4595
Post by: CaptainLoken
I'm not trying to be lazy, but I really don't feel like reading 100+ pages of posts to see if anything has been said about the Fluff in 6th Edition yet. Does anyone know about the newer Fluff?
Specifically, is it true that the Emperor charges the Ultramarines to "protect" the Tau, as their near immunity to Chaos is "Humanity's salvation"?
If this is true, I will not be playing 6th Edition...nor will I be purchasing any new GW stuff. Don't get me wrong, I like the Tau. Heck, I have 2,000+ points of Tau. But, I also have 8,000+ points of Ultramarines. I also have Black LIbrary books covering battles that the Ultramarines fought against the Tau, as well as all of the accounts in the timeline where the Tau and Ultramarines have clashed. If they are suddenly "Battle Brothers", as the Allies Chart seems to point out, then GW has become so desperate to sell miniatures, that I don't want to encourage them.
I play 40K because of the Fluff. Not because of the rules. Not because of the miniatures. I play for the Fluff. If, after all of these years, GW is suddenly going to change the Fluff so that they sell more Hammerheads, then I am done. It was bad enough when players started running Slaanesh deamons along with Khorne deamons. It was bad enough when the Blood Angels "ignored" the Necrons in order to stop a Tyranid invasion. But, when Space Marines start fighting with Orks and Tau...that's just too much.
That's like Hitler leading Captain America into battle. Or, like Darth Vader and Yoda teaming up to fight Boba Fet. Give me a break. There are just some things that should be sacred.
Now, I've been playing 40K since Rogue Trader days. I KNOW the Fluff has changed over the years. But, I am really happy with the way it has evolved over the years. If all of that means nothing now, then I am just not interested.
OK, I will get off omy my soapbox now. Sorry for the rant. I am just really looking for information before I spend more than $100.00 on a game that I may not want to play. Thank you.
59949
Post by: DA SPEED FREEK
If you can't be bothered to search for the rules and don't like the allies in 6th ed then just simply play by 5th ed rules! 
16387
Post by: Manchu
I think it'll be a little tougher than that. How many guys do you know who played 4th edition rules since 5th came out. Oh, I know there are some but they are a tiny minority.
I think the larger point here is that GW has always played fast and loose with the fluff. Background info is just a facet of marketing. For most of us, our favorite fluff details are probably retcons of somebody else's beloved nostalgia.
Dropping 40k because you're not interested is one thing. Dropping it out of some sense of moral indignation is just silly.
56269
Post by: Jayo'r
IMHO playing for the fluff is stupid. If you don't like gws fluff then make up your own
46926
Post by: Kaldor
CaptainLoken wrote:I It was bad enough when the Blood Angels "ignored" the Necrons in order to stop a Tyranid invasion.
That made perfect sense under the circumstances, and so would this change.
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
CaptainLoken wrote:I'm not trying to be lazy, but I really don't feel like reading 100+ pages of posts to see if anything has been said about the Fluff in 6th Edition yet. Does anyone know about the newer Fluff?
Specifically, is it true that the Emperor charges the Ultramarines to "protect" the Tau, as their near immunity to Chaos is "Humanity's salvation"?
If this is true, I will not be playing 6th Edition...nor will I be purchasing any new GW stuff. Don't get me wrong, I like the Tau. Heck, I have 2,000+ points of Tau. But, I also have 8,000+ points of Ultramarines. I also have Black LIbrary books covering battles that the Ultramarines fought against the Tau, as well as all of the accounts in the timeline where the Tau and Ultramarines have clashed. If they are suddenly "Battle Brothers", as the Allies Chart seems to point out, then GW has become so desperate to sell miniatures, that I don't want to encourage them.
I play 40K because of the Fluff. Not because of the rules. Not because of the miniatures. I play for the Fluff. If, after all of these years, GW is suddenly going to change the Fluff so that they sell more Hammerheads, then I am done. It was bad enough when players started running Slaanesh deamons along with Khorne deamons. It was bad enough when the Blood Angels "ignored" the Necrons in order to stop a Tyranid invasion. But, when Space Marines start fighting with Orks and Tau...that's just too much.
That's like Hitler leading Captain America into battle. Or, like Darth Vader and Yoda teaming up to fight Boba Fet. Give me a break. There are just some things that should be sacred.
Now, I've been playing 40K since Rogue Trader days. I KNOW the Fluff has changed over the years. But, I am really happy with the way it has evolved over the years. If all of that means nothing now, then I am just not interested.
OK, I will get off omy my soapbox now. Sorry for the rant. I am just really looking for information before I spend more than $100.00 on a game that I may not want to play. Thank you.
WH40K is a fictional universe. It isn't actually real.
Sorry to break it to you.
30289
Post by: Omegus
DA SPEED FREEK wrote:If you can't be bothered to search for the rules and don't like the allies in 6th ed then just simply play by 5th ed rules!
Wow, your reading comprehension is non-existent.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Playing for the sake of the background is completely legitimate, especially considering that 40k is not the tightest, most balanced set of competitive rules out there ...
6838
Post by: 1hadhq
CaptainLoken wrote:I'm not trying to be lazy, but I really don't feel like reading 100+ pages of posts to see if anything has been said about the Fluff in 6th Edition yet. Does anyone know about the newer Fluff?
.
I think everybody was so focused on rules, they didn't care to report fluff.
Or there are zero changes... we'll see in a few days. 
The catalogue, ie WD July still ran with extra grimdark and moar grimdark etc etc..
16387
Post by: Manchu
The (alleged) Allies table indicates that SoB and BT barely get along but that SM and Tau are good buddies.
38967
Post by: jareddm
Manchu wrote:The (alleged) Allies table indicates that SoB and BT barely get along but that SM and Tau are good buddies.
And by SM it most likely means Ultramarines specifically.
6838
Post by: 1hadhq
Manchu wrote:The (alleged) Allies table indicates that SoB and BT barely get along but that SM and Tau are good buddies.
This table is unfluffy. 
Said that, IMO its based on game balance ( assuming balance is a part of the "cinematic" game they stated to aim for ) and we could point again towards a certain member of the design team to blame for this..but I think its too early for this.
PS: SoB and BT have a "unholy alliance" in this chart. So its a typo and will be fixed to "holy alliance". 
PPS: don't see where in fluff or game those two deserve a lesser level of alliance then other imperial forces.
37755
Post by: Harriticus
I too fell in love with 40k because of the fluff/background, not the rules or game. I think our types find this rulebooks new revisions harder to swallow then that.
A lot of the allied rules are certainly horrendous. I'll accept "allies of convinence" with SM and Eldar/Tau and I'll accept the IG would hire Ork mercenaries under the right conditions, but a few of the setups just make no sense whatsoever. Particularly:
-Tau and Daemons. Shouldn't even be able to see the other
-Imperial Guard and Daemons
-Space Marines being Brothers in Arms with the Tau but only Allies of Convinence with the SoB. Really, we're meant to accept that the SM find it easier to ally with Tau then the pious servants of the Emperor? What? This is particularly tue with Black Templars, who have multiple Xenos as higher-level allies then the SoB.
-Daemons and Dark Eldar. DE are utterly terrified of Daemons above all else, and Daemons crave Eldar souls above just about anything else. No foe would have them work together.
As you can see, Daemons allies in particular took a huge hit. I'm curious why GW didn't make a few like Daemons also unable to ally with anyone other than themselves and CSM. Daemons are more or less the same as Tyranids in viciousness, single-mindedness, and are also directed by a higher power. Do you really think the Chaos Gods care about holding some world against an Ork invasion? They would butcher everyone there, IG and Orks included.
This is all in the backdrop of course that the Space Marines and Tau don't just occasionally ally now, they're brothers in arms, the same as Marines and Imperial Guard. But really given other inconsistences and messes created by this, that abomination seems minor.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Imperial Guard and Daemons at least makes sense when you consider people who want to make Traitor armies. I guess DE are really mostly averse to Slaanesh. I cannot for the life of me figure out the SoB/BT thing unless they are going to be portrayed as accusing one another of heresy.
45703
Post by: Lynata
1hadhq wrote:PS: SoB and BT have a "unholy alliance" in this chart. So its a typo and will be fixed to "holy alliance".
 Gonna fix this in my rulebook.
Manchu wrote:I cannot for the life of me figure out the SoB/BT thing unless they are going to be portrayed as accusing one another of heresy.
That is probably the best explanation I've heard so far.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
It is a pain that IG and CSM don't have the top level level alliance - I mean it is not like traiter guard and cultists have been in the Chaos fluff for quite some time...
38967
Post by: jareddm
1hadhq wrote:PS: SoB and BT have a "unholy alliance" in this chart. So its a typo and will be fixed to "holy alliance".
There is no unholy alliance, that was just what it was called under one specific tournament. There's Battle Brothers(aka. sharing information and tactics), Allies of Convenience(aka. fighting next to each other, not with each other) and Desperate Allies(aka. fighting so as to screw over the other guy, who you plan to immediately attack as soon as the third guy is dead). Though I will admit it seems pretty damn weird that all the Imperium armies aren't at least Allies of convenience with one another.
SilverMK2 wrote:It is a pain that IG and CSM don't have the top level level alliance - I mean it is not like traiter guard and cultists have been in the Chaos fluff for quite some time...
Yes but cultists don't necessarily get along with CSM. Especially if they're not worshipers of the same god or if the CSM are one of the less chaos-aligned warbands, such as IW or NL
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
jareddm wrote:Yes but cultists don't necessarily get along with CSM. Especially if they're not worshipers of the same god or if the CSM are one of the less chaos-aligned warbands, such as IW or NL
They generally get along in the same way that SM and IG get along  Hell, most of the time cultists seem to be seeded simply to be willing meat shields for the CSM/CD And they certainly get along better than the fricking SM and all the xenos in the universe (although apparently not acording to this matrix ).
16387
Post by: Manchu
Lynata wrote:Manchu wrote:I cannot for the life of me figure out the SoB/BT thing unless they are going to be portrayed as accusing one another of heresy.
That is probably the best explanation I've heard so far.
My own pet theory about the BT is that they are crazy ass heretics, just this side of Chaos worship. And my pet theory about the SoB is that they are the faction that see through the self-deception of other factions. The SoB could hate the BT for so flagrantly defying the Codex in a mockery of piety and the BT could hate the SoB for daring to judge them, the truest sons of Rogal Dorn who they think of as the Emperor's most loyal son.
45703
Post by: Lynata
jareddm wrote:Yes but cultists don't necessarily get along with CSM. Especially if they're not worshipers of the same god or if the CSM are one of the less chaos-aligned warbands, such as IW or NL
Might have deserved the option, though. CSM warbands are often accompanied by a posse of "lesser" warriors such as cultists and traitors who are part of the family, so to speak - even closer than Marines + IG.
Yeah, depending on the combination (which cult + which CSM Legion) it might not work out so well - but the same can be said about the Space Marines. Marines Malevolent anyone?
Manchu wrote:My own pet theory about the BT is that they are crazy ass heretics, just this side of Chaos worship. And my pet theory about the SoB is that they are the faction that see through the self-deception of other factions. The SoB could hate the BT for so flagrantly defying the Codex in a mockery of piety and the BT could hate the SoB for daring to judge them, the truest sons of Rogal Dorn who they think of as the Emperor's most loyal son.
Possibly, but it would require some new fluff then. Everything I've seen printed so far made them look fairly cool to the SoB's PoV. Maybe the 6E rulebook or the Codex will shed some light on this.
16387
Post by: Manchu
I'm think the kind of "cultists" who follow CSM around will likely be covered in the next CSM dex. A traitor guard regiment, even one full of Chaos cultists, would not necessarily see itself as merely the pawns of one CSM faction or another.
37755
Post by: Harriticus
We can explain-away why the SoB and BT would be on bad terms but at the end of the day, it makes no sense that they'd ally with the Eldar over the Sisters. I mean not only are they xenos, but they're also Psychic. Doesn't get much worse then that to a Templar. But apparently, Sisters are worse.
Yes, Sisters and BT can fight and yes they can decry each other as heretics. But still, they both are at least human and both at least follow the Emperor.
30289
Post by: Omegus
A lot of people seem to be mistaking the allies chart for some tournament with the new ally chart in the rule book. If you see anything about "unholy alliance", you're looking at the wrong chart.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Lynata wrote:Everything I've seen printed so far made them look fairly cool to the SoB's PoV.
The BT are very ambiguous. They are the most religiously emphatic of all the SM chapters but we can guess that, as successors to the IF, they do not actually worship the Emperor. That alone would make them suspicious in the eyes of the SoB. Also, they exist because Dorn insisted on simultaneously conceding and defying the Codex Astartes. Their very existence indicates treachery and yet they claim to be the most fanatically loyal of all. The SoB make a similar claim but they operate completely within the law (down to the technicalities of the law) unlike the openly non-compliant BTs. I can see a lot of grist for this mill. But before now, there was nothing printed that drew these contrasts explicitly. Automatically Appended Next Post: Omegus wrote:A lot of people seem to be mistaking the allies chart for some tournament with the new ally chart in the rule book.
So that chart has nothing at all to do with 6th ed. and Tau and SM are not actually "brothers in arms"? Would be a relief to OP.
37755
Post by: Harriticus
Omegus wrote:A lot of people seem to be mistaking the allies chart for some tournament with the new ally chart in the rule book.
So that chart has nothing at all to do with 6th ed. and Tau and SM are not actually "brothers in arms"? Would be a relief to OP.
Unfortunately the actual 6th Ed chart is more or less what the tournament one was:
Facepalm away
45703
Post by: Lynata
Manchu wrote:I'm think the kind of "cultists" who follow CSM around will likely be covered in the next CSM dex. A traitor guard regiment, even one full of Chaos cultists, would not necessarily see itself as merely the pawns of one CSM faction or another.
Possibly. In that case I suppose these Traitor Guards would be "impromptu" convertees, freshly turned from Imperial service.
Still, I wouldn't bet on this. That would make too much sense.
Harriticus wrote:they'd ally with the Eldar over the Sisters
Hahah, I didn't even notice that yet. Brilliant.
Omegus wrote:A lot of people seem to be mistaking the allies chart for some tournament with the new ally chart in the rule book. If you see anything about "unholy alliance", you're looking at the wrong chart.
Well, as far as I can see they only switched the names.
I had hoped the actual chart would be different from the tournament one, I really hoped. But it still looks 2/3 random. :(
16387
Post by: Manchu
Frankly, this chart comes as a huge relief to me -- at least I know Sisters are mentioned in the rulebook!
46751
Post by: Akroma06
Ok BT are not heretics for ignoring the codex astartes. They chose to not go along with Gulliman so lets leave it at that.
As for the chart thing. DE and daemons confuse me to no end...seriously no chance, its like eldar and daemons.
As for the BT and SoB...again I have no idea. I would think that they would probably be the closest aligned (battle brothers) after all they have similar goals. The other thing is why do the BT like the Eldar? The eldar symbolize all that the BT hate! I also don't know why BT and DA are battle bros. after all I do recall reading a little something about a crusade finding a fallen and then never being heard from again...DA were last one in the vecinity and now we are just ok with them hiding something?
16387
Post by: Manchu
Akroma06 wrote:Ok BT are not heretics for ignoring the codex astartes. They chose to not go along with Gulliman so lets leave it at that.
At the time, Guilliman was basically in charge of the Imperium. The Codex was an attempt to rein in the Legions in the aftermath of the most profound disaster ever known to the Imperium -- one which had fatally wounded the Emperor himself. Choosing "not to go along" is a funny way of putting it.
37755
Post by: Harriticus
Here's my personal take on what Allies Should be (and I still take into account the new horrible Necron fluff, that's an entirely different issue...)
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Tau are battle brothers? Sweet, Which means
psychic powers will work when allied with SM.
40093
Post by: SoliderSnake
What I'm most upset about this ally chart is that GW allowing the Black Templars to be allies with ANY xenos period. The reason why I chose them as my second army was because they fight with big swords and hate any and all psykers and aliens, almost as much as I do =p. To see them ally with Eldar just doesn't do their fluff justice. I take a look at the vow Burn the Witch and just think to myself "huh.....Eldar".
45703
Post by: Lynata
SoliderSnake wrote:I take a look at the vow Burn the Witch and just think to myself "huh.....Eldar".
Maybe ... maybe the BT are just really hip and this vow refers to mocking psykers ...
Brother Marine Invictus deftly steered his Land Speeder Typhoon past the superheavy Scorpion, part of the Eldar Strike Force his Chapter was allied to for the duration of the oncoming battle. His obsidian power armour giving off a low whirr as the Space Marine leaned over, his brassy, vox-augmented voice boomed against the artfully ornamented hull of the alien hovertank:
"Hey xeno-witch, float faster ... Else the warp is overtaking you!"
To his side, the venerable Sergeant Fervus, a veteran of many battles, considered the words of his Battle Brother and burst into disdainful laughter, grasping Invictus' reference of the Imperium's own psykers. The two Space Marines raised their facing fists, each having taken many a wretched heretic's life, and with an audible clang rammed them against one another's ceramite-plated fingers. Welcoming the hearty feel of a good laugh before slaughter, the Land Speeder's crew drove off to face the common foe, a detachment of the hated Sisters of Battle, who had the audacity of besting their Chapter in last millennium's purgeball cup.
10127
Post by: Happygrunt
Lynata wrote:SoliderSnake wrote:I take a look at the vow Burn the Witch and just think to myself "huh.....Eldar".
Maybe ... maybe the BT are just really hip and this vow refers to mocking psykers ...
Brother Marine Invictus deftly steered his Land Speeder Typhoon past the superheavy Scorpion, part of the Eldar Strike Force his Chapter was allied to for the duration of the oncoming battle. His obsidian power armour giving off a low whirr as the Space Marine leaned over, his brassy, vox-augmented voice boomed against the artfully ornamented hull of the alien hovertank:
"Hey xeno-witch, float faster ... Else the warp is overtaking you!"
