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.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
That does not mean that allies are "units under his command"

They are allied to a GK army, of which is your army and your main Detachment is GK.

I think that fits the bill rather nicely.

Not if you read the Allies of Convenience rules.

"Units in your army treat Allies of Convenience as enemy units that..."

How can they be "units under his command" if they "treat Allies of Convenience as enemy units"?

Editing to add:

Allies of Convenience

"Can't benefit from the Warlord Trait of an allied character" this sets a precedent that rules from one detachment can not affect Allies of Convenience.

Easy, they're under his command. Just not trustworthy.

(makes me think of pirates & Mutiny)


"can't benefit from the warlord trait of an allied character" This does not set a precedent. It does exactly what it says it does.

Under the examples not how brotherhood allies shows they can use psychic powers, abilites, etc on each other.

Under Allies of Convenience, it only says psychic powers.

You mean they are treated as enemy units.

They can not be under his command if they are enemy units, as the GK could issue orders to enemy units, but they would be ignored/mocked.

"can't benefit from the warlord trait of an allied character" shows how Allies of Convenience can not benefit from rules of their allies.

 DeathReaper wrote:
You mean they are treated as enemy units.

They can not be under his command if they are enemy units, as the GK could issue orders to enemy units, but they would be ignored/mocked.

"can't benefit from the warlord trait of an allied character" shows how Allies of Convenience can not benefit from rules of their allies.

actually it shows they cant benefit from the warlord special rules, no more no less.

They can and are under his command. As they are his allies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
alright DR I'm tired, be back tomorrow and I should be able to argue this a bit better to my point than.

Take care and have a good nite

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
They can and are under his command.

Do you have a rules quote that backs this up?

 DeathReaper wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
They can and are under his command.

Do you have a rules quote that backs this up?

Well The primary Detachment would Infer that it's the one in charge. Therefore if you use allies they'd be under the Primary's command.

Getting back on topic- the rule for grand anvil says that the unit is treated "as if they were troops". Death Company are already troops and they have a specific rule that says that even though they are troops they are a non-scoring unit. So it seems as though there is no conflict they are treated as troops but even as troops they are non-scoring.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Getting back on topic- the rule for grand anvil says that the unit is treated "as if they were troops". Death Company are already troops and they have a specific rule that says that even though they are troops they are a non-scoring unit. So it seems as though there is no conflict they are treated as troops but even as troops they are non-scoring.

Thanks Leo, kinda fell off the side of the mountain there. I can agree to that, I was debating on allying GK with brotherhood allies so I was arguing more for my own behalf there towards the end.


I can agree that the Death Co. rule is more specific than the GK rule so therefore The DC will not be scoring.

However I feel it would/will work in DC Dreads.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
They can and are under his command.

Do you have a rules quote that backs this up?

Well The primary Detachment would Infer that it's the one in charge. Therefore if you use allies they'd be under the Primary's command.

There are no rules that state that.

And units in the Allied detachment are treated as enemy units. so he could not command them as they have their own commander.

 DeathReaper wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
They can and are under his command.

Do you have a rules quote that backs this up?

Well The primary Detachment would Infer that it's the one in charge. Therefore if you use allies they'd be under the Primary's command.

There are no rules that state that.

And units in the Allied detachment are treated as enemy units. so he could not command them as they have their own commander.

It's funny there aren't any rules for yours either, you're just making the best literal interpretation you can just as I am. I tire of the back and forth banter we're having so I'm going to try to stay out of it with you directly. Neither of us have enough hard evidence to back up our points.

If you do not ignore the context you would understand, but since you ignore context, there is no reasoning with you.