53939
Post by: vipoid
Corsair Princes have this rule:
"An ELdar Corsair detachment must include a Corsair Prince..." "A Corsair Prince must always be the army's Warlord."
But, there's also this
"Eldar Corsairs treat other forces as Desperate Allies and may be selected as an Allied Contingent for those armies as desperate allies."
The second part seems to imply that other races can take Corsair allies. But, surely this would only be possible if corsairs somehow weren't the primary detachment (otherwise they'd be taking the other race as allies)?
So, can you take Corsairs in an Allied Detachment to prevent the corsair prince from being your warlord?
105
Post by: Sarigar
Some of us are waiting for FW to address this as the two rules do not work together (IE: Corsair Prince must be Warlord but Allied Detachments cannot contain the Warlord).
5812
Post by: ibushi
My assumption would be that in an Allied Detachment the Prince would not be Warlord... but I can see how "codex trumps BRB" could be a factor.
If only FW changed the wording to "Prince must be the Warlord of the Primary Detachment".
90764
Post by: KingCorpus
Can't eldar corsairs be battle brothers with dark eldar??
18690
Post by: Jimsolo
Yes, I think that's correct.
53939
Post by: vipoid
They can - I just didn't want to quote the entire section.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
What part exactly allows you to use the Allied Detachment? You've not quoted that. So I see no reason to allow using the Corsair Prince in an Allied Detachment?
53939
Post by: vipoid
 FlingitNow wrote:What part exactly allows you to use the Allied Detachment? You've not quoted that. So I see no reason to allow using the Corsair Prince in an Allied Detachment?
"Eldar Corsairs treat other forces as Desperate Allies and may be selected as an Allied Contingent for those armies as desperate allies."
I know it says allied contingent, not detachment. but otherwise how can Corsairs ever be allies?
If the Corsair Prince has to be the warlord, then they'll always be the Primary Detachment - and everything else will be the allies.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Take a CAD of Corsair as allies? Any Corsair Formations if there are any.
53939
Post by: vipoid
Which has to take a Corsair Prince.
Who has to be the Warlord.
Ergo, that CAD is automatically a Primary detachment - not an allies one.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Why would the CAD not be allies?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
You are aware that Allies is a unit level rule not a Detachment level rule right?
53939
Post by: vipoid
Because it would be the primary detachment.
FlingitNow wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
You are aware that Allies is a unit level rule not a Detachment level rule right?
I'm not sure what you mean here.
How exactly can the Primary Detachment also be allies? Is it allying with itself? 
14
Post by: Ghaz
They're still allied to each other.
53939
Post by: vipoid
But surely the corsairs aren't an "allied contingent"? The allies are the contingent(s) that aren't the primary one.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
 vipoid wrote:But surely the corsairs aren't an "allied contingent"? The allies are the contingent(s) that aren't the primary one.
Got a quote to support the underlined as I can't find that in the rules.
20963
Post by: Kommissar Kel
Allies and allied contingent are the same thing.
An Allied Detachment is a different thing.
An "Allied Detachment" is the specific detachment found in the brb.
Allies or an allied contingent is simply the relationship between any 2 detachments.
2 CADs of dark eldar are allies(or allied contingents) to each other.
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
The rule in question implicitly states when the prince must be warlord hence you can field the army as an allied detachment.
53939
Post by: vipoid
Not even close.
'Allies' describes the relation between 2 armies.
'Allied contingent' refers to a particular force of allies, separate from the main or primary force. e.g. If I have an Eldar army with Dark Eldar allies, they are both allies but only the Dark Eldar are an allied contingent.
Likewise, since the Corsair Prince has to be your warlord, his detachment will always be your primary one. Any other detachments will be allied contingents.
 Kommissar Kel wrote:
An Allied Detachment is a different thing.
An "Allied Detachment" is the specific detachment found in the brb.
Usually correct, but this case presents an unusual problem - in that any detachment other than an allied detachment one can't be an allied contingent.
Kommissar Kel wrote:
Allies or an allied contingent is simply the relationship between any 2 detachments.
See above.
Nope. One is your main/primary force, the other is an allied contingent.
 Dozer Blades wrote:The rule in question implicitly states when the prince must be warlord hence you can field the army as an allied detachment.
Could you elaborate on this?
14
Post by: Ghaz
And you have rules to back this up? Page and paragraph will suffice.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Nope. One is your main/primary force, the other is an allied contingent.
Again I'm going to ask for a quote to support this. You've made this claim several times now, so you must have some support for it some where. Page and paragraph please.
15582
Post by: blaktoof
You can't take corsairs as an allied detachment if it has a corsairs Prince.
Because the corsair Prince must be the warlord.
There may be corsair hqs which are not corsair Prince...
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Allied contingent != allied detachment, vipoid.
20963
Post by: Kommissar Kel
Vipoid: you have both claimed that an allied contingent is the same thing as an "Allied Detachment"(the specific name of the specific detachment in the brb) and that a second Combined Arms Detachment is the same thing as an allied contingent in the same post.
I think perhaps you are very confused about what is going on.
53939
Post by: vipoid
FlingitNow wrote: Nope. One is your main/primary force, the other is an allied contingent.
Again I'm going to ask for a quote to support this. You've made this claim several times now, so you must have some support for it some where. Page and paragraph please.
Your army very specifically has a primary detachment. This is your main force, to which you can add other detachments. It cannot possibly be an allied contingent, unless you're claiming that it's allied with itself. You can take allied contingents to support it, but these do not turn your primary force into an allied contingent - it is still your primary force with your army's agreed leader.
Kommissar Kel wrote:Vipoid: you have both claimed that an allied contingent is the same thing as an "Allied Detachment"(the specific name of the specific detachment in the brb) and that a second Combined Arms Detachment is the same thing as an allied contingent in the same post.
No I didn't.
Please come back when you have an argument and not a barn full of straw.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
So no rules then? Can safely close this thread then, as your case was disproven long ago
If I have two cads they are allies of each. They just aren't using the Allied Detachment. You seem condpfused - maybe reread the basics of this, page 116 from memory, and come back if this is stil a struggle to understand?
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Your army very specifically has a primary detachment. This is your main force, to which you can add other detachments. It cannot possibly be an allied contingent, unless you're claiming that it's allied with itself. You can take allied contingents to support it, but these do not turn your primary force into an allied contingent - it is still your primary force with your army's agreed leader.
Yes you have a Primary Detachment. If you take another Detachment, the Primary Detachment and that Detachment are Allied Contingents to each other. The allies rules are two ways and are unit level, so even within a single Detachment the units treat each others as allies. Thus if you have 2 units in a Detachment it be accurate by the rules to call them each allied contingents to each other.
53939
Post by: vipoid
nosferatu1001 wrote:So no rules then? Can safely close this thread then, as your case was disproven long ago
Disproved by no rules whatsoever. Got you.
FlingitNow wrote:
Yes you have a Primary Detachment. If you take another Detachment, the Primary Detachment and that Detachment are Allied Contingents to each other.
Do you have even a shred of evidence for this?
Or have you decided that this thread is a perfect time to start a war on the meaning of meaning?
" Eldar Corsairs treat other forces as Desperate Allies and may be selected as an Allied Contingent for those armies as desperate allies."
Why even list both of these when, according to you, they amount to the exact same thing?
FlingitNow wrote: The allies rules are two ways and are unit level, so even within a single Detachment the units treat each others as allies.
Correct.
FlingitNow wrote: Thus if you have 2 units in a Detachment it be accurate by the rules to call them each allied contingents to each other.
Again, you're just making stuff up. The fact that 2 armies are allies does not mean that both are allied contingents to one another. One is the main force, the other is the allied contingent.
Unless you have a quote from the rulebook stating that this is the case?
Hell, forget the rulebook, show me a single historical example of an army made up exclusively of "allied contingents".
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Again, you're just making stuff up. The fact that 2 armies are allies does not mean that both are allied contingents to one another. One is the main force, the other is the allied contingent.
There is no rules definition of contingent. So you use normal English. There is a rules definition of allies that not only doesn't prohibit it including the Primary Detachment units but indeed requires them to follow it. Do you have any rules to back up your claim that the allies rules don't apply to the Primary Detachment or do you have a rules definition of Allied Contingents that prohibits it referring to the Primary Detachment?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for why the wording of the rules has some redundancy that is because they were written for 6th Ed. 7th ed changed the allies system entirely.
53939
Post by: vipoid
FlingitNow wrote:
There is no rules definition of contingent. So you use normal English.
I am. You don't have an army made up entirely of 'allied contingents'. It's just nonsensical.
FlingitNow wrote: There is a rules definition of allies that not only doesn't prohibit it including the Primary Detachment units but indeed requires them to follow it.
But you can't just ignore 'contingent', which is exactly what you're doing.
FlingitNow wrote:Do you have any rules to back up your claim that the allies rules don't apply to the Primary Detachment
I find it ironic that you keep asking me for evidence, but I've yet to see you provide even a shred of evidence to back up your claim. 
In any case, I didn't say that the allies rules didn't apply to the primary detachment. I just said that it wasn't an allied contingent. The allied contingents are the non-primary detachments. They are your army's contingent(s) of allies. It's literally what the term means.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
I am. You don't have an army made up entirely of 'allied contingents'. It's just nonsensical.
Why is 2 contingents allied to each other forming an army nonsensical?
53939
Post by: vipoid
FlingitNow wrote:
Why is 2 contingents allied to each other forming an army nonsensical?
Because that would only work if there was no primary force or leader, and each detachment was commanded separately. That isn't the case.
You have a primary detachment with a warlord who commands your entire army. Your primary detachment is his main force, why would he think of it as an allied contingent?
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Why does primary Detachment and overall commander make a difference to that?
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Great, so you still have no rules to suggest your conflation of allied contingent and allied detachment has any basis whatsoever. Gotcha.
The rules are redundant. Unless you use an allied detachment, when the requirement to be the warlord will be a problem.
53939
Post by: vipoid
nosferatu1001 wrote:Great, so you still have no rules to suggest your conflation of allied contingent and allied detachment has any basis whatsoever. Gotcha.
You mean aside from the wording of the rule itself, the English language and common sense?
Which, by the way, is three more pieces of evidence than I've heard from you.
FlingitNow wrote:Why does primary Detachment and overall commander make a difference to that?
Because it means the army has a central body and a central leader - it's not just a mess of allies with different commanders.
It means your army has an official centre and commander. Let's say you have a Primary Detachment of Eldar, led by a Farseer Warlord, and then you have some Harlequin allies and some DE allies.
The Farseer is going to think in terms of the pieces he has to play with - namely his own army and then his allied contingents (in this case the harlequins and DE). The Eldar themselves aren't an allied contingent. They are allied with the others (just as the others are allied to them), but they are not an allied contingent. They are the main army. They are what the DE and Harlequins are allied contingents of.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
So still no rules to support the idea that a Primary Detachment can't be an allied contingent. Just waffle about how the commander of the Primary Detachment will view the other detachments. How will say the Archos in the Dark Elgar army view the Elgar Detachment?
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
1) the wording of the rule talks about allied contingents. You keep talking about allied detachments, as if they are the same things. They're not.
And that's your argument destroyed. Done. You only haven t heard any evidence because you refuse to listen.
Detachments are allies to each other. The rule requires you to always have the corsair being the warlord. Absolutely nothing whatsoever in that allows you to take a corsair prince in an AD, as you have no permission to override the ADs restriction
53939
Post by: vipoid
nosferatu1001 wrote:1) the wording of the rule talks about allied contingents. You keep talking about allied detachments, as if they are the same things. They're not.
I never said they were. Feel free to stop putting words in my mouth any time you like.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
And that's your argument destroyed. Done. You only haven t heard any evidence because you refuse to listen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
I don't recall claiming otherwise.
nosferatu1001 wrote:The rule requires you to always have the corsair being the warlord. Absolutely nothing whatsoever in that allows you to take a corsair prince in an AD, as you have no permission to override the ADs restriction
Sorry, could you explain what you mean here? You say that I can't take a Corsair Prince in an AD... are you saying I can take other Corsair HQs in one?
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
A corsair prince was the only one I could see that had the requirement to be the warlord. So other HQ can be taken in an AD. Nothing lets you take the Prince in an ad however- his rule is a restriction, so does not override the ad restriction.
53939
Post by: vipoid
nosferatu1001 wrote:A corsair prince was the only one I could see that had the requirement to be the warlord. So other HQ can be taken in an AD. Nothing lets you take the Prince in an ad however- his rule is a restriction, so does not override the ad restriction.
But, what about the requirement that every Corsair Detachment must contain a Corsair Prince?
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Page 158:
"...must be chosen as the army's warlord and all other Corsair Detachments that include a corsair prince treat models from different Corsair Detachments as Desperate Allies."
So you need 1 prince, but as long as you have one prince that can be the warlord, you can then have other Corsair detachments - such as one built using the AD - as that prince won't need to be the warlord.
53939
Post by: vipoid
Sorry, perhaps I'm just being thick, but I don't understand the relevance of that quote to the question I asked.
You've said that I can't include a Corsair Prince in an allied detachment because it breaks the rule that he must always be your warlord.
But, if I take a Corsair Allied Detachment with a different HQ, then I'm instead breaking the rule that every Corsair Detachment must contain a Corsair Prince.
Why is it acceptable to break that rule, but not the warlord one?
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
The relevance is that the word contingent doesn't appear for the princes rule, so all that waffle about contingent and detachment is just that,,waffle. You can be Allied to someone stand still be the primary detachment.
I said AS LONG AS you have one orince thatbCAN be the warlord, you can have another prince in an AD that therefore does not have to be the warlord. But, to take a prince at all, a prince must be the warlord. Two plus princes you have the option of taking an AD for one of the princes.
I'm not telling you to ignore the rule, I'd missed the requirement for one prince was still there.
53939
Post by: vipoid
nosferatu1001 wrote:The relevance is that the word contingent doesn't appear, so all that waffle about contingent and detachment is just that,,waffle
I guess reading rules on two different pages was too much for you.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
I said AS LONG AS you have one orince thatbCAN be the warlord, you can have another prince in an AD that therefore does not have to be the warlord. But, to take a prince at all, a prince must be the warlord. Two plus princes you have the option of taking an AD for one of the princes.
An allied detachment cannot be the same faction as your primary detachment. So, given that one of your corsair princes will always have to be your warlord (thus making Corsairs your primary detachment), can you see the problem here?
I love how you accuse me of waffle, then proceed to demonstrate that you haven't got a clue what you're talking about rulewise.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
I'm not telling you to ignore the rule, I'd missed the requirement for one prince was still there.
Indeed - you've now moved on to telling me to break yet another rule.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Read edits, maybe
Ok, so replace ad with a cad or two. One prince is in an allied contingent, one is the warlord in the primary, but still allied contingent, detachment.
Still struggling to see your problem, but frankly I can no longer be bothered to help. You seem confused and cannot clearly state your problem, despite best efforts.
