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.

I know this is going to be HERESY, but we are talking about potential heretics, so I think that's ok.

If all you're looking for is Chaos Knights, why not choose a loyalist chapter, add IG for cultists and then ally in some Knights.

Dark Angels may or may not be traitors to begin with, depending on how you read the background. The Blood Angels and Space Wolves are about a hair's width from being declared Excommunicate Traitoris by the =][= of Mankind at any given time. Black Dragons.. mutant scum. Legion of the Damned... smacks of warp sorcery. Flesh Tearers... basically Khorne Light. Knights of Blood... they're in the Blood Angels Dex AND the Chaos Dex for Big E's sake. Alpha Legion... use basically ANY CHAPTER and they can be secret chaos marines. I think you could make a background argument for anyone in power armour other than the Grey Knights. The stick up their bums is implanted during the process that makes them marines along with the black carapace.

If you're looking to use a Knight Titan and a Flying Chaos Turkey in the same list... guess again. RaW is pretty clear on this. If you're looking to use a Knight Titan in a list with Valkyries made out of converted and properly equipped Helturkeys... go crazy. You'll just have access to loyalist equipment and upgrades/chapter tactics instead of chaos gear and marks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, this is making me want to convert a Chaos Knight Titan. Maybe a Nurgle one.

The only reason I'm not going to is that I believe Forge World will release a Chaos Upgrade kit along with rules at some point. My concern is that the weapon options might change.

@Grendel

You keep saying that like it is obvious. Those rules talk about the relationship between the factions you want to ally and your primary detachment. In this case, the Knights are allying to the Imperial Guard not Chaos. There isnt a rule I am aware of that deals with the relationship between allied detachments. Its implied that you use the chart but implications arent worth a grots toss in determining how rules work.

It's not even implied, it is outright stated. Even the example backs this up.

I wonder how many people have had the chance to read the new codex. The allies issue is without question in my version and in no way is fluff.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It's not even implied, it is outright stated. Even the example backs this up.

The rule outright states how models interact but it doesnt say anything about what happens if the other allied detatchment is CTA. The implication is that they cant be taken but its not stated.

In other words, the rules goes like this. IG+SM= Treats SM models like BB. IG+DE=Treats DE models like DA. IG+CSM=Treats CSM models like ???. The key word here is models. The rule doesnt apply to army composition just how they interact on the board. How would CTA allies treat each others models?

the allies matrix comes into play before the game begins, before you even select your units.

You cannot take allies that are CTA as an ally between primary/allied detachment, so if you have to worry about all the levels of alliance you cannot have allies that are CTA in your army among 3+ factions.

Where is this stated?

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Where is this stated?

In the IK Codex...

Codex: Imperial Knights wrote:The Imperial Knights Allies Matrix below lists the relationship between Imperial Knights and the forces they may fight alongside.
Note that the Imperial Knights may have a different relationship to the models from an army’s primary detachment, and the models that make up that army’s ‘regular’ allied detachment (assuming there are any).
For example, if an Imperial Knight was part of an army where the primary detachment were Imperial Guard and the allied detachment were from the Tau Empire, then the Knight would treat the Guardsmen as Battle Brothers, and the Tau as Desperate Allies.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Where is this stated?

In the IK Codex...

Codex: Imperial Knights wrote:The Imperial Knights Allies Matrix below lists the relationship between Imperial Knights and the forces they may fight alongside.
Note that the Imperial Knights may have a different relationship to the models from an army’s primary detachment, and the models that make up that army’s ‘regular’ allied detachment (assuming there are any).
For example, if an Imperial Knight was part of an army where the primary detachment were Imperial Guard and the allied detachment were from the Tau Empire, then the Knight would treat the Guardsmen as Battle Brothers, and the Tau as Desperate Allies.

Huh, interesting.

Ergo if an imperial army (generally battle brothers) were to ally with necrons (come the apocalypse for knights), then that list would be illegal, as the forces used are incompatible, yes?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Huh, interesting.

Ergo if an imperial army (generally battle brothers) were to ally with necrons (come the apocalypse for knights), then that list would be illegal, as the forces used are incompatible, yes?

Correct.

Yes, that is exactly what it means. You have to consider the relationship between all potential allies, as you are explicitly told to.

Just stay patient guys. They are going to do chaos knights just like in epic. Only a matter of time.

 Peregrine wrote:


Nope. This is absolutely incorrect. You need to read the note about how to use the allies matrix (on the same page as the matrix itself) where it explicitly states that you find your primary detachment on the left side, and your potential allies on the top. It does not contain any instructions for finding a relationship between two allied detachments, so RAW there is nothing stopping the OP's plan.

