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.

Vermillion wrote: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.

But what if I feel in My Opinion that the Necron FAQ clears up some issues with the Skaven?

I don't even have to be right, I just have to think in my Opinion.

Why should you be allowed to use the Black Templars FAQ with your Imperial Guard (which in your opinion clarifies something) while I can't use the Necron one with my Skaven?
Smacks a bit of double standards to me.

I don't even collect Skaven or play WHFB, I am just using this example to prove a point. If you allow the BT FAQ to be used for the IG, where does it stop? How can you say yes to one, and no to the other, when it is the exact same situation, namely using an FAQ that is not for your army.

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

I know your question wasn't directed at me, but I'd like to answer it anyway. Hope that doesn't annoy/go against the YMDC rules.

I wouldn't let you use an FAQ from a different game system for obvious reasons, but if you wanted to use the Necron FAQ for Tyranids, for example, then I would, sure.

Can you show me any part of the Necron FAQ that would have the slightest effect on a Tyranids vs (random choice for the sake of argument) Eldar game?

If not, I'm still just as happy to let you apply the FAQ, I just don't think it would be worth your time.

M.

Basicly due to the rules mechanics differing. It'd be like me using a D20 system books FAQ with a WoD system. Unless the question asked was concerning a core rule grey area the answer was a no. As 40k and fantasy have differing core rules I see no double standards.

But this ones getting more and more off topic as we go.

mockingbirduk wrote:

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

I know your question wasn't directed at me, but I'd like to answer it anyway. Hope that doesn't annoy/go against the YMDC rules.

I wouldn't let you use an FAQ from a different game system for obvious reasons, but if you wanted to use the Necron FAQ for Tyranids, for example, then I would, sure.

Can you show me any part of the Necron FAQ that would have the slightest effect on a Tyranids vs (random choice for the sake of argument) Eldar game?

If not, I'm still just as happy to let you apply the FAQ, I just don't think it would be worth your time.

M.

So why will you let me use Army X's FAQ for Army Y but not Army Z?

Again, it's just a double standard that (in my opinion), is flat out cheating.

The only way to remain fair and impartial is to use ONE faq to ONE army. If GW wanted it to apply to more than 1 Army, it would be in the Rulebook FAQ, or (shock and horror) in the respective armies FAQs.

Gwar! wrote:So why will you let me use Army X's FAQ for Army Y but not Army Z?

Again, it's just a double standard that (in my opinion), is flat out cheating.

The only way to remain fair and impartial is to use ONE faq to ONE army. If GW wanted it to apply to more than 1 Army, it would be in the Rulebook FAQ, or (shock and horror) in the respective armies FAQs.

The rules set for the game of WH40k comprises the rulebook and every codex and errata, plus optional rules which may be included with the agreement of both players from the FAQs for that game system.
The rules set for the game of WHFB comprises the rulebook and every army book and errata, plus optional rules which may be included with the agreement of both players from the FAQs for that game system.

No double standard.

Unless you suggest that when playing Necrons vs Tyranids, the Space Wolves FAQ is untrue (as opposed to irrelevant).

Edit: clarified what I meant a bit

There is a very common misconception around force org, and it's because of the chart diagram. It's easy to look at that chart and treat them mentally like physical boxes that you must place something in, but if you read the actual rules you can see that is not the case. There simply is not the language to support that concept. It tells you straight out that the "box on the chart allows you to make one selection".

Think of the boxes like checkboxes on a checklist. Remember the written instruction you get is nothing more than "make a selection". Whether a unit uses up one of your maximum allowances of a type or not, it is still a selection, fulfilling the printed detailed rules for force org criteria.

The BT FAQ answer doesn't matter to be honest. The basic rules tell me it's ok, the BT FAQ isn't making an exception. It's just a clarification to a frequent alternate and incorrect interpretation. I say incorrect, because GW is telling us with the printed logic it is incorrect.

That's my opinion on the whole force org confusion.

Kaaihn wrote:There is a very common misconception around force org, and it's because of the chart diagram. It's easy to look at that chart and treat them mentally like physical boxes that you must place something in, but if you read the actual rules you can see that is not the case. There simply is not the language to support that concept. It tells you straight out that the "box on the chart allows you to make one selection".

Think of the boxes like checkboxes on a checklist. Remember the written instruction you get is nothing more than "make a selection". Whether a unit uses up one of your maximum allowances of a type or not, it is still a selection, fulfilling the printed detailed rules for force org criteria.

