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.

Posted By Inquisitor_Malice on 10/29/2007 8:25 PM
The pathfinder unit is the selection option, not the devilfish.

Actually, the 'selection option' is a 'Pathfinder Team'... which is made up of a unit of Pathfinders and a Devilfish.

Posted By Inquisitor_Malice on 10/29/2007 8:25 PM
Since the devilfish is not a selection option, but the assassin is, they are two completely different cases - what is your correlation?

You really don't expect me to repeat the entire thread, do you?


Where the selection comes from is not particularly relevant. The issue at hand is whether or not a unit from one codex is the same within the rules as a unit with the same name from another codex. That's the correlation. If  "Inquisitor" = "Inquisitor" regardless of codex, then "Pathfinder" = "Pathfinder" regardless of codex. It's that simple.

But if you're having troubles with that, we can just as easily return to the other example that you appear to be ignoring: Armoury selection.

"An inquisitor may be given any equipment allowed from the Daemonhunters armoury"


If "An Inquisitor" means "An Inquistor from any codex" when selecting an Assassin, then surely it has to mean the same thing when presented elsewhere in the book. Giving a WH Inquisitor access to the DH Armoury, yes?

Makes you wonder why they bothered printing two seperate books, and limiting how many allies you could take from them...

This is really dead simple:

I have a rule saying that I need an inquisitor in my army. I happen to have an Inquisitor in the army so i am allowed to have the Assassin.

It seems a bit wonky to take an Elite choice Inquisitor and have it fulfill criteria for another books Model, even though said Model is exactly the same. Its the only instance i can think of that allows something like this to happen.

If you could find some other example in 40k that had the same situation, then we could perhaps have a prior ruling to fall back on. Since you don't we can't. And thus any examples thus far you've brought up thus far hold no weight in this debate.

Posted By strange_eric on 10/29/2007 9:22 PM
And thus any examples thus far you've brought up thus far hold no weight in this debate.

So, I can't provide an example, and the examples I've provided hold no weight...

One of those doesn't seem to belong.


From a purely RAW perspective, I'm more than happy to agree that the WH Inquisitor/DH Assassin is legal.

The purpose of the other examples presented in this thread is merely to illustrate the wonky places that this particular rule takes you... which suggest to me that in this particular situation, RAW isn't the best way to actually play it.

Unless you can actually explain why 'An Inquisitor' means different things in different places in the book, or why 'An Inquisitor' means 'Any Inquisitor' but 'Pathfinders' means 'only Pathfinders from this book' then simply insisting that my examples 'hold no weight' doesn't actually add anything to the discussion.

And once again, the rules only tell you what you CAN do. They only tell you when you can't do something if it contradicts something they've already told you that you could do. There's no rule saying I can't reach across the table and smash your models with a hammer either. Is that legal? By your claims, it is.


And still, you've yet to provide even an iota of proof that you can take a Daemonhunters Assassin by taking a Witch Hunters Inquisitor or vice versa. The rules only provide you permission to take an Assassin from the same codex as your Inquisitor.


No, they are not. Different wargear, different psychic powers, different retinues, different weapon options, different army lists and even different names. They are most definitely NOT the same.

Ghaz, I'm pretty sure you meant to say that the Inq. are different since the Assassins are, in fact, the same.

And maybe I'm missing something, but can you please provide me the page reference that says an Assassin must come from the same codex as the Inq?

On a related note, would you have an issue with a witch hunters player taking a Deamonhunters Inq. and an assassin?

I think that Inquisitor_Malice summed up this thread nicely on Page 3.

Daydream

How about providing a page reference that says it can come from a different codex? That is the question that has been constantly avoided. Unless they can provide a simple passage that allows them to do so, then in spite of all of their 'arguments' then it simply can NOT be done.  You can only do what the rules specifically allow you to do and they do NOT specifically allow you to fill the requirements to field an Assassin by taking an Inquisitor from a different codex.

Posted By Ghaz on 10/29/2007 10:19 PM

The rules only provide you permission to take an Assassin from the same codex as your Inquisitor.

The rules only provide you permission to take an Assassin if their sword is painted the same color as your inquisitor.

