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.

Contingent - noun
1.
a group of people united by some common feature, forming part of a larger group.

In this case the common feature is being in the same army.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So, again

VVS with attached IC. IC fires a rapid fire weapon, without any relentless or similar rule to alow him to charge

Thus the RESTRICTION on charging having fired a rapid fire weapon is now in place

Your contention is that this permissive system of rules (the literal foundations of the rules is permission. They tell you what you CAN do) actually does not need permission to override an imposed restriction.

No, that's not what I'm contending at all.

On Target gives you permission. As a n advanced rule, it overrides the basic rules that normally prevent a model from charging on the turn it runs or rapid fires.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

AS such, the permission for the VVS (which includes the IC, as he is a normal member of the unit for ALL rules purposes, and this is indisputable) to charge holds, yes?

Yes.

Though, this doesn't seem to go with your previous sentence.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Oh, and no strawman. You stated that all that is needed is a conflict. More than once.

Of course I did, because this is what the rulebook tells us:

"Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules."

"On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence."

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Assault vehicle actually mentions the restriction it overrides - about disembarking - so in any sense reading of the rule, it only lifts that single restriction

Incorrect.

"Passengers disembarking from Access Points on a vehicle with this special rule can charge on the turn they do so (even on a turn that the vehicle was destroyed) unless the vehicle arrived from Reserve that turn."

Disembarking from the vehicle is a requirement for the rule to work. That is the only time disembarking is mentioned, and it most certainly doesn't refer to any specific restriction.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

The Baron has a requirement to fulfil that you are not allowing him to fulfill.

Also wrong. His own rule is preventing me from fulfilling it.

He needs to attach to a Troop or Elite unit. Okay, I have a Troop unit. But his rule then tells me that he can't join that unit because it's not a Cloud Dancer unit. I am faced with two restrictions, you tell me which one gets obeyed.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
SHow permission to break the rule. 10th time of asking.

Also for the 10th time of asking, you tell me what the legal resolution to two contradictory rules is.

EDIT: I have heard it suggested that the Baron would be removed as a casualty (since he can't be legally deployed), so I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on that.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So, again

VVS with attached IC. IC fires a rapid fire weapon, without any relentless or similar rule to alow him to charge

Thus the RESTRICTION on charging having fired a rapid fire weapon is now in place

Your contention is that this permissive system of rules (the literal foundations of the rules is permission. They tell you what you CAN do) actually does not need permission to override an imposed restriction.

AS such, the permission for the VVS (which includes the IC, as he is a normal member of the unit for ALL rules purposes, and this is indisputable) to charge holds, yes?

Yes or No. No further disesembling please.

Oh, and no strawman. You stated that all that is needed is a conflict. More than once.

Assault vehicle actually mentions the restriction it overrides - about disembarking - so in any sense reading of the rule, it only lifts that single restriction

The Baron has a requirement to fulfil that you are not allowing him to fulfill. SHow permission to break the rule. 10th time of asking. Note, you would need wording such as "if there is no suitable unit for him to be attached to, he can be fielded alone" or similar. Of course, that doesnt exist, so good luck finding the permission required!

I think this is a bad line of argument.

The rule in question allows the VVS to charge on the turn it comes into play from Deep Strike Reserves. It is essentially giving us permission to charge in a specific situation where a charge would normally not be allowed. There are a million other scenarios that prevent a charge that are not addressed. For example, you can't declare a charge if you've fired a Rapid Fire weapon in the prior shooting phase, or if you're 36" away from the target and only have a 12" charge range.

So, a VVS normally can't declare a charge for a wide variety of reasons. The ...On Target rule only addresses the scenario where they just came in from Deep Strike Reserves. You still have to obey a whole host of other rules.

In the context of a Corsair Prince, we're told Corsairs potentially have access to the Allied Detachment. This is kind of a redundant comment as the BRB gives them access to the Allied Detachment by default. Telling us they have access isn't telling us anything we don't already know. We still have to obey all the other rules in front of us. We need to pick a compulsory HQ choice and a compulsory Troops choice. None of the models in either of this unit can be the Warlord. For most armies, you'd just pick a compulsory HQ who isn't required to be your Warlord. Eldar Corsairs don't have such an option. As such, while you're allowed to take an Allied Detachment, you have no way to fill the compulsory HQ slot. This might change in the future if new units are offered. For now, the Allied Detachment isn't a practically available choice.

