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.

Posted By tegeus-Cromis on 10/26/2007 2:37 AM
This may be a quibble, but isn't the option to take the fish located in the Pathfinders entry, not the fish entry?

It is. And what it says is that 'Pathfinders' can take a Devilfish transport. In the Eldar Codex, Rangers can be upgraded to Pathfinders.

So, if you can use a DH Inquisitor to satisfy a rule in C:WH that requires you to have an Inquisitor (or vice versa), you should be able to use the Tau Pathfinder entry to give Eldar Pathfinders a Devilfish.

It's the exact same situation: using the rules from a unit in a seperate army list because they happen to share the same name.

Actually, it is not the same situation.

40K is a permissive rules system. No where in the Eldar or Tau Codex does it say that either can be taken as allies. This eliminates the interchangeability of similarly named units from different codices that do not give explicit permissions.  The permissions for taking WH / DH allies for IG and Marines are given in their respective codices.

You essentually have two choices in this scenario:

1. The DH/WH codices are mutually inclusive. The elite DH inquisitor fulfills the unit selection criteria for an allied WH assassin or vice versa.

-or-

2. Otherwise you are stating that the DH/WH codices are mutually exclusive. Therefore, you can take two inquisitor lords (one from each codex) and two assassins (only if you are playing a DH or WH army).

Pick your poison.

And perhaps you can tell us where the rules allow you to fufill a requirement to field a unit from another codex? Seems like your missing the permission to do so.

<strong style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">Elite Inquisitor and Elite Assassin Selection Proof [/b]

 

The following details the facts that will address whether or not the army selection combination below is legal in the current WH40K edition.

 

Parent Army:                 Space Marines

Ally #1:                         Elite Inquisitor from Codex Daemonhunters (2^nd printing)

Ally #2:                         Elite Assassin from Codex Witch Hunters (1^st printing)

 

I will provide the facts in specific sections and summarize this in a Conclusion for each point.  I will then show each Conclusion detailing the chronological order of the rules decisions to prove that this army configuration is legal. 

 

<strong style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">Allies and Appropriate Rules [/b]

 

The ally rules are stated on the following pages:

           

1.       Daemonhunters Codex (aka DH) (2^nd printing)  – page 21

2.       Witch Hunters Codex (aka WH) (1^st printing) – page 25

 

In short summary, the following armies are allowed to take allies from the DH and WH codices.

 

1.       Space Marines and their variant armies (ie: Blood Angels, etc).

2.       Imperial Guard and their variant armies (ie: Jungle Fighters, etc).

3.       Sisters of Battle (for DH armies) and Daemonhunters (for WH armies)

 

Note there was a language change from the DH 1^st Printing to the DH 2^nd Printing.   People will point to the GW DH FAQ, which shows the parts of the 1^st Printing that were changed in the 2^nd printing.

 

Errata Clarified in the 2^nd Printing of Codex: Daemonhunters

 

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

 

Note:  This specific area of the FAQ is only pointing to the parts of the DH codex that were changed between the two printings.  The language for allies in the FAQ area above is the original language in the 1^st printing of the DH codex.  The updated language in the DH codex 2^nd printing reads.

 

A.  "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 language in the Witchhunters codex reads:

 

B.  "Witch Hunters 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."

 

Note:  Both Deamonhunters and Witch Hunters units are defined as Ordos of the Inquisition.  They are known as Ordo Malleus (pg 2 DH) and Ordo Hereticus (pg 2 WH), respectively.

 

Facts A & B indicate that both DH and WH can be allied in an army.  Based on this the following conclusion can be drawn:

 

Conclusion #1:  A Space Marine army can take allies from both the DH and WH codices in the same army based on the Allies rules in the DH and WH codices. 

 <strong style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">
[/b]

<strong style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">Force Org Chart Limitations [/b]

 

The next step in this process is based on the limitations for Force Organization Chart selections.  There are three limitations imposed between the DH and WH books. 

 

The first fact is the same limitation placed in both books is detailed in the following quote. 

 

A.        Neither Inducted Imperial Guard nor Allied Space Marines may be included in such a contingent.

 

This information is located on page 21 in the DH codex and Page 25 in the WH codex. 

