Court in Purge Coterie - do they get PE?

You know whats funny? For the great majority of the arguments I agree with you. I agree that formation is detachment. I disagree that detachment is formation - that is an assumption. You keep saying that the rules imply that Detachment is a formation but implication means nothing in rules interpretation. There is no "vice versa" or another wording supporting it. And you are right. You cannot convince me that I can assume this. Because I cant. These are rules. Not laws. The logic principle of rules and laws is in fact the opposite. Take rules of chess, rules of cards, etc. They specify what you CAN do and everything else is disallowed. Laws specify what you CANNOT do and everything is allowed. Lawyering principles do not apply here. W40K rules specify that I CAN take the court as part of the Purge Coterie Detachment. They DO NOT specify that I can take the court as part of the Formation, nor that Detachment is Formation.

If you want to play with the Car analogy...

1) Lets assume that I have access to all car parts of Volkswagen (everything from DE range). I want to build a Passat Lim HL 2,0 TDI BMT SCR 4MOT 6G · Diesel. It is a precise spec with specific equipment options. Just like a formation. That spec includes the towing equipment (which represents the other side of the Court's Retainers rule - the Archon).

2) If I use even one screw too many or go outside those options it wont be that precise Passat spec. Agreed?  

3) Well it is a Volkswagen brand. Its made from original parts, according to original specs. Agreed?

4) Now I see my new Passat, with towing equipment and say hey! I have a Volkswagen original trolley (is trolley the word? :-D). I look in its manual and read that it can be connected to any Volkswagen car that has a towing equipment. So I go ahead and connect it. That trolley is the court that is allowed to be connected to the Archon within the Passat spec.

5) Now I have a car and the trolley, both volkswagen, I can take both for a ride, but the trolley will never be Passat. Even if I paint it on it it won't. Its even both vehicles (if I use the analogy you used @Scrz). But its not Passat of that precise spec I was building.

EDIT: @Scrz - you got my line of reasoning. Only with one detail - I dont try to think what the rules were meant to mean. It is irrelevant what I think. RAI is an empty word. I think Court SHOULD get the Coterie rule. But no amount of that will change the RAW. There is no "its better to think of it this way or that way". Its only and only RAW and RAW does not say that Detachment is a Formation.

Anyway. I do not want to continue this indefinitely. Thank you all for your opinions and effort. If you wish, I will gladly read more of your comments, but please consider this a friendly debate with the possibility that we may in the end agree to disagree. :-)

Oh for sure. I supply only the finest 100% organic, artisan bearded friendliness.
I don't even really have an opinion as to what is correct or not. I'm happy to leave that to a majority voted house rule until, if ever, GW rules on it in a FAQ.
I'm mostly participating because I enjoy the mental gymnastics. I wanted to see if it is possible to triangulate a lock on this somehow.  
The car analogy really evolved didn't it. If only GW could start writing their rules as precise as VW writes their build specs I'd be a happy man. Although the rules question part of the forum might become a rather boring place to hang out.

Sadly their rules are not even close to being clear or coherent. And to make matters worse, language itself is not as clear cut as most people take for granted. As far as I can see in the BRB there are no comprehensive definition of what a detachment is or is not. So we are mostly left to speculate.

Sure we can try and get around GWs vagueness by declaring :
THERE CAN BE ONLY RAW ( said with a booming He-Man voice and a lightning flash in he background ).    <-- this is prince Adam
To be perfectly honest I would if I could, it is a very tempting route to go. It solves many rules problems.
But then you read the English rules for splinter racks....  

As you say, it is probably pointless to keep this going much longer. I'm going to invoke "the most important rule"
1-3 =Y
4-6 =N

BOOM! problem solved!

Maybe we can agree that it's been real, and that GW needs to write clearer rules?

There are some extraordinary logical gymnastics going on here, which are interesting in themselves, but I think this thread is probably going down the path of the same things being repeated over and over with no agreement in sight (like many rules discussions can).

The crux of the disagreement seems to be that Detachment is not well defined.

