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.

I think the problem is their terminology. The Force Organization chart does NOT have slots or choices. Everything in the Force Organization chart is a 'selection'. If they were to use the terminology in the rules, they would see that their arguments don't hold water.

Techpriest Enginseers do not use up any Force Organisation chart selections, but are otherwise treated as seperate HQ units.

Ghaz wrote:You've still failed to explain how a unit that does not use up any Force Organization chart selections can be used for a compulsory Force Organization chart selection. A unit that does not use a Force Organization chart selection can't be used for a compulsory Force Organization chart selection. It's that simple...

No, it's this simple, they count because they have an explicit, codex specific exception rule that says they count. I'll explain it for you again Ghaz, with the direct quote:

"...otherwise counts as a seprate HQ choice"

Counts as a seperate HQ choice, means, it's an HQ choice, because it counts, so you have one, therefore fullfilling the mandatory requirement of having an HQ choice. Redunundantly ignoring this in the post is giving the appearance of obstinancy.

The term 'otherwise' means, for everything except using the FO slot, they count as an HQ, there are only 2 contexts for this to have any meaning, deployment of an HQ in some missions and the mandatory HQ. How could one apply but not the other? Because you refuse to admit it perhaps?

The erroneous way you're enterpreting this rule is by adding qualifiers to "otherwise counts as an HQ choice" that being: 'except for the mandatory slot' which is not what it says. It does say it doesn't take up an FO selection but it also says it directly counts as an HQ, so the rule book requirement of a mandatory HQ has been fullfilled, because it counts. It's a direct RAW rule. Furthermore if the RAI was to have it not count then why did the authors change the priests and enginseers from an Elite to an HQ in the new codex?

Augustus wrote:It's a direct RAW rule. Furthermore if the RAI was to have it not count then why did the authors change the priests and enginseers from an Elite to an HQ in the new codex?

Because they are idiotic Pillocks who don't bother Playtesting anything? I thought that was pretty Obvious. It might be so as to allow a Single Enginseer or Priest to start the game deployed in a Dawn of War Mission? Or it might have something to do with the Planetstrike mission supplement out Soon™

I'm a supporter of the first reason though.

The base of the argument is still how does a unit that does not take up a slot, fill a slot?

*Takes a deep breath* I agree with Ghaz and Gwar.

Sure, there is precedent for GW breaking the rules but until this specific instance is FAQ'd, you can't use a unit that doesn't take any slot on the Force Org chart to satisfy a mandatory choice. If you want precedent, look at Chaos Lesser Daemons. They can not be used as the mandatory 2 Troops selections but otherwise count as Troops and take up no space on the Force Org chart.

Once again I see Augustus is cherry picking the rules. Here is what the rule actually says:

Techpriests Enginseers do not use up any Force Organization Chart selections...

I'm not erroneously adding a modifier, it's right there in black and white in the word 'otherwise' that you keep ignoring. That says that except for not using a selection on the Force Organization chart he counts as a separate HQ choice.

Ozymandias wrote:*Takes a deep breath* I agree with Ghaz and Gwar.

Sure, there is precedent for GW breaking the rules but until this specific instance is FAQ'd, you can't use a unit that doesn't take any slot on the Force Org chart to satisfy a mandatory choice. If you want precedent, look at Chaos Lesser Daemons. They can not be used as the mandatory 2 Troops selections but otherwise count as Troops and take up no space on the Force Org chart.

Summoned Daemons is a rule all its own.

So now there are two precidents from two codexs that muddle up the issue.

Clay Williams wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:*Takes a deep breath* I agree with Ghaz and Gwar.

Sure, there is precedent for GW breaking the rules but until this specific instance is FAQ'd, you can't use a unit that doesn't take any slot on the Force Org chart to satisfy a mandatory choice. If you want precedent, look at Chaos Lesser Daemons. They can not be used as the mandatory 2 Troops selections but otherwise count as Troops and take up no space on the Force Org chart.

Summoned Daemons is a rule all its own.

So now there are two precedents from two codex's that muddle up the issue.

It's not actually. The wording is practically identical to that of the Enginseer and Priests, and there is nothing mentioned apart from these two sentences:
"Your army may Include a single Greater Daemon. This Model does not use up any force organisation chart selection, but is otherwise treated as an HQ unit."
and
"Units of Summoned Lesser Daemons do not use up any force organisation chart selection, but is otherwise treated as a Troops unit."

