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.

**DarkPhoenix**

But he can NEVER be warlord if taken as part of the detachment.
And it does not say anything about disallowing any detachments if he can not.
Detachment thing is RESTRICTION, not REQUIREMENT.
Choosing the warlord comes after.

Same thing as if part of unit got shot and now they are out of coherency. They MUST be in coherency, but too bad.

**vipoid**

On a related note then, what are your thoughts regarding Barons?

They have this ability - "Tyrant: A Corsair Baron must be assigned to a friendly Troops or Elites unit chosen from the Eldar Corsairs army list at the start of the game and may not leave this unit during play. If using the Corsair Raiders Force Organization Chart, a Corsair Baron must be assigned to a unit chosen from the same Coterie. No more than one Corsair Baron may be assigned to any single unit, and a Cloud Dancer Baron may only be assigned to a Cloud Dancer unit."

Here's my question, are you allowed to build a list where a baron has no unit that he can legally join (e.g. you make him a Cloud Dancer but don't include any Cloud Dancer units)?

**DarkPhoenix**

vipoid wrote:
On a related note then, what are your thoughts regarding Barons?

They have this ability - "Tyrant: A Corsair Baron must be assigned to a friendly Troops or Elites unit chosen from the Eldar Corsairs army list at the start of the game and may not leave this unit during play. If using the Corsair Raiders Force Organization Chart, a Corsair Baron must be assigned to a unit chosen from the same Coterie. No more than one Corsair Baron may be assigned to any single unit, and a Cloud Dancer Baron may only be assigned to a Cloud Dancer unit."

Here's my question, are you allowed to build a list where a baron has no unit that he can legally join (e.g. you make him a Cloud Dancer but don't include any Cloud Dancer units)?

I wonder.

What will happen if jetprince/baron get peril and get pinned? Jetbikes cannot be pinned or go to ground. From what i remember it says something like "Treated as if failed pinning check". I assume he get pinned, but then Going to Ground prevent moving/running/charging - not turbo boosting.

**vipoid**

I believe 'cannot be pinned' would override it, so auto-failing a pinning test still wouldn't affect them.

That said, I wonder whether or not Fearless would help? It says that you auto-pass pinning tests, but in this case you're treated as though you'd failed the test.

**DarkPhoenix**

vipoid wrote:
I believe 'cannot be pinned' would override it, so auto-failing a pinning test still wouldn't affect them.

That said, I wonder whether or not Fearless would help? It says that you auto-pass pinning tests, but in this case you're treated as though you'd failed the test.

Well, Fearless cannot Go to Ground, so that probably would save them.

**nosferatu1001**

DarkPhoenix - so you are building a list that is illegal. Which you cannot do - you are brekaing a rule. The game doesnt function when you break rules, obviously

Similarly he MUST be assigned, if you cannot comply you cannot take the unit.

**vipoid**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Similarly he MUST be assigned, if you cannot comply you cannot take the unit.

But that's the point - it doesn't come up until after the list has already been built and you've moved on to deployment.

You might be right, it just seems really weird to me. At time of building, the list hasn't broken a single rule.

**DarkPhoenix**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
DarkPhoenix - so you are building a list that is illegal. Which you cannot do - you are brekaing a rule. The game doesnt function when you break rules, obviously

Similarly he MUST be assigned, if you cannot comply you cannot take the unit.

Models in the unit MUST be in coherency. So if part of my unit get shot and i cant have them in coherency at the end of the movement phase then my movement is illegal? So i get disqualified?
Surely, for coherency it have amendment that they must run and whataver, but the rule says MUST end in coherency.

List is perfecly legal, its just one of the abilities cannot be fulfilled. Otherwise saying is like saying that you cant shoot pinning weapon at jetbikes, cos they CANNOT go to ground, ergo this move is illegal.

**nosferatu1001**

vipoid wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Similarly he MUST be assigned, if you cannot comply you cannot take the unit.

But that's the point - it doesn't come up until after the list has already been built and you've moved on to deployment.

You might be right, it just seems really weird to me. At time of building, the list hasn't broken a single rule.

