Including Non-Alleigance Units

[Galas]

I think the beneffit of Alliances should be flexibility, and the beneffit of sticking to factions a more specialiced force. The difficulty its in reaching the hard point in balanced where Flexibility vs Specialiced Force are a matter of personal taste and don't of what its just more powerful.

 

I'm a Great Alliance player, with my greenskins with Giants and gobbos and my Bloodbound with demons and Chaos Khorne guys, but yeah.

A Great Alliance army shoudln't never win a Faction alliance in his own game (Like a Faction specialized in shooting), but should compensate that lack of strenght in being a Jack of All Trades. 

[BaldoBeardo]

Yes let me rephrase: No one who cares about winning.
 
Honestly I wouldnt mind the restrictions as long as they where fluffy. But they just seem to have gone to far. They are killing the vareity. Once you could have goblins, night goblins, savage orcs and black orcs all in one army. Try that now and you get hammered. Themes are great but why are they so narrow in AoS? Im not saying every death model should go together but an entire army of just ghouls?

The restrictions are *entirely* fluffy. Greenskins aren't one great super-army in their own right in AoS. They are separate factions, broadly allied to the same cause.
Flesheater courts are also entirely fluffy, if stymied a little on current model range.
The fluff has changed.

Arguably they are laying the framework for greater variety in styles later.

Besides - what's the point of variety of people are going to pick identikit armies to win?

(Editor's note - BB had been punted in the kidneys for using "fluff" with wanton abandon).

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Urbanus]

16 minutes ago, roberto said:

Q: What do you call someone who consistently wins against "optimized" armies with a "sub-optimal" list?

A: Sir

GW isn't killing the variety.  As a matter of fact, one can mix-and-match like never before.  It's those players who are risk-adverse who choose conformity.

But why? Why must the choice be between variety and alliance benefits? Whats the point?

Its the same with the "x models in unit" benfits. Why is GW making a game where an army of 90 savage orc archers is good? 

Why is GW encoureging us to make armies of four different units of 30 models over and over until you reach 2000 points?

[Urbanus]

6 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

The restrictions are *entirely* fluffy. Greenskins aren't one great super-army in their own right in AoS. They are separate factions, broadly allied to the same cause.
Flesheater courts are also entirely fluffy, if stymied a little on current model range.
The fluff has changed.

Arguably they are laying the framework for greater variety in styles later.

Besides - what's the point of variety of people are going to pick identikit armies to win?

(Editor's note - BB had been punted in the kidneys for using "fluff" with wanton abandon).

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
 

You are right. The background has changed. But still, why are they making the factions so narrow? Is it good marketing? Thats an honest question, I have no idear!

[roberto]

6 minutes ago, Urbanus said:

But why? Why must the choice be between variety and alliance benefits? Whats the point?

 

I don't understand the question.  One can dare to be different, or one can follow the herd.  It's your choice, not GW's.

[AGPO]

 

7 minutes ago, Urbanus said:

But why? Why must the choice be between variety and alliance benefits? Whats the point?

Its the same with the "x models in unit" benfits. Why is GW making a game where an army of 90 savage orc archers is good? 

Why is GW encoureging us to make armies of four different units of 30 models over and over until you reach 2000 points?

Because as the philosopher Jagger once said, you can't always get what you want.

Try looking at it from the other direction - before allegiance benefits, what was the point of having an army chosen from a single race or faction? Yes some got some nice synergies, but those weren't enough to offset Sayl as an auto-include in any army. Likewise, before battleline and points were introduced, what was the point of taking any army's core units? Why would anyone take free guild guard when they could take greatswords? These rules make it viable to take a reasonably thematic army and still do well in matched play.

In open play, I'll quite happily play a Cult of Slaanesh army featuring Dark Aelves and allow my opponent to give them the Slaanesh and Chaos keywords in exchange for Order and Exiles. In matched play, you have to pay a price for variety.

 

[Urbanus]

7 minutes ago, roberto said:

I don't understand the question.  One can dare to be different, or one can follow the herd.  It's your choice, not GW's.

Let me refrase:

What interest does GW have in creating a "herd"?

[BaldoBeardo]

Urb, you're obviously a competitive player.

One of the foundations for that is some method of balance.