To his side, the venerable Sergeant Fervus, a veteran of many battles, considered the words of his Battle Brother and burst into disdainful laughter, grasping Invictus' reference of the Imperium's own psykers. The two Space Marines raised their facing fists, each having taken many a wretched heretic's life, and with an audible clang rammed them against one another's ceramite-plated fingers. Welcoming the hearty feel of a good laugh before slaughter, the Land Speeder's crew drove off to face the common foe, a detachment of the hated Sisters of Battle, who had the audacity of besting their Chapter in last millennium's purgeball cup.
I don't care what GW says, that is now cannon!
57210
Post by: DemetriDominov
I have no idea how official the allies table will turn out as a final product, but since we're referencing this debate about the BT's and SoB on it we must remind ourselves that the BT's and SoB were bitter enemies during the Age of Apostasy because the SoB once fought as Goge Vandire's personal guard, and the BT's helped liberate Terra. It's perfectly possible that this long standing animosity lasts into the 41st millennium, which justifies the table as it stands.
To the OP.
1. As far as I am aware, GW has never had a long lasting Xenos / Imperium alliance in its 25 years of creating somewhat homogeneous fluff. What alliances exist, usually are either temporary or fan-made.
2. I also play for fluff, but the great thing about GW's vagueness when it comes to their own cannon, is that it is about as open to interpretation as religion. I.e. Thou shall not kill, unless apperently in the case of self defense. Assuming Thou shalt ally with the Tau, it can probably be assumed that this alliance is of convenience, not a concrete pact, unless stated otherwise, which would kinda go against 25 years of grimdark tradition with no justifiable reason I can think of.
45703
Post by: Lynata
DemetriDominov wrote:I have no idea how official the allies table will turn out as a final product, but since we're referencing this debate about the BT's and SoB on it we must remind ourselves that the BT's and SoB were bitter enemies during the Age of Apostasy because the SoB once fought as Goge Vandire's personal guard, and the BT's helped liberate Terra. It's perfectly possible that this long standing animosity lasts into the 41st millennium, which justifies the table as it stands.
The Black Templars aren't the only Chapter that besieged the Imperial Palace, however. Why do they like them less than the others? Not that I think they'd hold a grudge against any of them; they know full well they were played, and have done penance for it.
But apparently they now prefer the Blood Angels and their successor Chapters, one of whom the Sisters are this close -><- to purging. Or the Wolves, who are generally just a bunch of heretics and mutants and get away with murdering Ecclesiarchy priests in cold blood.
One of the Black Templars' High Marshals and a Canoness of one of the six Major Orders of the Sisters Militant fought a demon side by side as equal brothers in arms. Black Templar Space Marines fought and died together with the Sisters in Hive Tempestora on Armageddon 3. Surely that's got to count for something? I can find no reference for the post-Apostasy SoB ever having been at odds with the BT on anything.
Maybe GW will write something up to explain this, but I'm not betting on it. Though even if they do, it's just gonna be wasted potential for what could otherwise have been a cool relationship of mutual respect.
37755
Post by: Harriticus
DemetriDominov wrote:I have no idea how official the allies table will turn out as a final product, but since we're referencing this debate about the BT's and SoB on it we must remind ourselves that the BT's and SoB were bitter enemies during the Age of Apostasy because the SoB once fought as Goge Vandire's personal guard, and the BT's helped liberate Terra. It's perfectly possible that this long standing animosity lasts into the 41st millennium, which justifies the table as it stands.
1.) The SoB aren't the Brides of the Emperor, and even their predecessor ended up betraying Vandire in the end. The Sororitas hold no fond memories of him and would not hold that kind of grudge. Keep in mind that the Ordo Hereticus was established to purge the Ecclesiarchy of Vandire's legacy and base of support, so you're not going to see the army of the Ecclesiarchy very sympathetic to him after all these years of Inquisitorial investigation/purges.
2.) Even if a bitterness and grudge still existed, there's is no damn way the Templars would work with Eldar over Sororitas
Eldar are the worst possible combination for the Templars, Xenos and Psyker.
42494
Post by: nomotog
It is odd that the tau are good friends with SM. It dosen't ruin my fun, but I wonder why they are buddy buddy with SM and not IG. I can think of a few times where tau and IG fought together, quite a few tau/IG conversions and even a rule that let you take a troop of lasguns. I can only recall one time the tau and SM where in the same room without shooting each other.
40376
Post by: Commisar Von Humps
Manchu wrote: The SoB could hate the BT for so flagrantly defying the Codex in a mockery of piety and the BT could hate the SoB for daring to judge them, the truest sons of Rogal Dorn who they think of as the Emperor's most loyal son.
And yet the sons of rawbutt girlyman can have a tea party/bromance with xeno scum? Yeah, those guys love there smelly codex so much.
45703
Post by: Lynata
Also, aren't the Black Templars Codex violations a secret that, at best, individuals Inquisitors have wild guesses about? Not sure, but I vaguely recall the BTs being rather secret about this, if this is about their numbers.
40376
Post by: Commisar Von Humps
Lynata wrote:Also, aren't the Black Templars Codex violations a secret that, at best, individuals Inquisitors have wild guesses about? Not sure, but I vaguely recall the BTs being rather secret about this, if this is about their numbers.
In our codex it says that the actual numbers are not known do to the multiple and ever countiuning crusades, but estimates have put them around 5k, and inquisitors never get a strait answer.
EDIT: also, i'm pretty sure that throwing yourself at the enemy without any consideration for yourself or others is a violation of the codex afartes  thats right..i said it.
57210
Post by: DemetriDominov
I know I'm paraphrasing, but this is pretty close Lynata The Black Templars aren't the only Chapter that besieged the Imperial Palace.
I can find no reference for the post-Apostasy SoB ever having been at odds with the BT on anything.
[They have] a cool relationship of mutual respect.
1. Yes, they aren't, but they are the only ones on the chart. 2.The hundreds of centuries that span between the AoA and the 41st millennia certainly have healed old wounds, but likely obscured millions of scars the Inquisition does well to hide. The transition of the brides to the Sisters of Battle is described in less than 3 sentences in the 4th edition, one does not automatically forget atrocities the likes both factions are legendary for, look no further than the legacies left behind real world crusades. That being said: 3. I agree, over eons the two organizations wills have likely aligned to such a degree their ideologies are probably so similar we often mistake them to be of the umbrella organization that they are at least a part of: the Inquisition. Harriticus wrote:
1.) The SoB aren't the Brides of the Emperor, and even their predecessor ended up betraying Vandire in the end. The Sororitas hold no fond memories of him and would not hold that kind of grudge. Keep in mind that the Ordo Hereticus was established to purge the Ecclesiarchy of Vandire's legacy and base of support, so you're not going to see the army of the Ecclesiarchy very sympathetic to him after all these years of Inquisitorial investigation/purges.
2.) Even if a bitterness and grudge still existed, there's is no damn way the Templars would work with Eldar over Sororitas
Eldar are the worst possible combination for the Templars, Xenos and Psyker.
1. Yes and no. The Bride's inception by Goge Vandire was to uphold the purity of the Imperium he deemed appropriate. Even after they washed their hands of Vandire the only change that occurred with the creation of the Ordo Hereticus and the Adeptus Sororitas was what became appropriate. Though very true that the Ecclesiarchy wishes to distance itself as much as possible from Vandire's time, it doesn't change the possibility that the majority of BT's may still hold the grudge against the majority of SoB with ever grievance between them only pouring salt on old wounds. 2. I agree, probably didn't even happen in the AoA.
45703
Post by: Lynata
DemetriDominov wrote:1. Yes, they aren't, but they are the only ones on the chart.
Not quite ... the other three Chapters would be covered under the normal Space Marine Codex.
I maintain that it's a shame that the one Chapter that references cooperation and side-by-side-fighting with the Sisters in their Codex apparently doesn't actually get along with them, and for some unexplicable reason the Sisters have less of an issue deploying with bloodthirsty berserkers and priest-murdering heretics. That to them, the Black Templars are on the same level as Dark Eldar is just ... I dunno, totally random. 
16387
Post by: Manchu
Lynata wrote:Also, aren't the Black Templars Codex violations a secret that, at best, individuals Inquisitors have wild guesses about?
The exact number of BTs is unknown to anyone but their Grandmaster (if him). But that's hardly the only thing that is flagrantly non-compliant about them. Plus, I don't think "the Ultramarines have never seen more than 1000 of them at a time" is a convincing argument that there aren't many more of them. The way that they fight, their dispersion throughout the Imperium, the history of their founding ... all these things would point to major problems for anyone but the most willfully blind. On a separate note, let's not forget that the Emperor granted an audience to the SoB and not the BT during the climax of the Age of Apostasy. And it was the SoB and not the BT that ultimately ended the Age of Apostasy.
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
Rebelling against the Codex Astartes is not rebelling against the Imperium, however. It's important to make that distinction. Space Marine affairs and Imperium affairs are almost entirely separate unless Chaos gets involved.
I don't see a single reason for why the Sororitas, who's beliefs are basically whatever the Ecclisarchy cares about, would care even a tiny bit about how much a chapter adheres to the Codex Astartes.
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
People see to be getting hung up on the word ally. I can't explaine BT and SOB, maybe something will be in the new fluff, but the rest of them, don't see anything less than cannot ally as being friendly. For example DE may hate or fear CSM but if a DE force came out of a webway gate near a battle with some Tau and they were after Tau slaves would they attack the CSM or charge in and start helpng themselves to Tau. Equaly would the CSM attack the DE if they did not engage them, only started attacking the Tau? Not unless the DE were stupid enough to hang around after combat.
46926
Post by: Kaldor
To grossly misrepresent history in order to draw a parallel:
A person reads through a WWII game. They notice that the English and the French forces can ally.
"That's ridiculous" they cry. "The English and the French have hated each other for hundreds of years! They've taken every opportunity they can to butcher one another, there's no way the English would ever help the French! Preposterous"
I'd be hard pressed to think of two forces that, when put in the right circumstances, would not fight together, even unwillingly.
If you read through the Grey Knight codex for example, there is a battle between the Tyranids and the Daemons, and the Grey Knights in the middle.
Depending on how you wanted to spin that, you could claim the Daemons "allied" with the Grey Knights!
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
You were on a roll until you decided to end your appeal with "everything is relative".
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
Kaldor wrote:To grossly misrepresent history in order to draw a parallel:
A person reads through a WWII game. They notice that the English and the French forces can ally.
"That's ridiculous" they cry. "The English and the French have hated each other for hundreds of years! They've taken every opportunity they can to butcher one another, there's no way the English would ever help the French! Preposterous"
I'd be hard pressed to think of two forces that, when put in the right circumstances, would not fight together, even unwillingly.
If you read through the Grey Knight codex for example, there is a battle between the Tyranids and the Daemons, and the Grey Knights in the middle.
Depending on how you wanted to spin that, you could claim the Daemons "allied" with the Grey Knights!
Exactly. Personaly I think the Nid's can't ally with anyone shows this clearly. They are the only force that will not ignore another army to reach there aim, they will attack anyone and anything that is not giving out the right pheromones, be that Human, Ork, Eldar, tree, frog, treefrog etc. Yes they will prioritise things that are a threat, but they will not willingly ignore any organic matter.
Everyone else will ignore one enemy if it helps them in some way. Another example, if Orks were in a fight with a Fallen DA force and a DA battle bardge happend to be passing through the sector, the DA might deepstrike a small squad in to help ensure the Fallen are stopped only to get out of there as soon as they have the leader and killed the rest rather than face an overwhelming force of Orks when they have somewhere better to be. It is a narative tool to me to show who might stand each other being there rather than showing forces having sat down and agreed to fight together.
Another example from the other way, why GK would not work with CSM.
If the GK were in a battle with Orks who had looted profane artifact and some CSM came along to also kill the Orks and re-take the artifact the GK would not work with the CSM to stop the Orks, they would attack both sides at once.
58358
Post by: Shas'o_Longshot
People complaining about DE/Demon alliances clearly haven't read the DE codex where it clearly explains how they can occur. Page 23, for those who care
Also, interestingly, khymerae are essentially bound daemons. So, clearly DE don't have an irrational hatred of them.
We now return to your on-topic discussion.
EDIT: Wow, I didn't know i used "clearly" so much. Apologies :/
30289
Post by: Omegus
Lynata wrote:Also, aren't the Black Templars Codex violations a secret that, at best, individuals Inquisitors have wild guesses about? Not sure, but I vaguely recall the BTs being rather secret about this, if this is about their numbers.
Black Templar are on a permanent penitence crusade, so Codex restrictions are relaxed as far as the Adeptus Terra is concerned. They don't have a permanent base, oversee no settlements, and are in no way involved in the larger politics of the Imperium.
16387
Post by: Manchu
BlaxicanX wrote:Rebelling against the Codex Astartes is not rebelling against the Imperium, however.
At the time of the near-civil war between the surviving Primarchs, Guilliman was running the Imperium. Dorn's resistance at that point was insubordination. In order to understand Codex Astartes, you must remember that it wasn't written as some esoteric internal point of Space Marine politics. It was written to ensure that the Imperium itself would never be subjected to another Horus Heresy. When Dorn finally relented, he was only somewhat on board: the Imperial Fists and Crimson Fists became famously Codex-adherent (with the IF second only to the UM themselves in this regard) while the Black Templars became one of the most flagrantly non-compliant of all Chapters.
45703
Post by: Lynata
Kaldor wrote:I'd be hard pressed to think of two forces that, when put in the right circumstances, would not fight together, even unwillingly.
If you read through the Grey Knight codex for example, there is a battle between the Tyranids and the Daemons, and the Grey Knights in the middle.
Depending on how you wanted to spin that, you could claim the Daemons "allied" with the Grey Knights!
But that's the thing, though, isn't it? The way you describe that Codex example, it sounds like a three way free-for-all. Yet the rules we are presented essentially place the armies into an official alliance, a "2 vs 2" team-up that requires a combined battle-plan and coordinated tactics. That's a huge difference.
As far as that WW2 example goes, it's not entirely correct either. The French and the English have a long history of mutual conflict, but between this and WW2 lies a long period of relaxed relationships as well. Both nations were colony powers, met to discuss issues about Africa and India, traded with each other etc - they were not best buddies, but certainly not enemies. This period of a relaxed relationship is missing from 40k - there are no ~100 years during which the demons of the warp sat down at a table on Mars to talk policy with the GKs and be all diplomatic and stuff.
Not to mention that France and England as nations are concerned about their own power and wellbeing. Maybe the Imperium as governed by its manipulative High Lords might some day decide to ally with demons to pursue a greater goal, but its individual armed forces - the Marines and Sisters in particular - are far too indoctrinated and fanatical to strike such alliances on a whim. Not to mention that the military forces are less flexible than politicians are. To draw upon your comparison again, that would be like a US division in WW2 suddenly and without involvement of their president allying itself with the Wehrmacht in order to repel a Soviet advance. Now, the commanders in 40k would have the necessary independence to do so, but still they are sworn to uphold the Imperial Creed, and that one holds a rather narrow description of how to deal with heretics and aliens.
For decades, we've been told how zealous and narrow-minded the people in 40k are. Indeed, an army like the SoB and most Marine Chapters is far more likely to simply fight everyone rather than allying with one of the enemy forces, even if they clearly cannot win. To them, the concept of allying with one of the enemy factions would not mean victory for their own team, but a victory for one of the two enemies on the field. Better to use the confusion for their advantage and deal as much damage to both as possible!
However, in the spirit of conversions and cool player ideas, I can perfectly see a bunch of cool concepts supported by alliance gameplay mechanics, in addition to some alliances that may make sense in exceptional circumstances ( GK and Tau? "the Inquisition did it!"). IG as Gue'vesa for a Tau army, for example. Yet if GW was aiming at supporting such freedom, why would they not let everyone ally with everybody? That way people could have had their Genestealer cults or Chaos Sisters or whatever. The current chart just looks like a heavily randomized mess that is neither fluffy nor supporting full customization. It's as if someone at GW threw a bunch of dice to determine affiliations. Or at the very least does not know much about some of the factions' previous fluff.
I dearly hope that this chart will not be supported by a redesign of the affected armies.
</rant>
Sidenote:
Omegus wrote:Black Templar are on a permanent penitence crusade, so Codex restrictions are relaxed as far as the Adeptus Terra is concerned.
Is that really the case? First time I'm hearing about officially relaxed Codex restrictions - this is GW fluff, yes?
20774
Post by: pretre
Manchu wrote:My own pet theory about the BT is that they are crazy ass heretics, just this side of Chaos worship. And my pet theory about the SoB is that they are the faction that see through the self-deception of other factions. The SoB could hate the BT for so flagrantly defying the Codex in a mockery of piety and the BT could hate the SoB for daring to judge them, the truest sons of Rogal Dorn who they think of as the Emperor's most loyal son.
I can kinda dig this.
34906
Post by: Pacific
My own pet theory about the BT is that they are crazy ass heretics, just this side of Chaos worship. And my pet theory about the SoB is that they are the faction that see through the self-deception of other factions. The SoB could hate the BT for so flagrantly defying the Codex in a mockery of piety and the BT could hate the SoB for daring to judge them, the truest sons of Rogal Dorn who they think of as the Emperor's most loyal son.
I suppose the point is that you can make a justification for practically any type of army allying with any other - a 'what if they were stranded here, and they both had to fight against Tyranids'. That won't stop most long-term fans of the game looking at such an army and saying.. "erm.. but no." But, to me (and I think this is the most important thing) is that it just isn't ' 40k'. We have been told since day 1 how unwelcoming the galaxy is - how each race is out to destroy the other. It is a fundamental aspect of the 40k universe.
GW is playing a dangerous game with the allies route, by twisting the very fabric of the game universe, and you have to think it is just to knock up the sales a notch. How far reaching will this be, and are we going to start getting an alteration to the likes of the books that Black Library make? I can live with things like the Storm Raven being inserted into the Blood Angels background, and reading that it was involved in practically every mission ever conducted by the Chapter, but this is taking things a step further.
