Warhammer 40k Propaganda Data Slate: Balance – Army Building & Allies

Avatar Tabletop Tactics June 20, 201911  53 11 Likes

Hello and welcome back to the The Kitchen, a place of madness with me The Chef, as I attempt to put thoughts and ramblings into something resembling coherency. Today we continue the Balance Series of 40k, specifically into the impact that Army Building and Allies have on the overall balance of the game.

We have already spoken about the sheer size of the game and variety of things you’re able to do being a big contender for some of the bigger issues when it comes to balance in the game, and off the back of that we’ll consider how much broader Allies makes the scope, and some possible ideas for resolving the issues.

The Soup in the Room…Elephant in the Soup? Either way, there’s a mess!

So yes, Soup will of course come up. Not just because I feel it is the number one cause of balancing issues in game, but also because it is a topic that dominates most aspects of conversation when it comes to building an army. If your army has access to allies or souping (NB: I’ll use the terms interchangeably within the article), you first need to account for how souping can benefit your army over remaining “pure”. As previously discussed, there is no penalty for using allies, which makes this often a no brainer choice. Whilst one can argue that having to fit any potential allies into an army by finding the points and getting them to adhere to a detachment is the penalty, the counter is of course that you get benefits for doing so regardless. This could be as simple as the so called CP Batteries used to fuel the main portion of the army (more on these later), to the utility of additional units that normally wouldn’t have been an option in an army. A Thousand Sons Psychic support detachment for a Khorne Daemon army is a great example of this.

Even after accounting for how souping can benefit your army, you must also account for what your army can do when it comes up against soup. Now this can be considered part and parcel of building an army anyways – making sure you have enough anti-infantry firepower, anti-tank methods, ways to deal with extremes such as hordes or Knights, suitable units for holding or taking objectives etc. However within the scope of a single codex, it is easier to account for what might be brought. You can reasonably guess what will be likely when someone is running Necrons, or Space Marines. But when they say they are running Mixed Eldar, or Imperial Soup…that can mean so much.

Adding in Allies makes possible opposition so vast as to make the combinations nigh incomprehensible. Ironically however, this leads to so much similarity in army design and building – why take this, when you can take this unit that’s better and deals with more things, especially those things that you will see so often? Now if you follow S.A.C.R.E.D’s teachings, it of course makes sense to have redundancy, duality and so on, and indeed at a high level of play, or even just in the hunt for an efficient army, it is something to be accounted for. Yet it has a tendency to create a vicious cycle of the same lists being seen time and time again, or at least lists so similar as to be basically impossible to differentiate, primarily due to them being so good at what they do, meaning variety and uniqueness is lost.

A change is on the horizon

However there is certainly a trend beginning in the competitive scene. Since the ITC introduced the notion that Best in Faction should actually be solely that Faction and not just a portion of it (rightfully so), purer armies have seen an upswing in attendance. Whilst this could be seen as some attendees simply wanting to take part in the individual Factions prizes rather than the Mixed Factions as they feel they have the better chance to place highly or even win the category, it has mainly had effect of enabling more mono-faction armies. As more mono-faction armies are being used, Soups are not dominating as much in terms of presence, however they are still generally doing well beyond most mono armies in terms of overall wins and placements. So we have the beginnings of a swing to more pure armies, but it still needs a nudge, especially since whilst the mono dexes can fair somewhat well against each other, soups can often edge them out.

Now I am not saying to scrap Allies or Soup completely. As I have said before, they can lead to some amazing looking combined armies and some fluffy and frankly awesome things on the tabletop. However consider them the same way as Power Level – when not used perhaps as intended, they swing too hard to unbalanced. And when the tool of Allies is available, and being such a potent one at that, with again I reiterate virtually zero downside, why should it not be used? So it stands to reason that a way to bring balance to Allies would be to give them a downside, which could be done in a number of different ways.

Draining the Battery

CP Batteries, the Loyal 32, the Rusty 17, the Disloyal 17, whatever you want to call them, these are usually barebones Battalions designed to provide as much in the way of CP generation and regeneration as possible, for as few points as possible. These are then used to the fuel the stronger or more Stratagem reliant portions of the army. There have been plenty of ways discussed on how to try to mitigate these. Even GW themselves attempted to reduce the sheer number of CPs flying about with the Tactical Restraint rule. A common idea is to limit CP to the non-mixed Faction that generated them, and some have argued further that CPs generated by a Detachment should only be usable by that same Detachment.

