The stupid thing about the allies table...

[AlphariusOmegon20]

The Blood Angels are a Codex Chapter, lol. You need to keep up on your fluff. What makes them different is their gene seed flaw that requires them to allow for the Death Company. The Thirst and Death Company is what makes them unique enough for their own book. They still follow the majority of the tenets of the Codex, even if they have a propensity for Assault troops and close combat. The Codex does cover close combat too, lol.

As far as the Black Dragons, well, what do we know about them? That they have weird bone protrusions as a result of mutation? That doesn't prevent them from being a Codex Chapter. I don't think you really understand what a Codex Chapter is. It isn't a Chapter that uses Codex: Space Marines to the letter, lol. Those are the game rules. In the fluff, a Codex Chapter just adheres to the majority of the Codex's tenets on recruitment, training, heraldry, and organization. It has nothing to do with certain peculiarities of gene seed or preference in tactics. The Codex isn't a book of hard and inflexible rules. The Space Wolves and Black Templars are non-Codex because they refute nearly all the organizational tenets, and from all appearances all of the training and recruitment guidelines too. The White Scars are a Codex Chapter, even though they like bikes and dislike dreadnoughts.

I'm aware of what Codex means, hence why I stated that BA are not Codex. Death Company is a massive organizational change from the codex. Colored Blood Drops on their pads denoting company is not codex. That is also a massive organizational change, that they don't use the same colors as codex chapters to denote company is an organizational change. By your own post, BA are NOT codex.

Same goes for the Dragons. The Dragon Claws company (where those with the bony protrusions get placed in the chapter) is not codex in any form. Having Assault heavy companies is not codex., etc.... The Dragons are NOT codex either.

[Brother Haephestus]

Battle brothers was indeed a bit far imo however this is not the same relationship between the two armies like the fantasy equivalents (High Elf and Dark Elf) as most seem to think. There is not a direct hate/desire to conquer or defeat one another. They had a difference of belief and how their society was too function and react so they parted ways so to speak.

Agreed. There is still a connection between the two factions, and they both know it. I've always imagined it as a sort of "No one gets to pick on my kid brother but me!" relationship. The fact that the Harlequins walk equally between both indicates they're not as different as they'd like to believe. More like the Eldar are desperate to fight the inevitable, and the Dark Eldar are, "Don't bother. We even have cookies!"

[battybattybats]

Fluff-wise, going back to old stuff, tyranids can ally with EVERYONE! What? I hear you cry WHAT???!!! The mind-slaver parasite that takes over enemies brains and uses them as troops or as betrayers who rejoing their forces only to turn on them. This is from the background in Advanced Space Crusade and Tyranid Attack and was mentioned in more recent material where the brainleaf creature of catachan was likened to the tyranids and as possible evidence that catachan is a tyranid-seeded world but i don't recall what book that was in. IIRC white dwarf once included rules allowing tyranid armies to take mind slave units, especially common were black legion space marines who for some reason were quite keen on fighting tyranids and were occassionally encountered fighting tyranids inside the hiveships in ASC and TA and this was part of 40k background as ROC vol.1. specifically mentions a black legion helmet found in a hive fleet ship.....

And thats before we go with the genestealer cults. And this edition really is the best one to bring back genestealer cults.

[Kevlar]

He didn't say he played for the models, though. He said he played for the rules. And playing 40K for the rules is borderline insane, because the rules are abominable.

Besides, models counts as "fluff" for me, as far as it matters for that last post - they're part of the imagery. You can buy into whatever aspects of this you like, whether you like to delve into the back story (I don't, largely because it's silly and juvenile if you look at it too closely these days) or just soak up the aesthetic. Same kind of principle when it comes to motivation to play. You can't filter the rules in the same way though.

Well I play because I love the citadel miniatures, and back in the old days there wasn't even all that much fluff. It was just tacked on with the rule books. Most of it was extremely silly and whimsical, like 8th grader in jokes.

[comradeda]

If what i see is right, then Dark eldar are battle brothers with the Eldar. but in the same allies matrix space marines and chaos space marines cannot ally. i find this weird as the hatred between the eldar has been going in fluff/history wise for many many millenia. This is a lot more deep rooted and a great deal longer than the SM's and the CSM's have been fighting it out for.

