Regarding Inquisitorial Henchmen.

[Nian]

Inquisitorial Henchmen don't take up an FOC slot, having one squad of up to 12 models per inquisitor.

However they are listed under the Elite section of the codex. Does this mean that you can take a.squad of Henchmen as an elite choice without an inquisitor in the army?

[Tograth]

Unfortunately, no. In order to take them, you must have an inquisitor per squad, or otherwise you must have Coteaz (in order to take up to 6 as troops choices).

[Nian]

Unfortunately, no. In order to take them, you must have an inquisitor per squad, or otherwise you must have Coteaz (in order to take up to 6 as troops choices).

 

 

Are you sure? All I see is that for every inquisitor you have, you may take 3-12 henchmen as a squad and that squad doesn't take up an foc.

 

This would be a.benefit as if the squad is usualy elite then taking a couple of hemchmen squads would stop you from taking other cool elite choices.

 

It doesnt say you may only have henchmen with an inquisitor, the way I read the codex that is.

[Tograth]

You must have an inquisitor, because the exact wording on the unit entry is:

 

"For each inquisitor in your army, you may include a unit of 3-12 henchmen, chosen in any combination as shown. This unit does not take up a force organisation slot"

 

 

The only way to take the henchmen therefore is by having an inquisitor. Its like space marine command squads - you have to have a captain in order to take a command squad, and they dont take up a force org slot.

 

 

The fact that the models are listed on the elites page is simply a formatting issue.

[Nian]

You must have an inquisitor, because the exact wording on the unit entry is:

 

"For each inquisitor in your army, you may include a unit of 3-12 henchmen, chosen in any combination as shown. This unit does not take up a force organisation slot"

 

 

The only way to take the henchmen therefore is by having an inquisitor. Its like space marine command squads - you have to have a captain in order to take a command squad, and they dont take up a force org slot.

 

 

The fact that the models are listed on the elites page is simply a formatting issue.

 

 

Or you could read it the way i see it as saying "this is an elite choice, however if you have an inquisitor, it won't take up an foc".

 

It doesn't say "you may only if..."

[himkano]

You must have an inquisitor, because the exact wording on the unit entry is:

 

"For each inquisitor in your army, you may include a unit of 3-12 henchmen, chosen in any combination as shown. This unit does not take up a force organisation slot"

 

 

The only way to take the henchmen therefore is by having an inquisitor. Its like space marine command squads - you have to have a captain in order to take a command squad, and they dont take up a force org slot.

 

 

The fact that the models are listed on the elites page is simply a formatting issue.

 

 

Or you could read it the way i see it as saying "this is an elite choice, however if you have an inquisitor, it won't take up an foc".

 

It doesn't say "you may only if..."

 

The punctuation says it. "For each inquisitor, you may take 1 unit" - That is the qualifier. Then, as a separate sentence, it informs you that such a unit does not take a slot on FOC.

[XaClocKWorKoX]

you can only take up to two as per you may only take two HQ. you pick an HQ then you add 3-12 "elite choices" to him but it does not take up an elite slot.

 

the only way it changes is when you take coteaz then you may take up to 6 squads as they are now troop choices and the INQ. is not in the squad so it does take up FOC

[Nian]

you can only take up to two as per you may only take two HQ. you pick an HQ then you add 3-12 "elite choices" to him but it does not take up an elite slot.

 

the only way it changes is when you take coteaz then you may take up to 6 squads as they are now troop choices and the INQ. is not in the squad so it does take up FOC

 

 

I think it's not as B/W as you may see it, if we read it raw, it's quite a mess of a rule.

 

I think you can have 3 squads as elites or a squas not in the foc through an inquisitor, not only that but how many units in the squas if you take coteaz? The 3-12 seems to be exclusive to the rule of one inquisitor may have outside the foc.

[number6]

This is the first I've heard of people attempting to take warbands without Inquisitors! :)

 

The rule parses very clearly. The prepositional phrase "For every Inquisitor" qualifies the entire sentence that follows. You can't ignore it. The only way to get more warbands than Inquisitors is by taking Coteaz.

