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.

TiamatRoar wrote:
One can speculate that they do based on their zealousness, but one can also speculate that they don't.

This would be an illogical speculation. Why would the Sisters, extreme zealots, have no dislike of people on their side who have beliefs that are opposed to their own?

TiamatRoar wrote:
Also speculation on how they might feel due to a certain situation. There is a big difference between someone claiming "they WILL see Marines as fallable" instead of an actual source that says "They see Marines as falliable".

Again, I'm not sure where you're getting this from. How would they not think that Marines may have issues after they've purged multiple rogue chapters?

TiamatRoar wrote:
Again, "Which WILL naturally be a big issue in that specific relationship". Speculation. You can't use this as conclusive proof.

They fought a war over religion. That would result in tension. Honestly, at this point it seems like your counter-arguments seem to be that because the fluff has not said anything outright, then it must be be ambigous. Tell me, how would the Sisters feel towards a Marine chapter who attacked an Ecclesiarchy detatchment sent to inspect their faith, and then engaged in a conflict with the Sisters over this incident? You seem to be acting as if they would just let this incident go, or not be particularly upset over it.

TiamatRoar wrote:
And I'm saying it doesn't count as evidence because it's speculation, not evidence. Again, the moment you have to say "they WILL do whatever" or "they WON'T like whatever", then that "evidence" is just your own personal speculation.

Based on lots of codex fluff, as opposed to an allies matrix with noted oddities in syncing with the fluff.

TiamatRoar wrote:
It's true that I too am guilty of speculative evidence that shouldn't count, although I mainly present it to show that where one speculates the sisters "won't" like Marines, another person can speculate that they "will". Therefore, both speculations should be thrown out, as should all speculations, because those are just speculations.

But we know that the Sisters would dislike the differing beliefs of the Marines. Therefore, we can logically conclude that there would be tension between the two.

I'm not even quite sure if we disagree on this. I'm not arguing that they should be desperate allies with most Marines, convinience works fine. It represents thier differing beliefs, but still acknowleges that the two are able to work together just fine. It's the Wolves that are the main issue, here, it would seem.

TiamatRoar wrote:
We've never seen a fluff situation where they've allied with each other so there's no hard evidence either way.

But we do have a situation where the zealous Sisters go to war over the SW refusing to let the Ecclesiarchy investigate their religion. To the Sisters, this will be a massive red flag, and an admission of guilt.

TiamatRoar wrote:
Which also has a Canoness of all people losing her faith, so I wouldn't consider it a particularly reliable source.

A Canoness is the most faithful in an organisation highly reputed for its faith. She would have also fought in, and led many of her Order's wars. Tell me, how does it make sense that she would suddenly completely lose her faith during a war against some heretics? Who, according to Furyou, were just some cultists and a handful of Plague Marines.

TiamatRoar wrote:
Again. This is arguably not the case anymore.

This doesn't change that that table was written at the time in which the Templars did have a codex, and certainly weren't desperate allies with the SoB in the fluff, since they had worked together before. Therefore, the table, which is still the same as when it was written, is of questionable validity in a fluff debate.

TiamatRoar wrote:
We know that Tau are filthy xenos. We know that orks are CRAZY. We know that many Eldar see Dark Eldar as the path of damnation (something the fluff specifically states).

Yet marines HAVE allied as Battle Brothers with the Tau in an actual fluff case (and thus got slapped that way in the allies matrix. GW people when asked actually basically said "Um, Marines and Tau have fought alongside each other before" when asked about it). Yet the Imperial Guard can ally with Orks as allies of convenience (and have in actual fluff sources). Yet Eldar and Dark Eldar in some cases will ally as battle brothers too (Corsairs, for one thing). In this large galaxy, what seems "logical" at first glance might not end up being the case or applying.

Again, the allies matrix is clearly the BEST of situations ("best" meaning a situation that will best force two factions to ally with each other). I'll ignore the whole fact that what's logical to one person might not be logical to another (IE, speculation) and humour this. Maybe there is tension between the sisters and the marines. Maybe, logically speaking, they will hate marines 90% of the time. However, unless you can also logically say that they'd act as Desperate Allies to marines even in the "best" situation, this argument still fails.

I'll point to my above point about the BT-SoB relationship indicating that the allies table has its flaws, again, just so you don't think I'm skipping over this part.

TiamatRoar wrote:
Yes, I don't have conclusive proof they are allies of convenience, either. However GW says so, so burden of proof should lie on the one that wants to change that.

And isn't relgious warfare rather strong proof that the allies matrix doesn't match with the fluff?

TiamatRoar wrote:
Again, speculation. "It'll certainly make them dislike the Space Wolves" instead of "It DID certainly make them dislike the Space Wolves". "Dislike" does not mean "Desperate Allies", anyways. Since when did Marines LIKE Tau, for example? Or Imperial Guard like orks?

Given what we know about how the SoB feel about heretics and those who defy the church (see: their allies rating with Chaos Space Marines, and their regular burning of heretics), it's obvious that a Space Marine chapter refusing to submit for Ecclesiarchial inspection of their citizens, killing the clergymen who were trying to investigate and then subsequently warring with the Sisters themselves would create an extremely strong dislike.

TiamatRoar wrote:
It certainly isn't friendly to mine

Why, just out of interest? Do you think that the Sisters would forgive and forget regarding their relgion-sparked war against the Space Wolves? Do you think that the Space Wolves would look kindly on the Sisters for coming into their home territory and trying to exterminate them becuase of their long-held beliefs?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 StarTrotter wrote:
Problem with the book is it isn't really evidence nor is it not evidence. It could be 100% fact. It could be 90% fact with the SW changing some parts up. It could not be even slightly true and actually all just alpha legion xD

Personally, I'd imagine that it was another case of a writer only having a passing knowledge of the SoB, and not a deeper understanding of their mindset. To be fair, I can't wholly blame him for it, given the obscurity of SoB fluff these days.

