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.

ok, I have a Space marine army.(DIY chapter) and in that army I have a DH inquisitor with a retinue of 4 as one of my elite choises. As one of my Fast Attack choises I have a squad of 10 Seraphim with veteran superior with all her pasties and tastles.

I have read both codecies about force org and it states in both codecies both on pages 25 in each. and the force orgs go like this if I have them allied with my Space Marines

0-1HQ
0-1ELITE (HAVE  DH. INQ)   (WH. CELESTIAN SQUAD???)   
0-2TROOPS
0-1FAST ATTACK (HAVE SERAPHIMS)

they are the same for both armies

(Just as a note The second paragraph underneth thatforce org chart it states "Daemonhunters/Witchunters 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" )

ok so im legal, so far....

my question is could I hypothetically have two separate elites from the two armies? (ie DH inq and WH celestian squad) Would 2 separate forces orgs apply as long as I dont exceed 0-3 Elites of my parent Space Marine list?

Thanks

You could take an Elite from each Ordo, as long as didn't go over the total maximum of 3 Elites, and still had all your compulsories.

What you can't do, for instance, is take something from one Ordo to fufil the requirements of another Ordo (ie. taking a DH Elite Inquisitor and then bringing a WH Assassin).

BYE

Of course, HBMC's example of "what you can't do" is without basis in the rules, and is his attempt to resuscitate a dead argument.

While I would like an FAQ on this issue so I do not have to argue about this with anyone, the rule is straight-forward: the requirement for an assassin is that an inquisitor be present - no restriction on where that inquisitor comes from or what type he is.

And of course your argument is just as baseless as well.

baseless, in that my position has black and white rules to back it up? Not sure I follow what your definition of "baseless" is. If your position is that "let's assume some extra rules and restrictions that aren't listed in the codices, despite revisions of the codices in question and FAQs", then I can at least understand where you're coming from (can't agree, though)

Yes, baseless as you have nothing that says the requirements from one codex can fill those of another.

So until such time as you can find something that says otherwise your 'opinion' is baseless as well.

The rule says that you must have an inquisitor to take an assassin. I take an inquisitor. Thus, I have met the stated and explicit rule. Now, it is your turn to show the rule that says I cannot do it.

There is no restriction on where that must come from, nor is there a restriction about type (for example an "inquisitor lord" suffices as an "inquisitor" for these purposes.) The rule does not state "Witchhunter Inquisitor" or "Demonhunter Inquisitor". It says "inquisitor".

We do know that wargear of one unit may effect models from a different codex. A terminator may home in on a teleport homer on an inquisitor, for example, and an assassin may use the improved comms of an IG army. Where then does this restriction on type of inquisitor appear from?

In other words, I have a black and white rule, and meet it. Where is the rule that disallows this? Further, from the rules, we know that different detachments work together, not as separate and discrete forces.

Again, your making the assumption that when it says an Inquisitor it means any Inquisitor from any codex and not just the one from the codex itself. Codices usually don't cross over into another codex unless it specifically says so. Does it say any codex? No.

So once again, you argument is baseless.

In terms of strict logic, both sides are assuming in this debate.

One side is assuming that "inquisitor" means only the unit from that codex; the other side is assuming that "inquisitor" means any inquisitor from any codex.

Neither assumption has any basis in the rules: in this case the rules don't provide enough information to come logically to either conclusion without invoking an assumed convention.

Posted By Ghaz on 02/23/2007 10:25 AM
Again, your making the assumption that when it says an Inquisitor it means any Inquisitor from any codex and not just the one from the codex itself.

And you are making the assumption that when it says an Inquisitor it means just the one from the codex itself and not any Inquisitor from any codex.

Both of your arguments are baseless as both of your base are belong to me. :p


You are both making assumptions.

One side assumes that Codex rules are not mutually exclusive unless otherwise stated.
The other assumes the opposite.
The RAW states neither.

When playing a game, any game, each player must make certain assumptions in order for anything in the rules to work. In this case you both simply disagree on one of these pre-game assumptions.

