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.

Actually, allies of convenience says you treat them as enemies and states that as one example of that they can't benefit from a Warlord trait. So, there is something that says that warlord traits don't work on enemy models, at least enemy models that are in your army. Note that Desperate Allies have the same restrictions as Allies of Convenience, and Come the Apocalypse as per Desperate Allies, but each of those with more restrictions, so all "enemy" units in your army that could be affected by your Warlord are covered by the statement.

 doctortom wrote:
Actually, allies of convenience says you treat them as enemies and states that as one example of that they can't benefit from a Warlord trait. So, there is something that says that warlord traits don't work on enemy models, at least enemy models that are in your army. Note that Desperate Allies have the same restrictions as Allies of Convenience, and Come the Apocalypse as per Desperate Allies, but each of those with more restrictions, so all "enemy" units in your army that could be affected by your Warlord are covered by the statement.

Ian is claiming that those rules do not apply to his argument.

Fragile wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
Actually, allies of convenience says you treat them as enemies and states that as one example of that they can't benefit from a Warlord trait. So, there is something that says that warlord traits don't work on enemy models, at least enemy models that are in your army. Note that Desperate Allies have the same restrictions as Allies of Convenience, and Come the Apocalypse as per Desperate Allies, but each of those with more restrictions, so all "enemy" units in your army that could be affected by your Warlord are covered by the statement.

Ian is claiming that those rules do not apply to his argument.

And I've pointed out why they do, despite his argument.

 doctortom wrote:
Actually, allies of convenience says you treat them as enemies and states that as one example of that they can't benefit from a Warlord trait. So, there is something that says that warlord traits don't work on enemy models, at least enemy models that are in your army. Note that Desperate Allies have the same restrictions as Allies of Convenience, and Come the Apocalypse as per Desperate Allies, but each of those with more restrictions, so all "enemy" units in your army that could be affected by your Warlord are covered by the statement.

Remmber that by its defination an example is a illstration of a rule. What your sugesting is more than an illistration its adding a rule.
J
examples from a.o.c

Cannot move with 1" of an a.o.c model ...........illistrating rule on pg 18 a model cannot move within 1" of an enemy model
Cannot benefit from warlord traits of an a.o.c ........illistrating the a.o.c rule that they are enemys so traits on pg 135 regarding friendly traits not working
Cannot be joined by independent characters that are a.o.c illistrating rule on pg 166 in order to join a unit a id simply has to move within the 2" coherency distances of a friendly model .
Are not counted as friendly units for trageting ext.... illistrating a.o.c are enemys
Cannot use special abilities to repair hulls points ect .....illistrating a techmarine rule unsure of pg but rule may choose to repair a single friendly vehicle
Cannot use modifiers and re-rolls ect ......orbtial relay Coordinate Reinforcements or once per game, call an Orbital Alpha Strike. To Coordinate Reinforcements, select one friendly unit that is is Reserves; that unit automatically arrives from Reserves. This was the only one i could find however im sure there are more .again illistrating the a.o.c rule of enemys hence it not working because of friendly requirement .

If you note every example is refering to a writen rule thats based on an intraction between a friendly model and an enemy and there not creating any rules that are not written down


It comes down to bad writing on gw behalf the example should have been worded like this to save all this confusion .

Cannot benefit from friendly warlord traits of an a.o.c warlord .

I have now given a very strong arguement based off of definations ,rules , and lots of context.

There are one of two things i think are needed to disprove my reasoning

1. That an example is not just an illstration of a general rule ,its also means it creates rules
2. Another rule that the example could be illstrating. ie ...warlord traits do not work on enemys

 doctortom wrote:

And I've pointed out why they do, despite his argument.

Yes, you are correct. He is not.

