By the Inquisition codices you can have allies from both ordos, however can you take a Wichhunter Inquisitor with a Daemonhunter assassin?

The assassin rules say you must have an inquisitor in your force to run an assassin.

In the majority of lists I have seen the Inq lord is used with an appropriate Assassin.

Which is correct?  I think by RAW it reads alright to do it with 2 elites.  Am I missing something somewhere or is this just one of those RAW inconsistancies.

Orion

Insaniak is correct on both counts. You must use an assassin from the parent list, and you can ally WH and GH together.

http://us.games-workshop.com/errata/assets/cityfight_faq_v4-0.pdf 

Gamesworkshop has never stated that the codex is invalid.  I have yet to see evidence that the assassins codex is superceded by daemonhunters or witchhunters.  If you have the assassins codex and compare it appears that they just cut and pasted information from Assassins to Daemonhunters. 

If you are using Daemonhunters or the Witchhunters codex you need an inqusitor. 

If you are using the Assasins codex you do not. 

Posted By JohnSmith on 10/23/2007 2:49 PM
Gamesworkshop has never stated that the codex is invalid.  I have yet to see evidence that the assassins codex is superceded by daemonhunters or witchhunters.  

The following details the facts that will address whether or not the army selection combination below is legal in the current WH40K edition.

Parent Army:                 Space Marines

Ally #1:                         Elite Inquisitor from Codex Daemonhunters (2^nd printing)

Ally #2:                         Elite Assassin from Codex Witch Hunters (1^st printing)

I will provide the facts in specific sections and summarize this in a Conclusion for each point.  I will then show each Conclusion detailing the chronological order of the rules decisions to prove that this army configuration is legal. 

<strong style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">Allies and Appropriate Rules [/b]

The ally rules are stated on the following pages:

1.       Daemonhunters Codex (aka DH) (2^nd printing)  – page 21

2.       Witch Hunters Codex (aka WH) (1^st printing) – page 25

In short summary, the following armies are allowed to take allies from the DH and WH codices.

1.       Space Marines and their variant armies (ie: Blood Angels, etc).

2.       Imperial Guard and their variant armies (ie: Jungle Fighters, etc).

3.       Sisters of Battle (for DH armies) and Daemonhunters (for WH armies)

Note there was a language change from the DH 1^st Printing to the DH 2^nd Printing.   People will point to the GW DH FAQ, which shows the parts of the 1^st Printing that were changed in the 2^nd printing.

Errata Clarified in the 2^nd Printing of Codex: Daemonhunters

Daemonhunters may not ally with any detachment that uses any other kind of ally (Kroot Mercs, etc.)

Note:  This specific area of the FAQ is only pointing to the parts of the DH codex that were changed between the two printings.  The language for allies in the FAQ area above is the original language in the 1^st printing of the DH codex.  The updated language in the DH codex 2^nd printing reads.

A.  "Daemonhunters 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."

The language in the Witchhunters codex reads:

B.  "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."

Note:  Both Deamonhunters and Witch Hunters units are defined as Ordos of the Inquisition.  They are known as Ordo Malleus (pg 2 DH) and Ordo Hereticus (pg 2 WH), respectively.

Facts A & B indicate that both DH and WH can be allied in an army.  Based on this the following conclusion can be drawn:

Conclusion #1:  A Space Marine army can take allies from both the DH and WH codices in the same army based on the Allies rules in the DH and WH codices. 

 <strong style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">
[/b]

<strong style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">Force Org Chart Limitations [/b]

The next step in this process is based on the limitations for Force Organization Chart selections.  There are three limitations imposed between the DH and WH books. 

The first fact is the same limitation placed in both books is detailed in the following quote. 

A.        Neither Inducted Imperial Guard nor Allied Space Marines may be included in such a contingent.

This information is located on page 21 in the DH codex and Page 25 in the WH codex. 

The second fact is from the DH codex page 21 again.

B.      The total number of Deamonhunters unit choices may not exceed the following:

0-1HQ Choice

0-1 Elite Choice

0-2 Troops Choice

0-1 Fast Attack Choice

Note that Heavy Support may not be chosen.

