Codex: Imperial Guard, Priest Entry wrote:Priests do not use up any Force Organization chart selections, but are otherwise treated as separate HQ choices.

Codex: Imperial Guard, Techpriest Enginseer Entry wrote:Techpriest Enginseers do not use up any Force Organization chart selections, but are otherwise treated as separate HQ choices.

Codex: Black Templars, Emperor's Champion Entry wrote:The Emperor's Champion does NOT use up an HQ slot on a Force Organization chart, so you may still pick your two HQ choices as normal.

Black Templars FAQ wrote:Q. Can I field the Emperorʼs Champion as my one compulsory HQ choice and no other HQs in the army? (p31)
A. Yes, even though he does not use up an HQ slot, he is still an HQ choice, and so he can fulfil the minimum HQ requirement.

Given: Emperor's Champion does not take a slot, yet can satisfy a slot.
You Make Da Call: Can Priests and Techpriest Enginseers satisfy a slot in the exact same way?

Bonus round:

Codex: Grey Knights, Henchmen Entry wrote:This unit does not use up a force organisation slot.

Codex: Grey Knights, Inquisitor Coteaz Entry wrote:Inquisitorial Henchmen warbands are troops choices in an army that includes Inquisitor Torquemanda Coteaz, and are not limited by the number of Inquisitors in your army

Can Henchmen (troops) satisfy a troops slot in, again, the same way?

Anything that Is treated as separate HQ choices can fulfill the compulsory 1 HQ you need to take.

I.E. ask this question: Do i have 1 compulsory HQ in my list?

If the answer is yes then you have satisfied the requirement.


As for the Bonus round, the Codex: Grey Knights has not been printed, so none of that applies yet. (unless there was a release from GW that I missed.)

Honestly ph34r I thought your arguments about this were total none sense in the other thread about this..until actually readying the black templar FAQ.

This would leave one to strongly think that a priest or tech marine could be used as your one and only HQ for a guard army...and really if I think I could get away with it..Id prolly do it.

As to the leaked GK codex.

RAW..I can now clearly understand that argument that with the SC that turns them into a troop choice they would still not use up any FOC choices.

But I think RAI they would take up a choice and I am certain will get FAQ with in a few months.

Codex: Black Templars, Emperor's Champion Entry wrote:The Emperor's Champion does NOT use up an HQ slot on a Force Organization chart, so you may still pick your two HQ choices as normal.

Black Templars FAQ wrote:Q. Can I field the Emperorʼs Champion as my one compulsory HQ choice and no other HQs in the army? (p31)
A. Yes, even though he does not use up an HQ slot, he is still an HQ choice, and so he can fulfil the minimum HQ requirement.

With that being said, and other examples being provided, could a CSM player buy a Greater Demon and fulfill his HQ requirement?



Before I had seen that part of the Black Templars FAQ I would have said no. Ill bring this up at my FLGS and see how it goes down.

Signs point to yes, you can take just a summoned daemon as an HQ. I don't know why you would want to, but yeah, the rules seem to allow it.

Codex: Chaos Space Marines, Summoned Greater Daemon Entry wrote:Your army may include a single Greater Daemon. This model does not use up any force organisation chart selection, but is otherwise treated as a HQ unit.

Codex: Chaos Space Marines, Summoned Lesser Daemons Entry wrote:Units of Summoned Lesser Daemons do not use up any force organisation chart selection, but are otherwise treated as a Troops unit.

Or, you treat the BT FAQ as exactly that: A FAQ that ONLY affects BT.

The question is in answer to a specific question about the EC; only the EC can "count" as the the slot you are required to take.

The rules wording on the EC is the same as all other presented quotes: "unit does not use up FOC slot/selection". Tell me why the same rule presented in two places should be played differently.

Because the FAQ answers a specific question about EC, and does not apply to any others. It also applies to BT as they HAVE to take an EC, which is different to all other units y9ou have mentioned.

It allows them to play small point games without having to take a "normal" HQ AND an EC, which is the reason behind the FAQ answer. You cannot say the same about any unit you have mentioned.

It's a FAQ. Not a rules change. It doesn't matter what the "reason" is behind it, whether you think it's for some low point special case or not. FAQ, not rules change: rules function the same whether or not you have the FAQ.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Or, you treat the BT FAQ as exactly that: A FAQ that ONLY affects BT.

The question is in answer to a specific question about the EC; only the EC can "count" as the the slot you are required to take.

The interesting bit about that FAQ is the reason they give for the answer.

Yes, priests and enginseers can satisfy the mandatory HQ selection.

If the wording of the GK codex remains unchanged then Henchmen would satisfy troop choices. However, I should point out that, strict RAW, the Lord of Formosa rule doesn't function. It requires you to include "Inquisitor Torquemada Corteaz" but their is no unit with that name.

The big problem is you use the FOC. The chart shows you what you can take and what you must take; each of which takes up a force organisation slot.

Some things like DT share their parent units slot. Others don't use slots at all. Those that do not take up a slot cannot fill the compulsory choices.

BT on the other hand have had it FAQ that you can use the Emperorʼs Champion. Which means that their army alone can take a non FOC choice as their mandatory choice. This is in the same way that their (BT) techpriest can ...

Q. Does a Techmarine’s twin-linked plasma
pistol on the servo-harness give an extra attack
in close combat?
A. Yes.

... and yet no other armies can.

Tri wrote:The big problem is you use the FOC. The chart shows you what you can take and what you must take; each of which takes up a force organisation slot.

Some things like DT share their parent units slot. Others don't use slots at all. Those that do not take up a slot cannot fill the compulsory choices.

BT on the other hand have had it FAQ that you can use the Emperorʼs Champion. Which means that their army alone can take a non FOC choice as their mandatory choice. This is in the same way that their (BT) techpriest can ...

Q. Does a Techmarine’s twin-linked plasma
pistol on the servo-harness give an extra attack
in close combat?
A. Yes.

... and yet no other armies can.

Might want to check out the newer BT FAQ:

Q. Does a Techmarineʼs twin-linked plasma pistol on the
servo-harness give an extra attack in close combat? (p36)
A. No.

Regarding the HQ bit, I'm on the yes side. If all the BT FAQ said was yes or no, I'd agree with it being BT only. But then they go and explain WHY and HOW it works. "even though he does not use up an HQ slot, he is still an HQ choice, and so he can fulfil the minimum HQ requirement." Same reasoning applies to the IG HQ units.

As for those Chaos Marine Daemons, IIRC, there is a statement in the codex that the daemons/greater daemons cannot be used to fulfill mandatory Force Org slots...............

don_mondo wrote:Might want to check out the newer BT FAQ:

Ah well at least they've solved that problem (bloody stealth up dates) point still stands as thats what they did when they first let BT take him like that. Each FAQ is for that army only. The only FAQ that should effect all armies is the rule book FAQ.

don_mondo wrote:As for those Chaos Marine Daemons, IIRC, there is a statement in the codex that the daemons/greater daemons cannot be used to fulfill mandatory Force Org slots...............

On page 89, FYI. Daemons are in addition to mandatory minimums and maximum.

So much for my all-daemon CSM list :(

ph34r wrote:It's a FAQ. Not a rules change. It doesn't matter what the "reason" is behind it, whether you think it's for some low point special case or not. FAQ, not rules change: rules function the same whether or not you have the FAQ.

Its a FAQ, answering a question about BT, and specifically applies only to BT. The reasoning behind it is irrelevant

nosferatu1001 wrote:

ph34r wrote:It's a FAQ. Not a rules change. It doesn't matter what the "reason" is behind it, whether you think it's for some low point special case or not. FAQ, not rules change: rules function the same whether or not you have the FAQ.

Its a FAQ, answering a question about BT, and specifically applies only to BT. The reasoning behind it is irrelevant

A FAQ does not change rules. It tells you how the rules already worked. An errata changes rules. GW FAQs have both. It is a FAQ for the same type of wording and situation as IG and GK henchmen and logic dictates that the same rule will function in the same way in different situations.

No, it is a FAQ answering a question (frequently asked!) about BT

It is not a FAQ for IG, so it does not apply to IG
It is not a BRB FAQ, so it does not apply to IG

Simple. Utterly, 100&, simple

Right. Answering a question.
If I say "what is one plus one" and the answer is "two" in one circumstance, the answer must be two in all circumstances.

Simple. Utterly, 100& (what), simple


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If the FAQ was an errata you would have a chance to be right. Unfortunately as it is a FAQ, you are not. This is evidenced in the INATFAQ's recognition of this obvious fact.

So when someone asks a specific question about a specific unit, and gets an answer to that question naming that same specific unit, it should apply to everyone?

Soryr, you're wrong on this. BT FAQ means ONLY BT get it. Sorry, try again.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So when someone asks a specific question about a specific unit, and gets an answer to that question naming that same specific unit, it should apply to everyone?

Soryr, you're wrong on this. BT FAQ means ONLY BT get it. Sorry, try again.

If the answer explains the line of reasoning behind the answer, and that line of reasoining applies to 'everyone', then yes. Kinda like the silliness that went on with the SW FAQ on Furious Charge and Countercharge. It was an FAQ that (supposedly) explained how the USRs worked in a given situation, and thus was applicable to all armies. I see this BT FAQ the same, it answers a question that can affect other armies that have the same exact situation, and can use the same exact line of reasoining for the answer.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So when someone asks a specific question about a specific unit, and gets an answer to that question naming that same specific unit, it should apply to everyone?

Soryr, you're wrong on this. BT FAQ means ONLY BT get it. Sorry, try again.

When someone asks a question about the interaction of rule A and rule B, then you know how rule A and rule B interact. It doesn't matter if the interaction is in codex X or codex Y.

Your logic is akin to saying "Well when I asked the teacher about counting apples, she told me that one apple plus two apples equals three apples. I don't see why this would apply to counting bananas". That's your logic. That's how bad it is.

while everyone is making good points about how it should effect every other army ... Does every one remember why BT got this in the first place? It's because the emperors champion Must be taken over 750pts this means he is not like the other models.

If you take an army specific FAQ and slap it on another army you can get no end of misinterpretation.

Q: Can Tactical Squads, Sternguard Squads, Devastator
Squads, Vanguard Squads, Assault Squads and Death
Company take any dedicated transport, or just the ones
shown on page 90? (p90-91)
A: Any. The page reference indicates the start of the
section.

yes I know it comes from the BA FAQ and doesn't make sense for SM but with a little creative reading, you get Land speeder storms for all.

That is referring to a particular unit's upgrades, not how the relationship between something fundamental like "how slots work"

Tri wrote:while everyone is making good points about how it should effect every other army ... Does every one remember why BT got this in the first place? It's because the emperors champion Must be taken over 750pts this means he is not like the other models.

Yep, I know. Yet, the line of reasoning does not say anything about that part, it just says that yes, an HQ unit that doesn't use a Force Org slot can be taken as your mandatory HQ. If it referenced the rule taht you have to take one, I would agree and say it did indeed apply only to BT. but it doesn't.

Tri wrote:while everyone is making good points about how it should effect every other army ... Does every one remember why BT got this in the first place? It's because the emperors champion Must be taken over 750pts this means he is not like the other models.

If you take an army specific FAQ and slap it on another army you can get no end of misinterpretation.

Q: Can Tactical Squads, Sternguard Squads, Devastator
Squads, Vanguard Squads, Assault Squads and Death
Company take any dedicated transport, or just the ones
shown on page 90? (p90-91)
A: Any. The page reference indicates the start of the
section.

yes I know it comes from the BA FAQ and doesn't make sense for SM but with a little creative reading, you get Land speeder storms for all.

The LS Storm isn't a DT.

Why are you looking in the BT FAQ for IG rule's clarification?

I understand what you are saying, but the EC is a compulsory choice to begin with, the others are not. You have a choice to take the Priest or the Enginseer, and if you do, it does not use up any FOC selections. In which case, doesn't fulfill the compulsory HQ choice.

ToBeWilly wrote:Why are you looking in the BT FAQ for IG rule's clarification?

I understand what you are saying, but the EC is a compulsory choice to begin with, the others are not. You have a choice to take the Priest or the Enginseer, and if you do, it does not use up any FOC selections. In which case, doesn't fulfill the compulsory HQ choice.

I would probably agree with you if the FAQ made any mention of a difference when the EC was compulsory or not. All it mentions is "even though he does not use up an HQ slot, he is still an HQ choice, and so he can fulfil the minimum HQ requirement." This implies that you simply have to take an HQ choice, not fill an HQ slot.

As it stands I say that priests and enginseers should be allowed to fill the needed slot, there is little to no advantage anyway. Plus, it opens up options for a lot of nicely themed lists, such as ministorium warbands and tech guard.

