Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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

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

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

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

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

Bonus round:

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

As to the leaked GK codex.

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

... and yet no other armies can.

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

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

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

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

... and yet no other armies can.

Might want to check out the newer BT FAQ:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So much for my all-daemon CSM list :(

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

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

nosferatu1001 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Simple. Utterly, 100&, simple

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

Simple. Utterly, 100& (what), simple


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The LS Storm isn't a DT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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