New formation and "kabalite warriors"

Okay... Thought about it bit more and I think that Kabalite Trueborn cannot be a kabalite Warrior. What LD value would he use? You cannot say higher as there is no rule to decide that. These two rules are not extensions of one another with spec weapons rules that can both apply and the better just extends the worse. So you have to choose to be one or another with their appropriate stats.

Thor665 wrote:

Darkgreen Pirate wrote:

The formation requires the datasheet, ergo anything I pull off that datasheet is legal by the formation requirements as long as I abide by the rules of both.

That is incorrect, actually, formations require units, not datasheets. You're confusing 'datasheet' with 'unit name' and though there are many similarities, and though your conclusion is correct, you're incorrect on that specific wording.

On this we disagree, I think I see what you are getting at; however in this regard I use the term "unit" not as a description of what I physically put on the table but as the "unit purchased and derived from" the specified datasheet. Formations *do* use datasheet terminology. I'm looking through my Codices and cannot find one that does not refer to Datasheet titles for formation structure. Can you provide me of an example of a 7th edition formation that does not use Datasheet nomenclature for its requirements? If so I would gladly accede your point.

Thor665 wrote:

Darkgreen Pirate wrote:

What I call the unit, or what the unit is called makes no difference

What a unit is called *does* make a difference, because sometimes that matters for formations. Indeed, sometimes model names also make a difference. That said, in this instance, it does not, and I agree with that.

Again I can find no proof of your assertion that unit, as you define it, nomenclature makes any difference in any of the formations I am looking at. They all refer to Datasheet titles however if you can show me an example, the point is yours.

We have muddied the waters somewhat here, ultimately the crux ( for me and others ) is this;

Kabalite trueborn are an upgrade to Kabalite warriors and as such, for purposes of the Dark Eldar formation printed in our new codex, a fielded unit of said trueborn would qualify as meeting the requirement of one of the six units needed for the formation.

reasoning-

You cannot buy Kabalite trueborn on their own, you must upgrade from Kabalite Warriors using the rules and point costs on the Kabalite Warrior Datasheet.
Kabalite warriors from the kabalite warrior datasheet as well as trueborn kabalite warriors from the same datasheet can take venoms and or raiders as transports

These two points satisfy the formation requirement, regardless of what you call the models or units in question.

aurynn wrote:

Okay... Thought about it bit more and I think that Kabalite Trueborn cannot be a kabalite Warrior. What LD value would he use? You cannot say higher as there is no rule to decide that. These two rules are not extensions of one another with spec weapons rules that can both apply and the better just extends the worse. So you have to choose to be one or another with their appropriate stats.

Clearly - you pay the points and are using one model or another depending on whether you upgrade or not.
But that doesn't mean the unit name changes, simply the model name.

I will agree that in a unit of Kabalite Warriors you can have Trueborn *or* Kabalite Warrior models - but both units of those models are still called Kabalite Warriors.

Darkgreen Pirate wrote:

On this we disagree, I think I see what you are getting at; however in this regard I use the term "unit" not as a description of what I physically put on the table but as the "unit purchased and derived from" the specified datasheet. Formations *do* use datasheet terminology. I'm looking through my Codices and cannot find one that does not refer to Datasheet titles for formation structure. Can you provide me of an example of a 7th edition formation that does not use Datasheet nomenclature for its requirements? If so I would gladly accede your point.

You're arguing something weird here.
My reverse challenge for you is to go and find me anywhere in the rules where it refers to a datasheet's name. If you agree they use datasheet terminology (which I will agree with) then the terminology they use is the unit's name (which is what I'm talking about) and which *is* often different than a model's name.

Per the way a datasheet is defined, officially they have no name beyond 'army list entry'.
We use the Unit Name to identify the datasheets - that's what that part of the datasheet is called 'unit name'. There is no such thing as a datasheet name, therefore there is no way to refer to it. Formations do tend to refer to using specific 'Army List Entry' options, and those are usually identified by the Unit Name. That's why I prefer to specify that what you're talking about is the Unit Name, nothing else, because that is the appropriate term.

Other than that we agree, except that I wish to make sure the proper term is used.

Darkgreen Pirate wrote:

Again I can find no proof of your assertion that unit, as you define it, nomenclature makes any difference in any of the formations I am looking at. They all refer to Datasheet titles however if you can show me an example, the point is yours.

Same thing again.

I would direct you to the DE codex page 68.
Each Unit has a datasheet.
Note what reference #3 is called.
It is not 'datasheet name'.
Only the name of a unit.

Thor665 wrote:

My reverse challenge for you is to go and find me anywhere in the rules where it refers to a datasheet's name. If you agree they use datasheet terminology (which I will agree with) then the terminology they use is the unit's name (which is what I'm talking about) and which *is* often different than a model's name.

