Do troops in formations count as scoring?

Example? Which formation has troops in it? Can't think of one off the top of my head

I would say no, as they are not a troops selection in the FOC, they are in a formation, which is not attached to the FOC.

Rulebook pg123

Exceptions to the rule refer to mission special rules. So, in order for a "troops" unit from a formation to score, it would have to be a mission special rule. In essence, units in formations are not even classified with an HQ/Troop/Etc tag.

The new Nids Vanguard Dataslate has Genestealer formations.

Ztryder wrote:
I would say no, as they are not a troops selection in the FOC, they are in a formation, which is not attached to the FOC.

Rulebook pg123

Exceptions to the rule refer to mission special rules. So, in order for a "troops" unit from a formation to score, it would have to be a mission special rule. In essence, units in formations are not even classified with an HQ/Troop/Etc tag.

The new Nids Vanguard Dataslate has Genestealer formations.

Half right. Scoring units will be troop choices on a FOC. Currently none of the formations use FOC slots so none of the current formations have troops. Assuming for the sake of argument a new formation came out that did identify some of the models in it as counting as troops from a particular codex then yes, those units would also be scoring.

The new nid dataslate has two formations with genestealers in them. I think that's where OP's question is coming from.

From the dataslate:

"“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."

There's nothing about not being troops, elite, hq etc. they're a separate detachment, so just as ally troops still count as troops, these too are troop units. They're also listed as troops in their army list entry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also - just got a reply from GW digital about adding brood lords and scoring units from the formation. Here's the reply-

Hey Jonathon,
The unit is the same as the one that appears in the codex in all regards, so the unit's battlefield role stays the same as do any options that aren't specifically mentioned as being changed.

- Eddie

 tetrisphreak wrote:
From the dataslate:

"“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."

There's nothing about not being troops, elite, hq etc. they're a separate detachment, so just as ally troops still count as troops, these too are troop units. They're also listed as troops in their army list entry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also - just got a reply from GW digital about adding brood lords and scoring units from the formation. Here's the reply-

Hey Jonathon,
The unit is the same as the one that appears in the codex in all regards, so the unit's battlefield role stays the same as do any options that aren't specifically mentioned as being changed.

- Eddie

You have it backwards, they are a separate detachment, and nothing tells you they are troops, heavy, elite, what-have-you.

They are a formation and detachment outside of the FOC.

HQs that alter certain units into troops(or heavy support, or elite, or whatever) from their original position are a similar situation; it does not matter what section of the armylist the unit comes from, it matters what slot they occupy; and the formation genestealers do not occupy a troops selection.

Nothing tells you they are troops?

Except their codex entry where they were selected, further nothing tells you they are not troops. They are a separate detachment yup, but so are allies.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

You have it backwards, they are a separate detachment, and nothing tells you they are troops, heavy, elite, what-have-you.

The dataslate actually tells it.

And Allies have a troops selection.

And Are you saying that my Nobs are now both troops(because that is the selection they fill with my warboss) AND Elites(because that is where they are in the army list)?

No, I'm saying they're TROOPS because in the dataslate they're in the TROOPS section.

We are not trying to claim scoring lictors here, these are genestealers. Why is it so hard to see they're still troops regardless of the detachment they belong to? The whole "it doesn't take up FOC so it's not scoring" is what sounds like a made-up rule to me actually. Does that mean crisis bodyguards aren't denial units since they don't have an FOC slot? It's a ludicrous straw man.

Genestealers are troops. Confirmed by dataslate and GW digital.

So the Formation calls them troops choices?

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
So the Formation calls them troops choices?

Yes.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
So the Formation calls them troops choices?

Yes. It has rules for genestealers and it says TROOPS in big bold letters on top of that.

EDIT: as you can see: ^

What if there is a slot modification INSIDE of a formation?Ghost Warrior formation comes to mind. If you run a Spiritseer, are the Wraithguard instead troops?

 tetrisphreak wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
So the Formation calls them troops choices?

Yes.

Well that clinches that then, they are in fact troops and thus scoring.

My argument against was assuming the formation didn't specify and just called upon choosing Genestealers from the parent codex, or just lists the units like the Tau Firebase support cadre(Which are not Elites and Heavy support, they are just formation).


Extremefreak: Ghostwarriors don't have choices, they have battlefield roles. So the spiritseer does not make them troops choices

I disagree. The rules for scoring units, specifies units that come from the troops selection of the FOC. Unless I've missed something the dataslate units do not come from the FOC troops selections.

 Happyjew wrote:
I disagree. The rules for scoring units, specifies units that come from the troops selection of the FOC. Unless I've missed something the dataslate units do not come from the FOC troops selections.

Here is the full quote: "An army's scoring units are normally all the units that come from the troops selection of the Force Organization chart--the main exceptions are in the Big Guns Never Tire mission and the The Scouring mission. The presence of other units within 3" of an objective may deny an objective to the enemy, but only troops can control it. 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 scoring unit; if it is currently falling back (if the unit Regroups it immediately reverts to being a scoring unit again)."

A couple key words to note. First, the rule tells us scoring units normally come from the troop slots in the FOC, but the use of the word normally tells us there are exceptions. The rule also identifies two exceptions when scoring units come from other FOC selections, but the use of the phrase "main exceptions" tells us other exceptions are possible. Finally, the rule also outlines the 4 times when a troops unit never counts as scoring. Hence, troops in a formation score (as an exception to where you normally find scoring units) unless they meet one of the four cases where troops never score.

This is really a RAW/RAL argument. It will get a FAQ or errata.

Panzerleader, permissive rule set. Please site permission to count non-FOC slot troops as scoring.

 Happyjew wrote:
Panzerleader, permissive rule set. Please site permission to count non-FOC slot troops as scoring.

Please cite a rule saying that only FOC slot troops are scoring. I just cited the rules for scoring units showing that is a false assumption because of the inclusion of the word "normally" in the rule and the enummerated cases where a troops unit does not score.

I never said only FOC slot troops are units. There are exceptions. Said exceptions are specifically mentioned. We have permission for FOC slot troops to score. We have permission for heavy support and fast attack units to be scoring (in bgnt and scouring respectively). Unless you can cite permission for dataslate troops to be scoring, they are not.

I will point out though, since bgnt and scouring both specify "units" any hs/fa units from a dataslate would be scoring.

Happyjew, would you actually play it like that? I think that it is pretty clear that the intent is for the dataslate troops to be scoring.

 Happyjew wrote:
I never said only FOC slot troops are units. There are exceptions. Said exceptions are specifically mentioned. We have permission for FOC slot troops to score. We have permission for heavy support and fast attack units to be scoring (in bgnt and scouring respectively). Unless you can cite permission for dataslate troops to be scoring, they are not.

I will point out though, since bgnt and scouring both specify "units" any hs/fa units from a dataslate would be scoring.

The rule also says BGNT and Scouring are the main exceptions, not that they are the only exceptions. The only thing the rule tells us for certain is the 4 cases in which troops units do not score.

@crimson, I would not play it that way, if someone was using a dataslate with troops, I would play they score.

@panzerleader, we know three things about scoring units:
1. They are usually troop choices from an FOC slot.
2. There are times when troops are not scoring (which is specified).
3. There are times other units are scoring. Again when this happens it is specified.

Please cite permission to allow a non-slot troops to be scoring.

PanzerLeader wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
I never said only FOC slot troops are units. There are exceptions. Said exceptions are specifically mentioned. We have permission for FOC slot troops to score. We have permission for heavy support and fast attack units to be scoring (in bgnt and scouring respectively). Unless you can cite permission for dataslate troops to be scoring, they are not.

I will point out though, since bgnt and scouring both specify "units" any hs/fa units from a dataslate would be scoring.

The rule also says BGNT and Scouring are the main exceptions, not that they are the only exceptions. The only thing the rule tells us for certain is the 4 cases in which troops units do not score.

Correct. Sternguard are scoring with Pedro - because it's stated they are. Nothing states these data slate units are scoring.
Please cite permission. BGNT and Scouring have explicit permission to score.

What I'm trying to understand is - how does being part of a separate detachment, like allies, and chosen from the troops selection of your force-org, exclude them from being part of the "force-org"... ?

Further the dataslate is pretty clear that all special ability/rules etc are "carry on as normal" as they are in the codex.

Just like 'allied detachments' and 'fortifications' these special "separate detachments" are separate but STILL part of the force-org.

 Happyjew wrote:
@crimson, I would not play it that way, if someone was using a dataslate with troops, I would play they score.

@panzerleader, we know three things about scoring units:
1. They are usually troop choices from an FOC slot.
2. There are times when troops are not scoring (which is specified).
3. There are times other units are scoring. Again when this happens it is specified.

Please cite permission to allow a non-slot troops to be scoring.

Permission is given because you have a troops choice that is not excluded from scoring based on the four cases in which a troop unit never scores. Further permission is not required for a troops unit, regardless of what detachment it originates in. #3 applies to non-troops units scoring, as all examples cited show what is normally a denial unit receiving permission to score.

PanzerLeader wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
@crimson, I would not play it that way, if someone was using a dataslate with troops, I would play they score.

@panzerleader, we know three things about scoring units:
1. They are usually troop choices from an FOC slot.
2. There are times when troops are not scoring (which is specified).
3. There are times other units are scoring. Again when this happens it is specified.

Please cite permission to allow a non-slot troops to be scoring.

Permission is given because you have a troops choice that is not excluded from scoring based on the four cases in which a troop unit never scores. Further permission is not required for a troops unit, regardless of what detachment it originates in. #3 applies to non-troops units scoring, as all examples cited show what is normally a denial unit receiving permission to score.

I think you guys are focusing on the wrong thing, these units are designated as a separate detachment, like primary detachments, additional primary detachments in bigger games, and allied detachments, but that doesn't 'non-slot' them somehow.

It's not a troops choice as it does not sit inside the FOC.

Detachments are part of the FOC.

Not in the BRB.
I don't have any if the detachment downloads - do they specify a new FOC?

rigeld2 wrote:
It's not a troops choice as it does not sit inside the FOC.

The data slate formation counts as a detachment. The unit inside the formation is identified as a troop. Conclusion: formations count as detachments with a unique FOC that may include troops choices.

Where is 'permission' given to count "troops" taken from additional primary detachments or allied detachments as scoring?

Dataslate detachments are just separate detachments, period.

In support of this, the Cypher formation consists of one HQ and 1-3 elites and the Storm Wing is fixed at 1 Heavy and 2 Fast Attack. Each unit is identified by FOC selection in the data slate for the formation.

"As detailed in each army's 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." BRB page 108 Force Organisation (emphasis mine)

All forces are so categorized as per their entry in the army codex.

 Abandon wrote:
"As detailed in each army's 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." BRB page 108 Force Organisation (emphasis mine)

All forces are so categorized as per their entry in the army codex.

Which I would think further argues that forces categorized as 'troops' whether in a primary detachment, additional primary detachment, allied detachment, or special dataslate detachment count as scoring.

 DJGietzen wrote:

Ztryder wrote:
I would say no, as they are not a troops selection in the FOC, they are in a formation, which is not attached to the FOC.

Rulebook pg123

Exceptions to the rule refer to mission special rules. So, in order for a "troops" unit from a formation to score, it would have to be a mission special rule. In essence, units in formations are not even classified with an HQ/Troop/Etc tag.

The new Nids Vanguard Dataslate has Genestealer formations.

Half right. Scoring units will be troop choices on a FOC. Currently none of the formations use FOC slots so none of the current formations have troops. Assuming for the sake of argument a new formation came out that did identify some of the models in it as counting as troops from a particular codex then yes, those units would also be scoring.

A formation would not 'use' a slot any more than an allied detachment 'uses' a slot. I believe the distinction you are trying to make is that the units in the detachment use slots on the FOC whereas units as part of formations do not. As per page 108 of the BRB I quoted above, it does not matter. Genestealers 'come from the troops selection' per their codex entry. I'll repeat part of Panzers qoute:

"An army's scoring units are normally all the units that come from the troops selection of the Force Organisation chart"

Genestealers come from the troops selection and are on the FOC. As all units are categorized as per their codex entry, all Genestealers are scoring unless a rule removes that quality from them.

The fact that units in formations do not take up slots does not enter into it. What matters is what FOC selection the unit comes from. In this case, they come from a troops selection and nothing changes that fact.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
"As detailed in each army's 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." BRB page 108 Force Organisation (emphasis mine)

All forces are so categorized as per their entry in the army codex.

Which I would think further argues that forces categorized as 'troops' whether in a primary detachment, additional primary detachment, allied detachment, or special dataslate detachment count as scoring.

Yes, that was my point.

PanzerLeader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It's not a troops choice as it does not sit inside the FOC.

The data slate formation counts as a detachment. The unit inside the formation is identified as a troop. Conclusion: formations count as detachments with a unique FOC that may include troops choices.

I'm sure you mean "assumption" since there's no rules basis for that.

rigeld2 wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It's not a troops choice as it does not sit inside the FOC.

The data slate formation counts as a detachment. The unit inside the formation is identified as a troop. Conclusion: formations count as detachments with a unique FOC that may include troops choices.

I'm sure you mean "assumption" since there's no rules basis for that.

It's not necessary, they are troops. Show me the rules basis for troops in other detachments, such as additional primary or allied, that allow them to score?

Anything in the troops slot of the FOC scores.
Formations don't have an FOC.

rigeld2 wrote:
Anything in the troops slot of the FOC scores.
Formations don't have an FOC.

