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.

 Amiricle wrote:
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.

If that was for me then i would post the same comment back. I have made it clear where my support in the rules is, and do not assert any more Grand Truths than i've seen on the other side.

 Waaagh 18 wrote:
That seems to sum up the whole argument. Meks are allowed as mandatory or as optional slotless HQs

There are 2 sides on the debate/argument:
A) Meks/Grey Knights Techmarines can be taken as standard, in a slot, and "Adepts of the Armoury" Is a rule you can choose to ignore.
B) "Adepts of the Armoury" can never be ignored, you can only take a Techmarine if you have another HQ, or choose not to field one.

Both have put forth valid arguments, I personally believe only 1 side is correct, but i understand there is another interpretation out there.

 madric wrote:

 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.

Very insightful

 BlackTalos wrote:
There are 2 sides on the debate/argument:
A) Meks/Grey Knights Techmarines can be taken as standard, in a slot, and "Adepts of the Armoury" Is a rule you can choose to ignore.
B) "Adepts of the Armoury" can never be ignored, you can only take a Techmarine if you have another HQ, or choose not to field one.

Every time you use the word "ignore" you become more and more wrong about this.

How can you be so sure to be right, when you don't even understand how our argumentation works?

I am looking at both books side by side right now. They are definitely worded distinctly from one another.

Also, no one here is claiming permission to "ignore" the rule, but that the rule itself presents an option that may or may not be selected. Here's the vital difference between the two special rules:

ADEPTS OF THE ARMOURY: For each HQ choice in your detachment (not including other techmarines) you CAN include a techmarine. These do not take up slots on the FOC.

MEKANIAK: For each HQ choice in a detachment (not including other meks) you MAY include a single mek from this datasheet. These selections do not take up FOC slots.

Ok so big difference here. First the difference between CAN and MAY. CAN does not denote permission, but ABILITY. As in, you you don't have another HQ, you CAN NOT take a techmarine. MAY is a permission. Meaning if you do not have another HQ, you MAY NOT take a non FOC mek. Right now you're probably thinking "But Bolg, why wouldn't you word that the same way as the techmarine? Why didn't you word it 'if you dont have another HQ, you MAY NOT take a mek, period?'"

Well, thats the third emboldment. The fact that it says "These selections" denotes that there are ALTERNATIVE selection methods for getting meks, and the only other possible method is taking it as a baseline HQ choice. Nowhere does it deny permission to field a Mek without an HQ for it, unlike the Techmarine profile, which does, because of the subtle yet incredibly important difference between "can" and "may."

No. I've been avoiding getting involved in this discussion for a while now.
But .. just .. no. Really?

CAN = MAY
CAN = MAY
CAN = MAY

There is no "subtle yet incredibly important difference." They both denote permission. Though I might go along for a bit on the part about 'these selections.'

Very good point about "these selections"

 SkrawnyNob wrote:
No. I've been avoiding getting involved in this discussion for a while now.
But .. just .. no. Really?

CAN = MAY
CAN = MAY
CAN = MAY

There is no "subtle yet incredibly important difference." They both denote permission. Though I might go along for a bit on the part about 'these selections.'

Surely you've heard a teacher tell someone who asked "Can I go to the bathroom?" answer with "I don't know, can you?". That's the difference.

 Jidmah wrote:

 SkrawnyNob wrote:
No. I've been avoiding getting involved in this discussion for a while now.
But .. just .. no. Really?

CAN = MAY
CAN = MAY
CAN = MAY

There is no "subtle yet incredibly important difference." They both denote permission. Though I might go along for a bit on the part about 'these selections.'

Surely you've heard a teacher tell someone who asked "Can I go to the bathroom?" answer with "I don't know, can you?". That's the difference.

And then the student calmly replies "When I was using can I was using its secondary model form as a verbal modifier asking for permission, as opposed to expressing an ability. I thought since you were a teacher you'd know that."

That's funny right there

Cool. Now I'm going to take command squads and techmarines without any other HQ choices. Lol.

It's clear to me. No other HQ, no Mek.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ooh. Unbound list. 100% command squads. Except you just can't.

Yeah, that insightful post was totally worth necroing the thread and made all the other pages worth of arguments invalid.

Except it did not.

 Jidmah wrote:
Yeah, that insightful post was totally worth necroing the thread and made all the other pages worth of arguments invalid.

Except it did not.

I thought over 30 days is a necro?

I was going to state similar: A post with little to no content on a thread that has fallen over a week out of date is pointless. However, I figured it would simply keep the thread in the spotlight even longer after the arguments within have gone stale. So people, if nothing more is to be added to this thread please simply ignore any posts that bring it back into the spotlight before it 'dies.' Posts which do not bring new arguments, information or content simply do not need to be responded to.

My take is, and going back to the fruits and the basket analogy:

My fruit basket (force Org) says I need at least 1 fruit (hq), but I may pick up to 3. (using Ork Detach rules).