 Kriswall wrote:
We need to pick a compulsory HQ choice and a compulsory Troops choice. None of the models in either of this unit can be the Warlord. For most armies, you'd just pick a compulsory HQ who isn't required to be your Warlord. Eldar Corsairs don't have such an option. As such, while you're allowed to take an Allied Detachment, you have no way to fill the compulsory HQ slot. This might change in the future if new units are offered. For now, the Allied Detachment isn't a practically available choice.

That's an interesting way of looking at it.

Yeah, I can accept that reasoning.

 Kriswall wrote:

So, a VVS normally can't declare a charge for a wide variety of reasons. The ...On Target rule only addresses the scenario where they just came in from Deep Strike Reserves. You still have to obey a whole host of other rules.

The thing is though, nosferatu1001 has a point. On Target simply gives the squad permission to charge on the turn they deep strike. There is nothing specifying that this only overrides the normal restriction that units arriving from reserves can't charge, nor any clause that they still have to obey all other requirements (such as not shooting rapid fire weapons in the same turn). RAW, On Target does indeed allow the unit to charge after running, firing rapid fire weapons or such.

 Kriswall wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:


In the context of a Corsair Prince, we're told Corsairs potentially have access to the Allied Detachment.

This is not the case. Contingent does not equal detachment. The intention of the wording which isn't at all ambiguous, it is specific, the only way to combine corsairs with any other army is if the prince is the warlord of such army. Logic dictates that any case that does not allow this is not legal.

 Xenomancers wrote:
This is not the case. Contingent does not equal detachment.

I'm glad you were here to refute an argument no one made.

 Xenomancers wrote:
The intention of the wording which isn't at all ambiguous, it is specific, the only way to combine corsairs with any other army is if the prince is the warlord of such army.

Except that that's the exact opposite of what is said:

A detachment from this army list treats armies from Codex: Craftworlds and Codex: Dark Eldar as Battle Brothers, and likewise, Allied contingents of Eldar Corsairs are counted as Battle Brothers by Codex: Craftworlds, Codex: Harlequins and Codex: Dark Eldar armies.

Detachments chosen from Codex: Necrons and Codex: Chaos Daemons and Codex: Tyranids cannot be selected as Allied contingents for an Eldar Corsairs army, and likewise may never select an allied contingent of Eldar Corsairs.

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

All 3 paragraphs speak of Eldar Corsairs taking other armies as allies *and* of other armies taking Eldar Corsair allies.

The only way the second scenario is possible is via the Allied Detachment. Any other detachment will result in the Corsair Prince being the Warlord, and hence the other race(s) will be the allies.

This is further backed up by this:

"The Eldar Corsair army list may only use the Combines Arms, Allied Detachment, or Corsair Fleet Raiding Company Force Organisation Charts."

I'll willing to accept that RAW Corsairs can't take an Allied Detachment, but please don't give me any tosh about it somehow being the clear or logical intention.

 vipoid wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
We need to pick a compulsory HQ choice and a compulsory Troops choice. None of the models in either of this unit can be the Warlord. For most armies, you'd just pick a compulsory HQ who isn't required to be your Warlord. Eldar Corsairs don't have such an option. As such, while you're allowed to take an Allied Detachment, you have no way to fill the compulsory HQ slot. This might change in the future if new units are offered. For now, the Allied Detachment isn't a practically available choice.

That's an interesting way of looking at it.

Yeah, I can accept that reasoning.

 Kriswall wrote:

So, a VVS normally can't declare a charge for a wide variety of reasons. The ...On Target rule only addresses the scenario where they just came in from Deep Strike Reserves. You still have to obey a whole host of other rules.

The thing is though, nosferatu1001 has a point. On Target simply gives the squad permission to charge on the turn they deep strike. There is nothing specifying that this only overrides the normal restriction that units arriving from reserves can't charge, nor any clause that they still have to obey all other requirements (such as not shooting rapid fire weapons in the same turn). RAW, On Target does indeed allow the unit to charge after running, firing rapid fire weapons or such.

I agree that it's a permission to charge after Deep Striking, but from a practical standpoint, you need to still look at other restrictions. I can't declare a charge if I'm 36" away from my intended target. I can't just say "...On Target" gives me blanket permission to charge, so I'm going to do it anyways. I still have to obey the rule that says I can't declare a charge if I can't reach my intended target. Presumably, I still have to obey the rule saying I can't declare a charge if I've fired a variety of weapon types (heavy, rapid fire, etc).

