Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I was wondering about IG builds (like everyone else) and I realized something in the new dex, it looks like a Priest or an Enginseer can be the general for an IG army now. Interesting.

As I was considering some very tank heavy builds, (and I don't care for the faith points, er, I mean orders mechanics at all). I thought, why not essentially build an armored company style army with an HQ as an Enginseer?

"An Imperial Guard Army May Include 0-5 Ministorum Priests. Priests do not use up any Force Organisation Chart Slots, but are otherwise treated as seperate HQ Units.

If you take a Priest, you don't have any HQ taking up the Mandatory FoC HQ Slot.

In Short: No, Preists and Techpriest Enginseers Cannot be the only HQ Choice for a Guard army, you must Pick between the Commissar Lord, Company Command Squad or Primaris Psyker

Gwar! wrote:Ya know, perhaps you should read the codex a little better huh?

"An Imperial Guard Army May Include 0-5 Ministorum Priests. Priests do not use up any Force Organisation Chart Slots, but are otherwise treated as seperate HQ Units.

So even if you take a Priest, you don't have any HQ taking up the Mandatory FoC HQ Slot, so your army is illegal, I win by default, and thank you for that Bye in the Tournament.

In Short: No, Preists and Techpriest Enginseers Cannot be the only HQ Choice for a Guard army, you must Pick between the Commissar Lord, Company Command Squad or Primaris Psyker

Gwar, you must cease the condescending remarks immediately or I will be forced to suspend you.

Ya know, perhaps you should read the codex a little better huh?

Is not polite, does not help the conversation along and will almost assuredly incite a negative response (which is trolling). He posted this thread in the YMDC forum, that means although he didn't explicitly say so in his post (besides putting a ? mark in his subject title), he is clearly putting it out there as an idea to be double-checked by everyone else. If you find that he is wrong (as you have on one point) then feel free to politely give him the information he is looking for. If you can't manage to do it politely then you need to REFRAIN FROM POSTING.

I apologise if you consider me me condescending. I Just consider myself Curt and to the Point. But if it is coming off as offensive, I shall refrain from posting anything that might be considered offensive.

Again, apologies. I shall edit my First post to be acceptable.

I am sure, even you don't beleive that. But, at least it reads pleasant enough. All your posts should be like this.

I do actually. If you look at pretty much all of my posts I don't try and sugarcoat my responses. I understand that sometime my responses are considered condescending or offensive, and I am genuinely apologetic, which is why I have edited the posts in question.

The language:

"treated as seperate HQ Units"

what does that mean? Why write that beyond the portion that says "do not use up any Force Organisation Chart Slots" if it doesnt mean that it counts as an HQ?

Why not just end the sentence at do not use any FO slots? How could they be treated as a seperate HQ, and not count? They use to be elites right? Looked like intentional changes to me.

When I read that in a literal way it seems like, other than not consuming the FO slot, they still count as an HQ.

I thought a techpriest lead IG army might be a really cool idea for a tech guard army! Or possibly a priest with allied sisters too!

Augustus wrote:The language:

"treated as seperate HQ Units"

what does that mean? Why write that beyond the portion that says "do not use up any Force Organisation Chart Slots" if it doesnt mean that it counts as an HQ?

Why not just end the sentence at do not use any FO slots? How could they be treated as a seperate HQ, and not count? They use to be elites right? Looked like intentional changes to me.

Because missions often refer to units from specific force organization chart slots.

So for example, in a Dawn of War mission an Enginseer would still count as your one HQ choice if you deployed him even though he does not take up a Force Org slot.

Although doing a little research on the topic I found this in the Black Templar GW FAQ:

Q. Can I field the Emperor’s Champion as my one compulsory HQ choice and no other HQs in the army?
A. Yes, even though he does not use up an HQ slot, he is still an HQ choice, and so he can fulfill the minimum HQ requirement.

So I think you're right after all (with that precedent I'd imagine any tourney in existence would allow it).

But you're contradicting yourself- they don't use up any slots, therefore cannot be your mandatory HQ choice. They "count as" an HQ choice, but do not occupy one of your available slots.

The reason they didnt stop at "dont use up any slots" is for Dawn of War setup, as if they took up no slots of any kind you could deploy them all at once attached to squads. whether they are "elite" or "HQ" really doesnt mater for now, but may have a difference in Planetstrike....

@ Yakface

Thanks, I suppose its kind of silly in a contextual way, but I was excited by the possibility for the reasons I described above.

Speaking from a practicality sense in game mechanics, I think it wouldn't "break" the game to much to have a great priest or Engsinseer as a General, they are not really that exciting (I mean effective) of characters.

This whole idea made me want to reconsider the "tech guard of mars" theme.

Thanks for the reference about the Emperors champion, I didn't even think to look there, what an interesting precident!

I like the idea of a enginseer lead STC recovery force. Good show!

nosferatu1001 wrote:But you're contradicting yourself- they don't use up any slots, therefore cannot be your mandatory HQ choice. They "count as" an HQ choice, but do not occupy one of your available slots.

