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.

so the rule quoted 5 times+ stating you must take them in a detachment that has troops, wolfguard, or wolfguard terminators- you feel you can ignore along with the rule that states they must be taken as a slotless choice, because they have a battlefield role with no actual rules support that its optional and being told by the rulebook you must adhere to them?



even when given an example of an elites unit that has rules that show it being optional?

there is no intent that they are slotless, they are slotless by the RAW, there is no intent that they can be taken as slotted, nor any RAW you can come to that lets you take them slotted in a detachment that does not have troops, wolf guard, or wolfguard terminators without breaking a rule as written in the core rules.

Guys - RULE #1 - NOT OPTIONAL.

blaktoof wrote:
so the rule quoted 5 times+ stating you must take them in a detachment that has troops, wolfguard, or wolfguard terminators- you feel you can ignore along with the rule that states they must be taken as a slotless choice, because they have a battlefield role with no actual rules support that its optional and being told by the rulebook you must adhere to them?



even when given an example of an elites unit that has rules that show it being optional?

there is no intent that they are slotless, they are slotless by the RAW, there is no intent that they can be taken as slotted, nor any RAW you can come to that lets you take them slotted in a detachment that does not have troops, wolf guard, or wolfguard terminators without breaking a rule as written in the core rules.

Can does not equal must.

You CAN take them slot less. Or you cN follow the other permission and use an elite slot. You still seem unable to distinguish between a permission to do something additional , and a replacement for existing permission. If can means must in your lexicon, I presume all units must run if able?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Can does not equal must.

You CAN take them slot less. Or you can follow the other permission and use an elite slot. You still seem unable to distinguish between a permission to do something additional , and a replacement for existing permission. If can means must in your lexicon, I presume all units must run if able?

While I agree can =/= must, the rule does not state "Can take as slotless", it says (paraphrased, but accurately) "Can take A if you also have X,Y,Z. This choice does not take up a slot". That is not "Can take as slotless".

I can absolutely see the argument that this simply adds a way of taking them without a taking up a force org selection, however I tend to read it as a restriction based on following all rules provided (quoted above more than enough times);
1) You can take selection A for each X,Y, or Z in your detachment
2) This selection does not take up a slot. Which selection? Selection A. How do I get Selection A? I can take one for each X,Y or Z in my detachment.

I did not give a quote there, but a shortened version

You can take them if you have x, which then means they do not take up a slot. You CAN take, meaning you can choose not to take those units. If you do you cannot evoke this rule, and can only select using the rule book permission. Which still exists, as no specific rule exists to counter it.

Blaktoof - repeating the same restriction less rule give times adds nothing. It has been shown more than once tht the oft quoted rule contains no restrictive language - hell, the first sentence I entirely permissive - therefor your argument remains refuted.

What you keep imagining is the word "only" is somewhere in that rule, eg "can only" It isn't there.

Rorschach9 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Can does not equal must.

You CAN take them slot less. Or you can follow the other permission and use an elite slot. You still seem unable to distinguish between a permission to do something additional , and a replacement for existing permission. If can means must in your lexicon, I presume all units must run if able?

While I agree can =/= must, the rule does not state "Can take as slotless", it says (paraphrased, but accurately) "Can take A if you also have X,Y,Z. This choice does not take up a slot". That is not "Can take as slotless".

I can absolutely see the argument that this simply adds a way of taking them without a taking up a force org selection, however I tend to read it as a restriction based on following all rules provided (quoted above more than enough times);
1) You can take selection A for each X,Y, or Z in your detachment
2) This selection does not take up a slot. Which selection? Selection A. How do I get Selection A? I can take one for each X,Y or Z in my detachment.

I see what you're saying, but if the restriction isn't explicit, it's not there.

Saying I can do something doesn't necessarily mean I can't do something else.

I understand the Lone Wolf rule to mean...
I can take an A, where the selection of A does not take up a slot, for each X, Y or Z in my detachment. Per the standard BRB rules on slotless units, the A must be in the same detachment as the corresponding X, Y or Z.