The rules are surprisingly clear.
53939
Post by: vipoid
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ok, so replace ad with a cad or two. One prince is in an allied contingent, one is the warlord in the primary, but still allied contingent, detachment.
So, how exactly does that make them an allied contingent to a different race?
All I'm seeing is Corsairs with an allied contingent of Corsairs.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Still struggling to see your problem, but frankly I can no longer be bothered to help.
Dear me. You mean I might have to get by without your condescension and ignorance? Excuse me if I don't rush off to get the anti-depressants.
As you've demonstrated by first advising me to break 2 of them in turn, and then completely misreading them so that you can pretend your "solution" actually solves something.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Then restate your actual issue, as so far you've danced all over the place.
Why is the different race important? Every detachment has an ally status, even to the same faction .
Or don't. As frankly even your op doesn't actually state a problem, or question, and your responses are less than helpful.
Ok, having reread your mess of posts, which conflate and confuse terms such as allies , detachment and contingent, you stil seem to think that there is a Prinary detachment and any other detachment is an Ally to that primary. Which is of course utter nonsense every detachment in your army is an ally to every other detachment. Meaning the rule on page 153 simply overrides the normal ally matrix just for corsairs allied with other corsairs. It does nothing else, and in no way interacts with the rule on page 158'which requires that, if you take a prince he is your warlord. Any other prince you take doesn't have to be your warlord, so can be from a cad or the raiding company or anything bar an AD (keep harping on about that utterly irrelevant mistake all you want, it's boring as all hell though) , and you can have any other Faction you like allied as well, as long as you don't take something here that must also be the warlord.
53939
Post by: vipoid
No, I've been entirely consistent. But since you apparently never bothered reading my original post, I'll try again.
It goes back to this quote in the ally section:
" Eldar Corsairs treat other forces as Desperate Allies and may be selected as an Allied Contingent for those armies as desperate allies."
I get the first part. If my primary detachment is Corsairs, then I can take any of the races not already mentioned as desperate allies. Fine.
It's the second part that confuses me. The first part already tells us that corsairs can take other races as allies, so what does the second part refer to? Because every corsair detachment is forced to contain a corsair prince, who in turn is forced to be your warlord, there will never be a situation where you can have a different race as a primary detachment and then take corsair allies for them. Unless, of course, you're allowed to take an allied detachment - which would prevent the corsair prince from being your warlord and thus allow the other race to remain the primary detachment.
With that in mind, I was asking if you could take Corsairs in an allied detachment specifically to avoid having to make a corsair prince your warlord.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Or don't. As frankly even your op doesn't actually state a problem, or question
It did originally. I think I must have edited it by mistake.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
No, because as stated, he must be your warlord. That is a restriction. There is no permission in the AD that overrides that restriction.
You realise without that second part then you would not know how to treat the corsairs, from the PoV of the other faction? The relationship is not required to be symettric; it's possible for faction A to treat B as battle brothers, but for B to treat A as desperate allies as a silly example.
I did read your op. It just made no sense.
53939
Post by: vipoid
nosferatu1001 wrote:No, because as stated, he must be your warlord. That is a restriction. There is no permission in the AD that overrides that restriction.
Okay, that's fine.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
You realise without that second part then you would not know how to treat the corsairs, from the PoV of the other faction? The relationship is not required to be symettric; it's possible for faction A to treat B as battle brothers, but for B to treat A as desperate allies as a silly example.
Are there any actual examples of this? I thought races always treated each other the same.
If you mean the one that's currently there, I know. It was a reply to someone else in this thread. I think I meant to edit my original post just to copy/quote something, but must have put the reply there by mistake. I could change it back but it seems a bit redundant when you've already answered my question.
EDIT: Hopefully the OP makes sense now.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Its why the allies chart in the main rulebook is a full chart, and is mirrored.
There is no inate rule that states a faction must treat another faction the same way the other faction treats them.
53939
Post by: vipoid
nosferatu1001 wrote:Its why the allies chart in the main rulebook is a full chart, and is mirrored.
There is no inate rule that states a faction must treat another faction the same way the other faction treats them.
Yes there is. It's in the individual ally rules:
"Units from the same army that are Battle Brothers treat each other as ‘friendly units’ for all rules purposes."
"Units from the same army that are Allies of Convenience treat each other as ‘enemy units’ that cannot be charged, shot, attacked in close combat, or targeted with psychic powers."
(Emphasis mine).
It is very clear that the level of allegiance works both ways. if DE considers Eldar Battle Brothers, then they treat each other as Battle Brothers. If Corsairs consider Orks Desperate Allies, then they treat each other as Desperate Allies. There is no possible way for two races to have different levels of allegiance.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Then the ally chart is redundant. As is this rule.
GW (and FW) are great at writing redundant rules. Again, theyre still utterly clear and unambiguous, and what you said you want to do (taking an AD with prince to avoid making him the warlord) jsut isnt possible, regardless of the desperate allies rules.
53939
Post by: vipoid
nosferatu1001 wrote:Then the ally chart is redundant. As is this rule.
GW (and FW) are great at writing redundant rules. Again, theyre still utterly clear and unambiguous, and what you said you want to do (taking an AD with prince to avoid making him the warlord) jsut isnt possible, regardless of the desperate allies rules.
Fair enough.
67792
Post by: DarkPhoenix
So, corsairs can't be allied detachment?
Cos BRB says warlord can NEVER be from this detachment.
Does prince override this restriction in such dubious way?
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
No, as pointed out the requirement that the Prince is the warlord is a RESTRICTION and NOT permission. It cannot override the AD RESTRICTION.
53939
Post by: vipoid
If the Corsair Prince overrode the AD restriction (making him your warlord anyway), it would also cause a mess of further problems - since you'd then be breaking the rule that an AD can never be your primary detachment.
67792
Post by: DarkPhoenix
nosferatu1001 wrote:No, as pointed out the requirement that the Prince is the warlord is a RESTRICTION and NOT permission. It cannot override the AD RESTRICTION.
Makes sense, but i dont remember anywehere in rules that says restrictions cannot override another restrictions (or even defines princes ability as "restriction")
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
It is taking away an ability you normally have - to choose your own warlord. That meets the definition of a restriction
In order to override a restriction in a permissive system, you must be permitted to do so. Its how the game is constructed.
67792
Post by: DarkPhoenix
Or i might say that Prince were never the candidate to begin with, because of the formation restriction.
Tho i think that "you cant take corsairs as allied detachment" is correct way.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
He MUST be the warlord. Therefore you cannot use a detacment that states he cannot be the warlord. Its that simple.
67792
Post by: DarkPhoenix
But he can NEVER be warlord if taken as part of the detachment.
And it does not say anything about disallowing any detachments if he can not.
Detachment thing is RESTRICTION, not REQUIREMENT.
Choosing the warlord comes after.
Same thing as if part of unit got shot and now they are out of coherency. They MUST be in coherency, but too bad.
53939
Post by: vipoid
On a related note then, what are your thoughts regarding Barons?
They have this ability - "Tyrant: A Corsair Baron must be assigned to a friendly Troops or Elites unit chosen from the Eldar Corsairs army list at the start of the game and may not leave this unit during play. If using the Corsair Raiders Force Organization Chart, a Corsair Baron must be assigned to a unit chosen from the same Coterie. No more than one Corsair Baron may be assigned to any single unit, and a Cloud Dancer Baron may only be assigned to a Cloud Dancer unit."
Here's my question, are you allowed to build a list where a baron has no unit that he can legally join (e.g. you make him a Cloud Dancer but don't include any Cloud Dancer units)?
67792
Post by: DarkPhoenix
vipoid wrote:On a related note then, what are your thoughts regarding Barons?
They have this ability - "Tyrant: A Corsair Baron must be assigned to a friendly Troops or Elites unit chosen from the Eldar Corsairs army list at the start of the game and may not leave this unit during play. If using the Corsair Raiders Force Organization Chart, a Corsair Baron must be assigned to a unit chosen from the same Coterie. No more than one Corsair Baron may be assigned to any single unit, and a Cloud Dancer Baron may only be assigned to a Cloud Dancer unit."
Here's my question, are you allowed to build a list where a baron has no unit that he can legally join (e.g. you make him a Cloud Dancer but don't include any Cloud Dancer units)?
I wonder.
What will happen if jetprince/baron get peril and get pinned? Jetbikes cannot be pinned or go to ground. From what i remember it says something like "Treated as if failed pinning check". I assume he get pinned, but then Going to Ground prevent moving/running/charging - not turbo boosting.
53939
Post by: vipoid
I believe 'cannot be pinned' would override it, so auto-failing a pinning test still wouldn't affect them.
That said, I wonder whether or not Fearless would help? It says that you auto-pass pinning tests, but in this case you're treated as though you'd failed the test.
67792
Post by: DarkPhoenix
vipoid wrote:I believe 'cannot be pinned' would override it, so auto-failing a pinning test still wouldn't affect them.
That said, I wonder whether or not Fearless would help? It says that you auto-pass pinning tests, but in this case you're treated as though you'd failed the test.
Well, Fearless cannot Go to Ground, so that probably would save them.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
DarkPhoenix - so you are building a list that is illegal. Which you cannot do - you are brekaing a rule. The game doesnt function when you break rules, obviously
Similarly he MUST be assigned, if you cannot comply you cannot take the unit.
53939
Post by: vipoid
But that's the point - it doesn't come up until after the list has already been built and you've moved on to deployment.
You might be right, it just seems really weird to me. At time of building, the list hasn't broken a single rule.
67792
Post by: DarkPhoenix
nosferatu1001 wrote:DarkPhoenix - so you are building a list that is illegal. Which you cannot do - you are brekaing a rule. The game doesnt function when you break rules, obviously
Similarly he MUST be assigned, if you cannot comply you cannot take the unit.
Models in the unit MUST be in coherency. So if part of my unit get shot and i cant have them in coherency at the end of the movement phase then my movement is illegal? So i get disqualified?
Surely, for coherency it have amendment that they must run and whataver, but the rule says MUST end in coherency.
List is perfecly legal, its just one of the abilities cannot be fulfilled. Otherwise saying is like saying that you cant shoot pinning weapon at jetbikes, cos they CANNOT go to ground, ergo this move is illegal.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
vipoid wrote:
But that's the point - it doesn't come up until after the list has already been built and you've moved on to deployment.
You might be right, it just seems really weird to me. At time of building, the list hasn't broken a single rule.
Same as buildiong a no-character list in 6th. You've built a list that cannot be played as you have broken a rule Automatically Appended Next Post: DarkPhoenix wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:DarkPhoenix - so you are building a list that is illegal. Which you cannot do - you are brekaing a rule. The game doesnt function when you break rules, obviously
Similarly he MUST be assigned, if you cannot comply you cannot take the unit.
Models in the unit MUST be in coherency. So if part of my unit get shot and i cant have them in coherency at the end of the movement phase then my movement is illegal? So i get disqualified?
Surely, for coherency it have amendment that they must run and whataver, but the rule says MUST end in coherency.
List is perfecly legal, its just one of the abilities cannot be fulfilled. Otherwise saying is like saying that you cant shoot pinning weapon at jetbikes, cos they CANNOT go to ground, ergo this move is illegal.
No, at the end of their move they must be in coherency. Try reading the actual rules when making an argument, otherwise it further reduces your credibility.
You can shoot pinning weapons. The bikes cannot fail the resulting pinning test. Thats it.
53939
Post by: vipoid
But that's the whole point, I *haven't* broken any rules. I have followed the army-building rules to the letter. The list is entirely legal. There is no requirement that every Corsair detachment must include an eligible unit for each Baron to join.
67792
Post by: DarkPhoenix
nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, at the end of their move they must be in coherency. Try reading the actual rules when making an argument, otherwise it further reduces your credibility.
You can shoot pinning weapons. The bikes cannot fail the resulting pinning test. Thats it.
You can take detachment. Prince just cannot be warlord. Thats it.
Try reading the my post when making an argument, otherwise it further reduces your credibility.
Because you said "No" then exactly what i said.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
DarkPhoenix wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, at the end of their move they must be in coherency. Try reading the actual rules when making an argument, otherwise it further reduces your credibility.
You can shoot pinning weapons. The bikes cannot fail the resulting pinning test. Thats it.
You can take detachment. Prince just cannot be warlord. Thats it.
Try reading the my post when making an argument, otherwise it further reduces your credibility.
Because you said "No" then exactly what i said.
But the Prince has to be warlord so you've broken a rule. Breaking rules and following them are not the same thing.
53939
Post by: vipoid
How is that breaking a rule? You didn't choose to ignore the Prince's rule but were forced to by the allied detachment's rules.
At most, you've created a rules conflict in which one rule has to be overridden.
EDIT: Just found this on a different page: "The Eldar Corsair army list may only use the Combines Arms, Allied Detachment, or Corsair Fleet Raiding Company Force Organisation Charts."
99970
Post by: EnTyme
What's the point in building a list that can't be legally played? For display? Fine. Go ahead and do that. I swear, the most frustrating part of this forum is how many people default to the "Air Bud Defense" (There's no rule stating I can't do it, so I can do it).
53939
Post by: vipoid
 EnTyme wrote:What's the point in building a list that can't be legally played?
Who says it can't be legally played?
EnTyme wrote: I swear, the most frustrating part of this forum is how many people default to the "Air Bud Defense" (There's no rule stating I can't do it, so I can do it).
Indeed, What a bastard I am for making a legal list and expecting to be able to use it.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
Are there any other considerations in the Prince's rule? Such as being in the Primary Detachment? Some other rules that are setup this way have this stipulation.
53939
Post by: vipoid
Charistoph wrote:Are there any other considerations in the Prince's rule? Such as being in the Primary Detachment? Some other rules that are setup this way have this stipulation.
The rules are:
- Every Corsair Detachment must include 1 Corsair Prince.
- No detachment may include more than 1 Corsair Prince.
- The Corsair Prince must be the army's warlord (if there are multiple Princes, you pick one of them to be your Warlord).
- If an army contains multiple Corsair Princes, each detachment with a Corsair Prince treats the others as Desperate Allies.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
Would a full quote of the Corsair Prince's rule be out of line? I don't think it has been anything but just referenced up to this point.
53939
Post by: vipoid
Charistoph wrote:Would a full quote of the Corsair Prince's rule be out of line? I don't think it has been anything but just referenced up to this point.
Sure:
"An Eldar Corsair detachment must include a Corsair Prince and may not include more than one Corsair Prince. A Corsair Prince must always be the army's Warlord. In an army featuring multiple Corsair detachments, one Corsair Prince of the owning player's choice must be chosen as the army's Warlord and all other Corsair Detachments that include a Corsair Prince treat models from different Corsair detachments as Desperate Allies."
95922
Post by: Charistoph
vipoid wrote:Charistoph wrote:Would a full quote of the Corsair Prince's rule be out of line? I don't think it has been anything but just referenced up to this point.
