Marid Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 I'm sorry, but the 'zero size' Retinue just doesn't pass the smell test. It stinks, and stinks bad. Instead of looking at the rules, imagine looking across the table at your opponent as you make this argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 You must have missed the post ealier when I said I personally thought this was a bad rule, and that it should be a minimum of 1. And that I personally thouht a zero Retinue wasn't a Retinue at all. But that's my opinion. RAW, Zero Retinue is legit. As I have now posted verbatum. House rules and personal opinions aside, if anyone can post any codex rules to point otherwise, I'm happy to take them on board and maybe even carry on a discussion about this. Until then, let's all be happy with our own house rules and opinions, and leave the strawmans and ad homenin alone until Number6 locsk this. But still, RAW, zero Retinue is legit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lungboy Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 It all comes down to whether you believe a retinue of 0 is still a retinue. I don't, and feel RAW supports this. You do, and feels RAW supports you. That's all that can really be said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 All I'm asking for is you to show and explain your RAW. I've posted everything I can find on the subject, and none of it supports a zero retinue being illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inquisitor =D= Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 I'm sorry, but the 'zero size' Retinue just doesn't pass the smell test. It stinks, and stinks bad. Instead of looking at the rules, imagine looking across the table at your opponent as you make this argument. Actually the people I play with would laugh and say thus. Them "Ok so... your inquisitor gets a land raider but can't join the grey knights or anyone else?" Me "You are correct sir." Them "Whatever floats your boat, you sure he doesn't need a bigger transport for his ego?" Me "I was just thinking the same thing. " :ph34r: Its not all that far fetched. Besides, it would kind of make the LR and the =][= a waste of Force Organization slot now wouldn't it? There's no reason for you guys to be getting heated over it, its not like its going to "break the game" or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prathios 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.... Its already proven. 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. Since the rules state an IF it means it is possible that he does not have one. Using your logic the =][= is physically incapable of not having a retinue. And since normal people using logic and common sense (which seems less and less common these days) see the number 0 as quantifying nothing that means that taking no retinue makes you an IC with no retinue. This is a rediculous arguement to try and rules lawyer in by claiming RAW and what not but since the above quote is indeed RAW and clearly proves that 0 equals not a retinue (which using common sense would have proven anyway) its time to move on. Its not hard, please just accept it. I'm not trying to be rude or anything but this has gotten out of hand over nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inquisitor =D= Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 Its not hard, please just accept it. I'm not trying to be rude or anything but this has gotten out of hand over nothing. And your adding logs to the fire friend. I like it when the =][= forum stays somewhat constructive so please leave the insults (both hidden and obvious) out of the discussion. Please? The definition of RAW is "Rules as Written" which means the rule as written in the relevant codex/rulebook. And as such our codex dictates that zero can be a squad(silly as it may be). As I've said its a glitch, an error, a typo that shouldn't work but because its written it does. Its only this case to my knowledge(I hope this is nowhere else at least) so let it stand or house rule it. Its up to the players at the table no one else if the =][= ego counts as a retinue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prathios Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 Its not hard, please just accept it. I'm not trying to be rude or anything but this has gotten out of hand over nothing. And your adding logs to the fire friend. I like it when the =][= forum stays somewhat constructive so please leave the insults (both hidden and obvious) out of the discussion. Please? The definition of RAW is "Rules as Written" which means the rule as written in the relevant codex/rulebook. And as such our codex dictates that zero can be a squad(silly as it may be). As I've said its a glitch, an error, a typo that shouldn't work but because its written it does. Its only this case to my knowledge(I hope this is nowhere else at least) so let it stand or house rule it. Its up to the players at the table no one else if the =][= ego counts as a retinue. Insult? Not so much, I stated that you're not using logic or common sense. No devious plot. My argument is RAW, I provided the quote, I explained it and its not taken out of context or misread. Take it or leave it, thats up to you. But your way of thinking provides that an inquisitor cannot be an IC which he is clearly stated to be able to be. If all his retinue is killed off he has a squad size of 0 making him an IC. It says so in the codex. Its Raw. What more do you want? Your argument is that he cannot be in IC in any way