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.

There is a problem with your theory and that is that the Rules you have quoted singles out mandatory Head Quarter selection.
As the Rule quoted does not contain any wording to state that the Unit can be selected to fill a non-mandatory Head Quarter Slot, it is a stretch to state that it is evidence to prove that concept. All it does is Restrict the Units in question from meeting the requirements for a 'mandatory selection.' It is only possible to state that these Units can not be included when calculating if all Mandatory Slot Requirements have been met, anything more is an assumption not based on Written Rules. This is very important as there already exists Detachments with more then one mandatory Head Quarter Slot, and who knows what the future will bring.

So such a Rule would only prevent us from filling one Slot with a Head Quarter unit, evoking this Rule to take a second Slot-less Head Quarter Unit, then trying to state that both mandatory Head Quarter Slots have been filled....

Given that the Rulebook informs us that Slot-less Units must follow all Restrictions found in their Army List Entry, and this Rule grants the Mek Slot-less status contains Restrictions on how it can be selected....
Where does permission to ignore this Rule entirely come from?

Putting forth the use of a commissar or priest to fill a non-mandatory slot is a debate for another thread. I only noted it to show that the mek does not have it.
The rulebook informs that slotless units must follow these restrictions in order to remain slotless. Failing to meet these restrictions, and absent any other special restrictions (i.e. the commissar & priest examples), you fall back to the previous rule in that the unit uses the slot of its' battlefield role, and in this meks' case, that is an HQ.

I would like to point out that certain Space Wolf characters do specify that they take a slot unless you include certain units.

Amiricle,
Can you quote the Rule from the book which states that the Unit only has to follow those Restrictions to remain slotless?

Right now my line of thinking is thus:
Does the Mek contain a Rule describing the Unit as Slotless?
- Yes
The Unit therefore falls under the Rules for "Army List Entries That Do Not Use Force Organization Slot's" and the instruction to follow the other Requirements is binding.

JinxDragon wrote:
Can you quote the Rule from the book which states that the Unit only has to follow those Restrictions to remain slotless?

BRB page 121, second paragraph: Army List Entries That Do Not Use Force Organization Slots

Curious as that is the Rule I am referring to as well, and I don't see where it states that the Unit simply loses the 'slot-less' status if it fails to follow the restrictions.
Mine curiously uses the words must still adhere to any restrictions which would make it non-optional....

Maybe you can quote the line for me, in case this is a misprint?

You mean the one that says the following?

... but they must still adhere to any restrictions detailed on the Detachment and it's own Army List Entry. If the Army List Entry states that it can be included in an army that includes another specified unit, and that it does not take up a Force Organization slot, it must join the same Detachment as that specified unit.

Are you baiting me? A poor choice of wording on my part, but lets not descend into grammar battles, as that'll just get this thread shut down.

It describes what you must do to have the unit entry gain a slotless status. Don't meet those restrictions and it cannot gain a slotless status, erego retaining it's battlefield role from the previous step.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:
You mean the one that says the following?

... but they must still adhere to any restrictions detailed on the Detachment and it's own Army List Entry. If the Army List Entry states that it can be included in an army that includes another specified unit, and that it does not take up a Force Organization slot, it must join the same Detachment as that specified unit.

thats the one

It describes what happens to Units which have Rules describing them as Slot-less, not how they gain the status.

The question is therefore simple:
When you select the Mek, does it's Army List have a Rule which describes it as Slot-less?

Yes, but does that matter? We are assigning it it's battlefield role slot, not aiming to remove it from one. It already has permission to be used in it's specified battlefield role.
When you select the mek, does it have a rule which removes that permission?

It matters greatly, for without specific Permission to ignore a Rule it is part of the Rule as Written equation.

And where does the 'Army List Entries That Do Not Use Force Organization Chart Slots' or the Mek's own army list entry give that as an option?

 Amiricle wrote:
Yes, but does that matter? We are assigning it it's battlefield role slot, not aiming to remove it from one. It already has permission to be used in it's specified battlefield role.
When you select the mek, does it have a rule which removes that permission?

Being placed in a FOC slot or not does not change or remove the units Battlefield Role. "Slotless" Meks absolutely have the HQ Battlefield role. This role is assigned by the unit entry, not by being "slotless" or filling a FOC slot.

