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.

 grendel083 wrote:
What would that prove? If I can't then the whole game is broken, but that still doesn't prove your idea correct.

What I think you're going to find is that "friendly unit" is not explicitly defined, and you (along with everyone else) are using the assumed definition of "a friendly unit is a unit in your own army unless that unit has some rule stating otherwise". When you fail to find another definition of "friendly unit" you're going to have to fall back on that assumed definition, and at that point the inquisitor can cast a blessing on the demon because they are both units in your army that have no rules stating that they have some other relationship.

 Peregrine wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
This is silly. Even when you treat the relationships between codex:Inq and other codices on a model by model basis and not a unit by unit basis it does not change the fact that you cannot field two 'things' that will have a CtA relationship with one another in the same army.

Citation please. The rules say that you can not field an allied detachment that has a CTA relationship with the primary detachment, but they do not say that you can't field two allied detachments that are CTA to each other but legal allied choices for the primary detachment.

(Of course once on the table the models from the two allied detachments will treat each other as CTA, but CTA status has absolutely no effect besides limiting your allies choices in list construction.)

Actually, the BRB does not say that at all. It says "Simply put, this kind of alliance cannot occur" No mention of if this alliance is between any particular detachments.

A model from codex:inquisition simply cannot be in an army with a model from codices that have the CtA relationship listed regardless of what detachments those models are in.

 DJGietzen wrote:
Actually, the BRB does not say that at all. It says "Simply put, this kind of alliance cannot occur" No mention of if this alliance is between any particular detachments.

No, there is a mention. An alliance is a relationship that exists between a primary detachment and an allied detachment.

A model from codex:inquisition simply cannot be in an army with a model from codices that have the CtA relationship listed regardless of what detachments those models are in.

And once the game begins this rule is irrelevant because it applies to army construction, not in-game effects.

 Peregrine wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
Actually, the BRB does not say that at all. It says "Simply put, this kind of alliance cannot occur" No mention of if this alliance is between any particular detachments.

No, there is a mention. An alliance is a relationship that exists between a primary detachment and an allied detachment.

Where? Page number and paragraph please.

 Peregrine wrote:

A model from codex:inquisition simply cannot be in an army with a model from codices that have the CtA relationship listed regardless of what detachments those models are in.

And once the game begins this rule is irrelevant because it applies to army construction, not in-game effects.

What? Rules that govern army construction are irrelevant? There are no "in-game effects" because there is no "in-game" if you have an illegal army.

 DJGietzen wrote:
Where? Page number and paragraph please.

Page 112: "The allies matrix shows the levels of potential alliance between each army."

Page 113: "Find the row for the codex of your primary detachment on the left side of the matrix. Then find the column for the codex of your potential allies at the top of the matrix."

So now we've clearly established that an alliance exists between a primary detachment and an allied detachment. Then page 109, the list construction section, tells you to consult the rules on page 112 to determine which allied detachment your primary detachment can take.

Now it's your turn, please cite the rules where you consider relationships between multiple allied detachments when creating your army.

What? Rules that govern army construction are irrelevant?

Exactly. Once the game begins you are no longer constructing your army, so rules that govern army construction are no longer relevant. You can't have, for example, a rule that says "no fast attack choices are allowed" come into effect on the second turn of the game and negate an army that was legal during army construction.

There are no "in-game effects" because there is no "in-game" if you have an illegal army.

But at the step of the process where you determine whether or not you have a legal army you DO have a legal army, because the army construction rules do not check the relationship between allied detachments. C:I allies only begin to care about their relationship with other allies once the game begins and models are on the table, at which point the CTA alliance level does not add any extra rules to how models from the two CTA detachments interact with each other.

I think I side with Peregrine on this one with regards to the Codex used as an Inquisitorial detachment. However, playing it that way would be TFGish in my opinion and certainly laughable if you abuse the matrix as its intent is to eliminate alliances that should not occur.

Definitely TFGish, but RAW. The Allies Matrix and the surrounding ruleset prohibit exactly this by hard-ruling that both Allied Detachments must be from the same Codex. In context of the BRB, there's no reason for it to therefore state "all detachments must be capable of allying with each other". The Inquisition Codex/Supplement/Whatever specifically ignores that ruling, which causes problems like this.

