Allies across faction

[ageofpaddsmar]

A friend asked me this and I wasn't 100% on how to answer. My first instinct was no you can't do it but looking at the allie rules Im not so sure. 

Here goes. Can an army of ironjawz take bile troggoths as allies. 

Ironjawz can take troggoths as allies. Bile troggoths have troggoth key word. Allies rules dont mention faction. 

Can someone tell me he can't do and explain why. 

[Stroke]

7 hours ago, BaldoBeardo said:

Please provide citation. I've already searched the rules, so I've misinterpreted or just plain missed something.

For the record, I don't agree it should be possible.

But I can't find a categorical rebuttal.

Especially as GW confirmed that it *is* actually a keywords game (StD/Chaos Powers) where there's a conflict.

I did in my first post it's pg76. The allies rules it clearly states that you pick allies from ALLEGIANCES 

[Stroke]

Raw you can take bile troggoths in destruction due to ****** rules writing I see how you can get there now. So in friendly match play I would allow it but in all major tourns here in the US so far they've carries over the all warscrolls must be from the same GA like ghb1

[BaldoBeardo]

8 hours ago, Stroke said:

If you think somehow this allows you to cross GA then good luck to you. I would not allow it in a friendly matched play game or as a to in one of my tournament. Where does the raw point to how these guys have played it? A community article in reference to allegiance abilities. Sorry that's not raw.

This was kinda my point. GHB16 explicitly stated your whole army had to be from the same GA. GHB17 does not.

The StD/Chaos issue means that not only are the faction lists in GHB17 not sacrosanct, but they can also be taken as interchangeable with keywords in some instances. The fact this hasn't been properly codified only makes it worse.

Forgeworld models being absent from the relevant GHB lists is also a problem in that regard, because it just increases the number of "official exceptions".

Like I said, this is dumb, and just deepens my belief that Forge world should stick to making pretty models and leave the ruleset alone.

But if you start with Ironjawz allegiance and the belief that 'TROGGOTHS' is a keyword rather than a faction.. There's *nothing* in the rules that prevents you taking them.

Which is stupid.

[someone2040]

6 hours ago, TheOtherJosh said:

However, as an example, there is no “Allegiance: Monsters of Chaos”

There does happen to be a Pitched Battle Faction list with that name ... but no Allegiance.  Having “Faction:” keywords would really help... but we don’t have those.

This isn't quite correct as GW updated all the Monsters of Chaos keywords when the whole Chaos allies debacle came up:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/10/15/chaos-warscroll-updatesgw-homepage-post-4/

I really hope that GW clear up the writing of how allies are selected. I'm of the opinion that actually people play it as both. 

For example:

Plenty of people ally in Grot War Artillery. This does not have the Gitmob Grots keyword, so the only plausible reason this may be valid is because it's under the Gitmob Grots faction in the GHB2017.

Plenty of people ally in Sayl the Faithless. He belongs to the Tamurkhan's Horde faction, but people ally him on the basis of being allowed to use Slaves to Darkness allies.

 

A combination of both, wouldn't actually be an issue except you get this weird case where racial keywords are also being used as faction keywords (pretty stupid if you ask me). It also wouldn't be a problem, except there's a weird ommission in the GHB of actually stating you need to select all your warscrolls from a single grand alliance. This is implied all over the place, but never strictly said as far as I could find.

 

Anyway. At the end of the day, I would not be trying to pull in models from other grand alliances in matched play. This will most likely be FAQed or the writing updated in the next GHB to make this perfectly clear. I even get this feeling that it was mentioned specifically under GHB2016, but I don't have my copy available to check.

[Stroke]

If you think somehow this allows you to cross GA then good luck to you. I would not allow it in a friendly matched play game or as a to in one of my tournament. Where does the raw point to how these guys have played it? A community article in reference to allegiance abilities. Sorry that's not raw.

[TheOtherJosh]

37 minutes ago, Stroke said:

You are  100% right it could be clearer but for matched play a little common sense would go a long way with this one I think. I agree that in open do whatever you please. And I believe pitch battle title/allegiance are the same thing by inference.

Unfortunately, inference is what got us TROGGOTH in multiple grand alliances  And belief and Rules as Intended doesn’t fix folks who are trying to wrap their heads around Rules as Written ... when the two don’t match. (And then are conflicting.)

For a good portion of the Allegiances they’re identical in name and Pitched Battle Faction. The serious confusion comes in with those that aren’t... If they made them the same ... and then FAQ’d the issue.

The new Maggotkin of Nurgle looked like it is pointing in that direction ... but the lack of KEYWORD bold is concerning (especially with references to Khorne and Slaanesh not keyworded.)

[Stroke]

46 minutes ago, TheOtherJosh said:

Yes ... it does.

