alex567 Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 well they wouldnt have put the rule their if it didnt mean something, it would have read something like this: when corteaz is included in your army there is no limit to the amount of henchman you can take a bit like calgar and honour guard, bu the other side of the dice is they do not take a force orgenisation chart but they can capture objectives. so what did matt ward have in mind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resv Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 I should have cleared this up when I wrote the list down. We weren't sure about the counts as troops potion of the codex either so we all agreed that they should be counted like any regular troop unit with out all this confusion of if they take up FOC or not. From what we read of the Coteaz entry we decided his rule superseded the "not in the FOC" rule. We looked it at it like this: when a Henchman unit is attached to an Inquisitor it is outside of the FOC as intended, when Cotaez is evolved it is treated as a regular troops choice. This really needs to be FAQed. I feel dumb because in my notes I have a big underlined note to myself to explain this in the original bat-rep. I think you are all right as well about being only able to take 3 special weapons in a squad but I didn't write the list down. All I really remember was that there was two units with meltas and one with plasma guns. I'm sure his list was legal as far as we could ascertain as Chris is a huge stickler for rules. I was recreated the list as well as I could using the draft PDF so it is probably my fault for screwing up his list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justcar Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 I think the intent is clear. You take Coteaz, they are troops in all respects. That is the way I see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
templargdt Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Agreed. This is not a new concept w/r/t changing the FOC via special character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justcar Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Does anyone remember the wording on servo skulls and deepstriking? Does it render scatter to D6" OR does it decrease scatter by D6" could be useful in conjunction with the summoning powers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resv Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Any unit deep striking within 12 inches rolls one less D6 for scatter. So you only roll 1D6 like DoA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Vader Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 I am following this with interest as I'd like to do a mostly Inquisitorial Henchmen army. I love the madness of the inquisition stuff and am thoroughly bored of painting power armour (which may be a somewhat heretical statement on B&C ;) ) I had a look at the codex yesterday and while I can see both sides of the debate I would expect an FAQ to say that they count as troops and count to the minimum choices for FOC purposes. That would seem to be the point of Coteaz's special rule. While there is precedent for the other side of the debate (CSM lesser daemons), I will mention the BT's Emperor's Champion who does not take up a FOC slot but has been FAQ'd as counting towards the minimum number of HQ choices. Have a look at the wording in the current BT FAQ, I think (hope) this will be the case for Coteaz's henchmen, though they may cap the number at 6 or 8 (with 2 inquisitors) as while the Emperor's Champion is unique in a BT army, henchmen warbands are not. You could argue that since the EC counts towards the minimum HQ slots despite not using a FOC slot that maybe CSM daemons should to. Look at the BT FAQ, swap 'HQ' for 'Troops' and look at the lesser daemon entry in C:CSM. I think the only reason that it hasn't been FAQ'd is that nobody would want to do that, it would make a pretty poor army :). It seems the codex has used gamer generated terms that realistically have no meaning when compared to the rulebook. There is no mention of slots in there which what the codex says they don't take up. The BT codex mentions FOC 'slots', so that terminology has been used before in a GW publication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmk17 Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 From my reading and re-reading (it is worded piss poorly), the intent of Coteaz is to supersede basic limiting rules of the unit and FOC; following the now Current Trend in codexes of HQ allowing Elite choices as Troops (for purposes of FOC and scoring). This will be FAQ'd in that first wave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashe Darke Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 The BT codex mentions FOC 'slots', so that terminology has been used before in a GW publication. It still doesn't appear in the rule book which doesn't help. A slot does not equal a selection. Now if they agreed on terminology this would be a lot clearer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Johnson the 3rd jr Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 I think the intent is clear. You take Coteaz, they are troops in all respects. That is the way I see it. It is not even the intent that is clear. The rules themselves are clear. The sentence "THIS UNIT does not use a force org slot" has something special going on. It says THIS UNIT, not every henchmen unit. What is THIS UNIT? It is THE UNIT referred to in the previous sentence. The one which says that EACH inquisitor can take A UNIT of henchmen. That is ALL the second sentence is referring to. If other henchman units can be taken by other means, they are not THAT UNIT referred to in THAT sentence. So they DO take up force org slots, because neither the second sentence nor the first applies to other henchman units acquired by other means. It defies logic, reason and a proper understanding of the English language to interpret any other way. And in case that was too confusing, it means an all Inquisitor army is possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Johnson the 3rd jr Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 This whole discussion is moot anyway because it will certainly be cleared up in the first FAQ that comes out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rose Princes Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 So, that is being said here is that 1) they count as Troops 2) Troops are scoring units 3) they do not count towards your allotment of 6 Troop Choices in an army. ergo, this makes Cortez give UNLIMITED numbers of henchmen. you can have an infinite number of 3 model henchmen units. Forget elite army..... GK just became the new Horde army! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justcar Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Any unit deep striking within 12 inches rolls one less D6 for scatter. So you only roll 1D6 like DoA. Is this per servo skull or total? I don't have it handy, so... Does it in any way imply that units could not scatter by having overlapping zones of influence? I think no, but one can hope ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Johnson the 3rd jr Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 So, that is being said here is that 1) they count as Troops 2) Troops are scoring units 3) they do not count towards your allotment of 6 Troop Choices in an army. ergo, this makes Cortez give UNLIMITED numbers of henchmen. you can have an infinite number of 3 model henchmen units. Forget elite army..... GK just became the new Horde army! Except they will FAQ this right away I reckon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
number6 Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 The codex is now available for public viewing. No more rumours; this topic has now served its purpose. It's on to rules discussions and army lists. B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.