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.

As we have said, that just lets you know they are "counted as" HQ when something needs to know (such as Dawn of War Deployment), but they are not an actual HQ Choice.

Augustus wrote:

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.

@Augustus:
I think you're spot on with this one. Not counting, for the purposes of the FOC, as an HQ, only goes toward the overall min/max of HQs you are allowed to have and in no way affects the compulsory requirement in your army. Augustus is absolutely correct when he asserts that 'otherwise counts as a seperate HQ choice allows you satisfy the 1 HQ requirement.

Gwar! wrote:As we have said, that just lets you know they are "counted as" HQ when something needs to know (such as Dawn of War Deployment), but they are not an actual HQ Choice.

Or for something else you might need to know it for ... like where they fit in the force org?

"but they are not an actual HQ Choice." /= "Do not use up any Force Organisation chart selections"

Not counting towards the 1-2 HQ "limit" and not counting towards having 1 required HQ are two different issues.

In that case I would also think that You could take nothing but summoned demons for your troops in a CSM army.

What does counts as a separate HQ choice mean? Are you purposely being impudent? Anybody with half a lick of sense can answer that. Its like asking a butcher what is beef or asking a surgeon what is a scalpel. Just be honest and say "I will play the way I want regardless of anybody elses opinion that differs from mine."

G

And again, try reading the whole rule:

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

You're trying to cherry pick what rules you want to use by ignoring half the rule. We've explained what it means, yet you keep insisting that it means that he can be used to fill a compulsory choice on the Force Organization chart when the first half of the very same sentence tells you quite clearly that he can not.

I am not much for the back and forth so I will leave Ghaz and Gwar to thier future victims of endless rules debate.

I believe I stated my points taking in all considerations and all written rules that pertain to the subject. "cherry picking" is something I try and avoid.

Ghaz wrote:And again, try reading the whole rule:

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

You're trying to cherry pick what rules you want to use by ignoring half the rule. We've explained what it means, yet you keep insisting that it means that he can be used to fill a compulsory choice on the Force Organization chart when the first half of the very same sentence tells you quite clearly that he can not.

Nice try, you're actually ignoring the second half, I explained it. This is circular.

No, I'm not the one who's ignoring anything. You're the one who's trying to lead is to believe that the second half of the sentence says the complete opposite of the first half. So once again, it means that although he does not use a compulsory selection on the Force Organization chart, for all other purposes he counts as a separate HQ choice and not a part of your compulsory (or optional) HQ choices.

"Counts as separate HQ choice" means that he's his own squad, not a member chosen as part of another or as an upgrade.

Honestly, just stop and think about RaI for a second here. It wouldn't make sense for a priest or an enginseer to lead an army because they don't have a rank in the IG.

GW felt the need to specify that the EC can occupy a FOC mandatory choice because he does not take up a slot, which means that you can assume that this is not normally the case

Seems reasonably ambiguous and not particularly broken, I'd certainly let you do it playing me but I can understand some folks not liking it, ask yakface to add it to the FAQ (assuming its not there already).

Jack

"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.

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.

In the rulebook it says that you must take one HQ selection, that is to say you must put at least one unit from the HQ section of your codex into your army. Nowhere does it say that the unit you choose must fill one slot on the FoC. In the priest's rules it says it does not fill a slot on the FoC, but otherwise counts as, and is treated as, a HQ selection/unit. So a priest is a HQ selection from the HQ section of the IG codex. If it fills a slot on the FoC or not is irrelevant, it is still a selection.

You do realize that you need to Fill those slots to have a legal army right?

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.

Oh get over yourself....

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

The way I see it is this:
-No the Black Templar FAQ doesn't mean that this also applies to the IG
-BUT-
-it does give some insight into the way GW approaches situations that are very similar with other armies.

Thus, I think it is fair to say that although a slot isn't taken up on the FoC by the Priest or Enginseer, they still count as an HQ. The rules specify that at least a single HQ unit must be taken per army, it does not say that it must be "within the FoC". Sometimes what isn't written is as important as what is.

I'm not saying that I would necessarily mind letting an opponent in a friendly game take a Priest or Enginseer as their leader. But this seems very iffy at best, and I wouldn't bet on it in a tournament or an opponent who's not just looking for a good game.

Gadhip wrote:Nowhere does it say that the unit you choose must fill one slot on the FoC.

Yes it does. Once again, 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.

And from page 93 of Codex Imperial Guard:

An Imperial Guard Army May Include 0-2 Techpriest Enginseers. Techpriest Enginseers do not use up any Force Organisation chart selections, but are otherwise treated as seperate HQ units.

So how are you filling your cumpulsory Force Organization chart selection with a unit that does not use up any Force Organization chart selections?

If the model does not take up a slot, how can it fill said slot? How is that so hard to understand.

I know I'm jumping into a boiling kettle with this one, but I think I may have an explanation that follows both arguements yet comes out with one answer. Having played two games now with the new codex I wont even begin to pose that "I know all" with new IG codex, nor did I even think about having an Enginseer as the Manditory HQ. That being said. Here is my insight.

The codex says an Enginseer doesn't USE UP any Force Organisation chart selection. Then the codex goes on to say that the Enginseer is still treated as a HQ unit (as quoted and shown by others). Perhaps the way of viewing this is that the Enginseer does get put into the Force Organisation chart, but doesn't reduce the total available slots.

The Enginseer gets added into the "Dark Box compulsory" slot, and because it doesn't USE UP one of the two HQ slots, a second "Light Box non-compulsory" is added to the FOC to still allow two HQ's to be picked. This would make the FOC look to have three HQ slots, but because of the Enginseer's rule of it not using up an HQ slot, you could still bring two other HQ choices and fit within the FOC.

This way of thinking takes into account all the wordings from both the codex, the rulebook, and even makes sense of the BT FAQ.

There still is alot of question, even in my mind, if this is RAI. There seems to be both supporting and detracting arguements right from the entry itself. From how it is colored grey and put to the side, to how it doesn't have any prerequisites to fill and says treated as seperate HQ. In the end, I think RAI is argueable, but RAW (to me at least) seems to be clear.

Hope this new angle helps.

*edited for clarity and grammar, and in doing so misspelt grammar, so edited a second time... then found more things....*

@Ghaz
You made "...Dark boxes are compulsory selections..." bold, all that proves is that you have to select one, not that it has to fill a slot. If you read the priest's entry it says "does not take up a FoC slot, as in the total number you can have. In your post you have "Techpriest Enginseers do not use up any Force Organisation chart selections" if you look back and see what I posted it says slots, not selections. Maybe the entry for priests and techpriests are different. I was saying priests and it says slots.

And yet again, how are you using up any compulsory selections if the unit you took does not use up any selections to begin with? It doesn't matter that you said 'slots' or not. You misquoted the rules to suit yourself. It says 'selections', not 'slots'. As the rules actually read, your argument does not hold weight.

Deewalla wrote:The codex says an Enginseer doesn't USE UP any Force Organisation chart selection. Then the codex goes on to say that the Enginseer is still treated as HQ units (as quoted and shown by others). Perhaps the way of viewing this is that the Enginseer does get put into the Force Organisation chart, but doesn't reduce the total available slots.

He either uses up a selection on the chart or he doesn't. There is no halfway points where he both does and does not use up a selection.

Deewalla wrote:The Enginseer gets added into the "Dark Box compulsory" slot, and because it doesn't USE UP one of the two HQ slots, a second "Light Box non-compulsory" is added to the FOC to allow two HQ's to be picked. This would in essence make the FOC have three HQ slots, normally not allowed, but because of the Enginseer's rule of it not counting it is permitted.

The only way the Enginseer can be 'added' to the compulsory Force Orgainization chart selection is if he uses a Force Organization chart selection to begin with. He doesn't He doesn't use up a selection and give you another selection. As the rules quite clearly state, he does NOT use up a Force Organization chart selection, period.

@Ghaz,

I am cirtain I will not be able to change your mind. My approach to the question lies within the difference of "using" and "using up".

As you say, "The only way the Enginseer can be 'added' to the compulsory Force Orgainization chart selection is if he uses a Force Organization chart selection to begin with."
The Enginseer rules do not say "do not use a HQ slot in the FOC".
They do say, that the Enginseer "do not use up a HQ slot in the FOC."

I see it as the difference between the Enginseer using a HQ slot but still allowing for two HQ slots to be used by other choices, and the Enginseer using up a HQ slot, exhausting it, and only allowing one other HQ slot to be used.

As I stated, I do not see anything I have said to change your mind. I might not think you to be correct in your beliefs, but I will not tell you that you are wrong to believe them.

Huh, we all agree he doesn't use a slot.

The argument here is whether he can be the SOLE HQ for the army since he does not occupy a slot.

It says he doesnt use up a slot.

Not that he doesnt use a slot.

Deewalla wrote:The Enginseer rules do not say "do not use a HQ slot in the FOC".
They do say, that the Enginseer "do not use up a HQ slot in the FOC."

No, it says neither. The word 'slot' is NEVER used. I've already quoted what it says twice, but here it is again:

Techpriest Enginseers do not use up any Force Organisation chart selections, but are otherwise treated as seperate HQ units.

You've still failed to explain how a unit that does not use up any Force Organization chart selections can be used for a compulsory Force Organization chart selection. A unit that does not use a Force Organization chart selection can't be used for a compulsory Force Organization chart selection. It's that simple. You have to make an HQ Force Organization chart selection and the Techpriest Enginseer does not use up that selection.

Ghaz, we don't have to explain it, GW has already said it can happen. Sure, the BT FAQ only applies to BT. But their phrasing in the answer implies that it applies in all cases,

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.

As to the word "slot", you and I both know that people are just using that as shorthand for "Force Organization chart selection" (just as GW did in their FAQ answer on the Chump), so fussing about that is being rather silly, isn't it?

Simply put, GW has already set a precedent in another codex FAQ saying that a unit does not have to fill a Force Organization chart selection in order to fill a compulsory choice. Is it really impossible for the same situation to apply to the exact same situation for IG? Needs to be FAQed just as the Chump is, but I don't see why people are so adamantly opposed to the possibility.

What you're passing off as a 'precedent' is nothing more than GW proving that they don't know their own rules. It does not apply to anything other than the Emperor's Champion and actually changes the rules.

As written, the Techpriest Enginseer, Ministorum Priest and the Emperor's Champion can not be used for a compulsory selection on the Force Organization chart. Just because there's a contradictory FAQ for the Champion does not change the rules for the other two.

Ghaz, I agree that the FAQ applies to nothing more than the Chump. And definitely not going to claim that GW knows it's own rules, they've made that abundantly clear.
Yet how can you deny that a ruling on a similar situation (almost word for word in the codexes) does not qualify as a possible precedent? Similar rules, similar situation, one could expect a similar ruling when/if they ever FAQ it. And in the meantime, the BT FAQ throws enough dust in the air to make the IG status murky as far as what is or is not allowed.

don_mondo wrote:Yet how can you deny that a ruling on a similar situation (almost word for word in the codexes) does not qualify as a possible precedent?

For the reasons both you and Ghaz outlined before, namely the parts about GW not knowing their own rules, and putting rules changes in their FAQ's when by their own admission FAQ's mean nothing official.

Ghaz wrote:

Deewalla wrote:The Enginseer rules do not say "do not use a HQ slot in the FOC".
They do say, that the Enginseer "do not use up a HQ slot in the FOC."

No, it says neither. The word 'slot' is NEVER used. I've already quoted what it says twice, but here it is again:

Techpriest Enginseers do not use up any Force Organisation chart selections, but are otherwise treated as seperate HQ units.

You've still failed to explain how a unit that does not use up any Force Organization chart selections can be used for a compulsory Force Organization chart selection. A unit that does not use a Force Organization chart selection can't be used for a compulsory Force Organization chart selection. It's that simple. You have to make an HQ Force Organization chart selection and the Techpriest Enginseer does not use up that selection.

It's because you are treating 'Compulsory' as an almost seperate entity/category in and of itself. All that the compulsory mechanic does is specify a minimum count for a particular FOC. In general, no HQ is labeled as Compulsory. I say in general, because though I can't think of one of the top of my head, there may be a couple of HQs across armies that you might be required to take in certain circumstances. It is compulsory to take at least one HQ selection.

Priests, Enginseers, etc do not take up a selection on the FOC, but are treated in every other aspect as an HQ selection. So these units do not contribute toward the min/maxof the HQ FOC (i.e., 1-2 HQs). They all count as HQ selections though and would satisfy the compulsory requirement of having at least one HQ.

Please actually read the rules. What is compulsory by the rules? An HQ Force Organization chart selection is what is compulsory. As clearly spelt out in Codex Imperial Guard, a Techpriest Enginseer does not use up any Force Organization chart selections.

You're trying to make up an imaginary category that's not supported by the rules in the least. There are only Force Organization chart selections that are either optional or compulsory. There is nothing else.

