Implications of the 8th Edition of Warhammer 40,000

[Killax]

What I see when I look at 40K is 40K blended with Warhammer Fantasy, or at least the better aspects of Warhammer Fantasy. Being that AP is not a green or red light but like WFB simply affects armour. Age of Sigmar set a really good job on how to make rules easier in this first edition. What I hope is that some depth of rules can be added again in the future when the community is ready for it.

One thing I like of the new 40K edition is how clear and smooth the core rules feel, very much like AoS.
- Core rules with phases is excellent
- Data slates with all the unit info on there works well to play quickly
- The only downside I find now is that we see that a lot of units can still customize and do not have that cost added onto their Data slate, for me this is slightly obnoxious
- Another thing I worry about allready is how well the same cost of weapons will translate to the game. A model with 6 wounds with gun B is obviously more survivable as a model with 1 wound holding gun B, so should gun B really cost the same for both models?
Well see how 40K pans out. I like the way the books are designed, it's clear and easy to use. I do think the types of play might contain a bit too much content but players can pick and choose as they like offcourse.

I'll certainly pick up the Chaos book though I have to admit it seems like Chaos is getting the "AoS Death treatment". With this I mean that by comparison there is very little content actually. Which in turn can only reflect to me into GW not having any big 40K Chaos plans. Luckily we do get the love in AoS  

[rokapoke]

36 minutes ago, Killax said:

- The only downside I find now is that we see that a lot of units can still customize and do not have that cost added onto their Data slate, for me this is slightly obnoxious
- Another thing I worry about allready is how well the same cost of weapons will translate to the game. A model with 6 wounds with gun B is obviously more survivable as a model with 1 wound holding gun B, so should gun B really cost the same for both models?

(1) My understanding is that the power levels indicated on the data slates are not for true "matched play" but for rough approximation of army strengths for narrative/open play. If you are playing with the kind of people that will abuse it, full-on matched play points will likely be a better quantification method.

(2) If two models of unequal skill (or other characteristics) use the same weapon, and both hit the target, the weapon deals the same amount of damage. Therefore, the weapon's value should not change based on the model it's attached to -- after all, it's the exact same weapon. If model A has 6 wounds and model B has 1 wound, but they are otherwise completely identical, then the individual models' points values should differ. That is, in my understanding, exactly how GW has set up the 8th edition points system.

All that said, I never knew anything about how 40K has worked in any prior editions. My first true introduction to it has been through the 8th edition teasers from GW and my tiny experience with Shadow War: Armageddon. But from what I see everything they're doing makes good sense.

[BunkhouseBuster]

I wonder if the haters wouldn't be complaining as much if GW had just used a different term for Points or Power Levels.

I mean, Points and Power Levels are both "guidelines" to figuring out an army's size and relative power. Due to the variety in terrain, discrepancies in the analog nature of how models are moved around and can be bumped or finagled into and out of optimal positions, and inconsistencies in standard base sizes, conversions and modelling for advantage/disadvantage, you will never be able to have an empirically balanced game. Unless the game moves to preset terrain and boards, and a hex-based or grid-based map for movement and range checking, and the players share from a common pool of dice free from being weighted, then you won't be able to have a truly "balanced" game.   Just a "balanced enough" game, which can be achieved with planning and communication.

[Killax]

1 hour ago, rokapoke said:

(1) My understanding is that the power levels indicated on the data slates are not for true "matched play" but for rough approximation of army strengths for narrative/open play. If you are playing with the kind of people that will abuse it, full-on matched play points will likely be a better quantification method.

(2) If two models of unequal skill (or other characteristics) use the same weapon, and both hit the target, the weapon deals the same amount of damage. Therefore, the weapon's value should not change based on the model it's attached to -- after all, it's the exact same weapon. If model A has 6 wounds and model B has 1 wound, but they are otherwise completely identical, then the individual models' points values should differ. That is, in my understanding, exactly how GW has set up the 8th edition points system.

All that said, I never knew anything about how 40K has worked in any prior editions. My first true introduction to it has been through the 8th edition teasers from GW and my tiny experience with Shadow War: Armageddon. But from what I see everything they're doing makes good sense.

