Fortifications + Allies

[K3nn3rs]

If I took a bunker / firestorm redoubt in my primary detachment could allied units go in it / on it? (Assume it’s empty)

[Hesh Kadesh]

Ask opponent/judges.

 

The way Fortification Detachments are written make them a part of seperate detachment in the chart and are in a wierd black hole when it comes to how the new allies rules work.

[K3nn3rs]

Thanks Hesh Kadesh

 

The theme of the list is to have a militia outpost (bastion / firestorm dedoubt and added barricades) which, when under attack, is rapidly reinforced with Imperial Fists (all Armoured or drop Pod/ deep-strike).

 

IF will be the primary detachment + the fortification

Militia will be the allies but will man the fortification.

 

I don’t think it’s particularly powerful so hopefully it will be fine!

[Gorgoff]

I don't think you can do that because fortifications are part of the detachment you buy them with. At least in the legion army list.

Don't have the rulebook with me.

[Unknown Legionnaire]

Bit of a gray area really.

 

From their depiction on the FOC (both in the AoD Legions and the most recent AoD Rulebook) they seem to be seperate from the primary detachment.

 

From the way the text reads (for what little it offers) they seem to be part of the primary detachment though, not unlike a LoW choice.

[Gorgoff]

But there is the faint dotted line, connecting the fortification box with the detachment.

That means something, no?

[Hesh Kadesh]

That means something, no?

The latter.

[Gorgoff]

 

That means something, no?

The latter.

But why?

[Hesh Kadesh]

 

 

That means something, no?

The latter.

But why?

 

Because FW can't write rules properly.

 

Nothing is preventing you from taking a Lord of War of a different Faction to that of a Primary Faction. RAW, Only intra-detachment do units need to have the same Faction. There is also the fact that it can be extrapolated from Allied Detachments allowing factions to be different, but that isn't very clear. I.e, it doesn't say that Lord of War or Fortifications must be of the same faction. It also says that the Lord of War must be chosen from the Primary Detachment, and quite clearly the Lord of War Detachment is a seperate Detachment, and yet a Primarch requires to a Warlord of an army, while being unable to RAW be a Commander.

 

But then you get the error of what Faction are Buildings? Are they any faction? Are they every faction? Are they no faction? The consensus tends to rule that Fortifications and Lords of War detachments are actually a part of the Prmary Detachment, and that the Allied Detachment is seperate, because that's easier.

 

FW can't write rules for toffee.

[Gorgoff]

In my book it say "Lords of War are only available to an army's primary detachment".

Don't know where you see jiggle room there.

 

Fortifacations are somewhat in a grey area though, but since is is not allowed to put allies in the primary detachments transports I don't see why it should be possible for fortifications.

[Unknown Legionnaire]

In my book it say "Lords of War are only available to an army's primary detachment".

Don't know where you see jiggle room there.

 

Fortifacations are somewhat in a grey area though, but since is is not allowed to put allies in the primary detachments transports I don't see why it should be possible for fortifications.

 

You got it.

[Hesh Kadesh]

The Lord of War is explicitly a seperate detachment, page 123, HH rulebook.

[Gorgoff]

The Lord of War is explicitly a seperate detachment, page 123, HH rulebook.

Huh?

In my HH rulebook on page 123 are the rules for a crashed Imperial Lander.

[Hesh Kadesh]

May have mistyped. Will double check when i get home.

[Gorgoff]

May have mistyped. Will double check when i get home.

Ahhhh, found it on page 132!

Doesn't override the sentence from the Army List. It is an own detachment but it belongs to the primary detachment just like a dedicated transport is an own unit but belongs to the unit it was bought for.

No conflict there.

[Apostle of the 30th Host]

I can definitely see both sides, but I always thought that the fortification could be used by both the primary and allied detachment. It is basically just a terrain piece anyway.

 

- The idea that it is Primary only as it is attached to the Primary Detachment doesn't seem right to me as the Allied Detachment is also attached to the Primary Detachment. They are all just optional additions to the basic FoC

 

- I think the key to this is the Sacrificial Offering RoW. Effectively, you have to take a Militia and Cults allied detachment and Fortification, which have to begin the game deployed, while the Primary Detachment is in reserve. I think it is pretty clear the intention is that they set up on the fortification to hold it, while the primary detachment ambushes them. In all fairness, they haven't explained that very well, but that seems to be the intention, which would suggest that is the case in general (as there is no explicit 'this RoW lets allied forces use the fortification when they normally can't').

[Hesh Kadesh]

I can definitely see both sides, but I always thought that the fortification could be used by both the primary and allied detachment. It is basically just a terrain piece anyway.

 

- The idea that it is Primary only as it is attached to the Primary Detachment doesn't seem right to me as the Allied Detachment is also attached to the Primary Detachment. They are all just optional additions to the basic FoC

 

- I think the key to this is the Sacrificial Offering RoW. Effectively, you have to take a Militia and Cults allied detachment and Fortification, which have to begin the game deployed, while the Primary Detachment is in reserve. I think it is pretty clear the intention is that they set up on the fortification to hold it, while the primary detachment ambushes them. In all fairness, they haven't explained that very well, but that seems to be the intention, which would suggest that is the case in general (as there is no explicit 'this RoW lets allied forces use the fortification when they normally can't').

 

Questioning why FW write rules the way they do is one of my favourite past times. And "urgh, Book 6" is also my thought on Sacrificial Offering.

 

Not sure where the "Lords of War are only available to an army's primary detachment"; some further digging specifically states that Primarchs taken may only be taken if it's the same Space Marine Legion as the Primary Detachment, and the same for "The Great Beast", "Monstrous Horde", and "Sub-Orbital Strike Wing" (the latter with the caveat it can alternatively appear in the Panoply of War list). Engine of Destruction allows for single SH with 9+ HP from the Primary Detachment list, Mechanicum Taghmata Titans, or the "optional list of Super Heavies" (i.e Panoply of War); War Machine Squadron allows for 1-2 SH of <8 HP from the Primary Detachment or the Panoply of War. It completely neglects to mention AV15 Buildings, but later in the book refers to them, while presenting the list on page 130 as being a finite list of what's available.

 

FW books are horribly written, and horribly edited (in a first world problems, kind of way, that doesn't really affect friendly play, but would be nice to actually have a codified list of "this is what is" allowed)

 

While each individual option specifically states that they have some limitation on being taken, that is a far cry to say that it is a part of the Primary Detachment (unless I've missed it in my Ctrl+F of the OCR'd doc I have, distinct possibility).

 

FW have messed up the rules regarding detachments and alliances so much that it is absolutely impossible to tell.

 

FW need to rebuild this game from the ground up to get rid of these rules deficiencies.

[K3nn3rs]

So opinion is divided on RAI / RAW.

 

From a gaming perspective - would you say it was over powered / ‘gamey’?

 

Use my example of militia (Allies) occupying the primary detachments Imperial Fists fortification.