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.

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.