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.

From what I can tell in the Codex: Inquisition thingy, it is possible for me to have IG as my primary, CSM or Daemons as a secondary, and then take an Inquisitor (and an ordo malleus one at that!).
Is this for reals, or has the warp finally smooshed my brain?

And if it is true, then how does the Inquisitor act around such "Come the Apocalypse" allies as Chaos?

RAW: Possible indeed

As for the CtA rules: no idea... probably similar rules to A of convenience

It is not possible as anyone that is CtA to each other cannot ever be in the same army. If you take Inq with SM and Tau, the Tau and SM are BB to each other, but the Inq models treat the Tau as Desperate allies, and vice versa, while being BB with the SM. If you take IG as primary, you can either take Inq as an Inquisitorial Detachment OR take Allied CSM, not both.

Do you have a page reference?

BRB 112, Paragraph called Come the Apoc, but Not Before

Also it is explained on the inq codex (believe so anyway, has been brought up before check search.), and has been asked on the GW digital editions FB page. Each detachment must be able to ally with each other.

INQ codex tells you to take into account the INQ relation ship to both the primary, and allied detach.

so no, you cannot shoe horn in CTA allies using codex INQ, as C:=I= tells you they still have to follow ally matrix type rules

 easysauce wrote:
INQ codex tells you to take into account the INQ relation ship to both the primary, and allied detach.

No it does not. It says that the MODELS treat each other that way. At the army construction step you do not have models on the table yet, and the allies rules only tell you to consider the relationship between primary and allied DETACHMENTS. You are never told to consider the relationships between multiple allied detachments because the rules were written under the assumption that you would only have one allied detachment.

So, by RAW you can include C:I and demons in the same army as long as they both have "desperate allies" or better with the primary detachment. Then once the game begins and the models are on the table the C:I and demon units will treat each other as "come the apocalypse". Fortunately for you the rules do not specify any in-game effect for "come the apocalypse" (the rule only applies in list construction) so they are just normal models in your army. Don't like the fluff of inquisitors that have a better relationship with demons than some space marines have with other space marines? Tell GW to stop releasing lazy cut and paste "books" without any proofreading or playtesting.

So they work better than "allies of convenience" then by your theory?
That seems right?
The fact that the rules don't cover how to treat them is a clear indication you're doing something wrong.

 Peregrine wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
INQ codex tells you to take into account the INQ relation ship to both the primary, and allied detach.

No it does not.

Here's from the 'dex:

C:I wrote:

When you choose an army, Inquisitors may be taken as a primary detachment or as a special form of allied detachment known as an Inquisitorial detachment....

So an Inquisitorial Detachment is an allied detachment, just of a "special form."

Note that the Inquisitorial detachment 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).

This supports the idea that it's an Inquisitorial allied detachment, since the word "regular" is emphasised with quote marks.

For example, if an Inquisitor was part of an army where the primary detachment were Imperial Guard and the allied detachment were from the Tau Empire, then the Inquisition would treat the Guard as Battle Brothers, and the Tau as Desperate Allies.

And finally, we see that different detachments in the same army will have different relationships to each other. And the BRB says, "If it's CtA, then no go."

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
And finally, we see that different detachments in the same army will have different relationships to each other. And the BRB says, "If it's CtA, then no go."

And this is where you're wrong. This is talking about how they treat each other once the game begins and models are on the table. In list construction you only consider the relationship between primary and allied detachments, not between allied detachments and other allied detachments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grendel083 wrote:
So they work better than "allies of convenience" then by your theory?

Yep. The fluff that they hate each other is irrelevant.

The fact that the rules don't cover how to treat them is a clear indication you're doing something wrong.

No, it's a clear indication that the rules don't add anything special to this situation. It's kind of like playing a game with two-player teams where the two players have CTA armies for their primary detachments. How do they treat each other? They're just models on the table with no special relationship.

Whether you think it's only models or list building,
The moment you place them on the tabletop you're breaking a clear rule.
They're not allowed to be fielded together.

How do these units interact? In the previous thread on this you suggested inventing rules. A clear indication this is flat out wrong.

