I want to have Snikrot as my Warlord for a small game, but still need to fill the force org chart. Can I take a little mek as an HQ, or is he only in that section of the book because of the Mekaniak Mek special rule?

Change from 6th edition allows you to choose any character to be your Warlord.

As it is you still need to fill the mandatory HQ slot. Meks don't fill a slot.

Check the 'Mekaniaks' rule in the Mek's entry.

The entry says, "For each HQ choice in a detachment (not including other Meks)"...
This implies that the Mek can be an HQ slot doesn't it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As a Mekaniak he doesn't take a force org chart and therefore can't be an HQ

For each HQ choice...

The Mek is an HQ choice, however, it does not fill a slot on a FOC.

 Waaagh 18 wrote:
The entry says, "For each HQ choice in a detachment (not including other Meks)"...
This implies that the Mek can be an HQ slot doesn't it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As a Mekaniak he doesn't take a force org chart and therefore can't be an HQ

As the first passage states, you have to take an HQ choice other than a Mek in order to include a Mek. No other HQ choices, no Mek in the detachment.

I think the passage means that you can't take a Mekaniak Mek off a normal mek

Uh, 'Mekaniak' is the name of the rule and applies to all Meks.

I just call the slotless Meks Mekaniaks

They're all slotless. Again, the 'Mekaniak' rule doesn't say that it's optional.

It says "May" in the entry

 Waaagh 18 wrote:
It says "May" in the entry

Try reading the rest of the sentence:

For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet.

That only means that you don't have to include a Mek if you don't want to. "May include a single Mek..." is not the same as "May include a single Mek and choose not to use the 'Mekaniak' special rule..."

They have the HQ Icon on their data sheet, so you can take one for your HQ.

If you take one for an HQ, you don't get a second one outside the FOC chart.

The icon describes it's battlefield role and is no different than when the had the words "HQ" up in the earlier codices. It doesn't change it's rules to say that you can take one and ignore the 'Mekaniak' special rule.

 Ghaz wrote:
The icon describes it's battlefield role and is no different than when the had the words "HQ" up in the earlier codices. It doesn't change it's rules to say that you can take one and ignore the 'Mekaniak' special rule.

You don't ignore the rule, you take 3 hq's

warboss, weirdboy, mek

I have 3 hq choices in my detachments, but as one's a mek I can only get 2 additional meks from the mekaniaks rule.

For each HQ choice (not including other meks)

strongly implying you can take meks as HQ choices, Along with the fact they are a HQ choice.

Again, being an HQ choice doesn't mean that they fill a slot on the Force Organization chart (mandatory or not). The OP was wanting to take a Mek without any other HQ choices in the army. That is not possible.

And yes, you are ignoring the rule for your first Mek. You're ignoring the rule that says you can include a single Mek for each HQ choice in your detachment, excluding other Meks. You only have two HQ choices which are not Meks (Warboss and Weirdboy) so you can only have two Meks and not three. You don't have an HQ choice for that first Mek. This has absolutely nothing to do with being an HQ choice. All the "... not including other Meks..." does is prevent you from taking an infinite number of Meks as long as you have the points for them.

What Ghaz is saying is correct, otherwise SM could take Honor Guard or Command Squad as an HQ, which is not allowed, as they have the same kind of rule (honor guard for each chapter master, command squad for each captain).

sirlynchmob wrote:
They have the HQ Icon on their data sheet, so you can take one for your HQ.

If you take one for an HQ, you don't get a second one outside the FOC chart.

Thank you. Finally someone sees what I see.

I suspect strongly that RAI is for one to be able to take one Mek for each HQ, per the Mekaniaks note.

However, RAW, the Mekaniaks bit appears to just give me one additional method for fielding Meks. I don't see anything preventing me from just paying 15 points and getting a Mek as an HQ choice that takes up a Force Org slot.

If the Mekaniaks bit had been worded something like "Meks may only be selected using the Mekaniaks rule" then I would agree. As is, I see nothing preventing this.

The SM Honor Guard/Command Squad/etc. are different in that they are surrounded by boxes in the entry list, thereby setting them apart from the rest of the entries. Also, the restrictions on how to choose them are at the top of the entry, not down within the rules and options.

Its wording is really not that dissimilar to other units that have to be unlocked first (Necron Royal Court, Dark Eldar Court of the Archon, etc.) with the exception that any HQ choice except another Mek can unlock it instead of a specific HQ (Necron Overlord or Dark Eldar Archon).

As is, I see nothing in the wording of the 'Mekaniaks' rule that makes it optional.

Yes they have an HQ, BUT they don't fill a slot AND they require 1 normal, non-mek HQ choice to be selected to unlock one "Mek Slot" so to speak. So unless you're playing unbound, taking a 15 point mek ain't gonna happen. I can see where you are coming from considering the wording of the rule making it out to be a permissive ruleset (as in you can take Meks as an HQ slot OR can it as a slotless HQ as long as theres another HQ for it to piggy back on) rather than restrictive (it says you MAY take one for each HQ as a slotless HQ rather than You may ONLY take one for each HQ as a slotless HQ, so I think a case is to be made for RAW, but I think RAI is clearly off).

Because little Meks are not independent characters, and because the Mekaniak rule covers their "advisor" status, I don't think they can be taken on their own. Or else they're a 15 point one model unit that can never join units because they didn't fulfill the parameters of being selected as a slotless HQ (which the consensus seems to be is the only way to take one. The thought of taking one as a slotted HQ and ignoring the mekaniak rule entirely didn't even cross my mind until I read this post).

It's not ignoring the Mekaniak rule, it just wouldn't apply in this case.

 Ghaz wrote:
Its wording is really not that dissimilar to other units that have to be unlocked first (Necron Royal Court, Dark Eldar Court of the Archon, etc.) with the exception that any HQ choice except another Mek can unlock it instead of a specific HQ (Necron Overlord or Dark Eldar Archon).

As is, I see nothing in the wording of the 'Mekaniaks' rule that makes it optional.

You can field Meks as HQ by default. The rule "Mekaniaks" does not imply in any way that this default does not apply. For that reason you can both use the default and the mekaniaks rule to buy meks, while the later would not count as mandatory HQ choice.

Waaagh 18 wrote:It's not ignoring the Mekaniak rule, it just wouldn't apply in this case.

Yes, you are ignoring it as nothing indicates that it doesn't apply.

Jidmah wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Its wording is really not that dissimilar to other units that have to be unlocked first (Necron Royal Court, Dark Eldar Court of the Archon, etc.) with the exception that any HQ choice except another Mek can unlock it instead of a specific HQ (Necron Overlord or Dark Eldar Archon).

As is, I see nothing in the wording of the 'Mekaniaks' rule that makes it optional.

You can field Meks as HQ by default. The rule "Mekaniaks" does not imply in any way that this default does not apply. For that reason you can both use the default and the mekaniaks rule to buy meks, while the later would not count as mandatory HQ choice.

Yes it does explicitly state that the default doesn't apply by not stating it's an 'alternate way' to deploy Meks or that it's optional, just like the Necron Royal Cout and Dark Eldar Court of the Archon.

Please point to the part where it explicitly says so. Make sure to quote the exact words.

Mekaniaks: For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet. These selections do not use up Force Organisation slots. Before the battle, immediately after determining Warlord Traits, any Mek that is not already part of another unit must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the Infantry or Artillery type in their Detachment; a Mek cannot leave his unit and is treated as part of it for the entire battle for all rules purposes.

Because it does not. There isn't even an implication in the codex that you can't field a mek on it's own, unlike the box around the necron council you keep quoting. Also note the different choice of words "These selections do not use up Force Organisation slots." vs "This unit does not take up an HQ choice.", quite clearly referring to meks selected via the Mekaniaks rule rather being chose regularly as a HQ choice.

A mek is listed in the exact same way as all other HQs. If you cannot field a mek as singular HQ choice, you cannot field any HQ choices from the ork codex, making it impossible to field ork detachments.

It's explicit in that it does not say that it's optional or an alternate way to choose a Mek. The only way that you can choose a Mek without using the 'Mekaniaks' rule is to willfully ignore the rule.

So again, what allows you to ignore a rule without an explicit permission to do so? You're argument that since its listed like other HQs is meaningless. It's not a blanket statement that you get to ignore the 'Mekaniaks' rule, or are you saying that a Necron Royal Court doesn't require an Overlord or a Dark Eldar Court of the Archon doesn't require an Archon?

It's quite easy, Ghaz is right as to how that rule works.

"Can I take a little mek as an HQ?"
Not on its own.

Rules: "For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include"
You can only follow the "green" rule when the "orange" condition is met. Red is a restriction so that you can't have 2 Meks HQs and say that one of them is "Orange condition".

Clearer?

 BlackTalos wrote:
"Can I take a little mek as an HQ?"
Not on its own.

That's not a rule.

Rules: "For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include"
You can only follow the "green" rule when the "orange" condition is met. Red is a restriction so that you can't have 2 Meks HQs and say that one of them is "Orange condition".

Clearer?

There is nothing unclear. You are simply clearly wrong.

Exact quote from "Choosing your army": The boxes on a Force Organisation Chart are referred to as slots. Each slot will typically specify a Battlefield Role. Each slot allows you to take one unit. Black boxes are compulsory selections – you must take at least this many units of the appropriate Battlefield Role to include this Detachment in your army. If you cannot include the compulsory number of units, you cannot include that Detachment. Grey boxes are optional selections – you can include up to this number of units of the appropriate Battlefield Role when including this Detachment in your army. Any further units of the same Battlefield Role will need to be taken in a different Detachment. For example, in order to take a Combined Arms Detachment, you must select two units with the Troops Battlefield Role, and cannot select more than six in the same Detachment.

The bolded parts allow me to include models with the HQ Battlefield Role in my detachment. Meks have the HQ Battlefield Role. The mekaniaks rule does not contradict this in any way. Therefore anyone can field a mek by either using the basic rules or the mekaniaks rule.

Note that those codices you named (as well as others, for example Codex: Space Marines) use boxes to identify units which can only be taken as part of another choice, with the limitation written on top of the box. Unlike the mek, none of them are explicitly marked as HQ choice. The mek has its own page, is not listed at the end of all other HQs, has a HQ symbol on top and simply has Mekaniaks listed as one of its special rules. There is absolutely no reason to assume that you cannot take him like any other HQ - except arbitrarily applying logic from old codices.

I'd also like to point out that neither of you has quoted a single rule stating the opposite so far.

And again, it's no different than a Royal Court or Court of the Archon. The 'Mekaniaks' rule adds an additional restriction on how you can choose a Mek, one you're willfully ignoring.

 Ghaz wrote:
And again, it's no different than a Royal Court or Court of the Archon. The 'Mekaniaks' rule adds an additional restriction on how you can choose a Mek, one you're willfully ignoring.

Indeed, this part right here:

 Jidmah wrote:
Therefore anyone can field a mek by either using the basic rules or the mekaniaks rule.

You are telling me you can field:
A) a Mek without the mekaniaks rule
B) a Mek with mekaniaks rule

A) is simply you ignoring a rule, not a new type of battlefield unit.

 Jidmah wrote:
Note that those codices you named (as well as others, for example Codex: Space Marines) use boxes to identify units which can only be taken as part of another choice, with the limitation written on top of the box. Unlike the mek, none of them are explicitly marked as HQ choice. The mek has its own page, is not listed at the end of all other HQs, has a HQ symbol on top and simply has Mekaniaks listed as one of its special rules. There is absolutely no reason to assume that you cannot take him like any other HQ - except arbitrarily applying logic from old codices.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/645715-.html

It has its own page, is not listed at the end of all other HQs, has a HQ symbol on top. There is absolutely no reason to assume that you cannot take him like any other HQ.

 Jidmah wrote:
I'd also like to point out that neither of you has quoted a single rule stating the opposite so far.

Rules Quote:"For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet."

When you list your "HQ choice in a Detachment", you can have your Mek (from this datasheet).

 Ghaz wrote:
And again, it's no different than a Royal Court or Court of the Archon. The 'Mekaniaks' rule adds an additional restriction on how you can choose a Mek, one you're willfully ignoring.

It's not a restriction. It's a benefit. You can either field the mek as a normal HQ, and if you want you MAY take a mek with every Warboss, Painboy, etc., just not with other Meks. Why would it say "excluding other Meks" if you couldn't actually take a mek as an HQ?

It's a restriction on how you can take a Mek. In any case, it is not an optional rule.

Again, the unit's battlefield role doesn't change. It's an HQ choice that does not take up a slot on the Force Organization chart and can only be unlocked by taking another HQ choice that's not a Mek. All the 'excluding other Meks' does is prevent you from taking infinite Meks.

It's important to note that the Mekaniaks bit is NOT listed under the Special Rules that a Mek comes with. It's listed between the Special Rules and the options. I believe it represents an alternative way to field a Mek. If I simply purchase a Mek for 15 points, this doesn't invalidate that I had an alternative method.

It's also important to note that I'm not purchasing a Mek with or without the Mekaniaks rule. NONE of the Meks have the Mekaniaks bit as a Special Rule as it's not on the bullet point list of Special Rules. It's just a different way of building a list. It's essentially an army rule placed in the Mek's unit entry.

Best case scenario, RAI is that they wanted you to only use Meks as add on HQs, but they worded it poorly by not restricting you from using the basic army construction methods.

I'll admit that when I first read through the codex I made the same mistake as Waaagh18, but the specific codex rule here (mekaniaks) trumps the general BRB HQ rule.
You cannot ignore the mekaniak rule when taking a mek from that dataslate. It's a special rule that all meks from that datasheet have which specifies exactly how you may include this particular HQ and overrides the general usage rules on how HQ slots are added into an army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That's how I first made the mistake Kriswal, but it is a special rule included always for that dataslate. Chalk it up to an unfamiliar new codex format. But take a look at the 2 prior pages. Waaagh! For the warboss, & waaagh! energy for the wierdboy are listed in the same way and both are special rules those units always have as well.

Taking a mek as a normal HQ does NOT invalidate the Mekaniak rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You're not "ignoring" it, it just does not always apply

You cant take a mek as an HQ.

The only ways to get meks are spelled out in the rules.

Either through the mekaniak rule, which states you can only buy one if you have already purchased another HQ, or through unit upgrades.


You can name any of them as your warlord however.

 Waaagh 18 wrote:
Taking a mek as a normal HQ does NOT invalidate the Mekaniak rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You're not "ignoring" it, it just does not always apply

It does though. It tells you exactly what you need to do to include one, when you must attach them to a unit, and what units it may be attached to. That applies every time you want to select a mek from that datasheet. If you don't follow it, you have ignored it, which you are not allowed to do.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
And again, it's no different than a Royal Court or Court of the Archon. The 'Mekaniaks' rule adds an additional restriction on how you can choose a Mek, one you're willfully ignoring.

Indeed, this part right here:

 Jidmah wrote:
Therefore anyone can field a mek by either using the basic rules or the mekaniaks rule.

You are telling me you can field:
A) a Mek without the mekaniaks rule
B) a Mek with mekaniaks rule

A) is simply you ignoring a rule, not a new type of battlefield unit.

Please underline the part of the rule which prevents me from fielding the mek using the BRB rules. The Mekaniaks rule explicitly tells me that I may field a mek for each HQ I pick, and, if I do, these choices don't use up a slot. Nothing takes away the inherit permission to field them as HQ.
If the mekaniaks rule was mandatory, you could not field meks as part of a loota mob either.

 Jidmah wrote:
Note that those codices you named (as well as others, for example Codex: Space Marines) use boxes to identify units which can only be taken as part of another choice, with the limitation written on top of the box. Unlike the mek, none of them are explicitly marked as HQ choice. The mek has its own page, is not listed at the end of all other HQs, has a HQ symbol on top and simply has Mekaniaks listed as one of its special rules. There is absolutely no reason to assume that you cannot take him like any other HQ - except arbitrarily applying logic from old codices.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/645715-.html

It has its own page, is not listed at the end of all other HQs, has a HQ symbol on top. There is absolutely no reason to assume that you cannot take him like any other HQ.

Yes, "For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet." or you may not in which case, you don't take this mek.
This specific special rule overrides the brb general rule concerning HQ choice. No where does it say, the mekaniak rule is optional, This mek has it, and therefore must use it. Codex trumps BRB, Specific trumps general.
The meks with the loota and burnas don't apply to this datasheet as they have their own listing with those units and do not have the mekaniak special rule. They also have different point costs and can't join a different unit.

 Jidmah wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
And again, it's no different than a Royal Court or Court of the Archon. The 'Mekaniaks' rule adds an additional restriction on how you can choose a Mek, one you're willfully ignoring.

Indeed, this part right here:

 Jidmah wrote:
Therefore anyone can field a mek by either using the basic rules or the mekaniaks rule.

You are telling me you can field:
A) a Mek without the mekaniaks rule
B) a Mek with mekaniaks rule

A) is simply you ignoring a rule, not a new type of battlefield unit.

Please underline the part of the rule which prevents me from fielding the mek using the BRB rules. The Mekaniaks rule explicitly tells me that I may field a mek for each HQ I pick, and, if I do, these choices don't use up a slot. Nothing takes away the inherit permission to field them as HQ.
If the mekaniaks rule was mandatory, you could not field meks as part of a loota mob either.

So in your opinion, you may have A) and B)? please answer with Yes or No at this point.

 Jidmah wrote:
That's not a HQ symbol. That's the old layout, HQ symbols are found in the BRB. Also taken out of context, different codex and whatnot. Basically useless strawman, might have as well saved your time.

Still the same rule applies, and arguing i cannot take a Priest because the HQ symbol is of a different shape is grasping at straws.

"For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet.These selections do not use up Force Organisation slots."

"An adepta Sororitas army may include 0-5 M. Priests in each detahcment. They do not take up a Force Org slot and do not qualify as a mandatory HQ selection

2 Rules. Both are applied, or both are not. If you can ignore the Mek rule, you can ignore the priest rule, simple as...

 Amiricle wrote:
take a look at the 2 prior pages. Waaagh! For the warboss, & waaagh! energy for the wierdboy are listed in the same way and both are special rules those units always have as well.

Have a look, i am quite sure that the mekaniaks rule is Mandatory. As Amiricle examples above.

 Jidmah wrote:

When you list your "HQ choice in a Detachment", you can have your Mek (from this datasheet).

"May", not "can". Rewording rules to fit your argument better is not proof.

When you list your "HQ choice in a Detachment", you may have your Mek.

If you don't have an "HQ choice in a Detachment", then you may not have your Mek.


It all comes down to one very simple question:
Can you field a Mek without the Mekaniaks rule? Can you "ignore" that rule when you field a Mek?

Answer this, and the debate can continue...

From 'Basic versus Advanced':

Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules.

The 'Mekaniaks' rule is not optional. It tells you how you must field a Mek and overrides the basic rules.

It doesn't override. It never says it overrides anything

It overrides by the very nature of not saying it's optional. It's an advanced rule and advanced rules overrides the basic rules.

 BlackTalos wrote:
So in your opinion, you may have A) and B)? please answer with Yes or No at this point.

Yes, of course. The codex allows me to take slotless meks in addition to other HQs. The rulebook allows me to take meks as slotted HQs. Neither rule contradicts or prohibits the other. All of you have failed to prove the opposite.

 Jidmah wrote:
That's not a HQ symbol. That's the old layout, HQ symbols are found in the BRB. Also taken out of context, different codex and whatnot. Basically useless strawman, might have as well saved your time.

Still the same rule applies, and arguing i cannot take a Priest because the HQ symbol is of a different shape is grasping at straws.

Not grasping straws at all. You're just comparing apples to oranges. 7th edition codices also list their dedicated transports with a fast attack symbol, what make you believe that listing "add-on" HQs as HQs themselves was unintentional?

"For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet.These selections do not use up Force Organisation slots."

"An adepta Sororitas army may include 0-5 M. Priests in each detahcment. They do not take up a Force Org slot and do not qualify as a mandatory HQ selection

2 Rules. Both are applied, or both are not. If you can ignore the Mek rule, you can ignore the priest rule, simple as...

Considering that codices listed such choices in boxes below their parent entry (see Techmarines, Grimaldus' Servitors, Necron Council, Council of the Archon etc) to signify them being available only in combination with their parent choice and considering that neither the parent choice nor the box (or the lack thereof) is visible in your screen-shot from the most unavailable codex in the game, I'm not willing to give you an answer on this one. I'd like to point out though that Priest would never count as mandatory HQ selection though, since it explicitly says so. The mek has no such wording.

