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 wrote:

 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."

The rule book doesn't support the concept of a "Space Wolves Army". Factions are never assigned to the army as a whole. The concept of a Space Wolves Army with several allied Detachments from other Factions is just gamer short hand to explain that they have more Space Wolves minis than other minis and consider that to be the "main" part of their army.

The reality is that you have a Primary Detachment and then possibly other Detachments. All Detachments can be said to be allied to each other, so in that sense, they're all allied Detachments. The fact that there is a Detachment called the Allied Detachment as well as the no longer valid 6th Edition concept of single Faction armies with allied Detachments muddies the waters a bit. I can easily see how someone would get confused and think that the current rule set supports the concept of a single Faction army with a series of allied Detachments. The current rule set doesn't, though... it simply supports a grouping of Detachments called an Army with whichever Detachment has the Warlord being singled out and named as Primary. Being Primary doesn't change the fact that it acts as an allied Detachment to every other Detachment in the army.

To be honest, I'm not sure how this is relevant to the discussion about Eldar Corsair Princes being options in Allied Detachments (AD). I feel like we've gone off the tracks a little.

It's this idea that vipoid is claiming the use of "allied contingent" means they MUST be able to be fielded as non-primary (and thus the AD becomes an option) - that there is some really tenuous permission granted by the very redundant rule written by GW.

Please don't put words in my mouth, nosferatu1001.

I didn't claim it was a permission - just that it's heavily implied that the intention is that Corsairs can be fielded as allies to other primary detachments, as opposed to always being your main army, primary detachment or whatever you want to call it.

 vipoid wrote:
Please don't put words in my mouth, nosferatu1001.

I didn't claim it was a permission - just that it's heavily implied that the intention is that Corsairs can be fielded as allies to other primary detachments, as opposed to always being your main army, primary detachment or whatever you want to call it.

I'm actually inclined to agree that this heavily implies an author's intention to allow Corsairs to be fielded as a Detachment in an army where the Warlord is not a Corsair. Unfortunately, the core rules, when combined with the Eldar Corsairs rules, would prevent this from ever happening. It's almost as though the author of the Eldar Corsairs book didn't realize this interaction would occur.

From a RaW perspective... no. Due to a variety of rules interactions, Eldar Corsairs can never field an Allied Detachment (1HQ, 1Troops + extras).

Form a competitive/tournament HIWPI perspective... no. The rules are pretty clear, even if the author's comments are a little murky.

From a casual HIWPI perspective... sure. The author implies that we could have a situation where Eldar Corsairs are taken as allies for another army. This can be read as allying to some other Faction's Warlord/Primary Detachment. For the purposes of the Allied Detachment ONLY, I'd probably waive the requirement that a Corsairs Prince be Warlord if present. It's not exactly game changing and let's more people play.

 vipoid wrote:
Please don't put words in my mouth, nosferatu1001.

I didn't claim it was a permission - just that it's heavily implied that the intention is that Corsairs can be fielded as allies to other primary detachments, as opposed to always being your main army, primary detachment or whatever you want to call it.

Corsairs CAN be fielded as Allies. You just still dont seem to understand that everyone is an Ally to everyone else, and "Allied Contingent" does not in anyway shape or form REQUIRE that the detachemtn in question is a non-Primary one,

You can have Corsairs, Eldar and Space Wolves, all in one army. It is NOT a "Corsair" army, just because that is the detachment the Warlord MUST be from. Thats just player convention and sloppy usage, likely as a holdover from pre-7th days. I know I do it, however it isnt usage supported or even IMPLIED by the rules

You're also presuming rules development is static, by claiming an intention. Maybe to start with they didnt make the prince a "1" requirement, and he was 0-1 - in which case that incredibly redundant line about being able to take AD would a) be possible yet b) still utterly redundant.

As a silly example: I can take an Inqusiitor warlord with allied GK. The inquisitorial detachment is 25 points, yet is still Primary. Yet I dont think anyone here would call that an Inquisition army, naturally?
Simialrly your corsair detachmetn may be the prince and 2 troops, allied to a 30000 point in total set of Eldar detachments. Naturally most people would call that an "Eldar" army ,I would have thought.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Please don't put words in my mouth, nosferatu1001.

