당신은 주제를 찾고 있습니까 “no force org slot – Warzone Tourney, Apex Legends \u0026 Valorant 23 July 2022“? 다음 카테고리의 웹사이트 Chewathai27.com/you 에서 귀하의 모든 질문에 답변해 드립니다: Chewathai27.com/you/blog. 바로 아래에서 답을 찾을 수 있습니다. 작성자 ZLaner VODS 이(가) 작성한 기사에는 조회수 1,009회 및 좋아요 41개 개의 좋아요가 있습니다.
no force org slot 주제에 대한 동영상 보기
여기에서 이 주제에 대한 비디오를 시청하십시오. 주의 깊게 살펴보고 읽고 있는 내용에 대한 피드백을 제공하세요!
d여기에서 Warzone Tourney, Apex Legends \u0026 Valorant 23 July 2022 – no force org slot 주제에 대한 세부정보를 참조하세요
Broadcasted live on Facebook — Watch live at https://fb.gg/zlaner 🔴 LIVE MON – FRI EVERY WEEK 🔴
Some audio may sound distorted or muted entirely due to the use of copyrighted content.
Business inquiries: [email protected]
My Main YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/ZLANER
Socials
📷 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/zlaner
🎵 Tiktok: https://www.tiktok.com/@zlanerofficial
🐤 Twitter: https://twitter.com/ZLaner
💬 Discord: https://discord.gg/MXTkarv
📹 More Zlaner: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxjvsBFtB4wfn45PeZDUQyQ
🎥 YT Shorts: https://www.youtube.com/c/ZLanerShorts
♦ My Sponsors ♦
🥤 Gaming Energy drink 🥤
https://gfuel.com/
Use code \”ZLANER\” for 10% off
🎮 SCUF Gaming 🎮
http://scuf.co/ZLaner
Use code \”ZLANER\” for 5% off
Channel managed by: Riousx
https://twitter.com/Riousx
0:00 – Warzone
3:02:12 – Apex
8:53:00 – Valorant
#warzone #valorant #apexlegends
no force org slot 주제에 대한 자세한 내용은 여기를 참조하세요.
Building an army, what is the No Force Org Slot? – Reddit
“No force org slot” means exactly what it sounds like it means: the unit in question does not occupy any kind of slot in a detachment in a …
Source: www.reddit.com
Date Published: 5/22/2021
View: 7967
Can’t take “no force org slot” Company Champion · Issue #8437
Description: Having a Captain in a detachment correctly adds Company Veterans to the No Force Org Slot options, as per their Command Squad …
Source: github.com
Date Published: 4/18/2022
View: 3555
Force Org Slots/Battlefield Roles Are Pointless – DakkaDakka
These days, troops are no longer mandatory. You can play to an army theme by simply fielding a vanguard, outrer, spearhead, etc. detachment …
Source: www.dakkadakka.com
Date Published: 7/20/2021
View: 7707
I cannot delete a scratch org by running sfdx force:org:delete …
What is the highest-level spell that can be cast without a spell slot an unlimited number of times? Multiply numbers by their depth · Longer …
Source: salesforce.stackexchange.com
Date Published: 2/23/2021
View: 223
Phantom bazaar幽靈市集 – ++ Battalion Detachment +5CP (Chaos …
++ Battalion Detachment +5CP (Chaos – Thousand Sons) [30 PL, 498pts] ++ + No Force Org Slot + Relics of the Thousand Sons (1 Relic) + HQ + Exalted…
Source: m.facebook.com
Date Published: 2/12/2021
View: 1538
31993R0095 – EN – EUR-Lex – European Union
Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports. Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of …
Source: eur-lex.europa.eu
Date Published: 12/13/2021
View: 3794
주제와 관련된 이미지 no force org slot
주제와 관련된 더 많은 사진을 참조하십시오 Warzone Tourney, Apex Legends \u0026 Valorant 23 July 2022. 댓글에서 더 많은 관련 이미지를 보거나 필요한 경우 더 많은 관련 기사를 볼 수 있습니다.
주제에 대한 기사 평가 no force org slot
- Author: ZLaner VODS
- Views: 조회수 1,009회
- Likes: 좋아요 41개
- Date Published: 2022. 7. 27.
- Video Url link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JaZglymZ-M
Building an army, what is the No Force Org Slot? : sistersofbattle
Hello everyone. I am building a 2000pt 9th edition army battalion and I had a question about this slot. I was told that I can have a no force org slot and take an Inquisitor, and a Repentia Superior in it. What is this slot and how exactly does it work? I can’t seem to find any clear answers online at the moment, and my rule book is inaccessible to me right now. All that I think I know right now is that I can take an Inquisitor in this slot and still get my full Adepta Sororitas army bonuses. Thank you for any help.
Can’t take “no force org slot” Company Champion · Issue #8437 · BSData/wh40k
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
Pick a username Email Address Password Sign up for GitHub
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Force Org Slots/Battlefield Roles Are Pointless
Author Message
Advert
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Subject: Force Org Slots/Battlefield Roles Are Pointless – Change My Mind
Wyldhunt
Longtime Dakkanaut
Position:
Battlefield roles (i.e. troops, elites, fast attack, etc.) are designations that should no longer hold any real mechanical value and thus should be discarded entirely. Currently, troops seem to still be viewed as units that should be intentionally less useful or less effective than non-troops. This is evidenced by the fact that you have to take a bunch of troops in order to earn CP , effectively rewarding you for taking “less good” units by making up for it with CP .
Once upon a time, the game required players build armies out of a single “detachment” called the force org chart. In the force org chart, an HQ and two troop units were mandatory. However, there were also often rules to allow players to redefine which units in their army could be taken as troops, effectively letting you play to a certain theme. Wraithguard in 10 man units could be troops to make an Iyanden theme playable. A marine captain on a bike made bikers troops so you could play a White Scars theme. That sort of thing.
These days, troops are no longer mandatory. You can play to an army theme by simply fielding a vanguard, outrider, spearhead, etc. detachment that reflects your army’s fluff, but you’re effectively punished for doing so by generating fewer command points than a troop-heavy list. Some may argue that this is a balance issue, that lists without troops are able to load up on heavy supports or elites or what have you, and that lists that play a “fluffy” number of troops (regardless of whether or not a given army theme actually should have a lot of troop units according to their lore) receive the bonus CP to make up for the fact that they take inferior troops.
There is some truth to this. Storm guardians are certainly less impressive than fire dragons. Tactical marines lack the raw firepower of sternguard or devastators. Riptides are more daunting than kroot. I would counter, however, that this A.) isn’t always the case and that B.) it arguably shouldn’t be the case at all.
A.) While a leman russ certainly packs more of a punch than a few 10 man guardsman squads, those guardsmen still have a role in the army as cheap screens and objective grabbers. Even without CP , you could make an argument for including them. Eldar lists would probably prefer not to include troops at all (outside of perhaps a guardian webway bomb), but a chaos list doesn’t mind including large blobs of cultists or pox walkers. In short, while troops are often less powerful than non-troops, they still often have a role to play in the army, and some armies have much more desirable troops than others even though troopless armies are punished similarly despite the extent to which troop inclusion diminishes their overall power.
