PDA

View Full Version : Should Warhammer Go Back To Having Allied 25% Choices



Gradek
07-05-2012, 23:28
Back in 4th edition for sure (and I think after that even), you were permitted to take up to 25% of your points from "allied" army lists. I always thought this was a fun part of the game and (obviously) would help model sales. I would like GW to bring this option back (with a few caveats of course), so that we can have those cool allied units we like in our normal lists.

popomojo
07-05-2012, 23:31
It would be good, but 25% is too many points. maybe like 15% to help limit abuse. Imagine warriors of chaos taking dark elf repeater crossbowen, or skaven taking choas knights.

theunwantedbeing
07-05-2012, 23:50
Provided those allies have to fit with the army allowances at values for 25% of the main army, sure.
Obviously character's do not have to be taken (indeed cannot be taken!).

So a 2k army can have upto 500pts of allied troops.
25-100% of the allies troops must be from the core allowance for that army
Upto 250pts may be from the special allowance
Upto 125pts may be from the rare allowance

This would remove much of the ability to abuse it.
Obviously the various types of army could or could not have allies based on the rulebook allied army thing.

Smithpod68
08-05-2012, 00:02
Simply use the rules for pacts as in Storm of Magic where you have to take certain things to get certain things. My group has been considering allowing monster from
SoM at 25%.I'd like to see it done.

Karlon
08-05-2012, 00:16
I would totally be against allies becoming part of the core rules, armies should remain their own entity on the battlefield. Picking and choosing from different army books only opens up the game to further abuse and destroys the cohesiveness of the original lists, aesthetically and mechanically.

Feel free to do what you like amongst friends, of course, but seeing this become standard play would be a step backwards.

Židrek
08-05-2012, 00:24
I would totally be against allies becoming part of the core rules, armies should remain their own entity on the battlefield. Picking and choosing from different army books only opens up the game to further abuse and destroys the cohesiveness of the original lists, aesthetically and mechanically.

Feel free to do what you like amongst friends, of course, but seeing this become standard play would be a step backwards.

But Doesn't everyone want High Elves with Hand Gunners and Cannons. :D

Actually I have to agree with you completely.

HalfBlood
08-05-2012, 00:31
Im more afraid of armies being able to take Chaos Warriors, or Skaven Slaves, or Clan rats.

Why
08-05-2012, 00:31
Awesome, I mean having a HPA in a dark elf list would be the most fun thing ever:rolleyes:
Backed up by some giant blocks of skaven slaves = abused list for the win :evilgrin:

Hoshiyami
08-05-2012, 00:37
How many ironblasters we'd see? How many spirit hosts? Hurricanums? great cannons? Bloodletters?

Looks like a cheese intoxication to me.

Why
08-05-2012, 00:56
You forgot scouting maneaters and mournfangs.

GodlessM
08-05-2012, 01:16
NO, in very large capital letters. We do not need to see Dwarfs with cavalry and Chaos with shooting again.

Dranthar
08-05-2012, 03:12
Id actually like to see this, but with severe restrictions to encourage fun over cheese. For instance;

---

- A given army may have up to 25% of it points spent on allies from one other army book only (insert restrictions to prevent silliness like daemons in a high elf list)

- The allied portion of the army list must abide by the following restrictions:
1. No Lords or Rare choices
2. Min. 50% on Core
3. Max 25% on Special
3. 0-1 Hero, no BSB.
4. 0-1 of any single special choice (ie. You can take a cannon and mortar, but not two cannons)

- Allied units may not benefit from the main army's General or Battle Standard and may not be targeted by augment spells or other effects from the main army. The allied units count as part of the main army for all other purposes, including duplicate magic items, panic, using power/dispel dice and combat resolution.

---

There'd need to be other unit-specific rules like how to deal with undead in non-undead armies, but the above would cover the basics and (hopefully) prevent any of the more serious abuses.

Jind_Singh
08-05-2012, 05:01
As part of normal, everyday, gaming...no, not for me - I lived those days and don't need them back.

As part of organized games with friends, in a similar way we play Blood in the Badlands, Storm of Magic, etc, sure, why not?!

decker_cky
08-05-2012, 05:44
It would be good, but 25% is too many points. maybe like 15% to help limit abuse. Imagine warriors of chaos taking dark elf repeater crossbowen, or skaven taking choas knights.

