Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So, leaks of the new Dark Eldar Get Started formation appeared today, and immediately my friends began discussing whether you could upgrade the unit of Kabalite Warriors to Trueborn.
The argument basically boils down to whether the formation requires units by Dataslate name, or by model name?
If it's by model name, would that then preclude you from adding a Sybarite to the squad, as it would then be a "unit of Kabalite Warriors and a Sybarite"?
see rules in spoiler below.


Thanks!

According to some other *rulings* coming in the FAQ drafts, any upgrade that's possible in the unit entry whitin the codex may be allowed (even when not originally intended)

similar example upgrading the captain from demi company to master chapter (since the upgrade it's within the captain entry in the dex)


theorically even dedicated transports (for kabalites and archon) may be allowed to get advantage of the rule. At least until the eldar FAQ it's published since i have no doubt someone already asked about the aspect host +1 Bs being granted to Wave serpents.

A Kabalite Warriors Unit with the optional Trueborn upgrade is still a Kabalite Warriors Unit. There is no such thing as a "Unit of Kabalite Trueborn".

But again, this is the umpteenth example of GW not understanding how to properly handle data elements.

Formation should never list "1 Unit of Kabalite Warriors". It should like "1 Kabalite Warriors Unit". There is a huge difference. The former appears to be talking about Kabalite Warriors as the components (i.e. models) of the unit. The latter is clearly referring to the unit itself.

Since Trueborn are of the same Datasheet as "Warriors", I can see no reason why you couldn't take them as part of the formation.

It makes the formation pretty interesting actually and might even bring back Trueborn + Archon tactics. Bring an Eldar detachment for an Autarch on bike to join the Reavers and give the Archon & Trueborn +1 reserve to come in with their WWP. Not as good as Fire Dragons, but PE helps

Lord Perversor wrote:
According to some other *rulings* coming in the FAQ drafts, any upgrade that's possible in the unit entry whitin the codex may be allowed (even when not originally intended)

similar example upgrading the captain from demi company to master chapter (since the upgrade it's within the captain entry in the dex)

And according to some other *rulings*, this does not qualify if the upgrade is Unique. (Not the case here, but good to remember).

 Kriswall wrote:
A Kabalite Warriors Unit with the optional Trueborn upgrade is still a Kabalite Warriors Unit. There is no such thing as a "Unit of Kabalite Trueborn".

But again, this is the umpteenth example of GW not understanding how to properly handle data elements.

Formation should never list "1 Unit of Kabalite Warriors". It should like "1 Kabalite Warriors Unit". There is a huge difference. The former appears to be talking about Kabalite Warriors as the components (i.e. models) of the unit. The latter is clearly referring to the unit itself.

While there is a linguistic difference; there is no rules difference.

And any claims that you cannot upgrade them to trueborn(beacuse "unit of") would also be a claim that they cannot havea Sybarite.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
A Kabalite Warriors Unit with the optional Trueborn upgrade is still a Kabalite Warriors Unit. There is no such thing as a "Unit of Kabalite Trueborn".

But again, this is the umpteenth example of GW not understanding how to properly handle data elements.

Formation should never list "1 Unit of Kabalite Warriors". It should like "1 Kabalite Warriors Unit". There is a huge difference. The former appears to be talking about Kabalite Warriors as the components (i.e. models) of the unit. The latter is clearly referring to the unit itself.

While there is a linguistic difference; there is no rules difference.

And any claims that you cannot upgrade them to trueborn(beacuse "unit of") would also be a claim that they cannot havea Sybarite.

Well... there is very much a rules difference. It's a subtle one though. I would agree that from a strict, rules as written, legalese reading, "1 Unit of Kabalite Warriors" would preclude a Sybarite as that would be "1 Unit of Kabalite Warriors with Sybarite". In essence, what does "Kabalite Warriors" refer to in the term "1 Unit of Kabalite Warriors"? Linguistically speaking, it has to be referring to the models by name. It's the word "of" that tips us off. What is the unit made of? Kabalite Warriors. What is the unit made of? Models. Ergo, we're being told to include a Unit made of Kabalite Warrior Models.

