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,

About being polite - it's a two way street. Strawman arguments and talking to posters as if they're simple or irrelevant isn't polite.

You are putting inflection in my statements where there are none. I did not refer to anyones position as "reduction ad absurdum line of argumentation". Which was done to me. Again, if I'm wrong that is fine, just keep it civil.

-theJughead

It is civil to say you are making a reduction ad absurdum argument, it's not civil to say something about the person arguing. If I am wrong then may I be horribly deleted by a Mod.

Happy, I am saying that unless a unit is in a troops slot then it's not troops. WG are troops when in a troop slot and something else normally.
From how I see it, units are scoring when they are in a troops slot and that is the only definition that matters to the game.For the scouring etc the FA etc slot can be subbed into the above.

Fragile wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
The side that says that troop units from formations are non-scoring have backed their arguments up. The other side has not.

One side has not proven that Troops are not Troops. That side ignores that units in formation are listed as Troops. The claim that those Troops are not "Troops", even though the Formation is in the FOC chart as a detachment is absurd. A unit of Termagants comes from the Troop section of the FOC regardless of whether its in a formation or not.

The underlined statement has yet to be proven.
Please do so.

And please answer the question I've asked multiple times - are you asserting that the Army List is definitive of what is a Troop? That seems to be where you're hanging your argument (since that's what the screencap posted earlier is, and what people are referring to when they say Formations list Termagants and Genestealers as troops) but I want to make sure instead of assuming.

The Force Organization Chart (FOC) as defined by the BRB, "...as all the forces you can use..." It further defines the Primary, Allied, and Fortification detachments as part of the FOC. The dataslate further defines a formation as a special detachment. You cannot have a detachment that is not within the FOC as all the forces you have must reside within the FOC.

Units like Command Squads that sit "outside the FOC" usually really ignore the category requirements that dictate the limits of the FOC. Those units still exist within the FOC.

 thejughead wrote:
The Force Organization Chart (FOC) as defined by the BRB, "...as all the forces you can use..." It further defines the Primary, Allied, and Fortification detachments as part of the FOC. The dataslate further defines a formation as a special detachment. You cannot have a detachment that is not within the FOC as all the forces you have must reside within the FOC.

Units like Command Squads that sit "outside the FOC" usually really ignore the category requirements that dictate the limits of the FOC. Those units still exist within the FOC.

No one has argued otherwise. Literally.
Drop the strawman.

What we're saying is that there is no Troops section of the FOC inside the Formation Detachment. You're asserting there is. Prove your assertion.

Jughead, not being in a troops slot doesn't mean we think the units aren't on the FOC. We think they are in a very specific part of the FOC called "Formation" but we question the existence of slots for troops, HQ etc in there because the formations list units by name and do not tell us they still count as a troops choice etc.

Without the permission to be a troops choice (such as the detachment chart of the FOC for primary and allied detachments) why are these units scoring? That's the question we've asked and we have yet to get an answer to the question that uses quoted rules to prove it.

rigeld2 wrote:

What we're saying is that there is no Troops section of the FOC inside the Formation Detachment. You're asserting there is. Prove your assertion.

In haste but... it's great to see this here, as it shows that the distinction you infer, between a troop listed in an FOC, and of simply being listed as a troop in a formation within the FOC, is sketchy in the extreme. As if one had decided on an outcome and was desperately seeking any justification for not treating troops as troops.

@Liturgies,

A detachment cannot exist without a category listing of the battlefield role. Your argument hinges on a chart that Troops =/= Troops.

@Rigeld2,

I have stated my arguments for the position you are holding and why they are false. I did not create a different argument to ignore your assertion.

Ok guys, what is a battlefield roll and where is the definition?
I have asked for this for 4 pages and nobody has given any answer.

The distiction between a unit scoring and not is being in a troops slot oblivion. That's it. WG are scoring when they are in a troops slot, tervigons too, chosen too, as are wraithguard etc etc. Unless a unit is in a troops slot they are not scoring.

You are saying that x therefore y hence y therefore x.
A genestealer brood takes up a troop slot in my primary detachment, my faction detachment has a genestealer brood therefore it must be a troops slot. This is a false statement.

