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 listing I believe directly point towards these units leading IG Armies.

IG Codex PG 34 Techpriest Enginseer

The highest ranking tech-adepts are known as the magi. They are powerful individuals in the Priesthood of Mars who are dedicated to the recovery and preservation of lost knowledge. Some Magi have been known to requisition entire armies to recover such knowledge, whetherit be be a tinest fragment of a machines memory core. THe caculating adept will sacrifice many lives to ensure the retrieval of such treasured prizes.

IG Codex PG 35 Ministorium Priests

Confessors are amongst the highest ranking priests within the Ministorum, and are given carte blanche by the ecclesiarchy to preach where they wish. They have no formal diocese, but instead move from world to world rooting out apostates, burning blasphemers, and instilling fervent faith in the locals. Confessors may act as advisors to Imperial Officers and occasionally, with Ecclesiarchal dispensation, they initiate Wars of Faith against the Emperror's Foes.

Main Rule Book

PG 87 Force Organization Chart

The minimum and maximum numbers of each of these types of unit for each army are detailed on the force organization chart of each army codex book. Shown on this page is an example of one such chart, which is the one used by most armies for standard missions (i.e. the three missions presented later in this section)

(the chart is exampled to represent the army list in the book. both the techpriest and Priest are both listed in the HQ section of the army list ergo the force org chart)

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

(make a selection is from that section of your army list aka force org chart. the units individual codex rules state "Priests do not use up any force organization chart selections, but are otherwise treated as separate HQ units.")

Sometimes a single choice on the force organization chart will allow you to select more than one unit. This will always be explained in the appropriate codex, so be sure to read it carefully.

(this is the case for both the priest and the techpriest)


Dedicated transports:
Dedicated transport vehicles sit outside the force organization structure, as they are attached to the unit they are bought for.

(mentioned so that it is not brought up again as having any bearing on the discusion)

Other Exceptions:
QUite a few Codex books include units that, much like dedicated transports, are not part of the armies force organization chart. This may be because they are too puny, specialized support units, or simply not part of the main fighting forces of that race. Often labelled with terms such as "supernumerary" or "insignificant" these units do not normally count towards the number of choices the player can make from the force organization chart and have rules that will clearly tell the player how many can be included in his force.

(1st the techpriest and priest do count and are listed in the force org chart under HQ 2nd as listed in other codex's the exclusionary language is not present under the techpriest or priest entries in the new IG codex)




Ig Codex Rules:

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

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


Supporting Arguments from Other Sources:

Listed Exclusions:

On Page 89 Chaos Space MArines Codex 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."

(specific exclusions mentioned)

WH Codex Pg 27 These do not count as one of your HQ choices and may be taken in addition to your usual allocation of HQ units in a mission.

(note besides the obvious specific language excluding it as a choice they are also mandated to be attached to another unit not free roaming like in the New IG Dex)


Listed Inclusions:

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.



Linguistic usuage:

As can be plainly seen when the words "use up" are placed in a sentence they mean one to "Consume entirely" or "to Finish" or "to exhaust of Vigor or usefuleness". So in the context of the sentence only "Finish" or "Consume entirely" make any sense. The conclusion that can be logically reached is the rules preciding over the Priest and the techpriest mean to say:

"Priests do not Finish/Consume Entirely any force organization chart selections, but are otherwise treated as separate HQ units."

Please note although some have tried to stress that "use" and "use up" mean the same thing that is a false. "Use" has a vast array of ways in which to express meaning. One of those ways is to follow it up with the word "up" which then narrows it focus considerably.

I will reassert removing the word "Up" would conclude this conversation. However its inclusion supported by other evidence leads me to believe it was purposefully inserted into the codex to allow a wide diversity of themed fluffy armies to be created for the new codex.

Use: as per dictionary .com
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.

—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.


Based upon the language used. I can only reach the conclusion that it is not only allowable, but was in fact intended to be.

Sorry for the huge post but i wanted to gather up all the supporting data to make the point very clear. I will not be posting again unless more supporting/contrary data gets uncovered. Please refrain from flaming and only post articles/rules you feel will contribute to the actual deliberation.

This very discussion is all of ten places below yours, why not post it in there?

RustyKnight wrote:This very discussion is all of ten places below yours, why not post it in there?

That thread was locked and this thread was created to resume discussion in a more civil manner.

In the most Civil manner possible, all the OP consists of is a bunch of poorly formatted drivel.

If the unit does not use up a FoC Selection, it cannot count towards either the Maximum or the Minimum.

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:In the most Civil manner possible, all the OP consists of is a bunch of poorly formatted drivel.

If the unit does not use up a FoC Selection, it cannot count towards either the Maximum or the Minimum.

Show me where it says this?

Show me where it says a Unit that Takes up no FoC Selection can be used as the Mandatory FoC HQ Selection.

"Show me where it says this or says this not"?

