Using a Priest or Enginseer as an IG Mandatory HQ?

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.

**don_mondo**

Gwar! wrote:
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.

Heck yeah, we're kicking around the idea of a no-MEQ allowed tourney........

**Clay Williams**

Hence the "you see fit" and "we see fit", but we can be redundent all day long, its the theme of most rules threads.

**Gwar!**

Well the point here is, RaW (That is, Specifically what is written in the Rulebook, Codex: Imperial Guard, errata to Codex: Imperial Guard [and because I am feeling generous] the FAQ to Codex: Imperial Guard and nothing else), the Priests and the Enginseers do not take up any FoC Selection and as such cannot comprise the Mandatory HQ Selection as required by Standard Missions because they do not take up any selection.

**Ozymandias**

Per RAW, Gwar and Ghaz are right. You can do whatever you want in your tournament but it doesn't affect what the rules say.

**Augustus**

Well that's what you think...

4 pages of debate says otherwise.

**Ozymandias**

The debate hinges on a ruling made in the Black Templars FAQ that changes the rules as written for one character in the Black Templars army. I haven't seen any convincing argument for needing to apply that same ruling to characters in the IG army, especially when the RAW is clear.

**Gwar!**

Augustus wrote:Well that's what you think...

4 pages of People making up rules says otherwise.

Fixed it for ya. This entire debate has been me, Ghaz and InquisitorFabius (but he isn't all that important really) stating what the ACTUAL rules are, and a whole bunch of people stating what they "think the rules are because that one time in band camp the Black Templar FAQ said this so it must obviously apply to my IG army too!"

**InquisitorFabius**

Hey, I said it was BS also!!!

If they do not take up a slot, how can they ever fill the slot. This is what has to be proven, and still has not been.

**odinsspear45**

orangeknight78 wrote: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.

PG 87 minirulebook: 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.

*Note here that a compulsory choice does not mean anything other then you must choose something from the HQ section of your rule book. It does not say the slot itself must be filled. On pg 86 last sentence under HQ "every army contains at least one head quarters unit to command it" it does not say one HQ force org selection must be "used up"..

IG codex Pg 93 Priests do not use up any force organization chart selections, but are otherwise treated as separate HQ units. Same for tech priests.

* this allows for a wide diversity of HQ selections for a character full army I do not think it was intended to limit selections but that is of course MHO

WH codex pg 27 these do not count as one of your HQ choices and may be taken in addition to you usual allocation of HQ units in a mission. Goes on to further limit. Also not an IC can not exist by himself at all.

* This is written to limit their use and make sure they can only be used for very specific purposes.

These are two different monsters yet further lead credence to the argument for the IG priest and techpriest being viable as "Compulsory" HQ choices, even though they don't actually "fill" the HQ slelection. It simply means you can continue purchasing more HQ to fill it up if you wish/have the points.

GW did not keep the concise wording that prevented priests from leading IG armies infact they made them IC's to boot. so I believe based upon the fact you are compelled to make an HQ Force Org Selection you can make that selection as a techpriest even though it doesn't "use it up". I do not find this a stretch at all. I believe it can be FAQ'ed either way, just like CSM/BT etc have been done but i do not see a problem with something being an HQ selection but not "using it up" somehow making it not count at all. i think the tail end of that sentence " but are otherwise treated as separate HQ units". Is the qualifier that clarifies the point .

**Ghaz**

And once again, you're changing the wording to suit your purposes. It's Force Organization chart selections that are compulsory, not choices.

**odinsspear45**

And i am telling you that a techpriest is an HQ force Organization chart selection as evidenced in how you purchase him. however he includes a special rule that allows him to not "use up" any force organization chart selection, but are otherwise treated as seperate HQ units.

How are you saying it is not an HQ(this signatory alone defines its position) unit. You buy it as an HQ force org chart selections and then like magic the special rules mean it doesn't "use up" the slot allowing you to buy more stuff.

I am not changing wording i am trying to comprehend how you are nullifying something with your will and no rules to back it up. Why does the fact the techpriest negates the "using up" of any force org negates the fact it is an HQ force org chart selection?

It does NOT say it IS NOT it simply states it does not "USE UP" it goes on to clarify it is otherwise treated as a seperate HQ unit.

do you even see the position that is being asserted? I can at least understand where the confusion comes from the WH dex stipulates the exact opposite... thus we would never argue that.. this new dex leaves a lot of flexability open. i personally think this was intended and is valid.

**Ghaz**

Yes, you are trying to change the wording. You're trying to claim that 'use up' is different than 'use'. They mean the exact same thing. Thesaurus.com even lists 'use' as the only synonym of 'use up'. Just because you say that they're different doesn't make it so.

Secondly, every single box on the Force Organization chart is a 'Force Organization chart selection'. It's not a 'slot' or a 'choice', it's a 'Force Organization chart selection' and a Techpriest Enginseer never uses or uses up a selection on the Force Organization chart.