Does the time that it was addressed in the FAQ mean nothing? Because I believe it was put in before the IG codex was released. At the time, there was no other situation where that occured that wasn't addressed somehow.

Should they update the BT FAQ to include an expanded reasoning behind their rules?

Also, if you look closely, the rule says "... so you may still pick your two HQ choices as normal" and the FAQ question reasons "Can I field... no other HQs in the army?"

The Codex gives you permission to include other HQs, it doesn't make it compulsory.

Regardless of when it was FAQ'd, it sets a clear precedent:

even though he does not use up an HQ slot, he is still an HQ choice, and so he can fulfil the minimum HQ requirement.

ph34r wrote:Right. Answering a question.
If I say "what is one plus one" and the answer is "two" in one circumstance, the answer must be two in all circumstances.

This is not true. The wording for the Autarch's rule for +1 to reserves and the wording for the Hive Tyrant's rule for +1 to reserves are the same, yet they don't work similarly.

You're making the argument that, because the reasoning behind the ruling would make sense for the Enginseer, then it must be applicable. I was making the argument that they have different wordings as it stands anyway.

One of them:
-Is an HQ
-Does not take up an HQ slot, and because of that gives you explicit permission to include two other HQs

The other:
-Is an HQ
-Does not take up an HQ slot, and because of that gives you implicit permission to include two other HQs

Also, your "one plus one" analogy is not true. It may fool some, as generally, people know 1 + 1 = 2, but that's with our numbering system. 1 + 1 in binary is different, for example (although it may mean the same thing, it is represented differently).

puma713 wrote:

ph34r wrote:Right. Answering a question.
If I say "what is one plus one" and the answer is "two" in one circumstance, the answer must be two in all circumstances.

This is not true. The wording for the Autarch's rule for +1 to reserves and the wording for the Hive Tyrant's rule for +1 to reserves are the same, yet they don't work similarly.

The difference here is the wording for the Autarch's rule and the Tyrant's rule are a bit different. For example the Tyrant says "while a tyrant" and the Autarch says "while the Autarch". In any case GW decided to rule them differently.

In this case not only are the rules much more closely worded, but there is no conflicting FAQ ruling.

An FAQ applies only to it's book according to the locals play, and that's the best way to go about it IMO.

ph34r wrote:

puma713 wrote:

ph34r wrote:Right. Answering a question.
If I say "what is one plus one" and the answer is "two" in one circumstance, the answer must be two in all circumstances.

This is not true. The wording for the Autarch's rule for +1 to reserves and the wording for the Hive Tyrant's rule for +1 to reserves are the same, yet they don't work similarly.

The difference here is the wording for the Autarch's rule and the Tyrant's rule are a bit different. For example the Tyrant says "while a tyrant" and the Autarch says "while the Autarch". In any case GW decided to rule them differently.

Read it again. The passage about +1 to reserves says "the Tyrant". And your argument that because the BT FAQ says something, it should apply to the IG codex is based off of this assumption of precedence. This is just one example of how precedence doesn't follow.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:An FAQ applies only to it's book

And this is why.

And yet as a FAQ is not a rules change, if two rules are identically worded the existence of the FAQ is unnecessary unless GW for some reason creates contradictory FAQs.

Aka, if the rules function as written, the FAQ is superfluous but nice to have.

The existence of a FAQ for one rule and the absence of a FAQ for an identical rule does not render the identical rule nonfunctional.

If the rule is in a codex, it is an army specific rule, and does not in any way affect a different codex.

If the rule is in the BRB, it is a general rule that affects all codexes. Unless specified otherwise.

You are taking a rule from Codex: Black Templar, which the FAQ is just an extention of, and applying it to Codex: Imperial Guard.

If the FAQ did not exist at all, RAW would still let you take them as mandatory choices.

The FAQ is there to be a crutch for you to use if you can't understand RAW, not for you to hit me on the head with it and scream "One of them got a FAQ and the other didn't! Therefore it does not work without a FAQ!"

ph34r wrote:If the FAQ did not exist at all, RAW would still let you take them as mandatory choices.

The FAQ is there to be a crutch for you to use if you can't understand RAW, not for you to hit me on the head with it and scream "One of them got a FAQ and the other didn't! Therefore it does not work without a FAQ!"

I didn't hit you over the head with the FAQ (although I did mention the timing of it). FAQ or not, they are worded (slightly) differently.

(Flawed argument ahead) If the FAQ is merely a crutch, why not include another crutch in the IG codex? The idea that IG players would be expected to carry around the BT FAQ is a little odd.

ph34r wrote:If the FAQ did not exist at all, RAW would still let you take them as mandatory choices.

The FAQ is there to be a crutch for you to use if you can't understand RAW, not for you to hit me on the head with it and scream "One of them got a FAQ and the other didn't! Therefore it does not work without a FAQ!"

Except RAW does NOT let you include them. You are required to use up "slots", yet you are told these choices do not use up these slots.
Your assumption is that when they made it a FAQ, it wasnt a rules change. It was.

No, you are not required to use up slots. You are required to make choices. A choice that does not use a slot is still a choice.

Nope, compulsory selection that has to "fill" a box. You cannot fill the box

Either way - you cannot apply a BT FAQ answering a specific BT question to any other army. "Precedence" means nothing in 40k, your argument from there is invalid.

To go back to your "your logic is that bad" - 1+1=2 for BT does not require that IG, whose additive identity is 1, also equals 2 (in fact for them 1+1 =1)

In other words your logic is flawed. Again.

No. You are wrong: prove it.

I can apply a BT FAQ to whatever I want. Why can I do this? Because the BT FAQ simply reiterates the basic, fundamental rules of the games, in no way that is specific to BT in any way.

he is still an HQ choice, and so he can fulfil the minimum HQ requirement

What does this mean, ph34r!?!?!?!?

It means HQ choice -> fulfill minimum HQ requirement.

There is literally zero way for there to be a flaw in that logic. The FAQ is telling us what the core rulebook says.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Codex IG wrote:Each grey-toned box indicates that you may make one choice from that section of the army list, while a dark-toned box indicates a compulsory selection

Priest wrote:Priests do not use up any Force Organization chart selections

What do these mean together?

You must select 1 HQ unit. You may select up to 2 HQ units.
A priest, being in the HQ section of the unit rules, is an HQ choice. A priest does not use up a selection thanks to its rules.

Sequence of events: You choose 1 priest. What happens?
You have taken 1 HQ choice. You have not used up any FOC selections. The result is that your army contains 1 HQ choice, and has 2 HQ FOC selections remaining. Having 1 HQ selection, you satisfy compulsory requirements.

People don't seem to understand you, ph34r.

FAQ = Frequently Asked Questions
The FAQ provides answers to questions. It clarifies, it doesn't change the rules. Therefore, when it is clarified that for one army an item does something (in this case it fulfills the HQ requirement), logic dictates that it also works for another army.

So what if it's in the BT FAQ? It simply clarifies the rules. It doesn't change them.

Indeed. Perhaps my latest rules quoting will prove more impossible to wiggle away from.

wow, you even missed it in your quoting. Again.

Codex IG wrote:Each grey-toned box indicates that you may make one choice from that section of the army list, while a dark-toned box indicates a compulsory selection

Bolding mine. Notice it states compulsory selection? Now time for you to reread your other quote, again bolding is mine:

Priest wrote:Priests do not use up any Force Organization chart selections

Wow, look at that! It states it does NOT use up ANY Force Org. Selections.

So, you are required to make a compulsory selection, but the Priest cannot take up any selections - meaning you still have to fulfil the force org chart.

So, now you've proven you are wrong, care to retract your statement that it isnt a rules change? Because you know, it IS a rules change. Which you shouldnt be too suprised at, GW does this a lot (see: Shield of Sanguinius and vehicles. Clear rules change, yet its a FAQ. Wow, who'd have thought!)

And yet, the same text appears in the Black Templar Codex

Codex: Black Templars, Emperor's Champion Entry wrote:The Emperor's Champion does NOT use up an HQ slot on a Force Organization chart

Therefore, the Emperor's Champion cannot take up any selections either - meaning you still have to fulfil the force org chart, at least by your reasoning.

Therefore, as GW has clarified that the Emperor's Champion counts as a selection for the purposes of compulsory selections, logic dictates that the Priest/Techpriest also counts as a selection for the purposes of compulsory selections.

No.

You must make a selection.

Priests do not use up a selection.

In effect, you get the selection, you get the priest, but you don't use up a slot that another HQ could occupy.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Codex IG wrote:Each grey-toned box indicates that you may make one choice from that section of the army list, while a dark-toned box indicates a compulsory selection

Priest wrote:Priests do not use up any Force Organization chart selections

Wow, look at that! It states it does NOT use up ANY Force Org. Selections.

So, you are required to make a compulsory selection, but the Priest cannot take up any selections - meaning you still have to fulfil the force org chart.

Just because taking the enginseer does not reduce the number of remaining selections does not mean that you have not made a selection. How else can you include the enginseer without selecting that unit?

Scott-S6 wrote:Just because taking the enginseer does not reduce the number of remaining selections does not mean that you have not made a selection. How else can you include the enginseer without selecting that unit?

Bingo.

Q: Can a void mine be used regardless of the speed the
Voidraven Bomber is moving at in its Movement phase?
(p47)
A: Yes.

Q: When a unit comprised of some models with Power
from Pain and some without has a pain token, does the
effect it gives apply to every model in the unit or just to the
models with the Power from Pain special rule? (p25)
A: It only applies to the models with the Power from Pain
special rule.

Q: Can a vehicle with the ʻPower of the Machine Spiritʼ fire
a weapon on the turn the vehicle uses Smoke Launchers?
(p37)
A: No.

Q: If a Tyranid unit takes a Mycetic Spore, can an
Independent Character join the brood before
deployment (and hence deep strike in with the brood)?
A: No.

Three different GW FAQs, and all of these changed a rule as it was presented to players.

1) Void mine counts as firing a weapon. You can't fire weapons if you move flat out. FAQ says you can drop the mine when moving flat out.
2) PfP says that the entire unit gains the benefit if they have a token. Beastmaster units have some with PfP and some without. FAQ says only the ones with PfP benefit.
3) Power of the Machine Spirit says you may fire one more weapon than normally allowed. Smoke Launchers prevents you from firing any weapons. FAQ says you can not shoot with PotMS when you launch smoke (also note that the BA FAQ says Stormravens can fire when moving flat out, even though the wording for flat out and smoke is similar).
4) Independent Characters are able to join a unit before deployment. FAQ says that Tyranid ICs can not join Spore-bound units (it also claims that units who buy a spore must deploy in it, despite a similar wording as Drop Pods and no indication in the book that it has any such limitations).

Sorry, but I feel that anyone who claims that FAQs never change the rules might be saying that in an effort to make their point appear valid, and not because it's actually true.

Edit: I'd like to say that I don't wish to derail this thread and get into a discussion about the merits of these rulings. They could get their own thread, but that's not the point. I'm merely trying to show that an FAQ can indeed cause a change in the rules.

somerandomdude wrote:Sorry, but I feel that anyone who claims that FAQs never change the rules might be saying that in an effort to make their point appear valid, and not because it's actually true.

And where in the BRB does it say we have to heed the FAQs?

Alright, FAQs can be rule changes. I accept that, however against GW's policy it is.

However, not only is the BT FAQ,
1. An explanation of the why it counts based on basic rules that are not modified in the FAQ, but rather referenced
2. Not necessary for the conclusion that Enginseers and Priests fulfill mandatory slots

So even if you don't think that the BT FAQ can be trusted, even though it just references how the fundamental FOC selection rules work, I can prove that Priests and Enginseers fulfill mandatory FOC selections without it.

Brunius wrote:And where in the BRB does it say we have to heed the FAQs?

Um... nowhere?

But if your argument is based on an FAQ ruling, you'd have a tough time ignoring them.

Not based on, no. The BT FAQ makes it easy to see why my argument is correct. It is not necessary, nor can it hamper.

somerandomdude wrote:

Brunius wrote:And where in the BRB does it say we have to heed the FAQs?

Um... nowhere?

But if your argument is based on an FAQ ruling, you'd have a tough time ignoring them.

I know - I'm just failing to find anything better to argue about...uhh.....joking....

Shall we pretend we live in a world without the Black Templars?

I may have missed it/misunderstood something, so forgive me if you've already presented it, and I hope you don't think I'm trying anything funny, but could you present an argument to me that makes absolutely no reference to BTs, doesn't make an assumption related to the FAQ, and still supports the idea that "doesn't take up a selection = mandatory selection made"?