Yes they do. It's set units though. Manufactorum Genestealers have 5 troops FOC, bc they are 5 units of troop genestealers. Deathleaper assassin brood is 1 hq and 5 elite. It's not standard FOC but formations do have set ones.

 tetrisphreak wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Anything in the troops slot of the FOC scores.
Formations don't have an FOC.

Yes they do. It's set units though. Manufactorum Genestealers have 5 troops FOC, bc they are 5 units of troop genestealers. Deathleaper assassin brood is 1 hq and 5 elite. It's not standard FOC but formations do have set ones.

I was told that they just have units, not a FOC.
Do you have a rules quote to back up your statement?

What do you think the FOC is? Anything you can put on the table now, and pay points for, is part of your FOC.

Your primary detachment, additional primary detachments, allied detachments, super heavy detachments, fortification detachments, and dataslate special detachments are all part of your FOC.

When discussing scoring units 'FOC' is clearly only used (rather than 'codex') because some units change roles via unlocking characters etc. But what you are not getting is these units, while designated to a separate detachment, like allies, are still part of your FOC.

So what slot does a data slate attachment take up?
I don't see a section for it in the BRB.
How many can I have?

rigeld2 wrote:
So what slot does a data slate attachment take up?
I don't see a section for it in the BRB.
How many can I have?

Dataslates didn't EXIST when the BRB was written. The rules to use them are self contained within the dataslates themselves. As such, I've already posted proof on page 1 that they list genestealers as troops on the army list section. The formation contains genestealers which are troops. Further, Eddie from GW digital publicly posted that units in dataslates maintain their battlefield role as codex units. That's pretty solid evidence that they're scoring if you ask me.

 tetrisphreak wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So what slot does a data slate attachment take up?
I don't see a section for it in the BRB.
How many can I have?

Dataslates didn't EXIST when the BRB was written. The rules to use them are self contained within the dataslates themselves. As such, I've already posted proof on page 1 that they list genestealers as troops on the army list section. The formation contains genestealers which are troops.

Right, so they don't exist in any FOC so they aren't scoring.

Further, Eddie from GW digital publicly posted that units in dataslates maintain their battlefield role as codex units. That's pretty solid evidence that they're scoring if you ask me.

Which is, of course, meaningless. Unless Eddie from GW Digital is also willing and able to edit the BRB FAQ to include dataslates in the FOC.

rigeld2 wrote:

 tetrisphreak wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So what slot does a data slate attachment take up?
I don't see a section for it in the BRB.
How many can I have?

Dataslates didn't EXIST when the BRB was written. The rules to use them are self contained within the dataslates themselves. As such, I've already posted proof on page 1 that they list genestealers as troops on the army list section. The formation contains genestealers which are troops.

Right, so they don't exist in any FOC so they aren't scoring.

Further, Eddie from GW digital publicly posted that units in dataslates maintain their battlefield role as codex units. That's pretty solid evidence that they're scoring if you ask me.

Which is, of course, meaningless. Unless Eddie from GW Digital is also willing and able to edit the BRB FAQ to include dataslates in the FOC.

Hmm I'm beginning to think you are just trying to troll this thread. You've turned FOC into some weird abstraction it has never been. Like the dataslate, Escalation is another example of units that are part of the FOC but not in your brb.

Just like your codex, the dataslate gives you the additional rules you need, along with the brb, to pay the game -they are not mutually exclusive.

 Gunzhard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 tetrisphreak wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So what slot does a data slate attachment take up?
I don't see a section for it in the BRB.
How many can I have?

Dataslates didn't EXIST when the BRB was written. The rules to use them are self contained within the dataslates themselves. As such, I've already posted proof on page 1 that they list genestealers as troops on the army list section. The formation contains genestealers which are troops.

Right, so they don't exist in any FOC so they aren't scoring.

Further, Eddie from GW digital publicly posted that units in dataslates maintain their battlefield role as codex units. That's pretty solid evidence that they're scoring if you ask me.

Which is, of course, meaningless. Unless Eddie from GW Digital is also willing and able to edit the BRB FAQ to include dataslates in the FOC.

Hmm I'm beginning to think you are just trying to troll this thread. You've turned FOC into some weird abstraction it has never been. Like the dataslate, Escalation is another example of units that are part of the FOC but not in your brb.

Just like your codex, the dataslate gives you the additional rules you need, along with the brb, to pay the game -they are not mutually exclusive.

Escalation adds a Lord of War slot, and therefore it's part of your FOC.
Is there a dataslates formation slot added in the dataslates?

So you are referring to the diagram only?

The Lord of War "slot" is a detachment. A separate detachment, not in the brb, which is exactly what the dataslate is.

 Gunzhard wrote:
The Lord of War "slot" is a detachment.

Not true. There is a slot AND a Detachment.

You get a single Lords of War Detachment.
In this Detachment is a single Lord of War slot.
(see Escalation p34-35)

The formation adds a Detachment.
What slots does it contain?

If it's simply Troop units chosen from the Codex, but not actually occupying a Troops slot, then they cannot be scoring without something stating they are.

 Gunzhard wrote:
So you are referring to the diagram only?

I'm referring to the Chart. You know, the C in FOC.

The Lord of War "slot" is a detachment. A separate detachment, not in the brb, which is exactly what the dataslate is.

A detachment with a slot. You know, what the rules create.

Where are the rules defining these dataslate detachments and slots? I'm sure you'll be able to point me at one. Somewhere.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
So you are referring to the diagram only?

I'm referring to the Chart. You know, the C in FOC.

The Lord of War "slot" is a detachment. A separate detachment, not in the brb, which is exactly what the dataslate is.

A detachment with a slot. You know, what the rules create.

Where are the rules defining these dataslate detachments and slots? I'm sure you'll be able to point me at one. Somewhere.

Here is the entry from the Storm Wing data slate: “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.”

A formation is by definition a special detachment. The formation specifically tells you the required units for that detachment. The rule also references "battlefield role" per the core force organization rules in the BRB. A troops choice in any detachment is always a troops choice and scores unless specifically prohibited from scoring. You don't need a separate line and block FOC for a formation because it's composition never varies.

So it's a detachment with NO slots then?

PanzerLeader wrote:
A troops choice in any detachment is always a troops choice and scores unless specifically prohibited from scoring.

Sadly this is completely made up.

A Troops choice is a Troops choice only when it's a Troops choice.
A Troops choice taken as Heavy Support is not a Troops choice.
An Elite taken as Troops is not an Elites choice.
A Troops choice taken in a Detachment without any defined slots is... well nothing. Simply a unit taken in a Detachment.

This thread has become ridiculous.......congratz everybody. From people claiming they know the rules even without having the dataslates at hand to people arguing for the sake of arguing......

I say if something is a troop choice and in a detachment, it still scores, dont like that, fine play elsewhere. Until this point comes up in a tourney, when officials have to make the call, then play however you want. Just stop wasting the OPs time with all this he said she said arguments that eventually (which it has) fall off the main topic and become a fight of who doesnt want to think they are ever wrong.

 grendel083 wrote:
So it's a detachment with NO slots then?

PanzerLeader wrote:
A troops choice in any detachment is always a troops choice and scores unless specifically prohibited from scoring.

Sadly this is completely made up.

A Troops choice is a Troops choice only when it's a Troops choice.
A Troops choice taken as Heavy Support is not a Troops choice.
An Elite taken as Troops is not an Elites choice.
A Troops choice taken in a Detachment without any defined slots is... well nothing. Simply a unit taken in a Detachment.

No slots sure, just like in the brb. In the brb they are 'Troops selection'... or Fortifications or 'HQ selections'.

 Gunzhard wrote:
No slots sure, just like in the brb. In the brb they are 'Troops selection'... or Fortifications or 'HQ selections'.

Does using the term "slot" instead of "selection" make any difference to the point?
They are refered to as "Slots" in Escalation, so the term is interchangable.
It still remains a Detachment with no defined Slots.

 grendel083 wrote:
So it's a detachment with NO slots then?

PanzerLeader wrote:
A troops choice in any detachment is always a troops choice and scores unless specifically prohibited from scoring.

Sadly this is completely made up.

A Troops choice is a Troops choice only when it's a Troops choice.
A Troops choice taken as Heavy Support is not a Troops choice.
An Elite taken as Troops is not an Elites choice.
A Troops choice taken in a Detachment without any defined slots is... well nothing. Simply a unit taken in a Detachment.

Way to take a sentence out of context. The whole thread is about troops choice in the troops slot. There was certainly nothing else implied and you're simply trying to create a straw man.

A formation is clearly, by its own rules, a special detachment with a fixed composition. A storm wing formation is always 1 heavy (the raven) and 2 fast attack (the storm talons). It identifies them as such in the data slate and the formation rule tells you to look for their "battlefield role" which in the BRB is are defined as HQ, Troops, Elite, Heavy Support, and Fast Attack. The tyranid data slate tells you to take 5 genestealer broods as troops. The formation comes with 5 fixed troop slots. It's pretty clear.

PanzerLeader wrote:
You don't need a separate line and block FOC for a formation because it's composition never varies.

You absolutely do need a FOC entry for the troops to score - since that's what the rule says.

BRB does stipulate troops under the FOC for scoring, but with rule book being so out of date in these regards who knows. To be a denial unit however, does not mention the FOC.

They do all still have there battlefield role, if it's troops they ate troops.

Someone on the previous page quoted the Formations rules saying that "Formations are a special type of Detachment". If you take an Allied Detachment, the Troops within that are scoring, right? Hence the same logic would apply to the Dataslate, I assume? Or am I missing something in the Allies rules?

Troops in an allied detachment fill a troops slot. Dataslates don't use FOC slots.

Is there any other formations/DS that contain troop choice's which can be allied with something else as Battle Brothers?

It would be silly if taken from the same parent codex saying they are not scoring, meanwhile the formation rules say BB are scoring units, so the same troops formation taken as 'allies' are scoring.


Additionally, while I don't think any non-vehicle ones exist now, Dedicated Transports sit outside the FOC (but count as FO category of the unit bought for, in essence, same as what we are talking about with the formations), so they could not score either. though this might make a difference for Big guns etc.

Example; Havocs who have taken a DE of a Rhino, even in big guns the Rhino is not scoring...

Tho the rules for them becoming scoring (within big guns rules) doesn't mention the FOC.....

I think the FOC is a bad example to say they can not score, for more and more reasons I am finding while reading... Plenty of ways formation units can suddenly, randomly become scoring within the BRB rules. With all the possibilities it seems highly unlikely they intended for troops in the parent codex to be less advantageous than a formation HS choice, or the formation taken as allied, BRB is so out of date here it hardly seems applicable in this mess. I'm happy to say HIWPI; Scoring.

Has already been asked this weekend twice on GW: DE facebook page (not by me).

 Happyjew wrote:
Troops in an allied detachment fill a troops slot. Dataslates don't use FOC slots.

The BRB word is "selection", not "slot." By plain English, replacing "selection" with "choice" is a much more consistent interpretation across all rules sources than arbitrarily going "selection" = "slot."

Question to Eddie at GW Digital:

:"Hi Eddie, ...I'm assuming that Genestealers, for instance in the Broodlord Hunting packs, are scoring units, since they're listed in the Toops section. A couple of people say that can't be, as they are in a detachment.Which is correct - are they scoring troops? TIA"

Answer: " The unit functions exactly as it does in the codex with the only differences being those stated in the Dataslate."

THey're troops. They score.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
No slots sure, just like in the brb. In the brb they are 'Troops selection'... or Fortifications or 'HQ selections'.

Does using the term "slot" instead of "selection" make any difference to the point?
They are refered to as "Slots" in Escalation, so the term is interchangable.
It still remains a Detachment with no defined Slots.

Yeah this is total nonsense, "defined slots" have nothing to do with scoring what so ever, you're just trying to be argumentative. The genestealers in the dataslate are however 'troop selections' even though they are designated to a separate detachment.

The dataslate even goes so far as to relist each entry, and with large bold print it says, "TROOPS".

 The Shadow wrote:
Someone on the previous page quoted the Formations rules saying that "Formations are a special type of Detachment". If you take an Allied Detachment, the Troops within that are scoring, right? Hence the same logic would apply to the Dataslate, I assume? Or am I missing something in the Allies rules?

You're not missing anything except the sheer ridiculousness of some people.

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
Question to Eddie at GW Digital:

:"Hi Eddie, ...I'm assuming that Genestealers, for instance in the Broodlord Hunting packs, are scoring units, since they're listed in the Toops section. A couple of people say that can't be, as they are in a detachment.Which is correct - are they scoring troops? TIA"

Answer: " The unit functions exactly as it does in the codex with the only differences being those stated in the Dataslate."

THey're troops. They score.

Good enough for me. As I said the more I read between different rules the more illogical it seemed.

My initial reply in this thread was ill-informed and incorrect.

Normally to be a scoring unit in an eternal war mission the unit must come from a troops selection for the FOC.

For a unit to be a troops selection it 1st must have the battlefield role of troops. Units in a formation do not always have the battlefield role printed in the dataslate but they do all have a battlefield role. The formation rules have a section called "army and battlefield role" and that section tells us what codex battlefield role the units in that formation will have. This means if the unit is chosen from Codex: Tyranids, and in that codex that unit has the battlefield role of troops, then the unit in the formation is also a troops unit, even if the datalsate itself omits the battlefield role of the unit.

However, formations, while detachments, do not use the FOC. As a result troop units chosen as part of a formation do not come from a troops selection for the FOC.

