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.

 Ghaz wrote:
And again, it's no different than a Royal Court or Court of the Archon. The 'Mekaniaks' rule adds an additional restriction on how you can choose a Mek, one you're willfully ignoring.

It's not a restriction. It's a benefit. You can either field the mek as a normal HQ, and if you want you MAY take a mek with every Warboss, Painboy, etc., just not with other Meks. Why would it say "excluding other Meks" if you couldn't actually take a mek as an HQ?

It's a restriction on how you can take a Mek. In any case, it is not an optional rule.

Again, the unit's battlefield role doesn't change. It's an HQ choice that does not take up a slot on the Force Organization chart and can only be unlocked by taking another HQ choice that's not a Mek. All the 'excluding other Meks' does is prevent you from taking infinite Meks.

It's important to note that the Mekaniaks bit is NOT listed under the Special Rules that a Mek comes with. It's listed between the Special Rules and the options. I believe it represents an alternative way to field a Mek. If I simply purchase a Mek for 15 points, this doesn't invalidate that I had an alternative method.

It's also important to note that I'm not purchasing a Mek with or without the Mekaniaks rule. NONE of the Meks have the Mekaniaks bit as a Special Rule as it's not on the bullet point list of Special Rules. It's just a different way of building a list. It's essentially an army rule placed in the Mek's unit entry.

Best case scenario, RAI is that they wanted you to only use Meks as add on HQs, but they worded it poorly by not restricting you from using the basic army construction methods.

I'll admit that when I first read through the codex I made the same mistake as Waaagh18, but the specific codex rule here (mekaniaks) trumps the general BRB HQ rule.
You cannot ignore the mekaniak rule when taking a mek from that dataslate. It's a special rule that all meks from that datasheet have which specifies exactly how you may include this particular HQ and overrides the general usage rules on how HQ slots are added into an army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That's how I first made the mistake Kriswal, but it is a special rule included always for that dataslate. Chalk it up to an unfamiliar new codex format. But take a look at the 2 prior pages. Waaagh! For the warboss, & waaagh! energy for the wierdboy are listed in the same way and both are special rules those units always have as well.

Taking a mek as a normal HQ does NOT invalidate the Mekaniak rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You're not "ignoring" it, it just does not always apply

You cant take a mek as an HQ.

The only ways to get meks are spelled out in the rules.

Either through the mekaniak rule, which states you can only buy one if you have already purchased another HQ, or through unit upgrades.


You can name any of them as your warlord however.

 Waaagh 18 wrote:
Taking a mek as a normal HQ does NOT invalidate the Mekaniak rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You're not "ignoring" it, it just does not always apply

It does though. It tells you exactly what you need to do to include one, when you must attach them to a unit, and what units it may be attached to. That applies every time you want to select a mek from that datasheet. If you don't follow it, you have ignored it, which you are not allowed to do.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
And again, it's no different than a Royal Court or Court of the Archon. The 'Mekaniaks' rule adds an additional restriction on how you can choose a Mek, one you're willfully ignoring.

Indeed, this part right here:

 Jidmah wrote:
Therefore anyone can field a mek by either using the basic rules or the mekaniaks rule.

You are telling me you can field:
A) a Mek without the mekaniaks rule
B) a Mek with mekaniaks rule

A) is simply you ignoring a rule, not a new type of battlefield unit.

Please underline the part of the rule which prevents me from fielding the mek using the BRB rules. The Mekaniaks rule explicitly tells me that I may field a mek for each HQ I pick, and, if I do, these choices don't use up a slot. Nothing takes away the inherit permission to field them as HQ.
If the mekaniaks rule was mandatory, you could not field meks as part of a loota mob either.

 Jidmah wrote:
Note that those codices you named (as well as others, for example Codex: Space Marines) use boxes to identify units which can only be taken as part of another choice, with the limitation written on top of the box. Unlike the mek, none of them are explicitly marked as HQ choice. The mek has its own page, is not listed at the end of all other HQs, has a HQ symbol on top and simply has Mekaniaks listed as one of its special rules. There is absolutely no reason to assume that you cannot take him like any other HQ - except arbitrarily applying logic from old codices.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/645715-.html

It has its own page, is not listed at the end of all other HQs, has a HQ symbol on top. There is absolutely no reason to assume that you cannot take him like any other HQ.

