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

 Charistoph wrote:
There is one Formation that was previously introduced that did this, the War Conclave? made up of IK, AM, and Skitarii Formations. However, there has been nothing, one way or the other, which has been noted on how it is to be treated.

Ah, excellent point! I had quite forgotten that the War Convocation did this previously.

Looking at the book (White Dwarf Issue 69 - May 23rd, 2015), there is no general information that tells how the factions work together (the Formation requirements reference the specific three required formations from the three individual Codexes (Cult Mechanicus, Skitarii, and Imperial Knights.) There is a Cult Mechanicus icon at the top of the page, in the spot where Faction is represented on a datasheet and the standardized datasheet layout. However, the Special Rule for "The Machine Brotherhood of Mars" may give us a clue:

All units in this formation have the Canticles of the Omnissiah special rule (see Codex: Cult Mechanicus), even though they do not all have the Cult Mechanicus Faction.

Of course, that was 2015 Games Workshop's interpretation of the rules, which is its own kind of "iffy."

I like your interpretation ... I just don't see that unit Factions are supposed to change like that.

 VitruvianZeke wrote:
I like your interpretation ... I just don't see that unit Factions are supposed to change like that.

It's supposed to happen for Dedicated Transports, so why not here?

Maybe my group of friends really misread or did not think much about this, be all of us, after reading 7th and the new formation system, just assumed that anything within a formation can benfit from said formation.

Such as the Imperial Aeronautica, if taken with any formation be it space marines, SOB, IQ or Guard, could and would benefit from their rules and whatnot. IE, throw that master of the fleet in a command squad or a veteran squad, and that command squad or veteran squad can take the transport. Plus, if you threw in other IC their abilities would be conferred or could be gained. (Think like taking a priest or a Chaplin, the IC of master of the fleet would gain these abilities, and in turn his faction of IA would allow whatever squad he is combined with to take the transport).

I still kinda feel that's what is intended, otherwise this whole supplement kinda feels pointless and literally contradictory.

Am I/were we wrong in this assumption? I thought it was fairly straightforward, but with all the examples listed here in this thread I'm starting to doubt our reading.

So if I buy the Valk from Aeronautica and the master of the fleet, throw him in a sisters squad that squad can start the game embarked in that flyer?

No, because they are different factions
The formation with all of them in one unit has faction: sisters (from memory) as denoted by the symbol at the top of the data sheet.

The FAQ ruling that restricts embarking contradicts the BRB's rules for Combined Reserve Units and Battle Brothers, which is what's causing this mess. The Aeronautica detachment appears to be written to follow the BRB, not the FAQ.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The FAQ ruling that restricts embarking contradicts the BRB's rules for Combined Reserve Units and Battle Brothers, which is what's causing this mess. The Aeronautica detachment appears to be written to follow the BRB, not the FAQ.

SJ

No, it doesn't, because the FAQ interrupts before it gets to that point. The FAQ changes Battle Brothers from being "always friendly" to "always friendly except for deployment" which prevents the embarkation in the first place before the Reserves' Combined Reserve Units rule can be called.

 Charistoph wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The FAQ ruling that restricts embarking contradicts the BRB's rules for Combined Reserve Units and Battle Brothers, which is what's causing this mess. The Aeronautica detachment appears to be written to follow the BRB, not the FAQ.

SJ

No, it doesn't, because the FAQ interrupts before it gets to that point. The FAQ changes Battle Brothers from being "always friendly" to "always friendly except for deployment" which prevents the embarkation in the first place before the Reserves' Combined Reserve Units rule can be called.

Am I to assume you don't know what contradict means? Or are you disagreeing with my statement that the IA codex seems to have been written to follow the Rules as Written rather than the Rules as Intended?

I'm not saying we should play it one way or the other, just that the FAQ ruling does ignore the actual rules, which causes the problem detailed in this thread. No FAQ means no problem with using the Valkyrie to deliver Assassins or Sisters. With the FAQ, the Aeronautica detachment is pointless.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The FAQ ruling that restricts embarking contradicts the BRB's rules for Combined Reserve Units and Battle Brothers, which is what's causing this mess. The Aeronautica detachment appears to be written to follow the BRB, not the FAQ.

SJ

No, it doesn't, because the FAQ interrupts before it gets to that point. The FAQ changes Battle Brothers from being "always friendly" to "always friendly except for deployment" which prevents the embarkation in the first place before the Reserves' Combined Reserve Units rule can be called.

Am I to assume you don't know what contradict means? Or are you disagreeing with my statement that the IA codex seems to have been written to follow the Rules as Written rather than the Rules as Intended?

I'm not saying we should play it one way or the other, just that the FAQ ruling does ignore the actual rules, which causes the problem detailed in this thread. No FAQ means no problem with using the Valkyrie to deliver Assassins or Sisters. With the FAQ, the Aeronautica detachment is pointless.

SJ

Apologies, misread.

Out of curiously do you guys read it the same way I do? Cause that is how my group is playing it. It seems practical and intended. In particular this supplement has (at least for me, kinda sealed the deal that this is how you should be playing it) heavily implied FAQ aside, that this is either what is going to be the norm, is now the norm, or is a double error, on their part. Or horribly still, maybe all of the above.