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.

You want to have a RAW discussion about a rule but ignore the sentence that is the actual rule ?

Seriously?

"normally" simply means that is the usual case, but in some instances there are exceptions brought about by special rules.

The use of the word "troops", which is used through out the rulebook in many different contexts, in a later sentence provides no basis for overruling the "Scoring units come from the Troop selections of the FoC"

Uptopdownunder wrote:
You want to have a RAW discussion about a rule but ignore the sentence that is the actual rule ?

Seriously?

"normally" simply means that is the usual case, but in some instances there are exceptions brought about by special rules.

The use of the word "troops", which is used through out the rulebook in many different contexts, in a later sentence provides no basis for overruling the "Scoring units come from the Troop selections of the FoC"

Strict RAW, does the rulebook on page 123 state that any troop can control an objective, or only the troops selection? No intentions(that's RAI), what does the book say?

 Sinful Hero wrote:

If they aren't troops you mean. Troops have exceptions to not be scoring(listed on pg 123), other types of units will have exceptions to be scoring(Big Guns Never Tire).

Troops being those units that come from the Troops selection of the FoC.

Uptopdownunder wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

If they aren't troops you mean. Troops have exceptions to not be scoring(listed on pg 123), other types of units will have exceptions to be scoring(Big Guns Never Tire).

Troops being those units that come from the Troops selection of the FoC.

See above.

Uptopdownunder wrote:
You want to have a RAW discussion about a rule but ignore the sentence that is the actual rule ?

Seriously?

"normally" simply means that is the usual case, but in some instances there are exceptions brought about by special rules.

The use of the word "troops", which is used through out the rulebook in many different contexts, in a later sentence provides no basis for overruling the "Scoring units come from the Troop selections of the FoC"

It is not a rule, but a general statement clarifying the rules. If you were to remove that sentence from the BRB then you could play the game exactly the same. It doesn't give nor deny permission for anything.

Uptopdownunder wrote:

"normally" simply means that is the usual case, but in some instances there are exceptions brought about by special rules.

You are absolutely correct. That was and still is normally how you get scoring units.

Uptopdownunder wrote:
For what it is worth I agree that scoring units are those purchased to fill the "troops" choices boxes in the army list FoC.

Thus units from a formation, regardless of the area they are detailed in the Codex can only be scoring units if they are purchased as a Troops choice which is never the case unless it is specifically mentioned that they are scoring because the formation exists outside the FoC

This not correct. All detachments are within the FOC, including special detachments(Formations). The dataslate also specifies that we can refer to the codex for any relevant information regarding the unit, this includes its Category and all the rules that come with it.

Zimko wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Context isn't removed from RAW, you only do that when you don't have reading comprehension.

Well then, in context, when the BRB was written the only place troops could exist was as a 'troops selection from the FOC'. Had they known there would be more sources of Troops later on then they would have mentioned them or clarified in the rules for those Troops that they did not score. But they didn't. This is because they didn't have to because the first sentence "An army's scoring units are normally all the units from the troops selection from the FOC." was intentionally ambiguous. Therefore it was not meant to be a definitive permission but rather a general statement that did not hold any weight in the rules. But now we're arguing RAI again because that is the only way to discuss a sentence like this thanks to their use of the word 'normally'. So for a RAW discussion we have to ignore this sentence entirely, otherwise we're going to go around in circles speculating what the writers intended.

No, context is the meaning one can derive from the text to varying degrees. You have decided to talk in a much greater abstraction than the context of the piece, you have decided to talk about the strategic decisions GW's design team have taken in delivering new army choices, that is beyond the scope of RAW because you're talking about what was intended. What myself and others have talked about is the context within that paragraph. The bit that uses a specific qualifier on troops before returning to a vernacular noun.

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Strict RAW, does the rulebook on page 123 state that any troop can control an objective, or only the troops selection? No intentions(that's RAI), what does the book say?

No it does not, because the meaning of troops has been previously defined as being those units from the Troops selection of the FoC.

 thejughead wrote:

Uptopdownunder wrote:
For what it is worth I agree that scoring units are those purchased to fill the "troops" choices boxes in the army list FoC.

Thus units from a formation, regardless of the area they are detailed in the Codex can only be scoring units if they are purchased as a Troops choice which is never the case unless it is specifically mentioned that they are scoring because the formation exists outside the FoC

This not correct. All detachments are within the FOC, including special detachments(Formations). The dataslate also specifies that we can refer to the codex for any relevant information regarding the unit, this includes its Category and all the rules that come with it.

That is only half correct.

While the formation does exist within the FOC, there are no rules associated with the Categories in the army lists in and of themselves.

Uptopdownunder wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Strict RAW, does the rulebook on page 123 state that any troop can control an objective, or only the troops selection? No intentions(that's RAI), what does the book say?