Ghaz wrote:What you're passing off as a 'precedent' is nothing more than GW proving that they don't know their own rules. It does not apply to anything other than the Emperor's Champion and actually changes the rules.

As written, the Techpriest Enginseer, Ministorum Priest and the Emperor's Champion can not be used for a compulsory selection on the Force Organization chart. Just because there's a contradictory FAQ for the Champion does not change the rules for the other two.

Honestly, if it wasn't for the Black Templars FAQ I would be in complete agreement. But I'm very uncomfortable with the notion that you can "cherry pick" GW precedent like that. Unless the rules specifically state otherwise, like situations should be resolved alike. Plus, the BT FAQ goes a step further. laying down a reason for the rule that is directly on point here. "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."

Personally, I think this is an unintuitive and unsatisfying resolution. But it's clearly relevant precedent, and it should not be ignored.

Besides, an army lead by a Priest or Techpriest is probably going to be an easy win, so it's not like you need to disqualify it.

EDIT: Ok, I don't have the latest Chaos Codex; could someone quote the relevant rule from Daemons? Dueling precedents would significantly muddy the issue.

No, he is not an HQ choice. The only reason he is stated as a separate HQ unit is for deployment.

He technically is not a choice at all.

Dave47 wrote:EDIT: Ok, I don't have the latest Chaos Codex; could someone quote the relevant rule from Daemons? Dueling precedents would significantly muddy the issue.

The wording is practically identical to that of the Enginseer and Priests, and there is nothing mentioned apart from these two sentences:
"Your army may Include a single Greater Daemon. This Model does not use up any force organisation chart selection, but is otherwise treated as an HQ unit."
and
"Units of Summoned Lesser Daemons do not use up any force organisation chart selection, but is otherwise treated as a Troops unit."

Since they don't take any FoC Selection, they cannot be the 2 Mandatory Troops.

If you have two competing precedents you have to come down on the side of "Break No Rule."

IMO, the doesn't count as the mandatory HQ argument is much cleaner than the argument for counting as a mandatory HQ.

This will be my last reply to this thread, so hopefully this post will clear up some people's misconceptions.

First, from page 87 of the Warhammer 40,000 5th edition rulebook:

One box on the chart allows you to make one selection from that part of your army list. Dark boxes are compulsory selections. As you can see, normally you will have to take at least one HQ selection and two Troops selections. These compulsory choices ensure that whatever else you select, your force will have a core within it that is representative of that army. This is rarely a disadvantage and many players often use the maximum number of Troops selections.

Never once is the word 'slot' use to denote a selection from the Force Organization chart. It is always noted as a 'selection'.

From page 93 of Codex Imperial Guard:

An Imperial Guard army may include 0-2 Techpriest Enginseers. Techpriest Enginseers do not use up any Force Organization chart selections, but are otherwise treated as separate HQ units.

And from Dictionary.com:

oth-er-wise

–adverb
1. under other circumstances: Otherwise they may get broken.
2. in another manner; differently: Under the circumstances, I can't believe otherwise.
3. in other respects: an otherwise happy life.

Therefore the above rule literally reads as follows:

An Imperial Guard army may include 0-2 Techpriest Enginseers. Techpriest Enginseers do not use up any Force Organization chart selections, but in other respects are treated as separate HQ units.

A Techpriest Enginseer can not be used to fill a compulsory (or even any) Force Organization chart selection as per his rules, but in other respects each Techpriest Enginseer counts as a separate HQ unit.

First off lets better understand what the FOC is. Its the FOC chart is minimum and maximum number of each unit type your allowed to take. The FOC chart is split into two parts Compulsory and Optional. The priests and engineers are outside the FOC chart as their rules say, so they are neither counted towards the minimum or maximum. Thus can not be taken as the compulsory HQ.

That's the clearest explanation but people are thoroughly confused so I'll try it a few more ways in more detail.

Some people here are debating 'slot' verse 'selection' and I'm not sure why, as I pointed out the compulsory are part of the FOC chart, compulsory are the minimum. Priest and Engineers "do not use up any force organization chart selections"guard codex.
1) If they don't use FOC ->
2) and compulsory units are a subsection of the FOC, thus FOC ->
3) then priest and engineers DO NOT meet the minimum requirements of compulsory units.

Here's a third way to explain it cause there seems to be a lot of confusion on this and I don't know why; these rules in 5th are no different then the rules from the 4th edition codex.

