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.

 thejughead wrote:

The formation is preset and therefore there are no selections. No selections, no scoring. You know, exactly what I've been saying.

By what judgment do you draw that conclusion? That is completely false in my view.

Which conclusion?
You're not making selections - you're using a Formation detachment. There's no selections inside the detachment, just the Formation.
You must be a troop selection to score (absent other rules) - I've quoted that rule.

It's almost like Knights have an exception... that's specified in the rules... or something like that.
Bringing them up is a red herring.

It is relevant. We are talking about Army composition.

Right. And Knights have specific rules to deal with their composition and scoring. So why are they relevant here?

It doesn't matter. Our group will continue with our interpretation and I know the major tournaments will have the POV that they are scoring and that Troop does equate to Troop. In the end thats all that matters.

Yeah, discussing what the rules actually say in a forum dedicated to discussing what the rules say doesn't matter at all. Your house rules are all that matters.

rigeld2 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
"The army list entries for each unit in the Formation (the units’ profiles, points values, unit types, unit composition, special rules, battlefield role etc.) can either be found in the codex corresponding to the Faction on the datasheet, or elsewhere in the dataslate itself."

Genestealers, Warriors, Termagants, Hormagaunts and Tervigons taken as Troops choices via The Scuttling Swarm are all definitely Troops choices in Faction Codex, therefore they are Troops choices in their Formations.

False. On the FOC they do not take up a Troop selection, which (as I've quoted multiple times) is what's required to score.
It literally uses those words - "troop selection of the Force Organization chart". If you cannot prove that a Formation uses the troop selection of the FOC, you cannot prove that Formation units score.
Since you've failed to prove that a Formation uses the troop selection of the FOC, you've failed to prove that Formation units score.

Do I have to take a picture of the Tyranid FOC pages to point out that they are, in fact, Troops selections of the FOC?

 PrinceRaven wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
"The army list entries for each unit in the Formation (the units’ profiles, points values, unit types, unit composition, special rules, battlefield role etc.) can either be found in the codex corresponding to the Faction on the datasheet, or elsewhere in the dataslate itself."

Genestealers, Warriors, Termagants, Hormagaunts and Tervigons taken as Troops choices via The Scuttling Swarm are all definitely Troops choices in Faction Codex, therefore they are Troops choices in their Formations.

False. On the FOC they do not take up a Troop selection, which (as I've quoted multiple times) is what's required to score.
It literally uses those words - "troop selection of the Force Organization chart". If you cannot prove that a Formation uses the troop selection of the FOC, you cannot prove that Formation units score.
Since you've failed to prove that a Formation uses the troop selection of the FOC, you've failed to prove that Formation units score.

Do I have to take a picture of the Tyranid FOC pages to point out that they are, in fact, Troops selections of the FOC?

No, but you should probably read pages 108 and 109 of the BRB. It might be educational.

rigeld2 wrote:

 thejughead wrote:

The formation is preset and therefore there are no selections. No selections, no scoring. You know, exactly what I've been saying.

By what judgment do you draw that conclusion? That is completely false in my view.

Which conclusion?
You're not making selections - you're using a Formation detachment. There's no selections inside the detachment, just the Formation.
You must be a troop selection to score (absent other rules) - I've quoted that rule.

It's almost like Knights have an exception... that's specified in the rules... or something like that.
Bringing them up is a red herring.

It is relevant. We are talking about Army composition.

Right. And Knights have specific rules to deal with their composition and scoring. So why are they relevant here?

It doesn't matter. Our group will continue with our interpretation and I know the major tournaments will have the POV that they are scoring and that Troop does equate to Troop. In the end thats all that matters.

Yeah, discussing what the rules actually say in a forum dedicated to discussing what the rules say doesn't matter at all. Your house rules are all that matters.

No, just your wrong interpretation does not matter. Our group uses strict RAW.

Oh wow, it's an obsolete Force Org Chart, what am I supposed to learn?

The rules do not specify that the Troops have to be currently in a Troops slot of a Force Org Chart only that they are "troops selection[s] of the Force Organisation Chart".

rigeld2 wrote:
and the other side is making assumptions and guessing at RAI.
Since the latter keeps claiming it's RAW despite being unable to show a rule allowing it...

One side is ignoring words that don't further their case, and repeating a catch-all rule against dataslates (see previous quote) that doesn't exist, the latter is looking at all the wording in context, including those of the dataslates in question. I don't see anyone arguing about RAI.

