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.
Next rude person grabs themselves a break from the site.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
...
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.
You're stating that I'm making assumptions so the rules will work "the way I want." I think that's the problem with this debate. Personally I don't want, I don't run dataslate genestealers and have no intention to.
The rules are made up of words. Your case is that Battlield role (etc) is vague and doesn't mean anything. Again, that's an assumption. BRB uses the word tactical referring to troops, something like... "their tactical role is defending objectives" IIRC, while the codex uses the words "role on the battlefield" regarding the troops selections, while the datslate shortens it to battlefield role. One can't simply discount those phrases because they don't appeal, or likewise ignore the fact that a formaiton is a type of detachment, complete with troops.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/10 15:54:18
It is fine to say that something is a straw man, a mistake, a fallacy etc. Maybe parliamentary language is different in the US but in the British isles it is cool to say that something is a lie but not that someone is a liar.
I have not questioned anyone's intent just their arguments. This is a debate and IMHO questioning someone's argument and reasoning is the way it's done.
Saying you are making a logical leap is no more insulting than having a quote prove you wrong. If anyone believes that then discussion forums may not be for them.
It's not the size of the blade, it's how you use it.
2000+ 1500+ 2000+
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: OK, let;s all agree that words like "Liars and hypocrits" have no place here.
I disagree - I think lies and hypocrisy have no place here. I define a lie as something that is stated when a person knows for a fact it's incorrect. I would define a hypocrite as someone who applies the same rules different in the same situation. You can tell me if your views differ on that.
rigeld2 wrote: 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.
You're stating that I'm making assumptions so the rules will work "the way I want." I think that's the problem with this debate. Personally I don't want, I don't run dataslate genestealers and have no intention to.
You do realize this isn't limited to just Genestealers, right? Regardless, I don't see any other reason to make the leaps you are.
The rules are made up of words. Your case is that Battlield role (etc) is vague and doesn't mean anything. Again, that's an assumption.
Really? So you've finally found something that defines it? Or are you linking it to another definition based on an assumption stil?
BRB uses the word tactical referring to troops, something like... "their tactical role is defending objectives"
In a fluff section, yes.
IIRC, while the codex uses the words "role on the battlefield" regarding the troops selections
You used the word selection here where you shouldn't have - it's incorrect. It uses the words "role on the battlefield" regarding the category the unit is placed in. Since a selection is a defined thing in the BRB, using it to describe something other than that is incorrect.
while the datslate shortens it to battlefield role. One can't simply discount those phrases because they don't appeal, or likewise ignore the fact that a formaiton is a type of detachment, complete with troops.
Words mean things. Words in rules definitely mean things. Troop units != troop selections. You've utterly failed to prove that the equality exists and you're making assumptions and incorrect statements to make the leap that they do.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/10 18:45:53
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
In reference to spawned termigants this was never answered.
Abandon wrote: If a unit is scoring because it's 'identical to a unit chosen from the Troops section of the army list' then a unit actually chosen from the troop section of the army list must be scoring.
Your literally saying that something identical to X is scoring while X is not scoring.
Termigants in a formation are termigants chosen from the troops section of the army list.
Spawned termigants are identical to termigants chosen from the troops section of the army list.
Oh. it's like their the same... identical...
I'd also like to point out that units in a formation are purchased from the codex and the only way to purchase units from the codex is to use the FOC. Also there is no requirement for a scoring unit to 'occupy a troops slot', it actually says they must be 'from the troops selection of the FOC'. All units purchased from the codex are from the FOC as that it the only way to purchase them. Currently taking up a slot in the FOC is not the same thing and the two should not be equated.
-It is not the strongest of the Tyranids that survive but the ones most adaptive to change.
Each codex states that all of the units in their army fall into one of the categories listed. Termagants in a Formation are Troops, by both codex, and formation listing. The claim that Troops are not Troops is getting too silly to argue.