1. 1 Box of Carrots is not a Box called Carrots, it's a Box that contains Carrots.
2. 1 Phalanx of Soldiers is not a Phalanx called Soldiers, it's a Phalanx that contains Soldiers.
3. 1 Unit of Kabalite Warriors is not a Unit called Kabalite Warriors, it's a Unit that contains Kabalite Warriors.

Now, I in no way, shape or form think this is what GW intended. I'm just saying that their rules don't hold up under close scrutiny. They should really tell us to include "1 Kabalite Warrior Unit". We're told to include a Unit. What kind of Unit? A Kabalite Warriors Unit... in other words, a Unit named "Kabalite Warriors". This is less ambiguous because the structure of the statement makes it clear that we're talking Unit names and not model Names.

TL: DR; GW's rules are garbage. The recent FAQs are garbage. GW isn't able to write clear and unambiguous rules and has no ability to manage the various data points in their game. They seem to think that "1 Unit of X" refers to a Unit named X and not a Unit made of X, despite the English language not agreeing. Best to play it that way.

I deal with process flow and data structures/database design at work amongst other things. This is the sort of nonsense that usually is caught in the design phase and never makes it past legal/compliance review. GW just doesn't appear to care enough about the integrity of the rules to have a proper review process. If they do have a review process, they need to rethink it. It's not working.

The RAI behind this seems to be fairly obvious.

The formation is mainly meant to use all the models that come in the Start Collecting box. So, if you can't make a unit of Trueborn out of the models that came in the box, then I would say the RAI answer is No. If you can make them, then the answer is yes, upgrade away.

A unit of kabalite warriors may be upgraded to kabalite trueborn. 2 points per model. That is a kabalite unit, I spend 2 ppm upgrading them, and now they are upgraded kabalites.

By unit, I'm pretty sure GW just means use the dataslate for the unit, because I doubt GW wouldn't let them have a sergeant. With the other formations, say, gladius. Can you not take a veteran sergeant because it says you need this many tactical squads, not vet sarges?

RAW the required units for a formation, or detacent, reference the unit entries.

Kabalite warriors is an unit entry, you can buy kabalite warriors from it that can be upgraded to trueborn which are still purchased from the datasheet " kabalite warriors".

Any claim that this is not how the rules work ignores the RAW for how formations work. Additionally it would mean almost none of the space marine detachment s or formations would be allowed as they have entries for things like "tactical squad". However there is no profile for tactical squad, it just let's you purchase space marines or vet space marine sergeant.

I think what is interesting about this debate is that it is the only unit I can think of (besides Wychs/Bloodbrides) in which a single datasheet AND box of models represents 2 kinds of units. The prior codex listed Trueborn as Elites, but they had no models. GW made them upgrades to the Troop unit so they could share a datasheet and make it clear to use the same models.

The current datasheet says. "Kabalite Warriors", but the unit can contain Kabalite Warriors, Sybarite, Trueborn, Dracon (or whatever the TB character is named). The upgrade to Trueborn changes the Battlefield role to Elite, but does not change the datasheet name to "Kabalite Trueborn". A unit of Warriors upgraded to Trueborn will still have the unit name "Kabalite Warriors"

Therefore, there is nothing stopping you from upgrading them in the formation.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
A Kabalite Warriors Unit with the optional Trueborn upgrade is still a Kabalite Warriors Unit. There is no such thing as a "Unit of Kabalite Trueborn".

But again, this is the umpteenth example of GW not understanding how to properly handle data elements.

Formation should never list "1 Unit of Kabalite Warriors". It should like "1 Kabalite Warriors Unit". There is a huge difference. The former appears to be talking about Kabalite Warriors as the components (i.e. models) of the unit. The latter is clearly referring to the unit itself.

While there is a linguistic difference; there is no rules difference.

And any claims that you cannot upgrade them to trueborn(beacuse "unit of") would also be a claim that they cannot havea Sybarite.

Well... there is very much a rules difference. It's a subtle one though. I would agree that from a strict, rules as written, legalese reading, "1 Unit of Kabalite Warriors" would preclude a Sybarite as that would be "1 Unit of Kabalite Warriors with Sybarite". In essence, what does "Kabalite Warriors" refer to in the term "1 Unit of Kabalite Warriors"? Linguistically speaking, it has to be referring to the models by name. It's the word "of" that tips us off. What is the unit made of? Kabalite Warriors. What is the unit made of? Models. Ergo, we're being told to include a Unit made of Kabalite Warrior Models.

