Maybe this is silly to ask....but what happens if a Grey Knight Grandmaster gives Unyielding Anvil to a unit of Death Company? Which codex rule triumphs?

To further clarify....the Death Company can never be a scoring unit....but if it has Unyielding Anvil, it can still claim objectives, even though it's not a scoring unit? Unyielding Anvil doesn't make it a scoring unit, it just says that it can now claim objectives as it it were a troop.

Neither. Allies of Convenience does.

By which he means that Allies of Convenience makes the Blood Angels and Grey Knights treat each other as enemy units, so the Grey Knights can't give unyielding anvil to the Blood Angels as a result.

Why not? Grand Master rule says any unit in the army....

I looked over the Grey Knights FAQ, there wasn't any change to the wording of the Strategy rule. Did I just miss it?

MadmanMSU wrote:
Why not? Grand Master rule says any unit in the army....

I looked over the Grey Knights FAQ, there wasn't any change to the wording of the Strategy rule. Did I just miss it?

I don't think it would be needed. Allies of convenience says to treat them as enemy models for the purposes of all abilities. I don't have the exact wording of GS here at work, but surely you can't use it on enemy models...

Quote:

Grand Strategy: "...roll a D3 and choose that many infantry, jump infantry, monstrous creatures, or walkers in your army..."

Army, in the context of the GK book, means grey Knight Army list.

Uh oh.

In that case, did we ever determine if you could take two Space Wolf HQs as allies to another army?

Is your allied detachment a part of 'your army'?

 daedalus wrote:
In that case, did we ever determine if you could take two Space Wolf HQs as allies to another army?

Don't go there...

Even if it wasn't Death Company....could you make, say, Blood Angel Sternguard able to claim objectives?

 grendel083 wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
In that case, did we ever determine if you could take two Space Wolf HQs as allies to another army?

Don't go there...

Oh, I know it doesn't end well, but it's kind of the same situation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MadmanMSU wrote:
Even if it wasn't Death Company....could you make, say, Blood Angel Sternguard able to claim objectives?

I'd say no, because I would say they're not in your army; They're ALLIES to your army.

I suspect the guy that posts after me will suggest the opposite.

You won't get a reasonable answer.

 daedalus wrote:
You won't get a reasonable answer.

Yeah...I was thinking maybe there was an FAQ that I missed or something, but obviously this is going to be a "what are your opponents okay with before the game starts" kind of situation.

Personally, RAW, I think both DC and Sternguard qualify. That said, I probably wouldn't push the DC issue, but I would argue that other units are perfectly acceptable.

Well on the allies of convenience section on the BRB under bold it states:

"Units in your army treat Allies of Convenience as enemy units that cannot be charged, shot... "

It kinda clearly states that your army is one thing and allies of convenience is entirely another thing (not part of the army)

I'd say it works, but dont expect it to work in a tournament or something without an FAQ, just as them/your opponent before hand....

but ya, I say it works on battlebrothers (who dont exist lol) and convenience allies, heck even the begrudging allies since codex over rules BRB

 Lord Yayula wrote:
Well on the allies of convenience section on the BRB under bold it states:

"Units in your army treat Allies of Convenience as enemy units that cannot be charged, shot... "

It kinda clearly states that your army is one thing and allies of convenience is entirely another thing (not part of the army)

Any my response to that would be Pg. 109 of the BRB..."your army can include one allied detachment". Key words being "include", as in "a part of your army".

Personally, I think the "allies are not a part of your army" argument is a bit ridiculous. If they aren't a part of my army, why do I get to control what they do? My opponent's models aren't part of my army either, but I can't control them....

I could see someone arguing that Grand Strategy doesn't include non-Grey Knights as an RAI instead of RAW type thing, but not "allies are not part of your army".

 Lord Yayula wrote:
Well on the allies of convenience section on the BRB under bold it states:

"Units in your army treat Allies of Convenience as enemy units that cannot be charged, shot... "

It kinda clearly states that your army is one thing and allies of convenience is entirely another thing (not part of the army)

Keyword is "treats"...meaning, they are still part of your army, they are just treated as enemies. See above argument.

MadmanMSU wrote:

 Lord Yayula wrote:
Well on the allies of convenience section on the BRB under bold it states:

"Units in your army treat Allies of Convenience as enemy units that cannot be charged, shot... "

It kinda clearly states that your army is one thing and allies of convenience is entirely another thing (not part of the army)

Any my response to that would be Pg. 109 of the BRB..."your army can include one allied detachment". Key words being "include", as in "a part of your army".

Actually, Lord Yayula cites the bit that solidifies this in my mind. Check it:

"Units in your army treat Allies of Convenience as enemy units that cannot be charged, shot... "

So your Allies of Convenience aren't in your army? Either that, or your army is a subset of (your 'real' army) + (Allies), but then Allies of Convenience have to treat themselves as enemy units, which has hilarious ramifications.