Same as buildiong a no-character list in 6th. You've built a list that cannot be played as you have broken a rule

Automatically Appended Next Post:

DarkPhoenix wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
DarkPhoenix - so you are building a list that is illegal. Which you cannot do - you are brekaing a rule. The game doesnt function when you break rules, obviously

Similarly he MUST be assigned, if you cannot comply you cannot take the unit.

Models in the unit MUST be in coherency. So if part of my unit get shot and i cant have them in coherency at the end of the movement phase then my movement is illegal? So i get disqualified?
Surely, for coherency it have amendment that they must run and whataver, but the rule says MUST end in coherency.

List is perfecly legal, its just one of the abilities cannot be fulfilled. Otherwise saying is like saying that you cant shoot pinning weapon at jetbikes, cos they CANNOT go to ground, ergo this move is illegal.

No, at the end of their move they must be in coherency. Try reading the actual rules when making an argument, otherwise it further reduces your credibility.

You can shoot pinning weapons. The bikes cannot fail the resulting pinning test. Thats it.

**vipoid**

But that's the whole point, I *haven't* broken any rules. I have followed the army-building rules to the letter. The list is entirely legal. There is no requirement that every Corsair detachment must include an eligible unit for each Baron to join.

**DarkPhoenix**

nosferatu1001 wrote:

No, at the end of their move they must be in coherency. Try reading the actual rules when making an argument, otherwise it further reduces your credibility.

You can shoot pinning weapons. The bikes cannot fail the resulting pinning test. Thats it.

You can take detachment. Prince just cannot be warlord. Thats it.

Try reading the my post when making an argument, otherwise it further reduces your credibility.
Because you said "No" then exactly what i said.

**FlingitNow**

DarkPhoenix wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:

No, at the end of their move they must be in coherency. Try reading the actual rules when making an argument, otherwise it further reduces your credibility.

You can shoot pinning weapons. The bikes cannot fail the resulting pinning test. Thats it.

You can take detachment. Prince just cannot be warlord. Thats it.

Try reading the my post when making an argument, otherwise it further reduces your credibility.
Because you said "No" then exactly what i said.

But the Prince has to be warlord so you've broken a rule. Breaking rules and following them are not the same thing.

**vipoid**

How is that breaking a rule? You didn't choose to ignore the Prince's rule but were forced to by the allied detachment's rules.

At most, you've created a rules conflict in which one rule has to be overridden.

EDIT: Just found this on a different page: "The Eldar Corsair army list may only use the Combines Arms, Allied Detachment, or Corsair Fleet Raiding Company Force Organisation Charts."

**EnTyme**

What's the point in building a list that can't be legally played? For display? Fine. Go ahead and do that. I swear, the most frustrating part of this forum is how many people default to the "Air Bud Defense" (There's no rule stating I can't do it, so I can do it).

**vipoid**

EnTyme wrote:
What's the point in building a list that can't be legally played?

Who says it can't be legally played?

EnTyme wrote:
I swear, the most frustrating part of this forum is how many people default to the "Air Bud Defense" (There's no rule stating I can't do it, so I can do it).

Indeed, What a bastard I am for making a legal list and expecting to be able to use it.

**Charistoph**

Are there any other considerations in the Prince's rule? Such as being in the Primary Detachment? Some other rules that are setup this way have this stipulation.

**vipoid**

Charistoph wrote:
Are there any other considerations in the Prince's rule? Such as being in the Primary Detachment? Some other rules that are setup this way have this stipulation.

The rules are:
- Every Corsair Detachment must include 1 Corsair Prince.
- No detachment may include more than 1 Corsair Prince.
- The Corsair Prince must be the army's warlord (if there are multiple Princes, you pick one of them to be your Warlord).
- If an army contains multiple Corsair Princes, each detachment with a Corsair Prince treats the others as Desperate Allies.

**Charistoph**

Would a full quote of the Corsair Prince's rule be out of line? I don't think it has been anything but just referenced up to this point.

**vipoid**

Charistoph wrote:
Would a full quote of the Corsair Prince's rule be out of line? I don't think it has been anything but just referenced up to this point.

