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.

Ghaz wrote:
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.

Could you point me towards the exact place that the phrase "Force Organization chart selections" is used? I'm having trouble finding it. The phrase I do see is "selection from that part of your army list." Now the next two sentences read as follows: "Dark boxes are compulsory selections." And: "As you can see, normally you will have to take at least one HQ selection and two Troops selections."

If we assume that the GW writers can use proper english, there has been no indication that the use of the word "selection" has suddenly changed, so it still refers to a selection from that part of your army list. A mandatory unit selected from the HQ part of your army list says nothing about a mandatory number of spaces filled on a chart. It only refers to a number of a certain type of unit you must take.

In fact, if we look a little higher on the page, just under the section heading, we see this: "The minimum and maximum numbers of each of these types of each unit for each army are detailed on the force organization chart of each army Codex book." The FOC is not some magical place with slots or "selections" that you "use" or "use up" or "fill up" or whatever with your units. It is a visual aid to help in the building of a legal army. The rulebook says that "One box on the chart allows you to make one selection from that part of your army list." The chart itself is not mentioned again in the paragraph describing compulsory selections and nowhere does it say that the "compulsory selections" must take up spaces in the said chart.

Further, not to beat a dead horse, but an official GW FAQ, even if it is referring to a BT unit, supports this interpretation and conflicts with the one you're defending so personally. I really think that's fairly compelling.

Also, comments like "Completely wrong and totally unsupportable." are incredibly close-minded and not in the spirit of the game imho.

Charlatan wrote:Also, comments like "Completely wrong and totally unsupportable." are incredibly close-minded and not in the spirit of the game imho.

I thought this forum was about the rules?

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:

Charlatan wrote:Also, comments like "Completely wrong and totally unsupportable." are incredibly close-minded and not in the spirit of the game imho.

I thought this forum was about the rules?

It is indeed, and obviously some of those rules are not always clear cut and easy to understand correctly. Otherwise we wouldn't need this forum. Going into any discussion with the mindset of "there's no possible way I could be wrong" only limits your potential to find the truth. Also, there's something to be said for common courtesy. Let's not try to use friendly debate as a disguise for what, in essence, seems to be teetering on the brink of becoming a flame war. I'd like to think we're all above that.

First of all, people need to clearly understand that a force organisation chart is nothing more than information; it details the minimum and maximum numbers of unit types allowed in an army.

The diagram labled "Example of a Force Organisation Chart" on page 87 is nothing more than a picture used to convey information. The same information the picture conveys is also detailed in list form underneath the picture.

The force org chart is NOT treated like some game board where you have to arrange the pieces in specific slots on the board before the game can begin.

Once you get past that, just read the rules on choosing units. Compulsory means you must make a choice of that type. It does NOT say you must make a choice of that type that counts against your maximum. You simply are required to make a selection of that unit type.

All units are within the force org structure and count towards both minimum and maximum, unless specifically noted to behave otherwise.

Dedicated Transports are noted to behave otherwise. It tells you they exist outside the force org structure. They cannot affect it.

Techpriest and Engineseer have an entirely different rule. They are not exempted from affecting the force org chart. What their rule states is that they do not use up any force org chart selections. So they exist within it; they affect it. They are HQ selections. The IG codex states you must make one HQ selection. Selecting a Techpriest or Engineseer satisfies the RAW for the IG force org. They don't use up one of your selections, so you are still free to select two more HQ units if you want.

For this to not work, you have to be claiming that two specifically worded rules are in fact the same rule. They are not the same rule, they have completely different functions and wording, and are used in distinctly different places for different kinds of units.

To argue that these two separately worded rules are in fact one identical rule, you have to claim that the explanation of the rules given in the BT FAQ is incorrect, which in fact someone has indeed claimed in this thread somewhere.

So, the argument against, backed up by whatever facts someone cares to use, boils down to "You're wrong, the explanation GW published in their FAQ is wrong, I'm right".

That seems rather ludicrous that you have to claim that the explanation from GW of how the standard rules work is wrong to begin to justify arguing against this.

Page 99 of the IG codex uses the exact same verbiage to exclude the chimera from the FO chart selection as it does to exclude the priests on page 93.

