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.

 Jidmah wrote:
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.

Where are they saying that the basic permission to field an HQ mek is being denied?

Its not the advanced over basic rule because the mekaniks rule is NOT a contradiction to the permission to field the Mek as an HQ choice.

Amiricle,
While I understand the allure of discarding what is in the 6th Edition Codex's and focusing on the 7th edition ones alone, it does encounter a few noticeable problems. Not only are the words in those 6th Edition Codexes still 'valid for 7th Edition,' but too many Rules in 7th Edition have been shown to be nothing more then 6th Edition Rules cut and pasted into the new book. This has created noticeable problems for other Rules as well, especially when the Frequently Asked Questions that fixed a lot of these broken 6th Edition Rules where dropped while the Rules themselves remained unchanged. This cut and paste of previously accepted game Terminology is the core of the problem, so we can't discard the fact the original version of these Rules contained Terminology based words that may or may not be 'Terminology' in 7th.

Besides, discarding what the word itself meant in 6th Edition does nothing to answer what the word itself means in 7th. The Author could still have penned that word to mean exactly the same it clearly did in 6th, the act of selecting the Army List Entry to fill a Battlefield Role. In that situation the term 'these selections' would be referring to the Army List Entry as a whole, as that is what is selected to fill the Battlefield Role, and not an individual Clause in the same Rule as itself. However it could of still been downgraded to just a common word, 'to select something,' and in those situations then the only thing it could be refereeing to is Units selected via the first clause within the Rule. One single word that changes the outcome so dramatically, based entirely on what it could mean.

Sadly, I simply do not have enough information to conclude which is correct in 7th Editions....

JinxDragon wrote:
Amiricle,
While I understand the allure of discarding what is in the 6th Edition Codex's and focusing on the 7th edition ones alone, it does encounter a few noticeable problems. Not only are the words in those 6th Edition Codexes still 'valid for 7th Edition,' but too many Rules in 7th Edition have been shown to be nothing more then 6th Edition Rules cut and pasted into the new book. This has created noticeable problems for other Rules as well, especially when the Frequently Asked Questions that fixed a lot of these broken 6th Edition Rules where dropped while the Rules themselves remained unchanged. This cut and paste of previously accepted game Terminology is the core of the problem, so we can't discard the fact the original version of these Rules contained Terminology based words that may or may not be 'Terminology' in 7th.

Besides, discarding what the word itself meant in 6th Edition does nothing to answer what the word itself means in 7th. The Author could still have penned that word to mean exactly the same it clearly did in 6th, the act of selecting the Army List Entry to fill a Battlefield Role. In that situation the term 'these selections' would be referring to the Army List Entry as a whole, as that is what is selected to fill the Battlefield Role, and not an individual Clause in the same Rule as itself. However it could of still been downgraded to just a common word, and in those situations then the only thing it could be relating to is Units selected via the first clause within the Rule.

I simply do not have enough information to conclude which is correct in 7th Editions....

Hum this is an interesting read jinx because as I have seen some poster here completely and totally ignore old FAQ's and old rule books to try and prove there points in YMTC. as you can see from this thread http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/608047.page some poster said the argument is invalid because the old FAQ was not up and the new FAQ had no such ruling.

Our group plays that if the new FAQ does not have the ruling in it but the old ruling FAQ still applies we use it. As for this debate I am reading my "old" 6th edition BRB and I cannot find a place where it says to ignore the FOC and not take the mek as an HQ.

Can you help me out a bit on what you mean?

Its a nice catch22 that some posters use to

 Jidmah wrote:
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.

Just to summarize my understanding of this thread (not an Ork player), is your position basically that the "Mekaniak" rule is really there to let an Ork army get more HQ choices than would otherwise be available in a Battleforged army? E.g. you could take your mandatory HQ, your optional HQ, and due to Mekaniaks, you would also be able to get 2 more Mek HQ choices into your army. Basically you are saying that Meks are normal HQs like any other and may serve as your mandatory HQ choice, but their special rule is there to allow Ork players to have a more HQ-heavy army than they otherwise would be able to have.

Is that correct?

Osirisx69,
There is indeed a noticeable schism between posters on this site concerning the removal of these Frequently Asked Questions. The schism is understandable, we have a huge number of Rules which are identically written between the two Editions so it is logical to conclude they function in the exact same way. The problem stems from certain Rules requiring Frequently Asked Questions, or in my case access to accepted terminology, just to function. The removal of these guides and terminologies have left us with Rules which cause unusual outcomes or no longer function at all, and a good deal of people want to avoid that simply by pointing out the Authors clarified these situations in the past and there is no reason to assume the Rule will change without being deliberately worded differently.

