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.

I know awhile back that there was a discussion about being allowed to upgrade a captain to a chapter master in the Gladius Strike Force. Was a conclusion determined on this subject or is it still up in the air? Thank you!

Mr. Raynor

It was dropped a since the arguments were circular. AFAIK, there is no consensus, but comes down to whether you read the data sheet as 1 Captain (profile) or 1 Captain (unit).

The Formations list datasheets this is covered in the SM codex (I think page 104 from memory). The Datasheet Captain has an option to be upgraded to Chapter Master and nothing in the Demi Company restricts that option.

There was an absolute 100% conclusion in RaW. There was no strong RaI argument against the RaW just people not wanting the CM to be available because reasons.

 FlingitNow wrote:
The Formations list datasheets this is covered in the SM codex (I think page 104 from memory). The Datasheet Captain has an option to be upgraded to Chapter Master and nothing in the Demi Company restricts that option.

There was an absolute 100% conclusion in RaW. There was no strong RaI argument against the RaW just people not wanting the CM to be available because reasons.

Yup, this is exactly what I remember. RaW absolutely allows it. We can never know what the authors intended... only what they wrote.

I think it's probably more correct to say that RAW does not prohibit it; claiming it allows it is reading it as intended to mean the datasheet just as much as the other side of the argument is reading it as intended to mean the profile.

 Mr. Shine wrote:
I think it's probably more correct to say that RAW does not prohibit it; claiming it allows it is reading it as intended to mean the datasheet just as much as the other side of the argument is reading it as intended to mean the profile.

Negative.

Small Rulebook, Page 121, "Formations" Section - "Instead of including a Force Organisation Chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules those units gain."

And...

Codex: Space Marines, eBook Version, "Choosing an Army" Section - "The Gladius Strike Force is a special type of Detachment that can be included in any Battle-forged army. Unlike the Detachments shown in Warhammer 40,000: The Rules, it has a Force Organisation Chart whose slots are a combination of specific Formations and Army List Entries instead of Battlefield Roles."

At this point, there should be no doubt that the Gladius Strike Force is naming the Army List Entries that can be included and not individual models. At least, that's what the rules say, in black and white. Both the BRB and the Codex agree on this.

But how do we know how to match up what the Gladius calls for with the Army List Entries? In fact, what is an Army List Entry?

Codex: Space Marines, eBook Version, "Datasheets" Section - "Each Space Marines unit in this book has a datasheet. These detail either Army List Entries or Formations, providing all the rules information you will need to use your models in your games of Warhammer 40,000."

Ok, so an Army List Entry is basically any Datasheet that isn't a Formation. Got it. Do these Datasheets have names?

Codex: Space Marines, eBook Version, "Datasheets" Section - "Each Army List Entry contains the following information:" followed by "4. Unit Name: Here you will find the name of the unit."

Awesome, so now we've established from a rules as written perspective that the Gladius is providing us with a list of Army List Entries, what exactly an Army List Entry is and the fact that Army List Entries have names.

The Battle Demi-Company element specifically is a Formation as can be seen via its Datasheet. Among other things, it calls for "1 Captain or Chapain". We know that theses are the names of Army List Entries. Are there any Army List Entries called "Captain"? Look at that. There is one!

What models are inside this Army List Entry/Unit that happens to be called "Captain"? Let's look at the Unit Composition. It list "1 Captain". So, our "Captain" Army List Entry/Unit starts out as 1 Captain model before we apply any upgrades.

Wait a second... does the Battle Demi-Company place any restrictions on which options I can choose for my "Captain" Army List Entry/Unit? Let's look at the Restrictions section of the Formation Datasheet. What does it say under Restrictions? "None."

Great, so there are no restrictions. I can take whatever upgrades I want.

I'm going to take the upgrade marked as "May be upgrade to a Chapter Master... 40 pts" from the options list.

Awesome.

I'm now left with a "Captain" Army List Entry/Unit composed of 1 Chapter Master model. This fully satisfies the Battle Demi-Company requirement that I take 1 Captain or Chaplain.

Done.

Now, the most common point of ignorance that makes a person not understand this is thinking that there is such a thing as a Chapter Master Unit. There isn't. If you disagree, grab your Codex and look for a Datasheet with the name "Chapter Master". It's not in there. A single Chapter Master model is always part of a Captain Unit. The second most common mistake is thinking that a Formation is asking for specific models. Per the rules above, that's not the case. Are there situations in other Codexes where the army selection process breaks down because there is no Army List Entry with the given name? Sure. GW writes crap rules. We all know this. Is this one of those situations? Nope. This is pretty clear cut and there is a clear chain of RaW (documented above) showing that a Captain Unit upgraded with the Chapter Master option fulfills the requirement to take a Captain in a Formation.