Big Guns Never Tire and The Scouring have special rules that make all heavy support or fast attack units scoring. Becouse these special rules do not mention the FOC then fast attack or heavy units from formations would also be scoring units.

What I find interesting is that only page 123 makes mention of the troop units needing to come from the troops selection for the FOC. The rest of the time, including the special rules for Big Guns and Scouring just being troop choices appears to have been enough. At the time page 123 was written troop units that were not troop selections for the FOC did not exists outside of dedicated transports, something that was already not a scoring unit, and the language used on page 123 may not have been intended to limit scoring units to only units that take up a FOC slot.


RAW: Formation troops are not scoring units even though they are troop units because they do not take up a FOC slot.
RAI?: Formation troops are troop units and non-vehicle troop units are scoring units regardless of what detachment they are in.
HIWPI: formation troops are scoring.

If i had to make a ruling on it as a TO i would rule it thus:

A formation of troop units, since not using a FOC slot in the troops area, would count as a single scoring unit.


This means that the whole formation could claim an objective, but only a single objective.

RAW: Formation troops are not scoring units even though they are troop units because they do not take up a FOC slot.

Let me ask you this, are other detachments, allied, additional primary, fortifications, lords of war, part of the FOC?

Because the dataslate says these formations are just like the other detachments, it is just a separate detachment. Granted they didn't bother reprinting the 'chart' which would have made this much clearer, but the answer is yes, they are still part of the FOC despite being separate detachment, "slots" have nothing to do with this.

Because the brb says NOTHING about 'taking up a FOC slot', it says a 'troop selection' from the FOC, which is exactly what the genestealers in the dataslate are.

It is never required that the unit fills a slot.
It is only required that the units "come from the troops selection of the Force Organisation chart".
We are referred to the codex for information on the units battlefield role.
By the information the codex provides, the unit is a troops selection, goes in the troops section of the FOC and therefore is a scoring unit.

The rules in the new detachment list genestealers as troops. If you want to argue something like that then go ahead... We can argue anything for whatever reason.

 Gunzhard wrote:

RAW: Formation troops are not scoring units even though they are troop units because they do not take up a FOC slot.

Let me ask you this, are other detachments, allied, additional primary, fortifications, lords of war, part of the FOC?

Yes. Because the rules say they are.
You've literally invented rules saying that formation detachments are part of the FOC and have quoted zero rules support.
You may think I'm ridiculous, but you've quoted nothing to prove your case and instead have resorted to insults.

Good day sir.

Are we referred to the codex to determine the formation units role in the battle? Yes.

Per the codex, is the unit a scoring unit? Yes.

What more needs to be said?

 Gunzhard wrote:

RAW: Formation troops are not scoring units even though they are troop units because they do not take up a FOC slot.

Let me ask you this, are other detachments, allied, additional primary, fortifications, lords of war, part of the FOC?

Yes.

Because the dataslate says these formations are just like the other detachments, it is just a separate detachment.

Actualy, it says that formations each form their own detachment, and are not part of the primary, allied, or any other detachment. Unlike the other detachments however there is no indication any of these units are part of the FOC. Each book that has introduced a new detachment, except for every single data-slate, has explained how this detachment is part of the FOC. Being 'outside' the FOC is also not a foreign concept to 40k so with out any permission to treat a unit as FOC selection we must assume it is outside the chart.

Granted they didn't bother reprinting the 'chart' which would have made this much clearer, but the answer is yes, they are still part of the FOC despite being separate detachment, "slots" have nothing to do with this.

If each dataslate had a new formation FOC for us to use then it would reverse the RAW argument 100%. The fact that they didn't is the problem. The line about normal scoring units on pg123 of the BRB makes the FOC slots extremely relevant.

You are adding abstraction to FOC, unnecessarily. The FOC is simply the organization of your forces, comprised of 'HQ selections', 'Troop selections', and at the time of the brb, it also had Fortifications and Allied detachments. Everything you pay points for is part of your FOC, even things that don't follow the standard structure, like dedicated transports.

Now we have new additions, like Lord of War detachments and dataslate detachments. You are way over thinking this - the crux of your reasoning might be, the words "force organization chart" are not mentioned in the dataslate...

But did you know that the words "force organization chart" are also not mentioned in several of the newer codex? By your reasoning nothing in the newer codex could ever be scoring. But after banging your head against the wall for a few hours as we've done here, you see this magical FOC is simply composed of 'Troop selections' - and the new dataslate has troop selections, and their declaration is quite explicitly noted.

 DJGietzen wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Are we referred to the codex to determine the formation units role in the battle? Yes.

Per the codex, is the unit a scoring unit? Yes.

What more needs to be said?

No, the unit is nor scoring per the codex unless it is taken as a selection for the FOC. Units in formations are not.

Per the BRB for a unit to be scoring it must be 'taken from' the FOC not 'selected for the FOC'.

All units in the codex have a place on the FOC chart whether you take them or not. To look at it otherwise would make it impossible to have scoring units at all.

"all the units that come from the troops selection of the Force Organisation chart"

It does not matter per the wording of the rule if the unit ends up occupying a troops slot. What matters is that it 'comes from' that section of the chart. Every unit in the troops section of the codex is associated with the troops section of the FOC before you purchase any of them. That is the only way a unit can be said to originate or 'come from' the troops selection of the FOC.

You believe you purchase a unit and then it gets slotted into the appropriate place on the chart if I understand you correctly.
I believe it already has a place on the chart when you purchase it. That the troops section on the chart and the troops section of the army list are inextricably linked.
One of these ways of thinking accounts for units being able to originate 'from the troops selection of the Force Organisation chart' in some manner. The other does not.

Also I'd like to point out that there is no option within the codex to take Genestealers as anything other than as a troops selection on the FOC and as the data slate defers to the codex rules for such things their standing as a scoring unit would remain just as if they had been purchased using the rules from the codex even if per the data slate they no longer take up a slot.

Taking up a slot is not a requirement for being a scoring unit. Originating from the troops section of the FOC is.

 Abandon wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Are we referred to the codex to determine the formation units role in the battle? Yes.

Per the codex, is the unit a scoring unit? Yes.

What more needs to be said?

No, the unit is nor scoring per the codex unless it is taken as a selection for the FOC. Units in formations are not.

Per the BRB for a unit to be scoring it must be 'taken from' the FOC not 'selected for the FOC'.

All units in the codex have a place on the FOC chart whether you take them or not. To look at it otherwise would make it impossible to have scoring units at all.

"all the units that come from the troops selection of the Force Organisation chart"

It does not matter per the wording of the rule if the unit ends up occupying a troops slot. What matters is that it 'comes from' that section of the chart. Every unit in the troops section of the codex is associated with the troops section of the FOC before you purchase any of them. That is the only way a unit can be said to originate or 'come from' the troops selection of the FOC.

You believe you purchase a unit and then it gets slotted into the appropriate place on the chart if I understand you correctly.
I believe it already has a place on the chart when you purchase it. That the troops section on the chart and the troops section of the army list are inextricably linked.
One of these ways of thinking accounts for units being able to originate 'from the troops selection of the Force Organisation chart' in some manner. The other does not.

Also I'd like to point out that there is no option within the codex to take Genestealers as anything other than as a troops selection on the FOC and as the data slate defers to the codex rules for such things their standing as a scoring unit would remain just as if they had been purchased using the rules from the codex even if per the data slate they no longer take up a slot.

Taking up a slot is not a requirement for being a scoring unit. Originating from the troops section of the FOC is.

1) "One box on the chart allows you to make one selection from that part of your army list in the relevant codex." and "all the units that come from the troops selection of the Force Organisation chart" means that you can make one selection per box/slot on the FOC. The units that come from the troop selection, i.e thing thing you put into the slot, are scoring units.

2) We have permission to include the units in a formation, regardless of the boxes on the FOC. Including these units is not making a selection for the chart.

3) The dataslate has us select units from the codex, but it does not have us make the selection using the FOC. Just because when you select units from the codex for the primary, or allied detachments you are using the chart does not mean that when you are selecting units for the formation are you using the chart.

4) there is no option in the codex to take any unit in your codex as part of your army. That permission depends on what detachment the units will become a part of. The permissions for primary and allied detachment are both printed in the BRB, permission for formations work differently and are printed in the dataslate.

Bottom line. When you include units in a formation in your army you are not making a selection in relation to the FOC. Because only the units that come from the FOC troop selection are scoring in a normal eternal war mission none of your formation troops can be scoring despite being troop units.

Interestingly the only BRB unit/s which are identified as being 'outside' are Dedicated transports which are described as being outside the Force Organization Structure, not the Force Organization Chart, the lends heavily to the FOC being a selection of categories (as technically we would say ''outside the FOC’’, which is incorrect), which encompasses everything you take.

The ''Force Org.'' ... Is defined pretty much as the collection of Force Organizational Categories,- Also called 'Battlefield role' in some parts and different publications.

The Force Organization Chart in the BRB is a collection of FO Categories slots/selections for primary detachment & allied detachments etc (Force Organization structure). Even things that sit outside the FOS, is not outside the FOC. This is the standard FOC, if a FOC is nothing more than the collections of FOS then...

Does it actually say in any publications Formations sit outside the FOC or is that just built on assumptions, and the misunderstanding of the difference between FOS and FOC?

 Abandon wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Are we referred to the codex to determine the formation units role in the battle? Yes.

Per the codex, is the unit a scoring unit? Yes.

What more needs to be said?

No, the unit is nor scoring per the codex unless it is taken as a selection for the FOC. Units in formations are not.

Per the BRB for a unit to be scoring it must be 'taken from' the FOC not 'selected for the FOC'.

All units in the codex have a place on the FOC chart whether you take them or not. To look at it otherwise would make it impossible to have scoring units at all.

"all the units that come from the troops selection of the Force Organisation chart"

It does not matter per the wording of the rule if the unit ends up occupying a troops slot. What matters is that it 'comes from' that section of the chart. Every unit in the troops section of the codex is associated with the troops section of the FOC before you purchase any of them. That is the only way a unit can be said to originate or 'come from' the troops selection of the FOC.

You believe you purchase a unit and then it gets slotted into the appropriate place on the chart if I understand you correctly.
I believe it already has a place on the chart when you purchase it. That the troops section on the chart and the troops section of the army list are inextricably linked.
One of these ways of thinking accounts for units being able to originate 'from the troops selection of the Force Organisation chart' in some manner. The other does not.

Also I'd like to point out that there is no option within the codex to take Genestealers as anything other than as a troops selection on the FOC and as the data slate defers to the codex rules for such things their standing as a scoring unit would remain just as if they had been purchased using the rules from the codex even if per the data slate they no longer take up a slot.

Taking up a slot is not a requirement for being a scoring unit. Originating from the troops section of the FOC is.

Er. why is this still being discussed? You must be exceptionally bored?

Just a couple of posts into the thread, people posted that the 'stealers are listed as troops, and are therefore scoring. Still, a few people persisted with convoluted arguments that, as it's not a straightforward FOC, they don't score - this in the absence of any specific evidence.

Now GW have confirmed that, yes, they are scoring troops and that, yes, troops in this detachment are exactly equivalent. So isn't it time to move on?

No, the evidence is that it isn't troops that score, but troops from the FOC. These are, indeed, troops. Now prove the other part of the requirement, that they're from the FOC. page and para.

Also read the tenets on acceptable sources for rules

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, the evidence is that it isn't troops that score, but troops from the FOC. These are, indeed, troops. Now prove the other part of the requirement, that they're from the FOC. page and para.

Also read the tenets on acceptable sources for rules

I don't need to. GW have confirmed that the Troops in question, which are listed as Troops, are in fact troops, and do score.

Feel free to deny that GW digital are an acceptable source for GW digital rules, I guess it passes the time.

But thanks, this thread has been an illuminating example of how people will insist on trying to ride away on a horse that is not only dead, but decomposing.

YMDC never ceases to amaze me with these circular arguments.

I'll be using the Genestealers as Troops until an official release tells me otherwise. I suggest you guys do the same. If somebody refuses to play you because of it, they should find a new hobby, 'cos this one really isn't for them. It's a GAME guys. Enjoy it.

They are scoring, end of discussion. The fact they are previewing certain units in specialized formations doesn't mean that you cannot count them as scoring. Cant believe how hard people try to bend the rules so they either gain some sort of favor or for some other weird reason. It clearly says they are scoring in this formation, guess what live with it.

Out of curiosity, a question for the FOC-sticklers:

Would you deny that Troop units created by special rules score? For example, Termagants spawned by a Tervigon or Daemons spawned by a 12 result on the Warp Storm table.

 Redemption wrote:
Out of curiosity, a question for the FOC-sticklers:

Would you deny that Troop units created by special rules score? For example, Termagants spawned by a Tervigon or Daemons spawned by a 12 result on the Warp Storm table.

Think thats thread closed... ... Though I think some of them might specify.

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, the evidence is that it isn't troops that score, but troops from the FOC. These are, indeed, troops. Now prove the other part of the requirement, that they're from the FOC. page and para.

Also read the tenets on acceptable sources for rules

I don't need to. GW have confirmed that the Troops in question, which are listed as Troops, are in fact troops, and do score.

Feel free to deny that GW digital are an acceptable source for GW digital rules, I guess it passes the time.

But thanks, this thread has been an illuminating example of how people will insist on trying to ride away on a horse that is not only dead, but decomposing.

Reading comprehension there.

