Back in the late 90s I invented my own CCG style card game for 40K. There wasn't any Necrons or Tau back then but even a laymen like me could get them all to work perfectly.

I had no over lapping factions. Each faction was on its own.. just like the table top. Then I split the universes other things into a mass of neutral cards linked by type. So.. psyker powers were universal cards, as were thing like orbital bombardment and different maneuvers. The deck building was around mixing tactics NOT factions.

This allows you to have pure.. no lame working together alliance bull between the factions and have in addition to these base units with there activations being in the other cards. 6 factions, to mix with 4 tactic types.

War makes strange bedfellows.

U.S.S.R. and the U.S. anyone? WWII?

Nothing is more natural than two people who don't like each other teaming up to take out someone bigger that they like even less. Besides, they can always fight each other when their done taking out the 500 lb gorilla.

Well i'm really not as versed in the WH40K universe as many of you but from what I know those alliances exists already or seem to be explainable.

Orks being more of a neutral/chaotic faction, mainly the Blood Axes, have been known to work with the Imperial Guards from time to time. For Orks, if there's blood and battle involved they'll join anyone offering these.

Eldar and Dark Eldar following the Harlequins could also make some alliances, weird as it is, but all for a common cause.

Controlling a strategic and important sector calls for weird and shady alliances and WH40K being, well WH40K, and all it's lore and details intersecting makes it even more plausible.

i would have preferred to have allies be determined by the warlord not the faction but i suppose FFG can always make exceptions later in the game to allow different allies

i.e. Tau warlord with human auxiliaries or an ordo malleus inquisitor with some pet daemons

i would also like to see some of the less popular armies in the game as allies only with a smaller card pool

i.e. Adepta Sororitas or individual SM chapters

i would have preferred to have allies be determined by the warlord not the faction

This is exactly what I thought. It would have given the Warlord so much more meaning and would allow any mix of any faction. FFG could even have lore in the sheet insert explaining some fluff behind the warlord to have its own faction pairing make more sense.

Main Faction and Two Sub Faction icons on each warlord to make a deck form the main and 1 of the sub factions... What a great idea.. you should work at FFG

The problem with that set-up is that they'd then have to consider the combination of almost every card with almost every other card. With the current system, they know that Chaos and Space Marine cards will never occur together, but with that system it could happen in the future so they'd have to consider it during the design of every set.

I basically see this as a gameplay trumps flavor situation. Pure flavor it probably makes the most sense to not have alliances at all, but the game is more interesting if some alliances are allowed. The wheel gives the deck building variety from allowing mixed-faction decks while trying to keep the flavor as preserved as possible. It's far from perfect, but it's a pretty good compromise really.

The alliances seem fine to me.

If a specific combo of races was to powerful they could just not make a warlord for that combo or give them some kind of disadvantage

FFG does fine in their other games that allow combined faction decks

I'm perfectly fine with the alliance wheel, but there's nothing to prevent them from doing both.

After all, rules are rules, cards are exceptions -- the text of the Warlord just has to give permission.

That being said, I hope it's a long time before they do this.

It's also possible (though it seems unlikely) that as the game moves to focus on different sectors with big box expansions including new planet decks, we might see different ally wheels to reflect the situation in that sector. Just a thought, though as I said, it's not something I'd put money on.

This wheel looks to me like, "hey, let's try something new and original and see what happens". I think they will balance cards based on factions, and not caring a lot about the alliances. And then, the banhammer will strike.

Would alliances really make up for the faction's needs? We will see.

the wheel is fine as a game device... sure. The thing that is retarded is how the factions mix.

So I have played other CCGs and LCGs before and the wheel i think is needed for game balancing and to keep Fan boys happy

I played VS my favorite Card game mechanic of all time one of the things that killed that game is that any team (faction) could be in the deck with others so you had characters and teams you never heard of kicking the crap out of the iconic super heros and teaming up for no reason and it caused alot of problems with balance for the game.

This wheel keep the ballance for the designers to make sure the cards they design wont break the game.

Thats my 2 cents

As a side note this game looks amazing and I cant wait to try it out

the wheel is fine as a game device... sure. The thing that is retarded is how the factions mix.

I think that the faction alliances work fine lore-wise as well. The Imperial Guard/Ork one has been in the lore since 2nd edition (and maybe earlier, I didn't play before then) and the Eldar/Dark Eldar one isn't much of a stretch, particularly with the Harlequin link.

Like many have said already, lore, mechanic, looks. All good. First LCG I'm very excited about. I did play the sabertooth original back in the day though, so maybe it's that. It even looks a bit familiar, didn't FFG buy them from GW?

Only question is... Where's my tyranids??!!?!?! Now that would be a hard fit on the wheel.

In regard to expansion factions, they could either release 3 factions that are positioned outside/inside the wheel and make enough connections to allow 3 allies going forward, or they could make the new factions have no allies. I have a hard time seeing the Nids or Necrons with allies...

Or maybe the `nids will have some special ability where they 'infest' or gene splice certain other factions. That could be cool.

