If it's relevant, GW Digital confirmed that troops were scoring. On their disappeared facebook page.
In the Vanguard dataslate, it specifically states that "a formation is a special form of Detachment" (p3) and for formations, "the Levels of Alliance Rules do apply to them." (p4) It further states that, "the battlefield role... can be found in the dataslate." If their battlefield role is described as troops - then they are troops.
The argument that , even though they are troops they don't score, as they're "not included in the FOC" is invalid, as the dataslate defines this Formation as a sub-set of Allied Detachments (p3), and Allied Detachments are quite clearly seen on the FOC (BRB p109).
Overall, troops in formation count as scoring, as long as they're listed as troops and satisfy the Levels of Alliance criteria.
HIWPI: troops is troops. I don't care how you got them.
Troops ain't just troops. How you got them is entirely relevant - the levels of alliance dictate whether troops are scoring, BRB, p108 IIRC, Vanguard dataslate p4.
Which is exactly what I said.... The general rule for Formations does not mention anything about the ally matrix. The rules for Allied Formations talks about the ally matrix.
If anyone cares I'll point out that it is not 'occupying a troop slot' on the FOC that makes it scouring. Its if it 'comes from the troops slot' on the FOC and even that is only stated as the normal way of getting scouring units. The main exceptions being Big Guns never Tire and The Scouring missions according to the BRB.
"An army's scoring units are normally all the units that come from the troops selection of the Force Organisation chart" -Page 123, BRB, Scouring Units
To purchase units for a formation you must purchase them through the codex and the only way to purchase units from a codex is through the FOC. So you purchase them the regular way (troop section of the FOC) and them place them in the formation where they do not occupy any slots. To me that satisfies the requirement 'units that come from the troops selection of the Force Organisation chart' as that is still their origin. It can be seen other ways though and that is just my take on it.
As noted already, it is generally played as they score.
I don't think they should be scoring at all. The units are not in a troops slot and never were.
Anything in a troops slot is scoring unless otherwise stated, if something isn't in a troop slot where is the permission to be scoring? A formation is a specific arrangement of units outside the standard foc,. The rules show that you need permission for birthed gaunts to score, that makes it clear to me.
liturgies, just out of curiosity. How do you play it? Scoring or not? I understand what you think, but am curious as to how you play. I might have to change my original post...nah, I don't actually know you so my statement will still be correct.
coredump wrote: Well, they are very clearly troops, says so right in the formation.
They sure seem to be part of your FOC, though a part added in.
The rules specificallly state they have the 'same battlefield role', and the role of troops is controlling objectives.
Not sure how to rule it any other way.
That doesn't say it's scoring. The faction rules say
A Formation presents a collection of two or more units that fight alongside one another in a particular way. When you choose an army, you can take a Formation as a special form of Detachment.
A special form of detachment is not a normal FOC entry so again where does it say that the units that would normally be in a troops slot are either in a troops slot or are scoring.
If being a troops choice's role is controling objectives, what are Death company and all those troops that cannot score? The role of a troop isn't to be scoring it's to do what that unit does, snipers shoot, assault marines fight, chaos chosen do what they are kitted out to do etc etc.
The "battlefield role" of Death Company does not include controlling objectives, so formation ones don't do that.
The "battlefield role" of tac marines *does* include controlling objectives, so formation ones *do* that.
How is it that you are claiming that controlling objectives is *not* one of 'battlefield roles' of a tac marine squad?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Let me ask you another question...
If playing at 2K with Double Force Org.... will the troops from the second primary detachment score? Why?
Why is the second primary detachment part of the FOC, but the formation detachment is not?
Why do you insist that the FOC does not include all detachments in the army? Since that is what a Force Organization Chart would encompass... a Chart of how all of your forces are Organized...
In 2k the troops will score because they are in a troops slot...
that's what makes them scoring. The elites that swap into troop slots depending on the HQ choices also are scoring because they are in troop slots. The formation doesn't have a FOC, it's just a collection of units.
If you'd like to stop putting words in my mouth I'd be grateful.
I'm saying battlefield roll is fluff or just not defined because the FOC doesn't define a unit's roll, it talks about what slot it takes, it's options and points cost.
So to explain it clearly. There is a primary detachment consisting of troops, HQ, etc etc, an allied detachment consisting of that foc, formations and units like Cypher and then once you hit 2k points a new set of primary and secondary. Nowhere in that does it show that formations are another FOC, once you've got your 6 troops and you are still under 2k you don't get new troop slots unless you have some allies. It's not fair to some armies but that is opinion rather than fact.
Nos, where does it say that they are troops in the formation? I am not seeing that anywhere, which version and which dataslate are you looking at where it says that?
What I see is "Formation:" followed by a list of unit names and numbers not 2 troops and a HQ. In fact a unit isn't "troops" unless it takes up that slot, similarly an elite is no longer an elite when it is in a troops slot.
Ok, so how many troop slots are in a formation FOC then? How many FA choices? You have yet to show anything that makes something that isn't in a troops choice slot on the FOC troops nor have you shown that a formation has a FOC. It is not being listed in the troops section of a codex that makes a unit a troops choice, it is where it is listed on a FOC.
The end of the dataslates are just lifts from other sources as far as I can see and are not in the part that tells you what the formation consists of and have yet to state that the units in the formation occupy slots. From how I see it a formation is just a way to get extra copies of units into an army and the points cost is the same plus a few extra rules. You are paying for the formation to circumvent the FOC limits not to get 18 scoring units but to get 6 scoring units and some more units that would normally be troops as they are good at some role in your army list.
Fragile wrote: A Genestealer is a Troops by default as it is in the Troops section of the FOC. Being in a formation does not change that.
Except it does. We know that the FOC slot used matters - Paladins score when Draigo is around, same with Nobs and a Warboss, etc.
So when there's no FOC slot used, you're saying the FOC still matters...
That Formation states is consists of X, Y, Z. You then refer back to the FOC chart to see what those X,Y,Z are.
No - false.
I refer to the Army List section to see what they are. Just like I do for Paladins. Those are in the Elite section - do they score with Draigo in the army?
Yes because Troops are Troops. Your the one claiming they are not. Find where the stats of your Formation come from if they are not Troops.
You made up the underlined statement. Find rules support for it.
The stats are in the Army List section - which has literally nothing to do with the FOC.
Fragile, what makes something a troops choice is not that it is listed as a troops choice but if it takes up a troops slot. See Tervigons.
Where something's rules are listed don't matter because all that matters in this conversation is where on the FOC those units are and in this case that is a special area called "formation".
liturgies of blood wrote: Fragile, what makes something a troops choice is not that it is listed as a troops choice but if it takes up a troops slot. See Tervigons.
Where something's rules are listed don't matter because all that matters in this conversation is where on the FOC those units are and in this case that is a special area called "formation".
Spawned termigants are not taking up a slot on your armies FOC either.
"An army's scoring units are normally all the units that come from the troops selection of the Force Organisation chart"
By it's broadest definition this does not mean 'must currently occupy a troop slot' it simply means they're from the troops selection of the FOC which describes every unit in the troops section of the codex. Also notice it does not say 'selection from your FOC' it says 'selection from the FOC' not indicating the selections you made rather indicating the selections that could be made.
I guess what it really comes down to is: Can a troops unit be described as 'from the troops selection of the Force Organisation chart' before you purchase it? I'd say yes, they are a troop you can select through the FOC. Looking at it that way, it doesn't matter if I actually select them or not, they are from that selection.
They must be from 'the troop selection' and are not required to be from 'your troop selection'.
liturgies of blood wrote: Fragile, what makes something a troops choice is not that it is listed as a troops choice but if it takes up a troops slot. See Tervigons.
Where something's rules are listed don't matter because all that matters in this conversation is where on the FOC those units are and in this case that is a special area called "formation".
Units spawned in the middle of the game (such as from tervigons or from daemon's portalglyph) don't take up a FoC slot. Are they not scoring either?
liturgies of blood wrote: Fragile, what makes something a troops choice is not that it is listed as a troops choice but if it takes up a troops slot. See Tervigons.
Where something's rules are listed don't matter because all that matters in this conversation is where on the FOC those units are and in this case that is a special area called "formation".
Units spawned in the middle of the game (such as from tervigons or from daemon's portalglyph) don't take up a FoC slot. Are they not scoring either?
Good question! Man it's a shame no rules..
“A unit spawned by a Tervigon is identical in every way to a Termagant unit chosen from the Troops section of the army list, and is treated as such for all mission special rules.”
Excerpt From: Games Workshop Ltd. “Codex: Tyranids.” iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.
Oh. Identical. Treated as for all mission special rules. Oh.
Well, I'm sure dataslates include similar wording since everyone keeps saying they're comparable. Mind quoting it?
If a unit is scoring because it's 'identical to a unit chosen from the Troops section of the army list' then a unit actually chosen from the troop section of the army list must be scoring.
Your literally saying that something identical to X is scoring while X is not scoring.
Termigants in a formation are termigants chosen from the troops section of the army list.
Spawned termigants are identical to termigants chosen from the troops section of the army list.
liturgies of blood wrote: Fragile, what makes something a troops choice is not that it is listed as a troops choice but if it takes up a troops slot. See Tervigons.
Where something's rules are listed don't matter because all that matters in this conversation is where on the FOC those units are and in this case that is a special area called "formation".
Units spawned in the middle of the game (such as from tervigons or from daemon's portalglyph) don't take up a FoC slot. Are they not scoring either?
Good question! Man it's a shame no rules..
“A unit spawned by a Tervigon is identical in every way to a Termagant unit chosen from the Troops section of the army list, and is treated as such for all mission special rules.”
Excerpt From: Games Workshop Ltd. “Codex: Tyranids.” iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.
Oh. Identical. Treated as for all mission special rules. Oh.
Well, I'm sure dataslates include similar wording since everyone keeps saying they're comparable. Mind quoting it?
If they are troops in the formation then yes they are scoring, however if they are just units chosen from your codex but not listed as troops in the formation, even though they would be troops in your codex, then no.
That being said, most of the formations do no strip the units of their troop status.
DJGietzen wrote: If they are troops in the formation then yes they are scoring, however if they are just units chosen from your codex but not listed as troops in the formation, even though they would be troops in your codex, then no.
That being said, most of the formations do no strip the units of their troop status.
What formation lists them as troops? Out of interest, in the Tyranids' it's just a list of units by name.
"An Army List Entry provides all the relevant information to field a single unit in games of Warhammer 40,000, including its points value and battlefield role."
In all of the Tyranid dataslates they contain army list entries, including which part of the FOC they're taken from in large captial letters at the top, such as TROOPS for Warriors, Genestealers, etc.
DJGietzen wrote: If they are troops in the formation then yes they are scoring, however if they are just units chosen from your codex but not listed as troops in the formation, even though they would be troops in your codex, then no.
That being said, most of the formations do no strip the units of their troop status.
What formation lists them as troops? Out of interest, in the Tyranids' it's just a list of units by name.
Every formation has listed the unit with their appropriate FoC
DJGietzen wrote: If they are troops in the formation then yes they are scoring, however if they are just units chosen from your codex but not listed as troops in the formation, even though they would be troops in your codex, then no.
That being said, most of the formations do no strip the units of their troop status.
What formation lists them as troops? Out of interest, in the Tyranids' it's just a list of units by name.
Not the one I am looking at now, nor the one already posted on this thread at least once - they have the big, bold heading of TROOPS listed there.
Nope, no similar wording there.
So not comparable to the Tervigon comparison people keep making.
Got anything else? Being listed under Troops isn't enough - we know that because of units that can shift FOC.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PrinceRaven wrote: "An Army List Entry provides all the relevant information to field a single unit in games of Warhammer 40,000, including its points value and battlefield role."
In all of the Tyranid dataslates they contain army list entries, including which part of the FOC they're taken from in large captial letters at the top, such as TROOPS for Warriors, Genestealers, etc.
The underlined is incorrect.
Unless you're asserting that FOC shifting units cannot score.
If you hang your argument on the Army List, FOC shifted units can't score. If you hang your argument on the slots they're purchased for, dataslates can't score.
Are you saying a Tervigon taken as a Troops choice isn't taken from the Troops section of the FOC?
A Termagant brood is a Troops choice, therefore it is scoring.
A Termagant brood spawned from a Tervigon is a Troops choice, therefore it is scoring.
A Tervigon taken as a Troops choice is a Troops choice, therefore it is scoring.
An Endless Swarm Termagant brood is a Troops choice, therefore it is scoring.
An Incubator Node Tervigon taken as a Troops choice is a Troops choice, as are the Termagants it produces, therefore they are scoring.
PrinceRaven wrote: Are you saying a Tervigon taken as a Troops choice isn't taken from the Troops section of the FOC?
No - it absolutely is. But where is it on the Army List (which is what your argument is referencing).
A Termagant brood is a Troops choice, therefore it is scoring.
Agreed.
A Termagant brood spawned from a Tervigon is a Troops choice, therefore it is scoring.
Because of the rule I quoted, agreed.
A Tervigon taken as a Troops choice is a Troops choice, therefore it is scoring.
Because of the FOC shift (which ignores the Army List entry).
An Endless Swarm Termagant brood is a Troops choice, therefore it is scoring.
False. It's a unit in a dataslate and exists outside the FOC. Hence it cannot be a Troops choice.
An Incubator Node Tervigon taken as a Troops choice is a Troops choice, as are the Termagants it produces, therefore they are scoring.
False. It's a unit in a dataslate and exists outside the FOC. Hence it cannot be a Troops choice.
The Termagants it produces, however, are scoring - per the rule I quoted earlier.
An Endless Swarm Termagant brood is a Troops choice, therefore it is scoring.
False. It's a unit in a dataslate and exists outside the FOC. Hence it cannot be a Troops choice.
.
False.
I guess you mean that it's a unit in a formation and is therefore outside the FOC - whether a unit is listed in a dataslate hardly affects its status.
In any case, the argument's flawed; In the Vanguard dataslate, for instance, it specifically states that "a formation is a special form of Detachment" (p3), and detachments are clearly listed in the FoC. A "special form" is clearly a sub-set.
Likewise, in the BRB it states that scoring units "normally" come from the troops section of FOC, so perhaps that's your argument? In which case, the word normally means what it customarily means, and the dataslate's introduction states that the battlefield role is descibred in the dataslate; and, of course, the battlefield role is described as troops.
I can't see any real way of excluding troops listed in dataslates (subject to Levels of Alliance criteria, where relevant) - apart from the overall belief that "a unit in a dataslate" is somehow tainted. But that's a belief not supported by the rules.
Likewise, the assertion that models are "a unit in a dataslate", and are therefore outside the FOC and can't by definition score would also mean that Skyblight Gargoyles don't score. Again, they plainly do. The more one looks at this claim, the more it seem to emanate from a general dataslate prejudice which isn't supported by the rules.
An Endless Swarm Termagant brood is a Troops choice, therefore it is scoring.
False. It's a unit in a dataslate and exists outside the FOC. Hence it cannot be a Troops choice.
.
False.
I guess you mean that it's a unit in a formation and is therefore outside the FOC - whether a unit is listed in a dataslate hardly affects its status.
In any case, the argument's flawed; In the Vanguard dataslate, for instance, it specifically states that "a formation is a special form of Detachment" (p3), and detachments are clearly listed in the FoC. A "special form" is clearly a sub-set.
Sure. Now - show me on the FOC where a Formation Detachment has Troops slots. I'll wait.
Likewise, in the BRB it states that scoring units "normally" come from the troops section of FOC, so perhaps that's your argument? In which case, the word normally means what it customarily means, and the dataslate's introduction states that the battlefield role is descibred in the dataslate; and, of course, the battlefield role is described as troops.
It can't be that there are sometimes scoring units in other FOC slots - HQs can score (Trazyn for Necrons, HS/FA in the specific missions, Sternguard with Pedro...)
So that argument isn't flawed.
I can't see any real way of excluding troops listed in dataslates (subject to Levels of Alliance criteria, where relevant) - apart from the overall belief that "a unit in a dataslate" is somehow tainted. But that's a belief not supported by the rules.
False. I've shown that it is actually supported by the rules. You're making assumptions to prove your point. I underlined one of them above.
Anything that shifts things to troops are mentioned IN ITS OWN ENTRY. To use the example of Draigo and paladins. As long as Draigo is in your army, Paladins are troop choices. Thats a FOC shift from elite to Troops, but there are no shifts from Troops to Elite or Fast Attack, or Heavy support that I know of, except Iyanden letting a wraithlord be an HQ.
But the entire argument thus far against TROOPS in formations that are clearly TROOPS and would score as TROOPS because nothing is changing them away from being TROOPS - is that "It looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, smells like a duck, but its actually an anteater."
It can't be that there are sometimes scoring units in other FOC slots - HQs can score (Trazyn for Necrons, HS/FA in the specific missions, Sternguard with Pedro...)
So that argument isn't flawed.
So, you've pointed out that scoring units, while "normally" coming from the Troops section of the FoC, do not have to. Which, once again, brings us back to the fact that dataslate troops are scoring, subject only to Levels of Alliance criteria, meaning they have to be from the same force or IIRC Battle Brothers.
DragonOfAsh wrote: Anything that shifts things to troops are mentioned IN ITS OWN ENTRY. To use the example of Draigo and paladins. As long as Draigo is in your army, Paladins are troop choices. Thats a FOC shift from elite to Troops, but there are no shifts from Troops to Elite or Fast Attack, or Heavy support that I know of, except Iyanden letting a wraithlord be an HQ.
The Wraithlord isn't actually an HQ, just a Warlord.
And yes - FOC can shift. But it doesn't change the Army List entry, which is my point.
But the entire argument thus far against TROOPS in formations that are clearly TROOPS and would score as TROOPS because nothing is changing them away from being TROOPS - is that "It looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, smells like a duck, but its actually an anteater."
Except, of course, that they're a Formation with no FOC so ...
No, the screengrab does not demonstrate that the Formation Detachment has Troop slots.
Which is what I asked for. So please - answer my question.
The battlefield role is quoted as being listed within the dataslate. The unit entry within the dataslate defines the genestealers etc as Troops. Unless you're arguing that the word "Troops" is a decorative graphic device, it satisfies all the criteria of the BRB.
Alright here's another example for you. The Eight from the Farsight Enclaves. You can take them. Each is an HQ choice in their own right. Taking them as Farsight's bodyguard doesn't take their HQ status away, just exempts them from the normal limitations of having only 2 in the regular FOC. So we have *gasp* units that are outside the precious all-holy FOC, but are still what they are!
Now if there was only some way to check and see if a formation was inside the FOC. Oh 'a formation is a special form of detachment.' Detachments are part of the FOC and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how its special when it doesn't have - or need - to have an HQ leading the special detachment.
No, the screengrab does not demonstrate that the Formation Detachment has Troop slots.
Which is what I asked for. So please - answer my question.
The battlefield role is quoted as being listed within the dataslate. The unit entry within the dataslate defines the genestealers etc as Troops. Unless you're arguing that the word "Troops" is a decorative graphic device, it satisfies all the criteria of the BRB.
So you're arguing that the Army List is definitive? Because that's what the screengrab shows.
DragonOfAsh wrote: Alright here's another example for you. The Eight from the Farsight Enclaves. You can take them. Each is an HQ choice in their own right. Taking them as Farsight's bodyguard doesn't take their HQ status away, just exempts them from the normal limitations of having only 2 in the regular FOC. So we have *gasp* units that are outside the precious all-holy FOC, but are still what they are!
And that has no relevance to scoring troops whatsoever. And they don't exist outside the FOC - they just don't count against the limit.
Now if there was only some way to check and see if a formation was inside the FOC. Oh 'a formation is a special form of detachment.' Detachments are part of the FOC and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how its special when it doesn't have - or need - to have an HQ leading the special detachment.
Detachments are part of the FOC.
Formation Detachments do not have a Troops selection.
Isn't the reason why formation detatchments have no predefined requirments/slots is because they are fluid and instead have to rely on the instructions within the dataslate.
Nilok wrote: Isn't the reason why formation detatchments have no predefined requirments/slots is because they are fluid and instead have to rely on the instructions within the dataslate.
You would have to ask the design team. What we actually know is that units that are in troop slots are scoring only on the dint of being in a troops slot and not being vehicles. Beyond that we'd need either something to say a unit counts as being in a troops slot, is scoring or that it exists on it's own detachment's FOC.
Nilok wrote: Isn't the reason why formation detatchments have no predefined requirments/slots is because they are fluid and instead have to rely on the instructions within the dataslate.
You would have to ask the design team. What we actually know is that units that are in troop slots are scoring only on the dint of being in a troops slot and not being vehicles. Beyond that we'd need either something to say a unit counts as being in a troops slot, is scoring or that it exists on it's own detachment's FOC.
So just to be clear. The Stormwing Detachment consists of 1 Stormraven and 2 Stormtalons (specified composition in the formation datasheet which is the equivalent to the detachment's FOC). Now the Dataslate lists the Stormraven with a battlefield role of "Heavy Support" and the Talons with a battlefield role of "Fast Attack." In a game of Scouring, do the Talons become scoring and give up an extra VP when killed? Why?
The reason I bring this up is that there is still no "fast attack" slot to cram them in to or select them from. However, they do have a specified battlefield role. If the battlefield role matters, then the same should be applicable for troops. A unit from a detachment given the specified role of troops should then score.
For reference
Fast Recon: Unlike other missions, in The Scouring, your fast attack units are scoring units, not just your troops units. In fact, in The Scouring, even your vehicles are scoring units, if they are also fast attack units and are not Immobilised.
