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.

Hi this list is the written by RenegadesKorps below. He states that the benefits of the Unending Host detachment's 2+ resurrection applies to his infantry platoons in the CAD. He also states that the Purge Detachment chemical flamers applies to his CAD.His crux is that benefits from the detachment applies to everything in his "Army"

First and foremost RenegadesKorps, this is nothing personal. I wanted to figure out if your interpretation of the rules is legitimate so I could build an army very similar. Normally the resurrecting infantry platoons under the Unending Host detachment are not Obj. Sec. but by putting them in a CAD instead of Unending Host they get Obj. Sec. That is powerful and will win games.

 RenegadeKorps wrote:

List #1
Master of the Horde 1847
Unending host detachment from Siege of Vraks 385
Command squad with Nurgle Master of the Horde, Banner 100
10 zombies 30
10 zombies 30
10 zombies 30
10 zombies 30
3 wyverns 165

Purge detachment from Siege of Vraks 700
Command squad and 1 lascannon 65
3 spawns 55
3 spawns 55
3 spawns 55
1 earthshaker 55
1 earthshaker 55
2 medusae with breacher shells and training 180
2 medusae with breacher shells and training 180

Combined arm detachment 722
Command squad with 1 lascannon 65
15 men with lasguns, 2 chemical flamers and Sigil 60
15 men with lasguns, 3 chemical flamers 60
15 men with lasguns, 3 chemical flamers 60
15 men with lasguns, 3 chemical flamers 80
15 men with lasguns, 2 meltas, training and Sigil 80
15 men with lasguns, 2 meltas, training and Sigil 80
3 Rapier laser destroyers with training, one extra crew 79
3 Rapier laser destroyers with training, one extra crew 79
3 Rapier laser destroyers with training, one extra crew 79

Fortification 40
Promethium pipes 40

Below is his explanation:

 RenegadeKorps wrote:
Thank you for allowing me to clarify myself!
Please be careful when a rule says 'detachment' and when it says 'army'. There's a difference. I play rules as written.

CadianGateTroll wrote:Are you sure that the 15 men Infantry platoon squads belonging to the CAD get the resurrecting power if they are not under the Unending Host Detachment?

Yes. The benefit of the Unending host is a bonus that concern the Master of the Horde rule of my Arch-demagogue (p. 271: "when rolling to see whether", etc. "as per the Master of the Horde Devotion's special rules", etc.). And the Master of the Horde rule says (p. 238) : "whenever a Infantry squad bought as part of the same ARMY" (this is the crux). You want to say : benefits from a detachment concerns only the units of said detachment. I would say that it's the case even according to my reading in this case, since the benefit concerns the rule of my Arch-demagogue, which is from that detachment. Then this rule concerns all Infantry squad in the army. But the bonus applies whenever I roll to see if a unit comes back, regardless of its origin. (Otherwise--this is not my argument, just an observation--some units would come back on a 5+ and others on a 2+, which is odd.)

As a side note : I would also say that this "principle" ("benefits from a detachment concerns only the units of said detachment") is to be applied by default when it's not stated which units are concerned -- but only then, since codices overrule the BRB. Take the Purge Detachment, for example. Some people say that we cannot take chemical flamers in units that are not from the Purge detachment (because of this "principle"). But the rule of the Purge detachment is pretty clear (p. 270) : "Any friendly unit in the ARMY". Some detachments have benefits that 'reach' units not taken in said detachment. It's just a fact. So same answer concerning as to which units gain Outflank : "ALL units of Renegade Infantry that re-enter play", etc.

The uneding host needs to include a minimum number of infantry platoons

This is just wrong. Go read the rule (Master of the Horde, p.238) in the book : "An ARMY whose Demagogue has this Devotion must contain at least two Renegade Infantry Platoons". They don't have to be part of the same detachment as my Demagogue or of the Unending host.

The Unending Host detachment clearly states that the models belonging under Unending Host gains the 3++ cover if being obscured by other models from the Unending Host not other models from ther detachment.

It's another issue, but you're wrong. It says (p. 271) : "When a Renegade unit from this Detachment gains a cover save due to the enemy firing through a FRIENDLY Infantry squad (it doesn't say ''from this detachment'), that cover will be 3+ rather than a 5+". It means that when I take 4 units of zombies in my Unending host, they will have a 3+ save if the enemy fires through the Infantry squads of my CAD.

here is a link to the army list thread http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/697113.page#8794900

Would a Tournament Organizer let this fly?