Well I dont mind the power level system, what I do mind is that weapon option costs are represented in the back in the book and not at all on the slate. This is slightly confusing because it still leads to unclear game intend for starting players. AoS is suffering from this time to time aswell.
The moment you'd swap 'can have X instead of Y' to 'can upgrade X to Y' the logical step is that the upgrade has some additional cost attached to it and that suggestion is not very clear now.

The thing is the models do have unequal skill and one hits on a 2+ while the other hits on a 3+. In addition the 2+ model will likely survive up to turn 4 where the other might be gone turn 1. The difference here is that you exclude game based preformance in your cost. The issue of this arrises the moment you play multiple turns and not 1. 

I think GW has done a fine job with 40K overall, there are just some designs that worked well in AoS because of it's non-modular design. With this I mean it's weapon A instead of B not A+B+C and sometimes D. If you give a dataslate with over a dozen options I would have included the costs attached to it. As it's very easy to miss it. 

[Killax]

37 minutes ago, Auticus said:

But the thing is, the points are not going to be balanced either.  There will always be horribly unbalanced elements in any GW game and those unbalanced undercosted elements will be what any that play in a largely competitive environment will see mostly.  

Balance doesn't really excist in any game, though the aim can be to create good unbalance (e.g. rock paper scissors) or restrict the game in such a way that both players on paper have the same powerful options (e.g. black white chess pieces). 

To me the balance in AoS largely is good enough, for 40K I think it's save to say the same is true. So far most of it seems really good. 

[rokapoke]

41 minutes ago, Killax said:

Well I dont mind the power level system, what I do mind is that weapon option costs are represented in the back in the book and not at all on the slate. This is slightly confusing because it still leads to unclear game intend for starting players. AoS is suffering from this time to time aswell.
The moment you'd swap 'can have X instead of Y' to 'can upgrade X to Y' the logical step is that the upgrade has some additional cost attached to it and that suggestion is not very clear now.

Interestingly, you and I see this in polar opposite viewpoints. I think it's great that, for beginners (who should probably get the bare minimum of different point values and such to add up) you can just pick the weapons that look best. After all, I bought my Start Collecting Tyranids box before I had ever seen a single rule for 40K. All I have in it is a series of pictures telling me which pieces to use to build my Hive Tyrant with certain weapons. No discussion of points, no discussion of which does what. So if I wanted to play ASAP, I would have built one based on what looked fun and taken it to my FLGS, where somebody would help me through the rules. For beginners, you aren't penalized for not knowing what things do. GW is also following the line of reasoning they seem to have used with AoS's originally-stated mission: follow the rule of cool and just have fun. Brilliant!

[Soulsmith]

Seemed to work fine for me. Considering 40k doesn't have the huge amounts of different size melee weapons, a standard melee range makes sense. Only thing I didn't get was no damage carry over.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

[Captain Marius]

13 hours ago, Killax said:

I'll certainly pick up the Chaos book though I have to admit it seems like Chaos is getting the "AoS Death treatment". With this I mean that by comparison there is very little content actually. Which in turn can only reflect to me into GW not having any big 40K Chaos plans. Luckily we do get the love in AoS  

I think the evidence is there to the contrary - Chaos has been overlooked for years, but now theyre going to flesh out each of the legions into a full faction led by a Primarch. We already have Thousand Sons and Death Guard, with World Eaters (well, Angron) rumoured next.

Probably worth noting that Index Chaos is gonna be superceded by Codex Death Guard in a months time, like Flesh Eater Courts did to Grand Alliance Death... ok i guess they are alike in some regard then!

[Killax]

11 hours ago, rokapoke said:

Interestingly, you and I see this in polar opposite viewpoints. I think it's great that, for beginners (who should probably get the bare minimum of different point values and such to add up) you can just pick the weapons that look best. After all, I bought my Start Collecting Tyranids box before I had ever seen a single rule for 40K. All I have in it is a series of pictures telling me which pieces to use to build my Hive Tyrant with certain weapons. No discussion of points, no discussion of which does what. So if I wanted to play ASAP, I would have built one based on what looked fun and taken it to my FLGS, where somebody would help me through the rules. For beginners, you aren't penalized for not knowing what things do. GW is also following the line of reasoning they seem to have used with AoS's originally-stated mission: follow the rule of cool and just have fun. Brilliant!