Yes, "For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet." or you may not in which case, you don't take this mek.
This specific special rule overrides the brb general rule concerning HQ choice. No where does it say, the mekaniak rule is optional, This mek has it, and therefore must use it. Codex trumps BRB, Specific trumps general.
The meks with the loota and burnas don't apply to this datasheet as they have their own listing with those units and do not have the mekaniak special rule. They also have different point costs and can't join a different unit.

 Jidmah wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
And again, it's no different than a Royal Court or Court of the Archon. The 'Mekaniaks' rule adds an additional restriction on how you can choose a Mek, one you're willfully ignoring.

Indeed, this part right here:

 Jidmah wrote:
Therefore anyone can field a mek by either using the basic rules or the mekaniaks rule.

You are telling me you can field:
A) a Mek without the mekaniaks rule
B) a Mek with mekaniaks rule

A) is simply you ignoring a rule, not a new type of battlefield unit.

Please underline the part of the rule which prevents me from fielding the mek using the BRB rules. The Mekaniaks rule explicitly tells me that I may field a mek for each HQ I pick, and, if I do, these choices don't use up a slot. Nothing takes away the inherit permission to field them as HQ.
If the mekaniaks rule was mandatory, you could not field meks as part of a loota mob either.

So in your opinion, you may have A) and B)? please answer with Yes or No at this point.

 Jidmah wrote:
That's not a HQ symbol. That's the old layout, HQ symbols are found in the BRB. Also taken out of context, different codex and whatnot. Basically useless strawman, might have as well saved your time.

Still the same rule applies, and arguing i cannot take a Priest because the HQ symbol is of a different shape is grasping at straws.

"For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet.These selections do not use up Force Organisation slots."

"An adepta Sororitas army may include 0-5 M. Priests in each detahcment. They do not take up a Force Org slot and do not qualify as a mandatory HQ selection

2 Rules. Both are applied, or both are not. If you can ignore the Mek rule, you can ignore the priest rule, simple as...

 Amiricle wrote:
take a look at the 2 prior pages. Waaagh! For the warboss, & waaagh! energy for the wierdboy are listed in the same way and both are special rules those units always have as well.

Have a look, i am quite sure that the mekaniaks rule is Mandatory. As Amiricle examples above.

 Jidmah wrote:

When you list your "HQ choice in a Detachment", you can have your Mek (from this datasheet).

"May", not "can". Rewording rules to fit your argument better is not proof.

When you list your "HQ choice in a Detachment", you may have your Mek.

If you don't have an "HQ choice in a Detachment", then you may not have your Mek.


It all comes down to one very simple question:
Can you field a Mek without the Mekaniaks rule? Can you "ignore" that rule when you field a Mek?

Answer this, and the debate can continue...

From 'Basic versus Advanced':

Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules.

The 'Mekaniaks' rule is not optional. It tells you how you must field a Mek and overrides the basic rules.

It doesn't override. It never says it overrides anything

It overrides by the very nature of not saying it's optional. It's an advanced rule and advanced rules overrides the basic rules.

 BlackTalos wrote:
So in your opinion, you may have A) and B)? please answer with Yes or No at this point.

Yes, of course. The codex allows me to take slotless meks in addition to other HQs. The rulebook allows me to take meks as slotted HQs. Neither rule contradicts or prohibits the other. All of you have failed to prove the opposite.

 Jidmah wrote:
That's not a HQ symbol. That's the old layout, HQ symbols are found in the BRB. Also taken out of context, different codex and whatnot. Basically useless strawman, might have as well saved your time.

Still the same rule applies, and arguing i cannot take a Priest because the HQ symbol is of a different shape is grasping at straws.

Not grasping straws at all. You're just comparing apples to oranges. 7th edition codices also list their dedicated transports with a fast attack symbol, what make you believe that listing "add-on" HQs as HQs themselves was unintentional?

"For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet.These selections do not use up Force Organisation slots."