Or they can always release a new wheel if they needed to.

Or they can always release a new wheel if they needed to.

Only if that wheel doesn't change the current alliances. Think if one day they move you beloved ork/IG alliance deck so it is no longer a legal alliance.

It's not beloved by me. I hate the IG.

Of course it would need to keep the current ones the same. My point is there is options. People need to be patient.

"Your beloved" meant an hypothetical situation xD. Announcing stuff six months early fuels peoples imagination and anxiety.

The alliances on the alignment wheel are represented to some degree in 6th ed. 40K and, generally speaking, the wheel is well-arranged. However, there are still some issues with the alignment wheel from both a thematic perspective and a game-mechanics/design perspective:

1) It doesn't represent degrees of allegiance like the 40K allies matrix, so hypothetically you could end up in a meta where you see lots of DE/Chaos decks and, as they are classified as "desperate allies," this should really be reserved for corner case scenarios.

2) There are alliances that are not represented on the alignment wheel such as Tau/Orks and Space Marines/Eldar who are allies of convenience. Yet DE/Chaos make the cut?

3) The 6th ed. 40K allies matrix may be in line with the latest GW fluff, but a lot of us 40K players view it as a marketing scheme to get people to buy out of faction miniatures. I prefer my 40K with more paranoia and xenophobia. Factions that are battle brothers are OK occasionally and these and other alliances such as those mentioned above could be enabled by specific cards in Conquest. This last point is obviously more a matter of taste than an objective comparison between the alignment wheel and the allies matrix. In the grim darkness of the far future, I'd like to see less friendship.

I realize that the alignment wheel will almost certainly remain in place if for no other reason than that the core set must include enough cards to construct playable 50 card decks. While this is an advantage for the core set, it may become a liability for the long-term health of the game. Combined, the pitfalls of the alignment wheel listed above could potentially lead to issues with deck diversity and corner case alliances that are now somehow commonplace.

To offer one hypothetical, if Orks and IG prove to be highly synergistic, then suddenly you'd find yourself playing against lots of competitive Ork/Guard decks. I don't mind this combination sometimes (Blood Axes, mercenaries) but it would be a shame if all competitive Guard decks included Ork allies. That's just one hypothetical example but we all know that when decks are optimized for competitive card games, you tend to see similar archetypes over and over. The stultification of deck lists is both common and unfortunate in card games; look at Sith control in Star Wars where two or three objective sets have been dominate since release. It's even worse when it's some strange combination that may not be entirely unthematic but still shouldn't be commonplace (e.g. Orks/IG or DE/Chaos).

The easiest way to address these issues is to do away with the alignment wheel altogether and embrace the distrust and xenophobia of pre-6th ed. 40K. Occasional alliances could be made possible through card text.

If alliances are to play a large role in the game, I think the alignment wheel could at least be more flexible. A more elegant design solution would be to indicate potential ally factions on the warlord cards, e.g. a Blood Axe warlord could ally with Imperial Guard, whereas a Gahzghkull warlord card would not allow guard allies. This would also provide a design mechanism through which we could see other ally possibilities such as Chaos with corrupt Guard, Orks manipulated by Eldar, etc.

This hypothetical change would not require re-balancing individual cards or an overhaul of the core rules. In practice, all that would be required is that warlord cards display the icon of the faction(s) with which they may ally and a number that indicates how many cards from other factions that hero's deck may include.

If allies were specified on the warlord cards, it would even be possible to adjust the degree to which a particular warlord might be willing to accept allies. That is to say, a one warlord might be willing to accept 10 allied cards in the deck whereas another warlord might accept only 5. Abandoning the rigidity of the alignment wheel also opens up more interesting combinations such as a radical Inquisitor warlord that would allow for some daemon cards to be included in the deck, or a less xenophobic IG commander to take Tau allies. In cases where alliances might create powerful synergies, balance can be maintained by simply restricting the number of ally cards permitted. This just seems like a more flexible and modular system that would allow for more thematic, diverse, and customizable decks.

There are plenty of ways this might be addressed and this is just one possible suggestion. I'd just like to see groundwork in place for a highly thematic and diverse meta for this promising game.

EDIT: Added introductory paragraph and clarified incorrect terminology

The alliances on the alignment wheel are represented to some degree in 6th ed. 40K and, generally speaking, the wheel is well-arranged. However, there are still some issues with the alignment wheel from both a thematic perspective and a game-mechanics/design perspective:

1) It doesn't represent degrees of allegiance like the 40K allies matrix, so hypothetically you could end up in a meta where you see lots of DE/Chaos decks and, as they are classified as "desperate allies," this should really be reserved for corner case scenarios.

2) There are alliances that are not represented on the alignment wheel such as Tau/Orks and Space Marines/Eldar who are allies of convenience. Yet DE/Chaos make the cut?