Note: My post was in response to the general theme of the thread, which did focus on the BT FAQ. There was a lot of talk about precedence, and plenty that suggested the FAQs were not changes, so I apologize for focusing on that fact when you were looking at a bigger picture.

To quote my previous post:

ph34r wrote:

Codex IG wrote:Each grey-toned box indicates that you may make one choice from that section of the army list, while a dark-toned box indicates a compulsory selection

Priest wrote:Priests do not use up any Force Organization chart selections

What do these mean together?

You must select 1 HQ unit. You may select up to 2 HQ units.
A priest, being in the HQ section of the unit rules, is an HQ choice. A priest does not use up a selection thanks to its rules.

Sequence of events: You choose 1 priest. What happens?
You have taken 1 HQ choice. You have not used up any FOC selections. The result is that your army contains 1 HQ choice, and has 2 HQ FOC selections remaining. Having 1 HQ selection, you satisfy compulsory requirements.

And Scott-S6

Scott-S6 wrote:Just because taking the enginseer does not reduce the number of remaining selections does not mean that you have not made a selection. How else can you include the enginseer without selecting that unit?

(note these quotes are safe for a FAQ-free diet!)

matterofpride wrote:Honestly ph34r I thought your arguments about this were total none sense in the other thread about this..until actually readying the black templar FAQ.

This would leave one to strongly think that a priest or tech marine could be used as your one and only HQ for a guard army...and really if I think I could get away with it..Id prolly do it.

... Ok off topic here: Guard HQs are some of the most valuable units in a guard list.

Does not use up a selection == has not used up the FOC selection box == that selection box has not been "filled" and therefore the minimum requirements have not been met.

Still not RAW ph34r, no matter how often you try it.

Your post contained zero actual rules relevance.

Nowhere in the rules does it say "fill boxes".

It says you have a compulsory selection. The act of including an HQ unit in your army is a selection. This HQ unit may or may not have an additional rule that states the the FOC selection is not "used up" by its selection in your army.

Please reply with actual rules, instead of "box filling theory".

nosferatu1001 wrote:Does not use up a selection == has not used up the FOC selection box == that selection box has not been "filled" and therefore the minimum requirements have not been met.

But filling the box is not required. What is required is for you to make a selection.

Just because you're still able to make two more selections after selecting the engineseer does not mean that you haven't made a selection.

ph34r - and back to standard for you, I see.

Have you made 1 selection there? No, because that selection has not been used up. You can only make 2 HQ selections according to the FOC, therefore any choice whcih does not use up a selection must count as a "0" selection.

How about you respond with some rules for a change? You've finally conceded FAQs represent no form of precedence or indeed are eevn true "FAQs", as they change rules.

You must select a unit to include it in your army.

Taking the enginseer is a selection.

However it cannot fulfill the compulsory selection of 1 HQ, as it does not use up any selections - meaning it appears outside of the diagram

It would have been way more clear if GW had stated in the BT FAQ that this is an exception or if just clarifies the rule. Then we would know if precedence should apply.

Homer

This would assume GW knows when theyre changing the rules or not. SoS suggests they dont

nosferatu1001 wrote:However it cannot fulfill the compulsory selection of 1 HQ, as it does not use up any selections - meaning it appears outside of the diagram

What other units in the game appear outside the diagram?

Lesser daemons, et al

nosreratu2001 wrote:Lesser daemons, et al

Which have a special rule that excludes them from fulfilling the bminimum requirement.

Whether this is merely explanatory or a rules change is unclear, but the BT fact suggests the latter.

nosferatu1001 wrote:ph34r - and back to standard for you, I see.

Have you made 1 selection there? No, because that selection has not been used up. You can only make 2 HQ selections according to the FOC, therefore any choice whcih does not use up a selection must count as a "0" selection.

How about you respond with some rules for a change? You've finally conceded FAQs represent no form of precedence or indeed are eevn true "FAQs", as they change rules.

Can you not see the irony here?

Once again, your post contains ZERO RULES VALUE. My posts on the other hand, contain rules quotes and clear reasoning.

If you concede the argument, just say that you are wrong. Really buddy, it's that easy. Go on, go scurry along and find a quote in the book that say you have to "use up" a selection for it to count as mandatory. I dare you.

Here, I'll even make it really easy for you. Here are all the relevant rules. Just point out where I'm wrong! It's that easy.

ph34r wrote:

Codex IG: FOC wrote:Each grey-toned box indicates that you may make one choice from that section of the army list, while a dark-toned box indicates a compulsory selection

Codex IG: Priest wrote:Priests do not use up any Force Organization chart selections

A light box indicates that you may make a choice.

A dark box indicates that you must make a choice.
Priests do not use up selections, when you choose them.

Choosing a priest is a choice, and does not use up a selection.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Lesser daemons, et al

I thought every unit in the game falls under the Force Orginisation Chart on page 87 of the BRB. A unit is a HQ, Troops, Elite, Fast Attack, or Heavy Support.

They do, however they may not use a selection from the FoC (per the current conversation) or have rules like Dedicated Transports do (match the FoC slot of the unit taking them, but do not count).
This argument is pretty circular and is once again something complicated by GW's horrid editing and rules consistency and then ambiguity when clarifying said rules. Personally, I don't think its intended for a lone Enginseer or Priest to be the compulsory HQ choice to satisfy the FoC chart, and that the clarification for the EC was contained to just him. But I don't necessarily think you can glean enough from the rules to make a call either way. FAQ's are, in fact, intended to be contained to just the Codex the question is in regards to. You can try to apply your "logic" all you want, but the reality is that logic doesn't dictate the rules, the rules do.

Would you not agree that the act of choosing an HQ unit must be a selection, regardless of whatever special rule that unit has with regards to not using up slots?

ph34r - and there goes any interest I have in "interacting" with you. Really, do you ever proof read your posts?

BTW I have included rules quotes and reasonable interpretations. YOu dont agree with them - which isn't my problem, really.

Go, "scurry along" and feel smug, I'm, out. Life's too short

nosferatu1001 wrote:ph34r - and there goes any interest I have in "interacting" with you. Really, do you ever proof read your posts?

BTW I have included rules quotes and reasonable interpretations. YOu dont agree with them - which isn't my problem, really.

Go, "scurry along" and feel smug, I'm, out. Life's too short

Clearly I could not see your rules quotes. I cannot find any in your last several posts.

How about you just repost them? I mean, I will gladly shut up if you point me to the rule that says you must "fill boxes" or whatever it is you believe.

Wow, you really dont get this do you.

Look prior to that. I quoted the rules, then my interpretations. I'll go slower if you like.

You dont agree with those interpretations, and feel the need to insult people posting. I guess you feel like you're "winning" this, eh?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Codex IG wrote:Each grey-toned box indicates that you may make one choice from that section of the army list, while a dark-toned box indicates a compulsory selection

Bolding mine. Notice it states compulsory selection? Now time for you to reread your other quote, again bolding is mine:

Priest wrote:Priests do not use up any Force Organization chart selections

Wow, look at that! It states it does NOT use up ANY Force Org. Selections.

So, you are required to make a compulsory selection, but the Priest cannot take up any selections - meaning you still have to fulfil the force org chart.

You mean this quote?

I see your post, please point me towards the rule that says that you must "use up" a FOC selection for it to count as making a choice.

And in response to your indignant response to my saying you were not providing rules quotes, I had to go back 1.5 pages to find your rules quote.

ph34r wrote:Would you not agree that the act of choosing an HQ unit must be a selection, regardless of whatever special rule that unit has with regards to not using up slots?

I cannot, purely because of the ambiguous language they use in their rules. It is unclear if they intend for selection to mean the same thing when they use it as a verb as when they use it as a noun. They use it in both ways, and it makes it incredibly hard to understand the clear meaning of their rules. Again, in English they should be the same; logically the should be the same. But in a rules set, you can't make that call when they also use terms like "HQ Slot" and "HQ Choice" to refer to the same things. In a perfect world, you would also "Choose an HQ Selection" or "Select an HQ Choice" and that wording was used in EVERY scenario so that all ambiguity on intent was removed. That way, when they told you that you "Must select an HQ Choice", and then said something "Can be selected as an HQ Choice, but does not take up a Force Organization Slot" is would be 100% clear that it is, in fact, still Selected as an HQ choice to satisfy the first rule, as they read identically.
I just wish that Games Workshop was a Game company that made good miniatures instead of a Miniatures company that makes horribly unclear game rules.

I agree that GW ruling is definitely not water-tight overall, but I still believe that the act of choosing a unit qualifies the requirement to "make one choice".

"You Make Da Call: Can Priests and Techpriest Enginseers satisfy a slot in the exact same way? "
The answer appears to be yes.
The Force Orginisation Chart shows that you must have a Headquarters.
The Priest and Techpriest Enginseers are listed under Heaquarters in the IG Codex.
"Priests do not use up any Force Organization chart selections" This does not mean that a priest can not occupy a slot.
Note in the Witch Hunters Codex that while a Priest is a Headquarters Unit it does not count as a HQ choice.
The IG Codex could have had the same restriction as the Witch Hunters but it does not.

The only issue I have with Witchhunter priests, is that the entry specifically says that they "do not count as one of your HQ choices". Since 3rd edition they have changed their ruling to "do not use up any Force Organization chart selections", perhaps to help clarify that they can in fact fulfill mandatory requirements.

The WH priests ruling is a bit more ambiguous than the IG priests.

ph34r wrote:I agree that GW ruling is definitely not water-tight overall, but I still believe that the act of choosing a unit qualifies the requirement to "make one choice".

Right, I understand that point of view. The issue is that the unit you chose has a rule that says its doesn't count as a Force Organization selection... which leads to the question of "How far does this rule go?". There is a valid point of view that something that doesn't count as a Force Organization selection could not possibly satisfy a Force Organization restriction, by the very nature of it not counting. So then your point of view arises "Well, I chose it, so it counts a a "Choice", right?" but not if "HQ Choice" has a specific meaning attached to it in the rules. If it does, then the rule tells you to not count it, as it is not counted as a Force Organization selection.

This is why I dubbed the argument circular, because no matter where you start it, due to the ambiguous rules and the very much logical point of view of both sides of the argument, you cannot come to a specific conclusion and will always fall back to an interpretation of either the rule, the language of the rule or the intent of the rule which are all subjective.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ph34r wrote:The only issue I have with Witchhunter priests, is that the entry specifically says that they "do not count as one of your HQ choices". Since 3rd edition they have changed their ruling to "do not use up any Force Organization chart selections", perhaps to help clarify that they can in fact fulfill mandatory requirements.

Ironically, changing it to that language does not clarify it nearly as well as "This unit still satisfies your mandatory HQ Selection." being added to the rule.

Indeed, GW is not the best at clarifying its rules.

I honestly feel like their policy is to not acknowledge the fact that people are confused by or have issue with their vague rulings, and thus do not write explicit enough rulings.

Having no iron in this fire whatsoever beyond my eventually choosing to play, and I imagine play against, Grey Knights when they are re-released, I would have to side with ph34r.

Although GW FAQs have certainly shown some events of disagreement (OotF, Autarch, Tyrant reserve rolls), there's no difference in the wording between BT EC or IG [Tech]Priest. I think that the argument that a USR or general rules clarification in one codex not applying to the same wording in another codex (and Void Raven bomb dropping versus PotMS smoked Land Raiders isn't the same in my mind) is a weak argument.

However, to take this to its next logical step, i.e. whether Coteaz allows a player to have a limitless number of henchmen that counts as troops but do not occupy any troops slots--while this does appear to be legal--unlike limitless priests or tech priests, I do not think it is in the intent of the rules.

In that light, it's my hope that GW either fixes this problem pre-release or FAQ/erratas it quickly afterwards. While 6 tech priests in an army list is not in the least bit overpowered or unreasonable, I don't think the same can be said for minimal henches spamming dedicated transports.

Now keep in mind, even if my interpretation is correct, there's still big problems with the wording of hench squads and Coteaz; even with "just" 6 troops selections Coteaz and a 100 point buddy can walk onto the table with 72 lascannon toting orangutans. That is still a problem, and far larger one than a transport wall.

I can't comment on other armies, but, as has been mentioned, priest take up no FOC slots.

None. Zero. They don't count on the FOC. They are completely independent.

The clarification after that was unecessary, but probably to aid people with special missions that revolve around killing HQ units or something. They could have written it that priest counted as "heavy support" choices, or "fast attack" choices, or "fleem" choices, but regardless, as they're not part of the FOC, they don't follow FOC rules. Rules, for example, such as mandatory FOC selections.

