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.

Hi! I am playing around with an Iron Hands list of mine and I came upon this question to which I am not sure of the answer.

The question is this:

If I play the Space Marine Clan Raukaan Supplement I get the bonus of being able to include a Techmarine as a none force organization unit for each HQ choice that I have that is not a techmarine. Now the question is does this allow me to take a techmarine as part of a gladius within the demi-companies?

I looked this up in the mini rule book and under the section that I believe handles none force organization units it states (

"Occasionally a unit's army list entry will state that the unit it describes does not take up a slot on a force organization 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. If the army list entry states that it can be included in an army that includes another specified unit, and that it does take up a force organization slot, it must join the same detachment as that specified unit. In either case, these units are part of the detachment for all rule purposes and will gain any appropriate command benefits." ~ Page 121

As far as restrictions go the demi companies have none listed.

Now from what I can tell this would mean a Clan Raukaan gladius could take two techmarines in a gladius and they would be included as part of the demi companies. Am I correct in this interpretation or am I misunderstanding what a none force organization unit can do? Would this also apply to other formations from say the Ork factions and their none force org meks?

It boils down to no, you cannot take a techmarine as part of the Gladius. The reasoning for it is that it's a formation, which is a specific type of detachment that has very specific things taken in it.

Instead of including a Force Organisation chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain.

Yes.

"Formations are a special type of Detachment" and "These units can be included in any detachment"

So you can add a slotless Techmarine for every HQ slot in the Gladius per Clan Raukaan rules.


It's more or less akin to adding dedicated transports to units in Formations.

col_impact wrote:
Yes.

"Formations are a special type of Detachment" and "These units can be included in any detachment"

So you can add a slotless Techmarine for every HQ slot in the Gladius per Clan Raukaan rules.

Spoiler:

SCIONS OF THE FORGE
For each HQ choice in a Clan Raukaan detachment (not including other Techmarines, Servitors, Command Squads or Honour Guard) you may include up to two Techmarines. For each Master of the Forge in your army, you may include up to three Techmarines. These selections do not use up a Force Organisation slot.

It's more or less akin to adding dedicated transports to units in Formations.

Not quite. A slightly different angle of permissions are involved. Dedicated Transports are options provided by the units included in the list, not options provided by units outside the list.

In addition, there are no HQ choices in a Formation, just HQ units.

Still, there is some leeway if people want to be nice about it.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Yes.

"Formations are a special type of Detachment" and "These units can be included in any detachment"

So you can add a slotless Techmarine for every HQ slot in the Gladius per Clan Raukaan rules.

Spoiler:

SCIONS OF THE FORGE
For each HQ choice in a Clan Raukaan detachment (not including other Techmarines, Servitors, Command Squads or Honour Guard) you may include up to two Techmarines. For each Master of the Forge in your army, you may include up to three Techmarines. These selections do not use up a Force Organisation slot.

It's more or less akin to adding dedicated transports to units in Formations.

Not quite. A slightly different angle of permissions are involved. Dedicated Transports are options provided by the units included in the list, not options provided by units outside the list.

In addition, there are no HQ choices in a Formation, just HQ units.

Still, there is some leeway if people want to be nice about it.

It's RAW. The Chapter Tactics provides the permission, unless you can somehow show that we are not dealing with a Clan Raukaan Gladius Formation as much as we would normally be dealing with a Clan Raukaan CAD.

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Yes.

"Formations are a special type of Detachment" and "These units can be included in any detachment"

So you can add a slotless Techmarine for every HQ slot in the Gladius per Clan Raukaan rules.

Spoiler:

SCIONS OF THE FORGE
For each HQ choice in a Clan Raukaan detachment (not including other Techmarines, Servitors, Command Squads or Honour Guard) you may include up to two Techmarines. For each Master of the Forge in your army, you may include up to three Techmarines. These selections do not use up a Force Organisation slot.

It's more or less akin to adding dedicated transports to units in Formations.

Not quite. A slightly different angle of permissions are involved. Dedicated Transports are options provided by the units included in the list, not options provided by units outside the list.

In addition, there are no HQ choices in a Formation, just HQ units.

Still, there is some leeway if people want to be nice about it.

It's RAW. The Chapter Tactics provides the permission, unless you can somehow show that we are not dealing with a Clan Raukaan Gladius Formation.

