Coteaz Question...

[IK Viper]

I have just recently picked up the GK Codex and am looking into ways to ally them into some of my armies.  I know Mr. Coteaz "makes Inquisitorial Warbands troops" but I also notice that in the codex entry it says you can take one warband per inquisitor,  I take this to mean one of 2 things, either:

 

1. If you take Coteaz you can take one Warband, but becasue of his rule they are troops not elites

 

2. If you take Coteaz becasue the Warbands become troops you get around the one per inquisitor limitation and thus can take up to 6 warbands, all of which count as troops, 

 

Obviously the second option if a more liberal interpritation of the rules and would make this ability really good, while option 1. is obvioulsy legal even by conservative standards but would severly limit the possible shinanigans you can pull with our favorite Latino Inquisitor

[number6]

It's always option #2.

[IK Viper]

If someone argues the other way how do I definatively defend this ruling over option 1?

[dswanick]

I have just recently picked up the GK Codex and am looking into ways to ally them into some of my armies.  I know Mr. Coteaz "makes Inquisitorial Warbands troops" but I also notice that in the codex entry it says you can take one warband per inquisitor,  I take this to mean one of 2 things, either:

 

1. If you take Coteaz you can take one Warband, but becasue of his rule they are troops not elites

 

2. If you take Coteaz becasue the Warbands become troops you get around the one per inquisitor limitation and thus can take up to 6 warbands, all of which count as troops, 

 

Obviously the second option if a more liberal interpritation of the rules and would make this ability really good, while option 1. is obvioulsy legal even by conservative standards but would severly limit the possible shinanigans you can pull with our favorite Latino Inquisitor

 

If someone argues the other way how do I definatively defend this ruling over option 1?

"Lord of Formosa

Inquisitorial Henchmen warbands are Troops choices in an army that indudes Inquisitor Torquemada Coteaz, and are not limited by the number of Inquisitors in your army.", C:GK, pg.86

[IK Viper]

thanks

[boreas]

I also have one: If Coteaz is manning a Interceptor quad-gun and a flyer come in from reserve within 12", does he get to shoot twice (interceptor and personnal rule)?

[IndigoJack]

Until FAQ'd otherwise, he sure does.

[IK Viper]

Thats a huge RAW stretch though,  I would never attmep to pull that over on someone,  it is completely illogical in RAI terms.

[IndigoJack]

Well, there are no guidelines to playing the game RAI, so rules as RAW is how we have to do it. It's not even a stretch really. Interceptor is only used by the model firing the gun, and "I've been expecting you" is something coteaz (and his unit) does. If he happens to be manning a gun then he can use said gun to fire. Two different rules that produce similar effects. There is no rule saying you can't fire more than once out of turn. Honestly, if someone is dumb enough to get within 12" of coteaz when he's manning a gun with interceptor, then they deserve to be shot twice.

[the jeske]

well you know you could always shot with him using the interceptor rule and then use his 'IHBEY" on another model touching the gun to use it again , if someone has problems with him using it twice. There are other models that are already using their special rules while using the AA guns. fast shot eldar exarchs , that ultramarine scout sgt , the sniper assasin etc

[thade]

Well, there are no guidelines to playing the game RAI...

Respectfully, I'd like to point out that this is patently false. There are now not just one but two rules specifically geared towards playing the game with a healthy helping RAI: the Golden Rule and The Spirit of the Game rule. They both really boil down to this: "Don't be a jerk AND if something is fun for both of you, do it; otherwise do something else."