 

The second fact is from the DH codex page 21 again.

 

B.      The total number of Deamonhunters unit choices may not exceed the following:

 

0-1HQ Choice

0-1 Elite Choice

0-2 Troops Choice

0-1 Fast Attack Choice

Note that Heavy Support may not be chosen.

 

The total limit in this selection option is only imposed on Deamonhunters unit choices.  This is a very important fact since it does not include Witch Hunters for this limitation.

 

C.      The total number of Witch Hunter unit choices may not exceed the following:

 

0-1HQ Choice

0-1 Elite Choice

0-2 Troops Choice

0-1 Fast Attack Choice

Note that Heavy Support may not be chosen.

 

The total limit in this selection option is only imposed on Witch Hunters unit choices.  This is a very important fact since it does not include Daemonhunters for this limitation.

 

Since the limitations for the DH and WH codices are specific to their respective books and not inclusive of each other, you are allowed to take one elite choice from the DH codex and one elite choice from the WH codex.  Based on this the following conclusion can be drawn:

 

Conclusion #2:  A Space Marine army can select one elite choice from the DH codex and one elite choice from the WH codex based on the force organization chart limitations detailed in each codex.

 

<strong style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">Unit Specific Rules [/b]

 

The space marine army in question can select an inquisitor from either the DH or WH codex.  There are currently no limitations that would possibly prevent this and the inquisitor can be used for the one elite choice from either the DH or WH codex.  For this example, we will assume that the elite inquisitor was selected from the DH codex.  The issue in question is ‘can an assassin be selected as the one elite choice from the WH codex?’  The following will prove that this is a legal selection option based on the assassin’s unit specific rules. 

 

<strong style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">Assassin Rules [/b]

 

<v:shapetype id="_x0000_t202" path="m0,0l0,21600,21600,21600,21600,0xe" o:spt="202" coordsize="21600,21600"><v:stroke joinstyle="miter"></v:stroke><v:path o:connecttype="rect" gradientshapeok="t"></v:path></v:shapetype>

<v:shape id="_x0000_s1026" style="MARGIN-TOP: 34.55pt; Z-INDEX: 1; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; WIDTH: 444pt; POSITION: absolute; HEIGHT: 45pt; mso-wrap-edited: f" type="#_x0000_t202" wrapcoords="-36 0 -36 21600 21636 21600 21636 0 -36 0"></v:shape>Both the DH codex (on page 26) and the WH codex (on page 30) provide the following rule for including assassins in a force.  This is the text box on the left column of each page.

<strong style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">Important Note:[/b]  An Officio Assassinorum Operative may only be chosen if an Inquisitor or Inquisitor Lord is also part of the force.  Note that no more than one Officio Assassinorum Operative can be used in any force for any reason. 

 

The one crucial detail is that the specification of Inquisitor or Inquisitor Lord is not limited to an Inquisitor from one specific book.  This is very important as the next example will show. 

 

<strong style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">Orbital Strike Rules [/b]

 

<v:shape id="_x0000_s1027" style="MARGIN-TOP: 22pt; Z-INDEX: -1; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; WIDTH: 444pt; POSITION: absolute; HEIGHT: 36pt; mso-wrap-edited: f" type="#_x0000_t202" wrapcoords="-36 0 -36 21600 21636 21600 21636 0 -36 0"></v:shape>The orbital strike rule on page 37 in the WH codex in the lower part of the right hand column states:

<strong style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">Important Note:[/b]  An Orbital Strike may only be chosen if an Inquisitor or Inquisitor Lord of the Ordo Hereticus is also part of the force. 

  

Notice that the rules specifically limit the inquisitor selection to the WH codex in order to take an Orbital Strike from the WH Heavy Support options. 

 

Based on the facts that 1) the assassin rules do not impose a limit on what book the inquisitor must be chosen from and 2) there is precedence in the orbital strike rules that include a limit on what book the inquisitor must be chosen from, the following conclusion can be drawn.

 

Conclusion #3:  A Space Marine army can select an assassin as an elite choice from the WH codex if an elite inquisitor from the DH codex is selected since all of the assassin unit selection rules have been fulfilled. 

