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.

Simply put, I ran into a fellow who will be playing at my LFGS for the foreseeable future.  He seemed a nice enough guy, but he had a list that... bothered me.  He had an IG army with an allied Malleus Inq Lord, an allied Malleus Vindicare... and another allied assassin, from the Hereticus.  He claimed that he could do this, because all the entry said was that an Inquisitor was required, no mention of Ordo; he also claimed that this had been OKed by RTTs and red-shirts (but that means little, as we all know).

Now, I seem to remember a debate and proof that this wasn't kosher, but being caught flat-footed, I couldn't produce it on the spot.  Can someone assist me, so that I can determine which of us was right, and provide him with proof when next I see him?  Thanks.

Two assassins are definitely illegal, no matter on whether or not an assassin from a different Ordo than the Inquisitor is legal or not. From the sidebar on page 26 of Codex Daemonhunters:

Note that no more than one Officio Assassinorium Operative can be used in any force for any reason.

It says the same thing on the sidebar on page 30 of Codex Witch Hunters.

Ok, but still with the 0-1 restriction on Elites then the Malleus Lord(HQ, WH) with Malleus Assassin(0-1 Elite, WH) COULD use a Hereticus Death Cult(0-1 Elite DH)?

Well nevermind, I checked it out and it appears so.

But yea, no more than one "Offico Assassinorum" operative in any given army list regardless of where it's from.

What about the general rule that compulsory choices must come from the same list? Or am I imagining that?

Posted by skyth on 07/01/2006 10:15 PM
What about the general rule that compulsory choices must come from the same list? Or am I imagining that?

There is no such 'general rule'. The only rule is that compulsory choices on the Force Organization chart must be filled from the parent codex, and even that's not a 'general rule'.

I believe the DH faq also states you can't take allies from other codices.

I don't know about what it says in the Witch Hunters codes, but doesn't the Daemonhunters codex specifically say you can't combine ANYTHING from DH and WH codecies?

-Hans

Sorry to be unclear; it was a Death Cultist, not another Officio Assassinorium operative.

It's for this reason I hate how they did the "Ordo alliance dance"; it's confusing and ill-defined.

Actually the wording in the WH codex is on page 25 "Witch hunters cannot ally with a force that uses any other type of ally with the exception of separate detachments and units from other Ordos of the Inquisition

So one can in fact combine DH with WH in a parent IG list as long as the IG list is what is used for the compulsory choices.

DaIronGob,

That's all fine and good for the WH codex, but the DH codex prohibits any other allies period. Check out the 4.0.1 FAQ on the GW site for DH.

No the FAQ says "Daemonhunters may not ally with any detachments that use any other kind of ally (Kroot Mercs)."

Well ok I guess I can see what you are saying but with the WH dex's wording about "Ordos" wouldn't they then be considered the same kind of ally? So in effect the WH would not fall into the category of "Any other KIND of ally" but in fact fall under the same kind of ally.

The problem is the "kind of ally" bit is very vague, had they used the line from the Witchhunters codex instead there'd be no arguement.

It's not possible by RAW to conclude that "kind of ally" includes Witchhunters because the codex never defines what kinds of allies there are. Certainly, the Witchhunters codex explains what Ordos it can ally with, but it doesn't give any indication that you can use those references for the DH codex.

Right now, it appears that the only way a detachment can use somebody else and Witchhunters at the same time is if that "somebody else" is Deathwatch.

*sigh* We've been over this before. Here's the deal: There has been a stealth reprint of the DH Codex, which printing came after the fAQ. The language in the stealth reprint exactly tracks the language in the WH codex. Exactly.

There's still no way to say that you can take two assassins (except for the cult.)

Right now, it appears that the only way a detachment can use somebody else and Witchhunters at the same time is if that "somebody else" is Deathwatch

I believe you mean Daemonhunters and you are right that the 'vague' wording in the FAQ pretty much kills any DH using allies in any form other than inducted guard and space marines.

Antonin, That's all fine and good, but I haven't seen a copy of this third printing of the codex and proving to somebody that it overrides a FAQ is going to be difficult.

DaIronGob, What I typed was what I typed, Daemonhunters isn't included in that statement in any way shape or form.

Posted By nobody on 07/03/2006 10:37 AM
Antonin, That's all fine and good, but I haven't seen a copy of this third printing of the codex and proving to somebody that it overrides a FAQ is going to be difficult.

DaIronGob, What I typed was what I typed, Daemonhunters isn't included in that statement in any way shape or form.

Then you have a difficult job ahead of you. Fair enough if you do not wish to believe me - I invite you to take a peek at the codex next time you are in a store - then your job becomes much easier.

DaIronGob, What I typed was what I typed, Daemonhunters isn't included in that statement in any way shape or form.

My apologies I completely read that sentence wrong.

I've actually been to 4 stores since I started hearing rumors of that stealth reprint, and none of them seem to have a copy of it. I've seen the Guard and Chaos stealth reprints, but since apparently the demand for DH codices is low none of the stores seem to have restocked them (they have plenty of first printings).

My general rule of thumb is, if I haven't seen a reprint, I'm not going to hold it as canon (too many people have told me XYZ is "in the codex" and when I go to look it up later, it's not in there).

 

DaIronGob:  No worries, my bad for going off like that.

This is the point where you kick the guy in the nuts...and don't play him. He'll catch on pretty soon and change his list, or else he won't get a game.

Man, is it really worth a kick in the nuts over? Maybe a smack to the back of the head but in da jewels? Harsh ;-)

But if someone were to show you the 'newer' printing during the course of a game would that sway your mind or would you want them to still change their army list?

nobody, please actually read the FAQ that you're quoting from. You'll find that the specific passage you're quoting from is under the heading "Errata Clarified in the 2nd Printing of Codex: Daemonhunters". So why would that chage what's actually printed in the 2nd printing of the codex? It wouldn't.

EDIT: Edited for correct name.

Ghaz - you have me confused with someone else. I haven't quoted any FAQ.