And yet...both of those alliances would suffer from the fragile alliance rules, making them weaker allies. Skaven also are a funny ally, since even trusted allies won't benefit from their general's leadership.

I think 25% core allies would work fine, and likely be balanced.

I also think ogre mercenary rules should return as well.

edit: I think 25% core non-desperate allies and/or SoM monsters would be a lot of fun.

Gop
08-05-2012, 05:54
It would take a bit of thinking to minimise abuse. Also, it's a shame that Dogs of War are gone. Maybe they could make a comback!

Scythe
08-05-2012, 06:27
Not in the basic lists; it creates just too much headache imho. If you want to do something with allies, it is easy enough to house rule. Take the Storm of Magic rules set as an example. The (older) general's compendium also contains some rules for allied forces which can still be usable.

m1acca1551
08-05-2012, 06:30
Im going to have to say no... its just to messy and prone to being broken.

I could only say yes if the allied unit was selected from a core choice, onky had standard unut upgrades minus army book items such as magic standards and unit capped to 10-20, AND aslong as it meets the fluff of the armies. Its fluffy, fun and would hopefully not alliw for cheese.

25% makes me remember the bad old days of skaven partying alongside beastmen and a great unclean one *shudders* i'd have nightmares thinking of a similar combination now.

Gorbad Ironclaw
08-05-2012, 06:37
As formal, free for all rules? No. It did not produce great results, although I'm sure the temp agencies for things like Imperial and Dwarf artillery crews, High Elf Wizard Lords, Greater Demons and the funny guys down at Rent-A-Tireless-Slave(RATS) would love it. Much more business for them.

You could regulate it enough to make it work I suppose, but it's probably not worth the hassle. However, as agreements between friends where it can be tailored to whatever the situation is I think it's a great idea. So by all means do it as house rules/agreements. But I don't think Warhammer would gain anything good by adopting the old allies rules.

Urgat
08-05-2012, 08:59
Short answer: no
Long answer: no.
Been playing since beginning of 5th ed and I NEVER want to see that horror again. "take army, fill gaps with the best options from other armies".
It's very fun in SoM, but not in my regular games.

Daniel36
08-05-2012, 09:17
Just use those rules in friendly games and campaigns. No need to make it official.

T10
08-05-2012, 11:44
I join the nay-sayers on this.

If you want to use allies, then surely this must be on a case-by-case basis where you agree with your opponent before the game.

Notice that there is already exists rules for playing multiple distinct armies on the same side in a battle as allies, and these work pretty well.

-T10

Mr Ogre
08-05-2012, 12:03
This is workable.

Take the Pacts from Storm of Magic. It's a good start.

Other options would be say, 25% of your points as an allied army, subject to standard selection restrictions (must have it's own commander, 25% of these points must be core etc). Allows variety, whilst restraining a good portion of the possible abuses.

Though you would have to sacrifice certain army special rules. For instance, allied Bretonnians wouldn't get to pray, Dwarfs wouldn't bring the dispel bonus, character based abilities would only affect congtingent troops etc.

IcedCrow
08-05-2012, 12:14
Yes but only be allowed to take from the core section of the army list. No heroes or specials or rares.

Mr Ogre
08-05-2012, 12:27
I dunno man. With the requirement for a leader, and 25% core, theres not a lot left for getting cheesey.

It however opens up including work in progress armies.

The Low King
08-05-2012, 12:35
If people want to take allies just play a doubles battle or plan something with your friends, whatever happens it needs to be specifically decided before the battle. Otherwise its a little too good (imagines thoughts of Dwarfs crossed with brettonians)

gauly_13
08-05-2012, 12:37
I think using allies can be fine with your regular gaming pals (agreed to beforehand of course), but would be horrible if introduced as absolute rules. It is hard enough to make balanced books as it is, without having to worry about possible abuse combos when linked with other books. Best keep it between mates ey ;)

Mr Ogre
08-05-2012, 12:42
Do it as a Scenario, or part of a campaign. Should make for quite a lot of fun.

