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.

Ork units can deepstrike with the Corsair prince rule, that's probably why they would even ally with them in the first place- it gets them to the fight quicker!

 Oaka wrote:
Ork units can deepstrike with the Corsair prince rule, that's probably why they would even ally with them in the first place- it gets them to the fight quicker!

Again there really are not any solid rules to back this position.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Maybe, maybe not.
As there is nothing to back it up.

There is precedence in FAQ's that your army is your army including Prim + Allied.

We can only hope for the ruleset to one day be concise enough to where precedent would actually mean something, and the Codexes define it a different way, and Codex > BRB but as I said before:

It really is just a big mess because of the Codex > BRB when there is a conflict business.

The ethical choice is to take the least advantageous interpretation.

If it is FaQ'd follow the FaQ, but until then play with the least advantageous interpretation.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Ork Codex P 3, left column, Warhammer 40,000 game section, 2nd sentence:

"Every army has its own codex book that works with these rules..."

Further down they equate [Ork] Army list with the units in the Ork Codex.

Ork Army List section, P. 3 Right Column: "The army list takes all of the units presented in 'Forces of the Orks' section and arranges them so you can choose an army..."

Army list = Army, and army is from the Ork Codex.

They are talking about the Ork Codex, and only the Ork Codex.

Come on, you can't quote the introduction and claim it to be rules. its worse than fluff, its the intro.

Lets look at the 6th chaos pg 3:
"An army of CSM is a fearsome sight to behold"
in the box: "every army has its own codex..."
Slaves to darkness: "the army list takes all of the units presented ..... so you can choose an army for your games"

it gets worse on pg 90, they just can't help but use the word army everywhere. "the following army list enables you to field an army of CSM..." and since codex trumps BRB if you are using CSM you can't take allies or put them into a detachment. You field a chaos army, not a detachment right? so add chaos to the nid list for no allies needed then.

They are talking about the 6th CSM codex, and only the 6th CSM codex after all. So army list = army from the CSM codex.

the mad dok comes with a rule, as does the corsair prince, not intro fluff.

sirlynchmob wrote:
"An army of CSM is a fearsome sight to behold"

That's totally rules. If you don't find your opponent's Chaos army at least a little bit scary, you're breaking the rules.

 insaniak wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
"An army of CSM is a fearsome sight to behold"

That's totally rules. If you don't find your opponent's Chaos army at least a little bit scary, you're breaking the rules.

true that, that dragon flying thing scares the heck out of me, but its ok I play orks so no matter what happens, I win

sirlynchmob wrote:
Come on, you can't quote the introduction and claim it to be rules. its worse than fluff, its the intro.

Actually it shows what exactly they are referring to when they say Units in this army for stuff like Grotsnick's Cyborks Etc. Context prevails here.

PS: "An army of CSM is a fearsome sight to behold" Some of those units have Fear, so that is true as well, but ultimately not a good comparison, as one is fluff and one establishes exactly what an Ork army consists of.

You're reaching, IMO. Yes, the codex outlines how to build an army from the codex... But that doesn't mean that 'army built completely from the ork codex' then becomes the only valid meaning of the word 'army'.

The rulebook gave us new ways to build armies. But there it's no reason to assume that an army built using the rulebook rules is any less Assn army than one built completely from one codex.

Deathreaper, are you saying that if Corsair Prince was part of the new chaos marines codex, or as a part of any codex written after the 6th rulebook came out, then it would affect allies?

Because that doesnt make any sense.



The context of the old codices changes when the core rules change.

Infact the whole concept of "context" is so vague that you cant really make a ruling based on any of that.

Polecat wrote:
Deathreaper, are you saying that if Corsair Prince was part of the new chaos marines codex, or as a part of any codex written after the 6th rulebook came out, then it would affect allies?

No, I am not saying that.

If it were a part of the CSM book it would have its own rules and language and hopefully it would be clear who it could and could not affect.

