Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.