 StarTrotter wrote:
Eeeeh.... I wouldn't say best relations necessarily. If memory serve me, BT still use their old alliance chart. Whatever we say, SoB and BT apparently hate each other that much even though they are one of the few chapters that view the Emperor as a god?

Your memory might not be serving you. I haven't seen any conclusive proof anywhere this is the case. If someone can point it out to me, I'd be glad, but until then, people need to stop bringing up the BT Desperate Allies thing because we don't know if it still applies or not.

Why is it that Space Marines are battle brothers yet a faction like BA (which fought alongside necrons at one point) won't?

Who knows? That doesn't prove or disprove the "best" situation theory. Perhaps the "best" situation the Blood Angels can ever hope for is allies of convenience with other marines. Why? We don't know, but them's the breaks.

Why is it that Tyranids can't even have allies to make a mock genestealer cult? (heck desperate allies would work explaining that the cult knows they will get nommed and want to but they feel they must help them whittle down the foes). and the next one is a big one for me.

Maybe GW decided that Guard doesn't represent gene stealer cults and shouldn't represent gene stealer cults? Again, WE DON'T KNOW, therefore, we should throw out this question.

...that said, they can ally "come the apocalypse." The arrival of Tyrannids to a gene stealer planet is the apocalypse. Therefore, you technically CAN ally gene stealer guards with the tyrannids in that situation. You just have to use Apocalypse rules, because it's an apocalypse.

Why is it that IG are allies of convenience with Chaos Daemons and marines? IG wouldn't work like that. At best they would be desperate allies not trusting one another. Then why so? Well it's rather obvious. They are trying to make the Lost and the Damned (traitor guardsmen) possible. Yet why is it only allies of convenience then? Shouldn't they be battle brothers? Why are they not. The allies chart is in many cases a mess in terms of what it wants to be.

I agree this one appears to be a mistake on some level. However, after throwing out the Black Templars one (because there is no conclusive answer either way on if it still applies, to my knowledge), this is really the only particularly glaring exception to the "best" theory.

In terms of the cannonesse... it seems most people don't really like how she was portrayed. Problem with the book is it isn't really evidence nor is it not evidence. It could be 100% fact. It could be 90% fact with the SW changing some parts up. It could not be even slightly true and actually all just alpha legion xD

Well, if we're going to throw out everything based on the whole "everything in WH40k Fluff is presented as a myth that may or may not be true", then all we're left is "GW lists SoBs and SWs as allies of convenience".

 Troike wrote:

This would be an illogical speculation. Why would the Sisters, extreme zealots, have no dislike of people on their side who have beliefs that are opposed to their own?

If they hypothetically do "dislike" them even in the most logical of circumstances. That doesn't mean allies of desperation. I could attempt to bother arguing what's logical or not regarding likes and dislikes, but that'd be off-topic.

Again, I'm not sure where you're getting this from. How would they not think that Marines may have issues after they've purged multiple rogue chapters?

Again, still doesn't mean "desperate allies" with every marine. Imperial Guard go rogue all the time too yet sisters are battle brothers with them and fought alongside them in various fluff cases.

They fought a war over religion. That would result in tension. Honestly, at this point it seems like your counter-arguments seem to be that because the fluff has not said anything outright, then it must be be ambigous. Tell me, how would the Sisters feel towards a Marine chapter who attacked an Ecclesiarchy detatchment sent to inspect their faith, and then engaged in a conflict with the Sisters over this incident? You seem to be acting as if they would just let this incident go, or not be particularly upset over it.

The statement, "let sleeping dogs lie", is an alternative way of saying "let it go", just so you know.

Based on lots of (my own logic of) codex fluff, as opposed to an allies matrix with noted oddities in syncing with the fluff.

People think the allies matrix is odd because it has marines as battle brothers with the tau, or elder as battle brothers with the dark elder. They're wrong. The only really glaring oddity in there, once you remove the Black Templars (because again, we don't know if it counts or not) are the Imperial Guard and Chaos relationships.

But we know that the Sisters would dislike the differing beliefs of the Marines. Therefore, we can logically conclude that there would be tension between the two.

Tension does not necessarily mean Desperate Allies, as proven by various fluff cases of Marines teaming up with Tau or Tau allying as allies of convenience with the Guard (we can't say for sure if the Tau IG relations in that chart are taking into account Gue'Vesa, but there are fluff cases of Imperium IG allying with Tau and Eldar as allies of convenience, often IMMEDIATELY AFTER KILLING EACH OTHER. The Tau case had the guard and Tau immediately shoot each other before the guard realized the Tyrannids were around. Also see the 2nd battle of Tallarm where the Guards and Eldar were KILLING each other only seconds before Chaos showed up, and then WOOSH, allies of convenience instead of Desperate Allies (because they didn't fight using One Eye Open, as shown by how they even signed pacts of friendship afterwards ).

I'm not even quite sure if we disagree on this. I'm not arguing that they should be desperate allies with most Marines, convinience works fine. It represents thier differing beliefs, but still acknowleges that the two are able to work together just fine. It's the Wolves that are the main issue, here, it would seem.

That's fine. Then let's get things back to just the wolves, then.

But we do have a situation where the zealous Sisters go to war over the SW refusing to let the Ecclesiarchy investigate their religion. To the Sisters, this will be a massive red flag, and an admission of guilt.

Are the sisters even MORE zealous than the Ecclesiarchy itself? The Ecclesiarchy that "let sleeping dogs lie"? Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. I'm sure they're more zealous than the average ecclesiarch, but that doesn't mean they'd necessarily be GUARANTEED to continue to be paranoid when the rest of the Ecclesiarchy "let sleeping dogs lie".

