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.

 Kriswall wrote:
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.

As far as I can see (and I have both codexes in front of me right now), the only difference between the two is that in the SM codex the units are grouped in sections (ie all HQ units together, all troops together) under a common page title, while in the SW codex there is the FOC patch in the corner of the page.

skolirvarden wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
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.

As far as I can see (and I have both codexes in front of me right now), the only difference between the two is that in the SM codex the units are grouped in sections (ie all HQ units together, all troops together) under a common page title, while in the SW codex there is the FOC patch in the corner of the page.

AND the SM Codex has boxes around certain entries separating them from the rest of the entries.

 Kriswall wrote:

skolirvarden wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
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.

As far as I can see (and I have both codexes in front of me right now), the only difference between the two is that in the SM codex the units are grouped in sections (ie all HQ units together, all troops together) under a common page title, while in the SW codex there is the FOC patch in the corner of the page.

AND the SM Codex has boxes around certain entries separating them from the rest of the entries.

Not in the ebook it doesn't.

skolirvarden wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

skolirvarden wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
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.

As far as I can see (and I have both codexes in front of me right now), the only difference between the two is that in the SM codex the units are grouped in sections (ie all HQ units together, all troops together) under a common page title, while in the SW codex there is the FOC patch in the corner of the page.

AND the SM Codex has boxes around certain entries separating them from the rest of the entries.

Not in the ebook it doesn't.

I just took a look at the ePub release versus the Interactive Edition. I think the issue here is that GW is leaving EXTREMELY important formatting bits out of the ePub version. The physical book release as well as the Interactive Edition release both have clear boxes around the Unit Entries in question separating them from the rest of the Entries. The ePub version has no such box. As such, there is nothing to tell me the Unit is to be treated differently. But... look at Telion in your ePub version and tell me what in the Telion Entry (not the Scout Entry) indicates that Telion can't be taken alone.

Without the boxes around the Unit Entry, the ePub Unit Entry for Telion looks like he's free (no points cost) and can be taken alone as an Infantry (Character). I obviously don't think this, but from a Rules as Written standpoint, it looks like GW made a formatting/layout mistake and opened the door for ambiguities and confusion.

 Kriswall wrote:

skolirvarden wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
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.

As far as I can see (and I have both codexes in front of me right now), the only difference between the two is that in the SM codex the units are grouped in sections (ie all HQ units together, all troops together) under a common page title, while in the SW codex there is the FOC patch in the corner of the page.

AND the SM Codex has boxes around certain entries separating them from the rest of the entries.

The daemon codex does the same for Heralds but mentions that the upto four selections still take up a HQ slot. Seems to suggests that means the bordering doesn't neccessarily mean the entry counts as slotless.

Edit: I also wanted to add that the 5th edition codex for GK's doesn't have this border around the entry for Inquisitorial Henchmen. They are also placed in the elites section and states "For each Inquisitor in your army, you may also include a unit of 3-12 henchmen, chosen in any combination from those shown. This unit does not use up a force organisation slot."

Any thoughts on this?

It's an old Codex, so isn't relevant? What does the 7th Grey Knights Codex look like?

 Kriswall wrote:
It's an old Codex, so isn't relevant? What does the 7th Grey Knights Codex look like?

Henchmen aren't in it as they were moved to the inquisitor codex. I don't have that book so I'm not sure but it's possible it could be the same as I believe it was pretty much a copy and paste job for what I heard with just copying a pasting the relevent inquisitor bits.

Edit: However as for the bordering issue the 5th edition Blood Angels codex still had their Honour Guard with a bordering and thats an older codex than the Grey Knights 5th edition one. So it appears that GW have been bordering some units for a long time now while not bordering others.

I have to admit that this confusion would be easily mitigated against if they just put slotless entries into their own slotless section of their respective codex.

I would like to point out another difference between a 6th edition codex and 7th edition codex.