In any case it's good that the "non-scoring" group have finally stated their case as they see it, we have clarity as to what they're arguing, along the lines of a Troop is not a Troop if it's not selected.

 thejughead wrote:
No, just your wrong interpretation does not matter. Our group uses strict RAW.

So you don't allow Wraithknights/guard/lords to shoot?

You haven't supported your stance with actual rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
and the other side is making assumptions and guessing at RAI.
Since the latter keeps claiming it's RAW despite being unable to show a rule allowing it...

One side is ignoring words that don't further their case, and repeating a catch-all rule against dataslates (see previous quote) that doesn't exist, the latter is looking at all the wording in context, including those of the dataslates in question. I don't see anyone arguing about RAI.

In any case it's good that the "non-scoring" group have finally stated their case as they see it, we have clarity as to what they're arguing, along the lines of a Troop is not a Troop if it's not selected.

The underlined is false and a lie. I've corrected you once.
The italicized is a simplification intended to draw ire. A unit that is not a troop selection does not score. End of line. Since, you know, that's what the rules say. I'd be happy to look at rules you have saying otherwise - you've yet to show any.

What words am I ignoring? Please point them out.

But rigeld you will allow helmeted marines to shoot, or rubrics or whatever that doesnt have clear and openly obvious eyes, tau battle suits etc etc, stop using very tired and pointless basis' for arguments

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
But rigeld you will allow helmeted marines to shoot, or rubrics or whatever that doesnt have clear and openly obvious eyes, tau battle suits etc etc, stop using very tired and pointless basis' for arguments

Unlike that situation, there's no obvious intent here.
And the person I quoted said he plays, and I quote "strict RAW". Hence the question.

rigeld2 wrote:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
But rigeld you will allow helmeted marines to shoot, or rubrics or whatever that doesnt have clear and openly obvious eyes, tau battle suits etc etc, stop using very tired and pointless basis' for arguments

Unlike that situation, there's no obvious intent here.
And the person I quoted said he plays, and I quote "strict RAW". Hence the question.

and your arguind the strict RAW as well, so if you will allow the above absurdity, then guess what, dont even bother with getting into that kind of argument, if you want to talk RAI, then guess what they are troops, troops score unless is says they dont, deal done end of discussion. and trying to rules lawyer in that monstrosity of a book is a bloody joke and that this has gone on for what 8 or 9 pages makes THAT clear...

the use of normally should have ended this as it CAN lie outside of what everyone wants, and seeing as no book was written with formations in mind LET ALONE the BRB that was out for what 7 months before the first appeared, forget it and get with the times.... IF that book was updated CONSTANTLY then youd have a chance in hell but RAW will not work with recent additions to the game that werent considered at its time of writing, and now in most cases RAI should be the basis for all of it as the rulebook is now outdated, and has features that would need to be errated in to allow for the special circumstances that arise, if not fall back on uncommon sense and deal with it as you SHOULD be, rather than half the rubbish in here of petulant whining from people who either want to break rules (that 2x coteaz argument was hilarious) or just flat twist the intent of the NEW rules for situations that arent word by word spelled out for you in the BRB...

rigeld2 wrote:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
But rigeld you will allow helmeted marines to shoot, or rubrics or whatever that doesnt have clear and openly obvious eyes, tau battle suits etc etc, stop using very tired and pointless basis' for arguments

Unlike that situation, there's no obvious intent here.
And the person I quoted said he plays, and I quote "strict RAW". Hence the question.

Now you being facetious in your reasoning.

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
But rigeld you will allow helmeted marines to shoot, or rubrics or whatever that doesnt have clear and openly obvious eyes, tau battle suits etc etc, stop using very tired and pointless basis' for arguments

Unlike that situation, there's no obvious intent here.
And the person I quoted said he plays, and I quote "strict RAW". Hence the question.

and your arguind the strict RAW as well, so if you will allow the above absurdity, then guess what, dont even bother with getting into that kind of argument, if you want to talk RAI, then guess what they are troops, troops score unless is says they dont, deal done end of discussion. and trying to rules lawyer in that monstrosity of a book is a bloody joke and that this has gone on for what 8 or 9 pages makes THAT clear...

