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.

Hey guys,

This is my first post on DakkaDakka, so I apologize if this has been asked before.

Can HQ choices that don't take up a Force Organization Chart slot count as the mandatory HQ choice for the army? For example, could I run my Guard with a Techpriest as the (only) HQ?

I never thought about it before tonight, but Black Templars can, apparently, take Emperor's Champions as their compulsory HQ choice, even though Emperor's Champions do not take up an HQ slot.

I know there's no such thing as precedent for GW, but I'm just wondering.

Thanks

No.

The Emperors Champion may because He is The Emperors Champion and is given special permission to do so.
No-one Else can.

All the HQ Slot essentially means is that you can't deploy 2 Techpriest Enginseers on the board in Dawn of War .

Gwar! wrote:No.

Or, to put it another way: Yes. Probably.

The BT FAQ states that the Emperor's Champion can still count as your mandatory HQ slot. Not because he is the Emperor's Champion and is thus granted a special dispensation, but because he is still a HQ choice despite not taking up a slot.

That logic (while I don't personally agree with it) would carry over to any other unit that doesn't take up a slot.


So if you're using the GW FAQ's, yes, HQ options that don't use up a slot still count as your mandatory HQ.
If you're not using the GW FAQ's, it's up to you.

I personally would go with no (I follow the FAQ's, except where they are silly), since if they don't use up a slot, they shouldn't count for anything that counts the number of those slots you have taken. YMMV.

insaniak wrote:

Gwar! wrote:No.

Or, to put it another way: Yes. Probably.

Or to put it in a way that is based on the rules: No.

insaniak wrote:So if you're using the GW FAQ's, yes, HQ options that don't use up a slot still count as your mandatory HQ.

No, if you are using Black Templars and the FAQs, then you can. Otherwise, you cannot. Nothing suggests it applies to anything BUT the Emperors Champion, and if he could do so without the need for this rule change, doesn't it suggest that by Default they cannot?

Thus, since the IG FAQ does not state they can, they cannot.

Gwar wrote: Nothing suggests it applies to anything BUT the Emperors Champion,

...except the part that explains why he counts as the madatory HQ.

HQ choices aren't army specific. Every army has them.

The FAQ doesn't say that this applies only to the Emperor's Champ. It says that it applies to the Emperor's Champ because he is a HQ choice despite not taking up a slot. So that is equally going to apply to any other similar character.

and if he could do so without the need for this rule change, doesn't it suggest that by Default they cannot?

Only if you see it as a rules change. I would suspect that GW don't see it as such. That would fit with how it's written, anyway.

insaniak wrote:

Gwar wrote:Or to put it in a way that is based on the rules: No.

Reading the whole post fail.

Reading the reply to your post fail.

Also, Edit fail.

Also, where does it say they CAN fill the Mandatory selection?
It doesn't say I can't is not an Argument, you know that.

Show me where it says Selections that do not take up any FoC Selection can fulfil the mandatory minimums.

Gwar wrote:Reading the reply to your post fail.

Meh. I replied before you went back and added actual content to your post.

Also, where does it say they CAN fill the Mandatory selection?

In the BT FAQ. Sorry, I thought we just covered that...

insaniak wrote:

Also, where does it say they CAN fill the Mandatory selection?

In the BT FAQ. Sorry, I thought we just covered that...

Yes, and why should the BT FAQ apply to the IG?

In that Case, I want to start using the Necron FAQ with my Tyranids, and the Tyranid FAQ with my Dark Eldar, is that ok?

Hell, why not just use the Chaos Space Marines FAQ with my Lizardmen Army?

Gwar wrote:Yes, and why should the BT FAQ apply to the IG?

Again, we already covered that.

If you don't agree with it, that's fine. There's no need to take the whole argument around in a circle in the hope that it will result in a different outcome. It won't.

In that Case, I want to start using the Necron FAQ with my Tyranids, and the Tyranid FAQ with my Dark Eldar, is that ok?

That's just fine. Any answers in the Necron FAQ that would apply to other armies most definitely should apply to those other armies.

