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.

A friend has challenged me to a series of 500 point games. I am trying to use only models I own. So, in order to use models I like I'm venturing in to a company of the great wolf detachment. Now I know there is two opinions on this, so I'm trying to go for majority rule. In order to fulfil the mandatory requirements I am looking to fill a slot with a lone wolf. Now I know some think that a lone wolf never uses a force organisation slot and can only be accessed when certain units are selected. Others say they can be accessed no matter what, but they use a force organisation slot as normal unless certain units are selected. It seems the codex is mildly ambiguous. Surprise surprise GW. So, rather than go for the option that benefits me and being 'that guy', I want to see what dakka thinks.

For reference, here's the list....

Company of the great wolf detachment.

HQ - WGBL, krakenbone sword, storm shield, thunderwolf mount.

Elites - Iron priest, thunderwolf mount.

Elites - Lone Wolf, terminator armour, thunder hammer, storm Shield.

Fast attack - Thunderwolf cavalry x3. 3 storm shields, 3 chain swords. 1 melta bombs.

So what do we think?

the compulsory are 1 HQ and 2 Elites.

as per the RAW you cannot actually take a lone wolf without taking a troops choice, wolf guard, or wolf guard terminators.

that it takes up no FoC is a separate line, so the list is not legal right there as battle forged.

Additionally an unit that does not use a slot on a DoC cannot fulfill filling a cumpolsory slot.

Which was in fact my thinking exactly. But I had seen argued differently on here, where someone had ran a list with only 3 units that unlock lone wolves, and 6 lone wolves. I argued it was therefor not battleforged and got slapped down.

As with Ork Meks and the Dark Eldar Court of the Archon you won't get a consensus here on Dakka. Short of GW actually publishing a FAQ (yeah, right) you'll have to run it by your opponent/group.

Yeah, work it out yourself with your gaming group. This comes up over and over here with no consensus.

The argument tends to be as follows...

FOR...
Lone Wolves have the Elites battlefield role and can therefore be taken as normal to fill an Elites slot in a Detachment's Force Org Chart. The Lone Wolf special rules grant an ADDITIONAL method for taking the Lone Wolf as a slotless choice, but do not remove the standard permission to take a "slotted" version.

AGAINST...
Lone Wolves have special rules showing how you can take them. They can only be taken using these special rules, so the rules in the BRB on how to build an army are ignored.

I tend to be in the FOR court since the Mek, Court of the Archon, Lone Wolf, etc. rules don't have any wording restricting the normal method. From a strict RaW viewpoint, it would appear that both methods are acceptable. In the example of the Dark Eldar Court of the Archon, the fluff reasoning was that if the Archon shows up to the party, he invites his Entourage. If he doesn't show up, he sends his Entourage in his place. Either way, you're using one slot only... either for the Archon or the Court.

It's hard to know what GW intended. In previous editions, the answer would have been no for these situations. In 7th's "take what you want" environment and per the rules as written, it appears to have changed to a yes. The question becomes "was this intentional or unintentional and sloppy rules writing".

Lone Wolves

You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot.

clearly states you can take one for each troops choice or unit of wolf guard or wolf guard terminators in your army.

separately states that the selection does not use a force organization slot.


Meks

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.

same wording as above.

for each HQ you may include a single mek chosen from this datasheet.

separately states it does not use up a force org slot.

Court of the Archon

Retainers: For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot on the Force Organisation chart.

states that for each archon in detachment, you can include a court that dost not take up a slot on the force org chart.

the first two tell you that you need a unit to chose the lone wolf/mek from the datasheet.

the court tells you that you can have one that does not take up a slot if you have an archon, but does not state you take something and then may include the datasheet.

ergo the first two require you to take the required units to take them. The three are not all the same wording or rules. FWIW the ruling for Lone wolves is also under their unit composition, meks is listed under special rules, and the court is listed as its own separate thing after options for the unit.

Let's not start this argument again.

It will devolve into...

"Please highlight where in the Lone Wolf rules it says that I can't use the normal rules for army list constructions in the BRB."

"It's right there. It tells you how to take Lone Wolves."

"No, it tells me how to take slotless Lone Wolves. It doesn't have any wording restricting taking a slotted Love Wolf as per normal."

