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.

 EnTyme wrote:
KomissarKal and Charistophe seem liked they'd be a blast to play with.

Yes. Its always more fun to play with people who actually know the rules.

 Ghaz wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
KomissarKal and Charistophe seem liked they'd be a blast to play with.

Yes. Its always more fun to play with people who actually know the rules.

Except in this case they don't know the rules. They are trying to impose 'Choice' as a game concept that they have made up when the rules use 'choice' by English usage only.

col_impact wrote:
You have failed to show that 'choice' is a game concept.

Erm, nope. I've pointed to the context in which the rules refer to choices only in terms of units of each battlefield role filling the compulsory and optional boxes of the Force Organisation Chart.

If you refuse to acknowledge context that's on you, not me.

As your 'line of sight' example shows, it is easy to show that a word is a game concept if it is indeed a game concept.

Yes. You point to where the rules talk about a thing and take that as what the rules mean. For the purpose of selecting detachments the rules only talk about choices in terms of selecting units of given battlefield roles for the Force Organisation Chart.

I was able to easily point to a definition and an index entry for 'line of sight'; therefore, it can be easily shown that 'line of sight' is a game concept.

Funny how, index entry aside (because it's meaningless - there are any number of rules and their definitions which are not indexed), I did the same for where the rules talk about selecting detachments with choices, pointed out how that's explicitly different and absent for formations such as the Battle Demi-company and how the Gladius uses its own system of defined choices.

Your failure to accomplish what should be easy can only lead to the conclusion that the English usage of 'choice' is all that is in effect by RAW.

Therefore, the Scions of the Forge rule will be satisfied merely by semantically correct English usage of 'choice'.

Yeah, no. As above, I've given my evidence. It's not on me that you refuse to acknowledge where the rules provide specific context.

I'm not going to fling around unnecessarily argumentative comments or beat my chest and insist I'm right or that you're wrong. I'm not going down that rabbit hole with you; I happily agree to disagree.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

col_impact wrote:
You have failed to show that 'choice' is a game concept.

Erm, nope. I've pointed to the context in which the rules refer to choices only in terms of units of each battlefield role filling the compulsory and optional boxes of the Force Organisation Chart.

If you refuse to acknowledge context that's on you, not me.

English usage for a word is in effect by default in the BRB.

You are required to actively disprove my argument which is that 'choice' is by English usage in the BRB. Otherwise my argument simply wins out since it's premise is that 'defaults are in effect'.

You have failed to show how 'choice' is a game concept by pointing to either capitalized usage, a game definition, and/or an index entry. You have failure on all counts.

Usage in context is insufficient since that is easily accounted for as merely default English usage.

The Scions of the Forge rule is satisfied merely by proper English usage of 'choice', until you can prove otherwise.

The BRB does not hide game concepts. Game concepts are easily identified with either proper noun usage, game definitions, or index entries.

col_impact wrote:
English usage for a word is in effect by default in the BRB.

And I'm using English usage of the word. Plus its context in the rules we're discussing.

You are required to actively disprove my argument which is that 'choice' is by English usage in the BRB. Otherwise my argument simply wins out since it's premise is that 'defaults are in effect'.

Oh, feth off. I'm not required to do anything and your argument does no such thing. There's no umpire or point scoring here beyond the importance you so doggedly and insistently place on the discussion.

You have failed to show how 'choice' is a game concept by pointing to either capitalized usage, a game definition, and/or an index entry. You have failure on all counts.

You've failed to prove that context doesn't define the usage of wording in the rules. But that's entirely the point of context, of course.

Usage in context is insufficient since that is easily accounted for as merely default English usage.

Not really. You're handwaving it away, but that's fine. You'll not stop doing so, and will simply continue insisting you've won so again, I'm simply agreeing to disagree. I'm sorry that infuriates you so.

The Scions of the Forge rule is satisfied merely by proper English usage of 'choice', until you can prove otherwise.

Not to me and anyone who agrees with my reading. You've shown you simply won't change your mind, so I don't really care if you disagree.

The BRB does not hide game concepts. Game concepts are easily identified with either proper noun usage, game definitions, or index entries.

And context. You forgot context.

Sorry Mr Shine.