B.) Making troops less useful/powerful as a design choice means that units designed in such a way can end up being an undesirable “tax” rather than a desirable option in their own right. IN the lore tactical marines are considered to be just as useful as their more specialized assault marine and devastator peers, but on the tabletop they’re allowed to be less powerful (than devastators at least) because they were once mandatory. Instead of allowing them to languish as a bad option, shouldn’t the design paradigm be that they should be troops because they are desirable as a mainstay of the army? Shouldn’t tactical marines be able to offer some benefit that warrants handing most of your army a bolter instead of a heavy bolter or a jump pack in the first place?
This isn’t to say that troops can’t be cheap, numerous, and individually weak, but we shouldn’t feel the need to bribe people with CP to warrant taking a given unit. Certainly, guardsmen should feel like less of a threat than their well-trained, well-equipped scion buddies, but they should pay a sufficiently low price for their inferiority.
Do you agree? if not, present your argument. Change my mind. Battlefield roles (i.e. troops, elites, fast attack, etc.) are designations that should no longer hold any real mechanical value and thus should be discarded entirely. Currently, troops seem to still be viewed as units that should be intentionally less useful or less effective than non-troops. This is evidenced by the fact that you have to take a bunch of troops in order to earn, effectively rewarding you for taking “less good” units by making up for it withOnce upon a time, the game required players build armies out of a single “detachment” called the force org chart. In the force org chart, anand two troop units were mandatory. However, there were also often rules to allow players to redefine which units in their army could be taken as troops, effectively letting you play to a certain theme. Wraithguard in 10 man units could be troops to make an Iyanden theme playable. A marine captain on a bike made bikers troops so you could play a White Scars theme. That sort of thing.These days, troops are no longer mandatory. You can play to an army theme by simply fielding a vanguard, outrider, spearhead, etc. detachment that reflects your army’s fluff, but you’re effectively punished for doing so by generating fewer command points than a troop-heavy list. Some may argue that this is a balance issue, that lists without troops are able to load up on heavy supports or elites or what have you, and that lists that play a “fluffy” number of troops (regardless of whether or not a given army theme actually should have a lot of troop units according to their lore) receive the bonusto make up for the fact that they take inferior troops.There is some truth to this. Storm guardians are certainly less impressive than fire dragons. Tactical marines lack thefirepower of sternguard or devastators. Riptides are more daunting than kroot. I would counter, however, that this A.) isn’t always the case and that B.) it arguably shouldn’t be the case at all.A.) While a leman russ certainly packs more of a punch than a few 10 man guardsman squads, those guardsmen still have a role in the army as cheap screens and objective grabbers. Even without, you could make an argument for including them. Eldar lists would probably prefer not to include troops at all (outside of perhaps a guardian webway bomb), but a chaos list doesn’t mind including large blobs of cultists or pox walkers. In short, while troops are often less powerful than non-troops, they still often have a role to play in the army, and some armies have much more desirable troops than others even though troopless armies are punished similarly despite the extent to which troop inclusion diminishes their overall power.B.) Making troops less useful/powerful as a design choice means that units designed in such a way can end up being an undesirable “tax” rather than a desirable option in their own right. IN the lore tactical marines are considered to be just as useful as their more specialized assault marine and devastator peers, but on the tabletop they’re allowed to be less powerful (than devastators at least) because they were once mandatory. Instead of allowing them to languish as a bad option, shouldn’t the design paradigm be that they should be troops because they are desirable as a mainstay of the army? Shouldn’t tactical marines be able to offer some benefit that warrants handing most of your army a bolter instead of a heavy bolter or a jump pack in the first place?This isn’t to say that troops can’t be cheap, numerous, and individually weak, but we shouldn’t feel the need to bribe people withto warrant taking a given unit. Certainly, guardsmen should feel like less of a threat than their well-trained, well-equipped scion buddies, but they should pay a sufficiently low price for their inferiority.Do you agree? if not, present your argument. Change my mind.
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn’t need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a “troop” means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
Subject: Force Org Slots/Battlefield Roles Are Pointless – Change My Mind
ClockworkZion
Blessed Living Saint
On the Internet
I’m skipping responding to the entirety in the post because the basic premise is wrong: the categorization of unit type does have meaning due to taxes: you need X HQs and Y Troops for basic armies, but in some detachments the Troops become Elites or Fast Attack requirements. Transport units need at least 1 other non-Transport unit to be taken, and Super Heavies need a special detachment to take them in a list.
And beta rules cap every unit to no more than 3 of anything, except troops.
So while they may have less strict importance, the taxes are still real, they’re just not crammed down our throats like they were in other editions due to CP encouraging lots of cheap units anyways.
Subject: Force Org Slots/Battlefield Roles Are Pointless – Change My Mind
JNAProductions
In My Lab
In My Lab Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord
I agree wholeheartedly.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
Subject: Force Org Slots/Battlefield Roles Are Pointless – Change My Mind
Racerguy180
San Jose, CA
San Jose, CA Ancient Venerable Dreadnought
ClockworkZion wrote:
I’m skipping responding to the entirety in the post because the basic premise is wrong: the categorization of unit type does have meaning due to taxes: you need X HQs and Y Troops for basic armies, but in some detachments the Troops become Elites or Fast Attack requirements. Transport units need at least 1 other non-Transport unit to be taken, and Super Heavies need a special detachment to take them in a list.
And beta rules cap every unit to no more than 3 of anything, except troops.
So while they may have less strict importance, the taxes are still real, they’re just not crammed down our throats like they were in other editions due to CP encouraging lots of cheap units anyways. I’m skipping responding to the entirety in the post because the basic premise is wrong: the categorization of unit type does have meaning due to taxes: you need Xand Y Troops for basic armies, but in some detachments the Troops become Elites or Fast Attack requirements. Transport units need at least 1 other non-Transport unit to be taken, and Super Heavies need a special detachment to take them in a list.And beta rules cap every unit to no more than 3 of anything, except troops.So while they may have less strict importance, the taxes are still real, they’re just not crammed down our throats like they were in other editions due toencouraging lots of cheap units anyways.
yes!
they do serve a purpose but need specific faction related changes i.e. saim hann bikes, etc yes!they do serve a purpose but need specific faction related changes i.e. saim hann bikes, etc
Subject: Force Org Slots/Battlefield Roles Are Pointless – Change My Mind
phydaux
Regular Dakkanaut
Op Sec was suppose to make Troops choices a preferred option. But if you’re a casual player and don’t play mission with objectives then Troops are poor army building choices.
Doesn’t matter, though. All your points speak to game balance and makeing 40k fair & fun to play. But the current environment exists so that GW can sell more models. Marketing will always trump game design.
Subject: Force Org Slots/Battlefield Roles Are Pointless – Change My Mind
Insectum7
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar
Imo lots of Troops are great units in their own right. So I disagree with that section of the OPs argument roght off the bat.
Tyranid Army Progress — With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!Tyranid Army Progress — With Classic Warriors!:
Subject: Force Org Slots/Battlefield Roles Are Pointless – Change My Mind
Kanluwen
Gathering the Informations.
