PDA

View Full Version : Grab bag of quick to answer questions



selone
09-03-2009, 15:41
Hello everyone, a few questions hopefully quick to answer. Apologies if any have been asked before but mighty search engine said no.

Firstly I was wondering whether a unit of goblins led by a Black Orc counts as goblins or as a black orc when it comes to panic tests. Goblin warmachines led by an orc bully count as orcs so does this set precedent or is this just an isolated example?

Secondly does a WoC player have to declare what mark's his unit's have or not?

Lastly gnoblar trappers can make a stand and shoot reaction if within 6" of a hunter even if not contacted by the enemy. Does this eman they can stand and shoot even if their opponent was within half their movement i.e. does it allow the to shoot irrgardless (like detachments) or do they have to follow normal rules?

Nurgling Chieftain
09-03-2009, 17:03
Secondly does a WoC player have to declare what mark's his unit's have or not?The Mark's are not magic items, and therefore should be represented on the models, just like weapons, shields, etc.. I.e., the unit should be appropriately painted and/or converted or at least have the right symbol on their banner. Really, Marks should be painfully obvious, IMO.

Gazak Blacktoof
09-03-2009, 18:01
With respect to marks I agree entirely with Nurgling Chieftain.


As for black orcs well, no self-respecting black orc would be caught dead with goblins, but on the off chance he accidentally wanders through a unit on his way to smash something in the face then he doesn't grant them any special immunities. There's nothing specified by the greenskin rules to indicate he does grant an immunity and the generalised immunity to psychology rules dictate that a character doesn't pass on his immunity to a unit, p. 78 BRB.

You could discuss this with your opponent and ask if you can apply the "bully" rule to any model joing a smaller unit of greenskins.

Regarding trappers, I'd say that the charging unit has to be more than half its charge move from the hunter. The restriction for stand and shoot is based on the distance between the charger and the charged unit and there's no indication of any variation on this section of the rule for the trappers. Obviously if the trappers are going to get caught in the charge its a normal stand and shoot reaction and the enemy must be more than half their charge distance from the trappers themselves in order that there is sufficient time for them to complete their charge reaction.

Braad
09-03-2009, 18:16
For the first question: this exception is only given specifically to the bully when he is bought for a warmachine crew. For anything else, this exception is not given, so stick to general rules. Since he is a special type of upgrade for the warmachines, I don't think this is something weird: you pay points for him to keep the gobbo's going.

Fluff explanation: There's quite a big difference in having to keep 3 goblins in line, or 30...
If you ever play against me, and you put 10 black orc big bosses in a unit of 30 gobbo's, I'll grant you the immunity.

selone
09-03-2009, 18:35
I'm not looking to apply the bully model to anything, just was trying to see whether the bully rule set precedent. I guess it doesn't as there is no rule for it which is a mixed blessing as if the goblin unit does run away no orc unit would have to test.

EldarBishop
09-03-2009, 19:25
I agree tha Chaos marks should be painfully obvious.

The diseased ridden warrior looks much different then say the frenzied maniac....

Bodysnatcher
09-03-2009, 19:29
An additional penalty for unpainted models!

Godswildcard
09-03-2009, 20:03
so how do you people deal with the incredibly evil players that don't have the money or the time to buy and paint X # of WoC units so that each unit LOOKS like it has a different mark, and instead opts for a few generic paint jobs that can have multiple marks assigned over several games?

Thats kind of harsh....

"Your Warriors of Nurgle don't look 'Nurgley' enough! You are obviously a lackluster gamer and a horrid example for others to follow. Stop being lazy and take the time to paint the as befitting a unit of Nurgle!!"

"But I have to WORK to help pay for food for my kids, whom I also try to have a relationship with and this is just something I do in my spare time..."

"Poppycock! Until I see poxes on that unit, I refuse to play you!!"

I don't see that as making you to be the good guy....

Nurgling Chieftain
09-03-2009, 20:55
Honestly, that's exactly the sort of behavior that bothers me the most. This game they're this, next game the exact same unit is something very different? No thank you.

Never kid yourself that these games are anything other than HUGE time sinks on the hobby side. The barrier to entry is simply enormous compared to, say, Dawn of War.

That being said, I would expect at a very minimum that such units would have a distinctive icon. So, you could potentially make a unit and simply make alternate standard bearers.