 Amiricle wrote:
take a look at the 2 prior pages. Waaagh! For the warboss, & waaagh! energy for the wierdboy are listed in the same way and both are special rules those units always have as well.

Have a look, i am quite sure that the mekaniaks rule is Mandatory. As Amiricle examples above.

I never said the opposite. I'm merely stating that Mekaniaks does not prevent you from fielding Meks in another way.

When you list your "HQ choice in a Detachment", you may have your Mek.

That's a rule.

If you don't have an "HQ choice in a Detachment", then you may not have your Mek.

That's not. I quoted the paragraph giving me explicit permission to field HQ choices. There is no difference between a mek and a big mek in that regard.

Permission to do something (you may) doesn't automatically force you to do it that way or not at all. For example this is part of the deep strike rules: "A Transport vehicle with Deep Strike may Deep Strike regardless of whether its passengers have Deep Strike or not."
So, when looking at the infamous deep-striking Blood Angel Landraider with non-deep-striking passengers, it still has permission to be deployed on the table or arrive from reserves regularly. Just because you may do something does not prevent you from doing it in another way you have been given permission to.

It all comes down to one very simple question:
Can you field a Mek without the Mekaniaks rule?

Yes, I can field a Mek wihout using the Mekaniaks rule to do so, by choosing him as one of my HQ choices. Of course, it would still have the Mekaniaks rule, which would force it to join an infantry or artillery unit.

Can you "ignore" that rule when you field a Mek?

No, you cannot. A mek must always be joined to a unit. However, the first part does not apply as I can choose not to use it (that's what the word "may" does), either by fielding another HQ without a mek, or by fielding a mek without another HQ.

Answer this, and the debate can continue...

I respect you for wanting an actual debate, so if my posts come across harsh, that's because you can't put tone of voice into forum posts. You still should try to find rules to back up your position

Mekaniaks does not contradict the basic rules.

"For every HQ choice in a Detachment [...] you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet" doesn't do anything but give permission to chose Meks when you are picking other HQs. This permission is added to any other permissions you have, just like the permission to re-roll both dice is added to the permission to re-roll one dice.

If you pick a warboss, weirdboy, big mek, painboy, Zagstrukk or Bradrukk, Mekaniaks as a HQ choice, you get the choice to add a mek or not add a mek.

If you pick a detachment, you are allowed to field any HQ choice in one of the empty HQ slots by the basic rules. If you pick a mek, mekaniaks will not present you with the choice to pick another mek, but it still forces the mek to join a unit. If you abide to that, no rule is violated or ignored.
If you chose an unbound army you are allowed to field any number of meks as well, as long as they are joining units if possible.

In order for the rules to work like everyone is advocating here it would either:
- have to be worded differently ("You may only chose one Mek per HQ choice (except other Meks).")
- explicitly have contradicted the basic rules ("You may not field Meks in any other way.")
- not have been marked as HQ choice/marked as sub-entry
- be listed as unit upgrade for HQs

Since none are the case, nothing prevents you from choosing a Mek as HQ, just like you'd choose a Big Mek as HQ.

 Ghaz wrote:
From 'Basic versus Advanced':

Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules.

The 'Mekaniaks' rule is not optional. It tells you how you must field a Mek and overrides the basic rules.

The rule Mekaniaks does not contradict the rulebook. Neither does it contain the word "must", nor does it change how Meks are chosen, It merely adds another option to chose them.

And again, it does not contain any wording to make it optional. Thus per the rules for 'Basic versus Advanced' it overrides the basic rules.

That was a very well written post Jidmah and I understand how you can interpret it that way. However, when a specific rule modifies a basic rule (HQ selection/FoC), the specific rule takes precedence. As such the mekaniak rule would have to give permission to field a mek as a solo HQ choice in addition to the way it currently states you may field one otherwise we are stuck being able to field them only the way it describes.

While this is ultimately not that big a deal and I would let it slide as I'm sure many friendly opponents would as well, a stickler for the RaW may not and you'd risk a TO declaring your list unbound.

 Amiricle wrote:
That was a very well written post Jidmah and I understand how you can interpret it that way. However, when a specific rule modifies a basic rule (HQ selection/FoC), the specific rule takes precedence. As such the mekaniak rule would have to give permission to field a mek as a solo HQ choice in addition to the way it currently states you may field one otherwise we are stuck being able to field them only the way it describes.

While this is ultimately not that big a deal and I would let it slide as I'm sure many friendly opponents would as well, a stickler for the RaW may not and you'd risk a TO declaring your list unbound.

It does not modify the basic rule. It adds another selection option to that rule. Never in the entry does it say that you cannot take him as a normal HQ. Why would it give specific information to field it as a normal HQ, when the rule does not say anything that would mean it could not do that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:
And again, it does not contain any wording to make it optional. Thus per the rules for 'Basic versus Advanced' it overrides the basic rules.

You are saying the same thing over and over again.

And you've yet to provide anything to support your claims it's optional. It's not. Nothing in it's wording says it is an alternate way to choose a Mek. Unless you can provide any wording that says "in addition" or "optionally" your arguments have no merit. It is an advanced rule and as such takes precedence over how you may normally take a unit.

 Kriswall wrote:
It's important to note that the Mekaniaks bit is NOT listed under the Special Rules that a Mek comes with. It's listed between the Special Rules and the options. I believe it represents an alternative way to field a Mek.

NONE of the Meks have the Mekaniaks bit as a Special Rule as it's not on the bullet point list of Special Rules.

You believe incorrectly.
Mekaniaks is a Special Rule specific only to Meks. This is why it is not on the bullet point list (which is of special rules that are shared among other units and are therefore described in detail on their own page rather than within each unit) as it is only found on that one unit.
If you think that, because it's not listed in the bullet points, it's not a special rule then I suppose you also think that the Weirdboys Waaagh! Energy is not a special rule? Or the Warboss who has Waaagh! .. that must not be a special rule either.

All meks have the special rule Mekaniaks. This rule tells you that you may take one Mek for each HQ choice (other than a Mek). If you have no HQ choice you may not take a Mek. Mekaniaks is not an "alternative method" of fielding a Mek.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

Please underline the part of the rule which prevents me from fielding the mek using the BRB rules. The Mekaniaks rule explicitly tells me that I may field a mek for each HQ I pick, and, if I do, these choices don't use up a slot. Nothing takes away the inherit permission to field them as HQ.
If the mekaniaks rule was mandatory, you could not field meks as part of a loota mob either.

Except for the ability to turn a Loota into a Mek, of course. One that is not (surprise surprise) an HQ choice as it has its own stat line within the Lootas datasheet. To take a Mek outside of these units, you require an HQ choice first, as per Mekaniaks special rule.

Somehow not a single other person claiming that picking a Mek solo is impossible has quote a single rule saying so.

Except, of course, for the Mekaniaks special rule that belongs to a Mek.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Waaagh 18 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
And again, it's no different than a Royal Court or Court of the Archon. The 'Mekaniaks' rule adds an additional restriction on how you can choose a Mek, one you're willfully ignoring.

It's not a restriction. It's a benefit. You can either field the mek as a normal HQ, and if you want you MAY take a mek with every Warboss, Painboy, etc., just not with other Meks. Why would it say "excluding other Meks" if you couldn't actually take a mek as an HQ?

Hmm. So you ask a question about taking a Mek as an HQ and the moment one person says yes it seems you have thought that all along, despite the special rule Mekaniaks telling you that you may take a mek for each HQ choice. The only way you can take a Mek from the HQ choices, without ignoring that rule, is to take another HQ choice (that is not a Mek) first. Period.

I did have an opinion before I started. It seems logical that if I want to pick my army with an HQ from the HQ section that it could be a mek. The Mekaniak special rule never says its the only way, I'd like to see a quote to see where you assume that.

 Waaagh 18 wrote:
I did have an opinion before I started. It seems logical that if I want to pick my army with an HQ from the HQ section that it could be a mek. The Mekaniak special rule never says its the only way, I'd like to see a quote to see where you assume that.

The quote, as has been shown many times over already, is in the Mekaniak Special Rule itself;
"For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet."

If you take a Mek as your only HQ, are you following this special rule? No.
The rule does not have to outright say its the only way to take a Mek .. it is a special rule that all Meks that are taken from the HQ battlefield role have and if you aren't following it (for example, by taking a Mek without another HQ choice) you are not following the rule.
To take a Mek without taking another HQ choice first the rule would have to specify you are able to, as this rule provides a restriction/modification of the "typical" unit selection. (ie: you are given permission to take an HQ unit. Mekaniak provides a restriction to that permission, with no explicit permission to continue on in the HQ choice selection without that restriction in place).

 Amiricle wrote:
That was a very well written post Jidmah and I understand how you can interpret it that way. However, when a specific rule modifies a basic rule (HQ selection/FoC), the specific rule takes precedence. As such the mekaniak rule would have to give permission to field a mek as a solo HQ choice in addition to the way it currently states you may field one otherwise we are stuck being able to field them only the way it describes.

This were every single one of goes wrong. Just because a rule does roughly the same, it doesn't make all other rules go away. If you were correct, any vehicle with the deep-strike rule would be forced to deep strike as soon as it has non-deepstriking passengers. This is not the case.

You have permission to field a mek solo, and you have permission to field a mek in addition to another HQ. Just like a model with deep strike has the option to be deployed on the table, arrive from reserves or arrive from deep strike.

Rorschach9 wrote:

 Waaagh 18 wrote:
I did have an opinion before I started. It seems logical that if I want to pick my army with an HQ from the HQ section that it could be a mek. The Mekaniak special rule never says its the only way, I'd like to see a quote to see where you assume that.

The quote, as has been shown many times over already, is in the Mekaniak Special Rule itself;
"For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet."

If you take a Mek as your only HQ, are you following this special rule? No.
The rule does not have to outright say its the only way to take a Mek ..

Why not? The BRB explicitly requires it to contradict the basic rules in order to take away basic permission.

it is a special rule that all Meks that are taken from the HQ battlefield role have and if you aren't following it (for example, by taking a Mek without another HQ choice) you are not following the rule.

All meks also have the 'ere we go rule. If you do not re-roll one dice during your assault move you also aren't following that rule. According to your logic you are cheating if you don't re-roll one of your double sixes you have rolled for charge range. No part forces you to use the rule to field Meks. Actually, the presence of Meks in formations is the very confirmation that you can field Meks without the Mekaniaks rule.

To take a Mek without taking another HQ choice first the rule would have to specify you are able to, as this rule provides a restriction/modification of the "typical" unit selection.

Please quote a rule on that. Unless a rule explicitly contradicts the BRB, you can still use the basic rules.

(ie: you are given permission to take an HQ unit. Mekaniak provides a restriction to that permission

Please post the mekaniaks rule and underline the part of the rule which imposes a restriction on the basic rules. Considering that three others have failed to do so while continuously insisting on their point, it's save to assume that you'll be unable to do so, which in turn means that you're wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:
And you've yet to provide anything to support your claims it's optional. It's not. Nothing in it's wording says it is an alternate way to choose a Mek. Unless you can provide any wording that says "in addition" or "optionally" your arguments have no merit. It is an advanced rule and as such takes precedence over how you may normally take a unit.

Except for the rules I quoted that you conveniently ignore in order to not be proven wrong.

You have violated the Tenets #1 twelve times now. Please stop posting.

Tenets of You Make Da Call (YMDC):

1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Amiricle wrote:
That was a very well written post Jidmah and I understand how you can interpret it that way. However, when a specific rule modifies a basic rule (HQ selection/FoC), the specific rule takes precedence. As such the mekaniak rule would have to give permission to field a mek as a solo HQ choice in addition to the way it currently states you may field one otherwise we are stuck being able to field them only the way it describes.

This were every single one of goes wrong. Just because a rule does roughly the same, it doesn't make all other rules go away. If you were correct, any vehicle with the deep-strike rule would be forced to deep strike as soon as it has non-deepstriking passengers. This is not the case.

You have permission to field a mek solo, and you have permission to field a mek in addition to another HQ. Just like a model with deep strike has the option to be deployed on the table, arrive from reserves or arrive from deep strike.

Nothing explictly prohibits you from taking Meks as HQ. You're prohibited to take slotless Meks without HQ (other than meks).

So...basically we can have a 15 pt HQ! Who can beat that. You also can make any character in your army to be Warlord so that your warlord ain't a 1-wound 6+ guy.

Ok, thank you for describing in a lot of detail the situation at hand. I do think that we can keep it much more simple by tackling the core of the issue.

 Jidmah wrote:

It all comes down to one very simple question:
Can you field a Mek without the Mekaniaks rule?

Yes, I can field a Mek wihout using the Mekaniaks rule to do so, by choosing him as one of my HQ choices. Of course, it would still have the Mekaniaks rule, which would force it to join an infantry or artillery unit.

Can you "ignore" that rule when you field a Mek?

No, you cannot. A mek must always be joined to a unit. However, the first part does not apply as I can choose not to use it (that's what the word "may" does), either by fielding another HQ without a mek, or by fielding a mek without another HQ.

I have highlighted the part of your message that you cannot do.

You have to follow the Rule in it's entirety. The rule is this: "For each HQ choice in a Detachment (...) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet. These selections do not use up Force Organisation slots."

Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules.

You must follow Rules

In a way, unless you have done A)"HQ choice in a Detachment", you do not get choice B)"you may include". You don't get the "may" option to include a Mek if you don't already have an HQ choice.

Now, points on this.
1) "These selections do not use up Force Organisation slots" is a phrase on it's own. It is a rule that, the selection referred to (Mek) has to follow.
2) The green part, and "may include" is indeed and option, a may/may not, an 0/1, yes/no situation. When do you get this choice? "For each HQ choice in a Detachment".
3) The "may" refers to taking a Mek once you have an HQ, not a "may" to use the rule in the first place.

"For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet." is not an optional rule, you must follow it.

Rorschach9 wrote:
Falacy. A model with deep strike may have the option, but not all do. Some have special rules that modify this permission. Can you ignore those, just as you feel you can ignore Mekaniak? Your statement about any vehicle with deepstrike being forced to deep strike "as soon as it has non-deepstriking passengers" makes no sense either.

It's explained further up. Basically a vehicle with deep strike may deep strike even when it has non-deep-striking passengers. It's worded exactly like the mekaniaks rules, so if fielding mekaniaks using the rule is mandatory, so is deep-striking transports with non-deep-striking passengers.

The BRB allows us to take an HQ choice. Mekaniak (Mek special rule) states you may take a Mek for each HQ choice that is not a Mek. How does that not contradict the blanket permission from the BRB?

Just like "you may go right" does not contradict "you may go left", "you may take a slotless mek in addition to a HQ" does not contradict "you may take a slotted mek as HQ choice".

'Ere we go states you Can re-roll, not you must. Mekaniak states you May take a Mek for each HQ choice chosen that is not a Mek. Not "You can take an additional Mek that takes no slot for each HQ choice". You May take a Mek for each HQ choice ..

I still fail to see how the word "may" implicates any mandatory action while can doesn't.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/may
Feel free to convince me otherwise, as this is the core of most people's argument.

Formations modify the selection of units in many ways. The presence of Meks in formations is irrelevant to choosing a Mek. You cannot field a mek from the HQ Datasheet"without the Mekaniaks rule", because Mekaniak is a special rule that all HQ Datasheet Meks have. It seems, however, that you have missed there are Meks outside of the HQ Mek Datasheet.

So, what rules does the Mek in the Ork Warband formation use? According to you, it has no rules, since you cannot use the Datasheet and there are no other rules for single Meks.

Looks like Mekaniaks is a special rule that I will need in order to use my Mek model.

How did you come to this conclusion? On what rules are you basing it? What makes you think that the Mek datasheet is functional different from the Big Mek datasheet?

And it states I may include a Mek for each HQ choice (not including other Meks). I havn't chosen another HQ choice. How do I then choose a Mek, considering its special rule tells me I may choose one for each HQ choice?

You chose it just like you chose a Big Mek. Or Warboss. Or Zagstrukk. If you can't chose a Mek, you can't chose any HQ, ever.

Oh, and look; The Mek chosen from that datasheet doesn't take up an HQ slot either, so even if I were to ignore that rule stating I may take one for each HQ choice, I still havn't filled the requisite HQ slot.

The rule specifically refers to Meks chosen in addition to other HQs, using the word "These". It does not apply to meks chosen in any other way.

If you take a Mek from the HQ Datasheet and have not taken another HQ choice, you have broken a rule AND have not filled the requisite HQ slot.

To break a rule, you have to do something that is either not allowed or something that contradicts what the rule says. Chosing a Mek as slotted HQ choice does neither.

As for being wrong, you can think that all you want. The fact of the matter is that if you have not taken an HQ choice that is not a Mek, and you take a Mek from the HQ Mek Datasheet, you have not fulfilled the requirements of the special rules included with that unit.

The rule is not a requirement. It's an additional permission that you can either use or not use to field more than one HQ choice per slot. Any further interpretation is wishful thinking without rules backup.

 BlackTalos wrote:
You have to follow the Rule in it's entirety. The rule is this: "For each HQ choice in a Detachment (...) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet. These selections do not use up Force Organisation slots."

I followed that rule. I chose a Mek as a HQ choice in a Detachment, since the rulebook allows me to do that. I may then not include another Mek from this data sheet. Rule has been followed, I have a slotted Mek.

Now, points on this.
1) "These selections do not use up Force Organisation slots" is a phrase on it's own. It is a rule that, the selection referred to (Mek) has to follow.
2) The green part, and "may include" is indeed and option, a may/may not, an 0/1, yes/no situation. When do you get this choice? "For each HQ choice in a Detachment".

"May not" is not the polar opposite of "may", just like "must" is not the polar opposite of "must not". It's in no way comparable to yes/no or 0/1. Therefore 2) is completely wrong and thus the reason for your misunderstanding of the rule.

40k rules work like this: You may not do anything, unless you are allowed to do so. You are allowed to field HQ choices in HQ slots of detachments. You are also allowed to field Meks when you field a non-Mek HQ choice in an ork detachment. No contradiction

3) The "may" refers to taking a Mek once you have an HQ, not a "may" to use the rule in the first place.

To point out your wrong understanding of the word may:
If I tell you "You may go left" and then "You may go right", you are not forced to go right. For some reason you seem to be under the impression that you are. Maybe check with an English teacher or something? I'm really at a loss about how I'm supposed to explain to a native speaker how his language works.

"For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet." is not an optional rule, you must follow it.

*sight* this again. I've proven this to be nonsense like six times now. So I'll pass the ball back to you. According to your logic how do you field an Ork Warband formation in your opinion? How do you get a Mek in there? How do you field a Mek in an unbound army?

 BlackTalos wrote:
"These selections do not use up Force Organisation slots" is a phrase on it's own. It is a rule that, the selection referred to (Mek) has to follow.

You are still breaking this rule.

 Jidmah wrote:
I followed that rule. I chose a Mek as a HQ choice in a Detachment, since the rulebook allows me to do that. I may then not include another Mek from this data sheet. Rule has been followed, I have a slotted Mek.

I don't think you did, you've put it right there:

 Jidmah wrote:
However, the first part does not apply as I can choose not to use it

Where is that choice in the Rulebook? You never have a choice not to use "that part of the rule".

These are the only Rules you have:

Each slot allows you to take one unit.

Rorschach9 wrote:
DATASHEETS : Each Ork unit in this book has a datasheet. These detail either Army List Entries or Formations, providing all the rules information that you will need to use your models in your games of Warhammer 40,000.

For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet.

So, using the above, show permission to field a Mek, other than "For each HQ choice in a Detachment". How else can you field a Mek?
Each slot allows one Unit
Each Unit is on a datasheet.
To have a Mek "chosen from this datasheet" you need "For each HQ choice in a Detachment"

There is no other permission.
There is no other way of using the Mek Datasheet than "For each HQ choice in a Detachment (...) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet."
You seem to be asserting you can use this Datasheet in some other way, How? Where is the wording that lets you do so?

I don't know, I like this whole "May" means you can either take without using a slot, or take using a slot.

For example, a Primary Detachment of Eldar may include a Warlock Council that does not use a slot.

Since the wording is similar to Mekaniaks, I can ignore that part, and take a Warlock Council using an HQ slot. Now I can spam relatively cheap Mastery Level 1 Psykers, by taking multiple detachments.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
"These selections do not use up Force Organisation slots" is a phrase on it's own. It is a rule that, the selection referred to (Mek) has to follow.

