Thought Experiment: Reducing Abusability

[Lord Mayhem]

Having read the "Stop your whinging!" thread, I got to thinking of a brief thought experiment:
Premises:
40K is not perfectly balanced (the degree or even necessity of balance can be debated but the fact is undeniable)
There are rules that can be abused to make lists that are "unfun" to fight (be it unfluffy or OP or just plain annoying)
There are players that will abuse them. (whether this is a problem in your local meta is another issue)

Question:
What single adjustment (House rule) would you make to reduce abuse, while minimizing effects on general armies? Provide reasoning.

My initial concept would be: Characters cannot join allied units.
Reasoning:
Many of the "unfun" combos involve allied characters joining units specifically to buff them with special rules/psychic powers (aka Deathstars).
This becomes a significant area for abuse since while most character/unit combos within a codex have been/could have been thought through, cross codex combos are far harder to account for, making balance harder to achieve. By preventing this, many Deathstars would be eliminated which should increase the variety of armies. (As a side note, this likely would also lead to fewer Eldar (JB) Farseer/5 DA/Waveserpent ally lists which in turn would likely lead to a small reduction in the complaints about Eldar OPness)

This would not prevent players from fielding the same allies they already do, so would not require new models or remove old ones, and would not require any list changes, unless they player specifically builds to make deathstars )(in which case, by removing the deathstar crutch it should encourage greater personal development ) . It would also reduce anomalous rule interactions between codices creating unanticipated results or ambiguities.

On a fluff side it simplifies reasoning for allies (it's easier to explain fighting alongside another force than it is to explain why their boss has abandoned them to run with the allies), makes sense tactically (the allied leader leads his own troops) and can even justify backstory ("yes, they're allied, but Brother Captain Acute of the Space Angles hates Major Problem of the IG 177263rd Penal Battallion on a personal level, ever since...")

[Erik Setzer]

I was thinking this... but I'm not sure it would work as a blanket rule. There are some cases where I could see someone being able to lead a unit from another army, i.e. an Inquisitor leading a unit of Guardsmen (or even getting some help from a unit of Marines). But that would probably be one of only a handful of exceptions, such that you could just note them separately.

I was actually considering coming up with a set of "house rules" to try to tweak some of the stuff in the game that people complain about the most. Totally unofficial stuff, but it'd be fun to see if someone in the community could add a touch of balance or fixes that GW can't.

[Ben_S]

Banning ICs from joining allied units seems harsh. It would achieve the end, if feasible, to say that they can join allied units but don't transfer special rules to them. That would probably cause other problems with mixed rules though.

[Djbz]

It makes sense to me (With the obvious exception of Inquisitors).
Never sat right with me that Dark Eldar can be joined(or join) Eldar and/or Harlequin psykers when their entire background says they avoid them like the plague.
Never see Azrael leading an imperial guard platoon in the background either do we?

[ShadowcatX]

No flyers or super heavies.

[daboarder]

I dont think a single rule could solve the issues with 40k at the moment.

Its a complex layer of force multipliers, access, formations etc that give rise to the issue with 40k.

However, what gives rise to the largest issue does seem to be the cross codex force multipliers AT THE MOMENT.

I think the broadest change I'd suggest would be to make everyone allies of convenience 6th ed style. Remove the major problems cause by codex jumping/cross casting. And there is probably justification somewhere in the 40k galaxy for any type of union of forces to occur.

so yeah, I guess I'd prevent the "cross codex pollination" of abillities, powers and characters.

- - - Updated - - -

Banning ICs from joining allied units seems harsh. It would achieve the end, if feasible, to say that they can join allied units but don't transfer special rules to them. That would probably cause other problems with mixed rules though.

a fair idea, but very clunky to implement with the way that USRs, Ld and bubbles usually work. Even just a 2+/3++ in a unit can be a potent force multiplier.

[Lord Manton]

I would actually just say "no allies". Although allied armies make for great fluff and narrative gaming, but purely in terms of making a competitive game, they don't quite work.
Armies in these types of games are typically designed to have one particular strength with a glaring weakness, that adds up to a bit of balance, albeit of the rock-paper-scissors variety. But allies means that you can take a small force to plug that hole and basically eliminate any weakness, making the army better than it otherwise would or should be.

