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.

nosferatu1001 wrote: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.

But filling the box is not required. What is required is for you to make a selection.

Just because you're still able to make two more selections after selecting the engineseer does not mean that you haven't made a selection.

ph34r - and back to standard for you, I see.

Have you made 1 selection there? No, because that selection has not been used up. You can only make 2 HQ selections according to the FOC, therefore any choice whcih does not use up a selection must count as a "0" selection.

How about you respond with some rules for a change? You've finally conceded FAQs represent no form of precedence or indeed are eevn true "FAQs", as they change rules.

You must select a unit to include it in your army.

Taking the enginseer is a selection.

However it cannot fulfill the compulsory selection of 1 HQ, as it does not use up any selections - meaning it appears outside of the diagram

It would have been way more clear if GW had stated in the BT FAQ that this is an exception or if just clarifies the rule. Then we would know if precedence should apply.

Homer

This would assume GW knows when theyre changing the rules or not. SoS suggests they dont

nosferatu1001 wrote:However it cannot fulfill the compulsory selection of 1 HQ, as it does not use up any selections - meaning it appears outside of the diagram

What other units in the game appear outside the diagram?

Lesser daemons, et al

nosreratu2001 wrote:Lesser daemons, et al

Which have a special rule that excludes them from fulfilling the bminimum requirement.

Whether this is merely explanatory or a rules change is unclear, but the BT fact suggests the latter.

nosferatu1001 wrote:ph34r - and back to standard for you, I see.

Have you made 1 selection there? No, because that selection has not been used up. You can only make 2 HQ selections according to the FOC, therefore any choice whcih does not use up a selection must count as a "0" selection.

How about you respond with some rules for a change? You've finally conceded FAQs represent no form of precedence or indeed are eevn true "FAQs", as they change rules.

Can you not see the irony here?

Once again, your post contains ZERO RULES VALUE. My posts on the other hand, contain rules quotes and clear reasoning.

If you concede the argument, just say that you are wrong. Really buddy, it's that easy. Go on, go scurry along and find a quote in the book that say you have to "use up" a selection for it to count as mandatory. I dare you.

Here, I'll even make it really easy for you. Here are all the relevant rules. Just point out where I'm wrong! It's that easy.

ph34r wrote:

Codex IG: FOC 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

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

A light box indicates that you may make a choice.

A dark box indicates that you must make a choice.
Priests do not use up selections, when you choose them.

Choosing a priest is a choice, and does not use up a selection.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Lesser daemons, et al

I thought every unit in the game falls under the Force Orginisation Chart on page 87 of the BRB. A unit is a HQ, Troops, Elite, Fast Attack, or Heavy Support.

They do, however they may not use a selection from the FoC (per the current conversation) or have rules like Dedicated Transports do (match the FoC slot of the unit taking them, but do not count).
This argument is pretty circular and is once again something complicated by GW's horrid editing and rules consistency and then ambiguity when clarifying said rules. Personally, I don't think its intended for a lone Enginseer or Priest to be the compulsory HQ choice to satisfy the FoC chart, and that the clarification for the EC was contained to just him. But I don't necessarily think you can glean enough from the rules to make a call either way. FAQ's are, in fact, intended to be contained to just the Codex the question is in regards to. You can try to apply your "logic" all you want, but the reality is that logic doesn't dictate the rules, the rules do.

Would you not agree that the act of choosing an HQ unit must be a selection, regardless of whatever special rule that unit has with regards to not using up slots?

ph34r - and there goes any interest I have in "interacting" with you. Really, do you ever proof read your posts?

BTW I have included rules quotes and reasonable interpretations. YOu dont agree with them - which isn't my problem, really.

Go, "scurry along" and feel smug, I'm, out. Life's too short

nosferatu1001 wrote:ph34r - and there goes any interest I have in "interacting" with you. Really, do you ever proof read your posts?

BTW I have included rules quotes and reasonable interpretations. YOu dont agree with them - which isn't my problem, really.

Go, "scurry along" and feel smug, I'm, out. Life's too short

Clearly I could not see your rules quotes. I cannot find any in your last several posts.

How about you just repost them? I mean, I will gladly shut up if you point me to the rule that says you must "fill boxes" or whatever it is you believe.

Wow, you really dont get this do you.

Look prior to that. I quoted the rules, then my interpretations. I'll go slower if you like.

You dont agree with those interpretations, and feel the need to insult people posting. I guess you feel like you're "winning" this, eh?