 CadianGateTroll wrote:
Would a Tournament Organizer let this fly?

You'd have to ask the TO for the particular event you're talking about. He is indisputably correct RAW about the fact that it says "army" vs "detachment", and IA:Vraks was published long after the point where separate detachments were introduced so there's no possible argument that it's an old rule and should really mean "detachment" now. So your question is not about what the correct rules are, it's about whether or not the TO feels like changing the rules.

Thanks for putting this in ‘’You make da call’’, where it belongs.
(I have written to FW. They may answer, as they sometimes do.)

There is two issues.
#1 — A benefit from a detachment (rolling to see if dead infantry squads come back in play succeed on a 2+ instead of a 5+) applies to a special rule of my Warlord, which is part of the detachment. But tht special rule (whenever an infantry squad in my army dies, I can roll to see if it comes back into play) concerns all units ‘‘in my army’’. Question : do all infantry squads come back on a 2+, regardless of its detachment of origin. I say yes, because the detachment’s benefit applies strictly speaking to the rule of the warlord, though this rule then concerns all units in the army.

But yeah... maybe we have to add ''from this detachment'' in every wording whenever we can. If it's the case, then I'm wrong, though it changes nothing for the next issue.

#2 — One benefit of the Purge detachment is this : ‘any friendly unit in the army’ can take chemical flamers. Question : can any friendly unit in the army take chemical flamers or just the ones in the Purge detachment? I say all, since it is clearly written (and codices overrule the BRB).

What do you think?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Divine Chorus benefit from the Cult Mechanicus detachment is an example of detachment benefit that benefits all the army. I know no one who would say that the re-used Canticle of Omnissiah can be used only by units from this detachment.Those from a CAD also benefit from it, because Canticle of Omnissiah concerns all Cult mechanicus units in the army.

As Peregrine says, it's up to the TO to decide on the final rule for their tournament. Tournament houserules supercede RAW.

RAW should allow it, but i like to point most of the Updates from 6th to 7th often changed most of the wording from *his army* to *his Detachment*

So it all boils about how updated Siege if Vraks is.

Second part of 2015. One of the most recent books.

My counter argument for this not working was that the main rulebook says the Command Benefits of a detachment apply to the detachment, not the whole army.

UncleanOne wrote: I am still not sure the Command Benefits will carry over from one detachment to another. Since you're playing "Rules as Written" -- If you go to the main rulebook (page 120) under "Command Benefits" it says 

"This lists any additional bonuses or special rules that apply to some, or all, of the units in this Detachment".



So even though Forgeworld chose poor wording by using "Army", the main rulebook says those Command Benefits only apply to the detachment. I would agree that the Master of the Horde could be in any detachment, and those Infantry Platoons could be in the CAD for your minimum, but I don't think the Unending Hosts benefits would affect the other detachments.

UncleanOne wrote:
My counter argument for this not working was that the main rulebook says the Command Benefits of a detachment apply to the detachment, not the whole army.

This is clearly a case of "specific overrides general". The deliberate use of "army" instead of "detachment" modifies the standard case and applies the benefit to the whole army.

Well said. Its especially true in the case of the chemical flamers.
As for the Unending host, I tend to see it as benefiting my warlord, not the infantry squads themselves. Another proof : if the model who has the Master of the Horde devotion dies, then I cannot roll anymore to see if my unit comes back. When I pay 20 pts to have that devotion, it's not an upgrade for my infantry squads, but for my warlord, an upgrade which dies with him. And so the Unending host concerns that rule from this model (the warlord) which IS part of the detachment. So p. 120 of the BRB is not violated.

Nothing truer I guess :

it's up to the TO to decide on the final rule for their tournament. Tournament houserules supercede RAW.

 RenegadeKorps wrote:
Second part of 2015. One of the most recent books.

Yeah it was released in 7ed, but its clearly written in 6ed (even references choosing warlord by picking highest LD)

As long as it says "Army", it'll apply to everything the player brought to the table in RAW even if it sounds like it's only suppose to work for the detachment. However this wouldn't be the first instance of the Vraks books having some weird compatability issues with the rest of the game.

