It doesn't look like you're allowed to upgrade the Captain in the Demi-Company to a Chapter Master. Even the special characters you can replace the Captain with are all Captains. Do you think you should be able to upgrade a Captain to a Chapter Master in a Demi-Company?

Nope. That's what is written.

To use a Cm, you'll need a CAD/AD.

Makes perfect Fluff sense. Chapter Masters don't run companies.

Captain is the unit entry, and the model.

You can have a chapter master upgrade.

Saying you can't upgrade your captain to a chapter master is like saying you cannot upgrade your sgts to vet sgts or take dts.

Yes you can have CM. Why would you think you can't take a storm shield on the Captain? What restrictions do you think apply to the Captain entry in this Formation?

If a captain = chapter master then why are all of the chapter master options not available to be taken as the captain, while all the captain and chaplain IC's are allowed? I mean they included Grimaldus of the Black Templars, but then specifically didn't mention High Marshal Helbrecht. It seems to indicate that captain =/= chapter master for the formation, but once again the rules are fairly unclear here as it doesn't specifically say no chapter master upgrade. From a fluff standpoint it also just doesn't make sense for a company (or half a company) to be led by a chapter master.

It really seems like a captain =/= chapter master and this entire issue was created because they wanted to save space and not reprint the exact same upgrades etc...again. I think this is further exemplified by the upgrade not creating a "Captain-Chapter Master", but a literally new entry called a Chapter Master. The upgrade is fairly similar to upgrading a sgt to a vet sgt, yet the Vet Sgt is still a Sgt, whereas a Chapter Master is not a Captain.

I think because of the poor formation wording, you can not include a Chapter Master in either a demi-company OR a Strike Force Command as a Chapter Master is simply not a Captain.

So there's no way to field a generic Chapter Master in a Gladius Detachment? Note how Strike Force command includes Calgary, Kantor and Helbrecht yet still the same Captain entry. If you can't take a Chapter master you can't take any other upgrades. This is clear CM is allowed in demi company.

SilverSaint wrote:

If a captain = chapter master then why are all of the chapter master options not available to be taken as the captain, while all the captain and chaplain IC's are allowed? I mean they included Grimaldus of the Black Templars, but then specifically didn't mention High Marshal Helbrecht. It seems to indicate that captain =/= chapter master for the formation, but once again the rules are fairly unclear here as it doesn't specifically say no chapter master upgrade. From a fluff standpoint it also just doesn't make sense for a company (or half a company) to be led by a chapter master.

It really seems like a captain =/= chapter master and this entire issue was created because they wanted to save space and not reprint the exact same upgrades etc...again. I think this is further exemplified by the upgrade not creating a "Captain-Chapter Master", but a literally new entry called a Chapter Master. The upgrade is fairly similar to upgrading a sgt to a vet sgt, yet the Vet Sgt is still a Sgt, whereas a Chapter Master is not a Captain.

I think because of the poor formation wording, you can not include a Chapter Master in either a demi-company OR a Strike Force Command as a Chapter Master is simply not a Captain.

Simply because they don't.

Helbrecht, Kantor, and lysander clearly feel they have better things to do than lead a demi-company; but chapter master jim-bob of the clu clux clan marines(ct:sallies because that is funny) feels fine leading one.

Marshal_Gus wrote:
It doesn't look like you're allowed to upgrade the Captain in the Demi-Company to a Chapter Master. Even the special characters you can replace the Captain with are all Captains. Do you think you should be able to upgrade a Captain to a Chapter Master in a Demi-Company?

no...


units can have names,

there is a unit called captain, there is a unit called grand master, they both have different names/stats/ect

just as when a formation tells you to specifically take a venerable dread instead of a dread,

when it tells you, by name, to take a captain, you must take a captain.


that GW goes to the trouble of also including all special characters that are captains, but ommiting all CM characters is further evidence to this.


fluff wize as well, you have a captain lead a force that size, not the CM


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Captain is the unit entry, and the model.

You can have a chapter master upgrade.

Saying you can't upgrade your captain to a chapter master is like saying you cannot upgrade your sgts to vet sgts or take dts.

Sure a unit can take its options

but if one of those options is upgrading a unit to another unit by definition, that changes what unit you have taken.



upgrading you captain to a CM and claiming rules that only benefit captains


is like taking a blood claw,

upgrading one to a srgt,

and claiming bonuses that only apply to blood claws for that sgt just because the upgrade was an upgrade to a bloodclaw, meaning the SGT is just an improved bloodclaw as opposed to a different model with a different profile.



claiming a CM = captain is like claiming that taking a regular dreadnought is good enough even if the formation calls for a venerable dread, cause hey, its an upgrade right?

claiming a CM = captain is like claiming that taking a regular dreadnought is good enough even if the formation calls for a venerable dread, cause hey, its an upgrade right? 

What are you on? How is a Ven Dread an upgrade? Are Centurions in your mind an upgrade to Devastators/Assault marines? You're getting fluff mixed with rules.

The formation says no restrictions on the upgrades you purchase from the Captain spreadsheet. A Chapter Master is still a Captain Unit (though no longer a Captain model). This is just like Trueborn and Kabalites which again you can upgrade in any formation that says Kabalites without a specific restriction against it.

This is clear RaW and RaI as proven. Come up with something sensical if you want to debate making bizarre claims about one Datasheet being an upgrade to an entirely separate datasheet is not helping anything.

A chapter master is not the name of any unit in the new space marine codex, the unit name is captain, the model's name is chapter master.

Just like the unit name is tactical squad an it is(at base) made up of 4 models named space marine and 1 model named sgt.

Oh, and venerable dreads are a separate unit entry again, not an upgrade(although if it were an upgrade and a formation specifed venerable i would stick with the same reasoning on you can upgrade to state that you must upgrade; although that would probably simply list the unit taken as "dreadnought" with a restriction that you must upgrade to venerable, just like the restrictions that dictate minimum unit sizes)

 FlingitNow wrote:

claiming a CM = captain is like claiming that taking a regular dreadnought is good enough even if the formation calls for a venerable dread, cause hey, its an upgrade right? 

What are you on? How is a Ven Dread an upgrade? Are Centurions in your mind an upgrade to Devastators/Assault marines? You're getting fluff mixed with rules.

The formation says no restrictions on the upgrades you purchase from the Captain spreadsheet. A Chapter Master is still a Captain Unit (though no longer a Captain model). This is just like Trueborn and Kabalites which again you can upgrade in any formation that says Kabalites without a specific restriction against it.

This is clear RaW and RaI as proven. Come up with something sensical if you want to debate making bizarre claims about one Datasheet being an upgrade to an entirely separate datasheet is not helping anything.

Well in the Eldar book, for the formations it says "Farseer OR Farseer Skyrunner." This indicates that they are separate units, and "Skyrunner Farseer" is listed as an upgrade on the Farseer data card. Different name = different unit.

No it does not. It says 1 farseer in all cases, the restrictiins for a windrider hos is that it must take the upgrade. The restrictions in the council is that if any 1 of the 3 units upgrade to jetbikes(called by the respective model names) then they all must.

You are making gak up to "prove a point" and neither exists.

 FlingitNow wrote:

claiming a CM = captain is like claiming that taking a regular dreadnought is good enough even if the formation calls for a venerable dread, cause hey, its an upgrade right? 

What are you on? How is a Ven Dread an upgrade?

you buy a dreadnought, and one of its options is to upgrade to a ven dread. Once you have upgraded it, its not longer just a dreadnought and has a different name.

separate stat lines denote separate models, each has its specific name, this is basic basic stuff...

when you have a unit composing of 5 marines, you can choose to alter its composition by adding marines, or adding veteran srgts, all of which are upgrades the same as captain to CM.


you and kommisar kiel are mistaken as you are treating the unit name is be all end all to define the models when the models are defined by their name and stat line.


I have a unit of blood claws, I up grade one blood claw to a wolf srgt. the wold srgt is a different model and does not benifit from special rules that only affect blood claws. The *name* of the data slate up top is still blood claws however, and by you and kiels logic, that means my wolf srgt is still a blood claw. this is a false statement and faulty logic on both of your parts to assume that the data slate name over rules the models name.

 easysauce wrote:
you buy a dreadnought, and one of its options is to upgrade to a ven dread. Once you have upgraded it, its not longer just a dreadnought and has a different name.

You may want to consult the new codex. The Venerable Dreadnought is not an upgrade for a normal Dreadnought.

it is in the other SM type codexes.


and that doesnt change the fact that upgrading models in a unit to another named model is proven to alter that units composition.


data slate blood claws, lets you take 5 blood claws, upgrade one to a srgt, and has rules that only affect blood claws.


what you and kiel are saying is that because the 4 blood claws and the vet srgt are from dataslate blood claws, that each model is a blood claw and benefits from blood claw only rules.

which is simply not true, the data slate name is not the models name nor is it the units composition.


the simply fact the orbital strike is chapter master only, also denotes that CM and captain are separate and distinct models.


by kiel and your logic, because its data slate captain, even if I pay to upgrade it to a CM it cannot use orbital strike cause its still just a captain.

you cannot have the model both be a captain for the one rule you want, and at the same time be a CM for the other rule you like, the two are mutually exclusive.

 easysauce wrote:
it is in the other SM type codexes.

So thus irrelevant as it isn't in this codex.

and that doesnt change the fact that upgrading models in a unit to another named model is proven to alter that units composition.


data slate blood claws, lets you take 5 blood claws, upgrade one to a srgt, and has rules that only affect blood claws.


what you and kiel are saying is that because the 4 blood claws and the vet srgt are from dataslate blood claws, that each model is a blood claw and benefits from blood claw only rules.

which is simply not true, the data slate name is not the models name nor is it the units composition.


the simply fact the orbital strike is chapter master only, also denotes that CM and captain are separate and distinct models.


by kiel and your logic, because its data slate captain, even if I pay to upgrade it to a CM it cannot use orbital strike cause its still just a captain.

you cannot have the model both be a captain for the one rule you want, and at the same time be a CM for the other rule you like, the two are mutually exclusive.

CM is an upgrade for Captain, much like Phaeron is an upgrade for Necron Overlords (unless that was changed?). Despite that, Phaeron Overlords can still be used in Decurions, so I would assume CM can be used instead of Captains?