I can see this being Errata'd soon.

EDIT: Just because of how Inquisition works (it's more like an expansion to a detachment rather than a whole new Allied one), I'd probably houserule this so that the Inquisition units have the same relationship as the army they're allied to; so the Inquisition units would treat CSM as if the Inquisition units had been chosen from Codex: Imperial Guard. It's actually not so bad, fluff-wise. Inquisitors go rogue all the time!

The easiest way to fix it would be to just errata C:I to say "a C:I detachment can not be taken in your army if it would be CTA with any other detachment in your army". But that would require GW to spend more than 15 minutes on the "book".

 Peregrine wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
Where? Page number and paragraph please.

Page 112: "The allies matrix shows the levels of potential alliance between each army."

Page 113: "Find the row for the codex of your primary detachment on the left side of the matrix. Then find the column for the codex of your potential allies at the top of the matrix."

So now we've clearly established that an alliance exists between a primary detachment and an allied detachment. Then page 109, the list construction section, tells you to consult the rules on page 112 to determine which allied detachment your primary detachment can take.

You've clearly established the BRB gives you permission to take an allied detachment and how the alliex matrix on page 112 limits the acceptable choices of those allied detachments. You have also shown that there is a relationship between a primary and allied detachment. You have not shown that there is not a relationship between two allied detachments from different sources nor have you shown that these relationships cannot limit the acceptable choices. This is becouse pages 109,112 and 113 do not give you permission to take allied detachments from multiple sources or any other kind of detachment.

 Peregrine wrote:

Now it's your turn, please cite the rules where you consider relationships between multiple allied detachments when creating your army.

Those rules, not surprisingly, are found with the rules that give you permission to be in this situation.

If you have a special allied detachment called an inquisitorial detachment then "The Inquisitorial Allies Matrix below lists the relationship between the Inquisition and the forces they may fight alongside." -Codex: Inquisition (Kindle Locations 997-1007).

If you have a formation detachment then "the Levels of Alliance rules from the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook do apply to them and units chosen from a different codex that are in the same army." - Storm Wing (Kindle Locations 24-27)

The rules that allow an inquisitorial detachment to be in the army tell you they can't be included if ANY of the forces they fight alongside are CtA.
The rules that allow a formation detachment to be in an army tell you consider the realtionsip between the units in the formation and the units chosen from another codex. You can't have units from a formation in an army with units from a codex that will have CtA.

 Peregrine wrote:

What? Rules that govern army construction are irrelevant?

Exactly. Once the game begins you are no longer constructing your army, so rules that govern army construction are no longer relevant. You can't have, for example, a rule that says "no fast attack choices are allowed" come into effect on the second turn of the game and negate an army that was legal during army construction.

There are no "in-game effects" because there is no "in-game" if you have an illegal army.

But at the step of the process where you determine whether or not you have a legal army you DO have a legal army, because the army construction rules do not check the relationship between allied detachments. C:I allies only begin to care about their relationship with other allies once the game begins and models are on the table, at which point the CTA alliance level does not add any extra rules to how models from the two CTA detachments interact with each other.

No, you do not. During army construction you have either added an allied detachment chosen from a different codex then your other allied detachment(s) illegally, or you have ignored some the rules for including a formation or inquisitorial detachment in your army, also illegally.

You simply cannot, at this time, legally form an army with two or more units or models that have a CtA relationship.

 DJGietzen wrote:
You have not shown that there is not a relationship between two allied detachments from different sources

I just did. The allies matrix has primary detachment on one side and allied detachment on the other side. You absolutely can not use the allies matrix to determine a relationship between two allied detachments. It's like looking at a graph of YMDC arguments each year and trying to calculate the number of YMDC arguments per topping on my pizza. It's just not possible.

nor have you shown that these relationships cannot limit the acceptable choices.

I just did. The rules for choosing allied detachments tell you to use the allies matrix to determine what you are allowed to take, based on your primary detachment and your desired allied detachment. And that's it. You can't just invent new rules for choosing an allied detachment based on your other allied detachments.

