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.

No question about the rules, but armies with no characters make me sad.

 FlingitNow wrote:

But how can you assume this is RaI? Courts and Command Squads have always been RaI to be chosen with a Charatcer. Where did you find this new RaI? 

The very fact that Unbound exists perhaps? GW have made it clear that this is the Edition where you take whatever you want in your army.

If you do indeed play unbound.
When playing Bound and CaDs, i'm quite sure they kept most of their "organisation intentions". Otherwise the "Retainers"/"Master of the Forge" rules would not even exist. They would just have "Can be taken slotless". Why would they need to include the whole "If such and Such HQ is taken"?

 FlingitNow wrote:

As for the Raw, i have debated this for ages: 
- Nothing in the court rules stops you from taking the Court as a HQchoice. Agreed. 
- Nothing in the BrB/Codex allows to ignore a rule, namely "Retainers". 

Both true. The same can be said of dedicated transports which have both permission to be selected as a transport and as a FA slot.

Are you saying a Dedicated Transport also takes up a Fast Attack Slot? Because you make the choice, you can't just "ignore" it?

 FlingitNow wrote:

As you cannot ignore the RaW "Retainers", which is a rule as to how you include a "Court of the Archon" Unit, you cannot include the Unit by the "normal" method of simply choosing the Unit. 

No one is saying you are ignoring it. The normal method can also be used just saying it can't "because. .." is not an argument.

The "normal method" is not making use of the Rule, is it? please explain how "not making use" and "ignoring" are different, or how else you want me to phrase it so that it is understood? Normal method = Not following "Retainers" rule. Not following "Retainers" rule = Not allowed.
I can quote the BRB where it says "rules are meant to be followed" but i'm sure your Experience on YMDC should be enough?

 FlingitNow wrote:

If you include a "Court of the Archon" Unit as a single HQ, have you followed the "Retainers" RaW? 
Answer is NO and conclusion is: You are breaking Rules as Written.

Yes you have followed the RaW on "Retainers"~ "For each Archon you MAY...", cool well I've chosen not to so I have followed that rule of may everything after that is therefore not applicable. Unless you're arguing every option in every unit HAS to be taken and that Dedicated transports can jot be taken as their usual slot if they are also listed as a DT somewhere?

Emphasis mine. If you choose not to field the Unit, how is it on the Table?
Again with DT reference. Does the Archon have a rule stating "Can choose court, +50pts" ?
No, the Court has a rule:
- How to field the Court - "Retainers"
or
- How do i field a Techmarine? Follow the "Master of the Forge" rule.

Choosing "the normal way" and fielding a single Techmarine / single Court means you have Ignored "Retainers" or "Master of the forge" .

Jidmah had a great diagram:

 Jidmah wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:



The Part I colored in Orange is a Rule in your Codex (Mekaniak). You cannot have a Mek in your army (as HQ) without being forced (restriction) to follow the Rule.

When you follow the Red Path you cannot tell me you have followed the Orange rule because it is clear the Red path does not go through the Orange Rule.
When you follow the Green path, and you must follow the Green path, you still have the permission (the choice).

I'm sorry i did not put Green path N*1 and Green path N*2 on the picture, but i hope you can see the 2?
You have the permission and choice (you are not Forced to take the Mek - forced to Deep Strike etc) when you are following the Green selection but doing the Red is Breaking the rules (Because you have not done the Orange rule, you have gone around it)

Where i would like to emphasise this: Because you have not done the Orange rule, you have gone around it

If you do indeed play unbound. 
When playing Bound and CaDs, i'm quite sure they kept most of their "organisation intentions". Otherwise the "Retainers"/"Master of the Forge" rules would not even exist. They would just have "Can be taken slotless". Why would they need to include the whole "If such and SuchHQ is taken"? 

Nope playing with just battleforged armies has hugely more freedom than ever before. As for why they say you need to take an Archon for the Court to be slotless, my guess is that they are the Court of the Archon perhaps? So they only get to be slotless if you take an Archon, because they follow him around. Literally like the rule says? If they didn't want you to take the Court as an HQ slot they would have said so.

The "normal method" is not making use of the Rule, is it? please explain how "not making use" and "ignoring" are different, or how else you want me to phrase it so that it is understood? Normal method = Not following "Retainers" rule. Not following "Retainers" rule = Not allowed. 
I can quote the BRB where it says "rules are meant to be followed" but i'm sure your Experience on YMDC should be enough? 