I didn't claim it was a permission - just that it's heavily implied that the intention is that Corsairs can be fielded as allies to other primary detachments, as opposed to always being your main army, primary detachment or whatever you want to call it.

Corsairs CAN be fielded as Allies. You just still dont seem to understand that everyone is an Ally to everyone else, and "Allied Contingent" does not in anyway shape or form REQUIRE that the detachemtn in question is a non-Primary one,

You can have Corsairs, Eldar and Space Wolves, all in one army. It is NOT a "Corsair" army, just because that is the detachment the Warlord MUST be from. Thats just player convention and sloppy usage, likely as a holdover from pre-7th days. I know I do it, however it isnt usage supported or even IMPLIED by the rules

You're also presuming rules development is static, by claiming an intention. Maybe to start with they didnt make the prince a "1" requirement, and he was 0-1 - in which case that incredibly redundant line about being able to take AD would a) be possible yet b) still utterly redundant.

As a silly example: I can take an Inqusiitor warlord with allied GK. The inquisitorial detachment is 25 points, yet is still Primary. Yet I dont think anyone here would call that an Inquisition army, naturally?
Simialrly your corsair detachmetn may be the prince and 2 troops, allied to a 30000 point in total set of Eldar detachments. Naturally most people would call that an "Eldar" army ,I would have thought.

I think you're overly focused on the semantics of "allies" vs. Allied Detachment. The issue the thread was originally addressing still makes your last paragraph incorrect. Allied Detachment, no matter what race's army it is attached to, has two restrictions:

1) it CANNOT contain the army's warlord
2) it MUST be of a different race than the primary detachment.

The Corsair Prince rules require that the prince MUST be the army's warlord (or if there are multiple princes, one must be the warlord), therefore, Corsair Princes cannot be a part of the Allied Detachment per RAW. He can be an ally, and the warlord, but he cannot be in an Allied Detachment.

However, I do agree with Kriswall. HIWPI is that in a casual setting, I would allow my opponent to use a non-Corsair Prince warlord so that the prince could be in an Allied Detachment.

 EnTyme wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Please don't put words in my mouth, nosferatu1001.

I didn't claim it was a permission - just that it's heavily implied that the intention is that Corsairs can be fielded as allies to other primary detachments, as opposed to always being your main army, primary detachment or whatever you want to call it.

Corsairs CAN be fielded as Allies. You just still dont seem to understand that everyone is an Ally to everyone else, and "Allied Contingent" does not in anyway shape or form REQUIRE that the detachemtn in question is a non-Primary one,

You can have Corsairs, Eldar and Space Wolves, all in one army. It is NOT a "Corsair" army, just because that is the detachment the Warlord MUST be from. Thats just player convention and sloppy usage, likely as a holdover from pre-7th days. I know I do it, however it isnt usage supported or even IMPLIED by the rules

You're also presuming rules development is static, by claiming an intention. Maybe to start with they didnt make the prince a "1" requirement, and he was 0-1 - in which case that incredibly redundant line about being able to take AD would a) be possible yet b) still utterly redundant.

As a silly example: I can take an Inqusiitor warlord with allied GK. The inquisitorial detachment is 25 points, yet is still Primary. Yet I dont think anyone here would call that an Inquisition army, naturally?
Simialrly your corsair detachmetn may be the prince and 2 troops, allied to a 30000 point in total set of Eldar detachments. Naturally most people would call that an "Eldar" army ,I would have thought.

I think you're overly focused on the semantics of "allies" vs. Allied Detachment. The issue the thread was originally addressing still makes your last paragraph incorrect. Allied Detachment, no matter what race's army it is attached to, has two restrictions:

1) it CANNOT contain the army's warlord
2) it MUST be of a different race than the primary detachment.

The Corsair Prince rules require that the prince MUST be the army's warlord (or if there are multiple princes, one must be the warlord), therefore, Corsair Princes cannot be a part of the Allied Detachment per RAW. He can be an ally, and the warlord, but he cannot be in an Allied Detachment.

However, I do agree with Kriswall. HIWPI is that in a casual setting, I would allow my opponent to use a non-Corsair Prince warlord so that the prince could be in an Allied Detachment.

I also agree with Kriswall. That dude seems like he's really on top of things. I hear he's also incredibly handsome.

That dude seems like he's really on top of things. I hear he's also incredibly handsome.

That is clearly not RAW. I will need page and paragraph for such an assertion.