Sure:
"An Eldar Corsair detachment must include a Corsair Prince and may not include more than one Corsair Prince. A Corsair Prince must always be the army's Warlord. In an army featuring multiple Corsair detachments, one Corsair Prince of the owning player's choice must be chosen as the army's Warlord and all other Corsair Detachments that include a Corsair Prince treat models from different Corsair detachments as Desperate Allies."
Thank you. I have noticed that some synopsizes tend to leave out or ignore critical details (like Shrike's rule about who he can join), so it helps to have the full rule.
Though, it looks like your synopsis was correct and didn't leave much out. It honestly looks like we have several incompatible rules here since there is no way that this rule can be fulfilled and have an Allied Detachment of Corsair Eldar. Unless you think that the AD restrictions overrides the "must always be the army's Warlord", which Basic vs Advanced would then say it does not.
37809
Post by: Kriswall
So, to summarize (and make sure I understand this)...
1. Every Corsairs Detachment must contain a Corsair Prince.
2. You can have as many Corsairs Detachments as you want, but each one of them must contain a Corsair Prince.
3. If your army has one or more Corsair Princes, one of them MUST be the Warlord.
4. Different Corsairs Detachments treat each other as Desperate Allies.
5. Corsairs can ally to other Factions (redundant info as every Faction can ally to all other Factions), but treats all Factions as Desperate Allies.
6. Because a Corsair Prince must be the Warlord AND the fact that no model in an Allied Detachment can share a Faction with the Warlord, the rules prevent us from ever choosing a Corsairs Allied Detachment.
Sound about right? The rules seem pretty straightforward here. There does not seem to be an existing permission to ignore the restrictions on the Allied Detachment.
53939
Post by: vipoid
 Kriswall wrote:So, to summarize (and make sure I understand this)...
1. Every Corsairs Detachment must contain a Corsair Prince.
2. You can have as many Corsairs Detachments as you want, but each one of them must contain a Corsair Prince.
3. If your army has one or more Corsair Princes, one of them MUST be the Warlord.
4. Different Corsairs Detachments treat each other as Desperate Allies.
5. Corsairs can ally to other Factions (redundant info as every Faction can ally to all other Factions), but treats all Factions as Desperate Allies.
6. Because a Corsair Prince must be the Warlord AND the fact that no model in an Allied Detachment can share a Faction with the Warlord, the rules prevent us from ever choosing a Corsairs Allied Detachment.
Sound about right? The rules seem pretty straightforward here. There does not seem to be an existing permission to ignore the restrictions on the Allied Detachment.
Two points:
1) If the AD prevents the Corsair Prince from being your warlord, most of the above ceases to be a problem - as you can now select a Corsair AD for a different faction.
2) Corsairs specifically say that they can be taken as an allied detachment: "The Eldar Corsair army list may only use the Combines Arms, Allied Detachment, or Corsair Fleet Raiding Company Force Organisation Charts."
Charistoph wrote:
Thank you. I have noticed that some synopsizes tend to leave out or ignore critical details (like Shrike's rule about who he can join), so it helps to have the full rule.
Though, it looks like your synopsis was correct and didn't leave much out. It honestly looks like we have several incompatible rules here since there is no way that this rule can be fulfilled and have an Allied Detachment of Corsair Eldar. Unless you think that the AD restrictions overrides the "must always be the army's Warlord", which Basic vs Advanced would then say it does not.
The trouble is, if the Corsair Prince overrides the AD rule, you're then breaking the rule that the AD can't be your primary detachment and also the rule that it has to be a different faction to your primary detachment. In fact, it now needs to be a different faction to itself.
I don't know if it matters, but having the AD override the Corsair Prince at least leads to fewer rules being broken. Call it the path of least resistance. 
But, as you say, this goes against both basic vs advanced (not to mention codex vs rulebook).
Just to add a last heap of confusion, let's say we agreed that AD trumps Corsair Prince. Well, in that case, could you make an argument that an AD need not include a Corsair Prince at all? (effectively breaking the 'every detachment must include a corsair prince' rule instead of the 'corsair prince must be your army's warlord' rule). i.e. you're breaking a 'must' rule either way, so can you choose which one gets broken?
15582
Post by: blaktoof
as you arrange units into formations detachments, and not the other way around, you cannot arrange any corsair prince units into an Allied Detachment in this case, so you never have the option to take an allied detachment in this case.
53939
Post by: vipoid
blaktoof wrote:as you arrange units into formations detachments, and not the other way around, you cannot arrange any corsair prince units into an Allied Detachment in this case, so you never have the option to take an allied detachment in this case.
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean here.
37809
Post by: Kriswall
vipoid wrote: Kriswall wrote:So, to summarize (and make sure I understand this)...
1. Every Corsairs Detachment must contain a Corsair Prince.
2. You can have as many Corsairs Detachments as you want, but each one of them must contain a Corsair Prince.
3. If your army has one or more Corsair Princes, one of them MUST be the Warlord.
4. Different Corsairs Detachments treat each other as Desperate Allies.
5. Corsairs can ally to other Factions (redundant info as every Faction can ally to all other Factions), but treats all Factions as Desperate Allies.
6. Because a Corsair Prince must be the Warlord AND the fact that no model in an Allied Detachment can share a Faction with the Warlord, the rules prevent us from ever choosing a Corsairs Allied Detachment.
Sound about right? The rules seem pretty straightforward here. There does not seem to be an existing permission to ignore the restrictions on the Allied Detachment.
Two points:
1) If the AD prevents the Corsair Prince from being your warlord, most of the above ceases to be a problem - as you can now select a Corsair AD for a different faction.
2) Corsairs specifically say that they can be taken as an allied detachment: "The Eldar Corsair army list may only use the Combines Arms, Allied Detachment, or Corsair Fleet Raiding Company Force Organisation Charts."
My take is...
1)The AD clearly prevents any of it's member models from being the Warlord. It does not seem to give permission to ignore the requirement that one of your army's Corsair Princes be the Warlord if you have one present. As such, it still seems a violation of the rules to take an Allied Detachment of Corsairs as you'd create a situation where you have at least one Corsair, but he's not your Warlord.
2)Semantically... not quite true. We're just told that we can only use Combined Arms, Allied and Corsair Fleet Raiding Company Detachments when we build a list. Practically speaking, other rule interactions (namely the Corsair Prince and the Allied Detachment restrictions) narrow this list even further to only Combined Arms and Corsair Fleet Raiding Companies. This just seems to be bad writing. It's like telling someone who is allergic to nuts that they can either have a Turkey, Roast Beef or PB&J sandwich for lunch. Sure, you're giving them the option to eat a PB&J, but if they try, they break a different rule (the allergy) and the game (his life) comes to a hard stop.
GW either intends for us to be able to take an Allied Detachment of Corsairs where the Prince doesn't have to the your Warlord and wrote the rules wrong OR they don't intend for us to able to take Allied Detachments and simply added them to the list of POTENTIAL Detachments by accident.
Either way, RaW doesn't seem to support a Corsairs Allied Detachment.
53939
Post by: vipoid
Kriswall wrote:
My take is...
1)The AD clearly prevents any of it's member models from being the Warlord. It does not seem to give permission to ignore the requirement that one of your army's Corsair Princes be the Warlord if you have one present. As such, it still seems a violation of the rules to take an Allied Detachment of Corsairs as you'd create a situation where you have at least one Corsair, but he's not your Warlord.
That seems a bit dicey to me. All you've done is chosen what should be a perfectly valid detachment for corsairs (which is specifically mentioned as one of the detachments they can take) and then attempted to follow the rules for building a Corsair list. You haven't even chosen a single model yet, but your list is already illegal to the point where you need to start over with a different detachment.
It's a bit like saying that you can't fire lance weapons at a unit with quantum shielding because it will cause a rules conflict. 
Kriswall wrote:
2)Semantically... not quite true. We're just told that we can only use Combined Arms, Allied and Corsair Fleet Raiding Company Detachments when we build a list. Practically speaking, other rule interactions (namely the Corsair Prince and the Allied Detachment restrictions) narrow this list even further to only Combined Arms and Corsair Fleet Raiding Companies. This just seems to be bad writing. It's like telling someone who is allergic to nuts that they can either have a Turkey, Roast Beef or PB&J sandwich for lunch. Sure, you're giving them the option to eat a PB&J, but if they try, they break a different rule (the allergy) and the game (his life) comes to a hard stop.
If what you're saying is right, it's more akin to offering them a dodo sandwich. Even if they choose it, they cannot possibly have it.
Kriswall wrote:
Either way, RaW doesn't seem to support a Corsairs Allied Detachment.
You might well be right, but it's just one of those things that feels wrong to me.
Oh well, there are worse units to be stuck with as your Warlord... and I think I own most of them.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
vipoid wrote:The trouble is, if the Corsair Prince overrides the AD rule, you're then breaking the rule that the AD can't be your primary detachment and also the rule that it has to be a different faction to your primary detachment. In fact, it now needs to be a different faction to itself.
I don't know if it matters, but having the AD override the Corsair Prince at least leads to fewer rules being broken. Call it the path of least resistance.
But, as you say, this goes against both basic vs advanced (not to mention codex vs rulebook).
Just to add a last heap of confusion, let's say we agreed that AD trumps Corsair Prince. Well, in that case, could you make an argument that an AD need not include a Corsair Prince at all? (effectively breaking the 'every detachment must include a corsair prince' rule instead of the 'corsair prince must be your army's warlord' rule). i.e. you're breaking a 'must' rule either way, so can you choose which one gets broken?
It is Basic vs Advanced which states that the codex trumps rulebook, FYI.
And no. AD no more can override this restriction than it can override the requirement to be the Warlord, unfortunately.
vipoid wrote:[ Kriswall wrote:
Either way, RaW doesn't seem to support a Corsairs Allied Detachment.
You might well be right, but it's just one of those things that feels wrong to me.
Oh well, there are worse units to be stuck with as your Warlord... and I think I own most of them.
Sad part is, this is not the stupidest rules interactions that seem off in this game.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
So by CHOOSING to use a detachment where you cannot comply with all the rules, you haven't made a choice?
Exactly the same as building a no char nid lost in 6th. You could construct it from legal units, but the whole was illegal.
Baron - you're told he MUST joi,n, but CANNKT join mismatched units. That means you've yet again broken a rule - unarguably so, as its proven that you have not complied.
Dark - reread the coherency rules. Note they have an exception for just your situation. Then maybe apologise as you didn't reread when told the first time.
53939
Post by: vipoid
nosferatu1001 wrote:So by CHOOSING to use a detachment where you cannot comply with all the rules, you haven't made a choice?
By choosing to take a detachment that I'm specifically told I can take.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Exactly the same as building a no char nid lost in 6th. You could construct it from legal units, but the whole was illegal.
You keep bringing this up, but it's not something I've ever heard of or seen. Could you explain what it was and what made it illegal?
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Baron - you're told he MUST joi,n, but CANNKT join mismatched units. That means you've yet again broken a rule - unarguably so, as its proven that you have not complied.
How did I break the rule? Again, the list I built was entirely legal. I have abided by all the rules of list-construction in both the Corsair book and the main rulebook. It doesn't become retrospectively illegal because a rules conflict arises in-game.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
You're told the detachment is available. It doesn't mean you can actually fulfil all requirements, however. It provides absolutely zero permission and in fact is AGAIN redundant, as you always have cad or ad as options, brb covers that.
6th ed required a warlord that had to be a character. You could build a tervigon HQ led list in 6th who wasn't a character. All the components were legal, the combination wasn't.
You broke the rule stating the prince must be the warlord
Here's a test. You build your possible AD list. You read the rule on page 158, and ask "is the Prince the armies warlord?"
Your answer is....? And if you answer "no", as you must do, have you complied with this absolute requirement? Yes or no. If no, which is the only possible answer, does that mean you have broken or followed the rule?
If you answer "followed", then there is no possible argument that can sway you.
37809
Post by: Kriswall
I'm treating this as sort of like how the Combined Arms and Allied Detachments are available to every Faction... but not every Faction can actually field them because they don't have legal units to fill each slot.
Adeptus Mechanicus Skitarii can't field a CAD or AD as it has no valid HQ choice in the entire army.
Officio Assassinorum can't field a CAD or AD as it has no valid HQ choice in the entire army.
Imperial Knights can't field a CAD or AD as it has no valid HQ choice in the entire army.
Legion of the Damned can't field a CAD or AD as it has no valid HQ choice in the entire army.
Eldar Harlequins can't field a CAD or AD as it has no valid HQ choice in the entire army.
Inquisition can't field a CAD or AD as it has no valid Troops choice in the entire army.
Now stick with me for a second, because this is going to sound really similar.
Eldar Corsairs can't field an AD as it has no valid HQ choice in the entire army.
See what I did there? I provided six examples of Factions that have access to the Allied Detachment but can't actually field one due to lack of options to fill compulsory slots. The Eldar Corsairs can't actually field one for the same reason. The HQ that they are required to field has to be a Warlord, yet the Warlord can never be in an AD. The only way to obey both rules is to realize you can't ever field an Eldar Corsairs Allied Detachment.
53939
Post by: vipoid
Correct me if I'm wrong, but none of the factions you've mentioned there (save for Corsairs) specifically mention the detachment they can't take? e.g. Harlequins don't say 'may only be taken in a CAD, AD or Masque detachment'.
nosferatu1001 wrote:You're told the detachment is available. It doesn't mean you can actually fulfil all requirements, however. It provides absolutely zero permission and in fact is AGAIN redundant, as you always have cad or ad as options, brb covers that.
But that's the point, if you're right then the AD is *not* available. Because there is no possible way you can legally use one, given that the mandatory element alone is enough to make it illegal.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
6th ed required a warlord that had to be a character. You could build a tervigon HQ led list in 6th who wasn't a character. All the components were legal, the combination wasn't.
You broke the rule stating the prince must be the warlord
Here's a test. You build your possible AD list. You read the rule on page 158, and ask "is the Prince the armies warlord?"
Your answer is....? And if you answer "no", as you must do, have you complied with this absolute requirement? Yes or no. If no, which is the only possible answer, does that mean you have broken or followed the rule?
If you answer "followed", then there is no possible argument that can sway you.
I thought we were talking about the Baron?
Either way though, you're making the mistake of assuming that no rule can never be legally broken, which is demonstrably fallacious. Virtually every special rule involves the breaking of at least one core rule. Every time you fire a pinning weapon at a unit that can't be pinned, you're breaking the rules. When your ATSKNF unit is swept but stays locked in combat instead of being cut down, you're breaking the rules. When you fire a Lance weapon at a model with Quantum Shielding, you're breaking the rules.
Except that you're not, are you?. What you're actually doing is following the rules. But sometimes you have a rules conflict, in which one rule overrides another. This is not the same as breaking the rules. If you think it is, then no game should ever be legal in your eyes because rules are "broken" all the time. The same thing applies to the Prince:
- Choosing an AD is not breaking any rules.
