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.

You're making the argument that, because the reasoning behind the ruling would make sense for the Enginseer, then it must be applicable. I was making the argument that they have different wordings as it stands anyway.

One of them:
-Is an HQ
-Does not take up an HQ slot, and because of that gives you explicit permission to include two other HQs

The other:
-Is an HQ
-Does not take up an HQ slot, and because of that gives you implicit permission to include two other HQs

Also, your "one plus one" analogy is not true. It may fool some, as generally, people know 1 + 1 = 2, but that's with our numbering system. 1 + 1 in binary is different, for example (although it may mean the same thing, it is represented differently).

puma713 wrote:

ph34r wrote:Right. Answering a question.
If I say "what is one plus one" and the answer is "two" in one circumstance, the answer must be two in all circumstances.

This is not true. The wording for the Autarch's rule for +1 to reserves and the wording for the Hive Tyrant's rule for +1 to reserves are the same, yet they don't work similarly.

The difference here is the wording for the Autarch's rule and the Tyrant's rule are a bit different. For example the Tyrant says "while a tyrant" and the Autarch says "while the Autarch". In any case GW decided to rule them differently.

In this case not only are the rules much more closely worded, but there is no conflicting FAQ ruling.

An FAQ applies only to it's book according to the locals play, and that's the best way to go about it IMO.

ph34r wrote:

puma713 wrote:

ph34r wrote:Right. Answering a question.
If I say "what is one plus one" and the answer is "two" in one circumstance, the answer must be two in all circumstances.

This is not true. The wording for the Autarch's rule for +1 to reserves and the wording for the Hive Tyrant's rule for +1 to reserves are the same, yet they don't work similarly.

The difference here is the wording for the Autarch's rule and the Tyrant's rule are a bit different. For example the Tyrant says "while a tyrant" and the Autarch says "while the Autarch". In any case GW decided to rule them differently.

Read it again. The passage about +1 to reserves says "the Tyrant". And your argument that because the BT FAQ says something, it should apply to the IG codex is based off of this assumption of precedence. This is just one example of how precedence doesn't follow.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:An FAQ applies only to it's book

And this is why.

And yet as a FAQ is not a rules change, if two rules are identically worded the existence of the FAQ is unnecessary unless GW for some reason creates contradictory FAQs.

Aka, if the rules function as written, the FAQ is superfluous but nice to have.

The existence of a FAQ for one rule and the absence of a FAQ for an identical rule does not render the identical rule nonfunctional.

If the rule is in a codex, it is an army specific rule, and does not in any way affect a different codex.

If the rule is in the BRB, it is a general rule that affects all codexes. Unless specified otherwise.

You are taking a rule from Codex: Black Templar, which the FAQ is just an extention of, and applying it to Codex: Imperial Guard.

If the FAQ did not exist at all, RAW would still let you take them as mandatory choices.

The FAQ is there to be a crutch for you to use if you can't understand RAW, not for you to hit me on the head with it and scream "One of them got a FAQ and the other didn't! Therefore it does not work without a FAQ!"

ph34r wrote:If the FAQ did not exist at all, RAW would still let you take them as mandatory choices.

The FAQ is there to be a crutch for you to use if you can't understand RAW, not for you to hit me on the head with it and scream "One of them got a FAQ and the other didn't! Therefore it does not work without a FAQ!"

I didn't hit you over the head with the FAQ (although I did mention the timing of it). FAQ or not, they are worded (slightly) differently.

(Flawed argument ahead) If the FAQ is merely a crutch, why not include another crutch in the IG codex? The idea that IG players would be expected to carry around the BT FAQ is a little odd.

ph34r wrote:If the FAQ did not exist at all, RAW would still let you take them as mandatory choices.

The FAQ is there to be a crutch for you to use if you can't understand RAW, not for you to hit me on the head with it and scream "One of them got a FAQ and the other didn't! Therefore it does not work without a FAQ!"

Except RAW does NOT let you include them. You are required to use up "slots", yet you are told these choices do not use up these slots.
Your assumption is that when they made it a FAQ, it wasnt a rules change. It was.

No, you are not required to use up slots. You are required to make choices. A choice that does not use a slot is still a choice.

Nope, compulsory selection that has to "fill" a box. You cannot fill the box

Either way - you cannot apply a BT FAQ answering a specific BT question to any other army. "Precedence" means nothing in 40k, your argument from there is invalid.

To go back to your "your logic is that bad" - 1+1=2 for BT does not require that IG, whose additive identity is 1, also equals 2 (in fact for them 1+1 =1)

In other words your logic is flawed. Again.

No. You are wrong: prove it.