If I understand your view correctly, which I may not, then you are saying:

Premise 1) a Detachment is not a Formation
Premise 2) RAW allow a Court to be added to a Purge Coterie Detachment
Therefore
Conclusion 3) The Court, if added in a Purge Coterie Detachment, it is still not part of Purge Coterie Formation

Is that a correct characterisation of your argument?

@Scrz - Would that were possible. Rolloff in a listbuilding is kinda difficult. :-)

@Kantalla - Exactly. IMO that is the only option that does not break any rules and does not overstep any rules nor does it use any RAI.

I am glad to provide some logical gymnastic entertainment. I had to be made aware of some of the things I said and convinced of their logic by a friend lawyer and w40k player who had to point out to me the difference between rule and law.

Ofc the problem is with how the rules are written. They are extremely complex. Adressing itself back and forth. Creating precedences and often riding on a single word. It is very difficult to specify everything you CAN do in w40k.

Thats why I secretly and heretically hope for W40k AoSification. Having played AoS myself I have to say that it is better fun than WFB ever was as far as I can remember. Simple and clear general ruleset and adding complexity through dexes is much more manageable environment for rulewrights and much easier to understand by players. Games are oh-so-faster.

I can't comment on Age of Sigmar, as I haven't played it, but some simplification, if it doesn't result in a reduction in tactical interest is fine.

I still don't agree with your argument though, because in my view it does break one of the rules.

The rules state "Formations are a special type of Detachment..." (p121). Therefore, in the case of a Formation, the Detachment is the Formation. The rules don't say there is a Detachment containing a Formation, so there is no basis to separate them in the case of a Formation.

From there, the Court is part of the Purge Coterie Formation, and would get the special rules, but I don't think we have any disagreement there.

Does that position make sense to you (even if you don't agree and still consider a Detachment to not be a Formation in all cases)?

I hear you. But you are assuming. There is no "therefore" in rules interpretation. "Therefore" is speculation. If it is not listed, it is not valid. So IMO you should not say "there is no basis to separate them in the case of Formation". But "there is no basis to make them equal or assume that Detachment is Formation".

Technically - the BRB rule says that only units LISTED in the formation sheet comprise the formation, therefore even if Court had a rule that allowed it to join a Formation, it couldnt! Unless the rule itself had specifically written "regardless of being listed on the formation datasheet" or something similar. Because it is not LISTED. The list does not rewrite itself so you have to specifically cancel this requirement for every rule it touches.

Which brings me to the Formation's special rule: Even then it would not get the rule because the wording again says that the special rules of the formation are applicable only to the units LISTED and it is a separate rule. So until the rule says "and gains the Formation's special rule regardless of being listed" or the list on the datasheet magically rewrites... sorry... no formation rules for you. :-)

In the case of court and coterie it is fluffy and not a big deal in terms of power. So I would allow the court and would not hesitate to take it. Nor would I argue other armies similar rules.

EDIT:
GW rules are not written for brainless abusers and wannabe lawyers that would say that if any model anywhere is embarked on a raider, all splinter weapons everywhere get TL.

Or that everytime a Pyrovore explodes it damages every unit in existence.

Or if Archon in transport is not on the table, but can still shoot from this point on the raider, all units that are not on the table can shoot from this point on the raider.

But actually in this case its not such a no-brainer and I would agree on it with my oponnent beforehand on using court like that and applying the rule to them.

aurynn wrote:

Technically - the BRB rule says that only units LISTED in the formation sheet comprise the formation, therefore even if Court had a rule that allowed it to join a Formation, it couldnt! Unless the rule itself had specifically written "regardless of being listed on the formation datasheet" or something similar. Because it is not LISTED.

It does have that rule. Codex trumps rulebook and the DE codex specifically says "For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon".

Is the Purge Coterie a detachment? Yes
Does it include an Archon? Yes
Can it also include a Court? Yes

As per the Retainers rule, the Court must be in the same detachment as the Archon. That detachment is the Purge Coterie. By creating some strange ad hoc detachment of Court + Coterie, for which there is zero rules support, you must shift the Archon out of the Coterie as he cannot be part of two detachments without explicit permission, which is not given anywhere.

