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.

 Vaktathi wrote:
While I like new content and the speed of updates, and applaud GW for taking a new direction here, the price is absurd for most of these things, and the random and unannounced nature of these releases makes it very difficult to plan for or keep up with such releases.

I can't imagine what being a TO is going to be like next year when it could be entirely possible that a player may show up with a core rulebook, two codex books, two supplement books, an INQ book, the Escalation book, two different Imperial Armour books, and the Stronghold book to run a legal 1750pt army.

Oh my god, $4 for a supplement will really break the bank.

It's the price of a bloody coffee.

You play Death Korps of Krieg and you're complaining about the cost of stuff GW puts out?

 kronk wrote:
My only issue is the time-gap between the electronic supplements and the hard copies. I prefer hard copies and I don't like waiting 3-4 months to get what the other guy already has in electronic form.

Totally agree, this is my main gripe too. The quarter lag between digital and hardcopy release is irritating. As is the quasi-uncertainty if certain digital releases will go to hardcopy or not.

Here's to hoping they do "Chapter Approved" books like in days past.


I've played modular release games before, so the modular content i actually really like.

Asmodai Asmodean wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
While I like new content and the speed of updates, and applaud GW for taking a new direction here, the price is absurd for most of these things, and the random and unannounced nature of these releases makes it very difficult to plan for or keep up with such releases.

I can't imagine what being a TO is going to be like next year when it could be entirely possible that a player may show up with a core rulebook, two codex books, two supplement books, an INQ book, the Escalation book, two different Imperial Armour books, and the Stronghold book to run a legal 1750pt army.

Oh my god, $4 for a supplement will really break the bank.

It's the price of a bloody coffee.

You play Death Korps of Krieg and you're complaining about the cost of stuff GW puts out?

I think you are missing the idea.

GW will purposely leave units out of future books only to release them DLC style. Essentially raising the cost of a codex by $10 or more. And requiring these items to "know thy enemy" becomes increasingly annoying.

Asmodai Asmodean wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
While I like new content and the speed of updates, and applaud GW for taking a new direction here, the price is absurd for most of these things, and the random and unannounced nature of these releases makes it very difficult to plan for or keep up with such releases.

I can't imagine what being a TO is going to be like next year when it could be entirely possible that a player may show up with a core rulebook, two codex books, two supplement books, an INQ book, the Escalation book, two different Imperial Armour books, and the Stronghold book to run a legal 1750pt army.

Oh my god, $4 for a supplement will really break the bank.

It's the price of a bloody coffee.

You play Death Korps of Krieg and you're complaining about the cost of stuff GW puts out?

$4 for a single model that already existed and they chose to charge separately for instead of update normally (at least from the fantasy end) or $7 for both, is kinda silly. We really don't want to incentivize this sort of thing, where they leave stuff out and charge extra for it later.

On the pricing itself, $33 for the INQ codex is silly when other companies release similar material for free, $50 for a print copy of a supplement is absolutely absurd when you can get books with 10x the material and 5x the pagecount for other game systems is absurd.

One will notice the rules for a DKoK Siege regiment are currently available as a free PDF And the book that contains rules for a DKoK Assault Brigade is $80 but comes with two full army lists for Necrons and the DKoK, along with extra units and for Codex lists for Necrons and Space Marines along with Chapter -specific Minotaurs stuff, quite a bargain compared to GW's digital and print offerings these days. To say nothing of the fact that my DKoK infantry are cheaper than Dire Avengers these days

Long story short, don't encourage GW to find new ways to nickel and dime us.

 Ravenous D wrote:

Asmodai Asmodean wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
While I like new content and the speed of updates, and applaud GW for taking a new direction here, the price is absurd for most of these things, and the random and unannounced nature of these releases makes it very difficult to plan for or keep up with such releases.

I can't imagine what being a TO is going to be like next year when it could be entirely possible that a player may show up with a core rulebook, two codex books, two supplement books, an INQ book, the Escalation book, two different Imperial Armour books, and the Stronghold book to run a legal 1750pt army.

Oh my god, $4 for a supplement will really break the bank.

It's the price of a bloody coffee.

