Start Collecting! Dark Eldar incoming!

@doriii and @Archon Vitcus
trueborn and venoms are upgrades to kabalalite warrior units. You buy the base units for the formation, and then you get upgrades for them after. GW has ruled that unit updates that changes the unit name are legal for formations in their space marine FAQ. It would not surprise me that they say the opposite in our FAQ when they finish it. But for now, there is precedence for allowing it. Or a draft anyway...

@Massaen
Damn it GW! You are right. They left out rules for drawing line of sight from within vehicles in the movement phase and on the start of the turn. I bet they thought we would be reasonable and understand that they can look out in all phases of the game. The fools! I guess we just have to assume that the archon or anyone embarked on a venom, which is basically an anti grav balcony, are just too busy screwing their eyes shut and going WEEEEEEE!! to be able to look over the handrail at things when it moves. Heck I'm going to imagine that they do that anyway even if they do FAQ it someday. The mental image is just too good.

Ah the 'draft' FAQs that people are taking as official, only official thing from that so far that I've seen is dreadnoughts getting 2 extra attacks. As is though, RAW, the wording is specific so it'll need an FAQ to clarify after its out

6 reavers with 2 caltrops, furious charge, an useful drug, and preferred enemy sounds scary in assault

@scrz - it's stupid I know... Not trying to rain on anyone's parade but it's worth knowing this for all armies as fire points are the same

The LoS thing can be solved by placing your Archon on a transport model so that he can see. You have the option of placing your models on or inside transports don't you? I was under the impression people kept them to one side for convenience and safety of the models. Just build your raider or venom so that he has a nice viewing platform to survey the battlefield and then sick your Archon model on it when he's being transported. Your Archon can then draw line of sight to wherever he likes! Treat this as you would not gluing guns in place so you can get wider firing arcs from them.

Demantiae wrote:

The LoS thing can be solved by placing your Archon on a transport model so that he can see.

Nope, you can't do that anymore than you could legally place your Archon on top of a Grotesque.

Count Adhemar wrote:

Demantiae wrote:

The LoS thing can be solved by placing your Archon on a transport model so that he can see.

Nope, you can't do that anymore than you could legally place your Archon on top of a Grotesque.

That sucks. So many stupid rules holes in this game. How can a model not draw line of sight from a vehicle but they can shoot out a firing point from that vehicle? Actually isn't there a rule that states you can only shoot at a target you can see unless you have indirect fire? If you can shoot a target and you can only shoot targets that you can draw LoS too then this validates that model being able to draw LoS for other actions, unless specified otherwise.

If the rules for shooting demand you have to draw LoS then being eligible to fire from a raider or venom gives the Archon LoS because he is eligible to fire at any time being open-topped.

Well, if we're lucky, it will be clarified in the allegedly upcoming DE FAQ, I strongly suspect that RAI, the Archon is meant to be able to draw line of sight from an open-topped transport.

Demantiae wrote:

If the rules for shooting demand you have to draw LoS then being eligible to fire from a raider or venom gives the Archon LoS because he is eligible to fire at any time being open-topped.

Without picking a side on this issue this statement is simply untrue. They simply need to be able to draw LOS immediately before a shooting action, and would go a long way to explain why I can only use witchfires from inside open topped transports.

So, jumping on the 'let's add as many extra units to the formation as possible band wagon'

As formations count as detachments:

"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." Codex DE Pg71

Therefore, RAW, we can bring a Court to, that can also bring it's own transport?

So now we have:

Archon + Transport
Court + Transport
Trueborn + Transport
Raider
Reavers

Although this would then also be the case for any other Formation with an Archon in it?

Yes. I had totally forgotten about that but I agree with this conclusion. Also does this mean that a KRP can take 2 courts of the archon? I'd assume yes

amorrowlyday wrote:

Without picking a side on this issue this statement is simply untrue. They simply need to be able to draw LOS immediately before a shooting action, and would go a long way to explain why I can only use witchfires from inside open topped transports.

Sounds like right, we are susceptible to No Escape, even with a functioning (very advanced) Flickerfield(see my avatar), but can't point at a unit we want to see dead, facepalm-worthy but probably true...

Rewind wrote:

So, jumping on the 'let's add as many extra units to the formation as possible band wagon'

As formations count as detachments:

"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." Codex DE Pg71

Therefore, RAW, we can bring a Court to, that can also bring it's own transport?

So now we have:

Archon + Transport
Court + Transport
Trueborn + Transport
Raider
Reavers

Although this would then also be the case for any other Formation with an Archon in it?

Love it.

Great opportunity for the marketing guys, too...

"Already started collecting Dark Eldar with our 'Start Collecting Dark Eldar' box? You'll want our 'Keep Collecting Dark Eldar' box! It contains 3 Venoms, and a full Court of the Archon, which rounds out your original formation nicely!"

GW need to start getting their legal team to write the rules because the mental gymnastics required to determine whether or not a dude can peak over the balcony of his flying boat are astounding. Maybe raiders have permanent night shields on the inside and its pitch black until you shoot long enough to illuminate the battlefield. You know something's wrong with your rules when you're struggling to justify being able to look out the window of your ride.

