Wait, Dark Artisan allows you to combine two UNITS, Not Models.

So, I was looking at the Dark Artisan formation, and the explanation for formation datasheets. In the dark artisan formation, it's FUNCTIONALLY saying you have to take the following:

1 Haemonculus
1 UNIT of Talos
1 UNIT of Cronos

EDIT: TO COME TO THIS CONCLUSION, YOU MUST LOOK AT THE BREAKDOWN FOR A FORMATION DATASHEET AT THE BEGINNING OF THE FORMATION SECTION! DONT SKIP THIS STEP!
It goes on to say that all UNITS in this formation must act as a single unit. I originally read this as to say a single haemonculus MODEL, along with 1 cronos MODEL, and 1 talos MODEL. But as far as I can tell, that is incorrect. Anyone else previously make that assumption? This changes things tremendously.

So, this formation would apparently let you create a unit as such:

1 Haemonculus w/ WWP, Scissorhand, Panacea Perverted, Nightmare Doll, Vexator Mask
3 Talos w/ Ichor injectors & Twin-Linked Heat Lances(Weapon skill 6/Ballistic Skill 4)
1 Cronos w/ spirit probe.(WS/BS 4)
TOTAL: 710 points

This would mean, if deep striking this unit, you'd arrive without scattering on turn 2. The Haemonculus would have feel no pain 3+, while the rest of the unit would have FnP 4+(reroll if failed) on top of their 3+ armor saves. Majority toughness 7, with 15 wounds. Basically nothing would want to charge this unit, so you can expect that everything near it would move away. This would allow the possibility of multi-assaulting. You basically guarantee that this unit gets to hold whatever the most important objective is in an objective-based game without contestation. Further, their freakish spectacle bubble would probably be the easiest to use effectively, simply due to them being able to be placed wherever you want with WWP, and their insane surviveability.

Well I'm surprised I'm the one breaking this to you but my copy of the coven supplement doesn't say one unit of... It simply says 1 Haemonculus, 1 Talos, 1 Cronos. So sorry about this but no we can't take additional Talos models. It's specifically a unit of one. Take a look at the CorpseThief Claw for an example of 1 unit of Talos.

My book also doesn't say units.

Are you using a print or digital copy?

Thor665 wrote:

My book also doesn't say units.

Are you using a print or digital copy?

It's the digital copy(ebook version). And here is how it breaks down:

At the beginning of the formations section, it gives you the breakdown of the formation datasheet:

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

6. Formation Restrictions: This section details specific unit sizes, equipment, transport
options and any further restrictions that you may be required to adhere to in order to
include the Formation in your army.

Then, if you look at the specific datasheet for the formation, it says:

Formation(Composition):
Haemonculus
Talos
Cronos

Formation Restrictions: NONE

If you turn to the datasheet for the Talos and Cronos in the codex, the unit name is "Talos" and "Cronos". Since the datasheet breakdown for formations in the supplement says that the formation specifically calls for UNITS and not MODELS, it would count as requiring a unit of Talos/Cronos.

Further, the breakdown specifically indicates that if you're limited to a certain number of models in a unit, it should be detailed in the "formation restrictions" section, which it is not. It actually specifies that there are "none" in regard to model number restrictions on the units in this formation.

After looking through the other formations, I noted that pretty much every other one says "A unit of" prior to requiring the unit. It's possible that with the codex and the supplement being written at the same time, the person writing the supplement simply didn't know, or failed to recall that Talos come in units now.

Either way, RAW, it looks like you can take a unit.

Thoughts? I'd be interested in hearing back from you Thor, once you've had a chance to look up the passages I cited.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

After looking through the other formations, I noted that pretty much every other one says "A unit of" prior to requiring the unit. It's possible that with the codex and the supplement being written at the same time, the person writing the supplement simply didn't know, or failed to recall that Talos come in units now.

Either way, RAW, it looks like you can take a unit.

Thoughts? I'd be interested in hearing back from you Thor, once you've had a chance to look up the passages I cited.

I see what you are arguing, but I think you're going to have a hard time getting a tournament organizer or opponent to play against it when it is pretty clear what is intended(IMO).

Given that all of the other formations in the supplement list "_ units of _____", it is pretty safe to assume that it was intended that the formation was intended to have a single Talos and single Cronos in the unit. Looking at the Corpsethief Claw it lists "Formation: One unit of Talos"
I see the semantic argument that you are presenting RAW, but it's pretty safe to assume that it was intended to include a Haemonculus, single Talos, single Cronos.

Besides, having played it I can tell you that you certainly don't need more beef in that formation

Evil Space Elves wrote:

I see what you are arguing, but I think you're going to have a hard time getting a tournament organizer or opponent to play against it when it is pretty clear what is intended(IMO).

