Grand Alliance vs Faction Balance

[Rob P]

It's a bit abstract at the moment, but i'm thinking of starting Duardin/Dispossesed if the rumoured new models turn the dwarfs into the dispossesed (like Lizardmen to Seraphon) rather than create a third aesthetically different Duardin faction.

 

It got me thinking about how movement was a big hindrance for dwarfs and this led to a general push towards gunlines or miner builds in 8th.

 

In AOS the grand alliance structure allows you to sure up weaknesses when required with its pick and mix approach.

 

Again talking in the abstract, should mono faction abilities and warscrolls elevate mono factions so that they are always as good as a custom grand alliance army?

 

Or are inherent weaknesses in a mono faction (over a grand alliance army) part of the flavour?

 

To clarify, i'm not saying that each faction should have comparable units, but asking whether a factions strengths should be boosted in a mono army such that it provides as much of an incentive to stay as a pure faction as there is an incentive to plug weaknesses via grand alliance.

[Kramer]

One of the things I like in the game is that all armies have their inherent strengths and weaknesses. It's like playing chess but one player gets double the knights but no rooks and the other visa versa. 

I would love that going all faction meant you would get a certain benefit but you would have to deal with it's weaknesses. So for dwarfs that could be improved shooting, more warmachines or something like that, but then you are stuck with low movement. And I personally feel that is GW's intention.

But if that's the case they have their work cut out for them! So many variables to consider. So all in all, would love it if they went further down that road but this:

12 minutes ago, Rob P said:

Again talking in the abstract, should mono faction abilities and warscrolls elevate mono factions so that they are always as good as a custom grand alliance army?

Might be out of their reach  

[CentralKarma]

I also really like that the factions have glaring strengths and weakness.  Makes list building more fun because you need maximize those strengths, without exposing your armies weakness.  I like figuring out how to best use my armies strengths.

If you build your army out of a grand alliance, you can take a soluation to every potential problem.

Thats how it should be, IMO.  Grand alliance you can take anything (from the alliance) but lose out on synergy.  I really hope they DONT add cross faction synergy.

[Menkeroth]

In the "Getting started with the Age of Sigmar" they wrote that every army indeed has strong and weak points and that the alliance idea allows you to mitigate the latter and strengthen the former. Like with the Stormcasts, who have no wizards, so you can take a one or two from the Collegiate Arcane, for example. Which is fine.

On 13.03.2017 at 7:14 PM, CentralKarma said:

 I really hope they DONT add cross faction synergy.

Mostly not, you are right. Exceptions in most cases are something like "all units with Chaos keyword" or "Celestial keyword". Which is fine too.

[Rob P]

Doesn't the Sylvaneth battletome have a cross-faction battalion?

Separate question, should battalions be free to monofactions in match play?

[Menkeroth]

3 minutes ago, Rob P said:

Doesn't the Sylvaneth battletome have a cross-faction battalion?

Yes, with dwarves, and not only they - Beastclaws have one too, or the Kharadrons. This could be in any new tome I guess. 

[Furious]

It would cause a huge stink if battalions were made free right now. Not all the factions have usable battalions. It would complete undermine any sense of balance.

I'm still a little miffed that Sylvaneth get free scenery.