Well the difference between AoS and 40K here is that there are not nearly as much 40K beginners as there are AoS beginners. The prime reason is because while 40K's system changed it's not nearly as much as a different game as WFB to AoS is   The beginning of AoS was also the end of WFB, which is why I like the 'this is how you start' method for AoS very much but the same is not going on for 40K to 40K 8th edition. It's different, 3+ saves arn't the key mandatory anymore but at the same time the armies who have the powerful model depth still have the model depth .

What I am basically saying is that if you wanted to play ASAP you could very much do so with 40K in 40 minutes with 400 points OR just pick any unit. Adding a single cost to models is just fine, really fine, as it sets clear limitations. Players who want to play 40K arn't idiots and should be able to read. Adding two different costs to units from my perspective adds little to nothing. Catering 40K to beginners is assuming 40K is in a same market position as AoS is or was and this most certainly isn't the case. 8th edition is new but 40K isn't a new game.

6 hours ago, Auticus said:

My point being more toward people claiming power level is bad because its not balanced.  Insinuating points are balanced.

I agree. Though typically perfect balance isn't required to have a good game anyway. As close to no two opponents are perfectly on the same tactical level. 

14 minutes ago, Captain Marius said:

I think the evidence is there to the contrary - Chaos has been overlooked for years, but now theyre going to flesh out each of the legions into a full faction led by a Primarch. We already have Thousand Sons and Death Guard, with World Eaters (well, Angron) rumoured next.

Probably worth noting that Index Chaos is gonna be superceded by Codex Death Guard in a months time, like Flesh Eater Courts did to Grand Alliance Death... ok i guess they are alike in some regard then!

It's possible and I hope so, but again starting out with 1 book for your 'Grand Alliance' is very diffrent from starting out with 2. 
Tactical options create oppertunity and those create a meta influence. The fact that Chaos has less tactical options as both the Imperium and Xenos does not give you any benifit or advantage into playing Chaos over them, so to say. 

What I hope is that Chaos will indeed be expanded but other than Death Guard we do not have any clear rumours yet. We do have some backstory on World Eaters and Noise Marines but we also have enough backstory for Slaanesh and Death in AoS, this backstory in no way always leads to a quick expected release of models and game content. 

I will certainly continue my World Eaters army design but frankly speaking if you want to go mono-Marine the Imperium offers much more options and thus much more modelling fun. While Daemonic Engines could have made the difference for Chaos the Imperium out-numbers those designs with these books by a factor of 5-6.

Lastly, what is incredibly silly in my eyes, is that Primaris Marines are designed to continue the crusade but do not fit into ANY of the Transports. I think that should/will change sooner than later. I guess the poor sods have to walk to Mars or something  Alternatively they are so HERESY they make the Machine Spirits sick!

[Captain Marius]

While Imperium is for sure a grand alliance equivalent, Xenos isnt - theyre more a bunch of off shoots with the odd race having a couple of factions (eldar and nids).

I think Chaos starts in an ok place - you can still only get so much into 1500/2k points! I wonder if mono-daemons will be a bigger thing like it seems to be in AoS?

I absolutely do not want a quick expected release schedule - just a regular one (no 3 month gaps in model releases like AoS is currently enduring!) Im not bothered about factions being overlooked or whatever, everyone is on a level playing field now, which hasnt been true of AoS since the original compendium pdfs!

Have you seen the flying rhino thing the Primaris guys will be cruising around in? And the mega flyer described in Dark Imperium? To be fair i think 5 of them should be able to surf on top of a rhino anyway!

[Greyshadow]

I am a fan of power points. The first game of AoS I played my opponent and I used Azyr comp to help make for a fun game. I got the concept of open play and wanted to play in that spirit but just needed some basic guidance to help set the game up. Also, power level need not be adjusted annually like matched play points.

[Killax]

2 hours ago, Captain Marius said:

While Imperium is for sure a grand alliance equivalent, Xenos isnt - theyre more a bunch of off shoots with the odd race having a couple of factions (eldar and nids).

I think Chaos starts in an ok place - you can still only get so much into 1500/2k points! I wonder if mono-daemons will be a bigger thing like it seems to be in AoS?

I absolutely do not want a quick expected release schedule - just a regular one (no 3 month gaps in model releases like AoS is currently enduring!) Im not bothered about factions being overlooked or whatever, everyone is on a level playing field now, which hasnt been true of AoS since the original compendium pdfs!

