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.

Am I reading this right?

2 from primary, 2 from special allied detachment, 1 from GK?

I just think this would be kind of funny. No one would expect it... get it? no one would... nm.

yup, totaly playable. Right now there is an issue if the allied INQ is GK Coteaz but any one else will do.

 DJGietzen wrote:
yup, totaly playable. Right now there is an issue if the allied INQ is GK Coteaz but any one else will do.

What issue with Coteaz?

I run an allied Cotez usually, Please enlighten me.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
yup, totaly playable. Right now there is an issue if the allied INQ is GK Coteaz but any one else will do.

What issue with Coteaz?

I run an allied Cotez usually, Please enlighten me.

Either does taking Coteaz in a GK (or Inq) detachment affect Inquisitor Henchman squads in the other detachment or whether or not an army can field 2 Inquistor Coteaz (one in a GK detachment and one in the Inq detachment).

If you have the Grey Knights version of Corteaz his rules require that all Inquisitorial Henchman Warbands in the army be taken as troops. Inquisitorial Detachments,while part of your army, cannot have troops. If you have "GK Coteaz" he prevents Inquisitorial Detachments containing Inquisitorial Henchman Warbands from being part of the same army.

Thats RAW by the way, not HIWPI.

 DJGietzen wrote:
If you have the Grey Knights version of Corteaz his rules require that all Inquisitorial Henchman Warbands in the army be taken as troops. Inquisitorial Detachments,while part of your army, cannot have troops. If you have "GK Coteaz" he prevents Inquisitorial Detachments containing Inquisitorial Henchman Warbands from being part of the same army.

So it is nothing I will encounter unless I run a detachment from the new book.

Thank you.

henchmen warbands in codex GK,

are not the same unit as henchmen warbands in codex I

they have different options and rules and so on,

so assuming that a rule refers to them both, across codexes, is fallacy.

the two coteaz' also are different units, due to haveing a different profile/rules, and their "make henhmen scoring/troops"

is in direct reference to the henchmen from their particular codex.

also, in C:I the lord of formosa rule is specifically made to only affect the detachment coteaz is in.

Yeah I've looked at that and I agree with easysauce on this. GK coteaz isn't the same and C:I and GK warbands are different units too. I don't think GK Coteaz affects C:I warbands.

 Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
yup, totaly playable. Right now there is an issue if the allied INQ is GK Coteaz but any one else will do.

What issue with Coteaz?

I run an allied Cotez usually, Please enlighten me.

Either does taking Coteaz in a GK (or Inq) detachment affect Inquisitor Henchman squads in the other detachment or whether or not an army can field 2 Inquistor Coteaz (one in a GK detachment and one in the Inq detachment).

Unique models don't stop being unique even in Apoc, so why would you be able to do it in normal 40k?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
yup, totaly playable. Right now there is an issue if the allied INQ is GK Coteaz but any one else will do.

What issue with Coteaz?

I run an allied Cotez usually, Please enlighten me.

Either does taking Coteaz in a GK (or Inq) detachment affect Inquisitor Henchman squads in the other detachment or whether or not an army can field 2 Inquistor Coteaz (one in a GK detachment and one in the Inq detachment).

Unique models don't stop being unique even in Apoc, so why would you be able to do it in normal 40k?

True, however in this case we have two unique units with the exact same name and (apparently) slightly different rules. The question is does Inquisitor Coteaz (GK) = Inquisitor Coteaz (Inq)? If yes (which is most likely how GW will rule it, unless they ignore it until they update the GK codex) then you can only field one of them. If not, you can field two.

I believe this is the 1st time a unique unit has had the same name as another unique unit from a different codex.

Unless you consider the supplement clones, but that's even more of a stretch.

yeah....

GW had to make the two coteazs' distinct, to make how they affect two separate codexes remain distinct and not affect GK,

but they likely didnt realize that they made two coteaz by raw that we can take as well...

so instead of something that clear up the muddy waters that is their alt-v job C:=|=, they will, maybe, one day, after they sell enough coteaz to powergames, right before 7th comes out, make a faq like "can i take both coteaz from coedex GK AND I?" answer: no

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
yup, totaly playable. Right now there is an issue if the allied INQ is GK Coteaz but any one else will do.

What issue with Coteaz?

I run an allied Cotez usually, Please enlighten me.

Either does taking Coteaz in a GK (or Inq) detachment affect Inquisitor Henchman squads in the other detachment or whether or not an army can field 2 Inquistor Coteaz (one in a GK detachment and one in the Inq detachment).