[list]If you have a special allied detachment called an inquisitorial detachment then "The Inquisitorial Allies Matrix below lists the relationship between the Inquisition and the forces they may fight alongside." -Codex: Inquisition (Kindle Locations

Yes, exactly. C:I contains new entries for the allies matrix so that you can determine which allies you can take with your primary detachment if your primary detachment or desired allied detachment are from C:I. Nothing in those rules gives you permission to choose your allied detachment based on what other allied detachments you have.

The rules that allow an inquisitorial detachment to be in the army tell you they can't be included if ANY of the forces they fight alongside are CtA.

No they don't. You are only banned from taking C:I if your primary detachment is CTA with C:I. Nothing in those rules allows you to check the relationship between C:I and other allied detachments.

The rules that allow a formation detachment to be in an army tell you consider the realtionsip between the units in the formation and the units chosen from another codex. You can't have units from a formation in an army with units from a codex that will have CtA.

So? C:I is not a formation. If you want to discuss formations and alliance levels start a new thread about it.

No, you do not. During army construction you have either added an allied detachment chosen from a different codex then your other allied detachment(s) illegally, or you have ignored some the rules for including a formation or inquisitorial detachment in your army, also illegally.

Nope. Go back and read the rules again. The allies matrix is never used to check the relationship between allied detachments and other allied detachments. As long as all of your allies are legal choices for your primary detachment it is completely irrelevant what the relationship between those allies is.

You simply cannot, at this time, legally form an army with two or more units or models that have a CtA relationship.

And you simply are wrong.

 grendel083 wrote:
Say the Inquisitor in question wishes to cast a blessing on the Daemon unit.

Is it a friendly unit?
Is it counted as an enemy unit?

Please provide the page number with the answer.

I think a logical compromise would be to treat them as enemies, but still under the control of a single player - the CSM can't be aided by the INQ, and may attack him.
Additionally, the CSM wouldn't be able to score.

 Peregrine wrote:

You have not shown that there is not a relationship between two allied detachments from different sources

I just did. The allies matrix has primary detachment on one side and allied detachment on the other side.

No, you did not. There is no information in the BRB on the relationship or levels of alliance between two allied detachments chosen from different source books. All you have done is proven the BRB only contains information on the level of alliance between a primary detachment and an allied detachment.

You absolutely can not use the allies matrix to determine a relationship between two allied detachments. It's like looking at a graph of YMDC arguments each year and trying to calculate the number of YMDC arguments per topping on my pizza. It's just not possible.

Right, because the allies matrix and the rest of the BRB only contains information on the level of alliance between a primary detachment and an allied detachment.

Just because the BRB does not provide the relationship between two allied detachments from different sources does not mean there can never be such a relationship. This would be like saying because that graph of YMDC arguments does not list the toppings on your pizza that said pizza cannot ever have toppings.

 Peregrine wrote:

nor have you shown that these relationships cannot limit the acceptable choices.

I just did. The rules for choosing allied detachments tell you to use the allies matrix to determine what you are allowed to take, based on your primary detachment and your desired allied detachment. And that's it. You can't just invent new rules for choosing an allied detachment based on your other allied detachments.

Again, no you have not. Those rules also preclude the possibility of two allied detachments chosen from different sources. If we are not going to allow anyone, including the GW design team, to "invent new rules" then this whole argument is moot. Thankfully we do let the GW team invent new rules that not only allow us to take an allied detachment chosen from a different source but also tell us how its relationships with both the primary detachment as well as the 'normal' allied detachment are determined outside of the steps used in the BRB.

 Peregrine wrote:

[list]If you have a special allied detachment called an inquisitorial detachment then "The Inquisitorial Allies Matrix below lists the relationship between the Inquisition and the forces they may fight alongside." -Codex: Inquisition (Kindle Locations

Yes, exactly. C:I contains new entries for the allies matrix so that you can determine which allies you can take with your primary detachment if your primary detachment or desired allied detachment are from C:I. Nothing in those rules gives you permission to choose your allied detachment based on what other allied detachments you have.

Wrong again. Codex:Inquisition is quite clear that the chart is not JUST for the primary detachment but is also used to determine the relationship between the Inquisitorial detachment and the 'normal' allied detachment regardless of what the BRB says.

 Peregrine wrote:

The rules that allow an inquisitorial detachment to be in the army tell you they can't be included if ANY of the forces they fight alongside are CtA.

