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.

Just got the new necron 'Dex and I'm confused as hell. Have only ever used the Combined Arms Detachment up until now, and I'm really unclear on how Formations interact with this. Are Formations a Detachment in their own right?

Query #1

My Necrons are a Battle-Forged army, currently with a single Combined Arms Detachment. My gaming circle does not allow Unbound Lists.
The Formation I wish to include (Royal Court) consists of 3-7 HQ Character models.
Does this mean it cannot be taken within a Combined Arms Detachment? CA has a limit of 2 HQs, and the Formation has a minimum of 3.
The BRB is REALLY vague about all this :( I see that the Royal Court can be part of a Decurion Detachment, but I don't have all the models for this, nor do I want it (Tomb Blades, meh)

Query #2

As for the Royal Court itself...

The Detachment is described as:
1 Overlord
1-3 Lords
1-3 Crypteks

These are all Independant Characters. Can they be attached to Units from a different Detachment?

Bovrillor wrote:
Are Formations a Detachment in their own right?

Yes!

Very first sentence of the Formation section: "Formations are a special type of Detachment"

Models can only belong to a single Detachament. So any HQ's in a Formation are entirely seperate to any HQ's purchased/required for another Detachment.

 grendel083 wrote:

Bovrillor wrote:
Are Formations a Detachment in their own right?

Yes!

Very first sentence of the Formation section: "Formations are a special type of Detachment"

Models can only belong to a single Detachament. So any HQ's in a Formation are entirely seperate to any HQ's purchased/required for another Detachment.

Thanks, that's what I'd hoped, some confusing wording elsewhere on the page made me question the meaning!


As for the Royal Court itself...

The Detachment is described as:
1 Overlord
1-3 Lords
1-3 Crypteks

These are all Independant Characters. Can they be attached to Units from a different Detachment?

As per the standard rules for ICs, yes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And to be clear... you don't need a CAD to run a Battleforged list.

Both of the following lists are fully legal and battleforged.

List #1
Necron Destroyer Cult Formation (Destroyer Lord as Warlord)
Necron Canoptek Harvest Formation
Necron Canoptek Harvest Formation

List #2
Inquisitorial Detachment (Ordo Xenos Inquisitor as Warlord)
Imperial Knights Detachment
Allied Detachment of Necrons
Allied Detachment of Tyranids

 Kriswall wrote:
As per the standard rules for ICs, yes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And to be clear... you don't need a CAD to run a Battleforged list.

Both of the following lists are fully legal and battleforged.

List #1
Necron Destroyer Cult Formation (Destroyer Lord as Warlord)
Necron Canoptek Harvest Formation
Necron Canoptek Harvest Formation

List #2
Inquisitorial Detachment (Ordo Xenos Inquisitor as Warlord)
Imperial Knights Detachment
Allied Detachment of Necrons
Allied Detachment of Tyranids

Thankyou SOOOOO much for the clarification! Those sample lists were also really helpful, they should have put something like that in the BRB instead of the bonkers "John has elected to pick his force from seven piles of clutter from different rooms in his house blah blah blah"

The way the rules are scattered around between books (and have been complicated since 6ed) was giving me a right headache.

Now I know I can use my Royal Court in much the same way as my 6ed list, and I can bring my 'Nids along for a laugh if the mood takes me (the latter is unlikely, but knowing is half the battle lol)

Gonna print your post out for my gaming club, as nobody in today's crowd knew the answer either!

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tkglpLLURik/U-pnFpHBXtI/AAAAAAAAI_k/SjzpQ50mW9M/s1600/battleforged_BAO1.jpg

You could print that poster

Kangodo wrote:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tkglpLLURik/U-pnFpHBXtI/AAAAAAAAI_k/SjzpQ50mW9M/s1600/battleforged_BAO1.jpg

You could print that poster

*eye twitch* If not for the incorrect use of apostrophes, it would be perfect.

Super important, I know...

There, they're, their. It'll be ok.

With all the above being correct, your friends may still be a bit hesitant to accept it. Getting away from the standard CAD (HQ and 2 troops min) is a big step. It may take a bit of caressing to lead them into 7th ed. 6th came and went so fast they are probably stuck still in 5th ed. I know I was for a while.

GW has really taken the straps off of any kind of restrictions in the book. Battleforged and unbound they are really not that different, except with battleforged they're are a few restrictions. But with new formations coming out all the time, and especially if your group is open to Forgeworld formations, the possibilities are endless. This is a change that GW wants for you. Try more formations, try more armies, try more models, BUY MORE MODELS.. $$$$$$$$ GW is happy.

With all that being said.. Im still not a fan of allied armies. Some just don't feel fluffy...