Gathering the Informations. Ollanius Pius – Savior of the Emperor
Just go the AoS route and make some stuff “Battleline”(mandatory percentage of your army), some stuff “Battleline if…”(certain Heroes as your General make them count as Battleline), Behemoths, Warmachines, and then uncategorized.
It’s funny how people didn’t want them to bring the AoS system over but now it seems there’s a clamor to do things more like that setup.
Subject: Force Org Slots/Battlefield Roles Are Pointless – Change My Mind
Crimson
Courageous Space Marine Captain
Kanluwen wrote:
Just go the AoS route and make some stuff “Battleline”(mandatory percentage of your army), some stuff “Battleline if…”(certain Heroes as your General make them count as Battleline), Behemoths, Warmachines, and then uncategorized.
It’s funny how people didn’t want them to bring the AoS system over but now it seems there’s a clamor to do things more like that setup. Just go theroute and make some stuff “Battleline”(mandatory percentage of your army), some stuff “Battleline if…”(certain Heroes as your General make them count as Battleline), Behemoths, Warmachines, and then uncategorized.It’s funny how peoplewant them to bring thesystem over but now it seems there’s a clamor to do things more like that setup.
Yeah, that would probably be a better system. Distinction between Elites, Heavy Support and Fast Attack is arbitrary and pointless. Keep HQ , LOW, Troops (Battleline) and combine the rest under Elites (uncatecorised.) Maybe keep the flyers separate, but there probably is no reason for that in this edition.
(Also, not all AOS rules are bad, only most of them ) Yeah, that would probably be a better system. Distinction between Elites, Heavy Support and Fast Attack is arbitrary and pointless. Keep, LOW, Troops (Battleline) and combine the rest under Elites (uncatecorised.)keep the flyers separate, but there probably is no reason for that in this edition.(Also, not allrules are bad, only most of them
Subject: Force Org Slots/Battlefield Roles Are Pointless – Change My Mind
Kanluwen
Gathering the Informations.
Gathering the Informations. Ollanius Pius – Savior of the Emperor
Flyers just need to be keyworded as “Warmachine” or “Monster” to really ‘fit’.
Since some Flyers can be organic monstrosities and some can be machines of death.
Subject: Force Org Slots/Battlefield Roles Are Pointless – Change My Mind
AnomanderRake
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter
The point of force org charts is to enforce army composition in such a way that you can built an all-comers list with a certain proportion of anti-infantry, anti-tank, etc. and expect to see viable targets for your weapons/units. With the “take-as-many-detachments-as-you-want” attitude from 6e forward, Imperial Knights as a standalone Codex, the no-restrictions Lords of War slot, and the like, the current system is so bad at curtailing skew and so easily abused based on whose armies have the cheapest compulsory-unit tax that it might as well not exist, especially with the army-wide 3-copies restriction out of the current FAQ .
Homebrew oldhammer project:
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267 Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page
Subject: Force Org Slots/Battlefield Roles Are Pointless – Change My Mind
Raichase
Furious Raptor
Sydney, Australia
Kanluwen wrote:
Just go the AoS route and make some stuff “Battleline”(mandatory percentage of your army), some stuff “Battleline if…”(certain Heroes as your General make them count as Battleline), Behemoths, Warmachines, and then uncategorized.
It’s funny how people didn’t want them to bring the AoS system over but now it seems there’s a clamor to do things more like that setup. Just go theroute and make some stuff “Battleline”(mandatory percentage of your army), some stuff “Battleline if…”(certain Heroes as your General make them count as Battleline), Behemoths, Warmachines, and then uncategorized.It’s funny how peoplewant them to bring thesystem over but now it seems there’s a clamor to do things more like that setup.
I don’t at all play or understand AoS (but that’s because I’m pretty casual, not because I don’t think it wouldn’t be a decent game), but it certainly sounds like the old WFB (or even older 40k ) army building mechanic in which you had your army list split into three sections – (using the Ultramarines Codex from 2ed as an example) “Characters, Squads and Support”. Now, you MUST have 25% of your army chosen from “Squads”, and up to 50% of your points on Characters and up to 50% of your points on Support.
So an army might look like 25% Squads (again, this was the “tax” at the time), 40% Support and 35% Characters. Or 25% Squads, 50% Characters and 25% support.
That being said, let’s examine the “Squads” section of the army list for comparison to the current “Troops” Section of the current SM codex. We have Terminator Squads, Veteran Squads, Tactical Squads, Assault Squads, Devastator Squads, Scout Squads and Bike Squads. So even with the mandatory “tax”, one could tailor their list to suit their chosen theme. So it felt less like a tax than being forced to take “troops” does currently.
The big issue with that mechanic was bamboozling younger and less experienced players to have to do heaps of maths. Looking at the current shift towards “power level” being the default way to read a codex, it seems they’re trying to push away the use of points altogether.
I don’t at all play or understand(but that’s because I’m pretty casual, not because I don’t think it wouldn’t be a decent game), but it certainly sounds like the old WFB (or even older) army building mechanic in which you had your army list split into three sections – (using the Ultramarines Codex from 2ed as an example) “Characters, Squads and Support”. Now, you MUST have 25% of your army chosen from “Squads”, and up to 50% of your points on Characters and up to 50% of your points on Support.So an army might look like 25% Squads (again, this was the “tax” at the time), 40% Support and 35% Characters. Or 25% Squads, 50% Characters and 25% support.That being said, let’s examine the “Squads” section of the army list for comparison to the current “Troops” Section of the currentcodex. We have Terminator Squads, Veteran Squads, Tactical Squads, Assault Squads, Devastator Squads, Scout Squads and Bike Squads. So even with the mandatory “tax”, one could tailor their list to suit their chosen theme. So it felt less like a tax than being forced to take “troops” does currently.The big issue with that mechanic was bamboozling younger and less experienced players to have to do heaps of maths. Looking at the current shift towards “power level” being the default way to read a codex, it seems they’re trying to push away the use of points altogether.
Subject: Force Org Slots/Battlefield Roles Are Pointless – Change My Mind
frozenwastes
Posts with Authority
I’m from the future. The future of space
AoS doesn’t have percentages like that. It just has a few battle line units needed and maximums on characters, artillery and truly large monsters. The amount changes based on the size of the game.
I’ve been playing 40k pretty much ignoring the force org chart. We tend to just sort of not bother checking and just be like “let’s have 6 command points each this game” and it’s been fine.
Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better.
Subject: Force Org Slots/Battlefield Roles Are Pointless – Change My Mind
Imateria
Lethal Lhamean
Birmingham
The problem with the premise of this thread is that a lot of troops are actually really good. Kabalites, Guardsmen, Guardians, Ork Boyz, Genestealers and Fire Warriors are all excellent choices and they’re not the only ones. The idea of troops being an unwanted tax is rather outdated this edition and proven false by the performance of many of these units on the table.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/13 11:11:55
Subject: Force Org Slots/Battlefield Roles Are Pointless – Change My Mind
frozenwastes
Posts with Authority
I’m from the future. The future of space
The biggest strength of the force org chart is that it is a framework or guide for collecting. Having all sorts of different ways to combine different detachments to the point that you can nearly have any possible combination means that framework can be a bit lost for people. The Dark Eldar codex having the refocus on the patrol detachment was a great idea. More stuff like that.
Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better.
Subject: Force Org Slots/Battlefield Roles Are Pointless – Change My Mind
Unit1126PLL
Decrepit Dakkanaut
I like the Force Organization Charts because they strike me as fairly fluffy distinctions, rather than necessary for game balance (though CP ‘s are a “soft balance” in a way).
Spearhead Detachment = Tank/Artillery/Heavy Support company, representing the 5-Land Raider attack by the Iron Hands on that one Forge World, or the typical 10-Tank IG tank company, or the like.
Outrider Detachment = Cavalry/Bikes/Speedy detachment, representing Saim-Hann bike swarms or Kult of Speed Ork hordes or Blood Angels jump-pack-marine spam.
Vanguard Detachment = Elite Troopers detachment, like special forces or the like, representing elite bodyguards like Lychguard and Celestians, or powerful strike forces like Terminators or whatnot.
EtC. ETC .
The problem being, of course, that this sort of shorthand for fluffy organization has little value, since people don’t play for fluffy organizations…
Subject: Force Org Slots/Battlefield Roles Are Pointless – Change My Mind
phydaux
Regular Dakkanaut
Unit1126PLL wrote:
I like the Force Organization Charts because they strike me as fairly fluffy distinctions, rather than necessary for game balance (though CP ‘s are a “soft balance” in a way).
Spearhead Detachment = Tank/Artillery/Heavy Support company, representing the 5-Land Raider attack by the Iron Hands on that one Forge World, or the typical 10-Tank IG tank company, or the like.
Outrider Detachment = Cavalry/Bikes/Speedy detachment, representing Saim-Hann bike swarms or Kult of Speed Ork hordes or Blood Angels jump-pack-marine spam.
Vanguard Detachment = Elite Troopers detachment, like special forces or the like, representing elite bodyguards like Lychguard and Celestians, or powerful strike forces like Terminators or whatnot.
EtC. ETC .
The problem being, of course, that this sort of shorthand for fluffy organization has little value, since people don’t play for fluffy organizations… I like the Force Organization Charts because they strike me as fairly fluffy distinctions, rather than necessary for game balance (though’s are a “soft balance” in a way).Spearhead Detachment = Tank/Artillery/Heavy Support company, representing the 5-Land Raider attack by the Iron Hands on that one Forge World, or the typical 10-Tanktank company, or the like.Outrider Detachment = Cavalry/Bikes/Speedy detachment, representing Saim-Hann bike swarms or Kult of Speed Ork hordes or Blood Angels jump-pack-marine spam.Vanguard Detachment = Elite Troopers detachment, like special forces or the like, representing elite bodyguards like Lychguard and Celestians, or powerful strike forces like Terminators or whatnot.EtC.The problem being, of course, that this sort of shorthand for fluffy organization has little value, since people don’t play for fluffy organizations…
Yes, except that to have those cool formations you have to sacrifice CP generation, and the Rule of Three limits your ability to field enough units for your formation to fill up 1500 or 2000 points. Yes, except that to have those cool formations you have to sacrificegeneration, and the Rule of Three limits your ability to field enough units for your formation to fill up 1500 or 2000 points.
Subject: Force Org Slots/Battlefield Roles Are Pointless – Change My Mind
Unit1126PLL
Decrepit Dakkanaut
phydaux wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
I like the Force Organization Charts because they strike me as fairly fluffy distinctions, rather than necessary for game balance (though CP ‘s are a “soft balance” in a way).
Spearhead Detachment = Tank/Artillery/Heavy Support company, representing the 5-Land Raider attack by the Iron Hands on that one Forge World, or the typical 10-Tank IG tank company, or the like.
Outrider Detachment = Cavalry/Bikes/Speedy detachment, representing Saim-Hann bike swarms or Kult of Speed Ork hordes or Blood Angels jump-pack-marine spam.
Vanguard Detachment = Elite Troopers detachment, like special forces or the like, representing elite bodyguards like Lychguard and Celestians, or powerful strike forces like Terminators or whatnot.
EtC. ETC .
The problem being, of course, that this sort of shorthand for fluffy organization has little value, since people don’t play for fluffy organizations… I like the Force Organization Charts because they strike me as fairly fluffy distinctions, rather than necessary for game balance (though’s are a “soft balance” in a way).Spearhead Detachment = Tank/Artillery/Heavy Support company, representing the 5-Land Raider attack by the Iron Hands on that one Forge World, or the typical 10-Tanktank company, or the like.Outrider Detachment = Cavalry/Bikes/Speedy detachment, representing Saim-Hann bike swarms or Kult of Speed Ork hordes or Blood Angels jump-pack-marine spam.Vanguard Detachment = Elite Troopers detachment, like special forces or the like, representing elite bodyguards like Lychguard and Celestians, or powerful strike forces like Terminators or whatnot.EtC.The problem being, of course, that this sort of shorthand for fluffy organization has little value, since people don’t play for fluffy organizations…
Yes, except that to have those cool formations you have to sacrifice CP generation, and the Rule of Three limits your ability to field enough units for your formation to fill up 1500 or 2000 points. Yes, except that to have those cool formations you have to sacrificegeneration, and the Rule of Three limits your ability to field enough units for your formation to fill up 1500 or 2000 points.
Yes, though the rule of 3 is a balance change, not a fluff one. I’m not surprised fluff is sacrificed on the altar of balance, again.
CP generation is, I think, an attempt to get players to play more flexible formations. The Iron Hands don’t have enough Land Raiders for everyone to play that epic attack, and Infantry Regiments outnumber Tank Regiments by a large margin in the Imperial Guard, just as examples. So GW stuck in command points as a way to try to get players who can’t really decide on what formation they would like to play in the fluff to pick a more “typical” one. That’s what I’d guess. Yes, though the rule of 3 is a balance change, not a fluff one. I’m not surprised fluff is sacrificed on the altar of balance, again.generation is, I think, an attempt to get players to play more flexible formations. The Iron Hands don’t have enough Land Raiders forto play that epic attack, and Infantry Regiments outnumber Tank Regiments by a large margin in the Imperial Guard, just as examples. Sostuck in command points as a way to try to get players who can’t really decide on what formation they would like to play in the fluff to pick a more “typical” one. That’s what I’d guess.
Subject: Force Org Slots/Battlefield Roles Are Pointless – Change My Mind
LunarSol
Fixture of Dakka
It’s not worthless but it often shows just how woefully unsupported some armies are. A lot of them have very token inclusions at best.
Elite feels like the most problematic slot. It exists as a nebulous nexus of Fast Attacking Heavy Support Troops. Flyers likewise could probably all be put into either Heavy Support or Dedicated Transport without much issue.
Subject: Force Org Slots/Battlefield Roles Are Pointless – Change My Mind
Blndmage
Stasis
Stasis Discriminating Deathmark Assassin
LunarSol wrote:
It’s not worthless but it often shows just how woefully unsupported some armies are. A lot of them have very token inclusions at best.
