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.

 Formosa wrote:
I understand his annoyance, he wants the issue to be gone and sorted, but for whatever reason there are some people out there who shrug there shoulders and can't be arsed, or simply don't care, ...

...or who think the error is in the extra HQ slots, rather than that there is anything that needs to be fixed.


This isn't an error that breaks the game. It just limits how many HQs you can take in your army. So, personally, if I were playing Ravenwing I would go with the rules as written on this as that's going to avoid having to argue the case every time I play someone new. If and when GW fix it to allow other characters, then they can be added in.

 Silverthorne wrote:
Yeah I don't really get the Sammael hate in general. He's pretty nasty for his points, with the plasma cannon and AP2 sword (at iniative) on the jetbike. His only downside is 4++ instead of 3++ but I find my smashfether tends to loose more wounds from shooting (which is pointless against Sam with his 2+ rerollable jink) than combat.

I don't think most of it is hate, it's just that either they want a cheaper HQ (IIRC a Librarian costs less than half Sammy's points with Bike, and is still cheaper even with a lot of upgrades) or they prefer someone else.
Or they want multiple HQs at once. I can certainly see how someone might want Sammy AND a Librarian.
Or they have issues with his model. Apparently it's a particularly horrifying exmplar of what can go wrong with Failcast.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

...or who think the error is in the extra HQ slots, rather than that there is anything that needs to be fixed.

...Which is obviously bunk.

Why?

 CrashGordon94 wrote:
Look at it this way:
Giving the wrong number of slots, putting together a completely incorrect diagram (which would take more effort than just typing up a few words, in which case there'd be no doubt that if it weren't intended to be this way it wouldn't be this way) AND stuffing in a completely useless and irrelevant tidbit? When this would be the ONLY Formation set up this special particular way? No, just doesn't happen, not even for GW. They might bugger up spectacularly sometimes but even they have their limits, don't let your hatred blind you.
HOWEVER, missing out a rule on an upgrade/piece of equipment or forgetting a tidbit on a rule? Happens to the best of the best, very very easily. When it's in the midst of a whole load of complicated stuff, you're not the best rules writers around and it's basically legalese to turn the "spirit of the law" into the "letter of the law" and might not really stand out if you know the meaning AND the meaning is still communicated? Well, no wonder it happened, shame they didn't catch it and are taking their sweet time to fix it.

One is a blatantly obvious and likely occurrence, the other is the sort of thing that only happens in the mind of rabid GW haters.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

Giving the wrong number of slots, putting together a completely incorrect diagram (which would take more effort than just typing up a few words, in which case there'd be no doubt that if it weren't intended to be this way it wouldn't be this way) AND stuffing in a completely useless and irrelevant tidbit? When this would be the ONLY Formation set up this special particular way? No, just doesn't happen, not even for GW. They might bugger up spectacularly sometimes but even they have their limits, don't let your hatred blind you.

I can think of several very simple scenarios where this might have occured, none of which are reliant on 'blind hatred' of GW.

The most obvious would be that at some point in their development, other characters had access to the Ravenwing rule, this was removed during one of the design edits, and nobody thought to change the FoC.

The next most obvious is simply that whoever designed the FoC didnt stop to consider what character options were actually available to them.


Compared to some of GW's other rules snafus (writing a Psychic phase that is completely non-functional the moment an IC psyker joins a unit, leaving an entire section that covered vehicle access and firepoints from the rulebook, requiring an Inquisitor or Inquisitor Lord to be present in an allied list in order to field an Assassin despite there being no actual legal way to include both an Inquisitor and an Assassin, publishing a Legion of the Damned army list that automatically loses the game at the end of turn one, just off the top of my head) I have absolutely no trouble believing that they could have made this sort of error for any number of reasons.


It's quite obvious that an error of some kind was made. But the idea that allowing other characters into the list is the only possible 'right' answer isn't based on anything other than your personal preference. It's equally likely that Sammael was the only character that GW wanted in a Ravenwing force, because Narrative. It's also possible that they did intend for other characters to be included, but that when they FAQ it (if they FAQ it) they'll go with the same 'Oops... oh well, just go with what the rule says, since it doesn't break the game' sort of response that they've given in previous cases where they managed to write something completely contrary (but non-game-breaking) to what they had originally intended.