Edit: to YAD:

Ah, so by your assertion I only need 1 GD and not a daemon prince or Chaos Lord / Sorceror? They have the exact same wording

Or I dont need any CSM, I can just have lesser daemons - after all, they dont take up any Troop FOC selections, but by your reckoning they can somehow fill the compulsory ones.

So, realised how rediculous an assertion it is yet?

Sigh.

If you don't use up a selection you never appear on the FOC chart. If you don't appear on the chart how do you fill up a slot? Oh wait, you can't - those dark boxes are still there, waiting for an entry that does actually count.

I think the problem is their terminology. The Force Organization chart does NOT have slots or choices. Everything in the Force Organization chart is a 'selection'. If they were to use the terminology in the rules, they would see that their arguments don't hold water.

Techpriest Enginseers do not use up any Force Organisation chart selections, but are otherwise treated as seperate HQ units.

Ghaz wrote:You've still failed to explain how a unit that does not use up any Force Organization chart selections can be used for a compulsory Force Organization chart selection. A unit that does not use a Force Organization chart selection can't be used for a compulsory Force Organization chart selection. It's that simple...

No, it's this simple, they count because they have an explicit, codex specific exception rule that says they count. I'll explain it for you again Ghaz, with the direct quote:

"...otherwise counts as a seprate HQ choice"

Counts as a seperate HQ choice, means, it's an HQ choice, because it counts, so you have one, therefore fullfilling the mandatory requirement of having an HQ choice. Redunundantly ignoring this in the post is giving the appearance of obstinancy.

The term 'otherwise' means, for everything except using the FO slot, they count as an HQ, there are only 2 contexts for this to have any meaning, deployment of an HQ in some missions and the mandatory HQ. How could one apply but not the other? Because you refuse to admit it perhaps?

The erroneous way you're enterpreting this rule is by adding qualifiers to "otherwise counts as an HQ choice" that being: 'except for the mandatory slot' which is not what it says. It does say it doesn't take up an FO selection but it also says it directly counts as an HQ, so the rule book requirement of a mandatory HQ has been fullfilled, because it counts. It's a direct RAW rule. Furthermore if the RAI was to have it not count then why did the authors change the priests and enginseers from an Elite to an HQ in the new codex?

Augustus wrote:It's a direct RAW rule. Furthermore if the RAI was to have it not count then why did the authors change the priests and enginseers from an Elite to an HQ in the new codex?

Because they are idiotic Pillocks who don't bother Playtesting anything? I thought that was pretty Obvious. It might be so as to allow a Single Enginseer or Priest to start the game deployed in a Dawn of War Mission? Or it might have something to do with the Planetstrike mission supplement out Soon™

I'm a supporter of the first reason though.

The base of the argument is still how does a unit that does not take up a slot, fill a slot?

*Takes a deep breath* I agree with Ghaz and Gwar.

Sure, there is precedent for GW breaking the rules but until this specific instance is FAQ'd, you can't use a unit that doesn't take any slot on the Force Org chart to satisfy a mandatory choice. If you want precedent, look at Chaos Lesser Daemons. They can not be used as the mandatory 2 Troops selections but otherwise count as Troops and take up no space on the Force Org chart.

Once again I see Augustus is cherry picking the rules. Here is what the rule actually says:

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

I'm not erroneously adding a modifier, it's right there in black and white in the word 'otherwise' that you keep ignoring. That says that except for not using a selection on the Force Organization chart he counts as a separate HQ choice.

Ozymandias wrote:*Takes a deep breath* I agree with Ghaz and Gwar.

Sure, there is precedent for GW breaking the rules but until this specific instance is FAQ'd, you can't use a unit that doesn't take any slot on the Force Org chart to satisfy a mandatory choice. If you want precedent, look at Chaos Lesser Daemons. They can not be used as the mandatory 2 Troops selections but otherwise count as Troops and take up no space on the Force Org chart.

Summoned Daemons is a rule all its own.

So now there are two precidents from two codexs that muddle up the issue.

Clay Williams wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:*Takes a deep breath* I agree with Ghaz and Gwar.

Sure, there is precedent for GW breaking the rules but until this specific instance is FAQ'd, you can't use a unit that doesn't take any slot on the Force Org chart to satisfy a mandatory choice. If you want precedent, look at Chaos Lesser Daemons. They can not be used as the mandatory 2 Troops selections but otherwise count as Troops and take up no space on the Force Org chart.

Summoned Daemons is a rule all its own.

So now there are two precedents from two codex's that muddle up the issue.

It's not actually. The wording is practically identical to that of the Enginseer and Priests, and there is nothing mentioned apart from these two sentences:
"Your army may Include a single Greater Daemon. This Model does not use up any force organisation chart selection, but is otherwise treated as an HQ unit."
and
"Units of Summoned Lesser Daemons do not use up any force organisation chart selection, but is otherwise treated as a Troops unit."

Ghaz wrote:What you're passing off as a 'precedent' is nothing more than GW proving that they don't know their own rules. It does not apply to anything other than the Emperor's Champion and actually changes the rules.

As written, the Techpriest Enginseer, Ministorum Priest and the Emperor's Champion can not be used for a compulsory selection on the Force Organization chart. Just because there's a contradictory FAQ for the Champion does not change the rules for the other two.

Honestly, if it wasn't for the Black Templars FAQ I would be in complete agreement. But I'm very uncomfortable with the notion that you can "cherry pick" GW precedent like that. Unless the rules specifically state otherwise, like situations should be resolved alike. Plus, the BT FAQ goes a step further. laying down a reason for the rule that is directly on point here. "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."

Personally, I think this is an unintuitive and unsatisfying resolution. But it's clearly relevant precedent, and it should not be ignored.

Besides, an army lead by a Priest or Techpriest is probably going to be an easy win, so it's not like you need to disqualify it.

EDIT: Ok, I don't have the latest Chaos Codex; could someone quote the relevant rule from Daemons? Dueling precedents would significantly muddy the issue.

No, he is not an HQ choice. The only reason he is stated as a separate HQ unit is for deployment.

He technically is not a choice at all.

Dave47 wrote:EDIT: Ok, I don't have the latest Chaos Codex; could someone quote the relevant rule from Daemons? Dueling precedents would significantly muddy the issue.

The wording is practically identical to that of the Enginseer and Priests, and there is nothing mentioned apart from these two sentences:
"Your army may Include a single Greater Daemon. This Model does not use up any force organisation chart selection, but is otherwise treated as an HQ unit."
and
"Units of Summoned Lesser Daemons do not use up any force organisation chart selection, but is otherwise treated as a Troops unit."

Since they don't take any FoC Selection, they cannot be the 2 Mandatory Troops.

If you have two competing precedents you have to come down on the side of "Break No Rule."

IMO, the doesn't count as the mandatory HQ argument is much cleaner than the argument for counting as a mandatory HQ.

This will be my last reply to this thread, so hopefully this post will clear up some people's misconceptions.

First, 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.

Never once is the word 'slot' use to denote a selection from the Force Organization chart. It is always noted as a 'selection'.

From page 93 of Codex Imperial Guard:

An Imperial Guard army may include 0-2 Techpriest Enginseers. Techpriest Enginseers do not use up any Force Organization chart selections, but are otherwise treated as separate HQ units.

And from Dictionary.com:

oth-er-wise

–adverb
1. under other circumstances: Otherwise they may get broken.
2. in another manner; differently: Under the circumstances, I can't believe otherwise.
3. in other respects: an otherwise happy life.

Therefore the above rule literally reads as follows:

An Imperial Guard army may include 0-2 Techpriest Enginseers. Techpriest Enginseers do not use up any Force Organization chart selections, but in other respects are treated as separate HQ units.

A Techpriest Enginseer can not be used to fill a compulsory (or even any) Force Organization chart selection as per his rules, but in other respects each Techpriest Enginseer counts as a separate HQ unit.

First off lets better understand what the FOC is. Its the FOC chart is minimum and maximum number of each unit type your allowed to take. The FOC chart is split into two parts Compulsory and Optional. The priests and engineers are outside the FOC chart as their rules say, so they are neither counted towards the minimum or maximum. Thus can not be taken as the compulsory HQ.

That's the clearest explanation but people are thoroughly confused so I'll try it a few more ways in more detail.

Some people here are debating 'slot' verse 'selection' and I'm not sure why, as I pointed out the compulsory are part of the FOC chart, compulsory are the minimum. Priest and Engineers "do not use up any force organization chart selections"guard codex.
1) If they don't use FOC ->
2) and compulsory units are a subsection of the FOC, thus FOC ->
3) then priest and engineers DO NOT meet the minimum requirements of compulsory units.

Here's a third way to explain it cause there seems to be a lot of confusion on this and I don't know why; these rules in 5th are no different then the rules from the 4th edition codex.

In the 4th edition your HQ choices where Command Platoon, commissars, sanctioned psykers, and priests.
In 4th edition Commissars, Sanctioned Psykers, and Priests had the same description that they where HQ's but didn't take up any FOC slots; as our current 5th edition Priest and Techpriest Enginseer's say. Which means they didn't take up FOC then, so didn't count as compulsory HQ choices then either. In fourth edition with the same wording we have now, no one tried to fill their Compulsory HQ with anything other then their Command Platoon. So why people are trying to do that now with the same rules and type of units I'm not sure.

In 4th we were also limited to one Command Squad so, most of us only used up one of our 2 FOC slots, the only way we could use the second was with our 3 over priced special unique characters at the end of the book or with allied HQ's from Witch or Demon Hunters. So in 4th we had options but they weren't very good.

4th v 5th

4th
HQ FOC - Command Squad limit 1

HQ FOC - Lord Castellan Ursarkar Creed, Commissar Yarrick, Colonel Ibram Gaunt

HQ FOC - Allies HQ's

HQ NOT FOC/NOT Comp. - Commissars, Priests, Psykers


5th
HQ FOC - Company Command Squad

HQ FOC - Company Command Squad unique: Lord Castellan Creed, Colonel Iron Hand Straken, Nork Deddog

HQ FOC - Unique Commissar Yarrick

HQ FOC - Lord Commissar, Primaris Psyker

HQ NOT FOC/NOT Comp. - Ministorum Priest, Techpriest Enginseer

NOTE: Commissars are in 5th became troop upgrades, engineers got moved to HQ, pskyers were moved to elite, and priests remained the same.


As you can see Guard have always had units in both editions that have been listed as Pseudo HQ's, they are HQ's in game terms since that is where GW decide to place them. But they don't serve the role of HQ's and are essentially almost another unit type all together. They aren't on the FOC most likely to encourage people to use these units and not have to choose between them and something that takes up their limited slots in their army.

If you are using RAW off the IG codex, there is no way you can interpret that you can use Priest and Engineers for your compulsory HQ.
Yes, it says they are treated as HQ units, but that tells us which of the 5 unit types they are, the fact that they are not counted in FOC means they are out sided of the FOC and thus outside of compulsory units.

The only glimmer of hope to that argument I concede is the BT FAQ. However, trying to say that this one exception that is specifically written for this one particular character in another army overrides the rules in all other codexs and in this particular case the 4th and 5th edition Guard Codexes is a HUGE Stretch.

So until there is a FAQ that says you can straight up use the Priest and the Engineer as Compulsory HQ's you can't. I wouldn't hold my breath that this will be changed in the next FAQ since this rule was carried over from 4th and that would make it seem that GW is pretty happy with the way these characters work.

orangeknight,

I agree with you in principle (and Ghaz too), and if the BT FAQ ruling wasn't there I would be with you guys 100% about what the rulebook says (that's the section of the rules I would always quote too when these types of questions were asked).

The problem is, the BT FAQ ruling not only makes a ruling regarding the Emperor's Champion it also explains the reasoning behind making that ruling. And while that ruling does, at first glance appear to contradict the rules on this subject it is impossible to ignore because the reasoning is given.

Again, it says:

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 while we can try to make an assumption that this FAQ ruling is 'in error', what if it is not? Why must we make this assumption? Why can we not assume this is the way that GW would rule based on any question regarding this topic?

Let's look at what the rulebook says regarding these types of units (those that don't use up a force org selection):

"Quite a few Codex books include unit that, much like dedicated transports, are not part of the army's force organization chart. . .these units normally do not count towards the number of choices the player can make from the force organization chart. . ."


So again, if we assume that the BT ruling is correct, does it really contradict with what the rulebook says? I don't think so. The only thing the rulebook says is that these units do not count towards the number of choices the player can make. In other words, they do not count towards the maximum totals allowed.

Based on the BT ruling I would say that yes, these units do indeed count as the compulsory selection, they just do not count against the total number of units you can take from that force organization section.

So as others have said, taking one of these units, essentially just changes a dark box to a regular grey box on the force org chart.