I say it works just fine, look at the bullets on page 112 under (Battle Brothers) Bullet 2 - " are counted as being friendly units for the tagetting of psychic powers, abilities and so on."

Yet under (Allies of Convenience) Bullet 3 - "Are not counted as friendly units for the targetting of psychic powers"

There is no mention of disallowing of abilities, so I feel the Grandmasters ability will work fine.

Those are not exhaustive. Look at the text directly above the bullet points; It actually calls them examples.

Additionally, can you rationalize the fact that the bolded section in Allies of Convenience creates seperation between "Units in your army" and "Allies of Convenience" so that this still works?

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:I say it works just fine, look at the bullets on page 112 under (Battle Brothers) Bullet 2 - " are counted as being friendly units for the tagetting of psychic powers, abilities and so on."

Yet under (Allies of Convenience) Bullet 3 - "Are not counted as friendly units for the targetting of psychic powers"

There is no mention of disallowing of abilities, so I feel the Grandmasters ability will work fine.

Under that logic it would imply that only psy powers are restricted and i don't think that is how it works , that kinda would mean that if I field straken allied with my chaos marines they would get CS and FC as they are not friendly units but it isn't a psy power so it is ok? Pretty sure it isn't.

MadmanMSU wrote:

Any my response to that would be Pg. 109 of the BRB..."your army can include one allied detachment". Key words being "include", as in "a part of your army".

Personally, I think the "allies are not a part of your army" argument is a bit ridiculous. If they aren't a part of my army, why do I get to control what they do? My opponent's models aren't part of my army either, but I can't control them....

The armies can include an allied attachment sure but wether they are truly part of the army or not depends on the level of alliagnance, if they were battle brothers sure there is nothing stopping them even the Battlebrothers section doesn't makes the distinction between your army and battle brothers only says treat these units ad friendly.

MadmanMSU wrote:Well on the allies of convenience section on the BRB under bold it states:

"Units in your army treat Allies of Convenience as enemy units that cannot be charged, shot... "

It kinda clearly states that your army is one thing and allies of convenience is entirely another thing (not part of the army)

Keyword is "treats"...meaning, they are still part of your army, they are just treated as enemies. See above argument.

However if they were truly part of the army there wouldn't be the necessity to distinguish your army from the allied attachment, I didn't quoted the BRB because of the treat as enemies but because stating that your army must consider these outsider units as something implies that they aren't part of the army

If you argue that allied attachments are NOT part of your army, that brings into question a whole slew of weird scenarios that don’t make a whole lot of sense.

For example, your allies would never be able to control points. In order to control a point, you have to have a scoring unit on it and no enemy denial units….which means that, since your allies of convenience are considered “enemy” units that are not part of your army, they actually deny you all the points that they sit on.

Seriously.

MadmanMSU wrote:
If you argue that allied attachments are NOT part of your army, that brings into question a whole slew of weird scenarios that don’t make a whole lot of sense.

For example, your allies would never be able to control points. In order to control a point, you have to have a scoring unit on it and no enemy denial units….

It can still work. Battle Brothers are "treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view". Besides, I'm not arguing that Allies aren't a part of your army (at this point), merely that Allies of Convenience aren't.

which means that, since your allies of convenience are considered “enemy” units that are not part of your army, they actually deny you all the points that they sit on.

Seriously.

How do you know that outcome was not by design?

 Lord Yayula wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:I say it works just fine, look at the bullets on page 112 under (Battle Brothers) Bullet 2 - " are counted as being friendly units for the tagetting of psychic powers, abilities and so on."

Yet under (Allies of Convenience) Bullet 3 - "Are not counted as friendly units for the targetting of psychic powers"

There is no mention of disallowing of abilities, so I feel the Grandmasters ability will work fine.

Under that logic it would imply that only psy powers are restricted and i don't think that is how it works , that kinda would mean that if I field straken allied with my chaos marines they would get CS and FC as they are not friendly units but it isn't a psy power so it is ok? Pretty sure it isn't.

Your logic failed.

Page 60 – Colonel ‘Iron Hand’ Straken, Cold Steel and
Courage.
Change the first sentence to: “Friendly units chosen from
Codex: Imperial Guard within 12" of Straken have the Counterattack
and Furious Charge special rules”.

The way I see it follows all rules and breaks nothing, yes they are examples however why wouldn't they put the disallowance in if they put them in the allowance?

Nothing in GS says it targets a model or unit. It doesn't specify Codex: GK in an FAQ. "Your army" is subject to debate. Also I'm almost certain someone said they ran a Necron/GK list at NOVA and GS was allowed on Necron allies. Bottom line if your on the receiving end of this running you'll probably be butt devastated about it but you can't put forth rules or FAQ's to counter it.

 daedalus wrote:

MadmanMSU wrote:
If you argue that allied attachments are NOT part of your army, that brings into question a whole slew of weird scenarios that don’t make a whole lot of sense.