As my problem stems from the same source, the possible changing meaning of an individual word between 6th and 7th edition in a clearly copy-pasted Rule, I am left in a position where I am unsure which interpretation is correct.

 madric wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
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.

Just to summarize my understanding of this thread (not an Ork player), is your position basically that the "Mekaniak" rule is really there to let an Ork army get more HQ choices than would otherwise be available in a Battleforged army? E.g. you could take your mandatory HQ, your optional HQ, and due to Mekaniaks, you would also be able to get 2 more Mek HQ choices into your army. Basically you are saying that Meks are normal HQs like any other and may serve as your mandatory HQ choice, but their special rule is there to allow Ork players to have a more HQ-heavy army than they otherwise would be able to have.

Is that correct?

No, that is not at all correct. The entire discussion appears to have gone straight over your head. The mekaniak rule itself allows more HQ choices than normal. The thread was made to go back a step and get LESS HQ's.

Wow, long thread. I'm on the side of "you can take a mek as your only HQ". I don't think the other side is trolling. I didn't think their interpretation was right, but saw it the first time I read the rule, and wondered if my interpretation might be wrong. Unfortunately GW is very good at writing vague rules.

I haven't seen the following point really made and hopefully it can add something to the discussion. What is the point of the parenthetical in the rule: "(not including other Meks)"? If, as some here have argued you cannot take Meks as standalone HQ choices, this parenthetical is, I think, meaningless. The argument as I understand it is that Meks can't be a HQ choice. However, if Meks can be a HQ choice, this language becomes very important because it stops you from taking 3 or 4 meks. I don't think there is an endless Mek selection loop because only slotted HQs allow a free Mek. So if the rule simply read "for every HQ choice, you may take a Mek", you still only get 4 Meks: 2 slotted, 2 slotless and you are maxed out.

I'm probably missing something important since no one has raised this, but that is part of my interpretation of the rule.

JinxDragon wrote:
Amiricle,
While I understand the allure of discarding what is in the 6th Edition Codex's and focusing on the 7th edition ones alone, it does encounter a few noticeable problems. Not only are the words in those 6th Edition Codexes still 'valid for 7th Edition,' but too many Rules in 7th Edition have been shown to be nothing more then 6th Edition Rules cut and pasted into the new book. This has created noticeable problems for other Rules as well, especially when the Frequently Asked Questions that fixed a lot of these broken 6th Edition Rules where dropped while the Rules themselves remained unchanged. This cut and paste of previously accepted game Terminology is the core of the problem, so we can't discard the fact the original version of these Rules contained Terminology based words that may or may not be 'Terminology' in 7th.

Besides, discarding what the word itself meant in 6th Edition does nothing to answer what the word itself means in 7th. The Author could still have penned that word to mean exactly the same it clearly did in 6th, the act of selecting the Army List Entry to fill a Battlefield Role. In that situation the term 'these selections' would be referring to the Army List Entry as a whole, as that is what is selected to fill the Battlefield Role, and not an individual Clause in the same Rule as itself. However it could of still been downgraded to just a common word, 'to select something,' and in those situations then the only thing it could be refereeing to is Units selected via the first clause within the Rule. One single word that changes the outcome so dramatically, based entirely on what it could mean.

Sadly, I simply do not have enough information to conclude which is correct in 7th Editions....

I can agree with that. It is was it is though, and we can only make do with what we have to work with, as sloppy or lazy as it may be.
Even so, I would never have a problem with an opponent fielding a mek or techmarines as a single HQ, or a lone wolf as their sole elite; and I think think this is as intended going forward, especially since they added the section to the base rules. However, an opponent trying to exploit this opening with something rediculous like 6 objective secured dreadnoughts(should that prove possible ), is an opponent I would likely just decline to play such a person.
I don't think this was intended in 6th, and certainly not in 5th, but I doubt it really ever came up, and they dint account for that with the. 7th edition rules which will cause some problems till FAQ'd or all the codex's are updated to 7th+ (and probably even not then....)

Gwaihirsbrother,
The Mek, regardless if it is slotless or not, is still a Head Quarter Unit. As the Rule grants an additional Mek triggers on the inclusion of any Head Quarter Unit in the Detachment, it would be possible to evoke this Rule in an 'endless-loop' situation. That would involve simply selecting the first Mek, again regardless as to how it is selected, and claiming the Mek we just added is a Head Quarter unit granting permission to add yet another Mek. Then that Mek will trigger yet another Mek being added to the Army, which in turn will trigger another Mek being added to the Army and that in turn triggers another Mek.