I agree with you here Kaaihn, when I was first looking at the page I too was thinking of them as slots that need to be filled, but after reading the section on this system, I am no longer sure as nowhere in the section on HQs (BRB pg 86 IIRC) or FOC (BRB pg 87 IIRC) does it say that you have to fill the slot for it to be considered a choice, and that is where the confusion is. The way I look at it now, is that the FOC deals with the maximum number of units that may be in an army.

But then again, there is no concensus on this and short of a ruling from Games Workshop (good luck on that one), I dont know that this question is going to be answered to everyones' satisfaction considering how heated some of the debates get on this board (not that debate is bad, I actually enjoy them).

Gwar! wrote:So why will you let me use Army X's FAQ for Army Y but not Army Z?

Again, it's just a double standard that (in my opinion), is flat out cheating.

The only way to remain fair and impartial is to use ONE faq to ONE army. If GW wanted it to apply to more than 1 Army, it would be in the Rulebook FAQ, or (shock and horror) in the respective armies FAQs.

I will let you use Army X's FAQ for either Y or Z, but it has to be the same game system. And any stance otherwise is just scrambling to try and be right when you know you're not. Using a Fantasy FAQ would be like trying to use Magic the Gathering rules to determine iniative order for a 40K hth. And you know it.......................

I think the point about the skimmers moving fast rule is well taken. If we're not actually answering a real question, why is this being debated again?

Gwar! has posed a hypothetical, not real question. If it's a game between 2 opponents, let them decide.

If it's a clarification for a tourney, I'm sure the organizers will decide.

Armies wise: Don't SW and BT share this in common as SW have to take HQ's that actually can go "over" the HQ Org slot and BT can too as the EC doesn't count against it? So both armies can actually take more than the "Max 2" slots?

Uriels_Flame wrote:Armies wise: Don't SW and BT share this in common as SW have to take HQ's that actually can go "over" the HQ Org slot and BT can too as the EC doesn't count against it? So both armies can actually take more than the "Max 2" slots?

No, Space Wolves allow you to take 2 HQ's Per HQ Slot. The First HQ still counts as an HQ and fulfils the Mandatory HQ requirement.

Can't remember what I was posting earlier as the site went down, think it was about differing rules mechanics preventing the hypothetical using of FAQ's but the important thing I do remember.


Oh I remember now, was commenting on GW should have updated all concerned races FAQ's and the rulebooks errata/FAQ but we all know what to expect from GW for effort.

edit: Removing a suggestion already being dane and my goldfish memory had let it slip

I went over all the rules in the rulebook and the IG Codex. As far as I can tell it is pretty self explainatory as to what you can and cannot do. Both the Ministorum Priest and the Techpriest Enginseer state that they do not take up slots on the force organization chart, however for all other purposes are treated as HQ units.

To me "all other purposes" would include mandatory HQ choices.

I don't need any FAQs or any other nonsense to read my rules. By the rules, if you want to use a Priest or a Techpriest as your HQ, it is available to you and there is nothing preventing you from doing so.

As for the using FAQs for other armies for other other armies. I would say it is a fairly simple common sense answer and the admin guy already said it. If the rule that was FAQed somewhere applies to you and your army, either because it was an FAQ about a general rule that applies to your army, or the FAQ's reasoning as to why a ruling was made applies to your army... then apply it to your army. I don't care if you find rules in a Skaven rulebook that somehow apply to your Necron or Nids armies, by all means, apply them. However, I would be hard pressed to find rules from two different game systems that reasonably apply to each other.

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

Since you probably won't be fielding any Necron units in your Skaven force...sure!

It does not require that the HQ be on the FO chart, just that the HQ choice is included in the army.

/shrug

Disregarding whether the BT FAQ is applicable to the game in general, I see nowhere in the BGB that requires a compulsory FOC choice to actually count against the maximum choices for the the mission. Until someone can point out RAW that states the compulsory HQ choice must count against the maximum number of HQ choices, then EC and anything else with similar FOC rules will be perfectly fine to lead a detachment. Same with Troops choices.

Jeez gwar .... i 99.99% agree with you because you take such a hardline RAW standpoint ... but this seems to have you crossing over into RAI territory.

Strict RAW it says pick an HQ, tech priest is a HQ unit. Rule satisfied the end, BT faq never enters the equation, unless you start making up or using what you think are RAI.

After reading the BT FAQ today I have to agree with others that it does set a precedent. I must recede my previous post.

Gwar! wrote:Why should you be allowed to use the Black Templars FAQ with your Imperial Guard (which in your opinion clarifies something) while I can't use the Necron one with my Skaven?
Smacks a bit of double standards to me.

