allies as hq?

[Sarapham]

Well if the * is an argument would not the writer simply have written something like "only a HQ selection with the *-mark may be taken for 2 HQs as 1" and

stated such in the rules.

 

Cause at the moment I think you guys are the ones pushing the boundaries of the RAW since as Grey Mage says it seems that "A HQ is a HQ is a HQ".

 

You can nowhere draw a "clear" (guess thats open to interpretaion) conclusion that you cannot take any other HQ with the same benefits however the RAW to me pretty clearly states that you can.

 

I can agree that it might be more fluffwise to only use SW HQs for the rules but the fluff also supports that the SW view all heroic people with respect, even if they have issues with WH. So heroes can come from everywhere according to them.

[TiguriusX]

Well if the * is an argument would not the writer simply have written something like "only a HQ selection with the *-mark may be taken for 2 HQs as 1" and

 

stated such in the rules. Cause at the moment I think you guys are the ones pushing the boundaries of the RAW since as Grey Mage says it seems that "A HQ is a HQ is a HQ"

 

Using that logic one could ask why the writer didn't simply write "Allies can have 2HQs as well"

 

I think we all agree the problem is the interpretation...and when we are forced to interpret someone else's work without being able to ask them (please come soon FAQ!!!) we have to rely on clues as to what they meant based on actual writings.

 

The asterisk argument is based on the fact that there is something unique with regards to our HQs and an asterisk was most likely added for a specific purpose.

 

Adding it to the FOC and nowhere else could be interpreted as "hey...read the special rule below"

Adding it to the FOC and every single page of HQs gives me pause because it was a positive act taken when making the codex...it wasn't an omission. That makes me ask why do all of our HQs have the asterisk.

 

One argument is the asterisk is there to remind us about the no cookie cutter rule. My response to that is why are we being expressly reminded of only half of the leader of the pack rule if the intent was a global rule for SW and ally armies? The global rule is covered by the initial asterisk and explanation in the FOC.

 

We may be nearing the point of circular arguments soon. There is only so much parsing we can do with our codex I fear. I'm having fun going over it with a fine toothed comb though!

[Sarapham]

Yeah I get what you are saying and we could really use that FAQ indeed, however the answer to your first question I think is the simplest.

 

They dont write "Allies can have 2 HQs as well" cause well, it already says just HQs and allied HQs are still just HQs.. simple as that.

 

But as you said right now its all interpretation and I think that in a not too distant future that the Allies-system will dissappear so maybe they did not even have it in consideration in this book based on that.

 

It´s a strange thought but even GW might have some foresight :cuss

[nurglespuss]

It´s a strange thought but even GW might have some foresight :angry:

 

Lol :nuke: I think the writers try to trust gamers to have some kind of common sense B)

 

I too can't wait for the FAQ, every single FAQ that comes out always chooses the 'sensible' 'mediated' road, so I wonder sometimes what is hoped to be achieved in these off-kilter claims :devil:

 

To the FAQ Machine!

[rahl02]

Yeah I get what you are saying and we could really use that FAQ indeed, however the answer to your first question I think is the simplest.

 

They dont write "Allies can have 2 HQs as well" cause well, it already says just HQs and allied HQs are still just HQs.. simple as that.

 

But as you said right now its all interpretation and I think that in a not too distant future that the Allies-system will dissappear so maybe they did not even have it in consideration in this book based on that.

 

It´s a strange thought but even GW might have some foresight :)

 

I think GW has been working on 6th for some time now, and are making codex's with that in mind. I even have a feeling that ALL SC and characters are going to be targetable in CC in 6th even squad upgrades. That or bring back 2nd again.

[stinkenheim]

i wouldn't say this was an 'off kilter claim' its a difference of opinion based on the wording of the rules. people like myself and grey mage are reading the rule as it appears, we are not adding any subcontext or saying that only space wolf hq's are hqs, allies aren't.

this discussion is like any others with two viewpoints on a rule.