Right. Just like the Emperor's Champio--oh wait.

Right, but until the GUARD codex gets FAQ'd differently then we've got to use the rulings as written for units in said codex.

BT have to take an EC in the army.
To make up for that they still get 2 normal HQ choices if they want as 1 has been chosen for them.
So its not the same thing as the rest as 1 must be taken no matter what.

I see your post, please point me towards the rule that says that you must "use up" a FOC selection for it to count as making a choice.

Does this even need a reply?
If a rule states that a unit does not use up a choice, then you can take as many as you like provided they are not 0-1 (0-2 etc)
However, they are not using up a choice, therefor not filling part of the chart.
And yes, if you read any dex in the army structure page it says you must fill the minimum required choices.

I think the biggest problem is people applying thier own words to the way they read the rules then posting that as RAW.

fill != selection

@sourclams - Oh god 5 man units of Jokaro's in chimeras!

Ailaros wrote:I can't comment on other armies, but, as has been mentioned, priest take up no FOC slots.

None. Zero. They don't count on the FOC. They are completely independent.

Actually, they count as "HQ units". They are also listed in the HQ section. They count as HQ on the FOC, while not using up any FOC selections. It is important to recognize the distinction between counting as a selection, and using up a selection. For most units, both occur. For a unit that specifically states that it does not use up a selection, it only counts as making a selection/choice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sourclams wrote:Having no iron in this fire whatsoever beyond my eventually choosing to play, and I imagine play against, Grey Knights when they are re-released, I would have to side with ph34r.

Although GW FAQs have certainly shown some events of disagreement (OotF, Autarch, Tyrant reserve rolls), there's no difference in the wording between BT EC or IG [Tech]Priest. I think that the argument that a USR or general rules clarification in one codex not applying to the same wording in another codex (and Void Raven bomb dropping versus PotMS smoked Land Raiders isn't the same in my mind) is a weak argument.

However, to take this to its next logical step, i.e. whether Coteaz allows a player to have a limitless number of henchmen that counts as troops but do not occupy any troops slots--while this does appear to be legal--unlike limitless priests or tech priests, I do not think it is in the intent of the rules.

In that light, it's my hope that GW either fixes this problem pre-release or FAQ/erratas it quickly afterwards. While 6 tech priests in an army list is not in the least bit overpowered or unreasonable, I don't think the same can be said for minimal henches spamming dedicated transports.

Now keep in mind, even if my interpretation is correct, there's still big problems with the wording of hench squads and Coteaz; even with "just" 6 troops selections Coteaz and a 100 point buddy can walk onto the table with 72 lascannon toting orangutans. That is still a problem, and far larger one than a transport wall.

The problem is squads of 12 jokearo is pretty fundamental to the way the henchmen unit is set up. Unless they slap a 0-3 restriction on it, it's gonna be a problem. The million 3 man razorback units is the big problem we run into with the "infinite or 6 only?" question. I for one believe infinite units to be the correct interpretation, but recognize how awful this would be for game balance. I hope the rules change.

And for what it's worth, 35 point t3 5+ save lascannons aren't terribly fear inspiring, get any unit at all into cc with them and they're toast. A naked guard squad could take them out. Sure, their alpha strike will strike fear into the heart of any army, but deploying in reserve or by deep strike takes a lot of power away.

sourclams wrote:Right. Just like the Emperor's Champio--oh wait.

Hence the FAQ change to the rules to allow it.

The FAQ has been discarded from this debate due to contention on its relevance.

The point up for debate right now is whether or not "choice" or "selection" are actually defined by GW. If they are, then as to include a Priest in your army you must select it, it qualifies as a "selection".

If we throw out the "Priest counts as selection" argument due to inability to actually decide on what "selection" or "choice" means, then unfortunately the entire FOC system breaks down as we rely on the definition of "selection" and "choice" to choose units at all.

Yeah, pretty much.

ph34r wrote:And yet as a FAQ is not a rules change, if two rules are identically worded the existence of the FAQ is unnecessary unless GW for some reason creates contradictory FAQs.

Aka, if the rules function as written, the FAQ is superfluous but nice to have.

The existence of a FAQ for one rule and the absence of a FAQ for an identical rule does not render the identical rule nonfunctional.

FAQs frequently are rules changes: IE, all the dedicated transport stuff being different for Nids.

My faith of GW to write consistent FAQs and my use of them to aid in argument was abandoned a couple pages back. However, in this circumstance I still maintain the assertion that as the FAQ does not simply state "yes" or "no", but rather reference the way the fundamental FOC rules work, it is relevant.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

sourclams wrote:Right. Just like the Emperor's Champio--oh wait.

Hence the FAQ change to the rules to allow it.

Are you sure it was a rule change? It looks like a clarification. The rule works in same way with or without the faq.

sourclams wrote:I think that the argument that a USR or general rules clarification in one codex not applying to the same wording in another codex (and Void Raven bomb dropping versus PotMS smoked Land Raiders isn't the same in my mind) is a weak argument.

While it may appear that I was making a connection between those two rulings, I was not. If you read my post carefully, as well as the posts before it, you'll see that I'm address the idea that an FAQ is never a change in the rules.

But that's not what we're talking about anymore.

ph34r, I thank you for providing an argument that does not utilize the FAQ. I'm not saying I agree with it, or that I agree with your point as a whole, but it certainly allowed a chance to look at the actual rule in question.

I still believe that something that does not take a selection can not take a selection, that "treated as HQ" does not equal "HQ", and that there is in fact a difference in the wording of EC and the Priest (but we're not talking about BT anymore). However, I can't provide any more of an argument than I already have, as well as (some) of what nos has said, and I fear my stubbornness will lead to a circular argument between the two of us. When I think of more to say, I will.

castellan wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

sourclams wrote:Right. Just like the Emperor's Champio--oh wait.

Hence the FAQ change to the rules to allow it.

Are you sure it was a rule change? It looks like a clarification. The rule works in same way with or without the faq.

You are correct that the FAQ is not a rules change. However for the purposes of this argument, it is best to leave the FAQ out, as it is too easy for someone to say "your argument is based on a FAQ and therefore is invalid", whether or not they have a legitimate claim.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

somerandomdude wrote:I still believe that something that does not take a selection can not take a selection, that "treated as HQ" does not equal "HQ", and that there is in fact a difference in the wording of EC and the Priest (but we're not talking about BT anymore). However, I can't provide any more of an argument than I already have, as well as (some) of what nos has said, and I fear my stubbornness will lead to a circular argument between the two of us. When I think of more to say, I will.

I'd just like to clarify that the FOC requirement is not to "take a selection" but rather, "make one choice" or "make one selection". The status of the FOC chart selection of being depleted does not matter to the statement "have you chosen a HQ unit?".

ph34r wrote:And for what it's worth, 35 point t3 5+ save lascannons aren't terribly fear inspiring, get any unit at all into cc with them and they're toast. A naked guard squad could take them out. Sure, their alpha strike will strike fear into the heart of any army, but deploying in reserve or by deep strike takes a lot of power away.

Just take squads of 5 in chimeras for 230pts a pop. Automatically gives you 2 rolls on their weapon aug chart. Assuming that nothing changes and no faq, for 'ard boyz you could take 10 such squads, coteaz and have 100 points left over.

That's 50 mini-me oblits with a solid potential for 5 heavy flamers with rending or range 60" lascannons or 36" melta. No need to even mention the 10 chimeras.

Drop pods, reserves or not, that's not going to be pleasant in the slightest.

I agree that when you combine dedicated transports with infinite unit choices the potential for abuse skyrockets.

I'm gonna go with ph34r on this one.

1) The FAQ on the BT explains the EC rule in regards to HQ, a rule which is worded almost exactly like the IG choices. I think that, unless an IG FAQ directly comes out and says otherwise, the identical IG rule should follow the same line of thought.

2) Having Ministorum Preists and Techpriests as your sole HQ in an army is freaking cool!

I can't believe I read four pages of rules debate all because of a potential issue that might arise in a codex that has not even been released yet.

I like to look at it from the Dawn of War scenario.

Does it count as an HQ unit for the 1 HQ and 2 Troops you are allowed to deploy?

If it does, it should count for the 1 mandatory HQ you need to bring to the table.

After reading the thread I can see both sides of the debate here.

Personally, I tend to think that consistency is best in 40k. Therefore I have no issue in using a ruling in one FAQ as precident for a rule that uses the same wording in another codex.

I'd tend to interpret it that even if it does not take up a slot, the selection can count towards the minimum.

However, I think it would be disingenuous to say that the matter is clear.

Dracos wrote:After reading the thread I can see both sides of the debate here.

Personally, I tend to think that consistency is best in 40k. Therefore I have no issue in using a ruling in one FAQ as precident for a rule that uses the same wording in another codex.

I'd tend to interpret it that even if it does not take up a slot, the selection can count towards the minimum.

However, I think it would be disingenuous to say that the matter is clear.

The matter is clear. All of this is in the rulebook.
ph24r's position on this is rock solid and well said.

FOC are in each codex, actually.

And it makes the distinction between selection and choice. Black filled boxes require a selection, and if you arent using up a selection it cannot count for the black box.

Elmentary logic there.

@ph34r - Jakero's will be a glass hammer ... but oh god what a hammer they could be. I am with you that I would like to see a rules change for the henchmen units before the release.

coteaz

11 x 3 jakero
-Chimera

for 1860 ... that would suck to face

edit: @ castellan
I guess you're forcing me to defend a position that I wouldn't take, but think has some validity.

ph34r wrote:

Codex IG: FOC wrote:Each grey-toned box indicates that you may make one choice from that section of the army list, while a dark-toned box indicates a compulsory selection

Codex IG: Priest wrote:Priests do not use up any Force Organization chart selections

This is the part that leaves room for the other side of the debate. The rules say a box is compulsory, therefore if the box is not taken (as is arguably the case when you take an option that does not occupy a FOC selection), then you have not satisfied the first rule.

Again, I believe the BT FAQ settles this, but if you are disinclined to take precedence from one Codex FAQ to another, than it is irrelevent.

I mainly avoid any notion of "precedence" for GW FAQs as much as possible, as they seem to do themselves.

Arguing precedence with the massively inconsistent FAQ rules changes that are around it...difficult to support

While I agree that using precedence has its flaws, I find it to be a better option than ignoring it.

Except even here the FAQ isnt precedence - it answers the question specifically, and usings a reasoning to suport it. Nothing allows you to separate the reasoning out - that ignores the context.

the context is an EC CAN fulfill the HQ slot - noone else can, barring either a specific FAQ (well, errata to change the rules) or general rulebook FAQ on the matter

See where you see the inconsistencies as a reason to not use it, I find it as a reason to use it. Less inconsistency = better imo. I can't change what they wrote in an FAQ, but I can sure try to make the game as consistent as possible while using the FAQs.

edit: The fact that it addresses one particular issue but not other similar issues is exactly what precedence is. It would be wrong to say the ruling directly affects other models, since as you point out it only specifies the EC. Precedence is exactly the act of taking a specific ruling, and making it the basis for other similar cases.

nosferatu1001 wrote:the context is an EC CAN fulfill the HQ slot - noone else can, barring either a specific FAQ (well, errata to change the rules) or general rulebook FAQ on the matter

That logic only works if you start with the position that EC cannot be the mandatory HQ.

Or is it the case that HQs that don't use a slot can in fact be the mandatory and this was one of the (many) FAQ questions that is essentially pointless since it's confirming what the rules already say. That's how I would look at it.

Dracos, I did not intend on making you take a position. I apologize.
But, in the IG rules the words "use up" does not relate to "occupy a FOC selection". If it said "does not occupy a FOC selection" then your position would be correct.
"The rules say a box is compulsory, therefore if the box is not taken (as is arguably the case when you take an option that does not occupy a FOC selection), then you have not satisfied the first rule."
The rules says what it says.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except even here the FAQ isnt precedence - it answers the question specifically, and usings a reasoning to suport it. Nothing allows you to separate the reasoning out - that ignores the context.

the context is an EC CAN fulfill the HQ slot - noone else can, barring either a specific FAQ (well, errata to change the rules) or general rulebook FAQ on the matter

Um, what? Your reasoning with regards to the FAQ's explanation is straight up backwards.

The fact that it provides the reason for the ruling, rather than just blindly stating a ruling, means that the logic can be applied to other situations where a simple "counts" or "doesn't count" would refer more to that specific situation.

However you are still taking a FAQ Answer out of context: the context is EC in a BT army.

If you are an EC in a BT army, you can look at this question. If you're not, you cant.

Hideously simple.

However you act like the fact that they explain why their answer is as it is, is a reason to NOT apply it to other rulings.

