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.

Tangential to the Grand Strategy on allied units thread, I open this one to ask: What is meant when they say "your army"?

The following phrase veers towards absurdity: "Units in your army treat Allies of Convenience as enemy units that cannot be charged, shot, targeted with psychic powers or have blast markers placed over them."

If "your army" DOESN'T include allies:
- Allies of convenience breaks because you treat your allies as enemy units and they're not a part of your army. That means they can contest your objectives hypothetically.
- Sloppily written rules can not affect units cross-codex, though this is arguably by design.

If "your army" DOES include allies:
- If your allies are "units in your army" then their ICs can't join their own units, their units can't embark in their own vehicles, ad absurdum, because they have to treat themselves "as enemy units" per the above.
- Sloppily written rules can now affect units cross-codex, though this is arguably by design.

I can't reconcile this.


Edit: Logic flip on my cross-codex ramifications.

Your army is your primary detachment. All references to "your army" in the rulebook reference your primary detachment (such as choosing a warlord).

 Kevin949 wrote:
Your army is your primary detachment. All references to "your army" in the rulebook reference your primary detachment (such as choosing a warlord).

But...
"If you wish, your army can include one allied detachment
for each primary detachment in your army..."

pg 109 of BRB under Allied Detachment.

So if you choose to have an Allied Detachment, "Your army" includes them as well.

You got a page number for that Kevin?

The definition of 'Army' is twofold.

The BRB refers to it as your army list (This would include any primary and secondary detachments).

Each codex refers to 'Army' as the army list made from that specific codex.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The BRB refers to it as your army list (This would include any primary and secondary detachments).

Primary and secondary, sure, but what about allied detachments?

 daedalus wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The BRB refers to it as your army list (This would include any primary and secondary detachments).

Primary and secondary, sure, but what about allied detachments?

secondary (allied) detachments are included in the BRB definition.

 daedalus wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The BRB refers to it as your army list (This would include any primary and secondary detachments).

Primary and secondary, sure, but what about allied detachments?

The secondary is the Allied Detachment.

Dang it. Death beat me to it.

Allied detachments are secondary detachments. And that rules quote is from pg 109.

So then in that case, if your allies are "units in your army" then when you have Allies of Convenience, their ICs can't join their own units, their units can't embark in their own vehicles, ad absurdum, because they have to treat themselves "as enemy units" per the above.

 daedalus wrote:
So then in that case, if your allies are "units in your army" then when you have Allies of Convenience, their ICs can't join their own units,

Not true, as Orks, are not Allies of Convenience with orks, Just with Tau, and a few others.

Okay, so here's what I'm trying to say:

Premise is that, in the bolded section of the OP which is from page 112 of the rulebook, "your army" includes allies.

That means that both detachments have to treat any Allies of Convenience as enemies.

So, in an army of

CCS
Vet squad
Vet squad

Warboss
Boyz
Trukk

where the Orks are allied to the IG, the Vet squad is a part of "your army", and has to treat the Warboss as an enemy unit, right?

Okay... But since the Warboss is a part of "your army", it also has to follow the rules above, which means that the Warboss can't join the squad with the Boyz. Further, the Boyz have to follow the rules above, which means that they can't embark in the Trukk.

See what I'm saying now?

I see what you are trying to say, but your assertations are incorrect.


The IG treat the Orks as an enemy unit, as IG and Orks are Allies of Convenience.

IG is nothing with IG, and Orks are nothing with Orks. So IG do not treat IG as Allies of Convenience because they are not listed on the chart as Allies of Convenience.

40k-noob wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:
Your army is your primary detachment. All references to "your army" in the rulebook reference your primary detachment (such as choosing a warlord).

But...
"If you wish, your army can include one allied detachment
for each primary detachment in your army..."

pg 109 of BRB under Allied Detachment.

So if you choose to have an Allied Detachment, "Your army" includes them as well.

I suppose more along the lines of what I meant is that "your army" is your primary detachment in that if you play tau as your primary and necrons as your allies, you are still playing a Tau army. Pretty much what deathreaper said, "your army" wholly consists of your primary and allies detachments but for the purposes of the type of army you're playing is going to be your primary detachment.

jbunny wrote:You got a page number for that Kevin?

Well, the very first line of page 111, first off.

 DeathReaper wrote:
I see what you are trying to say, but your assertations are incorrect.


The IG treat the Orks as an enemy unit, as IG and Orks are Allies of Convenience.

IG is nothing with IG, and Orks are nothing with Orks. So IG do not treat IG as Allies of Convenience because they are not listed on the chart as Allies of Convenience.

But at what point does it actually say that? Remember, we just got done claiming that "your army" meant all the detachments in your army list. I realize that the hypothetical Orks are not anything to themselves, however, we're already running down the Allies of Convenience rule path.

The Allies section lists what factions are considered Allies of Convenience in respect to the Orks.

The Orks are not Allies of Convenience to the Orks. (See page 113 for the allies matrix).

This tells us that Orks are not Allies of Convenience to other Ork units.

 Kevin949 wrote:
All references to "your army" in the rulebook reference your primary detachment (such as choosing a warlord).

this is not true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kevin949 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:
Your army is your primary detachment. All references to "your army" in the rulebook reference your primary detachment (such as choosing a warlord).

But...
"If you wish, your army can include one allied detachment
for each primary detachment in your army..."

pg 109 of BRB under Allied Detachment.

So if you choose to have an Allied Detachment, "Your army" includes them as well.