No it does not, because the meaning of troops has been previously defined as being those units from the Troops selection of the FoC.

That's what you think the rules intended, but not what they state. I repeat again, what does the rulebook state in black and white?

Zimko wrote:

It is not a rule, but a general statement clarifying the rules. If you were to remove that sentence from the BRB then you could play the game exactly the same. It doesn't give nor deny permission for anything.

No, It's a standard format that the crux of a rule is the bit written in bold, all else is supporting information that needs to be read in the context of the bolded statement.

It's about the only thing that is consistent through out the book.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

Zimko wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Context isn't removed from RAW, you only do that when you don't have reading comprehension.

Well then, in context, when the BRB was written the only place troops could exist was as a 'troops selection from the FOC'. Had they known there would be more sources of Troops later on then they would have mentioned them or clarified in the rules for those Troops that they did not score. But they didn't. This is because they didn't have to because the first sentence "An army's scoring units are normally all the units from the troops selection from the FOC." was intentionally ambiguous. Therefore it was not meant to be a definitive permission but rather a general statement that did not hold any weight in the rules. But now we're arguing RAI again because that is the only way to discuss a sentence like this thanks to their use of the word 'normally'. So for a RAW discussion we have to ignore this sentence entirely, otherwise we're going to go around in circles speculating what the writers intended.

No, context is the meaning one can derive from the text to varying degrees. You have decided to talk in a much greater abstraction than the context of the piece, you have decided to talk about the strategic decisions GW's design team have taken in delivering new army choices, that is beyond the scope of RAW because you're talking about what was intended. What myself and others have talked about is the context within that paragraph. The bit that uses a specific qualifier on troops before returning to a vernacular noun.

And that specific qualifier is no longer relevant because now you can get Troops outside of the 'troops selection from the FOC' where as before you could not. Either way, the sentence tells you how you usually get scoring units. It then states that Troops can hold objectives. How do you normally get troops? From the troops selection of the FOC. Is that the only way to get troops? It was but not anymore. Does this mean that only troops from the troops selection of the FOC can score? No because the first sentence was ambiguous and not a definitive rule.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

Uptopdownunder wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Strict RAW, does the rulebook on page 123 state that any troop can control an objective, or only the troops selection? No intentions(that's RAI), what does the book say?

No it does not, because the meaning of troops has been previously defined as being those units from the Troops selection of the FoC.

That's what you think the rules intended, but not what they state. I repeat again, what does the rulebook state in black and white?

In emboldened black and white it states that Scoring units come from the Troops selections of the FoC.

Uptopdownunder wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

Uptopdownunder wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Strict RAW, does the rulebook on page 123 state that any troop can control an objective, or only the troops selection? No intentions(that's RAI), what does the book say?

No it does not, because the meaning of troops has been previously defined as being those units from the Troops selection of the FoC.

That's what you think the rules intended, but not what they state. I repeat again, what does the rulebook state in black and white?

In emboldened black and white it states that Scoring units come from the Troops selections of the FoC.

And after that, does it specify that troops selection controls objectives?

Uptopdownunder wrote:

Zimko wrote:

It is not a rule, but a general statement clarifying the rules. If you were to remove that sentence from the BRB then you could play the game exactly the same. It doesn't give nor deny permission for anything.

No, It's a standard format that the crux of a rule is the bit written in bold, all else is supporting information that needs to be read in the context of the bolded statement.

It's about the only thing that is consistent through out the book.

If I were skimming the rules then that sentence would give me enough information to play a standard game of 40k. That is why it is bolded. It is ambiguous because there are many other places you can get scoring units but the Troops in the FOC are always scoring (for the most part). The sentence does not clarify what other units can be scoring nor does it deny any units from scoring. It is ambiguous and therefore can not be used as a rule for a RAW discussion.

Zimko wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

Zimko wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Context isn't removed from RAW, you only do that when you don't have reading comprehension.

Well then, in context, when the BRB was written the only place troops could exist was as a 'troops selection from the FOC'. Had they known there would be more sources of Troops later on then they would have mentioned them or clarified in the rules for those Troops that they did not score. But they didn't. This is because they didn't have to because the first sentence "An army's scoring units are normally all the units from the troops selection from the FOC." was intentionally ambiguous. Therefore it was not meant to be a definitive permission but rather a general statement that did not hold any weight in the rules. But now we're arguing RAI again because that is the only way to discuss a sentence like this thanks to their use of the word 'normally'. So for a RAW discussion we have to ignore this sentence entirely, otherwise we're going to go around in circles speculating what the writers intended.