By your logic everyone has to reroll failed to hit rolls due to the twinlinked rule. I'm not ignoring the rule at all, the rule requires 2 things 1 to have an Archon 2 to make a choice. I am not taking an Archon and not making that choice so the rule does not apply. Just like if I fire a weapon without twinlinked the twinlinked rules don't apply. That doesn't meaning I'm ignoring the twinlinked rule.

Emphasis mine. If you choose not to field the Unit, how is it on the Table? 

Who said I chose not to field the unit? I chose to not field it without it using up a HQ slot as per the retainers rule.

Again with DT reference. Does the Archon have a rule stating "Can choose court, +50pts" ? 
No, the Court has a rule: 
- How to field the Court - "Retainers" 
or 
- How do i field a Techmarine? Follow the "Master of the Forge" rule. 

Is the dedicated transport rule a rule that applies to say a Raider? Where the rule is written is irrelevant except in cases of context. There is no additional context that applies to datasheets in regard to this. So either by your argument:

1) you can not take a Raider as a Fast Attack
2) you can not take a Raider as a DT

Which is it? Given that any rule that states how a unit can be taken automatically over rules the normal process as you are claiming for Retainers...

 FlingitNow wrote:
By your logic everyone has to reroll failed to hit rolls due to the twinlinked rule.

From 'Twin-Linked' in the 7th edition rulebook:

If a shooting weapon has the twin-linked special rule, or is described in a model's wargear entry as twin-linked, it re-rolls all failed To Hit rolls.

By it's own wording, it's no more an optional rule than 'Gets Hot' is an optional rule.

There is absolutely no discussion on that topic to be had in YMDC.

The Codex very clearly allows a "court of the archon" to be taken without "archon", there is no debate there.

As to an RAI argument, we know how useful those are.

 Ghaz wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
By your logic everyone has to reroll failed to hit rolls due to the twinlinked rule.

From 'Twin-Linked' in the 7th edition rulebook:

If a shooting weapon has the twin-linked special rule, or is described in a model's wargear entry as twin-linked, it re-rolls all failed To Hit rolls.

By it's own wording, it's no more an optional rule than 'Gets Hot' is an optional rule.

Really I have NEVER come across any one that rerolled to failed to hit rolls due to twin linked on non-twinlinked weapons. You really play that?

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
By your logic everyone has to reroll failed to hit rolls due to the twinlinked rule.

From 'Twin-Linked' in the 7th edition rulebook:

If a shooting weapon has the twin-linked special rule, or is described in a model's wargear entry as twin-linked, it re-rolls all failed To Hit rolls.

By it's own wording, it's no more an optional rule than 'Gets Hot' is an optional rule.

Really I have NEVER come across any one that rerolled to failed to hit rolls due to twin linked on non-twinlinked weapons. You really play that?

Yeah, that's how you're supposed to do it. Compare to the rules for Master Crafted, which "allow" you to re-roll. The re-roll for TL weapons by contrast is not optional.

morgoth wrote:
There is absolutely no discussion on that topic to be had in YMDC.

The poll results show otherwise.

 DanielBeaver wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
By your logic everyone has to reroll failed to hit rolls due to the twinlinked rule.

From 'Twin-Linked' in the 7th edition rulebook:

If a shooting weapon has the twin-linked special rule, or is described in a model's wargear entry as twin-linked, it re-rolls all failed To Hit rolls.

By it's own wording, it's no more an optional rule than 'Gets Hot' is an optional rule.

Really I have NEVER come across any one that rerolled to failed to hit rolls due to twin linked on non-twinlinked weapons. You really play that?

Yeah, that's how you're supposed to do it. Compare to the rules for Master Crafted, which "allow" you to re-roll. The re-roll for TL weapons by contrast is not optional.

So what's the point of the Prescience power if every one rerolls all to hit rolls anyway? Why is twin linked only list on some weapons if it applies to all like you claim? You really play that every unit in the game rerolls to hit all the time simply because the twin linked rule exists?

That makes about as much sense as claiming you can't have a Court as a normal HQ slot.

Whoever claimed that it applied to all weapons? The rules for twin-linked tell you how to determine who it applies to and if it applies to that model it is not optional.

You did. When I asked if you apply twinlinked to all weapons you claimed that was how it worked. The quotes are right there.