Sure:

"An Eldar Corsair detachment must include a Corsair Prince and may not include more than one Corsair Prince. A Corsair Prince must always be the army's Warlord. In an army featuring multiple Corsair detachments, one Corsair Prince of the owning player's choice 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."

**Charistoph**

vipoid wrote:
Charistoph wrote:
Would a full quote of the Corsair Prince's rule be out of line? I don't think it has been anything but just referenced up to this point.

Sure:

"An Eldar Corsair detachment must include a Corsair Prince and may not include more than one Corsair Prince. A Corsair Prince must always be the army's Warlord. In an army featuring multiple Corsair detachments, one Corsair Prince of the owning player's choice 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."

Thank you. I have noticed that some synopsizes tend to leave out or ignore critical details (like Shrike's rule about who he can join), so it helps to have the full rule.

Though, it looks like your synopsis was correct and didn't leave much out. It honestly looks like we have several incompatible rules here since there is no way that this rule can be fulfilled and have an Allied Detachment of Corsair Eldar. Unless you think that the AD restrictions overrides the "must always be the army's Warlord", which Basic vs Advanced would then say it does not.

**Kriswall**

So, to summarize (and make sure I understand this)...

1. Every Corsairs Detachment must contain a Corsair Prince.
2. You can have as many Corsairs Detachments as you want, but each one of them must contain a Corsair Prince.
3. If your army has one or more Corsair Princes, one of them MUST be the Warlord.
4. Different Corsairs Detachments treat each other as Desperate Allies.
5. Corsairs can ally to other Factions (redundant info as every Faction can ally to all other Factions), but treats all Factions as Desperate Allies.
6. Because a Corsair Prince must be the Warlord AND the fact that no model in an Allied Detachment can share a Faction with the Warlord, the rules prevent us from ever choosing a Corsairs Allied Detachment.

Sound about right? The rules seem pretty straightforward here. There does not seem to be an existing permission to ignore the restrictions on the Allied Detachment.

**vipoid**

Kriswall wrote:
So, to summarize (and make sure I understand this)...

1. Every Corsairs Detachment must contain a Corsair Prince.
2. You can have as many Corsairs Detachments as you want, but each one of them must contain a Corsair Prince.
3. If your army has one or more Corsair Princes, one of them MUST be the Warlord.
4. Different Corsairs Detachments treat each other as Desperate Allies.
5. Corsairs can ally to other Factions (redundant info as every Faction can ally to all other Factions), but treats all Factions as Desperate Allies.
6. Because a Corsair Prince must be the Warlord AND the fact that no model in an Allied Detachment can share a Faction with the Warlord, the rules prevent us from ever choosing a Corsairs Allied Detachment.

Sound about right? The rules seem pretty straightforward here. There does not seem to be an existing permission to ignore the restrictions on the Allied Detachment.

Two points:

1) If the AD prevents the Corsair Prince from being your warlord, most of the above ceases to be a problem - as you can now select a Corsair AD for a different faction.

2) Corsairs specifically say that they can be taken as an allied detachment: "The Eldar Corsair army list may only use the Combines Arms, Allied Detachment, or Corsair Fleet Raiding Company Force Organisation Charts."

Charistoph wrote:

Thank you. I have noticed that some synopsizes tend to leave out or ignore critical details (like Shrike's rule about who he can join), so it helps to have the full rule.

Though, it looks like your synopsis was correct and didn't leave much out. It honestly looks like we have several incompatible rules here since there is no way that this rule can be fulfilled and have an Allied Detachment of Corsair Eldar. Unless you think that the AD restrictions overrides the "must always be the army's Warlord", which Basic vs Advanced would then say it does not.

The trouble is, if the Corsair Prince overrides the AD rule, you're then breaking the rule that the AD can't be your primary detachment and also the rule that it has to be a different faction to your primary detachment. In fact, it now needs to be a different faction to itself.

I don't know if it matters, but having the AD override the Corsair Prince at least leads to fewer rules being broken. Call it the path of least resistance.

But, as you say, this goes against both basic vs advanced (not to mention codex vs rulebook).