We only have to make a change when there is a conflict. There is a conflict between "can charge after deep striking" and "can't charge after deep striking", so we go with the Codex/Campaign book rule over the BRB rule. There is no conflict between "can charge after deep striking" and "can't charge after firing rapid fire weapons". You can easily make tactical choices to obey both rules in any given situation. If you want to charge, don't fire rapid fire weapons. If you want to fire rapid fire weapons, don't charge. There is never a conflict. A conflict would look like "can charge after firing a rapid fire weapons" and "can't charge after firing a rapid fire weapon".

There is only a conflict if you ask a question and one rule says yes while another rule says no.

 vipoid wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

So, a VVS normally can't declare a charge for a wide variety of reasons. The ...On Target rule only addresses the scenario where they just came in from Deep Strike Reserves. You still have to obey a whole host of other rules.

The thing is though, nosferatu1001 has a point. On Target simply gives the squad permission to charge on the turn they deep strike. There is nothing specifying that this only overrides the normal restriction that units arriving from reserves can't charge, nor any clause that they still have to obey all other requirements (such as not shooting rapid fire weapons in the same turn). RAW, On Target does indeed allow the unit to charge after running, firing rapid fire weapons or such.

There is nothing giving it permission to override the restriction against Charging after firing Heavy Weapons or Running, either.

To which, a Centurion unit who Deep Striked in with a Drop Pod and shot a Rapid Fire Weapon could then Assault in the following Phase. Only, the only permission it was granted to ignore the restriction thereof was firing a Rapid Fire Weapon, not the restriction against Charging from Deep Striking. Do we have a permission in the rules to ignore all conditions associated with a restricted act if one restriction is overridden? I do not believe so.

So, too, we come to the Corsair Eldar character rules which provide an impossible impass and so cannot be used as such. One has to either not take a detachment of them at all, or choose a detachment that does not violate its own rules.

Which book is this under, by the way? I was wondering if there happened to be an FAQ out about it, yet.

vipoid - AGAIN with the idea that only other detachments other than the Primary are Allies

This is a nonsense

EVERYONE is an ally TO EVERYONE.

The primary detachment is an ally to every non-primary detachment. Tey are an ally to the Primary detachment

Address that nonsense first, please.

You missed, utterly, the point about the Assault vehicle rule. You also missed that the game is permissive, so a restriction needs another permission for it to be removed. So while I Can assault despite disembarking (as disembarking is the restriction for a non-A.V.) i cannot if I Run, or fire Rapid FIre, etc. BEcause I lack permission to override THOSE restrictions

ITs how the game operates. Its how the game *has* to operate.

Charistoph wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

So, a VVS normally can't declare a charge for a wide variety of reasons. The ...On Target rule only addresses the scenario where they just came in from Deep Strike Reserves. You still have to obey a whole host of other rules.

The thing is though, nosferatu1001 has a point. On Target simply gives the squad permission to charge on the turn they deep strike. There is nothing specifying that this only overrides the normal restriction that units arriving from reserves can't charge, nor any clause that they still have to obey all other requirements (such as not shooting rapid fire weapons in the same turn). RAW, On Target does indeed allow the unit to charge after running, firing rapid fire weapons or such.

There is nothing giving it permission to override the restriction against Charging after firing Heavy Weapons or Running, either.

To which, a Centurion unit who Deep Striked in with a Drop Pod and shot a Rapid Fire Weapon could then Assault in the following Phase. Only, the only permission it was granted to ignore the restriction thereof was firing a Rapid Fire Weapon, not the restriction against Charging from Deep Striking. Do we have a permission in the rules to ignore all conditions associated with a restricted act if one restriction is overridden? I do not believe so.

So, too, we come to the Corsair Eldar character rules which provide an impossible impass and so cannot be used as such. One has to either not take a detachment of them at all, or choose a detachment that does not violate its own rules.

Which book is this under, by the way? I was wondering if there happened to be an FAQ out about it, yet.

Shadowstrike Kill Team Formation from Warzone Damocles: Kauyon. No FAQs. For the Vanguard issue. Forgeworld Doom of Mymera (sp?) for the Corsairs

 Kriswall wrote:

I agree that it's a permission to charge after Deep Striking, but from a practical standpoint, you need to still look at other restrictions.

The problem is that the other restrictions are basic ones, whilst On Target is both an Advanced rule and a codex rule (thus it overrides all of them).

 Kriswall wrote:
I can't declare a charge if I'm 36" away from my intended target.

In this case you can declare one... you just can't succeed.

 Kriswall wrote:
I can't just say "...On Target" gives me blanket permission to charge, so I'm going to do it anyways..

Except that it does give you blanket permission. That's the problem. You have to deep strike that turn, you have to be a vanguard veteran squad, you have to be from that formation. Those are the only restrictions. It doesn't specify that it only overrides one specific restriction, nor does it include any clauses for such - it's written as an open-ended permission to charge.