Case in point, the prospect of Marines allying themselves closely with Tau (and them being more likely to do this than Sisters of Battle would be to ally with the Black Templars), is absolute bonkers.
20774
Post by: pretre
Pacific wrote:GW is playing a dangerous game with the allies route, by twisting the very fabric of the game universe, and you have to think it is just to knock up the sales a notch.
/slowclap
That was funny.
Case in point, the prospect of Marines allying themselves closely with Tau (and them being more likely to do this than Sisters of Battle would be to ally with the Black Templars), is absolute bonkers.
Can we at least wait for the book before declaring it absolute bonkers? For all you know, the most reasonable explanation in the world is in there.
16387
Post by: Manchu
I think pretre's probably right. I think the Necron book is a good indicator of how something you can't imagine being good can actually be good (or at least better than what was before).
20774
Post by: pretre
Manchu wrote:I think the Necron book is a good indicator of how something you can't imagine being good can actually be good (or at least better than what was before).
Exactly. Although there are still crazy holdouts on that one. ("I loved it when they were one dimensional!!!")
25050
Post by: Lupe
pretre wrote:Can we at least wait for the book before declaring it absolute bonkers? For all you know, the most reasonable explanation in the world is in there.
Yeah, let's just wait a bit before we blow up.
For all we know, the ally tiers exist solely to represent just how easy two forces adjust to their ally's combat style for the duration of that one tabletop battle, without new fluff coming into it at any point. See below for examples of why the current matrix might make sense.
So Tau and Vanilla Space Marines would actually be 'battle brothers' because they are familiar with how the other side fights (due to the constant wars in the galactic East), and have an easy time planning around each other. And because they are essentially two forces of professional warriors with enough tactical flexibility to ensure decent cooperation, even despite the fact that there's still bad blood between them.
On the other hand, Black Templars and sisters would have a harder time coordinating because both sides are very dogmatic and very stubborn, and even a simple strategy briefing can drag on for long times. Their ideas on how to carry out the Emperor's will are equally blunt, but somewhat different - the Templars prefer to go forward, kill every enemy in sight and look for more enemies, while the Sisters can be more thorough in their approaches. They are both very, very stubborn when it comes to defending those ideas, and likely to draw each other into lengthy debates.
Also for the Black Templars, see the explanation for Tau and Vanilla Marines.
The Tyranids have no allies for the simple fact that nobody can actually communicate or coordinate with them, rendering joint military operations impossible.
46751
Post by: Akroma06
Omegus wrote:Lynata wrote:Also, aren't the Black Templars Codex violations a secret that, at best, individuals Inquisitors have wild guesses about? Not sure, but I vaguely recall the BTs being rather secret about this, if this is about their numbers.
Black Templar are on a permanent penitence crusade, so Codex restrictions are relaxed as far as the Adeptus Terra is concerned. They don't have a permanent base, oversee no settlements, and are in no way involved in the larger politics of the Imperium.
There is something incorrect with every bit of this... BT do have fortress monestaries. A bunch of them, infact every world they take has one. Now do they garrison them all? No of course not but they know where they are and they will go back to them if they need to and they will drive out whoever is occupying it at the time. Also BT do involve themselves in the imperium's buisness otherwise Armageddon would have been lost. Helbrecht was on the verge of clensing the Ghoul stars when he had to redirect to Armageddon to stop Ghazy. I want to say it was something like 3000 marines got reassigned.
Manchu wrote:BlaxicanX wrote:Rebelling against the Codex Astartes is not rebelling against the Imperium, however.
At the time of the near-civil war between the surviving Primarchs, Guilliman was running the Imperium. Dorn's resistance at that point was insubordination. In order to understand Codex Astartes, you must remember that it wasn't written as some esoteric internal point of Space Marine politics. It was written to ensure that the Imperium itself would never be subjected to another Horus Heresy. When Dorn finally relented, he was only somewhat on board: the Imperial Fists and Crimson Fists became famously Codex-adherent (with the IF second only to the UM themselves in this regard) while the Black Templars became one of the most flagrantly non-compliant of all Chapters.
Ok Guilliman did not run the Imperium by himself, he had become ONE of the high lords and thus had the same power as one of them. He wrote the Codex DURING the heresy and planned on attempting to enforce it before he had the percieved power to do so. One high lord cannot or at least should not make a decree that speaks for them all. When Guillman attempted to do so he had done nothing in the defence of Terra and thus really rubbed those that had been there and died fighting there the wrong way. Dorn wasn't going to relent until Guilliman (by himself) ordered that the IF vessels should be fired upon by the navy. So who was the one threatening another civil war? The IF weren't going to open fire it was Guilliman. It was to prevent another war and essentially destroy the imperium that Dorn relented because he favored a surviving mankind.
The BT feel like they (as part of the IF) failed the emperor when the palaced was breached since they promised him that it couldn't be. To attone for this they have gone on their eternal crusade taking the notion that the best defence is a good offense.
45703
Post by: Lynata
pretre wrote:Manchu wrote:I think the Necron book is a good indicator of how something you can't imagine being good can actually be good (or at least better than what was before).
Exactly. Although there are still crazy holdouts on that one. ("I loved it when they were one dimensional!!!")
Some may call it one-dimensional, for others this is what made them cool. It's not surprising that those who liked their first version don't necessarily like the revamp, given that it's a drastic change to what they fell in love with. Regardless of how others think the second version is better.
Do you think Tyranids are one-dimensional; would they be better off being given "more personality" as well?
16387
Post by: Manchu
Guilliman was one of the High Lords, yes. But do you remember which one? He assumed supreme command over all the Imperium's military forces -- and that includes the other loyalist legions. In the shadow of Dorn's failure, it was Guilliman who chased the traitors into the Eye and shored up the Imperium. As I already mentioned, the point of the Codex Astartes was not in any sense to bolster Guilliman's ego but rather to forever prevent another Horus Heresy. Ten thousand years are a testament to his wisdom. Meanwhile, Dorn disobeyed a direct order given by his superior for the sake of pride. If anything, Dorn's recalcitrance is a testament to exactly why the Codex needed to be put into place.
One point that is always glossed over in the fluff threads is that non-Codex chapters are looked upon with extreme suspicion by Codex-adherent chapters, which in turn form the vast majority. The Codex works and deviation from it is a sign that something is wrong with the deviant Chapter. The Blood Angels and Space Wolves deviate because of genetic mutations; the Dark Angels deviate because of their endless self-obsession; the Iron Hands deviate because they would prefer to be robots rather than humans; and the Black Templars deviate because of the psychological trauma suffered by Dorn during the Heresy.
20774
Post by: pretre
Lynata wrote:Some may call it one-dimensional, for others this is what made them cool. It's not surprising that those who liked their first version don't necessarily like the revamp, given that it's a drastic change to what they fell in love with. Regardless of how others think the second version is better.
Hey, if you liked it, more power to you. I just happen to disagree.
Do you think Tyranids are one-dimensional; would they be better off being given "more personality" as well?
No and No.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Lynata wrote:Do you think Tyranids are one-dimensional; would they be better off being given "more personality" as well?
I think so. As it stands, they're just a giant mouth/stomach/womb floating through space with no motivation other than "feed." That pretty much describes the Orks, once you understand that "fight" is a synonym for "feed" as far as they're concerned. The Orks, however, have a lot of personality and that saves them from being boring. The Tyranids have had to be content with the hive mind (you might say "anti-personality") thing and the xenomorph connection for far too long. Looking back, one of the coolest things about the Nids were the Genestealer Cults. I'm not saying they necessarily belong in the contemporary Tyranid army. But they were cool in a way that is absent from the contemporary Nid concept and I think the word "personality" sums it up.
30289
Post by: Omegus
Akroma06 wrote:There is something incorrect with every bit of this...BT do have fortress monestaries. A bunch of them, infact every world they take has one. Now do they garrison them all? No of course not but they know where they are and they will go back to them if they need to and they will drive out whoever is occupying it at the time. Also BT do involve themselves in the imperium's buisness otherwise Armageddon would have been lost. Helbrecht was on the verge of clensing the Ghoul stars when he had to redirect to Armageddon to stop Ghazy. I want to say it was something like 3000 marines got reassigned.
They aren't really fortress monasteries in the proper sense. They build little keeps here or there that could accommodate a couple of companies, but there is nowhere near the infrastructure of a proper fortress monastery. These serve more as a reminder to the populace of the subjugated planet (if there is a surviving populace, anyway) to keep in line, and if they have to return, it gives them a basic staging area planetside. Helping drive off an Ork invasion doesn't exactly translate to being mired in Imperial politics. Most Chapters have an assigned area they are responsible for defending, with permanent holdings (even if some may operate from a battle barge rather than a location on a particular planet) that can be subject to Imperial inspection, and populated planets that are essentially their vassal states that may call upon them to resolve internal issues. Black Templar, on the other hand, are constantly on the move looking for stuff to kill. They aren't exactly governing any planets, and are pretty much impossible to pin down, much less be subjected to any real level of scrutiny.
But anyway, I'm no expert on BT, and sadly their book was written during the age of austerity, where both fluff and rules content in 40K took a depressing turn for the bland.
Ok Guilliman did not run the Imperium by himself, he had become ONE of the high lords and thus had the same power as one of them.
There were no High Lords of Terra at the time. He was the first.
20522
Post by: crazyK
I just finished reading "Courage and Honour". It was not my favorite BL novel for sure, but it was decent. In light of "possible" fluff changes for 6th edition, I found some things interesting from the battles between the Ultramarines and Tau.
Anyway, it's a bit of a stretch that the Ultramarines and Tau become battle brothers, but in light of their battles, there was some mutual respect earned.
45703
Post by: Lynata
Lupe wrote:On the other hand, Black Templars and sisters would have a harder time coordinating because both sides are very dogmatic and very stubborn, and even a simple strategy briefing can drag on for long times. Their ideas on how to carry out the Emperor's will are equally blunt, but somewhat different - the Templars prefer to go forward, kill every enemy in sight and look for more enemies, while the Sisters can be more thorough in their approaches. They are both very, very stubborn when it comes to defending those ideas, and likely to draw each other into lengthy debates.
Thing is that the only time the fluff pointed out difficulties in the Sisters interfacing with a Marine Chapter it was with the Blood Angels and their successor Chapters. Yet is this reflected in the chart?
Also, the Sisters are quite straight-forward as well, their fighting style isn't that different from the Black Templars. And even if it were, aren't the Space Wolves the same as the BT when it comes to aggression?
Manchu wrote:Looking back, one of the coolest things about the Nids were the Genestealer Cults.
Whilst I don't agree with the 'nids needing more personality (just like the Tyranids, I believe their "simplemindedness" actually makes them stand apart* and was part of what caused their fans to like them), I will say that the Genestealer cults were cool and I am sad to see that this is one of the combinations that will not be possible with the current chart.
*: I think it'd be like saying that the Aliens of the AvP franchise are too one-dimensional, or (for the Necrons) the Terminators of the eponymous movies. I suppose some consider it boring, but others perceive the accompanying determination and lack of (humanlike) empathy as one of their scariest aspects.
59935
Post by: paultwilson
So, back on topic. Anything about fluff progression in 6th ed?
16387
Post by: Manchu
@Lynata: The aliens and the terminators are good antagonists in that they represent pure antagonism. But their respective movies aren't interesting because of the aliens and terminators but rather because of the complex, sympathetic protagonists the aliens and terminators are after. For my own preference, I think playing an army is like adopting their viewpoint as a protagonist. A non-sympathetic protagonist (please please please note that this is different from an unlikable or morally questionable protagonist) is simply not very interesting. When I play the AvP games as an alien, I get the sense: "what the feth am I doing this for? oh, right, because that's what I do." Yawn.
46751
Post by: Akroma06
Omegus wrote:Akroma06 wrote:There is something incorrect with every bit of this...BT do have fortress monestaries. A bunch of them, infact every world they take has one. Now do they garrison them all? No of course not but they know where they are and they will go back to them if they need to and they will drive out whoever is occupying it at the time. Also BT do involve themselves in the imperium's buisness otherwise Armageddon would have been lost. Helbrecht was on the verge of clensing the Ghoul stars when he had to redirect to Armageddon to stop Ghazy. I want to say it was something like 3000 marines got reassigned.
They aren't really fortress monasteries in the proper sense. They build little keeps here or there that could accommodate a couple of companies, but there is nowhere near the infrastructure of a proper fortress monastery. These serve more as a reminder to the populace of the subjugated planet (if there is a surviving populace, anyway) to keep in line, and if they have to return, it gives them a basic staging area planetside. Helping drive off an Ork invasion doesn't exactly translate to being mired in Imperial politics. Most Chapters have an assigned area they are responsible for defending, with permanent holdings (even if some may operate from a battle barge rather than a location on a particular planet) that can be subject to Imperial inspection, and populated planets that are essentially their vassal states that may call upon them to resolve internal issues. Black Templar, on the other hand, are constantly on the move looking for stuff to kill. They aren't exactly governing any planets, and are pretty much impossible to pin down, much less be subjected to any real level of scrutiny.
But anyway, I'm no expert on BT, and sadly their book was written during the age of austerity, where both fluff and rules content in 40K took a depressing turn for the bland.
Ok Guilliman did not run the Imperium by himself, he had become ONE of the high lords and thus had the same power as one of them.
There were no High Lords of Terra at the time. He was the first.
One of...he was one of. They were made as a group. The size of the keep wasn't really my point. The point was that they do have bases and structures. Now as for the space they are responsible for...the way I look at it is all of it. They deal with anything in or near the imperiums boarders with their crusades.
I really didn't want to turn this into a battle of who was right for what they did at the end of the heresy...I really didn't so lets get back to potential 6th stuff.
45703
Post by: Lynata
Manchu wrote:For my own preference, I think playing an army is like adopting their viewpoint as a protagonist.
Ahh, I think I can understand your motif now.
I guess this is true for most people, yet there are also many who just like the idea of controlling an army without adopting its viewpoint, simply because they prefer looking at the larger picture and find the entire conflict interesting, or because they find the thought of an unstoppable inhuman behemoth fascinating. "Some people just want to watch the world burn."
These are also the people who like playing the Alien in AvP.
Myself, I think I'm alternating between both modes, mostly depending on the faction I'm looking at, but sometimes even switching back and forth for the same group. For example, I like to present my Sisters as protagonists, but at the same time I recognize that often they can very well assume the role of antagonists, and almost revel in pointing out how "evil" they can actually be depending on the circumstances. This is actually one of the most interesting facets of many armies in 40k - so much depends on one's point of view! And in the end, I think I just like to imagine a good story. I don't get "into" my armies and characters so much as I get "behind" them, using them for a narrative that is not only interesting to me but (hopefully) everyone.
paultwilson wrote:So, back on topic. Anythingal about fluff progrrssioncin 6th ed?
I'd be interested in this as well; my copy of the book is still on its way. Anything interesting in the fluff section?
16387
Post by: Manchu
As I indicated, I don't think you have to like or subscribe to a perspective in order to be sympathetic with it in the sense of feeling a connection to its holders as protagonists. So I'm not sure I think there is any difference between getting "into" versus "behind" a faction as far as I'm describing. Using the SoB as an example, I don't really support the idea of burning children alive because they're "heretics." But I can appreciate the complexity of the motivation to do so in-setting. There's no such complexity currently behind the Nids. And I think that is what pretre mentioned by calling the 4th Ed. Necrons "one dimensional." The counterargument, I think, is that they are interesting because they are mysterious. To me, that is like saying something tastses good just because you can't describe the taste. Mystery can be boring much more easily than it can be interesting. When I play SoB fighting Necrons, the mystery of the Necrons is a plus for me. But playing Necrons fighting SoB ... it's like, this is how Necrons do things, period, the end. No thought or reflection necessary. Not my idea of fun. At the end of the day, anyone can strip fluff away. If you want to play Sisters as one dimensional "bolter bitches" you can by ignoring the official fluff. It'd be a shame if that's all that GW tried to do with them, however.
53085
Post by: Kiryu Mk 3
Granted the fluff has changed over the years, and the rules have changed. I've been playing since late 3rd ed. I liked how they changed things from 3rd to 4th. It made sence. The fluff really hasn't fluxuated since 1st. As the game moved on it has constantly refined it. For crying out loud, in 1st there were said to be 25 chapters of space marine legions at one point while its been consistent at 20. That changed in 2nd. Also, in 1st the Emperor was still alive. There were beastmen who served with the imperium. Hell, there were even robots that the imperium could use. Seeing as things are now you see how much things have changed.
I'm not sure about the allies tables and it would make sence though that the imperium would make pacts with the eldar or tau when times are dire enough. But, they both would be extreme cases none the less.
46926
Post by: Kaldor
Lynata wrote:the rules we are presented essentially place the armies into an official alliance, a "2 vs 2" team-up that requires a combined battle-plan and coordinated tactics. That's a huge difference.
Do they though? I don't think it requires any alliance to be so formal. If a Chaos position is attacked from one side by Tyranids, and the other side by Ultramarines, then I think it is fair to say the Tyranids and Ultramarines are allied.
The rules are an abstract representation, remember.
16387
Post by: Manchu
What you just described isn't an alliance. Two birds fighting over the same worm are not "allied."
46926
Post by: Kaldor
Manchu wrote:What you just described isn't an alliance. Two birds fighting over the same worm are not "allied."
Yes it is. It's one type of an alliance, anyway.
Remember, the rules are abstracted to allow us to fight interesting tabletop battles. We all know a 'true' alliance between most of the forces of 40K is impossible, but any rules only exist to represent two forces working towards goals that, however accidentally and however incongruously, are aligned.
Say for example the Orks are attacking an IG position, and one of those IG is a demon-host that a GK strike force has been hunting. The GK teleport into the battle to aid the orks and destroy the IG, therefore the Orks and GK are allied.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Kaldor wrote:Yes it is. It's one type of an alliance, anyway.
If that's a type of alliance then you are a type of umbrella.
