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.

If it's an independent entry and there is no limitation provided otherwise, I don't see why you wouldn't be able to field it as a HQ choice. It might be worded like the priests from the SoB codex though, which always makes them slotless, no matter how you take them.

I don't think its superior to just taking more farseers though.

 Jidmah wrote:

 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.

I do not need back-up to claim a rule must be followed. It's the basis of Warhammer, following rules. You are not following that rule.

 Jidmah wrote:

 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.

I am referring to the choice of using the Rule. You cannot "choose not to use the first part". You can "choose not to have a Mek".
Rule:"For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet."
Again, you must follow rules, and this one has a choice A or B, but you have to follow it, you can't "choose not to use it".

 Jidmah wrote:

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.

You have not abided by the Mekaniaks rule.

The rest of the quoted text does not cite permission to field a Unit without itsrules.

 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.

Does the statement above let you field a Warboss without "Waaagh!"?
Or a Weirdboy without "waaagh! energy"?

 Jidmah wrote:

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.

There are no rules to prove me wrong and i dodged no questions, please ask away i will answer them 1 by 1.
I am not rewording rules but quoting them Verbatim from your own posts, unless you believe you might have made errors quoting them?

"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"

I can include a Mek Unit. It's Datasheet has the Mek's Rules:

"Mekaniaks: 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. Before the battle, immediately after determining Warlord Traits, any Mek that is not already part of another unit must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the Infantry or Artillery type in their Detachment; a Mek cannot leave his unit and is treated as part of it for the entire battle for all rules purposes."

Let's break it down:
A) For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet.
B) These selections do not use up Force Organisation slots.
C) Before the battle, immediately after determining Warlord Traits, any Mek that is not already part of another unit must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the Infantry or Artillery type in their Detachment.
C,example) a Mek cannot leave his unit and is treated as part of it for the entire battle for all rules purposes.

Have you followed rule A?
Have you followed rule B?
Have you followed rule C?

Not following either of them needs explicit wording to do so. (Or you can choose not to follow rules, like i can choose not to follow Morale rules)

 BlackTalos wrote:
Let's break it down:
A) For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet.
B) These selections do not use up Force Organisation slots.
C) Before the battle, immediately after determining Warlord Traits, any Mek that is not already part of another unit must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the Infantry or Artillery type in their Detachment.
C,example) a Mek cannot leave his unit and is treated as part of it for the entire battle for all rules purposes.

Have you followed rule A?
Have you followed rule B?
Have you followed rule C?

Not following either of them needs explicit wording to do so. (Or you can choose not to follow rules, like i can choose not to follow Morale rules)

Ok, I pick a Mek and two units of boyz (exact load-out irrelevant) for my CAD. I think we can agree that the basic rules allow me to do that if Mekaniaks wasn't there.

A) For each HQ choice in the Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include single Mek chose from this datasheet.
My only HQ choice in the Detachment is Mek, and therefore I did not use this rule to include another Mek from this datasheet. I followed rule A.
B) These selections do not use up Force Organisation slots.
Since I did not select my Mek in addition to another HQ choice, it does take up a Force Organization slot. I followed rule B.
C) Before the battle, immediately after determining Warlord Traits, any Mek that is not already part of another unit must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the Infantry or Artillery type in their Detachment. [...]
I join my Mek to one of the boyz unit when the game starts. I followed rule C.

As you can see, it's perfectly possible to follow the basic rules without contradicting Mekaniaks in any way.

As for question:
1) According to your logic how do you field an Ork Warband formation in your opinion? How do you get a Mek in there?
2) How do you field a Mek in an unbound army?
3) If I tell you "you may go right" and then "you may go left", which directions are you allowed to go, assuming you haven't moved yet?

So, the comparison to deepstrike rings true, and with there being no explicit denial of the base foc in the mekaniak rule, it would be an additional permission the same as that. As such, I'll concede.

 Jidmah wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Let's break it down:
A) For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet.
B) These selections do not use up Force Organisation slots.
C) Before the battle, immediately after determining Warlord Traits, any Mek that is not already part of another unit must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the Infantry or Artillery type in their Detachment.
C,example) a Mek cannot leave his unit and is treated as part of it for the entire battle for all rules purposes.

Have you followed rule A?
Have you followed rule B?
Have you followed rule C?

