Question about game vs. Firespear

This past weekend, at a local tourney, I played against a marine player whose army consisted of 3 formations: A Skyhammer Annihilation Force, A Librarius Conclave, and a Firespear Strike Force. The clock was ticking, and I'm not familiar with these formations (oddly enough, I haven't played vs. vanilla marines in a long time), so I just assumed that the guy had built his list properly. I lost the game by one point.

After looking at the actual dataslates for these formations, I noticed two things:
1) My opponent brought 3 venerable dreadnoughts in his firespear strike force. According to the dataslate, there is only 1 ven dread per formation.
2) My opponent brought an aegis defence line, and there were no CADs in this army, and thus, presumably no room for fortifications (the tourney did not allow unbound, and no more than three formations/detachments were allowed in any army).

So, am I missing something here, or did I get seriously cheated in this game?

1 unit of dreadnoughts can include up to 3 dreadnoughts.

I'd have to see his entire list. It's possible that he ran a Gladius strike force that included the librarius conclave, which wouldn't have violated the 3 detachments rule, because a librarius conclave is considered part of the parent detachment at that point instead of as an independent detachment.

I use this method all the time at tournaments with the new "decurion style" super-detachments. I often have 4-6 detachments/formations in tournaments that limit me to 3 detachments/formations due to the "super detachment" rules.

But that wouldn't explain how he got the aegis defense line, unless he also took an allied detachment or something. Maybe the firespear strike force was given permission to be a core choice for the gladius strike force? I'm really not sure without seeing a full list.

Questions like these are why all major GTs require you to bring a copy of your list for every opponent you face, plus one for the tournament organisers. If you had a printed copy of his list, you could simply reproduce it here and I could tell you without a doubt what happened.

The number of dreadnoughts for a firespear is questionable, because the wording is '1 venerable dreadnought', rather than '1 venerable dreadnought unit'. However, I think that probably deserves a FAQ - judging from a dakka thread on it that I just found, it's a hotly debated issue.

That aside, the fortification definitely seemed out of place.

I don't have a printed copy of the list, but I can tell you exactly what was in his army, and how it was arranged.

1 captain in termie armor
1 tactical squad
1 squad of 3 venerable dreads (w/ dual twin-linked autocannons)
1 aegis defence line with quad-gun

4 librarians (each one in one of the assault combat squads)
2 units of assault marines (divided into 4 combat squads)
2 units of devastators (maxed-out grav-cannons)
2 drop pods (for the two devestators).

and that was everything that he had.

One problem is that the TO did not do any form of list checking prior to the event.

All formations list units, not models, per the explanation/legend for formation datasheets found in every book that includes formations. The name of the unit is Venerable Dreadnought. I had this debate over whether the dark artisan formation allows a UNIT of Talos and Cronos, or individual models as well. I don't think we'll ever get an "official" answer on either one, but if we follow the rules for how formation datasheets are laid out, then we should always assume it's referring to the unit, rather than a model, unless it specifically says otherwise.

What was the points value of this tournament? If you're remembering everything 100% correct, it does indeed look as if he took an aegis and quadgun that he wasn't allowed to.

Strange that he didn't combat squad his devastators to get double the number of 3d6 pinning checks.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

All formations list units, not models, per the explanation/legend for formation datasheets found in every book that includes formations.

What was the points value of this tournament? If you're remembering everything 100% correct, it does indeed look as if he took an aegis and quadgun that he wasn't allowed to.

Strange that he didn't combat squad his devastators to get double the number of 3d6 pinning checks.

1850 pts. Using ITC rules (no unbound. max 3 detachments/formations, max 2 sources)

I don't think ITC limits you to 2 sources. That must have been a local decision.

Anyhow, just for your perusal to decide. Every iteration of this explanation is worded the same way, in every book that includes an explanation of formation datasheets, as far as I know.

Yes, there's a RAW argument for that interpretation but even in the example datasheet you posted, the formation specifically lists 'unit of' for Wracks but not for the Haem or Cronos. Going from memory when this was discussed a couple of years ago, I believe it also follows that form of notation on every other formation in the book which leads the reasonable person to believe that where they say 1 they actually do mean 1, or else they'd say 1 unit.