I know that other people have suggested it in the past and been shot down with cries of "it's not 5th ed anymore", but for competitive purposes i think it'd be a fair adjustment.

Also, no serpent shields. Dat sh!t broke.

[daboarder]

I would actually just say "no allies". Although allied armies make for great fluff and narrative gaming, but purely in terms of making a competitive game, they don't quite work.
Armies in these types of games are typically designed to have one particular strength with a glaring weakness, that adds up to a bit of balance, albeit of the rock-paper-scissors variety. But allies means that you can take a small force to plug that hole and basically eliminate any weakness, making the army better than it otherwise would or should be.

I know that other people have suggested it in the past and been shot down with cries of "it's not 5th ed anymore", but for competitive purposes i think it'd be a fair adjustment.

Also, no serpent shields. Dat sh!t broke.

Thing is, I'd argue against that for the exact same reasons it irks me when GW drastically change/ remove options from a codex.

By now we've had allies for what, 3-4 years now, so they have become a significant investment to peoples armies, to the point that if they we're removed those people would be justifiably in my opinion, seriously put out.

EDIT: I still think the serpent shield was a typo of 6 to 60....

edit2: I do understand where you are coming from in terms of "gap filling" but that has never seemed as big an issue as the force multipiers as it is additive thinking, and has a cap in that while they are covering some of the inherent weaknesses of the force, they are spending less points focusing on its strengths.

[dimdum]

Skimmers get -1 to their cover save gained from terrain. This reduces the effects of holo fields etc when hiding behind a ruin. Fluff wise, skimmers are meant to hover kinda high, staying close to the ground isn't the easiest, while a land based tank doesn't have that problem.

Also assault from walking on the table, goddam it still annoys me that it isn't a thing.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Fliers and FMCs do not benefit from terrain-based Cover, because they're in the sky. Trim out extraneous USRs like Soulblaze, that add unnecessary book-keeping and are rarely used.

Restructure the Imperium so that they have a hierarchy of factions, rather than one homogenous blob. E.g., Inquisition can lead anything, and are at the top. Space Marines can lead Guard and Sisters units, Sisters can lead Guardsmen, but Guard at the bottom cannot lead anything, they are only led.

Guard are treated as AoC with all factions, allowing the creation of Blood Axe, Heretic Guard, and Genestealer Cult lists without the sharing of USRs making it silly. This could be expanded upon with supplements or something similar, and allows the Guard Codex to represent the standard human army archetype.

Other factions lose Battle Brother status. IIRC, this only affects Eldar factions, and Tau allying with the Farsight Enclaves. Most have already posted reasons why Eldar allying among themselves doesn't make much sense. AFAIK, with CSM/Daemons, "we are Battle Brothers but not really," approach this means they won't lose anything, as they can't join each other's squads anyway, (unless you run Daemonkin.)

This doesn't fix Allies as far as competition tbh, but makes it make more sense. Inquisitors leading retinues of Space Marines, Sisters or Guardsmen is something that the fluff often has them doing.

Other than that, selective buffing and nerfing of units. Pyrovores need to be cheaper, for example, as the Tyrannocyte gives them a delivery method they lacked. I can't remember if they can be taken as squads, but if not, them allow them to be 1-3.

Wave Serpents would make more sense as an effect like, say, "all enemy units within 6" of the front arc of the Serpent take D3+1 S7 hits with the Pinning and Ignores Cover Special Rules." This makes it less of a sniper weapon - outranging Lascannons and matching the Heavy Rail Rifle in range...wut? - and more of something to let you roll up, bail out the unit, smack an enemy unit to the floor, so they're more vulnerable.

Heck, maybe make it instead grant Assault Vehicle-esque rules as well so that Banshees and Scorpions aren't terrible anymore? Pinning covers the Assault Grenades problem.

I'm trying to think what else is terrible in the game. Rough Riders...ummm...cheaper? They can't really wear Carapace Armour and +1T from a horse wouldn't make much sense. Charge from Outflank? Hmm, Flamers will still end the squad...