Including the Court in the Purge Coterie is entirely supported by the rules. Your solution is not.

Therefore was just indicating a conclusion I am making from the premise. To go back to your analogy, a Passat is a type of Car, is an equivalent statement to a Formation is a type of Detachment. When referring to a Passat, the Car is the Passat, in the same way that when referring to a Formation, the Detachment is the Formation.

In terms of the listed units in a Formation being the only ones to benefit from Formation rules, you can make a legitimate argument that RAW there would be no benefit for the Court. But, if you make that distinction, then you would presumably exclude dedicated transports too, as the rule doesn't say the listed units or any units bought as upgrades for the listed units qualify.

There is an answer in the Eldar FAQ that states a Wave Serpent purchased in the Aspect Host does benefit from the +1 BS. That is an example of a unit not listed in the Formation gaining a benefit.

Count - aurynn is of the view that the Court could be part of the Purge Coterie Detachment, but that is not the same as the Purge Coterie Formation, so no rule broken with being in a different detachment.

@Count Adhemar - Kantalla is right. In addition - your explanation breaks several rules. Rules for specific "army list entries" "listed" on a formation datasheet that are eligible for the special rules. (wont cite it again). And it also assumes the vice versa premise that was discussed before. I agree all the way up to the point where you say

Count Adhemar wrote:

That detachment is the Purge Coterie.

No rule supporting this. In addition codex does not say anything about overriding the FORMATION requirements or rewriting list on the formation sheet. You assume that when the rule mentions Detachment, it automatically means Formation. But its only assumption. Until that rule is valid, you cannot add anything that is not on that list, nor anything that is not on that list would benefit from special rules.

@Kantalla -

Kantalla wrote:

To go back to your analogy, a Passat is a type of Car, is an equivalent statement to a Formation is a type of Detachment. When referring to a Passat, the Car is the Passat, in the same way that when referring to a Formation, the Detachment is the Formation.

The Car is the Passat, but as soon as you add a single screw to the Passat above its LISTED options it ceases to be the Passat. :-)

As for Eldar FAQ. There really never was a question of it. The rule clearly says that the Formation sheet lists ARMY LIST ENTRIES. If WS is under a listed army list entry (e.g. dedicated transport of a listed unit), it is perfectly legal and clear.

Court is different. As are the Upgrades for AM units mentioned above - that are not upgrades but units with rules allowing to be joined to units. But again - court is different even from these.

EDIT: There are only two things I need to say to invalidate the court inclusion and its eligibility to the special rule:

1) For inclusion - Show me where it says in the rules that the Detachment is Formation and even we ASSUME it is, show me where it says I can disregard the rule saying that ONLY the Army List Entries LISTED on Formation sheet comprise the Formation.
2) For special rule - Show me the list of the formation where the Court is listed as of itself or under another Army List Entry or any rule that allows me to disregard the rule about ONLY the Army List Entries LISTED on Formation sheet are eligible for the special rule.

I can ARGUE that it is implied or whatever. Sorry. No implication in rules. Thats law thing.

EDIT 2:
@Count Adhemar - Actually there is a rules support for the "ad hoc" detachment of coterie and court.

1) Formation is a Detachment
2) I can add units to Detachments that are out of FOC - as per BRB rule.
3) Court Retainers rule allows me exactly that.

Edited 2 times.

aurynn wrote:

I agree all the way up to the point where you say

Count Adhemar wrote:

That detachment is the Purge Coterie.

No rule supporting this.

So what detachment is it then? The Archon is in the Purge Coterie. The Court must be in the same detachment. There is no detachment other than the Purge Coterie. You're attempting to create one but there are no rules to support this and it breaks the rule that a model cannot be part of more than one detachment.

Quote :

In addition codex does not say anything about overriding the FORMATION requirements or rewriting list on the formation sheet. You assume that when the rule mentions Detachment, it automatically means Formation.

Because a formation is a detachment. Fact.

