Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'd note that there is even more confusion here. Under desperate allies, it specifically says that they're non-scoring, non-denial units. That would imply that allies of convenience are both "enemy" and "denial". Furthermore, if allies of convenience are both "enemy" and "scoring" does that mean that they can score points for my opponent?

I've gotten a lot of hate about questioning whether allies of convenience score for the person who took them or not, but most of the hate is mindless, rather than well-reasoned. If a unit that counts as an "enemy" unit and a "scoring" unit can give me points, then why don't I always get points for my opponent's stuff on their own objectives? Just who do enemy units score for anyways?

And there are other questionable things here too. For example, what happens when a unit of yours and an allied unit get into a multi-assault? The rules clearly state that you can't get within 1" of an enemy unit unless you assault them, but if you can't assault them, then you can't get within 1" ever for any reason, which might make a multi-assault by your opponent very, very tricky. Likewise, if a unit is in a transport and it's too close to allied units, and they're forced to disembark, does that mean they're destroyed? What happens in this case if you get tank shocked "into" allied units?

And what about non-targeted psychic powers? You may not be able to cast fortune on an allied unit, but certainly if you cast Shockwave, they would count as an enemy unit for its nova attack, right?

Does it basically invalidate infiltrators? After all, it's tough to think of many places that are both outside of 18" from your opponent's units and also 18" away from your own allied units.

On Purge the Alien, do you get 1 VP for every one of your own allied units killed by your opponent? After all, you get 1 VP PER ENEMY UNIT killed, and your allies of convenience are clearly spelled out to be enemy units.

I agree with Daedalus, the rule for allies of convenience is probably the most poorly worded rule in the entire book.

Ailaros, they are not enemy units. Units in your army treat them as enemy, but that does not make them enemy units. There is a difference.

This question really confused me too. But then I realised that when you take a second (or more) race your primary allies with the secondary, and the secondary allies with your primary. They are both allies.
I was initially confused how "I" couldn't do anything for my allies, but they could in theory help "me".

Your army really ends up meaning your list that you are playing. Your army has a primary detachment, and one ally detachment.

This makes Mad Dok Grotsnik very happy btw

What is an army but a miserable pile of secrets.

Seriously though "Your Army" is an extremely ambiguous thing as it's referred to in two totally different contexts within the BRB. As far as I am aware there is ho hard answer for this and it can be argued either way until an official errata is written.

 Kevin949 wrote:


So, you make an accusation stating what I said isn't true (when it is) and then by your own admission you're making quotes from memory (which are wrong) and stating things aren't true (page 108 says no such thing).

I suppose you didn't really pay attention to what I was saying.

The quote you "might" be thinking of, on Pg 109, is where it says "If you wish, your army can include one allied detachment for each primary detachment in your army".
But that does not mean your primary detachment stops being "your army". In fact, it's quite the opposite right at the beginning of the sentence, "your army can include".

And I said earlier, yes the allied detachment do count as "your army" for the purpose of what you field. But if you claim to be playing a space wolf army when they're your allied detachment, you're wrong. What this means is that for certain rules, such as with black templars, if they're your allied detachment you're not (or shouldn't be) required to take an emperor's champion as you're not fielding a black templars army. Conversely, if you conclude that your entire army is wholly comprised of all codices you're using then you're never fielding a specific type of army and can never claim certain bonuses or negatives.

You need to watch your tone of voice and read this.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/464701.page

All of the relevant quotes are in that post which you evidently didn't bother to look for. Specifically this

p108: Codexes: "Each of the races of space-born empires in Warhammer 40,000 has a codex -- a book that contains rules, background and collecting information for that army"

and this

P. 109 of the BRB under the heading allied detachments

If you wish, your army can include one allied detachment for each primary detachment in your army (normally one, but if you're playing a larger game this might be two). As with the primary detachment, all units in the allied detachment must be chosen from the same codex, and this must be a different codex to the one used for the primary detachment.

which means that your allied detachment is included in your army and therefore part of your army and therefore your primary detachment is NOT your army - the sum of your detachments is your army.

