Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This would not include Battle Brothers (but it could).
What about when you outmatch your opponent so much or he gets tabled. There's still a chance for victory, if the winning player is using an Allied Attachment.
You can finish the game with the Allied Attachment attacking your primary, if the Allied Attachment win your opponent gains the victory. The opponent army would be removed from the game, except wreaked vehicle, ADL, and they would not be able to fire the Quad Gun, if they still could.

If the game ends the points are awarded based on the Ally - if the Warlord is still alive, line breaker, and even objectives.

What do you think?

What do I think?

I think this idea is so bad it has given me an illness.

"You are winning too good, so you lose!"

No, there's just nothing good about this. It's pointless, punishes players for doing well and makes absolutely no sense in rules, fluff or logic.

Not really personally. To me, it really seems to favours the Imperium far too much. Granted I would prefer to see the allies gone or just permit every army to ally (no feth you to nids)

WOW, wonder how sick you'd be if you heard my other crazy ideas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yeah, I haven't seem much purpose to Allies other than to top heavy your armies with an extra HQ

Yeah. Like giving IG a 4++ save, give the entire table a feth you to psykers (space Wolves), or (for necrons) to give them a Heldrake to spit flames at. Though do go on about your other crazy ideas~

No. Once you've been tabled the game should end, I don't want to have to screw around with pointless extra turns where I have to table you again while you try to figure out how to use a completely unfamiliar army.

Also, now you've created a situation where tabling is a bad thing and you're better off refusing to shoot or assault your opponent's last surviving models so that they don't regain a viable force and start taking points away from you.

 StarTrotter wrote:
just permit every army to ally (no feth you to nids)

Honestly this. If someone can come up with a cool fluff justification for having say Grey Knights fighting with Chaos Daemons, great, if they can't, oh well.

Buttons wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:
just permit every army to ally (no feth you to nids)

Honestly this. If someone can come up with a cool fluff justification for having say Grey Knights fighting with Chaos Daemons, great, if they can't, oh well.

The combinations you could do with that would be insanely overpowered, maybe if they changed "come the apocalypse" rated allies to some sort of roll a d6 on x this happens style it could work like.

Roll a d6 on a 1 the army leaves the battlefield remove all allies models, on a 2 they attack you etc.

Of course that'd add to all the randomness

Wait? so having IG be battlebrothers with over half of the armies and having nids have absolutely no allies doesn't already permit overpowered squads? 4+ invuln IG? IG that can have somebody that makes taking a psyker a suicide? Sure it would bring broken units but at least then every army would have the same chance to get the broken units. In the end though.... I would rather just see it not exist and allies be permitted in a friendly environment.

This concept was the basis of an Apocalypse formation (the Grey Knight Redeemer Force) long ago, but I never had a chance to see how it turned out. It seems more viable as a scenario special rule than a general rule for pick-up games.

Just tested this, except with 3 players, my Orks were the Allied Regiment to Choas Marines and we fought Tyranids. The biggest problem is having what happened. The Tyranids went straight for my Nob Bikkers and by the end of the game I was left with 2 (Warboss 3 wounds, and the painboy) the chaos forces were untouched. after a very close game, I was warm butter to Chaos - they cut through me without even breaking a sweat.
The Tyranid player actually said that's what I get for taking out a large number of his force. I looked at him and said this was just a test for an idea that I had and if it were proper he would have had the shambles the orks were in.
let it be said that I felt like this was a poor test, but I realized that for most of the time, the winning force will crush and losing twice for the same game isn't worth it, especially since the allied regiment will be an unfamiliar unit.
Not one of my best ideas, but certainly not one to get sick over

Dunno about this idea, but I do like the ideas of "everyone ally with anyone" and "add penalties for certain alliances".

Like, imagine if at the start of each turn after turn three, if you have "come the apocalypse" allies you roll 1d6... on a 6 the remnants of the allied force join your opponent, or perhaps just go berserker and rampage towards the nearest unit. Certainly give you a reason to think about if you want to take them or not.

Or alternatively, if your main force ever drops in strength to below 50% of the allied force (dunno best way to work that out), thats when you start rolling. Makes plenty of sense for your 'ally' to go "pff, he's weak, get him boys!"