I think your point that allies could be about simple rules abstractions that let people fight interesting scenarios is reasonable but not supported by the chart. As Lynata mentioned, if that was the goal, then why not let every faction ally with every faction? Even you example, Chaos getting stuck between Ultramarines and Nids, is impossible according to the chart. Something more than a rules abstraction is going on here, I think.
13625
Post by: phantommaster
The Alliances in the rulebook are the same as what the UK 40K Doubles allies have always been for 5th edition. I believe it should be interpreted as 'who would ally with who in a dire situation' ('cus lets face it, a battle is a dire situation). Chaos Daemons was the only one I disagree with, they shouldn't go with Orks, DE or Tau IMO but besides that it seems pretty good. I think the SoB and BT was summed up early about them both being at the opposite spectrum of pious.
46926
Post by: Kaldor
Manchu wrote:Kaldor wrote:Yes it is. It's one type of an alliance, anyway.
If that's a type of alliance then you are a type of umbrella.
I think your point that allies could be about simple rules abstractions that let people fight interesting scenarios is reasonable but not supported by the chart. As Lynata mentioned, if that was the goal, then why not let every faction ally with every faction? Even you example, Chaos getting stuck between Ultramarines and Nids, is impossible according to the chart. Something more than a rules abstraction is going on here, I think.
Game balance and player satisfaction would be my guess. I'd be happy allowing any units to be used as allies in any other unit, but the player base would get their knickers in a twist about it, and there's some awful cheesy combinations available so I guess the designers tried to come up with a way to make everyone happy.
16387
Post by: Manchu
There is no solution that would not result in twisting knickers, I guess.
20774
Post by: pretre
Manchu wrote:There is no solution that would not result in twisting knickers, I guess.
This is true of every 40k conversation/debate that I have ever seen. New, beautiful plastic models? ARGH, HORRIBLE! Free puppies? I HATE PUPPIES.
Someone always hates every change.
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
Manchu wrote:BlaxicanX wrote:Rebelling against the Codex Astartes is not rebelling against the Imperium, however.
At the time of the near-civil war between the surviving Primarchs, Guilliman was running the Imperium. Dorn's resistance at that point was insubordination. In order to understand Codex Astartes, you must remember that it wasn't written as some esoteric internal point of Space Marine politics. It was written to ensure that the Imperium itself would never be subjected to another Horus Heresy. When Dorn finally relented, he was only somewhat on board: the Imperial Fists and Crimson Fists became famously Codex-adherent (with the IF second only to the UM themselves in this regard) while the Black Templars became one of the most flagrantly non-compliant of all Chapters.
That doesn't really mean anything, though.
Again, the Codex was written specifically to deal with Space Marines- it is a Space Marine affair. There are seperate Imperial edicts that deal with things like the army being split up into the Guard and the Navy, or the Ecclisiarchy not being able to have its own male army. The codex astartes refers specifically to Space Marines, and only Space Marines. The Ecclisarchy, and therefore the Sisters of Battle by extension, do not concern themselves with Space Marine politics. The only thing they care about is the religious aspect of the Imperium. As long as an Imperial force is devoted to the will of the Emperor, their adherence to the Codex Astartes means nothing to the Eccilsarchy. That isn't there jurisdiction.
It'd be like a DEA officer arresting someone for tax evasion. It doesn't happen.
46926
Post by: Kaldor
pretre wrote:Manchu wrote:There is no solution that would not result in twisting knickers, I guess.
This is true of every 40k conversation/debate that I have ever seen. New, beautiful plastic models? ARGH, HORRIBLE! Free puppies? I HATE PUPPIES.
Someone always hates every change.
Absolutely true, unfortunately.
16387
Post by: Manchu
BlaxicanX wrote:Again, the Codex was written specifically to deal with Space Marines- it is a Space Marine affair.
That's like saying the Horus Heresy was a Space Marine affair.
57210
Post by: DemetriDominov
Manchu wrote:BlaxicanX wrote:Again, the Codex was written specifically to deal with Space Marines- it is a Space Marine affair.
That's like saying the Horus Heresy was a Space Marine affair.
Gonna sound like an idiot for this, but weren't the main conflicts those of the Astartes?
44531
Post by: Agent_Tremolo
DemetriDominov wrote:Manchu wrote:BlaxicanX wrote:Again, the Codex was written specifically to deal with Space Marines- it is a Space Marine affair.
That's like saying the Horus Heresy was a Space Marine affair.
Gonna sound like an idiot for this, but weren't the main conflicts those of the Astartes?
True, both conflicts spun around Space Marines, but not exclusively. Chaos and the Emperor were as much a factor in the Heresy as the inner workings of the Legions. Same with the Codex: The new order wanted the potentially rebellious Astartes declawed. It wasn't only Guilleman's decision.
57210
Post by: DemetriDominov
Yeah, that's mostly what I thought.
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
Manchu wrote:BlaxicanX wrote:Again, the Codex was written specifically to deal with Space Marines- it is a Space Marine affair.
That's like saying the Horus Heresy was a Space Marine affair.
24409
Post by: Matt.Kingsley
Manchu wrote:Kaldor wrote:Yes it is. It's one type of an alliance, anyway.
If that's a type of alliance then you are a type of umbrella.
It actually is an alliance, we discussed this in the 6th Ed rumor thread
As far a fluff goes about marines + tau, I've heard nothing
16387
Post by: Manchu
Honestly, it's not an alliance. I'm not joshing you! It takes more than two parties interests happening to coincide to make an alliance.
24409
Post by: Matt.Kingsley
Alliance is defined as 2 parties working together towards a simalar goal
and alliance doesn't mean they're BFFs.
So in that case it as an alliance as the Marines and Nids aren't attacking each other and are both aiming to destroy the chaos forces
BUT if the Nids were attacking both the marines and chaos forces it wouldn't be an alliance, it would be a free-for-all
45703
Post by: Lynata
If Dark Eldar and SoB "happening" to shoot at a common foe constitutes an alliance, I don't see what is keeping the Tyranids out.
And it remains true that the way the rules work it's two armies not just "happening" to shoot at the same enemy, but actively working together and coordinating their tactics and helping each other out. Y'know, like an actual alliance, with talking and planning and stuff!
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
My question is has the fluff progressed, and will we see Alaric?
44076
Post by: sirlotsofpain
I view that Allies chart as a mere extension of the rules not the fluff.
Tau and SM are battle brother on the chart so they can play that rule set.... In the novel / book this might read..... SM's Escort tau scientist to such and such holy artifact to do such and such.
Not SMs exchange phone number with tau chicks to meet up after the mission.
44341
Post by: tyrannosaurus
Completely agree with the OP - the background and 'world' is the main reason I play too. Don't really care how allies imapcts on game balance but I do care that the established fluff is being trampled on in incomprehensible ways. GW encourages us to read background books which establish the feel of different chapters and races, and sells us full colour, heavily overpriced rulebooks and codexes which we are told we need because they provide us with incredible background material. We are also encouraged to pick a chapter or a race that best suits us, name our characters, spend hours painting them a certain way and making sure they have the right markings.
Fine, I'll do it because I love that stuff. But then don't trample on all that backgroud and tell us all that the fluff we read about before is wrong.
4595
Post by: CaptainLoken
Thank you for your comments. I'm not trying to be a "it's my way or no way" kind of guy, but there has to be a limit.
Seriously, there have been some HUGE Fluff changes over the years. I started playing 40K when the Eldar Aspect Warriors first came out in White Dwarf. Before then, I simply didn't care that much for psychotic convicts encased in Power Armor, and enhanced by "gene sperm".
Then, the 40K Compendium and Compilation came out, and I fell in love with Space Marines. I soon bought the Slaves to Darkness books, and fell in love with the Horus Heresy and the Emperor.
Since that time, Space Marine Fluff has changed a LOT, but they never lost their true "warrior monk" feel. They were transformed into the true protagonists of 40K, and I feel like it is their story.
When the Codex books change their Fluff, I don't mind, as long as they retain the "warrior monk" feel.
Changing Fluff simply to pair a poor selling army to the best selling army is just greed. Plain and simple.
That's what makes me so mad. It's not the changing, or expanding, of the Fluff. It's the blatant "this will make the game so much cooler" line that we are all supposed to accept, simply because GW wants to sell more miniatures.
Don't get me wrong. I like the Tau. I have more than 2,000 points of Tau. But, changing their place in the 40K universe, simply because their Codex hasn't been updated in years, is just lazy. If you want the Tau to sell better, then work on them. Develop their Fluff. Enhance their models. Work on them as mush as you work on Space Marines, and they will fly off the shelves.
Taking a book that is two editions out of date, and saying that "Space Marines can now have Hammerheads" is just stupid. It is offensive, at least to me, that GW thinks I am so into power gaming, that I will overlook their feeble attempt at a marketing strategy, and buy everything that I can put into my army.
I have 5 40K armies, all except 1 at more than 2,000 points. I purchased the terrain, the books, Black Library books, and the video games. Heck, I even purchased the Space Marines movie, not because it was good, but because I want the to make more!
I have introduced more than 20 gamers to the hobby, My current gaming group has over 5 40K players, and they all have more than 2,000 points in several armies. Our newest member really wants to play as well, and we are currently talking about what army he should start with.
All of this is possible, BECAUSE of the FLUFF. Once I start telling stories about 40K, people think it is so cool, that they want to play the game. Not because of the rules. There are other game systems out there, some of them even free to download, that are so much better. Not because of the miniatures either. While they are some of the best in the industry, they are EXPENSIVE.
The players that I introduce to the hobby are in it for the background. When you start to change the background, simply so that you can sell more miniatures, you take away the one thing that a majority of my friends like about the game. This HURTS the hobby. It doesn't EXPAND the hobby...except for all of the "win at all costs" players that seem to dominate the internet.
Now, I am not a fool. I am not some "nerdrage" monster that will throw all of their miniatures on Ebay once one little piece of Fluff changes. I will simply play 5th Edition. So too will my friends.
The Allies rules are not there to "add something to the game". They are not there to "unlock new combinations". They are there to sell more miniatures. Period. That's why they seem so damn wrong.
Sisters of Battle not trusting Black Templars? Seriously? The Black Templars are the CLOSEST thing that Astartes get to the Imperial Cult. They worship the Emperor as a god, while others do not. Why, in the name of all that's holy, are they not Battle Brothers, when the Tau CAN be Battle Brothers with Space Marines?
It's not for game balance. It's not for flavor. It's not even for gamers to "try new units without spending a huge amount of money on a new army". It's simply there to sell the most miniatures that they possibly can. Just look at the chart. Interesting how the most challenged armies can be everyone's Battle Brother, but the most overpowered can not. It's because GW doesn't need any help selling their game breaking armies. They fly off the shelves. Don't believe me? How many Grey Knight armies are out there now, when you would have had trouble even finding a GK player just 5 years ago?
Now that I have finished my dissertation, I will end my rant as quickly as I can. I want to like 6th Edition. I really do. But, it just looks like it was made to sell product that wasn't selling as much as the share holders would like. GW needs to make money. They need to make it so they can be in business for another 20 years. However, they will not do that if they do not do it correctly. Make a solid product, backed up by the best miniatures in the world. The rest will take care of itself. People want to play 40K. But, they turn away when they hear about balance issues, price tags, and "win at all costs" players. The Allies rules just made all of those issues that much more critical.
Way to go GW. Way to go...
46926
Post by: Kaldor
Manchu wrote:Honestly, it's not an alliance. I'm not joshing you! It takes more than two parties interests happening to coincide to make an alliance.
Again, it depends on exactly what you mean by an alliance.
In it's most basic terms "two parties interests happening to coincide" is the very definition of an alliance.
24409
Post by: Matt.Kingsley
which is the kind of alliance used in the 41st Millenium as no one trusts each other fully enough for the kind of alliance with all the fancy politics
and in the Grimdarkness of the far future there is no time to discuss alliances!
34906
Post by: Pacific
CaptainLoken wrote:
*SNIP*
..
Really well said.
Of course I am holding out until I have read the actual book, but I would just like to make a few points about the coming changes, and my fears concerning them.
You made an interesting point about how Marines have changed over the years, and to an extent you are right. However, I will say during that time when Marines changed from 'chemically hardened killers' at the tail end of 1st edition, it was more permissible as the story writers were still finding their feet, and the growth of the Universe was a far more organic process. Fast forward 20 years and perhaps you could even say the same about the change in the Necron background - I never really got the feeling that they had received as much attention as they had deserved. 'They want to destroy everything', did nothing for me but promote a spell of yawning, it was really lacking in any kind of emotional or narrative punch - especially as we already had a race that did that in the form of the Tyranids. As such, the change with the latest Codex didn't really feel contrived, but rather just some padding out to a concept that I think has really benefited from it.
Now a while ago we read those stories about the Emperor having found a 'chosen race' that was immune to Chaos, in the form of the Tau, and they being the future of Mankind. At the time my first thought was that such a change was nonsense, and a friend of mine (who worked in shall I say the 'source' of much of the storytelling) confirmed this. But, then we read that they are apparently going to be 'battle brothers' and it makes me think that perhaps that my friend might have been wrong, and that perhaps this has been nothing to do with that storytelling department?
Need I say why it is a bad idea to make such a fundamental change? This is no 'fleshing out' of new ideas, or organic growth of a concept into something new. If true, it will represent a fundamental shift in the make-up of the 40k universe.
But, I'm holding fire for now. As cynical as I have become over the years regarding GW's business practices, I hope beyond hope that they wouldn't fall this far and start tearing chunks out of the construct that has carried them so far, and that Rick Priestley's comment of "everything goes through the sales department" has not extended this far, to the point where we start seeing the wargaming equivalent of those Orange Mobile adverts that run before movies in the cinema.
The 40k universe is one that people have invested their heart and soul into over the past 20 years - almost a fantasy home away from reality for some, and no doubt there are some who take it far, far too seriously. I expect nothing less than fireworks from the fanbase if the rumoured changes have been handled poorly.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Matt.Kingsley wrote:Alliance is defined as 2 parties working together towards a simalar goal
That "together" part is pretty important. If I go to the store for bread and you go to the store for bread and we happen to go to the same store, we are not in an alliance to get bread from the store. Automatically Appended Next Post: @CaptainLoken: The point you seem to be missing is that fluff has always been a marketing tool. At one point it worked on you. And you used it on others. This isn't about greed or at least it is suddenly about greed. It's about you liking one marketing campaign and not another.
42589
Post by: the color purple
Just because you keep repeating a wrong definition doesn't make it true. An alliance doesn't happen any time two groups want the same thing. "Alliance" implies that the two sides have made a conscious decision to work together.
noun
1.
the act of allying or state of being allied.
2.
a formal agreement or treaty between two or more nations to cooperate for specific purposes.
3.
a merging of efforts or interests by persons, families, states, or organizations: an alliance between church and state.
4.
the persons or entities so allied.
5.
marriage or the relationship created by marriage between the families of the bride and bridegroom.
Referring to a dictionary feels pretentious, but seriously. Definitions 2 and 3 are relevant to 40k, and both require the people involved to actively choose to cooperate. MERGING of efforts. To continue the WW2 examples, the Soviets and the Polish Home Army both wanted to kick the Germans out of Warsaw, and they didn't fight eachother, but they certainly weren' t allies. If the Grey Knights are using the cover of an ork raid to hit their target, they certainly aren't allied with the orks. In fact the orks would probably attack if they saw them. They'd have to buy out or otherwise entice willing orks to fight the guard but not the GK, otherwise they aren't allies, they're two groups attacking the guard.
16387
Post by: Manchu
the color purple wrote:"Alliance" implies that the two sides have made a conscious decision to work together.
Are you reading what you're typing? Remember the example is "two birds fighting over the same worm." That is what people ITT are saying is "a type of alliance." How does this show "making a conscious decision to work together?" EDIT: Reading the rest of your post indicates you actually agree
20774
Post by: pretre
CaptainLoken wrote: I want to like 6th Edition. I really do. But, it just looks like it was made to sell product that wasn't selling as much as the share holders would like. GW needs to make money. They need to make it so they can be in business for another 20 years. However, they will not do that if they do not do it correctly. Make a solid product, backed up by the best miniatures in the world. The rest will take care of itself. People want to play 40K. But, they turn away when they hear about balance issues, price tags, and "win at all costs" players. The Allies rules just made all of those issues that much more critical.
Way to go GW. Way to go...
How about you wait for the book before posting multipage rants about how bad it and the contents are? Just saying...
44531
Post by: Agent_Tremolo
pretre wrote:CaptainLoken wrote: I want to like 6th Edition. I really do. But, it just looks like it was made to sell product that wasn't selling as much as the share holders would like. GW needs to make money. They need to make it so they can be in business for another 20 years. However, they will not do that if they do not do it correctly. Make a solid product, backed up by the best miniatures in the world. The rest will take care of itself. People want to play 40K. But, they turn away when they hear about balance issues, price tags, and "win at all costs" players. The Allies rules just made all of those issues that much more critical.
Way to go GW. Way to go...
How about you wait for the book before posting multipage rants about how bad it and the contents are? Just saying...
Not to mention that a veteran player should know that allies are not exactly new to 40k 
55486
Post by: Thrawn2600
For every person such as yourself there is a person like me.
Why is it that you are son entrenched in the past. the fluff for ages has supported the ability for nations to co-operate.
Maybe It is a lack of creativity on your part. I love the new ideas for allies. Consider that not all space marines are ultramarines, so perhaps they would work with the Tau. Or maybe that the Eldar are so arrogant they would rather work the their brothers that are still following the old ways, than some other race who is far less ancient. Maybe a rouge inquisitor would team up with a splinter faction of necrons to destroy a deamon, and maybe he would stab him in the back afterwards.
Have you forgotten that the old deamon hunters codex allowed for allies?
Have you not heard of radical inquisitors, or perhaps non-imperial armies not caring about who they work with. The Tau especially do not care.
Perhaps Tzeench has a grand plan for this ork Waaaaaagh. I mean the fluff threads are infinite.
