slotless units - allowable in formations?

[Quixus]

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.

That impression is correct:

If the Army List Entry states that it can be included in an army that includes another specified unit, and that it does not take up a Force Organisation slot, it must join the same Detachment as that specified unit.

Additionally the rulebook has this to say about Formations:

Instead of including a Force Organisation chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain.

The rules about slotless units allow them to be taken in any detachment (this includes Formations) even if no slots of the appropriate Battlefield Role exist. The question is whether this includes the situation that no slots exist at all.

 

This is the ambiguity of the main rulebook. The problem is made worse by the rulebook being overwritten by the codices and all the rules being permissive. IIRC all Formations are in codices or codex supplements. As such they overwrite the main rules.

Formation Composition: This section shows the number and type of units that make up the Formation.

Being a permissive ruleset, this excludes the addition of Lone Wolves in Formations.

 

What's bad about this is that it also prohibits taking dedicated transports if they are not listed in the formation. so no Transport for the Void Claws etc.

[FenrisWolf]

So in the case of Lone Wolves, if you have another detachment, they could go in that. If your army is solely formed from Formations, you would not be able to take one.

[Rift Blade]

That's the way I see it. 

[FenrisWolf]

I still think this would need a FAQ ruling from GW.

[Quixus]

So in the case of Lone Wolves, if you have another detachment, they could go in that. If your army is solely formed from Formations, you would not be able to take one.

No, as I quoted earlier, the lone wolf must go in the detachment that contains the unit that enabled taking it. So if you use the WGTDA from the Shieldbrothers/Voidclaws formation to get a Lone Wolf, that lone wolf would have to go into the formation, but it can't (not listed as a unit making up the formation).

[FenrisWolf]

Quixus, if I understand your reading of this, you can't get a Lone Wolf from a unit of WG that is in a formation as the Lone Wolf would have to go in the formation, and it can't.

[skeletoro]

Yep that seems to be a common interpretation. I can understand the thinking behind it but there's an inferential leap to go from 'comprised of specific units' to the conclusion that a formation can never be expanded on in any way, even if a different rule specifically allows you to do so.

 

This ruleset is apparently permissive, so here's how I would parse it as a permissive ruleset.

 

1. You get specific units in the formation. Unless some other rule gave you permission to expand upon those units, you can't... because nothing says you can!

2. The slot less units rules do specifically allow you to do this. So the formation is specifically comprised of a bunch of units, and can be expanded upon in one prescribed manner (slot less units).

 

This may not be the intent.

 

And it's going to lead to weird unfluffiness occasionally. E.g. why on earth is that Lone Wolf participating in a SHIELD WALL of all things???

[Freman Bloodglaive]

The Lone Wolf can't participate because he's a pack of one, he cannot join units, he cannot be joined by another unit (like an independent character).

 

Void Claws always deploy by deep strike, there's no reason why they'd want a dedicated transport and their formation does not allow them to take one.

 

I'm in the camp that says a formation is a formation. You take exactly what is described in its entry, nothing more and nothing less.

 

That's not to say that a unit in a formation, if its equipment isn't specified, can't take additional equipment. The Rune Priest in Grimnar's War Council for example could take a bike, and the Iron Priest could take a bike or a thunderwolf. Njal can still choose between runic and terminator armour.

 

Arjac's Shieldbrothers must take a Land Raider Crusader, although it doesn't demand that they must be deployed inside the tank meaning they don't have a limit on their unit size. The Wolf Guard squad in the Thunderstrike formation must be ten strong and take a Drop Pod, but the Wolf Guard Terminator squad size isn't specified.

 

A Lone Wolf can't be part of the formation, but I'm in agreement that each Wolf Guard unit, even those in formations, allows you to take one in your army.

[skeletoro]

Obviously you're welcome to play it how you want, and i'd probably play it similarly. But the whole reason I started this thread was to figure out what the rules say. Not so much what they should say.

 

Assuming you could put the Lone Wolf in the formation, being a pack of one wouldn't prevent the shield wall from benefiting him because there is no requirement that he join the unit to benefit from it, merely that he be in b2b with another model from the formation.