 

<strong style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">Conclusion Summary [/b]

 

The following section lists the conclusions as a quick reference and provide the logical order of decisions that are required to prove that the army combination we are reviewing is legal.

 

Conclusion #1: 

A Space Marine army can take allies from both the DH and WH codices in the same army based on the Allies rules in the DH and WH codices. 

 

Conclusion #2: 

A Space Marine army can select one elite choice from the DH codex and one elite choice from the WH codex based on the force organization chart limitations detailed in each codex.

 

Conclusion #3:

A Space Marine army can select an assassin as an elite choice from the WH codex if an elite inquisitor from the DH codex is selected since all of the assassin unit selection rules have been fulfilled. 

The rules tell us we can take allies. I can take an elite choice from WH and then one from DH. As long as the requirement is fufilled. I really don't care. An assassin dies just as easilly with a HQ inquisitor or an Elite Inquisitor. In a WH or DH pure list you can take either inquisitor to get an assassin. What is the logic behind forcing a person to take a HQ choice to get an assassin say in a SM army, when it is not the case for a DH or WH army? That makes no sense. The little box on page 26 of the DH states the conditions of fielding an assassin. They just want you to have an Inquisitor, they could care less which. Why? Purely fluff. Which is fine with me.

You're still yet to provide a statement that says that compulsary units can be chosen from another codex.

Skyth - we are not selecting any compulsary units from the allies. We are selecting allied units that are filling slots outside of the main army's compulsary units.

But it never once says you can fill the requirements needed to field a unit from another codex, does it? No. Allies have nothing to do with the matter.

An inquisitor is a compulsary unit to field an assassin.

Just like a priest is for various Witchhunter units.

To summarize my long post:

Ally rules have everything to do with this because they give you permission for the army combinations.  
Force org chart limits are met.
Unit specific requirements for the assassin are met (the only limit being an inquisitor). There is no limit imposed for requiring a specific WH Inquisitor or DH Inquisitor like in the examples below.

The specific requirements for WH units that require WH priests are detailed in FAQ.
The specific requirements for a WH orbital strike is detailed and strictly limited based on choosing a WH Inquisitor.

It's the same as taking Necron Destroyers in an Imperial Guard army.

Don Modo: I got my answer to this through the Trade Sales group. They told me they went and asked the "guys who run the GT's" about this and got this answer as they were still working on the rules issues for 'Ardboyz. I would love to move this over to the Kommando's board and talk a little more about things like this.

Orion

Posted By Inquisitor_Malice on 10/26/2007 7:08 AM
40K is a permissive rules system.

And the Pathfinder entry in the Tau Codex gives you permission to give a unit of Pathfinders a Devilfish transport.

There is no restriction on which codex those Pathfinders have to come from. They simply have to be Pathfinders.

The fact that C: DH and C:WH have extra rules for allies makes no difference to this. It's not taking allies that is the issue. It's using a unit from one codex to satisfy a rule in a different codex just because the two codexes both have units with the same name.

Posted By Inquisitor_Malice on 10/26/2007 7:08 AM
2. Otherwise you are stating that the DH/WH codices are mutually exclusive. Therefore, you can take two inquisitor lords (one from each codex) and two assassins (only if you are playing a DH or WH army).

And that's the answer that is the 'correct' one, in that it removes potential wierdness from any situations where units have the same names (which can only be a good thing given the number of armies that have 'Warriors'... that's a slip-up just waiting to happen.

Rules and selection restrictions in one codex should only apply to that codex unless specifically listed otherwise. A statement in the DH codex to the effect of 'You need an Inquisitor to do x' should be translated as 'You need a Daemonhunters Inquisitor to do x' ... because that's the way you avoid unexpected wierdness from sloppy writing. 

Rules and selection restrictions in one codex should only apply to that codex unless specifically listed otherwise. A statement in the DH codex to the effect of 'You need an Inquisitor to do x' should be translated as 'You need a Daemonhunters Inquisitor to do x' ... because that's the way you avoid unexpected wierdness from sloppy writing.

No, allies have nothing to do with it because so far you've totally ignored the question at hand. Once again, where do the rules allow you to fill the requirements to field a unit by using a different codex?