I understand the core rule book permission to mean...
I can take an A, where the selection of A does take up a slot, for each Elites slot on my detachment's force org chart. I can do this because A has the Elites battlefield role.

Without an explicit restriction of the core rule book method, the Lone Wolf rule has to be read as an additional method of taking Lone Wolves. Can is by definition optional. Can/May = optional. Must = required.

the rule does not give an optional stance for how you take the lone wolf, the only option is you can include a lone wolf in your army.

you do not have to choose to do so.

as per the RAW in the core rulebook which so far no one has disproven or given any rules quotes to the contray:

as per the RAW

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.

- core rule in the rulebook


does the army list entry for Lone Wolf state that?

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.

-under unit composition for lone wolf.

so yes, you CAN take a lone wolf in your army.

that is the optional part.

the rest is how you take it.

as per the RAW from the rule book you MUST take it in the same detachment as a Troop, WolfGuard, or Wolfguard Terminator unit.

for the people who think somehow the rule quoted from lone wolf is optional, even if it is optional [its not] you have to follow the rule in the rulebook, so:

Does the unit entry state that it does not take up a force organization slot in its entry?

great, it states it in its entry.

now according to the RAW if you take the unit-

You MUST put it in the same detachment as a troop, wolfguard, or wolfguard terminator unit.

by your logic if you have to do that, then the part you claim is optional [despite there being no word of if, or listing it as optional] is now what you are doing, so there is no option.

if you want to see some units that can be taken as either slotted or not slotted look no further than the SAME CODEX!

Lukas the Trickster:

Blood Claws Hero: Lukas the Trickster can only join a unit of Blood Claws. If Lukas the Trickster is included in a Detachment that includes at least one unit of Blood Claws, he does not use up a Force Organisation slot.

notice how its not worded at all the same way, but states "if its included in a detachment with x, then he doe snot use up a force org slot"

you don't want just one example, wait there's more!

Arjac Rockfist

If Arjac Rockfist is included in a Detachment that includes at least one unit of either Wolf Guard or Wolf Guard Terminators, he does not take up a slot on the Force Organisation Chart.

so not only according to the RAW is lone wolf not optional as shown above, but here are examples of units that are and notice the difference in language yet the same language used for both Arjac, and Lukas?

Straw man argument. I don't care how other units are worded. Cite specific rules explicitly removing the BRB permission to take a Unit with the Elites battlefield role to fill an Elites slot or you're wrong. Alternatively, feel free to explain how can means must to you.

 Kriswall wrote:
Straw man argument. I don't care how other units are worded. Cite specific rules explicitly removing the BRB permission to take a Unit with the Elites battlefield role to fill an Elites slot or you're wrong. Alternatively, feel free to explain how can means must to you.

not a strawman, you just failed to acknowledge that it was two arguements and discarded the first one because it contained rules quotes and RAW showing you must do certain things and chose to ignore it in favor of discussing nothing.

it's quite clear that the only instance of the word "can" is in regards to that you can take a lone wolf in your army.

ie You can take one lone wolf for each troops choice, or wolfguard, or wolfguard terminators in your army.


Do you see any options listed for other ways to take it?

and no comment on the actual rules quotes i had above saying you -must- do certain things.

its not the inability to understand the word CAN, so stop making false statements.

its that certain posters here have added words to the rule in their head that there is somehow an option given in how you can take a lone wolf, although there is no such wording in its entry.

This selection does not take up a slot in the force organization chart.

this is below "1 lone wolf"
so you can select a lone wolf.
if you do so it does not take up a slot in the force organization chart [this wording also means it has rules it must follow in the rulebook...posted above]

You can take one lone wolf for each troops, or unit of wolfguard, or wolfguard terminators in your army.

so if you take a slotted lone wolf, without troops or wolfguard or wolfguard terminators you have broken 2 rules in the rulebook, and 2 rules in the unit entry.

do you have permission from anywhere to do so? these rules you have broken are stated as "must" not by me but by the rules.