Are they scoring?
Are they treaded as enemy like Allies of Convenience?
Do they take test like Desperate Allies?
Does any rule support any answer to the above?

Your proposal is very, very clearly 100% WRONG.

 grendel083 wrote:
The moment you place them on the tabletop you're breaking a clear rule.
They're not allowed to be fielded together.

No you aren't, because there's no concept of "fielded together" once your list is done.

How do these units interact?

They don't have any special rules for their interaction, just like models within the same detachment don't have any special rules that apply to their interaction.

Are they scoring?

Yes, assuming they are the right type of unit, because they have no rule that says they aren't scoring. Scoring or not depends on the relationship between allied and primary detachments, not between allies and other allies.

Are they treaded as enemy like Allies of Convenience?

No, because they have no rule that says they are enemy units despite being in your own army.

Do they take test like Desperate Allies?

No, because they have no rule that says they take a test.

Does any rule support any answer to the above?

Yes, because you're assuming that there needs to be a rule that explicitly says "nothing interesting happens" rather than just an absence of any rules for something interesting happens, and that the fluff behind "these guys hate each other" must be represented in the rules.

I am with Grendel083, though more from How I Would Play It as the interaction in question is not one I have researched well and one I think has problems from a Rule as Written perspective;

The Rule Book was never written with the intent for a single player to field three codex. The very moment the three forces hit the table we have gone past the Rule Book and entered a rule-less and unexplored country. This turn of events means we can't simply state the Rule Book lacks restrictions and therefore the allies are 'friendly models' and can do everything as if they where part of the Primary Detachment. It is far more likely the complete lack of restrictions stems more from the fact the Rule Book never intended for this combination to ever be possible in the first place. That would be why there is no rules informing us how these types of 'allies' interact in the first place, because they are never meant to be in a position to be interacting. The other conclusion is the idea that the Rule Book intended two models from codex's that would naturally be 'Come the Apocalypse' level enemies to have a relationship that isn't even shared by Battle Brothers!

Sadly the only 'correct' resolution would require a Frequently Asked Question to errata rules explaining how we handle these combinations, or informing us that the matrix is reviewed between allied detachments as well.

Still I have to conclude that the idea of treating them as if they are better then Battle Brothers could have stronger Rules as Written backing then first given credit for. It would be very hard to prove this was intent though. The original intent of the Come the Apocalypse was to simply deny a player from fielding these two codex' together, so the intended way to close this 'gray spot' would have to be in concordance with those rules. I do agree it is a gray spot, the concept of how three different codex' would interact was ill explored at best, but I can only conclude the intent is better read as: Models with this alliance level can not be fielded together.

They would of given us more precise instructions, such as how these 'Come the Apocalypse' allies interact, if they had intended differently.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
And finally, we see that different detachments in the same army will have different relationships to each other. And the BRB says, "If it's CtA, then no go."

And this is where you're wrong. This is talking about how they treat each other once the game begins and models are on the table. In list construction you only consider the relationship between primary and allied detachments, not between allied detachments and other allied detachments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grendel083 wrote:
So they work better than "allies of convenience" then by your theory?

Yep. The fluff that they hate each other is irrelevant.

The fact that the rules don't cover how to treat them is a clear indication you're doing something wrong.

No, it's a clear indication that the rules don't add anything special to this situation. It's kind of like playing a game with two-player teams where the two players have CTA armies for their primary detachments. How do they treat each other? They're just models on the table with no special relationship.

Oh, well then, since it is models we can ignore all the allies rules; since they deal with units.

Say the Inquisitor in question wishes to cast a blessing on the Daemon unit.

Is it a friendly unit?
Is it counted as an enemy unit?

Please provide the page number with the answer.

Grendel083,

Page 113 is the core of their argument from what I can see. Within the section informing us how to read the matrix is the key words Primary Detachment and Allied Detachment are mentioned. This would mean an argument can be formed that permission to review this table does not exist. It can only ever reference to find out the relationship between the Primary Detachment and an Allied Detachment. Given that the 'Come the Apocalypse' relationship stems from this table, and it is not valid for allied on allied relationship by it's own wording, they argue that we can not come to the conclusion that the relationship is 'Come the Apocalypse' and ban them from being fielded together.

