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.

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
A Techmarine is a better example. 'For each HQ choice chosen, a Techmarine may be chosen that does not take up an HQ slot' (paraphrase). There is no equivalent here regarding the unit being chosen in general. Only the slot-less modification is mentioned.

I agree that the Techmarine can only be taken slot-less, and these rules are indeed clearer.

But the Question arises: What additional wording does "Retainers" have that suddenly allow you to take a Slotted Court?

 Kriswall wrote:
It would absolutely still have the Retainers rule in much the same way that a unit with Deep Strike that you've chosen to simply deploy on the table still has the Deep Strike rule. Again, Retainers represents an optional, additional way of selecting Courts for your army. You need to demonstrate that it isn't optional. In essence, this happens...

1. While building my list I decide to take a Court of the Archon to fulfill a mandatory HQ slot in a Combined Arms Detachment.
2. I notice they have a rule called "Retainers".
3. I begin to read the rule, and see that it only applies to situation where I'm taking an Archon as an HQ choice.
4. I'm not taking an Archon as an HQ choice, so the "Retainers" rule doesn't apply in this current situation.
5. The Court is added to my list and fills an HQ slot.

3. I begin to read the rule, and see that it only applies to situation where I'm taking an Archon as an HQ choice.
4. I'm not taking an Archon as an HQ choice, so the "Retainers" rule isn't fulfilled in this current situation.

5. As you have not fulfilled a Special Rule for the Unit, how can it be fielded?

Can you declare a Unit is Deep Striking when you put them in reserve, and them walk them on?
You walked on from reserves as normal, so why would the Deep Strike Rules ("When placing the unit in Reserve, you must tell your opponent that it will be arriving by Deep Strike") not be ignored as you are doing with "Retainers"?

 Kriswall wrote:
Retainers: For each Archon in your army, you may include one Court of the Archon that does not take up an HQ slot. This is the only method by which you can include Courts of the Archon in your army.

Why would the rule need that additional phrase? It contains it already as per BrB RaW:

Rulebook wrote:Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise. They include the rules for movement, shooting and close combat as well as the rules for morale. These are all the rules you’ll need for infantry models. Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether because they have a special kind of weapon (such as a boltgun), unusual skills (such as the ability to regenerate), because they are different to their fellows (such as a unit leader or a heroic character), or because they are not normal infantry models (a bike, a swarm or even a tank). The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated in its Army List Entry. Army List Entries can be found in a number of Games Workshop publications, such as a Warhammer 40,000 codex.

Resuming my position from the above:
1 - Basic rules must apply.
2 - Advanced rules must apply to some.
3 - Advanced rules ("retainers") found in Codex apply to Unit.
4 - "Retainers" applies to Court of the Archon Unit.
5 - "Retainers": Check if Archon. If Yes: A)Select slotless Court or B) Do not Select Slotless Court. If No: You cannot follow "Retainers" rule.

At point 5, when checking if i have fulfilled "Retainers" rule, if i have no Archon on the table, i can't follow the Rule.
As i can't put a Court of the Archon Unit without following the "Retainers" rule, i can't have a Court of the Archon Unit.

At point 5, you tell me you can skip the "Retainers" rule. Field a Court of the Archon Unit that "has not followed the Retainers rule".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

So how are you activating the Retainers rule if I don't have an Archon? What rules are you using to determine the effect of Retainers when an Archon is not taken?

How are you activating the Deep Strike rule if you are not allowed reserves? What rules are you using to determine the effect of Deep Strike when Reserves are forbidden?
How are you activating the Hatred(Orks) rule if I don't have Orks? What rules are you using to determine the effect of Hatred(Orks) when there is no Orks?


Easy!

No Archon = no Court. Pick another HQ
No Reserves = No Deep Strike. Deploy them on the Board.
No Orks enemies = No Hatred(Orks). Find an Ork opponent.

How is there not a conflict? The 'Retainers' rule requires an Archon in order to take the Court whereas the basic rules do not. Sure looks like a conflict to me.

There is no rule that says the Retainer is the only way to field the Court. There in no hint that it is mandatory. The 'rule' that says the Court can be taken as an HQ is the little skull icon in the corner of the page that means HQ category. Just like a Space Wolf Drop Pod is a Fast Attack choice now because it is in that section. It is no longer only a Dedicated Transport, despite how the rules used to be.

The lack of the words 'only' or any restrictive implication at all mean that RAW means it isn't a mandatory rule. It's a rule that should be noticed if the Archon is present but nothing indicates anything else.

It doesn't need the word 'only'. It needs the wording to make it a choice in light of the 'Basic versus Advanced' rule.

