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.

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

Hence the FAQ change to the rules to allow it.

The FAQ has been discarded from this debate due to contention on its relevance.

The point up for debate right now is whether or not "choice" or "selection" are actually defined by GW. If they are, then as to include a Priest in your army you must select it, it qualifies as a "selection".

If we throw out the "Priest counts as selection" argument due to inability to actually decide on what "selection" or "choice" means, then unfortunately the entire FOC system breaks down as we rely on the definition of "selection" and "choice" to choose units at all.

Yeah, pretty much.

ph34r wrote: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.

FAQs frequently are rules changes: IE, all the dedicated transport stuff being different for Nids.

My faith of GW to write consistent FAQs and my use of them to aid in argument was abandoned a couple pages back. However, in this circumstance I still maintain the assertion that as the FAQ does not simply state "yes" or "no", but rather reference the way the fundamental FOC rules work, it is relevant.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

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

Hence the FAQ change to the rules to allow it.

Are you sure it was a rule change? It looks like a clarification. The rule works in same way with or without the faq.

sourclams wrote: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.

While it may appear that I was making a connection between those two rulings, I was not. If you read my post carefully, as well as the posts before it, you'll see that I'm address the idea that an FAQ is never a change in the rules.

But that's not what we're talking about anymore.

ph34r, I thank you for providing an argument that does not utilize the FAQ. I'm not saying I agree with it, or that I agree with your point as a whole, but it certainly allowed a chance to look at the actual rule in question.

I still believe that something that does not take a selection can not take a selection, that "treated as HQ" does not equal "HQ", and that there is in fact a difference in the wording of EC and the Priest (but we're not talking about BT anymore). However, I can't provide any more of an argument than I already have, as well as (some) of what nos has said, and I fear my stubbornness will lead to a circular argument between the two of us. When I think of more to say, I will.

castellan wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

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

Hence the FAQ change to the rules to allow it.

Are you sure it was a rule change? It looks like a clarification. The rule works in same way with or without the faq.

You are correct that the FAQ is not a rules change. However for the purposes of this argument, it is best to leave the FAQ out, as it is too easy for someone to say "your argument is based on a FAQ and therefore is invalid", whether or not they have a legitimate claim.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

somerandomdude wrote:I still believe that something that does not take a selection can not take a selection, that "treated as HQ" does not equal "HQ", and that there is in fact a difference in the wording of EC and the Priest (but we're not talking about BT anymore). However, I can't provide any more of an argument than I already have, as well as (some) of what nos has said, and I fear my stubbornness will lead to a circular argument between the two of us. When I think of more to say, I will.

I'd just like to clarify that the FOC requirement is not to "take a selection" but rather, "make one choice" or "make one selection". The status of the FOC chart selection of being depleted does not matter to the statement "have you chosen a HQ unit?".

ph34r wrote: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.

Just take squads of 5 in chimeras for 230pts a pop. Automatically gives you 2 rolls on their weapon aug chart. Assuming that nothing changes and no faq, for 'ard boyz you could take 10 such squads, coteaz and have 100 points left over.

That's 50 mini-me oblits with a solid potential for 5 heavy flamers with rending or range 60" lascannons or 36" melta. No need to even mention the 10 chimeras.

Drop pods, reserves or not, that's not going to be pleasant in the slightest.

I agree that when you combine dedicated transports with infinite unit choices the potential for abuse skyrockets.

I'm gonna go with ph34r on this one.

1) The FAQ on the BT explains the EC rule in regards to HQ, a rule which is worded almost exactly like the IG choices. I think that, unless an IG FAQ directly comes out and says otherwise, the identical IG rule should follow the same line of thought.

2) Having Ministorum Preists and Techpriests as your sole HQ in an army is freaking cool!

I can't believe I read four pages of rules debate all because of a potential issue that might arise in a codex that has not even been released yet.

I like to look at it from the Dawn of War scenario.

Does it count as an HQ unit for the 1 HQ and 2 Troops you are allowed to deploy?

If it does, it should count for the 1 mandatory HQ you need to bring to the table.

After reading the thread I can see both sides of the debate here.

Personally, I tend to think that consistency is best in 40k. Therefore I have no issue in using a ruling in one FAQ as precident for a rule that uses the same wording in another codex.

I'd tend to interpret it that even if it does not take up a slot, the selection can count towards the minimum.

However, I think it would be disingenuous to say that the matter is clear.

Dracos wrote:After reading the thread I can see both sides of the debate here.

Personally, I tend to think that consistency is best in 40k. Therefore I have no issue in using a ruling in one FAQ as precident for a rule that uses the same wording in another codex.

I'd tend to interpret it that even if it does not take up a slot, the selection can count towards the minimum.

However, I think it would be disingenuous to say that the matter is clear.

The matter is clear. All of this is in the rulebook.
ph24r's position on this is rock solid and well said.

FOC are in each codex, actually.

And it makes the distinction between selection and choice. Black filled boxes require a selection, and if you arent using up a selection it cannot count for the black box.

Elmentary logic there.

@ph34r - Jakero's will be a glass hammer ... but oh god what a hammer they could be. I am with you that I would like to see a rules change for the henchmen units before the release.

coteaz

11 x 3 jakero
-Chimera

for 1860 ... that would suck to face

edit: @ castellan
I guess you're forcing me to defend a position that I wouldn't take, but think has some validity.

