Corsair Prince in Allied Detachment

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.

**vipoid**

FlingitNow wrote:

Why is 2 contingents allied to each other forming an army nonsensical?

Because that would only work if there was no primary force or leader, and each detachment was commanded separately. That isn't the case.

You have a primary detachment with a warlord who commands your entire army. Your primary detachment is his main force, why would he think of it as an allied contingent?

**FlingitNow**

Why does primary Detachment and overall commander make a difference to that?

**nosferatu1001**

Great, so you still have no rules to suggest your conflation of allied contingent and allied detachment has any basis whatsoever. Gotcha.

The rules are redundant. Unless you use an allied detachment, when the requirement to be the warlord will be a problem.

**vipoid**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Great, so you still have no rules to suggest your conflation of allied contingent and allied detachment has any basis whatsoever. Gotcha.

You mean aside from the wording of the rule itself, the English language and common sense?

Which, by the way, is three more pieces of evidence than I've heard from you.

FlingitNow wrote:
Why does primary Detachment and overall commander make a difference to that?

Because it means the army has a central body and a central leader - it's not just a mess of allies with different commanders.

It means your army has an official centre and commander. Let's say you have a Primary Detachment of Eldar, led by a Farseer Warlord, and then you have some Harlequin allies and some DE allies.

The Farseer is going to think in terms of the pieces he has to play with - namely his own army and then his allied contingents (in this case the harlequins and DE). The Eldar themselves aren't an allied contingent. They are allied with the others (just as the others are allied to them), but they are not an allied contingent. They are the main army. They are what the DE and Harlequins are allied contingents of.

**FlingitNow**

So still no rules to support the idea that a Primary Detachment can't be an allied contingent. Just waffle about how the commander of the Primary Detachment will view the other detachments. How will say the Archos in the Dark Elgar army view the Elgar Detachment?

**nosferatu1001**

1) the wording of the rule talks about allied contingents. You keep talking about allied detachments, as if they are the same things. They're not.

And that's your argument destroyed. Done. You only haven t heard any evidence because you refuse to listen.

Detachments are allies to each other. The rule requires you to always have the corsair being the warlord. Absolutely nothing whatsoever in that allows you to take a corsair prince in an AD, as you have no permission to override the ADs restriction

**vipoid**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
1) the wording of the rule talks about allied contingents. You keep talking about allied detachments, as if they are the same things. They're not.

I never said they were. Feel free to stop putting words in my mouth any time you like.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

And that's your argument destroyed. Done. You only haven t heard any evidence because you refuse to listen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Detachments are allies to each other.

I don't recall claiming otherwise.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The rule requires you to always have the corsair being the warlord. Absolutely nothing whatsoever in that allows you to take a corsair prince in an AD, as you have no permission to override the ADs restriction

Sorry, could you explain what you mean here? You say that I can't take a Corsair Prince in an AD... are you saying I can take other Corsair HQs in one?

**nosferatu1001**

A corsair prince was the only one I could see that had the requirement to be the warlord. So other HQ can be taken in an AD. Nothing lets you take the Prince in an ad however- his rule is a restriction, so does not override the ad restriction.

**vipoid**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
A corsair prince was the only one I could see that had the requirement to be the warlord. So other HQ can be taken in an AD. Nothing lets you take the Prince in an ad however- his rule is a restriction, so does not override the ad restriction.

But, what about the requirement that every Corsair Detachment must contain a Corsair Prince?

**nosferatu1001**

Page 158:

"...must be chosen as the army's warlord and all other Corsair Detachments that include a corsair prince treat models from different Corsair Detachments as Desperate Allies."

So you need 1 prince, but as long as you have one prince that can be the warlord, you can then have other Corsair detachments - such as one built using the AD - as that prince won't need to be the warlord.

**vipoid**

Sorry, perhaps I'm just being thick, but I don't understand the relevance of that quote to the question I asked.

You've said that I can't include a Corsair Prince in an allied detachment because it breaks the rule that he must always be your warlord.

But, if I take a Corsair Allied Detachment with a different HQ, then I'm instead breaking the rule that every Corsair Detachment must contain a Corsair Prince.

Why is it acceptable to break that rule, but not the warlord one?