You play Death Korps of Krieg and you're complaining about the cost of stuff GW puts out?

I think you are missing the idea.

GW will purposely leave units out of future books only to release them DLC style. Essentially raising the cost of a codex by $10 or more. And requiring these items to "know thy enemy" becomes increasingly annoying.

Or just charge you per unit without bothering to give you a codex at all
Sorry for giving GW more ideas


Automatically Appended Next Post:
to add horrible ideas, very very horrible ideas.

6th edition already has a problem, a lack of compartmentalization between rules like allies, fortifications random objectives/terrain and then you add all this recent crap and it just kinda makes it worse, it adds to that pile of issues and only complicates things. In 5th you could simply say "Do you want to give planetstrike a try? How bout cities of death next time? " you could give either expansion a try, decide if you enjoy it and allow that to frame "what kind of game" you want to play more often than not. There's no doubt 40k is many things to many people, I'm sure we all have our preferences but the occasional firewall between the core game and various directions you can choose to take it would really help a lot, It would at least take a lot of politics out of it. I mean think about it, if you were to ask a few friends if they wanted to play apoc this weekend, that immediately has a certain connotation to it, super heavies, formations ect ect, generally high points on both sides; Basically an abnormally large game of 40k with a bunch of extra rules and stuff. Different from 40k, well, at least it used to be.

I would agree that the game has been complicated unnecessarily by these recently announced books and the revelation that somehow formations are now a part of "regular?" 40k. If they made an expansion similar to planetstrike all about scenarios with a lot of fortifications and gave it a proper name and called it an expansion flat out it would make things easier to stomach. The same for the super heavies, make an expansion, make that clear and boom, play it or don't, simple choice. The formations thing to me is just baffling though, it seems that anyone can just pay 3.99$ and of course the requisite hundreds of dollar on models, and be able to field a riptide and 6 broadsides that get tank hunter and preferred enemy marines for no additional point cost along with.. well.. whatever you want it seems. In fairness nid armies do tend to all have one weakness in common, a dreadful lack of riptides and or broadsides.

I mean, it's the old argument, anyone can refuse a game, and it’s really just one more nail in the coffin for pickup games if anything. I don’t think this stuff will negatively effect games against my regular opponents but the tournament scene is really gonna have to start thinking about doing some pretty obvious regulating.

The sadist part to me is that 40K is quickly loosing its identity. When you had each faction and whole armies inside that faction there was a little bit of personal pride. You could say I play "insert army here" with a little bit of pride. It was what helped define your interests as a player. But that hard edge is gone now. With the ability to mix 3 different factions into a single army, the game as a whole has lost its this vs that hard edge. Its no longer Blood Angles vs Eldar. Its a whole bunch of this and that against even more of these and those. The game has just lost quite a bit of definition in my eyes.

Honestly at this point, playing the game for me is meaningless. I play single factions because I feel that it defines the player. But all I see is allied formations, where fluff is thrown out the window and only stomping power remains. A situation where a single faction really has an uphill battle.

Is it really so challenging to figure out why factions would work together? There's no fluff-killing, just people who can't wrap their imagination around a new concept.

Really. Eldar, Tau, Inquisitors, and DE all can play in one team.

Thats not fluff... Thats... well whatever it is, it isn't fluff.

Also, its never fluff, when the only units being allied are the powerful ones. Funny how allied Space wolves never seem to bring "claws" with them. Its always rune priests and Grey hunters. Always. Kroot and stealth suits never show up in Tau allies either.

Some allies make fluff sense. Most don't and the allied matrix goes against most fluff ever written for the last 20 years. Which just strengthens my original point that GW has lost its definition, it is throwing away everything that made it what it is. When you say you can take anything, then there is nothing you can realistically call your own.

 Talore wrote:
Is it really so challenging to figure out why factions would work together? There's no fluff-killing, just people who can't wrap their imagination around a new concept.

There's working together, and then there's intensely xenophobic genetically engineered super soldier Space Marines being just as amiable to working with Tau as with the Imperial Guard

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Talore wrote:
Is it really so challenging to figure out why factions would work together? There's no fluff-killing, just people who can't wrap their imagination around a new concept.

