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.

So, here's the question. The Court of the Archon (DE codex p. 71) has the Retainers rule, which says that for every Archon, you can include a Court which doesn't take up an HQ slot.

So, can you take a Court of the Archon without an actual Archon? Using up an HQ slot as per normal?

Sure, why wouldn't you be able to? Retainers just gives you an EXTRA way of taking the Court.

 Kriswall wrote:
Sure, why wouldn't you be able to? Retainers just gives you an EXTRA way of taking the Court.

In the past, rules of this type have been interpreted to be exclusive (as being the ONLY way to take the unit) and I want to gauge community opinion before I just assume views have reversed since the last time the topic came up.

We aren't playing in the past

The Retainers rule simply gives you a way of taking a Court without taking up an HQ slot. There is nothing in the rules that would prevent you from using the normal method, i.e. simply taking up a slot instead.

You have to read the rules without thinking about how things were done in the past. Lots of things like this changed in 7th edition.

Even in seventh Ed people were interpreting this sort of rule that way. I don't have any skin in this particular game; I don't use Courts. I'm just curious as to what the lay of the land is. Course, if people seem in favor of shenanigans of this nature, I may give it a whirl anyway.

It's not shenanigans. You can take a Court as one of your HQ slots OR you can get one for "free" by taking an Archon. It is possible that GW didn't intend this, but given the current stance of "play with whatever models you want", I think it's more likely they want you to be able to take a Court without the Archon.

I side with Kriswall on this,
There has been quite the change in wording from the previous editions when it comes to Rules of this nature. While it is impossible to tell the true intent of the Author, the fact they are constantly changing these sort of Rules from Codex to Codex seems to indicate they are trying to do something new with it. It could simply be because the entire backbone on which these Rules previously rested has been altered within 7th Edition, but the fact they have made such dramatic changes requires us to forget previous methodology.

I will note that this particular Rule, if I remember right from when we did research it a month or so back, was the most changed from the previous formats....

I fully believe this was an oversight and the Court REQUIRES an Archon. However, no matter what I believe the intent was, the rules are written a certain way even if I think it is by mistake and there is no arguement here. The Court is allowed as an HQ choice because of how the rules are currently written. It's not in bright bold letters, but because of the wording, it's allowed.

If a tournament FAQs the rules on their own, such as BAO and other such places I expect to see the Court require the Archon to be present, but in 'unofficial' and casual games that have that hint of competition, the rules allow it.

Are you going to bring a court without an archon?

Possibly an oversight because of the way the new codexes are formatted, but yeah you can take them without an Archon. The Retainers rule has more open-ended wording than other examples of "slotless" HQ choices.

You might be interested in this thread:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/617875.page

Conclusions were pretty much 50/50, just as they are here.
Some players believe you can simply "skip past" the Retainers Rule as it is an optional rule. You may take a court as a single HQ.
Some players believe the Retainers rule is a compulsory choice between 2 options: slot-less Court with the Archon or not taking the court.

Diagram to help:

GW have been clear on their intent on this matter as 7th is all about freedom. The Retainers rule is an if then statement. If you don't take an Archon then you can't take a slotless Court. However you are clearly allowed to take them as a HQ slot.

I wonder how many of those saying no understand army building in 7th and play 7th Ed (opposed to 6.5 which is played on the Tournament scene).

Some freedom, and if you went Unbound, you may take as many Courts as you wish, but many have advocated that this is not "complete" freedom, including yourself:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Still only 1 swarmlord. Even in unbound Unique still works.

From: Here

Surely "GW have been clear on their intent on this matter as 7th is all about freedom.". Why restrict yourself with "Unique"? Or Command Squads?

Because unique clearly spells out how it works. I don't see the connection. RaW & RaI you can only have 1 of each unique model in your force, so why play it different? RaW & RaI you can have a court take up a HQ slot without purchasing an Archon, so why play it different?

 koooaei wrote:
Are you going to bring a court without an archon?

Sure its two more venoms in a weak slot.

And lets be real guys, this isn't game breakingly awesome.

Currently there is no RAW preventing you from taking the court without an archon.

the retainers rule just makes the court slotless, instead of an HQ slot, if you have an archon.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Because unique clearly spells out how it works. I don't see the connection. RaW & RaI you can only have 1 of each unique model in your force, so why play it different? RaW & RaI you can have a court take up a HQ slot without purchasing an Archon, so why play it different?

The connection was simply to counter your (not too relevant) argument of "7th is all about freedom". It is a blanket statement without real foundations. Otherwise "Unbound" would be as "free" as can be rather than Restricted by "Unique" or "only one per (...)".