Does this mean wacky things like summoned Daemons can be the compulsory Troops units in a CSM army? I do think that is the case until that BT ruling is stripped from the FAQ or they change the reasoning behind their ruling to make it specific only to the Emperor's Champion.

Except as already noted, it's not an HQ choice that's compulsory but an HQ Force Organization chart selection. Just being an HQ choice doesn't mean that he fills the compulsory Force Organization chart selection.

Gwar, Look at the beginning of the rules section in Ccsm. There is an added rule for "Summoned Demons" so the text concerning the two units is actually not the same.

This is actually leading me to believe that UNLESS it is stated in the book then the units can be taken as compulsory choices.

-Mispost-

On Page 89 under "Summoned Daemons" it says:

"This army can include a summoned greater daemon and summoned lesser daemons. They exist outside of the force organization chart, and are chosen in addition to your normal minimums and maximums, as outlined in the section at the back of the army list."

So, at least in the case of lesser daemons, they specifically state that they are outside the force org chart.

With that specific language, and the BT FAQ, can we assume that if it doesn't say its outside the chart, it can fulfill the minimum requirements?

Cruentus wrote:On Page 89 under "Summoned Daemons" it says:

"This army can include a summoned greater daemon and summoned lesser daemons. They exist outside of the force organization chart, and are chosen in addition to your normal minimums and maximums, as outlined in the section at the back of the army list."

So, at least in the case of lesser daemons, they specifically state that they are outside the force org chart.

With that specific language, and the BT FAQ, can we assume that if it doesn't say its outside the chart, it can fulfill the minimum requirements?

That may be, but the BT FAQ doesn't mean anything because firstly, the Imperial Guard does not use the Black Templar FAQ, and FAQs are just "house rules", not official Errata. As it is, for the reasons outlined by Ghaz, something that does not use up any FoC Selection cannot count as Mandatory Selections

GW FAQ are not official?

Clay Williams wrote:GW FAQ are not official?

If you read the page called "The Shrine of Knowlege" you will get your answer. But I shall be nice and repost the relevent part here:

The Errata have the same level of 'authority' as the main rules, as they effectively modify the published material. They are 'hard' material. It is a good idea to read them and be aware of their existence, but luckily there are very few of them for each book.

The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'.

Ergo, Errata is official "You can't mess with this so help us Jervis WILL come into your room while you sleep", while the FAQ's are "meh, play it if you want". However, GW have a VERY annoying habit of placing rule changes in their FAQ's, which allow TFGs (like me ) to whine about it.

But, I digress. Ghaz has actually made a air-tight case as to why they cannot fill the mandatory Selections and I am inclined to agree with him (and when that happens you know the Planets are aligned)

Well, no, actually, Ghaz hasn't made an "airtight" case. This one is going to require GW to speak up and even then we won't all agree. Some will be upset if they are allowed to do it and others will be upset if they aren't allowed to do it.
Simply put, if a unit outside the Force Organization selection chart can fulfill the mandatory requirement for one army, then it should work for any and all armies unless specifically disallowed.

No. A exception for ONE army is not an exception for all. It's your opinion that it would work for all armies, not a fact.

But it is a precedent that should be applied to all armies. Like I said, GW is going to have to step up and say one way or the other before we even come sclose to agreeing. Till then, we're just gonna have to agree to disagree.

No, it's not a precedent. It's a single FAQ that actually changes the rules. It's only your opinion that it's a precedent. Nothing in the FAQ says that it's a precedent nor does it say that it applies in any other circumstances.

Ghaz wrote:No. A exception for ONE army is not an exception for all. It's your opinion that it would work for all armies, not a fact.

Correct

don_mondo wrote:But it is a precedent that should be applied to all armies. Like I said, GW is going to have to step up and say one way or the other before we even come sclose to agreeing. Till then, we're just gonna have to agree to disagree.

Incorrect. Just because GW says "It works for this army" does NOT mean it works for another army. Each army is self contained. If you want to use the BT FAQ for your IG force, I want to use the Ork one for my Space Wolves etc etc etc. In case you didn't notice, the whole concept of "set" rules break down there and then and we might as well go back to playing AD&D.

I agree it's my opinion, just like what you're saying is your opinion. Like I also said, we're gonna have to agree to disagree until GW calls it one way or the other. Feel free to continue arguing...............

Yes - the FAQ is for one army.

No - The FAQ does not "change the rules" it clarifies rules that already exist.

Yes - We have to agree to disagree. You will run your tournaments how you see fit and we will run ours how we see fit, until such a day as there is a FAQ.

Clay Williams wrote:Yes - We have to agree to disagree. You will run your tournaments how you see fit and we will run ours how we see fit, until such a day as there is a FAQ.

I just want to point out that you can run the tournaments however you damn please whatever GW says.

Gwar! wrote:

Clay Williams wrote:Yes - We have to agree to disagree. You will run your tournaments how you see fit and we will run ours how we see fit, until such a day as there is a FAQ.

I just want to point out that you can run the tournaments however you damn please whatever GW says.

Heck yeah, we're kicking around the idea of a no-MEQ allowed tourney........

Hence the "you see fit" and "we see fit", but we can be redundent all day long, its the theme of most rules threads.

Well the point here is, RaW (That is, Specifically what is written in the Rulebook, Codex: Imperial Guard, errata to Codex: Imperial Guard [and because I am feeling generous] the FAQ to Codex: Imperial Guard and nothing else), the Priests and the Enginseers do not take up any FoC Selection and as such cannot comprise the Mandatory HQ Selection as required by Standard Missions because they do not take up any selection.

Per RAW, Gwar and Ghaz are right. You can do whatever you want in your tournament but it doesn't affect what the rules say.

Well that's what you think...

4 pages of debate says otherwise.

The debate hinges on a ruling made in the Black Templars FAQ that changes the rules as written for one character in the Black Templars army. I haven't seen any convincing argument for needing to apply that same ruling to characters in the IG army, especially when the RAW is clear.

Augustus wrote:Well that's what you think...

4 pages of People making up rules says otherwise.

Fixed it for ya. This entire debate has been me, Ghaz and InquisitorFabius (but he isn't all that important really) stating what the ACTUAL rules are, and a whole bunch of people stating what they "think the rules are because that one time in band camp the Black Templar FAQ said this so it must obviously apply to my IG army too!"

Hey, I said it was BS also!!!


If they do not take up a slot, how can they ever fill the slot. This is what has to be proven, and still has not been.

orangeknight78 wrote:First off lets better understand what the FOC is. Its the FOC chart is minimum and maximum number of each unit type your allowed to take. The FOC chart is split into two parts Compulsory and Optional. The priests and engineers are outside the FOC chart as their rules say, so they are neither counted towards the minimum or maximum. Thus can not be taken as the compulsory HQ.

That's the clearest explanation but people are thoroughly confused so I'll try it a few more ways in more detail.

Some people here are debating 'slot' verse 'selection' and I'm not sure why, as I pointed out the compulsory are part of the FOC chart, compulsory are the minimum. Priest and Engineers "do not use up any force organization chart selections"guard codex.
1) If they don't use FOC ->
2) and compulsory units are a subsection of the FOC, thus FOC ->
3) then priest and engineers DO NOT meet the minimum requirements of compulsory units.

Here's a third way to explain it cause there seems to be a lot of confusion on this and I don't know why; these rules in 5th are no different then the rules from the 4th edition codex.

In the 4th edition your HQ choices where Command Platoon, commissars, sanctioned psykers, and priests.
In 4th edition Commissars, Sanctioned Psykers, and Priests had the same description that they where HQ's but didn't take up any FOC slots; as our current 5th edition Priest and Techpriest Enginseer's say. Which means they didn't take up FOC then, so didn't count as compulsory HQ choices then either. In fourth edition with the same wording we have now, no one tried to fill their Compulsory HQ with anything other then their Command Platoon. So why people are trying to do that now with the same rules and type of units I'm not sure.

In 4th we were also limited to one Command Squad so, most of us only used up one of our 2 FOC slots, the only way we could use the second was with our 3 over priced special unique characters at the end of the book or with allied HQ's from Witch or Demon Hunters. So in 4th we had options but they weren't very good.

4th v 5th

4th
HQ FOC - Command Squad limit 1

HQ FOC - Lord Castellan Ursarkar Creed, Commissar Yarrick, Colonel Ibram Gaunt

HQ FOC - Allies HQ's

HQ NOT FOC/NOT Comp. - Commissars, Priests, Psykers


5th
HQ FOC - Company Command Squad

HQ FOC - Company Command Squad unique: Lord Castellan Creed, Colonel Iron Hand Straken, Nork Deddog

HQ FOC - Unique Commissar Yarrick

HQ FOC - Lord Commissar, Primaris Psyker

HQ NOT FOC/NOT Comp. - Ministorum Priest, Techpriest Enginseer

NOTE: Commissars are in 5th became troop upgrades, engineers got moved to HQ, pskyers were moved to elite, and priests remained the same.


As you can see Guard have always had units in both editions that have been listed as Pseudo HQ's, they are HQ's in game terms since that is where GW decide to place them. But they don't serve the role of HQ's and are essentially almost another unit type all together. They aren't on the FOC most likely to encourage people to use these units and not have to choose between them and something that takes up their limited slots in their army.

If you are using RAW off the IG codex, there is no way you can interpret that you can use Priest and Engineers for your compulsory HQ.
Yes, it says they are treated as HQ units, but that tells us which of the 5 unit types they are, the fact that they are not counted in FOC means they are out sided of the FOC and thus outside of compulsory units.

The only glimmer of hope to that argument I concede is the BT FAQ. However, trying to say that this one exception that is specifically written for this one particular character in another army overrides the rules in all other codexs and in this particular case the 4th and 5th edition Guard Codexes is a HUGE Stretch.

So until there is a FAQ that says you can straight up use the Priest and the Engineer as Compulsory HQ's you can't. I wouldn't hold my breath that this will be changed in the next FAQ since this rule was carried over from 4th and that would make it seem that GW is pretty happy with the way these characters work.

PG 87 minirulebook: 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.

*Note here that a compulsory choice does not mean anything other then you must choose something from the HQ section of your rule book. It does not say the slot itself must be filled. On pg 86 last sentence under HQ "every army contains at least one head quarters unit to command it" it does not say one HQ force org selection must be "used up"..

IG codex Pg 93 Priests do not use up any force organization chart selections, but are otherwise treated as separate HQ units. Same for tech priests.

* this allows for a wide diversity of HQ selections for a character full army I do not think it was intended to limit selections but that is of course MHO

WH codex pg 27 these do not count as one of your HQ choices and may be taken in addition to you usual allocation of HQ units in a mission. Goes on to further limit. Also not an IC can not exist by himself at all.

* This is written to limit their use and make sure they can only be used for very specific purposes.

These are two different monsters yet further lead credence to the argument for the IG priest and techpriest being viable as "Compulsory" HQ choices, even though they don't actually "fill" the HQ slelection. It simply means you can continue purchasing more HQ to fill it up if you wish/have the points.


GW did not keep the concise wording that prevented priests from leading IG armies infact they made them IC's to boot. so I believe based upon the fact you are compelled to make an HQ Force Org Selection you can make that selection as a techpriest even though it doesn't "use it up". I do not find this a stretch at all. I believe it can be FAQ'ed either way, just like CSM/BT etc have been done but i do not see a problem with something being an HQ selection but not "using it up" somehow making it not count at all. i think the tail end of that sentence " but are otherwise treated as separate HQ units". Is the qualifier that clarifies the point .

And once again, you're changing the wording to suit your purposes. It's Force Organization chart selections that are compulsory, not choices.

And i am telling you that a techpriest is an HQ force Organization chart selection as evidenced in how you purchase him. however he includes a special rule that allows him to not "use up" any force organization chart selection, but are otherwise treated as seperate HQ units.

How are you saying it is not an HQ(this signatory alone defines its position) unit. You buy it as an HQ force org chart selections and then like magic the special rules mean it doesn't "use up" the slot allowing you to buy more stuff.

I am not changing wording i am trying to comprehend how you are nullifying something with your will and no rules to back it up. Why does the fact the techpriest negates the "using up" of any force org negates the fact it is an HQ force org chart selection?

It does NOT say it IS NOT it simply states it does not "USE UP" it goes on to clarify it is otherwise treated as a seperate HQ unit.

do you even see the position that is being asserted? I can at least understand where the confusion comes from the WH dex stipulates the exact opposite... thus we would never argue that.. this new dex leaves a lot of flexability open. i personally think this was intended and is valid.

Yes, you are trying to change the wording. You're trying to claim that 'use up' is different than 'use'. They mean the exact same thing. Thesaurus.com even lists 'use' as the only synonym of 'use up'. Just because you say that they're different doesn't make it so.