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
There is no rule that says the Retainer is the only way to field the Court. There in no hint that it is mandatory. The 'rule' that says the Court can be taken as an HQ is the little skull icon in the corner of the page that means HQ category. Just like a Space Wolf Drop Pod is a Fast Attack choice now because it is in that section. It is no longer only a Dedicated Transport, despite how the rules used to be.

The lack of the words 'only' or any restrictive implication at all mean that RAW means it isn't a mandatory rule. It's a rule that should be noticed if the Archon is present but nothing indicates anything else.

But it is still a Rule that exists as part of a Court of the Archon Unit's profile.

Does a SW Drop Pod have a Rule along the lines of "Dedicated Transport"? Or could it be the Units themselves that have that as an option.

If the Archon had:

Options:
• The unit may select a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot in the Force Organisation Chart as additional Unit.
• May take a Venom as a Dedicated Transport.

Then i can make a comparison with the Dedicated Transport option.

However this is not the case. The Court of the Archon Unit has a Special Rule, are you following it?

 BlackTalos wrote:

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
There is no rule that says the Retainer is the only way to field the Court. There in no hint that it is mandatory. The 'rule' that says the Court can be taken as an HQ is the little skull icon in the corner of the page that means HQ category. Just like a Space Wolf Drop Pod is a Fast Attack choice now because it is in that section. It is no longer only a Dedicated Transport, despite how the rules used to be.

The lack of the words 'only' or any restrictive implication at all mean that RAW means it isn't a mandatory rule. It's a rule that should be noticed if the Archon is present but nothing indicates anything else.

But it is still a Rule that exists as part of a Court of the Archon Unit's profile.

Does a SW Drop Pod have a Rule along the lines of "Dedicated Transport"? Or could it be the Units themselves that have that as an option.

If the Archon had:

Options:
• The unit may select a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot in the Force Organisation Chart as additional Unit.
• May take a Venom as a Dedicated Transport.

Then i can make a comparison with the Dedicated Transport option.

However this is not the case. The Court of the Archon Unit has a Special Rule, are you following it?

By taking a Court of the Archon as a slot using HQ choice in an appropriate detachment, I have absolutely read, understood and followed the Retainers rule during list constructions. There is no Archon, so I don't have permission to take a slotless Court. I haven't taken a slotless Court, so I've obeyed the rule.

Please cite, using rules, what is specifically revoking permission to take the Court using the BRB method. If you would like to use the Retainers rule, I want explicit revokation and not some sort of implied revokation based on prior editions and unknowable authorial intent.

From ‘Basic versus Advanced’:

Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules.

Where does the ‘Retainers’ rule allow you to take a Court of the Archon without an Archon? To do so, you would have to choose not to use the ‘Retainers’ advanced rule. Where is this choice noted in the ‘Retainers’ advanced rule?

There is no requirement to take an archon to have the court.

as such there is no requirement to have an archon to have a court.

the retainers rule just lets you count the HQ datasheet: Court of the archon as slotless if you have an archon.

another example would be the tervigon.

You can count it as a slot other than the slot it normally is if you have 30 termagants.

this does not mean you cannot take a tervigon unless you take 30 termagants, as no such rule exists anywhere.

RAW- 100% there is no rule against it, 100% you are allowed to select it as a HQ slot as it is an HQ datasheet and has no restrictions placed on it.

RAI- The archon sent their personal minions to do their dirty work.

blaktoof wrote:
You can count it as a slot other than the slot it normally is if you have 30 termagants.

this does not mean you cannot take a tervigon unless you take 30 termagants, as no such rule exists anywhere.

Actually Ghaz, you should have a look at this. It is formatted in the same way as "Retainers" and follows pretty much the same wording.

Thanks Blaktoof, such a simple example has solved the issue. (To me anyway) Meks, Techmarines and Lone wolves are still on the other side though (just in case this is quoted)

Except as an advanced rule, 'Retainers' overrides the contradicting basic rule that would allow you to take a Court of the Archon without the Archon that the 'Retainers' advanced rule requires.

Yeah, but then the Advanced rule for the Termagants would, in the same way, contradict the basic rule that the Tervigon is taken as an HQ. It would imply, just as no Court without Archon, that Tervigons can never be HQ.
The fact that the rule is under the Termagants list seems to point the other way. (It is pretty much word for word the same rule as "Retainers")

The Scuttling Swarm: For every Termagant Brood of 30 models included in your army, you can include one Tervigon as a troops choice instead of an HQ choice.

