Grotesquery and dedicated transports

Actually I don't see anything that could prohibit me to take a dedicated transport for Grots in that formation. However, in some formations these options have a clear special description. Also in my Army Builder program there is no such an option to take a raider (yes, I know, it's only a software, which can contain several mistakes).
So there a seed of doubt inside of me, but I need to be 100% sure.

As I understand it, you can only have certain units in formations, no more no less. This is why other formations, the Scalpel Squadron for example, actually says it includes 2 Venoms (or whatever).
On that basis, I don't think you can add any other unit, even a Dedicated Transport.

There's nothing to stop you taking Raiders as Fast Attack choices in another Detachment and using that to transport your Grots, but I'm fairly sure you can't take them in the Formation itself.

It says 2 units of Grotesques, as a Raider is an option for a unit of Grotesques then you can have one just as you can have an Aberration etc.
Scalpel squadron etc have the Venoms in to remove the option of other transports

I'm kind of torn on this one. A unit of Grotesques has the option to select a Raider as a Dedicated Transport and I don't see anything that would prevent them from doing so in the Grotesquerie formation.

On the other hand, the Scalpel Squadron and Covenite Fleshcorp formations specify that they must include 2 Venoms/3 Raiders (respectively) and that these must be given to the specified units as Dedicated Transports.

I'm inclined to believe however that this simply means that you do not have the option not to take a dedicated transport in those formations, rather than not being able to take a dedicated transport in other formations where this is not specified in the Restrictions section.

I will happily say I'm torn on the issue too, but I do still lean the way I describe.
The option to take a transport is STILL about adding another unit to the Formation, but the Formation doesn't include it.
Its a dodgy one I'll happily say.

There are two things to my mind that would be key to this debate (and I haven't got my rulebook to hand to check them out).

1. Formation rules - do the formation rules state that a formation specifies the units that make up that formation? Dedicated transports remain as separate units from the entry that selects them and therefore if the formation rules state that they specify units I would say that supports not being able to take dedicated transports.

2. Other formation listings - I know this is an imperfect pointer, but other formations, such as the covenite fleshcorps, include transports. If they are listed as a requirement on the formation datasheet then I'd say that also leans towards not being able to take a dedicated transports unless specifically allowed by the formation rules.

It seems to me that the benefit of taking the grotesquerie is offset by not being able to have dedicated transports for them. Not that it's much of a problem, since you can just take them as FA choices anyway.

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

It seems to me that the benefit of taking the grotesquerie is offset by not being able to have dedicated transports for them. Not that it's much of a problem, since you can just take them as FA choices anyway.

But it is. If you don't want to trade Obj secured rule for RR detachment from our codex, or if you already have plans for your FA choice (eg. reaver spam).

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

1. Formation rules - do the formation rules state that a formation specifies the units that make up that formation? Dedicated transports remain as separate units from the entry that selects them and therefore if the formation rules state that they specify units I would say that supports not being able to take dedicated transports.

All it says is:
"Formations are a specific type of Detachment, each a specific grouping of units reknowned for their effectiveness on the battlefields of the 41st millennium."

SERAFF wrote:

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

It seems to me that the benefit of taking the grotesquerie is offset by not being able to have dedicated transports for them. Not that it's much of a problem, since you can just take them as FA choices anyway.

But it is. If you don't want to trade Obj secured rule for RR detachment from our codex, or if you already have plans for your FA choice (eg. reaver spam).

And therefore you have a choice to make, which is what list building is about.

@Squidmaster. That was kind of my point - if it talks about a specific grouping of units, then the formation sheet would need to specify those units. the dedicated transports are a separate unit to the squad that can take them therefore I'd say that you can't add a dedicated transport to a squad in a formation unless the formation datasheet says that you can - it's not like an aberration which is an upgrade to a unit, you're adding another unit to the formation that the datasheet doesn't specify you can take.

taking the grotesquerie as an example, and using that text - the grotesquerie is a specific grouping of units (two units of grotesques, and one unit of haemie/Urien). If those grotesques then take raiders as dedicated transports that's a very different specification (two units of grotesques, one unit of heamie/Urien, and two units of 1 raider) that isn't covered by the datasheet.

Count Adhemar wrote:

I'm inclined to believe however that this simply means that you do not have the option not to take a dedicated transport in those formations, rather than not being able to take a dedicated transport in other formations where this is not specified in the Restrictions section.

This. In my opninion, unless the restrictions or minimum requirements for a Formation specify otherwise, you can upgrade a unit in any way you wish - be it number of bodies, wargear, or transports. When it comes to army composition, I have always treated DTs as wargear, not a separate unit.
It does not become a separate unit until I either deploy its occupants outside of it, or have them disembark in-game.

DingK wrote:

It does not become a separate unit until I either deploy its occupants outside of it, or have them disembark in-game.