All units with a battlefield role have that option. They begin with it, It is literally the first option a unit has after choosing the detachment in the whole process of the "Choosing Your Army" chapter.
A unit with additional permissions doesn't lose ones it already has unless a special rule states it does.
To quote Jidmah from earlier:

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

The only restrictive part about the rule is the restriction you must follow in order to make use of the advantage the rule grants. If you are not making use of the extra option, the restriction doesn't apply.
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. A rule that comes after the "Battlefield Roles" and "Force Organisation Charts And Slots" rules. A rule that does not deny the use of those previous rules. A rule that you must follow only if you want the extra tactical advantage of choosing that unit without it using a slot.

And again, 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.

Right, but these 2 rules don't contradict, they co-exist quite happily, so there is no override.

Edit: As an addendum, you might note that earlier I was debating against this topic, but that entry right there Ghaz, combined with the permissions comment by Jidmah is what caused me to rethink and change my stance, seeing that there is no issue with this.

Quite right

JinxDragon wrote:
It describes what happens to Units which have Rules describing them as Slot-less, not how they gain the status.

The question is therefore simple:
When you select the Mek, does it's Army List have a Rule which describes it as Slot-less?

The slot-less phrase is worded to only trigger when selecting meks in addition to other HQs. If you select a Mek without buying another HQ first, there is no way to make it slot-less. For example, if you chose a warboss and two meks, one of the meks would be slot-less and one would not.

 Jidmah wrote:
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.

To try and explain the Restriction/Permission on this rule (because the slot-less argument might work but i don't think it'll explain much...).

The rule has a permission: "to field a single, slotless Mek every time you chose a HQ"
The rule has a restriction (that we see but you don't?): "It is a Special Rule" (It's listed under the heading "Special Rules" for the Mek.

Because it is a Special Rule, you must follow it. (per every time i say "follow the rules" statement and Rule quotes)

In a way, because you must follow the rule to may have a Slotless Mek, it is the only possible way to field a Mek.
Having a non-Slotless Mek (in our opinion, backed by this Rule) is impossible, because you have ignore the Restriction of "must" use the above Permission.

Because you "must" use the permission, you can "From every one HQ choice in the Detachment" choose to have a Mek or not. You can make the choice to have one or not, but that choice is mandatory for every Mek on the Tabletop (Using the Mekaniak Rule - so not the Lootas Meks)

Hoping this maybe helps...

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
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.

To try and explain the Restriction/Permission on this rule (because the slot-less argument might work but i don't think it'll explain much...).

The rule has a permission: "to field a single, slotless Mek every time you chose a HQ"
The rule has a restriction (that we see but you don't?): "It is a Special Rule" (It's listed under the heading "Special Rules" for the Mek.

Because it is a Special Rule, you must follow it. (per every time i say "follow the rules" statement and Rule quotes)

In a way, because you must follow the rule to may have a Slotless Mek, it is the only possible way to field a Mek.
Having a non-Slotless Mek (in our opinion, backed by this Rule) is impossible, because you have ignore the Restriction of "must" use the above Permission.

Because you "must" use the permission, you can "From every one HQ choice in the Detachment" choose to have a Mek or not. You can make the choice to have one or not, but that choice is mandatory for every Mek on the Tabletop (Using the Mekaniak Rule - so not the Lootas Meks)

Hoping this maybe helps...

I see where you're coming from, but that's exactly where you are wrong. A rule that adds permission does not force you to use that permission. You do not have to use permissions, ever. That's the big mistake.

A couple of counter-examples:
- When you have the deep-strike special rule, you are merely given permission to arrive from deep-strike. You do not have to arrive from deep-strike.
- Another example is 'ere we go. You are given permission to re-roll one of your charge dice. You do not have to re-roll your charge dice.
- Interceptor gives you permission to shoot at enemies arriving from reserves. You do not have to shoot any units, though.

A couple of examples that do not grant permission but rather tell you what to do:
- Blast explicitly tells you not to roll to hit and use the blast marker instead. You do not only have permission to use the blast marker, you are told to use it instead of the basic rules.
- Armourbane. It specifically tells you to add another dice for penetration rolls, rather than giving you permission to add another dice. For that reason you must add the extra dice.
- Get's Hot is applied every time you fire the weapon, you are not given permission to use it, it simply happens every time you shoot in addition to whatever else is happening.

If you assume that you absolutely must use permissions, then:
- All terminators must always arrive via deep-strike.
- Passengers must always disembark from their transport during the movement phase.
- Bikes, fliers and FMC must always jink when shot at.
- All infantry must always go to ground when shot at.
- Characters must always declare challenges.
- Monstrous creatures must always trade their attacks for a single smash attack.
- ...