Spoiler:

For each HQ choice in a Clan Raukaan detachment (not including other Techmarines, Servitors, Command Squads or Honour Guard) you may include up to two Techmarines

It is not RAW. There are no HQ choices being taken. The options are provided by units not in the Formation.

Nothing written about this.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Yes.

"Formations are a special type of Detachment" and "These units can be included in any detachment"

So you can add a slotless Techmarine for every HQ slot in the Gladius per Clan Raukaan rules.

Spoiler:

SCIONS OF THE FORGE
For each HQ choice in a Clan Raukaan detachment (not including other Techmarines, Servitors, Command Squads or Honour Guard) you may include up to two Techmarines. For each Master of the Forge in your army, you may include up to three Techmarines. These selections do not use up a Force Organisation slot.

It's more or less akin to adding dedicated transports to units in Formations.

Not quite. A slightly different angle of permissions are involved. Dedicated Transports are options provided by the units included in the list, not options provided by units outside the list.

In addition, there are no HQ choices in a Formation, just HQ units.

Still, there is some leeway if people want to be nice about it.

It's RAW. The Chapter Tactics provides the permission, unless you can somehow show that we are not dealing with a Clan Raukaan Gladius Formation.

Spoiler:

For each HQ choice in a Clan Raukaan detachment (not including other Techmarines, Servitors, Command Squads or Honour Guard) you may include up to two Techmarines

It is not RAW. There are no HQ choices being taken. The options are provided by units not in the Formation.

Nothing written about this.

If the Formation includes HQ battlefield role units, it most certainly has HQ choices. I'm not sure how you can contest this. If my Formation calls for a Captain unit, it has at least one HQ and would therefore allow me to take two Techmarines.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Yes.

"Formations are a special type of Detachment" and "These units can be included in any detachment"

So you can add a slotless Techmarine for every HQ slot in the Gladius per Clan Raukaan rules.

Spoiler:

SCIONS OF THE FORGE
For each HQ choice in a Clan Raukaan detachment (not including other Techmarines, Servitors, Command Squads or Honour Guard) you may include up to two Techmarines. For each Master of the Forge in your army, you may include up to three Techmarines. These selections do not use up a Force Organisation slot.

It's more or less akin to adding dedicated transports to units in Formations.

Not quite. A slightly different angle of permissions are involved. Dedicated Transports are options provided by the units included in the list, not options provided by units outside the list.

In addition, there are no HQ choices in a Formation, just HQ units.

Still, there is some leeway if people want to be nice about it.

It's RAW. The Chapter Tactics provides the permission, unless you can somehow show that we are not dealing with a Clan Raukaan Gladius Formation.

Spoiler:

For each HQ choice in a Clan Raukaan detachment (not including other Techmarines, Servitors, Command Squads or Honour Guard) you may include up to two Techmarines

It is not RAW. There are no HQ choices being taken. The options are provided by units not in the Formation.

Nothing written about this.

CADs have compulsory and optional choices of units and those units have a battlefield role.



Gladius has choices as well and those units retain their battlefield role (ie HQ can be chosen as Warlord)



The Gladius has a choice of Captain or Chaplain (and a number of models that fulfill that listing) in the Core choice and those models retain their battlefield role as HQ.

Kriswall wrote:If the Formation includes HQ battlefield role units, it most certainly has HQ choices. I'm not sure how you can contest this. If my Formation calls for a Captain unit, it has at least one HQ and would therefore allow me to take two Techmarines.

Can you demonstrate that the role of the unit is always the choice, and that it is the choice while in a Formation?

From the rulebook legend for FOC detachments:

Whereas Formations mention nothing about role choices:

While the next sentence does state the units keep their roles, this does not necessarily translate to being a choice of that role like FOCs carry.

col_impact wrote:CADs have compulsory and optional choices of units and those units have a battlefield role.

Not in argument. Keep in mind, role detachments treat their slots as choices, as I referenced above. Can you provide this is the case for individual Formations?

col_impact wrote:Gladius has choices as well and those units retain their battlefield role (ie HQ can be chosen as Warlord)

None of which are HQ choices, but Core, Command, and Auxiliary Choices. Indeed the Gladius is also not a Formation, so a poor example.

col_impact wrote:The Gladius has a choice of Captain or Chaplain (and a number of models that fulfill that listing) in the Core choice and those models retain their battlefield role as HQ.

