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.

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

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

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

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

odinsspear45 wrote:I am not twisting anything.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*edit

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

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

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

Then you are not playing Warhammer 40,000 then.

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

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

yakface wrote:

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

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

If this were just a case of the BT FAQ saying: The Emperor's Champion counts as the mandatory HQ choice then we could just write it off as a rules change, but there is a logic presented along with the ruling that explains that the Emperor's Champion still counts as the mandatory choice because: "even though he does not use up an HQ slot, he is still an HQ choice, and so he can fulfill the minimum HQ requirement."

So you can assume that the author was just plain wrong, or the ruling was made against the wording in the previous edition, etc, but the fact remains that the logic given is presented as following the rules.

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

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

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

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

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

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

4th Edition, but otherwise correct.

Ok, I wasn't sure.

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

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

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

On Page 89 under "Summoned Daemons" it says:

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

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

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

Gwar! wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geessh....

The rules are quite clear...

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

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

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

Period.

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

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

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

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

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

Duh. What do you think TMDC is for?

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

TheGreatAvatar wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Period.

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

G

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

G

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

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

G

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

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

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

Two distinctly different rules, with different meanings.

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

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

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

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

Gwar! wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

G

Kaaihn wrote:

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

G

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

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

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

Two distinctly different rules, with different meanings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ghaz you are spot on it.

Everyone else is like....

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

Ghaz wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

PG 87 minirulebook: dark boxes are compulsory selections. As you can see, normally you will have to take at least one HQ selection and two troops selections. These compulsory choices ensure that whatever else you select, your force will have a core within it that is representative of that army.

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


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

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

It’s about context.

Example 2:

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

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

See there you still have soap!

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


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

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

The selection still exists as a viable option.

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

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

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

Exactly.

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

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

Edit - changed mind after re-examining language.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is dictionary.com explaining my position.

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


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

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

Is the exact language from the codex.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

PG 87 minirulebook: dark boxes are compulsory selections. As you can see, normally you will have to take at least one HQ selection and two troops selections. These compulsory choices ensure that whatever else you select, your force will have a core within it that is representative of that army.

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

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

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

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

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