I can apply a BT FAQ to whatever I want. Why can I do this? Because the BT FAQ simply reiterates the basic, fundamental rules of the games, in no way that is specific to BT in any way.

he is still an HQ choice, and so he can fulfil the minimum HQ requirement

What does this mean, ph34r!?!?!?!?

It means HQ choice -> fulfill minimum HQ requirement.

There is literally zero way for there to be a flaw in that logic. The FAQ is telling us what the core rulebook says.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Codex IG wrote:Each grey-toned box indicates that you may make one choice from that section of the army list, while a dark-toned box indicates a compulsory selection

Priest wrote:Priests do not use up any Force Organization chart selections

What do these mean together?

You must select 1 HQ unit. You may select up to 2 HQ units.
A priest, being in the HQ section of the unit rules, is an HQ choice. A priest does not use up a selection thanks to its rules.

Sequence of events: You choose 1 priest. What happens?
You have taken 1 HQ choice. You have not used up any FOC selections. The result is that your army contains 1 HQ choice, and has 2 HQ FOC selections remaining. Having 1 HQ selection, you satisfy compulsory requirements.

People don't seem to understand you, ph34r.

FAQ = Frequently Asked Questions
The FAQ provides answers to questions. It clarifies, it doesn't change the rules. Therefore, when it is clarified that for one army an item does something (in this case it fulfills the HQ requirement), logic dictates that it also works for another army.

So what if it's in the BT FAQ? It simply clarifies the rules. It doesn't change them.

Indeed. Perhaps my latest rules quoting will prove more impossible to wiggle away from.

wow, you even missed it in your quoting. Again.

Codex IG wrote:Each grey-toned box indicates that you may make one choice from that section of the army list, while a dark-toned box indicates a compulsory selection

Bolding mine. Notice it states compulsory selection? Now time for you to reread your other quote, again bolding is mine:

Priest wrote:Priests do not use up any Force Organization chart selections

Wow, look at that! It states it does NOT use up ANY Force Org. Selections.

So, you are required to make a compulsory selection, but the Priest cannot take up any selections - meaning you still have to fulfil the force org chart.

So, now you've proven you are wrong, care to retract your statement that it isnt a rules change? Because you know, it IS a rules change. Which you shouldnt be too suprised at, GW does this a lot (see: Shield of Sanguinius and vehicles. Clear rules change, yet its a FAQ. Wow, who'd have thought!)

And yet, the same text appears in the Black Templar Codex

Codex: Black Templars, Emperor's Champion Entry wrote:The Emperor's Champion does NOT use up an HQ slot on a Force Organization chart

Therefore, the Emperor's Champion cannot take up any selections either - meaning you still have to fulfil the force org chart, at least by your reasoning.

Therefore, as GW has clarified that the Emperor's Champion counts as a selection for the purposes of compulsory selections, logic dictates that the Priest/Techpriest also counts as a selection for the purposes of compulsory selections.

No.

You must make a selection.

Priests do not use up a selection.

In effect, you get the selection, you get the priest, but you don't use up a slot that another HQ could occupy.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Codex IG wrote:Each grey-toned box indicates that you may make one choice from that section of the army list, while a dark-toned box indicates a compulsory selection

Priest wrote:Priests do not use up any Force Organization chart selections

Wow, look at that! It states it does NOT use up ANY Force Org. Selections.

So, you are required to make a compulsory selection, but the Priest cannot take up any selections - meaning you still have to fulfil the force org chart.

Just because taking the enginseer does not reduce the number of remaining selections does not mean that you have not made a selection. How else can you include the enginseer without selecting that unit?

Scott-S6 wrote:Just because taking the enginseer does not reduce the number of remaining selections does not mean that you have not made a selection. How else can you include the enginseer without selecting that unit?

Bingo.

Q: Can a void mine be used regardless of the speed the
Voidraven Bomber is moving at in its Movement phase?
(p47)
A: Yes.

Q: When a unit comprised of some models with Power
from Pain and some without has a pain token, does the
effect it gives apply to every model in the unit or just to the
models with the Power from Pain special rule? (p25)
A: It only applies to the models with the Power from Pain
special rule.

Q: Can a vehicle with the ʻPower of the Machine Spiritʼ fire
a weapon on the turn the vehicle uses Smoke Launchers?
(p37)
A: No.

Q: If a Tyranid unit takes a Mycetic Spore, can an
Independent Character join the brood before
deployment (and hence deep strike in with the brood)?
A: No.

Three different GW FAQs, and all of these changed a rule as it was presented to players.