"An adepta Sororitas army may include 0-5 M. Priests in each detahcment. They do not take up a Force Org slot and do not qualify as a mandatory HQ selection

2 Rules. Both are applied, or both are not. If you can ignore the Mek rule, you can ignore the priest rule, simple as...

Considering that codices listed such choices in boxes below their parent entry (see Techmarines, Grimaldus' Servitors, Necron Council, Council of the Archon etc) to signify them being available only in combination with their parent choice and considering that neither the parent choice nor the box (or the lack thereof) is visible in your screen-shot from the most unavailable codex in the game, I'm not willing to give you an answer on this one. I'd like to point out though that Priest would never count as mandatory HQ selection though, since it explicitly says so. The mek has no such wording.

 Amiricle wrote:
take a look at the 2 prior pages. Waaagh! For the warboss, & waaagh! energy for the wierdboy are listed in the same way and both are special rules those units always have as well.

Have a look, i am quite sure that the mekaniaks rule is Mandatory. As Amiricle examples above.

I never said the opposite. I'm merely stating that Mekaniaks does not prevent you from fielding Meks in another way.

When you list your "HQ choice in a Detachment", you may have your Mek.

That's a rule.

If you don't have an "HQ choice in a Detachment", then you may not have your Mek.

That's not. I quoted the paragraph giving me explicit permission to field HQ choices. There is no difference between a mek and a big mek in that regard.

Permission to do something (you may) doesn't automatically force you to do it that way or not at all. For example this is part of the deep strike rules: "A Transport vehicle with Deep Strike may Deep Strike regardless of whether its passengers have Deep Strike or not."
So, when looking at the infamous deep-striking Blood Angel Landraider with non-deep-striking passengers, it still has permission to be deployed on the table or arrive from reserves regularly. Just because you may do something does not prevent you from doing it in another way you have been given permission to.

It all comes down to one very simple question:
Can you field a Mek without the Mekaniaks rule?

Yes, I can field a Mek wihout using the Mekaniaks rule to do so, by choosing him as one of my HQ choices. Of course, it would still have the Mekaniaks rule, which would force it to join an infantry or artillery unit.

Can you "ignore" that rule when you field a Mek?

No, you cannot. A mek must always be joined to a unit. However, the first part does not apply as I can choose not to use it (that's what the word "may" does), either by fielding another HQ without a mek, or by fielding a mek without another HQ.

Answer this, and the debate can continue...

I respect you for wanting an actual debate, so if my posts come across harsh, that's because you can't put tone of voice into forum posts. You still should try to find rules to back up your position

Mekaniaks does not contradict the basic rules.

"For every HQ choice in a Detachment [...] you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet" doesn't do anything but give permission to chose Meks when you are picking other HQs. This permission is added to any other permissions you have, just like the permission to re-roll both dice is added to the permission to re-roll one dice.

If you pick a warboss, weirdboy, big mek, painboy, Zagstrukk or Bradrukk, Mekaniaks as a HQ choice, you get the choice to add a mek or not add a mek.

If you pick a detachment, you are allowed to field any HQ choice in one of the empty HQ slots by the basic rules. If you pick a mek, mekaniaks will not present you with the choice to pick another mek, but it still forces the mek to join a unit. If you abide to that, no rule is violated or ignored.
If you chose an unbound army you are allowed to field any number of meks as well, as long as they are joining units if possible.

In order for the rules to work like everyone is advocating here it would either:
- have to be worded differently ("You may only chose one Mek per HQ choice (except other Meks).")
- explicitly have contradicted the basic rules ("You may not field Meks in any other way.")
- not have been marked as HQ choice/marked as sub-entry
- be listed as unit upgrade for HQs

Since none are the case, nothing prevents you from choosing a Mek as HQ, just like you'd choose a Big Mek as HQ.

 Ghaz wrote:
From 'Basic versus Advanced':

Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules.

The 'Mekaniaks' rule is not optional. It tells you how you must field a Mek and overrides the basic rules.

The rule Mekaniaks does not contradict the rulebook. Neither does it contain the word "must", nor does it change how Meks are chosen, It merely adds another option to chose them.

And again, it does not contain any wording to make it optional. Thus per the rules for 'Basic versus Advanced' it overrides the basic rules.

That was a very well written post Jidmah and I understand how you can interpret it that way. However, when a specific rule modifies a basic rule (HQ selection/FoC), the specific rule takes precedence. As such the mekaniak rule would have to give permission to field a mek as a solo HQ choice in addition to the way it currently states you may field one otherwise we are stuck being able to field them only the way it describes.

