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.

lunarman wrote:Dammit, if only someone could post a link

No giving directions to illegally download PDFs either, folks..

Mr Hyena wrote:Hmm...

On the basis of the wording so far I'll rule it as Henchmen do take a slot.

Its more balanced that way (no 1,000,000 Razorbacks/Chimeras) and it means also pure =I= is possible. Much fairer.

"This unit does not use up a force organisation slot." I don't see how that can be interpreted with any sort of ambiguity.

Frazzled wrote:Alrighty: Moderator Frazzled says:
No points cost listing.
No links to where you can download it.
No detailed listing of actual language from the codex.
We thank you for your compliance citizen.

...alright, we'll behave...

puma713 wrote:Seems like the assertion is correct: Max of 6 Henchmen units. It simply says that it makes them troops and removes the limit per number of inquisitors.

I don't see that as black and white at all. Coteaz allows them to be taken as troop choices instead of as elite choices. Nowhere does it say that they now become troop choices which also occupy a force organisation slot. Nothing changes the, does not occupy a force organisation slot, property in their listing.

He also removes the unit limit holding them to the number of inquisitors in your army.

I'm not here to debate the sense of it and whether it should be or not, but what they've currently written does not stop more than six warbands at a time.

lord_blackfang wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:I like it for 1 thing:

Corteaz as a Rogue Trader.

Asuming that you have to Fill 2 troops slots(as opposed to just bringing at least 2 troops) Take 1 min unit of GK Termies, and 1 min Unit of PAGK; then fill the rest of your points with henchmen warbands(not necissarily optimized, but more for Rogue Trader Force - fluff reasons)

This mistaken idea that you can have unlimited Troops is still alive?

Why is it mistaken given the wording that we have?

lord_blackfang wrote:

Neconilis wrote:Why is it mistaken given the wording that we have?

RAI version: Because they're Troop choices, and Troop choices are 2-6. If GW wanted them to be scoring and stay unlimited, they'd just make them scoring, not move them to Troops (see Sternguard.)

RAW version: The "do not take up a slot" text is in itself ineffectual, because "slot" is not a defined game term and is to my knowledge not used anywhere else ever. The proper term used in the rulebook and all codices for the little boxes on the FOC is "choice" or "selection." So by RAW, even without Coteaz all Henchmen count towards your Elites allowance.

Alright, though I still do not agree with you. I really want to, as I view the 'Barrel O'Monkeys' as utterly ridiculous. It's incredibly unbalanced, and the game is Cash-hammer enough already. I simply don't see warbands being limited by anything save points cost with the RAW that we currently have. Sure, we can play the semantics game and go, 'what's a force organisation slot', but that doesn't truly get us anywhere. Because, as you pointed out, even if they're selected as Elites, then they'd still count towards the FOC with such logic. Also, even if we are playing that game, what if the FOC in the GK codex also calls them slots? What then?

Additionally, for your RAI, if all of the rules were written by the same group of people each time then I might agree with you. However, they're not. Each author chooses to accomplish things in different ways. Point being, who knows with absolute certainty what the intent is?