 Kriswall wrote:
I still have to obey the rule that says I can't declare a charge if I can't reach my intended target. Presumably, I still have to obey the rule saying I can't declare a charge if I've fired a variety of weapon types (heavy, rapid fire, etc).

You have a basic rule telling you that you can't charge, and an advanced/codex rule telling you you can. The rulebook is very clear on how such conflicts are resolved.

Charistoph wrote:
There is nothing giving it permission to override the restriction against Charging after firing Heavy Weapons or Running, either.

Yes there is - On Target.
- Are you a Vanguard Veteran Squad? Yes.
- Are you from that formation? Yes.
- Did you deep strike this turn? Yes.

You can charge this turn.

If you fire a rapid-fire weapon, then you have a basic rule telling you you can't charge, and an advanced one telling you you can. Advanced one wins.

I should probably reiterate that I'm by no means saying anyone should play it like this. I'm sure we can all agree that would be moronic.

Charistoph wrote:

To which, a Centurion unit who Deep Striked in with a Drop Pod and shot a Rapid Fire Weapon could then Assault in the following Phase. Only, the only permission it was granted to ignore the restriction thereof was firing a Rapid Fire Weapon, not the restriction against Charging from Deep Striking. Do we have a permission in the rules to ignore all conditions associated with a restricted act if one restriction is overridden? I do not believe so.

Logically no, RAW yes. Because the permissions we're given in these scenarios are unspecific and open-ended.

Charistoph wrote:

So, too, we come to the Corsair Eldar character rules which provide an impossible impass and so cannot be used as such. One has to either not take a detachment of them at all, or choose a detachment that does not violate its own rules.

But that's the point - the detachment choices were all legal. The list is made with no rule violations. But the time this comes up,the game has already started.

Are you saying the list becomes retrospectively illegal?

Oh, and to answer your question, Corsairs are in Forgeworld Doom of Mymera book. To my knowledge, there are no FAQs currently addressing either of these issues.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
vipoid - AGAIN with the idea that only other detachments other than the Primary are Allies

Again, proving you haven't learned to read.

A DE combined arms detachment can be an allied contingent to Corsairs.
An Eldar Formation can be an allied contingent to Corsairs.
A Harlequin Masque detachment can be an allied contingent to Corsairs.
A Corsair combined arms detachment *can't* be an allied contingent to Dark Eldar because the Corsair Prince has to be your warlord, thus making the DE detachment the allied contingent.
A Corsair Fleet Raiding Company *can't* be an allied contingent to Eldar because the Corsair Prince has to be your warlord, thus making the Eldar detachment the allied contingent.

Which detachment does that leave us with for Corsairs?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
EVERYONE is an ally TO EVERYONE.

Rulebook reference please.

I'll also require a rulebook reference that a Primary Detachment magically transforms into an Allied Contingent when it takes allies.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

The primary detachment is an ally to every non-primary detachment. Tey are an ally to the Primary detachment

The primary detachment is not taken as allies. That is utter nonsense.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You also missed that the game is permissive

No I didn't.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
so a restriction needs another permission for it to be removed. .

And Assault Vehicle gives you one.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So while I Can assault despite disembarking (as disembarking is the restriction for a non-A.V.) i cannot if I Run, or fire Rapid FIre, etc. BEcause I lack permission to override THOSE restrictions

Once again, you've shown you can't read. Assault Vehicle and On Target are not worded to overcome just one specific restriction, but rather as open-ended, permissions.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Its how the game *has* to operate.

I agree, but that's still RAI and not RAW.

 vipoid wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
This is not the case. Contingent does not equal detachment.

I'm glad you were here to refute an argument no one made.

 Xenomancers wrote:
The intention of the wording which isn't at all ambiguous, it is specific, the only way to combine corsairs with any other army is if the prince is the warlord of such army.

Except that that's the exact opposite of what is said:

A detachment from this army list treats armies from Codex: Craftworlds and Codex: Dark Eldar as Battle Brothers, and likewise, Allied contingents of Eldar Corsairs are counted as Battle Brothers by Codex: Craftworlds, Codex: Harlequins and Codex: Dark Eldar armies.

Detachments chosen from Codex: Necrons and Codex: Chaos Daemons and Codex: Tyranids cannot be selected as Allied contingents for an Eldar Corsairs army, and likewise may never select an allied contingent of Eldar Corsairs.

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

All 3 paragraphs speak of Eldar Corsairs taking other armies as allies *and* of other armies taking Eldar Corsair allies.

