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.

So me and my bro are playing Tau and Tyranids against a pair of Chaos Marines. On multiple occasions the opportunity came up where I could have used supporting fire in defense of some of his units but due to the fact that it couldn't be established whether or not that only worked for your own friendly units or a friendly player's units those opportunities were passed up. Does anyone have any incite as to whether or not I passed up the chance for some shooting or whether his objections were justified?

It's all friendly units.If his units are friendly (in a team they are) than you can supporting-fire.

There are no rules for games with more than two players in the main Rulebook.

You need discuss with your group (preferably before games rather than during) what level of alliance (page 112) you are considering the other player on your team.

The scenario you describe is outside of the Rule Book, as the book was not written with more then 2 players in mind. At this point the only correct answer that can be provided is 'it works however you and your opponents decide it works.' Anything else would be personal opinion and have just as much 'Rule Support' as any other House Rule, and therefore would not be something you could not force onto your opponents.

Personally, when it comes to Two Headed Dragon games, I would suggest using the allied table as a measuring stick when it comes to the two armies interacting with each other.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
If his units are friendly (in a team they are) than you can supporting-fire.

As has already been stated, this is not a rule.
The way I play team games is to treat my teammate's units the same way I would treat an AoC. This prevents shenanigans like a Rune Priest joining a Chaos Terminator squad (which would be legal if they were friendly). Your teammate should be an enemy that you can't target or attack, EVEN IF your two armies would have a better or worse relationship according to the allies matrix. Keeps one team from getting a nice bonus/penalty simply because of how teams are split up. If you want to use the allies matrix, then take an ally in your own list.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
If his units are friendly (in a team they are) than you can supporting-fire.

As has already been stated, this is not a rule.
The way I play team games is to treat my teammate's units the same way I would treat an AoC. This prevents shenanigans like a Rune Priest joining a Chaos Terminator squad (which would be legal if they were friendly). Your teammate should be an enemy that you can't target or attack, EVEN IF your two armies would have a better or worse relationship according to the allies matrix. Keeps one team from getting a nice bonus/penalty simply because of how teams are split up. If you want to use the allies matrix, then take an ally in your own list.

True, the only team battles I play are Apoc, so we just say that they are friendly units and play accordingly. I'm going to see if there is anything about this in the apoc book because it would be pretty good bench-mark.

Thanks for all the input guys. I can definitely understand the prevention of shenanigans but since were not mixing units or bringing ridiculousness to the field by allowing it I think i'm going to push for it in the future. If there's further objection then we might just roll off to determine whether or not it stands. I will definitely be keeping my eyes open for anything that would officially deny it though.

Bear in mind that "Allies of Convenience" are not treated as friendly units, but enemy.
"Desperate Allies" are not treated as friendly units, but enemy.
You're trying to use two armies that aren't even any of the above, and you want to treat them as friendly.
You see the problem there?

I do but in the case of a game where you end up partnered with an army you shouldn't be able to fight next to period do you think the allies chart is even relevant unless you are taking an ally in your personal army?

 MadDokRobertson wrote:
I do but in the case of a game where you end up partnered with an army you shouldn't be able to fight next to period do you think the allies chart is even relevant unless you are taking an ally in your personal army?

I think it's very relavent...to stop a whole mess of shenanigans and rules from being broken...

Seeing how the rules for Apocalypse say "use the chart, same codex is bb, cta is da"...

AS the rules do not cover more than 1-on-1 games(as has been said many times); HIWPI: Treat the 2 armies like allies(Only treating come the apocalypse as Desperate Allies)

 ductvader wrote:

 MadDokRobertson wrote:
I do but in the case of a game where you end up partnered with an army you shouldn't be able to fight next to period do you think the allies chart is even relevant unless you are taking an ally in your personal army?

I think it's very relavent...to stop a whole mess of shenanigans and rules from being broken...

Would you mind providing an example of such shenanigans?

Also I don't think it would be fair to any player to exclude them from a game because they aren't playing the right army. For Tau there are a whopping two battle brother armies and in Tyranids case it would be pretty much be play with other nids or play 1v1.

Personally if I was organising it would allow any armies to join up.
But I'd still use the allies matrix for determining if they're friendly or not.
Or just count all joined armies as non-friendly.

Using supporting fire of a Nids unit really seems a step too far.

 MadDokRobertson wrote:

 ductvader wrote:

 MadDokRobertson wrote:
I do but in the case of a game where you end up partnered with an army you shouldn't be able to fight next to period do you think the allies chart is even relevant unless you are taking an ally in your personal army?

I think it's very relavent...to stop a whole mess of shenanigans and rules from being broken...

Would you mind providing an example of such shenanigans?

Also I don't think it would be fair to any player to exclude them from a game because they aren't playing the right army. For Tau there are a whopping two battle brother armies and in Tyranids case it would be pretty much be play with other nids or play 1v1.

unfortunately both the fluff and gw don't like nid players....since you know...they have this habbit of eating anything that moves....they just aren't team players.

in terms of the supporting fire it can only ever effect friendlies, if you get paired with a non friendly that's just tough luck, this doesn't just effect Tau or you at the end of the day it effects everyone that is participating.

your only option is to treat such non-functioning pairings as the worst possible alliance and leave it at that, the allies matrix is as it is for a reason (in most cases.....why Tau are battle brothers with marines still puzzles me to this day but there you go)

reminds of the cheese you can do in 3 way games with quad guns.


"oh whats that sir, you didnt know i could intercept reserves from both of you?"

it only works that way because the game is not designed for more than 2 sides in a given fight.

in the case of a mixed doubles you treat each force as a single army with a primary and secondary acting as the allied detachment, it is often good practice to run tournaments in the format that all army compositions per player are restricted to a single codex so that the allies matrix, rules ect all come into effect for the army as a whole.

 Happyjew wrote:
Seeing how the rules for Apocalypse say "use the chart, same codex is bb, cta is da"...

Afaik, Apocalypse effectively says 'Everything is BB+'

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Seeing how the rules for Apocalypse say "use the chart, same codex is bb, cta is da"...

Afaik, Apocalypse effectively says 'Everything is BB+'

Nope. It says straight up follow the allies matrix. If it is the same codex (ie Eldar and Eldar), they are battle brothers. If the two units are Come the Apocalypse, they are Desperate Allies.