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

So I've been under the impression that named characters cannot fulfill the requirements for Formations.
For example, the Grey Knight Brotherhood formation cannot use Crowe as the required Brotherhood Champion.

However, while looking at the Exterminatus book, the Mephrit Dynasty, I noticed the below pictures.
One of the formations requires a "C'Tan Shard," but there are no models named that in the Necron Codex.
So, what's the consensus?

No. If you could the formation would specify (such as with the Royal Court formation)

Exterminators was written for the previous codex, wasn't it?

 grendel083 wrote:
Exterminators was written for the previous codex, wasn't it?

Yes... when Exterminatus was written, the 5th Edition Codex was the current Codex and did indeed have a unit called "C'tan Shard".

Until we get an FAQ, the Conclave of the Burning One is impossible to field as their is no unit in the game called "C'tan Shard". You can't fulfill the required list of units to field the formation.

I would hazard a guess that most people are willing to house rule this one to allow the Nightbringer or Deceiver to count as a simple "C'tan Shard", but you should really ask first.

 Kriswall wrote:
I would hazard a guess that most people are willing to house rule this one to allow the Nightbringer or Deceiver to count as a simple "C'tan Shard", but you should really ask first.

Sounds like the best way to play it.

But I'd in no way consider this a precedent for taking named characters when a generic is listed.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
I would hazard a guess that most people are willing to house rule this one to allow the Nightbringer or Deceiver to count as a simple "C'tan Shard", but you should really ask first.

Sounds like the best way to play it.

But I'd in no way consider this a precedent for taking named characters when a generic is listed.

100% Agreed.

Marneus Calgar isn't a "Space Marine Chapter Master". He's a "Marneus Calgar".

 Kriswall wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
I would hazard a guess that most people are willing to house rule this one to allow the Nightbringer or Deceiver to count as a simple "C'tan Shard", but you should really ask first.

Sounds like the best way to play it.

But I'd in no way consider this a precedent for taking named characters when a generic is listed.

100% Agreed.

Marneus Calgar isn't a "Space Marine Chapter Master". He's a "Marneus Calgar".

??? Don't special characters still allow for units like honor guard in the codex because Marneus Calgar is indeed a chapter master?

 scuzz_bucket wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
I would hazard a guess that most people are willing to house rule this one to allow the Nightbringer or Deceiver to count as a simple "C'tan Shard", but you should really ask first.

Sounds like the best way to play it.

But I'd in no way consider this a precedent for taking named characters when a generic is listed.

100% Agreed.

Marneus Calgar isn't a "Space Marine Chapter Master". He's a "Marneus Calgar".

??? Don't special characters still allow for units like honor guard in the codex because Marneus Calgar is indeed a chapter master?

The rule is "You may take one Honour Guard unit for each Chapter Master in your army (including Marneus Calgar, Pedro Kantor and High Marshal Helbrecht). This selection does not use up a Force Organisation slot." If it didn't specify Marneus Calgar, you wouldn't be able to take an Honour Guard for him.

The formation lists the data sheets that must be used, the 'cryptek' datasheet is the cryptek datasheet, not the datasheet for any other unit (special character).

just like how some of the the Necron formations list cryptek overlord, but then give an * and state you can take certain special characters those are rules just for those formations. Some of them do not allow special characters at all, and some allow special characters the others do not.

To throw a wrench in this, the GK Brotherhood Formation requires a Grand Master and a Brother-Captain, however, there is no "Grand Master" unit in the codex. A Grand Master is an upgrade purchased by a Brother-Captain, just like a Librarian purchases PML3. Further, under the Grand Master stat-line, it states "unit composition: 1 Brother-Captain". Per your definition on unit names being exclusive, the GK Brotherhood Formation could never be legally fielded.