PanzerLeader wrote: So just to be clear. The Stormwing Detachment consists of 1 Stormraven and 2 Stormtalons (specified composition in the formation datasheet which is the equivalent to the detachment's FOC). Now the Dataslate lists the Stormraven with a battlefield role of "Heavy Support" and the Talons with a battlefield role of "Fast Attack." In a game of Scouring, do the Talons become scoring and give up an extra VP when killed? Why?
Please prove the underlined assertion. As far as I can tell you've invented it. The FOC is a very specific thing.
No, the Storm Talons wouldn't give up a VP nor would they score.
"The army list entries for each unit in the formation (the units' profile, point values, unit types, unit composition, special rules, or battlefield roles etc. ) can either be found in the codex corresponding to the faction on the datasheet or elsewhere in the dataslate itself."
If that is not clear that it forms its own detachment with its own special FOC then someone at GW will have to draw it for you.
The Stormwing detachment looks like this:
FA - 2 StormTalons
HVY - 1 StormRaven
If you feel they do not score then they do not give up first blood or count against units killed.
PanzerLeader wrote: So just to be clear. The Stormwing Detachment consists of 1 Stormraven and 2 Stormtalons (specified composition in the formation datasheet which is the equivalent to the detachment's FOC). Now the Dataslate lists the Stormraven with a battlefield role of "Heavy Support" and the Talons with a battlefield role of "Fast Attack." In a game of Scouring, do the Talons become scoring and give up an extra VP when killed? Why?
Please prove the underlined assertion. As far as I can tell you've invented it. The FOC is a very specific thing.
No, the Storm Talons wouldn't give up a VP nor would they score.
The FOC is a chart showing you the restrictions on composition. It shows compulsory and optional selections on a per detachment basis. Each dataslate does the same thing in list format through a specified composition (i.e. Stormwing is 1 Raven, 2 Talons; Cypher Fallen Champions is Cypher and 1-3 units of Chosen; etc.). The specified composition is the functional equivalent of the FOC because it tells you compulsory and optional selections on a per detachment basis.
As to the talons, please refer to the Scouring mission rules referenced. The Scouring references fast attack units. The Talon's battlefield role is fast attack. The Force Organisation rules tell us "As detailed in each army's codex, all the forces you can use are categorised to tell you something about the role they are meant to play in the army. These roles are: HQ, troops, elites, fast attack, and heavy support." Each unit in a legal army must have an assigned role and the data slate assigns a role to every unit. Some units are assigned as "troops."
That the units can be found in a codex under the heading troops is still not proving that they occupy a troops slot in some nebulous FOC that you have yet to show exists.
They do count as units because the formation calls them units and unit is how the game works. They give up first blood for the same reason.
What you've also not seeing is that you are trading off the slots(because you aren't told they occupy them) for the formation units to get different rules and benefits. You can just stick a storm raven and 2 talons in your army, you don't need to take a formation. If you want the formation bonus rules then you pay for it by no longer occupying the usual slots on the FOC.
Can you show a rule that states that battlefield role is equal to slot you occupy? Or maybe a definition of battlefield role? Until you can, battlefield role is whatever the unit usually does, snipers snipe, heavy weapons shoot things, skirmishers fight in close, crap troops take wounds and die etc etc. If the formation was the functional equivalent of a FOC then it would function as one and say that the units count as taking up the same slots as if they had been chosen on a blank FOC. You are just asserting that listing units equates with them taking up specific slots in a foc and that such a foc exists.
liturgies of blood wrote: That the units can be found in a codex under the heading troops is still not proving that they occupy a troops slot in some nebulous FOC that you have yet to show exists.
They do count as units because the formation calls them units and unit is how the game works. They give up first blood for the same reason.
What you've also not seeing is that you are trading off the slots(because you aren't told they occupy them) for the formation units to get different rules and benefits. You can just stick a storm raven and 2 talons in your army, you don't need to take a formation. If you want the formation bonus rules then you pay for it by no longer occupying the usual slots on the FOC.
I really don't see the hang up here. Lets take the Fallen Champions formation. It must consist of Cypher and 1-3 units of chosen. Cypher is labelled as an "HQ" and the chosen are labeled as "Elites" in the data slate. Ergo, the formation consists of 1 HQ unit and 1-3 elite units. The only thing GW didn't do was draw a simple line and block chart for every formation.
Is a tervigon in a formation with termagants HQ or troops? This must be easy to answer then as you know the rules through some magical mental connection to the design team.
I'm not missing your point, I'm refusing to see it as valid. The lack of that simple line and block chart defeats the idea that you are holding units in that line and block chart. When normally chosen outside a formation Cypher takes up a HQ slot or would if his rules didn't augment that and chosen take up elite slots, that is fine. What we're saying is that a formation isn't choosing units normally because they don't go into slots on a FOC as you've admitted.
liturgies of blood wrote: That the units can be found in a codex under the heading troops is still not proving that they occupy a troops slot in some nebulous FOC that you have yet to show exists.
They do count as units because the formation calls them units and unit is how the game works. They give up first blood for the same reason.
What you've also not seeing is that you are trading off the slots(because you aren't told they occupy them) for the formation units to get different rules and benefits. You can just stick a storm raven and 2 talons in your army, you don't need to take a formation. If you want the formation bonus rules then you pay for it by no longer occupying the usual slots on the FOC.
Can you show a rule that states that battlefield role is equal to slot you occupy? Or maybe a definition of battlefield role? Until you can, battlefield role is whatever the unit usually does, snipers snipe, heavy weapons shoot things, skirmishers fight in close, crap troops take wounds and die etc etc. If the formation was the functional equivalent of a FOC then it would function as one and say that the units count as taking up the same slots as if they had been chosen on a blank FOC. You are just asserting that listing units equates with them taking up specific slots in a foc and that such a foc exists.
Liturgies,
So with your assumption, any units in the formations would not give up First Blood, or count as a VP for Purge the Alien. This is incorrect.
Happyjew wrote: Hivefleet Oblivion, is a Tervigon an HQ or Troops?
How do you know?
WHy this question? Isn't it OT, and I wonder what is your point? The Tervigon is listed within the HQ section of the codex, and listed again as a troops choice within a special rule, under the Termagant Brood entry as part of the troops section.
rigeld2 wrote: [
And that has no relevance to scoring troops whatsoever. And they don't exist outside the FOC - they just don't count against the limit.
Again, repetition of an argument that's been proven incorrect multiple times. Formations don't exist outside the FOC, they are a subset of Detachments, listed within the FOC.
Your latest argument seems to be that they are not listed within a troops slot in the FOC.
However, the intro of the 'slates define an army list entry thus: "an Army List Entry provides all the relevant information to field a unit... including its battlefield role." (p3). and the genestealer, for instance, are clearly listed as "Troops" on page 30.
The intro to the dataslate also states that that the army list entry can be found "in the codex.... or in the dataslate" (p3), further underlining that the fact it's a Troop within a dataslate is no diferent from troops within the main codex - just as with Allied Detachments, subject to the Levels of Alliance"
Again, if you're arguing these Genestealers don't score, then you'd have to accept that allies don't score. There's no difference between them in terms of their battlefield role. If you insist there is, please cite the page of the Dataslate. It's really worth reading.
Jughead, can you read my posts? I mean honestly, I never said that.
Units count as units, what you have to show is where they are taking up troops slots. Units that come from a portal glyph are still units, units that are spawned are still units. Do you see the theme of this paragraph? If it's called a unit, it is a unit.
What you have to show is that a unit must occupy a slot or that a formation has a FOC similar to primary detachments etc.
Allied troops score because the rules tell me so. Why do units that are not in troops slots score? Do my plague marines always score because they could possibly be taken in a troops slot?
Units count as units, what you have to show is where they are taking up troops slots. Units that come from a portal glyph are still units, units that are spawned are still units. Do you see the theme of this paragraph? If it's called a unit, it is a unit.
What you have to show is that a unit must occupy a slot or that a formation has a FOC similar to primary detachments etc.
I read your posts. I never said you said that, I mearly pointed out that by your logic that these units are outside the FOC then the normal rules for the mission do not apply to them.
For what its worth, my group treats them as I believe they should be and allows them to score, etc. I'm sure that once they are allowed in tournaments this will be the majority rule.
So Cypher because he doesn't take a up a HQ slot and is a free extra HQ choice isn't a unit? That's what you have asserted.
Being outside the FOC doesn't mean that units are not units in the army. By the very definition units that are spawned are beyond the FOC, however a spawned Daemon prince is still a unit and can contest. The tervigon rules don't say that those termagants are units and they aslo count as troops. It just says they count as if they had taken up a troops slot. I think your strawman is very weak.
Now can you show anywhere that a unit that doesn't take up a FOC slot, without any additional rules, counts as taking up the FOC slot it is listed under on the army list.
liturgies of blood wrote: Is a tervigon in a formation with termagants HQ or troops? This must be easy to answer then as you know the rules through some magical mental connection to the design team.
I'm not missing your point, I'm refusing to see it as valid. The lack of that simple line and block chart defeats the idea that you are holding units in that line and block chart. When normally chosen outside a formation Cypher takes up a HQ slot or would if his rules didn't augment that and chosen take up elite slots, that is fine. What we're saying is that a formation isn't choosing units normally because they don't go into slots on a FOC as you've admitted.
You want a link to why I want to know if a unit is in a troops slot or not? The reason is that for it to be in one you need a specific unit in a troops slot. Without that specific slot being filled it cannot, so you actually need to show some rules to back up your sides arguments with some definitions of a battlefield role and how that relates to being in a troops slot.
liturgies of blood wrote: Is a tervigon in a formation with termagants HQ or troops? This must be easy to answer then as you know the rules through some magical mental connection to the design team.
I'm not missing your point, I'm refusing to see it as valid. The lack of that simple line and block chart defeats the idea that you are holding units in that line and block chart. When normally chosen outside a formation Cypher takes up a HQ slot or would if his rules didn't augment that and chosen take up elite slots, that is fine. What we're saying is that a formation isn't choosing units normally because they don't go into slots on a FOC as you've admitted.
Whether a Tervigon is a troop choice or not depends on the formation. Not suprisingly, the dataslate entry for the Tervigon is the same as the codex entry. Hence, the Tervigon's defined battlefield role is HQ unless the same formation also allows you to take a unit of 30 termagants to define its role as a troops choice.
thejughead wrote:"The army list entries for each unit in the formation (the units' profile, point values, unit types, unit composition, special rules, or battlefield roles etc. ) can either be found in the codex corresponding to the faction on the datasheet or elsewhere in the dataslate itself."
If that is not clear that it forms its own detachment with its own special FOC then someone at GW will have to draw it for you.
I'm sorry - where in that rule does it mention a FOC? Since a FOC is a specific thing, for something to be "its own special FOC" you have to have a statement equating the two.
As far as I can tell you're inventing the equality.
If you feel they do not score then they do not give up first blood or count against units killed.
Absolutely false.
PanzerLeader wrote:The FOC is a chart showing you the restrictions on composition. It shows compulsory and optional selections on a per detachment basis. Each dataslate does the same thing in list format through a specified composition (i.e. Stormwing is 1 Raven, 2 Talons; Cypher Fallen Champions is Cypher and 1-3 units of Chosen; etc.). The specified composition is the functional equivalent of the FOC because it tells you compulsory and optional selections on a per detachment basis.
Functionally equivalent is not the same as actually equivalent.
A Fleshborer and a Bolt Pistol are Functionally Equivalent. They're not the same thing though.
As to the talons, please refer to the Scouring mission rules referenced. The Scouring references fast attack units. The Talon's battlefield role is fast attack. The Force Organisation rules tell us "As detailed in each army's codex, all the forces you can use are categorised to tell you something about the role they are meant to play in the army. These roles are: HQ, troops, elites, fast attack, and heavy support." Each unit in a legal army must have an assigned role and the data slate assigns a role to every unit. Some units are assigned as "troops."
I've underlined an assumption you made.
You are attempting to use the rules from the Force Organization Chart without permission - while the Formation Detachment is part of the Force Org., it is not in-and-of-itself a FOC. Unless you have a rule proving otherwise - an actual rule, and not an assumption please.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
Happyjew wrote: Hivefleet Oblivion, is a Tervigon an HQ or Troops?
How do you know?
WHy this question? Isn't it OT, and I wonder what is your point? The Tervigon is listed within the HQ section of the codex, and listed again as a troops choice within a special rule, under the Termagant Brood entry as part of the troops section.
False. It is not "listed again as a troops choice". Maybe in your codex - in which case I'd like some evidence, because it certainly isn't in mine.
The Scuttling Swarm: For every Termagant Brood of 30 models included in your army, you can include one Tervigon as a troops choice instead of an HQ choice.
Is the only mention of the Tervigon under the Termagant Brood.
rigeld2 wrote: And that has no relevance to scoring troops whatsoever. And they don't exist outside the FOC - they just don't count against the limit.
Again, repetition of an argument that's been proven incorrect multiple times. Formations don't exist outside the FOC, they are a subset of Detachments, listed within the FOC.
I didn't say they do exist outside the FOC. I even underlined that fact. Perhaps you missed it?
Your latest argument seems to be that they are not listed within a troops slot in the FOC.
No, that's always been my argument. Well, I would say "purchased" to account for slot-shifting, but your statement is close enough.
However, the intro of the 'slates define an army list entry thus: "an Army List Entry provides all the relevant information to field a unit... including its battlefield role." (p3). and the genestealer, for instance, are clearly listed as "Troops" on page 30.
So you're arguing that the Army List is the definitive answer?
The intro to the dataslate also states that that the army list entry can be found "in the codex.... or in the dataslate" (p3), further underlining that the fact it's a Troop within a dataslate is no diferent from troops within the main codex - just as with Allied Detachments, subject to the Levels of Alliance"
Well - it means that the stats for the unit are identical. And again - are you saying that the Army List is definitive?
Again, if you're arguing these Genestealers don't score, then you'd have to accept that allies don't score. There's no difference between them in terms of their battlefield role. If you insist there is, please cite the page of the Dataslate. It's really worth reading.
Please stop with the "battlefield role". It's a meaningless statement. Unless you have a rule (actual rule please - no more assumptions) that says battlefield role == Troops == scoring.
I'll save you some time - the words "battlefield role" do not exist together in the BRB. The closest thing you have to support your statement is on page 108:
As detailed in each army's codex, all the forces you can use are categorised to tell you something about the role they are meant to play in the army. These roles are: HQ, troops, elites, fast attack and heavy support.
You'll note that while it uses the word "role" it doesn't say "battlefield role" or "role on the battlefield" or anything like that.
p122 wrote:An army's scoring units are normally all the units that come from the troops selection of the Force Organisation chart - the main exceptions are in the Big Guns Never Tire mission (see page 128)
and the The Scouring mission (see page 129).
Show me the Troops selection of the Force Organization chart for a Formation Detachment, or another rule saying "These units score."
So far you've handwaved those requirements away - even though I've shown they're entirely relevant. Stop assuming, start proving.
Then I have another question for you. Since according to you the FoC shows all the units allowed in any detachment and we can not use the formation's interal designators, do formations only contain one unit?
The updated FoC only lists different formation and not any of their contents, while an Imperial Knight allied detachment shows all the knights within.
Why dose your argument allow for them to be different units as per the formation, but not use the different types (troops)?
Nilok wrote: Then I have another question for you. Since according to you the FoC shows all the units allowed in any detachment and we can not use the formation's interal designators, do formations only contain one unit?
No.
Why dose your argument allow for them to be different units as per the formation, but not use the different types (troops)?
Because the Formation dictates how the Formation is used. To use the formation, you're required to have X different units.
When you do that, you satisfy permission to fill the Formation Detachment box on the FOC.
Also, you've equated Army List designation with some form of internal designator - I'd encourage you to stop that. We know that it means nothing of the sort - Wolf Guard, Crypteks, any IC in the game... all of them are one slot and unit and can cease being a unit when deployed - but they're still from their original FOC slot.
liturgies of blood wrote: Is a tervigon in a formation with termagants HQ or troops? This must be easy to answer then as you know the rules through some magical mental connection to the design team.
I'm not missing your point, I'm refusing to see it as valid. The lack of that simple line and block chart defeats the idea that you are holding units in that line and block chart. When normally chosen outside a formation Cypher takes up a HQ slot or would if his rules didn't augment that and chosen take up elite slots, that is fine. What we're saying is that a formation isn't choosing units normally because they don't go into slots on a FOC as you've admitted.
Whether a Tervigon is a troop choice or not depends on the formation. Not suprisingly, the dataslate entry for the Tervigon is the same as the codex entry. Hence, the Tervigon's defined battlefield role is HQ unless the same formation also allows you to take a unit of 30 termagants to define its role as a troops choice.
Well looking at the actual formation with a tervigon doesn't say it is a troops or HQ nor does it use the words battlefield roll to talk about it there and in the section lifted from other sources.. I am wondering where did the battlefield role get defined? Can you please show this as you have not done so yet?
They are units jughead. That is what makes them count as units in the game. Please stop this reduction ad absurdum line of argumentation that nobody is arguing but yourself. You also have failed to connect the dots on that argument.
I would like to point out that the same paragraph for defining scoring units reads, "There are a few exceptions, however, when a unit of troops does not count as scoring: ..."
The is no listing for units outside of the FOC. Also, these rules are limited to the "Eternal War Missions". So if you are playing out of the book you can have this argument. If you are playing most missions provided by a Tournament they do not follow Eternal War guielines then its up to the TO.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
liturgies of blood wrote: They are units jughead. That is what makes them count as units in the game. Please stop this reduction ad absurdum line of argumentation that nobody is arguing but yourself. You also have failed to connect the dots on that argument.
One of the rules of the forum is politeness. I've taken every care to do so. I wish you would adhere to the same.
liturgies of blood wrote: They are units jughead. That is what makes them count as units in the game. Please stop this reduction ad absurdum line of argumentation that nobody is arguing but yourself. You also have failed to connect the dots on that argument.
One of the rules of the forum is politeness. I've taken every care to do so. I wish you would adhere to the same.
And one of the tenets of the sub-forum is don't make statements without backing it up.
The side that says that troop units from formations are non-scoring have backed their arguments up. The other side has not.
thejughead wrote:If you feel they do not score then they do not give up first blood or count against units killed.
Absolutely false.
Please cite with rules or reasoning.
Fixed your quote-fail there.
As said, the only requirement for them to count for First Blood or units killed in Purge the Alien is for them to be units.
p122 wrote:The first unit, of any kind, to be removed as a casualty during the game is worth 1 Victory Point to the opposing player at the end of the game.
p127 wrote:At the end of the game, each player receives 1 Victory Point for each enemy unit that has been completely destroyed.
Since I've never disputed that the units in a Formation Detachment are in fact units, it's entirely consistent with my argument.
So please drop this strawman.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
thejughead wrote:@HappyJew, I have backed up my statements with quotes from the BRB and Dataslate. Please read my posts.
Really? Let's look.
thejughead wrote:"The army list entries for each unit in the formation (the units' profile, point values, unit types, unit composition, special rules, or battlefield roles etc. ) can either be found in the codex corresponding to the faction on the datasheet or elsewhere in the dataslate itself."
If that is not clear that it forms its own detachment with its own special FOC then someone at GW will have to draw it for you.
Considering the rule you quoted says nothing about being its own special FOC, you invented it. So no, this is not a statement backed up by a rules quote.
If you feel they do not score then they do not give up first blood or count against units killed.
No rules backup, proven an incorrect assumption with actual rules.
thejughead wrote:I read your posts. I never said you said that, I mearly pointed out that by your logic that these units are outside the FOC then the normal rules for the mission do not apply to them.
Another statement without rules backing. And as shown already, completely incorrect and based on a misreading of the argument.
About being polite - it's a two way street. Strawman arguments and talking to posters as if they're simple or irrelevant isn't polite.
liturgies of blood wrote: They are units jughead. That is what makes them count as units in the game. Please stop this reduction ad absurdum line of argumentation that nobody is arguing but yourself. You also have failed to connect the dots on that argument.
One of the rules of the forum is politeness. I've taken every care to do so. I wish you would adhere to the same.
And one of the tenets of the sub-forum is don't make statements without backing it up.
The side that says that troop units from formations are non-scoring have backed their arguments up. The other side has not.
One side has not proven that Troops are not Troops. That side ignores that units in formation are listed as Troops. The claim that those Troops are not "Troops", even though the Formation is in the FOC chart as a detachment is absurd. A unit of Termagants comes from the Troop section of the FOC regardless of whether its in a formation or not.
No one has said that units in a Formation are not Troops (HQ, Elites, etc), unless I missed it. What we have stated is that they are not a Troops choice in the FOC.
About being polite - it's a two way street. Strawman arguments and talking to posters as if they're simple or irrelevant isn't polite.
You are putting inflection in my statements where there are none. I did not refer to anyones position as "reduction ad absurdum line of argumentation". Which was done to me. Again, if I'm wrong that is fine, just keep it civil.
It is civil to say you are making a reduction ad absurdum argument, it's not civil to say something about the person arguing. If I am wrong then may I be horribly deleted by a Mod.
Happy, I am saying that unless a unit is in a troops slot then it's not troops. WG are troops when in a troop slot and something else normally.
From how I see it, units are scoring when they are in a troops slot and that is the only definition that matters to the game.For the scouring etc the FA etc slot can be subbed into the above.
