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.

C'mon Stelek, try a little. Your comparison is pointless

You can't ally SW with SM so it's a ridiculous comparison

if you COULD, AND the SW codex said:

0-1 Space Wolves Venerable Dreadnaught

while the SM codex called a similar unit a:

0-1 Codex Astartes Venerable Dreadnaught

ther WOULD be a quesiton of whether or not they were the same, and could both be taken or not.

Of course, this example doesn't exist. Oh, just like yours!

This isn't hard. Either it's legal or it's not. Their names are different, as are their wargear choices. One is an ally. Other than a written or verbal GW ruling that it's not legal, there's nothing in the rulebooks that says you can't have both.

Personally, I find it very likely that they made a ruling that says you can only have one. But no one has any reason to take your word on it, and trying to make fun of their perfectly valid arguments instead of actually refuting them does no one any good.

By RAW it's illegal.

I'm really quite amazed at how many people believe 0-1 isn't actually 0-1 if they can get a unit with the same name out of a different Codex.

The unit doesn't have the same name. If I have one Ordo Hereticus Inquisitor Lord and one Ordo Malleus Inquisitor Lord, then I have kept to the restriction of "0-1 Ordo Hereticus Inquisitor Lord."

No one said anything about allying.

Since you seem to have a right to make fun of a perfectly valid argument without apparently knowing the rules well enough to understand it, I won't "make fun" of you or your argument, and I'll explain it.

You can take 0-1 Venerable Dreadnought in a SW army.

However, if you choose to take it as a HQ instead of an ELITE...well, the SW book does say use the Dreadnought option from the SM Codex...and in that Codex, I can have a 0-1 Venerable Dreadnought as an elite.

Of course, nevermind the fact the SW Codex is so old and that rule was referring to the PREVIOUS SM Codex, where there were no 'venerable' dreadnoughts...yes, let's pretend like that isn't a fact.

Why is it illegal to take 2 Venerable Dreadnoughts as elites, but it's legal to take them as HQ and elite?

I'm not fooled or amused by this dance. Are you?

The same thing goes for Inquisitor Lords. You may only have ONE.

Why is it illegal to have 2 Inquisitor Lords in an army but it's legal when one is an ally?

Which part of 0-1 per army wasn't clear?

The 1, or the per army part?

Now let's see how many personal attacks come my way for merely stating the inconvenient truth.

I bet 10$ it'd be at least two.

tegeus-Cromis wrote:The unit doesn't have the same name. If I have one Ordo Hereticus Inquisitor Lord and one Ordo Malleus Inquisitor Lord, then I have kept to the restriction of "0-1 Ordo Hereticus Inquisitor Lord."

GW thinks differently than you do.

How do I know?

We asked when we wrote the AB files.

They said 0-1 Inquisitor Lord (any type) per army.

That's how it validates in AB, the way GW told us to.

I don't even know why I'm arguing this, people that actually play these armies are aware of this.

I am not making any claim about what or how GW thinks, only what they have written and what that unpacks into by rules of logic, language and everyday commonsense. If a store has a promotion where you can choose two free items from a list with a $10 purchase, but the conditions state that you can only choose a maximum of one Grape Soda, are you going to accept it when they tell you that your choice of one Grape Soda and one Orange Soda is unacceptable because you've chosen two sodas? I sure wouldn't.

I'm not sure how that correlates exactly.

Isn't this the correct one?

My promotion offers either of two free items from a list with a $10 purchase.

The list is two items long.

Grape, or Orange.

You still only get one Soda.

Thus, I don't play two Inquisitor Lords.

Btw, YOU sir know how to have an intelligent rules debate.

Thank you for that.

You guys heard it here on dakka....

Stelek called "Da rulz boyz" and they told them how its supposed to be played.

I guess Blackmoor's army is illegal.

