Guard formations in Mont'ka confirmed

[Emicus]

I'm not going to to say the psykers formation is bad, but I think it may lack something compared to conclaves. Namely, wyrdvaynes can't join units, and lack the toughness to justify joining some hard core characters to them. Well, that and they can't ride bikes. I think there could be an especially fun/dramatic deny the witch role if the primaris was elevated by 15 nearby wyrdvayne. On a different note, what would justify the bullgryn formation over just using priests to get fearless? (Oh God, are they taking priests away? Nobody panic! I'm kidding, but not really. Priests are awesome for the points.)

​Nothing justifies the bullgryn formation. it's two dumb-dumb units of ogryns AND two units of bullgryns. Talk about prohibitively expensive! (550 points, not even counting the commissar). Bullgrynns are already an overpriced hard sale, tacking on tax units is just... unbelievable.

[march10k]

While the formations are not amazing this does give me some (vain?) hope that our artillery will be restored to glory in the next update. When the Guard's biggest guns roar the enemy should know the meaning terror, yet the only pieces that see any real use are Wyverns. A good unit true but hardly our mightiest of guns - my beloved Bassies crave the table and it's hard to justify these days

I think what's needed is for them to "deploy" off the table. You pay your points, you display the model, but it's not on the table. Units that are on the table call for fire. If it's a random unit with no particular expertise, you get 3D6 scatter. If it's a squad containing an officer, you get 2D6 scatter. If it's a dedicated forward observer, you get 2D6-BS. Range would be a much smaller number than now, but measured from the forward edge of your deployment zone...so 36" for bassies, 18" for medusas, 12" for bombards, whatever. Direct support tactical mortars like wyverns and griffons would still deploy as normal.

[HenricusTyranicus]

I have noticed that priests are not a part of a single formation. This is particularly disturbing to me, because I attach those priests to 15 man crusader squads. 

[Frater Cornelius]

@ March - That is a brilliant idea. Unfortunately, GW is incapable of having brilliant ideas and not using models for artillery means not selling models. So I fear GW will not do it :(

[Goonbandito]

I have noticed that priests are not a part of a single formation. This is particularly disturbing to me, because I attach those priests to 15 man crusader squads.

If you look at the RAW in the codex, it says you can take 0-3 Priests per Astra Militarum Detachment that don't take up any force org slot. Assuming that a "Cadian Detachment" falls under the banner of being an Astra Militarum detachment (ie the same way as how other supplements like Crimson Slaughter work), then you should be able to simply just add 0-3 Priests into the Cadian Battle Group Detachment. Same thing for Primaris Psykers and Enginseers, outside of the formations that require them.

[Canadian_F_H]

Wow... That sounds pretty good actually...

[marti350]

 

I have noticed that priests are not a part of a single formation. This is particularly disturbing to me, because I attach those priests to 15 man crusader squads.

If you look at the RAW in the codex, it says you can take 0-3 Priests per Astra Militarum Detachment that don't take up any force org slot. Assuming that a "Cadian Detachment" falls under the banner of being an Astra Militarum detachment (ie the same way as how other supplements like Crimson Slaughter work), then you should be able to simply just add 0-3 Priests into the Cadian Battle Group Detachment. Same thing for Primaris Psykers and Enginseers, outside of the formations that require them.

 

 

Except the cadian detachment explicitly says no unique models other than those listed here may be taken as a part of this detachment. That specific detachment rule unfortunately overrides the codex rule on priests. Which sucks. It's why I'm kitbashing a new commissar now, because with these formations I'm going to need a few more to take over for the priests

[Goonbandito]

Ministorum Priests are not unique models though.

[Emicus]

and they arent part of the (campaign) detachment. They're part of a different detachment (codex). Codex only requires AN astra militarum detachment (which the campaign out to be).

[marti350]

Ministorum Priests are not unique models though.

What would you say that restriction is referring to then?

 

Edit: although looking over the formations, I don't see Yarrick or Straken so I guess those could be two models not allowed. You may be able to make a case for priests but it will depend on your gamin groups interpretation of that rule

 

and they arent part of the (campaign) detachment. They're part of a different detachment (codex). Codex only requires AN astra militarum detachment (which the campaign out to be).

Codex isn't a detachment, it is a source. The source for the model's rules comes from a codex, the rules for organizing your models come from a detachment. This detachment says if it isn't listed you can't include it. Seems extremely cut and dry to me

[mertbl]

Agree with marti.

 

If you took a CAD and 3 priests could you attach them to squads from the formations?

[march10k]

@ March - That is a brilliant idea. Unfortunately, GW is incapable of having brilliant ideas and not using models for artillery means not selling models. So I fear GW will not do it

But if you're required to set the model on a side table in order to use it? You're right, though

Agree with marti.

If you took a CAD and 3 priests could you attach them to squads from the formations?

Yes.

[Ulrik_Ironfist]

 

Ministorum Priests are not unique models though.

What would you say that restriction is referring to then?

