So, here's the question. The Court of the Archon (DE codex p. 71) has the Retainers rule, which says that for every Archon, you can include a Court which doesn't take up an HQ slot.

So, can you take a Court of the Archon without an actual Archon? Using up an HQ slot as per normal?

Sure, why wouldn't you be able to? Retainers just gives you an EXTRA way of taking the Court.

 Kriswall wrote:
Sure, why wouldn't you be able to? Retainers just gives you an EXTRA way of taking the Court.

In the past, rules of this type have been interpreted to be exclusive (as being the ONLY way to take the unit) and I want to gauge community opinion before I just assume views have reversed since the last time the topic came up.

We aren't playing in the past

The Retainers rule simply gives you a way of taking a Court without taking up an HQ slot. There is nothing in the rules that would prevent you from using the normal method, i.e. simply taking up a slot instead.

You have to read the rules without thinking about how things were done in the past. Lots of things like this changed in 7th edition.

Even in seventh Ed people were interpreting this sort of rule that way. I don't have any skin in this particular game; I don't use Courts. I'm just curious as to what the lay of the land is. Course, if people seem in favor of shenanigans of this nature, I may give it a whirl anyway.

It's not shenanigans. You can take a Court as one of your HQ slots OR you can get one for "free" by taking an Archon. It is possible that GW didn't intend this, but given the current stance of "play with whatever models you want", I think it's more likely they want you to be able to take a Court without the Archon.

I side with Kriswall on this,
There has been quite the change in wording from the previous editions when it comes to Rules of this nature. While it is impossible to tell the true intent of the Author, the fact they are constantly changing these sort of Rules from Codex to Codex seems to indicate they are trying to do something new with it. It could simply be because the entire backbone on which these Rules previously rested has been altered within 7th Edition, but the fact they have made such dramatic changes requires us to forget previous methodology.

I will note that this particular Rule, if I remember right from when we did research it a month or so back, was the most changed from the previous formats....

I fully believe this was an oversight and the Court REQUIRES an Archon. However, no matter what I believe the intent was, the rules are written a certain way even if I think it is by mistake and there is no arguement here. The Court is allowed as an HQ choice because of how the rules are currently written. It's not in bright bold letters, but because of the wording, it's allowed.

If a tournament FAQs the rules on their own, such as BAO and other such places I expect to see the Court require the Archon to be present, but in 'unofficial' and casual games that have that hint of competition, the rules allow it.

Are you going to bring a court without an archon?

Possibly an oversight because of the way the new codexes are formatted, but yeah you can take them without an Archon. The Retainers rule has more open-ended wording than other examples of "slotless" HQ choices.

You might be interested in this thread:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/617875.page

Conclusions were pretty much 50/50, just as they are here.
Some players believe you can simply "skip past" the Retainers Rule as it is an optional rule. You may take a court as a single HQ.
Some players believe the Retainers rule is a compulsory choice between 2 options: slot-less Court with the Archon or not taking the court.

Diagram to help:

GW have been clear on their intent on this matter as 7th is all about freedom. The Retainers rule is an if then statement. If you don't take an Archon then you can't take a slotless Court. However you are clearly allowed to take them as a HQ slot.

I wonder how many of those saying no understand army building in 7th and play 7th Ed (opposed to 6.5 which is played on the Tournament scene).

Some freedom, and if you went Unbound, you may take as many Courts as you wish, but many have advocated that this is not "complete" freedom, including yourself:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Still only 1 swarmlord. Even in unbound Unique still works.

From: Here

Surely "GW have been clear on their intent on this matter as 7th is all about freedom.". Why restrict yourself with "Unique"? Or Command Squads?

Because unique clearly spells out how it works. I don't see the connection. RaW & RaI you can only have 1 of each unique model in your force, so why play it different? RaW & RaI you can have a court take up a HQ slot without purchasing an Archon, so why play it different?

 koooaei wrote:
Are you going to bring a court without an archon?

Sure its two more venoms in a weak slot.

And lets be real guys, this isn't game breakingly awesome.

Currently there is no RAW preventing you from taking the court without an archon.

the retainers rule just makes the court slotless, instead of an HQ slot, if you have an archon.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Because unique clearly spells out how it works. I don't see the connection. RaW & RaI you can only have 1 of each unique model in your force, so why play it different? RaW & RaI you can have a court take up a HQ slot without purchasing an Archon, so why play it different?

The connection was simply to counter your (not too relevant) argument of "7th is all about freedom". It is a blanket statement without real foundations. Otherwise "Unbound" would be as "free" as can be rather than Restricted by "Unique" or "only one per (...)".

Digression.

The point is, "Retainers" is a Rule with a choice between A and B.
A) You may "include a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot in the Force Organisation Chart"
B) You can choose not to "include a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot in the Force Organisation Chart"

In order to be able to make choice A or B, you must first fulfill "For each Archon included in a Detachment,"

Now, most of you decide "I will simply take a Court" and go for choice C) You include a Court of the Archon without making the choice A or B.

By Raw, you have ignored the "Retainers" rule above (and not chosen A or B). Feel free to ignore certain Rules in your Army choice, just admit this is what is being done.
As per the diagram above, if you follow the route on the far left, have you made use of the orange box "retainers Rule"?

So if I shoot a unit without firing all weapons have I broken rules? If I don't scout redeploy my units with Scouts have I broken a rule?

The answer to the above is clearly the same as to the question if I don't choose to use the retainers rule to include a Court of the Archon without taking up a HQ slot have I broken rules.

If I don't take an Archon how can a rule that only apply when I take an Archon apply? Explain please.

 FlingitNow wrote:
So if I shoot a unit without firing all weapons have I broken rules? If I don't scout redeploy my units with Scouts have I broken a rule?

The answer to the above is clearly the same as to the question if I don't choose to use the retainers rule to include a Court of the Archon without taking up a HQ slot have I broken rules.

If I don't take an Archon how can a rule that only apply when I take an Archon apply? Explain please.

You know it is not the same. Any example you may find is a choice to make that you might skip across as irrelevant.

Scout only applies to Units with Scout.
They can choose to A) Redeploy. B) Not Redeploy.
If you pick B, you can just ignore the Scouts Rule.

If you choose not to shoot with a weapon, you can skip the entire Shooting Phase with a Unit that "could".
You have still chosen B) Not to shoot. even if the question never came up.

But in a round about way, you have made clear that you are skipping the "Retainers" rule, just as you would "shoot a unit without firing all weapons" or "don't scout redeploy". Please correct this if i got it wrong. Some of us would argue that you cannot ignore the rule. Why?

All Court of the Archon Units have the "Retainers" Special Rule.
Same as, All Legion of the Dammed Units have the "Aid Unlooked For" Special Rule.
Or Nork Deddog havs the "Heroic Sacrifice" Special Rule.

If you choose not to "include a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot in the Force Organisation Chart" , somehow you can ignore the rule itself?
If you choose not to "may reroll the Scatter dice if you wish.", somehow you can ignore the part where you arrive by Deep Strike?
If you choose not to "immediately make his full complement of Attacks against the unit that killed him", you ignore the rule. So you ignore "He is then removed as a casualty."

Great, so we've got LotD that can choose to not be arriving by Deep Strike, and an Invincible Nork Deddog as long as he chooses not to make attacks back?

You can skip rules you do not use (Scout, shooting, etc) just as you can skip "Retainers" if you don't field a Court of the Archon Unit.
But if you field a Court of the Archon Unit, Nork Deddog, etc on your gaming table, they have a Special Rule which you must follow.

Not following their Special Rule (such as fielding a Court of the Archon Unit without "Retainers") is a choice you have made. Feel free to ignore Special Rules in a game, like "Gets Hot" or others too...

The Retainers rule is essentially saying "If you do A, you have the option of doing B."

A is taking an Archon.
B is taking a slotless Court.

If you aren't doing A, the Retainers rule fails immediately and you are never given the option to take a SLOTLESS Court. Everyone agrees on this.

Nowhere in the Retainers rule is there any wording preventing me from just using the rules in the BRB and taking a Court using the normal 'fills and HQ slot' method. If you believe that wording is present, please point it out.

Your LotD and Nork examples aren't relevant as they aren't giving you an EXTRA way of doing something.

The flowchart from earlier in the thread is a great summary of how this process works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To talk a little more about the LotD example and why it's a bad one...