Happyjew wrote: The side that says that troop units from formations are non-scoring have backed their arguments up. The other side has not.
One side has not proven that Troops are not Troops. That side ignores that units in formation are listed as Troops. The claim that those Troops are not "Troops", even though the Formation is in the FOC chart as a detachment is absurd. A unit of Termagants comes from the Troop section of the FOC regardless of whether its in a formation or not.
The underlined statement has yet to be proven.
Please do so.
And please answer the question I've asked multiple times - are you asserting that the Army List is definitive of what is a Troop? That seems to be where you're hanging your argument (since that's what the screencap posted earlier is, and what people are referring to when they say Formations list Termagants and Genestealers as troops) but I want to make sure instead of assuming.
The Force Organization Chart (FOC) as defined by the BRB, "...as all the forces you can use..." It further defines the Primary, Allied, and Fortification detachments as part of the FOC. The dataslate further defines a formation as a special detachment. You cannot have a detachment that is not within the FOC as all the forces you have must reside within the FOC.
Units like Command Squads that sit "outside the FOC" usually really ignore the category requirements that dictate the limits of the FOC. Those units still exist within the FOC.
thejughead wrote: The Force Organization Chart (FOC) as defined by the BRB, "...as all the forces you can use..." It further defines the Primary, Allied, and Fortification detachments as part of the FOC. The dataslate further defines a formation as a special detachment. You cannot have a detachment that is not within the FOC as all the forces you have must reside within the FOC.
Units like Command Squads that sit "outside the FOC" usually really ignore the category requirements that dictate the limits of the FOC. Those units still exist within the FOC.
No one has argued otherwise. Literally.
Drop the strawman.
What we're saying is that there is no Troops section of the FOC inside the Formation Detachment. You're asserting there is. Prove your assertion.
Jughead, not being in a troops slot doesn't mean we think the units aren't on the FOC. We think they are in a very specific part of the FOC called "Formation" but we question the existence of slots for troops, HQ etc in there because the formations list units by name and do not tell us they still count as a troops choice etc.
Without the permission to be a troops choice (such as the detachment chart of the FOC for primary and allied detachments) why are these units scoring? That's the question we've asked and we have yet to get an answer to the question that uses quoted rules to prove it.
What we're saying is that there is no Troops section of the FOC inside the Formation Detachment. You're asserting there is. Prove your assertion.
In haste but... it's great to see this here, as it shows that the distinction you infer, between a troop listed in an FOC, and of simply being listed as a troop in a formation within the FOC, is sketchy in the extreme. As if one had decided on an outcome and was desperately seeking any justification for not treating troops as troops.
Ok guys, what is a battlefield roll and where is the definition?
I have asked for this for 4 pages and nobody has given any answer.
The distiction between a unit scoring and not is being in a troops slot oblivion. That's it. WG are scoring when they are in a troops slot, tervigons too, chosen too, as are wraithguard etc etc. Unless a unit is in a troops slot they are not scoring.
You are saying that x therefore y hence y therefore x.
A genestealer brood takes up a troop slot in my primary detachment, my faction detachment has a genestealer brood therefore it must be a troops slot. This is a false statement.
Hivefleet, your theory about my motive is great. I was worried I was being rude on this thread but I'm glad you've decided to fill that role for me. Since we have the rude poster thread and we only have 1 slot on the FOC, I'll take the being right slot.
What we're saying is that there is no Troops section of the FOC inside the Formation Detachment. You're asserting there is. Prove your assertion.
In haste but... it's great to see this here, as it shows that the distinction you infer, between a troop listed in an FOC, and of simply being listed as a troop in a formation within the FOC, is sketchy in the extreme. As if one had decided on an outcome and was desperately seeking any justification for not treating troops as troops.
Sketchy?
It's demonstrable fact. I'm not desperately seeking anything except an answer to a question. Perhaps you'd like to provide it?
I have stated my arguments for the position you are holding and why they are false. I did not create a different argument to ignore your assertion.
Except you did. You've - repeatedly - argued that Formations are part of the FOC. Which is not what's being argued at all. So you're arguing something that we agree on to pretend you're addressing my argument.
Except you did. You've - repeatedly - argued that Formations are part of the FOC. Which is not what's being argued at all. So you're arguing something that we agree on to pretend you're addressing my argument.
I did not argue that. Now your making a strawman.
That's a lie. I quoted that section earlier.
That is not a lie. Its there in black and white. You want to ignore it to support your argument.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
liturgies of blood wrote: If you are saying battlefield roll is taking up a troops choice then facts disagree with that.
It states FOC roles are HQ, Elites, Troops, Fast Attack, and Heavy Support. The FOC encompasses all detachments: including primary, allied, formations, and fortifications.
Jughead just quote what you think it is that we are missing as I'm not seeing anything that defines troops as a battlefield roll rather than a section of the detachment FOC and even less that states a battlefield roll is equated with always counting as being in a specific slot.
Except you did. You've - repeatedly - argued that Formations are part of the FOC. Which is not what's being argued at all. So you're arguing something that we agree on to pretend you're addressing my argument.
I did not argue that. Now your making a strawman.
thejughead wrote:The Force Organization Chart (FOC) as defined by the BRB, "...as all the forces you can use..." It further defines the Primary, Allied, and Fortification detachments as part of the FOC. The dataslate further defines a formation as a special detachment. You cannot have a detachment that is not within the FOC as all the forces you have must reside within the FOC.
Units like Command Squads that sit "outside the FOC" usually really ignore the category requirements that dictate the limits of the FOC. Those units still exist within the FOC.
You absolutely did argue that formations are part of the FOC. I've quoted the post here. Did you forget you typed those words?
That's a lie. I quoted that section earlier.
That is not a lie. Its there in black and white. You want to ignore it to support your argument.
Quote the sentence that includes the words "battlefield role". And show me the page number. It's not there in black and white - I quoted the exact text on the last page.
Battlefield roll isn't mentioned at all on page 108 or 109. The word roll is used but only in the general description of fluff that talks about heroic commanders and specialised veterans.
liturgies of blood wrote: Jughead just quote what you think it is that we are missing as I'm not seeing anything that defines troops as a battlefield roll rather than a section of the detachment FOC and even less that states a battlefield roll is equated with always counting as being in a specific slot.
I did previously, but the page number is 108, under the Force Organisation heading.
liturgies of blood wrote: Jughead just quote what you think it is that we are missing as I'm not seeing anything that defines troops as a battlefield roll rather than a section of the detachment FOC and even less that states a battlefield roll is equated with always counting as being in a specific slot.
I did previously, but the page number is 108, under the Force Organisation heading.
There is literally no occurrence of the words "battlefield role" on page 108. Ever.
So saying page 108 defines a Battlefield Role is a lie.
edit:
As evidence, as I quoted before, this is what page 108 has to say as far as "role":
As detailed in each army's codex, all the forces you can use are categorised to tell you something about the role they are meant to play in the army. These roles are: HQ, troops, elites, fast attack and heavy support.
Note it does not include the word "battlefield" in that definition. Nor in the paragraph before it. So it's an assumption based on ... what exactly I'm not sure. Sure as heck not rules that are written though.
liturgies of blood wrote: Battlefield roll isn't mentioned at all on page 108 or 109. The word roll is used but only in the general description of fluff that talks about heroic commanders and specialised veterans.
I love the fluff angle, but that is clearly meant to define what a role is and what part it plays in the FOC.
Automatically Appended Next Post: if you want to further argue that Battlefiled Role and Role are seperate items and definitions, please do so. If they are not equal then what is a Battlefield Role?
thejughead wrote: if you want to further argue that Battlefiled Role and Role are seperate items and definitions, please do so. If they are not equal then what is a Battlefield Role?
That's your challenge to prove. Taken literally, it's the purpose of the unit while playing. The problem with that is that the "purpose" can vary from tarpit to backfield scoring to assault unit to outflanker to harrasser...
The Tau Firebase Formation does not list the unit Role, The riptide has no designation as Elites nor do the Broadsides have a designation of Heavy in its text. The dataslates gives us permission to go to the Codex to find its role and any other unit data. Does this mean it cannot score in Big Guns never tire or be a denial unit, even though the dataslate specifically give me permission to use the information in the codex.
Again, the Formation is a special detachment and its entries can be found in the dataslate or the faction codex. It gives us permission to us the Codex to find its "Role" etc. The dataslate defines what units need to be in that formation. Its Role is defined in the faction codex.
liturgies of blood wrote: Ok guys, what is a battlefield roll and where is the definition?
I have asked for this for 4 pages and nobody has given any answer.
The distiction between a unit scoring and not is being in a troops slot oblivion. That's it. WG are scoring when they are in a troops slot, tervigons too, chosen too, as are wraithguard etc etc. Unless a unit is in a troops slot they are not scoring.
You are saying that x therefore y hence y therefore x.
A genestealer brood takes up a troop slot in my primary detachment, my faction detachment has a genestealer brood therefore it must be a troops slot. This is a false statement.
Hivefleet, your theory about my motive is great. I was worried I was being rude on this thread but I'm glad you've decided to fill that role for me. Since we have the rude poster thread and we only have 1 slot on the FOC, I'll take the being right slot.
I quoted the rule on roles earlier today. You just declined to acknowledge it. Here it is again: "Force Organisation As detailed in each army's codex, all the forces you can use are categorised to tell you something about the role they are meant to play in the army. These roles are: HQ, troops, elites, fast attack, and heavy support." It is on page 650 of my e-book on the iPhone, directly preceding the section labeled "Force Organisation Chart."
Per the BRB, every unit must have a role. Some of these units (i.e. tactical squad) also fill a "slot" on the FOC. Some of these units do not fill a slot on the FOC (i.e. command squad) but still have a battlefield role (i.e. HQ) based on where they are found in the codex.
For formations, you have a defined composition. The formation always consists of the units given in list format. These units still have defined battlefield roles based on the relevant entry in the dataslate.
Please show permission for units in formations to NOT be categorized as an HQ, Troop, Elite, Fast Attack or Heavy Support unit.
Oh so you are saying panzer that slot is not the same as a battlefield roll? If so then you agree that being listed in the troops section of an army list doesn't dictate always being troops?
I've yet to see a link between being a genestealer squad and always being scoring. Please enlighten me.
liturgies of blood wrote: Oh so you are saying panzer that slot is not the same as a battlefield roll? If so then you agree that being listed in the troops section of an army list doesn't dictate always being troops?
I've yet to see a link between being a genestealer squad and always being scoring. Please enlighten me.
Here is where we are in agreement. Slot and role are different. Can you field Khan, a chaptermaster and a command squad in a single primary detachment? Yes, because even though its 3 HQs, one of them (the command squad) doesn't count towards your 2 slots on the primary detachment FOC.
Now, here is where we disagree. For the role, troops are always troops when selected as such (including units that have met the conditions to change roles, i.e. nobs). A unit cannot have two roles at once. A tervigon is either an HQ or a Troop based on whether or not the conditions have been met to classify it as a troop but by rules it cannot be either both or neither. Genestealers selected in a Primary Detachment are troops and genestealers selected in a Formation are troops. The BRB is clear that EVERY unit has a role. There is no permission to not classify them as one of the five roles.
So the crux of the problem is "do troops selected as part of a formation have permission to score"? To address this, we need to relook the rules on scoring units. We are told that scoring units NORMALLY come from the troops selection of the FOC and that the MAIN EXCEPTIONS are Big Guns and The Scouring. Already, the BRB allows for exceptions other than Big Guns and The Scouring. The concept of a formation was introduced well after the BRB and all its charts were written. You already conceded earlier that a formation is part of the FOC, so we'll proceed on that premise and apply some logic here.
For example:
Are genestealers in a formation troops by role? Yes
Do they have the swarms rule? No
Do they have a rule saying they never count as scoring? No
Literally the only point of contention is whether the formation composition given in list format is the equivalent of a line and block FOC for a detachment. I say it is because it defines the force organization for the special detachment called a formation. You must always take these compulsory choices and may add these optional choices, exactly like the base FOC does for the primary, allied, and fortification detachments.
The point of contention is that there is no troop slot to place the genestealer unit in. Without that slot or something to say it is in an equivalent situation there is nothing.
You've said that to be scoring you need to be in a troops slot but these units are not in such a slot. You've got to show some way to get from A to B. You have literally said "I say it is" and not given any substantive to this argument.
I'm sure RAI could be anything under the sun but RAW why is a unit scoring if it is not in a troop slot. Role is not being in a slot so why are you hanging everything on something that isn't defined in the brb?
Units not counting as taking up a slot in a detachment isn't analogous as there are no defined maximum slots or minimum slots in a formation. Also there is specific permission to have that unit as an additional HQ selection. Can you show any rules for why a formation's unit count as being in any slot? As far as I see the rules just give a box called formation with a list of units in it depending on which formation you choose.
liturgies of blood wrote: The point of contention is that there is no troop slot to place the genestealer unit in. Without that slot or something to say it is in an equivalent situation there is nothing.
You've said that to be scoring you need to be in a troops slot but these units are not in such a slot. You've got to show some way to get from A to B. You have literally said "I say it is" and not given any substantive to this argument.
I'm sure RAI could be anything under the sun but RAW why is a unit scoring if it is not in a troop slot. Role is not being in a slot so why are you hanging everything on something that isn't defined in the brb?
Units not counting as taking up a slot in a detachment isn't analogous as there are no defined maximum slots or minimum slots in a formation. Also there is specific permission to have that unit as an additional HQ selection. Can you show any rules for why a formation's unit count as being in any slot? As far as I see the rules just give a box called formation with a list of units in it depending on which formation you choose.
Actually the RAW is troops selection, not slot. Units are technically selected out of the army list section of the codex and then put into the appropriate FOC slot based on role/requirements, i.e. a tactical squad fills a "troops" slot, a Terivgon can fill an HQ slot or a Troops slot based on whether or not a unit of 30 termagants is taken and the player chooses to slot the tervigon as a troop, etc. Without the role as defined by the army list section, you cannot occupy any slot on the FOC.
There are minimum and maximum defined slots in a formation. It is given in list format. Per the Cypher example earlier, you must have Cypher and must have 1 (minimum) to 3 (maximum) units of chosen. A living artillery formation must have 1 warrior brood, 1 biovore brood and 1 exocrine and has no optional slots for additional units to be included.
Look at it this way. It's the troops selection of the FOC not the army list that defines being a troop and hence scoring. See page 123.
To be a selection you have to be in the ascribed slot.
Does a formation contain troops selections or slots? If yes, then where and can you show which they are? Does it describe that the tervigon meets the requirements to be a troop choice in a formation? Or is this just another case of it doesn't say I can't?
I gave you the example of the Tau Firebase. It must have 1 Riptide and 2 full squads of Broadsides. It says to use the codex entries for those units. It does not say it is made up of 1 Elite and 2 heavy support because its inferred. You do not have a choice of what type of unit to choose. Yet they are an elite and heavy choices in the formation detachment.
Jughead what you infer from a statement is not what was implied necessarily and is wholly in the realm of RAI. RAW is words on a page.
That you don't have a choice isn't the issue at all. The issue is that without occupying a troops slot a unit is not scoring unless something else tells you it is. See termagants spawned by the tervigon, they are only scoring because the rules for spawning them say so not because they are a unit from the troops section of the army list in the codex.
liturgies of blood wrote: Look at it this way. It's the troops selection of the FOC not the army list that defines being a troop and hence scoring. See page 123.
To be a selection you have to be in the ascribed slot.
Does a formation contain troops selections or slots? If yes, then where and can you show which they are? Does it describe that the tervigon meets the requirements to be a troop choice in a formation? Or is this just another case of it doesn't say I can't?
Without referencing the army list section of a codex for the role, you cannot put a unit into an FOC selection. The FOC cannot be separated from the army list. If you think it can, then show how a tactical squad can be selected for an army without referring to its role on the army list.
Hint: it can't be because without referencing the role in the army list, you have no permission to slot it anywhere on the FOC.
PanzerLeader wrote: Hint: it can't be because without referencing the role in the army list, you have no permission to slot it anywhere on the FOC.
How does referencing the Formation's Army List tell me to put that unit in the Troops section of the FOC? Because it's part of a Formation detachment which explicitly doesn't follow the normal FOC.
And how do you handle slot-shifting with this assertion? Paladins are listed as Elites in the Army List. So using your assertion they do not score.
PanzerLeader wrote: Hint: it can't be because without referencing the role in the army list, you have no permission to slot it anywhere on the FOC.
How does referencing the Formation's Army List tell me to put that unit in the Troops section of the FOC? Because it's part of a Formation detachment which explicitly doesn't follow the normal FOC.
And how do you handle slot-shifting with this assertion? Paladins are listed as Elites in the Army List. So using your assertion they do not score.
My assertion does cover paladins explicitly. Without referencing the army list section, you cannot determine that paladins are normally selected as Elites but CAN be selected as Troops under certain circumstances. Per the BRB, each unit must have a role. Show me how you can select a unit for any slot on the FOC without referencing the Codex entry in the army list section.
PanzerLeader wrote: Hint: it can't be because without referencing the role in the army list, you have no permission to slot it anywhere on the FOC.
How does referencing the Formation's Army List tell me to put that unit in the Troops section of the FOC? Because it's part of a Formation detachment which explicitly doesn't follow the normal FOC.
And how do you handle slot-shifting with this assertion? Paladins are listed as Elites in the Army List. So using your assertion they do not score.
My assertion does cover paladins explicitly. Without referencing the army list section, you cannot determine that paladins are normally selected as Elites but CAN be selected as Troops under certain circumstances. Per the BRB, each unit must have a role. Show me how you can select a unit for any slot on the FOC without referencing the Codex entry in the army list section.
And where are those circumstances found? In the Army List which you cannot reference.
PanzerLeader wrote: Hint: it can't be because without referencing the role in the army list, you have no permission to slot it anywhere on the FOC.
How does referencing the Formation's Army List tell me to put that unit in the Troops section of the FOC? Because it's part of a Formation detachment which explicitly doesn't follow the normal FOC.
And how do you handle slot-shifting with this assertion? Paladins are listed as Elites in the Army List. So using your assertion they do not score.
My assertion does cover paladins explicitly. Without referencing the army list section, you cannot determine that paladins are normally selected as Elites but CAN be selected as Troops under certain circumstances. Per the BRB, each unit must have a role. Show me how you can select a unit for any slot on the FOC without referencing the Codex entry in the army list section.
And where are those circumstances found? In the Army List which you cannot reference.
Except every data slate tells you to reference the army list and/or reprints the entry in the data slate so it can be referenced per the screenshot earlier.
PanzerLeader wrote: Hint: it can't be because without referencing the role in the army list, you have no permission to slot it anywhere on the FOC.
How does referencing the Formation's Army List tell me to put that unit in the Troops section of the FOC? Because it's part of a Formation detachment which explicitly doesn't follow the normal FOC.
And how do you handle slot-shifting with this assertion? Paladins are listed as Elites in the Army List. So using your assertion they do not score.
My assertion does cover paladins explicitly. Without referencing the army list section, you cannot determine that paladins are normally selected as Elites but CAN be selected as Troops under certain circumstances. Per the BRB, each unit must have a role. Show me how you can select a unit for any slot on the FOC without referencing the Codex entry in the army list section.
You can't.
Show slots inside the Formation detachment. You continue to assert they're there but have yet to prove that assertion.
thejughead wrote: There is no "slot" only a role defined by the unit definition. The role is what is defined in the FOC section of the BRB.
In my example of the Tau Firebase, what is the role designation of the Broadside and does it score in the Guns Never Tire mission?
The role of the broadside could be to soak fire or for a nicely painted gun platform. It doesn't matter. If you aren't in a HS slot then you don't score in big guns.
Slot is defined by the foc and it's what a unit takes up on the foc. If it's not a troops slot then you don't score. I'd love some substantive answer to why you think these units are in a specific slot other than "because".
BTW is it a roll or battlefield roll now? Is it the handwavy non definition of the brb or the undefined nonsense of the dataslate?
"There are a few exceptions, however, when a unit of troops does not count as a scoring unit:
- If it is a vehicle, or is a unit currently embarked on a Transport vehicle, or is occupying a building.
- If it has the Swarms special rule.
- If it has a special rule specifying that it never counts as a
scoring unit.
- If it is currently falling back (if the unit Regroups it immediately reverts to being a scoring unit again)."
These are the only times a Troops choice isn't a scoring unit according to the BRB.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And the broadside is defined as a Heavy and part of the formation which is part of the FOC. I've cited numerous times where this is referenced in the Dataslate ad nauseum.
PrinceRaven wrote: "There are a few exceptions, however, when a unit of troops does not count as a scoring unit:
- If it is a vehicle, or is a unit currently embarked on a Transport vehicle, or is occupying a building.
- If it has the Swarms special rule.
- If it has a special rule specifying that it never counts as a
scoring unit.
- If it is currently falling back (if the unit Regroups it immediately reverts to being a scoring unit again)."
These are the only times a Troops choice isn't a scoring unit according to the BRB.
You still haven't supported the statement that a unit from a dataslate is a Troop selection.
Slot == selection. Page 109 defines selections. Perhaps you'd care to read the rulebook.
And the broadside is defined as a Heavy and part of the formation which is part of the FOC. I've cited numerous times where this is referenced in the Dataslate ad nauseum.
Partially true.
The formation is part of the FOC. There are no Heavy selections in the formation, however.
PrinceRaven wrote: "There are a few exceptions, however, when a unit of troops does not count as a scoring unit:
- If it is a vehicle, or is a unit currently embarked on a Transport vehicle, or is occupying a building.