 Camarodragon wrote:
With all the above being correct, your friends may still be a bit hesitant to accept it. Getting away from the standard CAD (HQ and 2 troops min) is a big step. It may take a bit of caressing to lead them into 7th ed. 6th came and went so fast they are probably stuck still in 5th ed. I know I was for a while.

GW has really taken the straps off of any kind of restrictions in the book. Battleforged and unbound they are really not that different, except with battleforged they're are a few restrictions. But with new formations coming out all the time, and especially if your group is open to Forgeworld formations, the possibilities are endless. This is a change that GW wants for you. Try more formations, try more armies, try more models, BUY MORE MODELS.. $$$$$$$$ GW is happy.

With all that being said.. Im still not a fan of allied armies. Some just don't feel fluffy...

Agree for the most part, though I feel that 1) Unbound = BS (and our local scene absolutely will not allow it) and 2) Formations may take some getting used to, but in this particular case (the Royal Court) it's actually being used to represent a FOC modifier that already existed in 5th ed. and my gaming buddies didn't bat an eyelid when I explained it to them. Frankly there are far more distressing things in the 'regular' FOC modifiers of some armies (looking at you, Dark Angels!).

Aaaaannnnnnd Plug! Amazing picture:

 Jidmah wrote:
There is no limitation of what detachments/formations your army is made up from, unless those are imposed by the detachment itself. For example, you could not have two formations which force you to make on of its members your warlord.

See this picture for an example of a perfectly legal battleforged army:

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tkglpLLURik/U-pnFpHBXtI/AAAAAAAAI_k/SjzpQ50mW9M/s1600/battleforged_BAO1.jpg

You could print that poster

*eye twitch* If not for the incorrect use of apostrophes, it would be perfect.

Super important, I know...

Despite what us older folk were taught in school, [its], [it's] and [its'] are all equally legitimate from a grammatical perspective.

It annoys me too, however

Bovrillor wrote:

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tkglpLLURik/U-pnFpHBXtI/AAAAAAAAI_k/SjzpQ50mW9M/s1600/battleforged_BAO1.jpg

You could print that poster

*eye twitch* If not for the incorrect use of apostrophes, it would be perfect.

Super important, I know...

Despite what us older folk were taught in school, [its], [it's] and [its'] are all equally legitimate from a grammatical perspective.

It annoys me too, however

Where are you getting this from? I just did a quick search and most grammar sites agree that its and it's are not interchangeable. "Its" is the possessive of the pronoun "it". "It's" is a conjunction of "it is". I can't even find your last example with the apostrophe afterwards anywhere.

Here is just one of many sources for those interested...

http://grammarist.com/spelling/its-its/

 Kriswall wrote:

Bovrillor wrote:

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tkglpLLURik/U-pnFpHBXtI/AAAAAAAAI_k/SjzpQ50mW9M/s1600/battleforged_BAO1.jpg

You could print that poster

*eye twitch* If not for the incorrect use of apostrophes, it would be perfect.

Super important, I know...

Despite what us older folk were taught in school, [its], [it's] and [its'] are all equally legitimate from a grammatical perspective.

It annoys me too, however

Where are you getting this from? I just did a quick search and most grammar sites agree that its and it's are not interchangeable. "Its" is the possessive of the pronoun "it". "It's" is a conjunction of "it is". I can't even find your last example with the apostrophe afterwards anywhere.

Here is just one of many sources for those interested...

http://grammarist.com/spelling/its-its/

The use of commas got me before i noticed the apostrophes' issue....... (<---- and i have a feeling that is not correct, but it seems like the best :p )

Bovrillor wrote:

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tkglpLLURik/U-pnFpHBXtI/AAAAAAAAI_k/SjzpQ50mW9M/s1600/battleforged_BAO1.jpg

You could print that poster

*eye twitch* If not for the incorrect use of apostrophes, it would be perfect.

Super important, I know...

Despite what us older folk were taught in school, [its], [it's] and [its'] are all equally legitimate from a grammatical perspective.

It annoys me too, however

No, they're not interchangeable at all. Ever. Its is not the same thing as it is (it's).

 BlackTalos wrote:
The use of commas got me before i noticed the apostrophes' issue.......

that's why the apostrophe left you, you never cared about their feelings...

I myself wasn't too sure either if the Royal Court could be split up since every model is an IC.

This does open up a really big can of worms when you think about it, the new Necron codex truly has unspeakable set ups and options, I love it.

Bovrillor wrote:
The BRB is REALLY vague about all this :( I see that the Royal Court can be part of a Decurion Detachment, but I don't have all the models for this, nor do I want it (Tomb Blades, meh)

This is a shame as Tomb blades are quite excellent with the decurion. Shieldveins and nebuloscopes make them awesome! A T5, 3+, 4+RP jetbike that ignores cover AND has move through cover from the decurion rules is quite useful. Gauss makes them great at hunting weaker armored units that like to hide in terrain or hunting down skimmers. Particle beamers can be nice as well. a squad of 5-6 is rather cheap and can get a lot done for their points.