 

i read the line 'this means in a standard mission a space wolves army may take 1, 2,3 or even 4 hq choices' as being just that. we can have up to 4 in a normal game. there is no distinction made between an allied inquisitor and the parent army in either codex. the only thing that was ever mentioned was that they cannot be the mandatory choices (hence why we couldn't take them before) and if characters required a points limit to use (like all old edition special characters) then it had to be fulfilled from the parent army and the allied stuff didn't count towards that point limit.

 

in either case there isn't going to be an agreement, so we may as well end this now and wait for an faq, until then do whatever you and your group think is right.

 

one last point if you are saying that because of an * it means only space wolf hqs, then i think if you check the FOC you cannot take any thing but space wolf hq's as the compulsory and optional HQ boxes both have an '*' next to them...

[Night Runner]

i wouldn't say this was an 'off kilter claim' its a difference of opinion based on the wording of the rules. people like myself and grey mage are reading the rule as it appears, we are not adding any subcontext or saying that only space wolf hq's are hqs, allies aren't.

this discussion is like any others with two viewpoints on a rule.

Once again, nobody said anything of the sort. Either you are not understanding what is being written or you are quoting wrongly. I went through all the posts and no one has said that allies are not HQs, just that you can take 1 ally HQ per slot and not two as in the case of Space Wolf HQ. As for adding 'subcontext', I don't know how you conlude this from the posts. Yes members have interpreted the rule and inferred differently on both sides, but no subcontext was added.

 

in either case there isn't going to be an agreement, so we may as well end this now and wait for an faq, until then do whatever you and your group think is right.

See we agree on something. ;) Who says communication doesn't work ;)

[Valerian]

It´s a strange thought but even GW might have some foresight ;)

 

Lol ;) I think the writers try to trust gamers to have some kind of common sense :P

 

I too can't wait for the FAQ, every single FAQ that comes out always chooses the 'sensible' 'mediated' road.

 

Seriously? I've lots of FAQ answers over the years that make no sense at all, and many that go clearly against RAW. I've seen them address "questions" that weren't even frequently asked while completely ignoring the issues that everyone wants/needs to be answered. Additionally, the guys tasked to construct the FAQs typically aren't the ones who wrote the codex and appear to have no clue as to what eas intended by the author.

 

On the Shrine of Knowledge front page it even says that the Errata are "hard rules", but the FAQs are nothing but "soft rules", which show how the GW folks have decided to play their games.

 

V

[Skalver]

Henceforth my Imperial Guard army will be a Space Wolves army, with no Space Wolves at all consisting entirely of a 4 HQ Imperial Guard allied contingent ;).

 

Being realistic I would say that if you were fielding SW + Alies with a standard force org you could bring:

 

4 SW HQ.

2 SW HQ and 1 Allied HQ.

2 Allied HQ.

 

The LotP rule begins with the words "In a Space Wolves army ...". Your allies are NOT in a Space Wolves army, it is impossible for them to be in a Space Wolves army because they are not in the Space Wolves army list. Instead they are in whatever army you choose as your allies but attached to a Space Wolves army for the purposes of the battle.

 

When you bring allies you do not combine all the units into one giant army list from which you pick your force. Instead you choose two small armies and use them as a single force, each unit is chosen from their own individual army lists and are part of that army. That means you allocate slots from your force organisation chart to each individual army and use them to pick units for that army. If you do that then this is never an issue.

 

So just note the distinction between a Force and an Army. Units will always be part of the same Army, they just can share a Force with units from another Army if you are using them as allies.

[Sarapham]

Henceforth my Imperial Guard army will be a Space Wolves army, with no Space Wolves at all consisting entirely of a 4 HQ Imperial Guard allied contingent :o.

 

Being realistic I would say that if you were fielding SW + Alies with a standard force org you could bring:

 

4 SW HQ.

2 SW HQ and 1 Allied HQ.

2 Allied HQ.

 

The LotP rule begins with the words "In a Space Wolves army ...". Your allies are NOT in a Space Wolves army, it is impossible for them to be in a Space Wolves army because they are not in the Space Wolves army list. Instead they are in whatever army you choose as your allies but attached to a Space Wolves army for the purposes of the battle.

