jeffersonian000 Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 Exactly. It is absurd. I agree. But it's not been FAQed or Errated (and in al seriousness, there's no mini's to kill, nor deploy, so no problems there), so it's still RAW. The Elite Inquisitor may take a Retinue of size zero. Now, as you can't kill the retinue, there's no way for him to ever revert back to IC status, and he can never join another Squad. And maybe the zero sized Retinue would count as an additional Kill Point, if the Inquisitor himself is killed. So it's really of limited use. (Edit: all I can think of is if you want a 7 Raider List, and want to skimp on buying 1/2 Mystics for the Elite Inquisitors....) So, what are the rules for a zero-sized retinue? All I can find are references to retinue sizes having 1 or more figures attached to an Independent Character. Yes, I see the 0-6 Retinue entry under an Elite Inquisitor, yet if there are no models added to the Inquisitor, then there is no retinue. Unless there is a specific rule somewhere that states otherwise? SJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inquisitor =D= Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 So, what are the rules for a zero-sized retinue? All I can find are references to retinue sizes having 1 or more figures attached to an Independent Character. Yes, I see the 0-6 Retinue entry under an Elite Inquisitor, yet if there are no models added to the Inquisitor, then there is no retinue. Unless there is a specific rule somewhere that states otherwise? SJ It's just bad wording in an old codex. There are no rules for a zero sized retinue, but because of the wording it is the rule for a zero sized retinue. ;) Its all very confusing and in truth your better off just giving the =][= a retinue anyway. Otherwise you might spend 2 days arguing with your opponent on whether or not its possible to have a non-existent retinue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 So, what are the rules for a zero-sized retinue? Codex trumps main rule book. Elite Inquisitors can have a zero sized retinue of no models. Really, it's small stuff like this that should be errated away in the blink of an eye.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lungboy Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 A retinue of zero is not a retinue. That's ridiculous word-bending of the worst kind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Mel Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 agreed it is reading what you want to read, "size zero" means "none" so there is no retinue. deal with it, want an extra raider? buy a retinue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Master Tyrak Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 Lungboy Posted Today, 11:19 AM A retinue of zero is not a retinue. That's ridiculous word-bending of the worst kind. Yes. On the other hand, that is precisely what the rules-lawyers will do anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lungboy Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 When said lawyers can prove that 0 = 1, i'll listen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Master Tyrak Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 Lungboy Posted Today, 11:38 AM When said lawyers can prove that 0 = 1, i'll listen. They won't. Rules-lawyering and common sense are mutually exclusive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesI Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 When said lawyers can prove that 0 = 1, i'll listen. One of my physics students proved 0=1 on a test. Never even realized that I was asking for something else entirely and thought he did the question right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 It's not rules lawering of any sort. It's there in the codex, black and white. May take a retinue of size 0-6. A Retinue of size 0. What it should have said was 1-6, but it doesn't. You personally might not agree (like I have already stated I don't), but you cannot claim it's not there, in all its 'Codex trumping Main Rule Book' RAW glory. By all means house rule it away... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lungboy Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 I retinue of size 1-6 would mean the Elite Inquisitor would HAVE to take a retinue of at least one. 0-6 means that you can field a solo Inquisitow with no retinue at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 'May take'. Means they wouldn't have to take a retinue of size 1-6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lungboy Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 The entire section becomes utterly redundant if an elite can take a transport without a retinue. Why even mention any of it and not just list them as transports? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 Because in my mind it's obviosuly a badly written rule, that is compounded by remaining multiple editons behind the main rules. Still, as it's printed and hasn't been updated, unfortunatley means it's RAW. An Elite Inquisitor may take a retinue of zero, lose IC status, and unlock a LR Transport. Or they may not take a retinue of zero, and remain an IC, able to join other squads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lungboy Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 I still don't see how you can argue that an empty retinue is still a retinue. It's like saying "My GM can take 0-1 Daemonhammers. I haven't actually bought one for him, but a zero daemonhammer is still a daemonhammer, just a zero one. Therefore my GM can claim it's benefit". