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, I'm reading the 3rd Edition Witch Hunters Codex, and I'm wondering if I can field a Land Raider as a dedicated transport for my Battle Sisters. Even though it states that Allied Space Marines can't be used when I use Adepta Soroitas troops. I'm a bit unsure, because I'm not actually using any Space Marine Infantry, per se, just the Land Raider. So would it be allowed?

You may take a land raider if you include at least 2 space marine troop choices (p26), but it wouldn't be a dedicated transport. So in short, no.

You cannot have any allied marines if you have any sisters in your army so you cannot have a landraider or any of the other marine units as you must take two marine units in order to include them.

Inquisitors may take LRs as DedTrans, so you can get one that way and then steal the ride.

Nope, you can't 'steal the ride'... WH and DH dedicated transports still have the restriction on only transporting the unit they were purchased for.

Edit: Actually, scratch that... That restriction was removed from WH in the stealth reprint. So it's only DH who are still stuck with the old dedicated transport rule.

you can steal a LR for your SoB to use if you start with a SM army and then ally in the SoB. Just take a 16 man squad and drop them in a LRC that was selected as a heavy choice.

With a SoB (WH) parent army I do not believe there is a way to gain access to a LR if you have SoB in the army. It would be way too overpowered..?(prob not)

Inquisitor with retinue can have a standard LR as dedicated transport - steal that one if you really have to. It's a waste of points but possible.

if you have Space Marines as the parent army then yes.


my question is, why? ?

what benifit is there to an army that doesn't really want to be in CC having an Assault Vehicle?

insaniak wrote:Nope, you can't 'steal the ride'... WH and DH dedicated transports still have the restriction on only transporting the unit they were purchased for.

Edit: Actually, scratch that... That restriction was removed from WH in the stealth reprint. So it's only DH who are still stuck with the old dedicated transport rule.

: ) exactly. WH do not have a restriction.

You can take elite inquisitors with 0 retinue for their ability to take land raiders. But you end up with an expensive land raider with very few options since you can only upgrade it with stuff from the sisters codex... and there is no power of the machine spirit : (

frgsinwntr wrote:You can take elite inquisitors with 0 retinue for their ability to take land raiders. (

"If the inquisitor has a retinue" and so on - no retinue, no Land Raider. Zero models - no retinue.

Spetulhu wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:You can take elite inquisitors with 0 retinue for their ability to take land raiders. (

"If the inquisitor has a retinue" and so on - no retinue, no Land Raider. Zero models - no retinue.

retinue size is 0-6 according to the codex, not 1-6.

0 is a valid retinue size

With 0 indicating that you may opt to not have a retinue.

Or are you saying that he always counts as having a retinue even if it's got zero models in it? I guess he's never an independent character then.

And you can only ever take one elite inquisitor - your 0-1 sisters repentia, and 0-1 Operatives will be using up two elite slots since selecting 0 still counts as having them, right?

While we're at it, I guess a black templar techmarine can never join units? Since his retinue is 0-4 and if he has one he's prevented from doing so?

etc.

If a choice is 0-?, taking 0 does not count as taking it.

Scott-S6 wrote:With 0 indicating that you may opt to not have a retinue.

Or are you saying that he always counts as having a retinue even if it's got zero models in it? I guess he's never an independent character then.

And you can only ever take one elite inquisitor - your 0-1 sisters repentia, and 0-1 Operatives will be using up two elite slots since selecting 0 still counts as having them, right?

While we're at it, I guess a black templar techmarine can never join units? Since his retinue is 0-4 and if he has one he's prevented from doing so?

etc.

If a choice is 0-?, taking 0 does not count as taking it.

I'm not sure if you meant to come off harshly, but it came across to me as such.

You purchase the units at the start of the game.
You purchase an elite inquisitor at the start of the game with a retinue of 0. You then can purchase the land raider since he has an allowed retinue of zero. As for the rest of your comments, read below:

Pg 48 brb
Some codex books allow you to field characters together with a special unit that they cannot leave during the game. Where this is the case, the character counts as an upgrade character until all of the other members of this unit are killed, at which point is starts counting as an independent character.

I take this as, I buy the unit and yes, he has a retinue of 0 which means he, BEFORE the start of the game, is not an independent character. BUT since the retinue doesn't exist when the game starts, he becomes an IC again.

This addresses your points as follows.

With 0 indicating that you may opt to not have a retinue.
I agree, but only once the game starts.

Or are you saying that he always counts as having a retinue even if it's got zero models in it? I guess he's never an independent character then.
This is not my argument at all. I argue he isn't an IC at the start of the game if he starts with a retinue of 0 and has a transport. game turn 1 he returns to IC statues.

And you can only ever take one elite inquisitor - your 0-1 sisters repentia, and 0-1 Operatives will be using up two elite slots since selecting 0 still counts as having them, right?
you're not even making sense here.. what? who is talking about repentia or operatives? there is no 0-1 restriction on elite inquisitors... I'm not following your line of thought here...

While we're at it, I guess a black templar techmarine can never join units? Since his retinue is 0-4 and if he has one he's prevented from doing so?
I'd agree that pregame he cannot, but once the game starts his retinue doesn't exist, he returns to IC status.

Mind you, i haven't found any rules about how purchasing units pregame works yet (GAME mechanics wise i mean). The BRB as far as i can tell only handles set up and onwards....

So without a retinue, you have a retinue?

Zero means you have one?