It is my personal opinion that any requirements for fielding a unit must be fulfilled from the Codex from which that unit was purchased. This provides the least advantage to the player using the unit, and advantage is what this is all about after all (the primary reason to use the dual-elite system is to spend less points in order to field the assassin).
This mindset also prevents other strange occurrences otherwise not explicitly covered by the rules. (enemy deep strikers utilizing your teleport homers, enemy space marines benefiting from your SM commander's Rites of Battle)

The only way to solve this argument, before it is FAQed, is to poll your local gaming group to see how you should play it locally and to contact the organizer before you play in a tournament.

Posted By Flavius Infernus on 02/23/2007 10:38 AM
In terms of strict logic, both sides are assuming in this debate.

One side is assuming that "inquisitor" means only the unit from that codex; the other side is assuming that "inquisitor" means any inquisitor from any codex.

Inevitably language requires assumptions; so I agree.  My assumption is that a Demonhunters inquisitor is an inquisitor; just as a Witchhunters inquisitor is an inquisitor.  Beyond simply this assumption (i.e that a word means the same as the same word in a different codex) I also pointed out inferential evidence that any inquisitor counts as an inquisitor, i.e. "inquisitor lords" are considered "inquisitors" throughout both codices.  The inference is, therefore, that if two similar but different terms (inquisitor and inquisitor lord) are conflated, that the same term, inquisitor, must be the same throughout the 40K system.

An additional inferential support for my assumption is the fact that the witchhunters codex specifically also points out that the same inquisitor rules apply to demonhunter inquisitors. (ref. psychic rule FAQ).

The only two situations that I am aware of where a term means a different thing than the same term throughout the 40K are "Leman Russ v. leman russ" and "eldar Pathfinder v. Tau Pathfinder".  Those are readily distinguished from this situation, as they are dramatically different.

Therefore, I am satisfied that my assumption, that the word "inquisitor" means the same thing in the witchhunter and the demonhunter codex, is a correct one.

So the guys that assume the rules from one codex do not apply to another codex would have no problems if an army contained a WH assassin and a DH assassin? Correct?

Interesting. I wouldn't have a problem with it.

I'd much rather face two assassins and two inquisitors than allow my enemy to use my Commander's Rites of Battle and Teleport Homer.

You would have a problem with it up until a Culexus reduces your units leadership and then a Calidus uses the neural shredder on them.

Or when a pair of Calidus assassins destroy virtually any two units in your army...

I don't see similarity between the position that you can use your opponent's equipment, and the position that an inquisitor is an inquisitor no matter which codex he is from.

Yes, your opponent's teleport homer is a teleport homer, it's just that you can't use it, because it is his. And yes, this does require an addition to the rules, but an extremely vital and necessary one. It's one of the defects in the 40K rules. That doesn't mean that all of the other 40K rules are defective per se also.

Nope, still don't have a problem with it.

Assassins are widely considered to be far too expensive. Add in the inquisitors you need in order to field them and that's a lot of points you're sinking into a "one trick pony". Not to mention that you just burned one of your HQ all of your Elite slots in order to field two specific models.

There are FAR better ways to spend both points and FOC slots.


But this is a tactics discussion now. I stand by my statement that both sides are making assumptions and that this can only be solved by local majority or by tournie organizers.

Posted By Antonin on 02/23/2007 11:54 AM
And yes, this does require an addition to the rules, but an extremely vital and necessary one.

That's the point.

Codex exclusivity is a convention that should be applied to the rule set IMO in order to make everything flow. I'm not talking about breaking everything down into specific Codex components here (wargear vs units), I'm talking about the Codex as a whole.

Codex non-exclusivity is simply another convention. Neither are written into the RAW, hence their status as conventions.

 

Now I ask you, which makes more sense universally: Complete Codex Exclusivity, or Individual Codex Component Exclusivity.