Unless you just don't like the models.

The real shame is that Tomb Blades are sold out everywhere I've checked.
I really want to run 2 squads of 6 with gauss, shieldveins and nebuloscopes.

Call Neal at thewarstore.com. He'll get them to you right quick.

 Kriswall wrote:

Bovrillor wrote:

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tkglpLLURik/U-pnFpHBXtI/AAAAAAAAI_k/SjzpQ50mW9M/s1600/battleforged_BAO1.jpg

You could print that poster

*eye twitch* If not for the incorrect use of apostrophes, it would be perfect.

Super important, I know...

Despite what us older folk were taught in school, [its], [it's] and [its'] are all equally legitimate from a grammatical perspective.

It annoys me too, however

Where are you getting this from? I just did a quick search and most grammar sites agree that its and it's are not interchangeable. "Its" is the possessive of the pronoun "it". "It's" is a conjunction of "it is". I can't even find your last example with the apostrophe afterwards anywhere.

Here is just one of many sources for those interested...

http://grammarist.com/spelling/its-its/

Everything you stated is exactly what I was taught in school, and I firmly cling to it to this day.

There's a common example known as "The Butcher's Apostrophe" which was discussed on QI in which they debated whether Butchers, Butchers' or Butcher's was 'correct'.

Stephen Fry went on to say that despite the strict rules us older folk were taught, there is an official authority regarding English grammar (just as there is an official authority regarding the contents of the dictionary) and that they have ruled all variations of apostrophe placement as acceptable due to 'common usage and intent' (much as the word 'literally' has been bastardised for the same reason). He also expressed his disdain for the ruling.

Now I can only quote Stephen Fry as my source, but I recognise him as a much smarter fellow than myself and the QI elves seem pretty thorough with their research. Obviously though, no matter which stance you take this is always going to be a bone of contention and as stated, I personally only consider the 'traditional' application valid.

This might also be sliiiiiiiiiightly off-topic, for which I apologise!


Jidmah's example of a Battleforged Ork Army was appreciated but actually confused matters for me, as I'm unfamiliar with the Ork-specific formations in question. I shall re-draw the one that Kangodo posted with punctuation that I can tolerate


I HATE HATE HATE the way they've changed Royal Courts to a detacment rather than a FOC modifier. I used to run a single CAD with a single Overlord and several Crypteks.

To recreate the army I now have to take a Royal Court detachment - forcing me to take a Lord I don't want, and use a single Cryptek as the HQ of my CAD to satisfy the HQ requirement. For some reason my Warlord not being in my [derp edit] CAD really bothers me.

Having the Royal Court Formation be a unit that counts as a single HQ choice would have been much more logical.

Well, your Warlord must be in your Prmiary detachment - that's what makes it your Primary detachment.

rigeld2 wrote:
Well, your Warlord must be in your Prmiary detachment - that's what makes it your Primary detachment.

I meant to say 'Combined Arms Detachment'. Have derp edited post before I get told the same thing another 20 times

Tiredness setting in, and as you can see, this Formation/Detachment crap is still messing with my head. They really could have phrased all this stuff better in the BRB.

Edit: Just noticed, the circular JPG posted earlier simply describes Formations as 'Has it's own bonuses and restrictions. Not Objective Secured'. No mention of Faction limitation anywhere...

So now I'm wondering, can I just cherry-pick any of the four Detachment types at will from as many different Factions as I like? - potentially ending up with 5 different factions in one Battleforged Army.

I'm supposed to be explaining this to beginner players at the weekend and frankly I still don't understand it all myself. This is going to be problematic!

Bovrillor wrote:


As for the Royal Court itself...

The Detachment is described as:
1 Overlord
1-3 Lords
1-3 Crypteks

These are all Independant Characters. Can they be attached to Units from a different Detachment?

This was already answered but I felt It would be helpful to add the following:
They can be attached no problem, ASSUMING they're battle-brothers.

But You probably knew that already. But it's relevant because of

So now I'm wondering, can I just cherry-pick any of the four Detachment types at will from as many different Factions as I like?

You can mix and match ANY detachment and/or formations from any faction. But you still need to be wary of their respective allies.
You can have Dante and Abaddon be walking along side each other no problem in terms of formations/detachements.
But they will be come the apocalypse allies and they will be constantly eyeing each other up. You don't specifically need an allied detachment to take allies.

You could take Inquisition along with Kharn's butcher horde if that tickles your fancy. You just can't put Kharn inside an inquisitorial valkyrie, or have him join the inquisitor...which is probably safer that way.

