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.

"An Officio Assassinorum Operative may only be chosen if an Inquisitor or Inquisitor lord is also part of the FORCE"

The FORCE organisation chart is the building block of how to construct an army.

The Devilfish/Pathfinder Analogy is just plain stupid because you cannot have Tau units/models/choices in an Eldar FORCE (as per the rulebook)

All the Imperial armies (that are allowed to take these allies) may take these units as part of their FORCE Organisation chart

If there is an Inquisitor as part of the FORCE you can take a Officio Assassinorum Operative, its really that simple!

P.S. to make sure that you don't take an Inquisitor Lord & both a WH Assassin and a DH Assassin, GW included the rule: "Note that no more than one Officio Assassinorum operative can be used in any force for any reason"

This may prove, (unfortunatly only by implication) that GW intended for us to use the allies rule this way, but still limit us to only one assassin.

Posted By Boss Longgrim on 10/28/2007 5:16 PM

The Devilfish/Pathfinder Analogy is just plain stupid because you cannot have Tau units/models/choices in an Eldar FORCE (as per the rulebook)

The Tau codex disagrees.

Is a Pathfinder from Codex Eldar a 'Pathfinder'?

Clearly he is. The Tau Codex tells us that Pathfinders must take a Devilfish. So, Eldar Pathfinders, by the logic used to take a WH Assassin with a DH Inquisitor, must take a Devilfish.


It's the exact same thing, and therefore must work the same way in both cases.

Posted By Boss Longgrim on 10/28/2007 5:16 PM
This may prove, (unfortunatly only by implication) that GW intended for us to use the allies rule this way, but still limit us to only one assassin.

Ok. While you're telling us GW's intentions, perhaps you could explain why they made it possible to take a WH Assassin with a DH Inquisitor in your Space Marine army, while making it impossible to take a DH Assassin with a DH Inquisitor... which surely would have made much more sense?

Posted By insaniak on 10/28/2007 5:22 PM

The Tau codex disagrees.

Is a Pathfinder from Codex Eldar a 'Pathfinder'?

Clearly he is. The Tau Codex tells us that Pathfinders must take a Devilfish. So, Eldar Pathfinders, by the logic used to take a WH Assassin with a DH Inquisitor, must take a Devilfish.


It's the exact same thing, and therefore must work the same way in both cases.

Good Point, but a Devilfish Troop Carrier (for a Pathfiner Team) is a Tau Fast Attack Choice (even if it doesn't take up a 'slot'), it is in the Tau Empire codex, under the Fast Attack section & it is placed on the board in the Fast Attack section of deployment.

Tau Fast Attack Choices are not allowed in an Eldar Force Organisation Chart (and you will not be able to find a rule that allows you), The rule book disallows your sillyness, while my sillyness is unmolested by the rulebook 
 

Ok. While you're telling us GW's intentions, perhaps you could explain why they made it possible to take a WH Assassin with a DH Inquisitor in your Space Marine army, while making it impossible to take a DH Assassin with a DH Inquisitor... which surely would have made much more sense?

 What does or doesn't make sense to GW is not up to me (or you) to decide, I was just trying to make light of a passage that GW wrote, that adds weight to my argument.

Would it make sense for GW to write a passage of rules that never has, and never will apply?(if we take your rules interpretaions)

 

Posted By Boss Longgrim on 10/28/2007 6:07 PM

Good Point, but a Devilfish Troop Carrier (for a Pathfiner Team) is a Tau Fast Attack Choice

No it's not. There are 4 FA choices for Tau Empire: Pathfinders, Gun Drone Squadrons, Piranha Teams, and Vespid.

Posted By Boss Longgrim on 10/28/2007 6:07 PM
Tau Fast Attack Choices are not allowed in an Eldar Force Organisation Chart

That's correct.
However, the Devilfish is, again, not a FA choice. It is merely a Transport option. And there's a specific rule that says that Pathfinders must take one.

