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.

It requires an HQ "selection" - that is the bit you missed from your selective quote.

If something does not take upa selection, how can it be your mandatory selection? It is not doing exactly what you are told it *must* be doing.

A) Where does it state that?

B) What is a "selection?" Might it be a unit selected from a category?

C) Does a unit selected from HQ that does not take up a FOC-slot still count as an HQ?


You use this term 'selection' like it has some special meaning in the BRB. Please, enlighten the rest of us: where do you derive this from?

kartofelkopf wrote:You use this term 'selection' like it has some special meaning in the BRB. Please, enlighten the rest of us: where do you derive this from?

The English Language, which I am lucky enough to be a native speaker of.

kartofelkopf wrote:You use this term 'selection' like it has some special meaning in the BRB. Please, enlighten the rest of us: where do you derive this from?

Where do you get this special meaning of the word "the"? Please refernece where in the rulebook you get this special word "the" and its meaning from, please enlighten us!

/sarcasm

40k is not an inclusisve ruleset, i.e. not al terms used are internally defined. You *must* (as in, have no choice in the matter) use the English Language (the proper one, not the US simplification) where words have not been given a definition within the ruleset.

It's really quite simple.

Gwar! wrote:

kartofelkopf wrote:You use this term 'selection' like it has some special meaning in the BRB. Please, enlighten the rest of us: where do you derive this from?

The English Language, which I am lucky enough to be a native speaker of.

I am curious then as to how you are defining selection in this case. I would argue that the act of selecting a unit(s) from this category fulfills the requirement of making a selection.

Techpriests and similar "do not use up any force org chart selections". This is the crucial piece of RAW. Does selecting such a unit still count as having made a selection whilst not "using up" that slot's selection (activating the slot but leaving it's selection open to select another unit) or does it exist outside of the force org charts selections (and so not activate that slot)? It could have been better written for either meaning. (e.g. "selecting this unit allows an additional HQ unit to be selected" or "selecting this unit does not count as using one of your HQ selections")

I don't feel that the RAW is sufficiently clear to be definitive. Add the BT precedent and I think that there is a case to argue that you can take such a unit as the mandatory selection. I'd also say that it's both fluffy and not power-increasing to do so (for the IG at least).

Scott-S6 wrote:Add the BT precedent.

Precedent doesn't apply to 40k. The BT case is a case for the BT and the BT alone.

Gwar! wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:Add the BT precedent.

Precedent doesn't apply to 40k. The BT case is a case for the BT and the BT alone.

Nope, that's the same thinking that you tried to pull in the SW FAQ regarding FC and CA. It was just as wrong then as it is now. And seriously, "precedent doesn't apply to 40k"? The admittedly outdated BT FAQ addressed a game mechanic that all armies potentially have access to, not just the Templars.

-Yad

Yad wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:Add the BT precedent.

Precedent doesn't apply to 40k. The BT case is a case for the BT and the BT alone.

Nope, that's the same thinking that you tried to pull in the SW FAQ regarding FC and CA. It was just as wrong then as it is now. And seriously, "precedent doesn't apply to 40k"? The admittedly outdated BT FAQ addressed a game mechanic that all armies potentially have access to, not just the Templars.

-Yad

So then Autarchs don't stack because the IG FAQ says that modifiers to reserves don't stack? That is what your logic leads to.

nosferatu1001 wrote: You *must* (as in, have no choice in the matter) use the English Language (the proper one, not the US simplification) where words have not been given a definition within the ruleset.

It's really quite simple.

Indeed, it is. I *select* a Techpriest from the HQ choices. Ergo, it is a selection.

Besides, as much as Gwar! may want to scream into the void about precedents not existing, GW FAQs being non-rules, etc... he's still wrong on those points, and wrong on this.

I am curious then as to how you are defining selection in this case. I would argue that the act of selecting a unit(s) from this category fulfills the requirement of making a selection.

Well that is the crux of my understanding. The wording of the techmarine does not exclude you from taking it as a mandatory choice, it just does not stop you from taking two more HQ 'choices'. I do not have a chaos codex on me but what is the wording of summoned demons not counting as troop choices.

"Units of summoned daemons do not use up any force organization chart selection, but are otherwise treated as a troops unit."

Gwar! wrote:

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.