The highlighted is giving you an alternative option to field a Tervigon as a troops choice as 'can' is often used in place of 'may' and the definition of 'instead of' is "... As a substitute or alternative to; in place of..." The wording for the 'Retainers' rule lacks the '... can... instead of...' wording.

And the Retainers rule also says 'can include', making it optional and the thing that is optional is the 'Archon Court that does not take up a slot on the Force Org chart'. No punctuation means it is all a single concept and grouped together. But that does not mention an Archon Court that DOES take up a slot.

Your assumption is that because it isn't stated, it can't happen, whereas our argument is that there is nothing written that FORCES the Archon to be present. A lack of decisive rules preventing it would mean it's allowed since, again, the Court is considered an HQ choice since there is no explicit restriction.

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
And the Retainers rule also says 'can include', making it optional and the thing that is optional is the 'Archon Court that does not take up a slot on the Force Org chart'. No punctuation means it is all a single concept and grouped together. But that does not mention an Archon Court that DOES take up a slot.

Yes, and that option is to not include a Court at all. It does not change the fact that the 'Retainers' advanced rule overrides the basic rule of how you would choose a unit when it comes to the Court of the Archon, nor does the 'Retainers' advanced rule present an option to allow you to use the basic rule instead.

Ghaz, you need to demonstrate that "If A occurs, you can do B" also means "If A doesn't occur, you can't do B".

You're inferring meaning where there isn't any.

And please show where the 'Retainers' advanced rule doesn't conflict with the basic rule for how you can take a unit. Requiring an Archon to take the Court of the Archon is a conflict with the basic rules that don't require Unit A in order to field Unit B.

the issue is, there is no actual requirement in the retainers rule to have an archon to take the court.

there is an allowance to make a court slotless by taking an archon.

Retainers: For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot on the Force Organisation chart.

there is nothing saying the archon has to be taken to include this unit.

there is something saying that you can take one of these units as a slotless entry if you include an archon.

 Ghaz wrote:
And please show where the 'Retainers' advanced rule doesn't conflict with the basic rule for how you can take a unit. Requiring an Archon to take the Court of the Archon is a conflict with the basic rules that don't require Unit A in order to field Unit B.

Retainers doesn't require that you take an Archon to take a Court. It requires an Archon to take a slotless Court. Huge difference.

There are two versions of the Court here. The one that takes the HQ slot like every other unit in the codex, and the one that does not and is influenced by the Retainers rule. Nowhere in the Retainers rule does it say that the first option, the HQ slot unit, does not exist. It HAS to say it does not exist or is not an option, but it fails to.

By your rule layout, a rule must exist in every unit description that it may take up a slot on the Force Org Chart. This is not how the codex works. The units are listed according to the type of slot they fill UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE. Retainers does not state otherwise. It does not say that the Archon is required to purchase the unit normally. It makes no mention of taking up a HQ slot because that is how the codex works by default. The Battlefield Role of the Court is still HQ and until an FAQ says that it is only allowed in conjunction with an Archon, removing the Battlefield Role is a modification, not a requirement.

I don't even consider Retainers a advanced rule. I dunno why that is being made as argument.

The only thing the Retainer rule does is allow you to take a Court and it doesn't use a HQ slot if you have a Archon.

What it absolutely 100% does not in any way say is that Court's may only be purchased if you take an Archon.

There's a similar situation with the Necron's and the Court there.

 Ghaz wrote:
How is there not a conflict? The 'Retainers' rule requires an Archon in order to take the Court whereas the basic rules do not. Sure looks like a conflict to me.

No, it doesn't. The only rule the Retainers rule is overriding is requiring an HQ unit to have an HQ slot to go into, and in doing so Retainers has a requirement to meet before you gain the benefit of the rule (that requirement being an Archon present).

The "Retainers" rule allows you to take the Court as a slotless HQ, if you include an Archon.

If you don't include an Archon, then the Retainers rule simply doesn't come into play, as its initial "trigger" is not met, and because the Court of the Archon is noted as being an HQ, you can then fill your HQ slot with the Court.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
A Techmarine is a better example. 'For each HQ choice chosen, a Techmarine may be chosen that does not take up an HQ slot' (paraphrase). There is no equivalent here regarding the unit being chosen in general. Only the slot-less modification is mentioned.

I agree that the Techmarine can only be taken slot-less, and these rules are indeed clearer.

Actually, your (BlackTalos's) attempt to paraphrase the techmarine rule changed the meaning of it quite significantly. If it really had said that, it would mean that you could take Techmarines using a HQ slot. The actual rule is:

For each HQ choice in your army (not including other Techmarines, Servitors, Command Squads or Honour Guard) you may include a Techmarine. These selections do not use up a Force Organisation slot.