Secondly, every single box on the Force Organization chart is a 'Force Organization chart selection'. It's not a 'slot' or a 'choice', it's a 'Force Organization chart selection' and a Techpriest Enginseer never uses or uses up a selection on the Force Organization chart.

So, by your own statement the Techpriest does not take up an HQ selection, so how can he ever fill one?

InquisitorFabius wrote:So, by your own statement the Techpriest does not take up an HQ selection, so how can he ever fill one?

My assertions is he IS a HQ force Org Chart Selection with a special rule that allows him to NOT "use it up" I.E. an HQ selection that is a "freebie" most selections "use up" a slot limiting your ability to take those types of units. This and the priest however do not "use up" the slot they come from.

Anyway.. We will see it FAQ'ed at some point.

He does take a selection from the HQ Force Org part of the codex. lets not be silly. I understand your point why pretend to not see ours?

No your twisting wording you have to keep it in context. trying to assert that Techpriest and priests are not even hq selections now? seriously you that wigged out by this? useing a slot is what it does using it up would be making it unsuable. keep it in context. It IS an HQ Force Org chart Selection that simply "does not use up any selections"

Your position is that because it "does not use up any force org chart selections" it does not count towards the compulsory Hq Force org chart selection.

Where we differ is that disagreement. I assert just because it does not "use up" a force org chart selection does not mean that it is not a "Force org chart selection".

BT Emp champ is an example of this.
Previous codexes i.e. WH priest specifically state it does not count which is why i referenced it. you see i am not affraid to look at it objectively i just believe those sentences ruling it out would have been left there if they were intended to be there.

As it stand the language is permissive not dismissive in my opinion.

So it seems we need to agree to disagree I will not bother restating wording and I am tired of being accused of manipulating wording. I qouted specific text and referenced the reasons/rules I believe it should be the way I think it should be.

Until someone comes up with something new i eagerly await a FAQ

And again, you're trying to twist it to have it both ways. The rules say that he does not use up a Force Organization chart selection, period. 'Use' and 'use it up' mean the exact same thing. They do not use up a Force Organization chart selection of any type, but other than that they count as an HQ choice. However it is that Force Organization chart selection that's compulsory. Not an HQ 'choice', but a FORCE ORGANIZATION CHART SELECTION

So far you've totally failed to explain why a model that does not use a Force Organization chart selection can be used for your compulsory Force Organization chart selection except by trying to make up some imaginary difference between 'use' and 'use up'. He does not 'use' or 'use up' a Force Organization Chart selection at all or in any part. There is no such thing as half a Force Organization chart selection. The rules do not agree with you in the least. He either uses or uses up the whole selection or he uses or uses up none of it. There is NO halfway point.

If you do not "use it up" then you have not "used" a force org selection and there is then nothing to fill that dark box.

No dark box fillup == no compulsory selection.

We can all see it your way, it's jsut your way is just plain wrong - no amount of hanging onto the BT FAQ will help you.

Ghaz wrote:And again, you're trying to twist it to have it both ways. The rules say that he does not use up a Force Organization chart selection, period. 'Use' and 'use it up' mean the exact same thing. They do not use up a Force Organization chart selection of any type, but other than that they count as an HQ choice. However it is that Force Organization chart selection that's compulsory. Not an HQ 'choice', but a FORCE ORGANIZATION CHART SELECTION

So far you've totally failed to explain why a model that does not use a Force Organization chart selection can be used for your compulsory Force Organization chart selection except by trying to make up some imaginary difference between 'use' and 'use up'. He does not 'use' or 'use up' a Force Organization Chart selection at all or in any part. There is no such thing as half a Force Organization chart selection. The rules do not agree with you in the least. He either uses or uses up the whole selection or he uses or uses up none of it. There is NO halfway point.

I am not twisting anything.
You know I just realized something. This is pointless. You guys have gone as far as referencing previous edition rules to place language to defend your position. when i do the same pointing on WH codex explicitly states contrary to my position whereas current language does not. You ignore it you claim use and use up mean the same thing? Thats idiotic. My assertion is the techpriest and priest do "use" a HQ force org chart selection as they are an HQ choice in that force org position.. however they do not "use it up" therefore making it unavailable.

I am being baited here.. If you can't see the obfuscation in language that is causing this thats fine. But pulling dictionary.com to try and define something you are taking out of context is just silly.

If I followed your logic I would have to completely ignore the last sentence and the actual location of the rules and entries themselves.

Where in the world do you explain "fill up"

PG 87 minirulebook: 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.


I interpret this to say I have to make a selection from the hq force org chart selection area. Not that I am required "to fill up" anything.

Your adding language not I.


G'nite guys maybe in a year or two this will be resolved via FAQ.. but i see it as an oppurtunity to explain adeptus mechanus and Zealot armies that are both fluffy and interesting.

odinsspear45 wrote:G'nite guys maybe in a year or two this will be resolved via FAQ.. but i see it as an oppurtunity to explain adeptus mechanus and Zealot armies that are both fluffy and interesting.

So you are proved wrong and then reduse to argue any more? At least have the decency to admit you are wrong rather than storming off.

Ozymandias wrote:The debate hinges on a ruling made in the Black Templars FAQ that changes the rules as written for one character in the Black Templars army. I haven't seen any convincing argument for needing to apply that same ruling to characters in the IG army, especially when the RAW is clear.

The ruling on the Emperor's Champion doesn't change the rules. It explains, with reasoning, why the author of the FAQ answer believes his answer is correct while following the rules, and that is the problem here.

If this were just a case of the BT FAQ saying: The Emperor's Champion counts as the mandatory HQ choice then we could just write it off as a rules change, but there is a logic presented along with the ruling that explains that the Emperor's Champion still counts as the mandatory choice because: "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 you can assume that the author was just plain wrong, or the ruling was made against the wording in the previous edition, etc, but the fact remains that the logic given is presented as following the rules.

So if this same question were to be asked about any HQ or Troops unit that doesn't count as a force org selection, why would we expect the logic to suddenly change? You can't. That same logic can be used to answer any similar question in any codex. Yes, this ruling is for the Emperor's Champion only, but the logic presented is either correct or it is not.

As long as this FAQ answer is on the books as it is currently written how can you assume that the logic presented in that ruling is incorrect?

You can throw up as many different cases of dictionary definitions or anything else but in the end it boils down to:

Either the logic behind the BT ruling is faulty and therefore we must ignore the ruling, or we accept that the logic is sound and therefore the same logic must be applied to any similar question.

yakface wrote:You can throw up as many different cases of dictionary definitions or anything else but in the end it boils down to:

Either the logic behind the BT ruling is faulty and therefore we must ignore the ruling, or we accept that the logic is sound and therefore the same logic must be applied to any similar question.

I disagree, what the case is we accept that the logic is sound for the BT Codex ONLY. The BT FAQ shows that, by Default, HQ's that do not take up a Selection cannot count as the Mandatory Selections. In the Case of the Emperors Champion, they have changed it so it can. This does not affect any other codex.

Gwar! wrote:

yakface wrote:You can throw up as many different cases of dictionary definitions or anything else but in the end it boils down to:

Either the logic behind the BT ruling is faulty and therefore we must ignore the ruling, or we accept that the logic is sound and therefore the same logic must be applied to any similar question.

I disagree, what the case is we accept that the logic is sound for the BT Codex ONLY. The BT FAQ shows that, by Default, HQ's that do not take up a Selection cannot count as the Mandatory Selections. In the Case of the Emperors Champion, they have changed it so it can. This does not affect any other codex.

No, read the ruling again please. It does not say that they have changed the rule. It says that the EC can be taken as the mandatory choice BECAUSE "he is still an HQ choice, and so he can fulfill the minimum HQ requirement."

An Enginseer, for example, is also an HQ choice who, just like the EC, does not use up a force organization chart selection.

So either the logic for the BT ruling is faulty and the ruling must therefore be ignored or the logic is sound and must be applied to similar questions.

yakface wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

yakface wrote:You can throw up as many different cases of dictionary definitions or anything else but in the end it boils down to:

Either the logic behind the BT ruling is faulty and therefore we must ignore the ruling, or we accept that the logic is sound and therefore the same logic must be applied to any similar question.

I disagree, what the case is we accept that the logic is sound for the BT Codex ONLY. The BT FAQ shows that, by Default, HQ's that do not take up a Selection cannot count as the Mandatory Selections. In the Case of the Emperors Champion, they have changed it so it can. This does not affect any other codex.

No, read the ruling again please. It does not say that they have changed the rule. It says that the EC can be taken as the mandatory choice BECAUSE "he is still an HQ choice, and so he can fulfill the minimum HQ requirement."

An Enginseer, for example, is also an HQ choice who, just like the EC, does not use up a force organization chart selection.

So either the logic for the BT ruling is faulty and the ruling must therefore be ignored or the logic is sound and must be applied to similar questions.

Again, the logic is sound for the Black Templar Army only. If we start applying Other armies FAQ's to Other armies it just opens up a huge can of worms.

Gwar! wrote:
Again, the logic is sound for the Black Templar Army only. If we start applying Other armies FAQ's to Other armies it just opens up a huge can of worms.

If the logic behind that ruling is sound, then it is sound for the IG Enginseer question. I'm not trying to say the ruling from the BT FAQ applies to other situations, we're talking about the logic that the FAQ writer put into the answer to explain why his answer was following the rules.

Either the logic is sound or it isn't. It doesn't matter what FAQ it is in because we're not talking about the ruling we're talking about the logic given for the ruling.

If you can explain how this logic is sound in regards to the EC:

"he is still an HQ choice, and so he can fulfill the minimum HQ requirement."

But isn't sound for the Enginseer then I would love to hear it.

yakface wrote:

Gwar! wrote:
Again, the logic is sound for the Black Templar Army only. If we start applying Other armies FAQ's to Other armies it just opens up a huge can of worms.

If the logic behind that ruling is sound, then it is sound for the IG Enginseer question. I'm not trying to say the ruling from the BT FAQ applies to other situations, we're talking about the logic that the FAQ writer put into the answer to explain why his answer was following the rules.

Either the logic is sound or it isn't. It doesn't matter what FAQ it is in because we're not talking about the ruling we're talking about the logic given for the ruling.

If you can explain how this logic is sound in regards to the EC:

"he is still an HQ choice, and so he can fulfill the minimum HQ requirement."

But isn't sound for the Enginseer then I would love to hear it.

Because nowhere in the IG FAQ does it say "he is still an HQ choice, and so he can fulfil the minimum HQ requirement", and the fact that they had to explicitly state so for the Emperors Champion (and nothing else) leads me to the conclusion that by default things that do not take up an HQ Selection cannot fulfil the minimum HQ Selection.

I think yakface has hit it on the head with this one.

The logic given in the BT faq wasn't "we're making a special exception for the BT players because they have to take the emperor's champion". Rather, they clarify that the rules say he can be used as a compulsary selection.

Gwar! wrote:Because nowhere in the IG FAQ does it say "he is still an HQ choice, and so he can fulfil the minimum HQ requirement", and the fact that they had to explicitly state so for the Emperors Champion (and nothing else) leads me to the conclusion that by default things that do not take up an HQ Selection cannot fulfil the minimum HQ Selection.

You completely side-stepped the question.

Again, the FAQ writer gave a reason as to why, within the rules, the Emperor's Champion still counts as a mandatory choice. Is the logic presented in the BT FAQ behind the Emperor's Champion ruling sound or not?

And as the community as a whole has stated time and again, what happens in a codex stays in the codex. The logic behind the rule (codex or FAQ) doesn't matter in interpreting rules from other codices or FAQs. The fact the EC is permitted to be a compulsory HQ selection doesn't imply the Techpriest in the IG codex can.

As argued for several pages, neither Minisorum Priest or Techpriest take up an HQ selection thus cannot fill ANY FO selection slot. This is the rule as written.

Now, if someone wants to provide an addendum (via FAQ for instance) and is looking for a logical reason to permit it, referencing other codices for precedence is acceptable. However, trying to lift a rule in one codex to justify a rule interpretation in another codex isn't.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:And as the community as a whole has stated time and again, what happens in a codex stays in the codex. The logic behind the rule (codex or FAQ) doesn't matter in interpreting rules from other codices or FAQs. The fact the EC is permitted to be a compulsory HQ selection doesn't imply the Techpriest in the IG codex can.

As argued for several pages, neither Minisorum Priest or Techpriest take up an HQ selection thus cannot fill ANY FO selection slot. This is the rule as written.

Now, if someone wants to provide an addendum (via FAQ for instance) and is looking for a logical reason to permit it, referencing other codices for precedence is acceptable. However, trying to lift a rule in one codex to justify a rule interpretation in another codex isn't.

And the Emperor's Champion is also an HQ selection that cannot fill any FO selection slot. The ruling says he still qualifies as the compulsory choice because he is still an HQ choice. It does not say they are over-riding the rules and allowing it.