A Canoness is the most faithful in an organisation highly reputed for its faith. She would have also fought in, and led many of her Order's wars. Tell me, how does it make sense that she would suddenly completely lose her faith during a war against some heretics? Who, according to Furyou, were just some cultists and a handful of Plague Marines.

Apparently it makes enough sense that GW didn't say "Don't publish this load of bull gak."

This doesn't change that that table was written at the time in which the Templars did have a codex, and certainly weren't desperate allies with the SoB in the fluff, since they had worked together before. Therefore, the table, which is still the same as when it was written, is of questionable validity in a fluff debate.

I'll point to my above point about the BT-SoB relationship indicating that the allies table has its flaws, again, just so you don't think I'm skipping over this part.

People make mistakes. GW's writers are only human. They've (possibly) corrected this mistake. We've yet to see them "correct" their possible mistake of making the SoB be allies of convenience with the SW, though.

Maybe they did make a mistake in that regards, too. However, burden of proof should lie with the ones trying to prove that, then. If one can't prove that GW should change the SoB and SW relationship to desperate allies, then it shouldn't be changed. Well, that's my opinion at least. "GW says they're allies of convenience in absence of any fluff case of the two teaming up either way, so it's up to you to PROVE otherwise." If you disagree at this point where burden of proof should lie with that, then we might as well drop it.

And isn't relgious warfare rather strong proof that the allies matrix doesn't match with the fluff?

Nope. Not when the organization in charge of that religion "let sleeping dogs lie".

Given what we know about how the SoB feel about heretics and those who defy the church (see: their allies rating with Chaos Space Marines, and their regular burning of heretics), it's obvious that a Space Marine chapter refusing to submit for Ecclesiarchial inspection of their citizens, killing the clergymen who were trying to investigate and then subsequently warring with the Sisters themselves would create an extremely strong dislike.

Maybe. But again, dislike does not mean desperate allies. Wolves can't stand Dark Angels yet they still fought as allies of convenience in the novel, without keeping one eye open (far as I could tell).

Why, just out of interest? Do you think that the Sisters would forgive and forget regarding their relgion-sparked war against the Space Wolves?

Do you think that the Space Wolves would look kindly on the Sisters for coming into their home territory and trying to exterminate them becuase of their long-held beliefs?[/

"Let sleeping dogs lie" is what you say when you say "Forget" (not necessarily "forgive", but eh, close enough). I think it sounds kinda hard to swallow, too, but again, you can argue what someone MIGHT feel about something, but you can't argue with the results. That said, even if they didn't "forgive" them, the Space Wolves never "forgave" the Dark Angels for Lion sucker punching their primarch yet they still functioned as allies of convenience in the novels. Sure, there was tension and they disliked each other, but "one eye open"? Nope. They weren't particularly desperate either, I think.

Troike wrote:Blood of Asaheim? The same book that has a Canoness losing her faith, only to have it restored by some Space Wolves? And Sisters who go around letting plague victims into their perimeter, in the midst of a Nurglite incursion? If that's the alternate version, then I think I vastly prefer the studio fluff version, thanks.

Oh wow, it was that book? Ugh.

Here is Furyou Miko's review, judging it from the point of view of a SoB player, for anyone who hasn't read it.

Small excerpt:
"Blood of Asaheim may not have whorish, gambling Sisters... but it does have incompetent, lazy, treacherous and overall faithless Sisters. Even the Canoness says "I had lost faith and thought we were going to die until you arrived" - talking about an under-strength squad of Grey Hunters, who apparently are so awesome that they teach a Canoness of the Sisters of Battle to believe in the Emperor again.
By the way, these are Wounded Heart sisters - they faced down the 13th black crusade, yet here they doubt, lose faith and give up because of a horde of cultists led by three plague marines. Three."

There's also a thread about this over on Bolter & Chaindsword, and how it seems like part of a bigger problem with BL.

And this is precisely why I tend to keep a mile-wide distance from those novels. It's sad that books like these, and the resulting effect they have on the fandom, actually made me appreciate Space Marines less rather than more, just because of how some writers use them.

Void__Dragon wrote:The Emperor himself sanctioned Space Marines. He created them. Officially, they are not abhumans.
For them to condemn Space Marines simply by their biology is to defy the Emperor's will itself.

Troike wrote:And that's why they're tolerated as much as they are, see. They have that direct connection to the Emperor. But, at the same time, they (or most of them) reject him as a god, instead seeing him as a man.

And this is actually a thing that got its own fluffbox in the 2E Codex, just to address this contradictory perception of the Astartes! It's not like the writers at GW themselves did not notice this apparent conflict.

"There has been constant conflict between the Adeptus Ministorum and the Chapters of the Adeptus Astartes since Fatidicus first began preaching on Terra. They are rivals in power like any Imperial organisations, but more importantly, their beliefs differ at a very fundamental level. On the one hand the Space Marines, above all others, can truly be called the children of the Emperor. They are wholly his creation and even contain elements of the Emperor's own genetic structure. [...]
However, the Space Marine Chapters do not adhere to the teachings of the Ecclesiarchy. Their beliefs vary wildly from Chapter to Chapter, worshipping the Emperor and their Primarchs in differing degrees. In many ways they are heretics with their own traditions, ceremonies and beliefs, some of which are very barbaric compared to the well-ordered masses of the Ecclesiarchy. [...]
Also, it is a matter of debate whether the Space Marines are truly human at all. Their genetically engineered bodies are far superior to a normal human, enough to make them a separate race if one wished to interpret their differences so. How can any self-respecting Confessor or Cardinal relate to a monstrous giant who can spit acid, crush a man's skull with one hand and practices crude acts of blood sacrifice?"