You are still breaking this rule.

You are still not providing back-up for that claim.

 Jidmah wrote:
I followed that rule. I chose a Mek as a HQ choice in a Detachment, since the rulebook allows me to do that. I may then not include another Mek from this data sheet. Rule has been followed, I have a slotted Mek.

I don't think you did, you've put it right there:

 Jidmah wrote:
However, the first part does not apply as I can choose not to use it

Where is that choice in the Rulebook? You never have a choice not to use "that part of the rule".

So, you're saying that you must buy a Mek whenever you buy a Warboss? Interesting. And false. I can follow the rule by not picking a slotless Mek when I buy a slotted Mek. Please prove otherwise, but please without adding words this time.

These are the only Rules you have:

Each slot allows you to take one unit.

Rorschach9 wrote:
DATASHEETS : Each Ork unit in this book has a datasheet. These detail either Army List Entries or Formations, providing all the rules information that you will need to use your models in your games of Warhammer 40,000.

For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet.

So, using the above, show permission to field a Mek, other than "For each HQ choice in a Detachment". How else can you field a Mek?

There you go:

"The boxes on a Force Organisation Chart are referred to as slots. Each slot will typically specify a Battlefield Role. Each slot allows you to take one unit. Black boxes are compulsory selections – you must take at least this many units of the appropriate Battlefield Role to include this Detachment in your army. If you cannot include the compulsory number of units, you cannot include that Detachment. Grey boxes are optional selections – you can include up to this number of units of the appropriate Battlefield Role when including this Detachment in your army. Any further units of the same Battlefield Role will need to be taken in a different Detachment. For example, in order to take a Combined Arms Detachment, you must select two units with the Troops Battlefield Role, and cannot select more than six in the same Detachment"

Look, explicit permission to field units with the HQ battlefield role in HQ slots. If I put one Mek from the Mek datasheet into one HQ slot, I have abided to all rules you have quoted, plus the one you explicitly left out because it hurt your argument.

Each slot allows one Unit
Each Unit is on a datasheet.
To have a Mek "chosen from this datasheet" you need "For each HQ choice in a Detachment"

You just added the word "need". Without that word your sentence becomes wrong. The rule says that you may have Meks from that datasheet when you pick a non-Mek HQ. Neither does it state that Meks can't be chosen normally, nor does it state that taking a HQ is a requirement to pick them.

Judging from you dodging all questions which would show the flaws of your logic, you rewording rules in order to have any argument at all and you leaving out the rule quoted twice in this thread which proves you wrong, I assume that you have no argument and admit being wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
I don't know, I like this whole "May" means you can either take without using a slot, or take using a slot.

For example, a Primary Detachment of Eldar may include a Warlock Council that does not use a slot.

Since the wording is similar to Mekaniaks, I can ignore that part, and take a Warlock Council using an HQ slot. Now I can spam relatively cheap Mastery Level 1 Psykers, by taking multiple detachments.

That's not the argument. The Mek is a single HQ choice, which has an additional option to take it listed in Mechaniaks. People are arguing that the word "may" somehow makes the rule override the basic permission to field HQ choices.

I don't have the Eldar codex at hand, but I assume that, unlike the Mek, it's listed in a box as part of the Farseer entry. If it is, it can only be chosen by buying the parent entry, just like you can't buy Grimaldus' Servitors without buying him.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
I don't know, I like this whole "May" means you can either take without using a slot, or take using a slot.

For example, a Primary Detachment of Eldar may include a Warlock Council that does not use a slot.

Since the wording is similar to Mekaniaks, I can ignore that part, and take a Warlock Council using an HQ slot. Now I can spam relatively cheap Mastery Level 1 Psykers, by taking multiple detachments.

That's not the argument. The Mek is a single HQ choice, which has an additional option to take it listed in Mechaniaks. People are arguing that the word "may" somehow makes the rule override the basic permission to field HQ choices.

I don't have the Eldar codex at hand, but I assume that, unlike the Mek, it's listed in a box as part of the Farseer entry. If it is, it can only be chosen by buying the parent entry, just like you can't buy Grimaldus' Servitors without buying him.

Nope. The Warlock Council is its own entry, without a box, unlike the SM Command Squad.

If it's an independent entry and there is no limitation provided otherwise, I don't see why you wouldn't be able to field it as a HQ choice. It might be worded like the priests from the SoB codex though, which always makes them slotless, no matter how you take them.

I don't think its superior to just taking more farseers though.

 Jidmah wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
"These selections do not use up Force Organisation slots" is a phrase on it's own. It is a rule that, the selection referred to (Mek) has to follow.

You are still breaking this rule.

You are still not providing back-up for that claim.

I do not need back-up to claim a rule must be followed. It's the basis of Warhammer, following rules. You are not following that rule.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I followed that rule. I chose a Mek as a HQ choice in a Detachment, since the rulebook allows me to do that. I may then not include another Mek from this data sheet. Rule has been followed, I have a slotted Mek.

I don't think you did, you've put it right there:

 Jidmah wrote:
However, the first part does not apply as I can choose not to use it

Where is that choice in the Rulebook? You never have a choice not to use "that part of the rule".

So, you're saying that you must buy a Mek whenever you buy a Warboss? Interesting. And false. I can follow the rule by not picking a slotless Mek when I buy a slotted Mek. Please prove otherwise, but please without adding words this time.

I am referring to the choice of using the Rule. You cannot "choose not to use the first part". You can "choose not to have a Mek".
Rule:"For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet."
Again, you must follow rules, and this one has a choice A or B, but you have to follow it, you can't "choose not to use it".

 Jidmah wrote:

These are the only Rules you have:

Each slot allows you to take one unit.

Rorschach9 wrote:
DATASHEETS : Each Ork unit in this book has a datasheet. These detail either Army List Entries or Formations, providing all the rules information that you will need to use your models in your games of Warhammer 40,000.

For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet.

So, using the above, show permission to field a Mek, other than "For each HQ choice in a Detachment". How else can you field a Mek?

There you go:

"The boxes on a Force Organisation Chart are referred to as slots. Each slot will typically specify a Battlefield Role. Each slot allows you to take one unit. Black boxes are compulsory selections – you must take at least this many units of the appropriate Battlefield Role to include this Detachment in your army. If you cannot include the compulsory number of units, you cannot include that Detachment. Grey boxes are optional selections – you can include up to this number of units of the appropriate Battlefield Role when including this Detachment in your army. Any further units of the same Battlefield Role will need to be taken in a different Detachment. For example, in order to take a Combined Arms Detachment, you must select two units with the Troops Battlefield Role, and cannot select more than six in the same Detachment"

Look, explicit permission to field units with the HQ battlefield role in HQ slots. If I put one Mek from the Mek datasheet into one HQ slot, I have abided to all rules you have quoted, plus the one you explicitly left out because it hurt your argument.

You have not abided by the Mekaniaks rule.

The rest of the quoted text does not cite permission to field a Unit without itsrules.

 Amiricle wrote:
take a look at the 2 prior pages. Waaagh! For the warboss, & waaagh! energy for the wierdboy are listed in the same way and both are special rules those units always have as well.

Does the statement above let you field a Warboss without "Waaagh!"?
Or a Weirdboy without "waaagh! energy"?

 Jidmah wrote:

Each slot allows one Unit
Each Unit is on a datasheet.
To have a Mek "chosen from this datasheet" you need "For each HQ choice in a Detachment"

You just added the word "need". Without that word your sentence becomes wrong. The rule says that you may have Meks from that datasheet when you pick a non-Mek HQ. Neither does it state that Meks can't be chosen normally, nor does it state that taking a HQ is a requirement to pick them.

Judging from you dodging all questions which would show the flaws of your logic, you rewording rules in order to have any argument at all and you leaving out the rule quoted twice in this thread which proves you wrong, I assume that you have no argument and admit being wrong.

There are no rules to prove me wrong and i dodged no questions, please ask away i will answer them 1 by 1.
I am not rewording rules but quoting them Verbatim from your own posts, unless you believe you might have made errors quoting them?

"The boxes on a Force Organisation Chart are referred to as slots. Each slot will typically specify a Battlefield Role. Each slot allows you to take one unit. Black boxes are compulsory selections – you must take at least this many units of the appropriate Battlefield Role to include this Detachment in your army. If you cannot include the compulsory number of units, you cannot include that Detachment. Grey boxes are optional selections – you can include up to this number of units of the appropriate Battlefield Role when including this Detachment in your army. Any further units of the same Battlefield Role will need to be taken in a different Detachment. For example, in order to take a Combined Arms Detachment, you must select two units with the Troops Battlefield Role, and cannot select more than six in the same Detachment"

I can include a Mek Unit. It's Datasheet has the Mek's Rules:

"Mekaniaks: For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet. These selections do not use up Force Organisation slots. Before the battle, immediately after determining Warlord Traits, any Mek that is not already part of another unit must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the Infantry or Artillery type in their Detachment; a Mek cannot leave his unit and is treated as part of it for the entire battle for all rules purposes."

Let's break it down:
A) For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet.
B) These selections do not use up Force Organisation slots.
C) Before the battle, immediately after determining Warlord Traits, any Mek that is not already part of another unit must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the Infantry or Artillery type in their Detachment.
C,example) a Mek cannot leave his unit and is treated as part of it for the entire battle for all rules purposes.

Have you followed rule A?
Have you followed rule B?
Have you followed rule C?

Not following either of them needs explicit wording to do so. (Or you can choose not to follow rules, like i can choose not to follow Morale rules)

 BlackTalos wrote:
Let's break it down:
A) For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet.
B) These selections do not use up Force Organisation slots.
C) Before the battle, immediately after determining Warlord Traits, any Mek that is not already part of another unit must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the Infantry or Artillery type in their Detachment.
C,example) a Mek cannot leave his unit and is treated as part of it for the entire battle for all rules purposes.

Have you followed rule A?
Have you followed rule B?
Have you followed rule C?

Not following either of them needs explicit wording to do so. (Or you can choose not to follow rules, like i can choose not to follow Morale rules)

Ok, I pick a Mek and two units of boyz (exact load-out irrelevant) for my CAD. I think we can agree that the basic rules allow me to do that if Mekaniaks wasn't there.

A) For each HQ choice in the Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include single Mek chose from this datasheet.
My only HQ choice in the Detachment is Mek, and therefore I did not use this rule to include another Mek from this datasheet. I followed rule A.
B) These selections do not use up Force Organisation slots.
Since I did not select my Mek in addition to another HQ choice, it does take up a Force Organization slot. I followed rule B.
C) Before the battle, immediately after determining Warlord Traits, any Mek that is not already part of another unit must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the Infantry or Artillery type in their Detachment. [...]
I join my Mek to one of the boyz unit when the game starts. I followed rule C.

As you can see, it's perfectly possible to follow the basic rules without contradicting Mekaniaks in any way.

As for question:
1) According to your logic how do you field an Ork Warband formation in your opinion? How do you get a Mek in there?
2) How do you field a Mek in an unbound army?
3) If I tell you "you may go right" and then "you may go left", which directions are you allowed to go, assuming you haven't moved yet?

So, the comparison to deepstrike rings true, and with there being no explicit denial of the base foc in the mekaniak rule, it would be an additional permission the same as that. As such, I'll concede.

 Jidmah wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Let's break it down:
A) For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet.
B) These selections do not use up Force Organisation slots.
C) Before the battle, immediately after determining Warlord Traits, any Mek that is not already part of another unit must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the Infantry or Artillery type in their Detachment.
C,example) a Mek cannot leave his unit and is treated as part of it for the entire battle for all rules purposes.

Have you followed rule A?
Have you followed rule B?
Have you followed rule C?

Not following either of them needs explicit wording to do so. (Or you can choose not to follow rules, like i can choose not to follow Morale rules)

Ok, I pick a Mek and two units of boyz (exact load-out irrelevant) for my CAD. I think we can agree that the basic rules allow me to do that if Mekaniaks wasn't there.

A) For each HQ choice in the Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include single Mek chose from this datasheet.
My only HQ choice in the Detachment is Mek, and therefore I did not use this rule to include another Mek from this datasheet. I followed rule A.

You did not follow A because you did not do "For each HQ choice in the Detachment ". You just took a Mek from no-where...

 Jidmah wrote:
B) These selections do not use up Force Organisation slots.
Since I did not select my Mek in addition to another HQ choice, it does take up a Force Organization slot. I followed rule B.

You cannot Refer this to A. It's not because you've done A that you can now ignore this.
You have not followed rule B: Your Mek has used up a Force Organisation slot.

 Jidmah wrote:
C) Before the battle, immediately after determining Warlord Traits, any Mek that is not already part of another unit must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the Infantry or Artillery type in their Detachment. [...]
I join my Mek to one of the boyz unit when the game starts. I followed rule C.

As you can see, it's perfectly possible to follow the basic rules without contradicting Mekaniaks in any way.

As for question:
1) According to your logic how do you field an Ork Warband formation in your opinion? How do you get a Mek in there?

You field a formation just like you field a Detachment, it is fully Described in the "Formation" Paragraph of the BrB.
"the Army List Entries that comprises a Formation are listed on it."

 Jidmah wrote:
2) How do you field a Mek in an unbound army?

By following Rule A above: "For each HQ choice in a Detachment" you may take a Mek, if you want to...
There is a discussion on dependent units:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/607376.page#7084183
But mainly agreed that all rules that say "For each HQ choice in a Detachment" or "For each Marneus Calgar in a Detachment" have to be followed to get the unit in question.

 Jidmah wrote:
3) If I tell you "you may go right" and then "you may go left", which directions are you allowed to go, assuming you haven't moved yet?

I can go right, i can go left and i can go straight on, or in a Loop. Those examples of "may" do not have conditions. Better example:
"For each step you walk you may go left."
Can i go left without walking?
"For each €10 you make you may buy 1 model."
Can you buy a model if you made €5?
"For each HQ choice in a Detachment (...) you may include a single Mek.
Can you include a Mek if you took 0 HQs?

 BlackTalos wrote:
You did not follow A because you did not do "For each HQ choice in the Detachment ". You just took a Mek from no-where...

Nowhere? Nope. I took it form the same place I'd take a Big Mek from. Tell me, how do you take Big Meks in your army? And then, how does that differ from regular Meks?

You cannot Refer this to A. It's not because you've done A that you can now ignore this.
You have not followed rule B: Your Mek has used up a Force Organisation slot.

Wat. You do know what the word "These" means? Oxford describes it as "Referring to a specific thing just mentioned".

As for question:
1) According to your logic how do you field an Ork Warband formation in your opinion? How do you get a Mek in there?

You field a formation just like you field a Detachment, it is fully Described in the "Formation" Paragraph of the BrB.
"the Army List Entries that comprises a Formation are listed on it."

Wouldn't that violate the Mekaniaks rule by your logic? If not, why not?

 Jidmah wrote:
2) How do you field a Mek in an unbound army?

By following Rule A above: "For each HQ choice in a Detachment" you may take a Mek, if you want to...

You cannot take HQ choices or Detachments in unbound armies.

There is a discussion on dependent units:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/607376.page#7084183
But mainly agreed that all rules that say "For each HQ choice in a Detachment" or "For each Marneus Calgar in a Detachment" have to be followed to get the unit in question.

Well, what makes you think that a Mek is a "dependent unit"? Because it isn't.

"For each HQ choice in a Detachment (...) you may include a single Mek.
Can you include a Mek if you took 0 HQs?

Can you include a Big Mek?

From 'Basic Versus Advanced':

Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether because they have a special kind of weapon..., unusual skills..., because they are different from their fellows..., or because they are not normal infantry models... The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated in its Army List Entry...

Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules.

You've continually ignored this. The only option the 'Mekaniaks' rule allows is whether or not you take a Mek, nothing more. You can't follow the basic rules for taking a Mek because 'Mekaniaks' is an advanced rule that tells you how to take a Mek. When it comes to a Mek, dues to the 'Mekaniaks' rule the basic rules no loner exist as they are overridden by the special rule.

Ok so now you are using the example of the Big Mek.

So, very first you follow this:
"DATASHEETS : Each Ork unit in this book has a datasheet. These detail either Army List Entries or Formations, providing all the rules information that you will need to use your models in your games of Warhammer 40,000."

You want to use an army with A) a Big Mek Model or another day B) a Mek model.

doing A), you follow the Big Mek datasheet, and then:
"The boxes on a Force Organisation Chart are referred to as slots. Each slot will typically specify a Battlefield Role. Each slot allows you to take one unit. Black boxes are compulsory selections – you must take at least this many units of the appropriate Battlefield Role to include this Detachment in your army. If you cannot include the compulsory number of units, you cannot include that Detachment. Grey boxes are optional selections – you can include up to this number of units of the appropriate Battlefield Role when including this Detachment in your army. Any further units of the same Battlefield Role will need to be taken in a different Detachment. For example, in order to take a Combined Arms Detachment, you must select two units with the Troops Battlefield Role, and cannot select more than six in the same Detachment"

So the Big Mek is now an HQ slot for your detachment.

doing B), you follow the Mek datasheet, which says "For each HQ choice in a Detachment (...) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet". But you have no "HQ choice in a Detachment", why can you "may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet"? That's the only way you can include your Mek Model in your army: choosing this Datasheet.

As for question:
1) According to your logic how do you field an Ork Warband formation in your opinion? How do you get a Mek in there?

You field a formation just like you field a Detachment, it is fully Described in the "Formation" Paragraph of the BrB.
"the Army List Entries that comprises a Formation are listed on it."

Wouldn't that violate the Mekaniaks rule by your logic? If not, why not?

 Ghaz wrote:
From 'Basic Versus Advanced':

Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether because they have a special kind of weapon..., unusual skills..., because they are different from their fellows..., or because they are not normal infantry models... The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated in its Army List Entry...

Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules.

You've continually ignored this. The only option the 'Mekaniaks' rule allows is whether or not you take a Mek, nothing more. You can't follow the basic rules for taking a Mek because 'Mekaniaks' is an advanced rule that tells you how to take a Mek. When it comes to a Mek, dues to the 'Mekaniaks' rule the basic rules no loner exist as they are overridden by the special rule.

You must really be desperate about being right when you are misquoting a rule in oder to prove your point

Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise. They include the rules for movement, shooting and close combat as well as the rules for morale. These are all the rules you’ll need for infantry models.

Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether because they have a special kind of weapon (such as a boltgun), unusual skills (such as the ability to regenerate), because they are different to their fellows (such as a unit leader or a heroic character), or because they are not normal infantry models (a bike, a swarm or even a tank). The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated in its Army List Entry. Army List Entries can be found in a number of Games Workshop publications, such as a Warhammer 40,000 codex.

Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules. For example, the basic rules state that a model must take a Morale check under certain situations. If, however, that model has a special rule that makes it immune to Morale checks, then it does not take such checks – the advanced rule takes precedence. On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence.

Oh, and claiming that I have ignored this is a blatant lie. I have proven multiple times that the rules do not contradict each other and thus are not replaced. Unless you can prove a contradiction, you argument is invalid.

Also Jidmah, to try and show what is wrong again:

 Jidmah wrote:
A) For each HQ choice in the Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include single Mek chose from this datasheet.
My only HQ choice in the Detachment is Mek, and therefore I did not use this rule to include another Mek from this datasheet. I followed rule A.

You keep pointing at the Oxford definition of things, but this is a pure Contradiction, surely you can see that?

You cannot follow a rule if you don't use the Rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:




I think i will stop here trying to explain Centimeters to someone who does not use Rulers.

I have tried to explain your error, but maybe you will understand it another time.

Thank you for your time!

 BlackTalos wrote:
That's the only way you can include your Mek Model in your army: choosing this Datasheet.

Prove this. You keep bringing this up, you can't prove it. Unless you can prove it, you are wrong.

The rule does NOT support this. All your attempts to claim so have been proven wrong.

Why would it? The BrB says "each individual unit maintains its normal Battlefield Role", the Warboss is Still an HQ. "For each HQ choice in a Detachment (Warboss) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet".

I'd argue that army lists don't include HQ choices, but I'll just give this to you. It's irrelevant anyways.

 Jidmah wrote:
A) For each HQ choice in the Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include single Mek chose from this datasheet.
My only HQ choice in the Detachment is Mek, and therefore I did not use this rule to include another Mek from this datasheet. I followed rule A.

We all agree that the rule "For each HQ choice in the Detachment you may include" is broken/ not followed if you take a single Mek, but i have no easy way of explaining this logically, if you could expand on this?