So the question remains (which people want to keep dodging), is the logic behind that ruling sound or not?

yakface wrote:So the question remains (which people want to keep dodging), is the logic behind that ruling sound or not?

In my Opinion, no, it is not (much in the same way the "FAQ" about the Deff Dreads attacks is not sound). In my opinion it should have been placed as an Errata specific to the EC. The reason why it was "clarified" at all is because the EC is a Compulsory choise for the BT army. Priests and Enginseers are not.

That is not the reason is was clarified, you pulled that one out of thin air.

The FAQ says nothing about being an HQ because you have to take a EC anyway.

This is why rules debates get messed up, because people make statements that have no bearing on the facts.

I know you really enjoy arguing your point, but please do so with facts.

Also the stance you have on FAQs not being a usable document because of a disclaimer that GW published in order to avoid being bashed even more about rules problems does not hold water. The FAQs are what are used when people who have never met what to play by the same set of rules. Thats why they are used at GTs, thats why they put them on the web for you to use.

Clay Williams wrote:Also the stance you have on FAQs not being a usable document because of a disclaimer that GW published in order to avoid being bashed even more about rules problems does not hold water. The FAQs are what are used when people who have never met what to play by the same set of rules. Thats why they are used at GTs, thats why they put them on the web for you to use.

So show me the part in the IG FAQ that says Priests and Enginseers may be taken as Compulsory HQ Selections please, as we are using the FAQ's.

yakface wrote:No, read the ruling again please. It does not say that they have changed the rule. It says that the EC can be taken as the mandatory choice BECAUSE "he is still an HQ choice, and so he can fulfill the minimum HQ requirement."

And as I've already pointed out, it's not the HQ 'choice' that's compulsory. It's the Force Organization chart selection which is compulsory. The FAQ doesn't even use the correct terminology, so why should it be considered a precedent? It doesn't matter if the FAQ says he's an HQ choice, you need an HQ Force Organization chart selection and not just an HQ choice.

odinsspear45 wrote:I am not twisting anything.

You most assuredly are twisting what 'use' and 'use up' mean.

odinsspear45 wrote:You guys have gone as far as referencing previous edition rules to place language to defend your position.

I have never once used a past edition to support my position, thank you. You're the one who's using wording not in the rules to support your position.

odinsspear45 wrote:... you claim use and use up mean the same thing? Thats idiotic.

Try looking in the dictionary where they have the same defintion for both 'use' and 'use up'. The only idiocy is your claims that 'use' and 'use up' have different defintions just because you say so.

odinsspear45 wrote:My assertion is the techpriest and priest do "use" a HQ force org chart selection as they are an HQ choice in that force org position.. however they do not "use it up" therefore making it unavailable.

And yet again, they can't 'use' or 'use up' a part of a Force Organization chart selection. You have absolutely nothing to back up your claims except a faulty understanding of the word 'use' and 'use up'. By your claims I could have ten or twenty tactical squads in a Space Marine army because none of them 'use up' a selection? Is that the case, or is this just another instance of you trying to twist the wording to your own benefit? If you can take multiple units per Force Organization chart selection, then the rules will tell us so. Otherwise you don't have the least bit of support for your wild claims.

odinsspear45 wrote:If you can't see the obfuscation in language that is causing this thats fine. But pulling dictionary.com to try and define something you are taking out of context is just silly.

No, what's silly is you trying to claim that the words 'use' and 'use up' have different meanings just because you say so. Who do you expect us to believe, you or the dictionary?

Show me the FAQ that says you cannot. There are no rules supporting the arguement either way besided the BT FAQ.

Again the only reason I support the arguement that you can take them is because there is a precedent already in place. And yes I do use other FAQs as examples when there are cases that have no other examples to follow.

*edit

Some of you guys need to chill, ghas and odinsspear45.

Clay Williams wrote:Lol, show me the FAQ that says you cannot. There are no rules supporting the arguement either way besided the BT FAQ.

Again the only reason I support the arguement that you can take them is because there is a precedent already in place. And yes I do use other FAQs as examples when there are cases that have no other examples to follow.

Then you are not playing Warhammer 40,000 then.

You can play Gwarhammer 40k and I will play Clayhammer 40k. There is absolutly nothing wrong with that and in fact it makes the game more enjoyable to play the way you see fit. GW fully incourages you to do so.

Until the issue to clarified by an official party and put in print, we will just disagree on the matter.

yakface wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:The debate hinges on a ruling made in the Black Templars FAQ that changes the rules as written for one character in the Black Templars army. I haven't seen any convincing argument for needing to apply that same ruling to characters in the IG army, especially when the RAW is clear.

The ruling on the Emperor's Champion doesn't change the rules. It explains, with reasoning, why the author of the FAQ answer believes his answer is correct while following the rules, and that is the problem here.

If this were just a case of the BT FAQ saying: The Emperor's Champion counts as the mandatory HQ choice then we could just write it off as a rules change, but there is a logic presented along with the ruling that explains that the Emperor's Champion still counts as the mandatory choice because: "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 you can assume that the author was just plain wrong, or the ruling was made against the wording in the previous edition, etc, but the fact remains that the logic given is presented as following the rules.

So if this same question were to be asked about any HQ or Troops unit that doesn't count as a force org selection, why would we expect the logic to suddenly change? You can't. That same logic can be used to answer any similar question in any codex. Yes, this ruling is for the Emperor's Champion only, but the logic presented is either correct or it is not.

As long as this FAQ answer is on the books as it is currently written how can you assume that the logic presented in that ruling is incorrect?

You can throw up as many different cases of dictionary definitions or anything else but in the end it boils down to:

Either the logic behind the BT ruling is faulty and therefore we must ignore the ruling, or we accept that the logic is sound and therefore the same logic must be applied to any similar question.

So you are saying that I can take a Greater Daemon as my sole HQ and 2 units of Lesser Daemons as my two Troops requirements in a Chaos Marine army?

It does change the rules, the rules say you have to take a HQ selection and here we have a unit that says it doesn't take an HQ selection but it's still an HQ so it's ok. C'mon, this wouldn't be the first time GW did something stupid in their FAQ but why haven't we seen anything else like this since 3rd edition (I'm assuming the BT FAQ was written in 3rd ed).

4th Edition, but otherwise correct.

Ok, I wasn't sure.

Ozymandias wrote:
So you are saying that I can take a Greater Daemon as my sole HQ and 2 units of Lesser Daemons as my two Troops requirements in a Chaos Marine army?

It does change the rules, the rules say you have to take a HQ selection and here we have a unit that says it doesn't take an HQ selection but it's still an HQ so it's ok. C'mon, this wouldn't be the first time GW did something stupid in their FAQ but why haven't we seen anything else like this since 3rd edition (I'm assuming the BT FAQ was written in 3rd ed).

No, because as I stated on Page 3 of this thread:

On Page 89 under "Summoned Daemons" it says:

"This army can include a summoned greater daemon and summoned lesser daemons. They exist outside of the force organization chart, and are chosen in addition to your normal minimums and maximums, as outlined in the section at the back of the army list."

So, at least in the case of lesser daemons, they specifically state that they are outside the force org chart.

I'll reiterate. Since the Chaos Daemons army specifically EXCLUDES these units, which don't "take up a FOC slot", I would assume that since that same EXCLUSION isn't in the IG codex, that they would be allowed to count as the mandatory HQ, following the BT precedent.

Gwar! wrote:

yakface wrote:So the question remains (which people want to keep dodging), is the logic behind that ruling sound or not?

In my Opinion, no, it is not (much in the same way the "FAQ" about the Deff Dreads attacks is not sound). In my opinion it should have been placed as an Errata specific to the EC. The reason why it was "clarified" at all is because the EC is a Compulsory choise for the BT army. Priests and Enginseers are not.

So in your opinion, only a mandatory unit that has that special rule, should still count as the mandatory HQ?
I simply think that the rule should apply across the board or not, for consistency purposes....plus having an army led by an Enginseer or Priest can only add flavor.

When things exist outside the entire force org structure, they are specifically notated as such. The Daemons are one example of this, and dedicated transports are another.

Techpriests and Engineseers do not have the notation that they exist outside the force org structure. Completely the opposite, you are given a specific instruction on how they fit within the force org structure. That's why it works to take them as your compulsory HQ units, the same as you can take the Champion in BT as your compulsory HQ choice.

You must make one Force Org Chart HQ Selection. An Engineseer is a Force Org Chart HQ Selection, but it does not use up a Force Org Chart HQ Selection. It is one, but you still have two left if you choose to take them.

Geessh....

The rules are quite clear...

Page 87 of the BRB state how to apply the FO chart determining what unit types can be selected to take.

Page 89 of the Imperial Guard Codex explicitly defers to the BRB for the standard FO chart.

Neither priest uses a selection from the FO char as a result neither can be used as a compulsory HQ choice (or any HQ choice for that matter), regardless of other rulings or FAQ. Until it's FAQ'ed for IG, it ain't the law.

Period.

What I don't understand is that after 5 pages of arguing, just who is going to take the the Enginseer as their compulsory HQ choice? In a casual games setting, which also is the majority of most player's gametime, a friendly, logical player who understands the connection between fluff and a fun game will have no problem with you choosing to take an Enginseer as a compulsory HQ choice. In a tournament setting, I challenge anybody here to admit that they would pick an Enginseer as a viable HQ +1 FOC selection!

Sure, maybe once. But then you'll come to realize that he is a mediocre choice at best, and not suitable for the job and must give way to other, more useful HQ choices. Honestly, if we're talking about vehicles in squadrons, the only damage result he will be able to fix is a Weapon Destroyed, since Immobilized = gone. Not only that, but you have to spend upwards of 75 points to make him do his limited job well, and that is to fix one (possibly two) damage result(s) on one vehicle per turn, provided he is within six inches of a vehicle that happened to get either damage result. The chances of him being able to even DO his job are already against him!

Now understand, I think the idea of a mech heavy STC recovery army would be a cool, fluffy army to play at the FLGS. However, you all are arguing about an HQ choice that none of you will use (at least for your 1+ HQ slot). The problem with arguing over "RAW" and optimized lists for "Tournaments" is that they only count for 10%, maybe 20% of your actual gametime, if you're especially competitive and located near a lot of tournies.

There comes a point where you need to admit; you are all arguing for the sake of arguing and not because you actually want to take an Enginseer as a compulsory HQ choice. That, imho, is silly. I like a good rules debate as much as the next poster, but I think it's reached the point where it's starting to get petty and useless. I apologize for this rant, and dismount from the soapbox.

synchronicity wrote:There comes a point where you need to admit; you are all arguing for the sake of arguing and not because you actually want to take an Enginseer as a compulsory HQ choice. That, imho, is silly.

Duh. What do you think TMDC is for?

You don't actually think that even half the questions asked here are serious, do you? Most of YMDC is a mental exercise.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:

Neither priest uses a selection from the FO char as a result neither can be used as a compulsory HQ choice (or any HQ choice for that matter), regardless of other rulings or FAQ. Until it's FAQ'ed for IG, it ain't the law.

This logic does not follow the RAW. The rules for FOC state that a dark box forces you to make a selection from that part of your army list. Making a selection is choosing anything that is an HQ unit. Using a selection would be both making a selection that also uses one selection out of the maximum allowed. The rules specifically state you must "make" a selection, not that you must "use" a selection.

On page 87 of the BRB, second paragraph, first line: "One box on the chart allows you to make one selection from that part of your army list. Dark boxes are compulsory selections". If the box is dark, you are compelled to make a selection of that type.

No place does it state that you must "fill the box". It simply says "Dark boxes are compulsory selections". So make a selection of that unit type.

A Techpriest and and Engineseer are HQ selections.
The requirement is not to take an HQ selection that uses a selection slot; the requirement is to make an HQ selection.

Period.

So let me get this right... Some people here are saying that you can field a non compulsory HQ as a compulsory HQ? That sure is what it sounds like to me. Thank gosh guard can't take bikes.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:So let me get this right... Some people here are saying that you can field a non compulsory HQ as a compulsory HQ? That sure is what it sounds like to me. Thank gosh guard can't take bikes.

G

Ummm, no. We're just repeating what GW already said, that it can be done. Question is whther or not it can be done with Guard. And I do take bikes with my guard, too bad I have to use them as Rough Riders. phhhbbbbtttttt................

Green Blow Fly wrote:So let me get this right... Some people here are saying that you can field a non compulsory HQ as a compulsory HQ? That sure is what it sounds like to me. Thank gosh guard can't take bikes.

G

No, you have it all wrong. The rules requirement is that if you have a dark box in your force org chart, that means it is compulsory to make a selection of that unit type for your army. The rules detailing how Force Org works support this exactly. Forget this "fill the box" nonsense, there is no such rule or statement in existence. That is a mis-interpretation by players.

A unit with the rule "does not use a force org chart selection" means it counts towards the minimum required, but not the maximum.