Do you have evidence for your assumption that's how the rules were intended to work? I don't think you can guarantee that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thejughead wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
But rigeld you will allow helmeted marines to shoot, or rubrics or whatever that doesnt have clear and openly obvious eyes, tau battle suits etc etc, stop using very tired and pointless basis' for arguments

Unlike that situation, there's no obvious intent here.
And the person I quoted said he plays, and I quote "strict RAW". Hence the question.

Now you being facetious in your reasoning.

No, I'm not being flippant at all.
It was a serious question in response to your statement. Because strict RAW, those units can't shoot.

rigeld2 wrote:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
But rigeld you will allow helmeted marines to shoot, or rubrics or whatever that doesnt have clear and openly obvious eyes, tau battle suits etc etc, stop using very tired and pointless basis' for arguments

Unlike that situation, there's no obvious intent here.
And the person I quoted said he plays, and I quote "strict RAW". Hence the question.

and your arguind the strict RAW as well, so if you will allow the above absurdity, then guess what, dont even bother with getting into that kind of argument, if you want to talk RAI, then guess what they are troops, troops score unless is says they dont, deal done end of discussion. and trying to rules lawyer in that monstrosity of a book is a bloody joke and that this has gone on for what 8 or 9 pages makes THAT clear...

Do you have evidence for your assumption that's how the rules were intended to work? I don't think you can guarantee that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thejughead wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
But rigeld you will allow helmeted marines to shoot, or rubrics or whatever that doesnt have clear and openly obvious eyes, tau battle suits etc etc, stop using very tired and pointless basis' for arguments

Unlike that situation, there's no obvious intent here.
And the person I quoted said he plays, and I quote "strict RAW". Hence the question.

Now you being facetious in your reasoning.

No, I'm not being flippant at all.
It was a serious question in response to your statement. Because strict RAW, those units can't shoot.

labeling them troops in dataslates would be the flat intent of troops, same as making those shiny HQ options well HQ rather than nothing... so yes GW labeling cultist in the CSM formation Troops would be the intent that they are Troops in your army, and troops score, unless specificlay saying they do not.

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
labeling them troops in dataslates would be the flat intent of troops, same as making those shiny HQ options well HQ rather than nothing... so yes GW labeling cultist in the CSM formation Troops would be the intent that they are Troops in your army, and troops score, unless specificlay saying they do not.

It couldn't be because they just copy/pasted from the codex entry and didn't want them to be scoring.. nah, that can't be it. GW never has lazy writers.

rigeld2 wrote:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
labeling them troops in dataslates would be the flat intent of troops, same as making those shiny HQ options well HQ rather than nothing... so yes GW labeling cultist in the CSM formation Troops would be the intent that they are Troops in your army, and troops score, unless specificlay saying they do not.

It couldn't be because they just copy/pasted from the codex entry and didn't want them to be scoring.. nah, that can't be it. GW never has lazy writers.

well thats too bad because IF that was the case then thats the situation as RAW as well as intent? they are written as troops, they are troops. thats all there is to it.

using this an the basis for an argument "gw is lazy" is a terrible argument.

i think good sir you just threw in your hat.

its a way to get extra troops. out side of FOC, and who takes the basic 6 slots full as it is?

TLDR, you concede they are written in as TROOPS, thus as troops, they score (unless saying otherwise) because no where in the rulebook has ANYONE shown that the ONLY source of scoring troops you have is the 6 Troop slots in your BASIC FOC, which has been expanded upon greatly since the BRB was written, and usued the word NORMALLY to allow for that there may be addendums to this at anytime that GW see fit and print where ever else they feel like?

and this thread is settled?

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
labeling them troops in dataslates would be the flat intent of troops, same as making those shiny HQ options well HQ rather than nothing... so yes GW labeling cultist in the CSM formation Troops would be the intent that they are Troops in your army, and troops score, unless specificlay saying they do not.

It couldn't be because they just copy/pasted from the codex entry and didn't want them to be scoring.. nah, that can't be it. GW never has lazy writers.

well thats too bad because IF that was the case then thats the situation as RAW as well as intent?

What?

i think good sir you just threw in your hat.

Nope.

its a way to get extra troops. out side of FOC, and who takes the basic 6 slots full as it is?

I do quite often. 60 Termagants, 2 Tervigons, 2 units of Warriors.
And they're not outside the FOC - they're in a Formation detachment.