It doesn't seem to matter to him.

ian wrote:
There are one of two things i think are needed to disprove my reasoning

1. That an example is not just an illstration of a general rule ,its also means it creates rules
2. Another rule that the example could be illstrating. ie ...warlord traits do not work on enemys

I think you have this somewhat backwards. Your interpretation relies on the idea that there is a subcategory of the written rules you seem to describe as examples of rules, which you suggest lack applicability or strength versus other rules.

I'm not sure where you've proven this to be the case, so I think in fact we are simply left with Strategic Traits stating "your army benefits" versus Allies of Convenience stating "Allies of Convenience models don't benefit".

Sensibly I think it's fairly obvious to take the latter as an exception to the more generalist former.

I beg to differ its because everybody just reads it as a rule and to change the status quo normaly requires a great deal of effort and gets a great deal of resitants .

I will run through how i look at the situtation which is by asking question on how the
Example or by the defination "illistration of a genral rule" works

a.o.c do not benifit from warlord traits
Why dont they benifit ? What rule is it illistrating ?
Is it illistrating that they are enemys do any of the other restiction matter .
No but being treated as an enemy could have an effect
Why does being an enemy matter ? ( its at this point your saying because the examples says they dont benifit its got to be because there enemys .Which is just an assumption it does not state thats the reason and there is no evidence to surport this either.)

Why does being an enemy matter .is there a specific rule on it ? Is there any other examples that help ?
Theres no rules saying warlord traits dont work on enemys
Most of the examples are refering to the intraction between enemy and freindly models .
Are there examples of warlord traits working on friendly models
Yes .
Could the example be refering to the situation where an a.o.c is trying to benifit from a friendly warlord trait
Yes
Does this fit with the other examples
Yes

why is everybody also ignoring that all the other examples are refering to frindly stuff not working on enemys . There has to be a reason for it

Until you stop looking at the example as a rule you will be stuck following it . And now the argument you seem to be presenting is pretty much because it says so . Or you just reframed it to sound right . An EXAMPLE is diffrent from a RULE a rule you follow and example illistrates a rule if that rule isnt clear you have to work out what its explain like i have done above

I dont think i can present my case any other way mybe its because ive spent my life working things out that i think the way i do but i glad i can think outside of the norm


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. Shine wrote:

ian wrote:
There are one of two things i think are needed to disprove my reasoning

1. That an example is not just an illstration of a general rule ,its also means it creates rules
2. Another rule that the example could be illstrating. ie ...warlord traits do not work on enemys

I think you have this somewhat backwards. Your interpretation relies on the idea that there is a subcategory of the written rules you seem to describe as examples of rules, which you suggest lack applicability or strength versus other rules.

I'm not sure where you've proven this to be the case, so I think in fact we are simply left with Strategic Traits stating "your army benefits" versus Allies of Convenience stating "Allies of Convenience models don't benefit".

Sensibly I think it's fairly obvious to take the latter as an exception to the more generalist former.

Ive just taken the defination of an example which is an illstration of a rule which means by default it cannot be a rule its there to explain not create


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For instances
Ive broken my leg
This means for example
i cant drive

This doant mean i will never drive or that i couldnt drive in a modified car this means as a genral rule i cant drive

I treat all cakes as fattening
This means for example
I dont eat cakes

This is just a genral rule this dosnt mean i will never eat cake again or on a specail day its means genraly i dont eat cakes .

Its the same with the warlord trait genraly warlord traites dont work on enemy models . That dosnt mean there arnt ocasion when it could work it just means they genataly dont .
Again the defination of the word example is

a thing characteristic of its kind or illustrating a general rule.

Ive done all.i can now feel free to take what ever you want from this

ian wrote:

a.o.c do not benifit from warlord traits
Why dont they benifit ?

Because there's a rule that specifically says they don't.

Every single other thing you said is pointless.

You may as well be asking with a save of 3+ works on a 4.

ian wrote:
Ive just taken the defination of an example which is an illstration of a rule which means by default it cannot be a rule its there to explain not create

The rule says, "This means, for example, that units:". It is giving examples of what the rule means. It is telling you the effects of the meaning of the rule.

