Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

What's your call on this one people? there are no rules covering this

I've recently been having lots of multi-player games 2-a-side. At one stage my wood elf mage was stranded, and looking like a sitting duck. Next to her was a big unit of high elf spearmen, at the time we all agreed she should be allowed to join that unit. What do you think, were we right? can a character join an allied unit

as far as I know, there is no rule covering this. I have never brought this up in any 2v2 games that I have played. if your group is ok with it, then I'd say yes.

I'll go the other way on precedent of the older Chaos books. Beast Characters couldn't join Daemon or Mortal units, Mortal Characters couldn't join Daemon or Beast units, Daemon Characters couldn't join Mortal or Beast Units.

If you want/demand newer precedent, the Legendary Battles rule set and Allies Matrix expressly forbids this as well. Your characters can only join your units and allied characters of yours can only join units from their own book/list. This was also forbidden in the General's Compendium under team games(anything other than 1v1).

Platuan4th wrote:I'll go the other way on precedent of the older Chaos books. Beast Characters couldn't join Daemon or Mortal units, Mortal Characters couldn't join Daemon or Beast units, Daemon Characters couldn't join Mortal or Beast Units.

However, it is to be noted that the older Chaos books had a specific, fluff based reason for that restriction (namely, that Chaos were racist jerks, apparently).

Platuan4th wrote:If you want/demand newer precedent, the Legendary Battles rule set and Allies Matrix expressly forbids this as well. Your characters can only join your units and allied characters of yours can only join units from their own book/list. This was also forbidden in the General's Compendium under team games(anything other than 1v1).

But those supplements are relevant only when they are actually playing using them (which I can only assume they were not, given the question). The more relevant precedent, I would propose, are the Dogs of War rules, which to the best of my knowledge contain no limitations on having characters join units of other races (excepting, of course, the rules on undead and so on).

In the end though, gotta go with Arion's call: in the absence of explicit rules, mutual agreement rules (heck, even with explicit rules it does...).

Just trying to point out that for every official multi-player rule set GW has put out forbids it. Of course they can over rule it, it's their game, their rules. He asked what our opinions on it were, mine are actually based in GW precedent. Oh, and there was no fluff based reason in Chaos, at least the mortals one. There was in the Cult of Pleasure list, but mostly because Dark Elves are racist.

Thanks for your replies. After reading through them, i don't think they should be allowed to mix. The example i gave seems resonable (both pointy ear elves) but with most other allied armies it doesn't feel right. Dark Elf leading orcs, Vampire with tomb kings, High elf leading ironbreakers, etc.
Another thing that came up in that game was the Tomb King player then wanted to try raise dead on some vampire count skeletons. We decided no on this one, we came up with a lame excuse about the magic being different.
Even though it would be to my advantage, I don't think there should be one exception to the rule (eg.wood elf and high elf)

I'd say not as well.

In the situation given, it seemed innocent enough. However, when you start to take Magic Items into account, and the possible combinations thereof (hey look, I've just stuck the Griffon Banner in with some Swordmasters!) it becomes so open to abuse.

And abuse like that erodes the fun. If I agree to a multiplayer game, it's generally because of restricted table space, too many gamers, not enough boards. So you just stick on the list you've written next to your ally and crash on. But the second it's planned, with characters flitting from army to army, it quickly becomes a exercise in powergaming.

One example? I deploy an Empire Captain, with the Griffon Banner, in a unit of Tombguard next to the Tombking. I 'carelessly' leave said unit out of position. Enemy fall for it, and get chopped to pieces.

Just ruins things! So no, I'm afraid. I wouldn't allow it.

Platuan4th wrote:Just trying to point out that for every official multi-player rule set GW has put out forbids it. Of course they can over rule it, it's their game, their rules. He asked what our opinions on it were, mine are actually based in GW precedent.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:In the situation given, it seemed innocent enough. However, when you start to take Magic Items into account, and the possible combinations thereof (hey look, I've just stuck the Griffon Banner in with some Swordmasters!) it becomes so open to abuse.

And abuse like that erodes the fun. If I agree to a multiplayer game, it's generally because of restricted table space, too many gamers, not enough boards. So you just stick on the list you've written next to your ally and crash on. But the second it's planned, with characters flitting from army to army, it quickly becomes a exercise in powergaming.

Odd, and here I thought the Dogs of War rules were actually part of WHFB core rules, silly me. Look, the game they were playing is simply not designed for teams in the manner they are playing it, and thus have gone outside the realm of rules into the fluffy cotton candy of "player consent". If, in a legal game, you buy a unit of Ogre Maneaters for your Empire army, you can feel perfectly free to put a captain in it (or better yet, maneaters + death hag with standard of Hag Graef...mmmm, tasty). For me that's would be sufficient reason to allow it to happen in a 2 on 2 mad melee if the other players wanted to do it. If it doesn't satisfy you, or you simply don't trust the other people you're playing with... /shrug I think the issues aren't really of the YMTC nature.

Platuan4th wrote:Oh, and there was no fluff based reason in Chaos, at least the mortals one. There was in the Cult of Pleasure list, but mostly because Dark Elves are racist.