While this is ultimately not that big a deal and I would let it slide as I'm sure many friendly opponents would as well, a stickler for the RaW may not and you'd risk a TO declaring your list unbound.

 Amiricle wrote:
That was a very well written post Jidmah and I understand how you can interpret it that way. However, when a specific rule modifies a basic rule (HQ selection/FoC), the specific rule takes precedence. As such the mekaniak rule would have to give permission to field a mek as a solo HQ choice in addition to the way it currently states you may field one otherwise we are stuck being able to field them only the way it describes.

While this is ultimately not that big a deal and I would let it slide as I'm sure many friendly opponents would as well, a stickler for the RaW may not and you'd risk a TO declaring your list unbound.

It does not modify the basic rule. It adds another selection option to that rule. Never in the entry does it say that you cannot take him as a normal HQ. Why would it give specific information to field it as a normal HQ, when the rule does not say anything that would mean it could not do that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:
And again, it does not contain any wording to make it optional. Thus per the rules for 'Basic versus Advanced' it overrides the basic rules.

You are saying the same thing over and over again.

And you've yet to provide anything to support your claims it's optional. It's not. Nothing in it's wording says it is an alternate way to choose a Mek. Unless you can provide any wording that says "in addition" or "optionally" your arguments have no merit. It is an advanced rule and as such takes precedence over how you may normally take a unit.

 Kriswall wrote:
It's important to note that the Mekaniaks bit is NOT listed under the Special Rules that a Mek comes with. It's listed between the Special Rules and the options. I believe it represents an alternative way to field a Mek.

NONE of the Meks have the Mekaniaks bit as a Special Rule as it's not on the bullet point list of Special Rules.

You believe incorrectly.
Mekaniaks is a Special Rule specific only to Meks. This is why it is not on the bullet point list (which is of special rules that are shared among other units and are therefore described in detail on their own page rather than within each unit) as it is only found on that one unit.
If you think that, because it's not listed in the bullet points, it's not a special rule then I suppose you also think that the Weirdboys Waaagh! Energy is not a special rule? Or the Warboss who has Waaagh! .. that must not be a special rule either.

All meks have the special rule Mekaniaks. This rule tells you that you may take one Mek for each HQ choice (other than a Mek). If you have no HQ choice you may not take a Mek. Mekaniaks is not an "alternative method" of fielding a Mek.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

Please underline the part of the rule which prevents me from fielding the mek using the BRB rules. The Mekaniaks rule explicitly tells me that I may field a mek for each HQ I pick, and, if I do, these choices don't use up a slot. Nothing takes away the inherit permission to field them as HQ.
If the mekaniaks rule was mandatory, you could not field meks as part of a loota mob either.

Except for the ability to turn a Loota into a Mek, of course. One that is not (surprise surprise) an HQ choice as it has its own stat line within the Lootas datasheet. To take a Mek outside of these units, you require an HQ choice first, as per Mekaniaks special rule.

Somehow not a single other person claiming that picking a Mek solo is impossible has quote a single rule saying so.

Except, of course, for the Mekaniaks special rule that belongs to a Mek.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Waaagh 18 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
And again, it's no different than a Royal Court or Court of the Archon. The 'Mekaniaks' rule adds an additional restriction on how you can choose a Mek, one you're willfully ignoring.

It's not a restriction. It's a benefit. You can either field the mek as a normal HQ, and if you want you MAY take a mek with every Warboss, Painboy, etc., just not with other Meks. Why would it say "excluding other Meks" if you couldn't actually take a mek as an HQ?

Hmm. So you ask a question about taking a Mek as an HQ and the moment one person says yes it seems you have thought that all along, despite the special rule Mekaniaks telling you that you may take a mek for each HQ choice. The only way you can take a Mek from the HQ choices, without ignoring that rule, is to take another HQ choice (that is not a Mek) first. Period.

I did have an opinion before I started. It seems logical that if I want to pick my army with an HQ from the HQ section that it could be a mek. The Mekaniak special rule never says its the only way, I'd like to see a quote to see where you assume that.

 Waaagh 18 wrote:
I did have an opinion before I started. It seems logical that if I want to pick my army with an HQ from the HQ section that it could be a mek. The Mekaniak special rule never says its the only way, I'd like to see a quote to see where you assume that.