- If it has the Swarms special rule.
- If it has a special rule specifying that it never counts as a
scoring unit.
- If it is currently falling back (if the unit Regroups it immediately reverts to being a scoring unit again)."
These are the only times a Troops choice isn't a scoring unit according to the BRB.
You still haven't supported the statement that a unit from a dataslate is a Troop selection.
TBH jughead, I've been using common parlance for the little boxes on the FOC that denote where you put the units. If you prefer I use the word selection that's fine I will do so.
Can you please back up the assertion that units from the troops category in the army list are always scoring?
I am well aware there is a non-exhaustive list of reasons why a troops selection on the FOC would not be scoring. What I'm asking is where does the unit get to be in a troops selection and not a formation selection? You are not selecting a unit to fulfil a role you are selecting a list of units to be a formation. It's the difference between a multipack and a single can.
Slot == selection. Page 109 defines selections. Perhaps you'd care to read the rulebook.
At this point it's obvious you prefer to ridicule and talk down to people instead of promoting a healthy exchange of ideas. Class act.
You're reading more into my inflection than is actually there. I said that because you cited pages 108 and 109 multiple times, and then asked for something that's plainly defined on page 109. To me, that implies you haven't actually read the rulebook.
PrinceRaven wrote: "There are a few exceptions, however, when a unit of troops does not count as a scoring unit:
- If it is a vehicle, or is a unit currently embarked on a Transport vehicle, or is occupying a building.
- If it has the Swarms special rule.
- If it has a special rule specifying that it never counts as a
scoring unit.
- If it is currently falling back (if the unit Regroups it immediately reverts to being a scoring unit again)."
These are the only times a Troops choice isn't a scoring unit according to the BRB.
You still haven't supported the statement that a unit from a dataslate is a Troop selection.
One box on the chart allows you to make one selection from that part of your army list in the relevant codex.
Please, as I've asked for before, show the FOC for a dataslate. Show me multiple boxes that allow you to make a Troop selection rather than a Formation selection.
PrinceRaven wrote: So you're saying that being a Troops choice doesn't make you a Troops choice? Literally having big capital letter saying TROOPS isn't enough?
That is what it comes down to, despite the qualifier "normally" on p122, which of course doesn't cover formations, and despite the qualifier that Troops need a special rule in order not to score (''a special rule... specifiying it never counts as a scoring unit/") .Really the only argument for disallowing is that you get to choose which troops you take from a main codex, and the choice is normally dictated for a Formation. But that paper-thin argument is denied by the Dataslate intro which mentioned levels of alliance, which echoes the qualification that scoring troops cannot be Desperate Allies.
Funny, though, how the denial that units are scoring involves being incredibly rigorous about the FOC (despite the "normally" qualifier) and yet slack about other key sentences, hence the insistence that Large Type headings like TROOPS, or other worlds like "battlefield role", are merely decorative. What is a battlefield role for Troops, but to do the normal troop things - ie to control objectives?
(But then this argument was made, and has never been refuted, on p1. )
An Endless Swarm Termagant brood is a Troops choice, therefore it is scoring.
It's a unit in a dataslate and exists outside the FOC. Hence it cannot be a Troops choice.
.
Worth repeating to show the logic we are faced with. That the medium is the message: cos it's a dataslate, let's ignore it. Which would be fine if you're oganising your own tournament, of course.
PrinceRaven wrote: So you're saying that being a Troops choice doesn't make you a Troops choice? Literally having big capital letter saying TROOPS isn't enough?
That is what it comes down to, despite the qualifier "normally" on p122, which of course doesn't cover formations, and despite the qualifier that Troops need a special rule in order not to score (''a special rule... specifiying it never counts as a scoring unit/") .Really the only argument for disallowing is that you get to choose which troops you take from a main codex, and the choice is normally dictated for a Formation. But that paper-thin argument is denied by the Dataslate intro which mentioned levels of alliance, which echoes the qualification that scoring troops cannot be Desperate Allies.
No, not at all. I've explained my position multiple times and have apparently been ignored.
Despite the fact that the *ARMY LIST* section of the Dataslate shows Troops, the units are absolutely *NOT* taken as a Troop *selection*, which is what's required to score.
An army's scoring units are normally all the units that come from the troops selection of the Force Organisation chart
(emphasis mine)
Please, show me where units from a Formation are Troop, etc. *selections*. I've asked multiple times and been ignored.
I've shown that a single unit fills a selection on the FOC. I've asked for, and never received, anything showing a Formation FOC that has Troops selections.
Funny, though, how the denial that units are scoring involves being incredibly rigorous about the FOC (despite the "normally" qualifier) and yet slack about other key sentences, hence the insistence that Large Type headings like TROOPS, or other worlds like "battlefield role", are merely decorative. What is a battlefield role for Troops, but to do the normal troop things - ie to control objectives?
(But then this argument was made, and has never been refuted, on p1. )
I'd accuse you of failing to read the thread, but I know you have. I refuted that argument multiple times. I've never - ever - said that those words are "merely decorative". I'd like you to not put words in my mouth.
An Endless Swarm Termagant brood is a Troops choice, therefore it is scoring.
It's a unit in a dataslate and exists outside the FOC. Hence it cannot be a Troops choice.
.
Worth repeating to show the logic we are faced with. That the medium is the message: cos it's a dataslate, let's ignore it. Which would be fine if you're oganising your own tournament, of course.
I misworded that and have fixed my wording since then. Perhaps you'd like to stay current with the thread and attempt to refute arguments instead of accusing me of arguing dishonestly?
That'd be great. Thanks.
It's a unit in a dataslate and exists outside the FOC. Hence it cannot be a Troops choice.
This is a false statement. The dataslate clearly says its a special detachment. Detachments can only exist within the FOC per the big rule book page 108-109. You continue to promote the idea that the FOC is only Primary, Allied and Fortification detachments.
It's a unit in a dataslate and exists outside the FOC. Hence it cannot be a Troops choice.
This is a false statement. The dataslate clearly says its a special detachment. Detachments can only exist within the FOC per the big rule book page 108-109. You continue to promote the idea that the FOC is only Primary, Allied and Fortification detachments.
That's a lie. It was a quote taken from page 1 that I've corrected myself.
I don't "continue" to promote that at all. I said it once.
Heck - I even corrected the person who put that quote in 6 minutes before you posted.
Please, show me where units from a Formation are Troop, etc. *selections*. I've asked multiple times and been ignored.
I've shown that a single unit fills a selection on the FOC. I've asked for, and never received, anything showing a Formation FOC that has Troops selections.
You keep referring to the FOC as the actual selection. This is incorrect. The detachment has the selection. The FOC is a collection of all the detachments.
It looks like this:
FOC -----Primary ------------HQ ------------ELITES, etc.
-----Allied ------------HQ ------------ELITES, etc.
-----Fortifications ------------Fortification
-----Special Allies ------------HQ ------------ELITES, etc.
-----Formations ------------HQ ------------ELITES, etc.
Edit: I apologize the editor hacked my outline above.
Please, show me where units from a Formation are Troop, etc. *selections*. I've asked multiple times and been ignored.
I've shown that a single unit fills a selection on the FOC. I've asked for, and never received, anything showing a Formation FOC that has Troops selections.
You keep referring to the FOC as the actual selection. This is incorrect. The detachment has the selection. The FOC is a collection of all the detachments.
No, if you're looking at the chart on page 108, the boxes are selections. That's what I'm saying.
Please, show me a FOC (that's the chart) that includes more than a single box for Formations. Show me the FOC for Formations. The actual chart. I've asked for it - repeatedly.
I've never been shown one.
Please, show me where units from a Formation are Troop, etc. *selections*. I've asked multiple times and been ignored.
I've shown that a single unit fills a selection on the FOC. I've asked for, and never received, anything showing a Formation FOC that has Troops selections.
You keep referring to the FOC as the actual selection. This is incorrect. The detachment has the selection. The FOC is a collection of all the detachments.
No, if you're looking at the chart on page 108, the boxes are selections. That's what I'm saying.
Please, show me a FOC (that's the chart) that includes more than a single box for Formations. Show me the FOC for Formations. The actual chart. I've asked for it - repeatedly.
I've never been shown one.
We've reached an impasse. Rigeld will never be convinced until someone at GW makes a little line and block chart for every formation. The argument essentially comes down to those who think the specified composition in list format for each formation is the equivalent of an FOC because it outlines the compulsory and optional selections for each formation (Jughead, myself, hivefleet, etc.) and those who don't (liturgies, rigeld). No one is going to budge so lets just call it.
Please, show me where units from a Formation are Troop, etc. *selections*. I've asked multiple times and been ignored.
I've shown that a single unit fills a selection on the FOC. I've asked for, and never received, anything showing a Formation FOC that has Troops selections.
You keep referring to the FOC as the actual selection. This is incorrect. The detachment has the selection. The FOC is a collection of all the detachments.
No, if you're looking at the chart on page 108, the boxes are selections. That's what I'm saying.
Please, show me a FOC (that's the chart) that includes more than a single box for Formations. Show me the FOC for Formations. The actual chart. I've asked for it - repeatedly.
I've never been shown one.
We've reached an impasse. Rigeld will never be convinced until someone at GW makes a little line and block chart for every formation. The argument essentially comes down to those who think the specified composition in list format for each formation is the equivalent of an FOC because it outlines the compulsory and optional selections for each formation (Jughead, myself, hivefleet, etc.) and those who don't (liturgies, rigeld). No one is going to budge so lets just call it.
Yes, one side has quoted rules showing that selections matter and the other side is making assumptions and guessing at RAI.
Since the latter keeps claiming it's RAW despite being unable to show a rule allowing it...
Please, show me where units from a Formation are Troop, etc. *selections*. I've asked multiple times and been ignored.
I've shown that a single unit fills a selection on the FOC. I've asked for, and never received, anything showing a Formation FOC that has Troops selections.
You keep referring to the FOC as the actual selection. This is incorrect. The detachment has the selection. The FOC is a collection of all the detachments.
No, if you're looking at the chart on page 108, the boxes are selections. That's what I'm saying.
Please, show me a FOC (that's the chart) that includes more than a single box for Formations. Show me the FOC for Formations. The actual chart. I've asked for it - repeatedly.
I've never been shown one.
There is no Chart. The formation is preset. It tells you what you must bring to comply. If you have the Imperial Knight codex then you will notice that it to has a chart, but it is disregarded when making a IK Primary Detachment. There is no way for you to fill the HQ or TROOPS selection. The Knight has no Role and cannot be part of the selection.
PanzerLeader, you are correct. We should close it.
Please, show me where units from a Formation are Troop, etc. *selections*. I've asked multiple times and been ignored.
I've shown that a single unit fills a selection on the FOC. I've asked for, and never received, anything showing a Formation FOC that has Troops selections.
You keep referring to the FOC as the actual selection. This is incorrect. The detachment has the selection. The FOC is a collection of all the detachments.
No, if you're looking at the chart on page 108, the boxes are selections. That's what I'm saying.
Please, show me a FOC (that's the chart) that includes more than a single box for Formations. Show me the FOC for Formations. The actual chart. I've asked for it - repeatedly.
I've never been shown one.
There is no Chart. The formation is preset. It tells you what you must bring to comply. If you have the Imperial Knight codex then you will notice that it to has a chart, but it is disregarded when making a IK Primary Detachment. There is no way for you to fill the HQ or TROOPS selection. The Knight has no Role and cannot be part of the selection.
It's almost like Knights have an exception... that's specified in the rules... or something like that.
Bringing them up is a red herring.
The formation is preset and therefore there are no selections. No selections, no scoring. You know, exactly what I've been saying.
"The army list entries for each unit in the Formation (the units’ profiles, points values, unit types, unit composition, special rules, battlefield role etc.) can either be found in the codex corresponding to the Faction on the datasheet, or elsewhere in the dataslate itself."
Genestealers, Warriors, Termagants, Hormagaunts and Tervigons taken as Troops selections via The Scuttling Swarm are all definitely Troops selections in Faction Codex, therefore they are Troops selections in their Formations.
PrinceRaven wrote: "The army list entries for each unit in the Formation (the units’ profiles, points values, unit types, unit composition, special rules, battlefield role etc.) can either be found in the codex corresponding to the Faction on the datasheet, or elsewhere in the dataslate itself."
Genestealers, Warriors, Termagants, Hormagaunts and Tervigons taken as Troops choices via The Scuttling Swarm are all definitely Troops choices in Faction Codex, therefore they are Troops choices in their Formations.
False. On the FOC they do not take up a Troop selection, which (as I've quoted multiple times) is what's required to score.
It literally uses those words - "troop selection of the Force Organization chart". If you cannot prove that a Formation uses the troop selection of the FOC, you cannot prove that Formation units score.
Since you've failed to prove that a Formation uses the troop selection of the FOC, you've failed to prove that Formation units score.
The formation is preset and therefore there are no selections. No selections, no scoring. You know, exactly what I've been saying.
By what judgment do you draw that conclusion? That is completely false in my view.
It's almost like Knights have an exception... that's specified in the rules... or something like that.
Bringing them up is a red herring.
It is relevant. We are talking about Army composition.
It doesn't matter. Our group will continue with our interpretation and I know the major tournaments will have the POV that they are scoring and that Troop does equate to Troop. In the end thats all that matters.
The formation is preset and therefore there are no selections. No selections, no scoring. You know, exactly what I've been saying.
By what judgment do you draw that conclusion? That is completely false in my view.
Which conclusion?
You're not making selections - you're using a Formation detachment. There's no selections inside the detachment, just the Formation.
You must be a troop selection to score (absent other rules) - I've quoted that rule.
It's almost like Knights have an exception... that's specified in the rules... or something like that.
Bringing them up is a red herring.
It is relevant. We are talking about Army composition.
Right. And Knights have specific rules to deal with their composition and scoring. So why are they relevant here?
It doesn't matter. Our group will continue with our interpretation and I know the major tournaments will have the POV that they are scoring and that Troop does equate to Troop. In the end thats all that matters.
Yeah, discussing what the rules actually say in a forum dedicated to discussing what the rules say doesn't matter at all. Your house rules are all that matters.
PrinceRaven wrote: "The army list entries for each unit in the Formation (the units’ profiles, points values, unit types, unit composition, special rules, battlefield role etc.) can either be found in the codex corresponding to the Faction on the datasheet, or elsewhere in the dataslate itself."
Genestealers, Warriors, Termagants, Hormagaunts and Tervigons taken as Troops choices via The Scuttling Swarm are all definitely Troops choices in Faction Codex, therefore they are Troops choices in their Formations.
False. On the FOC they do not take up a Troop selection, which (as I've quoted multiple times) is what's required to score.
It literally uses those words - "troop selection of the Force Organization chart". If you cannot prove that a Formation uses the troop selection of the FOC, you cannot prove that Formation units score.
Since you've failed to prove that a Formation uses the troop selection of the FOC, you've failed to prove that Formation units score.
Do I have to take a picture of the Tyranid FOC pages to point out that they are, in fact, Troops selections of the FOC?
PrinceRaven wrote: "The army list entries for each unit in the Formation (the units’ profiles, points values, unit types, unit composition, special rules, battlefield role etc.) can either be found in the codex corresponding to the Faction on the datasheet, or elsewhere in the dataslate itself."
Genestealers, Warriors, Termagants, Hormagaunts and Tervigons taken as Troops choices via The Scuttling Swarm are all definitely Troops choices in Faction Codex, therefore they are Troops choices in their Formations.
False. On the FOC they do not take up a Troop selection, which (as I've quoted multiple times) is what's required to score.
It literally uses those words - "troop selection of the Force Organization chart". If you cannot prove that a Formation uses the troop selection of the FOC, you cannot prove that Formation units score.
Since you've failed to prove that a Formation uses the troop selection of the FOC, you've failed to prove that Formation units score.
Do I have to take a picture of the Tyranid FOC pages to point out that they are, in fact, Troops selections of the FOC?
No, but you should probably read pages 108 and 109 of the BRB. It might be educational.
The formation is preset and therefore there are no selections. No selections, no scoring. You know, exactly what I've been saying.
By what judgment do you draw that conclusion? That is completely false in my view.
Which conclusion?
You're not making selections - you're using a Formation detachment. There's no selections inside the detachment, just the Formation.
You must be a troop selection to score (absent other rules) - I've quoted that rule.
It's almost like Knights have an exception... that's specified in the rules... or something like that.
Bringing them up is a red herring.
It is relevant. We are talking about Army composition.
Right. And Knights have specific rules to deal with their composition and scoring. So why are they relevant here?
It doesn't matter. Our group will continue with our interpretation and I know the major tournaments will have the POV that they are scoring and that Troop does equate to Troop. In the end thats all that matters.
Yeah, discussing what the rules actually say in a forum dedicated to discussing what the rules say doesn't matter at all. Your house rules are all that matters.
No, just your wrong interpretation does not matter. Our group uses strict RAW.
Oh wow, it's an obsolete Force Org Chart, what am I supposed to learn?
The rules do not specify that the Troops have to be currently in a Troops slot of a Force Org Chart only that they are "troops selection[s] of the Force Organisation Chart".
rigeld2 wrote: and the other side is making assumptions and guessing at RAI.
Since the latter keeps claiming it's RAW despite being unable to show a rule allowing it...
One side is ignoring words that don't further their case, and repeating a catch-all rule against dataslates (see previous quote) that doesn't exist, the latter is looking at all the wording in context, including those of the dataslates in question. I don't see anyone arguing about RAI.
In any case it's good that the "non-scoring" group have finally stated their case as they see it, we have clarity as to what they're arguing, along the lines of a Troop is not a Troop if it's not selected.
rigeld2 wrote: and the other side is making assumptions and guessing at RAI. Since the latter keeps claiming it's RAW despite being unable to show a rule allowing it...
One side is ignoring words that don't further their case, and repeating a catch-all rule against dataslates (see previous quote) that doesn't exist, the latter is looking at all the wording in context, including those of the dataslates in question. I don't see anyone arguing about RAI.
In any case it's good that the "non-scoring" group have finally stated their case as they see it, we have clarity as to what they're arguing, along the lines of a Troop is not a Troop if it's not selected.
The underlined is false and a lie. I've corrected you once. The italicized is a simplification intended to draw ire. A unit that is not a troop selection does not score. End of line. Since, you know, that's what the rules say. I'd be happy to look at rules you have saying otherwise - you've yet to show any.
But rigeld you will allow helmeted marines to shoot, or rubrics or whatever that doesnt have clear and openly obvious eyes, tau battle suits etc etc, stop using very tired and pointless basis' for arguments
ausYenLoWang wrote: But rigeld you will allow helmeted marines to shoot, or rubrics or whatever that doesnt have clear and openly obvious eyes, tau battle suits etc etc, stop using very tired and pointless basis' for arguments
Unlike that situation, there's no obvious intent here.
And the person I quoted said he plays, and I quote "strict RAW". Hence the question.
ausYenLoWang wrote: But rigeld you will allow helmeted marines to shoot, or rubrics or whatever that doesnt have clear and openly obvious eyes, tau battle suits etc etc, stop using very tired and pointless basis' for arguments
Unlike that situation, there's no obvious intent here.
And the person I quoted said he plays, and I quote "strict RAW". Hence the question.
and your arguind the strict RAW as well, so if you will allow the above absurdity, then guess what, dont even bother with getting into that kind of argument, if you want to talk RAI, then guess what they are troops, troops score unless is says they dont, deal done end of discussion. and trying to rules lawyer in that monstrosity of a book is a bloody joke and that this has gone on for what 8 or 9 pages makes THAT clear...
the use of normally should have ended this as it CAN lie outside of what everyone wants, and seeing as no book was written with formations in mind LET ALONE the BRB that was out for what 7 months before the first appeared, forget it and get with the times.... IF that book was updated CONSTANTLY then youd have a chance in hell but RAW will not work with recent additions to the game that werent considered at its time of writing, and now in most cases RAI should be the basis for all of it as the rulebook is now outdated, and has features that would need to be errated in to allow for the special circumstances that arise, if not fall back on uncommon sense and deal with it as you SHOULD be, rather than half the rubbish in here of petulant whining from people who either want to break rules (that 2x coteaz argument was hilarious) or just flat twist the intent of the NEW rules for situations that arent word by word spelled out for you in the BRB...
ausYenLoWang wrote: But rigeld you will allow helmeted marines to shoot, or rubrics or whatever that doesnt have clear and openly obvious eyes, tau battle suits etc etc, stop using very tired and pointless basis' for arguments
Unlike that situation, there's no obvious intent here.
And the person I quoted said he plays, and I quote "strict RAW". Hence the question.
ausYenLoWang wrote: But rigeld you will allow helmeted marines to shoot, or rubrics or whatever that doesnt have clear and openly obvious eyes, tau battle suits etc etc, stop using very tired and pointless basis' for arguments
Unlike that situation, there's no obvious intent here.
And the person I quoted said he plays, and I quote "strict RAW". Hence the question.
and your arguind the strict RAW as well, so if you will allow the above absurdity, then guess what, dont even bother with getting into that kind of argument, if you want to talk RAI, then guess what they are troops, troops score unless is says they dont, deal done end of discussion. and trying to rules lawyer in that monstrosity of a book is a bloody joke and that this has gone on for what 8 or 9 pages makes THAT clear...
