Jump to content

Welcome to The Bolter and Chainsword
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

B&C Stance on non PA Allies


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
117 replies to this topic

#101
Gentlemanloser

Gentlemanloser

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • +EXCOMMUNICATUS+
  • 14,653 posts

So it's not possible, at all, to discuss an army that is Marines Primary with IG Allies using the Tau dataslate?  How will this effect Knights?

 

I'm not keen on the restriction of no Primary Inquisitorial armies, I've made a couple of 6 LR / 13 Rhino/Chimera lists using it, that are game legal, but would be unable to be discussed here.

 

Especially as we're still lumping C: Inquisition in with the GK forum.

 

These seem overly restrictive, in as much as I still feel the stance is too restrictive anyway.


QUOTE (Seahawk @ Jul 30 2011, 05:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how things are written.

#102
Brother Tyler

Brother Tyler

    ++ FIDELIS MILITUS ++

  • +++ADMINISTRATUM+++
  • 19,193 posts

Knights are okay.


gallery_26_548_13550.pnggallery_26_6416_0.gifgallery_26_548_4494.png


#103
Cyrox

Cyrox

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,920 posts
Will we be allowed to showcase our Imperial Knights in the WIP section or the Hall of Honour?

"I remember when Ragnar Blackmane had blond hair and this was aaaallll fields....."

gallery_60566_6038_4617.gif tn_gallery_60566_6038_42067.jpg gallery_60566_6038_1993.gif


#104
Gentlemanloser

Gentlemanloser

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • +EXCOMMUNICATUS+
  • 14,653 posts

Knights are okay.

 

Will they be getting their own subforum?  Can we discuss Primary Knight armies?  Can we discuss Knight + Eldar armies?

 

This issue will just continue to get deeper and deeper, the more that GW continue to mess with factions and allies.


QUOTE (Seahawk @ Jul 30 2011, 05:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how things are written.

#105
Brother Tyler

Brother Tyler

    ++ FIDELIS MILITUS ++

  • +++ADMINISTRATUM+++
  • 19,193 posts

How/where knights will be discussed is a matter for later decision once we have a better understanding of what GW is going to give them and once we can forecast their impact on the site.

 

Actually, we've already begun the discussion among the mods/admins, but we're not going to rush into a premature decision.


gallery_26_548_13550.pnggallery_26_6416_0.gifgallery_26_548_4494.png


#106
Gentlemanloser

Gentlemanloser

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • +EXCOMMUNICATUS+
  • 14,653 posts

There's Legion of the Damned now, who will be able to be a Primary detachment.

 

http://natfka.blogsp...detachment.html


QUOTE (Seahawk @ Jul 30 2011, 05:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how things are written.

#107
Brother Tyler

Brother Tyler

    ++ FIDELIS MILITUS ++

  • +++ADMINISTRATUM+++
  • 19,193 posts

And the Legion of the Damned are currently covered well enough in the Angels of Death forum.


gallery_26_548_13550.pnggallery_26_6416_0.gifgallery_26_548_4494.png


#108
Jolemai

Jolemai

    ++ CERDONIS CÆDIS ++

  • ++ MODERATI ++
  • 12,424 posts
Shouldn't the Imperial Knights be covered in the Ad Mech forum?

gallery_62972_14467_5178.jpggallery_62972_14467_1351.jpgETL_2018_Medal_04_ETL_Magister.gifETL_2018_Medal_03_Primus_Interpares_01.gETL_VI_Banner_Dominus_Exercitus_Blood_AnETL_2018_Medal_01_Custos_Fidei_03.gifETL_Medal_05.gifgallery_62972_14467_4151.jpggallery_62972_14467_3390.jpg

Blogs Blood Angels| Veritas Vitae | Battle Reports | Terrain | IXth Legion | Miscellaneous Imperials
1000 Scout list W:0 D:0 L:3
1250 Death Company List (jump)  W:0 D:0 L:0
1500 Light Mech List W:0 D:0 L:0 Dreadnought List W:0 D:0 L:1
1750 Hybrid List W:1 D:0 L:0
1850 Death Company List (mech) W:0 D:0 L:0
2000 Heavy Mech List W:0 D:0 L:0 Two Towers List W:1 D:0 L:0
Apocalypse W:1 D:0 L:0