This is a chance for you, YOU, to add to the awesome nutritive that is 40k. You love the fluff SOOOO much, well now you have the opportunity to create the most themed army EVER.
Also how does this expressly sell more models?
I saw it as way for a player with 2 smaller armies to play larger sized games.
I am so excited for 6th!
46926
Post by: Kaldor
the color purple wrote:a merging of efforts or interests
If I want to kill X, and you want to kill X, and we both try and kill X, then by the definition you have supplied, we are allied.
45703
Post by: Lynata
The Tyranids want to kill the defenders of Cadia, and the CSMs want to kill the defenders of Cadia. Since both try and kill the defenders of Cadia, Tyranids and Chaos Space Marines are as of now allies.
46926
Post by: Kaldor
Lynata wrote:The Tyranids want to kill the defenders of Cadia, and the CSMs want to kill the defenders of Cadia. Since both try and kill the defenders of Cadia, Tyranids and Chaos Space Marines are as of now allies.
Yes. Of course, only so far as their immediate goals align.
42494
Post by: nomotog
No, you not allies just because you are shooting at the same thing. It's not an alliance unless the parties agree to join up.
46926
Post by: Kaldor
nomotog wrote:No, you not allies just because you are shooting at the same thing. It's not an alliance unless the parties agree to join up.
Says who?
16387
Post by: Manchu
Any person who understands what the word "ally" means.
46926
Post by: Kaldor
Manchu wrote:Any person who understands what the word "ally" means.
But not, apparently, the authors of the dictionary.
The definition of an alliance is a merging of efforts or interests.
The definition of merging is to combine, blend or unite.
Therefore, if two forces are both attempting to destroy a third force, then those forces are allied.
There is no requirement for those two forces to be in communication with each other, or even be aware of each others existence.
16387
Post by: Manchu
No, again, you're missing the key ingredient: intention. Please read your dictionaries more carefully or, if possible, try to understand actual usage in spoken language.
40718
Post by: lukyboi
they are only allies if they are NOT shooting each other, if CSM and nids attacked cadia, it would be a 3 way battle as they all shot one another, to not shoot one another, they must agree, and by extension to ally they must conciously agree, hence nids (which cant/dont communicate) cannot ally
16387
Post by: Manchu
lukyboi wrote:they are only allies if they are NOT shooting each other
They need more than that. Again, just consider an everyday situation: You want to go get gas in your car so you drive to the gas station. I also want to get gas in my car and I happen to drive to the same gas station. We have not made an alliance to obtain gasoline.
40718
Post by: lukyboi
true but you wouldent shoot someone over gasoline, (or take thiers or however that example carries over)
16387
Post by: Manchu
I don't know what you're getting at.
40718
Post by: lukyboi
neither do i, the gas exapmle isnt very good, because
to ally with someone you need an opponent or 3rd party
42494
Post by: nomotog
You can ally with someone to obtain gas. You would make an agreement with someone to help each other find the cheapest gas. A reluctant ally might agree to help, but make sure they get there gas before you. A better ally would drive with you and send you information over the phone. Battle brothers would ride in the same car to save gas. They might even lone you a gas can.
25232
Post by: mrfantastical
If you like the fluff then just read the fluff. If you like the game, then play the game. If you don't want to play the game cause the fluff has changed, it's your choice but that is a very petty decision.
I'm pretty sure if you wait long enough one of the Black Library writers will write a a novel to wrap up the 6th edition changes in a palatable story that will be to your liking.
46926
Post by: Kaldor
Manchu wrote:No, again, you're missing the key ingredient: intention. Please read your dictionaries more carefully or, if possible, try to understand actual usage in spoken language.
*sigh*
No intention is mentioned, implied, or required in anyone's definition but yours.
42494
Post by: nomotog
It's funny imaging someone allying by accident.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Kaldor wrote:*sigh*
No intention is mentioned, implied, or required in anyone's definition but yours.
*sigh*
English isn't any easy language, I know. But misreading the dictionary isn't going to make it any easier.
46926
Post by: Kaldor
Manchu wrote:Kaldor wrote:*sigh*
No intention is mentioned, implied, or required in anyone's definition but yours.
*sigh*
English isn't any easy language, I know. But misreading the dictionary isn't going to make it any easier.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alliance
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/merge
There's no mention in those entries of a requirement of intent.
44326
Post by: DeffDred
Could you guys take this petty squabble elsewhere.
I'd like to read about fluff... not what you guys think is the definition of words.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
nomotog wrote:It's funny imaging someone allying by accident.
"Hey so exactly who are we fighting again?"
"I don't know but lets fight over there looks like fun fighting! I mean its not like we are purposefully allying ourselves with those creatures. I mean we are fighting with them but we aren't allies, I mean we are both sharing drinks."
"Sir this doesn't make any sense."
"Gak up and do what your told!"
16387
Post by: Manchu
 Tell me more about the dictionary. Your link says: "a merging of efforts or interests by persons, families, states, or organizations" A merging that is accomplished by agents acting intentionally. I have demonstrated several times how usage demands an action to be more than coincidental duplication of effort in order to be meaningfully called an alliance. Automatically Appended Next Post: DeffDred wrote:I'd like to read about fluff... not what you guys think is the definition of words.
Sorry charlie, it's on-topic as the thread is about what "alliances" might mean to the fluff of 6th edition. By all means, don't read it if you don't want. I won't put a gun to your head.
46926
Post by: Kaldor
This is where things can get confusing, because this bit:
Manchu wrote:"a merging of efforts or interests by persons, families, states, or organizations"
Is part of the definition, as mentioned in the dictionary, while this bit:
Manchu wrote:A merging that is accomplished by agents acting intentionally.
Is made up nonsense.
So if you don't mind, let's just stick with the actual definition, and not the one you just made up.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Going back to the original scenario, you said that Ultramarines and Tyranids were both attacking CSM from opposite ends of a battlefield. The issue seems to be with what you think the "interest" at stake is. If the interest is "killing CSM" then we have a shared interest. "Killing CSM," however, is not really an accurate picture of the parties' interests. Ultramarines kill CSM because CSM are traitors. Nids kills CSM because CSM are food. Their interests are not really the same. But even if they were, the parties have done nothing to "merge" their interests. Automatically Appended Next Post: Kaldor wrote:Is made up nonsense.
Try using your definition of "alliance" in real life.
42494
Post by: nomotog
Asherian Command wrote:nomotog wrote:It's funny imaging someone allying by accident.
"Hey so exactly who are we fighting again?"
"I don't know but lets fight over there looks like fun fighting! I mean its not like we are purposefully allying ourselves with those creatures. I mean we are fighting with them but we aren't allies, I mean we are both sharing drinks."
"Sir this doesn't make any sense."
"Gak up and do what your told!"
That's how orks ally.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
nomotog wrote:Asherian Command wrote:nomotog wrote:It's funny imaging someone allying by accident.
"Hey so exactly who are we fighting again?"
"I don't know but lets fight over there looks like fun fighting! I mean its not like we are purposefully allying ourselves with those creatures. I mean we are fighting with them but we aren't allies, I mean we are both sharing drinks."
"Sir this doesn't make any sense."
"Gak up and do what your told!"
That's how orks ally.
I know I just don't want to write in an ork way. I feel like I lose a small amount of my IQ from typing that way.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Even Orks make a conscious decision, relative to their way of doing things, to ban together under a certain boss/against a certain enemy. The way Kaldor is talking about it, the opposing teams in a football game are allied because they share an interest in "playing football."
42494
Post by: nomotog
You don't need to fight to the death. People rarely recant on the internet. If your right, your right and people will silently agree with your rightness.
46926
Post by: Kaldor
Firstly, it's a simplified hypothetical situation. If it isn't to your liking we can manufacture another one.
Say, for example, a force of Tyranids are attacking an Imperial Guard outpost. One (or more) of the Imperial Guardsmen are corrupted by Chaos, and have been tracked by a Grey Knight force.
The Grey Knights arrive on the scene and see that the Imperial Guard are about to break free from the Tyranid forces and escape. The Grey Knights take steps to turn the battle back in the favour of the Tyranids, destroying key Imperial Guard forces and ensuring the Imperial Guard position is over-run, and the corrupt Guardsmen are slain.
Secondly, while a case could be made that their interests are not aligned, one would be hard pressed to argue that their efforts were not aligned.
Manchu wrote:Try using your definition of "alliance" in real life.
Once when I was working as a bouncer, a guy randomly king hit one of our crew and ran out of the venue. As he was running out, he crashed into a woman and sent her flying to the ground. The woman's partner grabbed that man and belted the snot out of him, before we could catch him.
That man was for that moment, without knowing it, our ally.
If bouncers had been approaching from the other direction and simply seen the woman's partner beating the snot out of this man, they would have grabbed the woman's partner and kicked him out, ending our erstwhile 'alliance'.
As it was, we gave him a drink card.
16387
Post by: Manchu
@nomotog: You're right, of course. The thing about what he's saying, however, is that I actually agree with the point he is trying to make by misusing alliance. You don't need to misunderstand the word to get to that point: namely, that the allies rules might not actually be a reflection of any fluff changes at all. They might just be, as Kaldor mentioned, rules abstraction. The main problem with that, of course, is that the Tyranids are left out completely and we haven't come up with a non-fluffy reason for why. Automatically Appended Next Post: Kaldor wrote:Say, for example ...
That's the same problem as the other. "The enemy of my enemy is my ally" is a figure of speech, not a definition.
42494
Post by: nomotog
Well their is no gameplay reason to leave the nids out of the ally table. I think the table is mostly fluff. We can't really tell till they give us more fluff so we can see if things match.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Another good point Kaldor made was that no table would actually make everyone happy. I think there are rules reasons for what we're seeing here. Lynata posted a "fluffier" version in another thread, which she had made. One thing I noticed about it was that there were a lot more "cannot ally" spots than the official one. I agree that her version is better suited to the fluff published so far but it does a lot more for the Imperial factions than the others. So that's a balance rather than a fluff issue.
46926
Post by: Kaldor
Manchu wrote:Kaldor wrote:Say, for example ...
That's the same problem as the other. "The enemy of my enemy is my ally" is a figure of speech, not a definition.
Except for the times when it matches the definition, I suppose.
This isn't really important, or even on-topic any more, but I'm stuck nursing my two month old daughter on the couch and have been for two hours now. I need something to keep me entertained. Automatically Appended Next Post: nomotog wrote:Well their is no gameplay reason to leave the nids out of the ally table. I think the table is mostly fluff. We can't really tell till they give us more fluff so we can see if things match.
It's a combination of things. If they'd just let everyone ally with everyone, the boards would be flooded with people crying about Marines allying with Chaos, or other such nonsense. So they put some limitations on it.
Whenever you put limitations on things, people will moan about where you put them.
Also, balance issue.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Kaldor wrote:Manchu wrote:"The enemy of my enemy is my ally" is a figure of speech, not a definition.
Except for the times when it matches the definition, I suppose.
Right: so the enemy of my enemy would indeed be my ally if we got together and decided to work together to attack our common enemy. Without that, the enemy of my enemy could just be another one of my enemies -- which is exactly what we find in 40k.
46926
Post by: Kaldor
Manchu wrote:Kaldor wrote:Manchu wrote:"The enemy of my enemy is my ally" is a figure of speech, not a definition.
Except for the times when it matches the definition, I suppose.
Right: so the enemy of my enemy would indeed be my ally if we got together and decided to work together to attack our common enemy.
So close...
If your efforts are aligned, you are allies.
No 'getting together' is required. No intent is required. No 'working together' is required.
See my real life story above for an example of this in action.
40718
Post by: lukyboi
in your nid example, if a nid saw the knights, it would attack, because no 'fistbump' was exchanged, therefore they are not allies
45703
Post by: Lynata
Manchu wrote:Your link says:
"a merging of efforts or interests by persons, families, states, or organizations"
Aye, I think that's the important bit.
A merger of efforts is a conscious decision to work together. Mergers don't happen on accident. To get back to the "buying gas" example, two people going to buy gas won't "merge their efforts" unless they co-operate. If they fail talking to each other, it's simply two independent activities coincidentally happening at the same time. Which is not what the TT rules represent.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/merge
40718
Post by: lukyboi
my point exactly
46926
Post by: Kaldor
Lynata wrote:Manchu wrote:Your link says:
"a merging of efforts or interests by persons, families, states, or organizations"
Aye, I think that's the important bit.
A merger of efforts is a conscious decision to work together. Mergers don't happen on accident. To get back to the "buying gas" example, two people going to buy gas won't "merge their efforts" unless they co-operate. If they fail talking to each other, it's simply two independent activities coincidentally happening at the same time. Which is not what the TT rules represent.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/merge
Again, there's no requirement for a conscious decision. Ref: the story I posted above. You'll also note the lack of a 'conscious decision' requirement in the definition you posted.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Would you at least agree that merge is a transitive verb, requiring both a subject and an object, which is to say that some agent must "do" the action?
38630
Post by: starraptor
If i recall correctly in the tau codex (i havent read it in ages) theres a blurb about tau and Ultramarines having a short alliance to fight tyrinids (if i remeber correctly) and the marines leaving afterwards without killing the tau. and it said the marine commander was impressed by the tau. Actually it might have been an old white dwarf i read it in. Anyways my point being this isnt a sudden new thing, The Greater Good is an insuis thing.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
starraptor wrote:If i recall correctly in the tau codex (i havent read it in ages) theres a blurb about tau and Ultramarines having a short alliance to fight tyrinids (if i remeber correctly) and the marines leaving afterwards without killing the tau. and it said the marine commander was impressed by the tau. Actually it might have been an old white dwarf i read it in. Anyways my point being this isnt a sudden new thing, The Greater Good is an insuis thing.
actually that is in the 5th ed space marine codex
38630
Post by: starraptor
Ohh I'm sorry I got rid of both my Tau armys and Space marine armys awhile back to pick up Grey Knights so I got confused on the codexs. By the way Tau are still my favorite race they just suck game play whise so i dont play them. But man do they look cool and they are definetly the nice guys of the galaxy.
54773
Post by: Galdos
Kaldor wrote:Firstly, it's a simplified hypothetical situation. If it isn't to your liking we can manufacture another one.
Say, for example, a force of Tyranids are attacking an Imperial Guard outpost. One (or more) of the Imperial Guardsmen are corrupted by Chaos, and have been tracked by a Grey Knight force.
The Grey Knights arrive on the scene and see that the Imperial Guard are about to break free from the Tyranid forces and escape. The Grey Knights take steps to turn the battle back in the favour of the Tyranids, destroying key Imperial Guard forces and ensuring the Imperial Guard position is over-run, and the corrupt Guardsmen are slain.
Secondly, while a case could be made that their interests are not aligned, one would be hard pressed to argue that their efforts were not aligned.
Manchu wrote:Try using your definition of "alliance" in real life.
Once when I was working as a bouncer, a guy randomly king hit one of our crew and ran out of the venue. As he was running out, he crashed into a woman and sent her flying to the ground. The woman's partner grabbed that man and belted the snot out of him, before we could catch him.
That man was for that moment, without knowing it, our ally.
If bouncers had been approaching from the other direction and simply seen the woman's partner beating the snot out of this man, they would have grabbed the woman's partner and kicked him out, ending our erstwhile 'alliance'.
As it was, we gave him a drink card.
Your first example is NOT an example of an alliance. I wouldnt even say the second one is an example either but I would never use the word Alliance to define something like a every day world situation.
You have Tyranid attacking Imperial Guard. You also have the Grey Knights. The Grey Knights see the Tyranids and say "we can use this to are advantage" and take out key positions to aid the Tyranids. This does NOT mean they are allied. The GK are indeed helping the Tyranids but that is because they are tools, weapons in a way. If a Tyranid warrior saw a Grey Knight, the Tyranid IS GOING TO ATTACK. This means the Grey Knights are the Tyranids enemies. Im fairly sure it is impossible to be someone's ally and enemy at the same exact time.
40k example, in DoW Winter Assault, the Eldar engage Chaos and Orks to help the Imperial Guard push through these positions. When the Imperial Guard encounter the Eldar, they engage the Eldar. They are not allied and are enemies of each other. The Eldar do not engage only because they lack the manpower to fight both the IG and Orks. They request a truce which the IG agree too to help defeat the Orks, Chaos, secure the Titan, and fight a greater threat. NOW they are allied.
WW2 example, the Western Allies and the Soviets are actively working together, they are allies. The Western Allies contain the 2nd Polish Armor Division, that division is allied with the Soviets. The AK (Home Army, Polish resistance movement) is actively fighting the Nazi's as is the Soviets. The Soviets and the AK are NOT allied. (In fact, the Soviets stopped fighting the Germans during the Warsaw Uprising in 44 so the Germans could concentrate on putting the Poles down, you wouldnt really argue the Soviets are allied with the Germans while they are in a state of active war with each other)
In another SciFi example. In Starcraft, the Confederacy of Man is laying siege to the Sons of Korhal military base on Antiga Prime. To defeat the Confederates, the Sons of Korhal use a device that causes the Zerg (Tyranids) to arrive and rush to this beacon. The Zerg kill every thing in their way. The Sons place it in key locations so it breaks the Confederates military allowing the Sons to escape. The Zerg actively engage and kill many Sons of Korhal soldiers. The Zerg and Sons are not allied
Later, during the invasion of the capital world of Tarsonis, there is a scene (in the book) of Confederate Soldiers killing a Zerg flyer chasing a Sons of Korhal ship. The Humans are still not allied (as that occurs, a human capital ship destroyers another one in orbit)
Finally a military base on the planet has both Confederates AND Sons defending it in a joint defense. THESE people are allied. Factions however are not.
Have you ever played an RTS game in a free for all? Have you ever seen a person attack another and you launch an attack at the same time to kill either the person being attacked or the person launching the attack? (attack his base) just because you share the same interest, does not mean you are allied with the other because if you encountered the other, you would fight him. You may chose to ignore him and focus else where but that doesnt mean you are going to work with him.
noun
1.
the act of allying or state of being allied.
