A friend has challenged me to a series of 500 point games. I am trying to use only models I own. So, in order to use models I like I'm venturing in to a company of the great wolf detachment. Now I know there is two opinions on this, so I'm trying to go for majority rule. In order to fulfil the mandatory requirements I am looking to fill a slot with a lone wolf. Now I know some think that a lone wolf never uses a force organisation slot and can only be accessed when certain units are selected. Others say they can be accessed no matter what, but they use a force organisation slot as normal unless certain units are selected. It seems the codex is mildly ambiguous. Surprise surprise GW. So, rather than go for the option that benefits me and being 'that guy', I want to see what dakka thinks.

For reference, here's the list....

Company of the great wolf detachment.

HQ - WGBL, krakenbone sword, storm shield, thunderwolf mount.

Elites - Iron priest, thunderwolf mount.

Elites - Lone Wolf, terminator armour, thunder hammer, storm Shield.

Fast attack - Thunderwolf cavalry x3. 3 storm shields, 3 chain swords. 1 melta bombs.

So what do we think?

the compulsory are 1 HQ and 2 Elites.

as per the RAW you cannot actually take a lone wolf without taking a troops choice, wolf guard, or wolf guard terminators.

that it takes up no FoC is a separate line, so the list is not legal right there as battle forged.

Additionally an unit that does not use a slot on a DoC cannot fulfill filling a cumpolsory slot.

Which was in fact my thinking exactly. But I had seen argued differently on here, where someone had ran a list with only 3 units that unlock lone wolves, and 6 lone wolves. I argued it was therefor not battleforged and got slapped down.

As with Ork Meks and the Dark Eldar Court of the Archon you won't get a consensus here on Dakka. Short of GW actually publishing a FAQ (yeah, right) you'll have to run it by your opponent/group.

Yeah, work it out yourself with your gaming group. This comes up over and over here with no consensus.

The argument tends to be as follows...

FOR...
Lone Wolves have the Elites battlefield role and can therefore be taken as normal to fill an Elites slot in a Detachment's Force Org Chart. The Lone Wolf special rules grant an ADDITIONAL method for taking the Lone Wolf as a slotless choice, but do not remove the standard permission to take a "slotted" version.

AGAINST...
Lone Wolves have special rules showing how you can take them. They can only be taken using these special rules, so the rules in the BRB on how to build an army are ignored.

I tend to be in the FOR court since the Mek, Court of the Archon, Lone Wolf, etc. rules don't have any wording restricting the normal method. From a strict RaW viewpoint, it would appear that both methods are acceptable. In the example of the Dark Eldar Court of the Archon, the fluff reasoning was that if the Archon shows up to the party, he invites his Entourage. If he doesn't show up, he sends his Entourage in his place. Either way, you're using one slot only... either for the Archon or the Court.

It's hard to know what GW intended. In previous editions, the answer would have been no for these situations. In 7th's "take what you want" environment and per the rules as written, it appears to have changed to a yes. The question becomes "was this intentional or unintentional and sloppy rules writing".

Lone Wolves

You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot.

clearly states you can take one for each troops choice or unit of wolf guard or wolf guard terminators in your army.

separately states that the selection does not use a force organization slot.


Meks

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.

same wording as above.

for each HQ you may include a single mek chosen from this datasheet.

separately states it does not use up a force org slot.

Court of the Archon

Retainers: For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot on the Force Organisation chart.

states that for each archon in detachment, you can include a court that dost not take up a slot on the force org chart.

the first two tell you that you need a unit to chose the lone wolf/mek from the datasheet.

the court tells you that you can have one that does not take up a slot if you have an archon, but does not state you take something and then may include the datasheet.

ergo the first two require you to take the required units to take them. The three are not all the same wording or rules. FWIW the ruling for Lone wolves is also under their unit composition, meks is listed under special rules, and the court is listed as its own separate thing after options for the unit.

Let's not start this argument again.

It will devolve into...

"Please highlight where in the Lone Wolf rules it says that I can't use the normal rules for army list constructions in the BRB."

"It's right there. It tells you how to take Lone Wolves."

"No, it tells me how to take slotless Lone Wolves. It doesn't have any wording restricting taking a slotted Love Wolf as per normal."

"Yes it does. Taking a Lone Wolf as an Elites choice is against the rule."

"Show me."

"I don't have to."

"Yes, you really do."

"No, your mom really does."

"At least my mom can read. Maybe you should learn."

"[MOD] - That's enough. Threadlock."

I would agree with the above in regards to the court.

mek/lone wolves is quite clear, because the two rules are separate.

it doesn't say "you can take a slotless lone wolf/mek for each x that your army includes"

it states:

"you may take a lone wolf/mek if your army includes x"

"it does not take up a slot in the force org slot"

that the second is a separate point means there is no option to take a lone/wolf mek that takes up a slot, if the two were linked together by words then it would be the arguable case that you could take a slotless or a slotted one.

that it does not take up a slot in the force org means it never does, as it is not tied to another rule.

whether or not you can take them without taking the unit it says you have to take to take the lone/wolf mek is actually a separate argument.

If we're going to dance this dance again, then please cite the specific wording that removes the permission to take a Lone Wolf as per normal using the rules in the BRB.

The entirety of the rule is "You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot.". Please highlight the bit that restricts the BRB permission.

Also, for the OP... one tactic the people will use who say you cannot use a Lone Wolf to fill a slot is as follows. They will say that the "This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot" is a completely seperate sentence and has no bearing on the "You can take..." bit. The people who say you can will argue that both sentences are part of one rule and that you can't pick and choose which parts of a rule you read to make your outcome seem to be correct. They will argue that you have to read a rule in its entirety. In other words, for each Troops/etc unit in your army, you can take one Lone Wolf that doesn't take a slot. One assumes that you can still take a Lone Wolf that DOES take a slot regardless of how many Troops/etc units are in your army.

As the two parts of that rule are separate -if- you are allowed to take them without fulfilling the first part does not invalidate the second part.

ie

whether you can take them without taking troops/WG/WGT does not invalidate that they do not take up a slot on the FoC.


that special restrictions are called out in the codex and specific trumps general and codex trumps rulebook is enough to show that the codex entry trumps the general permission of the rulebook.

EDIT-

further here is an example of how a rule looks that allows a unit to be taken multiple ways, from space wolves codex

Thralls: If Servitors are included in a Detachment that includes at least one Iron Priest, the Servitors do not use up a Force Organisation slot.

Blaktoof, in the second sentence "...This selection..." what does "this selection" refer to?

I'm not going to keep arguing this point. You've already made up your mind, so I'll never convince you. Despite multiple opportunities, you've never posted compelling RaW that restrictst the BRB permission and I can't find any myself, so you'll never convince me. We're wasting time. I was just trying to sum up the major points for the OP.

OP... you'll have to decide for yourself how this works. The ultimate question is really whether or not you're allowed to read portions of a rule or if you have to read the entire rule when making a list. Also, intent is a factor. "Because it's the way things have always worked in the past" is a terrible reason, especially in the 7th Edition "take what you want" environment. So many things have changed in 7th that previous ways of doing things are meaningless. You can now ally Space Marines and Chaos Space Marines. You can take Drop Pods by themselves. You can make a legal, Battle-forged list using nothing by Ordo Xenos Inquisitors. Heck, you can make a valid list with a single 25 point model. Even crazier... you can make a legal Unbound list using only Grots! Grot Army! Is it really so crazy to think a Lone Wolf could fill an Elites slot?

At first I was against it but looking further I think the answer is pretty obvious. It is an elite choice with special rules to take with no force slot in the event you have troop selections. The fact that they are printed in the elite section to me suggests that it it can be used as an elite choice regardless of it's special rules.

 Kriswall wrote:
Let's not start this argument again.

It will devolve into...

"Please highlight where in the Lone Wolf rules it says that I can't use the normal rules for army list constructions in the BRB."

"It's right there. It tells you how to take Lone Wolves."

"No, it tells me how to take slotless Lone Wolves. It doesn't have any wording restricting taking a slotted Love Wolf as per normal."

"Yes it does. Taking a Lone Wolf as an Elites choice is against the rule."

"Show me."

"I don't have to."

"Yes, you really do."

"No, your mom really does."

"At least my mom can read. Maybe you should learn."

"[MOD] - That's enough. Threadlock."

This genuinely made me laugh.

I understand the arguments on both sides. I also understand its an argument that seems like it'll never be settled without an FAQ. I wasn't looking for endless evidence of both sides, or a constant locked battle. Nor was I looking for the MOD to lock the thread. Hence my poll, I was after majority opinion. I appreciate everyone's opinions and thank you all.

There is of course a bonus with 7th edition. If my opponent is happy with it it is a bound list and I gain benefits. If he isn't happy.... Well heck, I can still take it and it's simply unbound.

Thanks again guys.

 Kriswall wrote:
I'm not going to keep arguing this point. You've already made up your mind, so I'll never convince you. Despite multiple opportunities, you've never posted compelling RaW that restrictst the BRB permission and I can't find any myself, so you'll never convince me. We're wasting time. I was just trying to sum up the major points for the OP.

OP... you'll have to decide for yourself how this works. The ultimate question is really whether or not you're allowed to read portions of a rule or if you have to read the entire rule when making a list. Also, intent is a factor. "Because it's the way things have always worked in the past" is a terrible reason, especially in the 7th Edition "take what you want" environment. So many things have changed in 7th that previous ways of doing things are meaningless. You can now ally Space Marines and Chaos Space Marines. You can take Drop Pods by themselves. You can make a legal, Battle-forged list using nothing by Ordo Xenos Inquisitors. Heck, you can make a valid list with a single 25 point model. Even crazier... you can make a legal Unbound list using only Grots! Grot Army! Is it really so crazy to think a Lone Wolf could fill an Elites slot?

The entry for the unit itself states what is required to unlock it and gives no alternative way of unlocking it.

if it said something along the lines of

Thralls: If Servitors are included in a Detachment that includes at least one Iron Priest, the Servitors do not use up a Force Organisation slot.

there would be obvious RAW support that you can take it more than one way.

ie if you take an iron priest you can include servitors that do not use up a force org slot.

if you do not take an iron priest therefore they do take one up.

heres the rule for lone wolves:

UNIT COMPOSITION: 1 Lone Wolf
You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot.

for each troops, wolf guard, or wolfguard terminators you can take one lone wolf in your army.

This unit does not use up a force org slot.

notice how there is zero wording you may take lone wolves without taking those selections, nor does it say "if you take these selections lone wolves do not use up a force org slot"

because RAW you are required to take the units you are listed as required to take so that you -can- have a lone wolf.

as for RAW from the rulebook there is this

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 Organisation slot, it must join the same Detachment as that specified unit.

The army list entry for lone wolf regardless of anyones interpretation includes the non optional (its not listed as optional is it?) rule that you can include 1 lone wolf if you include another specified unit. It does not take up a force organization slot.

If you take a lone wolf as per the RAW, because it has that rule entry which you have no permission to ignore- you must have it join the same detachment as the specified unit.

If you did not take the specified unit then you cannot have it join the same detachment and you have broken a basic core rule in the rulebook.

therefore RAW you cannot take a lone wolf without taking the specified unit, because you do not have permission to ignore that rule in its unit entry.

It doesn't even matter if you argue that line is optional at this point, because the RAW in the rulebook only requires that the line exists in the unit entry for it to be required to be in the same detachment as the specified unit.

The presence of that in the entry for lone wolves per the RAW means you have to follow the quoted rule.

Feel free to continue taking rules out of context.

Until such time as you are able to demonstrate literally ANY rules citation that doesn't involve using PART of a rule or taking a single sentence out of context, I will continue to believe that Lone Wolves can be taken to fill an Elites slot, as the BRB grants permission.

so you believe the entry for lone wolves does not state it can be included in an army if the army includes another unit and does not take up a FoC slot, anywhere in its unit entry.

because by the RAW not out of context if that is there then it must be in the same detachment as the unit listed as one of the required ones in that entry.

there is no rule being used in partial here, and nothing being taken out of context.

Does the unit entry contain that if your army includes x then you may take this unit ?

Then by raw you have to have it in the same detachment as the unit. The rule in the rulebook does not ask or care if you took the unit any certain way, just that the entry contains the above quoted word, if so you must follow the rule in the rulebook.

Doing anything else is taking the rule out of context to the extent that you might as well say you can have the unit for free because nothing requires you to pay the points cost of the unit. Ignoring rules is ignoring rules

blaktoof wrote:
so you believe the entry for lone wolves does not state it can be included in an army if the army includes another unit and does not take up a FoC slot, anywhere in its unit entry.

because by the RAW not out of context if that is there then it must be in the same detachment as the unit listed as one of the required ones in that entry.

there is no rule being used in partial here, and nothing being taken out of context.

Does the unit entry contain that if your army includes x then you may take this unit ?

Then by raw you have to have it in the same detachment as the unit. The rule in the rulebook does not ask or care if you took the unit any certain way, just that the entry contains the above quoted word, if so you must follow the rule in the rulebook.

Doing anything else is taking the rule out of context to the extent that you might as well say you can have the unit for free because nothing requires you to pay the points cost of the unit. Ignoring rules is ignoring rules

The unit entry rules in the BRB require you to pay the points cost.

How does taking a unit in the same detachment have ANYTHING to do with whether or not it uses a slot and whether you use the Codex method or the BRB method to include it in your list? Just curious what your thoughts were there.

from the main rulebook

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 Organisation slot, it must join the same Detachment as that specified unit.

The above general rule from the rulebook makes no mention of if you have an option, or if you take a unit that is slotless. All that matters is that the unit entry has the rule that says it can be included in an army that includes another specified unit, and that it does not take up a force org slot.

from lone wolves

You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organization slot.

the wording fits unambiguously to the above general rule.

because of this you must take the lone wolves as per the general rule in the rulebook. Ie if you take the lone wolves, they must be in the same detachment as the specified unit. If you take a lone wolf, it must be in the same detachment as the troop/WG/WGT.

the general rule only cares that the unity entry, contains that wording for that rule. Which lone wolves does unambiguously.

in order for lone wolves to be taken as a slotted elite choice they would now need a SPECIFIC rule in the codex/formation to do so- not the rulebook. The rulebook itself sets the general rule which they obviously have in their unit entry. There is no such rule in the codex, therefore it is not possible by the plain RAW to take a lone wolf that is slotless, or without the required units.

tldr-

the general rule for units that contain "may be taken in an army that includes x, and they do not use up a slot" means they can only be taken that way unless their codex specifies otherwise, lone wolves does not so that is the only way they can be taken by strict RAW.

There doesn't need to be a rule in the rulebook saying they can't be taken slotless, because there is a rule stating they have to be taken slotless, and in the same detachment as the unit required to use the unit entry. There needs to be a specific rule in the codex entry itself to override the general RAW in the rulebook.

I have to say that I agree that Lone Wolfs can't be taken as elite slots going by the wording. If you look at the 5th edition Blood Angels codex the wording for DC dreadnoughts was the same. I.e. "You can include one death company dreadnought for every 5 ............"

This seems to indicate that the term "You can..." is a restrictive one when compared with the alternative of "You may......".

Just my two cents, I could be wrong but that is the way I am leaning for the moment.

We essentially have two permissions. They do not seem to contradict each other. Posting a rule saying that if I take a slotless unit that it has to go in the same Detachment as the unit that "unlocked" it does not show a contradiction. Nobody has tried arguing that the Lone Wolf would go into a different Detachment, so I'm still not sure how that citation is relevant.

First Permision...
"You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organization slot."

Second Permission (paraphrased from the BRB because I didn't feel like copy and pasting multiple paragraphs)...
You can take Units with the Elites Battlefield Role to fulfill Elites requirements in Detachments. This selection does use up a Force Organization slot.

