Rites Of War and Alternste FOCs

[Tychii]

Fair point, but the writers are English, and this has been said in interviews with them.

[Hesh Kadesh]

Exactly. So we go across the top first for Primary Detachment, because that's how I was taught how to read. Which of course is the opposite of what LetsYouDown was saying. 

 

FW don't have a clue what they're doing. They're well meaning, loyal fans, who are incredibly good at making models with the ability to create "canon" for the setting that some of us have spent the best part of 20 years or more enjoying. It doesn't mean that they're any good at creating rules, and this is only exacerbated by an inability to spare an hour for an FAQ/errata once a month, let alone create rules that actually DO anything - look at Immortals. "Hey bro, you can give up the ability to make a sweeping advance in order to shoot make shooting attacks."

 

And in this case. Where only half the rules were given.

[1ncarnadine]

Exactly. So we go across the top first for Primary Detachment, because that's how I was taught how to read. Which of course is the opposite of what LetsYouDown was saying. 

 

FW don't have a clue what they're doing. They're well meaning, loyal fans, who are incredibly good at making models with the ability to create "canon" for the setting that some of us have spent the best part of 20 years or more enjoying. It doesn't mean that they're any good at creating rules, and this is only exacerbated by an inability to spare an hour for an FAQ/errata once a month, let alone create rules that actually DO anything - look at Immortals. "Hey bro, you can give up the ability to make a sweeping advance in order to shoot make shooting attacks."

 

And in this case. Where only half the rules were given.

 

Yeah, it needs clarification for sure. To me, my eyes are drawn to the horizontal writing on the left because it's easy to read, and then I read left to right across the row to find the allied detachment. That's what I find intuitive, vs automatically going to the top. It's also how I tend to set up data tables, where the primary variable is in the left-most column.

 

...but also, in Betrayal it refers to page 112-113 of the 6th edition codex and says it works in a similar way. And on page 113 in that book (yes, now defunct but bear with me), it does say to find your primary detachment on the left first, and then find the allied detachment's column. 

[Hesh Kadesh]

That's cool to note. That said, bringing back Betrayal (and consequently Book 2 and 3) for that opens up a whole can of worms - Command Tanks gaining Interceptor to pass around the squadron, Sunder Shells not being available on Quad Mortars, Palatine Squads etc.

 

I also agree that normally, I go down a table before going across, while my brother in law, who has a lot more experience with reading maps is the one who gave me the argument we go across the up/down to locate grid references, and that a DG Primary/NL Secondary results in across for DG, down for NL etc, and that conventions in english is to go across before going down.

 

For the sake of devil's advocate, as well, if it was so important, why would it not be passed forwards? I know there is lots of stuff missing (Rad Phage! Command Tanks!) in the Red Books, and poorly copied stuff elsewhere (Quad Mortars Shatter Shells), while others have flat out "stealth" errata (Emperor's Children, Sons of Horus).

[1ncarnadine]

I agree, Betrayal and the 6th Ed. rulebook as references aren't very relevant. To be honest the only reason I looked in Betrayal is because I had a Principal Skinner "am I really reading things weird?" moment and wanted to take a look at the matrix again, and Betrayal was nearby and the Taghmata book in another room. So thank laziness for that.

 

It does inform us how they were thinking when they made up the 30k matrix though. I imagine they got so used to using it from the left it became automatic, to the point they didn't even think to put in anything clarifying it for the future?

 

I checked the 7th Ed. rulebook and Taghmata book just now for the heck of it to compare; the Taghmata book just says "works like the one in the rulebook" with no page number, and the 7th Ed doesn't tell you which way to read from like the 6th Ed book. 

[Terminus]

For the sake of devil's advocate, as well, if it was so important, why would it not be passed forwards? I know there is lots of stuff missing (Rad Phage! Command Tanks!) in the Red Books, and poorly copied stuff elsewhere (Quad Mortars Shatter Shells), while others have flat out "stealth" errata (Emperor's Children, Sons of Horus).

How about contemptors getting a stealth buff to 3 base attacks, but that only being available under the volkite culverin product page, and is not noted or advertised anywhere else. And the worst of the 30K books are flawless gems compared to IA13.  Why, you ask?  You already answered your own question.

 

 

FW don't have a clue what they're doing.