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.

 Neorealist wrote:
You appear to be still missing that any book you happened to take allies from says that exact same thing. (as in, it refers to your 'army' in various ways when describing it's contents)

Why for example wouldn't an allied Necron overlord and warrior blob count as your 'army' when it's codex infers that it is exactly that in a more or less identical fashion to the way the gray knight one does for your primary contingent in the above example? Simply put: the Ork codex says your 'army' is the orks found within it, the chaos marine codex says your 'army' is comprised of codex chaos marines, etc.

Ergo i stand by my original opinion that what exactly is or isn't an 'Army' is currently undefined. (or defined in as many mutually exclusive and therefore inconsistent ways as there are codexes if you insist that the codex referring to your army as being just from that codex is a valid rule)

I agree they are not defined, or in this case terribly defined. Both sides can bring up examples where they're right. Simply put though it appears to work at present, and it does need a faq/errata. Heck let GW add in the Definition of "your army" with an errata to the BGB

 Neorealist wrote:
You appear to be still missing that any book you happened to take allies from says that exact same thing. (as in, it refers to your 'army' in various ways when describing it's contents)

Why for example wouldn't an allied Necron overlord and warrior blob count as your 'army' when it's codex infers that it is exactly that in a more or less identical fashion to the way the gray knight one does for your primary contingent in the above example? Simply put: the Ork codex says your 'army' is the orks found within it, the chaos marine codex says your 'army' is comprised of codex chaos marines, etc.

Ergo i stand by my original opinion that what exactly is or isn't an 'Army' is currently undefined. (or defined in as many mutually exclusive and therefore inconsistent ways as there are codexes if you insist that the codex referring to your army as being just from that codex is a valid rule)

Not missing that fact, each codex is quite clear on the subject.

Army, in the context of any codex refers to units selected from said codex.

As above. Noone has missed that fact, it just happily defines what that codex thinks is "your army" when it refers to such.

Sure but you appear to be missing my example and my point:

Lets say you have a hypothetical Grey Knight army list that you've added an Allied contingent of Necrons to. Both the knight codex 'and' the necron codex refers to the units you took from each to make your list as your 'army' in various ways.

Therefore there is a rulebook referring to your primary contingent as 'your army' and an equally valid rulebook referring to your allied contingent as 'your army'.

Given both are implicitly 'your army' by virtue of their own rules, how is it correct to refer only to your primary contingent as such?

 Neorealist wrote:
Sure but you appear to be missing my example and my point:

Lets say you have a hypothetical Grey Knight army list that you've added an Allied contingent of Necrons to. Both the knight codex 'and' the necron codex refers to the units you took from each to make your list as your 'army' in various ways.

Therefore there is a rulebook referring to your primary contingent as 'your army' and an equally valid rulebook referring to your allied contingent as 'your army'.

Given both are implicitly 'your army' by virtue of their own rules, how is it correct to refer only to your primary contingent as such?

You are missing what we are trying to say.

The point being the Grand Master's Grand Strategy ability, which is in the GK Codex, refers to units from the Grey Knights Codex, and no other units.

You are correct that both Grey Knights and the Necrons are implicitly 'your army' by virtue of their own rules, and the BRB refers to your 2 armies combined as 'your army'.

But the GK book does not refer to your 2 armies combined as 'your army', it only refers to Grey Knight units as your army.

That is why Grand Strategy only works on units from the Grey Knight army book.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:
Sure but you appear to be missing my example and my point:

Lets say you have a hypothetical Grey Knight army list that you've added an Allied contingent of Necrons to. Both the knight codex 'and' the necron codex refers to the units you took from each to make your list as your 'army' in various ways.

Therefore there is a rulebook referring to your primary contingent as 'your army' and an equally valid rulebook referring to your allied contingent as 'your army'.

Given both are implicitly 'your army' by virtue of their own rules, how is it correct to refer only to your primary contingent as such?

You are missing what we are trying to say.

The point being the Grand Master's Grand Strategy ability, which is in the GK Codex, refers to units from the Grey Knights Codex, and no other units.

You are correct that both Grey Knights and the Necrons are implicitly 'your army' by virtue of their own rules, and the BRB refers to your 2 armies combined as 'your army'.

But the GK book does not refer to your 2 armies combined as 'your army', it only refers to Grey Knight units as your army.

That is why Grand Strategy only works on units from the Grey Knight army book.

