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 in light of this ruling in the FAQ DRAFT (the first Q&A point):



I would argue that the compulsory Tank Commander listed in the "Emperor's Fist Armored Company" formation requirements is not actually allowed to take his otherwise compulsory wing man because the formation doesn't give him explicit permission to. The formation requires "1 Tank Commander" not "1 Tank Commander and his unit". I would argue that the fact that a Tank commander can't be taken on his own under normal circumstances is, in light of the FAQ, irrelevant here because the formation does not explicitly give permission to take a Tank Commander and his unit, only a Tank Commander Model. If, again in light of the FAQ, the intention of the formation was to require a Tank Commander and his unit the formation rules would have specified it.

Therefore, the formation rules trump regular force organization rules and the Emperor's Fist Armored Company would, at a minimum, consist of 4 Tanks, (Commander, Squadron 1, Squadron 2, Squadron 3) instead of 5 tanks, (Tank Commander and his unit + 3 Squadrons). Am I wrong here?

EDIT:

A summary of my reasoning thus far:

1. The formation calls for a Tank Commander.
2. We reference the Codex, see the Tank Commander is a Character and select him.
3. After selecting this Character, we reference his Options.
4. Seeing he MUST take an accompanying Squadron, we attempt to do so.
5. In light of the FAQ our attempt to take an accompanying squadron is illegal due to the fact that the Formation calls for a "Tank Commander" and not "A Tank Commander and his unit".
6. Since only "1 Tank Commander" is allowed in the formation we are left with the lone Tank Commander Character.

Except that "Tank commander" is also the name of the squadron.

 Iron_Warden wrote:
Except that "Tank commander" is also the name of the squadron.

That's the problem it's hard to tell however it does say 1 tank commander.
I honestly think the op is correct on both this tank formation and the steel host and that is why you can't upgrade the tank commander to pask (because it's 1 tank commander) but can upgrade a captain to a chapter master in a battle company.
Also all the promotional pictures and even the web bundle didn't include the extra tank.

gungo wrote:

Also all the promotional pictures and even the web bundle didn't include the extra tank.

The web bundle doesn't even include the 3rd leman russ squadron so that doesn't mean anything

 CrownAxe wrote:

gungo wrote:

Also all the promotional pictures and even the web bundle didn't include the extra tank.

The web bundle doesn't even include the 3rd leman russ squadron so that doesn't mean anything

What?
The steel host bundle
1 tank commander
And 2 x single leman Russ squadron
And hydra

That's my point even the web bundles are showing that the Steel host formation does not include a wingman for the tank commander. The emporer fist bundle doesn't even say it can make an emporer fist formation just a tank squadron.
I'm not saying it's definite proof but it's one of several reasons why I think they intended that "1 tank commander" to be about the model and not the unit entry.

The steel host has 3 leman Russ squadrons in addition to the tank commander. The bundle isn't a complete formation even if the commander could be by its self. How is the bundle support that the tank commander can be alone when it doesn't even have the formation correct

 Iron_Warden wrote:
Except that "Tank commander" is also the name of the squadron.

This isn't true though, the codex clearly differentiates between the two stating, under the "Tank Commanders" entry that: "The Tank Commander's tank is a character.." and then goes on to talk about "A Tank Commander and his Leman Russ Squadron...". Clearly they are not considered the same thing. A Tank commander is simply a character who, under normal circumstances is forced to be joined to a regular Leman Russ Squadron (which does have it's own, separate, entry in the codex). The codex even states that "The Tank Commander's Leman Russ cannot leave the unit or join another unit". So he clearly is a character joined to a separate unit, which he cannot under normal circumstances leave.

The Emperor's fist gives me no permission to take the Tank Commander's accompanying unit, therefore I am forced to take him, the character, alone, independent of his unit. In fluff terms, this is simply representative of a Tank commander leading a full company rather than merely a squadron.

edit: Moreover, if it is true that "Tank Commander" is the name of the squadron then it follows that the whole squadron can issue orders even if the "Tank Commander Model" is destroyed and only his squadron mate is left alive because Tank Orders are issued by a "Tank Commander" (quoting the codex). I think we all agree that this is not the case.