Players can be conquered, and their units called up as reserves and allies. Hell, why not allow players to broker support without being conquered? This could make for really quite unique games. Imagine the Garrison force of a Watch Tower receiving support from a nearby force to lift a siege? It's up to the player's to then broker their own deals, adding an additional involving depth.

decker_cky
08-05-2012, 18:08
There's a few ways you can restrict this:
1.) No desperate allies. This kills most of the unfluffy options and should be used whichever other options are chosen.
2.) The allies must be a legal army. Need a general, 25% core and 3 non-character units fit into the army (along with other restrictions). The issue I see with this is that empire can still add a vicious shooting continent (2 cannons, 50-60 pt general, the rest into cheap core infantry giving you a nice steadfast block). 0-1 war machine probably fixes this issue.
3.) Allies can only be core. This essentially writes off skaven as decent allies. Potential issues are RXB in chaos armies, handguns/crossbows in bretonnian armies and lizardmen armies (don't think the bretonnian problem is real, since 6 pt longbows are IMO better value), cavalry in dwarf armies and chaos warriors in non-elite armies. Night goblins, or cheaper general chaff units (eg, ungors and hounds) in daemon armies might be an issue too.

Djekar
09-05-2012, 11:47
Please no. I really disliked that rule when I first started in 5th ed.

If it does come back (either in print or as a house rule), I agree with the idea of only using core troops from your ally. I think that there are some very interesting combinations (Dark Elf Assassin, Rat Darts, Scouting Longbeard Rangers) that could possibly be fun in a one off game, just to see how that worked. Decker lists some possible abuses however, and he is correct on those counts. This is one of those situations where you would have to police yourself.

TheDiamondPrince
09-05-2012, 13:56
Personally I love the idea. I would love to be able to take daemons alongside my warriors.

Gorbad Ironclaw
09-05-2012, 13:59
This is one of those situations where you would have to police yourself.

And that's why having it as a "proper" rule is a bad idea, but it can work great as something arranged between friends.

loveless
09-05-2012, 15:22
And that's why having it as a "proper" rule is a bad idea, but it can work great as something arranged between friends.

Yep.

Armies are built with specific areas where they do and do not excel. This proposal invites you to fill in the weak points - we're back to everyone taking allied cannons and/or knights again.

Mind you, this is also why Dogs of War can't exist as an army add-on (though nothing says they can't be an army on their own).

snyggejygge
09-05-2012, 15:31
25% might be pushing it, but 10-15 % taken out of the rare section & only being able to take core from other armies (which goes under trusted allies in the charts), would be fun & could add some tactical benefits as well as a nice opportunity to buy some nice models without starting a new army.

Snake1311
10-05-2012, 12:51
25% might be pushing it, but 10-15 % taken out of the rare section & only being able to take core from other armies (which goes under trusted allies in the charts), would be fun & could add some tactical benefits as well as a nice opportunity to buy some nice models without starting a new army.

My dwarfs would orgasm for human cavalry in the rare slots!

Really tho, this would open pandora's box to epic dirt. Do it in friendlies, but please no actual rules.

enygma7
10-05-2012, 13:01
Gorbad ironclaw has it right. As an official rule it is way too open to abuse - no matter what restrictions you try and place people will still find broken combos and ways to include things their army should never have had access too. An if its official it *will* be abused.

It could work in a more close knit fluff based/narrative gaming group, but then you don't need an official rule to tell you you can do it, do you? In this setting it only needs one restriction: don't be a tool, the GM/organiser reserves the right to tell you "Oi! NO!".

Gromdal
10-05-2012, 13:22
I think its a bad idea. Bad for cohesion and fun.

Gorbad Ironclaw
10-05-2012, 13:24
I do however think you can make some really cool games when you mix books. Take a High Elf mage with a small bodyguard of Swordmasters, Shadow Warriors, Seaguard, whatever with a larger contingent of human mercenaries having set up camp around a ruin the mage is investigating coming under attack by a a mixed Chaos force, mainly beastmen but some heavier chaos warriors and maybe a few odd demons as well.
Or making a Chaos Cult army, you can sort of fudge it with current lists (empire is probably best) but it would be a lot easier if you had a mix of Empire, WoC and BoC. There is a lot of things you can do that would be really cool, but it really needs to be judged on a case by case basis. The difference between acceptable and OTT can be very minor and change from group to group, but I can't encourage people enough to give it a whirl in a mutual agreeable manner.

sulla
10-05-2012, 18:57
As nice as it would be to get a cannon or a DE hydra or some GW khorne marauders in each of my armies, I don't think the game would be better for it.

