The most anoying build...

[bl00d bath76]

Your limited to 6 however so no go there.... :)

[DeathKorpsman]

Perhaps 7 since Coteaz is an inquisitor and would still allow for one that doesn't count against the FOC. I'll still reserve any judgements until an FAQ comes out. The sooner the better. This 'dex really needs one.

[Angelis Mortis]

Perhaps 7 since Coteaz is an inquisitor and would still allow for one that doesn't count against the FOC. I'll still reserve any judgements until an FAQ comes out. The sooner the better. This 'dex really needs one.

 

It doesn't allow for it because it says Warbands under him count as Troops. That would include the free Elite.

[breng77]

It does not however say that those troop warbands take up a force org slot...which needs to be FAQed

[KnowThyEnemy]

i still find that argument perplexing. if you take the warband for an inquisitor (without coteaz is the only way you get them right?), they dont take up an FOC, like an honor guard or command squad. if you take coteaz, you can take warbands as troop choices. TROOPS is an FOC designation. in a standard FOC, you have 6 slots for troop choices. warbands taken as troops choices apply to this. why wouldn't they?

[breng77]

Warbands are listed as elite choices, Elites is a FOC designation as well, you only have 3 elite choices, so by your logic Warbands taken as elites should apply to this and you can only ever have 3 (you can only get 2 with out Cotaez, but none the less the same rules would apply), but their entry says they don't take up a force org slot, Cotaez's rules don't change the fact that they don't take up a force org simply that they count as troops and there is no limit to how many you can take. I agree that this is clearly not the intent of the rules, but RAW it is the way the rules read. I am sure that when the FAQ comes out that Cotaez will take up troops slots and be limited to 6, but per the codex there is nothing that says that this is the case.

 

This is one of many things in the codex that they did not think through mostly because they had never done similar things before (in this case allowing a unit that does not take up a FOC slot to be a troops choice.). GW really needs to get play testers from outside the company, and find people that try to break the game using the rules.

[Angelis Mortis]

Warbands are listed as elite choices, Elites is a FOC designation as well, you only have 3 elite choices, so by your logic Warbands taken as elites should apply to this and you can only ever have 3 (you can only get 2 with out Cotaez, but none the less the same rules would apply), but their entry says they don't take up a force org slot, Cotaez's rules don't change the fact that they don't take up a force org simply that they count as troops and there is no limit to how many you can take. I agree that this is clearly not the intent of the rules, but RAW it is the way the rules read. I am sure that when the FAQ comes out that Cotaez will take up troops slots and be limited to 6, but per the codex there is nothing that says that this is the case.

 

This is one of many things in the codex that they did not think through mostly because they had never done similar things before (in this case allowing a unit that does not take up a FOC slot to be a troops choice.). GW really needs to get play testers from outside the company, and find people that try to break the game using the rules.

 

I disagree. The wording that says they do not take up a FOC slot is when they a selected a Elites. When you take Coteaz it says they count as Troops but there is no reason to assume the "do not take a FOC slot" carries over with Coteaz's rule. Now, I will say it can be read either way, therefore we are back at square one which is it needs a FAQ and I think you agree that when they do its most likely going to say they do take a Troop slot. So to minimize confusion thats the way we should play it now and stop with the game ruining rules lawyering.

[number6]

I simply do not get why the Coteaz Warbands-as-Troops issue is so confusing. Here's how the RAW sorts out.

 

INITIAL STATE: Henchman are Elites that Take up no Force Org slots.

 

ADD 1 COTEAZ...

 

NEW STATE: Henchman are Troops choices. (Full stop. End of line.)

 

See what I did there? One entire concept just got replaced by another. A force organization choice (actual verbiage of the rule) always takes up a slot unless specifically noted otherwise (e.g., dedicated transports.). The initial state of not occupying Force Org slots has been entirely replaced by the actual language of the Lord of Formosa rule.

 

Even if you disagree with what I wrote, you can't seriously believe that GW intends for people to spam upwards of 20 minimal warbands toting an insane amount of firepower?

 

This is what kills me about RAW arguments. GW has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are incapable of writing airtight rules. Why are we trying to hold them to that standard? Furthermore, we live in societies of laws. Yet the laws are interpreted over time to mean (sometimes very different) things. If you're an American, you should be used to how the Constitution -- whose words have not changed -- comes to mean very different things depending on the context of the era in which it has been interpreted.

