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.

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

Just sayin'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ACTUAL language is: indicates a compulsory selection

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But that is a question for another thread.

NFM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, really, really simple.

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

Again, really, really simple.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

Never. Not once, not even almost.

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

Well, to me, the flaw is here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does this make sense to you nosferatu1001?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

puma713 wrote:

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

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

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

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

And we're back around again.

Yawn

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

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

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

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

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

And we're back around again.

Yawn

So you do not agree with the Codex rules?

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

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

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

No interpretation necessary. It's all on you.

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