The reason they didnt stop at "dont use up any slots" is for Dawn of War setup, as if they took up no slots of any kind you could deploy them all at once attached to squads. whether they are "elite" or "HQ" really doesnt mater for now, but may have a difference in Planetstrike....

I thought that at first too, untill I tried to come up with a reason for 2 things, that they are an HQ choice, not elites and the second part of the section: "seperate HQ choice". Together I think that sets the case for they can be generals. I didn't fully articulate all that in my first post.

Unknowingly (to me) Yakface also pointed out some strong evidence in the BT FAQ that illuminates the exact same situation in another codex.

*SPELL EDIT

No Offence, but the Black Templar FAQ has as much bearing on the IG codex as a wet noodle. If other armies FAQ's affected each other, the game would be even more unplayable than it already is. Not to mention the Black Templars EC is a special HQ that you MUST take.

Until GW post a IG Errata/FAQ, I am gonna have to say that they do not take up any slots, so they cannot count as Mandatory

Gwar! wrote:No Offence, but the Black Templar FAQ has as much bearing on the IG codex as a wet noodle. If other armies FAQ's affected each other, the game would be even more unplayable than it already is. Not to mention the Black Templars EC is a special HQ that you MUST take.

Until GW post a IG Errata/FAQ, I am gonna have to say that they do not take up any slots, so they cannot count as Mandatory

With respect Qwar! I have to disagree, I think the precedent set in the BT FaQ has real bearing on this matter (at least until GW FaQs the IG book). I don't see how the EC being a mandatory choice affects the question at all. He still follows the "is an HQ but isn't" logic that Enginseers and Priests use.

What precedents do some FaQs set that would make the game "even more unplayable than it already is"?

If they do not use up an FoC slot. then after taking one you still only hve 0 HQ units, therefore your army is illegal, IMO.

In the BT book, is it 0-1 EmpChamp, or 1 EmpChamp?

If it is 0-1, I'd say precedent applies and they can count as your single HQ. If it is 1 EmpChamp, precedent does not apply.

BUT, if I were fighting someone who wanted to build a mechanicum tank army with minimal troops and portray their few troopers as Mechanicum marines/guards (marines with a small "m", not Marines/Astartes) just like the navy/air force in the real world have their own small ground units, I'd not object.

I'd say it is worth an FAQ ruling from GW.

Gwar! wrote:No Offence, but the Black Templar FAQ has as much bearing on the IG codex as a wet noodle. If other armies FAQ's affected each other, the game would be even more unplayable than it already is.

Gwar!, you say this a lot, but it's not true. Looking at analogous rules from other armies is very useful in interpreting new rules.

It's one thing to read the Eldar "Crack Shot" rule into Pask's "Crack Shot" rule. It's quite another thing to find a nearly identical question raised by another Codex, and look to the official answer to that earlier question. You yourself used this very strategy in the thread on Valkyries, by citing to the Space Marine Drop Pod rules.

Priests are HQs.
Priests don't take up a FOC slot.
You're required to field 1-2 HQs.

While it's odd, and maybe not intended, it appears that you can take priests and engiseers as your mandatory HQ slot. They are an HQ choice, even though they don't fill up either HQ FOC slot.

Really, this is sort of a silly problem, since I have trouble imagining a competitive IG army without slot-using HQs. So it's only going to be an issue for friendly games, where you're more likely to get leeway for this sort of thing.

Nevertheless, the Black Templars FAQ supports the notion that a non-slot using HQ counts for the Force Org minimum, but not for the maximum. This is not intuitive, but I guess it's the way GW wants the rule to be read.

Dave47 wrote:...the Black Templars FAQ supports the notion that a non-slot using HQ counts for the Force Org minimum, but not for the maximum. This is not intuitive, but I guess it's the way GW wants the rule to be read.

That is my assesment as well.

The funny thing is I bet If I was in support of them counting as the mandatory HQ everyone would say they wouldn't, but I digress.

The Black Templars FAQ works for Black Templars ONLY. To claim anything else is just ridiculous imo.

Gwar! wrote:The funny thing is I bet If I was in support of them counting as the mandatory HQ everyone would say they wouldn't, but I digress.

Vanity?



Anyway, I support the notion that taking an HQ that does not take up a slot does indeed count towards an HQ you are required to take.

My argument.
-Force organization does not state either way if units that do not take up a slot do not count towards required choices.
-Example FAQ gives us a situation that parallels the current situation.

As a player I must assume the logical course would be to use those rules as an example. (logic in the sense of a rules system with many parallels)

Fifty wrote:If they do not use up an FoC slot. then after taking one you still only hve 0 HQ units, therefore your army is illegal, IMO.

In the BT book, is it 0-1 EmpChamp, or 1 EmpChamp?

If it is 0-1, I'd say precedent applies and they can count as your single HQ. If it is 1 EmpChamp, precedent does not apply.

BUT, if I were fighting someone who wanted to build a mechanicum tank army with minimal troops and portray their few troopers as Mechanicum marines/guards (marines with a small "m", not Marines/Astartes) just like the navy/air force in the real world have their own small ground units, I'd not object.