shape of form because the number 0 is quantifying an object that doesn't exist. This doesn't make sense and flies in the face of logic and common sense and the RAW definition. Its not tough. Look at my previous posts and this one, I have two codex examples as to why my arguement is correct to your what? All you have to go on is extrapolation and assumption based on the idea that 0 represents an actual number of squad members. Which is later countermanded by both of the arguments I provided. So assuming you're translation of the material is even correct (which it isn't) it is replaced by what I have posted and therefore still doesn't fly. Don't be insulted or what not. I am simply showing that using the data as provided combined with logic and reason will help you arrive at the correct conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 Since the rules state an IF it means it is possible that he does not have one. Using your logic the =][= is physically incapable of not having a retinue. Please re-read my post. I have quoted three page references which allow the choice of having no retine and a retinue of zero. Nothing to do with *my* logic. If you have a problem with the RAW, please show how the three page references I quoted are wrong. Your argument is that he cannot be in IC in any way shape of form because the number 0 is quantifying an object that doesn't exist. No. You're misinterrpreting the Codex. The Inquisitor has a choice. He can have no Retinue, and be an IC. Or he can have a Retinue and lose his Ic status. This retinue can also be of size Zero. It's all there. If you're questioning the RAw, please question the quotes and page references I have provided. I have two codex examples No you don't. So assuming you're translation of the material is even correct (which it isn't) Say what? Apart form shortening things like Inqusitor Lord to IL, where did I mis type any of the passages I quoted? 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. It was corrected. You're wrong here, and have so far posted nothing from the codex to back your opinion. The original excert from the "Inquisitorial Retinue" box was only half the story, missing the important parts from the Inquisitors entries themselves and the Retinue section. Please, re read my post, and those three sections in the Codex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BattleCaptain Posted April 7, 2009 Author Share Posted April 7, 2009 Guys, no need to be too heated about this topic. :) Never thought my question would trigger such an argument. Personally, I would go with opponent's consent. If it's fine with him for my inquisitor to take a land raider without a retinue, cool. If not, all I have to do is drop a couple of stormtroopers, get mystics, whip the free IA2 update out (which doesn't have the constricting Codex Daemonhunters dedicated transport rule), and stick my PAGKs in the land raider the first chance they get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prathios Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 Guys, no need to be too heated about this topic. :) Never thought my question would trigger such an argument. Personally, I would go with opponent's consent. If it's fine with him for my inquisitor to take a land raider without a retinue, cool. If not, all I have to do is drop a couple of stormtroopers, get mystics, whip the free IA2 update out (which doesn't have the constricting Codex Daemonhunters dedicated transport rule), and stick my PAGKs in the land raider the first chance they get. You sound like a sensible guy. This is IMO the right thing to do and everyone walks away happy. The game is about having fun and if this allows you to do so then I think you made the right choice. I wont argue the point any further as so far its been nothing but frustrating for me, and I think the topic has been more than answered already. Have a good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lungboy Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 So can a Hive Tyrant that "may" take a retinue, which can contain "up to 3 Tyrant Guard" with no mention of the minimum size being 1, take a zero retinue, and therefore benefit from any advantages that might provide? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 /shrug Don't know. Don't own the Codex and don't care about that Army. But it doesn't matter. The minimum *is* listed in both the DH/WD codexes. As 0. It's not left as just 'may, up to three', but listed as 0-6. In two seperate sections of the Codex. So, other Codexes aside, is there anything from either of the Inquisiorial Codexes that would make a Retinue of size zero illegal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunkyEntropy Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 Your argument is utter malarky. Saying the Inq has a "retinue of zero" is semantically equivalent to saying the Inq has "no retinue." I don't even need to consult RAW, because your argument doesn't even make sense logically. You are arguing that "the number of apples I have is zero" is the same as saying "I have apples." And that just doesn't. Make. Sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marid Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 There are many troubles with a retinue of 'size 0.' For instance: (1) It is in conflict with the Inquisitor's status as an IC if he doesn't have or lost his retinue. The Inquisitor with a 'zero retinue' can never lose the retinue or always loses the retinue? Is he an IC or not? (2) Does an Inquisitor with 'Size 0' retinue