Court in Purge Coterie - do they get PE?

Hi again everyone.

I have seen in other threads that the majority opinion is that you can include Court in the Purge Coterie as a result of theirs "retainers" rule. However - are they part of the formation? They are not in the list on the formation sheet. So - does the PE rule apply to the Court when the Archon points his bony finger?

If the formation is a detachment, is that particular detachment a formation? As a whole? If yes, I think Court gets PE. If not, it does not. I am inclined to believe that since the court is the separate datasheet and not an option for Archon himself, they are not in the position of elsewhere mentioned WSs in Eldar formations - they are not DT.

Thoughts?

A formation is a detachment. Any detachment with an Archon can also have a court. That makes them part of the formation. They get PE.

Jimsolo is correct.

Just like Rhino dedicated transports get ObSec when in the gladius formation. They are not explicitly stated to be included, but since they are options for the units that ARE explicitly stated, they get to be part of the formation and get the formation benefits.

Everyone is ocrrect.

Everything in the Formation gets the Formation special rules, even if they've been added by circumvented ways.

Any rules support on this?

aurynn wrote:

Any rules support on this?

"For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon..."

That's really all you need.

Well that was my original line of reasoning. :-) However my friend argues that formation rules state that only units listed in the formation list are included in the formation. Therefore formation is a detachment but not everything from the detachment is in the formation.

So presumably he doesn't allow SM Rhinos, Razorbacks etc to be Objective Secured? They're not listed in the formations.

Alos, if the Court is part of the detachment but not the formation, what detachment is it part of?

They are upgrades listed on the dataslates which is in the formation. Court is a separate dataslate. I see the distinction. Court is not an upgrade. Rhino is.

Its bad wording on the rules ofc. Is it worth to ask it on GW FB?

You can if you want but IMO it really doesn't need asking. The Retainers rule makes it 100% explicitly clear that the Court is included in the detachment, therefore it gets the special rules of the detachment.

Hmmm... I know. However I still cant get rid of the feeling of the loose end in that explanation.

aurynn wrote:

Any rules support on this?

There is also a ruling on this in the BRB under Preparing for battle, choosing your army :

"Army List Entries That Do Not Use Force Organisation Slots"

...
If the Army List Entry states that it can be included in an army that includes another specified unit, and that it does not take up a Force Organisation slot, it must join the same Detachment as that specified unit. In either case, these units are part of the Detachment for all rules purposes and will gain any appropriate Command Benefits.

THAT! is a good find! Thanks!

EDIT:
Although that is a good find. It does not say anything about the unit being part of the formation only the detachment. Formation is a Detachment. That is a rule. BUT - there is even a detachment comprising of several formations. Which leads me to the conclusion that Detachment is not equal to Formation. Therefore the court becomes the part of the Detachment, but not the Formation. Otherwise it would create a totally crazy precedent (looks at Eldar) that a unit in Formations's Detachment is eligible for getting the Formation bonus, which would mean in multiformation detachments, that ALL units in ALL formations are eligible for ALL formations' special rules!

I'd rather play Court in the Coterie without the PE rule than that. :-D

EDIT 2:
In AM draft they said that you cannot add the emissaries and whatnots that are no-slot additions to units in formations. Its still a draft and adding something to an unit in formation is not the same as adding unit to a Detachment and not the Formation. But...

aurynn wrote:

Although that is a good find. It does not say anything about the unit being part of the formation only the detachment. Formation is a Detachment. That is a rule. BUT - there is even a detachment comprising of several formations. Which leads me to the conclusion that Detachment is not equal to Formation. Therefore the court becomes the part of the Detachment, but not the Formation.

The formation IS the detachment.

But the Detachment is not the Formation.

If Formation is Detachment and Detachment is Formation (meaning they are equal), then any and all units that are in the Detachment are part of the Formation, correct?

So in Carnival of Pain, which comprises of 6 formations, while adhering to the above statement, all units in the Detachment are part of EVERY formation. Because if Detachment = Formation, then the Detachment = ALL Formations of Carnival. The fact that it is a Formation of Formations does not change anything as the rules do not recognize any such hierarchy and a rule that applies to the "topmost" Formation has to apply to every formation hidden in it. Therefore EVERY unit in the detachment is part of EVERY formation and therefore eligible for all bonus rules from all formations... see my point? That would be such a nonsense...

