FW reply to 'Legion Recon Company' RoW

[Unknown Legionnaire]

There was what seemed to be a rather endless and pointless discussion about the requirements of the 'Legion Recon Company' RoW a couple weeks ago, as most readers might remember.

 

Most of us were of the opinion the rules were pretty clear and straightforward, but some people did a lot of ... interpreting.

Thus I mailed them (FW) about it and finally got a reply today:

 

 

 

All F.O.C have compulsory choices, be they HQ's, Troops, Elites etc. The Standard Age of Darkness F.O.C. Has compulsory choices of 1 HQ and 2 Troops as shown in it's diagram.

Following the Effects and Limitations for the Recon Company Right of War, your compulsory troops (i.e. the first 2 troops choices taken as per the standard F.O.C) must be Recon squads and you must also take an additional (i.e. third) compulsory troop choice which must also be a Recon squad.

We can see no ambiguity in this and the only time it would change would be if one of the optional alternative F.O.C were chosen which had different compulsory choices.

 

 

 

 

The requirements is indeed 3 Legion Recon Squads.

 

 

 

 

 

[Fenbain]

I agree that this has always been my fluff/RAI driven interpretation of the Rite. I'm glad it's finally sorted and everyone can be on the same page :-) Hopefully the Rite will see more use if Recon Squads get revised in the coming AoD Army List book.

[Charlo]

Makes sense, but it is still written poorly.

 

Thanks for posting!

[pompeyladbfp]

Seems legit

[pompeyladbfp]

Their is a different answer on FW Facebook page, I did link on here but it's gone. Just play as you think it is, it's not like it's a Biggy unless your at a tourney, and if so ask the TO.

[Fenbain]

The answer you posted from facebook was far vaguer than the email received by the OP, which leaves little room for doubt at least according to Forgeworld. Unsure why it's disappeared though :-/

[Hesh Kadesh]

That FW don't see this as ambiguous means that they are part of the problem. That said, they are also email monkeys, and how much they have to do with rules design is questionable.

[Unknown Legionnaire]

To be honest, there's nothing ambiguous about it if one knows how to read properly.

 

The problem are those people who're always nitpicking and fishing for advantages and try to 'interpret' written words in ways they weren't meant to be conceived.

[pompeyladbfp]

If one knows how to read properly? Be nice... It's just a game of toy soldiers dude.

[Hesh Kadesh]

Suggesting that I do not know how to read properly is rather offensive.

 

I'll be polite, and give you the opportunity to retract that. It is wrong, rude and arrogant to suggest so.

[Unknown Legionnaire]

Sorry Hesh if it came across to be directed at you, for it wasn't. Actually, you're one of the posters on these boards whose posts I value quite highly.

 

I thought it was rather clear that I was talking about the sort of people I was referring to in the second part of the post, those who are always fishing for the slightest advantage for themselves. Because they're the sort of people who often spoil the fun for others at campaigns / events, or when you come across them by chance in pick- up games.

And it's those  very people who have forgotten that it is a game we play, not a competition. 

But of course, my view is highly personalised, as is the point of view of all of us on these boards, since we all come from different (gaming) backgrounds and have clearly different expectations when it comes to gaming and recreational time involving our beloved armies of plastic men.

 

I, for example, started out with what used to be Rogue Trader 40k in '89, played and collected for several years, then dropped out of the scene.

When I returned in 2010 I was quite taken aback by what the 40k community had become: A highly competitive nest of nitpickers and rules lawyers, people who would rather spend time arguing about seemingly grey areas instead of playing and enjoying  their games.

Again, those have been my personal experiences, and they're not generalized, nor are they doctrine in any way, since other people might have stumbled into far better gaming groups.

I abandoned the 40k ship and dove into HH / 30k gaming, and I enjoyed the maturity and relaxedness of most gamers I have come across thus far. People fighting their battles for fluff reasons, building backgrounds for their lists, coming up with new scenarios and campaigns and much more.

But what irks me, is that I see a lot of that 40k competition attitude swapping over into 30k these days ... perhaps that explains a bit of my distaste for a certain strain of gamers.

 

I made the effort and wrote a most polite letter to FW about the RoW, since the debate just wouldn't end and became more and more heated.

Now, we got their stance on it, and they as well see no ambiguity in their writing.

But alas ... 

 

 

EDIT:  And no, I don't see FW as email monkeys. That is something I find rather distasteful to say.

When I wrote them in the past, I always had a reply in two or three days to any questions about rules.

The fact it took them two weeks this time, and the content of said response letter are actually proof that someone put some thought into that reply.

[Hesh Kadesh]

I didn't say 'FW' as email monkeys. I said I see the people answering the emails as email monkeys. It is a call centre. Mininum wage, customer service. They have little authority, and made a great deal recently about putting on the bottom of their emails how did we do, etc and 'play the game how you see fit' rather than actually answering the question.