I go into the orchard and begin to pick out my first fruit. I pick an orange and put it into my basket. The apples in the near by tree tell me that because I picked an orange, I may pick an apple and put it into my basket and not count towards my total fruit limit, but this exception doesn't count if I pick an apple under the normal rules given to me by my basket. So, I pick an apple.

I go further into the orchard and decide, I want a banana. So, I pick one and put it into my basket. Another apple tree reminds me that I may take an apple now without counting towards my fruit limit if I want. So I do.

I now have an orange, a banana, and 2 apples, but I have not broken the rules given to me by my basket, nor broken the rules for obtaining free apples.

I decide that I'd really like a third apple. So, I pick an apple. Now, since I added the apple to my basket normally, I cannot use the apple's exception to pick a fourth apple. My fruit limit is now achieved legally through all the rules given to me despite me having more fruit than my basket originally told me I could. Now, the apples must be baked into pies, as per the end of their rule. Sadly, I cannot eat them as they stand.

If I had picked three apples normally, I could not pick 3 more apples that didn't count towards my fruit limit. The apples never told me in any way that I was not able to pick them normally, they instead told me I could get extra apples without breaking the rules laid out to me by my fruit basket.

See I read it as you can take a Mek as an HQ, or if you like you can field him as slotless if you take another HQ (non-Mek).

I saw no initial benefit on taking a HQ slotted mek until now which is obviously down to rounding out a HQ slot for cheap!




My thoughts are simple on this matter:

You follow the rules as they come, EG: its the movement phase, you work your way through the movement phase 1 rule at a time. If you don't have any reserves, you skip over those rules completely (including deep striking for example) as you have not "triggered" them this turn.

Its a similar situation here, You want to select a Mek, it then triggers the Mekaniak rule, which means if you have another non-mek HQ you are allowed to field this Mek slot-less instead of as a slotted mek, if you want.

The situation gives you 2 choices:
A) You choose to take it slotless
B) You choose to fill a HQ slot

The Mekaniak rule does NOT "fire"/Trigger until you pick a Mek.

Seems simple to me, but I'm a simple person

Melevolence wrote:
My take is, and going back to the fruits and the basket analogy:

My fruit basket (force Org) says I need at least 1 fruit (hq), but I may pick up to 3. (using Ork Detach rules).

I go into the orchard and begin to pick out my first fruit. I pick an orange and put it into my basket. The apples in the near by tree tell me that because I picked an orange, I may pick an apple and put it into my basket and not count towards my total fruit limit, but this exception doesn't count if I pick an apple under the normal rules given to me by my basket. So, I pick an apple.

I go further into the orchard and decide, I want a banana. So, I pick one and put it into my basket. Another apple tree reminds me that I may take an apple now without counting towards my fruit limit if I want. So I do.

I now have an orange, a banana, and 2 apples, but I have not broken the rules given to me by my basket, nor broken the rules for obtaining free apples.

I decide that I'd really like a third apple. So, I pick an apple. Now, since I added the apple to my basket normally, I cannot use the apple's exception to pick a fourth apple. My fruit limit is now achieved legally through all the rules given to me despite me having more fruit than my basket originally told me I could. Now, the apples must be baked into pies, as per the end of their rule. Sadly, I cannot eat them as they stand.

If I had picked three apples normally, I could not pick 3 more apples that didn't count towards my fruit limit. The apples never told me in any way that I was not able to pick them normally, they instead told me I could get extra apples without breaking the rules laid out to me by my fruit basket.

this is the best explanation of any rule debate I've ever seen on this site.

Melevolence wrote:
My take is, and going back to the fruits and the basket analogy:

My fruit basket (force Org) says I need at least 1 fruit (hq), but I may pick up to 3. (using Ork Detach rules).

I go into the orchard and begin to pick out my first fruit. I pick an orange and put it into my basket. The apples in the near by tree tell me that because I picked an orange, I may pick an apple and put it into my basket and not count towards my total fruit limit, but this exception doesn't count if I pick an apple under the normal rules given to me by my basket. So, I pick an apple.

I go further into the orchard and decide, I want a banana. So, I pick one and put it into my basket. Another apple tree reminds me that I may take an apple now without counting towards my fruit limit if I want. So I do.

I now have an orange, a banana, and 2 apples, but I have not broken the rules given to me by my basket, nor broken the rules for obtaining free apples.

I decide that I'd really like a third apple. So, I pick an apple. Now, since I added the apple to my basket normally, I cannot use the apple's exception to pick a fourth apple. My fruit limit is now achieved legally through all the rules given to me despite me having more fruit than my basket originally told me I could. Now, the apples must be baked into pies, as per the end of their rule. Sadly, I cannot eat them as they stand.

If I had picked three apples normally, I could not pick 3 more apples that didn't count towards my fruit limit. The apples never told me in any way that I was not able to pick them normally, they instead told me I could get extra apples without breaking the rules laid out to me by my fruit basket.

+1

"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."

The second sentence only serves to clarify the first.

The first sentence clearly states that you may only have a Mek if you already have and HQ choice in this Detachment (that is not another Mek, so no selecting 2 Meks, and saying they allow each other's use).