger.  Additionally I have seen very minimal shift towards smaller units with the reinforcement rules.  The idea that this is shifting the game towards an MSU meta has not been born out at all so far, and I really don't think is going to happen.  I am always very concerned that GW is going to move away from massed battle games at some point, and I think a lot of the base is very sensitive to this.  But beyond some very superficial rule changes, the game hasn't been pushed that way at all thus far in 3rd.

Also based on how GW proper has historically interacted with Forgeworld, there is approximately a 0% chance they are doing anything to coordinate their products with an Old World release.  From past decisions if anything the GW proper teams are in direct competition with Forge World and often make decisions that are actively at odds with one another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, NinthMusketeer said:

Up until GHB2021 it was fully matched play legal to run Fyreslayer/FEC mercenaries outside of their Grand Alliance. And GHB 2017(?) had the mercenary rules which did the same. Not only do Grand Alliances not prevent rules as your describe from existing, rules as you describe already exist and are still available for people to use in narrative play such as Path to Glory.

I wasn't talking about reproducing the same mechanics with another rules (I don't think that's the point of this conversation). I'm talking that GA are not needed anymore (they don't even have Allegiance Abilities and their own interactions can be removed or reworked with Coalition Units).
A table with allies and mercenaries is just an example; Btw, the Orruks in that example are not the same as FEC/Fyreslayers because they can work for KOs but not for Idoneth (note: that's another example too) without 3 pages in every battletome saying that you can't put them in X Grand Alliance  (as Mega-Gargants sorta have).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But having GAs are useful for abilities that affect models from certain GAs differently. The keywords are used in dozens of different rules & abilities. Removing them just eliminates the potential for such abilities and gives literally nothing in return. And they would still exist anyways; people would reference them and the common clusters in alliance matrices as well as lore would be more than enough to see their continued use in conversation.

In a nutshell the stance I am seeing here is 'it would be good for AoS to have more options, so remove options' which has me rather confused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, NinthMusketeer said:

But having GAs are useful for abilities that affect models from certain GAs differently. The keywords are used in dozens of different rules & abilities. Removing them just eliminates the potential for such abilities and gives literally nothing in return. And they would still exist anyways; people would reference them and the common clusters in alliance matrices as well as lore would be more than enough to see their continued use in conversation.

In a nutshell the stance I am seeing here is 'it would be good for AoS to have more options, so remove options' which has me rather confused.

Maybe you are right. Imo, I still think that any other mechanic that doesn't have that big 4 keywords can be better for the whole game, and can bring more options without so much unique rules between campaigns, battletomes and GHB books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, tripchimeras said:

Also based on how GW proper has historically interacted with Forgeworld, there is approximately a 0% chance they are doing anything to coordinate their products with an Old World release.  From past decisions if anything the GW proper teams are in direct competition with Forge World and often make decisions that are actively at odds with one another.

The decision to move AoS & 40k away from FW was made about 4 or 5 years ago.  Nothing to do with competition, it was felt that the main design studios were better placed to write the rules & point for the main games.  It was confirmed in early 2020 that the AoS design team aren't involved in the development of The Old World, they're actually really looking forward to it's release, but know nothing more than us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Beliman said:

Maybe you are right. Imo, I still think that any other mechanic that doesn't have that big 4 keywords can be better for the whole game, and can bring more options without so much unique rules between campaigns, battletomes and GHB books.

I like to see a mix of mechanics that act both within and across grand alliances. I am hoping with the hobgrots we may see GW break the artificial barrier of units being unable to exist in more than one alliance at a time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, NinthMusketeer said:

I am hoping with the hobgrots we may see GW break the artificial barrier of units being unable to exist in more than one alliance at a time.

More Mixing throughout a GA, sounds great…😓

from my own experience as LoNagash player, the issue seems to be tricky.

Nagash was reasonably priced in LoN with 750-800, of course I liked 750 better but I digress. 
Arkhan was pretty cheap for his casting, but fragile

Morghast were expensive and not really used, except for LoNight Ambush and some special occasions, bravery bomb or fluff/fanboy lists…

then came OBR, Petrifex-Nagash a new abhorrent cheese, Arkhan another power house, Morghast not as good as other options, but suddenly not 20% overpriced anymore.

Big Daddy spiked to 880, Arkhan from 280 - 320 and Morghast stayed (iirc) 220… with NO ADDED POWER IN LON 

Well Arkhan or Nagash could now heal Morghast in LoN due to keyword mess up, but in reality a big hit for them in LoN

Why not two warscrolls and two point costs in the ghb? Cause GDubs don’t care whose tears are falling…

sooo good idea, but involves some serious risks for both teams

Edited by Honk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

But having GAs are useful for abilities that affect models from certain GAs differently. The keywords are used in dozens of different rules & abilities.

Not to say that you don't have a point here, put for me personally those are always my least favourite kind of mechanic. I think stuff like "Deal 1d3 mortals, but 1d6 agains CHAOS." or "Deal 1d3 mortals in a bubble, but DEATH units are immune." are just always feel-bads. I say this because these kinds of mechanics are so matchup dependent. Did your opponent bring the right keyword? Enjoy your overpushed ability. Did they happen to bring the wrong one? Your ability is now probably below average. It's just such a difficult line to tread. As a player, I really dislike going up against an opponent and feeling punshed because I just happened to bring an army from the wrong GA. I have felt the same ever since I first ran into a "Circle of Protection against Red" in Magic back in the day.

  • Like 4
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

Not to say that you don't have a point here, put for me personally those are always my least favourite kind of mechanic. I think stuff like "Deal 1d3 mortals, but 1d6 agains CHAOS." or "Deal 1d3 mortals in a bubble, but DEATH units are immune." are just always feel-bads. I say this because these kinds of mechanics are so matchup dependent. Did your opponent bring the right keyword? Enjoy your overpushed ability. Did they happen to bring the wrong one? Your ability is now probably below average. It's just such a difficult line to tread. As a player, I really dislike going up against an opponent and feeling punshed because I just happened to bring an army from the wrong GA. I have felt the same ever since I first ran into a "Circle of Protection against Red" in Magic back in the day.

On the one hand, I totally get this. However, as a narrative player I enjoy such rules as long as they aren't overtuned. Having a unit that re-rolls hits of 1 against Chaos, or a spell that does 3 instead of d3 to daemons isn't breaking a matchup. Having undead ignore the bravery penalties imposed by other undead makes sense (and affects both sides of that equations). Yes they are unfair on a certain level but part of the game is about dealing with the myriad of factors which favor one side or the other. Some units are great counters to others just by virtue of stats and without any sort of keyword-based advantage. Some scenarios favor certain types of army build over others. And so on; there are countless factors like that in the game.

The problem happens when an advantage is so strong or unavoidable that the opponent has no counter-play available. I can prioritize killing the unit or unbinding the spell that is good against my army, I can alter my deployment to keep certain units away from others that might hard counter them. But what if I show up as ogors against a coalesced army? That -1 damage ability puts me at an insurmountable disadvantage and there is nothing I can do. One might also note; that ability isn't based off keyword.

In short; problems arise not from the concept but the execution.

Link to comment
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...