So the exclusion exists for a very good reason, regardless of which interpretation you follow.

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
Wow, long thread. I'm on the side of "you can take a mek as your only HQ". I don't think the other side is trolling. I didn't think their interpretation was right, but saw it the first time I read the rule, and wondered if my interpretation might be wrong. Unfortunately GW is very good at writing vague rules.

I haven't seen the following point really made and hopefully it can add something to the discussion. What is the point of the parenthetical in the rule: "(not including other Meks)"? If, as some here have argued you cannot take Meks as standalone HQ choices, this parenthetical is, I think, meaningless. The argument as I understand it is that Meks can't be a HQ choice. However, if Meks can be a HQ choice, this language becomes very important because it stops you from taking 3 or 4 meks. I don't think there is an endless Mek selection loop because only slotted HQs allow a free Mek. So if the rule simply read "for every HQ choice, you may take a Mek", you still only get 4 Meks: 2 slotted, 2 slotless and you are maxed out.

I'm probably missing something important since no one has raised this, but that is part of my interpretation of the rule.

They were not trolling, it was a misunderstanding they cleared up. I apologise for jumping to that conclusion - a little perspective makes a world of difference.

That rule states that you can't use a mek to gain an FoC free mek, so the most meks you could have in a Combined Arms Detachment is 2. Either both slotted ton the CaD's HQ slots, or a max of 2 gained FoC free, with say 2 Warbosses in HQ and 2 slotless meks. Even if both HQ slots in the CAD are meks, that's all the meks you get cause no mek can make another mek FoC free (HQ or otherwise)

Edit: bit bad on the wording since these meks are always HQ units whether in a slot or not, but you get the idea.

Amiricle,
At this time I will conclude that it is going to be 'Authors Intent' which proves this point, which is sad as I wanted something more in the field of Written....

The argument that the Authors want us to have greater flexibility when it comes to List Building is quite justified, given the increasing number of detachments, formations, unbound and a good deal of other methods all designed to allow more diverse lists. The concept that they removed a piece of restrictive terminology to further increase this flexibility is quite plausible, particularly seeing the Terminology is only seems to be found in Copy-and-Pasted Rules from previous Editions.

I could even use that interpretation to deny a few of the more obvious 'clearly not the intent' situations, such as taking servitors without Techmarines.
They are not all using 'these selections' after all, some simply state 'these Units' which is far easier to still apply to the Army List as a whole.

I guess things are not going to go to one side or the other then. I'll leave my Call on the issue, as is the purpose of the YMDC forum:

"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."

The above is a compulsory rule where you must follow 3 sub-rules:
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.

Not following either of them needs explicit wording to do so.
The only way you can field a Mek is by following rule A.
Rule B means a Mek can never use up a Force Org Slot.
Rule C means he has to join another Unit.

A and/or B are not optional rules.

Thanks for the discussion guys!

 Amiricle wrote:

 madric wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
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.

Just to summarize my understanding of this thread (not an Ork player), is your position basically that the "Mekaniak" rule is really there to let an Ork army get more HQ choices than would otherwise be available in a Battleforged army? E.g. you could take your mandatory HQ, your optional HQ, and due to Mekaniaks, you would also be able to get 2 more Mek HQ choices into your army. Basically you are saying that Meks are normal HQs like any other and may serve as your mandatory HQ choice, but their special rule is there to allow Ork players to have a more HQ-heavy army than they otherwise would be able to have.

Is that correct?

No, that is not at all correct. The entire discussion appears to have gone straight over your head. The mekaniak rule itself allows more HQ choices than normal. The thread was made to go back a step and get LESS HQ's.

Actually, I think he pretty much hit the nail in the head.

 madric wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
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.

Just to summarize my understanding of this thread (not an Ork player), is your position basically that the "Mekaniak" rule is really there to let an Ork army get more HQ choices than would otherwise be available in a Battleforged army? E.g. you could take your mandatory HQ, your optional HQ, and due to Mekaniaks, you would also be able to get 2 more Mek HQ choices into your army. Basically you are saying that Meks are normal HQs like any other and may serve as your mandatory HQ choice, but their special rule is there to allow Ork players to have a more HQ-heavy army than they otherwise would be able to have.

Is that correct?

Perfectly stated my friend.

Yea, I guess I must have been too sleepy and misread it lol. sorry

That seems to sum up the whole argument. Meks are allowed as mandatory or as optional slotless HQs

Just would like to point out that the argument is not settled. I'm quite sure most will play the Mek by the same rules as Techmarines or Seer Councils.
Meks can only ever be taken slotless, and when you have another HQ.