Just to add a last heap of confusion, let's say we agreed that AD trumps Corsair Prince. Well, in that case, could you make an argument that an AD need not include a Corsair Prince at all? (effectively breaking the 'every detachment must include a corsair prince' rule instead of the 'corsair prince must be your army's warlord' rule). i.e. you're breaking a 'must' rule either way, so can you choose which one gets broken?

**blaktoof**

as you arrange units into formations detachments, and not the other way around, you cannot arrange any corsair prince units into an Allied Detachment in this case, so you never have the option to take an allied detachment in this case.

**vipoid**

blaktoof wrote:
as you arrange units into formations detachments, and not the other way around, you cannot arrange any corsair prince units into an Allied Detachment in this case, so you never have the option to take an allied detachment in this case.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean here.

**Kriswall**

vipoid wrote:
Kriswall wrote:
So, to summarize (and make sure I understand this)...

1. Every Corsairs Detachment must contain a Corsair Prince.
2. You can have as many Corsairs Detachments as you want, but each one of them must contain a Corsair Prince.
3. If your army has one or more Corsair Princes, one of them MUST be the Warlord.
4. Different Corsairs Detachments treat each other as Desperate Allies.
5. Corsairs can ally to other Factions (redundant info as every Faction can ally to all other Factions), but treats all Factions as Desperate Allies.
6. Because a Corsair Prince must be the Warlord AND the fact that no model in an Allied Detachment can share a Faction with the Warlord, the rules prevent us from ever choosing a Corsairs Allied Detachment.

Sound about right? The rules seem pretty straightforward here. There does not seem to be an existing permission to ignore the restrictions on the Allied Detachment.

Two points:

1) If the AD prevents the Corsair Prince from being your warlord, most of the above ceases to be a problem - as you can now select a Corsair AD for a different faction.

2) Corsairs specifically say that they can be taken as an allied detachment: "The Eldar Corsair army list may only use the Combines Arms, Allied Detachment, or Corsair Fleet Raiding Company Force Organisation Charts."

My take is...

1)The AD clearly prevents any of it's member models from being the Warlord. It does not seem to give permission to ignore the requirement that one of your army's Corsair Princes be the Warlord if you have one present. As such, it still seems a violation of the rules to take an Allied Detachment of Corsairs as you'd create a situation where you have at least one Corsair, but he's not your Warlord.

2)Semantically... not quite true. We're just told that we can only use Combined Arms, Allied and Corsair Fleet Raiding Company Detachments when we build a list. Practically speaking, other rule interactions (namely the Corsair Prince and the Allied Detachment restrictions) narrow this list even further to only Combined Arms and Corsair Fleet Raiding Companies. This just seems to be bad writing. It's like telling someone who is allergic to nuts that they can either have a Turkey, Roast Beef or PB&J sandwich for lunch. Sure, you're giving them the option to eat a PB&J, but if they try, they break a different rule (the allergy) and the game (his life) comes to a hard stop.

GW either intends for us to be able to take an Allied Detachment of Corsairs where the Prince doesn't have to the your Warlord and wrote the rules wrong OR they don't intend for us to able to take Allied Detachments and simply added them to the list of POTENTIAL Detachments by accident.

Either way, RaW doesn't seem to support a Corsairs Allied Detachment.

**vipoid**

Kriswall wrote:

My take is...

1)The AD clearly prevents any of it's member models from being the Warlord. It does not seem to give permission to ignore the requirement that one of your army's Corsair Princes be the Warlord if you have one present. As such, it still seems a violation of the rules to take an Allied Detachment of Corsairs as you'd create a situation where you have at least one Corsair, but he's not your Warlord.

That seems a bit dicey to me. All you've done is chosen what should be a perfectly valid detachment for corsairs (which is specifically mentioned as one of the detachments they can take) and then attempted to follow the rules for building a Corsair list. You haven't even chosen a single model yet, but your list is already illegal to the point where you need to start over with a different detachment.

It's a bit like saying that you can't fire lance weapons at a unit with quantum shielding because it will cause a rules conflict.