Posted By Boss Longgrim on 10/28/2007 6:07 PM
 What does or doesn't make sense to GW is not up to me (or you) to decide, I was just trying to make light of a passage that GW wrote, that adds weight to my argument.

That was more or less my point. Your explanation as to why they possibly did it this way makes no sense. It therefore doesn't make that much light at all.

Posted By Boss Longgrim on 10/28/2007 6:07 PM  
Would it make sense for GW to write a passage of rules that never has, and never will apply?(if we take your rules interpretaions) 

Pardon?

Posted By insaniak on 10/28/2007 5:22 PM

Posted By Boss Longgrim on 10/28/2007 5:16 PM
This may prove, (unfortunatly only by implication) that GW intended for us to use the allies rule this way, but still limit us to only one assassin.

Ok. While you're telling us GW's intentions, perhaps you could explain why they made it possible to take a WH Assassin with a DH Inquisitor in your Space Marine army, while making it impossible to take a DH Assassin with a DH Inquisitor... which surely would have made much more sense?

It is an assumption that GW created this limit specifically for the DH elite inquisitor and DH assassin combination.  However, the one limit for HQ and elite selections was also imposed on the FA selection.  Based on this, only the game designers can truly answer whether or not the 0-1 HQ, elite and Fast attack limits put in place were for this specific situation.  To assume that the limit of one elite selection was imposed to specifically eliminate the DH elite inq/assasin combination is a self imposed limitation.

 

Posted By Inquisitor_Malice on 10/28/2007 6:21 PM

To assume that the limit of one elite selection was imposed to specifically eliminate the DH elite inq/assasin combination is a self imposed limitation.

I never said it was there specifically for this issue.

But the limitation does prevent the taking of an Assassin and Inquisitor in the same allied force. Does it really make sense to anybody that they would deliberately allow us to get around that limitation by taking a different Inquisitor from a seperate army entirely?

It would be on par with limiting Marines to taking either a Whirlwind or a Vindicator (not both), but then putting out an allied list that lets them take the other one anyway. It removes any point in having the restriction in the first place.

Posted By insaniak on 10/28/2007 6:17 PM

No it's not. There are 4 FA choices for Tau Empire: Pathfinders, Gun Drone Squadrons, Piranha Teams, and Vespid.

40K rule book, Page 78:

"Sometimes a single choice on the Force organisation chart will allow you to select more than one unit"

40K rule book, Page 81:

"In practice, a single choice on the chart may be several units. It might be a squad and their transport vehicle, ... "

YES it is, A Devilfish troop Carrier is one of two units in a Pathfinder Team (a Tau Empire Fast Attack choice).

However, the Devilfish is, again, not a FA choice. It is merely a Transport option. And there's a specific rule that says that Pathfinders must take one.

True, for it being a "Transport Option", FALSE for it not being a Fast Attack Choice.

Please prove me wrong, but a Tau Fast Attack choice cannot be used in an Eldar Force organisation chart.

If anyone can find ANY rule to Refute the Proposition in my original post, please let me know, as I think we are getting Off Topic talking about cross codex sillyness.

(Section 5: Refuting an Argument of the How to have an Intelligent Rules Debate section)

 

Posted By Boss Longgrim on 10/28/2007 6:59 PM

40K rule book, Page 78:

"Sometimes a single choice on the Force organisation chart will allow you to select more than one unit"

Exactly.
The FA choice is a 'Pathfinder Team' which includes a unit of Pathfinders and a Devilfish Transport.

The Devilfish is not a FA choice. It is a unit that you get as a part of a FA choice.
An M&M is not a bag of chocolates. It's just one of the bits that you get when you buy a bag of cholcolates.

Posted By Boss Longgrim on 10/28/2007 6:59 PM
Please prove me wrong, but a Tau Fast Attack choice cannot be used in an Eldar Force organisation chart.

