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.

You added the word "only" when talking about the herald entry. If it said "only" anywhere in that statement, we wouldn't be talking about this. It does not.

It doesn't restrict your normal access to units listed in the hq section, its an additional rule that only affects primary detachments.

 BarBoBot wrote:
You added the word "only" when talking about the herald entry.

I paraphrased using the word only when talking about Ghosts, also, yet I don't see you disagreeing with that paraphrase.

You need to be consistent and make that claim that Ghost Knights can be taken--in any type of detachment or army--when there is no Mordrak in the list. And when you make that claim, everyone will disagree with you.
So please, either say that you can take Ghosts without taking Mordrak, or prove why you CANNOT take Ghosts without their leader.

The 0-4 rule gives you permission for the option to take those 4 heralds in a single slot.

That doesn't replace your permission to take heralds in other FOC slots in any other detachments. In order to do that it has to specifically say so. Without that explicit statement there is no contradiction to deny taking heralds in other detachments.

I made no mention of ghosts because I don't have the codex to see the actual rules.

From what you post however, it seems that there is a prerequisite of having mordrak to unlock the ghosts.

I don't see any relevance whatsoever if thats the case. I see no such prerequisite for heralds. Only an additional rule that applies to primary detachments.

I don't think this is a correct reading of the rule because it would make it impossible to field the Masque if true.
The Masque is not a Herald according to the 4-for-1 rule, but it appears in the same portion of the army list. There is no special rule, or designer's note or cutout-box to indicate that the Masque has any restrictions in its use that would not also apply to Heralds; they are either both HQ choices, or they are both Heralds. Except the Masque is very specifically not a Herald according to the 4-for-1 rule and so we can only play it as though Heralds and the Masque are both a regular HQ choice.

All of the choices listed on pages 94-96 must be available as HQ choices, as indicated by the big 'HQ' text at the top of the pages, because otherwise the Masque has no Battlefield Role and can never be selected in a Battle Forged army. There is nothing to say that the Masque is different to the other options on these pages and so we can only assume that Heralds are also available as a HQ choice, with the special text box providing a bonus of 3 additional Heralds if you take Daemons as the primary.

Among other things, your reading would also make it impossible to field Heralds as an allied army which I cannot believe is the RAI, nor would I expect the issue to be resolved in your favour if this is ever FAQed. As it stands though, we are left with either making it a Daemonic free-for-all where Heralds are only limited by the HQ slots available, or curb Malefic-spam and make the Masque completely unavailable in the process.

This is very similar to your post about warlocks. While I admire your determination to stop what will no doubt be massive amounts of cheese in days to come, I think it is legal.

All of the rules you're citing refer to force org. charts. Some older codexes actually give you a choice: you can either field the standard force org chart, or you can field some nifty special ones in that codex. That applies to normal deployment, not unbound armies. Same as the rules you're debating here. Unfortunately you couldn't have it both ways. either rules about formations in codex's apply to unbound armies, or they do not. If they do, these old codex's with alternative formations couldn't be unbound at all.

These rules add to the force org chart.

I think people are overly concerned about unbound armies. The rules for them I believe are going to be more debilitating than most people are assuming. But that's another topic.

You want to spend 2000 points on a jetseers? Have fun.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
these terrible people

Here is my main issue with this thread.
Writing a list on the internet does not make you evil.
Stop pretending it does.

Yeah, I posted one of those lists "for the hilarity of it". But, ya know, thanks for passively aggressively implying that I am a terrible person. Enjoy your high horse, Elric. If you were a child, I would force you to apologize. As it stands, I don't expect much from anonymous internet trolls.

Also, the Ghost Knights are in a seperate box, aside from the Army List entries, just as Justicar Thawn is. Same as with the Necron Royal Court. Same as with Arjac Rockfist and Lukas the Trickster from the Space Wolves Codex. In the Blood Angels Codex, the Honour Guard, Brother Corbullo and Lemartes are all in these boxes. These units all have restrictions on how they can be taken and can ONLY be taken within the context of these restrictions.