Just because you agree on this, doesn't make it right. I've provided examples from the 40k rules (deep-strike) which work exactly the same, you chose to ignore it. I provided abstract examples working the same, you ignored them.

I'll try one more time:
Rule #1 You have a basket.
Rule #2 You may put fruit in your basket.
Rule #3 Apples are fruit.
Rule #4 For each piece of fruit you put in your basket (not including other apples) you may put a single apple into your basket.

What prevents you from putting a single apple into your basket? Do not paraphrase this example when answering.


"For each HQ choice in the Detachment you may include a Mek." does NOT say, in any way, whether hidden, implied, written in magic ink, or otherwise "You may only take one Mek for each HQ choice".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Also Jidmah, to try and show what is wrong again:

 Jidmah wrote:
A) For each HQ choice in the Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include single Mek chose from this datasheet.
My only HQ choice in the Detachment is Mek, and therefore I did not use this rule to include another Mek from this datasheet. I followed rule A.

You keep pointing at the Oxford definition of things, but this is a pure Contradiction, surely you can see that?

You cannot follow a rule if you don't use the Rule.

I have already proven this wrong, by providing the deep-strike example.

I think i will stop here trying to explain Centimeters to someone who does not use Rulers.

I have tried to explain your error, but maybe you will understand it another time.

Thank you for your time!

There is no error. You are seeing rules which do not exist.

 Jidmah wrote:
Permission to do something (you may) doesn't automatically force you to do it that way or not at all. For example this is part of the deep strike rules: "A Transport vehicle with Deep Strike may Deep Strike regardless of whether its passengers have Deep Strike or not."
So, when looking at the infamous deep-striking Blood Angel Landraider with non-deep-striking passengers, it still has permission to be deployed on the table or arrive from reserves regularly. Just because you may do something does not prevent you from doing it in another way you have been given permission to.

This?

It proves nothing wrong. "A Transport vehicle with Deep Strike may Deep Strike regardless of whether its passengers have Deep Strike or not." The Transport may Deep Strike, or it may not, and this is a situation "regardless of whether its passengers have Deep Strike or not".

The Transport vehicle still needs the Deep Strike Rule to do this, just as the Mek needs the "each HQ choice in the Detachment" to have his "may".

If you don't have "each HQ choice in the Detachment", you don't have the "may" option.
If it doesn't have Deeps Strike, the Transport cannot "may" Deep Strike.

 Jidmah wrote:
I'll try one more time:
Rule #1 You have a basket.
Rule #2 You may put fruit in your basket.
Rule #3 Apples are fruit.
Rule #4 For each piece of fruit you put in your basket (not including other apples) you may put a single apple into your basket.

What prevents you from putting a single apple into your basket? Do not paraphrase this example when answering.

You have to follow Rule #4 to get an Apple in the basket. If you put a single Apple in the Basket, you broke Rule #4: there is no fruit in the basket that allows you to put the apple.
You cannot "skip" or "Ignore" Rule #4, you can't do #1 + #2 + #3 and not #4.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I'll try one more time:
Rule #1 You have a basket.
Rule #2 You may put fruit in your basket.
Rule #3 Apples are fruit.
Rule #4 For each piece of fruit you put in your basket (not including other apples) you may put a single apple into your basket.

What prevents you from putting a single apple into your basket? Do not paraphrase this example when answering.

You have to follow Rule #4 to get an Apple in the basket. If you put a single Apple in the Basket, you broke Rule #4: there is no fruit in the basket that allows you to put the apple.
You cannot "skip" or "Ignore" Rule #4, you can't do #1 + #2 + #3 and not #4.

Thank you for answering. I can tell how your interpretation works from this.

For some reason you seem to believe that #4 imposes a limitation on #2 - why you believe it to be that way, I cannot tell. In my understanding #4 is simply handing out free apples to anyone putting other fruit in their basket. When you put an apple into your basket using #2, #4 simply doesn't give you a second apple.

Maybe it's the difference between my American English and your British English?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Permission to do something (you may) doesn't automatically force you to do it that way or not at all. For example this is part of the deep strike rules: "A Transport vehicle with Deep Strike may Deep Strike regardless of whether its passengers have Deep Strike or not."
So, when looking at the infamous deep-striking Blood Angel Landraider with non-deep-striking passengers, it still has permission to be deployed on the table or arrive from reserves regularly. Just because you may do something does not prevent you from doing it in another way you have been given permission to.

This?

It proves nothing wrong. "A Transport vehicle with Deep Strike may Deep Strike regardless of whether its passengers have Deep Strike or not." The Transport may Deep Strike, or it may not, and this is a situation "regardless of whether its passengers have Deep Strike or not".

The Transport vehicle still needs the Deep Strike Rule to do this, just as the Mek needs the "each HQ choice in the Detachment" to have his "may".

If you don't have "each HQ choice in the Detachment", you don't have the "may" option.
If it doesn't have Deeps Strike, the Transport cannot "may" Deep Strike.

This is... twisted, you didn't get my point at all. The numbers thing seemed to work, so I'll try it here as well.

#1 Transports may be deployed on the table
#2 Transports may arrive from reserves
#3 Transports with deep-strike may arrive via deep strike
#4 Transports with deep-strike may arrive via deep strike even if their passengers are not allowed to deep-strike.

If I put tactical marines in a BA land raider and use #4 to deep-strike it, I'm not using #1 and #2. I'm still not breaking the rules #1 and #2, nor are rules #1 and #2 in conflict with #4.

 Jidmah wrote:

This is... twisted, you didn't get my point at all. The numbers thing seemed to work, so I'll try it here as well.

#1 Transports may be deployed on the table
#2 Transports may arrive from reserves
#3 Transports with deep-strike may arrive via deep strike
#4 Transports with deep-strike may arrive via deep strike even if their passengers are not allowed to deep-strike.

If I put tactical marines in a BA land raider and use #4 to deep-strike it, I'm not using #1 and #2. I'm still not breaking the rules #1 and #2, nor are rules #1 and #2 in conflict with #4.

All of the relevant rules for a situation are in play when you are doing a particular action in 40k.

In this example, rules 1-4 for the transport are all permissions. When you have nothing but permissions, you may obviously do any one of them.

The Mekaniak rule (just as your fruit/basket rule #4) provides a restriction. When you have a Permission and a Restriction, you must follow both.

There is a difference. If you don't see the difference then nothing anyone says is going to convince you that Mekaniaks states you MAY take a Mek, but only for each HQ taken (that is not a Mek). In the case of Formations, they are chosen for you by the rules. In the case of Mek Upgrades in another Ork unit, you are provided permission to make the upgrade (and those Meks are not an HQ choice, but rather a Troops choice from the unit they are upgraded in).


Everything I can possibly say has else has already been said. I'm not going to go in circles like others.

 Jidmah wrote:
So, you're saying that you must buy a Mek whenever you buy a Warboss? Interesting. And false.

No. May buy a Mek when you buy a Warboss. Not must.

And it states I may include a Mek for each HQ choice (not including other Meks). I havn't chosen another HQ choice. How do I then choose a Mek, considering its special rule tells me I may choose one for each HQ choice?

You chose it just like you chose a Big Mek. Or Warboss. Or Zagstrukk. If you can't chose a Mek, you can't chose any HQ, ever.

Except all of the other HQ choices do not have the Mekaniak rule restricting their choice. This line of argument is incorrect.
How do you choose a Mek? You choose another HQ choice, then you can add a Mek. If you havn't, you cannot take a Mek unit with the HQ Battlefield Role.
Or you may upgrade models in other units (per their rules) to a Mek (Troop choice). Or you may pick a formation that has a Mek included (follow the rules for formations).

 Jidmah wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I'll try one more time:
Rule #1 You have a basket.
Rule #2 You may put fruit in your basket.
Rule #3 Apples are fruit.
Rule #4 For each piece of fruit you put in your basket (not including other apples) you may put a single apple into your basket.

What prevents you from putting a single apple into your basket? Do not paraphrase this example when answering.

You have to follow Rule #4 to get an Apple in the basket. If you put a single Apple in the Basket, you broke Rule #4: there is no fruit in the basket that allows you to put the apple.
You cannot "skip" or "Ignore" Rule #4, you can't do #1 + #2 + #3 and not #4.

Thank you for answering. I can tell how your interpretation works from this.

For some reason you seem to believe that #4 imposes a limitation on #2 - why you believe it to be that way, I cannot tell. In my understanding #4 is simply handing out free apples to anyone putting other fruit in their basket. When you put an apple into your basket using #2, #4 simply doesn't give you a second apple.

Maybe it's the difference between my American English and your British English?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Permission to do something (you may) doesn't automatically force you to do it that way or not at all. For example this is part of the deep strike rules: "A Transport vehicle with Deep Strike may Deep Strike regardless of whether its passengers have Deep Strike or not."
So, when looking at the infamous deep-striking Blood Angel Landraider with non-deep-striking passengers, it still has permission to be deployed on the table or arrive from reserves regularly. Just because you may do something does not prevent you from doing it in another way you have been given permission to.

This?

It proves nothing wrong. "A Transport vehicle with Deep Strike may Deep Strike regardless of whether its passengers have Deep Strike or not." The Transport may Deep Strike, or it may not, and this is a situation "regardless of whether its passengers have Deep Strike or not".

The Transport vehicle still needs the Deep Strike Rule to do this, just as the Mek needs the "each HQ choice in the Detachment" to have his "may".

If you don't have "each HQ choice in the Detachment", you don't have the "may" option.
If it doesn't have Deeps Strike, the Transport cannot "may" Deep Strike.

This is... twisted, you didn't get my point at all. The numbers thing seemed to work, so I'll try it here as well.

#1 Transports may be deployed on the table
#2 Transports may arrive from reserves
#3 Transports with deep-strike may arrive via deep strike
#4 Transports with deep-strike may arrive via deep strike even if their passengers are not allowed to deep-strike.

If I put tactical marines in a BA land raider and use #4 to deep-strike it, I'm not using #1 and #2. I'm still not breaking the rules #1 and #2, nor are rules #1 and #2 in conflict with #4.

Can you hypothesize as to why players feel they cannot take a little mek as an HQ slot? Maybe if you "wear there shoes for a day" you could try and explain it a different way?

added to previous reply

Rorschach9 wrote:
The Mekaniak rule (just as your fruit/basket rule #4) provides a restriction. When you have a Permission and a Restriction, you must follow both.

Why does it provide a restriction? Why is it not a second permission?

There is a difference. If you don't see the difference then nothing anyone says is going to convince you that Mekaniaks states you MAY take a Mek,

Oh, for Christs sake. Writing the goddamn word in caps, bold, colors, italics or font size 40000 doesn't explain a goddamn thing. I have literally checked fifteen, as in 15 dictionaries to find any connection between the words "may" or "for each" and restrictions. I have found none. Which has provided me with sufficient proof that there is none. The only relevant connection to "may" is providing permission. Which leads me to believe that it can only be an additional permission to the permission(s) you already have.

When replacing "may" and "for each" with their respective definitions, the rule reads:
"From every one HQ choice in the Detachment (not including other Meks) you are given permission to include single Mek chosen from this datasheet.

The rule give you permission to field a single, slotless Mek every time you chose a HQ. This permission does not contradict, overrule or invalidate any other permissions. If you feel different, explain why you do. Don't just write the word in caps like its self-explanatory.

but only for each HQ taken (that is not a Mek).

See, here's the catch. None of you can argue that it's a restriction without adding words which are not part of the rule. Which is a pretty good sign for me to assume you to be wrong.

In the case of Formations, they are chosen for you by the rules.

You'd still violate that "restriction" you people are seeing, making it illegal to ever field the formation.

@osirisx69: I'm trying to do that, but when no one is doing anything but ignoring any counter-arguments, repeating the same things over and over again and stating "I'm right, because that's the way it works", there is little to be gained from it. There aren't even any real argument to talk about on the anti-mek-HQ side.

 Jidmah wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:
The Mekaniak rule (just as your fruit/basket rule #4) provides a restriction. When you have a Permission and a Restriction, you must follow both.

Why does it provide a restriction? Why is it not a second permission?

There is a difference. If you don't see the difference then nothing anyone says is going to convince you that Mekaniaks states you MAY take a Mek,

Oh, for Christs sake. Writing the goddamn word in caps, bold, colors, italics or font size 40000 doesn't explain a goddamn thing. I have literally checked fifteen, as in 15 dictionaries to find any connection between the words "may" or "for each" and restrictions. I have found none. Which has provided me with sufficient proof that there is none. The only relevant connection to "may" is providing permission. Which leads me to believe that it can only be an additional permission to the permission(s) you already have.

When replacing "may" and "for each" with their respective definitions, the rule reads:
"From every one HQ choice in the Detachment (not including other Meks) you are given permission to include single Mek chosen from this datasheet.

The rule give you permission to field a single, slotless Mek every time you chose a HQ. This permission does not contradict, overrule or invalidate any other permissions. If you feel different, explain why you do. Don't just write the word in caps like its self-explanatory.

but only for each HQ taken (that is not a Mek).

See, here's the catch. None of you can argue that it's a restriction without adding words which are not part of the rule. Which is a pretty good sign for me to assume you to be wrong.

For each HQ (that is not a Mek) taken in your detachment you may take a Mek.

This sentence gives you explicit permission to take a Mek, for each HQ chosen (that is not a Mek). So if you don't choose an HQ that is a Mek, you ... what? The antithesis of May is May not. Even using your replacement words it is still a restriction. You are given permission to include a single mek, chosen from this datasheet .. when? For every one HQ choice in the detachment chosen. If you have not chosen another HQ, you are not granted the permission to choose a Mek from that datasheet, as in order to satisfy all rules involved, you must actually follow all rules involved (and Mekaniak is most certainly a rule involved with any Mek chosen from the Mek HQ Datasheet).

Clearly your interpretation will not differ and you will fail to see the restriction inherent in that rule. We are at an impasse and are doomed to go around in meaningless circles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

In the case of Formations, they are chosen for you by the rules.

You'd still violate that "restriction" you people are seeing, making it illegal to ever field the formation.

Except the rules for Formations disagrees.

No, I've changed my mind and agree with Jidmah. It's an added permission that doesn't contradict the base rule, so therefore doesn't cause an override.
You only need to have a previous hq if you want your mek to be slotless and go beyond the max HQ FoC. If your mek uses an HQ slot then you don't need a previous HQ. The fact that it says not including other meks means that a mek can be an HQ. If all meks from this datasheet had to follow that first line (and only that first line) this could never be the case as they'd all be slotless anyway (like a priest).

 Amiricle wrote:
No, I've changed my mind and agree with Jidmah. It's an added permission that doesn't contradict the base rule, so therefore doesn't cause an override.
You only need to have a previous hq if you want your mek to be slotless and go beyond the max HQ FoC. If your mek uses an HQ slot then you don't need a previous HQ. The fact that it says not including other meks means that a mek can be an HQ. If all meks from this datasheet had to follow that first line (and only that first line) this could never be the case as they'd all be slotless anyway (like a priest).

It states "not including other Meks" because once you have taken an HQ and a Mek this then prevents you from saying "Ah, but I have a Mek, so I can take a Mek .. ah, I have a Mek, so I can take another Mek! Ahah, I have another Mek, so I can take another Mek..." and so on, thus allowing unlimited Meks. They may not take up a FOC slot, but they are still an HQ choice as they come from the HQ Battlefield Role on the Datasheet.

 Amiricle wrote:
No, I've changed my mind and agree with Jidmah. It's an added permission that doesn't contradict the base rule, so therefore doesn't cause an override.
You only need to have a previous hq if you want your mek to be slotless and go beyond the max HQ FoC. If your mek uses an HQ slot then you don't need a previous HQ. The fact that it says not including other meks means that a mek can be an HQ. If all meks from this datasheet had to follow that first line (and only that first line) this could never be the case as they'd all be slotless anyway (like a priest).

This is how I see it also. I was on the fence even when the codex 1st came out but now I am not.

That's an interpretation, sure, but it can be interpreted either way so it's inconclusive. Could have just worded it like the priest saying this model does not count as an HQ.

Fact is, this rule and the base rule can co-exist happily. For a rule override to occur, there would have to be a direct contradiction which, as Jidmah has elaborately pointed out, isn't happening here. You only break the rule if you take a slotless mek without another HQ. If you take him as an HQ, the rule doesn't apply, since he's not slotless. It's using one of 2 permissions like the deepstrike example. Again, this can coexist with the base rule, so there is no override.

Perhaps bringing up a different iteration of this might help clear things up a little. The Techmarines in the new GK codex has a rule with identical wording. For each HQ choice, you can include a techmarine. So does that mean you can take a techmarine on his own as an HQ choice? No, because as a lot of us are pointing out, there is not another HQ choice. Part A (for each HQ choice) has to be true before reaching the rest of the rule. It is the basis of the sentence, and is the primary condition of it. If there is no other HQ choice, then the rule is already not being followed.

EDIT: Short version.If you think Meks can be taken on their own, then you MUST also be agreeing that Techmarines can be taken on their own as well, as it is the exact same concept with the exact same wording. So if for some reason you think that Meks can be taken on their own, but you disagree about techmarines, that in itself points out that your argument is flawed.

Tech marines can be taken solo if the wording is the same

No one has said anything about techmarines until now so I'm not sure where that post came from. Regardless, if the wording is exactly the same, then yes, the result would be the same. I don't have that codex digitally, so I can neither confirm nor deny that is the case.

... or Royal Court, or Court of the Archon, or Lone Wolf, or Warlock Council, or Dark Angels Techmarine, or Tyrant Guard Brood, or Commissar...

So a 10 point Servitor is enough to fill a Mandatory HQ Roll?

 Ghaz wrote:
... or Royal Court, or Court of the Archon, or Lone Wolf, or Warlock Council, or Dark Angels Techmarine, or Tyrant Guard Brood, or Commissar...

Do those 6th ed codexes have the HQ icon on their datasheet?

the royal court needs a necron overlord, the ork mek has no such requirements and has the HQ icon on their datasheet.

It's not the same thing.

The icon is no different than the header used in older codices.

Ok, at home and have had a look at those respective units and I am even more convinced. There is even mention of this type of unit on page 121 BRB. All it explains there is that you must meet the requirements to have the unit/model be slotless. No where in there does it say having that option removes it's previous permission to USE a FoC slot. The court of the archon is iffy due to it being an obvious sub-category of Archon, but all those others mentioned look fine.
The exceptions to this are called out very specifically in their respective unit entries for the Commissar: "You may include one Commissar for every Company Command Squad or Platoon Command Squad in your army. They do not take up a Force Organisation slot, and do not qualify as a mandatory HQ selection." as well as the Ministorum Priest: "Each Astra Militarum detachment may include 0-3 Ministorum Priests. They do not take up a Force Organisation slot, and do not qualify as a mandatory HQ selection."
The mekaniaks special rule does not have that restriction that the commissar or priest have.

Do note that the Lone Wolf and Servitor are Elites, so no, a 10 point servitor would not be enough to fill a mandatory HQ roll. It could fill an elite roll though.

There is a problem with your theory and that is that the Rules you have quoted singles out mandatory Head Quarter selection.
As the Rule quoted does not contain any wording to state that the Unit can be selected to fill a non-mandatory Head Quarter Slot, it is a stretch to state that it is evidence to prove that concept. All it does is Restrict the Units in question from meeting the requirements for a 'mandatory selection.' It is only possible to state that these Units can not be included when calculating if all Mandatory Slot Requirements have been met, anything more is an assumption not based on Written Rules. This is very important as there already exists Detachments with more then one mandatory Head Quarter Slot, and who knows what the future will bring.

So such a Rule would only prevent us from filling one Slot with a Head Quarter unit, evoking this Rule to take a second Slot-less Head Quarter Unit, then trying to state that both mandatory Head Quarter Slots have been filled....

Given that the Rulebook informs us that Slot-less Units must follow all Restrictions found in their Army List Entry, and this Rule grants the Mek Slot-less status contains Restrictions on how it can be selected....
Where does permission to ignore this Rule entirely come from?

Putting forth the use of a commissar or priest to fill a non-mandatory slot is a debate for another thread. I only noted it to show that the mek does not have it.
The rulebook informs that slotless units must follow these restrictions in order to remain slotless. Failing to meet these restrictions, and absent any other special restrictions (i.e. the commissar & priest examples), you fall back to the previous rule in that the unit uses the slot of its' battlefield role, and in this meks' case, that is an HQ.