Read what i said again, there is an edit of a nice tldr for you.

and you may have run that in the 5th codex you never will in the 6th one.. unless its for "fun or fluffy" reasons

and the formation detachment contains troops as youv already conceded and just blamed on "lazness" its no where excludes getting scoring troops from anywhere BUT those 6 spots in your basic FOC, infact it goes so far as to say "normally" allowing a right thinking person to realise there is the chance for them to come from OTHER places in the future. which one is, oh wait... the Formations slot, and your allies slot, and everywhere else not in the basic FOC.

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
TLDR, you concede they are written in as TROOPS, thus as troops, they score (unless saying otherwise) because no where in the rulebook has ANYONE shown that the ONLY source of scoring troops you have is the 6 Troop slots in your BASIC FOC,

Actually, I have.
I have shown that scoring units come from troop selections (page 123). An exception to that would require a rule saying so - do you have one?

which has been expanded upon greatly since the BRB was written, and usued the word NORMALLY to allow for that there may be addendums to this at anytime that GW see fit and print where ever else they feel like?

Yes, GW can feel free to add new rules and change whatever rules they like. Have they added to this rule? Is there a rule allowing Formation troops to score? They're demonstrably not troop selections.

and this thread is settled?

It can only be "settled" if you're (incorrect) assumptions are validated? Is that how it works?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
and you may have run that in the 5th codex you never will in the 6th one.. unless its for "fun or fluffy" reasons

I won't? I won a 1850 tournament with that setup a few weeks ago. I guess I'll go tell my opponents (which included 2 Eldar players) I lost.

and the formation detachment contains troops as youv already conceded and just blamed on "lazness" its no where excludes getting scoring troops from anywhere BUT those 6 spots in your basic FOC, infact it goes so far as to say "normally" allowing a right thinking person to realise there is the chance for them to come from OTHER places in the future. which one is, oh wait... the Formations slot, and your allies slot, and everywhere else not in the basic FOC.

Yes, there are places other than troop selections that can score.
For example, Heavy Support in BGNT. Fast Attack in The Scouring. Sterngard with Pedro. Trazyn.
All of those have rules specifying they score. Do Formation troops? Because Formation troops aren't troop selections - and unless you have a rule saying otherwise, you have to be a troop selection to score.

rigeld2 wrote:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
TLDR, you concede they are written in as TROOPS, thus as troops, they score (unless saying otherwise) because no where in the rulebook has ANYONE shown that the ONLY source of scoring troops you have is the 6 Troop slots in your BASIC FOC,

Actually, I have.
I have shown that scoring units come from troop selections (page 123). An exception to that would require a rule saying so - do you have one?

which has been expanded upon greatly since the BRB was written, and usued the word NORMALLY to allow for that there may be addendums to this at anytime that GW see fit and print where ever else they feel like?

Yes, GW can feel free to add new rules and change whatever rules they like. Have they added to this rule? Is there a rule allowing Formation troops to score? They're demonstrably not troop selections.

and this thread is settled?

It can only be "settled" if you're (incorrect) assumptions are validated? Is that how it works?

yes the exception to that is the use of normally, if they said ONLY FROM THEM then yes, but they say NORMALLY from there allowing for exceptions what they are saying. which in the case of troops, is by labeling them troops and ALL troops score unless it says not scoring. your trying to place an artificial restriction on where they come from, GW hasnt, as they said NORMALLY from there. because demonstrateably as you said lazily they are still labled troops which has guess what effect?

what you really want to say is that troops taken from formations cant score. rather than they arent troops, but once you conceed they are actually troops you will have conceded both points.

and you wont find in the BRB the option to even LET you field a formation... so how about just dissalow them because RAW they dont even appear in the rulebook, or is that absurd as well?

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
yes the exception to that is the use of normally, if they said ONLY FROM THEM then yes, but they say NORMALLY from there allowing for exceptions what they are saying. which in the case of troops, is by labeling them troops and ALL troops score unless it says not scoring. your trying to place an artificial restriction on where they come from, GW hasnt, as they said NORMALLY from there. because demonstrateably as you said lazily they are still labled troops which has guess what effect?

Right - they're normally form troop selections. Anywhere else needs a rule allowing them.
How about an example:

Carnifexes score in all missions. Prove they don't. Normally only troop selections do. But that doesn't exclude something that isn't a troop selection.

what you really want to say is that troops taken from formations cant score. rather than they arent troops, but once you conceed they are actually troops you will have conceded both points.