If anything, the fact that they give reason for their answer based on universal rules, involving zero percent BT specific rules, is a reason TO apply it to other rulings.

So what your saying is, i dont get that ruling for my army, but ill use it any way?

Seems kinda wrong to me.
Its a BT FAQ, and for them only.

Before that ruling came out, noone argued about it.
It simply didnt use up anything, so was not an essential choice.
Now people see this, they try and apply it to thier army.

Its a bloody FAQ for 1 army, not a rules clarification for general rules.


Im with nos 100% on this one.



Failing that, my nids will be going to war with burnas.
Nowhere does it state i cant take them.
It just doesent state i can take them.

ph34r wrote:However you act like the fact that they explain why their answer is as it is, is a reason to NOT apply it to other rulings.

If anything, the fact that they give reason for their answer based on universal rules, involving zero percent BT specific rules, is a reason TO apply it to other rulings.

Would be perfectly logical if GW did not A) have a rule book FAQ (with a section for army specific rules) B) contradict them selves regularly

but if we're going down this root

Q: If a Tyranid unit takes a Mycetic Spore, can an
Independent Character join the brood before
deployment (and hence deep strike in with the brood)?
A: No.

So you can't take any IC in your drop pods ether.

I'm not saying that you should apply all FAQs across all armies.

I'm not even saying to apply the BT FAQ to IG. I don't need that for my argument to be correct.

I'm saying that if you had to choose between the way the BT FAQ is explained helping or harming the case for using it on other codexes rulings, the answer would 100% be that the explanation helps.

Your tyranid example is invalid, as you would know if you had read any of my posts, as it gives a simple "no" answer.

If the tyranid FAQ for some reason said "no, as ICs cannot join dedicated transports" or something along those lines, it would be an entirely different problem. As is, it is a simple "no" answer, which can only apply to tyranids.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:So what your saying is, i dont get that ruling for my army, but ill use it any way?

Seems kinda wrong to me.
Its a BT FAQ, and for them only.

Before that ruling came out, noone argued about it.
It simply didnt use up anything, so was not an essential choice.
Now people see this, they try and apply it to thier army.

Its a bloody FAQ for 1 army, not a rules clarification for general rules.


Im with nos 100% on this one.



Failing that, my nids will be going to war with burnas.
Nowhere does it state i cant take them.
It just doesent state i can take them.

The fact that the BT FAQ exists does not impact how my IG codex already says that I can use Priests to fulfill mandatory requirements.
It is a nice way however to show people how this fact is reasonable.

Your burna logic is terrible, and serves to discredit the rest of your post.

Unless, of course, you believe that your argument is bunk and does not, in fact, give you permission to use a non-selection as your compulsory selection.

Just sayin'

ph34r wrote:The fact that the BT FAQ exists does not impact how my IG codex already says that I can use Priests to fulfill mandatory requirements.

It doesn't do this however. In fact, it expressly states a rule related to the FoC telling you they do not count. That is the major issue. At no time does it tell you directly that you can use them to satisfy FOC requirements; it does, however, tell you that they do not count on the FOC for other purposes (again though, not specifically for the satisfaction of FOC requirements).
Stop trying to say how "clearly" the rules are on your side, because quite frankly if there is a 4 page thread arguing against it, it can't possibly be that clear, can it? The rules are ambiguous, and if you feel so strongly they are right, I am pretty sure your opponent is the one you need to be arguing with cause he is the only one that can call you out on it.

If your stance is correct, then you will be able to prove wrong this logic, by using logic:

Codex IG: FOC wrote:Each grey-toned box indicates that you may make one choice from that section of the army list, while a dark-toned box indicates a compulsory selection

Codex IG: Priest wrote:Priests do not use up any Force Organization chart selections

I translated the "compulsory" to apply to the preceding description of making choices from sections of the army list.

Here, I rephrase it exactly just for you! It makes the logic even simpler.

Goal: compulsory selection.
Compulsory selection: A selection. This is required; you are required to make a selection.
One HQ box is marked compulsory: You are required to make one HQ selection.
The act of including a Priest in your army: Selecting a priest.
Section of the army list Priests are in: HQ
Including a Priest in your army therefore entails making a selection from the HQ section.

Making a selection from the HQ selection satisfies the requirement of making one HQ selection.

I'll post this down in the next post too so you can't miss it.

Additionally Priests "do not use up any Force Organization chart selections". This would be cause for concern if it said "do not count as Force Organization chart selections". However, they merely do not use up selections, which has zero effect on the fact that you have made a selection.

If Priests said that they did not count as FOC choices or selections I would 100% agree with you.

Nice job of paraphrasing there, which totally misses the actual language used. colour me "Surprised"

The ACTUAL language is: indicates a compulsory selection

You are told something does not use up a selection, so how can it fulfil your compulsory selection? Oh, wait, it cannot do so

I translated the "compulsory" to apply to the preceding description of making choices from sections of the army list.

Here, I rephrase it exactly just for you! It makes the logic even simpler.

Goal: compulsory selection.
Compulsory selection: A selection. This is required; you are required to make a selection.
One HQ box is marked compulsory: You are required to make one HQ selection.
The act of including a Priest in your army: Selecting a priest.
Section of the army list Priests are in: HQ
Including a Priest in your army therefore entails making a selection from the HQ section.

Making a selection from the HQ selection satisfies the requirement of making one HQ selection.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:You are told something does not use up a selection, so how can it fulfil your compulsory selection? Oh, wait, it cannot do so

Please explain your logic. The act of "not using up" in no way precludes satisfying the requirement of "making a selection".

You can now see how your logic is flawed, yes?

Agreeing to disagree here I think is the best option - I don't see you changing each other's mind.

Arguing in a circle is not helping anyone. You guys are interpreting it the way that makes sense for you, which is fine. Other readers can read and decide for themselves. Remember that your interpretation is just an opinion - no one has authority here.

In my opinion this argument is not going in an unproductive circle, but rather spiraling in towards a particular issue.

This issue being whether nosferatu1001 thinks that the concept of "not using up" directly conflicts with the concept of "making a selection".

I could reach into a jar of candy and select a piece of candy while not using up the jar of candy. This isn't a perfect analogy, but it shows how "not using up" does not disqualify "selecting"

Dracos wrote:Agreeing to disagree here I think is the best option - I don't see you changing each other's mind.

Arguing in a circle is not helping anyone. You guys are interpreting it the way that makes sense for you, which is fine. Other readers can read and decide for themselves. Remember that your interpretation is just an opinion - no one has authority here.

This has been my position the entire time. I just don't see there being clear enough language to have certainty of the intent of the rule. Go ahead and run your Mars Cult or Ministorum armies, I honestly don't care. I just think you are being intentionally stubborn, almost to the point of belligerence, believing that you are correct with no margin of error, simply because you believe you are applying universal logic. I have pointed out how the rule is almost intentionally ambiguous, and yet you still are challenging people to use logic to agree with your interpretation, blithely ignoring the fact that this is an argument about rules and not about logic.

The only way to know what is "true" is to read the rules directly and interpret them. There is in fact one way that the rules read with a direct analysis.

If you "feel" like a choice "shouldn't" be able to qualify as mandatory because it doesn't use up a slot, that's fine, but it is most definitely not more correct than reading the rules as they are.

Essentially there is in fact one way that is correct, and when an issue like this is ambiguous unless observed closely, there is no reason to just give up and say that it's too ambiguous. This is a problem that can be solved definitively, based on the RAW.

Y'know, I tried to make this argument for ever ago on the same lines for CSM and got massive rejection. If "public opinion" sways the other way a year after I've sold that army I'm going to get really, really pissed. I miss Gwar.

The problem with CSM daemons is there is another monkey wrench in the equation, the fact that summoned daemons are in the "summoned daemons" section of the rules, which brings up the question of whether or not a unit that "otherwise counts as HQ" can fulfill requirements for HQ even if it is not listed in the HQ section.

But that is a question for another thread.

NFM

If you would care to read the thread you might notice that those cases have been mentioned.

If you would care to read a few posts above you might notice that your paraphrasing of the IG codex is in fact not correct.

The book says "Priests do not use up any Force Organization chart selections"

I have quoted this about a hundred times so far in this thread.
Priests do not "use up" slots.
Choosing a priest does not require that a slot be "used up" in any way.

Your interest in this thread is nice as it's always good to get more brains on the issue, but please read preceding posts before posting.

I can actually be of help here, if muddying the waters helps anyone. CSM Codex p.99 lists Chaos Spawn as a Fast Attack choice that occupy no slots yet count as Fast Attack. The "Summoned Daemons" section has the daemons and what slots they pseudo-occupy, but p. 89 says specifically that they "are chosen in addition to your normal minimums and maximums." Have fun

Yep, agreeing to disagree is the best solution here: now we have got over the fallacious FAQ line it boils down to disagreement over interpretation

The best thing about that? When you are presented with an ambiguous situation, you take the least advantageous position. Which can only be: you cannot take JUST an enginseer as your HQ, as you are gaining a points advantage by doing so.

Again, really, really simple.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The best thing about that? When you are presented with an ambiguous situation, you take the least advantageous position. Which can only be: you cannot take JUST an enginseer as your HQ, as you are gaining a points advantage by doing so.

Again, really, really simple.

If you cannot refute my logic at any point, then you are wrong. Sorry. There is no "hey, it's real ambiguous, so let's just stop thinking too hard about it!" once I prove irrefutably that I am correct.

Prove my logic wrong at any point or you are wrong.

Goal: compulsory selection.
Compulsory selection: A selection. This is required; you are required to make a selection.
One HQ box is marked compulsory: You are required to make one HQ selection.
The act of including a Priest in your army: Selecting a priest.
Section of the army list Priests are in: HQ
Including a Priest in your army therefore entails making a selection from the HQ section.

Making a selection from the HQ selection satisfies the requirement of making one HQ selection.

I've already done so - you just dont agree with it.

Sorry, there is no arguing with you, so I really won't bother - it;s a waste of time, effort and energy frankly

Be positive though - it does mean you can convince yourself you've "won" though. good for you!

ph34r wrote:If you cannot refute my logic at any point, then you are wrong. Sorry. There is no "hey, it's real ambiguous, so let's just stop thinking too hard about it!" once I prove irrefutably that I am correct.

Prove my logic wrong at any point or you are wrong.

My question is why did you create the thread in the first place, if your stance couldn't be moved? Were you just hoping to find others to validate what you were thinking?

@ ph34r:
Your logic is based on paraphrasing and removing words from context. There is no need to even attempt to prove the contents incorrect if you disagree with the premise.

The techpriest does not take up any FOC selections, and the IG book clearly states that you must fill one of the FOC HQ selections (as has been quoted earlier in the thread many times).

Arguing loudest or most persistently is not synonymous with being correct.

Dracos wrote:@ ph34r:
Your logic is based on paraphrasing and removing words from context. There is no need to even attempt to prove the contents incorrect if you disagree with the premise.

The techpriest does not take up any FOC selections, and the IG book clearly states that you must fill one of the FOC HQ selections (as has been quoted earlier in the thread many times).

Arguing loudest or most persistently is not synonymous with being correct.

You are incorrect. Again.
The IG book never states that you must "fill" anything. The IG book states that you must make the required FOC selections.

I don't have to argue loudly, I just have to argue correctly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

puma713 wrote:My question is why did you create the thread in the first place, if your stance couldn't be moved? Were you just hoping to find others to validate what you were thinking?

My stance can be moved by someone pointing out a flaw in my logic that doesn't involve them saying "it's all very ambiguous don't even bother" or "you have to fill slots!!!11"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:I've already done so - you just dont agree with it.

Sorry, there is no arguing with you, so I really won't bother - it;s a waste of time, effort and energy frankly

Be positive though - it does mean you can convince yourself you've "won" though. good for you!

You have never at any point in time proven that a unit which does not "use up" selections, does not count as being a selection.

Never. Not once, not even almost.

Prove me wrong. Come on, do it. I have all the steps of my train of thought laid out so simply that if there was a flaw, it would be trivial for you to identify it.

Well, to me, the flaw is here:

ph34r wrote:
The techpriest does not take up any FOC selections

ph34r wrote:the IG book clearly states that you must fill one of the FOC HQ selections

The question is can you "fill a selection" with something that doesn't "fill a selection"? To me, (and things like the Law of Economy, Occam's Razor) the answer would be no.

Seems like you're using one defintion of selection in one part of the sentence and another definition of selection in the second part of the sentence. You can argue that GW doesn't give you a definition to go by, but if you have one that you're familiar with in their terms (ie., a selection means a choice, not the act of "selecting" something), then that is the one you should fall back on when you don't have a clear understanding of what they mean.