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
No it does not. It says 1 farseer in all cases, the restrictiins for a windrider hos is that it must take the upgrade. The restrictions in the council is that if any 1 of the 3 units upgrade to jetbikes(called by the respective model names) then they all must.

You are making gak up to "prove a point" and neither exists.

My bad then, no need to be hostile though. I I really thought it said that.

HOWEVER, The way it is worded, "...must be upgraded to a Skyrunner Farseer..." That describes it as a different unit. If it were not a different unit, it would not need a different name (like the last codex). If they were the same unit, it would have been worded "...must take the skyrunner updrade..."

Another indication of them being seperate units is where "Fleet" is listed under special rules on the Farseer data card. It goes on further to say "(Farseer only)". So are you arguing that Skyrunner Farseers also gain fleet? If so, what do you think this rule was included for?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
it is in the other SM type codexes.

So thus irrelevant as it isn't in this codex.



CM is an upgrade for Captain, much like Phaeron is an upgrade for Necron Overlords (unless that was changed?). Despite that, Phaeron Overlords can still be used in Decurions, so I would assume CM can be used instead of Captains?

did you really just say that another codex's treatment of the exact same situation does not matter,

then give me an example of a similar situation from a different codex as evidence to support you point?





you upgraded a model to be a different model with a different name/stat line is the key in the SM case... you are not just adding a mastery level or something of that nature,

if you claim that a chapter master is in fact a captain still, then he does not get to use orbital assault or the CM stat line...

what you are doing is claiming to be a CM for one rules purpose, and a captain for another... despite the two being mutually exclusive.


you upgrade a captain to a CM,

you then have a unit composed of one CM, with all that entails, new stats, new model name, new rules like orbital strike.

the Data slate might still be called captain, but any rules that apply to captain models no longer apply in the same way as with other codexes and the example with blood claws that I brought up.


GW also specifically listed out what counts as a captain in the dataslate, captains count, special characters that are captains count, but CM are left of that list so are a no go.


the side that is arguing that captains and CM are interchangeable in all respects have some fundamental problems with that reasoning that have not been addressed at all re orbital strike, unit composition, calling out models specifically by name in formations.

Can a ba tac squad take grav cannons?

Tac squads in codex space marines can.

Cm in codex space marines(sorry adeptus astartes) is not a separate unit from a captain. It is an upgrade in the captain unit entry. This is what I was talking about with the vet sgt upgrade; if you take the captain as un-upgradable, then you cannot upgrade to vet sgts(or add additional space marines) because the unit composition is 1 sgt and 4 space marines. The vet sgt is an upgrade that changes 1 model in the unit entry(exactly like the cm in the captain entry)

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
CM is an upgrade for Captain, much like Phaeron is an upgrade for Necron Overlords (unless that was changed?). Despite that, Phaeron Overlords can still be used in Decurions, so I would assume CM can be used instead of Captains?

There are no upgrades for Overlords, only the ability to take wargear stuff.

Are we suggesting that a CM gets none of the special rules listed on the captains dataslate? He only has rhe orbital strike rule and none of the others?

No we are not suggesting that at all

I guess an obvious comparison would be a command squad and the like. If a Chapter Master is just an upgrade for a Captain so all entries for Captain mean I Chapter Master that means I can take a single Veteran from a command squad and upgrade it to an Apothecary and give him a Storm Shield, since hes a veteran. I am pretty sure this doesn't fly.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
No we are not suggesting that at all

Easysauce is...

That is again a different situation.

And not at all what we are saying.

What we are saying is that you take a command squad and upgrade 1 member to an apothecary; then it is still a fething command squad.

A cm is still a captain unit(but no longer a captain model) the apothecary is still part of the command squad unit, but no longer a veteran model.

Cms are not a different unit from captains anymore(codex aa specific); they are different models with different statlines and special rules,but are the same unit entry.

 easysauce wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
it is in the other SM type codexes.

So thus irrelevant as it isn't in this codex.



CM is an upgrade for Captain, much like Phaeron is an upgrade for Necron Overlords (unless that was changed?). Despite that, Phaeron Overlords can still be used in Decurions, so I would assume CM can be used instead of Captains?

did you really just say that another codex's treatment of the exact same situation does not matter,

then give me an example of a similar situation from a different codex as evidence to support you point?





you upgraded a model to be a different model with a different name/stat line is the key in the SM case... you are not just adding a mastery level or something of that nature,

if you claim that a chapter master is in fact a captain still, then he does not get to use orbital assault or the CM stat line...

what you are doing is claiming to be a CM for one rules purpose, and a captain for another... despite the two being mutually exclusive.


you upgrade a captain to a CM,

you then have a unit composed of one CM, with all that entails, new stats, new model name, new rules like orbital strike.

the Data slate might still be called captain, but any rules that apply to captain models no longer apply in the same way as with other codexes and the example with blood claws that I brought up.


GW also specifically listed out what counts as a captain in the dataslate, captains count, special characters that are captains count, but CM are left of that list so are a no go.


the side that is arguing that captains and CM are interchangeable in all respects have some fundamental problems with that reasoning that have not been addressed at all re orbital strike, unit composition, calling out models specifically by name in formations.

You want an example check the one you gave earlier from codex Eldar. Note how it just says Farseer unit, then notes you must take sky runner in the restrictions. Sticking with the same codex check the seer council again just Farseers and Warlock Council mentioned, yet you may upgrade either to sky runners (where they require you to make the same choice for all models).

A Chapter Master is still a Captain unit,but no longer a Captain MODEL. Formations list units you can take rather than models, the restrictions are where models are limited or referred to. Like again your blood claw example. Upgrade one to Wolf guard Squad Leader and he is no longer a blood claw model and not effected by rules that relate to blood claw models. But he is still a member of a bloodclaw unit so is still effected by rules that effect bloodclaw units.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Can a ba tac squad take grav cannons?

Tac squads in codex space marines can.

Cm in codex space marines(sorry adeptus astartes) is not a separate unit from a captain. It is an upgrade in the captain unit entry. This is what I was talking about with the vet sgt upgrade; if you take the captain as un-upgradable, then you cannot upgrade to vet sgts(or add additional space marines) because the unit composition is 1 sgt and 4 space marines. The vet sgt is an upgrade that changes 1 model in the unit entry(exactly like the cm in the captain entry)

Yes, a Chapter Master is an upgrade listed for the captain, but by taking that upgrade, the Captain is no longer a Captain. He becomes a Chapter Master. A Chapter Master has a different statline and rules than a Captain; just as a Skyrunner Farseer has different rules than a Farseer. We know the Fareseer is a different unit from a Skyrunner Farseer thanks to the "Fleet" rule on the Farseer data card. Same goes here.

Vet Sgt is also not the same as a Sgt. The unit composition is allowed to change in the tac squad becase we are give specific permission to do so.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
That is again a different situation.

And not at all what we are saying.

What we are saying is that you take a command squad and upgrade 1 member to an apothecary; then it is still a fething command squad.

A cm is still a captain unit(but no longer a captain model) the apothecary is still part of the command squad unit, but no longer a veteran model.

Cms are not a different unit from captains anymore(codex aa specific); they are different models with different statlines and special rules,but are the same unit entry.

Yes you are correct easysauce is disagreeing with you. Also it is still Codex: Space Marines (AA is just a grouping title like AdMech for Skitarii and CultMech).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 extremefreak17 wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Can a ba tac squad take grav cannons?

Tac squads in codex space marines can.

Cm in codex space marines(sorry adeptus astartes) is not a separate unit from a captain. It is an upgrade in the captain unit entry. This is what I was talking about with the vet sgt upgrade; if you take the captain as un-upgradable, then you cannot upgrade to vet sgts(or add additional space marines) because the unit composition is 1 sgt and 4 space marines. The vet sgt is an upgrade that changes 1 model in the unit entry(exactly like the cm in the captain entry)

Yes, a Chapter Master is an upgrade listed for the captain, but by taking that upgrade, the Captain is no longer a Captain. He becomes a Chapter Master. A Chapter Master has a different statline and rules than a Captain; just as a Skyrunner Farseer has different rules than a Farseer. We know the Fareseer is a different unit from a Skyrunner Farseer thanks to the "Fleet" rule on the Farseer data card. Same goes here.

Vet Sgt is also not the same as a Sgt. The unit composition is allowed to change in the tac squad becase we are give specific permission to do so.

Exactly this is the same as Farseer and Farseer Sky runner. So in the unit listings in the Eldar formations does it ever say Farseer Skyrunner? Or does it just say Farseer and then mention in restrictions whether or not you can or must take that upgrade?

It's (currently) a rules grey area for RAW. (There are always people that are going to say "no my stance is black and white," but no, it isn't, and no one will convince me otherwise.)

On one side, you have:
-it's a line upgrade, not a unique data sheet. So saying you can't take it would indeed be similar to saying you can't take a weapon upgrade or make him wear terminator armor.

On the rai side, you've got:
-there is no chapter master entry in a gladius anywhere, even in the sub formation where the named chapter masters are. Surely if they give you the opportunity to take named CM's in the same group as a captain, they mean for you to be able to upgrade him to a CM, right? It wouldn't make sense for them to put "may upgrade to a CM" underneath, because he can already do that on his data sheet. It would be redundant.

-what WOULD they put if they wanted you to be able to take a CM then? A CM isn't a unit data sheet anywhere in the book.

-a gladius can be, and probably will be, bigger than just a full company, involving some 10th company, some 1st company, some of the librarius, and a hefty chunk of armory. Surely 20-30% of the chapter being at one place at one time is enough for the chapter master's personal attention? During shield of Baal, Dante personally takes command when his forces entail a mere half of the 2nd company + a few of his sanguinary guard and Mephiston.

To go against it though:

-as has been stated, it doesn't list named CM's as a replacement option, only captains.

The main point of RAW contention is: does a captain data sheet cease to be a captain data sheet if you take an upgrade that changes the model's name? What if instead of chapter master, it was "veteran captain." Would you be able to take that upgrade?

They just say Farseer. In the Windrider Host, he must take the upgrade. In the Seer Council, they must ALL take it or not.

So it seems that you can not take a Skyrunner Farseer in a Guardian Battle Host / Storm Host then?

To go against it though:

-as has been stated, it doesn't list named CM's as a replacement option, only captains.