- Choosing a Prince is following the Corsair rules.
- The issue arises when the Prince's rules conflict with those of the AD. The only difference between this and, say, an ATSKNF unit being swept in combat is that it's less obvious which rule overrides the other.
Same goes for using a Cloud Dancer baron in a Coterie/detachment with only non-Cloud Dancer units. You're attempting to follow his rules by putting him into a squad, but then there's a conflict because his rules also say he's not allowed to join that squad. Again, the issue is not that you've caused a conflict - they happen all the time - the issue is that there's no obvious way to resolve it. But, again, this does not make the list illegal, nor does it equate to you breaking the rules.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Stop putting words in my mouth
I am NOT "making the mistake of assuming that no rule can never be legally broken"
I have, in fact, repeatedly talked about permission. As in, permission to do something otherwise not allowed (the default state, of course)
Absolutely NOTHING in the Corsair Prince rule provides permission to override the advanced rule covering the AD. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
You have two restrictions, and not a permisison overriding a restriction.
Over to you. Show permission to take the pirnce without being the warlord, or show permisison to take the AD as a Primary detachment i.e. one containing a warlord.
Over to you. Page and graph. Done with your dancing around this issue, pretending this is a special snowflake situation and not identical to every other time you have sets of restrictions.
Failure to show permission, for the 10th time of asking (it feels like) means your argument fails.
Baron: If you do not put him in a unit, you have broken his explicit rule. Show permission wher eyou have LEGALLY, i.e. with permission, broken this rule. Page and graph.
Oh, and it isnt "less obvious" than ATSKNF - ATSKNF explicitly provides permission to avoid the consequences of Sweeping Advance. it even mentions it by name. Youre pulling redundant rules information, none of which actually addresses the issue you are creating, and pretending theyre in anyway similar.
The rule is UTTERLY explicit: "A" Prince MUST be the Warlord. If you put him in a detachment where he CANNOT be the warlord, and do so without PERMISSION to do so, you have broken a rule.
Breaking a rule is cheating.
53939
Post by: vipoid
nosferatu1001 wrote:I am NOT "making the mistake of assuming that no rule can never be legally broken"
Yes you are.
nosferatu1001 wrote:I have, in fact, repeatedly talked about permission. As in, permission to do something otherwise not allowed (the default state, of course)
Absolutely NOTHING in the Corsair Prince rule provides permission to override the advanced rule covering the AD. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
This is covered by advanced vs basic.
Two contradictory restrictions. i.e. a conflict. Again, this is covered by advanced vs basic.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Over to you. Show permission to take the pirnce without being the warlord, or show permisison to take the AD as a Primary detachment i.e. one containing a warlord.
It would actually be resolved the other way round - the prince would be your warlord leading to a massive mess of an AD. As resolutions go, it's neither useful nor practical (and makes the AD entirely pointless), but it is a legal resolution nevertheless.
Regardless, I'm willing drop the whole AD thing as, at best, it seems like RAI vs RAW.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Done with your dancing around this issue, pretending this is a special snowflake situation and not identical to every other time you have sets of restrictions.
You're right. What a bastard I am for thinking that an army that specifically mentions using an allied detachment, as well as stating multiple times that it can be taken as allies by other races, can be taken in an allied detachment.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Baron: If you do not put him in a unit, you have broken his explicit rule. Show permission wher eyou have LEGALLY, i.e. with permission, broken this rule. Page and graph.
Show me how you legally resolve Lance vs quantum shielding. Or legally resolve Soul-Wracked against a Fearless or Jetbike Prince.
Oh look, you've already contradicted yourself:
nosferatu1001 wrote:I am NOT "making the mistake of assuming that no rule can never be legally broken"
Want to revise one of those statements?
Once again, it is not cheating to break a rule when two rules contradict one another. In the case of the baron, you are first told that he must join a unit, but are then told that none of your units are eligible for him to join. Considering that this doesn't come up until the game has been started, after your list has already been finalised, you tell me what the legal resolution is.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
vipoid wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:I am NOT "making the mistake of assuming that no rule can never be legally broken"
Yes you are.
Incorrect. As in, factually and undeniably you are wrong. Drop this. vipoid wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:I have, in fact, repeatedly talked about permission. As in, permission to do something otherwise not allowed (the default state, of course) Absolutely NOTHING in the Corsair Prince rule provides permission to override the advanced rule covering the AD. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
This is covered by advanced vs basic.
Only when a permisison conflicts with a restriction. Oh, and fairly certain the rule for the AD is an ADVANCED rule. As in, it is listed after all the basic rules. So not even your bare cite works. Here you have two restrictions. Find the permisison. Oh wait, you cannot. Your argument has therefore failed, again. vipoid wrote: Two contradictory restrictions. i.e. a conflict. Again, this is covered by advanced vs basic.
Incorrect, as proven. Try again. or dont. vipoid wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:Over to you. Show permission to take the pirnce without being the warlord, or show permisison to take the AD as a Primary detachment i.e. one containing a warlord.
It would actually be resolved the other way round - the prince would be your warlord leading to a massive mess of an AD. As resolutions go, it's neither useful nor practical (and makes the AD entirely pointless), but it is a legal resolution nevertheless. Regardless, I'm willing drop the whole AD thing as, at best, it seems like RAI vs RAW.
There is no RAI on this. You are explicitly told they must be the warlord, and you have a reminder rule (as it provides no new permisison)that the AD is in theory an option. Excpet later on they wrote a rule that means you cant actually use it. Same as the BRB rule lets Harlies use AD, yet they cannot do so. vipoid wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:Done with your dancing around this issue, pretending this is a special snowflake situation and not identical to every other time you have sets of restrictions.
You're right. What a bastard I am for thinking that an army that specifically mentions using an allied detachment, as well as stating multiple times that it can be taken as allies by other races, can be taken in an allied detachment.
Yes, what a bastard you are for pretending a restirciton is a permisison simply so you can have your way, and also for conflating "allies" with "using the Allied Detachment only" or "cannot be tjhe Primary", when the actual fething rules, which you continually ignore, tell you that ALL detachments are allies of eachother. This concept you created, where you have Primary detachments and only "other" detachments are "Allies", has absolutely no basis in any rule in the game. Drop it, or cite where you have found this rule from as per the tenets. The BRB "specifically" mentions all races can use the AD. Does that mean races with no HQ can now use it? vipoid wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:Baron: If you do not put him in a unit, you have broken his explicit rule. Show permission wher eyou have LEGALLY, i.e. with permission, broken this rule. Page and graph.
Show me how you legally resolve Lance vs quantum shielding. Or legally resolve Soul-Wracked against a Fearless or Jetbike Prince.
Ah, so you are throwing up entirely different arguments to avoid the fact you cannot show the required permission? I accept ypou cannot construct an argument, and will instead deflect, as you have for 4 pages now. vipoid wrote: Oh look, you've already contradicted yourself: nosferatu1001 wrote:I am NOT "making the mistake of assuming that no rule can never be legally broken"
Want to revise one of those statements?
Lol. apparently the word "legally" doesnt make any difference there, and the two sentences are identical. Flailing much? vipoid wrote:Once again, it is not cheating to break a rule when two rules contradict one another. In the case of the baron, you are first told that he must join a unit, but are then told that none of your units are eligible for him to join. Considering that this doesn't come up until the game has been started, after your list has already been finalised, you tell me what the legal resolution is.
It is cheating when you must first break no rule. When you have permisison to do so, you may break one rule to satisfy another. ATSKNF being a great example - you break the effects of SA by not dying if caught. But look! That rule contains the specific permisison. What youre pretending isnt needed, when the entire game is based on this, is permission You are lacking explicit or specific reference to this. For example, the rule on page 158 needs to say "this applies even in an allied detachment, replacing the usual AD restriction" - or conversely they would have had to (presciently) write the AD detachment restriction to state "this does not apply to Eldar corsair armies from IA11 2nd edition" Without this you have no permission, just two restrictions. You cannot fulfil both at the same time, neither has permission to override the other, and therefore your army list IS illegal. The components are legal, the detahcment is a legal option, the combinagtion is not. I'm sorry this isnt the answer you want, and that you had already made your mind up on this, but you have no argument, no rules support, absolutely nothing that makes your version of reality the correct one.
67792
Post by: DarkPhoenix
Clearly, avoiding explicitly said fact that Corsairs can be taken as allied detachment is cheating, as it breaks the Specific vs General rule.
Corsairs are specific faction.
Their codex explicitly says they can be taken in CAD AD and their own formation.
Formation imposes a restriction (not requirement) on what can be taken in this formation. Prince MUST be chosen as a warlord.
Nobody needs any permission as the rule STATES that you select him as warlord. (at the time you select your warlord, after you made the formation). Prince's ruling allows you to ignore formation restriction, just as flying daemon would ignore dangerous terain made by Sanctuary.
There is no any separation on restriction/permission/requirement in the rules tho, you just do what they say. And Prince's ruling is clearly not a restriction at all, as it says you MUST take him as warlord, not that CANT take other characters as warlords. Its not restriction, but a course of action you must perform - appoint him as your warlord.
53939
Post by: vipoid
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Incorrect. As in, factually and undeniably you are wrong. Drop this. I think you should drop it, having already contradicted yourself.
Only when a permisison conflicts with a restriction. Wrong as usual. Oh, and fairly certain the rule for the AD is an ADVANCED rule. As in, it is listed after all the basic rules. So not even your bare cite works.
Here you have two restrictions. Find the permisison. Oh wait, you cannot. Your argument has therefore failed, again.
Incorrect, as proven. Try again. or dont.
If you're going to act like a condescending jackass, the least you can do is be right. "On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence." Notice the complete lack of 'restriction vs permission'? Almost as if that's a load f nonsense you've just pulled out of your ass.
There is no RAI on this. You are explicitly told they must be the warlord, and you have a reminder rule (as it provides no new permisison)that the AD is in theory an option. Excpet later on they wrote a rule that means you cant actually use it. Same as the BRB rule lets Harlies use AD, yet they cannot do so. Again, it's not just that they specifically mentioned the allied detachment it's that they also stated multiple times that other races can take Corsair allies. But, I guess expecting you to read anything at this point is idiotic.
Yes, what a bastard you are for pretending a restirciton is a permisison simply so you can have your way, and also for conflating "allies" with "using the Allied Detachment only" or "cannot be tjhe Primary", when the actual fething rules, which you continually ignore, tell you that ALL detachments are allies of eachother. This concept you created, where you have Primary detachments and only "other" detachments are "Allies", has absolutely no basis in any rule in the game. Drop it, or cite where you have found this rule from as per the tenets.
Want to remove that massive chip from your shoulder before we continue?
Ah, so you are throwing up entirely different arguments to avoid the fact you cannot show the required permission? No, I'm proving that your logic is inherently flawed.
I accept ypou cannot construct an argument, and will instead deflect, as you have for 4 pages now. Says the person who has contradicted himself, demonstrated that he can't read, and is avoiding answering questions because he knows his "argument" is crumbling around him.
It is cheating when you must first break no rule. It's cheating when I must first break no rule? Do you even hear yourself? When you have permisison to do so, you may break one rule to satisfy another. ATSKNF being a great example - you break the effects of SA by not dying if caught. But look! That rule contains the specific permisison. I have also given you examples of rules that contain no such permission. Still waiting for an answer on those.
What youre pretending isnt needed, when the entire game is based on this, is permission Permission to do what exactly?
You are lacking explicit or specific reference to this. For example, the rule on page 158 needs to say "this applies even in an allied detachment, replacing the usual AD restriction" - or conversely they would have had to (presciently) write the AD detachment restriction to state "this does not apply to Eldar corsair armies from IA11 2nd edition" Why are you still on the damn AD thing? I have dropped it entirely. We're talking about Barond, yet you then cut back to the AD for some reason.
Without this you have no permission, just two restrictions. You cannot fulfil both at the same time, neither has permission to override the other, and therefore your army list IS illegal.
The components are legal, the detahcment is a legal option, the combinagtion is not Again, why? . I'm sorry this isnt the answer you want, and that you had already made your mind up on this, but you have no argument, no rules support, absolutely nothing that makes your version of reality the correct one. You're the one who seems to be lacking any coherent argument. First you blather on about unrelated allied detachments, then you say that I don't have permission to take this army. Apparently ignoring that the rulebook gives me permission. You'll find it in the section about building an army.
99970
Post by: EnTyme
I think I just realized a way that Corsairs could be taken as an AD legally, thus perhaps why the rule exists:
1 CAD of Eldar Corsairs (Warlord here)
1 AD of Eldar Corsairs (I know next to nothing about Eldar, so not sure if this makes sense or not)
1 AD of other faction (maybe Dark Eldar, IG, etc.)
Maybe this is why AD is listed as a valid formation.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
What faction is that AD? Is it the same as the Warlord? If so what does the AD say about containing units with the same faction as your Warlord?
53939
Post by: vipoid
EnTyme wrote:I think I just realized a way that Corsairs could be taken as an AD legally, thus perhaps why the rule exists:
1 CAD of Eldar Corsairs (Warlord here)
1 AD of Eldar Corsairs (I know next to nothing about Eldar, so not sure if this makes sense or not)
1 AD of other faction (maybe Dark Eldar, IG, etc.)
Maybe this is why AD is listed as a valid formation.
I'm afraid that doesn't work. Allied Detachments have to be a different faction to your Primary Detachment. So, if your Primary Detachment is Corsairs, you can't include any Allied Detachments of Corsairs.
99970
Post by: EnTyme
vipoid wrote: EnTyme wrote:I think I just realized a way that Corsairs could be taken as an AD legally, thus perhaps why the rule exists:
1 CAD of Eldar Corsairs (Warlord here)
1 AD of Eldar Corsairs (I know next to nothing about Eldar, so not sure if this makes sense or not)
1 AD of other faction (maybe Dark Eldar, IG, etc.)
Maybe this is why AD is listed as a valid formation.
I'm afraid that doesn't work. Allied Detachments have to be a different faction to your Primary Detachment. So, if your Primary Detachment is Corsairs, you can't include any Allied Detachments of Corsairs.
Ah, see I've never used an AD (Necrons don't have allies). Well, there goes my theory.
14
Post by: Ghaz
Any faction can ally with any other faction, including Necrons (special rules withstanding). The only difference is the level of alliance.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Yeah my Necton always take allies. Have to Bro fist with Culexus Assassins like every other race in existence due to the stupidity of the invisistar...
53939
Post by: vipoid
 Ghaz wrote:Any faction can ally with any other faction, including Necrons. The only difference is the level of alliance.
Corsairs can't. They're not allowed to ally with Chaos or Necrons. Not even at the 'Come the Apocalypse' level. 
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
So if a unit has the "may charge the turn they arrive from reserves" rule, it means it may fire a heavy weapon and still charge (presume it has no other rule such as SnP or relentless here).?