TL: DR; RaW is clear and well documented to allow the Chapter Master upgrade. People who feel otherwise do so for "reasons" and are unable to backup there stance with rules.

I wasn't aware of the specific wording re: formation datasheets. That makes it abundantly clear, agreed.

Kriswall do you also believe that Necron Harvest can have more than 1 Spyder?

Fragile wrote:
Kriswall do you also believe that Necron Harvest can have more than 1 Spyder?

I believe that is a situation that can't be resolved as there is no Datasheet called "Canoptek Scarab". We either have to wait for an FAQ/Errata or make a house rule. The most common house rule, and the one I go with is to read 1 Canoptek Sacarab as 1 unit of Canoptek Scarabs consisting of one Canoptek Scarab.

2 things...

1. The fact you can select named captains but not chapter masters in pace of the required captain for the formation shows intent.

2. What about the dark artisan then - 1 talos, 1 cronos and 1 haemonculus. All 3 have their own datasheets and 2 of them have the option to add 1-2 extra models. Can I add the extra pain engines to this unit?

 Kriswall wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Kriswall do you also believe that Necron Harvest can have more than 1 Spyder?

I believe that is a situation that can't be resolved as there is no Datasheet called "Canoptek Scarab". We either have to wait for an FAQ/Errata or make a house rule. The most common house rule, and the one I go with is to read 1 Canoptek Sacarab as 1 unit of Canoptek Scarabs consisting of one Canoptek Scarab.

Spyders, actually, but that isn't important to the discussion.

The only RAI argument is that the only Uniques allowed to replace the Captain are all Captains themselves (or Chaplain, of course), and none are Chapter Masters.

However, that has no rule bearing at all, and the Stormlord cannot replace the Overlord in the Necron Reclamation Legion Formation, either, but can for their Royal Court Formation.

So, unless you've discussed it first, plan on the Captain for a faster game start and to minimize arguments.

 Massaen wrote:
2 things...

1. The fact you can select named captains but not chapter masters in pace of the required captain for the formation shows intent.

2. What about the dark artisan then - 1 talos, 1 cronos and 1 haemonculus. All 3 have their own datasheets and 2 of them have the option to add 1-2 extra models. Can I add the extra pain engines to this unit?

Don't fall for this! It's a trap!

As already stated, there's a RAW solution to this that not everyone agrees with. Count me as one of the folks that also don't think you should be able to take a Chapter Master. But please, let's not keep arguing this, because we all know that it only ends with a 6 page thread that gets locked for not getting anywhere.

 Massaen wrote:
2 things...

1. The fact you can select named captains but not chapter masters in pace of the required captain for the formation shows intent.

2. What about the dark artisan then - 1 talos, 1 cronos and 1 haemonculus. All 3 have their own datasheets and 2 of them have the option to add 1-2 extra models. Can I add the extra pain engines to this unit?

There are formations with the Captain requirement that DO allow the Chapter Masters. Namely, every Battle Demi-Company besides the one in Codex: Space Marines. The Pinion Battle Demi-Company allows Pedro Kantor and Helbrecht. So does whatever the White Scars one is called. It seems more likely that the Battle Demi-Company incorrectly does NOT allow them.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:
I think it's probably more correct to say that RAW does not prohibit it; claiming it allows it is reading it as intended to mean the datasheet just as much as the other side of the argument is reading it as intended to mean the profile.

Negative.

Small Rulebook, Page 121, "Formations" Section - "Instead of including a Force Organisation Chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules those units gain."

And...

Codex: Space Marines, eBook Version, "Choosing an Army" Section - "The Gladius Strike Force is a special type of Detachment that can be included in any Battle-forged army. Unlike the Detachments shown in Warhammer 40,000: The Rules, it has a Force Organisation Chart whose slots are a combination of specific Formations and Army List Entries instead of Battlefield Roles."

At this point, there should be no doubt that the Gladius Strike Force is naming the Army List Entries that can be included and not individual models. At least, that's what the rules say, in black and white. Both the BRB and the Codex agree on this.

But how do we know how to match up what the Gladius calls for with the Army List Entries? In fact, what is an Army List Entry?

