Allies

[AgentP]

Been following a thread on another board about how tournanents should handle allies. The notion being that Taudar are everywhere and making things monotonous, yet getting rid of allies entirely limits army diversity. I saw an interesting idea and wanted to hear Ordo thoughts. The idea was eliminate batte brothers and make everyone allies of convenience to everyone else. Thoughts?

[WestRider]

There are only a couple of combos that are truly problematic, basically the Tau Bro options and the Eldar/Dark Eldar Deathstar shenanigans. Other than those, nothing's really all that hideous, and there are few other combos that can really measure up to what Tau, Eldar, or ScreamerStar Daemons can do on their own.

 

Of the big Deathstar Units that seem to be causing most of the problems right now, only a couple really lean on Allies at all: BeastPack and JetSeer Council. The rest all work just fine in a single Codex.

[Threejacks]

Sounds like a very fair rule for tourney play.Certainly better than limiting codexes,rule and model sets.

 

However Ive been playing Orks and IG so I wouldn't know what to do with a Battle Brother even if I had one!

[dashneeb]

Since you can't count on fortune anymore, does the Seer Council even see a bunch of play?

[WestRider]

With 2 Farseers, you've got a 75% chance of getting Fortune each Game. That's reliable enough to give it a pretty big impact on the metagame. It was a Seer Council list that won the Las Vegas Open, even with the nerf to re-rollable 2++ Saves.

[Chaos Lord Chris]

Basically the only problematic Allies combo is Eldar/DEldar, and maybe Tau on occasion. But both Eldar and Tau are ridiculously strong even without allies, so all removing Battle Bros will really do is bump Daemons up a notch (since they don't use the BB function of Allies anyway, they just splash CSM for the Helturkeys sometimes) while keeping the "everyone gets their faces smashed by Tau/Eldar/Daemons" meta completely intact.

 

Most Imperial lists that aren't WS Bikers or super Forgeworld-heavy IG tend to rely on BB allies to shore up their weaknesses in the face of the Big 3 onslaught, so removing BB will hurt mid-tier armies just as bad if not worse than it will the top-tier ones.

[Guest]

The idea was eliminate batte brothers and make everyone allies of convenience to everyone else. Thoughts?

I've been suggesting this since the start of 6th. Solves most issues on the tournament end. Eliminates complaints about lack of allies (tyranids). Greatly expands conversion/count's as army potential.

[winterman]

Battle bros was not a big deal until Tau and Eldar were released, so I don't think its really an issue with the BB rules entirely, more to do with the power creep those two books received.  As Chaos Lord Chris stated, you are hurting mid level armies as much or more with such a move.

 

I do however think the way USRs convey to everyone is problematic and really the main issue.  They should probably have an extra layer of how they are conveyed (eg whether they are conveyed to same army only or BBs or even down to same unit type/chapter tactic etc.)  Seer council without Hit and Run from Baron becomes more managable, etc.  Would be nice to if Blessings had a higher rate of fail when used on BBs.

[Guest]

Battle bros was not a big deal until Tau and Eldar were released, so I don't think its really an issue with the BB rules entirely, more to do with the power creep those two books received.  As Chaos Lord Chris stated, you are hurting mid level armies as much or more with such a move.

 

I do however think the way USRs convey to everyone is problematic and really the main issue.  They should probably have an extra layer of how they are conveyed (eg whether they are conveyed to same army only or BBs or even down to same unit type/chapter tactic etc.)  Seer council without Hit and Run from Baron becomes more managable, etc.  Would be nice to if Blessings had a higher rate of fail when used on BBs.

The main issue is that the entire allies rules represent less than a page of text in the rule book. If you wanted them to work, they'd need to be referenced throughout the entire book.

 

As for rules tweaks. I'd just re-write the entire section and the FOC system. In general, much of 40k would be easier to completely re-write, rather than FAQ or tweak.

[Guest Mr. Bigglesworth]

The usr abuse is what makes allies annoying. To me don't change bb, just remove ability for them to be in same unit unless supplement codex. Seems odd that to different armies and races could coordinate well enough. Granted story could be they trained vigorously together.

 

I don't see a problem with psych powers targeting close allies.

[Lord Hanaur]

Batt;e brothers is the focus of a lot of interest as you've sdaid.  I agree.  If the Battl;e Brothers were all allies of convenience, you'd turn tyhe 40K world upside down and get the narrative feel you want in games without the loopy combos.  Those combos do not seem like they are going anywhere any time soon though/.

 

Ironically in the Ambassadorial Tournament in October just by its nature, there wont be any allies so that should be pretty interesting.  We had already set it up this way in the previous 3, so 4 will be no different.  It will really showcase the actual codex's.

[Chaos Lord Chris]

I have to disagree that removing BB would make the game more "narrative". It basically makes most of the Inquisition stuff unusable for one, since practically the entire point of that book is to have Inquisitors running around with your main force (don't you dare tell me that somehow goes against fluff. DO. NOT.).

 

I agree that silly stuff like conferring ATSKNF to an entire IG blob just because a Marine IC is there is silly, but removing BB entirely seems like a case of burning down the house to get rid of a mild termite infestation.

[Lord Hanaur]

UM...  Iplay a purely sisters forcecjust fine.  GK as well.  if you mean the actual "Inquisition codex" i can say that though i use it, i wouldnt miss that imposter dex.  it really was not an awesome idea.