slotless units - allowable in formations?

[Frater Cornelius]

No. Rules state that Formations can exist in unbound armies. Page 121, Formation rules, last paragraph.

[Karack Blackstone]

I'm pretty sure that when a formation says, "Take (units) and gain these rules" there is a pretty clear indication that taking units past that and attempting to gain the rules is not in the spirit of fair play.  Take the formation, then take a CAD if need be; the slotless units won't gain the formation's rules, however there's no squeezing in shenanigens to straighten out.

[FenrisWolf]

I understand that putting the Lone Wolf in the Formation would be stretching and abusing the rules.  But the Lone Wolf sheet does say one can be taken per Wolf Guard unit in your army. You are allowed to take one, but there is no where for it to go in the Formation detachment.  That's when the rules in the section "Army List Entries That Do Not Use Force Organsation Slots" would come in.  It specifically states that they can be taken in any Detachment, even if all units or slots with that Battlefield Role are taken.  It then goes on to say it must adhere to any restrictions detailed on the Detachment and its own Army List Entry.

 

I still think these are not clear.  But I am starting to be on the side of you just can't take the Lone Wolf.  But I think it needs an FAQ.

[Frater Cornelius]

Well, if you take them 'in the army', they will not benefit of the Formation rules, regardless where the WG/GH unit is.

[skeletoro]

It could be argued that the 'those' in 'that those units gain' refers to the units in the formation and therefore if another rule allows you to add extra units to the formation, they also count as 'those' units (by virtue of being in the formation). It's not the only interpretation but that's my point - the rules are pretty unclear about this and skirt around the issue at BEST. I don't think I'd abuse this without a FAQ. It's too much of a grey area. But I see a bit too much wishful thinking in this thread. If the rules need to be clearer we should identify how and email GW for an amendment or FAQ.

 

Also 'restrictions' is a technical term referring to a specific part of an army list entry. It is separate from the part that lists the units that make up the formation.

 

Also, dedicated transports? Allowed? E.g. Ragnar's formation. Can it include rhinos/stormwolves?

[Squark]

It could be argued that the 'those' in 'that those units gain' refers to the units in the formation and therefore if another rule allows you to add extra units to the formation, they also count as 'those' units (by virtue of being in the formation). It's not the only interpretation but that's my point - the rules are pretty unclear about this and skirt around the issue at BEST. I don't think I'd abuse this without a FAQ. It's too much of a grey area. But I see a bit too much wishful thinking in this thread. If the rules need to be clearer we should identify how and email GW for an amendment or FAQ.

 

Also 'restrictions' is a technical term referring to a specific part of an army list entry. It is separate from the part that lists the units that make up the formation.

 

Also, dedicated transports? Allowed? E.g. Ragnar's formation. Can it include rhinos/stormwolves?

I... think so, since those are actually purchased just like Wargear. Unless the formation demands you take a specific dedicated transport (I.E. Grimnar's Kingsguard), in which case it's obviously mandatory.

[Frater Cornelius]

Even if dedicated are not allowed, you can still purchase them in the FA slot (or HS slot if it's a LR).

[skeletoro]

True. It would only matter if you wanted the transport to benefit from some formation perk that only works for dedicated transports. Can't think of what.

[Rift Blade]

Maybe just me being to simple but in some of the formations that have dedicated transports(Wolf Guard Strike Force-needs 2 Storm Wolves), they're listed, same as in the Shield Brothers listing Arjak who does not take a slot if a WG unit is taken. Taken in those formations that specifically list them gives them extra rules from the formation. If it's not listed in the formation, then those extra models don't get the extra rules. That being said, for your overall army, as long as the requisite units are there for the slotless units, I don't see why you could not take them. They just don't gain any special rules. My 2 cents anyways.

[DanPesci]

But the Lone Wolf sheet does say one can be taken per Wolf Guard unit in your army. You are allowed to take one, but there is no where for it to go in the Formation detachment.  

 

But surely it doesnt need to go anywhere...as it doesnt take up any sort of slot, you simply have one in the army for every troop/wolf guard unit you have in your overall list.

 

It shouldn't take on the special rules of a formation as 1. it is a slotless unit, and 2. those rules should only apply for the units specifically listed on a formation sheet, unless the sheet itself says that you can take extra units. (ie some of the old apocalypse formation let you choose unit compostion)..which as far as im aware, none of the SW ones do).

 

The only dispute i can see here is whether or not lone wolves get objective secured or not, but as long as you are taking a CAD with at least one troop/WG unit, then you can say the LW is being taken for them...

 

This is just how i would see it working, whether people want to read into the rules differently after cross examining everything, fair doos!

[eyeslikethunder]

Lone wolves are elites how can they get objective secured? Even if they are slot loss elites

[Frater Cornelius]

Lone Wolves have a rule that says they can not score at all, no matter their slot.

[Lucien Eilam]

It could be argued that the 'those' in 'that those units gain' refers to the units in the formation

You're arguing that a pronoun stands for a term that isn't used anywhere in the paragraph, as opposed to one that's introduced in the first clause of the exact same sentence?

 

Yeah, I think I'm out. If we can't agree on the definition of the word "specific" or the rules of English grammar, there's no discussion to be had.

[FenrisWolf]

@DanPesci  I think this makes sense, but doesn't every unit need to be in a Detachment?

 

@Lucien  I am agreeing with much of your arguments.  I just feel that the rules are unclear (but I don't think I'm nitpicking the language).  Lone Wolves can be taken for troop choices and WG units anywhere in your army.  I'm just not sure what detachment they go in when you have a Formation allowing the Lone Wolf.

