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.

The new DE Court of the Archon is listed in the HQ section. Is says that if you include an Archon, the court does not take up an HQ slot.

The question is, if you do not have an Archon, can you take a court? That would take up an HQ slot.

While I look into the wording of this one, I will remind people of this thread on the front page:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/613989.page

The exact text is

"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"

this on the page with the HQ symbol, in between the Archon and Succubus pages

This is an issue that needs an FAQ. It is highly probable that this is intended to work the same way a Chapter Master's Honour Guard has worked in past editions. Unfortunately, while we're given an explicit permission to take a Court of the Archon as a slotless choice in the presence of an Archon, there is no wording preventing us from taking a Court of the Archon as a normal, slot occupying choice.

The real poll question should be... "Does the Court of the Archon slotless choice represent an EXTRA way to field the unit or the ONLY way?"

So the matter got a hell of a lot more cloudy for me, to begin the story please review the 7 pages on the other thread....

The other Rules of this nature have a break between the 'Does not take up a Slot' clause and the 'Can Include' clause, while this Rule does not, and I want to know what that means. The removal of the full stop and the inclusion of words to join these two clauses together is a deliberate change to the 'cut and paste' format they used in previous Rules. Given that very way we select Armies has been tweaked, and possible changes to the use of 'these selections,' made it debatable that these options could be taken in the first place we can't be quick to say for sure. This following change is even more of a steps away from that, so it is something that would need more debate then just 'no - because it was that way in previous editions.'

JinxDragon wrote:
So the matter got a hell of a lot more cloudy for me, to begin the story please review the 7 pages on the other thread....

went through it and while they deal with the same idea. The Orky one comes via a dataslate not the codex right. My take would be that Dataslates require specific permission to be included somewhere. Also the wording is completely different.

 Exergy wrote:
The exact text is
"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"
this on the page with the HQ symbol, in between the Archon and Succubus pages

Page 68 shows what that little logo means. It tells us that it's battlefield role is HQ.
I can't find a reason why you cannot take it as an HQ choice, taking up a slot.
Comparing it to other rule books with different wording is a false analogy.

There's a clear restriction on Archon saying that you can bring a court IF there's an Archon.

Let's see in the GK codex (already in 7th):

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

The only difference is 'you' instead of 'the detachment' (what matters nilch to the thread). It's pretty clear you can't field a court nor a techmarine without their prerequisite to be fielded.

 Vector Strike wrote:
There's a clear restriction on Archon saying that you can bring a court IF there's an Archon.

Let's see in the GK codex (already in 7th):

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

There is a difference that matters though. With the techmarine, the part about it being slotless is in a second sentence. Thus it could be implied that both statements are seperate but always true. In the new DE dex it is all in one line, "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" perhaps implying that those are only true when they are together.

The main rulebook says you may add a unit to your army following Process A.

The specific unit entry for the unit in question says that you can add the unit to your army following Process B, without mentioning that this process is optional.

Process A and Process B are not the same. They contradict each other.

You look in the main rulebook under the heading 'Basic versus Advanced':

Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules.

Process A is overridden (made null and void) by Process B. Process A is no longer an option.

 Vector Strike wrote:
There's a clear restriction on Archon saying that you can bring a court IF there's an Archon.

Please quote the restriction. You know, the actual rule. Because how it's written, it isn't a restriction, but actually a bonus.
You have a condition (must have Archon) and effect (1 unit doesn't take up an HQ slot).

Ghaz,
Explain the contradiction a little better because past arguments on this subject include:
1) Can / May being synonymous, granting access to the option to select one or the other
2) Triggers making it impossible for the Rule to be evoked unless the condition is met to begin with
3) Both as Permissions, preventing a conflict from occurring due to lack of instruction to Restrict A

For those of us who do not play DE, are there any restrictions on selecting Court of the Archon listed under the its codex entry? Or is the quote you gave above all there is?

 Ghaz wrote:
The main rulebook says you may add a unit to your army following Process A.

The specific unit entry for the unit in question says that you can add the unit to your army following Process B, without mentioning that this process is optional.

Process A and Process B are not the same. They contradict each other.

You look in the main rulebook under the heading 'Basic versus Advanced':

Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules.

Process A is overridden (made null and void) by Process B. Process A is no longer an option.

Lol. Process A and Process B are not mutually exclusive and they don't actually contradict each other. This isn't a Basic versus Advanced issue.

The fact that I can take a Court of the Archon as a slotless HQ choice when selecting an Archon for my army doesn't necessarily mean I can't take a Court of the Archon as a normal "slotted" HQ choice.

This is an additional permission with no restrictions on the standard method. I have yet to see a single rules quote indicating that the standard method can't be used.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 madric wrote:
For those of us who do not play DE, are there any restrictions on selecting Court of the Archon listed under the its codex entry? Or is the quote you gave above all there is?