DarthMarko wrote:Fluff is fluff, you choose what you like....Wright did a good job...You can't ignore the writen material...

Apparently this freelancing novel author can ignore what it says in decades of Codex fluff, so why should his own opinions and writings be held in any higher regard?

StarTrotter wrote:Heck, there was a SoB army that whiped out a SM chapter for heresy.

Not just one!

StarTrotter wrote:FT are particularly tainted and the only reason they haven't been whiped out is either because, A. Although they are heretical, they get the job done (SWx1000) or B. imperium is desperate for men

I think it's chiefly because the setting is "stuck" at 999.M41.

"In the crucible of all-out war, the grisly truth, hidden for so many centuries by the Flesh Tearers, is finally evident to their comrades-in-arms across Armageddon. Despite a minimum of casualties, it would seem that the entire Chapter is close to being declared excommunicatus."
- Armageddon3 website

Even if GW would be willing to purge this Chapter (which is debatable), they couldn't, as it would have to happen after M41 - a place GW refused to go ever since coming up with the setting.

Troike wrote:As well as the Templars, we have a story about the SoB teaming up with the Salamanders too.

And not just them.

"Occasionally the Battle Sisters will have common cause with the firce Space Marines of the Adeptus Astartes. Although the relationship between these two organisations is only civil at best, the Space Marines and Battle Sisters both respect each other's prowess and skill at arms. Many times, the foes of the Imperium have been eradicated by a combined attack from these two elite forces."
- 2E C:SoB

As I said earlier, I would give SoB+C:SM the "Battle Brothers" status, if that wouldn't make the standard alliance sound as close as SoB+BT, something which I believe should really be above the average. That, and C:SM will (due to it encompassing a whole lot of different Chapters) include Chapters the Sisters get along well with, and Chapters where this is not the case. So, it is a compromise just like with the Blood Angels and their Successors.

I believe what the above quote says is that the Sisters are generally sceptical of SM, but that they can get along well and even appreciate their presence depending on how the Astartes behave (level of arrogance, Chapter traditions, secrecy, geneseed corruption, etc).

 StarTrotter wrote:
Problem with the book is it isn't really evidence nor is it not evidence. It could be 100% fact. It could be 90% fact with the SW changing some parts up. It could not be even slightly true and actually all just alpha legion xD

Personally, I'd imagine that it was another case of a writer only having a passing knowledge of the SoB, and not a deeper understanding of their mindset. To be fair, I can't wholly blame him for it, given the obscurity of SoB fluff these days.

 StarTrotter wrote:

It probably isn't. I haven't been able to read the codex fully and depend on the internet (with all its inaccuracies) to understand it all. Alas, college has made it hard for me to get that Space Marine book or even rip through it. Also, even if it doesn't apply now, it applied at the start and still exists in the rulebook without a single attempt to faq it. And the question is why? IF this is supposed to be the best relationship then why did they even exist as desperate allies?

People make mistakes. GW's writers are only human. They've (possibly) corrected this mistake. We've yet to see them "correct" their possible mistake of making the SoB be allies of convenience with the SW, though.

Maybe they did make a mistake in that regards, too. However, burden of proof should lie with the ones trying to prove that, then. If one can't prove that GW should change the SoB and SW relationship to desperate allies, then it shouldn't be changed. Well, that's my opinion at least. "GW says they're allies of convenience in absence of any fluff case of the two teaming up either way, so it's up to you to PROVE otherwise unless GW says otherwise (which they might have done regarding Black Templars).", basically.

Also really the apocolypse excuese? If we want to argue that then daemons should rarely exist outside of the apocolypse as well and why is the chapter master in this mini skirmish!? Yeah i still don't get the ig one.... I just... anyways....

Well, it was only a possibility. Like I said, we don't know whether or not GW was taking into account gene-stealer guard. Me personally, I think guard make absolutely atrocious stand-ins for a gene-stealer cult.

Also, if memory serves me yet again, isn't the rivalry between SW and DA not always that bad? It sometimes is but sometimes it is more of a friendly rivalry.

Well, they don't HATE each other, but there are still obvious tensions when it came up in the novel. The main point being that past aggressions (which the sisters had with the space wolves), while possibly causing tension, wouldn't necessarily cause enough tension that they couldn't even work together without keeping "one eye open", without an actual fluff event proving that to be the case. In the absence of an actual story/novel/codex snippet/whatever saying "Sisters don't ally with wolves except under desperate situations, and even then they'd always be watchful lest their allies shoot them in the back", you can't say the two being desperate allies is more "lore friendly" than what GW Studio's own official allied matrix says.

TiamatRoar wrote:
If they hypothetically do "dislike" them even in the most logical of circumstances. That doesn't mean allies of desperation.

But this would be a rather intense dislike. The actions of the Wolves are little (if any) better than those of heretics, really. They refuse to accept the Imperial Creed, spread their deviant beliefs to Imperial citizens and took up arms against His holy warriors.

TiamatRoar wrote:
The statement, "let sleeping dogs lie", is an alternative way of saying "let it go", just so you know.

But that's not the same as saying "we forgive you for practicing and spreading heretical beliefs, shooting down some of our clergy and fighting a war with our soldiers". What seems to have happened is that the Ecclesiarchy realised that they weren't going to get anywhere with that war, and that it wasn't worth the effort, so they backed off. This by no means indicates that they forgave the Space Wolves for their actions (in fact, their acts of resistance would have confirmed any suspicions the Ecclesiarchy had), just that they didn't see dealing with them as feasible. The feelings are still there, they just don't feel that they can act upon them.

TiamatRoar wrote:
Are the sisters even MORE zealous than the Ecclesiarchy itself?

I never implied that. The two organisations would probably feel the same way about the situation, in fact. I was talking about the Sisters specifically because they are the subject matter here, since they're the ones listed on the allies matrix.