Bodysnatcher
09-03-2009, 21:54
It's quite a simple compromise - you either model/paint your units to have the mark, or you clearly state to your opponent what they are.

Shamfrit
09-03-2009, 22:07
Exactly Bodysnatcher.

I would never expect my opponent to have wysiwyg to such totalatarian extremes. As long as it's stated at the beginning, or when I ask, it's cool with me. I do alter marks on my Warriors alot, so I paitn them in an army wide scheme completely seperated from snobby Chaos players who think Tzeentch should be flamey and Khorne should be red etc.

If I say X Knights are Khorne then deal with it, as long as I don't make an attempt to switch or decieve, heck, I'll stick bits of paper on the movement trays if it bothers you that much.

As the gnoblar answer, the Gnoblars arn't being charged, so they should be able to stand and shoot regardless of range, but still need LOS etc.

Braad
09-03-2009, 22:50
One of my friends has an undivided paint scheme, but everything is Khorne. No problem there, it never changes.

If you want a 'dynamic' chaos unit, an easy way to do so, which is also very recognizable for your opponent, is making several different standard bearers for each unit, with the appropriate icon/scheme painted on it. If you make 5, you can have every mark or no mark.

Shamfrit
09-03-2009, 22:59
True enough Braad, but having said that, my Knights have a mix of Hand Weapons and Lances, not because of any reason beyond 'it looks cool,' I do not want Wysiwyg to become this huge WAAC loop hole rule; if it's down on my list and I've clearly distinguished between units (if multiples are present) then what is the problem?

Some people don't have the money or time to paint 5 standard bearers on the offchance they want to swap one night.

I'd be all for clear marking if something like a herdstone or dead body with disease at the front of the base (which can easily be rested on the base and not glued) was acceptable, but people seem hellbent on it being glued to the model.

'Mark tokens' would be a lovely little money earner for GW. Little circular base sized cast iron chaos icons on stands, like monopoly pieces or something.

sulla
09-03-2009, 23:22
Lastly gnoblar trappers can make a stand and shoot reaction if within 6" of a hunter even if not contacted by the enemy. Does this eman they can stand and shoot even if their opponent was within half their movement i.e. does it allow the to shoot irrgardless (like detachments) or do they have to follow normal rules?


As the gnoblar answer, the Gnoblars arn't being charged, so they should be able to stand and shoot regardless of range, but still need LOS etc.

Gnoblars are allowed to stand and shoot at enemies charging the Hunter and don't suffer the -1 to hit, but those are the only stand and shoot restrictions they ignore. Everything else counts as a normal stand and shoot, so no shooting if the enemy is under half charge range.

Nurgling Chieftain
09-03-2009, 23:40
Why on earth would anybody care if it's glued to the model? It's pretty much SOP to have things magnetized or pinned around here. Don't even paint separate standard bearers, just do up the icons and pin 'em so you can swap.

...Or, y'know, use them as they're painted to be, undivided. Yeah, I know, suuuch a hardship.

If you don't want the models to match your units, use a coke can on a movement tray. Or play a computer game. Don't complain to me about WYSIWYG. That's the most basic distinguishing component of the game you're choosing to play. Without it, you're far better off playing a different game in the first place.

Shamfrit
09-03-2009, 23:49
With the given exception that a Mark is a mundane upgrade, in the same way that spear, hand weapon, javelin, blowpipe etc are. To expect someone to pin every single skink they own on the off chance they wish to try Javelins one game, you know, for kicks, is a little too much to expect of even the most avid gamer.

I would like to adhere to Wysiwyg, by all means I would, but having 24 Saurus for example, with hand weapons and shields (prior edition, Spears weren't much cop) now that they are, should I wreck those painted Saurus to satisfy wysiwyg? Instead of simply writing it on my list and pointing it quite clearly and without deception to my opponent, at all times, that X or all units of Saurus have spears. I've got the parts to replace the hand weapons but I will not do so at the detriment of having to repaint each and every arm joint because I know fully well I won't be using spears every game.

Would you expect me to also individually craft scabbards and belts on each saurus and attach the handweapons I've just lopped off to represent the fact that they actually have both?

My Warriors arn't painted to be undivided - no such unit exists in the Warriors book now. There is no 'undivided mark,' merely 'Warrior,' I want to create a Brettonian theme for the Warriors, tying them in with nature, something red and teh bronzors doesn't accompany.