Aid Unlooked For - "The Legion of the Damned do not benefit from Chapter Tactics and their units cannot be joined by Independent Characters. They always start the game in reserve and always arrive by Deep Strike. When they arrive by Deep Strike, you may re-roll the Scatter dice if you wish."

You aren't given the option. They HAVE TO arrive by Deep Strike.

Compare this to the Deep Strike rule itself. Deep Strike gives you an optional way of deploying a model. Nothing in the Deep Strike rule prevents you from just deploying the models on the field initially or having them walk onto the board from reserves later. The fact that it's optional doesn't mean you're ignoring it if you choose not to use it. Retainers is like Deep Strike. You can add a Court by taking a slot or by taking an Archon and going slotless. Taking a slot doesn't mean you are ignoring the Retainers rule... much like Deep Strike, you just aren't using it.

 Kriswall wrote:
The Retainers rule is essentially saying "If you do A, you have the option of doing B."

A is taking an Archon.
B is taking a slotless Court.

If you aren't doing A, the Retainers rule fails immediately and you are never given the option to take a SLOTLESS Court. Everyone agrees on this.

I agree completely with this, and is the way i see it too. If you aren't doing A, it doesn't real "fail" as much as it simply "is not happening". Just as invoking the Scout Rule with no scouts in your army. It is simply "skipped".

 Kriswall wrote:
Nowhere in the Retainers rule is there any wording preventing me from just using the rules in the BRB and taking a Court using the normal 'fills and HQ slot' method. If you believe that wording is present, please point it out.

And, as per the old thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/613989.page

I completely understand that method. But i personally don't agree with it.

There is no wording to quote apart from "You must follow rules" which i can quote if needed. But the simple explanation: "All Court of the Archon Units have the "Retainers" Special Rule." As i've said previously. There is no wording preventing you from just using the rules in the BRB, but if you field a Court of the Archon on you gaming table, does it "have" the Retainers rule?

We would both agree on "No". It seems you have no issue with this, but IMHO it would be identical to simply saying "i am fielding LotD without the "Aid Unlooked For" Special Rule. Not something i can agree to...

So how are you activating the Retainers rule if I don't have an Archon? What rules are you using to determine the effect of Retainers when an Archon is not taken?

The difference is that there is no rule that states that an Archon must be present. How you would do it or not is irrelevant. The rules simply are not there to force an Archon to be present. The Retainers rule states a very simple if-then scenario but you are reading it and implying that there is also a 'if not-then'. But that is simply not there.

A Techmarine is a better example. 'For each HQ choice chosen, a Techmarine may be chosen that does not take up an HQ slot' (paraphrase). There is no equivalent here regarding the unit being chosen in general. Only the slot-less modification is mentioned.

At the end of the day, you can ask a player to change the written rules like an FAQ, but as written, there is simply no rule to back up the 'it needs an Archon' claim in the Dark Eldar Codex. Any assumptions to the contrary are comparing it to other rules from other codecies. So you can't say 'follow the rules' when the rule you are trying to follow isn't written. It is under the HQ section of the Codex, there is no rule saying it MUST and can ONLY be taken in conjunction with another unit, so the Court is an HQ choice with the option to become slotless is an Archon is present.

Sadly, there is no other argument to be made until it becomes FAQed.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
The Retainers rule is essentially saying "If you do A, you have the option of doing B."

A is taking an Archon.
B is taking a slotless Court.

If you aren't doing A, the Retainers rule fails immediately and you are never given the option to take a SLOTLESS Court. Everyone agrees on this.

I agree completely with this, and is the way i see it too. If you aren't doing A, it doesn't real "fail" as much as it simply "is not happening". Just as invoking the Scout Rule with no scouts in your army. It is simply "skipped".

 Kriswall wrote:
Nowhere in the Retainers rule is there any wording preventing me from just using the rules in the BRB and taking a Court using the normal 'fills and HQ slot' method. If you believe that wording is present, please point it out.

And, as per the old thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/613989.page

I completely understand that method. But i personally don't agree with it.

There is no wording to quote apart from "You must follow rules" which i can quote if needed. But the simple explanation: "All Court of the Archon Units have the "Retainers" Special Rule." As i've said previously. There is no wording preventing you from just using the rules in the BRB, but if you field a Court of the Archon on you gaming table, does it "have" the Retainers rule?

We would both agree on "No". It seems you have no issue with this, but IMHO it would be identical to simply saying "i am fielding LotD without the "Aid Unlooked For" Special Rule. Not something i can agree to...

It would absolutely still have the Retainers rule in much the same way that a unit with Deep Strike that you've chosen to simply deploy on the table still has the Deep Strike rule. Again, Retainers represents an optional, additional way of selecting Courts for your army. You need to demonstrate that it isn't optional. In essence, this happens...

1. While building my list I decide to take a Court of the Archon to fulfill a mandatory HQ slot in a Combined Arms Detachment.
2. I notice they have a rule called "Retainers".
3. I begin to read the rule, and see that it only applies to situation where I'm taking an Archon as an HQ choice.
4. I'm not taking an Archon as an HQ choice, so the "Retainers" rule doesn't apply in this current situation.
5. The Court is added to my list and fills an HQ slot.

Note that I'm not ignoring the rule or choosing not to use a mandatory rule. I read it and it didn't apply.

Now again, GW may have INTENDED for the Court to only be available as an add-on to an Archon. What they ACTUALLY WROTE allows you to select the Court by itself using the standard methods presented in the BRB. Short of an FAQ, we can never know RaI. RaW is more clear.

The BRB grants permission for us to take the Court by itself.
The Codex grants permission for us to take a slotless Court with an Archon.

You need to demonstrate that the permission in the BRB is being revoked. The Retainers rule has no wording that I can see that revokes this permission.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
The difference is that there is no rule that states that an Archon must be present. How you would do it or not is irrelevant. The rules simply are not there to force an Archon to be present. The Retainers rule states a very simple if-then scenario but you are reading it and implying that there is also a 'if not-then'. But that is simply not there.

A Techmarine is a better example. 'For each HQ choice chosen, a Techmarine may be chosen that does not take up an HQ slot' (paraphrase). There is no equivalent here regarding the unit being chosen in general. Only the slot-less modification is mentioned.

At the end of the day, you can ask a player to change the written rules like an FAQ, but as written, there is simply no rule to back up the 'it needs an Archon' claim in the Dark Eldar Codex. Any assumptions to the contrary are comparing it to other rules from other codecies. So you can't say 'follow the rules' when the rule you are trying to follow isn't written. It is under the HQ section of the Codex, there is no rule saying it MUST and can ONLY be taken in conjunction with another unit, so the Court is an HQ choice with the option to become slotless is an Archon is present.

Sadly, there is no other argument to be made until it becomes FAQed.

Honestly, I think the Techmarine example is going to be a problem once they redo Codex: Space Marines and add a Techmarine unit entry with a Retainers equivalent rule. I think this is more a side effect of how the 7th edition unit entries are organized. If GW had really intended for the Court to be an add-on, they could have written this...

Retainers: For each Archon in your army, you may include one Court of the Archon that does not take up an HQ slot. This is the only method by which you can include Courts of the Archon in your army.

 FlingitNow wrote:
So if I shoot a unit without firing all weapons have I broken rules? If I don't scout redeploy my units with Scouts have I broken a rule?

From 'Select a Weapon' in the rules for the Shooting Phase:

A player can choose not to fire with certain models if he prefers.

From the 'Scout' special rule:

After both sides have deployed (including Infiltrators), but before the first player begins his first turn, a unit containing at least one model with this special rule can choose to redeploy.

Both give you specific permissions to either not shoot or not redeploy.

 Ghaz wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
So if I shoot a unit without firing all weapons have I broken rules? If I don't scout redeploy my units with Scouts have I broken a rule?

From 'Select a Weapon' in the rules for the Shooting Phase:

A player can choose not to fire with certain models if he prefers.

From the 'Scout' special rule:

After both sides have deployed (including Infiltrators), but before the first player begins his first turn, a unit containing at least one model with this special rule can choose to redeploy.

Both give you specific permissions to either not shoot or not redeploy.

The BRB gives you specific permission to field a slotted Court. Retainers gives you specific permission to field a slotless Court. This is another example of having specific permission to do something two ways.