For things from 6th edition, eg Honour Guard, Warlock Councils, Royal Courts (though this will probably change), Crisis Bodyguards, etc, there is a note right after the unit name and cost. The note says something along the lines of "You may take one X for each Y in a detachment. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot". You'll note that unlike a 7th edition codex, this is not a special rule of the unit

I'm with Kriswall on this. 7th has changed a lot and the emphasis now is on freedom to include the units you want (which makes perfect sense given that GW is allegedly a model company). 7th Ed codexes support this by giving all these "unlockable" units their own datasheet meaning they can be taken to fill that battlefield role. The format and rukes relating to similar units in 6th Ed codexes is irrelevant this is how 7th Ed works and is why in 7th Ed dexes the DTs are all listed with other battlefield roles (largely Fast Attack).

 Happyjew wrote:
I would like to point out another difference between a 6th edition codex and 7th edition codex.

For things from 6th edition, eg Honour Guard, Warlock Councils, Royal Courts (though this will probably change), Crisis Bodyguards, etc, there is a note right after the unit name and cost. The note says something along the lines of "You may take one X for each Y in a detachment. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot". You'll note that unlike a 7th edition codex, this is not a special rule of the unit

Lone wolves are the same format but instead of 'may' its the word 'can'.

additionally just like 6th the rule that makes lone wolves takeable only as slotless with troops/wg/wgt is not listed as a special rule either, it is under their unit composition.

again according to the core rules in the rulebook, if that statement is present in the entry [not an if you take it some way] just that it is present, then they have to be taken in the same detachment as the listed unit, and are slotless. there is no optional about it.

blaktoof wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
I would like to point out another difference between a 6th edition codex and 7th edition codex.

For things from 6th edition, eg Honour Guard, Warlock Councils, Royal Courts (though this will probably change), Crisis Bodyguards, etc, there is a note right after the unit name and cost. The note says something along the lines of "You may take one X for each Y in a detachment. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot". You'll note that unlike a 7th edition codex, this is not a special rule of the unit

Lone wolves are the same format but instead of 'may' its the word 'can'.

additionally just like 6th the rule that makes lone wolves takeable only as slotless with troops/wg/wgt is not listed as a special rule either, it is under their unit composition.

again according to the core rules in the rulebook, if that statement is present in the entry [not an if you take it some way] just that it is present, then they have to be taken in the same detachment as the listed unit, and are slotless. there is no optional about it.

The rule you keep citing just says they have to be taken in the same detachment. Nobody is trying to take them in a different detachment. I agree 100% that they need to be taken in the same detachment. You obviously can't take a Ultramarines CAD, take a Techmarine to accompany your Ultramarines Captain and then stick that Techmarine in a Clan Raukaan Allied Detachment. He would need to be in the Ultramarines Detachment. That's all that rule does. It doesn't restrict permission to take the Techmarine using a normal slot.

The rule I keep citing is:

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.

The thing to note here is it only requires the army list entry to state it does not take up a force org slot.

Now lets look at lone wolves unit entry.

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.

does this army list entry state the unit does not take up a force organization slot?

Answer - Yes.

back to the core rules...

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. In either case, these units are part of the Detachment for all rules purposes and will gain any appropriate Command Benefits.

looking back up at lone wolves.

does it state in the army list entry that it can be included in an army that includes another specified unit?

yes.

then a[one] lone wolf must be included in the same detachment as that specified unit as the above rule states.

so per the RAW if you take a lone wolf it must be in the same detachment as the troop unit, WG unit, or WGT unit that is required to take it.

there is no option to take a slotless lone wolf per the RAW in the core rulebook regarding any army list entry that states the above, and the specific unit entry and the codex does not give any specific ruling in the unit entry itself that is an option to take it any way other than slotless with the required units also being taken in the same detachment.

Even if there was an option to take a slotless lone wolf unit [there is not] then it would still have to adhere to the rule in the rulebook that it must be taken in a detachment with the specified unit, i.e. Troop/WG/WGT unless its entry specifies otherwise, which it does not.

the point of the above is, the OPs list is not battleforged, it could be unbound though, as it does not contain a troop unit, WG unit, or WGT unit which is required by the RAW to have a lone wolf, without that there can be no lone wolf in the detachment as per the RAW in the rulebook.