**nosferatu1001**

The relevance is that the word contingent doesn't appear for the princes rule, so all that waffle about contingent and detachment is just that,,waffle. You can be Allied to someone stand still be the primary detachment.

I said AS LONG AS you have one orince thatbCAN be the warlord, you can have another prince in an AD that therefore does not have to be the warlord. But, to take a prince at all, a prince must be the warlord. Two plus princes you have the option of taking an AD for one of the princes.

I'm not telling you to ignore the rule, I'd missed the requirement for one prince was still there.

**vipoid**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The relevance is that the word contingent doesn't appear, so all that waffle about contingent and detachment is just that,,waffle

I guess reading rules on two different pages was too much for you.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

I said AS LONG AS you have one orince thatbCAN be the warlord, you can have another prince in an AD that therefore does not have to be the warlord. But, to take a prince at all, a prince must be the warlord. Two plus princes you have the option of taking an AD for one of the princes.

An allied detachment cannot be the same faction as your primary detachment. So, given that one of your corsair princes will always have to be your warlord (thus making Corsairs your primary detachment), can you see the problem here?

I love how you accuse me of waffle, then proceed to demonstrate that you haven't got a clue what you're talking about rulewise.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

I'm not telling you to ignore the rule, I'd missed the requirement for one prince was still there.

Indeed - you've now moved on to telling me to break yet another rule.

**nosferatu1001**

Read edits, maybe

Ok, so replace ad with a cad or two. One prince is in an allied contingent, one is the warlord in the primary, but still allied contingent, detachment.

Still struggling to see your problem, but frankly I can no longer be bothered to help. You seem confused and cannot clearly state your problem, despite best efforts.

The rules are surprisingly clear.

**vipoid**

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Ok, so replace ad with a cad or two. One prince is in an allied contingent, one is the warlord in the primary, but still allied contingent, detachment.

So, how exactly does that make them an allied contingent to a different race?

All I'm seeing is Corsairs with an allied contingent of Corsairs.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Still struggling to see your problem, but frankly I can no longer be bothered to help.

Dear me. You mean I might have to get by without your condescension and ignorance? Excuse me if I don't rush off to get the anti-depressants.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The rules are surprisingly clear.

As you've demonstrated by first advising me to break 2 of them in turn, and then completely misreading them so that you can pretend your "solution" actually solves something.

**nosferatu1001**

Then restate your actual issue, as so far you've danced all over the place.

Why is the different race important? Every detachment has an ally status, even to the same faction .

Or don't. As frankly even your op doesn't actually state a problem, or question, and your responses are less than helpful.

Ok, having reread your mess of posts, which conflate and confuse terms such as allies , detachment and contingent, you stil seem to think that there is a Prinary detachment and any other detachment is an Ally to that primary. Which is of course utter nonsense every detachment in your army is an ally to every other detachment. Meaning the rule on page 153 simply overrides the normal ally matrix just for corsairs allied with other corsairs. It does nothing else, and in no way interacts with the rule on page 158'which requires that, if you take a prince he is your warlord. Any other prince you take doesn't have to be your warlord, so can be from a cad or the raiding company or anything bar an AD (keep harping on about that utterly irrelevant mistake all you want, it's boring as all hell though) , and you can have any other Faction you like allied as well, as long as you don't take something here that must also be the warlord.

**vipoid**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Then restate your actual issue, as so far you've danced all over the place.

No, I've been entirely consistent. But since you apparently never bothered reading my original post, I'll try again.

It goes back to this quote in the ally section:

"Eldar Corsairs treat other forces as Desperate Allies and may be selected as an Allied Contingent for those armies as desperate allies."

I get the first part. If my primary detachment is Corsairs, then I can take any of the races not already mentioned as desperate allies. Fine.

It's the second part that confuses me. The first part already tells us that corsairs can take other races as allies, so what does the second part refer to? Because every corsair detachment is forced to contain a corsair prince, who in turn is forced to be your warlord, there will never be a situation where you can have a different race as a primary detachment and then take corsair allies for them. Unless, of course, you're allowed to take an allied detachment - which would prevent the corsair prince from being your warlord and thus allow the other race to remain the primary detachment.