For example, your allies would never be able to control points. In order to control a point, you have to have a scoring unit on it and no enemy denial units….

It can still work. Battle Brothers are "treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view". Besides, I'm not arguing that Allies aren't a part of your army (at this point), merely that Allies of Convenience aren't.

which means that, since your allies of convenience are considered “enemy” units that are not part of your army, they actually deny you all the points that they sit on.

Seriously.

How do you know that outcome was not by design?

Because it doesn't make any sense. Desperate allies count as non-scoring and non-denial units.....but allies of convenience can be denial units, even against your own troops? Wut?

Look, you want to go down that rabbit hole with the whole "allies are not part of my army" shenanigans, be my guest.

MadmanMSU wrote:


Look, you want to go down that rabbit hole with the whole "allies are not part of my army" shenanigans, be my guest.

And you can enjoy yours. Since your army now is "your primary detachments" + "Allies of Convenience", your Allies of Convenience now have to treat themselves as enemy units. I mean, they're "Units in your army" right?

They now can't use psychic powers on themselves, embark in their own vehicles, or have their own ICs join their own units.

feth this janky edition.

 daedalus wrote:
Uh oh.

In that case, did we ever determine if you could take two Space Wolf HQs as allies to another army?

Is your allied detachment a part of 'your army'?

You can take space wolf HQ's in the allies slots.

Your allied detachment a part of 'your army', but an allied Space wolf detachment is not a part of the 'Grey Knight Army'

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
I say it works just fine, look at the bullets on page 112 under (Battle Brothers) Bullet 2 - " are counted as being friendly units for the tagetting of psychic powers, abilities and so on."

Yet under (Allies of Convenience) Bullet 3 - "Are not counted as friendly units for the targetting of psychic powers"

There is no mention of disallowing of abilities, so I feel the Grandmasters ability will work fine.

But the ability only works on units in the (Grey Knight) army.

As that ability is in the Grey Knight Army book, and individual codexes do not contain rules for allied units. so Grand Strategy only works on GK's and not allied units.

Page 109 under the Partial force organization charts heading:
"If your codex contains the primary detachment section of the Force Organization chart, the allied detachment and fortification sections will not be present, as individual codexes do not contain rules for allied units or fortifications."

 DeathReaper wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
Uh oh.

In that case, did we ever determine if you could take two Space Wolf HQs as allies to another army?

Is your allied detachment a part of 'your army'?

You can take space wolf HQ's in the allies slots.

Your allied detachment a part of 'your army', but an allied Space wolf detachment is not a part of the 'Grey Knight Army'

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
I say it works just fine, look at the bullets on page 112 under (Battle Brothers) Bullet 2 - " are counted as being friendly units for the tagetting of psychic powers, abilities and so on."

Yet under (Allies of Convenience) Bullet 3 - "Are not counted as friendly units for the targetting of psychic powers"

There is no mention of disallowing of abilities, so I feel the Grandmasters ability will work fine.

But the ability only works on units in the (Grey Knight) army.

As that ability is in the Grey Knight Army book, and individual codexes do not contain rules for allied units. so Grand Strategy only works on GK's and not allied units.

Page 109 under the Partial force organization charts heading:
"If your codex contains the primary detachment section of the Force Organization chart, the allied detachment and fortification sections will not be present, as individual codexes do not contain rules for allied units or fortifications."

Than what is the wording on Grand Strategy, I thought it was any unit in your army? I'll doublecheck the FAQ, but if they intended not to be used on allies than they would have changed it to say Target unit from Codex: GK as they did with most others.

Edited out, bad example...

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
...what is the wording on Grand Strategy, I thought it was any unit in your army?

Grand strategy says "...before forces are deployed, the Grand Master can assign special battlefield roles to units under his command. Roll a D3 and choose that many infantry, JI, MC, or walker units in your army (but not models with the Ic rule, Inquisitorial henchmen, [or ghost knights](Etc...)"

based on the context of that rule being in the GK book, your army refers to units of Grey Knights.

Grand Strategy is not a rule that can be applied to allied units, as "Individual codexes do not contain rules for allied units"

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
if they intended not to be used on allies than they would have changed it to say Target unit from Codex: GK as they did with most others.

Or they just missed it.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:


Than what is the wording on Grand Strategy, I thought it was any unit in your army? I'll doublecheck the FAQ, but if they intended not to be used on allies than they would have changed it to say Target unit from Codex: GK as they did with most others.

This is funny because it was the same argument regarding Eldar psy powers, everyone on favor was like, but they didn't change it on the eldar FAQ therfore obviously GW was intending for it to work on dark eldar allies, 2 days after the FAQ updates and states what many of us were saying powers and skills only affect your army book not allies. I forsee this happening on the next GK FAQ update if it keeps being a point of debate

 Lord Yayula wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:


Than what is the wording on Grand Strategy, I thought it was any unit in your army? I'll doublecheck the FAQ, but if they intended not to be used on allies than they would have changed it to say Target unit from Codex: GK as they did with most others.

