Seahawk Posted December 21, 2008 Share Posted December 21, 2008 You are seriously trying hard to read this in a way that benefits you. QFT. If we went by your logic, then all the bike squads taken as troops would be retinues for a captain on a bike as well. Silly, huh? It is (like the Land Speeder entry in Codex Space Marines) not well worded. Sorry, do help me...how can this possibly be poorly worded? Everything is laid out correctly, and the speeder has one of two options: typhoon launchers or tornado pattern, then opening up more weapon options. If you claim that's poorly worded, then so is a tactical unit entry, etc. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/146601-retinues-in-csm-5th/page/3/#findComment-1815412 Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpSpawn Posted December 21, 2008 Share Posted December 21, 2008 I really don't see the problem on this one. There are 2 conditions required to satisfy the retinue rule: 1) The unit must be fielded with the character. 2) The character cannot leave the unit whilst they are alive. This is spelled out in black and white, as has been quoted (and in some cases twisted) by others already. Most units we might assume are retinues only satisfy condition 1 at best, possibly not even that. There are few, if any, examples of units that a character cannot leave, in recent codices. Unless a unit satisfies both of these conditions, or includes an explicit statement saying they are a retinue, they simply are not a retinue. Simple. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/146601-retinues-in-csm-5th/page/3/#findComment-1815854 Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatcrusade08 Posted December 21, 2008 Share Posted December 21, 2008 Warpspawns argument is flawless and i support that argument fully...simply because i cannot word it any better! :D In the absense of a specific rule in the codex, the general rules from the book apply. Ahem.....scuse me... if a specific rule is left OUT of the codex then it is obviously not meant to be used, you cant take a rule from a previous rules set and add them to the new ones, that doesnt make sense. Not that command squad has ever been listed as a retinue in anything other than fluff. So by your logic GW should have printed "this is not a retinue" beside command squad and honour guard entries, to remove the argument. Again this doesnt make sense, they only have to list what special rules thay do have not the ones they dont have, what you are doing is making assumptions, and they dont belong in a rules lawyers court room... Case dismissed GC08 Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/146601-retinues-in-csm-5th/page/3/#findComment-1816184 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Praeger Posted December 21, 2008 Share Posted December 21, 2008 GENTLEMEN keep this topic on track and take any petty bickering's to the PM or better yet DON'T REPLY AND INSTEAD HIT THE REPORT BUTTON. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/146601-retinues-in-csm-5th/page/3/#findComment-1816213 Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurglez Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 I too would have to agree with the way Warpspawn has phrased it. For whatever reason they are doing it, GW are getting rid of retinues, and have only included the specific rules for them because some of the older codices have them. I very rarely ran my chaos lord with a retinue either, though generally, he was a huge daemon prince kitted out for being able to kill pretty much anything short of a Grey Knight squad on his own. Did annoy me a little that as soon as they took away retinues from the chaos codex, they then included nice rules for them in the rulebook. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/146601-retinues-in-csm-5th/page/3/#findComment-1816330 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trekari Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 1) Greatcrusade, you asked what difference does it make that Retinue is not a special rule. You are the one claiming it is, and I corrected you. Each and every special unit in the new codex has its own area where it lists special rules and NO WHERE does it say Retinue! Also, you are completely wrong about timeline influencing whether or not a Codex > BRB. GW's policy is that Codex ALWAYS overrides the rulebook when a direct contradiction occurs. What date the book was published has absolutely nothing to do with it. 2) DA Command Squads are not Retinues at all. My Codex expressly states they are independent units. 