 Kriswall wrote:
The BRB gives you specific permission to field a slotted Court. Retainers gives you specific permission to field a slotless Court. This is another example of having specific permission to do something two ways.

If they're different, then 'Basic versus Advanced' comes into play. You need the 'Retainers' rule to say the it's a choice on the player's part.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
The BRB gives you specific permission to field a slotted Court. Retainers gives you specific permission to field a slotless Court. This is another example of having specific permission to do something two ways.

If they're different, then 'Basic versus Advanced' comes into play. You need the 'Retainers' rule to say the it's a choice on the player's part.

Using basic versus advanced doesn't really come into play. Retainers isn't creating a contradiction. It never says you can't take the Court as a normal slotted choice.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
The BRB gives you specific permission to field a slotted Court. Retainers gives you specific permission to field a slotless Court. This is another example of having specific permission to do something two ways.

If they're different, then 'Basic versus Advanced' comes into play. You need the 'Retainers' rule to say the it's a choice on the player's part.

Basic vs Advance only comes into play when there is a conflict. There is none here. Again I ask:

So how are you activating the Retainers rule if I don't have an Archon? What rules are you using to determine the effect of Retainers when an Archon is not taken?

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
A Techmarine is a better example. 'For each HQ choice chosen, a Techmarine may be chosen that does not take up an HQ slot' (paraphrase). There is no equivalent here regarding the unit being chosen in general. Only the slot-less modification is mentioned.

I agree that the Techmarine can only be taken slot-less, and these rules are indeed clearer.

But the Question arises: What additional wording does "Retainers" have that suddenly allow you to take a Slotted Court?

 Kriswall wrote:
It would absolutely still have the Retainers rule in much the same way that a unit with Deep Strike that you've chosen to simply deploy on the table still has the Deep Strike rule. Again, Retainers represents an optional, additional way of selecting Courts for your army. You need to demonstrate that it isn't optional. In essence, this happens...

1. While building my list I decide to take a Court of the Archon to fulfill a mandatory HQ slot in a Combined Arms Detachment.
2. I notice they have a rule called "Retainers".
3. I begin to read the rule, and see that it only applies to situation where I'm taking an Archon as an HQ choice.
4. I'm not taking an Archon as an HQ choice, so the "Retainers" rule doesn't apply in this current situation.
5. The Court is added to my list and fills an HQ slot.

3. I begin to read the rule, and see that it only applies to situation where I'm taking an Archon as an HQ choice.
4. I'm not taking an Archon as an HQ choice, so the "Retainers" rule isn't fulfilled in this current situation.

5. As you have not fulfilled a Special Rule for the Unit, how can it be fielded?

Can you declare a Unit is Deep Striking when you put them in reserve, and them walk them on?
You walked on from reserves as normal, so why would the Deep Strike Rules ("When placing the unit in Reserve, you must tell your opponent that it will be arriving by Deep Strike") not be ignored as you are doing with "Retainers"?

 Kriswall wrote:
Retainers: For each Archon in your army, you may include one Court of the Archon that does not take up an HQ slot. This is the only method by which you can include Courts of the Archon in your army.

Why would the rule need that additional phrase? It contains it already as per BrB RaW:

Rulebook wrote:Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise. They include the rules for movement, shooting and close combat as well as the rules for morale. These are all the rules you’ll need for infantry models. Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether because they have a special kind of weapon (such as a boltgun), unusual skills (such as the ability to regenerate), because they are different to their fellows (such as a unit leader or a heroic character), or because they are not normal infantry models (a bike, a swarm or even a tank). The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated in its Army List Entry. Army List Entries can be found in a number of Games Workshop publications, such as a Warhammer 40,000 codex.

Resuming my position from the above:
1 - Basic rules must apply.
2 - Advanced rules must apply to some.
3 - Advanced rules ("retainers") found in Codex apply to Unit.
4 - "Retainers" applies to Court of the Archon Unit.
5 - "Retainers": Check if Archon. If Yes: A)Select slotless Court or B) Do not Select Slotless Court. If No: You cannot follow "Retainers" rule.

At point 5, when checking if i have fulfilled "Retainers" rule, if i have no Archon on the table, i can't follow the Rule.
As i can't put a Court of the Archon Unit without following the "Retainers" rule, i can't have a Court of the Archon Unit.

At point 5, you tell me you can skip the "Retainers" rule. Field a Court of the Archon Unit that "has not followed the Retainers rule".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

So how are you activating the Retainers rule if I don't have an Archon? What rules are you using to determine the effect of Retainers when an Archon is not taken?

How are you activating the Deep Strike rule if you are not allowed reserves? What rules are you using to determine the effect of Deep Strike when Reserves are forbidden?
How are you activating the Hatred(Orks) rule if I don't have Orks? What rules are you using to determine the effect of Hatred(Orks) when there is no Orks?


Easy!

No Archon = no Court. Pick another HQ
No Reserves = No Deep Strike. Deploy them on the Board.
No Orks enemies = No Hatred(Orks). Find an Ork opponent.

How is there not a conflict? The 'Retainers' rule requires an Archon in order to take the Court whereas the basic rules do not. Sure looks like a conflict to me.

There is no rule that says the Retainer is the only way to field the Court. There in no hint that it is mandatory. The 'rule' that says the Court can be taken as an HQ is the little skull icon in the corner of the page that means HQ category. Just like a Space Wolf Drop Pod is a Fast Attack choice now because it is in that section. It is no longer only a Dedicated Transport, despite how the rules used to be.

The lack of the words 'only' or any restrictive implication at all mean that RAW means it isn't a mandatory rule. It's a rule that should be noticed if the Archon is present but nothing indicates anything else.

It doesn't need the word 'only'. It needs the wording to make it a choice in light of the 'Basic versus Advanced' rule.

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
There is no rule that says the Retainer is the only way to field the Court. There in no hint that it is mandatory. The 'rule' that says the Court can be taken as an HQ is the little skull icon in the corner of the page that means HQ category. Just like a Space Wolf Drop Pod is a Fast Attack choice now because it is in that section. It is no longer only a Dedicated Transport, despite how the rules used to be.

The lack of the words 'only' or any restrictive implication at all mean that RAW means it isn't a mandatory rule. It's a rule that should be noticed if the Archon is present but nothing indicates anything else.

But it is still a Rule that exists as part of a Court of the Archon Unit's profile.

Does a SW Drop Pod have a Rule along the lines of "Dedicated Transport"? Or could it be the Units themselves that have that as an option.

If the Archon had:

Options:
• The unit may select a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot in the Force Organisation Chart as additional Unit.
• May take a Venom as a Dedicated Transport.

Then i can make a comparison with the Dedicated Transport option.

However this is not the case. The Court of the Archon Unit has a Special Rule, are you following it?

 BlackTalos wrote:

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
There is no rule that says the Retainer is the only way to field the Court. There in no hint that it is mandatory. The 'rule' that says the Court can be taken as an HQ is the little skull icon in the corner of the page that means HQ category. Just like a Space Wolf Drop Pod is a Fast Attack choice now because it is in that section. It is no longer only a Dedicated Transport, despite how the rules used to be.

The lack of the words 'only' or any restrictive implication at all mean that RAW means it isn't a mandatory rule. It's a rule that should be noticed if the Archon is present but nothing indicates anything else.

But it is still a Rule that exists as part of a Court of the Archon Unit's profile.

Does a SW Drop Pod have a Rule along the lines of "Dedicated Transport"? Or could it be the Units themselves that have that as an option.

If the Archon had:

Options:
• The unit may select a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot in the Force Organisation Chart as additional Unit.
• May take a Venom as a Dedicated Transport.

Then i can make a comparison with the Dedicated Transport option.

However this is not the case. The Court of the Archon Unit has a Special Rule, are you following it?

By taking a Court of the Archon as a slot using HQ choice in an appropriate detachment, I have absolutely read, understood and followed the Retainers rule during list constructions. There is no Archon, so I don't have permission to take a slotless Court. I haven't taken a slotless Court, so I've obeyed the rule.

Please cite, using rules, what is specifically revoking permission to take the Court using the BRB method. If you would like to use the Retainers rule, I want explicit revokation and not some sort of implied revokation based on prior editions and unknowable authorial intent.

From ‘Basic versus Advanced’:

Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules.