Support this claim with evidence.

Dark Eldar and Eldar don't share the "elf/dark elf" enmity of their stereotype.

[Spiney Norman]

Support this claim with evidence.

Dark Eldar and Eldar don't share the "elf/dark elf" enmity of their stereotype.

Not to the same extent marines/chaos marines, but neither does the fluff paint them as best friends.
In order to complete their training Incubi a required to kill an aspect warrior and despoil his soul stone to create a tormentor, that doesn't strike me as something that is going to endear them to the craftworlders.

In the fluff story where the DE show up to help Iyanden vs the Orks, the craftworlders are surprised to see them, which was basically because "we lol at your ghosties", this is obviously not a routine occurrence as it is the only example of Eldar/DEldar working together existent in the fluff. That doesn't sound like "Battle Brothers" to me.

The fluff in the DE codex confirms that DEldar raid craftworlds (the specific example given is Iyanden) and it even mentions that DE consider CWE slaves to be the most prized in all of Commorragh.

This does not sound like two forces that have "utter trust in their comrades, treating them as an extension of their own forces" (p. 112). I could see them as operating together as desperate allies, maybe even as allies of convenience, but battle brothers? Nah

In the same breath they've failed to explain why Sisters of Battle and Space marines don't trust one another, when that was one of the most obvious examples of a battle brothers alliance. Also is there some fluff I'm unaware of where the Black Templars and the Sisters fell out because they seem to hate each others guts on the allies chart?

[stonegiant]

In the same breath they've failed to explain why Sisters of Battle and Space marines don't trust one another, when that was one of the most obvious examples of a battle brothers alliance. Also is there some fluff I'm unaware of where the Black Templars and the Sisters fell out because they seem to hate each others guts on the allies chart?

I think the marines got penis envy

[Bubble Ghost]

...they've failed to explain why Sisters of Battle and Space marines don't trust one another, when that was one of the most obvious examples of a battle brothers alliance.

I don't think that needs explaining. It's one of the most believable things in there. If you want to know what happens when almost identical beliefs quibble over precise levels of divinity, take a look at the history of the middle east... If one group does not seem to buy completely into a faith, who more likely to distrust them than the group which most fervently believes in that faith?

"Battle brothers" is a bit of a stretch for Eldar and Dark Eldar, but people are getting far too hung up on the language there. If you take that as what it is, i.e. a lyrical bit of flavour - "fluff" in the truest sense - all the actual mechanic is doing is describing how their armies would function if forced to work together. You could certainly make a case that they should only be allies of convenience but I don't think the top level is too much of a stretch.

Well I play because I love the citadel miniatures, and back in the old days there wasn't even all that much fluff. It was just tacked on with the rule books. Most of it was extremely silly and whimsical, like 8th grader in jokes.

My point was that in this context, dividing everything about the game into the broad divisions of fluff and crunch, miniatures come under fluff. They're part of the imagery you choose to buy into in whichever ways you like. You can't do that with rules.

[Sir_Turalyon]

People are reading to much into names and rules off alliances, less into their background descriptions; reading Battle Brothers as allies actualy trusting each other, Allies of convenience as alliance and Unholy Alliance as alliance with less trust. Neither is true fluffwise.

Battle Brothers or "Let's agree for a moment, if only on the strategy " - despite the grandous name, is just a proper alliance; it does not mean both forces trust or like each other on principle, just that they can set a common goal and trust each other to pursue it as planned. Think Soviets and Western Allies during WW2.

Allies of Convenience or "Let's agree to disagree, if only for a moment" - these are not alliances at all, just cease fire situations where both sides decide to ignore each other and pursue their respective goals, which are close enough to cooperate but not close enought to form common objectives and strategy. It also involves situations where forces fighting on the same side have usualy too different goals / mindsets to agree on common objectives (Templars are here to destroy the Orks no matter the colleteral damage, Sisters are here to protect the cathedral from the same Orks) or simply won't talk to each other (Dark Angels and Space Wolves wouldn't be caught agreeing on common strategy, because). Think Chinese Communist / Republican forces when Japan invaded China.