See GWAR! this is what really gets me miffed at you sometimes. In the mawloc thread you argue that the rule for monoliths and 4th ed spore mines are good arguments to support the ability of the mawloc to deepstrike where it wants, and here you say rulings from a codex are irrelevant to other codices. Isn't this a bit inconsistent? I don't feel like dredging up a quote, but I specifically remember people arguing with you over just this issue. I don't see why it is OK for some arguments to be justified from other codices and some not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

Yad wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:Add the BT precedent.

Precedent doesn't apply to 40k. The BT case is a case for the BT and the BT alone.

Nope, that's the same thinking that you tried to pull in the SW FAQ regarding FC and CA. It was just as wrong then as it is now. And seriously, "precedent doesn't apply to 40k"? The admittedly outdated BT FAQ addressed a game mechanic that all armies potentially have access to, not just the Templars.

-Yad

So then Autarchs don't stack because the IG FAQ says that modifiers to reserves don't stack? That is what your logic leads to.

The IG FAQ says that they don't stack and then gives some crappy IG specific fluff reason why. The reasoning behind the BT ruling seems to apply more to a game mechanic than the army.


EDIT: Also, the Eldar FAQ specifically addresses Autarchs. So yes, I would say that I can use IG as a precedent for Autarchs, but then when I look in the Eldar FAQ I see that precedent is overridden specifically by the eldar FAQ. If the eldar FAQ said nothing about autarchs, I would assume that it was the same as the IG and did not stack.

That is if you even use FAQs.

Kommissar Kel wrote:"Units of summoned daemons do not use up any force organization chart selection, but are otherwise treated as a troops unit."

However, both lesser daemons and the Greater daemon have an additional line somewhere in the codex stating that they CANNOT fulfill the mandatory choices. So, doesn't that kind of infer that any unit that doesn't take a 'slot' but without that statement, can indeed fulfill that mandatory requirement?

However, both lesser daemons and theGreater daemon have an additional line somewhere in the codex stating that they CANNOT fulfill the mandatory choices. So, doesn't that kind of infer that any unit that doesn't take a 'slot' but without that statement, can indeed fulfill that mandatory requirement?

That is what I was wondering. The guard codex has no such restriction

Exactly, no such restriction exists in the IG codex..................

don_mondo wrote:Exactly, no such restriction exists in the IG codex..................

Because it is inherent in the rules, while in 4th edition it might not have been, thus the need for the extra rule.

Except it's not inherent in the rules..................

And without agreement on that one point, we're doomed to disagree.

we're doomed to disagree.

I agree! The argument is over particular meanings of words exactly as if we were discussing Tyrant guard and the shieldwall rule...har har...so ya I am going to leave it here because the two camps are firmly established

Gwar! wrote:

don_mondo wrote:Exactly, no such restriction exists in the IG codex..................

Because it is inherent in the rules, while in 4th edition it might not have been, thus the need for the extra rule.

I no longer have my 4th ed rulebook - can someone quote the mandatory selections paragraph for us?

Also, not seeing this restriction in the chaos codex. Just glanced, so it may exist... but, if it does, I think that lends further credence to the idea that they can count as your required, given that they are explicitly forbidden elsewhere.

Either way, INAT allows it, and most TOs I've seen allow it. It's not super abusive (in fact, is sub-par, IMHO), but can allow for a fluffy ecclesiarchy or Tech list.

Oh, and the RAW supports it... so there's always that.

Now, I understand some people overlook minor details, misunderstand details, or are just plain stupid. So allow me quote this from the techpriest Army list profile:

PG 93 Imperial Guard Codex: An Imperial guard Army may include 0-2 Techpriest Enginseers.Techpriest Enginseers do not use up any Force Organisation chart selections, but are otherwise treated as separate HQ units.

Pg. 89 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.

This is not from the IG codex, but still.



As you can clearly see, an HQ force organization chart selection must be taken. Techpriests indisputably can not use a up an HQ force organization chart selection.

EDIT: And kart, it'd be real kool if you would stop speak out of your buttox, and pick up an IG codex and a rule book. Thanks guy.


Reference:

kartofelkopf wrote:A) Where does it state that?

B) What is a "selection?" Might it be a unit selected from a category?

C) Does a unit selected from HQ that does not take up a FOC-slot still count as an HQ?


You use this term 'selection' like it has some special meaning in the BRB. Please, enlighten the rest of us: where do you derive this from?

