Lhamaean as sole HQ?

Hi there, a quick question to those of you with the codex - going by the Court of the Archon's entry, it would be possible to take a sole Lhamaean as a hq choice, right? Seems a good way to free up 90+ points...

The rules say:

Quote :

Retainers: For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot on the Force Organisation chart.

There is nothing to suggest that you could not take a Court without an Archon, it would just take up a FOC slot in the usual way.

so yes, enjoy your 10 point leadership 9, 2+ to wound instant death causing HQ choice!

Thanks to the both of you.

Skulnbonz wrote:

so yes, enjoy your 10 point leadership 9, 2+ to wound instant death causing HQ choice!

Heh. That and the extra unit of scourges I can now afford!

It's amazing what a missing comma does to something isn't it.

I just thought this would be exceedingly brilliant, but then i realised that they aren't characters of any form, so they' either sit alone in a corner of the table to hide or die a hideous death anywhere else.

Bleh

Yeah, but your warlord can be any character in your army, so pay 10pts for a sybarite upgrade and hey ho, he's your warlord!

I'm at a loss guys. Are we talking about taking a lone Lhamaean as the sole HQ unit for a detachment? If so I'm missing how the wording of the courts entry would allow this. It would seem to me that an archon is required to access the court and any court models would be placed in the archon's detachment.

The court is an HQ choice per se, it's only if you take an archon that they don't take an FOC slot

average joe wrote:

I'm at a loss guys. Are we talking about taking a lone Lhamaean as the sole HQ unit for a detachment?  If so I'm missing how the wording of the courts entry would allow this. It would seem to me that an archon is required to access the court and any court models would be placed in the archon's detachment.

As the burning eye pointed out, the grammar makes it possible, perhaps. The entry says 'for each Archon included in a detatchment,  the detatchment can include a Court that does not take up a slot....'

The implication there being that an archon just gives one a slot-free court, but it's possible to take a court which fills a slot otherwise. I'm hoping so, apart from fluff, my hqs normally feel a little pointless for the cost, a 10 point HQ would be lovely.

Joe: It's because of the statement
Retainers: For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot on the Force Organisation chart.

Strictly speaking therefore, this means that if you have an archon, 1 court counts as a slot-free unit. Nothing in this sentence states that you can only take the court if you include an archon.

To make the court dependant on having an archon, it would need to read something like:

Retainers: For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon. The Court does not take up a slot on the Force Organisation chart.

Just another poorly written rule that combined with the page design may very well lead a reader to believe exactly what you suggest. However this is still not as funny as the splinter racks gaff.

average joe wrote:

Just another poorly written rule that combined with the page design may very well lead a reader to believe exactly what you suggest. However this is still not as funny as the splinter racks gaff.

Just saw that, quite hilarious! Don't think I'll try and pull that one off in a game though...

Minks wrote:

average joe wrote:

Just another poorly written rule that combined with the page design may very well lead a reader to believe exactly what you suggest. However this is still not as funny as the splinter racks gaff.

Just saw that, quite hilarious! Don't think I'll try and pull that one off in a game though...

That is amazing. Thank you guys for the great laugh.

Do tell what is so comical about said splinter racks

RikuXIII wrote:

Do tell what is so comical about said splinter racks

Details here

I'm sorry, but that is the biggest pile of crap. We ALL know what the Retainers rule means. https://youtu.be/WaniRsJqvxA?list=UUeSmlI7J38bs8WD33to-KeQ

I just love the idea of an army led by an Ur-Ghul.

I'd like to think that GW never intended this to be possible but as previously stated, it's nice to be able to take a 10 point token HQ.

Sure it may seem a little cheesy, but I don't think it's a misinterpretation.
As much as I wouldn't complain one teensy bit if it were FAQ'd since it makes sense fluff-wise for an Archon to be around with a Court.

The bit in the video, Timatron, when you're saying "Nowhere does it say: Or, you can take a Court of the Archon that DOES take up a slot." (~3:00), I believe you aren't accounting for this - with the new format for the codices, the Court of the Archon is its own HQ choice.
Because it has its own Datasheet.
THAT is where it says you can take a Court that does take up an HQ slot.

If you're taking a court, taking an Archon simply frees up your 2nd HQ slot for something else.

I get how that can be a bit of a twist in the knickers considering it's a right change around from the previous edition, but I'm firmly in the camp of RAW saying the Court is available to be taken sans Archon.

Timatron wrote:

I'm sorry, but that is the biggest pile of crap. We ALL know what
the Retainers rule means.

I disagree with some of your argument, I believe there's nothing un-fluffy about an Archon sending a favoured (or marked) courtesan or group of miscreants to oversee (or enjoy watching, or be set-up for a fall etc.) a real-space raid.

Coupled with the lines in the rulebook covering unusual choices of warlord, I can see their being scope for unusual looking HQ's. They were not uncommon in the past either - a fair few 3rd ed codices and the weirder elements of 2nd (champions etc.) had a 1 wound cheapo option.

TLDR, amusing video, I disagree and will be occasionally fielding a lone prostitute for the hell of it (but not the extra venom, I can't face edge highlighting another vehicle).

TLDR?

Too Long Didn't Read

Agreed with what's stated above. I believe it's both RAW and RAI for us to be able to take a court member as a delegate of an archon to a real space raid. After all, you could take a necron lord as a hq, but it's also part of a royal court.

django_unchained wrote:

Agreed with what's stated above. I believe it's both RAW and RAI for us to be able to take a court member as a delegate of an archon to a real space raid. After all, you could take a necron lord as a hq, but it's also part of a royal court.

Actually you can't take a Lord on its own as the Royal Court has the old wording that requires an Overlord to unlock it.

Can someone confirm the wording from digital edition and/or different languages?