Your premise is that 'choice' is a game concept and you are failing to prove your premise.

Since you failed to prove your premise, my argument that 'choice' is by English usage (the default) wins out since I don't have to prove anything to advance that argument.

col_impact wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:

col_impact wrote:
You have failed to show that 'choice' is a game concept.

Erm, nope. I've pointed to the context in which the rules refer to choices only in terms of units of each battlefield role filling the compulsory and optional boxes of the Force Organisation Chart.

If you refuse to acknowledge context that's on you, not me.

English usage for a word is in effect by default in the BRB.

You are required to actively disprove my argument which is that 'choice' is by English usage in the BRB. Otherwise my argument simply wins out since it's premise is that 'defaults are in effect'.

You have failed to show how 'choice' is a game concept by pointing to either capitalized usage, a game definition, and/or an index entry. You have failure on all counts.

Usage in context is insufficient since that is easily accounted for as merely default English usage.

The Scions of the Forge rule is satisfied merely by proper English usage of 'choice', until you can prove otherwise.

The BRB does not hide game concepts. Game concepts are easily identified with either proper noun usage, game definitions, or index entries.

Default English usage also includes context. If you ignore the context in which it is given, you are ignoring the rules of English as well as the game.

Can you demonstrate the option between two units is considered an "HQ choice" like the FOC legend does?

Also consider the Gladius Command Choice offers Marneus Calgar as an option. Is this Captain initially listed than a LoW choice by the definition you are presenting for consideration?

Charistoph wrote:
Default English usage also includes context. If you ignore the context in which it is given, you are ignoring the rules of English as well as the game.

Can you demonstrate the option between two units is considered an "HQ choice" like the FOC legend does?

Also consider the Gladius Command Choice offers Marneus Calgar as an option. Is this Captain initially listed than a LoW choice by the definition you are presenting for consideration?

I am not presenting any definition of 'choice' for consideration beyond dictionary English usage. Proper English usage for 'choice' is what is used by default and that is my argument


It is semantically correct to say that the player makes a choice between Captain or Chaplain in the Gladius detachment. The Captain and Chaplain are also indisputably HQ units.

The player also has a choice between generic Captain and named Special Character captains. The player similarly has a choice between generic Chaplain and named Special Character chaplains.


Is my usage of 'choice' semantically correct or not? Unless you are being obtuse the answer is yes my usage of 'choice' is semantically correct.

The Scions of the Forge rule only cares that 'choice' is semantically correct since 'choice' is just subject to proper English usage. My usage is semantically correct so 2 techmarines are added per HQ.

You have to actively prove that 'choice' is an official game concept beyond what can be accounted for by mere English usage. You cannot so your argument is invalid (unproven premise).

col_impact wrote:
Sorry Mr Shine.

No need to be.

Your premise is that 'choice' is a game concept and you are failing to prove your premise.

Correct and incorrect, respectively.

Since you failed to prove your premise, my argument that 'choice' is by English usage (the default) wins out since I don't have to prove anything to advance that argument.

To you. Which is fine by me. I don't need to insist you're wrong. I have agreed to disagree.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Sorry Mr Shine.

No need to be.

Your premise is that 'choice' is a game concept and you are failing to prove your premise.

Correct and incorrect, respectively.

Since you failed to prove your premise, my argument that 'choice' is by English usage (the default) wins out since I don't have to prove anything to advance that argument.

To you. Which is fine by me. I don't need to insist you're wrong. I have agreed to disagree.

Feel free to show how you have proven your premise. You can't keep your proof to yourself and merely assert it.

Until you show the proof that asserts your premise my argument wins out.

By default words in the BRB are merely subject to English usage unless they can be shown to be game concepts with game definitions.

Your continued failure to advance an argument with any proof has been noted.

col_impact wrote:
I am not presenting any definition of 'choice' for consideration beyond dictionary English usage. Proper English usage for 'choice' is what is used by default and that is my argument

Yet, in order to be consistent, it must be in consideration of how the rulebook uses it in context. By going with what you believe the default term is, you are presenting a definition beyond the use the rulebook is providing.