Therefore while Formation IS Detachment, Detachment cannot, and srsly I dont want it to be, equal to Formation. I haven't found a single rule or ruling that says that Detachment = Formation. Formation is a blue car. It is a blue thing, but another blue thing is not a car and you wont make a blue chair get a car's special ability to drive.

This, in the case of Purge Coterie and Court means, that rules of the Court do explicitly state that Court can join the Purge Coterie Detachment, but is NOT a part of the Formation - ergo, does not benefit from the formation bonus rule.

It seems you are clutching at straws to find a reason for this not to be allowed.

"Formations are a special type of Detachment" (p121).

Decurions or the Carnival of Pain are also a special type of Detachment consisting of multiple smaller Detachments (which may also be Formations!).

In a Carnival of Pain, a Grotesque in the Grotesquerie is part of the Grotesquerie and part of the Carnival of Pain. It is not part of the Scalpel Squadron, so wouldn't get the special rules for that the Scalpel Squadron (which would be tricky seeing as it would have to deep strike without the special rule to do so).

So a Formation is a Detachment, but a Detachment doesn't have to be a Formation.

1) Trust me... I want my court to have the PE... :-)
2) I totally agree with your assesment of the Carnival. And exactly because of that I just do not see that Detachment = Formation. Which means that court in the Purge Coterie is part of the Detachment but not Formation.

Formation = Detachment is an over simplification. Agree with that as not all Detachments are Formations.
However, that doesn't mean that a Formation isn't a Detachment. The logic goes like this:
1. A Formation is a Detachment
2. All units in a Formation gain the special rules for the Formation.
3. Retainers allows a Court in a Detachment with an Archon
4. Purge Coterie is a Formation with an Archon
Therefore
5. A Court can be taken in a Purge Coterie (from 1 3 and 4)
6. The Court benefits from Purge Coterie special rules (from 2 and 5)

Which part of that do you disagree with?

aurynn wrote:

1) Trust me... I want my court to have the PE... :-)

Then how about asking your opponents to provide rules to indicate why the Court does NOT get PE. Because we've provided plenty to show why it does.

Last time around when this came up we stretched out the Start Collecting box to about 750pts worth of rule arguing & frustration filled game play:

DE PC 748

Archon, Blaster, AOM, HWG, Cannon Venom
5 x Lhamean, Lance Raider
5 x Trueborn, 4 x Blaster, Lance Raider
9 x Reavers, 3 x CC
Lance Raider

Everything can gain PE against the selected unit, if you are good at arguing

Sadly this was missed from the FAQ, it allows Trueborn as Warriors anywhere their listed & Courts without Archons, but sadly not this question.

Not forgetting we never had a definitive answer about whether the Archon can draw LOS while embarked, as he's technically 'off the board' blah de blah.

Ultimately I think we decided, that you could make a better 750 list with a std CAD so dropped it......

Kantalla wrote:

Formation = Detachment is an over simplification. Agree with that as not all Detachments are Formations.
However, that doesn't mean that a Formation isn't a Detachment. The logic goes like this:
1. A Formation is a Detachment
2. All units in a Formation gain the special rules for the Formation.
3. Retainers allows a Court in a Detachment with an Archon
4. Purge Coterie is a Formation with an Archon
Therefore
5. A Court can be taken in a Purge Coterie (from 1 3 and 4)
6. The Court benefits from Purge Coterie special rules (from 2 and 5)

Which part of that do you disagree with?

1. Agree
2. Agree
3. Agree
4. Agree
5. Disagree. You still think that if Formation is a Detachment that it can be true inverted. It cannot. There is no mention of it anywhere in the rules. Detachment with one Formation is a Detachment that includes one Formation. Formation CAN be a Detachment of itself. But Detachment is never the Formation itself. Therefore Court will became part of the Detachment consisting of Court and Purge Coterie Formation. There is not a single rule that states that The Court will become part of the Formation. On the contrary, BRB says: Instead of including a Force Organisation chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain.There is no way how I would get the Court on the list. And only units on that list are eligible for the rules. And finally Court is not an upgrade of an "army list entry" on the list.There is no rule that specifically allows the Court to join the formation or get it on the list. The only rule we found is the one that specifically allows it to join the Detachment.
We are talking about rules. Therefore it is not on "whats not forbidden is allowed" basis. Rules are "whats specifically allowed is not forbidden". It is not forbidden to upgrade a Kabalite Warrior to Incubi stats and equip for free while retaining troop role... At least I haven't seen any rule that forbids it. (in case of this being a bad example I think you understand what is meant by it - there is plenty of stuff that is not forbidden :-))
6. Disagree coz of 5.