I never stated they werent troops. I asked you to prove they are troops from the FOC. Once you prove both, then they score.

I was pointing out the forum tenets that you are ignoring, and the forum rule number one, which you are also ignoring,

 Redemption wrote:
Out of curiosity, a question for the FOC-sticklers:

Would you deny that Troop units created by special rules score? For example, Termagants spawned by a Tervigon or Daemons spawned by a 12 result on the Warp Storm table.

For Tervigons, it's explicit in their rules.

C: T wrote:“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.”

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gmaleron wrote:
They are scoring, end of discussion. The fact they are previewing certain units in specialized formations doesn't mean that you cannot count them as scoring. Cant believe how hard people try to bend the rules so they either gain some sort of favor or for some other weird reason. It clearly says they are scoring in this formation, guess what live with it.

Where does it clearly say that? What rule? Surely if it's that clear you can cite it, correct?

Or perhaps you just don't like people discussing an unclear rule?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gunzhard wrote:
But did you know that the words "force organization chart" are also not mentioned in several of the newer codex? By your reasoning nothing in the newer codex could ever be scoring. But after banging your head against the wall for a few hours as we've done here, you see this magical FOC is simply composed of 'Troop selections' - and the new dataslate has troop selections, and their declaration is quite explicitly noted.

You're failing to read the BRB now. If you're fielding an army you are using the FOC. By definition.
Unless you're using a dataslate - then you're not.

There are now two posts from GW Digital on their facebook page confirming that the manufactorum 'stealers score as normal troops.

"Hi Eddie!

I've just purchased Rising Leviathan I, but I've a doubt. Are the Genestealers (and other troops choices from different dataslates) from the Gen. Manufactorum and the Broodlord's Hunting Pack scoring units? Or no, since the dataslates didn't have FoC?


Games Workshop: Digital Editions Hey Gabriele,
The units in a Datasheet are exactly the same as the ones on the codex, with the only difference being those stated. Battlefield Role remains the same (unless the datasheet says different)."

But sure, do keep repeating forum "rules" and other "reading comprehension" comments, they really help your case.

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
There are now two posts from GW Digital on their facebook page confirming that the manufactorum 'stealers score as normal troops.

But sure, do keep repeating forum "rules" and other "reading comprehension" comments, they really help your case.

Considering the tenets of the sub forum, he's correct.

What you're doing is ignoring those tenets. Deliberately. Reported.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do I think they're intended to score? Probably.
Would I tell someone in a game they don't score? Not likely.

Does that change what the rule says? Nope.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Redemption wrote:
Out of curiosity, a question for the FOC-sticklers:

Would you deny that Troop units created by special rules score? For example, Termagants spawned by a Tervigon or Daemons spawned by a 12 result on the Warp Storm table.

For Tervigons, it's explicit in their rules.

C: T wrote:“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.”

I am aware of what the codex says. For completionist's sake, here's the relevant rule from Codex: Daemons:

Codex: Chaos Daemons wrote:New units created by these results do not have any upgrades and, other than their unusual manner of arrival, are treated exactly as other units of their type, awarding victory points as normal.

But do you say they score or not? They're not selected from the FOC, which seems to be the linchpin of your argument, so you would say no?

 Gunzhard wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
No slots sure, just like in the brb. In the brb they are 'Troops selection'... or Fortifications or 'HQ selections'.

Does using the term "slot" instead of "selection" make any difference to the point?
They are refered to as "Slots" in Escalation, so the term is interchangable.
It still remains a Detachment with no defined Slots.

Yeah this is total nonsense, "defined slots" have nothing to do with scoring what so ever, you're just trying to be argumentative.

How am I being argumentative?
You're the one that argued at I used the term "slot" insted of "selection". I simply pointed out that the terms are interchangable. I'm afraid it was your post that was arguing for arguments sake.

From page 34 of Escalation:
"...you can take a Lords of War detachment when choosing your force."
"...uses up a single Lords of War slot on the Force Organisation chart."

So GW use the term "slot" and "Selection" for the same thing.
Trying to dismiss my argument because I used one term instead of another is pointless when the terms are interchangable.
So please stop being argumentative about nothing.

 Redemption wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Redemption wrote:
Out of curiosity, a question for the FOC-sticklers:

Would you deny that Troop units created by special rules score? For example, Termagants spawned by a Tervigon or Daemons spawned by a 12 result on the Warp Storm table.

For Tervigons, it's explicit in their rules.

C: T wrote:“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.”

I am aware of what the codex says. For completionist's sake, here's the relevant rule from Codex: Daemons:

Codex: Chaos Daemons wrote:New units created by these results do not have any upgrades and, other than their unusual manner of arrival, are treated exactly as other units of their type, awarding victory points as normal.

But do you say they score or not? They're not selected from the FOC, which seems to be the linchpin of your argument, so you would say no?

Because they're identical in every way (not some ways, every way) to a Termagant unit chosen from the Troops section of the army list, yes they score.
Because, according to the rules, it's exactly like I chose them as part of my army - meaning they would take up an FOC slot if that was relevant during the game.

That really didn't answer his question, if you didn't select them as an FOC choice then by your argument they can not be scoring. Sure they are exactly like another gaunt unit, that doesn't change the fact you never selected them. If a player already has full FOC compliment of troops, he's still welcome to produce more gaunt units without having an illegal list.

I really see both sides to the argument here, one we know these are troops, they were not an FOC choice, but we have perfect examples of other non FOC choices which can show up and can indeed score.

We've had a couple email replies showing RAI would be scoring as well. Interesting arguments these new data slates do bring up, interesting indeed.

Stormbreed wrote:
That really didn't answer his question, if you didn't select them as an FOC choice then by your argument they can not be scoring. Sure they are exactly like another gaunt unit, that doesn't change the fact you never selected them. If a player already has full FOC compliment of troops, he's still welcome to produce more gaunt units without having an illegal list.

No - as far as the rules are concerned it's exactly like I chose them. That's what the rule I quoted says.

As Stormbreed stated, if they would indeed count for FOC selection, you'd have an illegal FOC if you generate too many new troops, which of course would be daft.

And you seem to disregard the Chaos Daemons version, which only states they are treated exactly as other units of their type. Does that meet your 'has to be from the FOC'-requirement to be scoring?

 Redemption wrote:
As Stormbreed stated, if they would indeed count for FOC selection, you'd have an illegal FOC if you generate too many new troops, which of course would be daft.

Which would only matter during list building of course.
If I lose a model from a 10 man minimum unit, do I suddenly have an illegal list?

And you seem to disregard the Chaos Daemons version, which only states they are treated exactly as other units of their type. Does that meet your 'has to be from the FOC'-requirement to be scoring?

Based on that rules quote alone, no the don't seem to be scoring. Note that this opinion is offered without the benefit of actually having the codex right now - I've loaned mine out. I don't usually like to address rules I can't get context on, but I'm sure I'll be vilified if I don't comment on it.

I don't know rigeld2. Units in a formation are also chosen from the codex. I don't see much of a functional difference if any to units that are 'spawned' mid game. I also don't see any evidence that the units spawned mid game are scoring units. We know the the Deamons rule makes it clear these units award victory points as normal, but that does not mean they are scoring. It means in games where killing a unit awards victory points then killing this spawned unit awards victory points as normal. The Tervigon rule does not make that unit scoring either as troop selections being scoring units is not a mission special rule.

Is there an FAQ or errata or anything that tells us spawned troops are also scoring?

 DJGietzen wrote:
I don't know rigeld2. Units in a formation are also chosen from the codex.

No they're not - they're chosen from the dataslate. It's why you can use the StormWing formation with Codex: Space Wolves and not have to buy C: SM.

I don't see much of a functional difference if any to units that are 'spawned' mid game. I also don't see any evidence that the units spawned mid game are scoring units. We know the the Deamons rule makes it clear these units award victory points as normal, but that does not mean they are scoring. It means in games where killing a unit awards victory points then killing this spawned unit awards victory points as normal. The Tervigon rule does not make that unit scoring either as troop selections being scoring units is not a mission special rule.

Then you didn't read the Tervigon rule I pasted above. It explicitly says they're exactly like a unit that was selected. If a selected unit scores then the spawned unit must score, or they aren't exactly alike.

“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.”

According to the RAW posters, being identical to the troops section of the army list doesn't mean anything unless you come from a troops FOC slot. Therefore, spawned termagant units do not score. The detachment genestealers are identical to the genestealers in the troops section of the army list (sans the detachment specific rules) but do not take a FOC slot, thus they do not score.

I find this position to be incorrect and a poor interpretation of the rules. If you grant scoring status to spawned troop units, then you must grant it to detachment troop units. Conversely, if you do not grant scoring status to detachment troop units, then spawned troop units also do not score. Everyone universally agrees that spawned troop units score (or at least I haven't seen anyone argue otherwise), and I see no selection/classification difference in the rules between spawned troops and detachment troops, therefore detachment troops also score.

wolvesoffenris wrote:
“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.”

According to the RAW posters, being identical to the troops section of the army list doesn't mean anything unless you come from a troops FOC slot. Therefore, spawned termagant units do not score.

Incorrect. They aren't just identical to the troops section of the army list. They're identical in every way to a unit chosen from the Troops section.
Chosen how? Oh, to fill a FOC slot.

The detachment genestealers are identical to the genestealers in the troops section of the army list (sans the detachment specific rules) but do not take a FOC slot, thus they do not score.

Do not take, are never chosen to fill, etc. There's no way to make them "fit" in the FOC.

I find this position to be incorrect and a poor interpretation of the rules. If you grant scoring status to spawned troop units, then you must grant it to detachment troop units. Conversely, if you do not grant scoring status to detachment troop units, then spawned troop units also do not score. Everyone universally agrees that spawned troop units score (or at least I haven't seen anyone argue otherwise), and I see no selection/classification difference in the rules between spawned troops and detachment troops, therefore detachment troops also score.

You've made an error in your interpretation that I pointed out above. This isn't a double standard I'm applying. Also, are you arguing HYWPI or RAW? The bolded implies HYWPI.

BRB
"An army's scoring units are normally all the units that come from the troops selection of the Force Organisation chart"

Codex Tyranids
“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.”

The Troops section of the army list is not the same as the Troop section of the FOC. Per the Army list section of the codex, an army list (with units broken down by type HQ, Elite, etc) is used in conjunction with a FOC and the corresponding FOC categories allowed in the scenario.

Spawned termagants are identical to termagants chosen from the army list, not the FOC slot, they do not come from a FOC slot and therefore by strict RAW, they do not score.

Chosen can be for a FOC slot, or for a detachment, or like Tyrant Guard can be chosen as an HQ without a FOC slot. You are implying that being chosen from an army list automatically implies FOC which is not a valid assumption.

My previous statement still holds that spawned troops have no FOC slot and technically do not score if you play by the strict RAW you are proposing. However, that is not the consensus of the player community. If you state that spawned troops score, then detachment troops must also score.

wolvesoffenris wrote:
Chosen can be for a FOC slot, or for a detachment, or like Tyrant Guard can be chosen as an HQ without a FOC slot. You are implying that being chosen from an army list automatically implies FOC which is not a valid assumption.

Aside from filling FOC slots, when do you choose units from the Army List? During list building, right?
When is the FOC relevant? There's literally no way to read "choose" other than to satisfy FOC slots except for units that are specifically exempted from filling them. And they wouldn't score.

rigeld2 wrote:

wolvesoffenris wrote:
Chosen can be for a FOC slot, or for a detachment, or like Tyrant Guard can be chosen as an HQ without a FOC slot. You are implying that being chosen from an army list automatically implies FOC which is not a valid assumption.

Aside from filling FOC slots, when do you choose units from the Army List? During list building, right?
When is the FOC relevant? There's literally no way to read "choose" other than to satisfy FOC slots except for units that are specifically exempted from filling them. And they wouldn't score.

Agreed, you choose during list building.
You can choose and fill a FOC slot (HQ Tyrant)
You can choose and not fill a FOC slot (HQ Tyrant Guard, dedicated transports, etc)
You can choose and fill a detachment (Units in Formations)

The Tyrant is an HQ army list selection and an HQ FOC slot selection
The Tyrant Guard is an HQ army list selection and has no FOC slot
The Detachment takes units from multiple army list selections and has no FOC slot

All of them are chosen from the army list. So I go back to spawned troops, identical to troops from the army list (not FOC), if they are allowed to score, so must troops chosen from the army list located in formation detachments.

wolvesoffenris wrote:
So I go back to spawned troops, identical to troops chosen from the army list (not FOC),

You keep missing a word in there. I've added it for you in bold.

rigeld2 wrote:

wolvesoffenris wrote:
So I go back to spawned troops, identical to troops chosen from the army list (not FOC),

You keep missing a word in there. I've added it for you in bold.

As I stated above, there are multiple ways to choose, and not all go into a corresponding FOC slot.
You can choose and fill a FOC slot (HQ Tyrant)
You can choose and not fill a FOC slot (HQ Tyrant Guard, dedicated transports, etc)
You can choose and fill a detachment (Units in Formations)

Army List selections are not equivalent to FOC selections in the rules.

Spawned termagants are equal to the army list selection, but that is not the same as saying they are equal to the FOC selection.

wolvesoffenris wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

wolvesoffenris wrote:
So I go back to spawned troops, identical to troops chosen from the army list (not FOC),

You keep missing a word in there. I've added it for you in bold.

