Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So here is another question I have.

By the Inquisition codices you can have allies from both ordos, however can you take a Wichhunter Inquisitor with a Daemonhunter assassin?

The assassin rules say you must have an inquisitor in your force to run an assassin.

In the majority of lists I have seen the Inq lord is used with an appropriate Assassin.

Which is correct?  I think by RAW it reads alright to do it with 2 elites.  Am I missing something somewhere or is this just one of those RAW inconsistancies.

Orion

Both codexes state that to take allies from the =][= books you must fill all compulsory slots from the parent list.


And while it's not an actual rule in print, it's generally accepted that the rules in one codex apply only to that codex. You can't use the rules for WH Assassins in a DH list just because the units happen to have the same name. Otherwise, you open the door for silliness like Eldar Pathfinders taking Tau Devilfish transports...

So when the WH book says 'must have an Inquisitor' what it's actually saying is 'must have a Witch Hunter Inquisitor' just like when the Tau codex says Pathfinders can have a Devilfish it actually means Tau Pathfinders can have a Devilfish..

Also, I doubt it was intentional but the latest Daemonhunters FAQ on the GW website forbids you from taking Daemonhunters and Witchhunters as allies anyway.

Quote:
Daemonhunters may not ally with any detachment that uses any other kind of ally (Kroot Mercs etc.).

Since the FAQ is newer than the codex, it specifically overrules the codex which normally allows you to ally with Daemonhunters and other Ordos of the Inquistion. 

Someone pointed this out to me when I was taking both Witchhunters and Daemonhunters in my IG army as allies.  It's no longer allowed by the FAQ.

Posted By kadun on 10/15/2007 4:08 PM
Since the FAQ is newer than the codex, it specifically overrules the codex which normally allows you to ally with Daemonhunters and other Ordos of the Inquistion. 

Since that FAQ was written, there has actually been a revision of the DH codex, which changes it once again to the same wording as is used in Codex: Witch Hunters.

Posted By insaniak on 10/15/2007 4:22 PM

Posted By kadun on 10/15/2007 4:08 PM
Since the FAQ is newer than the codex, it specifically overrules the codex which normally allows you to ally with Daemonhunters and other Ordos of the Inquistion. 

Since that FAQ was written, there has actually been a revision of the DH codex, which changes it once again to the same wording as is used in Codex: Witch Hunters.

They copyright on my Daemonhunters codex is 2003, it has the same wording as the Witch Hunters Codex.  The copyright on the FAQ is 2004.  Regardless, my tournament organizer ruled that the FAQ superceeds the dex so I'm SOL.

Posted By kadun on 10/15/2007 7:46 PM
They copyright on my Daemonhunters codex is 2003, it has the same wording as the Witch Hunters Codex.  The copyright on the FAQ is 2004. 

Probably because, IIRC, they edited the FAQ to point out that the weapons options had been included in the second printing.

They didn't bother to update the Allies entry, probably because they thought it was close enough and people would figure out what they meant...

The FAQ in question is found under the heading "Errata Clarified in the 2nd Printing of Codex: Daemonhunters" Now exactly why would that take precedence over the actual 2nd Printing? Perhaps you should ask your tournament organizer to answer that for you.

Thanks everyone, that helps clarify some things. It looks like the current FAQ is most recent ruling as the newest version of the Daemonhunters I can find is 2nd printing.

Orion

Uh, no. The codex is most recent because the FAQ says it is answering questions that would no longer be necessary since they will be clarified in the 2nd Printing of the codex. So how does that make the FAQ the 'most recent ruling'?

 

Insaniak is correct on both counts. You must use an assassin from the parent list, and you can ally WH and GH together.

 

 

The FAQ was released after all revisions of Daemonhunters. There are no further versions or reprints of the codex since the FAQ. FAQ takes precedence. I made sure to check with GW for the most recent version.

Orion

No it was not. Just because they reprint a codex does not necessarily mean that they change the copyright date.

Where is a more recent revision than 2nd? A reprint is just that, a reprint, it is not editted, it is ordered from the copy that is already at the printers. Show me a third or something with a more updated copyright date and I will believe you. As it stands the FAQ is the most current rule set for official GW tourneys and RTT's.

Orion

Is there a difference between the Daemon Hunter and Witch Hunter assassins? I don't understand why it even matters...

It only matters for RAW and Tournaments. Currently this is illegal. If you want an assassin in your regular SM army you have to have the HQ inq, not the elite.

Orion

Oh, I see, since you can only take 0-1 HQ and 0-1 Elite choice as allies. I follow now.

FYI, there are language changes between printings.  There is a language change with regards to allies in the 2nd printing of the Daemonhunters Codex when compared to the 1st printing.  This also occurred several times with the previous Chaos Codex when it cycled throught three or four different print runs.. 

Posted By Inquisitor_Malice on 10/17/2007 5:35 PM

FYI, there are language changes between printings.  There is a language change with regards to allies in the 2nd printing of the Daemonhunters Codex when compared to the 1st printing.  