Why does this matter? Precedence within the codex. You wouldn't use a chimera to fulfill an elite or troop selection since the codex excludes it (granted, the BRB does as well but the codex carries more ruling weight). Since the same verbiage used to exclude chimeras form the FO select is used to exclude the priests, the priests cannot be used as FO selections. The priests can still be used int the army, they just don't occupy a FO selection.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:Page 99 of the IG codex uses the exact same verbiage to exclude the chimera from the FO chart selection as it does to exclude the priests on page 93.

Why does this matter? Precedence within the codex. You wouldn't use a chimera to fulfill an elite or troop selection since the codex excludes it (granted, the BRB does as well but the codex carries more ruling weight). Since the same verbiage used to exclude chimeras form the FO select is used to exclude the priests, the priests cannot be used as FO selections. The priests can still be used int the army, they just don't occupy a FO selection.

Chimera's have an additional rule that applies to them, which is the rule covering dedicated transports from the rulebook. It's right under the force org instructions. Priests do not have this additional rule applied to them, this being the rule that excludes the dedicated transport from the entire force org structure.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:Page 99 of the IG codex uses the exact same verbiage to exclude the chimera from the FO chart selection as it does to exclude the priests on page 93.

Why does this matter? Precedence within the codex. You wouldn't use a chimera to fulfill an elite or troop selection since the codex excludes it (granted, the BRB does as well but the codex carries more ruling weight). Since the same verbiage used to exclude chimeras form the FO select is used to exclude the priests, the priests cannot be used as FO selections. The priests can still be used int the army, they just don't occupy a FO selection.

also DEDICATED TRANSPORTS is a bolded section Like HQ ELite Troops Fast Attack and Heavy thus its own section outside the force Org chart as explained in the aforementioned sectoin of the rule book.

So the example is unfortunately not fully validated since it does not exist "within" a force org chart selection. I do agree however, that without the actual language excluding them it would be a valid argument for the opposing view.

The point about the Chimera is excellent and I can definitely see people trying to explain uses boxes why it counts as an HQ.

G

And yet again, 'use' and 'use up' mean the same thing. You can 'use up' just a portion of something. Nor have you shown a single rule that allows a model to use just a part of a Force Organization chart selection. So far, you've conveniently ignored the fact that your 'interpretation' would allow a player to take over six Troops choices by claiming they don't take up the entire selection. And pray tell, where do the rules tell us that if a selection only 'uses' a selection, how many does it take to 'use it up'?

So once again, you don't have a leg to stand on. 'Use' and 'use up' mean the exact same thing.

Green Blow Fly wrote:The point about the Chimera is excellent and I can definitely see people trying to explain uses boxes why it counts as an HQ.

G

The point about chimera's is useless as there is an additional rule that applies to it that does not apply to the techpriests or engineseers.

Chimera's, being a dedicated transport, have the specific rule that they exist outside the force org structure.

Techpriests and Engineseers have no such rule applying to them.

This all comes down to people believing that "does not use up a force org selection" and "exists outside the force org chart" are the same rule. They simply aren't. Two different rules.

Techpriests and Engineseers have one of these rules applied to them, dedicated transports like the Chimera have both.

Ghaz wrote:And yet again, 'use' and 'use up' mean the same thing. You can 'use up' just a portion of something. Nor have you shown a single rule that allows a model to use just a part of a Force Organization chart selection. So far, you've conveniently ignored the fact that your 'interpretation' would allow a player to take over six Troops choices by claiming they don't take up the entire selection. And pray tell, where do the rules tell us that if a selection only 'uses' a selection, how many does it take to 'use it up'?

So once again, you don't have a leg to stand on. 'Use' and 'use up' mean the exact same thing.

No sir. because if they had simply left out the word "up" we would not have this discusion and i would be in complete agreement with you. However as evidenced by my clear concise use of the english language. even referencing generally accepted sources i.e dictionary.com you still refuse to accept the the word "Use" only has the same definition as "Use Up" in one out of over 20 possible definitions. Your inability to justify your position by any method other then saying "because i said so"

Quit being foolish.