EDMM
10-05-2012, 19:31
Awesome, I mean having a HPA in a dark elf list would be the most fun thing ever:rolleyes:
Backed up by some giant blocks of skaven slaves = abused list for the win :evilgrin:

Why do you think adding Dark Elves to a Skaven Slave/Abom list would make it BETTER?

If anything the damn Elves would water down the strength of the list...

decker_cky
10-05-2012, 19:55
If anything the damn Elves would water down the strength of the list...

I think most choices would have that effect, including dwarfs with cavalry. Chaos warriors are the one core unit I look at as being problematic that doesn't water a list.

Spiney Norman
10-05-2012, 20:50
Sorry but this is a terrible idea, suddenly the most broken elements of each army are available to everyone, so every list will now contain a brace of empire great cannons or ogre iron blasters, that would certainly give the monster-lovers something to complain about, or how about hell pit abominations cropping up in every list.

If this were to happen it would have to be heavily regulated (and that fact alone makes me think the GW wouldn't or shouldn't do it). One character to lead the allied contingent, 1 core choice minimum, no more than 1 special choice per core choice and no rare choices permitted at all (that curbs most of the abusive combos, but not all by any means).

I like how the sorcerous pacts work in SoM, in fact we've actually been using part of the SoM rules, allowing bound monsters and sorcerous pacts, but just not using the loopy magic rules and crazy magic items.

ColShaw
10-05-2012, 21:12
I remember 5th Ed WFB. With Allies. Dwarf armies with High Elf Mage Lords in them. Empire Cannons in Bretonnian armies. No thanks.

snyggejygge
10-05-2012, 21:23
My dwarfs would orgasm for human cavalry in the rare slots!

Really tho, this would open pandora's box to epic dirt. Do it in friendlies, but please no actual rules.

Kind of doubt that dwarfs would gain that much by cavalry under the 8:th edition rules, not even the Empire players themselves like them...

@ ColShaw: People aren't talking about characters or rarechoices, it would only be core choices, not anything like 5:th edition (& even back then I don't remember people cheezing out as much as some current armylists you find on the net)

Flash Felix
10-05-2012, 21:25
If it was to be done, I'd suggest that everything bumps up a step, to show that these allied contingents are not that common. For instance;

-1 Hero, to be counted as part of the main army's Lord choices. The character is compulsory, as the leader of the contingent
- Core units to be counted as part of the main army's Special choices
- Special units to be counted as part of the main army's Rare choices
- No Rare or Lord choices

So, if I wanted to take a Dwarf contingent with my High Elves, it might look like this;

1 Runesmith, counted as part of the overall Lord choices
1 unit of GW Warriors, counted as part of the Special choices
1 Grudge Thrower, counted as part of the Rare choices

The Allied contingent would also need to be internally consistent with the rules; 25% core min, no more than 50% Special or 25% Hero.

Order and Destruction would also need to be taken into account, to stop me taking Gutter Runners and Harpies with my Dwarves.

Overall, it might be too complex, and best left alone except in friendly settings.

Petey
10-05-2012, 22:34
Simply use the rules for pacts as in Storm of Magic where you have to take certain things to get certain things. My group has been considering allowing monster from
SoM at 25%.I'd like to see it done.

Quoted for truth. You just make them have to include a general for the allied force and rock and roll

Wicksy
10-05-2012, 22:51
mmmmmmmm, occam's mind razored skaven clan rats

woodster17
10-05-2012, 23:18
Whereas the concept is a nice one, in reality it would be truly awful. Massive Skaven Slave hordes backed up with Mournfang Cavalry. That would be fun for all! :p This would cause some serious havoc and abuse. If you could put some restraints on it maybe, but I have no idea how. Not for me.

Why
10-05-2012, 23:21
Why do you think adding Dark Elves to a Skaven Slave/Abom list would make it BETTER?

If anything the damn Elves would water down the strength of the list...

