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.

Due to the wording on the Dark Angels "Hold at all costs" rule not saying "Codex: Dark Angels" on page 28 and the last page and battle brothers being considered an extension of their own force, would "Holt at all costs" give a IG blob FNP?

It would except for the fact it specifies the Warlord and any Dark Angels unit he is in on page 28.

It doesn't state "unit from Codex: Dark Angels" as per all other references to units from a codex. An example of that would be the FAQ regarding IG orders.
Because IG are an extension of the Dark Angels force I think it could be argued that they benefit from it.

 Blaggard wrote:
It doesn't state "unit from Codex: Dark Angels" as per all other references to units from a codex. An example of that would be the FAQ regarding IG orders.
Because IG are an extension of the Dark Angels force I think it could be argued that they benefit from it.

Is the IG blob squad a Dark Angels unit?

it's an extension to the force. So yes.
It's not in Codex: Dark Angels though.

 Blaggard wrote:
it's an extension to the force. So yes.
It's not in Codex: Dark Angels though.

No the IG blob is not a DA unit, it is an IG unit.

Lacking codex in front of me it'll come down to how the Warlord Trait is worded. If it says "the Warlord and any unit he joins" then the blob counts since IG is a battle brother. If it carries the caveat "the Warlord and any unit he joins from Codex: Dark Angels" then no go.

I think Blaggard is on point for this one, the Banner of Fortitude specifies C: DA units, but the Warlord traits are more flexible IIRC

EDIT: Stupid abbreviation for Codex: Dark Angels also being an emoticon

The banners do specifically state "Codex: Dark Angels" yet "Hold at all costs" doesn't. It just says
"Hold at all costs: within 3" of an objective, warlord and unit have feel no pain".
and
"The Warlord, and any Dark Angels unit he is in, has the Feel No Pain special rule ..."

IG are a Dark Angels unit by being a battle brother (extension of force) but not a Codex: Dark Angels unit, which is required for things like banners (as andystache stated).

andystache wrote:
Lacking codex in front of me it'll come down to how the Warlord Trait is worded. If it says "the Warlord and any unit he joins" then the blob counts since IG is a battle brother. If it carries the caveat "the Warlord and any unit he joins from Codex: Dark Angels" then no go.

I think Blaggard is on point for this one, the Banner of Fortitude specifies C: DA units, but the Warlord traits are more flexible IIRC

EDIT: Stupid abbreviation for Codex: Dark Angels also being an emoticon

The Warlord trait says "The Warlord and any Dark Angels unit he is in..." If it said any unit he would be correct. However Dark Angels unit is very clear.

It is very clear.
However it's not clear whether "Dark Angels unit" is "Codex: Dark Angels" (as described elsewhere in the book for C: DA special rules) or as I argue IG to be, Dark Angels by extension of force.

 Blaggard wrote:
IG are a Dark Angels unit by being a battle brother (extension of force) b

That's incorrect - to make that leap in logic you need rules support besides just saying they're best friends.

 Blaggard wrote:
It is very clear.
However it's not clear whether "Dark Angels unit" is "Codex: Dark Angels" (as described elsewhere in the book for C: DA special rules) or as I argue IG to be, Dark Angels by extension of force.

Is the IG unit in the codex for Dark Angels? No. Therefore it is not a Dark Angels unit. It is an Imperial Guard unit.

If it was limited to Codex: Dark Angels units then it would say that, as it does everywhere else (including the Reference page for Banners).

With the information provided I'll have to recant, I'm with HJ on this one. I would say that IG are a part of your (player's) army, but that does not make them a "Dark Angels unit".

 Blaggard wrote:
If it was limited to Codex: Dark Angels units then it would say that, as it does everywhere else (including the Reference page for Banners).

So your assertion is that it works because they word it differently elsewhere?

Right, so no basis in actual rules then. IG units are not Dark Angel units.

The basis is that the word "codex" is mentioned everywhere else which deny it to allies.

 Blaggard wrote:
The basis is that the word "codex" is mentioned everywhere else which deny it to allies.

Are you trying to claim that an IG unit is a Dark Angels unit?

Where do we find a "Dark Angels unit" if not in the DA Codex?

and Why?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Blaggard wrote:
The basis is that the word "codex" is mentioned everywhere else which deny it to allies.

Are you trying to claim that an IG unit is a Dark Angels unit?

Where do we find a "Dark Angels unit" if not in the DA Codex?

and Why?

1. Yes
2. Battle Brothers are defined as an extension of a force and it doesn't state "Codex" in the rules (as it does for every other rule where it's codex only buffs).
3. To give a blob FNP.

 Blaggard wrote:
The basis is that the word "codex" is mentioned everywhere else which deny it to allies.