The total limit in this selection option is only imposed on Deamonhunters unit choices.  This is a very important fact since it does not include Witch Hunters for this limitation.

C.      The total number of Witch Hunter unit choices may not exceed the following:

0-1HQ Choice

0-1 Elite Choice

0-2 Troops Choice

0-1 Fast Attack Choice

Note that Heavy Support may not be chosen.

The total limit in this selection option is only imposed on Witch Hunters unit choices.  This is a very important fact since it does not include Daemonhunters for this limitation.

Since the limitations for the DH and WH codices are specific to their respective books and not inclusive of each other, you are allowed to take one elite choice from the DH codex and one elite choice from the WH codex.  Based on this the following conclusion can be drawn:

Conclusion #2:  A Space Marine army can select one elite choice from the DH codex and one elite choice from the WH codex based on the force organization chart limitations detailed in each codex.

<strong style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">Unit Specific Rules [/b]

The space marine army in question can select an inquisitor from either the DH or WH codex.  There are currently no limitations that would possibly prevent this and the inquisitor can be used for the one elite choice from either the DH or WH codex.  For this example, we will assume that the elite inquisitor was selected from the DH codex.  The issue in question is ‘can an assassin be selected as the one elite choice from the WH codex?’  The following will prove that this is a legal selection option based on the assassin’s unit specific rules. 

<strong style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">Assassin Rules [/b]

<v:shape id="_x0000_s1026" style="MARGIN-TOP: 34.55pt; Z-INDEX: 1; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; WIDTH: 444pt; POSITION: absolute; HEIGHT: 45pt; mso-wrap-edited: f" type="#_x0000_t202" wrapcoords="-36 0 -36 21600 21636 21600 21636 0 -36 0"></v:shape>Both the DH codex (on page 26) and the WH codex (on page 30) provide the following rule for including assassins in a force.  This is the text box on the left column of each page.

The one crucial detail is that the specification of Inquisitor or Inquisitor Lord is not limited to an Inquisitor from one specific book.  This is very important as the next example will show. 

<strong style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">Orbital Strike Rules [/b]

<v:shape id="_x0000_s1027" style="MARGIN-TOP: 22pt; Z-INDEX: -1; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; WIDTH: 444pt; POSITION: absolute; HEIGHT: 36pt; mso-wrap-edited: f" type="#_x0000_t202" wrapcoords="-36 0 -36 21600 21636 21600 21636 0 -36 0"></v:shape>The orbital strike rule on page 37 in the WH codex in the lower part of the right hand column states:

Notice that the rules specifically limit the inquisitor selection to the WH codex in order to take an Orbital Strike from the WH Heavy Support options. 

Based on the facts that 1) the assassin rules do not impose a limit on what book the inquisitor must be chosen from and 2) there is precedence in the orbital strike rules that include a limit on what book the inquisitor must be chosen from, the following conclusion can be drawn.

Conclusion #3:  A Space Marine army can select an assassin as an elite choice from the WH codex if an elite inquisitor from the DH codex is selected since all of the assassin unit selection rules have been fulfilled. 

<strong style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">Conclusion Summary [/b]

The following section lists the conclusions as a quick reference and provide the logical order of decisions that are required to prove that the army combination we are reviewing is legal.

Conclusion #1: 

A Space Marine army can take allies from both the DH and WH codices in the same army based on the Allies rules in the DH and WH codices. 

Conclusion #2: 

A Space Marine army can select one elite choice from the DH codex and one elite choice from the WH codex based on the force organization chart limitations detailed in each codex.

Conclusion #3:

Posted By Inquisitor_Malice on 10/26/2007 7:08 AM
2. Otherwise you are stating that the DH/WH codices are mutually exclusive. Therefore, you can take two inquisitor lords (one from each codex) and two assassins (only if you are playing a DH or WH army).

I already did in the Elite Inquisitor and Elite Assassin Selection Proof on page 3.  Please read through entire segment and pay particular attention to the unit specific rules section, which provides the assassin requirements and precedence that is used in the WH orbital strike section.  In addressing your allies concern, each section in the proof mentioned above is fulfilled:

1.  Allies - unlocks the DH and WH codices by allowing you to take units from the DH and WH books in the same parent army.  You now have one big army list to select from. 