3) The Daemonhunters Codex allows you to take a retinue with the Grandmaster, yet he is not forced into doing so. So the argument that you are REQUIRED to field a retinue is completely void. 4) Saying that you can leave a unit, so they are not a retinue, doesn't work. After all, if they ARE a retinue, then you can't leave them. 5) Unlike the DA Codex, the 5th SM codex does not state that Command Squads and Honour Guards are independent units. In fact, their description (even in the RULES) stating they don't use up an HQ choice is similar to the wording in the Grey Knight's retinue. (At the same time, it is similar to the DA Command Squad entry which is not a retinue) 6) I can't answer the 3 Honour Guard question. I truly have no idea how such a thing would work, other than suggesting two squads were separate, and the one he joined would behave as his retinue. I am not advocating that these are definitely retinues. I agree they are lacking anything in the obvious way of saying "Yes, this is a retinue." However, I do find the term retinue to be specific and uncommon, and the fact that only these two units (that I know of) describe themselves as retinues, and pg. 104's comment, to be compelling enough for my own purposes to where if someone wanted to play me with a Command Squad retinue for their Captain, I'd allow it. I find the occurrence of the specifc word 'retinue' so many times in such specific areas, unusual to say the least. It is that oddness that prompts my questioning and allows me to believe that it COULD be possible. Now, you can respond to all my points and shoot them down if you want, but in the end, my curiousness regarding their choice of words is unlikely to be removed. And despite Praeger's comment, I have one more thing to say: Maniclurker, I don't appreciate the comment about how many people in my gaming group don't play with me. I argue on the forums because it's idle time, and a place to spend time, discussing such things. During a game, if I KNOW I'm right about something, I will argue my point with my opponent. This is not one of those situations. I've admitted more than once that I'm ANYTHING but sure about this situation. I'd appreciate it if you refrained from public insinuations that I'm not a fun opponent or gaming buddy IRL unless you actually know me. Yes, I spat your comment back at you because it pissed me off, and the tone of your post (whether you intended it so or not), came across to me as condescending. For that, I apologize. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/146601-retinues-in-csm-5th/page/3/#findComment-1816407 Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeattleDV8 Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 4) Saying that you can leave a unit, so they are not a retinue, doesn't work. After all, if they ARE a retinue, then you can't leave them. Ok That Is the same thing. No difference . If it is a retinue you may not leave the unit, Therefore if you could leave the unit it is not a retinue. Thats just basic logic. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/146601-retinues-in-csm-5th/page/3/#findComment-1816412 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trekari Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 My point was that until it is determined whether they are or are not a retinue, that you can't use the "they can leave because it's not a retinue" argument. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/146601-retinues-in-csm-5th/page/3/#findComment-1816415 Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeattleDV8 Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 Its pretty simple. Jervis has stated in a couple of places that retinues are problems and they are being phased out. If the Rule is not part of the Army List Entries it is just fluff. None of the SM units have a retinue rule in their lists. The fact that a unit doesn't take a spot in the FOC has no bearing on this. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/146601-retinues-in-csm-5th/page/3/#findComment-1816425 Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyescrossed Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 B: Can you show me where the term "Retinue" is defined anywhere as a special rule? Pg. 35 of the Tyranid codex under Special Rules for the Hive Tyrant. "Retinue. The Hive Tyrant may take a retinue of Tyrant Guard, as listed on page 36." Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/146601-retinues-in-csm-5th/page/3/#findComment-1816447 Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatcrusade08 Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 1) Greatcrusade, you asked what difference does it make that Retinue is not a special rule. You are the one claiming it is, and I corrected you. Each and every special unit in the new codex has its own area where it lists special rules and NO WHERE does it say Retinue! OK now im confused...... I never said Retinue is not a special rule, quite the opposite in fact, it is a special rule and as such should be listed under the special rules for each squad that is under discussion, but is not hence they do not have that rule..... 1+1 = 2 easy..... Also, you are completely wrong about timeline influencing whether or not a Codex > BRB. GW's policy is that Codex ALWAYS overrides the rulebook when a direct contradiction occurs. What date the book was published has absolutely nothing to do with it. Again you misinterpret what i said, i did not specifically say codex trumps BRB, i said the newest codex trumps all older rules-sets (whihc includes BRB), and i dont understand the need to nit-pick just to point out that i was right in the first place....its really unconstructive to the debate, which for all intents and purposes is over, Space marines in 5th do not have any