Elite feels like the most problematic slot. It exists as a nebulous nexus of Fast Attacking Heavy Support Troops. Flyers likewise could probably all be put into either Heavy Support or Dedicated Transport without much issue. It’s not worthless but it often shows just how woefully unsupported some armies are. A lot of them have very token inclusions at best.Elite feels like the most problematic slot. It exists as a nebulous nexus of Fast Attacking Heavy Support Troops. Flyers likewise could probably all be put into either Heavy Support or Dedicated Transport without much issue.
I feel like Flyers fit Fast .attack, by their very nature.
If I’m not mistaken, weren’t the Nid Flyers Fast Atacks? I feel like Flyers fit Fast .attack, by their very nature.If I’m not mistaken, weren’t the Nid Flyers Fast Atacks?
60PL
(she/her) 213PL60PL(she/her)
Subject: Re:Force Org Slots/Battlefield Roles Are Pointless – Change My Mind
Andykp
U.k
U.k Utilizing Careful Highlighting
Bigger problem is CPs . I think you should pay CPs for taking vanguard or spearhead and the like. Cost of a specialist army. That would make troops more relevant.
Subject: Re:Force Org Slots/Battlefield Roles Are Pointless – Change My Mind
Blndmage
Stasis
Stasis Discriminating Deathmark Assassin
Andykp wrote:
Bigger problem is CPs . I think you should pay CPs for taking vanguard or spearhead and the like. Cost of a specialist army. That would make troops more relevant. Bigger problem is. I think you should payfor taking vanguard or spearhead and the like. Cost of a specialist army. That would make troops more relevant.
But you already pay a cost in CP for Vanguard, Spearhead, and Outrider, you only get 1 CP , which is a huge loss when compaired to the others. But you already pay a cost infor Vanguard, Spearhead, and Outrider, you only get 1, which is a huge loss when compaired to the others.
60PL
(she/her) 213PL60PL(she/her)
Subject: Re:Force Org Slots/Battlefield Roles Are Pointless – Change My Mind
ClockworkZion
Blessed Living Saint
On the Internet
Blndmage wrote:
Andykp wrote:
Bigger problem is CPs . I think you should pay CPs for taking vanguard or spearhead and the like. Cost of a specialist army. That would make troops more relevant. Bigger problem is. I think you should payfor taking vanguard or spearhead and the like. Cost of a specialist army. That would make troops more relevant.
But you already pay a cost in CP for Vanguard, Spearhead, and Outrider, you only get 1 CP , which is a huge loss when compaired to the others. But you already pay a cost infor Vanguard, Spearhead, and Outrider, you only get 1, which is a huge loss when compaired to the others.
This. Unless you run 3 of them (giving you 6CP total if Battleforged) you’re nowhere near the 8CP a Battalion gets on it’s own. And it’s usually Battalion+Specialist detachment or Double Battalion leaving you even further behind on the CP game. This. Unless you run 3 of them (giving you 6CP total if Battleforged) you’re nowhere near the 8CP a Battalion gets on it’s own. And it’s usually Battalion+Specialist detachment or Double Battalion leaving you even further behind on thegame.
Subject: Re:Force Org Slots/Battlefield Roles Are Pointless – Change My Mind
Andykp
U.k
U.k Utilizing Careful Highlighting
I think you should actually pay to take them. -1 or more. -3 for supreme command.
Subject: Re:Force Org Slots/Battlefield Roles Are Pointless – Change My Mind
ClockworkZion
Blessed Living Saint
On the Internet
Andykp wrote:
I think you should actually pay to take them. -1 or more. -3 for supreme command. I think you should actually pay to take them. -1 or more. -3 for supreme command.
So we should kill fluffy build options by charging just to take things? I’m going to have to disagree pretty heavily there. So we should kill fluffy build options by charging just to take things? I’m going to have to disagree pretty heavily there.
Subject: Force Org Slots/Battlefield Roles Are Pointless – Change My Mind
Blndmage
Stasis
Stasis Discriminating Deathmark Assassin
I usually play no higher than 1,500, but I’m making my first 2,000 list and actually filling out more than one Detachment, an Outrider and a Spearhead, be cause that’s what I have for models. Yes I have some troops, but each of those allow 3 troops, without requiring me to get more HQs .
The specialist detachments are amazing, and you can pry them from my stasis locked robot hands!
For the first time ever, I can finally field the army I want without having to make compromises! It’s not like it’s some crazy powerforce, it’s a waking Necron Tombworld, mostly Scarabs, Spyders, a few Wraiths, a few Warrior blocks and some Sentry Pylons.
It’s a fluff based force, and I don’t need special rules or a special mission to run it. That’s why Specialist Detachments are amazing.
They’re already penalized enough, even at 2,000, I’m only getting 4 or 5 CP , it’s the same no matter my points.
Detachments exists to be filled, not hit the minimums and make another. Detachments can guide your entire collection.
60PL
(she/her) 213PL60PL(she/her)
Subject: Force Org Slots/Battlefield Roles Are Pointless – Change My Mind
LunarSol
Fixture of Dakka
Blndmage wrote:
Detachments exists to be filled, not hit the minimums and make another. Detachments exists to be filled, not hit the minimums and make another.
I missed this rule. I missed this rule.
Subject: Force Org Slots/Battlefield Roles Are Pointless – Change My Mind
Slayer-Fan123
Decrepit Dakkanaut
Elites, Fast Attack, Flyers, and Heavy Support might as well not have any differences.
CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it’s because the ground needed killing. If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it’s because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can’t wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney. BTW, I can’t wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote:
Indeed – what sort of bastard would want to use their codex? Indeed – what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they’re receiving the same condescending treatment that they’ve doled out in every CSM thread ever. ITT: SoB players upset that they’re receiving the same condescending treatment that they’ve doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Subject: Force Org Slots/Battlefield Roles Are Pointless – Change My Mind
Ice_can
Longtime Dakkanaut
LunarSol wrote:
Blndmage wrote:
Detachments exists to be filled, not hit the minimums and make another. Detachments exists to be filled, not hit the minimums and make another.
I missed this rule. I missed this rule.
Glad I wasn’t the only one.
I’ll be honest I start any competitive list with usually minimum strength battalion then a second detachment of main force.
With sometimes a third detachment if I need a different faction or subfaction specific detachment. Glad I wasn’t the only one.I’ll be honest I start any competitive list with usually minimum strength battalion then a second detachment of main force.With sometimes a third detachment if I need a different faction or subfaction specific detachment.
Subject: Force Org Slots/Battlefield Roles Are Pointless – Change My Mind
Blndmage
Stasis
Stasis Discriminating Deathmark Assassin
Ice_can wrote:
LunarSol wrote:
Blndmage wrote:
Detachments exists to be filled, not hit the minimums and make another. Detachments exists to be filled, not hit the minimums and make another.
I missed this rule. I missed this rule.
Glad I wasn’t the only one.
I’ll be honest I start any competitive list with usually minimum strength battalion then a second detachment of main force.
With sometimes a third detachment if I need a different faction or subfaction specific detachment. Glad I wasn’t the only one.I’ll be honest I start any competitive list with usually minimum strength battalion then a second detachment of main force.With sometimes a third detachment if I need a different faction or subfaction specific detachment.
