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.

Was skimming through the new demons codex and the following caught my eye:

"Each primary detachment in your army may include up to four Heralds of Chaos, chosen in any combination from the following list.."

The entry then goes on to say that they comprise a single hq slot, but otherwise act separately.

Now, I've seen a number of people say that you can take a herald as part of an allied detachment, but from my interpretation of the above quote, it looks like you can only have heralds if demons are your primary. Is this correct?

You can only take 4 in a single HQ slot in a primary detachment.
An allied detachment you'd be limited to 1 herald per slot.

That was my initial interpretation as well. However, the wording still seems to suggest that you can only take heralds in a primary detachment.

Actually, according to the wording of the book - you cannot take heralds in an allied attachment. If they FAQ this, then we will know for sure...but the way it is worded on how you take them....you cannot

A demon ally can take any single herald as they are a legal HQ choice listed in the HQ section.

The rule that is being referred to tells you that in a primary detachment, you may take 4 heralds that only fill 1 hq slot.

Of course you can take heralds, they are still in the HQ section of the daemon codex. You have a allowence of taking 4 in a single slot if they are your primary detachment

MarkyMark wrote:
Of course you can take heralds, they are still in the HQ section of the daemon codex. You have a allowence of taking 4 in a single slot if they are your primary detachment

As much as I with it were otherwise, I believe your interpretation is wrong. The codex clearly states under what circumstances heralds may be taken. It says that in a primary detachment you may take "up to" four. It does not say that you may take up to four in a primary detachment and only one in an allied detachment.

You are reading way too far into the rules. Up to four is a restriction - it does not deny you from taking one in an allied detachment.

The heralds each have a listing in the HQ section which make them a valid selection as a allied HQ.

The part your referencing says;

"Each primary detachment in your army may include up to four heralds of chaos, chosen in any combination from the following models:"

Notice it says "each primary detachment" at the beginning? It says nothing about allies.

It does not say "Only primary detachments in your army may include heralds.." which is what your claiming.

 BarBoBot wrote:
The heralds each have a listing in the HQ section which make them a valid selection as a allied HQ.

The part your referencing says;

"Each primary detachment in your army may include up to four heralds of chaos, chosen in any combination from the following models:"

Notice it says "each primary detachment" at the beginning? It says nothing about allies.

It does not say "Only primary detachments in your army may include heralds.." which is what your claiming.

Here's a counter argument for you..
first sentence "each primary detachment may include....."
then it lists what counts as heralds..
then it says they count as a single hq slot.

There is not a single sentence in that that says "each primary detachment may include 4 as a single hq slot"

what it does say is that primary detachments can take heralds

I think people are reading the first and last sentence and assuming that it allows 4 in a primary and 1 in an allied. Granted, that might be RAI, but I'm not convinced is RAW.

There are a few "Heralds" that are not included in the "Herald" list. Does that mean that you can't take them at all?

The Force Organisation chart tells you the requirements of your list. This includes 1-2 HQ. Heralds each take up one slot, as per the normal rules of 40k. However, a few listed Heralds can combine into one slot, when that slot is in the primary detachment.

As someone above said, it's an additional permission, not a restriction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Waaaaghmaster wrote:

what it does say is that primary detachments can take heralds

It doesn't say that Primary Detachments can take Fateweaver. Does this mean Fateweaver can only be taken in Allied Detachments?

The fact this is even a thread is despicable rules lawyer'ing to a gross extreme. Is your attachment primary? Horray you get 4 heralds for one slot sweet dealz! Making an allied attachment and looking how to pimp your HQ slot? Oh noes the sweet dealz was for only primary attachments but wait! heralds are still an HQ choice wuuut? Brain explodes.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
There are a few "Heralds" that are not included in the "Herald" list. Does that mean that you can't take them at all?

No. It means they aren't Heralds. They may have been Heralds in the last codex, but the last codex isn't exactly relevant any more.

RAW, the wording is no different in effect to that of a Techmarine or a unit of servitors. Explicit permission is given to take an option under certain circumstances, implicitly removing permission to take them in other circumstances. The fact that the Herald rules are placed before all the entries rather than duplicated in each is simply an efficiency consideration, taking up less space and allowing a simpler phrasing.

