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.

MJThurston wrote:Show me where it says you can play two armies? You have allied detachment. What is a detachment? Not an army.

Just do what you want but everyone here knows that if you go to a tourney with a list with two HQ's you will be disqualified.

Unless they specifically make it clear before hand, I doubt it.

After all, the rules in a given codex can only govern units from that codex. So how can a rule in codex SW have any influence on the other detachment?

The Leaders of the Pack entry in Codex: Space Wolves states "In a Space Wolves army, each HQ 'slot' allows you to take up to TWO HQ choices...".
Therefore since there is no prerequisite to what determines an 'army', any Codex: Space Wolves HQ 'slot' confers TWO HQ choices.

There no way of determining what constitutes an 'army', so if you RAW, then when you comprise a force of SW you are forming an 'army'. Whether or not that force chooses to fight alongside; IG, BA, SM, GK is irrelevant.

Kevin949 wrote:Honestly, I would say that looking at the warlord section and the first thing says "when choosing your army" and if you go back to detachments and it says your warlord MUST be from your primary detachment, with these things combined...I AM CAPTAIN PL....oh I mean, with those combined it would seem that your primary detachment is "your army" and the allies are just allies, nothing more.

The same could be wondered about necrons and their royal court. Their wording actually just says "For every X in your army...", it doesn't even specify Necron Army.

FenrisianStuart21 wrote:The Leaders of the Pack entry in Codex: Space Wolves states "In a Space Wolves army, each HQ 'slot' allows you to take up to TWO HQ choices...".
Therefore since there is no prerequisite to what determines an 'army', any Codex: Space Wolves HQ 'slot' confers TWO HQ choices.

There no way of determining what constitutes an 'army', so if you RAW, then when you comprise a force of SW you are forming an 'army'. Whether or not that force chooses to fight alongside; IG, BA, SM, GK is irrelevant.

I think I found a way to determine that.

I play SW sometimes among others & it seems so clear that the PRIMARY force is the army codex in use & that is your army period..no-matter what unit,terrain,or allies you buy in so that arguement doesn't stick well with me..but..after re-reading the new rules & SW codex I think there is no reason 2 HQ units can't or shouldn't be chosen per 1 HQ slot by a player for his SW allies.It states under Primary and Allies that it's an HQ slot,not a single unit chosen and even describes slots as being more than one unit in some cases.That covers squadrons,units that split before deployment,and yes even the unique "leader of the pack"rule thats even noted in their points section for each SW HQ choice!(I'm sure their are other ones out there)Anyway it is legal.And if you create some house rule not to allow multiple units per allied slot you should do it in all cases(squadrons,special units per/HQ like seer councils,units that split into diff units,etc]and thats a whole big mess.Also your allies cannot be your warlord so I don't see a real advantage over any other allies except for a cool fluff option & if you like tiny elite armies or showing off some models.

"...some combinations of armies and allies..."

"...your army can include one allied detachment for each primary detachment of your army..."

"...a codex - a book that contains rules, background and collecting information for that army."

So according to pages 108-110, an "army" is a word with seemingly two different definitions:

1. The forces of a single Codex (hence "army list") and
2. The (combined) forces you bring to the table

In my opinion, these two definitions do not contradict Leaders of the Pack. So as a Space Wolves player I would totally allow my opponent to take two Rune Priests if he really wanted to. It seems to be that definition 2 is used for simplicity. Personally I would have just used "forces" myself.

I could be wrong, but that's how I'm reading it and what makes the most sense to me after reviewing the replies to this thread. Some of the arguments on both sides were a bit of a stretch for me.

I feel like leaders of the pack would carry over to an Allie detachment because it is part of the space wolf foc plain and simple. I have nothing to gain from this since I am a primary space wolf not an Allie.

cowmonaut wrote:"...some combinations of armies and allies..."

"...your army can include one allied detachment for each primary detachment of your army..."

"...a codex - a book that contains rules, background and collecting information for that army."

So according to pages 108-110, an "army" is a word with seemingly two different definitions:

1. The forces of a single Codex (hence "army list") and
2. The (combined) forces you bring to the table

In my opinion, these two definitions do not contradict Leaders of the Pack. So as a Space Wolves player I would totally allow my opponent to take two Rune Priests if he really wanted to. It seems to be that definition 2 is used for simplicity. Personally I would have just used "forces" myself.

I could be wrong, but that's how I'm reading it and what makes the most sense to me after reviewing the replies to this thread. Some of the arguments on both sides were a bit of a stretch for me.

+1 to this. The language used is not defined precisely because, (as usual) there are issues with the rules cross over.

Also,how did the "what's an army?" become such an issue?It's not relevant.We as gamers can see the idea behind the mechanics most of the time.Many pretend not to to get an advantage or hate on another army.We know your primary force is your army and allies are "help".Anyone arguing otherwise is just word picking to argue.This ruling shouldn't be a problem.It doesn't say ANYWHERE you can't take multiple UNITS for 1 SLOT choice if your primary OR allied codex allows this for whatever reason and many a codex does this in different ways.Are people freaking out cuz it's an HQ choice?And it does say 2 choices not slots for each HQ slot in codex SW if that matters.And if a tournament judge DQs you for this he has probably made a bunch of biased and bad houserules so you dont want to play there.It does say allies can't be Warlords....

Agreed.

And besides, I don't really see what the big deal is. You still have to pay points for that extra character so it's not like it massively unbalances everything. The cheapest one is 70 points with out wargear. Most of them are going to be about 100 points at least.