**InquisitorFabius**

So, by your own statement the Techpriest does not take up an HQ selection, so how can he ever fill one?

**odinsspear45**

InquisitorFabius wrote:So, by your own statement the Techpriest does not take up an HQ selection, so how can he ever fill one?

My assertions is he IS a HQ force Org Chart Selection with a special rule that allows him to NOT "use it up" I.E. an HQ selection that is a "freebie" most selections "use up" a slot limiting your ability to take those types of units. This and the priest however do not "use up" the slot they come from.

Anyway.. We will see it FAQ'ed at some point.

He does take a selection from the HQ Force Org part of the codex. lets not be silly. I understand your point why pretend to not see ours?

No your twisting wording you have to keep it in context. trying to assert that Techpriest and priests are not even hq selections now? seriously you that wigged out by this? useing a slot is what it does using it up would be making it unsuable. keep it in context. It IS an HQ Force Org chart Selection that simply "does not use up any selections"

Your position is that because it "does not use up any force org chart selections" it does not count towards the compulsory Hq Force org chart selection.

Where we differ is that disagreement. I assert just because it does not "use up" a force org chart selection does not mean that it is not a "Force org chart selection".

BT Emp champ is an example of this.
Previous codexes i.e. WH priest specifically state it does not count which is why i referenced it. you see i am not affraid to look at it objectively i just believe those sentences ruling it out would have been left there if they were intended to be there.

As it stand the language is permissive not dismissive in my opinion.

So it seems we need to agree to disagree I will not bother restating wording and I am tired of being accused of manipulating wording. I qouted specific text and referenced the reasons/rules I believe it should be the way I think it should be.

Until someone comes up with something new i eagerly await a FAQ

**Ghaz**

And again, you're trying to twist it to have it both ways. The rules say that he does not use up a Force Organization chart selection, period. 'Use' and 'use it up' mean the exact same thing. They do not use up a Force Organization chart selection of any type, but other than that they count as an HQ choice. However it is that Force Organization chart selection that's compulsory. Not an HQ 'choice', but a FORCE ORGANIZATION CHART SELECTION

So far you've totally failed to explain why a model that does not use a Force Organization chart selection can be used for your compulsory Force Organization chart selection except by trying to make up some imaginary difference between 'use' and 'use up'. He does not 'use' or 'use up' a Force Organization Chart selection at all or in any part. There is no such thing as half a Force Organization chart selection. The rules do not agree with you in the least. He either uses or uses up the whole selection or he uses or uses up none of it. There is NO halfway point.

**nosferatu1001**

If you do not "use it up" then you have not "used" a force org selection and there is then nothing to fill that dark box.

No dark box fillup == no compulsory selection.

We can all see it your way, it's jsut your way is just plain wrong - no amount of hanging onto the BT FAQ will help you.

**odinsspear45**

Ghaz wrote:And again, you're trying to twist it to have it both ways. The rules say that he does not use up a Force Organization chart selection, period. 'Use' and 'use it up' mean the exact same thing. They do not use up a Force Organization chart selection of any type, but other than that they count as an HQ choice. However it is that Force Organization chart selection that's compulsory. Not an HQ 'choice', but a FORCE ORGANIZATION CHART SELECTION

So far you've totally failed to explain why a model that does not use a Force Organization chart selection can be used for your compulsory Force Organization chart selection except by trying to make up some imaginary difference between 'use' and 'use up'. He does not 'use' or 'use up' a Force Organization Chart selection at all or in any part. There is no such thing as half a Force Organization chart selection. The rules do not agree with you in the least. He either uses or uses up the whole selection or he uses or uses up none of it. There is NO halfway point.

I am not twisting anything.
You know I just realized something. This is pointless. You guys have gone as far as referencing previous edition rules to place language to defend your position. when i do the same pointing on WH codex explicitly states contrary to my position whereas current language does not. You ignore it you claim use and use up mean the same thing? Thats idiotic. My assertion is the techpriest and priest do "use" a HQ force org chart selection as they are an HQ choice in that force org position.. however they do not "use it up" therefore making it unavailable.

I am being baited here.. If you can't see the obfuscation in language that is causing this thats fine. But pulling dictionary.com to try and define something you are taking out of context is just silly.

If I followed your logic I would have to completely ignore the last sentence and the actual location of the rules and entries themselves.

Where in the world do you explain "fill up"

PG 87 minirulebook: 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.

I interpret this to say I have to make a selection from the hq force org chart selection area. Not that I am required "to fill up" anything.

Your adding language not I.

G'nite guys maybe in a year or two this will be resolved via FAQ.. but i see it as an oppurtunity to explain adeptus mechanus and Zealot armies that are both fluffy and interesting.