Personally I feel these make a bit too much book-keeping, though you could argue that if you can keep track of the numerous Codexes and FAQs needed to run Allies, you can track a few different CP pools. I would prefer a more restrictive element, either limiting the amount of CP generated similar to how Brood Brothers works for Genestealer Cults, or even outright negating CP from non-Warlord detachments and units. A third alternative would be to have Allied Detachments actually cost CP, much the same as how Auxillary Detachments do. I don’t feel a single CP would justify the power that an Allied Detachment can bring, so this would require some thought, however my knee jerk (which admittedly is something I argue against when GW do it) is a flat 3 CP would likely be a fair start, and then can be looked into with greater detail.

The Building Blocks

Something else to consider is the Detachments that are available. With the current Detachment system, we have a large amount of flexibility and choice when it comes to building a list. However, this flexibility often leads to just splitting units off, enabling the ability to spam 3 of a strong unit in a slot whilst still being able to take others, or in many cases simply running a dual Battalion to get the extra CP. This is a far cry from the more limited single Combined Arms Detachment of editions past, and even less restrictive than the mass Formation Detachments of 7th. The Detachment limitations set by GW are not really enough, as if you can fit many things into one Detachment, there is again no downside to splitting them off, only benefits. So outside of reducing the number of Detachments that are usable in a game, something already proposed by GW albeit with limited success, what can be adjusted?

A more modular system, similar to 7th’s Formations (albeit without the 4-5 free special rules for the units within) would certainly work. For example, every army could start with a Battalion, Knights being the exception of course. From there, filling all the slots within a choice would then “unlock” additional CPs. With this sort of system, you could then look at altering other Detachments, removing them altogether, or adjusting their command benefits. Whilst CP is a simple thing to provide and covers many bases within an army due to Stratagems, other things could be so much more interesting. The danger is some Detachments gain special rules or benefits vastly outstripping other armies, so these would need to be carefully balanced or considered, which is again a good indication as to why CP is used at the moment, as it’s a single factor to account for.

A further option to Detachments would be to introduce Faction specific ones again. These could give alternative command benefits to just CP, or maybe have some further limitations, but as they are Faction specific these could be more unique and tuned. A Ravenwing Detachment for example, where every model must be Ravenwing, but it gives additional CP above a standard Outrider if you want to keep it simple, or maybe a minor rules buff. This is similar in principle to the Specialist Detachments, however the fact that they cost CP almost encourages the need to have a CP Battery Detachment, just so you can have access to some unique bonuses (which cost you further CP, necessitating the Battery even more), and so are ironically limiting you further from doing an interesting or fluffy army. By having the requirements baked in, perhaps limiting them to armies drawn solely from one Faction, allows the modularity.

Reward vs Punishment

Psychological studies have shown that most people respond better to rewards and positive reinforcement, rather than punishments or negative reinforcements (I’m not giving you references, it’s been many years since I’ve had to do that!). So perhaps a better way of influencing the decision making process in building an army is to look at encouragement, rather than restrictions or limitations. This could be simply done by an army getting rewarded for being drawn from a single codex. Initially, this is the direction I thought 8th might go upon the release of the first codexes, that armies getting Faction and Sub-Faction benefits based on their Detachment must have been a mistake to be rectified, but two years in that doesn’t seem to be the case. That’s not to say it couldn’t change however, so what could be some possible rewards?

One of the simplest would be additional CP. There is a semi-precedent with Knights after all, getting more CP than most armies, ostensibly as a reward for going pure yet in practice just letting them have even CP when allied with other Detachments, and it would be the easiest to implement. A Big FAQ, or a Chapter Approved update to Matched Play, stating that a Battleforged Army has the same Faction Keyword (ignoring Imperium, Aeldari, Chaos etc), gains an additional X CP. However, the amount would be the tricky bit – it would need to be quite significant to offset bringing Allies. Only 2 CP would not really be worth it in comparison to the 5-8 you can get from Souping, but granting too many to a pure army may make any choices related to Stratagems to be close to non-existent. I don’t need to think about when I use a Stratagem if I have so many CP I can comfortably do it every turn without any worries about my resources. The alternative would need to be in conjunction with a penalty to allied units, be it them costing CP or not providing any at all, which goes against the philosophy of rewarding over penalising.

