Praetors, RoWs, and Allies

[Lunar Centurion]

Basically I want to know two things. Can a Legion ally with itself? And can I take a RoW in an allied detachment? Thanks!

[Apostle of the 30th Host]

I'm pretty new to 30k, and still learning the rules myself, but I have the Legiones Astartes Red Book to hand so I will try and quote from that to support what I think is the answer to your questions.

 

Can a Legion ally with itself?

 

I do not believe so.

Assuming you are using the slightly different Age of Darkness FOC's, the red book states that multiple AoD FOC's cannot be taken as these formations have to be your Primary Detachment and you can only have one Primary Detachment (so you can take one and only one - that would be how a codex 'allies' to itself in 40k).

An Allied Detachment may be taken as well as the AoD FOC, however in the Allies Rules section it specifically refers to the Allied Detachment coming from a different Legion.

 

I would therefore take this to mean that no, you cannot ally with yourself. However, the AoD FOC has an additional HQ and Elites Choice (3 and 4, rather than 2 and 3 in 40k) and so unless you are playing a huge number of points, there should be no need to ally a Legion with itself as there is much more available in the one FoC.

 

 

Can I take a Rite of War in an Allied Detachment?

 

I would say yes for the following reasons:

 

'Only one Rites of War formation may be used by an army...and the RoW chosen only affects the force's Primary Detachment' - This first sentence refers only to a primary detachment, meaning that if you are only using that one detachment, only one RoW may be used.

 

It then goes on to say: 'However, Allied forces eligible to do so may use different Rites or none at all - effects do not carry over...' - As this statement comes second, I would imagine it overrules the first, whilst the use of 'different Rites' suggest a multiple.

 

Therefore, yes, you can include a Rite of War in both an Allied and Primary Detachment as long as the Allied Detachment meets the same criteria of having a HQ with Master of the Legion (and only 1 per 1000pts).

 

Example:

 

Primary Detachment using AoD FOC - 1500 Points using the Orbital Assault RoW

Allied Detachment - 1000 Points - Using a second RoW

 

Total points is 2500 so 2 Characters with Master of the Legion can be included. And if one of those Characters is in the Allied Detachment he may also select a Rite of War.

 

That is how I would interpret that anyway, experienced 30k players please correct if I am wrong as I would appreciate confirmation on this too.

 

*Edited to change named RoW in example - DuskRaider is in fact correct that Pride of the Legion cannot take an Allied Detachment so didn't want to confuse here.

[DuskRaider]

Depends on the Rite of War. Some do not allow Allies, so the Primary Detachment cannot take it, nor can the Allied. Pride of the Legion does not allow Allies (or Fortifications), so neither can take it. The Iron Hands Rite of War bars any allied except for Mechanicum, from what I remember.

[Lord Asvaldir]

Most of the legion specific rites of war don't allow any allies, or only allies from one faction (another example is the Word Bearers RoW that can ally with daemons). 

[Hesh Kadesh]

RAW, Rites of War cannot ever be taken, because Master of the Legion rule is only available to the Warlord if the Warlord has the Master of the Legion rule, but he can't have the Master of the Legion rule until he's a warlord, but when he becomes a warlord he doesn't gain Master of the Legion because he doesn't already have it.

 

And Rites only affect the primary detachment regardless of multiple eligible characters (which there aren't, because see before), and only affects the primary detachment, but eligible allied forces (that somehow have a Warlord to get Rites of War) may use different ones....

 

The rule is gibberish.

 

It's commonly seen to be a Primary Detachment thing only for what it's worth in our club.

[Athrawes]

Honestly I don't see anything in the rules which prohibits allying with your own legion. The rules next to the allies chart says: "In any game where the primary detachment is built using the SMLCAL and an allied detachment representing a different Legion is included... Use the allies chart" 

 

It doesn't have anything to say about a game where both the primary and allied detachments are drawn from the same legion. From the wording "In any game," it actually implies that a game could be played with a primary and allied detachment from the same legion. 

 

SO, I think you're in the clear there.