For instances
Ive broken my leg
This means for example
i cant drive

This doant mean i will never drive or that i couldnt drive in a modified car this means as a genral rule i cant drive

Perhaps once your leg has healed you can drive again, but it means that while you have broken your leg you cannot drive.

The equivalent in this scenario to "having a broken leg" is "treating each other as enemy units".

Therefore while treating each other as enemy units they cannot benefit from the Warlord Trait of an Allies of Convenience Warlord.

That's all there is to it. Your own example has proven you wrong.

You say

It is giving examples of what the rule means. its telling you the the effects of the meaning of the rule

So effects in your context means a rule. your argument is saying that an example can create a rule ie because they are enemys an effect (rule) is they dont benifit from warlord traits . This does not fit with defination of an example . And the rules have stated that the statment on warlord traits is an example.

To put it bluntly your saying its telling you the rule of the rule is .... which dosnt make a lot of sense
The rule is a.o.c are treated as enemys an effect of this is they dont benifit from warlord traits . This statment is true but because im not trying to infer that an effect (cause (something) to happen ) is a rule it means causes warlord traits not to work. That is not the end of it because this is not a rule where its just a statment . This is an example which is there to try and help ypu understand a general rule , you still have to follow on and ask why dosnt it work .

My point about the leg is i could drive a car with steering wheel controls even with a broken leg but genraly you would say i couldnt drive as most cars dont have that. just like most warlord traits genral require a friendly model so you would say warlord traits dont work

An example is flexable its not the only way a it works . Other wise it would be a rule

and one last time to try and define what an example means backed up by evidence .At this point i feel like im writing an eassy explaining the defrence between a rule and and example.

Defination of words
Example :
illustrating a general rule


Illiustrating :

 to give examples in order to make (something) easier to understand

general
relating to the main or major parts of something rather than the details :not specific

Rule
: a statement that tells you what is or is not allowed in a particular game, situation, etc.


giving examples in order to make something ( being an enemy ) easier to understand. relating to the main or major parts of something (being an enemy ) rather than the details not specific.  a statement that tells you what is or is not allowed in a particular game, situation,. (The stament that a.o.c are treated as enemys the rule )

So please note things like easier to understand relating to the main or marjor parts ( not all parts its not fixed) not specific

The defination of a rule a statment (fixed) this is diffrent from an example which uses open words .

I think the problem here is that games workshop has written an example as a statment which is why its being confused for a rule . But because games workshop has labeled it an example it has to be treated as such .
Thus the example on warlord traits is
Making it easier to understand that because a.o.c are treated as enemys they dont benifit from friendly warlord traits just like every other example does


Now plese dont just respond by saying "but it is a rule "
At least try to prove that the defination of an examapl dosnt mean what ive posted

I had edited this a few times over the last hour so im sorry if you replying to an old version

ian wrote:
You say

It is giving examples of what the rule means. It is giving examples of the rule its telling you the the effects of the meaning of the rule

So effects in your context means a rule. your argument is saying that an example can create a rule ie because they are enemys an effect (rule) is they dont benifit from warlord traits . This does not fit with defination of an example . And the rules have stated that the statment on warlord traits is an example.

I don't understand your disconnect. "This means, for example" simply is giving examples of what the rule means.

My point about the leg is i could drive a car with steering wheel controls even with a broken leg but genraly you would say i couldnt drive as most cars dont have that. just like most warlord traits genral require a friendly model so you would say warlord traits dont work

Except here you're further qualifying what you meant, to clarify an otherwise (i.e. if it were not further explained) clearly absolute statement. The rules do not do this, so this argument is invalid.

The rules quite explicitly say that one example of the meaning of treating Allies of Convenience units as enemy units is they may not benefit from an Allies of Convenience model's Warlord Trait. They do not further qualify this, so why are you trying to?