So what about additional army abilities or rules? Well this was the issue with 7th, as Formations provided so many rules for free that it became a bit absurd, especially as the balance and disparity between individual armies was often quite vast. This is where the Sub-Faction rules could be implemented a bit better, as whilst they do have some inherent balancing issues between themselves, by having them as a reward for sticking to single Faction rather than being automatic just because you are playing Matched play would make them slightly more exclusive, or up to the general to decide if losing those benefits is a fair trade for being able to gain allies. This is one of the big design flaws of Matched Play and Battle-forged armies in my opinion. To play Matched, your Detachments must be Battle-forged. By being Battle-forged, you get X Y & Z benefits. So they are automatic. Yes of course in Narrative or Open play you can have an army that is not Battle-forged, however if they simply changed the wording to indicate Battle-forged is to apply to Armies rather than Detachments, it would make a significant difference – anyone allied would no longer get benefits such as Sub-faction bonuses, Relics, Stratagems, even Objective Secured. It could be argued this would be punishment for allying, but my counter is those would be your rewards for being pure. Your reward for not taking them is flexibility in unit choice.

A look to the Realms

Age of Sigmar uses a compromise of this by allowing you to have up to 20% of your army as Allies, which do not obtain any of their unique and often powerful Army abilities – this is the reward for the vast majority of your army being from a single book. Going over this 20% removes the Army abilities from the majority force, but now allows you the free choice of units across the many allied factions available. Doing something similar for 40k could reduce the gulf between Souped armies and pure armies, whilst also allowing for a middle ground and letting people add in allies, but not getting as many benefits for doing so. Both sides have positives and negatives for their respective way of building an army.

To use AoS as an example again, they also allow you to have specific keywords that unlock a myriad of other benefits, or perhaps a powerful playstyle, but all of that Faction must be the same – there is no Sub-faction mixing. Again, it is the reward for specialising, as opposed to a punishment for mixing. Using this as an example, we could envisage a tier system of Battle-forged, let’s call them Coalition Army, Brothers-in-Arms and United Strike Force.

  •  A Coalition Army is an army where no Detachment has a sub-faction keyword accounting for at least 80% of the total Points. Detachments only receive their respective Army Rules, such as And They Shall Know No Fear, or For The Greater Good.
  • Brothers-in-Arms is where detachments with one Sub-faction keyword being at least 80% of the total Points. These Detachments gain their Battle-forged benefits, such as Stratagems and Chapter Tactics, and any other detachments do not receive their bonuses, other than the Army Rules.
  • United Strike Force is where 100% of the Detachments have the same Sub-Faction Keyword. In this case, they could gain an additional benefit, which could be as simple as some extra CP, up to more bespoke army rules (which of course would need balancing themselves).

Of course this is just a theoretical idea, but could lead to some more important decisions in the army building process – do I pick and choose, at cost of stronger individual benefits, or do I specialise for strong benefits but at risk of having a weakness in the army not covered?

But why even talk about theoretical stuff?

Well, the idea would be to help bring balance to a field that has become generally dominated by mixed allied armies. The changes in ITC have resulted in some headway as mentioned, but perhaps it is not quite there yet. Only by altering army building and the benefits of doing so, can the game incorporate a more even split between skill and list design- as mentioned in previous articles, this is a skill in and of itself, yet tends to be a bit too skewed at the present moment, at least on paper.

Recently I saw the following comment on a discussion online somewhere:

In a competitive setting, why would anyone handicap themselves by not using the options available to them?

Whilst I 100% agree with this, I do disagree with the implementation of these options, and the disparity they cause, again it’s coming back to no choice in resource expenditure or cost/benefit consideration.

Putting Rambling into Practice

Implementing changes or adjustments, at this stage at least, is honestly down to events and gaming groups – generally, they will need to be either self imposed, or moderated by a group or organiser. Army building as it stands is part of the core rules of course. However given the pace of changes happening in 40k with the Big FAQs and CA, it could occur sooner than expected.

There may be some that then may argue “Oh but you’d just be changing the base game!”, to which I would have (at least) three rebuttals:

  1. The core game is remaining the same, ruleswise – the only difference is how you would be required to build your list in order to participate. This is no different to entry requirements for weight classes in sports, ban/comp lists in various esports, and the differing types of Formats used in card games such as M:TG – they are the prerequisites, or guidelines required to participate in a particular event.
  2. If you play using the Rule of Three, which I believe the majority of people do, you are already technically changing the base game. It is after all, a suggestion for balance. If GW suggested to no longer use Allies, it wouldn’t be a rule, but certainly a strong indication from the game creator of their intent towards a more balanced style of play.
  3. If you play in literally any tournament, there are changes to the base game, and usually in game-altering means such as Mission Objectives, the extent in which you win the game, up to full blown rules changes and additions. Often these are an excellent adjustment or change for variety, or provide some better balance. As such a change to army building should not be considered any different.
Have a preview!