It's quite possible that you're correct, and ICs are supposed to become Ravenwing when you give them a bike. But you're going to be pretty much doomed to eternal frustration if you approach this game from the point of view that what you perceive as the obvious answer is the only possible 'correct' answer. People will disagree on what is actually the most obvious answer, and it won't always be because they are just 'haters'...

He's out for blood lol.

I guess the thing I find most galling is that the Ravenwing have it pretty good now. And it's not like Sammael is a tax to take the formation: he's quite good at what he's supposed to do. Suck it up and play by the rules. You can gnash your teeth and call me a "cancer to the hobby" all you want. I'm not obligated to allow you to unilaterally change your codex because it makes you unhappy.

But I'm not a bitter Deathwing player, or anything

Look, the rule was obviously intended for bike characters to be taken as ravenwing characters.... there are plenty of oversights like that in every book. Heck, in the SM book vehicles do not have chapter tactics... so how would Iron Hands gain IWND from the chapter tactics even though that is exactly what it says... and apparently there is also discussion that you can have a chapter master lead a demi company, however, they are separate from each other even though you buy as an upgrade (see apothecary)

I feel like the option to take a bike should replace Deathwing with Ravenwing, as the Ravenwing rule is strong enough already. I would FAQ it that characters with Ravenwing get Fearless and Hatred: CSM.

 insaniak wrote:

There's your disconnect right there, though. You're seeing this as a problem that needs to be fixed. Others are seeing it as an oversight that just isn't a big deal. We've had armies before that only had access to a single HQ choice, while having more than one slot open for HQ, and that's been entirely deliberate on GW's part.

Which might these armies be? More than one example please, you did use the plural form of army there.

Off the top of my head, Orks and Battle Sisters both had only a single HQ at one time. I'm fairly sure there have been others, but don't really feel like digging back through all the books to find them.

 insaniak wrote:
Off the top of my head, Orks and Battle Sisters both had only a single HQ at one time. I'm fairly sure there have been others, but don't really feel like digging back through all the books to find them.

Which Sisters codex are you talking about? I checked my ´97 codex and at first glance it seemed like you were correct but upon further inspection I don't think so anymore. But considering that the codex in question was released in 1997 I'm not sure how relevant it is in a discussion about today's army design philosophy. In the whole codex, there are 9 unit choices total transports included, excluding special characters so in this case, the lack of HQs is completely by design, not by mistake like it completely obviously is in RW Strike Force. If it is this codex you meant, I suggest you take a look at the example army list on page 27, even that one has characters leading it.

Seriously people, ask yourselves which one seems like a more plausible scenario: 1) GW intends for every RW strike force to be led by Sammael and makes 2 mistakes by putting in additional HQ slots that can never be used and including a command benefit in the detachment that allows you to reroll the warlord trait... even though the only possible HQ has a fixed trait. They also completely accidentally named the benefit in question appropriately for the detachment. 2) GW made a mistake with the bike's wargear description

 Vaktathi wrote:
>>implying GW does FAQ's...

my sides...they hurt

GW hasn't released an FAQ in 10 months.

Not quite. Last FAQs were from January, if I remember correctly. That's only 7-8 months ago, give them some credit!

Seriously people, ask yourselves which one seems like a more plausible scenario: 1) GW intends for every RW strike force to be led by Sammael and makes 2 mistakes by putting in additional HQ slots that can never be used and including a command benefit in the detachment that allows you to reroll the warlord trait... even though the only possible HQ has a fixed trait. They also completely accidentally named the benefit in question appropriately for the detachment. 2) GW made a mistake with the bike's wargear description

Still, it's only the most plausible. We can't know. And like I've said multiple time before: It's not that big of a deal, because it DOESN"T keep you from playing a Chaplain or Librarian on bike. And btw, I personnaly feel that it's VERY plausible that they designed the chart + benefit, then fiddle around with character, just to end up having only 1 Ravenwing character now. It's as small an error to not double check the chart to make sure it make sense when you are releasing, that doublecheckin special rule of character to make sure they can join a Ravenwing. But yeah, that's my OPINION, something frown uppon in this ''Warhammer 40k community that i'm being toxic to''.