 

My point is: if you are asking for a game with a static, unchanging meaning that all impartial observers can agree on you're NEVER GOING TO GET IT. Especially from GW, who don't believe that proofreaders or editors are a necessary part of the publishing process. (Can anybody say "Digital Weapons on Brotherhood Champions"?)

 

So, even if you remain intransigent in your interpretation of Coteaz warbands not taking up Force Org slots, you must at least acknowledge that your interpretation leads to unacceptable abuse. Abuse so unacceptable that it can't possibly be what is intended by the rule.

 

So I say: stop hewing to that interpretation. It's abusive, ridiculous, NOT definitive (as I have demonstrated), and will obviously be FAQ'd away in any case. So just give it up right now and get on with the games.

 

Sometimes, rules really do have a clear intent. That we are obliged to follow.

[spafe]

Back on topic.

 

Corteaz

 

45 Monkeys

 

That is all (I believe that is correct, havent got book at work with me, but maybe someone can check, should be corteaz then monkeys brings it up to 1500 on dot)

 

basically pick 4 odd units a turn and trash them completly ;) next turn do the same. once they get closer switch to multimelta, then heavy flame anything that deepstrikes. set up in cover and your laughing

[Vindicatus]

The problem with that N6, is the fact that it isn't up to you, or I, or any one of us. Until it gets FAQ'd (and it might very well not, depending on how far the editors and FAQ team has it's head up it's own arse), it's up to the TO's and LGS managers.

 

In that light, every single TO I've spoken to at four stores have stated that warbands do not satisfy the 2 troops requirement, due to the listing in the Elites section which details it as not taking up an FoC slot, and they see the entry for Coteaz's ability to 'make them troops' as hellishly ambiguous.

 

Until then...we can only pray that an FAQ pops it's head from the GW website in the (very) near future. :\

[breng77]

Even if you disagree with what I wrote, you can't seriously believe that GW intends for people to spam upwards of 20 minimal warbands toting an insane amount of firepower?

 

I agree and I am sure that GW will rule that they take up troops, also I am not building said army as I am sure it will be ruled against. That said, this thread said the most annoying army, and what is more annoying than an abusive RAW argument prior to every game :cuss

 

Even mentioning the concept has already pissed off a bunch of people in this thread so I would say that I'm on the right track.

[number6]

every single TO I've spoken to at four stores have stated that warbands do not satisfy the 2 troops requirement, due to the listing in the Elites section which details it as not taking up an FoC slot, and they see the entry for Coteaz's ability to 'make them troops' as hellishly ambiguous.

How can it be that everybody in my community is on the same page while everybody in your community holds the opposite view? :cuss

 

Firstly, the occupation of a Force Org slot is not a requirement to satisfy compulsory Force Org choices. There is no rule that requires this. In fact, Black Templars players may fulfill their compulsory HQ choice with an Emperor's Champion, who never occupies a Force Org slot.

 

Secondly, what is "hellishly ambiguous" about the verbiage "are Troops choices"? ;)

 

I admit to understanding the basis for claiming that Coteaz warbands don't occupy Force Org slots. But your post is the very first time I have ever heard that anybody thought they weren't actually Troops! That is a completely indefensible reading of the rules.

[Oiad]

Kinda reminds me of the time people use to claim psycannons ignored cover saves - just because a previous entry of relative nature did ignore them they believed that the same would apply afterwards too, despite a lack of phrasing to back it up. With the feeling that history will be repeated I think people who go out and buy several dozen or more Jokers will be disappointed when this finally gets FAQ'ed.

 

EDIT: Grammar.

[spartan249]

I never even dreamed that there was any confusion about that rule until I heard it in B&C. It's clarion the way it's written right now... I don't understand how anyone could read it as unlimited henchmen choices.

 

N6 already explained, so I won't bother. I think this is just the work of individuals with wild imaginations and lacking reading comprehension.