IggyEssEmManlyMan wrote:This is not from the IG codex,...

Or even from a current codex...

As you can clearly see, an HQ force organization chart selection must be taken. Techpriests indisputably can not use a up an HQ force organization chart selection.

The opposing viewpoint, which has been made in the past by people who are not, in fact, stupid is that the Techpriest may not use up a chart selection, but still is selected as a HQ unit. So the requirement to take a selection from the HQ part of the army list has been fulfilled... You have a HQ selection, he simply doesn't count towards the total number of HQ selections you may take.

The simple fact is that there are a couple of different ways that people interpret this. The fact that someone sees it differently to how you see it doesn't automatically make them wrong.

EDIT: And kart, it'd be real kool if you would stop speak out of your buttox, and pick up an IG codex and a rule book. Thanks guy.

It would be equally 'cool' if you toned it down a little so I don't have to suspend your account for violating Dakka's rule #1.

IggyEssEmManlyMan wrote: Words (in a different color for added win!)

If you'd read the thread, you'd see that the points you raise have already been addressed.

As insaniak points out, the graphic you clip is not from a current codex. But, even going off that, it specifies that a unit from the HQ must be taken. A techpriest is a unit, yes? And it is taken from the available list of HQ units, yes?

Ergo, it is an HQ unit... which meets the requirement your graphic outlines.

See also the Black Templar codex, with identical verbiage for the Emperor's Champion... and which GW has stated does meet the HQ requirement.

Feel free to read the thread next time before posting-- and welcome to dakka.

Gwar! wrote:So then Autarchs don't stack because the IG FAQ says that modifiers to reserves don't stack? That is what your logic leads to.

I am entirely in favor of you using the IG FAQ as a precedent when playing Eldar, Gwar.

Except. . . wait! The IG FAQ only states that the bonuses FOR ASTROPATHS AND OFFICERS OF THE FLEET don't stack! So if you take any Astropaths or Officers of the Fleet in your Eldar army, sadly, the bonuses from them don't stack. Happily, though, the bonuses for Autarchs do, because the Eldar FAQ says they do and nothing else provides any contradictory evidence whatsoever.

In short; red herring. Try again.

Think of it like a key and lock. RAW say you must have one rocky point and two flat points for the door to open. The techpriests are a rock point with a flat small section which does not affect whether or not the key will unlock the lock.. RAW say "normally(normal missions for example) you will have to take one HQ selection and two troop selections." If techpriests are not HQ selections(as they cannot use the slot up) then can they be taken as an HQ selection? No. That is a contradiction of the rule.

And I did read the thread. I simply reiterated points for those who seemingly did not read them, and so as to make my point as clear as possible with out saying things such as" like blah blahblah(read 19 posts up, 4 left, one down, 4 right and thats one of my points k guize?)"

Also I know it''s old, but the chart is the same compulsory and optional units.

But really, I think both my point and others are valid and with backup, so it's up to the OP/his opponent to decide, or if in a tournie, the ref to decide. If allelse fails you can always email GW at there Q&A email address, and hope for a response.

IggyEssEmManlyMan wrote:If techpriests are not HQ selections(as they cannot use the slot up)

That's the difference of view.

On one hand, he doesn't use up a slot, so he can't count towards the number of those slots you have filled.
On the other hand, he doesn't use up a slot, but he is still a unit of that type...

To my mind, the BT clarification is sufficient. Unless the unit has a specific rule saying otherwise (as is the case for Daemons) it can still count as a required FOC choice.

The Wording on the EC(Emperors chosen) is also completely different than the wording on priests/techpriest engiseer.

the difference here is that the enginseer/priest is otherwise treated as an HQ; while the EC is an HQ, and a compulsory one at that.

Just for fun guys, the fluff also reads that techpriest's have been known to requisition entire armies to recover knowledge, and willing to sacrifice many lives to retrive such knowledge. While not an exact quote its close enough.
Anyhow, inat allows it, and It seems reasonable to allow it, (would be disgusting for a tournament not to allow it). It is a subpar choice in my opinion to use this, even if you were to try and use multiple allied HQ choices.

Sure, and it would be a great way to build that Adeptus Mechanicus army, or that religious crusade.

don_mondo wrote:Sure, and it would be a great way to build that Adeptus Mechanicus army, or that religious crusade.

And that would be a ton of fun.