An example is flexable its not the only way a rule works . Other wise it would be a rule

I think what you mean is that an example is not (necessarily) definitive of the entirety of what it is illustrating, i.e. the examples in this scenario does not by themselves necessarily tell you all the effects of Allies of Convenience treating each other as enemy units.

But you're grossly confused because it's simply not true to say examples don't mean every single case of what they describe. If the example is an absolute statement we are not entitled to imagine scenarios in which they might have meant, "except for this situation".

and one last time to try and define what an example means backed up by evidence .At this point i feel like im writing an eassy explaining the defrence between a rule and and example.

Defination of words
Example :
illustrating a general rule


Illiustrating :

 to give examples in order to make (something) easier to understand

general
relating to the main or major parts of something rather than the details :not specific

Rule
: a statement that tells you what is or is not allowed in a particular game, situation, etc.


giving examples in order to make something ( being an enemy ) easier to understand. relating to the main or major parts of something (being an enemy ) rather than the details not specific.  a statement that tells you what is or is not allowed in a particular game, situation,. (The stament that a.o.c are treated as enemys the rule )

So please note things like easier to understand relating to the main or marjor parts ( not all parts its not fixed) not specific

The defination of a rule a statment (fixed) this is diffrent from an example which uses open words .

I think the problem here is that games workshop has written an example as a statment which is why its being confused for a rule . But because games workshop has labeled it an example it has to be treated as such .
Thus the example on warlord traits is
Making it easier to understand that because a.o.c are treated as enemys they dont benifit from warlord traits just like ever other example does


Now plese dont just respond by saying "but it is a rule "
At least try to prove that the defination of an examapl dosnt mean what ive posted
Because i will lose all credit in your post

You've cherry picked a definition to suit your argument by containing the phrase "general rule". But even then, general rules are still only subject to exceptions where those exceptions are stated.

There is no exception stated here. You're trying to say that "your army benefits from the Warlord Trait" is an exception to "Allies of Convenience don't benefit from Warlord Traits" but that simply cannot be true because an army benefiting is a more general statement and "Allies of Convenience models (within your army)" is more specific.

Allies of Convenience models not benefiting is clearly an exception to the general rule of models in your army normally benefiting from Warlord Traits.

Except here you're further qualifying what you meant, to clarify an otherwise (i.e. if it were not further explained) clearly absolute statement. The rules do not do this, so this argument is invalid.

The rules quite explicitly say that one example of the meaning of treating Allies of Convenience units as enemy units is they may not benefit from an Allies of Convenience model's Warlord Trait. They do not further qualify this, so why are you trying to?

Its an explaination which means that you can further qualify it . I agree you cannot do that with rules .
Im trying to quailfiy this because the warlord traits rule states it effects the entire army . So i have to now quailfiy excatly what the example is refering to as there is a contractdiction between a rule and an example.

I think what you mean is that an example is not (necessarily) definitive of the entirety of what it is illustrating, i.e. the examples in this scenario does not by themselves necessarily tell you all the effects of Allies of Convenience treating each other as enemy units.

I agree and thank you for being clearer but i would also add that it also dosnt tell you of any exceptions

You've cherry picked a definition to suit your argument by containing the phrase "general rule". But even then, general rules are still only subject to exceptions where those exceptions are stated.

i just googled the definations i am aware that there could be others however listing them all would requiry alot of work .

There is no exception stated here. You're trying to say that "your army benefits from the Warlord Trait" is an exception to "Allies of Convenience don't benefit from Warlord Traits" but that simply cannot be true because an army benefiting is a more general statement and "Allies of Convenience models (within your army)" is more specific.

Allies of Convenience models not benefiting is clearly an exception to the general rule of models in your army normally benefiting from Warlord Traits.

Why cant it be true . I have a rule that states it effects my entire army against a general statment provided as an example . Ofcourse that means you have to figure out what the example means

This seems like a pretty straightforward issue. Rudimentary reading comprehension shows that Warlord Traits, generally speaking, do not work on enemy models.