Hivefleet, your theory about my motive is great. I was worried I was being rude on this thread but I'm glad you've decided to fill that role for me. Since we have the rude poster thread and we only have 1 slot on the FOC, I'll take the being right slot.

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

What we're saying is that there is no Troops section of the FOC inside the Formation Detachment. You're asserting there is. Prove your assertion.

In haste but... it's great to see this here, as it shows that the distinction you infer, between a troop listed in an FOC, and of simply being listed as a troop in a formation within the FOC, is sketchy in the extreme. As if one had decided on an outcome and was desperately seeking any justification for not treating troops as troops.

Sketchy?
It's demonstrable fact. I'm not desperately seeking anything except an answer to a question. Perhaps you'd like to provide it?

Liturgies,

Battlefield Roles is located under "The Army List/Force Organization" heading. It clearly defines the roles.

-theJughead

 thejughead wrote:
@Rigeld2,

I have stated my arguments for the position you are holding and why they are false. I did not create a different argument to ignore your assertion.

Except you did. You've - repeatedly - argued that Formations are part of the FOC. Which is not what's being argued at all. So you're arguing something that we agree on to pretend you're addressing my argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thejughead wrote:
Liturgies,

Battlefield Roles is located under "The Army List/Force Organization" heading. It clearly defines the roles.

-theJughead

That's a lie. I quoted that section earlier.

If you are saying battlefield roll is taking up a troops choice then facts disagree with that.

Except you did. You've - repeatedly - argued that Formations are part of the FOC. Which is not what's being argued at all. So you're arguing something that we agree on to pretend you're addressing my argument.

I did not argue that. Now your making a strawman.

That's a lie. I quoted that section earlier.

That is not a lie. Its there in black and white. You want to ignore it to support your argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
If you are saying battlefield roll is taking up a troops choice then facts disagree with that.

It states FOC roles are HQ, Elites, Troops, Fast Attack, and Heavy Support. The FOC encompasses all detachments: including primary, allied, formations, and fortifications.

Jughead just quote what you think it is that we are missing as I'm not seeing anything that defines troops as a battlefield roll rather than a section of the detachment FOC and even less that states a battlefield roll is equated with always counting as being in a specific slot.

thejughead wrote:

Except you did. You've - repeatedly - argued that Formations are part of the FOC. Which is not what's being argued at all. So you're arguing something that we agree on to pretend you're addressing my argument.

I did not argue that. Now your making a strawman.

thejughead wrote:The Force Organization Chart (FOC) as defined by the BRB, "...as all the forces you can use..." It further defines the Primary, Allied, and Fortification detachments as part of the FOC. The dataslate further defines a formation as a special detachment. You cannot have a detachment that is not within the FOC as all the forces you have must reside within the FOC.

Units like Command Squads that sit "outside the FOC" usually really ignore the category requirements that dictate the limits of the FOC. Those units still exist within the FOC.

You absolutely did argue that formations are part of the FOC. I've quoted the post here. Did you forget you typed those words?

That's a lie. I quoted that section earlier.

That is not a lie. Its there in black and white. You want to ignore it to support your argument.

Quote the sentence that includes the words "battlefield role". And show me the page number.
It's not there in black and white - I quoted the exact text on the last page.

Battlefield roll isn't mentioned at all on page 108 or 109. The word roll is used but only in the general description of fluff that talks about heroic commanders and specialised veterans.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Jughead just quote what you think it is that we are missing as I'm not seeing anything that defines troops as a battlefield roll rather than a section of the detachment FOC and even less that states a battlefield roll is equated with always counting as being in a specific slot.

I did previously, but the page number is 108, under the Force Organisation heading.

 thejughead wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Jughead just quote what you think it is that we are missing as I'm not seeing anything that defines troops as a battlefield roll rather than a section of the detachment FOC and even less that states a battlefield roll is equated with always counting as being in a specific slot.

I did previously, but the page number is 108, under the Force Organisation heading.

There is literally no occurrence of the words "battlefield role" on page 108. Ever.
So saying page 108 defines a Battlefield Role is a lie.

edit:
As evidence, as I quoted before, this is what page 108 has to say as far as "role":

As detailed in each army's codex, all the forces you can use are categorised to tell you something about the role they are meant to play in the army. These roles are: HQ, troops, elites, fast attack and heavy support.

