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.

Morning Dakka. My question today is about the new rules for Inquisitor Coteaz and how he affects the Inquisitorial Warbands in the new Codex:Grey Knights.

In Coteaz's entry, it clearly states that an army including Coteaz takes Inquisitorial Warbands as Troops while also removing the requirement of having an Inquisitor for each Warband (essentially enabling an entire army of henchmen).

At the same time, the entry for Inquisitorial Warbands clearly states that the unit does not occupy a slot on the Force Organizational Chart.

So, how does this work? If I take Coteaz and a Warband of three Multi-Melta Servitors and two Crusaders then do they fill one of the required 2 Troops slots in the Force Organizational Chart?

This is the subject of fierce debate right now. I'd wait for the FAQ to cover it (hopefully). Until then, the best thing you can do is discuss it with your opponents.

Xca|iber wrote:This is the subject of fierce debate right now. I'd wait for the FAQ to cover it (hopefully). Until then, the best thing you can do is discuss it with your opponents.

Alright, thanks for the info; I didn't realize that it was already being discussed.

Even with the "invinite henchmen" interpretation, you'd still have to field two troop units actually occupying a slot.
Can't say if the interpretation is valid though and honestly belive to to be faqed the other way. But you never know, maybe GW wants to sell two dozen chimeras to every GK player...

This is simple. Why is it debate? Henchmen do NOT take a FOC slot....UNLESS you have Coteaz, in which case you may take them as troops. Not brain surgery here guys.

It's like taking Draigo. Paladins are elites...unless you take him, in which case you may take them as troops. Or is that confusing too?

Shenra wrote:This is simple. Why is it debate? Henchmen do NOT take a FOC slot....UNLESS you have Coteaz, in which case you may take them as troops. Not brain surgery here guys.

It's like taking Draigo. Paladins are elites...unless you take him, in which case you may take them as troops. Or is that confusing too?

I guess the confusion is that if Coteaz makes them troops then you actually would be less able to do a Henchmen army then without him as he would now limit you to six warbands.

Don't get me wrong, I first read it that taking him makes them troops and promptly planned a warband as one of my two required troop choices. I jut wanted to be sure I got it right.

SonicPara wrote:I guess the confusion is that if Coteaz makes them troops then you actually would be less able to do a Henchmen army then without him as he would now limit you to six warbands.

How many Inquisitors can you fit into 1 FOC? I did not think it was 6.

Also note that the rule says *MAY* take them as troops choices. I would interpret that as I can take two of them as troops and the rest as normal, not taking a FOC slot.

You also have the option of not taking them, that is how I read the "may".

At least based upon the way the OTHER codexes work.

You *may* take them based on how you want to spend your points, and if you choose to do so then you are limited to the one war-band per Inquisitor and they do not take an FOC slot. Coteaz says you *may* take them as a troops choice and are also not restricted by one per inquisitor.

I don't see this being any different than how I have read it in other codexes. This is how I have always read this mechanic, unless I have misinterpreted something?

Same as Draigo, (I will admit this would be a lot of points) but you could potentially take 9 units of Paladins if you so chose to as 6 were taken as troops choices and 3 as elites. No different than with Coteaz.

Please someone correct me if I am interpreting this incorrectly.

Before anyone tries to make an argument, read the actual rules.

The FOC rules in particular.

The FOC requires that you make 2 mandatory selections of troops (and one of HQ of course)

Selecting a warband that is troops fulfills the requirement of making a mandatory selection for troops.

Selecting 2 warbands fulfills both.

You can have infinitely many warbands, as they do not "use up" FOC slots.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jidmah wrote:Even with the "invinite henchmen" interpretation, you'd still have to field two troop units actually occupying a slot.

Wrong. FOC rules do not require you to occupy anything. They require you to make 2 selections. Selecting a warband is a selection.

Shenra wrote:This is simple. Why is it debate? Henchmen do NOT take a FOC slot....UNLESS you have Coteaz, in which case you may take them as troops. Not brain surgery here guys.

It's like taking Draigo. Paladins are elites...unless you take him, in which case you may take them as troops. Or is that confusing too?

There are plenty of cases where models can be taken as "troops" (or elites, etc.) without occupying a FOC.

If you take Corteaz, you can take henchmen and they count as "troops." This makes them scoring and can satisfy your requirement for 1 HQ and 2 Troops.

@ph34r & @biccat

First, I agree with both of you.

Second, just to clarify, is my example with Draigo correct as well. Since they "may be taken as.." and not "make them..." troops I could potentially have a total of 9 units of Paladins?

I just want to make sure I am interpreting that correctly.