So an assumption with no rules basis.
Like I said.

 Blaggard wrote:
1. Yes

Please give us a rules quote that says that IG are Dark Angels units. Page and graph will be sufficient.

2. Battle Brothers are defined as an extension of a force and it doesn't state "Codex" in the rules (as it does for every other rule where it's codex only buffs).

and the force is defined as what?

Again please give us a rules quote that says that. Page and graph will be sufficient.

3. To give a blob FNP.

The why was related to the second question, as in Where do we find a "Dark Angels unit" if not in the DA Codex, and Why is that DA unit not listed in the DA codex?

Please give us a rules quote that says that. Page and graph will be sufficient.

Far and away, this has got to be the most ridiculous stretch of language and logic I've seen on this forum... which is saying something. Something to break it - by your logic, Preferred Enemy relates to not just the army stated, but to any units in an allied detachment as well.
Don't bother trying to tell us you think this is correct and/or play it this way.

(added) ...another point - the rule says "Dark Angels unit". It doesn't say "unit in a Dark Angels army". This indicates you have to look at the unit individually, not as part of the army in which you bought it.

If the allied contingent is a battle brother and the preferred enemy doesn't state "Codex: XYZ".

The missing word "codex" in the two instances of that rule is the only thing that makes me think this. Codex is mentioned everywhere for other buffs, but not this. Which is what this circular arguement is all about. "Are IG in C: DA?" "No, but it doesn't say Codex" "Are IG in C: DA?" "No, But it doesn't say Codex".
The Reference Rule doesn't doesn't even mention "dark angels". Which rule takes precedence, the reference rule or the page 28 rule?

 Blaggard wrote:
If the allied contingent is a battle brother and the preferred enemy doesn't state "Codex: XYZ".

The missing word "codex" in the two instances of that rule is the only thing that makes me think this. Codex is mentioned everywhere for other buffs, but not this. Which is what this circular arguement is all about. "Are IG in C: DA?" "No, but it doesn't say Codex" "Are IG in C: DA?" "No, But it doesn't say Codex".
The Reference Rule doesn't doesn't even mention "dark angels". Which rule takes precedence, the reference rule or the page 28 rule?

Please give us a rules quote that says that IG are Dark Angels units. Page and graph will be sufficient.

 Blaggard wrote:
If the allied contingent is a battle brother and the preferred enemy doesn't state "Codex: XYZ".

The missing word "codex" in the two instances of that rule is the only thing that makes me think this. Codex is mentioned everywhere for other buffs, but not this. Which is what this circular arguement is all about. "Are IG in C: DA?" "No, but it doesn't say Codex" "Are IG in C: DA?" "No, But it doesn't say Codex".
The Reference Rule doesn't doesn't even mention "dark angels". Which rule takes precedence, the reference rule or the page 28 rule?

Dark Angels units are from the Dark Angels Codex. IG units are from the IG codex.

Pg. 109... 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.

Note the bold. Your IG cannot be Dark Angels units because it has to be from another codex.

Isn't there also a rule where if an IC joins a squad, he "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" (pg 39)

So your character with the warlord power wouldn't even be a Dark Angels unit.

Fragile wrote:

 Blaggard wrote:
If the allied contingent is a battle brother and the preferred enemy doesn't state "Codex: XYZ".

The missing word "codex" in the two instances of that rule is the only thing that makes me think this. Codex is mentioned everywhere for other buffs, but not this. Which is what this circular arguement is all about. "Are IG in C: DA?" "No, but it doesn't say Codex" "Are IG in C: DA?" "No, But it doesn't say Codex".
The Reference Rule doesn't doesn't even mention "dark angels". Which rule takes precedence, the reference rule or the page 28 rule?

Dark Angels units are from the Dark Angels Codex. IG units are from the IG codex.

Pg. 109... 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.

Note the bold. Your IG cannot be Dark Angels units because it has to be from another codex.

That just says they are a different codex and not a different force.
Force is "Strength or energy as an attribute of physical action or movement". In gaming terms this is models that can do things in game (move, shoot & fight).
A unit is "any magnitude regarded as an independent whole". In gaming terms this would be a "unit" of models.

Because IG are considered an extension of force they should be considered DA for the purposes of this rule because an extension of force is not a separate force. They would then benefit (or suffer) from any rule except for explicitly stated "codex only" rules.

 DakkaHammer wrote:
Isn't there also a rule where if an IC joins a squad, he "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" (pg 39)

So your character with the warlord power wouldn't even be a Dark Angels unit.

That's interesting, so you're arguing by joining another codex's unit he longer is a unit from his own codex? I would agree if the IC wasn't in the primary armies codex. If not, what rules would I use for him? He's obviously not in the allies Codex, therefore he mustn't exist. He joins a battle brothers unit, he's no longer part of his army, therefore he has no rules due to no codex entry for that model in the unit. Is that how it works?