False, whilst this is true for demi companies in the command where they do list the named CMs they still just list the generic Captain. Please read the thread as this was already covered. Also note the Farseer/Farseer Skyrunner example in the Eldar codex which proves having a differently named model doesn't effect the unit name which is what is listed in formations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 extremefreak17 wrote:
They just say Farseer. In the Windrider Host, he must take the upgrade. In the Seer Council, they must ALL take it or not.

So it seems that you can not take a Skyrunner Farseer in a Guardian Battle Host / Storm Host then?

No you absolutely can. Again read the actual examples even when you HAVE to take the Skyrunner, still only the unit (datasheets) name is given.Then restrictions tells you what upgrades are or aaren't allowed (in the windrider they tell you must take the upgrade).

You're also claiming that the generic Chapter Master can NEVER be taken in a Gladius where Calgary, Pedro etc can happily join in. Your stance is absolutely nonsensical.

 FlingitNow wrote:

To go against it though:

-as has been stated, it doesn't list named CM's as a replacement option, only captains.

False, whilst this is true for demi companies in the command where they do list the named CMs they still just list the generic Captain. Please read the thread as this was already covered. Also note the Farseer/Farseer Skyrunner example in the Eldar codex which proves having a differently named model doesn't effect the unit name which is what is listed in formations.

I'm sorry, I don't seem to be understanding you. Are you saying it does list named chapter masters as replacements, because I'm staring right at the book right now, and both the command captain and Demi-company captain only have named captain replacements. So what I said is absolutely not false sir.

They DO have named chapter masters AVAILABLE in the command group, which I pointed out as one of the "for" points in the exact post you quoted from.

Exactly join the Strike Force Command they are listed yet again only the Captain is listed. Also see the Eldar codex with Farseers vs Farseer Skyrunners it is absolutely 100% clear both RaW and RaI that a Chapter Master is still a Captain unit, just as a WGSL is still part of a blood claw unit without being a blood claw.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Exactly join the Strike Force Command they are listed yet again only the Captain is listed. Also see the Eldar codex with Farseers vs Farseer Skyrunners it is absolutely 100% clear both RaW and RaI that a Chapter Master is still a Captain unit, just as a WGSL is still part of a blood claw unit without being a blood claw.

Who are you talking to? You're aware that I think you should be able to take chapter masters by the rules, right?

no its not flign it now... we are told that captains by name are what we take.


by name, when you take a chapter master, you have taken a chapter master, RAW.

GW told you what was acceptable, everything they listed is a captain, non are CM's.

codex space marines follows the same rules as other codexes in that some upgrades change the unit composition. a data slate is a data slate no matter what codex it is in.

the NAME of the dataslate is irrelevant, what the unit is composed of is all that matters.

you can upgrade a captain to a CM, or a blood claw to a wolf srg,

that does not mean captains = CM, or that blood claws = wolft srgts, even though both data slates are called "captain" and "blood claws"

your assertions that captains and CM are the exact same thing by name is incorrect, they are two separate things despite having the same title to their dataslate.

you cannot say its a captain for the purposes of the formation, but then claim its a CM for orbital strike. its one of the other.

niv-mizzet wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Exactly join the Strike Force Command they are listed yet again only the Captain is listed. Also see the Eldar codex with Farseers vs Farseer Skyrunners it is absolutely 100% clear both RaW and RaI that a Chapter Master is still a Captain unit, just as a WGSL is still part of a blood claw unit without being a blood claw.

Who are you talking to? You're aware that I think you should be able to take chapter masters by the rules, right?

But you're claiming it is unclear when in fact it is 100% percent clear both RaW and RaI.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:
no its not flign it now... we are told that captains by name are what we take.


by name, when you take a chapter master, you have taken a chapter master, RAW.

Chapter Master is the MODEL you have taken, Captain is the UNIT you have taken RaW. If you think the CM is a unit I would ask what page a CM unit's datasheets is found?

GW told you what was acceptable, everything they listed is a captain, non are CM's.

Chapter Masters are Captains. Just as Farseer Skyunners are Farseers. So why does the Eldar codex just list Farseer whenever you can a Farseer Skyrunner?

codex space marines follows the same rules as other codexes in that some upgrades change the unit composition. a data slate is a data slate no matter what codex it is in.

Yes they change the unit composition, they don't change what the unit is though.

the NAME of the dataslate is irrelevant, what the unit is composed of is all that matters.

Yet the rules tell you the name on the datasheets is the name of the unit (page 114 bullet 3 Codex Space Marines). So why are you claiming the name of the unit is irrelevant to what units can be taken in a Formation?

you can upgrade a captain to a CM, or a blood claw to a wolf srg,

Exactly and the Chapter Master is still part of a Captain unit just as the Wolfguard Squad Leader is still part of a Bloodclaw unit.

that does not mean captains = CM, or that blood claws = wolft srgts, even though both data slates are called "captain" and "blood claws"

No but as above the WGSL is still part of a blood claw unit as the CM is still part of a Captain unit. If a formation says you may take a unit of bloodclaws with no restrictions would you allow them to take a WGSL?

your assertions that captains and CM are the exact same thing by name is incorrect, they are two separate things despite having the same title to their dataslate.

you cannot say its a captain for the purposes of the formation, but then claim its a CM for orbital strike. its one of the other.

It is a Chapter Master model and a Captain UNIT. Are models and units really that confusing to you? If you don't understand the difference between models and units please go back and read the core rulebook several times, because trying to discuss the exact rules when you don't have any sort of handle on basics isn't going to get anywhere.

 FlingitNow wrote:

To go against it though:

-as has been stated, it doesn't list named CM's as a replacement option, only captains.

False, whilst this is true for demi companies in the command where they do list the named CMs they still just list the generic Captain. Please read the thread as this was already covered. Also note the Farseer/Farseer Skyrunner example in the Eldar codex which proves having a differently named model doesn't effect the unit name which is what is listed in formations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 extremefreak17 wrote:
They just say Farseer. In the Windrider Host, he must take the upgrade. In the Seer Council, they must ALL take it or not.

So it seems that you can not take a Skyrunner Farseer in a Guardian Battle Host / Storm Host then?

No you absolutely can. Again read the actual examples even when you HAVE to take the Skyrunner, still only the unit (datasheets) name is given.Then restrictions tells you what upgrades are or aaren't allowed (in the windrider they tell you must take the upgrade).

You're also claiming that the generic Chapter Master can NEVER be taken in a Gladius where Calgary, Pedro etc can happily join in. Your stance is absolutely nonsensical.

Then why under the Farseer entry is there this rule:

"Fleet (Farseer Only)"
By your reasoning, the Skyrunner Farseer also gains fleet.

 extremefreak17 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

To go against it though:

-as has been stated, it doesn't list named CM's as a replacement option, only captains.

False, whilst this is true for demi companies in the command where they do list the named CMs they still just list the generic Captain. Please read the thread as this was already covered. Also note the Farseer/Farseer Skyrunner example in the Eldar codex which proves having a differently named model doesn't effect the unit name which is what is listed in formations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 extremefreak17 wrote:
They just say Farseer. In the Windrider Host, he must take the upgrade. In the Seer Council, they must ALL take it or not.

So it seems that you can not take a Skyrunner Farseer in a Guardian Battle Host / Storm Host then?

No you absolutely can. Again read the actual examples even when you HAVE to take the Skyrunner, still only the unit (datasheets) name is given.Then restrictions tells you what upgrades are or aaren't allowed (in the windrider they tell you must take the upgrade).

You're also claiming that the generic Chapter Master can NEVER be taken in a Gladius where Calgary, Pedro etc can happily join in. Your stance is absolutely nonsensical.

Then why under the Farseer entry is there this rule:

"Fleet (Farseer Only)"
By your reasoning, the Skyrunner Farseer also gains fleet.

Are models and units really that confusing to you? If you don't understand the difference between models and units please go back and read the core rulebook several times, because trying to discuss the exact rules when you don't have any sort of handle on basics isn't going to get anywhere.

Farseer here refers to the model not the unit if it referred to the later the rule would make no sense. Formations however list the UNITS you may take.

It is not 100% clear both raw and rai or this thread wouldn't exist.

I personally think there's a stronger case for taking them then there is for not being able to take them, but I'm not going to try and tell people that disagree that they just can't read.

Fleet is listed as a USR on the Farseer data card. Units have data cards, not models.

Are models and units really that confusing to you? If you don't understand the difference between models and units please go back and read the core rulebook several times, because trying to discuss the exact rules when you don't have any sort of handle on basics isn't going to get anywhere.

LOOK I CAN PASTA TOO GUYS

niv-mizzet wrote:
It is not 100% clear both raw and rai or this thread wouldn't exist.

I personally think there's a stronger case for taking them then there is for not being able to take them, but I'm not going to try and tell people that disagree that they just can't read.

Just because some people can't read plain English doesn't mean something is unclear. Just check page 114. It states that each Datasheet is an army list entry. It says the name of the datasheet is the name of the unit (so we 100% KNOW there is no such thing as a Chapter Master unit). It also states that formations list the armylist entries you can take in them, and that restrictions is the thing that talks about what upgrades you cannot or must take.

There is absolutely no doubt RaW that a Chapter Master is part of a Captain unit and that the Demi Company lists the Captain UNIT as what can be taken. This is absolute 100% RaW. In terms of RaI the only evidence against is the lack of named CMs in a demi company yet there is the counter example in the Strike Force Command. Then we have codex Eldar which absolutely reinforces this with Farseers and Warlock Councils and their Skyrunner counterparts. So we know this is how they write the rules to work as they literally tell us this directly in the rules and there are clear examples in all other similar cases and not a single counter example.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 extremefreak17 wrote:
Fleet is listed as a USR on the Farseer data card. Units have data cards, not models.

Are models and units really that confusing to you? If you don't understand the difference between models and units please go back and read the core rulebook several times, because trying to discuss the exact rules when you don't have any sort of handle on basics isn't going to get anywhere.

LOOK I CAN PASTA TOO GUYS

Units have datasheets but yet again you show your inability to work the difference between units and models. What has special rules units or models? This should answer who they are referring to when they tell you a Farseer has fleet...

Seriously read the basic rulebook, learn the difference between models and units and what rules apply at what level. Then you can come back and either try to make a coherent argument or more likely (so if you actually understand the English) accept that the clear RaW and RaI answer is correct.

