The ins and outs of formations

After a long pause I have decided to get back into the game for an upcoming local tournament. Unfortunately, there have been so much releases in this past six months or so that I don't even know how the armies are supposed to be built. I wish to understand how the formations work - I am intending to use the Eldar Ghost Warriors formation (Wraithknight, two Wraithlords, three squads of Wraithguard/blades), and I have the following questions:

1) Is the formation obligated to stay together at all times, or can it scatter all across the battlefield?
2) If I take a Raider as Fast Attack choice, can I put a squad of, say, Wraithblades in it at the start of the game?
3) Likewise, can I attach a Haemonculus with a WWP to a squad of Wraithguard and then Deep Strike them in where I want some serious s4 ap2 template hurt to be applied?

Far as I can understand, there are no rules explicitly stating no to any of the three questions, but I'd still like to confirm with you guys - it's been so long and my rules-lawyering skills have heavily diminished

1) It can scatter. Each unit is entirely independent.
2) Yes
3) Yes

1) It completely depends on the formations rules. Most involve separate units which can act independently - an example being the Scalpel Squadron. These units can move independently. Others create units and say in the rules they have to act as a unit - such as the Dark Artisans. Where a formation says they act as a unit, they must stay as a single unit. Where it doesn't, the units can move and act differently.

2) Yes, you may. Battle Brothers allies (such as Eldar and Dark Eldar) may have ICs join allied units. No other level of ally can though.

3) Yep. Absolutely. Battle Brothers allies can embark upon each others vehicles, though no other level of ally may do so. (main rulebook, pg.126)

That is great to hear, thank you for the swift and precise answers! However, another question arose as I was looking over the army list: is the formation a completely separate entity from the primary detachment? The reason I ask this is that with the Iyanden supplement, I usually run my Wraithknight as the warlord, however, as he is part of the formation, I am not sure if I would be able to do it this time. Am I correct in the assumption that I will have to designate the warlord role to some HQ model from my primary detachment?

Siticus the Ancient wrote:

That is great to hear, thank you for the swift and precise answers! However, another question arose as I was looking over the army list: is the formation a completely separate entity from the primary detachment? The reason I ask this is that with the Iyanden supplement, I usually run my Wraithknight as the warlord, however, as he is part of the formation, I am not sure if I would be able to do it this time. Am I correct in the assumption that I will have to designate the warlord role to some HQ model from my primary detachment?

I'm not sure you've quite got the hang of the 'primary detachment' issue yet

The primary detachment in your army is whatever detachment your Warlord is in. That's the definition of primary detachment in 7e. This can be a formation if you wish. It cannot however be an allied detachment.

Siticus the Ancient wrote:

That is great to hear, thank you for the swift and precise answers! However, another question arose as I was looking over the army list: is the formation a completely separate entity from the primary detachment? The reason I ask this is that with the Iyanden supplement, I usually run my Wraithknight as the warlord, however, as he is part of the formation, I am not sure if I would be able to do it this time. Am I correct in the assumption that I will have to designate the warlord role to some HQ model from my primary detachment?

This is a common issue, so let's get this straight: the Primary Detachment is the one that contains your Warlord. It can be a CAD, an AD, or any kind of Formation (since a Formation is a special kind of Detachment).
I don't have the Iyanden supplement, so I don't know if the formation contains any other characters. If it does, your WK cannot be the Warlord per the BRB (it can only be a character, unless the Detachment doesn't contain any, in which case it can be any model).

DingK wrote:

Siticus the Ancient wrote:

That is great to hear, thank you for the swift and precise answers! However, another question arose as I was looking over the army list: is the formation a completely separate entity from the primary detachment? The reason I ask this is that with the Iyanden supplement, I usually run my Wraithknight as the warlord, however, as he is part of the formation, I am not sure if I would be able to do it this time. Am I correct in the assumption that I will have to designate the warlord role to some HQ model from my primary detachment?

This is a common issue, so let's get this straight: the Primary Detachment is the one that contains your Warlord. It can be a CAD, an AD, or any kind of Formation (since a Formation is a special kind of Detachment).
I don't have the Iyanden supplement, so I don't know if the formation contains any other characters. If it does, your WK cannot be the Warlord per the BRB (it can only be a character, unless the Detachment doesn't contain any, in which case it can be any model).

That's not quite true. Your Warlord cannot come from an Allied Detachment (which I assume was what you meant by AD?) and the Iyanden Codex has the Heroes of Iyanden rule which allows you to choose a Wraithlord or Wraithknight as your Warlord.

Count Adhemar wrote:

That's not quite true. Your Warlord cannot come from an Allied Detachment (which I assume was what you meant by AD?) and the Iyanden Codex has the Heroes of Iyanden rule which allows you to choose a Wraithlord or Wraithknight as your Warlord.

Supplement supersedes Codex which supersedes BRB, so good call, looks like the WK can be the Warlord in this case.

My bad on the Allied Detachment, must have missed that.

To elaborate on what Adhemar brought up:

A formation has a fixed number/type of units and/or models that makes it up. In your example you said you wanted to take the Ghost Warriors formation. In order to allow for a Raider or haemonculi to be part of this army you'd also need to take another formation that includes the desired models. So, a Real Space Raider detachment would work great.

In short, a model/unit cannot be part of more than one detachment.

Also, you'd need to use your Fast Attack slots to get an empty raider so that you could embark the models from the Eldar Faction on it.

I'm not sure if you could start the game in a Raider (with Eldar troops) and and/or a haemonculi 'cause they don't have the dedicated transport.

@Count Adhemar: Yes, the more I read about list building in 7th edition, the more confused I get! So in order for my Wraithknight to be the Warlord, the Formation needs to also be the Primary Detachment. Sadly this clashes with the tournament rules, which allows only one Combined Arms Detachment to be used, and it must be primary, so it seems I will have to designate something else from the non-Ghost Warriors eldar as the Warlord.

@Sizzly: I am well aware of the need to have a Raider as a Fast Attack choice, and the tiny Dark Eldar allied detachment aims exactly for that, consisting of a Haemonculus, five Warriors in a Venom and a Raider as the Fast Attack choice. This allows the Wraithguard squad to start in it, as it is not a dedicated transport, same way as a squad of space marines could start the game in a Land Raider that is taken as Heavy Support choice. In 7th edition, Battle Brothers can embark each other's transports, so this part works fine


Anyway, thank you for the answers guys, you cleared up my questions and made me realize how little I remember about 7th edition rules, but they're just as messy and murky as ever, it seems.

If the tourney only allows one combined arms detatchment, how're you gonna field the ghost warriors?

Sizzly wrote:

If the tourney only allows one combined arms detatchment, how're you gonna field the ghost warriors?

They come in a formation, which is not a CAD.

Fair enough. I'm just thinking about intent. Obviously there's not enough info but with many tourneys, when they say "only one CAD" they mean no formations. I'm not a fan of those kinds of restrictions.

Ah well.

Sizzly wrote:

Obviously there's not enough info but with many tourneys, when they say "only one CAD" they mean no formations.

Well, with the greatest respect to those people, they need to understand the terminology better as those two restrictions are completely different.