The only way the second scenario is possible is via the Allied Detachment. Any other detachment will result in the Corsair Prince being the Warlord, and hence the other race(s) will be the allies.

This is further backed up by this:

"The Eldar Corsair army list may only use the Combines Arms, Allied Detachment, or Corsair Fleet Raiding Company Force Organisation Charts."

I'll willing to accept that RAW Corsairs can't take an Allied Detachment, but please don't give me any tosh about it somehow being the clear or logical intention.

The argument was made on the first page. You kind of dismissed it. Just because 2 rules seem to contradict each other does not mean the opposite of what I said is the intention. It is just a contradiction. Contradictions are not permissions.

 Xenomancers wrote:

The argument was made on the first page. You kind of dismissed it. Just because 2 rules seem to contradict each other does not mean the opposite of what I said is the intention. It is just a contradiction. Contradictions are not permissions.

I didn't say it was a permission.

What I said was that 'corsairs can never be taken as allies' isn't logical when this is referenced multiple times in their rules.

Rulewise, I've already conceded (more than once now) that Corsair Princes can't be taken in an Allied Detachment.

Reported, rule 1

You have this utter nonsense idea that you have Primary and Allied detachments. That somehow Allies are only those outside of the Primary detachment

Its utter rubbish, na dyou were shown this 4 pages back, yet it persists. It explains why you have such an issue here.

Page 126. LEVELS OF ALLIANCE

"between units that have different Factions in the same army"

You are an Allied Contingent to Dark Eldar even if your Detachment has the Warlord in it. The rules care not one jot about your idea that Alliance flows down from the primary

Sort that error out, please. Accept your error on this.

You may have Corsair CAD as an "Allied Contingent" to Dark Eldar, and they are an Allied Contingent to the Corsair CAD. Done.

What wwe have said is that Corsairs can never be taken in an AD. THat is NOT the same as they cannot be taken as Allies. You're still stuck in 6th edition.

 vipoid wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
There is nothing giving it permission to override the restriction against Charging after firing Heavy Weapons or Running, either.

Yes there is - On Target.
- Are you a Vanguard Veteran Squad? Yes.
- Are you from that formation? Yes.
- Did you deep strike this turn? Yes.

You can charge this turn.

If you fire a rapid-fire weapon, then you have a basic rule telling you you can't charge, and an advanced one telling you you can. Advanced one wins.

I notice you chose to stop asking questions at a critical point, nor asked the right questions.

You are seeing it as:
Base Permission to Charge set to "Yes".
Did unit fire an non-Chargable Weapon? "No." Permission to Charge set to "No".
Did unit arrive from Reserves? "Yes" Permission to Charge set to "No".
Did unit arrive from Deep Strike? "Yes" Permission to Charge set to "No".
Unit possesses "...On Target" rule, is unit "Vanguard Veteran Squad"? "Yes" Permission to Charge set to "Yes".

Whereas, it is not a one permission and done set, ...On Target only covers the restriction to Charge after arriving from Deep Strike. It is not covered against the restriction of Charging after shooting a non-Charging Weapon.

 vipoid wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

The argument was made on the first page. You kind of dismissed it. Just because 2 rules seem to contradict each other does not mean the opposite of what I said is the intention. It is just a contradiction. Contradictions are not permissions.

I didn't say it was a permission.

What I said was that 'corsairs can never be taken as allies' isn't logical when this is referenced multiple times in their rules.

Rulewise, I've already conceded (more than once now) that Corsair Princes can't be taken in an Allied Detachment.

Sorry I didn't realize that you were no longer arguing rules point. I think everyone can agree that the rules are not logically written in this case. I would certainly allow you to play an allied detachment with him - but I would press that he still must be your warlord - because of the way the rules are written.

GENERAL NOTE/WARNING:

Comments like "learn to read", "learn to play", "FTFY", etc. are, for the most part, considered rude and against RULE #1 as they do nothing to further the cause of reasoned discussion.

I'm actually inclined to agree that the actual wording of "...On Target" could be interpreted as giving blanket permission to charge after a Deep Strike occurs. I also feel that it could easily be interpreted as only giving permission to override the normal restriction associated with coming in from Reserves. Context is super important here.

There is a potential ambiguity here. My take on the intention is that the author's most likely intended to only override the restriction regarding Reserves and not every other restriction in the rules associated with Charging. As such, I would play this that firing a Rapid Fire weapon prevents declaring a charge.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

You have this utter nonsense idea that you have Primary and Allied detachments. That somehow Allies are only those outside of the Primary detachment

You are ignoring context.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Its utter rubbish, na dyou were shown this 4 pages back, yet it persists. It explains why you have such an issue here.