TiamatRoar wrote:
Apparently it makes enough sense that GW didn't say "Don't publish this load of bull gak."

You may be putting a little too much faith in the control exerted over BL authors, here. Goto got away with a lot, don't forget. Then there's the (temporarily) heretical GK in that Ben Counter book, while the codexes say that none have fallen, the mixed-sex Schola in that Cain novel when a codex says that they're gender segregated... Honestly, a BL author can "get away" with a fair bit in regards to deviating from what's written in the codexes. So no, for the reasons I laid out, it does not make sense. One of the most faithful people around (within an organisation that spends its days praying and the members of which will willingly form into what are arguably suicde squads if they feel that they have failed even slighly) who is also a veteran at warfare does not lose their beliefs just because a war is going badly, only to have it suddenly restored by some Space Wolves.

TiamatRoar wrote:
People make mistakes. GW's writers are only human. They've (possibly) corrected this mistake. We've yet to see them "correct" their possible mistake of making the SoB be allies of convenience with the SW, though.

Then how do we know that the SW one wasn't a "mistake" either? GW didn't really actively fix the BT-SoB thing, they just rolled the BTs into the Marine codex and the more fluff friendly allies rating with the SoB (may have, if they're not still using their own list) was a happy side-effect. It doesn't change the fact that when they made this thing, they had the SoB and BTs as desperate allies, despite fluff to the contrary. The Space Wolf-SoB allies levels was written at the same time as this.

Maybe they really did intend them to be allies of convinience, maybe they did think about it and decide to have them as allies of convinience. But I certainly have my doubts about whether or not is syncs with the fluff. Certainly, a strong case could be made for them being desperate allies, as has been laid out.

TiamatRoar wrote:
Maybe. But again, dislike does not mean desperate allies.

I would say there's a strong case for it, given what the Wolves and Sisters did to each other here.

TiamatRoar wrote:
Wolves can't stand Dark Angels yet they still fought as allies of convenience in the novel, without keeping one eye open (far as I could tell).

TiamatRoar wrote:
That said, even if they didn't "forgive" them, the Space Wolves never "forgave" the Dark Angels for Lion sucker punching their primarch yet they still functioned as allies of convenience in the novels. Sure, there was tension and they disliked each other, but "one eye open"? Nope. They weren't particularly desperate either, I think.

That's more of a rivalry, though. They fight non-lethal duels with each other when they cross paths. As far as I'm aware, one has never gone to war with the other, or tried to purge the other over differing religious beliefs.

 StarTrotter wrote:
Alas SoB have become one of the vaguest factions that has a codex in the game now which is rather dissapointing.

It's not that they're vague, exactly, you just need to go back and look at some older stuff. Which, admittedly, isn't the simplest thing to do. You either shell out to buy one of the old codexes, or hang around an internet forum long enough to absorb the knowledge from people who do know.

Oh trust me I know how to soak up some references to SoB over time (I blame DoW for getting me interested in SoB to begin with). What I meant was that they just really don't seem to be represented that well in the fluff that I know of recently. *apologies! Didn't realize how much the sister of battle losing faith would actually annoy me and the fact that a Marine of all things that isn't even devote to the Emperor would bring the faith back*

 Troike wrote:

What seems to have happened is that the Ecclesiarchy realised that they weren't going to get anywhere with that war, and that it wasn't worth the effort, so they backed off. This by no means indicates that they forgave the Space Wolves for their actions (in fact, their acts of resistance would have confirmed any suspicions the Ecclesiarchy had), just that they didn't see dealing with them as feasible. The feelings are still there, they just don't feel that they can act upon them.

But that's not the same as saying "we forgive you for practicing and spreading heretical beliefs, shooting down some of our clergy and fighting a war with our soldiers".

But this would be a rather intense dislike. The actions of the Wolves are little (if any) better than those of heretics, really. They refuse to accept the Imperial Creed, spread their deviant beliefs to Imperial citizens and took up arms against His holy warriors.

The situation is still murky enough that they could possibly be allies of convenience instead. For one thing, until the day the Space Wolves are officially declared heretics and with things like Logan being elected overall leader of the Marines for the 13th Black Crusade, I find the idea of a sister refusing Space Wolf aid against chaos marines, and then keeping one eye open during the battle, to be absolutely ridiculously ludicrous to idiot-ball levels of "too dumb to live" lose-all-respect-at-the-sisters'-sheer-flanderized-STUPIDITY levels no matter how intense their dislike might be of each other. If I was a canoness and found that we lost a planet because my sisters failed to kill those Chaos Marines because they were too busy keeping an eye on their Space Wolf allies, I'd consider going all commissar BLAM on their ass. And then after her soul went to the Emperor and she had to explain they failed to save that planet because they were too distracted by keeping an eye on their Space Wolf allies, he'd probably glare at that sister and say "What the hell is wrong with you!?". As long as that possibility exists, then GW's official allied matrix on this matter is just as valid as someone who thinks they should be desperate allies, if not more-so (what with it being written by GW and all).

(as an aside, "spread their deviant beliefs to Imperial Citizens"? Where did that come from?)

Then how do we know that the SW one wasn't a "mistake" either? GW didn't really actively fix the BT-SoB thing, they just rolled the BTs into the Marine codex and the more fluff friendly allies rating with the SoB (may have, if they're not still using their own list) was a happy side-effect. It doesn't change the fact that when they made this thing, they had the SoB and BTs as desperate allies, despite fluff to the contrary. The Space Wolf-SoB allies levels was written at the same time as this.

Maybe they really did intend them to be allies of convinience, maybe they did think about it and decide to have them as allies of convinience. But I certainly have my doubts about whether or not is syncs with the fluff. Certainly, a strong case could be made for them being desperate allies, as has been laid out.