 

When you bring allies you do not combine all the units into one giant army list from which you pick your force. Instead you choose two small armies and use them as a single force, each unit is chosen from their own individual army lists and are part of that army. That means you allocate slots from your force organisation chart to each individual army and use them to pick units for that army. If you do that then this is never an issue.

 

 

Actually the allies would still be part of the SW army in the field.

 

It is an Army list of SW WITH Allies in it.. not a SW list AND Allies list.. therefore they are in the same army. However if you ally in SW in your DH army then you would not get 2-for-1 because its a DH army with space wovles in it.

[Skalver]

Actually the allies would still be part of the SW army in the field.

 

It is an Army list of SW WITH Allies in it.. not a SW list AND Allies list.. therefore they are in the same army. However if you ally in SW in your DH army then you would not get 2-for-1 because its a DH army with space wovles in it.

 

The rules use the word Force to refer to an army in the field. They deliberately do not call it an Army Organisation Chart.

 

That Inquisitor may be attached to a Space Wolf force, he may be under the authority of a Space Wolf lord but he is not and can not ever be considered part of the Space Wolves Army.

[Grey Mage]

So to me (and the reasonable number of HQ's camp) the max no. of HQ's you could have, if allied, would be 2 Space Wolves HQ's and 1 allied HQ, together filling the 2 available HQ slots. I think any other interpretation really is pushing the boundaries of RAW. The best (if there is one) way to use RAW is think of it from an independent persons view, who knows nothing of 40k. Would they reach the conclusion that a 'special rule' for one army, would extend to encompass the rules for 'another army', even if allied? I don't think you can honestly answer yes to that!!

Actually, I asked my neighbor, who has a passing familiarity with WW RPGs, my GF, who plays Fantasy, and 52 year old cop *my downstairs neighbor* and they all seemed to think that 4 was the simple answer... because you had two, and then each 2 could take to- so as the neighbor girl said "Two times two is four".

 

Well if the * is an argument would not the writer simply have written something like "only a HQ selection with the *-mark may be taken for 2 HQs as 1" and

 

stated such in the rules. Cause at the moment I think you guys are the ones pushing the boundaries of the RAW since as Grey Mage says it seems that "A HQ is a HQ is a HQ"

 

Using that logic one could ask why the writer didn't simply write "Allies can have 2HQs as well"

 

I think we all agree the problem is the interpretation...and when we are forced to interpret someone else's work without being able to ask them (please come soon FAQ!!!) we have to rely on clues as to what they meant based on actual writings.

 

The asterisk argument is based on the fact that there is something unique with regards to our HQs and an asterisk was most likely added for a specific purpose.

 

Adding it to the FOC and nowhere else could be interpreted as "hey...read the special rule below"

Adding it to the FOC and every single page of HQs gives me pause because it was a positive act taken when making the codex...it wasn't an omission. That makes me ask why do all of our HQs have the asterisk.

 

One argument is the asterisk is there to remind us about the no cookie cutter rule. My response to that is why are we being expressly reminded of only half of the leader of the pack rule if the intent was a global rule for SW and ally armies? The global rule is covered by the initial asterisk and explanation in the FOC.

 

We may be nearing the point of circular arguments soon. There is only so much parsing we can do with our codex I fear. I'm having fun going over it with a fine toothed comb though!

1) If you said "Allies can take 2 HQs per slot aswell" that would imply that we could take TWO HQs from ONE allied codex, something no one else can do. That would be very very odd, and frankly, unnessecairy.

2) Yes, the asterisk usually marks something unusual, something special, and for a purpose- the part where none of our HQs can have the same equipment and how we can have twice as many of them, as a reminder. It doesnt mean "these with asterisks are the only ones who are covered by this". IE- our allies also cannot have identical wargear to our commanders, and we can take an additional HQ using the same slot as the allied one.