No they don't. You are only banned from taking C:I if your primary detachment is CTA with C:I. Nothing in those rules allows you to check the relationship between C:I and other allied detachments.

No, you do not. During army construction you have either added an allied detachment chosen from a different codex then your other allied detachment(s) illegally, or you have ignored some the rules for including a formation or inquisitorial detachment in your army, also illegally.

Nope. Go back and read the rules again. The allies matrix is never used to check the relationship between allied detachments and other allied detachments. As long as all of your allies are legal choices for your primary detachment it is completely irrelevant what the relationship between those allies is.

Games Workshop Ltd. Codex: Inquisition (Kindle Locations 998-1005). wrote:
The Inquisitorial Allies Matrix below lists the relationship between the Inquisition and the forces they may fight alongside....
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). For example, if an Inquisitor was part of an army where the primary detachment were Imperial Guard and the allied detachment were from the Tau Empire, then the Inquisition would treat the Guard as Battle Brothers, and the Tau as Desperate Allies.

Seems quite clear you are required to check the relationship between the Inquisition detachment and all other detachments in your army not just the primary detachment.

 DJGietzen wrote:
There is no information in the BRB on the relationship or levels of alliance between two allied detachments chosen from different source books.

Exactly, because no relationship between allied detachments exists when you are constructing your army. What you're doing is the equivalent of arguing that because there are no rules for determining the level of alliance between two units in the same detachment it must not be possible to have two units in the same detachment, and therefore all detachments must have only one unit.

All you have done is proven the BRB only contains information on the level of alliance between a primary detachment and an allied detachment.

Exactly. And when you are constructing your army the only allies information you use is the allies matrix.

Just because the BRB does not provide the relationship between two allied detachments from different sources does not mean there can never be such a relationship.

That's true. C:I tells you how to determine a relationship between models on the table once the game begins, even though they are both from allied detachments. This, however, is not relevant to army construction.

If we are not going to allow anyone, including the GW design team, to "invent new rules" then this whole argument is moot.

I'm allowing GW to invent new rules, and they've done so by allowing you to take two allied detachments, each with their own relationship to the primary detachment. What I'm not doing is allowing YOU to invent the rules that GW didn't invent and assume that the relationship between allied detachments has any relevance to army construction.

Wrong again. Codex:Inquisition is quite clear that the chart is not JUST for the primary detachment but is also used to determine the relationship between the Inquisitorial detachment and the 'normal' allied detachment regardless of what the BRB says.

No it isn't. C:I tells you to use that information to determine the relationship between MODELS in the two allied detachments. That is a rule that only applies once the game begins. For example, it allows you to have an inquisitor cast psychic powers on the space marines in your other allied detachment, and tells you that you can't put the inquisitor in a squad from your Tau allied detachment.

Seems quite clear you are required to check the relationship between the Inquisition detachment and all other detachments in your army not just the primary detachment.

Yes, and it is absolutely clear that this check only happens during the game, once your army list is complete. During list construction you only check the relationship between DETACHMENTS, not models, and the quoted rule says absolutely nothing about your C:I DETACHMENT having a relationship with another allied DETACHMENT. You don't consider any relationships between models or units until the game begins.

 Peregrine wrote:
...once the game begins...not relevant to army construction... only applies once the game begins...You don't consider any relationships between models or units until the game begins

These are wild an unfounded claims. They would also mean that a primary detachment chosen from the Tyranid codex can be paired with an inquisitorial detachment. The section of page 109 referring you to page 112 does not limit the relationships presented on that page to the primary and allied detachment. They are for any combination of allies. Come the Apocalypse are combinations that cannot occur. Thanks to codex inquisition we know the relationship between the Tyranids and the Inquisition is CtA and thanks to page 109 and 112 we know we can't have that combination in our army. The same must be true for combinations where the allied detachment and the inquisitorial detachment are CtA.

You do not have permission to ignore the levels of alliance that codex inquisition has with and any the forces they may fight alongside, primary or otherwise during army construction.

 DJGietzen wrote:
They would also mean that a primary detachment chosen from the Tyranid codex can be paired with an inquisitorial detachment.