Zederith wrote:Many pretend not to to get an advantage or hate on another army.We know your primary force is your army and allies are "help".Anyone arguing otherwise is just word picking to argue

I'm seeing this a lot lately here on YMDC. Its just a thinly veiled attack on the character of anyone debating rules. I'm sure there is a small percentage of players that try to bend the rules or just like trolling people on the forum, but this kind of comment is really just uncalled for. Anyone who disagrees with how rules are being interpreted is not automatically a cheater.

Personal example: In that wound overflow thread I'm not trying to argue for personal advantage (point in fact, lack of overflow helps me more than it hinders). When I first read the rules, and each time I re-read it I still disagreed with what others were saying. Some rules are just poorly written, it doesn't mean someone is being a jerk.

Sorry to go off topic but this kind of thing is starting to bug me.

Zederith wrote:Also,how did the "what's an army?" become such an issue?It's not relevant.

It is perfectly relevant. There's been RAI rulings that have had greater impact based upon less nuance.

We as gamers can see the idea behind the mechanics most of the time.

Can we? Is the lamp on the table? Is there something wrong with me because I ask?

Many pretend not to to get an advantage or hate on another army. We know your primary force is your army and allies are "help". Anyone arguing otherwise is just word picking to argue.

So, you're making an assumption about the character of people trying to make a case. Your next statement seems to suggest that your ally is not part of your army; but your primary force is your 'army'. And then you make ANOTHER assumption about anyone suggesting otherwise. I'm arguing because I think I'm right. If you have a problem with that, you should go forge a narrative.

This ruling shouldn't be a problem. It doesn't say ANYWHERE you can't take multiple UNITS for 1 SLOT choice if your primary OR allied codex allows this for whatever reason and many a codex does this in different ways.

Sure. But DOES the codex say you can? That all depends upon whether "..in a Space Wolf army" is a limitation, intended or otherwise, or if it's just to help keep the price of ink high.

cowmonaut wrote:

Zederith wrote:Many pretend not to to get an advantage or hate on another army.We know your primary force is your army and allies are "help".Anyone arguing otherwise is just word picking to argue

I'm seeing this a lot lately here on YMDC. Its just a thinly veiled attack on the character of anyone debating rules. I'm sure there is a small percentage of players that try to bend the rules or just like trolling people on the forum, but this kind of comment is really just uncalled for. Anyone who disagrees with how rules are being interpreted is not automatically a cheater.

Personal example: In that wound overflow thread I'm not trying to argue for personal advantage (point in fact, lack of overflow helps me more than it hinders). When I first read the rules, and each time I re-read it I still disagreed with what others were saying. Some rules are just poorly written, it doesn't mean someone is being a jerk.

Well said. And especially the fact that some rules are just poorly written. I've never had this many disputes over rules with Flames of War. Sometimes it seems almost like GW isn't even trying to make well written rules.

MJThurston wrote:So is it a army's list or a army list?

The rule is clear.

Army is main force.

Ally is the extra's.

I would laugh at you if you tried to pull this at the store.

Stop trying to abuse rules. SW's are already over powered. Now you want to use them to over power other army lists?

As I said. Just make your list SW and put another ally with them.

I play SW so already get 4 HQ choices and cannot ally with myself. I am actually arguing a point that takes a unique rule from my main army and extend it to people that use a SW army as an allied force.

And that is the main point that extends Leaders of the Pack to a SW allied detachment;

An allied detachment is made up of an army from another codex.

All RAW evidence needed is on the Space Wolves Army List page.

MJThurston wrote:Show me where it says you can play two armies? You have allied detachment. What is a detachment? Not an army.

So the Primary detachment is not an army either, by your interpretation.

So no army is on the board at all. That is incorrect.

cowmonaut wrote:I'm seeing this a lot lately here on YMDC. Its just a thinly veiled attack on the character of anyone debating rules. I'm sure there is a small percentage of players that try to bend the rules or just like trolling people on the forum, but this kind of comment is really just uncalled for. Anyone who disagrees with how rules are being interpreted is not automatically a cheater.

Personal example: In that wound overflow thread I'm not trying to argue for personal advantage (point in fact, lack of overflow helps me more than it hinders). When I first read the rules, and each time I re-read it I still disagreed with what others were saying. Some rules are just poorly written, it doesn't mean someone is being a jerk.

Sorry to go off topic but this kind of thing is starting to bug me.

Same here buddy, the quality of objective debate about the rules has gone downhill.

cowmonaut wrote:

Zederith wrote:Many pretend not to to get an advantage or hate on another army.We know your primary force is your army and allies are "help".Anyone arguing otherwise is just word picking to argue

I'm seeing this a lot lately here on YMDC. Its just a thinly veiled attack on the character of anyone debating rules. I'm sure there is a small percentage of players that try to bend the rules or just like trolling people on the forum, but this kind of comment is really just uncalled for. Anyone who disagrees with how rules are being interpreted is not automatically a cheater.

Personal example: In that wound overflow thread I'm not trying to argue for personal advantage (point in fact, lack of overflow helps me more than it hinders). When I first read the rules, and each time I re-read it I still disagreed with what others were saying. Some rules are just poorly written, it doesn't mean someone is being a jerk.

Sorry to go off topic but this kind of thing is starting to bug me.

I love the ones who feel the need to respond to every single person who disagrees with them, and then state their opinion is the word of god, not just their opinion. So you have 10 people disagreeing with them and they have a response to every disagreement saying the same exact thing. I wish people would get banned for spamming the forum with this crap.

I can think of two of these guys right now.

I love the ones who drag a thread off topic complaining about other posters rather than addressing the actual discussion.

If you see a comment made by another poster that you don't think is appropriate, or that breaks the forum's rules, hit the mod alert and let the moderators deal with it. This allows the thread to continue without deing de-railed by off topic back-and-forth.



However, I think we've pretty well covered the valid points here by now, and so pending any sort of clarification from GW I think we can give this one a rest. Moving on.