 

The argument is made, again and again, that these rules are simply not conducive or useful for competitive/tournament play, where a clearer and less ambiguous rule set would definitely be preferable as RAW would have all of our bases covered (and make the OR board a much less fiery, exciting place). This argument isn't without merit: certainly a clearer, less ambiguous rule set would be better suited for competitive/tournament play. However, we have what we have, so when I have a rules conundrum, here's what I do:

• I read all of the rules involved very carefully. This will likely find me using the index and cross referencing a lot of terms, hopping around the core rule book a lot. I'll also check the FAQs for any books involved (base rule book, codex, whatever) to see if it's been addressed there.
• I'll present my findings and bounce my understanding off of the person(s) I'm going to be playing with.
• If we disagree, I go with their interpretation. (You'll find that if both players do this, games are WAY more relaxed and fun.) Frankly, it's better to actually play the game than to simply be right about it.

If you find the last idea foolish because it might reduce your chances at willing a free kit or store credit or something, you're disregarding those two written rules which plainly tell us to interpret the rules as we need to: it's plain, unambiguous RAW telling us we'll sometimes need to use RAI. The game is primarily about setting and fun and it is plainly imbalanced, if only due to hard-to-interpret rules, which RAI can resolve. RAI is only a problem if one or more parties involved in the interpreting are out to gain an advantage instead of being out simply to have a good time.

 

That said, if my opponent does seem to be trying to twist rules and pick arguments to give them some kind of an advantage, I'll may play my games with other opponents. Frankly I find that people who argue for advantage make for uncomfortable in-game and post game conversation, and they are particularly sore losers and sorer winners.

[IndigoJack]

I'm sorry, but neither the golden rule nor the spirit of the game rule have anything directly to do with RAI, but are more things to handle disputes in general. Unless you know the game designers, you don't what they intended. There are times when RAW will directly contradict themselves. This is a by-product of a system not designed for competitive play (as you pointed out). But if the rules say something works a certain way,  your only argument against it can't be "that's not RAI."

[thade]

I'm sorry, but neither the golden rule nor the spirit of the game rule have anything directly to do with RAI, but are more things to handle disputes in general. Unless you know the game designers, you don't what they intended. There are times when RAW will directly contradict themselves. This is a by-product of a system not designed for competitive play (as you pointed out). But if the rules say something works a certain way,  your only argument against it can't be "that's not RAI."

This is a gross misinterpretation of my remarks.

 

First, RAI as "rules-as-intended" is kind of silly. "Rules-as-interpreted" is far more accurate (and, really, is how everybody plays the game).

 

When you're presented with a conflict in game rules, you need resolution: when a detailed reading of the rules and a trip to the OR doesn't reveal a clear answer, you can either let the player whose turn it is make the call (potentially flip-flopping the rule interpretation each turn) or you can settle on a consistent, single interpretation at the go.

 

Whether or not we know what the authors intended is irrelevant. The rule's pretty clear: if it's fun for the players involved, do it; if it's not, don't.  I'm not saying that players should use this to override RAW that doesn't suit them; I am saying that players should use this when the rules are unclear. It demands communication, civility, and compromise.

 

I didn't assert that one should use RAI to try and override RAW for an advantage; quite the contrary. RAI is the presented method for resolving rules conflicts quickly (and politely) so you can get back to rolling dice and cheering for your toy soldiers. The key tenet here being that a player should NOT push for self-gain when interpreting unambiguous rules; a player should prioritize sportsmanship and compromise over everything else. That's really what those two rules are about.

[IndigoJack]

RAI is not the method to resolving conflicts, the golden rule and the spirit of the game are. In fact, I'd say that RAI has created more arguments than it's solved (like what happens to necron flyer occupents when the flyer is destroyed).

 

You in fact, cannot provide guidlines for interpretation either, since many factors individual to a person go into how someone interprets things. The only thing those rules do, are to quickly resolve conflicts. Now sometimes, disputes over rules will come into play, and things like the golden rule or the spirit of them game are used to resolve the dispute.  They're blanket rules though, used to settle any dispute (is x really getting cover from y, is model a or b closer to unit c...)