Creating your owe rules and inserting your own text is easy.  Meeting letter of the law, which we have done is much more difficult.

Posted By insaniak on 10/29/2007 9:29 PM

From a purely RAW perspective, I'm more than happy to agree that the WH Inquisitor/DH Assassin is legal.

The purpose of the other examples presented in this thread is merely to illustrate the wonky places that this particular rule takes you... which suggest to me that in this particular situation, RAW isn't the best way to actually play it.

I agree with your wonky places example.  However, as I pointed out on page 7 with the wargear example, carrying complete codex separation all the way through can lead to some really bad game mechanics. 

Ok, so let's try to see what we come up with for workable solutions.  I say solutions because I am not sure whether or not we will achieve one untimate solution.

1.  I work on the premise that unit specific wargear and upgrade options are codex specific.  This way it prevents the whole devilfish/pathfinders, inquisitor/wargear-henchmen and a whole slew of other issues.

2.  I work on the premise that unit specific wargear and upgrade rules are not codex specific.  This deviates from the philosophy above, but prevents a whole host of issues with imperial armies (see my wargear exampe on page 7 of this thread).

Note: that I have approached items #1 and #2 from two completely different philosophies (combined codex and separated codex).  I could be wrong, but I believe that the convention for handling these two item is not spelled out in any codex or the main rule book.  This is the same general approach though that I see everyone use.  So players are consistently using two different philosophies.  Thus making the issue at hand not as clearcut.

3.  Now the assassin/inquisitor combination question.  Here's my list of assumptions.

• The unit selection options for assassins and death cult assasins in both the DH/WH books are the same.  Everything in their army listing is exactly the same.  To me that just seems to be a correct fit.  (This uses the combined codex philosophy) 
• The assassin unit states that 0-1 can only be in one army.  I follow this convention when combined with the one listed above.  (This uses the combined codex philosophy).  I use this as a premise to avoid the potential to take two assassins in a WH or DH army and also follows historical precedense in the previous assassin codex.  The completely separated codex philosophy would directly contradict the 0-1 rule (again, assuming that the assassins are the same).
• Historically, assassins were allowed to be in imperial forces without limitations (except the 0-1).  This is just historical precedence that I use in order to make the my overall decision.  I will not use this as an absolute rule to debate because it is just a look at history within the game.
• The elite inquisitor is able to have access to an assassin in a normal DH/WH army.  However, the assassin call center revokes his clearance because the IG/SM army that he is with does not have the 24 hr service agreement contract.  (just a funny, I will not debate the 24 hr service agreement contract).

The final decision on my part was that I believe it is more prohibitive to the game for DH or WH armies to have two assassins in a force.  Sticking to the 0-1 limitation also holds to historical precedence, which leads to the combined codex philosophy.  Therefore, I elected to follow the combined codex approach for this particular selection.

So it all comes down to this.  Do you approach the assassin inquisitor combination from either 1) the combined codex approach or 2) the completely separated codex approach? 

 

Posted By Ghaz on 10/29/2007 11:20 PM

And maybe I'm missing something, but can you please provide me the page reference that says an Assassin must come from the same codex as the Inq?

How about providing a page reference that says it can come from a different codex? That is the question that has been constantly avoided. Unless they can provide a simple passage that allows them to do so, then in spite of all of their 'arguments' then it simply can NOT be done.  You can only do what the rules specifically allow you to do and they do NOT specifically allow you to fill the requirements to field an Assassin by taking an Inquisitor from a different codex.

The issue han't been avoided - It has been stated that permission has clearly been given. You are avoiding the fact that permission has been prima facie granted, and can't actually show what modifies that permission to prevent the assasin being taken.

If I have a rule that says I can move, then I can move where I want except where the rules EXPRESSLY says I cannot, e.g. to within 1" or locked in melee.  As you say the rules are permissive, permission having been given (to move) then needs taking away to stop me doing something in some situation (not within 1" ) .

If I have a rule that says I can have an assasin if I have an inq, then I can have an assasin if I have an inq unless the rules expressly forbid it. Permission has been granted, it is now for you to SHOW what restricts it, at the moment you are making a claim that is not to my knowledge backed up by the rules.

