Court in Purge Coterie - do they get PE?

No. I am not claiming that. In fact now we are kinda in agreement now.
You are not saying that all formations are the same detachment.
And that is exactly what I am trying ... not to say. :-D
Purge Coterie Detachment should correctly be called Purge Coterie Formation Detachment.
Same is as CAD is Combined Arms Detachment.
These two detachments are not the same, without question, right?
If we do not accept there is a separate group of terms labeled "Detachments" which includes both of the above, then the retainer's rule has nothing to be tied to.
Because RAW - Detachment definitely is not the same thing as Combined Arms Detachment or Purge Coterie Formation Detachment. Its not a category encompassing those two. These terms need to be defined. Not assumed.
If we do accept that, we accept the hierarchy of terms and thus the court can and should be included in the Detachment, but not the Purge Coterie Formation Detachment which will be according all rules as Archon is within that detachment (albeit hidden within Purge Coterie Formation Detachment) and the formation rule is not broken.

aurynn wrote:

Purge Coterie Detachment should correctly be called Purge Coterie Formation Detachment. Same is as CAD is Combined Arms Detachment.

No, the Purge Coterie is the Purge Coterie. That is its name. It is also a formation, as denoted by the formation symbol on the datasheet, and all formations are detachments.

Quote :

These two detachments are not the same, without question, right?

Correct and nobody is saying they are. They are however both detachments.

Quote :

If we do not accept there is a separate group of terms labeled "Detachments" which includes both of the above, then the retainer's rule has nothing to be tied to.

I do accept that there is a separate group of terms labeled "Detachments" however because it is a fact.

Quote :

This section focuses on the Battle-forged method. If you opt to choose an army using this method, your units are organised into Detachments and many gain special rules and in-game advantages. We have included two Detachments at the end of this rules section, each with its own Force Organisation Chart, Restrictions and Command Benefits. You will find further Detachments to use in your games of Warhammer 40,000 in our codexes and other Games Workshop publications.

Quote :

Formations are a special type of Detachment

Quote :

Because RAW - Detachment definitely is not the same thing as Combined Arms Detachment or Purge Coterie Formation Detachment. Its not a category encompassing those two. These terms need to be defined. Not assumed.

Both are detachments. I honestly don't see how this is in any way confusing for you. CAD is specifically shown in the BRB as a detachment and frequently used an example of one. Formations are specifically stated to be detachments.

Quote :

If we do accept that, we accept the hierarchy of terms and thus the court can and should be included in the Detachment, but not the Purge Coterie Formation Detachment which will be according all rules as Archon is within that detachment (albeit hidden within Purge Coterie Formation Detachment) and the formation rule is not broken.

I literally have no idea what you are trying to say here.

I'm out.

For real this time.

Count Adhemar wrote:

Quote :

If we do accept that, we accept the hierarchy of terms and thus the court can and should be included in the Detachment, but not the Purge Coterie Formation Detachment which will be according all rules as Archon is within that detachment (albeit hidden within Purge Coterie Formation Detachment) and the formation rule is not broken.

I literally have no idea what you are trying to say here.

I am saying that if we accept that Detachment is a term one tier above the Formation, we can still say that the Formation is Detachment, Include the Court in the detachment with Archon and not break any other rules. And that is in my opinion the ONLY way how to adhere to all relevant rules for this issue.

@Squidmaster - please... would you mind to keep to the argumentation instead of replying with facepalms? I could post the same, but I won't as this is a debate and I won't devalue anyone else's opinion just because I do not agree or understand it. :-P

Ok, fine. One last thing then.

Detachment is NOT one tier above Formation.
Formation IS Detachment. They are the SAME THING. Formations ARE Detachments.

And with that, out.

aurynn wrote:

Count Adhemar wrote:

Quote :

If we do accept that, we accept the hierarchy of terms and thus the court can and should be included in the Detachment, but not the Purge Coterie Formation Detachment which will be according all rules as Archon is within that detachment (albeit hidden within Purge Coterie Formation Detachment) and the formation rule is not broken.

I literally have no idea what you are trying to say here.

I am saying that if we accept that Detachment is a term one tier above the Formation, we can still say that the Formation is Detachment, Include the Court in the detachment with Archon and not break any other rules. And that is in my opinion the ONLY way how to adhere to all relevant rules for this issue.

No, you can't do that because you are then splitting the formation into a formation and a separate detachment.

No more analogies, I'm just going to use the correct units and terminology. Please state whether you agree with each of the following. If you do not, please provide a rules quote to support your position.

1) The Purge Coterie is a formation, which is a special kind of detachment

2) The Purge Coterie is therefore a detachment

3) The Purge Coterie consists of 1 Archon, 1 unit of Kabalite Warriors, 1 Raider and 1 unit of Reavers

4) The Purge Coterie is therefore a detachment which includes an Archon

5) The Retainers rule says "For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon..."