And so, I’ll end this here with a little sneak peak of some work-in-progress rules for the inevitable TT Events. We talk about our plans to do Events often enough, so why not give you some insight into the work going on into the rules pack as well! Now of course, nothing is set in stone here, and contrary to what I’ve spoken about above, this is more of a restriction rather than a reward based idea, however that is primarily due to a reward based system requiring a lot more investment of time and testing, and would change the game far more fundamentally than some set limitations. But regardless, I give you some of the potential rules for the TT Masters format!

Army Faction -​ Your army must be made for Matched Play and be Battle-forged. The Battle Brothers rule applies, with the additional keyword of ​Heretic Astartes

All of your Detachments must have an Army Faction Keyword in common. In addition, you may ​not use the ​Imperium, Adeptus Astartes, Chaos, Aeldari​,​ ​or​ Tyranid ​Faction Keywords for individual Detachments.

For example–Stig is deciding between his ​Adeptus Custodes​ and his A​deptus Mechanicus​. He decides to run his Army as I​mperium,​ ​so he can use both Factions as both armies have this Keyword in common. He must however have these units in separate Detachments, as Imperium​ is not allowed to be used within the Detachment as a Faction Keyword, per the Battle Brothers Rule.

Chefs’ Note: This is essentially the same as making a normal Matched Play Army, with the additional caveat to prevent the fringe cases of Heretic Astartes being used to include Chaos Space Marines from different codexes in the same Detachment

The Chains of Command -​ Your Warlord’s Faction determines a number of factors in your Army. You only get access to Battle-forged Rules (for example Chapter Tactics), Stratagems or Relics for Detachments that share your Warlord’s Faction.

In addition, you may only have ​one​ Sub-faction per Codex. This is your choice of Trait, such as Necron Dynastic Codes, or Ork Klan Kultures.

Finally, any Detachment that does not share the same Faction as your Warlord does ​not ​generate Command Points in any way, be it from the Detachment itself, unit special rules, wargear and so on.

*Exception Drukhari -​ ​Drukhari ​may​ ​take a mix of Sub-factions (​Kabals, Cults ​and ​Covens​) in the same Army, but each Detachment of the same Sub-faction must use the same Obsession – i.e you may not have a detachment of the ​Cult of the Red Grief​ and another Detachment using the ​Cult of Strife​. In addition, any Detachment with a Sub-faction that is not the same as the Warlord cannot use any of their Obsession rules, Stratagems, Relics or generate CP in any way, the same as if they did not share the same Army Faction Keyword as other Armies.

Example 1 – Bone wants to bring his T​ ’au Empire​, and is planning on running a Battalion Detachment and a Spearhead Detachment. He could not choose to give one Detachment the ​T’au​ Tenet, and one the S​a’cea​ Tenet – he may only choose one.

Example 2 – Spider is running an A​eldari a​rmy, made of a D​rukhari ​Battalion with the​ ​Kabal of the Flayed Skull​, a​ Drukhari​ Spearhead from the Prophets of Flesh ​Coven, and an ​Asuryani Outrider from Alaitoc​. He decides to make an Archon from the ​Flayed Skull​ Battalion his Warlord. As the Spearhead and Outrider​ ​parts of his army do not have the Flayed Skull​ Keyword, they do not gain any Drukhari Obsessions or Craftworld Traits. Spider cannot use the Prophets of Flesh ​Stratagems or Relics, the ​Asuryani Outrider could not use any ​Asuryani​ specific Stratagems or Relics, and he cannot generate CP from either of these Detachments in any way.

So that’s that, let me know what you think on these proposals. Am I onto something here, would you play with these, do you think they would lend some more balance to the game, or have I stared for too long into the abyss and gone utterly mad? As I say they’re subject to change – who knows what may differ in the game in the coming months! And as always, if you’ve any thoughts on this article go ahead and leave your comments and suggestions in the discussion below. Until next time team!

If you have a list with some unique tactics, a Tactica or hobby article that you feel would make an interesting read, or maybe you just want to give Chef a topic to rant about? Send it in to thepastrychef@tabletoptactics.tv and you might see your topic discussed in a future article!