Neither of those quotes are by me.
Both of those quotes are incorrect. The first slightly, the second majorly.

A techpriest does not "use up" a slot.
Note that this is NOT the same as "take up" "occupy" "fill" or "count as"

The FOC requires you to make selections.
The FOC does not care if these selections that you make "use up" FOC selections

ph34r - have a look at puma. I've tried to show this same point to you repeatedly, but you keep insisting you havent made a mistake.

Banging head against brick walls is a slightly more productive use of time.

ph34r wrote:Neither of those quotes are by me.
Both of those quotes are incorrect. The first slightly, the second majorly.

Ah, yeah, those were Dracos' words. My fault.

ph34r wrote:The FOC requires you to make selections.
The FOC does not care if these selections that you make "use up" FOC selections

How do you know this? Not baiting you, just don't have a BRB on me.

I just did. Thanks nosferatu, but I already addressed his point.

Your entire argument, nosferatu1001, is based on the idea that Enginseers do not "take up" FOC selections, and thus do not count as selections.

As I pointed out in my previous post, this is incorrect.

Does this make sense to you nosferatu1001?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

puma713 wrote:

ph34r wrote:The FOC requires you to make selections.
The FOC does not care if these selections that you make "use up" FOC selections

How do you know this? Not baiting you, just don't have a BRB on me.

FOC isn't defined in the BRB, it is defined in the Codex.
The codex says that "dark-toned box indicates a compulsory selection"
This means that you are required to make a selection.
The Priest, being from the FOC HQ section, is an HQ selection when you select it from the HQ section.

ph34r - and, as has been pointed out, your interpretation is not something I agree with

And we're back around again.

Yawn

ph34r wrote:You have never at any point in time proven that a unit which does not "use up" selections, does not count as being a selection.

The point is that this can't be proven, it can only be inferred. For example, would you still make this assertion if it simply stated "it does not "use" a selection? Would that mean it doesn't count as being a selection? Where does "use up" ever come into play, what is it using up, selections? What limits the number of selections I can make?

Your stance is that since they do not use the same exact sequence of words, then they are not referencing each other and the specific rule of the priest does not negate the FOC Restriction.
However, GW is known for their inconsistent language in the past and using non exact language to reference the same thing (even in the force organization restrictions where you are told to make choices from grey boxes, but make compulsory selections for black boxes. Further, you condition that both rules make reference to a selection simply as "something you select" as opposed to a specific noun "Force Organization chart selection" in the priest rule. While I don't fault you for making that assumption, it is still an assumption and no matter how much you want it to be right by default, it simply isn't.

I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm not going to argue with you because you're someone who already has their mind made up. That's not an argument, and it's barely even a discussion.

nosferatu1001 wrote:ph34r - and, as has been pointed out, your interpretation is not something I agree with

And we're back around again.

Yawn

So you do not agree with the Codex rules?

Codex IG: FOC wrote:Each grey-toned box indicates that you may make one choice from that section of the army list, while a dark-toned box indicates a compulsory selection

Codex IG: Priest wrote:Priests do not use up any Force Organization chart selections

If you can find somewhere in these two sentences that says that "not using up" negates the fact that selecting a unit counts as a selection, you are right.

No interpretation necessary. It's all on you.

This whole thread does indeed stink of "I'm right and I need others to agree with me", rather than a rules query

puma713 wrote:I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm not going to argue with you because you're someone who already has their mind made up. That's not an argument, and it's barely even a discussion.

I believe my argument to be the strongest in this thread, but if someone were to point out a flaw in it, I would change my mind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:This whole thread does indeed stink of "I'm right and I need others to agree with me", rather than a rules query

This whole thread stinks of "I am nosferatu1001 and I am wrong but slinging insults is easier than defending my position".

If you can find any rules to support your point of view, I'll throw you a parade.

Magister187 wrote:

ph34r wrote:You have never at any point in time proven that a unit which does not "use up" selections, does not count as being a selection.

The point is that this can't be proven, it can only be inferred. For example, would you still make this assertion if it simply stated "it does not "use" a selection? Would that mean it doesn't count as being a selection? Where does "use up" ever come into play, what is it using up, selections? What limits the number of selections I can make?

Your stance is that since they do not use the same exact sequence of words, then they are not referencing each other and the specific rule of the priest does not negate the FOC Restriction.

Right. That was my point in detailing the differences in the definition of 'selection'.

Magister187 wrote:

ph34r wrote:You have never at any point in time proven that a unit which does not "use up" selections, does not count as being a selection.

The point is that this can't be proven, it can only be inferred. For example, would you still make this assertion if it simply stated "it does not "use" a selection? Would that mean it doesn't count as being a selection? Where does "use up" ever come into play, what is it using up, selections? What limits the number of selections I can make?

Your stance is that since they do not use the same exact sequence of words, then they are not referencing each other and the specific rule of the priest does not negate the FOC Restriction.
However, GW is known for their inconsistent language in the past and using non exact language to reference the same thing (even in the force organization restrictions where you are told to make choices from grey boxes, but make compulsory selections for black boxes. Further, you condition that both rules make reference to a selection simply as "something you select" as opposed to a specific noun "Force Organization chart selection" in the priest rule. While I don't fault you for making that assumption, it is still an assumption and no matter how much you want it to be right by default, it simply isn't.

I would say that the only way that a unit would not count as a selection is if the rules stated "This unit does not count as a HQ selection". The wording they use, "use up", does in no way imply that the choice is no longer a selection.

ph34r - others HAVE pointed out the flaw in your argument. You then state it isnt a flaw, and we go back round again

Sorry, your shouting the loudest hasnt worked. THis thread can die now, no?

nosferatu1001 wrote:ph34r - others HAVE pointed out the flaw in your argument. You then state it isnt a flaw, and we go back round again

Sorry, your shouting the loudest hasnt worked. THis thread can die now, no?

Others have said that they think the wording too ambiguous to argue on.

I simply look at the wording and repeat what it says.

An unwillingness to look at the rules at a high level of detail, does not render the result of a detailed analysis invalid.

ph34r wrote:

Magister187 wrote:

ph34r wrote:You have never at any point in time proven that a unit which does not "use up" selections, does not count as being a selection.

The point is that this can't be proven, it can only be inferred. For example, would you still make this assertion if it simply stated "it does not "use" a selection? Would that mean it doesn't count as being a selection? Where does "use up" ever come into play, what is it using up, selections? What limits the number of selections I can make?

Your stance is that since they do not use the same exact sequence of words, then they are not referencing each other and the specific rule of the priest does not negate the FOC Restriction.
However, GW is known for their inconsistent language in the past and using non exact language to reference the same thing (even in the force organization restrictions where you are told to make choices from grey boxes, but make compulsory selections for black boxes. Further, you condition that both rules make reference to a selection simply as "something you select" as opposed to a specific noun "Force Organization chart selection" in the priest rule. While I don't fault you for making that assumption, it is still an assumption and no matter how much you want it to be right by default, it simply isn't.

I would say that the only way that a unit would not count as a selection is if the rules stated "This unit does not count as a HQ selection". The wording they use, "use up", does in no way imply that the choice is no longer a selection.

I'm glad you know how to write game rules correctly. GW doesn't. You have interpreted it one way, others have interpreted it another. Awesome thread, great job!

FWIW I'm still with ph34r on the literal rules interpretation, even though in the context of the new GK codex I believe it breaks the game completely.

Much like Deffrollas, even though I believe one interpretation is more correct, I think that you can make a reasonable argument either way on this one and that it should be left to lie.

Until April, when this whole [Mod edit - Another one for the swear filter!] starts over again.

Magister187 wrote:

ph34r wrote:I would say that the only way that a unit would not count as a selection is if the rules stated "This unit does not count as a HQ selection". The wording they use, "use up", does in no way imply that the choice is no longer a selection.

I'm glad you know how to write game rules correctly. GW doesn't. You have interpreted it one way, others have interpreted it another. Awesome thread, great job!

I don't think that we should assume that GW's rules mean something they didn't write, especially when the purpose of the rule appears to be leaving 2 HQ slots available for other HQ units.

Just because GW doesn't think about whether or not they should count for mandatory selections, does not mean we should assume for them and say they don't.

The only things that WE can do as players are:

1. Ignore the direct meaning of the rules, do whatever you think is right.
or
2. Read the rules literally.

When two people might have differing opinions, the only way to settle a rules dispute objectively is to use the objective rules.

ph34r - other hve said it is ambiguous. Others have said it does not support your interpretation.

A high level of inspection has been applied and I dont agree with your interpretation

Your unwillingness to understand this is.... interesting.

ph34r wrote:Just because GW doesn't think about whether or not they should count for mandatory selections, does not mean we should assume for them and say they don't.

Now you're getting into truly muddy waters. GW clearly has a 'this is how we intend the game to be played, so play it this way' mentality, even if their rules point in a different direction. We can't simultaneously argue that they're terrible rules writers as well as we should expect perfect clarity from their rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:ph34r - other hve said it is ambiguous. Others have said it does not support your interpretation.

A high level of inspection has been applied and I dont agree with your interpretation

Your unwillingness to understand this is.... interesting.

So you would say that, you have observed the rules carefully and with a high attention to detail, and you can confidently say that:

When you select a unit that does not "use up" a selection, you do not count as having selected a unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sourclams wrote:

ph34r wrote:Just because GW doesn't think about whether or not they should count for mandatory selections, does not mean we should assume for them and say they don't.

Now you're getting into truly muddy waters. GW clearly has a 'this is how we intend the game to be played, so play it this way' mentality, even if their rules point in a different direction. We can't simultaneously argue that they're terrible rules writers as well as we should expect perfect clarity from their rules.

The thing is, the "way it's meant to be played" mindset, which I am all for, would simply reference the BT FAQ as precedent and conclude that Priests may satisfy mandatory slots.

However, the use of an outside FAQ that explains the FOC rules, sparked anger at a less RAW interpretation. So I stopped citing it.

The point I'm trying to make is while to you only the people who don't agree with you are making an assumption on the meaning of the priests rule, to most people actually being objective, it is clear that both sides, by necessity, are making assumptions on the meaning of the priests rule. I understand you think yours is the only logical, literal, correct, whatever assumption, but it is still an assumption. That was my entire stake in the argument, I honestly don't care. FFS, I don't even know any guard players!

ph34r wrote:
When you select a unit that does not "use up" a selection, you do not count as having selected a unit.

What nos is saying (I believe) is just because you've made the act of 'selecting' (verb) doesn't mean that you've satisfied the necessity for a selection (noun).

puma713 wrote:What nos is saying (I believe) is just because you've made the act of 'selecting' (verb) doesn't mean that you've satisfied the necessity for a selection (noun).

I understand how one might not think the "mandatory selection" to need to be "filled" or "satisfied" in some sense, but the fact of the matter is a light grey box enables you to make a choice, while the dark grey box "indicates a compulsory selection". The word tense used in this single sentence indicates that selection is used to mean the act of selecting.

ph34r wrote:

puma713 wrote:What nos is saying (I believe) is just because you've made the act of 'selecting' (verb) doesn't mean that you've satisfied the necessity for a selection (noun).

I understand how one might not think the "mandatory selection" to need to be "filled" or "satisfied" in some sense, but the fact of the matter is a light grey box enables you to make a choice, while the dark grey box "indicates a compulsory selection". The word tense used in this single sentence indicates that selection is used to mean the act of selecting.

That's where we don't agree. I read that sentence as 'selection' is a noun and 'compulsory' is its adjective.

Magister187 wrote:The point I'm trying to make is while to you only the people who don't agree with you are making an assumption on the meaning of the priests rule, to most people actually being objective, it is clear that both sides, by necessity, are making assumptions on the meaning of the priests rule. I understand you think yours is the only logical, literal, correct, whatever assumption, but it is still an assumption. That was my entire stake in the argument, I honestly don't care. FFS, I don't even know any guard players!

The only assumption that I knowingly make is that the sentence "Each grey-toned box indicates that you may make one choice from that section of the army list, while a dark-toned box indicates a compulsory selection" indicates that a dark-toned box indicates that you are required to perform the act of selecting.

ph34r wrote:

Magister187 wrote:The point I'm trying to make is while to you only the people who don't agree with you are making an assumption on the meaning of the priests rule, to most people actually being objective, it is clear that both sides, by necessity, are making assumptions on the meaning of the priests rule. I understand you think yours is the only logical, literal, correct, whatever assumption, but it is still an assumption. That was my entire stake in the argument, I honestly don't care. FFS, I don't even know any guard players!

