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.

As silly a question as this is for a Warhammer player to ask, I'd like to know what exactly an "army" is defined as in 40k.

I've scoured the internet (front page google), GW's FAQs, and the 6th Edition rulebook in search of an answer. I have come back short, and am found wanting (Emprah save my soul!).

The reasoning behind asking such a... basic question is that we're discussing the possibility of running two non-unique special characters as allies with a pair of the same weapons that are implied to be unique throughout the galaxy. Specifically, running two Black Maces in a CSM/Black Legion army list.

I contend that it is impossible to run a list that incorporates two Black Maces between Primary Force and Allied Force because the 6th Edition Rulebook roughly defines an army as the entire Force Organization. The more experienced players are stating that the FO has two armies- Primary Detachment and a seperate Allied Detachment, which does make sense.

If someone would be so kind as to explain what exactly is an "army", how the unique rule works when dealing with allies, and if you could run a pair of Black Maces in a deployment, I would be most overjoyed.

The definition of army is twofold.

Most of the codexes define army as a force you pick from the army list is said codex.

The BRB defines it as a combination of all of your primary and allied detachments.

The question then becomes, I assume, do the codexes that are newer than the BRB define an army as the models chosen from said codex, or is it simply a vestige of the days before there were defined rules for having an army?

If the latter, the definition from the BRB supercedes the definition of it from the old Codexes since its rules generally supercede any duplicate rules from older Dexes.

That said, it should be a moot point in the argument of 2 Black Maces, assuming I'm correct in assuming that it's only pre-Allies rules Codexes that state that an Army is defined as Anything From That Codex.

Unfortunately army is not very well defined. For instance in your definition of army a DA techmarine is unlocked for each HQ choice in your army meaning that by taking DA allies you'd unlock 2 Techmarines by having say Ghazgull and a Big Mek in your primary Ork detachment. Where as taking army to mean just the primary detachment results in other very weird rules. Because it appears army can mean either your entire army including Allies or just your Primary detachment. The rulebook appears to define army to be both Primary and Allied detachments. Where as each codex (including the new 6th Edition ones) appear to talk as if army refers simply the detachment taken from that book though it does not define army in a way to contradict the BrB.

So from a RaW perspective the BRB definition is what we have to go on.

Is it possible to take two Abaddons in a C:CSM + S:BL army? I don't have the supplement and I don't know how they work.

EDIT: It seems strange they would leave this large of a hole unattended. As the BRB doesn't mention supplements as far as I'm aware (they didn't exist at the time!), that would point to the supplement for the answer.

unique special rule means you only get one ...also you also cannot ally to your own codex (or codex + supplement as you still need the base codex)

 Tri wrote:
unique special rule means you only get one ...also you also cannot ally to your own codex (or codex + supplement as you still need the base codex)

The Farsight supplement disagrees.
Since we don't have the chaos one yet saying that you can't ally with it may not be correct.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tri wrote:
unique special rule means you only get one ...also you also cannot ally to your own codex (or codex + supplement as you still need the base codex)

The Farsight supplement disagrees.
Since we don't have the chaos one yet saying that you can't ally with it may not be correct.

If you say there is a line that you may ally with Tau then I'll have to take your word for it, since i Don't have the tau supplement yet. I assume it has some addition to the allies rules because if it hasn't you still need to use the rules in the BGB. Since the BGB make no mention of any of the supplements just the base codex and points out that you can take a second FOC at 2kpts+ and cannot ally with your own codex, its going to be down to very precise wording.

The Farsight Enclave Supplement states Farsight Enclaves are Battle Brothers with Tau.

Just as the Black Legion supplement states that it may be taken as an ally (or take as an ally)by Chaos Marines.

 Lightcavalier wrote:
The Farsight Enclave Supplement states Farsight Enclaves are Battle Brothers with Tau.

Just as the Black Legion supplement states that it may be taken as an ally (or take as an ally)by Chaos Marines.

Fair enough ... just wish the bloody supplements were in store.