Not following either of them needs explicit wording to do so. (Or you can choose not to follow rules, like i can choose not to follow Morale rules)

Ok, I pick a Mek and two units of boyz (exact load-out irrelevant) for my CAD. I think we can agree that the basic rules allow me to do that if Mekaniaks wasn't there.

A) For each HQ choice in the Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include single Mek chose from this datasheet.
My only HQ choice in the Detachment is Mek, and therefore I did not use this rule to include another Mek from this datasheet. I followed rule A.

You did not follow A because you did not do "For each HQ choice in the Detachment ". You just took a Mek from no-where...

 Jidmah wrote:
B) These selections do not use up Force Organisation slots.
Since I did not select my Mek in addition to another HQ choice, it does take up a Force Organization slot. I followed rule B.

You cannot Refer this to A. It's not because you've done A that you can now ignore this.
You have not followed rule B: Your Mek has used up a Force Organisation slot.

 Jidmah wrote:
C) Before the battle, immediately after determining Warlord Traits, any Mek that is not already part of another unit must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the Infantry or Artillery type in their Detachment. [...]
I join my Mek to one of the boyz unit when the game starts. I followed rule C.

As you can see, it's perfectly possible to follow the basic rules without contradicting Mekaniaks in any way.

As for question:
1) According to your logic how do you field an Ork Warband formation in your opinion? How do you get a Mek in there?

You field a formation just like you field a Detachment, it is fully Described in the "Formation" Paragraph of the BrB.
"the Army List Entries that comprises a Formation are listed on it."

 Jidmah wrote:
2) How do you field a Mek in an unbound army?

By following Rule A above: "For each HQ choice in a Detachment" you may take a Mek, if you want to...
There is a discussion on dependent units:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/607376.page#7084183
But mainly agreed that all rules that say "For each HQ choice in a Detachment" or "For each Marneus Calgar in a Detachment" have to be followed to get the unit in question.

 Jidmah wrote:
3) If I tell you "you may go right" and then "you may go left", which directions are you allowed to go, assuming you haven't moved yet?

I can go right, i can go left and i can go straight on, or in a Loop. Those examples of "may" do not have conditions. Better example:
"For each step you walk you may go left."
Can i go left without walking?
"For each €10 you make you may buy 1 model."
Can you buy a model if you made €5?
"For each HQ choice in a Detachment (...) you may include a single Mek.
Can you include a Mek if you took 0 HQs?

 BlackTalos wrote:
You did not follow A because you did not do "For each HQ choice in the Detachment ". You just took a Mek from no-where...

Nowhere? Nope. I took it form the same place I'd take a Big Mek from. Tell me, how do you take Big Meks in your army? And then, how does that differ from regular Meks?

You cannot Refer this to A. It's not because you've done A that you can now ignore this.
You have not followed rule B: Your Mek has used up a Force Organisation slot.

Wat. You do know what the word "These" means? Oxford describes it as "Referring to a specific thing just mentioned".

As for question:
1) According to your logic how do you field an Ork Warband formation in your opinion? How do you get a Mek in there?

You field a formation just like you field a Detachment, it is fully Described in the "Formation" Paragraph of the BrB.
"the Army List Entries that comprises a Formation are listed on it."

Wouldn't that violate the Mekaniaks rule by your logic? If not, why not?

 Jidmah wrote:
2) How do you field a Mek in an unbound army?

By following Rule A above: "For each HQ choice in a Detachment" you may take a Mek, if you want to...

You cannot take HQ choices or Detachments in unbound armies.

There is a discussion on dependent units:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/607376.page#7084183
But mainly agreed that all rules that say "For each HQ choice in a Detachment" or "For each Marneus Calgar in a Detachment" have to be followed to get the unit in question.

Well, what makes you think that a Mek is a "dependent unit"? Because it isn't.

"For each HQ choice in a Detachment (...) you may include a single Mek.
Can you include a Mek if you took 0 HQs?

Can you include a Big Mek?

From 'Basic Versus Advanced':

Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether because they have a special kind of weapon..., unusual skills..., because they are different from their fellows..., or because they are not normal infantry models... The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated in its Army List Entry...

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

You've continually ignored this. The only option the 'Mekaniaks' rule allows is whether or not you take a Mek, nothing more. You can't follow the basic rules for taking a Mek because 'Mekaniaks' is an advanced rule that tells you how to take a Mek. When it comes to a Mek, dues to the 'Mekaniaks' rule the basic rules no loner exist as they are overridden by the special rule.