But there is also this...

p112: Battle Brothers: "This category covers the strongest of alliances, two or more armies striving for a common goal."

So in particular, two space marine detachments are battle brothers from different armies and thus, an allied detachment of space marines is itself a space marine army.

And now I repeat...When you say

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

This is not true.

Add a side note, I have two armies. I currently keep them in my sleevies. One is my right army, the other is my left army.

Ok I'm done with this silliness.

 Grugknuckle wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:


So, you make an accusation stating what I said isn't true (when it is) and then by your own admission you're making quotes from memory (which are wrong) and stating things aren't true (page 108 says no such thing).

I suppose you didn't really pay attention to what I was saying.

The quote you "might" be thinking of, on Pg 109, is where it says "If you wish, your army can include one allied detachment for each primary detachment in your army".
But that does not mean your primary detachment stops being "your army". In fact, it's quite the opposite right at the beginning of the sentence, "your army can include".

And I said earlier, yes the allied detachment do count as "your army" for the purpose of what you field. But if you claim to be playing a space wolf army when they're your allied detachment, you're wrong. What this means is that for certain rules, such as with black templars, if they're your allied detachment you're not (or shouldn't be) required to take an emperor's champion as you're not fielding a black templars army. Conversely, if you conclude that your entire army is wholly comprised of all codices you're using then you're never fielding a specific type of army and can never claim certain bonuses or negatives.

You need to watch your tone of voice and read this.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/464701.page

All of the relevant quotes are in that post which you evidently didn't bother to look for. Specifically this

p108: Codexes: "Each of the races of space-born empires in Warhammer 40,000 has a codex -- a book that contains rules, background and collecting information for that army"

and this

P. 109 of the BRB under the heading allied detachments

If you wish, your army can include one allied detachment for each primary detachment in your army (normally one, but if you're playing a larger game this might be two). As with the primary detachment, all units in the allied detachment must be chosen from the same codex, and this must be a different codex to the one used for the primary detachment.

which means that your allied detachment is included in your army and therefore part of your army and therefore your primary detachment is NOT your army - the sum of your detachments is your army.

But there is also this...

p112: Battle Brothers: "This category covers the strongest of alliances, two or more armies striving for a common goal."

So in particular, two space marine detachments are battle brothers from different armies and thus, an allied detachment of space marines is itself a space marine army.

And now I repeat...When you say

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

This is not true.

So...you pointed to a statement (not even a rule) that talks about codices containing rules for the various races. Ok.

You then go on to point out (and actual contradict yourself) that the rulebook says that your army can include an allied detachment (keep in mind, the phrasing of the sentence makes reference to your army already being chosen prior to including allies). Ok.

Battle brothers...it says two armies or more armies...nothing about them being one collaborative army. Otherwise battle brothers would be able to go in each others transports.

So again, you've defeated yourself with your own points.

Oh, and I don't have to watch my tone if you're taking it as some personal attack. I simply stated you only took half of what I said and claimed I was flat out wrong with no actual proof, except another dakka thread that I already knew about (and posted in, with the same stance). I stopped posting in there because really I didn't want to argue about a point that had nothing to do with what I'd ever face.

I've been very consistent on this issue over all three threads. If you insist on trolling me, then at least be accurate.

You said that "all references to your army" in the BRB refer to the codex of your primary detachment as being the codex of your army. This is a false statement. It is quite clear that the BRB uses the term "Army" to mean many different things, including (I paraphrase the accurate quotes above.)

1) Your army is the force you play the game with. P.108
2) Your army includes your allied detachment. P.109
3) The forces from each codex are an army. P. 108
4) Battle brothers are allied armies. P.112

the meaning of these are seamingly contradictory, but NONE of them - not one - suggest that the codex of your army is the codex of your primary detachment. Hence it is, in fact you who are being mis leading.