53
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
20 Comment threads
33 Thread replies
24 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
24 Comment authors
Richard SmithRa EndymionRaffazzaGeorgMichael Neighbour Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Newest Oldest Most voted
Notify of
Richard Smith
Member
Richard Smith

I mostly play competitive Chaos and honestly there are a ton of different builds out there you could make work. I like how the game works. I’d much rather rule writers work on re-writing/ re-pointing units that the data shows aren’t used. Honestly the only thing at the moment that I would say is broken is Alaitoc Flyers and some of the Custodes Beta rules and they aren’t unbeatable broken. The Custodes just need for there -1 to Hit banner not to work on vehicles and see a couple of small points hikes and if Alaitoc was like 20 inches… Read more »

Ra Endymion
Member
Ra Endymion

I feel that any changes outside adding small benefits (such as extra cp) would just hurt smaller codexes such as Custodes, grey knights, and so on by further exposing their weaknesses due to having less options. Armies that can already be pretty competitive without soup (irks, tau, drukhari, and arguably ultramarines with guilliman) would become so much stronger and the overall balance would be worse.

Raffazza
Member
Raffazza

Great article. Interestingly very much in line with what have been arguing for for a long time now!
Think would make the game a lot more interesting

Georg
Member
Georg

Hi, I really like your discussions a lot, Chef. (BTW you should thank the person that took that picture you use, because it is a very good one) My 2 cents: List building: Of course an easy-to-play, balanced game is the most important aspect. See 8th edition’s inital (and continuing) success. However, a large part of the appeal of 40k is that fact that it is 40k. The lore behind it, the grimdark tone and the lore-rich factions. The “fluffy” armies. And I think that 40k tabletop needs to come up with a way to entice “fluffy” armies, not just… Read more »

Michael Neighbour
Member
Michael Neighbour

Loved the article! I enjoy all of your writings actually. I personally think it’s great that the official 40k rules don’t have a hard line on soup. It gives the community the flexibility of setting their own mission parameters for tournaments and leagues (or casual games) which is great. I love being able to play a variety of different missions. There will always be a diverse mix of tournaments out there that offer list building restrictions to suit players of all preferences. Furthermore, a fixed fact about the hobby is that (for most people) it’s slow. It’s what I love… Read more »

DGehring0809
Member
DGehring0809

Souping, CP farming and all that ilk is why I left 40k for AoS and haven’t looked back. AoS definitely has its stronger armies, but nothing like the crap you see in 40k. Related note, AoS batreps when. It’s the straight up more ‘Tactical’ of the Tabletop Tactics games (from GW). ON THAT NOTE, any chance of non GW games? Ever? There are so many great, tactical wargames out there (Infinity, Dropfleet, Dropzone, Flames of War, etc) that get lost in the white noise (or rather, overwhelming screeching) of GW games (which to be frank, ‘tactically’ speaking are almost laughably… Read more »

Jack Rutter
Member
Jack Rutter

Enjoyed the read. I’m a fan of all the rules for the TT Tournament, with the exception of preventing allied detachments from benefiting from Battle-forged rules, like Chapter tactics. I feel this a step towards making allies pretty much redundant. Non-warlord allied detachments not being permitted to use their stratagems or relics is something I am all for, I think GW should add this to the base rules in a CA to be honest. It’s too easy to add a bare bones detachment to be able to utilise strong stratagems or relics. Chapter tactics-esque rules however I think are different.… Read more »

KennyMoffat
Member
KennyMoffat

I’m with you on soup being something that needs to reduced as it leads to armies that are just min maxing for more CP and aren’t properly thematic or visually interesting as it’s lots of repetition. Not sure I’d go as far as not getting CP from secondary detachments however. I do like the AOS limiting factor for how many points in allies you can take. 20% may be a bit harsh though, would think possibly 30% would be more fitting. I would also go with the Warlord limits the stratagems that can be used. Fair enough having multiple detachments… Read more »

Andrew Simpson
Member
Andrew Simpson

Hey,

I’m not a fan of soups particularly when the fluff is given no consideration – ahriman warptiming mortarion for example when the two hate each other In the lore, so why not just make your tournament mono faction only…? Don’t sn do that in Gibraltar..? Paradoxically what should be the norm would become the norm with people having to be clever with their lists rather than just point and click predictable lists where it just comes down to who’s Knight or magnus kills the other first.