Polecat wrote:
Infact the whole concept of "context" is so vague that you cant really make a ruling based on any of that.

This part is 100% untrue.

Context matters a lot.

What if the new Ork codex was released tomorrow, and has the page 3 included exactly like it was written in the current codex..

Would Doc Grotsnik then be able to give invul. saves to allies?


See what im trying to say?


You cant have two pieces of identical rules text and then interpret one of them differently based on when it was written, and what was supposedly going through authors mind at that time.


If you try to argue any meaning of "context", then you need to have evidence of that context.

Maybe the Ork codex was written with 6th edition in mind. It probably wasnt, but you cant prove that.

Polecat wrote:
What if the new Ork codex was released tomorrow, and has the page 3 included exactly like it was written in the current codex..

Would Doc Grotsnik then be able to give invul. saves to allies?

Hypothetically If his rule said that he was able to give it to allies then he would be able to give it to allies.

Polecat wrote:
If you try to argue any meaning of "context", then you need to have evidence of that context.

P.3 has all the context you will need, It literally defines what army means in reference to the Ork Codex.

Polecat wrote:
You cant have two pieces of identical rules text and then interpret one of them differently based on when it was written

I am not interpreting it differently depending on when it was written, where did you get that from?

 DeathReaper wrote:

I am not interpreting it differently depending on when it was written, where did you get that from?

From this:

DeathReaper wrote:
The word "army" as used in a 6th edition book/update refers to both detachments. But the Eldar book is not a 6th edition book.

When they use the word "army" in the Eldar Codex it cannot refer to both detachments as such a concept did not exist at the time.

So I understood that you meant that if Eldar Codex was released today as it is written now, the word "army" would refer to both detachments. Is this correct?

Polecat wrote:
So I understood that you meant that if Eldar Codex was released today as it is written now, the word "army" would refer to both detachments. Is this correct?

That depends on the context and usage of Army in the hypothetical Eldar Codex.

They may or may not define it. It is tough to say as the book is not real.

What I meant by 6th ed book was the BRB.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Polecat wrote:
So I understood that you meant that if Eldar Codex was released today as it is written now, the word "army" would refer to both detachments. Is this correct?

That depends on the context and usage of Army in the hypothetical Eldar Codex.

They may or may not define it. It is tough to say as the book is not real.

What I meant by 6th ed book was the BRB.

Thats not exactly what I was asking. Maybe I wasnt clear, what if, hypothetically, the Eldar Codex we have now was released today, exactly as it is now, word to word, not a single thing changed.

Would the word "army" refer to both detachments in your oppinion?

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Come on, you can't quote the introduction and claim it to be rules. its worse than fluff, its the intro.

Actually it shows what exactly they are referring to when they say Units in this army for stuff like Grotsnick's Cyborks Etc. Context prevails here.

PS: "An army of CSM is a fearsome sight to behold" Some of those units have Fear, so that is true as well, but ultimately not a good comparison, as one is fluff and one establishes exactly what an Ork army consists of.

And the 6th edition chaos codex uses all the same language. But its worse for the chaos because army has been defined in the BRB, so now contextually, a chaos army can only be made up of units in the chaos codex.

pg 3 in the box: "every army has its own codex..." SO for chaos to take an ally or take a fortification they would have to find a codex that includes the ally they want and a fortification.

based on the almost identical wording between the ork codex and the new and improved chaos codex; All references to army in a codex is contextually meaningless fluff, the brb defines what your army is and that is the only rule and definition applicable today.

Until FAQ'd.

They've had 3 chances to do it now and have either by design or neglect failed to do so. So it's working as intended.

Polecat wrote:
Thats not exactly what I was asking. Maybe I wasnt clear, what if, hypothetically, the Eldar Codex we have now was released today, exactly as it is now, word to word, not a single thing changed.

