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.

Is the Emperors Champion unique or can you have more than one and a different vow for each?

Only one allowed per army.

Do you know where it says that? It's what I would have thought to be the case but I can find anywhere in the codex where it says that.

Codex entry always refers to him in the singular. And then there is the GW FAQ.............

Guess what the first question in it is?

Could one of you do me a favor and quote me how it is worded that he's an HQ that doesn't fill a slot?

Do you mean this from the FAQ?

Q. Can I field the Emperor’s Champion as my
one compulsory HQ choice and no other HQs 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.

That FAQ quote does not forbid taking more than one.

Scott-S6 wrote:That FAQ quote does not forbid taking more than one.

Maybe that's because it's in regards to a later post instead of the OP............?? Ya know, the Q about HQ and not filling a slot? And it's the second question in the FAQ, not the first?

But tell ya what, here's the first Q, just for you:
Q. Can I field more than one Emperor’s
Champion?
A. No, you can only have one. The only way of
fielding more than one Champion is to play a
game with multiple detachments (see the main
rulebook for more on multi-detachment games).

Happy now?

FAQ's are not official rules btw.

Sigh...... Yes Gwar, we know. Oh wait, it's someone else posting the same redundant statement.

No, the FAQs are not official rules. So let's just toss them out and ignore them.
Or we can accept them as the designer's statement of intent and use them to resolve the issues that they address.
How's that? Did I cover both sides evenly?

Uh, rules forum. You can play however you want in game but its kinda rediculous to cite these in a rules argument on a forum.

Timmah wrote:Uh, rules forum. You can play however you want in game but its kinda rediculous to cite these in a rules argument on a forum.

So if we ignore the FAQ then there is nothing preventing a BT player from bringing two Emperor's chumps or more considering they do not take up an HQ slot unless yo want it to.

That said, if you want to play that kind of list at a tournament you better ask if the TO will allow it or you may be disappointed. If you are playing against folks at your flgs you may not have many opponents willing to play you. Maybe you will. Just sayin.

AdeptArtificer wrote:

Timmah wrote:Uh, rules forum. You can play however you want in game but its kinda rediculous to cite these in a rules argument on a forum.

So if we ignore the FAQ then there is nothing preventing a BT player from bringing two Emperor's chumps or more considering they do not take up an HQ slot unless yo want it to.

That said, if you want to play that kind of list at a tournament you better ask if the TO will allow it or you may be disappointed. If you are playing against folks at your flgs you may not have many opponents willing to play you. Maybe you will. Just sayin.

Which is very true, and people should be aware that even though we are suppose to play per RAW it doesn't always happen.
So making people aware of what the FAQ says in these type of arguments is good, however stating that is the rule and how it must be played is wrong.

Also, I can not think of anyone that I play with who would call me a douche and refuse to play with me for running 2 emperors champions.

So what is the answer if we don't use the FAQs, or did you just post to give me a hard time?
I don't think it's ridiculous at all, since most (probably 99% or more) accept the FAQs as rules, in spite of GWs waffling about not making them official. But whatever.

don_mondo wrote:So what is the answer if we don't use the FAQs, or did you just post to give me a hard time?
I don't think it's ridiculous at all, since most (probably 99% or more) accept the FAQs as rules, in spite of GWs waffling about not making them official. But whatever.

I do not have the specific wording from the BT book. However I would say if it doesn't say the model is unique or that you can only take 1 then you are allowed to take more than 1.

I did not post to give you a hard time, I posted to correct some misinformation.

So, the original question posted was: Can you have more than one Emperors Champion, by RAW?

The answer is that there is no conclusive yes or no answer to this question. The game designers themselves have stepped forward and said that this is a grey area, meaning there is no concrete answer in the current RAW. Therefore anyone standing up and saying that there is an absolute concrete obtainable answer is directly contradicting the people that wrote the game. Congratulations, your being that guy. The FAQ's, by GW's preface page, address grey areas in the RAW. They must be house rules since they are not Errata, which changes the actual printing of books. By GW's definition, anything that is not pure RAW is a house rule.