Unique models don't stop being unique even in Apoc, so why would you be able to do it in normal 40k?

And you have a unique from each codex that you are drawing from, that share a model by purchase but are not from the same codex(thus are not the same "model"/"unit" also rules are not identical). In all other supplements you draw the unique unit from the paraent codex and thus can never have 2 of that unit; Inq + GK has 2 different(even if they were identical in every way, which they are not) Inquisitor Coteazs

 DJGietzen wrote:
I believe this is the 1st time a unique unit has had the same name as another unique unit from a different codex.

Now we know how he is able to do that "I've been expecting you" thing.......

Even better, the Warbands in both your Inq: Primary Detachment, and your Inq Detachment will be scoring:
"If you take the Inquisitorial detachment as your primary detachment, then Inquisitorial Henchmen Warbands are scoring units."

What do people think, though, about the word "Alternatively"?

Codex Inq wrote:
If you take Inquisitors as a primary detachment, use the Inquisitorial detachment Force Organisation chart instead of the primary detachment Force Organisation chart. Alternatively, an army may include an Inquisitorial detachment in addition to any other detachments.

It does seem to indicate an either/or situation. Either the units from Codex Inq are your Primary, or they are in a special Inq Detachment.
So you couldn't take both.

no, you most certainly can take both, allies matrix in codex I, specifically has a slot for allying with itself.

so yes, it very much can occupy both primary slot with INQ as we are told we are able too, and the INQ slot OBS is also able to be filled with INQ and it even says you can have the inquisitorial attachment "in addition to any other detachment"

one alternative is INQ as primary, one alternative is INQ as INQ slot, one alternative is INQ as primary, INQ and INQ slot, and so on with INQ INQ + 3rd allies. and so on with all the alternatives available.

the word "alternatively" in no way makes it exclusive here.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
Even better, the Warbands in both your Inq: Primary Detachment, and your Inq Detachment will be scoring:
"If you take the Inquisitorial detachment as your primary detachment, then Inquisitorial Henchmen Warbands are scoring units."

What do people think, though, about the word "Alternatively"?

Codex Inq wrote:
If you take Inquisitors as a primary detachment, use the Inquisitorial detachment Force Organisation chart instead of the primary detachment Force Organisation chart. Alternatively, an army may include an Inquisitorial detachment in addition to any other detachments.

It does seem to indicate an either/or situation. Either the units from Codex Inq are your Primary, or they are in a special Inq Detachment.
So you couldn't take both.

It's a bit vague, because it says "in addition to any other detachments".

"any other detachment" could include an Inq detachment.

But they do say Alternatively.

 DJGietzen wrote:
I believe this is the 1st time a unique unit has had the same name as another unique unit from a different codex.

For reference, no... Between April 2011 and September 2011 there were two sets of rules for Inquisitor Karamazov, one in C: GK and one in the third edition Codex: Witchhunters ^.^

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
Even better, the Warbands in both your Inq: Primary Detachment, and your Inq Detachment will be scoring:
"If you take the Inquisitorial detachment as your primary detachment, then Inquisitorial Henchmen Warbands are scoring units."

What do people think, though, about the word "Alternatively"?

Codex Inq wrote:
If you take Inquisitors as a primary detachment, use the Inquisitorial detachment Force Organisation chart instead of the primary detachment Force Organisation chart. Alternatively, an army may include an Inquisitorial detachment in addition to any other detachments.

It does seem to indicate an either/or situation. Either the units from Codex Inq are your Primary, or they are in a special Inq Detachment.
So you couldn't take both.

Well Alternatively means as another option, so you have the option of doing both. Backed by the allies matrix saying that it can ally with itself within Codex: I.

Alternatively

as another option or possibility.
"alternatively, you may telephone us direct if you wish"
Synoum; on the other hand, as an alternative, or, as another option, as a substitute, as a replacement;

It is another option, but one that is either/or. I read alternatively in this context as in stead of.

 Nem wrote:
Alternatively

as another option or possibility.
"alternatively, you may telephone us direct if you wish"
Synoum; on the other hand, as an alternative, or, as another option, as a substitute, as a replacement;

It is another option, but one that is either/or. I read alternatively in this context as in stead of.

Considering the allies matrix says that it can ally with itself within Codex: I, I would take it to mean 'as another option', instead of 'as a replacement'

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nem wrote:
Alternatively

as another option or possibility.
"alternatively, you may telephone us direct if you wish"
Synoum; on the other hand, as an alternative, or, as another option, as a substitute, as a replacement;

It is another option, but one that is either/or. I read alternatively in this context as in stead of.