I believe there are several examples of this that support both arguments, but there is certainly a valid "Intent" argument for the interpretation the Count is espousing as well.

But to the original question regarding that aspect: Because it's a contentious issue that can be argued either way, I'd be hesitant to call anyone a cheater over the 3 dreads.

The aegis, on the other hand, certainly seems suspect. Are you 100% certain it wasn't just on the table as terrain? Not questioning your memory, I just tend to try to explain behavior or situations as best as possible without resorting to the "cheater" word. Throwing that word around is the wargaming equivalent to accusing someone of sexual assault. Throwing the word around can ruin someone's reputation even if they're found not guilty. You just don't do it unless you're sure.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

I believe there are several examples of this that support both arguments, but there is certainly a valid "Intent" argument for the interpretation the Count is espousing as well.

But to the original question regarding that aspect: Because it's a contentious issue that can be argued either way, I'd be hesitant to call anyone a cheater over the 3 dreads.

The aegis, on the other hand, certainly seems suspect. Are you 100% certain it wasn't just on the table as terrain? Not questioning your memory, I just tend to try to explain behavior or situations as best as possible without resorting to the "cheater" word. Throwing that word around is the wargaming equivalent to accusing someone of sexual assault. Throwing the word around can ruin someone's reputation even if they're found not guilty. You just don't do it unless you're sure.

Well, to be fair, when I asked if I had been 'cheated', my intent was not to imply that my opponent purposefully used an illegal list. I'm basically just asking if the circumstances were unfair.

I got the impression that the guy was relatively new to the game (definitely not brand new, but new enough to have not have a perfect grasp of the rules - for example, I had to clarify that open-topped vehicles had no fire ports and that all models onboard could fire out, and I had to clarify that my fast skimmer vehicles could fire all weapons at combat speed).

So, really, I think that he just thought of how nasty sticking 3 ven dreads behind an aegis, kitting them out with dual twin-linked autocannons, and putting them in formation that allows them all to fire twice as many shots per turn was, but then got carried away and forgot to make legal room for all of that in his list.

It was definitely part of his army list. He specifically set it up during deployment. I asked him if he was using a CAD, because I only saw one tactical squad, and he just said that it was all part of his formation. He was otherwise a good sportsman, so I do give him the benefit of the doubt on this. I'm more annoyed at the lack of organization by the TO than anything.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

I don't think ITC limits you to 2 sources. That must have been a local decision.

Scratch that. I got that confused with the ITC's 'no more than 2 of the same formation/detachment' rule. So, just 3 detachments/formations. No more than one duplicate. as per ITC.

Depends on how he's built his list. If he's used battlescribe, it lets you add what's called a 'fortification detachment' into your list. What it doesn't specify is that this makes your army unbound since there's no such thing in the rules of the game (to my knowledge), which is highly misleading and why I would only advocate using programs like that when you know all the rules surrounding your codex and formations/detachments.

Hmm. For some reason I thought there was a "Forticiation" Detachment out there somewhere, but it turns out I was wrong.
Without a CAD, his army was Unbound for having the Aegis Defence Line.

I have to say, on the Dreadnought I think taking three was illegal. The Formation rukles say 1 Venerable Dreadnought. In normal situations it would say a unit. Its the same with the Dark Artisans. I haven't yet seen anyone try to argue that a Dark Artisan Formation could have three Talos and Three Chronos. The Firespear says One Venerable Dreadnought (clearly intended for the Drop Pod). Thats how I'd call it anyway.

Squidmaster wrote:

I have to say, on the Dreadnought I think taking three was illegal. The Formation rukles say 1 Venerable Dreadnought. In normal situations it would say a unit. Its the same with the Dark Artisans. I haven't yet seen anyone try to argue that a Dark Artisan Formation could have three Talos and Three Chronos. The Firespear says One Venerable Dreadnought (clearly intended for the Drop Pod). That's how I'd call it anyway.