6) The Purge Coterie can therefore include a Court of the Archon

Squidmaster wrote:

Formation IS Detachment.

Yes they are.

Squidmaster wrote:

They are the SAME THING.

No they are not.
I provided several analogies and explanations to this. By saying Something is Something else you cannot mean it is the same thing. I really, really do not understand how you can say that. I may be stupid but to me, saying that my Samsung is Cellphone does not mean that Samsung and Cellphone is the same thing.  

@Count
1) Yes.
2) Yes.
3) Yes.
4) Yes.
5) Yes.
6) No. Detachment can include Court. That does not mean every Detachment or any detachment. It does not even say that a detachment has to include it, should I buy it. Only that it can include it. Therefore - it can be included only in those detachments that allow such inclusion.

I guess I do not get why do you think that saying that I can include the Court in a detachment means I have to be able to do it with every detachment.

Please do me a favour too and state whether you agree with this:
1) DEX says I can include Kabalite Warriors in detachment.
2) Because the DEX says I can and they come from the DEX, can I override any rule from BRB? I believe I cannot. Therefore despite the dex says I can include the KW in a detachment, it does not mean every detachment.
3) Retainers rule (DEX) says that I also can include the Court, in the same detachment as Archon and outside of FOC. The rule that I can include them in the army is therefore expanded and named.
4) Can I override any rule from BRB with Retainers? Yes, I can override one (and only one) rule - because it says I can add the court outside of FOC. It directly challenges the rule that says that I cannot include a unit outside of FOC in CAD. DEX takes precedence.
5) Does formation have FOC? No. It has a list instead.
6) Does Retainers rule say anything about a list?
7) Does Retainers rule say I do not have to adhere to any rule regarding a Formation?

Retainers rule does not give me right to override any other rule than that shown above. I think it is due to poorly worded rules. I agree that the intention of Retainers rule might have been that you can take Court everywhere with Archon. But I do stand by my opinion that just because a rule says you can do something, it does not mean you can do it every time.

Quote :

6) No. Detachment can include Court. That does not mean every Detachment or any detachment. It does not even say that a detachment has to include it, should I buy it. Only that it can include it. Therefore - it can be included only in those detachments that allow such inclusion.

For this to be true, the rule would have to state 'can be included in any detachment that allows it'.

Otherwise, the statement made above is not true.

By dint of a formation being a type of detachment, you can include a court within it.

The 'outside of an FOC' statement simply does not apply in this case, as there is no FOC for it to be relevant to. If you needed there to be an FOC for inclusion of a Court, the rule would have to state 'the Court must be added to an FOC, but does not take up any slots'. It doesn't. The only prerequisite for the inclusion of a Court, as stated in the rules, is that an Archon be present. This is the case in a Purge Cotorie, ergo the prerequisites for a Court have been met.

Ynneadwraith wrote:

Quote :

6) No. Detachment can include Court. That does not mean every Detachment or any detachment. It does not even say that a detachment has to include it, should I buy it. Only that it can include it. Therefore - it can be included only in those detachments that allow such inclusion.

For this to be true, the rule would have to state 'can be included in any detachment that allows it'.

Oh right... so I can include Kabalite Warriors or any other unit from the dex anywhere. Dex says I can use Kabalite Warriors in lists. But Dex does not say that I have to follow any other rules for their inclusion, so I can throw out FOC requirements, Formation requirements, hell I can use them in inquistion lists without bothering with any other rule right? According to your logic I can disregard every rule in BRB, because the dex does not say "you can include Kabalite Warriors in a list that allows it". It doesnt. Nowhere in the dex. Try and find it.

Ynneadwraith wrote:

The 'outside of an FOC' statement simply does not apply in this case, as there is no FOC for it to be relevant to. If you needed there to be an FOC for inclusion of a Court, the rule would have to state 'the Court must be added to an FOC, but does not take up any slots'. It doesn't. The only prerequisite for the inclusion of a Court, as stated in the rules, is that an Archon be present. This is the case in a Purge Cotorie, ergo the prerequisites for a Court have been met.

Archon is the prerequisite for the rule to apply. When Archon is in a Detachment, you can use the Retainers rule which says you can do something. Still nothing about not having to adhere to any other rules.

aurynn wrote:

I guess I do not get why do you think that saying that I can include the Court in a detachment means I have to be able to do it with every detachment.

But nobody is saying that. You can include the Court in any detachment that also includes an Archon.