Yet, we are advised on two different pages who the Grand Master and Brother-Captains are for each Brotherhood, which includes Brother-Captain Stern as the Brother-Captain of the 3rd Brotherhood. As such, a GK Brotherhood Formation that included Stern should legally be the 3rd Brotherhood, despite Stern being a named character and not a generic Brother-Captain, but also despite the Grand Master being an upgraded generic Brother-Captain. One could say GW writes rules with their fluff as context.

This would mean that the named C'Tan Shards are still C'Tan Shards, and that the named SM Chapter Masters are still Chapter Masters (although Crowe is the Champion of the Order of Purifiers, not a Brotherhood Champion, nor is Draigo a Grand Master, he is the Supreme Grand Master of Chapter 666).

Which is to say, do some reading, tell your opponent what you are doing and why, and stop dictating to strangers what they can't do with their list based on arbitray fan restrictions not supported by the rules.

I'm abstaining from voting, because the answer is neither yes nor no, and most polls on this forum are not well thought out.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

I'm abstaining from voting, because the answer is neither yes nor no, and most polls on this forum are not well thought out.

SJ

Would you include this poll in the "not well thought out" category? If not, why bring it up? If so, why bring it up so passive-aggressively without offering any helpful criticism?
Either your comment was off-topic, or it was rude. Neither is helpful, and one of them is unkind.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
To throw a wrench in this, the GK Brotherhood Formation requires a Grand Master and a Brother-Captain, however, there is no "Grand Master" unit in the codex. A Grand Master is an upgrade purchased by a Brother-Captain, just like a Librarian purchases PML3. Further, under the Grand Master stat-line, it states "unit composition: 1 Brother-Captain". Per your definition on unit names being exclusive, the GK Brotherhood Formation could never be legally fielded.

Yet, we are advised on two different pages who the Grand Master and Brother-Captains are for each Brotherhood, which includes Brother-Captain Stern as the Brother-Captain of the 3rd Brotherhood. As such, a GK Brotherhood Formation that included Stern should legally be the 3rd Brotherhood, despite Stern being a named character and not a generic Brother-Captain, but also despite the Grand Master being an upgraded generic Brother-Captain. One could say GW writes rules with their fluff as context.

This would mean that the named C'Tan Shards are still C'Tan Shards, and that the named SM Chapter Masters are still Chapter Masters (although Crowe is the Champion of the Order of Purifiers, not a Brotherhood Champion, nor is Draigo a Grand Master, he is the Supreme Grand Master of Chapter 666).

Which is to say, do some reading, tell your opponent what you are doing and why, and stop dictating to strangers what they can't do with their list based on arbitray fan restrictions not supported by the rules.

I'm abstaining from voting, because the answer is neither yes nor no, and most polls on this forum are not well thought out.

SJ

due to how the rules for selecting units in formations work what you posted above is not entirely correct, when it comes to formations.

The formations do not care what the profile name of things are. So the deceiver although it may be a C'Tan shard does not qualify as a C'tan shard for a formation, because in the formation it specifies "army list entries" and the army list entry for C'Tan Shard is not the army list entry for the deceiver and vice versa.

The Rules as Written are very clear.

Formation datasheets are identified by this symbol. The rules for Formations can be found in Warhammer 40,000: The Rules. 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.

so it does not matter that the deceiver is a c'tan shard, because the deciever is not purchased through the c'tan shard army list entry, it is purchased through the deceiver army list entry.

as you pointed out in the GK list this presents an anomaly. The formation 'greyknights brotherhood'by the rules as written can never actually be taken, because there is no army list entry for grandmaster it is an upgrade for the army list entry for brother-captain. The should have made it two separate entries, or changed the 'greyknights brotherhood' formation to list 2 brother captains, and 1 is required to be upgrade to grandmaster and the other is required to stay a brother-captain.

much like shrike joining an assault squad, the rules for most space marine factions are poorly written so sometimes they end up with rules that do not allow you to actually use the things they intended if you follow the rules as written. :(

Would you include this poll in the "not well thought out" category? If not, why bring it up? If so, why bring it up so passive-aggressively without offering any helpful criticism?
Either your comment was off-topic, or it was rude. Neither is helpful, and one of them is unkind.