And it seems that your answer is, "no, I cannot present any case where a Formation is listed as making a '(role) choice' like the FOC legend does."

col_impact wrote:
It is semantically correct to say that the player makes a choice between Captain or Chaplain in the Gladius detachment. The Captain and Chaplain are also indisputably HQ units.

The player also has a choice between generic Captain and named Special Character captains. The player similarly has a choice between generic Chaplain and named Special Character chaplains.

Is my usage of 'choice' semantically correct or not? Unless you are being obtuse the answer is yes my usage of 'choice' is semantically correct.

The Scions of the Forge rule only cares that 'choice' is semantically correct since 'choice' is just subject to proper English usage. My usage is semantically correct so 2 techmarines are added per HQ.

You have to actively prove that 'choice' is an official game concept beyond what can be accounted for by mere English usage. You cannot so your argument is invalid (unproven premise).

I have proven that 'choice' is used as an official game concept beyond what can be account for by mere English usage. Just because you won't go back and read it does not mean it did not happen, nor does not exist.

Here it is again from the Detachment Legend regarding the FOC:

But since you are so caught up on it, here is a definition of 'choice' from OxfordDictionaries.com:

But again, you are confusing arguments here. The word "choice" is not complete in regards to this situation, but carries a definer, an adjective if you will. It is requesting a "(Role) choice", not just any choice or a choice of HQ units. Formations do not offer Role-based choices, they provide a specific list of units. In this case, the specific list offers options to trade out, but this choice is not based on the Role, but the specific datasheet of the unit.

I also note you did not even really address the LoW Choice Captain question.

 EnTyme wrote:
KomissarKal and Charistoph seem liked they'd be a blast to play with.

Oddly enough, you may be surprised how genial I can be in real life. There is a huge difference between sticking to RAW on a rules discussion forum and playing a game at the table. Here we have time to study the rules in depth and discuss how they interact. That time is not really available when at the table in most cases, and there is always a roll-off that can always settle it for that game. Roll-offs are not really available, practical, or even in keeping with the spirit of a rule review and discussion on an online forum.

text removed.

Reds8n

Charistoph wrote:

Spoiler:

choice - noun
1 An act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities.
1.1The right or ability to make, or possibility of making, such a selection.
1.2A range of possibilities from which one or more may be selected.
1.3A course of action, thing, or person that is selected or decided upon.

As you provide, the dictionary definition of 'choice' is more than adequate to fulfill the BRB use. Definition 1.2 is the exact usage in the BRB.

You continue to fail to provide any specific game meaning to 'choice' beyond the dictionary meaning.

'Role' (as in 'Battlefield Role') is a proper noun in the BRB and carries a special game meaning. The use of 'choice' has no special game meaning beyond the dictionary usage.

The Gladius detachment requires that a choice be made of the player between 'Captain or Chaplain' and a further choice is required between generic and named counterparts. Those units are all HQ and the player is asked to make a choice among those possibilities. This is indisputable.

The player therefore makes what he can express as an 'HQ choice' in standard English usage and the Scions of the Forge rule is satisfied - an 'HQ choice' was made. The Scions of the Forge only cares that according to English usage a choice was made between HQ units and indeed there was.

No, you can't take a Techmarine with a Gladius outside of a Armoured Task Force, because the formations do not have them listed as an option. You may only take options presented on the Formation datasheet.

The Formations don't give you permission to take a Techmarine. Therefore, Chapter Tactics are irrelevant.

It's entirely different from Dedicated Transports, as they are in each individual units' army list entries.

 Crazyterran wrote:
No, you can't take a Techmarine with a Gladius outside of a Armoured Task Force, because the formations do not have them listed as an option. You may only take options presented on the Formation datasheet.

The Formations don't give you permission to take a Techmarine. Therefore, Chapter Tactics are irrelevant.

It's entirely different from Dedicated Transports, as they are in each individual units' army list entries.

Have you read the rule in question?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. Shine wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Feel free to show how you have proven your premise. You can't keep your proof to yourself and merely assert it.

Until you show the proof that asserts your premise my argument wins out.

I'm sorry, I don't think you understand how this works. I don't owe you anything. You don't have anything over me. There are no points to win or lose here. I'm not vying for supremacy and nor should you be. I've provided my evidence and the fact you disagree with it does not make it evaporate or cease to exist.