Sure, you can tell the studio that creates the rules that you don't care that they just gave you the correct answer for how the rule works, demonstrating that you are that guy who wants it his way and will exploit every loophole possible to get it his way.

Don't be that guy.

Knowing that the game designers have explicitly said the answer to this question is grey and not black and white, what's left is to decide which logic you are going to use to obtain your answer. We are outside RAW here. Hey, thanks Mr. Game Designers, I see you have told me not only what the correct answer of the intention is, but you also told me why it is the correct answer! I learned exactly how the rule was meant to work, and some insight into the structure of the game in general at the same time. Awesome, thanks!

Since I don't want to be that guy, that ends the argument for me. To stand up and be that guy and say that you know better than the game designers tells me either you are more knowledgable of the creators work (with no insight into the actual mechanics of it mind you) than the creators, or just maybe you have a flaw in your assumptions and are comprehending something wrong.

Thanks for the answers Don. Didn't know they had a Black Templars FAQ.

Anytime. For all of the FAQs currently out, check here:
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=cat410004&categoryId=1000018§ion=&pIndex=1&aId=3400019&start=2

Which is very true, and people should be aware that even though we are suppose to play per RAW it doesn't always happen.
Uh, sorry, not drinking the kool-aid. People who live by RAW seem to think we are supposed to play that way. Go ahead and argue RAW, but I've yet to see a GW rule that tells me to use RAW. Quite the opposite.

So making people aware of what the FAQ says in these type of arguments is good, however stating that is the rule and how it must be played is wrong.
In your opinion. Many people play the game using the FAQ's, and most tournaments ask you to bring a codex and faq's for your army.

Also, I can not think of anyone that I play with who would call me a douche and refuse to play with me for running 2 emperors champions.
Don't worry, I'm sure as you play more games, you'll run into people that will.

don_mondo wrote:Sigh...... Yes Gwar, we know.

mikhaila wrote:Don't worry, I'm sure as you play more games, you'll run into people that will.

Love it.

DoW

As far as I see it, the gw designers wrote the faq. They may be witless, but any RAW advocate will live by it. So some people will, and some won't

If you didn't notice, ANY part of the rulebook can be house-ruled. If I decide to use Chaos Demons demons in my Chaos Space Marines army, I'm house ruling it. Games Workshop tells us that the FAQs are best when playing at tournaments or pick-up-and-play. Wow, that's exactly as if you modified the normal rules.

FAQs are as good as RAW and are the embodiment of RAI (And this is RAI that we know to be true!).

The FAQs can be useful tools.

Pika_power wrote:If you didn't notice, ANY part of the rulebook can be house-ruled. If I decide to use Chaos Demons demons in my Chaos Space Marines army, I'm house ruling it. Games Workshop tells us that the FAQs are best when playing at tournaments or pick-up-and-play. Wow, that's exactly as if you modified the normal rules.

FAQs are as good as RAW and are the embodiment of RAI (And this is RAI that we know to be true!).

Freakin' QFT.

Also, I can not think of anyone that I play with who would call me a douche and refuse to play with me for running 2 emperors champions.

I'd call you a douche and refuse to play with you. If we ignore the FAQs and play straight RAW, it only presents a whole host of problems for every army that were addressed and fixed in all the FAQS, while it doesn't cover every aspect, it's enough to fix some of the big problems. Also, just because you assume your friends you play with, wouldn't call you a douche, doesn't mean you actually asked them.

"I'm going to ignore the FAQ for Black Templars and field 9 Emperor's champions, because I'm ignoring the faq, and they don't take up an HQ slot, I'm going to also take my two HQ as well."

Sounds like exploitation to me...

Also on a completely unrelated issue, Aduro, the Necron Lord in your sig picture looks like he has bananas for fingers =D.

They're claws. The Lord in my sig is the Wraith Lord in this pic.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/890-Conversion%2C%20Lord%2C%20Necrons%2C%20Wraith.html