3) And my counterpoint is that its because apparently the author of the book felt that there was ALOT of beardiness that could be done if you "photocopied" SW HQs. So if it was important to him that the rule be there, its also apparently important to him that the rule be followed, and thus seen.

[Wildfire]

It seems a lot of you are saying that RAW says one thing, but that you don't beleive that it was intended that way. So settle between your playing groups how you want to deal with the RAW vs. RAI dilemma, and drive on. If you're participating in an event, contact the organizers prior to submitting your list and don't try to rely on the internet to give you the answer.

 

Honestly, this is the kind of argument that won't be solved short of a very specific FAQ (and sometimes not even then).

[Oldenhaller]

I'll go with trying to break down the rule into it's two onstituent parts...the wolf list which will refer to itself and only itself and then to the allied inquisitor rule which then affects that list.

 

Under The force organisation chart the first thing we see is a standard mission lay out. Two HQ, six troops etc etc etc. The cumposulsory choices are given to us and then the addional choices also. It is here under the HQ listings that the first asterix is found. Below this under '*The Leaders of the pack' we see the asterix that this is refering to (also the conviniently followed by each HQ list later in the army list) which tells us what the rule does. It states that;

 

In a space wolves army each HQ 'slot' allows you to take up to two HQ choices.

We've been shown by the FOC what a HQ is and we've been shown that all the HQ choices in the Space wolves army book are covered by this, however this cannot cover all rules in all codecies so we now look at the rule for Allies within C:WH and C:DH

 

The rules within C:DH (it's the one I had to hand) state the following;

 

- Which armies are able to take the allies

* The wolves are included here

- Which rules don't apply to the sneeky dark angels

* showing that exceptions are in the additional rules from the allied codex

- How many choices are available to the allied army

* showing the use of choices and what is available

- That the compulsory choices need to come from the 'parent' list

* showing we need to take our 'heros' to actually lead the army

 

In each instance here it can be seen that it refers to HQ choices and this matches the wording of '*the Leaders of the pack' rule. As allying allows you to take additional HQ 'choices' from this additional list this then effectivly adds them as HQ choices which can be taken as part of the HQ slots for your army whilst still allowing for the Leaders of the pack.

 

IMO at any rate

 

Hope this helps

 

~O

[TiguriusX]

one last point if you are saying that because of an * it means only space wolf hqs, then i think if you check the FOC you cannot take any thing but space wolf hq's as the compulsory and optional HQ boxes both have an '*' next to them...

 

That is a good observation.

 

I would say it is likely that the SW Codex was written in a vacuum without regards to ally armies and your conclusion is correct...SW purity FOC is a reasonable conclusion.

 

The confusion regarding ally HQs stems from the fact that allies come from a different set of rules (which were generously provided in another post)

[TiguriusX]

1) If you said "Allies can take 2 HQs per slot aswell" that would imply that we could take TWO HQs from ONE allied codex, something no one else can do. That would be very very odd, and frankly, unnessecairy.

 

It seems you agree that the result doesn't make sense but are arguing it is allowable

 

With the broad RAW argument being discussed scenario 1) is exactly what becomes acceptable

 

Multiple HQs are allowed from SW/Ally for a total of 2HQ per 1HQ FOC slot without regards to where those HQs come from.

[JamesI]

It seems a lot of you are saying that RAW says one thing, but that you don't beleive that it was intended that way. So settle between your playing groups how you want to deal with the RAW vs. RAI dilemma, and drive on. If you're participating in an event, contact the organizers prior to submitting your list and don't try to rely on the internet to give you the answer.

 

Honestly, this is the kind of argument that won't be solved short of a very specific FAQ (and sometimes not even then).

I consider this a situation where RAW and RAI (what I think RAI is) differ. I don't think the wolves are intended to be able to take an Inquisitor Lord from both WH and DH, but RAW makes it legal and is it really a big deal if a wolf player wants to bring 2 Inquisitor Lords or a Grey Knight hero and a Sisters hero?