I don't accept your premise but that doesn't make me claim you're not presenting a case. Do you perhaps have an autism spectrum disorder or some other kind of social or behavioural disorder?

Your seeming desperate need to absolutely shoot down those who disagree with you as losing and failing and wrong, and complete inability to accept simply agreeing to disagree, would suggest the possibility.

By default words in the BRB are merely subject to English usage unless they can be shown to be game concepts with game definitions.

Your continued failure to advance an argument with any proof has been noted.

"Has been noted"? Okay, chief.

Your complete lack of any authority or ability to act on your notes has been giggled over.

While I understand your position, some of these comments are unnecessary

col_impact wrote:Your argument has a premise that is unproven. Until you prove that premise your argument holds no water.

My argument on the other hand does not need any proving. The dictionary meaning of words in the BRB are in effect unless they are shown to be game terms.

Therefore my argument wins out unless you can prove your premise.

I've provided proof that the rules, in terms of selecting detachments, speak of choice with reference to units' battlefield roles.

You have not provided proof beyond claiming standard English, which while correct in isolation is not in line with the context of battlefield role choices as given by the rules

Now, you may disagree that that's how the rules should be interpreted, but you're simply attempting to shout me down by incorrectly saying I have not provided evidence. It's a simple fact that your assertion is not in line with how the rules talk about battlefield role choices, or choices in a Gladius Strike Force.

Your 'immature schoolboy' attempt at trying to label me autistic for pointing out the logical shortcomings of your argument is not only laughable but it is also just an Ad Hominem attack that has absolutely no bearing on the rules discussion.

You should refrain from commenting in this thread until you are prepared to provide proof of your premise and until you can refrain from Ad Hominem attacks. Baseless assertions and Ad Hominem attacks are against the YMDC rules.

I'm sorry if you feel they're insulting; I'm simply pointing out the lack of necessity in you being so vehemently argumentative or talking down to people you disagree with.

As for the autism comment, it was a genuine question. If you feel insulted by that I apologise. I don't believe that having an autism spectrum or other social/behavioural disorder is something to be ashamed of or insulted by. Indeed, I've come across a handful of posters who've admitted to as much or similar issues in reading, interpreting or discussing rules, and if it were the case with you I would find it helpful to know so I don't find you quite so unpleasant to deal with.

They would be ad hominem attacks if they were attacks and I were using them to push my position, but I am not. I'm not saying, "You're autistic so therefore your argument doesn't work." That would be moronic and indeed quite incorrect. It's... what was it? Oh yes, "sneaky and misleading" of you to suggest I'm doing so when I'm not.

jokerkd wrote:While I understand your position, some of these comments are unnecessary

As above, the comments were genuine curiosity. col_impact has a habit of demanding satisfaction and calling people wrong and claiming they fail simply because he disagrees with their viewpoint or evidence, so I'm genuinely curious if there's a cause other than him simply being unpleasant.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

As above, the comments were genuine curiosity. col_impact has a habit of demanding satisfaction and calling people wrong and claiming they fail simply because he disagrees with their viewpoint or evidence, so I'm genuinely curious if there's a cause other than him simply being unpleasant.

I guess you are not familiar with debates or with logic. In logical debates you don't mince words and directly point out the logical fallacies in other arguments. I call people wrong when they are logically wrong. If you find being called flat out wrong when you have an unproven premise unpleasant then I guess you simply don't have the skin for debates. We are debating, not having a dinner party.

I suggest you simply get a thicker skin and refresh yourself on logic and stick to debating rather than avoiding the logical shortcomings of your argument and rather than making personal attacks. Casting aspersions on someone (trying to label them autistic) because they debate what you say and call you on your unproven gak is seriously unprofessional and immature on your part.

You continue to fail to provide a game definition of 'choice' that is not fully accounted for by the standard English usage of 'choice'. The core premise of your argument is that the 'Battlefield Role choice' is using 'choice' in a special game way and yet have provided no evidence that 'choice' means anything different than standard English usage.

Therefore your argument has an unproven premise and is invalid. If that is unpleasant for you to hear then grow a thicker skin.



