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.

Hey guys, just checking with you after reading and re-reading the FAQ a bunch of times, is this a legal detachment configuration?

1 auxiliary super heavy detachment containing a relic lord of war.
1 super heavy detachment containing a relic lord of war and 2 normal lords of war.

Yes

For matched play I assume?

Edit: I'm not 100% sure now after re-reading it though. I don't think taking a relic in an Auxiliary Detachment is legal if you already have a relic in another detachment, while it IS legal if it's the only relic you have.

I say the intent is Negative:
The Author clearly states that a detachment may not contain more Relic Units then non-Relic Units, and the errata is meant to relate to instances of a single Lord of War in the entire Army.

The problem, however, is what happened when they amended the Rule in order to give specific permission to take a single Relic Lord of War without needing the non-Relic Lord of War counter part. While this is a good and understandable change to the Rule in question, take very good note of the section within parentheses. For some bizarre reason the Author reword the sentence they just penned, once more informing us if we have one Relic Lord of War and intend for additional Relic Lord of wars then we must include them along side non-Relic Lord of War Units. While this line is redundant, the Author makes a stupid little slip that puts the whole thing in question:

When describing how we can not include sequential Lord of War Units... they talk about putting these sequential Lord of War units into their own detachment!
This creates the illusion of a sequence, allowing the purchase a single Relic Lord of War in the Aux slot and then including sequential Lords of War's in their own Detachments....


Page 4 – Additional Rules, Relic
Change the first paragraph to read:
‘If your army is Battle-forged, no Detachment can contain more Relic units than it does non-Relic units
of the same Battlefield Role. You can, however, include a single Relic Lord of War unit in your army even if it
contains no non-Relic Lord of War units (you cannot include second and subsequent Relic Lord of War units
unless they are taken in a Detachment that contains at least as many non-Relic Lord of War units).’

 JinxDragon wrote:
I say the intent is Negative:
The Author clearly states that a detachment may not contain more Relic Units then non-Relic Units, and the errata is meant to relate to instances of a single Lord of War in the entire Army.

The problem, however, is what happened when they amended the Rule in order to give specific permission to take a single Relic Lord of War without needing the non-Relic Lord of War counter part. While this is a good and understandable change to the Rule in question, take very good note of the section within parentheses. For some bizarre reason the Author reword the sentence they just penned, once more informing us if we have one Relic Lord of War and intend for additional Relic Lord of wars then we must include them along side non-Relic Lord of War Units. While this line is redundant, the Author makes a stupid little slip that puts the whole thing in question:

When describing how we "include" sequential Lord of War Units, they forgot the first Relic Lord of War could be sitting all alone in it's own Detachment if it was purchased first....


Page 4 – Additional Rules, Relic
Change the first paragraph to read:
‘If your army is Battle-forged, no Detachment can contain more Relic units than it does non-Relic units
of the same Battlefield Role. You can, however, include a single Relic Lord of War unit in your army even if it
contains no non-Relic Lord of War units (you cannot include second and subsequent Relic Lord of War units
unless they are taken in a Detachment that contains at least as many non-Relic Lord of War units).’

It looks legal to me. The first Relic LOW is allowed if the army is battle-forged, and the second is allowed because it contains two regular LOW units, allowing an additional single Relic LOW.

Retrogamer0001,
If a mission you are playing instructs you
to select a Battle-forged army, it means
that you must organise all the units in
your army into Detachments ...

... To include a particular Detachment in your army, simply organise some or all
of your units so that they fit within the restrictions and limitations detailed
for that particular Detachment. ...
- Battle Forged Armies

You must first have the Units in your Army before you can organize them into Detachments, so permission to include a single Relic in an Army can not be used as justification to put a Relic into a Detachment by it's lonesome.

This is why I reworded my post to highlight that the Authors created the illusion of choice here. The part in parenthesis really does make it appear as if you could select a single Relic Lord of War for your army, and then purchase additional Relic and non-Relic Lord of War Units at a later date. Yet, when you look at the Rules informing us how we go about creating Battle Forged Armies, it becomes a lot more difficult to justify that sequence of events even occurs. We begin by selecting what Units we want in our Army, then we organize those Units into Detachments as per the roles listed. So, when it comes time to breaking this Army into Detachments, we have 2 Relics and 2 Non-Relics of War. It is no longer possible to even use the Auxiliary Super Heavy Detachment, as that would violate the Restriction found on this Relic Lord of War.

Looks legal to me if you chuck them all in the same Detachment and have 2 of each type (you can have 3-5 LOW).

As above,
Good catch JhonnyHell, I focused on the legality of that Aux Super Heavy Detachment instead of the obvious solution!


Simply organize them all into a single Detachment and nothing is violated... or even lost!
That Aux Super Heavy Detachment netted zero Command Points and benefits anyway.