FOC rules conflict.

[Erik Setzer]

As to the Death Company stuff, in the FAQ it does say to ignore the FOC references and instead refer to the Rule book about selecting your army, not a direct quote btw.

Actually, it only says to ignore the section "Using a Force Organisation Chart and Standard Missions" and "refer to the Choosing an Army section in Warhammer 40,000: The Rules."

There is no note in the FAQ for Death Company. It doesn't even swap out "army" for "detachment" like the Ork 4th edition codex FAQ did (so that you could make Nobs and Deff Dreads Troops on a per-detachment basis). Which means the line is still "You can include only one unit of Death Company in your army." Meaning, for now, even a multiple-detachment army of Blood Angels can only have one Death Company. And that makes sense, because all of the lunatics in an army are put into one single unit.

[Ravingbantha]

Simple way around anyone that tries to say no, since its unbound there is no FOC, so you play x number of detachments each with 1 death company squad. Problem solved.

[Charon]

Nope cause it is still 1 DC per ARMY, not per detachment.

[jonas the jedi]

Why is this happening right now. Does no one remember the most important rule? It is important to talk to your opponent about what your bringing before you do, or a t.o. if it's a tourney you're thing.But this could go on all forever

[Caitsidhe]

This whole discussion is just another gem brought to you by the boys at Games Workshop; let's give them a hand shall we. Painstaking research and game testing went into every paragraph to ensure a minimum of rules questions. They follow that up by prompt customer service, Faqs and Errata to nip such issues in the bud. Wait. This is opposite day right?

[Tynskel]

I wouldn't diss GW over this.
Making a ruleset that is fluid is difficult.

Ridged rulesets are fantastically boring.

[Caitsidhe]

I wouldn't diss GW over this.
Making a ruleset that is fluid is difficult.

Ridged rulesets are fantastically boring.

Exactly who should we blame for bad game design, poor grammar, misspelled words, and vague rules? Is there a specialized Gremlin over in England that I haven't heard of yet, some kind of beastie still active since WWII? Without a real war in which to work its mischief upon planes, trains, and automobiles, it has evolved to screw up make believe war games? The buck stops with the game designers. It doesn't matter if designing the rules is hard. That is what they get paid to do. That is what they are charging the big bucks for in the books and electronic publications. If their excuse is (well it is your excuse for them) that it is just too hard, then the price should reflect the fact that they are crying off the hard issues. They produce a product. We pay for it, top dollar at that. We have a reasonable expectation that it will be free of defects.

[Tynskel]

Exactly who should we blame for bad game design, poor grammar, misspelled words, and vague rules? Is there a specialized Gremlin over in England that I haven't heard of yet, some kind of beastie still active since WWII? Without a real war in which to work its mischief upon planes, trains, and automobiles, it has evolved to screw up make believe war games? The buck stops with the game designers. It doesn't matter if designing the rules is hard. That is what they get paid to do. That is what they are charging the big bucks for in the books and electronic publications. If their excuse is (well it is your excuse for them) that it is just too hard, then the price should reflect the fact that they are crying off the hard issues. They produce a product. We pay for it, top dollar at that. We have a reasonable expectation that it will be free of defects.

*Why* are you taking the thread off topic?