It looks very much to me like I have two different and non-contradicting methods for taking Lone Wolves. Now, if the Lone Wolf rule included a clause saying something to the effect of "You can only take a Lone Wolf in this fashion", I would gladly say there is a contradiction, say that Codex overrides BRB and we'd all be happy. However, there is no such clause.

Incidentally, from a grammatical standpoint, can and may mean the same thing. May is just more polite. May has an implied connotation of asking for permission. Can has an implied connotation of asking for capability. In reality, there is no practical difference. When I ask the teacher if I can go to the bathroom, I'm only asking if I have the capability because if he says no, then I can't actually go to the bathroom. I have no idea what GW authors think can means versus may, but since they haven't defined it in the same way they defined their usage of and/or, I'm forced to fall back on standard meanings. It's possible that GW is assigning meaning to can and not may... but if so, they need to define this somewhere or it remains, at best, ambiguous; at worst, misleading.

 Kriswall wrote:
We essentially have two permissions. They do not seem to contradict each other. Posting a rule saying that if I take a slotless unit that it has to go in the same Detachment as the unit that "unlocked" it does not show a contradiction. Nobody has tried arguing that the Lone Wolf would go into a different Detachment, so I'm still not sure how that citation is relevant.

First Permision...
"You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organization slot."

Second Permission (paraphrased from the BRB because I didn't feel like copy and pasting multiple paragraphs)...
You can take Units with the Elites Battlefield Role to fulfill Elites requirements in Detachments. This selection does use up a Force Organization slot.

It looks very much to me like I have two different and non-contradicting methods for taking Lone Wolves. Now, if the Lone Wolf rule included a clause saying something to the effect of "You can only take a Lone Wolf in this fashion", I would gladly say there is a contradiction, say that Codex overrides BRB and we'd all be happy. However, there is no such clause.

Incidentally, from a grammatical standpoint, can and may mean the same thing. May is just more polite. May has an implied connotation of asking for permission. Can has an implied connotation of asking for capability. In reality, there is no practical difference. When I ask the teacher if I can go to the bathroom, I'm only asking if I have the capability because if he says no, then I can't actually go to the bathroom. I have no idea what GW authors think can means versus may, but since they haven't defined it in the same way they defined their usage of and/or, I'm forced to fall back on standard meanings. It's possible that GW is assigning meaning to can and not may... but if so, they need to define this somewhere or it remains, at best, ambiguous; at worst, misleading.

Your reasoning here seems to suggest that Blood Angel players could have taken as many DC Dreadnughts as they wanted without paying the DC marine tax using the 5th edition codex. The wording is exactly the same. "You can include one Death Company Dreadnought for every 5 Death Company models in your army". Your argument seems to suggest that we could just ignore this and handwave it away by claiming that we have an "alternative" permission to take them as per rules of the BRB. Afterall it doesn't say that we can't have DC Dreadnoughts if we don't have the DC marines.

Edit: Added last sentence.

 DarthOvious wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
We essentially have two permissions. They do not seem to contradict each other. Posting a rule saying that if I take a slotless unit that it has to go in the same Detachment as the unit that "unlocked" it does not show a contradiction. Nobody has tried arguing that the Lone Wolf would go into a different Detachment, so I'm still not sure how that citation is relevant.

First Permision...
"You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organization slot."

Second Permission (paraphrased from the BRB because I didn't feel like copy and pasting multiple paragraphs)...
You can take Units with the Elites Battlefield Role to fulfill Elites requirements in Detachments. This selection does use up a Force Organization slot.

It looks very much to me like I have two different and non-contradicting methods for taking Lone Wolves. Now, if the Lone Wolf rule included a clause saying something to the effect of "You can only take a Lone Wolf in this fashion", I would gladly say there is a contradiction, say that Codex overrides BRB and we'd all be happy. However, there is no such clause.

Incidentally, from a grammatical standpoint, can and may mean the same thing. May is just more polite. May has an implied connotation of asking for permission. Can has an implied connotation of asking for capability. In reality, there is no practical difference. When I ask the teacher if I can go to the bathroom, I'm only asking if I have the capability because if he says no, then I can't actually go to the bathroom. I have no idea what GW authors think can means versus may, but since they haven't defined it in the same way they defined their usage of and/or, I'm forced to fall back on standard meanings. It's possible that GW is assigning meaning to can and not may... but if so, they need to define this somewhere or it remains, at best, ambiguous; at worst, misleading.

Your reasoning here seems to suggest that Blood Angel players could have taken as many DC Dreadnughts as they wanted without paying the DC marine tax using the 5th edition codex. The wording is exactly the same. "You can include one Death Company Dreadnought for every 5 Death Company models in your army". Your argument seems to suggest that we could just ignore this and handwave it away by claiming that we have an "alternative" permission to take them as per rules of the BRB. Afterall it doesn't say that we can't have DC Dreadnoughts if we don't have the DC marines.

Edit: Added last sentence.

I don't have copies of the 5th or 6th Edition rule books handy, so I can't speak to how prior editions would have handled army list construction. All I know is that the 7th Edition rule book appears to grant a permission that is not being removed.

Besides, the Death Company Dreadnought issue would have been a different one. In that case, there was no specification that the Dreads would not take up a slot. There was no implication that you could take an extra Dread outside the confines of the Force Organization chart like there is with the Lone Wolf. I continue to read the Lone Wolf rule as effectively telling me that for every eligible unit I should glue a phantom, Lone Wolf shaped slot onto the Force Org Chart. I can take a Lone Wolf to fill this phantom slot if I want. Or not. My call. This doesn't necessarily stop Lone Wolves from fitting in regularly shaped Elites slots.

if an unit entry contains that "it can be taken in an army if army includes x. The unit does not take up a slot on the force organization chart"

then by the RAW it has to be taken in the same detachment as the unit required, and is slotless.

the rule in the rulebook under slotless force org selections states so.

it does not state "if you take it as slotless"

it states if the -entry- says it can be taken.

does the entry state it? Yes.

the second permission you stated is invalid as its already overriden in the rulebook by the presence of the line in the codex.

yes therefore by the general rule in the rulebook you only have permission at this point to take it slotless, in the same detachment as the listed unit.

if the codex entry states otherwise, then you have specific permission to override the general rule in the rulebook.

lone wolves and meks do not grant such permission.

there is no option take it slotless, period according to the general rules in the rulebook. The fact it is an elite slot is not of importance when it has the more specific rule of

Occasionally a unit’s Army List Entry will state that the unit it describes does not take up a slot on a Force Organisation Chart.

These units can be included in any Detachment, even if all the 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.

Games Workshop Ltd. Warhammer 40,000 (Kindle Locations 9373-9375).

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 Organisation slot, it must join the same Detachment as that specified unit.

the lone wolves entry for the above is not listed as optional in the codex, and as per the wording on the rules in the rulebook from above it merely looks to see if the entry states they can be included in the army and are slotless.

therefore there is no option to include them as a non slotless entry.

tldr- the general rule from the rulebook : if any army list entry states it can be taken in an army if you you take x, it is slotless. Then it can only be taken in the detachment that contains x and is slotless. The presence of the rule in the entry means there is no option to take it another way, unless the specific army list entry in the codex says otherwise. for meks and lone wolves it does not say otherwise.

I play orks, dark eldar, and space wolves and am fine with this as it is the actual simple rules as written.

Agree to disagree.

 Kriswall wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
We essentially have two permissions. They do not seem to contradict each other. Posting a rule saying that if I take a slotless unit that it has to go in the same Detachment as the unit that "unlocked" it does not show a contradiction. Nobody has tried arguing that the Lone Wolf would go into a different Detachment, so I'm still not sure how that citation is relevant.

First Permision...
"You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organization slot."

Second Permission (paraphrased from the BRB because I didn't feel like copy and pasting multiple paragraphs)...
You can take Units with the Elites Battlefield Role to fulfill Elites requirements in Detachments. This selection does use up a Force Organization slot.

It looks very much to me like I have two different and non-contradicting methods for taking Lone Wolves. Now, if the Lone Wolf rule included a clause saying something to the effect of "You can only take a Lone Wolf in this fashion", I would gladly say there is a contradiction, say that Codex overrides BRB and we'd all be happy. However, there is no such clause.

Incidentally, from a grammatical standpoint, can and may mean the same thing. May is just more polite. May has an implied connotation of asking for permission. Can has an implied connotation of asking for capability. In reality, there is no practical difference. When I ask the teacher if I can go to the bathroom, I'm only asking if I have the capability because if he says no, then I can't actually go to the bathroom. I have no idea what GW authors think can means versus may, but since they haven't defined it in the same way they defined their usage of and/or, I'm forced to fall back on standard meanings. It's possible that GW is assigning meaning to can and not may... but if so, they need to define this somewhere or it remains, at best, ambiguous; at worst, misleading.

Your reasoning here seems to suggest that Blood Angel players could have taken as many DC Dreadnughts as they wanted without paying the DC marine tax using the 5th edition codex. The wording is exactly the same. "You can include one Death Company Dreadnought for every 5 Death Company models in your army". Your argument seems to suggest that we could just ignore this and handwave it away by claiming that we have an "alternative" permission to take them as per rules of the BRB. Afterall it doesn't say that we can't have DC Dreadnoughts if we don't have the DC marines.

Edit: Added last sentence.

I don't have copies of the 5th or 6th Edition rule books handy, so I can't speak to how prior editions would have handled army list construction. All I know is that the 7th Edition rule book appears to grant a permission that is not being removed.

Besides, the Death Company Dreadnought issue would have been a different one. In that case, there was no specification that the Dreads would not take up a slot. There was no implication that you could take an extra Dread outside the confines of the Force Organization chart like there is with the Lone Wolf. I continue to read the Lone Wolf rule as effectively telling me that for every eligible unit I should glue a phantom, Lone Wolf shaped slot onto the Force Org Chart. I can take a Lone Wolf to fill this phantom slot if I want. Or not. My call. This doesn't necessarily stop Lone Wolves from fitting in regularly shaped Elites slots.

Just out of interest. Whats the wording used for Space Marine Honour Guard? Don't have the book on me at the moment so don't know but if it's then do you think that they could be taken as an HQ by itself?

Sadly (I say sadly because I wanted to run multiple LWs), the wording is the same:

"You may take one Honour Guard unit for each Chapter Master in your army (including Marneus Calgar, Pedro Kantor and High Marshal Helbrecht). This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot."

I don't think anyone has ever debated that this rule is interpreted as you need to have a chapter master in order to take a unit of HG.

skolirvarden wrote:
Sadly (I say sadly because I wanted to run multiple LWs), the wording is the same:

"You may take one Honour Guard unit for each Chapter Master in your army (including Marneus Calgar, Pedro Kantor and High Marshal Helbrecht). This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot."

I don't think anyone has ever debated that this rule is interpreted as you need to have a chapter master in order to take a unit of HG.

So essentially Space Wolf players who take a Lone Wolf as an elite slot without the other requirements to make it slotless would also have to agree that SM players can take a lone Honour Guard as an HQ choice slot?

 DarthOvious wrote:

skolirvarden wrote:
Sadly (I say sadly because I wanted to run multiple LWs), the wording is the same:

"You may take one Honour Guard unit for each Chapter Master in your army (including Marneus Calgar, Pedro Kantor and High Marshal Helbrecht). This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot."

I don't think anyone has ever debated that this rule is interpreted as you need to have a chapter master in order to take a unit of HG.

So essentially Space Wolf players who take a Lone Wolf as an elite slot without the other requirements to make it slotless would also have to agree that SM players can take a lone Honour Guard as an HQ choice slot?

Yes. As I said, didn't realise this before and wish I could say otherwise, because I was intending to run a couple of LWs using Elite slots, but it seems like this would not be allowed, unless everyone is willing to concede that you can take HG as a HQ choice.

The Space Marine Codex is not laid out like a 7th Edition Codex (such as Space Wolves) and doesn't have the same Unit Entry structure. I'll have to wait until GW puts out a 7th Edition Space Marine Codex to comment.

If you want a real answer, I would say that since the Honour Guard, Cenobyte Servitors, Command Squad, Techmarine, Sergeant Telion and Sergeant Chronus Unit Entries are all in "side boxes", they're not to be considered to be a part of the regular HQ, Troops, etc. sections and as such can't be taken by themselves in a Codex: Space Marines Detachment or Formation. This is not the case with Space Wolf Lone Wolves, Ork Meks, Dark Eldar Courts of the Archon, etc.

I really think all this confusion is a function of the way GW is laying out the new Codexes. In previous edition publications, units like this were clearly seperated from the rest of the Unit Entries. Now they're not. This is a change from the previous edition to the current.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As a further point of interest...

If the "side boxes" mean nothing, then would I be able to take Telion by himself as a Unit of 1? In the iBooks Interactive Edition, he is on his own page, has no points cost and no rules saying he must be taken as an upgrade in a seperate unit. The Scout Squad says he can be taken as a replacement for the Scout Sarge, but has no wording restricting him being taken alone.

Now, I'm obviously not arguing that he can be taken alone. I think the intent is clear... but the ONLY thing preventing him from being taken alone is the "side box". Same with the Honour Guard. The Lone Wolf has no side box and so should be considered a normal, eligible Elites choice for filling normal slots.

 Kriswall wrote:
The Space Marine Codex is not laid out like a 7th Edition Codex (such as Space Wolves) and doesn't have the same Unit Entry structure. I'll have to wait until GW puts out a 7th Edition Space Marine Codex to comment.

As far as I can see (and I have both codexes in front of me right now), the only difference between the two is that in the SM codex the units are grouped in sections (ie all HQ units together, all troops together) under a common page title, while in the SW codex there is the FOC patch in the corner of the page.

skolirvarden wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
The Space Marine Codex is not laid out like a 7th Edition Codex (such as Space Wolves) and doesn't have the same Unit Entry structure. I'll have to wait until GW puts out a 7th Edition Space Marine Codex to comment.

As far as I can see (and I have both codexes in front of me right now), the only difference between the two is that in the SM codex the units are grouped in sections (ie all HQ units together, all troops together) under a common page title, while in the SW codex there is the FOC patch in the corner of the page.

AND the SM Codex has boxes around certain entries separating them from the rest of the entries.

 Kriswall wrote:

skolirvarden wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
The Space Marine Codex is not laid out like a 7th Edition Codex (such as Space Wolves) and doesn't have the same Unit Entry structure. I'll have to wait until GW puts out a 7th Edition Space Marine Codex to comment.

As far as I can see (and I have both codexes in front of me right now), the only difference between the two is that in the SM codex the units are grouped in sections (ie all HQ units together, all troops together) under a common page title, while in the SW codex there is the FOC patch in the corner of the page.

AND the SM Codex has boxes around certain entries separating them from the rest of the entries.

Not in the ebook it doesn't.

skolirvarden wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

skolirvarden wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
The Space Marine Codex is not laid out like a 7th Edition Codex (such as Space Wolves) and doesn't have the same Unit Entry structure. I'll have to wait until GW puts out a 7th Edition Space Marine Codex to comment.

As far as I can see (and I have both codexes in front of me right now), the only difference between the two is that in the SM codex the units are grouped in sections (ie all HQ units together, all troops together) under a common page title, while in the SW codex there is the FOC patch in the corner of the page.

AND the SM Codex has boxes around certain entries separating them from the rest of the entries.

Not in the ebook it doesn't.