Per the way a datasheet is defined, officially they have no name beyond 'army list entry'.
We use the Unit Name to identify the datasheets - that's what that part of the datasheet is called 'unit name'. There is no such thing as a datasheet name, therefore there is no way to refer to it. Formations do tend to refer to using specific 'Army List Entry' options, and those are usually identified by the Unit Name. That's why I prefer to specify that what you're talking about is the Unit Name, nothing else, because that is the appropriate term.

Other than that we agree, except that I wish to make sure the proper term is used.

This is where the confusion comes from. I see that on p.68 item 3 is listed as the name of the unit; however the first paragraph is titled Datasheet. The first sentence is "Each Dark Eldar unit has a datasheet...." The numbered listings are explaining how to read a datasheet. I don't think we are disagreeing on the importance of the datasheet, just perhaps the semantics of how to refer to it.

I put it to you we are both incorrect, and the proper term is Army List Entry.

On the Kabalite warrior datasheet it lists 12 different options, all of which are part of the Army list entry for Kabalite Warriors. This is what has caused the confusion for Aurynn and others; is a unit called Trueborn still a Kabalite? By p.68's definition it could be argued that no it isn't, you have changed the unit name. However you really haven't. It still falls under the Army list entry titled Kabalite Warrior. So again we agree Trueborn are Kabalites that upgrade from warriors.

Here is where using "Army List entry" instead of "unit" clarifies and avoids the confusion. I do not deny that the descriptor is unit name, but it is also the title of the datasheet AND the Army list entry. Reading p.97 of the codex, we see the raiding party requirements are all the exact names listed at the top of every datasheet/Army List entry (again p.68, all units have a datasheet). The formation lists the name and number of Army List entries you need to use to assemble it.  The same format can be found on p.89 of the Ork codex (it is beside me, 'natch  ) Each of these formations list datasheets/Army List entries you draw units from to fill out the formation.

If you will allow, I would further amend my definition; Any unit purchased from a datasheet forming a single Army List Entry, regardless of its new type, name, equipment, or battlefield role shall be determined to still carry the Unit name of the Army list entry it was purchased from for the purposes of filling out formations.

The only caveat I would add of course is that specific trumps general, we know how GW loves to retcon.

Sound about right?

I did use 'Army List Entry'
The correct item of reference remains the Unit Name.

Thor665 wrote:

I did use 'Army List Entry'
The correct item of reference remains the Unit Name.

Sorry Thor, again I disagree.

A unit is derived from a datasheet that provides an Army list entry. A datasheet provides either an army list entry or a formation. Formations refer to specific army list entries, show me where they refer to specific options on a units datasheet, that is, its army list entry detailing specific unit nomenclature, and again I will bow out. Until then? In my mind a unit is not a unit until it is pointed and equipped. The datasheet details an army list entry, or how to build a unit. Again, semantics.

moot however, original poster has been answered. I say tomato.

Darkgreen Pirate wrote:

show me where they refer to specific options on a units datasheet, that is, its army list entry detailing specific unit nomenclature, and again I will bow out.

You have lost me as to both what you're asking and second off how it affects what I'm saying. I thought I was with you up until this point, but I don't grok this sentence.

Okay... so you think that if a formation asked for a dreadnought, it could include a venerable dreadnought? Or better yet, if it asked for Eldar Rangers it could include Pathfinders? I think not. Both Eldar Rangers and Pathfinders are always referenced with distinction to one or the other and there is an apoc formation specifically listing "dreadnought OR venerable dreadnought", making these two distinctly separate units.

Per page 121 of the BRB - Formations request *units* which is different from models, and is also different from datasheets or Army List Entries (unless DGP is onto somethingg, which he might be as I'm not sure his point at this second - though I do still think i am correct currently).

Therefore, as long as you provide the correct unit, then you have met the requirement of the formation. As already established - the unit name Kabalite Warriors covers both Warriors, and upgrade options to Trueborn as both operate under the same unit name although they have different model names.

I am willing to look at any Formation setups or rule sets you think disprove this, but I do believe this is the correct interpretation.

Sentinels of Terra - Crusade of Thunder formation - Requirements: 1x Venerable Dreadnought, 1x Dreadnought as separate formation requirement entries. Clearly separate. Venerable dreadnought is listed under "Dreadnoughts" entry on p. 91 of SM dex. In the army roster (p. 171) it is listed exactly as Trueborn - in separate entry under "Dreadnought" headline, has different stats AND is an upgrade.

Unfortunately, that one doesn't fully work as that is a 6th edition codex that came out prior to the creation of datasheets so it is a little bit of apples and oranges there as they're using different languages.

Per page 116 of the BRB - old codices had Army List Entries (datasheets describing units) 'spread out throughout the book' and it is your job to use them all to create the correct army list entry.