Yes, I do consider this poll to be not well thought out. The options are "Yes", "No", and "I love voting in polls!", which offers not real information. Now, a poll with some thought to it might be:

1. Yes, named characters that are obviously a specific unit type should count as that unit type for Formations.

2. No, named characters are not that same as generic unit types unless their rules state them as such.

3. It depends on the Formation and the named character's role in the codex.

4. Formations are currently broken; please discuss the issue with your opponent or TO.

Those four responses have more weight than Yes, No, or Nonsense.

As to the rest, I explained my point of view in my initial post, specifically on how Brother-Captain Stern is a Brother-Captain, while Grand Masters are also Brother-Captains, making the GK Brotherhood Formation either unplayable, or GW's definition of what is and what isn't a specific unit much more flexible than the average forum poster's.

SJ

This is a specific case where named characters ought to be allowed because both were C'tan shards under the old codex. As it stands RAW, you cannot field ANY models that fulfill the requirements of the formation. So obviously something is broken here and should probably revert to the way it was previously, as that's what makes the most sense. A better question would be whether or not the Transcendent C'tan could be in that formation or not since he is not (and never was) a shard, yet he is essentially the same as the other two current shards

 luke1705 wrote:
This is a specific case where named characters ought to be allowed because both were C'tan shards under the old codex. As it stands RAW, you cannot field ANY models that fulfill the requirements of the formation. So obviously something is broken here and should probably revert to the way it was previously, as that's what makes the most sense. A better question would be whether or not the Transcendent C'tan could be in that formation or not since he is not (and never was) a shard, yet he is essentially the same as the other two current shards

Is the Transcendant C'tan a "C'tan Shard"? Nope. Then he can't fulfill the requirement.

While the argument sounds absurd (what do you mean Marneus Calgar isn't a "Chapter Master"), you have to remember it's equally absurd from the other direction. How do you define a "Chapter Master". If, buried in the fluff somewhere, Tactical Squads referenced Chapter Masters, could you count a Tactical Squad as a "Chapter Master" (I know this isn't the case, it's just an example in case this situation ever does occur)? No, because the rules do not state that Tactical Squads are Chapter Masters.

It would be quite easy to simply add "Chapter Master" to Marneus Calgar's special rules, and some something similar for equivalent circumstances, but GW has chosen not to do so, and so we're stuck with what the rules actually are. Interpreting the rules can be fine if you and your opponent agree to it, but it can lead to ambiguous loopholes in the rules so you have to be careful.

 DarkLink wrote:
While the argument sounds absurd (what do you mean Marneus Calgar isn't a "Chapter Master"), you have to remember it's equally absurd from the other direction. How do you define a "Chapter Master". If, buried in the fluff somewhere, Tactical Squads referenced Chapter Masters, could you count a Tactical Squad as a "Chapter Master" (I know this isn't the case, it's just an example in case this situation ever does occur)? No, because the rules do not state that Tactical Squads are Chapter Masters.

It would be quite easy to simply add "Chapter Master" to Marneus Calgar's special rules, and some something similar for equivalent circumstances, but GW has chosen not to do so, and so we're stuck with what the rules actually are. Interpreting the rules can be fine if you and your opponent agree to it, but it can lead to ambiguous loopholes in the rules so you have to be careful.

Also, if you're relying on fluff to determine who you can take in an army, you're going to run into other situations. Marshal Helbrecht can take an Honour Guard, but he's not a Chapter Master. He's a Marshal. The Black Templars have an entirely different command structure and don't follow the Codex Astartes.

The implication from the Apocalypse formations that spell out "Space Marine Captain, plus you can take special characters X, Y, and Z for this formation" is that if the formation doesn't explicitly say so you can't take it.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The implication from the Apocalypse formations that spell out "Space Marine Captain, plus you can take special characters X, Y, and Z for this formation" is that if the formation doesn't explicitly say so you can't take it.

