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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 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.

Stretching feels good.

Nothing constructive to add :-P

I think we can sum this up by stating: When the rules are not 100% clear the ethical thing to do is to take the least advantageous interpretation.

If it ever gets FaQed go with said FaQ. Until then do not try to let one codexes abilities have any effect on another codexes units. As that is the Ethical/ Least Advantageous choice.

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

And the Force Org Chart is what is used to buld your... ? Starting with 'a'? Rhymes with 'barmy?'

 insaniak wrote:

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

And the Force Org Chart is what is used to buld your... ? Starting with 'a'? Rhymes with 'barmy?'

Right you use the force org to know how many units you can take in that detachment. but it does not alter the definition of army as far as the eldar corsair prince's rule that gives deepstrike to units, as you can not ignore context.

It's not 'ignoring context' to assume that when the rules refer to your army, they mean your army.

You're creating a distinction that simply does not exist in the current rules. Your army in 6th edition is the army built from your codex, with any added fortifications or allies. That doesn't change just because a specific codex was written before any given date.

It exists, check my post explaining the Codex Space Marines and what they consider army.

That is proof that I am not "creating a distinction that simply does not exist in the current rules" The Space Marine Codex does that, not myself.

 DeathReaper wrote:
It exists, check my post explaining the Codex Space Marines and what they consider army.

That is proof that I am not "creating a distinction that simply does not exist in the current rules" The Space Marine Codex does that, not myself.

Ok I'll bite.
C:SM Might describe Army, however it does not describe "your army"

 DeathReaper wrote:
It exists, check my post explaining the Codex Space Marines and what they consider army.

Which is still completely irrelevant, as 6th edition changed the way armies could be constructed.

 insaniak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It exists, check my post explaining the Codex Space Marines and what they consider army.

Which is still completely irrelevant, as 6th edition changed the way armies could be constructed.

It is only irrelevant if you ignore the context of the SM Codex.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It exists, check my post explaining the Codex Space Marines and what they consider army.

That is proof that I am not "creating a distinction that simply does not exist in the current rules" The Space Marine Codex does that, not myself.

Ok I'll bite.
C:SM Might describe Army, however it does not describe "your army"

That does not matter, as the eldar corsair prince's ability does not say your army, it says the army, in context the army means the Eldar Army.

Britneyfan12 wrote:
Any 3 units of the owning players choice chosen as part of the force org chart for the army.. may deepstrike"

 DeathReaper wrote:
It is only irrelevant if you ignore the context of the SM Codex.

Which you do, because 6th edition changed the way armies can be constructed...

 insaniak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It is only irrelevant if you ignore the context of the SM Codex.

Which you do, because 6th edition changed the way armies can be constructed...

They changed the force org chart, but that does not change what the SM Codex calls army.

No, that's exactly what it does. If you change the FOC, you change what is included on the army.