"A strong case" is not good enough to say one's fan-made allied matrix is more "lore friendly" than GW's. At most, you can say it MIGHT be more lore-friendly. Which IMHO is gak-all useless. I find it lame to create a "lore friendly allies chart" if the most you can say is "possibly more lore-friendly".

Solution time! Everybody becomes battle brothers. That way nobody can be treated unequally. We already get far too many loyal marine versus loyal marine and necrons allied with CSM anyways. Onwards my bro fisting tyranids and chaos daemons fighting to defend their ally SoB!

 StarTrotter wrote:
Solution time! Everybody becomes battle brothers. That way nobody can be treated unequally. We already get far too many loyal marine versus loyal marine and necrons allied with CSM anyways. Onwards my bro fisting tyranids and chaos daemons fighting to defend their ally SoB!

Well, it'd open up a truckton more army options on the tabletop, at least. Which is part of GW's reasoning for why they allowed such a thing in Apocalypse.

However, the topic of this thread is "Lore friendly Allies Chart".

Lore-wise, they would need to break it down into individual factions, not just broad types of armies. They would need to separate Chaos Space Marines into those devoted to each of the Ruinous Powers and Renegade Marines. You'd have to list every First Founding Chapter individually, and then all of the "official" Chapters from the various books, and then separate Codex-adherent from non-adherent Chapters, possibly by what they are Successor Chapters to.

And then you get into different builds of IG, whether it's loyalist or Traitor Guard, or is representing an all-originating-Chaos group like the Blood Pact, or a Genestealer Cult. Probably also need to list each "official" regiment individually, too, as certain regiments don't like other regiments.

And then we get into the Sisters, the AdMech, and all these other Imperial groups, who probably don't like each other.

And don't forget the various Craftworlds and Kabals.

TiamatRoar wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:
Eeeeh.... I wouldn't say best relations necessarily. If memory serve me, BT still use their old alliance chart. Whatever we say, SoB and BT apparently hate each other that much even though they are one of the few chapters that view the Emperor as a god?

Your memory might not be serving you. I haven't seen any conclusive proof anywhere this is the case. If someone can point it out to me, I'd be glad, but until then, people need to stop bringing up the BT Desperate Allies thing because we don't know if it still applies or not.

pg 78 of the space marine codex, they still have their old allies position.

But as Psienesis and Happyjew have said, if you want to do a real "Lore friendly" Allies chart you would need to break down each faction pretty dam far. Heck for Tau the Septs would have different chart locations.

 Ninjacommando wrote:

TiamatRoar wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:
Eeeeh.... I wouldn't say best relations necessarily. If memory serve me, BT still use their old alliance chart. Whatever we say, SoB and BT apparently hate each other that much even though they are one of the few chapters that view the Emperor as a god?

Your memory might not be serving you. I haven't seen any conclusive proof anywhere this is the case. If someone can point it out to me, I'd be glad, but until then, people need to stop bringing up the BT Desperate Allies thing because we don't know if it still applies or not.

pg 78 of the space marine codex, they still have their old allies position.

Well, that's one obvious thing to fix to create a more "lore friendly" chart, at least.

But as Psienesis and Happyjew have said, if you want to do a real "Lore friendly" Allies chart you would need to break down each faction pretty dam far. Heck for Tau the Septs would have different chart locations.

This is partially why one needs to make an assumption on the circumstances in order to create a generalized ally chart at all. Making a chart with every Space Marine Chapter, IG regiment, Dark Eldar cabal, and Tau sept is simply not feasible (and silly when GW is trying to encourage homebrew creations). In this regards, I think the idea of making an allies chart that caters to "the best" situation allows for the most amounts of player options, which is what GW is trying to encourage, and I think that's their reasoning behind a lot of the ally relationships in the current official matrix. Of course, the IG-Chaos relationships and the Sister-BT relationships are off, but everything else there seems to be GW giving factions the "benefit of the doubt" (or, perhaps more accurately, "the benefit of the trust"?) when it comes to who can ally with whom. Other evidence of this is the large variety of desperate alliances where, as far as I know, there was never a fluff alliance in the first place of such a thing (necrons allied with daemons? I don't recall that ever happening anywhere in any fluff source, for example. The fact that GW threw it in anyways is decent indication that they're trying to open up as many options as possible. Higher ally relationships allow for more options in playing (Desperate Allies is a deterrent to allying at all in a lot of cases, after all, due to One Eye Open), which is probably why they tossed in Tau Marine battle brothers (despite how that really only happened like... once?) and Eldar Tau battle brothers (.....which is basically like, based off of ONE quote by Uldrad, if that much).

Before one can make any allies chart at all, be it "lore friendly" or otherwise, one needs to lay down what it'll be based on. I've been going by the "under the best" circumstances and have just given my reasoning for why that should be the underlying assumption (and why I think GW is going by that assumption, too, but that's a tangent, I suppose).

Ninjacommando wrote:pg 78 of the space marine codex, they still have their old allies position.

Depending on how one interprets that sentence .. there has been a lot of argueing about this bit, and this is just the largest, but not the only thread where it was debated.
I think it should be FAQ'd to make it clear once and for all how it is meant to work.

Ninjacommando wrote:But as Psienesis and Happyjew have said, if you want to do a real "Lore friendly" Allies chart you would need to break down each faction pretty dam far.

And we'd have to decide which lore to go by - probably a very personal/individual matter, as evidenced in this thread.

TiamatRoar wrote:
The situation is still murky enough that they could possibly be allies of convenience instead. For one thing, until the day the Space Wolves are officially declared heretics and with things like Logan being elected overall leader of the Marines for the 13th Black Crusade,

It wouldn't need to be nearly so extreme. The Ecclesiarchy and the Sisters aren't that lax when it comes to branding heretics. Nah, attacking the Ecclesiarchy over relgious reasons is more than enough cause for extreme dislike.