**Gwar!**

odinsspear45 wrote:G'nite guys maybe in a year or two this will be resolved via FAQ.. but i see it as an oppurtunity to explain adeptus mechanus and Zealot armies that are both fluffy and interesting.

So you are proved wrong and then reduse to argue any more? At least have the decency to admit you are wrong rather than storming off.

**yakface**

Ozymandias wrote:The debate hinges on a ruling made in the Black Templars FAQ that changes the rules as written for one character in the Black Templars army. I haven't seen any convincing argument for needing to apply that same ruling to characters in the IG army, especially when the RAW is clear.

The ruling on the Emperor's Champion doesn't change the rules. It explains, with reasoning, why the author of the FAQ answer believes his answer is correct while following the rules, and that is the problem here.

If this were just a case of the BT FAQ saying: The Emperor's Champion counts as the mandatory HQ choice then we could just write it off as a rules change, but there is a logic presented along with the ruling that explains that the Emperor's Champion still counts as the mandatory choice because: "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 you can assume that the author was just plain wrong, or the ruling was made against the wording in the previous edition, etc, but the fact remains that the logic given is presented as following the rules.

So if this same question were to be asked about any HQ or Troops unit that doesn't count as a force org selection, why would we expect the logic to suddenly change? You can't. That same logic can be used to answer any similar question in any codex. Yes, this ruling is for the Emperor's Champion only, but the logic presented is either correct or it is not.

As long as this FAQ answer is on the books as it is currently written how can you assume that the logic presented in that ruling is incorrect?

You can throw up as many different cases of dictionary definitions or anything else but in the end it boils down to:

Either the logic behind the BT ruling is faulty and therefore we must ignore the ruling, or we accept that the logic is sound and therefore the same logic must be applied to any similar question.

**Gwar!**

yakface wrote:You can throw up as many different cases of dictionary definitions or anything else but in the end it boils down to:

Either the logic behind the BT ruling is faulty and therefore we must ignore the ruling, or we accept that the logic is sound and therefore the same logic must be applied to any similar question.

I disagree, what the case is we accept that the logic is sound for the BT Codex ONLY. The BT FAQ shows that, by Default, HQ's that do not take up a Selection cannot count as the Mandatory Selections. In the Case of the Emperors Champion, they have changed it so it can. This does not affect any other codex.

**yakface**

Gwar! wrote:
yakface wrote:You can throw up as many different cases of dictionary definitions or anything else but in the end it boils down to:

Either the logic behind the BT ruling is faulty and therefore we must ignore the ruling, or we accept that the logic is sound and therefore the same logic must be applied to any similar question.
I disagree, what the case is we accept that the logic is sound for the BT Codex ONLY. The BT FAQ shows that, by Default, HQ's that do not take up a Selection cannot count as the Mandatory Selections. In the Case of the Emperors Champion, they have changed it so it can. This does not affect any other codex.

No, read the ruling again please. It does not say that they have changed the rule. It says that the EC can be taken as the mandatory choice BECAUSE "he is still an HQ choice, and so he can fulfill the minimum HQ requirement."

An Enginseer, for example, is also an HQ choice who, just like the EC, does not use up a force organization chart selection.

So either the logic for the BT ruling is faulty and the ruling must therefore be ignored or the logic is sound and must be applied to similar questions.

**Gwar!**

yakface wrote:
Gwar! wrote:
yakface wrote:You can throw up as many different cases of dictionary definitions or anything else but in the end it boils down to:

Either the logic behind the BT ruling is faulty and therefore we must ignore the ruling, or we accept that the logic is sound and therefore the same logic must be applied to any similar question.
I disagree, what the case is we accept that the logic is sound for the BT Codex ONLY. The BT FAQ shows that, by Default, HQ's that do not take up a Selection cannot count as the Mandatory Selections. In the Case of the Emperors Champion, they have changed it so it can. This does not affect any other codex.

No, read the ruling again please. It does not say that they have changed the rule. It says that the EC can be taken as the mandatory choice BECAUSE "he is still an HQ choice, and so he can fulfill the minimum HQ requirement."

An Enginseer, for example, is also an HQ choice who, just like the EC, does not use up a force organization chart selection.

So either the logic for the BT ruling is faulty and the ruling must therefore be ignored or the logic is sound and must be applied to similar questions.

Again, the logic is sound for the Black Templar Army only. If we start applying Other armies FAQ's to Other armies it just opens up a huge can of worms.

**yakface**

Gwar! wrote:
Again, the logic is sound for the Black Templar Army only. If we start applying Other armies FAQ's to Other armies it just opens up a huge can of worms.

If the logic behind that ruling is sound, then it is sound for the IG Enginseer question. I'm not trying to say the ruling from the BT FAQ applies to other situations, we're talking about the logic that the FAQ writer put into the answer to explain why his answer was following the rules.