Fragile wrote: Each codex states that all of the units in their army fall into one of the categories listed. Termagants in a Formation are Troops, by both codex, and formation listing. The claim that Troops are not Troops is getting too silly to argue.
Which nobody is arguing. The argument is whether or not Troop models from a Formation are troops selections of the Force Organisation chart.
One side says no, as they do not fill a Troops slots (which Rigeld showed equates to being a Troops selection), while the other side says yes because the army list says they are Troops and their battlefield role is to hold objectives.
Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia
Fragile wrote: Each codex states that all of the units in their army fall into one of the categories listed. Termagants in a Formation are Troops, by both codex, and formation listing. The claim that Troops are not Troops is getting too silly to argue.
It's a good thing that's not the argument then, right?
Would you mind reading the thread and responding to the actual argument instead of making something up?
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
I have made nothing up. Units are either Troops, FA, Elites.. etc. based on where they are listed in the army list. The troops section are generally scoring. A unit in a formation is a troop by both codex rule and formation rule.
Fragile wrote: I have made nothing up. Units are either Troops, FA, Elites.. etc. based on where they are listed in the army list. The troops section are generally scoring. A unit in a formation is a troop by both codex rule and formation rule.
False. Troop selections are normally scoring. Again, words matter.
Cite a rule that says Formation troops are troop selections. You'd be the first.
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
The debate has come down to whether Troops taken from a non-primary detachment are scoring correct? Or more specifically, only Troops taken as Troop selections from the primary detachment are scoring.
Why don't we take a look at another form of detachment that has Troops- Allies. Allies are a secondary detachment that uses HQs, Troops, Elites, Fast Attack, and Heavies just as formation detachments. If you look on page 112 of the BRB you'll find different levels of alliance- Battle Brothers, Allies of Convenience, and Desperate Allies. No where on this page does it say Troops from the secondary detachment score, but it does say where they do not. Desperate Allies.The text itself- "Furthermore, if your primary detachment is in a desperate alliance, units from that allied detachment are non-scoring, non-denial units." This seems to imply that Troops outside of the primary detachment, or Troops that are not selections of the primary detachment can score without mentioning any text mentioning that they do so.
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.
"An army's scoring units are normally all the units that come from the troops selection of the Force Organisation chart"
To meet these qualifications a unit must be taken from the 'troops selection'. This does not mean they must currently exist there. Units in formations are purchased the same way as primary units are, from the FOC in the codex. There's no other way to purchase them. Then placing them in a formation does not change where they are from, it only makes them not take up a selection, it does not mean they are not from one.
Also the troops(plural) selection(singular) means it's referring to a singular or general selection with several troop options. This cannot refer to the specific troops occupying the FOC as that would have to be expressed as 'troop selections'. Given the words they use and the correct meaning given their order and tense it seems clear to me that it only matters in which part of the FOC they originate, not where they end up and that the 'troops selection' refers to a singular but wide category of possible troop selections available on the FOC as opposed to a single specific selection that would leave you with only one scoring unit.
-It is not the strongest of the Tyranids that survive but the ones most adaptive to change.
Ailaros wrote: You know what really bugs me? When my opponent, before they show up at the FLGS smears themselves in peanut butter and then makes blood sacrifices to Ashterai by slitting the throat of three male chickens and then smears the spatter pattern into the peanut butter to engrave sacred symbols into their chest and upper arms.
I have a peanut allergy. It's really inconsiderate.
"Long ago in a distant land, I, M'kar, the shape-shifting Master of Chaos, unleashed an unspeakable evil! But a foolish Grey Knight warrior wielding a magic sword stepped forth to oppose me. Before the final blow was struck, I tore open a portal in space and flung him into the Warp, where my evil is law! Now the fool seeks to return to real-space, and undo the evil that is Chaos!"
Sinful Hero wrote: The debate has come down to whether Troops taken from a non-primary detachment are scoring correct? Or more specifically, only Troops taken as Troop selections from the primary detachment are scoring.