"Yes it does. Taking a Lone Wolf as an Elites choice is against the rule."

"Show me."

"I don't have to."

"Yes, you really do."

"No, your mom really does."

"At least my mom can read. Maybe you should learn."

"[MOD] - That's enough. Threadlock."

I would agree with the above in regards to the court.

mek/lone wolves is quite clear, because the two rules are separate.

it doesn't say "you can take a slotless lone wolf/mek for each x that your army includes"

it states:

"you may take a lone wolf/mek if your army includes x"

"it does not take up a slot in the force org slot"

that the second is a separate point means there is no option to take a lone/wolf mek that takes up a slot, if the two were linked together by words then it would be the arguable case that you could take a slotless or a slotted one.

that it does not take up a slot in the force org means it never does, as it is not tied to another rule.

whether or not you can take them without taking the unit it says you have to take to take the lone/wolf mek is actually a separate argument.

If we're going to dance this dance again, then please cite the specific wording that removes the permission to take a Lone Wolf as per normal using the rules in the BRB.

The entirety of the rule is "You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot.". Please highlight the bit that restricts the BRB permission.

Also, for the OP... one tactic the people will use who say you cannot use a Lone Wolf to fill a slot is as follows. They will say that the "This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot" is a completely seperate sentence and has no bearing on the "You can take..." bit. The people who say you can will argue that both sentences are part of one rule and that you can't pick and choose which parts of a rule you read to make your outcome seem to be correct. They will argue that you have to read a rule in its entirety. In other words, for each Troops/etc unit in your army, you can take one Lone Wolf that doesn't take a slot. One assumes that you can still take a Lone Wolf that DOES take a slot regardless of how many Troops/etc units are in your army.

As the two parts of that rule are separate -if- you are allowed to take them without fulfilling the first part does not invalidate the second part.

ie

whether you can take them without taking troops/WG/WGT does not invalidate that they do not take up a slot on the FoC.


that special restrictions are called out in the codex and specific trumps general and codex trumps rulebook is enough to show that the codex entry trumps the general permission of the rulebook.

EDIT-

further here is an example of how a rule looks that allows a unit to be taken multiple ways, from space wolves codex

Thralls: If Servitors are included in a Detachment that includes at least one Iron Priest, the Servitors do not use up a Force Organisation slot.

Blaktoof, in the second sentence "...This selection..." what does "this selection" refer to?

I'm not going to keep arguing this point. You've already made up your mind, so I'll never convince you. Despite multiple opportunities, you've never posted compelling RaW that restrictst the BRB permission and I can't find any myself, so you'll never convince me. We're wasting time. I was just trying to sum up the major points for the OP.

OP... you'll have to decide for yourself how this works. The ultimate question is really whether or not you're allowed to read portions of a rule or if you have to read the entire rule when making a list. Also, intent is a factor. "Because it's the way things have always worked in the past" is a terrible reason, especially in the 7th Edition "take what you want" environment. So many things have changed in 7th that previous ways of doing things are meaningless. You can now ally Space Marines and Chaos Space Marines. You can take Drop Pods by themselves. You can make a legal, Battle-forged list using nothing by Ordo Xenos Inquisitors. Heck, you can make a valid list with a single 25 point model. Even crazier... you can make a legal Unbound list using only Grots! Grot Army! Is it really so crazy to think a Lone Wolf could fill an Elites slot?

At first I was against it but looking further I think the answer is pretty obvious. It is an elite choice with special rules to take with no force slot in the event you have troop selections. The fact that they are printed in the elite section to me suggests that it it can be used as an elite choice regardless of it's special rules.

 Kriswall wrote:
Let's not start this argument again.

It will devolve into...

"Please highlight where in the Lone Wolf rules it says that I can't use the normal rules for army list constructions in the BRB."

"It's right there. It tells you how to take Lone Wolves."

"No, it tells me how to take slotless Lone Wolves. It doesn't have any wording restricting taking a slotted Love Wolf as per normal."

"Yes it does. Taking a Lone Wolf as an Elites choice is against the rule."

"Show me."

"I don't have to."

"Yes, you really do."

"No, your mom really does."

"At least my mom can read. Maybe you should learn."

"[MOD] - That's enough. Threadlock."

This genuinely made me laugh.