Ok so now you are using the example of the Big Mek.

So, very first you follow this:
"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."

You want to use an army with A) a Big Mek Model or another day B) a Mek model.

doing A), you follow the Big Mek datasheet, and then:
"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"

So the Big Mek is now an HQ slot for your detachment.

doing B), you follow the Mek datasheet, which says "For each HQ choice in a Detachment (...) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet". But you have no "HQ choice in a Detachment", why can you "may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet"? That's the only way you can include your Mek Model in your army: choosing this Datasheet.

As for question:
1) According to your logic how do you field an Ork Warband formation in your opinion? How do you get a Mek in there?

You field a formation just like you field a Detachment, it is fully Described in the "Formation" Paragraph of the BrB.
"the Army List Entries that comprises a Formation are listed on it."

Wouldn't that violate the Mekaniaks rule by your logic? If not, why not?

 Ghaz wrote:
From 'Basic Versus Advanced':

Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether because they have a special kind of weapon..., unusual skills..., because they are different from their fellows..., or because they are not normal infantry models... The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated in its Army List Entry...

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

You've continually ignored this. The only option the 'Mekaniaks' rule allows is whether or not you take a Mek, nothing more. You can't follow the basic rules for taking a Mek because 'Mekaniaks' is an advanced rule that tells you how to take a Mek. When it comes to a Mek, dues to the 'Mekaniaks' rule the basic rules no loner exist as they are overridden by the special rule.

You must really be desperate about being right when you are misquoting a rule in oder to prove your point

Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise. They include the rules for movement, shooting and close combat as well as the rules for morale. These are all the rules you’ll need for infantry models.

Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether because they have a special kind of weapon (such as a boltgun), unusual skills (such as the ability to regenerate), because they are different to their fellows (such as a unit leader or a heroic character), or because they are not normal infantry models (a bike, a swarm or even a tank). The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated in its Army List Entry. Army List Entries can be found in a number of Games Workshop publications, such as a Warhammer 40,000 codex.

Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules. For example, the basic rules state that a model must take a Morale check under certain situations. If, however, that model has a special rule that makes it immune to Morale checks, then it does not take such checks – the advanced rule takes precedence. On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence.

Oh, and claiming that I have ignored this is a blatant lie. I have proven multiple times that the rules do not contradict each other and thus are not replaced. Unless you can prove a contradiction, you argument is invalid.

Also Jidmah, to try and show what is wrong again:

 Jidmah wrote:
A) For each HQ choice in the Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include single Mek chose from this datasheet.
My only HQ choice in the Detachment is Mek, and therefore I did not use this rule to include another Mek from this datasheet. I followed rule A.

You keep pointing at the Oxford definition of things, but this is a pure Contradiction, surely you can see that?

You cannot follow a rule if you don't use the Rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:




I think i will stop here trying to explain Centimeters to someone who does not use Rulers.

I have tried to explain your error, but maybe you will understand it another time.

Thank you for your time!

 BlackTalos wrote:
That's the only way you can include your Mek Model in your army: choosing this Datasheet.

Prove this. You keep bringing this up, you can't prove it. Unless you can prove it, you are wrong.

The rule does NOT support this. All your attempts to claim so have been proven wrong.

Why would it? The BrB says "each individual unit maintains its normal Battlefield Role", the Warboss is Still an HQ. "For each HQ choice in a Detachment (Warboss) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet".

I'd argue that army lists don't include HQ choices, but I'll just give this to you. It's irrelevant anyways.

 Jidmah wrote:
A) For each HQ choice in the Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include single Mek chose from this datasheet.
My only HQ choice in the Detachment is Mek, and therefore I did not use this rule to include another Mek from this datasheet. I followed rule A.

We all agree that the rule "For each HQ choice in the Detachment you may include" is broken/ not followed if you take a single Mek, but i have no easy way of explaining this logically, if you could expand on this?

Just because you agree on this, doesn't make it right. I've provided examples from the 40k rules (deep-strike) which work exactly the same, you chose to ignore it. I provided abstract examples working the same, you ignored them.

I'll try one more time:
Rule #1 You have a basket.
Rule #2 You may put fruit in your basket.
Rule #3 Apples are fruit.
Rule #4 For each piece of fruit you put in your basket (not including other apples) you may put a single apple into your basket.

What prevents you from putting a single apple into your basket? Do not paraphrase this example when answering.