No, because a case of a primary detachment being CTA with a desired allied detachment is already dealt with by the rules. This is not a problem at all.

The section of page 109 referring you to page 112 does not limit the relationships presented on that page to the primary and allied detachment.

Yes it does. It says that once you have picked your primary detachment you may select allies using the allies matrix, and the allies matrix tells you what allies you can take with a given primary detachment. The allies matrix is not labeled detachment A and detachment B, it very clearly says primary and allied.

Come the Apocalypse are combinations that cannot occur. Thanks to codex inquisition we know the relationship between the Tyranids and the Inquisition is CtA and thanks to page 109 and 112 we know we can't have that combination in our army. The same must be true for combinations where the allied detachment and the inquisitorial detachment are CtA.

That is not at all true. You are ignoring the difference between a primary and allied detachment being CTA and two allied detachments being CTA. One is banned by the rules, one is not a relevant fact during army construction.

You do not have permission to ignore the levels of alliance that codex inquisition has with and any the forces they may fight alongside, primary or otherwise during army construction.

No, you have this backwards. You need permission to consider that level of alliance during army construction. The rules tell you what to consider, and that list does not include allied to allied relationships. You're just inventing a rule that you have to consider something else unless told otherwise.

 Peregrine wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
What would that prove? If I can't then the whole game is broken, but that still doesn't prove your idea correct.

What I think you're going to find is that "friendly unit" is not explicitly defined, and you (along with everyone else) are using the assumed definition of "a friendly unit is a unit in your own army unless that unit has some rule stating otherwise". When you fail to find another definition of "friendly unit" you're going to have to fall back on that assumed definition, and at that point the inquisitor can cast a blessing on the demon because they are both units in your army that have no rules stating that they have some other relationship.

Again, proving the game is broken does not prove your case correct.
So the level of alliance doesn't make them friendly units.
Nor does it apparently say all models in your force are friendly.
So there is nowhere that says how to treat them.
Your whole theory is based on assumption and lack of rules, as you say yourself above.

I'm assuming this is just theoretical? Would you actually consider trying to pull this in a game?

 grendel083 wrote:
Again, proving the game is broken does not prove your case correct.

My point is that the game isn't broken since there's a universally agreed assumption that "friendly unit" means "unit in your army" unless stated otherwise, and "enemy unit" means a unit in your opponent's army unless stated otherwise. GW never bothers to define it explicitly, but it's pretty clear what they're talking about, just like it's pretty clear how you move models even though it never explicitly states "pick the model up off the table and place it within X" of its starting point, where X is its maximum movement distance".

So the level of alliance doesn't make them friendly units.

Unless you assume the default of "all units in your army are friendly unless otherwise stated" which is required for the game to function. Since CTA units are never stated to be anything but friendly then if you somehow get them into the same army (or same side in a multiplayer game) then they will be friendly.

Nor does it apparently say all models in your force are friendly.

But if you don't you'll find that the game breaks. When your alternatives are a broken unplayable game or accepting the obvious assumption then it's pretty clear which is the correct choice.

I'm assuming this is just theoretical? Would you actually consider trying to pull this in a game?

That depends on how friendly the game is. If it's a casual game with both of us making an effort to bring fluffy armies then no, of course I wouldn't. If it's a competitive game with Riptide spam and screamerstar and similar things then yes, I'm bringing C:I and another allied detachment that is CTA with C:I if I see a good combo.

 Peregrine wrote:
accepting the obvious assumption then it's pretty clear which is the correct choice.

Surely the obvious assumption is "don't try it".
If nothing else, it's clearly not the intent.

 grendel083 wrote:
Surely the obvious assumption is "don't try it".
If nothing else, it's clearly not the intent.

Why not? I think it's awesome and fluffy that my commissar can force his inquisition divination slave to cast prescience on some demons or be executed for heresy.

 Peregrine wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
They would also mean that a primary detachment chosen from the Tyranid codex can be paired with an inquisitorial detachment.

No, because a case of a primary detachment being CTA with a desired allied detachment is already dealt with by the rules. This is not a problem at all.

The section of page 109 referring you to page 112 does not limit the relationships presented on that page to the primary and allied detachment.