I understand the arguments on both sides. I also understand its an argument that seems like it'll never be settled without an FAQ. I wasn't looking for endless evidence of both sides, or a constant locked battle. Nor was I looking for the MOD to lock the thread. Hence my poll, I was after majority opinion. I appreciate everyone's opinions and thank you all.

There is of course a bonus with 7th edition. If my opponent is happy with it it is a bound list and I gain benefits. If he isn't happy.... Well heck, I can still take it and it's simply unbound.

Thanks again guys.

 Kriswall wrote:
I'm not going to keep arguing this point. You've already made up your mind, so I'll never convince you. Despite multiple opportunities, you've never posted compelling RaW that restrictst the BRB permission and I can't find any myself, so you'll never convince me. We're wasting time. I was just trying to sum up the major points for the OP.

OP... you'll have to decide for yourself how this works. The ultimate question is really whether or not you're allowed to read portions of a rule or if you have to read the entire rule when making a list. Also, intent is a factor. "Because it's the way things have always worked in the past" is a terrible reason, especially in the 7th Edition "take what you want" environment. So many things have changed in 7th that previous ways of doing things are meaningless. You can now ally Space Marines and Chaos Space Marines. You can take Drop Pods by themselves. You can make a legal, Battle-forged list using nothing by Ordo Xenos Inquisitors. Heck, you can make a valid list with a single 25 point model. Even crazier... you can make a legal Unbound list using only Grots! Grot Army! Is it really so crazy to think a Lone Wolf could fill an Elites slot?

The entry for the unit itself states what is required to unlock it and gives no alternative way of unlocking it.

if it said something along the lines of

Thralls: If Servitors are included in a Detachment that includes at least one Iron Priest, the Servitors do not use up a Force Organisation slot.

there would be obvious RAW support that you can take it more than one way.

ie if you take an iron priest you can include servitors that do not use up a force org slot.

if you do not take an iron priest therefore they do take one up.

heres the rule for lone wolves:

UNIT COMPOSITION: 1 Lone Wolf
You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot.

for each troops, wolf guard, or wolfguard terminators you can take one lone wolf in your army.

This unit does not use up a force org slot.

notice how there is zero wording you may take lone wolves without taking those selections, nor does it say "if you take these selections lone wolves do not use up a force org slot"

because RAW you are required to take the units you are listed as required to take so that you -can- have a lone wolf.

as for RAW from the rulebook there is this

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 Organisation slot, it must join the same Detachment as that specified unit.

The army list entry for lone wolf regardless of anyones interpretation includes the non optional (its not listed as optional is it?) rule that you can include 1 lone wolf if you include another specified unit. It does not take up a force organization slot.

If you take a lone wolf as per the RAW, because it has that rule entry which you have no permission to ignore- you must have it join the same detachment as the specified unit.

If you did not take the specified unit then you cannot have it join the same detachment and you have broken a basic core rule in the rulebook.

therefore RAW you cannot take a lone wolf without taking the specified unit, because you do not have permission to ignore that rule in its unit entry.

It doesn't even matter if you argue that line is optional at this point, because the RAW in the rulebook only requires that the line exists in the unit entry for it to be required to be in the same detachment as the specified unit.

The presence of that in the entry for lone wolves per the RAW means you have to follow the quoted rule.

Feel free to continue taking rules out of context.

Until such time as you are able to demonstrate literally ANY rules citation that doesn't involve using PART of a rule or taking a single sentence out of context, I will continue to believe that Lone Wolves can be taken to fill an Elites slot, as the BRB grants permission.

so you believe the entry for lone wolves does not state it can be included in an army if the army includes another unit and does not take up a FoC slot, anywhere in its unit entry.

because by the RAW not out of context if that is there then it must be in the same detachment as the unit listed as one of the required ones in that entry.

there is no rule being used in partial here, and nothing being taken out of context.

Does the unit entry contain that if your army includes x then you may take this unit ?

Then by raw you have to have it in the same detachment as the unit. The rule in the rulebook does not ask or care if you took the unit any certain way, just that the entry contains the above quoted word, if so you must follow the rule in the rulebook.