Thankfully, we're playing 7th, not Apoc.

SJ

If I was your opponent and you did as jeffefosnian000 suggested and told me you're bringing x cause it fits fluff and extra reasons, however it's not really what the formation or rules say to do, I'd be polite and thank you for the explanation, then continue to explain as to why I wouldn't play it.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
If I was your opponent and you did as jeffefosnian000 suggested and told me you're bringing x cause it fits fluff and extra reasons, however it's not really what the formation or rules say to do, I'd be polite and thank you for the explanation, then continue to explain as to why I wouldn't play it.

It's not "my way". All I did was point out that GW has either written new formations that can't be used, or people are being too restrictive.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
If I was your opponent and you did as jeffefosnian000 suggested and told me you're bringing x cause it fits fluff and extra reasons, however it's not really what the formation or rules say to do, I'd be polite and thank you for the explanation, then continue to explain as to why I wouldn't play it.

It's not "my way". All I did was point out that GW has either written new formations that can't be used, or people are being too restrictive.

SJ

When that formation was released it was playable

 CrownAxe wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
If I was your opponent and you did as jeffefosnian000 suggested and told me you're bringing x cause it fits fluff and extra reasons, however it's not really what the formation or rules say to do, I'd be polite and thank you for the explanation, then continue to explain as to why I wouldn't play it.

It's not "my way". All I did was point out that GW has either written new formations that can't be used, or people are being too restrictive.

SJ

When that formation was released it was playable

The GK Brotherhood Formation, the one in my example that the OP also asked about, requires a Grand Master, a Brother-Captain, and a Brotherhood Champion. The question posted was if Stern and/or Crowe could fulfill their obvious role despite being named characters. I pointed out Grand Masters do not exist as a unit, that Stern is named the Brother-Captain of the 3rd Brotherhood on two different pages of the codex, that Crowe is not a Brotherhood Champion, rather he is the Champion of the Order of Purifiers, and further pointed out that Draigo is not a Grand Master of a Brotherhood, he is the Supreme Grand Master of the Chapter.

Ignoring for the moment Draigo, Stern and Crowe, the fact that Grand Master is not a unit in the exact same codex that the Brotherhood Formation is printed in means that either GW gave us a formation that cannot be used, or they have a less restrictive interpretation on what a Brother-Captain is. Meaning, GW obviously intended for us to fill the GM slot with a BC that has the GM upgrade, and they obviously intended anyone that wanted to field the 3rd Brotherhood to include Stern as the BC. Per RAW, GW printed a formation that does not work in the book it is printed in ... unless it does work, and it is the fanbase that is being too restrictive.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
If I was your opponent and you did as jeffefosnian000 suggested and told me you're bringing x cause it fits fluff and extra reasons, however it's not really what the formation or rules say to do, I'd be polite and thank you for the explanation, then continue to explain as to why I wouldn't play it.

It's not "my way". All I did was point out that GW has either written new formations that can't be used, or people are being too restrictive.

SJ

When that formation was released it was playable

The GK Brotherhood Formation, the one in my example that the OP also asked about, requires a Grand Master, a Brother-Captain, and a Brotherhood Champion. The question posted was if Stern and/or Crowe could fulfill their obvious role despite being named characters. I pointed out Grand Masters do not exist as a unit, that Stern is named the Brother-Captain of the 3rd Brotherhood on two different pages of the codex, that Crowe is not a Brotherhood Champion, rather he is the Champion of the Order of Purifiers, and further pointed out that Draigo is not a Grand Master of a Brotherhood, he is the Supreme Grand Master of the Chapter.

Ignoring for the moment Draigo, Stern and Crowe, the fact that Grand Master is not a unit in the exact same codex that the Brotherhood Formation is printed in means that either GW gave us a formation that cannot be used, or they have a less restrictive interpretation on what a Brother-Captain is. Meaning, GW obviously intended for us to fill the GM slot with a BC that has the GM upgrade, and they obviously intended anyone that wanted to field the 3rd Brotherhood to include Stern as the BC. Per RAW, GW printed a formation that does not work in the book it is printed in ... unless it does work, and it is the fanbase that is being too restrictive.