retinues. GC08 Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/146601-retinues-in-csm-5th/page/3/#findComment-1816452 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legatus Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 Some people are still confusing the "retinue" rule, on both sides I think. The rule in the BRB is titeled "retinue", but it is not an attribute that some units get and then follow certain rules. The rule explains that there are certain units available to characters which they cannot leave as long as they are alive. This sort of unit may be called a "retinue" but it may also be called a "bodyguard" or really by any other name. These are only examples. The effect of this kind of unit then is that the character, which would normally be singled out in HtH, will now instead be treated as an upgrade character. The term "retinue" never has to be uttered in a Codex, and it could still have a unit for it's characters that it cannot leave and counts as an upgrade character of. I don't have my Codex Imperial Guard available, does it say "retinue" in the description of the command plattoon? It might, because that's just the kind of term one might use to describe it. But the term is not necessary for the rule to take effect, nor will every use of the term instate the rule that is described in the rulebook. Are Tau drones described as a "retinue"? If it is a unit available for an Independent Character which he cannot leave, then the character will be treated as an Upgrade Character as long as members of the unit are alive. It does not matter how that unit is called. In previous Space Marine Codices, Command Squads were bought specifically for the HQ characters. They had the option to get a Command Squad in their army list entry. It started with Codex Eldar that the unit was not bought for the character, but it's availability was dependant on the character being part of the army. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/146601-retinues-in-csm-5th/page/3/#findComment-1816570 Share on other sites More sharing options...
waaanial00 Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 Ummm. Just found the example which will answer it if anyone is interested. WD 346, second battle report page 73 second paragraph from the bottom and page 74 top picture and first paragraph. Captain splits from Command squad to engage a different unit, they are well out of coherency and it even says that they split. The marines in this battle were being controlled by his Wardiness and if it is good enough for he who wrote the rules then it is good enough for me. Conclusive enough? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/146601-retinues-in-csm-5th/page/3/#findComment-1816858 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legatus Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 I wanted to say that you cannot trust WD battle reports to get all the rules right (there have been enough instances where they got rules wrong in the past), but the I read that it was Mat Ward who was playing. So that only leaves teh question of whether or not he knows what he is doing. He was not so keen on Codex Dark Angels, appearently, so I am not sure when (if ever) the last time was he has read the rulebook and the retinue rules. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/146601-retinues-in-csm-5th/page/3/#findComment-1816938 Share on other sites More sharing options...
maniclurker Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 Basically, Trekari lost this argument the moment he began typing it, but can't give it up now. And he still has yet to do anything except for reply to the posts that have tripped up in their wording, or don't really make a strong argument themselves. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/146601-retinues-in-csm-5th/page/3/#findComment-1817484 Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatcrusade08 Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 Basically, Trekari lost this argument the moment he began typing it, but can't give it up now. And he still has yet to do anything except for reply to the posts that have tripped up in their wording, or don't really make a strong argument themselves. We are in total agreement :D summation: Every unit that is taken as a retinue i.e Grey knights HQ and tyrant guard (these are the ones im familiar with) state quite clearly in their respective codex that "these are retinues", The command squad and honour guard do not. The BRB is the rules set for the game not for army builds, The retinue rule is pertinent to army builds and would be in codex if applicable. The codex takes precedence over BRB for conflicting rules and the codex quite clearly has an absence of the retinue rule, so even if you think the BRB allows it (which is debatable in itself) it makes no difference. Retinues are defined as units that contain an IC that cannot leave until all other models are killed, this is just not the case with the units under diuscussion. Hope ive made myself clear GC08 Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/146601-retinues-in-csm-5th/page/3/#findComment-1817505 Share on other sites More sharing options...