The quote, as has been shown many times over already, is in the Mekaniak Special Rule itself;
"For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet."

If you take a Mek as your only HQ, are you following this special rule? No.
The rule does not have to outright say its the only way to take a Mek .. it is a special rule that all Meks that are taken from the HQ battlefield role have and if you aren't following it (for example, by taking a Mek without another HQ choice) you are not following the rule.
To take a Mek without taking another HQ choice first the rule would have to specify you are able to, as this rule provides a restriction/modification of the "typical" unit selection. (ie: you are given permission to take an HQ unit. Mekaniak provides a restriction to that permission, with no explicit permission to continue on in the HQ choice selection without that restriction in place).

 Amiricle wrote:
That was a very well written post Jidmah and I understand how you can interpret it that way. However, when a specific rule modifies a basic rule (HQ selection/FoC), the specific rule takes precedence. As such the mekaniak rule would have to give permission to field a mek as a solo HQ choice in addition to the way it currently states you may field one otherwise we are stuck being able to field them only the way it describes.

This were every single one of goes wrong. Just because a rule does roughly the same, it doesn't make all other rules go away. If you were correct, any vehicle with the deep-strike rule would be forced to deep strike as soon as it has non-deepstriking passengers. This is not the case.

You have permission to field a mek solo, and you have permission to field a mek in addition to another HQ. Just like a model with deep strike has the option to be deployed on the table, arrive from reserves or arrive from deep strike.

Rorschach9 wrote:

 Waaagh 18 wrote:
I did have an opinion before I started. It seems logical that if I want to pick my army with an HQ from the HQ section that it could be a mek. The Mekaniak special rule never says its the only way, I'd like to see a quote to see where you assume that.

The quote, as has been shown many times over already, is in the Mekaniak Special Rule itself;
"For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet."

If you take a Mek as your only HQ, are you following this special rule? No.
The rule does not have to outright say its the only way to take a Mek ..

Why not? The BRB explicitly requires it to contradict the basic rules in order to take away basic permission.

it is a special rule that all Meks that are taken from the HQ battlefield role have and if you aren't following it (for example, by taking a Mek without another HQ choice) you are not following the rule.

All meks also have the 'ere we go rule. If you do not re-roll one dice during your assault move you also aren't following that rule. According to your logic you are cheating if you don't re-roll one of your double sixes you have rolled for charge range. No part forces you to use the rule to field Meks. Actually, the presence of Meks in formations is the very confirmation that you can field Meks without the Mekaniaks rule.

To take a Mek without taking another HQ choice first the rule would have to specify you are able to, as this rule provides a restriction/modification of the "typical" unit selection.

Please quote a rule on that. Unless a rule explicitly contradicts the BRB, you can still use the basic rules.

(ie: you are given permission to take an HQ unit. Mekaniak provides a restriction to that permission

Please post the mekaniaks rule and underline the part of the rule which imposes a restriction on the basic rules. Considering that three others have failed to do so while continuously insisting on their point, it's save to assume that you'll be unable to do so, which in turn means that you're wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:
And you've yet to provide anything to support your claims it's optional. It's not. Nothing in it's wording says it is an alternate way to choose a Mek. Unless you can provide any wording that says "in addition" or "optionally" your arguments have no merit. It is an advanced rule and as such takes precedence over how you may normally take a unit.

Except for the rules I quoted that you conveniently ignore in order to not be proven wrong.

You have violated the Tenets #1 twelve times now. Please stop posting.

Tenets of You Make Da Call (YMDC):

1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Amiricle wrote:
That was a very well written post Jidmah and I understand how you can interpret it that way. However, when a specific rule modifies a basic rule (HQ selection/FoC), the specific rule takes precedence. As such the mekaniak rule would have to give permission to field a mek as a solo HQ choice in addition to the way it currently states you may field one otherwise we are stuck being able to field them only the way it describes.

This were every single one of goes wrong. Just because a rule does roughly the same, it doesn't make all other rules go away. If you were correct, any vehicle with the deep-strike rule would be forced to deep strike as soon as it has non-deepstriking passengers. This is not the case.

You have permission to field a mek solo, and you have permission to field a mek in addition to another HQ. Just like a model with deep strike has the option to be deployed on the table, arrive from reserves or arrive from deep strike.