This is very wrong. they are two spearate units for all purposes (kill points for example, you could blow up the raider and kill all of the occupants and get two kill points despite you not having deployed them separately or disembarked them). The only difference is that they are two units that take up a single force organisation slot.

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

DingK wrote:

It does not become a separate unit until I either deploy its occupants outside of it, or have them disembark in-game.

This is very wrong. they are two spearate units for all purposes (kill points for example, you could blow up the raider and kill all of the occupants and get two kill points despite you not having deployed them separately or disembarked them). The only difference is that they are two units that take up a single force organisation slot.

Like I said, I was talking about army construction. The deployment thing may have been a slight exaggeration, I certainly don't play kill points in the cheaty way it implied.

And like you said, the unit and its transport only take up a single slot. That applies to any FOC, whether it be a CAD, an AD, or a Formation.

The point is though that formations specify the units that can be taken, and as the dedicated transport is a different unit to the squad it's taken for, i don't think you can add DT's to formations unless they're specified. (it's my opinion, but based on the phrase Squidmaster quoted above "Formations are a specific type of Detachment, each a specific grouping of units reknowned for their effectiveness on the battlefields of the 41st millennium.")

The difference is that formations don't give you force organisation slots like other detachments do (although they don't overrule the battlefield roles of the units contained within them), they specify what units you must take, and as the dedicated transport is a different unit to the squad i can't see how you can take it as part of the formation.

All the evidence we have is that dedicated transports are specified in formation datasheets (Scalpel Squadron, Fleshcorps). I can see, to a point, the argument that by specifying them you prevent other vehicles being taken instead, but there is nothing that says that's why it's done, so it is an interpretation of the rules based on trying to gain an insight into the thinking of the writer. My interpretation is based on the written text in the rulebook and codex/supplement.

Ok guys. if we take Scalpel Squadron or Fleshcorps, those venoms and raiders are not just dedicated transports, they are formation members. And Formation rules oblige us to put Wracks in transports.
If we take Kabalite Raiding party - there is also a restriction, that every unit except scourges and helions should take a ride, but you can choose which.

If we look at the Grotesquery, there are only Grotesques and a Haemy. No restrictions. So You can add more Grots, an Abberat and so on. And if you look closely at the grots' datasheet there is another OPTION right under additional liquefiers and Abberat's weapon choices - a raider.

It's by no means conclusive but many of the Blood Angel formations from the Shield of Baal supplements are pictured with Rhinos, Razorbacks etc despite them not being listed in the formation.

In addition, the Angel's Wrath Intervention Force says:

Quote :

Requirements: 3 Tactical Squads, 3 Stormraven Gunships

Restrictions: Each Tactical squad must include 10 models. The Sergeant of each Tactical squad in this Formation must take a teleport homer as a free upgrade. This Formation’s Tactical squads cannot take Dedicated Transports, and must begin the game embarked in the Stormraven Gunships from this Formation.

This certainly implies that the option was there for them to have DT's despite them not being listed in the requirements.

In addition, both the Necron and BA codexes have the following section about Formations:

Quote :

FORMATIONS
Formation datasheets are identified by this symbol. The rules for Formations can be
found in Warhammer 40,000: The Rules. A Formation datasheet will list the Army List
Entries which make up the Formation, any restrictions upon what it may include, and any
special rules the Formation’s units gain.

Note that it says Army List Entries rather than Units.

Count Adhemar wrote:

Quote :

FORMATIONS
Formation datasheets are identified by this symbol. The rules for Formations can be
found in Warhammer 40,000: The Rules. A Formation datasheet will list the Army List
Entries which make up the Formation, any restrictions upon what it may include, and any
special rules the Formation’s units gain.

Note that it says Army List Entries rather than Units.

This changes things entirely, and is why I was asking about the wording of the rules for formations - if it specified units then in my opinion there's no option to take a unit not specified (including a DT), if it talks about army list entries, then I see no reason you can't take a DT provided it's an option on that army list entry.

A dedicated transport (whilst a seperate unit for kill points, scoring, etc) is still an option for a unit. Since it's an option then it's all good to take in a formation that doesn't expressly say you have to. It's an option like any other and that option is specified in the unit listing. So for Grotesques, which have the option for a dedicated transport in the unit entry it's totally doable because there's nothing that expressly forbids it in the formation listing.

I know that the precedent is easier to find instances where the formation expressly demands a transport (scalpel squadron or the Kabalite Raiding Party) but that isn't a corollary relationship. It's simply an additional restriction on the formation. You can build a formation the same way you do a detachment.

The fact that certain Formations explicitly forbid Dedicated Transports while others make them compulsory is a clear indication to me that, outside of these particular restrictions, Dedicated Transports can be chosen just like any other options.

Dra'al Nacht wrote:

The fact that certain Formations explicitly forbid Dedicated Transports while others make them compulsory is a clear indication to me that, outside of these particular restrictions, Dedicated Transports can be chosen just like any other options.

That's pretty much my stance on this too.