If you arrive at my house or shop to play a 40k game with me, and you tell me or I see you playing your chaplain on bike as a leader of your ravenwing force, I would say: ''yes I see you have a chaplain. Hopefully we will see a FAQ right? haha. I personally don't do it, but I guess it's ok for now.''
If you arrive at my house or shop to play a 40k game with me, and ask me how do I (you know, the question asked in the thread) play the Ravenwing Strike Force, I would say: ''With Sammael or Sableclaw until it's fix. Until then, I play unbound when I want to bring the Chaplain, because it's not really a big disavantage. Btw, you want a beer?''

I can't see how you get all angry over the way I deal with it. YOu want to fix it, go ahead have your fun. Then, the THREAD ASK ME how I fix it, I say I personally don't.

Anyway, since posting in this thread feel like voting for a dictator (you know, when guns are pointed at you), I will take my opinion somewhere else.

 Silverthorne wrote:

 corrm wrote:

ServiceGames wrote:
I'm a newbie, so I have a newbie question about this. Why is using Sammael an issue? Is it points related? Do you not like the character or models he uses?

Thanks

SG

There is no issue with using Sammael. I love the model and I quite like his rules too, a very solid character.

The issue with the rules at the moment is that technically Sammael is the only character allowed in the Ravenwing strike force formation. This is a problem is you want to run an all Ravenwing army and wish to include any other characters in it to add a bit more variety to your games.

Yeah I don't really get the Sammael hate in general. He's pretty nasty for his points, with the plasma cannon and AP2 sword (at iniative) on the jetbike. His only downside is 4++ instead of 3++ but I find my smashfether tends to loose more wounds from shooting (which is pointless against Sam with his 2+ rerollable jink) than combat.

The AP2 sword at initiative is great. Not wild about the plasma cannon, it's useful at times, but can't use it if you Jink. BTW, Sammael gets 3+ re-rollable jink as standard (because of skilled rider), only gets 2+ if using a Darkshroud.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PandaHero wrote:

Seriously people, ask yourselves which one seems like a more plausible scenario: 1) GW intends for every RW strike force to be led by Sammael and makes 2 mistakes by putting in additional HQ slots that can never be used and including a command benefit in the detachment that allows you to reroll the warlord trait... even though the only possible HQ has a fixed trait. They also completely accidentally named the benefit in question appropriately for the detachment. 2) GW made a mistake with the bike's wargear description

Still, it's only the most plausible. We can't know. And like I've said multiple time before: It's not that big of a deal, because it DOESN"T keep you from playing a Chaplain or Librarian on bike. And btw, I personnaly feel that it's VERY plausible that they designed the chart + benefit, then fiddle around with character, just to end up having only 1 Ravenwing character now. It's as small an error to not double check the chart to make sure it make sense when you are releasing, that doublecheckin special rule of character to make sure they can join a Ravenwing. But yeah, that's my OPINION, something frown uppon in this ''Warhammer 40k community that i'm being toxic to''.

If you arrive at my house or shop to play a 40k game with me, and you tell me or I see you playing your chaplain on bike as a leader of your ravenwing force, I would say: ''yes I see you have a chaplain. Hopefully we will see a FAQ right? haha. I personally don't do it, but I guess it's ok for now.''
If you arrive at my house or shop to play a 40k game with me, and ask me how do I (you know, the question asked in the thread) play the Ravenwing Strike Force, I would say: ''With Sammael or Sableclaw until it's fix. Until then, I play unbound when I want to bring the Chaplain, because it's not really a big disavantage. Btw, you want a beer?''

I can't see how you get all angry over the way I deal with it. YOu want to fix it, go ahead have your fun. Then, the THREAD ASK ME how I fix it, I say I personally don't.

Anyway, since posting in this thread feel like voting for a dictator (you know, when guns are pointed at you), I will take my opinion somewhere else.

He guys, all opinions are valid. Wasn't trying to start a big argument or tell people how to play it. Just curious what people were doing and picked what I thought were the 4 most common options. There is no "right" way to fix what is thought to be a mistake.