Digression.

The point is, "Retainers" is a Rule with a choice between A and B.
A) You may "include a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot in the Force Organisation Chart"
B) You can choose not to "include a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot in the Force Organisation Chart"

In order to be able to make choice A or B, you must first fulfill "For each Archon included in a Detachment,"

Now, most of you decide "I will simply take a Court" and go for choice C) You include a Court of the Archon without making the choice A or B.

By Raw, you have ignored the "Retainers" rule above (and not chosen A or B). Feel free to ignore certain Rules in your Army choice, just admit this is what is being done.
As per the diagram above, if you follow the route on the far left, have you made use of the orange box "retainers Rule"?

So if I shoot a unit without firing all weapons have I broken rules? If I don't scout redeploy my units with Scouts have I broken a rule?

The answer to the above is clearly the same as to the question if I don't choose to use the retainers rule to include a Court of the Archon without taking up a HQ slot have I broken rules.

If I don't take an Archon how can a rule that only apply when I take an Archon apply? Explain please.

 FlingitNow wrote:
So if I shoot a unit without firing all weapons have I broken rules? If I don't scout redeploy my units with Scouts have I broken a rule?

The answer to the above is clearly the same as to the question if I don't choose to use the retainers rule to include a Court of the Archon without taking up a HQ slot have I broken rules.

If I don't take an Archon how can a rule that only apply when I take an Archon apply? Explain please.

You know it is not the same. Any example you may find is a choice to make that you might skip across as irrelevant.

Scout only applies to Units with Scout.
They can choose to A) Redeploy. B) Not Redeploy.
If you pick B, you can just ignore the Scouts Rule.

If you choose not to shoot with a weapon, you can skip the entire Shooting Phase with a Unit that "could".
You have still chosen B) Not to shoot. even if the question never came up.

But in a round about way, you have made clear that you are skipping the "Retainers" rule, just as you would "shoot a unit without firing all weapons" or "don't scout redeploy". Please correct this if i got it wrong. Some of us would argue that you cannot ignore the rule. Why?

All Court of the Archon Units have the "Retainers" Special Rule.
Same as, All Legion of the Dammed Units have the "Aid Unlooked For" Special Rule.
Or Nork Deddog havs the "Heroic Sacrifice" Special Rule.

If you choose not to "include a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot in the Force Organisation Chart" , somehow you can ignore the rule itself?
If you choose not to "may reroll the Scatter dice if you wish.", somehow you can ignore the part where you arrive by Deep Strike?
If you choose not to "immediately make his full complement of Attacks against the unit that killed him", you ignore the rule. So you ignore "He is then removed as a casualty."

Great, so we've got LotD that can choose to not be arriving by Deep Strike, and an Invincible Nork Deddog as long as he chooses not to make attacks back?

You can skip rules you do not use (Scout, shooting, etc) just as you can skip "Retainers" if you don't field a Court of the Archon Unit.
But if you field a Court of the Archon Unit, Nork Deddog, etc on your gaming table, they have a Special Rule which you must follow.

Not following their Special Rule (such as fielding a Court of the Archon Unit without "Retainers") is a choice you have made. Feel free to ignore Special Rules in a game, like "Gets Hot" or others too...

The Retainers rule is essentially saying "If you do A, you have the option of doing B."

A is taking an Archon.
B is taking a slotless Court.

If you aren't doing A, the Retainers rule fails immediately and you are never given the option to take a SLOTLESS Court. Everyone agrees on this.

Nowhere in the Retainers rule is there any wording preventing me from just using the rules in the BRB and taking a Court using the normal 'fills and HQ slot' method. If you believe that wording is present, please point it out.

Your LotD and Nork examples aren't relevant as they aren't giving you an EXTRA way of doing something.

The flowchart from earlier in the thread is a great summary of how this process works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To talk a little more about the LotD example and why it's a bad one...

Aid Unlooked For - "The Legion of the Damned do not benefit from Chapter Tactics and their units cannot be joined by Independent Characters. They always start the game in reserve and always arrive by Deep Strike. When they arrive by Deep Strike, you may re-roll the Scatter dice if you wish."

You aren't given the option. They HAVE TO arrive by Deep Strike.