Show me a troop selection that says it does not "use up" a force org chart selection (that does not also have specific language excluding it) and then i will show you how you can take more the 6 troop force org chart selections.

Sir you are failing miserable and are literally trying to derail the discussin with ridiculous assertions. "Use" and "Use up" are not the same. please re-read your dictionary. "Use Up" has a very clear and limited scope of ways it can be utilized. Although "Use" can be utilized in the same manner (i.e. the term -USE Up-) it also has dozens of other utilizations that also do not apply to this conversation.

If you do not have a better arguement the acquesce and move on. or if you have some sort of actual contribution to the conversation other then "i am right and you are wrong" wash rinse repeat.

There is no "Exclusionary language" here you are trying to create it out of thin air.

I am not arguing over other dex's or Faq's i am pointing out RAW.
However the fact WH codex Priest also listed under HQ go as far as to specifically state they may not be choices, shows a clear concise effort made to make it clear. this language DOES NOT EXIST and the words "use up" were utilized to explain -intent- of the passage.

As I said remove the word up.. Conversation abruptly ends. However since it is present we have a discusion.

Before you repeat "Use" and "Use Up" mean the exact same thing. understand if they did mean the exact same thing you would "use up" your trooth brush every night. when you got out of your shower you would "use up" your towel to dry yourself, you would "use up" my patience with your silliness.. oops that one was a bad example.. but then again you would not "use" my patience with your silliness... looks like context does matter.


P.S. the dedicated transport rule pg 87 states "dedicated transport vehicles sit outside the force organization structure, as they are attached to a unit they are bought for."

the priest(s) and techpriest(s) can be purchased seperately, and the techpriest can actually have his own unit. of course all of this is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the actually facts that make the case, but it seems like people are intent to desperately grab at anything else to try and push the issue further.

And yet again, you can't see the flaws in your own argument, so out of spite you ignore them. So tell us then, where does the word 'use' mean it's only being partially used? It does not. It doesn't matter if it's being 'used' or 'used up', only ONE SINGLE UNIT can 'use' a Force Oganization chart selection at a time. Not two, not three. No more than ONE. From page 87 of the Warhammer 40,000 5th edition rulebook:

One box on the chart allows you to make one selection from that part of your army list.

So are you now going to say that 'one selection' actually means 'more than one'?

I agree with what Ghaz is saying and there is plenty of precedence to support his case. One fine example is the ubiqitous Space Wolf Venerable dreadnaught. It can be fielded as either an HQ or an elite but not both. There are other examples but I won't delve into them to keep my post succintly stated as all posts such as these should be if at all possible.

G

Is it against forum rules to tell someone they are trolling? If so, some mod please let me know, or just delete this.

Because, GBF, as you're sig relates, you're just trolling now. It was a fun mental exercise while it lasted though!

Ghaz wrote:And yet again, you can't see the flaws in your own argument, so out of spite you ignore them. So tell us then, where does the word 'use' mean it's only being partially used? It does not. It doesn't matter if it's being 'used' or 'used up', only ONE SINGLE UNIT can 'use' a Force Oganization chart selection at a time. Not two, not three. No more than ONE. From page 87 of the Warhammer 40,000 5th edition rulebook:

One box on the chart allows you to make one selection from that part of your army list.

So are you now going to say that 'one selection' actually means 'more than one'?

Not at all. But what you seem to be saying that if that one selection happens to be a unit that has it's own special rules saying it doesn't contribute to your maximum then it suddenly is not a selection. Where does "one selection" become "one selection that counts towards your total?"

And where does any unit say that it doesn't contribute to the maximum but still uses a Force Organization chart selection? Try using the wording in the actual rules instead of making up your own. A unit that says it does not use up any Force Oganization chart selections doesn't use up a selection. How hard is that to understand? Why are you trying to insist that a unit that does not use up a Force Organization chart selection actually does use up a Force Organization chart selection?

Ghaz wrote:And where does any unit say that it doesn't contribute to the maximum but still uses a Force Organization chart selection? Try using the wording in the actual rules instead of making up your own. A unit that says it does not use up any Force Organization chart selections doesn't use up a selection. How hard is that to understand? Why are you trying to insist that a unit that does not use up a Force Organization chart selection actually does use up a Force Organization chart selection?