Michael Wemken
Member
Michael Wemken

Excellent slate, Chef. Thought provoking as always. I’m inclined to agree on nearly all accounts. As a Space Wolves player I tend to get smacked around by soup. There’s simply not much I can do to counter, say, a Nurgle soup list utilizing hordes of daemons backed up by daemon engine support and having seemingly unlimited CP to burn. Getting tar pitted by obnoxiously resilient troops whilst also being bombarded at range is rather difficult to counter when you’re held back by the drawbacks of a pure Astartes list. Imperial soup is another Achilles heal, regardless of my strategy or… Read more »

Martijn Poot
Member

I think the proposed rules are at least interesting to playtest. I do think that assassins might need an exception as well, since they can’t construct a pure army for themselves, and denying them all the possible access to strategems seems too harsh.

Joseph
Member
Joseph

To be honest, I think the rules pack you previewed is a bit over complicated and overly penalises soup builds. For a start, the game is probably the most balanced it has ever been. For evidence, check out 40Kstats.com – this isn’t my opinion, but borne out by facts. The data does, though, point to a handicap in most cases for someone running mono-codex. So the remedy? My thoughts, given the game is at its most balanced (likely ever), is to tweak things rather than have the more wholesale changes you put forward. Therefore I would tweak three things: 1.… Read more »

Thomas C
Member
Thomas C

Hi Chef. I’ve never commented on anything here before, but wanted to say that was a great article (the st yet, which is really saying something!), and that the proposed rules for your events seem very good to me. I agree in an ideal world GW would come up with and play test a positive encouragement for taking mono-faction, but it certainly looks unlikely and would be much harder for you to come up with for your events. Only getting the +3CP for being battle forged if you’re mono-faction is an idea that could work, but I really like the… Read more »

Mortz82
Member
Mortz82

Im fine with not having soup, but then they need to bring some LoW from 30k into the 40k Mechanicus.

Ofc Knights fits very well with an Admech Army having Stratagems and the ability to repair them.

JohnPaints
Member
JohnPaints

Hi Chef, thought provoking as always. I wonder if perhaps there’s a simpler solution? At present, all battle forged armies receive +3CP. Why not restrict this reward in matched play to only those armies that are mono-faction (i.e. share sub-faction keyword)? It wouldn’t cut out all the nonsense by any stretch but its a very straightforward solution.

King-Yat Yau
Member

Excellent article! Of course, there’s always the option of just building a fluffy army and playing for laughs! The sheer versatility of models in 40k allows you to have dozens of thematic armies, and if you’re having fun, that’s all that matters. My Alpha Legion army has nothing but infantry, and they get pounded more often than most, but I’ve found that a fun game beats a game won by cheese often.

Thomas Abery
Member
Thomas Abery

For a mono faction army, would you consider a dual warlord type scenario. Say for example I have a battalion of Ulthwe and a spearhead of Alaitoc. My warlord is Eldrad in the battalion, but to gain the Alaitoc special rule of -1 to hit I would have to spend a cp to make my hq for the spearhead a second warlord. This would be similar to the special detachments from vigilus. This could be balanced in a way that the second warlord could not take any warlord traits and furthermore would negate the cp gain from the spearhead. Also,… Read more »

Christoph Palatzke
Member
Christoph Palatzke

Hi Chef, being always more of a silent observer guy but now I had to comment your new Data Slate. I really agree with the thoughts you have for restricting the soup. I, as a long standing, little frustrated mono Dark Angels player, really have a problem with playing against soup. At the beginning of 8th I enjoyed participating in tournaments, as I never really attended those events before. Meanwhile I have to think twice to bring my Dark Angels to a tournament without any restricitons of the organizer. So I would love to see GW to spring into action… Read more »

Professor Dean
Member
Professor Dean

I agree with everything you’ve said. I also think Forgeworld should get some kind of restriction too as they seem to be alot more points efficient than codex options.

Dave G
Member
Dave G

Hi, just using the Drukhari as an example, if I wanted to take a battalion of for example black heart and a prophets of the flesh detachment and talos does this then mean I wouldn’t get the 4 up save on my talos? Don’t get me wrong I agree that soup should be toned down, however within the same faction will it not lead to overly restrictive builds? ie everyone takes the same list of 3 ravagers/air wing all as black heart and never uses the covens because they don’t have the variety/strength without their strats/traits? Just pondering but it… Read more »