With zero composition restriction in place, every single new unit, ability etc. would have to be looked at in conjunction with every other.
Which would very quickly result in the usual must-have/drop units.
By narrowing down the choices, GW can give you more candy in terms of cool stuff because it's far, far easier to identify and control busted combinations from a smaller list.
That's why it makes sense (from a design perspective) the general view that GA abilities aren't as good as factional ones.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[roberto]

2 minutes ago, Urbanus said:

Let me refrase:

What interest does GW have in creating a "herd"?

They're not.  They don't control your choices.

[Urbanus]

7 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

Urb, you're obviously a competitive player.

One of the foundations for that is some method of balance.

With zero composition restriction in place, every single new unit, ability etc. would have to be looked at in conjunction with every other.
Which would very quickly result in the usual must-have/drop units.
By narrowing down the choices, GW can give you more candy in terms of cool stuff because it's far, far easier to identify and control busted combinations from a smaller list.
That's why it makes sense (from a design perspective) the general view that GA abilities aren't as good as factional ones.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
 

This is a great answer. You are right, balancing every single unit combination would be impossible. Im just a bit sad that in order to preserve balance (somewhat...) they had to make such small factions.

 

8 minutes ago, roberto said:

They're not.  They don't control your choices.

What would you choose:

A: 100 $ 

B: Nothing

Its a false choise, to me atleast. They are not controlling us but they are nudging us is a direction. That direction is 90 savage orc archers.

 

Anyway I just realised that Im derailing this topic! Im sorry for that. But thanks for all the interesting replies

(I hope this doesnt seem like me wanting the last word I truly just want OP to have the topic he set out to have)

[Spinsane]

13 minutes ago, Urbanus said:

What would you choose:

A: 100 $ 

B: Nothing

But isn't the current choice more like:

A: Invest everything with A and grt 100$

B: Invest in a diverse portfolio and better adapt to fluctuating economy

Sure, option B doesn't give you the freebie, but it lets you pick and chose and have more robust variety that can possibly better react to the unexpected, lesser chances of a Rock-Paper-Cisors effect...

?

[Galas]

Thats the point here.

Make the Faction traits too powerful and no one will chose the variation of the Great Alliances.

Allow broken combos in Great Alliances and no one will pick Mono-Factions.

[roberto]

2 minutes ago, Urbanus said:

What would you choose:

A: 100 $ 

B: Nothing

Its a false choise, to me atleast. They are not controlling us but they are nudging us is a direction. That direction is 90 savage orc archers.

 

Anyway I just realised that Im derailing this topic! Im sorry for that. But thanks for all the interesting replies

(I hope this doesnt seem like me wanting the last word I truly just want OP to have the topic he set out to have)

You are not derailing the topic.  THIS IS the topic.

IRT your false choice;

About 20 years ago, my son attended a MtG tournament.  He was the youngest attendee there.  His deck was composed of green monsters.  It was extremely simple.  He liked monsters.  This was the era of competitive deck-building, Black Lotus's and what not.  My son was not familiar with the prevailing "meta".  He wound up coming in second place, nearly winning, with a deck built from common cards, somewhat embarrassing to the seasoned, serious competition.

Sometime thereafter, the CCG crowd found Warhammer, and netlists became the driving force behind competitive play.  Essentially, deck-building and designing armies and making purchases based on lists.   Previously, we played games with what he had, what looked good, and learned to play competently by  improving deployment, match-ups and getting the most from what your troops. 

There is no right or wrong way in how you or anyone else, chooses to create or field an army.   I'm sure there are canny players who defy warscroll synergy by utilizing non-conventional choices that are congruous with their play style or visual theme.   Knowing how to use a tool is more important than choosing the best tool.

 

[Veterannoob]

Come on GHB2 and/or complete allegiance, traits, abilties, etc. document!!!!

I'm still quite interested in costs for solo& GA units. For Fyreslayers, say, vulkites 60/80 if taken in GA. Something like that.

[Circus of Paint]

My two suggestions;

- 0-1 / 0-2 / 0-3 option that allows units from a second Allegiance (outside of the main one you have selected. They gain no bonuses from the main allegiance you choose.)

- More Warscroll Battalions which allow to select non-Allegiance units as part of them (example; couple of the Sylvaneth ones allow a single ORDER unit IIRC.)

[Urbanus]

25 minutes ago, Circus of Paint said:

My two suggestions;

- 0-1 / 0-2 / 0-3 option that allows units from a second Allegiance (outside of the main one you have selected. They gain no bonuses from the main allegiance you choose.)

- More Warscroll Battalions which allow to select non-Allegiance units as part of them (example; couple of the Sylvaneth ones allow a single ORDER unit IIRC.)