So the question is "Does "Captain" in the Demi-company, refer to the unit, or the model?"

If it refers to the unit, then the Captain can upgrade to be a CM.

If it refers to the model (which IMO based on the legal swaps is the case), then no it cannot upgrade to be a CM.

This is a similar issue as the Canoptek Swarm argument that got locked recently (similar, not the same).

 Happyjew wrote:
So the question is "Does "Captain" in the Demi-company, refer to the unit, or the model?"

If it refers to the unit, then the Captain can upgrade to be a CM.

If it refers to the model (which IMO based on the legal swaps is the case), then no it cannot upgrade to be a CM.

This is a similar issue as the Canoptek Swarm argument that got locked recently (similar, not the same).

So in your opinion the rules are wrong when they say "A Formation Datasheets will list the Army List Entries which make up the formation"? Your stance is that your opinion is more important than the rules? Is that correct?

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
So the question is "Does "Captain" in the Demi-company, refer to the unit, or the model?"

If it refers to the unit, then the Captain can upgrade to be a CM.

If it refers to the model (which IMO based on the legal swaps is the case), then no it cannot upgrade to be a CM.

This is a similar issue as the Canoptek Swarm argument that got locked recently (similar, not the same).

So in your opinion the rules are wrong when they say "A Formation Datasheets will list the Army List Entries which make up the formation"? Your stance is that your opinion is more important than the rules? Is that correct?

I don't recall saying RAW. Seeing as how I specifically said my opinion (despite using a common acronym), that should have been a clue I was talking about HIWPI. There are a number of rules, despite being very clear, people do not follow as written. Or have you forgotten about the 5th edition LOS issues, or currently non-Dread SM vehicles issue?

 Happyjew wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
So the question is "Does "Captain" in the Demi-company, refer to the unit, or the model?"

If it refers to the unit, then the Captain can upgrade to be a CM.

If it refers to the model (which IMO based on the legal swaps is the case), then no it cannot upgrade to be a CM.

This is a similar issue as the Canoptek Swarm argument that got locked recently (similar, not the same).

So in your opinion the rules are wrong when they say "A Formation Datasheets will list the Army List Entries which make up the formation"? Your stance is that your opinion is more important than the rules? Is that correct?

I don't recall saying RAW. Seeing as how I specifically said my opinion (despite using a common acronym), that should have been a clue I was talking about HIWPI. There are a number of rules, despite being very clear, people do not follow as written. Or have you forgotten about the 5th edition LOS issues, or currently non-Dread SM vehicles issue?

Yes RaW can cause problems and can differ from the actual rules. But here not only is RaW clear, the intent is clearly spelt out not only just by the fact they highlight such things in the rules I've listed but also all relevant examples either have no clarification (Kabalite Warriors to Trueborn) or clear clarification in the direction of RaW (Farseer, Warlocks, Aspect warriors and Exarch etc). I defy you to find a single example that clarifies a model change upgrade is restricted by default.

This argument is as bad as people claiming you couldn't take DTs in formations or that DTs in a formation aren't in that formation (like Aspect Host Wave Serpents). As with this case the rules are abundantly clear. Yes in a Demi Company you can't take thenamedCMs but in a strike force command you can and the Captain entry remains the same. They tell you that it is the army list entries that a Formation is referring to. They tell you a Chapter Master is a Captain ALE. It really is completely clear.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yes RaW can cause problems and can differ from the actual rules. But here not only is RaW clear, the intent is clearly spelt out not only just by the fact they highlight such things in the rules I've listed but also all relevant examples either have no clarification (Kabalite Warriors to Trueborn) or clear clarification in the direction of RaW (Farseer, Warlocks, Aspect warriors and Exarch etc). I defy you to find a single example that clarifies a model change upgrade is restricted by default.

This argument is as bad as people claiming you couldn't take DTs in formations or that DTs in a formation aren't in that formation (like Aspect Host Wave Serpents). As with this case the rules are abundantly clear. Yes in a Demi Company you can't take thenamedCMs but in a strike force command you can and the Captain entry remains the same. They tell you that it is the army list entries that a Formation is referring to. They tell you a Chapter Master is a Captain ALE. It really is completely clear.

I underlined where the disagreement is. You claim the intent is clear because other formations are clear. I don't think the intent is as clear as you make it out to be. As far as I'm concerned, since GW specifically says instead of taking "1 Captain" you can take "1 named Captain" - that in itself is implication that the intent is 1 Captain (model). Would I deny my opponent from playing with a CM? No. Would I run a CM? Again no. If I ran a tournament, it is something that would be clarified in an FAQ. I'm not claiming that RAW is wrong, or not clear - but only GW knows what GW intended. For all we know, next week they'll come out and say they meant "1 Techamrine". Also regarding Kabalite Warriors/Trueborn it would depend. If it said 1 unit of Kabalite Warriors, then yes. You could upgrade the unit to Trueborn (as it is still a Kabalite Warrior unit). If it said something like "1 unit of 10 Kabalite Warriors" or "1 unit of Kabalite Warriors*" (*unit must contain 10 Kabalite Warriors); then no, you can not upgrade them to Trueborn.

And as one of the few Eldar players in my group, none of us have considered running a Farseer Skyrunner in a Guardian Stormhost/Battlehost.

Simple question: armoured task force; can you take servitors with the techmarine?

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Simple question: armoured task force; can you take servitors with the techmarine?

While I'm sure i agree with your answer, that is actually a more reasonable question imo

 Happyjew wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yes RaW can cause problems and can differ from the actual rules. But here not only is RaW clear, the intent is clearly spelt out not only just by the fact they highlight such things in the rules I've listed but also all relevant examples either have no clarification (Kabalite Warriors to Trueborn) or clear clarification in the direction of RaW (Farseer, Warlocks, Aspect warriors and Exarch etc). I defy you to find a single example that clarifies a model change upgrade is restricted by default.

This argument is as bad as people claiming you couldn't take DTs in formations or that DTs in a formation aren't in that formation (like Aspect Host Wave Serpents). As with this case the rules are abundantly clear. Yes in a Demi Company you can't take thenamedCMs but in a strike force command you can and the Captain entry remains the same. They tell you that it is the army list entries that a Formation is referring to. They tell you a Chapter Master is a Captain ALE. It really is completely clear.

I underlined where the disagreement is. You claim the intent is clear because other formations are clear. I don't think the intent is as clear as you make it out to be. As far as I'm concerned, since GW specifically says instead of taking "1 Captain" you can take "1 named Captain" - that in itself is implication that the intent is 1 Captain (model). Would I deny my opponent from playing with a CM? No. Would I run a CM? Again no. If I ran a tournament, it is something that would be clarified in an FAQ. I'm not claiming that RAW is wrong, or not clear - but only GW knows what GW intended. For all we know, next week they'll come out and say they meant "1 Techamrine". Also regarding Kabalite Warriors/Trueborn it would depend. If it said 1 unit of Kabalite Warriors, then yes. You could upgrade the unit to Trueborn (as it is still a Kabalite Warrior unit). If it said something like "1 unit of 10 Kabalite Warriors" or "1 unit of Kabalite Warriors*" (*unit must contain 10 Kabalite Warriors); then no, you can not upgrade them to Trueborn.

And as one of the few Eldar players in my group, none of us have considered running a Farseer Skyrunner in a Guardian Stormhost/Battlehost.

So we agree RaW is clear (and works) correct? We also know every single other similar example works the way RaW says. So RaI is as clear as itcan be. There is just as strong an RaI argument that marines are T10 as one for not taking a CM in the Strike Force Command or Demi company.

So if it said a unit of 1 Captain it would be awkwardly worded but but I would agree there was an argument that they meant to preclude the Chapter master. They don't they say 1 Captain. Do any of your Eldar players believe you can take a Farseer Skyrunner in a Seer Council or Wind Rider Host? If they do then that completely destroys your notion that the CM is unavailable to the Demi Company.

Yes, as the Seer Council gives permission, and the win rider host requires it. You are basing RAI on other formations. I'm basing it on the formation options. As such, RAW don't agree with me. But it would not be the first time.

 Happyjew wrote:
Yes, as the Seer Council gives permission, and the win rider host requires it. You are basing RAI on other formations. I'm basing it on the formation options. As such, RAW don't agree with me. But it would not be the first time.

They tell you Captain is the unit name. In all other cases where you have an upgrade model they still put the datasheet unit name. In the very same codex there are as many examples where a generic Captain can be taken in a Formation including named CMs as not. I'm not basing my RaI solely on other formations though looking for similar rules interactions with a more clear outcome is a great way to work out RaI. I'm also looking at what they say and how they write things.

How would you expect them to write a Demi Company to allow a CM upgrade on a Captain?

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Yes, as the Seer Council gives permission, and the win rider host requires it. You are basing RAI on other formations. I'm basing it on the formation options. As such, RAW don't agree with me. But it would not be the first time.

They tell you Captain is the unit name. In all other cases where you have an upgrade model they still put the datasheet unit name. In the very same codex there are as many examples where a generic Captain can be taken in a Formation including named CMs as not. I'm not basing my RaI solely on other formations though looking for similar rules interactions with a more clear outcome is a great way to work out RaI. I'm also looking at what they say and how they write things.

How would you expect them to write a Demi Company to allow a CM upgrade on a Captain?

1 Chaplain, Captain or Chapter Master.

Similar to the Grey Knight's "Grey Knights Brotherhood" formation, which calls for a Grand Master (which is an upgrade for Brother-Captains).

 Happyjew wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Yes, as the Seer Council gives permission, and the win rider host requires it. You are basing RAI on other formations. I'm basing it on the formation options. As such, RAW don't agree with me. But it would not be the first time.

They tell you Captain is the unit name. In all other cases where you have an upgrade model they still put the datasheet unit name. In the very same codex there are as many examples where a generic Captain can be taken in a Formation including named CMs as not. I'm not basing my RaI solely on other formations though looking for similar rules interactions with a more clear outcome is a great way to work out RaI. I'm also looking at what they say and how they write things.

How would you expect them to write a Demi Company to allow a CM upgrade on a Captain?

1 Chaplain, Captain or Chapter Master.

Similar to the Grey Knight's "Grey Knights Brotherhood" formation, which calls for a Grand Master (which is an upgrade for Brother-Captains).

Why on earth would they pit CM in the formation? It would be literally meaningless as it would not refer to any army list entry in the codex.