As it stands, the Gladius detachment requires that a choice be made of the player between 'Captain or Chaplain' and a further choice is required between generic and named counterparts. Those units are all HQ and the player is asked to make a choice among those possibilities. This is indisputable.

The player therefore makes what he can express as an 'HQ choice' in standard English usage and the Scions of the Forge rule is satisfied - an 'HQ choice' was made. The Scions of the Forge rule only cares that according to English usage a choice was made between HQ units and indeed there was.

You're the one calling ad hominem fallacy on a comment that had nothing to do with attacking your argument. Once again I never said anything of the sort that your argument was flawed or invalid because you're autistic. I didn't even say you're autistic.

I did ask whether it was the case and suggested it might explain your unnecessarily argumentative and rude behaviour if it were so. I'm more than happy to accept you don't have a social or behavioural disorder if you say so.

Short point is though that you're claiming experience with debate but can't call an ad hominem properly. Lol.

But this isn't even a debate. There's no judge or adjudicator and there are no points to be won. It seems clear to me that you're more than happy to sweep people's arguments aside and simply shout them down with, "YOU HAVEN'T GIVEN EVIDENCE" to satisfy your need to be right about the rules of a game of toy soldiers on the internet.

Sadly though I have made reference to evidence in the rules - what the rules say about choice in terms of selecting detachments. Simple English is of course how the rules are written but when they speak of a simple English term in a specific context then that context is relevant.

You've given no evidence of choice in general being only a simple English term, so it's in fact your argument that's lacking. I'm referring to what the rules have to say about choice. You're not.

Until you can provide evidence that in terms of selecting detachments the rules mean choice in general, and not the only type of choice they ever mention (i.e. battlefield role choice to fill Force Organisation Charts), your point is simply your interpretation. But I'm not going to claim you're wrong, or that you "have failure" (quoted your words, not mine).

I'm simply going to agree to disagree with your interpretation, because you will simply continue to ignore context and claim it's not relevant and shout me down, despite it being what the rules have to say on the matter.

As it stands, the Gladius detachment requires that a choice be made of the player between 'Captain or Chaplain' and a further choice is required between generic and named counterparts. Those units are all HQ and the player is asked to make a choice among those possibilities. This is indisputable.

Incorrect. The Gladius Strike Force requires choices of Core choices and Auxiliary choices.

The player therefore makes what he can express as an 'HQ choice' in standard English usage and the Scions of the Forge rule is satisfied - an 'HQ choice' was made. The Scions of the Forge rule only cares that according to English usage a choice was made between HQ units and indeed there was.

It's not an HQ choice as far as what the rules actually have to say on the matter though, is it?

 Mr. Shine wrote:
You're the one calling ad hominem fallacy on a comment that had nothing to do with attacking your argument. Once again I never said anything of the sort that your argument was flawed or invalid because you're autistic. I didn't even say you're autistic.

I did ask whether it was the case and suggested it might explain your unnecessarily argumentative and rude behaviour if it were so. I'm more than happy to accept you don't have a social or behavioural disorder if you say so.

Short point is though that you're claiming experience with debate but can't call an ad hominem properly. Lol.

But this isn't even a debate. There's no judge or adjudicator and there are no points to be won. It seems clear to me that you're more than happy to sweep people's arguments aside and simply shout them down with, "YOU HAVEN'T GIVEN EVIDENCE" to satisfy your need to be right about the rules of a game of toy soldiers on the internet.

Sadly though I have made reference to evidence in the rules - what the rules say about choice in terms of selecting detachments. Simple English is of course how the rules are written but when they speak of a simple English term in a specific context then that context is relevant.

You've given no evidence of choice in general being only a simple English term, so it's in fact your argument that's lacking. I'm referring to what the rules have to say about choice. You're not.

Until you can provide evidence that in terms of selecting detachments the rules mean choice in general, and not the only type of choice they ever mention (i.e. battlefield role choice to fill Force Organisation Charts), your point is simply your interpretation.

Incorrect on several points. Suggesting someone is autistic is wildly inappropriate on a forum for rules discussion. If you can't debate me on logical grounds and can't help yourself from making personal attacks then refrain from posting altogether. Resorting to personal attacks only broadcasts to others that your argument is untenable and that you are conceding.