Nothing explictly prohibits you from taking Meks as HQ. You're prohibited to take slotless Meks without HQ (other than meks).

So...basically we can have a 15 pt HQ! Who can beat that. You also can make any character in your army to be Warlord so that your warlord ain't a 1-wound 6+ guy.

Ok, thank you for describing in a lot of detail the situation at hand. I do think that we can keep it much more simple by tackling the core of the issue.

 Jidmah wrote:

It all comes down to one very simple question:
Can you field a Mek without the Mekaniaks rule?

Yes, I can field a Mek wihout using the Mekaniaks rule to do so, by choosing him as one of my HQ choices. Of course, it would still have the Mekaniaks rule, which would force it to join an infantry or artillery unit.

Can you "ignore" that rule when you field a Mek?

No, you cannot. A mek must always be joined to a unit. However, the first part does not apply as I can choose not to use it (that's what the word "may" does), either by fielding another HQ without a mek, or by fielding a mek without another HQ.

I have highlighted the part of your message that you cannot do.

You have to follow the Rule in it's entirety. The rule is this: "For each HQ choice in a Detachment (...) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet. These selections do not use up Force Organisation slots."

Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules.

You must follow Rules

In a way, unless you have done A)"HQ choice in a Detachment", you do not get choice B)"you may include". You don't get the "may" option to include a Mek if you don't already have an HQ choice.

Now, points on this.
1) "These selections do not use up Force Organisation slots" is a phrase on it's own. It is a rule that, the selection referred to (Mek) has to follow.
2) The green part, and "may include" is indeed and option, a may/may not, an 0/1, yes/no situation. When do you get this choice? "For each HQ choice in a Detachment".
3) The "may" refers to taking a Mek once you have an HQ, not a "may" to use the rule in the first place.

"For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet." is not an optional rule, you must follow it.

Rorschach9 wrote:
Falacy. A model with deep strike may have the option, but not all do. Some have special rules that modify this permission. Can you ignore those, just as you feel you can ignore Mekaniak? Your statement about any vehicle with deepstrike being forced to deep strike "as soon as it has non-deepstriking passengers" makes no sense either.

It's explained further up. Basically a vehicle with deep strike may deep strike even when it has non-deep-striking passengers. It's worded exactly like the mekaniaks rules, so if fielding mekaniaks using the rule is mandatory, so is deep-striking transports with non-deep-striking passengers.

The BRB allows us to take an HQ choice. Mekaniak (Mek special rule) states you may take a Mek for each HQ choice that is not a Mek. How does that not contradict the blanket permission from the BRB?

Just like "you may go right" does not contradict "you may go left", "you may take a slotless mek in addition to a HQ" does not contradict "you may take a slotted mek as HQ choice".

'Ere we go states you Can re-roll, not you must. Mekaniak states you May take a Mek for each HQ choice chosen that is not a Mek. Not "You can take an additional Mek that takes no slot for each HQ choice". You May take a Mek for each HQ choice ..

I still fail to see how the word "may" implicates any mandatory action while can doesn't.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/may
Feel free to convince me otherwise, as this is the core of most people's argument.

Formations modify the selection of units in many ways. The presence of Meks in formations is irrelevant to choosing a Mek. You cannot field a mek from the HQ Datasheet"without the Mekaniaks rule", because Mekaniak is a special rule that all HQ Datasheet Meks have. It seems, however, that you have missed there are Meks outside of the HQ Mek Datasheet.

So, what rules does the Mek in the Ork Warband formation use? According to you, it has no rules, since you cannot use the Datasheet and there are no other rules for single Meks.

Looks like Mekaniaks is a special rule that I will need in order to use my Mek model.

How did you come to this conclusion? On what rules are you basing it? What makes you think that the Mek datasheet is functional different from the Big Mek datasheet?

And it states I may include a Mek for each HQ choice (not including other Meks). I havn't chosen another HQ choice. How do I then choose a Mek, considering its special rule tells me I may choose one for each HQ choice?

You chose it just like you chose a Big Mek. Or Warboss. Or Zagstrukk. If you can't chose a Mek, you can't chose any HQ, ever.

Oh, and look; The Mek chosen from that datasheet doesn't take up an HQ slot either, so even if I were to ignore that rule stating I may take one for each HQ choice, I still havn't filled the requisite HQ slot.