Do you have evidence for your assumption that's how the rules were intended to work? I don't think you can guarantee that.
ausYenLoWang wrote: But rigeld you will allow helmeted marines to shoot, or rubrics or whatever that doesnt have clear and openly obvious eyes, tau battle suits etc etc, stop using very tired and pointless basis' for arguments
Unlike that situation, there's no obvious intent here.
And the person I quoted said he plays, and I quote "strict RAW". Hence the question.
Now you being facetious in your reasoning.
No, I'm not being flippant at all.
It was a serious question in response to your statement. Because strict RAW, those units can't shoot.
ausYenLoWang wrote: But rigeld you will allow helmeted marines to shoot, or rubrics or whatever that doesnt have clear and openly obvious eyes, tau battle suits etc etc, stop using very tired and pointless basis' for arguments
Unlike that situation, there's no obvious intent here.
And the person I quoted said he plays, and I quote "strict RAW". Hence the question.
and your arguind the strict RAW as well, so if you will allow the above absurdity, then guess what, dont even bother with getting into that kind of argument, if you want to talk RAI, then guess what they are troops, troops score unless is says they dont, deal done end of discussion. and trying to rules lawyer in that monstrosity of a book is a bloody joke and that this has gone on for what 8 or 9 pages makes THAT clear...
Do you have evidence for your assumption that's how the rules were intended to work? I don't think you can guarantee that.
ausYenLoWang wrote: But rigeld you will allow helmeted marines to shoot, or rubrics or whatever that doesnt have clear and openly obvious eyes, tau battle suits etc etc, stop using very tired and pointless basis' for arguments
Unlike that situation, there's no obvious intent here.
And the person I quoted said he plays, and I quote "strict RAW". Hence the question.
Now you being facetious in your reasoning.
No, I'm not being flippant at all.
It was a serious question in response to your statement. Because strict RAW, those units can't shoot.
labeling them troops in dataslates would be the flat intent of troops, same as making those shiny HQ options well HQ rather than nothing... so yes GW labeling cultist in the CSM formation Troops would be the intent that they are Troops in your army, and troops score, unless specificlay saying they do not.
ausYenLoWang wrote: labeling them troops in dataslates would be the flat intent of troops, same as making those shiny HQ options well HQ rather than nothing... so yes GW labeling cultist in the CSM formation Troops would be the intent that they are Troops in your army, and troops score, unless specificlay saying they do not.
It couldn't be because they just copy/pasted from the codex entry and didn't want them to be scoring.. nah, that can't be it. GW never has lazy writers.
ausYenLoWang wrote: labeling them troops in dataslates would be the flat intent of troops, same as making those shiny HQ options well HQ rather than nothing... so yes GW labeling cultist in the CSM formation Troops would be the intent that they are Troops in your army, and troops score, unless specificlay saying they do not.
It couldn't be because they just copy/pasted from the codex entry and didn't want them to be scoring.. nah, that can't be it. GW never has lazy writers.
well thats too bad because IF that was the case then thats the situation as RAW as well as intent? they are written as troops, they are troops. thats all there is to it.
using this an the basis for an argument "gw is lazy" is a terrible argument.
i think good sir you just threw in your hat.
its a way to get extra troops. out side of FOC, and who takes the basic 6 slots full as it is?
TLDR, you concede they are written in as TROOPS, thus as troops, they score (unless saying otherwise) because no where in the rulebook has ANYONE shown that the ONLY source of scoring troops you have is the 6 Troop slots in your BASIC FOC, which has been expanded upon greatly since the BRB was written, and usued the word NORMALLY to allow for that there may be addendums to this at anytime that GW see fit and print where ever else they feel like?
ausYenLoWang wrote: labeling them troops in dataslates would be the flat intent of troops, same as making those shiny HQ options well HQ rather than nothing... so yes GW labeling cultist in the CSM formation Troops would be the intent that they are Troops in your army, and troops score, unless specificlay saying they do not.
It couldn't be because they just copy/pasted from the codex entry and didn't want them to be scoring.. nah, that can't be it. GW never has lazy writers.
well thats too bad because IF that was the case then thats the situation as RAW as well as intent?
What?
i think good sir you just threw in your hat.
Nope.
its a way to get extra troops. out side of FOC, and who takes the basic 6 slots full as it is?
I do quite often. 60 Termagants, 2 Tervigons, 2 units of Warriors.
And they're not outside the FOC - they're in a Formation detachment.
Read what i said again, there is an edit of a nice tldr for you.
and you may have run that in the 5th codex you never will in the 6th one.. unless its for "fun or fluffy" reasons
and the formation detachment contains troops as youv already conceded and just blamed on "lazness" its no where excludes getting scoring troops from anywhere BUT those 6 spots in your basic FOC, infact it goes so far as to say "normally" allowing a right thinking person to realise there is the chance for them to come from OTHER places in the future. which one is, oh wait... the Formations slot, and your allies slot, and everywhere else not in the basic FOC.
ausYenLoWang wrote: TLDR, you concede they are written in as TROOPS, thus as troops, they score (unless saying otherwise) because no where in the rulebook has ANYONE shown that the ONLY source of scoring troops you have is the 6 Troop slots in your BASIC FOC,
Actually, I have.
I have shown that scoring units come from troop selections (page 123). An exception to that would require a rule saying so - do you have one?
which has been expanded upon greatly since the BRB was written, and usued the word NORMALLY to allow for that there may be addendums to this at anytime that GW see fit and print where ever else they feel like?
Yes, GW can feel free to add new rules and change whatever rules they like. Have they added to this rule? Is there a rule allowing Formation troops to score? They're demonstrably not troop selections.
and this thread is settled?
It can only be "settled" if you're (incorrect) assumptions are validated? Is that how it works?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ausYenLoWang wrote: and you may have run that in the 5th codex you never will in the 6th one.. unless its for "fun or fluffy" reasons
I won't? I won a 1850 tournament with that setup a few weeks ago. I guess I'll go tell my opponents (which included 2 Eldar players) I lost.
and the formation detachment contains troops as youv already conceded and just blamed on "lazness" its no where excludes getting scoring troops from anywhere BUT those 6 spots in your basic FOC, infact it goes so far as to say "normally" allowing a right thinking person to realise there is the chance for them to come from OTHER places in the future. which one is, oh wait... the Formations slot, and your allies slot, and everywhere else not in the basic FOC.
Yes, there are places other than troop selections that can score.
For example, Heavy Support in BGNT. Fast Attack in The Scouring. Sterngard with Pedro. Trazyn.
All of those have rules specifying they score. Do Formation troops? Because Formation troops aren't troop selections - and unless you have a rule saying otherwise, you have to be a troop selection to score.
ausYenLoWang wrote: TLDR, you concede they are written in as TROOPS, thus as troops, they score (unless saying otherwise) because no where in the rulebook has ANYONE shown that the ONLY source of scoring troops you have is the 6 Troop slots in your BASIC FOC,
Actually, I have.
I have shown that scoring units come from troop selections (page 123). An exception to that would require a rule saying so - do you have one?
which has been expanded upon greatly since the BRB was written, and usued the word NORMALLY to allow for that there may be addendums to this at anytime that GW see fit and print where ever else they feel like?
Yes, GW can feel free to add new rules and change whatever rules they like. Have they added to this rule? Is there a rule allowing Formation troops to score? They're demonstrably not troop selections.
and this thread is settled?
It can only be "settled" if you're (incorrect) assumptions are validated? Is that how it works?
yes the exception to that is the use of normally, if they said ONLY FROM THEM then yes, but they say NORMALLY from there allowing for exceptions what they are saying. which in the case of troops, is by labeling them troops and ALL troops score unless it says not scoring. your trying to place an artificial restriction on where they come from, GW hasnt, as they said NORMALLY from there. because demonstrateably as you said lazily they are still labled troops which has guess what effect?
what you really want to say is that troops taken from formations cant score. rather than they arent troops, but once you conceed they are actually troops you will have conceded both points.
and you wont find in the BRB the option to even LET you field a formation... so how about just dissalow them because RAW they dont even appear in the rulebook, or is that absurd as well?
ausYenLoWang wrote: yes the exception to that is the use of normally, if they said ONLY FROM THEM then yes, but they say NORMALLY from there allowing for exceptions what they are saying. which in the case of troops, is by labeling them troops and ALL troops score unless it says not scoring. your trying to place an artificial restriction on where they come from, GW hasnt, as they said NORMALLY from there. because demonstrateably as you said lazily they are still labled troops which has guess what effect?
Right - they're normally form troop selections. Anywhere else needs a rule allowing them.
How about an example:
Carnifexes score in all missions. Prove they don't. Normally only troop selections do. But that doesn't exclude something that isn't a troop selection.
what you really want to say is that troops taken from formations cant score. rather than they arent troops, but once you conceed they are actually troops you will have conceded both points.
I never said they weren't troops. I said they weren't troop selections. It's an important distinction.
and you wont find in the BRB the option to even LET you field a formation... so how about just dissalow them because RAW they dont even appear in the rulebook, or is that absurd as well?
How about you address the arguments I'm making and not make up ridiculous statements?
Well if your looking for a rule in the BRB to say they are troops where does it say in the BRB you can have a formation? trick question though because we know it doesnt.
What the rule book says is models called Troops are scoring, unless stated otherwise.
where are you getting your distinction from that states ONLY troops in the basic FOC 6 slots are scoring? care to give me a link to that? again it doesnt say ONLY does it, it says NORMALLY, meaning there is exceptions. and in the case of those exceptions fall back on the Troops score.
Automatically Appended Next Post: and i know your falling back on saying because they are in a different slot and not in those ones that they dont count. but you cant show where it says ONLY those slots score. id love to see where ONLY those slots score actually
ausYenLoWang wrote: What the rule book says is models called Troops are scoring, unless stated otherwise.
Absolutely, 100% false.
It actually says, and I've quoted this at least twice before,
An army's scoring units are normally all the units that come from the troops selection of the Force Organisation chart
I underlined the word that you keep ignoring - it's a very important word.
where are you getting your distinction from that states ONLY troops in the basic FOC 6 slots are scoring? care to give me a link to that? again it doesnt say ONLY does it, it says NORMALLY, meaning there is exceptions. and in the case of those exceptions fall back on the Troops score.
Rules support for the underlined? Please cite some.
Exceptions require rules. Normally, models move 6". There are exceptions, but they're stated.
And it's not just the basic 6 troop selections. It's also your allies that can score with their troop selections.
Formation detachments don't have troop selections, however, and as such they can't score.
and i know your falling back on saying because they are in a different slot and not in those ones that they dont count. but you cant show where it says ONLY those slots score. id love to see where ONLY those slots score actually
So where's your argument for saying my Carnifexes can't score? Normally it's troop selections, but this non-troop selection can score. Prove it can't.
ausYenLoWang wrote: What the rule book says is models called Troops are scoring, unless stated otherwise.
Absolutely, 100% false.
It actually says, and I've quoted this at least twice before,
An army's scoring units are normally all the units that come from the troops selection of the Force Organisation chart
I underlined the word that you keep ignoring - it's a very important word.
where are you getting your distinction from that states ONLY troops in the basic FOC 6 slots are scoring? care to give me a link to that? again it doesnt say ONLY does it, it says NORMALLY, meaning there is exceptions. and in the case of those exceptions fall back on the Troops score.
Rules support for the underlined? Please cite some.
Exceptions require rules. Normally, models move 6". There are exceptions, but they're stated.
And it's not just the basic 6 troop selections. It's also your allies that can score with their troop selections.
Formation detachments don't have troop selections, however, and as such they can't score.
and i know your falling back on saying because they are in a different slot and not in those ones that they dont count. but you cant show where it says ONLY those slots score. id love to see where ONLY those slots score actually
So where's your argument for saying my Carnifexes can't score? Normally it's troop selections, but this non-troop selection can score. Prove it can't.
just Bolded the bit you seem to ignore quite happily it seems. that troops CAN come from any of the other locations in the expanded FOC is what they mean when they say Normally. that being based on mission type, other criteria, or as GW decided to see fit by labeling them troops, which again, you havent shown that ONLY troops selected as part of the basic FOC is the ONLY place you can get troops.
because carnifexs in that list arent troops are they? nope, youd like them to be, but are they in the list as troops, they have the OPTION to be when other criteria are met, whereas cultists HAVE to be troops, only role they can fill same as termagants, and any of those others you'd like to add to my list, that in the Formation they are defined as Troops.
did you show me where it says that troops outside that location cannot score? i know you havent as you are trying to leave 100% burden of proof on those trying to refute you.
using your example of a model that when you do other things CAN be taken as a troop, but withing your basic FOC you dont have the spaces available to make them troops do you? in the nid formation are the listed as Heavy support or troops? HS i believe, so again non scoring.
ausYenLoWang wrote: just Bolded the bit you seem to ignore quite happily it seems. that troops CAN come from any of the other locations in the expanded FOC is what they mean when they say Normally. that being based on mission type, other criteria, or as GW decided to see fit by labeling them troops, which again, you havent shown that ONLY troops selected as part of the basic FOC is the ONLY place you can get troops.
Actually, I have. It doesn't just say "normally troops" it says "normally troop selections". That's a word you're conveniently ignoring. Your argument requires that word to not be there - mine is perfectly fine with "normally" being there.
because carnifexs in that list arent troops are they? nope, youd like them to be, but are they in the list as troops, they have the OPTION to be when other criteria are met, whereas cultists HAVE to be troops, only role they can fill same as termagants, and any of those others you'd like to add to my list, that in the Formation they are defined as Troops.
But they are not troop selections when in a Formation. You're trying to make something that isn't a troop selection a scoring unit, and refusing to cite a rule allowing it. A Carnifex is something that isn't a troop selection that I'm trying to make a scoring unit, and refusing to cite a rule allowing it. Do you see the similarity?
did you show me where it says that troops outside that location cannot score? i know you havent as you are trying to leave 100% burden of proof on those trying to refute you.
I have. Formations do not contain troop selections.
using your example of a model that when you do other things CAN be taken as a troop, but withing your basic FOC you dont have the spaces available to make them troops do you? in the nid formation are the listed as Heavy support or troops? HS i believe, so again non scoring.
What? Can you explain this better? I'm not following your sentence structure.
and how is the rulebook defining selection is it ONLY those that go into those slots as a selection or im selecting a formation that contains troop selections?
and a carnifex is a HS choice?
being so when you complete other criteria it CAN be a troop, unlike say my cultists that HAVE to be troops.
if you took the nid formation are they HS or Troops? your carnifexes that is? im pretty sure its HS selections from your codex.
so we are down to everything is accepted EXCEPT GW's use of the word "selection" and i want you to prove that its:
"only models selected to go into the basic FOC that can be considered a selection" and not selected to be part of your army list and thus selected to be part of the expanded FOC, because they normally would be a troop selection that scores, would a cultist not?
ausYenLoWang wrote: and how is the rulebook defining selection is it ONLY those that go into those slots as a selection or im selecting a formation that contains troop selections?
I'm glad you asked!
One box on the chart allows you to make one selection from that part of your army list in the relevant codex.
So does a Formation have a chart with boxes allowing selections? (I already know the answer)
and a carnifex is a HS choice?
being so when you complete other criteria it CAN be a troop, unlike say my cultists that HAVE to be troops.
if you took the nid formation are they HS or Troops? your carnifexes that is? im pretty sure its HS selections from your codex.
No, if I took the Formation they aren't any kind of selection. If I take them from the codex they're a Heavy Support selection.
so we are down to everything is accepted EXCEPT GW's use of the word "selection" and i want you to prove that its:
"only models selected to go into the basic FOC that can be considered a selection" and not selected to be part of your army list and thus selected to be part of the expanded FOC, because they normally would be a troop selection that scores, would a cultist not?
As I've shown above, "selection" in the BRB is defined as something that takes up a square on the FOC. Since Formations do not have charts with boxes, nothing in them is a selection.
Formations dont need boxes as they make the Selection for you as to whats included and what slot they go, they even tell you by calling them Troops. so i dont need to make a selection beyond what GW call a pre determined selection of models.aka a formation. and that is a selection, by personal preference or not. they are still a selected part of the army.
also i dont think GW says that those charts with boxes aka FOC is the only way to select units. infact looking in my digital daemons codex it doesnt even HAVE a FOC listed in it, so does that mean using my codexs i cant make choices? no chart with boxes nothing at all like it infact. it does have an army list split into 6 sections and that it tells me that to their battlefield roles are defined by the section they come from being HQ, Troops, Dedicatated Trans, elites, FA, HS. outside of that... nothing. no pretty diagrams with boxes to define where they would go
ausYenLoWang wrote: Formations dont need boxes as they make the Selection for you as to whats included and what slot they go, they even tell you by calling them Troops. so i dont need to make a selection beyond what GW call a pre determined selection of models.aka a formation. and that is a selection, by personal preference or not. they are still a selected part of the army.
You do need boxes. Because boxes == selections, and troop selections are what scores.
The Formation fills a detachment, but that detachment is not in itself a troop selection.
also i dont think GW says that those charts with boxes aka FOC is the only way to select units. infact looking in my digital daemons codex it doesnt even HAVE a FOC listed in it, so does that mean using my codexs i cant make choices?
No - re-read what I quoted. You make choices from your codex to fill the boxes.
So if digital codex's do no longer include the written FOC when telling me to make these selections, but just uses sections to define what each model is. which strangely sets a precedent for how the Formations will be written. no chart putting models into boxes just told that THIS is a troop, THESE are HQ..
and not neccasarily GW in writing the formation SELECTED those models as troop, you dont need to make the choice. where does it say you personally need to select them?
ausYenLoWang wrote: So if digital codex's do no longer include the written FOC when telling me to make these selections, but just uses sections to define what each model is. which strangely sets a precedent for how the Formations will be written. no chart putting models into boxes just told that THIS is a troop, THESE are HQ..
... and the BRB has the chart and tells you how to build an army.
Or does your codex tell you how to build an army? Mine doesn't.
ausYenLoWang wrote: and not neccasarily GW in writing the formation SELECTED those models as troop, you dont need to make the choice. where does it say you personally need to select them?
One box on the chart allows you to make one selection from that part of your army list in the relevant codex.
Right there. Almost like I quoted that rule already. Almost.
ausYenLoWang wrote: So if digital codex's do no longer include the written FOC when telling me to make these selections, but just uses sections to define what each model is. which strangely sets a precedent for how the Formations will be written. no chart putting models into boxes just told that THIS is a troop, THESE are HQ..
... and the BRB has the chart and tells you how to build an army.
Or does your codex tell you how to build an army? Mine doesn't.
which DOESNT include formations. so how can you select a formation?
the way the digital items are written goes back to the codex's which dont use a chart, they tell you that model x is a troop.
GW selects the models in the formation, you select the formation, where is it stated that the PLAYER must select a model to go into those slots is the only way to get troops?
ausYenLoWang wrote: So if digital codex's do no longer include the written FOC when telling me to make these selections, but just uses sections to define what each model is. which strangely sets a precedent for how the Formations will be written. no chart putting models into boxes just told that THIS is a troop, THESE are HQ..
... and the BRB has the chart and tells you how to build an army.
Or does your codex tell you how to build an army? Mine doesn't.
which DOESNT include formations. so how can you select a formation?
The Formation tells you. Does the Formation say that it contains troop selections?
the way the digital items are written goes back to the codex's which dont use a chart, they tell you that model x is a troop.
Exactly. And the BRB tells you that units you select from those troops are troop selections (and fill boxes on the FOC). No boxes? Not a selection. You didn't select? Not a selection. Not a selection? Not scoring.
GW selects the models in the formation, you select the formation, where is it stated that the PLAYER must select a model to go into those slots is the only way to get troops?
I quoted and underlined it. Unless somehow you think "GW" and "you" are synonymous...
ausYenLoWang wrote: and not neccasarily GW in writing the formation SELECTED those models as troop, you dont need to make the choice. where does it say you personally need to select them?
One box on the chart allows you to make one selection from that part of your army list in the relevant codex.
Right there. Almost like I quoted that rule already. Almost.
and where was it in the rule book that YOU MUST be the only one to make that selection? what if its predetermined? and the selection of the formation is the selection you need to make to select them as troops? because your Selecting them.
ok so we are at the point that there must be a box for a selection? show me the box that allows formations? or LOW? neither is in the BRB? your just told they exist right, and in the formation it labels them as troops does it not?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: Old ones used to include the chart. Not that it was any different than the one in the rulebook, it was just for clarification.
and the rulebook now would need more boxes in it for further clarifaction? as none of the new releases are in there?
ausYenLoWang wrote: and where was it in the rule book that YOU MUST be the only one to make that selection? what if its predetermined? and the selection of the formation is the selection you need to make to select them as troops? because your Selecting them.
I'm not sure how you're misreading the word "you" to mean something other than ... well... you.
If it's predetermined then you didn't select that unit.
Selecting a Formation is not the same as selecting a unit. A Formation is another detachment (read the Formation rules in the dataslate, or earlier in the thread where they're quoted). Selecting a Formation is analogous to selecting an ally.
ok so we are at the point that there must be a box for a selection? show me the box that allows formations? or LOW? neither is in the BRB? your just told they exist right, and in the formation it labels them as troops does it not?
No - there's no box on the FOC that allows Formations. Read the Formation rules in the dataslate.
Escalation specifically modifies the FOC.
The Formation does no such thing. It doesn't have boxes to fill with a selection, it just is a detachment you can opt to take.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Is a troops choice. A bit different, as in, I can take crisis suits a troops with FE, those taken as troops are not elites.
and choice (to be chosen) being another way of saying selection?