I don't need to provide evidence for my argument since I am not making any extraordinary claims. Words in the BRB are assumed to be standard English usage until proven otherwise. The onus of proof is on you to prove that the BRB is implementing some special game definition of choice since that is an extraordinary claim requiring proof. You have failed to provide any proof that the BRB is implementing some special game definition of choice. You have failed to point to any special definition or to any proper noun usage or to any index entry.

In the absence of any proof that the BRB is implementing some special game definition of 'choice' my argument wins out.

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

Spoiler:

choice - noun
1 An act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities.
1.1The right or ability to make, or possibility of making, such a selection.
1.2A range of possibilities from which one or more may be selected.
1.3A course of action, thing, or person that is selected or decided upon.

As you provide, the dictionary definition of 'choice' is more than adequate to fulfill the BRB use. Definition 1.2 is the exact usage in the BRB.

You continue to fail to provide any specific game meaning to 'choice' beyond the dictionary meaning.

'Role' (as in 'Battlefield Role') is a proper noun in the BRB and carries a special game meaning. The use of 'choice' has no special game meaning beyond the dictionary usage.

The Gladius detachment requires that a choice be made of the player between 'Captain or Chaplain' and a further choice is required between generic and named counterparts. Those units are all HQ and the player is asked to make a choice among those possibilities. This is indisputable.

The player therefore makes what he can express as an 'HQ choice' in standard English usage and the Scions of the Forge rule is satisfied - an 'HQ choice' was made. The Scions of the Forge only cares that according to English usage a choice was made between HQ units and indeed there was.

So you do not actually address my case directly... again.

I did provide a specific game meaning to 'choice', if you choose to miss it this point, that is your choice.

Yes, I know "Role" is a proper noun in the BRB, as is HQ a form of Role. As noted in the supplement rules, it is asking for an "HQ Choice", meaning that "HQ" or the Role in question is being used to describe what kind of "choice" is being made. This is why I called it an adjective, i.e. "a word or phrase naming an attribute, added to or grammatically related to a noun to modify or describe it." The word "choice" is a noun and "HQ" is being used as an adjective to describe what kind of "choice" is being made.

What is "HQ"? It is a Role. This makes an "HQ choice" requirement a "Role choice". Formations do not use Roles to define themselves, just specific units. So there is no Role choice at all, much less an HQ choice. The Demi-Company just provides a unit choice who all just happen to carry the HQ Role.

This is the relationship provided by the rulebook and basic English when combined with the Detachment legend in the FOC description (as referenced before) which basically equates "choices" to "slots".

Formations reference ALE and units.

On the ALE for the Captain is the HQ symbol. The Captain is an HQ and has that role on the Battlefield per Formation rules.

On the ALE for the Chaplain is the HQ symbol. The Chaplain is an HQ and has that role on the Battlefield per Formation rules.





The Demi-company requires a choice between "Captain or Chaplain" (and further a choice between generic and named counterparts) and this is a choice between HQs. This is indisputable.

Therefore the Scions of the Forge rule is satisfied since it only requires that a choice between HQs was made. Indeed it was. A selection from a range of possibilities of HQs was made by the player.


This RAW interpretation of the rules wins out unless you can show that the BRB uses a special game definition of 'choice'. Since 'choice' is not being used as a proper noun and is not given special definition or special index entry in the book, there is literally no proof that the BRB uses a special game definition of choice. The standard English usage of 'choice' wholly accounts for its usage in the BRB.

col_impact wrote:
Incorrect on several points. Suggesting someone is autistic is wildly inappropriate on a forum for rules discussion. If you can't debate me on logical grounds and can't help yourself from making personal attacks then refrain from posting altogether. Resorting to personal attacks only broadcasts to others that your argument is untenable and that you are conceding.

Evidently you think being autistic is something to be looked down on. I do not. Once again, I did not call you autistic but questioned whether you may have some kind of social or behavioural disorder that may explain your incessantly belligerent tone.

You're the one now trying to equate my unrelated-to-any-argument comment with the tenability of my argument. That's far more ad hominem than anything I posted.