"For each HQ choice in the Detachment you may include a Mek." does NOT say, in any way, whether hidden, implied, written in magic ink, or otherwise "You may only take one Mek for each HQ choice".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Also Jidmah, to try and show what is wrong again:

 Jidmah wrote:
A) For each HQ choice in the Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include single Mek chose from this datasheet.
My only HQ choice in the Detachment is Mek, and therefore I did not use this rule to include another Mek from this datasheet. I followed rule A.

You keep pointing at the Oxford definition of things, but this is a pure Contradiction, surely you can see that?

You cannot follow a rule if you don't use the Rule.

I have already proven this wrong, by providing the deep-strike example.

I think i will stop here trying to explain Centimeters to someone who does not use Rulers.

I have tried to explain your error, but maybe you will understand it another time.

Thank you for your time!

There is no error. You are seeing rules which do not exist.

 Jidmah wrote:
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.

This?

It proves nothing wrong. "A Transport vehicle with Deep Strike may Deep Strike regardless of whether its passengers have Deep Strike or not." The Transport may Deep Strike, or it may not, and this is a situation "regardless of whether its passengers have Deep Strike or not".

The Transport vehicle still needs the Deep Strike Rule to do this, just as the Mek needs the "each HQ choice in the Detachment" to have his "may".

If you don't have "each HQ choice in the Detachment", you don't have the "may" option.
If it doesn't have Deeps Strike, the Transport cannot "may" Deep Strike.

 Jidmah wrote:
I'll try one more time:
Rule #1 You have a basket.
Rule #2 You may put fruit in your basket.
Rule #3 Apples are fruit.
Rule #4 For each piece of fruit you put in your basket (not including other apples) you may put a single apple into your basket.

What prevents you from putting a single apple into your basket? Do not paraphrase this example when answering.

You have to follow Rule #4 to get an Apple in the basket. If you put a single Apple in the Basket, you broke Rule #4: there is no fruit in the basket that allows you to put the apple.
You cannot "skip" or "Ignore" Rule #4, you can't do #1 + #2 + #3 and not #4.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I'll try one more time:
Rule #1 You have a basket.
Rule #2 You may put fruit in your basket.
Rule #3 Apples are fruit.
Rule #4 For each piece of fruit you put in your basket (not including other apples) you may put a single apple into your basket.

What prevents you from putting a single apple into your basket? Do not paraphrase this example when answering.

You have to follow Rule #4 to get an Apple in the basket. If you put a single Apple in the Basket, you broke Rule #4: there is no fruit in the basket that allows you to put the apple.
You cannot "skip" or "Ignore" Rule #4, you can't do #1 + #2 + #3 and not #4.

Thank you for answering. I can tell how your interpretation works from this.

For some reason you seem to believe that #4 imposes a limitation on #2 - why you believe it to be that way, I cannot tell. In my understanding #4 is simply handing out free apples to anyone putting other fruit in their basket. When you put an apple into your basket using #2, #4 simply doesn't give you a second apple.

Maybe it's the difference between my American English and your British English?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
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.

This?

It proves nothing wrong. "A Transport vehicle with Deep Strike may Deep Strike regardless of whether its passengers have Deep Strike or not." The Transport may Deep Strike, or it may not, and this is a situation "regardless of whether its passengers have Deep Strike or not".

The Transport vehicle still needs the Deep Strike Rule to do this, just as the Mek needs the "each HQ choice in the Detachment" to have his "may".

If you don't have "each HQ choice in the Detachment", you don't have the "may" option.
If it doesn't have Deeps Strike, the Transport cannot "may" Deep Strike.

This is... twisted, you didn't get my point at all. The numbers thing seemed to work, so I'll try it here as well.

#1 Transports may be deployed on the table
#2 Transports may arrive from reserves
#3 Transports with deep-strike may arrive via deep strike
#4 Transports with deep-strike may arrive via deep strike even if their passengers are not allowed to deep-strike.

If I put tactical marines in a BA land raider and use #4 to deep-strike it, I'm not using #1 and #2. I'm still not breaking the rules #1 and #2, nor are rules #1 and #2 in conflict with #4.

 Jidmah wrote:

This is... twisted, you didn't get my point at all. The numbers thing seemed to work, so I'll try it here as well.