If you have a situation not covered by a specific army's FAQ, but an identical situation is addressed by a different FAQ, why wouldn't you use that other FAQ?

insaniak wrote:If you have a situation not covered by a specific army's FAQ, but an identical situation is addressed by a different FAQ, why wouldn't you use that other FAQ?

BECAUSE IT DOES NOT APPLY TO THAT ARMY.

It only applies to Black Templars, no other armies. If it applied to other armies, it would be in the Rulebook FAQ or (just a thought) those armies FAQs.

Right. Much better to just ignore potential answers to a query than to use an established precedent where it seems applicable.

You do that. I'll stick with using the FAQs as they're intended...

insaniak wrote:You do that. I'll stick with using the FAQs as they're intended...

As unofficial House Rules?

Yup. Just like the rules in the rulebook.

And this is why GW is really annoying, sometimes.

I'll probably err on the side of caution and not try it; I usually run my Guard fairly in a fairly vanilla fashion. Thanks for the...spirited debate.

Paladin Blake wrote:I'll probably err on the side of caution and not try it; I usually run my Guard fairly in a fairly vanilla fashion. Thanks for the...spirited debate.

Win.

I try to do the same.
If something is debatable or vague (or even moot, Gwar!) I will not use it, or use it with the weaker interpretation for my own lists.
Or plan to untill an opponent/TO says otherwise.

/shrug

The BT FAQ lays out the logic of why the Emperors Champion doesn't take a slot. I don't see it as saying it's because BT has some exception, it's just answering a question that has multiple interpretations. The deeper question it answers is, are HQ selections HQ selections regardless of whether they take a force org slot? I believe the answer to that is yes by RAW from any codex, and the BT logic backs that up to me.

Remember the Force Org chart is just a pictorial representation of the text list of what you must and can take. It isn't some physical structure where you have to physically fill in certain boxes.

Your told you must make at least one HQ selection. Whether it takes a force org slot or not, units in the HQ section of your codex are HQ selections. The logic detailed in the BT FAQ isn't an exception, it simply validates that interpretation, in my opinion.

Paladin Blake wrote:And this is why GW is really annoying, sometimes.

I'll probably err on the side of caution and not try it; I usually run my Guard fairly in a fairly vanilla fashion. Thanks for the...spirited debate.

Yeah, RAW could be, and has been logically argued both ways in my mind. Personally, I'd have no problem if you showed up with two Tech Priests as your HQ...not much of an advantage to it really.

Ok, stupid question, but where in the BRB does it state that you have to take a unit that takes up a force organization slot? I'm not asking because I am trying to be a smartass, I'm genuinely curious as to where it says that it has to take up a slot.

On pg 86 it states under the heading of HQ "every army contains at least one headquarters unit to command it." Now this just states that I have to take a unit, it does not say that I have to take a unit that is considered to fill a force organization slot.

On page 87 under the heading of FOC, it states that "...normally you will have to take at least one HQ selection and...." Nowhere does it state that it has to be a unit that fills a force organization slot.

Now is a techpriest not under the heading of HQ? Doesnt that make him an HQ unit to fullfill the requirement on pg 86? And if I can place him in my army, does that not make him an valid selection to lead my army? I am just curious as to what rule states that an army cannot be lead by an HQ that does not take up a slot choice in the army whether it be IG, BT, or whatever army has this type of unit. Where does it state that the slot of HQ must be filled something that takes up a slot? Again, not trying to be an asshat, I am genuinely curious.

s2ua7 wrote:
Now is a techpriest not under the heading of HQ? Doesnt that make him an HQ unit to fullfill the requirement on pg 86? And if I can place him in my army, does that not make him an valid selection to lead my army?

I would agree with you on this, but I also don't think it's an important enough rule to argue RAW over...
if you want to play 2 Tech Priests against me...whatever.

s2ua7 wrote:Ok, stupid question, but where in the BRB does it state that you have to take a unit that takes up a force organization slot? I'm not asking because I am trying to be a smartass, I'm genuinely curious as to where it says that it has to take up a slot.

