Wednesday, June 4, 2014

Allying With Yourself: a Plea

Image credit: Will Elliot


I would like to make a plea to the TOs out there to have a really hard think about opening the Allied Detachment to the same codex as the Combined Arms Detachment.  I find the arguments against this change to be very weak indeed.

Please note that this argument is only intended to be directed at events which ban multiple Combined Arms detachments.

The Genie's Already Out of the Bottle.


Iyanden, Farsight, and the other supplements already allow some armies to ally with themselves.  I agree that this quid-pro-quo argument is a bit of a fallacy, but in this case I think it truly doesn't hurt balance across the game as a whole to allow other armies to do it.  Eldar and Tau are already very, very good.  The Worst is already out there.  Adding options for older or non-supplement codices is probably going to do nothing but give the marginalized armies more of a fighting chance.  Adding an HQ to Daemons is hardly worse than they've already got and it does seem that some kind of nerf is coming down the pipe for that particular abuse anyways.

Specific abuses should be dealt with specifically whenever possible.

Formations Add AN Option, not Options


I think relying on past and future Formations for balance is fine, but not for variety.  I don't want to run the same army as the next guy.  Besides, not all armies have this option.

Rules Purity is Not a Worthwhile Goal in This Context


The argument for rules purity doesn't pass the smell test for me.  We're already making changes to the rules on a very fundamental level.

Don't get me wrong; I believe very strongly in changing the rules to meet your needs as a player and community.  GW has even stated on many occasions that they expect players to change or make up rules to meet their own needs.

So, if we're making changes for the purpose of game balance, why would we unnecessarily hinder some armies for the sake of rules purity?  It just doesn't make any sense to me.  I'm not being aggressively and intentionally obtuse here... I am genuinely confused by this position.

Again, it is a fallacy to say, "well we're making change x, so we may as well make change y". However, my point is to give some under-performing armies the same considerations that are afforded the newer and more powerful armies.

We Needed it, We Got It, and Now We're Losing It


It felt really good to see that GW had noticed that some armies needed a little extra in light of the new Supplements and Formations, in a way allowing us to develop our own "formations", just without crazy special rules.  It feels a little shitty to have that yanked away.

By allowing armies to ally with themselves, TOs wouldn't be giving them something they weren't intended to have, they'd be returning something to them, in a SMALL part, which they'd had in the first place.

Thanks for your time.

3 comments:

  1. Couldn't agree more. I can't help but feel that some TO's are quick to start banning without playtesting at all. I'd hate to see a whole new crop of players afraid of the rules as presented in the book.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah. Even though we are all free to play things how we want, the TOs set the tone.

      Delete
  2. I agree 100%. The forge the Narrative guys have been great pointing out that 6th was effected by the snap judgement of no double FOC and then it literally took almost the rest of the Edition to get that rule back in to the norm.

    We shouldn't make the same mistakes in 7th.

    ReplyDelete