[breng77]

Except that it is not clear, and does not work in anyway as he has mentioned it. I think what happens with most reasonable people (myself included) you see those rules and assume (more than likely correctly) that it cannot work that way because it would be so unbelievably stupid/broken/unbalanced if it worked the other way. However, Rule as written never states that Cotaez's wording replaces the wording of the unit entry. It is most certainly Rules Lawyering, silly and not at all RAI, anyone who goes out and builds said army is wasting a whole bunch of money, but that does not mean that the rules GW wrote were clear as day, and if someone who looks to abuse loopholes in rules sees the way that the rules are written, then we end up in this circumstance.

[Angelis Mortis]

I simply do not get why the Coteaz Warbands-as-Troops issue is so confusing. Here's how the RAW sorts out.

 

INITIAL STATE: Henchman are Elites that Take up no Force Org slots.

 

ADD 1 COTEAZ...

 

NEW STATE: Henchman are Troops choices. (Full stop. End of line.)

 

See what I did there? One entire concept just got replaced by another. A force organization choice (actual verbiage of the rule) always takes up a slot unless specifically noted otherwise (e.g., dedicated transports.). The initial state of not occupying Force Org slots has been entirely replaced by the actual language of the Lord of Formosa rule.

 

Even if you disagree with what I wrote, you can't seriously believe that GW intends for people to spam upwards of 20 minimal warbands toting an insane amount of firepower?

 

This is what kills me about RAW arguments. GW has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are incapable of writing airtight rules. Why are we trying to hold them to that standard? Furthermore, we live in societies of laws. Yet the laws are interpreted over time to mean (sometimes very different) things. If you're an American, you should be used to how the Constitution -- whose words have not changed -- comes to mean very different things depending on the context of the era in which it has been interpreted.

 

My point is: if you are asking for a game with a static, unchanging meaning that all impartial observers can agree on you're NEVER GOING TO GET IT. Especially from GW, who don't believe that proofreaders or editors are a necessary part of the publishing process. (Can anybody say "Digital Weapons on Brotherhood Champions"?)

 

So, even if you remain intransigent in your interpretation of Coteaz warbands not taking up Force Org slots, you must at least acknowledge that your interpretation leads to unacceptable abuse. Abuse so unacceptable that it can't possibly be what is intended by the rule.

 

So I say: stop hewing to that interpretation. It's abusive, ridiculous, NOT definitive (as I have demonstrated), and will obviously be FAQ'd away in any case. So just give it up right now and get on with the games.

 

Sometimes, rules really do have a clear intent. That we are obliged to follow.

 

Agreed in total. Well put.

[Lord Cuthbert]

Grandmaster - Orbital Relay

Inquisitor Karamrazov

 

Techmarine - Orbital Relay

Techmarine - Orbital Relay

Techmarine - Orbital Relay

 

10 Terminators - 2 x Psycannons

10 Strike Knights - 2 x Psycannons, Rhino, Psybolts

 

Dreadnought - 2 x twin autocannons, Psybolts

Dreadnought - 2 x twin autocannons, Psybolts

Dreadnought - 2 x twin autocannons, Psybolts

 

2k list

 

Orbital bombardment goodness?

 

 

Scratch the GM and insert Coteaz

Scratch the GK troops and insert 4 5-man Crusaders in a Rhino and 2 PC Servitors, 1 Joker in a Chimera

 

Bring the rain on the Crusaders from Karamazov in the teeth of the enemy

[breng77]

While I still agree that Cotaez does not allow the build I suggested above RAI.

 

RAW there is no way he does not. Having Just re-read the rules concerned.

 

Cotaez makes Henchman troops, and removes the limit of one squad per inquisitor.

 

Henchman are elites, come in squads of 3-12, don't take up a force org slot, and are limited to one per inquisitor.

 

The argument that you replace all the wording in the rules for the warbands does not make any sense otherwise why would the Cotaez entry need to bother saying "remove the limit of one squad per inquisitor". Nowhere in the rules for the unit does it say if they are elites they don't take up a force org slot. For all purposes Cotaez makes them troops, which means they are scoring, and count toward the minimum of 2 troop choices. He does not remove the fact that they do not take up a force org. slot.

 

That said it seems obvious that GW will FAQ to limit the number of squads you can take to 6, as otherwise the builds would be too abusive, and unbalanced (except possibly in Dawn of war deployments, and possibly in Kill point missions). As I said above GW playtests the codices using RAI, not trying to break every possible rule.