Where does the ‘Retainers’ rule allow you to take a Court of the Archon without an Archon? To do so, you would have to choose not to use the ‘Retainers’ advanced rule. Where is this choice noted in the ‘Retainers’ advanced rule?

There is no requirement to take an archon to have the court.

as such there is no requirement to have an archon to have a court.

the retainers rule just lets you count the HQ datasheet: Court of the archon as slotless if you have an archon.

another example would be the tervigon.

You can count it as a slot other than the slot it normally is if you have 30 termagants.

this does not mean you cannot take a tervigon unless you take 30 termagants, as no such rule exists anywhere.

RAW- 100% there is no rule against it, 100% you are allowed to select it as a HQ slot as it is an HQ datasheet and has no restrictions placed on it.

RAI- The archon sent their personal minions to do their dirty work.

blaktoof wrote:
You can count it as a slot other than the slot it normally is if you have 30 termagants.

this does not mean you cannot take a tervigon unless you take 30 termagants, as no such rule exists anywhere.

Actually Ghaz, you should have a look at this. It is formatted in the same way as "Retainers" and follows pretty much the same wording.

Thanks Blaktoof, such a simple example has solved the issue. (To me anyway) Meks, Techmarines and Lone wolves are still on the other side though (just in case this is quoted)

Except as an advanced rule, 'Retainers' overrides the contradicting basic rule that would allow you to take a Court of the Archon without the Archon that the 'Retainers' advanced rule requires.

Yeah, but then the Advanced rule for the Termagants would, in the same way, contradict the basic rule that the Tervigon is taken as an HQ. It would imply, just as no Court without Archon, that Tervigons can never be HQ.
The fact that the rule is under the Termagants list seems to point the other way. (It is pretty much word for word the same rule as "Retainers")

The Scuttling Swarm: For every Termagant Brood of 30 models included in your army, you can include one Tervigon as a troops choice instead of an HQ choice.

The highlighted is giving you an alternative option to field a Tervigon as a troops choice as 'can' is often used in place of 'may' and the definition of 'instead of' is "... As a substitute or alternative to; in place of..." The wording for the 'Retainers' rule lacks the '... can... instead of...' wording.

And the Retainers rule also says 'can include', making it optional and the thing that is optional is the 'Archon Court that does not take up a slot on the Force Org chart'. No punctuation means it is all a single concept and grouped together. But that does not mention an Archon Court that DOES take up a slot.

Your assumption is that because it isn't stated, it can't happen, whereas our argument is that there is nothing written that FORCES the Archon to be present. A lack of decisive rules preventing it would mean it's allowed since, again, the Court is considered an HQ choice since there is no explicit restriction.

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
And the Retainers rule also says 'can include', making it optional and the thing that is optional is the 'Archon Court that does not take up a slot on the Force Org chart'. No punctuation means it is all a single concept and grouped together. But that does not mention an Archon Court that DOES take up a slot.

Yes, and that option is to not include a Court at all. It does not change the fact that the 'Retainers' advanced rule overrides the basic rule of how you would choose a unit when it comes to the Court of the Archon, nor does the 'Retainers' advanced rule present an option to allow you to use the basic rule instead.

Ghaz, you need to demonstrate that "If A occurs, you can do B" also means "If A doesn't occur, you can't do B".

You're inferring meaning where there isn't any.

And please show where the 'Retainers' advanced rule doesn't conflict with the basic rule for how you can take a unit. Requiring an Archon to take the Court of the Archon is a conflict with the basic rules that don't require Unit A in order to field Unit B.

the issue is, there is no actual requirement in the retainers rule to have an archon to take the court.

there is an allowance to make a court slotless by taking an archon.

Retainers: 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 Organisation chart.

there is nothing saying the archon has to be taken to include this unit.

there is something saying that you can take one of these units as a slotless entry if you include an archon.

 Ghaz wrote:
And please show where the 'Retainers' advanced rule doesn't conflict with the basic rule for how you can take a unit. Requiring an Archon to take the Court of the Archon is a conflict with the basic rules that don't require Unit A in order to field Unit B.

Retainers doesn't require that you take an Archon to take a Court. It requires an Archon to take a slotless Court. Huge difference.

There are two versions of the Court here. The one that takes the HQ slot like every other unit in the codex, and the one that does not and is influenced by the Retainers rule. Nowhere in the Retainers rule does it say that the first option, the HQ slot unit, does not exist. It HAS to say it does not exist or is not an option, but it fails to.

By your rule layout, a rule must exist in every unit description that it may take up a slot on the Force Org Chart. This is not how the codex works. The units are listed according to the type of slot they fill UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE. Retainers does not state otherwise. It does not say that the Archon is required to purchase the unit normally. It makes no mention of taking up a HQ slot because that is how the codex works by default. The Battlefield Role of the Court is still HQ and until an FAQ says that it is only allowed in conjunction with an Archon, removing the Battlefield Role is a modification, not a requirement.

I don't even consider Retainers a advanced rule. I dunno why that is being made as argument.

The only thing the Retainer rule does is allow you to take a Court and it doesn't use a HQ slot if you have a Archon.

What it absolutely 100% does not in any way say is that Court's may only be purchased if you take an Archon.

There's a similar situation with the Necron's and the Court there.

 Ghaz wrote:
How is there not a conflict? The 'Retainers' rule requires an Archon in order to take the Court whereas the basic rules do not. Sure looks like a conflict to me.

No, it doesn't. The only rule the Retainers rule is overriding is requiring an HQ unit to have an HQ slot to go into, and in doing so Retainers has a requirement to meet before you gain the benefit of the rule (that requirement being an Archon present).

The "Retainers" rule allows you to take the Court as a slotless HQ, if you include an Archon.

If you don't include an Archon, then the Retainers rule simply doesn't come into play, as its initial "trigger" is not met, and because the Court of the Archon is noted as being an HQ, you can then fill your HQ slot with the Court.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
A Techmarine is a better example. 'For each HQ choice chosen, a Techmarine may be chosen that does not take up an HQ slot' (paraphrase). There is no equivalent here regarding the unit being chosen in general. Only the slot-less modification is mentioned.

I agree that the Techmarine can only be taken slot-less, and these rules are indeed clearer.

Actually, your (BlackTalos's) attempt to paraphrase the techmarine rule changed the meaning of it quite significantly. If it really had said that, it would mean that you could take Techmarines using a HQ slot. The actual rule is:

For each HQ choice in your army (not including other Techmarines, Servitors, Command Squads or Honour Guard) you may include a Techmarine. These selections do not use up a Force Organisation slot.

 BlackTalos wrote:
But the Question arises: What additional wording does "Retainers" have that suddenly allow you to take a Slotted Court?

It doesn't need additional wording. The existing wording ("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 Organisation Chart") allows it anyway.

"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 Organisation Chart" can be reworded (without changing its meaning) to "the Detachment can include one Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot in the Force Organisation Chart for each Archon included in a Detachment". That does make it easier to understand.

I remember making exactly the same point in the previous thread.

I do have to keep wondering this damned thought over and over again:
Why did they make it a HQ Choice at all?

The Rulebook contain a list of Battlefield Roles which can easily be used for Units like this one, one in particular that seems to be the perfect fit: Other! There are very few Detachments in the game which even have an 'other' slot available, and they all have additional Rules limiting what can be taken for that other Slot to prevent them from becoming a loophole if Game Workshop did use the other slot more often. If Courts, Dedicated Transports, Bodyguards and other 'take this with another Unit' choices where Battle-Role: Other, it would side-step this entire discussion nicely.

Jinx, you're 100% correct and I was thinking the same thing. If the unit entry had no default battlefield role (such as HQ), you'd never be able to include it in a list UNLESS it had a rule like Retainers or the Techmarine rule.

The fact that it has the HQ battlefield role gives BRB permission to take it as an HQ in a list.

The bit that boggles my mind is:
Why create this Battlefield Role then use it so irregularly?

I am wondering if this Role was designed to be nothing more then vestigial, as if they realized they had previously created a few Units with "Battlefield Role: Other" that are now part of the default game and no longer need their own expansion like book... knights I am looking at you. It would be sad if this Battlefield Role was including just so they didn't have to errata these Units... we all know how much Game Workshop hates changing an existing Rule without having us pay for an entire new book.