Ditto, though I have seen it argued (and I disagree with that argument wholeheartedly). Personally I also disagree that taking something like a gladius only constitutes 1 detachment, since all the component parts are also detachments.

It's a shame that things like this seem to actually need an FAQ - reading it in plain English it clearly means a single dreadnought, and the only justification for reading it differently is to try and squeeze more into the formation than it allows.

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

Personally I also disagree that taking something like a gladius only constitutes 1 detachment, since all the component parts are also detachments.

I think that anyone running a tournament these days really needs to specify exactly how they treat these meta-formations. They've been here for a while now, since the Necrons Codex really (although you can see the embryonic version in our own Haemonculus Covens book, in the form of the Carnival of Pain) and I doubt they're going anywhere anytime soon. There's no excuse for not clarifying how many detachment 'slots' these things use.

Count Adhemar wrote:

I think that anyone running a tournament these days really needs to specify exactly how they treat these meta-formations. They've been here for a while now, since the Necrons Codex really (although you can see the embryonic version in our own Haemonculus Covens book, in the form of the Carnival of Pain) and I doubt they're going anywhere anytime soon. There's no excuse for not clarifying how many detachment 'slots' these things use.

I couldn't agree more, if a tournament limits the number of detachments than it's essential that they quantify what is considered to be a detachment for these purposes.

If you wanted to be really picky, the gladius is a detachment, as is its core choice and its auxiliary choice so there's three detachments for starters. Again, not sure I'd want to argue it that way but it's certainly a line of argument that could be taken.

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

Squidmaster wrote:

I have to say, on the Dreadnought I think taking three was illegal. The Formation rukles say 1 Venerable Dreadnought. In normal situations it would say a unit. Its the same with the Dark Artisans. I haven't yet seen anyone try to argue that a Dark Artisan Formation could have three Talos and Three Chronos. The Firespear says One Venerable Dreadnought (clearly intended for the Drop Pod). That's how I'd call it anyway.

Ditto, though I have seen it argued (and I disagree with that argument wholeheartedly). Personally I also disagree that taking something like a gladius only constitutes 1 detachment, since all the component parts are also detachments.

It's a shame that things like this seem to actually need an FAQ - reading it in plain English it clearly means a single dreadnought, and the only justification for reading it differently is to try and squeeze more into the formation than it allows.

At the very least, I think that organizations like ITC and such need to make their own official FAQ judgments regarding the Firespear, at least until GW says something about it. Though it does feel that anyone taking 3 dreadnoughts in that particular formation is really just trying to game the system, because the Captain's ability is a pretty cool buff for one dreadnought - for three it's a *major* force multiplier.

krayd wrote:

At the very least, I think that organizations like ITC and such need to make their own official FAQ judgments regarding the Firespear, at least until GW says something about it. Though it does feel that anyone taking 3 dreadnoughts in that particular formation is really just trying to game the system, because the Captain's ability is a pretty cool buff for one dreadnought - for three it's a *major* force multiplier.

I doubt GW will comment - they will look at the fact it says '1 venerable dreadnought' and conclude that's exactly what it means, not 1 unit of venerable dreadnoughts, which is how they tend to refer to options that can take multiple models. They don't tend to cater for people purposely trying to bend the system to their advantage.

Well, maybe if we're lucky somebody asked it for the recent FAQ binge. If we're lucky.

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

Personally I also disagree that taking something like a gladius only constitutes 1 detachment, since all the component parts are also detachments.

Using the basic game rules, whether you agree or disagree is completely irrelevent because the basic game rules don't limit the number of detachments you can take. All limits on number of detachments are house rules, and so whether they want to consider Meta-detachments like the gladius a single formation or more for comp purposes is entirely at their discretion, unaffected by your or anyone else's opinion.

That said, I disagree with you attempting to count it as multiple formations in a game edition that is clearly designed for several of them to be fielded. Many of the formations designed to fit inside these "meta-formations" are MUCH smaller than other normal formations. With that in mind, if you get too draconian about it, you can end up leaving someone unable to field an army that even makes your points requirement because you were too heavy-handed and strict with your formation rules. I've seen this happen once. And that guy later changed his ruling when several people protested those rules.