2.  Force Org Chart Limitations are set, which further limit the unit selection options from both books.

3.  Unit Specific Rules impose further limits the force org chart limitations. 

It is the limits set between the combination of the allies rules and the unit specific rules that addresses your concern about filling the requirements to field a unit by using criteria from a different codex.  Again, which is already done in the Elite Inquisitor and Elite Assassin Selection Proof in a step by step process.

Addressing the Pathfinders (Eldar) and Devilfish issue, if you can not even pass the allies requirements above, then there is no allowed combination.  The Lost and the Damned is another perfect example of using allies.  There is no such ally allowment in either the Eldar or Tau books.   

Posted By JohnSmith on 10/26/2007 6:21 PM
Or are you telling me that a space marine in the black templar codex is not a space marine? 

Posted By puree on 10/28/2007 3:50 AM
As to the pathfinders. Yes If you could take the lists together then maybe you do end up in the position of having to take the fish with the eldar pathfinders (fish is a must take for pathfinders). however, that does not in itself show that cross codex is forbidden.

The FORCE organisation chart is the building block of how to construct an army.

The Devilfish/Pathfinder Analogy is just plain stupid because you cannot have Tau units/models/choices in an Eldar FORCE (as per the rulebook)

All the Imperial armies (that are allowed to take these allies) may take these units as part of their FORCE Organisation chart

If there is an Inquisitor as part of the FORCE you can take a Officio Assassinorum Operative, its really that simple!

P.S. to make sure that you don't take an Inquisitor Lord & both a WH Assassin and a DH Assassin, GW included the rule: "Note that no more than one Officio Assassinorum operative can be used in any force for any reason"

This may prove, (unfortunatly only by implication) that GW intended for us to use the allies rule this way, but still limit us to only one assassin.

Posted By Boss Longgrim on 10/28/2007 5:16 PM
This may prove, (unfortunatly only by implication) that GW intended for us to use the allies rule this way, but still limit us to only one assassin.

The Tau codex disagrees.

Is a Pathfinder from Codex Eldar a 'Pathfinder'?

Clearly he is. The Tau Codex tells us that Pathfinders must take a Devilfish. So, Eldar Pathfinders, by the logic used to take a WH Assassin with a DH Inquisitor, must take a Devilfish.


It's the exact same thing, and therefore must work the same way in both cases.

Good Point, but a Devilfish Troop Carrier (for a Pathfiner Team) is a Tau Fast Attack Choice (even if it doesn't take up a 'slot'), it is in the Tau Empire codex, under the Fast Attack section & it is placed on the board in the Fast Attack section of deployment.

Tau Fast Attack Choices are not allowed in an Eldar Force Organisation Chart (and you will not be able to find a rule that allows you), The rule book disallows your sillyness, while my sillyness is unmolested by the rulebook 
 

Ok. While you're telling us GW's intentions, perhaps you could explain why they made it possible to take a WH Assassin with a DH Inquisitor in your Space Marine army, while making it impossible to take a DH Assassin with a DH Inquisitor... which surely would have made much more sense?

 What does or doesn't make sense to GW is not up to me (or you) to decide, I was just trying to make light of a passage that GW wrote, that adds weight to my argument.

Would it make sense for GW to write a passage of rules that never has, and never will apply?(if we take your rules interpretaions)

Posted By Boss Longgrim on 10/28/2007 6:07 PM
Tau Fast Attack Choices are not allowed in an Eldar Force Organisation Chart

Posted By Boss Longgrim on 10/28/2007 6:07 PM
 What does or doesn't make sense to GW is not up to me (or you) to decide, I was just trying to make light of a passage that GW wrote, that adds weight to my argument.

Posted By Boss Longgrim on 10/28/2007 6:07 PM  
Would it make sense for GW to write a passage of rules that never has, and never will apply?(if we take your rules interpretaions) 

It is an assumption that GW created this limit specifically for the DH elite inquisitor and DH assassin combination.  However, the one limit for HQ and elite selections was also imposed on the FA selection.  Based on this, only the game designers can truly answer whether or not the 0-1 HQ, elite and Fast attack limits put in place were for this specific situation.  To assume that the limit of one elite selection was imposed to specifically eliminate the DH elite inq/assasin combination is a self imposed limitation.