 

Edit: although looking over the formations, I don't see Yarrick or Straken so I guess those could be two models not allowed. You may be able to make a case for priests but it will depend on your gamin groups interpretation of that rule

 

Unique models usually refer to the Named Special Characters (like Yarrick, Straken, Pask, Creed, Kell, Harker, and the forgeworld characters). Creed, Kell, and Pask are the only Cadian Unique models, so they're allowed. Priests and Commissars and other Characters are perfectly fine (because they aren't listed as unique in their statline). By that logic Yarrick (Steel Legion) Straken (Catachan), and Sgt Harker (Catachan) can't be taken with a Cadian force.

 

 

 

and they arent part of the (campaign) detachment. They're part of a different detachment (codex). Codex only requires AN astra militarum detachment (which the campaign out to be).

Codex isn't a detachment, it is a source. The source for the model's rules comes from a codex, the rules for organizing your models come from a detachment. This detachment says if it isn't listed you can't include it. Seems extremely cut and dry to me

 

 

Well, strictly speaking the individual units in an infantry platoon aren't mentioned, and the individual units from a Militarum Tempestus platoon aren't mentioned, so can you really take them? If you follow that logic you can't, even though there is a formation that states those are formations, the units aren't listed, so... it becomes a RAI/RAW issue then. I say, let your meta read it over and decide. 

 

My argument is that you can, because when it all comes down to it, you're still having to follow the codex rules for those units in the formation right? So, if the codex says it can be included (unless it's unique and not listed in the formations), then you can include it.

 

I hope that makes sense.

[marti350]

 

 

and they arent part of the (campaign) detachment. They're part of a different detachment (codex). Codex only requires AN astra militarum detachment (which the campaign out to be).

Codex isn't a detachment, it is a source. The source for the model's rules comes from a codex, the rules for organizing your models come from a detachment. This detachment says if it isn't listed you can't include it. Seems extremely cut and dry to me

 

 

Well, strictly speaking the individual units in an infantry platoon aren't mentioned, and the individual units from a Militarum Tempestus platoon aren't mentioned, so can you really take them? If you follow that logic you can't, even though there is a formation that states those are formations, the units aren't listed, so... it becomes a RAI/RAW issue then. I say, let your meta read it over and decide. 

 

My argument is that you can, because when it all comes down to it, you're still having to follow the codex rules for those units in the formation right? So, if the codex says it can be included (unless it's unique and not listed in the formations), then you can include it.

 

I hope that makes sense.

 

 

I get where you are coming from, but it also says no datasheets other than those listed here may be included. In 7th edition every unit gets a datasheet, so that will include priests unless they get rid of them entirely (god forbid)

 

Your Infantry platoon example doesn't work though because it lists an infantry platoon and the rules for fielding one of those explicitly lay out what you can take in it. The datasheet would be the whole platoon.

[librisrouge]

Wow, that is a further hit to this since that means that you cannot even include commissars beyond what the formation requires, which is distressing because that does some serious damage to IG leadership and means that I have no reason to every play a Cadian Battle Group.

 

I'm inclined to say that the HQ auxiliaries (Primaris, Enginseers, Commissars, and Priests) can be taken in a Cadian Battle Group because their own rules just say that they're take in an IG army based on certain limitations. However, that might just be me wanting these rules to not suck. Great...another thing that needs FAQ'd.

[Ulrik_Ironfist]

 

 

 

and they arent part of the (campaign) detachment. They're part of a different detachment (codex). Codex only requires AN astra militarum detachment (which the campaign out to be).

Codex isn't a detachment, it is a source. The source for the model's rules comes from a codex, the rules for organizing your models come from a detachment. This detachment says if it isn't listed you can't include it. Seems extremely cut and dry to me

 

 

Well, strictly speaking the individual units in an infantry platoon aren't mentioned, and the individual units from a Militarum Tempestus platoon aren't mentioned, so can you really take them? If you follow that logic you can't, even though there is a formation that states those are formations, the units aren't listed, so... it becomes a RAI/RAW issue then. I say, let your meta read it over and decide. 

 

My argument is that you can, because when it all comes down to it, you're still having to follow the codex rules for those units in the formation right? So, if the codex says it can be included (unless it's unique and not listed in the formations), then you can include it.

 

I hope that makes sense.

 

 

I get where you are coming from, but it also says no datasheets other than those listed here may be included. In 7th edition every unit gets a datasheet, so that will include priests unless they get rid of them entirely (god forbid)

 

Your Infantry platoon example doesn't work though because it lists an infantry platoon and the rules for fielding one of those explicitly lay out what you can take in it. The datasheet would be the whole platoon.

 

 

I suppose you have a point. 

 

 

Wow, that is a further hit to this since that means that you cannot even include commissars beyond what the formation requires, which is distressing because that does some serious damage to IG leadership and means that I have no reason to every play a Cadian Battle Group.

 

Except that can't you purchase a commissar as a part of the platoon?

 

 

 

I'm inclined to say that the HQ auxiliaries (Primaris, Enginseers, Commissars, and Priests) can be taken in a Cadian Battle Group because their own rules just say that they're take in an IG army based on certain limitations. However, that might just be me wanting these rules to not suck. Great...another thing that needs FAQ'd.

 

I'm also inclined to agree.

[librisrouge]

Nope, Commissars are 1 in the army per command squad (PCS or CCS), similar to how priests are 0-3 per army, and have specific units they can attach to. They are not part of the platoon by themselves.