Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner
21 - 40 of 40 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,848 Posts
There are a few restrictions on Allied Detachments due to the outdating of 6th edition wording by 7th edition army composition - Iyanden, Waaagh! Ghazghkull and (unconfirmed) Heroes of Fenris cannot ally with their parent Codex. All other Supplements are free to do so. There is a workaround, in that you can still bring a Combined Arms Detachment of Iyanden alongside your Combined Arms Detachment of Eldar.
This is the crux of the debate right here; can you quote anything that would explain why 'All other Supplements are free to do so'? Are we still referring to the rule that says [Supplement] can Ally as Battle Brothers with [Codex]? Because the whole point of this argument was what that rule means. If it's a matter of Codex trumping BRB, don't all of those supplements also state that they count as their parent's codex, forcing the 'Same Faction' rules for Allied Detachments right back into play?
 

·
Rattlehead
Joined
·
6,741 Posts
This is the crux of the debate right here; can you quote anything that would explain why 'All other Supplements are free to do so'? Are we still referring to the rule that says [Supplement] can Ally as Battle Brothers with [Codex]? Because the whole point of this argument was what that rule means. If it's a matter of Codex trumping BRB, don't all of those supplements also state that they count as their parent's codex, forcing the 'Same Faction' rules for Allied Detachments right back into play?
Ah, I see - then RAW, no, you can't bring an Allied Detachment of your codex' supplement because Allied Detachments cannot have the same Faction as your Primary Detachment.

But you can bring a Combined Arms Detachment or any of the race-specific Detachments or Formations, I don't know why it would be an issue for RAW players. If you're not a silly RAW player, then it's fairly obvious from the Farsight Enclaves book saying 'You can ally with Tau' and Iyanden saying 'You can't ally with Eldar' meaning just that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,323 Posts
Discussion Starter · #23 ·
Ah, I see - then RAW, no, you can't bring an Allied Detachment of your codex' supplement because Allied Detachments cannot have the same Faction as your Primary Detachment.
What if you went:

CAD (Primary) Tau
CAD Eldar
AD Iyanden

where you are no longer in violation of the clause that prohibits Allied Detachments from being the same Faction as the Primary Detachment?

Or is there a statement from Iyanden supplement that specifically states something further on the way it can work with the Eldar Codex?
 

·
Rattlehead
Joined
·
6,741 Posts
What if you went:

CAD (Primary) Tau
CAD Eldar
AD Iyanden

where you are no longer in violation of the clause that prohibits Allied Detachments from being the same Faction as the Primary Detachment?

Or is there a statement from Iyanden supplement that specifically states something further on the way it can work with the Eldar Codex?
I can't remember the wording off-hand, but I know Iyanden and Waaagh Ghazghkull are unusual in that you can't ally them with the parent book. Iyanden is out of date, so I'm guessing the multiple CAD thing works round that, but Ghazghkull's a 7th ed book so I'll have a look at that when I can.

I think the idea you posted would work with a Tau Primary, but I'd wonder why you wouldn't just bring Combined Detachments instead of messing around trying to get them into an Allied detachment. To be honest, I don't think much of Allied Detachments unless you want one very specific unit from a Codex (looking at you, Space Wolf Drop Pods, and you Grav Centurions) - why limit yourself to 1 slot of each when you could bring an extra Troop and get 3 slots for each Battlefield Role instead?

That said, I think it's against the spirit of the rules and I'd be very leery of it. Iyanden says you can't ally and back then that was the only way to combine them with Eldar - it's simply a case of old rules not functioning in a new edition. Working around it with an obvious loophole is pretty poor, in my view, unless you had one absolutely amazingly cool thing you liked that you couldn't do without combining the books.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,323 Posts
Discussion Starter · #25 ·
I guess my thoughts about this stemmed from having two large armies and several smaller allied forces, though to be fair I don't play Tau or Eldar so I am out of my depth talking about them. It struck me as an interesting way of getting multiple Chapter Tactics into one army from the SM codex, but only in larger games.
 