That, and I don't use Standard Bearers on cavalry, or in anything except my one unit of Warriors.

Wysiwyg should be a general guideline, not a dictatorship.

Neckutter
09-03-2009, 23:57
i always paint my chaos models to make sure that my opponent knows what mark they are. for example, my green warriors= nurgle, blue warriors=tzeentch, red warriors=khorne, purple warriors=slaanesh. its just something ive done because it makes the units look better.
when i play against a person without a painted chaos army, i always ask(and sometimes re-ask) what mark they are, because i think it should be evident in some form or another.

sure, for a quick pickup game you can say "these skinks dont have blowpipes, they have javelins" but for a tournament everything should be WYSIWYG. chaos knights, however, dont come with lances in their box. they come with halberds(or maybe spears), and handhweapons. feel free to glue them however you wish, and just inform your opponent before the game of what they are armed with.

:)

selone
10-03-2009, 01:29
Thanks for the answers guys, I think the consensus to number 1- they still count as goblins and number 2, yes the WoC player has to declare what marks his troops have.

Nurgling Chieftain
10-03-2009, 02:17
To expect someone to pin every single skink they own on the off chance they wish to try Javelins one game, you know, for kicks, is a little too much to expect of even the most avid gamer.If you're just trying something out once and a while, you can use chicklets for all I care.


I would like to adhere to Wysiwyg, by all means I would, but having 24 Saurus for example, with hand weapons and shields (prior edition, Spears weren't much cop) now that they are, should I wreck those painted Saurus to satisfy wysiwyg? Instead of simply writing it on my list and pointing it quite clearly and without deception to my opponent, at all times, that X or all units of Saurus have spears.That's way the heck over the line to me. Making a habit of using a unit equipped differently just to maximize your in-game advantage, without ever even considering bothering to convert the models? Making your opponent have to remember all the time which models are what they look like, and which models are actually something quite different? Frankly, I'd call this case worse than the mark.


Would you expect me to also individually craft scabbards and belts on each saurus and attach the handweapons I've just lopped off to represent the fact that they actually have both?No. One, hand weapons are assumed for all models, two, an "unarmed" saurus is really quite well armed anyway.


That, and I don't use Standard Bearers on cavalry, or in anything except my one unit of Warriors.Get some dirt-cheap small round magnets, place a small piece of metal on a prominent part of the model (maybe a helm or the barding), paint marks on individual magnets, and swap them out. It's not hard.


Wysiwyg should be a general guideline, not a dictatorship.I'm not advocating a dictatorship. Nobody's going to care if a few models in a unit are equipped differently, or if your marks are token instead of whole-body conversions (though the latter is definitely cooler). I'm just advocating that you actually follow said guideline instead of thumbing your nose at it altogether and pretending it doesn't exist while requiring your opponents to keep track of what each unit is THIS time instead of what it looks like.

Neckutter
10-03-2009, 12:53
I would like to adhere to Wysiwyg, by all means I would, but having 24 Saurus for example, with hand weapons and shields (prior edition, Spears weren't much cop) now that they are, should I wreck those painted Saurus to satisfy wysiwyg? Instead of simply writing it on my list and pointing it quite clearly and without deception to my opponent, at all times, that X or all units of Saurus have spears. I've got the parts to replace the hand weapons but I will not do so at the detriment of having to repaint each and every arm joint because I know fully well I won't be using spears every game.
.

i own 46 beautifully painted saurus with HW+SH. when i write an army, i write it up with HW+SH lizards. if i wanted to eventually change them out for spears, i would buy a box and paint them rank by rank so that eventually the units i bring would be all spears. wysiwyg becomes a big deal, for me, if you are just going to ignore it. i dont think this is an uncommon sentiment either. ESPECIALLY at a tournament, where things are much more strict. :)

EldarBishop
10-03-2009, 15:20
If it's occassional, I've got no issue with that. However, once you decide that said unit performs better with equipment "B", and you start using the "B" config as your standard config... you better get to converting them, or buying new models!

In a tourney, absolutely you must be wysiwyg. In casual play, there's a bit more room...

I have a friend you just recently got back into the game... and he's proxying a lot of things... which I have no problem with, as long as it's easy to follow and doesn't require a flowchart/spreadsheet.