A unit with the rule "outside the force org structure" means it does not count towards the minimum, nor the maximum.

Two distinctly different rules, with different meanings.

BT Champion, IG Engineseers and Techpriests, for example, have the do not use a force org chart selection rule. They can be counted for your minimum unit type selections, but do not count towards the maximum.

Dedicated Transports and some Daemons have the outside the force org structure rule. They cannot be counted for your minimum unit type selections, and do not count towards the maximum.

Kaaihn wrote:A unit with the rule "does not use a force org chart selection" means it counts towards the minimum required, but not the maximum.

How in the Name of Sly Marbo does that make any sense? If it does not use any FoC Selection it does not count towards either the Maximum and the Minimum. You can't have it both ways.

Gwar! wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:A unit with the rule "does not use a force org chart selection" means it counts towards the minimum required, but not the maximum.

How in the Name of Sly Marbo does that make any sense? If it does not use any FoC Selection it does not count towards either the Maximum and the Minimum. You can't have it both ways.

You have a maximum of two selections you can normally make for HQ units. You must make one selection. A unit that does not use one of your selections is still an HQ selection to put it in your army. It is one, satisfying the requirement to make a selection, but it does not count towards the maximum allowed of that unit type.

The rule is: If you have a dark box, you are compelled to make a selection of that type. People seem to be adding a piece in their head. The rule is not: If you have a dark box, you are compelled to make a selection of that type that counts towards the maximum allowance of that unit type.

All units, unless noted as existing outside the force org structure, count towards the minimum. Not all units count towards the maximum though.

Kaaihn wrote:All units, unless noted as existing outside the force org structure, count towards the minimum. Not all units count towards the maximum though.

Who says? You say? With your magical definition that something that does not use up a Selection can somehow "count" as a Selection when you want it too and not when you don't want it to? Please.

Actually I have it spot on and you have indeed verifiedd this for me. Thanks.

G

Kaaihn wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:So let me get this right... Some people here are saying that you can field a non compulsory HQ as a compulsory HQ? That sure is what it sounds like to me. Thank gosh guard can't take bikes.

G

No, you have it all wrong. The rules requirement is that if you have a dark box in your force org chart, that means it is compulsory to make a selection of that unit type for your army. The rules detailing how Force Org works support this exactly. Forget this "fill the box" nonsense, there is no such rule or statement in existence. That is a mis-interpretation by players.

A unit with the rule "does not use a force org chart selection" means it counts towards the minimum required, but not the maximum.

A unit with the rule "outside the force org structure" means it does not count towards the minimum, nor the maximum.

Two distinctly different rules, with different meanings.

BT Champion, IG Engineseers and Techpriests, for example, have the do not use a force org chart selection rule. They can be counted for your minimum unit type selections, but do not count towards the maximum.

Dedicated Transports and some Daemons have the outside the force org structure rule. They cannot be counted for your minimum unit type selections, and do not count towards the maximum.

Kaaihn wrote:A unit with the rule "does not use a force org chart selection" means it counts towards the minimum required, but not the maximum.

Completely wrong and totally unsupportable. They do not count at all, towards either the maximum or the minimum.

Kaaihn wrote:You have a maximum of two selections you can normally make for HQ units. You must make one selection. A unit that does not use one of your selections is still an HQ selection to put it in your army. It is one, satisfying the requirement to make a selection, but it does not count towards the maximum allowed of that unit type.

The rule is: If you have a dark box, you are compelled to make a selection of that type. People seem to be adding a piece in their head. The rule is not: If you have a dark box, you are compelled to make a selection of that type that counts towards the maximum allowance of that unit type.

You're the one who's adding a piece in your head, not us. Once again, open the Warhammer 40,000 5th edition rulebook to page 87 and look at the Force Organization chart. See those boxes on the chart? What are they called? They're not 'slots' or 'choices'. They are called 'Force Organization chart selections' and the rules for the Techpriest Enginseer specifically states that he does not use any of them at all.

Ghaz you are spot on it.

Everyone else is like....

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH

Ghaz wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:A unit with the rule "does not use a force org chart selection" means it counts towards the minimum required, but not the maximum.

Completely wrong and totally unsupportable. They do not count at all, towards either the maximum or the minimum.

Kaaihn wrote:You have a maximum of two selections you can normally make for HQ units. You must make one selection. A unit that does not use one of your selections is still an HQ selection to put it in your army. It is one, satisfying the requirement to make a selection, but it does not count towards the maximum allowed of that unit type.

The rule is: If you have a dark box, you are compelled to make a selection of that type. People seem to be adding a piece in their head. The rule is not: If you have a dark box, you are compelled to make a selection of that type that counts towards the maximum allowance of that unit type.

You're the one who's adding a piece in your head, not us. Once again, open the Warhammer 40,000 5th edition rulebook to page 87 and look at the Force Organization chart. See those boxes on the chart? What are they called? They're not 'slots' or 'choices'. They are called 'Force Organization chart selections' and the rules for the Techpriest Enginseer specifically states that he does not use any of them at all.

PG 87 minirulebook: 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.

IG codex Pg 93 Priests do not use up any force organization chart selections, but are otherwise treated as separate HQ units. Same for tech priests.


Actually, you’re changing the wording again. It specifically says he does not “use up” - not that he does not “use”. Once again, language is being argued. Let me try and clarify the issue in context once more.

I use deodorant.
I did not use up the deodorant.

It’s about context.

Example 2:

You can use a bar of soap. (multiple times)
If you "use up" a bar of soap :( no more soap for you.

Therefore, you may “Use” an HQ Force Org Chart Selection (because that is the type of force org chart selection the entry stipulates in the second sentence) without “using up” one of the two HQ force org chart selections.

See there you still have soap!

I hope this clarifies the use of "context" for those that rely to heavily of dictionaries and thesaurus's to fight their linguistic battles.


The difference is whether or not the slot is consumed/negated etc.

These are all my words of course. The language I feel is clear enough but people keep telling me that “use” and “use up” are the exact same thing and the context of the sentence and other supporting words are meaningless. Saying the techpriest and priest do not "use up" a force org chart selection does not mean it is not a force org chart selection. It simply means it is not invalidating other Force Org Chart Selections.

The selection still exists as a viable option.

I am afraid I can not slow my language any further.

P.S> The Techpriest and Priest are located under the HQ Force Org Chart Selection area of the IG Codex for those that do not have it btw.

And how many times do we have to tell you that 'use' and 'use up' have the exact same definition according to the dictionary. Why do you continue to insist that they have different meanings when the dictionary clearly and definitively proves that you are WRONG.

Exactly.

The main difference between the EC and the priests and such is that the EC is MANDATORY over a certain point value. You're not considering that maybe, just maybe, GW realized they made an oops. If you have to take the EC, it's using up points that you can't use for something else. So, instead of coming out with an updated codex, or neccesarily admitting fault, they instead put out a faq letting him count as the mandatory, so when you are playing a game, particularly a low point game, you are hindered by having to devote points toward him.

As for why the priests are considered hq but don't count for the chart. So when the unit they are attached to gets shot to pieces, if they're the only one standing on an objective, they can't control it, but they can contest it? For resolution purposes in tournaments. Let's face it, IG HQ aren't very tough normally, taking one out isn't that hard, and if you get bonuses for the enemy not having a surviving hq on the table, you can get it fairly easily. Now, if they can add on another 5 hq selections fairly quickly, it makes it a bit more problematic. Not that GW cares about tournaments. Of course not...

Edit - changed mind after re-examining language.

While I still don't believe they should be, because quite frankly it's sounds rather rediculous to have one as your sole HQ, the language does specifically push toward it being allowed. I'm throwing out the EC bits and such as it's fairly stupid.

They do count as a HQ unit. It clearly says they count as an HQ. That is not debatable. What is debated is if they meet the criteria for the minimum requirements.

They do not USE UP a slot. Ok, this is how you can have 5 independant ones running around, even though your normally limited to 2. So, it doesn't consume a slot and make it unavailable. Alright. But they're still HQ units. So if they're on the table, and you have two troop units on the table, then you're force organization minimums have been met. There is a HQ unit there. Criteria met. It needed a HQ unit, you've got one. It just didn't prevent you from using one of the force org slots with its inclusion.

If it helps you to visualize it, consider it as they took that dark box, and replaced it with a grey box. If you have two, then the second took one of the grey boxes, and added another. However it helps you to realize that you do have a HQ unit on the board, and it qualifies as a selection.

Now, I hope they faq it otherwise at some point, as I'd rather not see it. Mostly because I'd rather not see the 45 pt hq attached to the troop squad in the valkyrie, freeing up another one for another troop squad. The more things I can keep out of those, the better.

Okay lets try this again. Here I will type slowly.

Here is dictionary.com explaining my position.

—Verb phrase
23. use up,
a. to consume entirely.
b. to exhaust of vigor or usefulness; finish: By the end of the war he felt used up and sick of life.


This is when you utilize the word use as a verb specifically in reference to “use up”.

IG codex Pg 93 Priests do not use up any force organization chart selections, but are otherwise treated as separate HQ units.

Is the exact language from the codex.

Therefore it does not “consume entirely” a HQ Force Org Chart Selection or any other for that matter.

That does not invalidate the fact it IS a HQ Force Org Chart Selection. That is its location which is also further re-enforced by the “but are otherwise treated as separate HQ units”.

Thus it Is an HQ Force Org Chart Selection that simply does not “Consume Entirely” Any of your Force Org Chart Selections.

Whereas there is a distinction when just utilizing the word “Use” which is actually not directly applied at all in this discussion in any area. Use has many more definitions and ways it can be utilized grammatically all potentially changing the context of the sentence. Which means we must look at the rest of the sentence to derive its meaning. Examples of the word “use” definitions.

1. to employ for some purpose; put into service; make use of: to use a knife.
2. to avail oneself of; apply to one's own purposes: to use the facilities.
3. to expend or consume in use: We have used the money provided.
4. to treat or behave toward: He did not use his employees with much consideration.
5. to take unfair advantage of; exploit: to use people to gain one's own ends.
6. to drink, smoke, or ingest habitually: to use drugs.
7. to habituate or accustom.
8. Archaic. to practice habitually or customarily; make a practice of.
–verb (used without object)
9. to be accustomed, wont, or customarily found (used with an infinitive expressed or understood, and, except in archaic use, now only in the past): He used to go every day.
10. Archaic. to resort, stay, or dwell customarily.
–noun
11. the act of employing, using, or putting into service: the use of tools.
12. the state of being employed or used.
13. an instance or way of employing or using something: proper use of the tool; the painter's use of color.
14. a way of being employed or used; a purpose for which something is used: He was of temporary use. The instrument has different uses.
15. the power, right, or privilege of employing or using something: to lose the use of the right eye; to be denied the use of a library card.
16. service or advantage in or for being employed or used; utility or usefulness: of no practical use.
17. help; profit; resulting good: What's the use of pursuing the matter?
18. occasion or need, as for something to be employed or used: Would you have any use for another calendar?
19. continued, habitual, or customary employment or practice; custom: to follow the prevailing use of such occasions.
20. Law.
a. the enjoyment of property, as by the employment, occupation, or exercise of it.
b. the benefit or profit of lands and tenements in the possession of another who simply holds them for the beneficiary.
c. the equitable ownership of land to which the legal title is in another's name.

21. Liturgy. the distinctive form of ritual or of any liturgical observance used in a particular church, diocese, community, etc.
22. usual or customary experience.


As you can plainly see you can pick and choose a variety of these different utilizations and you would be potentially turning the argument on its ear. Unless you are truly wanting to assert that all of these utilizations of the words are EXACTLY THE SAME. So instead let us keep with the actual language, supported by the rest of the sentence.

Lets not forget that we are arguing whether or not a techpriest or priest can fulfill the “compulsory HQ Force Org Chart Selection”.

The extent of your argument seems to claim the Techpriest and Priest are not HQ Force Org Chart Selections because they do not “use up” ergo “consume entirely” a Force Org Chart Selection. However that Selection area is where they are purchased, But are in fact defined as “but are otherwise treated as separate HQ units”. SO they either Are HQ units from the Force Org Chart Selection or they Are not Hq units from the HQ Force Org Chart Selection. The “Consumption” or “using up” of the ability to make more choices is not anywhere required as referenced by Rule book.

PG 87 minirulebook: 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.

Your assertion that the choice must make other choices unavailable is unfounded, Unsupported by the language used and not in the rules anywhere.

What is specifically in the rules over various codexes and FAQ’sd are clarification on other similar situations. BT, has a FAQ clarifying it can take EC for Compulsory HQ. WH Codex specifically states a priest MAY NOT count as one of your HQ choices.  this is cut and dry and this language IS NOT IN THE IG CODEX.