3) The 6th ed. 40K allies matrix may be in line with the latest GW fluff, but a lot of us 40K players view it as a marketing scheme to get people to buy out of faction miniatures. I prefer my 40K with more paranoia and xenophobia. Factions that are battle brothers are OK occasionally and these and other alliances such as those mentioned above could be enabled by specific cards in Conquest. This last point is obviously more a matter of taste than an objective comparison between the alignment wheel and the allies matrix. In the grim darkness of the far future, I'd like to see less friendship.

I realize that the alignment wheel will almost certainly remain in place if for no other reason than that the core set must include enough cards to construct playable 50 card decks. While this is an advantage for the core set, it may become a liability for the long-term health of the game. Combined, the pitfalls of the alignment wheel listed above could potentially lead to issues with deck diversity and corner case alliances that are now somehow commonplace.

To offer one hypothetical, if Orks and IG prove to be highly synergistic, then suddenly you'd find yourself playing against lots of competitive Ork/Guard decks. I don't mind this combination sometimes (Blood Axes, mercenaries) but it would be a shame if all competitive Guard decks included Ork allies. That's just one hypothetical example but we all know that when decks are optimized for competitive card games, you tend to see similar archetypes over and over. The stultification of deck lists is both common and unfortunate in card games; look at Sith control in Star Wars where two or three objective sets have been dominate since release. It's even worse when it's some strange combination that may not be entirely unthematic but still shouldn't be commonplace (e.g. Orks/IG or DE/Chaos).

The easiest way to address these issues is to do away with the alignment wheel altogether and embrace the distrust and xenophobia of pre-6th ed. 40K. Occasional alliances could be made possible through card text.

If alliances are to play a large role in the game, I think the alignment wheel could at least be more flexible. A more elegant design solution would be to indicate potential ally factions on the warlord cards, e.g. a Blood Axe warlord could ally with Imperial Guard, whereas a Gahzghkull warlord card would not allow guard allies. This would also provide a design mechanism through which we could see other ally possibilities such as Chaos with corrupt Guard, Orks manipulated by Eldar, etc.

This hypothetical change would not require re-balancing individual cards or an overhaul of the core rules. In practice, all that would be required is that warlord cards display the icon of the faction(s) with which they may ally and a number that indicates how many cards from other factions that hero's deck may include.

If allies were specified on the warlord cards, it would even be possible to adjust the degree to which a particular warlord might be willing to accept allies. That is to say, a one warlord might be willing to accept 10 allied cards in the deck whereas another warlord might accept only 5. Abandoning the rigidity of the alignment wheel also opens up more interesting combinations such as a radical Inquisitor warlord that would allow for some daemon cards to be included in the deck, or a less xenophobic IG commander to take Tau allies. In cases where alliances might create powerful synergies, balance can be maintained by simply restricting the number of ally cards permitted. This just seems like a more flexible and modular system that would allow for more thematic, diverse, and customizable decks.

There are plenty of ways this might be addressed and this is just one possible suggestion. I'd just like to see groundwork in place for a highly thematic and diverse meta for this promising game.

EDIT: Added introductory paragraph and clarified incorrect terminology

Those are all really great ideas. I just hope they get listened to. I guess I don't have to ask YOUR thoughts on co-op for this game....

So I have played other CCGs and LCGs before and the wheel i think is needed for game balancing and to keep Fan boys happy

I played VS my favorite Card game mechanic of all time one of the things that killed that game is that any team (faction) could be in the deck with others so you had characters and teams you never heard of kicking the crap out of the iconic super heros and teaming up for no reason and it caused alot of problems with balance for the game.

This wheel keep the ballance for the designers to make sure the cards they design wont break the game.

Thats my 2 cents

As a side note this game looks amazing and I cant wait to try it out

Appologies, but it's 2014 and your talking about a game that's been dead for seven years (sometimes I even wonder if my roomie and I are the only ones who still play it.) So, I don't get to do this often......

While it's true that you could have any charachter or faction in your deck it was by no means optimal. The game was based on teams and as you know if you didn't have at least two IN PLAY from the same team, then you had a glaring weakness that no dominant deck ever possesed. Also what chacters and teams that you never heard of were kicking the crap out of the iconic heroes? The two most dominant decks in the beginning were Titans/Sentinels then the meta became a bit more diverse but not much. The next truly dominant deck was Avengers. Pretty Iconic. Only the Squadron Supreme could come close to them but only close not better. With the release of JLA the JLA or JLA/JLI variants became the beatdown de'jour and with Crisis came JSA which was a LOT better than many expected. After that WoW was announced and the serious money players left, money tourneys stopped and it was pretty irrelevant. The factions did NOT kill VS. Upper Deck did. Deciding to move it's resources to the abject failure that would become the WoW tcg, letting fans design cards, power creep from hell, THESE are the things that killed VS. not the fact that you could (if you were victory challenged and success impaired) have many different and crazy factions on your team.

An' your right. It is a HELL of a game. Best. Ever. Only NetRunner can even come close....and that takes a pretty great game of NetRunner!

As for the wheel the best idea I've read so far is either having factions printed on the warlord or and entirely different wheel available in other expansions along with other planet decks to represent an entirely different system making all manner of crazy corrupted alliances possible. Maybe corruption tokens would help?