The Heralds are not set aside from the Army List entries in any fashion. I understand that they can be taken as 4 models to one HQ slot in the Primary Detachment, but you have yet to demonstrate ANYTHING removing the permission to take them as individual HQs since they are listed in the HQ army list entry section along with all the other potential HQs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I don't have to prove I can take a Herald as an individual choice any more than I have to prove I can take a Daemon Prince. Until I see a legitimate exclusion (and not an additional permission to take them in the 4 to 1 slot configuration) or an FAQ disallowing it, I will continue to think it is possible.

 Kriswall wrote:
If you were a child.

If YOU were a child, I would not force you to do anything, since I am not your parent. It's disturbing that you spend time thinking about forcing random children to conform to your will. There are healthier, less childish things to think about.

Regardless, I'm sure you're not usually a terrible person. But doing anything that will get my Daemons banned/nerfed at tournaments is something I dislike, and so I will fight to stop it.

Someone still needs to deal with taking multiple Ghost Knight units in an Unbound list, without having Mordrak in the army. Pointing out that they are in a little box is not sufficient evidence to convince me that it can't be done, since the little box is not rules text.

Someone should also address Inquisitorial Henchmen Warbands in the GK book. They are listed in the Elites section of the book, along with all the other things. There is a sentence at the top of their entry which says, "For each Inquisitor in your army, you may also include a unit of 3-12 henchmen." May I take a Warband without taking an Inquisitor?

There really is no difference between using a unit to unlock another unit, and using a detachment type to unlock another unit. Mordrak unlocks Ghosts, Inquisitors unlock Henchmen, Primary Detachment status unlocks Heralds.

Grey Knight FAQ:
Q: Can you only take an Inquisitorial henchmen warband if you have
an Inquisitor in your army? (p90)
A: Yes, you can take a maximum of one warband for each
Inquisitor (unless you take Inquisitor Coteaz).

Good! So we have a precedent for this type of situation.
If there's an explicit permission to take a unit, that overrides normal choices in the FOC.

Even though Warbands are Elites, I can only take them if I have an Inquisitor because it says "For each Inquisitor in your army, you may" above their entry.

Even though Heralds are HQ, I can only take them if I have a Daemon Primary Detachment because it says "Each primary detachment in your army may include...."

A 6th edition faq entry for a 5th edition book holds little ground at best.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
Good! So we have a precedent for this type of situation.
If there's an explicit permission to take a unit, that overrides normal choices in the FOC.

Even though Warbands are Elites, I can only take them if I have an Inquisitor because it says "For each Inquisitor in your army, you may" above their entry.

Even though Heralds are HQ, I can only take them if I have a Daemon Primary Detachment because it says "Each primary detachment in your army may include...."

It needed an explicit FAQ.

Tactical_Genius wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
Good! So we have a precedent for this type of situation.
If there's an explicit permission to take a unit, that overrides normal choices in the FOC.

Even though Warbands are Elites, I can only take them if I have an Inquisitor because it says "For each Inquisitor in your army, you may" above their entry.

Even though Heralds are HQ, I can only take them if I have a Daemon Primary Detachment because it says "Each primary detachment in your army may include...."

It needed an explicit FAQ.

Hmmm... so you're saying that, without the FAQ, you were allowed to take Warbands without taking an Inquisitor?

It wouldn't have needed the FAQ, otherwise.

Well, there's a difference between a FAQ and an Errata.
An errata corrects a mistake in the rules.
A FAQ clarifies a potential misunderstanding about RAW (or at least, what the design team claims is RAW).

If it had been an Errata, you'd be correct. But since it's a FAQ...then no, without it, you still cannot take Warbands without Inquisitors. You never could.

Furthermore, let's look at Coteaz's "Lord of Formosa" rule. It says that, when you take Coteaz, Warbands "are not limited by the number of Inquisitors in your army." They are limited by other things (like how many Troops you can take in a detachment). Combine this with their entry: "For each Inquisitor in your army, you may also include a unit of 3-12 henchmen." This permission is a LIMIT, according to the Lord of Formosa rule.