I just took a look at the ePub release versus the Interactive Edition. I think the issue here is that GW is leaving EXTREMELY important formatting bits out of the ePub version. The physical book release as well as the Interactive Edition release both have clear boxes around the Unit Entries in question separating them from the rest of the Entries. The ePub version has no such box. As such, there is nothing to tell me the Unit is to be treated differently. But... look at Telion in your ePub version and tell me what in the Telion Entry (not the Scout Entry) indicates that Telion can't be taken alone.

Without the boxes around the Unit Entry, the ePub Unit Entry for Telion looks like he's free (no points cost) and can be taken alone as an Infantry (Character). I obviously don't think this, but from a Rules as Written standpoint, it looks like GW made a formatting/layout mistake and opened the door for ambiguities and confusion.

 Kriswall wrote:

skolirvarden wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
The Space Marine Codex is not laid out like a 7th Edition Codex (such as Space Wolves) and doesn't have the same Unit Entry structure. I'll have to wait until GW puts out a 7th Edition Space Marine Codex to comment.

As far as I can see (and I have both codexes in front of me right now), the only difference between the two is that in the SM codex the units are grouped in sections (ie all HQ units together, all troops together) under a common page title, while in the SW codex there is the FOC patch in the corner of the page.

AND the SM Codex has boxes around certain entries separating them from the rest of the entries.

The daemon codex does the same for Heralds but mentions that the upto four selections still take up a HQ slot. Seems to suggests that means the bordering doesn't neccessarily mean the entry counts as slotless.

Edit: I also wanted to add that the 5th edition codex for GK's doesn't have this border around the entry for Inquisitorial Henchmen. They are also placed in the elites section and states "For each Inquisitor in your army, you may also include a unit of 3-12 henchmen, chosen in any combination from those shown. This unit does not use up a force organisation slot."

Any thoughts on this?

It's an old Codex, so isn't relevant? What does the 7th Grey Knights Codex look like?

 Kriswall wrote:
It's an old Codex, so isn't relevant? What does the 7th Grey Knights Codex look like?

Henchmen aren't in it as they were moved to the inquisitor codex. I don't have that book so I'm not sure but it's possible it could be the same as I believe it was pretty much a copy and paste job for what I heard with just copying a pasting the relevent inquisitor bits.

Edit: However as for the bordering issue the 5th edition Blood Angels codex still had their Honour Guard with a bordering and thats an older codex than the Grey Knights 5th edition one. So it appears that GW have been bordering some units for a long time now while not bordering others.

I have to admit that this confusion would be easily mitigated against if they just put slotless entries into their own slotless section of their respective codex.

I would like to point out another difference between a 6th edition codex and 7th edition codex.

For things from 6th edition, eg Honour Guard, Warlock Councils, Royal Courts (though this will probably change), Crisis Bodyguards, etc, there is a note right after the unit name and cost. The note says something along the lines of "You may take one X for each Y in a detachment. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot". You'll note that unlike a 7th edition codex, this is not a special rule of the unit

I'm with Kriswall on this. 7th has changed a lot and the emphasis now is on freedom to include the units you want (which makes perfect sense given that GW is allegedly a model company). 7th Ed codexes support this by giving all these "unlockable" units their own datasheet meaning they can be taken to fill that battlefield role. The format and rukes relating to similar units in 6th Ed codexes is irrelevant this is how 7th Ed works and is why in 7th Ed dexes the DTs are all listed with other battlefield roles (largely Fast Attack).

 Happyjew wrote:
I would like to point out another difference between a 6th edition codex and 7th edition codex.

For things from 6th edition, eg Honour Guard, Warlock Councils, Royal Courts (though this will probably change), Crisis Bodyguards, etc, there is a note right after the unit name and cost. The note says something along the lines of "You may take one X for each Y in a detachment. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot". You'll note that unlike a 7th edition codex, this is not a special rule of the unit

Lone wolves are the same format but instead of 'may' its the word 'can'.

additionally just like 6th the rule that makes lone wolves takeable only as slotless with troops/wg/wgt is not listed as a special rule either, it is under their unit composition.

again according to the core rules in the rulebook, if that statement is present in the entry [not an if you take it some way] just that it is present, then they have to be taken in the same detachment as the listed unit, and are slotless. there is no optional about it.

blaktoof wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
I would like to point out another difference between a 6th edition codex and 7th edition codex.

For things from 6th edition, eg Honour Guard, Warlock Councils, Royal Courts (though this will probably change), Crisis Bodyguards, etc, there is a note right after the unit name and cost. The note says something along the lines of "You may take one X for each Y in a detachment. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot". You'll note that unlike a 7th edition codex, this is not a special rule of the unit

Lone wolves are the same format but instead of 'may' its the word 'can'.

additionally just like 6th the rule that makes lone wolves takeable only as slotless with troops/wg/wgt is not listed as a special rule either, it is under their unit composition.

again according to the core rules in the rulebook, if that statement is present in the entry [not an if you take it some way] just that it is present, then they have to be taken in the same detachment as the listed unit, and are slotless. there is no optional about it.

The rule you keep citing just says they have to be taken in the same detachment. Nobody is trying to take them in a different detachment. I agree 100% that they need to be taken in the same detachment. You obviously can't take a Ultramarines CAD, take a Techmarine to accompany your Ultramarines Captain and then stick that Techmarine in a Clan Raukaan Allied Detachment. He would need to be in the Ultramarines Detachment. That's all that rule does. It doesn't restrict permission to take the Techmarine using a normal slot.

The rule I keep citing is:

Occasionally a unit’s Army List Entry will state that the unit it describes does not take up a slot on a Force Organisation Chart.

The thing to note here is it only requires the army list entry to state it does not take up a force org slot.

Now lets look at lone wolves unit entry.

UNIT COMPOSITION: 1 Lone Wolf
You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot.

does this army list entry state the unit does not take up a force organization slot?

Answer - Yes.

back to the core rules...

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 Organisation 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.

looking back up at lone wolves.

does it state in the army list entry that it can be included in an army that includes another specified unit?

yes.

then a[one] lone wolf must be included in the same detachment as that specified unit as the above rule states.

so per the RAW if you take a lone wolf it must be in the same detachment as the troop unit, WG unit, or WGT unit that is required to take it.

there is no option to take a slotless lone wolf per the RAW in the core rulebook regarding any army list entry that states the above, and the specific unit entry and the codex does not give any specific ruling in the unit entry itself that is an option to take it any way other than slotless with the required units also being taken in the same detachment.

Even if there was an option to take a slotless lone wolf unit [there is not] then it would still have to adhere to the rule in the rulebook that it must be taken in a detachment with the specified unit, i.e. Troop/WG/WGT unless its entry specifies otherwise, which it does not.

the point of the above is, the OPs list is not battleforged, it could be unbound though, as it does not contain a troop unit, WG unit, or WGT unit which is required by the RAW to have a lone wolf, without that there can be no lone wolf in the detachment as per the RAW in the rulebook.

Note the rule does not state this is the only way to field that unit, of course, or what happens if the re is no other you it

Mistaking permission for restriction again

blaktoof wrote:
The rule I keep citing is:

Occasionally a unit’s Army List Entry will state that the unit it describes does not take up a slot on a Force Organisation Chart.

The thing to note here is it only requires the army list entry to state it does not take up a force org slot.

Now lets look at lone wolves unit entry.

UNIT COMPOSITION: 1 Lone Wolf
You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot.

does this army list entry state the unit does not take up a force organization slot?

Answer - Yes.

back to the core rules...

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 Organisation 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.

looking back up at lone wolves.

does it state in the army list entry that it can be included in an army that includes another specified unit?

yes.

then a[one] lone wolf must be included in the same detachment as that specified unit as the above rule states.

so per the RAW if you take a lone wolf it must be in the same detachment as the troop unit, WG unit, or WGT unit that is required to take it.

there is no option to take a slotless lone wolf per the RAW in the core rulebook regarding any army list entry that states the above, and the specific unit entry and the codex does not give any specific ruling in the unit entry itself that is an option to take it any way other than slotless with the required units also being taken in the same detachment.

Even if there was an option to take a slotless lone wolf unit [there is not] then it would still have to adhere to the rule in the rulebook that it must be taken in a detachment with the specified unit, i.e. Troop/WG/WGT unless its entry specifies otherwise, which it does not.

the point of the above is, the OPs list is not battleforged, it could be unbound though, as it does not contain a troop unit, WG unit, or WGT unit which is required by the RAW to have a lone wolf, without that there can be no lone wolf in the detachment as per the RAW in the rulebook.

Again, nobody is saying that the Lone Wolf would be taken in a different Detachment. I'm uncertain as to how saying "If X is true, then Y must be taken in the same detachment as Z" removes the permission to take Y buying paying points and filling an Elites slot. The rule you keep posting has no wording to restrict the normal method. It simply adds a caveat that slotless units must go in the same Detachment.

Oh look, rule 1 again. Reported

I have permission to take it as Elite choice, or slotless. If i take it slotless the unit that is required to make it slotless must be in the same detachment.

The rest of your oh so helpful comments I have left alone, as they do not merit a response

Edit: The above was in response to a post by Blaktoof that ha snow been removed by mods, and not aimed at Kriswall.

Actually 7th ed has seen a lot of options being removed from the codices. Just look at all the characters who could unlock certain units as troops as well as the new BA codex moving ASM back into fast attack. Saying that 7th ed allows more options is false because it only allows you more options under the unbound system. This isn't a good argument to say that this means Lone Wolves can be taken as a slotted elite choice.

Also how far did we get with the Inquisitorial Henchmen entry for GK 5th ed and the new Inqusition codex? To be honest I don't see GW changing their meanings of the language they use in codices for the same phrases, it would cause too much confusion. So I'm thinking that they must mean the same thing really.

Do we have very many Inqusition players taking Henchmen without an Inquisitor and just using up an elite slot instead?

Edit: Grammar

 DarthOvious wrote:
Actually 7th ed has seen a lot of options being removed from the codices. Just look at all the characters who could unlock certain units as troops as well as the new BA codex moving ASM back into fast attack. Saying that 7th ed allows more options is false because it only allows you more options under the unbound system. This isn't a good argument to say that this means Lone Wolves can be taken as a slotted elite choice.

Also how far did we get with the Inquisitorial Henchmen entry for GK 5th ed and the new Inqusition codex? To be honest I don't see GW changing their meanings of the language they use in codices for the same phrases, it would cause too much confusion. So I'm thinking that they must mean the same thing really.

Do we have very many Inqusition players taking Henchmen without an Inquisitor and just using up an elite slot instead?

Edit: Grammar

The current Codex Inquistion's Inquisitorial Detachment requires 1-2 HQs (Various Inquisitors) and 0-3 Elites (Henchmen being the only choice). The only way take Henchmen without an Inquisitor is to make an Unbound list. The old 5th Edition GK Codex is no longer a valid rules source, so I would hope nobody out there is using it. If they are, they're already in house rule territory, so how they can play it however they want.

 Kriswall wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
Actually 7th ed has seen a lot of options being removed from the codices. Just look at all the characters who could unlock certain units as troops as well as the new BA codex moving ASM back into fast attack. Saying that 7th ed allows more options is false because it only allows you more options under the unbound system. This isn't a good argument to say that this means Lone Wolves can be taken as a slotted elite choice.

Also how far did we get with the Inquisitorial Henchmen entry for GK 5th ed and the new Inqusition codex? To be honest I don't see GW changing their meanings of the language they use in codices for the same phrases, it would cause too much confusion. So I'm thinking that they must mean the same thing really.

Do we have very many Inqusition players taking Henchmen without an Inquisitor and just using up an elite slot instead?

Edit: Grammar

The current Codex Inquistion's Inquisitorial Detachment requires 1-2 HQs (Various Inquisitors) and 0-3 Elites (Henchmen being the only choice). The only way take Henchmen without an Inquisitor is to make an Unbound list. The old 5th Edition GK Codex is no longer a valid rules source, so I would hope nobody out there is using it. If they are, they're already in house rule territory, so how they can play it however they want.

How is it worded? Is it worded the same way?

Also why does it matter if the 5th ed GK is an old one? Is it reasonable to think that GW dramatically changed the meaning of their rule interpretations? As I said before that would just cause too much confusion. If they meant something different then surely they wouldn't have used the same language as they have used for all other slotless entries. This is something that needs to be considered. Did we see Marine players taking Honour Guard as HQ slots? Did we see GK players back in 5th take Henchmen as elite slots without an inquisitor? I'm curious, I haven't seen any who did but perhaps some people did but I just didn't see them.

I guess I'm asking why you are interpretating the same language used here differently from all the other entries.

 Kriswall wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
The rule I keep citing is:

Occasionally a unit’s Army List Entry will state that the unit it describes does not take up a slot on a Force Organisation Chart.

The thing to note here is it only requires the army list entry to state it does not take up a force org slot.

Now lets look at lone wolves unit entry.

UNIT COMPOSITION: 1 Lone Wolf
You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot.

does this army list entry state the unit does not take up a force organization slot?

Answer - Yes.

back to the core rules...

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 Organisation 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.

looking back up at lone wolves.

does it state in the army list entry that it can be included in an army that includes another specified unit?

yes.

then a[one] lone wolf must be included in the same detachment as that specified unit as the above rule states.

so per the RAW if you take a lone wolf it must be in the same detachment as the troop unit, WG unit, or WGT unit that is required to take it.

there is no option to take a slotless lone wolf per the RAW in the core rulebook regarding any army list entry that states the above, and the specific unit entry and the codex does not give any specific ruling in the unit entry itself that is an option to take it any way other than slotless with the required units also being taken in the same detachment.

Even if there was an option to take a slotless lone wolf unit [there is not] then it would still have to adhere to the rule in the rulebook that it must be taken in a detachment with the specified unit, i.e. Troop/WG/WGT unless its entry specifies otherwise, which it does not.

the point of the above is, the OPs list is not battleforged, it could be unbound though, as it does not contain a troop unit, WG unit, or WGT unit which is required by the RAW to have a lone wolf, without that there can be no lone wolf in the detachment as per the RAW in the rulebook.

Again, nobody is saying that the Lone Wolf would be taken in a different Detachment. I'm uncertain as to how saying "If X is true, then Y must be taken in the same detachment as Z" removes the permission to take Y buying paying points and filling an Elites slot. The rule you keep posting has no wording to restrict the normal method. It simply adds a caveat that slotless units must go in the same Detachment.

it does not add the caveat that a -slotless- unit must go in the same detachment.

it adds the caveat that a unit thas that it can be taken as s slotless unit in its unit entry must go in the same detachment as any specified unit that allows it to be in that detachment.

so even if you could take a lone wolf as a slotted selection, per the RAW it can only be taken in a detachment that has a troop/wg/wgt whether it is slotless or not.

and as such the OPs list is not battleforged.

further the core rule states that if it is listed as slotless, then it is slotless. the codex entry does not specify it is an option to be slotless, as such there is no rule allowing for it to be slotless as the rule for slotless entries is more specific than generally being allowed to put a unit in a slot based on its role, as the rule for slotless states if the unity entry specifies it can be taken slotless, then its slotless.

the only thing at that point that can supercede that rule is the specific entry in the codex. If lone wolf specifically states it can be taken as a slotted entry as well as slotless in its unit entry itself, which it does not.

those are two separate reasons why the OP list is not battleforged, and while some posters here have addresses one part of it, without any rules support to actually even show their stance or refute the core rule in the rulebook, they have failed utterly to demonstate the other part.

You rule says that if a Unit entry [both states it can be included in an army with another specific unit and is slotless] it must go in the same detachment as the specific unit. Has he not put the Lone Wolf in the same detachment? Sure looks like he has. We only have one Detachment.

All your rule does is require that the Unit go in the same detachment, which is being obeyed.

So, again, do you have any rules restricting the permission to take Units with the Elites Battlefield Role to fill an Elites slot in a Detachment's Force Org Chart?