I would like to point out that certain Space Wolf characters do specify that they take a slot unless you include certain units.

Amiricle,
Can you quote the Rule from the book which states that the Unit only has to follow those Restrictions to remain slotless?

Right now my line of thinking is thus:
Does the Mek contain a Rule describing the Unit as Slotless?
- Yes
The Unit therefore falls under the Rules for "Army List Entries That Do Not Use Force Organization Slot's" and the instruction to follow the other Requirements is binding.

JinxDragon wrote:
Can you quote the Rule from the book which states that the Unit only has to follow those Restrictions to remain slotless?

BRB page 121, second paragraph: Army List Entries That Do Not Use Force Organization Slots

Curious as that is the Rule I am referring to as well, and I don't see where it states that the Unit simply loses the 'slot-less' status if it fails to follow the restrictions.
Mine curiously uses the words must still adhere to any restrictions which would make it non-optional....

Maybe you can quote the line for me, in case this is a misprint?

You mean the one that says the following?

... but they must still adhere to any restrictions detailed on the Detachment and it's own Army List Entry. If the Army List Entry states that it can be included in an army that includes another specified unit, and that it does not take up a Force Organization slot, it must join the same Detachment as that specified unit.

Are you baiting me? A poor choice of wording on my part, but lets not descend into grammar battles, as that'll just get this thread shut down.

It describes what you must do to have the unit entry gain a slotless status. Don't meet those restrictions and it cannot gain a slotless status, erego retaining it's battlefield role from the previous step.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:
You mean the one that says the following?

... but they must still adhere to any restrictions detailed on the Detachment and it's own Army List Entry. If the Army List Entry states that it can be included in an army that includes another specified unit, and that it does not take up a Force Organization slot, it must join the same Detachment as that specified unit.

thats the one

It describes what happens to Units which have Rules describing them as Slot-less, not how they gain the status.

The question is therefore simple:
When you select the Mek, does it's Army List have a Rule which describes it as Slot-less?

Yes, but does that matter? We are assigning it it's battlefield role slot, not aiming to remove it from one. It already has permission to be used in it's specified battlefield role.
When you select the mek, does it have a rule which removes that permission?

It matters greatly, for without specific Permission to ignore a Rule it is part of the Rule as Written equation.

And where does the 'Army List Entries That Do Not Use Force Organization Chart Slots' or the Mek's own army list entry give that as an option?

 Amiricle wrote:
Yes, but does that matter? We are assigning it it's battlefield role slot, not aiming to remove it from one. It already has permission to be used in it's specified battlefield role.
When you select the mek, does it have a rule which removes that permission?

Being placed in a FOC slot or not does not change or remove the units Battlefield Role. "Slotless" Meks absolutely have the HQ Battlefield role. This role is assigned by the unit entry, not by being "slotless" or filling a FOC slot.

All units with a battlefield role have that option. They begin with it, It is literally the first option a unit has after choosing the detachment in the whole process of the "Choosing Your Army" chapter.
A unit with additional permissions doesn't lose ones it already has unless a special rule states it does.
To quote Jidmah from earlier:

Permission to do something (you may) doesn't automatically force you to do it that way or not at all. For example this is part of the deep strike rules: "A Transport vehicle with Deep Strike may Deep Strike regardless of whether its passengers have Deep Strike or not."
So, when looking at the infamous deep-striking Blood Angel Landraider with non-deep-striking passengers, it still has permission to be deployed on the table or arrive from reserves regularly. Just because you may do something does not prevent you from doing it in another way you have been given permission

The only restrictive part about the rule is the restriction you must follow in order to make use of the advantage the rule grants. If you are not making use of the extra option, the restriction doesn't apply.
The rule is not a requirement. It's an additional permission that you can either use or not use to field more than one HQ choice per slot. A rule that comes after the "Battlefield Roles" and "Force Organisation Charts And Slots" rules. A rule that does not deny the use of those previous rules. A rule that you must follow only if you want the extra tactical advantage of choosing that unit without it using a slot.

And again, from 'Basic Versus Advanced':

Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether because they have a special kind of weapon..., unusual skills..., because they are different from their fellows..., or because they are not normal infantry models... The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated in its Army List Entry...

Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules.

Right, but these 2 rules don't contradict, they co-exist quite happily, so there is no override.

Edit: As an addendum, you might note that earlier I was debating against this topic, but that entry right there Ghaz, combined with the permissions comment by Jidmah is what caused me to rethink and change my stance, seeing that there is no issue with this.

Quite right

JinxDragon wrote:
It describes what happens to Units which have Rules describing them as Slot-less, not how they gain the status.

The question is therefore simple:
When you select the Mek, does it's Army List have a Rule which describes it as Slot-less?

The slot-less phrase is worded to only trigger when selecting meks in addition to other HQs. If you select a Mek without buying another HQ first, there is no way to make it slot-less. For example, if you chose a warboss and two meks, one of the meks would be slot-less and one would not.

 Jidmah wrote:
When replacing "may" and "for each" with their respective definitions, the rule reads:
"From every one HQ choice in the Detachment (not including other Meks) you are given permission to include single Mek chosen from this datasheet.

The rule give you permission to field a single, slotless Mek every time you chose a HQ. This permission does not contradict, overrule or invalidate any other permissions.

To try and explain the Restriction/Permission on this rule (because the slot-less argument might work but i don't think it'll explain much...).

The rule has a permission: "to field a single, slotless Mek every time you chose a HQ"
The rule has a restriction (that we see but you don't?): "It is a Special Rule" (It's listed under the heading "Special Rules" for the Mek.

Because it is a Special Rule, you must follow it. (per every time i say "follow the rules" statement and Rule quotes)

In a way, because you must follow the rule to may have a Slotless Mek, it is the only possible way to field a Mek.
Having a non-Slotless Mek (in our opinion, backed by this Rule) is impossible, because you have ignore the Restriction of "must" use the above Permission.

Because you "must" use the permission, you can "From every one HQ choice in the Detachment" choose to have a Mek or not. You can make the choice to have one or not, but that choice is mandatory for every Mek on the Tabletop (Using the Mekaniak Rule - so not the Lootas Meks)

Hoping this maybe helps...

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
When replacing "may" and "for each" with their respective definitions, the rule reads:
"From every one HQ choice in the Detachment (not including other Meks) you are given permission to include single Mek chosen from this datasheet.

The rule give you permission to field a single, slotless Mek every time you chose a HQ. This permission does not contradict, overrule or invalidate any other permissions.

To try and explain the Restriction/Permission on this rule (because the slot-less argument might work but i don't think it'll explain much...).

The rule has a permission: "to field a single, slotless Mek every time you chose a HQ"
The rule has a restriction (that we see but you don't?): "It is a Special Rule" (It's listed under the heading "Special Rules" for the Mek.

Because it is a Special Rule, you must follow it. (per every time i say "follow the rules" statement and Rule quotes)

In a way, because you must follow the rule to may have a Slotless Mek, it is the only possible way to field a Mek.
Having a non-Slotless Mek (in our opinion, backed by this Rule) is impossible, because you have ignore the Restriction of "must" use the above Permission.

Because you "must" use the permission, you can "From every one HQ choice in the Detachment" choose to have a Mek or not. You can make the choice to have one or not, but that choice is mandatory for every Mek on the Tabletop (Using the Mekaniak Rule - so not the Lootas Meks)

Hoping this maybe helps...

I see where you're coming from, but that's exactly where you are wrong. A rule that adds permission does not force you to use that permission. You do not have to use permissions, ever. That's the big mistake.

A couple of counter-examples:
- When you have the deep-strike special rule, you are merely given permission to arrive from deep-strike. You do not have to arrive from deep-strike.
- Another example is 'ere we go. You are given permission to re-roll one of your charge dice. You do not have to re-roll your charge dice.
- Interceptor gives you permission to shoot at enemies arriving from reserves. You do not have to shoot any units, though.

A couple of examples that do not grant permission but rather tell you what to do:
- Blast explicitly tells you not to roll to hit and use the blast marker instead. You do not only have permission to use the blast marker, you are told to use it instead of the basic rules.
- Armourbane. It specifically tells you to add another dice for penetration rolls, rather than giving you permission to add another dice. For that reason you must add the extra dice.
- Get's Hot is applied every time you fire the weapon, you are not given permission to use it, it simply happens every time you shoot in addition to whatever else is happening.

If you assume that you absolutely must use permissions, then:
- All terminators must always arrive via deep-strike.
- Passengers must always disembark from their transport during the movement phase.
- Bikes, fliers and FMC must always jink when shot at.
- All infantry must always go to ground when shot at.
- Characters must always declare challenges.
- Monstrous creatures must always trade their attacks for a single smash attack.
- ...

I could keep going forever, but I think it's clear that the game does not work that way. I hope you can see why you are not forced to follow permissions now.

No, you misunderstand. I am not stating that you must use the permission.

I am stating that you must include the permission into your game, IE you must follow the permission rule:

A couple of counter-examples:
- When you have the deep-strike special rule, you are merely given permission to arrive from deep-strike. You do not have to arrive from deep-strike.
- Another example is 'ere we go. You are given permission to re-roll one of your charge dice. You do not have to re-roll your charge dice.
- Interceptor gives you permission to shoot at enemies arriving from reserves. You do not have to shoot any units, though.

You have permission to Deep Strike when you have the Deep Strike rule.
If you decide to not Deep Strike, does your Unit not have the Deep Strike rule anymore?
So (i am trying to remember a rule) if we say "All units with Deep Strike must start in reserves" can you choose that your unit does not have the Deep Strike Special Rule?
Even if you deployed from reserves normally (You did not use the Deep Strike Permission) you must still start the game in reserves because you have the rule.


You have permission to re-roll one of your charge dice when you have the 'ere we go rule.
Does that mean you can re-roll the dice because you have Fleet?
You chose option A: I will not re-roll that Dice. But you must still follow the Rule that it has granted you a re-roll of the Dice.

You have permission to shoot at enemies arriving from reserves when you have the Interceptor rule.
Can you decide to shoot at ground Targets with Full BS?
Same as the Mek: You decided to field a Quad gun that chooses not to fire interceptor, does that mean we can choose not to use the Interceptor rule and fire the gun normally?

Other examples from the BRB:
"During the Assault phase, units may move into close combat" Choice: A -move into close combat; B-not move into close combat.
I decide to B-not move into close combat. does that mean I choose not to use the Assault Phase? I can ignore the Assault phase?

"a unit being charged may only fire Overwatch once per turn." Choice: A-Fire Overwatch; B-not fire Overwatch
If i don't overwatch, can choose not to use this rule and Overwatch 2 other units afterward?
The "once per Turn" is only if you "may only fire Overwatch", so if you don't fire, you don't follow the rule?

"Gargantuan Creatures and Gliding Flying Gargantuan Creatures may make Stomp attacks in the same manner as Super-heavy Walkers." Choice: A-Make stomp attack; B-not Stomp
If i choose to B - not Stomp, does it mean i can choose not to use this rule and my Stomp are no longer "in the same manner as Super-heavy Walkers". What are they then?

"A vehicle that moved at Combat Speed may fire a single weapon using its Ballistic Skill."
So if i choose B-not to fire, i can say my vehicle moved at Cruising Speed? because i choose not to use that rule.

"The Flyer is in close combat, in which case models may move into contact with the vehicle’s hull, its base or both." So i can choose A- contact with Hull, B-contact with Base or C-Contact with both.
Can i choose to not use the rule and be in Close Combat while touching nothing?

Is any of this making any good examples?
The choice is a Permission, but making the choice is a Restriction.
You have to follow the Rule, regardless of if you choose A or B (or C...)

So with the Rule: "For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet."
You can choose A - Include a single Mek or B - not Include a single Mek "for each HQ choice in a Detachment"
But you are forced to follow the Rule (and make the choice).

Just like the examples you give:
I am stating that you must include the permission into your game, IE you must follow the permission rule:

A couple of counter-examples:
- When you have the deep-strike special rule, you are merely given permission to arrive from deep-strike. You do not have to arrive from deep-strike.
- Another example is 'ere we go. You are given permission to re-roll one of your charge dice. You do not have to re-roll your charge dice.
- Interceptor gives you permission to shoot at enemies arriving from reserves. You do not have to shoot any units, though.

- If my opponent puts a Unit of Terminators in Reserves, and Rolls a 5 for them to arrive, he must choose if they arrive by DS or not. He cannot put them on the table, in DS formation 6" from his Table side and say "they have arrived". He must say "they arrive by DS" OR "they walk on".
-a Unit with 'ere we go Charges my Unit and Roll 3+5. The opponent must choose to re-roll or not to re-roll. He can't roll the 3 again and say "i choose to not re-roll"
-If my unit arrives from reserves, the opponent must choose if he is Intercepting or not. He can't choose to Intercept after i decide to Run with a unit from Reserves. the choice must be made.

 BlackTalos wrote:
No, you misunderstand. I am not stating that you must use the permission.

Well, you just said exactly that.

The Mekaniaks rule gives permission to field meks when fielding HQs. You just said, like four times in a row, that I must use that permission. You are wrong.

So (i am trying to remember a rule) if we say "All units with Deep Strike must start in reserves" can you choose that your unit does not have the Deep Strike Special Rule?

Even if you deployed from reserves normally (You did not use the Deep Strike Permission) you must still start the game in reserves because you have the rule.

You're rewording the example again. Which means that you can't apply your logic to the actual deep strike rule. Which means you are wrong.
Deep strike works exactly as I described, which means that Mekaniaks works that way as well.

You chose option A: I will not re-roll that Dice. But you must still follow the Rule that it has granted you a re-roll of the Dice.

According to you, you MUST re-roll that dice. According to you, you are breaking the rules when you chose option A. According to you, you are not following the rule that has granted you the re-roll.
According to me, that would be right, of course.

Other examples from the BRB:
[stuff]

You seem to have trouble to understand basic logic. If A -> B nothing tells you that B -> A or even that !B -> !A. That is a basic principle of logic, look it up.

If the assault phase results into making charge moves, not making charge moves does not result in there not being an assault phase.
If a gargantuan creature can stomp, not stomping does not stop the unit from being a gargantuan creature.
If cruising speed results in not firing weapons, nothing makes not firing weapons result in cruising speed.
For the same reason, if picking a HQ results in fielding a mek, nothing makes fielding a meks result in also having a HQ.

All your examples here are proof of you being wrong.

So with the Rule: "For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet."
You can choose A - Include a single Mek or B - not Include a single Mek "for each HQ choice in a Detachment"
But you are forced to follow the Rule (and make the choice).

The point you are missing, is that there is also C: I can field a mek as HQ choice, without an additional HQ. That rule has been there all along, with or without Mekaniaks. I quoted it like three times now, so I will not bother quoting it again.

- If my opponent puts a Unit of Terminators in Reserves, and Rolls a 5 for them to arrive, he must choose if they arrive by DS or not. He cannot put them on the table, in DS formation 6" from his Table side and say "they have arrived". He must say "they arrive by DS" OR "they walk on".

Wrong. He can also deploy them in his land-raider on the table. He can just put them on the table. With the right warlord trait he could even infiltrate them. He doesn't have to chose anything regarding deep-strike despite having the rule.

In order to make my post sound less hostile I've decided to delete my answers to your various strawman arguments and dodges - not to mention that you chose to ignore half of the example contradicting your logic. All can be summed up by you making up a complete arbitrary rules violations which have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Your opponent might as well flip the table and stomp your miniatures to dust. I have proven in a multitude of ways that I am not violating a rule when picking a slotted mek, therefore all your examples are null and void.

So, riddle me this, batman:



Is this fictive unit choice a legal HQ choice? If you answer with anything but yes or no, I will assume that you do not have an argument and are only continuing this discussion because you are unable to accept that you are wrong.

Yes, it is a legal HQ choice that can only be taken if you have another HQ choice (other than a Mek) and does not take up a slot on the Force Organization chart. You do not have the option to ignore the 'Mekaniaks' rule because its wording does not give you that option and therefore it overrides the basic rule per the 'Basic Versus Advanced' rule.

There is no mekaniaks rule, please answer again.



Is this fictive unit choice a legal HQ choice? If you answer with anything but yes or no, I will assume that you do not have an argument and are only continuing this discussion because you are unable to accept that you are wrong.

There is a 'Mekaniaks' rule and you've failed to prove that you have the option not to follow that rule. If you have to deliberately remove it to prove your point then there's no point in continuing this discussion.

Thanks for admitting that you do not have an argument. I kindly request that you stop intentionally misleading readers of YMDC.

You have ignored all evidence to the contrary. The restriction only applies if you want to field it without its FoC slot.

I have an argument. It requires that you not intentionally ignore rules that don't support the answer you want. So far you've not provided anything that says you can ignore the 'Mekaniaks' rule.

I have posted like three pages of rules, argumentation proving my point and disproving counter-points, while you have provided almost two dozen one-liners without content.

You also refuse to answer a simple yes/no question because it would prove you wrong.



Is the fictive unit choice shown in this picture a legal HQ choice?

 Jidmah wrote:
I have posted like three pages of rules, argumentation proving my point and disproving counter-points, while you have provided almost two dozen one-liners without content.

You also refuse to answer a simple yes/no question because it would prove you wrong.



Is the fictive unit choice shown in this picture a legal HQ choice?

Yes it is fully legal.

Your Loaded question does not prove anything, it gets the meaningless answer of 'yes' but the conditions placed within make the whole thing useless as a comparison....

The counter argument has always been simple:
It is generally accepted that that all the Rules found listed on an Army List Entry apply to the Models within that Unit, unless otherwise stated within the Rule
It has never been possible to simply declare that a Rule is not being evoked even if that Rule grants only positive effects, unless otherwise stated within the Rule
It has never been possible to simply declare a Rule is not being evoked to ignore a negative effect found within a Rule, unless otherwise stated within the Rule

So why would we conclude that a Rule found on the Mek Unit can safely be removed from the equation without Written permission to do so?
Simply stating that the one does not wish to use the benefits, so therefore are not bound by the restrictions, is not legal

So the question is simple:
Why are you removing this Rule from the Army List Entry?
If you are not removing it, then why are you ignoring instructions provided to you by a Codex specific Rule?

Not saying to remove the rule from the entry, or that it is ignored, just that it presents an option not chosen. Before accusing me or Jidmah of ignoring rules, try to realise that that is what you are doing. Ignoring the first rule any unit gets - it's battlefield role.

 Amiricle wrote:
All units with a battlefield role have that option. They begin with it, It is literally the first option a unit has after choosing the detachment in the whole process of the "Choosing Your Army" chapter.
A unit with additional permissions doesn't lose ones it already has unless a special rule states it does.
To quote Jidmah from earlier:

Permission to do something (you may) doesn't automatically force you to do it that way or not at all. For example this is part of the deep strike rules: "A Transport vehicle with Deep Strike may Deep Strike regardless of whether its passengers have Deep Strike or not."
So, when looking at the infamous deep-striking Blood Angel Landraider with non-deep-striking passengers, it still has permission to be deployed on the table or arrive from reserves regularly. Just because you may do something does not prevent you from doing it in another way you have been given permission

The only restrictive part about the rule is the restriction you must follow in order to make use of the advantage the rule grants. If you are not making use of the extra option, the restriction doesn't apply.
The rule is not a requirement. It's an additional permission that you can either use or not use to field more than one HQ choice per slot. A rule that comes after the "Battlefield Roles" and "Force Organisation Charts And Slots" rules. A rule that does not deny the use of those previous rules. A rule that you must follow only if you want the extra tactical advantage of choosing that unit without it using a slot.

Putting aside that one of the arguments presented was literally physically removing the Rule from the Entry before posting it here...
If the Rule is part of the equation then the Restrictions within Must be followed, it really is that simple.

When you Select the Mek Entry from the Army List it contains a multi-clause Rule right on the Entry itself. This Rule informs us how to go about including the Entry into Your Army, with more specific instructions that must be obeyed if the Entry in question is ever to be Selected. Because these instructions do not state that the Unit can still be included in the Army if the Restrictions have not been met, the internal requirement on how to include that Entry into Your Army must therefore be met or else it's inclusion has broken a Rule. The only way to by-pass this set of instructions would be to prove they are not part of the equation, that we have permission to ignore their existence entirely, which requires specific Permission that we have yet to see presented.

Simply stating that the basic Rules allow an Entry with the right Battlefield Role to be Selected is not enough to bypass a Rule within that Army List Entry on how it is to be included into the Army.