Lusiphur wrote:

That dude seems like he's really on top of things. I hear he's also incredibly handsome.

That is clearly not RAW. I will need page and paragraph for such an assertion.

+1 to you, sir.

I, not overly hung up - there is a difference between allies and the allied Detavhment. Given the initial word is very similar, it's important to be precise there

Oh, and the subject of kriswalls handsomeness is clearly not raw - representation as written - but rai (representation as inebriated )

It's worth pointing out that "Detachment" and "Contingent" are synonyms, and were likely used interchangebly by forgeworld writers in this case.

I do agree that doing so was a mistake/oversight, but in all likelihood, they meant for it to say detachment since they used a word that means the same thing in the English language.

Pretty sure the part that says "A Corsair Prince must be your warlord."
Meant to say, "In an army who's primary detachment is corsairs, a Corsair Prince must be your warlord."

Because that 1 little string of 8 words would solve almost all of the contradictions in that section of the book, I'm pretty sure that line was there and mistakenly edited out for rewording that never occurred, or simply forgot to be added in pending how it should be worded.

We need FAQ about this, why Spectres exarch have only 1 wound and that unchargable corsairs is not what authors intended.

Unchargeable corsairs?

HOw do you know one wound Exarch isnt what the author intended? Did you speak to them just this last weekend?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Unchargeable corsairs?

HOw do you know one wound Exarch isnt what the author intended? Did you speak to them just this last weekend?

"why Spectres exarch have only 1 wound"
AND
"that unchargable corsairs is not what authors intended"

Do i really write in so convoluted ways that people can't comprehend it?

As for corsairs, their jetibkes and jetpacks can reckless abandon after shooting attack (others can too, but not as far)
Overwatch is shooting attack.
You charge them from 1 inch - they move 9.5 average after overwatch. Good luck making 10.5 inch charge now.
Oh and there is the power that makes them move 12 instead. Good luck making 13 inch auto failed charge.
Unless you are Daemonettes or something, then you have like 1/9 chance of making it!

I mean, i dont care. I can just say my bikes are corsairs and play RAW. Its not like i needed those friends anyway.

No, I comprehended it perfectly -> I was asking why you thought the author didnt INTEND the exarch to have 1W, and was asking for your evidence for this. For example, you could have been at the HH weekender just this last weekend and spoken to the author

That isnt unchargeable. Just hard to charge with a single unit. And, again, are you certain this wasnt intended?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, I comprehended it perfectly -> I was asking why you thought the author didnt INTEND the exarch to have 1W, and was asking for your evidence for this. For example, you could have been at the HH weekender just this last weekend and spoken to the author

That isnt unchargeable. Just hard to charge with a single unit. And, again, are you certain this wasnt intended?

Nowhere in my post it said i think 1w exarch is not intended - i said that i want to know why author made him the only exarch in the whole eldar army to have 1 wound.

About overwatch, i am 95% sure its not intended and 5% that its better version of that tau guy's Fighting Retreat thing (or whatever it called)

SOrry, your run on sentence, lacking all punctuation, did not clearly separate your two statements. Read it again and you can see that ...intended part can refer to both

And wanting to know WHY is also asking if it was intended, surely?

Last I spoke to them about the corsairs retreat, they said it was intended, but that could have just been to not admit a mistake!

nosferatu1001 wrote:
SOrry, your run on sentence, lacking all punctuation, did not clearly separate your two statements. Read it again and you can see that ...intended part can refer to both

And wanting to know WHY is also asking if it was intended, surely?

Last I spoke to them about the corsairs retreat, they said it was intended, but that could have just been to not admit a mistake!

I don't want to sound like an arsehole, but that says person who starts their posts with 2 capital letters?

And my original sentence is perfect, it have all punctuation it needs.

P.S.: Language filter here is funny.

The two capitals did not alter the meaning of the sentence. The lack of the comma after "...wound" does. It creates a single clause instead of two.

Dont take it personally. I was explaining why I (correctly) thought you had state the two issues you raised were both not intended by the author, whereas only the second was.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The two capitals did not alter the meaning of the sentence. The lack of the comma after "...wound" does. It creates a single clause instead of two.

Much as I despise agreeing with nosferatu1001 about anything, he is right here.

Commas change sentences quite dramatically: "Let's eat, grandpa."