Kriswall wrote:

2)Semantically... not quite true. We're just told that we can only use Combined Arms, Allied and Corsair Fleet Raiding Company Detachments when we build a list. Practically speaking, other rule interactions (namely the Corsair Prince and the Allied Detachment restrictions) narrow this list even further to only Combined Arms and Corsair Fleet Raiding Companies. This just seems to be bad writing. It's like telling someone who is allergic to nuts that they can either have a Turkey, Roast Beef or PB&J sandwich for lunch. Sure, you're giving them the option to eat a PB&J, but if they try, they break a different rule (the allergy) and the game (his life) comes to a hard stop.

If what you're saying is right, it's more akin to offering them a dodo sandwich. Even if they choose it, they cannot possibly have it.

Kriswall wrote:

Either way, RaW doesn't seem to support a Corsairs Allied Detachment.

You might well be right, but it's just one of those things that feels wrong to me.

Oh well, there are worse units to be stuck with as your Warlord... and I think I own most of them.

**Charistoph**

vipoid wrote:The trouble is, if the Corsair Prince overrides the AD rule, you're then breaking the rule that the AD can't be your primary detachment and also the rule that it has to be a different faction to your primary detachment. In fact, it now needs to be a different faction to itself.

I don't know if it matters, but having the AD override the Corsair Prince at least leads to fewer rules being broken. Call it the path of least resistance.

But, as you say, this goes against both basic vs advanced (not to mention codex vs rulebook).

Just to add a last heap of confusion, let's say we agreed that AD trumps Corsair Prince. Well, in that case, could you make an argument that an AD need not include a Corsair Prince at all? (effectively breaking the 'every detachment must include a corsair prince' rule instead of the 'corsair prince must be your army's warlord' rule). i.e. you're breaking a 'must' rule either way, so can you choose which one gets broken?

It is Basic vs Advanced which states that the codex trumps rulebook, FYI.

And no. AD no more can override this restriction than it can override the requirement to be the Warlord, unfortunately.

vipoid wrote:[
Kriswall wrote:

Either way, RaW doesn't seem to support a Corsairs Allied Detachment.

You might well be right, but it's just one of those things that feels wrong to me.

Oh well, there are worse units to be stuck with as your Warlord... and I think I own most of them.

Sad part is, this is not the stupidest rules interactions that seem off in this game.

**nosferatu1001**

So by CHOOSING to use a detachment where you cannot comply with all the rules, you haven't made a choice?

Exactly the same as building a no char nid lost in 6th. You could construct it from legal units, but the whole was illegal.

Baron - you're told he MUST joi,n, but CANNKT join mismatched units. That means you've yet again broken a rule - unarguably so, as its proven that you have not complied.

Dark - reread the coherency rules. Note they have an exception for just your situation. Then maybe apologise as you didn't reread when told the first time.

**vipoid**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So by CHOOSING to use a detachment where you cannot comply with all the rules, you haven't made a choice?

By choosing to take a detachment that I'm specifically told I can take.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Exactly the same as building a no char nid lost in 6th. You could construct it from legal units, but the whole was illegal.

You keep bringing this up, but it's not something I've ever heard of or seen. Could you explain what it was and what made it illegal?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Baron - you're told he MUST joi,n, but CANNKT join mismatched units. That means you've yet again broken a rule - unarguably so, as its proven that you have not complied.

How did I break the rule? Again, the list I built was entirely legal. I have abided by all the rules of list-construction in both the Corsair book and the main rulebook. It doesn't become retrospectively illegal because a rules conflict arises in-game.

**nosferatu1001**

You're told the detachment is available. It doesn't mean you can actually fulfil all requirements, however. It provides absolutely zero permission and in fact is AGAIN redundant, as you always have cad or ad as options, brb covers that.

6th ed required a warlord that had to be a character. You could build a tervigon HQ led list in 6th who wasn't a character. All the components were legal, the combination wasn't.

You broke the rule stating the prince must be the warlord

Here's a test. You build your possible AD list. You read the rule on page 158, and ask "is the Prince the armies warlord?"

Your answer is....? And if you answer "no", as you must do, have you complied with this absolute requirement? Yes or no. If no, which is the only possible answer, does that mean you have broken or followed the rule?

If you answer "followed", then there is no possible argument that can sway you.