Thank you.

It is a legal choice to pick a Mek from that edited datasheet because the basic rules have given us permission to do so.

Now, let's have a look at one of the rules that keeps getting quoted:

Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise.

So now you might quote this:
Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules.

Contradiction - A combination of statements, ideas, or features which are opposed to one another

We have already established that the two permissions "you may go right" and "you may go left" do not contradict each other, despite actually going left and right is opposed to one another.

For this reason the two permissions "You may field a mek as HQ choice, it takes up a slot." and "For each HQ choice you may include a single Mek. These Meks do not use up a slot." do not contradict each other either.

Since there is no contradiction, basic rules still apply. Therefore I can still field a single Mek as a HQ choice.



According to that basic vs specific rule, this unedited datasheet does not take that basic permission away unless it says so - which it doesn't do at all.

In fact, it adds a second permission to field Meks for every HQ choice we take, unless they are a Mek themselves - and, when we do, it makes them not take up a slot.

Now you are arguing that I'm ignoring a rule.

Even when I do pick a Mek as HQ choice I am not allowed to ignore any part of the Mekaniaks rule. Since my HQ choice is another Mek, the first two sentences of Mekaniaks tell me that I cannot chose to include another single Mek in the same slot. Mekaniaks then tells me that I must join the Mek to a unit if possible.

On the other hand, picking a non-Mek as a HQ choice also doesn't allow you to ignore any part of the Mekaniaks rule either. The first sentence tells you to decide whether you include a mek or not (may), if you chose to include the Mek, the second sentence makes it not use up a slot.

Therefore picking a Mek as slotted HQ choice is possible while not ignoring the Mekaniaks rule at all.



This is my argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@JinxedDragon: I never claimed that the edited sheets reflects the actual rules at all. Note the word "fictive" as in made up, imaginary.

 Jidmah wrote:
According to that basic vs specific rule, this unedited datasheet does not take that basic permission away unless it says so - which it doesn't do at all.

You have that backwards. The advanced rule does take away permission if it differs from the basic rules unless it says it doesn't.

And to reiterate,The exceptions to this are called out very specifically in their respective unit entries for the Commissar: "You may include one Commissar for every Company Command Squad or Platoon Command Squad in your army. They do not take up a Force Organisation slot, and do not qualify as a mandatory HQ selection." as well as the Ministorum Priest:"Each Astra Militarum detachment may include 0-3 Ministorum Priests. They do not take up a Force Organisation slot, and do not qualify as a mandatory HQ selection."
The mekaniaks special rule does not have that restriction that the commissar or priest have.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
According to that basic vs specific rule, this unedited datasheet does not take that basic permission away unless it says so - which it doesn't do at all.

You have that backwards. The advanced rule does take away permission if it differs from the basic rules unless it says it doesn't.

No, advanced rule only overrides in the case of a rules conflict. These 2 rules don't conflict so there is no override.

Not taking a mandatory HQ choice does not change the restriction that you must have another HQ choice in the army which is not a Mek to take a Mek in the first place.

The Commissar and Mek both have the same restriction. They are required to have a specific HQ choice in the army before they can be taken. That is a restriction as it restricts how you can take those models.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
According to that basic vs specific rule, this unedited datasheet does not take that basic permission away unless it says so - which it doesn't do at all.

You have that backwards. The advanced rule does take away permission if it differs from the basic rules unless it says it doesn't.

I quoted the very rule in my post. Are you trolling me?

All that means is the Army List Entry in question can not be included in the equation for determining if Mandatory requirements have been met.
By your argument a Commissar still could be selected as a non-mandatory Head Quarter Slot even if it's own internal Restrictions are not met....

If the Mekaniaks Rule is still in play then the more advanced instructions within, all related to how the Entry itself is selected, must be obeyed.
If there is no conflict between the two then there should be no problem obeying these instructions, correct?

Actually, yes I believe you are trolling me. I'll just put you on my ignore list.

Can't believe I fell for this

 Amiricle wrote:
And to reiterate,The exceptions to this are called out very specifically in their respective unit entries for the Commissar: "You may include one Commissar for every Company Command Squad or Platoon Command Squad in your army. They do not take up a Force Organisation slot, and do not qualify as a mandatory HQ selection." as well as the Ministorum Priest:"Each Astra Militarum detachment may include 0-3 Ministorum Priests. They do not take up a Force Organisation slot, and do not qualify as a mandatory HQ selection."
The mekaniaks special rule does not have that restriction that the commissar or priest have.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
According to that basic vs specific rule, this unedited datasheet does not take that basic permission away unless it says so - which it doesn't do at all.

You have that backwards. The advanced rule does take away permission if it differs from the basic rules unless it says it doesn't.

No, advanced rule only overrides in the case of a rules conflict. These 2 rules don't conflict so there is no override.

Yes, they do conflict. The 'Mekaniaks' rule adds a requirement that's not in the basic rule. That is a conflict. On top of that, that's not even the argument Jidmah was using that I pointed out was wrong.

JinxDragon wrote:
All that means is the Army List Entry in question can not be included in the equation for determining if Mandatory requirements have been met.
By your argument it still could be selected as a non-mandatory Head Quarter Slot....

Please show where it says that another HQ choice is mandatory to field a Mek.

 Ghaz wrote:
Not taking a mandatory HQ choice does not change the restriction that you must have another HQ choice in the army which is not a Mek to take a Mek in the first place.

The Commissar and Mek both have the same restriction. They are required to have a specific HQ choice in the army before they can be taken. That is a restriction as it restricts how you can take those models.

Therein lies the communication breakdown. They are only required to have a specific HQ choice in the army before they can be taken without using an FoC slot. That does not prevent the unit from being selected at all.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
According to that basic vs specific rule, this unedited datasheet does not take that basic permission away unless it says so - which it doesn't do at all.

You have that backwards. The advanced rule does take away permission if it differs from the basic rules unless it says it doesn't.

I quoted the very rule in my post. Are you trolling me?

The rule is as follows:

When advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules.

"Always", not "unless it says so".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amiricle wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Not taking a mandatory HQ choice does not change the restriction that you must have another HQ choice in the army which is not a Mek to take a Mek in the first place.

The Commissar and Mek both have the same restriction. They are required to have a specific HQ choice in the army before they can be taken. That is a restriction as it restricts how you can take those models.

Therein lies the communication breakdown. They are only required to have a specific HQ choice in the army before they can be taken without using an FoC slot. That does not prevent the unit from being selected at all.

No. It requires an HQ choice to be selected at all.

So in the Blood Angels codex there is a troops entry for Death Company Dreadnought. It's not in a separate box, it looks like a standard troops entry. Except it has a special rule "you can include 1 death company dreadnought for every 5. Death company models in your army".

Surely nobody here believes I can ignore this rule and field 6 troop dreadnoughts?!

If there is no conflict then it should be possible for you to field the Unit obeying all the Mekaniaks instructions, correct?

Yes, as has been shown numerous times. I am beginning to think you are trolling as well. You are simply restating things that were discussed and countered earlier in this thread yesterday. I may revisit this thread later tonight, but I'm done for now.

SolentSanguine wrote:
So in the Blood Angels codex there is a troops entry for Death Company Dreadnought. It's not in a separate box, it looks like a standard troops entry. Except it has a special rule "you can include 1 death company dreadnought for every 5. Death company models in your army".

Surely nobody here believes I can ignore this rule and field 6 troop dreadnoughts?!

Not sure. Note that there is a difference in wording though.

As anyone that has been playing the game for any period of time knows, meks follow the same preceding rules as techmarines do.

You cant take em unless you take another HQ to unlock them first.

Argument over.

I am simply trying to determine how you are getting around instructions found within a Rule, while at the same time claiming that the Rule is still present and accounted for.
So maybe you can answer some questions so I can better understand:

Is the Mek still slot-less?
Does the Mek have to be joined to Units?

Honestly I have my own curious reasons for posting in this thread, none of which have anything to do with you personally but in this situation I will be honest because you are wondering about my character. I get a personal joy from finding Written Rules which clearly go against the intent of the Author, and this was shaping itself up to be one such situation. However just because your side of the argument is the one I want to see "win" doesn't mean that I will accept arguments on face value, they must still be able to support the concept within the Rule as Written structure itself. Now I have been toying with one of the arguments in my own head before reading it here, but because I was not confident it was strong enough to stand up as 'Rule as Written' support for the concept I want something with a little more substance. Particularly seeing as it requires us to dissect individual words and that doesn't suit my purposes for this debate. It is clearly Author Intent territory and defeats the purpose of finding a Rule as Written trump card, even if it was possible for the concept to survive that scrutiny.

With the more weak secondary arguments put forth, the further away I get from the conclusion that these two words I keep fixating on do not actually state what I want them to state....

 Ghaz wrote:
Not taking a mandatory HQ choice does not change the restriction that you must have another HQ choice in the army which is not a Mek to take a Mek in the first place.

The Commissar and Mek both have the same restriction. They are required to have a specific HQ choice in the army before they can be taken. That is a restriction as it restricts how you can take those models.

You sound like a broken record.

JinxDragon wrote:
I am simply trying to determine how you are getting around instructions found within a Rule, while at the same time claiming that the Rule is still present and accounted for.
So maybe you can answer some questions so I can better understand:

Is the Mek still slot-less?
Does the Mek have to be joined to Units?

Honestly I have my own curious reasons for posting in this thread, none of which have anything to do with you personally but in this situation I will be honest because you are wondering about my character. I get a personal joy from finding Written Rules which clearly go against the intent of the Author, and this was shaping itself up to be one such situation. However just because your side of the argument is the one I want to see "win" doesn't mean that I will accept arguments on face value, they must still be able to support the concept within the Rule as Written structure itself. Now I have been toying with one of the arguments in my own head before reading it here, but because I was not confident it was strong enough to stand up as 'Rule as Written' support for the concept I want something with a little more substance. Particularly seeing as it requires us to dissect individual words and that doesn't suit my purposes for this debate. It is clearly Author Intent territory and defeats the purpose of finding a Rule as Written trump card, even if it was possible for the concept to survive that scrutiny.

With the more weak secondary arguments put forth, the further away I get from the conclusion that these two words I keep fixating on do not actually state what I want them to state....

Fair enough, thank you for being blunt. You honestly were starting to come across as trolling, but that puts things into a positive perspective. I will try to elaborate better when I get home later.

JinxDragon wrote:
I am simply trying to determine how you are getting around instructions found within a Rule, while at the same time claiming that the Rule is still present and accounted for.
So maybe you can answer some questions so I can better understand:

Ok, I will try to clarify if I can.
I am going to quote these rules in entirety to avoid any 'cherry picking', though I will number them for quick reference later:
1)Battlefield role page 119 BRB. "However you choose your army, all units have a battlefield role, which is typically shown as a symbol. Apart from providing a useful overview of the types of duties a unit is meant to perform, the role is also of vital importance when it comes to using a Force Organization Chart (pg 120. This will be discussed in detail later in the section, but for now, all that is important is that each unit uses a single slot on the Force Organization Chart."
2)Force Organization Charts And Slots page 120 BRB. "The boxes on a Force Organization Chart are referred to as slots. Each slot will typically specify a Battlefield Role (pg 119). Each slot allows you to take one unit. Black boxes are compulsory selections - you must take at least this many units of the appropriate Battlefield Role to include this detachment in your army. If you cannot include the compulsory number of units, you cannot include that detachment. Gray boxes are optional selections - you can include up to this number of units of the appropriate Battlefield Role when including this detachment in your army. Any further units of the same Battlefield role will need to be taken in a different detachment. For example, in order to take a Combined Arms Detachment, you must select two units with the Troops Battlefield Role, and cannot select more than six in the same detachment.
3)Army List Entries That Do Not Use Force Organization Slots page 121 BRB. (Note, this is actually a base rule now, not an advanced one - different from 6th edition as I just checked and this is not present in that rulebook so the override statement can't be applied at all anymore) "Occasionally a unit's Army List Entry will state that the unit it describes does not take up a slot on a Force Organization Chart. These units can be included in any Detachment, even if all the other slots of the appropriate Battlefield Role are filled with other units or if the Detachment had no slot for their Battlefield Role, but they must still adhere to any restrictions detailed on the Detachment and its own Army List Entry. If the Army List Entry states that it can be included in an army that includes another specified unit, and that it does not take up a Force Organization Slot, it must join the same Detachment as that specified unit. In either case, these units are part of the Detachment for all rules purposes and will gain any appropriate Command Benefits."
3a)Mekaniaks page 56 ork codex. contains information relevant to the Army List Entries That Do Not Use Force Organization Slots rule: "For each HQ choice in a detachment (not including other meks) you may include a single mek chosen from this datasheet. These selections do not use up Force Organization Slots. Before the battle, immediately after determining Warlord Traits, any Mek that is not already part of another unit must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the Infantry or Artillery type in their Detachment; a Mek cannot leave his unit and is treated as part of it for the entire battle for all rules purposes."
These rules are sequential. (with one omitted because it has no relevance on Multiple Unit Choices[platoons] that falls between rule 2 & 3) Rule 3 does not remove or negate anything from rule2, which likewise removes nothing from rule 1. They are additive, each one expanding on the last.

Starting from the top, if you will, we note this mek is in the HQ section, and has an HQ symbol, defining his battlefield role as an HQ unit. (symbol - top left corner, refer to page 52 ork codex [this referral is in all codex's - using ork one for simplicity as this is about an ork unit], bullet point #2). Referring to rules 1 & 2 above for a Combined Arms Detachment, we see he has this option:
A)Uses 1 HQ Force Organization Slot leaving 1 available.
Next we note the Mekaniak rule adds another option: "For each HQ choice in a detachment (not including other meks) you may include a single mek chosen from this datasheet. These selections do not use up Force Organization Slots." Mek now has 2 permissions:
A) Use 1 HQ Force Organization Slot
B) Use no Force Organization Slot at all (as long as you meet the requirements - another HQ choice that is not a Mek)
As such, with 2 HQ slots we can max them out with 2 Meks; or 1 Warboss, 1 Mek, and another 1 Mek; or 2 Warbosses and 2 more Meks. (In all 3 cases, however, all meks still before the battle, immediately after determining Warlord Traits, any Mek that is not already part of another unit must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the Infantry or Artillery type in their Detachment; a Mek cannot leave his unit and is treated as part of it for the entire battle for all rules purposes.

To do the above with a Commissar we get:
A)Uses 1 HQ Force Organization Slot leaving 1 available.
Next we note a similar rule to Mekaniaks: You may include one Commissar for every Company Command Squad or Platoon Command Squad in your army. They do not take up a Force Organisation slot, and do not qualify as a mandatory HQ selection." This special rule does conflict with a base rule (2) and as such does override it, leaving us with:
A) -
B) Use no Force Organization Slot at all (as long as you meet the requirements - Company Command Squad or Platoon Command Squad)

I have also noted that you don't have to go very far at all to find a good example of additional permission not forcing choices or removing previous ones. Just one page over at the Big Mek we see "A Big Mek with mega armour can take a Kustom Force Field for 50 points" This option does not remove his previous one of taking a Kustom Force Field for the price of a slugga, nor does it force all Big Meks with Kustom Force Fields to also have mega-armour.

I hope this explains the conclusion Jidmah came to, and helped me come to clearly. I don't know if this would have been possible in 6th edition (although I doubt it would matter since HQ slots were so precious then), but in 7th, it certainly is. For the techmarine too btw Eihnlazer. As for the Blood Angel Dread.. I don't know, I don't have that codex. Wouldn't its default be a heavy slot if you didn't meet those restrictions? If it does work RaW, it's certainly not RaI. Keep in mind that that is a really old book and if it does work, feel free to cheese the hell out of it till they fix the issue with a new BA codex. lol

The core stems from how the authors of these Rules have used certain words in the past, and I am really on the fence if this is one such situation. Thanks to the complete lack of a glossary of terms, we are left to our own devices to try and figure out of a commonly used word is designed to refer back to a specific Rule-related event or if it is just a common word being reused... or both, can't rule out both. Sometimes we are better at figuring these things out, a good example of such is the word 'Arriving' before the word Unit instantly informs us that it relates Units which utilized the 'Arriving from Reserves' section of the book. Other times it might not be so clear, hence why we end up with Author's Intent type debates over the meaning of a single word.

Though between you and the forum and myself, I believe none of us would be here if these Rules where actually well written... we have a special type of defect which makes broken Rules attractive.

So back on topic again; the problem really stems with the use of the word 'selections' and how it has been used in the past. One of the things I just finished doing was a comparison between 6th Edition and 7th Edition. In 6th edition the Rules Battlefield Roles where obviously referred to as 'Selections' in multiple locations and Rules, it was very much 'terminology' referring to the specific act of selecting an Army List Entry from a Codex. 7th Edition has made many of the Rules using this terminology obsolete, they simply no longer exist, and has re-written others to use what is clearly more general terminology. However, the slots on the Force Organization Charts are still referred to as 'selections' in certain instances... it is just now impossible to determine if that is just 'general word' usage or if it still is trying to retain some of the original Terminology. Particularly when you factor in that multiple Authors took part on these works, but again we are getting back into Author Intent territory.

However I do hope this explains why, upon me seeing a Rule talking about 'selections' in relation to Force Organization Charts, I don't Rule out the possibility it is talking about selecting the Army Entry in it's entirety.

--- Added ---
Wrote that up while you where posting now I have to go back and read what you have stated, but please do forgive me if I put that off till later because I have to do that annoying 'sleep then work' thing. However a quick flick through shows you did bring up the commissar again, which means you still have failed to grasp why the commissioner is completely irrelevant to the whole thing. If the core concept can be proven for the Mek, then it can be proven for all Rules which have the same terminology within. Even the commissar will be a valid choice by your interpretation, it would have an additional Restriction that it must be selected for an optional slot instead of the mandatory one but that is all.

PS, because I am still skimming through your post when I should be sleeping:
A Big Mek with Mega Armour has already given up the Slugga as part of the exchange for the Mega Armour, it is impossible for it to evoke the option to switch one for a Custom Force Field.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slipped out of bed to add this:
The more I think on the problem the more it sways between 'terminology' and 'common use.' Consider for a moment the fact we have been referring to sixth Edition Codex's at times, and realize this is because the words utilized within are identical where it matters. These where cut and paste jobs from previous editions, which I no longer have on hand to refer to sadly, and it is clear the tradition of cut and paste is alive and well in 7th. This makes it even harder to Rule out the possibility that the original Author was addressing selecting the Army List Entry as a whole, given that the Rule clearly has been reused from a time where it would of done just that. It also does nothing to prove beyond a doubt that it is actually terminology, as we should always expect changes in Terminology between editions.

I do agree that these rules are not very well written. If this were a computer game or program, it would crash so hard from so many logic errors, if it were even able to start up.

I admit that the commissar is a bad example, and not neccessary after all (after reading your post). I've only used it to show an example with a restriction or override, but that is from a 6th edition codex. The book with a 7th edition version of that unit found in the Militarum Tempestus does not have any "Army List Entries That Do Not Use Force Organization Slots " option on its' datasheet. It is simply a standard HQ as per rule 1) or 2) above.

"A Big Mek with Mega Armour has already given up the Slugga as part of the exchange for the Mega Armour, it is impossible for it to evoke the option to switch one for a Custom Force Field. " Right, perhaps I didn't phrase it well, but he still has the option to forego the mega armour entirely and still take the kustom force field for the cost of his slugga & 50 points. That final permission doesn't render his previously allowed ones unusable.

And for you final point, I think I agree completely as well. Using just 7th codex's the above works very well imo to be RAI as well as RaW, such as the Mek, Techmarine, and Lone Wolf. As for previous edition works things start getting wierd. Take that commissar, in the 6th edition work in the AM codex, he can be wiggled in like this, but we see that unit in a 7th edition MT book, and he has had the FoC option removed making him only a HQ.

Edit: I would like to reiterate that when I first came into this thread, my first thought was "no way" and argued against for a while, but I think I was coming from a 5th/6th edition mindset of terminology as you put it. As far as 7th edition goes, this looks to be a valid choice and quite intended (at least insofar as codex's written for 7th) as I hope I managed to convey with the above post. I do agree that the author's of previous works most likely did not intend for the option to not be taken (or even considered optional in some cases) though and may lead to some broken combos until said works are updated.

Edit2: final thought: the reason I think that this is intended as well as being supported by the rules is that 7th seems to be all about options and playing what you want with all the different formations, being able to take as many detachments as you desire, or even just saying feth it all and go unbound fielding whatever you little heart desires.

