If the "empty" (HD/AD only) combat group is an open information it should be added to the courtesy list.
While it is not explicitly written The player must reorganise his or her models into combat groups, combat group has a limit of ten but cannot exist without having a model in it so the minimum is one.
No, the snippet you've qouted does not say that. It says nothing about minimum requires of combat groups. What's more part: Would rather suggest that you can actually create empty groups.
Look skipping the middle ground I know how the rule was written and what it is intended to say, so it is what it is. I understand the desire for more shenanigans and the spark that combat groups are public information has flared to create more disinformation tot he opponent, but. I do not think the FAQ needs more bloat "the player must assign each troop to a combat group" I do not think we need a question to affirm that the combat group needs a troop to be assigned to. I will see if @-V- can fix the courtesy list to show the combat groups that have hidden models.
Personally if I was righting the rules I think it would of had simpler to have to claim limited Insertion as opposed to having to declare how many combat groups you have.
If we had the hindsight of the future, Limited insertion and Fatality would be in the core rule-book, well we are humans.
The problem is that people are starting with condescension and passive aggression, which seems to fly under your radar.
It's natural to help out your buddies after someone throws the first punch: I mean @Wolf even points out there's rules for how you handle these sorts of things in his preferred 'sportsmanship' framework.
I'd have to disagree with his assertion that slapping down otherwise amicable opponents constitutes sportsmanship though. In my own circles such aggressive enforcement of one's own individual rules interpretations is socially unacceptable. Call a TO over before it becomes a fight.
Guys it has been pointed out enouph times, stop referring to this, its old tired and it has been resolved in the old forum, let it go, build a bridge, walk over.
Usually, if you need to ask yourself the question of: "Is this legal/fair play?" then you already know the answer.
I know what it means and I think the decision was reached in the old forum, I am not interested in the same drama again in this forum and is has started 2 times already and this is the third time. If some parts of the player base cannot coexist put each other on ignore and stop referring to each other, constantly poking a poster will only result in creating more fight and that drama is long passed.
It is old, it is tired and was indeed resolved in the old forum, but there's no need to reprimand these types on my account. Someone persuaded me that these sorts of posts should be left in place to stand the test of time, and look how right they were: Same person; same day; and not the slightest trace of irony. Forum gold, right there!
