Formation and Command Squads

[Quixus]

With all that in mind, could you take a librarius conclave formation AND a combined arms detachment with 1 hq, and run 3 command squads because there are 4hq selections in your entire army?

No, the command squads would make the army unbound. Each command squad must be part of the detachment that contains the unit that enabled it. The command squads cannot be part of the formation or the CAD. So the army is unbound.

[DarkAngeal]

 

With all that in mind, could you take a librarius conclave formation AND a combined arms detachment with 1 hq, and run 3 command squads because there are 4hq selections in your entire army?

No, the command squads would make the army unbound. Each command squad must be part of the detachment that contains the unit that enabled it. The command squads cannot be part of the formation or the CAD. So the army is unbound.

 

"For each HQ choice in your army..." Doesn't that mean that if you have 2 HQ in one detachment and 3 in another it would give you a maximum of 5?

[ShinyRhino]

 

 

With all that in mind, could you take a librarius conclave formation AND a combined arms detachment with 1 hq, and run 3 command squads because there are 4hq selections in your entire army?

No, the command squads would make the army unbound. Each command squad must be part of the detachment that contains the unit that enabled it. The command squads cannot be part of the formation or the CAD. So the army is unbound.

 

"For each HQ choice in your army..." Doesn't that mean that if you have 2 HQ in one detachment and 3 in another it would give you a maximum of 5?

 

 

He's not saying you can't take five. He's saying that the army would be Unbound, because those Command Squads would not belong to a proper CAD. If three of the five HQs in your force are in a Formation detachment, how are the units the supposedly unlock slotted into a completely different detachment?

[Quixus]

What ShinyRhino said.

[Kristoff]

Let's say a formation lists as the units it is comprised of as 1 A, 2 B. How can then unit C be part of the formation if it is not listed in the formation? A foramtion is a grouping of specific units. No matter how or why C is purchased it is not on the list so it is not part of the formation.

And where is this the rule which exempts these after-purchase units? It gives a specific list, yes, but unless specificly restricted, the options in the codex are still available. Formations are not a blanket level of exclusion.

 

Unless they are listed in the Formation a dedicated transport cannot be purchased as part of the formation. It is a separate unit no matter whether is occupies a FOC slot or not. If the transport is purchased for a unit from a formation, the army is unbound.

Prove it. Where does it specifically state that these extra unit options are excluded?

 

Side note: look at the Arjac's Shieldbrothers Formation. The Land Raider is listed as a unit of the formation and the restriction section makes clear that the Land Raider is the Hammernators' dedicated transport. Now compare that to the Void Claws Formation. It does not mention a Land Raider at all even though this formation also includes a unit of WGTDA that can purchase a Land Raider as dedicated transport.

A poor example. It is still not proof. Listing an included Transport as another's Dedicated Transport only prevents the unit from taking a different Dedicated Transport and another unit from deploying in it.

 

Still not very good proof of a negative.

 

As a counter-example, the Reclusiam Command Squad carries only 2 units in its list, the Chaplain and the Command Squad. Yet, the data sheet requires the Command Squad take a Razorback as a Dedicated Transport. Yet, going by you, this is a violation.

[ShinyRhino]

And where is this the rule which exempts these after-purchase units? It gives a specific list, yes, but unless specificly restricted, the options in the codex are still available. Formations are not a blanket level of exclusion.

I don't get your logic. Are you saying that a formation that states it consists of A, B, and C can clearly consist of A,B,C, and D, E, F, ad infinitum? If so, what is the point of a formation at all?

 

And your "Prove it." challenge is illogical. Everyone knows that 40K is a permissive rule set. "It doesn't say I can't, so I can." Is a cardinal sin in rules discussions.

[Kristoff]

 

And where is this the rule which exempts these after-purchase units? It gives a specific list, yes, but unless specificly restricted, the options in the codex are still available. Formations are not a blanket level of exclusion.

I don't get your logic. Are you saying that a formation that states it consists of A, B, and C can clearly consist of A,B,C, and D, E, F, ad infinitum? If so, what is the point of a formation at all?

 

And your "Prove it." challenge is illogical. Everyone knows that 40K is a permissive rule set. "It doesn't say I can't, so I can." Is a cardinal sin in rules discussions.

Actually, it is quite logical. See, the situation we have here is that have units that have options, and you are saying that we can't take those options because those options are also units.

 

This even after the Formation rules say nothing about disallowing those extra options (specific Formations do have those restrictions, but they are at least written as such).