Why don't we take a look at another form of detachment that has Troops- Allies. Allies are a secondary detachment that uses HQs, Troops, Elites, Fast Attack, and Heavies just as formation detachments. If you look on page 112 of the BRB you'll find different levels of alliance- Battle Brothers, Allies of Convenience, and Desperate Allies. No where on this page does it say Troops from the secondary detachment score, but it does say where they do not. Desperate Allies.The text itself- "Furthermore, if your primary detachment is in a desperate alliance, units from that allied detachment are non-scoring, non-denial units." This seems to imply that Troops outside of the primary detachment, or Troops that are not selections of the primary detachment can score without mentioning any text mentioning that they do so.
Furthermore, dataslates specifically mention that Levels of Alliance apply to formations (wording quoted earlier); the main levels of alliance variables apply to whether a unit is scoring. This indicates that Formation troops score, just as Battle Brothers troops score - and remember, there isn't specific wording in the BRB saying BB troops score, only that Desperate Allies don't.
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.
"An army's scoring units are normally all the units that come from the troops selection of the Force Organisation chart"
To meet these qualifications a unit must be taken from the 'troops selection'. This does not mean they must currently exist there. Units in formations are purchased the same way as primary units are, from the FOC in the codex. There's no other way to purchase them. Then placing them in a formation does not change where they are from, it only makes them not take up a selection, it does not mean they are not from one.
Also the troops(plural) selection(singular) means it's referring to a singular or general selection with several troop options. This cannot refer to the specific troops occupying the FOC as that would have to be expressed as 'troop selections'. Given the words they use and the correct meaning given their order and tense it seems clear to me that it only matters in which part of the FOC they originate, not where they end up and that the 'troops selection' refers to a singular but wide category of possible troop selections available on the FOC as opposed to a single specific selection that would leave you with only one scoring unit.
Abandon, the rule you quoted yourself says "troops selection of the Force Organisation Chart." Not troops selections from the Army List.
Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: OK, let;s all agree that words like "Liars and hypocrits" have no place here.
I disagree - I think lies and hypocrisy have no place here. I define a lie as something that is stated when a person knows for a fact it's incorrect. I would define a hypocrite as someone who applies the same rules different in the same situation. You can tell me if your views differ on that.
So, here we an argument that relies on accusing those who disagree of being "liars and hypocrits [sic]" . And this argument is supposed to be consistent with Tenet #1 (criticise the opinion, not the poster").
Tells you all you need to know about the entire train of self-selecting, "logic", really.
Sinful Hero wrote: The debate has come down to whether Troops taken from a non-primary detachment are scoring correct? Or more specifically, only Troops taken as Troop selections from the primary detachment are scoring.
No.
Only troops that are troop selections, from any detachment, are scoring. I've never limited my argument to the primary detachment.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: OK, let;s all agree that words like "Liars and hypocrits" have no place here.
I disagree - I think lies and hypocrisy have no place here. I define a lie as something that is stated when a person knows for a fact it's incorrect. I would define a hypocrite as someone who applies the same rules different in the same situation. You can tell me if your views differ on that.
So, here we an argument that relies on accusing those who disagree of being "liars and hypocrits [sic]" . And this argument is supposed to be consistent with Tenet #1 (criticise the opinion, not the poster").
Tells you all you need to know about the entire train of self-selecting, "logic", really.
No. People are free to disagree with me. People are not free to lie about what I've said or about what the rules say.
I'll note, again, you've declined to actually address the rules based argument here.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/11 11:07:18
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
Sinful Hero wrote: The debate has come down to whether Troops taken from a non-primary detachment are scoring correct? Or more specifically, only Troops taken as Troop selections from the primary detachment are scoring.
No.
Only troops that are troop selections, from any detachment, are scoring. I've never limited my argument to the primary detachment.
Yet, as stated countless times before, the troops within the detachment have been selected; the selection has been made for you, as part of a preset configuration, but they're selected nonetheless.
rigeld2 wrote: IPeople are free to disagree with me. People are not free to lie about what I've said or about what the rules say.