There's working together, and then there's intensely xenophobic genetically engineered super soldier Space Marines being just as amiable to working with Tau as with the Imperial Guard

Fire Warrior video game, The Greater Good (IG/Tau,) excommunicated SM joining the cause of The Greater Good, the Damocles assault, etc. Numerous detailed examples of it happening, and many more that can be reasoned out. I stand by what I said earlier. Furthermore, just because the rules don't exclude all illogical combinations doesn't mean that they should then exclude all logical ones because No Fun Allowed.

alexh on Warseer, circa 2012 wrote:Page 40 in C:Space Marines, Ultramarines join forces with Tau to fight Necrons. Also, page 48 mentions that Marneus Calgar has a grudging respect for Tau.

No kroot being included as allies? Kroot are probably the most common troop being included with tau allies. Of course, that is because they are great and cheap, but at least it is fluffy with merc kroot

 Talore wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Talore wrote:
Is it really so challenging to figure out why factions would work together? There's no fluff-killing, just people who can't wrap their imagination around a new concept.

There's working together, and then there's intensely xenophobic genetically engineered super soldier Space Marines being just as amiable to working with Tau as with the Imperial Guard

Fire Warrior video game, The Greater Good (IG/Tau,) excommunicated SM joining the cause of The Greater Good, the Damocles assault, etc. Numerous detailed examples of it happening, and many more that can be reasoned out. I stand by what I said earlier. Furthermore, just because the rules don't exclude all illogical combinations doesn't mean that they should then exclude all logical ones because No Fun Allowed.

For the second time, I'm not saying such forces couldn't ally to face a particular threat, but making them Battle Brothers as standard makes zero sense, they're still foul Xenos that will inevitably be destroyed. Most of the examples you mentioned would not illustrate "Battle Brothers", perhaps allies of convenience at best, more probably desparate allies. You can probably come up with some example in 10,000 years where any level of ally level holds true at some point, but it's absurd to make that the standard.

Also Firewarrior was an awful game.

Right, so I couldn't have a chapter of Space Marines join the Greater Good because some guy who doesn't care about the fluff didn't put the effort in to explain why his Black Templars are joining up with the Tau? The whole point here is that the possibilities DO exist, and that GW rules being inclusive rather than exclusive is a positive thing. "The standard" is only bad when the players make it bad.

For situations brought up by these new releases where you can have 3 or maybe even 4 factions working together, players ought to try just looking at it as an opportunity to explore new fluff or fanon rather than something to complain endlessly about. The game starts and ends with the players, so the players should make the best of these new tools.

Hodgepodge is a silly word. I'd rather say we're having a bandersnatch of releases, or a gobbledygook of releases, or in the immortal words of Bill Cosby, a zip zop zoopity bop of releases.

Anyway I tried new things once and it was just awful.

 Talore wrote:
Right, so I couldn't have a chapter of Space Marines join the Greater Good because some guy who doesn't care about the fluff didn't put the effort in to explain why his Black Templars are joining up with the Tau? The whole point here is that the possibilities DO exist, and that GW rules being inclusive rather than exclusive is a positive thing. "The standard" is only bad when the players make it bad.

So in essence you're saying there should be no allies restrictions at all then basically? Everyone should be able to be battle brothers with everyone?

If yes, then we've just got a fundamental disagreement about how the game should interact with the fluff. If no, then there certainly isn't any reason why the Space Marines should be more eager to join with Tau than with, say, the Sisters of Battle. Let's not forget the Tau work ceaselessely to undermine the Eastern Fringe while the SM's took part in a crusade which, if successful, would have led to the complete genocide of the Tau race. Seeing Tau as Battle Brothers with SM forces and other such sillyness is a real killer for the immersion, and lets face it, this game is what it is because of its fluff, not its rules.

Pen & Paper, Books, dice, rulers: Yay

Computers, interactive menus, army calculators: Boo

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Talore wrote:
Right, so I couldn't have a chapter of Space Marines join the Greater Good because some guy who doesn't care about the fluff didn't put the effort in to explain why his Black Templars are joining up with the Tau? The whole point here is that the possibilities DO exist, and that GW rules being inclusive rather than exclusive is a positive thing. "The standard" is only bad when the players make it bad.

