NEW (First Draft FAQs!

What note is that? Only thing I am seeing remotely similar is the ruling on Ministorum priest, Primaris Psyker, and Enginseers.

That ruling will not effect us. We have a special rule stipulating that we may do so they do not.

Its a precedent to the court being added to the start collecting formation - as in its a non slot using HQ choice being added to a formation in both cases - and ruled a no in the case of the IG

That's not the precedent. We simply never realized the Kabalite Raiding Party allows us to take 2 courts. Again we have a special rule. Guard do not.

Seriously?

It most certainly is a precedent. The 3 guard HQ have the same caveat (don't take up a HQ slot) but ours requires an archon to gain that caveat.

We can't take 2 courts in the start collecting formation since its nots listed as a unit as part of that formation but the no slot rule trumped it allowing one to be added - until today. There is now precedent that non slot HQ (or any non slot unit for that matter) may not be taken in formations.

It affects a handful (literally like 6 or so I can think of) across the whole range of armies and half of them are IG.

I kind of agree but the recent Tyranid FAQ included the following:

Quote :

Designer's Note: This applies to all Allies of Convenience in Warhammer 40,000, not just Genestealer Cults and Tyranids.

This rather implies that an answer given in a FAQ for one army does not ordinarily transfer to other armies who may have a superficially similar situation.

Straw. Clutched.

I agree it's not cut and dry definitive Count - more that there is now precedent to say a court can't be added as until now, RAW allowed it. This casts a shadow over the intent of these non FOC space users and their interaction with formations

The IG ruling is explicit and until clarified otherwise, exclusive.

Massaen wrote:

It most certainly is a precedent. The 3 guard HQ have the same caveat (don't take up a HQ slot) but ours requires an archon to gain that caveat.

Right, which makes taking a court without a slot a function of having an Archon, which is required in certain formations. The court is therefore similar to taking a transport for said Archon. It's allowed because the archon is allowed, and thus all options opened up specifically by having an archon are in effect.

Without that rule, formations can't take units that don't take a specific slot because formations don't have slots anyhow. Formations ONLY have the options in their list, and those allowed as a biproduct or special rule of the unit options in their list. (ie, dedicated transports, dire wolves for space wolf characters, etc)

Basically, the IG ruling is the default/basic ruling for units that don't take up a slot, however, the wording of this rule overrides it, because of how it's worded. Look again:

DE Codex wrote:

Retainers: For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot on the Force Organisation chart.

Orange text gives permission to take it, while the rest of the text tells requirement to do so(Archon), and details what slot type it would be(none). If you changed the rule at the end to say, "that is considered a troop for other rules interactions", you'd still be allowed to take it in a formation because the special rule goes into effect when you take an archon, giving you permission to take it which overrides the basic rules for formations. So, being able to take a court in a formation isn't a function of the court not taking up a slot, but rather a function of a special rule that gives you specific permission to take a court.

I have to disagree - if the archons entry included the court I would be on your side (like it says you may take a venom in his entry) - but the rule for the court is part of their entry... exactly like the enginseer and so on in the IG.

While I will 100% agree we are not obliged to follow the FAQ for the IG - it does set a precedent for not allowing non FOC units (that are not unit options) to be added to formations

Things like adding Cypher to a Cabal Sorcerer formation...

Massaen wrote:

It most certainly is a precedent. The 3 guard HQ have the same caveat (don't take up a HQ slot) but ours requires an archon to gain that caveat.

I don't own the Astra Militarum Codex, so can't tell how similar the wording is. Our one says "For each Archon included in a Detachment, The Detachment can include a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot on the Force Organisation chart." Is the Guard one as explicit in saying you can take the unit in a detachment, or does it say something more along the lines of the unit doesn't take up a FOC slot?

Massaen wrote:

I have to disagree - if the archons entry included the court I would be on your side (like it says you may take a venom in his entry) - but the rule for the court is part of their entry... exactly like the enginseer and so on in the IG.

Except the enginseer's rule doesn't specify that you can take one in any detachment that includes X, without taking up a troop slot. It just says they don't occupy a slot. If that's what the court's rule said, you'd be right, and this conversation never would have happened. Unfortunately, that's NOT what the court's rule says. It's different. No one is just going to ignore that difference and pretend it's the same wording, which is what is required in order to come to the conclusion you're arguing for.

Forget the slot thing for a moment, Massaen. If the court's rule simply said this, would you think it was allowed in formations?

DE Codex wrote:

Retainers: For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon.