 Ghaz wrote:

morgoth wrote:
There is absolutely no discussion on that topic to be had in YMDC.

The poll results show otherwise.

The poll results show that non-DE players would rather not have the DE pay such a low HQ tax.

YMDC is about rules discussion, RAW only.

RAW is perfectly clear, so there is no discussion on that topic to be had in YMDC.

 FlingitNow wrote:
You did. When I asked if you apply twinlinked to all weapons you claimed that was how it worked. The quotes are right there.

No. You said 'everyone' which is vague. It is 'everyone who has the twin-linked rule'. You're making a strawman argument to claim that you don't have to use a rule you DO have by claiming that an argument to the contrary means that you have to use a rule that you DO NOT have.

morgoth wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

morgoth wrote:
There is absolutely no discussion on that topic to be had in YMDC.

The poll results show otherwise.

The poll results show that non-DE players would rather not have the DE pay such a low HQ tax.

YMDC is about rules discussion, RAW only.

RAW is perfectly clear, so there is no discussion on that topic to be had in YMDC.

And its been shown that the RAW is in debate. Your claims to the contrary don't change that fact.

The strawman you have to deal with is Dedicated Transports. They are Fast Attack choices but also have an option to be taken as dedicated transports if your Method A versus Method B argument is true then those dedicated transport rules over write the rulebook rules about taking FA slots. If not why are you treating that situation differently to the Court?

 FlingitNow wrote:
The strawman you have to deal with is Dedicated Transports. They are Fast Attack choices but also have an option to be taken as dedicated transports if your Method A versus Method B argument is true then those dedicated transport rules over write the rulebook rules about taking FA slots. If not why are you treating that situation differently to the Court?

Then that means you can also take them as Fast Attack choices without any troops, at least until there's a FAQ.

Before being DTs they are vehicles.

I don't see why so many are still stuck in the previous codex when the new one is perfectly clear.


There is no discussion on the RAW whatsoever, the pages mentioned are so transparent there's nothing to discuss.

Then that means you can also take them as Fast Attack choices without any troops, at least until there's a FAQ. 

Well of course you can not sure why you think an FAQ would change that? That is the point being made those claiming that you can only take the Court using the retainers rule must also be claiming that you can only take Raiders using the dedicated transport rule as the two rules work the same (they present an alternate way of getting the unit in your list that is different from just selecting it in your normal detachment role).

 FlingitNow wrote:
By your logic everyone has to reroll failed to hit rolls due to the twinlinked rule. I'm not ignoring the rule at all, the rule requires 2 things 1 to have an Archon 2 to make a choice. I am not taking an Archon and not making that choice so the rule does not apply. Just like if I fire a weapon without twinlinked the twinlinked rules don't apply. That doesn't meaning I'm ignoring the twinlinked rule.

No, that is not at all "by my logic". If one of your models has the "Twin-Linked" rule, you MUST reroll To Hit, there is no choosing "i'll fire my weapon that has TL without TL"
You cannot decide to fire your Bike Boltgun without Twin-Link.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Emphasis mine. If you choose not to field the Unit, how is it on the Table? 

Who said I chose not to field the unit? I chose to not field it without it using up a HQ slot as per the retainers rule.

Then you have not used the "Retainers" rule. Are you allowed to "skip" a rule?

 FlingitNow wrote:

Again with DT reference. Does the Archon have a rule stating "Can choose court, +50pts" ? 
No, the Court has a rule: 
- How to field the Court - "Retainers" 
or 
- How do i field a Techmarine? Follow the "Master of the Forge" rule. 

Is the dedicated transport rule a rule that applies to say a Raider? Where the rule is written is irrelevant except in cases of context. There is no additional context that applies to datasheets in regard to this. So either by your argument:

1) you can not take a Raider as a Fast Attack
2) you can not take a Raider as a DT

Which is it? Given that any rule that states how a unit can be taken automatically over rules the normal process as you are claiming for Retainers...

Show me the Rule on the Raider page that makes taking it as a Dedicated Transport an option.
If you select a DT Raider for a Unit of Grotesques, is it a Fast Attack slot?
Are you limited to 3 DT Raiders?

 FlingitNow wrote:

Then that means you can also take them as Fast Attack choices without any troops, at least until there's a FAQ.