No, the GLADIUS does not. It has a Core Choice. The Core Choice has an HQ unit which is in its unit list. It never lists this as an HQ choice or similar definition, nor does any Formation's rules, either.

And that there lies the problem.

If Formations dont include any HQ or Fast Attack or Heavy Support units, how do you earn Victory Points for destroying those units in the Eternal War missions? Are you saying you wont get a VP for destroying a Devastator Squad when playing The Big Guns Never Tire because it comes from a demi- company, not a combined arms detachment?

 GoonBandito wrote:
If Formations dont include any HQ or Fast Attack or Heavy Support units, how do you earn Victory Points for destroying those units in the Eternal War missions? Are you saying you wont get a VP for destroying a Devastator Squad when playing The Big Guns Never Tire because it comes from a demi- company, not a combined arms detachment?

Do not confuse ROLE with CHOICE, they are not always the same thing, nor are they ever actually defined as the same thing.

Role Detachments, like the Combined Arms Detachment, are filled with slots, or choices as previously referenced, based on unit roles.

Formations, though, are filled with a list of actual units, not choices or slots, or at least, they are not referenced as such as far as I can find, even though the units keep their roles.

I am not really sure of what to settle on, but at this point I am thinking that the Captain or chaplain would count as an HQ and thus allow a techmarine to be used in a non for organization slot. What is the captain? An HQ choice.

Even in a demi company he is a choice because instead of him you can choose to get other named HQs one of whom is not even a captain (Vulkan He'Stan). The rule states that if you have an HQ choice you can opt to bring up to two techmarines in a none force organization slot which in of itself is allowed in ANY detachment as long as the prerequisite to bring the non force org unit is met.

What does the techmarine need? An HQ choice. What is the captain in a demi company? An HQ choice. He many not be a "choice" in the demi company itself as it is a required position to be filled, but the captain is an HQ unit which I would think would naturally translate to HQ choice. I cant really see any RAW reason why a HQ loses the "HQ unit choice" if his specific unit type is required in a formation. Did you have to bring him? Yes. Is the HQ unit itself a HQ unit choice? Yes. He may not be a choice in that specific formation, but overall he is a HQ unit choice.

And on another note you do have to choose between two HQs in a demi company. So from that angle both the Chaplain and the captain are choices as you have to choose one or the other. Both are HQs. Only one is required in a demi company. You have to choose which to bring so both the captain and chaplain would appear to be possible choices in a demi company thus meeting the requirement to bring a tech marine.

No, the captain has the HQ role. He is not a "choice" - that phraasing appears only that iI can find in the detachment requirements, where the "boxes" are the choices you have (compulsory or otherwise)

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:
I am not really sure of what to settle on, but at this point I am thinking that the Captain or chaplain would count as an HQ and thus allow a techmarine to be used in a non for organization slot. What is the captain? An HQ choice.

Even in a demi company he is a choice because instead of him you can choose to get other named HQs one of whom is not even a captain (Vulkan He'Stan). The rule states that if you have an HQ choice you can opt to bring up to two techmarines in a none force organization slot which in of itself is allowed in ANY detachment as long as the prerequisite to bring the non force org unit is met.

What does the techmarine need? An HQ choice. What is the captain in a demi company? An HQ choice. He many not be a "choice" in the demi company itself as it is a required position to be filled, but the captain is an HQ unit which I would think would naturally translate to HQ choice. I cant really see any RAW reason why a HQ loses the "HQ unit choice" if his specific unit type is required in a formation. Did you have to bring him? Yes. Is the HQ unit itself a HQ unit choice? Yes. He may not be a choice in that specific formation, but overall he is a HQ unit choice.

And on another note you do have to choose between two HQs in a demi company. So from that angle both the Chaplain and the captain are choices as you have to choose one or the other. Both are HQs. Only one is required in a demi company. You have to choose which to bring so both the captain and chaplain would appear to be possible choices in a demi company thus meeting the requirement to bring a tech marine.

You have a choice between two units. But you do not have a choice of any unit with the Battlefield Role "HQ", which is what "HQ choice" means as far as I understand it.