[Nian]

This is the first I've heard of people attempting to take warbands without Inquisitors! :)

 

The rule parses very clearly. The prepositional phrase "For every Inquisitor" qualifies the entire sentence that follows. You can't ignore it. The only way to get more warbands than Inquisitors is by taking Coteaz.

 

Or it could read: For every inquisitor you may take a warband that does not use up a foc

[Gentlemanloser]

For those following that logic, what's the Squad size of Elite version Henchmen taken without Inquisitors?

[Nian]

For those following that logic, what's the Squad size of Elite version Henchmen taken without Inquisitors?

 

 

Good questiom, also what size is coteaz's warband troops and do they use up a foc slot?

[Gentlemanloser]

3-12 and yes. ;)

[Nian]

3-12 and yes. ;)

 

 

Read the rules more closely, it doesn't necessarily say that. Your just assuming things...

[Gentlemanloser]

Not at all.

 

For each Inquisitor in your army, you may also include a unit of 3-12 henchmen, <snip>. This unit does not use up a Force Organisation Slot.

 

Inquisitorial Henchmen warbands are Troops choices <snip> and are not limited by the number of Inquisitors in your army.

 

The first part, making them Troop choices, stops them being Elite non FoC. As Troops are just that. Troops. And you can take 6 of them. The second part removes the "For each Inquisitor". You're then left with;

 

You may include a unit of 3-12 henchmen. These are Troop Choices.

 

Done. ;)

[Nian]

Well guys, it looks like this issue isn't something new, others have asked and debated on it and it's quite an us and them devisive topic.

Just google and be amazed. Essentially the conclusion of way too many people that the only way to get consensus is for a games worksop FAQ.

 

So yeah a bit of a goigle after I asked here and it's quite a surprise what I found.

 

Oh and I still think they can be taken as elites without an inquisitor Waiting for an FAQ, along with the clarifying of falcions and +2 attacks.

[Larkyn]

Well guys, it looks like this issue isn't something new, others have asked and debated on it and it's quite an us and them devisive topic.

Just google and be amazed. Essentially the conclusion of way too many people that the only way to get consensus is for a games worksop FAQ.

 

So yeah a bit of a goigle after I asked here and it's quite a surprise what I found.

 

Oh and I still think they can be taken as elites without an inquisitor Waiting for an FAQ, along with the clarifying of falcions and +2 attacks.

 

Or you could look back a page or so on here. There's about 50,000 different topics on this (ok, bit of an exaggeration).

[thade]

Gentlemenloser packed this up pretty neatly; only thing I can really add is "I agree" and, of course, my favorite riff:

 

1. The Warhammer rules are not written to stand up to rigid legal-style analysis.

2. Some rules in the game are known so well by those who have played it for so many years they are eschewed as something GW feels is "obvious".

3. Disregarding these "implicit rules" may seem like RAW, but it's really an exploit. If you disagree, refer to (1).

 

You might be frustrated (as I sometimes am) in that these "implicit rules" are not in the (censored) rulebook, so how can we be expected to know them and where will we find them anyway?

 

Well, we're expected to know them because we play with people who know them...the people who've played the game since 1st Ed. Where can we find them? Ask said old-timers and hang out on the OR boards here. <3

[Nian]

Well guys, it looks like this issue isn't something new, others have asked and debated on it and it's quite an us and them devisive topic.

Just google and be amazed. Essentially the conclusion of way too many people that the only way to get consensus is for a games worksop FAQ.

 

So yeah a bit of a goigle after I asked here and it's quite a surprise what I found.

 

Oh and I still think they can be taken as elites without an inquisitor Waiting for an FAQ, along with the clarifying of falcions and +2 attacks.

 

Or you could look back a page or so on here. There's about 50,000 different topics on this (ok, bit of an exaggeration).

 

 

Is there? Haven't noticed any since the new codex. I doubt they were resolved however if they did exist.

[thade]

So yeah a bit of a goigle after I asked here and it's quite a surprise what I found.