And yet again, where does the codex say that? So far you've yet once to provide an iota of support for your statements. Stop making the assumption that you're correct and PROVE IT.

Posted By Ghaz on 10/26/2007 10:30 PM

Ally rules have everything to do with this because they give you permission for the army combinations.

No, allies have nothing to do with it because so far you've totally ignored the question at hand. Once again, where do the rules allow you to fill the requirements to field a unit by using a different codex?

Unit specific requirements for the assassin are met (the only limit being an inquisitor). There is no limit imposed for requiring a specific WH Inquisitor or DH Inquisitor like in the examples below.

And yet again, where does the codex say that? So far you've yet once to provide an iota of support for your statements. Stop making the assumption that you're correct and PROVE IT.

I already did in the Elite Inquisitor and Elite Assassin Selection Proof on page 3.  Please read through entire segment and pay particular attention to the unit specific rules section, which provides the assassin requirements and precedence that is used in the WH orbital strike section.  In addressing your allies concern, each section in the proof mentioned above is fulfilled:

1.  Allies - unlocks the DH and WH codices by allowing you to take units from the DH and WH books in the same parent army.  You now have one big army list to select from. 

2.  Force Org Chart Limitations are set, which further limit the unit selection options from both books.

3.  Unit Specific Rules impose further limits the force org chart limitations. 

It is the limits set between the combination of the allies rules and the unit specific rules that addresses your concern about filling the requirements to field a unit by using criteria from a different codex.  Again, which is already done in the Elite Inquisitor and Elite Assassin Selection Proof in a step by step process.

Addressing the Pathfinders (Eldar) and Devilfish issue, if you can not even pass the allies requirements above, then there is no allowed combination.  The Lost and the Damned is another perfect example of using allies.  There is no such ally allowment in either the Eldar or Tau books.   

And there is no specific allowance to fill compulsary slots from other codex's either (And an inquisitor is a compulsary slot for an assassin).

You did no such thing. You made an assumption that since they both have the same name that they must be the same unit and can be used to fill the requirements for a unit from a different codex. An assumption is not good enough. You have yet to provide proof that what you're doing is legal, and without that proof it can not be done.

Posted By Inquisitor_Malice on 10/27/2007 6:02 AM
Addressing the Pathfinders (Eldar) and Devilfish issue, if you can not even pass the allies requirements above, then there is no allowed combination. 

Sorry, I missed the part where you explained where the rules state that the allies rules are the only way to get models from a different codex in your army.

While the rules for choosing a force generally limit you to a single codex, a more specific rule will always over-ride the general rules.

So, a rules stating that a particular unit can take a particular option will apply regardless of whether or not the normal rules would ordinarily prevent it.

The only thing that prevents the Eldar Pathfinder/Devilfish combo is the convention that the rules and options from one codex only apply to that codex. Or, in other words, the assumption that whenever the Tau codex refers to 'Pathfinders' it actually means Tau Pathfinders.

Which in the same turn disables the WH Inq/DH Assassin combo... exactly as it should. The idea that you should be able to get around a specific limitation of an army list by taking one of your compulsory options from a completely seperate codex is just ludicrous. They specifically limited Assassins in an allied list from being included in a army that includes another Elite slot from that codex.  The very fact that taking that option from a different book allows you to avoid that limitation should be ringing the 'dodgy' bell.

Posted By JohnSmith on 10/26/2007 6:21 PM
Or are you telling me that a space marine in the black templar codex is not a space marine? 

Of course he's not. A Black Templar Space Marine is a Black Templar Space Marine, and has different rules from a Blood Angels Space Marine, a Space Wolves Space Marine or a standard Codex Space Marine.

You can't treat them all the same just because they're all Space Marines. They each have their own specific rules that do not automatically apply to Space Marines from a different codex.

Can't Blood Angels chose from the Main Space Marine Codex and armory? Point. The burden of proof lies on those who are trying to disprove RAW. The law GW, lays with RAW, because well GW is the Law. If Blood Angels can chose from the main armory then everything insaniak just said doesn't hold water. It would clearly be a case of codex crossover, and in a different way support the use of any inquisitor. Of course different chapters have different rules. But there will always be things that crossover. Especially when using allies.

No, they can't. With the publication of their new army list in White Dwarf a few month's back they're a completely self-contained army list.