Ordinarily, that would be correct.
However, a specific rule will always over-ride more general rules. So the specific rule that states that Pathfinders must have a Devilfish will over-ride the more general rule restricting army list options to a single codex.

Posted By Boss Longgrim on 10/28/2007 6:59 PM
If anyone can find ANY rule to Refute the Proposition in my original post, please let me know, as I think we are getting Off Topic talking about cross codex sillyness.

That 'cross codex silliness' is exactly the topic. It's what allows the WH Assassin with the DH Inquisitor. The Pathfinder issue is merely an example of the silliness that results from taking a RAW approach to an issue that isn't properly covered by actual rules.

40K rule book, Page 81:

"In practice, a single choice on the chart may be several units. It might be a squad and their transport vehicle, ... "

Unless you can Refute this rule, your entire argument is moot. A Devilfish Transport for a Pathfinder Team is a Tau Empire Fast Attack choice & thus a invalid choice for an Eldar Army.

This Logical Fallacy is the only argument you have for this debate. I suggest that all posters to this forum read the 'How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate' post, pinned to the top of this Forum, esp. the section on The method to Create an Argument.

Repeating your quote won't make it magically mean something different to the first time...

Nor does it make any difference anyway. Where the Devilfish comes from is completely irrelevant.


Here's the actual issue at hand:

Codex DH says that in order to take an Assassin, you must have an Inquisitor.
The argument is that, as it doesn't specify that the Inquisitor and the Assassin have to be a Daemon Hunters Assassin and a Daemonhunters Inquisitor, it's perfectly acceptable to take a Witch Hunters Inquisitor and a Daemon Hunters Assassin.

The Pathfinder issue is an extension of the exact same issue. The Tau Empire Codex says that Pathfinders must take a Devilfish. As it doesn't specify that those Pathfinders are Tau Pathfinders, that would mean that Eldar Pathfinders must take a Devilfish.

You can't have it both ways. Either units with the same name count as the same thing, or they don't.

If they do, Eldar Pathfinders must take a Devilfish.
If they don't, a WH Inquisitor does not give you access to a DH Assassin.


FOC choices don't matter whatsoever to this argument.
Allies rules don't matter whatsoever to this argument.

The sole issue here is whether or not the rules treat a unit from Codex A  as being the same as a unit from Codex B that shares the same name.

It's not the same thing. Unless Tau can ally with Eldar and have the same units WITH THE SAME STATS! It's not even close to the same thing. Why would GW force you to take an HQ Inquisitor? Oh that's right they didn't. All they care about is if you have an Inquisitor. The rules in the DH and WH codexes are quite clear and impose restrictions quite clearly. No one will ever know if they meant "from the same codex" it is just as possible that for once GW meant what they said. And the simple fact of taking Allies is in its self, Codex Crossover.

I Agree that FOC choices is irrelevant, in this issue, but perhaps relevant for the Tau issue.

If there could be only one Ally choice then there would be no issue. Allies rules therefore become relevant as I can take different allies.

Posted By insaniak on 10/28/2007 8:57 PM

FOC choices don't matter whatsoever to this argument.
Allies rules don't matter whatsoever to this argument.

The sole issue here is whether or not the rules treat a unit from Codex A  as being the same as a unit from Codex B that shares the same name.

This is where we differ.  I see the issue as:

Whether or not the rules treat a unit from Codex A  as being the same as a unit from Codex B that shares the same name if there are rules that allow units from multiple codices to be taken in the same force.

This is where the allies rule is extremely important and is yet another point that we disagree on.  Tau/Eldar pathfinder combination breaks down because there is no reference at all to 'mix' or select units from one of the other armies.  The allies rules for the imperial armies allow this selection of forces from multiple books.  That is the dividing line.

As a side note to - I checked both codices and Death Cult assassins fall into the same category. They have the exact same statlines and wording included in their unit specific rules.