This is funny because it was the same argument regarding Eldar psy powers, everyone on favor was like, but they didn't change it on the eldar FAQ therfore obviously GW was intending for it to work on dark eldar allies, 2 days after the FAQ updates and states what many of us were saying powers and skills only affect your army book not allies. I forsee this happening on the next GK FAQ update if it keeps being a point of debate

Well technically it still works on let's say an archon attached to a squad of (E)Harlequins. So yes it does still affect allies, the only thing the faq did was say you DE =/= Eldar.

Well if you attach your non-GK army IC to a GK unit with GS that would be fine then.

Edit: Oh wait they can't because they don't have battle brothers :\

 Lord Yayula wrote:
Well if you attach your non-GK army IC to a GK unit with GS that would be fine then.

Edit: Oh wait they can't because they don't have battle brothers :\

You have to for the Eldar & DE one, with the GK and Blood Angel one there is no need.
As the allies are part of your army, and nowhere does it state I may not use grand strategy on them.

Ok, I got you a good one here... If i'm taking an allied attachment of chaos daemons does it confers Fearless, Invulnerable save and eternal warrior to all my allied models? After all the rule on the codex says

Daemon: This special rule applies to every model in this army and includes the following special rules:

Fearless
Invulnerable!
Daemonic Assault
Daemonic Rivalry

Now, the Chaos daemon FAQ states on the Q&A if allied units can deploy with damonic assault and just added Codex: Chaos Daemons to it so no i can't, Daemonic Rivalry specifically states daemon unit but it also specifies now that codex: Chaos Daemons bla blah. The FAQ also added the Fear rule:

Add the following army special rule to the Daemonic Forces
page:
“Every model in the Codex: Chaos Daemons army list (including
Chaos Spawn) has the Fear special rule (see the Warhammer
40,000 rulebook).”

now since the didn't specify on the FAQ that the fearless rule only apply to Codex: Chaos Daemons army list I could obviously use it on any ally units it since they are part of the army, same for Invulnerable! Hope you like my Fearless 3+ invul save marines

Yes but they did specify "every model in the Codex" your army, and your codex are two diferent things.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
Yes but they did specify "every model in the Codex" your army, and your codex are two diferent things.

Nop, it isn't specified anywhere in the codex nor FAQ for the Daemon, Fearless and Invulnerable! rules. It simply says "every model in the army is X" just like the GK entry it only says "the army"

Only the Daemonic Assault, Fear and Daemonic Rivalry has that "every model in the Codex: Chaos Daemon" which is crystal clear they don't get, however the lack of that restriction on the Fearless and Invulnerable allows me to pass them on to my whole army

I guess you get partial Credit for this. Some things differ though.

Top of PG 27. C: Chaos Daemons "On the following pages are the complete rules for the models in the chaos daemons army."

note that there is a difference between your army, and the chaos daemons army.

I couldn't find the similar rule for C: GK

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
I guess you get partial Credit for this. Some things differ though.

Top of PG 27. C: Chaos Daemons "On the following pages are the complete rules for the models in the chaos daemons army."

note that there is a difference between your army, and the chaos daemons army.

I couldn't find the similar rule for C: GK

Check the Context of the GK codex.

It makes it clear that your army, is talking about an army from the GK Codex.

Hey DR I just kinda checked it out and I didn't see the same heading as the Daemon one. Toss us a pg number and lets end this debaccle.

P.81 "The following army list enables you to field a Grey Knights Army"

So the following Army list = GK army

later on P.81 under special rules refers to the special rules on P.21 of the codex

P.21 makes it clear that army means GK army as well.

So Grand Strategy only affects models in your "Army" which, in context, means the GK army list.

To the OP.
Can, may or might do not overrule must not or may never.
So the DC can never be scoring even if you cast unyielding anvil on them.

liturgies, according to the GK FAQ, Unyielding Anvil overrides the cannot be scoring.

I actually feel that the line " the Grand Master can assign special battlefield roles to units under his command." is a very telling line.

In an Allies of Convenience alliance, the allies are not in my mind under the command of the Grey Knight Grand Master.

He has not taken command of the troops. They happen to be on the same planet and see it as mutually beneficial to cooperate. They are still under the command of their own HQ.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
To the OP.
Can, may or might do not overrule must not or may never.
So the DC can never be scoring even if you cast unyielding anvil on them.

Regardless of all the other arguments for/against the Unyielding Anvil rule, the DC rule specifically states that "they can never be scoring units". Giving them Unyielding Anvil doesn't change this. It just says that they can now claim objectives. So, in essence, they are non-scoring troops that can claim objectives.

The rest is up for debate.

