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.

The MFM 2021 Mk1 has the minimum as 3. This contradicts the Codex and the new Power Level listings.

Slipspace wrote:
Yeah, I have to confess I'm now struggling to find where the unit entry was updated to be 3+ models rather than 1-12. Does anyone have a reference for that?

Munitorum Field Manual 2021, pg.32

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
Yeah, I have to confess I'm now struggling to find where the unit entry was updated to be 3+ models rather than 1-12. Does anyone have a reference for that?

Munitorum Field Manual 2021, pg.32

Cool, thanks. Not sure how I missed that, it's literally right where I thought I'd looked.

Slipspace wrote:
Yeah, I have to confess I'm now struggling to find where the unit entry was updated to be 3+ models rather than 1-12. Does anyone have a reference for that?

The Feb MFM points pdf up on the GW site.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/gxruRl769G2olA3v.pdf

Page 32
Razorwing Flock
Unit size.... 3-9 models
Unit cost.... 12 pts/model

Slipspace wrote:
Yeah, I have to confess I'm now struggling to find where the unit entry was updated to be 3+ models rather than 1-12. Does anyone have a reference for that?

Points update has it.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
It's legal by the Codex - for all you know he cleared it with the TO. Might want to watch for cheating accusations.

It literally goes against what's listed in munitorium and unless the TO had this change listed in the pre-tournament handouts it's pretty shady. Yes, it's likely more an oversite that everybody missed but it's still cheating even if you didn't mean to do it.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
It's legal by the Codex - for all you know he cleared it with the TO. Might want to watch for cheating accusations.

It literally goes against what's listed in munitorium and unless the TO had this change listed in the pre-tournament handouts it's pretty shady. Yes, it's likely more an oversite that everybody missed but it's still cheating even if you didn't mean to do it.

Tracking the munitorium manual - we are also not tracking what went on with the TO and lists. Its hardly cheating, although I wouldn't want to have an list with an error at that level.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Tracking the munitorium manual - we are also not tracking what went on with the TO and lists. Its hardly cheating, although I wouldn't want to have an list with an error at that level.

If a sports team scores with an extra man on the field and the refs don't catch it they still broke the rules of the game and cheated, even if the extra man was a complete oversight to all involved.

I think that's an accidental oversight on Nayden's list. Calling him a cheater is uncalled for.


Now, if we want to talk about an actual cheater from the event, that would be the Tau Player. This player ended up having to have 3 judges watch his table round 5, and was called out multiple times for multiple things during the course of the event. He's also been banned from other events.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
It's legal by the Codex - for all you know he cleared it with the TO. Might want to watch for cheating accusations.

It literally goes against what's listed in munitorium and unless the TO had this change listed in the pre-tournament handouts it's pretty shady. Yes, it's likely more an oversite that everybody missed but it's still cheating even if you didn't mean to do it.

Tracking the munitorium manual - we are also not tracking what went on with the TO and lists. Its hardly cheating, although I wouldn't want to have an list with an error at that level.

I wouldn't call it cheating, but suggesting he may have got the TO's permission is a weird take. Seems like you're going out of your way to excuse what is highly likely to just be an honest mistake. Why should a TO randomly allow a player to break the rules? Can I contact them and ask if I can take 9 Outriders in a squad for...reasons? Any TO that would allow that, especially without informing other players, is invalidating their own tournament IMO.

If there was a question is was probably, which of these is the correct unit size for Razorwing Flocks?:

Codex Drukhari: 1-12

MUNITORUM FIELD MANUAL 2021 MK I: 3-9

POWER RATING UPDATE 2021: 1-12

 alextroy wrote:
If there was a question is was probably, which of these is the correct unit size for Razorwing Flocks?:

Codex Drukhari: 1-12

MUNITORUM FIELD MANUAL 2021 MK I: 3-9

POWER RATING UPDATE 2021: 1-12

The answer is always the most recent by publication date.

Not necessarily, if lists were locked in before then all good right?

His list is illegal, RFW's are min 3 and has been sense the Munitorum update.

Pg 32 https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/gxruRl769G2olA3v.pdf

 Amishprn86 wrote:
His list is illegal, RFW's are min 3 and has been sense the Munitorum update.

Pg 32 https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/gxruRl769G2olA3v.pdf

When did the power rating update come out? Before the munitorium ? Same time? Iater?

n/m

missing the unit size change is a very easy mistake to make, assuming its even an intended change. Not like GW has fethed up those sort of lists before.

Yes its not great and you can put an * next to his win but I don't see a case for deliberate cheating.

ccs wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
His list is illegal, RFW's are min 3 and has been sense the Munitorum update.

