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.

Quick question concerning C:Inq and C:GK
(hard to search with Formosa being a regular poster )

I plan on running Coteaz from the GK side with an inquisition detachment containing henchmen
the wording for Lord of Formosa in GK states that henchs are taken as troops in an army that contains Coteaz.
Would that mean i cannot take henchs C:I, im fairly sure it doesn't as i cant really think of any cross codex wording
doesn't "army" count for that particular codex?

3 schools of thought on this, none more "correct" than the the others.

1) GK Coteaz will only affect GK henchman. This is not supported by RAW but almost every one agrees it is RAI.

2) GK Coteaz will convert your INQ henchmen to troops, since you have no troop slots they form an illegal list. While the RAW supports the 1st half, the second half is unconfirmed conjecture.

3) GK Coteaz will convert your INQ henchmen to troops, even though you don't have troop slots they may still be taken. The support for this is that IA2:2E from forge-world makes a Valkyrie assault squadron a legal fast attack choice for codex inquisition even though the detachment has no fast attack slots. Problem with this school of though is there is no way to know how many henchmen squads you would be able to take as troops, but in my opinion if you play this way I would limit the number to 3.


Personally, I play with school of though number 2 because its more interesting. Now question for you. Why do you need to take the GK version of coteaz?

Trying to squeeze in a lot of stuff into the list, and my HQ slot for C:I is filled with radquisitors.

as well rather than another blank inquisitor coteaz brings some additional nice buffs and 2 rolls on divination.

Are there any other instances of cross codex wordings that can set precedence?

Rather the opposite actually. Invariably when something that could ambiguously apply to either just a given detachment from a specific codex, or everything, has been FAQed, it has been in favour of limiting the power or ability to just models from the codex the ability is found in.

Or at least, I cannot recall any specific rules where they allowed the broader interpretation, but half a dozen where the 'applies only to units from the detachment the model is in and/or from the codex' is used.

That said they haven't caught everything, and this one definitely does not have anything which says 'No!' yet.

 Desubot wrote:
Trying to squeeze in a lot of stuff into the list, and my HQ slot for C:I is filled with radquisitors.

as well rather than another blank inquisitor coteaz brings some additional nice buffs and 2 rolls on divination.

Are there any other instances of cross codex wordings that can set precedence?

What does your list look like. Mixing Grey knight and codex inquisition can be tricky.

As it stands it is
main detachment
coteaz with 2 3man acoylte squads, and a vindy

inquistor detachment (xeno grenade inquisitor with 7 acoylte, 2 crusaders, 3 power maul priests in a pysbolt LRC) x 2

SM allies, MOTF 2 ironclads and a tactical squad all in pods.

Im with neorealist though as for sure in the inquistion codex it specifies LoF effects only that particular detachment.

As well i know there was a distinction between "armies" (probably something that effected creed and battle brothers (cant recall))