Simple yes or no needed. Sure you can manage that.
53939
Post by: vipoid
Could you quote the exact rule?
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
…On Target: The Vanguard in this formation can charge the turn they arrive from reserves, and they do not scatter if they land within 9″ of two units of Scouts form this formation.
So, again. If you join say an IC with a combi plasma to the unit, can they charge the turn they arrive from reserves despite the unit having fired a rapid fire weapon?
According to your theory that all that is needed is a conflict, your answer must be yes.
Similarly Assault vehicle (an advanced rule) vs running and charging (a basic rule). If I run having disembarked, may I charge?
Or, in fact, do I need permission to,override another restriction?
99970
Post by: EnTyme
Ghaz wrote:Any faction can ally with any other faction, including Necrons (special rules withstanding). The only difference is the level of alliance.
Allow me to rephrase: Necrons need no allies.
53939
Post by: vipoid
nosferatu1001 wrote:…On Target: The Vanguard in this formation can charge the turn they arrive from reserves, and they do not scatter if they land within 9″ of two units of Scouts form this formation.
So, again. If you join say an IC with a combi plasma to the unit, can they charge the turn they arrive from reserves despite the unit having fired a rapid fire weapon?
The Vanguard in that formation can charge on the turn they deep strike. The IC is not a vanguard in that formation.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
According to your theory that all that is needed is a conflict, your answer must be yes.
Nope. Because the permission to charge doesn't extend to an attached IC.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
According to your theory that all that is needed is a conflict, your answer must be yes.
We seem to be getting into strawman territory, but whatever.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Similarly Assault vehicle (an advanced rule) vs running and charging (a basic rule). If I run having disembarked, may I charge?
Ignoring our corsair debate for a moment. that's actually an interesting point. The way it's worded, assault vehicles just give units a general permission to charge.
The trouble is, the Assault Vehicle rule isn't worded to bypass just one specific restriction (it doesn't even mention one). Nor does it contain any clauses that the unit must still fulfil all other requirements of assault. All it says is that you you can charge on the turn you disembarked, unless the vehicle arrived from reserve that turn. Almost certainly not the intention but RAW it looks like you can indeed run and still charge after disembarking from an assault vehicle. The only exception would be if you either arrived from reserve that turn or if something more specific (such as a codex special rule) prevents you from charging.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
vipoid wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:…On Target: The Vanguard in this formation can charge the turn they arrive from reserves, and they do not scatter if they land within 9″ of two units of Scouts form this formation.
So, again. If you join say an IC with a combi plasma to the unit, can they charge the turn they arrive from reserves despite the unit having fired a rapid fire weapon?
The Vanguard in that formation can charge on the turn they deep strike. The IC is not a vanguard in that formation.
Neither are the Veterans and Sergeant, Vanguard Veteran Squads.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
According to your theory that all that is needed is a conflict, your answer must be yes.
Nope. Because the permission to charge doesn't extend to an attached IC.
No less than Stubborn extends to the IC.
But we already have a huge thread running on this concept, and has little to do with Detachment construction.
93621
Post by: jokerkd
So can you not legally take 2 corsair CADs?
53939
Post by: vipoid
It just says 'The vanguard in this formation'. Are you saying the sergeant and veterans aren't vanguard?
Stubborn does say "When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule...".
You can take 2 Corsair CADs. They both have to have a Corsair Prince, one of which has to be chosen as your Warlord. Those detachments also count each other as Desperate Allies.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
vipoid wrote:
It just says 'The vanguard in this formation'. Are you saying the sergeant and veterans aren't vanguard?
Every quote I have seen states Vanguard Veteran Squad. This is a unit name, not models. So either it has been quoted improperly, or you are incorr ct in your assumptions.
Stubborn does say "When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule...".
It also states "takes a Pinning Test or Morale Check" should we not consider all conditions of a rule, then?
53939
Post by: vipoid
Charistoph wrote:
Every quote I have seen states Vanguard Veteran Squad. This is a unit name, not models. So either it has been quoted improperly, or you are incorr ct in your assumptions.
This is the quote I was given to work with:
nosferatu1001 wrote:…On Target: The Vanguard in this formation can charge the turn they arrive from reserves, and they do not scatter if they land within 9″ of two units of Scouts form this formation.
If it's incorrect, feel free to post the proper one.
Charistoph wrote:It also states "takes a Pinning Test or Morale Check" should we not consider all conditions of a rule, then?
When did I say we shouldn't?
Moreover, how is that part in any way relevant to what we were discussing?
95922
Post by: Charistoph
vipoid wrote:Charistoph wrote:
Every quote I have seen states Vanguard Veteran Squad. This is a unit name, not models. So either it has been quoted improperly, or you are incorr ct in your assumptions.
This is the quote I was given to work with:
nosferatu1001 wrote:…On Target: The Vanguard in this formation can charge the turn they arrive from reserves, and they do not scatter if they land within 9″ of two units of Scouts form this formation.
If it's incorrect, feel free to post the proper one.
Interesting, in the other big thread they said, '...On Target: "Vanguard veteran squad from this formation can charge on turn they arrive from deepstrike. In addition, they do not scatter...etc". ' I don't know where it is from or which Formation it is in.
Still I don''t know of any Vanguard entities in the game aside from the unit by that name. The models are listed as "Veteran" and "Veteran Sergeant" in this unit, not as Vanguard.
If Blood of Kittens has this right, it is, " …On Target: Vanguard Veteran Squads from this Formation can charge on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike...." for the Shadowstrike Kill Team Formation, which is in the Kauyon book.
vipoid wrote:Charistoph wrote:It also states "takes a Pinning Test or Morale Check" should we not consider all conditions of a rule, then?
When did I say we shouldn't?
It was implied by not including them in the list of recognizable conditions.
vipoid wrote:Moreover, how is that part in any way relevant to what we were discussing?
Got me, I was just pointing out an error in interpretation and I also pointed out this has nothing to do with army list construction.
37809
Post by: Kriswall
I have the book in front of me. The Formation is the Shadowstrike Kill Team from Warzone Damocles: Kauyon. The actual quote is...
"...On Target: Vanguard Veteran Squads from this Formation can charge on the turn they arrive from Deep Strike. In addition, they do not scatter when arriving from Deep Strike if the first model is placed within 9" of at least two Scout Squads from this Formation."
The Formation list, which as we all know lists the Army List Entries required for a Formation is as such...
"2-4 Scout Squads"
"1-3 Vanguard Veteran Squads"
So, the "...On Target" rule is absolutely referring to the unit and not individual models from the unit.
Now that we have the real rules, feel free to continue bickering.
53939
Post by: vipoid
Well, in that case, I guess it comes down to whether there's any difference between a veteran vanguard squad from a specific formation, and a veteran vanguard squad from a specific formation with an attached IC not from that formation.
Leaving aside for now the 'firing a rapid-fire weapon' aspect, are ICs usually allowed to benefit from the On Target rule?
Charistoph wrote:It was implied by not including them in the list of recognizable conditions.
I just thought I'd save myself some typing by only quoting the relevant bit. Put it down to laziness on my part. 
37809
Post by: Kriswall
vipoid wrote:Well, in that case, I guess it comes down to whether there's any difference between a veteran vanguard squad from a specific formation, and a veteran vanguard squad from a specific formation with an attached IC not from that formation.
Leaving aside for now the 'firing a rapid-fire weapon' aspect, are ICs usually allowed to benefit from the On Target rule?
Charistoph wrote:It was implied by not including them in the list of recognizable conditions.
I just thought I'd save myself some typing by only quoting the relevant bit. Put it down to laziness on my part.
I don't think there is a difference. The Vanguard Veteran Squad is still the Vanguard Veteran Squad whether or not an IC or two have joined OR a few Veterans have died. The Unit is still the Unit.
53939
Post by: vipoid
Fair enough then.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
So, again
VVS with attached IC. IC fires a rapid fire weapon, without any relentless or similar rule to alow him to charge
Thus the RESTRICTION on charging having fired a rapid fire weapon is now in place
Your contention is that this permissive system of rules (the literal foundations of the rules is permission. They tell you what you CAN do) actually does not need permission to override an imposed restriction.
AS such, the permission for the VVS (which includes the IC, as he is a normal member of the unit for ALL rules purposes, and this is indisputable) to charge holds, yes?
Yes or No. No further disesembling please.
Oh, and no strawman. You stated that all that is needed is a conflict. More than once.
Assault vehicle actually mentions the restriction it overrides - about disembarking - so in any sense reading of the rule, it only lifts that single restriction
The Baron has a requirement to fulfil that you are not allowing him to fulfill. SHow permission to break the rule. 10th time of asking. Note, you would need wording such as "if there is no suitable unit for him to be attached to, he can be fielded alone" or similar. Of course, that doesnt exist, so good luck finding the permission required!
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Contingent - noun
1.
a group of people united by some common feature, forming part of a larger group.
In this case the common feature is being in the same army.
53939
Post by: vipoid
nosferatu1001 wrote:So, again
VVS with attached IC. IC fires a rapid fire weapon, without any relentless or similar rule to alow him to charge
Thus the RESTRICTION on charging having fired a rapid fire weapon is now in place
Your contention is that this permissive system of rules (the literal foundations of the rules is permission. They tell you what you CAN do) actually does not need permission to override an imposed restriction.
No, that's not what I'm contending at all.
On Target gives you permission. As a n advanced rule, it overrides the basic rules that normally prevent a model from charging on the turn it runs or rapid fires.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
AS such, the permission for the VVS (which includes the IC, as he is a normal member of the unit for ALL rules purposes, and this is indisputable) to charge holds, yes?
Yes.
Though, this doesn't seem to go with your previous sentence.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Oh, and no strawman. You stated that all that is needed is a conflict. More than once.
Of course I did, because this is what the rulebook tells us:
"Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules."
"On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence."
nosferatu1001 wrote:Assault vehicle actually mentions the restriction it overrides - about disembarking - so in any sense reading of the rule, it only lifts that single restriction
Incorrect.
"Passengers disembarking from Access Points on a vehicle with this special rule can charge on the turn they do so (even on a turn that the vehicle was destroyed) unless the vehicle arrived from Reserve that turn."
Disembarking from the vehicle is a requirement for the rule to work. That is the only time disembarking is mentioned, and it most certainly doesn't refer to any specific restriction.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
The Baron has a requirement to fulfil that you are not allowing him to fulfill.
Also wrong. His own rule is preventing me from fulfilling it.
He needs to attach to a Troop or Elite unit. Okay, I have a Troop unit. But his rule then tells me that he can't join that unit because it's not a Cloud Dancer unit. I am faced with two restrictions, you tell me which one gets obeyed.
Also for the 10th time of asking, you tell me what the legal resolution to two contradictory rules is.
EDIT: I have heard it suggested that the Baron would be removed as a casualty (since he can't be legally deployed), so I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on that.
37809
Post by: Kriswall
nosferatu1001 wrote:So, again
VVS with attached IC. IC fires a rapid fire weapon, without any relentless or similar rule to alow him to charge
Thus the RESTRICTION on charging having fired a rapid fire weapon is now in place
Your contention is that this permissive system of rules (the literal foundations of the rules is permission. They tell you what you CAN do) actually does not need permission to override an imposed restriction.
AS such, the permission for the VVS (which includes the IC, as he is a normal member of the unit for ALL rules purposes, and this is indisputable) to charge holds, yes?
Yes or No. No further disesembling please.
Oh, and no strawman. You stated that all that is needed is a conflict. More than once.
Assault vehicle actually mentions the restriction it overrides - about disembarking - so in any sense reading of the rule, it only lifts that single restriction
The Baron has a requirement to fulfil that you are not allowing him to fulfill. SHow permission to break the rule. 10th time of asking. Note, you would need wording such as "if there is no suitable unit for him to be attached to, he can be fielded alone" or similar. Of course, that doesnt exist, so good luck finding the permission required!
I think this is a bad line of argument.
The rule in question allows the VVS to charge on the turn it comes into play from Deep Strike Reserves. It is essentially giving us permission to charge in a specific situation where a charge would normally not be allowed. There are a million other scenarios that prevent a charge that are not addressed. For example, you can't declare a charge if you've fired a Rapid Fire weapon in the prior shooting phase, or if you're 36" away from the target and only have a 12" charge range.
So, a VVS normally can't declare a charge for a wide variety of reasons. The ...On Target rule only addresses the scenario where they just came in from Deep Strike Reserves. You still have to obey a whole host of other rules.
In the context of a Corsair Prince, we're told Corsairs potentially have access to the Allied Detachment. This is kind of a redundant comment as the BRB gives them access to the Allied Detachment by default. Telling us they have access isn't telling us anything we don't already know. We still have to obey all the other rules in front of us. We need to pick a compulsory HQ choice and a compulsory Troops choice. None of the models in either of this unit can be the Warlord. For most armies, you'd just pick a compulsory HQ who isn't required to be your Warlord. Eldar Corsairs don't have such an option. As such, while you're allowed to take an Allied Detachment, you have no way to fill the compulsory HQ slot. This might change in the future if new units are offered. For now, the Allied Detachment isn't a practically available choice.
53939
Post by: vipoid
Kriswall wrote:We need to pick a compulsory HQ choice and a compulsory Troops choice. None of the models in either of this unit can be the Warlord. For most armies, you'd just pick a compulsory HQ who isn't required to be your Warlord. Eldar Corsairs don't have such an option. As such, while you're allowed to take an Allied Detachment, you have no way to fill the compulsory HQ slot. This might change in the future if new units are offered. For now, the Allied Detachment isn't a practically available choice.
That's an interesting way of looking at it.
Yeah, I can accept that reasoning.
Kriswall wrote:
So, a VVS normally can't declare a charge for a wide variety of reasons. The ...On Target rule only addresses the scenario where they just came in from Deep Strike Reserves. You still have to obey a whole host of other rules.
The thing is though, nosferatu1001 has a point. On Target simply gives the squad permission to charge on the turn they deep strike. There is nothing specifying that this only overrides the normal restriction that units arriving from reserves can't charge, nor any clause that they still have to obey all other requirements (such as not shooting rapid fire weapons in the same turn). RAW, On Target does indeed allow the unit to charge after running, firing rapid fire weapons or such.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Kriswall wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:
In the context of a Corsair Prince, we're told Corsairs potentially have access to the Allied Detachment.
This is not the case. Contingent does not equal detachment. The intention of the wording which isn't at all ambiguous, it is specific, the only way to combine corsairs with any other army is if the prince is the warlord of such army. Logic dictates that any case that does not allow this is not legal.
53939
Post by: vipoid
I'm glad you were here to refute an argument no one made.
 Xenomancers wrote:The intention of the wording which isn't at all ambiguous, it is specific, the only way to combine corsairs with any other army is if the prince is the warlord of such army.