You have permission from the battlefield role

You have an additional permission from the extra rule

SHow how this additional permisison has removed the battlefield role permission. Page and graph. Do not repeat the proven irrelevant rules, something that actually supports your claim would be useful.

Or accept that yet again you have made an assumptive leap, unsupported by rules, and are trying to wall of text people into thinking your position has merit.

Or, if your method is truly right (it isnt, but lets suppose it is for one brief moment) it results in no unit without such a rule being able to be selected, as you are syaing the battlefield role has no permissive nature to it. Clearly a nonsense result, suggesting the assertion is also nonsense.

So, for the 10th time of asking - post your *restriction* removing permission to use the battlefield role or, for the first time ever, admit error.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You have permission from the battlefield role

Do you?
A Space Marine Honour guard has an HQ battlefield role.
Sisters of battle Command Squad have an HQ battlefield role.

We never allowed that rule to exists in the past, why now?

 BlackTalos wrote:

 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.

Yes we do. The BRB is *very* clear on you being able to take a selection based on battlefield role

picking on 6th edition codex for a 7th edition *clear* and *distinct* change in organisation is not a pertinent example. As has been pointed out previously.

No need for a FAQ. The actual, writen (well, pictorial for the actual role in codex) rules give you permission. The actual, written lone wolf rule in NO WAY removes this permission. The oft quoted slot-less BRB rule does not remove this permission. So we have 2 different permissive ways to take the unit, and failing a restriction - which wont arrive, from my contacts up in Lenton - being added, explicitly, via errata, then they stand.

I'm not leaving this to a roll off when it is actually clear. I care not how the previous entirely differently organised codexes handled this. They are not relevant.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes we do. The BRB is *very* clear on you being able to take a selection based on battlefield role

picking on 6th edition codex for a 7th edition *clear* and *distinct* change in organisation is not a pertinent example. As has been pointed out previously.

No need for a FAQ. The actual, writen (well, pictorial for the actual role in codex) rules give you permission. The actual, written lone wolf rule in NO WAY removes this permission. The oft quoted slot-less BRB rule does not remove this permission. So we have 2 different permissive ways to take the unit, and failing a restriction - which wont arrive, from my contacts up in Lenton - being added, explicitly, via errata, then they stand.

I'm not leaving this to a roll off when it is actually clear. I care not how the previous entirely differently organised codexes handled this. They are not relevant.

Wait, you are saying that:
"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."
and
"You may take one Honour Guard unit for each Chapter Master in your army (...). This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot."
Are completely different?

Or are you allowing Honour Guard as a Valid HQ?

What is being said is that we'll have to wait for a 7th edition Space Marine Codex to see how things are written and laid out. If GW moves the Honor Guard to its own Unit Entry page and that Unit Entry page has the HQ battlefield role, then yes, we'll have the same issue. As it stands, the honor guard is included in the Chapter Master Unit Entry.

Using a codex written for 6th edition to shed light on a codex written for 7th edition isn't necessarily helpful as the entire brb changed in between. There were HUGE changes to how army lists are made.

 Kriswall wrote:
What is being said is that we'll have to wait for a 7th edition Space Marine Codex to see how things are written and laid out.

Agreed, but that has always been the case.

The statement "You have permission from the battlefield role" is from the BrB however, so would apply to ALL Codices unless they are FaQed.
I'll repeat that a pretty box printed on the page (not present in the Epub) does not qualify as RaW, just as pictures of the Squad don't.
This is an all or nothing situation, for consistency. Either 7th Ed made it possible to field these Units alone, or it did not.

Now from my 6th Ed Sisters Codex:


The command Squad has the same "pretty box" and HQ in big at the top. Wording:
"You may take one Sororitas Command Squad for each Canoness in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot."
"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."

Spot the difference for me.

If you do not, I would absolutely LOVE being able to take that command Squad without the Canoness Tax. I mean that would be groundbreaking and worth an announcement to all Adepta Sororitas players !!

I don't have the Sororitas Codex, but if it's as you say, then yes, under the 7th Ed. army list building rules, I would allow it per rules as written.