In the 4th edition your HQ choices where Command Platoon, commissars, sanctioned psykers, and priests.
In 4th edition Commissars, Sanctioned Psykers, and Priests had the same description that they where HQ's but didn't take up any FOC slots; as our current 5th edition Priest and Techpriest Enginseer's say. Which means they didn't take up FOC then, so didn't count as compulsory HQ choices then either. In fourth edition with the same wording we have now, no one tried to fill their Compulsory HQ with anything other then their Command Platoon. So why people are trying to do that now with the same rules and type of units I'm not sure.

In 4th we were also limited to one Command Squad so, most of us only used up one of our 2 FOC slots, the only way we could use the second was with our 3 over priced special unique characters at the end of the book or with allied HQ's from Witch or Demon Hunters. So in 4th we had options but they weren't very good.

4th v 5th

4th
HQ FOC - Command Squad limit 1

HQ FOC - Lord Castellan Ursarkar Creed, Commissar Yarrick, Colonel Ibram Gaunt

HQ FOC - Allies HQ's

HQ NOT FOC/NOT Comp. - Commissars, Priests, Psykers


5th
HQ FOC - Company Command Squad

HQ FOC - Company Command Squad unique: Lord Castellan Creed, Colonel Iron Hand Straken, Nork Deddog

HQ FOC - Unique Commissar Yarrick

HQ FOC - Lord Commissar, Primaris Psyker

HQ NOT FOC/NOT Comp. - Ministorum Priest, Techpriest Enginseer

NOTE: Commissars are in 5th became troop upgrades, engineers got moved to HQ, pskyers were moved to elite, and priests remained the same.


As you can see Guard have always had units in both editions that have been listed as Pseudo HQ's, they are HQ's in game terms since that is where GW decide to place them. But they don't serve the role of HQ's and are essentially almost another unit type all together. They aren't on the FOC most likely to encourage people to use these units and not have to choose between them and something that takes up their limited slots in their army.

If you are using RAW off the IG codex, there is no way you can interpret that you can use Priest and Engineers for your compulsory HQ.
Yes, it says they are treated as HQ units, but that tells us which of the 5 unit types they are, the fact that they are not counted in FOC means they are out sided of the FOC and thus outside of compulsory units.

The only glimmer of hope to that argument I concede is the BT FAQ. However, trying to say that this one exception that is specifically written for this one particular character in another army overrides the rules in all other codexs and in this particular case the 4th and 5th edition Guard Codexes is a HUGE Stretch.

So until there is a FAQ that says you can straight up use the Priest and the Engineer as Compulsory HQ's you can't. I wouldn't hold my breath that this will be changed in the next FAQ since this rule was carried over from 4th and that would make it seem that GW is pretty happy with the way these characters work.

orangeknight,

I agree with you in principle (and Ghaz too), and if the BT FAQ ruling wasn't there I would be with you guys 100% about what the rulebook says (that's the section of the rules I would always quote too when these types of questions were asked).

The problem is, the BT FAQ ruling not only makes a ruling regarding the Emperor's Champion it also explains the reasoning behind making that ruling. And while that ruling does, at first glance appear to contradict the rules on this subject it is impossible to ignore because the reasoning is given.

Again, it says:

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.

So while we can try to make an assumption that this FAQ ruling is 'in error', what if it is not? Why must we make this assumption? Why can we not assume this is the way that GW would rule based on any question regarding this topic?

Let's look at what the rulebook says regarding these types of units (those that don't use up a force org selection):

"Quite a few Codex books include unit that, much like dedicated transports, are not part of the army's force organization chart. . .these units normally do not count towards the number of choices the player can make from the force organization chart. . ."


So again, if we assume that the BT ruling is correct, does it really contradict with what the rulebook says? I don't think so. The only thing the rulebook says is that these units do not count towards the number of choices the player can make. In other words, they do not count towards the maximum totals allowed.

Based on the BT ruling I would say that yes, these units do indeed count as the compulsory selection, they just do not count against the total number of units you can take from that force organization section.

So as others have said, taking one of these units, essentially just changes a dark box to a regular grey box on the force org chart.


Does this mean wacky things like summoned Daemons can be the compulsory Troops units in a CSM army? I do think that is the case until that BT ruling is stripped from the FAQ or they change the reasoning behind their ruling to make it specific only to the Emperor's Champion.

Except as already noted, it's not an HQ choice that's compulsory but an HQ Force Organization chart selection. Just being an HQ choice doesn't mean that he fills the compulsory Force Organization chart selection.