Pretty much all tournaments not run by a clown now count these meta-formations as 1 formation towards the formation total, or something like 2 formations towards the allowed 3 regardless of how many formations are inside it. Trying to count every single slot taken in these meta-formations as it's own complete formation in a 2-3 slot limited format displays a complete disregard for how several armies are now designed, or an utter lack of knowledge on how such formations function.

These formations are purposely being designed small in order to be modular. If I take a windrider host formation(core) and a dire avenger shrine(auxiliary) in a 2000 point tournament limited to 2 detachments, I now have 633 points worth of models for my 2000 point list in your tournament before I hit my limit. Now, I COULD make every single unit a max-sized unit to get closer to 2k, but even in doing so, I end up short of the 2k mark, pointing out the flaw in such logic. These detachments aren't designed to be limited thusly, which is why all the major tournament circuits are shifting towards counting them as a single detachment.

Count Adhemar wrote:

I think that anyone running a tournament these days really needs to specify exactly how they treat these meta-formations.

I couldn't agree with you more, and have found that most TOs do just that. Most are now counting meta-detachments as a single detachment towards the total, since ITC switched to that ruling at the beginning of this season.

@Betray you've just completely illustrated my point. without a TO specifying what constitutes a detachment with regard to things like the gladius, decurion etc (please don't call it a formation, because it isn't) which in the case of this topic clearly didn't happen, as he couldn't even be bothered to check basic legality of lists, it's entirely open to interpretation and I would be highly annoyed as a participant if I turned up to a tournament having limited my choices based on those rules only for others to turn up with a different interpretation. I wouldn't be annoyed at the player, but at the TO for not dealing with the tournament properly.

Using the definition in the rulebook every formation is a detachment, and the gladius etc are also detachments. It's perfectly logical therefore to consider that in a tournament that limits the number of detachments, you have to consider this unless the TO specifies otherwise.

TL:DR my point is not that the gladius, decurion etc should have their constituent parts counted toward the total number of detachments in a list for a particular tournament, but that unless the tournament organiser specifies otherwise, the basic rulebook doesn't allow anything else.

The issue here is not with the rules, it's with TO's who look to change those rules without accounting for all the issues those changes result in.

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

without a TO specifying what constitutes a detachment with regard to things like the gladius, decurion etc (please don't call it a formation, because it isn't)

You do realize that in regards to the normal 40k rules, the words "formation" and "detachment" are almost completely interchangeable without effecting ANYTHING, right? Think about it for a moment. Without house rules, it literally makes no difference whether something is a detachment or formation, so getting all "please don't call it this" is pretty nitpicky. It doesn't matter what you call it. There are formations that let you choose numbers of troops in various slots just like non-formation detachments do. There is pretty much no need for the distinction at all. But I digress, I made an error when I typed meta-formation instead of meta-detachment. Both you and I knew what I meant, and now have wasted each others time debating something we both already understood. Congrats.

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

The issue here is not with the rules, it's with TO's who look to change those rules without accounting for all the issues those changes result in.

That's never been the issue we were discussing. Adhemar made a remark that TOs should specify, but that remark was out of place when he made it because no one ever said they didn't, and this thread has gone on a tailspin ever since.

It was brought up that most tournaments limit the number of detachments that people can run, but typically count the "meta-detachments" as a single choice towards whatever their limit is. TO's ALREADY account for the meta-detachments and specify how they work. It's such a huge part of the game right now that they couldn't do otherwise without getting an uproar from every space marine and eldar player out there, which is probably significantly more than half of all the players of 40k.

In many instances yes I do, it follows the common theme of 'all formations are detachments, but not all detachments are formations'.

Without house rules, picking an army is pretty simple, but the fact that most tournaments like to have 'house rules' means that how the TO refers to things like formations and detachments is important. I apologise if I came across as nitpicky, but the difference between formations and detachments is something that I've had to clarify at my gaming club quite a bit for newer members, and when more veteran players mix the two it confuses them.

