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.

Ok so is a mof permitted to repair vehicles of an allied detachment?

New c:sm says blessing of o allows him to repair "friendly" vehicles.

Brb FAQ outright denies him the ability to repair allies.

I would say the FAQ is poorly worded as it states "models from an allied detachment" in regards to repairing allied vehicles. So an allied MotF or Techmarine cannot repair its allies vehicles, based entirely on the FAQ question. This leaves open the question of "models from the primary detachment".

Based on the wording alone of Blessing of the Omnissiah in C:SM, it does not require those friendly vehicles to be from the primary detachment or from any specific chapter tactics, simply "a single friendly vehicle".

Jamo wrote:
Ok so is a mof permitted to repair vehicles of an allied detachment?

New c:sm says blessing of o allows him to repair "friendly" vehicles.

Brb FAQ outright denies him the ability to repair allies.

So we go with the more restrictive FAQ.

Even though the Rule States "Friendly" vehicles, and Battle Brothers are "friendly units", and Battle Brothers special rules/Abilities can specifically be used on/effect Battle Brothers; The FAQ outright denies The Vehicle repair abilities on allied vehicles.

So all the RAW says yes, the FAQ says no, and we follow the FAQ even when it contradicts the RAW

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

Jamo wrote:
Ok so is a mof permitted to repair vehicles of an allied detachment?

New c:sm says blessing of o allows him to repair "friendly" vehicles.

Brb FAQ outright denies him the ability to repair allies.

So we go with the more restrictive FAQ.

Even though the Rule States "Friendly" vehicles, and Battle Brothers are "friendly units", and Battle Brothers special rules/Abilities can specifically be used on/effect Battle Brothers; The FAQ outright denies The Vehicle repair abilities on allied vehicles.

.. by models in an allied detachment. Says nothing of models in the primary detachment. Like I said, poorly worded FAQ tbh.

"Allied Detachment" has 2 Meanings; The FOC chart So named, and the relation between the 2 FOCs.

It is poor writing but the second half of the sentence helps to clarify they are speaking of the Latter.

No repairs between detachments in an allied situation

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
"Allied Detachment" has 2 Meanings

Actually "Allied Detachment" and "allied detachment: have two different meaning. The former is a proper name, the latter is a common name. Common names refer to classes of thing while proper names refer to specific things. If they intended the question to mean any detachment that is an ally to the models own detachment, and thus a class of detachments, they can't capitalize the 1st letters in the middle of the sentence like they did.

What the FAQ probably meant to tell us is that the rules for levels of alliance on page 112 do not, on their own, grant a model permission to repair a vehicle from a different detachment.
This does not, however, prevent an additional rule like the Blessing of Omnissiah from granting that permission.

Personally, I think Kommissar Kel has correctly interpreted the rules in the way in which they were intended. I run allied lists with several Techmarines in them, and while it would only benefit me if my primary detachment techmarines could heal my allies, I don't play it that way.

 DJGietzen wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
"Allied Detachment" has 2 Meanings

Actually "Allied Detachment" and "allied detachment: have two different meaning. The former is a proper name, the latter is a common name. Common names refer to classes of thing while proper names refer to specific things. If they intended the question to mean any detachment that is an ally to the models own detachment, and thus a class of detachments, they can't capitalize the 1st letters in the middle of the sentence like they did.

What the FAQ probably meant to tell us is that the rules for levels of alliance on page 112 do not, on their own, grant a model permission to repair a vehicle from a different detachment.
This does not, however, prevent an additional rule like the Blessing of Omnissiah from granting that permission.

I forgive you for not being familiar with GWs writing and "Cavalier attitude" towards punctuation, grammar, and capitalization.

GW rules are not meant to be read as critically as those of us who frequent Dakka read.

The giveaway is that you cannot use the ability on "Allied vehicles"; this tells us the question is in regards to "Allied Detachments" in relation to each other. If it meant that "Allied Detachment" repairing models cannot repair Primary Detachment vehicles it would have said exactly that.

GW rules are meant to be Plain language so that people other than Lawyers can pl,ay the game(Like 13 yos)

While I disagree with the Frequently Asked Question answer, I do agree that Kal has it correct.

This is a debate that has occurred many times in the past, thanks to the poor choice to name something an Allied Detachment and then refer to the relationship the two detachments with identical terminology. This has created all sorts of misconceptions within the rules, some of them as bizarre as allowing the Primary Detachment to be immune from all allied rules! While we can only correct this misconception when it is encountered, we really can not blame the people for having them when Game Workshop can not keep it's terminology coherent.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Personally, I think Kommissar Kel has correctly interpreted the rules in the way in which they were intended.

I agree. I was just pointing out that what GW actually wrote, and what they probably intended do not match.

And don't get me started on weapon emplacement vs. emplaced weapons!