Note the rule does not state this is the only way to field that unit, of course, or what happens if the re is no other you it

Mistaking permission for restriction again

blaktoof wrote:
The rule I keep citing is:

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.

The thing to note here is it only requires the army list entry to state it does not take up a force org slot.

Now lets look at lone wolves unit entry.

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.

does this army list entry state the unit does not take up a force organization slot?

Answer - Yes.

back to the core rules...

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. In either case, these units are part of the Detachment for all rules purposes and will gain any appropriate Command Benefits.

looking back up at lone wolves.

does it state in the army list entry that it can be included in an army that includes another specified unit?

yes.

then a[one] lone wolf must be included in the same detachment as that specified unit as the above rule states.

so per the RAW if you take a lone wolf it must be in the same detachment as the troop unit, WG unit, or WGT unit that is required to take it.

there is no option to take a slotless lone wolf per the RAW in the core rulebook regarding any army list entry that states the above, and the specific unit entry and the codex does not give any specific ruling in the unit entry itself that is an option to take it any way other than slotless with the required units also being taken in the same detachment.

Even if there was an option to take a slotless lone wolf unit [there is not] then it would still have to adhere to the rule in the rulebook that it must be taken in a detachment with the specified unit, i.e. Troop/WG/WGT unless its entry specifies otherwise, which it does not.

the point of the above is, the OPs list is not battleforged, it could be unbound though, as it does not contain a troop unit, WG unit, or WGT unit which is required by the RAW to have a lone wolf, without that there can be no lone wolf in the detachment as per the RAW in the rulebook.

Again, nobody is saying that the Lone Wolf would be taken in a different Detachment. I'm uncertain as to how saying "If X is true, then Y must be taken in the same detachment as Z" removes the permission to take Y buying paying points and filling an Elites slot. The rule you keep posting has no wording to restrict the normal method. It simply adds a caveat that slotless units must go in the same Detachment.

Oh look, rule 1 again. Reported

I have permission to take it as Elite choice, or slotless. If i take it slotless the unit that is required to make it slotless must be in the same detachment.

The rest of your oh so helpful comments I have left alone, as they do not merit a response

Edit: The above was in response to a post by Blaktoof that ha snow been removed by mods, and not aimed at Kriswall.

Actually 7th ed has seen a lot of options being removed from the codices. Just look at all the characters who could unlock certain units as troops as well as the new BA codex moving ASM back into fast attack. Saying that 7th ed allows more options is false because it only allows you more options under the unbound system. This isn't a good argument to say that this means Lone Wolves can be taken as a slotted elite choice.

Also how far did we get with the Inquisitorial Henchmen entry for GK 5th ed and the new Inqusition codex? To be honest I don't see GW changing their meanings of the language they use in codices for the same phrases, it would cause too much confusion. So I'm thinking that they must mean the same thing really.

Do we have very many Inqusition players taking Henchmen without an Inquisitor and just using up an elite slot instead?

Edit: Grammar

 DarthOvious wrote:
Actually 7th ed has seen a lot of options being removed from the codices. Just look at all the characters who could unlock certain units as troops as well as the new BA codex moving ASM back into fast attack. Saying that 7th ed allows more options is false because it only allows you more options under the unbound system. This isn't a good argument to say that this means Lone Wolves can be taken as a slotted elite choice.

Also how far did we get with the Inquisitorial Henchmen entry for GK 5th ed and the new Inqusition codex? To be honest I don't see GW changing their meanings of the language they use in codices for the same phrases, it would cause too much confusion. So I'm thinking that they must mean the same thing really.

Do we have very many Inqusition players taking Henchmen without an Inquisitor and just using up an elite slot instead?

Edit: Grammar

The current Codex Inquistion's Inquisitorial Detachment requires 1-2 HQs (Various Inquisitors) and 0-3 Elites (Henchmen being the only choice). The only way take Henchmen without an Inquisitor is to make an Unbound list. The old 5th Edition GK Codex is no longer a valid rules source, so I would hope nobody out there is using it. If they are, they're already in house rule territory, so how they can play it however they want.

