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.

Your Loaded question does not prove anything, it gets the meaningless answer of 'yes' but the conditions placed within make the whole thing useless as a comparison....

The counter argument has always been simple:
It is generally accepted that that all the Rules found listed on an Army List Entry apply to the Models within that Unit, unless otherwise stated within the Rule
It has never been possible to simply declare that a Rule is not being evoked even if that Rule grants only positive effects, unless otherwise stated within the Rule
It has never been possible to simply declare a Rule is not being evoked to ignore a negative effect found within a Rule, unless otherwise stated within the Rule

So why would we conclude that a Rule found on the Mek Unit can safely be removed from the equation without Written permission to do so?
Simply stating that the one does not wish to use the benefits, so therefore are not bound by the restrictions, is not legal

So the question is simple:
Why are you removing this Rule from the Army List Entry?
If you are not removing it, then why are you ignoring instructions provided to you by a Codex specific Rule?

Not saying to remove the rule from the entry, or that it is ignored, just that it presents an option not chosen. Before accusing me or Jidmah of ignoring rules, try to realise that that is what you are doing. Ignoring the first rule any unit gets - it's battlefield role.

 Amiricle wrote:
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.

Putting aside that one of the arguments presented was literally physically removing the Rule from the Entry before posting it here...
If the Rule is part of the equation then the Restrictions within Must be followed, it really is that simple.

When you Select the Mek Entry from the Army List it contains a multi-clause Rule right on the Entry itself. This Rule informs us how to go about including the Entry into Your Army, with more specific instructions that must be obeyed if the Entry in question is ever to be Selected. Because these instructions do not state that the Unit can still be included in the Army if the Restrictions have not been met, the internal requirement on how to include that Entry into Your Army must therefore be met or else it's inclusion has broken a Rule. The only way to by-pass this set of instructions would be to prove they are not part of the equation, that we have permission to ignore their existence entirely, which requires specific Permission that we have yet to see presented.

Simply stating that the basic Rules allow an Entry with the right Battlefield Role to be Selected is not enough to bypass a Rule within that Army List Entry on how it is to be included into the Army.

Thank you.

It is a legal choice to pick a Mek from that edited datasheet because the basic rules have given us permission to do so.

Now, let's have a look at one of the rules that keeps getting quoted:

Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise.

So now you might quote this:
Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules.

Contradiction - A combination of statements, ideas, or features which are opposed to one another

We have already established that the two permissions "you may go right" and "you may go left" do not contradict each other, despite actually going left and right is opposed to one another.

For this reason the two permissions "You may field a mek as HQ choice, it takes up a slot." and "For each HQ choice you may include a single Mek. These Meks do not use up a slot." do not contradict each other either.

Since there is no contradiction, basic rules still apply. Therefore I can still field a single Mek as a HQ choice.



According to that basic vs specific rule, this unedited datasheet does not take that basic permission away unless it says so - which it doesn't do at all.

In fact, it adds a second permission to field Meks for every HQ choice we take, unless they are a Mek themselves - and, when we do, it makes them not take up a slot.

Now you are arguing that I'm ignoring a rule.

Even when I do pick a Mek as HQ choice I am not allowed to ignore any part of the Mekaniaks rule. Since my HQ choice is another Mek, the first two sentences of Mekaniaks tell me that I cannot chose to include another single Mek in the same slot. Mekaniaks then tells me that I must join the Mek to a unit if possible.

On the other hand, picking a non-Mek as a HQ choice also doesn't allow you to ignore any part of the Mekaniaks rule either. The first sentence tells you to decide whether you include a mek or not (may), if you chose to include the Mek, the second sentence makes it not use up a slot.

Therefore picking a Mek as slotted HQ choice is possible while not ignoring the Mekaniaks rule at all.



This is my argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@JinxedDragon: I never claimed that the edited sheets reflects the actual rules at all. Note the word "fictive" as in made up, imaginary.

 Jidmah wrote:
According to that basic vs specific rule, this unedited datasheet does not take that basic permission away unless it says so - which it doesn't do at all.

You have that backwards. The advanced rule does take away permission if it differs from the basic rules unless it says it doesn't.

And to reiterate,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.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
According to that basic vs specific rule, this unedited datasheet does not take that basic permission away unless it says so - which it doesn't do at all.

You have that backwards. The advanced rule does take away permission if it differs from the basic rules unless it says it doesn't.

No, advanced rule only overrides in the case of a rules conflict. These 2 rules don't conflict so there is no override.