[Skalver]

I said it before and I'll say it again.

 

DH or WH allies are NOT in a Space Wolf Army. They are in a DH or WH army that is used as part of a single combined force along with Space Wolves. Do you see any Inquisitors in C:SW? Of course not because there are no inquisitors in a Space Wolves army. The LotP rule only applies to models in a Space Wolves army. People should stop trying to use Army to mean either Army or Force whenever it suits them. The two words are used very differently in the rules for a good reason. Allies are in the same force but not in the same army and as such allied characters will always take up 1 HQ slot for 1 character.

 

Look in the C:DH text, it says force or forces everywhere. At no point does it say that the DH units are part of the other army. They are still in the DH army but share a force with the SW or whoever else.

[Grey Mage]

I said it before and I'll say it again.

 

DH or WH allies are NOT in a Space Wolf Army. They are in a DH or WH army that is used as part of a single combined force along with Space Wolves. Do you see any Inquisitors in C:SW? Of course not because there are no inquisitors in a Space Wolves army. The LotP rule only applies to models in a Space Wolves army. People should stop trying to use Army to mean either Army or Force whenever it suits them. The two words are used very differently in the rules for a good reason. Allies are in the same force but not in the same army and as such allied characters will always take up 1 HQ slot for 1 character.

 

Look in the C:DH text, it says force or forces everywhere. At no point does it say that the DH units are part of the other army. They are still in the DH army but share a force with the SW or whoever else.

A force is an army. They are part of the same "Detachment" as they are on one FOC. It really is that simple.

[nurglespuss]

Its not; and so the FAQ (alas cannot rely on common sense) is the only ultimate hope (on gaming forums anyway, not in the realy world :) )

[Grey Mage]

Its not; and so the FAQ (alas cannot rely on common sense) is the only ultimate hope (on gaming forums anyway, not in the realy world :) )

Remember Nurglepuss, your real world and mine differ- in my neck of the woods, common sense runs that an HQ is an HQ, and if you get two per slot it doesnt matter where they come from.

[nurglespuss]

I spent a while there writing a very witty, but highly sarcastic response, then common sense kicked in. Its only a game, no one outside of internet land would countenance it, I'll wait for the (unnecessary) but inevitable FAQ, to prove me right.

[stinkenheim]

@ james I, actually iyou are only allowed 1 allied army. you can't take units from both WH and DH as that would mean you have 2 allies.

 

@TiguriusX i agree with you, i think when c:SW was written they didn't consider any other rules interacting with it (allies for instance). also considering DH/WH are such old codexes now it is likely they were either forgotten, or if they are being worked on then the allies rule is no more.

 

in all honesty though, is it game breaking or cheating, or even pushing the limits of the rules. No. allies, whilst useful, have never been an often used or overly powerful addition to an army. i think this is one of those discussions which is best left until a solid answer is given by GW. in the mean time houserule it with your friends or you group and play games because the chances of coming across allies in an army are low.

[JamesI]

You are allowed to take allies from WH and DH.

[marshalblackmane]

Yeah I get what you are saying and we could really use that FAQ indeed, however the answer to your first question I think is the simplest.

 

They dont write "Allies can have 2 HQs as well" cause well, it already says just HQs and allied HQs are still just HQs.. simple as that.

 

But as you said right now its all interpretation and I think that in a not too distant future that the Allies-system will dissappear so maybe they did not even have it in consideration in this book based on that.

 

It´s a strange thought but even GW might have some foresight ;)

 

I think GW has been working on 6th for some time now, and are making codex's with that in mind. I even have a feeling that ALL SC and characters are going to be targetable in CC in 6th even squad upgrades. That or bring back 2nd again.

 

 

lol I don't think so, 6th edition is a ways away still and when it does come around it probaly won't address squad specials at all. As far as 2nd edition is concerned, it will never return, just let it go man. Really everything you said seems like wishes