1. 1 Box of Carrots is not a Box called Carrots, it's a Box that contains Carrots.
2. 1 Phalanx of Soldiers is not a Phalanx called Soldiers, it's a Phalanx that contains Soldiers.
3. 1 Unit of Kabalite Warriors is not a Unit called Kabalite Warriors, it's a Unit that contains Kabalite Warriors.

Now, I in no way, shape or form think this is what GW intended. I'm just saying that their rules don't hold up under close scrutiny. They should really tell us to include "1 Kabalite Warrior Unit". We're told to include a Unit. What kind of Unit? A Kabalite Warriors Unit... in other words, a Unit named "Kabalite Warriors". This is less ambiguous because the structure of the statement makes it clear that we're talking Unit names and not model Names.

TL: DR; GW's rules are garbage. The recent FAQs are garbage. GW isn't able to write clear and unambiguous rules and has no ability to manage the various data points in their game. They seem to think that "1 Unit of X" refers to a Unit named X and not a Unit made of X, despite the English language not agreeing. Best to play it that way.

I deal with process flow and data structures/database design at work amongst other things. This is the sort of nonsense that usually is caught in the design phase and never makes it past legal/compliance review. GW just doesn't appear to care enough about the integrity of the rules to have a proper review process. If they do have a review process, they need to rethink it. It's not working.

It's easy to break something when you start with the intent to break it. The rules are by no means tight. There are "better written" rulesets out there. GW did not set out to make a competitive game, though. They created the game to be played between friends just wanting something to do with their models.

 EnTyme wrote:
They created the game to be played between friends just wanting something to do with their models.

While I whole heartedly agree with this AND that it should be played with a more relaxed RAI interpretations, GW is still a business and needs to recognize its play base has grown passed this laid back attitude. In a world were video games are king, table-top games need to be fun AND clear to compete.

 EnTyme wrote:
It's easy to break something when you start with the intent to break it. The rules are by no means tight. There are "better written" rulesets out there. GW did not set out to make a competitive game, though. They created the game to be played between friends just wanting something to do with their models.

I broke nothing. My intent is to critically review the rules, not break them. I pointed out an issue with the rules. The fact that the overwhelming majority of players subconsciously house rule it so that it works as (most likely) intended is irrelevant. The issue still exists and is an example of poor technical writing.

It amuses me that you think only competitive games need well written and unambiguous rules. Also, how is Warhammer 40,000 not competitive? It's literally a competition between two players. Each time it's played, there is a winner and there is a loser. It isn't a fun passing of time where both players roll dice and both get a participation award at the end.

I can't think of another major tabletop game that has a rules forum that constantly blows up with debates over ambiguity. Games Workshop writes bad rules and has been very bad at providing FAQs and Erratas.

There tends to be a great deal of confusion anytime a unit name and models names within said unit are the same.

Take the SM formation Armoured Task force for example: it has a composition that includes "0-3 units of Thinderfir Cannons" now surely, you would not expect that option to be taken as just the Artillery guns with no Techmarines(which is not even possible) and have the unit removed as soon as it is deployed?

"Unit(s) of x" where x= both unit amd model name is and can only mean unit name. And, once again: Formations are comprised of Army list Entries unless it specifically says "model"(even the FAQ calling out the Spyder in the question amswers with if it says model it means model; and currently no formation says model)

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
There tends to be a great deal of confusion anytime a unit name and models names within said unit are the same.

Take the SM formation Armoured Task force for example: it has a composition that includes "0-3 units of Thinderfir Cannons" now surely, you would not expect that option to be taken as just the Artillery guns with no Techmarines(which is not even possible) and have the unit removed as soon as it is deployed?

"Unit(s) of x" where x= both unit amd model name is and can only mean unit name. And, once again: Formations are comprised of Army list Entries unless it specifically says "model"(even the FAQ calling out the Spyder in the question amswers with if it says model it means model; and currently no formation says model)

I'm well aware of what GW intended. I'm just saying that what they intended doesn't quite line up with what they wrote. This is not uncommon. They are bad at writing unambiguous rules.