Compare this to the Deep Strike rule itself. Deep Strike gives you an optional way of deploying a model. Nothing in the Deep Strike rule prevents you from just deploying the models on the field initially or having them walk onto the board from reserves later. The fact that it's optional doesn't mean you're ignoring it if you choose not to use it. Retainers is like Deep Strike. You can add a Court by taking a slot or by taking an Archon and going slotless. Taking a slot doesn't mean you are ignoring the Retainers rule... much like Deep Strike, you just aren't using it.

 Kriswall wrote:
The Retainers rule is essentially saying "If you do A, you have the option of doing B."

A is taking an Archon.
B is taking a slotless Court.

If you aren't doing A, the Retainers rule fails immediately and you are never given the option to take a SLOTLESS Court. Everyone agrees on this.

I agree completely with this, and is the way i see it too. If you aren't doing A, it doesn't real "fail" as much as it simply "is not happening". Just as invoking the Scout Rule with no scouts in your army. It is simply "skipped".

 Kriswall wrote:
Nowhere in the Retainers rule is there any wording preventing me from just using the rules in the BRB and taking a Court using the normal 'fills and HQ slot' method. If you believe that wording is present, please point it out.

And, as per the old thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/613989.page

I completely understand that method. But i personally don't agree with it.

There is no wording to quote apart from "You must follow rules" which i can quote if needed. But the simple explanation: "All Court of the Archon Units have the "Retainers" Special Rule." As i've said previously. There is no wording preventing you from just using the rules in the BRB, but if you field a Court of the Archon on you gaming table, does it "have" the Retainers rule?

We would both agree on "No". It seems you have no issue with this, but IMHO it would be identical to simply saying "i am fielding LotD without the "Aid Unlooked For" Special Rule. Not something i can agree to...

So how are you activating the Retainers rule if I don't have an Archon? What rules are you using to determine the effect of Retainers when an Archon is not taken?

The difference is that there is no rule that states that an Archon must be present. How you would do it or not is irrelevant. The rules simply are not there to force an Archon to be present. The Retainers rule states a very simple if-then scenario but you are reading it and implying that there is also a 'if not-then'. But that is simply not there.

A Techmarine is a better example. 'For each HQ choice chosen, a Techmarine may be chosen that does not take up an HQ slot' (paraphrase). There is no equivalent here regarding the unit being chosen in general. Only the slot-less modification is mentioned.

At the end of the day, you can ask a player to change the written rules like an FAQ, but as written, there is simply no rule to back up the 'it needs an Archon' claim in the Dark Eldar Codex. Any assumptions to the contrary are comparing it to other rules from other codecies. So you can't say 'follow the rules' when the rule you are trying to follow isn't written. It is under the HQ section of the Codex, there is no rule saying it MUST and can ONLY be taken in conjunction with another unit, so the Court is an HQ choice with the option to become slotless is an Archon is present.

Sadly, there is no other argument to be made until it becomes FAQed.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
The Retainers rule is essentially saying "If you do A, you have the option of doing B."

A is taking an Archon.
B is taking a slotless Court.

If you aren't doing A, the Retainers rule fails immediately and you are never given the option to take a SLOTLESS Court. Everyone agrees on this.

I agree completely with this, and is the way i see it too. If you aren't doing A, it doesn't real "fail" as much as it simply "is not happening". Just as invoking the Scout Rule with no scouts in your army. It is simply "skipped".

 Kriswall wrote:
Nowhere in the Retainers rule is there any wording preventing me from just using the rules in the BRB and taking a Court using the normal 'fills and HQ slot' method. If you believe that wording is present, please point it out.

And, as per the old thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/613989.page

I completely understand that method. But i personally don't agree with it.

There is no wording to quote apart from "You must follow rules" which i can quote if needed. But the simple explanation: "All Court of the Archon Units have the "Retainers" Special Rule." As i've said previously. There is no wording preventing you from just using the rules in the BRB, but if you field a Court of the Archon on you gaming table, does it "have" the Retainers rule?

We would both agree on "No". It seems you have no issue with this, but IMHO it would be identical to simply saying "i am fielding LotD without the "Aid Unlooked For" Special Rule. Not something i can agree to...

It would absolutely still have the Retainers rule in much the same way that a unit with Deep Strike that you've chosen to simply deploy on the table still has the Deep Strike rule. Again, Retainers represents an optional, additional way of selecting Courts for your army. You need to demonstrate that it isn't optional. In essence, this happens...

1. While building my list I decide to take a Court of the Archon to fulfill a mandatory HQ slot in a Combined Arms Detachment.
2. I notice they have a rule called "Retainers".
3. I begin to read the rule, and see that it only applies to situation where I'm taking an Archon as an HQ choice.
4. I'm not taking an Archon as an HQ choice, so the "Retainers" rule doesn't apply in this current situation.
5. The Court is added to my list and fills an HQ slot.