Massaen wrote:

Open topped says - Open topped vehicles do not have specific firepoints. Instead, all passengers in an OTT can fire, measuring range and LoS from any point on the hull of the vehicle.

This is how you get LoS from embarked units to shoot - I posted it earlier.

Like I said, there is nothing in the rules to support using a firepoint or its equivalent at any other time then declaring a shooting attack.

Basically - the archon has to physically be on the table for this to work. It makes no sense but that's the way it is. Its consistent for every army and as someone said earlier - the reason only witch fires work while embarked.

Rewind wrote:

So, jumping on the 'let's add as many extra units to the formation as possible band wagon'

As formations count as detachments:

"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." Codex DE Pg71

Therefore, RAW, we can bring a Court to, that can also bring it's own transport?

So now we have:

Archon + Transport
Court + Transport
Trueborn + Transport
Raider
Reavers

Although this would then also be the case for any other Formation with an Archon in it?

No as the formation does not care if a unit does not need a slot. It is striktly whats in the formation (+upgrades)

So Archon + transport, Trueborn + Transport, Raider, Reavers is possible, the court is not part of the formation and it is no upgrade to another unit.

Klaivex Charondyr wrote:

Rewind wrote:

So, jumping on the 'let's add as many extra units to the formation as possible band wagon'

As formations count as detachments:

"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." Codex DE Pg71

Therefore, RAW, we can bring a Court to, that can also bring it's own transport?

So now we have:

Archon + Transport
Court + Transport
Trueborn + Transport
Raider
Reavers

Although this would then also be the case for any other Formation with an Archon in it?

No as the formation does not care if a unit does not need a slot. It is striktly whats in the formation (+upgrades)

So Archon + transport, Trueborn + Transport, Raider, Reavers is possible, the court is not part of the formation and it is no upgrade to another unit.

I think RAW for this would be that you CAN take the court. They would not be a part of the formation itself but a part of the formation detachment. Since "Formations are a special type of Detachment" according to the BRB. They could probably take a transport as well, but it and they would not benefit from any of the formation rules. So not much of a point?

Klaivex Charondyr wrote:

Rewind wrote:

So, jumping on the 'let's add as many extra units to the formation as possible band wagon'

As formations count as detachments:

"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." Codex DE Pg71

Therefore, RAW, we can bring a Court to, that can also bring it's own transport?

So now we have:

Archon + Transport
Court + Transport
Trueborn + Transport
Raider
Reavers

Although this would then also be the case for any other Formation with an Archon in it?

No as the formation does not care if a unit does not need a slot. It is striktly whats in the formation (+upgrades)

So Archon + transport, Trueborn + Transport, Raider, Reavers is possible, the court is not part of the formation and it is no upgrade to another unit.

Whilst I believe you should be correct, I'm struggling to find a valid RAW argument against this. Is the formation a detachment? Yes. Is the Archon included in the detachment? Yes. Can the detachment include a Court of the Archon, as per the Retainers rule? Yes.

But then the FAQ drafts don't permit units to be part of a formation regardless of not taking up space on the FoC

Massaen wrote:

But then the FAQ drafts don't permit units to be part of a formation regardless of not taking up space on the FoC

But it's not because they don't take up a FOC slot. It's simply that the wording of the Retainers rule doesn't specify that it doesn't apply to formations and also that the rules for formations are not explicit when stating that you can't take any other units. I actually thought they were but I reread them yesterday and can't see anything that would prevent this.

I am under no illusions that this is in any way RAI but there's certainly an argument for it RAW.

A formation specifies the units it contains. If the court were an upgrade for the archon it would be fine but they are not and as such they can't be part of the formation.

Just want to commend you all on the mental energy used to squeeze out any potential advantage from this formation. Vect would be proud.

I currently have 27 reavers, so I'm hoping to take advantage of the PE

Massaen wrote:

A formation specifies the units it contains. If the court were an upgrade for the archon it would be fine but they are not and as such they can't be part of the formation.

This is correct they can not be, but a formation is also a detachment. The court would not be a part of the formation but be a part of the *formation detachment*. The key word being detachment and not formation. It is exactly the same way a court can be taken as an addition to a CAD detachment containing an archon. Just an extra unit totally outside the CAD structure, not belonging in the FOC slots, just sorta floating around outside the system.
If you look at a formation detachment as a container that contains the actual formation.
-Crappy visual--> ( formation detachment ( formation ) court )

@Scrz - you seem to be adding stuff to the rules - that's not what the BRB tells us...

The BRB contains a section on Army list entries that don’t use a FOS. While this does indeed say they can be included in any detachment – they still must adhere to any restrictions detailed in the army entry or detachment. Fine so far right?

If the Army list entry states that it can be included in an army that includes another specified unit, and that it does not take up a FOS, it must join the same detachment as that specified unit. In either case these units are part of the detachment for all rules purposes…

Then under formations we are told Formations are a special type of detachment. Instead of following the FOC, the army list entries that comprise a formation are listed on it.

SO what does this mean?

Your Court must adhere to any restrictions detailed in the detachment. Formations are a type of detachment. Formations comprise a specific list of army entries that comprise it. This specific list is a restriction on what units can be in the formation. As such, the court cannot be taken as it is not on the list.

But Retainers is a codex rule and formations are BRB rules. Codex wins every time due to GW lazy rules writing.