TiamatRoar wrote:
I find the idea of a sister refusing Space Wolf aid against chaos marines, and then keeping one eye open during the battle, to be absolutely ridiculously ludicrous to idiot-ball levels of "too dumb to live" lose-all-respect-at-the-sisters'-sheer-flanderized-STUPIDITY levels no matter how intense their dislike might be of each other.

But you're going straight to a more extreme situation. They could also team up against some rebellious IG, or something. Not necessarily Chaos. Again, it should be how well they'd get along in general, and all that. And the Sisters and Wolves could well have some mutual distrust, given the severity of the aforementioned incident. Tensions would likely be high. We've got highly orthodox zealots and free-spirited, visibly mutated Marines who have issues with authority. On top of that, the Sisters actively tried to purge the Wolves in the past, in response to the Wolves murding clergymen who were looking for heresy. A co-operation between the two would most likely be rather strained.

Also, you're assuming that only the Sisters would be at fault, here. I know I'm somewhat biased here over which army interests me more and tend to only talk about the SoB viewpoint on this, but the Wolves would most likely also have issues. They'd probably be mad over the Sisters trying to purge them, they could well be highly wary of the Sisters "kicking off" on them.

TiamatRoar wrote:
(as an aside, "spread their deviant beliefs to Imperial Citizens"? Where did that come from?)

I was referring to the people on Fenris. Though thinking about it, they may have had those beliefs anyway. But the Wolves still stopped the Ecclesiarchy from going to inspect these citizens. So I'll rephrase that to the Wolves protecting probable deviants, or something like that.

TiamatRoar wrote:
"A strong case" is not good enough to say one's fan-made allied matrix is more "lore friendly" than GW's. At most, you can say it MIGHT be more lore-friendly.

And yet, we both seem to agree that the BT-SoB rating was a mistake and didn't fit with the fluff at all. Why can that be an error, but not the SW one? There was also a "strong case" for the BT-SoB one being wrong, and all that used was codex fluff too. This is more or less the same thing.

 Lynata wrote:
And we'd have to decide which lore to go by - probably a very personal/individual matter, as evidenced in this thread.

I just want relgious nutters to go with my relgious nutters. :(

The fluff even says that they're firm allies, now.

 Happyjew wrote:
And don't forget the various Craftworlds and Kabals.

Oh, I hadn't even gotten started on the Xenos! We'd have individual Craftworlds, Exodite Worlds, Kabals, Tau Septs, Necron Dynasties, factions within a given Necron Dynasty, Ork Tribes, Ork Kults, Kroot Breeds, Vespid Swarms, Tyranid Hive Fleets...

Hell, you would need an entire book. Codex: The Chart of Allies.

 Psienesis wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
And don't forget the various Craftworlds and Kabals.

Oh, I hadn't even gotten started on the Xenos! We'd have individual Craftworlds, Exodite Worlds, Kabals, Tau Septs, Necron Dynasties, factions within a given Necron Dynasty, Ork Tribes, Ork Kults, Kroot Breeds, Vespid Swarms, Tyranid Hive Fleets...

Hell, you would need an entire book. Codex: The Chart of Allies.

I'd buy it. Just so I can have proof as to why Hive Fleet Jormungandr and Crafworld Ulthwe happen to be best buddies.

And we'd finally get Necron/BA Battle Brothers

Better yet, a three dimensional Allies Matrix (Finecast by Forgeworld) which states which three-faction combinations are legal.

Of course it comes unpainted....

Or an Alliance Tesseract of legal 4-army combinations.

 Troike wrote:

TiamatRoar wrote:
The situation is still murky enough that they could possibly be allies of convenience instead. For one thing, until the day the Space Wolves are officially declared heretics and with things like Logan being elected overall leader of the Marines for the 13th Black Crusade,

It wouldn't need to be nearly so extreme. The Ecclesiarchy and the Sisters aren't that lax when it comes to branding heretics. Nah, attacking the Ecclesiarchy over relgious reasons is more than enough cause for extreme dislike.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
And don't forget the various Craftworlds and Kabals.

Oh, I hadn't even gotten started on the Xenos! We'd have individual Craftworlds, Exodite Worlds, Kabals, Tau Septs, Necron Dynasties, factions within a given Necron Dynasty, Ork Tribes, Ork Kults, Kroot Breeds, Vespid Swarms, Tyranid Hive Fleets...

Hell, you would need an entire book. Codex: The Chart of Allies.

I'd buy it. Just so I can have proof as to why Hive Fleet Jormungandr and Crafworld Ulthwe happen to be best buddies.

And we'd finally get Necron/BA Battle Brothers

xD hey! Don't forget the chaos daemon warbands such as the Khorne and Slaanesh army! Which is why in the end no matter how we try the lore friendly allies chart will never work perfectly...

 StarTrotter wrote:

xD hey! Don't forget the chaos daemon warbands such as the Khorne and Slaanesh army! Which is why in the end no matter how we try the lore friendly allies chart will never work perfectly...

Are you trolling or not and are just confused? Or am I missing some context here? I can't really tell. Daemons even have an apocalypse formation that uses all four types.

TiamatRoar wrote:Sure, it'd have to be that extreme. Sisters wasting time worrying about wolves before they're officially branded heretics when chaos marines are right in front of them in a hypothetical situation is stupid.

By that logic it would be "stupid" for Sisters to worry about the Flesh Tearers, too.

"They're not officially branded heretics yet, girls! No need to keep an eye on those barbarians who ate our militia last time!"

TiamatRoar wrote:The sisters were just doing a job. In that ecclesiarchy situation, the Ecclesiarchy didn't call in the sisters until AFTER shots have already been fired. Why would the wolves be mad about that?