[SkimaskMohawk]

The intent is probably no for self allying, in tempest is says "Allies should be chosen using the Age of Darkness chart..." and if you look at the chart there is no icon of any sort when it comes to the same army, however it does say "should" so you can twist that however you want

[Marshal Rohr]

A Master of the Legion in the Primary Detachment can take one, a MotL in an allied detachment can take one. Simple as that. 

[LongGone]

so you can twist that however you want

Thinking like this, the wrong kind of Heresy lies therein.

[SkimaskMohawk]

 

so you can twist that however you want

Thinking like this, the wrong kind of Heresy lies therein.

 

 

I mean its all subjective; some people could probably make a fun, fluffy list with self allying and they would have a technically valid argument.

[LongGone]

There's a difference between subjective and whatever it is that causes people to start reading between the lines to dissect the verbiage to interpret the rules to make to printed characters on the page translate into whatever the damn hell they want them to.

 

Seriously, enough with the "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is". Jeebus, the mental gymnastics some people go through in order to interpret rules in their favor probably causes damage to the brain.

 

Does the ally chart have an icon to represent the relationship for same-same? No? Then people probably shouldn't ally same-same.

 

You want to ask your opponent if he's cool with your shenanigans? Cool. Go ahead. I hope he does allow it. Because reasons. The almighty 'fluff' reasons. But don't act like your unnecessarily high level of liberal hand-wavium in the general direction of the rules is somehow backed up by the books.

 

/rant

 

*note: this a generalized use of the word 'you'. The royal 'you', if you will. Not a personal attack on Ski, who I've never met, played against or even really interacted with much here on the B&C.

[Athrawes]

There's a difference between subjective and whatever it is that causes people to start reading between the lines to dissect the verbiage to interpret the rules to make to printed characters on the page translate into whatever the damn hell they want them to.

 

Seriously, enough with the "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is". Jeebus, the mental gymnastics some people go through in order to interpret rules in their favor probably causes damage to the brain.

 

Does the ally chart have an icon to represent the relationship for same-same? No? Then people probably shouldn't ally same-same.

 

You want to ask your opponent if he's cool with your shenanigans? Cool. Go ahead. I hope he does allow it. Because reasons. The almighty 'fluff' reasons. But don't act like your unnecessarily high level of liberal hand-wavium in the general direction of the rules is somehow backed up by the books.

 

/rant

 

*note: this a generalized use of the word 'you'. The royal 'you', if you will. Not a personal attack on Ski, who I've never met, played against or even really interacted with much here on the B&C.

 

This may not have been an attack directed at another member, but your tone is certainly hostile to the civil discussion that was going on in the thread. Please keep your rants to yourself, this is not the place for it.

[Doctor Perils]

LongGone, I can see what you mean, but I'm still partial to the most important rule (or what it used to be in 5th) : whatever means the most fun for all participants should be the way to go. That means that if some players wish in their gaming group to homebrew then it should not only be accepted, but even encouraged.

 

However, this does mean a fair amount of discussion into what is accepted and what isn't. And for possible gaming events, then obviously homebrews have no place.

 

Finally, Skimask Mohawk and the other people here didn't seem to be looking at this in an effort to make the cheesiest list possible: I believe they were merely trying to clarify a point in the rules so as to know what was possible or not.

[LongGone]

Yes, I will admit that it was unnecessarily hostile. I will PM Ski with an apology in atonement for my overly harsh response.

 

But I would submit to the thread, and the wider forum in general, that if your thinking on any subject concerning the rules begins with "I can twist this...," then the action that follows is probably not in the spirit of fair play, and most likely cheating.

[Hesh Kadesh]

You mean like people twisting the rules so that they can actually play Rites of War?

[LongGone]

I read your earlier post, and I'm not sure I understand your thinking. If a model with Master/Sire of the Legion in their rules profile is made the army's Warlord, they may choose to take a Rite of War. I think you're trying to draw circles where there needn't be any. They don't have to wait until they're Warlord to get Master of the Legion in their profile because it's already there, the rule just doesn't take effect unless they are the Warlord. No twisting needed.

[DuskRaider]

If a RoW says you cannot take Allies (and make sure you actually read the rule, some say just Legions which means Mechanicum and SA / IM are still good), I'd abide by that, either Primary or Allied Attachment. It's there for a reason. Mainly balance.