BlackTalos,
I may have overlooked some, because I did not look at them all, but this anomaly still is curious to me. Take a look at Page 94 of the Dark Angle Codex and the difference in wording between the Techmarine and the Servitors. While I am not entirely sure what to make of it, the fact the same type of Rule is worded very differently in on a single page of a single codex is a bit puzzling. The bit that makes the least amount of sense, if I am remembering correctly, this is a codex that was produced in the first half of 6th Edition and that is more of a puzzle as 'Selections' was used throughout the Rule book in relation to an Army List selected to fill a Battlefield Role.

One thing is clear though:
Game Workshop better start using the 'other' icon for Units it does not want selected outright and then gift it a Battlefield Role on Deployment.

I agree that the most we can take from this is that the wording for these RaI Units should be consistent when it is most absolutely not.... But from there to jump to a conclusion that a slight in wording is a complete re-vamp and new set of rules is a Stretch that i will not make unless there is new material added in the near future.

JinxDragon wrote:
One thing is clear though:
Game Workshop better start using the 'other' icon for Units it does not want selected outright and then gift it a Battlefield Role on Deployment.

They should put it on some of the dedicated transports as well. Otherwise the next BA codex is bound to become Codex:Taxi, with the entire Imperium hijacking their fast transports.

Jidmah,
I had the same thought but didn't post it because different thread, one that will come up again when Codex: Taxi arrives.
I mean... it really is the perfect solution for these type of problems isn't it?

 BlackTalos wrote:
I agree that the most we can take from this is that the wording for these RaI Units should be consistent when it is most absolutely not.... But from there to jump to a conclusion that a slight in wording is a complete re-vamp and new set of rules is a Stretch that i will not make unless there is new material added in the near future.

That's how rules work though. A slight change in wording can have a huge impact on what they mean RAW. The difference between 4th and 7th edition trukks is the little symbol on the top - that's enough to allow you to field them as fast attack, which was never possible before.

I'm not even sure about RAI here. The huge difference between old codices and 7th ed codices is GW putting the battlefield role on every single entry, rather than just putting it on top of the page to just apply to all below. There should be no way of a choice having a battlefield role it shouldn't have, which in turn means that, unless the battlefield role is missing or "other", you can field it in the corresponding slot. It would also have been very easy to word the rule to prevent them from being picked as HQs, by simply saying that you may not have more Meks than non-Mek HQs, or by limiting the selection on the top of the entry, just like they've done in all the codices before 7th. Instead they added a special rule which had no mandatory part to it, and a conditional sentence for making them slot-less. If they actually tried to limit mek choices, the execution was terrible.

GW allows Grey Knights to enter play in Space Wolf drop pods, who vowed to get back at the Grey Knights for their massacre during the first war of Armageddon. Fielding Meks solo is definitely a lot less weird than that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
Jidmah,
I had the same thought but didn't post it because different thread, one that will come up again when Codex: Taxi arrives.
I mean... it really is the perfect solution for these type of problems isn't it?

Considering how they pretty much copy+pasted some parts of the ork wish-list here on dakka into the codex, I still have hopes that at least someone at GW is reading this

 Jidmah wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
I agree that the most we can take from this is that the wording for these RaI Units should be consistent when it is most absolutely not.... But from there to jump to a conclusion that a slight in wording is a complete re-vamp and new set of rules is a Stretch that i will not make unless there is new material added in the near future.

That's how rules work though. A slight change in wording can have a huge impact on what they mean RAW. The difference between 4th and 7th edition trukks is the little symbol on the top - that's enough to allow you to field them as fast attack, which was never possible before.

I'm not even sure about RAI here. The huge difference between old codices and 7th ed codices is GW putting the battlefield role on every single entry, rather than just putting it on top of the page to just apply to all below. There should be no way of a choice having a battlefield role it shouldn't have, which in turn means that, unless the battlefield role is missing or "other", you can field it in the corresponding slot. It would also have been very easy to word the rule to prevent them from being picked as HQs, by simply saying that you may not have more Meks than non-Mek HQs, or by limiting the selection on the top of the entry, just like they've done in all the codices before 7th. Instead they added a special rule which had no mandatory part to it, and a conditional sentence for making them slot-less. If they actually tried to limit mek choices, the execution was terrible.

GW allows Grey Knights to enter play in Space Wolf drop pods, who vowed to get back at the Grey Knights for their massacre during the first war of Armageddon. Fielding Meks solo is definitely a lot less weird than that.