As I stated above, there are multiple ways to choose, and not all go into a corresponding FOC slot.
You can choose and fill a FOC slot (HQ Tyrant)
You can choose and not fill a FOC slot (HQ Tyrant Guard, dedicated transports, etc)
You can choose and fill a detachment (Units in Formations)

Army List selections are not equivalent to FOC selections in the rules.

Spawned termagants are equal to the army list selection, but that is not the same as saying they are equal to the FOC selection.

They must be. You cannot choose to have them not fill a FOC slot, so it must be a choice to fill an FOC slot.

rigeld2 wrote:
It's not a troops choice as it does not sit inside the FOC.

I have enjoyed this discussion and admire your persistence.

Does the fact that GW Digital have confirmed that the genestealers in question are a troop choice and count as scoring have any bearing on the matter?

Or is this discussion about what GW digital should have said, even though they manifestly didn't?

rigeld2 wrote:

They must be. You cannot choose to have them not fill a FOC slot, so it must be a choice to fill an FOC slot.

So when the next dataslate releases and termagants can be selected as part of a formation detachment you will concede that you are wrong? Or are you stating that no units can be chosen and not fill a FOC slot (which do exist, Tyrant Guard, Dedicated Transports, etc)?

It is pretty clear that spawned troops and formation troops are scoring to me. I see no difference in the rules between the two for scoring purposes.

rigeld2 wrote:

wolvesoffenris wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

wolvesoffenris wrote:
So I go back to spawned troops, identical to troops chosen from the army list (not FOC),

You keep missing a word in there. I've added it for you in bold.

As I stated above, there are multiple ways to choose, and not all go into a corresponding FOC slot.
You can choose and fill a FOC slot (HQ Tyrant)
You can choose and not fill a FOC slot (HQ Tyrant Guard, dedicated transports, etc)
You can choose and fill a detachment (Units in Formations)

Army List selections are not equivalent to FOC selections in the rules.

Spawned termagants are equal to the army list selection, but that is not the same as saying they are equal to the FOC selection.

They must be. You cannot choose to have them not fill a FOC slot, so it must be a choice to fill an FOC slot.

Hah seriously this is crazy... Look everything, literally everything you field in 40k now is part of the FOC - even Titans! You cannot select Tyrant Guard without first filling a FOC "slot" with a Tyrant - we all know that wording simply means they act as a retinue rather than a separate entry/slot. Dedicated transports are still part of your FOC, but do not follow the FO-Structure because they can be in any category depending on which unit purchased them - the BRB is very clear that they STILL count as the FOC category of which they were purchased.

Everything you purchase is part of the FOC - but what I'd like to know is where you got this reasoning? ->

rigeld2 wrote:You're failing to read the BRB now. If you're fielding an army you are using the FOC. By definition.
Unless you're using a dataslate - then you're not.

Where does it say these dataslates operate outside of the FOC? ...unfortunately the dataslate does not mention FOC (like all of the newer codex mind you) but if we are going to make assumptions - it is FAR more obvious that these operate 'just like everything else in the game' instead of some bizarre exception that is NOT mentioned anywhere.

Further it does tell us that these dataslates are just separate "detachments" - and while the BRB is much older than the dataslate, all of the other 'detachments' in the BRB are in the FOC.

The dataslate also goes so far as to re-list these units, as TROOPS; further the spell it out a few different ways - this is from the dataslate:

Tyranid Dataslate wrote:"Each datasheet will list the Faction it is part of. The Faction determines which codex the datasheet is considered part of for all rules purposes."

And again:

Tyranid Dataslate wrote: "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."

In this case both the codex corresponding to the Faction and the dataslate list this units as Troops.

 Gunzhard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

wolvesoffenris wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

wolvesoffenris wrote:
So I go back to spawned troops, identical to troops chosen from the army list (not FOC),

You keep missing a word in there. I've added it for you in bold.

As I stated above, there are multiple ways to choose, and not all go into a corresponding FOC slot.
You can choose and fill a FOC slot (HQ Tyrant)
You can choose and not fill a FOC slot (HQ Tyrant Guard, dedicated transports, etc)
You can choose and fill a detachment (Units in Formations)

Army List selections are not equivalent to FOC selections in the rules.

Spawned termagants are equal to the army list selection, but that is not the same as saying they are equal to the FOC selection.

They must be. You cannot choose to have them not fill a FOC slot, so it must be a choice to fill an FOC slot.

Hah seriously this is crazy... Look everything, literally everything you field in 40k now is part of the FOC - even Titans! You cannot select Tyrant Guard without first filling a FOC "slot" with a Tyrant - we all know that wording simply means they act as a retinue rather than a separate entry/slot. Dedicated transports are still part of your FOC, but do not follow the FO-Structure because they can be in any category depending on which unit purchased them - the BRB is very clear that they STILL count as the FOC category of which they were purchased.

Everything you purchase is part of the FOC - but what I'd like to know is where you got this reasoning? ->

You're failing to read the BRB now. If you're fielding an army you are using the FOC. By definition.
Unless you're using a dataslate - then you're not.

Where does it say these dataslates operate outside of the FOC? ...unfortunately the dataslate does not mention FOC (like all of the newer codex mind you) but if we are going to make assumptions - it is FAR more obvious that these operate 'just like everything else in the game' instead of some bizarre exception that is NOT mentioned anywhere.

Further it does tell us that these dataslates are just separate "detachments" - and while the BRB is much older than the dataslate, all of the other 'detachments' in the BRB are in the FOC.

The dataslate also goes so far as to re-list these units, as TROOPS; further the spell it out a few different ways - this is from the dataslate:

"Tyranid Dataslate" wrote:"Each datasheet will list the Faction it is part of. The Faction determines which codex the datasheet is considered part of for all rules purposes."

And again:

"Tyranid Dataslate wrote: "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."

In this case both the codex corresponding to the Faction and the dataslate list this units as Troops.

This +1

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:Does the fact that GW Digital have confirmed that the genestealers in question are a troop choice and count as scoring have any bearing on the matter?

As far as what the rules say, absolutely none. And that's what I'm discussing here, not some illusion of intent.

wolvesoffenris wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
They must be. You cannot choose to have them not fill a FOC slot, so it must be a choice to fill an FOC slot.

So when the next dataslate releases and termagants can be selected as part of a formation detachment you will concede that you are wrong? Or are you stating that no units can be chosen and not fill a FOC slot (which do exist, Tyrant Guard, Dedicated Transports, etc)?

It is pretty clear that spawned troops and formation troops are scoring to me. I see no difference in the rules between the two for scoring purposes.

Then you're failing to read. There's absolutely a difference between them according to the actual rules.

Gunzhard wrote:Hah seriously this is crazy... Look everything, literally everything you field in 40k now is part of the FOC - even Titans! You cannot select Tyrant Guard without first filling a FOC "slot" with a Tyrant - we all know that wording simply means they act as a retinue rather than a separate entry/slot.

... They're not a retinue at all. They're a completely separate unit that never has to be joined by the Tyrant.

Dedicated transports are still part of your FOC, but do not follow the FO-Structure because they can be in any category depending on which unit purchased them - the BRB is very clear that they STILL count as the FOC category of which they were purchased.

It's almost like they have a specific rule saying that...
Almost...

Everything you purchase is part of the FOC - but what I'd like to know is where you got this reasoning? ->

rigeld2 wrote:You're failing to read the BRB now. If you're fielding an army you are using the FOC. By definition.
Unless you're using a dataslate - then you're not.

Where does it say these dataslates operate outside of the FOC? ...unfortunately the dataslate does not mention FOC (like all of the newer codex mind you) but if we are going to make assumptions - it is FAR more obvious that these operate 'just like everything else in the game' instead of some bizarre exception that is NOT mentioned anywhere.

The codexes don't need to mention the FOC - because of the way the base rulebook is worded.
The dataslates - which, as you know, aren't included in the BRB - do need to mention the FOC if they're meant to be taken as part of the FOC.

Further it does tell us that these dataslates are just separate "detachments" - and while the BRB is much older than the dataslate, all of the other 'detachments' in the BRB are in the FOC.

Almost like rules matter and those rules specify detachments...

In this case both the codex corresponding to the Faction and the dataslate list this units as Troops.

Which, as has been pointed out, is irrelevant.

Would a Tyrant and a Manufactorum Genestealer Brood make a legal army? Why or why not?

As above. The rules are there for a reason.

rigeld2 wrote:

Gunzhard wrote:Hah seriously this is crazy... Look everything, literally everything you field in 40k now is part of the FOC - even Titans! You cannot select Tyrant Guard without first filling a FOC "slot" with a Tyrant - we all know that wording simply means they act as a retinue rather than a separate entry/slot.

... They're not a retinue at all. They're a completely separate unit that never has to be joined by the Tyrant.

Uhh retinues, command squads etc ARE separate units; and IC's can join/leave a unit at any time - even if this were not the case, the point is unaffected. In these cases it says "does not use up" -- which is different from "is not part of" - unless you are really just being contrary you know this means it does not use an ADDITIONAL slot.

rigeld2 wrote:

Dedicated transports are still part of your FOC, but do not follow the FO-Structure because they can be in any category depending on which unit purchased them - the BRB is very clear that they STILL count as the FOC category of which they were purchased.

It's almost like they have a specific rule saying that...
Almost...

From the BRB: "Dedicated Transports count as being from the same Force Organization category as the unit they were bought for."

rigeld2 wrote:

Everything you purchase is part of the FOC - but what I'd like to know is where you got this reasoning? ->

rigeld2 wrote:You're failing to read the BRB now. If you're fielding an army you are using the FOC. By definition.
Unless you're using a dataslate - then you're not.

Where does it say these dataslates operate outside of the FOC? ...unfortunately the dataslate does not mention FOC (like all of the newer codex mind you) but if we are going to make assumptions - it is FAR more obvious that these operate 'just like everything else in the game' instead of some bizarre exception that is NOT mentioned anywhere.

The codexes don't need to mention the FOC - because of the way the base rulebook is worded.
The dataslates - which, as you know, aren't included in the BRB - do need to mention the FOC if they're meant to be taken as part of the FOC.

Further it does tell us that these dataslates are just separate "detachments" - and while the BRB is much older than the dataslate, all of the other 'detachments' in the BRB are in the FOC.

Almost like rules matter and those rules specify detachments...

The dataslate very clearly states that it is a separate detachment.

rigeld2 wrote:

In this case both the codex corresponding to the Faction and the dataslate list this units as Troops.

Which, as has been pointed out, is irrelevant.

Oh in this case rules - are ... irrelevant?

rigeld2 wrote:

Would a Tyrant and a Manufactorum Genestealer Brood make a legal army? Why or why not?

No - because they are from separate detachments.

 Gunzhard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Gunzhard wrote:Hah seriously this is crazy... Look everything, literally everything you field in 40k now is part of the FOC - even Titans! You cannot select Tyrant Guard without first filling a FOC "slot" with a Tyrant - we all know that wording simply means they act as a retinue rather than a separate entry/slot.

... They're not a retinue at all. They're a completely separate unit that never has to be joined by the Tyrant.

Uhh retinues, command squads etc ARE separate units; and IC's can join/leave a unit at any time - even if this were not the case, the point is unaffected. In these cases it says "does not use up" -- which is different from "is not part of" - unless you are really just being contrary you know this means it does not use an ADDITIONAL slot.

"Retinue" has a specific connotation in that the HQ must be joined to them. Thank older editions for that.

rigeld2 wrote:

Dedicated transports are still part of your FOC, but do not follow the FO-Structure because they can be in any category depending on which unit purchased them - the BRB is very clear that they STILL count as the FOC category of which they were purchased.

It's almost like they have a specific rule saying that...
Almost...

From the BRB: "Dedicated Transports count as being from the same Force Organization category as the unit they were bought for."

Right - exactly what I meant.

The dataslate very clearly states that it is a separate detachment.

Yup. And it mentions nothing about being part of the FOC.

rigeld2 wrote:

In this case both the codex corresponding to the Faction and the dataslate list this units as Troops.

Which, as has been pointed out, is irrelevant.

Oh in this case rules - are ... irrelevant?

When they have no bearing on the discussion at hand, yes they're irrelevant.

rigeld2 wrote:

Would a Tyrant and a Manufactorum Genestealer Brood make a legal army? Why or why not?

No - because they are from separate detachments.

But - and this is according to you - there is no difference between the Troops in the detachment and the Troops in the codex.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
I don't know rigeld2. Units in a formation are also chosen from the codex.

No they're not - they're chosen from the dataslate. It's why you can use the StormWing formation with Codex: Space Wolves and not have to buy C: SM.

Yes, they are. Every single dataslate contants a passage just like this one

Army and Battlefield Role
A Reclusiam Command Squad is a Formation that consists of the following units chosen from Codex: Space Marines:

1 Chaplain

1 Command Squad

As you can see, the units in the formation are chosen from the codex. The information is reprinted so you don't have to buy the codex but as far as RAW is concerned the unit is chosen from the codex.

The unit also has the battlefield role, but this does not mean including the unit in your force makes it a FOC selection.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
I don't see much of a functional difference if any to units that are 'spawned' mid game. I also don't see any evidence that the units spawned mid game are scoring units. We know the the Deamons rule makes it clear these units award victory points as normal, but that does not mean they are scoring. It means in games where killing a unit awards victory points then killing this spawned unit awards victory points as normal. The Tervigon rule does not make that unit scoring either as troop selections being scoring units is not a mission special rule.

Then you didn't read the Tervigon rule I pasted above. It explicitly says they're exactly like a unit that was selected. If a selected unit scores then the spawned unit must score, or they aren't exactly alike.