I can see why Ian is arguing semantics here... but he's arguing semantics. The intent is clear. His entire argument is predicated on the idea that an example just illustrates a rule and doesn't count as a rule. I disagree. I believe an example just rewords a rule so that it's easier to understand. At the very least, the example should provide confirmation that a rule exists. The argument then should be about where the rule is and not about whether or not the example is valid.

It's a very tenuous argument and I don't think he's going to get very many people agreeing with him.

An example is an instance illustrating the rule. If an example of "this is an enemy" is "this unit doesn't benefit from X," then "this unit doesn't benefit from X" is actually part of the rule "this is an enemy."

This whole argument is inane. Examples aren't rules, but they help to further explain how you use the rules, ergo you utilize the examples to help understand what the rule means, which OP is completely throwing out the window. You're not "changing the status quo," you're ignoring context so you can say something written explicitly doesn't mean what it means.

ian wrote:


Remmber that by its defination an example is a illstration of a rule. What your sugesting is more than an illistration its adding a rule.
J
examples from a.o.c

Being an illustration of the rule does not mean you get to dismiss it. An illustration that directly covers the situation at hand means that the rule it is illustrating directly applies. Therefore, it is not adding a rule at all.

I give up

Ive noticed nobody else has posted a defination of example there just saying that this is what they think it is . A poster already explained early

that an example is not (necessarily) definitive of the entirety of what it is illustrating, i.e.

So it could be illustrating my take on it


Everbody has still ignored the fact that all the other examples are based on friendly and enemys but who cares about that right

I give up

Everybody isn't ignoring it, they just realize that the example explicitly tells you how the rule handles Warlord traits in regards to a unit that is an Ally of Convenience to the Warlord. As an explicit statement for an example, it tells you in this case exactly how the rule works in relation to Warlord Traits - they don't work for units that are Allies of Convenience )because they are treated as an enemy unit). You keep wanting to ignore that and try to dodge around a clear statement so that you don't have to apply what it clearly says; that's the thing being ignored here, not everyone else ignoring what the other examples are based on.

ian wrote:
I give up

Ive noticed nobody else has posted a defination of example there just saying that this is what they think it is . A poster already explained early

that an example is not (necessarily) definitive of the entirety of what it is illustrating, i.e.

So it could be illustrating my take on it


Everbody has still ignored the fact that all the other examples are based on friendly and enemys but who cares about that right

I give up

Well, the rest of us are staying away from dictionary definitions because one of the forum tenets covers definitions...

"6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out."

Nobody is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, so we're leaving the definitions out. Common sense and basic contextual reading comprehension say that your interpretation is flawed. Ultimately, you don't need to convince us. You need to convince the people you play with. Based on the conversations so far, I think you're going to have a tough time doing so.

Thats my mistake for not reading the rules on the forum throughly but it was what i based my whole argument on . Which i am sorry for
So my common sense and contextual reading is

I read the rule that states it works on my whole army
I check a.o.c rules to me the statment lacks the same clarity as the other examples because the rule is contradicting it. so i apply the context of the other examples to it
I arrive at the view that the example is refering to the intraction between enemy and friendly and is not an example explaining that warlord traits dont work on enemys by default
So i can apply the worldtrait

Ive not used any words wrong and its perfectly fine to question what the example is meaning and to try and figure it out which is what ive done . to me it means somthing diffrent
So.whilst i cannot prove it it cant be disproved either

I already agreed not to use the rule within 1 min to carry on the game . I only brought it up as thats how i read it . I got asked to post it on fb during the game and get crap from them like read the rules or smack him in the head with the rule book this anoyed me . Im not that guy i coming from having to play against fortuned wraith knights and bigger eldar titan fortuned . I let rules go all the time like a warlock giving a wraithknight a 2+ save . Its Just this time having people flat out say that what im saying is wrong got my back up . And as you have now pointed out its pretty impossible to prove any thing on here that relys on the defination of the very words we use . It has to be based on how people interpret those word which will always involve a huge spectrum but one where the majority rule

Jacksmiles wrote:
An example is an instance illustrating the rule. If an example of "this is an enemy" is "this unit doesn't benefit from X," then "this unit doesn't benefit from X" is actually part of the rule "this is an enemy."

