Court in Purge Coterie - do they get PE?

aurynn wrote:

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.

But neither I nor anyone else needs to prove that detachment is formation. If the Retainers rule said "For each Archon included in a formation, the formation can include a Court of the Archon" then I would need to demonstrate that this also applies to other detachments (which it would not). But the Retainers rule specifies detachments. All formations are detachments. We can include a Court in the Archon's detachment regardless of what form that detachment takes. We do not require specific permission to include in formations because we already have that. Including a unit in a formation is exactly the same as including it in a detachment because all formations are detachments.

Thats where we disagree. That is what I was trying to point out with the analogies. You can say that car is vehicle, but that does not mean that vehicle in question is the car in question. So you actually do need to prove that the vehicle in question is the particular car in some other way than stating that every car is a vehicle. Otherwise all you have is an assumption.

EDIT: Even if you managed to prove this, you still have the issue with limited box size and a rule saying that you can put something more in it, but it wont fit anyway.

Oh good lord.

I know I said I was out......but...........

So your argument is that the Court doesn't actually join the same Detachment as the Archon?

There's no assumption, thats EXACTLY whats the rules says!
ANY Detachment (and that includes Formations, because Formations ARE Detachments) which includes an Archon may also INCLUDE a Court of the Archon.
THE specific Detachment which includes the Archon may also include a Court!
If the Purge Coterie is a Detachment (which it is because Formations are Detachments), then it may include a Court, because having an Archon allows it to include a Court.

There is NO other Detachment the Court COULD join. There is only one Detachment is existence at this point - the Purge Coterie - the Detachment the Archon is part of.

And on limited size, as Count already said, Codex trumps Rulebook. That IS in the rulebook. The Retainer rule is the thing which overrides the limited size of the Formation.

And here's your car anology again:

The rule would translate as "If a car includes Me, it may also include Chris."
Therefore if I'm in the car, Chris may also be in the car. It doesn't matter what car I'm in. If it includes me, it can also include Chris. Otherwise Chris is outside the Car, effectively in no car at all.
Chris would have to be in A car, otherwise he's "Unbound".

Merged double post - Count Adhemar

Squidmaster wrote:

So your argument is that the Court doesn't actually join the same Detachment as the Archon?

Obviously you did not read my previous posts. So quick recap:
1) I do say, that the Court can join Archon's detachment, but not formation.
2) I do say, that you cannot take for granted that just because it is stated formation is detachment, that detachment is formation. If you think you can, please illustrate on some valid example.
3) I say, that the rule in DEX does not, and srsly, it does not challenge the formation rule. I have a box "formation" full of smaller boxes "units". On Court box it says I can put it in the box "formation". It does not say how to make room for it in the box. Therefore - it overrides exactly nothing. It only states the possibility that you can but giving you no possibility do do so.

Squidmaster wrote:

The rule would translate as "If a car includes Me, it may also include Chris."
Therefore if I'm in the car, Chris may also be in the car. It doesn't matter what car I'm in. If it includes me, it can also include Chris. Otherwise Chris is outside the Car, effectively in no car at all.
Chris would have to be in A car, otherwise he's "Unbound".

Thats a totally wrong analogy IMO. Let me rephrase it as it is written in the rules.
1) I have a 4-seat car that can include 4 clearly defined people on the car's passenger roster (Army List Entries) Jack on seat 1, Josh on seat 2, Claire on seat 3 and Mark on seat 4. Noone can sit on a seat that is not his. Only people on the roster are allowed to be in the car.
2) There are no more seats. Noone can be in the trunk, on the roof or spread across other passengers. Each passenger has a list of things he can take with him (upgrades and DTs). The people allowed in the car are clearly defined. Seat occupants and things they can take are clearly defined.
3) There is a policeman waiting to inspect the car before he allows its departure with clear instructions listed in points 1 and 2. If any of those instructions are not adhered to, he is not allowed to let the car depart.
3) Martin comes to the car holding an official letter that says: "Mr. Policeman - Martin can be in the car."
4) How will you get the policeman to adhere to his instructions when Martin is aboard? The card does not say "he can sit between Mark and Claire". Or "he can be in the trunk". The policeman can watch Martin get aboard, but he is not allowed to let the car leave with him aboard, because the official letter does not say he can.