Not taking a mandatory HQ choice does not change the restriction that you must have another HQ choice in the army which is not a Mek to take a Mek in the first place.

The Commissar and Mek both have the same restriction. They are required to have a specific HQ choice in the army before they can be taken. That is a restriction as it restricts how you can take those models.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
According to that basic vs specific rule, this unedited datasheet does not take that basic permission away unless it says so - which it doesn't do at all.

You have that backwards. The advanced rule does take away permission if it differs from the basic rules unless it says it doesn't.

I quoted the very rule in my post. Are you trolling me?

All that means is the Army List Entry in question can not be included in the equation for determining if Mandatory requirements have been met.
By your argument a Commissar still could be selected as a non-mandatory Head Quarter Slot even if it's own internal Restrictions are not met....

If the Mekaniaks Rule is still in play then the more advanced instructions within, all related to how the Entry itself is selected, must be obeyed.
If there is no conflict between the two then there should be no problem obeying these instructions, correct?

Actually, yes I believe you are trolling me. I'll just put you on my ignore list.

Can't believe I fell for this

 Amiricle wrote:
And to reiterate,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.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
According to that basic vs specific rule, this unedited datasheet does not take that basic permission away unless it says so - which it doesn't do at all.

You have that backwards. The advanced rule does take away permission if it differs from the basic rules unless it says it doesn't.

No, advanced rule only overrides in the case of a rules conflict. These 2 rules don't conflict so there is no override.

Yes, they do conflict. The 'Mekaniaks' rule adds a requirement that's not in the basic rule. That is a conflict. On top of that, that's not even the argument Jidmah was using that I pointed out was wrong.

JinxDragon wrote:
All that means is the Army List Entry in question can not be included in the equation for determining if Mandatory requirements have been met.
By your argument it still could be selected as a non-mandatory Head Quarter Slot....

Please show where it says that another HQ choice is mandatory to field a Mek.

 Ghaz wrote:
Not taking a mandatory HQ choice does not change the restriction that you must have another HQ choice in the army which is not a Mek to take a Mek in the first place.

The Commissar and Mek both have the same restriction. They are required to have a specific HQ choice in the army before they can be taken. That is a restriction as it restricts how you can take those models.

Therein lies the communication breakdown. They are only required to have a specific HQ choice in the army before they can be taken without using an FoC slot. That does not prevent the unit from being selected at all.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
According to that basic vs specific rule, this unedited datasheet does not take that basic permission away unless it says so - which it doesn't do at all.

You have that backwards. The advanced rule does take away permission if it differs from the basic rules unless it says it doesn't.

I quoted the very rule in my post. Are you trolling me?

The rule is as follows:

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

"Always", not "unless it says so".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amiricle wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Not taking a mandatory HQ choice does not change the restriction that you must have another HQ choice in the army which is not a Mek to take a Mek in the first place.

The Commissar and Mek both have the same restriction. They are required to have a specific HQ choice in the army before they can be taken. That is a restriction as it restricts how you can take those models.

Therein lies the communication breakdown. They are only required to have a specific HQ choice in the army before they can be taken without using an FoC slot. That does not prevent the unit from being selected at all.

No. It requires an HQ choice to be selected at all.

So in the Blood Angels codex there is a troops entry for Death Company Dreadnought. It's not in a separate box, it looks like a standard troops entry. Except it has a special rule "you can include 1 death company dreadnought for every 5. Death company models in your army".

Surely nobody here believes I can ignore this rule and field 6 troop dreadnoughts?!

If there is no conflict then it should be possible for you to field the Unit obeying all the Mekaniaks instructions, correct?

Yes, as has been shown numerous times. I am beginning to think you are trolling as well. You are simply restating things that were discussed and countered earlier in this thread yesterday. I may revisit this thread later tonight, but I'm done for now.

SolentSanguine wrote:
So in the Blood Angels codex there is a troops entry for Death Company Dreadnought. It's not in a separate box, it looks like a standard troops entry. Except it has a special rule "you can include 1 death company dreadnought for every 5. Death company models in your army".

Surely nobody here believes I can ignore this rule and field 6 troop dreadnoughts?!

Not sure. Note that there is a difference in wording though.

As anyone that has been playing the game for any period of time knows, meks follow the same preceding rules as techmarines do.

You cant take em unless you take another HQ to unlock them first.

Argument over.