I'd say it is worth an FAQ ruling from GW.

Black Templars MUST take an Emperor's Champion in any army over 750 pts.

Thus, the Emperor's Champion himself is compulsory, and does not use up a slot, although he counts as one.

I have to agree with Gwar here. I don't think that the FAQs were made to act as universal precedents for the whole game, as they would constantly contradict each other. I'd say that units that don't take up a slot are either compulsory themselves (such as the EC) or optional choices that do not count as compulsory choices on the force organization chart. I think of it as an HQ slot that must be filled (i.e. taken up) Which means that if it doesn't take a slot, it doesn't satisfy a requirement, unless it specifically states otherwise, such as the Emperor's Champion.

In this case, I see Enginseers and Priests as back up characters rather than true leaders. I don't think it's terribly realistic to say that a rather minor religious figure such as a priest (or his Mechanicus equivalent) could be given command of an Imperial Guard force. The list is made to represent an average Guard force, rather than an Adeptus Mechanicus force, which I imagine is a separate body from the Guard and a different thing altogether.

The rules are incredibly cloudy here. I hope this post is somewhat helpful.

(edited for clarity)

The most conservative interpretation is to go with a priest or enginseer not counting towards your mandatory HQ. This is how I would play it to avoid any possible confrontations or bad feelings developing during a game. I think the general stance from GW currently is not use the rules from one codex as a precedence for another codex. My own personal interpretation is that the priest and/or enginseer are meant to add some spice to a guard army, not lead it. From the background I don't see a guard army following under the command of a priest... The priest fufills a role similar to a Chaplain in a Space Marine army. I can see the case for an enginseer leading an Adeptus Mechanicus themed army though but it's no big deal points wise to also take another HQ that fills the FOC.

I wouldn't have a problem with another player doing so but I wouldn't since it is questionable.

G

From page 87 of the Warhammer 40,000 5th edition rulebook:

One box on the chart allows you to make one selection from that part of your army list. Dark boxes are compulsory selections. As you can see, normally you will have to take at least one HQ selection and two Troops selections. These compulsory choices ensure that whatever else you select, your force will have a core within it that is representative of that army. This is rarely a disadvantage and many players often use the maximum number of Troops selections.

So if the Techpriest does not use up a choice on the Force Organization chart, then you've not taken your compulsory HQ. The Black Templar FAQ actually contradicts the rulebook and does not state that the above quoted rule does not apply any more in anything other that the given instance.

Ghaz wrote:From page 87 of the Warhammer 40,000 5th edition rulebook:

One box on the chart allows you to make one selection from that part of your army list. Dark boxes are compulsory selections. As you can see, normally you will have to take at least one HQ selection and two Troops selections. These compulsory choices ensure that whatever else you select, your force will have a core within it that is representative of that army. This is rarely a disadvantage and many players often use the maximum number of Troops selections.

So if the Techpriest does not use up a choice on the Force Organization chart, then you've not taken your compulsory HQ.

Codex trumps rule book:

"otherwise treated as separate HQ Units"

(You know that.)

Ghaz wrote:The Black Templar FAQ actually contradicts the rulebook and does not state that the above quoted rule does not apply any more in anything other that the given instance.

BT FAQ doesn't apply, agreed, it's just a convenient precedent that strengthens the case.

And your 'trump' doesn't change anything. Counting as a separate HQ unit does not mean that it fills a compulsory choice on the Force Organization chart. In fact, the codex clearly says that it doesn't:

Techpriests Enginseers do not use up any Force Organization Chart selections...

You can't have it both ways. This is where the codex cllearly says that he can NOT count as your compulsory HQ choice on the Force Organization chart. Your 'trump' just means that for everything else he counts as an HQ choice, nothing more.

I agree with Ghaz here. The part on it "counting as" an HQ is just so for situations when it Mattered, like DoW, you know what slot it is "meant" to be.

Either way, a command squad is a whopping 50pts stock, if you're going to have to take at the minimum 2 vet squads to fill in the troop choices, why not spend the extra 50pts and get two orders.

Ghaz wrote:And your 'trump' doesn't change anything. Counting as a separate HQ unit does not mean that it fills a compulsory choice on the Force Organization chart. In fact, the codex clearly says that it doesn't:

Techpriests Enginseers do not use up any Force Organization Chart selections...

You can't have it both ways. This is where the codex cllearly says that he can NOT count as your compulsory HQ choice on the Force Organization chart. Your 'trump' just means that for everything else he counts as an HQ choice, nothing more.

How could that be? What does "counts as a seperate HQ choice" mean then Ghaz?

Earlier in this post I admitted that I thought at first that not taking a FO slot would mean this wouldn't work, but the exception, "otherwise counts as a seprate HQ choice" is pretty specific language. The way you are outlining it: 'it doesnt count as an HQ choice' is in direct opposition to the last codex specific rule in question here. I see what you are saying, if it doesnt actually take the box how can it be the madnatory HQ right? Thats because it counts as an HQ choice:

"otherwise counts as a seprate HQ choice"

strait out of the codex.