·
Rattlehead
Joined
·
6,741 Posts
You can bring a bunch of Chapter Tactics in one army - you just need to bring a bunch of Troops and HQ to get more Combined Arms Detachments, and basic SM Troops aren't particularly strong outside of Bikers (at which point you need to bring multiple Captains on Bikes, which is very expensive).

So yes, rather limited to big games :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,323 Posts
Discussion Starter · #27 ·
and basic SM Troops aren't particularly strong outside of Bikers
I dunno, my buddy's goal is to build an entire Company of SM and he's focused on Troops first. Facing his 90+ Marine army at 2k is retarded for my 'get in close and rip it up' mentality :laugh:

Maybe not the most competitive, but I was surprised at how hard it was to deal with.
 

·
Rattlehead
Joined
·
6,741 Posts
Yeah, the 'I have 60 Tacticals, deal with them' is one of those lists that's really good against some lists and really bad against others. I'd be interested to know what kind of firepower it puts out - Tacticals are poor, offensively, so presumably there's support of some kind? Difficult to balance the different firepower you need with just MEQ bodies.

EDIT: For anyone going back and reading this thread again, I realize that putting 60 or 70 dudes in Drop Pods and forcing the enemy to deal with them actually does work, since two of the BAO 2014 top ten lists were basically that (and both had Calgar, flying in the face of what is 'competitive'.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,848 Posts
I think the issue with Iyanden is actually handled by the Faction rules. As Iyanden counts as Eldar, they count as the Eldar faction... one of the reasons why you can count them as Battle Brothers on the matrix, but can't take them as an Allied. Iyanden didn't add this rule in their codex, which was an oversight, but the Faction rules remove the need for it... which might explain why you don't need it in the Ork Waaaawhatever (I don't know Orks, sorry).

Simply put, any supplement is now the same faction as the core race. You can always CAD them, but you can never Ally them. With the exception being Marines, because they treat each Chapter as its own faction in terms of using an Allied Detachment.
 

·
Rattlehead
Joined
·
6,741 Posts
I think the issue with Iyanden is actually handled by the Faction rules. As Iyanden counts as Eldar, they count as the Eldar faction... one of the reasons why you can count them as Battle Brothers on the matrix, but can't take them as an Allied. Iyanden didn't add this rule in their codex, which was an oversight, but the Faction rules remove the need for it... which might explain why you don't need it in the Ork Waaaawhatever (I don't know Orks, sorry).

Simply put, any supplement is now the same faction as the core race. You can always CAD them, but you can never Ally them. With the exception being Marines, because they treat each Chapter as its own faction in terms of using an Allied Detachment.
That makes a lot of sense, yeah. :victory:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
773 Posts
Simply put, any supplement is now the same faction as the core race. You can always CAD them, but you can never Ally them. With the exception being Marines, because they treat each Chapter as its own faction in terms of using an Allied Detachment.
This isn't right either though. As the Black Legion and Crimson Slaughter say you can ally to CSM and class as CSM for the purpose of being allied to.
Otherwise Marines gain an advantage of "We have different Chapter Tactics so we can." While BL and CS have effectively the same deal as chapter tactics (unique special rules & relics, restrictions in unit choices and/or mandatory choices imposed on them).

As I said before with Iyanden. The first line of their rules basically say "These guys count as Codex : Eldar, but have these additional rules." As I have also said their is actually no point in Iyanden ally with Eldar because the supplement is filled with bonuses with no drawback (outside of spirit seer cant take conceal/reveal).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,323 Posts
Discussion Starter · #32 ·
I'd be interested to know what kind of firepower it puts out - Tacticals are poor, offensively, so presumably there's support of some kind? Difficult to balance the different firepower you need with just MEQ bodies.
3 Devastator squads do a pretty good job of supporting. Not to mention the Special/Heavy Weapon combo in each Tactical squad. It's obscene.
@mayegelt, would it be better if Xabre's line was this?

Simply put, any supplement is now the same faction as the core race. You can always CAD them, but you can never Ally them unless the supplement stipulates differently. With the exception being Marines, because they treat each Chapter as its own faction in terms of using an Allied Detachment.
 