 

As someone who has personally worked in a similar environment when I started off, a 2 week reply is possibly more to do with the fact that they chose to just leave it until a critical period. You are asking a rukes question. Other people are actually spending money and have a higher priority theb someone asking how to actually play the game.

 

It shows nothing of the sort of thought, and the thought would be 'hmm actually yes, we mangled the wording'.

 

In regards to email delays, I sent a twelve page email to them witg a load of questions on how to play the game.didn't get a reply for 4 weeks, so sent in a complaint email. An hour later after criticisng their customer service policies I got a non-answer email back 'answering' all my questions with incorrect rulings, missing the point of the questions, misunderstanding what was actually blatantly obvious, and the telling me to play the game however I see fit.

 

It is customer service, and unless you are chasing up an order, they don't care. Apparently the quality of the product is the question that they'll answer, but tye quality of writing falls under context of the produxt, like complaining about a particular model not looking in a different way.

[Unknown Legionnaire]

Well, I write them a quick and dirty email once or twice a year, asking about some clarification, but otherwise just enjoy their products and what they bring to my wargaming hobby experience. Their rules as written are clear enough for me and my gaming buddies, and we seldom stumble over something we would call a 'grey area'. 

 

You had your experiences with FW customer support.

 

I had mine.

 

Seems said experiences have been completely different, so we can as well just leave it at that.

[MorgothNL]

I just ordered 600 Pounds worth of RG not interpreting it this way. 

 

I will just be playing it the way I interpreted it, which is 3 troops of which 1 recon squad. I've discussed this ROW with friends, and they all agreed that it was poorly written and they would allow it either way. There are rules out there that can be interpreted in a way to 'bend' the rules to a cheesy advantage, but we all agreed that it would not be much (if any) stronger by playing 2 normal troops and 1 recon, instead of 3 recons. One could even make the argument that for certain legions, having 1 recon and 2 assualt squads also fits this 'recon company theme' very well.

 

Same goes for RG infiltrating 2 normal tactical squad and 1 recon to me. In a tournament I'll just use the tacticals as recons in power armour if anyone has a problem with it. 

 

Honestly, the only picking that I did while reading the rules and deciding what it said, was that the BAC box is worthless if we have to take 3 recons, and that box is the way most people start out with their legion, trying to get the paint scheme going etc before deciding on a list.

 

EDIT:

And also, this is the same (or 'less knowledgeable') people that answered the 'FAQ' about using grenades in close combat. The way GW FAQ says it is, is 1 grenade per unit in cc. Now, one can say thats exactly what is always been written, and people are saying that they never understood why everybody used it the other way. But you'll always have people from both camps. And FW rules for vets allow squad wide meltabombs, and so do many GW units with haywire. So even the people who write rule supplements for their own basic ruleset, are interpreting it 'wrongly'. 

 

So honestly, after such an email, I can still see it both ways and it does not hold any value to me. It seems like if someone else would have answered that email, you could have seen the opposite answer. Not that I'd start a fight over this, if someone starts to even raise his voice about me playing it that way, I'll just take them as scouts and be done with it. Not trying to cheese or cheat, just trying to have fun :)

[Caillum]

Something I just noticed is that you can run this as an Allied Detachment, and you don't need to take Recon Marines at all there, only if you run it in a Primary Detachment.

 

Gives you a re-roll on first turn/Seize the Initiative and grants Shrouded to the Scouts/Infiltrators in the Allied Detachment. Might be something there...

[Charlo]

Something I just noticed is that you can run this as an Allied Detachment, and you don't need to take Recon Marines at all there, only if you run it in a Primary Detachment.

 

Gives you a re-roll on first turn/Seize the Initiative and grants Shrouded to the Scouts/Infiltrators in the Allied Detachment. Might be something there...

 

Run it with RG or AL and that is pretty damn insane and fluffy....

[pompeyladbfp]

I run it as my main rite of war with one recon squad, I wrote myself an email saying I could . but seriously unless your playing at a tourney as long as your opponent us happy it's all good..

 

I'm still waiting for my emails from FW....

[Brother-Chaplain Kage]

I'm going to make this as clear as I can given the amount of interpretation going on about this particular issue: it's not official until it's in a book or on the website. An email from Forge World carries about as much weight as "I called GW and a red shirt told me it was cool" did back in the day.

 

Until such time as FW makes some kind of clarification official, I don't want to see another thread opened on this subject or an existing thread derailed with the same verbal volleyball BS. We're done on this topic, to make it absolutely clear. Any other threads opened about it will be closed with no warning, and any threads derailed with it will have the posts removed with no warning.

 

http://i.imgur.com/u9yQtVs.gif