GW just doesn't seem to think very technically. One reason writing effective list creation software is so difficult and has to be recoded a little with each new release.

That whole 'we are just a Model's company' mentality annoys me quite a bit....

Amen brother. I'm not a competitive tournament player, but I still appreciate a clean set of rules.

How are you activating the Deep Strike rule if you are not allowed reserves? What rules are you using to determine the effect of Deep Strike when Reserves are forbidden?
How are you activating the Hatred(Orks) rule if I don't have Orks? What rules are you using to determine the effect of Hatred(Orks) when there is no Orks?


Easy!

No Archon = no Court. Pick another HQ
No Reserves = No Deep Strike. Deploy them on the Board.
No Orks enemies = No Hatred(Orks). Find an Ork opponent.

The Hatred (Orks) example is very good it gives rerolls to hit if you're fighting Orks. Does this mean if you're not fighting Orks you don't get to attack because you're not following the Hatred (Orks) rule, or does the Hatred (Orks) rule do nothing when the trigger is not met and you attack using the default rules?

The same choice will hold for retainers. So does Hatred (Orks) prevent you from fighting against non-Ork units im combat? Yes or no?

Mallich wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
A Techmarine is a better example. 'For each HQ choice chosen, a Techmarine may be chosen that does not take up an HQ slot' (paraphrase). There is no equivalent here regarding the unit being chosen in general. Only the slot-less modification is mentioned.

I agree that the Techmarine can only be taken slot-less, and these rules are indeed clearer.

Actually, your (BlackTalos's) attempt to paraphrase the techmarine rule changed the meaning of it quite significantly. If it really had said that, it would mean that you could take Techmarines using a HQ slot. The actual rule is:

For each HQ choice in your army (not including other Techmarines, Servitors, Command Squads or Honour Guard) you may include a Techmarine. These selections do not use up a Force Organisation slot.

Please read the post you are Quoting. I did not paraphrase or even quote the techmarine rule. The exact rule you posted is clear: Without another HQ, you may not select a techmarine as your only HQ.

Mallich wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
But the Question arises: What additional wording does "Retainers" have that suddenly allow you to take a Slotted Court?

It doesn't need additional wording. The existing wording ("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 Organisation Chart") allows it anyway.

"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 Organisation Chart" can be reworded (without changing its meaning) to "the Detachment can include one Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot in the Force Organisation Chart for each Archon included in a Detachment". That does make it easier to understand.

I remember making exactly the same point in the previous thread.

Completely re-wording a rule often changes its meaning, even if it does not seem that way to you. That is why, when arguing RaW, you must quote the exact rule (As you were complaining about just above). Please don't complain about paraphrasing and then paraphrase yourself, it's hypocritical.

You still haven't answered the question. If I don't take an Archon how are you activating the Retainers rule and what rules are you using to govern its effect?

Like for instance Hatred (Orks) doesn't do anything when Orks aren't present. How is Retainers doing something when an Archon isn't present?

 BlackTalos wrote:
Please read the post you are Quoting. I did not paraphrase or even quote the techmarine rule.

My apologies. I knew that the first person I quoted was the one to do that, but I carelessly used the name of my post's first person (which would be you, since you were quoting SharkoutofWata). My mistake.

 BlackTalos wrote:
The exact rule you posted is clear: Without another HQ, you may not select a techmarine as your only HQ.

I agree, which is why I stepped in when it was (somewhat incorrectly quoted) to say the opposite.

Completely re-wording a rule often changes its meaning, even if it does not seem that way to you.

It does not seem to me that my re-wording of the rule changes its meaning in any way; it just makes it easier to understand. However, I would say that, wouldn't I?

 FlingitNow wrote:
You still haven't answered the question. If I don't take an Archon how are you activating the Retainers rule and what rules are you using to govern its effect?

Like for instance Hatred (Orks) doesn't do anything when Orks aren't present. How is Retainers doing something when an Archon isn't present?

It's not a question of activating a rule (What does that even mean?). It's a question of having to follow a rule (per RaW).

When you are fighting Orks, Hatred (Orks) is a rule in play for the unit with Hatred, even if you choose not to re-roll.
When you take a Court, Retainers is a rule in play for the Court, even if you choose not to take the Court.

When there are no Orks, can you choose to re-roll because you have Hatred (Orks)? Say if you have a Blast weapon that simply needs "the ability to re-roll". Fighting Eldar, can you re-roll your blast weapon?
When there is no Archon, can you choose to field a Court on its own? Say you choose to field a Court per normal means as an HQ. With no Archon, can you take a Court?

For consistency, both situations need the same Yes or No answer.

 BlackTalos wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
You can count it as a slot other than the slot it normally is if you have 30 termagants.

this does not mean you cannot take a tervigon unless you take 30 termagants, as no such rule exists anywhere.

Thanks Blaktoof, such a simple example has solved the issue. (To me anyway) Meks, Techmarines and Lone wolves are still on the other side though (just in case this is quoted)

I case you missed the above post, i stand by my logic, but precedence of the Tervigon has swayed what the RaI should be.

By very similar wording it seems that the Retainers rule was meant to work in the same way as the Rule posted by Blaktoof. The Court HQ can be taken on its own or in addition to an Archon with a new set of permissions.

Now do you simply debate/argue for the sake of it, or is there another reason i missed?

It's not a question of activating a rule (What does that even mean?). It's a question of having to follow a rule (per RaW). 

When you are fighting Orks, Hatred (Orks) is a rule in play for the unit with Hatred, even if you choose not to re-roll. 
When you take a Court, Retainers is a rule in play for the Court, even if you choose not to take the Court. 

When there are no Orks, can you choose to re-roll because you have Hatred (Orks)? Say if you have a Blast weapon that simply needs "the ability to re-roll". Fighting Eldar, can you re-roll your blast weapon? 
When there is no Archon, can you choose to field a Court on its own? Say you choose to field a Court per normal means as an HQ. With no Archon, can you take a Court? 

For consistency, both situations need the same Yes or No answer. 

Right so by activate the rule I mean apply its effect. What is the effect of Retainers when an Archon isn't present? Where are you finding those rules?

Normally you can take a HQ choice, Retainers modifies how that works if you have an Archon.

Normally you roll to hit at your I step in CC, Hatred (Orks) modifies how that works if you are fighting Orks.

Your assertation that no Archon means you can't take a HQ, is the same as saying no Orks means you can't strike blows. Do you really play that Hatred (Orks) prevents you from striking blows against non-Ork models? Really?

 FlingitNow wrote:


Right so by activate the rule I mean apply its effect. What is the effect of Retainers when an Archon isn't present? Where are you finding those rules?

Normally you can take a HQ choice, Retainers modifies how that works if you have an Archon.

Normally you roll to hit at your I step in CC, Hatred (Orks) modifies how that works if you are fighting Orks.

Your assertation that no Archon means you can't take a HQ, is the same as saying no Orks means you can't strike blows. Do you really play that Hatred (Orks) prevents you from striking blows against non-Ork models? Really?

I have never asserted that no Archon means you can't take a HQ. I asserted that "Retainers" is a rule which needs an Archon to be valid. No Archon, no Court. Because a Court without Archon cannot "apply the effects" of Retainers.

Hatred (Orks) works in the same way, although there is no choice (that Retainers has). It is a Rule which need Orks to be valid. No Orks, no Hatred. Because Hatred (Orks) when fighting Eldar cannot "apply the effects" of Hatred.

This has nothing to do with "Normally you roll to hit at your I step in CC". Hatred is not even an "option" Rule like Retainers is, using it as an example was to address another point even though you now seem focused on this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

So how are you activating the Retainers rule if I don't have an Archon? What rules are you using to determine the effect of Retainers when an Archon is not taken?

How are you activating the Deep Strike rule if you are not allowed reserves? What rules are you using to determine the effect of Deep Strike when Reserves are forbidden?
How are you activating the Hatred(Orks) rule if I don't have Orks? What rules are you using to determine the effect of Hatred(Orks) when there is no Orks?


Easy!

No Archon = no Court. Pick another HQ
No Reserves = No Deep Strike. Deploy them on the Board.
No Orks enemies = No Hatred(Orks). Find an Ork opponent.

