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.

DOOMBREAD wrote:

Gargantuan wrote:Those complaining about Ork allies should read about Blood Axes and freebooters.

Well, for Guard, allying with Orks would be considered heresy and would almost never happen.

Because the only way to play guard is loyalist? They cant be played as traitors, or army or rogue trader pirates?

Guys, You're overthinking it. remember, this is GW and this fits in with their oversimplifying things plan.

Tau are battle brothers with the UM's because they are blue.

To ascribe any deeper motive than that or as the most unsubtle ploy ever to sell moar models is to give GW too much credit.

focusedfire wrote:Guys, You're overthinking it. remember, this is GW and this fits in with their oversimplifying things plan.

Tau are battle brothers with the UM's because they are blue.

To ascribe any deeper motive than that or as the most unsubtle ploy ever to sell moar models is to give GW too much credit.

HERESY!!!

SM are batle brothers whith tau bs of tyranid wars.
althought that should make the m Alies of Convinience......

actually the dark eldar and eldar are like twins really: they hate each other squabble endlessly but when the eldar are threatened (for example when Iyanden almost fell) the dark eldar do the brotherly thing and save their kin (or you could say to just prolong their suffering)

As someone stated earlier this is not representive of these factions feelings toward one another as a whole. It is how the foot soldiers feel about the other race when they are fighting along side one another. It's meant for small scale skirmishes ie. every battle in the 40k table top game. Marneus calgar and the etherials won't be bro fisting but a tac marine and fire warrior might.

So in a game the allies chart has allowed you to take 2 races with its allies matrix for that particular skirmish. It is then your job to write the fluff for that particular battle if it making sense is important to you. ie. guard have hired some orks to help them deal with the necrons, the guard don't trust the orks but will still fight alongside or sob and grey knights team up to slay daemons but the sisters are weary as to if and when the grey knights may exterminate them! Hence why they are not battle brothers and sisters

Sorry but the Tau being battlebrothers with Astartes is complete nonsense going by all the present and past fluff from the modedern ruleback backwards.

Allies of Convience makes perfect sense and represents what you describe - warriors fighting alongside each other respecting their abilities - Battle Brothers is GW cocking up the chart.

Battle brothers (and I quote) says: Battlebrothers have utter trust in their comrade...............such alliance are always voluntary" so yeah completly at odds with ALL the fluff.

There is no reason why the Astartes would be more comfortable fighting alongside the foul Xenos than humans - certainly not having the Tau leading their men into battle and taking commands from them. They will tolerate them and even admit their prowess in battle sure - thats what Allies of Conveience represents not Battle Brothers.

To me this is just a mistake that GW have not (yet) corrected like the mess up with Sisters and Black Templars