The quote above is all there is. There is no restriction mentioned anywhere.

Unless Process A and Process B are identical then they do contradict, and they are mutually exclusive because Process B is never noted as being optional.

 Ghaz wrote:
Unless Process A and Process B are identical then they do contradict, and they are mutually exclusive because Process B is never noted as being optional.

I don't see that Process B is noted as NOT being optional.

I literally have two statements. Both are permissive.

Paraphrasing...
1. You can take a Court of the Archon. It takes up an HQ slot. (Main Rulebook)
2. For each Archon, you can take a Court of the Archon. It doesn't take up an HQ slot. (Codex: Dark Eldar)

It really, really, really looks like I have two options on how to take a Court of the Archon.

I see no difference between this and the following.

1. You may purchase up to two pieces of fruit.
2. For each orange you purchase, you can purchase an apple which does not count towards your two fruit limit.

I don't see a reason I can't buy an apple that DOES count towards my two fruit limit anymore than I see a reason why I can't take a Court of the Archon that DOES count towards my 2HQ limit (or whatever depending on Detachment).

Where does Process B say that it IS optional? If it doesn't, then it's not. And since Process B is different from Process A it is contradictory and as an advanced rule Process B overrides Process A.

Process A no longer exists in light of Process B. It is rendered null and void. That is what override means.

Compare and contrast:

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

The word "that" is used. The underlined is restrictive - it is restricting the situations in which a Court of the Archon does not take up a slot in the Force Organisation Chart.

For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon, which does not take up a slot in the Force Organisation Chart

The unlined section is a nonrestrictive clause. This means that it can be removed without affecting the meaning of the sentence. The clause provides more information about the Court of the Archon - that it doesn't take up a slot in the Force Organisation Chart.


We can see it a bit clearer when we reorganise the sentence (without changing its meaning).

The Detachment can include one Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot in the Force Organisation Chart for each Archon included in a Detachment

Vs

The Detachment can include one Court of the Archon, which does not take up a slot in the Force Organisation Chart, for each Archon included in a Detachment

In the first (using "that"): For each Archon, one Court of the Archon does not take up a slot.
(The rest of the courts that you take (using the normal rules for picking an army) will take up a FOC slot).
In the second (using "which"): You can have one Court of the Archon per Archon. This Court of the Archon doesn't take up a slot.

Exergy quoted the passage used in the codex. It uses "that", not "which". Therefore, the rules as written, read literally, mean that you are allowed to take a court of the archon without an archon. These courts will use up a FOC slot.

... Mind you, all of this is hinging on the assumption that not only do the writers know the difference between "that" and "which", but that they also use them properly. Unlikely, based on GW's track record with rules. I can tell you what the rules mean as written, strictly speaking, but that can be entirely divorced from both the Rules as Intended and How I Would Play It. How I Would Play It would be that the court can't be taken without the archon - it's the archon's court, after all, and shouldn't be found without the archon unless the player has a good narrative reason. Also, the opponent's consent should be required.

 Vector Strike wrote:
There's a clear restriction on Archon saying that you can bring a court IF there's an Archon.

Actually, no. The restriction restricts the number of courts that don't take up a FOC slot, not the number of courts that you can take. Furthermore, we can hardly say that it's "clear" when there's a thread arguing about it

 Vector Strike wrote:
Let's see in the GK codex (already in 7th):

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

The only difference is 'you' instead of 'the detachment' (what matters nilch to the thread).

No.
"For each HQ choice in your Detachment (not including other Techmarines) you can include a Techmarine. These do not use up a slot on a Force Organisation chart."
Compared to:
"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"
The underlined section is a restrictive clause. It cannot be taken out of the sentence without changing the meaning of the sentence. It's not a difference of just the word "you"!

If the Dark Eldar codex said:
"For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon, which does not take up a slot in the Force Organisation Chart" then yes, we could take the clause out of the sentence (because it's non-restrictive). We are left with two sentences.
"For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon. These do not take up a slot in the Force Organisation Chart."
"For each HQ choice in your Detachment (not including other Techmarines) you can include a Techmarine. These do not use up a slot on a Force Organisation chart."
So.. if the Dark Eldar codex has used the word "which" instead of "that", then yes, the only difference between the techmarine rules and the court rules "is 'you' instead of 'the detachment' (what matters nilch to the thread)". However, the Dark Eldar Codex uses the word "that".



TL;DR: Based on a (very) strict and (very) literal reading of the rules, you can field a Court of the Archon without an archon. I think that it's a silly rule - I wouldn't play it as that, and I really don't know if it was intended as that. Indeed, I hope that it wasn't intended as that.