So in essence you're saying there should be no allies restrictions at all then basically? Everyone should be able to be battle brothers with everyone?

If yes, then we've just got a fundamental disagreement about how the game should interact with the fluff. If no, then there certainly isn't any reason why the Space Marines should be more eager to join with Tau than with, say, the Sisters of Battle. Let's not forget the Tau work ceaselessely to undermine the Eastern Fringe while the SM's took part in a crusade which, if successful, would have led to the complete genocide of the Tau race. Seeing Tau as Battle Brothers with SM forces and other such sillyness is a real killer for the immersion, and lets face it, this game is what it is because of its fluff, not its rules.

The game is what it is because it promotes creativity.

If you don't think Space Marines and Tau go together well, don't do it.

If somebody has a cool idea that makes it work, why should there be restrictions to stop them?

That is the fundamental problem with restrictions, It only hinders people who would have an idea and want to go there, but can't because of the restriction. It does absolutely nothing to people who wouldn't use that combination in the first place, because they'd not make use of said combination, whether there is a formal restriction or not.

If the restrictions are gone, everyone wins. Those who don't like the combination, still don't have to use them (nobody is forcing you, after all). Those that do enjoy being creative, now can be.

 Jayden63 wrote:
The sadist part to me is that 40K is quickly loosing its identity. When you had each faction and whole armies inside that faction there was a little bit of personal pride. You could say I play "insert army here" with a little bit of pride. It was what helped define your interests as a player. But that hard edge is gone now. With the ability to mix 3 different factions into a single army, the game as a whole has lost its this vs that hard edge. Its no longer Blood Angles vs Eldar. Its a whole bunch of this and that against even more of these and those. The game has just lost quite a bit of definition in my eyes.

Honestly at this point, playing the game for me is meaningless. I play single factions because I feel that it defines the player. But all I see is allied formations, where fluff is thrown out the window and only stomping power remains. A situation where a single faction really has an uphill battle.

Allies were in 3rd and 4th edition as well.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Talore wrote:
Right, so I couldn't have a chapter of Space Marines join the Greater Good because some guy who doesn't care about the fluff didn't put the effort in to explain why his Black Templars are joining up with the Tau? The whole point here is that the possibilities DO exist, and that GW rules being inclusive rather than exclusive is a positive thing. "The standard" is only bad when the players make it bad.

So in essence you're saying there should be no allies restrictions at all then basically? Everyone should be able to be battle brothers with everyone?

If yes, then we've just got a fundamental disagreement about how the game should interact with the fluff. If no, then there certainly isn't any reason why the Space Marines should be more eager to join with Tau than with, say, the Sisters of Battle. Let's not forget the Tau work ceaselessely to undermine the Eastern Fringe while the SM's took part in a crusade which, if successful, would have led to the complete genocide of the Tau race. Seeing Tau as Battle Brothers with SM forces and other such sillyness is a real killer for the immersion, and lets face it, this game is what it is because of its fluff, not its rules.

The game is what it is because it promotes creativity.

If you don't think Space Marines and Tau go together well, don't do it.

If somebody has a cool idea that makes it work, why should there be restrictions to stop them?

That is the fundamental problem with restrictions, It only hinders people who would have an idea and want to go there, but can't because of the restriction. It does absolutely nothing to people who wouldn't use that combination in the first place, because they'd not make use of said combination, whether there is a formal restriction or not.

If the restrictions are gone, everyone wins. Those who don't like the combination, still don't have to use them (nobody is forcing you, after all). Those that do enjoy being creative, now can be.

I'm with Vaktathi, here. You talk about creativity above, but in practice what I see is people going: "I want some of that unit" and suddenly it's just a flavourless pile of unlikely allies smooshed together. There could be a backstory that shows how this rare, almost unique circumstance has come about. But in practice it's just another day of Tau, Space Marine, Inquistion working cheerfully together same as every other day. In theory it can be creative. In practice it just means narrative is worn away under a constant tide of routine alliances that ought to be unlikely.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Talore wrote:
Right, so I couldn't have a chapter of Space Marines join the Greater Good because some guy who doesn't care about the fluff didn't put the effort in to explain why his Black Templars are joining up with the Tau? The whole point here is that the possibilities DO exist, and that GW rules being inclusive rather than exclusive is a positive thing. "The standard" is only bad when the players make it bad.

