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.

 insaniak wrote:

Grugknuckle wrote:There is nothing at all in the rules to support the belief that the codex of your "army" is the codex of your primary detachment. Nothing.

There is also nothing in the rules to support the idea that each detachment is treated as a separate army, rather than just as a detachment in the complete army on the table.

Not true. Each of the codecies has a blurb that says something like "This codex contains all the rules you need to field a Space Wolf Army". For the Space Wolves Codex its on page 7 or 8. A codex is a rule book too.

How the rules worked in 5th edition is completely irrelevant to how they work now.

I strongly disagree. When RAW is not clear - such as right now, we often try to fine the RAI to determine the best ruling. When making this admittedly more subjective determination, the context of which edition of the rules the codex was written for is crucial. When the space wolves codex was written, the wording was chosen such that LotP applied for ALL standard missions. If you can't find strict RAW to say that this should change, then it should stay the same.

5th edition Multiple Detachment rules specified that each detachment was a separate army.

My above comment applies here as well.

The 6th edition version (...) actually refers to both Primary detachments as being from 'your army'. Likewise, the 'Choosing Your Army' section refers simply to building a single army. There is nothing in there that suggests that each detachment is still treated as a separate army... You have one army, that can be comprised of multiple detachments.

I agree with you here. But all this observation does is highlight the fact that we have no way to define what a "Tau Army" or an "Imperial Guard Army" is. We therefore need to make a decision. That decision should be as consistent as possible across all of the other codecies and in principle cause the fewest number of "broken" rules type issues.

At what point did I say that I would refuse to play someone for taking an extra rune priest in their army?

Again...I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about other players out there who WOULD do this. They exist. Don't deny it.

The whole point of rules discussion here is to foster a better understanding of the rules. That potentially helps those people who aren't 'super close readers' by pointing out potential areas where people interpret the rules differently.

I agree with you again! This is precisely why we should make the SIMPLEST rule. For example - Leader's of the Pack always applies!

I'll discuss the issue to find out if they're aware of it, and then most likely just get on with the game, because it's not a big enough issue to warrant stopping a game over.

Yeah - I wouldn't even discuss it. What for? I'm going to let him use them anyway. Why make him feel like I'm accusing him of cheating? I just want to play the game an enjoy myself.

As I've discussed previously, for my money the army you have is defined by your Primary detachment, because the Primary detachment is, you know, the Primary detachment.

OK now THIS interpretation has exactly zero support in the rules. It's fine if you WANT the rules to mean this, but they don't. Your 'army' is the sum of the primary and allied detachments. Which codex did you choose your army from? Both codecies.

For example...The UK sent a detachment of troops to Normandy. They were ... you know ... allies to the US forces. Does that mean that the invading army was "an American Army"? Or was it "a UK army"? Maybe Canadian, French or Polish? No. It was an Allied army.

Happyjew wrote:

 Grugknuckle wrote:
It's not really you that I'm referring to insaniak. I know your heart is in the right place. It's most everyone else who I'm talking about - particularly the people who say, "Come on! Space Wolves are already OP!"

Those people exist. Don't deny it.

We only say it because [insert army that has a 5th ed codex here] are already OP. Maybe before releasing a new edition GW should update all of their codexes first.

Yea, I am pretty sure SW players will give you no sympathy there considering the time and editions released before they got a new codex. Hahahaha!

Happyjew wrote:

We only say it because [insert army that has a 5th ed codex here] are already OP.

Don't be jealous just because your greenskins haven't got any GW love lately!

Maybe before releasing a new edition GW should update all of their codexes first.

I wish, but it will never happen. Frankly, I'd be happy if they were just more careful about the way they wrote rules. For example, they could only use nouns that are strictly defined across editions. Nouns like ARMY and POWER WEAPON. Or at the very least, when they make a dramatic change to the rules (um...allies, challenges) they could have the decency to give a couple of examples in the rulebook.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

No offense man, but I can lead a horse to water but I can't make it drink.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it THink.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
You know Insaniak, I pointed out the sections of the rules from the 6th edition allies section that refers to two seperate armies.

Yes, you did. I disagree that it is saying that the separate detachments each count as a separate army. It is just mentioning that the different armies in the game have different levels of alliance.

I also pointed out in the SW codex several instances that point out that choosing units from the army list constitutes making a SW army.

Which is relevant for building an army in 5th edition... but the codex was written before the current Allies rules. You use the codex to make a SW army, yes... but that doesn't mean that an allied detachment built from the codex is an army... it just means that an army built from the codex is an army.

Lastly I pointed out the sections in the new rulebook that take into account the FOC charts in individual codexes are not like the new ones and how to rectify those situations.

Which is not particularly relevant.

No offense man, but I can lead a horse to water but I can't make it drink.

And just because you posted it doesn't mean everyone is going to agree with it...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grugknuckle wrote:
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it THink.

You also apparently can't stop it from making ad hominem attacks instead of sticking to the topic.

 Grugknuckle wrote:

Happyjew wrote:

We only say it because [insert army that has a 5th ed codex here] are already OP.

Don't be jealous just because your greenskins haven't got any GW love lately!

The only reason my Eldar are green is because they ate some bad berries.

Seriously though, I'm not talking Orks. Their codex doesn't have an armoury (BT) or a bunch of wargear that no longer has any effect (Tau).

Sorry just read a post saying only the ally and primary = an army, by that horrific logic you could never use the "army" style rules due to neither being an army in their own right...

What rules are you referring to?

 insaniak wrote:

 Grugknuckle wrote:
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it THink.

You also apparently can't stop it from making ad hominem attacks instead of sticking to the topic.

I'm just trying to keep the whole discussion humorous. Lighten up.

TheTrans wrote:
Sorry just read a post saying only the ally and primary = an army, by that horrific logic you could never use the "army" style rules due to neither being an army in their own right...

Not really sure what you're saying. Could you clarify?

 insaniak wrote:


5th edition Multiple Detachment rules specified that each detachment was a separate army. The 6th edition version doesn't... in fact, it actually refers to both Primary detachments as being from 'your army'. Likewise, the 'Choosing Your Army' section refers simply to building a single army. There is nothing in there that suggests that each detachment is still treated as a separate army... You have one army, that can be comprised of multiple detachments.

That's the bit I meant...

Not what I was asking.

...by that horrific logic you could never use the "army" style rules due to neither being an army in their own right...

What rules are you talking about?

Just out of curiosity, if you include in your allied detachment a model that changes the FOC, ie Farseer Bel-Annath, would it alter the main FOC?