A unit chosen from the codex is not necessarily a unit from a FOC selection even though both are chosen.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Gunzhard wrote:Hah seriously this is crazy... Look everything, literally everything you field in 40k now is part of the FOC - even Titans! You cannot select Tyrant Guard without first filling a FOC "slot" with a Tyrant - we all know that wording simply means they act as a retinue rather than a separate entry/slot.

... They're not a retinue at all. They're a completely separate unit that never has to be joined by the Tyrant.

Uhh retinues, command squads etc ARE separate units; and IC's can join/leave a unit at any time - even if this were not the case, the point is unaffected. In these cases it says "does not use up" -- which is different from "is not part of" - unless you are really just being contrary you know this means it does not use an ADDITIONAL slot.

"Retinue" has a specific connotation in that the HQ must be joined to them. Thank older editions for that.

This isn't an older edition.

rigeld2 wrote:

Would a Tyrant and a Manufactorum Genestealer Brood make a legal army? Why or why not?

No - because they are from separate detachments.

But - and this is according to you - there is no difference between the Troops in the detachment and the Troops in the codex.

This here is the crux of it all - there IS no difference, but they are still separate detachments, just like allied detachments, Can you field Dante and two Space Wolves troop squads as a legal army? ...no - they are separate detachments, but if you make a proper "allied" (and SEPARATE) detachment the Space Wolf troops are scoring.

 Gunzhard wrote:
This isn't an older edition.

Sure - just explaining the confusion around the word.

This here is the crux of it all - there IS no difference, but they are still separate detachments, just like allied detachments, Can you field Dante and two Space Wolves troop squads as a legal army? ...no - they are separate detachments, but if you make a proper "allied" (and SEPARATE) detachment the Space Wolf troops are scoring.

Units from a detachment must be chosen from the same codex, per the rules.
Tyrant + MGB is from one codex and, according to you, there's literally no difference between them and selecting a bunch of Genestealer broods.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
This isn't an older edition.

Sure - just explaining the confusion around the word.

This here is the crux of it all - there IS no difference, but they are still separate detachments, just like allied detachments, Can you field Dante and two Space Wolves troop squads as a legal army? ...no - they are separate detachments, but if you make a proper "allied" (and SEPARATE) detachment the Space Wolf troops are scoring.

Units from a detachment must be chosen from the same codex, per the rules.
Tyrant + MGB is from one codex and, according to you, there's literally no difference between them and selecting a bunch of Genestealer broods.

Everything you just wrote is true - AND you need to include that these 'bunch of Genestealer broods' we are talking about ARE in a separate detachment.

When you play huge games (2000+) and you include an 'Additional Primary Detachment' - you still select from the same codex - the units still work the same, ARE the same - they are still a SEPARATE detachment.

 Gunzhard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
This isn't an older edition.

Sure - just explaining the confusion around the word.

This here is the crux of it all - there IS no difference, but they are still separate detachments, just like allied detachments, Can you field Dante and two Space Wolves troop squads as a legal army? ...no - they are separate detachments, but if you make a proper "allied" (and SEPARATE) detachment the Space Wolf troops are scoring.

Units from a detachment must be chosen from the same codex, per the rules.
Tyrant + MGB is from one codex and, according to you, there's literally no difference between them and selecting a bunch of Genestealer broods.

Everything you just wrote is true - AND you need to include that these 'bunch of Genestealer broods' we are talking about ARE in a separate detachment.

When you play huge games (2000+) and you include an 'Additional Primary Detachment' - you still select from the same codex - the units still work the same, ARE the same - they are still a SEPARATE detachment.

And? There's an explicit minimum requirement you have to meet.

My point is that for a primary detachment to be legal you have to fill 3 slots - 1 HQ and 2 Troop.
Those units must all come from the same codex.
I select a Tyrant and the MGB. That is, according to you, an HQ and 5 Troops all from the same codex. You keep saying that a different detachment matters - cite the rule.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
This isn't an older edition.

Sure - just explaining the confusion around the word.

This here is the crux of it all - there IS no difference, but they are still separate detachments, just like allied detachments, Can you field Dante and two Space Wolves troop squads as a legal army? ...no - they are separate detachments, but if you make a proper "allied" (and SEPARATE) detachment the Space Wolf troops are scoring.

Units from a detachment must be chosen from the same codex, per the rules.
Tyrant + MGB is from one codex and, according to you, there's literally no difference between them and selecting a bunch of Genestealer broods.

Everything you just wrote is true - AND you need to include that these 'bunch of Genestealer broods' we are talking about ARE in a separate detachment.

When you play huge games (2000+) and you include an 'Additional Primary Detachment' - you still select from the same codex - the units still work the same, ARE the same - they are still a SEPARATE detachment.

And? There's an explicit minimum requirement you have to meet.

My point is that for a primary detachment to be legal you have to fill 3 slots - 1 HQ and 2 Troop.
Those units must all come from the same codex.
I select a Tyrant and the MGB. That is, according to you, an HQ and 5 Troops all from the same codex. You keep saying that a different detachment matters - cite the rule.

Its the basic Force Organization rule. It shades 1 HQ and 2 Troops as mandatory for each Primary Detachment and 1 HQ annd 1 Troop as mandatory for each Allied detachment. Formations are a seperate detachment. Ergo, they cannot count towards the minimum number required for another detachment (primary/allied/etc.).

@rigeld2
When you choose a unit from the army list, you are choosing to add it to your army. It may be part of a primary detachment, allied detachment, or formation detachment. It may or may not take up a FOC slot depending on a number of factors such as scenario rules, unit special rules, or detachment/formation rules. The act of choosing the unit for your army has no implication of if/which FOC slot it would occupy. Please read the Army List sections of the Codexes, "Army Lists" and "FOCs" are completely separate entities in the rules.

Detachment units are identical (sans detachment specific rules) to the unit from the Army List per RAW. This is not identical to the unit being chosen in the Troops FOC slot. Since they are identical to the unit from the Army List, per your arguments in this thread, they are not scoring.

Spawned termagants are identical to termagant units chosen from the Army List per RAW. This is not identical to termagant units chosen in the Troops FOC slot. Since they are identical to termagants chosen from the Army List, per your interpretation of the rules, they should not be scoring.

However, your arguement is that even though the rules treat them identically as I keep pointing out to you, spawned termagants are scoring and detachment troops are not. I don't see anything in the rules to support your arguement that choosing from the army list is equal to filling a FOC slot. I am simply pointing out that it is all or nothing, either both score or none do according to the rules. The general concensus seems to be that spawned troops score, so therefore so must formation troops. IE. Both are identical to the parent codex entry, both take up no FOC slot, and both have no rule specifically granting them scoring status.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
This isn't an older edition.

Sure - just explaining the confusion around the word.

This here is the crux of it all - there IS no difference, but they are still separate detachments, just like allied detachments, Can you field Dante and two Space Wolves troop squads as a legal army? ...no - they are separate detachments, but if you make a proper "allied" (and SEPARATE) detachment the Space Wolf troops are scoring.

Units from a detachment must be chosen from the same codex, per the rules.
Tyrant + MGB is from one codex and, according to you, there's literally no difference between them and selecting a bunch of Genestealer broods.

Everything you just wrote is true - AND you need to include that these 'bunch of Genestealer broods' we are talking about ARE in a separate detachment.

When you play huge games (2000+) and you include an 'Additional Primary Detachment' - you still select from the same codex - the units still work the same, ARE the same - they are still a SEPARATE detachment.

And? There's an explicit minimum requirement you have to meet.

My point is that for a primary detachment to be legal you have to fill 3 slots - 1 HQ and 2 Troop.
Those units must all come from the same codex.
I select a Tyrant and the MGB. That is, according to you, an HQ and 5 Troops all from the same codex. You keep saying that a different detachment matters - cite the rule.

According to me? ...they ARE from the same codex lol. Yes different detachments matter - this whole thing has been about detachments and you clearly don't know what a detachment is - why have we wasted all this time?!?!

wolvesoffenris wrote:
Detachment units are identical (sans detachment specific rules) to the unit from the Army List per RAW. This is not identical to the unit being chosen in the Troops FOC slot. Since they are identical to the unit from the Army List, per your arguments in this thread, they are not scoring.

X are identical to the unit from the army list - your words.

Spawned termagants are identical to termagant units chosen from the Army List per RAW. This is not identical to termagant units chosen in the Troops FOC slot. Since they are identical to termagants chosen from the Army List, per your interpretation of the rules, they should not be scoring.

X are identical to the unit chosen from the army list - your words.

However, your arguement is that even though the rules treat them identically as I keep pointing out to you, spawned termagants are scoring and detachment troops are not.

Your words prove they are not identical and you're surprised I'm not treating them identically?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gunzhard wrote:
According to me? ...they ARE from the same codex lol. Yes different detachments matter - this whole thing has been about detachments and you clearly don't know what a detachment is - why have we wasted all this time?!?!

I do actually know what a detachment is. The requirement you're asserting exists doesn't actually exist in the rules.
You've said that the formation detachment is part of the FOC but declined to explain where it "lives". You've also said that Troops in the formation detachment are the same as the troops in the Primary detachment (they must be as they score).

So I'm waiting for a rules reason that a Tyrant and MGB are an illegal army. They're both from the same codex, they're an HQ and 2+ Troops, and there is no rule saying a formation detachment cannot be part of the primary detachment.

Wow - rigeld2 and wolvesoffenris you two have both painted yourselves into paradoxical corners that neither make sense or address the issue here.

So either, neither, or both of you are saying that 'spawned' troops do not score at different times lol.

@wolvesoffenris - everything is in the FOC dude. Some units "do not use up" your force 'slots' - meaning they are 'free' slots against your total allowance per detachment, but they are still part of your FOC.

rigeld2 wrote:I do actually know what a detachment is. The requirement you're asserting exists doesn't actually exist in the rules.
You've said that the formation detachment is part of the FOC but declined to explain where it "lives". You've also said that Troops in the formation detachment are the same as the troops in the Primary detachment (they must be as they score).

So I'm waiting for a rules reason that a Tyrant and MGB are an illegal army. They're both from the same codex, they're an HQ and 2+ Troops, and there is no rule saying a formation detachment cannot be part of the primary detachment.

No sorry bro - the dataslate states clearly that it is a "separate detachment" - so it clearly cannot be part of the primary detachment, as it is separate. This is really getting dumb, I think I'm done here.

rigeld2 wrote:

wolvesoffenris wrote:
Detachment units are identical (sans detachment specific rules) to the unit from the Army List per RAW. This is not identical to the unit being chosen in the Troops FOC slot. Since they are identical to the unit from the Army List, per your arguments in this thread, they are not scoring.

X are identical to the unit from the army list - your words.

Spawned termagants are identical to termagant units chosen from the Army List per RAW. This is not identical to termagant units chosen in the Troops FOC slot. Since they are identical to termagants chosen from the Army List, per your interpretation of the rules, they should not be scoring.

X are identical to the unit chosen from the army list - your words.

However, your arguement is that even though the rules treat them identically as I keep pointing out to you, spawned termagants are scoring and detachment troops are not.

Your words prove they are not identical and you're surprised I'm not treating them identically?

Dude, seriously? Define how chosen differentiates the units per RAW (citing sources). I have shown repeatedly that choosing a unit from the Army List has no implication of if/which FOC slot it should/will be occupying and have shown examples illustrating this fact.

Both spawned and formation troops are identical to the unit in the "Army List" (not FOC) per RAW, the words chosen/selected/purchased or any other synonym you wish you use have no definition in the rules that changes this equivalency. If you find one, please cite the page number. Barring a rule to this effect, the rules treat spawned and formation troops the same.

@Gunzhard
You are correct, I have gotten off topic slightly. My point is that both spawned and detachment troops are identical to their codex army list entry so either they both score or they both don't. I never saw this arguement against scoring come up before, so I am not sure why it is suddenly an issue. Troops in formations are scoring, just like Fast Attack/Heavy Support in formations are scoring in their special scenarios.

rigeld2, X are identical to the units chosen from the army list is not wolvesoffenris's words. He is acuaralty paraphrasing the statement from Codex: Tyradids.

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.

Unless they (GW) have broken from the pattern, the genesteelers in the formation are also chosen from Cdoex: Tyranid.

Being chosen from the codex does not equate to being a selection for the FOC. None of the mission special rules make troops scoring so nothing should be making a unit spawned by a Terbigon a scoring unit.

I can't believe the level of aggressively brazen trolling in this thread. Sad.

DJGietzen wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Are we referred to the codex to determine the formation units role in the battle? Yes.

Per the codex, is the unit a scoring unit? Yes.

What more needs to be said?

No, the unit is nor scoring per the codex unless it is taken as a selection for the FOC. Units in formations are not.

Per the BRB for a unit to be scoring it must be 'taken from' the FOC not 'selected for the FOC'.

All units in the codex have a place on the FOC chart whether you take them or not. To look at it otherwise would make it impossible to have scoring units at all.

"all the units that come from the troops selection of the Force Organisation chart"

It does not matter per the wording of the rule if the unit ends up occupying a troops slot. What matters is that it 'comes from' that section of the chart. Every unit in the troops section of the codex is associated with the troops section of the FOC before you purchase any of them. That is the only way a unit can be said to originate or 'come from' the troops selection of the FOC.