 CrownAxe wrote:
The steel host has 3 leman Russ squadrons in addition to the tank commander. The bundle isn't a complete formation even if the commander could be by its self. How is the bundle support that the tank commander can be alone when it doesn't even have the formation correct

Don't focus on the web bundle or whatnot, I agree that isn't proof of anything. I really am looking for holes in the argument I've posted above because I think it is pretty convincing, especially in light of that FAQ ruling. And I'm not saying this just because I want to run the formation with 4 tanks, I've run it several times with 5. It just seems to me that a minimum of 4 tanks is what is being described in the formation, rather than a minimum of 5 tanks.

 Iron_Warden wrote:
Except that "Tank commander" is also the name of the squadron.

As much as Canoptek Spyders?

I've just looked at the Tank Commander entry in the codex again he is very clearly distinct from his wingman. The codex refers to them as "The Tank Commander" (who is listed as a character) and the Tank Commander's "Leman Russ Squadron" with separate options for both. Not to mention that "One Tank Commander may be upgraded to Knight Commander Pask". No one would argue that the entire unit composed of the Tank Commander character and attached Leman Russ Squadron both turn into Pask upon purchasing that upgrade. Therefore the "Tank Commander" and the the "Leman Russ Squadron" he is normally attached to are very clearly two distinct entities and the Emperor's Fist specifically calls for only one of those two entities, the Tank Commander himself. The formation essentially just rips him away from his singular and mandatory codex squadron and places him in charge of 3 squadrons. This makes perfect sense, even fluffwise, does it not?

The wording for the Tank Commander seems pretty ironclad:

The Tank Commander’s squadron must include 1-2 other Leman Russ tanks chosen from those listed in the Heavy Support section.

Hopefully this one will be covered in the Astra Militarum FAQ.

ExFideFortis wrote:I've just looked at the Tank Commander entry in the codex again he is very clearly distinct from his wingman. The codex refers to them as "The Tank Commander" (who is listed as a character) and the Tank Commander's "Leman Russ Squadron" with separate options for both. Not to mention that "One Tank Commander may be upgraded to Knight Commander Pask". No one would argue that the entire unit composed of the Tank Commander character and attached Leman Russ Squadron both turn into Pask upon purchasing that upgrade. Therefore the "Tank Commander" and the the "Leman Russ Squadron" he is normally attached to are very clearly two distinct entities and the Emperor's Fist specifically calls for only one of those two entities, the Tank Commander himself. The formation essentially just rips him away from his singular and mandatory codex squadron and places him in charge of 3 squadrons. This makes perfect sense, even fluffwise, does it not?

Not quite.

Remember the game operates on several different levels of entities. The most basic is the Model. Each model is part of a Unit, the next level of entity. Each unit is usually part of a Detachment. The Detachments then make up your Army.

The Tank Commander is both a model and a unit. That leads to the first question in that FAQ posted in the original post.

Now, I don't know how the Emperor's Fist is listed in comparison to that, so that should be taken in consideration if this FAQ goes live.

Ghaz wrote:The wording for the Tank Commander seems pretty ironclad:

The Tank Commander’s squadron must include 1-2 other Leman Russ tanks chosen from those listed in the Heavy Support section.

Hopefully this one will be covered in the Astra Militarum FAQ.

But the organization provided the Formation List may still take precedence if the FAQ goes live as is in this case. If the Formation List does not specify a unit, then it is specifically stating the model.

However, the Captain is still allowed to be upgraded to the Chapter Master, a different model, in another FAQ answer, which is a direct contradiction to that first answer.

So, take it for what you will.

Nothing stares it takes precedence. Just that it takes away the optional units.

