Soul Trap - built for the Agoniser, not the Husk Blade

My opinion on OP question, for what it's worth: I personally much prefer the Agoniser in general now, the cost of the Huskblade doesn't seem worth it and the ability of the Agoniser to synergise with the Soul Trap does seem good, you only need to inflict 2 wounds to get to S5 and re-roll against T4, at the same cost of a Huskblade. I like it. I also like that Agonisers, whilst usually whip-like, are described as being multifarious, so no problem using the old Huskblade model and calling it an Agoniser.

Timatron wrote:

Yes, I mis-read  those two things, doesn't mean I mis-read the rule on P121 though. What they wrote in the codex may allow it, I admit the wording is ambiguous. P121 however makes it very clear. 'Retainers' is an example of what P121 is describing. If it's not, then, tell me, what is this rule on P121 in aid of?

Maybe obtuse is rude, maybe it's not. All I know is it is perfectly apt.

Your stellar reading comprehension skills have also missed that the count gave two 7th edition examples.  For a third example, I've not seen anyone argue that Lukas the Trikster cannot be taken on his own as an independent character yet he also has the option to be foc free with blood claws.  That seems contrary to your statement that no units can have the option to be both.

MOD EDIT - inflammatory content removed

Timatron wrote:

Different edition, different wording, different rules governing these units and other units unlocking them.

Honestly, reading P121 makes it abundently clear.
There is no allowance given there for units being either/or, it always categorically refers to a ".....specified unit, *and* that it does not take up a F.O. slot......".
Nowhere is any mention made of a unit possibly being both a standard datasheet and a F.O.C. free choice. The word 'or' is never used. It is 100% categorical.
Consider, also the fact that 6th edition didn't include any specific rules governing this. 7th edition does, hence GW felt confident making a more 'flowing' sentence; they have addressed any ambiguity on P121.

Yet again. Pg 121 is entirely irrelevant. It's a circular argument because it's only relevant if you accept that the Court requires an Archon. It does not. You have once more failed to address the salient point that the Court is an HQ choice in its own right, as evidenced by having its own HQ datasheet. In the absence of a statement that the Court may only be taken with an Archon then it follows the normal rules for datasheets.

As for the wording of EVERY OTHER EXAMPLE OF THIS being different, to simply brush this off with the (inaccurate) statement that it's different editions, the quotes I provided range from 5e, through 6e and right up to the very last release in 7e prior to our own codex. All of them are from current versions of the relevant codex. All have categorical statements that the original unit is required to unlock the secondary unit. All that is, except for Dark Eldar. I wonder why that might be? On any reasonable interpretation of the Retainers rule in the DE codex it is abundantly clear that the Archon is not required but merely allows a Court not to take up a FOC slot.

Sooo, because my opinion isn't the same as his, lessthanjeff can make bitchy and sarcastic references to my reading comprehension skills and even call me a dick with impunity, right?
If I'd done that I would have got a warning and had my post removed, but it's OK because he agrees with you, is that it Count Adhemar?

Timatron wrote:

Sooo, because my opinion isn't the same as his, lessthanjeff can make bitchy and sarcastic references to my reading comprehension skills and even call me a dick with impunity, right?
If I'd done that I would have got a warning and had my post removed, but it's OK because he agrees with you, is that it Count Adhemar?

I'm not a moderator of this section of the forum but, for your information, I had already reported the post for a mod to take the appropriate action. I've also suggested this thread be locked.

Count Adhemar wrote:

Timatron wrote:

Sooo, because my opinion isn't the same as his, lessthanjeff can make bitchy and sarcastic references to my reading comprehension skills and even call me a dick with impunity, right?
If I'd done that I would have got a warning and had my post removed, but it's OK because he agrees with you, is that it Count Adhemar?

I'm not a moderator of this section of the forum but, for your information, I had already reported the post for a mod to take the appropriate action. I've also suggested this thread be locked.

Do you get +1 Strength if this post fails to save against the lock?

I don't mean to be a whiner, I have my opinion of what the rule means, others have their own. I just do object to the idea of people arguing something that is totally against the fluff for a sense of one-upmanship and as if it's just an intellectual exercise. Sorry for causing crap, I just think that I was being personallty attacked for having a differing opinion.

I can see where you're coming from, Timatron. Personally, I would have preferred it to be "one per HQ", but you can also interpret it so that this allows those who reslly want a beginning Kabal can have their Sybarite (noob Archon) to have some hunting hounds or living video cameras.
I do think that gramatically, the RAW states they can be taken independantly. Was this intended? Probably not, but this is a perfect example of how "let's eat grandpa" is very different from "let's eat, grandpa".

Given the heated and off topic nature of the discussion in the last page of so I am going to let the mandrakes have this thread...

locked