All I've seen is you proving that you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Page 126. LEVELS OF ALLIANCE

"between units that have different Factions in the same army"

You do understand context, right? As in, the rulebook has no clue what army the player will be using and hence can only state who is allied with who. e.g. you could say that America and Britain are allies. However, if you're talking about a specific army, you also need to use more specific terminology.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

You are an Allied Contingent to Dark Eldar even if your Detachment has the Warlord in it.

You. Are. Wrong.

A contingent is, by definition, a subgroup. As in part of a larger group. If everything in your army is an allied contingent, then nothing is. Because it's no longer a subgroup.

Once again, the allied contingent is the contingent of your army that is made up of allies (as opposed to your own men). Do you see how this works?

e.g. Let's say a British regiment is given command of a few platoons of American soldiers. Those American platoons would be your allied contingent. Again, they are the contingent of your army that is made up of allies (as opposed to your own British soldiers). The British army does not become an allied contingent of the american platoons. This would be both factually wrong and completely nonsensical. It is a British army. Hence, the allied contingent is the part(s) of it that are not made up of British soldiers but rather allied ones.

Exactly the same applies to armies in 40k. If you have an Eldar army with Dark Eldar allies, the Dark Eldar are your allied contingent. You do not become an allied contingent of Dark Eldar because it is an Eldar army.

 vipoid wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

You have this utter nonsense idea that you have Primary and Allied detachments. That somehow Allies are only those outside of the Primary detachment

You are ignoring context.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Its utter rubbish, na dyou were shown this 4 pages back, yet it persists. It explains why you have such an issue here.

All I've seen is you proving that you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Page 126. LEVELS OF ALLIANCE

"between units that have different Factions in the same army"

You do understand context, right? As in, the rulebook has no clue what army the player will be using and hence can only state who is allied with who. e.g. you could say that America and Britain are allies. However, if you're talking about a specific army, you also need to use more specific terminology.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

You are an Allied Contingent to Dark Eldar even if your Detachment has the Warlord in it.

You. Are. Wrong.

A contingent is, by definition, a subgroup. As in part of a larger group. If everything in your army is an allied contingent, then nothing is. Because it's no longer a subgroup.

Once again, the allied contingent is the contingent of your army that is made up of allies (as opposed to your own men). Do you see how this works?

e.g. Let's say a British regiment is given command of a few platoons of American soldiers. Those American platoons would be your allied contingent. Again, they are the contingent of your army that is made up of allies (as opposed to your own British soldiers). The British army does not become an allied contingent of the american platoons. This would be both factually wrong and completely nonsensical. It is a British army. Hence, the allied contingent is the part(s) of it that are not made up of British soldiers but rather allied ones.

Exactly the same applies to armies in 40k. If you have an Eldar army with Dark Eldar allies, the Dark Eldar are your allied contingent. You do not become an allied contingent of Dark Eldar because it is an Eldar army.

Nos is right. It's almost like your understanding of how allies works is stuck in 6th Edition.

 Kriswall wrote:
Nos is right. It's almost like your understanding of how allies works is stuck in 6th Edition.

What are you basing this on exactly?

 vipoid wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Nos is right. It's almost like your understanding of how allies works is stuck in 6th Edition.

What are you basing this on exactly?

Your own words. You seem to think that the Detachment a Warlord is in can't be an allied Detachment (note the non proper noun). It's almost as though you don't understand the difference between allied Detachment and Allied Detachment. Two entirely different concepts.

 Kriswall wrote:
Your own words. You seem to think that the Detachment a Warlord is in can't be an allied Detachment (note the non proper noun).

Because it's true.

 Kriswall wrote:
It's almost as though you don't understand the difference between allied Detachment and Allied Detachment. Two entirely different concepts.

I understand completely, but I'm beginning to feel like I'm the only one.

Certainly I seem to be the only one able to distinguish between 'factions' and 'armies'.

 vipoid wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Your own words. You seem to think that the Detachment a Warlord is in can't be an allied Detachment (note the non proper noun).

Because it's true.

 Kriswall wrote:
It's almost as though you don't understand the difference between allied Detachment and Allied Detachment. Two entirely different concepts.

I understand completely, but I'm beginning to feel like I'm the only one.

Certainly I seem to be the only one able to distinguish between 'factions' and 'armies'.