(Now, RAI/HYWPI is an entirely different subject, and that kind of rules lawyering may not earn you many opponents when you're already using a class of unit that many people are opposed to in general.)

So what you're saying is, no matter what the relationship between the knights and the ally codex, it's just the primary detachment that determines if the knights can be brought. And any ally rules would only apply to the primary and knight, but not the allies and the knight? so if both were primary and secondary were desperate allies with the knight, the one eyed open rule would only affect the knight & primary, but not the secondary?

I'm just trying to understand your position, I'm not sure which way is the most RAW yet.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


Nope. This is absolutely incorrect. You need to read the note about how to use the allies matrix (on the same page as the matrix itself) where it explicitly states that you find your primary detachment on the left side, and your potential allies on the top. It does not contain any instructions for finding a relationship between two allied detachments, so RAW there is nothing stopping the OP's plan.

(Now, RAI/HYWPI is an entirely different subject, and that kind of rules lawyering may not earn you many opponents when you're already using a class of unit that many people are opposed to in general.)

So what you're saying is, no matter what the relationship between the knights and the ally codex, it's just the primary detachment that determines if the knights can be brought. And any ally rules would only apply to the primary and knight, but not the allies and the knight? so if both were primary and secondary were desperate allies with the knight, the one eyed open rule would only affect the knight & primary, but not the secondary?

I'm just trying to understand your position, I'm not sure which way is the most RAW yet.

The more RaW would be the codex rule that outright says you apply the level of alliance between all allied forces, not just the between Primary and Allied.

Did anyone notice how the ally matrix only refers to the Primary detachment but not Allied detachment so the link isnt just Primary to Allied Detachment but any allies.

 grendel083 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


Nope. This is absolutely incorrect. You need to read the note about how to use the allies matrix (on the same page as the matrix itself) where it explicitly states that you find your primary detachment on the left side, and your potential allies on the top. It does not contain any instructions for finding a relationship between two allied detachments, so RAW there is nothing stopping the OP's plan.

(Now, RAI/HYWPI is an entirely different subject, and that kind of rules lawyering may not earn you many opponents when you're already using a class of unit that many people are opposed to in general.)

So what you're saying is, no matter what the relationship between the knights and the ally codex, it's just the primary detachment that determines if the knights can be brought. And any ally rules would only apply to the primary and knight, but not the allies and the knight? so if both were primary and secondary were desperate allies with the knight, the one eyed open rule would only affect the knight & primary, but not the secondary?

I'm just trying to understand your position, I'm not sure which way is the most RAW yet.

The more RaW would be the codex rule that outright says you apply the level of alliance between all allied forces, not just the between Primary and Allied.

since you jumped in, and I've read up on the rules in question.

from this:
Note that the Imperial Knights may have a different relationship to the models from an army’s primary detachment, and the models that make up that army’s ‘regular’ allied detachment (assuming there are any).
For example, if an Imperial Knight was part of an army where the primary detachment were Imperial Guard and the allied detachment were from the Tau Empire, then the Knight would treat the Guardsmen as Battle Brothers, and the Tau as Desperate Allies.

we can see that they are allowing for the knight to have different alliance levels. "they may have different relationships"

and one eye open rule only applies between your primary detachment and desperate allies. did the knights update that rule? They can be desperate allies, but that doesn't give them 'one eye open' as they don't meet the requirement in the brb.

Which means there does seem to be some issues with these rules (is anyone really surprised?) so I'll keep an open mind for now til I can see what both sides have to say before I reach my conclusion.

I asked Peregrine for his position on this so I can hear both sides of the argument, I don't need your input, your position is pretty clear.

sirlynchmob wrote:
and one eye open rule only applies between your primary detachment and desperate allies.

Just out of curiosity, where did you get this from? My reading of One Eye Open refers to units within 6" of a Desperate Ally.

 Happyjew wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
and one eye open rule only applies between your primary detachment and desperate allies.

Just out of curiosity, where did you get this from? My reading of One Eye Open refers to units within 6" of a Desperate Ally.

pg 112 under DA

Furthermore, if your primary detachment is in a desperate alliance, .....

in addition one eye applies

so desperate allies are allies of convenience, with a furthermore of two things that apply to your primary detachment.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
and one eye open rule only applies between your primary detachment and desperate allies.

Just out of curiosity, where did you get this from? My reading of One Eye Open refers to units within 6" of a Desperate Ally.

pg 112 under DA

Furthermore, if your primary detachment is in a desperate alliance, .....

in addition one eye applies

so desperate allies are allies of convenience, with a furthermore of two things that apply to your primary detachment.