Not really, as your 2 armies are still your army. Also the GK book only says it's a GK army, not your army.
However the BGB states your army for both. It needs a faq/errata and until than your arguments are just wind in the trees

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
Not really, as your 2 armies are still your army. Also the GK book only says it's a GK army, not your army.
However the BGB states your army for both. It needs a faq/errata and until than your arguments are just wind in the trees

The Grand Strategy ability works on Grey Knights only. (Your army, as referenced by the Grand Strategy Rule taken in context, means your Grey Knight Army).

You would have to ignore context to get it to work with any other codex.

 DeathReaper wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
Not really, as your 2 armies are still your army. Also the GK book only says it's a GK army, not your army.
However the BGB states your army for both. It needs a faq/errata and until than your arguments are just wind in the trees

The Grand Strategy ability works on Grey Knights only. (Your army, as referenced by the Grand Strategy Rule taken in context, means your Grey Knight Army).

You would have to ignore context to get it to work with any other codex.

We've been through this DR, you cannot prove your way more than any other. In fact its in such dispute that its all left to opinions.
I don't ignore context, I just read actual words and stop trying to imply that other ones are in its place.
I think RAI you're right however with RAW being a lil jumble from 5th codex, vs 6th rulebook.
It can literally go either way, you really don't need to try to show me the "light" as you'll only be wasting your time as you've tried before. I've read the appropriate rules and have made my educated decision just as you have.

P.81 GK Codex, Unit composition heading tells us that you can only include one of each unique unit in "Your Army"

P.81 GK Codex, Army List Entries heading tells us "Each unit in the Grey Knights army list contains the following information."

Your Army = GK army list.

Grand Strategy P.22 tells us to nominate a certain type of unit in Your Army.

Conclusion: The Grand Strategy ability works on Grey Knight units only.

One little problem though "your army" is only implied, loosely i might add.
The BGB not only tells us, it has it spelled out for us.

Let me try

Your army ='s the army you're fielding with both prim/secondary attachments

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
One little problem though "your army" is only implied, loosely i might add.
The BGB not only tells us, it has it spelled out for us.

Let me try

Your army ='s the army you're fielding with both prim/secondary attachments

and where there is a conflict Codex Trumps BRB (P. 7), This is one of those times.

 DeathReaper wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
One little problem though "your army" is only implied, loosely i might add.
The BGB not only tells us, it has it spelled out for us.

Let me try

Your army ='s the army you're fielding with both prim/secondary attachments

and where there is a conflict Codex Trumps BRB (P. 7), This is one of those times.

There is no conflict. The codex never says it's your army.
The rulebook does.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
One little problem though "your army" is only implied, loosely i might add.
The BGB not only tells us, it has it spelled out for us.

Let me try

Your army ='s the army you're fielding with both prim/secondary attachments

and where there is a conflict Codex Trumps BRB (P. 7), This is one of those times.

There is no conflict. The codex never says it's your army.
The rulebook does.

The codex absolutely does. "Then you can proceed to pick your army." Page 81 C:GK

rigeld2 wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
One little problem though "your army" is only implied, loosely i might add.
The BGB not only tells us, it has it spelled out for us.

Let me try

Your army ='s the army you're fielding with both prim/secondary attachments

and where there is a conflict Codex Trumps BRB (P. 7), This is one of those times.

There is no conflict. The codex never says it's your army.
The rulebook does.

The codex absolutely does. "Then you can proceed to pick your army." Page 81 C:GK

That's actually good news, now if my ally codex says that it's still your army.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
That's actually good news, now if my ally codex says that it's still your army.

Yes, within the context of that codex.
Just like "your army" in the context of the GK codex is a GK army.

rigeld2 wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
That's actually good news, now if my ally codex says that it's still your army.

Yes, within the context of that codex.
Just like "your army" in the context of the GK codex is a GK army.

Just like your army in context will be either army picked as long as codex says so.

As long as codex says your army, Master Strategy will work fine, as that's the only thing the rule cares about.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
That's actually good news, now if my ally codex says that it's still your army.

Yes, within the context of that codex.
Just like "your army" in the context of the GK codex is a GK army.

Just like your army in context will be either army picked as long as codex says so.

As long as codex says your army, Master Strategy will work fine, as that's the only thing the rule cares about.

And again, you've ignored context. Since Master Strategy refers to "your army" and the GK codex refers to "your army" as only the GK army list, Master Strategy can only ever refer to the GK army list.

rigeld2 wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
That's actually good news, now if my ally codex says that it's still your army.