1) Void mine counts as firing a weapon. You can't fire weapons if you move flat out. FAQ says you can drop the mine when moving flat out.
2) PfP says that the entire unit gains the benefit if they have a token. Beastmaster units have some with PfP and some without. FAQ says only the ones with PfP benefit.
3) Power of the Machine Spirit says you may fire one more weapon than normally allowed. Smoke Launchers prevents you from firing any weapons. FAQ says you can not shoot with PotMS when you launch smoke (also note that the BA FAQ says Stormravens can fire when moving flat out, even though the wording for flat out and smoke is similar).
4) Independent Characters are able to join a unit before deployment. FAQ says that Tyranid ICs can not join Spore-bound units (it also claims that units who buy a spore must deploy in it, despite a similar wording as Drop Pods and no indication in the book that it has any such limitations).

Sorry, but I feel that anyone who claims that FAQs never change the rules might be saying that in an effort to make their point appear valid, and not because it's actually true.

Edit: I'd like to say that I don't wish to derail this thread and get into a discussion about the merits of these rulings. They could get their own thread, but that's not the point. I'm merely trying to show that an FAQ can indeed cause a change in the rules.

somerandomdude wrote:Sorry, but I feel that anyone who claims that FAQs never change the rules might be saying that in an effort to make their point appear valid, and not because it's actually true.

And where in the BRB does it say we have to heed the FAQs?

Alright, FAQs can be rule changes. I accept that, however against GW's policy it is.

However, not only is the BT FAQ,
1. An explanation of the why it counts based on basic rules that are not modified in the FAQ, but rather referenced
2. Not necessary for the conclusion that Enginseers and Priests fulfill mandatory slots

So even if you don't think that the BT FAQ can be trusted, even though it just references how the fundamental FOC selection rules work, I can prove that Priests and Enginseers fulfill mandatory FOC selections without it.

Brunius wrote:And where in the BRB does it say we have to heed the FAQs?

Um... nowhere?

But if your argument is based on an FAQ ruling, you'd have a tough time ignoring them.

Not based on, no. The BT FAQ makes it easy to see why my argument is correct. It is not necessary, nor can it hamper.

somerandomdude wrote:

Brunius wrote:And where in the BRB does it say we have to heed the FAQs?

Um... nowhere?

But if your argument is based on an FAQ ruling, you'd have a tough time ignoring them.

I know - I'm just failing to find anything better to argue about...uhh.....joking....

Shall we pretend we live in a world without the Black Templars?

I may have missed it/misunderstood something, so forgive me if you've already presented it, and I hope you don't think I'm trying anything funny, but could you present an argument to me that makes absolutely no reference to BTs, doesn't make an assumption related to the FAQ, and still supports the idea that "doesn't take up a selection = mandatory selection made"?

Note: My post was in response to the general theme of the thread, which did focus on the BT FAQ. There was a lot of talk about precedence, and plenty that suggested the FAQs were not changes, so I apologize for focusing on that fact when you were looking at a bigger picture.

To quote my previous post:

ph34r wrote:

Codex IG wrote:Each grey-toned box indicates that you may make one choice from that section of the army list, while a dark-toned box indicates a compulsory selection

Priest wrote:Priests do not use up any Force Organization chart selections

What do these mean together?

You must select 1 HQ unit. You may select up to 2 HQ units.
A priest, being in the HQ section of the unit rules, is an HQ choice. A priest does not use up a selection thanks to its rules.

Sequence of events: You choose 1 priest. What happens?
You have taken 1 HQ choice. You have not used up any FOC selections. The result is that your army contains 1 HQ choice, and has 2 HQ FOC selections remaining. Having 1 HQ selection, you satisfy compulsory requirements.

And Scott-S6

Scott-S6 wrote:Just because taking the enginseer does not reduce the number of remaining selections does not mean that you have not made a selection. How else can you include the enginseer without selecting that unit?

(note these quotes are safe for a FAQ-free diet!)

matterofpride wrote:Honestly ph34r I thought your arguments about this were total none sense in the other thread about this..until actually readying the black templar FAQ.

This would leave one to strongly think that a priest or tech marine could be used as your one and only HQ for a guard army...and really if I think I could get away with it..Id prolly do it.

... Ok off topic here: Guard HQs are some of the most valuable units in a guard list.

Does not use up a selection == has not used up the FOC selection box == that selection box has not been "filled" and therefore the minimum requirements have not been met.

Still not RAW ph34r, no matter how often you try it.

Your post contained zero actual rules relevance.

Nowhere in the rules does it say "fill boxes".

It says you have a compulsory selection. The act of including an HQ unit in your army is a selection. This HQ unit may or may not have an additional rule that states the the FOC selection is not "used up" by its selection in your army.

Please reply with actual rules, instead of "box filling theory".