RAI however I will agree that it sounds like it should be "Detachment", not army. But RAI means you gotta discuss it with your opponent and TO and, by definition, is open up to interpretation.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
As long as it says "Army", it'll apply to everything the player brought to the table in RAW even if it sounds like it's only suppose to work for the detachment. However this wouldn't be the first instance of the Vraks books having some weird compatability issues with the rest of the game.

There is also the potential complication that Forgeworld has often used "army" to refer to everything in your force that came from a specific army list.

Like others have said, it's an unfortunate side effect of old rules and until an errata or official update (3rd edition of those books?) comes, it stands despite going against the intent.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
As long as it says "Army", it'll apply to everything the player brought to the table in RAW even if it sounds like it's only suppose to work for the detachment. However this wouldn't be the first instance of the Vraks books having some weird compatability issues with the rest of the game.

There is also the potential complication that Forgeworld has often used "army" to refer to everything in your force that came from a specific army list.

This. FW regularly uses terms in outdated contexts, like "army" or "Primary Detachment" instead of "detachment".

Unfortunately, they seem to have no interest in releasing a FAQ/Errata for IA13 and Siege of Vraks. It's been almost a year since they told me that the FAQ was done but awaiting formatting.

So, RAW, RenegadeKorps is completely correct.

In any case, I'm not sure FW authors are such bad and careless writers.

When in one benefit of the Purge they say : ''when a model from this detachment'' fires a barrage weapon, it leavers a difficult terrain area.
and then in the second benefit : ''any friendly unit in the army'' may take chemical flamers,
it doesn't sound like an error from people who don't know GW's way of writing rules, especially in such a recent publication. Both formulations are sound and correspond to GW's way of writing rules; the wording of the second rule is clear and seems pretty intentional in my view.

A more truly problematic issue is the one concerning for example the Leman Russ's Executioner Canon : it doesn't have the Gets hot rule in its weapon entry. Is it a mistake or is it intentional? Hard to say, probably a mistake, but the safest thing to do is to play it as written when possible.

@MechaEmperor7000

However this wouldn't be the first instance of the Vraks books having some weird compatability issues with the rest of the game

Just for fun, do you have another example to discuss (from the updated ones)?

Well there is the fact that technically the renegade spawn can never be selected from Siege of Vraks because the correct Master of Renegades rule doesn't exist in that book (Mutant Overlord I think?). That's the only one that I can think of at the moment.

 RenegadeKorps wrote:
In any case, I'm not sure FW authors are such bad and careless writers.

When in one benefit of the Purge they say : ''when a model from this detachment'' fires a barrage weapon, it leavers a difficult terrain area.
and then in the second benefit : ''any friendly unit in the army'' may take chemical flamers,
it doesn't sound like an error from people who don't know GW's way of writing rules, especially in such a recent publication. Both formulations are sound and correspond to GW's way of writing rules; the wording of the second rule is clear and seems pretty intentional in my view.

A more truly problematic issue is the one concerning for example the Leman Russ's Executioner Canon : it doesn't have the Gets hot rule in its weapon entry. Is it a mistake or is it intentional? Hard to say, probably a mistake, but the safest thing to do is to play it as written when possible.

@MechaEmperor7000

However this wouldn't be the first instance of the Vraks books having some weird compatability issues with the rest of the game

Just for fun, do you have another example to discuss (from the updated ones)?

I recall reading some answer from FW about siege of Vraks being specifically related to army (under the excuse the *renegade* army it's not meant to be competitive but mostly fluff related to a mass of rebeled citizens against the empire)
but since i can't find any FAQ or it's link anywhere i'll resort to the RAW>TOI>RAI interpretation according to the group you are playing.

P.S: about the mistakes or intentional changes Doom of Mymeara v2 comes to mind, there is huge difference between some corsair and Eldar Weapons same unit weapon have a different range profile 48" and 24" (Lynx pulsar) or having a different way to resolve a S hit for the Warp hunters (one version says substract 1 another says count 6 as 5 ).

P.S: about the mistakes or intentional changes Doom of Mymeara v2 comes to mind, there is huge difference between some corsair and Eldar Weapons same unit weapon have a different range profile 48" and 24" (Lynx pulsar) or having a different way to resolve a S hit for the Warp hunters (one version says substract 1 another says count 6 as 5 ).

I meant in the new Siege of Vraks book as you implied. I heard many people referencing to it as badly written (as if written under 6th), but I don't find that many examples (I'm not taking about mistakes like a missing data sheet).