The rule specifically refers to Meks chosen in addition to other HQs, using the word "These". It does not apply to meks chosen in any other way.

If you take a Mek from the HQ Datasheet and have not taken another HQ choice, you have broken a rule AND have not filled the requisite HQ slot.

To break a rule, you have to do something that is either not allowed or something that contradicts what the rule says. Chosing a Mek as slotted HQ choice does neither.

As for being wrong, you can think that all you want. The fact of the matter is that if you have not taken an HQ choice that is not a Mek, and you take a Mek from the HQ Mek Datasheet, you have not fulfilled the requirements of the special rules included with that unit.

The rule is not a requirement. It's an additional permission that you can either use or not use to field more than one HQ choice per slot. Any further interpretation is wishful thinking without rules backup.

 BlackTalos wrote:
You have to follow the Rule in it's entirety. The rule is this: "For each HQ choice in a Detachment (...) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet. These selections do not use up Force Organisation slots."

I followed that rule. I chose a Mek as a HQ choice in a Detachment, since the rulebook allows me to do that. I may then not include another Mek from this data sheet. Rule has been followed, I have a slotted Mek.

Now, points on this.
1) "These selections do not use up Force Organisation slots" is a phrase on it's own. It is a rule that, the selection referred to (Mek) has to follow.
2) The green part, and "may include" is indeed and option, a may/may not, an 0/1, yes/no situation. When do you get this choice? "For each HQ choice in a Detachment".

"May not" is not the polar opposite of "may", just like "must" is not the polar opposite of "must not". It's in no way comparable to yes/no or 0/1. Therefore 2) is completely wrong and thus the reason for your misunderstanding of the rule.

40k rules work like this: You may not do anything, unless you are allowed to do so. You are allowed to field HQ choices in HQ slots of detachments. You are also allowed to field Meks when you field a non-Mek HQ choice in an ork detachment. No contradiction

3) The "may" refers to taking a Mek once you have an HQ, not a "may" to use the rule in the first place.

To point out your wrong understanding of the word may:
If I tell you "You may go left" and then "You may go right", you are not forced to go right. For some reason you seem to be under the impression that you are. Maybe check with an English teacher or something? I'm really at a loss about how I'm supposed to explain to a native speaker how his language works.

"For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet." is not an optional rule, you must follow it.

*sight* this again. I've proven this to be nonsense like six times now. So I'll pass the ball back to you. According to your logic how do you field an Ork Warband formation in your opinion? How do you get a Mek in there? How do you field a Mek in an unbound army?

 BlackTalos wrote:
"These selections do not use up Force Organisation slots" is a phrase on it's own. It is a rule that, the selection referred to (Mek) has to follow.

You are still breaking this rule.

 Jidmah wrote:
I followed that rule. I chose a Mek as a HQ choice in a Detachment, since the rulebook allows me to do that. I may then not include another Mek from this data sheet. Rule has been followed, I have a slotted Mek.

I don't think you did, you've put it right there:

 Jidmah wrote:
However, the first part does not apply as I can choose not to use it

Where is that choice in the Rulebook? You never have a choice not to use "that part of the rule".

These are the only Rules you have:

Each slot allows you to take one unit.

Rorschach9 wrote:
DATASHEETS : Each Ork unit in this book has a datasheet. These detail either Army List Entries or Formations, providing all the rules information that you will need to use your models in your games of Warhammer 40,000.

For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet.

So, using the above, show permission to field a Mek, other than "For each HQ choice in a Detachment". How else can you field a Mek?
Each slot allows one Unit
Each Unit is on a datasheet.
To have a Mek "chosen from this datasheet" you need "For each HQ choice in a Detachment"

There is no other permission.
There is no other way of using the Mek Datasheet than "For each HQ choice in a Detachment (...) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet."
You seem to be asserting you can use this Datasheet in some other way, How? Where is the wording that lets you do so?

I don't know, I like this whole "May" means you can either take without using a slot, or take using a slot.

For example, a Primary Detachment of Eldar may include a Warlock Council that does not use a slot.

Since the wording is similar to Mekaniaks, I can ignore that part, and take a Warlock Council using an HQ slot. Now I can spam relatively cheap Mastery Level 1 Psykers, by taking multiple detachments.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
"These selections do not use up Force Organisation slots" is a phrase on it's own. It is a rule that, the selection referred to (Mek) has to follow.