You have the BRB permission and the Unit Entry permission. They do not contradict each other, so there is no advanced versus general issue. This is a permissive ruleset, so in the absence of a rule saying "Lone Wolves may not be used to fill Elites slots in a Detachment's Force Org Chart", we have to assume they can based on an existing permission. Are you able to cite such a rule?

the Op list has to put the lone wolf in a detachment that has a troop unit, wolf guard unit, or wolf guard terminator unit. Because the unit entry states that it can be taken in an army that includes x units, in this case X are troops, wolf guard, and wolf guard terminators.

That it is listed in the entry is all that is required for the unit to be in the same detachment as one of the above listed units.

that is what the rule is requiring, which is not being obeyed.

the point is, even discounting if you can take Lone Wolf as slotless/slotted the clear RAW states in the core rulebook, as well as the unit entry; it must be in the same detachment as a troop, wolf guard, or wolf guard terminator unit.

the OP list does not have those units, hence it is not battle forged.

there is no option.

there is no contradiction in your eyes because you are not actually following the rules listed under

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 Organisation slot, it must join the same Detachment as that specified unit.

which does not care how the unit is taken ultimately, it only asks does the unit list entry state the following?

no matter how you could potentially take a lone wolf the unit entry does state the above, unambiguously.

so the OPs list is not battle forged.

because it contains no troop/wg/wgt in the same detachment as the lone wolf, which is required- not optional.

Agree to disagree.

I'm reading this as having two options...

#1 - I can use the BRB permission to fill an Elites Slot with a Lone Wolf.

#2 - I can use the Lone Wolf rule to take a slotless Lone Wolf if I take, say, a Wolf Guard unit, but that slotless Lone Wolf would have to be included in the same Detachment as the specific Wolf Guard unit used to take the Lone Wolf.

I read #2 as only coming into play if you're using that method to take the Lone Wolf.

Devil's Advocate. If you can't find a rule stating that the permission in the BRB is restricted, then it must be there. If I take a Lone Wolf to fill a regular Elites Slot, which specific unit does it have to share a Detachment with?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do the rules break because there is no specific unit? If so, this needs an Errata. Keep in mind that Specific doesn't mean "must include A Troops choice"... it means "If you take this specific unit of Blood Claws, you can take A Lone Wolf without a slot and that Lone Wolf must be included in the same Detachment as this specific unit of Blood Claws".

If I am not restricted from taking the Lone Wolf as a regular Elites slot (which I don't seem to be restricted from doing so), which specific unit does it have to be in the same Detachment as?

At the end of the day we follow the rules and their wording. We do not follow bordering, we do not follow placement in a codex but we follow the words. The words used in the Lone Wolf section as the same used for SM Honour Guard and also 5th ed Inquisitorial Henchmen as well as countless other slotless units. In my opinion we must assume that they follow the same set-up because to assume differentl is also to assume that GW have changed the meaning of their rules wording. In my opinion we shouldn't do this without clarrification from GW themselves that this is in fact what they've done.

Edit: Don't get me wrong, I really feel forvSW players here and it does seem like a kick in the teeth because inthe last codex they were just straight up elite choices. However players from all codices have been receiving this same treatment. I lament that BA can no longer take Assault Marines as troops but I just have to get used to it. The game changes all the time and we must adapt with each new release and changes.

 DarthOvious wrote:
At the end of the day we follow the rules and their wording. We do not follow bordering, we do not follow placement in a codex but we follow the words. The words used in the Lone Wolf section as the same used for SM Honour Guard and also 5th ed Inquisitorial Henchmen as well as countless other slotless units. In my opinion we must assume that they follow the same set-up because to assume differentl is also to assume that GW have changed the meaning of their rules wording. In my opinion we shouldn't do this without clarrification from GW themselves that this is in fact what they've done.

Edit: Don't get me wrong, I really feel forvSW players here and it does seem like a kick in the teeth because inthe last codex they were just straight up elite choices. However players from all codices have been receiving this same treatment. I lament that BA can no longer take Assault Marines as troops but I just have to get used to it. The game changes all the time and we must adapt with each new release and changes.

Until such time as someone posts a rules citation specifically revoking the standard method of taking an Elites Unit to fill an Elites slot, I will consider the permission granted in the Lone Wolf Unit Entry to be an additional permission that does not contradict the standard method. Doing otherwise is adding a restriction that isn't there.

 Kriswall wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
At the end of the day we follow the rules and their wording. We do not follow bordering, we do not follow placement in a codex but we follow the words. The words used in the Lone Wolf section as the same used for SM Honour Guard and also 5th ed Inquisitorial Henchmen as well as countless other slotless units. In my opinion we must assume that they follow the same set-up because to assume differentl is also to assume that GW have changed the meaning of their rules wording. In my opinion we shouldn't do this without clarrification from GW themselves that this is in fact what they've done.

Edit: Don't get me wrong, I really feel forvSW players here and it does seem like a kick in the teeth because inthe last codex they were just straight up elite choices. However players from all codices have been receiving this same treatment. I lament that BA can no longer take Assault Marines as troops but I just have to get used to it. The game changes all the time and we must adapt with each new release and changes.

Until such time as someone posts a rules citation specifically revoking the standard method of taking an Elites Unit to fill an Elites slot, I will consider the permission granted in the Lone Wolf Unit Entry to be an additional permission that does not contradict the standard method. Doing otherwise is adding a restriction that isn't there.

But it is there. The same way it's there for SM Honour Guard and the way it was there for 5th ed Inquisitorial Henchmen. The unit entry says that you can choose a Lone Wolf for every troop choice or Wolf Guard choice in your army. This has always been interpretated as a restriction in the past via other entries with the same wording.

I imagine the reason for this restriction is to stop SW players from spamming Lone Wolves and then using them to cliam objectives through sheer weight of unit numbers alone.

I get that SW players don't want this but as far as I can see thats what the codex gives.

You are adding an implied "can't be taken regularly to fill a slot" that isn't there.

Saying that I can take a Lone Wolf that doesn't take up a slot for each Troops choice doesn't necessarily mean I can't take a Lone Wolf that does take a slot regardless of how many Troops are around. There needs to be an explicit restriction removing the BRB permission. It isn't there.

And you keep citing prior edition publications. Can you cite a 7th edition source that works the way you want it to work? Codex Space Marines is a 6th edition book. The old GK one was 5th.

 Kriswall wrote:
You are adding an implied "can't be taken regularly to fill a slot" that isn't there.

I didn't add anything, it was added by the millions of gamers who have been playing this game for longer than you or I if you indeed think it was added. This is the way it has always been interpreted within the gaming community. I didn't invent it.

Lets look at the rule again.

"You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot."

This is telling you how to include Lone Wolves in your army. There is a full stop before the next sentence which tells you it a slotless entry. Nowhere there does it clarify that you can still take Lone Wolves in elite slots.

If it was telling you that you could take Lone Wolves as slotless entries as well as having elite slots it would say something like this instead:

"You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators that does not take up a Force Organisation Slot. This does not affect your ability to take Lone Wolves as elite slots."

It doesn't say that though. Instead it says:

"You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army."

The following sentence only adds it is a slotless entry, the first sentence tells you how to include Lone Wolves in your army list.

That full stop is very important.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/full-stop

A full stop is used to mark the end of a complete statement, so the first sentence is a complete statement in itself. So the first sentence in the rule is a complete statement which says:

"You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army."

So that first sentence is telling you how to include Lone Wolves in your army by English interpretation and thus why this language within the rules has always been interpretated as such by the gaming community at large.

Saying that I can take a Lone Wolf that doesn't take up a slot for each Troops choice doesn't necessarily mean I can't take a Lone Wolf that does take a slot regardless of how many Troops are around. There needs to be an explicit restriction removing the BRB permission. It isn't there.

And this means SM players can now take Honour Guard as an HQ slot. It also meant that GK players back in 5th ed could take Henchmen in elite slots. IT IS THE EXACT SAME WORDING BEING USED HERE.

The rule is telling you how you include Lone Wolves in your army. It has meant this for every other entry with this wording in existence. The Space Wolf codex is not a special snowflake codex with hidden easter eggs which lets you Interpretate language in some different way that other players can't.

And you keep citing prior edition publications. Can you cite a 7th edition source that works the way you want it to work? Codex Space Marines is a 6th edition book. The old GK one was 5th.

Once again citing that it's a prior publication means nothing and I have already explained why. Games Workshop are not going to confuse people by changing their rule interpretations in such a way. Unless you get a explanation from GW themselves this should be interpreted by the majority of people as a restriction on Lone Wolves based on past precedent. Also that 6th edition SM Codex is still being used in the game, so it is indeed a current edition of the codex.

If you look at the poll results now you will see from the votes that 70% of people have answered that the original list isn't legally bound. Interpretate the entry anyway you want but I have a feeling that the majority of players are not going to agree with you. I'm fine with you playing the game any way you want but your opponents might interpretate what you're saying differently and I think you'll have to take into consideration what the most popular interpretation of this rule means.

Look I know that you really want to be able to include Lone Wolves as elite slots in your army list and I know it's a kick in the teeth from previous edition. Every player can look at a rule and desperately want a certain interpretation to be true, however I do not see how your interpretation can be true. It means the gaming community have been playing it wrong for years if you are correct. You can continue thinking that everyone else is wrong and that you and a few others are right but I don't think this is a healthy way to play the game.

Edit: Spelling

many people wrote:You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot."

I think there is a little, ignored point in the above sentences.
"This selection".
It does not say "this unit", but selection, and I cannot elaborate but this way:
LWs are Elite slot selections, but they have a secondary selection, if you take troops/WG/WGT: the secondary selection is slotless.

 Kerrathyr wrote:

many people wrote:You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot."

I think there is a little, ignored point in the above sentences.
"This selection".
It does not say "this unit", but selection, and I cannot elaborate but this way:
LWs are Elite slot selections, but they have a secondary selection, if you take troops/WG/WGT: the secondary selection is slotless.

The language used is the same for SM Honour Guard. So you believe that SM players can take an Honour Guard as a HQ slot?

 DarthOvious wrote:

 Kerrathyr wrote:

many people wrote:You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot."

I think there is a little, ignored point in the above sentences.
"This selection".
It does not say "this unit", but selection, and I cannot elaborate but this way:
LWs are Elite slot selections, but they have a secondary selection, if you take troops/WG/WGT: the secondary selection is slotless.

The language used is the same for SM Honour Guard. So you believe that SM players can take an Honour Guard as a HQ slot?

There is A LOT of desire to make these selections "can be taken alone". It was argued for Meks, then for Court of the Archon, etc.

I stand by, as you say, the way we interpreted it before. Most have the exact same wording, some differ slightly (IMHO to try and shorten the same rule), but it really is an all or nothing, i do not think 7th Ed Codices suddenly get new permissions. Regardless of what picture frame / Icon is used.

I will stick by this point until an new FAQ/Edition. Roll-off in-game.

 DarthOvious wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
You are adding an implied "can't be taken regularly to fill a slot" that isn't there.

I didn't add anything, it was added by the millions of gamers who have been playing this game for longer than you or I if you indeed think it was added.

So you do agree it was added and isn't actually in the rules? That it's just a million gamers worth of HYWPI? I agree also that this is the case.

Anyone claiming the can be taken as a slotted unit is making up rules that are not there.

There is no permission to take them slotted in their entry.

The listing that you can include them in your army if you take X is a rule, a specific rule in a codex

The rule thY the are spotless is a rule, a specific rule in their codex

There is no optional listed or stated, and as per the core rules in the rulebook that is how they have to be included in your army, as per the rules in their unit entry which gives the restriction of how they can be included in your army, and no rules listing it as optional.

Anyone claiming it is optional is being as silly as claiming relics are not unique because it says you can include one of each per army, then ignoring the rule as written and saying models are able to take relics so that is optional.

On a slightly related note I think it's interesting that the new BA codex has all this slot-less shenanigans removed entirely! Every unit takes up a slot and there is no option for anything to be slot-less.

Even Lemartes, command squads and techmarines are all slotted.

Maybe a desire by GW to simplify the unit selection and put all the complexity into Formations/Detachments?

I think it's important to note that the unit is listed in the elites section. I think if they only intended to be taken as slotless they would be listed in the HQ section - this has been my experience with slotless entries.

blaktoof wrote:
Anyone claiming the can be taken as a slotted unit is making up rules that are not there.

There is no permission to take them slotted in their entry.

The listing that you can include them in your army if you take X is a rule, a specific rule in a codex

The rule thY the are spotless is a rule, a specific rule in their codex

There is no optional listed or stated, and as per the core rules in the rulebook that is how they have to be included in your army, as per the rules in their unit entry which gives the restriction of how they can be included in your army, and no rules listing it as optional.

Anyone claiming it is optional is being as silly as claiming relics are not unique because it says you can include one of each per army, then ignoring the rule as written and saying models are able to take relics so that is optional.

I'm curious to know how you would propose taking a Wolf Lord as a slotted HQ choice. There is no specific permission in the Wolf Lord entry to do so. By your own logic, it's impossible to take any Space Wolf units for this reason.

This is a PERMISSIVE rule set. It tells us what we CAN do. In the absence of another written rule telling us we CAN'T do that thing, we can still do it.

The core rule book tells us we CAN take an Elites choice to fill an Elites slot on a Detachment's Force Org Chart. This selection obviously fills a slot.
The codex tells us we CAN take a Lone Wolf on the criteria that we include one of certain other selections. This selection does not fill a slot.

There are two permissions. The first doesn't invalidate the second. The second doesn't invalidate the first. There is no wording in the codex permission restricting the core rule book permission.

The rule blaktoof keeps citing simply tells us that when we take a slotless entry along with another entry that they must be in the same detachment. If we use the core rule book permission, we aren't taking a slotless entry, so blaktoof's rule doesn't apply.

Now, I'm going to ask this. Can you try to be open minded? Can you try to forget how things were done in the past? Can you quit citing out of date codexes and current publications written for old editions? "Because it's how things have always been done" is the worst possible answer to give when someone asks why.

I'm not debating intent. I'm not debating tradition. I'm debating what is actually written on the page. What is written on the page is a pair of permissions that don't contradict each other. If you feel otherwise, please cite a rule specifically restricting the permission granted in the core rulebook to take Elites units to fill Elites slots.

And to the person who tried to school me on what a period on the end of a sentence means... two points. Point one. Not using grammar in a rules debate is actually one of the tenants of this forum. Point two. Full stops are allowed, but taking a larger rule out of context is ok? Ignoring the second sentence modifying the selection to be a slotless selection is ok? Of course taking things out of context is not ok.

I am being open minded, but you are being closed minded about the issue.

the icon for elites does not mean it can be taken as an elites choice, it means it has the battlefield role.

there is general permission to take units as selections based on their battlefield role.

however in the unit entry itself it says :

You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot.

nothing about that rule is optional other than whether or not you want to include a lone wolf in your army.

it is not listed under options, so it is not optional.

Can you show any RAW that says this is optional?

otherwise the general permission to put a unit in a slot based on its battlefield rule is:

1- restricted because the unit entry tells you so
2- restricted becaues the rules state so in the core rulebook- ie if a unit

Occasionally a unit’s Army List Entry will state that the unit it describes does not take up a slot on a Force Organisation Chart.

lone wolf states this verbatim, there is no option about it.

These units can be included in any Detachment, even if all the 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.

so if the unit entry states it can be taken slotless, Lone Wolf does without question, then you can include it in a detachment even if all the slots of the appropriate battlefield role are filled...they MUST adhere to restriction detailed on the detachment, and its own army list entry.