So you believe it is illegal to have Chapter master EVER in a Gladius? Only the named ones?

You see that's the difference with our perspectives. I've looked at all the evidence and rules to work out my interpretation. You've picked an interpretation and the desperately tried to find evidence to support it...

If you don't want to see something there is little I can do. RaW is 100% clear the CM is allowed. 100% of precedence agrees the CM is allowed. If that isn't enough for you then you aren't interested in working out the rules only in pushing your made up rules.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Yes, as the Seer Council gives permission, and the win rider host requires it. You are basing RAI on other formations. I'm basing it on the formation options. As such, RAW don't agree with me. But it would not be the first time.

They tell you Captain is the unit name. In all other cases where you have an upgrade model they still put the datasheet unit name. In the very same codex there are as many examples where a generic Captain can be taken in a Formation including named CMs as not. I'm not basing my RaI solely on other formations though looking for similar rules interactions with a more clear outcome is a great way to work out RaI. I'm also looking at what they say and how they write things.

How would you expect them to write a Demi Company to allow a CM upgrade on a Captain?

1 Chaplain, Captain or Chapter Master.

Similar to the Grey Knight's "Grey Knights Brotherhood" formation, which calls for a Grand Master (which is an upgrade for Brother-Captains).

Why on earth would they pit CM in the formation? It would be literally meaningless as it would not refer to any army list entry in the codex.

So you believe it is illegal to have Chapter master EVER in a Gladius? Only the named ones?

You see that's the difference with our perspectives. I've looked at all the evidence and rules to work out my interpretation. You've picked an interpretation and the desperately tried to find evidence to support it...

If you don't want to see something there is little I can do. RaW is 100% clear the CM is allowed. 100% of precedence agrees the CM is allowed. If that isn't enough for you then you aren't interested in working out the rules only in pushing your made up rules.

I've already agreed with RAW. I've also stated both HIWPI, and how I would rule it in a tournament. There are formations that list the basic model/unit, and give permission to upgrade them (Seer Council), there are formations that list the basic model/unit and requires an upgrade (Windrider Host). There are formations that specifically call out the upgraded model (Grey Knights Brotherhood). And then there are those that are silent (Demi-Company). I'm not pushing my view as being right. I'm pointing out that based on other formations, as well as the Demi-Company itself, there is probable intent for Captain only.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Simple question: armoured task force; can you take servitors with the techmarine?

Simple question: Is a Captain a Chapter Master?

From wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Simple question: armoured task force; can you take servitors with the techmarine?

Simple question: Is a Captain a Chapter Master?

He can be, if you pay the points

If you can upgrade a Captain using the unit options, what stops you from adding Spiders to a Harvest.

If it says Captain, it must be a Captain. If it says 1 spider, it is one spider.

There seems to be a person or persons that gained the rage and zealot special rules in real life in here. Time to abandon thread.

niv-mizzet wrote:
There seems to be a person or persons that gained the rage and zealot special rules in real life in here. Time to abandon thread.

It comes as standard on some models

Fragile wrote:
If you can upgrade a Captain using the unit options, what stops you from adding Spiders to a Harvest.

If it says Captain, it must be a Captain. If it says 1 spider, it is one spider.

Have you bothered to read the rules or the thread? Formations list units. A Chapter Master is the name of the MODEL, Captain is the name of the UNIT. So when I take a CM I have absolutely taken a Captain. Just like when I upgrade Grey Hunter to a Wolfguard Pack Leader he is no longer a Grey Hunter MODEL but is still part of a Grey Hunter UNIT.

The rules are 100% clear on this as proven in this thread. Now do you have anything to add rather than making debunked claims that illustrate you fail understand the basics of how formations work and the difference between units and models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fragile wrote:
If you can upgrade a Captain using the unit options, what stops you from adding Spiders to a Harvest.

If it says Captain, it must be a Captain. If it says 1 spider, it is one spider.

The Spider in the Harvest entry as written is broken RaW. There is no such unit as 1 Spyder. So we have to houserule it and the closest to the RaW would be change it to unit of Spyders which would indeed allow you to upgrade. However they have made their intent clear by specifically calling out 1 Spyder so most will play it that way.

It should be written 1 unit of Canoptek Spyders, with a restriction that he can only contain 1 model.

The Demi Company much like Strike Force Command just lists the Captain unit which undeniably the Chapter Master is. Look at the Eldar codex a Farseer Skyrunner is just as different from a Farseer as a Captain is from a CM. Yet everywhere where you can take a Skyrunner the unit listed is still the datasheet name Farseer.

Finally the rules tell us each datasheet is a unit entry. That at the top of the datasheet is the unit name. Then they tell us that Formations list the unit entries you can take. So ask you for the unit entry for a Chapter Master.

I did just realize something. If you take a Chapter Master, you won't be able to get the free transports, as that requires a Captain.

From wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Simple question: armoured task force; can you take servitors with the techmarine?

Simple question: Is a Captain a Chapter Master?

Yes, in exactly the same way that servitors are an upgrade to the techmarine.

Techmarine entry sinply states 1 techmarine; techmarine is both a unit and a model name. If you believe you can add servitors to the techmarine, then you can change the captain model to a chapter master model in the captain unit.

The spyder/spyders bit is different; RAW they used the model name instead of the unit. This is not likely to be RAI simply because grammatically one would write 1 spyder as opposed to 1 spyders. Hiwpi is as 1 unit not 1 model. But again model and unit do not share the exact same name(just close enough to cause confusion)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Happyjew: a chapter master is a captain, just an upgraded one(unit: captain, model: chapter master), so if you have a chapter master you have a captain.

These debates are fun...

Formations typically list a number of required or optional UNITS.

If the Formation calls for 1 Captain, we should interpret this as 1 Captain UNIT.

The Captain UNIT can be composed of either a Captain MODEL or a Chapter Master MODEL depending on how we choose options.]

You need to differentiate between MODEL and UNIT, especially in the case of units composed of a single model.

The Canoptek Harvest Formation is a Red Herring. The Formation calls for "1 Canoptek Spyder" along with "1 unit of Canoptek Wraiths" and "1 unit of Canoptek Scarabs". So, two issues. One, is the inconsistency. We're not told to include "1 unit of Canoptek Sypders" as we are with the other units. The second is the more important one. There is no unit in the Codex called "Canoptek Spyder". There is a model called "Canoptek Spyder", but no unit. There is a unit called "Canoptek SpyderS". Not the pluralization. Given these two points, the most reasonable interpretation is that the Formation is calling for 1 Canoptek Spyder MODEL and not a Canoptek Spyders UNIT.

 Happyjew wrote:
I did just realize something. If you take a Chapter Master, you won't be able to get the free transports, as that requires a Captain.

? Why would you not be able to get the free transports? That requires a Captain which the CM undeniably is.

 FlingitNow wrote:
The Spider in the Harvest entry as written is broken RaW. There is no such unit as 1 Spyder.

Funny. That's how every Spyder unit starts... Just one Spyder...

Charistoph wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
The Spider in the Harvest entry as written is broken RaW. There is no such unit as 1 Spyder.

Funny. That's how every Spyder unit starts... Just one Spyder...

No it starts as a Spyder unit of 1 model. A subtle but important distinction. Because model level rules and unit level rules are 2 distinct things. Formation lists are unit level rules. When they put model level instructions in there they break RaW. So we have to work out what they meant. Was it a typo missing unit of spyders with no restrictions, was it a typo with unit of spyders and a typo saying restricted to 1 model, or have they not understood what their own rules say and meant 1 Spyder model in which case they should have typed 1 spyder unit and a restriction of 1 model.

Fortunately there is no such problem with the demi company as they have put in a clear unit name of Captain. So we know we can take a Captain Unit with any upgrades.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
The Spider in the Harvest entry as written is broken RaW. There is no such unit as 1 Spyder.

Funny. That's how every Spyder unit starts... Just one Spyder...

No it starts as a Spyder unit of 1 model. A subtle but important distinction.

And you missed the point. You said there is no such unit as 1 Spyder. And that's how the unit starts.

See how the language can be turned around? What your post originally quoted up there could be easily interpreted as, "No unit exists of just 1 Spyder".

That's all I was really pointing out.

Charistoph wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
The Spider in the Harvest entry as written is broken RaW. There is no such unit as 1 Spyder.

Funny. That's how every Spyder unit starts... Just one Spyder...

No it starts as a Spyder unit of 1 model. A subtle but important distinction.

And you missed the point. You said there is no such unit as 1 Spyder. And that's how the unit starts.

See how the language can be turned around? What your post originally quoted up there could be easily interpreted as, "No unit exists of just 1 Spyder".

That's all I was really pointing out.

It could only be interpreted like that by someone who doesn't understand the rules or English. If I'd written "there is no such unit of 1 spyder" you'd have had a point. It's almost like words matter...

NVM.

If you wanted to be accurate about it, you leave off the "1": there is no such unit as canoptek spyder.

There is such a unit as canoptek spyders, and that unit starts with 1 spyder; but the is no unit named spyder(abv).

There is also no such unit as "Grand Master" yet, the Grey Knight Brotherhood requires one.

 Happyjew wrote:
There is also no such unit as "Grand Master" yet, the Grey Knight Brotherhood requires one.

Hence they should errata that out as currently it is broken RaW and redundant RaI. But hey at least they learnt this by the time the Eldar dex came out.

Just wanted to add my voice

1 Captain in Battle Demi-Company composition mean a 1 Captain Unit, not particular model.
Same way 3 Tactical Squads are Units not 3 times 4 Space Marines and 1 Space Marine Sergeant.

In new codex we have Unit type sheets and Chapter Master is upgrade of Captain, but it not change it's unit composition -> Chapter Master is still unit type 1 Captain just like Tactical Squad Veteran Sergeant is still 1 Space Marine Sergeant.
Named Captains was allowed to be taken, because they are on different "sheets" than Captain Unit. Also there is no Chapter Master Unit sheet in codex.

And like it has been said before -> You are allowed to take 0-1 Command Squad (not written: Unit) with all upgrades you can take, which means also you can take Apothercary.

I think the RAI is Captain and only Captain. Look at the substitute special characters; the list specifically omits and chapter mastes. Cantor, Helbrecht and Calgar are only avaible in the CAD or the Strike Force Command formation. If GW intended to let us use a Chapter Master to lead the Demi-Company, why isn't Pedro an option?