I understand that the differences over time will ultimately create the issues, but the examples used don't even go back that far in time. To me, all Units have always had a standard battlefield role (Priests are a HQ Slot, Techmarines are Elites) but then some rather specific units had additional rules making them slot-less. None of those ever left themselves unclear, and the Mek is the first with the "same wording" of being a Slot-less HQ that is written in a way that you may be correct in your assumptions. But i'd put it down to Bad Rule writing (nothing new) than to a new type of Unit that can have multiple roles... Because when that choice is made by GW, they usually extend the entire thing. (Along the Lines of: "In addition the using the Mek slot-less, you can now field him as a normal HQ choice! He now takes up a slot! He is our new Rules invention! We at GW are so proud of this we'll say it in the rules!) The lack of such "sugar coating" rulesmakes me think that RAI, it's just the Ork "priest".

It's not just the mek though Bt, the techmarine in Grey Knights, and the Lone Wolf in Space Wolves are written the same way - basically every one written in 7th ed format. That along with the fact that this is now a basic rule in the BrB points to this not being a crazy idea. The problems arise when going back to older codex's using 7th rules which is where we need to infer author intent.

Just had a look at the Adepts of the Armoury rule and the Lone wolf line. They are both of the same wording yes, but Adepts of the Armoury to me makes it quite clear that it is a rule to be followed.

Much more simple than for the Mek: is Adepts of the Armoury a rule that you can choose to simply ignore? (and take a Techmarine as a lone HQ choice?)

I'd say No.

See, I disagree. No where does it say it removes the option to field in its battlefield role. It's not a rule you are ignoring, it's an option you are not choosing. Subtle, but very important difference.

 BlackTalos wrote:
Just had a look at the Adepts of the Armoury rule and the Lone wolf line. They are both of the same wording yes, but Adepts of the Armoury to me makes it quite clear that it is a rule to be followed.

Much more simple than for the Mek: is Adepts of the Armoury a rule that you can choose to simply ignore? (and take a Techmarine as a lone HQ choice?)

I'd say No.

Can we stop this please? You are still refusing to acknowledge the key part of our argumentation, so just leave it at that.

Also stop the "You're ignoring a rule!" nonsense. It has been debunked like seven times in this thread. Rules don't work that way, period.

 Amiricle wrote:
See, I disagree. No where does it say it removes the option to field in its battlefield role. It's not a rule you are ignoring, it's an option you are not choosing. Subtle, but very important difference.

The point many were trying to make and that i'd still follow here, is that the option to field it in its battlefield role does not somehow mean you can ignore the rule.

Adepts of the Armoury is part of fielding the model, and can never be ignored, simple as. If you want to keep asserting you can "skip" or "not choose" a rule, feel free, but if players want the true RaW answer from the forum, unfortunately it is that you must always obey rules, or the game would not exist in the first place...
I am in no way ignoring your argument, just denying the validity of it within RaW.

Maybe they'll change it, maybe they'll fix it...
But until then we can agree to disagree.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Amiricle wrote:
See, I disagree. No where does it say it removes the option to field in its battlefield role. It's not a rule you are ignoring, it's an option you are not choosing. Subtle, but very important difference.

The point many were trying to make and that i'd still follow here, is that the option to field it in its battlefield role does not somehow mean you can ignore the rule.

Adepts of the Armoury is part of fielding the model, and can never be ignored, simple as. If you want to keep asserting you can "skip" or "not choose" a rule, feel free, but if players want the true RaW answer from the forum, unfortunately it is that you must always obey rules, or the game would not exist in the first place...
I am in no way ignoring your argument, just denying the validity of it within RaW.

Maybe they'll change it, maybe they'll fix it...
But until then we can agree to disagree.

Again, I am not an Ork player and all the information I have comes from what people have posted here. But I think their interpretation Mekaniak rule isn't to ignore rules, but rather something different. Here is the Mekaniak rule posted earlier but quoted below:

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

And of course, the BRB states:

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 codexalways takes precedence.

and it also states that special rules override normal rules.

Their reading of the rules is that the Mekaniak rule does not introduce a conflict with existing rules for making HQ choices. That is, they are saying that the Mekaniak rule allows them to add another Mek to their army for every non-Mek HQ choice they already have. But they are saying that this does not prevent them from following the normal HQ selection rules and taking a Mek as a normal HQ choice, and in that case, the pre-conditions required to get the benefit from the Mekaniak rule are not being met, so taking a Mek as a normal HQ choice does not allow them to take another.

But as I learned from discussions about the Psychic Phase, full context is very important, so I'm in a "sit and listen" mode until I run across an Ork codex.

You're fine to disagree, sure, but don't post like like you're speaking some grand truth since you have not put a single compelling argument forth.