Not really. It mean you can take them as a choice in the FOC the classification just being which slot you can put them in. A troop is something taken in the troops slot. This just pure RAW, so I don't expect anyone to play this way though.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Is a troops choice. A bit different, as in, I can take crisis suits a troops with FE, those taken as troops are not elites.
and choice (to be chosen) being another way of saying selection?
Not really. It mean you can take them as a choice in the FOC the classification just being which slot you can put them in. A troop is something taken in the troops slot. This just pure RAW, so I don't expect anyone to play this way though.
Plausible. Meanwhile, the dataslates also state that units in formation perform exactly as those in the main codex, ie "chosen" from the troops selection including battlefield role.
No, I'm not being flippant at all.
It was a serious question in response to your statement. Because strict RAW, those units can't shoot.
Your statement was flippant. You brought that strawman into the argument to discredit me thus discrediting my thoughts. You knew exactly what I meant reading "Strict RAW".
Selecting a Formation is not the same as selecting a unit. A Formation is another detachment (read the Formation rules in the dataslate, or earlier in the thread where they're quoted). Selecting a Formation is analogous to selecting an ally.
...And what does a Detachment consists of? A predetermined selection of units that have a defined role.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:Plausible. Meanwhile, the dataslates also state that units in formation perform exactly as those in the main codex, ie "chosen" from the troops selection including battlefield role.
Citation needed for the underlined. You keep saying that but refuse to cite rules supporting it. The rules you've quoted say literally nothing about the FOC or selections.
thejughead wrote:
No, I'm not being flippant at all.
It was a serious question in response to your statement. Because strict RAW, those units can't shoot.
Your statement was flippant. You brought that strawman into the argument to discredit me thus discrediting my thoughts. You knew exactly what I meant reading "Strict RAW".
No, I didn't. That's why I asked the question. You know - attempting to get information - the reason behind any question?
Again - you're reading too much inflection. Which is interesting as you're the one accusing me of that earlier.
Selecting a Formation is not the same as selecting a unit. A Formation is another detachment (read the Formation rules in the dataslate, or earlier in the thread where they're quoted). Selecting a Formation is analogous to selecting an ally.
...And what does a Detachment consists of? A predetermined selection of units that have a defined role.
Really? Can you show me that definition? I'd love to see it.
An Allied detachment is not a predetermined selection of units. Neither is a Lord of War detachment or a Fortification detachment. Nor a Primary detachment.
And a predetermined selection is not filling FOC boxes (selections) with Troops, and therefore...
And I'd love to see a rules quote saying a Formation detachment is a predetermined selection of units.
Again, you have no tone in your post, but why bring up a strawman like that without a purpose.
Because I asked a question? And it's not a strawman - I didn't say you were arguing that, I simply asked a question based on your statement of "strict RAW".
Again you knew exactly what I meant by "Strict RAW".
The rule which you keep referring to and as everyone else has alluded to uses the word "Normally". You fault GW for not being airtight, but they had the foresight to include that word so its customers could enjoy bringing an army that includes all detachments with its specified roles. A troop is a troop unless it specifically says it cannot score.
thejughead wrote: Again you knew exactly what I meant by "Strict RAW".
No, I didn't. And still don't. Hence the question.
The rule which you keep referring to and as everyone else has alluded to uses the word "Normally". You fault GW for not being airtight, but they had the foresight to include that word so its customers could enjoy bringing an army that includes all detachments with its specified roles. A troop is a troop unless it specifically says it cannot score.
A troop selection is a troop selection is a scoring unit.
Units that aren't troop selections need a rule to allow them to score. That's the actual, strict RAW.
A troop selection is a troop selection is a scoring unit.
Units that aren't troop selections need a rule to allow them to score. That's the actual, strict RAW.
A troop selection is a troop selection is a scoring unit.
Units that aren't troop selections need a rule to allow them to score. That's the actual, strict RAW.
Nope, that's just your interpretation of it.
Really? Did you miss the rule that I've quoted 3 times now?
Or do you want to talk about how Venomthropes are scoring units now?
Or do you want to talk about how Venomthropes are scoring units now?
Again another Strawman.
No it's not. I'll demonstrate.
Termagants in a Formation detachment are not troop selections. Your assertion is that they can score anyway due to the word "normally".
Venomthropes in a Primary detachment are not troop selections. My assertion is that they can score anyway due to the word "normally".
Your next response will be to ask for a rule allowing Venomthropes in a Primary detachment to score. But you refuse to provide me with one saying Termagants in a Formation detachment can score.
Termagants in a Formation detachment are not troop selections. Your assertion is that they can score anyway due to the word "normally".
Venomthropes in a Primary detachment are not troop selections. My assertion is that they can score anyway due to the word "normally".
Your next response will be to ask for a rule allowing Venomthropes in a Primary detachment to score. But you refuse to provide me with one saying Termagants in a Formation detachment can score.
Do you truly not see the hypocrisy?
Please re-read the context in which they are using the word "normally". It pertains to the FOC and its selection. The dataslate tells you to use the unit entries and everything that comes with it from the codex, including it's placement in the FOC selection. There is no need to debate anymore. We know and now understand your reasoning and disagree with you.
Termagants in a Formation detachment are not troop selections. Your assertion is that they can score anyway due to the word "normally".
Venomthropes in a Primary detachment are not troop selections. My assertion is that they can score anyway due to the word "normally".
Your next response will be to ask for a rule allowing Venomthropes in a Primary detachment to score. But you refuse to provide me with one saying Termagants in a Formation detachment can score.
Do you truly not see the hypocrisy?
Please re-read the context in which they are using the word "normally". It pertains to the FOC and its selection. The dataslate tells you to use the unit entries and everything that comes with it from the codex, including it's placement in the FOC selection. There is no need to debate anymore. We know and now understand your reasoning and disagree with you.
Actually - it doesn't say the underlined.
And yes - if you can't recognize your hypocrisy there's no need to debate. Next time, please back up your statements with actual rules instead of assumptions.
And yes - if you can't recognize your hypocrisy there's no need to debate. Next time, please back up your statements with actual rules instead of assumptions.
You continue to break the tenets of Dakka decorum. Calling people liars and hypocrite breaks discourse. Next time a little civility and understanding on your part could go a long way.
And yes - if you can't recognize your hypocrisy there's no need to debate. Next time, please back up your statements with actual rules instead of assumptions.
You continue to break the tenets of Dakka decorum. Calling people liars and hypocrite breaks discourse. Next time a little civility and understanding on your part could go a long way.
Well, when people literally lie and are hypocrits (and I've proven such) I will state such.
If you feel I've gone beyond where I should please click the triangle of happiness.
And yes - if you can't recognize your hypocrisy there's no need to debate. Next time, please back up your statements with actual rules instead of assumptions.
You continue to break the tenets of Dakka decorum. Calling people liars and hypocrite breaks discourse. Next time a little civility and understanding on your part could go a long way.
Well, when people literally lie and are hypocrits (and I've proven such) I will state such.
If you feel I've gone beyond where I should please click the triangle of happiness.
The only thing you have proven here is that you lack any civil restraint when debating or having a discussion.
Termagants in a Formation detachment are not troop selections. Your assertion is that they can score anyway due to the word "normally".
Venomthropes in a Primary detachment are not troop selections. My assertion is that they can score anyway due to the word "normally".
Do you truly not see the hypocrisy?
Really, what a silly argument.
Venomthropes aren't listed as troops with the proviso that they perform the same battlefield role as troops in the main codes. Perform the same role.
Instead of repeating the same silly comparisons, quote a rule that explains how perform the same battlefield role doesn't mean performs the same battlefield role.
Well, when people literally lie and are hypocrits (and I've proven such) I will state such.
Stretching the rules to try to prove your point is one thing. But leave out the personal abuse, please, all it does is provide more evidence that a poster is losing the argument.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: Instead of repeating the same silly comparisons, quote a rule that explains how perform the same battlefield role doesn't mean performs the same battlefield role.
Please, prove to me that "performs the same battlefield role" equates to "troop selection". I've asked for that before and never been supplied with that reasoning.
And it'd be doubly great if you could define - using rules - what "battlefield role" is, considering those two words literally never appear in the BRB together.
rigeld2 wrote: Well, when people literally lie and are hypocrits (and I've proven such) I will state such.
Stretching the rules to try prove you;re right is one thing. But leave out the personal abuse, please.
Stating facts != personal abuse.
Also, pot, kettle, etc.
Kommissar Kel wrote: I am not sure if this has been pointed out yet, but tempestus militarum has the "Battlefield roll" as part of their unit descriptions.
It would be interesting to see, in a few days, if the Codex: Space Army lists the same thing on the unit entry description page.
I know that C: Eldar states in the Army List that everything is placed into a section (HQ, Troops, etc) depending upon their role on the battlefield.
That said, battlefield role has nothing to do with whether or not a unit is an HQ selection, Troops selection, etc.
Is there any rules that say that a formation has units in a state they would "normally" be in?
If find it quite odd that the word normally is being used here as the normal FOC is clearly shown in the brb. We have a rule adding in an additional part to it (ie. beyond the norm) but people seem intent to argue that A is B without any support.
liturgies of blood wrote: Is there any rules that say that a formation has units in a state they would "normally" be in?
If find it quite odd that the word normally is being used here as the normal FOC is clearly shown in the brb. We have a rule adding in an additional part to it (ie. beyond the norm) but people seem intent to argue that A is B without any support.
Normally explains there are exceptions and then lists some, but not all of the exceptions.
What does it matter if the reasons are non exhaustive? You still haven't shown how the units would fulfil the basic requirement to be scoring in the first place.
Normally actually refers to the general state of affairs of how a unit is scoring... listing a few exceptions to why troops may not be scoring doesn't make any unit scoring unless it fulfils the basic criteria. The basic criteria is being a troops selection.
So again.
Unit is selected as a troop choice? => yes
Unit has any reason excluding it from scoring? => no
Ergo unit scores.
A unit in a formation still hasn't fulfilled the first question as no troop choice was made or filled.
read through my discussion on the matter, it came down to needing a pretty diagram with a cool box to be valid. so if your dataslates dont draw a FOC with boxes its invalid.
ironically, in escalation that adds a LOW slot but no where ever is there a formation slot diagramattically added to the FOC, so formations are illegal if we want to play direct RAW.. so forget it, reasonable minded people will state that something labled troops is troops and then scores, because there is no where saying troops in any location other than the 6 boxes score, infact as we know they CAN come from other locations...
With the presence of the battlefield role in the formations the writers probably think it's clear. It is in big letters bold, seperated, and other than to distinguish the function of the unit it's not needed at all, almost like they were trying to make a point.. I for one would be unaware readers would split hairs over the word 'selection', as it took dakka a few times pouring over and splitting down exact wording. Just having a role and being a selection is not something that is defined well as meaning different things. You could just as easily go…
Normally troops selection, what is a troops selection?
Force organization troops.
What are troops in formations?
Force organization troops.
It says from the selection, not that they have to have been selected from the force org chart. The selection for that area is Force Org (Or battlefield role... they interchange these) : Troops.
liturgies of blood wrote: What does it matter if the reasons are non exhaustive? You still haven't shown how the units would fulfil the basic requirement to be scoring in the first place.
Normally actually refers to the general state of affairs of how a unit is scoring... listing a few exceptions to why troops may not be scoring doesn't make any unit scoring unless it fulfils the basic criteria. The basic criteria is being a troops selection.
Whty waste space just repeating an argument? And if you're saying there's only one key qualification, the word you are searching for is "criterion".
It is obvious that some people are adding an extreme interpretation of the word "selection"; we know this as the same assertions have been repeated several times along with all the personal abuse. At the same time some choose to maintain that the dataslate troops occupying the same 'Battlefield role" is meaningless - when it manifestly isn't.
In the tyranid codex, for example, the explanation of the army lists states that a model is placed in a category "depending upon their role in the battlefield" (p92). In the BRB is is stated that the main role of troops is to hold objectives. In the dataslate into, as quoted before, it is stated that the formation troops perform exactly the same battlefield role as those in the main codex. The formation troops are scoring according to the rules.
PrinceRaven wrote: So what does "TROOPS" in big bold letters mean if not that it's a Troops choice?
It means that you can take the units listed under that heading as a Troops choice in the FOC.
Being able to take something as a Troops choice in the FOC does not automatically make it a Troops selection. It must fill a Troops slot. Or specifically be told that it can score.
What focussing on the word selection in that way does...
-Formation Troops can not score normally.
-In Big gun, Formation Heavy Support can score as this does not include the word 'selection' in the big guns rules.
liturgies of blood wrote: What does it matter if the reasons are non exhaustive? You still haven't shown how the units would fulfil the basic requirement to be scoring in the first place.
Normally actually refers to the general state of affairs of how a unit is scoring... listing a few exceptions to why troops may not be scoring doesn't make any unit scoring unless it fulfils the basic criteria. The basic criteria is being a troops selection.
Whty waste space just repeating an argument? And if you're saying there's only one key qualification, the word you are searching for is "criterion".
It is obvious that some people are adding an extreme interpretation of the word "selection"; we know this as the same assertions have been repeated several times along with all the personal abuse. At the same time some choose to maintain that the dataslate troops occupying the same 'Battlefield role" is meaningless - when it manifestly isn't.
In the tyranid codex, for example, the explanation of the army lists states that a model is placed in a category "depending upon their role in the battlefield" (p92). In the BRB is is stated that the main role of troops is to hold objectives. In the dataslate into, as quoted before, it is stated that the formation troops perform exactly the same battlefield role as those in the main codex. The formation troops are scoring according to the rules.
So have you any substantive or are you going to play silly buggers with my misuse of one word when you can't even spell "Why"?
It's not selection I'm taking an stance on, it's troops selection as in taking up a troops slot on the foc. That thing that gives permission to be scoring.
Is battlefield roll the same as roll? Is that actually rules or is it some vague thing that was not written clearly and could mean anything to anyone? Battlefield roll if it means anything is just as you say a way to categorise the units, that doesn't mean that troop slots only go to units from the troop category because there are many examples of it. Being in a category isn't the criterion for being scoring. Again this is a case of if A then B, therefore if B then A a logical fallacy .
I'm glad you've continued to say that these units score because you say so but I'd just like a quote to back it up as a formation exists outside the normal FOC slots and we only know how units can be scoring "normally".
Nem. It's not the focus on the word selection that we're going on about. If you are not in a HS slot(even one that doesn't take up space on the foc similar to certain HQ selections) then you are not HS.
It's not selection I'm taking an stance on, it's troops selection as in taking up a troops slot on the foc.
Formation units plainly take up a troops slot (as shown by the large but still often overlooked heading "Troops") within the formation - which is a special form of detachment, on the FoC. Scoring can't fail by this argument.... the argument is, rather, that the word "selection" means that you have to pick your troops from a selection, rather than having a compulsory choice (within the formation). But I believe that this is focusing on wording which isn't relevant, while ignoring the stated battleflied role, as quoted within the codex and dataslate.
Oblivion that's not how I read it at all.
A troops selection is a unit I picked to take up a troops slot. That's it.
If a selection is a unit from the list of troops (units with that "battlefield role") then tervigons can't be scoring if they take up a troops slot.
liturgies of blood wrote: Oblivion that's not how I read it at all.
A troops selection is a unit I picked to take up a troops slot. That's it.
If a selection is a unit from the list of troops (units with that "battlefield role") then tervigons can't be scoring if they take up a troops slot.
liturgies of blood wrote: Nem. It's not the focus on the word selection that we're going on about. If you are not in a HS slot(even one that doesn't take up space on the foc similar to certain HQ selections) then you are not HS.
108, under force org;
As detailed in each armies codex, all the forces you can use are categorized to tell you something about the role they are meant to play in the army. These roles are HQ, troops, elites, fast attack and heavy support
Emphasis mine, the next page of the BRB lists the exception to these which are dedicated transports and fortifications.
These 'Force org' and 'Roles' are at points in the BRB are also referred to as 'Battlefield roles' this is confusing, and the wording is very inconsistent between the three throughout (like somebody couldn't make their mind up) but they are all essentially the same thing.
Dedicated transports are an interesting one for this discussion because the BRB specifically says they sit outside the force organizational structure (different term for either 'Force Organization', or 'FOC', again - this section or the BRB is completely riddled with multiple terminology) but count as the same section of the FOC as the unit which bought them - however this means they still are not a selection as your describing, this area in particular conflicts the idea that Troops are only Troops when selected. If you must be selected to be in a role then DT's are never troops, HS etc.
Problem with this being is the quote above is very all encompassing; all the forces you can use. If it’s not one of the exceptions, and is not categorized, it's not something you can use.
Another issue is that as spawned units, or units which arrive on the board in such a way are never selected. These would then need specific permission to be allowed score, there have been a few examples around on different threads but the crux is spawned units act as a normal codex unit, as do formation units.
liturgies of blood wrote: If a selection is a unit from the list of troops (units with that "battlefield role") then tervigons can't be scoring if they take up a troops slot.
The Scuttling Swarm rule explicitly states that they become Troops.
Nem wrote: These 'Force org' and 'Roles' are at points in the BRB are also referred to as 'Battlefield roles' this is confusing, and the wording is very inconsistent between the three throughout (like somebody couldn't make their mind up) but they are all essentially the same thing.
The bolded is false. Please quote one time, ever, in the BRB where the words "battlefield role" occur together. Page number and quote the sentence please.
Another issue is that as spawned units, or units which arrive on the board in such a way are never selected. These would then need specific permission to be allowed score, there have been a few examples around on different threads but the crux is spawned units act as a normal codex unit, as do formation units.
The actual rules for a Tervigon at least do use the word "selected" so... non issue.
The Portalglyph rules do not use the word selected, so they wouldn't score.
What I'm getting is that some people assume that all Troops are always scoring unless told otherwise - which isn't what the rules actually say. Since I'm discussing rules here I'd rather go with what the rules actually say than what someone assumes or thinks is intended.
I've asked for evidence. No one has ever provided it. I've explained why that evidence is needed. I've been mocked in return. I've been told that reasonable people see it the other way - which isn't actually using rules to discuss the issue.
RAI - I think the Portalglyph Troops should be allowed to score, but I don't think the Dataslates are as clear cut.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: It is obvious that some people are adding an extreme interpretation of the word "selection"; we know this as the same assertions have been repeated several times along with all the personal abuse. At the same time some choose to maintain that the dataslate troops occupying the same 'Battlefield role" is meaningless - when it manifestly isn't.
There has been no personal abuse.
Manifestly isn't? Please explain that. Have you been able to define it using rules yet? I've asked you to before and you apparently declined (or I missed the post where you did). If you addressed that, I apologize - would you mind providing a link?
In the tyranid codex, for example, the explanation of the army lists states that a model is placed in a category "depending upon their role in the battlefield" (p92). In the BRB is is stated that the main role of troops is to hold objectives. In the dataslate into, as quoted before, it is stated that the formation troops perform exactly the same battlefield role as those in the main codex. The formation troops are scoring according to the rules.
This is what's called a logical leap. You're taking 3 things that are tangentially related and assuming that they all enable each other to work the way you want. The problem with that is there's no actual rule saying that.
You're making an assumption that's what is meant. RAW, you're incorrect. RAI, you might be. I'm explicitly not discussing RAI here. I don't care about that at all. I'm discussing what the rules actually say.
rigeld is correct in that the words "battlefield role" aren't used in the BRB, they prefer the terms "tactical role" and "role they are meant to play in the army" when discussing whether a unit is HQ, Troops, etc.
PrinceRaven wrote: So what does "TROOPS" in big bold letters mean if not that it's a Troops choice?
It means that you can take the units listed under that heading as a Troops choice in the FOC.
Being able to take something as a Troops choice in the FOC does not automatically make it a Troops selection. It must fill a Troops slot. Or specifically be told that it can score.
Ok, so why include that information in the formation if the part of the FOC dealing with formations doesn't have pretty boxes? Perhaps its to tell you that they are Troops choices.
PrinceRaven wrote: rigeld is correct in that the words "battlefield role" aren't used in the BRB, they prefer the terms "tactical role" and "role they are meant to play in the army" when discussing whether a unit is HQ, Troops, etc.
"tactical role" appears exactly one time in the BRB - in a fluffy section talking about Troops. So again - rules definition please?
Ok, so why include that information in the formation if the FOC form formations doesn't have pretty boxes? Perhaps its to tell you that they are Troops choices.
So you're arguing Intent now?
Or perhaps it's because they copy/pasted the entry from the Codex.
Its these types of comments that can be construed as personal. They are snarky at best.
Given that you have brought the "Eyes" discussion regarding troops earlier, if current RAW allows models without eyes to see then its safe to assume Troops = Troops and they are scoring no matter where they come from (unless their specific rules state otherwise). If there are allowances in RAW I don't see why an extreme (IMO) view has to prevail.
Its these types of comments that can be construed as personal. They are snarky at best.
Thanks for calling me out but ignoring the snark I've received back throughout the entire thread.
Given that you have brought the "Eyes" discussion regarding troops earlier, if current RAW allows models without eyes to see then its safe to assume Troops = Troops and they are scoring no matter where they come from (unless their specific rules state otherwise). If there are allowances in RAW I don't see why an extreme (IMO) view has to prevail.
No, it's not safe to assume that at all.
For certain units to function at all (Wraithknights/lords/guard) they have to be able to see (to shoot and assault). Their rules literally fail to function otherwise. In this specific case it's blatantly obvious to anyone that all models are supposed to be able to shoot their weapons.
There are no rules that literally fail to function with regard to Formations. They may not be as brain-dead auto-take, but that's not a rules issue.