That part of the rule only applies to allied units being non-scoring and non-denial.

 Happyjew wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
and one eye open rule only applies between your primary detachment and desperate allies.

Just out of curiosity, where did you get this from? My reading of One Eye Open refers to units within 6" of a Desperate Ally.

pg 112 under DA

Furthermore, if your primary detachment is in a desperate alliance, .....

in addition one eye applies

so desperate allies are allies of convenience, with a furthermore of two things that apply to your primary detachment.

That part of the rule only applies to allied units being non-scoring and non-denial.

Right, and in addition to that if your primary detachment is in a desperate alliance, then the one eye special rule applies.

It starts with what you said and in addition to that adds on one eye. as were talking about a knight, who's not in your primary detachment, "one eye" wouldn't apply between the knight and the ally.

You are adding the "In addition" to the "If your primary detachment is in a desperate alliance...". It is a separate clause which has nothing to do with your primary detachment being in a desperate alliance.

 Happyjew wrote:
You are adding the "In addition" to the "If your primary detachment is in a desperate alliance...". It is a separate clause which has nothing to do with your primary detachment being in a desperate alliance.

no, it's a add on to the primary clause, it's in addition to the primary criteria, if you don't meet the first criteria, the in addition to that clause doesn't apply either.

if A is true then X
in addition to X, Y

they're linked, they're not two separate clauses, as far as the brb is concerned. which is why I asked if it got changed.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
You are adding the "In addition" to the "If your primary detachment is in a desperate alliance...". It is a separate clause which has nothing to do with your primary detachment being in a desperate alliance.

no, it's a add on to the primary clause, it's in addition to the primary criteria, if you don't meet the first criteria, the in addition to that clause doesn't apply either.

if A is true then X
in addition to X, Y

they're linked, they're not two separate clauses, as far as the brb is concerned. which is why I asked if it got changed.

It's not reading like that when I look at it. It's even in a completely different paragrah.

If it was "unit's are X, Y and the One Eye Open rule applies" then yes, I'd agree.

But we have "Allies are X. Further to X, Y and W applies." New paragraph, completely seprating from previous "In addition, the One Eye blah blah."

Reads as it being in addion to X, not in addion to the further Y and W.

Nope, no knights for Chaos I would say, it says in the codex

c. M31 The Death of Traitors
Horus lies dead at the hands of the Emperor. But so high is the cost of victory that many seek
solace in hounding the fleeing traitors across the stars rather than face the task of rebuilding
the shattered Imperium. This campaign of vengeance is known as the Scouring. The surviving
knightly houses with the strength to fight unanimously join in this crusade of retribution.
Believing the honour of the many to be stained by the treachery of the few, the Imperial Knights hunt down the knightly houses that sided with Horus with extreme prejudice, seeking to redeem their tarnished reputation. Filled with righteous indignation, a combinedstrike force of Knights from Houses Cadmus, Terryn and Borgius annihilates the turncoats of
House Devine as Imperial forces reclaim Molech.

So looks like all chaos knights are toast....

 Endriu Death Coy wrote:
Nope, no knights for Chaos I would say, it says in the codex

c. M31 The Death of Traitors
Horus lies dead at the hands of the Emperor. But so high is the cost of victory that many seek
solace in hounding the fleeing traitors across the stars rather than face the task of rebuilding
the shattered Imperium. This campaign of vengeance is known as the Scouring. The surviving
knightly houses with the strength to fight unanimously join in this crusade of retribution.
Believing the honour of the many to be stained by the treachery of the few, the Imperial Knights hunt down the knightly houses that sided with Horus with extreme prejudice, seeking to redeem their tarnished reputation. Filled with righteous indignation, a combinedstrike force of Knights from Houses Cadmus, Terryn and Borgius annihilates the turncoats of
House Devine as Imperial forces reclaim Molech.

So looks like all chaos knights are toast....

Well gak. There goes the Slaaneshi Knights.

Attached is a screen cap of the rule in question, I interpret it like this; the primary detachment (IG in this case) dictates who you can take as allies (in this case IK and chaos) but you still have to follow the rules set for allying between the allies of the primary detachment . So battle brothers count as scoring, convenience don't and desperate have the one eye open rule. So the problem is which rule do we follow? The IG saying they can ally with both or the IK saying we can't, but here's the thing; the IK rule book never specifically says you can't ally with IG who are allied with chaos. Until it gets FAQed I'm saying yes the OP is correct.