Its own army list entry states it is a slotless selection.

so incase you needed RAW to tell you that the RAW in the army list entry have to be followed, the core rule in the rulebook states it must be followed specifically as well.

If you are not taking a unit slotless that states anywhere in its army list entry that it can be included in an army and does not take up a force organization slot you have broken a rule you must follow in the core rules.

further you have not followed a rule in the unit entry.

now as we are told in the rulebook, codex trumps rulebook, and advanced trumps basic so at this point you need a specific entry in the unit entry that says you have an option to take it as a slotted unit.

further-

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 Organisation slot, it must join the same Detachment as that specified unit.

so if the army list entry states it can be included in an army that includes another specified unit, and it does not take up a force organisation slot, it must join the same detachment as specified unit.

looking back to the top we see this is true for lone wolves, so guess what you MUST put it in the same detachment as a troop/wolfguard/wolfguard unit if its entry states that. Does it entry state that? Yes.



There isn't one, this isn't an issue of being open or closed minded this is simple bad rules lawyering and wishing on the part of some people to squeeze the best units into a FOC by filling out the min required areas with minimal things, but it is not allowed at all by the RAW in the rulebook, or the codex.


unless you can find somewhere in the entry for lone wolf that says you have the option to take it as a slotted elites choice, the Rules as written without question state that you must take the lone wolf as a slotless entry with the required because because its army list entry states those things within it.

So the only questions you have to answer to even begin an argument that they can be taken slotted:
1- Does the army list entry state anywhere that they can be included in an army if you take x, and that they do not take up a force organization slot?
If it does state it anywhere in the entry, then there are two things you MUST do. Did you do them?
2- Does the army list entry specifically state the above is optional or give an option to take them as a slotted selection in an army?

So if you take a lone wolf as an elite slotted entry you have broken 2 things you must do without any permission to ignore the things you must do.

So you better have specific permission somewhere to break those rules.

blaktoof wrote:
I am being open minded, but you are being closed minded about the issue.

the icon for elites does not mean it can be taken as an elites choice, it means it has the battlefield role.

there is general permission to take units as selections based on their battlefield role.

Your argument is internally inconsistent.

Which is it?

Does the Elites icon (which indicates Battlefield Role) mean it can be taken as an Elites choice or not? If not, how do we fill an Elites slot? I'm genuinely curious as to how you think this works.

By your own admission, there is a general permission to take a Lone Wolf to fill an Elites slot as it has the Elites Battlefield Role. Can you cite anything in the Lone Wolf rule that specifically and unambiguously restricts this general permission? The Lone Wolf rule appears to grant an additional permission allowing me to take additional Lone Wolves if I meet additional criteria. I can not find any wording specifically restricing the general permission. In other words, does the Lone Wolf rule tell me explicitly that I can't take a Lone Wolf to fill an Elites slot as per normal based on its Battlefield Role?

by my own admission normally you have general permission to take a unit with the role elites as a slotted elite choice.

by my post above which I am not sure if you read, or the rules in the rulebook regarding the matter-

that general permission does not matter because you are told you must do 2 things if the unit states anywhere in its entry that it can be included in an army if you take x. The unit does not take up a slot on the force organization chart.

did you do those two musts?

is there an option in the unit entry that allows you to ignore the two things you must do according to the rulebook?

I don't think your above post is even serious at this point.

because it has been quoted to you from the rulebook, and the lone wolf entry that you cannot do it otherwise because you are restricted by having to complete 2 musts.

the first- if the unit entry states anywhere it is slotless, you must adhere to this and take it slotless according to the rulebook. did you do that?

the second- if the unit entry states anywhere it can be taken in an army if you include x, then you must do that. Did you do that?

by completing the two things in the unit entry which are not listed as optional rules, and you are told you must complete in the rulebook, you are unable to take a lone wolf as a slotless entry by the RAW quoted to you many times now in both the rulebook and the unit entry.

do you have a specific permission to not do the two things you must do according to the rulebook?

Still mistaking additional permission for a restriction, despite rules stating nothing of the sort.

You have general permission to take it slotted. Show where this is removed. Actual words this time.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Still mistaking additional permission for a restriction, despite rules stating nothing of the sort.

You have general permission to take it slotted. Show where this is removed. Actual words this time.

if you actually were able to read, or bothered to, you would see that was done with actual rules quotes.

so unless you actually have anything to add, why are you posting?

blaktoof wrote:
by my own admission normally you have general permission to take a unit with the role elites as a slotted elite choice.

by my post above which I am not sure if you read, or the rules in the rulebook regarding the matter-

that general permission does not matter because you are told you must do 2 things if the unit states anywhere in its entry that it can be included in an army if you take x. The unit does not take up a slot on the force organization chart.

did you do those two musts?

is there an option in the unit entry that allows you to ignore the two things you must do according to the rulebook?

I don't think your above post is even serious at this point.

because it has been quoted to you from the rulebook, and the lone wolf entry that you cannot do it otherwise because you are restricted by having to complete 2 musts.

the first- if the unit entry states anywhere it is slotless, you must adhere to this and take it slotless according to the rulebook. did you do that?

the second- if the unit entry states anywhere it can be taken in an army if you include x, then you must do that. Did you do that?

by completing the two things in the unit entry which are not listed as optional rules, and you are told you must complete in the rulebook, you are unable to take a lone wolf as a slotless entry by the RAW quoted to you many times now in both the rulebook and the unit entry.

do you have a specific permission to not do the two things you must do according to the rulebook?

I can't find a rule that says "if a unit entry says it can be taken slotless, it must be taken slotless." Can you cite the section and page number for that? If you can psot a rule saying that, you win the jackpot. However, I think you're making up rules again. The rule you keep posting says I must take the selection in the same Detachment. I'm not trying to take anything in a different Detachment. You need to find me a rule explicitly saying that if I'm told I can take a unit slotless that I lose the general permission to take the unit slotted and can ONLY take the unit slotless.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Still mistaking additional permission for a restriction, despite rules stating nothing of the sort.

You have general permission to take it slotted. Show where this is removed. Actual words this time.

if you actually were able to read, or bothered to, you would see that was done with actual rules quotes.

so unless you actually have anything to add, why are you posting?

Nos is most certainly allowed to contribute.

He's pointing out that you have yet to post an actual restriction. The rule you keep quoting doesn't have any wording restricting the normal BRB method.

 Kriswall wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
by my own admission normally you have general permission to take a unit with the role elites as a slotted elite choice.

by my post above which I am not sure if you read, or the rules in the rulebook regarding the matter-

that general permission does not matter because you are told you must do 2 things if the unit states anywhere in its entry that it can be included in an army if you take x. The unit does not take up a slot on the force organization chart.

did you do those two musts?

is there an option in the unit entry that allows you to ignore the two things you must do according to the rulebook?

I don't think your above post is even serious at this point.

because it has been quoted to you from the rulebook, and the lone wolf entry that you cannot do it otherwise because you are restricted by having to complete 2 musts.

the first- if the unit entry states anywhere it is slotless, you must adhere to this and take it slotless according to the rulebook. did you do that?

the second- if the unit entry states anywhere it can be taken in an army if you include x, then you must do that. Did you do that?

by completing the two things in the unit entry which are not listed as optional rules, and you are told you must complete in the rulebook, you are unable to take a lone wolf as a slotless entry by the RAW quoted to you many times now in both the rulebook and the unit entry.

do you have a specific permission to not do the two things you must do according to the rulebook?

I can't find a rule that says "if a unit entry says it can be taken slotless, it must be taken slotless." Can you cite the section and page number for that? If you can psot a rule saying that, you win the jackpot. However, I think you're making up rules again. The rule you keep posting says I must take the selection in the same Detachment. I'm not trying to take anything in a different Detachment. You need to find me a rule explicitly saying that if I'm told I can take a unit slotless that I lose the general permission to take the unit slotted and can ONLY take the unit slotless.

sure thing.

Occasionally a unit’s Army List Entry will state that the unit it describes does not take up a slot on a Force Organisation Chart. These units can be included in any Detachment, even if all the 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.

so if the armys list entry states it does not take up a slot on the force org chart you can include it in your detachment but you must adhere to the detachment and its own army list entry restrictions.

You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot.

the above is not listed as an optional, nor are you given permission for it to be optional. did you adhere to the restriction above you are told you must adhere to?

 DarthOvious wrote:

 Kerrathyr wrote:

many people wrote:You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot."

I think there is a little, ignored point in the above sentences.
"This selection".
It does not say "this unit", but selection, and I cannot elaborate but this way:
LWs are Elite slot selections, but they have a secondary selection, if you take troops/WG/WGT: the secondary selection is slotless.

The language used is the same for SM Honour Guard. So you believe that SM players can take an Honour Guard as a HQ slot?

Do Honourguard have the HQ icon on their datasheet making them a HQ selection option? Or are they a separate sub section of the SM Chaptermaster?

My question is, if it is not intended to be able to be taken as an elites choice. Why is it listed in elites? Other units of this type that have mandatory units conditional for their use are usually listed in the HQ section. Can you show another example of a conditionally allowed unit that is not listed in the HQ section of a legit codex - none of the books I have have units like these.

 Xenomancers wrote:
My question is, if it is not intended to be able to be taken as an elites choice. Why is it listed in elites? Other units of this type that have mandatory units conditional for their use are usually listed in the HQ section. Can you show another example of a conditionally allowed unit that is not listed in the HQ section of a legit codex - none of the books I have have units like these.

The old GK codex, for one.

 Xenomancers wrote:
My question is, if it is not intended to be able to be taken as an elites choice. Why is it listed in elites? Other units of this type that have mandatory units conditional for their use are usually listed in the HQ section. Can you show another example of a conditionally allowed unit that is not listed in the HQ section of a legit codex - none of the books I have have units like these.

there are no longer sections of a codex, it has the battlefield role of elites and is listed with other models that have the battlefield role of elites. Having the battlefield role does not mean itself is slotted.

for example Tyrannocyte.

Transport Spore: A
Tyrannocyte does not
use up a slot on the Force
Organisation Chart

it is listed as the role HS, but nowhere does it have the option to be taken as a unit that uses up a slot on the force org chart.

blaktoof wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
by my own admission normally you have general permission to take a unit with the role elites as a slotted elite choice.

by my post above which I am not sure if you read, or the rules in the rulebook regarding the matter-

that general permission does not matter because you are told you must do 2 things if the unit states anywhere in its entry that it can be included in an army if you take x. The unit does not take up a slot on the force organization chart.

did you do those two musts?

is there an option in the unit entry that allows you to ignore the two things you must do according to the rulebook?

I don't think your above post is even serious at this point.

because it has been quoted to you from the rulebook, and the lone wolf entry that you cannot do it otherwise because you are restricted by having to complete 2 musts.

the first- if the unit entry states anywhere it is slotless, you must adhere to this and take it slotless according to the rulebook. did you do that?

the second- if the unit entry states anywhere it can be taken in an army if you include x, then you must do that. Did you do that?

by completing the two things in the unit entry which are not listed as optional rules, and you are told you must complete in the rulebook, you are unable to take a lone wolf as a slotless entry by the RAW quoted to you many times now in both the rulebook and the unit entry.

do you have a specific permission to not do the two things you must do according to the rulebook?

I can't find a rule that says "if a unit entry says it can be taken slotless, it must be taken slotless." Can you cite the section and page number for that? If you can psot a rule saying that, you win the jackpot. However, I think you're making up rules again. The rule you keep posting says I must take the selection in the same Detachment. I'm not trying to take anything in a different Detachment. You need to find me a rule explicitly saying that if I'm told I can take a unit slotless that I lose the general permission to take the unit slotted and can ONLY take the unit slotless.

sure thing.

Occasionally a unit’s Army List Entry will state that the unit it describes does not take up a slot on a Force Organisation Chart. These units can be included in any Detachment, even if all the 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.

so if the armys list entry states it does not take up a slot on the force org chart you can include it in your detachment but you must adhere to the detachment and its own army list entry restrictions.

You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot.

the above is not listed as an optional, nor are you given permission for it to be optional. did you adhere to the restriction above you are told you must adhere to?

You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot.

I don't think you know what a restriction is. Can you highlight the specific wording in the above rule that restricts the permission to take the Lone Wolf to fill an Elites slot based on its Battlefield Role?

This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot.

you are told specifically you must adhere to this in the core rulebook.

how are you adhering to that rule in its entry if you are taking it as a slotted selection?

Is there permission somewhere to specifically not do what you are told you must do in this specific instance?

Are you specifically told the above is optional? Because you are told you must adhere to it.

That is a restriction, regardless it is also the RAW that you must adhere to.

"You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot."

I don't think you know what a restriction is. Can you highlight the specific wording in the above rule that restricts the permission to take the Lone Wolf to fill an Elites slot based on its Battlefield Role? Just highlight the specific restriction. You say it's there. Humor me.

Telling me I can do A and then telling me I can do B at a later date doesn't necessarily mean I can't do both. If you think I can't do both, just highlight the wording restricting the first option (selecting a Unit with the Elites Battlefield Role to fill an Elites slot on a Detachment's Force Org Chart). You say it's there, so highlighting the wording should be no problem.

its not an issue of being told you can do A or B.

its an issue that you are told you must do x.

If you take a lone wolf (the only optional part)

the selection does not use up a force organization slot.

you are told specifically in the rulebook you must adhere to this rule if it is stated in the unit entry.

did you adhere to it?

So show me the rule that if a unit says it CAN be taken slotless it MUST be taken slotless. You haven't yet.

so again..

from the rulebook:

Occasionally a unit’s Army List Entry will state that the unit it describes does not take up a slot on a Force Organisation Chart. These units can be included in any Detachment, even if all the 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.

answer the following:

1- Does the army list entry for Lone Wolf state anywhere that it does not take up a force organization slot?
2- If telling you how it must be taken a certain way, is that a restriction or not?
3- What underlined thing must you do ?
4- Even if you think 2. is not a restriction are you following 3. from above which you must do if you take a Lone Wolf as a selection that does not use up a force organization slot?

its entry states:

the selection does not use up a force organization slot.

regardless if you feel that's a restriction, you are told you must adhere to it.

Have you adhered to it and done what you must do if you take it as a slotted selection?

The Unit Entry says I can include Lone Wolves under certain conditions. THESE selections don't take up slots and thus would follow the rule you posted.

You need to also cite a restriction saying I CAN'T include Lone Wolves under other condition (the condition of having the Elites Battlefield Role). THSES selection do take up slots and thus don't follow the rules you posted as the rules you posted don't apply to selections that take up slots.

Two different selection, man.

Find me a rule that says "If it says I can take a unit as slotless, I MUST." It's simply not there.

You whole argument is contingent upon being told "you can take via method B" also means "you can no longer take via method A". The wording simply isn't there.

theres no actual rule that says you can take lone wolves slotted.
there is a rule saying:

You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot.

which says you can take one lone wolf if you take x.

btw you keep asking for a restriction but are unwilling to accept the above is the restriction, with no option given for another way to take them.

the only optional part in that rule is that you can take a lone wolf, you are not required to.

the rest is not listed as optional in the rule presented above, and according to the rulebook you -must- do both of them.

furhter even if you were correct, your not, the rulebook says that if the entry states they do not take up a slot in for the force organization chart. It states that, the rulebook does not say if you take them as a unit that doesn't take up a slot, just if the entry states it.

does the entry state it?

because forth the 5th time, that is the rule that plainly states you must take it slotless.

"You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot."

It seems to me that "This selection" is referring to the method presented in the previous sentence. So choosing to take the unit in an Elites slot is a different selection from that selection. Thus that is not a restriction on selecting the unit as a normal Elites choice.