On pg 86 it states under the heading of HQ "every army contains at least one headquarters unit to command it." Now this just states that I have to take a unit, it does not say that I have to take a unit that is considered to fill a force organization slot.

On page 87 under the heading of FOC, it states that "...normally you will have to take at least one HQ selection and...." Nowhere does it state that it has to be a unit that fills a force organization slot.

Now is a techpriest not under the heading of HQ? Doesnt that make him an HQ unit to fullfill the requirement on pg 86? And if I can place him in my army, does that not make him an valid selection to lead my army? I am just curious as to what rule states that an army cannot be lead by an HQ that does not take up a slot choice in the army whether it be IG, BT, or whatever army has this type of unit. Where does it state that the slot of HQ must be filled something that takes up a slot? Again, not trying to be an asshat, I am genuinely curious.

Short answer? Nowhere.

As I see it, you fulfill every requirement detailed in the rules by taking a HQ selection. Whether it takes a force org slot is irrelevant, it's still a HQ selection.

s2ua7 wrote:Ok, stupid question, but where in the BRB does it state that you have to take a unit that takes up a force organization slot?

It doesn't. But logically, it doesn't need to.


Normally, if you take a HQ selection, it uses one of your HQ slots.
To determine if your army list is legal, you check that you have filled at least one of your HQ slots.
You have selected a HQ choice, and so one of your HQ slots is filled. So you have your mandatory HQ.

If you take a HQ selection that doesn't use up a FoC slot, things work out slightly differently...
To determine if your army list is legal, you check that you have filled at least one of your HQ slots.
Your selected HQ choice does not use up one of your slots. So your mandatory HQ slot is empty.

To put it another way, if your character does not fill a slot, that slot does not count as filled. So any for any rule that references a filled HQ slot, that character will not count.


That's how I've always seen it anyway. And from memory, it's how GW (and general consensus before the FAQ was released) ruled last edition.

I would say that something that does not take up a spot on the force org can not be used as a mandatory force org selection.

If a unit had a stipulation that it does not have to take up a force org spot that would be a different story.

If a techpriest does not take up a force org spot then he clearly can not be the only HQ selection. Perhaps techpriests are not intended to serve as the leaders in a guard force.

I don't really see how the emperor's champion has anything to do with whether or not the techpriest can fulfill the mandatory HQ slot for a guard army. The BT FAQ is intended as a fix for the BT codex and should not apply to other codexes.

Augustus, it has to do with even though he does not take up a FOS, he still fulfills the HQ requirement, just as a Tech Priest description suggests (I will let GW specify if he does or not). The only reason I would believe that this rule could (I see it swinging either way) cross over is that it does not adress the differences between the Tech Priest and the Champion. Namely that of the Champion being a mandatory choice for the BT. If it had addressed that, then there may be less of a leg to stand on, but it seems to suggest that anyone that does not fill a slot is still an HQ choice. Now honestly, would I take a Tech Priest as my only HQ choice? Prob not as for 5 more points I get a squad that can issue orders to my two mandatory troop choices, or for 25 more points I get a psycher that has 2d6 s6 ranged attacks, but to each there own. Anyways, it goes to precident with regard to establishing rules for similar figures should that be important to those who use rulings as RAI for determining grey areas in the book.

Edited my post as I dont want to argue circles which is what I started to do as I was defending my post with what I said earlier.
Edit #2: I understand your points that FAQs from one codex should not effect one another and agree with this for the most part.

augustus5 wrote:
I don't really see how the emperor's champion has anything to do with whether or not the techpriest can fulfill the mandatory HQ slot for a guard army. The BT FAQ is intended as a fix for the BT codex and should not apply to other codexes.

I keep seeing people write this, so I feel compelled to comment:

The idea that something written in the Black Templar codex FAQ cannot affect any other codex is simply faulty. In general you are correct, but there are two very, very large exceptions:


1) Just because a ruling is located in a particular codex FAQ does not necessarily mean the ruling applies only to that codex. The question can be put in that section because that situation occurs frequently when using that particular army, but the ruling can absolutely be general enough to apply to other (or all) codices.