I'm not sure you get what I'm trying to say here. I'm not trying to argue that it does use up a "Force Organization chart selection." It obviously doesn't. I'm just saying that in the 5th ed core rule book, the term "Force Organization chart selection" is not used. What it says is that a black box shown on the force organization slot indicates a required selection. "Selection" used at the beginning of that same paragraph refers to a selection "that part of your army list." So a black HQ box on the force organization chart indicates one mandatory selection from the HQ part of that army list. That is it. The rules don't say anything disallowing units from fulfilling that requirement because they don't use up a space on the force organization chart.

I'm not saying your interpretation doesn't make sense, it does. But there is no specific RAW evidence to support it. It confuses me that you can't seem to see that my interpretation makes sense as well, even if you happen to think it's wrong.

This is where the Black Templar's FAQ comes into play. The rule about the EC states that because he is an HQ he fulfills the requirement despite the fact that he does not use (or use up or whatever) a space on the FOC. This conflicts with your interpretation, but doesn't conflict with the one I've laid out here. In a gray area, this tips the argument in my favor.

And Ghaz, I know I'm the new guy on these forums and you've been around a while, but if you want to get my respect back, here's what to do. Be level headed enough to take someone else's argument seriously. If you're still positive you're right, awesome, continue trying to change my mind. Because if it turns out you are right I sure don't want to just be happy in my ignorance, I want to know I'm wrong. But do it by bringing in new facts that haven't been addressed, and do it with courtesy and class. If there are real flaws in my argument, explain them. Don't take an angry approach and accuse me of "making up my own wording" when every quote I've used has been word-for-word out of the 5th edition book. This forum is for grown-up debate, not childish argument. Discern the difference and take the higher road.

Yes, 'Force Organization chart selection' is the ONLY term used. Please actually read the rules. They've been posted enough times in this thread already but here it is one more time:

One box on the chart allows you to make one selection from that part of your army list. 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. This is rarely a disadvantage and many players often use the maximum number of Troops selections.

The Force Organization chart consist of nothing other than various types of Force Organization chart selections. Trying to make up your own terninology does not change that.

Ghaz wrote:Yes, 'Force Organization chart selection' is the ONLY term used. Please actually read the rules. They've been posted enough times in this thread already but here it is one more time:

One box on the chart allows you to make one selection from that part of your army list. 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. This is rarely a disadvantage and many players often use the maximum number of Troops selections.

The Force Organization chart consist of nothing other than various types of Force Organization chart selections. Trying to make up your own terninology does not change that.

Okay... am I going crazy here? Thank you for bolding every use of the word selection. Now where is the phrase "Force Organization chart selection" used? You keep using it, and just said it is the ONLY term used but I don't see it anywhere in the paragraph you just cited. I'm not making up any of my own terminology. I'm only working with the terminology that is there, which tells me to make a selection from the HQ section of my army. If what I select, (aka, a selection) happens to have the text "this unit does not count against your HQ allowance" what is it that suddenly makes it no longer a selection?

And where exactly do you think these selections are coming from? They're coming from the Force Organization chart, hence they're 'Force Organization chart selections'. Why do they use the term 'HQ selection' and 'Troops selection' if that's not what they are, selections? What are the dark boxes on the Force Organization chart? They're compulsory selections, that's what they are. So once again, you're not working with the terminology in the rules. Where do they ever once say anything about 'allowances'? They don't. Both the codex and the rules clearly talk about 'selections'. Your 'what ifs' don't change what the rules clearly state. Every single box on the chart is a 'Force Organization chart slection'. No other term is ever used in the rules.

"Does not count against your HQ allowance" is what's used in the 5th ed. marines codex when describing units that don't take up an HQ choice. I don't play IG so I don't own their codex and would rather not pirate it. I'm assuming that the IG codex uses your "force organization chart selections" phrase? If that's the case I understand your point a little better. Still, the BT FAQ makes me wonder if this is really what is intended or if it's a misconception, because again, I am more inclined to believe that GW's rules do not conflict than that they do. If you happen to own the IG codex and could cite the exact phrasing I'd appreciate it. Does it say it doesn't count as a selection? Doesn't contribute to your total selections? Or anything else to explain whether it's treated as a valid HQ choice?