But to be fair, most of the old "get this thing for free if" are kinda broken when applying to Formations - these rules are simply not written with the kind of formations in mind that we have now. The 3-Vendetta/Valkyrie Formation is allowed to add 3 Enginseers and 3 Primaris Psykers. So is any other "AM Detachment", so if you bring an Aerial, a Psycana and lets say the Ogryn formation, you can add 9 Psykers to the units you have to bring anyway - which makes for a total of 10 Primaris Psykers with 3 Wyrdvane Psyker squads. At least one of those gets boosted by the Wyrdvanes and the special rule now is kinda broken. "The Primaris Psyker of this formation" - well, which one? There are 4 that are now part of this detachment! Does it apply to each one, or just the one that wasn't "free"?

Would you agree that this is the same discussion as the IG priest in formation discussion ?

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:
I am not really sure of what to settle on, but at this point I am thinking that the Captain or chaplain would count as an HQ and thus allow a techmarine to be used in a non for organization slot. What is the captain? An HQ choice.

You are combining the Role and Choice concepts. They are not even equivalent, as noted above in the FOC legend.

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:
Even in a demi company he is a choice because instead of him you can choose to get other named HQs one of whom is not even a captain (Vulkan He'Stan). The rule states that if you have an HQ choice you can opt to bring up to two techmarines in a none force organization slot which in of itself is allowed in ANY detachment as long as the prerequisite to bring the non force org unit is met.

He is a unit option, not a choice (as used in the detachment section of the rulebook). An HQ choice can be used for any HQ unit for the faction. The Demi-Company carries the option of a Captain, Chaplain, or one of the Unique equivalent characters, not an FOC HQ choice.

 oldzoggy wrote:
Would you agree that this is the same discussion as the IG priest in formation discussion ?

It is not the same, but it is similar. The IG priest has literally no requirements, unlike the Techmarine. But due to the requirement one is legal RAW and the other isn't - or at best questionable.
Both are probably not supposed to work, though - they "feel wrong" to me in the new Formations.

Why would a UM scout detachment that brings Telion become able to bring a Techmarine?
Why would a Psycana Divison bring 3 Enginseers?

And yes, there're enough examples that DO make sense, but where it makes MOST sense, GW actually made the unit in question part of the Formation - see the new Tank formations for both AM and SM.

Every unit has(always has) a battlefield role.

Only foc detachments have "choices" or "selections" attached to those roles.

Examples:

a CAD has a cumpulsory HQ Choice.

A demi-company requires a captain or a chaplain, which is an HQ Unit.

This is all very clear when you read the BRB sections on battlefield roles and detachents(formations even restate that they are both detachments and that the units retain their roles). In those sections the roles are referenced as x-units, and only when they are speaking of FOC detachments does "x-choice" come up. Some older books use selection as interchangeable with choice.

In the case of codex:AM, or Clan Raukaan/scions of terra; those books were written for a time when detachment meant standard or allied. Trying to apply what the words say to the new editions rules while ignoring context is just wrong. Yes it says detachment; no, that does not mean add them willy-nilly to formations.

While nos and charistoph may be correct RAW, it is extremely unlikely that you will find anyone outside of this forum that distinguishes HQ from HQ choice.

You'll probably find that most people's iinterpretation will allow you to do what you are asking

 jokerkd wrote:
While nos and charistoph may be correct RAW, it is extremely unlikely that you will find anyone outside of this forum that distinguishes HQ from HQ choice.

You'll probably find that most people's iinterpretation will allow you to do what you are asking

100% agreed.

Both Kommissar Kal and Charistophe have fallen into the habit of referring to 'Choice' when the rulebook recognizes no such thing and uses lowercase 'choice'.

That is very sneaky and misleading of them to do.

a CAD has a compulsory HQ Choice

You are combining the Role and Choice concepts.

No, the GLADIUS does not. It has a Core Choice. The Core Choice has an HQ unit which is in its unit list.

Uppercase 'Choice' is not used anywhere in the BRB and so is not a game recognized proper noun or game term. Furthermore, neither uppercase 'Choice' or lowercase 'choice' show up in the index of the printed BRB as keywords.

Therefore the use of "choice" in the rules is strictly by English usage.

Both KomissarKal's and Charistophe's arguments are premised that 'Choice' is a game recognized proper noun or keyword. If it is as they claim then they should have no problem pointing to an uppercase 'Choice' or a keyword in the printed BRB index or some game definition of 'choice' somewhere in the BRB. They cannot so their argument is invalid.