I could keep going forever, but I think it's clear that the game does not work that way. I hope you can see why you are not forced to follow permissions now.

No, you misunderstand. I am not stating that you must use the permission.

I am stating that you must include the permission into your game, IE you must follow the permission rule:

A couple of counter-examples:
- When you have the deep-strike special rule, you are merely given permission to arrive from deep-strike. You do not have to arrive from deep-strike.
- Another example is 'ere we go. You are given permission to re-roll one of your charge dice. You do not have to re-roll your charge dice.
- Interceptor gives you permission to shoot at enemies arriving from reserves. You do not have to shoot any units, though.

You have permission to Deep Strike when you have the Deep Strike rule.
If you decide to not Deep Strike, does your Unit not have the Deep Strike rule anymore?
So (i am trying to remember a rule) if we say "All units with Deep Strike must start in reserves" can you choose that your unit does not have the Deep Strike Special Rule?
Even if you deployed from reserves normally (You did not use the Deep Strike Permission) you must still start the game in reserves because you have the rule.


You have permission to re-roll one of your charge dice when you have the 'ere we go rule.
Does that mean you can re-roll the dice because you have Fleet?
You chose option A: I will not re-roll that Dice. But you must still follow the Rule that it has granted you a re-roll of the Dice.

You have permission to shoot at enemies arriving from reserves when you have the Interceptor rule.
Can you decide to shoot at ground Targets with Full BS?
Same as the Mek: You decided to field a Quad gun that chooses not to fire interceptor, does that mean we can choose not to use the Interceptor rule and fire the gun normally?

Other examples from the BRB:
"During the Assault phase, units may move into close combat" Choice: A -move into close combat; B-not move into close combat.
I decide to B-not move into close combat. does that mean I choose not to use the Assault Phase? I can ignore the Assault phase?

"a unit being charged may only fire Overwatch once per turn." Choice: A-Fire Overwatch; B-not fire Overwatch
If i don't overwatch, can choose not to use this rule and Overwatch 2 other units afterward?
The "once per Turn" is only if you "may only fire Overwatch", so if you don't fire, you don't follow the rule?

"Gargantuan Creatures and Gliding Flying Gargantuan Creatures may make Stomp attacks in the same manner as Super-heavy Walkers." Choice: A-Make stomp attack; B-not Stomp
If i choose to B - not Stomp, does it mean i can choose not to use this rule and my Stomp are no longer "in the same manner as Super-heavy Walkers". What are they then?

"A vehicle that moved at Combat Speed may fire a single weapon using its Ballistic Skill."
So if i choose B-not to fire, i can say my vehicle moved at Cruising Speed? because i choose not to use that rule.

"The Flyer is in close combat, in which case models may move into contact with the vehicle’s hull, its base or both." So i can choose A- contact with Hull, B-contact with Base or C-Contact with both.
Can i choose to not use the rule and be in Close Combat while touching nothing?

Is any of this making any good examples?
The choice is a Permission, but making the choice is a Restriction.
You have to follow the Rule, regardless of if you choose A or B (or C...)

So with the Rule: "For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet."
You can choose A - Include a single Mek or B - not Include a single Mek "for each HQ choice in a Detachment"
But you are forced to follow the Rule (and make the choice).

Just like the examples you give:
I am stating that you must include the permission into your game, IE you must follow the permission rule:

A couple of counter-examples:
- When you have the deep-strike special rule, you are merely given permission to arrive from deep-strike. You do not have to arrive from deep-strike.
- Another example is 'ere we go. You are given permission to re-roll one of your charge dice. You do not have to re-roll your charge dice.
- Interceptor gives you permission to shoot at enemies arriving from reserves. You do not have to shoot any units, though.

- If my opponent puts a Unit of Terminators in Reserves, and Rolls a 5 for them to arrive, he must choose if they arrive by DS or not. He cannot put them on the table, in DS formation 6" from his Table side and say "they have arrived". He must say "they arrive by DS" OR "they walk on".
-a Unit with 'ere we go Charges my Unit and Roll 3+5. The opponent must choose to re-roll or not to re-roll. He can't roll the 3 again and say "i choose to not re-roll"
-If my unit arrives from reserves, the opponent must choose if he is Intercepting or not. He can't choose to Intercept after i decide to Run with a unit from Reserves. the choice must be made.

 BlackTalos wrote:
No, you misunderstand. I am not stating that you must use the permission.

Well, you just said exactly that.