DW terminators are Elites, I may take them as troops (and elites) by the logic im seeing here, 1 selection would occupy both Elite AND Troops, because it does say they stop being elites as well

AgnosticGod wrote:You *may* take them based on how you want to spend your points, and if you choose to do so then you are limited to the one war-band per Inquisitor and they do not take an FOC slot. Coteaz says you *may* take them as a troops choice and are also not restricted by one per inquisitor.

I don't see this being any different than how I have read it in other codexes. This is how I have always read this mechanic, unless I have misinterpreted something?

Same as Draigo, (I will admit this would be a lot of points) but you could potentially take 9 units of Paladins if you so chose to as 6 were taken as troops choices and 3 as elites. No different than with Coteaz.

Please someone correct me if I am interpreting this incorrectly.

It clearly states without Coteaz, you take them on a 1 Warband : 1 Inquisitor ratio with no FoC restriction or FoC type. With Coteaz, you may take them as N Warband : 1 Coteaz as FoC Troop choices.

That may is really misplaced as it can have two meanings. I think this is actually the difficulty of English without clarification. I could almost say this might not be GW's fault here as how the English word 'may' in this context can have multiple meanings. Of course, as a gaming company, they should always provide clarification and examples so it might as well be their fault.

Really, I think you ask your opponent/FLGS and come with an agreement until we got some official word.

AgnosticGod wrote:Also note that the rule says *MAY* take them as troops choices. I would interpret that as I can take two of them as troops and the rest as normal, not taking a FOC slot.

Actually in the rule it never has the word may.

Here is what the rule says. Lord of Formosa : Inquisitorial Henchmen warbands are Troops choices in an army that includes Inquisitor Torquemada Coteaz, and are not limited by the number of Inquisitors in your army.

Now with that wording Coteaz removes the restriction of needing an inquisitor to get a warband and also makes them troops so you can not field some as troops and some as elites as they are now troops.

Another way to view this is that Coteaz rule is more detailed than the general henchmen rule, so the no FoC slot is over written by Coteaz making them troops.

Excellent, thanks Stroggified.

ph34r wrote:Before anyone tries to make an argument, read the actual rules.

The FOC rules in particular.

The FOC requires that you make 2 mandatory selections of troops (and one of HQ of course)

Selecting a warband that is troops fulfills the requirement of making a mandatory selection for troops.

Selecting 2 warbands fulfills both.

You can have infinitely many warbands, as they do not "use up" FOC slots.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jidmah wrote:Even with the "invinite henchmen" interpretation, you'd still have to field two troop units actually occupying a slot.

Wrong. FOC rules do not require you to occupy anything. They require you to make 2 selections. Selecting a warband is a selection.

Ph34r is right. You require 2 troops to fill the minimum requirement. No where does it say they must take up a slot to be a troops choice, and thus fill the requirement.

Henchmen are elites, and can be changed to troops via coteaz, but do not take up a foc slot. The only reason Coteaz allows them to be taken as troops is to A) to be able to legally field an all henchmen army, satisfying the pre-existing inquisitorial players, and B) be able to hold objectives, making the army actually viable.

Although, the FAQ will change this. in a 1500 list, you could easily fit 14 chimeras and 14 squads of 3 henchmen with 3 meltaguns, as well as coteaz. An expensive army, and it cant touch monoliths, but they can take razorbacks as well (I believe)

THERE ARE ONLY SIX TROOP CHOICES SO YOU CAN ONLY TAKE SIX

(OR)

THEY DO NOT COUNT AS ACTUAL TROOP CHOICES SO THEY DO NOT TAKE UP SLOTS BUT YOU CAN TAKE AS MANY AS YOU WANT BUT THEN YOU STILL NEED TWO TROOP IN MISSIONS THAT REQUIRE SAME

THANK YOU SORRY FOR CAPS

Edit: Actually now that I think about it, I apologize because I don't see why the potential 6+ Troop choices cannot also count as your two Troop you need. Maybe GW could learn to proof-read their rulebooks by 6th edition.

Sorry folks, but there is no infinite Henchmen army.

The only way you are able to take a Warband that does not take up an FoC slot is to use the text on their page that requires an Inquisitor.

If you are taking Coteaz, and then taking Troop Warbands (without taking another Inquisitor), then how can you explain that they don't take up an FoC? You haven't satisfied the requirement for the "free" warband.

people correcting me about the FOC: you're right, I read it that way in multiple places, and didn't bother to actually check the rules.

somerandomdude wrote:If you are taking Coteaz, and then taking Troop Warbands (without taking another Inquisitor), then how can you explain that they don't take up an FoC? You haven't satisfied the requirement for the "free" warband.

Simple explanation.
"This unit does not take up a force organization slot." (GK codex pg. 90)
Separate, complete sentence without any restrictions, printed in its own line, outside of any context.