My assertion is throw out everything else but the BRB and the CODEX and you have no foundation for invalidating techpriest and priest as compulsory choices. But add in all the faq’s and codexes and you see it has been clarified both ways.

I truly do not believe it can be made more clear then this attempt.

If you choose to argue could you please you some sort of supporting language actual rulebook quotes etc.? Made up language is simply confusing the issue unnecessarily.

Ghaz wrote:
You're the one who's adding a piece in your head, not us. Once again, open the Warhammer 40,000 5th edition rulebook to page 87 and look at the Force Organization chart. See those boxes on the chart? What are they called? They're not 'slots' or 'choices'. They are called 'Force Organization chart selections' and the rules for the Techpriest Enginseer specifically states that he does not use any of them at all.

Could you point me towards the exact place that the phrase "Force Organization chart selections" is used? I'm having trouble finding it. The phrase I do see is "selection from that part of your army list." Now the next two sentences read as follows: "Dark boxes are compulsory selections." And: "As you can see, normally you will have to take at least one HQ selection and two Troops selections."

If we assume that the GW writers can use proper english, there has been no indication that the use of the word "selection" has suddenly changed, so it still refers to a selection from that part of your army list. A mandatory unit selected from the HQ part of your army list says nothing about a mandatory number of spaces filled on a chart. It only refers to a number of a certain type of unit you must take.

In fact, if we look a little higher on the page, just under the section heading, we see this: "The minimum and maximum numbers of each of these types of each unit for each army are detailed on the force organization chart of each army Codex book." The FOC is not some magical place with slots or "selections" that you "use" or "use up" or "fill up" or whatever with your units. It is a visual aid to help in the building of a legal army. The rulebook says that "One box on the chart allows you to make one selection from that part of your army list." The chart itself is not mentioned again in the paragraph describing compulsory selections and nowhere does it say that the "compulsory selections" must take up spaces in the said chart.

Further, not to beat a dead horse, but an official GW FAQ, even if it is referring to a BT unit, supports this interpretation and conflicts with the one you're defending so personally. I really think that's fairly compelling.

Also, comments like "Completely wrong and totally unsupportable." are incredibly close-minded and not in the spirit of the game imho.

Charlatan wrote:Also, comments like "Completely wrong and totally unsupportable." are incredibly close-minded and not in the spirit of the game imho.

I thought this forum was about the rules?

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:

Charlatan wrote:Also, comments like "Completely wrong and totally unsupportable." are incredibly close-minded and not in the spirit of the game imho.

I thought this forum was about the rules?

It is indeed, and obviously some of those rules are not always clear cut and easy to understand correctly. Otherwise we wouldn't need this forum. Going into any discussion with the mindset of "there's no possible way I could be wrong" only limits your potential to find the truth. Also, there's something to be said for common courtesy. Let's not try to use friendly debate as a disguise for what, in essence, seems to be teetering on the brink of becoming a flame war. I'd like to think we're all above that.

First of all, people need to clearly understand that a force organisation chart is nothing more than information; it details the minimum and maximum numbers of unit types allowed in an army.

The diagram labled "Example of a Force Organisation Chart" on page 87 is nothing more than a picture used to convey information. The same information the picture conveys is also detailed in list form underneath the picture.

The force org chart is NOT treated like some game board where you have to arrange the pieces in specific slots on the board before the game can begin.

Once you get past that, just read the rules on choosing units. Compulsory means you must make a choice of that type. It does NOT say you must make a choice of that type that counts against your maximum. You simply are required to make a selection of that unit type.

All units are within the force org structure and count towards both minimum and maximum, unless specifically noted to behave otherwise.

Dedicated Transports are noted to behave otherwise. It tells you they exist outside the force org structure. They cannot affect it.

Techpriest and Engineseer have an entirely different rule. They are not exempted from affecting the force org chart. What their rule states is that they do not use up any force org chart selections. So they exist within it; they affect it. They are HQ selections. The IG codex states you must make one HQ selection. Selecting a Techpriest or Engineseer satisfies the RAW for the IG force org. They don't use up one of your selections, so you are still free to select two more HQ units if you want.

For this to not work, you have to be claiming that two specifically worded rules are in fact the same rule. They are not the same rule, they have completely different functions and wording, and are used in distinctly different places for different kinds of units.

To argue that these two separately worded rules are in fact one identical rule, you have to claim that the explanation of the rules given in the BT FAQ is incorrect, which in fact someone has indeed claimed in this thread somewhere.

So, the argument against, backed up by whatever facts someone cares to use, boils down to "You're wrong, the explanation GW published in their FAQ is wrong, I'm right".

That seems rather ludicrous that you have to claim that the explanation from GW of how the standard rules work is wrong to begin to justify arguing against this.

Page 99 of the IG codex uses the exact same verbiage to exclude the chimera from the FO chart selection as it does to exclude the priests on page 93.

Why does this matter? Precedence within the codex. You wouldn't use a chimera to fulfill an elite or troop selection since the codex excludes it (granted, the BRB does as well but the codex carries more ruling weight). Since the same verbiage used to exclude chimeras form the FO select is used to exclude the priests, the priests cannot be used as FO selections. The priests can still be used int the army, they just don't occupy a FO selection.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:Page 99 of the IG codex uses the exact same verbiage to exclude the chimera from the FO chart selection as it does to exclude the priests on page 93.

Why does this matter? Precedence within the codex. You wouldn't use a chimera to fulfill an elite or troop selection since the codex excludes it (granted, the BRB does as well but the codex carries more ruling weight). Since the same verbiage used to exclude chimeras form the FO select is used to exclude the priests, the priests cannot be used as FO selections. The priests can still be used int the army, they just don't occupy a FO selection.

Chimera's have an additional rule that applies to them, which is the rule covering dedicated transports from the rulebook. It's right under the force org instructions. Priests do not have this additional rule applied to them, this being the rule that excludes the dedicated transport from the entire force org structure.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:Page 99 of the IG codex uses the exact same verbiage to exclude the chimera from the FO chart selection as it does to exclude the priests on page 93.

Why does this matter? Precedence within the codex. You wouldn't use a chimera to fulfill an elite or troop selection since the codex excludes it (granted, the BRB does as well but the codex carries more ruling weight). Since the same verbiage used to exclude chimeras form the FO select is used to exclude the priests, the priests cannot be used as FO selections. The priests can still be used int the army, they just don't occupy a FO selection.

also DEDICATED TRANSPORTS is a bolded section Like HQ ELite Troops Fast Attack and Heavy thus its own section outside the force Org chart as explained in the aforementioned sectoin of the rule book.

So the example is unfortunately not fully validated since it does not exist "within" a force org chart selection. I do agree however, that without the actual language excluding them it would be a valid argument for the opposing view.

The point about the Chimera is excellent and I can definitely see people trying to explain uses boxes why it counts as an HQ.

G

And yet again, 'use' and 'use up' mean the same thing. You can 'use up' just a portion of something. Nor have you shown a single rule that allows a model to use just a part of a Force Organization chart selection. So far, you've conveniently ignored the fact that your 'interpretation' would allow a player to take over six Troops choices by claiming they don't take up the entire selection. And pray tell, where do the rules tell us that if a selection only 'uses' a selection, how many does it take to 'use it up'?

So once again, you don't have a leg to stand on. 'Use' and 'use up' mean the exact same thing.

Green Blow Fly wrote:The point about the Chimera is excellent and I can definitely see people trying to explain uses boxes why it counts as an HQ.

G

The point about chimera's is useless as there is an additional rule that applies to it that does not apply to the techpriests or engineseers.

Chimera's, being a dedicated transport, have the specific rule that they exist outside the force org structure.

Techpriests and Engineseers have no such rule applying to them.

This all comes down to people believing that "does not use up a force org selection" and "exists outside the force org chart" are the same rule. They simply aren't. Two different rules.

Techpriests and Engineseers have one of these rules applied to them, dedicated transports like the Chimera have both.

Ghaz wrote:And yet again, 'use' and 'use up' mean the same thing. You can 'use up' just a portion of something. Nor have you shown a single rule that allows a model to use just a part of a Force Organization chart selection. So far, you've conveniently ignored the fact that your 'interpretation' would allow a player to take over six Troops choices by claiming they don't take up the entire selection. And pray tell, where do the rules tell us that if a selection only 'uses' a selection, how many does it take to 'use it up'?

So once again, you don't have a leg to stand on. 'Use' and 'use up' mean the exact same thing.

No sir. because if they had simply left out the word "up" we would not have this discusion and i would be in complete agreement with you. However as evidenced by my clear concise use of the english language. even referencing generally accepted sources i.e dictionary.com you still refuse to accept the the word "Use" only has the same definition as "Use Up" in one out of over 20 possible definitions. Your inability to justify your position by any method other then saying "because i said so"

Quit being foolish.

Show me a troop selection that says it does not "use up" a force org chart selection (that does not also have specific language excluding it) and then i will show you how you can take more the 6 troop force org chart selections.

Sir you are failing miserable and are literally trying to derail the discussin with ridiculous assertions. "Use" and "Use up" are not the same. please re-read your dictionary. "Use Up" has a very clear and limited scope of ways it can be utilized. Although "Use" can be utilized in the same manner (i.e. the term -USE Up-) it also has dozens of other utilizations that also do not apply to this conversation.

If you do not have a better arguement the acquesce and move on. or if you have some sort of actual contribution to the conversation other then "i am right and you are wrong" wash rinse repeat.

There is no "Exclusionary language" here you are trying to create it out of thin air.

I am not arguing over other dex's or Faq's i am pointing out RAW.
However the fact WH codex Priest also listed under HQ go as far as to specifically state they may not be choices, shows a clear concise effort made to make it clear. this language DOES NOT EXIST and the words "use up" were utilized to explain -intent- of the passage.

As I said remove the word up.. Conversation abruptly ends. However since it is present we have a discusion.

Before you repeat "Use" and "Use Up" mean the exact same thing. understand if they did mean the exact same thing you would "use up" your trooth brush every night. when you got out of your shower you would "use up" your towel to dry yourself, you would "use up" my patience with your silliness.. oops that one was a bad example.. but then again you would not "use" my patience with your silliness... looks like context does matter.


P.S. the dedicated transport rule pg 87 states "dedicated transport vehicles sit outside the force organization structure, as they are attached to a unit they are bought for."

the priest(s) and techpriest(s) can be purchased seperately, and the techpriest can actually have his own unit. of course all of this is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the actually facts that make the case, but it seems like people are intent to desperately grab at anything else to try and push the issue further.

And yet again, you can't see the flaws in your own argument, so out of spite you ignore them. So tell us then, where does the word 'use' mean it's only being partially used? It does not. It doesn't matter if it's being 'used' or 'used up', only ONE SINGLE UNIT can 'use' a Force Oganization chart selection at a time. Not two, not three. No more than ONE. 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.

So are you now going to say that 'one selection' actually means 'more than one'?

I agree with what Ghaz is saying and there is plenty of precedence to support his case. One fine example is the ubiqitous Space Wolf Venerable dreadnaught. It can be fielded as either an HQ or an elite but not both. There are other examples but I won't delve into them to keep my post succintly stated as all posts such as these should be if at all possible.

G

Is it against forum rules to tell someone they are trolling? If so, some mod please let me know, or just delete this.

Because, GBF, as you're sig relates, you're just trolling now. It was a fun mental exercise while it lasted though!

Ghaz wrote:And yet again, you can't see the flaws in your own argument, so out of spite you ignore them. So tell us then, where does the word 'use' mean it's only being partially used? It does not. It doesn't matter if it's being 'used' or 'used up', only ONE SINGLE UNIT can 'use' a Force Oganization chart selection at a time. Not two, not three. No more than ONE. 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.

So are you now going to say that 'one selection' actually means 'more than one'?

Not at all. But what you seem to be saying that if that one selection happens to be a unit that has it's own special rules saying it doesn't contribute to your maximum then it suddenly is not a selection. Where does "one selection" become "one selection that counts towards your total?"

And where does any unit say that it doesn't contribute to the maximum but still uses a Force Organization chart selection? Try using the wording in the actual rules instead of making up your own. A unit that says it does not use up any Force Oganization chart selections doesn't use up a selection. How hard is that to understand? Why are you trying to insist that a unit that does not use up a Force Organization chart selection actually does use up a Force Organization chart selection?

Ghaz wrote:And where does any unit say that it doesn't contribute to the maximum but still uses a Force Organization chart selection? Try using the wording in the actual rules instead of making up your own. A unit that says it does not use up any Force Organization chart selections doesn't use up a selection. How hard is that to understand? Why are you trying to insist that a unit that does not use up a Force Organization chart selection actually does use up a Force Organization chart selection?