Posted By Inquisitor_Malice on 10/28/2007 6:21 PM

Posted By insaniak on 10/28/2007 5:22 PM

Posted By Boss Longgrim on 10/28/2007 5:16 PM
This may prove, (unfortunatly only by implication) that GW intended for us to use the allies rule this way, but still limit us to only one assassin.

Ok. While you're telling us GW's intentions, perhaps you could explain why they made it possible to take a WH Assassin with a DH Inquisitor in your Space Marine army, while making it impossible to take a DH Assassin with a DH Inquisitor... which surely would have made much more sense?

It is an assumption that GW created this limit specifically for the DH elite inquisitor and DH assassin combination.  However, the one limit for HQ and elite selections was also imposed on the FA selection.  Based on this, only the game designers can truly answer whether or not the 0-1 HQ, elite and Fast attack limits put in place were for this specific situation.  To assume that the limit of one elite selection was imposed to specifically eliminate the DH elite inq/assasin combination is a self imposed limitation.

 

Actually, they DID answer that particular question in a Q&A back when the Codex: DH was released (Same one that 'officially' killed the Assassins Codex, IIRC). The limitation was intentional, in fact, the original rules for Codex DH allowed two Elites and it was dropped to one, partially to make you take an Inq Lord if you wanted an assassin. This was all spelled out in the FAQ/Q&A from the studio. I'll have to look through my files at home and see if I still have a copy, but doubtfull as I had a computer die last year and lost a lot of older stuff.

 

Just a side question....

IF you CAN take a DH Inquisitor and a WH assassin....

Does that also mean you take any henchmen or wargear or psychic powers from either list, since the books only say an Inq or Inq Lord can take them, not a WH Inq or a DH Inq Lord etc etc?

If you can do the former, then surely you can do the latter.

If that is true, then DA Commanders can attach Chaplains and Librarians to their Command Squads, since in CSM it says all Space Marine Commanders can do so, and DA's are still Space Marines.

 

1) Allies have absolutely nothing to do with the matter. There is no rule that says you can fulfil the requirements for a unit by fielding an allied unit. None whatsoever.

2) What do stats have to do with anything? Where do the rules say that only Pathfinders with these certain stats can take a Devilfish?

You know, I was previously in the "yes" camp, but this thread has converted me to a firm "no". There is just no way around it that I can see--if you can use a DH Inq to unlock a WH assassin, or vice versa, then you can also take WH wargear on a DH Inq and other more ridiculous things.

I believe it is still possible to argue for a "yes" by RAW, but in doing so you would make the game unplayable, so what's the point?

Actually if you read the DH and WH codices, the Inquisitor Lord and Inquisitor selections state something to the effect of:

In DH - The Inquisitor may select wargear from the Daemonhunters armoury.

In WH - The Inquisitor may select wargear from the witchhunters armoury.

This is not an exact quote since I do not have my books with me, but I know that the specific limits are detailed in each unit. I wasn't going to refute this until I had the exact quotes from the book, but I do not want to see this continued since KeithGatChalian was obviously not reading directly from the books when he made his statement above.

Posted By JohnSmith on 10/29/2007 5:24 AM
It's not the same thing. Unless Tau can ally with Eldar and have the same units WITH THE SAME STATS!

Nope, sorry. Just checked my Tau codex, and it doesn't say that 'Pathfinders with these specific stats must take a Devilfish...'

Just 'Pathfinders'

Yes, Eldar Pathfinders are different to Tau Pathfinders. But they are both Pathfinders.
Just like WH Inquisitors are different to DH Inquisitors. But they are both Inquisitors.

Posted By JohnSmith on 10/29/2007 5:24 AM
Why would GW force you to take an HQ Inquisitor?

Because, as they explained back when they released C: DH, it makes Assassins more of a points sink, and less of a no-brainer option for plugging weaknesses in a given army.