Besides... if the unit must always be taken as slotless then why give it a battlefield role at all? Why is it listed as an Elites choice?

Zimko wrote:
"You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot."

It seems to me that "This selection" is referring to the method presented in the previous sentence. So choosing to take the unit in an Elites slot is a different selection from that selection. Thus that is not a restriction on selecting the unit as a normal Elites choice.

Besides... if the unit must always be taken as slotless then why give it a battlefield role at all? Why is it listed as an Elites choice?

If there was some wording that said it was an option or optional then you would have a point, otherwise the only way to select a lone wolf is what is stated. There is no option given to take a lone wolf as a different selection in its unit entry and the core rules state you must follow those rules which state that not only is this unit slotless but if you include it in your army it must be in the same detachment as the required unit i.e. troop, wolfguard or wolfguard terminators.

regarding the slotless, many missions have special rules regarding battlefield role which is independent of the unit being slotted or slotless, or award bonus VPs for killing certain units with certain battlefield roles, regardless of if they are slotted or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For fun lets look at another unit.

Arjac Rockfist.

same codex even, also an elite role.

If Arjac Rockfist is included in a Detachment that includes at least one unit of either Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators, he does not take up a slot on the Force Organisation Chart.

here is an excellent example of a unit that can be included slotless, but is given the option to not be slotless.

He does not take up a slot on the force organization chart -if- he is included in a detachment that has at least one unit of either wolf guard or wolf guard terminators.

Seems like an option.

firstly its listed as a special rule, under "The Anvil of Fenris" For lone wolves it is not listed as a special rule, its part of the rules for their unit composition.

Secondly we are told that he does not take up a slot on the force organization chart. We are told in the cure rulebook we must adhere to the rule in his unit entry if it states this. looking at his unit entry we are told he does not take up a slot in the force organization chart if he is in a detachment with wolfguard or wolfguard terminators.

so we look at our army;

Is he in an detachment that includes wolfguard or wolfguard terminators?

yes- he is slotless
no- he is not slotless

lets look again at the lone wolf entry, under unit composition it states 1 lone wolf then says:

You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot.

nothing about that is optional other than you can take a lone wolf in your army. The rest are things you must adhere to.

no option given for a way for them to not be slotless, just simply being told the selection is slotless.

blaktoof wrote:

You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot.

nothing about that is optional other than you can take a lone wolf in your army. The rest are things you must adhere to.

no option given for a way for them to not be slotless, just simply being told the selection is slotless.

The hiccup with this is that when a rule says 'You can', that means it is optional. In order for it to be mandatory it must have 'You must'. By having 'You can' instead of 'You must', it is giving permission to do something on top of whatever other permissions you already have. One of those other permissions is the BRB's permission of selecting units based on their battlefield role to fill a slot in a detachment.

Since the rule doesn't say 'You must' or anything restricting you from applying the BRB's permission to select the unit, then you still have the option to use the BRB's method.

yes, its optional for you to take a lone wolf, you are not required.

it is mandatory because the rulebook states you must do it, and the entry gives no exception or option.

ignored for trolling.

blaktoof wrote:
yes, its optional for you to take a lone wolf, you are not required.

it is mandatory because the rulebook states you must do it, and the entry gives no exception or option.

Most of the codex entries have no instructions for selecting that unit. The BRB provides instructions for selecting units. Codex entries like this one provide an additional method of selecting that unit, and unless it includes a restriction, you can still use the BRB's method.

blaktoof wrote:


ignored for trolling.

Not even close to trolling.

Also, can we stick to the debate and avoid personal attacks? There is no reason to call someone a troll here.

The question of whether or not the Lone Wolf rule restricts the permission in the BRB or not is a valid one.

There appears to be an implied restriction, but without explicit wording, the restriction can't stick. It is probably GW's intent that Lone Wolves can't be taken as slotted, but their intentions mean nothing without clearly written rules or an Errata/FAQ explaining what they meant. And that's assuming I'm right about the intention.

From a strictly rules as written perspective, there doesn't appear to be an explicit restriction preventing a player from using a Lone Wolf to fill an Elites slot.

so the rule quoted 5 times+ stating you must take them in a detachment that has troops, wolfguard, or wolfguard terminators- you feel you can ignore along with the rule that states they must be taken as a slotless choice, because they have a battlefield role with no actual rules support that its optional and being told by the rulebook you must adhere to them?



even when given an example of an elites unit that has rules that show it being optional?

there is no intent that they are slotless, they are slotless by the RAW, there is no intent that they can be taken as slotted, nor any RAW you can come to that lets you take them slotted in a detachment that does not have troops, wolf guard, or wolfguard terminators without breaking a rule as written in the core rules.

Guys - RULE #1 - NOT OPTIONAL.

blaktoof wrote:
so the rule quoted 5 times+ stating you must take them in a detachment that has troops, wolfguard, or wolfguard terminators- you feel you can ignore along with the rule that states they must be taken as a slotless choice, because they have a battlefield role with no actual rules support that its optional and being told by the rulebook you must adhere to them?



even when given an example of an elites unit that has rules that show it being optional?

there is no intent that they are slotless, they are slotless by the RAW, there is no intent that they can be taken as slotted, nor any RAW you can come to that lets you take them slotted in a detachment that does not have troops, wolf guard, or wolfguard terminators without breaking a rule as written in the core rules.

Can does not equal must.

You CAN take them slot less. Or you cN follow the other permission and use an elite slot. You still seem unable to distinguish between a permission to do something additional , and a replacement for existing permission. If can means must in your lexicon, I presume all units must run if able?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Can does not equal must.

You CAN take them slot less. Or you can follow the other permission and use an elite slot. You still seem unable to distinguish between a permission to do something additional , and a replacement for existing permission. If can means must in your lexicon, I presume all units must run if able?

While I agree can =/= must, the rule does not state "Can take as slotless", it says (paraphrased, but accurately) "Can take A if you also have X,Y,Z. This choice does not take up a slot". That is not "Can take as slotless".

I can absolutely see the argument that this simply adds a way of taking them without a taking up a force org selection, however I tend to read it as a restriction based on following all rules provided (quoted above more than enough times);
1) You can take selection A for each X,Y, or Z in your detachment
2) This selection does not take up a slot. Which selection? Selection A. How do I get Selection A? I can take one for each X,Y or Z in my detachment.

I did not give a quote there, but a shortened version

You can take them if you have x, which then means they do not take up a slot. You CAN take, meaning you can choose not to take those units. If you do you cannot evoke this rule, and can only select using the rule book permission. Which still exists, as no specific rule exists to counter it.

Blaktoof - repeating the same restriction less rule give times adds nothing. It has been shown more than once tht the oft quoted rule contains no restrictive language - hell, the first sentence I entirely permissive - therefor your argument remains refuted.

What you keep imagining is the word "only" is somewhere in that rule, eg "can only" It isn't there.

Rorschach9 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Can does not equal must.

You CAN take them slot less. Or you can follow the other permission and use an elite slot. You still seem unable to distinguish between a permission to do something additional , and a replacement for existing permission. If can means must in your lexicon, I presume all units must run if able?

While I agree can =/= must, the rule does not state "Can take as slotless", it says (paraphrased, but accurately) "Can take A if you also have X,Y,Z. This choice does not take up a slot". That is not "Can take as slotless".

I can absolutely see the argument that this simply adds a way of taking them without a taking up a force org selection, however I tend to read it as a restriction based on following all rules provided (quoted above more than enough times);
1) You can take selection A for each X,Y, or Z in your detachment
2) This selection does not take up a slot. Which selection? Selection A. How do I get Selection A? I can take one for each X,Y or Z in my detachment.

I see what you're saying, but if the restriction isn't explicit, it's not there.

Saying I can do something doesn't necessarily mean I can't do something else.

I understand the Lone Wolf rule to mean...
I can take an A, where the selection of A does not take up a slot, for each X, Y or Z in my detachment. Per the standard BRB rules on slotless units, the A must be in the same detachment as the corresponding X, Y or Z.

I understand the core rule book permission to mean...
I can take an A, where the selection of A does take up a slot, for each Elites slot on my detachment's force org chart. I can do this because A has the Elites battlefield role.

Without an explicit restriction of the core rule book method, the Lone Wolf rule has to be read as an additional method of taking Lone Wolves. Can is by definition optional. Can/May = optional. Must = required.

the rule does not give an optional stance for how you take the lone wolf, the only option is you can include a lone wolf in your army.

you do not have to choose to do so.

as per the RAW in the core rulebook which so far no one has disproven or given any rules quotes to the contray:

as per the RAW

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 Organisation slot, it must join the same Detachment as that specified unit.

- core rule in the rulebook


does the army list entry for Lone Wolf state that?

You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot.

-under unit composition for lone wolf.

so yes, you CAN take a lone wolf in your army.

that is the optional part.

the rest is how you take it.

as per the RAW from the rule book you MUST take it in the same detachment as a Troop, WolfGuard, or Wolfguard Terminator unit.

for the people who think somehow the rule quoted from lone wolf is optional, even if it is optional [its not] you have to follow the rule in the rulebook, so:

Does the unit entry state that it does not take up a force organization slot in its entry?

great, it states it in its entry.

now according to the RAW if you take the unit-

You MUST put it in the same detachment as a troop, wolfguard, or wolfguard terminator unit.

by your logic if you have to do that, then the part you claim is optional [despite there being no word of if, or listing it as optional] is now what you are doing, so there is no option.

if you want to see some units that can be taken as either slotted or not slotted look no further than the SAME CODEX!

Lukas the Trickster:

Blood Claws Hero: Lukas the Trickster can only join a unit of Blood Claws. If Lukas the Trickster is included in a Detachment that includes at least one unit of Blood Claws, he does not use up a Force Organisation slot.

notice how its not worded at all the same way, but states "if its included in a detachment with x, then he doe snot use up a force org slot"

you don't want just one example, wait there's more!

Arjac Rockfist

If Arjac Rockfist is included in a Detachment that includes at least one unit of either Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators, he does not take up a slot on the Force Organisation Chart.

so not only according to the RAW is lone wolf not optional as shown above, but here are examples of units that are and notice the difference in language yet the same language used for both Arjac, and Lukas?

Straw man argument. I don't care how other units are worded. Cite specific rules explicitly removing the BRB permission to take a Unit with the Elites battlefield role to fill an Elites slot or you're wrong. Alternatively, feel free to explain how can means must to you.

 Kriswall wrote:
Straw man argument. I don't care how other units are worded. Cite specific rules explicitly removing the BRB permission to take a Unit with the Elites battlefield role to fill an Elites slot or you're wrong. Alternatively, feel free to explain how can means must to you.

not a strawman, you just failed to acknowledge that it was two arguements and discarded the first one because it contained rules quotes and RAW showing you must do certain things and chose to ignore it in favor of discussing nothing.

it's quite clear that the only instance of the word "can" is in regards to that you can take a lone wolf in your army.

ie You can take one lone wolf for each troops choice, or wolfguard, or wolfguard terminators in your army.


Do you see any options listed for other ways to take it?

and no comment on the actual rules quotes i had above saying you -must- do certain things.

its not the inability to understand the word CAN, so stop making false statements.

its that certain posters here have added words to the rule in their head that there is somehow an option given in how you can take a lone wolf, although there is no such wording in its entry.

This selection does not take up a slot in the force organization chart.

this is below "1 lone wolf"
so you can select a lone wolf.
if you do so it does not take up a slot in the force organization chart [this wording also means it has rules it must follow in the rulebook...posted above]

You can take one lone wolf for each troops, or unit of wolfguard, or wolfguard terminators in your army.

so if you take a slotted lone wolf, without troops or wolfguard or wolfguard terminators you have broken 2 rules in the rulebook, and 2 rules in the unit entry.

do you have permission from anywhere to do so? these rules you have broken are stated as "must" not by me but by the rules.

You have permission from the battlefield role

You have an additional permission from the extra rule

SHow how this additional permisison has removed the battlefield role permission. Page and graph. Do not repeat the proven irrelevant rules, something that actually supports your claim would be useful.

Or accept that yet again you have made an assumptive leap, unsupported by rules, and are trying to wall of text people into thinking your position has merit.

Or, if your method is truly right (it isnt, but lets suppose it is for one brief moment) it results in no unit without such a rule being able to be selected, as you are syaing the battlefield role has no permissive nature to it. Clearly a nonsense result, suggesting the assertion is also nonsense.

So, for the 10th time of asking - post your *restriction* removing permission to use the battlefield role or, for the first time ever, admit error.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You have permission from the battlefield role

Do you?
A Space Marine Honour guard has an HQ battlefield role.
Sisters of battle Command Squad have an HQ battlefield role.

We never allowed that rule to exists in the past, why now?

 BlackTalos wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:

 Kerrathyr wrote:

many people wrote:You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot."

I think there is a little, ignored point in the above sentences.
"This selection".
It does not say "this unit", but selection, and I cannot elaborate but this way:
LWs are Elite slot selections, but they have a secondary selection, if you take troops/WG/WGT: the secondary selection is slotless.

The language used is the same for SM Honour Guard. So you believe that SM players can take an Honour Guard as a HQ slot?

There is A LOT of desire to make these selections "can be taken alone". It was argued for Meks, then for Court of the Archon, etc.

I stand by, as you say, the way we interpreted it before. Most have the exact same wording, some differ slightly (IMHO to try and shorten the same rule), but it really is an all or nothing, i do not think 7th Ed Codices suddenly get new permissions. Regardless of what picture frame / Icon is used.

I will stick by this point until an new FAQ/Edition. Roll-off in-game.

Yes we do. The BRB is *very* clear on you being able to take a selection based on battlefield role

picking on 6th edition codex for a 7th edition *clear* and *distinct* change in organisation is not a pertinent example. As has been pointed out previously.

No need for a FAQ. The actual, writen (well, pictorial for the actual role in codex) rules give you permission. The actual, written lone wolf rule in NO WAY removes this permission. The oft quoted slot-less BRB rule does not remove this permission. So we have 2 different permissive ways to take the unit, and failing a restriction - which wont arrive, from my contacts up in Lenton - being added, explicitly, via errata, then they stand.

I'm not leaving this to a roll off when it is actually clear. I care not how the previous entirely differently organised codexes handled this. They are not relevant.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes we do. The BRB is *very* clear on you being able to take a selection based on battlefield role

picking on 6th edition codex for a 7th edition *clear* and *distinct* change in organisation is not a pertinent example. As has been pointed out previously.

No need for a FAQ. The actual, writen (well, pictorial for the actual role in codex) rules give you permission. The actual, written lone wolf rule in NO WAY removes this permission. The oft quoted slot-less BRB rule does not remove this permission. So we have 2 different permissive ways to take the unit, and failing a restriction - which wont arrive, from my contacts up in Lenton - being added, explicitly, via errata, then they stand.

I'm not leaving this to a roll off when it is actually clear. I care not how the previous entirely differently organised codexes handled this. They are not relevant.

Wait, you are saying that:
"You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot."
and
"You may take one Honour Guard unit for each Chapter Master in your army (...). This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot."
Are completely different?

Or are you allowing Honour Guard as a Valid HQ?

What is being said is that we'll have to wait for a 7th edition Space Marine Codex to see how things are written and laid out. If GW moves the Honor Guard to its own Unit Entry page and that Unit Entry page has the HQ battlefield role, then yes, we'll have the same issue. As it stands, the honor guard is included in the Chapter Master Unit Entry.

Using a codex written for 6th edition to shed light on a codex written for 7th edition isn't necessarily helpful as the entire brb changed in between. There were HUGE changes to how army lists are made.

 Kriswall wrote:
What is being said is that we'll have to wait for a 7th edition Space Marine Codex to see how things are written and laid out.