Nevzara wrote:
Attached is a screen cap of the rule in question, I interpret it like this; the primary detachment (IG in this case) dictates who you can take as allies (in this case IK and chaos) but you still have to follow the rules set for allying between the allies of the primary detachment . So battle brothers count as scoring, convenience don't and desperate have the one eye open rule. So the problem is which rule do we follow? The IG saying they can ally with both or the IK saying we can't, but here's the thing; the IK rule book never specifically says you can't ally with IG who are allied with chaos. Until it gets FAQed I'm saying yes the OP is correct.

It does, actually. The Knights would be CtA with Chaos.
You cannot ally with CtA armies.
Ergo, having Knights and Chaos in the same army is illegal.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Nevzara wrote:
Attached is a screen cap of the rule in question, I interpret it like this; the primary detachment (IG in this case) dictates who you can take as allies (in this case IK and chaos) but you still have to follow the rules set for allying between the allies of the primary detachment . So battle brothers count as scoring, convenience don't and desperate have the one eye open rule. So the problem is which rule do we follow? The IG saying they can ally with both or the IK saying we can't, but here's the thing; the IK rule book never specifically says you can't ally with IG who are allied with chaos. Until it gets FAQed I'm saying yes the OP is correct.

It does, actually. The Knights would be CtA with Chaos.
You cannot ally with CtA armies.
Ergo, having Knights and Chaos in the same army is illegal.

No it doesn't, they rule for 'Come the apocalypse; but not before' says "Simply, this kind of alliance can not occur. You'll have to look elsewhere for aid." but the IK arn't trying to ally with chaos they're allying with IG who happen to also be allied with chaos. So following the RAR the IK aren't allies with the chaos but are still allies with the IG and visa versa with the chaos. So in short it has no affect.

Nevzara wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Nevzara wrote:
Attached is a screen cap of the rule in question, I interpret it like this; the primary detachment (IG in this case) dictates who you can take as allies (in this case IK and chaos) but you still have to follow the rules set for allying between the allies of the primary detachment . So battle brothers count as scoring, convenience don't and desperate have the one eye open rule. So the problem is which rule do we follow? The IG saying they can ally with both or the IK saying we can't, but here's the thing; the IK rule book never specifically says you can't ally with IG who are allied with chaos. Until it gets FAQed I'm saying yes the OP is correct.

It does, actually. The Knights would be CtA with Chaos.
You cannot ally with CtA armies.
Ergo, having Knights and Chaos in the same army is illegal.

No it doesn't, they rule for 'Come the apocalypse; but not before' says "Simply, this kind of alliance can not occur. You'll have to look elsewhere for aid." but the IK arn't trying to ally with chaos they're allying with IG who happen to also be allied with chaos. So following the RAR the IK aren't allies with the chaos but are still allies with the IG and visa versa with the chaos. So in short it has no affect.

It does have an effect. Look at the example with the Tau. The knights treat the Tau as desperate allies. Tau are desperate allies with Knights in that table.
Chaos is CtA with Knights in that table.
Ergo, Knights would treat Chaos (even if they are associated with guard) as CtA "allies", making such a force incompatible, as "this kind of alliance can not occur."

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Nevzara wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Nevzara wrote:
Attached is a screen cap of the rule in question, I interpret it like this; the primary detachment (IG in this case) dictates who you can take as allies (in this case IK and chaos) but you still have to follow the rules set for allying between the allies of the primary detachment . So battle brothers count as scoring, convenience don't and desperate have the one eye open rule. So the problem is which rule do we follow? The IG saying they can ally with both or the IK saying we can't, but here's the thing; the IK rule book never specifically says you can't ally with IG who are allied with chaos. Until it gets FAQed I'm saying yes the OP is correct.

It does, actually. The Knights would be CtA with Chaos.
You cannot ally with CtA armies.
Ergo, having Knights and Chaos in the same army is illegal.

No it doesn't, they rule for 'Come the apocalypse; but not before' says "Simply, this kind of alliance can not occur. You'll have to look elsewhere for aid." but the IK arn't trying to ally with chaos they're allying with IG who happen to also be allied with chaos. So following the RAR the IK aren't allies with the chaos but are still allies with the IG and visa versa with the chaos. So in short it has no affect.

It does have an effect. Look at the example with the Tau. The knights treat the Tau as desperate allies. Tau are desperate allies with Knights.
Chaos is CtA with Knights. Ergo, Knights would treat Chaos (even if they are associated with guard) as CtA, making such a force incompatible, as "this kind of alliance can not occur."

It uses the affect of the type of allies the would be without them actually being allies. "treat them as" is the specific wording used, so in this case they would treat them as enemies but as the controlling player you would never shoot at your own men so it's not a problem. The ally of my ally is my ally.