Doing anything else is taking the rule out of context to the extent that you might as well say you can have the unit for free because nothing requires you to pay the points cost of the unit. Ignoring rules is ignoring rules

blaktoof wrote:
so you believe the entry for lone wolves does not state it can be included in an army if the army includes another unit and does not take up a FoC slot, anywhere in its unit entry.

because by the RAW not out of context if that is there then it must be in the same detachment as the unit listed as one of the required ones in that entry.

there is no rule being used in partial here, and nothing being taken out of context.

Does the unit entry contain that if your army includes x then you may take this unit ?

Then by raw you have to have it in the same detachment as the unit. The rule in the rulebook does not ask or care if you took the unit any certain way, just that the entry contains the above quoted word, if so you must follow the rule in the rulebook.

Doing anything else is taking the rule out of context to the extent that you might as well say you can have the unit for free because nothing requires you to pay the points cost of the unit. Ignoring rules is ignoring rules

The unit entry rules in the BRB require you to pay the points cost.

How does taking a unit in the same detachment have ANYTHING to do with whether or not it uses a slot and whether you use the Codex method or the BRB method to include it in your list? Just curious what your thoughts were there.

from the main rulebook

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 Organisation slot, it must join the same Detachment as that specified unit.

The above general rule from the rulebook makes no mention of if you have an option, or if you take a unit that is slotless. All that matters is that the unit entry has the rule that says it can be included in an army that includes another specified unit, and that it does not take up a force org slot.

from lone wolves

You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organization slot.

the wording fits unambiguously to the above general rule.

because of this you must take the lone wolves as per the general rule in the rulebook. Ie if you take the lone wolves, they must be in the same detachment as the specified unit. If you take a lone wolf, it must be in the same detachment as the troop/WG/WGT.

the general rule only cares that the unity entry, contains that wording for that rule. Which lone wolves does unambiguously.

in order for lone wolves to be taken as a slotted elite choice they would now need a SPECIFIC rule in the codex/formation to do so- not the rulebook. The rulebook itself sets the general rule which they obviously have in their unit entry. There is no such rule in the codex, therefore it is not possible by the plain RAW to take a lone wolf that is slotless, or without the required units.

tldr-

the general rule for units that contain "may be taken in an army that includes x, and they do not use up a slot" means they can only be taken that way unless their codex specifies otherwise, lone wolves does not so that is the only way they can be taken by strict RAW.

There doesn't need to be a rule in the rulebook saying they can't be taken slotless, because there is a rule stating they have to be taken slotless, and in the same detachment as the unit required to use the unit entry. There needs to be a specific rule in the codex entry itself to override the general RAW in the rulebook.

I have to say that I agree that Lone Wolfs can't be taken as elite slots going by the wording. If you look at the 5th edition Blood Angels codex the wording for DC dreadnoughts was the same. I.e. "You can include one death company dreadnought for every 5 ............"

This seems to indicate that the term "You can..." is a restrictive one when compared with the alternative of "You may......".

Just my two cents, I could be wrong but that is the way I am leaning for the moment.

We essentially have two permissions. They do not seem to contradict each other. Posting a rule saying that if I take a slotless unit that it has to go in the same Detachment as the unit that "unlocked" it does not show a contradiction. Nobody has tried arguing that the Lone Wolf would go into a different Detachment, so I'm still not sure how that citation is relevant.

First Permision...
"You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organization slot."

Second Permission (paraphrased from the BRB because I didn't feel like copy and pasting multiple paragraphs)...
You can take Units with the Elites Battlefield Role to fulfill Elites requirements in Detachments. This selection does use up a Force Organization slot.

It looks very much to me like I have two different and non-contradicting methods for taking Lone Wolves. Now, if the Lone Wolf rule included a clause saying something to the effect of "You can only take a Lone Wolf in this fashion", I would gladly say there is a contradiction, say that Codex overrides BRB and we'd all be happy. However, there is no such clause.

Incidentally, from a grammatical standpoint, can and may mean the same thing. May is just more polite. May has an implied connotation of asking for permission. Can has an implied connotation of asking for capability. In reality, there is no practical difference. When I ask the teacher if I can go to the bathroom, I'm only asking if I have the capability because if he says no, then I can't actually go to the bathroom. I have no idea what GW authors think can means versus may, but since they haven't defined it in the same way they defined their usage of and/or, I'm forced to fall back on standard meanings. It's possible that GW is assigning meaning to can and not may... but if so, they need to define this somewhere or it remains, at best, ambiguous; at worst, misleading.

