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.

Ah...

Yeah.

It really is time to settle down in this thread.

Toy Soldiers and all that.

Plus, of course, Rule #1 on this site.

I am not sure if this has been pointed out yet, but tempestus militarum has the "Battlefield roll" as part of their unit descriptions.

It would be interesting to see, in a few days, if the Codex: Space Army lists the same thing on the unit entry description page.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
I am not sure if this has been pointed out yet, but tempestus militarum has the "Battlefield roll" as part of their unit descriptions.

It would be interesting to see, in a few days, if the Codex: Space Army lists the same thing on the unit entry description page.

I know that C: Eldar states in the Army List that everything is placed into a section (HQ, Troops, etc) depending upon their role on the battlefield.

That said, battlefield role has nothing to do with whether or not a unit is an HQ selection, Troops selection, etc.

Selections simply means that they come from the troop section of the army list. Not some little box on the chart.

Fragile wrote:
Selections simply means that they come from the troop section of the army list. Not some little box on the chart.

And how does that work with Nobs? They are in the Elites section of the Army List, but can be taken as a Troops if you have a Warboss.

Fragile wrote:
Selections simply means that they come from the troop section of the army list. Not some little box on the chart.

The BRB disagrees with you (specifically page 109 - I've quoted it in this thread a couple of times).

Is there any rules that say that a formation has units in a state they would "normally" be in?
If find it quite odd that the word normally is being used here as the normal FOC is clearly shown in the brb. We have a rule adding in an additional part to it (ie. beyond the norm) but people seem intent to argue that A is B without any support.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Is there any rules that say that a formation has units in a state they would "normally" be in?
If find it quite odd that the word normally is being used here as the normal FOC is clearly shown in the brb. We have a rule adding in an additional part to it (ie. beyond the norm) but people seem intent to argue that A is B without any support.

Normally explains there are exceptions and then lists some, but not all of the exceptions.

 Nilok wrote:

What does it matter if the reasons are non exhaustive? You still haven't shown how the units would fulfil the basic requirement to be scoring in the first place.
Normally actually refers to the general state of affairs of how a unit is scoring... listing a few exceptions to why troops may not be scoring doesn't make any unit scoring unless it fulfils the basic criteria. The basic criteria is being a troops selection.

So again.
Unit is selected as a troop choice? => yes
Unit has any reason excluding it from scoring? => no
Ergo unit scores.

A unit in a formation still hasn't fulfilled the first question as no troop choice was made or filled.

So what does "TROOPS" in big bold letters mean if not that it's a Troops choice?

read through my discussion on the matter, it came down to needing a pretty diagram with a cool box to be valid. so if your dataslates dont draw a FOC with boxes its invalid.

ironically, in escalation that adds a LOW slot but no where ever is there a formation slot diagramattically added to the FOC, so formations are illegal if we want to play direct RAW.. so forget it, reasonable minded people will state that something labled troops is troops and then scores, because there is no where saying troops in any location other than the 6 boxes score, infact as we know they CAN come from other locations...

With the presence of the battlefield role in the formations the writers probably think it's clear. It is in big letters bold, seperated, and other than to distinguish the function of the unit it's not needed at all, almost like they were trying to make a point.. I for one would be unaware readers would split hairs over the word 'selection', as it took dakka a few times pouring over and splitting down exact wording. Just having a role and being a selection is not something that is defined well as meaning different things. You could just as easily go…

Normally troops selection, what is a troops selection?
Force organization troops.
What are troops in formations?
Force organization troops.

It says from the selection, not that they have to have been selected from the force org chart. The selection for that area is Force Org (Or battlefield role... they interchange these) : Troops.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
What does it matter if the reasons are non exhaustive? You still haven't shown how the units would fulfil the basic requirement to be scoring in the first place.
Normally actually refers to the general state of affairs of how a unit is scoring... listing a few exceptions to why troops may not be scoring doesn't make any unit scoring unless it fulfils the basic criteria. The basic criteria is being a troops selection.