SJ

GW obviously has a willy-nilly interpretation of how their rules work. The problem with this is that we often have to guess what they meant. Sometimes these guesses are easy. Sometimes they're not.

Conclave of the Burning One calls for a C'tan Shard. I'm guessing they meant C'tan Shard of the Nightbringer or C'tan Shard of the Deceiver, but they haven't FAQ'd it, so I'm forced to guess.

GK Brotherhood calls for a Grand Master. I'm guessing they meant Brother-Captain who has been given the 35 point Grand Master upgrade, but they haven't FAQ'd it, so I'm forced to guess.

My guess is that if they had wanted you to take "Brother-Captain Stern" to fulfill the "Brother-Captain" requirement, they would have added wording saying so. They've done that in many instances.

My guess is that if they had wanted you to take "Brother-Captain Stern" to fulfill the "Brother-Captain" requirement, they would have added wording saying so. They've done that in many instances.

And like your other two examples, you are left to guess ... or to read the actual unit entries. It's almost like GW decided to troll the hardliners by writing their rules for teens rather than pro tournament gamers.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

My guess is that if they had wanted you to take "Brother-Captain Stern" to fulfill the "Brother-Captain" requirement, they would have added wording saying so. They've done that in many instances.

And like your other two examples, you are left to guess ... or to read the actual unit entries. It's almost like GW decided to troll the hardliners by writing their rules for teens rather than pro tournament gamers.

SJ

I'm not a hardliner and I'm not sure what you're implying with the teen comment. GW doesn't write their rules for anyone. They don't do market research and they don't do community play testing. They're writing the rules for themselves.

Is it fairly obvious what the intent is? I think so. The issue is that intent breaks down very quickly. It would be measurably better to simply have a well written set of rules. You don't have to be a pro tournament gamer to appreciate internally consistent rules. Casual players can and frequently do enjoy well written rule sets.

Why do you think Magic the Gathering is so popular? There's no fething debate whatsoever as to how that game works. I actually had an MtG player come up to me at a FLGS last week and say "I like the models, I like the painting, I like the background, but I just can't get into a rule set that is so frequently open to interpretation."

Does anybody else find it interesting that despite requiring a C'tan Shard, the model used is a Transcendent C'tan?

 Happyjew wrote:
Does anybody else find it interesting that despite requiring a C'tan Shard, the model used is a Transcendent C'tan?

How else would you represent "The Burning One"? It's interesting, but has no real bearing on the rules. Fluff and photos can frequently be incorrect as relates to the rules.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The implication from the Apocalypse formations that spell out "Space Marine Captain, plus you can take special characters X, Y, and Z for this formation" is that if the formation doesn't explicitly say so you can't take it.

Thankfully, we're playing 7th, not Apoc.

SJ

The way GW writes formation rules is a constant between rulebooks and expansions.

This is the actual rules text in regards to Formations...

"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."

So, the question becomes, where can I find an Army List Entry called "C'tan Shard"? Where can I find an Army List Entry called "Grand Master"? Is the Army List Entry called "Brother-Captain Stern" the same as the Army List Entry called "Brother-Captain"?

HIWPI... case by case. In the fluff, Stern is clearly a Brother-Captain, so I'd allow it. In the fluff, a C'tan Shard of the Nightbringer is clearly a C'tan Shard.

But this is HIWPI. From a RaW standpoint, "Brother-Captain Stern" isn't a "Brother-Captain" and there is no such thing as a "C'tan Shard". The "C'tan Shard" is an outdated Army List Entry from the old 5th Edition Necron Codex. It was current when the Conclave of the Burning One was released. The 7th Edition Necron Codex not only replaced the 5th Edition one, but it rendered the Conclave of the Burning One unplayable without house rules.