This whole argument is inane. Examples aren't rules, but they help to further explain how you use the rules, ergo you utilize the examples to help understand what the rule means, which OP is completely throwing out the window. You're not "changing the status quo," you're ignoring context so you can say something written explicitly doesn't mean what it means.

That is something I tried to explain to him. Examples in the rulebook are the equivalent of court room "case law". Case law isn't about the literal rule, but how the system interprets those rules. So, too, the examples provided in all of the Allies rules are not specific "hard rules", but rather the "soft rules" of how the system is to interacting with these circumstances.

ian wrote:

I read the rule that states it works on my whole army
I check a.o.c rules to me the statment lacks the same clarity as the other examples because the rule is contradicting it. so i apply the context of the other examples to it
I arrive at the view that the example is refering to the intraction between enemy and friendly and is not an example explaining that warlord traits dont work on enemys by default
So i can apply the worldtrait

That is quite a stretch, reading "Cannot benefit from the Warlord Trait of an Allies of Convenience Warlord" and coming up with the conclusion that you can apply the Warlord Trait. It suggests that your view is wrong. Yes, it's referring to the interaction between friendly and enemy - it's flat out stating as a case law example that if the unit is treated as an enemy by the alliance level with the Warlord, the unit doesn't get to use the Warlord trait. You don't get to dismiss the case law established here by ignoring the example, then stating "it's only dealing with interaction levels, so it doesn't matter." This points out that it does matter, and that Allies of Convenience don't get to have a Warlord Trait that affects units apply to them.

Ok to help me understand better could you please apply that to

Rule
A.o.c are treated as enemys
This mean for example
Warlord traits dont work on a.o.c

If find a rule that states a warlord trait works on an entire army dose this mean following the case law i cannot use warlord traits Or does it mean in order to use the warlord traits i would have to provide evidence of why i can ie that example is based on enemy freindly and based on that ruling a new case law would be created .
Which mite
Elaborate on the example
Friendly warlord traits dont work on a.o.c

And i have now relised that i am presenting a rai rather than a raw. Because we arnt allowed to create case law in this situation
I opligise for my confusion

From the Tenets of You Make Da Call:

3. Never, ever bring real-world examples into a rules argument.
- The rules, while creating a very rough approximation of the real world, are an abstraction of a fantasy universe. Real world examples have no bearing on how the rules work. So quit it.

He was using an example posted earlier by someone else, except that person was simply utilizing it to show how examples of RAW help show you RAW, not give a situation to say "Hey I found a way around that though!"

Because, yeah, in real life you can find ways around restrictions.

But in the game, there are no warlord traits with steering wheel controls.

There are warlord traits that state it effects your enitire army because in the game you can also dind your way around restictions

Rule
A.o.c are treated as enemys
This mean for example
Warlord traits dont work on a.o.c

If find a rule that states a warlord trait works on an entire army dose this mean following the case law i cannot use warlord traits Or does it mean in order to use the warlord traits i would have to provide evidence of why i can ie that example is based on enemy freindly and based on that ruling a new case law would be created .
Which mite
Elaborate on the example
Friendly warlord traits dont work on a.o.c



However


And i have now relised that i am presenting a rai rather than a raw. Because we arnt allowed to create case law in this situtation . I have been coming from the point of view that debating on a forum can create case law . But unfortunatly case law for use in raw debates can only be created by games workshop
Im sorry for the confusion and my stuborness and thank everybody for sticking with the dabate so i could finnaly figure out why it kept bugging me.

That's okay, Ian - glad it worked out in the end!