Er... that's exactly what Ghaz and Orion_44 have been discussing.

The issue is simply whether the FAQ supercedes the text in the 2nd printing, or just the first.

The FAQ mentions that it contains clarifications that are incorporated into the 2nd printing... so as far as I can see, given that the 2nd printing goes into more detail than the FAQ on this, we should consider that the FAQ answe is merely a slightly summarised version of the complete rule. It should be played exactly as written in the 2nd printing of the codex.

Quote from the 2nd printing of the deamonhunter codex Pg. 21.

"Daemonhunters cannot ally with a force that uses any other type of ally with the exception of separate detachments and units from other Ordos of the Inquisition."

The FAQ provides a section noting what was changed between the printings. This is similiar to what happened when the old Chaos Codex had several language changes through it's several printings.

You don't know GW very well then. Just because you don't think a reprint doesn't have changes doesn't make it the truth.

FYI.  Codex Daemonhunters came out in 2003 or before.  Codex Assassins was valid to use in 2004 Cityfight.  They actually came out with a pdf FAQ which specifically mentions Codex Assassins. 

http://us.games-workshop.com/errata/assets/cityfight_faq_v4-0.pdf 

Gamesworkshop has never stated that the codex is invalid.  I have yet to see evidence that the assassins codex is superceded by daemonhunters or witchhunters.  If you have the assassins codex and compare it appears that they just cut and pasted information from Assassins to Daemonhunters. 

If you are using Daemonhunters or the Witchhunters codex you need an inqusitor. 

If you are using the Assasins codex you do not. 

 

Posted By JohnSmith on 10/23/2007 2:49 PM

FYI.  Codex Daemonhunters came out in 2003 or before.  Codex Assassins was valid to use in 2004 Cityfight.  They actually came out with a pdf FAQ which specifically mentions Codex Assassins. 

http://us.games-workshop.com/errata/assets/cityfight_faq_v4-0.pdf

Um... that PDF states that you can only use Assassins as part of an Inquisitorial force...

Posted By JohnSmith on 10/23/2007 2:49 PM
Gamesworkshop has never stated that the codex is invalid.  I have yet to see evidence that the assassins codex is superceded by daemonhunters or witchhunters.  

It was addressed in the 3rd edition Daemonhunters FAQ. When DH was first released, they initially stated in the FAQ that Codex Assassins would remain valid. About 2 weeks later, they changed it to state that DH superceded the Assassins codex.

It was presumably left out of the current DH and WH FAQs as the Assassins codex is no longer in print.

Really? Then what do you call THIS?


Seems to me that Games Workshop has quite clearly and definitively stated that Codex Assassins is null and void.

Posted By Ghaz on 10/18/2007 8:36 AM

Where is a more recent revision than 2nd? A reprint is just that, a reprint, it is not editted

You don't know GW very well then. Just because you don't think a reprint doesn't have changes doesn't make it the truth.

Too true. Some are even 'stealth' changes in that they didn't bother to tag the reprint as a 2nd printing. A good example of this is the IG codex Tech priest entry, where the reprint says that Servitors do not count as wargear ( and this is after the FAQ) where the original printing doesn't address the amtter at all.

Since this came back up, I spoke with some of my friends back at GW who run GT's for them and they allow the elite Inq from one list and the elite assassin from another. As I try to run my games in line with these guys its good enough as a ruling for me.

Orion

Posted By Orion_44 on 10/24/2007 7:23 AM
Since this came back up, I spoke with some of my friends back at GW who run GT's for them and they allow the elite Inq from one list and the elite assassin from another. As I try to run my games in line with these guys its good enough as a ruling for me.

Orion

Hmmm, interesting, but my experience is exactly the opposite. The GT judges I know all say no (as do I, and I was head judge for the Baltimore Games Day tourneys......), it's not allowed. Difference between US (which is where I am) and your location perhaps?

I just spoke (email) with Andy Joyce, the man who runs the GT's world wide, (techinacally World Events Manager), And he confirms that you can take an Elite Inquisitor from one codex and an Elite Assassin from the other. I'd cut and paste the whole thing if it didn't specifically tell me not too. Not that this is official, but until I read differently on GW I'm playing it RAW.

Why would he tell you not too? I'm calling shenanigans on that.

Posted By JohnSmith on 10/25/2007 3:00 PM
I just spoke (email) with Andy Joyce, the man who runs the GT's world wide, (techinacally World Events Manager), And he confirms that you can take an Elite Inquisitor from one codex and an Elite Assassin from the other.

Given the number of mistakes in GT FAQs so far, I'd be a little dubious about taking that answer as anything even remotely useful.

But just for laughs, ask him if Eldar Pathfinders can take a Devilfish, and if he says no ask him to justify that given the answer he just gave you on the Inquisitor/Assassin thing.

This may be a quibble, but isn't the option to take the fish located in the Pathfinders entry, not the fish entry? That would prevent Eldar Pathfinders from taking a fish even if we are forced to conflate the two kinds of Pathfinders.