No, context is the meaning one can derive from the text to varying degrees. You have decided to talk in a much greater abstraction than the context of the piece, you have decided to talk about the strategic decisions GW's design team have taken in delivering new army choices, that is beyond the scope of RAW because you're talking about what was intended. What myself and others have talked about is the context within that paragraph. The bit that uses a specific qualifier on troops before returning to a vernacular noun.

And that specific qualifier is no longer relevant because now you can get Troops outside of the 'troops selection from the FOC' where as before you could not. Either way, the sentence tells you how you usually get scoring units. It then states that Troops can hold objectives. How do you normally get troops? From the troops selection of the FOC. Is that the only way to get troops? It was but not anymore. Does this mean that only troops from the troops selection of the FOC can score? No because the first sentence was ambiguous and not a definitive rule.

You could always get troops outside the FOC. Tervigons, the portalglyph. So you are wrong on that.
The bolded sentence was ambiguous? Can you be be more wrong? The bolded sentences on that page are the rules spelled out clearly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zimko wrote:

Uptopdownunder wrote:

Zimko wrote:

It is not a rule, but a general statement clarifying the rules. If you were to remove that sentence from the BRB then you could play the game exactly the same. It doesn't give nor deny permission for anything.

No, It's a standard format that the crux of a rule is the bit written in bold, all else is supporting information that needs to be read in the context of the bolded statement.

It's about the only thing that is consistent through out the book.

If I were skimming the rules then that sentence would give me enough information to play a standard game of 40k. That is why it is bolded. It is ambiguous because there are many other places you can get scoring units but the Troops in the FOC are always scoring (for the most part). The sentence does not clarify what other units can be scoring nor does it deny any units from scoring. It is ambiguous and therefore can not be used as a rule for a RAW discussion.

Permissive ruleset. That sentence doesn't have to deny all other troops from scoring, it just gives permission for specific units to score. It denies any unit that doesn't fulfil that criteria from scoring. You are now making assertions that have no basis in fact due to how the rulebook was written.

 liturgies of blood wrote:


You could always get troops outside the FOC. Tervigons, the portalglyph. So you are wrong on that.
The bolded sentence was ambiguous? Can you be be more wrong? The bolded sentences on that page are the rules spelled out clearly.


Permissive ruleset. That sentence doesn't have to deny all other troops from scoring, it just gives permission for specific units to score. It denies any unit that doesn't fulfill that criteria from scoring. You are now making assertions that have no basis in fact due to how the rulebook was written.

Yes, you could always get troops outside the FOC... but since they are troops and that is the only qualifier for scoring then they are scoring.

That sentence doesn't give permission for anything. It tells you what the normal circumstances are for scoring units are but it does not define scoring units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is in bold because the normal circumstances were almost always correct and that sentence is all one would need for playing a standard game.

Later in the paragraph it says that troops hold objectives. This is most certainly referring to the troops mentioned earlier as the 'troops from the FOC' but it does not limit them to those troops. This gives permission for 'troops' to score including but not limited to the troops referenced earlier in the paragraph. If it meant to limit itself to ONLY those troops mentioned earlier then it would have said so.

It actually does define scoring units.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
It actually does define scoring units.

Do the rules explicitly state that only a troops selection can control an objective? Straight RAW, what is written in black and white?

"Normally hockey players are white males but there are a few female players. Males play in the NHL."

Does this mean that a non-white male can't be a hockey player? No because non-white males are males and can therefore play hockey.

It is the same logic used in the BRB:

- Normally troops from the FOC score but sometimes Heavy Support units can score. Troops hold objectives.

Does this mean that Troops not in the FOC can not score? No, they're still troops.

Zimko wrote:
"Normally hockey players are white males but there are a few female players. Males play in the NHL."

Does this mean that a non-white male can't be a hockey players? No because non-white males are males and can therefore play hockey.

It is the same logic used in the BRB:

- Normally troops from the FOC score but sometimes Heavy Support units can score. Troops hold objectives.

Does this mean that Troops not in the FOC can not score? No, they're still troops.

Poor comparison.
In a permissive rule set you have rules that tell you what's allowed. We have a rule telling us that normally troop selections are allowed to score.
To get something that isn't a troop selection to score, you need a rule telling you that. To get something that is a troop selection to not score, you need a rule telling you that.

rigeld2 wrote:

Zimko wrote:
"Normally hockey players are white males but there are a few female players. Males play in the NHL."

Does this mean that a non-white male can't be a hockey players? No because non-white males are males and can therefore play hockey.

It is the same logic used in the BRB:

- Normally troops from the FOC score but sometimes Heavy Support units can score. Troops hold objectives.

Does this mean that Troops not in the FOC can not score? No, they're still troops.

Poor comparison.
In a permissive rule set you have rules that tell you what's allowed. We have a rule telling us that normally troop selections are allowed to score.
To get something that isn't a troop selection to score, you need a rule telling you that. To get something that is a troop selection to not score, you need a rule telling you that.