The first requires a simple single assumption (each Codex is complete and separate and it's rules do not exceed the bounds of itself unless other wise noted), the second requires any number of more complex and possibly interrelated and conflicting assumptions (FOC choices are codex specific unless they share names with other codex FOC choices, wargear never crosses Codices even if it shares names, etc...).

However, as I pointed out already, we do not have Complete Codex Exclusivity - wargear can be used cross-codex during a game, and indeed up to a game - ref. Emperor's Tarot, that can be used by an allied force to help the primary force go first. Therefore, we know that Complete Codex Exclusivity does not exist.

The assumption that you cannot use your opponent's wargear (unless specifically mentioned) is vital to the game and the game cannot proceed in a meaningful way unless that assumption is made. That is completely different to what we are talking about here - the game is in no way destroyed or harmed by the assumption that all inquisitors count as inquisitors. That "Opponent Wargear" argument cannot be used to trump any rules discussion, like a Chewbacca defense. It is inapposite to the discussion here. more specifically, the "opponent wargear" issue is a Side Exclusivity argument, while we are talking about Codex Exclusivity (good term to describe this, by the way) here.

I believe your phrase "Codex exclusivity is a convention that should be applied to the rule set IMO" is exactly the point that we are addressing here - it is an opinion that codex exclusivity should be applied (and perhaps it would make the game better/smoother/whatever, I am not passing judgment on the validity of that opinion) however, it is an opinion of certain people that it should be applied.

Demon hunters and Witch hunters both are a nice addition to the right space marine army.

As for the inquisitor and assassin. Its definatly not a one trick pony. People that dont use them say this sort of thing.
The callidus assassin ive had live entire games i dont know how many times. And she slaughters very expensive five man devestator squads like there toys. That in itself makes here worth the points. The other assassins have there place the cullexis is amazing against eldar and nids, far from a one trick pony.
The inquisitor is a very nasty apponant and very worthy of being on the board. I rarely use a second hq but the times i have its been him quite often. He is a machine.

In all honosty would not most peices be considered a one trick pony? My raider was destroyed in the last game i played before ever doing a thing. In that case i would have much rather had 250 points of inquisitor and assassin.

They do by the way only take ONE elites slot.

Posted By 5thelement on 02/23/2007 12:26 PM

They do by the way only take ONE elites slot.

Yes, an assassin takes one elites slot. However if you want to field two, as was suggested, you need to also field two inquisitors (per the theoretical situation put forward). Hence 4 slots are used up, 2 Elite Assassins + 1 Elite Inq+ 1 HQ Inq.

Or two HQ and 2 elites, in a 'hunters army? I guess then you could also take demonhosts or some such. However, I firmly hold that the "Officio Assassinorium" term means a witchhunter or demonhunter entry (they are interchangeable) of that name, just as with inquisitors. (by the way, excellent point Tau-Cent)

Strictly speaking this isn't inferential. In formal logic an "inference" is a deductively valid conclusion. This conclusion, and the argument that backs it up, is inductive.

But then, the other side's argument is also inductive.

Personally I'm inclined to go with Ghaz and HBMC's assumption because it creates fewer potential problems as a precedent (Dreadnoughts vs. Furioso Dreadnoughts, GK assault cannons and SM assault cannons, Scouts with the "scout" rule and scouts without the "scout" rule and non-scouts with the "scouts" rule and so forth). But that's a matter of personal preference, not logic.

The problem is that you can only ever have one assassin per organization chart. No getting around that unless you have a house rule.

By the way for you guys that do believe one codex does not apply to another you will more than likely now be right. The new DA codex is going to shake that up very well. Actually its so differant that you could not possibly change things from dex to dex.
Minus this new arrrival they had fixed that awhile back by putting out OFFICIALLY that the newest version is always what is used.

False. Daemonhunters wargear can only be taken by models with access to the Daemonhuters armory. Those would be Daemonhunters models. Therefore that is your so-called 'Complete Codex Exclusivity'. The only way you can get the Emperor's Tarot is through a specific rule that allows a Daemonhunters model with access to the Daemonhunters armory to be taken as an ally in a non-Daemonhunters army. It is exclusive to the Daemonhunters models.