Since you say you understand, yet your words indicate that you don't... please explain the difference between an Allied Detachment and an allied Detachment. Feel free to explain this to me as though I'm 5 years old. I won't be insulted if you dumb it down. I genuinely don't think you understand how allies work in 7th Edition.

 Kriswall wrote:
Since you say you understand, yet your words indicate that you don't... please explain the difference between an Allied Detachment and an allied Detachment. Feel free to explain this to me as though I'm 5 years old. I won't be insulted if you dumb it down. I genuinely don't think you understand how allies work in 7th Edition.

I'll try my best but I feel like I'm running out of different ways to explain myself.

An Allied Detachment refers to a single, specific detachment.

An allied Detachment would refer to any detachments (including Formations) with a different faction to whatever your Primary detachment is.

So, let's say you have an army made up of the following detachments:

CAD Eldar Primary detachment (with Farseer Warlord)
Wraithhost
Grotesquerie
DE Allied Detachment
Harlequin Masque Detachment

The Grotesquerie, DE and Harlequin Masque are all allied Detachments.

The DE Allied Detachment is the only Allied Detachment.

Am I making sense?

 vipoid wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Since you say you understand, yet your words indicate that you don't... please explain the difference between an Allied Detachment and an allied Detachment. Feel free to explain this to me as though I'm 5 years old. I won't be insulted if you dumb it down. I genuinely don't think you understand how allies work in 7th Edition.

I'll try my best but I feel like I'm running out of different ways to explain myself.

An Allied Detachment refers to a single, specific detachment.

An allied Detachment would refer to any detachments (including Formations) with a different faction to whatever your Primary detachment is.

So, let's say you have an army made up of the following detachments:

CAD Eldar Primary detachment (with Farseer Warlord)
Wraithhost
Grotesquerie
DE Allied Detachment
Harlequin Masque Detachment

The Grotesquerie, DE and Harlequin Masque are all allied Detachments.

The DE Allied Detachment is the only Allied Detachment.

Am I making sense?

I see where your misunderstanding is. Your second point is wrong. The concept of allies doesn't care who your Warlord is or which Detachment has been designated Primary.

If I have a Combined Arms Detachment of Space Wolves with the Warlord and an Inquisitorial Detachment... it would be 100% correct to say that the Inquisitorial Detachment is allied to the Space Wolves CAD. It would also be 100% correct to say that the Space Wolves CAD is allied to the Inquisitorial Detachment.

It seems like you want your "army" to be the Faction of whatever your Warlord is with everything else as allies. The rules don't support this. There is no such thing as a "Space Wolves Army". There are only Detachments (or Unbound) with every unit allied to every other unit on a sliding scale from Battle Brothers to Come the Apocalypse. The rules don't support your interpretation.

You might want to go read the rules for allies again. This was one of the major shifts in list building from 6th to 7th. You would have been correct in 6th. You aren't in 7th.

 Kriswall wrote:

I see where your misunderstanding is. Your second point is wrong. The concept of allies doesn't care who your Warlord is or which Detachment has been designated Primary.

Sorry, but I think you're mistaken on this point. There's a difference between allied detachments (or contingents) in an army and allies.

Allies is just a general relationship between two or more factions. It doesn't care who your warlord is because it doesn't care about warlords at all. It is talking about factions, not armies.

In contrast, an allied detachment would refer to a detachment in a army. Here, you can be much more specific because you know which is the main faction (which includes the overall commander of the army).

 Kriswall wrote:

If I have a Combined Arms Detachment of Space Wolves with the Warlord and an Inquisitorial Detachment... it would be 100% correct to say that the Inquisitorial Detachment is allied to the Space Wolves CAD. It would also be 100% correct to say that the Space Wolves CAD is allied to the Inquisitorial Detachment.

But that's the thing - you would not refer to SW detachment as an allied detachment. It would be contextually wrong and even misleading. You'd basically be saying that you have an Inquisitorial army with some SW allies - as opposed to a SW army with some inquisitorial allies.

 Kriswall wrote:

It seems like you want your "army" to be the Faction of whatever your Warlord is with everything else as allies. The rules don't support this.

I think part of the problem is that you are interpreting a lack of rules either way as meaning that 'allies' and 'allied detachment' are identical. The rules do not support this either.

 Kriswall wrote:
There is no such thing as a "Space Wolves Army". There are only Detachments (or Unbound) with every unit allied to every other unit on a sliding scale from Battle Brothers to Come the Apocalypse. The rules don't support your interpretation.

Not so. The rules give you a primary detachment with an overall commander. That should be more than enough to indicate that your factions are not all equal - one will have command of the army and any other factions you include should be considered allied detachments.