Some good points above, and yes I hope the IG FAQ addresses this.

To clarify, the formation specifically requires "1 Tank Commander", that is the exact wording. When the Codex talks about a "Tank Commander" it is always talking about the lone model, the tank commander character and not the model + his squadron, because when it talks about them both it refers to the "Tank Comander and his Leman Russ Squadron". It is important to note that a "Leman Russ Squadron" can be taken without a Tank Commander as a heavy support choice.

Now if you take him in a CAD out of the Codex, the Tank Commander must be attached to a Leman Russ Squadron, just the same as a Commissar must be attached to a unit. When you take the Tank Commander in the Emperor's Fist you just take the lone Character because that is what the formation specifically asks for. If he was suppose to be attached to a Leman Russ Squadron, the formation requirements would have said "1 Tank Commander and his Leman Russ Squadron", like the codex.

Come to think of it, Commissars are a perfect example of this same principle in action. You cannot normally take them on their own out of the codex; they are characters that must be attached to a specific unit out of a list of units and cannot leave that unit. When a formation asks for a Commissar it is clearly talking about the model. The Psykanna formation is a good example of this. Commissars cannot join Wyrdvane Psykers in the Codex, nor can they be taken on their own without an attached unit. The Psykanna Formation calls for "1-3 Commissars". Are we to interpret this to mean "1-3 Commissars and the unit they must, by codex rules, be attached to from a list of units which does not include Wyrdvane Psykers"? I think it's clear that we are not and we are to take 1-3 Commissars even though we cannot normally take them on their own. So we have in that formation a clear precedent . The same logic then applies to the "1 Tank Commader" required by the Emperor's Fist.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Iron_Warden wrote:
Except that "Tank commander" is also the name of the squadron.

As much as Canoptek Spyders?

The difference being the spyders may take additional models, the Tank Commander Must take 1-2 Leman Russ wingmen. Although it is a nice argument put forward for the single model, and I can see it both ways.

 Iron_Warden wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Iron_Warden wrote:
Except that "Tank commander" is also the name of the squadron.

As much as Canoptek Spyders?

The difference being the spyders may take additional models, the Tank Commander Must take 1-2 Leman Russ wingmen. Although it is a nice argument put forward for the single model, and I can see it both ways.

Then you missed the point as referenced in the FAQ referenced in the Original Post.

The question was if a formation did not specifically reference a unit, but gave a model's name, which is required, a unit or a model? The answer is a model.

The Tank Commander Unit comes with the Tank Commander model and 1-2 Leman Russ models. If the Emperor's Fist lists "1 Tank Commander" it is saying, in essence, "1 Tank Commander model" not "1 Tank Commander unit".

ExFideFortis wrote:
Some good points above, and yes I hope the IG FAQ addresses this.

To clarify, the formation specifically requires "1 Tank Commander", that is the exact wording. When the Codex talks about a "Tank Commander" it is always talking about the lone model

That is not correct though, because "Tank Commander" is also a HQ Unit Army List Entry. It requires 1 "Tank Commander" model and 1-2 "Leman Russ" models. When the Codex talks about "Tank Commander" it can refer to either the Unit or the Model, which are different things.

Until there is a further FAQ, hopefully with the Astra Militarum pages, all people are doing is debating whether the formation means the Tank Commander Unit or the Tank Commander Model. And all that leads to (imo) is ultimately pointless RAI discussions, because none of us here can know what the intent of the GW rules writers were.

 GoonBandito wrote:

ExFideFortis wrote:
Some good points above, and yes I hope the IG FAQ addresses this.

To clarify, the formation specifically requires "1 Tank Commander", that is the exact wording. When the Codex talks about a "Tank Commander" it is always talking about the lone model

That is not correct though, because "Tank Commander" is also a HQ Unit Army List Entry. It requires 1 "Tank Commander" model and 1-2 "Leman Russ" models. When the Codex talks about "Tank Commander" it can refer to either the Unit or the Model, which are different things.