But it doesn't matter if a Detachment is a Formation, only that a Formation is a Detachment!
The other way around is COMPLETELY irrelevant.

If a Court can be included in a Detachment, and a Formation is a Detachment, then a Court can be included in Formation. I honestly can not see how this can be seen any other way.



To use your analgoy, the Retainer rules ADDs a fifth seat to the car.
The BRB clearly says that rules in a Codex supercede rules in the Rulebook.

Also, you're reading far too much into the 'rule' that says only army list entries listed can be in a formation. That's not what the rule says. It actually 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 adds a unit to that list. It really is that simple.

@Squidmaster - By your logic: I can fly on a plane. Undisputably. Therefore they have to let me on any flight even though I neither am on the passenger list, nor do I have a special and specific instruction for the staff that they have to let me on, nor do I even have a ticket. Please dont say that Retainers rule is a ticket. All it says is that "I can fly on a plane".

@Count Adhemar - Where do you see that it adds something on the list? Show me. Thats a logic leap. You assume that if a rule gives you some option, it automatically creates and modifies other rules to actually allow you to use that option. No, it does not. By your logic - I can do whatever I want with my car. Right? I can throw it off the cliff, I can drive it into a tree, I can put 10 people in it despite it has 5 seats. Do you agree? Does it mean that when I can, I wont get fined or sued when my car lands on a house or in somebody's tree or when policeman catches me driving 10 ppl around? And thats laws... which are much much less strict in explanation than rules.
EDIT: And I mind you that my right to do whatever I want with my property is much higher in the laws hierarchy than the fact that I cant drive 10 ppl in it.
EDIT2: This analogy is in fact great! Rules for driving are actually rules. Not laws! I can put 10 people in the car, I can even drive it on my yard like that without any fear of any consequence. But as soon as I take it out into the environment of the "driving rules". I can stuff my right to do whatever I like with my property into my... cellar, because that right does not invalidate the rule that I cannot drive with more people than listed in my car's papers. :-D

Sigh.


The Retainer rule again: "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."

Taking into account that the BRB clearly says that rules in Codexes supercede the main Rulebook, can you please reference something which makes Formations an exception to this rule. Please provide an actual quote.
We've been doing lots of quoting. Please do the same.

KEEPING IN MIND that Codex supercedes Rulebook.

aurynn wrote:

@Count Adhemar - Where do you see that it adds something on the list? Show me. Thats a logic leap.

No, it's not a logic leap, it's the logical process.

I have an Archon. He is in a detachment of, say, 4 units. I have a rule that says I can include his Court in the detachment. The detachment now has 5 units. If it doesn't, then I haven't added it to the detachment.

@Count Adhemar - Well logical process. Does not matter how you call it. Ofc it is. And thats where you go from RAW to RAI. If it is not written, it does not exist. It is not written that it does add something to the list. You logically deduce, assume, extend, whatever, that it does. but it is not written. It does not exist in RAW. RAW says you can. Does not give you the means to do so. You can put 10 ppl in your sedan, but I dare you taking it out where "BRB" applies.

@Squidmaster - you keep saying that dex superceeds BRB. I agree! Want a quote? OK.

Quote :

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.

You say that this option, this "can do". Is in conflict with BRB.
I am willing to take the assumption even as far as agreeing that Detachment is Formation so we are not distracted by it.

If I had a rule that I can only eat yellow bananas. And a court (authority - higher instance) would (for some reason) say "you can eat blue bananas". It places absolutely no stress or conflict on my rule and I can continue eating only yellow bananas. Right? Why do you think that the "can do" from the retainers rule creates any conflict with the BRB rule? Please try to disprove me here.

However if the court would say "you must eat blue bananas", I would be actually required to break my rule. Therefore, still assuming that Detachment is a formation, you would be absolutely correct if the retainers rule said: "If you take the optional Court, you must include the court in the Archon's Detachment". See? It would no longer be an option or possibility. It would be a rule and a conflicting one with the one in BRB and the DEX would take precedence. And even that would be badly written and could be disputed.