Have you seen the flying rhino thing the Primaris guys will be cruising around in? And the mega flyer described in Dark Imperium? To be fair i think 5 of them should be able to surf on top of a rhino anyway!

True, though there is nothing preventing a large mix of it all (to my knowledge). Unless you want to offcourse.

Chaos seems cool so far. I personally dont think mono Daemons is more ideal in 40K, I do think that mixed Mono Daemons can still do something (same in AoS) but typically delivering them or using the big guys seems to work out 'better'. For example the Bloodletters in 40K 8th ed are really squishy. This becomes less of an issue if you can deliver them but I wouldn't just run them up like Khorne Berzerkers for example (who do that job just slightly better because 3+ saves). 

I have seen the Flying Rhino but I don't know what the name of that model will become, the Community page speaks about Repulsor, the picture has it as Armoured Soul but neither of those names appear in the Imperium Indexes, so perhaps this will be the Primaris transport...

Now the oddity to me remains, Primaris don't have transports... What is cool however is that the Land Raider can now also carry Jump Pack Space Marines, like Terminators they thake up 2 seats. While the old school termies can also be transported and thake up 3 seats. NO PRIMARIS ALLOWED however. 

[BunkhouseBuster]

5 hours ago, Soulsmith said:

Seemed to work fine for me. Considering 40k doesn't have the huge amounts of different size melee weapons, a standard melee range makes sense. Only thing I didn't get was no damage carry over.

That's because of the variety and specialty of weapon and unit tasks.  By not having damage over-spill, you have a reason to take a Heavy Bolter or Assault Cannon to attack Infantry (higher volume of lower strength shots) instead of Lascannons and Multi-Meltas (fewer but more powerful shots).  Sure, you could argue thematics of a Lascannon punching through several Infantry in one FREEEM, but it gives a precedent for taking certain weapons and units over others.

[Soulsmith]

Oh no I got that, sorry, I should have specified. In close combat, surely certain weapons would clearly be able to take out multiple foes? Or should you do each attack singularly, each time targeting a different model if the one before died? Just my blight drone in a test game did 3 wounds in cc, and could only put all the damage on one marine.

[Killax]

25 minutes ago, Soulsmith said:

Oh no I got that, sorry, I should have specified. In close combat, surely certain weapons would clearly be able to take out multiple foes? Or should you do each attack singularly, each time targeting a different model if the one before died? Just my blight drone in a test game did 3 wounds in cc, and could only put all the damage on one marine.

Well if that Marine has multiple wounds it's possible... Though if it doesn't, he'd still be forced to spread the wounds like in AoS.

I kind of get what your hinting at but some things just dont translate too well from real life to game. It works out relatively easy this way in both 40K and AoS. I do however agree that high powered weapons do not have that clear benifit in 40K anymore, which fill feel strange at first. To me it also feels slightly odd that the Bolter does not have Rend or anything akin to it.

Same applies to 2+ and 3+ armours, ignoring or migating their effect isn't as hard anymore. To me this is a really good thing for all non-power armoured factions.

[WoollyMammoth]

@Oppenheimer
Agreed but, there is nothing to say that the successes of 8th 40k won't influence GH2, or GH3. 

@wayniac
The rules do not seem to be free. If you can find any evidence that there will be free rules, let me know. At GW they told me this is a rumor. 

In regards to AoS implications, I think the GH2 will have a lot of fluff, new matched play "advanced rules", scenarios, points updates and more, and cost $60. If you would like to keep playing AoS matched play, the book will be essential.

@Tasman
I disagree - once you have the system down it will not add more than fractions of seconds to the turn. Secondly Strength and Toughness add a lot more variety to unit design. These create a lot more depth to unit design. Currently, if a model is extra strong or extra tough, they will have special rules to account for this. Case in point; instead of 8T Necrosphinx/Stonehorns, we have "halve all wound" special abilities. Personally I would rather have it like 40k.

@Killax
Monodaemons are especially good in 40k. They are much better than AoS, because the heralds are actually boss now and are psykers, and cannot be targeted as they lead their troops into battle. If you look at bloodletters, with the addition of a Herald and a Demon Prince? Absolutely insane. The only thing holding back a "monodemon" list is the lack of models overall. For example, a "nurgle daemon" list is going to be 90% plaguebearers and drones, backed up by heralds and a few characters - a little bland on the model variety.