Agreed, but that has always been the case.

The statement "You have permission from the battlefield role" is from the BrB however, so would apply to ALL Codices unless they are FaQed.
I'll repeat that a pretty box printed on the page (not present in the Epub) does not qualify as RaW, just as pictures of the Squad don't.
This is an all or nothing situation, for consistency. Either 7th Ed made it possible to field these Units alone, or it did not.

Now from my 6th Ed Sisters Codex:


The command Squad has the same "pretty box" and HQ in big at the top. Wording:
"You may take one Sororitas Command Squad for each Canoness in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot."
"You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot."

Spot the difference for me.

If you do not, I would absolutely LOVE being able to take that command Squad without the Canoness Tax. I mean that would be groundbreaking and worth an announcement to all Adepta Sororitas players !!

I don't have the Sororitas Codex, but if it's as you say, then yes, under the 7th Ed. army list building rules, I would allow it per rules as written.

AGAIN, I'll say this. I don't think this is GW's intent, but it's what they've written on the page. If they want these units to ONLY be taken using the method listed in the Codex and not the standard method listed in the BRB, they need to do so explicitly in an FAQ. Anything else is currently a house rule.

 Kriswall wrote:
AGAIN, I'll say this. I don't think this is GW's intent, but it's what they've written on the page. If they want these units to ONLY be taken using the method listed in the Codex and not the standard method listed in the BRB, they need to do so explicitly in an FAQ. Anything else is currently a house rule.

Agreed, but i would not only list it as House rules, but also as "how it's been played so far".
If the consensus is that the new 7th Ed BrB allows all of these entries to work in this fashion, i'll agree for the RaW and bow out.

As per the example of the Priest though, it means a 25pts HQ for Adepta Sororitas

 Kriswall wrote:
As it stands, the honor guard is included in the Chapter Master Unit Entry.

Perhaps in the printed book, but in the EBook it is its own unit entry in the list of HQ units (none of which, of course, have a "battlefield role" icon connected to them).
So, different versions/sources have different layouts and information.

Being told that a Canoness can be accompanied by a slotless Command Squad doesn't somehow remove the permission that a Command Squad has to fill an HQ slot by having the HQ battlefield role. If you believe this restriction is restricted, feel free to highlight the rules explicitly revoking this permission. Until then, I'd play against a Nuns with Guns army led by a Command Squad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rorschach9 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
As it stands, the honor guard is included in the Chapter Master Unit Entry.

Perhaps in the printed book, but in the EBook it is its own unit entry in the list of HQ units (none of which, of course, have a "battlefield role" icon connected to them).
So, different versions/sources have different layouts and information.

Again, this is an artifact of looking at an older edition. All of the 7th edition codexes have been clearly written to give each unit their own unit entry. In the 6th editions codexes it is unclear. It's especially unclear for Codexes where a layout change was made between the first published edition and a later edition of the same publication (i.e., printed book to eBook).

Rules as written, if you showed up with the eBook as your copy of the codex and asked to play, I would allow an Honour Guard as filling your HQ slot. There is nothing explicit in the Codex revoking the standard permission in the BRB to take an HQ battlefield role unit to fill an HQ slot.

I do have a question though...

Do you guys legitimately believe this is how RaW works, or is this just how you "know" it works? I feel like there's a fair amount of confirmation bias going on here. I don't care how things worked in the past. Currently, there appears to be no revokation of the standard permission in the BRB. My response to this is "OMG, GW left a major loophole in the rules. This is clearly not how they want this to work. Someone should tell them so they can write an Errata. In the meantime, I'll play with my friends how I think this is supposed to work." BUT, how I think this is supposed to work has nothing to do with how the rules actually tell us things work. Since nobody has yet posted a rule revoking the brb permission, I have to assume there isn't one and that everyone is arguing HIWPI.

Well it stems from the fact that "This is how all these rules work"

IMHO,
"You may take one Sororitas Command Squad for each Canoness in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot."
"You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot."
"You may take one Honour Guard unit for each Chapter Master in your army (...). This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot."
"For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot in the Force Organisation Chart"
"An Adepta Sororitas army may include 0-5 Ministorum Priests in each detachment. They do not take up a Force Organisation slot, and do not qualify as a mandatory HQ selection."

Are all the same, in how they work and what they mean.
If you believe that, by the BrB you may ALSO select these Units in their respective battlefield role, then that may indeed be a new 7th Edition ruleset.

But i struggle and find it very very hard to believe that is how it works, reading the very last entry above (Priest).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:

Do you guys legitimately believe this is how RaW works, or is this just how you "know" it works? I feel like there's a fair amount of confirmation bias going on here. I don't care how things worked in the past. Currently, there appears to be no revokation of the standard permission in the BRB. My response to this is "OMG, GW left a major loophole in the rules. This is clearly not how they want this to work. Someone should tell them so they can write an Errata. In the meantime, I'll play with my friends how I think this is supposed to work." BUT, how I think this is supposed to work has nothing to do with how the rules actually tell us things work. Since nobody has yet posted a rule revoking the brb permission, I have to assume there isn't one and that everyone is arguing HIWPI.

Well apart from the reference on "how to take slot-less Units" quoted before, and my firm belief that these rules are meant to contradict the BrB statement, then no, there will be no rule revoking the permission.

Of course, i think that "You can take one"-type rules are indeed overwriting the BrB permission, because they are the only way to field these units. Why? because all of these rules are "Compulsory" rules, and that by making the "BrB Selection", you ignore / skip / do not use these rules. Something i do not believe is allowed....

 BlackTalos wrote:
Well it stems from the fact that "This is how all these rules work"

IMHO,
"You may take one Sororitas Command Squad for each Canoness in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot."
"You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot."
"You may take one Honour Guard unit for each Chapter Master in your army (...). This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot."
"For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot in the Force Organisation Chart"
"An Adepta Sororitas army may include 0-5 Ministorum Priests in each detachment. They do not take up a Force Organisation slot, and do not qualify as a mandatory HQ selection."

Are all the same, in how they work and what they mean.
If you believe that, by the BrB you may ALSO select these Units in their respective battlefield role, then that may indeed be a new 7th Edition ruleset.

But i struggle and find it very very hard to believe that is how it works, reading the very last entry above (Priest).



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:

Do you guys legitimately believe this is how RaW works, or is this just how you "know" it works? I feel like there's a fair amount of confirmation bias going on here. I don't care how things worked in the past. Currently, there appears to be no revokation of the standard permission in the BRB. My response to this is "OMG, GW left a major loophole in the rules. This is clearly not how they want this to work. Someone should tell them so they can write an Errata. In the meantime, I'll play with my friends how I think this is supposed to work." BUT, how I think this is supposed to work has nothing to do with how the rules actually tell us things work. Since nobody has yet posted a rule revoking the brb permission, I have to assume there isn't one and that everyone is arguing HIWPI.

Well apart from the reference on "how to take slot-less Units" quoted before, and my firm belief that these rules are meant to contradict the BrB statement, then no, there will be no rule revoking the permission.

Of course, i think that "You can take one"-type rules are indeed overwriting the BrB permission, because they are the only way to field these units. Why? because all of these rules are "Compulsory" rules, and that by making the "BrB Selection", you ignore / skip / do not use these rules. Something i do not believe is allowed....

So, when something tells me I CAN do something, it's compulsory? It voids out all the other somethings I CAN do? At the core, my argument is that this is a permissive ruleset. If the rule told me "you can INSTEAD" or "you can ONLY", I would immediately agree that the Codex revokes BRB permission. That's why I'm saying an errata might be needed. At best, the option is ambiguous. "I know I can take a slotless Lone Wolf. Can I take a slotted one? Well, the BRB says yes and the Codex doesn't actually say No AND I know that this rule set is permissive. Since I don't see a no, I have to assume the answer is still yes."

I could list other instances that work how I see the Lone Wolf working. Ork Mek, Dark Eldar Court of the Archon.

I'd say yes. I know that always brings the other "You can Deep Strike, that means you must" arguments.

But the way i see list selection (which is also NOT like special rules - "can embark", etc):

The BrB says (allows you) you can take selections based on battlefield role.

So you go through your codex, pick (AS): 3 Priests, 1 Canoness, 1 Command Squad.
As you've made these selections, you have selected the Unit Datasheet.
But some of these Datasheets say:
"An Adepta Sororitas army may include 0-5 Ministorum Priests in each detachment. They do not take up a Force Organisation slot, and do not qualify as a mandatory HQ selection."
"You may take one Sororitas Command Squad for each Canoness in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot."

So you must abide by those rules.



This happens after you've selected their Datasheets via the BrB rules. You still then have to follow these "selections method". So in a way i am saying that they now supersede the BrB selection.
You can only take the command squad with Canoness, and you can only have 5 Priests in 1 Detachment.

By "also being able to follow the BrB", i could have 7 Priests, and that just seems to break RaW (at least).

I use "Datasheets" because i also first came across this on Meks:
"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."

And in the same way that meks use "Detachment", it is the same wording for Priests.

Hope i did not confuse the whole thing...

 BlackTalos wrote:
I'd say yes. I know that always brings the other "You can Deep Strike, that means you must" arguments.

But the way i see list selection (which is also NOT like special rules - "can embark", etc):

The BrB says (allows you) you can take selections based on battlefield role.

So you go through your codex, pick (AS): 3 Priests, 1 Canoness, 1 Command Squad.
As you've made these selections, you have selected the Unit Datasheet.
But some of these Datasheets say:
"An Adepta Sororitas army may include 0-5 Ministorum Priests in each detachment. They do not take up a Force Organisation slot, and do not qualify as a mandatory HQ selection."
"You may take one Sororitas Command Squad for each Canoness in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot."

So you must abide by those rules.



This happens after you've selected their Datasheets via the BrB rules. You still then have to follow these "selections method". So in a way i am saying that they now supersede the BrB selection.
You can only take the command squad with Canoness, and you can only have 5 Priests in 1 Detachment.

By "also being able to follow the BrB", i could have 7 Priests, and that just seems to break RaW (at least).

I use "Datasheets" because i also first came across this on Meks:
"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."

And in the same way that meks use "Detachment", it is the same wording for Priests.

Hope i did not confuse the whole thing...

I totally understand what you're saying and I can see the argument for your position. It just relies too much on an implied restriction for me. In the Canoness example, the BRB is effectively saying "You can take one Sororitas Command Squad. The number of Canonesses in your army isn't relevant. This selection fills an HQ slot." There is an obvious implied restriction that this is no longer the case, but my argument is that without an explicit restriction, I can still do both.

In other words (and almost exactly like the Court of the Archon), the Canoness normally rolls into battle and brings her Command Squad along. Sometimes she just send the Command Squad in her place. I.e., sometimes she brings a slotless Command Squad and sometimes she instead sends a slotted one.

 Kriswall wrote:
the BRB is effectively saying "You can take one Sororitas Command Squad. The number of Canonesses in your army isn't relevant. This selection fills an HQ slot."

You see, that is what i really cannot read from the BrB.
If you would convince me, i've lost the post with quoted rules, could you re-quote the paragraph used? Is it this:

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.

Which i read as: "You can take HQ slots."
Implied is: "Find HQ slots in your Codex"
I find the Command Squad: "You may take one" IF..... Oh, i need a Canoness.

I still followed the BrB, but i also "abided" by the Datasheet rule.

Fair enough. We'll just have to agree that it's ambiguous. I think it's two permissions. You think it's one permission with the codex rule being a modification of the brb rule (correct me if I'm reading your intent wrong).

If it's two permissions, a player can choose either.
If it's one permission, a player has only one option.

We might as well call it here and leave it as "decide among your own gaming group". To be honest, it's not like this is "rules layering for advantage". Taking a Lone Wolf as your HQ choice in an edition where an Inquisitor in one of 52 Drop Pods is a legal 1850 point list seems pretty tame. GW has almost completely torn down everything we understood about army list building with 7th edition. Taking a Lone Wolf to fill an Elites slot isn't exactly crazy.

No that is correct indeed. Maybe just confirm my above quote is where you're getting the second permission?

I agree to leaving it at that. Won't change much for Lone Wolves, but i guarantee that a Command Squad as single HQ for Adepta Sororitas is completely game-changer... Especially when they can take 5 Heavy Bolters or Heavy Flamers. Who would not want that Unit without HQ Tax lol.

ignoring the rules in the core rulebook that state you must due certain things if entries say certain things as no one seems to want to discuss that and just wants to ignore the rules you are plainly told you most follow if they entry states something, not if you took them as a slotless selection..

where do you get permission to ignore rules that are not options in a unit entry?

you state you have permission to ignore the plainly written non optional :

This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot.

in a units unit entry. In the case of lone wolf this rule is under the units composition, so in order to follow the rules for how many models are in the unit [1 lone wolf] you have to follow the rest of the rules for the units composition unless you have permission to do otherwise.

and no one has any comments on how Lukas, and Arjac from the same book obviously have rules that list slotless or slotted as optional in their unit entry but lone wolves has no options for a slotted selection in its unit entry?

blaktoof wrote:
ignoring the rules in the core rulebook that state you must due certain things if entries say certain things as no one seems to want to discuss that and just wants to ignore the rules you are plainly told you most follow if they entry states something, not if you took them as a slotless selection..

where do you get permission to ignore rules that are not options in a unit entry?

you state you have permission to ignore the plainly written non optional :

This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot.

in a units unit entry. In the case of lone wolf this rule is under the units composition, so in order to follow the rules for how many models are in the unit [1 lone wolf] you have to follow the rest of the rules for the units composition unless you have permission to do otherwise.

"This selection" refers to the phrase before it. So if you "do not use" that phrase, the Unit selected is not "This selection".

blaktoof wrote:
and no one has any comments on how Lukas, and Arjac from the same book obviously have rules that list slotless or slotted as optional in their unit entry but lone wolves has no options for a slotted selection in its unit entry?

That is more support for this side indeed, but i'd say the Priest example i used is just about the same, no?

blaktoof wrote:
ignoring the rules in the core rulebook that state you must due certain things if entries say certain things as no one seems to want to discuss that and just wants to ignore the rules you are plainly told you most follow if they entry states something, not if you took them as a slotless selection..

where do you get permission to ignore rules that are not options in a unit entry?

you state you have permission to ignore the plainly written non optional :

This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot.

in a units unit entry. In the case of lone wolf this rule is under the units composition, so in order to follow the rules for how many models are in the unit [1 lone wolf] you have to follow the rest of the rules for the units composition unless you have permission to do otherwise.

and no one has any comments on how Lukas, and Arjac from the same book obviously have rules that list slotless or slotted as optional in their unit entry but lone wolves has no options for a slotted selection in its unit entry?

This is not a personal attack, but would it be possible for you to organize your thoughts into full, non run on sentences and use capitalization at the start of sentences? I realize it's possible that you're not a native English speaker and that this is your best effort. If so, I applaud you. Lord knows my French writing is pretty bad. It can just sometimes be difficult to understand your points as I have to read the sentences several times and then mentally add punctuation and sentence breaks. Again, this is not a personal attack. You sometimes do it and sometimes not, so I assume you're just in a hurry or posting from a mobile phone or something.

To answer your questions...

I'm reading the Lone Wolf rule as an additional permission. By using the permission in the BRB, I'm not ignoring the Lone Wolf permission... I'm just not taking advantage of it.

Lukas and Arjac are interesting and might shed some light on authorial intent, but as has been said over and over and over again, authorial intent can never truly be known. The Lone Wolf unit entry only cares about rules in the BRB and in the Lone Wof unit entry. Rules in other unit entries might be interesting, but have no real meaning in a RaW discussion. That's why I'm ignoring them. It's sort of like saying that Honda Accords MUST have good gas mileage because Honda Civics do. It's a different car/different unit entry, so the rules on how to handle them are different. There is no assumption that the authors use the same wording in every instance or even that the rules were written by the same person.