#109
Brother Tyler

Brother Tyler

    ++ FIDELIS MILITUS ++

  • +++ADMINISTRATUM+++
  • 19,193 posts
That is one of the options we're considering. There are others, though, and we want to evaluate the issue methodically, waiting to see the full scope of what GW provides and the (perceived) impacts on the site.

gallery_26_548_13550.pnggallery_26_6416_0.gifgallery_26_548_4494.png


#110
Gentlemanloser

Gentlemanloser

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • +EXCOMMUNICATUS+
  • 14,653 posts

Apologies Brother Tyler, I think I might has misread one of the new rules;

 

 Note that an Inquisitorial Detachment doesn't count as a primary detachment.

 

I totally agree not counting the Inquisitorial detachment as a Primary detachment, but Codex: Inquisition can also be taken as a Primary detachment.

 

It's ok to discuss an Inquisitiorial army when it is taken as a Primary detachment and not an Inquisitorial detachment, isn't it?

 

Sorry for the confusion.


QUOTE (Seahawk @ Jul 30 2011, 05:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how things are written.

#111
Nusquam

Nusquam

    ++ OBSCURITAS IMMISERICORS ++

  • ++ MODERATI CEDO ++
  • 2,639 posts

Apologies Brother Tyler, I think I might has misread one of the new rules;

 

 

 Note that an Inquisitorial Detachment doesn't count as a primary detachment.

 

I totally agree not counting the Inquisitorial detachment as a Primary detachment, but Codex: Inquisition can also be taken as a Primary detachment.

 

It's ok to discuss an Inquisitiorial army when it is taken as a Primary detachment and not an Inquisitorial detachment, isn't it?

 

Sorry for the confusion.

 

I raised an eyebrow at this too.


Edited by Nusquam, 25 February 2014 - 10:15 AM.


#112
Gentlemanloser

Gentlemanloser

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • +EXCOMMUNICATUS+
  • 14,653 posts

I see the issue, you can field a legit Primary Inquisition army of a single 25 point Inquisitor.  Then load up on Tau Riptide datasheets.  A problem with C:I having it's own radically different FoC to everyone else.

 

Thing is, there's interest and help requests for primary Inquisition armies.  There's currently one in the Grey Knight forum.


QUOTE (Seahawk @ Jul 30 2011, 05:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how things are written.

#113
Brother Tyler

Brother Tyler

    ++ FIDELIS MILITUS ++

  • +++ADMINISTRATUM+++
  • 19,193 posts

This is an area where the identity of the board came into play. While an Inquisitorial Detachment can be taken as a Primary Detachment, we wanted to avoid the shenanigans you've described. To correct a point you've made, under are relationship rule for Allied Detachments, only the Eldar would qualify (Tau are desperate allies and ineligible for discussion with an Inquisitorial Detachment taken as a primary detachment). We didn't want hordes of Wraithknights led by a lone Inquisitor, though.

To be fair, we may change the ruling a bit since we really shouldn't make the decision on the basis of filthy xenos alone. I'll get back with you ...


gallery_26_548_13550.pnggallery_26_6416_0.gifgallery_26_548_4494.png


#114
Gentlemanloser

Gentlemanloser

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • +EXCOMMUNICATUS+
  • 14,653 posts

Awesome!  Thanks for the future consideration! :)


QUOTE (Seahawk @ Jul 30 2011, 05:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how things are written.

#115
Brother Tyler

Brother Tyler

    ++ FIDELIS MILITUS ++

  • +++ADMINISTRATUM+++
  • 19,193 posts

Okay, we've discussed our options and have come to a decision.

 

The site rules for discussion of Inquisition armies are going to be adjusted to bring them in line with the other armies.