I am simply trying to determine how you are getting around instructions found within a Rule, while at the same time claiming that the Rule is still present and accounted for.
So maybe you can answer some questions so I can better understand:

Is the Mek still slot-less?
Does the Mek have to be joined to Units?

Honestly I have my own curious reasons for posting in this thread, none of which have anything to do with you personally but in this situation I will be honest because you are wondering about my character. I get a personal joy from finding Written Rules which clearly go against the intent of the Author, and this was shaping itself up to be one such situation. However just because your side of the argument is the one I want to see "win" doesn't mean that I will accept arguments on face value, they must still be able to support the concept within the Rule as Written structure itself. Now I have been toying with one of the arguments in my own head before reading it here, but because I was not confident it was strong enough to stand up as 'Rule as Written' support for the concept I want something with a little more substance. Particularly seeing as it requires us to dissect individual words and that doesn't suit my purposes for this debate. It is clearly Author Intent territory and defeats the purpose of finding a Rule as Written trump card, even if it was possible for the concept to survive that scrutiny.

With the more weak secondary arguments put forth, the further away I get from the conclusion that these two words I keep fixating on do not actually state what I want them to state....

 Ghaz wrote:
Not taking a mandatory HQ choice does not change the restriction that you must have another HQ choice in the army which is not a Mek to take a Mek in the first place.

The Commissar and Mek both have the same restriction. They are required to have a specific HQ choice in the army before they can be taken. That is a restriction as it restricts how you can take those models.

You sound like a broken record.

JinxDragon wrote:
I am simply trying to determine how you are getting around instructions found within a Rule, while at the same time claiming that the Rule is still present and accounted for.
So maybe you can answer some questions so I can better understand:

Is the Mek still slot-less?
Does the Mek have to be joined to Units?

Honestly I have my own curious reasons for posting in this thread, none of which have anything to do with you personally but in this situation I will be honest because you are wondering about my character. I get a personal joy from finding Written Rules which clearly go against the intent of the Author, and this was shaping itself up to be one such situation. However just because your side of the argument is the one I want to see "win" doesn't mean that I will accept arguments on face value, they must still be able to support the concept within the Rule as Written structure itself. Now I have been toying with one of the arguments in my own head before reading it here, but because I was not confident it was strong enough to stand up as 'Rule as Written' support for the concept I want something with a little more substance. Particularly seeing as it requires us to dissect individual words and that doesn't suit my purposes for this debate. It is clearly Author Intent territory and defeats the purpose of finding a Rule as Written trump card, even if it was possible for the concept to survive that scrutiny.

With the more weak secondary arguments put forth, the further away I get from the conclusion that these two words I keep fixating on do not actually state what I want them to state....

Fair enough, thank you for being blunt. You honestly were starting to come across as trolling, but that puts things into a positive perspective. I will try to elaborate better when I get home later.

JinxDragon wrote:
I am simply trying to determine how you are getting around instructions found within a Rule, while at the same time claiming that the Rule is still present and accounted for.
So maybe you can answer some questions so I can better understand:

Ok, I will try to clarify if I can.
I am going to quote these rules in entirety to avoid any 'cherry picking', though I will number them for quick reference later:
1)Battlefield role page 119 BRB. "However you choose your army, all units have a battlefield role, which is typically shown as a symbol. Apart from providing a useful overview of the types of duties a unit is meant to perform, the role is also of vital importance when it comes to using a Force Organization Chart (pg 120. This will be discussed in detail later in the section, but for now, all that is important is that each unit uses a single slot on the Force Organization Chart."
2)Force Organization Charts And Slots page 120 BRB. "The boxes on a Force Organization Chart are referred to as slots. Each slot will typically specify a Battlefield Role (pg 119). 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. Gray 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.
3)Army List Entries That Do Not Use Force Organization Slots page 121 BRB. (Note, this is actually a base rule now, not an advanced one - different from 6th edition as I just checked and this is not present in that rulebook so the override statement can't be applied at all anymore) "Occasionally a unit's Army List Entry will state that the unit it describes does not take up a slot on a Force Organization Chart. These units can be included in any Detachment, even if all the other slots of the appropriate Battlefield Role are filled with other units or if the Detachment had no slot for their Battlefield Role, but they must still adhere to any restrictions detailed on the Detachment and its 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. In either case, these units are part of the Detachment for all rules purposes and will gain any appropriate Command Benefits."
3a)Mekaniaks page 56 ork codex. contains information relevant to the Army List Entries That Do Not Use Force Organization Slots rule: "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 Organization 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."
These rules are sequential. (with one omitted because it has no relevance on Multiple Unit Choices[platoons] that falls between rule 2 & 3) Rule 3 does not remove or negate anything from rule2, which likewise removes nothing from rule 1. They are additive, each one expanding on the last.