#1 Transports may be deployed on the table
#2 Transports may arrive from reserves
#3 Transports with deep-strike may arrive via deep strike
#4 Transports with deep-strike may arrive via deep strike even if their passengers are not allowed to deep-strike.

If I put tactical marines in a BA land raider and use #4 to deep-strike it, I'm not using #1 and #2. I'm still not breaking the rules #1 and #2, nor are rules #1 and #2 in conflict with #4.

All of the relevant rules for a situation are in play when you are doing a particular action in 40k.

In this example, rules 1-4 for the transport are all permissions. When you have nothing but permissions, you may obviously do any one of them.

The Mekaniak rule (just as your fruit/basket rule #4) provides a restriction. When you have a Permission and a Restriction, you must follow both.

There is a difference. If you don't see the difference then nothing anyone says is going to convince you that Mekaniaks states you MAY take a Mek, but only for each HQ taken (that is not a Mek). In the case of Formations, they are chosen for you by the rules. In the case of Mek Upgrades in another Ork unit, you are provided permission to make the upgrade (and those Meks are not an HQ choice, but rather a Troops choice from the unit they are upgraded in).


Everything I can possibly say has else has already been said. I'm not going to go in circles like others.

 Jidmah wrote:
So, you're saying that you must buy a Mek whenever you buy a Warboss? Interesting. And false.

No. May buy a Mek when you buy a Warboss. Not must.

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.

Except all of the other HQ choices do not have the Mekaniak rule restricting their choice. This line of argument is incorrect.
How do you choose a Mek? You choose another HQ choice, then you can add a Mek. If you havn't, you cannot take a Mek unit with the HQ Battlefield Role.
Or you may upgrade models in other units (per their rules) to a Mek (Troop choice). Or you may pick a formation that has a Mek included (follow the rules for formations).

 Jidmah wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I'll try one more time:
Rule #1 You have a basket.
Rule #2 You may put fruit in your basket.
Rule #3 Apples are fruit.
Rule #4 For each piece of fruit you put in your basket (not including other apples) you may put a single apple into your basket.

What prevents you from putting a single apple into your basket? Do not paraphrase this example when answering.

You have to follow Rule #4 to get an Apple in the basket. If you put a single Apple in the Basket, you broke Rule #4: there is no fruit in the basket that allows you to put the apple.
You cannot "skip" or "Ignore" Rule #4, you can't do #1 + #2 + #3 and not #4.

Thank you for answering. I can tell how your interpretation works from this.

For some reason you seem to believe that #4 imposes a limitation on #2 - why you believe it to be that way, I cannot tell. In my understanding #4 is simply handing out free apples to anyone putting other fruit in their basket. When you put an apple into your basket using #2, #4 simply doesn't give you a second apple.

Maybe it's the difference between my American English and your British English?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
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.

This?

It proves nothing wrong. "A Transport vehicle with Deep Strike may Deep Strike regardless of whether its passengers have Deep Strike or not." The Transport may Deep Strike, or it may not, and this is a situation "regardless of whether its passengers have Deep Strike or not".

The Transport vehicle still needs the Deep Strike Rule to do this, just as the Mek needs the "each HQ choice in the Detachment" to have his "may".

If you don't have "each HQ choice in the Detachment", you don't have the "may" option.
If it doesn't have Deeps Strike, the Transport cannot "may" Deep Strike.

This is... twisted, you didn't get my point at all. The numbers thing seemed to work, so I'll try it here as well.

#1 Transports may be deployed on the table
#2 Transports may arrive from reserves
#3 Transports with deep-strike may arrive via deep strike
#4 Transports with deep-strike may arrive via deep strike even if their passengers are not allowed to deep-strike.

If I put tactical marines in a BA land raider and use #4 to deep-strike it, I'm not using #1 and #2. I'm still not breaking the rules #1 and #2, nor are rules #1 and #2 in conflict with #4.

Can you hypothesize as to why players feel they cannot take a little mek as an HQ slot? Maybe if you "wear there shoes for a day" you could try and explain it a different way?

added to previous reply

Rorschach9 wrote:
The Mekaniak rule (just as your fruit/basket rule #4) provides a restriction. When you have a Permission and a Restriction, you must follow both.

Why does it provide a restriction? Why is it not a second permission?