AGAIN, I'll say this. I don't think this is GW's intent, but it's what they've written on the page. If they want these units to ONLY be taken using the method listed in the Codex and not the standard method listed in the BRB, they need to do so explicitly in an FAQ. Anything else is currently a house rule.

 Kriswall wrote:
AGAIN, I'll say this. I don't think this is GW's intent, but it's what they've written on the page. If they want these units to ONLY be taken using the method listed in the Codex and not the standard method listed in the BRB, they need to do so explicitly in an FAQ. Anything else is currently a house rule.

Agreed, but i would not only list it as House rules, but also as "how it's been played so far".
If the consensus is that the new 7th Ed BrB allows all of these entries to work in this fashion, i'll agree for the RaW and bow out.

As per the example of the Priest though, it means a 25pts HQ for Adepta Sororitas

 Kriswall wrote:
As it stands, the honor guard is included in the Chapter Master Unit Entry.

Perhaps in the printed book, but in the EBook it is its own unit entry in the list of HQ units (none of which, of course, have a "battlefield role" icon connected to them).
So, different versions/sources have different layouts and information.

Being told that a Canoness can be accompanied by a slotless Command Squad doesn't somehow remove the permission that a Command Squad has to fill an HQ slot by having the HQ battlefield role. If you believe this restriction is restricted, feel free to highlight the rules explicitly revoking this permission. Until then, I'd play against a Nuns with Guns army led by a Command Squad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rorschach9 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
As it stands, the honor guard is included in the Chapter Master Unit Entry.

Perhaps in the printed book, but in the EBook it is its own unit entry in the list of HQ units (none of which, of course, have a "battlefield role" icon connected to them).
So, different versions/sources have different layouts and information.

Again, this is an artifact of looking at an older edition. All of the 7th edition codexes have been clearly written to give each unit their own unit entry. In the 6th editions codexes it is unclear. It's especially unclear for Codexes where a layout change was made between the first published edition and a later edition of the same publication (i.e., printed book to eBook).

Rules as written, if you showed up with the eBook as your copy of the codex and asked to play, I would allow an Honour Guard as filling your HQ slot. There is nothing explicit in the Codex revoking the standard permission in the BRB to take an HQ battlefield role unit to fill an HQ slot.

I do have a question though...

Do you guys legitimately believe this is how RaW works, or is this just how you "know" it works? I feel like there's a fair amount of confirmation bias going on here. I don't care how things worked in the past. Currently, there appears to be no revokation of the standard permission in the BRB. My response to this is "OMG, GW left a major loophole in the rules. This is clearly not how they want this to work. Someone should tell them so they can write an Errata. In the meantime, I'll play with my friends how I think this is supposed to work." BUT, how I think this is supposed to work has nothing to do with how the rules actually tell us things work. Since nobody has yet posted a rule revoking the brb permission, I have to assume there isn't one and that everyone is arguing HIWPI.

Well it stems from the fact that "This is how all these rules work"

IMHO,
"You may take one Sororitas Command Squad for each Canoness in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot."
"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."
"You may take one Honour Guard unit for each Chapter Master in your army (...). This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot."
"For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot in the Force Organisation Chart"
"An Adepta Sororitas army may include 0-5 Ministorum Priests in each detachment. They do not take up a Force Organisation slot, and do not qualify as a mandatory HQ selection."

Are all the same, in how they work and what they mean.
If you believe that, by the BrB you may ALSO select these Units in their respective battlefield role, then that may indeed be a new 7th Edition ruleset.

But i struggle and find it very very hard to believe that is how it works, reading the very last entry above (Priest).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:

Do you guys legitimately believe this is how RaW works, or is this just how you "know" it works? I feel like there's a fair amount of confirmation bias going on here. I don't care how things worked in the past. Currently, there appears to be no revokation of the standard permission in the BRB. My response to this is "OMG, GW left a major loophole in the rules. This is clearly not how they want this to work. Someone should tell them so they can write an Errata. In the meantime, I'll play with my friends how I think this is supposed to work." BUT, how I think this is supposed to work has nothing to do with how the rules actually tell us things work. Since nobody has yet posted a rule revoking the brb permission, I have to assume there isn't one and that everyone is arguing HIWPI.

