What The....? Seriously? What were you thinking?

[Scammel]

Look at the Necrons and Blood Angels, never would I have wanted to see something like that in the BG...

I've never really understood this fluff gripe. I've seen numerous rants, conversions and pictures concerning the event, when all that really happened was... they didn't kill each other on a single occasion. There are a couple of fluff abominations out there, mostly relating to GK characters, but why this one attracts the ire it does is beyond me.

[eldargal]

No not you, the OP and a few others around the forums.

You mean where the Necron and Blood Angels worked against a common foe once and then withdrew rather than risk a combat with no clear guarantee of victory? The incident that was then completely overblown into some kind of friendship between the two? All I'm saying is people are hugely overstating the importance of the allied chart and reading any kind of fluff implications into it is just silly. Some choices have some kind of basis in fluff, others don't.That is as far as it goes. Extrapolating the reverse, that the allies chart points towards radical fluff changes is just ridiculous.

[Egaeus]

People take the allies stuff too seriously. It isn't a hierarchy of formal diplomatic status between races, it is a hierarchy of who they might work with for the duration of a single battle BEFORE they go their own way and try and kill each other again. That's it. It implies not foreshadows NO FLUFF changes whatsover.

I suppose what fundamentally bothers me the most about the concept of allies is that it should be a narrative element, that the question of why these two armies, which would likely be killing each other under normal circumstances, are now working together. Now in some cases it isn't hard to devise reasons for such pairings, but in others it becomes much more of a stretch. But the simple fact is that since the Ally rules are "the rules" it removes any such necessity for developing a narrative. I don't have to care why Black Templars and Eldar are working together because the rules simply tell my they can.

Although there are a number of intances where there are huge disconnects between "the fluff" and "the rules" so it really shouldn't surprise anyone at this point.

[AlphariusOmegon20]

Well, AlphariusOmegon20, if you needed any other demonstration that most people will like and defend whatever GW puts out, here it is. If in the next Templar codex we find out that they were hatched by Khorne, who is the Emperor's cousion and would love to come around for tea would it not terribly inconvenience his relative, Warseer will erupt in a storm of annoyance and irritation at everyone questioning this logical and unavoidable progress in fluff while asserting GW's inalienable rights.

Point taken.

Perhaps its simply a measure to help people avoid feeling "trapped" into choosing an army due it's allies selection ie "I really want to collect Black Templars but the Ultramarines get Tau as allies - damn, id better collect a Codex chapter then". At least you have the OPTION like your battle brothers, just not the inclination. Perhaps, it's also more to represent the Tau willingness to ally with, well, nearly anyone as opposed to the views of thier potential allies.

And I don't fault that. I even said so in the OP. Don't get me wrong, I actually like the Allies idea and will use it. But at least make the chart make SENSE, according to the company's own fluff. THAT is the only issue I have with the chart directly. Indirectly, I feel we should be concerned for future BT fluff, along with other armies, because of PAST HISTORY of it changing to "wait, what?" issues.

People take the allies stuff too seriously. It isn't a hierarchy of formal diplomatic status between races, it is a hierarchy of who they might work with for the duration of a single battle BEFORE they go their own way and try and kill each other again. That's it. It implies not foreshadows NO FLUFF changes whatsover.

I will grant that it is silly that the Black Templars would be as uncomfortable working with SoB as they are with Dark Eldar and Necrons. SoB being as zealously bigoted against heretics and xenos as the BT themselves. But that's all. It is a complete non-issue as far as fluff goes.

Ok, then considering past history of changing fluff by one of the writers of the 6th ed rules, when SHOULD we be concerned and show our displeasure about future fluff changes? After the new BT book is out and it CAN'T be changed? I'd rather be concerned before, when we can show our displeasure and attempt to ensure it DOESN'T get changed, than stay silent until after release and allow it to be massacred.

I think that you won't. The C:BT has a rule stipulating that they cannot ally with any army with a psyker other than GK, this includes Inquisitors.

@ OP: There is a nice little exception to the 'anything goes' in the rule book under the heading "narrative". If you opponent is bringing allies, you can get them to explain their reasoning. I expect this to have so hilarious results, particularly if the player has done so for WAAC reasons, in many gaming clubs.

