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.

Chances are higher that the fault is in this case on gw's behalf rather than the players.

Well with the nature of the games objectives at this time and performing actions.

Units under a certain point value...I'd say like...30 points. should ether be upped in minimum size OR unable to perform actions.

I think this was a missed opportunity by GW with actions. It could have made troops more important by making them the only units that can perform actions.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well with the nature of the games objectives at this time and performing actions.

Units under a certain point value...I'd say like...30 points. should ether be upped in minimum size OR unable to perform actions.

I think this was a missed opportunity by GW with actions. It could have made troops more important by making them the only units that can perform actions.

i havnt played in a while but are there actions that razorwing flocks can do? Arent they all infantry-exclusive?

Not Online!!! wrote:
Chances are higher that the fault is in this case on gw's behalf rather than the players.

This seems rather apologetic to the player. I mean I agree this is likely an error and wasn't intentional but a rule is a rule. It is the players responsibility to play by the rules. TO can house rule anything they want but then the tournaments results should not be tallied with those tournament results which aren't house ruled.

With the 9th edition codex, I wouldn't be shocked if the beasts get a rule saying they can't perform actions.

Obviously the 8th edition books don't have it, since actions weren't a real thing at the time.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well with the nature of the games objectives at this time and performing actions.

Units under a certain point value...I'd say like...30 points. should ether be upped in minimum size OR unable to perform actions.

I think this was a missed opportunity by GW with actions. It could have made troops more important by making them the only units that can perform actions.

i havnt played in a while but are there actions that razorwing flocks can do? Arent they all infantry-exclusive?

Some actions have restrictions. Some don't. Something that comes to mind is a mission based secondary where you have to scan objectives and survive a turn - any unit can do that one.

tneva82 wrote:


Mistake　could even　be on　gw's　side.

No.... that could never happen.

 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?

Use the more restrictive of the two until things are clarified.

Xenomancers wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Chances are higher that the fault is in this case on gw's behalf rather than the players.

This seems rather apologetic to the player. I mean I agree this is likely an error and wasn't intentional but a rule is a rule. It is the players responsibility to play by the rules. TO can house rule anything they want but then the tournaments results should not be tallied with those tournament results which aren't house ruled.

So no ITC then....cuz their whole thing is house rules?

Racerguy180 wrote:

Xenomancers wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Chances are higher that the fault is in this case on gw's behalf rather than the players.

This seems rather apologetic to the player. I mean I agree this is likely an error and wasn't intentional but a rule is a rule. It is the players responsibility to play by the rules. TO can house rule anything they want but then the tournaments results should not be tallied with those tournament results which aren't house ruled.

So no ITC then....cuz their whole thing is house rules?

ITC house rules have all been wiped in 9th, go celebrate, the only people to blame are within GW now.

If we want to get technical, all events are house ruled to a degree.

I still have to find one which is played by the book.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Chances are higher that the fault is in this case on gw's behalf rather than the players.

This seems rather apologetic to the player. I mean I agree this is likely an error and wasn't intentional but a rule is a rule. It is the players responsibility to play by the rules. TO can house rule anything they want but then the tournaments results should not be tallied with those tournament results which aren't house ruled.

the rule that is a rule, has been demonstrated as to why it is : Firstly a grey area, and secondly an equally new update for matched play in the form of the PL table rating has the same as the former codex with only the Pts manual falling out...

Like, i get the players responsibilty angle but before that we need GW to finally step it's game up

Racerguy180 wrote:

Xenomancers wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Chances are higher that the fault is in this case on gw's behalf rather than the players.

This seems rather apologetic to the player. I mean I agree this is likely an error and wasn't intentional but a rule is a rule. It is the players responsibility to play by the rules. TO can house rule anything they want but then the tournaments results should not be tallied with those tournament results which aren't house ruled.

So no ITC then....cuz their whole thing is house rules?

Honestly this was always my stance. ITC House rules were not real 40k. Now 40k has moved towards a more ITC style approach in 9th. There should be a ranked play rule book that everyone follows at the very least. You shouldn't have some events enforcing the 1-12 rule and one enforcing the 3-9 rule is what I am saying. Everything in ranked play should be held to the same standard. When it comes to this issue though - I think it is more reasonable to go with the more restrictive interpretation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
If we want to get technical, all events are house ruled to a degree.

I still have to find one which is played by the book.

This is a big issue IMO.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well with the nature of the games objectives at this time and performing actions.

Units under a certain point value...I'd say like...30 points. should ether be upped in minimum size OR unable to perform actions.

I think this was a missed opportunity by GW with actions. It could have made troops more important by making them the only units that can perform actions.

i havnt played in a while but are there actions that razorwing flocks can do? Arent they all infantry-exclusive?