Yes.

The Court is now a normal HQ choice and can be taken like any other.

The rule simply lets you field a court that doesn't take up a HQ slot if you also take an Archon.

The RaW is clear and the intent backs that up. This edition is all about freedom and allowing you to include what you want. If you want to add the Court models to your collection and use them in game with out an Archon sure. That appears to be GWs intent with this edition, if you want to have something in your army then you can. The rules exist to give you excuses to buy more models not to restrict what models you buy. It's almost as if GW are trying to sell models...

Look at the beast pack for further evidence of this, before you had to include beastmasters to include the beasts now you don't. You just want a unit that is 50/50 mix of Claw Fiends and Razorwing Flocks go ahead.

I'm choosing to believe they wrote:

"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)"

But their printer didn't have a bracket font installed, so it didn't end up in the final copy.

wtnind wrote:
I'm choosing to believe they wrote:

"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)"

But their printer didn't have a bracket font installed, so it didn't end up in the final copy.

I'm cool with that as long as you are cool with your DE opponent choosing to believe that their models are intended to be 9s across the board for stats but that the printer didn't have a 9 font installed so printed a series of random numbers instead.

 FlingitNow wrote:
The RaW is clear and the intent backs that up. This edition is all about freedom and allowing you to include what you want. If you want to add the Court models to your collection and use them in game with out an Archon sure. That appears to be GWs intent with this edition, if you want to have something in your army then you can. The rules exist to give you excuses to buy more models not to restrict what models you buy. It's almost as if GW are trying to sell models...

Look at the beast pack for further evidence of this, before you had to include beastmasters to include the beasts now you don't. You just want a unit that is 50/50 mix of Claw Fiends and Razorwing Flocks go ahead.

This. Very much this.

GW has made it perfectly legal to take an army composed of nothing by Drop Pods. Nothing IN the Drop Pods mind you... just Drop Pods. Is it so unthinkable that you would be able to take a Court of the Archon without having the Archon present? The clear and often stated intention of Games Workshop at this point is to allow you to build an army with whatever you feel like.

This is very simple.

I See I need 1 HQ, I look in the codex and choose Court for the HQ slot.

Done.

Wording on the Archon's entry just allows me to take the court without using up a HQ slot if I have an Archon

Soooooo

Would you be battleforeged by selecting 2 units of DE warriors and 12 urghuls as an Hq choice? Who would be your warlord?

buckero0 wrote:
Soooooo

Would you be battleforeged by selecting 2 units of DE warriors and 12 urghuls as an Hq choice? Who would be your warlord?

If the Court can be taken as an HQ slot, without an Archon, then yes, it would be battle-forged, and your Warlord would be chosen as per the rules for when you have no characters in your army.

 Happyjew wrote:


If the Court can be taken as an HQ slot, without an Archon, then yes, it would be battle-forged, and your Warlord would be chosen as per the rules for when you have no characters in your army.

When you take into account the changes to warlord and army construction (including how dedicated transports have been turned into fast attack slots), it makes me think that RAI the court can be your only HQ if you want. There seems to be just a general move towards more flexible army list construction.

RAW seem pretty clear: the Retainers rule is worded in a way that the archon merely enables them to be slotless, rather than being a requirement that you take an archon.

DanielBeaver,
Indeed, that is what made me pause the most.

If you flick through 6th edition you will see them repetitively refer to 'these selections' in reference to a Unit that was just purchased to fill a Battle Filed role. Within 7th Edition this wording has further been stripped and changed, and given Game Workshop's tendency to copy and paste the changes themselves are indication of intent. Each Rule released allowing a HQ slot to be 'slot-less' in some fashion is undergoing further re-writes and this latest one doesn't even relate to it being selected at all. The very fact it is not copy and pasted has me curious to no end....

buckero0 wrote:
Soooooo

Would you be battleforeged by selecting 2 units of DE warriors and 12 urghuls as an Hq choice? Who would be your warlord?

A sergeant in one of the Warrior squads?

I think this is a RAI question.

is the intent of "For each archon in the detachment, the detachment can include a court that does not take up a slot on the force org chart"

that this is a standard option but if you take an archon it does not take up a force org slot.

or

for each archon you take you can include a court and it doesn't take up a slot in the force org chart.

I believe it is the second one.

for each archon you take, you can take a court and it doesn't use a force org slot.

my RAI arugement is "retainers" is a restriction in that you have to have an archon before you can take them, as they are retainers for the archon ie "court of the archon" not "some guys the archon sent, so I can have a 10pt lhamean as the requried hq hide in reserves"

However RAW it isn't clear if the archon allows them to be slotless, or the archon is required to be taken in a detachment so they can be taken and they are also slotless.