Nevermind that they both may be 0-1 but have different names.
Nevermind that almost the exact same situation applies with Assassins, except they specifically address it prohibiting 2.
Nevermind that peeps have been doing this in tournement for a long time now with no issues.

"Da rulz boyz" said so.

Uhh never called the rules boyz.

Called Andy Hoare and Gav for the answer.

Emailed, to be more exact.

No one's been doing it at GT's since Demonhunters were released and Jeff Hall banned it in the US.

French fries please.

Stelek wrote:I'm not sure how that correlates exactly.

Isn't this the correct one?

My promotion offers either of two free items from a list with a $10 purchase.

The list is two items long.

Grape, or Orange.

You still only get one Soda.

What if the promotion said you can have TWO free items from the following choices:
0-1 Grape Sodas
0-1 Orange Sodas

Does it make sense that you can take 1 Grape Soda and 1 Orange Soda?

What if the rules say you can have TWO HQ's from the following choices:
0-1 Ordo Hereticus Inquisitor Lords
0-1 Ordo Malleus Inquisitor Lords

Does it make sense that you can take 1 Hereticus Lord and 1 Malleus Lord?

Now if GTs have ruled against this then that is another issue. Could you provide links to those rulings if available?

Isn't this the correct one?

My promotion offers either of two free items from a list with a $10 purchase.

The list is two items long.

Grape, or Orange.

Well, my contention is that this isn't the case. In my example, the restriction on each item is independent of the other. It isn't that you may take only Grape or only Orange, but that you may take two things, but only one Grape and only one Orange at most. There is no restriction on Sodas per se, just as there is no restriction on Inq Lords per se. The restriction is 0-1 Grape Soda/Ordo Hereticus Inquisitor Lord and 0-1 Orange Soda/Ordo Malleus Inquisitor Lord.

Maybe we should take this to YMDC. As far as this thread is concerned, what's more relevant is your claim that dual Lords is banned in GTs by fiat, which if true makes all this irrelevant as far as Blackmoor's list is concerned. Got a link or quote?

I really think you're wrong about this Stelek...

I've never seen anything prohibiting it FAQ or GT packet-wise, AB allows it, top teir players have used it within the past year in tournement play (one of which I know has regular dialouge with Jeff Hall and specifically asked him about it, so you're talking out of an orafice other than your mouth here)....

Not really worth it for me to argue it though, since I'm not using the combo in a tournement list.

AB doesn't allow it. I like how I said it doesn't, but you say it anyway. AB does not allow dual Inquisitor Lords. Please insert a quarter.

The combination that is allowed is the one provided for in the books--the special characters do not use up your 0-1 slot, and that's the one that's allowed at tournaments and that players use.

His name is Coteaz, and he has specific rules that allow him to be used and NOT use up your 0-1 Inquisitor Lord choice.

But of course now we'll hear about how that rule is meaningless too.

I guess this is why I stopped running the AB files. Too many know-nothings telling me what GW told me was bs.

It's well old already.

I would love to provide a link to GT rulings.

The US website is gone. Surely you noticed everything prior to 2008 is toast?

Since I'm sure THAT will be called a lie, here you go:

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/articleCategory.jsp?community=true&communityArticleCatId=300005&articleCatId=300005&catId=

I hope that helps you in your tirades against what I say.

Stelek wrote:AB doesn't allow it. I like how I said it doesn't, but you say it anyway. AB does not allow dual Inquisitor Lords.

Stelek, without providing links or quotes you saying it doesn't and Deadshane1 saying it does, has the exact same weight.

You are basically using this as your basis for argument, "I'm right, you're wrong because I said so" which I'm sure you'll agree is not a solid foundation for debate.

Stelek wrote:AB doesn't allow it. I like how I said it doesn't, but you say it anyway. AB does not allow dual Inquisitor Lords. Please insert a quarter.
.

Wrong, I just did it on a fully updated AB.

As for the rest, after a quick skimming, I didnt see anything prohibiting what we're talking about. I could have missed it, I dont think so however....since you're wrong about AB prohibiting it, so far I'm not worried.