@Count - We have provided a plenty of rules supporting that we can take the Court as part of the Coterie Detachment. I have not seen any rules saying it will become part of the Formation. But there are rules saying it won't. See point 5 above.

@Rewind - I dont want to get an advantage I am not eligible to. Its simply a matter of finding out the correct ruling. :-) I may be the inverted "that guy", but hey... counterbalance.

aurynn wrote:

5. Disagree. You still think that if Formation is a Detachment that it can be true inverted. It cannot.

It really can. The detachment in question is the formation. The Retainers rule explicitly says that the Court becomes part of the detachment that the Archon is in. That really is all there is to it. It's right there in black and white in the codex and I've yet to see any rules whatsoever that contradict this. Rules which, incidentally, would need to be from somewhere other than the BRB as Codex overrides BRB in any conflict.

My point is that there is nothing to contradict. Rules do not say that Detachment is the Formation. Only the other way around. The blue car analogy works here. If rules say that Car is Blue, it does not mean that if you paint another thing Blue it is a Car.

EDIT: Or that in general Blue is a Car. As I said above. You cannot presume anything that is not explicitly written in the rules. If you do, you speculate.

Formation is Blue. I paint the Court Blue, but it is not the formation. its Blue Court. And until we have a rule that says that either Blue is Formation or Blue Court is in Blue Formation, we only really speculate. And until then we have to abide by the rule that only army list entries in the formation datasheet are part of the formation. Period. This does not prohibit us from adding it to the Detachment.

So @aurynn, if I undertsnad you correctly, you think that if a Court is taken alongside a Purge Coterie, it does not become part of the Formation? But that the Court and Formation count as seperate components of a greater Detachment?



Gotta disagree with your interpretation.

The main rulebook says:

Quote :

"Formations are a special type of Detachment, each a specific grouping of units renowned for their effectiveness on the battlefields of the 41st Millennium."

The Court of the Archon says:

Quote :

For each Archon included in a Deatachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot on the Force Organisation Chart."

So Formations are Detachments. Special kind of Detachments. The rules are quite clear that the Formations IS a Detachment.

Any Detachment with an Archon may include a Court.

A Formation is a Detachment, therefore can include a Court. The Formation, as a Detachment itself, can INCLUDE a Court.



Otherwise you've got to ask what kind of Detachment is it? If the Court and Formation were together a Detachment, thats not a valid Detachment as the rules allow.

If the sentence that verbatim reads "Formations ARE a special type of Detachment," from the BRB is not enough to convince you that a formation IS a detachment, nothing ever will.  

This is how I see it. The word "Detachment" in this instance is used as a category to describe different 'rule sets' that tell you how you can take models in a battle forged army.
Not a thing in itself.
The blue car analogy does not work to describe the linguistic meaning relationship between formations and detachments because you are comparing nouns to adjectives.
A more correct way of thinking about it I think would be to say that:
a "car ( formation )" IS a "vehicle ( detachment )".
Not all vehicles are cars obviously, so when you are talking about vehicles in general it does not automatically mean car. But when talking about a specific car, the words "the car" and "the vehicle" are interchangeable. The car is both a car and a vehicle.

I can see where you are coming from though, with your thinking about the decurion style defortachmionment rules.
At least if you think about it as a detachment being a container containing a formation made out of formations.
But i think it is better to think of it as a detachment made of detachments.

Also from the BRB on formations:
...
Whilst some Formations provide you with all the gaming information you will need to use them in your games, it is not uncommon for them simply to describe a number of special rules that apply when you include several specific units together.

This in my opinion seems to indicate that a formation has a set minimum of units that has to be included in order for the bonus to apply but can contain others as well. If, for instance, a codex rule overwrites every other rule known to man. As it does.