So in essence you're saying there should be no allies restrictions at all then basically? Everyone should be able to be battle brothers with everyone?

If yes, then we've just got a fundamental disagreement about how the game should interact with the fluff. If no, then there certainly isn't any reason why the Space Marines should be more eager to join with Tau than with, say, the Sisters of Battle. Let's not forget the Tau work ceaselessely to undermine the Eastern Fringe while the SM's took part in a crusade which, if successful, would have led to the complete genocide of the Tau race. Seeing Tau as Battle Brothers with SM forces and other such sillyness is a real killer for the immersion, and lets face it, this game is what it is because of its fluff, not its rules.

The game is what it is because it promotes creativity.

If you don't think Space Marines and Tau go together well, don't do it.

If somebody has a cool idea that makes it work, why should there be restrictions to stop them?

That is the fundamental problem with restrictions, It only hinders people who would have an idea and want to go there, but can't because of the restriction. It does absolutely nothing to people who wouldn't use that combination in the first place, because they'd not make use of said combination, whether there is a formal restriction or not.

If the restrictions are gone, everyone wins. Those who don't like the combination, still don't have to use them (nobody is forcing you, after all). Those that do enjoy being creative, now can be.

As noted above, I've yet to see or hear of such things being done for creative reasons, instead pretty much exclusively just to plug gaps in capabilities or exploit unintended synergies. On top of that, if you're being creative, you're probably using the Warhammer 40,000 universe as a basis for which to be creative, and in this universe there's no reason why these two factions should be so closely aligned on a regular basis as to make them Battle Brothers as other Space Marine chapters or the Imperial Guard are. To me, it does more to ruin the creativity and immersion than to aid it most of the time in these instances. Maybe I'm just a grumpy fun vampire, that's just my take on it.

 Makutsu wrote:
Or just charge you per unit without bothering to give you a codex at all
Sorry for giving GW more ideas

to add horrible ideas, very very horrible ideas.

They already sell a Codex Powerfist and a Codex Fleshborer, so it's not you who gives them ideas
http://www.blacklibrary.com/games-workshop-digital-editions/Munitorum

knas ser wrote:


I'm with Vaktathi, here. You talk about creativity above, but in practice what I see is people going: "I want some of that unit" and suddenly it's just a flavourless pile of unlikely allies smooshed together. There could be a backstory that shows how this rare, almost unique circumstance has come about. But in practice it's just another day of Tau, Space Marine, Inquistion working cheerfully together same as every other day. In theory it can be creative. In practice it just means narrative is worn away under a constant tide of routine alliances that ought to be unlikely.

The narrative has been worn away under no-allies 5th Edition rules as well (and before that). Not to mention that the definition of what is flavourful and what not (I know Vaktathi disagree fiercely on the issue of mono-God vs. multi-God Chaos Armies for example) differs.

Making sure an army stays flavourfull is ultimately the players responsibility. Games Workshop cannot possibly micro-manage the rules to the point where non-flavourful armies no longer exist. So they may as well throw out the crutches and ask players to grow a pair, making the game the game they want to play.

Personally, I don't play against Forge World (most of the time), because I believe their dreary, humour-deprived fluff is fundamentally at odds with the more campy version of 40K I grew up with and made me fall in love with the game in the first place. I know many people see it differently. So the option of Forge World is there for people who like that style of 40K.

If people grow up and become able to manage "their kind" of games, multiple variations and flavours of 40K can co-exist (though perhaps not overlap). If the rules try to nail down one (interpretation of) fluffy, 99% of the other interpretations will be left out.

 Zweischneid wrote:
If somebody has a cool idea that makes it work, why should there be restrictions to stop them?

Because there's more to the game then "invent some fluff and put your toys on the table". Some people actually play the game as a game, and those restrictions you hate are important to making the game balanced and interesting. The fact that GW's staggering incompetence has pretty well destroyed that game doesn't make the decision to trash it even more a good one.