And you should know, since you're the one creating your own rules. I'm not the one who's trying to convince people that a codex ever refers to another codex without specifically saying so. You are the one who's doing that. That would also mean that Eldar Pathfinders must take a Tau Devilfish as well. So which is it? You can't have it both ways.


No it has not. All you have is an assumption that the term "inquisitor" applies to units outside of the codex with no proof whatsoever.


I'm not avoiding anything. It's you who has utterly failed to provide an iota of proof to back your claims.


An Inquisitor from the same codex, not one from a different codex. Once again, unless specifically stated a codex is a standalone set of rules used in conjunction with the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook. I don't see anything that says that the various codices make one big jumble of rules like you're saying. That just is NOT the case.

Posted By Ghaz on 10/30/2007 9:49 AM

The rules only provide you permission to take an Assassin if their sword is painted the same color as your inquisitor.
Creating your owe rules and inserting your own text is easy. Meeting letter of the law, which we have done is much more difficult.

And you should know, since you're the one creating your own rules. I'm not the one who's trying to convince people that a codex ever refers to another codex without specifically saying so. You are the one who's doing that. That would also mean that Eldar Pathfinders must take a Tau Devilfish as well. So which is it? You can't have it both ways.

The issue han't been avoided - It has been stated that permission has clearly been given.

No it has not. All you have is an assumption that the term "inquisitor" applies to units outside of the codex with no proof whatsoever.

You are avoiding the fact that permission has been prima facie granted, and can't actually show what modifies that permission to prevent the assasin being taken.

I'm not avoiding anything. It's you who has utterly failed to provide an iota of proof to back your claims.

If I have a rule that says I can have an assasin if I have an inq, then I can have an assasin if I have an inq unless the rules expressly forbid it. Permission has been granted

An Inquisitor from the same codex, not one from a different codex. Once again, unless specifically stated a codex is a standalone set of rules used in conjunction with the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook. I don't see anything that says that the various codices make one big jumble of rules like you're saying. That just is NOT the case.

One does not provide proof - one provides evidence. Evidence is then considered to determine fact,fiction, truth, proof or whatever else you call it.  Evidence that an assasin can be taken has been provided, it has been fully explained how that evidence provides prima facie permission to take an assasin.

Having provided a theory/evidence it is for you to falsify. However, all you are arguing is that you disagree and want yet more evidence. 

On the balance therefore you can take an assasin in the situation under discussion. Evidence provided for, zero against.

I believe this is what Ghaz and Insaniak are trying to say:

In Codex: Witch Hunters there is a stipulation that in order to select an Assassin you must first select an Inquisitor or an Inquisitor Lord.

Codex: Witch Hunters provides listings for Inquisitors and Inquisitor Lords.

Codex: Daemonhunters also provides listings for Inquisitors and Inquisitor Lords.

If in Codex: Daemonhunters the Inquisitor/Inquisitor Lord had been named Malleus/Malleus Lord we would not have an issue.  The issue arises because Codex: Daemonhunters uses the same name for a unit as a unit in Codex: Witch Hunters.

So the question is, are units who share names across different Codexes the same unit?  There is evidence to suggest the contrary, namely Tau Pathfinders are not the same as Eldar Pathfinders.

So the argument goes:

P1: Both Codex: Tau Empire and Codex: Eldar contain a unit called "Pathfinders".
P2: The "Pathfinders" described in their respective Codexes are not the same unit.
C: You cannot determine equality between units in different Codexes based on their names.

Posted By kadun on 10/30/2007 12:53 PM
I believe this is what Ghaz and Insaniak are trying to say:

In Codex: Witch Hunters there is a stipulation that in order to select an Assassin you must first select an Inquisitor or an Inquisitor Lord.

Codex: Witch Hunters provides listings for Inquisitors and Inquisitor Lords.

Codex: Daemonhunters also provides listings for Inquisitors and Inquisitor Lords.

If in Codex: Daemonhunters the Inquisitor/Inquisitor Lord had been named Malleus/Malleus Lord we would not have an issue.  The issue arises because Codex: Daemonhunters uses the same name for a unit as a unit in Codex: Witch Hunters.