 BlackTalos wrote:
But the Question arises: What additional wording does "Retainers" have that suddenly allow you to take a Slotted Court?

It doesn't need additional wording. The existing wording ("For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot in the Force Organisation Chart") allows it anyway.

"For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot in the Force Organisation Chart" can be reworded (without changing its meaning) to "the Detachment can include one Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot in the Force Organisation Chart for each Archon included in a Detachment". That does make it easier to understand.

I remember making exactly the same point in the previous thread.

I do have to keep wondering this damned thought over and over again:
Why did they make it a HQ Choice at all?

The Rulebook contain a list of Battlefield Roles which can easily be used for Units like this one, one in particular that seems to be the perfect fit: Other! There are very few Detachments in the game which even have an 'other' slot available, and they all have additional Rules limiting what can be taken for that other Slot to prevent them from becoming a loophole if Game Workshop did use the other slot more often. If Courts, Dedicated Transports, Bodyguards and other 'take this with another Unit' choices where Battle-Role: Other, it would side-step this entire discussion nicely.

Jinx, you're 100% correct and I was thinking the same thing. If the unit entry had no default battlefield role (such as HQ), you'd never be able to include it in a list UNLESS it had a rule like Retainers or the Techmarine rule.

The fact that it has the HQ battlefield role gives BRB permission to take it as an HQ in a list.

The bit that boggles my mind is:
Why create this Battlefield Role then use it so irregularly?

I am wondering if this Role was designed to be nothing more then vestigial, as if they realized they had previously created a few Units with "Battlefield Role: Other" that are now part of the default game and no longer need their own expansion like book... knights I am looking at you. It would be sad if this Battlefield Role was including just so they didn't have to errata these Units... we all know how much Game Workshop hates changing an existing Rule without having us pay for an entire new book.

GW just doesn't seem to think very technically. One reason writing effective list creation software is so difficult and has to be recoded a little with each new release.

That whole 'we are just a Model's company' mentality annoys me quite a bit....

Amen brother. I'm not a competitive tournament player, but I still appreciate a clean set of rules.

How are you activating the Deep Strike rule if you are not allowed reserves? What rules are you using to determine the effect of Deep Strike when Reserves are forbidden?
How are you activating the Hatred(Orks) rule if I don't have Orks? What rules are you using to determine the effect of Hatred(Orks) when there is no Orks?


Easy!

No Archon = no Court. Pick another HQ
No Reserves = No Deep Strike. Deploy them on the Board.
No Orks enemies = No Hatred(Orks). Find an Ork opponent.

The Hatred (Orks) example is very good it gives rerolls to hit if you're fighting Orks. Does this mean if you're not fighting Orks you don't get to attack because you're not following the Hatred (Orks) rule, or does the Hatred (Orks) rule do nothing when the trigger is not met and you attack using the default rules?

The same choice will hold for retainers. So does Hatred (Orks) prevent you from fighting against non-Ork units im combat? Yes or no?

Mallich wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
A Techmarine is a better example. 'For each HQ choice chosen, a Techmarine may be chosen that does not take up an HQ slot' (paraphrase). There is no equivalent here regarding the unit being chosen in general. Only the slot-less modification is mentioned.

I agree that the Techmarine can only be taken slot-less, and these rules are indeed clearer.

Actually, your (BlackTalos's) attempt to paraphrase the techmarine rule changed the meaning of it quite significantly. If it really had said that, it would mean that you could take Techmarines using a HQ slot. The actual rule is:

For each HQ choice in your army (not including other Techmarines, Servitors, Command Squads or Honour Guard) you may include a Techmarine. These selections do not use up a Force Organisation slot.

Please read the post you are Quoting. I did not paraphrase or even quote the techmarine rule. The exact rule you posted is clear: Without another HQ, you may not select a techmarine as your only HQ.

Mallich wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
But the Question arises: What additional wording does "Retainers" have that suddenly allow you to take a Slotted Court?

It doesn't need additional wording. The existing wording ("For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot in the Force Organisation Chart") allows it anyway.

"For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot in the Force Organisation Chart" can be reworded (without changing its meaning) to "the Detachment can include one Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot in the Force Organisation Chart for each Archon included in a Detachment". That does make it easier to understand.

I remember making exactly the same point in the previous thread.

Completely re-wording a rule often changes its meaning, even if it does not seem that way to you. That is why, when arguing RaW, you must quote the exact rule (As you were complaining about just above). Please don't complain about paraphrasing and then paraphrase yourself, it's hypocritical.