Seahawk Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 In my codex, the servitors units does not have the extra clause that says they do not take up a slot on the FOC, so they do suck up elite slots, despite being in "the grey box." Is this the same elsewhere, and should we expect a FAQ within 5 years about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drakkhenkc Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 C:SM, pg 138 - "You may include one unit of Servitors for every techmarine..." Reads like they occupy the same slot as the techmarine. If you could take them without a techmarine, why bother to put 'you may' in the description? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesI Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Unlike the command squad, nothing was put in to say they don't take a FOC. (Assuming I recall correctly, I don't have codex access for another hour or so.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 From what I understand you can only take servitors with tech marines and inquisitors (not sure about the WH dex), and the servitors are part of a retinue and as such do not take an extra slot in the FOC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesI Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Nothing in the rules in the marine codex makes them a retinue or makes them not take a FOC slot. Its different in other codeci (BA/DA and the INQ servitors are part of retinues) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 well every other grey box is an upgrade that doesn't take up a slot in the FOC... i'd go with that trend since that would make more sense than there only being 1 different in the whole darned codex, and EVERY other army they dont use up FOC, the wording is weird but you can still only have them for techs you have in your army... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nighthawks Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 the grey boxes are all units or characters that can only be purchased with or as an upgrade to a regular (not in grey box) unit. there's nothing stating that units highlighted in grey do not take up an FOC slot. servitors are only allowed with a techmarine, and are not retinues. 'dems da breaks. agreed that it seems strange that you may include a unit of servitors for every TM or MotF in the list, as you could have 6 of them, total (3 elite + 3 thunderfire cannon crew techmarines in heavy) but then no elite slots available for servitors. apocalypse may be the answer if you really want a bunch of very expensive less than space marine servitors, unless and until some FAQ comes out (don't hold your breath). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted October 11, 2008 Author Share Posted October 11, 2008 Right, they are NOT retinues. They (and the techmarine) are free to seperate or join each other, though if they don't, servitors are subject to Mindlock. I do not go with trends. I go with what is written, and what is written is that servitors are their own unit entry within the codex, taking up one slot. I know it's obviously an oversight, but it's one that will cost us until they release an errata/FAQ. I just wanted to be sure other people's books read the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merak1984 Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 In the Codex: Eldar 2006, for the Farseer entry it says "Warlocks: For each Farseer in the army, you may include a squad of 3-10 warlocks(see entry below). This unit and the Farseer are a single HQ choice. There's a distinction made in my Codex. Just food for thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isiah Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Well that's fine but what happens in one Codex doesn't mean it happens or offers a precedence in another - unless we're told it does :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merak1984 Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Well that's fine but what happens in one Codex doesn't mean it happens or offers a precedence in another - unless we're told it does :D Lol, yeah, I know... and even then , the same GW employee may have contradicting rulings on things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bannus Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 I do not go with trends. I go with what is written, and what is written is that servitors are their own unit entry within the codex, taking up one slot. But you are completely ignoring the "isolation box" the unit is placed in - which has as much authority as the text itself. There are several of those "isolation boxes" in the army list (and others) - which have a very consistent use - for units that operate outside of the FOC. The box itself is just as RAW as the text inside of it. If you say that Servitors occupy an Elites slot, then you are ignoring the isolation box and ignoring that box is not RAW - not to mention those lovely lines between each entry in the Codex - which are conspiciously absent between the Techmarine and Servitor entries. They have the same authority as the text encapsulated between them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saiisil Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 The FAQ covers it page 1 right hand column in the errata section Space Marine FAQ Page 138 – Servitors. The first line should be changed at reprint to: “You may include one unit of Servitors for every Techmarine or Master of the Forge in your army. These units do not count against your HQ or Elites allowance.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted November 22, 2011 Author Share Posted November 22, 2011 Holy necromancy, Batman! This thread is 3 years old! Didn't anyone notice that? But you are completely ignoring the "isolation box" the unit is placed in - which has as much authority as the text itself. There are several of those "isolation boxes" in the army list (and others) - which have a very consistent use - for units that operate outside of the FOC.And if I was a completely new person to the game, an iso-box means absolutely nothing without a description. For all I know it's just decoration to separate unit entries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isiah Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Holy necromancy, Batman! This thread is 3 years old! Didn't anyone notice that? :P Yes, I did, but chose to give merak1984 the head to run. Anyway - thanks to an faq this is now resolved. So it can rest in peace - again :tu:. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saiisil Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Holy necromancy, Batman! This thread is 3 years old! Didn't anyone notice that? But you are completely ignoring the "isolation box" the unit is placed in - which has as much authority as the text itself. There are several of those "isolation boxes" in the army list (and others) - which have a very consistent use - for units that operate outside of the FOC.And if I was a completely new person to the game, an iso-box means absolutely nothing without a description. For all I know it's just decoration to separate unit entries. Nope didn't realize that, I saw a new post thought it was kinda long for a new thread but didn't bother to look at posting dates, it was just something I remember being in the official FAQs so I posted the official FAQ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted November 22, 2011 Author Share Posted November 22, 2011 So, continuing on my line of thought before, the dark iso-boxes do not automatically mean "doesn't take up a FOC slot." Many codexes use them for Upgrades (C:T), Upgrade Characters (C:IG), or specifically spell out that the unit doesn't take up a FOC slot through whatever means (C:E, C:DA, C:BA, etc). This was the one, wrongly worded iso-box that truly was screwing over Servitor users. That is, until the FAQ came out to fix it :) Needless to say, the thread is complete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.