The most anoying build...

[d40k]

The Corteaz rule does not chance the fact that they do not occupy a FOC slot.

 

The key word in the FAQ answer is "can". You can have him occupy a slot your choice. BT armies can have three HQ units on the table with the EC not taking a slot on the FOC.

 

Tis satisfy the condition but is not required. you can have 15 war-bands two meeting the requirement the rest do not occupy the FOC.

 

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.

 

QFT.

 

This is the way our group is playing it until an FAQ is issued

This argument is going on across several forums... You will find that this statement is the most argued for... Right or wrong its the one we are using

[number6]

I still think the logic in the Coteaz Troops Don't Occupy Force Org Slots camp to be flawed. But ever since the debate began nobody has switched their views, so I don't see the point of trying any longer. For anybody. On either side.

 

What I still don't get is why people -- especially those in the camp opposed to my view -- are so :cuss adamant about the RAW regarding Lord of Formosa. :P Nobody disagrees with the obvious intention of the rule.

 

If it's really that obvious, arguing counter to that intent strikes me as the very definition of "abusive rules lawyer".

 

So ... can we be done now? I thought this was a game we wanted to play? Not something we wanted to use to piss our opponents off. ;)

[d40k]

Most defiantly. :P You and I are both old enough to know were to draw the line

 

But as I also enjoy the gameas a game, I am a serious Tourney player, as well. I attend at least three to seven major event each year.

Been doing so since 99 GT. As such I have to look at the rules in both light.

 

As it stands a Ard Boyz list with Corteaz is a very attractive army for me to use and if I do not than I need to be prepared to face it as well

[Massawyrm]

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.

 

This is an interesting choice for an argument, considering your very liberal take on the rules. In this case the rules do not in any way conflict. They ARE Troops choices as per Coteaz's rules, but because they are taken with the Inquisitors (as the rules say you MAY) they do not count against FOC. Ergo 8 Troop choice warbands.

 

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.

My argument holds. You are rewriting the words "this unit" with the word "warband" and it is the only way your argument works.

 

As to the punctuation, it would be grammatically incorrect with a comma. The writer has two grammatically correct choices when modifying the first sentence: the use of a semi-colon or separation by a period. I can find no examples in a single modern codex in which the term "this unit" is EVER used without referring to a previous sentence. The standard GW guideline is to refer to the unit by its name first. Matt Ward is fond of "This Unit" as a follow up whereas Robin Cruddace favors a repetition of the units name. Cruddace is clearly writing for those that feel parsing every line and reading them out of context in the face of RAI is how you interpret RAW.

[Freman Bloodglaive]

Henchmen warbands are troops in a army led by Coteaz, and are not limited by the number of Inquisitors in your army.

 

As long as we agree that Coteaz is an HQ, and that 2 Henchmen squads (24 points for 6 warrior acolytes) make up the required Troops choices irrespective of whether they fill the chart or just exist alongside the chart, I'll voluntarily limit myself to six squads.

 

Annoying armies, I find the entire Grey Knights Codex annoying. You could run an army daubed with bloody sigils and tell people that they are the Grey Knights who killed a bunch of sisters in order to protect themselves from a daemonic curse. That would annoy a sisters player.

 

You could run Draigo and say, "I have Draigo, your entire army is dead" (that's probably how Ward plays). (two Paladin would make up your troops requirement, I think it's the smallest army you can field)

 

Actually Draigo plus two Paladin would be an annoying army. You don't have to meet the points requirement of the game (a la the Last Chancers) and they are a pretty hard nut.

[Angelis Mortis]

Henchmen warbands are troops in a army led by Coteaz, and are not limited by the number of Inquisitors in your army.

 

As long as we agree that Coteaz is an HQ, and that 2 Henchmen squads (24 points for 6 warrior acolytes) make up the required Troops choices irrespective of whether they fill the chart or just exist alongside the chart, I'll voluntarily limit myself to six squads.

 

Annoying armies, I find the entire Grey Knights Codex annoying. You could run an army daubed with bloody sigils and tell people that they are the Grey Knights who killed a bunch of sisters in order to protect themselves from a daemonic curse. That would annoy a sisters player.

 

You could run Draigo and say, "I have Draigo, your entire army is dead" (that's probably how Ward plays). (two Paladin would make up your troops requirement, I think it's the smallest army you can field)

 

Actually Draigo plus two Paladin would be an annoying army. You don't have to meet the points requirement of the game (a la the Last Chancers) and they are a pretty hard nut.

 

Whiners about the Grey Knight codex, that is definitely the most annoying.

[BrotherWasted]

You don't have to meet the points requirement of the game (a la the Last Chancers) and they are a pretty hard nut.

 

come again?

[breng77]

If it's really that obvious, arguing counter to that intent strikes me as the very definition of "abusive rules lawyer"

 

I totally agree, my argument was that it made the most annoying Gks army(abusive rules lawyering is very annoying), which has I think been proven by the derailing of this thread, I see no more point in arguing for the sake of arguing.

[Freman Bloodglaive]

You don't have to meet the points requirement of the game (a la the Last Chancers) and they are a pretty hard nut.

 

come again?

 

You could field the Last Chancers in any game size as an army in themselves despite the fact that they'd only be a small fraction of your opponents army. The points limit is an upper limit, not a lower one. It's sensible to play to the limit, but you don't have to. You could take Draigo and 2 paladin (or Coteaz and 6 henchmen) as an army in any game over 400 points.

 

They wouldn't be a very good army, but they would be a legal army.

[WolfLordRadulfr]

Not really a build more like unti combo with Karamazov's by any means necessary special rule and dreadknight w/ teleporter for guided Orbital lance strike to pop open transports so DK can assualt the squad inside. Even if DK fails inv save only 1W and dice gods willing won't have to waste a assault cracking the armour.

[BrotherWasted]

You don't have to meet the points requirement of the game (a la the Last Chancers) and they are a pretty hard nut.

 

come again?

 

You could field the Last Chancers in any game size as an army in themselves despite the fact that they'd only be a small fraction of your opponents army. The points limit is an upper limit, not a lower one. It's sensible to play to the limit, but you don't have to. You could take Draigo and 2 paladin (or Coteaz and 6 henchmen) as an army in any game over 400 points.

 

They wouldn't be a very good army, but they would be a legal army.

 

And this makes them annoying how? I think I have completely missed your point as to why this makes the GK codex annoying. Draigo and two single Paladins are fragile as frak when put up against an army of higher points value.

[the jeske]

well it would be [if it was legal] very annoying in a tournament sceen . lets say you win 4:1 games and some people win 4:1 games too. judges check how well both of your opponnets did and how many points they got . you ended up playing one guy that scratched after 2 games and one that had a 400 pts army and lost all. you end up 4th or 5th . very annoying .