I don't need to provide evidence for my argument since I am not making any extraordinary claims. Words in the BRB are assumed to be standard English usage until proven otherwise. The onus of proof is on you to prove that the BRB is implementing some special game definition of choice since that is an extraordinary claim requiring proof. You have failed to provide any proof that the BRB is implementing some special game definition of choice. You have failed to point to any special definition or to any proper noun usage or to any index entry.

In the absence of any proof that the BRB is implementing some special game definition of 'choice' my argument wins out.

Arguing context in terms of what the rules say is not an extraordinary claim. You're the one arguing the meaning of a word on the basis of something other than what the rules specifically have to say about that word in the context being discussed.

Incorrect. The Gladius Strike Force requires choices of Core choices and Auxiliary choices AND it requires choices between Captain or Chaplain and their named HQ counterparts.

Do you have a reference for where the Gladius Strike Force mentions choices other than Core, Auxiliary and Command choices?

No, you don't.

It is indeed an HQ choice as far as what the rules say on the matter. There is no special game meaning of choice and the Gladius Strike Force requires a choice to be made between HQ units. Pretty simple and RAW.

If it's an HQ choice as far as what the rules have to say on the matter then you'll have no problem pointing to where formations refer to battlefield role choices, which is only to do with the Force Organisation Chart, which formations explicitly do not have. Alternatively, as a detachment, you'll be able to point to where the Gladius Strike Force has anything to say about battlefield role choices. But it doesn't; it only talks about Core, Auxiliary and Command choices.

Your interpretation is not supported by what the rules say about choices. Common English, sure, but the rules give context you're simply ignoring.

Mr. Shine,
Autism is a serious developmental disorder. I suggest you stop throwing it around lightly. You are only showing yourself off as a wilfully ignorant individual. Implying that I have a behavioral or social disorder is making a personal attack and is not allowed on this forum.


The word 'choice' is used throughout the BRB. So here are the contexts for 'choice' in the BRB.




























The BRB obviously relies on the standard English usage of 'choice'.

Any special game definition of 'choice' would violate its use elsewhere in the BRB and make whole passages in the BRB read as nonsense.

The standard English definition of 'choice' wholly accounts for all uses in the BRB.

choice - noun
1 An act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities.
1.1The right or ability to make, or possibility of making, such a selection.
1.2A range of possibilities from which one or more may be selected.
1.3A course of action, thing, or person that is selected or decided upon.

col_impact wrote:
Mr. Shine,
Autism is a serious developmental disorder. I suggest you stop throwing it around lightly. You are only showing yourself off as a wilfully ignorant individual. Implying that I have a behavioral or social disorder is making a personal attack and is not allowed on this forum.

I did not imply it. I questioned it, genuinely, to try and find a possible reason for your constant belligerence. I'm well aware autism spectrum disorders are serious, but I place no prejudice on those who have them. It's unfortunate that you seem to look down on it so. It was a genuine question with no offence intended and a swift apology to the unintentional offence caused. And you say I need to grow a thicker skin.

The word 'choice' is used throughout the BRB. So here are the contexts for 'choice' in the BRB.

Spoiler:

Randomising
Sometimes you’ll be called upon to randomly select something – a model, an item, a
psychic power or similar. Where this is the case, simply assign a D6 result to each of the
things the random selection must be made from, and roll the dice to make your random
choice.

Spoiler:

CHARACTERISTIC TESTS
A model will sometimes be called upon to take a characteristic test. Such a test can be
applied against any characteristic that the model has, except for Leadership and Armour
Save. A Toughness test is a characteristic test, as is a Strength test or an Initiative test, a
Wounds test and so on.
Models don’t have a choice of which characteristic to use – the characteristic to be tested
will be specified in the rule.

Spoiler:

Sometimes, the player has the choice of adding leaders or additional models to the crew
of an Artillery unit.

Spoiler:

Vehicle Target -Kerr-smash: One vehicle in the unit being stomped that is
at least partially under the blast marker (stomping model’s choice) suffers a
penetrating hit.

