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.

Posted this in the Eldar FAQ thread, but thought it would be worth actually discussing:

Are warlocks supposed to be allowed in an allied contingent? By the wording in the codex, one Warlock Council is allowed per primary detachment, which seems to suggest that no Warlocks can be taken as allies.

I'd like to have an idea on the concensus on this before I go through the effort of modelling up warlocks to join my jetbike units in an allied detachment. I guess the argument is since Warlocks are under the HQ section still, they could be taken as the HQ choice.

There's also a similar question of if it's even possible to take Daemon Heralds in a detachment. Thought the language here seems to suggest more that in an allied group,each single Herald is an HQ choice. Again, looking for a consensus before I start doing a bunch of modelling.

I didn't provide the actual text since I think that is against forum rules, but if it's allowed I'll add the blurbs up here so it can be discussed and dissected.

RAW: Nope. Primary Detachment only.

RAI: I find RAW pretty unlikely, but having a Warlock as the compulsory HQ also seems unlikely.

You're about where I am on it. I agree that no warlocks in an allied unit is RAW, but I doubt that's where it will end up post FAQ. I just have no idea how to guess on it.

Any insight into the related issue (Daemon Heralds)?

If your premise was correct, that a Warlock Council could just be taken as a 'standard' HQ choice in an allied detachment, since the unit doesn't take up any FOC slots, that would mean when taken in an allied detachment, you could take ANY NUMBER of Warlock Councils...which means that when Eldar ally with another army suddenly they have a TON more Warlocks available?

Since that clearly makes no logical sense, I highly doubt that is what is trying to be said by the rules.

I vote for Warlocks only being allowed in an Eldar Primary detachment.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

hands_miranda wrote:
You're about where I am on it. I agree that no warlocks in an allied unit is RAW, but I doubt that's where it will end up post FAQ. I just have no idea how to guess on it.

Any insight into the related issue (Daemon Heralds)?

Daemon Heralds are a bit of a different situation, despite having VERY similar wording. Because the rule in the Daemon codex is pretty clearly a benefit for taking Heralds in a Primary detachment (you get up to 4 for a single slot).

So it can make 'sense' to allow only a single herald as a single HQ choice in an allied detachment (it makes logical sense to work that way).

In the case of the Warlock Council, as I pointed out above, it makes no logical sense that the restriction on how the unit can be taken at all is somehow lifted in an allied detachment, as that would allow MORE Warlocks to be taken than normal (which makes no logical sense).


But yes, GW really should FAQ both those points to be 100% clear.

I think what is actually being thought of here is that (theoretically) because it isn't the Primary Detachment none of the italics rule text applies. The same way it is applied to Heralds. So you'd get 1 Warlock, and he'd take up a slot. But he also couldn't be joined to any units, and he isn't an IC, so he'd be pretty useless.

But yes, RAW is no Warlocks allowed period.

Chrysis wrote:
I think what is actually being thought of here is that (theoretically) because it isn't the Primary Detachment none of the italics rule text applies. The same way it is applied to Heralds. So you'd get 1 Warlock, and he'd take up a slot. But he also couldn't be joined to any units, and he isn't an IC, so he'd be pretty useless.

But yes, RAW is no Warlocks allowed period.

If you believed that all the italic text was thrown out in allied detachment, you could still take up to 10 Warlocks (they are listed in the basic options for the unit).

But there's no basis at all to assume that the entire block of italic text would be ignored in an allied detachment. The only 'RAW' argument that can be made is that the first sentence doesn't apply when the unit is taken in an allied detachment.

However, like I said, that would mean you could take unlimited amounts of Warlock Councils as part of an allied detachment, and (hopefully) we can all agree that is a ludicrous proposition.

When I said none of the Italics, I meant None of them. The 1-10 is in the Italics, and so is the free slot rule. But so are the rules for attaching Warlocks to units. I'm pretty sure there isn't a "Add up to 9 Warlocks for X points each" option on the Warlock entry.

So no, you wouldn't get units of 1 to 10, nor would you get unlimited copies of it because by throwing out the rule that starts with "In a Primary Detachment" you'd also be throwing out the rules that say 1 to 10 and the unit is slot free.

Chrysis wrote:
When I said none of the Italics, I meant None of them. The 1-10 is in the Italics, and so is the free slot rule. But so are the rules for attaching Warlocks to units. I'm pretty sure there isn't a "Add up to 9 Warlocks for X points each" option on the Warlock entry.