The only assumption that I knowingly make is that the sentence "Each grey-toned box indicates that you may make one choice from that section of the army list, while a dark-toned box indicates a compulsory selection" indicates that a dark-toned box indicates that you are required to perform the act of selecting.

How do you know? The context is completely ambiguous. It could mean a compulsory (adverb) selection (verb) just as easily it could a compulsory (adjective) selection (noun).

puma713 wrote:How do you know? The context is completely ambiguous. It could mean a compulsory (adverb) selection (verb) just as easily it could a compulsory (adjective) selection (noun).

That merits some thought. I'll come back later.

Right, which leads you to the assumption that the priest "does not use up" a selection means that he still counts as being a selection for the rule. Other people believe that something needs to use up a selection in order to satisfy the rule, making the priest ineligible.

In the risk of creating a straw man, I want to give an example that I hope illustrates the oppositions view of the wording.

Say you were told to "Choose 4 Selections from the following list" but within that list of "Selections" you were given one that stated "This does not use up a selection." Would you feel you could take that AND 4 other selections or would you still feel the mere act of "selecting" it caused it to become a selection, thus rendering the additional clause invalid?

Magister187 wrote:Say you were told to "Choose 4 Selections from the following list" but within that list of "Selections" you were given one that stated "This does not use up a selection." Would you feel you could take that AND 4 other selections or would you still feel the mere act of "selecting" it caused it to become a selection, thus rendering the additional clause invalid?

That's exactly how the FOC HQ limit works. I can take a Priest AND 2 other selections.
At the same time, a Priest is still a selection even though it does not use up a selection, making it able to qualify "Have you made a selection?".

Yet has not filled out one of the two boxes, as it cannot have done so - if it had filled one of the boxes then you would only be able to select one other HQ choice

And if you dont appear within that blacked out box, you haven't fulfilled the the requirements in the rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yet has not filled out one of the two boxes, as it cannot have done so - if it had filled one of the boxes then you would only be able to select one other HQ choice

And if you dont appear within that blacked out box, you haven't fulfilled the the requirements in the rules.

Could you point me towards where the rules say you must "fill boxes" to fulfill requirements?

ph34r wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yet has not filled out one of the two boxes, as it cannot have done so - if it had filled one of the boxes then you would only be able to select one other HQ choice

And if you dont appear within that blacked out box, you haven't fulfilled the the requirements in the rules.

Could you point me towards where the rules say you must "fill boxes" to fulfill requirements?

Now we're being a bit petty aren't we? Nos is using the boxes as an illustration of what you have to do with the FOC. I don't think he means that it is written in the BRB that you must "fill boxes". After all, we're given an illustration to make the point in the first place.

I was using this thing called "interpretation" to explain to you, simply, how my interpretation of the rules works.

You do realise that this is *exactly* what you have been doing for the last 5 pages? The only relevant rules have been quoted ad naseum, ALL that is left is interpretation

My interpretation differs from yours, in an utterly valid way. This means that, at best, the rule is ambiguous.

And guess what happens when a rule is ambiguous? Yep, you take the least advantageous position.

Again, AT BEST the rule is ambiguous, which removes your position as being relevant.

Puma: i've been doing the exact same for 5 pages. Apparently ph34r is allowed to interpret, paraphrase (conveniently changing words to better suit their argument) and interject meanings, but noone else is.

puma713 wrote:Now we're being a bit petty aren't we? Nos is using the boxes as an illustration of what you have to do with the FOC. I don't think he means that it is written in the BRB that you must "fill boxes". After all, we're given an illustration to make the point in the first place.

Using analogies I can make anything I want seem true. It does not make the rules say what my analogy says. I understand how he thinks "if the box isn't filled it can't fulfill a minimum requirement!"
This would seem logical, right?
However, it's not what the rules say. It has no place in a rules argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:I was using this thing called "interpretation" to explain to you, simply, how my interpretation of the rules works.

You do realise that this is *exactly* what you have been doing for the last 5 pages? The only relevant rules have been quoted ad naseum, ALL that is left is interpretation

My interpretation differs from yours, in an utterly valid way. This means that, at best, the rule is ambiguous.

And guess what happens when a rule is ambiguous? Yep, you take the least advantageous position.

Again, AT BEST the rule is ambiguous, which removes your position as being relevant.

Puma: i've been doing the exact same for 5 pages. Apparently ph34r is allowed to interpret, paraphrase (conveniently changing words to better suit their argument) and interject meanings, but noone else is.

I do not need to make up stupid box analogies to make my point true.
I can make my point with two rules quotes and one sentence.
I do not need to twist the truth or the rules to make my point.

Just because you think that you can ignore the rules, say that everyone is just interpreting the rules in different and valid ways, does not mean that your interpretation is valid or necessarily holds any weight

Well, I'm not going to keep on. But, if it happened in a game against me (if my opponent handed me his list and all he had was a Priest as his HQ), I would ask the TO if it was legal or if he checked the lists. Because, to me, it's not clear. If the TO okayed it, then I wouldn't have any trouble playing against it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Apparently ph34r is allowed to interpret, paraphrase (conveniently changing words to better suit their argument) and interject meanings, but noone else is.

Here is an argument with zero paraphrasing.
Perhaps it is to your liking?

Codex IG: "dark-toned box indicates a compulsory selection"
Codex IG: *HQ has one dark-toned box*
Codex IG: *Priest is in the HQ section*
Dictionary, selection: "an act or instance of selecting or the state of being selected; choice."
Therefore the act of selecting a Priest means that you have made a selection.
Therefore making a selection satisfies the requirement of a compulsory selection.


Please note that nowhere in the rules does it require that a selection be "used up", nor does it use the words "slot" or "box".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

puma713 wrote:Well, I'm not going to keep on. But, if it happened in a game against me (if my opponent handed me his list and all he had was a Priest as his HQ), I would ask the TO if it was legal or if he checked the lists. Because, to me, it's not clear. If the TO okayed it, then I wouldn't have any trouble playing against it.

Anything a TO says goes. The TO's word is law in his tournament. However this isn't helpful to the general population seeking the most correct interpretation of the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

puma713 wrote:How do you know? The context is completely ambiguous. It could mean a compulsory (adverb) selection (verb) just as easily it could a compulsory (adjective) selection (noun).

Upon reading the definitions of the word Selection, I can conclude that there are two ways for the FOC quote to be interpreted:

Codex IG: FOC wrote:Each grey-toned box indicates that you may make one choice from that section of the army list, while a dark-toned box indicates a compulsory selection

"Each grey-toned box indicates that you may make one choice from that section of the army list, while a dark-toned box indicates a required choice"

or

"Each grey-toned box indicates that you may make one choice from that section of the army list, while a dark-toned box indicates a required thing selected"

Compulsory does in fact not have a contradictory definition that could be used in place of the standard "required; mandatory; obligatory", as our subject is not sports.

In the first interpretation, you are required to choose a unit. This is accomplished every time you include a unit of that type in your army.
In the second, you are told that the dark-toned box indicates a "required thing" be "selected". Again, selection occurs every time you include that unit in your army, and the dark-toned box is in indication of "HQ".

Codex IG: FOC wrote:Each grey-toned box indicates that you may make one choice from that section of the army list, while a dark-toned box indicates a compulsory selection

Codex IG: Priest wrote:Priests do not use up any Force Organization chart selections

And around we go. Priests do not use up any of the FOC selections, one of which is a "dark-toned [...] compulsory selection".

Dracos wrote:

Codex IG: FOC wrote:Each grey-toned box indicates that you may make one choice from that section of the army list, while a dark-toned box indicates a compulsory selection

Codex IG: Priest wrote:Priests do not use up any Force Organization chart selections

And around we go. Priests do not use up any of the FOC chart selections, one of which is a "dark-toned [...] compulsory selection".

I am glad that you have turned your attention to the actual rules quotes.

Now, tell me where it says that "do not use up" erases the fact that the act of putting a Priest in your army is a selection. To save you time, you will not find anywhere that says this. Whether or not a FOC chart selection is "used up" is completely separate from the fact that you have already made a selection.

You select a Priest.
Did you make a selection? Yes.
Did the selection you made "use up" a selection? No.
Did you make a selection? Still yes.

And, as has been pointed out about 1 billion times, I disagree and have given reasons why.

You dont agree

You wont change your mind. I wont change mine.

So your point in continuing is what exactly?

I have *never* seen this ok'd in a tournament, which is about the only time this will matter.

Dracos wrote:

Codex IG: FOC wrote:Each grey-toned box indicates that you may make one choice from that section of the army list, while a dark-toned box indicates a compulsory selection

Codex IG: Priest wrote:Priests do not use up any Force Organization chart selections

And around we go. Priests do not use up any of the FOC selections, one of which is a "dark-toned [...] compulsory selection".

And based on the precedent set by the BT FAQ, using the same line of reasoning, they don't need to.

Ph34r, to be honest, can we have some solid proof?
An "Interpretation" of how you see the wording to act does not constitute a solid argument.

It simply makes your point as valid as everyone elses, nothing more.


A simple word change with the same meaning does not mean the rule would act any differently.

Just an example here:

"The space marine sergeant can take:"
"The space marine sergeant may take:"
"The space marine sergeant can be equipped with:"
"The space marine sergeant can have:"

Either way, it has the same meaning to it in terms of the game.

The force org chart has been around some time.
Since then we have seen units that dont count towards it (which cant be used as minimum requirements)

From the logic alone that this has never changed it should be simple enough.

I think its pretty common logic that a model that doesent use up a selection cant fill the mandatory selection.

You are not right, but you arent wrong either.
Your simply stating how you believe it to work, as is everyone else.
Just because they dont agree does not give you permission to throw your toys out of the pram and keep saying they are wrong.

And based on the precedent set by the BT FAQ, using the same line of reasoning, they don't need to.

And its just that.
BT FAQ, not any other army.

Until something solid comes up either way, this wont end. (even if you sit here all night with you are wrong, i am right on the clippy, ready to paste it)

Playing with the wording and trying to change its meaning by your own interpretation wont hold.
With this many people against it there needs to be an end, so its better off if a MOD locks this.


Also, im still unsure why GW dont have main book FAQ's updated every time they get a big question.




Quick note, keyboard keeps doubling letters and missing keys, so i apologise if ive missed anything.

Don - we've covered that GW FAQs cannot constitute precedent - as they are a) answers to a specific question, removing the answer from that context has no support and b) GW themselves cant manage to maintain precedent. To assume you can take a FAQ ruling from one army, NOT in the general BRB FAQ and apply it to an entirely separate army is fallacious given the problems with GW FAQs

If they actually made rulings based on precedence it would mean something, but as Astropaths and Autarchs shows (amongst many, many others!) this is not the case

nosferatu1001 wrote:And, as has been pointed out about 1 billion times, I disagree and have given reasons why.

You dont agree

You wont change your mind. I wont change mine.

So your point in continuing is what exactly?

I have *never* seen this ok'd in a tournament, which is about the only time this will matter.

You have never given an argument based on rules. Not once. You have attacked my argument, you have talked about how you are going around in circles, you have called me overly stubborn, you have said that it is all open to interpretation, and you have talked about how you feel boxes should work.

You have NEVER provided a valid rules argument. The fact that you will not restate your argument when confronted time and time again, like I have done oh so many times, only underlines the fact that you have no argument. So PLEASE, just throw some rules quotes in a post, and tell me how they interact to prove your point.

Also for your information, not only is the INATFAQ on my side, but I have never *not* seen this okay'd at tournaments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:Ph34r, to be honest, can we have some solid proof?
An "Interpretation" of how you see the wording to act does not constitute a solid argument.
[the rest of a very long post of which I read the entire thing]

I have changed zero wording in my arguments. Please refer to this argument in which I cite Codex, Dictionary, and do nothing else.

Codex IG: "dark-toned box indicates a compulsory selection"
Codex IG: *HQ has one dark-toned box*
Codex IG: *Priest is in the HQ section*
Dictionary, selection: "an act or instance of selecting or the state of being selected; choice."
Therefore the act of selecting a Priest means that you have made a selection.
Therefore making a selection satisfies the requirement of a compulsory selection.

Your givens (word changes that have no actual effect, have no actual effect) do not follow to your conclusions (my rules statements are only opinions, common logic should dictate rules conclusions).

Wrong. I quoted the rules to you, bolded the relevant sections and presented my interpretation of what they meant.

I just simply, unlike you, havent bothered restating the same rules over and over and over - because the rules are already in the thread, and I dont have the same love of redundant shouting like you do.

What I have done is attempt to explain my interpretation of the rules. You do the same, but your interpretation is "correct" and anything else is "wrong".