All the Gladius player has to show is that there is some 'choice' (compulsory or optional) involved with the HQ unit in the Gladius Detachment by English usage. Indeed there is as I have already shown. So the Clan Rakuaan rule is satisfied.

col_impact wrote:
Both Kommissar Kal and Charistophe have both fallen into the habit of referring to 'Choice' when the rulebook recognizes no such thing and uses lowercase 'choice'. That is very sneaky and misleading of them to do.

a CAD has a compulsory HQ Choice

You are combining the Role and Choice concepts.

No, the GLADIUS does not. It has a Core Choice. The Core Choice has an HQ unit which is in its unit list.

Uppercase 'Choice' is not used anywhere in the BRB and so is not a game recognized proper noun or game term. Furthermore, neither uppercase 'Choice' or lowercase 'choice' show up in the index of the printed BRB as keywords.

Therefore the use of "choice" in the rules is strictly by English usage.

Both KomissarKal's and Charistophe's arguments are premised that 'Choice' is a game recognized proper noun or keyword. If it is as they claim then they should have no problem pointing to an uppercase 'Choice' or a keyword in the printed BRB index. They cannot so their argument is invalid.

All the Gladius player has to show is that there is some 'choice' (compulsory or optional) involved with the HQ unit in the Gladius Detachment by English usage. Indeed there is as I have already shown. So the Clan Rakuaan rule is satisfied.

Agreed. This is a common trap people fall into. Unless the word is treated as a proper noun, or has an explicit game definition somewhere, it's just a regular English word.

 Kriswall wrote:

Agreed. This is a common trap people fall into. Unless the word is treated as a proper noun, or has an explicit game definition somewhere, it's just a regular English word.

Yup. RAW 'choice' is by English usage. There is no game term 'Choice'.

Line of sight is never presented in the rules as a proper noun but refers to a specific thing in terms of the rules. It's incorrect to claim that words must be proper nouns to have specific meanings in terms of the rules.

The only reference the Gladius Strike Force makes in reference to choices is in terms of Core, Auxiliary and Command choices, which of course are compound nouns that refer to specific things.

There is no reference at all to choices in terms of the Battle Demi-company because it is a formation, which does not use a Force Organisation Chart and thus has no battlefield role choices, which are the only choices the rules for selecting detachments care about.

col_impact wrote:
Both Kommissar Kal and Charistophe have fallen into the habit of referring to 'Choice' when the rulebook recognizes no such thing and uses lowercase 'choice'.

That is very sneaky and misleading of them to do.

a CAD has a compulsory HQ Choice

You are combining the Role and Choice concepts.

No, the GLADIUS does not. It has a Core Choice. The Core Choice has an HQ unit which is in its unit list.

Uppercase 'Choice' is not used anywhere in the BRB and so is not a game recognized proper noun or game term. Furthermore, neither uppercase 'Choice' or lowercase 'choice' show up in the index of the printed BRB as keywords.

Therefore the use of "choice" in the rules is strictly by English usage.

Both KomissarKal's and Charistophe's arguments are premised that 'Choice' is a game recognized proper noun or keyword. If it is as they claim then they should have no problem pointing to an uppercase 'Choice' or a keyword in the printed BRB index or some game definition of 'choice' somewhere in the BRB. They cannot so their argument is invalid.

All the Gladius player has to show is that there is some 'choice' (compulsory or optional) involved with the HQ unit in the Gladius Detachment by English usage. Indeed there is as I have already shown. So the Clan Rakuaan rule is satisfied.

And col_impact has fallen in to the trap of ignoring how the rulebook uses the word in context. I have quoted the rulebook in context, you have ignored it.

So, show me where it uses "(Role) choice" in anything but FOC slots.

 Mr. Shine wrote:
Line of sight is never presented in the rules as a proper noun but refers to a specific thing in terms of the rules. It's incorrect to claim that words must be proper nouns to have specific meanings in terms of the rules.

The only reference the Gladius Strike Force makes in reference to choices is in terms of Core, Auxiliary and Command choices, which of course are compound nouns that refer to specific things.

There is no reference at all to choices in terms of the Battle Demi-company because it is a formation, which does not use a Force Organisation Chart and thus has no battlefield role choices, which are the only choices the rules for selecting detachments care about.