I actually stopped Googling for rules queries and now exclusively come here to B&C's OR board. The guys in there have particularly good heads about this stuff.

[BrotherWasted]

3-12 and yes. :huh:

 

 

Read the rules more closely, it doesn't necessarily say that. Your just assuming things...

 

The rules DO say that a warband must be comprised of 3-12 models. This applies regardless of whether the unit is Elites or Troops.

 

And, no, it is not clear whether Coteaz's troops occupy FOC slots. This has been debated before, and requires a FAQ to resolve. As written, Coteaz does not override the "does not use up a slot" clause.

[uberschveinen]

So yeah a bit of a goigle after I asked here and it's quite a surprise what I found.

I actually stopped Googling for rules queries and now exclusively come here to B&C's OR board. The guys in there have particularly good heads about this stuff.

 

SOME of them do. The rest are the standard-issue knuckleheads who try to make up for a lack of substantive knowledge of the principles through sheer gusto, and the chuckleheads who work the rules in reverse by picking the outcome they want and trying to reason from A to B. The good side is there's enough people capable of reason and judgment in there that the nonsense-spruikers can't take control by force of numbers, which has destroyed many a public rules reference before.

 

I'd be more accepting of their rules lawyering if they weren't all awful at it. I mean, I like a good argument, and I don't mind if it's some speculative fodder far removed from accepted ideas. Hell, I like unnecessarily-complex arguments based on poorly-organised rules defined by imputation from unclear and heterogenous precedents enough that I figured out how to get paid for it. But nobody has a good time when most of the parties to an argument stagger in, say what's most convenient to them, reel out an utterly incoherent justification, and then as soon as someone comments adversely take the argumentative analogue of sticking your fingers in your ears and going LALALALALALALA. And then there's the ones that are so inscrutable they are in danger of just not even constituting an argument at all; that look like the results of a random number generator assigned to words found in the thread.

[Nian]

So yeah a bit of a goigle after I asked here and it's quite a surprise what I found.

I actually stopped Googling for rules queries and now exclusively come here to B&C's OR board. The guys in there have particularly good heads about this stuff.

 

SOME of them do. The rest are the standard-issue knuckleheads who try to make up for a lack of substantive knowledge of the principles through sheer gusto, and the chuckleheads who work the rules in reverse by picking the outcome they want and trying to reason from A to B. The good side is there's enough people capable of reason and judgment in there that the nonsense-spruikers can't take control by force of numbers, which has destroyed many a public rules reference before.

 

I'd be more accepting of their rules lawyering if they weren't all awful at it. I mean, I like a good argument, and I don't mind if it's some speculative fodder far removed from accepted ideas. Hell, I like unnecessarily-complex arguments based on poorly-organised rules defined by imputation from unclear and heterogenous precedents enough that I figured out how to get paid for it. But nobody has a good time when most of the parties to an argument stagger in, say what's most convenient to them, reel out an utterly incoherent justification, and then as soon as someone comments adversely take the argumentative analogue of sticking your fingers in your ears and going LALALALALALALA. And then there's the ones that are so inscrutable they are in danger of just not even constituting an argument at all; that look like the results of a random number generator assigned to words found in the thread.

 

And then your complete faith in humanity gets destroyed by a Matt Ward codex, so poorly written that one assumes he just ate several dozen cans of alphabet spaghetti and diarrhoeas out whole chapters.

 

Heres the main issues with the Warband section... Its in the Elites section, normally if a unit is attached to another unit, E.g. HQ. Then its section is under that category and is in a grey background box. The next issue is that the requirement for having a warband been an inquisitor can as easily be read to say that it merely allows you to take a warband without using up an Elite slot, it does not implicitly say that that you may not have a warband at all without an inquisitor.

The next issue is that under the inquisitor for no FOS there is the unit size. Its part of that section, not a separate entry saying that all warbands are 3-12 in size. Then you have the question of wether Coteaz makes the warband troops who take up a troop FOS or not, if they don't then you will need to take two grey knight squads to make a legal army.