Note it does not include the word "battlefield" in that definition. Nor in the paragraph before it. So it's an assumption based on ... what exactly I'm not sure. Sure as heck not rules that are written though.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Battlefield roll isn't mentioned at all on page 108 or 109. The word roll is used but only in the general description of fluff that talks about heroic commanders and specialised veterans.

I love the fluff angle, but that is clearly meant to define what a role is and what part it plays in the FOC.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
if you want to further argue that Battlefiled Role and Role are seperate items and definitions, please do so. If they are not equal then what is a Battlefield Role?

 thejughead wrote:
if you want to further argue that Battlefiled Role and Role are seperate items and definitions, please do so. If they are not equal then what is a Battlefield Role?

That's your challenge to prove. Taken literally, it's the purpose of the unit while playing. The problem with that is that the "purpose" can vary from tarpit to backfield scoring to assault unit to outflanker to harrasser...

The Tau Firebase Formation does not list the unit Role, The riptide has no designation as Elites nor do the Broadsides have a designation of Heavy in its text. The dataslates gives us permission to go to the Codex to find its role and any other unit data. Does this mean it cannot score in Big Guns never tire or be a denial unit, even though the dataslate specifically give me permission to use the information in the codex.

Again, the Formation is a special detachment and its entries can be found in the dataslate or the faction codex. It gives us permission to us the Codex to find its "Role" etc. The dataslate defines what units need to be in that formation. Its Role is defined in the faction codex.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Ok guys, what is a battlefield roll and where is the definition?
I have asked for this for 4 pages and nobody has given any answer.

The distiction between a unit scoring and not is being in a troops slot oblivion. That's it. WG are scoring when they are in a troops slot, tervigons too, chosen too, as are wraithguard etc etc. Unless a unit is in a troops slot they are not scoring.

You are saying that x therefore y hence y therefore x.
A genestealer brood takes up a troop slot in my primary detachment, my faction detachment has a genestealer brood therefore it must be a troops slot. This is a false statement.

Hivefleet, your theory about my motive is great. I was worried I was being rude on this thread but I'm glad you've decided to fill that role for me. Since we have the rude poster thread and we only have 1 slot on the FOC, I'll take the being right slot.

I quoted the rule on roles earlier today. You just declined to acknowledge it. Here it is again: "Force Organisation As detailed in each army's codex, all the forces you can use are categorised to tell you something about the role they are meant to play in the army. These roles are: HQ, troops, elites, fast attack, and heavy support." It is on page 650 of my e-book on the iPhone, directly preceding the section labeled "Force Organisation Chart."

Per the BRB, every unit must have a role. Some of these units (i.e. tactical squad) also fill a "slot" on the FOC. Some of these units do not fill a slot on the FOC (i.e. command squad) but still have a battlefield role (i.e. HQ) based on where they are found in the codex.

For formations, you have a defined composition. The formation always consists of the units given in list format. These units still have defined battlefield roles based on the relevant entry in the dataslate.

Please show permission for units in formations to NOT be categorized as an HQ, Troop, Elite, Fast Attack or Heavy Support unit.

Oh so you are saying panzer that slot is not the same as a battlefield roll? If so then you agree that being listed in the troops section of an army list doesn't dictate always being troops?

I've yet to see a link between being a genestealer squad and always being scoring. Please enlighten me.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Oh so you are saying panzer that slot is not the same as a battlefield roll? If so then you agree that being listed in the troops section of an army list doesn't dictate always being troops?

I've yet to see a link between being a genestealer squad and always being scoring. Please enlighten me.

Here is where we are in agreement. Slot and role are different. Can you field Khan, a chaptermaster and a command squad in a single primary detachment? Yes, because even though its 3 HQs, one of them (the command squad) doesn't count towards your 2 slots on the primary detachment FOC.

Now, here is where we disagree. For the role, troops are always troops when selected as such (including units that have met the conditions to change roles, i.e. nobs). A unit cannot have two roles at once. A tervigon is either an HQ or a Troop based on whether or not the conditions have been met to classify it as a troop but by rules it cannot be either both or neither. Genestealers selected in a Primary Detachment are troops and genestealers selected in a Formation are troops. The BRB is clear that EVERY unit has a role. There is no permission to not classify them as one of the five roles.