Well of course you can not sure why you think an FAQ would change that? That is the point being made those claiming that you can only take the Court using the retainers rule must also be claiming that you can only take Raiders using the dedicated transport rule as the two rules work the same (they present an alternate way of getting the unit in your list that is different from just selecting it in your normal detachment role).

If the Court Unit was on a Datasheet, on its own, and the Archon had a rule saying: "May take a Court of the Archon as slotless HQ" then i would agree with you.

Unfortunately the Court of the Archon has their own Rule: "Retainers". That rule must be followed. Whether you choose A or B.

So, Rule to be followed:

"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"

Orange - Pre-requisite of the choice.
Green - Choice: Yes/No.
Red - Bonus for said Unit.

I will also include the other examples:

For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet. These selections do not use up Force Organisation slots.

For each HQ choice in your Detachment (not including other Techmarines) you can include a single Techmarine. These do not use up a slot on a Force Organisation chart.

You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot.

Your colour-coding is off.

In the three examples you give, the red text is independent of the orange and green text.

In the 'Retainers rule, everything from 'can include...' should be the same colour.

i.e. it should read "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"

 vipoid wrote:
Your colour-coding is off.

In the three examples you give, the red text is independent of the orange and green text.

In the 'Retainers rule, everything from 'can include...' should be the same colour.

i.e. it should read "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"

If you must insist on that sectioning (which does not take into account the precedence of the other Examples), i still do not see an issue with the Choice.

Your green Section has 2 Choices: A and B.

A - You DO include (...)
B - You DON'T include (...)

Obviously, you must confirm the orange part first. And at no time are you allowed to simply "skip" the rule by choosing B but somehow still fielding the Unit. If it's on the board, A has been selected.

 BlackTalos wrote:

If you must insist on that sectioning (which does not take into account the precedence of the other Examples), i still do not see an issue with the Choice.

Sorry, you're the one ignoring the earlier examples.

In each one, they are phrased such that the red text could be removed without changing the meaning of the first sentence.

With the Court of the Archon, removing the red text would (and does) entirely change its meaning.

 BlackTalos wrote:

Your green Section has 2 Choices: A and B.

A - You DO include (...)
B - You DON'T include (...)

Obviously, you must confirm the orange part first. And at no time are you allowed to simply "skip" the rule by choosing B but somehow still fielding the Unit. If it's on the board, A has been selected.

Except that you can skip the rule entirely by not taking an Archon. In which case, you simply don't qualify to take a Court of the Archon that doesn't take up a HQ slot. So, if you want to take a court, it has to use one of your HQ slots.

If a court of the Archon is on the board, then A has only been selected if the court is not using up a FoC slot.

And by doing so, you have skipped the "Retainers" rule. I will make sure i start skipping rules i don't like either


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:


The Part I colored in Orange is a Rule in your Codex (Mekaniak). You cannot have a Mek in your army (as HQ) without being forced (restriction) to follow the Rule.

When you follow the Red Path you cannot tell me you have followed the Orange rule because it is clear the Red path does not go through the Orange Rule.

Where i would like to emphasise this: Because you have not done the Orange rule, you have gone around it

Just replace "Mek" with "Court of the Archon".

Did you go through the orange Box? Going through the box is following the rule.

If you need a new diagram for the Court i can draft one up?

 BlackTalos wrote:
And by doing so, you have skipped the "Retainers" rule. I will make sure i start skipping rules i don't like either

Yes, I skipped an optional rule, how remiss of me.

 BlackTalos wrote:

Just replace "Mek" with "Court of the Archon".

Did you go through the orange Box? Going through the box is following the rule.

If you need a new diagram for the Court i can draft one up?

The mek diagram is irrelevant because it's based on a entirely different rule.

Do you really see no difference between the two rules?

So i went and provided the new Diagram for you:



I hope i made it clear enough that the "Retainers" Rule is highlighted.

Then you have not used the "Retainers" rule. Are you allowed to "skip" a rule? 

Just like you're skipping the DT rule if your taking a Raider as a FA slot...

in both cases the rule is not being skipped it is not being used because it is not relevant, just like the twin linked rule is "skipped" for non-twin linked weapons.

Show me the Rule on the Raider page that makes taking it as a Dedicated Transport an option. 
If you select a DT Raider for a Unit of Grotesques, is it a Fast Attack slot? 
Are you limited to 3 DT Raiders? 

Why would you be limited to 3 DT Raiders? You're not limited in FA Raiders to 3 why make up random numbers?