Mindrazor on clanrats and skaven slaves in horde, abombs and hydras in the same list gutter runners and shades. See what I meant now, doesn't sound very fun to go up against does it?

decker_cky
11-05-2012, 04:37
mmmmmmmm, occam's mind razored skaven clan rats

S5 clanrats isn't that scary.


Whereas the concept is a nice one, in reality it would be truly awful. Massive Skaven Slave hordes backed up with Mournfang Cavalry. That would be fun for all! :p This would cause some serious havoc and abuse. If you could put some restraints on it maybe, but I have no idea how. Not for me.

No worse than skaven slave hordes + abominations.


Mindrazor on clanrats and skaven slaves in horde, abombs and hydras in the same list gutter runners and shades. See what I meant now, doesn't sound very fun to go up against does it?

S5 clanrats? S2 skaven slaves?

Also, reread the allied rules. Chances are that skaven won't be considered friendly units for magic by turn 3 in any alliance.


If it was to be done, I'd suggest that everything bumps up a step, to show that these allied contingents are not that common. For instance;

-1 Hero, to be counted as part of the main army's Lord choices. The character is compulsory, as the leader of the contingent
- Core units to be counted as part of the main army's Special choices
- Special units to be counted as part of the main army's Rare choices
- No Rare or Lord choices

So, if I wanted to take a Dwarf contingent with my High Elves, it might look like this;

1 Runesmith, counted as part of the overall Lord choices
1 unit of GW Warriors, counted as part of the Special choices
1 Grudge Thrower, counted as part of the Rare choices

The Allied contingent would also need to be internally consistent with the rules; 25% core min, no more than 50% Special or 25% Hero.

Order and Destruction would also need to be taken into account, to stop me taking Gutter Runners and Harpies with my Dwarves.

Overall, it might be too complex, and best left alone except in friendly settings.

If not simply restricting allies to core, make the restriction that the allied contingent is a legal army. 1+ character as the general, 3 non-character units minimum, 25%+ core, up to 25% rare and 50% special. Controls a lot of the problems. Empire is about the only way to have any cheapish way to get a cannon in an army, and that needs a lot of units that aren't adding much to the army to get in the cannon (minimum 50 pt character + 2 minimum 50 pt core choices to fit in a cannon). Even then, that's you spending 270 pts to get in a cannon.

Adding any unit to any army would be a problem. Adding allies in restricted manners, either as a legal army or only using core choices, and the abuse is minimal.

Snake1311
11-05-2012, 07:35
Kind of doubt that dwarfs would gain that much by cavalry under the 8:th edition rules, not even the Empire players themselves like them...


Don't believe the internet propaganda, cavalry is still awesome. Especially with dwarfs, who need it for combined charges (so the cavalry can actually run down the enemy after).

Satan
11-05-2012, 08:07
My answer is Yes. This would make the game enjoyable for people whose army books haven't been updated for the last decade(-ish).

dirach.
11-05-2012, 11:10
Warhammer doesn’t need 25% allies in the core rules. But I think it needs allies. These have always been a part of Warhammer.

2nd and 3rd edition had Allies and Mercenaries lists to add to your core. 5th had the dogs of war and those were repeated in 6th /7th edition with the addition of the Kislev and Ogre rules.

What Warhammer needs is an allied contingents book that include rules for adding “Dogs of war” units such as Halflings, Kislev and Tilea and rule to include allies from other books. This should be a book in the spirit of Storm of Magic. An option you can use, but not have to use as it is not a part of the core rules.

MR. GRUMPY
11-05-2012, 13:36
No. Allied 25% Choices are just terrible. Use it as a house rule if you feel like but I do not want chaos with shooting, mobile dwarfs or TK with actual good units.

Kieras
11-05-2012, 15:00
there should be like it used to be one unit only in rare choices of dogs of war and the wood elves could get their scarloc scouts again

Duke Ramulots
11-05-2012, 15:21
In our group we do all kinds of Alliances and just following the rules given in the book seems to work just fine. We did run a game(4500 points) with the combined forces of chaos against a force of Brets, woodies, and dwarfs and it was one hell of a game.

DaemonReign
11-05-2012, 15:25
Don't believe the internet propaganda, cavalry is still awesome.

+1.