Always nice to see a rules discussion which doesn't descend to melodrama or hysteria.
Sinful Hero wrote: The debate has come down to whether Troops taken from a non-primary detachment are scoring correct? Or more specifically, only Troops taken as Troop selections from the primary detachment are scoring.
No.
Only troops that are troop selections, from any detachment, are scoring. I've never limited my argument to the primary detachment.
Yet, as stated countless times before, the troops within the detachment have been selected; the selection has been made for you, as part of a preset configuration, but they're selected nonetheless.
And that selection fills a (edit) troop box on the FOC? Since, you know, that's what the rules require. As stated countless times before.
If you say it does - perhaps you'd like to support that statement with a rule? That'd be great. Thanks!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/11 13:00:25
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
rigeld2 wrote: [And that selection fills a (edit) troop box on the FOC? Since, you know, that's what the rules require. As stated countless times before.
If you say it does - perhaps you'd like to support that statement with a rule? That'd be great. Thanks!
That's what you claim the rules require, surely it's obvious by now that not everyone shares your particular interpretation of the rules in question.
Ailaros wrote: You know what really bugs me? When my opponent, before they show up at the FLGS smears themselves in peanut butter and then makes blood sacrifices to Ashterai by slitting the throat of three male chickens and then smears the spatter pattern into the peanut butter to engrave sacred symbols into their chest and upper arms.
I have a peanut allergy. It's really inconsiderate.
"Long ago in a distant land, I, M'kar, the shape-shifting Master of Chaos, unleashed an unspeakable evil! But a foolish Grey Knight warrior wielding a magic sword stepped forth to oppose me. Before the final blow was struck, I tore open a portal in space and flung him into the Warp, where my evil is law! Now the fool seeks to return to real-space, and undo the evil that is Chaos!"
thejughead wrote:Abandon did but you have chosen not to address his post.
I have him on ignore so because, in another thread a while ago, he chose to insult me instead of honestly discuss things.
PrinceRaven wrote:
rigeld2 wrote: [And that selection fills a (edit) troop box on the FOC? Since, you know, that's what the rules require. As stated countless times before.
If you say it does - perhaps you'd like to support that statement with a rule? That'd be great. Thanks!
That's what you claim the rules require, surely it's obvious by now that not everyone shares your particular interpretation of the rules in question.
I've quoted them. Repeatedly. It's not a claim - it's in blatant black and white. If it wasn't, I'd by lying and someone would have quoted the actual rule by now.
So no rules support then? Seems like a theme...
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
You think the rule means that the unit has to be currently in a Troops section of the FOC, others think it means they have to come from the Troops section of the FOC, there really isn't a way to resolve that through strict RAW, it's just different interpretations.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/11 13:42:09
Ailaros wrote: You know what really bugs me? When my opponent, before they show up at the FLGS smears themselves in peanut butter and then makes blood sacrifices to Ashterai by slitting the throat of three male chickens and then smears the spatter pattern into the peanut butter to engrave sacred symbols into their chest and upper arms.
I have a peanut allergy. It's really inconsiderate.
"Long ago in a distant land, I, M'kar, the shape-shifting Master of Chaos, unleashed an unspeakable evil! But a foolish Grey Knight warrior wielding a magic sword stepped forth to oppose me. Before the final blow was struck, I tore open a portal in space and flung him into the Warp, where my evil is law! Now the fool seeks to return to real-space, and undo the evil that is Chaos!"
PrinceRaven wrote: You think the rule means that the unit has to be currently in a Troops section of the FOC, others think it means they have to come from the Troops section of the FOC, there really isn't a way to resolve that through strict RAW, it's just different interpretations.
Yeahexceptno.
An army's scoring units are normally all the units that come from the troops selection of the Force Organisation chart
That's what the rule says. Agreed? (I hope so because that's literally word for word)
So how do we define "the troops selection of the Force Organization chart"?