Happyjew wrote:
liturgies, according to the GK FAQ, Unyielding Anvil overrides the cannot be scoring.

It doesn't say that. It says it can make a non-scoring unit a scoring one as if it were troops, not that it can always make a non-scoring unit scoring. So DC and frenisian wolves cannot be made into scoring units.
Even then always vs never I think always goes to never.

I'm fairly certain, barring certain missions, vehicles can never be scoring units, correct?

Yep and the faq explicitly lists vehicles. DC on the other hand are never in any situation scoring.

I dunno, to me it seems to work, I mean fluff wise the inquisition would just pimp slap any other (at least) imperium army in line.

and I dont know if you can really use "context" for rulings like this, I mean context is fairly easy to change or skew :/

but I definitely see it possible them FAQ'ing it either way so I guess for now just roll off for it/ask the people running the tournament

Fluffwise I don't think the marines would take orders from a GK, i haven't read the new fluff so I can't talk for sure but if they at least left the part that the GKs are kinda secret to any other chapter/IG regiment in order to avoid spreading the knowledge of chaos among civilians then the marines wouldn't take orders from them and even treat them with caution which looking at the allies table is represented by them not being battle brothers with anyone.

After all didn't they kill the whole civ population and IG regiments involved on the 1st Armageddon war?

 Lord Yayula wrote:
Fluffwise I don't think the marines would take orders from a GK, i haven't read the new fluff so I can't talk for sure but if they at least left the part that the GKs are kinda secret to any other chapter/IG regiment in order to avoid spreading the knowledge of chaos among civilians then the marines wouldn't take orders from them and even treat them with caution which looking at the allies table is represented by them not being battle brothers with anyone.

After all didn't they kill the whole civ population and IG regiments involved on the 1st Armageddon war?

Exactly, the GK seem to be the secret police of the 40k universe. What marine chapter wouldn't follow them? Considering if it's chaos they have authority fluffwise eh?
They may not like it buy they would.

As it's written I can see both sides of the arguement, however I believe it works out fine.

Grand Strategy only affects models in your "Army" which, in context, means the GK army list.

So it does not work out fine. (Unless you have rules quotes that over-ride my previous post).

 DeathReaper wrote:
Grand Strategy only affects models in your "Army" which, in context, means the GK army list.

So it does not work out fine. (Unless you have rules quotes that over-ride my previous post).

40k-noob wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:
Your army is your primary detachment. All references to "your army" in the rulebook reference your primary detachment (such as choosing a warlord).

But...
"If you wish, your army can include one allied detachment
for each primary detachment in your army..."

pg 109 of BRB under Allied Detachment.

So if you choose to have an Allied Detachment, "Your army" includes them as well.

Found this, looks like your army includes an allied detachment if one is taken.

I can't find the FAQ/Errata for Warlords, where's that at?

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:


Exactly, the GK seem to be the secret police of the 40k universe. What marine chapter wouldn't follow them? Considering if it's chaos they have authority fluffwise eh?
They may not like it buy they would.

As it's written I can see both sides of the arguement, however I believe it works out fine.

The difference is that the space marines don't take orders from anyone even the inquisition, inquistors may request the aid of a chapter but they definitively won't just submit to their command, same would happen with GK they might coordinate attacks and everything but being each their own forces and discussing plans as equals not surrendering command to the GKs and not fully trusting them as they would trust any other chapter.

This being only fluffwise of course

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Grand Strategy only affects models in your "Army" which, in context, means the GK army list.

So it does not work out fine. (Unless you have rules quotes that over-ride my previous post).

40k-noob wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:
Your army is your primary detachment. All references to "your army" in the rulebook reference your primary detachment (such as choosing a warlord).

But...
"If you wish, your army can include one allied detachment
for each primary detachment in your army..."

pg 109 of BRB under Allied Detachment.

So if you choose to have an Allied Detachment, "Your army" includes them as well.

Found this, looks like your army includes an allied detachment if one is taken.

Only if you ignore the context of the Grand Strategy rule.

That and individual codexes do not contain rules for allied units. So the GK codex does not contain rules for allied units.

page 109 under the Partial force organization charts heading,
"If your codex contains the primary detachment section of the Force Organization chart,
the allied detachment and fortification sections will not be present,
as individual codexes do not contain rules for allied units or fortifications."

You're right they dont have rules for allied units. So we fall back to the BRB.

You can also gladly read the last lines you so kindly left out.

" If this is the case, it doesn't mean you can't use these elements of the chart, simply refer to the version presented here." pg 109 under your blurb.

Again showing you how to have allies in "your army"

"it doesn't mean you can't use these elements of the chart" it means you are allowed to use the allied detachment. No allowance to use Grand Strategy.

The allied rules are in the BRB, is Grand Strategy in the BRB or do we use the codex to see what it does?

Grand Strategy only affects models in your "Army" which, in context, means the GK army list.