Starting from the top, if you will, we note this mek is in the HQ section, and has an HQ symbol, defining his battlefield role as an HQ unit. (symbol - top left corner, refer to page 52 ork codex [this referral is in all codex's - using ork one for simplicity as this is about an ork unit], bullet point #2). Referring to rules 1 & 2 above for a Combined Arms Detachment, we see he has this option:
A)Uses 1 HQ Force Organization Slot leaving 1 available.
Next we note the Mekaniak rule adds another option: "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 Organization Slots." Mek now has 2 permissions:
A) Use 1 HQ Force Organization Slot
B) Use no Force Organization Slot at all (as long as you meet the requirements - another HQ choice that is not a Mek)
As such, with 2 HQ slots we can max them out with 2 Meks; or 1 Warboss, 1 Mek, and another 1 Mek; or 2 Warbosses and 2 more Meks. (In all 3 cases, however, all meks still 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.

To do the above with a Commissar we get:
A)Uses 1 HQ Force Organization Slot leaving 1 available.
Next we note a similar rule to Mekaniaks: 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." This special rule does conflict with a base rule (2) and as such does override it, leaving us with:
A) -
B) Use no Force Organization Slot at all (as long as you meet the requirements - Company Command Squad or Platoon Command Squad)

I have also noted that you don't have to go very far at all to find a good example of additional permission not forcing choices or removing previous ones. Just one page over at the Big Mek we see "A Big Mek with mega armour can take a Kustom Force Field for 50 points" This option does not remove his previous one of taking a Kustom Force Field for the price of a slugga, nor does it force all Big Meks with Kustom Force Fields to also have mega-armour.

I hope this explains the conclusion Jidmah came to, and helped me come to clearly. I don't know if this would have been possible in 6th edition (although I doubt it would matter since HQ slots were so precious then), but in 7th, it certainly is. For the techmarine too btw Eihnlazer. As for the Blood Angel Dread.. I don't know, I don't have that codex. Wouldn't its default be a heavy slot if you didn't meet those restrictions? If it does work RaW, it's certainly not RaI. Keep in mind that that is a really old book and if it does work, feel free to cheese the hell out of it till they fix the issue with a new BA codex. lol

The core stems from how the authors of these Rules have used certain words in the past, and I am really on the fence if this is one such situation. Thanks to the complete lack of a glossary of terms, we are left to our own devices to try and figure out of a commonly used word is designed to refer back to a specific Rule-related event or if it is just a common word being reused... or both, can't rule out both. Sometimes we are better at figuring these things out, a good example of such is the word 'Arriving' before the word Unit instantly informs us that it relates Units which utilized the 'Arriving from Reserves' section of the book. Other times it might not be so clear, hence why we end up with Author's Intent type debates over the meaning of a single word.

Though between you and the forum and myself, I believe none of us would be here if these Rules where actually well written... we have a special type of defect which makes broken Rules attractive.

So back on topic again; the problem really stems with the use of the word 'selections' and how it has been used in the past. One of the things I just finished doing was a comparison between 6th Edition and 7th Edition. In 6th edition the Rules Battlefield Roles where obviously referred to as 'Selections' in multiple locations and Rules, it was very much 'terminology' referring to the specific act of selecting an Army List Entry from a Codex. 7th Edition has made many of the Rules using this terminology obsolete, they simply no longer exist, and has re-written others to use what is clearly more general terminology. However, the slots on the Force Organization Charts are still referred to as 'selections' in certain instances... it is just now impossible to determine if that is just 'general word' usage or if it still is trying to retain some of the original Terminology. Particularly when you factor in that multiple Authors took part on these works, but again we are getting back into Author Intent territory.

However I do hope this explains why, upon me seeing a Rule talking about 'selections' in relation to Force Organization Charts, I don't Rule out the possibility it is talking about selecting the Army Entry in it's entirety.

--- Added ---
Wrote that up while you where posting now I have to go back and read what you have stated, but please do forgive me if I put that off till later because I have to do that annoying 'sleep then work' thing. However a quick flick through shows you did bring up the commissar again, which means you still have failed to grasp why the commissioner is completely irrelevant to the whole thing. If the core concept can be proven for the Mek, then it can be proven for all Rules which have the same terminology within. Even the commissar will be a valid choice by your interpretation, it would have an additional Restriction that it must be selected for an optional slot instead of the mandatory one but that is all.