And that’s where things get broken.
Why do you think they show the rest of the limitations of the various detachments, to 0-X stuff?
It’s to show how they want the detachments filled out, even if it’s from a fluff standpoint, that’s really where the game is from.
Not everyone plays competitively, actually the minority of players do.
This thread isn’t just about the comparative mindset, but the game in general.
Stop looking at from an optimization standpoint, and look at it from the narrative side.
I totally, and 100% get what your saying, but not everyone has the ability to do that. And that’s where things get broken.Why do you think they show the rest of the limitations of the various detachments, to 0-X stuff?It’s to show how they want the detachments filled out, even if it’s from a fluff standpoint, that’s really where the game is from.Not everyone plays competitively, actually the minority of players do.This thread isn’t just about the comparative mindset, but the game in general.Stop looking at from an optimization standpoint, and look at it from the narrative side.I totally, and 100% get what your saying, but not everyone has the ability to do that.
60PL
(she/her) 213PL60PL(she/her)
Subject: Re:Force Org Slots/Battlefield Roles Are Pointless – Change My Mind
Charistoph
Astonished of Heck
Astonished of Heck Second Story Man
Andykp wrote:
I think you should actually pay to take them. -1 or more. -3 for supreme command. I think you should actually pay to take them. -1 or more. -3 for supreme command.
Compared to the detachments which closer match the old FOC / CAD , you are paying for them with -1 or more CP . I know you actually mean that they are more the single slot detachments, but seriously, that is over the top. Compared to the detachments which closer match the old, you are paying for them with -1 or more. I know you actually mean that they are more the single slot detachments, but seriously, that is over the top.
I cannot delete a scratch org by running sfdx force:org:delete cmd
First confirm if you have an org with a proper alias name.
You can do this by sfdx alias:list , check if you have that alias name listed in the output of this command.
Later you can delete this via same command which you mentioned .
Phantom bazaar幽靈市集 – ++ Battalion Detachment +5CP (Chaos – Thousand Sons) [30 PL, 498pts] ++ + No Force Org Slot + Relics of the Thousand Sons (1 Relic) + HQ + Exalted Sorcerer [7 PL, 127pts]: Boon of
Phantom bazaar幽靈市集 đang ở trên Facebook. Để kết nối với Phantom bazaar幽靈市集, hãy tham gia Facebook hôm nay.
31993R0095
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 84 (2) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (1),
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (2),
Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (3),
Whereas there is a growing imbalance between the expansion of the air transport system in Europe and the availability of adequate airport infrastructure to meet that demand; whereas there is, as a result, an increasing number of congested airports in the Community;
Whereas the allocation of slots at congested airports should be based on neutral, transparent and non-discriminatory rules;
Whereas the requirement of neutrality is best guaranteed when the decision to coordinate an airport is taken by the Member State responsible for that airport on the basis of objective criteria;
Whereas under certain conditions, in order to facilitate operations, it is desirable that a Member State should be able to designate an airport as coordinated provided that principles of transparency, neutrality and non-discrimination are met;
Whereas the Member State responsible for the coordinated airport should ensure the appointment of a coordinator whose neutrality should be unquestioned;
Whereas transparency of information is an essential element for ensuring an objective procedure for slot allocation;
Whereas the principles governing the existing system of slot allocation could be the basis of this Regulation provided that this system evolves in harmony with the evolution of new transport developments in the Community;
Whereas it is Community policy to facilitate competition and to encourage entrance into the market, as provided for in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes (4), and whereas these objectives require strong support for carriers who intend to start operations on intra-Community routes;
Whereas the existing system makes provision for grandfather rights;
Whereas there should also be provisions to allow new entrants into the Community market;
Whereas it is necessary to make special provisions, under limited circumstances, for the maintenance of adequate domestic air services to regions of the Member State concerned;
Whereas it is also necessary to avoid situations where, owing to a lack of available slots, the benefits of liberalization are unevenly spread and competition is distorted;
Whereas it is desirable to make the best use of the existing slots in order to meet the objectives set out above;
Whereas it is desirable that third countries offer Community carriers equivalent treatment;
Whereas the application of the provisions of this Regulation shall be without prejudice to the competition rules on the Treaty, in particular Articles 85 and 86;
Whereas arrangements for greater cooperation over the use of Gibraltar airport were agreed in London on 2 December 1987 by the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom in a joint declaration by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the two countries, and such arrangements have yet to come into operation;
Whereas this Regulation should be reviewed after a fixed period of operation to assess its functioning,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Scope 1. This Regulation shall apply to the allocation of slots at Community airports.
2. The application of this Regulation to the airport of Gibraltar is understood to be without prejudice to the respective legal positions of the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom with regard to the dispute over sovereignty over the territory in which the airport is situated.
3. Application of the provisions of this Regulation to Gibraltar airport shall be suspended until the arrangements in the joint declarations made by the Foreign Ministers of the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom on 2 December 1987 have come into operation. The Governments of Spain and the United Kingdom will so inform the Council of that date.
Article 2
Definitions For the purpose of this Regulation:
(a) ‘slot’ shall mean the scheduled time of arrival or departure available or allocated to an aircraft movement on a specific date at an airport coordinated under the terms of this Regulation;
(b) ‘new entrant’ shall mean:
(i) an air carrier requesting slots at an airport on any day and holding or having been allocated fewer than four slots at that airport on that day, or,
(ii) an air carrier requesting slots for a non-stop service between two Community airport where at most two other air carriers operate a direct service between these airports or airports systems on that day and holding or having been allocated fewer than four slots at that airport on that day for that non-stop service.
An air carrier holding more than 3 % of the total slots available on the day in question at a particular airport, or more than 2 % of the total slots avilable on the day in question in an airport system of which that airport forms part, shall not be considered as a new entrant at that airport;
(c) ‘direct air service’ shall mean a service between two airports including stopovers with the same aircraft and same flight number;
(d) ‘scheduling period’ shall mean either the summer or winter season as used in the schedules of air carriers;
(e) ‘Community air carrier’ shall mean an air carrier with a valid operating licence issued by a Member State in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92 of 23 July 1992 on licensing of air carriers (5);
(f) ‘coordinated airport’ shall mean an airport where a coordinator has been appointed to facilitate the operations of air carriers operating or intending to operate at that airport;
(g) ‘fully coordinated airport’ shall mean a coordinated airport where, in order to land or take off, during the periods for which it is fully coordinated, it is necessary for an air carrier to have a slot allocated by a coordinator;
(h) ‘airport system’ shall mean two or more airports grouped together and serving the same city or conurbation, as indicated in Annex II to Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92.
Article 3
Conditions for airport coordination 1. A Member State shall be under no obligation to desginate any airport as coordinated save in accordance with the provisions of this Article.
2. A Member State may, however, provide for any airport to be designated as a coordinated airport provided that principles of transparency, neutrality and non-discrimination are met.