And that really is all I have to say on this subject. I honestly cannot make the point any clearer and if anyone disagrees with it then we'll just have to agree to differ but I would absolutely play it like this in any game and not expect any objections.

aurynn wrote:

Oh right... so I can include Kabalite Warriors or any other unit from the dex anywhere. Dex says I can use Kabalite Warriors in lists. But Dex does not say that I have to follow any other rules for their inclusion, so I can throw out FOC requirements, Formation requirements, hell I can use them in inquistion lists without bothering with any other rule right? According to your logic I can disregard every rule in BRB, because the dex does not say "you can include Kabalite Warriors in a list that allows it". It doesnt. Nowhere in the dex. Try and find it.

Nope. Dex says that Kabalite Warriors are Troops, which evokes all the rules for Troops choices from the BRB. They don't have any rules attached to them that let them side-step that.

The Court is an HQ, which evokes all the rules for an HQ choice, but also has a rule that allows it to be taken ignoring the normal HQ rules for building detachments and formations.

It's within the Retainers rule that it would need to have the caveats I mentioned to function as you're describing.

aurynn wrote:

Archon is the prerequisite for the rule to apply. When Archon is in a Detachment, you can use the Retainers rule which says you can do something.

Don't say 'do something' there. Say what the rule actually says.

When an Archon is in a Detachment (which we have already demonstrated a Formation is a type of), a Court can be included within that Detachment.

That's all the rules that are required for a Court to be taken within a Formation.

@Count - OK. Lets agree to differ. Let's not spend anymore of our lives on it. :-) For me the keyword is "can". For you the keyword is "any". And I would understand objections, therefore I would clear this before the battle. Thank you for your patience and effort (that goes for everyone).

@Ynneadwraith
You said:

Ynneadwraith wrote:

For this to be true, the rule would have to state 'can be included in any detachment that allows it'.

Why would you say that only with Court and not with every other Army List Entry? You said that I do not have to follow the rules from BRB if the Army List Entry does not say that it can be included in any detachment that allows it. However, correct me if I am wrong, but every unit in the dex can only be included in a detachment that allows it.

Ynneadwraith wrote:

The Court is an HQ, which evokes all the rules for an HQ choice, but also has a rule that allows it to be taken ignoring the normal HQ rules for building detachments and formations.

Exactly, but... There are no HQ rules for formations. Therefore there is nothing for DEX to ignore. There are no FOC rules in formations to ignore.

I meant that "can do something" as a short for that what has been said many many times.

Okay, let's end this. If you wish to PM me regarding this, feel free to. But I think we dwell a little too long on it. :-) I accept that I was unable to convince you. Thanks everyone and lets hope that this issue will be cleared in the future or we will have a better ruleset in 8th. Lets reap some souls now! Well... I am going to drool over the Thousand Sons and cry into my empty wallet...

The reason I say that only with the Court, is that it's only the Court that has a special rule that allows it to be taken outside of the normal rules for taking HQs: Retainers. That doesn't apply to the Kabs in your example.

Agreed on calling it though as I'm not certain we'll get much further :S

Plus, I don't even plan on including a Court or even using a Purge Cotorie in my army lists anyway!

Happy hunting

I just hope that this was nothing more than an intellectual exercise and that your gaming group isn't so cut throat that people will expect you to prove, without a doubt, that this or that can happen because GW rules have lots of problems. That is one of the reasons most tournament leagues have their own rules to clarify issues or to make ruling on the lists before they show up so that the rules lawyers don't spend the entire game time debating.

Wow, I cant believe that this has gone on for 4 pages... Lol...

For me just excercise. For some people I know a reality. Not that any of them would actually mind letting me use the Court with Coterie and the special rule. But we do debate stuff from RAW point of view. We debate principles of RAW. And rules in general to the absolute detail. Some of the arguments I posted came from these debates. So I know how easily one slips from RAW to RAI. We debate the nature of human thinking and the principles people are used to use and when they can be applied and when they can't. We challenge each other with analogies ,spotting flaws in each other's reasoning. We can be even much more thorough at it than here, reopening the debate after days of pondering at the background. :-) It does not matter how minor thing it is. The truth matters. The true understanding matters. Our egos do not. Its actually fun and a great learning experience. And we rarely leave an issue open - unable to convince the others one way or another. Understanding is consensus. :-) It is very difficult to recreate on the forum though. Without the rulebooks and the immediate response to an argument. Just look at the length of this thread. It cycles and repeats. This does not happen face to face. Just reading it and trying to absorb and think about everything said in all of its consequence and.context is impossible for all but few. Much easier face to face. ;-)

fisheyes wrote:

Wow, I cant believe that this has gone on for 4 pages... Lol...

@Fisheyes, I check in every couple days to see if a conclusion was reached... turns out that every page and a half or so, we circle around the beginning.