Sigh. Obviously you didn't as I have the correct version.

Please learn to use AB correctly. The errors appear in the bottom bar.

You are correct, Kadun. I'm saying what I know and who I know it from. Last I checked, deadshane isn't a studio dev and has never worked with GW on getting the AB files right.

Have you? Are you?

Screenshots of AB? Or links to GT rules packet or FAQ prohibiting this?

Remember, emails from the dev team are not rules.

Neither is Army Builder.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Why do you ask for rules GW has removed from their website? It can't possibly be stupidity, or flamebaiting, can it?

A screenshot of AB, sure that's easy to do. Coming right up...



This is the current version of the files.

Thats not Illegal It's alling Grey Knights With Witch Hunters.

It'd be a cool army. Not a Tier one army. So it's cool like the Army.

Shouldnt this follow the same rules as allied GD to LotD wich were illegaled? Same rule but diffrent name on the HQ..

Yes Kallbrand.

That was the line of GW thinking.

Same name, limited use.

Even when allied.

i.e. they closed the loophole.

I can show you how it's illegal in a GK army with a WH HQ if you really want me to, the message is the same. And of course it's illegal in a IG army, but everyone should know that (and why). I suspect some don't though, given the arguments used so far.

Well, since my fully updated AB must differ from yours, I call no joy.

Also, the point is moot anyway since how Ozy pointed out AB is not to be considered official. (often, its wrong)

I'll go with the phone chat that my Top Teir tournement associate had with Jeff Hall, saying that you're wrong.

Feel free to post more of your nonsense.

Stelek wrote:Sigh. Obviously you didn't as I have the correct version.

actually, YOU have the incorrect version. (see how this works?)

Stelek wrote:
Please learn to use AB correctly. The errors appear in the bottom bar.

I think I've got it down, since I bought a copy of issue 1 as soon as it was available and have used it for years.

Stelek wrote:
You are correct, Kadun. I'm saying what I know and who I know it from. Last I checked, deadshane isn't a studio dev and has never worked with GW on getting the AB files right.

So? You're not a studio dev, and AB doesnt matter as far as rules discussions. Whats your point?

Blackmoors list is in no danger from anything you've posted here.

I have the version off the AB website, which is more up to date than yours.

Regardless, your version isn't up to date. The last 5 versions (that's how far I checked, see how this works?) all share this validation error.

It's been around for years. Jeff Hall wouldn't say it's wrong, btw. He wrote the rules. Way to hang yourself.

Anyway, I guess I could care less. You seem more determined to insult me than actually participate in an intelligent discussion.

Erm nevermind.

Stelek wrote:I have the version off the AB website, which is more up to date than yours.

Regardless, your version isn't up to date. The last 5 versions (that's how far I checked, see how this works?) all share this validation error.

It's been around for years. Jeff Hall wouldn't say it's wrong, btw. He wrote the rules. Way to hang yourself.

Anyway, I guess I could care less. You seem more determined to insult me than actually participate in an intelligent discussion.

How am I insulting you? By calling you on your BS?

Once again, who cares about AB anyway, its not the rules.
Jeff Hall doesnt work for GW anymore, so that points pretty much moot, even though you were full of it as far as HIS rulings.
Gav and Andy Hoare emailed you....who cares?

Anyone who doesnt agree with you is apparently unable to hold an intelligent discussion, as per your cute little insulting sig...while you're talking about being determined to insult people.

I wont insult you, but it's my opinion that you're an arrogant idiot. I'm not calling you one, its just what I think. You should only feel insulted if you consider that true. I on the other hand (beating you to the punch) dont really care what you think of me.

Full of it with what Jeff Hall said?

Riiiight. All those silly FAQ's and on-the-spot rulings at GTs he made were just made up.

You did get at least one thing right...nobody cares.

You can take both inq. it's in the rules duh..