And you wont change your mind on this, you set up a thread to seemingly confirm you are correct (if that was the point, it failed)

And guess what? Your interpretation is just as valid as mine, whcih is the problem. And I've explained what happens when you have an ambiguous ruling - yet you ignore that and carry on. and on. and on.

Edit: oh God STOP with the dictionary quotes. Have you read the tenets lately? It's worth a look see

nosferatu1001 wrote:Wrong. I quoted the rules to you, bolded the relevant sections and presented my interpretation of what they meant.

I just simply, unlike you, havent bothered restating the same rules over and over and over - because the rules are already in the thread, and I dont have the same love of redundant shouting like you do.

What I have done is attempt to explain my interpretation of the rules. You do the same, but your interpretation is "correct" and anything else is "wrong".

And you wont change your mind on this, you set up a thread to seemingly confirm you are correct (if that was the point, it failed)

And guess what? Your interpretation is just as valid as mine, whcih is the problem. And I've explained what happens when you have an ambiguous ruling - yet you ignore that and carry on. and on. and on.

Edit: oh God STOP with the dictionary quotes. Have you read the tenets lately? It's worth a look see

Again, you post. No rules argument. No backup. Your post does nothing to further your cause. You make blanket statements like "your argument is just one of many valid interpretations" with no proof.

Alright, I'll just straight up implore you: PLEASE repost your argument with rules quotes! I can't find it!

Seriously. Go back to the bolded rules quotes. there, that is my rules argument. It hasnt changed in what, 6 pages?

I dont need to keep posting the same rules every time, unlike yourself. What I HAVE done is explain my interpretation, in order to attempt to reach an understanding. It's called discourse in case you missed that part,a nd is slightly more valid than reiterating the saame point over and over and over in the vain hopes that shear repetition will somehow work. A crude, blunt instrument.

You seem to think I have a "cause". I dont. this is an issue that will NEVER come up, with 100% certainty on that, in any event that ever means anything.

And on that - good night. 6 pages of banging my head against a wall isnt great

I didnt say you have changed any actual words, i said that your interpretation of said words has changed the meaning.

Stop saying nos hasnt provided any backup.
You have offered no proof either other than an interpretation of what you think is the right one.

And again, you are neither right nor wrong, as with everyone else.
Just because you believe you are right does not mean others do not have the same view.
They do however choose to present thier own views, rather than reading others and stamping them out when they dont agree with you.

I literally cannot find your rules post with bolded emphasis and all that jazz. I just looked through page 6 and every post of yours is you saying how pointless this whole argument is, except for the post where you posted a box analogy which, as it turns out, isn't rules.

In discourse it is considered polite that, when asked to reiterate your stance, you do so, instead of saying "yeah, it's back there somewhere, if you can't find it I don't know what to tell you".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:I didnt say you have changed any actual words, i said that your interpretation of said words has changed the meaning.

Stop saying nos hasnt provided any backup.
You have offered no proof either other than an interpretation of what you think is the right one.

And again, you are neither right nor wrong, as with everyone else.
Just because you believe you are right does not mean others do not have the same view.
They do however choose to present thier own views, rather than reading others and stamping them out when they dont agree with you.

Ah okay, my interpretation of words has changed their meanings. I thought that the Dictionary quotes of the word definitions would be enough, but apparently not. Could you please specify which words you think I misinterpreted? Preferably with a quote and your emphasis in underline or whatever. Also, I am not being facetious or anything, I honestly want you to point out where you think I misinterpreted.

And to my credit, I am the only person in this thread actually posting relevant rules quotes. You can't so simply say that my argument is just as poorly explained as nos's.

Page 2, 2011/02/24 09:21:02 (sure there used to be post numbers)

Your interpretation is not based on strict rules, either. Which is the entire point - you have to interpret the written words, and the written words are ambiguous, as has been pointed out. Your failure to agree on that part does not render it an invalid point.

Additionally: reread the tenets, note the part about dictionary quotes. It wasnt even a GOOD quote as it did not cite a source - did you even use the OED, the language the book was written in? YOu do understand the differences between colonial and mother tongue?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Page 2, 2011/02/24 09:21:02 (sure there used to be post numbers)

Your interpretation is not based on strict rules, either. Which is the entire point - you have to interpret the written words, and the written words are ambiguous, as has been pointed out. Your failure to agree on that part does not render it an invalid point.

Additionally: reread the tenets, note the part about dictionary quotes. It wasnt even a GOOD quote as it did not cite a source - did you even use the OED, the language the book was written in? YOu do understand the differences between colonial and mother tongue?

I will be back later with quotes from the OED, though at a cursory glance the English and American English definitions do not differ in any amount of significance. I will also reread your page 2 quote that you are so reluctant to re-quote.

I will post the ways that the key words, based on their different OED definitions, can be interpreted. If the definitions are the same, which I expect, then can we conclude that the "ambiguity" of the words has been cleared?

"Reluctant" to requote?

Damn, you love your spin, dont you? *shakes head* I've posted why I havent requoted the argument about half a dozen times: repetition in a written medium, where you can go back and review, is un-necessary and simply makes posts boring, repetitious and a general waste of space.

Far more useful is to add explanation, in order to reach an udnerstanding. Oh wait, that doesnt count in your world, sorry, I forgot

Edit: You also havent read the tenets, have you? There's a great one in there about dictionary quotes, in case the hints havent been enough to hammer the point home to you.
Night all, have fun with "ph34r"

Edit 2: Oh for crying out loud... no, you are NOT the only person to post relevant rules quotes. Is it seriously that difficult for you to find a post on page 2? Or is this your transparent attempts at spin again?

And to my credit, I am the only person in this thread actually posting relevant rules quotes. You can't so simply say that my argument is just as poorly explained as nos's.

"Im right" "give me credit"
No, simply no.

The force org chart has been in place for a long time now and its use has never changed.
This argument has only come up now due to a FAQ for another army being put up.

So, if a unit/model can fill a choice (while not counting as doing so) wouldnt it be possible to fill up 10 HQ choices (not legal) since they dont count as making such a choice?
No since its not legal.
A unit/model can either fill a selection, or not.
In the event of wording stating it doesent, it stands to reason that a model with such properties cannoy fill the requirement.
This is pretty simple logic that has been around with the chart.

Both me and nos have quoted and made clear out points with the text in previous posts.
If you chose to ignore them, that is not my problem.

To all the people clinging desperately to the fact that this ruling was delivered in a BT FAQ, I point toward the legal systems of every first world country.

There is such a thing as 'precedence'. Look it up - it's relevant. It means that a ruling delivered in one specific case lends weight and establishes a given understanding on the mannner of other, like things, as long as circumstances can be shown to be similar enough.

Thus, the argument "it was in the BT FAQ so it's ONLY for the BTs" is not valid. If you disagree, then you must show how the precedence does not apply in terms of the circumstances being different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A good example would be the person who found a specific quote in the Chaos Codex that demons can never be used to fill FOC places (I don't remeber the exact quote)

Karl, if it was valid for all, then why not update them and add this in?

It can also be used to show that the EC is an exception to the normal rules due to his nature of being an auto-selection in a BT force.

karlosovic wrote:To all the people clinging desperately to the fact that this ruling was delivered in a BT FAQ, I point toward the legal systems of every former English Colony.

There is such a thing as 'precedence'. Look it up - it's relevant. It means that a ruling delivered in one specific case lends weight and establishes a given understanding on the mannner of other, like things, as long as circumstances can be shown to be similar enough.

Thus, the argument "it was in the BT FAQ so it's ONLY for the BTs" is not valid. If you disagree, then you must show how the precedence does not apply in terms of the circumstances being different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A good example would be the person who found a specific quote in the Chaos Codex that demons can never be used to fill FOC places (I don't remeber the exact quote)

Fixed for you Mr. Law Scholar. Quoted from Wikipedia and bolded for emphasis

Wikipedia wrote:Materially, civil law proceeds from abstractions, formulates general principles, and distinguishes substantive rules from procedural rules.[3] It holds legislation as the primary source of law, and the court system is usually inquisitorial, unbound by precedent, and composed of specially trained judicial officers with a limited authority to interpret law.

Anyway, that aside, it stands mentioning again that while you talk about civil discourse, you have yet to even acknowledge or understand that the rules argument you are making is clearly grounded in interpretation of an ambiguous rule which, however valid, can be interpreted in a very different yet essentially equally valid manner. This is why people are exasperated with you and don't feel the need to re-quote things. You have failed to show ANY desire to have a discussion, but instead constantly pine for people to prove you wrong, which as I have said before isn't possibly with an ambiguous rule, just like it is impossible for you to show your interpretation is the correct one.

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:The force org chart has been in place for a long time now and its use has never changed.

Okay, yep.

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:This argument has only come up now due to a FAQ for another army being put up.

Nope. This argument came up when Codex: IG was released. Sorry.

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:So, if a unit/model can fill a choice (while not counting as doing so) wouldnt it be possible to fill up 10 HQ choices (not legal) since they dont count as making such a choice?

If you have 10 HQ selections that do not "use up" HQ selections when taken you can take 10 of them. Sure.

No since its not legal.
A unit/model can either fill a selection, or not.

There is no such thing as "fill" a selection. You are limited to a maximum number of selections as per FOC. Sometimes, a unit does not use up a selection, so you get to keep that 1 to your maximum number of selections.

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:In the event of wording stating it doesent, it stands to reason that a model with such properties cannoy fill the requirement.
This is pretty simple logic that has been around with the chart.

Again, there is no such thing as "filling" the chart. You are limited to a maximum number of selections. Some units specify that selecting them does not reduce the remaining number of selections.

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:Both me and nos have quoted and made clear out points with the text in previous posts.
If you chose to ignore them, that is not my problem.

The last page of nos's posts have literally contained no rules substance. You might then see how I consider his arguments less substantial?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Magister187 wrote:Anyway, that aside, it stands mentioning again that while you talk about civil discourse, you have yet to even acknowledge or understand that the rules argument you are making is clearly grounded in interpretation of an ambiguous rule which, however valid, can be interpreted in a very different yet essentially equally valid manner. This is why people are exasperated with you and don't feel the need to re-quote things. You have failed to show ANY desire to have a discussion, but instead constantly pine for people to prove you wrong, which as I have said before isn't possibly with an ambiguous rule, just like it is impossible for you to show your interpretation is the correct one.

Is this quote directed at me? I assume it is.

I love having discussion.

I hate having discussion when people (hi nos) go on for pages about how "oh its so ambiguous" and "but think about my box analogy that is not grounded in rules!".

I want someone to analyze my argument and point our how it is wrong OR construct an argument in a similar style (quoting rules, not changing rulings, not fudging rulings, not saying "and thus the box is not filled!!1!!1!1!!!1!")


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Edit 2: Oh for crying out loud... no, you are NOT the only person to post relevant rules quotes. Is it seriously that difficult for you to find a post on page 2? Or is this your transparent attempts at spin again?

Hahahaha, thanks. I literally laughed out loud when I imagined you saying "my arguments have been full of rules! And my last rules quote was 5 pages ago!" with a straight face. Never change


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:wow, you even missed it in your quoting. Again.

Codex IG wrote:Each grey-toned box indicates that you may make one choice from that section of the army list, while a dark-toned box indicates a compulsory selection

Bolding mine. Notice it states compulsory selection? Now time for you to reread your other quote, again bolding is mine:

Priest wrote:Priests do not use up any Force Organization chart selections

Wow, look at that! It states it does NOT use up ANY Force Org. Selections.

So, you are required to make a compulsory selection, but the Priest cannot take up any selections - meaning you still have to fulfil the force org chart.

Alright, here is your rules quote! At last. Thanks for pointing me towards it.

Now, your line of reasoning is:
Priests do not use up any Force Organization Chart selections
Therefore, Priests cannot take up any selections.

Unfortunately for you, you don't have to "take up" or "use up" any selections on your FOC! You simply have to make selections. It doesn't matter how used or not used up the FOC selection was by your selecting the HQ unit. As long as you made the selection, you qualify, as stated by:

Codex IG wrote:Each grey-toned box indicates that you may make one choice from that section of the army list, while a dark-toned box indicates a compulsory selection

Compulsory selection, by definition of the words, means "The action of selecting or choosing out, which is required," or "A particular choice, which is required."

Also, according to OED:

OED wrote:Selection: The action of selecting or choosing out; also the fact of being selected or chosen.

OED wrote:Selection: A particular choice; choice of a particular individual or individuals; concr. the (†person or) thing selected

I am glad to say that the OED definitions align with the American English definitions perfectly.

Alright. I think this thread has reached the conclusion of its useful life.