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.

My question stems from a different thread, but since its a seperate but related topic, i thought id try it here.
Can a techpriest or a ministorum priest be used as your manditory HQ choice? The reason I ask is that I'd love to run two Inquisitor Lords in my army, 1 DH and 1 WH.

Natfka wrote:My question stems from a different thread, but since its a seperate but related topic, i thought id try it here.
Can a techpriest or a ministorum priest be used as your manditory HQ choice? The reason I ask is that I'd love to run two Inquisitor Lords in my army, 1 DH and 1 WH.

No, you cannot.

Only one army can, and that is the Black Templars, because their FAQ gives them a specific exemption, and even then only if you are using the FAQs to begin with. RaW, the Emperors Champion cannot be used as the Sole HQ. For the IG, if you include a Techpriest and no other HQs you have not filled the mandatory HQ FoC selection.

Im assuming this is RAW. However I just read adepticon inatfaq 3.2 and it says that you can take them as your mandatory HQ choice. What am I missing?

I'll disagree with Gwar. Reason being that the BT FAQ lays out why you're able to take an Emperor's Champion as your only HQ.

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.

And that line of reasoning can be applied to the IG Priests and Enginseers as well.
As for using or not using the GW FAQs, see my sig............

don_mondo wrote:I'll disagree with Gwar. Reason being that the BT FAQ lays out why you're able to take an Emperor's Champion as your only HQ.

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.

And that line of reasoning can be applied to the IG Priests and Enginseers as well.
As for using or not using the GW FAQs, see my sig............

So that would mean, that taking two Inquisitorial Lords could be done. Assuming the tournament is using inatfat 3.2 or even gw's faq?

So Don, can I use the Skaven FAQ and the Necron FAQ for my Space Wolves?

The BT FAQ applies to BT only. To suggest otherwise makes the game unplayable.

We've had that debate before Gwar. Skaven, no, as it's a different game system. Necron, yes, if the answer provides an underlying reasoning for an answer that is not specific to that codex, as the BT FAQ does.

Its the adepticon faq Gwar that brings up my question. The adepticon faq though states you can take a priest or a techpriest as your mandatory hq choice. I just wanted to make sure I wasnt missing some glaring rule somewhere. If we are looking RAW then I agree, i dont think its doable.

RAW, it's a situation identical to BT.

GW specifically allows EC to be your sole HQ.

RAW is NOT on Gwar!'s side here.

thanks.

kartofelkopf wrote:RAW, it's a situation identical to BT.

Which needed a special exception granted to it to allow it to count as the sole HQ, thus, RaW, the IG ones do NOT fulfil the HQ requirement.

That is the point. It was *not* a special exemption. It was a clarification of how the general rule works, and the general rule applies to all the races.

coredump wrote:That is the point. It was *not* a special exemption. It was a clarification of how the general rule works, and the general rule applies to all the races.

So why isn't in the Rulebook FAQ?

Show me in the BRB where it requires that an HQ choice occupies a spot on the FOC.

And, if you can (hint, you can't), why would GW create an exception for BT? Are they the favorite sons of the 40k universe suddenly?

Adepticon inatfaq agrees with being able to use them, i just want to know the arguements

The argument that they don't comes from a (misguided) thought that the FOC requirements of 1HQ and 2T must be filled with units that occupy a spot on the FOC, not just come from the selection category.

The argument that they do meet the requirement comes from GW's ruling in the BT FAQ. Additionally, the rules never specify that it must occupy a slot on the chart, just that 1 HQ choice must be taken.

Some will argue ad nauseum that FAQs do not ever affect armies other than they one they are designed for (look back at threads from when the SW FAQ was initially released for a closer look at the ins and outs of this particular bit of silliness).

All in all, tournaments almost always accept cross-FAQ reasoning for rules disputes. I say almost always because GWAR!con might one day disallow them.

I agree with Gwar(and I am an IG player).

RAW you must have 1 FOC HQ; and 2 FOC Troops.

In the Same way you cannot take only summoned daemons as troops choices for a CSM army

well reading from the Guard codex Pg. 89 under Using a Force Organization Chart. "Each grey box indicates that you may make one choice from that section of the army list, while a a dark toned box indicates a mandatory selection"
That seems pretty clear to me, the techpriest is from that section of the army list.

Kommissar Kel wrote:

RAW you must have 1 FOC HQ; and 2 FOC Troops.

And now is the portion of our show where you show us what page those Rules are Written on.

/I'll wait over here. Not holding my breath, though.

But it doesn't actually count as an HQ Selection, so you would not have fulfilled the mandatory 1 HQ requirement.

But it doesn't actually count as an HQ Selection, so you would not have fulfilled the mandatory 1 HQ requirement.

Does it not? Would I not be able to put down my techpriest in a dawn of war deployment?

Volkov wrote:

But it doesn't actually count as an HQ Selection, so you would not have fulfilled the mandatory 1 HQ requirement.

Does it not? Would I not be able to put down my techpriest in a dawn of war deployment?

He counts as an HQ Unit, which is not the same as an HQ Selection, the same way as A Tactical Marine Squad and their Rhino are two Troops Choices but one Troops Selection.

Still waiting on a page citation...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And where do you SELECT him from?

HQ selection simply denotes a UNIT that is SELECTED from a particular category (HQ, Elite, etc...).

kartofelkopf wrote:HQ selection simply denotes a UNIT that is SELECTED from a particular category (HQ, Elite, etc...).

Still waiting on a page citation...

A Tactical Marine Squad and their Rhino are two Troops Choices but one Troops Selection.

Choice and selection are used interchangeably, so I think they have the same connotation for army build

Volkov wrote:Choice and selection are used interchangeably, so I think they have the same connotation for army build

Still waiting on a page citation...

I would give you an English language citation, but dictionary citations are prohibited.

The onus here is for you to show where the BRB outlines a rule that requires a mandatory FOC selection to take up one of the maximum number of choices for that slot.

The rules simply require a unit from the type HQ, and 2 from the type T to be present in your army. There is no requirement that they also take up a slot.
The BT FAQ response lends much credence to this interpretation as well, but is not exhaustive of the position.

My first post on this thread

Pg. 89 under Using a Force Organization Chart. "Each grey box indicates that you may make one choice from that section of the army list, while a a dark toned box indicates a mandatory selection"

Volkov wrote:My first post on this thread

Pg. 89 under Using a Force Organization Chart. "Each grey box indicates that you may make one choice from that section of the army list, while a a dark toned box indicates a mandatory selection"

I notice no use of "Unit" in place of "Selection". I made a mistake in my previous post, I was supposed to say Unit, not Choice (because a Rhino + Squad is still 1 choice, but it is two units).

p87 FOC says 1 "HQ" is required.

p86 HQ says "Every army contains at
least one Headquarters unit to command it."

Ergo, the only RAW requirement is that a unit from the HQ category is selected to lead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"Sometimes a single choice on the force organisation
chart will allow you to select more than one unit"

ergo, usually, a single choice will allow you to select one unit.