I think you'd be better off posting actual supporting evidence. Every time I relied on my opponent during a debate, I lost.

Black Templar Emperor's Champions do not take up an FOC slot, but can count as the mandatory HQ.

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:
In the most Civil manner possible, all the OP consists of is a bunch of poorly formatted drivel.
If the unit does not use up a FoC Selection, it cannot count towards either the Maximum or the Minimum.

Nice flame attempt
Allow me to reference the OP drivel.
The bold are the rules that answer your question.
Note Compulsory means:
compulsory
Pronunciation [kuhm-puhl-suh-ree] Show IPA adjective, noun, plural -ries. –adjective

1. required; mandatory; obligatory: compulsory education.
2. using compulsion; compelling; constraining: compulsory measures to control rioting.

So you are "required" to make a choice from the HQ section of your army list. These two specific units also include language signifying they do not "use up" any of your force org chart selections*. Meaning you may continue to purchase HQ selections.

*please refernce OP for definition of "Use up".

PG 87 Force Organization Chart

The minimum and maximum numbers of each of these types of unit for each army are detailed on the force organization chart of each army codex book. Shown on this page is an example of one such chart, which is the one used by most armies for standard missions (i.e. the three missions presented later in this section)

(the chart is exampled to represent the army list in the book. both the techpriest and Priest are both listed in the HQ section of the army list ergo the force org chart)

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

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:
Show me where it says a Unit that Takes up no FoC Selection can be used as the Mandatory FoC HQ Selection.

No where is it stated that these units exist "outside" the force organization chart, in fact it stipulates what they are. they are considered seperate HQ units.

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

First:
Siting rulings form other codices is bogus since those rules only pertain to THOSE codices. Nothing more.

Second:
Show me how a FO chart selection can be used but not used up. You can't have a partial FO chart selection. In this instance, both use and use up have the same meaning.

Third:
Explain how selecting a unit that does not occupy a FO chart selection counts toward the compulsory FO chart selection.

Well it seems to come down to whether the minimum FoC for HQs is if we need 1 HQ unit or 1 used up HQ slot. Techpriests don't use a slot, but they are still an HQ unit.

KeithGatchalian wrote:

Black Templar Emperor's Champions do not take up an FOC slot, but can count as the mandatory HQ.

How does that have any relevance to The Imperial Guard?

It doesn't.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:First:
Siting rulings form other codices is bogus since those rules only pertain to THOSE codices. Nothing more.

That is correct. The referencing of other material was to clearly define that EXCLUSIONS have been listed previously as exampled by the WH codex in which that language is not present in current codex rules. secondly the BT FAQ is referenced as per yakface as precedence, CSM summoned/greater daemons is mentioned to also show other codexes actually include language to EXCLUDE this as an option by language "exist outside force org etc" upto and including the BRB mentioning of dedicated transports. my point in including this supporting information is NO such exclusions exist in this current codex.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:
Second:
Show me how a FO chart selection can be used but not used up. You can't have a partial FO chart selection. In this instance, both use and use up have the same meaning.

I disagree. I believe the rules were written to have an HQ unit that can be utilized but doesn't exclude the use of other HQ units in the process.

The force org chart/army list is basically the same thing.
Pg 89 IG Codex states:
The army list is used in conjunction with the force organization chart from a scenario. Each CHart is split into five categories that correspond to the sections in the army list, and each category has one or more boxes. Each grey-toned box indicates that you make one choice from that section of the army list, while a dark-toned box indicates a compulsory selection.

thus a Priest or techpriest is an HQ choice that does not "use up" the limited number of chart selections available.

Unless you are denying the fact the priest and techpriest are HQ units? which it clearly states. they are also located within and under the HQ section of the book.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:
Third:
Explain how selecting a unit that does not occupy a FO chart selection counts toward the compulsory FO chart selection.

I am not asserting that is does not occupy a force org chart selection. i am saying it is an HQ that simply does not exclude further selection.

They are "free" in that they do not "use up" any chart selections. They are still HQ Choices. They are limited in their unit description in that you may only take up to 5 priest and/or up to 2 techpriests. The rules, the wording used, allows for them to be taken without it excluding other HQ selections. Without that exclusion if you wanted to take priests and techpriest you then wouldn't be able to take a command squad commisar etc. it was obviously included to improve flexibility.

I truly hope this helps.

I think it just comes down to the fact that people are absolutely split on this issue.

Although I think you've done an admirable job presenting your side of the argument in a very coherent way (one I happen to think it technically correct), I just don't see anyone who's been posting on this subject suddenly being swayed.

When you get to the point where you're arguing about the difference between "use" and "use up" you just know that this is one of those issues that needs to be FAQ'd to have any sort of resolution.


So I'm going to lock this thread as I think it gets the point across but any further discussion is just going to degrade back into the drivel that locked the last thread on this subject.