This makes no sense at all. I cannot imagine where or when this would be a good rule.

Kain, of course it doesn't make sense - you play Tyranids - why on earth would you ally with anyone else?

As for it being a good rule - The test went poorly
40k already has rules for Allies of convenience and desperate allies - which just makes them not worth taking as an ally.

My test - I created an ally regiment of Orks for Choas Marines. we ignored the rules of Allies of Convenience and after smashing the tyranids, we turned our fight on each other. Ork were demolished. But we do this quite often when we play with more than 2 players - the winners turn of each other

I play a lot of things as anyone who follows my posts know.

And say, the Eldar turning on the Tau after the last Tyranid on the battlefield dies makes no sense.

If the Eldar or Tau had a grudge against the other and it was interrupted by a Tyranid swarm, you don't think they would turn on each other after the Nids are gone?

In all fairness my proposed rule is a bit of a wash - it was an idea steaming from something that we do, but giving the losing army, your allies - doesn't really work and most of the time - it would mean losing twice, which takes the fun out of the game. Winning would mean that you still lost and couldn't win without your opponents army.
So not my worst idea, but still a bad one none the less

 Sleg wrote:
If the Eldar or Tau had a grudge against the other and it was interrupted by a Tyranid swarm, you don't think they would turn on each other after the Nids are gone?

In all fairness my proposed rule is a bit of a wash - it was an idea steaming from something that we do, but giving the losing army, your allies - doesn't really work and most of the time - it would mean losing twice, which takes the fun out of the game. Winning would mean that you still lost and couldn't win without your opponents army.
So not my worst idea, but still a bad one none the less

The Eldar and the Tau have the closest thing to a friendly relationship in the entire galaxy. I mean, Eldrad himself thought the Tau were the future of the Galaxy.

It doesn't make sense regardless of army honestly.

Rules that will end up only serving to piss one of the players off are almost always going to be a bad idea, and this was one of those. Kudos to playtesting it though.

This idea reminds me of the old days of StarCraft comp stomps honestly haha.

Eldrad can say what ever he wants, if Eldar will fight Eldar - than Eldar will fight Tau. Make up a reason if you have to. Tau,"Those pointy ears that call themselves elder, have slain my precious Ka'nut'tro, named Fluffy, This is intolerable."
Eldrad, "What are you talking about, I haven't seen a Ka'nut'tro in a thousand years, lets go to that planet over there and discuss this."

The 2 forces land on the planet, before another word is spoken, Tyranids swarm the place. The fight rages on, until the Tyranids are defeated.
Eldrad, "Are you still fuming about your pet Fluffy?
Tau "Yes"
Eldrad, "Then there is only one way to settle this"

The remnants of the 2 armies clash, until one emerges victorious.

My only thought here is Don't Eldar Armies fight Tau - battle brothers or not, they will still fight each other. In fact Eldar will fight elder. So don't say they wont fight each other.

With multiple players, we will team up against another. If the battle takes a long time, we declare two winners, if the game went quick - then the winning side battles it out with what is left of their force. It's always fun to do. But the idea of giving your allies to the opponent not only has made some people on this board ill at the very thought. The consenus among the people I play with was that losing 2 times in one game is worse than losing. If the defeat player wins, it's still not a victory.

Sometimes I'm astounded by some of the close minded, in the box thinking on this board. YES, it's a bad idea - but not explaining why you think it is a bad idea doesn't help me find the good idea or scrap the idea all together.

Remember if you dismiss the idea with a "because it just doesn't work" I'm going to dismiss that comment because it wont strengthen or weaken my resolve.

The Eldar are extremely heavily implied to have created the Tau or at least uplifted them by making the Ethereals. The Tau are to the Eldar as they were to the Old Ones. Save for Biel'Tan, the Craftworld Eldar recognize that their time is all but done, but these guys? They have promise, promise to right the sins of their past.

That's why the Eldar and Tau are Battle Brothers.

I just had a funny thought. So the Eldar player goes to a tournie, plays his $50 and what happens, his first match up, he faces off with Tau, he has to resign from the Tournie because Eldar don't fight Tau - they are the future of the Universe.