RAI, I don't believe RAW is what they had in mind. I am nigh certain that any FAQ issued will allow Heralds to be taken in allied detachments, just not in the 4-for-1 set up. But until they clarify, RAW is all we have.

I doubt GW will even bother to FAQ it. It's so obvious.

Chrysis wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
There are a few "Heralds" that are not included in the "Herald" list. Does that mean that you can't take them at all?

No. It means they aren't Heralds. They may have been Heralds in the last codex, but the last codex isn't exactly relevant any more.

RAW, the wording is no different in effect to that of a Techmarine or a unit of servitors. Explicit permission is given to take an option under certain circumstances, implicitly removing permission to take them in other circumstances. The fact that the Herald rules are placed before all the entries rather than duplicated in each is simply an efficiency consideration, taking up less space and allowing a simpler phrasing.

RAI, I don't believe RAW is what they had in mind. I am nigh certain that any FAQ issued will allow Heralds to be taken in allied detachments, just not in the 4-for-1 set up. But until they clarify, RAW is all we have.

You replied to my stupidest point, and did not reply to this one:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

Waaaaghmaster wrote:

what it does say is that primary detachments can take heralds

It doesn't say that Primary Detachments can take Fateweaver. Does this mean Fateweaver can only be taken in Allied Detachments?

Chrysis wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
There are a few "Heralds" that are not included in the "Herald" list. Does that mean that you can't take them at all?

No. It means they aren't Heralds. They may have been Heralds in the last codex, but the last codex isn't exactly relevant any more.

RAW, the wording is no different in effect to that of a Techmarine or a unit of servitors. Explicit permission is given to take an option under certain circumstances, implicitly removing permission to take them in other circumstances. The fact that the Herald rules are placed before all the entries rather than duplicated in each is simply an efficiency consideration, taking up less space and allowing a simpler phrasing.

RAI, I don't believe RAW is what they had in mind. I am nigh certain that any FAQ issued will allow Heralds to be taken in allied detachments, just not in the 4-for-1 set up. But until they clarify, RAW is all we have.

If you are going super hardcore RAW, doesn't this technically give permission for your primary detachment to take up to 4 heralds without specifying that your primary detachment must be from Codex: Chaos Daemons for this rule to apply?

Only if you want to ignore the stipulation in the main rulebook that all units from the Primary Detachment be chosen from the same codex. It doesn't explicitly override that.

And likewise, nothing about Fateweaver's rules change the defaults, so you assume the defaults apply. Thus Fateweaver is an HQ choice. The Herald's have new rules, which means parts of the defaults don't apply any longer. These new rules indicate what kind of lists may take the Heralds (specifically Primary Detachments), so by extension other types of list may not (in this case, Allied Detachments.) It's no different to a unit of Servitors.

But like I said, I don't expect that to stand as it makes no sense. But they are what they are, so if you want to discuss RAW all we have is what they wrote. Which is the same as Servitors, so either we've all been doing Servitors wrong or Heralds aren't allowed in an Allied detachment.

"Each primary detachment may ...." provides permission for the primary detachment to alter the FOC

Nothing in there removes permission to choose a Herald as a single HQ choice, provided by the FOC

The Sentence regarding the primary detachment ends after the list of Heralds, and most importantly before the permission to modify the FOC. The first sentence is solely permission to take up to 4 heralds in a Primary Detachment, which means that as written Allied Detachments are not allowed to take up to 4 Heralds. One Herald would certainly fall under "up to 4", so Allied Detachments do not have permission to take even 1 herald.

Again, no one has yet stated a way in which the Herald rules differ from Servitor or Techmarine rules in a way that would result in them being treated differently. So either we've been playing Techmarines and Servitors wrong, or Heralds are Primary Detachment only as written.

Chrysis - again, show where the permission to take any HQ unit, as per the FOC, is denied.
Page and graph will suffice

The "up to" is both an allowance and restriction on PRIMARY detachments only. IF it is not a primary detachment then you cannot parse a rule that only pertains to the primary.

