(zap123 @ Apr. 14 2007,09:43)

QUOTE

As I said before, I think the lists as they stand do a pretty decent job of keeping alliances sane.  Some tweaking might be warranted, but apart from the Necrons I haven't found anything in the lists yet that sounds too rediculous.  As noted, there are at least two bits of early fluff with IG and Orks fighting together that I can recall.  Chaos allying with IG should be out, but should be ok with the PDF (Cultists).  Tyranids allying with PDF should also be ok for the same reason.  Necrons rightly shouldn't be allowed to ally with anyone which is one change to the current rules I am an advocate for.

If we did go for the table approach it'd need tweaks.  There are a bunch of lists that aren't on that version, and at least one on there that doesn't have a list .  Couldn't see Harlies playing with DE, Squat and Eldar a twee dicy etc.

How about we develop the table and add it to the optionals for people who want to be more prescriptive about allies.

(Enderel @ Apr. 14 2007,10:14)

QUOTE

Green for go, then amber for cases where the alliance might not hold together.  Leave it blank for non allies.

Where they are amber it would need opponents consent to field them.

Plus it will have issues on the board itself with units refusing to take orders (each unit d6 roll of 1 means opponent decides orders for unit!) or having alteria motives (as part of campaign for example)

(gary_clark1946 @ Apr. 14 2007,17:46)

QUOTE

However, I just don't understand some peoples need to use any excuse to get what they think is an unbeatable army.

I am more of a collector than player (not by choice). The games I get are purely for enjoyment. Maybe I am just to old to worry about it.  

(primarch @ Apr. 14 2007,03:48)

QUOTE

Hi!

The issue of "allies" has been a bothersome one throughout the years. We have gone from no allies, to some, to complex mixes of this and that.

I guess the real question to all would be...

..should allies be permitted at all?

If so, what and whom should have them?

Let us take advantage of this thread to revisit and discuss this.

I consider this topic to be of such import that I will also post this question on the netepic mailing list.

Voice your opinions on this matter.

Primarch

(darkangel @ Apr. 14 2007,17:53)

QUOTE

(darkangel @ Apr. 14 2007,14:03)

QUOTE

[quote="darkangel,Apr. 14 2007,17:53"][/quote]
I have another question:

why does the ork land raider only cost 200 points and the marine 250?

when I look at the unit description from the squat land raider, then I read:"Squats have good relations with the Imperium and sometimes trade Land Raiders in return for their Praetorians." is this also ok for the imperium when the squats fight against the brave fighers of the imperium - the marines? very good relation, I think! I do not think so! but a least the costvalue is 300. that brings me a little bit down.

summary...orks 200,sqats 300 and the the constructor- the imperium - 250...something is wrong...and by th way..why was the costvalue of the marines landraider increased from 200 to 250...first I thought it is ok, because the land raider is a very good unit...but then I saw the costvalue is still 200 in a ork army...WHY, WHY, WHY?

(primarch @ Apr. 14 2007,20:40)

QUOTE

Hi!

So as not to use somewhat loaded terms as "tournament" or "scenario" (I guess only old epic hands can find such terms loaded.... ), I'd leave it as two alternatives:

1. No allies
2. Allies with two forms current and vanvlak table or a meld of both).

This would just need a simple addition and no major changes.

Is everyone on board/okay with this solution?

Primarch

(Enderel @ Apr. 14 2007,15:40)

QUOTE

I think the morale and break points are different as well?  Squat troops wouldn't break very quickly and would have excellent morale compared to Ork ones?