 Sleg wrote:
I just had a funny thought. So the Eldar player goes to a tournie, plays his $50 and what happens, his first match up, he faces off with Tau, he has to resign from the Tournie because Eldar don't fight Tau - they are the future of the Universe.

Tourneys disregard fluff almost entirely.

I mean, when was the last time you ever heard of thousands of marines dying in a twenty four hour time period in the fluff outside of the Horus heresy?

Then Kain, my group disregards the fluff, all the time. I have seen plenty of friendly games where Tau will face off against Tau. So reguardless of what the Fluff is - Battle Brothers will, it's the only reason we bring our armies to the board fight each other.

 Sleg wrote:
Then Kain, my group disregards the fluff, all the time. I have seen plenty of friendly games where Tau will face off against Tau. So reguardless of what the Fluff is - Battle Brothers will, it's the only reason we bring our armies to the board fight each other.

I only regard the fluff in campaign or story arc games, in which case I insist all battles, armies, and team ups be plausible fluff wise. Because we're playing more to make a story than for win or lose.

As far as a thousand Marines dying, I see it all the time. Then I see the player put those figures away and the same figure is used to fight in another battle. Wait didn't he die? I've lost Thraka hundreds of times, it doesn't stop me from using him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I only regard, the fun of playing the game. If the fluff gets in the way of the fun, then the fluff goes away.

Kain wrote:The Eldar are extremely heavily implied to have created the Tau or at least uplifted them by making the Ethereals. The Tau are to the Eldar as they were to the Old Ones. Save for Biel'Tan, the Craftworld Eldar recognize that their time is all but done, but these guys? They have promise, promise to right the sins of their past.

That's why the Eldar and Tau are Battle Brothers.

Except for the people who theorise that the Necrons made the Tau, since they're also a nonpsychic race with ultimate technological power (and the two armies were released within 3 years of each other).

 Sleg wrote:
As far as a thousand Marines dying, I see it all the time. Then I see the player put those figures away and the same figure is used to fight in another battle. Wait didn't he die? I've lost Thraka hundreds of times, it doesn't stop me from using him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I only regard, the fun of playing the game. If the fluff gets in the way of the fun, then the fluff goes away.

As an Amateur writer working on an Ork viewpoint novel (not official, although I'd be pleasantly surprised if the BL accepted it) I do take the fluff seriously, which is why I find some options on the allies matrices to be highly suspect (The Grey knights are as willing to work with Necrons as the Sisters of Battle? Ermmm...okay?)) But the Tau being best of buddies with the Eldar? That's been plausible since Xenology.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Furyou Miko wrote:

Kain wrote:The Eldar are extremely heavily implied to have created the Tau or at least uplifted them by making the Ethereals. The Tau are to the Eldar as they were to the Old Ones. Save for Biel'Tan, the Craftworld Eldar recognize that their time is all but done, but these guys? They have promise, promise to right the sins of their past.

That's why the Eldar and Tau are Battle Brothers.

Except for the people who theorise that the Necrons made the Tau, since they're also a nonpsychic race with ultimate technological power (and the two armies were released within 3 years of each other).

Xenology all but outright stated that the Eldar uplifted if not created the Tau, even having what was very clearly the Eldar drop off the Ethereals onto T'au.

Why can't the Tau create both the necrons and the elder? why do these 2 substandard races get to create that which is Tau?
In the end it all becomes a belief system about something that might have happened thousands if not millions of years ago. Think back a hundred years and tell me you know exactly without reservation what happened then. Now go 10 thousand years ago and tell me the same thing.

Unless your story happens at the beginning - these facts are irrelivent - it's only what your characters believe that matters. And the great thing is you can have them believe what ever you want.

 Kain wrote:
Blatant self endorsement

You got that book on dakka somewhere mate?

I always had this sort of idea, an when me and my friend team up as say.. He's Tau and I'm Chaos vs. Orks, then we make up our own rules as we go along, so if the Tau, Chaos and Orks are engaged in the same combat, if the Orks are defeated then the Tau and Chaos will face off, etc.. And if a Tau unit is behind a Chaos Space Marine unit in the shooting phase, they roll a D6, on a roll of a 1, they shoot at the Chaos Space Marine unit