Quote :

@Count Adhemar - Actually there is a rules support for the "ad hoc" detachment of coterie and court.

1) Formation is a Detachment
2) I can add units to Detachments that are out of FOC - as per BRB rule.
3) Court Retainers rule allows me exactly that.

And at point 2 you've defeated your own argument. You are adding units to the existing detachment, not creating a new detachment.

aurynn wrote:

The Car is the Passat, but as soon as you add a single screw to the Passat above its LISTED options it ceases to be the Passat. :-)

I'm viewing this more as the optional heated seats, that would most certainly still be a Passat, and I don't believe you could argue the Purge Coterie is no longer a Formation because you added a Court!

We will come to an impasse on the listed unit discussion fairly quickly. I see a Wave Serpent as a separate army list entry to Fire Dragons, which means the situation is the same as the Court, and I presume you would disagree with that.

We are both making a different RAI argument as regards the listed units:
I am assuming the Formation rules reference to the listed army list entries is intended to mean the listed entries provides restrictions on units that can be taken, and the rules apply to those units.
You are assuming an option to take a dedicated transport is intended to make the dedicated transport part of the army list entry.

Because there are RAI elements to both our arguments there, I don't think there is any chance of agreement on that point. In effect though, we both think the Wave Serpent gets the +1 BS, and it is only the edge case of the Court where there is a subtle difference in interpretation.

The bit I thought we might be able to come to the same conclusion on was that as a Formation is a type of Detachment, then when referring to a Formation, the Detachment is the Formation, as that follows logically, and them being different in the case of a Formation doesn't match the rule.

@Count - I understand now what you think I am doing. You think that I cannot add anything into the Detachment outside of the Formation, because Detachment is Formation... Hmmm... Lets try another approach.

1) Formation is Detachment - rule in BRB
2) It includes a list of Army List Entries instead of FOC - rule in BRB
3) Army List Entries on the formation's list and ONLY those comprise a formation - rule in BRB
4) Units on that formation's list and ONLY those are eligible for a formation's special rule - rule in BRB
5) I can add units outside of FOC to a Detachment - rule in BRB
6) "Retainers" allows the Court specifically to join Archon's detachment out of FOC - rule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
A) If I add Court to the Formation, I break rule 3, because Retainers neither puts the Court on the list, nor does it specifically cancel rule 3.
B) If I add Court to the Formation AND let it have it the special rule, I break a rule 4 too as it is not on the list and Retainers rule do not specifically cancel the rule 4.
C) If I add the Court to the Detachment, but not the formation, I do not break any rules, I follow them all.
D) If I accept that Detachment is a Formation and I add the Court outside its list of units I break rule 3 because ONLY units listed comprise a Formation. I can't add Court outside of the formation to keep its coherence and adhere to Retainer's requirement of the court being in the same Detachment as Archon.

So... If I say that Detachment is a Formation, there is no way to add Court without breaking basic rules for formations. The court cannot be in the Formation ergo it cannot be in the Detachment.

If I accept that Detachment does not have to be a Formation because it is not stated anywhere, I can add the court to the detachment but not the formation. Without breaking any rules, only going through a hole in the rules. However following that hole is the only option that does not break or leave out any rules on any side.

@Kantalla:

Kantalla wrote:

I'm viewing this more as the optional heated seats

Nope. Heated seats are listed in the options of the Passat specs. Heated seats is dedicated transport. :-) Court is not listed in the options (in the Army List Entries that comprise the formation). The trick is that according to the rules you have to add the court so it can ride with Passat, but not disrupt it being that precise specced Passat. :-D And I dont have to argue that adding court to formation disrupts the formation. It is written in the rules for formations I quoted that I cannot add anything save for listed Army List Entries and Retainers rule does not say I can.

Kantalla wrote:

You are assuming an option to take a dedicated transport is intended to make the dedicated transport part of the army list entry.