They are quite useless for actions as a swarm. Either he was grabbing corners / linebreaker or using them to trigger SfD more often. Given they are not obsec and that they die fast when there's only one I can't imagine he relied on them holding things.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well with the nature of the games objectives at this time and performing actions.

Units under a certain point value...I'd say like...30 points. should ether be upped in minimum size OR unable to perform actions.

I think this was a missed opportunity by GW with actions. It could have made troops more important by making them the only units that can perform actions.

i havnt played in a while but are there actions that razorwing flocks can do? Arent they all infantry-exclusive?

They are quite useless for actions as a swarm. Either he was grabbing corners / linebreaker or using them to trigger SfD more often. Given they are not obsec and that they die fast when there's only one I can't imagine he relied on them holding things.

They are tiny - you can literally block them with your own models. Like a character that you aren't even eligible to shoot at.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Use the more restrictive of the two until things are clarified.

Which is more restrictive? Being forced to take 3 or being limited to a max of 9?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Use the more restrictive of the two until things are clarified.

Which is more restrictive? Being forced to take 3 or being limited to a max of 9?

3-9 so people can claim the most possible people cheat, at least when it suits a narrative.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Use the more restrictive of the two until things are clarified.

Which is more restrictive? Being forced to take 3 or being limited to a max of 9?

Being forced to take 3 as nobody is taking these in maxed-sized units.

 Xenomancers wrote:
They are tiny - you can literally block them with your own models. Like a character that you aren't even eligible to shoot at.

I know, but they aren't going to have other models blocking for them. Just terrain. If they're scoring secondaries then the other person doesn't care enough to shoot them.

He went first and he didn't even engage the middle objectives until turn 3. The Wraithseers never even went into combat. Turn 3 he literally blew away DG in combat and he conceeded.

You can see a Razorwing here just floating in plain view of some PMs here:

VS DG with practically no guns that can be a use for them. EOAF or line breaker or something. Vs shooting armies standing them behind an avatar or wraithseer and stand on objectives with impunity is another. I mean - look at all these little ledges you can hide a model that small. They were probably his MVP units.

 Canadian 5th 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?

Use the more restrictive of the two until things are clarified.

And you're certain that this wasn't clarified by the TO?

The floor rules of that tournament can be found here:
https://clutch-city-gt.webnode.com/a40k-gt-information/

Looking at their rules, actively trying to cheat by bringing an illegal list seems like a super easy way to get disqualified or end up with a terrible army.

The lists also have been available for public viewing a week before the event started and no one caught the problem.

 Jidmah wrote:
The floor rules of that tournament can be found here:
https://clutch-city-gt.webnode.com/a40k-gt-information/

Looking at their rules, actively trying to cheat by bringing an illegal list seems like a super easy way to get disqualified or end up with a terrible army.

The lists also have been available for public viewing a week before the event started and no one caught the problem.

Doesn't really surprise me. I thought I knew DE pretty well, but didn't know until this thread that the Munitorum Field Manual had changed the minimum unit for Razorwings from 1 to 3. Its not something that's been flagged up. Calling this cheating seems a bit extreme.

I mean it would still be cheating. Just not intentional, presumably, and not malicious.

If it's not intentional nor malicious, it's not cheating.

Wayniac wrote:
I mean it would still be cheating. Just not intentional, presumably, and not malicious.

thats called making a mistake.

Tyel wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
The floor rules of that tournament can be found here:
https://clutch-city-gt.webnode.com/a40k-gt-information/

Looking at their rules, actively trying to cheat by bringing an illegal list seems like a super easy way to get disqualified or end up with a terrible army.

The lists also have been available for public viewing a week before the event started and no one caught the problem.

Doesn't really surprise me. I thought I knew DE pretty well, but didn't know until this thread that the Munitorum Field Manual had changed the minimum unit for Razorwings from 1 to 3. Its not something that's been flagged up. Calling this cheating seems a bit extreme.

Given the MFM intro is explicit about changing points costs, but makes no mention of changing unit sizes, I'm not even convinced this is an actual change instead of a GW error in the document.

Worst case, I reckon, is that the unit size is changing with the new book, and it was included here by accident.

To add to the confusion, I just found out that there is a new MFM in the current white dwarf which has content that differs from the PDF

 Jidmah wrote:
To add to the confusion, I just found out that there is a new MFM in the current white dwarf which has content that differs from the PDF

I believe that's the original version of the current document. Because of the lead times in printing it contains a whole bunch of errors that were later corrected in an update. There are two solutions GW could employ for this:

1. Stop taking up space in your magazine with a reprint of something that's already available on your own website.
2. Stop making such stupid errors in the first place.

Neither seem likely to happen.

Have any of you thought to contact the TOs & simply ask them whether or not they'd made a ruling on the unit size?