This is certainly a wacky thread! I'm seeing some strange things that I thought were pretty straightforward but maybe I'm just taking things for granted.

1. The origional poster wants to put seraphim and marines in the same force. This appears from the WH codex to be impossible since it says if any adepta sororitas are present marines may not be used. Only IG are "inducted" SM are allied so wether using a core SM force or a core WH force it appears marines and sisters don't mix. Of course, the example army list photos in back seem to contradict this so who knows!?

2. Certain WH units require the inclusion of a priest to use. Would an inducted IG or core IG priest NOT be counted toward this? Doesn't sound right to me. It seems pretty specific in its requirement which is why a chaplain can't fulfill the requirement. Only a priest can. The specific unit named "priest" must be there but there is NO stipulation about the origin of the priest. So in that same vein wouldn't an inquisitor from ANY codex satisfy a requirement of the same type? If he's called an inquisitor then he's an inquisitor. As long as he is in the same force he should be counted.

3. The line in the WH codex about how no more than one assassin can be used in a force for any reason seems pretty clear cut to me. I don't see how any single force could ever include more than one assassin no matter how many inquisitors is contains. 5thelement already pointed this out earlier by the way.

From the FAQ it seems to indicate that to use a Witch Hunters unit that requires a Priest in an Imperial Guard army you are required to take a Witch Hunters Priest along with a unit to place the Priest in.


If Space Marines are the parent army, then they're not 'allied', are they? No.

I read the section of the FAQ you mention to mean that if an IG or SM force wanted to take a priest as an ally the priests taken this way must be attached to a WH unit. So in an IG force I could take a Sister squad with attached priest and still only use up one of it's troop ally choices. The last sentence of that entry does seem to make it sound like they meant for those priests to be the only ones that count toward 'priest necessary' units. Certainly not RAW, but I'll accept that as a valid intent argument. Now that I think about it though the Advisors rule in the IG dex would mean that inducted guard could NEVER take priests anyways since one must first put a priest into the command platoon command squad first. Since a command platoon isn't one of the valid choices to induct that just isn't going to happen. So the only way to get an IG priest would be to start with the IG as the core and ally with the WH. Again, I read the rules as allowing these priests to count but I can see how the sentence in the FAQ could steer some the other way.

For mixing sororitas and marines maybe Flavius can answer this better but "ally" is a mutual word. "Inducted" only goes one way. IG are inducted while SM are allied to a core WH force. If SM or IG are the core armies then the WH are "included as allies" per the WH dex. So whatever way we look at it the marines are 'allied', aren't they? Yes. It's probably just a poor choice of words though and I would be willing to accept that the intent could be for it to only work the one way as you suggest.

If you have a marine based army than your additions can be whatever is listed up too the max choices.
If you are playing as Sisters or Greyknights you cannot take marines in that army. If your playing WH or DH with no sisters or Greyknights than you can take regular marines in the army.
I have played both armies since there codexes came out. Combining armies never works. If you take them in your gaurd army than you are short on fire power. If you take them in a marine army there ok but very expensive and make for a small army.
The only way i mix is to take an inquisitor and assassin(s). These by the way in the new Darkangel codex (yes they can take them now) are going to be sick by the way. Mindworm and the culexus assassin will take out a thirster in one shot with pretty good odds of working. Not to mention any other large nasty creature that has a leadership.
The other way it works is to take marines or gaurd and add sisters this is nasty because the sisters become a 20 man/women 3+ save bullet sponge for marines and for gaurd well they hold the lines well and keep assaulters at bay for a bit longer.
Still you will find that you dont like mixing unless you run into chaos all the time. In that case the basic greyknight squad with the sacred incense (minus one too ALL chaos I thats in hand to hand) is a must. Toss in the incinerator or two and summoned demons die so fast that thats why they can always be brought back on when DH are present.  With one exception blood letters there a pain in the a$$ no matter how many demonhunters you deploy. But thats also why they are very expensive.