No it's not. There are 4 FA choices for Tau Empire: Pathfinders, Gun Drone Squadrons, Piranha Teams, and Vespid.

40K rule book, Page 78:

"Sometimes a single choice on the Force organisation chart will allow you to select more than one unit"

40K rule book, Page 81:

"In practice, a single choice on the chart may be several units. It might be a squad and their transport vehicle, ... "

YES it is, A Devilfish troop Carrier is one of two units in a Pathfinder Team (a Tau Empire Fast Attack choice).

However, the Devilfish is, again, not a FA choice. It is merely a Transport option. And there's a specific rule that says that Pathfinders must take one.

True, for it being a "Transport Option", FALSE for it not being a Fast Attack Choice.

Please prove me wrong, but a Tau Fast Attack choice cannot be used in an Eldar Force organisation chart.

If anyone can find ANY rule to Refute the Proposition in my original post, please let me know, as I think we are getting Off Topic talking about cross codex sillyness.

(Section 5: Refuting an Argument of the How to have an Intelligent Rules Debate section)

Posted By Boss Longgrim on 10/28/2007 6:59 PM
Please prove me wrong, but a Tau Fast Attack choice cannot be used in an Eldar Force organisation chart.

Posted By Boss Longgrim on 10/28/2007 6:59 PM
If anyone can find ANY rule to Refute the Proposition in my original post, please let me know, as I think we are getting Off Topic talking about cross codex sillyness.

"In practice, a single choice on the chart may be several units. It might be a squad and their transport vehicle, ... "

Unless you can Refute this rule, your entire argument is moot. A Devilfish Transport for a Pathfinder Team is a Tau Empire Fast Attack choice & thus a invalid choice for an Eldar Army.

This Logical Fallacy is the only argument you have for this debate. I suggest that all posters to this forum read the 'How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate' post, pinned to the top of this Forum, esp. the section on The method to Create an Argument.

This is where we differ.  I see the issue as:

Whether or not the rules treat a unit from Codex A  as being the same as a unit from Codex B that shares the same name if there are rules that allow units from multiple codices to be taken in the same force.

This is where the allies rule is extremely important and is yet another point that we disagree on.  Tau/Eldar pathfinder combination breaks down because there is no reference at all to 'mix' or select units from one of the other armies.  The allies rules for the imperial armies allow this selection of forces from multiple books.  That is the dividing line.

Just a side question....

IF you CAN take a DH Inquisitor and a WH assassin....

Does that also mean you take any henchmen or wargear or psychic powers from either list, since the books only say an Inq or Inq Lord can take them, not a WH Inq or a DH Inq Lord etc etc?

If you can do the former, then surely you can do the latter.

If that is true, then DA Commanders can attach Chaplains and Librarians to their Command Squads, since in CSM it says all Space Marine Commanders can do so, and DA's are still Space Marines.

Posted By JohnSmith on 10/29/2007 5:24 AM
Why would GW force you to take an HQ Inquisitor?

Posted By JohnSmith on 10/29/2007 5:24 AM
No one will ever know if they meant "from the same codex" it is just as possible that for once GW meant what they said.

Posted By Inquisitor_Malice on 10/29/2007 5:26 AM
This is where we differ.  I see the issue as:

Whether or not the rules treat a unit from Codex A  as being the same as a unit from Codex B that shares the same name if there are rules that allow units from multiple codices to be taken in the same force.

Posted By Inquisitor_Malice on 10/29/2007 5:26 AM
 Tau/Eldar pathfinder combination breaks down because there is no reference at all to 'mix' or select units from one of the other armies.

Posted By Inquisitor_Malice on 10/29/2007 5:26 AM
Actually if you read the DH and WH codices, the Inquisitor Lord and Inquisitor selections state something to the effect of:

In DH - The Inquisitor may select wargear from the Daemonhunters armoury.

In WH - The Inquisitor may select wargear from the witchhunters armoury.

Having a WH Inquisitor & tossing in that single Elite spot for an Assassin from the DH book (dunno why you'd do this since all the Assassins are the same & you could just take it from the WH book anyway) is justifiable. An Inquisitor is an Inquisitor (regarding the Imperial side of things), its just more proficient in a certain area (killing Daemons or Psykers etc).