When I started looking through it again, I felt the same way you do, as I saw that other units listed "A unit of" before their listing. But as I said in the prior post, it's possible that part of the supplement was written before cronos and talos were allowed to be taken in a unit in the main codex. It's possible that the IDEA for allowing cronos and talos to be taken in units of up to 3 was gained FROM the 5 unit Talos formation in the supplement. It could have been a last minute change, which would make sense for the oversight in the wording. But all of that is conjecture. We have no idea of their intent. We can only work with what we have.

So, yes, I can see how it's certainly possible to believe that the INTENT was to take single models. But all of the ACTUAL rules indicate that you can take more than 1 of each model. I think if I pointed out the wording to a TO, they'd be hard pressed to tell me I couldn't take them. It's rare that good TO's will run with intent, as intent is a slippery slope.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

So, I was looking at the Dark Artisan formation, and the explanation for formation datasheets. In the dark artisan formation, it's saying you have to take the following:

1 Haemonculus
1 UNIT of Talos
1 UNIT of Cronos

Ah okay, I thought you were actually saying it said what you wrote here.
I see the rule argument, I suppose see how local TOs treat it.

Isn't assuming that there was an oversight and that this formation was written prior to Talos being taken in units of 1-3 stretching a bit/getting into some serious semantic gymnastics? A simpler explanation with less moving parts would be take it as written, though logic and consistency have never been GW's strong suit. To play Devil's advocate, if the wrack formations said to take "One Wrack" it wouldn't make sense as they run in units of 5-10, and can't be legally purchased in units of one model whereas the Talos and Cronos most certainly can be fielded as 1 Talos or 1 Cronos.

Evil Space Elves wrote:

A simpler explanation with less moving parts would be take it as written,

See, this is where communication breaks down, as I feel that I AM taking it as written, but apparently you do too, even though your original explanation included the word "Intent".

The rules, as they are written in the book, allow you to take more than 1 model. You have to look at the breakdown for the datasheet, which lays out the format all datasheets are to follow. If you're saying that it's a failure on the part of GW writers, and that the format of the datasheet isn't "correct" based on their intention, we may be in agreement. But the fact remains: the rules say you can take more than 1 model per unit.

Example:

Here are the instructions: Put the name of the unit in section #1. Put any restrictions to the number of models in the unit in section #2.

GW Says:

#1: Talos
#2: No Restrictions

The red text above is EXACTLY what GW did in the book. They said they'd put the name of the unit in a section, then put any restrictions to the number of models in that unit in another section. So, they put the name of the unit in the right section. But then, not only did they NOT put any restrictions on the number of models in the "Restrictions" section, but they went further and said, "There aren't any restrictions"[on unit sizes, equipment, or transport options].

The restrictions section is specifically DEFINED as "This section details specific unit sizes, equipment, transport options and any further restrictions that you may be required to adhere to"

Then they say, "NO RESTRICTIONS".

This is actually similar to the Trueborn being an upgrade of Kabalite Warriors issue, being that it is all based on the way datasheets are set up.

Well, my print copy says:

1 Haemonculus
1 Talos
1 Cronos

Every other example of Formations also specifically says "x units of y". No idea why the digital version is different but I don't think I'd try what you're suggesting.

Count Adhemar wrote:

Well, my print copy says:

1 Haemonculus
1 Talos
1 Cronos

Every other example of Formations also specifically says "x units of y". No idea why the digital version is different but I don't think I'd try what you're suggesting.

The digital copy says the exact same thing, i don't see how one could interpret it as units of cronos / talos. For reference, see Corpsethief Claw and Scarlet Epicureans for what is intended concerning unit size.

Grotesquerie:
2 units of Grotesques

Scarlet Epicureans:
1 Cronos
2 units of Wracks

Corpsethief Claw:
1 unit of Talos

Dark Artisan:
1 Talos
1 Cronos

Cant see the issue. The difference between "1" and "unit" is clear as day.

Given that the previous page has a formation that calls for "1 unit of Talos," I'm pretty sure that when this formation says, "1 Talos," it actually means, "1 Talos."

Klaivex Charondyr wrote:

Scarlet Epicureans:
1 Cronos
2 units of Wracks

I don't have the Supplement, so I'm curious how the "1 Cronos" in this formation is taken?

It seems like the last 6 people in this topic didn't even read the thread, they just looked in the book.

If you look in the book, ((I NOW HAVE BOTH COPIES!!!!!!!!!! ITS NOT A DIGITAL ISSUE!!!!!!!!!!)), you need to look at the breakdown for the formation datasheet at the beginning of the formation section.

Everyone who responded without doing so first is skipping the most important step, and doing themselves a disservice.

Ive read it through and i agree it seems like i can take a unit of each, hell my first game in covens i used it like that. honestly it needs an faq its not proven in any one way its just unclear, ask your friends if they are cool with it and run it that way for now.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

It seems like the last 6 people in this topic didn't even read the thread, they just looked in the book.