The Mekaniaks rule gives permission to field meks when fielding HQs. You just said, like four times in a row, that I must use that permission. You are wrong.

So (i am trying to remember a rule) if we say "All units with Deep Strike must start in reserves" can you choose that your unit does not have the Deep Strike Special Rule?

Even if you deployed from reserves normally (You did not use the Deep Strike Permission) you must still start the game in reserves because you have the rule.

You're rewording the example again. Which means that you can't apply your logic to the actual deep strike rule. Which means you are wrong.
Deep strike works exactly as I described, which means that Mekaniaks works that way as well.

You chose option A: I will not re-roll that Dice. But you must still follow the Rule that it has granted you a re-roll of the Dice.

According to you, you MUST re-roll that dice. According to you, you are breaking the rules when you chose option A. According to you, you are not following the rule that has granted you the re-roll.
According to me, that would be right, of course.

Other examples from the BRB:
[stuff]

You seem to have trouble to understand basic logic. If A -> B nothing tells you that B -> A or even that !B -> !A. That is a basic principle of logic, look it up.

If the assault phase results into making charge moves, not making charge moves does not result in there not being an assault phase.
If a gargantuan creature can stomp, not stomping does not stop the unit from being a gargantuan creature.
If cruising speed results in not firing weapons, nothing makes not firing weapons result in cruising speed.
For the same reason, if picking a HQ results in fielding a mek, nothing makes fielding a meks result in also having a HQ.

All your examples here are proof of you being wrong.

So with the Rule: "For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet."
You can choose A - Include a single Mek or B - not Include a single Mek "for each HQ choice in a Detachment"
But you are forced to follow the Rule (and make the choice).

The point you are missing, is that there is also C: I can field a mek as HQ choice, without an additional HQ. That rule has been there all along, with or without Mekaniaks. I quoted it like three times now, so I will not bother quoting it again.

- If my opponent puts a Unit of Terminators in Reserves, and Rolls a 5 for them to arrive, he must choose if they arrive by DS or not. He cannot put them on the table, in DS formation 6" from his Table side and say "they have arrived". He must say "they arrive by DS" OR "they walk on".

Wrong. He can also deploy them in his land-raider on the table. He can just put them on the table. With the right warlord trait he could even infiltrate them. He doesn't have to chose anything regarding deep-strike despite having the rule.

In order to make my post sound less hostile I've decided to delete my answers to your various strawman arguments and dodges - not to mention that you chose to ignore half of the example contradicting your logic. All can be summed up by you making up a complete arbitrary rules violations which have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Your opponent might as well flip the table and stomp your miniatures to dust. I have proven in a multitude of ways that I am not violating a rule when picking a slotted mek, therefore all your examples are null and void.

So, riddle me this, batman:



Is this fictive unit choice a legal HQ choice? If you answer with anything but yes or no, I will assume that you do not have an argument and are only continuing this discussion because you are unable to accept that you are wrong.

Yes, it is a legal HQ choice that can only be taken if you have another HQ choice (other than a Mek) and does not take up a slot on the Force Organization chart. You do not have the option to ignore the 'Mekaniaks' rule because its wording does not give you that option and therefore it overrides the basic rule per the 'Basic Versus Advanced' rule.

There is no mekaniaks rule, please answer again.



Is this fictive unit choice a legal HQ choice? If you answer with anything but yes or no, I will assume that you do not have an argument and are only continuing this discussion because you are unable to accept that you are wrong.

There is a 'Mekaniaks' rule and you've failed to prove that you have the option not to follow that rule. If you have to deliberately remove it to prove your point then there's no point in continuing this discussion.

Thanks for admitting that you do not have an argument. I kindly request that you stop intentionally misleading readers of YMDC.

You have ignored all evidence to the contrary. The restriction only applies if you want to field it without its FoC slot.

I have an argument. It requires that you not intentionally ignore rules that don't support the answer you want. So far you've not provided anything that says you can ignore the 'Mekaniaks' rule.

I have posted like three pages of rules, argumentation proving my point and disproving counter-points, while you have provided almost two dozen one-liners without content.

You also refuse to answer a simple yes/no question because it would prove you wrong.



Is the fictive unit choice shown in this picture a legal HQ choice?

 Jidmah wrote:
I have posted like three pages of rules, argumentation proving my point and disproving counter-points, while you have provided almost two dozen one-liners without content.

You also refuse to answer a simple yes/no question because it would prove you wrong.



Is the fictive unit choice shown in this picture a legal HQ choice?

Yes it is fully legal.