Yes, within the context of that codex.
Just like "your army" in the context of the GK codex is a GK army.

Just like your army in context will be either army picked as long as codex says so.

As long as codex says your army, Master Strategy will work fine, as that's the only thing the rule cares about.

And again, you've ignored context. Since Master Strategy refers to "your army" and the GK codex refers to "your army" as only the GK army list, Master Strategy can only ever refer to the GK army list.

Also by that manner, the army list that defines your army is used in conjunction with the force org chart. That force org chart now allows allies. By that same default, beings their used hand in hand wouldn't allies count as part of your army?

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
Also by that manner, the army list that defines your army is used in conjunction with the force org chart. That force org chart now allows allies. By that same default, beings their used hand in hand wouldn't allies count as part of your army?

No. "Your Army" is defined in the "Using your army list" section of the Codex. The FoC is defined in the "Using the Force Organization Chart" section of the Codex.

rigeld2 wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
Also by that manner, the army list that defines your army is used in conjunction with the force org chart. That force org chart now allows allies. By that same default, beings their used hand in hand wouldn't allies count as part of your army?

No. "Your Army" is defined in the "Using your army list" section of the Codex. The FoC is defined in the "Using the Force Organization Chart" section of the Codex.

It says they're used in conjunction with each other in that section.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Basically that they're used with each other. That said the new FOC can be your army as well.

rigeld2 wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
Also by that manner, the army list that defines your army is used in conjunction with the force org chart. That force org chart now allows allies. By that same default, beings their used hand in hand wouldn't allies count as part of your army?

No. "Your Army" is defined in the "Using your army list" section of the Codex. The FoC is defined in the "Using the Force Organization Chart" section of the Codex.

Definitions change. If we go by your logic, then Blood Angels fnp is a 4+ as, if we look at Corbulo's entry, it clearly states he gets a 2+ instead of the usual 4+. That is why your point is flawed. The new rulebook alters definitions of rules and phrases. In this case, there is no conflict, allow me to quote a few entries and then you may decide for yourself:

(These are all BRB):
pg.108 "Force Organization: As detailed in each army's codex, all the forces you can use are categorized to tell you something about the role they are meant to play in the army."
<> All the forces combined (primary, allied and fortification) are "the army."

pg. 109 "Force Organization: Shown on the right is the standard Force Organisation chart for the Eternal War missions that are presented later in this volume. It is split into three sections: primary detachment, allied detachment and fortification."
<> Just reiteration that the single force organization for your army is the primary, allied and fortification.

pg. 109 "Primary Detachments: This section of the Force Organisation chart is reproduced in many codexes and is integral to building an army. It dictates the units you can take in the main body of your army. All of the units in your primary detachment must be chosen from the same codex."
<> Note how they use the words "main body of your army." The primary detachment is the core of "the army" but it is not the sole entity, as expressed above and below.

pg. 109 "If you wish, your army can include one allied detachment for each primary detachment in your army (normally one, but if you're playing a larger game this might be two). As with the primary detachment, all units in the allied detachment must be chosen from the same codex, and this must be a different codex to the one used for the primary detachment."
<> Here would be the money maker quote for you: "Your army can include one allied detachment for each primary...."


Take what you will from it. I look forward to your response.

Emp. wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
Also by that manner, the army list that defines your army is used in conjunction with the force org chart. That force org chart now allows allies. By that same default, beings their used hand in hand wouldn't allies count as part of your army?

No. "Your Army" is defined in the "Using your army list" section of the Codex. The FoC is defined in the "Using the Force Organization Chart" section of the Codex.

Definitions change. If we go by your logic, then Blood Angels fnp is a 4+ as, if we look at Corbulo's entry, it clearly states he gets a 2+ instead of the usual 4+.

No - because while there is an implication in that sentence that the general FNP is 4+, it doesn't state it. So you still have to look at the BRB definition of FNP.

That is why your point is flawed. The new rulebook alters definitions of rules and phrases. In this case, there is no conflict, allow me to quote a few entries and then you may decide for yourself:

Hang on - I'mma let you finish, but you're not understanding my argument.

In the GK Codex "Your army" can only ever be defined as models from the GK codex. That is the context of those rules as they're written. The BRB rules don't change that context.
So the rules for Grand Strategy can only ever be referring to models from the GK codex.