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

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.

You mean this quote?

I see your post, please point me towards the rule that says that you must "use up" a FOC selection for it to count as making a choice.

And in response to your indignant response to my saying you were not providing rules quotes, I had to go back 1.5 pages to find your rules quote.

ph34r wrote:Would you not agree that the act of choosing an HQ unit must be a selection, regardless of whatever special rule that unit has with regards to not using up slots?

I cannot, purely because of the ambiguous language they use in their rules. It is unclear if they intend for selection to mean the same thing when they use it as a verb as when they use it as a noun. They use it in both ways, and it makes it incredibly hard to understand the clear meaning of their rules. Again, in English they should be the same; logically the should be the same. But in a rules set, you can't make that call when they also use terms like "HQ Slot" and "HQ Choice" to refer to the same things. In a perfect world, you would also "Choose an HQ Selection" or "Select an HQ Choice" and that wording was used in EVERY scenario so that all ambiguity on intent was removed. That way, when they told you that you "Must select an HQ Choice", and then said something "Can be selected as an HQ Choice, but does not take up a Force Organization Slot" is would be 100% clear that it is, in fact, still Selected as an HQ choice to satisfy the first rule, as they read identically.
I just wish that Games Workshop was a Game company that made good miniatures instead of a Miniatures company that makes horribly unclear game rules.

I agree that GW ruling is definitely not water-tight overall, but I still believe that the act of choosing a unit qualifies the requirement to "make one choice".

"You Make Da Call: Can Priests and Techpriest Enginseers satisfy a slot in the exact same way? "
The answer appears to be yes.
The Force Orginisation Chart shows that you must have a Headquarters.
The Priest and Techpriest Enginseers are listed under Heaquarters in the IG Codex.
"Priests do not use up any Force Organization chart selections" This does not mean that a priest can not occupy a slot.
Note in the Witch Hunters Codex that while a Priest is a Headquarters Unit it does not count as a HQ choice.
The IG Codex could have had the same restriction as the Witch Hunters but it does not.

The only issue I have with Witchhunter priests, is that the entry specifically says that they "do not count as one of your HQ choices". Since 3rd edition they have changed their ruling to "do not use up any Force Organization chart selections", perhaps to help clarify that they can in fact fulfill mandatory requirements.

The WH priests ruling is a bit more ambiguous than the IG priests.

ph34r wrote:I agree that GW ruling is definitely not water-tight overall, but I still believe that the act of choosing a unit qualifies the requirement to "make one choice".

Right, I understand that point of view. The issue is that the unit you chose has a rule that says its doesn't count as a Force Organization selection... which leads to the question of "How far does this rule go?". There is a valid point of view that something that doesn't count as a Force Organization selection could not possibly satisfy a Force Organization restriction, by the very nature of it not counting. So then your point of view arises "Well, I chose it, so it counts a a "Choice", right?" but not if "HQ Choice" has a specific meaning attached to it in the rules. If it does, then the rule tells you to not count it, as it is not counted as a Force Organization selection.

This is why I dubbed the argument circular, because no matter where you start it, due to the ambiguous rules and the very much logical point of view of both sides of the argument, you cannot come to a specific conclusion and will always fall back to an interpretation of either the rule, the language of the rule or the intent of the rule which are all subjective.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ph34r wrote:The only issue I have with Witchhunter priests, is that the entry specifically says that they "do not count as one of your HQ choices". Since 3rd edition they have changed their ruling to "do not use up any Force Organization chart selections", perhaps to help clarify that they can in fact fulfill mandatory requirements.

Ironically, changing it to that language does not clarify it nearly as well as "This unit still satisfies your mandatory HQ Selection." being added to the rule.

Indeed, GW is not the best at clarifying its rules.

I honestly feel like their policy is to not acknowledge the fact that people are confused by or have issue with their vague rulings, and thus do not write explicit enough rulings.

Having no iron in this fire whatsoever beyond my eventually choosing to play, and I imagine play against, Grey Knights when they are re-released, I would have to side with ph34r.

Although GW FAQs have certainly shown some events of disagreement (OotF, Autarch, Tyrant reserve rolls), there's no difference in the wording between BT EC or IG [Tech]Priest. I think that the argument that a USR or general rules clarification in one codex not applying to the same wording in another codex (and Void Raven bomb dropping versus PotMS smoked Land Raiders isn't the same in my mind) is a weak argument.