Gwar, Look at the beginning of the rules section in Ccsm. There is an added rule for "Summoned Demons" so the text concerning the two units is actually not the same.

This is actually leading me to believe that UNLESS it is stated in the book then the units can be taken as compulsory choices.

-Mispost-

On Page 89 under "Summoned Daemons" it says:

"This army can include a summoned greater daemon and summoned lesser daemons. They exist outside of the force organization chart, and are chosen in addition to your normal minimums and maximums, as outlined in the section at the back of the army list."

So, at least in the case of lesser daemons, they specifically state that they are outside the force org chart.

With that specific language, and the BT FAQ, can we assume that if it doesn't say its outside the chart, it can fulfill the minimum requirements?

Cruentus wrote:On Page 89 under "Summoned Daemons" it says:

"This army can include a summoned greater daemon and summoned lesser daemons. They exist outside of the force organization chart, and are chosen in addition to your normal minimums and maximums, as outlined in the section at the back of the army list."

So, at least in the case of lesser daemons, they specifically state that they are outside the force org chart.

With that specific language, and the BT FAQ, can we assume that if it doesn't say its outside the chart, it can fulfill the minimum requirements?

That may be, but the BT FAQ doesn't mean anything because firstly, the Imperial Guard does not use the Black Templar FAQ, and FAQs are just "house rules", not official Errata. As it is, for the reasons outlined by Ghaz, something that does not use up any FoC Selection cannot count as Mandatory Selections

GW FAQ are not official?

Clay Williams wrote:GW FAQ are not official?

If you read the page called "The Shrine of Knowlege" you will get your answer. But I shall be nice and repost the relevent part here:

The Errata have the same level of 'authority' as the main rules, as they effectively modify the published material. They are 'hard' material. It is a good idea to read them and be aware of their existence, but luckily there are very few of them for each book.

The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'.

Ergo, Errata is official "You can't mess with this so help us Jervis WILL come into your room while you sleep", while the FAQ's are "meh, play it if you want". However, GW have a VERY annoying habit of placing rule changes in their FAQ's, which allow TFGs (like me ) to whine about it.

But, I digress. Ghaz has actually made a air-tight case as to why they cannot fill the mandatory Selections and I am inclined to agree with him (and when that happens you know the Planets are aligned)

Well, no, actually, Ghaz hasn't made an "airtight" case. This one is going to require GW to speak up and even then we won't all agree. Some will be upset if they are allowed to do it and others will be upset if they aren't allowed to do it.
Simply put, if a unit outside the Force Organization selection chart can fulfill the mandatory requirement for one army, then it should work for any and all armies unless specifically disallowed.

No. A exception for ONE army is not an exception for all. It's your opinion that it would work for all armies, not a fact.

But it is a precedent that should be applied to all armies. Like I said, GW is going to have to step up and say one way or the other before we even come sclose to agreeing. Till then, we're just gonna have to agree to disagree.

No, it's not a precedent. It's a single FAQ that actually changes the rules. It's only your opinion that it's a precedent. Nothing in the FAQ says that it's a precedent nor does it say that it applies in any other circumstances.

Ghaz wrote:No. A exception for ONE army is not an exception for all. It's your opinion that it would work for all armies, not a fact.

Correct

don_mondo wrote:But it is a precedent that should be applied to all armies. Like I said, GW is going to have to step up and say one way or the other before we even come sclose to agreeing. Till then, we're just gonna have to agree to disagree.

Incorrect. Just because GW says "It works for this army" does NOT mean it works for another army. Each army is self contained. If you want to use the BT FAQ for your IG force, I want to use the Ork one for my Space Wolves etc etc etc. In case you didn't notice, the whole concept of "set" rules break down there and then and we might as well go back to playing AD&D.

I agree it's my opinion, just like what you're saying is your opinion. Like I also said, we're gonna have to agree to disagree until GW calls it one way or the other. Feel free to continue arguing...............

Yes - the FAQ is for one army.

No - The FAQ does not "change the rules" it clarifies rules that already exist.

Yes - We have to agree to disagree. You will run your tournaments how you see fit and we will run ours how we see fit, until such a day as there is a FAQ.

Clay Williams wrote:Yes - We have to agree to disagree. You will run your tournaments how you see fit and we will run ours how we see fit, until such a day as there is a FAQ.

I just want to point out that you can run the tournaments however you damn please whatever GW says.