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.

I am trying to remember something and am not at the books:
Does this Rule use the words 'these selections' anywhere within it?

It does not.

'For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot on the Force Organisation chart.'

Thank you, that is what I suspected...
Just getting flashbacks to when I researched this matter, and I do believe this was the one Rule which change my 'Author Intent' conclusions because those words where lacking. If one was to crack open a 6th Edition Rulebook and look at how we selected Units as part of the Army they will encounter these two words used repetitively when describe the act. Still not entirely sure what all these changes mean in the long run, but when each Codex is released with such a Rule it seems further changed from the one's which used to force the Slotless choice....

One thing I noticed in the Dark Eldar codex is that the Black Skull symbol which designates the Battlefield Role on the profile seems to carry with it the nonverbal rule weight that you can buy it straightforwardly as an HQ choice.

col_impact wrote:
One thing I noticed in the Dark Eldar codex is that the Black Skull symbol which designates the Battlefield Role on the profile seems to carry with it the nonverbal rule weight that you can buy it straightforwardly as an HQ choice.

Agreed, although I would call it flat out verbal weight. The BRB tells us the boxes on a detachment's chart have to be filled by the appropriate battlefield role. The section in the codex describing unit entries tells us the icon determines battlefield role. The icon is pretty much the only thing that lets you use a particular unit to fulfill an HQ choice in a detachment. There is nothing implied or nonverbal about it.

From a practical standpoint, I think it would make more sense to have the Retainers rule be a part of the Archon unit entry. It triggers off selecting an Archon and not off selecting a Court of the Archon.

BEGIN NON RULES RELATED RAMBLING

The ideal situation, if the intent is to only allow Courts WITH an Archon, would be to create a Retainers or Bodyguards Battlefield Role. Give the Court of the Archon this role in their unit entry. This would prevent you from taking the Court alone as there isn't a Retainers or Bodyguards box on the force org chart of any current detachment or formation.

Then, give the Archon a special rule like this:

Entourage of Pain: For each Archon in a detachment, add an empty Bodyguards box to the detachment's force org chart.

You would, in effect, only be able to take a Court when an Archon is present. Just some rambling on how I would fix this if the intent is to limit the selections. Current RaW doesn't limit the selection.

Or they could have worded it like the Tyranid's Tyrant Guard, or Tau Crisis Bodyguards or Space Marine Honor Guard. There's a whole host of places where the wording is correct for the same effect, but it's only here that there is an issue.

I mentioned this at the very beginning but I believe they fully meant for the Retainers rule to restrict Courts to with an Archon and I took that understanding away from the codex, but on the first thread like this the end result is clear. It's a poorly written rule that allows Courts as an HQ slot and needs an FAQ that doesn't look to be incoming.