 Kriswall wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
Actually 7th ed has seen a lot of options being removed from the codices. Just look at all the characters who could unlock certain units as troops as well as the new BA codex moving ASM back into fast attack. Saying that 7th ed allows more options is false because it only allows you more options under the unbound system. This isn't a good argument to say that this means Lone Wolves can be taken as a slotted elite choice.

Also how far did we get with the Inquisitorial Henchmen entry for GK 5th ed and the new Inqusition codex? To be honest I don't see GW changing their meanings of the language they use in codices for the same phrases, it would cause too much confusion. So I'm thinking that they must mean the same thing really.

Do we have very many Inqusition players taking Henchmen without an Inquisitor and just using up an elite slot instead?

Edit: Grammar

The current Codex Inquistion's Inquisitorial Detachment requires 1-2 HQs (Various Inquisitors) and 0-3 Elites (Henchmen being the only choice). The only way take Henchmen without an Inquisitor is to make an Unbound list. The old 5th Edition GK Codex is no longer a valid rules source, so I would hope nobody out there is using it. If they are, they're already in house rule territory, so how they can play it however they want.

How is it worded? Is it worded the same way?

Also why does it matter if the 5th ed GK is an old one? Is it reasonable to think that GW dramatically changed the meaning of their rule interpretations? As I said before that would just cause too much confusion. If they meant something different then surely they wouldn't have used the same language as they have used for all other slotless entries. This is something that needs to be considered. Did we see Marine players taking Honour Guard as HQ slots? Did we see GK players back in 5th take Henchmen as elite slots without an inquisitor? I'm curious, I haven't seen any who did but perhaps some people did but I just didn't see them.

I guess I'm asking why you are interpretating the same language used here differently from all the other entries.

 Kriswall wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
The rule I keep citing is:

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.

The thing to note here is it only requires the army list entry to state it does not take up a force org slot.

Now lets look at lone wolves unit entry.

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.

does this army list entry state the unit does not take up a force organization slot?

Answer - Yes.

back to the core rules...

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. In either case, these units are part of the Detachment for all rules purposes and will gain any appropriate Command Benefits.

looking back up at lone wolves.

does it state in the army list entry that it can be included in an army that includes another specified unit?

yes.

then a[one] lone wolf must be included in the same detachment as that specified unit as the above rule states.

so per the RAW if you take a lone wolf it must be in the same detachment as the troop unit, WG unit, or WGT unit that is required to take it.

there is no option to take a slotless lone wolf per the RAW in the core rulebook regarding any army list entry that states the above, and the specific unit entry and the codex does not give any specific ruling in the unit entry itself that is an option to take it any way other than slotless with the required units also being taken in the same detachment.

Even if there was an option to take a slotless lone wolf unit [there is not] then it would still have to adhere to the rule in the rulebook that it must be taken in a detachment with the specified unit, i.e. Troop/WG/WGT unless its entry specifies otherwise, which it does not.

the point of the above is, the OPs list is not battleforged, it could be unbound though, as it does not contain a troop unit, WG unit, or WGT unit which is required by the RAW to have a lone wolf, without that there can be no lone wolf in the detachment as per the RAW in the rulebook.

Again, nobody is saying that the Lone Wolf would be taken in a different Detachment. I'm uncertain as to how saying "If X is true, then Y must be taken in the same detachment as Z" removes the permission to take Y buying paying points and filling an Elites slot. The rule you keep posting has no wording to restrict the normal method. It simply adds a caveat that slotless units must go in the same Detachment.

it does not add the caveat that a -slotless- unit must go in the same detachment.

it adds the caveat that a unit thas that it can be taken as s slotless unit in its unit entry must go in the same detachment as any specified unit that allows it to be in that detachment.

so even if you could take a lone wolf as a slotted selection, per the RAW it can only be taken in a detachment that has a troop/wg/wgt whether it is slotless or not.

and as such the OPs list is not battleforged.

further the core rule states that if it is listed as slotless, then it is slotless. the codex entry does not specify it is an option to be slotless, as such there is no rule allowing for it to be slotless as the rule for slotless entries is more specific than generally being allowed to put a unit in a slot based on its role, as the rule for slotless states if the unity entry specifies it can be taken slotless, then its slotless.

the only thing at that point that can supercede that rule is the specific entry in the codex. If lone wolf specifically states it can be taken as a slotted entry as well as slotless in its unit entry itself, which it does not.

those are two separate reasons why the OP list is not battleforged, and while some posters here have addresses one part of it, without any rules support to actually even show their stance or refute the core rule in the rulebook, they have failed utterly to demonstate the other part.