Maybe because Sisters are a part of the Ecclesiarchy? Because they are, as the fluff tells us, the most prominent symbol of its influence?
And given how Lorgar has "an abiding hatred for the Adepts of the Administratum" ever since Armageddon, I'd say the Wolves don't seem to distinguish a lot between people.

Also, technically, Sisters provide bodyguards for the Frateris Clergy - you cannot rule out the possibility that they've been part of the initial delegation.

TiamatRoar wrote:If Marines can ally with Tau and IG can ally with orks without One Eye Open, then clearly GW's idea of what makes people Desperate Allies must be different from yours.

I thought that's precisely the reason why we are discussing a "lore friendly chart" here? Because not everyone here thinks that the original chart is 100% reflective of it?

TiamatRoar wrote:That's hindsight. Again, burden of proof lies with you until GW says otherwise (which they just happened to do so with BT). If you disagree, then drop the issue.

Neither we nor you can "prove" anything - as with most fluff, this is obviously a matter of interpretation, and the SoB players here look fairly convinced of how their army would react.

 Lynata wrote:

TiamatRoar wrote:Sure, it'd have to be that extreme. Sisters wasting time worrying about wolves before they're officially branded heretics when chaos marines are right in front of them in a hypothetical situation is stupid.

By that logic it would be "stupid" for Sisters to worry about the Flesh Tearers, too.

"They're not officially branded heretics yet, girls! No need to keep an eye on those barbarians who ate our militia last time!"

TiamatRoar wrote:The sisters were just doing a job. In that ecclesiarchy situation, the Ecclesiarchy didn't call in the sisters until AFTER shots have already been fired. Why would the wolves be mad about that?

Maybe because Sisters are a part of the Ecclesiarchy? Because they are, as the fluff tells us, the most prominent symbol of its influence?
And given how Lorgar has "an abiding hatred for the Adepts of the Administratum" ever since Armageddon, I'd say the Wolves don't seem to distinguish a lot between people.

Also, technically, Sisters provide bodyguards for the Frateris Clergy - you cannot rule out the possibility that they've been part of the initial delegation.

TiamatRoar wrote:If Marines can ally with Tau and IG can ally with orks without One Eye Open, then clearly GW's idea of what makes people Desperate Allies must be different from yours.

I thought that's precisely the reason why we are discussing a "lore friendly chart" here? Because not everyone here thinks that the original chart is 100% reflective of it?

TiamatRoar wrote:That's hindsight. Again, burden of proof lies with you until GW says otherwise (which they just happened to do so with BT). If you disagree, then drop the issue.

Neither we nor you can "prove" anything - as with most fluff, this is obviously a matter of interpretation, and the SoB players here look fairly convinced of how their army would react.

The difference is that right now, if an SoB player decided to have their SoBs allied with the SW against your army on an allies of convenience level and his/her interpretation differs from yours, there's not a thing you can do about it no matter what your interpretation of it is. ...well, okay, I guess you could always like, refuse to play with that person, I suppose. You'd totally be "that guy", but whatever.

Thing is GW only used sisters to show how SW are strongly anti authoritarian and don't care about Lorgar's disciples....To the wolves sisters are less important wenches (no offense), I mean they have much bigger fish to fry...

For instance TS (their real and worst enemy for about 10 000 years), Abbadadadadabon (13th black crusade), and the scheeming "I" who are 1st on Logan's kill list....

And sisters need to worry about chaos, not the SM chapters who are constantly trolling them ...

Just for lulz I would love to see them trying to purge FT....

TiamatRoar wrote:The difference is that right now, if an SoB player decided to have their SoBs allied with the SW against your army on an allies of convenience level and his/her interpretation differs from yours, there's not a thing you can do about it no matter what your interpretation of it is. ...well, okay, I guess you could always like, refuse to play with that person, I suppose. You'd totally be "that guy", but whatever.

Maybe, but that's not what we are discussing here anyways.

SoB+SW would by far not be the only "weird" allies combination to show up in a game. I don't think I would feel any different about that than about, say, SM+Necrons, or BT+Dark Eldar.
In fact, I think the exact leve of alliance would bother me far less than seeing the latter two combinations together at all.

DarthMarko wrote:Lorgar's disciples

Fatidicus'.

DarthMarko wrote:And sisters need to worry about chaos, not the SM chapters who are constantly trolling them ...

Technically, to them both of these things may well be one and the same.

But you think sisters would go well with BA and DA ?

My point is that this whole thingy is blown out of proportion by sister fans

DarthMarko wrote:But you think sisters would go well with BA and DA ?

In terms of general alliances: Yes, absolutely. There's not nearly as much bad blood between them.

In terms of the actual level of alliance, I mentioned earlier how they should still be Allies of Convenience, though.
BA due to the rumours and problems regarding their geneseed and Successor Chapters, DA because of their unreliability and secrecy.

DarthMarko wrote:My point is that this whole thingy is blown out of proportion by sister fans

Maybe because we know our army.

 Lynata wrote:
Technically, to them both of these things may well be one and the same.

I still find your assessment that the sisters feel that way to be absolutely ludicrous and NOT lore friendly at all, whatsoever. I can't even begin to imagine the look on Creed's face if a sister told him that she saw the wolves and chaos as one and the same. Or ANY sane individual, really. Really, even Ciaphas Cain sisters weren't that nuts (not that you'd accept that as lore either. Because selective-choice on what's "proper lore" and what isn't is apparently the in-thing to do when deciding on a "lore friendly" chart for some people). Regardless of what you say, we have one book that contradicts this, bad as it is, and that's more than what you got. And that's the final word on that because now we're just repeating things.

Seriously, viewing the wolves and chaos as one and the same... even Kysnos didn't make a claim that ridiculous.