We have already quoted every relevant rule. I have read them a lot of times, word by word and tried to understand what they are saying. I was very very thorough in it. I even spotted that GW ruling about WS getting formation bonus is wrong. It is wrong, but its a FAQ now and it is conflicting, because it says that WS does get the bonus, not can get the bonus... By the way... Has anybody seen a rule saying that FAQ overrides BRB and DEX?

aurynn wrote:

@Count Adhemar - Well logical process. Does not matter how you call it. Ofc it is. And thats where you go from RAW to RAI. If it is not written, it does not exist. It is not written that it does add something to the list. You logically deduce, assume, extend, whatever, that it does. but it is not written. It does not exist in RAW. RAW says you can. Does not give you the means to do so.

This is starting to get silly. How does a Court end up in a detachment (any detachment, not just the Purge Coterie) unless you add it to said detachment?

To use your banana analogy, I have a box of yellow bananas with a note on it saying "Yellow Bananas Only". I have a note from the Supreme Banana Court saying that I can include a single blue banana in any box of bananas. Can I put a blue banana in my box of yellow bananas?

But a formation is a detachment! That's explicitly stated.

Ergo (no logical leap required, it's literally A+B=C), you can take a Court included within the Purge Cotorie.

There really is no argument against it.

Count Adhemar wrote:

To use your banana analogy, I have a box of yellow bananas with a note on it saying "Yellow Bananas Only". I have a note from the Supreme Banana Court saying that I can include a single blue banana in any box of bananas. Can I put a blue banana in my box of yellow bananas?

Of course not. :-) The supreme banana court has given you an option. It does not require you to do so. Nor does it say to you "you are allowed to break rules on the banana boxes".

Can you drive 80 miles per hour in your car? Is it generally allowed to drive a car at 80mph speed? Does it mean you can drive at that speed on every road and street?

Ynneadwraith wrote:

Ergo (no logical leap required, it's literally A+B=C), you can take a Court included within the Purge Cotorie.

You can't mean that. First A is B is not the same as A+B. It is not even A=C. Detachment can take many forms. Formation, CAD, special detachments, etc. Therefore you cannot say that if formation is A, then detachment is another letter. Its more like saying A (formation) is a letter in general (detachment). Because Detachment (letter) can be also B, X, F, etc. That does not mean that every letter is "A". Does it? Why do you think that properly written rules say for example A is C and vice versa? Because it is not automatic.

No but it does mean that matrix category letters, which contains ALL of the examples you've listed:

[a b c d X F ... Z ] = Detachments. Some of those may be formations, some may use FOC slots, but they are all detachments and thus can be represented by placeholder A. court rule says it applies in all cases of A and thus is entailed by any of the sub members of the matrix even if you want to ignore them.

A = B, A+C = A, B+C = B

A - Formation

B - Detachment

C - Court

A is equal to B because "Formations are a special type of Detachment". A includes an Archon in the formation so the rules states "For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon", this is allowed because detachments are defined as be a type of Formation thus A+C = A. B includes an Archon in the detachment so it can include a Court as the rules state that "Formations are a special type of Detachment" and "For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon". Thus B+C = B. Thus A+C=A=B and B+C=B=A.

Ok, so I've been considering your car analogy.

DE Archon is a Vauxhall Corsa

His 'options package' includes paid upgrades over the basic minimum spec.

The court is a Stereo/Sat Nav. package, that also can be basic or more fancy, at a cost.

His Transport is body trim, again which can be just skirts, or plus a spoiler.

He can also have alloys/Weapons, Ceramic Breaks/Soul Field, Turbo/WWP or bucket seats/Blaster if u really want, or just a cup holder/HWG.

It's all still a Vauxhall Corsa.

This thread is still a thing!

The analogies are not very useful because they are being used to frame the problem with the desired solution - e.g. there is no more space in the car so nothing can be added. For that reason, the analogies are mostly just confusing the issue.

The crux of the misunderstanding is the question of what is a detachment. It is never really defined properly in the rules, and the detachment rules just tell you some of the properties detachments have.