Yes it does. It says that once you have picked your primary detachment you may select allies using the allies matrix, and the allies matrix tells you what allies you can take with a given primary detachment. The allies matrix is not labeled detachment A and detachment B, it very clearly says primary and allied.

Only the allies matrix on page 113 you are so found of touting mentions primary and allied detachments. Codex: Inquisition is not on this matrix. Either this means you cannot take the inquisition as an allied detachment or it means there are additional rules published some place else. If you are including an inquisitorial detachment you are doing more then looking things up on page 113.

 Peregrine wrote:

Come the Apocalypse are combinations that cannot occur. Thanks to codex inquisition we know the relationship between the Tyranids and the Inquisition is CtA and thanks to page 109 and 112 we know we can't have that combination in our army. The same must be true for combinations where the allied detachment and the inquisitorial detachment are CtA.

That is not at all true. You are ignoring the difference between a primary and allied detachment being CTA and two allied detachments being CTA. One is banned by the rules, one is not a relevant fact during army construction.

I'm ignoring it because you made it up. You've invented some magical procedure to include an inquisitorial detachment with out following all the rules for including an inquisitorial detachment. That detachment has a relationship with the other allied detachment. There is no evidence what so ever this relationship may be ignored until after the game starts.

 Peregrine wrote:

You do not have permission to ignore the levels of alliance that codex inquisition has with and any the forces they may fight alongside, primary or otherwise during army construction.

No, you have this backwards. You need permission to consider that level of alliance during army construction. The rules tell you what to consider, and that list does not include allied to allied relationships. You're just inventing a rule that you have to consider something else unless told otherwise.

Its on page 112 in the "Levels of Alliance" paragraph. You are given permission to use the allies matrix to determine the level of potential alliance between each army. Codex Inquisition then substitutes the allies matrix on page 113 (and its instruction to look up your primary detachment and the allied detachment) with the inquisitorial allies matrix and its instruction to determine the level of potential alliance when you are determining what level of alliance the inquisition has with not only the primary detachment but other allied detachments as well.

If you are not using the correct allies matrix and following the instructions to use that matrix you are not building a legal army. If you believe that codex inquisitions model level relationships only matter after your army is constructed then you will never have any relationship between the inquisition and any other army during list building and you can pair them with any one, including tyranids.

 DJGietzen wrote:
Only the allies matrix on page 113 you are so found of touting mentions primary and allied detachments. Codex: Inquisition is not on this matrix. Either this means you cannot take the inquisition as an allied detachment or it means there are additional rules published some place else. If you are including an inquisitorial detachment you are doing more then looking things up on page 113.

Sigh. C:I adds new entries to the allies matrix to cover relationships between primary and allied detachments that involve C:I. Those new entries do not change how you use the allies matrix.

There is no evidence what so ever this relationship may be ignored until after the game starts.

Absolutely wrong, as I've already said plenty of times. The army construction rules refer to relationships between DETACHMENTS. The rule in C:I telling you to pay attention to the relationship between multiple allied detachments refers to MODELS. Therefore it is perfectly clear that this is a rule about events happening in the game, not during army construction.

You are given permission to use the allies matrix to determine the level of potential alliance between each army.

No you are not. You are told to use the allies matrix to determine the level of potential alliance between your primary detachment and your potential allied detachments. This is NOT the same as determining the level of potential alliance between a potential allied detachment and another potential allied detachment. Please stop ignoring the clear instructions for using the allies matrix and assuming that the two situations are the same.

If you believe that codex inquisitions model level relationships only matter after your army is constructed then you will never have any relationship between the inquisition and any other army during list building and you can pair them with any one, including tyranids.

And, once again, this is clearly wrong. The allies matrix, including the additions to the allies matrix from C:I, covers situations between a primary detachment and an allied detachment. During list construction if your primary detachment is Tyranids you may not take C:I allies, and if your primary detachment is C:I you may not take Tyranid allies because in both cases your primary detachment is CTA to your desired allied detachment. The only way to have Tyranids and C:I in the same army would be to have your primary detachment be an army that is desperate allies or better to both, and then take C:I and Tyranids as allied detachments. But this situation can never happen because no army can take Tyranids as allies.

Just to be clear:

The relationship between primary and allied detachments where one or both is C:I matters during army construction.

The relationship between two or more allied detachments does not matter during army construction.