With that in mind, I was asking if you could take Corsairs in an allied detachment specifically to avoid having to make a corsair prince your warlord.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Or don't. As frankly even your op doesn't actually state a problem, or question

It did originally. I think I must have edited it by mistake.

**nosferatu1001**

No, because as stated, he must be your warlord. That is a restriction. There is no permission in the AD that overrides that restriction.

You realise without that second part then you would not know how to treat the corsairs, from the PoV of the other faction? The relationship is not required to be symettric; it's possible for faction A to treat B as battle brothers, but for B to treat A as desperate allies as a silly example.

I did read your op. It just made no sense.

**vipoid**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, because as stated, he must be your warlord. That is a restriction. There is no permission in the AD that overrides that restriction.

Okay, that's fine.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

You realise without that second part then you would not know how to treat the corsairs, from the PoV of the other faction? The relationship is not required to be symettric; it's possible for faction A to treat B as battle brothers, but for B to treat A as desperate allies as a silly example.

Are there any actual examples of this? I thought races always treated each other the same.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

I did read your op. It just made no sense.

If you mean the one that's currently there, I know. It was a reply to someone else in this thread. I think I meant to edit my original post just to copy/quote something, but must have put the reply there by mistake. I could change it back but it seems a bit redundant when you've already answered my question.

EDIT: Hopefully the OP makes sense now.

**nosferatu1001**

Its why the allies chart in the main rulebook is a full chart, and is mirrored.

There is no inate rule that states a faction must treat another faction the same way the other faction treats them.

**vipoid**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Its why the allies chart in the main rulebook is a full chart, and is mirrored.

There is no inate rule that states a faction must treat another faction the same way the other faction treats them.

Yes there is. It's in the individual ally rules:

"Units from the same army that are Battle Brothers treat each other as ‘friendly units’ for all rules purposes."

"Units from the same army that are Allies of Convenience treat each other as ‘enemy units’ that cannot be charged, shot, attacked in close combat, or targeted with psychic powers."

(Emphasis mine).

It is very clear that the level of allegiance works both ways. if DE considers Eldar Battle Brothers, then they treat each other as Battle Brothers. If Corsairs consider Orks Desperate Allies, then they treat each other as Desperate Allies. There is no possible way for two races to have different levels of allegiance.

**nosferatu1001**

Then the ally chart is redundant. As is this rule.

GW (and FW) are great at writing redundant rules. Again, theyre still utterly clear and unambiguous, and what you said you want to do (taking an AD with prince to avoid making him the warlord) jsut isnt possible, regardless of the desperate allies rules.

**vipoid**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Then the ally chart is redundant. As is this rule.

GW (and FW) are great at writing redundant rules. Again, theyre still utterly clear and unambiguous, and what you said you want to do (taking an AD with prince to avoid making him the warlord) jsut isnt possible, regardless of the desperate allies rules.

Fair enough.

**DarkPhoenix**

So, corsairs can't be allied detachment?

Cos BRB says warlord can NEVER be from this detachment.

Does prince override this restriction in such dubious way?

**nosferatu1001**

No, as pointed out the requirement that the Prince is the warlord is a RESTRICTION and NOT permission. It cannot override the AD RESTRICTION.

**vipoid**

If the Corsair Prince overrode the AD restriction (making him your warlord anyway), it would also cause a mess of further problems - since you'd then be breaking the rule that an AD can never be your primary detachment.

**DarkPhoenix**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, as pointed out the requirement that the Prince is the warlord is a RESTRICTION and NOT permission. It cannot override the AD RESTRICTION.

Makes sense, but i dont remember anywehere in rules that says restrictions cannot override another restrictions (or even defines princes ability as "restriction")

**nosferatu1001**

It is taking away an ability you normally have - to choose your own warlord. That meets the definition of a restriction

In order to override a restriction in a permissive system, you must be permitted to do so. Its how the game is constructed.

**DarkPhoenix**

Or i might say that Prince were never the candidate to begin with, because of the formation restriction.

Tho i think that "you cant take corsairs as allied detachment" is correct way.

**nosferatu1001**

He MUST be the warlord. Therefore you cannot use a detacment that states he cannot be the warlord. Its that simple.