To me the only way of defining a Detachment is by the things that are defined as being a Detachment. So a Detachment is one of the following:
1) A Force Organisation Chart type - e.g. CAD/Allied
2) A Formation - e.g. Purge Coterie
3) A Decurion type - e.g. Craftworld Warhost
4) Some alternative structure that might be released in future

aurynn is deducing that because a Detachment is not a Formation that they are different things. However, that is doesn't follow logically because, in the case of a Formation, a Detachment is a Formation. That misunderstanding leads to all this discussion, because if they are different things then it is possible to be part of the Detachment but not Formation and so on. However, all that is based on a logical error.

amorrowlyday wrote:

No but it does mean that matrix category letters, which contains ALL of the examples you've listed:

[a b c d X F ... Z ] = Detachments. Some of those may be formations, some may use FOC slots, but they are all detachments and thus can be represented by placeholder A. court rule says it applies in all cases of A and thus is entailed by any of the sub members of the matrix even if you want to ignore them.

This is interesting. I do not remember matrices that well, will have to read up to really understand this. :-)

CurstAlchemist wrote:

A = B, A+C = A, B+C = B
A - Formation
B - Detachment
C - Court

Okay. Since you are using mathematical operators, lets try it with numbers.
1 = Formation
2 = Detachment
3 = Court

1=2 - no.
1+3=1 - no.
2+3=2 - no.

You are missing the fact that even if you use letters, they represent certain values. The only thing that equals letter A is another letter A. The matrix thing @ammorowlyday posted could make more sense of it, but I really need to read up on that.

CurstAlchemist wrote:

A is equal to B because "Formations are a special type of Detachment".

Well at first I thought it is so. But I came to a conclusion that its not. Passat is a special type of Car. That does not mean that Passat equals Car, because Car does not equal Passat. Equality means that the two things are interchangeable in all aspects, which Car and Passat are not. Only car equals car in all aspects. If the rule did say that Formation equals Detachment. That would be totally different situation and would create its own problems (see my reply to Kantalla below). But since detachment can take other forms, there simply cannot be an equality.

Rewind wrote:

The court is a Stereo/Sat Nav. package, that also can be basic or more fancy, at a cost.

No. Stereo/Sat Nav. package is listed in that Vauxhall specs or options. (love vauxhalls/opels by the way). Court is not listed. Court is an external 3rd party accessory that can be mounted on the Vauxhall Corsa. It says so in its manual. There is no mention of it in Vauxhall Corsa specs. So when you mount it, you either get a Vauxhall Corsa with external accessory mounted or not that specific Vauxhall Corsa at all. And you cannot buy it from the Vauxhall dealer with that 3rd party accessory under that specific Vauxhall model. Same as you cannot buy court under the Formation. EDIT: Same as you do not buy Court under Archon. You buy court and slap it onto Archon (his detachment precisely). Just because the Corsa has mounting points for 3rd party accessories, does not mean they are all listed or bought under its model specs. And in addition - you dont slap it on Archon (Corsa in your analogy). You slap it on his detachment, which is different too.

@Kantalla - I was wondering if you got bored already. :-D

Kantalla wrote:

aurynn is deducing that because a Detachment is not a Formation that they are different things. However, that is doesn't follow logically because, in the case of a Formation, a Detachment is a Formation. That misunderstanding leads to all this discussion, because if they are different things then it is possible to be part of the Detachment but not Formation and so on. However, all that is based on a logical error.

No.
1) Formation is a detachment. Correct?
2) CAD is a detachment. Correct?
3) If I do assume that this means that detachment is formation, it means by the same logic that detachment is CAD. Correct?
Both things cannot be true at once. Because if they were, then Formation would also be CAD. Which its not. :-)

Also this is only an uncertainty coming from unclearly specified relationship between Detachment, Formation, CAD, etc. The real issue is that I am saying that when a rule in dex gives you an option, that you can do something, it does not contradict or cancel or override a rule that prohibits you actually doing so. Because Retainers rule can still be in effect in CADs. It is applicable right? So you actually can add the Court to the Archon's Detachment. There is nothing indicating that you should be able to do it with every type of detachment or that you are allowed to disregard rules that are not in direct conflict with this option. If the retainers rule said that you must include it in Archon's detachment, then (assuming that det is form - without clearing this undisputably it wont matter anyway) and only then it would get in direct conflict.