So the crux of the problem is "do troops selected as part of a formation have permission to score"? To address this, we need to relook the rules on scoring units. We are told that scoring units NORMALLY come from the troops selection of the FOC and that the MAIN EXCEPTIONS are Big Guns and The Scouring. Already, the BRB allows for exceptions other than Big Guns and The Scouring. The concept of a formation was introduced well after the BRB and all its charts were written. You already conceded earlier that a formation is part of the FOC, so we'll proceed on that premise and apply some logic here.

For example:
Are genestealers in a formation troops by role? Yes
Do they have the swarms rule? No
Do they have a rule saying they never count as scoring? No

Literally the only point of contention is whether the formation composition given in list format is the equivalent of a line and block FOC for a detachment. I say it is because it defines the force organization for the special detachment called a formation. You must always take these compulsory choices and may add these optional choices, exactly like the base FOC does for the primary, allied, and fortification detachments.

The point of contention is that there is no troop slot to place the genestealer unit in. Without that slot or something to say it is in an equivalent situation there is nothing.

You've said that to be scoring you need to be in a troops slot but these units are not in such a slot. You've got to show some way to get from A to B. You have literally said "I say it is" and not given any substantive to this argument.

I'm sure RAI could be anything under the sun but RAW why is a unit scoring if it is not in a troop slot. Role is not being in a slot so why are you hanging everything on something that isn't defined in the brb?

Units not counting as taking up a slot in a detachment isn't analogous as there are no defined maximum slots or minimum slots in a formation. Also there is specific permission to have that unit as an additional HQ selection. Can you show any rules for why a formation's unit count as being in any slot? As far as I see the rules just give a box called formation with a list of units in it depending on which formation you choose.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
The point of contention is that there is no troop slot to place the genestealer unit in. Without that slot or something to say it is in an equivalent situation there is nothing.

You've said that to be scoring you need to be in a troops slot but these units are not in such a slot. You've got to show some way to get from A to B. You have literally said "I say it is" and not given any substantive to this argument.

I'm sure RAI could be anything under the sun but RAW why is a unit scoring if it is not in a troop slot. Role is not being in a slot so why are you hanging everything on something that isn't defined in the brb?

Units not counting as taking up a slot in a detachment isn't analogous as there are no defined maximum slots or minimum slots in a formation. Also there is specific permission to have that unit as an additional HQ selection. Can you show any rules for why a formation's unit count as being in any slot? As far as I see the rules just give a box called formation with a list of units in it depending on which formation you choose.

Actually the RAW is troops selection, not slot. Units are technically selected out of the army list section of the codex and then put into the appropriate FOC slot based on role/requirements, i.e. a tactical squad fills a "troops" slot, a Terivgon can fill an HQ slot or a Troops slot based on whether or not a unit of 30 termagants is taken and the player chooses to slot the tervigon as a troop, etc. Without the role as defined by the army list section, you cannot occupy any slot on the FOC.

There are minimum and maximum defined slots in a formation. It is given in list format. Per the Cypher example earlier, you must have Cypher and must have 1 (minimum) to 3 (maximum) units of chosen. A living artillery formation must have 1 warrior brood, 1 biovore brood and 1 exocrine and has no optional slots for additional units to be included.

Look at it this way. It's the troops selection of the FOC not the army list that defines being a troop and hence scoring. See page 123.
To be a selection you have to be in the ascribed slot.

Does a formation contain troops selections or slots? If yes, then where and can you show which they are? Does it describe that the tervigon meets the requirements to be a troop choice in a formation? Or is this just another case of it doesn't say I can't?

Liturgies,

I gave you the example of the Tau Firebase. It must have 1 Riptide and 2 full squads of Broadsides. It says to use the codex entries for those units. It does not say it is made up of 1 Elite and 2 heavy support because its inferred. You do not have a choice of what type of unit to choose. Yet they are an elite and heavy choices in the formation detachment.

Jughead what you infer from a statement is not what was implied necessarily and is wholly in the realm of RAI. RAW is words on a page.

That you don't have a choice isn't the issue at all. The issue is that without occupying a troops slot a unit is not scoring unless something else tells you it is. See termagants spawned by the tervigon, they are only scoring because the rules for spawning them say so not because they are a unit from the troops section of the army list in the codex.