Is there any permission to use Grand Strategy with models outside of the GK army?

 DeathReaper wrote:
Grand Strategy only affects models in your "Army" which, in context, means the GK army list.

While that certainly used to be the case, it seems to be very much debatable now.

If you use Vanilla in your cookie recipe is it still your cookie recipe?

yes it is, if you use allies in your army is it still your army?
Also a yes.

Do I need permission to use Grand Strategy outside of my Army?
Absolutely
Good thing that
Grand Strategy specifies models in your army.

 kirsanth wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Grand Strategy only affects models in your "Army" which, in context, means the GK army list.

While that certainly used to be the case, it seems to be very much debatable now.

It is only debatable if the context of the rule is ignored.

It is clear that Grand Strategy is referencing the Grey Knight army list. This is because allies were not around when the codex was written, so it , in context, simply can not refer to anything other that Codex Grey Knights.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
if you use allies in your army is it still your army?
yes.

Do I need permission to use Grand Strategy outside of my Army?
Absolutely
Good thing that
Grand Strategy specifies models in your army.

and do not ignore the context of the GK codex, and you will see you can not use it with allied detachments.

GW released FAQs twice since then. Never have they clarified that an army is anything different in 6e than it was in 5e - your entire list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
do not ignore the context of the GK codex

That context is now 6e, which you seem to be deliberately missing.

The context of 'Army' in the GK codex means GK Army. This does not include allies, as they are not mentioned in the GK rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The context of 'Army' in the GK codex means GK Army.

In 6e this is no longer the case, despite assertions otherwise.

They have added errata for a lot of "context" sensitive issues.

Army still means the same as it did in 5e. Your army list.

Not part of it.

Codex Trumps BRB.

Army, in context of the GK book, means GK army list.

Allies are not affected because that part does not conflict with the codex, but for the purposes of special rules army, in the GK book, means GK army.


Plus if you look at the other FAQ's they are slowly changing them all to reflect that special rules only affect units from Codex (Whatever)

Example Blood Angels The Sanguinor, Aura of Fervour rule:

"Page 51 – The Sanguinor, Aura of Fervour.
Change first sentence to read: “All friendly units chosen from
Codex: Blood Angels within 6" of the Sanguinor (except for the
Sanguinor himself) have +1 Attack”

 DeathReaper wrote:
Codex Trumps BRB.

Army, in context of the GK book, means GK army list.

Allies are not affected because that part does not conflict with the codex, but for the purposes of special rules army, in the GK book, means GK army.


Plus if you look at the other FAQ's they are slowly changing them all to reflect that special rules only affect units from Codex (Whatever)

Example Blood Angels The Sanguinor, Aura of Fervour rule:

"Page 51 – The Sanguinor, Aura of Fervour.
Change first sentence to read: “All friendly units chosen from
Codex: Blood Angels within 6" of the Sanguinor (except for the
Sanguinor himself) have +1 Attack”

(It used to read "...Choose one sergeant in your army...").

You first line is again telling; there is no conflict for codex to trump.

Your last bit also shows they are changing wording to match 6e, and yet did not do so for this "issue".

The conflict is in the BRB's definition of 'Army'

 DeathReaper wrote:
Codex Trumps BRB.

Army, in context of the GK book, means GK army list.

Allies are not affected because that part does not conflict with the codex, but for the purposes of special rules army, in the GK book, means GK army.


Plus if you look at the other FAQ's they are slowly changing them all to reflect that special rules only affect units from Codex (Whatever)

Example Blood Angels The Sanguinor, Aura of Fervour rule:

"Page 51 – The Sanguinor, Aura of Fervour.
Change first sentence to read: “All friendly units chosen from
Codex: Blood Angels within 6" of the Sanguinor (except for the
Sanguinor himself) have +1 Attack”

Kirsanth beat me to it, but there is no reason to trump. There is nothing in conflict.

Sure there are always FAQs for some and not all, this is how GW has always done them. This may be FAQ'd it may not. ATM it is legal, and valid.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The conflict is in the BRB's definition of 'Army'

So you keep positing.

I still do not read anything backing that, however.

Implication is certainly there - as you said it was written before this mattered.

But there is a conflict, and it is not legal, or valid.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The conflict is in the BRB's definition of 'Army'

Where's the definition of "your army" in the codex?

 DeathReaper wrote:
But there is a conflict, and it is not legal, or valid.

I can play that too.

No. There is not a conflict, it is legal and valid.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The conflict is in the BRB's definition of 'Army'

Where's the definition of "your army" in the codex?

 DeathReaper wrote:
[In this post that I made in this thread.

There is the conflict

 kirsanth wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
But there is a conflict, and it is not legal, or valid.

I can play that too.

No. There is not a conflict, it is legal and valid.

See above for the conflict. I have already posted rules showing the conflict, any rules to the contrary?