Well apart from the reference on "how to take slot-less Units" quoted before, and my firm belief that these rules are meant to contradict the BrB statement, then no, there will be no rule revoking the permission.

Of course, i think that "You can take one"-type rules are indeed overwriting the BrB permission, because they are the only way to field these units. Why? because all of these rules are "Compulsory" rules, and that by making the "BrB Selection", you ignore / skip / do not use these rules. Something i do not believe is allowed....

 BlackTalos wrote:
Well it stems from the fact that "This is how all these rules work"

IMHO,
"You may take one Sororitas Command Squad for each Canoness in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot."
"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."
"You may take one Honour Guard unit for each Chapter Master in your army (...). This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot."
"For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot in the Force Organisation Chart"
"An Adepta Sororitas army may include 0-5 Ministorum Priests in each detachment. They do not take up a Force Organisation slot, and do not qualify as a mandatory HQ selection."

Are all the same, in how they work and what they mean.
If you believe that, by the BrB you may ALSO select these Units in their respective battlefield role, then that may indeed be a new 7th Edition ruleset.

But i struggle and find it very very hard to believe that is how it works, reading the very last entry above (Priest).



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:

Do you guys legitimately believe this is how RaW works, or is this just how you "know" it works? I feel like there's a fair amount of confirmation bias going on here. I don't care how things worked in the past. Currently, there appears to be no revokation of the standard permission in the BRB. My response to this is "OMG, GW left a major loophole in the rules. This is clearly not how they want this to work. Someone should tell them so they can write an Errata. In the meantime, I'll play with my friends how I think this is supposed to work." BUT, how I think this is supposed to work has nothing to do with how the rules actually tell us things work. Since nobody has yet posted a rule revoking the brb permission, I have to assume there isn't one and that everyone is arguing HIWPI.

Well apart from the reference on "how to take slot-less Units" quoted before, and my firm belief that these rules are meant to contradict the BrB statement, then no, there will be no rule revoking the permission.

Of course, i think that "You can take one"-type rules are indeed overwriting the BrB permission, because they are the only way to field these units. Why? because all of these rules are "Compulsory" rules, and that by making the "BrB Selection", you ignore / skip / do not use these rules. Something i do not believe is allowed....

So, when something tells me I CAN do something, it's compulsory? It voids out all the other somethings I CAN do? At the core, my argument is that this is a permissive ruleset. If the rule told me "you can INSTEAD" or "you can ONLY", I would immediately agree that the Codex revokes BRB permission. That's why I'm saying an errata might be needed. At best, the option is ambiguous. "I know I can take a slotless Lone Wolf. Can I take a slotted one? Well, the BRB says yes and the Codex doesn't actually say No AND I know that this rule set is permissive. Since I don't see a no, I have to assume the answer is still yes."

I could list other instances that work how I see the Lone Wolf working. Ork Mek, Dark Eldar Court of the Archon.

I'd say yes. I know that always brings the other "You can Deep Strike, that means you must" arguments.

But the way i see list selection (which is also NOT like special rules - "can embark", etc):

The BrB says (allows you) you can take selections based on battlefield role.

So you go through your codex, pick (AS): 3 Priests, 1 Canoness, 1 Command Squad.
As you've made these selections, you have selected the Unit Datasheet.
But some of these Datasheets say:
"An Adepta Sororitas army may include 0-5 Ministorum Priests in each detachment. They do not take up a Force Organisation slot, and do not qualify as a mandatory HQ selection."
"You may take one Sororitas Command Squad for each Canoness in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot."

So you must abide by those rules.



This happens after you've selected their Datasheets via the BrB rules. You still then have to follow these "selections method". So in a way i am saying that they now supersede the BrB selection.
You can only take the command squad with Canoness, and you can only have 5 Priests in 1 Detachment.

By "also being able to follow the BrB", i could have 7 Priests, and that just seems to break RaW (at least).