So the question is, are units who share names across different Codexes the same unit?  There is evidence to suggest the contrary, namely Tau Pathfinders are not the same as Eldar Pathfinders.

So the argument goes:

P1: Both Codex: Tau Empire and Codex: Eldar contain a unit called "Pathfinders".
P2: The "Pathfinders" described in their respective Codexes are not the same unit.
C: You cannot determine equality between units in different Codexes based on their names.

But is a Dark Angel still a Space Marine? I view it in that way.

Posted By TragicNut on 10/30/2007 1:20 PM
But is a Dark Angel still a Space Marine? I view it in that way.

Sure, a Dark Angel Model is also a Space Marine Model.

Is a Tactical Squad listed in Codex: Dark Angels the same as a Tactical Squad listed in Codex: Space Marines?  I would say no.

Posted By kadun on 10/30/2007 12:53 PM
I believe this is what Ghaz and Insaniak are trying to say:

In Codex: Witch Hunters there is a stipulation that in order to select an Assassin you must first select an Inquisitor or an Inquisitor Lord.

Codex: Witch Hunters provides listings for Inquisitors and Inquisitor Lords.

Codex: Daemonhunters also provides listings for Inquisitors and Inquisitor Lords.

If in Codex: Daemonhunters the Inquisitor/Inquisitor Lord had been named Malleus/Malleus Lord we would not have an issue.  The issue arises because Codex: Daemonhunters uses the same name for a unit as a unit in Codex: Witch Hunters.

So the question is, are units who share names across different Codexes the same unit?  There is evidence to suggest the contrary, namely Tau Pathfinders are not the same as Eldar Pathfinders.

So the argument goes:

P1: Both Codex: Tau Empire and Codex: Eldar contain a unit called "Pathfinders".
P2: The "Pathfinders" described in their respective Codexes are not the same unit.
C: You cannot equate equality between units in different Codexes based on their names alone.

I'm aware of what they are trying to say. I disagree with Ghaz who claims we need to show permission, but having shown permission he wants more permission, which isn't needed - I only need permission once unless it expressly taken away from me. As I pointed out in another post I don't necessarily disagree with Insaniak who seems to acknowledge there is no RAW to prevent the assasin being taken, but is appealing more to common sense based on situations like the pathfinders. Though If we are appealing to common sense then I would say it is common sense to allow the assasin anyway, as they are clearly the entities under discussion - the imperial inquisition/ecclesiarchy (if using IG priests for WH arcos etc), inquisitors can deploy assasins and you have an inquisitor, priests bring arco/pentitents and you have a priest.

However, Insaniak's point assumes that allowing the assasin in a WH/DH ally force neccesitates making eldar pathfinders take devil fish. I think that is a logical fallacy. As malice pointed out there is a material difference between the 2 sceanrios - in 1 we are required to use multiple codices to form our force through the ally rule. Therefore we clearly have to consider the unit rules we want to pick from other codices other wise how can we pick them. There fore the only interpretation that is being put forward is a unit we are actually taking from a codex we are actually using counts as the precondition for another unit in another codex we actually using. Malice neatly summed it up as having formed a 'super codex' out of 3 codices. At no point does the logic that all rules in all codices in existant apply to any list we are creating. Therefore the pathfinder argument is a fallacy as applied to the assasin argument, whilst the argument could be expanded out to include that, it does not follow that it must.

Posted By puree on 10/30/2007 1:42 PM
I'm aware of what they are trying to say. I disagree with Ghaz who claims we need to show permission, but having shown permission he wants more permission, which isn't needed - I only need permission once unless it expressly taken away from me. As I pointed out in another post I don't necessarily disagree with Insaniak who seems to acknowledge there is no RAW to prevent the assasin being taken, but is appealing more to common sense based on situations like the pathfinders. Though If we are appealing to common sense then I would say it is common sense to allow the assasin anyway, as they are clearly the entities under discussion - the imperial inquisition/ecclesiarchy (if using IG priests for WH arcos etc), inquisitors can deploy assasins and you have an inquisitor, priests bring arco/pentitents and you have a priest.