Codex: Space Marines, eBook Version, "Datasheets" Section - "Each Space Marines unit in this book has a datasheet. These detail either Army List Entries or Formations, providing all the rules information you will need to use your models in your games of Warhammer 40,000."

Ok, so an Army List Entry is basically any Datasheet that isn't a Formation. Got it. Do these Datasheets have names?

Codex: Space Marines, eBook Version, "Datasheets" Section - "Each Army List Entry contains the following information:" followed by "4. Unit Name: Here you will find the name of the unit."

Awesome, so now we've established from a rules as written perspective that the Gladius is providing us with a list of Army List Entries, what exactly an Army List Entry is and the fact that Army List Entries have names.

The Battle Demi-Company element specifically is a Formation as can be seen via its Datasheet. Among other things, it calls for "1 Captain or Chapain". We know that theses are the names of Army List Entries. Are there any Army List Entries called "Captain"? Look at that. There is one!

What models are inside this Army List Entry/Unit that happens to be called "Captain"? Let's look at the Unit Composition. It list "1 Captain". So, our "Captain" Army List Entry/Unit starts out as 1 Captain model before we apply any upgrades.

Wait a second... does the Battle Demi-Company place any restrictions on which options I can choose for my "Captain" Army List Entry/Unit? Let's look at the Restrictions section of the Formation Datasheet. What does it say under Restrictions? "None."

Great, so there are no restrictions. I can take whatever upgrades I want.

I'm going to take the upgrade marked as "May be upgrade to a Chapter Master... 40 pts" from the options list.

Awesome.

I'm now left with a "Captain" Army List Entry/Unit composed of 1 Chapter Master model. This fully satisfies the Battle Demi-Company requirement that I take 1 Captain or Chaplain.

Done.

Now, the most common point of ignorance that makes a person not understand this is thinking that there is such a thing as a Chapter Master Unit. There isn't. If you disagree, grab your Codex and look for a Datasheet with the name "Chapter Master". It's not in there. A single Chapter Master model is always part of a Captain Unit. The second most common mistake is thinking that a Formation is asking for specific models. Per the rules above, that's not the case. Are there situations in other Codexes where the army selection process breaks down because there is no Army List Entry with the given name? Sure. GW writes crap rules. We all know this. Is this one of those situations? Nope. This is pretty clear cut and there is a clear chain of RaW (documented above) showing that a Captain Unit upgraded with the Chapter Master option fulfills the requirement to take a Captain in a Formation.

TL: DR; RaW is clear and well documented to allow the Chapter Master upgrade. People who feel otherwise do so for "reasons" and are unable to backup there stance with rules.

That's...a really nice and thourough workup. Good job.

 Kriswall wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Kriswall do you also believe that Necron Harvest can have more than 1 Spyder?

I believe that is a situation that can't be resolved as there is no Datasheet called "Canoptek Scarab". We either have to wait for an FAQ/Errata or make a house rule. The most common house rule, and the one I go with is to read 1 Canoptek Sacarab as 1 unit of Canoptek Scarabs consisting of one Canoptek Scarab.

Its really no different than the Capt/CM issue. If you run Spyders as 1, then its a Capt. If you allow more than 1 Spyder then you can upgrade to CM.

Fragile wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Kriswall do you also believe that Necron Harvest can have more than 1 Spyder?

I believe that is a situation that can't be resolved as there is no Datasheet called "Canoptek Scarab". We either have to wait for an FAQ/Errata or make a house rule. The most common house rule, and the one I go with is to read 1 Canoptek Sacarab as 1 unit of Canoptek Scarabs consisting of one Canoptek Scarab.

Its really no different than the Capt/CM issue. If you run Spyders as 1, then its a Capt. If you allow more than 1 Spyder then you can upgrade to CM.

RAW you can upgrade the unit of 1 Spyder up to a unit of 3 Spyders. The only reason people don't play it that way is cause Necrons.

col_impact wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Kriswall do you also believe that Necron Harvest can have more than 1 Spyder?

I believe that is a situation that can't be resolved as there is no Datasheet called "Canoptek Scarab". We either have to wait for an FAQ/Errata or make a house rule. The most common house rule, and the one I go with is to read 1 Canoptek Sacarab as 1 unit of Canoptek Scarabs consisting of one Canoptek Scarab.

Its really no different than the Capt/CM issue. If you run Spyders as 1, then its a Capt. If you allow more than 1 Spyder then you can upgrade to CM.

