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.

Is it legal to take IG with chaos allies and an inquisitorial detachment?

I know IG are BB with inquisition, and decent with chaos, but I don't think inquisitors are allowed to ally with chaos.

So, thoughts?

several threads on this already.... if you read codex INQ the answer is obvious, as it specifically tells you how the three allies work together

and NO you cannot take any come the apocalpyse allies, as youre IG + I + CSM would be come the apoc, its a no go.

On a non rules related tangent. I don't see why fluff wise inquisition couldn't ally with chaos. its unlikely obviously, but it seems like an inquisitor or group of inquisitor could be turned to chaos just like anyone else. i would think they would turn to Khorne or Nurgle if they were going to turn.

Its not even unlikely, it has happened before - from memory one of Eisenhorn / Ravenors opponents was a radical inquisitor who got a little too radical...

Majsharan wrote:
On a non rules related tangent. I don't see why fluff wise inquisition couldn't ally with chaos. its unlikely obviously, but it seems like an inquisitor or group of inquisitor could be turned to chaos just like anyone else. i would think they would turn to Khorne or Nurgle if they were going to turn.

Because that would be giving Chaos options and we can't have that...

Just like we can't have chapter tactics
Or 2+ 3++ options for our leaders
Or how we turn all of our imperial equipment in before we turn Chaos
Or how we get one half-assed supplement (compared to loyalists who've gotten two in the 1/4 of the time) that forces a tax on already overpriced units

Chaos is the black sheep of GW, I can't wait until next codex when all we get our basic chaos marines because cult troops are "just marines with certain gods marks you can easily represent that with options here" and turns out we lost all of our Terminator armor now.

I haven't read the Inquisition Codex/Supplement. Does it say that in an army that includes Chaos Marines or Daemons the Inquisition cannot be taken, or that they're Desperate Allies with them?

Majsharan wrote:
On a non rules related tangent. I don't see why fluff wise inquisition couldn't ally with chaos. its unlikely obviously, but it seems like an inquisitor or group of inquisitor could be turned to chaos just like anyone else. i would think they would turn to Khorne or Nurgle if they were going to turn.

It would probably a radical ordo xenos inquisitor.

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
I haven't read the Inquisition Codex/Supplement. Does it say that in an army that includes Chaos Marines or Daemons the Inquisition cannot be taken, or that they're Desperate Allies with them?

It provides an allies matrix, and the rules for who can ally with who follow the BRB. Chaos are listed as CTA, so you cannot ally with them

 easysauce wrote:
and NO you cannot take any come the apocalpyse allies, as youre IG + I + CSM would be come the apoc, its a no go.

This is wrong. You ally with the primary detachment for purposes of list construction, not the allies, so the limits on which allies you can take do not apply. The bit about having a relationship with the C:I detachment just says how they treat those models (whether they can join squads as battle brothers, etc). Amusingly this means that inquisitors suffer a severe penalty around the wrong xenos, but completely ignore the IG player's demon allies.

 Peregrine wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
and NO you cannot take any come the apocalpyse allies, as youre IG + I + CSM would be come the apoc, its a no go.

This is wrong. You ally with the primary detachment for purposes of list construction, not the allies, so the limits on which allies you can take do not apply. The bit about having a relationship with the C:I detachment just says how they treat those models (whether they can join squads as battle brothers, etc). Amusingly this means that inquisitors suffer a severe penalty around the wrong xenos, but completely ignore the IG player's demon allies.

And how would they treat the CTA allies?
The only rule covering this is "can't be taken".
Are they friendly? Are they Enemy like Desperate Allies? Can they hold objectives?
If you just ignore them, then they actually become BETTER than Desperate Allies. Does that sound right to you?

 Peregrine wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
and NO you cannot take any come the apocalpyse allies, as youre IG + I + CSM would be come the apoc, its a no go.

This is wrong. You ally with the primary detachment for purposes of list construction, not the allies, so the limits on which allies you can take do not apply. The bit about having a relationship with the C:I detachment just says how they treat those models (whether they can join squads as battle brothers, etc). Amusingly this means that inquisitors suffer a severe penalty around the wrong xenos, but completely ignore the IG player's demon allies.

Actually, no you do take ths into account, as it adds an additional line to the matrix for determining allies, and says you have to take into account ALL relationships.

No allying CSM with IG and -I-

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
and NO you cannot take any come the apocalpyse allies, as youre IG + I + CSM would be come the apoc, its a no go.

This is wrong. You ally with the primary detachment for purposes of list construction, not the allies, so the limits on which allies you can take do not apply. The bit about having a relationship with the C:I detachment just says how they treat those models (whether they can join squads as battle brothers, etc). Amusingly this means that inquisitors suffer a severe penalty around the wrong xenos, but completely ignore the IG player's demon allies.

Actually, no you do take ths into account, as it adds an additional line to the matrix for determining allies, and says you have to take into account ALL relationships.

No allying CSM with IG and -I-

Awwww there goes my hopes for a radical inquisitor and his corrupt forces (In all seriousness they really say that?)

No, it is EXACTLY what I wanted to do with my chaos force - I have traitor guard who would love to have been led there by a corrupt inquisitor.

Sadly GW dont appear to do "fun" and "creative" when it comes to supplements - they are either fairly pointless (Iyanden - does everything that Codex: Eldar does, plus more! Literally no downsides!) or simply imbalanced (Farsight - lets you get MORE Riptides in, AND more mind numbingly obvious upgrades! yay!)

