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.

Can I get a quick confirmation? I'm looking in the Officio Assassinorum Dataslate and it doesn't look like the various Assassins are Unique any longer. I can take multiple Vindicares?

One per assassin detachment.

Yeah, that part is super straightforward.

Let me rephrase.

In the previous Grey Knights Codex, the four cult assassins had the Unique type, so regardless of how many GK Detachments you took, you could only ever have one Vindicare.

Now, it appears that they no longer have the Unique type. So long as I'm willing to take multiple Officio Assassinorum Detachments, I can take multiple Vindicares.

Does this sound correct?

I want to make sure I'm not missing the Unique marker somewhere and that it really has been removed.

They are no longer unique.
Perhaps they FAQ it in the future and maybe they won't.

 Kriswall wrote:
Yeah, that part is super straightforward.

Let me rephrase.

In the previous Grey Knights Codex, the four cult assassins had the Unique type, so regardless of how many GK Detachments you took, you could only ever have one Vindicare.

Now, it appears that they no longer have the Unique type. So long as I'm willing to take multiple Officio Assassinorum Detachments, I can take multiple Vindicares.

Does this sound correct?

I want to make sure I'm not missing the Unique marker somewhere and that it really has been removed.

As I said, you can take one per assassin detachment, which equates to taking as many as you like (or have points for).

Mind you, locally a lot of tournaments restrict you to 2 CAD max (or a more esoteric set of restrictions which equate to the same), so it depends on your local players how many they'll let you take!

There was no reason for them being unique in the previous codex, fluff wise, as there is definitely more than one vindicare in the temple. It was purely "balance" reasons.

Yes, this moniker has gone. Have a (fully bound) 1500 point army composed of 10 vindicare if you wish

Yeah I can guarantee that GW is allowing this for fluffy players who want to have multiple assassins in a big game... of course, they're ignoring the chances to abuse that, but it's not like assassins are amazing anyway.

And deliberately so. They state, very plainly, it is up to the players to AGREE on what will be used. If you have agreed there cannot be any abuse.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
And deliberately so. They state, very plainly, it is up to the players to AGREE on what will be used. If you have agreed there cannot be any abuse.

Well, I'm assuming a default situation where the two players agree to use everything the game has to offer. If we're talking about the game in general, the requirement to agree to things doesn't come into play. That only applies to a specific instance of the game. 99%+ of the time, we're talking about the game in general in this forum. Otherwise, you could add the "players must agree" comment to EVERY thread here. "Can Wolf Lords take two Relics? Well, assuming you've AGREED to use Wolf Lords..."

In other words...

Can you use 3 CADs in a single army list for a games of Warhammer 40k? Absolutely. It is 100% legal and follows all of the rules of 40k army construction to use 3 CADs.

Can you use 3 CADs in a specific set of games at a specific tournament? Maybe or maybe not. It depends on what has been agreed to for that specific event.

This was in response to the "ignoring the chances to abuse..." statement - of course theyre doing so, theyve even written a rule to let them out of any attempts at balancing.

It does allow players to get into 40k with an army that is relatively inexpensive and easy to transport

as for abusable, considering their are knight titan armies, not sure if this is that OTT

I still like believing that that we are forbidden by the Written Rules themselves from discussing 'The Most Important' Rule, and its variants, on forums such as this one:
We are not the current "opponents" at the table, so we don't have permission to evoke the Rule at this time.

JinxDragon wrote:
I still like believing that that we are forbidden by the Written Rules themselves from discussing 'The Most Important' Rule, and its variants, on forums such as this one:
We are not the current "opponents" at the table, so we don't have permission to evoke the Rule at this time.

Well if you consider the tenets to be Written Rules...

 Lorek wrote:
7. Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions.

The first rule of The Most Important Rule. We do not talk about The Most Important Rule.

HappyJew,
Even if it wasn't written in the tenets it still wouldn't be possible to use this Rule as 'Rule Written Evidence' for any Rule based discussion, as only opponents are allowed to evoke it.

From all appearances, it depends on who is agreeing with you or not that it is enforced lol. I think it is supposed to be left out because as we do not have all the personal information and cant speak forall players, we have to stick with the more concrete RAW rules rather than the ones that allow leeway or wiggle room. Then AFTER, you get a consensus, you have background info and different arguements for or against when you discuss it with your locals. It also leaves opinion out of it in order to try to prevent arguments (not that that works of course lol).
I think the original question has been fully answered.
Overall, I would say that it would only be OTT depending on what army you are facing. i feel that the new edition and adding in everything has widened the gap on the rock paper scissors thing and made making a take all comers list more difficult. Is this a bad thing? That depends on who you ask.

With all due respect, why do Dakka people have to bring TMIR into every YMDC thread? Isn't this section dedicated to figuring out what's in the book and little else?

Because humankind (me included) sucks at at admitting that an oppinion is wrong.

 Barrogh wrote:
With all due respect, why do Dakka people have to bring TMIR into every YMDC thread? Isn't this section dedicated to figuring out what's in the book and little else?

Every thread?
This the first time I've seen it mentioned in about 6 months. It's rarely brought up.

 Barrogh wrote:
With all due respect, why do Dakka people have to bring TMIR into every YMDC thread? Isn't this section dedicated to figuring out what's in the book and little else?

Because they dont?

TMIR is rarely mentioned. If the above isnt just hyperbole, then maybe do some research on this - you will be surprised how little TMIR is even mentioned

nosferatu1001 wrote:
TMIR is rarely mentioned. If the above isnt just hyperbole, then maybe do some research on this - you will be surprised how little TMIR is even mentioned

 grendel083 wrote:
Every thread?
This the first time I've seen it mentioned in about 6 months. It's rarely brought up.

Well, it was obviously hyperbole, although I'm hard pressed to remember any thread on whether it's legal to field something or not without TMIR being mentioned quite soon.
Granted, outside of those threads I don't see it much indeed.

Following a quick search:
It has been brought up in four threads this month (out of many).
One thread last month.
One thread the month before that.
2 months with no mention...