In any case... I think it's about time this thread dies. I believe you and I are the only one's left arguing and I don't even play IG... That and I think we're both in danger of taking this more personally than we ought to.

So if the precise wording in the guard dex changes my mind I'll concede the point and if not than we'll let it die. Sound like a plan?

Ghaz wrote:And where exactly do you think these selections are coming from? They're coming from the Force Organization chart, hence they're 'Force Organization chart selections'.

A selection comes from your army list, not the force org chart. The force org chart just tells what the minimum and maximum number of selections you must make from your army list are to be a legal army.

Force org chart says you must make one HQ selection from your army list.

Anything that is an HQ selection fulfills that requirement. Unless you are arguing that a Techpriest is not an HQ selection from your army list, by taking it you have met the requirement as detailed exactly in the rulebook.

Kaaihn wrote:

Ghaz wrote:And where exactly do you think these selections are coming from? They're coming from the Force Organization chart, hence they're 'Force Organization chart selections'.

A selection comes from your army list, not the force org chart. The force org chart just tells what the minimum and maximum number of selections you must make from your army list are to be a legal army.

Force org chart says you must make one HQ selection from your army list.

Anything that is an HQ selection fulfills that requirement. Unless you are arguing that a Techpriest is not an HQ selection from your army list, by taking it you have met the requirement as detailed exactly in the rulebook.

Ah, I stand corrected. Other people are still arguing this. Well in about ten minutes craig ferguson ends and I'm going to bed...

Ghaz wrote:And where exactly do you think these selections are coming from? They're coming from the Force Organization chart, hence they're 'Force Organization chart selections'. Why do they use the term 'HQ selection' and 'Troops selection' if that's not what they are, selections? What are the dark boxes on the Force Organization chart? They're compulsory selections, that's what they are. So once again, you're not working with the terminology in the rules. Where do they ever once say anything about 'allowances'? They don't. Both the codex and the rules clearly talk about 'selections'. Your 'what ifs' don't change what the rules clearly state. Every single box on the chart is a 'Force Organization chart slection'. No other term is ever used in the rules.

Oh i get it now. you are of the opinion the units don't exist at all! Or perhaps that they are not HQ units?

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

But they are treated as HQ units. In fact other then not "using up" any force org chart selections they are seperate hq units.

So they are HQ units
They do not "use up" force org chart selections

"One box on the chart allows you to make one selection from that part of your army list. 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. This is rarely a disadvantage and many players often use the maximum number of Troops selections."

So where is it located? The HQ section of my army list. I select them and pay points for them to be in my army. Fortunately for me they do not "use up" any HQ slots meaning i get to buy up to two more HQ selections that may or may not "use up" force org chart selection based upon what i buy.

So explain your point ghaz?"

(sorry finally got home from work)

Charlatan wrote:"Does not count against your HQ allowance" is what's used in the 5th ed. marines codex when describing units that don't take up an HQ choice. I don't play IG so I don't own their codex and would rather not pirate it. I'm assuming that the IG codex uses your "force organization chart selections" phrase? If that's the case I understand your point a little better. Still, the BT FAQ makes me wonder if this is really what is intended or if it's a misconception, because again, I am more inclined to believe that GW's rules do not conflict than that they do. If you happen to own the IG codex and could cite the exact phrasing I'd appreciate it. Does it say it doesn't count as a selection? Doesn't contribute to your total selections? Or anything else to explain whether it's treated as a valid HQ choice?

In any case... I think it's about time this thread dies. I believe you and I are the only one's left arguing and I don't even play IG... That and I think we're both in danger of taking this more personally than we ought to.

So if the precise wording in the guard dex changes my mind I'll concede the point and if not than we'll let it die. Sound like a plan?

all of my quotes and page numbers are exactly from the books in question

odinsspear45 wrote:

Ghaz wrote:And where exactly do you think these selections are coming from? They're coming from the Force Organization chart, hence they're 'Force Organization chart selections'. Why do they use the term 'HQ selection' and 'Troops selection' if that's not what they are, selections? What are the dark boxes on the Force Organization chart? They're compulsory selections, that's what they are. So once again, you're not working with the terminology in the rules. Where do they ever once say anything about 'allowances'? They don't. Both the codex and the rules clearly talk about 'selections'. Your 'what ifs' don't change what the rules clearly state. Every single box on the chart is a 'Force Organization chart slection'. No other term is ever used in the rules.