Except that that's the exact opposite of what is said:
A detachment from this army list treats armies from Codex: Craftworlds and Codex: Dark Eldar as Battle Brothers, and likewise, Allied contingents of Eldar Corsairs are counted as Battle Brothers by Codex: Craftworlds, Codex: Harlequins and Codex: Dark Eldar armies.
Detachments chosen from Codex: Necrons and Codex: Chaos Daemons and Codex: Tyranids cannot be selected as Allied contingents for an Eldar Corsairs army, and likewise may never select an allied contingent of Eldar Corsairs.
Eldar Corsairs treat other forces as Desperate Allies, and may be selected as an Allied Contingent for those armies as Desperate Allies.
All 3 paragraphs speak of Eldar Corsairs taking other armies as allies *and* of other armies taking Eldar Corsair allies.
The only way the second scenario is possible is via the Allied Detachment. Any other detachment will result in the Corsair Prince being the Warlord, and hence the other race(s) will be the allies.
This is further backed up by this:
"The Eldar Corsair army list may only use the Combines Arms, Allied Detachment, or Corsair Fleet Raiding Company Force Organisation Charts."
I'll willing to accept that RAW Corsairs can't take an Allied Detachment, but please don't give me any tosh about it somehow being the clear or logical intention.
37809
Post by: Kriswall
vipoid wrote: Kriswall wrote:We need to pick a compulsory HQ choice and a compulsory Troops choice. None of the models in either of this unit can be the Warlord. For most armies, you'd just pick a compulsory HQ who isn't required to be your Warlord. Eldar Corsairs don't have such an option. As such, while you're allowed to take an Allied Detachment, you have no way to fill the compulsory HQ slot. This might change in the future if new units are offered. For now, the Allied Detachment isn't a practically available choice.
That's an interesting way of looking at it. Yeah, I can accept that reasoning. Kriswall wrote: So, a VVS normally can't declare a charge for a wide variety of reasons. The ...On Target rule only addresses the scenario where they just came in from Deep Strike Reserves. You still have to obey a whole host of other rules.
The thing is though, nosferatu1001 has a point. On Target simply gives the squad permission to charge on the turn they deep strike. There is nothing specifying that this only overrides the normal restriction that units arriving from reserves can't charge, nor any clause that they still have to obey all other requirements (such as not shooting rapid fire weapons in the same turn). RAW, On Target does indeed allow the unit to charge after running, firing rapid fire weapons or such.
I agree that it's a permission to charge after Deep Striking, but from a practical standpoint, you need to still look at other restrictions. I can't declare a charge if I'm 36" away from my intended target. I can't just say "...On Target" gives me blanket permission to charge, so I'm going to do it anyways. I still have to obey the rule that says I can't declare a charge if I can't reach my intended target. Presumably, I still have to obey the rule saying I can't declare a charge if I've fired a variety of weapon types (heavy, rapid fire, etc). We only have to make a change when there is a conflict. There is a conflict between "can charge after deep striking" and "can't charge after deep striking", so we go with the Codex/Campaign book rule over the BRB rule. There is no conflict between "can charge after deep striking" and "can't charge after firing rapid fire weapons". You can easily make tactical choices to obey both rules in any given situation. If you want to charge, don't fire rapid fire weapons. If you want to fire rapid fire weapons, don't charge. There is never a conflict. A conflict would look like "can charge after firing a rapid fire weapons" and "can't charge after firing a rapid fire weapon". There is only a conflict if you ask a question and one rule says yes while another rule says no.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
vipoid wrote: Kriswall wrote:
So, a VVS normally can't declare a charge for a wide variety of reasons. The ...On Target rule only addresses the scenario where they just came in from Deep Strike Reserves. You still have to obey a whole host of other rules.
The thing is though, nosferatu1001 has a point. On Target simply gives the squad permission to charge on the turn they deep strike. There is nothing specifying that this only overrides the normal restriction that units arriving from reserves can't charge, nor any clause that they still have to obey all other requirements (such as not shooting rapid fire weapons in the same turn). RAW, On Target does indeed allow the unit to charge after running, firing rapid fire weapons or such.
There is nothing giving it permission to override the restriction against Charging after firing Heavy Weapons or Running, either.
To which, a Centurion unit who Deep Striked in with a Drop Pod and shot a Rapid Fire Weapon could then Assault in the following Phase. Only, the only permission it was granted to ignore the restriction thereof was firing a Rapid Fire Weapon, not the restriction against Charging from Deep Striking. Do we have a permission in the rules to ignore all conditions associated with a restricted act if one restriction is overridden? I do not believe so.
So, too, we come to the Corsair Eldar character rules which provide an impossible impass and so cannot be used as such. One has to either not take a detachment of them at all, or choose a detachment that does not violate its own rules.
Which book is this under, by the way? I was wondering if there happened to be an FAQ out about it, yet.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
vipoid - AGAIN with the idea that only other detachments other than the Primary are Allies
This is a nonsense
EVERYONE is an ally TO EVERYONE.
The primary detachment is an ally to every non-primary detachment. Tey are an ally to the Primary detachment
Address that nonsense first, please.
You missed, utterly, the point about the Assault vehicle rule. You also missed that the game is permissive, so a restriction needs another permission for it to be removed. So while I Can assault despite disembarking (as disembarking is the restriction for a non-A.V.) i cannot if I Run, or fire Rapid FIre, etc. BEcause I lack permission to override THOSE restrictions
ITs how the game operates. Its how the game *has* to operate.
37809
Post by: Kriswall
Charistoph wrote: vipoid wrote: Kriswall wrote: So, a VVS normally can't declare a charge for a wide variety of reasons. The ...On Target rule only addresses the scenario where they just came in from Deep Strike Reserves. You still have to obey a whole host of other rules.
The thing is though, nosferatu1001 has a point. On Target simply gives the squad permission to charge on the turn they deep strike. There is nothing specifying that this only overrides the normal restriction that units arriving from reserves can't charge, nor any clause that they still have to obey all other requirements (such as not shooting rapid fire weapons in the same turn). RAW, On Target does indeed allow the unit to charge after running, firing rapid fire weapons or such.
There is nothing giving it permission to override the restriction against Charging after firing Heavy Weapons or Running, either. To which, a Centurion unit who Deep Striked in with a Drop Pod and shot a Rapid Fire Weapon could then Assault in the following Phase. Only, the only permission it was granted to ignore the restriction thereof was firing a Rapid Fire Weapon, not the restriction against Charging from Deep Striking. Do we have a permission in the rules to ignore all conditions associated with a restricted act if one restriction is overridden? I do not believe so. So, too, we come to the Corsair Eldar character rules which provide an impossible impass and so cannot be used as such. One has to either not take a detachment of them at all, or choose a detachment that does not violate its own rules. Which book is this under, by the way? I was wondering if there happened to be an FAQ out about it, yet.
Shadowstrike Kill Team Formation from Warzone Damocles: Kauyon. No FAQs. For the Vanguard issue. Forgeworld Doom of Mymera (sp?) for the Corsairs
53939
Post by: vipoid
Kriswall wrote:
I agree that it's a permission to charge after Deep Striking, but from a practical standpoint, you need to still look at other restrictions.
The problem is that the other restrictions are basic ones, whilst On Target is both an Advanced rule and a codex rule (thus it overrides all of them).
Kriswall wrote:I can't declare a charge if I'm 36" away from my intended target.
In this case you can declare one... you just can't succeed.
Kriswall wrote: I can't just say "...On Target" gives me blanket permission to charge, so I'm going to do it anyways..
Except that it does give you blanket permission. That's the problem. You have to deep strike that turn, you have to be a vanguard veteran squad, you have to be from that formation. Those are the only restrictions. It doesn't specify that it only overrides one specific restriction, nor does it include any clauses for such - it's written as an open-ended permission to charge.
Kriswall wrote:I still have to obey the rule that says I can't declare a charge if I can't reach my intended target. Presumably, I still have to obey the rule saying I can't declare a charge if I've fired a variety of weapon types (heavy, rapid fire, etc).
You have a basic rule telling you that you can't charge, and an advanced/codex rule telling you you can. The rulebook is very clear on how such conflicts are resolved.
Charistoph wrote:There is nothing giving it permission to override the restriction against Charging after firing Heavy Weapons or Running, either.
Yes there is - On Target.
- Are you a Vanguard Veteran Squad? Yes.
- Are you from that formation? Yes.
- Did you deep strike this turn? Yes.
You can charge this turn.
If you fire a rapid-fire weapon, then you have a basic rule telling you you can't charge, and an advanced one telling you you can. Advanced one wins.
I should probably reiterate that I'm by no means saying anyone should play it like this. I'm sure we can all agree that would be moronic.
Charistoph wrote:
To which, a Centurion unit who Deep Striked in with a Drop Pod and shot a Rapid Fire Weapon could then Assault in the following Phase. Only, the only permission it was granted to ignore the restriction thereof was firing a Rapid Fire Weapon, not the restriction against Charging from Deep Striking. Do we have a permission in the rules to ignore all conditions associated with a restricted act if one restriction is overridden? I do not believe so.
Logically no, RAW yes. Because the permissions we're given in these scenarios are unspecific and open-ended.
Charistoph wrote:
So, too, we come to the Corsair Eldar character rules which provide an impossible impass and so cannot be used as such. One has to either not take a detachment of them at all, or choose a detachment that does not violate its own rules.
But that's the point - the detachment choices were all legal. The list is made with no rule violations. But the time this comes up,the game has already started.
Are you saying the list becomes retrospectively illegal?
Oh, and to answer your question, Corsairs are in Forgeworld Doom of Mymera book. To my knowledge, there are no FAQs currently addressing either of these issues.
nosferatu1001 wrote:vipoid - AGAIN with the idea that only other detachments other than the Primary are Allies
Again, proving you haven't learned to read.
A DE combined arms detachment can be an allied contingent to Corsairs.
An Eldar Formation can be an allied contingent to Corsairs.
A Harlequin Masque detachment can be an allied contingent to Corsairs.
A Corsair combined arms detachment *can't* be an allied contingent to Dark Eldar because the Corsair Prince has to be your warlord, thus making the DE detachment the allied contingent.
A Corsair Fleet Raiding Company *can't* be an allied contingent to Eldar because the Corsair Prince has to be your warlord, thus making the Eldar detachment the allied contingent.
Which detachment does that leave us with for Corsairs?
Rulebook reference please.
I'll also require a rulebook reference that a Primary Detachment magically transforms into an Allied Contingent when it takes allies.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
The primary detachment is an ally to every non-primary detachment. Tey are an ally to the Primary detachment
The primary detachment is not taken as allies. That is utter nonsense.
No I didn't.
And Assault Vehicle gives you one.
nosferatu1001 wrote:So while I Can assault despite disembarking (as disembarking is the restriction for a non-A.V.) i cannot if I Run, or fire Rapid FIre, etc. BEcause I lack permission to override THOSE restrictions
Once again, you've shown you can't read. Assault Vehicle and On Target are not worded to overcome just one specific restriction, but rather as open-ended, permissions.
I agree, but that's still RAI and not RAW.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
vipoid wrote:
I'm glad you were here to refute an argument no one made.
Xenomancers wrote:The intention of the wording which isn't at all ambiguous, it is specific, the only way to combine corsairs with any other army is if the prince is the warlord of such army.
Except that that's the exact opposite of what is said:
A detachment from this army list treats armies from Codex: Craftworlds and Codex: Dark Eldar as Battle Brothers, and likewise, Allied contingents of Eldar Corsairs are counted as Battle Brothers by Codex: Craftworlds, Codex: Harlequins and Codex: Dark Eldar armies.
Detachments chosen from Codex: Necrons and Codex: Chaos Daemons and Codex: Tyranids cannot be selected as Allied contingents for an Eldar Corsairs army, and likewise may never select an allied contingent of Eldar Corsairs.
Eldar Corsairs treat other forces as Desperate Allies, and may be selected as an Allied Contingent for those armies as Desperate Allies.
All 3 paragraphs speak of Eldar Corsairs taking other armies as allies *and* of other armies taking Eldar Corsair allies.
The only way the second scenario is possible is via the Allied Detachment. Any other detachment will result in the Corsair Prince being the Warlord, and hence the other race(s) will be the allies.
This is further backed up by this:
"The Eldar Corsair army list may only use the Combines Arms, Allied Detachment, or Corsair Fleet Raiding Company Force Organisation Charts."
I'll willing to accept that RAW Corsairs can't take an Allied Detachment, but please don't give me any tosh about it somehow being the clear or logical intention.
The argument was made on the first page. You kind of dismissed it. Just because 2 rules seem to contradict each other does not mean the opposite of what I said is the intention. It is just a contradiction. Contradictions are not permissions.
53939
Post by: vipoid
Xenomancers wrote:
The argument was made on the first page. You kind of dismissed it. Just because 2 rules seem to contradict each other does not mean the opposite of what I said is the intention. It is just a contradiction. Contradictions are not permissions.
I didn't say it was a permission. 
What I said was that 'corsairs can never be taken as allies' isn't logical when this is referenced multiple times in their rules.
Rulewise, I've already conceded (more than once now) that Corsair Princes can't be taken in an Allied Detachment.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Reported, rule 1
You have this utter nonsense idea that you have Primary and Allied detachments. That somehow Allies are only those outside of the Primary detachment
Its utter rubbish, na dyou were shown this 4 pages back, yet it persists. It explains why you have such an issue here.
Page 126. LEVELS OF ALLIANCE
"between units that have different Factions in the same army"
You are an Allied Contingent to Dark Eldar even if your Detachment has the Warlord in it. The rules care not one jot about your idea that Alliance flows down from the primary
Sort that error out, please. Accept your error on this.
You may have Corsair CAD as an "Allied Contingent" to Dark Eldar, and they are an Allied Contingent to the Corsair CAD. Done.
What wwe have said is that Corsairs can never be taken in an AD. THat is NOT the same as they cannot be taken as Allies. You're still stuck in 6th edition.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
vipoid wrote:Charistoph wrote:There is nothing giving it permission to override the restriction against Charging after firing Heavy Weapons or Running, either.
Yes there is - On Target.
- Are you a Vanguard Veteran Squad? Yes.
- Are you from that formation? Yes.
- Did you deep strike this turn? Yes.
You can charge this turn.
If you fire a rapid-fire weapon, then you have a basic rule telling you you can't charge, and an advanced one telling you you can. Advanced one wins.
I notice you chose to stop asking questions at a critical point, nor asked the right questions.
You are seeing it as:
Base Permission to Charge set to "Yes".
Did unit fire an non-Chargable Weapon? "No." Permission to Charge set to "No".
Did unit arrive from Reserves? "Yes" Permission to Charge set to "No".
Did unit arrive from Deep Strike? "Yes" Permission to Charge set to "No".
Unit possesses "...On Target" rule, is unit "Vanguard Veteran Squad"? "Yes" Permission to Charge set to "Yes".