Godswildcard
10-03-2009, 16:57
I try and hold to wysiwyg, and you'll find that my warriors that have 2 hand weapons have....2 HAND WEAPONS! I think most are in agreeance (sp?) that as long as you DECLARE your mark your ok. My argument is that it gets expensive for me to buy/paint seperate units to look like something, when I can paint a few units as undivided and have them be slaneesh one day and tzeentch the next.

also, on a somewhat different note, once i have a list written for a days gaming, even if just a friendly day with the club, I won't change it at all that day, so no worries about me switching marks during the middle of the day.

Neknoh
10-03-2009, 18:40
Nurgling: You are in the wrong gaming system, do look into Warhammer 40k for the specific rule labeled What You See Is What You Get, a rule that is NOT present in Warhammer Fantasy Battles, which, in fact, actually encourages a stance of "Counts as", i.e. Sword of Might is NOT, by definition, neither a Sword, nor all glowy and spruced up.

Do you want me to model one specific weapon based on each description in the magical items section of my Warriors of Chaos army and have it attatch through magnets? Standard equipment on units does NOT have to apply to the entire unit, read your rules, 50.01% of the unit should be armed in the way the unit is supposedly armed (excluding the command), as such, two boxes of, in this case, saurus, can be modelled:

12 Saurus with Spears and Shields
6 Command models
6 Saurus with Handweapon and Shield.

This allows you to field either two units with spears and full command (6>3), or a unit of spears and a unit of handweapons, both with full command (again, 6>3 and then 9 spears in the spear unit).

Warriors of Chaos does NOT need to paint their models extensively in order to represent a Mark of some sort, if you would actually care to read the book, you would notice several things regarding the gods of Chaos:

1. They are the gods of Chaos, only Nurgle stays remotely the same.
2. The gods will manifest differently EACH AND EVERY TIME, not all followers of Slaanesh worship a big phallus with milk producing glands attatched to it. Nor will they associate Slaanesh with Pink.
3. There are NO deffinitive paint schemes for the Gods of Chaos, you can argue all you want, but Games Workshop only EVER gives suggestions as to how you can paint them. Can I not paint my warriors in a bleached bone colour and use emanciated marauders and call it Nurgle? Can my Khorne not march in white and gold, and can my Slaanesh not have blackened skin and dress in rich and deep reds? Suprise, ALL of these are fully possible colours of Chaos and actually follows the background.


Furthermore, what do you do about conversions? Must I use the Schwartzeneger marauders? Must I use the new and horrid Chaos Knights? Would you even allow me to play you with my Dark Fae army, in which there will be a grand total of TEN Warriors of Chaos models, all of which will be converted, both lightly and extensively. Am I not allowed to paint my knights in different colours and yet have them unified through the palette rather than the pattern? Must I colour-code them for you to be able to play them without having your beloved WYSIWYG attitude complete ruined? What will you say of my marauder units that will all have handweapon and shield, but involve models such as Bretonnian Men at Arms with their poleweapons still there, differently armed Empire Militia where some have greatweapons, some even have pistols? What about the Gors and Ungors that will be converted and put in there? Especially seing as I will not have any mark other than Slaanesh on my Marauders, must I paint them all pink and model large sacks of marbles between their legs and breasts on their chests?

You might want a Warriors of Chaos army that looks like the psychadelic trip to end all trips, but I don't.





As long as your opponent has made it clear what unit has what mark, and there can be no confusion arising in the battle, then the marks are good. Heck, if Nurgling is so adamant about knowing what mark they have, I would be happy to provide him with printed photos of each unit and list their mark beneath them, perhaps that could help?

Lugburz
10-03-2009, 19:33
It's much more fun to play if all models are wysiwyg, if it didn't matter, we could use lego instead ;).

I would play against someone that "faked" some models/equipment, but if they do it all the time, it's a little annoying.

I myself will probably use my saurses with hw+s as spearsaurus. But unly until I get my new sauruses from Maelstromgames, then I'm making one unit as spearsaurus, and one with hw+s

Neknoh
10-03-2009, 19:37
Yes, that is for the actual weapons on units, as said, weapons are a Majority Equipment item, this is about Marks of Chaos, I ask you the same questions about my fae, would I have to stick pink and boobs on my Marauders for you to play me?