Would the word "army" refer to both detachments in your oppinion?

if, hypothetically, the Eldar Codex we have now was released today, exactly as it is now, word to word, not a single thing changed then "army" would only refer to the Eldar Codex, as far as the unit's special rules were concerned.

sirlynchmob wrote:
And the 6th edition chaos codex uses all the same language. But its worse for the chaos because army has been defined in the BRB, so now contextually, a chaos army can only be made up of units in the chaos codex.

pg 3 in the box: "every army has its own codex..." SO for chaos to take an ally or take a fortification they would have to find a codex that includes the ally they want and a fortification.

based on the almost identical wording between the ork codex and the new and improved chaos codex;

Does the Chaos Codex ever use the words Primary Detachment or Detachment?

Because from what it looks like on P.3 that is confirming what an army is, in the context of the chaos book.

Basically if you have allies you have two armies as a part of a larger "army"

 DeathReaper wrote:
if, hypothetically, the Eldar Codex we have now was released today, exactly as it is now, word to word, not a single thing changed then "army" would only refer to the Eldar Codex, as far as the unit's special rules were concerned.

But now you are contradicting yourself.

DeathReaper wrote:The word "army" as used in a 6th edition book/update refers to both detachments.

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
And the 6th edition chaos codex uses all the same language. But its worse for the chaos because army has been defined in the BRB, so now contextually, a chaos army can only be made up of units in the chaos codex.

pg 3 in the box: "every army has its own codex..." SO for chaos to take an ally or take a fortification they would have to find a codex that includes the ally they want and a fortification.

based on the almost identical wording between the ork codex and the new and improved chaos codex;

Does the Chaos Codex ever use the words Primary Detachment or Detachment?

Because from what it looks like on P.3 that is confirming what an army is, in the context of the chaos book.

Basically if you have allies you have two armies as a part of a larger "army"

In your opinion it works that way, but that is not in any way reflected in the rules. Knowing the current rules for what an army is, the chaos book is saying if you want an army with ork as primary and chaos as allies with a fortification, you have to wait for a "Ork & chaos codex, now with fortifications" to be printed. If were taking Introductions as rules that is.

You only have one army. Gw has looked at the BRB and codexes twice while doing FAQ's and have clearly said through rules (by design or neglect) hey that's cool, have fun with that.

Polecat wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
if, hypothetically, the Eldar Codex we have now was released today, exactly as it is now, word to word, not a single thing changed then "army" would only refer to the Eldar Codex, as far as the unit's special rules were concerned.

But now you are contradicting yourself.

DeathReaper wrote:The word "army" as used in a 6th edition book/update refers to both detachments.

No I am not, as I have said: When I said a 6th ed book I was referring to the BRB.

You must have missed that post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
What I meant by 6th ed book was the BRB.

P.S. P.109 in the BRB tells us to explicitly:"If your codex contains the primary detachment section of the Force Organisation chart, the allied detachment and fortificadon sections will not be present, as individual codexes do not contain rules for allied units or fortifications. 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."

So you can in fact use allies and fortifications.

 DeathReaper wrote:
P.S. P.109 in the BRB tells us to explicitly:"If your codex contains the primary detachment section of the Force Organisation chart, the allied detachment and fortificadon sections will not be present, as individual codexes do not contain rules for allied units or fortifications. 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."

So you can in fact use allies and fortifications.

Right. Meaning that in this specific situation, the rulebook actually changes the rules presented in the codex, and your 'army' can include things not mentioned in the codex.

Only insofar as the Force Org Chart is concerned.

Any Special rules for the various Special Characters still reference army as being the army (detachment) they were bought within.

GW could clear up all of these situations by replacing "army", in rules like Eldar Corsair Prince or Grey Knight Grand Masters Grand Strategy rule by saying "in the same detachment", instead of "In the same army".

Either way RAW is not 100% clear so we should take the least advantageous interpretation, that is the ethical choice.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Any Special rules for the various Special Characters still reference army as being the army (detachment) they were bought within.