Okapi,
Rules are really, really clear.

As per RAI if you wish:
We can assume that additional powers granted by Kantor, Calgar or Helbrecht are to powerfull to allow them to be in simple Battle Demi-Company.

Not everyone use Iron Hands overpowered CM on bike.

Does the Stat Line list the names? Such that the Ravenwing Apothecary isn't a Black Knight anymore, and a Chapter Master isn't a Captain anymore?

And yes, you can take a DIY CM in a Gladius, it's the Command option.

Breton wrote:
Does the Stat Line list the names? Such that the Ravenwing Apothecary isn't a Black Knight anymore, and a Chapter Master isn't a Captain anymore?

And yes, you can take a DIY CM in a Gladius, it's the Command option.

The point is that the formations tell you which units you take. The chapter master statline is still(and always) a captain unit.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

Breton wrote:
Does the Stat Line list the names? Such that the Ravenwing Apothecary isn't a Black Knight anymore, and a Chapter Master isn't a Captain anymore?

And yes, you can take a DIY CM in a Gladius, it's the Command option.

The point is that the formations tell you which units you take. The chapter master statline is still(and always) a captain unit.

So it says Captain XXXXXX
Captain XXXXXX

If the Apothecary isn't a Veteran/Black Night etc, then a Chapter Master is not a Captain.

I'd say RAW is pretty clear - it allows you to take the listed named HQ units or a generic Captain unit. Whether or not the Captain unit upgrades its one model to a Chapter Master model is irrelevant, since the unit is still called Captain.
Comparing it to one of the worst rules GW has written - the "1 spyder" passage - is really pointless. That passage should state "unit of X and may only contain 1 model of Y" - much like other restrictions to model count in units are worded. Someone fethed up, it's by no means a reference point for how anything should work.

RAI is , uhm. "kinda unclear"? I'd say the intention was to allow Chapter Masters only in via the Command formation. So you have basically:

Sgts leading each squad
Captain or Chaplain leading each Demi-Company - OR a Chaptain leading a Battle Company being assisted by a Chaplain
Chapter Master leading the Gladius Strike Force (from his Command formation)

Which looks pretty well-thought out as a command structure and could be what they intended.
If you wanted to bring a CM without a "supporting Captain", you could always leave the Demis and Gladius formations and go for a set of formations and/or CAD(s).

I personally (HIWPI) don't really see the need to override the RAW or enforce the "likely RAI". It works as it is and I don't think bringing a Chapter Master as the commander of a Demi-Company breaks fluff or balance.

I don't see the need to differentiate between them either, but I think it is. I think their game name, and fluff name should be different. Captain and Veteran Captain/Chapter Master/etc.

Breton wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

Breton wrote:
Does the Stat Line list the names? Such that the Ravenwing Apothecary isn't a Black Knight anymore, and a Chapter Master isn't a Captain anymore?

And yes, you can take a DIY CM in a Gladius, it's the Command option.

The point is that the formations tell you which units you take. The chapter master statline is still(and always) a captain unit.

So it says Captain XXXXXX
Captain XXXXXX

If the Apothecary isn't a Veteran/Black Night etc, then a Chapter Master is not a Captain.

An apothecary is part of the unit: command squad.

Do you think the gladius denies upgrading the veteran to apothecary?

The chapter master is still a captain because that is the unit, just like the apothecary is still a part of the command squad. The apothecary is no longer a vet/black knight in exactly the same way that the captain unit captain cannot call down an orbital strike(different models with different rules/options in the same unit).

Let me state this again. A chapter master is unit entry:captain. He will always be unit entry: captain. Nothing will change the chapter master model from unit entry:captain. The gladius units are unit entries(or do you have a group of models all called "tactical squad" in your codex that i somehow don't have in mine?(i only have a unit entry: tactical squad, and it is made up of space marines and a sergeant/veteran sergeant)

Breton wrote:
I don't see the need to differentiate between them either, but I think it is. I think their game name, and fluff name should be different. Captain and Veteran Captain/Chapter Master/etc.

Rules-wise there is a clear distinction. Between what an Army List entry, a unit and a model is. Army List entries may contain multiple units (e.g. Infantry Platoons), units (e.g. Tactical Squads or Captain-unit) and models (e.g. Tactical Marine, Captain or Chapter Master).
When building an Army List, you are interacting with the Army List entry by default.
The Army List entry "Captain" - which is what your formation might limit you to consists of a single Captain unit.
This Captain unit consists of either a Captain model or a Chapter Master model.

Since the Formation does not call for a Captain who may not include a Chapter Master model/receive a Chapter Master upgrade, it is allowed to bring a Chapter Master - since it is a default option for any Captain unit. The formation would have to overrule the permission to take the Chapter Master upgrade - since it was already granted by the unit data slate. If it was the other way around, you'd have to re-allow ANY upgrade - e.g. Power Swords or Jump Packs. Which would be, quite frankly, stupid.

And even your example of "Captain unit consisting of Veteran Captain or Chapter Master model" would still allow people to argue "but the Chapter Master doesn't have a Captain in the name bladibla".

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

Breton wrote:
Does the Stat Line list the names? Such that the Ravenwing Apothecary isn't a Black Knight anymore, and a Chapter Master isn't a Captain anymore?

And yes, you can take a DIY CM in a Gladius, it's the Command option.

The point is that the formations tell you which units you take. The chapter master statline is still(and always) a captain unit.

Then you agree that you can take 3 spiders in the Canoptek Harvest formation for necrons, since you can upgrade the Spider with 2 more spiders?

Okapi wrote:
I think the RAI is Captain and only Captain. Look at the substitute special characters; the list specifically omits and chapter mastes. Cantor, Helbrecht and Calgar are only avaible in the CAD or the Strike Force Command formation. If GW intended to let us use a Chapter Master to lead the Demi-Company, why isn't Pedro an option?

Yet the command option that does list Pedro and Calgar as options also lists just the Captain unit just like the demi company. So are you saying you can only field the named CMs in a Gladius and NEVER the generic ones?

 FlingitNow wrote:
So are you saying you can only field the named CMs in a Gladius and NEVER the generic ones?

It makes exactly as much sense as the Ravenwing Strike Force with 3 HQ slots and 1 valid HQ choice.

Fragile wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

Breton wrote:
Does the Stat Line list the names? Such that the Ravenwing Apothecary isn't a Black Knight anymore, and a Chapter Master isn't a Captain anymore?

And yes, you can take a DIY CM in a Gladius, it's the Command option.

The point is that the formations tell you which units you take. The chapter master statline is still(and always) a captain unit.

Then you agree that you can take 3 spiders in the Canoptek Harvest formation for necrons, since you can upgrade the Spider with 2 more spiders?

Yes I do; although i was not involved in that argument.

I also agree with it based on the lack of a points cost or unit options for the "1 canoptek spyder"; so the choices with that are: It is 1 unit(and a typo missing the "s"); or it is a free model with no upgrades(no problem for the spyder anyways).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

Breton wrote:
Does the Stat Line list the names? Such that the Ravenwing Apothecary isn't a Black Knight anymore, and a Chapter Master isn't a Captain anymore?

And yes, you can take a DIY CM in a Gladius, it's the Command option.

The point is that the formations tell you which units you take. The chapter master statline is still(and always) a captain unit.

Then you agree that you can take 3 spiders in the Canoptek Harvest formation for necrons, since you can upgrade the Spider with 2 more spiders?

Yes I do; although i was not involved in that argument.

I also agree with it based on the lack of a points cost or unit options for the "1 canoptek spyder"; so the choices with that are: It is 1 unit(and a typo missing the "s", and all options available); or it is a free model with no upgrades(no problem for the spyder anyways).

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
So are you saying you can only field the named CMs in a Gladius and NEVER the generic ones?

It makes exactly as much sense as the Ravenwing Strike Force with 3 HQ slots and 1 valid HQ choice.

Comparing a known issue with RaW to someone's RaI claim is bewildering to say the least. How is this even remotely similar?

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
So are you saying you can only field the named CMs in a Gladius and NEVER the generic ones?

It makes exactly as much sense as the Ravenwing Strike Force with 3 HQ slots and 1 valid HQ choice.

It's just that the RWSF RAW limit you to a single HQ choice. Which is most likely a mistake and not RAI.
The SM formations RAW do NOT prevent you from taking the Chapter Master upgrade. RAI might be again different, but that doesn't change the RAW. And confusing units with models or citing other broken RAW passages simply doesn't change anything.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Okapi wrote:
I think the RAI is Captain and only Captain. Look at the substitute special characters; the list specifically omits and chapter mastes. Cantor, Helbrecht and Calgar are only avaible in the CAD or the Strike Force Command formation. If GW intended to let us use a Chapter Master to lead the Demi-Company, why isn't Pedro an option?

Yet the command option that does list Pedro and Calgar as options also lists just the Captain unit just like the demi company. So are you saying you can only field the named CMs in a Gladius and NEVER the generic ones?

Having looked I think you're right, you can take the Chapter Master upgrade. It says Unit composition one Captain, not 1 Captain or 1 Chapter Master etc. I also checked the Gladius Strike force and it does list captain, not Chapter Master in the Strike Command. I read it too quickly initially and thought it said otherwise.

I suspect RAI was Captain in the Demi, Captain with a CM upgrade in Strike Command, but I'm not sure, as they've said in the past a really beefy captain could be a Chapter Master unit who just hasn't gotten promoted yet. However, consistency then says an apothecary is a Veteran for upgrades etc?

An Apothecary is not a Veteran for upgrades. You're confusing units and models. And Apothecary is still part of a command squad unit but is no longer a Veteran. The Chapter Master is no longer a Captain model but still a Captain unit. I wish they had just called the Datasheet Commander which would have made everything clearer.

Thus the demi company and command would have had Commander as their entry and this debate would never have happened (or they would have put Captain in Demi Company and Commander in command if that was their intent). However there is no reason to believe the RaI is different for what you can select in Command or in the Demi with regards to Captain options.

 FlingitNow wrote:
An Apothecary is not a Veteran for upgrades. You're confusing units and models. And Apothecary is still part of a command squad unit but is no longer a Veteran. The Chapter Master is no longer a Captain model but still a Captain unit. I wish they had just called the Datasheet Commander which would have made everything clearer.