Nurgling Chieftain
10-03-2009, 21:39
Neknoh, you have COMPLETELY misunderstood and misrepresented my position so severely that your argument is almost entirely in line with my own. Indeed, I actually made most of the same points you did.

Consider your Dark Fae army. It's a Slaanesh army heavily converted and distinctive. That's great. I have no problem with that; indeed, I advocate it. What I would have a problem with is if each time I played against you, you took a different mix of marks on the same models, with no changes nor distinguishing features between them. And frankly, in my experience, that latter leads to units which somehow have the mark of Nurgle when you're shooting at them and the mark of Khorne once they're in HtH...

redben
10-03-2009, 21:50
Surely that's where having a written army list would come in handy.

I currently own one unit of 5 Chaos Knights. I'm unlikely to ever use a MoK or MoS on them but could easily use a MoN or a MoT on them. There is no way I'm buying a second of set of Knights just to represent one as MoN and one as MoT. I neither have the time nor the funds nor the inclination to do that. If you place that as a barrier to playing you then sadly the two of us will not play each other.

Neknoh
10-03-2009, 22:06
And yet still, I will not be colourcoding neither them, nor my knights, and during the playtesting to fine-tune the list for a tournament, the units will indeed have different marks from time to time, but the knights will not change their paint scheme because they are khornate or Slaaneshi.

As redben points out, this is where writing a list comes into play, not all units will be Slaanesh, nor will the Sorceror Lord even be marked, but units of a similar standing will have similar marks to reduce confusion. And it is good you declared your standpoint, however, in your posts on page one, you DO appear slightly WYSIWYG 40k-style.

And I really like someone's idea of cast-iron symbols... now I almost have to try and find cast iron roses and other such things to denote their marks if I want to go with that kind of markings. Perhaps get some white plastic/plaster/other- ones and paint them in different colours for different marks? Would fit the theme

Nurgling Chieftain
10-03-2009, 23:25
Surely that's where having a written army list would come in handy.Most people I know don't even show their list because they want to keep their magic items secret until used. Anyway, I would far prefer the units' equipment to be obviously visible on most of the models than have to reference your sheet periodically to remember which otherwise identical unit has which mark.


There is no way I'm buying a second of set of Knights just to represent one as MoN and one as MoT.I've made numerous suggestions to get around this issue.


...and during the playtesting to fine-tune the list for a tournament...When you're just messing around occasionally to try things out, I don't care what you use. I once played an entire game with unit stats written on square pieces of paper. ...Yet even then you COULD look at the unit and tell what it was and what it was equipped with. :p


And it is good you declared your standpoint, however, in your posts on page one, you DO appear slightly WYSIWYG 40k-style.Don't get me wrong; I think the marks and other mundane equipment should be painfully and extensively obvious at first glance. A unit with the Mark of Nurgle is so incredibly nasty that's it's actually hard to hit with missile fire, and yet is visibly indistinguishable from a Tzeentch unit? It's crazy. For my own armies I'm going to great lengths to convert even the command models to more-or-less match their equipment. I don't expect that of everyone else. But being able to visibly distinguish the units for what they are, I do expect, and it's been my direct experience that to do otherwise is to invite abuse.

redben
10-03-2009, 23:44
Still can't see an issue with having a written army list to prove what unit has what. You can very easily record any magic items in such a way that you can show your army list without also showing them. I e-mailed a copy of my army list for a battle I played today with the TS in which I listed everything bar the magic items. You could just as easily have a copy to hand in which the items aren't listed.

None of the reasons you give are insurmountable problems, just a personal aesthetic preference you have. Which is fine, but not something I or many other people share.

kramplarv
11-03-2009, 00:21
what i find most amusing is hat people beleive that some units must have some colors to be "apropriate" (red khorne, blue tzeentch etc).

That is very amusing :DI like to break aptterns so my blue bloodthirster wreaks havoc as my red horrors unleash horrible magic. The green flamers are sure to kill the bad guys threatening my pink plaguebearers. :)

Awesome army. .

Braugi
12-03-2009, 01:19
Regarding trappers, I'd say that the charging unit has to be more than half its charge move from the hunter. The restriction for stand and shoot is based on the distance between the charger and the charged unit and there's no indication of any variation on this section of the rule for the trappers. Obviously if the trappers are going to get caught in the charge its a normal stand and shoot reaction and the enemy must be more than half their charge distance from the trappers themselves in order that there is sufficient time for them to complete their charge reaction.