[Quixus]

Quixus, if I understand your reading of this, you can't get a Lone Wolf from a unit of WG that is in a formation as the Lone Wolf would have to go in the formation, and it can't.

Exactly.

 

 

Yep that seems to be a common interpretation. I can understand the thinking behind it but there's an inferential leap to go from 'comprised of specific units' to the conclusion that a formation can never be expanded on in any way, even if a different rule specifically allows you to do so.

 

This ruleset is apparently permissive, so here's how I would parse it as a permissive ruleset.

 

1. You get specific units in the formation. Unless some other rule gave you permission to expand upon those units, you can't... because nothing says you can!

2. The slot less units rules do specifically allow you to do this. So the formation is specifically comprised of a bunch of units, and can be expanded upon in one prescribed manner (slot less units).

You forget part three. Champions of Fenris says that each formation gives a list of units that make up the formation. This rule overwrites the previous two. Thus a lone wolf (whether slotless or not), is not in any list of the formations presented in CoF. A grouping of Arjac, WG hammernators, a Land Raider Crusader, and a Lone Wolf would not be made up as the 'Arjac's Shieldbrothers' formations. Thus it cannot be that formation.

[skeletoro]

I'm assuming you're saying it overwrites it because it's in a codex?

 

The thing is, I don't think language along the lines of 'this is what units make up the formation' contradicts the slot-less rules in the BRB. It's consistent with it at least under the reading I favour.

 

Not that I view the following as a knock down argument or anything, but are there even any cases where a slot-less unit might be taken as part of a detachment, which has 'no slot for their battlefield role', but is not a formation? I can't think of one but perhaps one exists... anyone?

 

Off the top of my head, maybe Cypher in an imperial knights detachment is one example?

[Quixus]

I'm assuming you're saying it overwrites it because it's in a codex?

Yes.

 

The thing is, I don't think language along the lines of 'this is what units make up the formation' contradicts the slot-less rules in the BRB. It's consistent with it at least under the reading I favour.

If Formation=A+B, then a formation is only equal A+B+C if C=0. CoF even goes as far as saying that the formation has a specific number of units. So the "Arjac's Shieldbrothers formation" is made up of 3 units, adding a Lone wolf wouldf brting that number to 4. So such a grouping cannot be the aforementioned Formation.

 

Not that I view the following as a knock down argument or anything, but are there even any cases where a slot-less unit might be taken as part of a detachment, which has 'no slot for their battlefield role', but is not a formation? I can't think of one but perhaps one exists... anyone?

Whether such a situation is possible or not has no bearing on the rule. The rule could exist for future publications.

 

Off the top of my head, maybe Cypher in an imperial knights detachment is one example?

Yes. That is one such situation. Any non-elites slotless unit in an Inquisitorial detachment would be another one.

[skeletoro]

But it doesn't say the formation is strictly limited to those units. It uses much looser language than that.

 

"consists" just means that it's made up of those units. "specific units" just means that the composition of the formation is set out in terms of particular Army List Entries (rather than Battlefield Roles).

 

But that language doesn't imply that the formation couldn't be expanded on by another rule that specifically allows it. It doesn't explicitly say that a formation is necessarily (I.e. there's no way it could ever be different) made up that way. Merely that that's how it's made up.

 

A happy meal consists of specific items - drink, fries, burger (forget about nuggets for the sake of the example). Another menu item lets you swap out fries for salad. But hang on, the menu says happy meals specifically consist of fries, drink and burger! Does this mean the trade cannot be made? No. Does this mean the salad is not part of the happy meal? No. Does this mean it's no longer a happy meal? Not really - it's just an atypical happy meal, that's all. If the menu said that happy meals 'necessarily consist of' those three things, or that they 'can only ever contain' those three things, then that would overrule the option to make a trade. But 'specifically contains' doesn't convey the same meaning and doesn't explicitly contradict the other menu item.

 

By analogy, very similar reasoning could be applied to the formation and slot less unit case. Yes, the formation specifically consists of a particular unit. But it doesn't say it necessarily consists of it, or that it can only ever consist of it. Those stronger assertions are not made. So when a rule explicitly allows a unit to be added to any formation even if that formation lacks a relevant FOC slot, that allowance is not contradicted by the 'specifically consists' verbiage. The Lone Wolf would be part of the (atypical) WG Void Claw formation. The rule allowed you to change the formation (it's now A+B+C, and not A+B ), and although the formation has a specific unit makeup the rules simply do not state that this makeup cannot be changed (where other rules allow).