Spoiler:

CHARACTER TYPES
Most characters are fielded in units from the start of the game, and represent squad
leaders, such as a Space Marine Veteran Sergeant. They have their own profile, but do not
have a separate entry. They are effectively just another trooper in their unit, with
enhanced characteristics and perhaps a wider selection of weapons and wargear choices.

Spoiler:

ACCEPTING A CHALLENGE
If your opponent has issued a challenge, you can now accept it – nominate a character in
one of your units locked in the combat to be the challengee. Your opponent has probably
decided which of your characters he wants to fight, in fact, this bias might affect how the
challenge was framed (‘Brother-Captain Minyos challenges thine craven Warlock to
single combat!’), but the final choice is yours – he can’t challenge a specific enemy, he
just issues a challenge to the foe at large and sees who steps forwards.

These have nothing to do with Battlefield Role choices.

Spoiler:

Changing Battlefield Roles
Certain rules can alter a unit’s Battlefield Role, changing it, for example, from a
Fast Attack unit to a Troops unit. If a unit changes its Battlefield Role due to
such a rule, it maintains its new role for the entirety of the game.

Other rules will state that a unit or Army List Entry can be taken in more than
one Battlefield Role (for example, a unit can be taken as either an Elites choice
or a Heavy Support choice).

This is not relevant to the Battle Demi-company because Formations don't care about Battlefield Role choices. It's also not relevant to the Gladius Strike Force either because its Force Organisation Chart is made up of specific Formations and Army List Entries instead of Battlefield Roles:

"Unlike the Detachments shown in Warhammer 40,000: The Rules, it has a Force Organisation Chart whose slots are a combination of specific Formations and Army List Entries instead of Battlefield Roles."

Spoiler:

1) Force Organisation Chart
This shows the number of units of each battlefield role that you may include in this
Detachment. Black boxes are choices you must include to take this Detachment, whilst
grey boxes are optional choices.

As above, the Gladius Strike Force doesn't use Battlefield Role choices.

Spoiler:

3 - Master of Ambush
Your Warlord and three non-vehicle units of your choice have the Infiltrate
special rule.

Spoiler:

If, at the start of his turn, a player has
more Active Tactical Objectives than this number, he must discard Tactical Objectives of
his choice until he has the correct number remaining.

Spoiler:

• When manifesting a psychic power, this unit measures range and line of sight from,
and uses the characteristics profile (if required) of, any one model in the unit that has
the Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers special rule (controlling player’s choice).

Spoiler:

Wounds from Precision Shots are allocated against a model (or models) of your choice in
the target unit, as long as it is in range and line of sight of the firer, rather than following
the normal rules for Wound allocation.

Spoiler:

Summoning is a conjuration with a range of 12" that creates one of the following units
(your choice): 10 Bloodletters of Khorne, 10 Pink Horrors of Tzeentch, 10 Plaguebearers
of Nurgle, 10 Daemonettes of Slaanesh, 5 Flesh Hounds of Khorne, 3 Flamers of
Tzeentch, 3 Nurgling swarms or 5 Seekers of Slaanesh. Rules for these units can be found
in Codex: Chaos Daemons.

And once again, all nothing to do with selecting detachments and irrelevant to the Battle Demi-company Formation and Gladius Strike Force Detachment.

The BRB obviously relies on the standard English usage of 'choice'.

Any special game definition of 'choice' would violate its use elsewhere in the BRB and make whole passages in the BRB read as nonsense.

The standard English definition of 'choice' wholly accounts for all uses in the BRB.

I call strawman. I've only ever maintained we should consider the use of the choice in the relevant context, which is per 'Selecting Detachments' and specifically battlefield role choices.

Again I'll use your words - it's sneaky and misleading of you to attempt to argue against something that is not my argument as if it were my argument.

"HQ choice" must be taken in the context of the rules it refers to - Battlefield Role choices. Which are not used by the Gladius Strike Force (I'll quote it again):

"Unlike the Detachments shown in Warhammer 40,000: The Rules, it has a Force Organisation Chart whose slots are a combination of specific Formations and Army List Entries instead of Battlefield Roles."

Nor are Battlefield Role choices used by Formations:

"Instead of including a Force Organisation chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it..."

No Force Organisation Chart, no Battlefield Role slots to fill, no Battlefield Role choices.

I think we're done here.