Phallanx Warder Rules Querie - FW Answer!

[AfroCampbell]

Hi FW,

Question: can Phalanx Warders be used to fill the required compulsory troops slots in the Imperial Fist's Rite of War, it seems that they were intended to be being made troops choice, and it makes sense (would be strange if not seeing as this rite of war seems to be the only thing that makes them a viable choice....) however it isnt specifically stated.

can you confirm this is the case?

Regards

A hopeful IF player!

 

 

REPLY -

 

Hi <Redacted>,

 

Thanks for your email. Yes they <Phalanx Warders> certainly can be used to fulfil these slots. I hope this helps.

 

If there is anything further we can do to assist you, or if you have any queries about the information we have requested or provided, please telephone us.


Regards,

Forge World

 

[Slips]

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS I DONT NEED TO BUY/USE BREACHERS ANYMORE! JUST THE BETTER ONES WITH AWSOME SCUPLTS!

[Atia]

Ok, that's awesome! but i may still use pride of the legion with 2 terminators squads as troops and use the phalanx warders as fast attack :P

[Slips]

Ok, that's awesome! but i may still use pride of the legion with 2 terminators squads as troops and use the phalanx warders as fast attack

Might do that myself too since I'm currently only using Seekers and possibly jetbikes as my FA.

[Sully ad Bellum]

I'm not buying it.  Phalanx Warders were mentioned specifically in the Effects section, and the language in the Limitations section of the Rite of War is unambiguous that there's only one type of unit that "must" be taken as a compulsory troops choice.  Leaving out "either/or" and Phalanx Warders in that sentence is too great a change to the rule as written (TWICE - in the HH:Extermination and in LA:CAL) to be considered "resolved" by an email allegedly from someone at Forge World. 

 

Until it's corrected officially in an FAQ, it seems to me that the rule must stand as written:  compulsory troops choices in the Stone Gauntlet must be Breachers.

[Nusquam]

Wouldn't be the first time they wrote something wrong and sent it to print. Won't be the last. I wouldn't have any problem with my opponent using Warders filling compulsory troops. It follows the most important rule of all.

[Sully ad Bellum]

Wouldn't be the first time they wrote something wrong and sent it to print. Won't be the last. I wouldn't have any problem with my opponent using Warders filling compulsory troops. It follows the most important rule of all.

 

The "rule of cool?"

[Hesh Kadesh]

No, that rule that 50% of the time would invalidate your army according to the rulebook, especially as Unbound is not a thing any more.

[Sully ad Bellum]

No, that rule that 50% of the time would invalidate your army according to the rulebook, especially as Unbound is not a thing any more.

 

I'm confused by this.  Please explain.

[Nusquam]

 

Wouldn't be the first time they wrote something wrong and sent it to print. Won't be the last. I wouldn't have any problem with my opponent using Warders filling compulsory troops. It follows the most important rule of all.

 

The "rule of cool?"

 

 

Page 14 BRB, black box "Spirit of the Game". Pure-RAW for this game was never intended to be the be-all-end-all. It's just the beginning. This thread is a perfect example. I don't play IF but I have a friend who does and if he came to me an asked if it would be OK to use Warders like this I would encourage it. It makes it more fun for him and has no drawback for me. If someone brought it up at an event randomly and didn't clear it with a TO and had no FAQ to back it up that's a different story. But getting ready for a friendly game?

[Sully ad Bellum]

I guess maybe we're talking about different things. You seem to be talking about a prearranged game between friends where one of them asks the other - perhaps for narrative reasons - whether it would be cool to redraft the force-organization rules for this game, and the other friend says "Sure! Why not?" All kinds of fun reasons for that, most of them to enhance the cinematic or narrative feel of the game. I get that.

But I'm talking about the rules of the game apart from special arrangements between the players. I won't be pigeonholed into the gang of RAW-fanatics, to be clear. There are ample errors in these HH books, especially. At the end of the day, it's a game and we're grown-ups trying to have fun by playing it. But part of what makes it a game is that there are rules, and part of what makes it fun and challenging is figuring out how to do things within the ruleset.

I'm all about agreeing to scenario-specific rules to give the game a more narrative feel, and I really prefer such games, but I don't think the "Spirit of the Game" should be carte blanche to rewrite the rules willy nilly. And I considered this forum to be broad and public enough that we'd be discussing the rules as they apply generally.

I would rather not turn this into an argument about the best philosophical approach to this sorting out this kind problem with our toy soldiers game.  I play Fists, so the question isn't academic to me. The answer, though, should be the one that everyone can readily determine - the one in the book. 

 

If you disagree, well that's the good thing about this whole thing:  there's no court or tribunal deciding the issues, so there's no binding rule...until there's a FAQ (and maybe not even then, if it's not "in the Spirit," right?).