If the restrictions are gone, everyone wins.

Except the people who have to play against the combination. People who focus on the gameplay lose because the idea of each army having its own identity with strengths and weaknesses is damaged, and balance is broken by stuff like mandatory divination inquisitors in every imperial army, Tau allying with Tau to spam more Riptides, etc. Meanwhile people who focus on the fluff have to put up with playing games against "unfluffy" combinations, destroying their ability to enjoy the story behind the game.

 Peregrine wrote:


Except the people who have to play against the combination. People who focus on the gameplay lose because the idea of each army having its own identity with strengths and weaknesses is damaged, and balance is broken by stuff like mandatory divination inquisitors in every imperial army, Tau allying with Tau to spam more Riptides, etc. Meanwhile people who focus on the fluff have to put up with playing games against "unfluffy" combinations, destroying their ability to enjoy the story behind the game.

Not true.

If everyone can use everything, the game is perfectly balanced. As long as restrictions exist, different Codexes may be weaker/stronger than others, and these differences may overshadow player skill (e.g. the better player with the better strategy may still lose to the better Codex, etc..).

If game-play and balance are truly your main interest, you should do away with all FoC/Allies/Other restrictions anyhow.

Personally, I think there are far too many rules and rulebooks running around at the moment. I do miss the old days when it was just the Rule book and your army codex, because then you could focus on your little group of men.

Then they brought in allies, far enough, many people do have at least two wh40k armies, and due to the liberal use of allies, there were only a few armies that refuse to work together. So that way you could use everything you had bought.

Then you had supplements, which are still in their infancy. Whilst some of them seem good, it means that you need to either buy a new supplement codex (for the same price as the actual codex) or buy some kind of tablet before you could use them (vinyl for life bro).

But when I was wandering the forums this morning, I came across people using something called Be'lakor. Doing a quick google I found out that this was one of the advent collection and comes in at £2.49 (2 and 1/2 mayo chicken burgers from Mcdonalds for all you non British people out there). But it's ebook only, and I spend so much on WH40K that I can't afford a tablet (that is kind of a lie, but only kind of).

So to play my CSM army, with CD allies and Be'lakor. I need a rulebook, two codices, a supplement (If i want to be Black legion, maybe even another if they actually release a 4 gods of chaos supplement) and a mini e-book. This comes together to be £137.45 before I actually buy a single model.

If I had a full time job rather than being a student, this wouldn't be such a horrible price, it's just that I need 5 different books in order to play one single match.

Or I can just stick to the rulebook and CSM codex, it's my choice to spend more to get more stuff.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Games Workshop cannot possibly micro-manage the rules to the point where non-flavourful armies no longer exist.

Nonsense. GW has plenty of tools. They can remove non-fluffy options from the army list, impose prerequisites to take units (such as taking an appropriate HQ to unlock another unit), impose penalties for taking units (such as having a HQ choice make another unit 0-1 or even entirely unavailable), impose limits on how many of a particular unit you can take to eliminate spamming "rare" units, etc. And outside of those hard limits they can adjust the power level of units/combinations so that the fluffiest combinations are also the most appealing for gameplay reasons, which pushes even players who don't care much about fluff into playing fluffier armies.

The only reason GW doesn't do more to force everyone to use fluffy armies is their unbelievable laziness and incompetence.

Personally, I don't play against Forge World (most of the time), because I believe their dreary, humour-deprived fluff is fundamentally at odds with the more campy version of 40K I grew up with and made me fall in love with the game in the first place. I know many people see it differently. So the option of Forge World is there for people who like that style of 40K.

What does the fluff FW writes have to do with their rules? My IG army's fluff is exactly the same whether I have a LR Vanquisher (codex) or a LR Annihilator (fluff). Say what you want about the fluff/story sections of their books, but at least FW rules generally follow the design concept of the army and feel like a natural part of it. You can't really say the same for GW deciding that Black Templars and Tau are suddenly best friends and allowing you to play them together on the table.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Talore wrote:
Right, so I couldn't have a chapter of Space Marines join the Greater Good because some guy who doesn't care about the fluff didn't put the effort in to explain why his Black Templars are joining up with the Tau? The whole point here is that the possibilities DO exist, and that GW rules being inclusive rather than exclusive is a positive thing. "The standard" is only bad when the players make it bad.