Codex ]I[ is just a badly done cut and paste of the GK rules, with some half arsed, dull Warlord traits and some pretty pointless artifacts. It had SO much potential.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Actually, no you do take ths into account, as it adds an additional line to the matrix for determining allies, and says you have to take into account ALL relationships.

Could you quote this rule? All I see is that it adds a new line to the matrix for determining if your primary detachment can take C:I allies, I can't find any rule that says that when picking your allies you have to check them against every other detachment in your army.

Second paragraph of "Inquisitorial Allies"

"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)."

It then goes on to give an example.

Again how would a chaos and inquisitorial unit interact with each other? Do they need to test as Desperate allies do? A tau unit would have to. What rule do you use for this interaction?

 grendel083 wrote:
"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)."

That refers to the relationship between the models, not the detachment. So, battle brothers can join units and cast psychic powers, desperate allies have to make their tests, etc. It doesn't say anything about applying at the list-building stage when you determine which detachments you can bring.

Again how would a chaos and inquisitorial unit interact with each other? Do they need to test as Desperate allies do? A tau unit would have to. What rule do you use for this interaction?

They wouldn't interact at all, because there are no rules for their interaction. They wouldn't gain any bonuses for being good allies, and they wouldn't suffer any penalties for being desperate allies (because they very clearly are not desperate allies). In practical terms you'd treat them as allies of convenience (not literally, but the end result is the same).

 Peregrine wrote:
They wouldn't interact at all, because there are no rules for their interaction. They wouldn't gain any bonuses for being good allies, and they wouldn't suffer any penalties for being desperate allies (because they very clearly are not desperate allies). In practical terms you'd treat them as allies of convenience (not literally, but the end result is the same).

Take for example an Imperial Guard force, with inquisition and Tau allies.
The Inquisition and Tau are desperate allies, so would have to take tests each turn (eyes wide open? I forget the name).

But an Imperial Guard, inquisition and Chaos force wouldn't. In game terms their relationship is in fact much better by your interpretation, despite being a level worse. And this seems ok to you?

The rule states they have a relationship. And that relationship is "not allowed together". This is why there are no rules for the relationship. It isn't allowed.

Treating them as Allies of Convenience is just way off, even as a house rule.

 Peregrine wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
and NO you cannot take any come the apocalpyse allies, as youre IG + I + CSM would be come the apoc, its a no go.

This is wrong. You ally with the primary detachment for purposes of list construction, not the allies, so the limits on which allies you can take do not apply. The bit about having a relationship with the C:I detachment just says how they treat those models (whether they can join squads as battle brothers, etc). Amusingly this means that inquisitors suffer a severe penalty around the wrong xenos, but completely ignore the IG player's demon allies.

dude.. get and READ the rules... you most certainly do NOT ignore the ally slot/INq slot relationship...

C:I specifically tells you how you treat the allies+inq slot and if its CTapoc its a no go.

C:I specifically tells you that yes, you do factor in all three factions relationship/allies matrix, so do not assert it does not, as that is completly false.

you cannot have CTA allies in the same army, that is the come the apoc rule...

so your arguement, about how you ally with come the apoc allies, is false, and 100% not RAW.

 easysauce wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
and NO you cannot take any come the apocalpyse allies, as youre IG + I + CSM would be come the apoc, its a no go.

This is wrong. You ally with the primary detachment for purposes of list construction, not the allies, so the limits on which allies you can take do not apply. The bit about having a relationship with the C:I detachment just says how they treat those models (whether they can join squads as battle brothers, etc). Amusingly this means that inquisitors suffer a severe penalty around the wrong xenos, but completely ignore the IG player's demon allies.

dude.. get and READ the rules... you most certainly do NOT ignore the ally slot/INq slot relationship...

C:I specifically tells you how you treat the allies+inq slot and if its CTapoc its a no go.

C:I specifically tells you that yes, you do factor in all three factions relationship/allies matrix, so do not assert it does not, as that is completly false.

you cannot have CTA allies in the same army, that is the come the apoc rule...

so your arguement, about how you ally with come the apoc allies, is false, and 100% not RAW.

Dude, reread the rules.

They do not specifically say any of what you are claiming.

Inq Allies are first selected as Allies to your main detatchment, it then treats the relationship differently with other allies based on its allies matrix.

There is no specific denial from taking an Inquisitorial detachment allied to anytrhing other than CTA in the primary and then a CTA in the Allies.

At any rate this whole thread makes me want to revisit the Transport issue because it is the same situation; The IC is a part and parcel to the Unit which is not an Ally to the transport, just like the IC is part and Parcel to the unit which is a Battle Brother to the other IC.

We're told there is a relationship between the two allies.
So if we ignore the "can't be taken" restriction, how does this relationship work on the battlefield?
Because so far it works better then Allies of Convinence and Deesperate Allies, as there's literally no downside.
But take Tau allies instead of Chaos and you're a lot worse off.
And this sounds correct?

 Kommissar Kel wrote:



There is no specific denial from taking an Inquisitorial detachment allied to anytrhing other than CTA in the primary and then a CTA in the Allies.

At any rate this whole thread makes me want to revisit the Transport issue because it is the same situation; The IC is a part and parcel to the Unit which is not an Ally to the transport, just like the IC is part and Parcel to the unit which is a Battle Brother to the other IC.

you need to re read it yourself,

, C:I specifically states, you must use the C:I allies matrix to determine the relationship between the INQ detach, the Primary detach, and the allied detach,

it then gives a specific example, where the relationship between the INQ detach, the primary detach and the allied detach, as determined by the INQ allies matrix, matters,

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)."

so yes, the relationship between INQ det and allied Det is spelt out, and it does in fact, matter.