The Doom of Mymeara v2 is a well known case. It is odd indeed that under the same name and different rules the range and the effet are different. There is besides three occurrences of the rules, the two you mentioned but also the one in the weapon summary. I would say that the weapon profile found at the end of the book (in the summary) is the one who prevails, or least that you can use that profile without anyone blaming you. In this case, it thus means always using the 'corsair' version. This makes more same anyway : that way, there are not two rules with two different names --the ones concerning force D-- with the same effet. In fact, since this weapon summary is the summary of the whole book (=not of the Corsair army in particular, since the Corsair army list is just a sub-section of The Doom of Mymeara), then if there is only one version of the weapon in the summary (they could have put both but didn't), it is in principle the Eldar version (not specifically the Corsair version). In this case, it means the error is in the Eldar version found earlier in the book, as FW have themselves confirmed is a e-mail anyway, if i recall correctly.

(In general, though, I would say that when there is such a contradiction or inconsistency, you are permitted RAW to choose the version you want, since both options are written. In a tournament, though, asking the TOs before is always the thing to do since They rule almighty.)



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Concerning the Unending host, the benefit ''In numbers uncounted'' is not problematic I think, it is like I said and people seemed to agreed that it is rule as written (my argument being that the rule concerns a rolling that occurs through a special rule of my Warlord, which is part of the detachment).

The second benefit is more problematic : "All Renegades Infantry units that re-enter play", etc. You want to say : "All Renegades units from this detachment''. But it simply says "all".Someone recalled me the rule of the Tau Drone network formation (Mont'ka) where is it said that the +1BS bonus applies to "all Drones (including the Drone that are not part of this formation)" (quote) (which is by the way in direct contradiction with page 120 of the BRB, meaning that the principle formulated in this page 120 can be transgressed : the specific overruling the general).

I found this interesting because it suggests that the authors do not use the wording "all x" as meaning "all x from this detachment" but simply as meaning "all x" : the word 'all' having it's full meaning (the function of a parenthesis is not to restrict but to explicit). So an argument could be made in the same way regarding the returning Renegade squads even if the parenthesis is absent. It is clear that the Siege of Vraks authors do know the existence and meaning of "from this detachment" and use it from time to time as in any GW book (They even use is for the third benefit of the Unending host). So if (like GW) they say "all" instead of "from this detachment", well, it can surely means "all" in its full meaning.

I admit, though, that this comes a bit too close to RAI for my taste, and that the case is less solid for this second benefit than for the first one, though in each case the rules concern the Master of the Horde rule, which itself concerns all units "in the army".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But I think I will just put my infantry squads in the Unending host detachment instead of a CAD (it's less controversial), unless of course FW confirm my reading, in which case I will let you know and forward you the e-mail upon PM request.

In a private email, ITC (Frankie@frontlinegaming.org) answered : «I would say they all come back on a 2+.»

screen shot please.

I don't know how to post picture :/ It doesn't work

I am just in disbelief that the author wanted the benefits of the detachment to affect units outside of its detachment.

But that's okay because more power to RH.

also the way to post a picture is in the attachment tab next to options when you go into full reply mode not the quick reply box.

Doesn't work. You can write to ITC though, they will answer. I'm still waiting for the FW answer though.

I sent this. I suggest you write to FW too to put some pressure!

Hi,

I have a question concerning the Unending host detachment from Imperial Armour : Siege of Vraks.

Let’s say I have Infantry squads in a Combined arm detachment and in an Unending host detachment, will they all come back through the Master of the Horde rule on a 2+ or will the ones from the CAD come back on a 5+ and the others on a 2+? I would say they all come back on a 2+, but some will say that benefits from a detachment cannot benefit units from another.

The Master of the Horde rule (p. 238) states that « whenever an Infantry squad bought as part of the same army » dies, I can roll to see if they come back.
The In Numbers Uncounted rule (p. 271) states that « when rolling to see whether destroyed Renegade Infantry Squads are returned to play in Reserves, as per the Master of the Horde Devotion’s special rules, the roll will succeed on a 2+ instead of a 5+ ».

Since those rules benefits directly my Warlord, which is part of the Unending host, I would say all my rolls will succeed on a 2+, regardless of which detachment my Infantry squads are a part of. I am correct? All Infantry squads in my army would then benefit indirectly of In Numbers Uncounted because Master of the Horde concerns all my army.

Thank you very much,
Max