2.
a formal agreement or treaty between two or more nations to cooperate for specific purposes.
3.
a merging of efforts or interests by persons, families, states, or organizations: an alliance between church and state.
4.
the persons or entities so allied.
5.
marriage or the relationship created by marriage between the families of the bride and bridegroom.
An alliance can only happen if the two sides are agreed to not engage each other. A ceasefire to kill a greater threat is an alliance (Blood Angels and Necrons), Coordinating a strike (key word is coordinate) are actively supporting each other are examples of being allied. If person A punches person B and person C punches B and B is physically between A and C, People A and C are not allied, they only reason they havnt fought each other is because B is in the way.
46926
Post by: Kaldor
Galdos wrote:just because you share the same interest, does not mean you are allied
The Dictionary wrote:a merging of efforts or interests
What?
24409
Post by: Matt.Kingsley
^Exactly what I was going to say, but then I remebered I had to type
42494
Post by: nomotog
You wouldn't think the word ally would be so hard to understand.
4595
Post by: CaptainLoken
starraptor wrote:If i recall correctly in the tau codex (i havent read it in ages) theres a blurb about tau and Ultramarines having a short alliance to fight tyrinids (if i remeber correctly) and the marines leaving afterwards without killing the tau. and it said the marine commander was impressed by the tau. Actually it might have been an old white dwarf i read it in. Anyways my point being this isnt a sudden new thing, The Greater Good is an insuis thing.
You are thinking about a battle where the Ultramarines and Tau were fighting each other, when suddenly, a Tyranid swarm showed up at the planet. The Ultramarines, realizing that the Tyranids were a bigger threat, started shooting at the bugs, and ignored the Tau. The Tau, realizing the threat, also started shooting at the Tyranids. They were each located in thier own teritory, and never "worked together". After the Ultramarines were out of immediate danger, Calgar announced to the Tau that he was going to destroy the planet. He allowed them to leave, because they did not attack the Ultramarines while they were fighting the bugs. Once the Tau were off world, Calgar destroyed the planet. He felt that the Tau acted with honor, which was something that he did not expect from the aliens. In return, he acted out of honor. It was a reflection on Calgar's character, rather then his relationship to the Tau.
Now, that is a LONG way from being "Battle Brothers". I don't care what your definition of "ally" is, one army ignoring another army, so that they may fight a bigger threat has nothing to do with politics or cooperation. The two armies were fighting the bugs, because they were trying to survive. They did not work together. They did not coordinate their efforts. They were fighting their own battles that just happened to be on the same planet. Once the danger was over, the Astartes decided to destroy the planet, so that NEITHER of their enemies would have a former human world.
Now, if you are using the Allies rules in the 6th Edition book, then Calgar could have joined a unit of Fire Warriors during the game. That implies not only communication, but cooperation. That is completely different from the example listed in the Fluff. You all can argue all you want over the exact definition of the word "ally", but the reality is in the game mechanics.
I can justify playing a team game, using my Ultramarines, with another player that is using Tau, because the two forces are completely different armies. They can not join each other, lead each other's units, or share special rules. The two armies are "just fighting the same foe on the same battlefield". That is not working as "allies", regardless of your use of the word.
But, with the 6th Edition Allies rules, I could move an Ultramarines Independent Character into coherancy with a Tau unit, and use my special rules to benefit the Tau unit. THAT is an ALLY. That is what I am having trouble with. I know that various armies have "worked together", used mercenaries, and all other kinds of stuff in the Fluff.
However, they have NEVER been able to use their own special rules to benefit each other. That is new to 6th Edition.
The "Inducted Imperial Forces" rule actually represented the Fluff, as an Inquisitor could ask or demand all kinds of support from other Imperial organizations. However, Astartes actually LEADING xenos forces has never happened. They were made to kill the xenos, not lead them.
I'm not against certain "Fluffy" alliences, but a general "lets change the Fluff so that we can sell more product" has me a little ticked.
54773
Post by: Galdos
Kaldor wrote:Galdos wrote:just because you share the same interest, does not mean you are allied
The Dictionary wrote:a merging of efforts or interests
What?
Share, means you have a few of the same.
Merge means your interest combine into one interest. It is no longer your interest and his interest but a collective. It ceases to be "my best interest is similar to your best interest" and becomes "this is for our best interest"
If two groups have the interest of killing every living creature in the galaxy but themselves, they are not allied with each other even though their interest is pretty much identical.
Im sorry that was poorly worded, thank you for mentioning that
34906
Post by: Pacific
No... and I think the problem will be what people see as being 'correct' - in terms of whether army x would really fight alongside army y, and what is the nature of their presence with each other on the battleground.
All of this talk of semantics doesn't really get to the main issue here - which is that some of that allies table in the rumours thread has some really odd combinations which don't fit at all with current background, meaning that it must have been changed in some way:
- Marines are now 'brothers in arms' with the Tau (an alien race, last time I checked), while only 'allies of convenience' with Sisters of Battle, and somewhat more hilariously, Grey knights. So the Astartes, a group of individuals held by 10,000 years of dogma and religious ritual, fight more comfortably alongside a blue skinned alien than they do against a chapter created by the Emperor himself.
- Black Templars, you remember the guys who are the biggest followers of Sigismund - the marine who was given charge of the most zealous marines to separate from the Fists after the Heresy? Well guess what: They will now fight alongside Eldar (to the same level as Marines fighting alongside GK) and even the Necrons and Dark Eldar (perhaps on the basis that they share a similar armour colour?)
- Chaos fighting alongside Tau? No.
If it didn't look as though the image in the rumours gallery was a genuine photo from the book, you might well think that this allies chart was an attempt at trolling. That is however, unless the background has changed significantly to the point where Marines are now regularly fighting alongside Tau, and view them as 'battle brothers', and Black Templars have perhaps decided that Dark Eldar and Necrons aren't too bad once you get to know them.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Maybe this just signals that the Marines aren't really all that ... well, loyal to the Imperium. Makes sense to me. They are post-humans, after all. Only a very few of them show any genuine compassion toward regular human beings. Even the prototypical ones, the Ultramarines, clearly see themselves as superiors -- ruling over rather than serving humanity. Just a thought.
47269
Post by: deathholydeath
Manchu wrote:Maybe this just signals that the Marines aren't really all that ... well, loyal to the Imperium. Makes sense to me. They are post-humans, after all. Only a very few of them show any genuine compassion toward regular human beings. Even the prototypical ones, the Ultramarines, clearly see themselves as superiors -- ruling over rather than serving humanity. Just a thought.
This is true. SM loyalty is to the Emperor first, their primarchs second, and the IoM at a distant third.
38967
Post by: jareddm
Pacific wrote:- Marines are now 'brothers in arms' with the Tau (an alien race, last time I checked), while only 'allies of convenience' with Sisters of Battle, and somewhat more hilariously, Grey knights.
Actually, I'm more okay about the Grey Knights bit than I would've expected. One of the few positive bits about the GK codex is showing just how separate and alien the GK's methods are from both other space marine chapters and the rest of the Imperium. That while the rumors of mind wiping and murdering every space marine and guard they fight alongside may be exaggerated, they're still prone to using techniques that make most members of the Imperium very uneasy. The fact that they have no 'brothers in arms' makes it easier for me to accept the interpretation of them presented in their codex. Of course this doesn't excuse the horrendous method in which it was presented, it does help me come around to seeing them as a force outside the normal structure of the Imperium, and possibly on the verge of damnation if their methods were to ever fail.
45130
Post by: fidel
I am not sure if anyone has posted this - but this blog I think nailed down some pretty interesting story arc fluffs coming into 6th edition http://theshellcase.co.uk/tag/the-emperor/ and for those that don't like links: It has, however, given me time to reflect on the prominence of the Dark Angels in the new edition and the slight shuffling on of the canon from the previous version.
So, based on certain rumours, the Tau are now under the protection of the Space Marines. Or at least the Ultramarines and their successors which rather suggests that the Emperor knew that there would come a time when Chaos would return to the galaxy in a level of force akin to the Heresy. It also makes me think that he was aware of and/or had a hand in the genetic manipulation of the Tau alongside the Eldar. Which if nothing else makes you realise where Alpharius and Omegon get their pragmatism from…
More over I’ve been thinking about the Dark Angels. It’s quite telling that we’re on the cusp of the 42 Millennium, the Golden Throne is failing, and the fate of the Imperium hangs in the balance and there is a sudden emphasis being placed on the 1st Legion. The Dark Angels have always been a mysterious bunch and all the evidence suggests it is because of the betrayal of half the Legion during the Heresy. And although they bear those scars with great shame, the true cause of their secrecy is the realisation that came with capturing Luther and his eventual confession. The great secret that the Dark Angels keep is, whereas the Space Wolves are the Emperor’s executioners, the Dark Angels are or will be the executioners of the Emperor.
From broken lips Luther told his captures that the Emperor was a true immortal, a being destined to be reborn for all eternity and by keeping him trapped within a shattered physical form humanity was preventing his rebirth and with it their very salvation. This secret was the Dark Angels’ alone to bear and with their stoicism they would see it done.
Cypher’s quest to kill the Emperor is a well established part of the background, his motivations supposedly sinister. And wherever the lost son of The Lion makes planet fall the Dark Angels descend to allegedly bring him to justice. It’s no surprise to see Divination as one of the Dark Angel psyker traits for 6th edition. In the resulting engagement Cypher makes his escape and with each new appearance he gets closer and closer to Terra. The assumption is that the Dark Angels are trying to stop Cypher but I propose that they are trying to help him by covering his tracks and sowing misdirection as on the surface the Dark Angels appear to be doing little more than thwarting heretics. But think about it, Cypher is from a time when the Emperor was not a God – a truth all Space Marines hold – and so often times Cypher is doing little more than opening the eyes of those he comes into contact with. The Imperial Creed demands action is taken. The Dark Angels prosecute the campaign as far as they need to then withdraw. His escape is assisted by the fundamental and intentional conflict within the chapter structure. Battle brothers don’t know the true extent of the Dark Angels’ role in things to come, whereas company captains are initiated into the Deathwing and so, to a point, do. They accept the grim task ahead of them with the redoubtable determination we’ve come to expect from the First Legion. As a result the Dark Angels hamper their own efforts to capture Cypher and further turn the wheels of destiny towards the inevitable death of the Emperor.
This isn’t to say that the Dark Angels are heretics or traitors. Far from it. Arguably only the Dark Angels and the Space Wolves see things for that they really are and the grim roles they must play. The Dark Angels know that the Wolves will be set upon them once their work is done. And probably deepens the resentment that runs between the two Chapters. Especially as the Wolves know they were powerless to change anything as for the Dark Angels to succeed they must fail in their most basic duty. To keep the Emperor safe. The Dark Angels understand that by allowing the Emperor’s shattered mortal form to die he can be reborn and will signal for the Primarchs to return and herald a new age of reclamation. Although I suspect that it’ll be The Lion himself that ends his father’s life as he was always destined to carry a terrible burden. Indeed there’s every likelihood that he saw this possible future which is why the weight of the Legion was so heavy on his shoulders. Combined with my note about the Tau ostensibly being anti-Chaos weapons it all seems to point quite strongly that humanity is on the brink of either destruction or redemption but it’ll come at a terrible price and its survival may come at the cost of the Imperium itself. So essentially I like it because its an evolution of the fluff. The Space Marines are becoming more independent as rulers again - and now have their own agendas. I like the union between Tau and Space Marine - because when it comes down to it - Space Marines (some of them cough cough Black Templars) hate one thing more then aliens - the Warp. So allying with something that cannot be possessed - or at least attempting to harness that power to finally kill the warp - is an interesting plot twist. I also like it that this pulls into a direct controversy with the Ecclisiarchal edicts of hating aliens - so it puts more of a strain on the normal "mortal" imperial citizen and the super-human Space Marine. Essentially what has happened is that GW, maybe, has stepped up its game and is now saying "Hey guys, remember all those heroes and black and white we made things in the past - well we gonna Game of Thrones it up for you and **** it up, so now everything is morally grey." Hell I would love to see them kill off some characters we know just to set the mood - Marnaus could die with Uriel Centris now taking the lead, for Space Wolfs Grimnar can now die (or become a dreadnaught) with that other guy taking his palace... I forgot his name but he had a whole buncha books RARGH!... The emporer could be on his last leg of life, with the Dark Angels pushing their hidden agenda more and more - hell, I would love to see an Imperial Primarch even in the lore now a bit! Sometimes change is bad, but I am kinda liking this new twist...
4595
Post by: CaptainLoken
That a cool idea, but I really want to know what is in the actual book.
Could anyone with an actual book tell us...
ARE SPACE MARINES NOW PROTECTING THE TAU?
7103
Post by: sniperjolly
Am I the only one who REALLY LOVES the new Tau fluff?
Bear with me here. One of the biggest grievances I have had with the Tau is how hilariously insignificant they are/were on any scale at all. There are a dozens, if not hundreds of minor xenos races that are a bigger threat to the Imperium than the Tau. Sure, they tried to make them seem more important in later editions, but it just keeps on falling flat when you remember that the "Damocles Gulf Crusade" was 2-3 cruisers and a handful of escorts. It was an existential threat to the Tau Empire like they have never faced, and while they put up suprising resistance, the fact that that was considered enough to wipe them out by the Munitorium, was actually a somewhat fair estimation and were deemed to warrant their own book while being weaker as a species than a single chapter of marines continued to gall me. What was this tiny speck on the face of the galaxy doing in the huge epic of 40k? Do you know who won the 13th Black Crusade? The Tau. Technically. The Tau HAD to be in that campaign because they were a major army, even though a crushing victory for them would mean diddly squat on the galactic scale because they are a "Major Army", a concept that is frankly ridiculous.
Now? Now they have a reason for existing. They are actually relevant on the galactic stage, and there is a solid reason why they were not utterly obliterated by their beefy neighbors millenia ago that doesn't boil down to "Deus Ex Machina". This opens so many doors for the army and the race. The horizons are wide open, and I am nigh giddy with excitement to read that section of the 6th ed book. My prayers it doesn't disappoint.
6838
Post by: 1hadhq
CaptainLoken wrote:That a cool idea, but I really want to know what is in the actual book.
Could anyone with an actual book tell us...
THIS ^^
To know if someone likes the new fluff or spots an "improvement" is nice, to see the actual course of the background in sixth ed would be nicer. So please, who got access could spent a small bit of his/her time to look up the part beyond the rules section.
6646
Post by: Morathi's Darkest Sin
Aye, first place I'll be going, will be to have a good nose through the background section. I have a feeling I'll end up disappointed, but I would really like to see some actual advancement this time. Someone at GW needs to realise, going past the 40th millenium doesn't require a name change of the product. 
54314
Post by: Ravenblade666
All this info about the new fluff, makes me want to go out and buy the 6ed rule book just for that reason, damn you all!  plus the rules would be a bonus
42494
Post by: nomotog
sniperjolly wrote:Am I the only one who REALLY LOVES the new Tau fluff?
Bear with me here. One of the biggest grievances I have had with the Tau is how hilariously insignificant they are/were on any scale at all. There are a dozens, if not hundreds of minor xenos races that are a bigger threat to the Imperium than the Tau. Sure, they tried to make them seem more important in later editions, but it just keeps on falling flat when you remember that the "Damocles Gulf Crusade" was 2-3 cruisers and a handful of escorts. It was an existential threat to the Tau Empire like they have never faced, and while they put up suprising resistance, the fact that that was considered enough to wipe them out by the Munitorium, was actually a somewhat fair estimation and were deemed to warrant their own book while being weaker as a species than a single chapter of marines continued to gall me. What was this tiny speck on the face of the galaxy doing in the huge epic of 40k? Do you know who won the 13th Black Crusade? The Tau. Technically. The Tau HAD to be in that campaign because they were a major army, even though a crushing victory for them would mean diddly squat on the galactic scale because they are a "Major Army", a concept that is frankly ridiculous.
Now? Now they have a reason for existing. They are actually relevant on the galactic stage, and there is a solid reason why they were not utterly obliterated by their beefy neighbors millenia ago that doesn't boil down to "Deus Ex Machina". This opens so many doors for the army and the race. The horizons are wide open, and I am nigh giddy with excitement to read that section of the 6th ed book. My prayers it doesn't disappoint.
They don't have any larger of a role now then before. Assuming this rumor is true and that it makes sense from a fluff sense. (You know time line and all.) All it really says is oh look tau are the ray of hope. They already where that. The difference now is they have to share that ray of hope with the SM. If you want to make the tau more relevant, you can do better then this.
46636
Post by: English Assassin
Ravenblade666 wrote:....plus the rules would be a bonus
Not is the rumours and previews are anything to go by, they won't.
54314
Post by: Ravenblade666
English Assassin wrote:Ravenblade666 wrote:....plus the rules would be a bonus
Not is the rumours and previews are anything to go by, they won't.
Haven't paid much attention to them tbh I probably should do but I rarely play 40K these days, more warmahordes now.
38967
Post by: jareddm
sniperjolly wrote:Am I the only one who REALLY LOVES the new Tau fluff?
Bear with me here. One of the biggest grievances I have had with the Tau is how hilariously insignificant they are/were on any scale at all. There are a dozens, if not hundreds of minor xenos races that are a bigger threat to the Imperium than the Tau. Sure, they tried to make them seem more important in later editions, but it just keeps on falling flat when you remember that the "Damocles Gulf Crusade" was 2-3 cruisers and a handful of escorts. It was an existential threat to the Tau Empire like they have never faced, and while they put up suprising resistance, the fact that that was considered enough to wipe them out by the Munitorium, was actually a somewhat fair estimation and were deemed to warrant their own book while being weaker as a species than a single chapter of marines continued to gall me. What was this tiny speck on the face of the galaxy doing in the huge epic of 40k? Do you know who won the 13th Black Crusade? The Tau. Technically. The Tau HAD to be in that campaign because they were a major army, even though a crushing victory for them would mean diddly squat on the galactic scale because they are a "Major Army", a concept that is frankly ridiculous.