Whty waste space just repeating an argument? And if you're saying there's only one key qualification, the word you are searching for is "criterion".

It is obvious that some people are adding an extreme interpretation of the word "selection"; we know this as the same assertions have been repeated several times along with all the personal abuse. At the same time some choose to maintain that the dataslate troops occupying the same 'Battlefield role" is meaningless - when it manifestly isn't.

In the tyranid codex, for example, the explanation of the army lists states that a model is placed in a category "depending upon their role in the battlefield" (p92). In the BRB is is stated that the main role of troops is to hold objectives. In the dataslate into, as quoted before, it is stated that the formation troops perform exactly the same battlefield role as those in the main codex. The formation troops are scoring according to the rules.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
So what does "TROOPS" in big bold letters mean if not that it's a Troops choice?

It means that you can take the units listed under that heading as a Troops choice in the FOC.

Being able to take something as a Troops choice in the FOC does not automatically make it a Troops selection. It must fill a Troops slot. Or specifically be told that it can score.

What focussing on the word selection in that way does...

-Formation Troops can not score normally.
-In Big gun, Formation Heavy Support can score as this does not include the word 'selection' in the big guns rules.

This not raise any red flags?

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
What does it matter if the reasons are non exhaustive? You still haven't shown how the units would fulfil the basic requirement to be scoring in the first place.
Normally actually refers to the general state of affairs of how a unit is scoring... listing a few exceptions to why troops may not be scoring doesn't make any unit scoring unless it fulfils the basic criteria. The basic criteria is being a troops selection.

Whty waste space just repeating an argument? And if you're saying there's only one key qualification, the word you are searching for is "criterion".

It is obvious that some people are adding an extreme interpretation of the word "selection"; we know this as the same assertions have been repeated several times along with all the personal abuse. At the same time some choose to maintain that the dataslate troops occupying the same 'Battlefield role" is meaningless - when it manifestly isn't.

In the tyranid codex, for example, the explanation of the army lists states that a model is placed in a category "depending upon their role in the battlefield" (p92). In the BRB is is stated that the main role of troops is to hold objectives. In the dataslate into, as quoted before, it is stated that the formation troops perform exactly the same battlefield role as those in the main codex. The formation troops are scoring according to the rules.

So have you any substantive or are you going to play silly buggers with my misuse of one word when you can't even spell "Why"?
It's not selection I'm taking an stance on, it's troops selection as in taking up a troops slot on the foc. That thing that gives permission to be scoring.
Is battlefield roll the same as roll? Is that actually rules or is it some vague thing that was not written clearly and could mean anything to anyone? Battlefield roll if it means anything is just as you say a way to categorise the units, that doesn't mean that troop slots only go to units from the troop category because there are many examples of it. Being in a category isn't the criterion for being scoring. Again this is a case of if A then B, therefore if B then A a logical fallacy .

I'm glad you've continued to say that these units score because you say so but I'd just like a quote to back it up as a formation exists outside the normal FOC slots and we only know how units can be scoring "normally".

Nem. It's not the focus on the word selection that we're going on about. If you are not in a HS slot(even one that doesn't take up space on the foc similar to certain HQ selections) then you are not HS.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

It's not selection I'm taking an stance on, it's troops selection as in taking up a troops slot on the foc.

Formation units plainly take up a troops slot (as shown by the large but still often overlooked heading "Troops") within the formation - which is a special form of detachment, on the FoC. Scoring can't fail by this argument.... the argument is, rather, that the word "selection" means that you have to pick your troops from a selection, rather than having a compulsory choice (within the formation). But I believe that this is focusing on wording which isn't relevant, while ignoring the stated battleflied role, as quoted within the codex and dataslate.