"The Human (or near-human) followers of the Chaos gods have a tenancy to look down on the most brutal beasts and creatures. ... a Chaos Champion who has Beastmen in his retinue would deem their company beneath him." Page 50, Beasts of Chaos, under "Mixing Characters". Whether simply looking down on other sentients constitutes racism per se is, again, outside the scope of the YMTC forum.

Buzzsaw wrote:Odd, and here I thought the Dogs of War rules were actually part of WHFB core rules, silly me. Look, the game they were playing is simply not designed for teams in the manner they are playing it, and thus have gone outside the realm of rules into the fluffy cotton candy of "player consent". If, in a legal game, you buy a unit of Ogre Maneaters for your Empire army, you can feel perfectly free to put a captain in it (or better yet, maneaters + death hag with standard of Hag Graef...mmmm, tasty). For me that's would be sufficient reason to allow it to happen in a 2 on 2 mad melee if the other players wanted to do it. If it doesn't satisfy you, or you simply don't trust the other people you're playing with... /shrug I think the issues aren't really of the YMTC nature.

Dogs of War have a rule stating THEY can do it. Why is a rule like that necessary? Because you can't otherwise do it, obviously.

Buzzsaw wrote:"The Human (or near-human) followers of the Chaos gods have a tenancy to look down on the most brutal beasts and creatures. ... a Chaos Champion who has Beastmen in his retinue would deem their company beneath him." Page 50, Beasts of Chaos, under "Mixing Characters". Whether simply looking down on other sentients constitutes racism per se is, again, outside the scope of the YMTC forum.

Sorry, didn't know about this, I never owned the Beasts book, just Hordes, which is why I caveated with "at least the mortals one".

Platuan4th wrote:Dogs of War have a rule stating THEY can do it. Why is a rule like that necessary? Because you can't otherwise do it, obviously.

Where is this rule? To the best of my knowledge the main rulebook contains no mention of Dogs of War at all, and there is certainly no such codicil in the Ogre Kingdoms' "Dogs of War" rule.

Actually, there ARE no more Dogs of War rules in the game other than Ogres, they are NOT "core rules" as you state. There are no Dogs of War rules in the rule book, and 7th edition Army Books actually have no Dogs of War listed in the Rare entries at all. GW has been phasing DoW out since the 6th ed PDF.

Remember, also, the rules are exclusionary, not permissive. Without a rule saying you CAN do it, assume you can't.

Platuan4th wrote:Dogs of War have a rule stating THEY can do it. Why is a rule like that necessary? Because you can't otherwise do it, obviously.

Platuan4th wrote:Actually, there ARE no more Dogs of War rules in the game other than Ogres, they are NOT "core rules" as you state. There are no Dogs of War rules in the rule book, and 7th edition Army Books actually have no Dogs of War listed in the Rare entries at all. GW has been phasing DoW out since the 6th ed PDF.

Sorry, is this your way of saying that you made up the Dogs of War rule you mentioned earlier?

Platuan4th wrote:Remember, also, the rules are exclusionary, not permissive. Without a rule saying you CAN do it, assume you can't.

Indeed, a point which supports my assertions, not your own: the rules for what unit a character may join are given on page 72, "a friendly unit of troops", with the very limited exclusions of "a monster, single chariot, unit of flyers or another character!" Contra your previous statement, Dogs of War have no such rule, because they need no such rule.

Buzzsaw wrote:
Sorry, is this your way of saying that you made up the Dogs of War rule you mentioned earlier?

No, because the old PDF had a rule similar to that effect.

Buzzsaw wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:Remember, also, the rules are exclusionary, not permissive. Without a rule saying you CAN do it, assume you can't.

Indeed, a point which supports my assertions, not your own: the rules for what unit a character may join are given on page 72, "a friendly unit of troops", with the very limited exclusions of "a monster, single chariot, unit of flyers or another character!" Contra your previous statement, Dogs of War have no such rule, because they need no such rule.

Actually, that point fairly disproves your assertions, because there is no rule telling us we can join characters with units from different lists/books or from armies controlled by other players. Lacking such rules, we can only assume that this is therefor not allowed.

Platuan4th wrote:

Buzzsaw wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:Remember, also, the rules are exclusionary, not permissive. Without a rule saying you CAN do it, assume you can't.

Indeed, a point which supports my assertions, not your own: the rules for what unit a character may join are given on page 72, "a friendly unit of troops", with the very limited exclusions of "a monster, single chariot, unit of flyers or another character!" Contra your previous statement, Dogs of War have no such rule, because they need no such rule.

Actually, that point fairly disproves your assertions, because there is no rule telling us we can join characters with units from different lists/books or from armies controlled by other players. Lacking such rules, we can only assume that this is therefor not allowed.

Hehe, does it now?

First: units are defined in a binary fashion as friendly or unfriendly. See, for example, page 9, BRB; "Troops, either friendly or unfriendly (ie yours or the enemy's)": since the troops in question cannot reasonably be defined as "your enemy's", they must therefore be "friendly".

Having reasonably defined the troops in question as friendly, the onus is now on you to show how they can be defined as "unfriendly"/"your enemy's", otherwise the characters are governed by the page 72 rules: able to join any "friendly unit of troops" except "a monster, single chariot, unit of flyers or another character!" While you may wish to "assume that this is therefor not allowed", you will need to provide a bit more to demonstrate that page 72 rules are to be ignored.