 Kriswall wrote:
We essentially have two permissions. They do not seem to contradict each other. Posting a rule saying that if I take a slotless unit that it has to go in the same Detachment as the unit that "unlocked" it does not show a contradiction. Nobody has tried arguing that the Lone Wolf would go into a different Detachment, so I'm still not sure how that citation is relevant.

First Permision...
"You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organization slot."

Second Permission (paraphrased from the BRB because I didn't feel like copy and pasting multiple paragraphs)...
You can take Units with the Elites Battlefield Role to fulfill Elites requirements in Detachments. This selection does use up a Force Organization slot.

It looks very much to me like I have two different and non-contradicting methods for taking Lone Wolves. Now, if the Lone Wolf rule included a clause saying something to the effect of "You can only take a Lone Wolf in this fashion", I would gladly say there is a contradiction, say that Codex overrides BRB and we'd all be happy. However, there is no such clause.

Incidentally, from a grammatical standpoint, can and may mean the same thing. May is just more polite. May has an implied connotation of asking for permission. Can has an implied connotation of asking for capability. In reality, there is no practical difference. When I ask the teacher if I can go to the bathroom, I'm only asking if I have the capability because if he says no, then I can't actually go to the bathroom. I have no idea what GW authors think can means versus may, but since they haven't defined it in the same way they defined their usage of and/or, I'm forced to fall back on standard meanings. It's possible that GW is assigning meaning to can and not may... but if so, they need to define this somewhere or it remains, at best, ambiguous; at worst, misleading.

Your reasoning here seems to suggest that Blood Angel players could have taken as many DC Dreadnughts as they wanted without paying the DC marine tax using the 5th edition codex. The wording is exactly the same. "You can include one Death Company Dreadnought for every 5 Death Company models in your army". Your argument seems to suggest that we could just ignore this and handwave it away by claiming that we have an "alternative" permission to take them as per rules of the BRB. Afterall it doesn't say that we can't have DC Dreadnoughts if we don't have the DC marines.

Edit: Added last sentence.

 DarthOvious wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
We essentially have two permissions. They do not seem to contradict each other. Posting a rule saying that if I take a slotless unit that it has to go in the same Detachment as the unit that "unlocked" it does not show a contradiction. Nobody has tried arguing that the Lone Wolf would go into a different Detachment, so I'm still not sure how that citation is relevant.

First Permision...
"You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organization slot."

Second Permission (paraphrased from the BRB because I didn't feel like copy and pasting multiple paragraphs)...
You can take Units with the Elites Battlefield Role to fulfill Elites requirements in Detachments. This selection does use up a Force Organization slot.

It looks very much to me like I have two different and non-contradicting methods for taking Lone Wolves. Now, if the Lone Wolf rule included a clause saying something to the effect of "You can only take a Lone Wolf in this fashion", I would gladly say there is a contradiction, say that Codex overrides BRB and we'd all be happy. However, there is no such clause.

Incidentally, from a grammatical standpoint, can and may mean the same thing. May is just more polite. May has an implied connotation of asking for permission. Can has an implied connotation of asking for capability. In reality, there is no practical difference. When I ask the teacher if I can go to the bathroom, I'm only asking if I have the capability because if he says no, then I can't actually go to the bathroom. I have no idea what GW authors think can means versus may, but since they haven't defined it in the same way they defined their usage of and/or, I'm forced to fall back on standard meanings. It's possible that GW is assigning meaning to can and not may... but if so, they need to define this somewhere or it remains, at best, ambiguous; at worst, misleading.

Your reasoning here seems to suggest that Blood Angel players could have taken as many DC Dreadnughts as they wanted without paying the DC marine tax using the 5th edition codex. The wording is exactly the same. "You can include one Death Company Dreadnought for every 5 Death Company models in your army". Your argument seems to suggest that we could just ignore this and handwave it away by claiming that we have an "alternative" permission to take them as per rules of the BRB. Afterall it doesn't say that we can't have DC Dreadnoughts if we don't have the DC marines.

Edit: Added last sentence.

I don't have copies of the 5th or 6th Edition rule books handy, so I can't speak to how prior editions would have handled army list construction. All I know is that the 7th Edition rule book appears to grant a permission that is not being removed.