You believe you purchase a unit and then it gets slotted into the appropriate place on the chart if I understand you correctly.
I believe it already has a place on the chart when you purchase it. That the troops section on the chart and the troops section of the army list are inextricably linked.
One of these ways of thinking accounts for units being able to originate 'from the troops selection of the Force Organisation chart' in some manner. The other does not.

Also I'd like to point out that there is no option within the codex to take Genestealers as anything other than as a troops selection on the FOC and as the data slate defers to the codex rules for such things their standing as a scoring unit would remain just as if they had been purchased using the rules from the codex even if per the data slate they no longer take up a slot.

Taking up a slot is not a requirement for being a scoring unit. Originating from the troops section of the FOC is.

1) "One box on the chart allows you to make one selection from that part of your army list in the relevant codex." and "all the units that come from the troops selection of the Force Organisation chart" means that you can make one selection per box/slot on the FOC. The units that come from the troop selection, i.e thing thing you put into the slot, are scoring units.

2) We have permission to include the units in a formation, regardless of the boxes on the FOC. Including these units is not making a selection for the chart.

3) The dataslate has us select units from the codex, but it does not have us make the selection using the FOC. Just because when you select units from the codex for the primary, or allied detachments you are using the chart does not mean that when you are selecting units for the formation are you using the chart.

4) there is no option in the codex to take any unit in your codex as part of your army. That permission depends on what detachment the units will become a part of. The permissions for primary and allied detachment are both printed in the BRB, permission for formations work differently and are printed in the dataslate.

Bottom line. When you include units in a formation in your army you are not making a selection in relation to the FOC. Because only the units that come from the FOC troop selection are scoring in a normal eternal war mission none of your formation troops can be scoring despite being troop units.

"An Army List Entry provides all the relevant information to field a single unit in games of wahammer 40,000, including its points value and battlefield role. The unit can be used as part of any Detachment that corresponds to the Faction listed on the datasheet." Dataslate: Tyranid Vanguard, page 2, ARMY LIST ENTRIES

Units are purchased as normal and can then be used in any number of formations that corespond to their Faction. That satisfies where the unit 'comes from' on the FOC even if it is no longer listed on the FOC.

Regarding #2, the unit is purchased from the codex in the only manner possible per the codex. Using the FOC. You are then permitted to use that unit in a Formation which removes it from occupying a slot. That does not change where the unit 'comes from on the FOC', only where it ends up.

Regarding #3, the FOC must be used to purchase units per the BRB and codex. Again, if the unit is then used in a formation, that does not change the origin of the unit.

Spawned Termigants are identical in every way to units of Termigants purchased from the army list.
Logic dictates that units actually purchased from the army list are also in fact identical to units purchased from the army list... like units in formations... which are in fact purchased from the army list...

Did everyone miss the 6th post on the very first page where there was an email in which GW (they are the company who wrote the rules remember) declared they are scoring?

Poly Ranger wrote:
Did everyone miss the 6th post on the very first page where there was an email in which GW (they are the company who wrote the rules remember) declared they are scoring?

No, no one missed it. No one cares because the tenants of YMTC say emails from GW are basically invalid because they are unreliable, inconsistent, in no way official and easily spoofed.

. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop are easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.

So bringing it up or pointing it out is basically a spam post.

I agree RAW they are still scoring, but i would, as i said earlier, definately vote it as the formation only being able to hold a single objective if i was TO'ing an event.

just thought id add,
Games workshop digital have stated as answers several times that the genestealers ARE scoring units
------------
example:
Q:Hey I just downloaded the dataslate and I like it a lot! A question, though - the manufactorum genestealer formation says broods may not add genestealers - can I add brood lords to those units? Also do they count as troops for scoring objectives? Thanks!

A-Hey Jonathon,
The unit is the same as the one that appears in the codex in all regards, so the unit's battlefield role stays the same as do any options that aren't specifically mentioned as being changed.

(https://www.facebook.com/GamesWorkshopDigitalEditions?fref=ts)
*to find this specific comment its a comment on the post that has an image of the planet with the words 'the fall of satys'
but there are others too
---------------
This is a similar answer they give to all questions asked relating to genestealers form formations as scoring units

But also this indicates that perhaps Manufactorum genestealers can in fact include additional broodlords
As the dataslate mentions they cannot include more genestealers, but no mention of upgrades such as a broodlord.

Curious to hear opinions on this, but from the answers they are giving, genestealers form formations can score, and manufacotrum genestealers can in fact include a broodlord

Cheers

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop are easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.

That rule needs to be amended though, as a statement on the official Facebook page of Games Workshop from a community representative is certainly different from an email from a random customer service guy. For instance, it cannot be easily spoofed.

 Redemption wrote:
That rule needs to be amended though, as a statement on the official Facebook page of Games Workshop from a community representative is certainly different from an email from a random customer service guy. For instance, it cannot be easily spoofed.

Indeed. It's on the record, and it's public.

 Redemption wrote:
That rule needs to be amended though, as a statement on the official Facebook page of Games Workshop from a community representative is certainly different from an email from a random customer service guy. For instance, it cannot be easily spoofed.

So they'renot known for being inconsistent?

Digital editions are not the same as the studio team. THeyre close, but not quite.

The rule can be amended once they have a track record of rulign consistently/ Until then, stick with FAQs.

True, i can see what you mean about inconsistency,
But obviously the people who wrote the rules etc for these dataslates intend that troops can be scoring, having stated it on their facebook publicly answering several questions on the topic.

So perhaps The rulebook and Faqs are the only official rules that should be considered,
But the statements on the facebook page show how they are going the answer the question when it is faq'd
And id imagine whether or not troop formations can score, being a major impactor of the game, would have been widely discussed and considered throughout Games workshop teams,
And if Games workshop Digital are saying publicly that you can, and they wrote the rules, and there is no rules saying they cant score, then there isnt much point arguing against it since their intention has been made clear on their facebook page multiple times.

But your point is valid and im sure they will release an faq to clear it up officially,
But for the time being they've made it quite clear what their intentions are
And with a game impacting factor as large as point scoring and objective holding, id say all the teams were aware of the decision as soon as thy decided to bring out all these digital releases

So id say people use them as scoring or the time being as thats 99.9% most likely to be what they say in the faq
Unless they really had a grudge against the digital team and wanted to undermine them as some kind of authority blow :s
But other than that id say we are sound to use them as scoring troops as they state on their facebook
Dont think they would have said it so publicly without getting confirmation
So the verdict seems heavily swayed towards using them as scoring units
and this is basically tyranid allied forces replacement method since they cant get allies, and allies can score for other armies so i tihnk this is supposed to make up for that
cheers

Digital editions don't write the rules, they publish them.

I really wanted to start a new thread for this question, but it is essentially the same question.

If Abaddon is my Warlord and I take the "Fallen Champions" formation, would the units of Chosen, er chosen (sorry I couldn't help myself ) from that formation be Troop choices instead of Elites?

I'm leaning toward yes because of how Abaddon's "First Amongst Chosen" rule is worded and how the "Fallen Champions" formation allows the formation to be part of any of the detachments the corresponds to the faction on its datasheet (CSM in this case).

Relevant rules:

C:CSM, pg. 92 wrote:First Amongst Chosen: In a primary detachment that includes Abaddon, units of Chosen are troop choices instead of elites.

(Emphasis mine)

Dataslate: Cypher Lord of the Fallen wrote:The unit can be used as part of any Detachment that corresponds to the Faction listed on the datasheet

(Once again, Emphasis mine)

So putting these two things together, if CSM is my primary detachment with Abaddon as my Warlord, and I take the "Fallen Champions" as part of my primary detachment of CSM (premission granted from the dataslate itself to do so) then those Chosen from the "Fallen Champions" formation will be Troops (instead of the Elites they usually are in both the C:CSM and the Dataslate).

I don't think I've missed anything with this point of view, but I'd love to get your guys thoughts on it.

Edit: Related question, could a legal army be made of Abaddon, Cypher, and 2 units of Chosen from the "Fallen Champions" formation? Abaddon specifically makes Chosen troop choices, thus the formation Chosen, presuming the above is true, can fulfill the minimum 2 troops of the FOC.

{{{{Edit: Related question, could a legal army be made of Abaddon, Cypher, and 2 units of Chosen from the "Fallen Champions" formation? Abaddon specifically makes Chosen troop choices, thus the formation Chosen, presuming the above is true, can fulfill the minimum 2 troops of the FOC. }}}}


Nope. They would count as scoring but are not taking the mandatory troop slots you need to fill as they are a formation.

Yeah I haven't read that Chaos formation... but in the Tyranid one it specifically states that the formations count as an entirely "separate detachment"... so they could never fill your mandatory FOC slots.

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:
I really wanted to start a new thread for this question, but it is essentially the same question.

If Abaddon is my Warlord and I take the "Fallen Champions" formation, would the units of Chosen, er chosen (sorry I couldn't help myself ) from that formation be Troop choices instead of Elites?

I'm leaning toward yes because of how Abaddon's "First Amongst Chosen" rule is worded and how the "Fallen Champions" formation allows the formation to be part of any of the detachments the corresponds to the faction on its datasheet (CSM in this case).

Relevant rules:

C:CSM, pg. 92 wrote:First Amongst Chosen: In a primary detachment that includes Abaddon, units of Chosen are troop choices instead of elites.

(Emphasis mine)

Dataslate: Cypher Lord of the Fallen wrote:The unit can be used as part of any Detachment that corresponds to the Faction listed on the datasheet

(Once again, Emphasis mine)

So putting these two things together, if CSM is my primary detachment with Abaddon as my Warlord, and I take the "Fallen Champions" as part of my primary detachment of CSM (premission granted from the dataslate itself to do so) then those Chosen from the "Fallen Champions" formation will be Troops (instead of the Elites they usually are in both the C:CSM and the Dataslate).

I don't think I've missed anything with this point of view, but I'd love to get your guys thoughts on it.

Edit: Related question, could a legal army be made of Abaddon, Cypher, and 2 units of Chosen from the "Fallen Champions" formation? Abaddon specifically makes Chosen troop choices, thus the formation Chosen, presuming the above is true, can fulfill the minimum 2 troops of the FOC.

. You have misunderstood a key element. A dataslate contains one or more datasheets. A datasheet can be a single unit that can essentially be added to in one or more codex. A datasheet can also be a collection of units that must be taken together and form a special detachment of just those units. The Cypher and the Fallen dataslate contains two datasheets. The 1st is a new unit, Cypher by himself, that is being added to several codices. The 2nd is a formation comprised on the new CSM Cypher unit as well as some chosen .

1st Question: If you take a primary detachment of chaos marines and the fallen champions formation then you will have two different detachments, both made of chaos marines. Abbaddon would be in the primary detachment but cypher and the chosen from the fallen formation would be in a different detachment. Abbaddon's rule would not change the chosen that are not in the primary detachment to troops.

2nd Question: They aren't even in the same detachment. No possible way they would be able to fill those slots.

What you can do however is NOT take the Fallen Champions formation at all. When selecting the units for you primary detachment your two HQ choices can be Abbaddon and Cypher (remember there is a datasheet that is JUST Cypher that added him as a unit choice to the CSM codex) Abbadon will then make the normal chosen from the codex troops and those units can fill the mandatory troop slots.

DJ - I disagree - "The unit can be used as part of any Detachment that corresponds to the Faction listed on the datasheet"

I state it is part of my primary detachment; not a separate one.

You're taking that rule grossly out of context though, as that rule is for Army List Entries (like taking Cypher separately as an HQ choice), not for Formations. Formations are always a separate detachment, so Abaddon's rule wouldn't work for Chosen that are in a formation.

Army wide FOC changes like that for the Spiritseer would work for formations like the Eldar Ghost Warriors.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Digital editions don't write the rules, they publish them.

This sounds a little desperate.

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Digital editions don't write the rules, they publish them.

This sounds a little desperate.

I would agree GW;DE don't know everything. While they may be more reliable than emails, some questions they do not answer, because they don't know the answer. Some they answer by a phrase or such, and sometime they update the digital rule sets to be clearer. While they are a good source, they are not as good as an FAQ or similar, and every answer you still have to take with a pinch of salt.

When it comes to DS and Formations however, with how much they have updated the wording of rules for different area’s I would be more confident they are knowledgeable in this area and how they are meant to work.


But it's not in stone.

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Digital editions don't write the rules, they publish them.

This sounds a little desperate.

Providing facts to a discussion is "sounding a little desperate"?

DE do not write the rules, they publish the rules. They are responsible for converting the masters into the ebook and ibook enhanced using specific tools, then sending them to the various digital stores. The studio are still the team that writes the core rules.

Now, do you have anything actually constructive to add, or will y ou just cling to ad homs?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Now, do you have anything actually constructive to add, or will y ou just cling to ad homs?

Where was the ad hom? I am sure you are a wonderful person, but when the people who issue the rules issue a clarification, which is there for anyone to see, then that clarification has a certain validity, as many here accept. This isn't an assistant in a GW store, it's the company itself clarifying, repeatedly, on the record. Therefore the argument that "GW digital don't write the rules, they publish them" sounds a little desperate.

Currently, they are at the level of a blackshirt. Just one more non-studio source for rules questions.

I explained that already, though. Feel free to keep ignoring forum rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Currently, they are at the level of a blackshirt. Just one more non-studio source for rules questions.

I explained that already, though. Feel free to keep ignoring forum rules.

Maybe we should consider the intent and spirit of that forum rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Currently, they are at the level of a blackshirt. Just one more non-studio source for rules questions.