Desperate Allies or "If this thing works and these guys don't betray me, I'm still geting sooo court martialed for this..." both forces are definietly hostile to each other, but have more pressing things to do than shoot each other, things that involve fighting the common enemy. Think British and Nazi soldiers stranded on isle full of dinosaurs.

[Ronin no Matsu]

I think the only fluff GW respected in their table is about nids having no allies. For everyone else, I hope the ally table have been made after years of test to boost armies in need and to let those already too strong where they are. Also, you got to see this table as how would react certain armies when facing a common foe. About Tau and Space Marines, isn't there many space marine characters saying that Tau are respectable enemy and are honorable fighters in «Savage scars» and «Courage and honor» (such things haven't been said about every human factions). But I suppose it's harder to believe that Space Marines would fight under the lead of a Tau commander and vice-versa. Let's say that if they do, it's for a very limited time and against a major threat.

[Jericho]

People are reading to much into names and rules off alliances, less into their background descriptions; reading Battle Brothers as allies actualy trusting each other, Allies of convenience as alliance and Unholy Alliance as alliance with less trust. Neither is true fluffwise.

Battle Brothers or "Let's agree for a moment, if only on the strategy " - despite the grandous name, is just a proper alliance; it does not mean both forces trust or like each other on principle, just that they can set a common goal and trust each other to pursue it as planned. Think Soviets and Western Allies during WW2.

Allies of Convenience or "Let's agree to disagree, if only for a moment" - these are not alliances at all, just cease fire situations where both sides decide to ignore each other and pursue their respective goals, which are close enough to cooperate but not close enought to form common objectives and strategy. It also involves situations where forces fighting on the same side have usualy too different goals / mindsets to agree on common objectives (Templars are here to destroy the Orks no matter the colleteral damage, Sisters are here to protect the cathedral from the same Orks) or simply won't talk to each other (Dark Angels and Space Wolves wouldn't be caught agreeing on common strategy, because). Think Chinese Communist / Republican forces when Japan invaded China.

Desperate Allies or "If this thing works and these guys don't betray me, I'm still geting sooo court martialed for this..." both forces are definietly hostile to each other, but have more pressing things to do than shoot each other, things that involve fighting the common enemy. Think British and Nazi soldiers stranded on isle full of dinosaurs.

I'd pay to see that movie.

Also: some nice analogies to help people digest the Allies table.

[Starchild]

What bothers me the most is that they ignored the background for Dark Angels. All throughout 2nd edition they were never allowed to ally with Xenos or mutants. It was explained that they were more zealous than other chapters in this regard.

There was even a story in WD in which a squad of Dark Angels in a city were en route to assist an Imperial Guard unit, in response to a distress call. When the Dark Angels saw that the Guard unit was composed mostly of Ogryns, they turned around and walked away, leaving the Ogryns to their fate. On top of that, this was even after the DA squad suffered a casualty from an enemy sniper on the way in!

[Harwammer]

How I read the allies chart:

Battle Brothers: can the armies work together cohesively
Allies of Convenience: can the armies give each other some distance, even if they can't put their differences aside
Desparate Allies: Has a Tyranid Hive Fleet just started making planet fall where the two (now allied) armies were previously fighting

If a hive fleet invasion can't even get the two armies allied then it's come the apocalypse.

[Gu Long: Ancient Dragon]

Given that GW have stated time and time again that their games are not designed with competitive play as their focus, i'm surprised this still comes up. And given the latest White Dwarf is full of references to this new edition having a strong narrative focus then allies certainly do have a place in a game.

This. If you want to play something competitive go play sport. 40k should be about creating a story not about "Hurr hurr my army is harder than yours!!!!!111tard"

Gu

[Lord Inquisitor]

Great I'll tell a great story about my Kasrkin being lead by an Ordo Malleus Inquisitor in a Valkyrie modelled to be an inquisitorial vessel. I can't, because the ally matrix makes Inquisitors only "allies of convenience".

If the ally matrix is for fluff players, it needs to be fluffy. It isn't in many areas. If its for balance ... Well, it isn't balanced.

If I ignore or amend the matrix for my own fluff army, it's one thing, but I suspect if I try to claim my Inquisitors should be blood brothers that's not going to down well with my opponents! It may be fluffy but oddly enough claims of fluff changes that give me an in-game advantage tend to be treated skeptically.