Wrong, because the old Codex Blood Angels specifically told you how it works in conjunction with Codex Space Marines. So far no one has provided anything that specifically states that you can fill the requirements to field a DH Assassin with a WH Inquisitor or vice versa.

Yeah, wasn't sure exactly on the Blood Angels. Unless you're looking to change how assassins work, for me the little box in DH and Wh specifically states how to field assassins. I don't even own an assassin, to me it's clear. Are you sure about blood angels?... Someone told me that you can take space marine chaplains or use things from the space marine armory. Can you take a tank from the Space Marine Codex if your Blood Angels?

Posted By Ghaz on 10/27/2007 9:21 AM

I already did in the Elite Inquisitor and Elite Assassin Selection Proof on page 3.

You did no such thing. You made an assumption that since they both have the same name that they must be the same unit and can be used to fill the requirements for a unit from a different codex. An assumption is not good enough. You have yet to provide proof that what you're doing is legal, and without that proof it can not be done.

If you are using legal analogy, Its not for him or those opposed to say whether it is proven or not, you provide your evidence/arguments as he has done and let a judge and/or jury decide who proved what.

Whos your judge and jury?

Games have a permissive rules set. If you want to do something, then it's up to you to prove it can be done. The rules tell you what you can do, not what you can not. Your legal 'analogy' is flawed and not appropriate for this situation.

Posted By Ghaz on 10/27/2007 5:33 PM

If you are using legal analogy, Its not for him or those opposed to say whether it is proven or not, you provide your evidence/arguments as he has done and let a judge and/or jury decide who proved what.

Whos your judge and jury?

Games have a permissive rules set. If you want to do something, then it's up to you to prove it can be done. The rules tell you what you can do, not what you can not. Your legal 'analogy' is flawed and not appropriate for this situation.

I may be misunderstanding you, but in all my years of gaming and playing hundreds of different games, I can say rules will tell you what you can do and what you can't do.

40k is no different :
- you can shoot at things in range and LOS (what you can do)
- you can not shoot if you are in melee (what you can not do).

I suppose what you are getting at is that, although there are rules that are quite clearly 'what you can not do' rules, they are modifying general 'what you can do rules', and in soing so give you the full conditioned 'what you can do' rule. Also if I have a rule that allows me todo something, then any exceptions will be expressly noted.

The idea that I have to show a rule allowing me to do something, but those who say you can't do something do not have to show such a rule is patently absurd:

I can shoot
    if in range
    if in LOS
    if not in melee.


If the not in melee rule was not written, it would not be for the shooter to find a rule saying I can shoot as I already have a rule saying I can shoot. It would be to the naysayers to point me at the rule that modifies my 'can shoot' rule.

I can move
    if not in melee
    not to within 1"

If we didn't have the express 'not within 1"' rule then I could move within an 1" as I have a rule saying I can move, and nothing saying I can't be within an inch.

In both the above examples it is for those saying you cannot do something that have to show the rule that says you cannot do something.

I can take an assasin
    if i have a inq.
    ??

some one will have to fill the ?? for me, but:

'must fill compulsory choices from parent list...' - to quote it more fully (WH codex, i don't have the DH), '... on the force organisation chart'

The inq is not a compulsory unit on the force organisation chart. He isn't even compulsory, at least I don't class something you only take in certain situations as compulsory. He is a pre-condition on another unit. p78 of the main book tells you the compulsory units on the force org are the dark boxes (hq + 2 troops), other mission types have different compulsory units.

Can't go across codex.  That is an assumption rather than a written rule as far as I know - and insaniak seems to confirm that bit on page 1.

As to the pathfinders. Yes If you could take the lists together then maybe you do end up in the position of having to take the fish with the eldar pathfinders (fish is a must take for pathfinders). however, that does not in itself show that cross codex is forbidden.

Posted By puree on 10/28/2007 3:50 AM
Can't go across codex.  That is an assumption rather than a written rule as far as I know - and insaniak seems to confirm that bit on page 1.

Yup, that's been my point from the start. It's an assumption, rather than a rule... but it's an assumption that prevents certain silliness.