I'm not sure you get what I'm trying to say here. I'm not trying to argue that it does use up a "Force Organization chart selection." It obviously doesn't. I'm just saying that in the 5th ed core rule book, the term "Force Organization chart selection" is not used. What it says is that a black box shown on the force organization slot indicates a required selection. "Selection" used at the beginning of that same paragraph refers to a selection "that part of your army list." So a black HQ box on the force organization chart indicates one mandatory selection from the HQ part of that army list. That is it. The rules don't say anything disallowing units from fulfilling that requirement because they don't use up a space on the force organization chart.

I'm not saying your interpretation doesn't make sense, it does. But there is no specific RAW evidence to support it. It confuses me that you can't seem to see that my interpretation makes sense as well, even if you happen to think it's wrong.

This is where the Black Templar's FAQ comes into play. The rule about the EC states that because he is an HQ he fulfills the requirement despite the fact that he does not use (or use up or whatever) a space on the FOC. This conflicts with your interpretation, but doesn't conflict with the one I've laid out here. In a gray area, this tips the argument in my favor.

And Ghaz, I know I'm the new guy on these forums and you've been around a while, but if you want to get my respect back, here's what to do. Be level headed enough to take someone else's argument seriously. If you're still positive you're right, awesome, continue trying to change my mind. Because if it turns out you are right I sure don't want to just be happy in my ignorance, I want to know I'm wrong. But do it by bringing in new facts that haven't been addressed, and do it with courtesy and class. If there are real flaws in my argument, explain them. Don't take an angry approach and accuse me of "making up my own wording" when every quote I've used has been word-for-word out of the 5th edition book. This forum is for grown-up debate, not childish argument. Discern the difference and take the higher road.

Yes, 'Force Organization chart selection' is the ONLY term used. Please actually read the rules. They've been posted enough times in this thread already but here it is one more time:

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.

The Force Organization chart consist of nothing other than various types of Force Organization chart selections. Trying to make up your own terninology does not change that.

Ghaz wrote:Yes, 'Force Organization chart selection' is the ONLY term used. Please actually read the rules. They've been posted enough times in this thread already but here it is one more time:

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.

The Force Organization chart consist of nothing other than various types of Force Organization chart selections. Trying to make up your own terninology does not change that.

Okay... am I going crazy here? Thank you for bolding every use of the word selection. Now where is the phrase "Force Organization chart selection" used? You keep using it, and just said it is the ONLY term used but I don't see it anywhere in the paragraph you just cited. I'm not making up any of my own terminology. I'm only working with the terminology that is there, which tells me to make a selection from the HQ section of my army. If what I select, (aka, a selection) happens to have the text "this unit does not count against your HQ allowance" what is it that suddenly makes it no longer a selection?

And where exactly do you think these selections are coming from? They're coming from the Force Organization chart, hence they're 'Force Organization chart selections'. Why do they use the term 'HQ selection' and 'Troops selection' if that's not what they are, selections? What are the dark boxes on the Force Organization chart? They're compulsory selections, that's what they are. So once again, you're not working with the terminology in the rules. Where do they ever once say anything about 'allowances'? They don't. Both the codex and the rules clearly talk about 'selections'. Your 'what ifs' don't change what the rules clearly state. Every single box on the chart is a 'Force Organization chart slection'. No other term is ever used in the rules.

"Does not count against your HQ allowance" is what's used in the 5th ed. marines codex when describing units that don't take up an HQ choice. I don't play IG so I don't own their codex and would rather not pirate it. I'm assuming that the IG codex uses your "force organization chart selections" phrase? If that's the case I understand your point a little better. Still, the BT FAQ makes me wonder if this is really what is intended or if it's a misconception, because again, I am more inclined to believe that GW's rules do not conflict than that they do. If you happen to own the IG codex and could cite the exact phrasing I'd appreciate it. Does it say it doesn't count as a selection? Doesn't contribute to your total selections? Or anything else to explain whether it's treated as a valid HQ choice?

In any case... I think it's about time this thread dies. I believe you and I are the only one's left arguing and I don't even play IG... That and I think we're both in danger of taking this more personally than we ought to.

So if the precise wording in the guard dex changes my mind I'll concede the point and if not than we'll let it die. Sound like a plan?

Ghaz wrote:And where exactly do you think these selections are coming from? They're coming from the Force Organization chart, hence they're 'Force Organization chart selections'.

A selection comes from your army list, not the force org chart. The force org chart just tells what the minimum and maximum number of selections you must make from your army list are to be a legal army.

Force org chart says you must make one HQ selection from your army list.

Anything that is an HQ selection fulfills that requirement. Unless you are arguing that a Techpriest is not an HQ selection from your army list, by taking it you have met the requirement as detailed exactly in the rulebook.

Kaaihn wrote:

Ghaz wrote:And where exactly do you think these selections are coming from? They're coming from the Force Organization chart, hence they're 'Force Organization chart selections'.

A selection comes from your army list, not the force org chart. The force org chart just tells what the minimum and maximum number of selections you must make from your army list are to be a legal army.

Force org chart says you must make one HQ selection from your army list.

Anything that is an HQ selection fulfills that requirement. Unless you are arguing that a Techpriest is not an HQ selection from your army list, by taking it you have met the requirement as detailed exactly in the rulebook.

Ah, I stand corrected. Other people are still arguing this. Well in about ten minutes craig ferguson ends and I'm going to bed...

Ghaz wrote:And where exactly do you think these selections are coming from? They're coming from the Force Organization chart, hence they're 'Force Organization chart selections'. Why do they use the term 'HQ selection' and 'Troops selection' if that's not what they are, selections? What are the dark boxes on the Force Organization chart? They're compulsory selections, that's what they are. So once again, you're not working with the terminology in the rules. Where do they ever once say anything about 'allowances'? They don't. Both the codex and the rules clearly talk about 'selections'. Your 'what ifs' don't change what the rules clearly state. Every single box on the chart is a 'Force Organization chart slection'. No other term is ever used in the rules.

Oh i get it now. you are of the opinion the units don't exist at all! Or perhaps that they are not HQ units?

IG codex Pg 93 Priests do not use up any force organization chart selections, but are otherwise treated as separate HQ units."

But they are treated as HQ units. In fact other then not "using up" any force org chart selections they are seperate hq units.

So they are HQ units
They do not "use up" force org chart selections

"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 where is it located? The HQ section of my army list. I select them and pay points for them to be in my army. Fortunately for me they do not "use up" any HQ slots meaning i get to buy up to two more HQ selections that may or may not "use up" force org chart selection based upon what i buy.

So explain your point ghaz?"

(sorry finally got home from work)

Charlatan wrote:"Does not count against your HQ allowance" is what's used in the 5th ed. marines codex when describing units that don't take up an HQ choice. I don't play IG so I don't own their codex and would rather not pirate it. I'm assuming that the IG codex uses your "force organization chart selections" phrase? If that's the case I understand your point a little better. Still, the BT FAQ makes me wonder if this is really what is intended or if it's a misconception, because again, I am more inclined to believe that GW's rules do not conflict than that they do. If you happen to own the IG codex and could cite the exact phrasing I'd appreciate it. Does it say it doesn't count as a selection? Doesn't contribute to your total selections? Or anything else to explain whether it's treated as a valid HQ choice?

In any case... I think it's about time this thread dies. I believe you and I are the only one's left arguing and I don't even play IG... That and I think we're both in danger of taking this more personally than we ought to.

So if the precise wording in the guard dex changes my mind I'll concede the point and if not than we'll let it die. Sound like a plan?

all of my quotes and page numbers are exactly from the books in question

odinsspear45 wrote:

Ghaz wrote:And where exactly do you think these selections are coming from? They're coming from the Force Organization chart, hence they're 'Force Organization chart selections'. Why do they use the term 'HQ selection' and 'Troops selection' if that's not what they are, selections? What are the dark boxes on the Force Organization chart? They're compulsory selections, that's what they are. So once again, you're not working with the terminology in the rules. Where do they ever once say anything about 'allowances'? They don't. Both the codex and the rules clearly talk about 'selections'. Your 'what ifs' don't change what the rules clearly state. Every single box on the chart is a 'Force Organization chart slection'. No other term is ever used in the rules.

Oh i get it now. you are of the opinion the units don't exist at all! Or perhaps that they are not HQ units?

IG codex Pg 93 Priests do not use up any force organization chart selections, but are otherwise treated as separate HQ units."

But they are treated as HQ units. In fact other then not "using up" any force org chart selections they are seperate hq units.

So they are HQ units
They do not "use up" force org chart selections

"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 where is it located? The HQ section of my army list. I select them and pay points for them to be in my army. Fortunately for me they do not "use up" any HQ slots meaning i get to buy up to two more HQ selections that may or may not "use up" force org chart selection based upon what i buy.

So explain your point ghaz?"

(sorry finally got home from work)

I'm pretty sure Ghaz's point is that when GW says it doesn't use up a selection what they mean is that it is not a selection. This is a very reasonable and valid point. I happen to agree with you in thinking that what it means is that the selection is simply not used up, as it would be with a normal unit. Like you said, it forces you to take one and you do. In the case of a special few that one does not use up the slot. Hooray, you still have room for two. However, whether it makes the slot go away or not it was still taken, thereby fulfilling the requirement.

As much as I feel the second one makes more sense, both interpretations are founded on sound thinking and looking back on this thread I doubt anyone is going to change anyone else's mind.

I officially exit this thread.

Peace.


Edit: Thanks for the page number and quote OS, they shed some light.

I think it is destined for FAQ's as well.


Until then and maybe after is say its up to TO's and friendly games.

Actually it's quite simple and does not need to be FAQ'd.

G

Is this still going on? Jesus, this is YMDC at it's best, dictionary.com quotations, word choice arguments, and Ghaz.

I think the only reason the BT one was FAQ'd is because it was a mandatory HQ choice. I really think that all of you trying to find Easter eggs in the Force Org chart need to get your heads examined. Sure, a detailed reading of the Force Org chart along with a diagram of the words "use" and "use up" may lead one to believe they can use a Techpriest as a compulsory HQ, but if you tried to pull this at a tournament you have to be prepared to have your list declared illegal.

For Ozy, since he brought up the BT rules....

BT 5th edition FAQ:

Q: Can I field the Emperors Champion as my one compulsory HQ choice and no other HQ's 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.

Note that the Emperors Champion is not always a mandatory choice. He is a voluntary choice in an army under 750 points, and yet the FAQ, by not excluding him from armies less than 750, says that even though he does not use up a force org selection, he is still an HQ choice, and so he can fulfill the minimum HQ requirement.

Soooo.... IG.

Q: Can I field an Engineseer or Techpriest as my one compulsory HQ choice and no other HQ's in the army?

How is the answer to that not an obvious yes? Both the Emperor's Champion, the Techpriest, and the Engineseer are governed by identical rules. The rulebook force org chart, they are both in the HQ section of their respective codex, and both have the rule in their profile that they do not use up an HQ slot on a force organisation chart.

You can pour over wording of use versus use up all you like, but to anyone that actually understands how force org works (meaning no mis-read wording, box nonsense, etc that we have seen so much of in this thread), is familiar with the BT champion, and the faq, and the answer should be a blindingly obvious yes.

It is an identical situation. Unless you can show where it is not, such as proving that the Techpriest and Engineseer is not an HQ selection, or you can convince someone that the logic posted by GW in their FAQ is actually wrong, then the answer is yes.

The answer is yes without bringing BT or its FAQ into the conversation, but there is obviously an argument people see that says no. So, if there is no clear answer between you and your opponent on a RAW issue, do you not try to come to some resolution using RAI? The RAW and RAI of this identical situation, that is in no way worded specific to it being BT logic only, says this works with full reasoning spelled out. Why would a judge ever rule it other than a yes, knowing all the facts?

Ghaz wrote:And yet again, you can't see the flaws in your own argument, so out of spite you ignore them. So tell us then, where does the word 'use' mean it's only being partially used? It does not. It doesn't matter if it's being 'used' or 'used up', only ONE SINGLE UNIT can 'use' a Force Oganization chart selection at a time. Not two, not three. No more than ONE. 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.

So are you now going to say that 'one selection' actually means 'more than one'?

O.K. It's reading comprehension time. You do realize that the Infantry platoon can have up to 14 seperate units, 20 with dedicated transports, for one force org selection? How you got to only 1 per selection is something I'm not sure I want to know.


Anyway, if you're spending more time arguing about rules than actually playing the game, it's time to find a new hobby.

Oh good, more blarrr blarrr blarrr. Please take it somewhere else and stop wasting your time here. That is my friendly advice for you.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Oh good, more blarrr blarrr blarrr. Please take it somewhere else and stop wasting your time here. That is my friendly advice for you.

G

troll much?

He was responding to an exact quote.

This thread has been reported. After looking at a few posts I already wish I had a rusty spoon to dull the pain.

In addition there are multiple flames and this thread has grown to Federal budget proportions. Closing.

May reopen a new thread if everyone is polite following Dakka Rule #1.