Akrim Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 This seems to be a subject of debate with the new Cadian Battle Group rules in Mont'ka, can they include Ministorum Priests, Primaris Pskyers or Enginseers. Each of these state in their entry "Each Astra Militarum detachment may include 0-3 (above), they do not take up a Force Org slot and do not qualify as a mandatory HQ selection". Now cross reference that with the Cadian Detachment special rules in Mont'ka (pg 50) "Detachments in your army that are chosen from Codex Astra Militarum that do not contain any unique characters ( other than Creed, Pask and Kell) can be Cadian Detachments." I read that to mean they can be included in a Cadian Battle Group. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorFish Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 A Cadian Detachment should be an Astra Militarum Imperial Guard one, even uses units from the codex right? Unfortunately the rules appear to say otherwise even if it makes no sense. It seems to be a one way street in this case. A Cadian Detachment with Priests etc would be one in name only i.e. it's a normal Guard detachment that you can call a Cadian one. Taking them in a normal Guard army isn't new so that doesn't help us. Can you move attached models between detachments? Even if that is possible (I'm not sure it is) it means you'll still have to take a normal Guard force along with your special Detachment. Maybe it's too late and I should go to bed but I can't see a way this is possible according to the rules. While it may be a petty opponent who doesn't allow your fancy new Cadian Detachments to have the advisors, that is what GW seems to want unless we get an FAQ. Which have been scarce these days... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkston Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 Looking at the book now. It seems to fall into 2 categories: "Cadian Detatchment" -Anything from codex:AM, barring non-Cadian named characters. -Allows the use of Cadian relics and warlord table "Cadian Battlegroup: -"Only datasheets listed here can be included in this detachment. No unique models other than those listed here may be taken as part of this detachment." -High Command, Battlegroup Vox-net, and Sharpshooter rules So basically you can take a regular CAD and use the Cadian warlord table and relics as long as you don't take Yarrick/Stracken/etc. If you want the actual special rules for the Cadian Battlegroup, you are limited to what is in the book. You could potentially make an argument for Enginseer/Primaris due to them being part of various formations, but definitely no-go for priests. No servitor buddies for the Enginseer though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duz_ Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 This seems to be a subject of debate with the new Cadian Battle Group rules in Mont'ka, can they include Ministorum Priests, Primaris Pskyers or Enginseers. Each of these state in their entry "Each Astra Militarum detachment may include 0-3 (above), they do not take up a Force Org slot and do not qualify as a mandatory HQ selection". Now cross reference that with the Cadian Detachment special rules in Mont'ka (pg 50) "Detachments in your army that are chosen from Codex Astra Militarum that do not contain any unique characters ( other than Creed, Pask and Kell) can be Cadian Detachments." I read that to mean they can be included in a Cadian Battle Group. Thoughts? That's how I read it Again up to your opponent or TO/FAQ. To anyone familiar with guard it seems absurd not to have access to such crucial elements such as priests and commissars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
march10k Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 Only datasheets listed here can be included in this detachment Seems pretty straightforward to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akrim Posted December 11, 2015 Author Share Posted December 11, 2015 Only datasheets listed here can be included in this detachment Seems pretty straightforward to me... It would be, but there are no "data sheets" for Command Squads and a bunch of other things in Cadian Battle Group too. Going by that wording we couldn't include those either and invalidates the detachment as a whole. I can only assume a new codex will be along shortly to clean this up (hopefully). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duz_ Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 Yes but the datasheets are formation detachments. Which is where the chicken and egg interpretation begins. All formations are detachments The codex says any detachment for psykers and priests and for commissars says when ever you have a ccs/pcs you can take 1 per squad. This is where being grown ups and agreeing on it or rolling for it really begins until their is a clarification from GW (insert sniggers here) or from an event organizer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HenricusTyranicus Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 Maybe in the new codex these specialists will be moved to the platoon section, so they went with a wording vague enough to be taken multiple ways until then. TBH, though, I don't think it'll be a huge difference, as I don't see a ton of people going full battlegroup without a CAD either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akrim Posted December 11, 2015 Author Share Posted December 11, 2015 This is true, with the absence of Obsec on the Emperors Shield platoons I'm don't know if Battle Group is really worth it. CAD with formation detachments is probably still best. Do you figure AM Infantry Platoons as Auxiliaries don't have ObSec either? Again without a data slate I guess there's no definite answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulrik_Ironfist Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 The Cadian Battlegroup seems a bit more like a ham-fisted attempt to get us to buy the models they want us to buy. Granted some of the formations are nice, I particularly like the Emperor's Spear, and the Emperor's talon, but that's more because it fits my fluff rather than any tangible benefit, that and I really like sentinels for some reason (I'm beginning to think more about allying in my Space wolves to take dreads, as a dread is better and has more versatile weapons, like assault cannons). The benefits the cadian battlegroup gives you are good, but the detachment is all but unusable below 1000 points. It's not competitive, seeing as it forces you to take either blobs of infantry, or forces you to take tons of tanks, either of which at 1000 points is not viable. It's really an apoc level detachment. I just wish they had included datasheets for the command squad, MT platoon, Infantry platoon, and Superheavy support element. That would have allowed other players to make use of stuff more easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vel'Cona Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 With the full Emperor's Shield Infantry Company clocking in at 170 infantry models (and 3 Sentinels), ham-fisted is probably the most apt word for that Formation. Considering current GW prices, even with a distributor discount of 20% that's still over 500 bucks in models before you even look at the Auxiliary options. From a purely gameplay/competitive standpoint, the overall Cadian Battle Group isn't useless @ 2k or less, as you can easily get a more reasonable Armoured Company as your Core and slot in an Auxiliary or two for around 1700-2000 points. The special rules gained are pretty nice overall, though without knowing more about how Orders are changing it's hard to value them appropriately. In either case, the ObjSec question is a very real issue that I'm not sure the CBG can overcome without leaning heavily on the Assault Platoon (which, to be fair, is a pretty solid Formation IMO). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulrik_Ironfist Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 Stumbled on what could be a good core formation for the codex: 1 CCS 1-3 Emperor's Shield Infantry Platoons 1-3 Veteran Squads Minimum it clocks in at 435 points. Not a bad core formation really. Versatile given what vets can do and what an infantry platoon can offer. I just need 2 more infantry squads, and some more veterans and off I go. Just keep the Infantry Company rules and it's fine. GW gets what they want, selling more infantry squad boxes, and we get what we want, a playable formation. If that had been the infantry core they had given us, I can see a lot more guard players being happy with the Mont'Ka book. We don't really need to take primaris psykers in our platoons or command squads anymore, given that we have the Psykana Division, but being able to take priests and commissars would be nice. Though an argument can be made for taking commissars. The formations are fine, but the Detachment leaves something to be desired. Although the battlegroup need only consist of the Battlegroup Command. Food for thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.