Agreed. This is the way we have been playing...

nosferatu1001
12-03-2009, 08:22
Colours - don't really care. However having something which indicates god alignment would be good - for example pus filled nurgle warriors, maybe changed Tzeentch warriors, blood soaked khorne warriors etc.

Not saying it has to be perfect, however as Marks are not magic items they better be represented in some way. Simply having a banner bearer with the approriate patron symbol would be enough, and can easily be made interchangeable if you dont wish your warriors to show the effects of their patrons favour.

Still, that's less preferable and a little....40k and chaos icons.

dread lord
13-03-2009, 09:44
The Mark's are not magic items, and therefore should be represented on the models, just like weapons, shields, etc.. I.e., the unit should be appropriately painted and/or converted or at least have the right symbol on their banner. Really, Marks should be painfully obvious, IMO.


where i play the comon consenus is that all mundain (non magical) equipment is decleared

but there are no wisawyg rules in fantasy simply becos they are imposeble to enforce, alot of non-magical equipment is not available and TBH forcing a player to own 10 of the same unit just to cover every posebility is IMHO ridiculus

also there are no rules forcing any player to paint there models in a certain way, if i want to paint my knights red and have a mark of nurgle on them I will do so, I challenge any one to find a rule refrence stating othere wise. Certen events might have rules to effect a certain look or revard players for haveing a wisawyg army but those rules are not part of the genaral rule set and should not be considerd to be so.

Now having sayed all that i have a tendancy to try to make my models represent there equipment and marks when poseble

Braad
13-03-2009, 10:51
...wisawyg...

What I Saw Ain't What You Get?

Just kidding, ofcourse...
But there is a rule for that: Page 54, first paragraph states that a unit is armed as with the weapons the majority is carrying.
Easy way to achieve interchangable units regarding weapons, is to have a few spares of each, and change those. Also, shifting spears to the front or back ranks changes the appearance of the unit.

Anyway, personally I think WYSIWYG a quite important aspect of the hobby. But ofcourse this is different for everyone, as each person has his own goals with it.
I wouldn't mind too much if someone doesn't completely use it, but it would be annoying if I don't have a clue at all at what I'm facing.
I always stick to WYSIWYG. I got a whole arsenal of characters to use different weapons, mounts etc. :)

dariakus
13-03-2009, 14:14
I strive for WYSIWYG, but there are certain heroes or lords that make it very difficult--try getting a mounted warrior priest who isn't wielding a great weapon, for example. Could I convert one? Probably, but it'd take a while.

I'm okay with the marks not necessarily being painted on the unit themselves, but I'd prefer they be represented somehow, either by a banner, a special token or marker beside the unit--anything other than "remember what this is".

Nothing's more annoying than going up a large Chaos army with 2-3 different marks amongst its ranks, and trying to remember which one had what when you're manouevering around for the kill.

dread lord
13-03-2009, 15:35
What I Saw Ain't What You Get?

Just kidding, ofcourse...
But there is a rule for that: Page 54, first paragraph states that a unit is armed as with the weapons the majority is carrying.
Easy way to achieve interchangable units regarding weapons, is to have a few spares of each, and change those. Also, shifting spears to the front or back ranks changes the appearance of the unit.

Anyway, personally I think WYSIWYG a quite important aspect of the hobby. But ofcourse this is different for everyone, as each person has his own goals with it.
I wouldn't mind too much if someone doesn't completely use it, but it would be annoying if I don't have a clue at all at what I'm facing.
I always stick to WYSIWYG. I got a whole arsenal of characters to use different weapons, mounts etc. :)

hehe damm ok i bow to your superior knolage of the BRB, all hail the master :D

but that still is not a wisawig rule simelar to the one in w40k

on a side note i enjoy modeling and try to field my army as it is but i also understand ppl that dont enjoy it and wont spend hour after hour modeling stuff just so 20 models can get spear that GW has never released for them.

now having sayed that my personal line is that i wont buy a box just to change a minor thing like shields on my repaeder x-bow men i rather wont buy the uppgrate for them.

Im still confused about the marks tho and other things that arnt really equipment, my self i solve this by having a diffrent banner for the mark im uesing, but are there any rules that i can read up on to see what shoud be reaviled and displayed on the unit