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Mel Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 maybe if someone just took out his codex this discussion would not be here at all: Inquisitors retinue Number/squad:3-12 henchmen for an inquisitor lord, 0-6 for an inquisitor transport vehicle: if the inquisitor has a retinue and he and his unit number 10 models or less, they may be mountedin a etc. etc. so it doesn't say you can pick a retinue of 0 models and still have a retinue and it does say you need an actual retinue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prathios Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 maybe if someone just took out his codex this discussion would not be here at all: Inquisitors retinue Number/squad:3-12 henchmen for an inquisitor lord, 0-6 for an inquisitor transport vehicle: if the inquisitor has a retinue and he and his unit number 10 models or less, they may be mountedin a etc. etc. so it doesn't say you can pick a retinue of 0 models and still have a retinue and it does say you need an actual retinue The fact that the phrase says "if the inquisitor has a retinue" means that he in fact may be a solo character. The only way this can occur is if a squad of 0 does not count as a retinue. Which means that an elite =][= with no retinue models does not count as having a retinue. I believe Uncle Mel has game, set, match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Master Tyrak Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 I believe Uncle Mel has game, set, match. He has . . . for those of us who are possessed of some common sense. However, despite the obvious truth of his argument, those who want to make it work otherwise will promptly wheel out the dreaded argument "it doesn't say I can't", and then stick their fingers in their ears. For us, Uncle Mel has solved the problem. Unfortunately, for the rules-lawyers, it's just an inconvenient truth that they will promptly ignore. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 maybe if someone just took out his codex this discussion would not be here at all: OK. But I'm packing for moving house, so you'll have to settle for the WH Codex. I'll starts with PG15; Inquisitorial Henchmen An Inquisitor or Inquisitor Lord *may* take Inquisitorial Henchmen as a Retinue. <snip> An Inquisitor *may* take up to six Henchmen, whereas an Inquisitor Lord *must* take a Retinue of between 3 and 12 Henchmen. So an Inquisitor may have a Retinue. He also may not have one (Note the *must* for the IL). It may be up to 6 in maximum size. So what's its minimum size? We'll Start on Page 26 with the IL. Independant Character. Unless accompanied by his retinue <snip> the IL is an IC Retinue. The IL *must* be accompanied by a retinue of henchmen Ignoring the "Inquisitor's Retinue" Box for now, let's jump to Page 28 for the OHI Independant Character. Unless accompanied by his retinue, the Inquisitor is an IC Retinue. The Inquisitor *may* be accompanied by 0-6 henchmen Back to the "Inquisitor's Retinue" Box on Page 26 Number/Squad: 3-12 Henchmen for an IL, 0-6 for an Inquisitor. So to recap. Unlike the IL, an Elite Inquisitor *may* (Page 15, Page 26, Page 28) take a Retinue. If he doesn't, he's an IC (as detailed in the Main Book). If he does, it *may* be of size Zero (Page 26, Page 28). Codex trumps Main Rulebook for Retinue rules, they are all detailed on Page 15. Not rules lawering, not fuzzy logic. All black and white in codex RAW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lungboy Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 I still don't see how you can argue that an empty retinue is still a retinue. It's like saying "My GM can take 0-1 Daemonhammers. I haven't actually bought one for him, but a zero daemonhammer is still a daemonhammer, just a zero one. Therefore my GM can claim it's benefit". You haven't addressed this though. Also, you keep pointing to the fact that the Inq may take a retinue. What happens when he doesn't? How is not taking one in anyway different to taking a retinue that has noone in it? It isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 You haven't addressed this though. Also, you keep pointing to the fact that the Inq may take a retinue. What happens when he doesn't? How is not taking one in anyway different to taking a retinue that has noone in it? It isn't. I don't need to. Wargear =/= Retinue. If he doesn't take a retinue, he's an IC. As above. It is different. If he doesn't take one, he's an IC and can join other squads. If he does, he's no longer an IC but can purchase a Transport. It's all there, I even quoted page numbers for you to check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prathios Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 I believe Uncle Mel has game, set, match. He has . . . for those of us who are possessed of some common sense. However, despite the obvious truth of his argument, those who want to make it work otherwise will promptly wheel out the dreaded argument "it doesn't say I can't", and then stick their fingers in their ears. For us, Uncle Mel has solved the problem. Unfortunately, for the rules-lawyers, it's just an inconvenient truth that they will promptly ignore. :drool: Wow, I must admit I am astonished. Two posts after yours and mine and I saw fingers in ears and complete disregard for logic. Its as if what was said by Mel and myself is totally disregarded. Oh well, people will be set in their ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lungboy Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 It's exactly the same. If he has a zero retinue he doesn't have a retinue, in the same way that if he has a zero daemonhammer, he doesn't have a daemonhammer. Simply saying that retinues and wargear are different has no impact on the analogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lungboy Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 I believe Uncle Mel has game, set, match. He has . . . for those of us who are possessed of some common sense. However, despite the obvious truth of his argument, those who want to make it work otherwise will promptly wheel out the dreaded argument "it doesn't say I can't", and then stick their fingers in their ears. For us, Uncle Mel has solved the problem. Unfortunately, for the rules-lawyers, it's just an inconvenient truth that they will promptly ignore. :drool: Wow, I must admit I am astonished. Two posts after yours and mine and I saw fingers in ears and complete disregard for logic. Its as if what was said by Mel and myself is totally disregarded. Oh well, people will be set in their ways. His argument is that a retinue of 0 is still a retinue, as the rulebook says that the retinue can be from 0 to 6. Pointing out that a retinue of 0 is, by definition, not a retinue, seems to be a total waste of time. It's rules lawyering at it's worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 Pointing out that a retinue of 0 is, by definition, not a retinue Thanks for the insults. Now can you post *any* rules stating the above to justify your opinion.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.