I am actually trying for everyone not to think any logical outcomes. When you do that, you are using RAI, not RAW. Again - what is not specifically written, is not allowed. That is RAW. RAW does not have to be logical. And lets face it - RAW from GW is rarely logical.

So basically you are saying that I cannot advertise my Impala as an Impala because I have added a Hydraulic lift kit onto it because an Impala purchased new didn't have this as an option? Then what is it? Yes it is a Car, yes it is a vehicle but it isn't an Impala because of the existence of the lift kit being installed on it according to your line of reasoning. It can't be an Impala with a lift kit because Impalas don't have lift kits listed as being part of an Impala.

So what is a Court of the Archon if it isn't part of a formation while being an addition allowed by the existence of an Archon? The unit cannot exist without being part of a formation. It isn't it's own formation because it doesn't meet the requirements of any other formation and it is attacked to the Archon. It can't be it's own detachment because it doesn't meet the requirements of being any of the detachments and is attached because of the Archon. So you must be of the opinion that it is illegal to take the Court outside of anything but a detachment with an FOC because the existence of the court cannot be accounted for despite the fact that you can take one according to their rules (edit) because the rules are not clear and elaborate enough for you to acknowledge that a Formation will allow for the Court.

CurstAlchemist wrote:

So basically you are saying that I cannot advertise my Impala as an Impala because I have added a Hydraulic lift kit onto it because an Impala purchased new didn't have this as an option?

Well. If you wanted to be precise, you would advertise it as Impala type XYZ with Hydraulic lift kit. That would be a correct a precise description, no? Saying "selling my Impala" is not precise, is it?

CurstAlchemist wrote:

So you must be of the opinion that it is illegal to take the Court outside of anything but a detachment with an FOC because the existence of the court cannot be accounted for despite the fact that you can take one according to their rules (edit) because the rules are not clear enough for you to acknowledge that a Formation will allow for the Court.

I can acknowledge it just fine. :-D However the point is that I should not according to RAW.

I'm bowing out of this one. I don't know if it's a language issue (although I hasten to add that Aurynn's English is excellent) but the whole crux of the matter is whether a formation is a detachment. If you don't accept that it is then there is nothing that will persuade you. As I consider this to be a demonstrable, irrefutable fact (ie, it's specifically written in the rulebook) then it is impossible to argue with someone who doesn't accept this.

@Count Adhemar

aurynn wrote:

1) Formation is a detachment. Correct?
2) CAD is a detachment. Correct?
3) If I do assume that this means that detachment is formation, it means by the same logic that detachment is CAD. Correct?
Both things cannot be true at once. Because if they were, then Formation would also be CAD. Which its not. :-)

Just a quickie then Count how would you deal with this if its demostrable and irrefutable fact.
EDIT: I simply cannot accept that statement when I see so many holes in it. I can choose to play by it. But I will always remember that it is not 100% certain or confirmed.
EDIT2: And thank you. However I partly enjoy this debate because it gives me the opportunity to test my english to its limits as I do get so few occasions to actually speak and I do love the language.

I have no idea how to deal with that as it's a flawed assumption. Formations are detachments. CAD (short for Combined Arms Detachment by the way) is a detachment. Craftworld Warhost is a detachment. Corpsethief Claw is a detachment. They are not the same detachment. Detachment is an overarching term to cover many different ideas.

1) Ford Focus is a car. Correct?
2) VW Passat is a car. Correct?
3) A VW Passat is not a Ford Focus. They are however both cars.

How it is flawed? You cannot pick and choose which statement to ignore. You have to take them to account all at once.

You are saying the Detachment is Formation - thus Car is VW Passat.
You are also saying that Car is Ford Focus.
If that were true then FF is VWP. You cannot say that "in this instance car is VWP" and "in this instance it is FF", because in one instance you would invalidate the other statement.

You are looking for a state where ALL statements are true according to the rules. Its a matter of the difference between equality and hierarchy.

EDIT: And more - Saying Car is VWP is wrong. Its simply wrong definition of Car. There is huuuuge difference between saying Car is VWP and Car can be VWP.

I really can't make it any clearer to you. The fact that all formations are detachments does not mean that all formations are the same detachment and nobody other than you is claiming that they are.