The rules are NOT clear. The rules are confused on this issue. They require a FAQ, but one has not been provided. Your opinion, and you are entitled to it, is that the codex of your army *should be* the codex of your primary detachment. The rules do not currently support this. Why don't we just wait until GW fixes it? Until then, you can play your way and I'll play my way.

5) two battling armies p. 118 (read my army and your army)
6) places his entire army on the table p. 121
7) his entire army is wiped out p.122

IMHO from the context off all the different statements, your army is what ever you bring on your list.

sirlynchmob wrote:
5) two battling armies p. 118 (read my army and your army)
6) places his entire army on the table p. 121
7) his entire army is wiped out p.122

IMHO from the context off all the different statements, your army is what ever you bring on your list.

I agree. And there-in lies the problem for space wolves since we no longer have a definition of a "Space Wolves Army". A SW army must be one of the following four things.

1) Any "army" which contains at least one space wolves detachment - either allied or primary.
2) Any army which is composed entirely of space wolves - that is, one single primary detachment of SW's with no allies.

If your army is your entire list, then it has to be one of these above. But, the other option being put forth - which is popular, but not really supported by the rules is

3) Any army who's primary detachment is a composed of Space Wolves.

And then there is another one too. The definition which makes interpreting the rules as simple as possible, but which is also not really supported by the rules is

4) Each detachment of Space Wolves is a Space Wolf Army.

I'm not sure why it matters if we have a definition for "space wolves army" but if we go into a detachment is an army, then if you lose an entire detachment, you'd lose the game. Because you'd have an entire army wiped out.

Its just My army. I have orks in my primary detachment with necrons as an ally, and a landing pad.

If its a you need x points of space wolves to get something, then you need that many points of space wolves. If you need x points in your army, then your whole army needs that many points.

 Grugknuckle wrote:
And then there is another one too. The definition which makes interpreting the rules as simple as possible, but which is also not really supported by the rules is

4) Each detachment of Space Wolves is a Space Wolf Army.

That one is actually supported by the rules in the codexes. (Taken in context).

sirlynchmob wrote:
I'm not sure why it matters if we have a definition for "space wolves army"

It's because of the text of the "Leaders of the Pack" rule on page 81 of the space wolves codex.

Codex : Space Wolves, P. 81

In a Space Wolves army, each HQ 'slot' allows you to take up to two HQ choices. This means that in a standard mission a Space Wolves army may take one, two, three or even four HQ choices. This represents the constant presence of heroes determined to burn their name into legend.

However, packs of Space Wolves work best when led by a single dominant personality, each hero respected for his own abilities. To represent this, no two Independent Characters may bear the same saga, nor may they bear the same psychic powers or wargear combination. Space Wolves are far too individual and proud for such unimaginative tactics.

The italicized sentence is the one most recently changed by the SW FAQ. But actually, only the first paragraph of the rule is relevant to this conversation (see the underlined phrase). The question at hand is whether or not an HQ slot in an allied detachment can take two space wolf HQ choices or only one. People have argued that if your allied detachment is from codex space wolves then you can NOT take two HQ choices per HQ slot on the allied FOC precisely because your army is no longer a "Space Wolves Army".

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Grugknuckle wrote:
And then there is another one too. The definition which makes interpreting the rules as simple as possible, but which is also not really supported by the rules is

4) Each detachment of Space Wolves is a Space Wolf Army.

That one is actually supported by the rules in the codexes. (Taken in context).

You're right actually. I just didn't really want to push the argument with Mr. Belligerent.

On page 7 of codex (EDIT, it's page 81 actually.): Space Wolves it says something like this codex has all of the rules you need to field a space wolf army. Or army of space wolves or something like that. If anyone has the codex to hand, please post the exact text.

P81 SW Codex: "The following army list enables you to field a Space Wolves army..."