However, to take this to its next logical step, i.e. whether Coteaz allows a player to have a limitless number of henchmen that counts as troops but do not occupy any troops slots--while this does appear to be legal--unlike limitless priests or tech priests, I do not think it is in the intent of the rules.

In that light, it's my hope that GW either fixes this problem pre-release or FAQ/erratas it quickly afterwards. While 6 tech priests in an army list is not in the least bit overpowered or unreasonable, I don't think the same can be said for minimal henches spamming dedicated transports.

Now keep in mind, even if my interpretation is correct, there's still big problems with the wording of hench squads and Coteaz; even with "just" 6 troops selections Coteaz and a 100 point buddy can walk onto the table with 72 lascannon toting orangutans. That is still a problem, and far larger one than a transport wall.

I can't comment on other armies, but, as has been mentioned, priest take up no FOC slots.

None. Zero. They don't count on the FOC. They are completely independent.

The clarification after that was unecessary, but probably to aid people with special missions that revolve around killing HQ units or something. They could have written it that priest counted as "heavy support" choices, or "fast attack" choices, or "fleem" choices, but regardless, as they're not part of the FOC, they don't follow FOC rules. Rules, for example, such as mandatory FOC selections.

Right. Just like the Emperor's Champio--oh wait.

Right, but until the GUARD codex gets FAQ'd differently then we've got to use the rulings as written for units in said codex.

BT have to take an EC in the army.
To make up for that they still get 2 normal HQ choices if they want as 1 has been chosen for them.
So its not the same thing as the rest as 1 must be taken no matter what.

I see your post, please point me towards the rule that says that you must "use up" a FOC selection for it to count as making a choice.

Does this even need a reply?
If a rule states that a unit does not use up a choice, then you can take as many as you like provided they are not 0-1 (0-2 etc)
However, they are not using up a choice, therefor not filling part of the chart.
And yes, if you read any dex in the army structure page it says you must fill the minimum required choices.

I think the biggest problem is people applying thier own words to the way they read the rules then posting that as RAW.

fill != selection

@sourclams - Oh god 5 man units of Jokaro's in chimeras!

Ailaros wrote:I can't comment on other armies, but, as has been mentioned, priest take up no FOC slots.

None. Zero. They don't count on the FOC. They are completely independent.

Actually, they count as "HQ units". They are also listed in the HQ section. They count as HQ on the FOC, while not using up any FOC selections. It is important to recognize the distinction between counting as a selection, and using up a selection. For most units, both occur. For a unit that specifically states that it does not use up a selection, it only counts as making a selection/choice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sourclams wrote:Having no iron in this fire whatsoever beyond my eventually choosing to play, and I imagine play against, Grey Knights when they are re-released, I would have to side with ph34r.

Although GW FAQs have certainly shown some events of disagreement (OotF, Autarch, Tyrant reserve rolls), there's no difference in the wording between BT EC or IG [Tech]Priest. I think that the argument that a USR or general rules clarification in one codex not applying to the same wording in another codex (and Void Raven bomb dropping versus PotMS smoked Land Raiders isn't the same in my mind) is a weak argument.

However, to take this to its next logical step, i.e. whether Coteaz allows a player to have a limitless number of henchmen that counts as troops but do not occupy any troops slots--while this does appear to be legal--unlike limitless priests or tech priests, I do not think it is in the intent of the rules.

In that light, it's my hope that GW either fixes this problem pre-release or FAQ/erratas it quickly afterwards. While 6 tech priests in an army list is not in the least bit overpowered or unreasonable, I don't think the same can be said for minimal henches spamming dedicated transports.

Now keep in mind, even if my interpretation is correct, there's still big problems with the wording of hench squads and Coteaz; even with "just" 6 troops selections Coteaz and a 100 point buddy can walk onto the table with 72 lascannon toting orangutans. That is still a problem, and far larger one than a transport wall.

The problem is squads of 12 jokearo is pretty fundamental to the way the henchmen unit is set up. Unless they slap a 0-3 restriction on it, it's gonna be a problem. The million 3 man razorback units is the big problem we run into with the "infinite or 6 only?" question. I for one believe infinite units to be the correct interpretation, but recognize how awful this would be for game balance. I hope the rules change.

And for what it's worth, 35 point t3 5+ save lascannons aren't terribly fear inspiring, get any unit at all into cc with them and they're toast. A naked guard squad could take them out. Sure, their alpha strike will strike fear into the heart of any army, but deploying in reserve or by deep strike takes a lot of power away.