I explained that already, though. Feel free to keep ignoring forum rules.

Do you create these "levels" yourself?

I think they are above the team that writes the FAQ's simply because the team that wrote the FAQ's hasn't given enough gak to actually spell check them .

Its a GW official website/webpage which is giving a rules answer. That is pretty darn official.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Currently, they are at the level of a blackshirt. Just one more non-studio source for rules questions.
I explained that already, though.

This was an assertion, not an explanation.

The tenets of this forum refer to BRB, codices and FAQs. When the tenets were established there was no such thing as dataslates. It is reasonable for a digital product to have queries answered in the digital domain, if the answer is on the record. The qualification about blackshirt "emails" refers to the fact that emails can be spoofed. This is not the case with an announcement on an official GW page. The GW digital official Facebook page is self-evidently not equivalent to a black-shirt email.

Feel free to keep ignoring forum rules.

will y ou just cling to ad homs?

We are discussing rules, and some of your posts seem to take an aggressive tone, accusing of "ad homs" when the relevant posts quite clearly refer to the argument, rather than the poster. A rules discussion would be much more productive if the posts in questions aren't strident or make obviously baseless accusations.

The BRB states that scoring troops are "normally all the units that come from the troops selection of the FOC...". and details the differences between allies; it specifically states that desperate allies "are non-scoring, non-denial units" (p112) - this indicates that Battle Brothers allies troops are Scoring Units.

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."

The Genestealers' battlefield role is defined, in the Dataslate, as troops. The levels of Alliance apply and therefore the Genestealers are scoring.

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).

Added to this, of course, is the fact that GW have officially confirmed that the Genestealers are scoring.

Overall, troops in formation count as scoring, as long as they're listed as troops and satisfy the Levels of Alliance criteria.

.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
DJ - I disagree - "The unit can be used as part of any Detachment that corresponds to the Faction listed on the datasheet"

I state it is part of my primary detachment; not a separate one.

Cypher.epub pg 3 wrote:Dataslates contain collections of one or more datasheets. Each datasheet lists its Faction (the codex it is considered part of), and will present either an Army List Entry (the rules and point values for a single model, vehicle or unit) or a Formation (a specific group of models, vehicles or units that enable you to use special rules when you include them in your army).

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. The unit can be used as part of any Detachment that corresponds to the Faction listed on the datasheet.

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.

If the datasheet contains a formation then those units have to be their own detachment. Only when a datasheet contains an individual unit can it be used as part of any detachment that corresponds to the faction of the unit.

Cypher.epub pg 46 wrote:Fallen Champions is a Formation that consists of the following units:

Cypher

1-3 Units of Chosen

The Fallen champions is a formation, not a unit. It must always form a separate detachment. and does not have permision to be included in any other detachments.

After reading the epub again I have to retract the statement that there is a second datasheet that is an army list entry. Because of the unique nature of Cypher the dataslate actually contains special rules to include a Cypher unit in a primary detachment from several codices with out taking up a FOC slot. This is different from a unit entry because those would be able to be taken in any detachment not just the primary one and unit entries would also take up a FOC. These special rules however are only for the Cypher unit, and not for any Chosen units.

Ok, I see where I made my mistake. The "Fallen Champions" will always be a separate detachment from your primary, so Abaddon won't make them troops. Everything else I was thinking falls apart from there. Oh well, still going to essentially make an army of the Fallen and troll some local DA players (because they need it?)

I still fail to see how troops purchased from the codex are not scoring. The only way I see to purchase them is by selecting them through the FOC. If the troops are then placed in a formation I don't see that changing where they are from.

I love how some people have a profound desire to nitpick at all cost and they stop not at absurds to do so.

Troops in allied detachments are scoring as long as they aren't Desperate Allies, right?

Now let me quote something - "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 still apply to them and units chosen from a different codex that are in the same army."

Now another quote: "Note that Army List Entries that make up a Formation retain their separate battlefield roles, unless the formation specifies otherwise."

So.. is it really, really that hard for some people to get it? Let me show you on an example: Scions that come in either formation from the Militarum Tempestus codex are still troops as they retain their battlefield role. In an army whose Primary Detachment is not Desperate Allies with Tempestus these Scions, thanks to Allies Chart, ARE SCORING!


Seriously! Why do people have to be so hell-bent on nitpicking or misinterpreting the rules badly that they don't even try to understand them better?

Now, everyone say it with me - Troops in Formations ARE SCORING as long as they are allowed to be scoring by the Allies Chart(i.e. - they're not Desperate Allies which clearly states that they would be non-scoring, non-denial units) for the Codex they hail from. They do not magically appear out of some other Codex. Just like any other battlefield role is still performed by anything added in a Formation unless stated otherwise.

P.s. - just if anyone wonders - "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."

Klerych,

The issue is not Alliance level, or battlefield role. The issue is that unless specified otherwise, a unit must be a Troops selection which,as rigeld pointed out back near the beginning of the topic, equates to being a Troops slot on the FOC.

Since Formations do not have a Troops slot, the units that make up hte formation cannot be a Troops selection.

 Happyjew wrote:
The issue is that unless specified otherwise, a unit must be a Troops selection which,as rigeld pointed out back near the beginning of the topic, equates to being a Troops slot on the FOC.

But it is clearly said that they retain the battlefield role from the codex they come from. Ergo they are obviously Troops! What I'm quoting is the electronic Tempestus Codex and as far as I remember, Codex informations overrule the Rulebook, so it doesn't matter if they're "Troops slot on the FOC" - they are Troops that do not take a slot. That doesn't magically not make them scoring. Why would it?

 Happyjew wrote:
Since Formations do not have a Troops slot, the units that make up hte formation cannot be a Troops selection.

I'll have to quote the formations description again - "Formation Icon: This icon shows that this is a Formation datasheet, rather than an Army List Entry datasheet. [b] Note that the Army List Entries that make up a Formation retain their separate battlefield roles, unless the Formation specifies otherwise." <- I think it makes the issue pretty clear - they're still troops, even if the formation itself doesn't have a FOC because they use the Army List Entries of the Codex they come from, as simple as that. So it even says that they actually work as if they took a slot on the FOC, even though they have a special rule that makes them not take up any space.

 Klerych wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
The issue is that unless specified otherwise, a unit must be a Troops selection which,as rigeld pointed out back near the beginning of the topic, equates to being a Troops slot on the FOC.

But it is clearly said that they retain the battlefield role from the codex they come from. Ergo they are obviously Troops! What I'm quoting is the electronic Tempestus Codex and as far as I remember, Codex informations overrule the Rulebook, so it doesn't matter if they're "Troops slot on the FOC" - they are Troops that do not take a slot. That doesn't magically not make them scoring. Why would it?

Because it's not the fact that they're Troops that make them scoring.
It's the fact that they come from a Troops selection. If you'd read the thread you're not bringing up anything new - I've debunked that argument a few times already.

 Happyjew wrote:
Since Formations do not have a Troops slot, the units that make up hte formation cannot be a Troops selection.

I'll have to quote the formations description again - "Formation Icon: This icon shows that this is a Formation datasheet, rather than an Army List Entry datasheet. [b] Note that the Army List Entries that make up a Formation retain their separate battlefield roles, unless the Formation specifies otherwise." <- I think it makes the issue pretty clear - they're still troops, even if the formation itself doesn't have a FOC because they use the Army List Entries of the Codex they come from, as simple as that. So it even says that they actually work as if they took a slot on the FOC, even though they have a special rule that makes them not take up any space.

Unfortunately, the actual rules require them to take up a slot on the FOC - and the rule you quoted doesn't say they take up a slot, it just says they have the same battlefield role.
If you could find a definition for "battlefield role" you'd be doing better than literally any other person in this thread.

Battlefield role is pretty obvious - it states whether it's an HQ, Troop, Elite, Fast Attack or Heavy Support unit.

I don't really get your point - everything I quoted stated that:

They're Troops because they're Troops in their Codex.

Allies Chart tells us that Troops from Allies that aren't Desperate Allies are scoring.

Formations work just like additional detachments that follow the Chart.


I don't get why are you so fixed upon the "take a slot" - the quote I had as my post scriptum seems to say that Formations as they go are 'legal' no matter what or how many units they contain, which is somewhat obvious, so they evade delving into FOC shenanigans and just work as if they had their own, specific FOC that is fulfilled, because they can be taken as they are.

While you can write it off as my interpretation, I see literally no reason why they wouldn't be scoring. Everything I quoted states that they're still Troops and they aren't 'not scoring' unless they get into the Desperate Allies field. Do you really think that there's any other requirement to be fulfilled?

I beg you to think this through again and try looking at it from the point of view that I stated, given the fact that Formations in general collide with everything that BRB says about FOC and army building aside from Allies Chart-related entries and through the simple overruling rule(kek), clinging to a scrap like the "FOC slot" seems somewhat questionable. :-)

P.s. - could you quote the part of the rules that requires them to take up a slot on the FOC to be scoring? I don't remember that part and would love to educate myself!

 Klerych wrote:
Battlefield role is pretty obvious - it states whether it's an HQ, Troop, Elite, Fast Attack or Heavy Support unit.

I'd love some rules support instead of assumptions. Even though this is an irrelevant point.

Allies Chart tells us that Troops from Allies that aren't Desperate Allies are scoring.

No, it doesn't. All it says is that DA aren't scoring. There's a difference there.

I don't get why are you so fixed upon the "take a slot"

Because that's what the rule says. Have you read the thread?

Do you really think that there's any other requirement to be fulfilled?

p123 wrote:An army's scoring units are normally all the units that come from the troops selection of the Force Organisation chart.

There's that requirement...

Well, given that the battlefield roles little information image in the codex clearly refers to the icons of respective army list entry categories(HQ, Elites and so on) in the army list part of the Codex, I think that it's pretty clear what a battlefield role is. The only case when it's different is when the unit changes it's battlefield role and becomes another one when explicitly stated in some HQ's special rule but even then they just pick up different battlefield roles(effectively working as if another icon appeared above them in their Codex Army List chapter).

If you're going by "RAW" on what p123 wrote, you can just as well cling onto the word "normally", which means that it's not the only case when they'd be scoring, doesn't it? So that doesn't belie anything I said.

Also - seeing how Formations are separate detachments that can be taken no matter what they hold as long as, well, they can be taken, wouldn't they appear on the FOC somewhere to the side of the rest of it with it's own little FOC fulfilled with units they bring? It doesn't say that they do not appear with the FOC especially that they come as separate, additional detachment. Of course that's just a rule interpretation, but if you cling to the BRB FOC, it doesn't even have Formations in it. So RAW shouldn't they be illegal? See, clinging so hard to RAW stuff gets it's loopholes to, if we fix on nitpicking.

 Klerych wrote:
If you're going by "RAW" on what p123 wrote, you can just as well cling onto the word "normally", which means that it's not the only case when they'd be scoring, doesn't it? So that doesn't belie anything I said.

Correct. You need permission to score. That's the normal way they score. Other ways will be mentioned - as for Heavy Support in BGNT, Fast Attack in The Scouring, Sterngard with Pedro...

Also - seeing how Formations are separate detachments that can be taken no matter what they hold as long as, well, they can be taken, wouldn't they appear on the FOC somewhere to the side of the rest of it with it's own little FOC fulfilled with units they bring? It doesn't say that they do not appear with the FOC especially that they come as separate, additional detachment. Of course that's just a rule interpretation, but if you cling to the BRB FOC, it doesn't even have Formations in it. So RAW shouldn't they be illegal? See, clinging so hard to RAW stuff gets it's loopholes to, if we fix on nitpicking.

No - the Formation rules allow you to take them. They say nothing about them being a magic christmas land of FOC slots that are automatically selected without you having any options.

It's almost like you're trying to create a straw man argument. See? Making things up isn't very nice.

But by your interpretation it sounds like Troops that don't hail from your Primary or Allied FOC can't be scoring unless stated otherwise until GW gives us updated 'standard' FOC.

Doesn't that sound like being narrow-mindedly stuck at RAW?

 Klerych wrote:
But by your interpretation it sounds like Troops that don't hail from your Primary or Allied FOC can't be scoring unless stated otherwise until GW gives us updated 'standard' FOC.

Not an interpretation - it's how the rules work.

Doesn't that sound like being narrow-mindedly stuck at RAW?

It's exactly as narrow-minded as saying that Rapid Fire only gets a second shot at half the weapon's range.

 Klerych wrote:
But by your interpretation it sounds like Troops that don't hail from your Primary or Allied FOC can't be scoring unless stated otherwise until GW gives us updated 'standard' FOC.

Doesn't that sound like being narrow-mindedly stuck at RAW?

Correct, which is why, HIPI they score, even if it is not RAW.

Of course, nobody at my store likes the whole Formation thing, so it is unlikely to come up.

rigeld2 wrote:

It's exactly as narrow-minded as saying that Rapid Fire only gets a second shot at half the weapon's range.

Well, it's not. Rapid Fire says explicitly and clearly "up to half it's range". Although I've heard some people claim that it's set on 12"(sic!). No idea why would anyone believe that.. too many bolters, perhaps.

 Klerych wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

It's exactly as narrow-minded as saying that Rapid Fire only gets a second shot at half the weapon's range.

Well, it's not. Rapid Fire says explicitly and clearly "up to half it's range". Although I've heard some people claim that it's set on 12"(sic!). No idea why would anyone believe that.. too many bolters, perhaps.

Old rule holdover. In 5th edition, double tap was 12"regardless of gun range.