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 take GK Coteaz making all Inquisitorial Henchmen troops choices in my army then take warrior acolytes from C:][?

Note that there are no Troop FOC slots in the supplement

This has probably been answered already, I couldn't find it via searchie

Maybe.


Thats really the best we can do right now. Its impossible to know what the RAI was for this, or if they even thought about what would happen. RAW has absolutely nothing to say on the matter and logically both sides of the argument have very good cases for how they think the two codices will interact.

The 1st argument is that the Lord of Formosa rule will effect all "Inquisitorial Henchmen Warbands" in your army. Both codices have units by that name so this rule should effect both versions of the unit.

The 2nd argument is that rules that rules like Lord of Formosa can only effect the codex they are written in. No other rule like this has been able to effect another codex before and this particular interaction is game breaking.

You'll have to discuss it with your opponent and decide for yourself.

RAW how do I take them as troops in the inquisitorial ally section when theres no troop FOC slots?

This doesn't chance much other than switching up my warlord for better traits/positioning and gives access to the flyer/priests which is actually a bigger deal.

I'd love to see some precedence in a big tournament where a TO allows it. It doesn't really allow for anything too crazy.

The only reason I can't agree with the 2nd outcome listed above is that the rule in the GK book ambiguously states "army" instead of choosing to state "in codex GK..."
GW needs to clean up these discrepancies. The character should be the same in all instances in all current editions that he/she is listed in. Then again this is GW, so there is little hope of that.

 Aijec wrote:
RAW how do I take them as troops in the inquisitorial ally section when theres no troop FOC slots?

This doesn't chance much other than switching up my warlord for better traits/positioning and gives access to the flyer/priests which is actually a bigger deal.

I'd love to see some precedence in a big tournament where a TO allows it. It doesn't really allow for anything too crazy.

If argument one is correct you would not be allowed to take C:Inq warbands with C:GK Coteaz in the army. However the exploitation from argument 1 don't come from Coteaz, but from the warband units themselves. If we assume that these kind of rules can function cross codex then you can get a rediculas number of warbands in a <2000 point game.

If you take a Primary Detachment of C:Inq all warbands in your army are scoring. We know that in a Grey Knights detachment you can take 1 C:GK warband (that does not use a FOC slot) for each inquisitor in your army. You can also take an inqusitorial detachment. If you fill all 5 of the HQ slots in your army you will be able to take 5 C:GK warbands you will also be able to take 3 C:Inq warbands in the primary detachment as well as the inquisitrial detachment and all 11 warbands will be scoring. You just need a 5 man grey knight team (also scoring) to make it all legal. Thats up to 13 scoring units and probably just a little broken.

One the things to keep in mind about codex's like Gray Knights is their age and how some of the terminology has change since moving to sixth edition. One of the ones pointed out a lot is the interaction with allies, something that apparently was lacking form fifth edition and the core of the question you put forth here. When these rules where written, it was not possible to envision the way they might be applied to completely different armies from other codex's so they didn't take that into account. The fact many rules can be brought forth that do just break completely when they are applied to allies, just like war-bands being troops in a detachment without troops, just goes to prove this fact quite nicely.

The thing that makes it all frustrating to me is two simple points:
Game Workshop has used Army to mean a single detachment and all detachments within the same book, sometimes the same paragraph.
While certain rules have been 'Frequently Asked Questioned' one way or another it has not always been in the same way, making it difficult to see intent.

There is no way for us little people to know exactly what the word 'Army' means in any given rule without it being directly answered within some Frequently Asked Question. The rate of this information is being provided to us is very slow at best, making it possible to find many different clashes that have yet to even be addressed. The newer the material in question has been released, the more likely you are to find these unanswered gray areas and the longer you will have to wait till you see anything even hinting at an answer. The problem is compounded as past answers have gone one way or another, with little to no incite provided to how the answer came to it's conclusion.