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.

 Super Ready wrote:

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.

I knew people would notice that. It's why I put it there.

 Super Ready wrote:
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".

I was extrapolating the "it's not in the codex" argument to be a reductio ad absurdum. You're just reducing it to even more absurd levels by using an example where DA isn't the primary detachment. That's why I argued that if they were to join the IG blob under those conditions that they wouldn't have any rules at all and just be a model on the table. That isn't true due to the "extension of force" argument earlier. It's clear "Allies of Convenience" wouldn't benefit because they are just working towards a common goal, rather than being an extension of force.
Thus why I classify that battle brother allies are an extension of the force (as per the BRB definition) rather than a separate entity (where there is no definition of that being the case).
Codex: Dark Angels and Codex: Imperial Guard are very specific, with the other words being defined as they are I've made my conclusions as such.

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?

I ask the same question when we consider banners and orders.

 Kerrathyr wrote:
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

Are those defined, in the codex, as being that?

davou wrote:
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.

I'm having fun playing with words. Saying something isn't something without providing any argument for it other than "clearly it isn't" is, frankly, insulting. You've ignored the whole "extension of force" argument without providing a rebuttal and gone straight to the conclusion with no interim.

Words are funny, "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" is a real sentence yet it clearly isn't, right?

 Blaggard wrote:

davou wrote:
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.

I'm having fun playing with words. Saying something isn't something without providing any argument for it other than "clearly it isn't" is, frankly, insulting. You've ignored the whole "extension of force" argument without providing a rebuttal and gone straight to the conclusion with no interim.

Words are funny, "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" is a real sentence yet it clearly isn't, right?

That's because the extension of force argument fails on it's face.
Start over with it.

What is a Dark Angel unit? Using just the DA codex and the BRB we can extrapolate that a Dark Angel unit is a unit (that is, collection of models) that has been selected from the DA codex.
Adding in Battle Brothers doesn't change the root of what a Dark Angel unit is - it doesn't change the fact that an IG blob is not a unit selected from the DA codex.

To continue the absurdity, can Dark Angels units even use the combined squads rule? I thought that one was specific to certain IG units.

That isn't true due to the "extension of force" argument earlier. It's clear "Allies of Convenience" wouldn't benefit because they are just working towards a common goal, rather than being an extension of force.
Thus why I classify that battle brother allies are an extension of the force (as per the BRB definition) rather than a separate entity (where there is no definition of that being the case).

Once again: Battle brothers specifically states the benefits that the units get. Extension of force is not a rule; it is a description. The rules are Battle brothers are treated as friendly units. This does not change their type. Your allies of convenience point is also not a rule, but a description. The rule states that they are allies of convenience, where one of the rules prohibits independent characters from one force to join a unit of the other force.

You keep quoting the Battle Bothers. Here is all they say you get from being a battle brother:

Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view. This means, for example, that Battle Brothers:
• Can be joined by allied Independent Characters.
• Are counted as being friendly units for the targeting of
psychic powers,abilities and so on.
• However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in
allied transport vehicles.

No where on there does it say that BBs count as being that army, count as being that army type, etc.

And Super Ready's point earlier was very valid. If you try to count the IG as anything other than IG - you are restricted then by all the new rules:

-So you either treat them as IG, which is the correct way
-Treat them as DAs - in which case they get none of their army rules, none of the DA rules, cannot give orders, etc...which is wrong by the way.

A model is the type from the Army Book it is from. If I am running Chaos Daemons and take CSM allies, does this make all the CS<s magically Chaos Daemons - no...>

I'm brand new to this game, and this forum, and I can't believe the amount of troll in this post. Especially from someone with over 500 posts. This is nothing more than a simple example of someone WANTING the rules to be a certain way, and not giving in until they can find a tiny obscure reference that supports their claim. This is exactly why I was so hesitant to even start playing, I know most people don't try to pull things off that are obviously wrong, but every now and then you get that person who just tries to find ways to basically cheat by finding some loophole or lack of wording. Sometimes its due to lack of skill, sometimes people just WANT something so badly that they ignore everyone else. I figure this will play out in two ways. The OP will either play a game with someone who doesn't know better and will get what he wants, or he will play against someone who says "hey show me that rule" and will get denied or roll off to see if it flies. Honestly I can't believe this post at all, what a waste of people's time.

Welcome to YMDC...

Alestrius wrote:
I'm brand new to this game, and this forum, and I can't believe the amount of troll in this post. Especially from someone with over 500 posts. This is nothing more than a simple example of someone WANTING the rules to be a certain way, and not giving in until they can find a tiny obscure reference that supports their claim. This is exactly why I was so hesitant to even start playing, I know most people don't try to pull things off that are obviously wrong, but every now and then you get that person who just tries to find ways to basically cheat by finding some loophole or lack of wording. Sometimes its due to lack of skill, sometimes people just WANT something so badly that they ignore everyone else. I figure this will play out in two ways. The OP will either play a game with someone who doesn't know better and will get what he wants, or he will play against someone who says "hey show me that rule" and will get denied or roll off to see if it flies. Honestly I can't believe this post at all, what a waste of people's time.

Agreed. Assuming the OP is legitimately trying to claim this, consider something. If you're trying to rule-lawyer something real hard, like this, most generally your opponent will have hesitation in going along with your claim, and you'll likely succeed in frustrating him. This = "not so fun."

Well, I don't think he legitimately would, because I saw the post that no doubt prompted him to create this thread:

There's nothing to suggest it doesn't work on Guardsmen until it's FAQd (which it currently isn't). Using that argument would be TFG level though.

That said, while the fun of the game does have a place in the argument this *IS* YMDC. We hash out questions and problems here to try and get some definitive answers precisely so that we don't have to deal with them in the midst of a game instead. So there's no harm in discussing it here.

(With that said - Blaggard, I apologise if my earlier posts came over as overly aggressive.)

Extension of force=prima facia fail. Also known as an anti-money shot.

There is no rule called "Extension of Force".

End of argument.

On a side note, while writing this it struck me as highly possible that the OP started this post as nothing but a trolling expedition, if so, bravo.

Definitely comes across a flame baiting.