Posted By JohnSmith on 10/29/2007 5:24 AM
No one will ever know if they meant "from the same codex" it is just as possible that for once GW meant what they said.

Of course it's possible. Hence this whole discussion.

Posted By Inquisitor_Malice on 10/29/2007 5:26 AM
This is where we differ.  I see the issue as:

Whether or not the rules treat a unit from Codex A  as being the same as a unit from Codex B that shares the same name if there are rules that allow units from multiple codices to be taken in the same force.

And in the case of Pathfinders, there is such a rule. It's the one that says that Pathfinders must take a Devilfish.

Posted By Inquisitor_Malice on 10/29/2007 5:26 AM
 Tau/Eldar pathfinder combination breaks down because there is no reference at all to 'mix' or select units from one of the other armies.

And again, yes there is: the rule that says that Pathfinders must take a Devilfish.

Without a restriction on which codex this applies to, this is a rule that applies to any Pathfinder unit. A seperate rule to 'mix' armies has no bearing on it whatsoever.

Posted By Inquisitor_Malice on 10/29/2007 5:26 AM
Actually if you read the DH and WH codices, the Inquisitor Lord and Inquisitor selections state something to the effect of:

In DH - The Inquisitor may select wargear from the Daemonhunters armoury.

In WH - The Inquisitor may select wargear from the witchhunters armoury.

They both say "An Inquisitor..."

So yes, the 'same name=same unit' line of reasoning lets us take a WH Inquisitor with DH armoury options.

Posted By Ghaz on 10/29/2007 9:39 AM

It's not the same thing. Unless Tau can ally with Eldar and have the same units WITH THE SAME STATS!

1) Allies have absolutely nothing to do with the matter. There is no rule that says you can fulfil the requirements for a unit by fielding an allied unit. None whatsoever.

There is no rule saying you can't either.

Permission to take assasin has been granted by the rule that says you can take it if you have an inquisitor, If I have one then I can have an assasin, if you think there is a restriction on that then show it.

Um the Assassins in both WH&DH are the same. Nothing changes except the gear for the Inquisitors. It does show you can have Allies from a WH or DH army, as long as you recognize the army limitations.

Having a WH Inquisitor & tossing in that single Elite spot for an Assassin from the DH book (dunno why you'd do this since all the Assassins are the same & you could just take it from the WH book anyway) is justifiable. An Inquisitor is an Inquisitor (regarding the Imperial side of things), its just more proficient in a certain area (killing Daemons or Psykers etc).

I see no abusal, since again, the Assassins are in both books & have the same stats. Just like the Inquisitors, both the same, only differences are the wargear options.

Still not sure why you'd do this though...its all the same in both books barring wargear. However if you take any gear from the WH codex, you are bound to only take options/Powers from the WH book.

Refuting Eldar Pathfinders taking Tau Devilfish Transports -

In Codex: Space Marines I may take a Space Marine Tactical Squad as a Troops Selection.

In Codex: Space Marines under the Heavy Support Choices there is text for a Space Marine Devestator Squad.  In the text describing options for the squad it lists (paraphrasing): "Up to 4 Space Marines may be armed with one of the following weapons ..."

Do the options under Heavy Support -> Devestator Squad allow my Troops -> Tactical Squad Space Marines to take upto 4 heavy/special weapons? 

No.  Those rules apply when selecting a Codex: Space Marine -> Heavy Support -> Devestator Squad.

In Codex: Tau Empire -> Fast Attack -> Pathfinder Teams there exists text that states (paraphrasing): "Pathfinders must take a Devilfish transport."

By the same logic as the Space Marine example above, selecting Codex: Eldar -> Troops -> Rangers (Pathfinders), does not allow me to take a Devilfish transport listed under the Pathfinders section of the Tau codex as I did not make that selection.

If there was a blanket rule in the begining of Codex: Tau Empire that stated "All Pathfinders must take a Devilfish transport" then you would have some grounds for your argument.  As such, Eldar Pathfinders taking Devilfish transports is akin to Space Marine Tactical Squads taking 4 heavy/special weapons.