Thus the demi company and command would have had Commander as their entry and this debate would never have happened (or they would have put Captain in Demi Company and Commander in command if that was their intent). However there is no reason to believe the RaI is different for what you can select in Command or in the Demi with regards to Captain options.

Not really. Look at the Unit entry. A Captain unit consists of One Captain, upgraded to Chapter Master or Not. ergo a Command Squad consists of 5 Veterans upgraded or not. However, the Honor guard consists of 2 honor guard and 1 Chapter champion (or whatever the names are I don't have it with me ATM)

No a Captain unit only consists of 1 Captain if he is not upgraded. Once upgraded it is a Captain unit that consists of 1 Chapter Master. Again you're getting confused between models and units. The Command Squad is the unit and is always the unit. It consists of Veteran Models that can be upgraded to other Models, they cease to be Veteran models, however the unit remains a Command Squad. The Captain Unit is the unit and consists of 1 Captain Model if this model is upgraded to a Chapter Master it is no longer a Captain Model, but the unit remains a Captain Unit.

Unit = Set
Models = Members of the set

So you can have a set and member sharing the same name, this does not ever mean they are the same tyhing though

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Unit = Set
Models = Members of the set

So you can have a set and member sharing the same name, this does not ever mean they are the same tyhing though

But it does mean you use the same logic for two members from two sets. If a Chapter Master and a Captain are both Captains. Then a Veteran and an Apothecary are both Veterans- If the Chapter Master is still Unit composition Captain, then an apothecary is still Unit Composition Veteran. If an Apothecary upgrade makes it NOT a veteran, then a Chapter Master upgrade makes it NOT a captain.

Incorrect, you are STILL mixcing up unit and model

A Chapter Master and a Captain are BOTH part of a Captain UNIT

An Apothecary and a Veteran are BOTH part of a Command Squad UNIT

Howveer an Apothecary is NOT a Veteran MODEL, but an Apothecary MODEL

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Incorrect, you are STILL mixcing up unit and model

A Chapter Master and a Captain are BOTH part of a Captain UNIT

An Apothecary and a Veteran are BOTH part of a Command Squad UNIT

Howveer an Apothecary is NOT a Veteran MODEL, but an Apothecary MODEL

No, I'm not. On the far right of the Unit Entry is a field called Unit composition. If we say a Chapter Master is still a Captain, then we have to say an Apothecary is still a Veteran.

A Chapter master isn't a Captain Model. Just like an Apothecary isn't a Veteran. Composition is what makes up the unit, upgrades can change this. Take a tactical squad it starts off with a Sergeant and 4 Marines as it's composition, this can change with potentially 9 Marines and the Sergeant changing to a Veteran Sergeant, however the unit is still called a Tactical Squad.

So you can change the composition of a Command Squad from 5 Veterans to 3 Veterans, 1 Company Champion and 1 Apothecary. Neither the Company Champion nor the Apothecary are Veterans. However the unit is still called a Command Squad.

Thus you can change the composition of the Captain unit from 1 Captain to 1 Chapter Master. The Chapter Master is not a Captain model. However the unit is still called a Captain.

Is there even a specific "Chapter Master" model, aside from named ones?

I get the WYSIWYG implications of the Apothecary, but surely the plastic Captain set could be used for a CM, any of the resin "Masters of the Chapter" Captains could be used as a Chapter Master, etc. There isn't really a way to tell aside from the player saying which profile is being applied to that model for that game, is there? I'm sure there are models which have been used as Captains one game and then Chapter Masters in the next. Not myself specifically, since I play Crimson Fists and thus have a named Chapter Master, but I've definitely done that with my Space Wolves characters.

 Lord Corellia wrote:
Is there even a specific "Chapter Master" model, aside from named ones?

I get the WYSIWYG implications of the Apothecary, but surely the plastic Captain set could be used for a CM, any of the resin "Masters of the Chapter" Captains could be used as a Chapter Master, etc. There isn't really a way to tell aside from the player saying which profile is being applied to that model for that game, is there? I'm sure there are models which have been used as Captains one game and then Chapter Masters in the next. Not myself specifically, since I play Crimson Fists and thus have a named Chapter Master, but I've definitely done that with my Space Wolves characters.

When someone is talking about a model, they are refering to what the stat line entry has.

Or, to reference the datasheet legend:

5. Unit Profile: This section will show the profiles of any models the unit can include

In the Captain datasheet with two different models noted, Captain and Chapter Master. To get a Chapter Master model, one starts with a Captain Unit which contains one Captain model. The Captain model is then upgraded to a Chapter Master model, but staying in the Captain Unit.

What, I can't be pedantic about your pedantry?

As far as I'm aware, the Master is an upgrade for a Captain right?

Can a Razorback in a Gladius be upgraded to have lascannons or las/ plas?

Were treating units like sets in math:
For instance lets say P=Captain(unit), p =Captain(model)and q=chapter master

Before upgraded this is what the unit looks like:
Set P ={p}
After Chapter Master upgrade it looks like this:
Set P={q}

The set name did not change, only the elements did.

Thus when you have the Demi-Company which refers to Captain( the unit) it doesn't matter what you upgrade the model to as the unit never changes.

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:
Thus when you have the Demi-Company which refers to Captain( the unit) it doesn't matter what you upgrade the model to as the unit never changes.

That's my line of thinking also. I'm just being silly because it's silly that this debate has gone on for so long.

Tell an Eldar player that he can't upgrade his formation's bikes to have scatter lasers. I don't see how it's any different.

 Lord Corellia wrote:

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:
Thus when you have the Demi-Company which refers to Captain( the unit) it doesn't matter what you upgrade the model to as the unit never changes.

That's my line of thinking also. I'm just being silly because it's silly that this debate has gone on for so long.

Tell an Eldar player that he can't upgrade his formation's bikes to have scatter lasers. I don't see how it's any different.

The problem is that "Captain" is both a model and a unit, unlike the Scatter lasers on a bike.

Charistoph wrote:

 Lord Corellia wrote:

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:
Thus when you have the Demi-Company which refers to Captain( the unit) it doesn't matter what you upgrade the model to as the unit never changes.

That's my line of thinking also. I'm just being silly because it's silly that this debate has gone on for so long.

Tell an Eldar player that he can't upgrade his formation's bikes to have scatter lasers. I don't see how it's any different.

The problem is that "Captain" is both a model and a unit, unlike the Scatter lasers on a bike.

Thats not a problem actually.

The Demi-Company lists units not models. For instance it does not say bring Tactical Marines (models) but Tactical Squads (unit name)

Look at my post above to see how changing the elements of "set" Captain (or in this case a "unit") does not change it to set/unit Chapter Master.

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:

Thats not a problem actually.

The Demi-Company lists units not models. For instance it does not say bring Tactical Marines (models) but Tactical Squads (unit name)

Look at my post above to see how changing the elements of "set" Captain (or in this case a "unit") does not change it to set/unit Chapter Master.

I agree that with no other statements to indicate otherwise, we go by the default unit reference.

Doesn't change that's where the problem is, though, because people are man ng it a problem.

Lets use two other sets from c:aa(sm):

It says as one of the accepted cgaplains you can take Grimaldus(ir however you spell it); do you think you can bring his cenobyte servitors?

Grimmy is both the unit and model name, if you think you can bring the cenobytes because it us clearly the unit you bring then you must accept the chapter master.

It says in the tank formation you can bring 0-1 techmarine: can you add servitors?

Same as grimmy.

Several of the other formations list predators, whirlwinds, and land speeders: can you take multiples for each(as in are they meaning the vehicle model name or the unit with the same name)?

The answer to all of these is, of course, yes. Just the same as captain is the unit name and chapter master is the model name from an option in that unit.

And this is why units and models should not share names.

 Happyjew wrote:
And this is why units and models should not share names.

^ Absolutely. Its stupid.

The stupid part was dark eldar reavers.

The unit name was "Reavers" the regular dudes were "reaver", the leader had a different name; then one of the options was a number of "reavers" could take the items(i think it was the caltrops and such). The end result was some confusion and speculation that the leader could still take the upgrade because although he had a separate name with separate options he was still a "reavers" by unit designation.

They have thankfully fixed that issue in the new dex.

If anyone have problem to prove his opponent that upgrade to Chapter Master is possible, here are direct rules you can quote:

BRB Formations (don't know page):
"(...)Instead of including a Force Organisation chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those Units gain. (...)"

Codex Space Marines - Formations (page 114):
"A Formation datasheet will list the Army List Entries which make up the Formation, any restrictions upon what it may include, and any special rules the Formation’s units gain."

Captain Army List Entry = Captain Datasheet if someone would still have problem (again, page 114)

"1 Captain" on Formations Battle Demi-Company/Strike Force Command/Strike Force Ultra refers to Army List Entry "Captain" not model name.

 danyboy wrote:
If anyone have problem to prove his opponent that upgrade to Chapter Master is possible, here are direct rules you can quote:

BRB Formations (don't know page):
"(...)Instead of including a Force Organisation chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those Units gain. (...)"

Codex Space Marines - Formations (page 114):
"A Formation datasheet will list the Army List Entries which make up the Formation, any restrictions upon what it may include, and any special rules the Formation’s units gain."

Captain Army List Entry = Captain Datasheet if someone would still have problem (again, page 114)

"1 Captain" on Formations Battle Demi-Company/Strike Force Command/Strike Force Ultra refers to Army List Entry "Captain" not model name.

Then you look at the Canoptek Harvest in Codex Necrons where it calls for '1 Canoptek Spyder'...

Or you look at the Grey Knight Brotherhood where it calls for "1 Grand Master".

You mean that thing that has been addressed several different times in several different threads(including this one)?

A) we really do not need to have that argument again here.
B) there is no concensus on exactly what they meant.
C) as I mentioned earlier in this thread, it is most likely either a typo or simply used in the singular for grammar(look to the devastators options: up to 4 "space marines" can take the heavies. There is no model named "space marines", it is plural because that is the correct way to state it.
D) there is no unit enentry, nor a points cost for "canoptek spyder"; so if you want it limited to a unit of 1 only, then it must be free.

Definitely not trying to restart that particular argument, just showing why danyboy's position doesn't really provide an answer.

 Ghaz wrote:
Then you look at the Canoptek Harvest in Codex Necrons where it calls for '1 Canoptek Spyder'...