count as two kill points? An Inquisitor without a retinue counts one kill point. How can you tell the difference? (3) A retinue refers to a number of models attached to a character that creates a unit. I offer that a unit of no models is not a unit. A retinue of no models is not a retinue. There are other instances where '0-1' is a restriction. You can have '0-1' orbital strikes, for example. This is something that takes a HS slot, but does not have a model. If you take '0' do you still have an orbital strike? Can you fill a HS slot with '0' orbital strikes? I'm sure there are campaign scenarios where one would be required to take at least one HS slot. Would you make the same kind of argument and say you had filled the requirement? Do I have allies in my DH army if I have '0' of '0-1' Space Marine Scouts? This is a game after all. You and your opponent have to agree on a set of rules. Is arguing that a 'zero retinue' is a retinue going to be a good start to a game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 There are many troubles with a retinue of 'size 0.' For instance: Never said there wasn't, I think (You know, I've typed all this already, but it seems no one actually reads my posts...) this is something that could and should have been easily errated into a 1-6. Your questions, while valid, in no way impinge on the legallity of the zero sized retinue. They just highlight problems with the notion. If you want personal opinions on thier answers I'd say; 1) Never an IC if he has a zero retinue (By RAW "unless accompanies etc etc), and can't ever lose it (As it can't be killed). 2) 2 Kill Points. You get both when the whole unit (in this case just the Inquisitor) is killed, which is the usual rule for Retinues and KP isn't it? 3) You offer your opinion, the Codex beats it with allowing a Retinue of Zero by RAW. I offer that a unit of no models is not a unit The unit size is 1. The Inquisitor plus his Zero Retinue. Is arguing that a 'zero retinue' is a retinue going to be a good start to a game? Maybe. Maybe not. I don't think I have to yet agian state I don't agree *personally* with having a zero Retinue, so personally it wouldn't be something I'd argue in favour of anyway at the start of a game. But hey, is any arguing a good way to start a game. Even if it's something like "Does my AWIYE go before or after your Scout move?" There's still been no Codex rules posted to show that a retinue of size zero is illegal, or can't exist by RAW. I don't even need to consult RAW You really should have.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunkyEntropy Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 No, but I pretty much trashed your argument anyway. Again, you are arguing that saying "I have zero apples" is the equivalent of "I have apples". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Please go read either Codex... I even posted the page numbers in the WH Codex a page back in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunkyEntropy Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 I can't help but notice you've gone out of your way to avoid discussing the crux of my argument... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 It's becuase you don't have one. Again, you are arguing that saying "I have zero apples" is the equivalent of "I have apples". Is meaningless. Becuase the Codex states "I can have zero apples", which is part of the "I have apples" sub set. It's not logic, sense or reasoning. It's RAW. And you've not even bothered to read it, even after I've given out the page numbers and sections for three exmaples in the Codex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunkyEntropy Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 No. Because saying you have zero of something is the same as saying you don't have it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boreas Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 If an opponent disagrees, I'll whip out my french codex! It says: "If the Inquisitor and his retinue number 10 models or less...". It doesn't say anywhere that he "has" to have a retinue of any number.... Although I do agree that the english rule is badly written, I feel I can get my =I=-mobile morally with the french wording! Of course, if you're in an english-speaking area, it might no go that nicely with your opponent! Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 No. Because saying you have zero of something is the same as saying you don't have it. If that was the case, the Inquisitor's Retinue rule would have been he *must* take a Retinue of 0-6, like the IL. Taking the Retinue of 0 would then have implied he didn't have a retinue. The 0 as the minimum size of the Retinue is redundant, when the Inquisitor only *may* take a Retinue, and not *must* take one. In which case the Rule should have read *may* take 1-6. But it doesn't. He may not take a Retinue. That's an option. He may also take one of size zero. That's another option, legaly within the codex, and distinct from not having a retinue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunkyEntropy Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Again, if you have zero of something, that means you don't have it. That's it. I'm done feeding the troll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 That's it. I'm done feeding the troll. Marshall Paul, Number6, can we lock this please? This isn't being debated any more, there's too much Ad Hominen flying around and the OP has an answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.