 

My intial comment on RAI was that it is subjective, and thus cannot be something regulated by a rulebook. Barring no conflict in rules, RAW will always beat RAI. I'm not saying that you should pause the game, and take 30min to make your case. Any of the methods you listed work on the fly. But when someone asks, "is this possible?" I'm going to tell them what the rules say is possible with the RAW.

[thade]

My intial comment on RAI was that it is subjective, and thus cannot be something regulated by a rulebook.

It's regulated by the Golden Rule and the Spirit of the Game...both rules-wise and in practice. If players are cool, RAI regulates itself. All of this assumes some level of camaraderie between the players in question, and no shortage of good nature between them.

Barring no conflict in rules, RAW will always beat RAI. I'm not saying that you should pause the game, and take 30min to make your case. Any of the methods you listed work on the fly. But when someone asks, "is this possible?" I'm going to tell them what the rules say is possible with the RAW.

Certainly RAW should take priority. But when it falls flat, nobody stands there and says "Well there's a contradiction in the RAW so...game's off." You find a workable solution that makes sense and doesn't seem to break the game; that there's RAI.

[IndigoJack]

I think we're talking about two different things. During a game if a rule dispute comes up, I'm all for finding a quick compromise for the sake of the game. This helps everyone involved have fun.

 

What I'm referring to when I say RAI, is disagreements about rules that come up in discussions about 40k, outside of playing a game. This is a scenario that you can't just "4+ it" away. Egos are too big for that kind of thing.

 

I'll say it again. There are no guidelines for using RAI. The spirit of the game and the golden rule are used to settle disagreements at the table, not how to the rules should be interpreted in case a conflict arises outside the game, in a discussion of rules (as frequently happens on forums such as these.) You can give your opinion, you can tell people what house rules your gaming group uses to resolve the dispute, but there's no way, short of a FAQ, to determine who is actually right. RAI are subjective, and therefore cannot be used as an argument on how something should be resolved because at that point, it's just opinion. And you know the saying a out opinions...

 

I hope this clarifies what I'm trying to say. I understand you point about resolving rules at the table, but I'm talking about resolving rules conflicts in general.

[thade]

I think we're talking about two different things. During a game if a rule dispute comes up, I'm all for finding a quick compromise for the sake of the game. This helps everyone involved have fun.

No worries, I did get the sense that was where you were coming from; we definitely agree on that much.

...Egos are too big for that kind of thing.

See, when I say that this stuff requires no shortage of compromise and camaraderie between the players involved, this necessarily precludes egos taking over. If one or both players simply think their army deserves to win and *that* is where they start their arguments from, naturally you're going to have problems.

I'll say it again. There are no guidelines for using RAI. The spirit of the game and the golden rule are used to settle disagreements at the table, not how to the rules should be interpreted in case a conflict arises outside the game, in a discussion of rules (as frequently happens on forums such as these.)

The game states at the beginning to be cool to one another, which is all I'm really getting at here. If you find yourselves a grey area rule (there's not a deluge of them in this edition so far, but previously it was an issue) cooler heads will prevail in settling on a long term consistent method for resolving it.

I hope this clarifies what I'm trying to say. I understand you point about resolving rules at the table, but I'm talking about resolving rules conflicts in general.

I don't think we disagree and I'm not entirely certain that our approaches are all that different either.I always go to the rules first (brb, codecies, FAQs), following that with a query to friends at a neighboring table. No answer? I then hit the OR and see if it's been addressed already. Still no answer? I'll post there (or make a note to) then we'll hash out a working solution at the table. (That's the RAI part.)

In the cases where the OR cannot find a solution or throws its hands up, which - while rare - I've seen happen - then RAI again comes to the rescue. RAI is most certainly subjective, and that's where the friendly and rational discussion comes in; you'd think a rulebook would never need to say "Be good sports to one another" but this one basically does (in those rules I like to throw about there).