I have official Codex and I have official rules, which I quoted. Just because one Codex may need errata I am not going to think that my also have mistakes.

Why? Because on one side we have rules, on other we have thinking "how it should be" according to some (!) people.
Rules vs hoping.
How long this kind of discussion can last? Forever.

I too can point that according to RAI it is still ok to use CM leading Demi-Company. We can argue and we will never reach argument. It is pointless.
But we have really, really clear rules, which we should stick to.

And I have an official codex with a Formation that calls for a model. So what proof do you have that its the codex that is wrong?

 Ghaz wrote:
And I have an official codex with a Formation that calls for a model. So what proof do you have that its the codex that is wrong?

To be fair, he has already posted 2 quotes from 2 different books that say that a formation lists "army list entries" not models

 Ghaz wrote:
And I have an official codex with a Formation that calls for a model. So what proof do you have that its the codex that is wrong?

Read your codex page 114 in the marine dex check the equivalent page in the Cron Dex and it will tell you that Formations list units.

Except '1 Canoptek Spyder' isn't referring to a unit, nor is the reference that Happyjew posted. GW isn't consistent with these units, so there is no clear answer with the question at hand.

They're pretty consistent. What you have is more likely to be a typo than proof that every codex plus the brb is wrong

 jokerkd wrote:
They're pretty consistent. What you have is more likely to be a typo than proof that every codex plus the brb is wrong

Their consistent in that every single model unit goes by the model's name (i.e., 'Overlord' instead of 'Overlord unit'). I'm not saying that the rulebook is wrong, its just we have no way to show what their intentions were when they wrote '1 Captain', as there's evidence that both ways can be found in the rules.

 Ghaz wrote:
And I have an official codex with a Formation that calls for a model. So what proof do you have that its the codex that is wrong?

Codex is not wrong. I've just looked at Codex: Necron and I don't see "problem".
It still refers to Army List Entry not model name. Why? Because rules of Formations say so: Formation lists Army Lists Entries.

And I have a news for you! Codex Space Marines have the same "problem"!
Formation Strike Force Ultra
1 Venerable Dreadnought where Army List Entry is called "Venerable Dreadnoughts"

Reading list of Formation Army List Entries we have to think what they have in mind writing the "number": a "unit" or "model", but name always refers to Army List Entry.
We have "3 Tactical Squads" - we know that is 3 units of Army List Entry "Tactical Squad". Battle Demi-Company Formation
We have "3-5 Librarians" - 3-5 models of Army List Entry "Librarian" (ok may be read as 3-5 units of Librarians it is the same) Librarius Conclave Formation
We have "1 unit of Ironclad Dreadnoughts" - this one is clear 1 unit of Army List Entry "Ironclad Dreadnoughts" (must take unit of up to 3 models). Centurion Siegebreaker Cohort Formation
We have "1 Venerable Dreadnought" - this mean 1 model of Army List Entry "Venerable Drednoughts". Strike Force Ultra Formation

And here I'll try to show you what you do wrong

We know that Formation lists Army List Entries (rule say so) <- Important!
Canoptek Spyders allows you to buy additional two models in unit.
What does it mean: 1 Canoptek Spyder?
Can it be like I see it:
Unit of 1 model of Army List Entry Canoptek Spyders?
Or does it mean as you think:
1 model of Canoptek Spyder ?
Output is the same, but my interpretation is according to rules. Your interpretation contradict the rules.
And we know that writing 1 Canoptek Spyders because of plural form would mean 1 unit of Canoptek Spyders, and it is not what GW wanted in this formation.

And Battle Demi-Company:
1 Captain
How rules want you to see it:
1 model of Army List Entry Captain
or as you see it:
1 model of Captain
Here output is not the same, but still my interpretation is according to rules. Your interpretation is against the rules.

You persistently read it as model name, but you should read as an Army List Entry.

Or we can go rocky road and say that "3 Tactical Squads" refers to nonexistent Army List Entry (proper one is called Tactical Squad) and nonexistent model name (there is noone), so cannot be taken at all (but may be added in future DLC).

So I say: nothing allows you to think that Formation lists something else than Army List Entry.

 Ghaz wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
They're pretty consistent. What you have is more likely to be a typo than proof that every codex plus the brb is wrong

Their consistent in that every single model unit goes by the model's name (i.e., 'Overlord' instead of 'Overlord unit'). I'm not saying that the rulebook is wrong, its just we have no way to show what their intentions were when they wrote '1 Captain', as there's evidence that both ways can be found in the rules.

At least the Harvest's Special Rule indicates a single Spyder model by its language. The Space Marine formations don't give much help but anectdotal evidence of the Uniques that can replace them.

The Captain is also unique in that it is a unit whose whole model list can change names.

Hence, why I maintain that without any other actual direction, the Formations are specifying the unit, not the model. TOs and metas may prefer it another way, but that is up to them to communicate as such.

So we're just going to hand wave away the Grey Knights Brotherhood Formation that calls for '1 Grand Master' when there is no 'Grand Master' unit in the codex but is instead an upgrade for a Brother Captain unit.

You guys wouldn't be fun to play against :/

 danyboy wrote:



And I have a news for you! Codex Space Marines have the same "problem"!
Formation Strike Force Ultra
1 Venerable Dreadnought where Army List Entry is called "Venerable Dreadnoughts"

Reading list of Formation Army List Entries we have to think what they have in mind writing the "number": a "unit" or "model", but name always refers to Army List Entry.
We have "3 Tactical Squads" - we know that is 3 units of Army List Entry "Tactical Squad". Battle Demi-Company Formation
We have "3-5 Librarians" - 3-5 models of Army List Entry "Librarian" (ok may be read as 3-5 units of Librarians it is the same) Librarius Conclave Formation
We have "1 unit of Ironclad Dreadnoughts" - this one is clear 1 unit of Army List Entry "Ironclad Dreadnoughts" (must take unit of up to 3 models). Centurion Siegebreaker Cohort Formation
We have "1 Venerable Dreadnought" - this mean 1 model of Army List Entry "Venerable Drednoughts". Strike Force Ultra Formation

. Oh. Bad choice. The Strike Force Ultra IS limited to one Venerable Dread model. In this formation more than any other they really are talking the model not the unit. Bad call on the supporting evidence choice


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
And this is why units and models should not share names.

If you look, everywhere but possibly hq when they mean unit they say unit where the unit and the model overlap names.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord Corellia wrote:
You guys wouldn't be fun to play against :/

That depends on if they play this way, or if this is it's own separate game when you can't play 40k

 Lord Corellia wrote:
You guys wouldn't be fun to play against :/

I believe most of us are much more reasonable to play against(there are a few in ymdc that i would think twice about, but the majority just like the debate/discussion).

I myself play by the generally least advantageous reading of most contentious rules.

I handwave the spyder thing for reasons already given(i don't play crons, and the difference between unit and model name is a single letter+ grammar possibilities). The cm in a demi-company thing here is simply silly to me(the only thing that could show they may have meant model name in this bit is the lack of named chapter masters available, but even that could be anywhere from a fluff point about how those masters would only lead the captain of the company as an auxiliary as opposed to taking over his duties(since the demi company is fluffwise supposed to be from a single company in concept) to the old explanation that the chapter master model might just be a special captain).

The gk formation is the only formation that can inarguably be shown to have a model name specified(clearly spyder is argued, and eldar farseer could just be a clarification that that option it absolutely allowed: since the warlocks on jetbikes are also specified). Which itself could simply be intended as a restriction/requirement that wasn't listed in restrictions(i believe the suppression force formation may be the first to list a required minimum additional model(s) as a "restriction".

Breton wrote:
Oh. Bad choice. The Strike Force Ultra IS limited to one Venerable Dread model. In this formation more than any other they really are talking the model not the unit. Bad call on the supporting evidence choice

This is how I see it:
- number in Formation list
- possiblility of taking Dreads in squadrons
- other Formations list that allows to take squadrons of Vehicles (by saing "Unit of")
I understand that they meant 1 model, yet still directing to Army List Entry (because that is how Formations lists works).

It IS exactly the same as Canoptek Harvest Fromation. This wasn't example to contradict that kind of writing.
It is example of how you should read Formation lists. Rule tells you to read it as Army List Entry regardles if it points 1 model or 1 unit.

It is a matter of attitude. If you want to read it "wrong way" you will and call GW stupid. If you understand what is what (because of previous rules) you will read it the way it should be.

Also everything what Kommissar Kel said. +1

Yes I can see real problem in Grey Knight Brotherhood Formation.
Still, just because 1 codex has1 wrong writing is not an excuse to transfer this "bug" to any other Codex and use it as example to undermine the rules.

Venerable Dreadnoughts are no longer upgrades to normal Dreadnoughts; so doesn't really support the supposed rai argument for the Captain.

Imo:

RAW: yes, it can be upgraded to a chapter master, since it is in the captains army list entry.

RAI: no idea, but maybe we'll get a faq one day that will tell us.

Hiwpi: I'm not going to be making much use of the gladius, but I would allow my opponents to upgrade to chapter master.

 Crazyterran wrote:
Venerable Dreadnoughts are no longer upgrades to normal Dreadnoughts; so doesn't really support the supposed rai argument for the Captain.

It is argument that in ANY CASE you should read it as an Army List Entry not model name.
Some just say that because it is 1 Venerable Dreadnought not 1 Venerable Dreadnoughts it refers to model name not Army List Entry thus 1 Captain may suggest 1 model Captain.

Which is against the rules.

It's clear RAW that you can upgrade him to a CM.

Whether its RAI or not, we may never know...

I'd say the named exclusions are just representative that those guys are too busy to lead a company.

I just found out about this clarification on the FAQ released and I was shocked that chapter master can't be used in demi-company.

I've been letting my friend use his (in every list) for the past 2 years!! With no issue...it's not game breaking and quite surprising.

Today I just wanted to research this online and see if this was ever argued and lo and behold Dakka never disappoints lol

Does everyone that called this right feel vindicated once GW said 'no chapter master!' ?

Because my next question is...does this same ruling apply to every other formation that has a Captain requirement? I can't find a single formation that specifically allows a chapter master so does this mean only in CAD?

Holy necro batman!!

When a thread is almost two years old, best thing to do is start a new one.

Indeed, best to let sleeping threads lie. Thanks