 

Inquisitorial armies as primary detachments may be discussed. However, if the allied detachment is not a codex covered by the B&C, the Inquisition primary detachment must include at least two elites choices.

 

Basis for the change:

 

First, it's unfair to exclude the Inquisition as a primary detachment because GW allows such to be done. More importantly, the Inquisition as a primary detachment can be done with a codex that we discuss as the allied detachment (e.g., Imperial Guard). Such armies are perfectly valid here at the B&C as they remain in keeping with the site identity.

 

Second, the artificial requirement for two elites slots when allied with xenos (Eldar being the only valid case), puts Inquisitorial primary detachments on par with the other codices covered here. This is an increase from the official requirements, but the purpose is to provide some degree of freedom to players while maintaining the site's basic identity. Two alternate options were to either prohibit Eldar allied detachments entirely or allow them to go whole hog, both of which had drawbacks (just as this option does, admittedly). In the end, this requirement is a compromise solution that should work well enough for most, while we know that it will be objectionable to some (on both sides of the issue). This still allows for things like a minimum-sized Inquisition-based primary detachment with a much larger (i.e., more expensive) Eldar-based allied detachment, but this sort of "abuse" can be done with any other army that we discuss here at the B&C so we don't want to create too many exceptional allowances for the Inquisition that would be discriminatory.

 

Note that the requirement for dataslate formations to at least be from the allied detachment still stands, so you can't take an Inquisitor and two Stormtrooper squads for your primary detachment, a minimum-sized Eldar-based allied detachment, and a bunch of Tau formations.


gallery_26_548_13550.pnggallery_26_6416_0.gifgallery_26_548_4494.png


#116
Gentlemanloser

Gentlemanloser

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • +EXCOMMUNICATUS+
  • 14,653 posts

Thanks!

 

Just a clarification on Dataslate being the same race as allies, is it ok to discuss Imperial differences?

 

Like an army that is;

 

Primary: GK, Allied: IG, Dataslate: Space Marine

 

Does this also hold for Detachments?

 

Like the following army;

 

Primary: GK, Allied: IG, Dataslate: Space Marine, Deatchment: Inquisition, Detachment: Knight

 

Or are these totally banned?


Edited by Gentlemanloser, 27 February 2014 - 11:32 AM.

QUOTE (Seahawk @ Jul 30 2011, 05:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how things are written.

#117
Brother Tyler

Brother Tyler

    ++ FIDELIS MILITUS ++

  • +++ADMINISTRATUM+++
  • 19,193 posts
The intent of the dataslate formation rules (the B&C rules for them, not the official ones), is that dataslate formations will be from either the primary or allied detachments. Some of GW's dataslates include a provision that they must match the primary detachment (and it's possible that some must match the allied detachment, but I haven't seen all of the dataslates). Examples of this are in the Escalation supplement. If GW hasn't included a provision that the dataslate must match one of the detachments, then the B&C requires that the dataslate must at least match one of the detachments if the dataslate is for a formation not covered by the B&C. Since our requirement is that the primary detachment must be from a codex covered by the B&C, this means that a xenos-based dataslate formation must be from the same codex as the allied detachment. So you can discuss an army that has the GK as primary, IG as allied, and knight formation (all three are covered under the rubric of the B&C); but you can't discuss an army that has the GK as primary, IG as allied, with a wraithknight formation; or an army that has the Ultramarines as primary, Eldar as allied, and riptides; etc.

Basically, when the codices are covered by the B&C, anything legal goes; but when a codex that isn't covered by the B&C is included, there are some additional requirements we have in order to maintain the site's basic identity.

gallery_26_548_13550.pnggallery_26_6416_0.gifgallery_26_548_4494.png


#118
Gentlemanloser

Gentlemanloser

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • +EXCOMMUNICATUS+
  • 14,653 posts

Basically, when the codices are covered by the B&C, anything legal goes

 

Awesome!


QUOTE (Seahawk @ Jul 30 2011, 05:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how things are written.