In the interests of not derailing this thread any more or degenerating it further into argument I'll refrain from commenting further, it was never my intention to partake in an argument, merely partake in a discussion that I felt I could contribute to. Sorry for wasting your time.

No need to avoid discussion. I just don't think it's necessary to try to tell someone else what to call something, which came across in a condescending manner, when inside the actual game rules, it doesn't matter, and I already displayed that I knew the difference earlier in the thread. I understand that may not have been intentional. No big deal, let's move on.

To be honest, I'm a bit sensitive about this issue because I don't believe TOs should be altering the rules as often as they are. It started out because people were resistant to more than 1 FoC due to general resistance to change, and only 1 faction had access to these meta-detachments. They've been slowly loosening up the restrictions on number of formations ever since due to precisely what I said when 7th ed came out: It's clear that they're designing the game to be able to take multiple detachments. It's the core game design this edition, so fighting it is going to become more and more difficult as more books are released. More customization isn't bad. Embrace it and enjoy it.

My stance wasn't widely accepted at the time, but is being proven true with every additional meta-detachment they release. It's to the point where limiting detachments at all is superfluous and even a disadvantage for people not taking a meta-detachment.

At adepticon, they didn't limit the number of detachments you could take. They limited gargantuan or superheavy LoWs to a certain number of points, but the only restriction on detachments is that you couldn't duplicate any except a CAD(and only once) outside of a meta-detachment. Formations inside meta-detachments could be duplicated because it was obvious they were designed that way(must take 2 demi-companies to make a battle-company and so on.)

These are the type of rules I expect all tournaments to start moving towards. Adepticon's list format was the most modern example of understanding GWs game design I've seen to date. Every additional book GW releases will reinforce this design and make it more difficult for tournaments to make all these wacky, unnecessary house rules that alter the base game design, and they'll all end up right where I said they should go to begin with: Embracing the rules in the book.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

To be honest, I'm a bit sensitive about this issue because I don't believe TOs should be altering the rules as often as they are. It started out because people were resistant to more than 1 FoC due to general resistance to change, and only 1 faction had access to these meta-detachments. They've been slowly loosening up the restrictions on number of formations ever since due to precisely what I said when 7th ed came out: It's clear that they're designing the game to be able to take multiple detachments. It's the core game design this edition, so fighting it is going to become more and more difficult as more books are released. More customization isn't bad. Embrace it and enjoy it.

I do think that it might be a good idea for organizations to review certain formations/detachments and establish some kind of banned and/or restricted list for certain tourney formats, and perhaps relax those restrictions for other formats, or re-review the lists as the metagame changes. This is basically how Magic: The Gathering has survived as a tournament game for the past 20+ years, so if it can be done there with success, I don't see why it can't be done here. Obviously, it has no effect on friendly/narrative based games - just for tournaments where it is imperative that the playing field be as fair as possible.

Honestly, it's a self-regulating system. Play by the rules we're given, and the standouts will reveal themselves through competitive tournament play. Too many people these days are trying to decide what will be the most powerful stuff/combinations before they're ever used, and limiting them, only to make something else super powerful in the next codex that's released because they didn't know GWs intentions. Example: Games ban wraithknights without banning other gargantuan creatures, then suddenly Tau get a gargantuan creature that can be taken in units of 3, bypassing many tourny rules that limited you to 1 LoW.(A unit of 3 is technically still 1 LoW)

Eldar came out with ranged D on platforms that were all highly vulnerable to assault(except wraithknights), and people threw a fit. They banned ranged D-weapons before they ever had a chance to play against them, or really consider their impact.

With a year of ranged D-weapons under our belts, I can easily say that I think D-weapons can be a useful if expensive tool in a meta filled with gargantuan creatures, but they're a very expensive tool that comes on a platform with a built-in weakness, except in the case of wraithknights. I'm of the opinion that grav weapons are far and away more cost effective, and more effective across a wider range of targets than the D-weapons are.

Basically, I don't think GW is as asleep at the wheel as many TOs and people in the community seem to think they are. Give them a tiny bit of wiggle room, and we'll see the rules tighten up as new books are released. And hopefully they make good on the batch of FAQs they promised us a few weeks ago.