Considering the allies matrix says that it can ally with itself within Codex: I, I would take it to mean 'as another option', instead of 'as a replacement'

'As another option is' a replacement, its the whole use of 'Alternatively' You have option A, alternatively option B. Option B is another option, but contextually one where you take Option A or Option B

However, the allies matrix is a little odd, I guess there's no instance of being able to take 2 Inq allied detachments?

Eh, its all to vague the more I think about it. "an army may include an Inquisitorial detachment in addition to any other detachments" could mean that in addition to all your normal detachments you can have an inquisitorial detachment, and it could also mean that in addition to each detachment you could have an inquisitorial detachment. Based on the example the put in the book, and that grammatical the later option is much less correct, I think the intent was the former. If that's the case the only reason you would need to know they are battle brothers with themselves is if you take an primary codex inquisition detachment and a inquisitorial detachment. Its also possible they allies matrix thing was a mistake, but that would be a mistake to include a picture that did not need to be there at all. The use of alternatively means one option is an alternative to the other and alternatives are usually mutually exclusive, but not always.

In summery, there is no clear cut RAW answer, they have created a very murky situation. However there is more evidence to suggest the intent was to allow a single inquisitorial detachment even if your primary detachment was also from this codex.

Or is not an exclusive it can be inclusive or, but alternatively is mutually exclusive only, I don't think It can be inclusive?

 Nem wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nem wrote:
Alternatively

as another option or possibility.
"alternatively, you may telephone us direct if you wish"
Synoum; on the other hand, as an alternative, or, as another option, as a substitute, as a replacement;

It is another option, but one that is either/or. I read alternatively in this context as in stead of.

Considering the allies matrix says that it can ally with itself within Codex: I, I would take it to mean 'as another option', instead of 'as a replacement'

'As another option is' a replacement, its the whole use of 'Alternatively' You have option A, alternatively option B. Option B is another option, but contextually one where you take Option A or Option B

However, the allies matrix is a little odd, I guess there's no instance of being able to take 2 Inq allied detachments?

No, 'As another option' is not a replacement, you have this option A, and 'As another option' you have option b.

it does not say you can not pick both options, since it gives you both options.

We have both options because we know that the allies matrix says that it can ally with itself within Codex: I

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nem wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nem wrote:
Alternatively

as another option or possibility.
"alternatively, you may telephone us direct if you wish"
Synoum; on the other hand, as an alternative, or, as another option, as a substitute, as a replacement;

It is another option, but one that is either/or. I read alternatively in this context as in stead of.

Considering the allies matrix says that it can ally with itself within Codex: I, I would take it to mean 'as another option', instead of 'as a replacement'

'As another option is' a replacement, its the whole use of 'Alternatively' You have option A, alternatively option B. Option B is another option, but contextually one where you take Option A or Option B

However, the allies matrix is a little odd, I guess there's no instance of being able to take 2 Inq allied detachments?

No, 'As another option' is not a replacement, you have this option A, and 'As another option' you have option b.

it does not say you can not pick both options, since it gives you both options.

With a word in the middle which is most commonly exclusive. Which means you can only pick one of the two options Just looking to see if it can be inclusive, the free dictionary at least doesn't think it can

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?rd=1&word=alternative

Particularly note usage, presentation of two options where you choose one, in this case you have no permission to then use both

We have both options because we know that the allies matrix says that it can ally with itself within Codex: I

not a single point from above has been disproven,

using the free dictionary of your choice, is irrelevant, and the actual definition is not as exclusive as you are saying it is, nor would it matter if it was, as one of the "alternatives" is to take INQ as an ally to INQ.



you most certainly can take both, allies matrix in codex I, specifically has a slot for allying with itself.

so yes, it very much can occupy both primary slot with INQ as we are told we are able too, and the INQ slot OBS is also able to be filled with INQ and it even says you can have the inquisitorial attachment "in addition to any other detachment" and lists more then one alternative.

one alternative is INQ as primary, one alternative is INQ as INQ slot, one alternative is INQ as primary, INQ and INQ slot, and so on with INQ INQ + 3rd allies. One of these alternatives is INQ allied with INQ and so on with all the alternatives available.

the word "alternatively" in no way makes it exclusive here.

 DeathReaper wrote:
We have both options because we know that the allies matrix says that it can ally with itself within Codex: I

I think this puts the argument to rest. Compare the Codex Inquisition Ally Matrix (where Inq/Inq is BattleBros) to the BRB (where SM/SM, for example, is blank).