 

Most of these I agree can be reasoned out, but if you go by RAW then its a nasty mess and for all intent and purpose, it needs a FAQ.

 

 

Why am I pedantic? Because I use to play tournaments in Magic the Gathering, and that game is quite specific on how it is to be read and played for each card. I expect that level of exactness from games workshop, sadly GW are lazy and need to sack their proof readers. Anything that has organised tournaments and competitions should never be so poorly written and ambiguous.

[uberschveinen]

The MTG rules are actually one of the game's strongest assets, and easily the most underestimated in terms of value. Having a comprehensive rules document that IS comprehensive, including every rule for every mechanic and every exception, as well as a library of single-instance exceptions that can be searched per card, makes it easily the most rules-solid tabletop game there is. Given it's got short of ten thousand different cards in it now, and almost twenty years of uninterrupted rules agglomeration, the level of consistency it's achieved is nothing short of incredible, and the result of constant and ruthless dedication to keeping the rules clean. MTG's tournament popularity as far-and-away the biggest of games of its category isn't the cause, it's the result. You can have tournaments for tens of thousands of dollars when you are the game that knows how it works. The law itself could learn something from the sheer organisational efficiency of the Comprehensive Rules.

 

Games Workshops is awful at rules, because it just doesn't care. There is no reason to believe anyone cares on any of the evidence from this edition, with inconsistencies rife in even the application or basic recognition of the fundamental principles of the game. The problem is threefold. Firstly, the basic rules are made for ease of reading. This is not inherently bad when you have a rules primer for new players and the actual rules in depth, but when your rules in depth are written to be dramatic and expedient, you're doomed to failure. It would take a level of rulesmanship beyond any of the company's current employees to reconcile the methodology of rules production with an actual coherent single-document basis.

 

Secondly, the way Codex exceptions work is simply appalling. There is a remarkably low level of rulesmanship on the part of the authors, to the point that they largely do not even get the most basic rule of rules-writing; that if you cannot distinguish between what you meant and what you said, you should not be writing rules at all. This is why you need multiple people on every rules team; to ask, to question, and to point out to you that the way you think it's read is just not how it'll be read. A single person can't read rules they've created without unconsciously incorporating the intent behind them. It's just not how people work. Even having a proofreader position would be an improvement, because at least then there's someone with some control who can see the rules preprinting and say 'hey, this seems to me to work like X' when the author was convinced it reads as Y. It doesn't help that a lot of the writers are just not actually good at the formal and substantive elements of rules-writing.

 

Thirdly, the FAQs are pathetic. They take months to produce, fail to answer crucial questions, answer inconsistently, misapply precedents they quote themselves, and even get the fundamental principles of the game wrong at times. I mean, really, the amount of time it takes to produce these things, you'd expect an actual coherent document, not some rubbish they've phoned in at the last minute. I would genuinely be happier if they added new questions as they came in, with a day for consideration, and then made these rulings absolute. At least then they'd be fast and arbitrary, instead of arbitrary and woefully past-due.

 

Any one of these issues could be resolved to a playable standard with relative ease and minimal investment, and each would lead to substantially more playable games. As it is, having to take your opponent aside to come to mutual agreements wiht things as basic as how your army even fundamentally works is the name of the game, and that's just pathetic. With all the legal advice they have on retainer, you'd think Games Workshop could have someone who actually gets how rules work to look over these things before printing.

[Cretheus]

my opinion is that you have to use a bit of common sense (if any is actually needed). the reason its in the elites slot is that if it was a hq it would then be an a body guard and you would have to attatch said inquisitor to the unit instead you get a unit you do not have to attatch the inquisitor to the war band and it can be attatched to another unit or move independantly. the only way and i think its common consensus in most places to get more than one warband per inquisitor is by taking cotaez. The other matter of wether they use a FOC slot is pretty irrelevant as it blatently says they count as troops choices and thus are can be made to be the compulsory 2 troop units needed. Most HQ's that dont take up a slot count towards your compulsory HQ slot so why wouldnt the troops.