That's a distinction that you're making up out of whole cloth, though.

However they arrive there, once models hit the table, your army is your army. There is no rules support for the idea that your 'army' only includes those parts of it selected from one specific book.

There are rules to support it, they are contained within each codex. Take Space Marines for example:

Premise 1: The army list entries in the SM Codex are talking about units within said codex.

P.128 SM Codex "Army List Entries: Each entry in the army list represents a different unit that you can use in a game."

Premise 2: Army list entries are defined on P.127 SM Codex "The following pages contain an army list..."

Premise 3: Army list entries = Codex Space Marine units. (As per my rules quotes).

Premise 4: A unit, in context = Army list entries/Codex Space Marine units. "If a unit wishes to arrive..." P. 67 Teleport Homer entry.

 DeathReaper wrote:
There are rules to support it, they are contained within each codex. Take Space Marines for example:

Premise 1: The army list entries in the SM Codex are talking about units within said codex.

P.128 SM Codex "Army List Entries: Each entry in the army list represents a different unit that you can use in a game."

Premise 2: Army list entries are defined on P.127 SM Codex "The following pages contain an army list..."

Premise 3: Army list entries = Codex Space Marine units. (As per my rules quotes).

Premise 4: A unit, in context = Army list entries/Codex Space Marine units. "If a unit wishes to arrive..." P. 67 Teleport Homer entry.

So if you are playing a Drop pod army using C:SM + C:SW

With 4 SM pods and 3 SW pods

You're saying I would bring in 1/2 of my SM pods, and 1/2 of my SW pods however I cannot bring in 1/2 of my pods as a whole outside of that restriction.

I get where you're coming from.

As to Premise 3/4 though, the rule says a unit, not a SM unit.
I truthfully wish it just said "a friendly unit"

As it is though I'd recommend it's usage with Battle brothers only. This is HIWPI

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
As to Premise 3/4 though, the rule says a unit, not a SM unit.

Which is covered by: P.128 SM Codex "Army List Entries: Each entry in the army list represents a different unit that you can use in a game."

In the underlined they are talking about Space Marine units, as the Space Marine Army list is referenced.

Conclusion: when they say a unit, in context, can only mean a unit from the army list within the Space Marine Codex.

 DeathReaper wrote:
There are rules to support it, they are contained within each codex.

The rules in each codex tell you how to build an army from that codex. They don't tell you that the word 'army' only refers to units from that codex.


The codex lets you build an army from that codex.
The rulebook allows you to build an army that includes units from more than one codex and fortifications from the rulebook.
Either construct is an army.

They give the definition of what 'Army' means in the context of that specific codex, which does not refer to units from any other codex.

Therefore, by the permissive ruleset, army in context of any given codex means only units from said codex.

A concept which the rulebook then alters by allowing you to incorporate units from other books into your army.

 DeathReaper wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
As to Premise 3/4 though, the rule says a unit, not a SM unit.

Which is covered by: P.128 SM Codex "Army List Entries: Each entry in the army list represents a different unit that you can use in a game."

In the underlined they are talking about Space Marine units, as the Space Marine Army list is referenced.

Conclusion: when they say a unit, in context, can only mean a unit from the army list within the Space Marine Codex.

Or we can use the definition in the BGB, what's a unit?

Just saying, you're going to the extreme with context. You only know what a unit is by using the BGB.

 insaniak wrote:
A concept which the rulebook then alters by allowing you to incorporate units from other books into your army.

The rulebook only alters the Force Org chart, not the definition of army.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Or we can use the definition in the BGB, what's a unit?

Just saying, you're going to the extreme with context. You only know what a unit is by using the BGB.

Unit in the context of the BRB is a grouping of models that need to stay in coherency etc.

Unit in the Codex is (Referencing the BRB) "a grouping of models that need to stay in coherency" and are bought as a part of that codexes army.