If by mono-daemon you are talking about a multiple-god list, there is a ton of awesome stuff to work with, and Be'lakor can tie it all together. 

Also a "monodaemon" list is only as restrictive as you choose. You can throw in anything from CSM that you fancy. A lot of units like possessed, mutilators, forgefiend and more - have the daemon keyword.

[rokapoke]

5 minutes ago, WoollyMammoth said:

The rules do not seem to be free. If you can find any evidence that there will be free rules, let me know. At GW they told me this is a rumor. 

I knew I had seen it somewhere...

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/04/22/the-new-edition-of-warhammer-40000-your-questions-answeredgw-homepage-post-2/

Quote

How can I get the rules?
We’re going to make it easier than ever to get your hands on the rules and start playing. The core rules for the game will be free, and you’ll have several options on how you get your hands on the full rulebook. Watch this space for more.

GW themselves have actively advertised the "core rules" being free. The product listing for the new 8th edition book (https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Warhammer-40000-rulebook-eng-2017) indicates that "You can play a game using only these 8 pages, bolting on more advanced and complex rules when you and your opponent are ready" -- though of course the advanced rules and such are not free.

[WoollyMammoth]

@rokapoke
Thanks, if this is true, that's pretty cool. But so far the rules are only available in the $60 tome. I'm asking the local GW manager about this, because he said that he knows nothing about "free rules", and they didn't say anything about this in their training last week.

[wayniac]

My GW manager said the core rules (12 page fold out) will be free like AOS, but it's only the most basic rules

[eekamouse]

I think I would like most if not all the rules for 40k ported over to AoS... but slowly. I'm not 100% sure on shooting characters etc... I have some games of 40k scheduled to play next week so will see how it goes. But, I like everything I've read and witnessed in batreps so far.

I think it would be beneficial if they slow rolled some of these tweaks into AoS over the next year. I like AoS as it is frankly, but wouldn't mind them re-investigating some of this stuff. Maybe even take another look at double turns... /shrug

[RuneBrush]

Not quite sure why everyone is getting quite as het-up about Power points - it's the same system we use in AoS without any real issues and only intended to be used for Open and Narrative play.  Matched Play points are more "traditional"

It's not unusual for Store Managers to miss out on bits of information at briefings (either not being given it, not paying attention or simply not picking up on it) or decide to not tell their customers so that they can announce a nice "surprise".

Not sure where the idea that Chaos were lacking behind comes from either - Chaos are the main protagonists in the new 40k timeline.  Daemons look like they're getting a massive buff from where they are currently and Chaos Marines are being bolstered all over the shop.

Primaris are getting a Repulsor - https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/06/02/let-your-soul-be-armoured-with-faith/

[Killax]

10 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said:

@Killax
Monodaemons are especially good in 40k. They are much better than AoS, because the heralds are actually boss now and are psykers, and cannot be targeted as they lead their troops into battle. If you look at bloodletters, with the addition of a Herald and a Demon Prince? Absolutely insane. The only thing holding back a "monodemon" list is the lack of models overall. For example, a "nurgle daemon" list is going to be 90% plaguebearers and drones, backed up by heralds and a few characters - a little bland on the model variety.

If by mono-daemon you are talking about a multiple-god list, there is a ton of awesome stuff to work with, and Be'lakor can tie it all together. 

Also a "monodaemon" list is only as restrictive as you choose. You can throw in anything from CSM that you fancy. A lot of units like possessed, mutilators, forgefiend and more - have the daemon keyword.

Well unless you tested it I like the Daemon multiwound models but Tau and others still shoot hardcore enough to remove them by the fleet. I do agree that the difference in designs make them sometimes better equiped in 40K but many of the troop choices are much easier to kill in 40K as in AoS and by much I mean there is almost no competition.  If I look at Bloodletters I see some great stuff dealing with 3+ or other high plus armour saves but also not dealing well with swarm like forces at all (Nids, Orks, IG, more). 

Mixing it up certainly leads to something good, this too is my intention, however the question at hand was mono-deamon and to be honest with you I don't see them slugging through massive barages of fire. They can certainly hero hunt and marine hunt really well but by comparison 40K Bloodletters arn't the AoS Bloodletters  

Personally will still dive into Chaos. The models Im certain about, like Hellbrutes, Great Daemons and Helldrakes are also the models I really like for supporting otherwise melee heavier infantry. Getting across the board is a different matter, hopefully the multitude of biggies will not be ignored.