Oblivion that's not how I read it at all.
A troops selection is a unit I picked to take up a troops slot. That's it.
If a selection is a unit from the list of troops (units with that "battlefield role") then tervigons can't be scoring if they take up a troops slot.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Oblivion that's not how I read it at all.
A troops selection is a unit I picked to take up a troops slot. That's it.
If a selection is a unit from the list of troops (units with that "battlefield role") then tervigons can't be scoring if they take up a troops slot.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Nem. It's not the focus on the word selection that we're going on about. If you are not in a HS slot(even one that doesn't take up space on the foc similar to certain HQ selections) then you are not HS.

108, under force org;

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

Emphasis mine, the next page of the BRB lists the exception to these which are dedicated transports and fortifications.

These 'Force org' and 'Roles' are at points in the BRB are also referred to as 'Battlefield roles' this is confusing, and the wording is very inconsistent between the three throughout (like somebody couldn't make their mind up) but they are all essentially the same thing.

Dedicated transports are an interesting one for this discussion because the BRB specifically says they sit outside the force organizational structure (different term for either 'Force Organization', or 'FOC', again - this section or the BRB is completely riddled with multiple terminology) but count as the same section of the FOC as the unit which bought them - however this means they still are not a selection as your describing, this area in particular conflicts the idea that Troops are only Troops when selected. If you must be selected to be in a role then DT's are never troops, HS etc.
Problem with this being is the quote above is very all encompassing; all the forces you can use. If it’s not one of the exceptions, and is not categorized, it's not something you can use.

Another issue is that as spawned units, or units which arrive on the board in such a way are never selected. These would then need specific permission to be allowed score, there have been a few examples around on different threads but the crux is spawned units act as a normal codex unit, as do formation units.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
If a selection is a unit from the list of troops (units with that "battlefield role") then tervigons can't be scoring if they take up a troops slot.

The Scuttling Swarm rule explicitly states that they become Troops.

 Nem wrote:
These 'Force org' and 'Roles' are at points in the BRB are also referred to as 'Battlefield roles' this is confusing, and the wording is very inconsistent between the three throughout (like somebody couldn't make their mind up) but they are all essentially the same thing.

The bolded is false. Please quote one time, ever, in the BRB where the words "battlefield role" occur together. Page number and quote the sentence please.

Another issue is that as spawned units, or units which arrive on the board in such a way are never selected. These would then need specific permission to be allowed score, there have been a few examples around on different threads but the crux is spawned units act as a normal codex unit, as do formation units.

The actual rules for a Tervigon at least do use the word "selected" so... non issue.
The Portalglyph rules do not use the word selected, so they wouldn't score.


What I'm getting is that some people assume that all Troops are always scoring unless told otherwise - which isn't what the rules actually say. Since I'm discussing rules here I'd rather go with what the rules actually say than what someone assumes or thinks is intended.

I've asked for evidence. No one has ever provided it. I've explained why that evidence is needed. I've been mocked in return. I've been told that reasonable people see it the other way - which isn't actually using rules to discuss the issue.

RAI - I think the Portalglyph Troops should be allowed to score, but I don't think the Dataslates are as clear cut.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
It is obvious that some people are adding an extreme interpretation of the word "selection"; we know this as the same assertions have been repeated several times along with all the personal abuse. At the same time some choose to maintain that the dataslate troops occupying the same 'Battlefield role" is meaningless - when it manifestly isn't.

There has been no personal abuse.
Manifestly isn't? Please explain that. Have you been able to define it using rules yet? I've asked you to before and you apparently declined (or I missed the post where you did). If you addressed that, I apologize - would you mind providing a link?

In the tyranid codex, for example, the explanation of the army lists states that a model is placed in a category "depending upon their role in the battlefield" (p92). In the BRB is is stated that the main role of troops is to hold objectives. In the dataslate into, as quoted before, it is stated that the formation troops perform exactly the same battlefield role as those in the main codex. The formation troops are scoring according to the rules.