Re Byteboy, the issue is with Allies.  As a Space Marine Player or an Imperial Guard Player is only allowed one Elite choice from the DH codex and one Elite choice from the WH codex, those players cannot take a WH Elite Inquisitor and a WH Elite Assassin.  Hence the discussion of whether or not it is permissible to take a DH Elite Inquisitor to allow a WH Elite Assassin.

Insaniak -- This is where you and I will completely disagree.  You are for complete separation where I am for interaction within reason.  The complete separation that you site starts to fall apart within the DH and WH codices themselves.  If you go with complete separation, you run into other problems when you drill down to the wargear level.  For example.

1.  The Emperor's Tarot - This is an extremely common wargear item that is taken in many SM or IG forces.  However, in the rules for the emperor's tarot, it states that "the Daemonhunters player get +1 on the dice roll to ascertain who goes first."  Well - the player is not technically a daemon hunters players.  He is a space marine player with daemonhunters allies.  Therefore, the Emperor's tarot would not work. 

2.  Ungents of Warding - This gives the daeomonhunter and his unit he is with with a 4+ save.  If everything is codex specific, then even wargear can only work on units from that specific codex.  Therefore, for example a SM terminator unit joined with an elite inquisitor that possesses this item, would not receive the save. 

3.  Null Rod - No psychic powers whatsoever may affect the character with this item or the squad he has joined, regardless of source.  Again, it would not work if the elite inquisitor was joined to the SM terminator unit because codices can not interact at all.  If codices can not interact, then wargear cannot interact with units from a different book.

4.  Searchlights - They allow one enemy unit spotted by the vehicle to be fired at by any other friendly units that are in range.  So are friendly units only IG if the searchlight is from the IG codex?  Are friendly units only DH if the searchlight is selected from the DH codex?  By your standards yes.  Have fun tracking that in a game, especially if you have searchlights from all three SM/IG, DH and WH.

5.  Priests - Oh, such a great example.  Priests from the WH can join inducted guard units.  Well, since the IG are from a separate codex, the priest keeps his righteous fury, but the IG can still fire as normal. 

6.  Independent Characters from the WH, DH, SM, or IG books - They can not lead a squads of different forces.  No leadership bonuses for attached ICs.

7.  Inquisitorial Mandate - All friendly models within 2D6" receive a +1 Attack bonus.  So the IG or SM are not friendly units now because of complete separation.  Well, if they are not friendly, then they must be enemy units.  You better start taking target priority checks and fire at the IG or SM if you fail your leadership test.   

Absolutes are fine, but we have to determine which is more acceptable from a game play standpoint.  In this scenario, I would take my search lights working consistantly across my entire force than have specific limits on which units in my force can use which search lights/other wargear. 

For game balance - I work on the premise that unit specific wargear and options are codex specific, where unit selection requirements such as the assassin and death cult assassins follow the RAW approach indicated within the Important Note text to the assassins entry since it says Force because Force is all encompassing.  This alleviates the issues with the pathfinders/devilfish, the issues with wargear from other codices and eliminates the issues noted above with complete separation.  I also take 'friendly units' in any wargear option as 'Other units within the Force' that you selected.  Again, all encompasing and eliminating a ton of issues.   

Kadun: Ahh, I read the OP's post as this person starting off with either a DH or WH army & adding the two selections. If this is concerning a SM or IG army, trying to add in both Inquisitorial Elite units, then it would not be able to since you can only ever take 1 Elite Ally period for the whole force, regardless of how many books you use.Zero to one is still zero to one, regardless of which book it comes from.

I was under the impression this whole post was about a DH army using WH Allies....not about an IG or SM army taking major advantage from 2 other books. Just suck it up, toss in an Inq Lord from the DH or WH book, then your choice of Assassin (from the same corresponding book as the Inquisitor Lord). You then use up your 0-1 HQ & 0-1 Elite allotments for Allies.