If you look in the book, ((I NOW HAVE BOTH COPIES!!!!!!!!!! ITS NOT A DIGITAL ISSUE!!!!!!!!!!)), you need to look at the breakdown for the formation datasheet at the beginning of the formation section.

Everyone who responded without doing so first is skipping the most important step, and doing themselves a disservice.

Actually I did. I just dont really feel like abusing a word is what the game should be about. Especially if they went the route to tell you if they want to be "1" or "a unit" to be considered as "a unit".

Rare as it may be, I am with Chardonyr. Corpsethief clearly specifies "1 unit of Talos". Therefore Dark Artisan's "1 Talos" means 1 model in my opinion.

aurynn wrote:

Rare as it may be, I am with Chardonyr. Corpsethief clearly specifies "1 unit of Talos". Therefore Dark Artisan's "1 Talos" means 1 model in my opinion.

But it specifically says otherwise in the layout section. So specifically says > indirectly inferred.

Yes, I have read the datasheet breakdown. Its a general breakdown that someone didnt just check for possible misinterpretations in relation to these formations.

All formations are written off of this layout, not the other way around. So if there is an error, it's on the datasheet. But regardless, following the accepted formation datasheet format for warhammer 40k, it says you may take units of talos and chronos.

Rules as written. Not arguing intent, here.

I was asked to comment in this thread as opposed to just doing the quick sign off I did. I guess I'm okay with that. I see and understand Betray's stance and believe it can be argued - but it will not be argued by me, because I think it is wrong.

It was said to me that this was similar to my Trueborn/Warrior call a week or two ago. It is not the same as the Trueborn/Warrior question, because in that setup they still specifically cited 'units' of Warriors on the datasheet - something they are not obligated to do by the wording of their own explanation of the datasheets but something they clearly do, in fact, do, and hav for all relevant 7th edition examples I can find.

Also, note that for all single models they do *not* specify 'units' and instead say 1 Haem or 1 Archon, or 1 'whatever'.

@Betray - by your claimed belief in how the formations are listed (and believe me, I understand your stance) they would *not* need to put the '1' there because...well, just the unit name would suffice.

So, theoretically the correct listing would be;
Haem
Talos
Cronos

Instead they opted for;
1 Haem
1 Talos
1 Cronos

Why?

I think the '1' is a specific distinction with meaning and does not support the concept of '1 unit' as opposed to '1 model of the named unit'. I believe they are using that as a specific limiter.

That all said.
RAW - I would not care to try to argue it wrong. It can easily be argued right.
I don't think it's what they meant, and think it's a rule exploit, but if I thought it was tourney winning and wanted to go to a tournament with it I would feel able to argue it.
That said, there is literally no other occurrence of them referring to a datasheet able to be taken as a unit without calling it a 'unit of X'. except for Codex: Gray Knights which has those units called Squads as part of their name.

For the record, I also think the splinter rack exploit could be argued - I don't think it's right either.

The way I see it, the Kabalite Warriors issue is different because it is based on general understanding of datasheet buildup, which I think will become true and intentional if FAQed as it is the same throughout dexes.

Opposed to this formation issue, where one formation specifically lists 1 unit of Talos and second lists 1 Talos. Indicating there IS a difference. The only difference possible is 1 unit vs. 1 model. That is the deciding factor for me. But I do agree that it CAN be argued. As could be the other side of the issue.

I'll agree that the wording is muddy, and I think the comparison to the splinter racks issue is apt.

The rules state that a unit can be comprised of a single model (at the end of the definition of units on page 9), so the singular "1 Talos" does fit within the wording of the Formation Composition definition. The word "unit" is being used in the Formation Compositions to indicate pluralities (since as has been argued, its presence as a game term has been rendered irrelevant by the Datasheets breakdown); the only way the Formation's requirement of a singular "1 Talos" can be met is with a single Talos.

There's a ton of problems here, not the least of which being that the plural form of "Talos" is "Talos." I agree that there's a case to be made for "1 Talos" meaning "possibly many Talos, grouped together," though I think it involves some semantic gymnastics. But I also want to be someone who people want to play games with, so, like the splinter racks exploit, I would never argue for this.

BetrayTheWorld asked me to take another look at this but I haven't changed my opinion.

In every single instance in the Covens supplement, where a unit of (potentially) more than one model is mentioned it is prefaced by the words "unit of". Indeed, if you look at the Scarlet Epicureans you see 1 Haemonculus, 1 Cronos, 2 units of Wracks. So within the same formation we see both forms of unit choices.

If further proof is needed however, we simply look at the Corpsethief Claw formation, where it says 1 unit of Talos. I don't believe that we can start telling ourselves that "1 Talos" and "1 unit of Talos" means the same thing, particularly when, unusually for Games Workshop, the rules are written consistently in exactly the same fashion throughout the rulebook.

I'm sorry to say that, in my opinion, 1 does indeed mean 1.