You rule says that if a Unit entry [both states it can be included in an army with another specific unit and is slotless] it must go in the same detachment as the specific unit. Has he not put the Lone Wolf in the same detachment? Sure looks like he has. We only have one Detachment.

All your rule does is require that the Unit go in the same detachment, which is being obeyed.

So, again, do you have any rules restricting the permission to take Units with the Elites Battlefield Role to fill an Elites slot in a Detachment's Force Org Chart?

You have the BRB permission and the Unit Entry permission. They do not contradict each other, so there is no advanced versus general issue. This is a permissive ruleset, so in the absence of a rule saying "Lone Wolves may not be used to fill Elites slots in a Detachment's Force Org Chart", we have to assume they can based on an existing permission. Are you able to cite such a rule?

the Op list has to put the lone wolf in a detachment that has a troop unit, wolf guard unit, or wolf guard terminator unit. Because the unit entry states that it can be taken in an army that includes x units, in this case X are troops, wolf guard, and wolf guard terminators.

That it is listed in the entry is all that is required for the unit to be in the same detachment as one of the above listed units.

that is what the rule is requiring, which is not being obeyed.

the point is, even discounting if you can take Lone Wolf as slotless/slotted the clear RAW states in the core rulebook, as well as the unit entry; it must be in the same detachment as a troop, wolf guard, or wolf guard terminator unit.

the OP list does not have those units, hence it is not battle forged.

there is no option.

there is no contradiction in your eyes because you are not actually following the rules listed under

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.

which does not care how the unit is taken ultimately, it only asks does the unit list entry state the following?

no matter how you could potentially take a lone wolf the unit entry does state the above, unambiguously.

so the OPs list is not battle forged.

because it contains no troop/wg/wgt in the same detachment as the lone wolf, which is required- not optional.

Agree to disagree.

I'm reading this as having two options...

#1 - I can use the BRB permission to fill an Elites Slot with a Lone Wolf.

#2 - I can use the Lone Wolf rule to take a slotless Lone Wolf if I take, say, a Wolf Guard unit, but that slotless Lone Wolf would have to be included in the same Detachment as the specific Wolf Guard unit used to take the Lone Wolf.

I read #2 as only coming into play if you're using that method to take the Lone Wolf.

Devil's Advocate. If you can't find a rule stating that the permission in the BRB is restricted, then it must be there. If I take a Lone Wolf to fill a regular Elites Slot, which specific unit does it have to share a Detachment with?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do the rules break because there is no specific unit? If so, this needs an Errata. Keep in mind that Specific doesn't mean "must include A Troops choice"... it means "If you take this specific unit of Blood Claws, you can take A Lone Wolf without a slot and that Lone Wolf must be included in the same Detachment as this specific unit of Blood Claws".

If I am not restricted from taking the Lone Wolf as a regular Elites slot (which I don't seem to be restricted from doing so), which specific unit does it have to be in the same Detachment as?

At the end of the day we follow the rules and their wording. We do not follow bordering, we do not follow placement in a codex but we follow the words. The words used in the Lone Wolf section as the same used for SM Honour Guard and also 5th ed Inquisitorial Henchmen as well as countless other slotless units. In my opinion we must assume that they follow the same set-up because to assume differentl is also to assume that GW have changed the meaning of their rules wording. In my opinion we shouldn't do this without clarrification from GW themselves that this is in fact what they've done.