Please stop assuming that mattering during army construction is an all or nothing concept.

Huh...I kinda like this idea. Not only does it mean that an Inquisitor can join a unit of Khorne Berserkers, but can also climb into their ride. Something BBs can't even do!

Looks like Quixos is alive and well, and siding with Chaos. I knew they shouldn't have tried to kill him, now we'll never close the Eye!

This does open up the idea that there is a radical Malleus inquisitor that has brought Daemons in to work for him... just don't know that he'd be able to join them.

 Peregrine wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
Only the allies matrix on page 113 you are so found of touting mentions primary and allied detachments. Codex: Inquisition is not on this matrix. Either this means you cannot take the inquisition as an allied detachment or it means there are additional rules published some place else. If you are including an inquisitorial detachment you are doing more then looking things up on page 113.

Sigh. C:I adds new entries to the allies matrix to cover relationships between primary and allied detachments that involve C:I. Those new entries do not change how you use the allies matrix.

No, it does not.

Games Workshop Ltd. Codex: Inquisition (Kindle Locations 1005-1007) wrote:
This diagram below is an addition to the allies chart in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook. Find the icon for the codex of your potential allies. You will see the level of alliance by the icon directly underneath.

New chart, not new entries. New instructions on how to use the chart amd those instructions tell you to look up your potential allies. That means all detachments.

 Peregrine wrote:

There is no evidence what so ever this relationship may be ignored until after the game starts.

Absolutely wrong, as I've already said plenty of times. The army construction rules refer to relationships between DETACHMENTS. The rule in C:I telling you to pay attention to the relationship between multiple allied detachments refers to MODELS. Therefore it is perfectly clear that this is a rule about events happening in the game, not during army construction.

You've got a serious problem then. There is no rule in C:I telling you to pay attention to the relationship between multiple allied detachments. There is a rule that tells you to pay attention to the relationship between allies in your army. Thats on page 112 of the BRB. C:I explains how those relationships can be different and how to find them. If the C:I defined relationships do not apply until after construction nothing stops the inquisition from being the sole ally to a Tyranid force.

 Peregrine wrote:

You are given permission to use the allies matrix to determine the level of potential alliance between each army.

No you are not. You are told to use the allies matrix to determine the level of potential alliance between your primary detachment and your potential allied detachments. This is NOT the same as determining the level of potential alliance between a potential allied detachment and another potential allied detachment. Please stop ignoring the clear instructions for using the allies matrix and assuming that the two situations are the same.

Page 112 reads "The allies matrix shows the potential alliance between each army." If that's not permission to use the allies matrix then what is? If you think its the bit on page 113 that informs us how to use the matrix then you've got another problem. That matrix does not include the Inquisition. You cannot and will not be able to use that matrix as instructed. But that's ok you aren't supposed to. We've been given NEW instructions on how to find the level of potential alliance between each army when one of those armies is the Inquisition.

 Peregrine wrote:

If you believe that codex inquisitions model level relationships only matter after your army is constructed then you will never have any relationship between the inquisition and any other army during list building and you can pair them with any one, including tyranids.

And, once again, this is clearly wrong. The allies matrix, including the additions to the allies matrix from C:I, covers situations between a primary detachment and an allied detachment. During list construction if your primary detachment is Tyranids you may not take C:I allies, and if your primary detachment is C:I you may not take Tyranid allies because in both cases your primary detachment is CTA to your desired allied detachment. The only way to have Tyranids and C:I in the same army would be to have your primary detachment be an army that is desperate allies or better to both, and then take C:I and Tyranids as allied detachments. But this situation can never happen because no army can take Tyranids as allies.

How does that even make sense to you, The levels of alliance in C:I are all with the models from another detachment. Including the level of alliance with the primary detachment. As you have said this does not matter during army construction. You can't have it both ways here. Either the levels of alliance published in C:I matter or they don't.

 Peregrine wrote:

Please stop assuming that mattering during army construction is an all or nothing concept.

Page 109 gives you permission to include one allied detachment. Page 112 tells you how the allies matrix will limit the choices when determining your allied detachment. Page 113 tells you how to read the allies matrix. C:I gives you permission to include another allied detachment. C:I tells you that detachment will have a relationship with "the forces they may fight alongside" and that each force that it fights alongside may have a different relationshiop. It also tells you how to use a new chart to determine those relationships.