Bovrillor wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Well, your Warlord must be in your Prmiary detachment - that's what makes it your Primary detachment.

I meant to say 'Combined Arms Detachment'. Have derp edited post before I get told the same thing another 20 times

Tiredness setting in, and as you can see, this Formation/Detachment crap is still messing with my head. They really could have phrased all this stuff better in the BRB.

Edit: Just noticed, the circular JPG posted earlier simply describes Formations as 'Has it's own bonuses and restrictions. Not Objective Secured'. No mention of Faction limitation anywhere...

So now I'm wondering, can I just cherry-pick any of the four Detachment types at will from as many different Factions as I like? - potentially ending up with 5 different factions in one Battleforged Army.

I'm supposed to be explaining this to beginner players at the weekend and frankly I still don't understand it all myself. This is going to be problematic!

You can have any number of detachments and formations from any number of factions in a Battle-Forge Army. The below is a legal, Battle-Forged Army.

Inquisitorial Detachment
Tau Empire Firebase Support Cadre Formation (Warlord is in here, he's the Broadside "Sarge", This is your Primary Detachment)
Officio Assassinorum Detachment
Space Marines Combined Arms Detachment
Chaos Space Marines Combined Arms Detachment
Imperial Knights Detachments
Necrons Combined Arms Detachment
Necrons Allied Detachment
Necrons Canoptek Harvest Formation
Orks Allied Detachment

Of course, you have to obey the allies rules in terms of Battle Brothers/Allies of Convenience/etc

Each formation/detachment is completely self contained.
They're like mini armies. All the rules only apply to the models from the formation/detachment they belong to.

It's not that different from before. Formations are simply detachments that don't actually use the battlefield roles anymore.

It only becomes a bit more complicated when you consider that, once you deploy, the units are just that....units. And they can do whatever they're allowed to do. An IC can join any unit he is allowed to join.
Assuming all the factions are battle-brothers, an IC may just join any old unit. Just like before. It just so happens it's from a different detachment. Which may or may not cause a rules conundrum but that's a different story.

If the unit is from a different faction, then you'll face whatever restrictions are listed on page 126

The only time detachments differ from formations is when your playing unbound. In which case you may only use formations and not actual detachments.

Oh and decurion style formations, like the one in the necron book, are detachments. But instead of organizing your army in battlefield roles, it organizes it in formations.
So you get an overall bonus for observing the restrictions like taking 1 core formation +2 auxiliaries, PLUS whatever you get from the actual formation that is designated as core, auxiliary or command.

To reiterate: Instead of taking 1HQ and 2 troops, you now take 1 core and 2 auxiliaries or whatever the limits are.

But the bonus rules from the individual formations are again only for those units that make up that formation. The confusing part is that they are ordinary formations in their own right.
You can take an auxiliary Formation as though the decurion did not exist and benefit from it's rules. BUT, if you observe the decurion restrictions, you get the formation rules PLUS the command benefits of the decurion.
It typically means taking a rather large army though.

Roknar wrote:

You don't specifically need an allied detachment to take allies.

So, the only advantage of the 'Allied Detachment' (as opposed to simply taking a CAD of another Faction) is the reduced Compulsory Unit Requirements?

That's correct.

Depends. With more armies getting those decurion style formations, and formations in general. Less and less will have objective secured because of how awesome and fluffy the formations are.

An allied detachment then becomes a neat way of getting objective secured. But yes, over a CAD that's pretty much the only benefit.

And also, it becomes more important if the army your interested in doesn't have any formations. Then that's really the only choice you have aside from the CAD

rigeld2 wrote:
That's correct.

Great, I think I've got my head round it now! (Until something crops up that proves me wrong lol)

I now have a horrible vision of my regular opponent (Dark Angels) supplementing his army with some kind of detachment of Onager Dunecrawlers (aka the ultimate flyer-killer) and stamping out the only advantage my 'Crons and 'Nids have over him. Sigh.

Roknar wrote:
Depends. With more armies getting those decurion style formations, and formations in general. Less and less will have objective secured because of how awesome and fluffy the formations are.

An allied detachment then becomes a neat way of getting objective secured. But yes, over a CAD that's pretty much the only benefit.

And also, it becomes more important if the army your interested in doesn't have any formations. Then that's really the only choice you have aside from the CAD

Good point regarding armies that don't have any formations.

I'm not keen on the Decurion thing, or what it means for the future of FOCs. Seems like a method to sell shelfwarming figures more than anything... it certainly did nothing to improve my Necron force (though the alternative of using the CAD did manage to nerf my existing army arrangement)

Of course my opinion may be swayed if they use something similar to control Deathwing/Ravenwing spam in the new Dark Angels codex... Objective Secured Termies/Bikes *everywhere* is really depressing to play against, especially in Maelstrom games.