Edit: Don't get me wrong, I really feel forvSW players here and it does seem like a kick in the teeth because inthe last codex they were just straight up elite choices. However players from all codices have been receiving this same treatment. I lament that BA can no longer take Assault Marines as troops but I just have to get used to it. The game changes all the time and we must adapt with each new release and changes.

 DarthOvious wrote:
At the end of the day we follow the rules and their wording. We do not follow bordering, we do not follow placement in a codex but we follow the words. The words used in the Lone Wolf section as the same used for SM Honour Guard and also 5th ed Inquisitorial Henchmen as well as countless other slotless units. In my opinion we must assume that they follow the same set-up because to assume differentl is also to assume that GW have changed the meaning of their rules wording. In my opinion we shouldn't do this without clarrification from GW themselves that this is in fact what they've done.

Edit: Don't get me wrong, I really feel forvSW players here and it does seem like a kick in the teeth because inthe last codex they were just straight up elite choices. However players from all codices have been receiving this same treatment. I lament that BA can no longer take Assault Marines as troops but I just have to get used to it. The game changes all the time and we must adapt with each new release and changes.

Until such time as someone posts a rules citation specifically revoking the standard method of taking an Elites Unit to fill an Elites slot, I will consider the permission granted in the Lone Wolf Unit Entry to be an additional permission that does not contradict the standard method. Doing otherwise is adding a restriction that isn't there.

 Kriswall wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
At the end of the day we follow the rules and their wording. We do not follow bordering, we do not follow placement in a codex but we follow the words. The words used in the Lone Wolf section as the same used for SM Honour Guard and also 5th ed Inquisitorial Henchmen as well as countless other slotless units. In my opinion we must assume that they follow the same set-up because to assume differentl is also to assume that GW have changed the meaning of their rules wording. In my opinion we shouldn't do this without clarrification from GW themselves that this is in fact what they've done.

Edit: Don't get me wrong, I really feel forvSW players here and it does seem like a kick in the teeth because inthe last codex they were just straight up elite choices. However players from all codices have been receiving this same treatment. I lament that BA can no longer take Assault Marines as troops but I just have to get used to it. The game changes all the time and we must adapt with each new release and changes.

Until such time as someone posts a rules citation specifically revoking the standard method of taking an Elites Unit to fill an Elites slot, I will consider the permission granted in the Lone Wolf Unit Entry to be an additional permission that does not contradict the standard method. Doing otherwise is adding a restriction that isn't there.

But it is there. The same way it's there for SM Honour Guard and the way it was there for 5th ed Inquisitorial Henchmen. The unit entry says that you can choose a Lone Wolf for every troop choice or Wolf Guard choice in your army. This has always been interpretated as a restriction in the past via other entries with the same wording.

I imagine the reason for this restriction is to stop SW players from spamming Lone Wolves and then using them to cliam objectives through sheer weight of unit numbers alone.

I get that SW players don't want this but as far as I can see thats what the codex gives.

You are adding an implied "can't be taken regularly to fill a slot" that isn't there.

Saying that I can take a Lone Wolf that doesn't take up a slot for each Troops choice doesn't necessarily mean I can't take a Lone Wolf that does take a slot regardless of how many Troops are around. There needs to be an explicit restriction removing the BRB permission. It isn't there.

And you keep citing prior edition publications. Can you cite a 7th edition source that works the way you want it to work? Codex Space Marines is a 6th edition book. The old GK one was 5th.

 Kriswall wrote:
You are adding an implied "can't be taken regularly to fill a slot" that isn't there.

I didn't add anything, it was added by the millions of gamers who have been playing this game for longer than you or I if you indeed think it was added. This is the way it has always been interpreted within the gaming community. I didn't invent it.

Lets look at the rule again.

"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."

This is telling you how to include Lone Wolves in your army. There is a full stop before the next sentence which tells you it a slotless entry. Nowhere there does it clarify that you can still take Lone Wolves in elite slots.

If it was telling you that you could take Lone Wolves as slotless entries as well as having elite slots it would say something like this instead:

"You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators that does not take up a Force Organisation Slot. This does not affect your ability to take Lone Wolves as elite slots."

