Eldar Autarch and Reserve Rolls

First post on the forum. Been lurking for a while.

Looked around and couldn't find the answer to this elsewhere.

If I take an Allied Eldar Autarch, will the bonus to reserve rolls granted by Master Strategist benefit the Dark Eldar in my primary detachment as well as the Eldar in the allied detachment?

My interpretation is that it does, but I was just curious to hear some other opinions.

Thanks in advance!

From the rulebook FAQ

Quote :

Q: Do modifiers that apply to such things as Reserve rolls, apply to units from an allied detachment? (p124)
A: No.

Count Adhemar wrote:

From the rulebook FAQ

Quote :

Q: Do modifiers that apply to such things as Reserve rolls, apply to units from an allied detachment? (p124)
A: No.

Technically it doesn't say anything about modifiers from an allied detachment affecting the primary detachment. It only states that allied detachments do not benefit from modifiers to reserve rolls from primary detachments. So by RAW you could get the benefits from an autarch as long as he is in your allied detachment and not in your primary detachment. Though I doubt that was the intention.

Even more absurdly the benefits the autarch grants to reserve rolls would not affect the eldar units from the allied detachment and only affect the primary detachment.

On another note what happens to units that have independent characters attached to them. Say an eldar primary detachment with dark eldar allies, they have an autarch in reserve who is joined by a unit of reavers. Do they come in on a 2+ or a 3+?

Quote :

Technically it doesn't say anything about modifiers from an allied detachment affecting the primary detachment. It only states that allied detachments do not benefit from modifiers to reserve rolls from primary detachments. So by RAW you could get the benefits from an autarch as long as he is in your allied detachment and not in your primary detachment. Though I doubt that was the intention.

Even more absurdly the benefits the autarch grants to reserve rolls would not affect the eldar units from the allied detachment and only affect the primary detachment.

Yeah, that's because RAW is pretty messed up there. The fact is that alliances works both ways (if you play X/Y then Y are allies of X and X are allies of Y) so the term "allied detachment" does not always refers to, well, what you call the allied detachment (the detachment that is not your primary one), but can refer to both.

It's like when you're saying "Batle brothers units can be joined by allied Independent Characters". The term "allied IC" does not only refers to IC that are not part of your primary detachment.

@RabbitMaster: First off, I agree with you and would play it like you describe. But... Where does it actually say what you claim? I guess that's Mush's point. It doesn't literratly say anywhere that the detachments are both eachother's allied detachment. You' re in fact encouraged to think otherwise, by RAW.

So by RAW I would be more inclined to make it so that my DE are the primary detachment and the CWE the allied ones. And then the DE can actually benefit from the Autarch's ability. The funny thing is with this construction that actually by RAW the CWE wouldn't benefit. Hilarious!

Mush is technically correct but I didn't want to muddy the waters by going into that in the initial reply. This is yet another example of GW dropping the ball by loose terminology. I'm pretty sure the FAQ answer I quoted is intended to say that abilities of an ally cannot influence another detachment but they specifically use the term "Allied Detachment", which has a precise meaning in game terms.

There is a similar situation with Webway Portals, which says

Quote :

Q: Can units from allied detachment use a webway portal to enter play from reserve? (p62)
A: No.

This creates the absurd situation that DE allies with a WWP cannot use it but the primary detachment can!

Go with common sense IMO.

@Count: Yeah agreed. That's what I meant.

Good example. I' ll make DE the allied detachment and have CWE Fire Dragons come out of the WWP for some midrange mayhem! Lol. GW dropped the ball again, clearly...

I just wanted to add that I think it's quite absurd and wouldn't encourage anyone to play it that. Like everything use common sense. I do wish GW would get their act together with these things though, because there are people out there who will try an abuse badly written rules.

Quote :

@RabbitMaster: First off, I agree with you and would play it like you describe. But... Where does it actually say what you claim?

Sadly nowhere. Page 112 only shows that the term "allied something" can refers to both the something from primary and allied detachment. However, as Count Adhemar said, "Allied Detachment" has a precise meaning in game term. So I think GW just messed up by putting "allied" before "detachment" in order to nominate both detachment in an alliance, but without noticing that "allied detachment" already means something precise.

Quote :

This is yet another example of GW dropping the ball by loose terminology.

Amen to that !

Mushkilla wrote:

I just wanted to add that I think it's quite absurd and wouldn't encourage anyone to play it that. Like everything use common sense. I do wish GW would get their act together with these things though, because there are people out there who will try an abuse badly written rules.

GW is just suspecting people to use common sense here... but they forgot its the internet and no one has common sense in this magical world.