The fact that you're equating the two issues shows me you're not really familiar with how GW rules are structured. There are many rules that - as written - literally fail to function. These are also the ones (usually) with obvious intent. The intent on Formation scoring is far less than "obvious".
The fact that you're equating the two issues shows me you're not really familiar with how GW rules are structured. There are many rules that - as written - literally fail to function. These are also the ones (usually) with obvious intent. The intent on Formation scoring is far less than "obvious".
This is false. Page 108 describes their role. It is obvious troops score, that is their main function. If not we would never take them.
The fact that you're equating the two issues shows me you're not really familiar with how GW rules are structured. There are many rules that - as written - literally fail to function. These are also the ones (usually) with obvious intent. The intent on Formation scoring is far less than "obvious".
This is false. Page 108 describes their role. It is obvious troops score, they have no other function. If not we would never take them.
No other function? Cool, so they don't have guns. They can't perform in CC - auto losing every fight and falling back.
Can't move either - blocking isn't a function.
Never take troops? It's like you don't even play the game.
...
This is what's called a logical leap. You're taking 3 things that are tangentially related and assuming that they all enable each other to work the way you want. The problem with that is there's no actual rule saying that... You're making an assumption that's what is meant. RAW, you're incorrect. RAI, you might be. I'm explicitly not discussing RAI here. I don't care about that at all. I'm discussing what the rules actually say.
You're stating that I'm making assumptions so the rules will work "the way I want." I think that's the problem with this debate. Personally I don't want, I don't run dataslate genestealers and have no intention to.
The rules are made up of words. Your case is that Battlield role (etc) is vague and doesn't mean anything. Again, that's an assumption. BRB uses the word tactical referring to troops, something like... "their tactical role is defending objectives" IIRC, while the codex uses the words "role on the battlefield" regarding the troops selections, while the datslate shortens it to battlefield role. One can't simply discount those phrases because they don't appeal, or likewise ignore the fact that a formaiton is a type of detachment, complete with troops.
It is fine to say that something is a straw man, a mistake, a fallacy etc. Maybe parliamentary language is different in the US but in the British isles it is cool to say that something is a lie but not that someone is a liar.
I have not questioned anyone's intent just their arguments. This is a debate and IMHO questioning someone's argument and reasoning is the way it's done.
Saying you are making a logical leap is no more insulting than having a quote prove you wrong. If anyone believes that then discussion forums may not be for them.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: OK, let;s all agree that words like "Liars and hypocrits" have no place here.
I disagree - I think lies and hypocrisy have no place here. I define a lie as something that is stated when a person knows for a fact it's incorrect. I would define a hypocrite as someone who applies the same rules different in the same situation. You can tell me if your views differ on that.
rigeld2 wrote: This is what's called a logical leap. You're taking 3 things that are tangentially related and assuming that they all enable each other to work the way you want. The problem with that is there's no actual rule saying that... You're making an assumption that's what is meant. RAW, you're incorrect. RAI, you might be. I'm explicitly not discussing RAI here. I don't care about that at all. I'm discussing what the rules actually say.
You're stating that I'm making assumptions so the rules will work "the way I want." I think that's the problem with this debate. Personally I don't want, I don't run dataslate genestealers and have no intention to.
You do realize this isn't limited to just Genestealers, right? Regardless, I don't see any other reason to make the leaps you are.
The rules are made up of words. Your case is that Battlield role (etc) is vague and doesn't mean anything. Again, that's an assumption.
Really? So you've finally found something that defines it? Or are you linking it to another definition based on an assumption stil?
BRB uses the word tactical referring to troops, something like... "their tactical role is defending objectives"
In a fluff section, yes.
IIRC, while the codex uses the words "role on the battlefield" regarding the troops selections
You used the word selection here where you shouldn't have - it's incorrect. It uses the words "role on the battlefield" regarding the category the unit is placed in. Since a selection is a defined thing in the BRB, using it to describe something other than that is incorrect.
while the datslate shortens it to battlefield role. One can't simply discount those phrases because they don't appeal, or likewise ignore the fact that a formaiton is a type of detachment, complete with troops.
Words mean things. Words in rules definitely mean things. Troop units != troop selections. You've utterly failed to prove that the equality exists and you're making assumptions and incorrect statements to make the leap that they do.
In reference to spawned termigants this was never answered.
Abandon wrote: If a unit is scoring because it's 'identical to a unit chosen from the Troops section of the army list' then a unit actually chosen from the troop section of the army list must be scoring.
Your literally saying that something identical to X is scoring while X is not scoring.
Termigants in a formation are termigants chosen from the troops section of the army list.
Spawned termigants are identical to termigants chosen from the troops section of the army list.
Oh. it's like their the same... identical...
I'd also like to point out that units in a formation are purchased from the codex and the only way to purchase units from the codex is to use the FOC. Also there is no requirement for a scoring unit to 'occupy a troops slot', it actually says they must be 'from the troops selection of the FOC'. All units purchased from the codex are from the FOC as that it the only way to purchase them. Currently taking up a slot in the FOC is not the same thing and the two should not be equated.
Each codex states that all of the units in their army fall into one of the categories listed. Termagants in a Formation are Troops, by both codex, and formation listing. The claim that Troops are not Troops is getting too silly to argue.
Fragile wrote: Each codex states that all of the units in their army fall into one of the categories listed. Termagants in a Formation are Troops, by both codex, and formation listing. The claim that Troops are not Troops is getting too silly to argue.
Which nobody is arguing. The argument is whether or not Troop models from a Formation are troops selections of the Force Organisation chart.
One side says no, as they do not fill a Troops slots (which Rigeld showed equates to being a Troops selection), while the other side says yes because the army list says they are Troops and their battlefield role is to hold objectives.
Fragile wrote: Each codex states that all of the units in their army fall into one of the categories listed. Termagants in a Formation are Troops, by both codex, and formation listing. The claim that Troops are not Troops is getting too silly to argue.
It's a good thing that's not the argument then, right?
Would you mind reading the thread and responding to the actual argument instead of making something up?
I have made nothing up. Units are either Troops, FA, Elites.. etc. based on where they are listed in the army list. The troops section are generally scoring. A unit in a formation is a troop by both codex rule and formation rule.
Fragile wrote: I have made nothing up. Units are either Troops, FA, Elites.. etc. based on where they are listed in the army list. The troops section are generally scoring. A unit in a formation is a troop by both codex rule and formation rule.
False. Troop selections are normally scoring. Again, words matter.
Cite a rule that says Formation troops are troop selections. You'd be the first.
The debate has come down to whether Troops taken from a non-primary detachment are scoring correct? Or more specifically, only Troops taken as Troop selections from the primary detachment are scoring.
Why don't we take a look at another form of detachment that has Troops- Allies. Allies are a secondary detachment that uses HQs, Troops, Elites, Fast Attack, and Heavies just as formation detachments. If you look on page 112 of the BRB you'll find different levels of alliance- Battle Brothers, Allies of Convenience, and Desperate Allies. No where on this page does it say Troops from the secondary detachment score, but it does say where they do not. Desperate Allies.The text itself- "Furthermore, if your primary detachment is in a desperate alliance, units from that allied detachment are non-scoring, non-denial units." This seems to imply that Troops outside of the primary detachment, or Troops that are not selections of the primary detachment can score without mentioning any text mentioning that they do so.
ausYenLoWang wrote: What the rule book says is models called Troops are scoring, unless stated otherwise.
Absolutely, 100% false.
It actually says, and I've quoted this at least twice before,
An army's scoring units are normally all the units that come from the troops selection of the Force Organisation chart
I underlined the word that you keep ignoring - it's a very important word.
"An army's scoring units are normally all the units that come from the troops selection of the Force Organisation chart"
To meet these qualifications a unit must be taken from the 'troops selection'. This does not mean they must currently exist there. Units in formations are purchased the same way as primary units are, from the FOC in the codex. There's no other way to purchase them. Then placing them in a formation does not change where they are from, it only makes them not take up a selection, it does not mean they are not from one.
Also the troops(plural) selection(singular) means it's referring to a singular or general selection with several troop options. This cannot refer to the specific troops occupying the FOC as that would have to be expressed as 'troop selections'. Given the words they use and the correct meaning given their order and tense it seems clear to me that it only matters in which part of the FOC they originate, not where they end up and that the 'troops selection' refers to a singular but wide category of possible troop selections available on the FOC as opposed to a single specific selection that would leave you with only one scoring unit.
Sinful Hero wrote: The debate has come down to whether Troops taken from a non-primary detachment are scoring correct? Or more specifically, only Troops taken as Troop selections from the primary detachment are scoring.
Why don't we take a look at another form of detachment that has Troops- Allies. Allies are a secondary detachment that uses HQs, Troops, Elites, Fast Attack, and Heavies just as formation detachments. If you look on page 112 of the BRB you'll find different levels of alliance- Battle Brothers, Allies of Convenience, and Desperate Allies. No where on this page does it say Troops from the secondary detachment score, but it does say where they do not. Desperate Allies.The text itself- "Furthermore, if your primary detachment is in a desperate alliance, units from that allied detachment are non-scoring, non-denial units." This seems to imply that Troops outside of the primary detachment, or Troops that are not selections of the primary detachment can score without mentioning any text mentioning that they do so.
Furthermore, dataslates specifically mention that Levels of Alliance apply to formations (wording quoted earlier); the main levels of alliance variables apply to whether a unit is scoring. This indicates that Formation troops score, just as Battle Brothers troops score - and remember, there isn't specific wording in the BRB saying BB troops score, only that Desperate Allies don't.
ausYenLoWang wrote: What the rule book says is models called Troops are scoring, unless stated otherwise.
Absolutely, 100% false.
It actually says, and I've quoted this at least twice before,
An army's scoring units are normally all the units that come from the troops selection of the Force Organisation chart
I underlined the word that you keep ignoring - it's a very important word.
"An army's scoring units are normally all the units that come from the troops selection of the Force Organisation chart"
To meet these qualifications a unit must be taken from the 'troops selection'. This does not mean they must currently exist there. Units in formations are purchased the same way as primary units are, from the FOC in the codex. There's no other way to purchase them. Then placing them in a formation does not change where they are from, it only makes them not take up a selection, it does not mean they are not from one.
Also the troops(plural) selection(singular) means it's referring to a singular or general selection with several troop options. This cannot refer to the specific troops occupying the FOC as that would have to be expressed as 'troop selections'. Given the words they use and the correct meaning given their order and tense it seems clear to me that it only matters in which part of the FOC they originate, not where they end up and that the 'troops selection' refers to a singular but wide category of possible troop selections available on the FOC as opposed to a single specific selection that would leave you with only one scoring unit.
Abandon, the rule you quoted yourself says "troops selection of the Force Organisation Chart." Not troops selections from the Army List.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: OK, let;s all agree that words like "Liars and hypocrits" have no place here.
I disagree - I think lies and hypocrisy have no place here. I define a lie as something that is stated when a person knows for a fact it's incorrect. I would define a hypocrite as someone who applies the same rules different in the same situation. You can tell me if your views differ on that.
So, here we an argument that relies on accusing those who disagree of being "liars and hypocrits [sic]" . And this argument is supposed to be consistent with Tenet #1 (criticise the opinion, not the poster").
Tells you all you need to know about the entire train of self-selecting, "logic", really.
Sinful Hero wrote: The debate has come down to whether Troops taken from a non-primary detachment are scoring correct? Or more specifically, only Troops taken as Troop selections from the primary detachment are scoring.
No.
Only troops that are troop selections, from any detachment, are scoring. I've never limited my argument to the primary detachment.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: OK, let;s all agree that words like "Liars and hypocrits" have no place here.
I disagree - I think lies and hypocrisy have no place here. I define a lie as something that is stated when a person knows for a fact it's incorrect. I would define a hypocrite as someone who applies the same rules different in the same situation. You can tell me if your views differ on that.
So, here we an argument that relies on accusing those who disagree of being "liars and hypocrits [sic]" . And this argument is supposed to be consistent with Tenet #1 (criticise the opinion, not the poster").
Tells you all you need to know about the entire train of self-selecting, "logic", really.
No. People are free to disagree with me. People are not free to lie about what I've said or about what the rules say.
I'll note, again, you've declined to actually address the rules based argument here.
Sinful Hero wrote: The debate has come down to whether Troops taken from a non-primary detachment are scoring correct? Or more specifically, only Troops taken as Troop selections from the primary detachment are scoring.
No.
Only troops that are troop selections, from any detachment, are scoring. I've never limited my argument to the primary detachment.
Yet, as stated countless times before, the troops within the detachment have been selected; the selection has been made for you, as part of a preset configuration, but they're selected nonetheless.
rigeld2 wrote: IPeople are free to disagree with me. People are not free to lie about what I've said or about what the rules say.
Always nice to see a rules discussion which doesn't descend to melodrama or hysteria.
Sinful Hero wrote: The debate has come down to whether Troops taken from a non-primary detachment are scoring correct? Or more specifically, only Troops taken as Troop selections from the primary detachment are scoring.
No.
Only troops that are troop selections, from any detachment, are scoring. I've never limited my argument to the primary detachment.
Yet, as stated countless times before, the troops within the detachment have been selected; the selection has been made for you, as part of a preset configuration, but they're selected nonetheless.
And that selection fills a (edit) troop box on the FOC? Since, you know, that's what the rules require. As stated countless times before.
If you say it does - perhaps you'd like to support that statement with a rule? That'd be great. Thanks!
rigeld2 wrote: [And that selection fills a (edit) troop box on the FOC? Since, you know, that's what the rules require. As stated countless times before.
If you say it does - perhaps you'd like to support that statement with a rule? That'd be great. Thanks!
That's what you claim the rules require, surely it's obvious by now that not everyone shares your particular interpretation of the rules in question.
thejughead wrote:Abandon did but you have chosen not to address his post.
I have him on ignore so because, in another thread a while ago, he chose to insult me instead of honestly discuss things.
PrinceRaven wrote:
rigeld2 wrote: [And that selection fills a (edit) troop box on the FOC? Since, you know, that's what the rules require. As stated countless times before.
If you say it does - perhaps you'd like to support that statement with a rule? That'd be great. Thanks!
That's what you claim the rules require, surely it's obvious by now that not everyone shares your particular interpretation of the rules in question.
I've quoted them. Repeatedly. It's not a claim - it's in blatant black and white. If it wasn't, I'd by lying and someone would have quoted the actual rule by now.
So no rules support then? Seems like a theme...
You think the rule means that the unit has to be currently in a Troops section of the FOC, others think it means they have to come from the Troops section of the FOC, there really isn't a way to resolve that through strict RAW, it's just different interpretations.
PrinceRaven wrote: You think the rule means that the unit has to be currently in a Troops section of the FOC, others think it means they have to come from the Troops section of the FOC, there really isn't a way to resolve that through strict RAW, it's just different interpretations.
Yeahexceptno.
An army's scoring units are normally all the units that come from the troops selection of the Force Organisation chart
That's what the rule says. Agreed? (I hope so because that's literally word for word)
So how do we define "the troops selection of the Force Organization chart"?
One box on the chart allows you to make one selection from that part of your army list in the relevant codex.
So one box == one selection. Agreed? (I hope so because that's literally what that rule says).
So troops selections of the Force Organization chart are literally the units you selected from your army list to fill the troop boxes on the FOC. Agreed?
If you disagree, please cite rules support instead of calling this an "interpretation". Or point out where I've made a leap that is incorrect. Do somethingusing rules to disprove my argument rather than just saying "not RAWlol".
Have you found troop boxes for your Formation yet? I've asked for them to be shown, repeatedly.
PrinceRaven wrote: You think the rule means that the unit has to be currently in a Troops section of the FOC, others think it means they have to come from the Troops section of the FOC, there really isn't a way to resolve that through strict RAW, it's just different interpretations.
Yeahexceptno.
An army's scoring units are normally all the units that come from the troops selection of the Force Organisation chart
That's what the rule says. Agreed? (I hope so because that's literally word for word)
So how do we define "the troops selection of the Force Organization chart"?
One box on the chart allows you to make one selection from that part of your army list in the relevant codex.
So one box == one selection. Agreed? (I hope so because that's literally what that rule says).
So troops selections of the Force Organization chart are literally the units you selected from your army list to fill the troop boxes on the FOC. Agreed?
If you disagree, please cite rules support instead of calling this an "interpretation". Or point out where I've made a leap that is incorrect. Do somethingusing rules to disprove my argument rather than just saying "not RAWlol".
Have you found troop boxes for your Formation yet? I've asked for them to be shown, repeatedly.
Chart: (noun) a sheet of information in the form of a table, graph, or diagram
Table: (noun) a set of facts or figures systematically displayed, esp. in columns
The BRB shows the force organization chart for primary, allied and fortification detachments in diagram format. Each formation shows its respective FOC in table format (more specifically, a table with one column and multiple rows). Show a rule that says the FOC must be in diagram format.
PanzerLeader wrote: The BRB shows the force organization chart for primary, allied and fortification detachments in diagram format. Each formation shows its respective FOC in table format (more specifically, a table with one column and multiple rows). Show a rule that says the FOC must be in diagram format.
There isn't one.
But the rule literally says "One box on the chart allows you to make one selection from that part of your army list in the relevant codex. "
If you have no boxes on the chart you can make no selections (because you don't have allowance to).
If you're making no selections, you can't make troop selections. And since it's troop selections that score...
We don't need a rule to show that. The FOC is shown as is on page 109. To use something else is either shorthand or another method of rendering those boxes, how you draw it doesn't matter it still is.
Drawing chemicals in Fischer projection is no less validthan any otother because you still have to obey thesame basic rrules and in this case rigeld had shown them clearly.
PanzerLeader wrote: The BRB shows the force organization chart for primary, allied and fortification detachments in diagram format. Each formation shows its respective FOC in table format (more specifically, a table with one column and multiple rows). Show a rule that says the FOC must be in diagram format.
There isn't one.
But the rule literally says "One box on the chart allows you to make one selection from that part of your army list in the relevant codex. "
If you have no boxes on the chart you can make no selections (because you don't have allowance to).
If you're making no selections, you can't make troop selections. And since it's troop selections that score...
Except all that was written prior to formation detachments in the context of a specific diagram. The formation detachment has a defined force organization chart (in table, rather than diagram format) and defined compulsory and optional selections on a per detachment basis. You must take two compulsory troops selections in a primary detachment. You must take five compulsory troop selections in the formation that started this thread. To use either detachment without the required troops selections would be illegal. Just because GW changed how they formatted force organization charts between sources (i.e. diagram versus table) without updating the BRB doesn't mean we should ignore all available sources of RAW and context (time and language) when interpreting RAW.
PanzerLeader wrote: The BRB shows the force organization chart for primary, allied and fortification detachments in diagram format. Each formation shows its respective FOC in table format (more specifically, a table with one column and multiple rows). Show a rule that says the FOC must be in diagram format.
There isn't one.
But the rule literally says "One box on the chart allows you to make one selection from that part of your army list in the relevant codex. "
If you have no boxes on the chart you can make no selections (because you don't have allowance to).
If you're making no selections, you can't make troop selections. And since it's troop selections that score...
Except all that was written prior to formation detachments in the context of a specific diagram. The formation detachment has a defined force organization chart (in table, rather than diagram format) and defined compulsory and optional selections on a per detachment basis. You must take two compulsory troops selections in a primary detachment. You must take five compulsory troop selections in the formation that started this thread. To use either detachment without the required troops selections would be illegal. Just because GW changed how they formatted force organization charts between sources (i.e. diagram versus table) without updating the BRB doesn't mean we should ignore all available sources of RAW and context (time and language) when interpretingRAW.
Yeah, we should just make rules up when we think the ones that are written are incorrect.
You're arguing RAI - I underlined why I'm saying that. I'm arguing the words that are written. Thank you for admitting you have no RAW basis for your argument and that you're making assumptions.
Could you show something solid that we can gleam the correct context and intent from this?
That sounds like an admission that this is a RAI argument Panzer. Which is fine, sometimes the rules are not written right but you have shown no evidence that there are troop selections within the formation.
I personally doubt that GW will be abandoning the FOC as a diagram as it's been a solid part of the army structure since 3rd ed at least.It also makes it easy for children, their key market, to understand.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Conjured units can never score (page 68) reminds us of that fact and refers to page 123.
So we actually need permission for a unit to score despite their battlefield roll, where they are in the army list or anything else.
PanzerLeader wrote: The BRB shows the force organization chart for primary, allied and fortification detachments in diagram format. Each formation shows its respective FOC in table format (more specifically, a table with one column and multiple rows). Show a rule that says the FOC must be in diagram format.
There isn't one.
But the rule literally says "One box on the chart allows you to make one selection from that part of your army list in the relevant codex. "
If you have no boxes on the chart you can make no selections (because you don't have allowance to).
If you're making no selections, you can't make troop selections. And since it's troop selections that score...
Except all that was written prior to formation detachments in the context of a specific diagram. The formation detachment has a defined force organization chart (in table, rather than diagram format) and defined compulsory and optional selections on a per detachment basis. You must take two compulsory troops selections in a primary detachment. You must take five compulsory troop selections in the formation that started this thread. To use either detachment without the required troops selections would be illegal. Just because GW changed how they formatted force organization charts between sources (i.e. diagram versus table) without updating the BRB doesn't mean we should ignore all available sources of RAW and context (time and language) when interpretingRAW.
Yeah, we should just make rules up when we think the ones that are written are incorrect.