You might convince your opponents before a game that RAI (or at least HIWPI) would be to let something that says it affects the entire army to do that, even with what it says in Allies of Convenience. If they feel strongly about that, though, I'd say just let it slide.

Just remember that this would apply to a single person's army that has Allies of Convenience (or an even worse ally condition in it) as much as trying to adjudicate when you have 2 players on a side (where you should be making house rules anyway). It might be hard to convince somebody who is going to play against an army of Grey Knights that has an allied detachment of Tyranids to accept that the Tyranids are going to benefit from any trait coming from the Grey Knight Warlord. (More likely they just go "nom nom nom" while eating the Warlord innards)

Ok cool didnt relise there where more warlord traits that didnt say friendly . It wouldnt make sense for grey knights to help nids lol

ian wrote:
There are warlord traits that state it effects your enitire army because in the game you can also dind your way around restictions

Yes. Where it tells you that you are allowed to, not simply where you wish. It has to be something like "Ignores penalty for X" or "Ignores [special rule 27]."

I'm not saying there can't be exceptions, but the rules need to tell you the exception is there, you can't just decide one exists like with the car scenario.

But yeah, if you can convince people of your interpretation, cool, if not, throw down and have some fun anyway!

ian wrote:
Its an explaination which means that you can further qualify it . I agree you cannot do that with rules .

On what basis? What gives you the authority to expand on something the rules give as one example of a consequence of a rule's meaning?

Im trying to quailfiy this because the warlord traits rule states it effects the entire army . So i have to now quailfiy excatly what the example is refering to as there is a contractdiction between a rule and an example.

But we know exactly what the example is referring to, because it says so. It's referring to Allies of Convenience models. Implicit in "Allies of Convenience models" is "within your army" because Allies are relevant to the interaction of models of different Faction within your army.

Therefore we know that the Allies of Convenience example is specific to certain units or models within your army versus Strategic Warlord Traits which, like normal Warlord Traits, as a general rule apply to your whole army, which unless otherwise stated generally contain units and models considered friendly by each other.

Simply put, Allies of Convenience is a specific exception to the general Warlord Traits ruling. You have it backwards in trying to claim Strategic Traits are a more specific exception to a more general Allies of Convenience ruling.

I agree and thank you for being clearer but i would also add that it also dosnt tell you of any exceptions

I don't understand what you mean here. The examples themselves are illustrations of exceptions to other rules caused by the Allies of Convenience rules.

i just googled the definations i am aware that there could be others however listing them all would requiry alot of work .

Sure. And I Dictionary.com'd the definition and neither "general" nor "rule" came up anywhere on the page. Point being that you've chosen a dictionary definition specifically to support your argument when seemingly the overwhelming majority of other definitions are not consistent with that.

Why cant it be true . I have a rule that states it effects my entire army against a general statment provided as an example . Ofcourse that means you have to figure out what the example means

Because you have it backwards. Warlord Traits normally affect all units they say they affect. Allies of Convenience is an exception where models within an army may need to treat each other as 'enemy' models and one consequence of that is not benefiting from Warlord Traits.

It's like saying that you have the rule stating models may normally move 6" in the Movement phase, then saying that Difficult Terrain, which reduces normal movement to D6", must not be referring to Eldar models, so Eldar models can still move 6" even in Difficult Terrain.

Exceptions necessarily must override general rules, or the rules would not function. Being an example simply means it is one illustration of potentially many. It doesn't mean you may make further examples up as you please just because the examples given are not exhaustive.

Cool noworrys ive changed the title. i think rai was for the example to have been like the other ones based on friendly warlord traits not working on enemys and i think there is at least some credit to that based on the other examples. But as raw stands it dosnt work because the example is basic , i was trying to provide evidence of my belief though my explanation in the hope of a case law being made. And then the statment would be looked at like a.o.c cannot benifit from friendly warlord traits .

But it cant be the case
Cheers for the debate