Here's the original point that was made. You were asking "how the Retainers rule works without an Archon". Simple answer: It doesn't. You can't have a Court without an Archon.
Just like Hatred(Orks) doesn't work on Eldar. You can't re-roll failed To Hit rolls against Eldar (or claim a Blast Re-roll).

Retainers rule works without an Archon". Simple answer: It doesn't. You can't have a Court without an Archon.
Just like Hatred(Orks) doesn't work on Eldar. You can't re-roll failed To Hit rolls against Eldar (or claim a Blast Re-roll).

So all units with Hatred (Orks) now can't be used at all against a non-Ork army? Because you're not saying you can use Retainers without an Archon you're saying you can't use the default action of selecting a unit (in this case the Court, in the Hatred example it would be rolling to hit) without an Archon.

What does retainers do when you don't have an Archon. That is the question. Now please answer it.

Hatred (Orks) when there are no Orks does nothing. Agreed? So retainers what does retainers do when there is no Archom?

 FlingitNow wrote:

Retainers rule works without an Archon". Simple answer: It doesn't. You can't have a Court without an Archon.
Just like Hatred(Orks) doesn't work on Eldar. You can't re-roll failed To Hit rolls against Eldar (or claim a Blast Re-roll).

So all units with Hatred (Orks) now can't be used at all against a non-Ork army? Because you're not saying you can use Retainers without an Archon you're saying you can't use the default action of selecting a unit (in this case the Court, in the Hatred example it would be rolling to hit) without an Archon.

What does retainers do when you don't have an Archon. That is the question. Now please answer it.

Hatred (Orks) when there are no Orks does nothing. Agreed? So retainers what does retainers do when there is no Archom?

Agreed for Hatred.
When you have a Unit of Court of the Archon on the table, when there is no Archon, have you followed the Retainers rule?
Pretty graph comes back: "Retainers" is in Orange. Yes/No is the may/ may not option in the Rule.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

The Scuttling Swarm: For every Termagant Brood of 30 models included in your army, you can include one Tervigon as a troops choice instead of an HQ choice.

The highlighted is giving you an alternative option to field a Tervigon as a troops choice as 'can' is often used in place of 'may' and the definition of 'instead of' is "... As a substitute or alternative to; in place of..." The wording for the 'Retainers' rule lacks the '... can... instead of...' wording.

Actually, this is the perfect example. I retract my concession from that rule.

"Mekaniaks", "Master of the Forge", "Retainers" are all, as you said quite well If / Then statements.

The "If" part is a compulsory requirement (Special Rule) for the optional "Then".

Same as Hatred(Orks) - The Unit with that rule is forced to use the Hatred rule. You can't face Orks and decide that you don't want to re-roll. The "If" statement is compulsory.
You can't decide "Oh i'm against Orks, but the "if" is optional so i'll decide to not re-roll"
"Oh, I have no Archon, but the "if" is optional so i'll decide to not make the choice to take Slot-less".

Nice graph, and makes the point perfectly. I choose to stick to the left of it and completely ignore the retainers rule since it does not come into play as I answered no to Archon as HQ.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually Mekaniks is worded differently and cannot use the same graph as displayed for the court. You would have to say yes to the other HQ first.

deevil wrote:
Nice graph, and makes the point perfectly. I choose to stick to the left of it and completely ignore the retainers rule since it does not come into play as I answered no to Archon as HQ.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually Mekaniks is worded differently and cannot use the same graph as displayed for the court. You would have to say yes to the other HQ first.

Thank you. The part of the post i highlighted is what Ghaz & I (&Others) disagree upon. Can I "completely ignore" the Gets Hot rule? (Or any other Special Rule?)
"completely ignoring" a Rule is not how we believe you play 40k.

As for mekaniaks, not really:

Replace "Is it an Archon?" with "Is it a Mek?" and swap Yes/No around for it. Same situation.

If you don't roll to hit with a gets hot weapon then yes you completely ignore the Gets Hot rule. I wonder why you think this is incorrect? Just like you ignore Hatred (Orks) when not fighting Orks.

 FlingitNow wrote:
If you don't roll to hit with a gets hot weapon then yes you completely ignore the Gets Hot rule. I wonder why you think this is incorrect? Just like you ignore Hatred (Orks) when not fighting Orks.

Basically, it comes down to this, being an If/Then, the "Retainers" rule contains an "If": "For each Archon included in a Detachment" or, in the case of the other 2:
"For each HQ choice in your army" (Techmarine)
"For each HQ choice in a Detachment" (Mek)

Followed by a "Then":
"the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon that(...)"
"you may include a Techmarine"
"you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet."

The "Then" is a choice, but the "If" is compulsory. Just like Hatred and the other Examples. "If" CC V Orks "then" re-roll. You can't decide to ignore the "If" clause.

"If not" Orks, you don't get the "then" re-roll.
"If not" Archon, you don't get the "then" Court.

You can't field a Unit with Hatred(Orks) in their profile, and decide you will ignore the "If" clause. Just like you can't put a Court Unit with "Retainers" in their profile, and decide you will ignore the "If" clause. Simple logic & consistency.

"If not" Orks, you don't get the "then" re-roll. 
"If not" Archon, you don't get the "then" Court without taking up a HQ slot. 

FTFY

This is the issue you are ignoring what the then is and choosing it to be something entirely different. The then is not taking a court but taking a court with out it taking up a HQ slot.

If I take an Archon, the Retainers rule allows me the option of taking a Court of the Archon without using an HQ slot.

If I take an Archon, the BRB allows me the option as a seperate action to take a Court of the Archon which uses an HQ slot.

If I don't take an Archon, the BRB allows me the option as a seperate action to take a Court of the Archon which uses an HQ slot.

There is no rule anywhere that says the equivalent of "If you take an Archon in your army list, all Courts of the Archon must be slotless and chosen using the Retainers rule."

There is no rule anywhere that says the equivalent of "If you don't take an Archon in your army list, you may not use the standard methods in the BRB to take a Court of the Archon."

The BRB presents method A for selecting a Court of the Archon.

The Codex presents method B for selecting a Court of the Archon.

There is no contradiction, therefore basic versus advanced does not come into play.

You have two methods to select a Court of the Archon. One uses an HQ slot while the other doesn't.

I have yet to see a single rules citation that revokes the permission granted in the BRB to select a Court as normal OR a single rules citation pointing out a basic versus advanced contradiction that would invalidate the BRB method.

 Kriswall wrote:
If I take an Archon, the Retainers rule allows me the option of taking a Court of the Archon without using an HQ slot.

If I take an Archon, the BRB allows me the option as a seperate action to take a Court of the Archon which uses an HQ slot.

If I don't take an Archon, the BRB allows me the option as a seperate action to take a Court of the Archon which uses an HQ slot.

There is no rule anywhere that says the equivalent of "If you take an Archon in your army list, all Courts of the Archon must be slotless and chosen using the Retainers rule."

There is no rule anywhere that says the equivalent of "If you don't take an Archon in your army list, you may not use the standard methods in the BRB to take a Court of the Archon."

The BRB presents method A for selecting a Court of the Archon.

The Codex presents method B for selecting a Court of the Archon.

There is no contradiction, therefore basic versus advanced does not come into play.

You have two methods to select a Court of the Archon. One uses an HQ slot while the other doesn't.

I have yet to see a single rules citation that revokes the permission granted in the BRB to select a Court as normal OR a single rules citation pointing out a basic versus advanced contradiction that would invalidate the BRB method.

This. This this this this this.
I think it's as simple as Kriswall puts it; The Court has its own Datasheet in the Codex, therefore you're allowed to take it as an HQ slot with or without an Archon present.
If you weren't, it wouldn't have the little HQ symbol in the top corner telling you which slot it takes.

Unfortunately, the icon is not an indicator.
In 6th Edition, when this was a less of an issue as the answer was more obvious, these Units will still be found listed under HQ or Fast or Heavy headings. When Game Workshop changed the format to datasheets, instead of grouping these Army Lists together under a heading, they did not remove the previous Battlefield Roles these Units held. Simply because they are following the new format and have an icon does not mean anything for the way the Rules interact with that Battlefield Role.

JinxDragon wrote:
Unfortunately, the icon is not an indicator.
In 6th Edition, when this was a less of an issue as the answer was more obvious, these Units will still be found listed under HQ or Fast or Heavy headings. When Game Workshop changed the format to datasheets, instead of grouping these Army Lists together under a heading, they did not remove the previous Battlefield Roles these Units held. Simply because they are following the new format and have an icon does not mean anything for the way the Rules interact with that Battlefield Role.