A Permission can be a Limit.

It's an Unbound list.
Unbound has NO restrictions, whatsoever.
There, argument's over.

 YFNPsycho wrote:
It's an Unbound list.
Unbound has NO restrictions, whatsoever.
There, argument's over.

This is false. Unit composition must be obeyed. Points limits must be obeyed.
Honor Guard cannot be taken without a Chapter Master.
Hive Guard cannot be taken without a Hive Tyrant.
&c &c &c
There are still restrictions.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
Well, there's a difference between a FAQ and an Errata.
An errata corrects a mistake in the rules.
A FAQ clarifies a potential misunderstanding about RAW (or at least, what the design team claims is RAW).

If it had been an Errata, you'd be correct. But since it's a FAQ...then no, without it, you still cannot take Warbands without Inquisitors. You never could.

FAQs change rules. GW has done this in the past.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

Even though Heralds are HQ, I can only take them if I have a Daemon Primary Detachment because it says "Each primary detachment in your army may include...."

Let me put this in perspective for you on why you are interpreting this wrong buy using this phrasing in another light.

"Each lunch in your day you may drink a glass of milk" Does this mean i can't drink milk for breakfest or dinner?

In the game of 40k, I am not a free agent. I am a prisoner. I am bound by what the wardens (the rules) tell me I may do.

I would be allowed to ask, "May I have milk for breakfast as well?" But I should not assume that I may, because I do not have permission to do so.

Let's continue with this metaphor:
The Warden says, "Each lunch in your day you may drink a glass of milk." (English is obviously not this fellow's first language.) I also must ask, "May I have soda for lunch?" Because at this point, he's given me specific permission for MILK, not for soda. I may not assume that I can pick soda instead.

The same with Heralds. I am given specific permission to take Heralds in my Primary Detachment. I can ask whether they're allowed in other detachments, but until I get a "Yes," then I can't do it.

You already have permission to take heralds in allied detachtments for the same reason eldar have permission to take farseers in allied detachtments. They are an HQ choice and allied detachtments let you take an HQ choice.

In order to prevent that you need to specifically prevent that. That means actually saying "only in the primary detachment" or specifically reffering to not being taken in the allied detachment. None of that is the case though

It IS the case, referencing the Prisoner's Milk (which you so kindly provided).

Farseers do not have any text regulating their use other than "HQ."
Heralds have two pieces of text regulating their use: "HQ" and "primary detachment in your army."
Warbands have two pieces of text regulating their use: "Elite" and "Inquisitor needed." You can see the obvious parallel here.

None of the text in "primary detachment in your army" says anything to remove your permission in other detachments. Since we still already have permission for takign an HQ in an allied detachment there is nothing to remove that permission

None of the text in the Warband parallel says anything to remove your permission to use it as an Elite--except that it does! It says that you may have them if you have an Inquisitor, and it does NOT say that you may have them without an Inquisitor!

Just the same, Daemons says you may have Heralds (0-4 of them) in a Primary Detachment, and it does NOT say that you may have them in a non-primary detachment!
If you think that somewhere (in the BRB or the codex) does say you may have them in any type of detachment, please lay out the relevant rules (using quotations), so that we may examine them better.

Edit: I've asked for this several times in this thread (the steps of list-building), and no one has done the work yet. I'd really like someone to do so, because it will at least help ME understand things better. And I think this MIGHT be the way to defeat my argument. But I'm le tired.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
Just the same, Daemons says you may have Heralds (0-4 of them) in a Primary Detachment, and it does NOT say that you may have them in a non-primary detachment!

It doesn't have to. We already have permission from the "Choosing your Army" section of the rule book (go read it, you'll find it has the option for HQ under allied detachments)

Your right that it says "May take 0-4". But it needs to say "Only can take 0-4" to limit taking heralds in other detachments

i really can't see what's the issue here?

demons primary, you can have upto 4 heralds in your primary army.

demons as allies must have 1 hq and 1 troop. that hq can be one herald (it can't be 4 because this isn't the primary, it the ally). there is nothing that prevents you from taking one herald in this manner, you are only restricted in taking more than one, you can't.

in multiple detachments you must pick one as the primary (this is also where your warlord will be). you must have one hq and two troops, that hq can be upto 4 heralds ( because this is primary). in your additional detachments you must have one hq and two troops. this hq can be one herald, but no more (this isn't the primary detachment).

there is nothing in the codex that prevents heralds from being used as hq choices. just a restriction on how many, depending on whether the detachment is our primary or not.