There are other errors or weird rules in the codex that can be ignored (for example, the standards allow re-roll for failed fear tests even though Dark Angels automatically pass fear tests, the only unit this could affect is Servitors as it specifies Dark Angels only), I think most people see the Ravenwing strike force as an error due to the additional HQ slots and warlord trait re-roll. You can play unbound and take them fine, but a lot of people don't like unbound and many tournaments/competitions don't allow it (that is an argument for another thread), so this is the only way to take an all Ravenwing army in some circumstances.

Was just curious if there was a common consensus, or if opinion is fractured. It obviously is.

 Lammikkovalas wrote:
Which Sisters codex are you talking about?

3rd edition rulebook list.

But considering that the codex in question was released in 1997 I'm not sure how relevant it is in a discussion about today's army design philosophy

Given how much of 7th edition is a throwback to 2nd, pretty relevant.

But a minor point, ultimately. I brought it up simply to show that the idea of an army only having a single HQ option wasn't completely unheard of. In fact, in an edition that encourages the use of multiple formations and allies and suchlike, it's even less of an issue that it was in previous editions.

Seriously people, ask yourselves which one seems like a more plausible scenario: 1) GW intends for every RW strike force to be led by Sammael ...

Which isn't that peculiar an idea, since in previous editions they have expected every Ravenwing force to be led by Sammael, and every Deathwing force to be led by Belial.

But, again, choosing the most plausible reason for the issue to have arisen only gives you part of the story. It still doesn't tell you how it's supposed to be played given the rules that actually made it into print. As I've mentioned several times now, GW don't always go with what was originally intended.


Having said that, given that GW apparently have no interest in writing FAQs anymore, it's ultimately up to the players how they're going to apply this. I'm not trying to tell anyone how they should play... just trying to explain why prefering to just play it as written is not as unreasonable as some are trying to make it out to be.

 corrm wrote:

 Silverthorne wrote:

 corrm wrote:

ServiceGames wrote:
I'm a newbie, so I have a newbie question about this. Why is using Sammael an issue? Is it points related? Do you not like the character or models he uses?

Thanks

SG

There is no issue with using Sammael. I love the model and I quite like his rules too, a very solid character.

The issue with the rules at the moment is that technically Sammael is the only character allowed in the Ravenwing strike force formation. This is a problem is you want to run an all Ravenwing army and wish to include any other characters in it to add a bit more variety to your games.

Yeah I don't really get the Sammael hate in general. He's pretty nasty for his points, with the plasma cannon and AP2 sword (at iniative) on the jetbike. His only downside is 4++ instead of 3++ but I find my smashfether tends to loose more wounds from shooting (which is pointless against Sam with his 2+ rerollable jink) than combat.

The AP2 sword at initiative is great. Not wild about the plasma cannon, it's useful at times, but can't use it if you Jink. BTW, Sammael gets 3+ re-rollable jink as standard (because of skilled rider), only gets 2+ if using a Darkshroud.

That's true but I assume that most people play like me, where Sam and his command squad have top priority for support from the darkshrouds. I quite like the cannon. He will shoot it normally first turn due to the formation special rules, and usually a couple turns at the end of the game when the enemy fire power is reduced somewhat or you're hopping from assault to assault. It's a rare game where I don't get at least 30-40 points of value out of the cannon.

I can understand the earlier point about wanting a cheaper HQ though. RW is an easy army to load up on toys and not have enough bodies so that when you roll up against AM or Tau... you have a bad day.

 insaniak wrote:

 Lammikkovalas wrote:
Which Sisters codex are you talking about?

3rd edition rulebook list.

But considering that the codex in question was released in 1997 I'm not sure how relevant it is in a discussion about today's army design philosophy

Given how much of 7th edition is a throwback to 2nd, pretty relevant.

But a minor point, ultimately. I brought it up simply to show that the idea of an army only having a single HQ option wasn't completely unheard of. In fact, in an edition that encourages the use of multiple formations and allies and suchlike, it's even less of an issue that it was in previous editions.

Seriously people, ask yourselves which one seems like a more plausible scenario: 1) GW intends for every RW strike force to be led by Sammael ...

Which isn't that peculiar an idea, since in previous editions they have expected every Ravenwing force to be led by Sammael, and every Deathwing force to be led by Belial.

But, again, choosing the most plausible reason for the issue to have arisen only gives you part of the story. It still doesn't tell you how it's supposed to be played given the rules that actually made it into print. As I've mentioned several times now, GW don't always go with what was originally intended.