There is a difference. If you don't see the difference then nothing anyone says is going to convince you that Mekaniaks states you MAY take a Mek,

Oh, for Christs sake. Writing the goddamn word in caps, bold, colors, italics or font size 40000 doesn't explain a goddamn thing. I have literally checked fifteen, as in 15 dictionaries to find any connection between the words "may" or "for each" and restrictions. I have found none. Which has provided me with sufficient proof that there is none. The only relevant connection to "may" is providing permission. Which leads me to believe that it can only be an additional permission to the permission(s) you already have.

When replacing "may" and "for each" with their respective definitions, the rule reads:
"From every one HQ choice in the Detachment (not including other Meks) you are given permission to include single Mek chosen from this datasheet.

The rule give you permission to field a single, slotless Mek every time you chose a HQ. This permission does not contradict, overrule or invalidate any other permissions. If you feel different, explain why you do. Don't just write the word in caps like its self-explanatory.

but only for each HQ taken (that is not a Mek).

See, here's the catch. None of you can argue that it's a restriction without adding words which are not part of the rule. Which is a pretty good sign for me to assume you to be wrong.

In the case of Formations, they are chosen for you by the rules.

You'd still violate that "restriction" you people are seeing, making it illegal to ever field the formation.

@osirisx69: I'm trying to do that, but when no one is doing anything but ignoring any counter-arguments, repeating the same things over and over again and stating "I'm right, because that's the way it works", there is little to be gained from it. There aren't even any real argument to talk about on the anti-mek-HQ side.

 Jidmah wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:
The Mekaniak rule (just as your fruit/basket rule #4) provides a restriction. When you have a Permission and a Restriction, you must follow both.

Why does it provide a restriction? Why is it not a second permission?

There is a difference. If you don't see the difference then nothing anyone says is going to convince you that Mekaniaks states you MAY take a Mek,

Oh, for Christs sake. Writing the goddamn word in caps, bold, colors, italics or font size 40000 doesn't explain a goddamn thing. I have literally checked fifteen, as in 15 dictionaries to find any connection between the words "may" or "for each" and restrictions. I have found none. Which has provided me with sufficient proof that there is none. The only relevant connection to "may" is providing permission. Which leads me to believe that it can only be an additional permission to the permission(s) you already have.

When replacing "may" and "for each" with their respective definitions, the rule reads:
"From every one HQ choice in the Detachment (not including other Meks) you are given permission to include single Mek chosen from this datasheet.

The rule give you permission to field a single, slotless Mek every time you chose a HQ. This permission does not contradict, overrule or invalidate any other permissions. If you feel different, explain why you do. Don't just write the word in caps like its self-explanatory.

but only for each HQ taken (that is not a Mek).

See, here's the catch. None of you can argue that it's a restriction without adding words which are not part of the rule. Which is a pretty good sign for me to assume you to be wrong.

For each HQ (that is not a Mek) taken in your detachment you may take a Mek.

This sentence gives you explicit permission to take a Mek, for each HQ chosen (that is not a Mek). So if you don't choose an HQ that is a Mek, you ... what? The antithesis of May is May not. Even using your replacement words it is still a restriction. You are given permission to include a single mek, chosen from this datasheet .. when? For every one HQ choice in the detachment chosen. If you have not chosen another HQ, you are not granted the permission to choose a Mek from that datasheet, as in order to satisfy all rules involved, you must actually follow all rules involved (and Mekaniak is most certainly a rule involved with any Mek chosen from the Mek HQ Datasheet).

Clearly your interpretation will not differ and you will fail to see the restriction inherent in that rule. We are at an impasse and are doomed to go around in meaningless circles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

In the case of Formations, they are chosen for you by the rules.

You'd still violate that "restriction" you people are seeing, making it illegal to ever field the formation.

Except the rules for Formations disagrees.

No, I've changed my mind and agree with Jidmah. It's an added permission that doesn't contradict the base rule, so therefore doesn't cause an override.
You only need to have a previous hq if you want your mek to be slotless and go beyond the max HQ FoC. If your mek uses an HQ slot then you don't need a previous HQ. The fact that it says not including other meks means that a mek can be an HQ. If all meks from this datasheet had to follow that first line (and only that first line) this could never be the case as they'd all be slotless anyway (like a priest).

 Amiricle wrote:
No, I've changed my mind and agree with Jidmah. It's an added permission that doesn't contradict the base rule, so therefore doesn't cause an override.
You only need to have a previous hq if you want your mek to be slotless and go beyond the max HQ FoC. If your mek uses an HQ slot then you don't need a previous HQ. The fact that it says not including other meks means that a mek can be an HQ. If all meks from this datasheet had to follow that first line (and only that first line) this could never be the case as they'd all be slotless anyway (like a priest).