Let's look at what the box in the Daemons codex actually says, since I've argued about this forever and it's similar to the "no heralds in allied detachments" debate.

Page 94 of the Daemons codex:

HERALDS OF CHAOS

Each primary detachment in your army may include up to four Heralds of Chaos, chosen in any combination from the following models:

[list of Heralds and special characters that are also Heralds]

This selection uses a single HQ slot from the force organization chart, but the Heralds are otherwise treated as separate units.

So... I can have up to four heralds in my primary detachment in one HQ slot. Thanks codex, good to know, but I'll just be taking one herald as my allied HQ, since this box says nothing about my allied detachment. This box has nothing to do with me so NOW my point of reference is the BRB, which says I can take one HQ choice from the allied codex. Which in this case shall be a herald.

Now as to whether you can take a bunch of heralds in an unbound army, the rulebook says yes, because as already pointed out, there IS no primary detachment in an unbound army, and the box on page 94 doesn't apply. The box only applies to primary detachments as it says in the first sentence. People who actually spam heralds for abuse of summoning daemons won't be playing any games with me, but there you have it. Seems pretty straightforward.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
I've asked for this several times in this thread (the steps of list-building), and no one has done the work yet. I'd really like someone to do so, because it will at least help ME understand things better. And I think this MIGHT be the way to defeat my argument. But I'm le tired.

The only problem here is that you keep misreading the "Heralds of Chaos" entry. We shouldn't need to quote rulebook entries because it all is answered if you just correctly read the codex entry in question

(Hint: "May" is not the same as "Only")

Alright, so still no one will provide some rules quotes. That's a bit frustrating in a rules discussion, and goes against the YMDC tenants, I believe.
Also, CrownAxe, why'd you stop referring to the Prisoner's Milk? I think we can see, using your own provided example, that I am correct. Dropping it when it works for my side but not your own is not helpful to the discussion.

Let's look at Coteaz's "Lord of Formosa" rule. It says that, when you take Coteaz, Warbands "are not limited by the number of Inquisitors in your army." They are limited by other things (like how many Troops you can take in a detachment). Use this sentence to aid your understanding when reading the Warband entry: "For each Inquisitor in your army, you may also include a unit of 3-12 henchmen." In the same sentence, there is a Permission and a Limit.
Permission: you may take Warbands if you have an Inquisitor.
Limit: You must have an Inquisitor to take a Warband.
Before Coteaz was in your army, Warbands were limited to a 1:1 ratio with Inquisitors. You could not alter that ratio in any way, DESPITE Warbands being listed in the Elites section. EVEN THOUGH they are listed as Elites, there are additional requirements to fulfil in order to take Warbands. (We don't need the FAQ to know this.)


A Permission can be a Limit.

A Permission to take 0-4 Heralds in your Primary Detachment can be a Limit to only take them in your Primary Detachment.
EVEN THOUGH they are listed as HQs, there are additional requirements to fulfil in order to take Warbands.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZultanQ wrote:
I can have up to four heralds in my primary detachment in one HQ slot. Thanks codex, good to know

Not what the rule says. There are two parts to the rule, and these two parts are in two separate sentences.
First, it says that you may take 0-4 Heralds in a Primary Detachment.
Secondly, it says that these Heralds take only one HQ slot.
I don't think anyone's arguing about the second point, so let's just stick with the first.

because as already pointed out, there IS no primary detachment in an unbound army

I don't think anyone pointed this out. I certainly didn't.
And whoever does point it out (like you), is just plain wrong. Read the BRB "Primary Detachment" section. It'll clarify things for you.