Oh i get it now. you are of the opinion the units don't exist at all! Or perhaps that they are not HQ units?

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

But they are treated as HQ units. In fact other then not "using up" any force org chart selections they are seperate hq units.

So they are HQ units
They do not "use up" force org chart selections

"One box on the chart allows you to make one selection from that part of your army list. 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. This is rarely a disadvantage and many players often use the maximum number of Troops selections."

So where is it located? The HQ section of my army list. I select them and pay points for them to be in my army. Fortunately for me they do not "use up" any HQ slots meaning i get to buy up to two more HQ selections that may or may not "use up" force org chart selection based upon what i buy.

So explain your point ghaz?"

(sorry finally got home from work)

I'm pretty sure Ghaz's point is that when GW says it doesn't use up a selection what they mean is that it is not a selection. This is a very reasonable and valid point. I happen to agree with you in thinking that what it means is that the selection is simply not used up, as it would be with a normal unit. Like you said, it forces you to take one and you do. In the case of a special few that one does not use up the slot. Hooray, you still have room for two. However, whether it makes the slot go away or not it was still taken, thereby fulfilling the requirement.

As much as I feel the second one makes more sense, both interpretations are founded on sound thinking and looking back on this thread I doubt anyone is going to change anyone else's mind.

I officially exit this thread.

Peace.


Edit: Thanks for the page number and quote OS, they shed some light.

I think it is destined for FAQ's as well.


Until then and maybe after is say its up to TO's and friendly games.

Actually it's quite simple and does not need to be FAQ'd.

G

Is this still going on? Jesus, this is YMDC at it's best, dictionary.com quotations, word choice arguments, and Ghaz.

I think the only reason the BT one was FAQ'd is because it was a mandatory HQ choice. I really think that all of you trying to find Easter eggs in the Force Org chart need to get your heads examined. Sure, a detailed reading of the Force Org chart along with a diagram of the words "use" and "use up" may lead one to believe they can use a Techpriest as a compulsory HQ, but if you tried to pull this at a tournament you have to be prepared to have your list declared illegal.

For Ozy, since he brought up the BT rules....

BT 5th edition FAQ:

Q: Can I field the Emperors Champion as my one compulsory HQ choice and no other HQ's in the army?

A: Yes, 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.

Note that the Emperors Champion is not always a mandatory choice. He is a voluntary choice in an army under 750 points, and yet the FAQ, by not excluding him from armies less than 750, says that even though he does not use up a force org selection, he is still an HQ choice, and so he can fulfill the minimum HQ requirement.

Soooo.... IG.

Q: Can I field an Engineseer or Techpriest as my one compulsory HQ choice and no other HQ's in the army?

How is the answer to that not an obvious yes? Both the Emperor's Champion, the Techpriest, and the Engineseer are governed by identical rules. The rulebook force org chart, they are both in the HQ section of their respective codex, and both have the rule in their profile that they do not use up an HQ slot on a force organisation chart.

You can pour over wording of use versus use up all you like, but to anyone that actually understands how force org works (meaning no mis-read wording, box nonsense, etc that we have seen so much of in this thread), is familiar with the BT champion, and the faq, and the answer should be a blindingly obvious yes.

It is an identical situation. Unless you can show where it is not, such as proving that the Techpriest and Engineseer is not an HQ selection, or you can convince someone that the logic posted by GW in their FAQ is actually wrong, then the answer is yes.

The answer is yes without bringing BT or its FAQ into the conversation, but there is obviously an argument people see that says no. So, if there is no clear answer between you and your opponent on a RAW issue, do you not try to come to some resolution using RAI? The RAW and RAI of this identical situation, that is in no way worded specific to it being BT logic only, says this works with full reasoning spelled out. Why would a judge ever rule it other than a yes, knowing all the facts?