Posted By puree on 10/28/2007 3:50 AM
As to the pathfinders. Yes If you could take the lists together then maybe you do end up in the position of having to take the fish with the eldar pathfinders (fish is a must take for pathfinders). however, that does not in itself show that cross codex is forbidden.

Being able to take the lists together has nothing to do with it. It's not the allies rule specifically that allows the Inq/Assassin combo. It's simply the fact that the books say 'must have an Inquisitor' without actually specifying that it has to be an Inquisitor from the same book. Likewise, the Pathfinder entry doesn't specify that Tau Pathfinders must take a Devilfish... It instead simply says that Pathfinders must take it.

So if the lack of an army specification allows you to satisfy the rule with any Inquisitor, then the same must hold true for Pathfinders. If you have a unit of Pathfinders, they must take a Devilfish.

If you allow rules from one codex to apply to another.



Yes, by the RAW, there is nothing preventing you from using the rules for a unit from a different codex with a similarly named unit (although as Ghaz has pointed out, there are no rules specifically allowing it either, which should at least make it questionable even from a purely RAW standpoint).

It's a convention, nothing more. But you can't enforce that convention in one situation (pathfinders) and ignore it in another (Inq/Assassin). Not if you want any sort of consistency, anyway.

Absolutely wrong. They only tell you what you can't do in specific instances. Your example is flawed because without the second point the first point would allow you to shoot at them. It is an exception to the first rule. You can do A except in case B. So far you haven't proven that there is a rule that allows you to do what you want, therefore there is no need for them to tell you that you can not.

Posted By Ghaz on 10/28/2007 3:58 PM

I may be misunderstanding you, but in all my years of gaming and playing hundreds of different games, I can say rules will tell you what you can do and what you can't do.

40k is no different :
- you can shoot at things in range and LOS (what you can do)
- you can not shoot if you are in melee (what you can not do).

Absolutely wrong. They only tell you what you can't do in specific instances. Your example is flawed because without the second point the first point would allow you to shoot at them. It is an exception to the first rule. You can do A except in case B. So far you haven't proven that there is a rule that allows you to do what you want, therefore there is no need for them to tell you that you can not.

what? you lost me there. it sounds like you just said what i also said?

There is a rule that allows me to shoot. There fore I can shoot if I am in melee.  Or do I need to find a rule that tells me I can shoot in melee? No - that rule covers me. it is up to you to show me a rule that says I can't. In this case you point me at the can't shoot in melee rule.

There is a rule that says I can move. I want to move within   2" of an enemy. Do i have to find a rule that says I can move within 2" - no. The rule says I can move. I want to move within 1", the general rule covers that so I do not have to find a rule saying I can. You in the other hand wish to say I can't so you have to find the rule that says I cannot. It exists so I cannot move within 1", but you cannot find a rule saying  i cannot be within 2" so I can move that close, I still don't have to have an explicit 2" rule.

I have a rule that says I can take an assasin if I have an inq. I have an inq so I can have an assasin. It is for you to find the rule that says I cannot due to some other restriction. Otherwise the rule I've met allows me it.

Posted By insaniak on 10/28/2007 2:07 PM

Yes, by the RAW, there is nothing preventing you from using the rules for a unit from a different codex with a similarly named unit (although as Ghaz has pointed out, there are no rules specifically allowing it either, which should at least make it questionable even from a purely RAW standpoint).

It's a convention, nothing more. But you can't enforce that convention in one situation (pathfinders) and ignore it in another (Inq/Assassin). Not if you want any sort of consistency, anyway.

i don't particularly disagree with that. Though I've let someone use this very cross over before against me. Its the one crossover that I think is reasonable, and wouldn't stop anyone doing. Actually there is the WH/IG priest as well, I'd allow that. Admittely that is just me seeing the fluff behind it, in a stricter (tourney) setting I'm ambivalent and wouldn't argue one way or the other.

My argument is a more about Ghaz's argument. If there is a restriction I believe it is for him to show it, not keep saying it is for others to 'prove' their point. No one can 'prove' their point - the argument would have been over long ago otherwise. The other side put forward their argument, and backed it up with a quite detailed explanation (whether he agrees with it or not), now it is for him to back up his restriction. I suspect he can't actually back it up.