 

So, again, show me where it is written than an option available to a unit is disallowed in a Formation just because it adds another unit. Prove your case that the unit list of the Formation is the complete end to what is allowed. All we have is that Formations are made up of a list of units, not that we cannot add those options of units to it.

[Quixus]

 

Let's say a formation lists as the units it is comprised of as 1 A, 2 B. How can then unit C be part of the formation if it is not listed in the formation? A foramtion is a grouping of specific units. No matter how or why C is purchased it is not on the list so it is not part of the formation.

And where is this the rule which exempts these after-purchase units? It gives a specific list, yes, but unless specificly restricted, the options in the codex are still available. Formations are not a blanket level of exclusion.

 

I never said that the option is not available for the unit in the formation. I just said that if the option is taken, the additional unit is not part of the formation detachment, because it is not on the list of the specific units of the formation. In fact it isn't part of any detachment, making the army unbound.

 

 

Unless they are listed in the Formation a dedicated transport cannot be purchased as part of the formation. It is a separate unit no matter whether is occupies a FOC slot or not. If the transport is purchased for a unit from a formation, the army is unbound.

Prove it. Where does it specifically state that these extra unit options are excluded?

 

I already did. The contents of a formation is limited to the list of unitspresented in the formations description. any unit beyond that list is not unless the rules give us permission to include it in the formation. While each HQ enables you to purchase a command squad, the rules do not give you permission to put it into a formation or that the army remains battleforged if you add it without being in any detachment.

Counter challenge, prove that this permission is given, or even better prove that any other unit not mentioned in the formation cannot be added to the formation. The command squad is no different from any other unit. Both can be added to your army, neither is mentioned in the formation's description.

 

As a counter-example, the Reclusiam Command Squad carries only 2 units in its list, the Chaplain and the Command Squad. Yet, the data sheet requires the Command Squad take a Razorback as a Dedicated Transport. Yet, going by you, this is a violation.

No this is not a violation, it is a specific and explicit exeption, codex supplement trumps rulebook. C:SM and C:DA do not allow the purchase of non-dedicated razorbacks. That's probably why the Razorback was not mentioned in the unit list. Would it have been clearer to include it there also? Yes.

[ShinyRhino]

 

 

And where is this the rule which exempts these after-purchase units? It gives a specific list, yes, but unless specificly restricted, the options in the codex are still available. Formations are not a blanket level of exclusion.

I don't get your logic. Are you saying that a formation that states it consists of A, B, and C can clearly consist of A,B,C, and D, E, F, ad infinitum? If so, what is the point of a formation at all?

 

And your "Prove it." challenge is illogical. Everyone knows that 40K is a permissive rule set. "It doesn't say I can't, so I can." Is a cardinal sin in rules discussions.

Actually, it is quite logical. See, the situation we have here is that have units that have options, and you are saying that we can't take those options because those options are also units.

 

This even after the Formation rules say nothing about disallowing those extra options (specific Formations do have those restrictions, but they are at least written as such).

 

So, again, show me where it is written than an option available to a unit is disallowed in a Formation just because it adds another unit. Prove your case that the unit list of the Formation is the complete end to what is allowed. All we have is that Formations are made up of a list of units, not that we cannot add those options of units to it.

 

 

Can you open up the Librarian and Ezekiel unit entries in the DA codex, and show me where it says "can take one command squad?"

 

You can't, because it's not there. That rule is part of the entry for the Command Squad, and the Command Squad does not exist in the Formation. You can take a Command Squad for a Librarian from the formation purely by RAW, but it cannot be part of the formation! It is a unit without a legal detachment, and therefore the army is Unbound. That's not even a problem, unless you play someplace that hates 7th Edition rules and prohibits Unbound armies.

 

Formations have NOTHING to do with FOC slots, so arguing that the Command Squad is a non-slot unit is irrelevant. Formations say it consists of A, B, and C. That's it. No more, no less.

[Kristoff]

 

And where is this the rule which exempts these after-purchase units? It gives a specific list, yes, but unless specificly restricted, the options in the codex are still available. Formations are not a blanket level of exclusion.

I never said that the option is not available for the unit in the formation. I just said that if the option is taken, the additional unit is not part of the formation detachment, because it is not on the list of the specific units of the formation. In fact it isn't part of any detachment, making the army unbound.

 

But if it is not part of the formation detachment, it is no longer an option for that unit in the Formation. Especially as we've already established that units taken "slotless" must be part of the same detachment as the unit that allowed their "slotless" purchase.

 

If it is taken outside the detachment, it is not taken as an option to those rules, but independently and on its own.