3. (i) When air carriers representing more than a half of the operations at an airport and/or the airport authority consider that capacity is insufficient for actual or planned operations at certain periods or
(ii) when new entrants encounter serious problems in securing slots or
(iii) when a Member State considers it necessary,
the Member State shall ensure that a thorough capacity analysis is carried out, having regard to commonly recognized methods, as soon as possible at the airport with the purpose of determining possibilites of increasing the capacity in the short term through infrastructure or operational changes, and to determine the time frame envisaged to resolve the problems. The analysis, shall be updated periodically. Both the analysis and the method underlying it shall be made available to interested parties.
4. If, after consultation with the air carriers using the airport regularly, their representative organizations, the airport authorities, air traffic control authorities and passengers’ organizations where such organizations exist, the analysis does not indicate possibilities of resolving the serious problems in the short term, the Member State shall ensure that the airport shall be designated as fully coordinated for the periods during which capacity problems occur.
5. When a capacity sufficient to meet actual or planned operations is provided at a fully coordinated airport, its desgination as a fully coordinated airport shall be lifted.
Article 4
The coordinator 1. The Member State responsible for a coordinated or fully coordinated airport shall ensure the appointment of a natural or legal person with detailed knowledge of air carrier scheduling coordination as airport coordinator after having consulted the air carriers using the airport regularly, their representative organizations and the airport authorities. The same coordinator may be appointed for more than one airport.
2. A Member State shall ensure that the coordinator carries out his duties under this Regulation in an independent manner.
3. The coordinator shall act in accordance with this Regulation in a neutral, non-discriminatory and transparent way.
4. The coordinator shall participate in such international scheduling conferences of air carriers as are permitted by Community law.
5. The coordinator shall be responsible for the allocation of slots.
6. The coordinator shall monitor the use of slots.
7. Where slots are allocated, the coordinator shall, on request and within a reasonable time, make available for review to all interested parties the following information:
(a) historical slots by airline, chronologically, for all air carriers at the airport,
(b) requested slots (initial submissions), by air carriers and chronologically, for all air carriers,
(c) all allocated slots, and outstanding slot requests, listed individually in chronologcial order, by air carriers, for all air carriers,
(d) remaining available slots,
(e) full details on the criteria being used in the allocation.
8. The information in paragraph 7 shall be made available at the latest at the time of the relevant scheduling conferences and as appropriate during the conferences and thereafter.
Article 5
Coordination committee 1. A Member State shall ensure that in an airport that has been designated as fully coordinated a coordination committee is set up to assist, in a consultative capacity, the coordinator referred to in Article 4. Participation in this committee shall be open to at least the air carriers and/or their representative organizations using the airport(s) regularly, the airport authorities concerned and representatives of the air traffic control. The same coordination committee may be designated for more than one airport.
The tasks of the coordination committee shall be, inter alia, to advise on:
– possibilities for increasing the capacity determined in accordance with Article 6,
– improvements to traffic conditions prevailing at the airport in question,
– complaints on the allocation of slots as provided for in Article 8 (7),
– the methods of monitoring the use of allocated slots,
– guidelines for allocation of slots, taking into account local conditions,
– serious problems for new entrants as provided for in Article 10.
2. Paragraph 1 may be applied to airports designated as coordinated under the provisions of Article 3.
Article 6
Airport capacity 1. At an airport where slot allocation takes place, the competent authorities shall determine the capacity available for slot allocation twice yearly in cooperation with representatives of air traffic control, customs and immigration authorities and air carriers using the airport and/or their representative organizations and the airport coordinator, according to commonly recognized methods. Where the competent authority is not the airport authority it shall also be consulted.
This exercise shall be based on an objective analysis of possibilities of accommodating the air traffic, taking into account the different types of traffic at that airport.
The results of this exercise shall be provided to the airport coordinator in good time before the initial slot allocation takes place for the purpose of scheduling conferences.
2. Paragraph 1 may be applied to airports designated as coordinated under the provisions of Article 3.
Article 7
Information for the coordinator Air carriers operating or intending to operate at a coordinated or fully coordinated airport shall submit to the coordinator relevant information requested by the coordinator.
Article 8
Process of slot allocation 1. (a) Subject to the provisions of Article 10, a slot that has been operated by an air carrier as cleared by the coordinator shall entitle that air carrier to claim the same slot in the next equivalent scheduling period.
(b) In a situation where all slot requests cannot be accommodated to the satisfaction of the air carriers concerned, preference shall be given to commercial air services and in particular to scheduled services and programmed non-scheduled services.
(c) The coordinator shall also take into account additional priority rules established by the air carrier industry and if possible additional guidelines recommended by the coordination committee allowing for local conditions, provided such guidelines respect Community law.
2. If a requested slot cannot be accommodated, the coordinator shall inform the requesting air carrier of the reasons therefore and shall indicate the nearest alternative slot.
3. The coordinator shall, at all times, endeavour to accommodate ad hoc slot requests for any type of aviation including general aviation. To this end, the slots available in the pool referred to in Article 10 but not yet allocated may be used, as may slots liberated at short notice.
4. Slots may be freely exchanged between air carriers or transferred by an air carrier from one route, or type of service, to another, by mutual agreement or as a result of a total or partial takeover or unilaterally. Any such exchanges or transfers shall be transparent and subject to confirmation of feasibility by the coordinator that:
(a) airport operations would not be prejudiced;
(b) limitations imposed by a Member State according to Article 9 are respected;
(c) a change of use does not fall within the scope of Article 11.
5. Slots allocated to new entrants operating a service between two Community airports may not be exchanged or transferred between air carriers or by an air carrier from one route to another as provided for in paragraph 4 for a period of two seasons.
6. The Commission may establish, after consultations with air carriers, coordinators, and airport authorities, recommended standards for the automated systems which are used by the coordinators in order to ensure the proper implementation of Articles 4 and 7.
7. Where there are complaints about the allocation of slots, the coordination committee shall consider the matter and may make proposals to the coordinator in an attempt to resolve the problems.
8. If the problems cannot be resolved after consideration by the coordination committee, the Member State concerned may provide for mediation by an air carriers’ representative organization or other third party.
Article 9
Regional services 1. A Member State may reserve certain slots at a fully coordinated airport for domestic scheduled services:
(a) on a route to an airport serving a peripheral or development region in its territory, any such route being considered vital for the economic development of the region in which the airport is located, on condition that:
(i) the slots concerned are being used on that route at the time of entry into force of this Regulation;
(ii) only one air carrier is operating on the route;
(iii) no other mode of transport can provide an adequate service;
(iv) the reservation of slots shall end when a second air carrier has established a domestic scheduled service on the route with the same number of frequencies as the first air carrier and operated it for at least a season;
(b) on routes where public service obligations have been imposed under Community legislation.
2. The procedures in Article 4 (1) (d) to 4 (1) (i) of Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 shall be applied if another Community air carrier is interested in servicing the route and has not been able to obtain slots within one hour before or after the times requested of the coordinator.
3. The Member State shall communicate to the Commission a list of routes for which slots have been so reserved at a fully coordinated airport. This shall first be done at the entry into force of this Regulation. The Commission shall publish an overview of the routes concerned in the Official Journal of the European Communities not later than two months after the communication.