I suppose more along the lines of what I meant is that "your army" is your primary detachment in that if you play tau as your primary and necrons as your allies, you are still playing a Tau army. Pretty much what deathreaper said, "your army" wholly consists of your primary and allies detachments but for the purposes of the type of army you're playing is going to be your primary detachment.

I disagree strongly with this. No where in the BRB or in any codex does it say that for the "purposes of what type of army you're playing it's the codex of your primary detachment." This is a completely artificial thing that people have imposed upon the forums so that they can talk about "my IG army with BA allies". The rules never talk about army lists this way - only people on the forums do.

On page 108 it says your army consists of the sum of your primary detachment and your allied detachment. I don't have the BRB in front of me so I won't try to quote it exactly. It goes on to say that the rules for each detachment are contained in their respective codecies.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The Allies section lists what factions are considered Allies of Convenience in respect to the Orks.

The Orks are not Allies of Convenience to the Orks. (See page 113 for the allies matrix).

This tells us that Orks are not Allies of Convenience to other Ork units.

This. The Army is the primary and any allied detachment, together. The Ork units are Allies of Convenience to the IG units, and vice-versa.

 Grugknuckle wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:
All references to "your army" in the rulebook reference your primary detachment (such as choosing a warlord).

this is not true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kevin949 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:
Your army is your primary detachment. All references to "your army" in the rulebook reference your primary detachment (such as choosing a warlord).

But...
"If you wish, your army can include one allied detachment
for each primary detachment in your army..."

pg 109 of BRB under Allied Detachment.

So if you choose to have an Allied Detachment, "Your army" includes them as well.

I suppose more along the lines of what I meant is that "your army" is your primary detachment in that if you play tau as your primary and necrons as your allies, you are still playing a Tau army. Pretty much what deathreaper said, "your army" wholly consists of your primary and allies detachments but for the purposes of the type of army you're playing is going to be your primary detachment.

I disagree strongly with this. No where in the BRB or in any codex does it say that for the "purposes of what type of army you're playing it's the codex of your primary detachment." This is a completely artificial thing that people have imposed upon the forums so that they can talk about "my IG army with BA allies". The rules never talk about army lists this way - only people on the forums do.

On page 108 it says your army consists of the sum of your primary detachment and your allied detachment. I don't have the BRB in front of me so I won't try to quote it exactly. It goes on to say that the rules for each detachment are contained in their respective codecies.

So, you make an accusation stating what I said isn't true (when it is) and then by your own admission you're making quotes from memory (which are wrong) and stating things aren't true (page 108 says no such thing).

I suppose you didn't really pay attention to what I was saying.

The quote you "might" be thinking of, on Pg 109, is where it says "If you wish, your army can include one allied detachment for each primary detachment in your army".
But that does not mean your primary detachment stops being "your army". In fact, it's quite the opposite right at the beginning of the sentence, "your army can include".

And I said earlier, yes the allied detachment do count as "your army" for the purpose of what you field. But if you claim to be playing a space wolf army when they're your allied detachment, you're wrong. What this means is that for certain rules, such as with black templars, if they're your allied detachment you're not (or shouldn't be) required to take an emperor's champion as you're not fielding a black templars army. Conversely, if you conclude that your entire army is wholly comprised of all codices you're using then you're never fielding a specific type of army and can never claim certain bonuses or negatives.

If they would change all references from 'Army' to 'Detachment' (or the detachment that includes X) in every codex that would make the rules clear for people.

 DeathReaper wrote:
If they would change all references from 'Army' to 'Detachment' (or the detachment that includes X) in every codex that would make the rules clear for people.

Agreed.

 Kevin949 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
If they would change all references from 'Army' to 'Detachment' (or the detachment that includes X) in every codex that would make the rules clear for people.

Agreed.

And yet, 2 FAQ sets later, they did no such thing.

 kirsanth wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
If they would change all references from 'Army' to 'Detachment' (or the detachment that includes X) in every codex that would make the rules clear for people.

Agreed.

And yet, 2 FAQ sets later, they did no such thing.

They do make mistakes. See below:

"Q: If a model makes a Pile In move which brings it into base contact
with a model with a lash whip, does it then fight at its normal
Initiative step or must it wait until the Initiative 1 step? (p83)
A: It fights at its normal Initiative 1 step."

From the Tyranid FAQ

 DeathReaper wrote:
They do make mistakes.

No one debates that. Or should not.
"Omitting" the "issue" is more telling than mistyping the answer though.

 kirsanth wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
They do make mistakes.

No one debates that. Or should not.
"Omitting" the "issue" is more telling than mistyping the answer though.

and they are slowly updating the other FAQ's to reflect this.

So the safe play is to not gain an advantage (As usual with ambiguous rules).

 DeathReaper wrote:

 kirsanth wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
They do make mistakes.

No one debates that. Or should not.
"Omitting" the "issue" is more telling than mistyping the answer though.

and they are slowly updating the other FAQ's to reflect this.

So the safe play is to not gain an advantage (As usual with ambiguous rules).

That's just the thing though.

It isn't ambiguous.
It is simply likely to change.

you are right "It isn't ambiguous."

'Army', taken in context in any given codex only refers to that codex.

Do we really need 2 threads?

 DeathReaper wrote:
you are right "It isn't ambiguous."

'Army', taken in context in any given codex only refers to that codex.

Actually it's "_____ Army" however that blank is not "your" insert codex name in the blank.

For a definable use of "your army" check the BRB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
Do we really need 2 threads?[/quote

and no we really dont. It's annoying repeating oneself more than usual

So does this mean that for example a GK Grand master could make de harlequins a scoring unit?