It doesn't say that though. Instead it says:

"You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army."

The following sentence only adds it is a slotless entry, the first sentence tells you how to include Lone Wolves in your army list.

That full stop is very important.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/full-stop

A full stop is used to mark the end of a complete statement, so the first sentence is a complete statement in itself. So the first sentence in the rule is a complete statement which says:

"You can take one Lone Wolf for each Troops choice or unit of Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators in your army."

So that first sentence is telling you how to include Lone Wolves in your army by English interpretation and thus why this language within the rules has always been interpretated as such by the gaming community at large.

Saying that I can take a Lone Wolf that doesn't take up a slot for each Troops choice doesn't necessarily mean I can't take a Lone Wolf that does take a slot regardless of how many Troops are around. There needs to be an explicit restriction removing the BRB permission. It isn't there.

And this means SM players can now take Honour Guard as an HQ slot. It also meant that GK players back in 5th ed could take Henchmen in elite slots. IT IS THE EXACT SAME WORDING BEING USED HERE.

The rule is telling you how you include Lone Wolves in your army. It has meant this for every other entry with this wording in existence. The Space Wolf codex is not a special snowflake codex with hidden easter eggs which lets you Interpretate language in some different way that other players can't.

And you keep citing prior edition publications. Can you cite a 7th edition source that works the way you want it to work? Codex Space Marines is a 6th edition book. The old GK one was 5th.

Once again citing that it's a prior publication means nothing and I have already explained why. Games Workshop are not going to confuse people by changing their rule interpretations in such a way. Unless you get a explanation from GW themselves this should be interpreted by the majority of people as a restriction on Lone Wolves based on past precedent. Also that 6th edition SM Codex is still being used in the game, so it is indeed a current edition of the codex.

If you look at the poll results now you will see from the votes that 70% of people have answered that the original list isn't legally bound. Interpretate the entry anyway you want but I have a feeling that the majority of players are not going to agree with you. I'm fine with you playing the game any way you want but your opponents might interpretate what you're saying differently and I think you'll have to take into consideration what the most popular interpretation of this rule means.

Look I know that you really want to be able to include Lone Wolves as elite slots in your army list and I know it's a kick in the teeth from previous edition. Every player can look at a rule and desperately want a certain interpretation to be true, however I do not see how your interpretation can be true. It means the gaming community have been playing it wrong for years if you are correct. You can continue thinking that everyone else is wrong and that you and a few others are right but I don't think this is a healthy way to play the game.

Edit: Spelling

many people wrote: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."

I think there is a little, ignored point in the above sentences.
"This selection".
It does not say "this unit", but selection, and I cannot elaborate but this way:
LWs are Elite slot selections, but they have a secondary selection, if you take troops/WG/WGT: the secondary selection is slotless.

 Kerrathyr wrote:

many people wrote: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."

I think there is a little, ignored point in the above sentences.
"This selection".
It does not say "this unit", but selection, and I cannot elaborate but this way:
LWs are Elite slot selections, but they have a secondary selection, if you take troops/WG/WGT: the secondary selection is slotless.

The language used is the same for SM Honour Guard. So you believe that SM players can take an Honour Guard as a HQ slot?

 DarthOvious wrote:

 Kerrathyr wrote:

many people wrote: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."

I think there is a little, ignored point in the above sentences.
"This selection".
It does not say "this unit", but selection, and I cannot elaborate but this way:
LWs are Elite slot selections, but they have a secondary selection, if you take troops/WG/WGT: the secondary selection is slotless.

The language used is the same for SM Honour Guard. So you believe that SM players can take an Honour Guard as a HQ slot?

There is A LOT of desire to make these selections "can be taken alone". It was argued for Meks, then for Court of the Archon, etc.

I stand by, as you say, the way we interpreted it before. Most have the exact same wording, some differ slightly (IMHO to try and shorten the same rule), but it really is an all or nothing, i do not think 7th Ed Codices suddenly get new permissions. Regardless of what picture frame / Icon is used.

I will stick by this point until an new FAQ/Edition. Roll-off in-game.