However, as an example, there is no “Allegiance: Monsters of Chaos”

There does happen to be a Pitched Battle Faction list with that name ... but no Allegiance.  Having “Faction:” keywords would really help... but we don’t have those.

So, the key piece to this is that “Troggoths” as listed are referring to the Pitched Battle Faction Profile List of “Troggoths”. If it actually was a keyword, it would be in KEYWORD bold. (And in all caps.)

You are  100% right it could be clearer but for matched play a little common sense would go a long way with this one I think. I agree that in open do whatever you please. And I believe pitch battle title/allegiance are the same thing by inference.

[TheOtherJosh]

11 minutes ago, Stroke said:

I did in my first post it's pg76. The allies rules it clearly states that you pick allies from ALLEGIANCES 

Yes ... it does.

However, as an example, there is no “Allegiance: Monsters of Chaos”

There does happen to be a Pitched Battle Faction list with that name ... but no Allegiance.  Having “Faction:” keywords would really help... but we don’t have those.

The reference to “it being keywords” was from a post on Warhammer Community, asking how to determine if a unit was able to take a specific Allegiance ability... but the keywords piece was never FAQ’d. It was informative, not normative. (See Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative under the “Standards Documents” section)

So, the key piece to this is that “Troggoths” as listed are referring to the Pitched Battle Faction Profile List of “Troggoths”. If it actually was a keyword, it would be in KEYWORD bold. (And in all caps.)

That being said ... this is your game. If you’re just playing amongst friends, who are we to tell you what your army rules creations are? And if you play OPEN ... throw some models down on the table and rock on!

If you’re playing Pitched Battles then:

“The first step in picking an army is choosing its allegiance (see page 116). All of the units in the army must either have that allegiance, or be allied to that allegiance (see Allies, page 76)” (this section really only works for Allegiances that have the exact same name as their Pitched Battle Faction list ...) 

So, in the end, Bile Troggoths (If your playing group decides to go the permissive route and let them take the unit) would get no benefit from Any ironjawz, or Destruction Allegiance Ability...

[Stroke]

Tamrukand horde is not on ironjaws allies chart it is that simple

[BaldoBeardo]

1 hour ago, Stroke said:

This is patently wrong please re read the allies rules

Please provide citation. I've already searched the rules, so I've misinterpreted or just plain missed something.

For the record, I don't agree it should be possible.

But I can't find a categorical rebuttal.

Especially as GW confirmed that it *is* actually a keywords game (StD/Chaos Powers) where there's a conflict.

[Stroke]

On 1/24/2018 at 2:52 AM, BaldoBeardo said:

Allies are a keywords game, so he's correct.

However, as Bile Troggoths are missing the DESTRUCTION keyword (they're CHAOS) just be careful with abilities and buffs etc.

Previously all units in an army had to be from the same grand alliance, but I can't find that stated explicitly in the GHB17 - I'm guessing because the allies rules superseded.

This is patently wrong please re read the allies rules

[Stroke]

Pg.76 ghb17

No the allies are referring to the allegiances you can draw from, if it was keywords the way he thinks, then you wouldn't be able to take squigs but  would be able to take chaos trolls... just no. The allies matrix has nothing to do with keywords it's  allegiance based, as per matched play rules. He would need to be able to ally with tamurkans horde to take bile trolls. It is really that simple.

[Turragor]

1 minute ago, BaldoBeardo said:

Forgeworld ruin everything.

They are supposed to improve player's choices, not cause confusion!

[BaldoBeardo]

Forgeworld ruin everything.

[Turragor]

I guess as @baldobeardo says it's a keyword game but I think there's a distinction between faction keyword for the purpose of selecting allies and then the units other keywords - or at least, there should be a distinction.

18 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

Previously all units in an army had to be from the same grand alliance, but I can't find that stated explicitly in the GHB17 - I'm guessing because the allies rules superseded.

I think the allies rules are meant to supersede it but they forgot about forgeworld models when writing out their faction keywords. I can't see any other instance of a keyword that lets a faction ally across grand alliance boundaries.

I mean, your friend just wants a stronger allied unit than other troggoths right? Has he some modelling reason for this? Some kind of fluffy reason? Maybe this is just open in which case who cares?

I mainly see this as trying to scrape up a shady part-legal advantage and I'd probably deliver some hmmming and ahhhhing if I were playing against this individual in matched play.

[BaldoBeardo]

Allies are a keywords game, so he's correct.

However, as Bile Troggoths are missing the DESTRUCTION keyword (they're CHAOS) just be careful with abilities and buffs etc.

Previously all units in an army had to be from the same grand alliance, but I can't find that stated explicitly in the GHB17 - I'm guessing because the allies rules superseded.