·
Rattlehead
Joined
·
6,741 Posts
3 Devastator squads do a pretty good job of supporting. Not to mention the Special/Heavy Weapon combo in each Tactical squad. It's obscene.
Fair enough, hadn't considered Devastators in truth - I'd definitely want to face that across a field and see if I could deal with it!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,323 Posts
Discussion Starter · #35 ·
Fair enough, hadn't considered Devastators in truth - I'd definitely want to face that across a field and see if I could deal with it!
The only thing that saved me was my armour in one game. All I had left was a Baal Predator and a Land Raider Redeemer running amok among his lines with nothing that could stop them. I basically used the rest of my army to pick out the things S8+ in suicide gambles and it worked, once that LRR finally made it to his back lines it dropped three slightly less than 10 man squads in one shooting phase thanks to a terrible Ld test and subsequent run off the board combined with some amazing Template placement.

Yes Ntaw, that probably works
Perfect! :drinks:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,848 Posts
3 Devastator squads do a pretty good job of supporting. Not to mention the Special/Heavy Weapon combo in each Tactical squad. It's obscene.

@mayegelt, would it be better if Xabre's line was this?
See, that's NOT what I mean. People are putting words in my mouth, but I really mean what I say. CSM and Black Legion and Crimson Slaughter... those were written before 7E. There's no possible way that they could be implying an Allied Detachment if the rule didn't exist before.

What the rules in Farsight and Black Legion and all of them are stating is that you can Battle Brother Farsight with Tau, or Black Legion with CSM. This is because when 6E was written, they didn't exist in the matrix.

The rules that you keep talking about are trying to clarify the Ally Matrix, and not the Allied Formation.

As I've said before, with 7E, Faction rules make it so these stipulations no longer are needed. Now, I don't know why GW gave the Loyalist Marines the exemption, but they did, and they spelled it out in an FAQ. In doing so, they've created precedent; if an army wants to use an Allied Detachment, it must have an FAQ stating they can.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,323 Posts
Discussion Starter · #37 · (Edited)
See, that's NOT what I mean. People are putting words in my mouth, but I really mean what I say.
Didn't mean to step on your toes, many apologies. I figured quoting and adding in text in a different colour was just easier than me typing things out all over when you had put it nice and succinctly there. Also, future Supplements could very well have that stipulation in them and we just don't know that's the next bomb GW's dropping.

Now, I don't know why GW gave the Loyalist Marines the exemption, but they did, and they spelled it out in an FAQ.
The Allies thing from the SM side of this was in their book initially and was FAQ'd to have a more current vernacular involved, none of the Supplements can claim this I don't think. This is because (as I see it) SM are the most popular army and GW wants to enable people to use them as much as possible. I'd like to think it's because the lists you build based off the strengths of each Chapter Tactic do make them different armies in their own right in-game despite all being Muhreenz....but it's probably because GW wants to make money.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,323 Posts
Discussion Starter · #39 ·
Figured I would copy/paste this from the Warhammer Fest thread @mayegelt started:

Q3) For the purpose of Combined Arms Detachments / Allied Detachments and such, is the word FACTION that is used just the name of the Book in most cases.
A3) Yes. With the exception of Space Marines, most books like Daemons, CSM, Eldar count as that Faction. However Iyanden classes as Iyanden for faction, Crimson Slaughter classes as Crimson Slaughter, Farsight Enclave counts as Farsight Enclave... All of these would be able to Ally to their parent books so long as the book says they can (so Iyanden cant as it doesn't say they can ally Eldar according to their book). Newer books of course like Waaagh Ghazghkull & Champs of Fenris do not need to ally to the main book so do not have the option to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
773 Posts
So yeah as the full part of that post says.

Black Legion counts as Black Legion for Faction
Crimson Slaughter count as Crimson Slaughter for Faction.
For instance BL could have an AD of CS or CSM.

Clan Ruukaan however class as Iron Hands, so could not AD to Iron Hands, but could AD to Ultramarines for instance.
 
21 - 40 of 40 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top