No Raiders are not FA slot when selected as DTs.

Why does it make a difference what page the rule is written on? Seriously I am amused by this frankly bizarre claim please justify it with some actual rules.

If the Court Unit was on a Datasheet, on its own, and the Archon had a rule saying: "May take a Court of the Archon as slotless HQ" then i would agree with you. 

Again with this bizarre claim.

So, Rule to be followed: 

"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" 


Orange - Pre-requisite of the choice. 
Green - Choice: Yes/No. 
Red - Bonus for said Unit. 

I just want to ask what part of that rule have I broken when I select a Court as a normal HQ choice.

I haven't selected an Archon, if not selecting an Archon breaks that rule then EVERY DE army has to include an Archon regardless of the court.

I haven't taken a court that doesn't take up a HQ slot so I have not broken that part of the rule either. I have shown permission to take a Court as a HQ, I have shown doing so does not break this rule, therefore you have to show denial of permission. Page and Paragraph or concede.

 vipoid wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
And by doing so, you have skipped the "Retainers" rule. I will make sure i start skipping rules i don't like either

Yes, I skipped an optional rule, how remiss of me.

I know the difference between an Optional Rule and a Rule with Options. You do not seem to.
Warhammer 40k does not have Optional Rules.

So, you've misread the rule and have now based a diagram on that misreading? Good for you.

Something else to bear in mind - let's say I have a list that includes an Archon. I can still choose to include a Court that takes up a HQ slot as normal.

 BlackTalos wrote:

I know the difference between an Optional Rule and a Rule with Options.

Actually, you have demonstrated that you are unaware of what an optional rule is, and that you are incapable of understanding English. otherwise you would not be deliberately misreading sentences and mentally adding full-stops where none exist.

 BlackTalos wrote:

Warhammer 40k does not have Optional Rules.

The word "may" disagrees with you.

Is it me, or is this the "Can I take a Mek without another HQ choice?" all over again?

 Happyjew wrote:
Is it me, or is this the "Can I take a Mek without another HQ choice?" all over again?

Well, a lot of people certainly seem to be reading the rules as being identical, and ignoring any punctuation that proves otherwise.

 FlingitNow wrote:
in both cases the rule is not being skipped it is not being used because it is not relevant, just like the twin linked rule is "skipped" for non-twin linked weapons.

You cannot "not use" a rule if that Unit has that rule.

non-twin linked weapons do not have the Twin-Linked Rule.
Succubus do not have the Retainers Rule.

Twin-Linked weapons have the Twin-Linked Rule. Can you choose not to follow it?
Courts of the Archon Units have the Retainers Rule. Can you choose not to follow it?

Simple answer of Yes or No and the same answer in both Cases.

 FlingitNow wrote:
I have shown doing so does not break this rule, therefore you have to show denial of permission. Page and Paragraph or concede.

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.

Retainers:"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"

Emphasis mine. Where is your "unless stated otherwise"? Where in the Eldar Codex does it say "You may ignore the Retainers rule"?
Page and Paragraph or concede.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
Is it me, or is this the "Can I take a Mek without another HQ choice?" all over again?

And yes, New Codex, but same RaW and RaI. A slight condensing of punctuation is not a game changer here...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:
So, you've misread the rule and have now based a diagram on that misreading? Good for you.

Something else to bear in mind - let's say I have a list that includes an Archon. I can still choose to include a Court that takes up a HQ slot as normal.

 BlackTalos wrote:

I know the difference between an Optional Rule and a Rule with Options.

Actually, you have demonstrated that you are unaware of what an optional rule is, and that you are incapable of understanding English. otherwise you would not be deliberately misreading sentences and mentally adding full-stops where none exist.

 BlackTalos wrote:

Warhammer 40k does not have Optional Rules.

The word "may" disagrees with you.

Please provide an example of an Optional rule. The "Retainers" rule has an option, as i have shown already. Following the rule itself is not an option, it is the definition of Warhammer 40K.

 BlackTalos wrote:

And yes, New Codex, but same RaW and RaI. A slight condensing of punctuation is not a game changer here...

Seriously? Are you genuinely ignorant of grammar, or are you just making things up now?

The use of 'that' instead of a full-stop entirely changes the meaning of the sentence. "That" is a restrictive clause - you cannot remove it without changing the meaning of the sentence. Yet, this is exactly what you're doing.