This is what's called a logical leap. You're taking 3 things that are tangentially related and assuming that they all enable each other to work the way you want. The problem with that is there's no actual rule saying that.
You're making an assumption that's what is meant. RAW, you're incorrect. RAI, you might be. I'm explicitly not discussing RAI here. I don't care about that at all. I'm discussing what the rules actually say.

rigeld is correct in that the words "battlefield role" aren't used in the BRB, they prefer the terms "tactical role" and "role they are meant to play in the army" when discussing whether a unit is HQ, Troops, etc.

 Happyjew wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
So what does "TROOPS" in big bold letters mean if not that it's a Troops choice?

It means that you can take the units listed under that heading as a Troops choice in the FOC.

Being able to take something as a Troops choice in the FOC does not automatically make it a Troops selection. It must fill a Troops slot. Or specifically be told that it can score.

Ok, so why include that information in the formation if the part of the FOC dealing with formations doesn't have pretty boxes? Perhaps its to tell you that they are Troops choices.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
rigeld is correct in that the words "battlefield role" aren't used in the BRB, they prefer the terms "tactical role" and "role they are meant to play in the army" when discussing whether a unit is HQ, Troops, etc.

"tactical role" appears exactly one time in the BRB - in a fluffy section talking about Troops. So again - rules definition please?

Ok, so why include that information in the formation if the FOC form formations doesn't have pretty boxes? Perhaps its to tell you that they are Troops choices.

So you're arguing Intent now?
Or perhaps it's because they copy/pasted the entry from the Codex.

Yes they did, because they selected it from that section in the Force Org Chart.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Yes they did, because they selected it from that section in the Force Org Chart.

So no rules definition, just some attempt at humor? Cool - great debating skills you have there.

I thought this was a comedy thread...

Cool - great debating skills you have there.

Its these types of comments that can be construed as personal. They are snarky at best.

Given that you have brought the "Eyes" discussion regarding troops earlier, if current RAW allows models without eyes to see then its safe to assume Troops = Troops and they are scoring no matter where they come from (unless their specific rules state otherwise). If there are allowances in RAW I don't see why an extreme (IMO) view has to prevail.

 thejughead wrote:

Cool - great debating skills you have there.

Its these types of comments that can be construed as personal. They are snarky at best.

Thanks for calling me out but ignoring the snark I've received back throughout the entire thread.

Given that you have brought the "Eyes" discussion regarding troops earlier, if current RAW allows models without eyes to see then its safe to assume Troops = Troops and they are scoring no matter where they come from (unless their specific rules state otherwise). If there are allowances in RAW I don't see why an extreme (IMO) view has to prevail.

No, it's not safe to assume that at all.

For certain units to function at all (Wraithknights/lords/guard) they have to be able to see (to shoot and assault). Their rules literally fail to function otherwise. In this specific case it's blatantly obvious to anyone that all models are supposed to be able to shoot their weapons.

There are no rules that literally fail to function with regard to Formations. They may not be as brain-dead auto-take, but that's not a rules issue.

The fact that you're equating the two issues shows me you're not really familiar with how GW rules are structured. There are many rules that - as written - literally fail to function. These are also the ones (usually) with obvious intent. The intent on Formation scoring is far less than "obvious".

The fact that you're equating the two issues shows me you're not really familiar with how GW rules are structured. There are many rules that - as written - literally fail to function. These are also the ones (usually) with obvious intent. The intent on Formation scoring is far less than "obvious".

This is false. Page 108 describes their role. It is obvious troops score, that is their main function. If not we would never take them.

Edited for clarity.

 thejughead wrote:

The fact that you're equating the two issues shows me you're not really familiar with how GW rules are structured. There are many rules that - as written - literally fail to function. These are also the ones (usually) with obvious intent. The intent on Formation scoring is far less than "obvious".

This is false. Page 108 describes their role. It is obvious troops score, they have no other function. If not we would never take them.

No other function? Cool, so they don't have guns. They can't perform in CC - auto losing every fight and falling back.
Can't move either - blocking isn't a function.

Never take troops? It's like you don't even play the game.