 

I am not saying that this is what GW intended. But it is a perfectly reasonable reading of the rules in question. GW needs to be clearer about exactly what 'specific units' and 'consists of' means to them and specifically, whether this unit makeup is necessarily or merely contingently (i.e. provided no other rules allow you to change it) true.

[Grimtooth]

A more accurate scenario would be that if you ordered a Happy Meal, you got a free salad. However, no matter what, that salad will never be part of the Happy Meal because as you stated the Happy Meal specifically consists of a hamburger, fries, and drink. And if someone were to ask you to bring them a Happy Meal, you would only be bringing them the hamburger, fries, and drink because despite being free with the purchase of a Happy Meal, the salad is not part of the Happy Meal.

[Z00Z]

I understand the semantics around the argument, however the arguing is whether the rules is inclusive or exclusive. Similar to law, some countries are based on an exclusive law principle, i.e. what you not allowed to do, whereas others are inclusive, 'these are you rights'. 

 

For me we cannot apply a the inclusion/exclusion when it suits us to. BRB states clearly that formations are made up of a composition of specific units. As an expression of this memorable formation of specific units, you may gain specific rules to benefit the specific formation. The formation is made up of specific units, not to be added to or subtracted from. The specific composition of the formation is detailed in CoF, stating specifically what comprises the formation. For me, reading the rules and not applying "wiki states what a potato is, it doesnt state its not a lemon, therefore its possible its a lemon" logic. Therefore, I dont think slotless units or in fact any other IC/HQ can join the formation at all. Formations are to be taken as defined in order to gain the formation special rules. Even in a unbound army, formations still get their formation bonuses.

[skeletoro]

Thanks for the replies. I'm not really convinced by them, but I am not sure there's much point continuing the back and forth ad infinitum. I submitted a FAQ request to GW a couple of days ago, so here's hoping they'll address it. I'll be happy if they clarify it regardless of which way they rule. I just want clarity.

[tylerw]

A more accurate scenario would be that if you ordered a Happy Meal, you got a free salad. However, no matter what, that salad will never be part of the Happy Meal because as you stated the Happy Meal specifically consists of a hamburger, fries, and drink. And if someone were to ask you to bring them a Happy Meal, you would only be bringing them the hamburger, fries, and drink because despite being free with the purchase of a Happy Meal, the salad is not part of the Happy Meal.

The thing is, you may have some people who ask you to bring them a Happy Meal and expected the free salad with it, which is why this is being debated - it doesn't seem like there's enough upside to many of the formations to think they'd also have the downside of them not giving you that "free" LW slot.

The way I read it would be you probably don't get it RAW, but I also don't think the RAW are explicit enough that you don't get it to be sure that that was GW's intent, so... I can see either side feeling fine about being "right," about this.

[skeletoro]

yeah, just to be clear my argument is that RAW probably does technically allow this, though it's fairly cheesy, somewhat nitpicky and probably going against the intended rules. But I'd like it to be clarified by GW. I mean... I would have no qualms about so much in a pick up game. fielding formation LWs in a tournament if the TO allowed it. I mean, you're playing to win. Not gonna pull this kinda crap in a pickup game with a stranger. At least, not unless GW clarifies that its ok.

[Grimtooth]

So by this argument presented, the Krom formation in the Sanctus Reach box can be joined by a Lone Wolf, Arjac, and Lukas?

[skeletoro]

Yes, by that same argument.

But even that'd not as ridiculous as a Lone Wolf who participates in a shield wall

[FenrisWolf]

The happy meal with a free salad has one problem with it as an analogy.  According to the rules the salad has to belong to some meal.  So if it's not in the happy meal, where is it?  Is it a new detachment of one (i.e. in it's own bag)? That contradicts the rule that says the free salad has to be with the meal you got it with...

[skeletoro]

That's why I went with a slightly different Analogy. Heh.