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.

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

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!

My question is has the fluff progressed, and will we see Alaric?

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.

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.

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...

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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...

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Any person who understands what the word "ally" means.

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.

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.

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

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.

true but you wouldent shoot someone over gasoline, (or take thiers or however that example carries over)

I don't know what you're getting at.

neither do i, the gas exapmle isnt very good, because
to ally with someone you need an opponent or 3rd party

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.

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.