Skip to main content

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.

Comments

  1. VitsikaJune 4, 2014 at 8:35 AM

    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. LoopyJune 4, 2014 at 9:07 AM

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

      Delete
  2. UnknownJune 7, 2014 at 5:30 AM

    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

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How Did it Come to This? 10,000 Points of Painted Orks

One can only make so many milestone posts before people eventually get soul-crushingly bored of them.  However, I'm going to make an exception here because with my Vengeance Batteries, I've reached a total of 10,000 points painted with my Orks.  These points include reasonable upgrades, but not ridiculous add-ons like Kill Kannons for the Battlewagons.  Let's not be silly . Here's a video of the army.  Unlike the one I did for 7,000, this does not include a running commentary of each unit.  I simply cannot find the time to do that.  However, at the end of the post, please find a complete army list. Please try to view in YouTube instead of this embed because I uploaded it at full resolution and it took me forever.  You won't be disappointed! I started playing this game in 2010 when some friends and I suddenly realized that we finally had grown-up jobs and could actually afford it.  I'd always danced around the idea of collecting Or...
4 comments
Read more

Joke Armies - an Editorial

Ponies and Smurfs and Gundams! Oh my! Sometimes someone posts a joke army they've built and painted on the internet and the internet lashes out against it, sometimes quite vociferously. I have a problem with the strong objections to these armies, with caveats. Please note that, throughout this article, I will refer to armies which break the 4th wall and are incongruous to the 40k fluff as "joke armies".  Of course, I do realize many hobbyists who choose to build their armies in this way do not mean them as a joke and take it very seriously, but I need some kind of general term for the article. Shannon's Smurf Drop Pod Army Hobbyist Reasoning The hobbyists who choose this kind of path for their army express four-ish common reasons for doing so, sometimes citing two or three of them simultaneously. Cost:  Cost can be a big driver towards building this kind of army. A lot of the time, it's quite a bit cheaper to use toys to stand in for 40k models.  An ...
3 comments
Read more

Loopy Paints Unto Others - Space Marines (Brown)

I've completed another commission for Frontline Gaming.  For this one, the customer chose a brown scheme using the Ravenwing iconography for a generic chapter or chapter of his own devising.  This was a LEVEL 1 commission which means just one highlight. This was the first time I'd ever done Edge Highlighting which is the preferred method for doing this level of commission.  I know it may seem strange that someone doing commission work hasn't done edge highlighting, but it's just not my preferred method.  I prefer to wet blend everything or just do blocked highlights over darker colors and washes. The first go-around they looked terrible.  I tried really hard to keep the edge highlights thin and vague, but instead they came out kind of sloppy.  Because of that, I had to spend an additional 4 hours on making the highlight heavier and more pronounced.  The good thing is, I know what I'm doing now and won't make the same mistake again; therefore a...
2 comments
Read more