So no, you wouldn't get units of 1 to 10, nor would you get unlimited copies of it because by throwing out the rule that starts with "In a Primary Detachment" you'd also be throwing out the rules that say 1 to 10 and the unit is slot free.

I got what you were saying, I'm just saying there's no logical way to assume the entire block of italic text should be thrown out because the first sentence mentions primary detachment.

And again, if you DID throw out the entire block of text, you could still take 10 of them in a single unit, because that option exists in the actual 'options' section of the unit entry.

 yakface wrote:

I got what you were saying, I'm just saying there's no logical way to assume the entire block of italic text should be thrown out because the first sentence mentions primary detachment.

It's what people do for Heralds, I don't see why they wouldn't try it here as well. But that's a discussion that's been done to death, and I have no reason to believe I wouldn't be in the minority this time as well so we may as well leave that point there. Either way we agree that there are no Warlocks in an Allied Detachment.

Chrysis wrote:

It's what people do for Heralds, I don't see why they wouldn't try it here as well. But that's a discussion that's been done to death, and I have no reason to believe I wouldn't be in the minority this time as well so we may as well leave that point there. Either way we agree that there are no Warlocks in an Allied Detachment.

That's because in the case of the CD codex, it's a single sentence that mentions the Primary detachment (like the Eldar Codex), but there are no other relevant rules in that box-out once that initial sentence isn't relevant (if you're taking CD as an allied detachment).

So despite some definite similarities between the two, they really are apples and oranges.

It seems clear cut to me no warlocks unless eldar are primary. Simple.

 yakface wrote:

Chrysis wrote:

It's what people do for Heralds, I don't see why they wouldn't try it here as well. But that's a discussion that's been done to death, and I have no reason to believe I wouldn't be in the minority this time as well so we may as well leave that point there. Either way we agree that there are no Warlocks in an Allied Detachment.

That's because in the case of the CD codex, it's a single sentence that mentions the Primary detachment (like the Eldar Codex), but there are no other relevant rules in that box-out once that initial sentence isn't relevant (if you're taking CD as an allied detachment).

So despite some definite similarities between the two, they really are apples and oranges.

Your argument is seriously that they're different sentences, and thus separate rules? Whenever there is a separation of rules in GW books, they have separating words like "in addition," "additionally," and "furthermore." Can you imagine the chaos and craziness that would happen if we started reading every sentence as a different rule?

This is EXACTLY the same as the Herald rule. Allied detachments cannot take warlocks/distribute warlocks to squads. If they can be taken, which I agree does need to be clarified, they can only take 1-10, due to the option to add 9, in a squad that cannot be broken up. This would count as the HQ FOC.

Is it possible the one per primary detachment rule only checks how many primary detachments you have regardless of whether this primary detachments are Eldar or not, thus you have 1 primary of Tau, 1 allies of Eldar, thus you may only take 1 unit of warlocks as you only have 1 primary detachment?

Velmoor wrote:
Is it possible the one per primary detachment rule only checks how many primary detachments you have regardless of whether this primary detachments are Eldar or not, thus you have 1 primary of Tau, 1 allies of Eldar, thus you may only take 1 unit of warlocks as you only have 1 primary detachment?

No, your primary detachment is taken from one codex and your allied detachment is taken from another codex.

So you don't get to take Eldar as an allied detachment and then get to take Warlocks as part of your primary detachment (Tau, in your example), which is what you're saying.

That is not what I am saying. I am saying that the rule does not say the unit has to be in a primary detachment. It is saying you may only have one per primary detachment. Thus if you have a primary detachment you may have one in your Eldar detachment, regardless of whether that is primary or allied.

Sorry for being unclear.

Velmoor wrote:
That is not what I am saying. I am saying that the rule does not say the unit has to be in a primary detachment. It is saying you may only have one per primary detachment. Thus if you have a primary detachment you may have one in your Eldar detachment, regardless of whether that is primary or allied.

Sorry for being unclear.

The rule says: 'Each Primary detachment in your army may include up to one Council of 1-10 Warlocks.'

So yes, the rule does say the unit has to be in your primary detachment, which must therefore be Eldar.

Ahh misrememberd the wording. Thanks.