RAW is certainly preferential, but when it leaves us without a way to play a scenario out, plowing forward with an assumption is better then sitting confounded. It's fundamental that whatever assumption you ride with is okay with both players involved; I find the best way to do that is to assume that whatever interpretation sucks the most for my marines is the one to go with. If *both* players operate that way, the games can't help but be fun, because everybody there wants everybody involved to have fun.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Shoot the Interceptor gun twice. Wait till they FAQ it. 

[awfulawful]

Shoot the Interceptor gun twice. Wait till they FAQ it. 

 

Or in the words of Major Toht from Raiders of the Lost Ark, "Shoot them. Shoot them both."

[dswanick]

 

Shoot the Interceptor gun twice. Wait till they FAQ it. 

 

Or in the words of Major Toht from Raiders of the Lost Ark, "Shoot them. Shoot them both."

Or, in the paraphrased words of thade : "Play the interpretation which is least advantageous to you, and you'll receive fewer hard feelings if it's finally FAQd in your favor later".

[IndigoJack]

 

 

 

Shoot the Interceptor gun twice. Wait till they FAQ it. 

 

 

Or in the words of Major Toht from Raiders of the Lost Ark, "Shoot them. Shoot them both."

Or, in the paraphrased words of thade : "Play the interpretation which is least advantageous to you, and you'll receive fewer hard feelings if it's finally FAQd in your favor later".

But that's not how the rules are written. They're written to work the other way. You don't have to do it, just like you don't have to shoot anything in your shooting phase, but the rules currently allow you to do so.

[awfulawful]

 

 

Shoot the Interceptor gun twice. Wait till they FAQ it. 

 

Or in the words of Major Toht from Raiders of the Lost Ark, "Shoot them. Shoot them both."

Or, in the paraphrased words of thade : "Play the interpretation which is least advantageous to you, and you'll receive fewer hard feelings if it's finally FAQd in your favor later".

 

I really do advocate Thade's approach.  In a number of games against him, the few issues that have come up were settled quickly and amicably using that exact method.  While I don't remember the result of all of those games, I can tell you with certainty that they were all fun.

[IndigoJack]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shoot the Interceptor gun twice. Wait till they FAQ it. 

 

 

Or in the words of Major Toht from Raiders of the Lost Ark, "Shoot them. Shoot them both."

Or, in the paraphrased words of thade : "Play the interpretation which is least advantageous to you, and you'll receive fewer hard feelings if it's finally FAQd in your favor later".

I really do advocate Thade's approach.  In a number of games against him, the few issues that have come up were settled quickly and amicably using that exact method.  While I don't remember the result of all of those games, I can tell you with certainty that they were all fun.

Again, that's all well and good, but that's not the argument here. There is nothing that prevents you from doing it, other than people saying it shouldn't work that way. If someone can provide some proof to the contrary, I'll be more than happy to concede it as an issue.

[Vash]

There is no real point in arguing about it here. In the end, it will be up to you and your opponent. Since we don't know the right answer, it is up to you. 

I would advice against shooting twice, to keep your friends/opponents happier and keep up the sportsmanship for unclear rules. 

[thade]

I've said this on the OR I don't know how many times now.

When people ask a rules question to which there is no 100% definitive RAW, you may need to give them two answers. Those answers are the following:

1. Present them both sides of the RAW case to illustrate why it is unclear.
2. Tell them how you and your group play it, and why.

Ultimately it's up to the asker (and their gaming group) to determine how they will handle a grey zone. If they come to us asking, it's because they want to know how it's played...which, in the case of a grey area, simply can't be pure RAW because it's just not there.

When all things are equal and even Occam's Razor doesn't give you a reasonable path to take, use the rules interpretation that is the least advantageous to you. It makes you seem a good sport and helps to build a very friendly, cordial atmosphere...as opposed to a toxic environment that rules-lawyering for advantage can generate.

Now, I'm as much (if not more) to blame as many for steering this topic well into the realm of What's Okay To Do as opposed to the topic at hand, but...let's get it back to the topic of Coteaz. <3