Actually I am trying very hard not to assume anything. :-) The option to take DT is in the Army List Entry, right? I cannot argue it is not, I cannot argue it was not intended as it is irrelevant. And its not about subtle difference. It is about black letters on white paper saying under Dire Avengers Army List Entry that this unit can take a WS. If I take a WS - did I take anything that was not on the listed formation's entries - no - check. Buuut see the following:

Quote :

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.

...but that second part of the rule does not say Army List Entries... it says Units... The DT is an unit... an unit that is NOT on the list. Okay. I stand corrected. I believe that you can take the WS as part of the formation but it should not get the special rule as it is not the unit listed in the Formation sheet.  

Kantalla wrote:

The bit I thought we might be able to come to the same conclusion on was that as a Formation is a type of Detachment, then when referring to a Formation, the Detachment is the Formation, as that follows logically, and them being different in the case of a Formation doesn't match the rule.

I am afraid its true we can't convince each other. :-) For me saying Passat (insert exact config) is a Volkswagen does not mean auto-vice versa. The best I can achieve the other way around is Volkswagen CAN BE that exact Passat. :-) That is what comes logically to me. All I can do is to assume that the volkswagen there is passat even though its not according to specs. I simply cannot be 100% sure that Volkswagen is Passat. Its what I choose to believe.

I know it's hardly scientific, but I would argue it this way:

BRB sets out rules for what Formations can do & what can be included in them.

However, since the 'Retainers' rule it is from a Codex, it 'trumps' the BRB rules.

So, it is perfectly fine for the Court to break the BRB rules, as long as we satisfy the rules in the Codex.

Therefore, the Archon can bring his 'Retainers' & they get PE.

Also, just wanted to note, congrats on keeping this discussion civil, it's rare to find people with differing views that actually bother to respect the views of the other!

Thanks. I am glad it goes like that. :-) Makes it feel worth the excercise. :-) And thats what it is. Its not about being right or wrong. I think we all understand that this rule is just something you should clear up with your opponent beforehand and dont argue. Its not as big issue as it seems according to the length of the posts. :-D

True that dex rules trump the BRB. But if that should apply here, the Retainer's rule would have to be: For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot on the Force Organization Chart, or becomes part of any formation that includes the Archon regardless not being listed in the Formation's list and is eligible for any special rules of the formation regardless of not being listed in the Formation's list.

And then... we would start arguing if you can take a dedicated transport for the court...

aurynn wrote:

I am afraid its true we can't convince each other. :-) For me saying Passat (insert exact config) is a Volkswagen does not mean auto-vice versa. The best I can achieve the other way around is Volkswagen CAN BE that exact Passat. :-) That is what comes logically to me.

That step is so close to what I am trying to explain...

If we are talking about a Passat (lets assume no upgrades or add-ons), then the Passat is the same as the Volkswagon is the same as the car. If something is added to the car, it is added to the Volkswagon and added to the Passat.

The equivalent statements relating to the Purge Coterie:
If we are talking about a Purge Coterie, then the Purge Coterie is the same as the Formation is the same as the Detachment. If something is added to the Detachment, it is added to the Formation and added to the Purge Coterie.

Saying the above does not mean a Detachment is a Purge Coterie, except in the specific instance of using that Formation.

Yes it is very close. :-) But... you make all those argumets which sound good. And I ask you after you do all that: "Is the Court Army List Entry listed on the Formation's List"? :-) If not, you break a rule for Formations.

As for the analogy: Specs are clear and absolute. You add a screw beyond the options (options for listed Army List Entries) and you are off the specs, therefore it is not Passat type XY, but something else. Perhaps a Passat XZ. OR... You can put that screw in the trunk, but its not part of the car any more than a driver. You have your Passat XY, but with an extra screw in the trunk.

aurynn wrote:

"Is the Court Army List Entry listed on the Formation's List"? :-)

If not, you break a rule for Formations.

The 'Formations' rule above is from the BRB, so is a 'basic rule'

Codex rules can override basic rules. Even rules later in the BRB can override basic rules. (BRB)

For example, Dedicated Transports are not listed in the Formation's List.