Sorry DR,

After looking in the GK Codex I have failed to find a definition of "your army" therefore I must and will use the one's given to us in the BRB

You posted something showing that choosing part of your list from Codex: Grey Knights creates a Grey Knights army.

You have yet to post anything that shows that adding another army to that army is no longer your army.

Which 6e now allows.

Wait, I thought you could only target Battle Brothers with special rules within your "army'. Did i miss something?

Happyjew wrote:
Wait, I thought you could only target Battle Brothers with special rules within your "army'. Did i miss something?

"- Are not counted as friendly units for the targeting of psychic powers" PG 112 BRB

Nope,

Might have just missed a bit? ^^

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Happyjew wrote:
Wait, I thought you could only target Battle Brothers with special rules within your "army'. Did i miss something?

"- Are not counted as friendly units for the targeting of psychic powers" PG 112 BRB

Nope,

Might have just missed a bit? ^^

Again, the paragraph above that bullet point list lists those as merely being examples. That list of three myopic points is supposed to be non-exhaustive.

Just to chime in, they (GW) have tried (admittedly not hard enough) to clearly note what works/doesn't work on allies and so forth in your army.

For example, Blood Angels might bring a group of Space Marines as allies but even being battle brothers Blood Chalice will 'only work on Codex: Blood Angels models.' Furthermore it seems that the only things that affect 'Battle Brothers' are powers/effects/abilities not restricted (like the Blood Chalice). Warlord Traits and psychic powers.

It seems like this same logic can be imposed here as well.

 Jstncloud wrote:
Just to chime in, they (GW) have tried (admittedly not hard enough) to clearly note what works/doesn't work on allies and so forth in your army.

For example, Blood Angels might bring a group of Space Marines as allies but even being battle brothers Blood Chalice will 'only work on Codex: Blood Angels models.' Furthermore it seems that the only things that affect 'Battle Brothers' are powers/effects/abilities not restricted (like the Blood Chalice). Warlord Traits and psychic powers.

It seems like this same logic can be imposed here as well.

This is true and I understand where your logic comes from.

That said though there is no FAQ for this, so atm it's both legit and legal.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Happyjew wrote:
Wait, I thought you could only target Battle Brothers with special rules within your "army'. Did i miss something?

"- Are not counted as friendly units for the targeting of psychic powers" PG 112 BRB

Nope,

Might have just missed a bit? ^^

Again, the paragraph above that bullet point list lists those as merely being examples. That list of three myopic points is supposed to be non-exhaustive.

Exactly ... they used the example of abilities in the battle brothers, but did not include it here.

I know they're examples but Copy and Paste is way easier than Copy and Paste, backspace a bunch.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
Sorry DR,

After looking in the GK Codex I have failed to find a definition of "your army" therefore I must and will use the one's given to us in the BRB

you must have missed the P.81 quote:

"The following army list enables you to field a Grey Knights army..." P.81

The army list in the GK book constitutes an 'Army'

you fielding a grey knights army = your army. There is your definition unless you choose to ignore it.

Also on P.81, Army list entries section 2nd sentence: "More information about the background and rules for the Grey Knights and their options can be found in the Army of Titan section..."

This tells us that this codex only has rules for the Grey Knights.

 DeathReaper wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
Sorry DR,

After looking in the GK Codex I have failed to find a definition of "your army" therefore I must and will use the one's given to us in the BRB

you must have missed the P.81 quote:

"The following army list enables you to field a Grey Knights army..." P.81

The army list in the GK book constitutes an 'Army'

you fielding a grey knights army = your army. There is your definition unless you choose to ignore it. show me where it defines "your army"

Also on P.81, Army list entries section 2nd sentence: "More information about the background and rules for the Grey Knights and their options can be found in the Army of Titan section..."

This tells us that this codex only has rules for the Grey Knights.

After reading that through and through a couple of times, nowhere does it define "your army" It tells you how to field a Grey Knight army though. Which is changed by the fact you may use allies. In which case the only time "your army" is used is in the BRB from what I can find.

Now stop trying to mix and match words that are similar. The Codex does not define "your army" In fact I don't even see it mention those words.

How about you try to not ignore the Context?

The GK book says "The following army list enables you to field a Grey Knights army..." P.81

You fielding a Grey Knights army = your army. Linguistically this is true.

 DeathReaper wrote:
How about you try to not ignore the Context?

The GK book says "The following army list enables you to field a Grey Knights army..." P.81

You fielding a Grey Knights army = your army. Linguistically this is true.

You fielding an army made up of 18 Dreadnoughts all in socks ='s your army. Linquistically true and just as wrong

If you bring linquistics into it than we'll all argue over simple meanings and terms more than we actually do.

Such as.

the power states a unit in your army.