Whereas, it is not a one permission and done set, ...On Target only covers the restriction to Charge after arriving from Deep Strike. It is not covered against the restriction of Charging after shooting a non-Charging Weapon.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
vipoid wrote: Xenomancers wrote:
The argument was made on the first page. You kind of dismissed it. Just because 2 rules seem to contradict each other does not mean the opposite of what I said is the intention. It is just a contradiction. Contradictions are not permissions.
I didn't say it was a permission.
What I said was that 'corsairs can never be taken as allies' isn't logical when this is referenced multiple times in their rules.
Rulewise, I've already conceded (more than once now) that Corsair Princes can't be taken in an Allied Detachment.
Sorry I didn't realize that you were no longer arguing rules point. I think everyone can agree that the rules are not logically written in this case. I would certainly allow you to play an allied detachment with him - but I would press that he still must be your warlord - because of the way the rules are written.
123
Post by: Alpharius
GENERAL NOTE/WARNING:
Comments like "learn to read", "learn to play", "FTFY", etc. are, for the most part, considered rude and against RULE #1 as they do nothing to further the cause of reasoned discussion.
37809
Post by: Kriswall
I'm actually inclined to agree that the actual wording of "...On Target" could be interpreted as giving blanket permission to charge after a Deep Strike occurs. I also feel that it could easily be interpreted as only giving permission to override the normal restriction associated with coming in from Reserves. Context is super important here.
There is a potential ambiguity here. My take on the intention is that the author's most likely intended to only override the restriction regarding Reserves and not every other restriction in the rules associated with Charging. As such, I would play this that firing a Rapid Fire weapon prevents declaring a charge.
53939
Post by: vipoid
nosferatu1001 wrote:
You have this utter nonsense idea that you have Primary and Allied detachments. That somehow Allies are only those outside of the Primary detachment
You are ignoring context.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Its utter rubbish, na dyou were shown this 4 pages back, yet it persists. It explains why you have such an issue here.
All I've seen is you proving that you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Page 126. LEVELS OF ALLIANCE
"between units that have different Factions in the same army"
You do understand context, right? As in, the rulebook has no clue what army the player will be using and hence can only state who is allied with who. e.g. you could say that America and Britain are allies. However, if you're talking about a specific army, you also need to use more specific terminology.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
You are an Allied Contingent to Dark Eldar even if your Detachment has the Warlord in it.
You. Are. Wrong.
A contingent is, by definition, a subgroup. As in part of a larger group. If everything in your army is an allied contingent, then nothing is. Because it's no longer a subgroup.
Once again, the allied contingent is the contingent of your army that is made up of allies (as opposed to your own men). Do you see how this works?
e.g. Let's say a British regiment is given command of a few platoons of American soldiers. Those American platoons would be your allied contingent. Again, they are the contingent of your army that is made up of allies (as opposed to your own British soldiers). The British army does not become an allied contingent of the american platoons. This would be both factually wrong and completely nonsensical. It is a British army. Hence, the allied contingent is the part(s) of it that are not made up of British soldiers but rather allied ones.
Exactly the same applies to armies in 40k. If you have an Eldar army with Dark Eldar allies, the Dark Eldar are your allied contingent. You do not become an allied contingent of Dark Eldar because it is an Eldar army.
37809
Post by: Kriswall
vipoid wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:
You have this utter nonsense idea that you have Primary and Allied detachments. That somehow Allies are only those outside of the Primary detachment
You are ignoring context.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Its utter rubbish, na dyou were shown this 4 pages back, yet it persists. It explains why you have such an issue here.
All I've seen is you proving that you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Page 126. LEVELS OF ALLIANCE
"between units that have different Factions in the same army"
You do understand context, right? As in, the rulebook has no clue what army the player will be using and hence can only state who is allied with who. e.g. you could say that America and Britain are allies. However, if you're talking about a specific army, you also need to use more specific terminology.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
You are an Allied Contingent to Dark Eldar even if your Detachment has the Warlord in it.
You. Are. Wrong.
A contingent is, by definition, a subgroup. As in part of a larger group. If everything in your army is an allied contingent, then nothing is. Because it's no longer a subgroup.
Once again, the allied contingent is the contingent of your army that is made up of allies (as opposed to your own men). Do you see how this works?
e.g. Let's say a British regiment is given command of a few platoons of American soldiers. Those American platoons would be your allied contingent. Again, they are the contingent of your army that is made up of allies (as opposed to your own British soldiers). The British army does not become an allied contingent of the american platoons. This would be both factually wrong and completely nonsensical. It is a British army. Hence, the allied contingent is the part(s) of it that are not made up of British soldiers but rather allied ones.
Exactly the same applies to armies in 40k. If you have an Eldar army with Dark Eldar allies, the Dark Eldar are your allied contingent. You do not become an allied contingent of Dark Eldar because it is an Eldar army.
Nos is right. It's almost like your understanding of how allies works is stuck in 6th Edition.
53939
Post by: vipoid
Kriswall wrote:Nos is right. It's almost like your understanding of how allies works is stuck in 6th Edition.
What are you basing this on exactly?
37809
Post by: Kriswall
vipoid wrote: Kriswall wrote:Nos is right. It's almost like your understanding of how allies works is stuck in 6th Edition.
What are you basing this on exactly?
Your own words. You seem to think that the Detachment a Warlord is in can't be an allied Detachment (note the non proper noun). It's almost as though you don't understand the difference between allied Detachment and Allied Detachment. Two entirely different concepts.
53939
Post by: vipoid
Kriswall wrote:Your own words. You seem to think that the Detachment a Warlord is in can't be an allied Detachment (note the non proper noun).
Because it's true.
Kriswall wrote:It's almost as though you don't understand the difference between allied Detachment and Allied Detachment. Two entirely different concepts.
I understand completely, but I'm beginning to feel like I'm the only one.
Certainly I seem to be the only one able to distinguish between 'factions' and 'armies'.
37809
Post by: Kriswall
vipoid wrote: Kriswall wrote:Your own words. You seem to think that the Detachment a Warlord is in can't be an allied Detachment (note the non proper noun).
Because it's true.
Kriswall wrote:It's almost as though you don't understand the difference between allied Detachment and Allied Detachment. Two entirely different concepts.
I understand completely, but I'm beginning to feel like I'm the only one.
Certainly I seem to be the only one able to distinguish between 'factions' and 'armies'.
Since you say you understand, yet your words indicate that you don't... please explain the difference between an Allied Detachment and an allied Detachment. Feel free to explain this to me as though I'm 5 years old. I won't be insulted if you dumb it down. I genuinely don't think you understand how allies work in 7th Edition.
53939
Post by: vipoid
Kriswall wrote:Since you say you understand, yet your words indicate that you don't... please explain the difference between an Allied Detachment and an allied Detachment. Feel free to explain this to me as though I'm 5 years old. I won't be insulted if you dumb it down. I genuinely don't think you understand how allies work in 7th Edition.
I'll try my best but I feel like I'm running out of different ways to explain myself.
An Allied Detachment refers to a single, specific detachment.
An allied Detachment would refer to any detachments (including Formations) with a different faction to whatever your Primary detachment is.
So, let's say you have an army made up of the following detachments:
CAD Eldar Primary detachment (with Farseer Warlord)
Wraithhost
Grotesquerie
DE Allied Detachment
Harlequin Masque Detachment
The Grotesquerie, DE and Harlequin Masque are all allied Detachments.
The DE Allied Detachment is the only Allied Detachment.
Am I making sense?
37809
Post by: Kriswall
vipoid wrote: Kriswall wrote:Since you say you understand, yet your words indicate that you don't... please explain the difference between an Allied Detachment and an allied Detachment. Feel free to explain this to me as though I'm 5 years old. I won't be insulted if you dumb it down. I genuinely don't think you understand how allies work in 7th Edition.
I'll try my best but I feel like I'm running out of different ways to explain myself.
An Allied Detachment refers to a single, specific detachment.
An allied Detachment would refer to any detachments (including Formations) with a different faction to whatever your Primary detachment is.
So, let's say you have an army made up of the following detachments:
CAD Eldar Primary detachment (with Farseer Warlord)
Wraithhost
Grotesquerie
DE Allied Detachment
Harlequin Masque Detachment
The Grotesquerie, DE and Harlequin Masque are all allied Detachments.
The DE Allied Detachment is the only Allied Detachment.
Am I making sense?
I see where your misunderstanding is. Your second point is wrong. The concept of allies doesn't care who your Warlord is or which Detachment has been designated Primary.
If I have a Combined Arms Detachment of Space Wolves with the Warlord and an Inquisitorial Detachment... it would be 100% correct to say that the Inquisitorial Detachment is allied to the Space Wolves CAD. It would also be 100% correct to say that the Space Wolves CAD is allied to the Inquisitorial Detachment.
It seems like you want your "army" to be the Faction of whatever your Warlord is with everything else as allies. The rules don't support this. There is no such thing as a "Space Wolves Army". There are only Detachments (or Unbound) with every unit allied to every other unit on a sliding scale from Battle Brothers to Come the Apocalypse. The rules don't support your interpretation.
You might want to go read the rules for allies again. This was one of the major shifts in list building from 6th to 7th. You would have been correct in 6th. You aren't in 7th.
53939
Post by: vipoid
Kriswall wrote:
I see where your misunderstanding is. Your second point is wrong. The concept of allies doesn't care who your Warlord is or which Detachment has been designated Primary.
Sorry, but I think you're mistaken on this point. There's a difference between allied detachments (or contingents) in an army and allies.
Allies is just a general relationship between two or more factions. It doesn't care who your warlord is because it doesn't care about warlords at all. It is talking about factions, not armies.
In contrast, an allied detachment would refer to a detachment in a army. Here, you can be much more specific because you know which is the main faction (which includes the overall commander of the army).
Kriswall wrote:
If I have a Combined Arms Detachment of Space Wolves with the Warlord and an Inquisitorial Detachment... it would be 100% correct to say that the Inquisitorial Detachment is allied to the Space Wolves CAD. It would also be 100% correct to say that the Space Wolves CAD is allied to the Inquisitorial Detachment.
But that's the thing - you would not refer to SW detachment as an allied detachment. It would be contextually wrong and even misleading. You'd basically be saying that you have an Inquisitorial army with some SW allies - as opposed to a SW army with some inquisitorial allies.
Kriswall wrote:
It seems like you want your "army" to be the Faction of whatever your Warlord is with everything else as allies. The rules don't support this.
I think part of the problem is that you are interpreting a lack of rules either way as meaning that 'allies' and 'allied detachment' are identical. The rules do not support this either.
Kriswall wrote:There is no such thing as a "Space Wolves Army". There are only Detachments (or Unbound) with every unit allied to every other unit on a sliding scale from Battle Brothers to Come the Apocalypse. The rules don't support your interpretation.
Not so. The rules give you a primary detachment with an overall commander. That should be more than enough to indicate that your factions are not all equal - one will have command of the army and any other factions you include should be considered allied detachments.
Here's a final question for you though - if we go with your definition, then what's the point of calling *anything* an allied detachment? By your logic, every detachment is an allied one, making the distinction completely meaningless and utterly useless. There would be literally no point in referring to anything as an allied detachment, because it would have exactly the same meaning as 'detachment'.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Your second point is wrong, as pointed out. An allied detachment is any other detachment, regardless of faction. Everything has an ally status with everything else. Two sw cads are BB allied detachments of the other
Or, to put it in your eloquent words. You. Are. Wrong.
You are ascribing meaning that the game doesn't use, and constructing a paper then argument off the basis of that false construction.
Your primary detachment is an allied detachment of our Aliied Detachment and the Aliied Detavhment is an allied detachment of your primary detachment. All at the same time
Feel,free to use some rules to disprove it this time. You know, as per the tenets.
37809
Post by: Kriswall
vipoid wrote: Kriswall wrote:
I see where your misunderstanding is. Your second point is wrong. The concept of allies doesn't care who your Warlord is or which Detachment has been designated Primary.
Sorry, but I think you're mistaken on this point. There's a difference between allied detachments (or contingents) in an army and allies.
Allies is just a general relationship between two or more factions. It doesn't care who your warlord is because it doesn't care about warlords at all. It is talking about factions, not armies.
In contrast, an allied detachment would refer to a detachment in a army. Here, you can be much more specific because you know which is the main faction (which includes the overall commander of the army).
Kriswall wrote:
If I have a Combined Arms Detachment of Space Wolves with the Warlord and an Inquisitorial Detachment... it would be 100% correct to say that the Inquisitorial Detachment is allied to the Space Wolves CAD. It would also be 100% correct to say that the Space Wolves CAD is allied to the Inquisitorial Detachment.
But that's the thing - you would not refer to SW detachment as an allied detachment. It would be contextually wrong and even misleading. You'd basically be saying that you have an Inquisitorial army with some SW allies - as opposed to a SW army with some inquisitorial allies.
Kriswall wrote:
It seems like you want your "army" to be the Faction of whatever your Warlord is with everything else as allies. The rules don't support this.
I think part of the problem is that you are interpreting a lack of rules either way as meaning that 'allies' and 'allied detachment' are identical. The rules do not support this either.
Kriswall wrote:There is no such thing as a "Space Wolves Army". There are only Detachments (or Unbound) with every unit allied to every other unit on a sliding scale from Battle Brothers to Come the Apocalypse. The rules don't support your interpretation.
Not so. The rules give you a primary detachment with an overall commander. That should be more than enough to indicate that your factions are not all equal - one will have command of the army and any other factions you include should be considered allied detachments.
Here's a final question for you though - if we go with your definition, then what's the point of calling *anything* an allied detachment? By your logic, every detachment is an allied one, making the distinction completely meaningless and utterly useless. There would be literally no point in referring to anything as an allied detachment, because it would have exactly the same meaning as 'detachment'.
What's the point of calling a tree a tree? All detachments are allies of each other. Most people just refer to them as detachments. I'm actually unsure as to why you're so fixated on differentiating between the Warlord's detachment and all others. From an allies perspective, the rule book doesn't differentiate. Thus, you shouldn't either.
53939
Post by: vipoid
But we're not just calling it a tree. We're specifically calling out a group of trees as 'photosynthesis tree', despite the fact that this doesn't differentiate them in the slightest. There's no point in not just calling them 'trees'.
Kriswall wrote:What's the point of calling a tree a tree? All detachments are allies of each other. Most people just refer to them as detachments. I'm actually unsure as to why you're so fixated on differentiating between the Warlord's detachment and all others. From an allies perspective, the rule book doesn't differentiate. Thus, you shouldn't either.
The rulebook also doesn't tell you that all detachments are allied detachments. You can't just make up rules like that. Also, if we're talking about how people refer to things, then stuff like 'Space Wolf Army' most certainly do exist. What I've never once seen is "Collection of space wolf and inquisition detachments."
Also, the Corsair book also specifically differentiates between 'Necrons taking an allied contingent of Corsairs' and 'Corsairs taking an allied contingent of Necron'. This is strong evidence that they are not the same.