But Ghaz is saying that you do not have permission to take the Assassin based on the argument that the Inquisitor/Inquisitor Lord mentioned in Codex: Witch Hunters (paraphrasing): "In order to take an Assassin, you must take an Inquisitior or Inquisitor Lord"  does not refer to an Inquisitor or Inquisitor Lord in Codex: Daemonhunters.  This follows from the previous argument that units with the same names in different codexes are not the same units (restated below for clarity):

P1: Both Codex: Tau Empire and Codex: Eldar contain a unit called "Pathfinders".
P2: The "Pathfinders" described in their respective Codexes are not the same unit.
C: You cannot equate equality between units in different Codexes based on their names alone.

Posted By puree on 10/30/2007 1:42 PM
 Though If we are appealing to common sense then I would say it is common sense to allow the assasin anyway, as they are clearly the entities under discussion - the imperial inquisition/ecclesiarchy (if using IG priests for WH arcos etc), inquisitors can deploy assasins and you have an inquisitor, priests bring arco/pentitents and you have a priest.

So you really think it makes sense that the WH Inquisitor should be able to summon an Assassin through the Ordo Malleus when a DH Inquisitor can't... but can in turn summon one through the Ordo Hereticus, when the WH Inquisitor can't?

There's something screwy going on with the chain of command there.

Wow, things are still going in this. I am impressed. I also agree more heartily than ever that a WH inq must take a WH, not a DH assassin. However, Malice has made the best RAW arguments ever. From now on anyone trying to field this list won't be able to use the Tarot with me! RAW rocks when it destroys nast things never intended to be played like that!!

Me: sure use both those elites, oh yeah, that wargear won't work because you are a SM player with allies, not a WH or DH player which the rule book clearly says...

Orion

Posted By insaniak on 10/30/2007 2:59 PM


There's something screwy going on with the chain of command there.

Nope, According to Fluff, the assassins are a seperate organisation from the inquisition.

Any of the Three Ordo's may request an assassin, Therefore there is no (fluff wise)  DH Inquisitor getting a WH Assassin, its just a DH Inquisitor getting an assassin.

Fluff reasons still give NO evidence to prevent a DH Inquisitor getting a (WH..) Assassin.

Am I Right? Still no Deductive proof to Refute this Argument? Not one rule? AT ALL?

Posted By Boss Longgrim on 10/30/2007 8:24 PM
Nope, According to Fluff, the assassins are a seperate organisation from the inquisition.

Not entirely seperate. They're overseen by the Ordo Sicarius

Posted By Boss Longgrim on 10/30/2007 8:24 PM
Any of the Three Ordo's may request an assassin, Therefore there is no (fluff wise)  DH Inquisitor getting a WH Assassin, its just a DH Inquisitor getting an assassin.

I never said they were getting a (fluffwise) WH Assassin. I said they were summoning him through the Ordo Hereticus (ie: taking him from the WH Codex)

Why would a DH Inquisitor be able to get the Ordo Hereticus to bring in an Assassin when his own Ordo won't do so?

Posted By Boss Longgrim on 10/30/2007 8:24 PM
Fluff reasons still give NO evidence to prevent a DH Inquisitor getting a (WH..) Assassin.

I wasn't presenting it as rules evidence. I was presenting it in response to the idea that this crazy organisational loop makes some sort of sense.

Posted By Boss Longgrim on 10/30/2007 8:24 PM
Am I Right? Still no Deductive proof to Refute this Argument? Not one rule? AT ALL?

You mean aside from the entire thread?
I've presented my reasons as to why I don't think it should be allowed, and why the RAW is just too silly to be seriously considered as valid.

And so far, you've not provided either. All you've provided is an assumption and that does not cut it.