Posted By kadun on 10/29/2007 3:35 PM
As such, Eldar Pathfinders taking Devilfish transports is akin to Space Marine Tactical Squads taking 4 heavy/special weapons.

...or a WH Inquisitor counting as a DH Inquisitor for the purposes of taking a DH Assassin...


That's been my point all along: It has to work the same in every situation. Either the unit from one codex counts for rules purposes as the unit with the same name from the other, or it doesn't.

Posted By insaniak on 10/29/2007 4:12 PM

Posted By kadun on 10/29/2007 3:35 PM
As such, Eldar Pathfinders taking Devilfish transports is akin to Space Marine Tactical Squads taking 4 heavy/special weapons.

...or a WH Inquisitor counting as a DH Inquisitor for the purposes of taking a DH Assassin...


That's been my point all along: It has to work the same in every situation. Either the unit from one codex counts for rules purposes as the unit with the same name from the other, or it doesn't.

Actually I guess I was not clear in my point.  My point was that the Pathfinder -> Devilfish argument is not the same as the Inquisitor -> Assassin argument and you could not refute one by refuting the other.

Byteboy: The Witch Hunters codex specifically allows you take 0-1 HQ, Elite, and Fast Attack, and 0-2 Troops Witch Hunters units as allies.  The Daemonhunters codex specifically allows you to take 0-1 HQ, Elite, and Fast Attack, and 0-2 Daemonhunters units as allies.

I personally believe by RAW you can indeed take an Elite WH Inquisitor to enable an Elite DH Assassin, though I would not construct my army in that manner.   I would also, however, not object to someone else playing that way against me.

Posted By kadun on 10/29/2007 5:01 PM
Actually I guess I was not clear in my point. 

No, you were perfectly clear. But what you posted proved my point better than it proved yours.

Posted By insaniak on 10/29/2007 6:05 PM

Posted By kadun on 10/29/2007 5:01 PM
Actually I guess I was not clear in my point. 

No, you were perfectly clear. But what you posted proved my point better than it proved yours.

At least that's what you lead yourself to believe.

Unit selection options are not the same as unit equipment options, which are not the same as wargear mechanics.  The area that we are assessing with the assassin/inquisitor combination is a unit selection option.    The area that you are trying to compare it to is a unit equipment option.  Just as kadun said above ---

"the Pathfinder -> Devilfish argument is not the same as the Inquisitor -> Assassin argument and you could not refute one by refuting the other."

Hello Apple, my name is Orange.

Posted By Inquisitor_Malice on 10/29/2007 8:09 PM
The area that we are assessing with the assassin/inquisitor combination is a unit selection option.    The area that you are trying to compare it to is a unit equipment option.

The Devilfish is a unit.
If adding one to your army isn't 'unit selection' then just what is it, exactly?

Posted By Inquisitor_Malice on 10/29/2007 8:09 PM
"the Pathfinder -> Devilfish argument is not the same as the Inquisitor -> Assassin argument

...because...?

Posted By insaniak on 10/29/2007 8:15 PM

Posted By Inquisitor_Malice on 10/29/2007 8:09 PM
The area that we are assessing with the assassin/inquisitor combination is a unit selection option.    The area that you are trying to compare it to is a unit equipment option.

The Devilfish is a unit.
If adding one to your army isn't 'unit selection' then just what is it, exactly?

Posted By Inquisitor_Malice on 10/29/2007 8:09 PM
"the Pathfinder -> Devilfish argument is not the same as the Inquisitor -> Assassin argument

...because...?

The devilfish is a mandatory upgrade to the pathfinder unit.  The pathfinder unit is the selection option, not the devilfish.  The assassin is the selection option and we are discussing selection options.  Since the devilfish is not a selection option, but the assassin is, they are two completely different cases - what is your correlation?