You're arguing RAI - I underlined why I'm saying that. I'm arguing the words that are written. Thank you for admitting you have no RAW basis for your argument and that you're making assumptions.
Just like you are making an assumption that the FOC must always be depicted as a diagram. I've shown that a "chart" can be a diagram, graph or table and I have shown how GW has used both a diagram and a table to depict the FOC using two different sources of RAW: the BRB (diagram) and the data sheets themselves (table). My argument has a very sound RAW basis. You are not willing to admit that your fundamental assumption is that chart must always equal diagram and that that logic is rooted solely in a single source of RAW.
Panzer it doesn't have to be depicted as a diagram but that's the only way the rules depict it. So without permission to be anything else it is a diagram. Please cite permission to be otherwise? Saying this formation contains 2 termagant and a tervigon unit doesn't mean 3 troops or 2 troops and a HQ without something saying that they are troops.
liturgies of blood wrote: Panzer it doesn't have to be depicted as a diagram but that's the only way the rules depict it. So without permission to be anything else it is a diagram. Please cite permission to be otherwise? Saying this formation contains 2 termagant and a tervigon unit doesn't mean 3 troops or 2 troops and a HQ without something saying that they are troops.
The BRB uses the word "chart" and depicts it as a diagram. The formation data sheets use the word "chart" and then depict it as a table. Isn't the formation data sheet a source of RAW as well? It certainly looks like GW has depicted the FOC in two different ways in two sources of rules. Your second example is slightly misleading: the BRBFOC doesn't tell you what is or is not a troops choice-you must rely on the army list for that. The FOC merely limits the number of selections you may make from the army list for any given category.
Even if a list is used the list you've hung your argument on doesn't list those units as troops.
Now for the really imporant part, the FOC selections (slots or whatever you want to call them) of a formation are not mentioned once.
That it consists of the units is still not enough to state that they are a selection of a given type on the FOC other than being a formation consisting of those units.
I know it's really hard to understand this point (as we've gone 9 pages) but can you see how a detachment that has NO choices in it and consists of units that have no defined selection might be considered beyond what "normally" happens and why they might not be scoring?
Sinful Hero wrote: The debate has come down to whether Troops taken from a non-primary detachment are scoring correct? Or more specifically, only Troops taken as Troop selections from the primary detachment are scoring.
No.
Only troops that are troop selections, from any detachment, are scoring. I've never limited my argument to the primary detachment.
Or do you want to talk about how Venomthropes are scoring units now?
Again another Strawman.
No it's not. I'll demonstrate.
Termagants in a Formation detachment are not troop selections. Your assertion is that they can score anyway due to the word "normally".
Venomthropes in a Primary detachment are not troop selections. My assertion is that they can score anyway due to the word "normally".
Your next response will be to ask for a rule allowing Venomthropes in a Primary detachment to score. But you refuse to provide me with one saying Termagants in a Formation detachment can score.
Do you truly not see the hypocrisy?
But I believe you have. Emphasis mine.
rigeld2 wrote:
thejughead wrote:Abandon did but you have chosen not to address his post.
I have him on ignore so because, in another thread a while ago, he chose to insult me instead of honestly discuss things..
I feel his argument deserves a rebuttal, so feel free to address me.
"An army's scoring units are normally all the units that come from the troops selection of the Force Organisation chart"
To meet these qualifications a unit must be taken from the 'troops selection'. This does not mean they must currently exist there. Units in formations are purchased the same way as primary units are, from the FOC in the codex. There's no other way to purchase them. Then placing them in a formation does not change where they are from, it only makes them not take up a selection, it does not mean they are not from one.
Also the troops(plural) selection(singular) means it's referring to a singular or general selection with several troop options. This cannot refer to the specific troops occupying the FOC as that would have to be expressed as 'troop selections'. Given the words they use and the correct meaning given their order and tense it seems clear to me that it only matters in which part of the FOC they originate, not where they end up and that the 'troops selection' refers to a singular but wide category of possible troop selections available on the FOC as opposed to a single specific selection that would leave you with only one scoring unit.
liturgies of blood wrote: Even if a list is used the list you've hung your argument on doesn't list those units as troops.
Now for the really imporant part, the FOC selections (slots or whatever you want to call them) of a formation are not mentioned once.
That it consists of the units is still not enough to state that they are a selection of a given type on the FOC other than being a formation consisting of those units.
I know it's really hard to understand this point (as we've gone 9 pages) but can you see how a detachment that has NO choices in it and consists of units that have no defined selection might be considered beyond what "normally" happens and why they might not be scoring?
Actually, it would appear that Formations DO allow choices. Let's take a look.
Spoiler:
"All XV88 Broadside must have three models excluding drones."
It would appear that you can add more models to the Team, or you can choose to add more models.
liturgies of blood wrote: Even if a list is used the list you've hung your argument on doesn't list those units as troops.
Now for the really imporant part, the FOC selections (slots or whatever you want to call them) of a formation are not mentioned once.
That it consists of the units is still not enough to state that they are a selection of a given type on the FOC other than being a formation consisting of those units.
I know it's really hard to understand this point (as we've gone 9 pages) but can you see how a detachment that has NO choices in it and consists of units that have no defined selection might be considered beyond what "normally" happens and why they might not be scoring?
Just like its really hard for you to understand the counterpoint of "the formation does have choices in it-they are all compulsory."
How do you select troops in a primary detachment? You look in the army list section of the codex at all possible choices. You select one of them, equip as you like and annotate it on your army list. You have now filled your first compulsory selection. You repeat this cycle for the second troops choice and your compulsory HQ. Having now met the minimum requirements, you may continue to select units from the army list section constrained only by the cap on optional selections (0-1 HQ, 0-4 Troops, 0-3 Heavy, 0-3 Fast Attack, 0-3 Elites) and the points value agreed upon for the game.
How do you select troops in a formation detachment? You look at the formation's force organization chart (given to you in table format). Based on the table, you consult the army list and purchase the required units in the required quantities. Just like with a primary detachment, the army list tells you the initial categorization of every unit (HQ, Troop, Elite, Fast, Heavy). The only difference is that in a formation detachment, every selection is compulsory and you have no optional selections like you do with a primary and allied detachment.
liturgies of blood wrote: You seem to be seeing unit choices where there are none. We are talking about which units and where they go, not what the units contain.
Ah, well then. Perhaps be a little more specific next time.
Apocaypse Formations have quite a few choices generally.
Carnival of Pain
Urien Rakarth or Ancient Haemonculus
0+ Haemonculus
0+ 3 Grotesque units
0+ Wrack units
3+ pain engines
As you can see, formations do occasionally have more than one unit option.
Eh, you know I never knew there was such a thing as a compulsory choice...
I know how FOCs work "normally" and the formation tells you it is a self contained detachment but not what slots if any are in there. You are wrong, you don't take units in this case you take a formation containing units completely different to all the other detachments.
You have just said that it is identical except its completely different.
So can you show that the contents list is a FOC as you say?
Ok so sometimes there are choices in Apoc formations. That is a different game so I don't care atm.
liturgies of blood wrote: Eh, you know I never knew there was such a thing as a compulsory choice...
I know how FOCs work "normally" and the formation tells you it is a self contained detachment but not what slots if any are in there. You are wrong, you don't take units in this case you take a formation containing units completely different to all the other detachments.
You have just said that it is identical except its completely different.
So can you show that the contents list is a FOC as you say?
Ok so sometimes there are choices in Apoc formations. That is a different game so I don't care atm.
They are still formation detachments, and it's all 40k. Apocalypse just uses much larger formations. Point and unit-wise.
Sinful Hero wrote: The debate has come down to whether Troops taken from a non-primary detachment are scoring correct? Or more specifically, only Troops taken as Troop selections from the primary detachment are scoring.
No. Only troops that are troop selections, from any detachment, are scoring. I've never limited my argument to the primary detachment.
Or do you want to talk about how Venomthropes are scoring units now?
Again another Strawman.
No it's not. I'll demonstrate.
Termagants in a Formation detachment are not troop selections. Your assertion is that they can score anyway due to the word "normally". Venomthropes in a Primary detachment are not troop selections. My assertion is that they can score anyway due to the word "normally".
Your next response will be to ask for a rule allowing Venomthropes in a Primary detachment to score. But you refuse to provide me with one saying Termagants in a Formation detachment can score.
Do you truly not see the hypocrisy?
But I believe you have. Emphasis mine.
Read the context of that comment. I used the Primary Detachment because there may be a way in a Formation to take them otherwise. It wasn't limiting the argument to Troops in a Primary detachment (indeed - the Venomtrope isn't a troop at all). In fact, remove the words "in a Primary Detachment" from that sentence completely. It changes literally nothing about my point or my argument.
You believe incorrectly. Please drop the strawman.
"An army's scoring units are normally all the units that come from the troops selection of the Force Organisation chart"
To meet these qualifications a unit must be taken from the 'troops selection'. This does not mean they must currently exist there. Units in formations are purchased the same way as primary units are, from the FOC in the codex. There's no other way to purchase them. Then placing them in a formation does not change where they are from, it only makes them not take up a selection, it does not mean they are not from one.
The underlined statement is incorrect. Units in a Formation detachment are not selected to fill boxes on the FOC. There's the primary and most relevant difference.
Also the troops(plural) selection(singular) means it's referring to a singular or general selection with several troop options. This cannot refer to the specific troops occupying the FOC as that would have to be expressed as 'troop selections'. Given the words they use and the correct meaning given their order and tense it seems clear to me that it only matters in which part of the FOC they originate, not where they end up and that the 'troops selection' refers to a singular but wide category of possible troop selections available on the FOC as opposed to a single specific selection that would leave you with only one scoring unit.
Incorrect. The section of the Army List is named "Troops". So to be consistent they have to use Troops as a title (why they don't consistently capitalize it I'm not sure). And, as I've demonstrated multiple times, "selection" is equated to a box on the FOC. Not some generic use of the word "selection".
Actually, it would appear that Formations DO allow choices. Let's take a look.
Spoiler:
"All XV88 Broadside must have three models excluding drones." It would appear that you can add more models to the Team, or you can choose to add more models.
But you're not choosing to add units. Which was his point, of course. And even if you choose units, they're not units that fill a box on the FOC unless you can find a Formation FOC that has boxes.
liturgies of blood wrote: Eh, you know I never knew there was such a thing as a compulsory choice...
I know how FOCs work "normally" and the formation tells you it is a self contained detachment but not what slots if any are in there. You are wrong, you don't take units in this case you take a formation containing units completely different to all the other detachments.
You have just said that it is identical except its completely different.
So can you show that the contents list is a FOC as you say?
Ok so sometimes there are choices in Apoc formations. That is a different game so I don't care atm.
BRB defines choices on the FOC as "compulsory" and "optional."
Also, there are non-APOC formations with choices. The Tyrannic War Veterans formations requires Cassius, 1+ Tyrannic War Veterans and 0-6 Stormtalons.
I also disagree with your assessment: the formation as a whole is clearly a detachment. All detachments consists of units. The only difference is that formations are much more prescriptive on the types and numbers of units you may select than all other detachments.
liturgies of blood wrote: You seem to be seeing unit choices where there are none. We are talking about which units and where they go, not what the units contain.
Ah, well then. Perhaps be a little more specific next time.
Apocaypse Formations have quite a few choices generally.
Carnival of Pain
Urien Rakarth or Ancient Haemonculus
0+ Haemonculus
0+ 3 Grotesque units
0+ Wrack units
3+ pain engines
As you can see, formations do occasionally have more than one unit option.
Actually, it would appear that Formations DO allow choices. Let's take a look.
Spoiler:
"All XV88 Broadside must have three models excluding drones."
It would appear that you can add more models to the Team, or you can choose to add more models.
But you're not choosing to add units. Which was his point, of course. And even if you choose units, they're not units that fill a box on the FOC unless you can find a Formation FOC that has boxes.
You know. Pesky rules and all.
Apocalypse Formations, another form of Formation Detachments, have plenty of boxes to fill.
I don't think anyone is arguing that formations are not detachments consisting of units... in fact I'm positive the issue is that these formation detachments are not the norm at all and don't have those all important slots that decide what you count as in the FOC.
They don't fulfil page 123's criteria for being scoring.
So far all I've seen is that the formation detachments are a hole you throw units into without any guidance on if they are in a slot or not. If they did show some sort of guidance you could answer clearly if a tervigon in the incubator node was a troop or HQ selection.
Nope the BRB says that 1 HQ and 2 troop slots are compulsory, they are still choices as you can CHOOSE what units to put in there. Still good try on saying a choice isn't a choice. You still have yet to show that a formation contains one troops selection.
liturgies of blood wrote: I don't think anyone is arguing that formations are not detachments consisting of units... in fact I'm positive the issue is that these formation detachments are not the norm at all and don't have those all important slots that decide what you count as in the FOC.
They don't fulfil page 123's criteria for being scoring.
So far all I've seen is that the formation detachments are a hole you throw units into without any guidance on if they are in a slot or not. If they did show some sort of guidance you could answer clearly if a tervigon in the incubator node was a troop or HQ selection.
Nope the BRB says that 1 HQ and 2 troop slots are compulsory, they are still choices as you can CHOOSE what units to put in there. Still good try on saying a choice isn't a choice. You still have yet to show that a formation contains one troops selection.
Formations do not have an over-arching FOC, because it varies by formation.
Formation Rules-
FORMATIONS
A Formation presents a collection of two or more units that fight alongside one another in a
particular way. When you choose an army, you can take a Formation as a special form of
Detachment. Unless otherwise stated, you can take any number of Formations in your army,
and each is considered to be a completely separate Detachment, regardless of how many units
make it up.
Each Formation will tell you what units you need to take and what, if any, options or
restrictions apply to the units that make up that Formation. The Army List Entries for each
unit in the Formation (the units’ profiles, points values, unit types, unit composition, special
rules, battlefield role etc.) can either be found in the codex corresponding to the Faction on
the datasheet, or elsewhere in the dataslate itself.
Note this-
ALLIED FORMATIONS
Formations do not count as your army’s Allied Detachment, even if they are made up of units
from a different codex to your Primary Detachment, and they do not stop you from taking an
Allied Detachment in the same army. However, the Levels of Alliance rules from the
Warhammer 40,000 rulebook do apply to them and units chosen from a different codex that
are in the same army.
For example, if you included an Ork Formation in the same army as a Primary Detachment
from Codex: Space Marines, then the units from the two Detachments would treat each other
as desperate allies. However, the Ork Formation would not stop you taking an Allied
Detachment in the same army.
Are not a restriction for Desperate Allies that Troops aren't scoring? So if you took a Battle Brother detachment, are not Battle Brother's troops scoring?
If I take a Dark Eldar primary detachment, and a Eldar formation, I count the formation as Battle Brothers. Troops would score in the detachment.
If I take a Dark Eldar primary detachment, and a Tau formation, I treat the formation as Desperate Allies. Troops would not score.
You're making an If A then B, hence if B then A fallacy there with the battle brothers argument.
Formations do have an over arching FOC, it's called the FOC. Formations are part of the FOC.
The restrictions that you have bolded are the ones in the formation rules. There are other restrcitions that apply because the formation rules do not exist in a vacuum. That they change from formation to formation isn't an argument for why they don't have to follow the rules of page 123. Detachments are different all the time but they still function according to the rules of the game.
That they don't list slots is the VERY THING we are arguing about. So thanks you for your admission that formations do not grant the ability for genestealers etc to score.
liturgies of blood wrote: You're making an If A then B, hence if B then A fallacy there with the battle brothers argument.
Formations do have an over arching FOC, it's called the FOC. Formations are part of the FOC.
The restrictions that you have bolded are the ones in the formation rules. There are other restrcitions that apply because the formation rules do not exist in a vacuum.
That they don't list slots is the VERY THING we are arguing about. So thanks you for your admission that formations do not grant the ability for genestealers etc to score.
No, you treat Formation exactly as if they were an allied detachment.
However, the Levels of Alliance rules from the
Warhammer 40,000 rulebook do apply to them and units chosen from a different codex that
are in the same army.
It only lists when units do not score in alliances, not when they do. To restrict them from scoring, would mean that they have to score.
You can't restrict it from doing something that it wouldn't do in the first place.
No you don't treat it like an allied detachment specifically as you don't have the mandatory 1 troop, 1 HQ slots and a limit on the number of HS, FA etc slots you can take. The formation rules even say that it is not an allied detachment because an allied detachment is a very specific thing in the FOC.
The alliance rules have nothing to do with this argument. That is obeys the same rules for being battle brothers etc is not supporting any arguments.
Page 123 lists exactly when units score and a non-exhaustive list of reasons why a unit may not score. There are other reasons why a unit may not score specific rules or effects can cause it too. Not being a troops selection means you don't meet the first requirement to be scoring. You are actually wrong on this aspect of the rules.
liturgies of blood wrote: No you don't treat it like an allied detachment specifically as you don't have the mandatory 1 troop, 1 HQ slots and a limit on the number of HS, FA etc slots you can take.
The alliance rules have nothing to do with this argument.
Page 123 lists exactly when units score and a non-exhaustive list of reasons why a unit may score. You are actually wrong on this aspect of the rules.
The formation rules defining how formations act have nothing to do with this argument? It specifically says you treat it as you would an allied detachment. Or the levels of alliance rules from the BRB apply to them. I'll repost this.
ALLIED FORMATIONS
Formations do not count as your army’s Allied Detachment, even if they are made up of units
from a different codex to your Primary Detachment, and they do not stop you from taking an
Allied Detachment in the same army. However, the Levels of Alliance rules from the
Warhammer 40,000 rulebook do apply to them and units chosen from a different codex that
are in the same army.
For example, if you included an Ork Formation in the same army as a Primary Detachment
from Codex: Space Marines, then the units from the two Detachments would treat each other
as desperate allies. However, the Ork Formation would not stop you taking an Allied
Detachment in the same army.
Battle Brother allies score. Desperate Allies do not. A detachment of Battle Brothers score. A detachment of Desperate Allies do not.
liturgies of blood wrote: No. Battle brother allied units only score if they meet the requirements for scoring. Those are on page 123. I have told you this twice now.
That the levels of alliance apply to them is irrelevant to the question of is the unit in a troops slot or not.
So my allied Eldar detachment to my Dark Eldar are not scoring, even though they're Battle Brothers? The rules on allies never specify when they score(found on pg. 112 of the BRB), only when they do not. It would seem that the design team seems to put more weight on normally in this sentence on page. 123- "An army's scoring units are normally all the units that come from the troops selection of the Force Organization chart".
Page 112 of the BRB has no mention of when allies score, only when they do not. You might call it an exception such as the ones on page 123. Troops in an allied Formation score, except when in Desperate Alliance.
Sinful Hero wrote: Page 112 of the BRB has no mention of when allies score, only when they do not. You might call it an exception such as the ones on page 123. Troops in an allied Formation score, except when in Desperate Alliance.
Yes. It's almost as if page 112 has extra restrictions to page 123's non-exhaustive list of reasons why units don't score.
Are your allied eldar units occupying a troops slot?
If no then they cannot score unless you have a rule granting them an ability to. This game works on permission, you need permission to score and you have to fulfil the requirement that that permission demands.
Ok, so now that you've talked about allied detachments for a while can you talk about what we're actually discussing in this thread?
Can you show why a unit in a formation occupies a slot?
Sinful Hero wrote: Page 112 of the BRB has no mention of when allies score, only when they do not. You might call it an exception such as the ones on page 123. Troops in an allied Formation score, except when in Desperate Alliance.
Are they taken as a troop selection?
No, they're taken as allies. Pg 112 tells you how to treat allies in your army. The only mention of scoring is when Desperate Allies do not score. A formation of Desperate Allies would not score. A formation of Battle Brothers would score.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
liturgies of blood wrote: Yes. It's almost as if page 112 has extra restrictions to page 123's non-exhaustive list of reasons why units don't score.
Are your allied eldar units occupying a troops slot?
If no then they cannot score unless you have a rule granting them an ability to. This game works on permission, you need permission to score and you have to fulfil the requirement that that permission demands.
Ok, so now that you've talked about allied detachments for a while can you talk about what we're actually discussing in this thread?
Can you show why a unit in a formation occupies a slot?
It's almost as if occupying a slot doesn't matter as to whether a troop scores or not, if the levels of alliance appllies to formations.
Oh wow....
Are you actually trolling?
Occupying a troops slot is the only requirement in the brb for being scoring. If you haven't done that then you don't score.
The rules for allies are not in a vacuum, the scoring rules still apply. Similarly just because my allies rules don't say that swarms cannot score doesn't mean that the swarm rules no longer apply.
Sinful Hero wrote: Page 112 of the BRB has no mention of when allies score, only when they do not. You might call it an exception such as the ones on page 123. Troops in an allied Formation score, except when in Desperate Alliance.
Are they taken as a troop selection?
No, they're taken as allies. Pg 112 tells you how to treat allies in your army. The only mention of scoring is when Desperate Allies do not score. A formation of Desperate Allies would not score. A formation of Battle Brothers would score.
Great - there's no rule forbidding them from scoring (as they're Battle Brothers).
Let's see if any other rules prevent them from scoring, shall we?
An army's scoring units are normally all the units that come from the troops selection of the Force Organisation chart
So did they come from the troops selection of the FOC?
Or are you trying to argue that, regardless of where in the Army List a unit sits, a Battle Brother Formation Detachment scores with every unit?
It specifically says you treat it as you would an allied detachment. Or the levels of alliance rules from the