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

This is the part that leaves room for the other side of the debate. The rules say a box is compulsory, therefore if the box is not taken (as is arguably the case when you take an option that does not occupy a FOC selection), then you have not satisfied the first rule.

Again, I believe the BT FAQ settles this, but if you are disinclined to take precedence from one Codex FAQ to another, than it is irrelevent.

I mainly avoid any notion of "precedence" for GW FAQs as much as possible, as they seem to do themselves.

Arguing precedence with the massively inconsistent FAQ rules changes that are around it...difficult to support

While I agree that using precedence has its flaws, I find it to be a better option than ignoring it.

Except even here the FAQ isnt precedence - it answers the question specifically, and usings a reasoning to suport it. Nothing allows you to separate the reasoning out - that ignores the context.

the context is an EC CAN fulfill the HQ slot - noone else can, barring either a specific FAQ (well, errata to change the rules) or general rulebook FAQ on the matter

See where you see the inconsistencies as a reason to not use it, I find it as a reason to use it. Less inconsistency = better imo. I can't change what they wrote in an FAQ, but I can sure try to make the game as consistent as possible while using the FAQs.

edit: The fact that it addresses one particular issue but not other similar issues is exactly what precedence is. It would be wrong to say the ruling directly affects other models, since as you point out it only specifies the EC. Precedence is exactly the act of taking a specific ruling, and making it the basis for other similar cases.

nosferatu1001 wrote:the context is an EC CAN fulfill the HQ slot - noone else can, barring either a specific FAQ (well, errata to change the rules) or general rulebook FAQ on the matter

That logic only works if you start with the position that EC cannot be the mandatory HQ.

Or is it the case that HQs that don't use a slot can in fact be the mandatory and this was one of the (many) FAQ questions that is essentially pointless since it's confirming what the rules already say. That's how I would look at it.

Dracos, I did not intend on making you take a position. I apologize.
But, in the IG rules the words "use up" does not relate to "occupy a FOC selection". If it said "does not occupy a FOC selection" then your position would be correct.
"The rules say a box is compulsory, therefore if the box is not taken (as is arguably the case when you take an option that does not occupy a FOC selection), then you have not satisfied the first rule."
The rules says what it says.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except even here the FAQ isnt precedence - it answers the question specifically, and usings a reasoning to suport it. Nothing allows you to separate the reasoning out - that ignores the context.

the context is an EC CAN fulfill the HQ slot - noone else can, barring either a specific FAQ (well, errata to change the rules) or general rulebook FAQ on the matter

Um, what? Your reasoning with regards to the FAQ's explanation is straight up backwards.

The fact that it provides the reason for the ruling, rather than just blindly stating a ruling, means that the logic can be applied to other situations where a simple "counts" or "doesn't count" would refer more to that specific situation.

However you are still taking a FAQ Answer out of context: the context is EC in a BT army.

If you are an EC in a BT army, you can look at this question. If you're not, you cant.

Hideously simple.

However you act like the fact that they explain why their answer is as it is, is a reason to NOT apply it to other rulings.

If anything, the fact that they give reason for their answer based on universal rules, involving zero percent BT specific rules, is a reason TO apply it to other rulings.

So what your saying is, i dont get that ruling for my army, but ill use it any way?

Seems kinda wrong to me.
Its a BT FAQ, and for them only.

Before that ruling came out, noone argued about it.
It simply didnt use up anything, so was not an essential choice.
Now people see this, they try and apply it to thier army.

Its a bloody FAQ for 1 army, not a rules clarification for general rules.


Im with nos 100% on this one.



Failing that, my nids will be going to war with burnas.
Nowhere does it state i cant take them.
It just doesent state i can take them.

ph34r wrote:However you act like the fact that they explain why their answer is as it is, is a reason to NOT apply it to other rulings.

If anything, the fact that they give reason for their answer based on universal rules, involving zero percent BT specific rules, is a reason TO apply it to other rulings.

Would be perfectly logical if GW did not A) have a rule book FAQ (with a section for army specific rules) B) contradict them selves regularly

but if we're going down this root

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.

So you can't take any IC in your drop pods ether.

I'm not saying that you should apply all FAQs across all armies.

I'm not even saying to apply the BT FAQ to IG. I don't need that for my argument to be correct.

I'm saying that if you had to choose between the way the BT FAQ is explained helping or harming the case for using it on other codexes rulings, the answer would 100% be that the explanation helps.

Your tyranid example is invalid, as you would know if you had read any of my posts, as it gives a simple "no" answer.

If the tyranid FAQ for some reason said "no, as ICs cannot join dedicated transports" or something along those lines, it would be an entirely different problem. As is, it is a simple "no" answer, which can only apply to tyranids.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:So what your saying is, i dont get that ruling for my army, but ill use it any way?

Seems kinda wrong to me.
Its a BT FAQ, and for them only.

Before that ruling came out, noone argued about it.
It simply didnt use up anything, so was not an essential choice.
Now people see this, they try and apply it to thier army.

Its a bloody FAQ for 1 army, not a rules clarification for general rules.


Im with nos 100% on this one.



Failing that, my nids will be going to war with burnas.
Nowhere does it state i cant take them.
It just doesent state i can take them.

The fact that the BT FAQ exists does not impact how my IG codex already says that I can use Priests to fulfill mandatory requirements.
It is a nice way however to show people how this fact is reasonable.

Your burna logic is terrible, and serves to discredit the rest of your post.