Article 10
Slot pool 1. At an airport where slot allocation takes place, a pool shall be set up for each coordinated period and shall contain newly created slots, unused slots and slots which have been given up by a carrier during, or by the end of, the season or which otherwise become available.
2. Any slot not utilized shall be withdrawn and placed in the appropriate slot pool unless the non-utilization can be justified by reason of the grounds of the grounding of an aircraft type, or the closure of an airport or airspace or other similarly exceptional case.
3. Slots which are allocated to an air carrier for the operation of a scheduled service or a programmed non-scheduled service on a particular moment of a day and for the same day of the week over a recognizable period up to one scheduling period shall not entitle that air carrier to the same series of slots in the next equivalent period, unless the air carrier can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the coordinator that they have been operated, as cleared by the coordinator, by that air carrier for at least 80 % of the time during the period for which they have been allocated.
4. Slots allocated to an air carrier before 31 January for the following summer season, or before 31 August for the following winter season, but which are returned to the coordinator for reallocation before those dates shall not be taken into account for the purposes of the usage calculation.
5. If the 80 % usage of the series of slots cannot be demonstrated, all the slots constituting that series shall be placed in the slot pool, unless the non-utilization can be justified on the basis of any of the following reasons:
(a) unforeseeable and irresistible cases outside the air carrier’s control leading to, for example:
– grounding of the aircraft type generally used for the service in question, or
– closure of an airport or airspace;
(b) problems relating to the starting up of a new scheduled passenger service with aircraft of no more than eighty seats on a route between a regional airport and the coordinated airport and where the capacity does not exceed 30 000 seats per year, or
(c) serious financial damage for a Community air carrier concerned, with, as a result, the granting of a temporary licence by the licensing authorities pending financial reorganization of the air carrier in accordance with Article 5 (5) of Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92;
(d) an interruption of a series of non-scheduled services due to cancellations by tour operators, in particular outside the usual peak period, provided that overall slot usage does not fall below 70 %;
(e) an interruption of a series of services due to action intended to affect these services, which makes it practically and/or technically impossible for the air carrier to carry out operations as planned.
6. If serious problems continue to exist for new entrants, the Member State shall ensure that a meeting of the airport coordination committee is convened. The purpose of the meeting shall be to examine possibilities for remedying the situation. The Commission shall be invited to such a meeting.
7. Without prejudice to Article 8 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92, slots placed in the pools shall be distributed among applicant carriers. 50 % of these slots shall be allocated to new entrants unless requests by new entrants are less than 50 %.
8. A new entrant which has been offered slots within two hours before or after the time requested but has not accepted this offer shall not retain the new entrant status.
Article 11
Safeguard mechanism 1. Where a solution cannot be found under paragraph 2 and taking into account that competition between the air carriers concerned should not be distorted, an air carrier shall not be allowed to use the flexibility provided for in
Article 8
(4) for the purpose of introducing one or more additional frequencies on a route between a fully coordinated airport within the Community and an airport in another Member State, if another Community air carrier, licensed by another Member State, has not been able, despite serious and consistent efforts, to obtain landing and departure slots which can reasonably be used for providing one or more additional frequencies on the route within two hours before or after the times requested of the coordinator.
This provision shall not apply if the air carrier using the flexibility provided for in Article 8 (4) does not exceed the frequencies of the other air carrier.
2. Taking into account that competition between the air carriers concerned should not be distorted, the Member States responsible for the fully coordinated airport referred to in paragraph 1 shall endeavour to facilitate an agreement between the air carriers concerned.
An alternative solution to the problem should be sought such as:
– endeavouring to ensure that the request for slots of the air carrier licensed by the other Member State is accommodated,
– the reasonable use by that carrier of the flexibility provided for in Article 8 (4).
3. A Member State concerned may request the Commission to investigate the application of this Article within two months of an air carrier informing the coordinator of its intention to use the flexibility provided for in Article 8 (4).
Article 12
General provisions 1. Whenever it appears that a third country, with respect to the allocation of slots at airports,
(a) does not grant Community air carriers treatment comparable to that granted by Member States to air carriers from that country, or
(b) does not grant Community air carriers de facto national treatment, or
(c) grants air carriers from other third countries more favourable treatment than Community air carriers,
appropriate action may be taken to remedy the situation in respect of the airport or airports concerned, including the suspension wholly or partially of the obligations of this Regulation in respect of an air carrier of that third country, in accordance with Community law.
2. Member States shall inform the Commission of any serious difficulties encountered, in law or in fact, by Community air carriers in obtaining slots at airports in third countries.
Article 13
Report and cooperation 1. The Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the operation of this Regulation three years after its entry into force. This report should include inter alia the following elements:
(a) the structure of the airline industry;
(b) progress made by the industry in reducing the non-use of slots;
(c) size of the slot pool, as defined in Article 10 (1), each season at selected airports;
(d) volume of unsuccessful applications for slots each season at selected airports;
(e) number of new entrants applying for slots each season at selected airports;
(f) use of dispute procedures established within the terms of Article 8.
2. Member States and the Commission shall cooperate in the application of this Regulation, particularly as regards the collection of information for the report mentioned in paragraph 1.
Article 14
Revision The Council shall decide on the continuation or revision of this Regulation by 1 July 1997, on the basis of a proposal from the Commission to be submitted no later than 1 January 1996.
Article 15
Entry into force This Regulation shall enter into force on the thirtieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 18 January 1993.
For the Council
The President
T. PEDERSEN
(1) OJ No C 43, 19. 2. 1991, p. 3.
(2) OJ No C 13, 20. 1. 1992, p. 446.
(3) OJ No C 339, 31. 12. 1991, p. 41.
(4) OJ No L 240, 24. 8. 1992, p. 8.
(5) OJ No L 240, 24. 8. 1992, p. 1.
키워드에 대한 정보 no force org slot
다음은 Bing에서 no force org slot 주제에 대한 검색 결과입니다. 필요한 경우 더 읽을 수 있습니다.
이 기사는 인터넷의 다양한 출처에서 편집되었습니다. 이 기사가 유용했기를 바랍니다. 이 기사가 유용하다고 생각되면 공유하십시오. 매우 감사합니다!
사람들이 주제에 대해 자주 검색하는 키워드 Warzone Tourney, Apex Legends \u0026 Valorant 23 July 2022
- zlaner
- zlaner vods
- zlaner stream
- zlaner pop off
- zlaner gameplay
- video games
- gaming stream
- zlaner videos
- call of duty
- warzone
- warzone stream
- cod stream
- cod gameplay
- warzone gameplay
- warzone live stream
- zlaner live stream
- zlaner clutch
- warzone best moments
- warzone funny moments
- warzone best player
- warzone best class
- warzone best loadout
- call of duty live gameplay
- cod best moments
- cod funny moments
- cod movement
- warzone movement
- apex legends
Warzone #Tourney, #Apex #Legends #\u0026 #Valorant #23 #July #2022
YouTube에서 no force org slot 주제의 다른 동영상 보기
주제에 대한 기사를 시청해 주셔서 감사합니다 Warzone Tourney, Apex Legends \u0026 Valorant 23 July 2022 | no force org slot, 이 기사가 유용하다고 생각되면 공유하십시오, 매우 감사합니다.