Here's a final question for you though - if we go with your definition, then what's the point of calling *anything* an allied detachment? By your logic, every detachment is an allied one, making the distinction completely meaningless and utterly useless. There would be literally no point in referring to anything as an allied detachment, because it would have exactly the same meaning as 'detachment'.

Your second point is wrong, as pointed out. An allied detachment is any other detachment, regardless of faction. Everything has an ally status with everything else. Two sw cads are BB allied detachments of the other

Or, to put it in your eloquent words. You. Are. Wrong.

You are ascribing meaning that the game doesn't use, and constructing a paper then argument off the basis of that false construction.

Your primary detachment is an allied detachment of our Aliied Detachment and the Aliied Detavhment is an allied detachment of your primary detachment. All at the same time

Feel,free to use some rules to disprove it this time. You know, as per the tenets.

 vipoid wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

I see where your misunderstanding is. Your second point is wrong. The concept of allies doesn't care who your Warlord is or which Detachment has been designated Primary.

Sorry, but I think you're mistaken on this point. There's a difference between allied detachments (or contingents) in an army and allies.

Allies is just a general relationship between two or more factions. It doesn't care who your warlord is because it doesn't care about warlords at all. It is talking about factions, not armies.

In contrast, an allied detachment would refer to a detachment in a army. Here, you can be much more specific because you know which is the main faction (which includes the overall commander of the army).

 Kriswall wrote:

If I have a Combined Arms Detachment of Space Wolves with the Warlord and an Inquisitorial Detachment... it would be 100% correct to say that the Inquisitorial Detachment is allied to the Space Wolves CAD. It would also be 100% correct to say that the Space Wolves CAD is allied to the Inquisitorial Detachment.

But that's the thing - you would not refer to SW detachment as an allied detachment. It would be contextually wrong and even misleading. You'd basically be saying that you have an Inquisitorial army with some SW allies - as opposed to a SW army with some inquisitorial allies.

 Kriswall wrote:

It seems like you want your "army" to be the Faction of whatever your Warlord is with everything else as allies. The rules don't support this.

I think part of the problem is that you are interpreting a lack of rules either way as meaning that 'allies' and 'allied detachment' are identical. The rules do not support this either.

 Kriswall wrote:
There is no such thing as a "Space Wolves Army". There are only Detachments (or Unbound) with every unit allied to every other unit on a sliding scale from Battle Brothers to Come the Apocalypse. The rules don't support your interpretation.

Not so. The rules give you a primary detachment with an overall commander. That should be more than enough to indicate that your factions are not all equal - one will have command of the army and any other factions you include should be considered allied detachments.

Here's a final question for you though - if we go with your definition, then what's the point of calling *anything* an allied detachment? By your logic, every detachment is an allied one, making the distinction completely meaningless and utterly useless. There would be literally no point in referring to anything as an allied detachment, because it would have exactly the same meaning as 'detachment'.

What's the point of calling a tree a tree? All detachments are allies of each other. Most people just refer to them as detachments. I'm actually unsure as to why you're so fixated on differentiating between the Warlord's detachment and all others. From an allies perspective, the rule book doesn't differentiate. Thus, you shouldn't either.

 Kriswall wrote:

What's the point of calling a tree a tree?

But we're not just calling it a tree. We're specifically calling out a group of trees as 'photosynthesis tree', despite the fact that this doesn't differentiate them in the slightest. There's no point in not just calling them 'trees'.

 Kriswall wrote:
What's the point of calling a tree a tree? All detachments are allies of each other. Most people just refer to them as detachments. I'm actually unsure as to why you're so fixated on differentiating between the Warlord's detachment and all others. From an allies perspective, the rule book doesn't differentiate. Thus, you shouldn't either.

The rulebook also doesn't tell you that all detachments are allied detachments. You can't just make up rules like that. Also, if we're talking about how people refer to things, then stuff like 'Space Wolf Army' most certainly do exist. What I've never once seen is "Collection of space wolf and inquisition detachments."

Also, the Corsair book also specifically differentiates between 'Necrons taking an allied contingent of Corsairs' and 'Corsairs taking an allied contingent of Necron'. This is strong evidence that they are not the same.

The reason I'm fixated is that I'm baffled that others would see it any other way. It just seems so illogical to me. If you want to refer to all the detachments in your army, you already have a word for that - 'detachments'.

Literally the only reason you'd use 'allied detachments' would be to differentiate them from your other detachments. e.g. "Our allied detachments will form the vanguard of our army, whilst our own troops hold back and provide supporting fire."