Note that I'm not ignoring the rule or choosing not to use a mandatory rule. I read it and it didn't apply.

Now again, GW may have INTENDED for the Court to only be available as an add-on to an Archon. What they ACTUALLY WROTE allows you to select the Court by itself using the standard methods presented in the BRB. Short of an FAQ, we can never know RaI. RaW is more clear.

The BRB grants permission for us to take the Court by itself.
The Codex grants permission for us to take a slotless Court with an Archon.

You need to demonstrate that the permission in the BRB is being revoked. The Retainers rule has no wording that I can see that revokes this permission.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
The difference is that there is no rule that states that an Archon must be present. How you would do it or not is irrelevant. The rules simply are not there to force an Archon to be present. The Retainers rule states a very simple if-then scenario but you are reading it and implying that there is also a 'if not-then'. But that is simply not there.

A Techmarine is a better example. 'For each HQ choice chosen, a Techmarine may be chosen that does not take up an HQ slot' (paraphrase). There is no equivalent here regarding the unit being chosen in general. Only the slot-less modification is mentioned.

At the end of the day, you can ask a player to change the written rules like an FAQ, but as written, there is simply no rule to back up the 'it needs an Archon' claim in the Dark Eldar Codex. Any assumptions to the contrary are comparing it to other rules from other codecies. So you can't say 'follow the rules' when the rule you are trying to follow isn't written. It is under the HQ section of the Codex, there is no rule saying it MUST and can ONLY be taken in conjunction with another unit, so the Court is an HQ choice with the option to become slotless is an Archon is present.

Sadly, there is no other argument to be made until it becomes FAQed.

Honestly, I think the Techmarine example is going to be a problem once they redo Codex: Space Marines and add a Techmarine unit entry with a Retainers equivalent rule. I think this is more a side effect of how the 7th edition unit entries are organized. If GW had really intended for the Court to be an add-on, they could have written this...

Retainers: For each Archon in your army, you may include one Court of the Archon that does not take up an HQ slot. This is the only method by which you can include Courts of the Archon in your army.

 FlingitNow wrote:
So if I shoot a unit without firing all weapons have I broken rules? If I don't scout redeploy my units with Scouts have I broken a rule?

From 'Select a Weapon' in the rules for the Shooting Phase:

A player can choose not to fire with certain models if he prefers.

From the 'Scout' special rule:

After both sides have deployed (including Infiltrators), but before the first player begins his first turn, a unit containing at least one model with this special rule can choose to redeploy.

Both give you specific permissions to either not shoot or not redeploy.

 Ghaz wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
So if I shoot a unit without firing all weapons have I broken rules? If I don't scout redeploy my units with Scouts have I broken a rule?

From 'Select a Weapon' in the rules for the Shooting Phase:

A player can choose not to fire with certain models if he prefers.

From the 'Scout' special rule:

After both sides have deployed (including Infiltrators), but before the first player begins his first turn, a unit containing at least one model with this special rule can choose to redeploy.

Both give you specific permissions to either not shoot or not redeploy.

The BRB gives you specific permission to field a slotted Court. Retainers gives you specific permission to field a slotless Court. This is another example of having specific permission to do something two ways.

 Kriswall wrote:
The BRB gives you specific permission to field a slotted Court. Retainers gives you specific permission to field a slotless Court. This is another example of having specific permission to do something two ways.

If they're different, then 'Basic versus Advanced' comes into play. You need the 'Retainers' rule to say the it's a choice on the player's part.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
The BRB gives you specific permission to field a slotted Court. Retainers gives you specific permission to field a slotless Court. This is another example of having specific permission to do something two ways.

If they're different, then 'Basic versus Advanced' comes into play. You need the 'Retainers' rule to say the it's a choice on the player's part.

Using basic versus advanced doesn't really come into play. Retainers isn't creating a contradiction. It never says you can't take the Court as a normal slotted choice.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
The BRB gives you specific permission to field a slotted Court. Retainers gives you specific permission to field a slotless Court. This is another example of having specific permission to do something two ways.

If they're different, then 'Basic versus Advanced' comes into play. You need the 'Retainers' rule to say the it's a choice on the player's part.

Basic vs Advance only comes into play when there is a conflict. There is none here. Again I ask:

So how are you activating the Retainers rule if I don't have an Archon? What rules are you using to determine the effect of Retainers when an Archon is not taken?