I never said they weren't troops. I said they weren't troop selections. It's an important distinction.

and you wont find in the BRB the option to even LET you field a formation... so how about just dissalow them because RAW they dont even appear in the rulebook, or is that absurd as well?

How about you address the arguments I'm making and not make up ridiculous statements?

Well if your looking for a rule in the BRB to say they are troops where does it say in the BRB you can have a formation? trick question though because we know it doesnt.

What the rule book says is models called Troops are scoring, unless stated otherwise.

where are you getting your distinction from that states ONLY troops in the basic FOC 6 slots are scoring? care to give me a link to that? again it doesnt say ONLY does it, it says NORMALLY, meaning there is exceptions. and in the case of those exceptions fall back on the Troops score.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
and i know your falling back on saying because they are in a different slot and not in those ones that they dont count. but you cant show where it says ONLY those slots score. id love to see where ONLY those slots score actually

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
What the rule book says is models called Troops are scoring, unless stated otherwise.

Absolutely, 100% false.
It actually says, and I've quoted this at least twice before,

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

I underlined the word that you keep ignoring - it's a very important word.

where are you getting your distinction from that states ONLY troops in the basic FOC 6 slots are scoring? care to give me a link to that? again it doesnt say ONLY does it, it says NORMALLY, meaning there is exceptions. and in the case of those exceptions fall back on the Troops score.

Rules support for the underlined? Please cite some.
Exceptions require rules. Normally, models move 6". There are exceptions, but they're stated.
And it's not just the basic 6 troop selections. It's also your allies that can score with their troop selections.
Formation detachments don't have troop selections, however, and as such they can't score.

and i know your falling back on saying because they are in a different slot and not in those ones that they dont count. but you cant show where it says ONLY those slots score. id love to see where ONLY those slots score actually

So where's your argument for saying my Carnifexes can't score? Normally it's troop selections, but this non-troop selection can score. Prove it can't.

Keep it civil people.

rigeld2 wrote:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
What the rule book says is models called Troops are scoring, unless stated otherwise.

Absolutely, 100% false.
It actually says, and I've quoted this at least twice before,

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

I underlined the word that you keep ignoring - it's a very important word.

where are you getting your distinction from that states ONLY troops in the basic FOC 6 slots are scoring? care to give me a link to that? again it doesnt say ONLY does it, it says NORMALLY, meaning there is exceptions. and in the case of those exceptions fall back on the Troops score.

Rules support for the underlined? Please cite some.
Exceptions require rules. Normally, models move 6". There are exceptions, but they're stated.
And it's not just the basic 6 troop selections. It's also your allies that can score with their troop selections.
Formation detachments don't have troop selections, however, and as such they can't score.

and i know your falling back on saying because they are in a different slot and not in those ones that they dont count. but you cant show where it says ONLY those slots score. id love to see where ONLY those slots score actually

So where's your argument for saying my Carnifexes can't score? Normally it's troop selections, but this non-troop selection can score. Prove it can't.

just Bolded the bit you seem to ignore quite happily it seems. that troops CAN come from any of the other locations in the expanded FOC is what they mean when they say Normally. that being based on mission type, other criteria, or as GW decided to see fit by labeling them troops, which again, you havent shown that ONLY troops selected as part of the basic FOC is the ONLY place you can get troops.

because carnifexs in that list arent troops are they? nope, youd like them to be, but are they in the list as troops, they have the OPTION to be when other criteria are met, whereas cultists HAVE to be troops, only role they can fill same as termagants, and any of those others you'd like to add to my list, that in the Formation they are defined as Troops.

did you show me where it says that troops outside that location cannot score? i know you havent as you are trying to leave 100% burden of proof on those trying to refute you.

using your example of a model that when you do other things CAN be taken as a troop, but withing your basic FOC you dont have the spaces available to make them troops do you? in the nid formation are the listed as Heavy support or troops? HS i believe, so again non scoring.

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
just Bolded the bit you seem to ignore quite happily it seems. that troops CAN come from any of the other locations in the expanded FOC is what they mean when they say Normally. that being based on mission type, other criteria, or as GW decided to see fit by labeling them troops, which again, you havent shown that ONLY troops selected as part of the basic FOC is the ONLY place you can get troops.