Pg 32 https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/gxruRl769G2olA3v.pdf

When did the power rating update come out? Before the munitorium ? Same time? Iater?

Simultaneously. Both have since been updated, hence the february 4th date on both.

 Sasori wrote:
I think that's an accidental oversight on Nayden's list. Calling him a cheater is uncalled for.


Now, if we want to talk about an actual cheater from the event, that would be the Tau Player. This player ended up having to have 3 judges watch his table round 5, and was called out multiple times for multiple things during the course of the event. He's also been banned from other events.

What’s the source on this one?

 Ordana wrote:
missing the unit size change is a very easy mistake to make, assuming its even an intended change. Not like GW has fethed up those sort of lists before.

Yes its not great and you can put an * next to his win but I don't see a case for deliberate cheating.

Its a popular unit to take actually and most DE players takes Court b.c it is 1 model instead of 3+. A lot of the units actually changed in size, RWF, Khymerea's, Grots, and Wracks. This is why you don't use Battlescribe for you "rules" b.c BS still has it the old way.

PS, not saying he cheated on purpose, most likely he never even look at the unit or the new faqs and instead just used Battlescribe.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
If there was a question is was probably, which of these is the correct unit size for Razorwing Flocks?:

Codex Drukhari: 1-12

MUNITORUM FIELD MANUAL 2021 MK I: 3-9

POWER RATING UPDATE 2021: 1-12

The answer is always the most recent by publication date.

And when the MFM and PRU are published concurrently with contradictory information?

PL is also not used when making lists for Match play. So does it matter they are different? Reavers PL is drastically different from Hellions. Hellions are 23.3ppl and Reavers are 13.4ppl. And some DE players has been emailing GW about this for awhile now, same for Scourges and other units.

The thing is PL is just not really cared about when some units are grossly over costed, why does GW even care? They don't.

So i wouldn't look at PL's (or Power Rating as its called now) as a good example of "correct".

 alextroy wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
If there was a question is was probably, which of these is the correct unit size for Razorwing Flocks?:

Codex Drukhari: 1-12

MUNITORUM FIELD MANUAL 2021 MK I: 3-9

POWER RATING UPDATE 2021: 1-12

The answer is always the most recent by publication date.

And when the MFM and PRU are published concurrently with contradictory information?

And if they've both been updated since, what was the cutoff date for wich rules/faqs/etc to use at this event?

Just because something is illegal now doesn't mean it was so at the tine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
PL is also not used when making lists for Match play. So does it matter they are different? Reavers PL is drastically different from Hellions. Hellions are 23.3ppl and Reavers are 13.4ppl. And some DE players has been emailing GW about this for awhile now, same for Scourges and other units.

The thing is PL is just not really cared about when some units are grossly over costed, why does GW even care? They don't.

So i wouldn't look at PL's (or Power Rating as its called now) as a good example of "correct".

time.

Isn't PL still a factor in putting things in Strategic Reserves?

The datasheet decides how many models can be in a unit and which battlefield role they are. Codex Drukhari has no FAQ changing Razorwing unit size so the list was legal. This is Deathmark Troops over again.

This book contains the most up-to-date points values that should be used in your matched play games, covering all the factions in Warhammer 40,000.

You can use this book to determine the points (pts) value of each unit in your army. Each entry lists the unit’s size (i.e. how many models the unit can contain) and how many points the unit costs.

The points values listed in this book replace any published previously, and should be used in your matched play games...

MFM contains up to date points and replaces points cost values listed previously, but it does not replace the unit's size, it simply lists it. In the same way that Deathmarks had their battlefield role listed as Troops, which was unimportant because the battlefield role, like unit size is decided by the datasheet, which is not overwritten by a misprint in MFM 2021.

I hope it makes you feel more secure thinking that he cheated, wouldn't want to risk having to change your beliefs.

ccs wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
If there was a question is was probably, which of these is the correct unit size for Razorwing Flocks?:

Codex Drukhari: 1-12

MUNITORUM FIELD MANUAL 2021 MK I: 3-9

POWER RATING UPDATE 2021: 1-12

The answer is always the most recent by publication date.

And when the MFM and PRU are published concurrently with contradictory information?

And if they've both been updated since, what was the cutoff date for wich rules/faqs/etc to use at this event?

Just because something is illegal now doesn't mean it was so at the tine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
PL is also not used when making lists for Match play. So does it matter they are different? Reavers PL is drastically different from Hellions. Hellions are 23.3ppl and Reavers are 13.4ppl. And some DE players has been emailing GW about this for awhile now, same for Scourges and other units.

