Start Collecting! Dark Eldar incoming!

Adhemar is right. The way it's written, you can take a court in any formation that includes an Archon.

Love it! So much plotting for advantage! Of course nobody would care if the DE had decent formations to begin with. But it is the DE way to find that scrap of potential and wring every ounce of advantage out of it.

But neither overrules the other - the brb tells us what to do

Rewind wrote:

Rokuro wrote:

I actually got to take an "inofficial pre-release" look at both the new formations' rules today at the store:

Did you by any chance get to see what the minimum requirments are for this formation?

Warriors HAVE to take Raider etc?

Count Adhemar wrote:

Squidmaster wrote:

Would a Venom still be an option for the Archon? Usually Formations are those units only, and don;t allow for the extra transport options. Or am I wrong on that?

If a formation includes a unit with an option for a dedicated transport then you can take that transport unless the formation specifically forbids it. Otherwise the Gladius would be pretty pointless!

It's 1 Archon, 10 Warriors, 1 Raider and 3 Reavers. Nothing more, nothing less.
The Raider is not specifically stated as a dedicated transport, so we should assume it's like taking an empty one as a fast attack choice.

Count Adhemar wrote:

doriii wrote:

i dont get it, the rules state what units are a part of the formation. then we come and add 2 venoms that aint in the mix

also 'trueborn' arent 'kabalite warriors'

Dedicated transports and Trueborn are both listed as "Options" for Kabalite Warriors. You can therefore take the required one unit of Warriors and upgrade it to a unit of Trueborn. If you are not allowed to do so then, for example, the units of Tactical Squads in a Gladius consist of 4 Space Marines and 1 Space Marine Sergeant with no special or heavy weapons, no additional marines, no Veteran Sergeant, no wargear on the Sergeant and no transports (even free ones).

Sorry, but it says 10 Kabalite Warriors, not 9, not Trueborn, and no Venom.
If an upgrade adds another unit or changes an existing one into another, it doesn't quallify as part of a formation anymore. At least that's how it's interpreted in my parts.
A good example for that is the Cegorach's Jest formation: Even though the restrictions don't say that the Troupe can't take a Starweaver, requirements or options don't mention it either, and the fluff text actually gives us the reason for its abscence in the formation.

Trueborn are not just Warriors with different options, they are also an elite rather than troops choice. For all intents and purposes (except the lack of an own kit, ofcourse), they are a seperate unit from Warriors. However, adding a Blaster doesn't change a Warrior into something else, so gear and weapon options are legal.

And for the Gladius, that would indeed mean you get a 5-man TacMarine squad with all its weapon options and even the Veteran Sergeant, but no transport, because a Rhino, Razorback or Drop Pod is its own unit, which is not part of the formation in this case.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Adhemar is right. The way it's written, you can take a court in any formation that includes an Archon.

Sadly, that's not possible either. The Court is a seperate unit after all, not just upgrades the Archon can buy. And even if so, that would still add models that are not stated as required or optional for the formation.

So basically, our Archon here is forced to either portal in, take the Raider all for himself, or footslog.
Generally though, you'd want the 10 Warriors in the Raider, so they can re-roll every miss instead of just 1's thanks to Splinter Racks, and then the Archon won't fit in anymore. And a single footslogging or even portaling Archon is both costly and suicidal, especially since the formation bonus stands and falls with him. The best place for the Archon actually seems to be on a big watchtown in your deployment zone.

krayd wrote:

I just saw a scan of the datasheet. It gives PE to all other units in the formation, not just the kabalite warriors.

So that also means rerolled hits and wounds for the reavers in the formation (which, I assume, means rerolled wounds on HoW attacks). It could also mean rerolled hits and wounds on a venom if you take one as a dedicated transport for the Archon.

I may have missed that. The Reavers would certainly benefit more from PE. But that doesn't change the fact that the Archon is going to do little more than stay back and point at targets.

Rewind wrote:

No minimum range? Just within LOS of the Archon? & the Archon doesn't have to be able to see the unit it gives PE to, just the target?

I'd assumed at least some sort of within 12" etc.

Let the BattleScribing commence

No, just LOS to the target. Not to the ally, and no limit on the range.

