Wednesday 16 March 2011

Does Coteaz Call For An FAQ Already?


THE ISSUE:


Coteaz's special rules include the following:

"
Lord of Formosa
Inquisitorial Henchmen Warbands are Troops choices in an army that include Inquisitor Torquemada Coteaz, and are not limited by the number of Inquisitors in your army.
"

The interesting consideration comes from the special limitations rule that the Inquisitorial Henchmen Warband has: 
"
For each Inquisitor in your army, you may also include a unit of 3-12 henchmen, chosen in any combination from those shown. The unit does not use up a force organisation slot.
"



There are many taking this to mean that Henchmen count as troops choices, but do not take up a force allocation slot. Meaning you can take as many units of them as you like and they are scoring. (But you will also have to take 2 troops choices from the codex)


MY STANCE:

Don't be so ruddy stupid 


Yes, the wording is bad.
Yes, I can see how you could think that.
Yes, I expect you to use some damn common sense.


"Inquisitorial Henchmen Warbands are Troops"
Troop choices take up a Troops slot, of which there are 6.


When taken for any other Inquisitor, they "do[es] not use up a force organisation slot". What this means is they are NOT an elites choice, thus do not take up a slot and you can still have 3 other elites choices.


It is similar to HQ retinues. Retinues state in many codices that they do not take up a force organisation slot, and I've never met a person who think that they count as a separate HQ choice.


So, with Coteaz they are troops, you can have up to 6. Without Coteaz they are Inquisitor Retinues (who do not have to stay with the Inquisitor) but they do not belong to either HQ,Elite,Troops,Fast Attack or Heavy Support, which is why they do not use a force org slot.





3 comments:

  1. Good analysis. Solves the question before I even had it. I had assumed this to begin with, but had not sat down to really look at the wording.

    ReplyDelete
  2. To be honest I can't even believe it's a issue.
    But there's even lists going up on blogs for it, and some of them seem to think it actually is viable!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hard to believe that people are so desperate to bend an obvious oversight into some advantage. sheesh.

    ReplyDelete