PS, because I am still skimming through your post when I should be sleeping:
A Big Mek with Mega Armour has already given up the Slugga as part of the exchange for the Mega Armour, it is impossible for it to evoke the option to switch one for a Custom Force Field.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slipped out of bed to add this:
The more I think on the problem the more it sways between 'terminology' and 'common use.' Consider for a moment the fact we have been referring to sixth Edition Codex's at times, and realize this is because the words utilized within are identical where it matters. These where cut and paste jobs from previous editions, which I no longer have on hand to refer to sadly, and it is clear the tradition of cut and paste is alive and well in 7th. This makes it even harder to Rule out the possibility that the original Author was addressing selecting the Army List Entry as a whole, given that the Rule clearly has been reused from a time where it would of done just that. It also does nothing to prove beyond a doubt that it is actually terminology, as we should always expect changes in Terminology between editions.

I do agree that these rules are not very well written. If this were a computer game or program, it would crash so hard from so many logic errors, if it were even able to start up.

I admit that the commissar is a bad example, and not neccessary after all (after reading your post). I've only used it to show an example with a restriction or override, but that is from a 6th edition codex. The book with a 7th edition version of that unit found in the Militarum Tempestus does not have any "Army List Entries That Do Not Use Force Organization Slots " option on its' datasheet. It is simply a standard HQ as per rule 1) or 2) above.

"A Big Mek with Mega Armour has already given up the Slugga as part of the exchange for the Mega Armour, it is impossible for it to evoke the option to switch one for a Custom Force Field. " Right, perhaps I didn't phrase it well, but he still has the option to forego the mega armour entirely and still take the kustom force field for the cost of his slugga & 50 points. That final permission doesn't render his previously allowed ones unusable.

And for you final point, I think I agree completely as well. Using just 7th codex's the above works very well imo to be RAI as well as RaW, such as the Mek, Techmarine, and Lone Wolf. As for previous edition works things start getting wierd. Take that commissar, in the 6th edition work in the AM codex, he can be wiggled in like this, but we see that unit in a 7th edition MT book, and he has had the FoC option removed making him only a HQ.

Edit: I would like to reiterate that when I first came into this thread, my first thought was "no way" and argued against for a while, but I think I was coming from a 5th/6th edition mindset of terminology as you put it. As far as 7th edition goes, this looks to be a valid choice and quite intended (at least insofar as codex's written for 7th) as I hope I managed to convey with the above post. I do agree that the author's of previous works most likely did not intend for the option to not be taken (or even considered optional in some cases) though and may lead to some broken combos until said works are updated.

Edit2: final thought: the reason I think that this is intended as well as being supported by the rules is that 7th seems to be all about options and playing what you want with all the different formations, being able to take as many detachments as you desire, or even just saying feth it all and go unbound fielding whatever you little heart desires.

A Big Mek in Mega Armor can, in fact, take a KFF. Off topic, but seemed like you were confused on that.

 Amiricle wrote:
I do agree that these rules are not very well written. If this were a computer game or program, it would crash so hard from so many logic errors, if it were even able to start up.

I admit that the commissar is a bad example, and not neccessary after all (after reading your post). I've only used it to show an example with a restriction or override, but that is from a 6th edition codex. The book with a 7th edition version of that unit found in the Militarum Tempestus does not have any "Army List Entries That Do Not Use Force Organization Slots " option on its' datasheet. It is simply a standard HQ as per rule 1) or 2) above.

"A Big Mek with Mega Armour has already given up the Slugga as part of the exchange for the Mega Armour, it is impossible for it to evoke the option to switch one for a Custom Force Field. " Right, perhaps I didn't phrase it well, but he still has the option to forego the mega armour entirely and still take the kustom force field for the cost of his slugga & 50 points. That final permission doesn't render his previously allowed ones unusable.

And for you final point, I think I agree completely as well. Using just 7th codex's the above works very well imo to be RAI as well as RaW, such as the Mek, Techmarine, and Lone Wolf. As for previous edition works things start getting wierd. Take that commissar, in the 6th edition work in the AM codex, he can be wiggled in like this, but we see that unit in a 7th edition MT book, and he has had the FoC option removed making him only a HQ.