I see no abusal, since again, the Assassins are in both books & have the same stats. Just like the Inquisitors, both the same, only differences are the wargear options.

Still not sure why you'd do this though...its all the same in both books barring wargear. However if you take any gear from the WH codex, you are bound to only take options/Powers from the WH book.

1.  The Emperor's Tarot - This is an extremely common wargear item that is taken in many SM or IG forces.  However, in the rules for the emperor's tarot, it states that "the Daemonhunters player get +1 on the dice roll to ascertain who goes first."  Well - the player is not technically a daemon hunters players.  He is a space marine player with daemonhunters allies.  Therefore, the Emperor's tarot would not work. 

2.  Ungents of Warding - This gives the daeomonhunter and his unit he is with with a 4+ save.  If everything is codex specific, then even wargear can only work on units from that specific codex.  Therefore, for example a SM terminator unit joined with an elite inquisitor that possesses this item, would not receive the save. 

3.  Null Rod - No psychic powers whatsoever may affect the character with this item or the squad he has joined, regardless of source.  Again, it would not work if the elite inquisitor was joined to the SM terminator unit because codices can not interact at all.  If codices can not interact, then wargear cannot interact with units from a different book.

4.  Searchlights - They allow one enemy unit spotted by the vehicle to be fired at by any other friendly units that are in range.  So are friendly units only IG if the searchlight is from the IG codex?  Are friendly units only DH if the searchlight is selected from the DH codex?  By your standards yes.  Have fun tracking that in a game, especially if you have searchlights from all three SM/IG, DH and WH.

5.  Priests - Oh, such a great example.  Priests from the WH can join inducted guard units.  Well, since the IG are from a separate codex, the priest keeps his righteous fury, but the IG can still fire as normal. 

6.  Independent Characters from the WH, DH, SM, or IG books - They can not lead a squads of different forces.  No leadership bonuses for attached ICs.

7.  Inquisitorial Mandate - All friendly models within 2D6" receive a +1 Attack bonus.  So the IG or SM are not friendly units now because of complete separation.  Well, if they are not friendly, then they must be enemy units.  You better start taking target priority checks and fire at the IG or SM if you fail your leadership test.   

Absolutes are fine, but we have to determine which is more acceptable from a game play standpoint.  In this scenario, I would take my search lights working consistantly across my entire force than have specific limits on which units in my force can use which search lights/other wargear. 

For game balance - I work on the premise that unit specific wargear and options are codex specific, where unit selection requirements such as the assassin and death cult assassins follow the RAW approach indicated within the Important Note text to the assassins entry since it says Force because Force is all encompassing.  This alleviates the issues with the pathfinders/devilfish, the issues with wargear from other codices and eliminates the issues noted above with complete separation.  I also take 'friendly units' in any wargear option as 'Other units within the Force' that you selected.  Again, all encompasing and eliminating a ton of issues.   

Posted By insaniak on 10/29/2007 6:05 PM

Posted By kadun on 10/29/2007 5:01 PM
Actually I guess I was not clear in my point. 

No, you were perfectly clear. But what you posted proved my point better than it proved yours.

At least that's what you lead yourself to believe.

Unit selection options are not the same as unit equipment options, which are not the same as wargear mechanics.  The area that we are assessing with the assassin/inquisitor combination is a unit selection option.    The area that you are trying to compare it to is a unit equipment option.  Just as kadun said above ---

"the Pathfinder -> Devilfish argument is not the same as the Inquisitor -> Assassin argument and you could not refute one by refuting the other."

Hello Apple, my name is Orange.

Posted By Inquisitor_Malice on 10/29/2007 8:09 PM
"the Pathfinder -> Devilfish argument is not the same as the Inquisitor -> Assassin argument

The devilfish is a mandatory upgrade to the pathfinder unit.  The pathfinder unit is the selection option, not the devilfish.  The assassin is the selection option and we are discussing selection options.  Since the devilfish is not a selection option, but the assassin is, they are two completely different cases - what is your correlation?

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?

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.

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? 

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.

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.

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
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.

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.

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?

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.