The rule "Heralds of Chaos" as specified in the codex on page 94 only applies to primary detachment(s). So only in a primary detachment you may make use of the Heralds of Chaos rule. However, nothing prevents you from taking a single Herald of Chaos as an HQ choice in an allied force, because the individual Heralds have no such restriction in their unit entry.

Chrysis wrote:
Only if you want to ignore the stipulation in the main rulebook that all units from the Primary Detachment be chosen from the same codex. It doesn't explicitly override that.

But like I said, I don't expect that to stand as it makes no sense. But they are what they are, so if you want to discuss RAW all we have is what they wrote. Which is the same as Servitors, so either we've all been doing Servitors wrong or Heralds aren't allowed in an Allied detachment.

The Heralds rule does actually override the main rulebook. Look at the last sentence on page 7 of the main rulebook, "On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex always takes precedence".

So according to the strict reading of RAW that you are interpreting, the heralds rule grants permission for up to 4 heralds to be taken as one HQ choice from your primary detachment with no regard to what codex that primary detachment comes from.

Pg 94 of Codex Chaos Daemons tells us that "Each primary detachment in your army may include up to four Heralds of Chaos, chosen in any combination from the following models:".

If your observation, that allied contingents from Codex: Chaos Daemons cannot take Heralds, is based on the strictest interpretation of RAW then it will have to be modified to include the fact that going strictly by RAW an allied Chaos Deamon detachment grants permission for a primary detachment from another codex to take up to 4 heralds as an HQ choice.

Personally, I think that you are over interpreting RAW because it is fun to dig into the rules and expose the nuggets of insanity hidden under the surface.

This thread is funny.

It is funny and absolutely rediculous to insist that anyone play by either interpretation of RAW (both of which I believe are flawed interpretations). I just figured if we are going to argue RAW then we may as well get it right.

If you play by strict RAW you will run into problems about 5 minutes before the game starts. If you play RAI then you need all the staff the collaborated on the various codices and rules standing right there to tell you exactly what the intent of each rule is. If you play a slightly loose RAW you will get through a game, have some fun, and there will be a lot less problems.

Chrysis wrote:
Explicit permission is given to take an option under certain circumstances, implicitly removing permission to take them in other circumstances.

You defeated your own argument. Implicit MEANS implied. Implied is not RAW. If the rule doesn't specifically forbid you from taking a valid HQ choice in the HQ FoC slot, it is a valid choice, even if a rule elsewhere "implies" otherwise. For it to be RAW, it can't imply it, it needs to specifically say it. Otherwise, the strongest argument would be RAI, which in this case mostly falls flat on it's face.

Then you all agree a player can take a unit of Servitors as their compulsary HQ in a Dark Angels army? After all, the argument is that the only thing they get from taking a Techmarine is that they don't take up a FOC slot.

Chrysis wrote:
Then you all agree a player can take a unit of Servitors as their compulsary HQ in a Dark Angels army? After all, the argument is that the only thing they get from taking a Techmarine is that they don't take up a FOC slot.

But a compulsory HQ would actually have to occupy a slot wouldn't it?

Yes. But the argument is that failing to satisfy the primary condition (Primary Detachment for Daemons, There is a Techmarine for Servitors) only prevents you from getting the bonus FOC manipulation, not prevents you from taking them at all.

So a unit of Servitors without a Techmarine will still take up a slot, if the logic being applied to Heralds holds true.

Chrysis wrote:

So a unit of Servitors without a Techmarine will still take up a slot, if the logic being applied to Heralds holds true.

No, because the troops entry in the back of the book makes clear that servitors are an unclassed type. Since they don't have a troop class(HQ, Fast Attack, etc), you don't have permission to buy them at all, unless one of your other legal rules or units makes it possible.

Heralds, on the other hand, are valid, listed HQ choices.

However, if this was my opponent's primary argument for the Herald's debate, I'd allow them to take a servitor as their HQ choice just to not have to debate something so silly.