Besides, the Death Company Dreadnought issue would have been a different one. In that case, there was no specification that the Dreads would not take up a slot. There was no implication that you could take an extra Dread outside the confines of the Force Organization chart like there is with the Lone Wolf. I continue to read the Lone Wolf rule as effectively telling me that for every eligible unit I should glue a phantom, Lone Wolf shaped slot onto the Force Org Chart. I can take a Lone Wolf to fill this phantom slot if I want. Or not. My call. This doesn't necessarily stop Lone Wolves from fitting in regularly shaped Elites slots.

if an unit entry contains that "it can be taken in an army if army includes x. The unit does not take up a slot on the force organization chart"

then by the RAW it has to be taken in the same detachment as the unit required, and is slotless.

the rule in the rulebook under slotless force org selections states so.

it does not state "if you take it as slotless"

it states if the -entry- says it can be taken.

does the entry state it? Yes.

the second permission you stated is invalid as its already overriden in the rulebook by the presence of the line in the codex.

yes therefore by the general rule in the rulebook you only have permission at this point to take it slotless, in the same detachment as the listed unit.

if the codex entry states otherwise, then you have specific permission to override the general rule in the rulebook.

lone wolves and meks do not grant such permission.

there is no option take it slotless, period according to the general rules in the rulebook. The fact it is an elite slot is not of importance when it has the more specific rule of

Occasionally a unit’s Army List Entry will state that the unit it describes does not take up a slot on a Force Organisation Chart.

These units can be included in any Detachment, even if all the 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.

Games Workshop Ltd. Warhammer 40,000 (Kindle Locations 9373-9375).

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 Organisation slot, it must join the same Detachment as that specified unit.

the lone wolves entry for the above is not listed as optional in the codex, and as per the wording on the rules in the rulebook from above it merely looks to see if the entry states they can be included in the army and are slotless.

therefore there is no option to include them as a non slotless entry.

tldr- the general rule from the rulebook : if any army list entry states it can be taken in an army if you you take x, it is slotless. Then it can only be taken in the detachment that contains x and is slotless. The presence of the rule in the entry means there is no option to take it another way, unless the specific army list entry in the codex says otherwise. for meks and lone wolves it does not say otherwise.

I play orks, dark eldar, and space wolves and am fine with this as it is the actual simple rules as written.

Agree to disagree.

 Kriswall wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
We essentially have two permissions. They do not seem to contradict each other. Posting a rule saying that if I take a slotless unit that it has to go in the same Detachment as the unit that "unlocked" it does not show a contradiction. Nobody has tried arguing that the Lone Wolf would go into a different Detachment, so I'm still not sure how that citation is relevant.

First Permision...
"You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organization slot."

Second Permission (paraphrased from the BRB because I didn't feel like copy and pasting multiple paragraphs)...
You can take Units with the Elites Battlefield Role to fulfill Elites requirements in Detachments. This selection does use up a Force Organization slot.

It looks very much to me like I have two different and non-contradicting methods for taking Lone Wolves. Now, if the Lone Wolf rule included a clause saying something to the effect of "You can only take a Lone Wolf in this fashion", I would gladly say there is a contradiction, say that Codex overrides BRB and we'd all be happy. However, there is no such clause.

Incidentally, from a grammatical standpoint, can and may mean the same thing. May is just more polite. May has an implied connotation of asking for permission. Can has an implied connotation of asking for capability. In reality, there is no practical difference. When I ask the teacher if I can go to the bathroom, I'm only asking if I have the capability because if he says no, then I can't actually go to the bathroom. I have no idea what GW authors think can means versus may, but since they haven't defined it in the same way they defined their usage of and/or, I'm forced to fall back on standard meanings. It's possible that GW is assigning meaning to can and not may... but if so, they need to define this somewhere or it remains, at best, ambiguous; at worst, misleading.

Your reasoning here seems to suggest that Blood Angel players could have taken as many DC Dreadnughts as they wanted without paying the DC marine tax using the 5th edition codex. The wording is exactly the same. "You can include one Death Company Dreadnought for every 5 Death Company models in your army". Your argument seems to suggest that we could just ignore this and handwave it away by claiming that we have an "alternative" permission to take them as per rules of the BRB. Afterall it doesn't say that we can't have DC Dreadnoughts if we don't have the DC marines.