Codex GK does not define your army so we have to assume that your army is the army you are in control of ( the models ) ( the mini's) (etc)
This would include allied models, because to say they're not your army would be a blatant lie. We can't break the rules and you can't say that my allied models are not in my army as they pelt you in the face with Melta Goodness

Stop ignoring context.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Stop ignoring context.

Stop adding words that aren't there.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Stop ignoring context.

Stop adding words that aren't there.

I am no adding anything.

"The following army list enables you to field a Grey Knights army..." P.81

Do not ignore the context of that line.

 DeathReaper wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Stop ignoring context.

Stop adding words that aren't there.

I am no adding anything.

"The following army list enables you to field a Grey Knights army..." P.81

Do not ignore the context of that line.

I'm not but than again I'm not just fielding a GK army.

I'm fielding a GK army with an Allied Detachment "my army"

That said The rule reads "units under his command"

Now that it's not only my army, but a GK army. Of course their under his command.

and allies are not "units under his command" as GK's treat allies as enemy units.

 DeathReaper wrote:
and allies are not "units under his command" as GK's treat allies as enemy units.

yes, except it doesnt say I can't target them with Abilities, just Psycic powers.

That does not mean that allies are "units under his command"

 DeathReaper wrote:
That does not mean that allies are "units under his command"

They are allied to a GK army, of which is your army and your main Detachment is GK.

I think that fits the bill rather nicely.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
That does not mean that allies are "units under his command"

They are allied to a GK army, of which is your army and your main Detachment is GK.

I think that fits the bill rather nicely.

Not if you read the Allies of Convenience rules.

"Units in your army treat Allies of Convenience as enemy units that..."

How can they be "units under his command" if they "treat Allies of Convenience as enemy units"?

Editing to add:

Allies of Convenience

"Can't benefit from the Warlord Trait of an allied character" this sets a precedent that rules from one detachment can not affect Allies of Convenience.

Easy, they're under his command. Just not trustworthy.

(makes me think of pirates & Mutiny)


"can't benefit from the warlord trait of an allied character" This does not set a precedent. It does exactly what it says it does.

Under the examples not how brotherhood allies shows they can use psychic powers, abilites, etc on each other.

Under Allies of Convenience, it only says psychic powers.

You mean they are treated as enemy units.

They can not be under his command if they are enemy units, as the GK could issue orders to enemy units, but they would be ignored/mocked.

"can't benefit from the warlord trait of an allied character" shows how Allies of Convenience can not benefit from rules of their allies.

 DeathReaper wrote:
You mean they are treated as enemy units.

They can not be under his command if they are enemy units, as the GK could issue orders to enemy units, but they would be ignored/mocked.

"can't benefit from the warlord trait of an allied character" shows how Allies of Convenience can not benefit from rules of their allies.

actually it shows they cant benefit from the warlord special rules, no more no less.

They can and are under his command. As they are his allies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
alright DR I'm tired, be back tomorrow and I should be able to argue this a bit better to my point than.

Take care and have a good nite

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
They can and are under his command.

Do you have a rules quote that backs this up?

 DeathReaper wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
They can and are under his command.

Do you have a rules quote that backs this up?

Well The primary Detachment would Infer that it's the one in charge. Therefore if you use allies they'd be under the Primary's command.

Getting back on topic- the rule for grand anvil says that the unit is treated "as if they were troops". Death Company are already troops and they have a specific rule that says that even though they are troops they are a non-scoring unit. So it seems as though there is no conflict they are treated as troops but even as troops they are non-scoring.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Getting back on topic- the rule for grand anvil says that the unit is treated "as if they were troops". Death Company are already troops and they have a specific rule that says that even though they are troops they are a non-scoring unit. So it seems as though there is no conflict they are treated as troops but even as troops they are non-scoring.

Thanks Leo, kinda fell off the side of the mountain there. I can agree to that, I was debating on allying GK with brotherhood allies so I was arguing more for my own behalf there towards the end.


I can agree that the Death Co. rule is more specific than the GK rule so therefore The DC will not be scoring.

However I feel it would/will work in DC Dreads.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
They can and are under his command.

Do you have a rules quote that backs this up?

Well The primary Detachment would Infer that it's the one in charge. Therefore if you use allies they'd be under the Primary's command.

There are no rules that state that.

And units in the Allied detachment are treated as enemy units. so he could not command them as they have their own commander.

 DeathReaper wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
They can and are under his command.

Do you have a rules quote that backs this up?

Well The primary Detachment would Infer that it's the one in charge. Therefore if you use allies they'd be under the Primary's command.

There are no rules that state that.

And units in the Allied detachment are treated as enemy units. so he could not command them as they have their own commander.

It's funny there aren't any rules for yours either, you're just making the best literal interpretation you can just as I am. I tire of the back and forth banter we're having so I'm going to try to stay out of it with you directly. Neither of us have enough hard evidence to back up our points.

If you do not ignore the context you would understand, but since you ignore context, there is no reasoning with you.