Until there is a further FAQ, hopefully with the Astra Militarum pages, all people are doing is debating whether the formation means the Tank Commander Unit or the Tank Commander Model. And all that leads to (imo) is ultimately pointless RAI discussions, because none of us here can know what the intent of the GW rules writers were.

Correction. Until the FAQ goes live with that answer, that is all we are debating. And even then, FAQs are little more than House Rules to begin with.

 Charistoph wrote:

 GoonBandito wrote:

ExFideFortis wrote:
Some good points above, and yes I hope the IG FAQ addresses this.

To clarify, the formation specifically requires "1 Tank Commander", that is the exact wording. When the Codex talks about a "Tank Commander" it is always talking about the lone model

That is not correct though, because "Tank Commander" is also a HQ Unit Army List Entry. It requires 1 "Tank Commander" model and 1-2 "Leman Russ" models. When the Codex talks about "Tank Commander" it can refer to either the Unit or the Model, which are different things.

Until there is a further FAQ, hopefully with the Astra Militarum pages, all people are doing is debating whether the formation means the Tank Commander Unit or the Tank Commander Model. And all that leads to (imo) is ultimately pointless RAI discussions, because none of us here can know what the intent of the GW rules writers were.

Correction. Until the FAQ goes live with that answer, that is all we are debating. And even then, FAQs are little more than House Rules to begin with.

And in Casinos, the house always wins. So that means the house rules of the home-owners of the Warhammer 40k's family residence (Games Workshop FAQ team) are the law. Similar to "Driver picks the music".

 Da Kommizzar wrote:
And in Casinos, the house always wins. So that means the house rules of the home-owners of the Warhammer 40k's family residence (Games Workshop FAQ team) are the law. Similar to "Driver picks the music".

And how many events have they held in their house lately, officially?

Most events and games do not operate under GW roofs.

Yup.

Like how currency is valuable only because it is commonly accepted, GW FAQs are widely accepted because it is the currency that the government is printing. But any grouping within the country can always have their own internal currency and dismiss the national currency, it just might not be accepted anywhere else.

FAQs are created to give official answers to questions about official rulings. They are intended to be the glue that keeps arguments between players from falling apart into bits of broken plastic. Since no one person can be a "full authority" on these sort of matters but the designers themselves, these FAQs are widely accepted as the source of enlightenment. For example the Great British Hobbit League has their own FAQ, however this FAQ is only for topics not answered by Games Workshop because they trust the rulings of those that own the game and designed it.

Of course, any event can have their own houserules. As long as everyone accepts them then they'll get participants. So feel free to ignore Official FAQs in your event, doesn't much matter to anyone else. Following official releases works for some people, doesn't work for others. It just matters that you are having fun.

(my original post that you replied to wasn't meant to be taken serious, but I guess it has produced something to be taken serious.)

 GoonBandito wrote:

ExFideFortis wrote:
Some good points above, and yes I hope the IG FAQ addresses this.

To clarify, the formation specifically requires "1 Tank Commander", that is the exact wording. When the Codex talks about a "Tank Commander" it is always talking about the lone model

That is not correct though, because "Tank Commander" is also a HQ Unit Army List Entry. It requires 1 "Tank Commander" model and 1-2 "Leman Russ" models. When the Codex talks about "Tank Commander" it can refer to either the Unit or the Model, which are different things.

Until there is a further FAQ, hopefully with the Astra Militarum pages, all people are doing is debating whether the formation means the Tank Commander Unit or the Tank Commander Model. And all that leads to (imo) is ultimately pointless RAI discussions, because none of us here can know what the intent of the GW rules writers were.

This isn't true though, I am looking at the HQ Codex Entry right now:

Tank Commander
Unit Type
Vehicle (Tank, Heavy, Character)

Unit Composition
1 Tank Commander

Options
The Tank Commander's squadron must include 1-2 other Leman Russ tanks...