I'll post the link to the sheet again:
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2016/06/40k-eldar-dark-eldar-formations-spotted.html
It says 1 unit of Warriors.
Not 10 Warriors.
Same for Reavers, not just 3.

Marrath wrote:

I'll post the link to the sheet again:
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2016/06/40k-eldar-dark-eldar-formations-spotted.html
It say 1 unit of Warriors.
Not 10 Warriors.

Okay... In this case, 9 Warriors + Archon in the Raider is an option at least.

And so is 5 trueborn with the archon in the raider and each, and a court of the archon, taking dedicated venoms that they do not start the game in. Without listed restrictions like the farseer needing to be on a bike all upgrades are permissible and all of those are upgrades. Either all upgrades are legal or none are.

Rokuro wrote:

Rewind wrote:

Rokuro wrote:

I actually got to take an "inofficial pre-release" look at both the new formations' rules today at the store:

Did you by any chance get to see what the minimum requirments are for this formation?

Warriors HAVE to take Raider etc?

Count Adhemar wrote:

Squidmaster wrote:

Would a Venom still be an option for the Archon? Usually Formations are those units only, and don;t allow for the extra transport options. Or am I wrong on that?

If a formation includes a unit with an option for a dedicated transport then you can take that transport unless the formation specifically forbids it. Otherwise the Gladius would be pretty pointless!

It's 1 Archon, 10 Warriors, 1 Raider and 3 Reavers. Nothing more, nothing less.

You can take transports for units in formations unless it specifically says you can't in the formation restrictions section. The ability to take the dedicated transport is part of the unit datasheet, just like weapon upgrades, or Kabalite Warriors ability to upgrade into Trueborn. I disagree with your entire analysis, and you ignored evidence presented to you, such as in the case of the gladius formation.

Can somebody please wake me when we know what units this formation can include? Hopefully from the upcoming DE FAQ.

Learn to write rules GW! Imbeciles!

I agree you could go...

Archon with venom (it's an upgrade for him)
5 warriors with a venom or 5-10 with a raider (again the transports are upgrades pending unit size)
1 raider
3+ Reavers in a single unit

That's it. The court can't be part of it as I showed earlier

In the Formations Rules they write a Formation lists Army List Entries instead of Force Organisation Charts.
The Retainers Rule only really concerns force organisation charts.
And is a part of the Court Army List Entry, which is not listed in the Formation.
Unlike the Dedicated Transports which are part of Archon/Warriors Entry.
As are Trueborn.
The "can take a court" part is worth as much as the ability to take 3 heavy support Units.
In a Formation that doesn't list their Army List Entries: Nothing.

So Massaen is correct IMO.
Except that he forgot the Trueborn

Now what about that line of sight from the open topped transport?
Yea or Nay?

Does answer No. 3 of this Transport FAQ kill LoS from Venoms/Raiders?
https://www.facebook.com/1575682476085719/photos/pcb.1610528622601104/1610526585934641/?type=3&theater
Or do we say when we can fire we have line of sight?

The Court question seems to be mostly on a rules as intended basis.

I would assume the consensus is that a dedicated transport is allowed because it is an upgrade to a unit. That does however provide a precedent for allowing a unit to be added to a formation that is not one of the listed units.

The bit that is not clear is whether adding another unit because it is allowed when you take X could be permitted. It seems a bit outside the intent of the formation rule to me.

RAW though:
1) Formations are a type of detachment
2) The retainers rule allows you to take a Court in a detachment with an Archon
Therefore you can take a Court in a formation including an Archon

I would also note, the Formations rules don't state you can only take the models listed or anything that would stop adding other units like dedicated transports or retainers.

As for line of sight - the FAQ answer tells us the Archon is off the board and can only interact with it if there is a special exemption, such as shooting through a fire point or casting a witchfire through a fire point. Therefore, as silly as it might seem, my opinion is he doesn't have line of sight at the start of the turn if mounted on the Raider. This is another case where a Reaver jetbike upgrade needs to be there for the Archon.

Kantalla wrote:

RAW though:
1) Formations are a type of detachment
2) The retainers rule allows you to take a Court in a detachment with an Archon
Therefore you can take a Court in a formation including an Archon

Pretty much sums up what I've been saying.