[skeletoro]

Can't say I'm sorry to see you go, Lucien.

 

For the benefit of others, I was merely pointing out that hypothetically, once a Lone Wolf was added to the formation, it would also be one of the 'army list entries comprising the formation.' Therefore, the 'those' might be taken to include the Lone Wolf.

 

It is ambiguous because we cannot tell if the 'those' is being used de dicto or de re. I'm sure, given Lucien's superior mastery of 'the rules of English grammar', he won't need to look it up in Wikipedia.

[Frater Cornelius]

 

[...] de dicto or de re. [...]  'the rules of English grammar', [...].

 

Actually it is Latin and those are philosophical phrases, so it neither has to do anything with English, nor Grammar :D

 

...

 

I'm going back to my corner.

[skeletoro]

True, but I was quoting Lucien ;) Semantics, Grammar, close enough I say.

[Valerian]

I'm away from home, and away from references, so forgive me for not providing references.

 

Armies in 7e are 'modular' now and can be assembled with various building blocks called, generally Detachments. The pinned thread on Battleforged armies does a good job of explaining the mechanics of this, I think.

 

Now, those Detachments (whether Allied, Combined Arms, Wolves Unleashed, or Champions of Fenris) typically provide a loose framework using some form of a Force Organization Chart by which you may select the units that comprise them. Slot-less choices, like the Lone Wolf, simply allow even greater flexibility (or, conversely, less constraint) within the confines of the FOC. This is where the bit about them being available despite already using up your available Elite slots in that Detachment is relevant).

 

Formations are another form of building block available in the 'menu' for creating your army. They're a Special kind of Detachment, and part of what makes them special, is that you trade away the flexibility inherent in the FOC-based Detachment selection structure, in order to gain the benefit of some number of worthwhile special rules. These rules advantages come at the price of being limited to a prescribed list of specific units (often also with prescribed equipment choices), within that Formation.

 

Now, back to the Lone Wolf. Whether he is slot-less or not is irrelevant, he is still a unit, and if that particular unit isn't included in the Formation, then you can't shoehorn him in, just as you can't shoehorn in any other 'slotted' units. The Formation provides you with its composition.

 

Now, what you do with your army outside the confines of that Formation is up to you, and as long as you have points available, you'd be free to include any number of Lone Wolves in Detachments that don't prescribe their composition.

 

V

[skeletoro]

It doesn't say you cannot shoe horn him in. Yes, it does say a formation has specific units but then it ALSO says that ANY detachment can take a slot-less unit like a Lone Wolf, even if the detachment lacks an appropriate slot.

 

At best, it could be said that the rules are contradictory on this issue. But I don't think 'specific units' contradicts the 'any detachment... even if...' clauses, any more than the rules on force org charts (I.e. you can't take more units than you have slots) would. The rules for slot-less units are an exception in all cases. Perhaps GW meant them to only be exceptions for non-formation detachments, but they failed to say anything of the sort in the rules.

 

Again.

 

Rule 1: detactment x is specifically comprised of one y.

Rule 2: any detachment containing a y can also take a z, even if it doesn't have a slot for z. Z then counts as part of the detachment in all respects.

 

Why do you think 1 overrides 2? I would see it as the other way round, though I think the rules are arguably unclear.

[Frater Cornelius]

Well, let us take groceries as an example. If you buy canned tuna, you expect tuna inside. It does not say whether mint leaves are inside or not. They would not take any space away, but they will not put them in because it says 'canned tuna', not 'canned tuna with mint leaves'.

 

I see this the same way with Formations. You have a list of units and only those units can make the formation. So the Formation can not include slotless units.

However, a detachment is part of your army, as such you are allowed to take Lone Wolves without an Elite slot if the Formation includes WG or Troops. That Long Wolf will be part of your army, but not part of the Formation. How can a LW be part of an army but not part of a detachment? He does not take any slots.

So if you take Void Claws and nothing else, you should still be able to take a LW, who will not benefit from their special rules, but he is allowed to be deployed because you have a unit of WG in your army. If the rule would say that the LW does not take up a lot a slot if the WG/Troops are in the same detachment, then you would not be able to include the LW. But it says 'army', so it is legal.

As for the special rules, only the formation detachment can benefit from their rules and a slotless LW is not part of any detachment because he does not take up any slots.

 

That's my humble interpretation anyway.

[skeletoro]

Hmm, do keep in mind that it doesn't say 'only' anywhere (unless I have missed it?)

[Frater Cornelius]

Hmm, do keep in mind that it doesn't say 'only' anywhere (unless I have missed it?)

 

I said it is my interpretation, not the actual rule as it was intended. There may very well be a loophole the size of a black hole, but why spend time trying to exploit something when you could spend the time bashing people over the head :P

[skeletoro]

Because I'd prefer it was exploited to hell right out here where everybody can see to encourage people to ask GW for a FAQ.

[FenrisWolf]

Ok, Immer.  Between you and Val I finally have an interpretation I can believe.  I was under the impression that a model or unit has to be in some detachment, even if they don't take up a Force Org slot.

 

 

But I also agree with Skeletoro that I'd like to see an official GW FAQ ruling to cut any possible abuse.

[skeletoro]

They DO have to be in a detachment. They emboldened the sentence; it's 3 paragraphs above the heading "factions"

 

And again, the rules don't say anywhere that formations may 'only' contain the units listed in their army list entry.