Yeah, it's a double standard to not allow your opponent to use a clarification from a completely different games system.


It's been explained, several times now, why the BT FAQ should be applied in this case. You've been given one example of a prior FAQ answer that specifically affected multiple armies despite being in a specific races' FAQ. There have been others (we had a ruling on bikers and close combat weapons that specifically stated that it applied to all armies, but was located in the Dark Eldar FAQ, for one).

At this point, I can't help thinking that your apparent lack of understanding on this is down more to your general dislike of the FAQ's than an actual lack of understanding of the point being made.

That, or you're focusing so much on the fact that it's a BT FAQ that you're not actually reading the reason given as to why it applies. Which, given your general habit of just ignoring anything that might prove you wrong once you've sunk your teeth into a given point, is entirely likely.

Yes, in a perfect world, FAQ answers that applied to more than one army would be in the rulebook FAQ, or in each of the relevant FAQs. But GW don't write their FAQs like that. They tend to just put answers wherever it seems the most appropriate at the time, and rely on their customer base being able figure it out when that ruling should apply elsewhere... because most players are perfectly capable of remembering that the rules are just there to enable you to play a game, and so any clarification that helps in a problem situation is fair game.

Gwar! wrote:So why will you let me use Army X (BT)'s FAQ for Army Y (Nids) but not Army Z (skaven)?

Did you really just say that...?

What section of the Necron FAQ clears up a misconception in the Tyranid codex? Most of the Necron FAQ deals with WBB, which never makes an apperance in Codex: Tyranids.

Gwar!, just give up. We all know your argument has no merit.

Can I take Lesser Daemons as my only troops choice?

No, you have to have 2 troop slots filled as per FO rules, and they specifically say that they do not perform such a role, as they do not take a selection.

I believe this applies to Greater Daemons and HQ requirements as well.

anticitizen013 wrote:Can I take Lesser Daemons as my only troops choice?

Using the same logic as applied to the HQ choices, yes, you could take 2 units of Lesser Daemons as your compulsory Troops units, as they don't use up a slot, but are still counted as Troops units.


I still don't agree that it's the way it should work, but if that's the way you're going it would apply to any unit with similar rules.

ChristmasMarine wrote:No, you have to have 2 troop slots filled as per FO rules, and they specifically say that they do not perform such a role, as they do not take a selection.

orly? I see where the rules say you must take one HQ selection and two troop selections. I don't see where the rules state that you must fill one HQ slot and two troop slots.

To anticitizen: It would appear so, although that is a risky proposition as all those Daemons will need Icons/Champions.

ah, my bad, insaniak is right. The BRB does not say filled, it says selections. SO choosing only Daemons in CSM is fine, if a way to guarentee a loss

Guys, seriously, lrn2read. Page 89.

It reminds you in the Chaos Codex that they cannot fill the Mandatory Troops Selections, because they don't take up any selections.

I wonder why...

anticitizen013 wrote:Can I take Lesser Daemons as my only troops choice?

ChristmasMarine wrote:No, you have to have 2 troop slots filled as per FO rules, and they specifically say that they do not perform such a role, as they do not take a selection.

I believe this applies to Greater Daemons and HQ requirements as well.

...and that is my point

insaniak wrote:Using the same logic as applied to the HQ choices, yes, you could take 2 units of Lesser Daemons as your compulsory Troops units, as they don't use up a slot, but are still counted as Troops units.


I still don't agree that it's the way it should work, but if that's the way you're going it would apply to any unit with similar rules.

...and this is my other point!

Just something to think about, really.


EDIT: You could have Icons with Terminators or Chosen or Havocs or whatever the case may be. I just was trying to point this out since it is related to the topic at hand

Gwar! wrote:Guys, seriously, lrn2read.

You sound bitter. Is the presence of Techpriests as mandatory HQ's making you bitter?

I was mistaken about the summoned daemons.

wait, im not sure if this is exactly relavent, but it might help.

BGB, page 87

"often labeled with terms such as "supernumerary" or "insignificant" these units do not count towards the number of choices the person can make from the force organization chart..."

the wording here says they do not count towards the choices you have. And you HAVE to make choices. As they exist outside the force org chart, they would not count towards the minimum requirements. So, if you want an HQ that doesn't take up a slot, unless the codex specifies otherwise, then its not your mandatory HQ.

My take on this.

Had actually missed that part in the Chaos Codex... haven't been using Daemons.

So yes, page 89, the section entitled 'Summoned Daemons' points out that they don't count towards your minimum allowance.


And Gwar, 'seriously' pointing out the relevant section would have been more useful than the attitude.