RAW you can upgrade the unit of 1 Spyder up to a unit of 3 Spyders. The only reason people don't play it that way is cause Necrons.

There is also the Formation Special Rule which centers around "THE" Spyder of the Formation, and really the main reason for considering it just 1 Spyder model.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Kriswall do you also believe that Necron Harvest can have more than 1 Spyder?

I believe that is a situation that can't be resolved as there is no Datasheet called "Canoptek Scarab". We either have to wait for an FAQ/Errata or make a house rule. The most common house rule, and the one I go with is to read 1 Canoptek Sacarab as 1 unit of Canoptek Scarabs consisting of one Canoptek Scarab.

Its really no different than the Capt/CM issue. If you run Spyders as 1, then its a Capt. If you allow more than 1 Spyder then you can upgrade to CM.

RAW you can upgrade the unit of 1 Spyder up to a unit of 3 Spyders. The only reason people don't play it that way is cause Necrons.

There is also the Formation Special Rule which centers around "THE" Spyder of the Formation, and really the main reason for considering it just 1 Spyder model.

That doesn't provide a restriction. It only introduces a book-keeping task.

The formation lists 'no restrictions' and the ability to add additional spyders is quite clearly on the ALE.

RAW is exceedingly clear here folks. Restricting the Canoptek Harvest to 1 Spyder per unit of Spyders is a popular house rule, not RAW.

Without getting into to much more of an argument - RAW is not exceedingly clear for the harvest or the battle company which is why this conversation comes up every so often.

The Spyder and Cronos thing is a misnomer. They are incorrectly written formation. There is no such datasheet as Canoptek Spyder, so we have to use a House rule to resolve it. This has already been covered. Another misnomer is the no named Chapter Master as the Command option in the Gladius does list the named Chapter Masters but still lists the Captain Datasheet.

As Kriswall has pointed out absolute 100% clear RaW the Chapter Master is allowed. No one is even attempting to dispute this it is written in black and white in the Codex and Rulebook.

If you're going for intent there is just as much evidence in each direction. Indeed if anything more supports the allowance of the CM upgrade as more often than not when named CMs are allowed the Captain Datasheet is listed by itself.

 Massaen wrote:
Without getting into to much more of an argument - RAW is not exceedingly clear for the harvest or the battle company which is why this conversation comes up every so often.

RAW is clear. The conversation comes up because people are not good at actually reading and adhering to the rules as they are written.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:
The Spyder and Cronos thing is a misnomer. They are incorrectly written formation. There is no such datasheet as Canoptek Spyder, so we have to use a House rule to resolve it.

The Formation references the page number of the Canoptek Spyders datasheet so there is hardly a need to house rule it.

 Massaen wrote:
Without getting into to much more of an argument - RAW is not exceedingly clear for the harvest or the battle company which is why this conversation comes up every so often.

Sorry but RaW is exceptionally and perfectly clear for the Battle Company as Kriswall laid out in what the 5th post of the thread?

No, I actually I agree that RaW is not clear on the Harvest and requires a house rule or RaI interpretation. In that case, there is no Datasheet matching the name provided. There is no "Canoptek Spyder" Datasheet. There is a "Canoptek Spyders" one instead. I know this is silly, but that's not identical, so the RaW solution fails and the Harvest becomes technically impossible to fulfill.

I'm with most people in that the authors intended us to take a "Canoptek Spyders" unit, but to only allow on model in said unit. That's how we house rule it.

The Battle Demi-Company is a different situation in that there is no rules break at all. There IS a Datasheet called "Captain", so the rules are allowed to work as intended.

Essentially, the Canoptek Harvest Formation is broken as written. The Battle Demi-Company is not.

Also following their logic there is no way to field a generic CM in a Gladius, but Pedro, Marneas and Helbretch are all OK...

 Kriswall wrote:
No, I actually I agree that RaW is not clear on the Harvest and requires a house rule or RaI interpretation. In that case, there is no Datasheet matching the name provided. There is no "Canoptek Spyder" Datasheet. There is a "Canoptek Spyders" one instead. I know this is silly, but that's not identical, so the RaW solution fails and the Harvest becomes technically impossible to fulfill.

I'm with most people in that the authors intended us to take a "Canoptek Spyders" unit, but to only allow on model in said unit. That's how we house rule it.

That's quite a house rule you have there. I will follow the RAW which redundantly references the exact page number of the Canoptek Spyders ALE and so accounts for any negligible typos.