Having said that, given that GW apparently have no interest in writing FAQs anymore, it's ultimately up to the players how they're going to apply this. I'm not trying to tell anyone how they should play... just trying to explain why prefering to just play it as written is not as unreasonable as some are trying to make it out to be.

You do make good points, can't argue with that. The fact remains that if we include Special Characters, what we apparently have to do since we're talking about a subject that concerns Sammael, Sisters in 3rd edition had way more HQ choices than RW Strike Force would have. Or if we want to really start lawyering this topic I could say that Sisters 3rd ed. codex has zero HQ choices since the army building system was different back then.

 Lammikkovalas wrote:

You do make good points, can't argue with that. The fact remains that if we include Special Characters, what we apparently have to do since we're talking about a subject that concerns Sammael, Sisters in 3rd edition had way more HQ choices than RW Strike Force would have. Or if we want to really start lawyering this topic I could say that Sisters 3rd ed. codex has zero HQ choices since the army building system was different back then.

I wasn't talking about the codex, I was talking about the rulebook army list, which only had a single 0-1 HQ choice. The Chapter Approved list that came later added in an extra HQ option, but the Special Characters didn't come until the codex was released towards the end of 3rd edition.

The basic system of HQ/Elites/Troops/FA/HS was the same in 3rd ed as it is now, so I'm not sure what you mean by that last point, unless you're confusing 2nd ed and 3rd ed...






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CrashGordon94 wrote:
Calling someone out on BS like refusing to fix an issue and standing in the way of it getting fixed is going against far more than just interpreting something differently, it's going against someone interpreting it wrong, refusing to interpret it or so on.

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

You've decided that there is only one way to interpret this, and so everyone who thinks differently is clearly wrong and is destroying the hobby.


The simple fact is that you're displaying exactly the same level of inflexibility that you're accusing others of.

insaniak wrote:Nobody is saying that you're not allowed to 'fix' the rules to suit yourself.

Those picking the first option certainly are...

How?
The question asked was 'How are you fixing the Ravenwing Strike Force?'

Someone responding that they're choosing to play by the RAW is saying nothing more than that they're choosing to play by the RAW. Not that everyone else should also do so.


I would choose to play this by the rules as they currently exist, because that's the path that's going to lead to the fewest arguments. How you choose to play it concerns me not in the slightest, just as the way I choose to play it will have absolutely zero impact on your games.

 insaniak wrote:

 Lammikkovalas wrote:

You do make good points, can't argue with that. The fact remains that if we include Special Characters, what we apparently have to do since we're talking about a subject that concerns Sammael, Sisters in 3rd edition had way more HQ choices than RW Strike Force would have. Or if we want to really start lawyering this topic I could say that Sisters 3rd ed. codex has zero HQ choices since the army building system was different back then.

I wasn't talking about the codex, I was talking about the rulebook army list, which only had a single 0-1 HQ choice. The Chapter Approved list that came later added in an extra HQ option, but the Special Characters didn't come until the codex was released towards the end of 3rd edition.

The basic system of HQ/Elites/Troops/FA/HS was the same in 3rd ed as it is now, so I'm not sure what you mean by that last point, unless you're confusing 2nd ed and 3rd ed...

You mean the Witch Hunters codex, not the Sisters of Battle codex? I think Saint Celestine is in that book so my point stands, the army doesn't have just one HQ choice. I did get a bit confused there indeed, you were calling the codex with an entirely different name. Or I'm just confused again.

I'm with PandaHero.

Despite claims of infallible knowledge (with equal non-existent arguments) so tall that religious nut-cases are put to shame made by certain posters - we do not currently know where the fault lies.

Would I like this issue fixed? Sure.

Would I see the addition of granting the "Ravenwing" rule to a character buying a bike as reasonable? Yes.

Would I work actively against a group or tournament implementing such a fix? No, of course not.

How would I (personally, as in the person sitting at the key-board) fix the Ravenwing Strike Force? I would wait for an FAQ (despite the bleak prospects) and play something else in the meantime.

 Lammikkovalas wrote:
You mean the Witch Hunters codex, not the Sisters of Battle codex?