So in essence you're saying there should be no allies restrictions at all then basically? Everyone should be able to be battle brothers with everyone?

If yes, then we've just got a fundamental disagreement about how the game should interact with the fluff. If no, then there certainly isn't any reason why the Space Marines should be more eager to join with Tau than with, say, the Sisters of Battle. Let's not forget the Tau work ceaselessely to undermine the Eastern Fringe while the SM's took part in a crusade which, if successful, would have led to the complete genocide of the Tau race. Seeing Tau as Battle Brothers with SM forces and other such sillyness is a real killer for the immersion, and lets face it, this game is what it is because of its fluff, not its rules.

The game is what it is because it promotes creativity.

If you don't think Space Marines and Tau go together well, don't do it.

If somebody has a cool idea that makes it work, why should there be restrictions to stop them?

That is the fundamental problem with restrictions, It only hinders people who would have an idea and want to go there, but can't because of the restriction. It does absolutely nothing to people who wouldn't use that combination in the first place, because they'd not make use of said combination, whether there is a formal restriction or not.

If the restrictions are gone, everyone wins. Those who don't like the combination, still don't have to use them (nobody is forcing you, after all). Those that do enjoy being creative, now can be.

As noted above, I've yet to see or hear of such things being done for creative reasons, instead pretty much exclusively just to plug gaps in capabilities or exploit unintended synergies. On top of that, if you're being creative, you're probably using the Warhammer 40,000 universe as a basis for which to be creative, and in this universe there's no reason why these two factions should be so closely aligned on a regular basis as to make them Battle Brothers as other Space Marine chapters or the Imperial Guard are. To me, it does more to ruin the creativity and immersion than to aid it most of the time in these instances. Maybe I'm just a grumpy fun vampire, that's just my take on it.

Yeah. IME, and I think this is the case, those who put their armies together with fluff in mind, almost always choose to go with a single army type or a natural ally like IG+SM. I'm a fluffy player - I like to have my Eldar all be Eldar because I want the fluff feel of Eldar. Adding in Tau would bother me as someone who is fluffy. It's the non-fluffy types who tend to throw in random allies, more than fluffy ones. Which undermines the whole notion that it doesn't undermine fluff but is an opportunity for fluffy creativity.

 Zweischneid wrote:
If everyone can use everything, the game is perfectly balanced.

No it isn't, because you're ignoring the difference between external balance and internal balance.

Reducing everything to "play whatever you want" solves the problem of external balance, by the rather inelegant solution of only having one "side" to play.

Reducing everything to "play whatever you want" does NOT solve the problem of internal balance, since having the entire pool of units available means you never have to play a lower-tier unit. Right now you have enforced diversity because no army has the best possible unit in every FOC slot. If you take DA because you love terminators you have to settle for having only a single Vendetta and make do with the mediocre DA flyers if you want AA. But if you eliminate all of the restrictions you'll just have all the DA players take 3x Vendettas and the DA flyers will never see play outside of "voluntarily cripple your list to teach the newbie how to play" games.

Plus, you're also ignoring the fact that balance is not the only important factor in having an interesting game. A game of "flip the coin" is perfectly balanced, but not at all interesting. To have an interesting wargame you want to have good balance, but you also want to have good diversity in strategies. For example, the fast aggressive army should have a roughly 50/50 chance of beating the static defensive army, but the two armies should have very different strategies. For example, the aggressive army should have to struggle with deciding how many points to devote to holding their "home" objectives while the rest of their army moves up to attack, while the defensive army should have a similar struggle in balancing optimal defense against the need to somehow get upfield and claim an objective or two before the game ends. And since neither army is very good at doing the other army's strategy they have to settle for less-than-ideal units and use skill to make them work. Letting everyone take everything destroys that diversity and you just have both players playing identical armies with the best defensive units holding their objectives and the best aggressive units assaulting the enemy.