This is a prime example of what I am talking about. BT running around with a Farseer? I can't think of ANYTHING that goes more against current BT fluff.

And I remember you saying about how you would be aggrieved if they made multi aspect warrior kits..... . Some people got into their armys because of the fluff and ironically this allows people to do things that completely fly in the face of established background. Now, im all for people doing what they want to do in games, thats your right, to have fun and a really good time, but I for one am bemused by some of the alliances. Dark Angels and Orks? Shas-O-Really?

Dark Angels and Orks is another good example. Armageddon AND Piscina jumps to mind preventing that alliance in any form.

I'm a fluff player, my point is that it has no impact on the fluff at all. None. If they wrote fluff justifications for why it was happening, like that 'rumour' of the Ultramarines protecting the Tau then that would be bad, just like multi-apect kits would be bad. But they didn't. I also agree some of the alliance choices are ridiculous, I really don't think the allies chart is particularly well thought out. But it doesn't change the fact that it is optional and has no bearing on the fluff at all. You want to complain about how it is ripe for abuse, fine. You want to complain how some of the choices make no sense, fine. But having a hissy fit because of the fluff when it has no impact whatsoever on the fluff is just silly.

I'm a fluff player too. Again, I do understand allies is optional. The Allies concept is not my issue.

My issue is because a certain writer was involved in the creation of the rulebook as one of the main people involved, AND his involvement in the Allies Chart itself, AND his penchant for changing fluff, can we be SURE it will NOT have an impact of future fluff, beyond a shadow of a doubt? I say no, we can't. Hence why it is best to raise the alarm NOW that it COULD happen, rather than later after the BT book is out, and such changes ARE made and nothing can be said about, other than the standard "WTF' threads we get AFTER such changes are made. It's best to say something BEFORE it's done, to possibly prevent such abominations, as we all know GW doesn't listen worth spit afterwards. Why should they? They've already done it, it's a done deal at that point.

You do have to wonder if this chart was designed to set up such changes.

[eldargal]

OF course it could happen, GW could decide to advance the fluff forward, GW could decide they want to morph 40k into Mass Effect, anything could happen. The fact remains there is no good reason to assume anything WILL happen just because of a rules mechanic. You are getting far too excited over the possibility that something you won't like could possibly happen but without the slightest indication that it will.

I'm not trying to be rude or dismissive, but there is just no issue here at all. I hate stupid fluff changes as much as the next person, but what changes Ward has made are minor, are not done in a vaccum (he can't just do stuff for lulz, it has to be approved) and his fluff for both the SoN and the Necrons was actually really good. All this is in addition to the fact that a game mechanic only vaguely based on the fluff is not an oracle on future fluff changes.

[Sexiest_hero]

I'm a chaos fluff player Nightlords since 3rd, I don'tlikethechart for the simple fact that it gives Loyalist the Super legion codex we were promised: "we never said CHAOS legions". WE still get "Use black legion!" not only do loyalist get almost all their leigons in stand alone codexes, they get to use the together as they see fit. This will not change in the new codex.

[Veteran Sergeant]

I'm just glad this wasn't another thread complaining that the Templars and Sisters are Desperate Allies by people who can't see the fundamental differences between their ideologies and just see two 'religious themed" armies and assume they are natural allies.

[Lord Inquisitor]

I'm quite unhappy about the chart. It isn't so much a question of absolutes but relative alliances. Imperial guard are worse allies with the Inquisiton than Eldar and Tau are with each other? Black Templars are treat Sisters of Battle as barely-tolerated enemies but are better friends with the Eldar and their witches?

I'm okay with the chart being fluff based and particularly permissive or not. But it's inconsistent in the extreme.

[ArmyC]

Well relative to the Eldar at least, the allies of convenience works.

This is because if the Eldar think you are about to screw something up that will have long range consequences, they just sorta show up and tilt the tide of battle to their own ends.

No problem. We do that for free. We do it for ourselves really.

[lanrak]

Well its finaly happened.
GW plcs corperate managment have been hindering rules development for years in the focus on selling toy soldiers to children.

Now they are making a complete nonsense of the established history alot of narrative gamers belive is as important as the instructions to play the game.