 

 

Prove it. Where does it specifically state that these extra unit options are excluded?

I already did. The contents of a formation is limited to the list of unitspresented in the formations description. any unit beyond that list is not unless the rules give us permission to include it in the formation. While each HQ enables you to purchase a command squad, the rules do not give you permission to put it into a formation or that the army remains battleforged if you add it without being in any detachment.

Counter challenge, prove that this permission is given, or even better prove that any other unit not mentioned in the formation cannot be added to the formation. The command squad is no different from any other unit. Both can be added to your army, neither is mentioned in the formation's description.

 

No you haven't. We have seen that there is a specific list of units. Granted. But nowhere does it say that their options which include other units are excluded from this list. The permission to add them to a formation is granted in the codices in which those units reside by virtue of the unit's rules as well as the rules for "slotless" units.

 

Interestingly enough, did you know by your interpretation that any Ravenwing unit that included its Landspeeder or Assault Bike would then by Unbound by your interpretation? Its true. Look up how they Combat Squad.

 

 

As a counter-example, the Reclusiam Command Squad carries only 2 units in its list, the Chaplain and the Command Squad. Yet, the data sheet requires the Command Squad take a Razorback as a Dedicated Transport. Yet, going by you, this is a violation.

No this is not a violation, it is a specific and explicit exeption, codex supplement trumps rulebook. C:SM and C:DA do not allow the purchase of non-dedicated razorbacks. That's probably why the Razorback was not mentioned in the unit list. Would it have been clearer to include it there also? Yes.

 

It is actually listed in the Restriction section, as in restricting which Dedicated Transport may be chosen. If we go by your interpretation of how Dedicated Transports work with Formations, then this Razorback is automatically violating this list. It also doesn't help that the option list inside the Formation datasheet specifically states that the Command Squad can take a Dedicated Transport.

 

Can you open up the Librarian and Ezekiel unit entries in the DA codex, and show me where it says "can take one command squad?"

 

You can't, because it's not there. That rule is part of the entry for the Command Squad, and the Command Squad does not exist in the Formation. You can take a Command Squad for a Librarian from the formation purely by RAW, but it cannot be part of the formation! It is a unit without a legal detachment, and therefore the army is Unbound. That's not even a problem, unless you play someplace that hates 7th Edition rules and prohibits Unbound armies.

 

Formations have NOTHING to do with FOC slots, so arguing that the Command Squad is a non-slot unit is irrelevant. Formations say it consists of A, B, and C. That's it. No more, no less.

I apologize, I thought you were Quixus, and so was carrying on the thought regarding Dedicated Transports was being included. Still, this is the same situation in many ways, just the permission is reversed.

 

I have not argued anything regarding FOC slots. Not once, save the part of "slotless" units being part of the detachment as the unit that bought them. However, it should be noted that while they do not use a FOC, Formations still have a Force Organization. It's that list of units. And while Formations may not use Roles to define its slots, they are still there and defined by their units, and Dedicated Transports and other "slotless" units are still part of the detachment, they just don't take up any room and are not included on the official Force Organization list.

 

Still, no one has presented any valid case that these extra unit options are expressly and explicitly forbidden.

[ShinyRhino]

I only mentioned FOC slots because a prior poster did so. Sorry, it was just an appended thought.

 

At this point, I'm not going to bother participating in the debate anymore. We're running in circles and it's not productive.

[DarkAngeal]

I agree with you guys now. I took another look at formations, and I saw that they specifically don't use a FOC. So it wouldn't matter at all if you don't use a FoC slot. Thanks for helping me through this answer, I am now satisfied with no command squads allowed.

[shandwen]

There is a complication as the DA codex says "army" (6th ed wording) rather than detachment (7th ed wording). It can quickly lead to problems if you look army wide rather then detachment by detachment.

[Quixus]

If the codex wasn't supposed to mean the whole army instead of one of the detachments in the army using Dark Angels units, the codex would refer to a detachment as it does with Belial and DWTDA as troops. Even in 6th Edition you you could have multiple detachments in a single army (two in any army and three in armies with 2000+ pts)

 

BTW has anyone wrote an email to GW about this issue? Has someone gotten a response?

[Kristoff]

There is a complication as the DA codex says "army" (6th ed wording) rather than detachment (7th ed wording). It can quickly lead to problems if you look army wide rather then detachment by detachment.

Dark Angels was the second codex of 6th. 6th introduced multiple detachments, relying mostly on the Primary and Allied Detachment names.

 

So, if they said "army" they mean "army" unless errata'd later (which it hasn't).