The ally matrix works for many fluffy builds but some relationships in the table really grate from a fluff perspective. And if we aren't looking at it from a fluff perspective, we start looking at balance...

[Gu Long: Ancient Dragon]

Great I'll tell a great story about my Kasrkin being lead by an Ordo Malleus Inquisitor in a Valkyrie modelled to be an inquisitorial vessel. I can't, because the ally matrix makes Inquisitors only "allies of convenience".

If the ally matrix is for fluff players, it needs to be fluffy. It isn't in many areas. If its for balance ... Well, it isn't balanced.

If I ignore or amend the matrix for my own fluff army, it's one thing, but I suspect if I try to claim my Inquisitors should be blood brothers that's not going to down well with my opponents! It may be fluffy but oddly enough claims of fluff changes that give me an in-game advantage tend to be treated skeptically.

The ally matrix works for many fluffy builds but some relationships in the table really grate from a fluff perspective. And if we aren't looking at it from a fluff perspective, we start looking at balance...

Inquisitors do have a tendency to Exterminatus the guard so yeh they aint gonna be overly trusting of one are they

[yabbadabba]

I think the point is the allies table is neither limited by established background nor allowing total freedom for players to make their own decisions, it is instead subject to a range of seemingly random restrictions which don't appear to bear any relation to the background material.

They will not be random. Just because you do not understand the logic doesn't mean to say its not there; its unlikely that GW will explain why so we have to be patient and wait for the logic to be revealed but that doesn't detract from the point that it is not compulsory. Tournaments have a great history of houseruling things they don't like so I am sure that we will see Allies banned from them.

I would have preferred that they had either strictly adhered to the background, producing a list similar to mine above, or just left allies totally open and allowed players to decide for themselves what was acceptable and what was not. What we got was a bizarre and mostly non-sensical halfway house that doesn't make any kind of sense.

I would prefer a much more open system but I don't believe GWs customers are mature enough to cope with that; and again that it doesn't make sense to you doesn't make it non-sensical.
The real question is what this bodes for the future of 40K in terms of background. As for the rules it establishes clearly a proper Allies system in the BRB for the first time in editions. It's not compulsory.

They could have made the fluff gamers happy by giving them a strictly limited allies system, or they could have made the gamey players happy by leaving allies completely open, instead they managed to piss of both groups by inventing a set of restrictions which don't follow the background, gamey players can't make the combos they want and fluff players a frustrated because allies don't follow the fluff, everyone loses...

It hasn't pissed off both groups; its pissed off a few nerds on a website including some background fanatics and some WAAC players.

Here's the nick; we have people on a forum getting their knickers in a twist over somethinng they do not understand which isn't even necessary for the rules to operate, let alone compulsory. Its like someone complaining that a chinese restaurant serves peas, which they hate, even though they can ask for no peas and many meals have no peas at all.

What we are missing out on here are two clear things: the development, almost return, of a more narrative style of game and what that means; and the possibility of the evolution of the background which is an extremely rare occurence. The final option is that they change the table in 2 years or, my preferred option, they expand it.

Sorry but for a site like this I find all this moaning a bit embarrassing.

[EDMM]

It is necessary because some of the armies that you can make with allies will be BETTER than armies without allies.

Since some of the codices have access to different, less or even NO allies whatsoever, this means that some codices will be at a definite disadvantage due to the table.

It is a factor of significant imbalance that provides absolutely no redeeming benefit at all.

[Grimtuff]

Inquisitors do have a tendency to Exterminatus the guard so yeh they aint gonna be overly trusting of one are they

If IG can be used to represent Traitor Guard then they can also be used to represent =][= Stormtrooper regiments.

Apparently not.

[yabbadabba]

It is necessary because some of the armies that you can make with allies will be BETTER than armies without allies.

Since some of the codices have access to different, less or even NO allies whatsoever, this means that some codices will be at a definite disadvantage due to the table.

It is a factor of significant imbalance that provides absolutely no redeeming benefit at all.

You will identify those that are not mature enough to cope with this responsibility. You get the choice whether to help them or shun them. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.