For example, in 3rd or 4th edition (can't remember which anymore), GW had a general ruling for for whether Skimmers being attacked in close combat got the 'skimmers moving fast' special rule. The question asked if a Skimmer (not specifically mentioned as an 'Eldar' Skimmer) that had moved fast in the previous turn was hit by an Eldar Wraithgun or Haywire grenades (which are a close combat attack) would benefit from the 'Skimmer Moving Fast' special rule.

Their answer was, that it did apply, which let everyone know that the Skimmer Moving Fast special rule did indeed apply to close combat attacks.

Now, this ruling was located in the Eldar FAQ, but it was written as a question pertaining to 'Skimmers' in general. Why was it likely put into the 'Eldar' FAQ? Well because the question specifically asked about Wraithguns and Haywire Grenades (and plus Eldar use tons of skimmers too).

But this ruling clearly applied to all skimmers, yet there were people at the time that would try to argue that because it was located in the Eldar FAQ, the ruling should apply only to 'Eldar' Skimmers, even though there is absolutely nothing in any part of the FAQ documents or GW website that indicates that it is impossible for a ruling that applies to multiple codices to be found in the FAQ for a single codex.


2) But I digress. We can all agree that the actual Emperor's Champion ruling applies only to the Emperor's Champion, and nobody is trying to argue anything differently. The problem continues to be that besides the ruling they made in that situation they also printed the reasoning behind that ruling. And if the reasoning behind the ruling is logical and sound for the Emperor's Champion, then it should be just as sound when applied to any other unit that doesn't take up a force organization slot in other codices.



So yes, rulings in one Codex's FAQ can indeed affect other codices if:

A) The ruling is written generally to apply to other codices, or to the game in general (which is the not the case here).

or

B) There is reasoning presented for why the ruling was made, in which case that reasoning can be extrapolated and applied to similar unclear situations in order to glean an answer (which is the case here).

So Yakface, you would allow me to use the Necron FAQ with my Skaven force?

Gwar! wrote:So Yakface, you would allow me to use the Necron FAQ with my Skaven force?

Yes, if it:
1) laid out a line of reasoning on how rules work for overall rules that affected your army as well as Necrons
or
2) gave a generic answer to a core rules question.

The BT FAQ does the first. It answers a specific question on the BT codex. But then it explains WHY. And applying that explanation's line of reasoning, we can say that any HQ unit that does not take up a slot can be used as your mandatory HQ, simply because it is an HQ. Unless the codex says otherwise!
For example, so far all I've seen mentioned is BT and IG. Let's look at Chaos Space Marines as well. The Greater Daemon is an HQ that doesn't take up a slot, but the codex specifically states that it cannot be your mandatory HQ. Neither BT nor IG have any such statement.
So, we have two examples. BT no slot HQ, which can count as mandatory, has an FQ with an explanation of why and CSM no slot HQ, with codex statement that it can't. Which one do the IG HQs most resemble, BT or CSM? Well, they certainly do not have a "may not be mandatory" HQ statement in the codex, so I'd say that they follow the same rules pattern as BT.

Gwar! wrote:So Yakface, you would allow me to use the Necron FAQ with my Skaven force?

I was going to reply with an image macro of a troll, but your avatar beat me to it.

Drunkspleen wrote:

Gwar! wrote:So Yakface, you would allow me to use the Necron FAQ with my Skaven force?

I was going to reply with an image macro of a troll, but your avatar beat me to it.

It was a legitimate question...

If choices fill slots in the FoC then taking a choice that doesn't fill the madatory one will not count to being the madatory one as far as I would see it.

To answer the necron FAQ with skaven, wrong rules system so no. Use it with another 40k army where there is the same effect and theres a lot of grey area and it clears it up then yes.

Wow. Thread majorly derailed.

To the OP.

It's not clear. The Black Templar FAQ implies that the answer is Yes, but it's not clearly stated that a Techpriest would fulfill the mandatory HQ requirements for an IG army.

In a friendly game, I'd let someone play with just the Techpriest. But, the Command HQ is pretty good, so I would think you'd want to take them anyway.

If you want to take that army to a tourney, I would ask the Tourney Organizer if it was okay.