'Line of sight' is an example that actually supports my argument and further underscores the problems with KomissarKal's, Charistophe's, and Mr. Shine's argument.

First, 'line of sight' is defined in the BRB.



Second, 'line of sight' appears in the index of the printed BRB as a keyword.


If 'choice' were similarly a game concept in the BRB, then it would be capitalized in the BRB, defined in the BRB, and/or show up in the index of the printed BRB. The word 'choice' does none of these in the BRB.

Therefore we can come to no other conclusion by RAW that the usage of 'choice' in the BRB is by English usage.

KomissarKal and Charistophe seem liked they'd be a blast to play with.

Charistoph wrote:

And col_impact has fallen in to the trap of ignoring how the rulebook uses the word in context. I have quoted the rulebook in context, you have ignored it.

So, show me where it uses "(Role) choice" in anything but FOC slots.

By saying that the BRB is using the word in context is admitting that the BRB is only using 'choice' by English usage. You have utterly failed to proved that 'choice' is a game keyword.

I only have to show you "where it uses 'Role' choice' in anything but FOC slots" if you can first prove that 'choice' is a game keyword.

Until you can prove that 'choice' is a game keyword you literally have no argument.



Therefore, the Gladius player only has to satisfy the English usage of 'choice' which is easy to do as I have already shown. Therefore RAW, the Clan Rakuaan Gladius detachment can add 2 techmarines for each HQ.

col_impact wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:
Line of sight is never presented in the rules as a proper noun but refers to a specific thing in terms of the rules. It's incorrect to claim that words must be proper nouns to have specific meanings in terms of the rules.

The only reference the Gladius Strike Force makes in reference to choices is in terms of Core, Auxiliary and Command choices, which of course are compound nouns that refer to specific things.

There is no reference at all to choices in terms of the Battle Demi-company because it is a formation, which does not use a Force Organisation Chart and thus has no battlefield role choices, which are the only choices the rules for selecting detachments care about.

'Line of sight' is an example that actually supports my argument and further underscores the problems with KomissarKal's, Charistophe's, and Mr. Shine's argument.

First, 'line of sight' is defined in the BRB.

Spoiler:

LINE OF SIGHT

Line of sight determines what a model can ‘see’. Many situations call for you to determine
whether or not a model has line of sight. A model normally needs line of sight whenever
it wishes to attack an enemy, whether with power sword, gun or psychic power. Line of
sight literally represents your warriors’ view of the enemy – they must be able to see their
foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or
enemy).

For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a
straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any
part of the target’s body.

Second, 'line of sight' appears in the index of the printed BRB as a keyword.


If 'choice' were similarly a game concept in the BRB, then it would be capitalized in the BRB, defined in the BRB, and/or show up in the index of the printed BRB. The word 'choice' does none of these in the BRB.

Therefore we can come to no other conclusion by RAW that the usage of 'choice' in the BRB is by English usage.

No. Choices in terms of selecting detachments refer specifically to choices of units with specific battlefield roles using the Force Organisation Chart, or in the case of the Gladius in terms of Core, Auxiliary and Command. The fact it doesn't have its own heading is irrelevant because it has a specific context within the rules for selecting detachments.

This context is absent from the formation rules - indeed, formations tell us they list specific Army List Entries instead of including a Force Organisation Chart.

 Mr. Shine wrote:


No. Choices in terms of selecting detachments refer specifically to choices of units with specific battlefield roles using the Force Organisation Chart, or in the case of the Gladius in terms of Core, Auxiliary and Command. The fact it doesn't have its own heading is irrelevant because it has a specific context within the rules for selecting detachments.

This context is absent from the formation rules - indeed, formations tell us they list specific Army List Entries instead of including a Force Organisation Chart.

You have failed to show that 'choice' is a game concept.

As your 'line of sight' example shows, it is easy to show that a word is a game concept if it is indeed a game concept. I was able to easily point to a definition and an index entry for 'line of sight'; therefore, it can be easily shown that 'line of sight' is a game concept.

Your failure to accomplish what should be easy can only lead to the conclusion that the English usage of 'choice' is all that is in effect by RAW.

Therefore, the Scions of the Forge rule will be satisfied merely by semantically correct English usage of 'choice'.