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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

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.

Those who criticize others are usually criticizing themselves. You are ignoring that the wording was built prior to 6th edition release which then encapsulated inclusions to "your army." The meaning is unchanged. "Your army" starts with the primary (GK) and without additions that is "your army." But with the inclusion of allies it builds on top of your prior force and expands "your army." You cannot solely look at a codex, for your argument to have weight you need to factor in a new rulebook with new ways to construct an army.


This far, the larger tournaments rule in favor that "your army" holds on allies. Until you have substantial evidence (ie an FAQ or start quoting brb and codex), this is legal.

Emp. wrote:
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.

I have no idea what you said here.

Are you saying "your army" in the GK codex refers to anything outside the GK codex?
If so, you're ignoring context and therefore cannot be correct.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emp. wrote:
Those who criticize others are usually criticizing themselves. You are ignoring that the wording was built prior to 6th edition release which then encapsulated inclusions to "your army." The meaning is unchanged. "Your army" starts with the primary (GK) and without additions that is "your army." But with the inclusion of allies it builds on top of your prior force and expands "your army." You cannot solely look at a codex, for your argument to have weight you need to factor in a new rulebook with new ways to construct an army.

So yeah - you're ignoring context. You can't do that.

This far, the larger tournaments rule in favor that "your army" holds on allies. Until you have substantial evidence (ie an FAQ or start quoting brb and codex), this is legal.

Yeah, because they can't ever be wrong. Not possible.
Oh, wait - it's happened many times before.

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

I do not see how this lends any context to your argument it calls grey knights your army in fifth the BRB allowed your army to consist of an army from 1 codex, we now have a new book which allows your army to be made from multiple codexes everyone keeps saying that people are missing the context but the BGB is cut and dry on what is allowed and disallowed by allies depending on relationship between the two codexes and this falls under either. To say someone is missing the context is such a copp out response to an argument.

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

Yes this is telling us that the codex has a grey knight army list and it will contain the following information this doesnt backup that this is your army for rules intent I don't see how this has any bearing on the argument.

bwraith12 wrote:
To say someone is missing the context is such a copp out response to an argument.

Quoted for truth.

bwraith12 wrote:
To say someone is missing the context is such a copp out response to an argument.

It's really not. If you only ever take the exact words as they are written (ie ignore context) you will have a literally unworkable game system.

Yes, the "your army" on page 81 was written in 5th edition. As was Grand Strategy. They refer to the same thing - units from the GK codex.

ignoring context and only taking one book as word is what you've been doing this entire time. If you really still do not see that you're only describing yourself when you say that, then there is no reason for this thread to still be going.

Emp. wrote:
ignoring context and only taking one book as word is what you've been doing this entire time.

Yes, I'm taking words the GK codex in the context of the GK codex.

If you really still do not see that you're only describing yourself when you say that, then there is no reason for this thread to still be going.

By trying to say that the BRB overrules the GK codex when defining "your army" you're the one ignoring the context of the GK codex.

By all means - quote me where I've ignored context. I've shown where you have.

It is NOT a new ruling. It is an expansion of a rule/definition. Do you seriously not understand that new editions can change older formats of rules and definitions?

So let me get this straight, just to clarify for myself and everyone viewing his thread....

Other people can be wrong, but you can't.

Other people can't quote a book, but you can.

If I take into account a brb and codex I'm the one ignoring, but if you ignore the brb and only go by codex then its all good.

If I give you quotes to show how your are inaccurate im disregarding context but you just come back with an opinion that's unfounded and don't even show me how I'm wrong, then I'm clearly wrong.



Ill just put in a request to lock this thread because now it clearly seems like you're trolling.

Do you even understand what context is?

1. the parts of a piece of writing, speech, etc, that precede and follow a word or passage and contribute to its full meaning: "it is unfair to quote out of context"

The words have to actually be there for you to have context.

Emp. wrote:
Do you seriously not understand that new editions can change older formats of rules and definitions?

Yes, they absolutely can. "Your army" as defined in 6th edition includes allies. C:GK is not a 6th edition codex.

So let me get this straight, just to clarify for myself and everyone viewing his thread....

Other people can be wrong, but you can't.

Other people can't quote a book, but you can.

Quote where I've said those things or apologize please. That's absolutely incorrect. I've admitted when I'm wrong plenty of times, and I've never forbade people from quoting books.

If I take into account a brb and codex I'm the one ignoring, but if you ignore the brb and only go by codex then its all good.

Yes, if you address something outside the GK codex when the context of Grand Strategy is the GK codex, you're doing something wrong.

If I give you quotes to show how your are inaccurate im disregarding context but you just come back with an opinion that's unfounded and don't even show me how I'm wrong, then I'm clearly wrong.

Unfounded? I've cited my source and explained my reasoning. Calling it "unfounded" is rather insulting.
I have shown you you're wrong - you're reading an ability that was written in 5th edition with a 6th edition mindset. You can't do that due to a little thing called "the context of the rule".

Ill just put in a request to lock this thread because now it clearly seems like you're trolling.

Please don't insult me. I'm doing nothing of the kind. I'd like an apology.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bwraith12 wrote:
Do you even understand what context is?

1. the parts of a piece of writing, speech, etc, that precede and follow a word or passage and contribute to its full meaning: "it is unfair to quote out of context"

The words have to actually be there for you to have context.

Not sure who you're addressing - yes, I do and my argument fits that completely.

Please explain how it fits that

By your logic I can never include allies. The rulebook says I can add to my army but apparently on your world my army can only consist aof my codex army and nothing more.

Take it as an insult. You did a good job trolling, Congratulations. You have never responded to any quote with founded information, only opinions. You've been a broken record repeating the same one liner because you have nothing else to fall back on.

You are reading a 5th codex wih absolutely no regard to a new rule set that you play under. Welcome to 6th edition, they sell the rulebook on the GW website. Have a good day.


And you want an apology? Are you joking? How does it feel to want?

Emp. wrote:
By your logic I can never include allies. The rulebook says I can add to my army but apparently on your world my army can only consist aof my codex army and nothing more.

No, that's not correct. You aren't understanding my argument at all.

"Your army" in Grand Strategy can only refer to the GK codex.
We know this because:
a) in 5th edition there was no other option
b) in the GK Codex, "Your army" was defined - at the time of writing - as units from the GK codex.

"Your army" in Grand Strategy is not defined so we must use context clues to help us figure out what it refers to. Yes, the FoC changed and that makes the FoC definition in the GK codex irrelevant for list building. It doesn't change the fact that "Your army" was defined as the GK codex at the time of writing.

Take it as an insult. You did a good job trolling, Congratulations. You have never responded to any quote with founded information, only opinions. You've been a broken record repeating the same one liner because you have nothing else to fall back on.

Absolutely false. I've cited sources and addressed your argument.

You are reading a 5th codex wih absolutely no regard to a new rule set that you play under. Welcome to 6th edition, they sell the rulebook on the GW website. Have a good day.

I have two copies thanks, don't need to buy another.

And you want an apology? Are you joking? How does it feel to want?

Typically when someone is insulted for no reason they want an apology, yes. It's obvious you're not going to offer one so that's fine.

Enough.