Um... it means everything. Are you arguing that the actual details on the unit entry be ignored? I'm confused.

Which units can fill the mandatory and optional HQ slots? The ones with HQ icons. The icon is absolutely important.

Kriswall,
The point of my post was to correct this:
If you weren't, it wouldn't have the little HQ symbol in the top corner telling you which slot it takes.

The Icon alone is not enough to indicate what the Authors Intent, as a HQ choice could very well still have a Rule which states 'can only be taken if X is present in the Army.' We already have president for this concept for, in 6th Edition, Units which contained such Restrictions where still found under the headings of Head Quarters or Elite, instead of being found under some 'other' heading. As the move to Datasheets is nothing more then a formatting change, we can not say for certain that simply having the 'correct icon' is enough to be selected for the Role.

By default, yes, but other Rules could revoke that permission without changing the little icon itself....

Ah! Gotcha. Well in that case, the Court has the icon and doesn't have any rules revoking the permission to be taken as a normal HQ.

Other rules CAN, but Retainers fails to do that. There is no question that in other codecies that is the case. When the rule is properly worded. But again, Retainers isn't written to get rid of the HQ Battlefield Role by default, only by option with the inclusion of an Archon.

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
Other rules CAN, but Retainers fails to do that. There is no question that in other codecies that is the case. When the rule is properly worded. But again, Retainers isn't written to get rid of the HQ Battlefield Role by default, only by option with the inclusion of an Archon.

To be clear, Retainers doesn't remove the HQ battlefield role at all. It just allows you to take a Court without taking up one of the slots in your Detachment.

 Kriswall wrote:
If I take an Archon, the Retainers rule allows me the option of taking a Court of the Archon without using an HQ slot.

If I take an Archon, the BRB allows me the option as a seperate action to take a Court of the Archon which uses an HQ slot.

If I don't take an Archon, the BRB allows me the option as a seperate action to take a Court of the Archon which uses an HQ slot.

There is no rule anywhere that says the equivalent of "If you take an Archon in your army list, all Courts of the Archon must be slotless and chosen using the Retainers rule."

There is no rule anywhere that says the equivalent of "If you don't take an Archon in your army list, you may not use the standard methods in the BRB to take a Court of the Archon."

The BRB presents method A for selecting a Court of the Archon.

The Codex presents method B for selecting a Court of the Archon.

There is no contradiction, therefore basic versus advanced does not come into play.

You have two methods to select a Court of the Archon. One uses an HQ slot while the other doesn't.

I have yet to see a single rules citation that revokes the permission granted in the BRB to select a Court as normal OR a single rules citation pointing out a basic versus advanced contradiction that would invalidate the BRB method.

 Kriswall wrote:

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
Other rules CAN, but Retainers fails to do that. There is no question that in other codecies that is the case. When the rule is properly worded. But again, Retainers isn't written to get rid of the HQ Battlefield Role by default, only by option with the inclusion of an Archon.

To be clear, Retainers doesn't remove the HQ battlefield role at all. It just allows you to take a Court without taking up one of the slots in your Detachment.

I'll try to keep it simple.

"Retainers" never has any effect on Court of the Archon taken as an HQ. I highlighted the part that is incorrect. There is only ever 1 method of selecting a Court of the Archon Unit: Following the method as described in the BrB.
Once you have selected to take a Court of the Archon Unit, it must follow a set of Special rules:

Lhamaean have Fleet, Night Vision, Power from Pain
Medusae have Fleet, Power from Pain
etc,
And the Unit has "Retainers".

What does fleet do?
What does Night Vision do?
You know these answers.

What does "Retainers" do? It says that if an Archon is present, you can take this Unit. Oh and by the way, they are Slot-less

Now as FlingitNow has correctly noted: What happens when there is no Archon? You cannot complete the Rule, ie you cannot take the court.

There is a big difference between your belief:
-Take Archon (per BrB) > "Retainers" > Get free Court
-Take Court (per BrB) > completely ignore "Retainers" > have Court alone

And how i currently see it:
-Take Court (per BrB) > "Retainers" (Is there an Archon?) > Yes, get free court.
-Take Court (per BrB) > "Retainers" (Is there an Archon?) > No, "Retainers" can't give you free court.

Selecting a Unit per the BrB is how you take the Court of the Archon Unit. That Unit has a rule called "Retainers" that you must follow "IF" and gives you a choice "Then"

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
If I take an Archon, the Retainers rule allows me the option of taking a Court of the Archon without using an HQ slot.

If I take an Archon, the BRB allows me the option as a seperate action to take a Court of the Archon which uses an HQ slot.

If I don't take an Archon, the BRB allows me the option as a seperate action to take a Court of the Archon which uses an HQ slot.

There is no rule anywhere that says the equivalent of "If you take an Archon in your army list, all Courts of the Archon must be slotless and chosen using the Retainers rule."

There is no rule anywhere that says the equivalent of "If you don't take an Archon in your army list, you may not use the standard methods in the BRB to take a Court of the Archon."

The BRB presents method A for selecting a Court of the Archon.

The Codex presents method B for selecting a Court of the Archon.

There is no contradiction, therefore basic versus advanced does not come into play.

You have two methods to select a Court of the Archon. One uses an HQ slot while the other doesn't.

I have yet to see a single rules citation that revokes the permission granted in the BRB to select a Court as normal OR a single rules citation pointing out a basic versus advanced contradiction that would invalidate the BRB method.

 Kriswall wrote:

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
Other rules CAN, but Retainers fails to do that. There is no question that in other codecies that is the case. When the rule is properly worded. But again, Retainers isn't written to get rid of the HQ Battlefield Role by default, only by option with the inclusion of an Archon.

To be clear, Retainers doesn't remove the HQ battlefield role at all. It just allows you to take a Court without taking up one of the slots in your Detachment.

I'll try to keep it simple.

"Retainers" never has any effect on Court of the Archon taken as an HQ. I highlighted the part that is incorrect. There is only ever 1 method of selecting a Court of the Archon Unit: Following the method as described in the BrB.
Once you have selected to take a Court of the Archon Unit, it must follow a set of Special rules:

Lhamaean have Fleet, Night Vision, Power from Pain
Medusae have Fleet, Power from Pain
etc,
And the Unit has "Retainers".

What does fleet do?
What does Night Vision do?
You know these answers.

What does "Retainers" do? It says that if an Archon is present, you can take this Unit. Oh and by the way, they are Slot-less

Now as FlingitNow has correctly noted: What happens when there is no Archon? You cannot complete the Rule, ie you cannot take the court.

There is a big difference between your belief:
-Take Archon (per BrB) > "Retainers" > Get free Court
-Take Court (per BrB) > completely ignore "Retainers" > have Court alone

And how i currently see it:
-Take Court (per BrB) > "Retainers" (Is there an Archon?) > Yes, get free court.
-Take Court (per BrB) > "Retainers" (Is there an Archon?) > No, "Retainers" can't give you free court.

Selecting a Unit per the BrB is how you take the Court of the Archon Unit. That Unit has a rule called "Retainers" that you must follow "IF" and gives you a choice "Then"

"It says that if an Archon is present, you can take this Unit. Oh and by the way, they are Slot-less"

This is not what it says. Reread the Retainers rule. You are paraphrasing incorrectly. It says that if there is an Archon, you can take a Court which doesn't use an HQ slot.

Again, find me ANY rule that states that I can't take a Court which uses an HQ slot without taking an Archon. I have been unable to find one.

 Kriswall wrote:
It says that if there is an Archon, you can take a Court which doesn't use an HQ slot.

Again, find me ANY rule that states that I can't take a Court which uses an HQ slot without taking an Archon. I have been unable to find one.

That is correct indeed! So how do you follow a Rule that "says that if there is an Archon" when there is no Archon?

Don't forget, we take the Court as per the BrB rules and then have to follow the "Retainers" rule. I insist on the obligation to follow the rule. How are you doing it?

It is not to me to find a denial of Slotted Court without Archon, it is to you to explain how you are following "Retainers" when there is no Archon.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
It says that if there is an Archon, you can take a Court which doesn't use an HQ slot.