I use "Datasheets" because i also first came across this on 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."

And in the same way that meks use "Detachment", it is the same wording for Priests.

Hope i did not confuse the whole thing...

 BlackTalos wrote:
I'd say yes. I know that always brings the other "You can Deep Strike, that means you must" arguments.

But the way i see list selection (which is also NOT like special rules - "can embark", etc):

The BrB says (allows you) you can take selections based on battlefield role.

So you go through your codex, pick (AS): 3 Priests, 1 Canoness, 1 Command Squad.
As you've made these selections, you have selected the Unit Datasheet.
But some of these Datasheets say:
"An Adepta Sororitas army may include 0-5 Ministorum Priests in each detachment. They do not take up a Force Organisation slot, and do not qualify as a mandatory HQ selection."
"You may take one Sororitas Command Squad for each Canoness in your army. This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot."

So you must abide by those rules.



This happens after you've selected their Datasheets via the BrB rules. You still then have to follow these "selections method". So in a way i am saying that they now supersede the BrB selection.
You can only take the command squad with Canoness, and you can only have 5 Priests in 1 Detachment.

By "also being able to follow the BrB", i could have 7 Priests, and that just seems to break RaW (at least).

I use "Datasheets" because i also first came across this on 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."

And in the same way that meks use "Detachment", it is the same wording for Priests.

Hope i did not confuse the whole thing...

I totally understand what you're saying and I can see the argument for your position. It just relies too much on an implied restriction for me. In the Canoness example, the BRB is effectively saying "You can take one Sororitas Command Squad. The number of Canonesses in your army isn't relevant. This selection fills an HQ slot." There is an obvious implied restriction that this is no longer the case, but my argument is that without an explicit restriction, I can still do both.

In other words (and almost exactly like the Court of the Archon), the Canoness normally rolls into battle and brings her Command Squad along. Sometimes she just send the Command Squad in her place. I.e., sometimes she brings a slotless Command Squad and sometimes she instead sends a slotted one.

 Kriswall wrote:
the BRB is effectively saying "You can take one Sororitas Command Squad. The number of Canonesses in your army isn't relevant. This selection fills an HQ slot."

You see, that is what i really cannot read from the BrB.
If you would convince me, i've lost the post with quoted rules, could you re-quote the paragraph used? Is it this:

Each slot allows you to take one unit. Black boxes are compulsory selections – you must take at least this many units of the appropriate Battlefield Role to include this Detachment in your army. If you cannot include the compulsory number of units, you cannot include that Detachment. Grey boxes are optional selections – you can include up to this number of units of the appropriate Battlefield Role when including this Detachment in your army.

Which i read as: "You can take HQ slots."
Implied is: "Find HQ slots in your Codex"
I find the Command Squad: "You may take one" IF..... Oh, i need a Canoness.

I still followed the BrB, but i also "abided" by the Datasheet rule.

Fair enough. We'll just have to agree that it's ambiguous. I think it's two permissions. You think it's one permission with the codex rule being a modification of the brb rule (correct me if I'm reading your intent wrong).

If it's two permissions, a player can choose either.
If it's one permission, a player has only one option.

We might as well call it here and leave it as "decide among your own gaming group". To be honest, it's not like this is "rules layering for advantage". Taking a Lone Wolf as your HQ choice in an edition where an Inquisitor in one of 52 Drop Pods is a legal 1850 point list seems pretty tame. GW has almost completely torn down everything we understood about army list building with 7th edition. Taking a Lone Wolf to fill an Elites slot isn't exactly crazy.

No that is correct indeed. Maybe just confirm my above quote is where you're getting the second permission?