Farsight in the supplement and Farsight in the Tau codex are slightly different in the rules for their bodyguards. Does this mean they are in fact unique from each other and that you could take Farsight in both the primary and allied detachments or is it done purely on Charecter name? Something someone mentioned to me (I personally think it would be cheesy filth)

Farsight in the supplement and Farsight in the Tau codex are slightly different in the rules for their bodyguards. Does this mean they are in fact unique from each other and that you could take Farsight in both the primary and allied detachments or is it done purely on Charecter name? Something someone mentioned to me (I personally think it would be cheesy filth)

Cheesy filth? No. A bad spend of points for a shooty army to spend over 300 points on 2 mediocre combat models? Very much yes.

As to whether you can do. This is exactly what the original poster is asking (but with Abbadon). Unfortunately your "army" is not consistently defined in this edition, though I believe the clear intention is 1 Abbadon, or any other unique character for that matter.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Farsight in the supplement and Farsight in the Tau codex are slightly different in the rules for their bodyguards. Does this mean they are in fact unique from each other and that you could take Farsight in both the primary and allied detachments or is it done purely on Charecter name? Something someone mentioned to me (I personally think it would be cheesy filth)

Cheesy filth? No. A bad spend of points for a shooty army to spend over 300 points on 2 mediocre combat models? Very much yes.

As to whether you can do. This is exactly what the original poster is asking (but with Abbadon). Unfortunately your "army" is not consistently defined in this edition, though I believe the clear intention is 1 Abbadon, or any other unique character for that matter.

Cheesy due not to Farsight himself but allowing a full blown Farsight Bomb from the Tau codex and the ability to take 5 Riptides (O'vesa) (IIRC you cant take any of Farsights bodyguards from the supplement without taking the big man himself). Farsight himself isnt great. Good but not great.

The Eldar supplement is the most confusing of all.
Do you have to have eldar as your primary detachment to use it?
Can you still take allies?
The wording on the wraithknight as warlord is increadably vague, seems like you could ally some eldar and make the wraithknight your warlord anyway? (yes the rule book says your have to choose from your primary detachment but the rulebook also says it must be an HQ choice...)

And why complain about tau getting cheese out of a supplament? have you read their codex? Check out the rulebook FAQ that came out after the Tau codex, where "Can you ever modify the BS of a snap shot? No" is still in there...........

Iyanden can't ally with Eldar so you're quite confused there. Tau can modify the BS of a snap shot because they have a specific exemption to the BRB rule. The are also the most competitive codex going at the moment...

No I meant to take Iyanden does it have to be your primary detatchment?
and if not, what about the wraithknight as warlord can you still apply that funky rule even as an allied detachment?

Tau are cheese pure and simple

Well the Iyanden Supplement details how it can be taken as Allies. The Wraithknight is a Warlord for Iyanden. Nothing states it can be warlord if they are taken as allies. I really don't understand your confusion on those rules.

If I was at home I would be bringing everyone's attention to a specific paragraph within the allied section, page 111ish. This single paragraph goes on to detail that army means both detachments, which would be very useful if it wasn't for the fact they then go on to state that certain army and allied combinations work better. After giving us a description of the terminology 'army' they then throw it out the window by using a derived word in a way that directly conflicts what they had just stated.

If they can not keep the terminology straight for a single paragraph then what hopes do we have?

JinxDragon wrote:
If I was at home I would be bringing everyone's attention to a specific paragraph within the allied section, page 111ish. This single paragraph goes on to detail that army means both detachments, which would be very useful if it wasn't for the fact they then go on to state that certain army and allied combinations work better. After giving us a description of the terminology 'army' they then throw it out the window by using a derived word in a way that directly conflicts what they had just stated.

If they can not keep the terminology straight for a single paragraph then what hopes do we have?

Fantastic. Looks like a case for house-ruling.

Some clarifications now I reviewed it:

The page is 109 and the section is known as allied detachments. Understandably, it goes on to do what you would expect and outline what allies mean in your army and use nice terminology that would answer once and for all. I particularly are fond of the line pointing out that your army can include allied detachments up to the number of primary detachments already in your army. It shows that the two detachments, primary and allied, are separate entities in a larger organization known as the army.

I did make a fair mistake: It is the last paragraph in this three paragraph section and not in the same paragraph.