It states "not including other Meks" because once you have taken an HQ and a Mek this then prevents you from saying "Ah, but I have a Mek, so I can take a Mek .. ah, I have a Mek, so I can take another Mek! Ahah, I have another Mek, so I can take another Mek..." and so on, thus allowing unlimited Meks. They may not take up a FOC slot, but they are still an HQ choice as they come from the HQ Battlefield Role on the Datasheet.

 Amiricle wrote:
No, I've changed my mind and agree with Jidmah. It's an added permission that doesn't contradict the base rule, so therefore doesn't cause an override.
You only need to have a previous hq if you want your mek to be slotless and go beyond the max HQ FoC. If your mek uses an HQ slot then you don't need a previous HQ. The fact that it says not including other meks means that a mek can be an HQ. If all meks from this datasheet had to follow that first line (and only that first line) this could never be the case as they'd all be slotless anyway (like a priest).

This is how I see it also. I was on the fence even when the codex 1st came out but now I am not.

That's an interpretation, sure, but it can be interpreted either way so it's inconclusive. Could have just worded it like the priest saying this model does not count as an HQ.

Fact is, this rule and the base rule can co-exist happily. For a rule override to occur, there would have to be a direct contradiction which, as Jidmah has elaborately pointed out, isn't happening here. You only break the rule if you take a slotless mek without another HQ. If you take him as an HQ, the rule doesn't apply, since he's not slotless. It's using one of 2 permissions like the deepstrike example. Again, this can coexist with the base rule, so there is no override.

Perhaps bringing up a different iteration of this might help clear things up a little. The Techmarines in the new GK codex has a rule with identical wording. For each HQ choice, you can include a techmarine. So does that mean you can take a techmarine on his own as an HQ choice? No, because as a lot of us are pointing out, there is not another HQ choice. Part A (for each HQ choice) has to be true before reaching the rest of the rule. It is the basis of the sentence, and is the primary condition of it. If there is no other HQ choice, then the rule is already not being followed.

EDIT: Short version.If you think Meks can be taken on their own, then you MUST also be agreeing that Techmarines can be taken on their own as well, as it is the exact same concept with the exact same wording. So if for some reason you think that Meks can be taken on their own, but you disagree about techmarines, that in itself points out that your argument is flawed.

Tech marines can be taken solo if the wording is the same

No one has said anything about techmarines until now so I'm not sure where that post came from. Regardless, if the wording is exactly the same, then yes, the result would be the same. I don't have that codex digitally, so I can neither confirm nor deny that is the case.

... or Royal Court, or Court of the Archon, or Lone Wolf, or Warlock Council, or Dark Angels Techmarine, or Tyrant Guard Brood, or Commissar...

So a 10 point Servitor is enough to fill a Mandatory HQ Roll?

 Ghaz wrote:
... or Royal Court, or Court of the Archon, or Lone Wolf, or Warlock Council, or Dark Angels Techmarine, or Tyrant Guard Brood, or Commissar...

Do those 6th ed codexes have the HQ icon on their datasheet?

the royal court needs a necron overlord, the ork mek has no such requirements and has the HQ icon on their datasheet.

It's not the same thing.

The icon is no different than the header used in older codices.

Ok, at home and have had a look at those respective units and I am even more convinced. There is even mention of this type of unit on page 121 BRB. All it explains there is that you must meet the requirements to have the unit/model be slotless. No where in there does it say having that option removes it's previous permission to USE a FoC slot. The court of the archon is iffy due to it being an obvious sub-category of Archon, but all those others mentioned look fine.
The exceptions to this are called out very specifically in their respective unit entries for the Commissar: "You may include one Commissar for every Company Command Squad or Platoon Command Squad in your army. They do not take up a Force Organisation slot, and do not qualify as a mandatory HQ selection." as well as the Ministorum Priest: "Each Astra Militarum detachment may include 0-3 Ministorum Priests. They do not take up a Force Organisation slot, and do not qualify as a mandatory HQ selection."
The mekaniaks special rule does not have that restriction that the commissar or priest have.

Do note that the Lone Wolf and Servitor are Elites, so no, a 10 point servitor would not be enough to fill a mandatory HQ roll. It could fill an elite roll though.