Looking at the 7th edition ones built using datasheets I am not seeing any exceptions, though I will admit I don't have all of the expansion ones. But I still don't see anything in the rules to suggest I am wrong. A formation requests a unit by name, there is no unit named Trueborn, there is an upgrade option to Kabalite Warriors that changes their model name but not their unit name. It looks very legit to me.

I believe I must concede for now to the fact that unit name is the headline on the datasheet. BUT... since the formation boosts troops, I dont believe it to be RAI. This definitely needs clarification and should be brought to the attention of GW or we will get the Eldar FAQ (none). :-D

EDIT: Okay. I wrote an email to their rules-query mailbox. I dont expect an answer but maybe it will be in FAQ... :-)

aurynn wrote:

Sentinels of Terra - Crusade of Thunder formation - Requirements: 1x Venerable Dreadnought, 1x Dreadnought as separate formation requirement entries. Clearly separate. Venerable dreadnought is listed under "Dreadnoughts" entry on p. 91 of SM dex. In the army roster (p. 171) it is listed exactly as Trueborn - in separate entry under "Dreadnought" headline, has different stats AND is an upgrade.

Several problems. First, this is apoc and uses different rules than 40k.

Second, if it says it requires both:

1x Dread
and
1x Venerable Dread

That isn't saying that one isn't simply an upgrade of the other. It's just saying it requires 1 upgraded, and 1 not. It doesn't mean they aren't both dreadnoughts. I would posit that the venerable dreadnought would satisfy either the slot for dread, or venerable dread, whereas a normal dreadnought could only satisfy the former. If you were to have 2 venerable dreadnoughts, I'd say you have satisfied both requirements, so long as the other rules allow you to take 2 such upgraded dreads.

@Betray - actually, it being Apoc has nothing to do with anything, current Apoc stuff uses dataslates.

That said, it being Apoc from prior to 7th when dataslates were created *does* make a difference because it's written in a different way and thus it is difficult to assess what the change would be if it was a post 7th dataslate. Per the rulebook they gave us instruction on how to do the conversions, but the basic gist of the info is 'sort it out yourselves' so it's hard to use a pre 7th anything to explain why a post 7th thing doesn't work.

To the best of my awareness the Warrior thing is literally the first post 7th dataslate with this issue to consider - so it's a bit unique which explains the debate. That said, per the rules in the BRB for how dataslates work, and the terminology they use, RAW I do think it is clear Trueborn are legal. RAI...well, that's an opinion, I can see debating it.

I have found a regular W40K formation in Champions of Fenris that could further my argument, but... Looking at the datasheet breakdown the name of the unit is Kabalite Warriors even if they are upgraded to Trueborn. Trueborn is a name of the model, not unit and the line in the table is the model profile, not the unit. Therefore, unit made of Trueborn models is still an unit of Kabalite Warriors. Clearly said and I cannot argue differently within RAW.

Even in the Battlescribe their entry should be "Kabalite Warriors (Trueborn)" Same goes for Wyches.

Luckily the formation is utter crap IMHO, so it does not matter much. :-D

The original question was for curiosity purposes more than anything else... I will unlikely ever use it as I will never see the point in Hellions but it was more to see whether I was right in my interpretation of the rules or not.

The only thing i do not like about the formation is it's size...
I wrote a list, and i wthink i tried, in most cases to keep the points for each unit low and it still came out close to 2k points. So for regular games 1,5k-1,57k it's useless...

Just coming back to this now that I actually have my codex...

On page 68, under Formations, it very clearly states (at least in the German version) that the Formation specifies the army list entries that must be taken. Not the units. The army list entry.

Trueborn are accessed from the Kabbalite Warriors army list entry.

This seems to me now very unambiguous. And I think RAW and RAI are the same (unlike, say, the splinter racks thing).

Well spotted. Its in the English version too.

In the ipad version of the dex with the force requisition section (bloody good IMO), the trueborn are part of the kabalite warriors section. It does not even change the symbol of the unit to elite!

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Kabalite trueborn, as presented in the new codex, are not a unit in and of themselves. They are an upgrade for kabalite warriors, which makes them "Elite Kabalite Warriors" who now take an elite slot instead of a troops slot, but they're still warriors. Just elite, with little badges of pedigree that say "trueborn".

I completely agree with this statement as well as valmir's statement as per how the unit rules are written.

aurynn wrote:

Luckily the formation is utter crap IMHO, so it does not matter much. :-D

It actually offers one really good thing: The ability to advance 1 turn on the power from pain chart for our entire army.

If you stack this with the Animus Vitae and possibly Urien, Kabalite Warriors/Trueborn can actually be pretty tough, shooty, AND reliable CC units with fearless, furious charge, and FnP by turn 2 or 3.