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.

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

And the other point is that the techpriest and priest are arguably the worst guard HQ choices so its hard to argue that people are doing this for a competitive edge. I can see this now "You only have a techpriest? Wow what a fluff gamer. I demand you take a command squad so that I can have more of a challenge!"

Volkov wrote:

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

And the other point is that the techpriest and priest are arguably the worst guard HQ choices so its hard to argue that people are doing this for a competitive edge. I can see this now "You only have a techpriest? Wow what a fluff gamer. I demand you take a command squad so that I can have more of a challenge!"

Well, the argument against that is that the IG player is only taking the non-slot HQs so he can stack in a pair of Inqisitor Lords, one DH, one WH. Course, they make very good stand-ins (ruleswise) for senior techpriests........... And it would mean the Guard had no acces to Orders, no rerolls for a Company standard, so on and so forth.

Way back when the DH codex came out, I included an Elite Inq in my Iron Hands army for the Baltimore GT. Used one of the Skullz program AdMech figures, wrote the fluff up as him being an attached AdMech Techpriest. Oddly enough, everyone thought it was a pretty good idea.

Well, the argument against that is that the IG player is only taking the non-slot HQs so he can stack in a pair of Inqisitor Lords, one DH, one WH. Course, they make very good stand-ins (ruleswise) for senior techpriests........... And it would mean the Guard had no acces to Orders, no rerolls for a Company standard, so on and so forth.

Way back when the DH codex came out, I included an Elite Inq in my Iron Hands army for theBaltimore GT. Used one of the Skullz program AdMech figures, wrote the fluff up as him being an attached AdMech Techpriest. Oddly enough, everyone thought it was a pretty good idea.

I have a full DH retinue and my friend has a full WH retinue and we have played games together as allies, and they are quirky but not that great really. You could get two land raiders I suppose but you are paying at a minimum 620 points for them and its not exactly like a super unit is going to pop out of them and ravage the enemy in close combat. You can't even run Straken since he is an HQ choice. So that really only leaves a land raider filled with priests!

Kommissar Kel wrote: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.

Enginseer - "do not use up any force org chart selections but are otherwise treated as seperate HQ units"
Emperor's Champion - "does not use up an HQ slot".

I don't see your point. The "otherwise treated as" statement is implicit in the EC's rule otherwise the rule would be pointless.

the effect would be on mech'd up armies where orders are not as valuable or useful. A techpriest as hq could open up more options in an army list.

Scott-S6 wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote: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.

Enginseer - "do not use up any force org chart selections but are otherwise treated as seperate HQ units"
Emperor's Champion - "does not use up an HQ slot".

I don't see your point. The "otherwise treated as" statement is implicit in the EC's rule otherwise the rule would be pointless.

Not that it matters anymore(any real discussion has long ago left this thread)

The Emporer's Champion IS an HQ choice; but has a special rule that makes it never count against the FOC.

The Enginseer/Priest is otherwise treated as an HQ, but is not taken as any FOC choice.

unless your playing 40k with inat. specifically allows it as a clarification.

** read the Inat**

is now wondering why Gwar denied it to begin with.

Still, I was defending my position sans FAQ; I now relent as it is clearly FAQ'd(though not "officially"), and I do trust the writers of the INAT (being one of them is yakface I believe)

Kommissar Kel wrote:** read the Inat**

is now wondering why Gwar denied it to begin with.

For what it's worth, the INAT is not an official FAQ. It is only relevant to rules debates when you're playing in a game or venue where it' use has been agreed to or stipulated.

However well the INAT crew know the rules of 40K, their rulings are just their own opinions (sometimes influenced by reserch on how people generally play) and are no more binding than the opinion of anyone else on this forum.


Not denigrating the INAT in any way... just trying to keep things in perspective.

Kommissar Kel wrote:** read the Inat**

is now wondering why Gwar denied it to begin with.

Because the INAT, while good in some areas, is mostly full of Rule Changes labelled as clarifications.