What I really like about the 40K set up so far is that they seem to have implemented a rock/paper/scissors system I personally like. With this I mean that ranged infantry will beat melee infantry, 'monsters' beat ranged infantry and most melee infantry seems to be fully capable to beat monsters.

21 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

Not sure where the idea that Chaos were lacking behind comes from either - Chaos are the main protagonists in the new 40k timeline.  Daemons look like they're getting a massive buff from where they are currently and Chaos Marines are being bolstered all over the shop.

Less tactical options drastically reduces your meta influences. This isn't exclusive to 40K, this applies to all systems.
If your wondering why Death is close to a no show in winning tournaments or not managing to get into top 3 it's due to their lack of options.

The depth Battle Line, Command Traits and a great slew of Artefact offers you (us) should never be underestimated. The same applies to have 3-4 Monster options versus 1. Because what you see in many games (again not 40K exclusive) is that the one unit that just topples others is the victor. In many cases the difference between those units is minimal but the outcome remains significant. 

Having more tactical options makes your army better, always. Which is not to say Chaos is bad or unplayable, but it is certainly lacking the tactical depth of the Imperium forces.

 

[RuneBrush]

6 minutes ago, Killax said:

Less tactical options drastically reduces your meta influences. This isn't exclusive to 40K, this applies to all systems.
If your wondering why Death is close to a no show in winning tournaments or not managing to get into top 3 it's due to their lack of options.

The depth Battle Line, Command Traits and a great slew of Artefact offers you (us) should never be underestimated. The same applies to have 3-4 Monster options versus 1. Because what you see in many games (again not 40K exclusive) is that the one unit that just topples others is the victor. In many cases the difference between those units is minimal but the outcome remains significant. 

Having more tactical options makes your army better, always.

I think it's too soon to see if any faction has limited options, for starters the way you build up an army is completely different to AoS.  We know that there are Organisation Charts that have zero mandatory Troop options for example, which should allow you to field an army almost however you fancy with no disadvantage.

I'm not saying that AoS doesn't have these issues (I think it does in some areas) but I think we need to give things a couple of months until we see if 40k has them too.

[Killax]

27 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

I think it's too soon to see if any faction has limited options, for starters the way you build up an army is completely different to AoS.  We know that there are Organisation Charts that have zero mandatory Troop options for example, which should allow you to field an army almost however you fancy with no disadvantage.

I'm not saying that AoS doesn't have these issues (I think it does in some areas) but I think we need to give things a couple of months until we see if 40k has them too.

Well, the dataslates can be found. To me the difference between army building in 40K and AoS isnt too different. The Organisation charts presented for Titans only are also in the same part of the book that speaks about Campaign battles. For Matched play the known Force charts are presented and basically doubled per 1000 points. Because the book also mentions that 2000 points battles are played on a 6x4 I think it's very save to assume that 40K will be played at 2K in 8th edition.

The typical Space Marine units with 10 guys without weapons also chimes in at 150-ish points, attach some heavy weaponry and you'll float between 160-180. This is also a typical cost for "multi task" or "multi attack" AoS units. 

I dont see this as an issue mind you! I just see that ranged offense still really matters and that the overall balance seems good. However, just like with AoS, with good overall balance small tactical difference and a larger selection of tactical choices starts to matter more. To me it's no coincedence that both Order and Chaos dominate the competative scenes from the getgo since GH's release, they have the most tactical depth and therefor can alter easily to changing metas.

Im looking very forward to 8th edition though from a design perspective I do believe that after good balance width of choice starts to matter and nothing comes remotely close to the Imperium in that regard.

[Captain Marius]

I think viewing the Grand Alliances as comparable factions is a bit disingenuous. They are not meant to be equal in any way and never will be.

I mean fair enough you can have Mixed Death, Mixed Order etc, but they are just factions themselves comparable to Stormcasts, or Flesh Eater Courts, or Tzeentch etc. The trade off is more choice of units in exchange for (theoretically) lamer allegiance abilities. I think this will be reinforced in GHB2 if/when they nerf battle brew and the death and destruction battle traits.

So you get more bonuses for taking a more thematic army, much like what theyve done with nu40k!