Now? Now they have a reason for existing. They are actually relevant on the galactic stage, and there is a solid reason why they were not utterly obliterated by their beefy neighbors millenia ago that doesn't boil down to "Deus Ex Machina". This opens so many doors for the army and the race. The horizons are wide open, and I am nigh giddy with excitement to read that section of the 6th ed book. My prayers it doesn't disappoint.
The strength of the Tau was always in their potential. Sure, if the Imperium wanted to, they could send a huge crusade fleet and wipe out the entire Tau Empire simply through overwhelming numbers. But they won't. There's too many other threats, too many greater, more pressing foes to deal with, and so the destruction of the Tau gets pushed back. But for how long? 100 years? 500? 1,000? The Tau have shown themselves to be the most open to new concepts and technology, as well as having the drive to put them into action. It took them relatively no time at all to develop an effective counter to imperial titans. What else could they develop given the time? A shield that can mask a planet's life signs from the tyranid? How many other minor xenos allies could they aquire? The point is that all the Tau needed was time, and if they could get it, they'd have been a force to be reckoned with.
Sorry, just a bit of a rant on how the Tau didn't need a protector, they had the rest of the galaxy making a distraction for them.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
quoting someone here
There’s also rumours of a supplement that, basically, is the early years of the 42nd millennium. The Emperor is dead, and his body is in the hands of the Ultramarines. The Imperiuam has been torn asunder and is now a group smaller empires controlled by the Astartes who are at war with one another. Needless to say the Ultramarines and their successors control the biggest chunk of space. Terra is in the hand of the Imperial Fists and believe the Emperor’s body needs to be laid to rest so he may be reborn. The rumours prattle on at length but the point is that the supplement, if it ever comes to light, would take 40k from 5 to midnight to about quarter past. The commercial sense is clear as the majority of players have Space Marine armies and therefore a high percentage of games are Marine vs Marine and it’s just a ‘training exercise’. This would allow players to legitimately play one another.
Anyway, I wonder how the Heresy supplement will tie in to the books. I’d like to think there’ll be rules for Primarchs and, therefore, models. But more importantly a balance needs to be found between what the Astartes were and what they become, especially in respect of the traitor legions. I’m a little apprehensive if I’m honest as the Horus Heresy novels are doing a fine job of fleshing out the events. An IA book, if allowed to, could run roughshod over everything Dan Abneet, Graham McNeill and the others have cultivated.
The talk of the Horus Heresy supplement got me thinking about, once more, the fluff. Specifically about the Space Wolves as I think they’re probably one of the hardest Legions to capture in game and more so for Warhammer 30,000 (as it’ll inevitably be dubbed) – the chapter of the 41st millennium being fairly different from their Heresy incarnation. More than that I started thinking about the Space Wolves and their relationship with the Emperor.
We know that the Space Wolves were the Emperor’s executioners. His attack dogs. It’s also fair to assume that the other Legions were aware of the the secondary role the Space Wolves had beyond prosecuting the Emperor’s Great Crusade. But the question I’m throwing out there is what was the extent that the Primarchs and the other Legions aware? Did they believe that the Space Wolves were given the task because they were eager to please savages or because they knew the strength that the Space Wolves possess.
Those that had read the Horus Heresy novels will know that the Wolves were unleashed on three separate occasions. Once against each of the lost legions, the third time against the Thousand Sons obviously to great effect. The thing that has always made the Space Wolves more dangerous than the World Eaters was their self control. Their savagery in combat was always tempered by strategy and an awareness of the violence they unleash. It’s almost a grudging acceptance of their savagery. They see a problem and their mind immediately leaps to the most expedient way of dealing with it. Such as throwing a space station at planet. It’s brutal, mind bendingly violent but the undertone of logic is what makes them so terrifying. Whereas the World Eaters would and did descend into mindless slaughter. The World Eaters were content to wreak havoc for havocs sake. To butcher all before them because they liked it.
The Space Wolves were designed to be able to take on any of their brother legions. They’re psychically resistant, their ferocity and lupine heritage makes them difficult to scare and even hard to put down. Their tactics are uncompromising and unpredictable and their savagery tempered by reason and cold logic. It is a terrifying cocktail of traits. And makes me ask the question; to what extent was Leman Russ truly a brother to the other Primarchs?
All the other Primarchs possess obvious facets of the Emperor’s personality. Some even share traits. Roboute Guilliman, it is said, was almost a straight up clone. I’ve always thought that Leman Russ possessed the animal, bestial nature of the Emperor that lurks within all of us. But the more I’ve thought about it the less I’m sure. Considering the task that the Emperor had in mind when he created Leman Russ and the Space Wolves it would make far more sense for Leman Russ to not share the same familial bonds to make his task that much easier. His loyalty had to be, first and foremost to the Emperor.
It tracks as the Legion/Chapter is fiercely loyal to themselves and the Emperor. They had disdain for the bureaucracy of the Imperium as a whole and although close to his brothers Leman Russ never shared the kind of bonds of kinship that, for example, Fulgrim and Ferrus Manus shared. Granted that didn’t end well…
It makes me wonder what the Emperor had in mind for the Space Wolves after the Great Crusade. Or all the Legions for that matter. It makes me suspect that the Emperor intended for the Space Wolves to be a galactic patrol force. A force brutal enough that it would quell insurrection and keep the other Legions in line.
However the far more likely thought is that the Emperor created the Space Wolves because he always suspected something could go wrong, whatever that may be. The Space Wolves were an insurance policy, for want of a better term. But it all comes back to that decisive moment when the Primarchs were scattered denying the Emperor the chance to nurture the Primarchs into what he needed them to be. But I suspect that Leman Russ was created exactly as he was intended to be. He was the Emperor’s greatest creation and most devastating weapon.
It occurs to me of all the loyalist Legions the Space Wolves would have been most feared by the traitors. As not only were they the most capable to bring the fight to the traitors but they already had experience of doing just that. They would have also been fired by a righteous indignation that the Emperor was defied, rather than the hurt of a brothers betrayed.
The funny thing is that the Primarchs spend an awful lot of time not trusting the Space Wolves because of their tribal nature, unkempt appearance and savagery in combat, but of all of the Emperor’s creations they were the only ones that ever acted with wholeheartedly the Imperium’s best interests in mind, the Emperor’s fullest support and his unwavering approval. For all the power games, manipulations and rivalries that went on amongst the other Primarchs, Leman Russ was the most trusted and equally the most loyal of all the Emperor’s sons. This despite Leman Russ never seeking it out or even acknowledging it. If anything I rather feel that Leman Russ, incorrectly, believed the Emperor tolerated him in the same way a father tolerates a dog bought to keep the children safe. A necessity rather than something to be loved.
I suspect the opposite to be true. He loved Leman Russ precisely because he was the immovable rock beneath his feet. He knew that Russ would do what he could not – to protect his children and his subjects, even from themselves, no matter the cost.
SOMEONE TELL ME THIS IS TRUE
IF SO BLARG! THIS IS AWESOME!
That means the brotherhood of the Ghoul Stars an Empire XD
16387
Post by: Manchu
"Horus Heresy Supplement"? What the --
Don't hold your breath.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
Manchu wrote:"Horus Heresy Supplement"? What the --
Don't hold your breath.
*dies*
16387
Post by: Manchu
I said don't hold your breath!
46926
Post by: Kaldor
Asherian Command wrote:There’s also rumours of a supplement that, basically, is the early years of the 42nd millennium. The Emperor is dead, and his body is in the hands of the Ultramarines. The Imperiuam has been torn asunder and is now a group smaller empires controlled by the Astartes who are at war with one another. Needless to say the Ultramarines and their successors control the biggest chunk of space. Terra is in the hand of the Imperial Fists and believe the Emperor’s body needs to be laid to rest so he may be reborn. The rumours prattle on at length but the point is that the supplement, if it ever comes to light, would take 40k from 5 to midnight to about quarter past. The commercial sense is clear as the majority of players have Space Marine armies and therefore a high percentage of games are Marine vs Marine and it’s just a ‘training exercise’. This would allow players to legitimately play one another.
That would suck so hard, it could suck a golf ball through a garden hose.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
I'm sorry but if any of these rumors are true means my lore will be even more awesome and would have a deep impact on my lore. (Considering that one of my chapters is a Dark Angel Successor Chapter)
Automatically Appended Next Post: Kaldor wrote:Asherian Command wrote:There’s also rumours of a supplement that, basically, is the early years of the 42nd millennium. The Emperor is dead, and his body is in the hands of the Ultramarines. The Imperiuam has been torn asunder and is now a group smaller empires controlled by the Astartes who are at war with one another. Needless to say the Ultramarines and their successors control the biggest chunk of space. Terra is in the hand of the Imperial Fists and believe the Emperor’s body needs to be laid to rest so he may be reborn. The rumours prattle on at length but the point is that the supplement, if it ever comes to light, would take 40k from 5 to midnight to about quarter past. The commercial sense is clear as the majority of players have Space Marine armies and therefore a high percentage of games are Marine vs Marine and it’s just a ‘training exercise’. This would allow players to legitimately play one another.
That would suck so hard, it could suck a golf ball through a garden hose.
Actually that would be awesome in my opinion. I really don't see how that is in anyway bad. THAT MOVES the story.
I've been waiting for something like to happen plus that is probably the only realistic thing in 40k then
16387
Post by: Manchu
Was it already posted in this thread that 40k is setting, not narrative? Those are wise words.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
Manchu wrote:Was it already posted in this thread that 40k is setting, not narrative? Those are wise words.
Yeah but i like narratives as well . Gives you more of a purpose to fight battles.
I especially want to a supplement for 42k
16387
Post by: Manchu
Battles need localized narrative not grand scale "what's going on with the whole galaxy" type narrative. The galaxy's a big place. You can tell you're little story in some corner of it. I thought that's what you were doing with the Ghoul Stars already. And let's face it: GW could not move the narrative forward without doing at least one thing to completely piss off each of every faction of fans out there.
31765
Post by: eldartau1987
"Boba Fet"
Stopped ready here. Boba Fett.
46926
Post by: Kaldor
Asherian Command wrote:Kaldor wrote:That would suck so hard, it could suck a golf ball through a garden hose.
Actually that would be awesome in my opinion. I really don't see how that is in anyway bad. THAT MOVES the story.
I've been waiting for something like to happen plus that is probably the only realistic thing in 40k then
There is no story.
This bears repeating.
THERE IS NO STORY.
40K has a setting, and this galaxy spanning setting covers 40,000 years of human history and allows us, as the players, to create our own stories to populate that setting. We can each imagine our own stories, and each imagine the battles we are fighting will affect the greater setting somehow.
Advancing that setting would suck so, so hard.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
Kaldor wrote:Asherian Command wrote:Kaldor wrote:That would suck so hard, it could suck a golf ball through a garden hose.
Actually that would be awesome in my opinion. I really don't see how that is in anyway bad. THAT MOVES the story.
I've been waiting for something like to happen plus that is probably the only realistic thing in 40k then
There is no story.
This bears repeating.
THERE IS NO STORY.
40K has a setting, and this galaxy spanning setting covers 40,000 years of human history and allows us, as the players, to create our own stories to populate that setting. We can each imagine our own stories, and each imagine the battles we are fighting will affect the greater setting somehow.
Advancing that setting would suck so, so hard.
yes but some people want a new setting!
46926
Post by: Kaldor
Asherian Command wrote:yes but some people want a new setting!
Well, the galaxy is a big place, and 40K background is deliberately vague. Find somewhere and somewhen that you like.
If it's the core setting that you want changed, then why are you even playing 40K in the first place?
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
Kaldor wrote:Asherian Command wrote:yes but some people want a new setting!
Well, the galaxy is a big place, and 40K background is deliberately vague. Find somewhere and somewhen that you like.
If it's the core setting that you want changed, then why are you even playing 40K in the first place?
You are very rude aren't you? 
Never before have I had to use this button but OKAY! 
I do have an area that I do use. Just want to see a supplement that makes optional for you to take a new setting and which you can build up from there.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Asherian Command wrote:yes but some people want a new setting!
For them, I'd recommend Warmahordes. Automatically Appended Next Post: Asherian Command wrote:Just want to see a supplement that makes optional for you to take a new setting and which you can build up from there.
This is what is already accomplished by the BGB. It's your starting point.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
Manchu wrote:Asherian Command wrote:yes but some people want a new setting!
For them, I'd recommend Warmahordes.
Err No. That does not have space ships nor does it have aliens that can rip you to shreds.
Manchu Bear wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asherian Command wrote:Just want to see a supplement that makes optional for you to take a new setting and which you can build up from there.
This is what is already accomplished by the BGB. It's your starting point.
Yup. Already knew that but it is good to have a starting point for anything.
42295
Post by: Slacker
Yeah, so I don't want to crush or lift anyone's spirits here, but I got my rulebook today, and I couldn't find ANYTHING regarding this whole 'Marines protecting the Tau" thing. I looked for a good hour for it. Yes, the allies table shows them as battle brothers, but in general the allies table makes no sense from either a fluff or game balance standpoint.
The Tau fluff is a one page blurb and a picture that was probably pulled right out of the 4th or 5th Edition rulebook, and I couldn't find it anywhere in the fluff about the Space Marines or the Emperor. Hell, Sisters of Battle I think get more fluff than the Tau, I left my rulebook in the car and can't be arsed to get it right now.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
Slacker wrote:Yeah, so I don't want to crush or lift anyone's spirits here, but I got my rulebook today, and I couldn't find ANYTHING regarding this whole 'Marines protecting the Tau" thing. I looked for a good hour for it. Yes, the allies table shows them as battle brothers, but in general the allies table makes no sense from either a fluff or game balance standpoint.
The Tau fluff is a one page blurb and a picture that was probably pulled right out of the 4th or 5th Edition rulebook, and I couldn't find it anywhere in the fluff about the Space Marines or the Emperor. Hell, Sisters of Battle I think get more fluff than the Tau, I left my rulebook in the car and can't be arsed to get it right now.
your name is so appropriate
57757
Post by: Arcsquad12
I'm just gonna drop my two cents on 6th Edition.
To me, 4th Edition was 40K. That was when I started, that was when I fell in love. It seemed to me that the editions eventually found their foothold in 4th. 1st Edition Rogue Trader was more or less a parody, with the groundwork of 40K, but extremely rough around the edges. It didn't quite have it's own distinctive style yet. 2nd Edition was pretty similar, throwing in new ideas that would eventually become established aspects of the universe, but still not quite grounded.
3rd Edition was where I thought it really started to take shape into what we know of as 40k. 4th Edition was simply the refinement, and where things firmly stayed. New concepts like the Tau were expanded upon in 4th, the tyranid redesign was fantastic, and for me personally, it marked the best balance of both darkness and humor. It wasn't exceedingly bleak to the point of depression, but nor was it overly parody. It was dark humor at its best.
5th Edition just felt too "EXTREEME DARKNESS GUIZE!", over emphasizing certain things and trivializing others. It just felt like they were taking things a little too far, and some of the appeal wore off. So I'm looking forward to 6th Edition, if only to see what they do with it from a fluff perspective. Maybe it will be a game changer, maybe it will play it safe, or maybe it will further refine what I loved from 4th.
4595
Post by: CaptainLoken
Slacker wrote:Yeah, so I don't want to crush or lift anyone's spirits here, but I got my rulebook today, and I couldn't find ANYTHING regarding this whole 'Marines protecting the Tau" thing. I looked for a good hour for it. Yes, the allies table shows them as battle brothers, but in general the allies table makes no sense from either a fluff or game balance standpoint.
The Tau fluff is a one page blurb and a picture that was probably pulled right out of the 4th or 5th Edition rulebook, and I couldn't find it anywhere in the fluff about the Space Marines or the Emperor. Hell, Sisters of Battle I think get more fluff than the Tau, I left my rulebook in the car and can't be arsed to get it right now.
Thank you for your time. I appreciate the update. Looks like we dodged a bullet. Now, we just have to make it through two new Codex books.
Hopefully, not only will the Tau be UPDATED this edition, but the person writting the Fluff will just expand on the current stuff. No Space Marine protectors. Just make them not lose every encounter with the big bad things that go bump in the universe, and expand on their cultural and military paradigms. They could EASILY do this by expanding on their empire, as well as describe all of the alien species that they have brought into the fold. Even if they do not have models for every species listed, it would open up all kinds of conversion ideas, as well as use the Allies rules for some interesting game mechanics. This would be an excellent way for GW to bring new life to a good concept, as well as lots of sales.
As far as the Space Marines, let's just hope that they have good, balanced, and FLUFFY rules. Keep them as the ultimate warrior monks in the universe. I don't need crazy game mechanics. I just need a good solid ruleset, so that my 2nd Company of Ultramarines can do well. Not Grey Knight well. But, good enough to at least keep pace with the other armies out there.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Arcsquad12 wrote:To me, 4th Edition was 40K.
I could not agree with you more. 4th Edition had a good, solid, ruleset, as well as great Codex books. Remember the Chaos Space Marines codex for 4th? Traitor Legion rules. Daemons. Deamonic Gifts. You could really make a unique force with that Codex. Never mind that it was cheesed out most of the time. That just comes down to the power/tournament players. I used to walk away from a player if they had too much cheese. I don't need to play. I get to. If my opponent was too extreme, I just let someone else get frustrated.
Tyranids were also great in 4th. Sure, the big bugs played a little too much of a role on the table, but again, you didn't HAVE to play with a cheesy player. At least the Codex gave you options.
The same things can be said of the Space Marines and Guard codex books. Sure, Guard were a little weaker than most, but you could do all kinds of neat things with their book. The Space Marines were also full of potential. As a Fluffy player, I never took min/maxed squads. I only took 1 Assault Cannon. If I saw more than that in an army, I simply didn't play.
I guess that we want the best of all possible worlds. Choices, but not cheese. Fluff, but not limited in power. It's hard to do, but it can be done.