You are still breaking this rule.

You are still not providing back-up for that claim.

 Jidmah wrote:
I followed that rule. I chose a Mek as a HQ choice in a Detachment, since the rulebook allows me to do that. I may then not include another Mek from this data sheet. Rule has been followed, I have a slotted Mek.

I don't think you did, you've put it right there:

 Jidmah wrote:
However, the first part does not apply as I can choose not to use it

Where is that choice in the Rulebook? You never have a choice not to use "that part of the rule".

So, you're saying that you must buy a Mek whenever you buy a Warboss? Interesting. And false. I can follow the rule by not picking a slotless Mek when I buy a slotted Mek. Please prove otherwise, but please without adding words this time.

These are the only Rules you have:

Each slot allows you to take one unit.

Rorschach9 wrote:
DATASHEETS : Each Ork unit in this book has a datasheet. These detail either Army List Entries or Formations, providing all the rules information that you will need to use your models in your games of Warhammer 40,000.

For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet.

So, using the above, show permission to field a Mek, other than "For each HQ choice in a Detachment". How else can you field a Mek?

There you go:

"The boxes on a Force Organisation Chart are referred to as slots. Each slot will typically specify a Battlefield Role. Each slot allows you to take one unit. Black boxes are compulsory selections – you must take at least this many units of the appropriate Battlefield Role to include this Detachment in your army. If you cannot include the compulsory number of units, you cannot include that Detachment. Grey boxes are optional selections – you can include up to this number of units of the appropriate Battlefield Role when including this Detachment in your army. Any further units of the same Battlefield Role will need to be taken in a different Detachment. For example, in order to take a Combined Arms Detachment, you must select two units with the Troops Battlefield Role, and cannot select more than six in the same Detachment"

Look, explicit permission to field units with the HQ battlefield role in HQ slots. If I put one Mek from the Mek datasheet into one HQ slot, I have abided to all rules you have quoted, plus the one you explicitly left out because it hurt your argument.

Each slot allows one Unit
Each Unit is on a datasheet.
To have a Mek "chosen from this datasheet" you need "For each HQ choice in a Detachment"

You just added the word "need". Without that word your sentence becomes wrong. The rule says that you may have Meks from that datasheet when you pick a non-Mek HQ. Neither does it state that Meks can't be chosen normally, nor does it state that taking a HQ is a requirement to pick them.

Judging from you dodging all questions which would show the flaws of your logic, you rewording rules in order to have any argument at all and you leaving out the rule quoted twice in this thread which proves you wrong, I assume that you have no argument and admit being wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
I don't know, I like this whole "May" means you can either take without using a slot, or take using a slot.

For example, a Primary Detachment of Eldar may include a Warlock Council that does not use a slot.

Since the wording is similar to Mekaniaks, I can ignore that part, and take a Warlock Council using an HQ slot. Now I can spam relatively cheap Mastery Level 1 Psykers, by taking multiple detachments.

That's not the argument. The Mek is a single HQ choice, which has an additional option to take it listed in Mechaniaks. People are arguing that the word "may" somehow makes the rule override the basic permission to field HQ choices.

I don't have the Eldar codex at hand, but I assume that, unlike the Mek, it's listed in a box as part of the Farseer entry. If it is, it can only be chosen by buying the parent entry, just like you can't buy Grimaldus' Servitors without buying him.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
I don't know, I like this whole "May" means you can either take without using a slot, or take using a slot.

For example, a Primary Detachment of Eldar may include a Warlock Council that does not use a slot.

Since the wording is similar to Mekaniaks, I can ignore that part, and take a Warlock Council using an HQ slot. Now I can spam relatively cheap Mastery Level 1 Psykers, by taking multiple detachments.

That's not the argument. The Mek is a single HQ choice, which has an additional option to take it listed in Mechaniaks. People are arguing that the word "may" somehow makes the rule override the basic permission to field HQ choices.

I don't have the Eldar codex at hand, but I assume that, unlike the Mek, it's listed in a box as part of the Farseer entry. If it is, it can only be chosen by buying the parent entry, just like you can't buy Grimaldus' Servitors without buying him.

Nope. The Warlock Council is its own entry, without a box, unlike the SM Command Squad.