"you CAN" is permission. You can ONLY is a restriction.

Until you answer how you are turning a permission, that fails to explicitly limit a prior granted permission in anyway, into a restriction, you have no argument Blaktoof.

Noone is ignoring anything, rules wise. Theyu have been addressed and shown to not be relevant. Continuing to bring them up as if they were relevant, and cannot explain why they are, is not advancing a single item or making your argument seem int he least bit credible.

Take a leaf from Black Talos here - much more interesting debate (well, its actually a debate now) than previously.

Woa...

Taking a Ravenwing Command squad without a HQ would make dualwing lists easier (for funsies, i know they're not great). Bolter banner on a bike without paying for a HQ on a bike? Don't mind if i do. RAW it would also work as my compulsory HQ slot in a Battleforged list, right?

 Kriswall wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
ignoring the rules in the core rulebook that state you must due certain things if entries say certain things as no one seems to want to discuss that and just wants to ignore the rules you are plainly told you most follow if they entry states something, not if you took them as a slotless selection..

where do you get permission to ignore rules that are not options in a unit entry?

you state you have permission to ignore the plainly written non optional :

This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot.

in a units unit entry. In the case of lone wolf this rule is under the units composition, so in order to follow the rules for how many models are in the unit [1 lone wolf] you have to follow the rest of the rules for the units composition unless you have permission to do otherwise.

and no one has any comments on how Lukas, and Arjac from the same book obviously have rules that list slotless or slotted as optional in their unit entry but lone wolves has no options for a slotted selection in its unit entry?

This is not a personal attack, but would it be possible for you to organize your thoughts into full, non run on sentences and use capitalization at the start of sentences? I realize it's possible that you're not a native English speaker and that this is your best effort. If so, I applaud you. Lord knows my French writing is pretty bad. It can just sometimes be difficult to understand your points as I have to read the sentences several times and then mentally add punctuation and sentence breaks. Again, this is not a personal attack. You sometimes do it and sometimes not, so I assume you're just in a hurry or posting from a mobile phone or something.

To answer your questions...

I'm reading the Lone Wolf rule as an additional permission. By using the permission in the BRB, I'm not ignoring the Lone Wolf permission... I'm just not taking advantage of it.

Lukas and Arjac are interesting and might shed some light on authorial intent, but as has been said over and over and over again, authorial intent can never truly be known. The Lone Wolf unit entry only cares about rules in the BRB and in the Lone Wof unit entry. Rules in other unit entries might be interesting, but have no real meaning in a RaW discussion. That's why I'm ignoring them. It's sort of like saying that Honda Accords MUST have good gas mileage because Honda Civics do. It's a different car/different unit entry, so the rules on how to handle them are different. There is no assumption that the authors use the same wording in every instance or even that the rules were written by the same person.

There is no actual wording to indicate the rules for how you take a Lone Wolf have any additional options, Unlike the rules for Lukas and Arjac from the same codex.

Further as the rules are under the unit composition of "1 lone wolf" if you could buy a lone wolf that was slotted how many would there be? the rules for the unit composition of 1, include the rule for the unit not taking up a slot on the force org chart.

as the word "this selection" no one has been able to link that that says its an optional way to take the unit, or the only way to take the unit, and as its a rule listed under the unit composition "this selection" is 1 lone wolf you can include in your army. Given that, then you have to follow the rules to take the selection of 1 lone wolf which are listed under the unit composition.

Additionally as codex trumps rulebook, and there is no option given in the codex for lone wolf to be taken in any way other than listed which is slotless, unlike other unit selections which contain in their unit entry that there are ways to take them slotted or slotless, there is no actual RAW statement to support a slotted lone wolf.

At this point I am ignoring Nos btw, as he hasn't actually replied to a single statement I have made and is just replying to statements that he claims I have made and is flat out dishonest in regards to stating things have been explained as they have not actually been addressed in most circumstances with any rules, or even RAI.

Umm... there would be one since the unit composition is one? How is this an issue? Are you somehow implying that units composed of one model can't fill slots of force org charts? I'm genuinely not following your argument.

And no need to call people dishonest. You can say that you don't understand what they're saying or that you think they're points are wrong or that they might seem misinformed, but calling someone a liar or dishonest doesn't help anyone. I'm sure Nos isn't sitting at home thinking to himself "I'm gonna log onto Dakka and lie to Blaktoof! That'll show him! Muhahahaha!"

 Kriswall wrote:
Umm... there would be one since the unit composition is one? How is this an issue? Are you somehow implying that units composed of one model can't fill slots of force org charts? I'm genuinely not following your argument.

And no need to call people dishonest. You can say that you don't understand what they're saying or that you think they're points are wrong or that they might seem misinformed, but calling someone a liar or dishonest doesn't help anyone. I'm sure Nos isn't sitting at home thinking to himself "I'm gonna log onto Dakka and lie to Blaktoof! That'll show him! Muhahahaha!"

I'm asking anyone why they believe the rules for taking the unit under unit composition can be ignored when they are using the rules for unit composition to field the model. Nothing in those rules is stated as optional, or that it is slotted or slotless if you do x. They state that the selection of 1 lone wolf can be included in your army if you take x. This selection [1 lone wolf] is a slotless entry on the force organization chart

I am not calling him dishonest, he is being dishonest and I am stating it. I do understand what they are saying, Nos actually has a long history of saying people are stating things they are not then claiming they are wrong and have been disproven when no one has addressed the actual topic.

example to factual statement:

many times now I have explain the "you can include.." is optional, in that you are not required to include a lone wolf in your army. Yet Nos feels the need to continually insist I am making up that can means must, when obviously I am not saying "You must include a lone wolf in your army" additionally he later switched to claim I was adding the word "only" which has never been done. Then further claimed that the issue regarding "if the army entry states that this unit can be taken as a slot less selection that does not take up a force organization chart" was addressed, when it was not. No one has actually addressed that the rule only asks for the unit entry to contain that language, not the unit to be taken as slotless before those rules apply.

I don't know or care if he is "plotting" but from his statements he only replies to things that are not stated, and then makes up results that never happened.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
ignoring the rules in the core rulebook that state you must due certain things if entries say certain things as no one seems to want to discuss that and just wants to ignore the rules you are plainly told you most follow if they entry states something, not if you took them as a slotless selection..

where do you get permission to ignore rules that are not options in a unit entry?

you state you have permission to ignore the plainly written non optional :

This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot.

in a units unit entry. In the case of lone wolf this rule is under the units composition, so in order to follow the rules for how many models are in the unit [1 lone wolf] you have to follow the rest of the rules for the units composition unless you have permission to do otherwise.

"This selection" refers to the phrase before it. So if you "do not use" that phrase, the Unit selected is not "This selection".

blaktoof wrote:
and no one has any comments on how Lukas, and Arjac from the same book obviously have rules that list slotless or slotted as optional in their unit entry but lone wolves has no options for a slotted selection in its unit entry?

That is more support for this side indeed, but i'd say the Priest example i used is just about the same, no?

regarding this selection, you are correct it refers to the rules in that section. We are not told any of them are optional other than that you "you can include.." the option of choosing to take a lone wolf or not. Further the rules in that section are the unit composition, and include "1 lone wolf" so the selection is "1 lone wolf" as that is what is immediately preceeding these rules in the same rules area "unit composition" as such in order to include the "1 lone wolf" unit composition you have to follow those rules, nothing about them is listed as optional. We are not given any statements in those rules that the selection of 1 lone wolf can be taken anyway other than slotless.

With that in mind it is not possible to select "1 lone wolf" to include in your army without following the rest of the rules in the unit composition for that selection.

Play it as you wish. When a rule debate goes on for more than 5 pages, there is obviously no clear consensus. This often happens when one side argues for a RaW interpretation that would seem to contradict the most likely RaI.

Until such time as someone cites a rule telling me the specific permission granted in the BRB to put an Elites battlefield role in an Elites slot on a force org chart is being restricted, I'll assume there is no restriction and that I have two methods to field Lone Wolves.

I would suggest a mod lock at this point. We're running in circles.

I tend to agree the conversation is pretty much at an end.

Kriswall, you have a nice blog by the way, the leather-bound books are very nicely made.

blaktoof wrote:
I tend to agree the conversation is pretty much at an end.

Kriswall, you have a nice blog by the way, the leather-bound books are very nicely made.

Thanks! I appreciate that. I'm actually working on another one right now that will have an Inquisition theme and be a sort of "know your enemy" book with unit entries for all the Xenos races. Pics to come!

 Kriswall wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
You are adding an implied "can't be taken regularly to fill a slot" that isn't there.

I didn't add anything, it was added by the millions of gamers who have been playing this game for longer than you or I if you indeed think it was added.

So you do agree it was added and isn't actually in the rules? That it's just a million gamers worth of HYWPI? I agree also that this is the case.

The fact you ignored the rest of my post speaks volumes. Thats because I gave a reason why it is interpretated in such a way by all those gamers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think it's important to note that the unit is listed in the elites section. I think if they only intended to be taken as slotless they would be listed in the HQ section - this has been my experience with slotless entries.

Inquisitorial Henchmen were also in the elites section in the 5th ed GK codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I did not give a quote there, but a shortened version

You can take them if you have x, which then means they do not take up a slot. You CAN take, meaning you can choose not to take those units. If you do you cannot evoke this rule, and can only select using the rule book permission. Which still exists, as no specific rule exists to counter it.

Blaktoof - repeating the same restriction less rule give times adds nothing. It has been shown more than once tht the oft quoted rule contains no restrictive language - hell, the first sentence I entirely permissive - therefor your argument remains refuted.

What you keep imagining is the word "only" is somewhere in that rule, eg "can only" It isn't there.

You're forgetting the full stop. The first sentence is a complete sentence by itself and so stands by itself. The second sentence adds to the first, it isn't combined with it.

 DarthOvious wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
You are adding an implied "can't be taken regularly to fill a slot" that isn't there.

I didn't add anything, it was added by the millions of gamers who have been playing this game for longer than you or I if you indeed think it was added. This is the way it has always been interpreted within the gaming community. I didn't invent it.

Lets look at the rule again.

"You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot."

This is telling you how to include Lone Wolves in your army. There is a full stop before the next sentence which tells you it a slotless entry. Nowhere there does it clarify that you can still take Lone Wolves in elite slots.

If it was telling you that you could take Lone Wolves as slotless entries as well as having elite slots it would say something like this instead:

"You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators that does not take up a Force Organisation Slot. This does not affect your ability to take Lone Wolves as elite slots."

It doesn't say that though. Instead it says:

"You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army."

The following sentence only adds it is a slotless entry, the first sentence tells you how to include Lone Wolves in your army list.

That full stop is very important.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/full-stop

A full stop is used to mark the end of a complete statement, so the first sentence is a complete statement in itself. So the first sentence in the rule is a complete statement which says:

"You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army."

So that first sentence is telling you how to include Lone Wolves in your army by English interpretation and thus why this language within the rules has always been interpretated as such by the gaming community at large.

Saying that I can take a Lone Wolf that doesn't take up a slot for each Troops choice doesn't necessarily mean I can't take a Lone Wolf that does take a slot regardless of how many Troops are around. There needs to be an explicit restriction removing the BRB permission. It isn't there.

And this means SM players can now take Honour Guard as an HQ slot. It also meant that GK players back in 5th ed could take Henchmen in elite slots. IT IS THE EXACT SAME WORDING BEING USED HERE.

The rule is telling you how you include Lone Wolves in your army. It has meant this for every other entry with this wording in existence. The Space Wolf codex is not a special snowflake codex with hidden easter eggs which lets you Interpretate language in some different way that other players can't.

And you keep citing prior edition publications. Can you cite a 7th edition source that works the way you want it to work? Codex Space Marines is a 6th edition book. The old GK one was 5th.

Once again citing that it's a prior publication means nothing and I have already explained why. Games Workshop are not going to confuse people by changing their rule interpretations in such a way. Unless you get a explanation from GW themselves this should be interpreted by the majority of people as a restriction on Lone Wolves based on past precedent. Also that 6th edition SM Codex is still being used in the game, so it is indeed a current edition of the codex.

If you look at the poll results now you will see from the votes that 70% of people have answered that the original list isn't legally bound. Interpretate the entry anyway you want but I have a feeling that the majority of players are not going to agree with you. I'm fine with you playing the game any way you want but your opponents might interpretate what you're saying differently and I think you'll have to take into consideration what the most popular interpretation of this rule means.

Look I know that you really want to be able to include Lone Wolves as elite slots in your army list and I know it's a kick in the teeth from previous edition. Every player can look at a rule and desperately want a certain interpretation to be true, however I do not see how your interpretation can be true. It means the gaming community have been playing it wrong for years if you are correct. You can continue thinking that everyone else is wrong and that you and a few others are right but I don't think this is a healthy way to play the game.

Edit: Spelling

I ignored the rest of your post for a couple of reasons.

The first is that you start out by telling me the implied restriction was added by million of previous gamers based on their interpretation. I'm not interested in "how things have always been done", nor am I interested in the collective HYWPI of "millions of gamers", which is probably hyperbole. I seriously doubt millions of gamers have really thought about this Lone Wolf issue, but I may be wrong. Either way, someone else's HYWPI might be interesting, but ultimately isn't good evidence in a RaW discrussion.

The second is that the Lone Wolf rule doesn't tell us how to field the unit. It tells us how we CAN field the unit. This is a subtle but key difference from what you're saying. The BRB also tells us how we CAN field the unit. Can + Can presumably results in two Cans in the absence of a Can't.

Furthermore, your stance seems to be that since the Lone Wolf Unit Entry doesn't specifically state that you can still use the BRB method, that you must not be able to. This isn't how a permissive rule set works. If the BRB gives permission, the codex has to specifically and explicitly take it away either via a written restriction or new rule that would cause the BRB rule to break. At best, you have an argument that there is an implied restriction based on a possible conflict. Unfortunately, implied restrictions aren't written rules and the conflict isn't clear.

And to address your last paragraph...

First, there are lots of rules in the book that we play "wrong" all the time because we know that the rules as written seem wrong or don't make sense. If you disagree with this, just browse YMDC and make a note every time a thread comes to a consensus and ends with 'The rules don't cover this and I hope GW issues an errata soon, but until then we all agree this is how it should be played.' Is it reasonable for a gaming community to say that Lone Wolves can only be taken using the rules in the Unit Entry and not the rules in the BRB? Sure. Is it reasonable for a gaming community to say that Lone Wolves can be taken using either method? Sure. I find it VERY presumptuous of you to think that when I play the game with my local community (who all agree with me, incidentally, so in my community, you're the wrong one) that I am somehow playing the game in an unhealthy way. Having fun with your friends by playing a game is unhealthy? Allowing your friends to (possibly... or not) fudge his list a little to have some fun is unhealthy? Come on, now. Quit being so judgmental. There is nothing unhealthy about how I play this game. You forget that each gaming community is a microcosm. I don't care how your community plays anymore than you care how mine plays. I pity the "everyone else thinks this, so it must be true" mentality. We call that a lemming mentality. Worked great for the Germans during WWII. I'm trying to do a critical evaluation of what is written on the page while specifically avoiding looking at what people have thought in the past.

Darth - I am not forgetting the full stop. The fact the first sentence starts "can " is all that's important. - it is another permissive way to take the elite slot unit. If you do this, then the second sentence adds in. That's all that matters.
blaktoofs waffle ignored, not worth expending any more effort that way.