My question is simple:
If page 113 does not apply to relationship between different "Allied Detachments" then where can I find the table which does show this information?

The rules require me to know these relationship's so I can apply any rules that might be valid to that relationship. If there is no 'Allied Detachment" alliance matrix to look at then the answer does not default to 'there are no rules, so no restrictions apply.' In these sort of situations the rules simply break and we are forbidden from continuing the game because there are no rules to tell us how to continue the game. Seeing it is vital information for us to even be able to proceed, the conclusion that page 113 does not apply means they need to find us another page with another alliance table which can be applied between Allied Detachments.

JinxDragon wrote:
My question is simple:
If page 113 does not apply to relationship between different allies then where can I find the table which does show this information?

There's an Ally Matrix in the Inquisition Codex, apparently this must also be ignored.

I know it is dirty and not best for the rules of this forum, as I don't have this supplement, but I do have to ask:
Does that Alliance Matrix have the same wording that it is to be used to determine the relationship between Primary and Allied detachments?

The bits I've posted already are the mainly important sentences. There's two more:
"The Inquisitorial Allies Matrix below lists the relationship between the Inquisition and the forces they may fight alongside."
"This diagram below is an additional to the allies chart in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook. Find the icon for the codex of your potential allies. You will see the level of alliance by the icon directly underneath."

Thanks Elric Graywolf,
So I have to ask then... why are they coming to the conclusion that this new table can not be applied to the Inquisition detachment and an allied detachment?

Because they don't want it to.

I'll leave that one up to their side to answer, maybe I didn't understand their argument well enough to even be asking these sort of questions, but I don't see how any other conclusion then 'not legal' can be achieved.

Because cheese is tasty. Hmmm cheese.

 grendel083 wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
My question is simple:
If page 113 does not apply to relationship between different allies then where can I find the table which does show this information?

There's an Ally Matrix in the Inquisition Codex, apparently this must also be ignored.

No, you don't ignore that allies matrix. Just like the matrix in the main rulebook it tells you what on-table relationship exists between the parts of your army, and what allies your primary detachment can take. Effectively it adds a new row and column to the main rulebook matrix, just in a more compact space. It does NOT modify the allies rules to have the allies matrix consider the relationship between two allied detachments in list construction.

This is silly. Even when you treat the relationships between codex:Inq and other codices on a model by model basis and not a unit by unit basis it does not change the fact that you cannot field two 'things' that will have a CtA relationship with one another in the same army. Since I'm not sure how you can have either a CSM detachment with no CSM models or a C:Inq detachments with out C:Inq models then you still can't put both of those detachments in a legal army.

 DJGietzen wrote:
This is silly. Even when you treat the relationships between codex:Inq and other codices on a model by model basis and not a unit by unit basis it does not change the fact that you cannot field two 'things' that will have a CtA relationship with one another in the same army.

Citation please. The rules say that you can not field an allied detachment that has a CTA relationship with the primary detachment, but they do not say that you can't field two allied detachments that are CTA to each other but legal allied choices for the primary detachment.

(Of course once on the table the models from the two allied detachments will treat each other as CTA, but CTA status has absolutely no effect besides limiting your allies choices in list construction.)

Since you missed my question earlier, could you answer it now?

Say the Inquisitor in question wishes to cast a blessing on the Daemon unit.

Is it a friendly unit?
Is it counted as an enemy unit?

Please provide the page number with the answer.

Battle brothers are defined as friendly units.
Allies of Convenience and Desperate Allies are treated as enemy.
Come the Apocalypse are....?

 grendel083 wrote:
Since you missed my question earlier, could you answer it now?

I will answer with a question of my own:

Say the Inquisitor in question wishes to cast a blessing on another inquisition unit (from the same detachment).

Is it a friendly unit?
Is it counted as an enemy unit?

Please provide the page number with the answer.

So you can't answer my question.
But wish me to prove that model in the same detachment is friendly?

What would that prove? If I can't then the whole game is broken, but that still doesn't prove your idea correct.