If all things were the same, but they cut off the last few words, as said above, would you agree that they could be taken?

If your answer is yes(and it almost has to be if we're being reasonable), then you will see that your argument about where the rule is doesn't really matter. Your argument is with the ambiguity of the rule, not it's location. If it were 100% clear to you, as above, you'd accept that it works even on the court's page, WHICH, let's be clear, is on the page opposite the Archon in the ACTUAL book. So if you're looking at the Archon's entry, you also see this rule at the exact same time. It's not like it's somewhere else in the book. If you're looking at the digital version, it may seem like there is a greater degree of separation between the archon's entry and this rule regarding the archon's court.

Kantalla wrote:

Massaen wrote:

It most certainly is a precedent. The 3 guard HQ have the same caveat (don't take up a HQ slot) but ours requires an archon to gain that caveat.

I don't own the Astra Militarum Codex, so can't tell how similar the wording is. Our one says "For each Archon included in a Detachment, The Detachment can include a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot on the Force Organisation chart." Is the Guard one as explicit in saying you can take the unit in a detachment, or does it say something more along the lines of the unit doesn't take up a FOC slot?

It says:

Quote :

Each Astra Militarum detachment may include 0-3 Ministorum Priests. They do not take up a Force Organisation slot, and do not qualify as a mandatory HQ selection.

In my view they are both explicitly giving permission to be taken in formations and only the AM FAQ answer prevents them from doing so. In other words, it's a rule change and if it's a reflection of the GW design philosophy (if such a beast even exists) then you would expect it to apply to all such situations. This would however require something more than the single word answer given in response to a specific question in a different codex.

That wording does seem functionally similar to me. A detachment, of which any formation is one, may contain the said units. There is a possibility that it is intended only for the listed units, but at the very least it is a precedent against adding a Court to formations with an Archon.

Count beat me to it. While the FAQ does not stop the court being added, it sets the precedent that it may not.

If GW maintained 100% consistency in their rulings across armies, applying that logic to the Court might hold water. Unfortunately they don't, so in the absence of a blanket ruling in a general FAQ, or a specific ruling in the DE FAQ, taking courts in formations that require (or allow) archons remains legal.

It seems to me that GW do not consider a formation to contain Force Organisation slots at all - rather, it consists of a set of units.

Hence, while formation units that explicitly allow extra units to be taken (such as dedicated transports) appear to function normally, I would expect them to rule against any other examples of non-Force Organisation slot units being added to the formations. After all, the fact that they do not take up a Force Organisation slot is rather moot if there are no Force Organisation slots in the first place!

I am really umming and ahhing on which side of this I fall on.
For clarity:

Priests: "Each Astra Militarum detachment may include 0-3 Ministorum Priests. They do not take up a Force Organisation slot..."
Psykers: "Each Astra Militarum detachment may include 0-3 Primaris Psykers. They do not take up a Force Organisation slot..."
Enginseers: "Each Astra Militarum detachment may include 0-3 Enginseers, and you may include one unit of Servitors for every Enginseer in your army. They do not take up a Force Organisation slot..."

Commissars: You may include one Commissar for every Company Command Squad or Platoon Command Squad in your army. They do not take up a Force Organisation slot.....
Court of the Archon: "For each Archon in in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot on the Force Organisation chart."

On the one hand, part of me sees a difference between the two rules, the wording and how they're laid out. Theres also the fact that the FAQ ruling speaks for Priests, Psykers and Enginseers, but does not include Commissars. Making me think that Commissars are exempt from the rule, and because the Court is more similar in wording to COmmissars, would also be exempt (were it to become a blanket rule for all).
On top of that, precedent has already been set for units joining Formations which are not listed on the Formation data-slate. These being Dedicated Transports.

On the other hand, the rules for the different units are a BIT similar, and making me wonder whether I'm just trying to hope that the Court would be exempt. I'm not in a definite place here.

Squidmaster wrote:

I'm not in a definite place here.

That's okay, neither is Games Workshop!

Chaos Daemons are up this week.

Formations do not give a crap about force organisation charts. The courts rule does not matter at all.

Sooooo.......the Chaos Daemons one is ok actually. Its a fairly decent one which answers a fair bit.
I am more and more liking the look of some Chaos stuff, and the Tetrad just fills me with bubbly joy (even though they've now ruled that you can't have a Psychic Master 1 Daemon Prince of Khorne.......aww...............)

I managed to get in touch with the guys running the page, and they say this MAY be the last one. They are currently "considering" one for the new Deathwatch, but of the core books thats it now.