Either the logic is sound or it isn't. It doesn't matter what FAQ it is in because we're not talking about the ruling we're talking about the logic given for the ruling.

If you can explain how this logic is sound in regards to the EC:

"he is still an HQ choice, and so he can fulfill the minimum HQ requirement."

But isn't sound for the Enginseer then I would love to hear it.

**Gwar!**

yakface wrote:
Gwar! wrote:
Again, the logic is sound for the Black Templar Army only. If we start applying Other armies FAQ's to Other armies it just opens up a huge can of worms.

If the logic behind that ruling is sound, then it is sound for the IG Enginseer question. I'm not trying to say the ruling from the BT FAQ applies to other situations, we're talking about the logic that the FAQ writer put into the answer to explain why his answer was following the rules.

Either the logic is sound or it isn't. It doesn't matter what FAQ it is in because we're not talking about the ruling we're talking about the logic given for the ruling.

If you can explain how this logic is sound in regards to the EC:

"he is still an HQ choice, and so he can fulfill the minimum HQ requirement."

But isn't sound for the Enginseer then I would love to hear it.

Because nowhere in the IG FAQ does it say "he is still an HQ choice, and so he can fulfil the minimum HQ requirement", and the fact that they had to explicitly state so for the Emperors Champion (and nothing else) leads me to the conclusion that by default things that do not take up an HQ Selection cannot fulfil the minimum HQ Selection.

**Scott-S6**

I think yakface has hit it on the head with this one.

The logic given in the BT faq wasn't "we're making a special exception for the BT players because they have to take the emperor's champion". Rather, they clarify that the rules say he can be used as a compulsary selection.

**yakface**

Gwar! wrote:Because nowhere in the IG FAQ does it say "he is still an HQ choice, and so he can fulfil the minimum HQ requirement", and the fact that they had to explicitly state so for the Emperors Champion (and nothing else) leads me to the conclusion that by default things that do not take up an HQ Selection cannot fulfil the minimum HQ Selection.

You completely side-stepped the question.

Again, the FAQ writer gave a reason as to why, within the rules, the Emperor's Champion still counts as a mandatory choice. Is the logic presented in the BT FAQ behind the Emperor's Champion ruling sound or not?

**TheGreatAvatar**

And as the community as a whole has stated time and again, what happens in a codex stays in the codex. The logic behind the rule (codex or FAQ) doesn't matter in interpreting rules from other codices or FAQs. The fact the EC is permitted to be a compulsory HQ selection doesn't imply the Techpriest in the IG codex can.

As argued for several pages, neither Minisorum Priest or Techpriest take up an HQ selection thus cannot fill ANY FO selection slot. This is the rule as written.

Now, if someone wants to provide an addendum (via FAQ for instance) and is looking for a logical reason to permit it, referencing other codices for precedence is acceptable. However, trying to lift a rule in one codex to justify a rule interpretation in another codex isn't.

**yakface**

TheGreatAvatar wrote:And as the community as a whole has stated time and again, what happens in a codex stays in the codex. The logic behind the rule (codex or FAQ) doesn't matter in interpreting rules from other codices or FAQs. The fact the EC is permitted to be a compulsory HQ selection doesn't imply the Techpriest in the IG codex can.

As argued for several pages, neither Minisorum Priest or Techpriest take up an HQ selection thus cannot fill ANY FO selection slot. This is the rule as written.

Now, if someone wants to provide an addendum (via FAQ for instance) and is looking for a logical reason to permit it, referencing other codices for precedence is acceptable. However, trying to lift a rule in one codex to justify a rule interpretation in another codex isn't.

And the Emperor's Champion is also an HQ selection that cannot fill any FO selection slot. The ruling says he still qualifies as the compulsory choice because he is still an HQ choice. It does not say they are over-riding the rules and allowing it.

So the question remains (which people want to keep dodging), is the logic behind that ruling sound or not?

**Gwar!**

yakface wrote:So the question remains (which people want to keep dodging), is the logic behind that ruling sound or not?

In my Opinion, no, it is not (much in the same way the "FAQ" about the Deff Dreads attacks is not sound). In my opinion it should have been placed as an Errata specific to the EC. The reason why it was "clarified" at all is because the EC is a Compulsory choise for the BT army. Priests and Enginseers are not.

**Clay Williams**

That is not the reason is was clarified, you pulled that one out of thin air.

The FAQ says nothing about being an HQ because you have to take a EC anyway.

This is why rules debates get messed up, because people make statements that have no bearing on the facts.

I know you really enjoy arguing your point, but please do so with facts.

Also the stance you have on FAQs not being a usable document because of a disclaimer that GW published in order to avoid being bashed even more about rules problems does not hold water. The FAQs are what are used when people who have never met what to play by the same set of rules. Thats why they are used at GTs, thats why they put them on the web for you to use.