I'm loving this and I would wish someone would argue anything other than "Where's IG in the DA Codex?", it's so droll and boring.

I'm loving this and I would wish someone would argue anything other than "Where's IG in the DA Codex?", it's so droll and boring.

Did you think no-one would notice this? Regardless... that's the answer that people keep giving you, because that's how it works.

But alright, I'll bite - you want a different argument. By your logic, any unit from Codex: Dark Angels allied to another army would cease to be Dark Angels, they would count as the army of their primary detachment instead. Note that this would stop a Librarian from generating any psychic powers (page 31), stops the Icon of Old Caliban (page 49) from having any effect, and means characters in Termie armour won't get Deathwing Assault or Vengeful Strike (page 65). All of those rules, after all, say "Dark Angels" - they don't say "CODEX Dark Angels".

...oh wait! By the same idea - you can't take any Wargear at all! Since page 91 is referred to as the "Dark Angels Wargear List", and they're not Dark Angels any more.
...ooooohhhh, hang on - you can't take Dark Angels allies AT ALL!! Since page 90 refers to the army list as the "Dark Angels army list".


There's also a contradiction to your thinking in the Warlord Traits table itself. Number 2 is worded "Warlord, or the unit he is with". 3 states "all friendly units". 4 states "and his unit" again. That encompasses all Codex Dark Angels units AND any allied units. Why would Dark Angels be specified if number 6 was intended to extend to allies as well?

 Blaggard wrote:
It is very clear.
However it's not clear whether "Dark Angels unit" is "Codex: Dark Angels" (as described elsewhere in the book for C: DA special rules) or as I argue IG to be, Dark Angels by extension of force.

They're both very clear, you're just trying very hard to game it. An allied detachment does not count as a unit from its parent army. They sometimes benefit from special rules across the codex boundary, but this is not one of them. Its very clearly not one of them.

 Blaggard wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 Blaggard wrote:
If the allied contingent is a battle brother and the preferred enemy doesn't state "Codex: XYZ".

The missing word "codex" in the two instances of that rule is the only thing that makes me think this. Codex is mentioned everywhere for other buffs, but not this. Which is what this circular arguement is all about. "Are IG in C: DA?" "No, but it doesn't say Codex" "Are IG in C: DA?" "No, But it doesn't say Codex".
The Reference Rule doesn't doesn't even mention "dark angels". Which rule takes precedence, the reference rule or the page 28 rule?

Dark Angels units are from the Dark Angels Codex. IG units are from the IG codex.

Pg. 109... 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.

Note the bold. Your IG cannot be Dark Angels units because it has to be from another codex.

That just says they are a different codex and not a different force.
Force is "Strength or energy as an attribute of physical action or movement". In gaming terms this is models that can do things in game (move, shoot & fight).
A unit is "any magnitude regarded as an independent whole". In gaming terms this would be a "unit" of models.

Because IG are considered an extension of force they should be considered DA for the purposes of this rule because an extension of force is not a separate force. They would then benefit (or suffer) from any rule except for explicitly stated "codex only" rules.

I'm loving this and I would wish someone would argue anything other than "Where's IG in the DA Codex?", it's so droll and boring.

The locution "any DA unit " is actually more restrictive - at least in theory - than "any unit from Codex: DA"
Servitors, for instance, although listed in Codex: DA, surely are not Dark Angels themselves (so watchers in the dark aren't, too... but they don't have statlines)

Two examples to clarify can be taken by looking at two to other Codexes: Tau and GK
- "any unit from Codex: Tau" == any FoC entry in the codex
- "any Tau unit" == any FoC entry in the codex bar the kroots
and
- "any unit from Codex: GK" == any FoC entry in the codex
- "any GK unit" == any FoC entry in the codex bar Inquisitors, henchmen and assassins

So, back to the point: no, IG are quite clearly not DA

It feels like you have all ready made up your mind, but

 Blaggard wrote:
It doesn't state "unit from Codex: Dark Angels" as per all other references to units from a codex. An example of that would be the FAQ regarding IG orders.
Because IG are an extension of the Dark Angels force I think it could be argued that they benefit from it.

By extension of their own forces, they clearly state what benefits the allied detachment gets. The RAW says that "Battle brothers are treated as 'friendly units'.
The extension of is fluff, or technically any allied detachment is an extension of your force organization chart.


These benefits do not change what codex (army) they are from. Yes they are all in your army, but by the same logic, your army is not a dark angels army, it is your army, and therefore the warlord trait never works. Just to throw out a silly counter argument.