Jidmah wrote:people correcting me about the FOC: you're right, I read it that way in multiple places, and didn't bother to actually check the rules.

somerandomdude wrote:If you are taking Coteaz, and then taking Troop Warbands (without taking another Inquisitor), then how can you explain that they don't take up an FoC? You haven't satisfied the requirement for the "free" warband.

Simple explanation.
"This unit does not take up a force organization slot." (GK codex pg. 90)
Separate, complete sentence without any restrictions, printed in its own line, outside of any context.

So, when you read, you read individual sentences at a time and never connect them through context? It's not printed in its own line, it's printed immediately after the first sentence and is simply where it is because of text-wrap.

"A unit" and "this unit" are clearly talking about the same unit.

Compare it to other instances of things never taking up a FoC slot. They will specify that "[Proper name] never take an FoC."

AgnosticGod wrote:Same as Draigo, (I will admit this would be a lot of points) but you could potentially take 9 units of Paladins if you so chose to as 6 were taken as troops choices and 3 as elites. No different than with Coteaz.

Please someone correct me if I am interpreting this incorrectly.

AgnosticGod wrote:@ph34r & @biccat

First, I agree with both of you.

Second, just to clarify, is my example with Draigo correct as well. Since they "may be taken as.." and not "make them..." troops I could potentially have a total of 9 units of Paladins?

I just want to make sure I am interpreting that correctly.

Sorry, Draigo's rule, pg. 82 says Paladins are Troops choices. So max 6 units, not 9.

Homer

Same as it was faqued about Black Templar's Emperor's Champion and the Techpriest: They fulfill the requirements for the HQ choice without taking a slot.

somerandomdude wrote:

Jidmah wrote:people correcting me about the FOC: you're right, I read it that way in multiple places, and didn't bother to actually check the rules.

somerandomdude wrote:If you are taking Coteaz, and then taking Troop Warbands (without taking another Inquisitor), then how can you explain that they don't take up an FoC? You haven't satisfied the requirement for the "free" warband.

Simple explanation.
"This unit does not take up a force organization slot." (GK codex pg. 90)
Separate, complete sentence without any restrictions, printed in its own line, outside of any context.

So, when you read, you read individual sentences at a time and never connect them through context? It's not printed in its own line, it's printed immediately after the first sentence and is simply where it is because of text-wrap.

"A unit" and "this unit" are clearly talking about the same unit.

Compare it to other instances of things never taking up a FoC slot. They will specify that "[Proper name] never take an FoC."

No; when you change individual sentences you change individual sentences and do not change the other separate sentences.

Otherwise you wind up with a myriad of other rules(That I am sure you willingly accept) that either completely nullify entire rule sections(as the special rule only changes 1 sentence) or can never be used.

if the rules wording is:

"Lord of Formosa : Inquisitorial Henchmen warbands are Troops choices in an army that includes Inquisitor Torquemada Coteaz, and are not limited by the number of Inquisitors in your army. "

then its pretty simple. Henchmen are troops choices in an army that includes inquisitor coteaz.

You are allowed a max of 6 troops choices.

They count as the minimum of 2 troops because they are troops.

there is no "may" "can" or you "may decide to" take them as troops, they are troops. You may have 6 troops choices. If they are troops and only troops they occupy a troops slot on FOC, and you do not have an option to have them not occupy a FOC because they are now troops and troop units occupy 1 FOC of troops.

What blaktoof said.

blaktoof wrote:if the rules wording is:

"Lord of Formosa : Inquisitorial Henchmen warbands are Troops choices in an army that includes Inquisitor Torquemada Coteaz, and are not limited by the number of Inquisitors in your army. "

then its pretty simple. Henchmen are troops choices in an army that includes inquisitor coteaz.

You are allowed a max of 6 troops choices.

They count as the minimum of 2 troops because they are troops.

there is no "may" "can" or you "may decide to" take them as troops, they are troops. You may have 6 troops choices. If they are troops and only troops they occupy a troops slot on FOC, and you do not have an option to have them not occupy a FOC because they are now troops and troop units occupy 1 FOC of troops.

I would have to agree with blaktoof, till we get a direct FAQ from GW, I believe that it best that Henchmen does take up a FOC. GW really has to work on its wording.

So how does this change something else than:
"In your army, you may also include units of 3-12 henchmen, chosen in any combination from those shown, as troops choices.
This unit does not use up a force organisation slot."

It would have been easy to exclude the last scentence between the two rules, but they didn't. Whether on purpose or because GW sucks at writing rules, dunno.

Generally, "[Inquisitorial Henchmen] unit does not use up a force organisation slot."

Once you have the SC you now have the more specific "Inquisitorial Henchmen warbands are Troops choices " is how I still read it.