Again, find me ANY rule that states that I can't take a Court which uses an HQ slot without taking an Archon. I have been unable to find one.

That is correct indeed! So how do you follow a Rule that "says that if there is an Archon" when there is no Archon?

Don't forget, we take the Court as per the BrB rules and then have to follow the "Retainers" rule. I insist on the obligation to follow the rule. How are you doing it?

It is not to me to find a denial of Slotted Court without Archon, it is to you to explain how you are following "Retainers" when there is no Archon.

How do you follow "Preferred Enemy" when there is no Preferred Enemy?

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
It says that if there is an Archon, you can take a Court which doesn't use an HQ slot.

Again, find me ANY rule that states that I can't take a Court which uses an HQ slot without taking an Archon. I have been unable to find one.

That is correct indeed! So how do you follow a Rule that "says that if there is an Archon" when there is no Archon?

Don't forget, we take the Court as per the BrB rules and then have to follow the "Retainers" rule. I insist on the obligation to follow the rule. How are you doing it?

It is not to me to find a denial of Slotted Court without Archon, it is to you to explain how you are following "Retainers" when there is no Archon.

I take the Court as per the BRB to fulfill the Mandatory slot in my Combined Arms Detachment. I read the Retainers rule, note that I'm allowed to include a slotless Court IF I've taken an Archon. I haven't taken and Archon, so I'm not allowed to include a slotless Court. I haven't taken a slotless court, so I have obeyed the Retainers rule.

You seem to think that the Retainers rule is useful in situations where we haven't taken an Archon. It's not.

You seem to be reading it as:

If you take an Archon, you can take a Court that doesn't take a slot. If you don't take an Archon, you can't take a Court at all.

That second sentence isn't there.

Preferred enemy is the perfect example of a rule that is only followed when the initial requirements are met. Your (BlackTalos) paraphrasing of the Court is incorrect because of the way the rule is actually written in English. ' can include a Court that does not take up a slot on the Force Org Chart'. There is no punctuation there. There is no separation between subject and modifier to the base subject. It is all one subject.

I hope I'm making sense here because I'm sure I'm using incorrect grammar terms.

You keep saying the court can ONLY be slotless but there is nothing in the rules to suggest that. The modification that uses an Archon is specifically for the full term 'court that does not take up a slot on the Force Org chart' is used, but nothing anywhere says 'Court of the Archon (full stop)'. Only the specific version of the Court that doesn't take up the slot. It's not ignoring the rule. It's having a rule that requires a specific requirement to come into effect but there is no OTHER rule that says the Court can't be selected alone.

So models with Fleet have to run every turn as they have the fleet rule and if you don't run you're not following the fleet rule?

Hatred (Orks) means you can roll to hit against non-Orks.

Preferred Enemy (Eldar) means you can never roll to hit or to wound against non-Eldar units.

The rules according to BlackTalos...

the unit "Court of the archon" has the faction: dark eldar, and the battlefield role of HQ

any detachment which has HQ slots can fill their HQ slots with this datasheet, there is no rule limiting how many you can take other than the number of slots in the detachment, nor is there a rule limiting what is required to take the datasheet.

the unit has a special rule which alters its battlefield role from HQ to Slotless.

The boxes on a Force Organisation Chart are referred to as slots. Each slot will typically specify a Battlefield Role. Each slot allows you to take one unit. Black boxes are compulsory selections – you must take at least this many units of the appropriate Battlefield Role to include this Detachment in your army. If you cannot include the compulsory number of units, you cannot include that Detachment. Grey boxes are optional selections – you can include up to this number of units of the appropriate Battlefield Role when including this Detachment in your army.

the entry has the slot HQ, and no restrictions in its datasheet in how it may be taken.

Changing Battlefield Roles
Certain rules can alter a unit’s Battlefield Role, changing it, for example, from a Fast Attack unit to a Troops unit. If a unit changes its Battlefield Role due to such a rule, it maintains its new role for the entirety of the game.

retainers is such a certain rule, and changes the slot from HQ to slotless if you have an Archon.

blaktoof wrote:
the unit "Court of the archon" has the faction: dark eldar, and the battlefield role of HQ

any detachment which has HQ slots can fill their HQ slots with this datasheet, there is no rule limiting how many you can take other than the number of slots in the detachment, nor is there a rule limiting what is required to take the datasheet.

the unit has a special rule which alters its battlefield role from HQ to Slotless.

The boxes on a Force Organisation Chart are referred to as slots. Each slot will typically specify a Battlefield Role. Each slot allows you to take one unit. Black boxes are compulsory selections – you must take at least this many units of the appropriate Battlefield Role to include this Detachment in your army. If you cannot include the compulsory number of units, you cannot include that Detachment. Grey boxes are optional selections – you can include up to this number of units of the appropriate Battlefield Role when including this Detachment in your army.

the entry has the slot HQ, and no restrictions in its datasheet in how it may be taken.

Changing Battlefield Roles
Certain rules can alter a unit’s Battlefield Role, changing it, for example, from a Fast Attack unit to a Troops unit. If a unit changes its Battlefield Role due to such a rule, it maintains its new role for the entirety of the game.

retainers is such a certain rule, and changes the slot from HQ to slotless if you have an Archon.

"the unit has a special rule which alters its battlefield role from HQ to Slotless."

Untrue. The unit has a special rule that give you the option of taking it as a slotless HQ. The battlefield role never changes. A slotless HQ is still an HQ and still fulfills the battlefield role of HQ. A slotless HQ is simply unable to fulfill the mandatory or optional HQ slots on a Detachments force org chart.

edit-

on second thought I think I agree that it is still an HQ selection, but it takes up no slots if the retainers rule is used.

I am trying to remember something and am not at the books:
Does this Rule use the words 'these selections' anywhere within it?

It does not.

'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 Organisation chart.'

Thank you, that is what I suspected...
Just getting flashbacks to when I researched this matter, and I do believe this was the one Rule which change my 'Author Intent' conclusions because those words where lacking. If one was to crack open a 6th Edition Rulebook and look at how we selected Units as part of the Army they will encounter these two words used repetitively when describe the act. Still not entirely sure what all these changes mean in the long run, but when each Codex is released with such a Rule it seems further changed from the one's which used to force the Slotless choice....

One thing I noticed in the Dark Eldar codex is that the Black Skull symbol which designates the Battlefield Role on the profile seems to carry with it the nonverbal rule weight that you can buy it straightforwardly as an HQ choice.

col_impact wrote:
One thing I noticed in the Dark Eldar codex is that the Black Skull symbol which designates the Battlefield Role on the profile seems to carry with it the nonverbal rule weight that you can buy it straightforwardly as an HQ choice.

Agreed, although I would call it flat out verbal weight. The BRB tells us the boxes on a detachment's chart have to be filled by the appropriate battlefield role. The section in the codex describing unit entries tells us the icon determines battlefield role. The icon is pretty much the only thing that lets you use a particular unit to fulfill an HQ choice in a detachment. There is nothing implied or nonverbal about it.

From a practical standpoint, I think it would make more sense to have the Retainers rule be a part of the Archon unit entry. It triggers off selecting an Archon and not off selecting a Court of the Archon.

BEGIN NON RULES RELATED RAMBLING

The ideal situation, if the intent is to only allow Courts WITH an Archon, would be to create a Retainers or Bodyguards Battlefield Role. Give the Court of the Archon this role in their unit entry. This would prevent you from taking the Court alone as there isn't a Retainers or Bodyguards box on the force org chart of any current detachment or formation.

Then, give the Archon a special rule like this:

Entourage of Pain: For each Archon in a detachment, add an empty Bodyguards box to the detachment's force org chart.

You would, in effect, only be able to take a Court when an Archon is present. Just some rambling on how I would fix this if the intent is to limit the selections. Current RaW doesn't limit the selection.

Or they could have worded it like the Tyranid's Tyrant Guard, or Tau Crisis Bodyguards or Space Marine Honor Guard. There's a whole host of places where the wording is correct for the same effect, but it's only here that there is an issue.

I mentioned this at the very beginning but I believe they fully meant for the Retainers rule to restrict Courts to with an Archon and I took that understanding away from the codex, but on the first thread like this the end result is clear. It's a poorly written rule that allows Courts as an HQ slot and needs an FAQ that doesn't look to be incoming.