A Big Mek in Mega Armor can, in fact, take a KFF. Off topic, but seemed like you were confused on that.

 Amiricle wrote:
I do agree that these rules are not very well written. If this were a computer game or program, it would crash so hard from so many logic errors, if it were even able to start up.

I admit that the commissar is a bad example, and not neccessary after all (after reading your post). I've only used it to show an example with a restriction or override, but that is from a 6th edition codex. The book with a 7th edition version of that unit found in the Militarum Tempestus does not have any "Army List Entries That Do Not Use Force Organization Slots " option on its' datasheet. It is simply a standard HQ as per rule 1) or 2) above.

"A Big Mek with Mega Armour has already given up the Slugga as part of the exchange for the Mega Armour, it is impossible for it to evoke the option to switch one for a Custom Force Field. " Right, perhaps I didn't phrase it well, but he still has the option to forego the mega armour entirely and still take the kustom force field for the cost of his slugga & 50 points. That final permission doesn't render his previously allowed ones unusable.

And for you final point, I think I agree completely as well. Using just 7th codex's the above works very well imo to be RAI as well as RaW, such as the Mek, Techmarine, and Lone Wolf. As for previous edition works things start getting wierd. Take that commissar, in the 6th edition work in the AM codex, he can be wiggled in like this, but we see that unit in a 7th edition MT book, and he has had the FoC option removed making him only a HQ.

Edit: I would like to reiterate that when I first came into this thread, my first thought was "no way" and argued against for a while, but I think I was coming from a 5th/6th edition mindset of terminology as you put it. As far as 7th edition goes, this looks to be a valid choice and quite intended (at least insofar as codex's written for 7th) as I hope I managed to convey with the above post. I do agree that the author's of previous works most likely did not intend for the option to not be taken (or even considered optional in some cases) though and may lead to some broken combos until said works are updated.

Edit2: final thought: the reason I think that this is intended as well as being supported by the rules is that 7th seems to be all about options and playing what you want with all the different formations, being able to take as many detachments as you desire, or even just saying feth it all and go unbound fielding whatever you little heart desires.

QFT

 Jidmah wrote:
Even when I do pick a Mek as HQ choice I am not allowed to ignore any part of the Mekaniaks rule.

Ok, we are agreed on this.

Now, to try and keep the logic at the most basic. How do you define this Rule to me:
"For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet."

There is the word "may", therefore there is an option to A) Do something or B) Not do it.

Do you agree so far?

This Rule, as it is written in the Codex allows me to make a choice. Could you define to me that choice?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:



This is my argument.

I will also try to show you with this diagram, but it might complicate things. Answering the question above will be more simple to explain i think.



The Part I colored in Orange is a Rule in your Codex (Mekaniak). You cannot have a Mek in your army (as HQ) without being forced (restriction) to follow the Rule.

When you follow the Red Path you cannot tell me you have followed the Orange rule because it is clear the Red path does not go through the Orange Rule.
When you follow the Green path, and you must follow the Green path, you still have the permission (the choice).

I'm sorry i did not put Green path N*1 and Green path N*2 on the picture, but i hope you can see the 2?
You have the permission and choice (you are not Forced to take the Mek - forced to Deep Strike etc) when you are following the Green selection but doing the Red is Breaking the rules (Because you have not done the Orange rule, you have gone around it)

If this make no sense, then let's just stick to my previous post and basic logic... And sorry for complicating.

 Waaagh 18 wrote:
A Big Mek in Mega Armor can, in fact, take a KFF. Off topic, but seemed like you were confused on that.

Good call. I think I misunderstood the misunderstanding. Lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


The Part I colored in Orange is a Rule in your Codex (Mekaniak). You cannot have a Mek in your army (as HQ) without being forced (restriction) to follow the Rule.

When you follow the Red Path you cannot tell me you have followed the Orange rule because it is clear the Red path does not go through the Orange Rule.
When you follow the Green path, and you must follow the Green path, you still have the permission (the choice).

I'm sorry i did not put Green path N*1 and Green path N*2 on the picture, but i hope you can see the 2?
You have the permission and choice (you are not Forced to take the Mek - forced to Deep Strike etc) when you are following the Green selection but doing the Red is Breaking the rules (Because you have not done the Orange rule, you have gone around it)

If this make no sense, then let's just stick to my previous post and basic logic... And sorry for complicating.

That's why I didn't like the diagram too much. It's not fully labeled properly. I think looking at it in list format makes it easier to read.

Starting from the top, if you will, we note this mek is in the HQ section, and has an HQ symbol, defining his battlefield role as an HQ unit. (symbol - top left corner, refer to page 52 ork codex [this referral is in all codex's - using ork one for simplicity as this is about an ork unit], bullet point #2). Referring to rules 1 & 2 above for a Combined Arms Detachment, we see he has this option:
A)Uses 1 HQ Force Organization Slot leaving 1 available.
Next we note the Mekaniak rule adds another option: "For each HQ choice in a detachment (not including other meks) you may include a single mek chosen from this datasheet. These selections do not use up Force Organization Slots." Mek now has 2 permissions:
A) Use 1 HQ Force Organization Slot
B) Use no Force Organization Slot at all (as long as you meet the requirements - another HQ choice that is not a Mek)
As such, with 2 HQ slots we can max them out with 2 Meks; or 1 Warboss, 1 Mek, and another 1 Mek; or 2 Warbosses and 2 more Meks. (In all 3 cases, however, all meks still before the battle, immediately after determining Warlord Traits, any Mek that is not already part of another unit must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the Infantry or Artillery type in their Detachment; a Mek cannot leave his unit and is treated as part of it for the entire battle for all rules purposes.

Sorry BlackTalos, while I appreciate your willingness to have an actual discussion, as long as you keep ignoring the basic permission to field HQ choices, I don't think we have anything to base a discussion on.

Considering that we are highly unlikely to play each other, and considering that it's even less likely that I'd actually field a single mek (not a very useful choice), I'll just leave it at that.

You also misunderstood the diagram. The entire thing is the Mekaniaks rule, not just one of the boxes. The first box is you picking any HQ as per the "Chosing your army" chapter, the first diamond is the parenthesis excluding Meks, the second diamond is the sentence using "may", the boxes below it are "These choices don't use FOC slots", the box at the very bottom is the rest of the rule.

 Jidmah wrote:
Sorry BlackTalos, while I appreciate your willingness to have an actual discussion, as long as you keep ignoring the basic permission to field HQ choices, I don't think we have anything to base a discussion on.

Considering that we are highly unlikely to play each other, and considering that it's even less likely that I'd actually field a single mek (not a very useful choice), I'll just leave it at that.

You also misunderstood the diagram. The entire thing is the Mekaniaks rule, not just one of the boxes. The first box is you picking any HQ as per the "Chosing your army" chapter, the first diamond is the parenthesis excluding Meks, the second diamond is the sentence using "may", the boxes below it are "These choices don't use FOC slots", the box at the very bottom is the rest of the rule.

Where are they saying that the basic permission to field an HQ mek is being denied?

Its not the advanced over basic rule because the mekaniks rule is NOT a contradiction to the permission to field the Mek as an HQ choice.

Amiricle,
While I understand the allure of discarding what is in the 6th Edition Codex's and focusing on the 7th edition ones alone, it does encounter a few noticeable problems. Not only are the words in those 6th Edition Codexes still 'valid for 7th Edition,' but too many Rules in 7th Edition have been shown to be nothing more then 6th Edition Rules cut and pasted into the new book. This has created noticeable problems for other Rules as well, especially when the Frequently Asked Questions that fixed a lot of these broken 6th Edition Rules where dropped while the Rules themselves remained unchanged. This cut and paste of previously accepted game Terminology is the core of the problem, so we can't discard the fact the original version of these Rules contained Terminology based words that may or may not be 'Terminology' in 7th.

Besides, discarding what the word itself meant in 6th Edition does nothing to answer what the word itself means in 7th. The Author could still have penned that word to mean exactly the same it clearly did in 6th, the act of selecting the Army List Entry to fill a Battlefield Role. In that situation the term 'these selections' would be referring to the Army List Entry as a whole, as that is what is selected to fill the Battlefield Role, and not an individual Clause in the same Rule as itself. However it could of still been downgraded to just a common word, 'to select something,' and in those situations then the only thing it could be refereeing to is Units selected via the first clause within the Rule. One single word that changes the outcome so dramatically, based entirely on what it could mean.

Sadly, I simply do not have enough information to conclude which is correct in 7th Editions....

JinxDragon wrote:
Amiricle,
While I understand the allure of discarding what is in the 6th Edition Codex's and focusing on the 7th edition ones alone, it does encounter a few noticeable problems. Not only are the words in those 6th Edition Codexes still 'valid for 7th Edition,' but too many Rules in 7th Edition have been shown to be nothing more then 6th Edition Rules cut and pasted into the new book. This has created noticeable problems for other Rules as well, especially when the Frequently Asked Questions that fixed a lot of these broken 6th Edition Rules where dropped while the Rules themselves remained unchanged. This cut and paste of previously accepted game Terminology is the core of the problem, so we can't discard the fact the original version of these Rules contained Terminology based words that may or may not be 'Terminology' in 7th.

Besides, discarding what the word itself meant in 6th Edition does nothing to answer what the word itself means in 7th. The Author could still have penned that word to mean exactly the same it clearly did in 6th, the act of selecting the Army List Entry to fill a Battlefield Role. In that situation the term 'these selections' would be referring to the Army List Entry as a whole, as that is what is selected to fill the Battlefield Role, and not an individual Clause in the same Rule as itself. However it could of still been downgraded to just a common word, and in those situations then the only thing it could be relating to is Units selected via the first clause within the Rule.

I simply do not have enough information to conclude which is correct in 7th Editions....

Hum this is an interesting read jinx because as I have seen some poster here completely and totally ignore old FAQ's and old rule books to try and prove there points in YMTC. as you can see from this thread http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/608047.page some poster said the argument is invalid because the old FAQ was not up and the new FAQ had no such ruling.

Our group plays that if the new FAQ does not have the ruling in it but the old ruling FAQ still applies we use it. As for this debate I am reading my "old" 6th edition BRB and I cannot find a place where it says to ignore the FOC and not take the mek as an HQ.

Can you help me out a bit on what you mean?

Its a nice catch22 that some posters use to

 Jidmah wrote:
Sorry BlackTalos, while I appreciate your willingness to have an actual discussion, as long as you keep ignoring the basic permission to field HQ choices, I don't think we have anything to base a discussion on.

Considering that we are highly unlikely to play each other, and considering that it's even less likely that I'd actually field a single mek (not a very useful choice), I'll just leave it at that.

You also misunderstood the diagram. The entire thing is the Mekaniaks rule, not just one of the boxes. The first box is you picking any HQ as per the "Chosing your army" chapter, the first diamond is the parenthesis excluding Meks, the second diamond is the sentence using "may", the boxes below it are "These choices don't use FOC slots", the box at the very bottom is the rest of the rule.

Just to summarize my understanding of this thread (not an Ork player), is your position basically that the "Mekaniak" rule is really there to let an Ork army get more HQ choices than would otherwise be available in a Battleforged army? E.g. you could take your mandatory HQ, your optional HQ, and due to Mekaniaks, you would also be able to get 2 more Mek HQ choices into your army. Basically you are saying that Meks are normal HQs like any other and may serve as your mandatory HQ choice, but their special rule is there to allow Ork players to have a more HQ-heavy army than they otherwise would be able to have.

Is that correct?

Osirisx69,
There is indeed a noticeable schism between posters on this site concerning the removal of these Frequently Asked Questions. The schism is understandable, we have a huge number of Rules which are identically written between the two Editions so it is logical to conclude they function in the exact same way. The problem stems from certain Rules requiring Frequently Asked Questions, or in my case access to accepted terminology, just to function. The removal of these guides and terminologies have left us with Rules which cause unusual outcomes or no longer function at all, and a good deal of people want to avoid that simply by pointing out the Authors clarified these situations in the past and there is no reason to assume the Rule will change without being deliberately worded differently.

As my problem stems from the same source, the possible changing meaning of an individual word between 6th and 7th edition in a clearly copy-pasted Rule, I am left in a position where I am unsure which interpretation is correct.

 madric wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Sorry BlackTalos, while I appreciate your willingness to have an actual discussion, as long as you keep ignoring the basic permission to field HQ choices, I don't think we have anything to base a discussion on.

Considering that we are highly unlikely to play each other, and considering that it's even less likely that I'd actually field a single mek (not a very useful choice), I'll just leave it at that.

You also misunderstood the diagram. The entire thing is the Mekaniaks rule, not just one of the boxes. The first box is you picking any HQ as per the "Chosing your army" chapter, the first diamond is the parenthesis excluding Meks, the second diamond is the sentence using "may", the boxes below it are "These choices don't use FOC slots", the box at the very bottom is the rest of the rule.

Just to summarize my understanding of this thread (not an Ork player), is your position basically that the "Mekaniak" rule is really there to let an Ork army get more HQ choices than would otherwise be available in a Battleforged army? E.g. you could take your mandatory HQ, your optional HQ, and due to Mekaniaks, you would also be able to get 2 more Mek HQ choices into your army. Basically you are saying that Meks are normal HQs like any other and may serve as your mandatory HQ choice, but their special rule is there to allow Ork players to have a more HQ-heavy army than they otherwise would be able to have.

Is that correct?

No, that is not at all correct. The entire discussion appears to have gone straight over your head. The mekaniak rule itself allows more HQ choices than normal. The thread was made to go back a step and get LESS HQ's.

Wow, long thread. I'm on the side of "you can take a mek as your only HQ". I don't think the other side is trolling. I didn't think their interpretation was right, but saw it the first time I read the rule, and wondered if my interpretation might be wrong. Unfortunately GW is very good at writing vague rules.

I haven't seen the following point really made and hopefully it can add something to the discussion. What is the point of the parenthetical in the rule: "(not including other Meks)"? If, as some here have argued you cannot take Meks as standalone HQ choices, this parenthetical is, I think, meaningless. The argument as I understand it is that Meks can't be a HQ choice. However, if Meks can be a HQ choice, this language becomes very important because it stops you from taking 3 or 4 meks. I don't think there is an endless Mek selection loop because only slotted HQs allow a free Mek. So if the rule simply read "for every HQ choice, you may take a Mek", you still only get 4 Meks: 2 slotted, 2 slotless and you are maxed out.

I'm probably missing something important since no one has raised this, but that is part of my interpretation of the rule.

JinxDragon wrote:
Amiricle,
While I understand the allure of discarding what is in the 6th Edition Codex's and focusing on the 7th edition ones alone, it does encounter a few noticeable problems. Not only are the words in those 6th Edition Codexes still 'valid for 7th Edition,' but too many Rules in 7th Edition have been shown to be nothing more then 6th Edition Rules cut and pasted into the new book. This has created noticeable problems for other Rules as well, especially when the Frequently Asked Questions that fixed a lot of these broken 6th Edition Rules where dropped while the Rules themselves remained unchanged. This cut and paste of previously accepted game Terminology is the core of the problem, so we can't discard the fact the original version of these Rules contained Terminology based words that may or may not be 'Terminology' in 7th.

Besides, discarding what the word itself meant in 6th Edition does nothing to answer what the word itself means in 7th. The Author could still have penned that word to mean exactly the same it clearly did in 6th, the act of selecting the Army List Entry to fill a Battlefield Role. In that situation the term 'these selections' would be referring to the Army List Entry as a whole, as that is what is selected to fill the Battlefield Role, and not an individual Clause in the same Rule as itself. However it could of still been downgraded to just a common word, 'to select something,' and in those situations then the only thing it could be refereeing to is Units selected via the first clause within the Rule. One single word that changes the outcome so dramatically, based entirely on what it could mean.

Sadly, I simply do not have enough information to conclude which is correct in 7th Editions....

I can agree with that. It is was it is though, and we can only make do with what we have to work with, as sloppy or lazy as it may be.
Even so, I would never have a problem with an opponent fielding a mek or techmarines as a single HQ, or a lone wolf as their sole elite; and I think think this is as intended going forward, especially since they added the section to the base rules. However, an opponent trying to exploit this opening with something rediculous like 6 objective secured dreadnoughts(should that prove possible ), is an opponent I would likely just decline to play such a person.
I don't think this was intended in 6th, and certainly not in 5th, but I doubt it really ever came up, and they dint account for that with the. 7th edition rules which will cause some problems till FAQ'd or all the codex's are updated to 7th+ (and probably even not then....)

Gwaihirsbrother,
The Mek, regardless if it is slotless or not, is still a Head Quarter Unit. As the Rule grants an additional Mek triggers on the inclusion of any Head Quarter Unit in the Detachment, it would be possible to evoke this Rule in an 'endless-loop' situation. That would involve simply selecting the first Mek, again regardless as to how it is selected, and claiming the Mek we just added is a Head Quarter unit granting permission to add yet another Mek. Then that Mek will trigger yet another Mek being added to the Army, which in turn will trigger another Mek being added to the Army and that in turn triggers another Mek.

So the exclusion exists for a very good reason, regardless of which interpretation you follow.

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
Wow, long thread. I'm on the side of "you can take a mek as your only HQ". I don't think the other side is trolling. I didn't think their interpretation was right, but saw it the first time I read the rule, and wondered if my interpretation might be wrong. Unfortunately GW is very good at writing vague rules.

I haven't seen the following point really made and hopefully it can add something to the discussion. What is the point of the parenthetical in the rule: "(not including other Meks)"? If, as some here have argued you cannot take Meks as standalone HQ choices, this parenthetical is, I think, meaningless. The argument as I understand it is that Meks can't be a HQ choice. However, if Meks can be a HQ choice, this language becomes very important because it stops you from taking 3 or 4 meks. I don't think there is an endless Mek selection loop because only slotted HQs allow a free Mek. So if the rule simply read "for every HQ choice, you may take a Mek", you still only get 4 Meks: 2 slotted, 2 slotless and you are maxed out.

I'm probably missing something important since no one has raised this, but that is part of my interpretation of the rule.

They were not trolling, it was a misunderstanding they cleared up. I apologise for jumping to that conclusion - a little perspective makes a world of difference.

That rule states that you can't use a mek to gain an FoC free mek, so the most meks you could have in a Combined Arms Detachment is 2. Either both slotted ton the CaD's HQ slots, or a max of 2 gained FoC free, with say 2 Warbosses in HQ and 2 slotless meks. Even if both HQ slots in the CAD are meks, that's all the meks you get cause no mek can make another mek FoC free (HQ or otherwise)

Edit: bit bad on the wording since these meks are always HQ units whether in a slot or not, but you get the idea.

Amiricle,
At this time I will conclude that it is going to be 'Authors Intent' which proves this point, which is sad as I wanted something more in the field of Written....

The argument that the Authors want us to have greater flexibility when it comes to List Building is quite justified, given the increasing number of detachments, formations, unbound and a good deal of other methods all designed to allow more diverse lists. The concept that they removed a piece of restrictive terminology to further increase this flexibility is quite plausible, particularly seeing the Terminology is only seems to be found in Copy-and-Pasted Rules from previous Editions.

I could even use that interpretation to deny a few of the more obvious 'clearly not the intent' situations, such as taking servitors without Techmarines.
They are not all using 'these selections' after all, some simply state 'these Units' which is far easier to still apply to the Army List as a whole.

I guess things are not going to go to one side or the other then. I'll leave my Call on the issue, as is the purpose of the YMDC forum:

"Mekaniaks: For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet. These selections do not use up Force Organisation slots. Before the battle, immediately after determining Warlord Traits, any Mek that is not already part of another unit must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the Infantry or Artillery type in their Detachment; a Mek cannot leave his unit and is treated as part of it for the entire battle for all rules purposes."

The above is a compulsory rule where you must follow 3 sub-rules:
A) For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet.
B) These selections do not use up Force Organisation slots.
C) Before the battle, immediately after determining Warlord Traits, any Mek that is not already part of another unit must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the Infantry or Artillery type in their Detachment.
C,example) a Mek cannot leave his unit and is treated as part of it for the entire battle for all rules purposes.

Not following either of them needs explicit wording to do so.
The only way you can field a Mek is by following rule A.
Rule B means a Mek can never use up a Force Org Slot.
Rule C means he has to join another Unit.

A and/or B are not optional rules.

Thanks for the discussion guys!

