Slitherine

I don't believe there is any need for errata in this case as there is nothing to be amended within either the rules or the lists.

Fugu, I think it sounds like you are inquiring because you are thinking of creatng your own troop types for your own army lists and / or fantasy army lists. Like someone else where is creating a Lord of the Rings type army lists that do not appear to be slitherine type lists? Is that right?

If so that would explain whyit seems you and list posters are seemingly misunderstanding each others intentions and thus explain the seeemingly heightened tension.

nikgaukroger wrote:I don't believe there is any need for errata in this case as there is nothing to be amended within either the rules or the lists.

Except that the rules allow you to create such a unit while it is the designers intention for that not to happen

hazelbark wrote:Fugu, I think it sounds like you are inquiring because you are thinking of creatng your own troop types for your own army lists and / or fantasy army lists. Like someone else where is creating a Lord of the Rings type army lists that do not appear to be slitherine type lists? Is that right?

If so that would explain whyit seems you and list posters are seemingly misunderstanding each others intentions and thus explain the seeemingly heightened tension.

Well I conceived of that kind of unit for a list I was working on but didn't think it had the feel that it should, but it did lead to the question, since it is allowed in the rules, how would such a combination of attributes be resolved. To which the publisher has now stated such a unit isn't allowed, which is fine, but originally all I got was "not used in history" which wasn't my question nor was it helpful in trying to figure out the rules interaction, nor was it a "CANNOT be used, ie Spear/Sw" which at least is an answer that is valid.

Historical accuracy, or my personal intentions in using such a unit is actually irrelevant to the question on the actual rules. Since the authors have gone out of there way in an attempt to make the rule book explicit all the way through, including stating things like "Swordsmen can not be taken with Spear", (and have done quite a good job at making the rules easy to read and interpret) that a DefSpear/Bow unit is valid when you read them.

It just seemed odd to me that a perfectly valid question was relied to in such a bizzar way.

The rules don't have any part that covers creating units, just a part about how their cost is calculated. There's nothing in the rules that says that you can't have knights with the javelins PoA or Elite Pikemen Light Foot! That's why we rely on the army lists for our units and if Richard tells you that DefSpear was never meant to also have bow, then that hasn't been factored in the rules.

carlos wrote:The rules don't have any part that covers creating units, just a part about how their cost is calculated. There's nothing in the rules that says that you can't have knights with the javelins PoA or Elite Pikemen Light Foot! That's why we rely on the army lists for our units and if Richard tells you that DefSpear was never meant to also have bow, then that hasn't been factored in the rules.

Page 150 "* If using of companion list books..."

Page 150 "If using our army lists..."

That coupled with the fact they give you the points table and an explanation on how to match unit attributes to their actual capabilities instead of just the weapons they had, would indicated that the FoG team expects people, and in fact, enables people to create their own lists. This is a big STRENGTH to their system.

Coupled with the limitations they list of what attributes can't be put together, would indicate that they put thought into helping people work on their own lists. Again a big kudos to them. You could also look into the fact that the staff have given input into some of the lists suggested on the forums here that they just might support people making it up.

If you're only relying on FoG to publish the lists you use, then you're either lucky to have yours published first/and or a pretty boring player.

It wasn't even till near the end of the first page of posts did anyone actually say "You can't take those two together" was it actually a ruling, to which I stated that might want to go into Errata so there is a more defined list of attributes that shouldn't be used with each other.

Fugu wrote:It just seemed odd to me that a perfectly valid question was relied to in such a bizzar way.

Just read this thread. Can't really agree with this quote, you asked the question and it was answered by a few people in a polite and thoughtful way. Including by the rules writers who basically said 'it is not a valid question as the troop type you are asking about do not exist in the game'. Note however, that their answer was alot fuller and reasonable than my paraphrase, the answers you were given were not bizzar in any way.

To be honest, your reaction to the answer you were given seems deliberatly obtuse and wilfully missing the point of the fair and open answers you were given. This whole thread comes across as trolling to me.

If it is not then I apologise but a tip - if you quote someone and then answer that quote with the comment *sigh*, this gives the effect of you being dismisive and insulting, which none of the open and honest replies that people have taken the time to give you have deserved. This is also a good example of how you have presented yourself throughout the thread.