If you are not using that new chart to determine the relationships with "the forces they may fight alongside" you are not building a legal army. What makes you think that these relationships are not checked when the other relationships are checked during army construction?

 Happyjew wrote:
Huh...I kinda like this idea. Not only does it mean that an Inquisitor can join a unit of Khorne Berserkers, but can also climb into their ride. Something BBs can't even do!

It only makes sense if the INQ by fluff was a heretic, but I get the feels that too many people would be butthurt by that, and claim OP-ness.

Err yeah relationships are taken into account at list building. For all army's. Or there is nothing stopping me allying Nid's with something and saying since we don't have rules it's cool. The fact that it's not the relationship between you primary detachment and second is irrelevant. To ally at list building all must be able to ally with each other. Which part of the BRB says list building allys only matter between your first and second detachment? Nothing, each alliance is accounted for - including second and third detachment.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
And again, Games workshop digital editions have already answered this - now, they are not designers however a quick look over the questions shows a good understanding of the rules. If they think a rule is unclear when notified they post and update the digital version- this is not one of those times, they evidently believe it is clear enough each detachment must be able to ally with each other detachment in the army.

 Nem wrote:
Err yeah relationships are taken into account at list building. For all army's. Or there is nothing stopping me allying Nid's with something and saying since we don't have rules it's cool. The fact that it's not the relationship between you primary detachment and second is irrelevant. To ally at list building all must be able to ally with each other. Which part of the BRB says list building allys only matter between your first and second detachment? Nothing, each alliance is accounted for - including second and third detachment.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
And again, Games workshop digital editions have already answered this - now, they are not designers however a quick look over the questions shows a good understanding of the rules. If they think a rule is unclear when notified they post and update the digital version- this is not one of those times, they evidently believe it is clear enough each detachment must be able to ally with each other detachment in the army.

Or they're still at GW standards of ignorance and/or laziness, and either haven't noticed, or cba.

delete...must remember to log out of partners account

 Selym wrote:

 Nem wrote:
Err yeah relationships are taken into account at list building. For all army's. Or there is nothing stopping me allying Nid's with something and saying since we don't have rules it's cool. The fact that it's not the relationship between you primary detachment and second is irrelevant. To ally at list building all must be able to ally with each other. Which part of the BRB says list building allys only matter between your first and second detachment? Nothing, each alliance is accounted for - including second and third detachment.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
And again, Games workshop digital editions have already answered this - now, they are not designers however a quick look over the questions shows a good understanding of the rules. If they think a rule is unclear when notified they post and update the digital version- this is not one of those times, they evidently believe it is clear enough each detachment must be able to ally with each other detachment in the army.

Or they're still at GW standards of ignorance and/or laziness, and either haven't noticed, or cba.

Maybe..

I looked through GW comments to try and find this instance but the OP mmust have deleted it (How annoying) or I just can't find it... however the guy posted on Faeit... this thread bottom post..
http://natfka.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/can-radical-inquisitors-get-into-chaos.html

I asked GWE directly on FB:

"Suppose I have IG Primary detachment with CSM Allied detachment. Can I take an Inquisitorial detachment?

Cheers guys!

Games Workshop: Digital Editions Hi Greg,
I'm afraid not. No 'Come the Apocalypse' alliances are allowed even between allies of the main detachment.
We'll take a look at the codex, and see if there's a way we can make the wording on this clearer.

- Eddie

I don't own Inq codex... might be the case nothing here has been updated yet, though usually it doesn't take long. Any wording changed here people with the codex? Problem with rules debate on the digital codex's are they are updated pretty frequently at the beginning of life. The Digital team take these comments and make changes as appropriate. Some rules questions on their page they do say they are not at liberty to answer, if it's something unknown/debatable.

Now this was posted about a month ago. If nothing changed then they think this is clear enough.

For reference this team is very good at responding etc.... FB link to them https://www.facebook.com/GamesWorkshopDigitalEditions?

-edit - Just going to point out this is the same for recently released formations which count as a separate detachment, that question still appears on the FB page, around 15-20 comments down.