GW plc are realy outdoing themselves by alienating themselves from a wide selection of potential customers as possible!

[Inquisitor Kallus]

Well its finaly happened.
GW plcs corperate managment have been hindering rules development for years in the focus on selling toy soldiers to children.

Now they are making a complete nonsense of the established history alot of narrative gamers belive is as important as the instructions to play the game.

GW plc are realy outdoing themselves by alienating themselves from a wide selection of potential customers as possible!

I wouldnt say complete nonsense. Some of it is just a bit strange.

[Lord Inquisitor]

Well relative to the Eldar at least, the allies of convenience works.

This is because if the Eldar think you are about to screw something up that will have long range consequences, they just sorta show up and tilt the tide of battle to their own ends.

No problem. We do that for free. We do it for ourselves really.

... And the Black Templars are like, whoa, where did you come from you ARMY OF WITCH ALIENS but cool let's fight together and we'll just hope you don't have some ulterior motive, but if the Sisters of Battle turn up to aid them in purging heretics whoa we will treat you as barely tolerated enemies, you LOYAL SERVANTS OF THE EMPEROR.


Barring a major re-write of the fluff, there's just no way Black Templars are more okay with fighting with psychic aliens than with devout sisters. I'm okay with the allies charge being "permissive" or "restrictive" but it needs to be consistent. Eldar could be flat out forbidden for Black Templars to fight alongside, or they could be Allies of Convienence. Both are okay with me. But if Eldar are "Allies of Convienence" then Sisters of Battle should be "Blood Brothers" (or Blood Sisters?). If Sisters of Battle are Desperate Allies with Templars, then Eldar should be forbidden from allying with BT.

I'm okay with the ally matrix being harsh or allowing a lot of tenuous connections - but if it is fluff based, then the relative relationships need to be right, or the whole thing is just stupid and irritatingly restrictive. You might as well just say "anyone can ally with anyone else" and have a more balanced system if the fluff based system isn't going to follow the fluff! There's no way any imperial organisation is going to prefer allying with aliens than with other imperials as a matter of course!

In many ways, it's WORSE than not having a table. We can come up with reasonable ally groupings for campaign games ourselves. But now people will feel that they ought to use the "official" table despite all its stupidities.

[yabbadabba]

Lords of Terra: The threat to the Imperium, to humanity, to this very universe, has never been greater than now. Our augurs have declared that humanity cannot stand alone. This conclave has been convened to inform the servats of the Imperium of the necessity to take advantage of the additional resources this universe has to offer in terms of our battle for survival. And if these resources get used up, then so much the better.
Calgar: In other words we have to fight along side Xenos and other foul denizens?
Lords of Terra: No Imperial shall work with the forces of Chaos, for they are truly the end of us all. As for the others, if you can use it to your advantage, then do so
Kryptmann: Well I have been working on a pheromone controller for Tyranids ....
Lords of Terra: ...That's nice Kryptmann. Yes Helbrecht?
Helbrecht: DON'T WANT TO. They are all to nasty, slimy, witchy things that need to be stamped upon!
Lords of Terra: Helbrecht your control over your chapter is your own but you have to realise that the Imperium does not have the manpower...
Helbrecht: DON'T WANT TO!
Lords of Terra: You don't have to but ...
Helbrecht: DON'T WANT TO!
Lords of Terra: You don't have to but ...
Helbrecht: DON'T WANT TO!
Lords of Terra: You don't have to but ... Calgar?
Calgar: I wouldn't. Helbrecht takes those vows very seriously. In fact he takes any vow seriously. You remember that vow to eat 200 chocolate eclairs at once Helbrecht? Yes we were cleaning up the puke for weeks.
Helbrecht: DON'T WANT TO! HATE ALIENS! HATE WITCHES! NASTY WITCHES!
Calgar: Now you know why I don't bring Tigurius to these meetings.

[Lord Inquisitor]

Lords of Terra: No Imperial shall work with the forces of Chaos, for they are truly the end of us all. As for the others, if you can use it to your advantage, then do so
Kryptmann: Well I have been working on a pheromone controller for Tyranids ....
Lords of Terra: ...That's nice Kryptmann.