And yet again, you've not shown any permission whatsoever. You've not shown where rules can be swapped out between the codices at will. A codex is an individual, self-contained rulebook unless stated otherwise. That's why Codex Eye of Terror and Codex Armageddon both have passages that tells you what codices these lists are used with. Without that explicit mention then those lists would be useless as they would be missing half of their rules. You keep claiming that the rules in one codex can be used in any other codex whenever you want. So far you've provided absolutely nil to back up your claims. No one is trying to say that you don't need an Inquisitor to field an Assassin. What is being said is that the rules in one codex don't have the least influence on another unless explicitly stated so. So stop avoiding the question and answer it. Where does it say that you can use the rules from one completely self-contained rulebook to fill the requirements in another completely self-contained rulebook?

As far as Chain of Command goes, The Assassin's are not Inquisition specific. Like there aren't WH Assassins and DH assassins, there are Assassins, then there is the Ordos Inquisition that orders out to the Officio Assassinorum (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officio_Assassinorum ) So if you need a Fluff justification for what's going on, there you go.

I see the point here, and this is the only valid argument against taking the two Elite slots.
Here's the issue with that though, if we go with the idea that the Codex was designed to only be used by itself in a vacuum then yes I'd agree in an instant.

However, we cannot pretend to understand designer intent on whether or not they wanted a unit to have its requirements fulfilled by another book also designed to work in supplement to other armies. When the Witch hunters Codex was made the possibility of this exact situation was there. So either the designers completely missed it, or it was intended because of the compatibility of the various codices.

Again without an FAQ answer you'll have to judge it on the fly. But with the compatible nature of the Inquisition books I'm inclined to say yes.

Posted By strange_eric on 11/02/2007 1:44 PM
As far as Chain of Command goes, The Assassin's are not Inquisition specific. Like there aren't WH Assassins and DH assassins, there are Assassins, then there is the Ordos Inquisition that orders out to the Officio Assassinorum (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officio_Assassinorum ) So if you need a Fluff justification for what's going on, there you go.

And that fluff is exactly why they should come from the same codex. Why would a request for an assassin from the Witchhunters be filled by an organizational slot from another Ordo?

As for your intent question in your next post, when they did the DH codex, I seem to recall that they stated that they dropped the Elite from two to one so that you would  have to take a Lord to get an assassin.

So, if the codices are completely separate, as Ghaz suggests, surely I could take a WH Inq Lord, a DH Inq Lord, and TWO assassins (one from each codex)?

That's correct.

I think that a lot of the problem arises from the distinction between a Codex and an Army List. Does the "Space Marines + allies" Army List spread from C: SM to C: WH and C: DH, making the three books "one big happy army list?" If so, the assassin entries are simply reprinted in two books for the convenience of the players. I would think that, within the context of 3rd edition's design philosophy (with its Space Wolves Codex and Craftworld Codex, etc.) that an army list can happily span more than one Codex.

On the other hand, is the Space Marine army list completely self-contained, and the allies are some sort of weird exception to how things work. Within the context of 4th edition's design philosophy, an army list which spans more than one Codex is a violation of current design philosophy.

The problem, of course, is that we have all of these 3rd edition codices which have been grandfathered into 4th edition, which makes any changes in design philosophy very slow to institute.

It's muddied further by the fact that the current rules preventing you from taking a DH Inquisitor and a DH Assassin (or likewise for WH) in an allied list were an oversight.

Back when the DH codex was first released, and the fact that the Ally restrictions forced you to take a Lord if you wanted an Assassin was brought up on the GW boards, the response from the studio was essentially 'Oops...'

They had intended to restrict Assassins by requiring you to take an Inquisitor or Lord, but simply overlooked the fact that they had restricted allies to taking a Lord. So they initially ruled that Codex: Assassins would remain valid while they figured out what to do about it.

In the end, they decided that forcing you to take a Lord really wasn't that bad, and so changed the FAQ to kill C: Assassins, and when WH came along they left the Allies rules the same for consistency.

So the RAW isn't what was initially intended, but is what we are expected to use. How this interacts with the 2 seperate codexes really comes down to personal interpretation: Either you can take an Inquisitor from either codex, in which case the DH/WH Assassin/Inquisitor combo is legal, or the rules in one codex apply only to that codex, in which case two assassins (one WH, one DH) is legal.

Okay, sounds like we've pretty thoroughly explored this issue. Clearly it's not as cut-and-dried as I'd originally assumed.