The reason I'm fixated is that I'm baffled that others would see it any other way. It just seems so illogical to me. If you want to refer to all the detachments in your army, you already have a word for that - 'detachments'.
Literally the only reason you'd use 'allied detachments' would be to differentiate them from your other detachments. e.g. "Our allied detachments will form the vanguard of our army, whilst our own troops hold back and provide supporting fire."
37809
Post by: Kriswall
vipoid wrote:
But we're not just calling it a tree. We're specifically calling out a group of trees as 'photosynthesis tree', despite the fact that this doesn't differentiate them in the slightest. There's no point in not just calling them 'trees'.
Kriswall wrote:What's the point of calling a tree a tree? All detachments are allies of each other. Most people just refer to them as detachments. I'm actually unsure as to why you're so fixated on differentiating between the Warlord's detachment and all others. From an allies perspective, the rule book doesn't differentiate. Thus, you shouldn't either.
The rulebook also doesn't tell you that all detachments are allied detachments. You can't just make up rules like that. Also, if we're talking about how people refer to things, then stuff like 'Space Wolf Army' most certainly do exist. What I've never once seen is "Collection of space wolf and inquisition detachments."
Also, the Corsair book also specifically differentiates between 'Necrons taking an allied contingent of Corsairs' and 'Corsairs taking an allied contingent of Necron'. This is strong evidence that they are not the same.
The reason I'm fixated is that I'm baffled that others would see it any other way. It just seems so illogical to me. If you want to refer to all the detachments in your army, you already have a word for that - 'detachments'.
Literally the only reason you'd use 'allied detachments' would be to differentiate them from your other detachments. e.g. "Our allied detachments will form the vanguard of our army, whilst our own troops hold back and provide supporting fire."
The rule book doesn't support the concept of a "Space Wolves Army". Factions are never assigned to the army as a whole. The concept of a Space Wolves Army with several allied Detachments from other Factions is just gamer short hand to explain that they have more Space Wolves minis than other minis and consider that to be the "main" part of their army.
The reality is that you have a Primary Detachment and then possibly other Detachments. All Detachments can be said to be allied to each other, so in that sense, they're all allied Detachments. The fact that there is a Detachment called the Allied Detachment as well as the no longer valid 6th Edition concept of single Faction armies with allied Detachments muddies the waters a bit. I can easily see how someone would get confused and think that the current rule set supports the concept of a single Faction army with a series of allied Detachments. The current rule set doesn't, though... it simply supports a grouping of Detachments called an Army with whichever Detachment has the Warlord being singled out and named as Primary. Being Primary doesn't change the fact that it acts as an allied Detachment to every other Detachment in the army.
To be honest, I'm not sure how this is relevant to the discussion about Eldar Corsair Princes being options in Allied Detachments ( AD). I feel like we've gone off the tracks a little.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
It's this idea that vipoid is claiming the use of "allied contingent" means they MUST be able to be fielded as non-primary (and thus the AD becomes an option) - that there is some really tenuous permission granted by the very redundant rule written by GW.
53939
Post by: vipoid
Please don't put words in my mouth, nosferatu1001.
I didn't claim it was a permission - just that it's heavily implied that the intention is that Corsairs can be fielded as allies to other primary detachments, as opposed to always being your main army, primary detachment or whatever you want to call it.
37809
Post by: Kriswall
vipoid wrote:Please don't put words in my mouth, nosferatu1001.
I didn't claim it was a permission - just that it's heavily implied that the intention is that Corsairs can be fielded as allies to other primary detachments, as opposed to always being your main army, primary detachment or whatever you want to call it.
I'm actually inclined to agree that this heavily implies an author's intention to allow Corsairs to be fielded as a Detachment in an army where the Warlord is not a Corsair. Unfortunately, the core rules, when combined with the Eldar Corsairs rules, would prevent this from ever happening. It's almost as though the author of the Eldar Corsairs book didn't realize this interaction would occur.
From a RaW perspective... no. Due to a variety of rules interactions, Eldar Corsairs can never field an Allied Detachment (1HQ, 1Troops + extras).
Form a competitive/tournament HIWPI perspective... no. The rules are pretty clear, even if the author's comments are a little murky.
From a casual HIWPI perspective... sure. The author implies that we could have a situation where Eldar Corsairs are taken as allies for another army. This can be read as allying to some other Faction's Warlord/Primary Detachment. For the purposes of the Allied Detachment ONLY, I'd probably waive the requirement that a Corsairs Prince be Warlord if present. It's not exactly game changing and let's more people play.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
vipoid wrote:Please don't put words in my mouth, nosferatu1001. I didn't claim it was a permission - just that it's heavily implied that the intention is that Corsairs can be fielded as allies to other primary detachments, as opposed to always being your main army, primary detachment or whatever you want to call it.
Corsairs CAN be fielded as Allies. You just still dont seem to understand that everyone is an Ally to everyone else, and "Allied Contingent" does not in anyway shape or form REQUIRE that the detachemtn in question is a non-Primary one, You can have Corsairs, Eldar and Space Wolves, all in one army. It is NOT a "Corsair" army, just because that is the detachment the Warlord MUST be from. Thats just player convention and sloppy usage, likely as a holdover from pre-7th days. I know I do it, however it isnt usage supported or even IMPLIED by the rules You're also presuming rules development is static, by claiming an intention. Maybe to start with they didnt make the prince a "1" requirement, and he was 0-1 - in which case that incredibly redundant line about being able to take AD would a) be possible yet b) still utterly redundant. As a silly example: I can take an Inqusiitor warlord with allied GK. The inquisitorial detachment is 25 points, yet is still Primary. Yet I dont think anyone here would call that an Inquisition army, naturally? Simialrly your corsair detachmetn may be the prince and 2 troops, allied to a 30000 point in total set of Eldar detachments. Naturally most people would call that an "Eldar" army ,I would have thought.
99970
Post by: EnTyme
nosferatu1001 wrote: vipoid wrote:Please don't put words in my mouth, nosferatu1001.
I didn't claim it was a permission - just that it's heavily implied that the intention is that Corsairs can be fielded as allies to other primary detachments, as opposed to always being your main army, primary detachment or whatever you want to call it.
Corsairs CAN be fielded as Allies. You just still dont seem to understand that everyone is an Ally to everyone else, and "Allied Contingent" does not in anyway shape or form REQUIRE that the detachemtn in question is a non-Primary one,
You can have Corsairs, Eldar and Space Wolves, all in one army. It is NOT a "Corsair" army, just because that is the detachment the Warlord MUST be from. Thats just player convention and sloppy usage, likely as a holdover from pre-7th days. I know I do it, however it isnt usage supported or even IMPLIED by the rules
You're also presuming rules development is static, by claiming an intention. Maybe to start with they didnt make the prince a "1" requirement, and he was 0-1 - in which case that incredibly redundant line about being able to take AD would a) be possible yet b) still utterly redundant.
As a silly example: I can take an Inqusiitor warlord with allied GK. The inquisitorial detachment is 25 points, yet is still Primary. Yet I dont think anyone here would call that an Inquisition army, naturally?
Simialrly your corsair detachmetn may be the prince and 2 troops, allied to a 30000 point in total set of Eldar detachments. Naturally most people would call that an "Eldar" army ,I would have thought.
I think you're overly focused on the semantics of "allies" vs. Allied Detachment. The issue the thread was originally addressing still makes your last paragraph incorrect. Allied Detachment, no matter what race's army it is attached to, has two restrictions:
1) it CANNOT contain the army's warlord
2) it MUST be of a different race than the primary detachment.
The Corsair Prince rules require that the prince MUST be the army's warlord (or if there are multiple princes, one must be the warlord), therefore, Corsair Princes cannot be a part of the Allied Detachment per RAW. He can be an ally, and the warlord, but he cannot be in an Allied Detachment.
However, I do agree with Kriswall. HIWPI is that in a casual setting, I would allow my opponent to use a non-Corsair Prince warlord so that the prince could be in an Allied Detachment.
37809
Post by: Kriswall
EnTyme wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote: vipoid wrote:Please don't put words in my mouth, nosferatu1001.
I didn't claim it was a permission - just that it's heavily implied that the intention is that Corsairs can be fielded as allies to other primary detachments, as opposed to always being your main army, primary detachment or whatever you want to call it.
Corsairs CAN be fielded as Allies. You just still dont seem to understand that everyone is an Ally to everyone else, and "Allied Contingent" does not in anyway shape or form REQUIRE that the detachemtn in question is a non-Primary one,
You can have Corsairs, Eldar and Space Wolves, all in one army. It is NOT a "Corsair" army, just because that is the detachment the Warlord MUST be from. Thats just player convention and sloppy usage, likely as a holdover from pre-7th days. I know I do it, however it isnt usage supported or even IMPLIED by the rules
You're also presuming rules development is static, by claiming an intention. Maybe to start with they didnt make the prince a "1" requirement, and he was 0-1 - in which case that incredibly redundant line about being able to take AD would a) be possible yet b) still utterly redundant.
As a silly example: I can take an Inqusiitor warlord with allied GK. The inquisitorial detachment is 25 points, yet is still Primary. Yet I dont think anyone here would call that an Inquisition army, naturally?
Simialrly your corsair detachmetn may be the prince and 2 troops, allied to a 30000 point in total set of Eldar detachments. Naturally most people would call that an "Eldar" army ,I would have thought.
I think you're overly focused on the semantics of "allies" vs. Allied Detachment. The issue the thread was originally addressing still makes your last paragraph incorrect. Allied Detachment, no matter what race's army it is attached to, has two restrictions:
1) it CANNOT contain the army's warlord
2) it MUST be of a different race than the primary detachment.
The Corsair Prince rules require that the prince MUST be the army's warlord (or if there are multiple princes, one must be the warlord), therefore, Corsair Princes cannot be a part of the Allied Detachment per RAW. He can be an ally, and the warlord, but he cannot be in an Allied Detachment.
However, I do agree with Kriswall. HIWPI is that in a casual setting, I would allow my opponent to use a non-Corsair Prince warlord so that the prince could be in an Allied Detachment.
I also agree with Kriswall. That dude seems like he's really on top of things. I hear he's also incredibly handsome.
92201
Post by: Lusiphur
That dude seems like he's really on top of things. I hear he's also incredibly handsome.
That is clearly not RAW. I will need page and paragraph for such an assertion.
37809
Post by: Kriswall
Lusiphur wrote: That dude seems like he's really on top of things. I hear he's also incredibly handsome.
That is clearly not RAW. I will need page and paragraph for such an assertion.
+1 to you, sir.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
I, not overly hung up - there is a difference between allies and the allied Detavhment. Given the initial word is very similar, it's important to be precise there
Oh, and the subject of kriswalls handsomeness is clearly not raw - representation as written - but rai (representation as inebriated )
71519
Post by: BetrayTheWorld
It's worth pointing out that "Detachment" and "Contingent" are synonyms, and were likely used interchangebly by forgeworld writers in this case.
I do agree that doing so was a mistake/oversight, but in all likelihood, they meant for it to say detachment since they used a word that means the same thing in the English language.
Pretty sure the part that says "A Corsair Prince must be your warlord."
Meant to say, "In an army who's primary detachment is corsairs, a Corsair Prince must be your warlord."
Because that 1 little string of 8 words would solve almost all of the contradictions in that section of the book, I'm pretty sure that line was there and mistakenly edited out for rewording that never occurred, or simply forgot to be added in pending how it should be worded.
67792
Post by: DarkPhoenix
We need FAQ about this, why Spectres exarch have only 1 wound and that unchargable corsairs is not what authors intended.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Unchargeable corsairs?
HOw do you know one wound Exarch isnt what the author intended? Did you speak to them just this last weekend?
67792
Post by: DarkPhoenix
nosferatu1001 wrote:Unchargeable corsairs?
HOw do you know one wound Exarch isnt what the author intended? Did you speak to them just this last weekend?
"why Spectres exarch have only 1 wound"
AND
"that unchargable corsairs is not what authors intended"
Do i really write in so convoluted ways that people can't comprehend it?
As for corsairs, their jetibkes and jetpacks can reckless abandon after shooting attack (others can too, but not as far)
Overwatch is shooting attack.
You charge them from 1 inch - they move 9.5 average after overwatch. Good luck making 10.5 inch charge now.
Oh and there is the power that makes them move 12 instead. Good luck making 13 inch auto failed charge.
Unless you are Daemonettes or something, then you have like 1/9 chance of making it!
I mean, i dont care. I can just say my bikes are corsairs and play RAW. Its not like i needed those friends anyway.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
No, I comprehended it perfectly -> I was asking why you thought the author didnt INTEND the exarch to have 1W, and was asking for your evidence for this. For example, you could have been at the HH weekender just this last weekend and spoken to the author
That isnt unchargeable. Just hard to charge with a single unit. And, again, are you certain this wasnt intended?
67792
Post by: DarkPhoenix
nosferatu1001 wrote:No, I comprehended it perfectly -> I was asking why you thought the author didnt INTEND the exarch to have 1W, and was asking for your evidence for this. For example, you could have been at the HH weekender just this last weekend and spoken to the author
That isnt unchargeable. Just hard to charge with a single unit. And, again, are you certain this wasnt intended?
Nowhere in my post it said i think 1w exarch is not intended - i said that i want to know why author made him the only exarch in the whole eldar army to have 1 wound.
About overwatch, i am 95% sure its not intended and 5% that its better version of that tau guy's Fighting Retreat thing (or whatever it called)
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
SOrry, your run on sentence, lacking all punctuation, did not clearly separate your two statements. Read it again and you can see that ...intended part can refer to both
And wanting to know WHY is also asking if it was intended, surely?
Last I spoke to them about the corsairs retreat, they said it was intended, but that could have just been to not admit a mistake!
67792
Post by: DarkPhoenix
nosferatu1001 wrote:SOrry, your run on sentence, lacking all punctuation, did not clearly separate your two statements. Read it again and you can see that ...intended part can refer to both
And wanting to know WHY is also asking if it was intended, surely?
Last I spoke to them about the corsairs retreat, they said it was intended, but that could have just been to not admit a mistake!
I don't want to sound like an arsehole, but that says person who starts their posts with 2 capital letters?
And my original sentence is perfect, it have all punctuation it needs.
P.S.: Language filter here is funny.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
The two capitals did not alter the meaning of the sentence. The lack of the comma after "...wound" does. It creates a single clause instead of two.
Dont take it personally. I was explaining why I (correctly) thought you had state the two issues you raised were both not intended by the author, whereas only the second was.
53939
Post by: vipoid
nosferatu1001 wrote:The two capitals did not alter the meaning of the sentence. The lack of the comma after "...wound" does. It creates a single clause instead of two.
Much as I despise agreeing with nosferatu1001 about anything, he is right here.
Commas change sentences quite dramatically: "Let's eat, grandpa."
|
|