Ha!

(10 characters)

[Inquisitor Kallus]

Inquisitors can and will do occasionally, they are called Radicals... . The thing is they tend to be somewhat subtle about it as if found out they face death at the hand of Puritans. Therefore battlefield scale alliances tend to be very rare, though not unheard of. Tyranid allies though? I think not. Genestealers themselves are a different story (cults) but they would be better served as a list of their own, rather than seeing things like Hive Tyrants and Carnifexes joining cults.

[AlphariusOmegon20]

... And the Black Templars are like, whoa, where did you come from you ARMY OF WITCH ALIENS but cool let's fight together and we'll just hope you don't have some ulterior motive, but if the Sisters of Battle turn up to aid them in purging heretics whoa we will treat you as barely tolerated enemies, you LOYAL SERVANTS OF THE EMPEROR.


Barring a major re-write of the fluff, there's just no way Black Templars are more okay with fighting with psychic aliens than with devout sisters. I'm okay with the allies charge being "permissive" or "restrictive" but it needs to be consistent. Eldar could be flat out forbidden for Black Templars to fight alongside, or they could be Allies of Convenience. Both are okay with me. But if Eldar are "Allies of Convenience" then Sisters of Battle should be "Blood Brothers" (or Blood Sisters?). If Sisters of Battle are Desperate Allies with Templars, then Eldar should be forbidden from allying with BT.

And that is my greatest fear about the whole thing, that we may be sliding in that direction, going against well established fluff.

[Scammel]

My issue is because a certain writer was involved in the creation of the rulebook as one of the main people involved, AND his involvement in the Allies Chart itself, AND his penchant for changing fluff, can we be SURE it will NOT have an impact of future fluff, beyond a shadow of a doubt? I say no, we can't. Hence why it is best to raise the alarm NOW that it COULD happen, rather than later after the BT book is out, and such changes ARE made and nothing can be said about, other than the standard "WTF' threads we get AFTER such changes are made.

Raise what alarm? To what end? Pre-emptive complaining acheives absolutely nothing, GW aren't going to listen and all it does is whip up negativity. Feel free to be annoyed when Helbrecht starts dating Farseers, as many of us (including me) will be, but right now there's no 'alarm' to raise, especially considering we have little to no idea what they'll actually do.

GW plcs corperate managment have been hindering rules development for years in the focus on selling toy soldiers to children.

Now they are making a complete nonsense of the established history alot of narrative gamers belive is as important as the instructions to play the game.

GW plc are realy outdoing themselves by alienating themselves from a wide selection of potential customers as possible!

GW make an odd allies matrix - Upper management are ruining the game! The company's gonna go bust! Called it here first people!

[Egaeus]

I wouldnt say complete nonsense. Some of it is just a bit strange.

Nor would I...it's a big universe and odd things happen all the time. As I mentioned before my major issue is that idea that these alliances, which should probably be rare and specific to some particular "greater threat", are cheapened by the idea that they are now an everyday occurrence.

The Black Templars Codex specifically has a section where it says they will not ally with models with Psychic Powers...I assume that rule is still in effect (nothing in the FAQ mentions it), so although you could ally with Eldar you wouldn't be able to include a Farseer or Warlocks...so maybe it's not as bad as some people think?

[Steinhardt]

... And the Black Templars are like, whoa, where did you come from you ARMY OF WITCH ALIENS but cool let's fight together and we'll just hope you don't have some ulterior motive, but if the Sisters of Battle turn up to aid them in purging heretics whoa we will treat you as barely tolerated enemies, you LOYAL SERVANTS OF THE EMPEROR.

As was already pointed out. C:BT stipulates no allies with Psychic powers... But then these women show up and magic s**t starts happening... Looks like witches to me...

[Grocklock]

France and England were indeed at war in the past. They are no longer at war - times do change.

But to say that France and England were never at war? The wars never happened? That's not times changing. That's revisionism. A retcon, if you will. And it would be a stupid thing to say.

I'm sure there's a comparison to be drawn there somewhere.

I would agree with this point but it hasn't happened has it, also if something isn't mentiuoned in the fluff doesn't mean it didn't happen the codexs can only hold so much fluff matterial