I agree to leaving it at that. Won't change much for Lone Wolves, but i guarantee that a Command Squad as single HQ for Adepta Sororitas is completely game-changer... Especially when they can take 5 Heavy Bolters or Heavy Flamers. Who would not want that Unit without HQ Tax lol.

ignoring the rules in the core rulebook that state you must due certain things if entries say certain things as no one seems to want to discuss that and just wants to ignore the rules you are plainly told you most follow if they entry states something, not if you took them as a slotless selection..

where do you get permission to ignore rules that are not options in a unit entry?

you state you have permission to ignore the plainly written non optional :

This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot.

in a units unit entry. In the case of lone wolf this rule is under the units composition, so in order to follow the rules for how many models are in the unit [1 lone wolf] you have to follow the rest of the rules for the units composition unless you have permission to do otherwise.

and no one has any comments on how Lukas, and Arjac from the same book obviously have rules that list slotless or slotted as optional in their unit entry but lone wolves has no options for a slotted selection in its unit entry?

blaktoof wrote:
ignoring the rules in the core rulebook that state you must due certain things if entries say certain things as no one seems to want to discuss that and just wants to ignore the rules you are plainly told you most follow if they entry states something, not if you took them as a slotless selection..

where do you get permission to ignore rules that are not options in a unit entry?

you state you have permission to ignore the plainly written non optional :

This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot.

in a units unit entry. In the case of lone wolf this rule is under the units composition, so in order to follow the rules for how many models are in the unit [1 lone wolf] you have to follow the rest of the rules for the units composition unless you have permission to do otherwise.

"This selection" refers to the phrase before it. So if you "do not use" that phrase, the Unit selected is not "This selection".

blaktoof wrote:
and no one has any comments on how Lukas, and Arjac from the same book obviously have rules that list slotless or slotted as optional in their unit entry but lone wolves has no options for a slotted selection in its unit entry?

That is more support for this side indeed, but i'd say the Priest example i used is just about the same, no?

blaktoof wrote:
ignoring the rules in the core rulebook that state you must due certain things if entries say certain things as no one seems to want to discuss that and just wants to ignore the rules you are plainly told you most follow if they entry states something, not if you took them as a slotless selection..

where do you get permission to ignore rules that are not options in a unit entry?

you state you have permission to ignore the plainly written non optional :

This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot.

in a units unit entry. In the case of lone wolf this rule is under the units composition, so in order to follow the rules for how many models are in the unit [1 lone wolf] you have to follow the rest of the rules for the units composition unless you have permission to do otherwise.

and no one has any comments on how Lukas, and Arjac from the same book obviously have rules that list slotless or slotted as optional in their unit entry but lone wolves has no options for a slotted selection in its unit entry?

This is not a personal attack, but would it be possible for you to organize your thoughts into full, non run on sentences and use capitalization at the start of sentences? I realize it's possible that you're not a native English speaker and that this is your best effort. If so, I applaud you. Lord knows my French writing is pretty bad. It can just sometimes be difficult to understand your points as I have to read the sentences several times and then mentally add punctuation and sentence breaks. Again, this is not a personal attack. You sometimes do it and sometimes not, so I assume you're just in a hurry or posting from a mobile phone or something.

To answer your questions...

I'm reading the Lone Wolf rule as an additional permission. By using the permission in the BRB, I'm not ignoring the Lone Wolf permission... I'm just not taking advantage of it.

Lukas and Arjac are interesting and might shed some light on authorial intent, but as has been said over and over and over again, authorial intent can never truly be known. The Lone Wolf unit entry only cares about rules in the BRB and in the Lone Wof unit entry. Rules in other unit entries might be interesting, but have no real meaning in a RaW discussion. That's why I'm ignoring them. It's sort of like saying that Honda Accords MUST have good gas mileage because Honda Civics do. It's a different car/different unit entry, so the rules on how to handle them are different. There is no assumption that the authors use the same wording in every instance or even that the rules were written by the same person.

"you CAN" is permission. You can ONLY is a restriction.

Until you answer how you are turning a permission, that fails to explicitly limit a prior granted permission in anyway, into a restriction, you have no argument Blaktoof.

Noone is ignoring anything, rules wise. Theyu have been addressed and shown to not be relevant. Continuing to bring them up as if they were relevant, and cannot explain why they are, is not advancing a single item or making your argument seem int he least bit credible.

Take a leaf from Black Talos here - much more interesting debate (well, its actually a debate now) than previously.