No, I mean the Sisters of Battle army list in the 3rd edition rulebook.

 insaniak wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
I understand his annoyance, he wants the issue to be gone and sorted, but for whatever reason there are some people out there who shrug there shoulders and can't be arsed, or simply don't care, ...

...or who think the error is in the extra HQ slots, rather than that there is anything that needs to be fixed.


This isn't an error that breaks the game. It just limits how many HQs you can take in your army. So, personally, if I were playing Ravenwing I would go with the rules as written on this as that's going to avoid having to argue the case every time I play someone new. If and when GW fix it to allow other characters, then they can be added in.

Insaniak, don't reply to my messages at all dude, unless your going to reply to the whole point, not just your clipped bit of it.

But no, I totally disagree with your way of "fixing" the rule as it's lazy and doesn't actually achieve anything, it's not an argument, it's a discussion, when did it become a chaw to communicate with your opponent for clarity.

This is the clearest rai I think I have ever seen, sure gw may go and change it at a later date, as they have done before, but at the moment, use your 3 HQ slots, without the ravenwing rule for the hq's (can't argue rai on that one) and play the damn game.

I avoid it because my primary detachment is Deathwing related and only supported by a single Ravenwing detachment with a single squad and a land speeder vengeance. So it hasn't come up. If it was an issue I would just interchange Deathwing/Ravening on the HQ units for those given bikes to join the detachment. Ravenwing has its own librarians and chaplains listed on the force org pages, so it just makes sense this way. I would even allow a different company master using the same ruling, since every other space marine army can choose a different company level leader than the special characters and even the Deathwing in the same codex can do it too.

 Formosa wrote:
But no, I totally disagree with your way of "fixing" the rule as it's lazy and doesn't actually achieve anything,...

Sure it does. It lets you play the game without needing a house rule.

 insaniak wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
But no, I totally disagree with your way of "fixing" the rule as it's lazy and doesn't actually achieve anything,...

Sure it does. It lets you play the game without needing a house rule.

Ok bud, your going on block, I asked you nicely to not respond to me unless your going to address my whole point, not just a tiny clipped bit, you clearly ignored it for whatever reason, I consider that trolling.

I would let any respective dark angels player take a bike mounted character in the ravenwing strike force. Although, I know my lgs wouldn't allow it because I win often and they don't want me to have any unfair advantages.

 Formosa wrote:

Ok bud, your going on block, I asked you nicely to not respond to me unless your going to address my whole point, not just a tiny clipped bit, you clearly ignored it for whatever reason, I consider that trolling.

It is often clearer and more concise to quote the specific premise that is being responded to, rather than quoting the entire post and then spending a paragraph explaining it all.

It doesn't mean I ignored the rest of your post.

 Formosa wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
I understand his annoyance, he wants the issue to be gone and sorted, but for whatever reason there are some people out there who shrug there shoulders and can't be arsed, or simply don't care, ...

...or who think the error is in the extra HQ slots, rather than that there is anything that needs to be fixed.


This isn't an error that breaks the game. It just limits how many HQs you can take in your army. So, personally, if I were playing Ravenwing I would go with the rules as written on this as that's going to avoid having to argue the case every time I play someone new. If and when GW fix it to allow other characters, then they can be added in.

Insaniak, don't reply to my messages at all dude, unless your going to reply to the whole point, not just your clipped bit of it.

But no, I totally disagree with your way of "fixing" the rule as it's lazy and doesn't actually achieve anything, it's not an argument, it's a discussion, when did it become a chaw to communicate with your opponent for clarity.

This is the clearest rai I think I have ever seen, sure gw may go and change it at a later date, as they have done before, but at the moment, use your 3 HQ slots, without the ravenwing rule for the hq's (can't argue rai on that one) and play the damn game.

Hasn't there been cases where GW has faq'd things not the sensible way? I forget which things (maybe the Baleflamer arc of fire being 360degrees), but they haven't always rules on 'clearest rai'.

Also while it's a shame you can't fill the optional HQ slots for the detachment, but those are the breaks I suppose. But I'm probably some rules lawyering jerk, who's ruining the game by playing it by the book. damn my entirely reasonable attitude to hell I say

Also also, what happens when I say no to people using things it doesn't say to use in their codex?