Edit: I would like to reiterate that when I first came into this thread, my first thought was "no way" and argued against for a while, but I think I was coming from a 5th/6th edition mindset of terminology as you put it. As far as 7th edition goes, this looks to be a valid choice and quite intended (at least insofar as codex's written for 7th) as I hope I managed to convey with the above post. I do agree that the author's of previous works most likely did not intend for the option to not be taken (or even considered optional in some cases) though and may lead to some broken combos until said works are updated.

Edit2: final thought: the reason I think that this is intended as well as being supported by the rules is that 7th seems to be all about options and playing what you want with all the different formations, being able to take as many detachments as you desire, or even just saying feth it all and go unbound fielding whatever you little heart desires.

QFT

 Jidmah wrote:
Even when I do pick a Mek as HQ choice I am not allowed to ignore any part of the Mekaniaks rule.

Ok, we are agreed on this.

Now, to try and keep the logic at the most basic. How do you define this Rule to me:
"For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet."

There is the word "may", therefore there is an option to A) Do something or B) Not do it.

Do you agree so far?

This Rule, as it is written in the Codex allows me to make a choice. Could you define to me that choice?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:



This is my argument.

I will also try to show you with this diagram, but it might complicate things. Answering the question above will be more simple to explain i think.



The Part I colored in Orange is a Rule in your Codex (Mekaniak). You cannot have a Mek in your army (as HQ) without being forced (restriction) to follow the Rule.

When you follow the Red Path you cannot tell me you have followed the Orange rule because it is clear the Red path does not go through the Orange Rule.
When you follow the Green path, and you must follow the Green path, you still have the permission (the choice).

I'm sorry i did not put Green path N*1 and Green path N*2 on the picture, but i hope you can see the 2?
You have the permission and choice (you are not Forced to take the Mek - forced to Deep Strike etc) when you are following the Green selection but doing the Red is Breaking the rules (Because you have not done the Orange rule, you have gone around it)

If this make no sense, then let's just stick to my previous post and basic logic... And sorry for complicating.

 Waaagh 18 wrote:
A Big Mek in Mega Armor can, in fact, take a KFF. Off topic, but seemed like you were confused on that.

Good call. I think I misunderstood the misunderstanding. Lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


The Part I colored in Orange is a Rule in your Codex (Mekaniak). You cannot have a Mek in your army (as HQ) without being forced (restriction) to follow the Rule.

When you follow the Red Path you cannot tell me you have followed the Orange rule because it is clear the Red path does not go through the Orange Rule.
When you follow the Green path, and you must follow the Green path, you still have the permission (the choice).

I'm sorry i did not put Green path N*1 and Green path N*2 on the picture, but i hope you can see the 2?
You have the permission and choice (you are not Forced to take the Mek - forced to Deep Strike etc) when you are following the Green selection but doing the Red is Breaking the rules (Because you have not done the Orange rule, you have gone around it)

If this make no sense, then let's just stick to my previous post and basic logic... And sorry for complicating.

That's why I didn't like the diagram too much. It's not fully labeled properly. I think looking at it in list format makes it easier to read.

Starting from the top, if you will, we note this mek is in the HQ section, and has an HQ symbol, defining his battlefield role as an HQ unit. (symbol - top left corner, refer to page 52 ork codex [this referral is in all codex's - using ork one for simplicity as this is about an ork unit], bullet point #2). Referring to rules 1 & 2 above for a Combined Arms Detachment, we see he has this option:
A)Uses 1 HQ Force Organization Slot leaving 1 available.
Next we note the Mekaniak rule adds another option: "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 Organization Slots." Mek now has 2 permissions:
A) Use 1 HQ Force Organization Slot
B) Use no Force Organization Slot at all (as long as you meet the requirements - another HQ choice that is not a Mek)
As such, with 2 HQ slots we can max them out with 2 Meks; or 1 Warboss, 1 Mek, and another 1 Mek; or 2 Warbosses and 2 more Meks. (In all 3 cases, however, all meks still 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.

Sorry BlackTalos, while I appreciate your willingness to have an actual discussion, as long as you keep ignoring the basic permission to field HQ choices, I don't think we have anything to base a discussion on.

Considering that we are highly unlikely to play each other, and considering that it's even less likely that I'd actually field a single mek (not a very useful choice), I'll just leave it at that.

You also misunderstood the diagram. The entire thing is the Mekaniaks rule, not just one of the boxes. The first box is you picking any HQ as per the "Chosing your army" chapter, the first diamond is the parenthesis excluding Meks, the second diamond is the sentence using "may", the boxes below it are "These choices don't use FOC slots", the box at the very bottom is the rest of the rule.