Dedicated Transports can be add to formations & receive the Formation benefit. (Formations FAQ Draft)

It's the same as arguing that units with Relentless can't move & fire @ full BS

Because it breaks the basic rule that if you move 6" with a Heavy weapon you have to snapshot.

aurynn - the Court is not part of the list of army list entries in a Purge Coterie Formation. I am relying on the Retainers rule in the Codex over-riding basic rule, and allowing the Court to be added.

I am also assuming it is intended for add on units, like a Court to be added in the same way as a dedicated transport. Intent is a tricky thing to judge, and they may intend for transports but not retinue units to be allowed, so I wouldn't be shocked if an FAQ were to exclude retinue type options from being added.

At the risk of doing the analogy to death, I pretty much agree with your assessment there - we now have a Passat with a rocket pack bolted to it being somewhat similar to a Purge Coterie with a Court.

Having given way too much thought to this tiny part of the rules, I believe:
1) A Court can legally be included in a Purge Coterie.
2) RAW the Formation bonus wouldn't apply to the Court - but the reason would also mean dedicated transports would not qualify for Formation bonus.
3) The sensible RAI amendment is to allow the Formation bonus to apply to all units in the Formation.

Rewind wrote:

Codex rules can override basic rules. Even rules later in the BRB can override basic rules. (BRB)

For example, Dedicated Transports are not listed in the Formation's List.

Dedicated Transports can be add to formations & receive the Formation benefit. (Formations FAQ Draft)

It's the same as arguing that units with Relentless can't move & fire @ full BS

Because it breaks the basic rule that if you move 6" with a Heavy weapon you have to snapshot.

I know, but it does not apply here because the rule from codex does not say anything about overriding this rule. :-) It speaks only about adding the court to the Detachment, it does not directly challenge and counter a requirement that a army list entry/unit has to be listed on the Formation sheet. Get my meaning? The rule does not say "you can put this unit in formation regardless the fact it is not listed". So it cannot counter that rule.

As for your argument regarding Dedicated Transport - I repeat, the rule about the list speaks of ARMY LIST ENTRIES. Is DT on the army list entry? Yes? You can include it. However the same rule speaks of "units" regarding the formation benefits, therefore without the ruling in FAQ you mentioned the DT should NOT get the formation bonus for the same reason. You need to read every single word in reading RAW. You cannot counter a rule about formations with a rule about detachments unless there is an absolute and undisputable certainty that Formation equals Detachment for all intents and purposes. Which there is not.

You cannot say "oh this rule talks about detachments, surely it means formations too". Or "this rule speaks about units and 5 words before it spoke about army list entries, so it is the same". No. It is NOT. THAT is what I am trying to explain, you cannot modify meaning of the words just because it seems logical that it means something it does not actually say.

@Kantalla - exactly. You nailed it. However, I would alter it a tiny little bit:

Instead of:
1) A Court can legally be included in a Purge Coterie.
2) RAW the Formation bonus wouldn't apply to the Court - but the reason would also mean dedicated transports would not qualify for Formation bonus.
3) The sensible RAI amendment is to allow the Formation bonus to apply to all units in the Formation.

I would go:
1) A Court can legally be taken in a detachment with a Purge Coterie, but is not part of the formation.
2) Yes, but DTs have gotten their own ruling in FAQ, so they do get the bonus, Court does not.
3) I would prefer to call it Houseruling than RAI... :-)

But I think you understand what I was trying to explain. I am not saying it is right, I am not saying it is wrong. I am saying that I seriously hope that 8th edition would bring us clearer rules. :-D

aurynn wrote:

Rewind wrote:

Codex rules can override basic rules. Even rules later in the BRB can override basic rules. (BRB)

For example, Dedicated Transports are not listed in the Formation's List.

Dedicated Transports can be add to formations & receive the Formation benefit. (Formations FAQ Draft)

It's the same as arguing that units with Relentless can't move & fire @ full BS

Because it breaks the basic rule that if you move 6" with a Heavy weapon you have to snapshot.