maniclurker Posted December 25, 2008 Share Posted December 25, 2008 Yup. Then again, this logic has been presented several times. So posting it a few more probably won't help. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/146601-retinues-in-csm-5th/page/3/#findComment-1819598 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghaurok Posted December 29, 2008 Share Posted December 29, 2008 Didn't expect this thread to get this livid. =P Anyways, when I bumped this thread, I also sent out an email asking GWS, and their answer is a definite no they're not retinues. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/146601-retinues-in-csm-5th/page/3/#findComment-1822338 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kunanaki Posted December 29, 2008 Share Posted December 29, 2008 You know, I've been reading both sides of the table in this, and I've got something to toss out there that might flip some minds. Let's take, for example, the command squad. Here's the current Argument with the Captain and the command squad. Are they a Retinue? I'm not trying to answer that question directly, instead I'll merely point out this. When you attach an independant character to a squad that's going to use a drop pod, he can stay in that drop pod with the squad until it lands, counting as part of that Pod. My reasoning applies to the Command Squad + Captain. If you put them down as a unit, then it counts as a Retinue via the rules as they exist. If you set down the Captain Seperately, then he's treated as an independent character, and you don't get the choice to just hop into the command squad and suddenly be something else. Does this seem like a logical conclusion? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/146601-retinues-in-csm-5th/page/3/#findComment-1822418 Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyescrossed Posted December 29, 2008 Share Posted December 29, 2008 No... Not really... Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/146601-retinues-in-csm-5th/page/3/#findComment-1822421 Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatcrusade08 Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 My reasoning applies to the Command Squad + Captain. If you put them down as a unit, then it counts as a Retinue via the rules as they exist. If you set down the Captain Seperately, then he's treated as an independent character, and you don't get the choice to just hop into the command squad and suddenly be something else. Does this seem like a logical conclusion? It may be that you havent conveyed the argument well, but it makes no sense...... If you put down the captain and command squad as a unit, then the IC (captain) is free to split off at any time during the game, he couldnt do this if it were a true Retinue. also if you set them up seperately, the IC would be free to join the command squad or any other unit or IC and may choose to leave them again in the following turn, again rules out the retinue theory. I think the biggest problem is that people are confusing the english meaning of retinue for the rule of the same name. For example if i were to take a captain and set him up in a tactical squad, then this squad according to the english language would be a retinue....n.The retainers or attendants accompanying a high-ranking person.....This doesnt mean they get the Retinue special rule though!!! GC08 Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/146601-retinues-in-csm-5th/page/3/#findComment-1824675 Share on other sites More sharing options...
maniclurker Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 My reasoning applies to the Command Squad + Captain. If you put them down as a unit, then it counts as a Retinue via the rules as they exist. If you set down the Captain Seperately, then he's treated as an independent character, and you don't get the choice to just hop into the command squad and suddenly be something else. Does this seem like a logical conclusion? No, it doesn't. By your very flawed logic, this would mean that I can attach an independent character to a tac squad, and the tac squad would count as a retinue. As a side note, this would make techmarines ridiculously useful. It doesn't matter how you deploy the unit. A captain is one unit, a command squad is another. In no way does the codex even IMPLY that the captain MUST join the command squad and cannot leave it. It simply lets you know that you can't take a command squad with out first selecting a captain. This is not the old codex, people. Please stop this nonsense. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/146601-retinues-in-csm-5th/page/3/#findComment-1824855 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayward Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Suming up. As I see it after reading this topic, the question is, do an IC benefits form being an "upgrade" for a comand squad/honour guard in the new SM codex or not? If this is all, why not email GW whit this very same question and get over with it? A friend of mine just did, but it would be best if several mails are delivered, so they put a little thought on the answer... Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/146601-retinues-in-csm-5th/page/3/#findComment-1830333 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hexx Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Calling/writing GW is useless for rules querries, different people answering at different times will give different answers. (This is why you see people ignore or laugh at posts that base an argument around "I called the rulezboyz" GW has also been considerate enough recently to be sure to mention that their "Official FAQs" aren't actually official, and should simply be treated as a set of house rules players may use if they so choose. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/146601-retinues-in-csm-5th/page/3/#findComment-1831752 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kairos Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 Could you find a reference of this? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/146601-retinues-in-csm-5th/page/3/#findComment-1832602 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.