I kinda like number one. With such a small number I dont think it would upset the balance too much.

I was going to suggest something like the allies from 6th ed 40K but honestly that started a huge snowball effect that I wouldnt want to see in AoS

[Kaleb Daark]

I'm with @Lucio on the monster front, but perhaps I'd like to see a mechanic akin to the storm of magic / monstrous arcanum for monsters.

Firstly they're very cool models and thematically some fit very well with some factions, Arcanum had a great table with what factions would realistically be able to bind and use various monsters.

This would mean that potentially we could all have monsters without breaking allegiance within reason, so for instance no death armies with flamespire phoenix's and no stormcast armies with a mourngul - but my chaos dwarfs have got pet magma dragons and incarnate elemental of fire written all over them!

maybe its different for me because I came to wargaming from a roleplaying background so for me backstory, feel and theme are everything - I'm the guy that would never play a mixed chaos army back in 8th, preferring mono khorne as my weapon of choice, sure I got kicked in the nuts many times but the army sat well with me.  I still now look at an army for the cinematic appeal even if it's sub par, than for the face kicking competitiveness of it all.  But that's just me.

I went to throne with a list written for me once, and yes it was good, yes it did it's job... but it wasn't me. @roberto makes a good point above, and I have to agree to most or all of what he's saying - but I can relate to it. I 'got' aos without points because of where I'd come from as I say, I decided always to let my likes do the deciding rather than what was going to theoretically guarantee victory for me.

But I'm digressing.

@Galas pointed out that the grand alliance is a broad stroke, and I look at it as they price one pays for being able to cherry pick units that can plug deficiencies in a faction army is that you don't have the tight synergy that a dedicated faction brings to the table, which in turn it pays for with great big holes elsewhere.

Nobody is saying you can't do it, but be aware of the trade off if you did do it.

I cast my mind back to the great chaos host in the tamurkhan book, where you could draw from all the chaos factions, however the price paid was  inter faction animosity - after all, especially near a khorne host, your 'ally' knows it was as likely turn on them as it would on an enemy, and I suppose that this coould be the supposition of the grand alliance, you dilute the thing that makes your alliegence by bringing in outsiders.  Yes you're driving towards a single goal as part of a grand host, but that's not to say that everyone in that alliance is happy about it, or plays nicely over it.

 

As Sayl said to tamurkhan (in reply to tamurkhans anger at losing the beastman army)  when he drove the beastman army to their doom (because chaos cannon fodder)

"what you care about those beasts? - I didn't cost you any of your army.."

[KHHaunts]

20 hours ago, Galas said:

Thats the point here.

Make the Faction traits too powerful and no one will chose the variation of the Great Alliances.

Allow broken combos in Great Alliances and no one will pick Mono-Factions.

I think thats proberbly the main point to me as well.

I get there is a benefit to be had from mixing and matching factions to create custom needs. But the benefits ive seen come nowhere near to those you get from: Alliance abilties, Battleions AND synergy.

I dont see why you would funnel people down pre described routes. Even from a sales point of view. If anything has a potential to work with any thing else surely people will buy more models to make different game winning combos.

Obviously you can still do this and no one is stopping you but the point is that people dont want to because the benefits of "GW approved" armies far out way creative ones.

And for those that say "well dont play competitive then". You forget there is more than one type of "competitive" player.

At one end you have those that see this as a sport/game to be won. They dont paint there models and they dont care about imersion or narrative. To them their models could be little blank counters for all they care as long as they have the best rule combinations.

At the other end of the scale you have those that want to play competitive because they enjoy the friendly competition but want balance and want to be able to meet other random people and immediatley have balance but ultimatley feel pride when they put their unique personally styled and painted army and love it when a combo that they thought of works out.

And everyone in between.

finally "GW cant please everyone": True but i have seen many examples from various threads that would work without making the game more complex. Also the issue is that themed armies get benefits but that the benefits have become way to significant.

This is an expensive game to get into and in the price tag comes the right to poke GW until they do get it as close to perfect as possible.

[Circus of Paint]

Another suggestion would be to add some of the more "open" Allegiance keywords to some of the more miscellaneous mini-factions;

Example; Chaos Gargants should at very least also have the SLAVES TO DARKNESS, BRAYHERD and WARHERD keywords. Those three factions are the ones a Chaos Gargant is most likely going to join in battle with anyway (going by what armies they used to be in pre-AoS)!