I'm not saying that "Your army" conflicts and therefore the codex wins - that'd be dumb.

rigeld2 wrote:

In the GK Codex "Your army" can only ever be defined as models from the GK codex. That is the context of those rules as they're written. The BRB rules don't change that context.
So the rules for Grand Strategy can only ever be referring to models from the GK codex.

But how do you know the GK codex, which was obviously written with 6th edition in mind, wasn't written with the intention of referring to the BRB's "your army" and not this contextual special "your army" that limits the scope of it to the book that contains it?

Also, seeing another "your army" thread warms the cockles of my heart.

 daedalus wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

In the GK Codex "Your army" can only ever be defined as models from the GK codex. That is the context of those rules as they're written. The BRB rules don't change that context.
So the rules for Grand Strategy can only ever be referring to models from the GK codex.

But how do you know the GK codex, which was obviously written with 6th edition in mind, wasn't written with the intention of referring to the BRB's "your army" and not this contextual special "your army" that limits the scope of it to the book that contains it?

Because of the wording in the codex.
I don't feel like typing it all out again, but that section absolutely only refers to the current book.

Also, seeing another "your army" thread warms the cockles of my heart.

Maybe the sub-cockle area?

Rigeld2 : You can choose to interpret the rules however which way you want but it's more clear than it isn't and as it seems you chose to disregard any quotes, I'll give them to you again. Please note the last:

(These are all BRB):
pg.108 "Force Organization: As detailed in each army's codex, all the forces you can use are categorized to tell you something about the role they are meant to play in the army."
<> All the forces combined (primary, allied and fortification) are "the army."

pg. 109 "Force Organization: Shown on the right is the standard Force Organisation chart for the Eternal War missions that are presented later in this volume. It is split into three sections: primary detachment, allied detachment and fortification."
<> Just reiteration that the single force organization for your army is the primary, allied and fortification.

pg. 109 "Primary Detachments: This section of the Force Organisation chart is reproduced in many codexes and is integral to building an army. It dictates the units you can take in the main body of your army. All of the units in your primary detachment must be chosen from the same codex."
<> Note how they use the words "main body of your army." The primary detachment is the core of "the army" but it is not the sole entity, as expressed above and below.

pg. 109 "If you wish, your army can include one allied detachment for each primary detachment in your army (normally one, but if you're playing a larger game this might be two). As with the primary detachment, all units in the allied detachment must be chosen from the same codex, and this must be a different codex to the one used for the primary detachment."
<> Here would be the money maker quote for you: "Your army can include one allied detachment for each primary...."


The "your army" in reference to the GK codex is the primary detachment. Your army starts with the primary and all else is option. But the rulebook clearly states that options are "included" in "your army." Now how they react in that regard is under the allies section, but this only pertains to abilities/powers/etc. that specifically state "friendly units, etc." As Grand Strategy does not, it works on any units in "your army" be it primary or allied.

Emp. wrote:
Rigeld2 : You can choose to interpret the rules however which way you want but it's more clear than it isn't and as it seems you chose to disregard any quotes, I'll give them to you again. Please note the last:

The "your army" in reference to the GK codex is the primary detachment. Your army starts with the primary and all else is option. But the rulebook clearly states that options are "included" in "your army." Now how they react in that regard is under the allies section, but this only pertains to abilities/powers/etc. that specifically state "friendly units, etc." As Grand Strategy does not, it works on any units in "your army" be it primary or allied.

No, "your army" in the GK codex doesn't refer to a primary detachment - you won't find those words anywhere in it.
Re-quoting those rules is a waste of bandwidth - I've explained why they don't have any bearing on my argument.

"Your army" is the reference to the gk codex not from. You still keep missing that.

And yet all roads point to your argument having no bearing. We shall agree to disagree then.

Emp. wrote:
"Your army" is the reference to the gk codex not from. You still keep missing that.

Yes, "Your army" references the GK codex. Thank you for admitting that. That's what I've been saying the entire time.

As the primary detachment without inclusion and according the force org, allies and fortifications are included in your army this becoming one full. And boom goes the dynamite, he sees the light ! I believe his discussion is finally complete.

Emp. wrote:
"Your army" is the reference to the gk codex not from. You still keep missing that.

And yet all roads point to your argument having no bearing. We shall agree to disagree then.

Yes, meaning any time the GK Codex referencing "your army" *has* to mean *GK army*, otherwise you are simply ignoring context - which is a dangerous argument to make, as it renders the game fairly unplayable.