34439
Post by: Formosa
CaptainLoken wrote:Slacker wrote:Yeah, so I don't want to crush or lift anyone's spirits here, but I got my rulebook today, and I couldn't find ANYTHING regarding this whole 'Marines protecting the Tau" thing. I looked for a good hour for it. Yes, the allies table shows them as battle brothers, but in general the allies table makes no sense from either a fluff or game balance standpoint.
The Tau fluff is a one page blurb and a picture that was probably pulled right out of the 4th or 5th Edition rulebook, and I couldn't find it anywhere in the fluff about the Space Marines or the Emperor. Hell, Sisters of Battle I think get more fluff than the Tau, I left my rulebook in the car and can't be arsed to get it right now.
Thank you for your time. I appreciate the update. Looks like we dodged a bullet. Now, we just have to make it through two new Codex books.
Hopefully, not only will the Tau be UPDATED this edition, but the person writting the Fluff will just expand on the current stuff. No Space Marine protectors. Just make them not lose every encounter with the big bad things that go bump in the universe, and expand on their cultural and military paradigms. They could EASILY do this by expanding on their empire, as well as describe all of the alien species that they have brought into the fold. Even if they do not have models for every species listed, it would open up all kinds of conversion ideas, as well as use the Allies rules for some interesting game mechanics. This would be an excellent way for GW to bring new life to a good concept, as well as lots of sales.
As far as the Space Marines, let's just hope that they have good, balanced, and FLUFFY rules. Keep them as the ultimate warrior monks in the universe. I don't need crazy game mechanics. I just need a good solid ruleset, so that my 2nd Company of Ultramarines can do well. Not Grey Knight well. But, good enough to at least keep pace with the other armies out there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Arcsquad12 wrote:To me, 4th Edition was 40K.
I could not agree with you more. 4th Edition had a good, solid, ruleset, as well as great Codex books. Remember the Chaos Space Marines codex for 4th? Traitor Legion rules. Daemons. Deamonic Gifts. You could really make a unique force with that Codex. Never mind that it was cheesed out most of the time. That just comes down to the power/tournament players. I used to walk away from a player if they had too much cheese. I don't need to play. I get to. If my opponent was too extreme, I just let someone else get frustrated.
Tyranids were also great in 4th. Sure, the big bugs played a little too much of a role on the table, but again, you didn't HAVE to play with a cheesy player. At least the Codex gave you options.
The same things can be said of the Space Marines and Guard codex books. Sure, Guard were a little weaker than most, but you could do all kinds of neat things with their book. The Space Marines were also full of potential. As a Fluffy player, I never took min/maxed squads. I only took 1 Assault Cannon. If I saw more than that in an army, I simply didn't play.
I guess that we want the best of all possible worlds. Choices, but not cheese. Fluff, but not limited in power. It's hard to do, but it can be done.
that was 3rd for the chaos marines dude, 4th one is utter utter crap by comparison lol
Totally agree about the guard and marine books, you could actually create you own chapter/company and it had alot of character
48860
Post by: Joey
I've always thought the Tau wanting to conquer the universe was a bit odd. Surely they're bright enough to realise that they don't have a chance and they're best off allying with the Imperium? In the interests of the greater good, of course.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
I had a quick flick through the GW store copy of tbe BGB and there didn't seem to be all that much fluff at all
Lots of different pictures of all the unit types and stuff though...
42295
Post by: Slacker
Oh, there's lots of random fluff, it's just scatter shot and mostly recycled. Hell, the Tau picture is the cover of the 3e codex, the Sister of Battle picture is from about 1994.
There are a few new nuggets, but they're few and far between.
And I spent another hour last night after dinner looking again, no SM/Tau bromance, I repeat, no SM/Tau bromance.
51464
Post by: Veteran Sergeant
Joey wrote:I've always thought the Tau wanting to conquer the universe was a bit odd. Surely they're bright enough to realise that they don't have a chance and they're best off allying with the Imperium? In the interests of the greater good, of course.
That's because the Greater Good is a sham. It's a hyper-nationalistic, pervasive propaganda campaign used to control and motivate the Elemental Castes by the Ethereals. It's really just an extremely exaggerated version of the ideas and ideals the Nazis used to whip up a shattered Germany and transform it into the unified front of the Third Reich. The Ethereals have their own agenda, of which we aren't privy to.. The Tau military forces conquer the galaxy for the Greater Good because that's what they're told the greater good is. Automatically Appended Next Post: Asherian Command wrote:yes but some people want a new setting!
Then some people are going to remain sorely disappointed.
20206
Post by: overkill76
Just read through the fluff and although I can't say I remember all of it accurately, the setting has become (dare I say it) more hopeful.
Rather then the end times which is the end of the human race. It is now positioned as "mankind is now on the fence". On one side, is the end as we all know it. On the other, is an apotheosis of human psykers such that they grow strong enough to defend themselves against the warp. The Emperor's continued survival is just so that he can buy the time for humanity to achieve that ascension.
Hope the above was helpful and yes, I did not find any mention of bromance as well.
38967
Post by: jareddm
overkill76 wrote:Just read through the fluff and although I can't say I remember all of it accurately, the setting has become (dare I say it) more hopeful.
Rather then the end times which is the end of the human race. It is now positioned as "mankind is now on the fence". On one side, is the end as we all know it. On the other, is an apotheosis of human psykers such that they grow strong enough to defend themselves against the warp. The Emperor's continued survival is just so that he can buy the time for humanity to achieve that ascension.
Hope the above was helpful and yes, I did not find any mention of bromance as well.
I'm actually okay with this. While the Emperor may be doing his best to stay alive until humanity can ascend, does anyone actually know that he wants humanity to do this? And if so, it could still be thousands of years before it occurs.
43963
Post by: Polvilhovoador
I read in another forum that the SM codex bit about a single chapter destroying a Craftworld was retconned.
Can anyone confirm this please?
12260
Post by: Davylove21
I don't get the hate toward fluff stating that the Ultras want the Tau protected. Things change.
51464
Post by: Veteran Sergeant
Davylove21 wrote:I don't get the hate toward fluff stating that the Ultras want the Tau protected. Things change.
From what I understand, this was a rumor, and isn't actually in the new book. In fact, the only mention people have been able to find that involves both Ultramarines and Tau are them fighting in a battle, lol.
42494
Post by: nomotog
Joey wrote:I've always thought the Tau wanting to conquer the universe was a bit odd. Surely they're bright enough to realise that they don't have a chance and they're best off allying with the Imperium? In the interests of the greater good, of course.
The IoM dosen't want to be allies. That's why they fought the gulf crusade.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
nomotog wrote:Joey wrote:I've always thought the Tau wanting to conquer the universe was a bit odd. Surely they're bright enough to realise that they don't have a chance and they're best off allying with the Imperium? In the interests of the greater good, of course.
The IoM dosen't want to be allies. That's why they fought the gulf crusade.
with little to no man power.
7103
Post by: sniperjolly
overkill76 wrote:Just read through the fluff and although I can't say I remember all of it accurately, the setting has become (dare I say it) more hopeful.
Rather then the end times which is the end of the human race. It is now positioned as "mankind is now on the fence". On one side, is the end as we all know it. On the other, is an apotheosis of human psykers such that they grow strong enough to defend themselves against the warp. The Emperor's continued survival is just so that he can buy the time for humanity to achieve that ascension.
Hope the above was helpful and yes, I did not find any mention of bromance as well.
It is basically back to 4th ed. Mankind has victory conditions once again, as opposed to "Everything IS going to fall, just not yet" and 3rd ed's "The age of man ended thousands of years ago"
Third edition was the definition of grimdark. No one was sane, no one was a nice guy, Sisters used suicide bombers, the High Lord's minds were already rotted away by juvenat drugs and there was not enough political will in the galaxy to shift the council one iota. Chaos worship was rampant on Holy Terra itself, the Space Marines that weren't completely crazy (Spoiler:here were none) were far too busy fighting hopeless lost causes to do anything about it. The IoM's methods were not presented as "Neccesary Evil" but just plain sadistic. Chaos was not worse than the bulk of humanity, just different and still ever bit as diabolical as they are now, if not more. There was no Horus Heresy, no tragic Freudian excuse to make Chaos or the IoM remotely sympathetic. Just unthinking brutality and never-ending bloodshed for it's own sake. Then the Tyrannids showed up. And the Necrons. Into this the Tau were introduced and garnered a lot of hate.
4th edition came along and toned that down. What was the point, some players asked, of playing a game where every battle is pointless, and every victory Pyrrhic? There were warzones that hung in the balance, the fate of which could be decided by a single battle, there were, as mentioned before "win conditions" for each race. Orks could unite and crush all resistance, Eldar got Ynnead and the Beil-Tan, all Chaos had to do was take Cadia, and even then their agents were subverting Man the galaxy over The Tau, if left unpreturbed, would outstrip the technology of the Imperium, and with higher population and unity than the Eldar, not to mention their anti-war powers, they too could "Win". Even the IoM was brutal, but necessary, though all they had to do was hold the line.
5th changed that a little more subtly. The end was nigh. From everywhere at the same time. If X didn't get everything, Y sure as hell would. It was a really 5 minutes to midnight period.
6th? If you have been paying attention to the codex releases, armies are getting more human. Space Marines are getting more heroic and larger than life than they have ever been before, Tyranid synapse creatures have a modicum of free will, FFG's Black Crusade gives a lighter look at chaos, even and Necrons are completely different, having personalities and agendas independent of " CRUSH. KILL. DESTROY. SWAG." My prediction? That everything gets more political. A step back to 4th ed, in a way while blended with the 5th ed 5 minutes to midnight. The next millenia will make or break the galaxy, not just break it. All sides are more relatable, and fighting for their lives and victory for their people.
I love it, personally. I always was fond of 4th's general tone, and this is a marvelous throwback to those days while keeping the tension of the times palpable (even if it has worn a little thin for a grizzled vet like me).
44855
Post by: Radiation
The Emperor is a cry baby and the entire Imperium of Man knows it. Weird.
51464
Post by: Veteran Sergeant
I have to agree that the grimdark needed a slight scaling back. It is possible to have a universe be a little bleak without making it hopeless.
The problem with the "If not X, Y" grimdark is that it reeks of one upsmanship. Why do we have endless arguments about who is more powerful, orks or tyranids? Because of power creep.
In the old days, like 2nd Edition old days, the Tyranids were the only "Going to eat everything" level bad guy. Orks were just the galaxy's obnoxious neighbors, not an impossibly reproducing space fungus that only got stronger the more it fought. A 2nd or even 3rd Edition Waaaaaagh was a big deal. It meant that one warlord had become so powerful he could unite large groups of Orks. The modern fluff makes the Waaaaagh pretty much inevitable as the number orks will just constantly, and unchecked, grow and grow and grow. The inevitability of the Waaaaagh makes orks a lot more powerful. It also makes them infinitely less cool than they used to be.
Chaos also used to be sneaky, bitter jerks; the remnants of the traitor legions. Most of them hung out in the Eye of Terror plotting their revenge, but couldn't really figure out how to make that happen. They occasionally got powerful and united enough to make a Crusade, and just like if you pizza when you're supposed to french fry, that meant people were going to have a bad time. Eventually Chaos was also everywhere, threatening to eat everything.
Basically, when the setting gets to the point where even the relatively harmless factions like Dark Eldar and Tau are slowly eating the Imperium, it needed a change, haha.
50044
Post by: Connor MacLeod
Grimdark is absurd because it permits nothing to balance it out. Depressing and bleak on top of depressing and bleak is repetitive, and dull, and it really kills any expectation. You need something positive to generate hope, and to drive home the fact that there are things at stake and there are things you stand a risk of actually losing.
That's one thing that makes Abnett such a good writer, IMHO. I mean look at Eisenhorn. Alot of 'victories' there, but he also had a great deal to lose... and he did lose it all and look where its driven him, ultimately.
46926
Post by: Kaldor
Connor MacLeod wrote:Grimdark is absurd because it permits nothing to balance it out. Depressing and bleak on top of depressing and bleak is repetitive, and dull, and it really kills any expectation. You need something positive to generate hope, and to drive home the fact that there are things at stake and there are things you stand a risk of actually losing.
That's one thing that makes Abnett such a good writer, IMHO. I mean look at Eisenhorn. Alot of 'victories' there, but he also had a great deal to lose... and he did lose it all and look where its driven him, ultimately.
You must remember though, that it is a setting. Not a story. No 'hope' is required.
Personally, the darker the better, IMO.
44374
Post by: CpatTom
Y'all have got it all wrong. The Tau save the boys in blue from a giant nid/chaos num fest. It's the 'trufe, I dun seent it.
Now, with less troll:
I like the direction I feel it's going. More personality again, kinda capitalizing on the game of thrones, multi faction politiking shades of grey (on an unrelated note I think 50 shades of grey is a dark eldar best seller).
37755
Post by: Harriticus
The Rulebook has no real change in fluff, oddities in the allied matrix really are never addressed. The fluff has maybe evolved 5% in 6th Edition, so a lot of the concerns in this thread are no longer an issue.
47893
Post by: Iracundus
Aside from a few odd random battles here and there, the only significant difference/change is the confirmation by the out of universe narrator that the encountered Tyranids are only the vanguard of the main Tyranid force. Before it had been speculated by Imperial strategists but never completely confirmed by an out of universe POV narrator.
34242
Post by: -Loki-
sniperjolly wrote:Third edition was the definition of grimdark.
... There was no Horus Heresy, no tragic Freudian excuse to make Chaos or the IoM remotely sympathetic.
Minor quibble. There very definitely was a Horus Heresy in 3rd edition, since it was brought into the fluff in the 6mm game Space Marine (which is a funny story - in order to save costs on the game, the simply made one army, Space Marines, and cast them in blue and red, red was Chaos Marines, and the back story was the Horus Heresy to explain why both sides were the same). That was in the late 1980's (or early 1990's, I can't quite remember). There was no Horus Heresy book series in 3rd edition, but some people (like myself) preferred it being a bit more mysterious.
5301
Post by: Milisim
Well I dont see whats wrong with "protecting the Tau"
I can give hundreds of examples of wars where the enemies later worked together.....
Why that is game breaking to you boggles my mind.
The USA nuked Japan yet they buy their electronic goods and gave them aid and money after the tsunami/quakes.
Thats 60 years after WW2... Thsi game takes place over thousands of years... So its not to hard to see.
33661
Post by: Mad4Minis
Amen OP, amen. A couple months ago I started a SM army. Then rumors of 6th came out...got me a little bit excited. Then word of the flyers and allies came, and I said no thanks. 6th edition is so obviously a money grab it is sickening. I didnt like 5th at all, and have no interest at all in 6th.
Im going to use my SM army (and my wife her daemons) with the SHockforce/Warengine rule system. We are also getting started in Warmahordes.
I will still pick up some GW minis now and then to expand the SM and deamons, and continue to build my classic Warriors of Chaos collection, but the majority of my hobby spending will be on PP products.
17738
Post by: Briancj
It seems to me that the "Allies" table is not a FLUFF table, but a GAME BALANCE table. Which, even under that magnifying glass...still seems fairly preposterous.
From a fluff standpoint, I feel that my group is going to toss that table right out the window. I know someone who was desperately looking forward to being able to finally mobilize a true Genestealer Cult army by taking an IG force with 'nid Allies. So sorry.
ANYWAYS.
I guess my point, here, is this: Take the rules you want, ignore the rest, modify them, play with them. You are not a slave to this Weighty Tome ( tm), you are a human being with free will. Go have fun!
--B.
PS: Squats are officially back in the Fluff. Seriously. Right there. "Squats".
722
Post by: Kanluwen
So they let Cruddace copypasta some more fluff.
Guess they have to let him do something so he can say "I helped!".
15717
Post by: Backfire
Briancj wrote:I
PS: Squats are officially back in the Fluff. Seriously. Right there. "Squats".
Squats are mentioned in the Ork codex (although not by that name), and also hinted at in Tyranid codex. So it's not such a shock...
34906
Post by: Pacific
So, if all of this is true (and there is no real change in the background) then we can safely assume that the options in the allies table are just for game balance/to help sales.
15717
Post by: Backfire
Well, when GW discontinued the Allies, people were complaining how it was a money grab, forcing people to buy and build whole armies to play. I guess there is very little GW can do without it being a cynic money grab.
58635
Post by: BolingbrokeIV
Well I never thought GW literature would mention squats again. ...and that's about the only significant fluff change outside of what you can draw from the allies matrix.
60131
Post by: DOOMBREAD
I could accept it if Tau and Marines were Desperate Allies, or even Allies of Convenience. But Battle Brothers? In what universe would Tau and Marines get along better than Black Templars and Battle Sisters?
37755
Post by: Harriticus
DOOMBREAD wrote:I could accept it if Tau and Marines were Desperate Allies, or even Allies of Convenience. But Battle Brothers? In what universe would Tau and Marines get along better than Black Templars and Battle Sisters?
The fluff part of the rulebook even contradicts this. There's multiple passages about Marines and Tau fighting (as recent as 999.M41) and multiple passages about SoB and Marines fighting together.
I suspect the allied matrix was made by someone with very little insight into 40k universe, or they simply didn't care. I'm not really viewing the matrix as canon anymore, since there's no fluff or canon to back it up and many fluff contradictions to it.
54671
Post by: Crazyterran
I'd say the reason that the Tau get access to Space Marines is for Psychic Powers, but Orks and Necrons get no Battle Brothers that can give them Psychic buffs, so, idk.
Oh well, maybe i'll try a Vanilla Marine/Tau list with my fathers old Tau, and enjoy some Markerlight Goodness?
45703
Post by: Lynata
Harriticus wrote:I'm not really viewing the matrix as canon anymore, since there's no fluff or canon to back it up and many fluff contradictions to it.
The good thing about any kind of game that comes with a ruleset written on paper is that it's easy to change.
I'm sure that a large number of players will be open to discuss alternative alliance conditions for the various armies, now that the "allies" cat is out of the bag for so many other combinations. Surely it wouldn't really "break" a game balancewise if one were to change them, given what's possible already.
|
|