 Amiricle wrote:

 madric wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Sorry BlackTalos, while I appreciate your willingness to have an actual discussion, as long as you keep ignoring the basic permission to field HQ choices, I don't think we have anything to base a discussion on.

Considering that we are highly unlikely to play each other, and considering that it's even less likely that I'd actually field a single mek (not a very useful choice), I'll just leave it at that.

You also misunderstood the diagram. The entire thing is the Mekaniaks rule, not just one of the boxes. The first box is you picking any HQ as per the "Chosing your army" chapter, the first diamond is the parenthesis excluding Meks, the second diamond is the sentence using "may", the boxes below it are "These choices don't use FOC slots", the box at the very bottom is the rest of the rule.

Just to summarize my understanding of this thread (not an Ork player), is your position basically that the "Mekaniak" rule is really there to let an Ork army get more HQ choices than would otherwise be available in a Battleforged army? E.g. you could take your mandatory HQ, your optional HQ, and due to Mekaniaks, you would also be able to get 2 more Mek HQ choices into your army. Basically you are saying that Meks are normal HQs like any other and may serve as your mandatory HQ choice, but their special rule is there to allow Ork players to have a more HQ-heavy army than they otherwise would be able to have.

Is that correct?

No, that is not at all correct. The entire discussion appears to have gone straight over your head. The mekaniak rule itself allows more HQ choices than normal. The thread was made to go back a step and get LESS HQ's.

Actually, I think he pretty much hit the nail in the head.

 madric wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Sorry BlackTalos, while I appreciate your willingness to have an actual discussion, as long as you keep ignoring the basic permission to field HQ choices, I don't think we have anything to base a discussion on.

Considering that we are highly unlikely to play each other, and considering that it's even less likely that I'd actually field a single mek (not a very useful choice), I'll just leave it at that.

You also misunderstood the diagram. The entire thing is the Mekaniaks rule, not just one of the boxes. The first box is you picking any HQ as per the "Chosing your army" chapter, the first diamond is the parenthesis excluding Meks, the second diamond is the sentence using "may", the boxes below it are "These choices don't use FOC slots", the box at the very bottom is the rest of the rule.

Just to summarize my understanding of this thread (not an Ork player), is your position basically that the "Mekaniak" rule is really there to let an Ork army get more HQ choices than would otherwise be available in a Battleforged army? E.g. you could take your mandatory HQ, your optional HQ, and due to Mekaniaks, you would also be able to get 2 more Mek HQ choices into your army. Basically you are saying that Meks are normal HQs like any other and may serve as your mandatory HQ choice, but their special rule is there to allow Ork players to have a more HQ-heavy army than they otherwise would be able to have.

Is that correct?

Perfectly stated my friend.

Yea, I guess I must have been too sleepy and misread it lol. sorry

That seems to sum up the whole argument. Meks are allowed as mandatory or as optional slotless HQs

Just would like to point out that the argument is not settled. I'm quite sure most will play the Mek by the same rules as Techmarines or Seer Councils.
Meks can only ever be taken slotless, and when you have another HQ.

BlackTalos,
I may have overlooked some, because I did not look at them all, but this anomaly still is curious to me. Take a look at Page 94 of the Dark Angle Codex and the difference in wording between the Techmarine and the Servitors. While I am not entirely sure what to make of it, the fact the same type of Rule is worded very differently in on a single page of a single codex is a bit puzzling. The bit that makes the least amount of sense, if I am remembering correctly, this is a codex that was produced in the first half of 6th Edition and that is more of a puzzle as 'Selections' was used throughout the Rule book in relation to an Army List selected to fill a Battlefield Role.

One thing is clear though:
Game Workshop better start using the 'other' icon for Units it does not want selected outright and then gift it a Battlefield Role on Deployment.

I agree that the most we can take from this is that the wording for these RaI Units should be consistent when it is most absolutely not.... But from there to jump to a conclusion that a slight in wording is a complete re-vamp and new set of rules is a Stretch that i will not make unless there is new material added in the near future.

JinxDragon wrote:
One thing is clear though:
Game Workshop better start using the 'other' icon for Units it does not want selected outright and then gift it a Battlefield Role on Deployment.

They should put it on some of the dedicated transports as well. Otherwise the next BA codex is bound to become Codex:Taxi, with the entire Imperium hijacking their fast transports.

Jidmah,
I had the same thought but didn't post it because different thread, one that will come up again when Codex: Taxi arrives.
I mean... it really is the perfect solution for these type of problems isn't it?

 BlackTalos wrote:
I agree that the most we can take from this is that the wording for these RaI Units should be consistent when it is most absolutely not.... But from there to jump to a conclusion that a slight in wording is a complete re-vamp and new set of rules is a Stretch that i will not make unless there is new material added in the near future.

That's how rules work though. A slight change in wording can have a huge impact on what they mean RAW. The difference between 4th and 7th edition trukks is the little symbol on the top - that's enough to allow you to field them as fast attack, which was never possible before.

I'm not even sure about RAI here. The huge difference between old codices and 7th ed codices is GW putting the battlefield role on every single entry, rather than just putting it on top of the page to just apply to all below. There should be no way of a choice having a battlefield role it shouldn't have, which in turn means that, unless the battlefield role is missing or "other", you can field it in the corresponding slot. It would also have been very easy to word the rule to prevent them from being picked as HQs, by simply saying that you may not have more Meks than non-Mek HQs, or by limiting the selection on the top of the entry, just like they've done in all the codices before 7th. Instead they added a special rule which had no mandatory part to it, and a conditional sentence for making them slot-less. If they actually tried to limit mek choices, the execution was terrible.

GW allows Grey Knights to enter play in Space Wolf drop pods, who vowed to get back at the Grey Knights for their massacre during the first war of Armageddon. Fielding Meks solo is definitely a lot less weird than that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
Jidmah,
I had the same thought but didn't post it because different thread, one that will come up again when Codex: Taxi arrives.
I mean... it really is the perfect solution for these type of problems isn't it?

Considering how they pretty much copy+pasted some parts of the ork wish-list here on dakka into the codex, I still have hopes that at least someone at GW is reading this

 Jidmah wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
I agree that the most we can take from this is that the wording for these RaI Units should be consistent when it is most absolutely not.... But from there to jump to a conclusion that a slight in wording is a complete re-vamp and new set of rules is a Stretch that i will not make unless there is new material added in the near future.

That's how rules work though. A slight change in wording can have a huge impact on what they mean RAW. The difference between 4th and 7th edition trukks is the little symbol on the top - that's enough to allow you to field them as fast attack, which was never possible before.

I'm not even sure about RAI here. The huge difference between old codices and 7th ed codices is GW putting the battlefield role on every single entry, rather than just putting it on top of the page to just apply to all below. There should be no way of a choice having a battlefield role it shouldn't have, which in turn means that, unless the battlefield role is missing or "other", you can field it in the corresponding slot. It would also have been very easy to word the rule to prevent them from being picked as HQs, by simply saying that you may not have more Meks than non-Mek HQs, or by limiting the selection on the top of the entry, just like they've done in all the codices before 7th. Instead they added a special rule which had no mandatory part to it, and a conditional sentence for making them slot-less. If they actually tried to limit mek choices, the execution was terrible.

GW allows Grey Knights to enter play in Space Wolf drop pods, who vowed to get back at the Grey Knights for their massacre during the first war of Armageddon. Fielding Meks solo is definitely a lot less weird than that.

I understand that the differences over time will ultimately create the issues, but the examples used don't even go back that far in time. To me, all Units have always had a standard battlefield role (Priests are a HQ Slot, Techmarines are Elites) but then some rather specific units had additional rules making them slot-less. None of those ever left themselves unclear, and the Mek is the first with the "same wording" of being a Slot-less HQ that is written in a way that you may be correct in your assumptions. But i'd put it down to Bad Rule writing (nothing new) than to a new type of Unit that can have multiple roles... Because when that choice is made by GW, they usually extend the entire thing. (Along the Lines of: "In addition the using the Mek slot-less, you can now field him as a normal HQ choice! He now takes up a slot! He is our new Rules invention! We at GW are so proud of this we'll say it in the rules!) The lack of such "sugar coating" rulesmakes me think that RAI, it's just the Ork "priest".

It's not just the mek though Bt, the techmarine in Grey Knights, and the Lone Wolf in Space Wolves are written the same way - basically every one written in 7th ed format. That along with the fact that this is now a basic rule in the BrB points to this not being a crazy idea. The problems arise when going back to older codex's using 7th rules which is where we need to infer author intent.

Just had a look at the Adepts of the Armoury rule and the Lone wolf line. They are both of the same wording yes, but Adepts of the Armoury to me makes it quite clear that it is a rule to be followed.

Much more simple than for the Mek: is Adepts of the Armoury a rule that you can choose to simply ignore? (and take a Techmarine as a lone HQ choice?)

I'd say No.

See, I disagree. No where does it say it removes the option to field in its battlefield role. It's not a rule you are ignoring, it's an option you are not choosing. Subtle, but very important difference.

 BlackTalos wrote:
Just had a look at the Adepts of the Armoury rule and the Lone wolf line. They are both of the same wording yes, but Adepts of the Armoury to me makes it quite clear that it is a rule to be followed.

Much more simple than for the Mek: is Adepts of the Armoury a rule that you can choose to simply ignore? (and take a Techmarine as a lone HQ choice?)

I'd say No.

Can we stop this please? You are still refusing to acknowledge the key part of our argumentation, so just leave it at that.

Also stop the "You're ignoring a rule!" nonsense. It has been debunked like seven times in this thread. Rules don't work that way, period.

 Amiricle wrote:
See, I disagree. No where does it say it removes the option to field in its battlefield role. It's not a rule you are ignoring, it's an option you are not choosing. Subtle, but very important difference.

The point many were trying to make and that i'd still follow here, is that the option to field it in its battlefield role does not somehow mean you can ignore the rule.

Adepts of the Armoury is part of fielding the model, and can never be ignored, simple as. If you want to keep asserting you can "skip" or "not choose" a rule, feel free, but if players want the true RaW answer from the forum, unfortunately it is that you must always obey rules, or the game would not exist in the first place...
I am in no way ignoring your argument, just denying the validity of it within RaW.

Maybe they'll change it, maybe they'll fix it...
But until then we can agree to disagree.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Amiricle wrote:
See, I disagree. No where does it say it removes the option to field in its battlefield role. It's not a rule you are ignoring, it's an option you are not choosing. Subtle, but very important difference.

The point many were trying to make and that i'd still follow here, is that the option to field it in its battlefield role does not somehow mean you can ignore the rule.

Adepts of the Armoury is part of fielding the model, and can never be ignored, simple as. If you want to keep asserting you can "skip" or "not choose" a rule, feel free, but if players want the true RaW answer from the forum, unfortunately it is that you must always obey rules, or the game would not exist in the first place...
I am in no way ignoring your argument, just denying the validity of it within RaW.

Maybe they'll change it, maybe they'll fix it...
But until then we can agree to disagree.

Again, I am not an Ork player and all the information I have comes from what people have posted here. But I think their interpretation Mekaniak rule isn't to ignore rules, but rather something different. Here is the Mekaniak rule posted earlier but quoted below:

For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet.

And of course, the BRB states:

On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this
rulebook, and one printed in a codex.Where this occurs,the
rule printed in the codexalways takes precedence.

and it also states that special rules override normal rules.

Their reading of the rules is that the Mekaniak rule does not introduce a conflict with existing rules for making HQ choices. That is, they are saying that the Mekaniak rule allows them to add another Mek to their army for every non-Mek HQ choice they already have. But they are saying that this does not prevent them from following the normal HQ selection rules and taking a Mek as a normal HQ choice, and in that case, the pre-conditions required to get the benefit from the Mekaniak rule are not being met, so taking a Mek as a normal HQ choice does not allow them to take another.

But as I learned from discussions about the Psychic Phase, full context is very important, so I'm in a "sit and listen" mode until I run across an Ork codex.

You're fine to disagree, sure, but don't post like like you're speaking some grand truth since you have not put a single compelling argument forth.

 Amiricle wrote:
You're fine to disagree, sure, but don't post like like you're speaking some grand truth since you have not put a single compelling argument forth.

If that was for me then i would post the same comment back. I have made it clear where my support in the rules is, and do not assert any more Grand Truths than i've seen on the other side.

 Waaagh 18 wrote:
That seems to sum up the whole argument. Meks are allowed as mandatory or as optional slotless HQs

There are 2 sides on the debate/argument:
A) Meks/Grey Knights Techmarines can be taken as standard, in a slot, and "Adepts of the Armoury" Is a rule you can choose to ignore.
B) "Adepts of the Armoury" can never be ignored, you can only take a Techmarine if you have another HQ, or choose not to field one.

Both have put forth valid arguments, I personally believe only 1 side is correct, but i understand there is another interpretation out there.

 madric wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Amiricle wrote:
See, I disagree. No where does it say it removes the option to field in its battlefield role. It's not a rule you are ignoring, it's an option you are not choosing. Subtle, but very important difference.

The point many were trying to make and that i'd still follow here, is that the option to field it in its battlefield role does not somehow mean you can ignore the rule.

Adepts of the Armoury is part of fielding the model, and can never be ignored, simple as. If you want to keep asserting you can "skip" or "not choose" a rule, feel free, but if players want the true RaW answer from the forum, unfortunately it is that you must always obey rules, or the game would not exist in the first place...
I am in no way ignoring your argument, just denying the validity of it within RaW.

Maybe they'll change it, maybe they'll fix it...
But until then we can agree to disagree.

Again, I am not an Ork player and all the information I have comes from what people have posted here. But I think their interpretation Mekaniak rule isn't to ignore rules, but rather something different. Here is the Mekaniak rule posted earlier but quoted below:

For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet.

And of course, the BRB states:

On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this
rulebook, and one printed in a codex.Where this occurs,the
rule printed in the codexalways takes precedence.

and it also states that special rules override normal rules.

Their reading of the rules is that the Mekaniak rule does not introduce a conflict with existing rules for making HQ choices. That is, they are saying that the Mekaniak rule allows them to add another Mek to their army for every non-Mek HQ choice they already have. But they are saying that this does not prevent them from following the normal HQ selection rules and taking a Mek as a normal HQ choice, and in that case, the pre-conditions required to get the benefit from the Mekaniak rule are not being met, so taking a Mek as a normal HQ choice does not allow them to take another.

But as I learned from discussions about the Psychic Phase, full context is very important, so I'm in a "sit and listen" mode until I run across an Ork codex.

Very insightful

 BlackTalos wrote:
There are 2 sides on the debate/argument:
A) Meks/Grey Knights Techmarines can be taken as standard, in a slot, and "Adepts of the Armoury" Is a rule you can choose to ignore.
B) "Adepts of the Armoury" can never be ignored, you can only take a Techmarine if you have another HQ, or choose not to field one.

Every time you use the word "ignore" you become more and more wrong about this.

How can you be so sure to be right, when you don't even understand how our argumentation works?

I am looking at both books side by side right now. They are definitely worded distinctly from one another.

Also, no one here is claiming permission to "ignore" the rule, but that the rule itself presents an option that may or may not be selected. Here's the vital difference between the two special rules:

ADEPTS OF THE ARMOURY: For each HQ choice in your detachment (not including other techmarines) you CAN include a techmarine. These do not take up slots on the FOC.

MEKANIAK: For each HQ choice in a detachment (not including other meks) you MAY include a single mek from this datasheet. These selections do not take up FOC slots.

Ok so big difference here. First the difference between CAN and MAY. CAN does not denote permission, but ABILITY. As in, you you don't have another HQ, you CAN NOT take a techmarine. MAY is a permission. Meaning if you do not have another HQ, you MAY NOT take a non FOC mek. Right now you're probably thinking "But Bolg, why wouldn't you word that the same way as the techmarine? Why didn't you word it 'if you dont have another HQ, you MAY NOT take a mek, period?'"

Well, thats the third emboldment. The fact that it says "These selections" denotes that there are ALTERNATIVE selection methods for getting meks, and the only other possible method is taking it as a baseline HQ choice. Nowhere does it deny permission to field a Mek without an HQ for it, unlike the Techmarine profile, which does, because of the subtle yet incredibly important difference between "can" and "may."

No. I've been avoiding getting involved in this discussion for a while now.
But .. just .. no. Really?

CAN = MAY
CAN = MAY
CAN = MAY

There is no "subtle yet incredibly important difference." They both denote permission. Though I might go along for a bit on the part about 'these selections.'

Very good point about "these selections"

 SkrawnyNob wrote:
No. I've been avoiding getting involved in this discussion for a while now.
But .. just .. no. Really?

CAN = MAY
CAN = MAY
CAN = MAY

There is no "subtle yet incredibly important difference." They both denote permission. Though I might go along for a bit on the part about 'these selections.'

Surely you've heard a teacher tell someone who asked "Can I go to the bathroom?" answer with "I don't know, can you?". That's the difference.

 Jidmah wrote:

 SkrawnyNob wrote:
No. I've been avoiding getting involved in this discussion for a while now.
But .. just .. no. Really?

CAN = MAY
CAN = MAY
CAN = MAY

There is no "subtle yet incredibly important difference." They both denote permission. Though I might go along for a bit on the part about 'these selections.'

Surely you've heard a teacher tell someone who asked "Can I go to the bathroom?" answer with "I don't know, can you?". That's the difference.

And then the student calmly replies "When I was using can I was using its secondary model form as a verbal modifier asking for permission, as opposed to expressing an ability. I thought since you were a teacher you'd know that."

That's funny right there

Cool. Now I'm going to take command squads and techmarines without any other HQ choices. Lol.

It's clear to me. No other HQ, no Mek.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ooh. Unbound list. 100% command squads. Except you just can't.

Yeah, that insightful post was totally worth necroing the thread and made all the other pages worth of arguments invalid.

Except it did not.

 Jidmah wrote:
Yeah, that insightful post was totally worth necroing the thread and made all the other pages worth of arguments invalid.

Except it did not.

I thought over 30 days is a necro?

I was going to state similar: A post with little to no content on a thread that has fallen over a week out of date is pointless. However, I figured it would simply keep the thread in the spotlight even longer after the arguments within have gone stale. So people, if nothing more is to be added to this thread please simply ignore any posts that bring it back into the spotlight before it 'dies.' Posts which do not bring new arguments, information or content simply do not need to be responded to.

My take is, and going back to the fruits and the basket analogy:

My fruit basket (force Org) says I need at least 1 fruit (hq), but I may pick up to 3. (using Ork Detach rules).

I go into the orchard and begin to pick out my first fruit. I pick an orange and put it into my basket. The apples in the near by tree tell me that because I picked an orange, I may pick an apple and put it into my basket and not count towards my total fruit limit, but this exception doesn't count if I pick an apple under the normal rules given to me by my basket. So, I pick an apple.

I go further into the orchard and decide, I want a banana. So, I pick one and put it into my basket. Another apple tree reminds me that I may take an apple now without counting towards my fruit limit if I want. So I do.

I now have an orange, a banana, and 2 apples, but I have not broken the rules given to me by my basket, nor broken the rules for obtaining free apples.

I decide that I'd really like a third apple. So, I pick an apple. Now, since I added the apple to my basket normally, I cannot use the apple's exception to pick a fourth apple. My fruit limit is now achieved legally through all the rules given to me despite me having more fruit than my basket originally told me I could. Now, the apples must be baked into pies, as per the end of their rule. Sadly, I cannot eat them as they stand.

If I had picked three apples normally, I could not pick 3 more apples that didn't count towards my fruit limit. The apples never told me in any way that I was not able to pick them normally, they instead told me I could get extra apples without breaking the rules laid out to me by my fruit basket.

See I read it as you can take a Mek as an HQ, or if you like you can field him as slotless if you take another HQ (non-Mek).

I saw no initial benefit on taking a HQ slotted mek until now which is obviously down to rounding out a HQ slot for cheap!




My thoughts are simple on this matter:

You follow the rules as they come, EG: its the movement phase, you work your way through the movement phase 1 rule at a time. If you don't have any reserves, you skip over those rules completely (including deep striking for example) as you have not "triggered" them this turn.

Its a similar situation here, You want to select a Mek, it then triggers the Mekaniak rule, which means if you have another non-mek HQ you are allowed to field this Mek slot-less instead of as a slotted mek, if you want.

The situation gives you 2 choices:
A) You choose to take it slotless
B) You choose to fill a HQ slot

The Mekaniak rule does NOT "fire"/Trigger until you pick a Mek.

Seems simple to me, but I'm a simple person