This whole argument is kind of ridiculous actually. Space Wolves have always been able to take 2 HQ choices per HQ slot. And the particular sentence in question - the sentence of the LotP rule that says "Space Wolf Army," - hasn't actually changed a word for years. Then 6th Ed comes out and everyone is looking for an excuse to break all of the codecies.

It's obvious that they overlooked the definition of "codex X army". But they most certainly intended for the individual detachments (allied or primary) to be governed by all the rules in their associated codex. So why should the LotP rule change now? Why? What possible purpose does that serve other than to confuse everyone about some obscure and unfortunate wording?

 Grugknuckle wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
I'm not sure why it matters if we have a definition for "space wolves army"

It's because of the text of the "Leaders of the Pack" rule on page 81 of the space wolves codex.

Codex : Space Wolves, P. 81

In a Space Wolves army, each HQ 'slot' allows you to take up to two HQ choices. This means that in a standard mission a Space Wolves army may take one, two, three or even four HQ choices. This represents the constant presence of heroes determined to burn their name into legend.

However, packs of Space Wolves work best when led by a single dominant personality, each hero respected for his own abilities. To represent this, no two Independent Characters may bear the same saga, nor may they bear the same psychic powers or wargear combination. Space Wolves are far too individual and proud for such unimaginative tactics.

The italicized sentence is the one most recently changed by the SW FAQ. But actually, only the first paragraph of the rule is relevant to this conversation (see the underlined phrase). The question at hand is whether or not an HQ slot in an allied detachment can take two space wolf HQ choices or only one. People have argued that if your allied detachment is from codex space wolves then you can NOT take two HQ choices per HQ slot on the allied FOC precisely because your army is no longer a "Space Wolves Army".

If this were true, it defeat the entire purpose of Allied detachments. If this were true, then you can not use any of the rules or abilities of units in the SW codex precisely because it is not a "SW Army" and everything in that codex is for Space Wolves.

basically the definition of army is twofold.

Each codex contains an army, within the larger army as defined by the BRB.

So your primary detachment is your (Space Wolves) army, and your allied detachment is your (Blood Angels) army, both of which make up "your army"

Any reference to your army, in the context of any given codex, refers to the army list that came from that particular codex.

40k-noob wrote:

If this were true, it defeat the entire purpose of Allied detachments. If this were true, then you can not use any of the rules or abilities of units in the SW codex precisely because it is not a "SW Army" and everything in that codex is for Space Wolves.

I agree with you (mostly). I kind of think that each detachment should obey ALL of the rules of it's codex and that the codecies should avoid unfortunate wording that is not well defined - like "army". I mean...when they get ready to update the rules, you would think that they would spend some time writing out precise definitions of the words they are going to use in the rules. You know - to avoid ambiguity.

Anyway...I think the easiest way to resolve this issue (and issues like this with other codecies) is to just define each detachment and being composed of units from a "Space Wolf Army" or a "Blood Angels Army". And then have a different term like "your Army" or better yet, "Your Battalion" to mean everything on your army list.

alas...we'll have to wait for the FAQ

Nitpickyness shows us nothing. Except how rediculas some people can interpret what they have read. They are an a attachment and they use they stuuf your army uses its stuff and they get along cuz the rules say so, without being pidantic.

Lungpickle wrote:
without being pidantic.

It's "pedantic."

Lungpickle wrote:
Nitpickyness shows us nothing. Except how rediculas some people can interpret what they have read. They are an a attachment and they use they stuuf your army uses its stuff and they get along cuz the rules say so, without being pidantic.

Oh? Parse this sentence for me then:

i helped my uncle jack off a horse

Nitpickyness matters.

 daedalus wrote:
Nitpickyness matters.

Awesome, I thought he was just taking jabs at my occupation.

lol

 daedalus wrote:

Oh? Parse this sentence for me then:

i helped my uncle jack off a horse

Nitpickyness matters.

Awesome. This may have to go into my permanent permanently displayed quotes.