You then have a rule that tells you troops control objectives. This is permission for something that isn't a troop selection to score. We now have 2 sentences granting permission for things to score but neither is denying or overriding the other. So anything that is not a troops selection or a troops can not score unless a rule tells you otherwise.

It is almost as if those two sentences are in the same paragraph and have some shared meaning due to the positioning of the words in proximity to each other.....

 liturgies of blood wrote:
It is almost as if those two sentences are in the same paragraph and have some shared meaning due to the positioning of the words in proximity to each other.....

Well if we make this assumption that they were referring to ONLY the troops previously mentioned and not all troops then sure, RAW you are correct. I think it is unclear (thus 15 pages of this). We can't discuss RAW anymore without a shared consensus on what is written in English. That is probably why RAI is referred to so much during a RAW discussion because the same paragraph can be interpreted in multiple ways without breaking any rules in English. So we must refer to what the writers intended to say. But since that means we are no longer talking strictly RAW then that leads to multiple interpretations of what is RAW, non of which are necessarily incorrect.

So at this point I'm just going to wait for an FAQ and discuss with my opponent what to do before a game.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
It is almost as if those two sentences are in the same paragraph and have some shared meaning due to the positioning of the words in proximity to each other.....

Like normally? Still waiting on that answer. Not asking about scoring, merely asking if page 123 states that troops control objectives.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
It is almost as if those two sentences are in the same paragraph and have some shared meaning due to the positioning of the words in proximity to each other.....

Like normally? Still waiting on that answer. Not asking about scoring, merely asking if page 123 states that troops control objectives.

I assume you are referring to the sentence "The presence of other units within 3" of an objective may deny an objective to the enemy, but only troops can control it." And assuming that the phrase 'but only troops can control it' means that all troops can control it, however, that is not what that part of the sentence says. That sentence is pointing out that nothing that isn't a troop can control an objective (unless other rules override this), it is NOT saying that ALL troops can control an objective.

In order to find out what can hold an objective you have to look earlier on the page... "You control an objective if there is at least one model from one of your scoring units (and no models from enemy denial units, within 3" of it." Which leads to the question, what is a scoring unit... fortunately the answer to that is also on that page "An army's scoring units are normally all the units that come from the troops selection of the Force Organization chart" It then proceeds to spell out specific exceptions justifying the use of the word 'normally' that so many of you are hanging your arguments of.

So, troops selection of the FOC... that is not 'troops section of the codex'... if any troops in a codex were automatically scoring, they wouldn't have to spell out all the above rules in such detail. They could just say 'troops are scoring' and be done with it. Since it never says that, there must be a reason why not, and that reason is made pretty clear above.


RAI, i think you should be able to score with troops in a formation... but strict RAW, if there is no FOC to make selections from in a Formation, then it doesn't matter what type of units they are because they are not "troop selections from the FOC", thus they are NOT scoring units, thus they cannot claim objectives.

if there is no FOC to make selections from in a Formation, then it doesn't matter what type of units they are because they are not "troop selections from the FOC", thus they are NOT scoring units, thus they cannot claim objectives.

We are told by the dataslate that Formations are special detachments. A detachment is part of the FOC.

 thejughead wrote:

if there is no FOC to make selections from in a Formation, then it doesn't matter what type of units they are because they are not "troop selections from the FOC", thus they are NOT scoring units, thus they cannot claim objectives.

We are told by the dataslate that Formations are special detachments. A detachment is part of the FOC.

But does not have any selections/choices.

chanceafs wrote:

 thejughead wrote:

if there is no FOC to make selections from in a Formation, then it doesn't matter what type of units they are because they are not "troop selections from the FOC", thus they are NOT scoring units, thus they cannot claim objectives.

We are told by the dataslate that Formations are special detachments. A detachment is part of the FOC.

But does not have any selections/choices.

We are also told to refer to the codex of the Faction. Whether or not you believe that Troop Selection = Troop, once you are told to refer to the codex the units are both the same regardless of who (player or dataslate) made the choice. They end up in the same source material.

 thejughead wrote:

chanceafs wrote:

 thejughead wrote:

if there is no FOC to make selections from in a Formation, then it doesn't matter what type of units they are because they are not "troop selections from the FOC", thus they are NOT scoring units, thus they cannot claim objectives.

We are told by the dataslate that Formations are special detachments. A detachment is part of the FOC.

But does not have any selections/choices.

We are also told to refer to the codex of the Faction. Whether or not you believe that Troop Selection = Troop, once you are told to refer to the codex the units are both the same regardless of who (player or dataslate) made the choice. They end up in the same source material.

The underlined is incorrect. This assertion has been made and proven incorrect before.

We're back at page 1 or 2. It's probably time for a lock.