[Hesh Kadesh]

 

No, that rule that 50% of the time would invalidate your army according to the rulebook, especially as Unbound is not a thing any more.

 

I'm confused by this.  Please explain.

 

The Most Important rule, in the BRB box out, early in the rules section. Cannot cite page as I have the eversion. If you have a dispute that cannot be agreed, roll a dice - on a 1-3 player a gets it, player b gets it. If someone sticks with what's written in the rulebook rather than the random post on the internet, then you can roll a dice. 50% of the time, if you were banking on the use of squads being legal in that manner to make your squad legal, you've got to come up with a new list.

[Nusquam]

I'm talking about a rule within the rulebook, that gives us permission to change things around if we want to and making examples of how it might be applied. There's nothing willy-nilly about changing one aspect because it makes sense, is more fun etc. Willy-nilly would be re-writing each phase of the game, the points and stats on every unit and so on.

 

The rules as is are a base for us to start, of course. And within there rules is a rule that gives explicitly us permission to change things, not that it should need to but it does. So when the base rules fail us, a typo, a poorly written sentence, something that technically works under RAW but just doesn't sit right, we actually have a rule to fall back on. Because it says this game isn't perfect as is. It's not world class chess. It has flaws and so do people.

 

Now for this topic about a email question answered and what it actually means:

• FW are now aware of this and support it
• It makes sense if you think about it
• It's awesome

Now what this thread has not done/said it will do/intends to do:

• Whip it out mid-game against a stranger and say "Well this email..." without asking them before if it's OK
• Hold it over any ones head
• Appeal to a TO of an event
• Rewrite major parts of this game

A fan wrote an email to the game designers, they replied with their answer and the fan is sharing it with some peers. That's all that's happening. You have every right to accept or deny it. If you don't like it follow up and write an email to them asking about it yourself. Which is only going to help make sure this gets an FAQ. Then you'll know for certain. Until it's released in an FAQ it's the only way to be sure.

[Sully ad Bellum]

A fan wrote an email to the game designers, they replied with their answer and the fan is sharing it with some peers. That's all that's happening. You have every right to accept or deny it. If you don't like it follow up and write an email to them asking about it yourself. Which is only going to help make sure this gets an FAQ. Then you'll know for certain. Until it's released in an FAQ it's the only way to be sure.

 

We seem to be in agreement about the nature of things....

[Nusquam]

I look forward to what answers they email you back

[Sully ad Bellum]

I am not sure whether I will ask this one; it still seems pretty clear to me.  If it might mean the question would be answered officially, though, then I'd do it for the community. 

 

However, I am curious about another question (on another thread) I had where the language of the rule does seem to be ambiguous - whether a Centurion with the Warlord special rule also has the Master of the Legion special rule where that special rule states that "if the army's Warlord..., they have the Master of the Legion special rule."  I think the answer's probably no because of many reasons, but I think there's a genuine ambiguity, and I'd like clarification.

 

Does anyone have any idea as to whether Forge World has a threshold number of queries before a particular question becomes "frequently asked?" 

[Slips]

Warlord isnt actually a rule; its a model you nominate to act as your armies 'Warlord' - the caveat being that the model selected be a Character. So a Centurion being nominated Warlord does not confer a 'Warlord' USR.

 

Master of The Legion is also a Specific Special Rule in and of itself and is not conferred to anyone - it is listed in their profile if they have it. If they don't, there is no way for them to get it.

 

Case and point, the new Delegatus Consul from the FW Weekender that just happened: It has a special rule that permits it to select a RoW as if it had 'Master Of The Legion' but does not actually have the rule on it profile.

 

There is no real ambiguity here. Read page 124 of the BRB.

[Nusquam]

I am not sure whether I will ask this one; it still seems pretty clear to me.  If it might mean the question would be answered officially, though, then I'd do it for the community. 

 

There's evidence that the rule isn't written/functioning as intended and you don't want to follow up on it? Clear or not, the same people who wrote it originally told someone that it works differently. That alone is enough to ask them, whether or not the new or old rule makes sense. The real bonus in all this is that the more who ask, the better they'll write future rules, put out FAQs, and be in touch with the community. I'd say definitely do it. Asking constructive questions of the source only helps.

 

 

Does anyone have any idea as to whether Forge World has a threshold number of queries before a particular question becomes "frequently asked?" 

 

The more the better. I don't think anyone knows. Too many other variables like difficulty of the question or rule in question, if it's just a typo, is it missing a part etc. Some may only take one, like how the Thanatar didn't have the mortar listed in it's wargear, they might even discover it themselves. Like I said: Asking constructive questions of the source only helps.