For a change. ;)

Satan
11-05-2012, 15:37
No. Allied 25% Choices are just terrible. Use it as a house rule if you feel like but I do not want chaos with shooting, mobile dwarfs or TK with actual good units.

That might've been a passable argument if not for the last part, explaining just why this idea would be a good thing.

Bring_Back_Chaos_Dwarfs?
11-05-2012, 16:03
Kind of doubt that dwarfs would gain that much by cavalry under the 8:th edition rules, not even the Empire players themselves like them...

@ ColShaw: People aren't talking about characters or rarechoices, it would only be core choices, not anything like 5:th edition (& even back then I don't remember people cheezing out as much as some current armylists you find on the net)

Ok, even core choices given to certain armies can be questionable. High Elves that get to have saurus warrior blocks? Empire with Saurus Warriors? Or Dwarfs with a Brettonian BUS? Chaos Warriors with DE Crossbowmen? Any evil army with allied skaven clan rats with weapon teams? I'm sure there are more powerful combos out there, don't let my feeble attempts limit you. Even if you made allies due strictly to fluff like WE and Brets, it can feel completely broken, (even limiting it to core choices). Getting to my main point, how do you comp this? And if you comp it so heavily, and you if you end up with really weak choices , why bother? I think what the some of this thread sounds like is that people get frustrated with the limitations and pitfalls of their army and want something that will fix or help stem the glaring deficiencies of their rules. Of which I am sympathetic to. But as to regular allies apart of the main rules (even just core) this sounds like an easier way to build power lists. The cheese will be there. (Yeah, i can see the initial poster's point, it would be fun just ONCE to curb stomp an army with WOOD ELVES).

(btw not trying to take a pot shot at the initial poster or anyone one else in the thread, just bringing my own thoughts i mean no disrespect!)

The Low King
11-05-2012, 16:04
It may be fun but its incredibly unbalanced, if you want allied armies either play doubles or a special scenario agreed upon with your opponants

Gaargod
11-05-2012, 17:01
Short answer, no.

Long answer - yes, kind of. But several restrictions:

> Have to obey the normal percentage restrictions. I.e. special choices also take out of special points. Core do not count towards minimum core, but at least don't use up your specials.
> Probably obey the allies rules for who can join who. Makes no sense to have empire soldiers fighting beside daemons regularly (outside of special fluff circumstances, which can be imagined).
> Probably obey allied rules from the compendium in terms of allies using general's LD, BSB, etc.

Most importantly though, these rules are not for use in normal games. Like mysterious terrain, I believe these sorts of rules could be easily enough included in the main rulebook, but seriously don't include them in the main rules! They would totally unbalance tournaments.
I don't trust GW to balance all units across all army books, both externally and internally. Frankly, I doubt whether that is actually possible - it would be difficult enough over computer games which could be continuously patched and tweaked, but a downright mammoth task for paperbooks!

Forgotmytea
11-05-2012, 17:58
Warhammer doesn’t need 25% allies in the core rules. But I think it needs allies. These have always been a part of Warhammer.

2nd and 3rd edition had Allies and Mercenaries lists to add to your core. 5th had the dogs of war and those were repeated in 6th /7th edition with the addition of the Kislev and Ogre rules.

What Warhammer needs is an allied contingents book that include rules for adding “Dogs of war” units such as Halflings, Kislev and Tilea and rule to include allies from other books. This should be a book in the spirit of Storm of Magic. An option you can use, but not have to use as it is not a part of the core rules.
I agree, I do miss Dogs of War. I'll be dusting off my Bronzino and his galloper guns for a friendly campaign I'm playing in that allows DoW, but it would be nice to see them make a return to the official Warhammer rules. There would need to be restrictions, of course, like limiting which units can ally to which armies, but I do think it would add something to the game :)

Son of Morkai
12-05-2012, 01:16
Yes, but only via Dogs of War. Which should be done by Warhammer Forge. A proper DoW army list should be versatile enough to represent pretty much any unit a player would want to field. Maybe not with the exact same rules, but stats and equipment should be close enough for players to counts-as. Maybe lacking a special rule or two, but that's the cost of throwing strangers into battle and forcing them to fight side by side. Add some restrictions on particular units, but those should primarily be for narrative reasons. If a Bret player wants to take cannons, let him! But he loses the blessing.