[KnowThyEnemy]

While I still agree that Cotaez does not allow the build I suggested above RAI.

 

RAW there is no way he does not. Having Just re-read the rules concerned.

 

Cotaez makes Henchman troops, and removes the limit of one squad per inquisitor.

 

Henchman are elites, come in squads of 3-12, don't take up a force org slot, and are limited to one per inquisitor.

 

The argument that you replace all the wording in the rules for the warbands does not make any sense otherwise why would the Cotaez entry need to bother saying "remove the limit of one squad per inquisitor". Nowhere in the rules for the unit does it say if they are elites they don't take up a force org slot. For all purposes Cotaez makes them troops, which means they are scoring, and count toward the minimum of 2 troop choices. He does not remove the fact that they do not take up a force org. slot.

 

That said it seems obvious that GW will FAQ to limit the number of squads you can take to 6, as otherwise the builds would be too abusive, and unbalanced (except possibly in Dawn of war deployments, and possibly in Kill point missions). As I said above GW playtests the codices using RAI, not trying to break every possible rule.

 

Henchman are elites that don't take up a FOC slot. You are limited to 1 per inquisitor

Coteaz makes them troops, instead of elites that don't take up an FOC slot. You are no longer limited to 1 per inquisitor (i.e. you can have 6 = max number of troops). The reason it says "remove the limit" is so that you remove the limit. this lets you take 6 warbands max instead of 2 warbands max.

 

wait a minute...I'VE GOT IT!!!!. Coteaz never says he takes up an HQ FOC slot, hes simply listed under the HQ section. Unlimited Coteaz's!!!! Do you see how silly that sounds? :(

[breng77]

THe codex never days the words Henchmen that are elites don't take up a force org slot, it says Henchman don't take up a force org slot.

 

As for your Cotaez argument, it does not work because it says under the henchmen entry that they don't take up a force org slot, changing that to a troops entry does not change the entry. Unless (as is the case with the limit) otherwise specified. There is no force org slot "Elites that don't occupy a force org slot", Henchmen are elites. Who happen to not take up a force org choice, RAW switching them to Troops does not change the fact that they don't take up a force org slot. Again, I believe you have the intention correct, but not the RAW, Reading the rule as Cotaez makes the henchmen troops that don't take up a force org slot is every bit as valid (by the letter of the law) as ruling that they become troops and now take up a force org slot.

 

I am not disagreeing with you that your reading is the intention of the book, nor would I ever try to play an army (unless GW stupidly rules that they don't take up a FOC slot.) that abused that loophole in the rules. I am simply stating that it is not unreasonable to read it the otherway, it is abusive and obviously unintended, but not outside the rules as written. You are adding language to the rules to make your point, which unfourtunately does not acutally answer the issue.

[Massawyrm]

You call that rules lawyering? I'll show you rules lawyering.

 

The RAW as the rule is clearly written on page 90 states that "For each Inquisitor in your army, you may also include blah, blah, blah. This unit does not take up a force organization slot." Page 86 is also crystal clear. "Inquisitorial Henchmen Warbands are troops choices in an army that includes Inquisitor Coteaz, and are not limited by the number of inquisitors in your army."

 

The RAW does not allow for infinite warbands. That case can only be made by those creating a brand new passage of text by combining page 90 and page 86 (or as in the case above, substituting the word "Henchmen" for the words "This unit"). Page 86 does not cut and paste into page 90 - nor does it replace the text on page 90. It allows a new set of rules to take up to 6 additional warbands as troops choices. The language allowing you to take the optional non-FOC Warband is part of the rules for warband construction with an Inquisitor. As per the normal rules, you can only have two of those.

 

No, the RAW clearly states that you can take 8 warbands - two taken with Inquisitors that are clearly defined as not taking up a spot on the FOC and up to 6 troop choices. As there is nothing saying that Coteaz's (or any other inquisitor's) warband needs to be a troop choice, you can make a valid case for the need for an FAQ between 6 and 8 legal warbands. But infinite? Now you're writing your own rules.

 

As the RAI are clear and the RAW argument for this requires serious argumentative gymnastics, this is likely to be one of those things that never gets FAQ'd because GW thinks the argument is stupid and won't grace it with one. I'd like it if they did, but it probably won't happen.