Count Adhemar wrote:

Kantalla wrote:

RAW though:
1) Formations are a type of detachment
2) The retainers rule allows you to take a Court in a detachment with an Archon
Therefore you can take a Court in a formation including an Archon

Pretty much sums up what I've been saying.

Yep. The retainers rule gives you permission, and no rules rescind it.

If you want to ignore the part I posted earlier about non FOS units having to adhere to restrictions for detachments and that formations are restricted to specific units then sure...

Massaen wrote:

If you want to ignore the part I posted earlier about non FOS units having to adhere to restrictions for detachments and that formations are restricted to specific units then sure...

But that's the whole point, because Codex trumps rulebook, we're specifically instructed to ignore that! The rulebook is telling us we cannot include a Court in a formation because it's not a specified unit in that formation. But the Retainers rule is telling us we can include it because the formation is a detachment with an archon in it. That's a conflict and, according to the rules:

Quote :

Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence

Fair enough - I will concede the point...

I am sure somewhere I saw in an FAQ that it was said you could not add these sorts of units to formations (it was in reference to the engineseers in guard tank formations)

Massaen, I find myself thinking you should be right, but not seeing the rules to make it true.

The rules for formations tell you the units you can take.

Dedicated transports are not on the list for a formation, but they are allowed. Kabalite Raiding Party even tells us they are required. That is technically another unit other than those listed in the formation, but we accept that because it is an upgrade to the units listed in the formation.

The Court feels like it shouldn't be allowed, but I don't see rules wise, anything that makes it different to a dedicated transport. If you could point us to the FAQ ruling that might give a good reason to think otherwise.

fluffwise i'd say everything goes.
1. We are the bad guys.
2. Whyever should an Archon not be able to take his court for a ride?

There IS one precedent off the top of my head that supports the idea of NOT being allowed in the FAQ "first draft". In one of the IG formations that required a tank commander, the FAQ said that you could NOT upgrade said tank commander to tank commander pask.

That said, based on output, I think the team working on the FAQs is a bunch of interns who've never played the game and are just internally cross-referencing and not using any outside sources for information on how the game has been played for the last 5 years. So I don't necessarily think that FAQ answer is reflective of what the authors originally intended. (Would be nice if the authors WERE the FAQ team, wouldn't it?! 2 bad so sad.)

There's little or no consistency on the FAQ answers and many of them result in pretty major rules changes from a simple one word answer.

krayd wrote:

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.

Sadly I doubt this will be in the FAQ as we only just learnt the formation rules & the FAQ question taking was done weeks & weeks ago

I only just realised that the PE is given to ALL the other units, can't beleive I missed it 1st time round.

Makes the Archon tax seem smaller IMO the larger the Reaver unit gets:

Mini Reaver Deathstar - 499pts

Archon, Blaster, PK, Canon Venom
5 x Warriors, Canon Venom
Lance Raider
9 x Reavers, 3 CC

PE Lance, backed up by 9 PE Reavers @ 500 is quite a big hammer? Archon can start in the Venom for slight protection if going 2nd, otherwise hides @ the back on the tallest building/scenery for LOS nonsense.

Warriors can PE shoot fron their Venom so have a little manoveurability, Archon's Venom escentially screens the Arrogant Archon, standing alone on the battlefield pointing & Blastering. If the Reavers fail, all fail, but it might be fun?

Kantalla wrote:

Dedicated transports are not on the list for a formation, but they are allowed. Kabalite Raiding Party even tells us they are required. That is technically another unit other than those listed in the formation, but we accept that because it is an upgrade to the units listed in the formation.

Take our very own Grotesquerie. Raiders are not listed as part of the models in the formation, but restrictions are none so therefore you can take them as dedicated transports, which then benefit from the formation rule "freakish spectacle"

Count Adhemar wrote:

There's little or no consistency on the FAQ answers and many of them result in pretty major rules changes from a simple one word answer.

I agree. Seems like no internal communication. Or sense.

Does the P.E. stack with twin link (from Splinter Rack)? Or do you have to choose one or the other?