Interesting read.

kirsanth wrote:So without a retinue, you have a retinue?

Zero means you have one?

Interesting read.

you have a retinue of 0, that is correct.

You're checking account can have a balance of 0. In this case 0 means you have a balance.

So you only have 2 HS options, since you always have 0-1 Orbital Strikes?

1 Elite options, since you always have 0-1 Assassins and 0-1 Sisters Repentia?

1 HQ option, since you have 0-1 Inquisitor Lord (+0-1 Priests)?

Or am I mis-reading you?

kirsanth wrote:So you only have 2 HS options, since you always have 0-1 Orbital Strikes?

1 Elite options, since you always have 0-1 Assassins and 0-1 Sisters Repentia?

1 HQ option, since you have 0-1 Inquisitor Lord (+0-1 Priests)?

Or am I mis-reading you?

No, I purchased "0" retinue wiith my purchase of an inquisitor. I didn't purchase 0 assassins or repentias. I could choose to purchase 0 assassins for a slot... in which case... I'm using up a force org slot for no reason.

I wish i could purchase an inquisitor by itself... but when you buy an inquisitor it always has 0-6 as a retinue. I

So, if you choose purchace 0 of something you have purchased it?

But if you do not choose to purchace 0 of something you have not purchaced it.

I think you would have an easier time proving 1=2 than 0≠0

Choosing to buy 0 vs. Choosing not not buy >0

Editing to add:
It is a really interesting point, although I think it causes more issues than it solves.

Sorry, but that's complete nonsense.

You can only get a LR if you have a retinue of 1 or more models. A retinue of 0 models is NOT a retinue.

*edit* Your reading also makes the phrase "If the inquisitor has a retinue..." redundant, as you claim he always has a retinue, even when he doesn't.

kirsanth wrote:So, if you choose purchace 0 of something you have purchased it?

In this codex, and the way its written, yes. I would agree that statement works with my argument.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slinky wrote:Sorry, but that's complete nonsense.

You can only get a LR if you have a retinue of 1 or more models. A retinue of 0 models is NOT a retinue.

The codex DEFINES a retinue of 0-6 when you purchase your inquisitor. It's GWs definition there, not mine. They are including 0 in their definition. Otherwise they should say, "you may purchase a retinue of 1-6"

Slinky wrote: A retinue of 0 models is NOT a retinue.

Sure, and main rules page 48 agrees.
Interestingly that appears not to be exactly the same thing.

Slinky wrote:

*edit* Your reading also makes the phrase "If the inquisitor has a retinue..." redundant, as you claim he always has a retinue, even when he doesn't.

their writing of "may buy 0-6" is redundant for the same reason. Why say you may purchase 0 if he does have any to start?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:

Slinky wrote: A retinue of 0 models is NOT a retinue.

Sure, and main rules page 48 agrees.
Interestingly that appears not to be exactly the same thing.

quote pls?

frgsinwntr wrote:quote pls?

"Some Codex books allow you to field characters together with a special unit that they cannot leave during the game (which is normally called a 'retinue'. . .)"

Not having such a unit and claiming to have a retinue cannot occur according to the main rules.

Editing to add:
That does not really touch upon you assertion, frgsinwntr. In case my second sentence did not make sense.
(It seems barely comprehensible to me already)

But that just doesn't work - If he "has" a retinue of 0 models, he will never be an IC.

Under the Inquisitor entry it states that if he has a retinue he only becomes an IC when his retinue "is destroyed".

The reason it says 0-6 is to make it clear that unlike an inquisitor lord, an inquisitor doesn't have to have a retinue.

kirsanth wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:quote pls?

"Some Codex books allow you to field characters together with a special unit that they cannot leave during the game (which is normally called a 'retinue'. . .)"

Not having such a unit and claiming to have a retinue cannot occur according to the main rules.

I don't see the problem. They start the game with their retinue of 0. As soon as the game starts, their retinue is "dead" for all intents and purposes and they become an IC again.

Slinky wrote:The reason it says 0-6 is to make it clear that unlike an inquisitor lord, an inquisitor doesn't have to have a retinue.

I believe that is true, but the catch is finding text to back it.



Editing to add:
Re-read my edited post, frgsinwntr.
I am slow today.

Being dead by virtue of never having existed isn't enough to satisfy the rules in the WH codex, they have to be "destroyed".

Slinky wrote:
The reason it says 0-6 is to make it clear that unlike an inquisitor lord, an inquisitor doesn't have to have a retinue.

That doesn't make sense...

An inquisitor lord entry for retinue says they MUST have a retinue which is later defined as 3-12

An elite inqusitor entry on page 28 says you MAY have a retinue and then defines it as 0-6, meaning you didn't have to purchase one to begin with, but you have the option to purchase 0. therefore becomes by the Definition in the codex, a valid retinue size.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:

Slinky wrote:The reason it says 0-6 is to make it clear that unlike an inquisitor lord, an inquisitor doesn't have to have a retinue.

I believe that is true, but the catch is finding text to back it.



Editing to add:
Re-read my edited post, frgsinwntr.
I am slow today.

Thanks. I'd like to be proved incorrect here... But I need a text quote that disproves me. : )

It's simply tautology, restating twice that an inquisitor doesn't have to have a retinue.

I agree with Scott-S6 and Slinky.

A retinue of 0 = 0 retinue. Claiming otherwise based on the laconic phrasing of the rule is counterintuitive and creates many other conflicts in the rules.