[d40k]

@number6 - Your RAW interpretation is flawed.

 

The henchmen entry is an Elite choice and is governed by TWO separate statements

- For each Inq..., include 3-12... any combination

- This unit does not use up a FO slot.

 

Coteaz rule

- Changes the choich from Elite to Troop.

- Removes the Inq. limitation.

 

The second governing sentence is unaffected, Therefor in RAW it is still in effect.

 

A presadent has been set by GW in the Black Templar FAQ dealing with the Emperors Champion.

 

Q. Can I field the Emperors Champion as my one compulsory HQ choice and no other HQs in the army?

A. Yes, even though he does not use up an HQ slot, he is still an HQ choice, and so he can fulfil the minimum HQ requirement.

 

***RAW***

Taking Corteaz and two henchmen squads fulfill the requirements of the list allow and abuse of unlimited henchmen squads to the established point value of the army.

[d40k]

Henchman are elites that don't take up a FOC slot. You are limited to 1 per inquisitor

Coteaz makes them troops, instead of elites that don't take up an FOC slot. You are no longer limited to 1 per inquisitor (i.e. you can have 6 = max number of troops). The reason it says "remove the limit" is so that you remove the limit. this lets you take 6 warbands max instead of 2 warbands max.

 

wait a minute...I'VE GOT IT!!!!. Coteaz never says he takes up an HQ FOC slot, hes simply listed under the HQ section. Unlimited Coteaz's!!!! Do you see how silly that sounds? ^_^

 

 

Again flawed RAW interpretation... See my previous post

[Massawyrm]

A precedent has been set by GW in the Black Templar FAQ dealing with the Emperors Champion.

 

Q. Can I field the Emperors Champion as my one compulsory HQ choice and no other HQs in the army?

A. Yes, even though he does not use up an HQ slot, he is still an HQ choice, and so he can fulfil the minimum HQ requirement.

 

***RAW***

Taking Corteaz and two henchmen squads fulfill the requirements of the list allow and abuse of unlimited henchmen squads to the established point value of the army.

Incorrect. All this does is confirm everyone's thoughts - that Coteaz and two Warbands satisfy the conditions of FOC requirements. That was not up for debate.

[breng77]

You call that rules lawyering? I'll show you rules lawyering.

 

The RAW as the rule is clearly written on page 90 states that "For each Inquisitor in your army, you may also include blah, blah, blah. This unit does not take up a force organization slot." Page 86 is also crystal clear. "Inquisitorial Henchmen Warbands are troops choices in an army that includes Inquisitor Coteaz, and are not limited by the number of inquisitors in your army."

 

The RAW does not allow for infinite warbands. That case can only be made by those creating a brand new passage of text by combining page 90 and page 86 (or as in the case above, substituting the word "Henchmen" for the words "This unit"). Page 86 does not cut and paste into page 90 - nor does it replace the text on page 90. It allows a new set of rules to take up to 6 additional warbands as troops choices. The language allowing you to take the optional non-FOC Warband is part of the rules for warband construction with an Inquisitor. As per the normal rules, you can only have two of those.

 

No, the RAW clearly states that you can take 8 warbands - two taken with Inquisitors that are clearly defined as not taking up a spot on the FOC and up to 6 troop choices. As there is nothing saying that Coteaz's (or any other inquisitor's) warband needs to be a troop choice, you can make a valid case for the need for an FAQ between 6 and 8 legal warbands. But infinite? Now you're writing your own rules.

 

As the RAI are clear and the RAW argument for this requires serious argumentative gymnastics, this is likely to be one of those things that never gets FAQ'd because GW thinks the argument is stupid and won't grace it with one. I'd like it if they did, but it probably won't happen.

 

You cannot take Elite warbands in a Coteaz list, as Warbands are Troops, if they are troops they are no longer elites. See the SW dex and logan Grimmnar, for a similar example. As for the rest of your argument, it does not hold because the part you are refering to on p.90 is 2 separate sentences separated by a period. Therefore the this unit refers to the warband in general or at least it cannot be easily determined to refer to the unit per each inquisitor. If the parts of the entry were separated by a comma then I would agree.