I think it differentiates here does it not?

Tank Commander = Tank, Heavy, Character (The fact that he is a character basically proves that Tank Commander refers solely to the model...unless there can be characters composed of multiple models (maybe there can but I am not aware of it)...

Tank Commander's Squadron = Tank Commander plus the mandatory 1-2 other Leman Russ Tanks.

Can you demonstrate from the Codex what wording makes you think that Tank Commander (as opposed to Tank Commander's Squadron) refers to the Character + his squadron?

A Tank Commander is exactly like a Commissar; a character which must join a unit and cannot leave that unit. If a formation called for a Commissar no one would expect you to take him with a mandatory unit from the list of units he MUST normally take with him (Psykanna formation is proof of this). Why is a tank commander different from a Commissar? Thanks for the good discussion all around.

ExFideFortis wrote:
This isn't true though, I am looking at the HQ Codex Entry right now:

Actually, it is, especially if you reference on how to read the unit entry list earlier in the book.

Let me show you.

ExFideFortis wrote:
Tank Commander <- 1. Unit Name: At the start of each army list entry you will find the name of the unit alongside the points cost of the unit before any upgrades.
Unit Type
Vehicle (Tank, Heavy, Character)

Unit Composition
1 Tank Commander <- 4. Unit Composition: Where applicable, this section will show the number and type of models that make up the basic unit, before any upgrades are taken.

Options
The Tank Commander's squadron must include 1-2 other Leman Russ tanks...

So, going over this document with the proper legend in hand, the unit's name is indeed, "Tank Commander", and it starts with a composition of "1 Tank Commander" model.

ExFideFortis wrote:
I think it differentiates here does it not?

No, it does not. "Squadron" is another word for "multi-Vehicle unit" in the rulebook, or as it states in the Squadrons introduction: "Most vehicles fight as individual units and are represented by a single model. However, some vehicles, such as Ork Warbuggies and Eldar Vypers, operate together in what are known as squadrons."

So referencing "Tank Commander squadron" is the same thing as referencing "Deathmark unit". There is a unit called "Deathmarks" and models called "Deathmarks", and when one is stating "Deathmark unit" one knows that one is discussing the entity composed of Deathmark models. This sentence does not change the name of the unit, but is instead making sure there is no confusion on if it is the unit or model being the subject.

ExFideFortis wrote:
A Tank Commander is exactly like a Commissar; a character which must join a unit and cannot leave that unit. If a formation called for a Commissar no one would expect you to take him with a mandatory unit from the list of units he MUST normally take with him (Psykanna formation is proof of this). Why is a tank commander different from a Commissar? Thanks for the good discussion all around.

No it is not. The Tank Commander does not get put in to other units. It never states this, or even aludes to this. It pulls models from other datasheets in to its unit (and in to itself, interestingly enough).

ExFideFortis wrote:


Can you demonstrate from the Codex what wording makes you think that Tank Commander (as opposed to Tank Commander's Squadron) refers to the Character + his squadron?

Because it's listed as "Tank Commander", and not "Tank Commander Squadron", in the Army List Entry. It's a very poor label because it creates ambiguity when it shouldn't need to; they really should have worded it like how "Company Commander" and "Company Command Squad" have distinguishable names.

A Tank Commander is exactly like a Commissar; a character which must join a unit and cannot leave that unit. If a formation called for a Commissar no one would expect you to take him with a mandatory unit from the list of units he MUST normally take with him (Psykanna formation is proof of this). Why is a tank commander different from a Commissar? Thanks for the good discussion all around.