Edit: Added last sentence.

I don't have copies of the 5th or 6th Edition rule books handy, so I can't speak to how prior editions would have handled army list construction. All I know is that the 7th Edition rule book appears to grant a permission that is not being removed.

Besides, the Death Company Dreadnought issue would have been a different one. In that case, there was no specification that the Dreads would not take up a slot. There was no implication that you could take an extra Dread outside the confines of the Force Organization chart like there is with the Lone Wolf. I continue to read the Lone Wolf rule as effectively telling me that for every eligible unit I should glue a phantom, Lone Wolf shaped slot onto the Force Org Chart. I can take a Lone Wolf to fill this phantom slot if I want. Or not. My call. This doesn't necessarily stop Lone Wolves from fitting in regularly shaped Elites slots.

Just out of interest. Whats the wording used for Space Marine Honour Guard? Don't have the book on me at the moment so don't know but if it's then do you think that they could be taken as an HQ by itself?

Sadly (I say sadly because I wanted to run multiple LWs), the wording is the same:

"You may take one Honour Guard unit for each Chapter Master in your army (including Marneus Calgar, Pedro Kantor and High Marshal Helbrecht). This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot."

I don't think anyone has ever debated that this rule is interpreted as you need to have a chapter master in order to take a unit of HG.

skolirvarden wrote:
Sadly (I say sadly because I wanted to run multiple LWs), the wording is the same:

"You may take one Honour Guard unit for each Chapter Master in your army (including Marneus Calgar, Pedro Kantor and High Marshal Helbrecht). This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot."

I don't think anyone has ever debated that this rule is interpreted as you need to have a chapter master in order to take a unit of HG.

So essentially Space Wolf players who take a Lone Wolf as an elite slot without the other requirements to make it slotless would also have to agree that SM players can take a lone Honour Guard as an HQ choice slot?

 DarthOvious wrote:

skolirvarden wrote:
Sadly (I say sadly because I wanted to run multiple LWs), the wording is the same:

"You may take one Honour Guard unit for each Chapter Master in your army (including Marneus Calgar, Pedro Kantor and High Marshal Helbrecht). This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot."

I don't think anyone has ever debated that this rule is interpreted as you need to have a chapter master in order to take a unit of HG.

So essentially Space Wolf players who take a Lone Wolf as an elite slot without the other requirements to make it slotless would also have to agree that SM players can take a lone Honour Guard as an HQ choice slot?

Yes. As I said, didn't realise this before and wish I could say otherwise, because I was intending to run a couple of LWs using Elite slots, but it seems like this would not be allowed, unless everyone is willing to concede that you can take HG as a HQ choice.

The Space Marine Codex is not laid out like a 7th Edition Codex (such as Space Wolves) and doesn't have the same Unit Entry structure. I'll have to wait until GW puts out a 7th Edition Space Marine Codex to comment.

If you want a real answer, I would say that since the Honour Guard, Cenobyte Servitors, Command Squad, Techmarine, Sergeant Telion and Sergeant Chronus Unit Entries are all in "side boxes", they're not to be considered to be a part of the regular HQ, Troops, etc. sections and as such can't be taken by themselves in a Codex: Space Marines Detachment or Formation. This is not the case with Space Wolf Lone Wolves, Ork Meks, Dark Eldar Courts of the Archon, etc.

I really think all this confusion is a function of the way GW is laying out the new Codexes. In previous edition publications, units like this were clearly seperated from the rest of the Unit Entries. Now they're not. This is a change from the previous edition to the current.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As a further point of interest...

If the "side boxes" mean nothing, then would I be able to take Telion by himself as a Unit of 1? In the iBooks Interactive Edition, he is on his own page, has no points cost and no rules saying he must be taken as an upgrade in a seperate unit. The Scout Squad says he can be taken as a replacement for the Scout Sarge, but has no wording restricting him being taken alone.

Now, I'm obviously not arguing that he can be taken alone. I think the intent is clear... but the ONLY thing preventing him from being taken alone is the "side box". Same with the Honour Guard. The Lone Wolf has no side box and so should be considered a normal, eligible Elites choice for filling normal slots.