One box on the chart allows you to make one selection from that part of your army list in the relevant codex.
So one box == one selection. Agreed? (I hope so because that's literally what that rule says).
So troops selections of the Force Organization chart are literally the units you selected from your army list to fill the troop boxes on the FOC. Agreed?
If you disagree, please cite rules support instead of calling this an "interpretation". Or point out where I've made a leap that is incorrect. Do somethingusing rules to disprove my argument rather than just saying "not RAWlol".
Have you found troop boxes for your Formation yet? I've asked for them to be shown, repeatedly.
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
PrinceRaven wrote: You think the rule means that the unit has to be currently in a Troops section of the FOC, others think it means they have to come from the Troops section of the FOC, there really isn't a way to resolve that through strict RAW, it's just different interpretations.
Yeahexceptno.
An army's scoring units are normally all the units that come from the troops selection of the Force Organisation chart
That's what the rule says. Agreed? (I hope so because that's literally word for word)
So how do we define "the troops selection of the Force Organization chart"?
One box on the chart allows you to make one selection from that part of your army list in the relevant codex.
So one box == one selection. Agreed? (I hope so because that's literally what that rule says).
So troops selections of the Force Organization chart are literally the units you selected from your army list to fill the troop boxes on the FOC. Agreed?
If you disagree, please cite rules support instead of calling this an "interpretation". Or point out where I've made a leap that is incorrect. Do somethingusing rules to disprove my argument rather than just saying "not RAWlol".
Have you found troop boxes for your Formation yet? I've asked for them to be shown, repeatedly.
Chart: (noun) a sheet of information in the form of a table, graph, or diagram
Table: (noun) a set of facts or figures systematically displayed, esp. in columns
The BRB shows the force organization chart for primary, allied and fortification detachments in diagram format. Each formation shows its respective FOC in table format (more specifically, a table with one column and multiple rows). Show a rule that says the FOC must be in diagram format.
PanzerLeader wrote: The BRB shows the force organization chart for primary, allied and fortification detachments in diagram format. Each formation shows its respective FOC in table format (more specifically, a table with one column and multiple rows). Show a rule that says the FOC must be in diagram format.
There isn't one.
But the rule literally says "One box on the chart allows you to make one selection from that part of your army list in the relevant codex. "
If you have no boxes on the chart you can make no selections (because you don't have allowance to).
If you're making no selections, you can't make troop selections. And since it's troop selections that score...
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
We don't need a rule to show that. The FOC is shown as is on page 109. To use something else is either shorthand or another method of rendering those boxes, how you draw it doesn't matter it still is.
Drawing chemicals in Fischer projection is no less validthan any otother because you still have to obey thesame basic rrules and in this case rigeld had shown them clearly.
It's not the size of the blade, it's how you use it.
2000+ 1500+ 2000+
PanzerLeader wrote: The BRB shows the force organization chart for primary, allied and fortification detachments in diagram format. Each formation shows its respective FOC in table format (more specifically, a table with one column and multiple rows). Show a rule that says the FOC must be in diagram format.
There isn't one.
But the rule literally says "One box on the chart allows you to make one selection from that part of your army list in the relevant codex. "
If you have no boxes on the chart you can make no selections (because you don't have allowance to).
If you're making no selections, you can't make troop selections. And since it's troop selections that score...
Except all that was written prior to formation detachments in the context of a specific diagram. The formation detachment has a defined force organization chart (in table, rather than diagram format) and defined compulsory and optional selections on a per detachment basis. You must take two compulsory troops selections in a primary detachment. You must take five compulsory troop selections in the formation that started this thread. To use either detachment without the required troops selections would be illegal. Just because GW changed how they formatted force organization charts between sources (i.e. diagram versus table) without updating the BRB doesn't mean we should ignore all available sources of RAW and context (time and language) when interpreting RAW.
(more)
(building)
(less)