The Tank Commander model is more like the Company Commander model than a Commissar; that is a model that is different from the rest of his mandatory unit. The Commissar analogy is a bit messy, due to the specific rules on how you must assign Commissars to units. And I would completely agree that if a formation required a "Company Commander" it would refer to just the "Company Commander" Model, and not the "Company Command Squad" Unit. However when you apply that same logic to "Tank Commander" you're left in a state of ambiguity as to whether it means the "Tank Commander" Model or the "Tank Commander" Unit. Any claim otherwise is RAI. That's not say your interpretation is unreasonable, just that you need to be clear that it is an interpretation and is not actually what the RAW are (since the RAW are up the gak).

Christoph; I know what you are saying(believe me I know); but the FAQ changed that in very odd ways. If the unit and the model share a name and the formation uses the name without "unit of" or "x- unit" it now incomprehensiblly means the model and not the unit entry.

I personally argue that that makes the model free(we purchase units of models from unit entries); but also means none of the entries upgrades are available(since one of the options for upgrades is extra members to the unit)

They made a mess of things with the harvest by not simply giving it a restriction, then made a bigger mess when trying to fix it with an FAQ that completely ignores the rules.

The no pask upgrade also makes me believe it's the model and not the unit entry. It's really the only way that makes sense in lieu of the captain upgrading to a chapter master in the battle company.

Good points everyone, I see what you are talking about Charistoph & GoonBandito, the poor wording is definitely what makes it so ambiguous. If the Tank Commander had been structured more like the Commander/Command Squad it would be much clearer. In light of the FAQ though, like Kommissar Kel says, I am still thinking that a single Tank Commander Model is what is intended here.

I was not at all saying the single russ was as intended.

I was merely pointing out that the FAQ was broad-sweeping and fouled up so many things(and also self-contradictory with the demi-company captain).

Technically you get no model for the tank commander because you are not using a unit entry(just the "model") and cannot have any of the options (like which russ variant to take)

We literally have no rules to follow that answer with correctly.

Sorry to misrepresent you, I do notice my last post does put words in your mouth (or keys on your fingers?). Correct me if I am wrong but what you are saying is that, regardless of what the original intent was, in light of the FAQ ruling, we ought to read the formation requirement for "1 Tank Commander" as a requirement for one model (though this says nothing as to whether or not this was the original intent of the formation requirements before the FAQ). Is that an accurate summary of your position? If that is what you're saying I completely agree.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Christoph; I know what you are saying(believe me I know); but the FAQ changed that in very odd ways. If the unit and the model share a name and the formation uses the name without "unit of" or "x- unit" it now incomprehensiblly means the model and not the unit entry.

I personally argue that that makes the model free(we purchase units of models from unit entries); but also means none of the entries upgrades are available(since one of the options for upgrades is extra members to the unit).

That doesn't really fly very well, either. Just because one option is invalidated doesn't mean the rest of the option list is invalidated (note, 'option' in this case means a line under the Options list). And also remember, in this instance, I am going by what the FAQ is saying, not by what my feelings on how it should be.

And yes, like many of the FAQs, they are a mess. It doesn't help that they were a mess before the FAQs were written,either.

However, the point about the difference between models and units still stands, as well as how the unit entry provides the information.

Christoph: the invalidation of 1 option(additional unit members) is what the FAQ is implying, yes. They were trying to say that the way the unit is listed in the formation is listed creates some sort of unstated restriction regarding the number of models in the unit(even though there are also formations out there that actually have that exact listed restriction).

But that isn't even the issue; the way the FAQ "clarifies" this (and also remember that the new SM FAQ does state that the Captain in a Demi-company can be upgraded to a Chapter Master even though the listing would set it as the model type, and IIRC there is a mention in the FAQ of techmarines with servitors in a formation), which is that you can only take the named model in the number of instances indicated. We have rules for how you take units in your army, and formations state that they reference unit entries. There is nothing to explain how you take single models.

Worse that that would be an issue where they list more than 1 of an entry/model shared name with multiple models allowed in the entry, and while lacking the "units of/units" verbiage. At that point you would have no way of knowing if they meant for the multiple models to form separate units or be fielded from 1 unit entry with the specified number of models.