Actually, I have. It doesn't just say "normally troops" it says "normally troop selections". That's a word you're conveniently ignoring. Your argument requires that word to not be there - mine is perfectly fine with "normally" being there.

because carnifexs in that list arent troops are they? nope, youd like them to be, but are they in the list as troops, they have the OPTION to be when other criteria are met, whereas cultists HAVE to be troops, only role they can fill same as termagants, and any of those others you'd like to add to my list, that in the Formation they are defined as Troops.

But they are not troop selections when in a Formation. You're trying to make something that isn't a troop selection a scoring unit, and refusing to cite a rule allowing it. A Carnifex is something that isn't a troop selection that I'm trying to make a scoring unit, and refusing to cite a rule allowing it. Do you see the similarity?

did you show me where it says that troops outside that location cannot score? i know you havent as you are trying to leave 100% burden of proof on those trying to refute you.

I have. Formations do not contain troop selections.

using your example of a model that when you do other things CAN be taken as a troop, but withing your basic FOC you dont have the spaces available to make them troops do you? in the nid formation are the listed as Heavy support or troops? HS i believe, so again non scoring.

What? Can you explain this better? I'm not following your sentence structure.

and how is the rulebook defining selection is it ONLY those that go into those slots as a selection or im selecting a formation that contains troop selections?

and a carnifex is a HS choice?
being so when you complete other criteria it CAN be a troop, unlike say my cultists that HAVE to be troops.
if you took the nid formation are they HS or Troops? your carnifexes that is? im pretty sure its HS selections from your codex.

so we are down to everything is accepted EXCEPT GW's use of the word "selection" and i want you to prove that its:
"only models selected to go into the basic FOC that can be considered a selection" and not selected to be part of your army list and thus selected to be part of the expanded FOC, because they normally would be a troop selection that scores, would a cultist not?

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
and how is the rulebook defining selection is it ONLY those that go into those slots as a selection or im selecting a formation that contains troop selections?

I'm glad you asked!

One box on the chart allows you to make one selection from that part of your army list in the relevant codex.

So does a Formation have a chart with boxes allowing selections? (I already know the answer)

and a carnifex is a HS choice?
being so when you complete other criteria it CAN be a troop, unlike say my cultists that HAVE to be troops.
if you took the nid formation are they HS or Troops? your carnifexes that is? im pretty sure its HS selections from your codex.

No, if I took the Formation they aren't any kind of selection. If I take them from the codex they're a Heavy Support selection.

so we are down to everything is accepted EXCEPT GW's use of the word "selection" and i want you to prove that its:
"only models selected to go into the basic FOC that can be considered a selection" and not selected to be part of your army list and thus selected to be part of the expanded FOC, because they normally would be a troop selection that scores, would a cultist not?

As I've shown above, "selection" in the BRB is defined as something that takes up a square on the FOC. Since Formations do not have charts with boxes, nothing in them is a selection.

Formations dont need boxes as they make the Selection for you as to whats included and what slot they go, they even tell you by calling them Troops. so i dont need to make a selection beyond what GW call a pre determined selection of models.aka a formation. and that is a selection, by personal preference or not. they are still a selected part of the army.

also i dont think GW says that those charts with boxes aka FOC is the only way to select units. infact looking in my digital daemons codex it doesnt even HAVE a FOC listed in it, so does that mean using my codexs i cant make choices? no chart with boxes nothing at all like it infact. it does have an army list split into 6 sections and that it tells me that to their battlefield roles are defined by the section they come from being HQ, Troops, Dedicatated Trans, elites, FA, HS. outside of that... nothing. no pretty diagrams with boxes to define where they would go

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
Formations dont need boxes as they make the Selection for you as to whats included and what slot they go, they even tell you by calling them Troops. so i dont need to make a selection beyond what GW call a pre determined selection of models.aka a formation. and that is a selection, by personal preference or not. they are still a selected part of the army.

You do need boxes. Because boxes == selections, and troop selections are what scores.
The Formation fills a detachment, but that detachment is not in itself a troop selection.

also i dont think GW says that those charts with boxes aka FOC is the only way to select units. infact looking in my digital daemons codex it doesnt even HAVE a FOC listed in it, so does that mean using my codexs i cant make choices?

No - re-read what I quoted. You make choices from your codex to fill the boxes.

So if digital codex's do no longer include the written FOC when telling me to make these selections, but just uses sections to define what each model is. which strangely sets a precedent for how the Formations will be written. no chart putting models into boxes just told that THIS is a troop, THESE are HQ..