The thing is PL is just not really cared about when some units are grossly over costed, why does GW even care? They don't.

So i wouldn't look at PL's (or Power Rating as its called now) as a good example of "correct".

time.

Isn't PL still a factor in putting things in Strategic Reserves?

Yes but thats why i said list building, and why i did email GW about it a couple times. They came out with the PL update right at launch of 9th and there has ben oddities after 2 updates. To me that says they don't care
about PL.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:
The datasheet decides how many models can be in a unit and which battlefield role they are. Codex Drukhari has no FAQ changing Razorwing unit size so the list was legal. This is Deathmark Troops over again.

This book contains the most up-to-date points values that should be used in your matched play games, covering all the factions in Warhammer 40,000.

You can use this book to determine the points (pts) value of each unit in your army. Each entry lists the unit’s size (i.e. how many models the unit can contain) and how many points the unit costs.

The points values listed in this book replace any published previously, and should be used in your matched play games...

MFM contains up to date points and replaces points cost values listed previously, but it does not replace the unit's size, it simply lists it. In the same way that Deathmarks had their battlefield role listed as Troops, which was unimportant because the battlefield role, like unit size is decided by the datasheet, which is not overwritten by a misprint in MFM 2021.

I hope it makes you feel more secure thinking that he cheated, wouldn't want to risk having to change your beliefs.

Why would it not replace unit sizes?

Via the faq

You can use this book to determine the points (pts) value of
each unit in your army. Each entry lists the unit’s size (i.e. how
many models the unit can contain) and how many points the
unit costs. If an entry has a unit cost of ‘x pts/model’, then the
unit costs x points for every model in that unit. You must then
add points for each weapon, or item of wargear, that is included
in that unit if it is listed in that unit’s entry (weapons and
wargear not listed in a unit’s entry cost no additional points to
include in that unit).
The points values listed in this book replace any published
previously, and should be used in your matched play games (or
any of your games that are using points values). As with the
previous edition of the Munitorum Field Manual, this book
contains the points values for every single unit that, at the time
of printing, are supported for matched play games, eliminating
the need to flip back and forth between two or more books.

To me it says use these unit sizes.

"Each entry lists the unit’s size"

"lists" being the operative word. It does not change, it merely lists. In the same way it lists battlefield role, but does not change it. Therefore any difference between the unit's size that is listed here and the actual rules for the unit's size in the datasheet can be assumed to be an error as was the case with Deathmarks being wrongly listed as Troops when the datasheet said they were Elites.

From the main rulebook "If a unit’s profile does not, then this part of a datasheet will tell you what models are in the unit, and how many of them you should have. It also tells you the default weapons and wargear the models are equipped with." refering to the COMPOSITION AND WARGEAR part of datasheets.

Yeah, there definitely is a grey area. Seems something that a TO could rule one way or the another.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Why would it not replace unit sizes?

Via the faq

You can use this book to determine the points (pts) value of
each unit in your army. Each entry lists the unit’s size (i.e. how
many models the unit can contain) and how many points the
unit costs. If an entry has a unit cost of ‘x pts/model’, then the
unit costs x points for every model in that unit. You must then
add points for each weapon, or item of wargear, that is included
in that unit if it is listed in that unit’s entry (weapons and
wargear not listed in a unit’s entry cost no additional points to
include in that unit).
The points values listed in this book replace any published
previously, and should be used in your matched play games (or
any of your games that are using points values). As with the
previous edition of the Munitorum Field Manual, this book
contains the points values for every single unit that, at the time
of printing, are supported for matched play games, eliminating
the need to flip back and forth between two or more books.

To me it says use these unit sizes.

Because the points values are explicitly called out as replacing that information in the codex, but the unit size values aren't?

It is also entirely possible that the unit size changes with the release of the DE book on the 27th, and some numpty didn't remember that the change wasn't in place when they updated the MFM, while a different person working on the PL document was paying attention to the current unit size.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
It's legal by the Codex - for all you know he cleared it with the TO. Might want to watch for cheating accusations.

It literally goes against what's listed in munitorium and unless the TO had this change listed in the pre-tournament handouts it's pretty shady. Yes, it's likely more an oversite that everybody missed but it's still cheating even if you didn't mean to do it.

Well to is the ultimate law so if to says so mfm is irrelevant.

However seeing it's only 3-12 in one source differing also pl list(also official source) it's honest mistake most　likely than cheating. Cheating requires intention. Mistakes aren't cheating as anybody with knowledge of english　language　knows.

Mistake　could even　be on　gw's　side.

Cheating implies intent, I don't think this is a given here.