I know, but it does not apply here because the rule from codex does not say anything about overriding this rule. :-) It speaks only about adding the court to the Detachment, it does not directly challenge and counter a requirement that a army list entry/unit has to be listed on the Formation sheet. Get my meaning? The rule does not say "you can put this unit in formation regardless the fact it is not listed". So it cannot counter that rule.

This is where I disagree. The BRB rule about formations, says:

Quote :

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.

The Retainers rule absolutely, explicitly, breaks that rule by including the Court in the detachment, in this case the Purge Coterie, that the Archon is in. Nothing further is required. The Court is included in the detachment - 100% RAW. Your arguments about becoming part of the detachment but not of the formation have no basis in the rules because the detachment and the formation are one and the same thing. It would, as I previously mentioned, also break the rules by effectively pulling the Archon out of the Purge Coterie as a model cannot be in 2 detachments simultaneously.

Out of interest, why are you so intent on arguing against this? It's hardly gamebreaking and, let's face it, we need all the help we can get!

This is going round and round round and round........


I'm going to say this, and then I'm out.


Retainers: "For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot in the Force Organization chart."

I see the important word there as "include".

So if, as it seems, we are agreed that a Formation is a kind of Detachment, that Detachment - called a Purge Coterie - can iNCLUDE a Court of the Archon. It includes. It is inclusive. We have taken the box marked "Detachment", and instead of leaving it outside we INCLUDE the box labelled Court with all the other boxes inside.

Include.

Yeah just weighing in to say that I'm on the 'it's included' side of the fence.

The rules seem to indicate that it's a nested additional unit within the Purge Cotorie, and would benefit from preferred enemy RAW.

Squidmaster wrote:

Retainers: "For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot in the Force Organization chart."

I see the important word there as "include".

Pretty much what I said in my first post on this thread. I even highlighted the word in a pretty orange colour (which, it turns out, is not the new black or you wouldn't be able to read it against this black background).

Apologies!

Edited to be more inclusive of supreme orangeness.

Okay, orange boys. :-D I will try to adopt your colourful ways. :-D

@Count Adhemar
As for my motivation - I said it before. It does not matter that I want (and I do) to include the court. It does not matter that GW been neglecting us last years. Dark Eldar are my only W40K army and only now with Thousand Sons I will buy anything else than Eldar just because 15th has a special place in my heart. I do not own a single WK or WS or Aspect Warrior. So yes I do know how much we need every scrap of power. But it does not matter. The truth matters now. This is a logical excercise. Not an argument. :-) I said few times before that I would allow it myself and that its a minor thing. However if my opponent would not want to allow it, he/she would be right IMO.

Count Adhemar wrote:

The Retainers rule absolutely, explicitly, breaks that rule by including the Court in the detachment, in this case the Purge Coterie, that the Archon is in.

No. it does not. We cannot prove that detachment is formation. You can only argue it is so. You can prove only the other way around - as per the rule and car analogy. We simply cannot prove it. Srsly I understand why you say and think that but it is in the realm of RAI.

Count Adhemar wrote:

We have taken the box marked "Detachment", and instead of leaving it outside we INCLUDE the box labelled Court with all the other boxes inside.

You are absolutely correct. But the label does not say "formation" does it? It says "detachment". :-)
AND... even if it did. The rule for the "box" (formation) says the "box" is only big enough to include stuff on the formation list. Saying you can put court in it does not make the box bigger. So you can... but it wont fit. Thats how the rules work. It would have to say that the court is included even if it does not fit in the box. But the issue with the label takes priority anyway.

Squidmaster wrote:

Retainers: "For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot in the Force Organization chart."

I see the important word there as "include".

Yes. But you purposefully miss the fact that it does not say "include in formation". It says "include in detachment". See the box analogy above Count used or the car analogies before. You are picking parts of the rules that you want to adhere to and extending their meaning beyond RAW. THAT is my point.

I thought the analogies show it quite clearly. I am not native english speaker so I am sorry if I am not making myself clear enough. There is one uncertainty and one rule that prevents the Retainers rule to be applied as we want to. I am trying to point out that if you want to read RAW, you cannot assume even that which seems logical.