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 under Priests, Psykers, and Techpriests it says you can include 0-3 with each detachment that don't take up a slot and aren't mandatory HQ.

Does this mean that each formation (wich are special types of detachments) can take up to three of each? Just curious as I want to include some psyker support with my Cadian Battlegroup.

And because it's a detachment made of formations can I include up to 9 of each in a basic Cadian Battlegroup Detachment?

Please discuss and let me know what you guys think.

Them's fightin' words.

It is a topic that has been argued on this site several times since Mont'ka came out.

If you take the rule as a whole instead of cherry-picking sentences from it out of context; the whole rule is discussing those units as being Slotless. The Slotless rules in the BRB are part of the Detachment rules. The Detachment rules govern a detachment that uses an FOC. Formations are a Boxout within the detachment rules telling you that they are different and a special type of detachment.

The Short answer is No, and you cannot get Commissars without them being on the datasheet either.

There is the Psykana Division formation in the Battlegroup that nets you a few Psykers(with commissars that the rules imply you can actually attach to the sanctioned psykers unit)

But what about as an attachment to the Cadian Battlegroup Detachment as a whole, could I take 0-3 of each in that? I say this because its a detachment with FOC, Restrictions, and Command Benefits. It says thatt slots typically specify a Battlefield Role, which seems to say it doesn't always and can be other things I.e. formations.

Quite probably, yes.

While the battlegroup and all similar style detachments are also "special types of detachments" and specify that they differ from the Detachments in the brb; they still do have a FOC, and as the "slotless rules" are short-hand for "Army List Entries that do use Force Organization Slots", those rules should apply.

Note that my first post is specifically about individual Formations(And the definition for Formations tell us they do not use the FOC).

Cool, I always run as a full Battlegroup Detachment anyway, 60 point's to gain rerolls on lasgins and better oder chance. Wanted to add in psykers support without the wyrdvanes. While they do harness better I prefer the primaris to join squads I want to benefit.

You did bring up an argument still to be had about the battlegroup and these slotless units: The Slots they don't use are the Battlefield role slots that the battlegroup itself also doesn't use.

So while they don't use HQ Slots, neither does the battlegroup(although if the "slotless rules" do apply based on an FOC being present than those rules even state that the unit that does not use the slot can be fielded in a detachment that doesn't have that slot to begin with).

So it is still: probably, yes. But now you also have a counter to that point.

Cool cool, but also whats the deal with commissars? Are they a no go or what. You said I can't take them unless on the datasheet, but cant the same argument for dedicated transports be used for this?

 HANZERtank wrote:
You said I can't take them unless on the datasheet, but cant the same argument for dedicated transports be used for this?

Not really, since they're listed as an option on the datasheets for the units in the Formation.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
You did bring up an argument still to be had about the battlegroup and these slotless units: The Slots they don't use are the Battlefield role slots that the battlegroup itself also doesn't use.

So while they don't use HQ Slots, neither does the battlegroup(although if the "slotless rules" do apply based on an FOC being present than those rules even state that the unit that does not use the slot can be fielded in a detachment that doesn't have that slot to begin with).

So it is still: probably, yes. But now you also have a counter to that point.

quoting the rulebook.

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 if the formation don't show an specific Army list you can't add it as part of it even slothless entries.

 Ghaz wrote:

 HANZERtank wrote:
You said I can't take them unless on the datasheet, but cant the same argument for dedicated transports be used for this?

Not really, since they're listed as an option on the datasheets for the units in the Formation.

But I can include one for every Company Command Squad and Platoon Command Squad in my 'army'. Not detachment, but army. Does this have any effect on it. I only say this because I see it as not being included as part of a formation but the army as a whole.

Ghaz, Perversor, I don't think we need to re-ignite this argument again

As for the OP, just note that this is a very touchy subject and a very divisive one at that. We've had a number of threads devolve into namecalling because of it. I'm sure at least one person will call me a nitwit and that the rules are clear as day for saying this.

My advice for you is to talk it over with your opponent and be the bigger man if he disagrees with you. Hopefully when they get to the IG in the FAQs, this one will be cleared up (unless they already got to the IG and I missed it).

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Ghaz, Perversor, I don't think we need to re-ignite this argument again

As for the OP, just note that this is a very touchy subject and a very divisive one at that. We've had a number of threads devolve into namecalling because of it. I'm sure at least one person will call me a nitwit and that the rules are clear as day for saying this.

My advice for you is to talk it over with your opponent and be the bigger man if he disagrees with you. Hopefully when they get to the IG in the FAQs, this one will be cleared up (unless they already got to the IG and I missed it).

Yeah, I've not seen an IG FAQ, so I thought I'd missed it because all the other imperium armies have had theirs I believe. So came here to try get some answers.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Ghaz, Perversor, I don't think we need to re-ignite this argument again

Oh, I agree on that. I was just pointing out the flaw in the argument presented in regards to dedicated transports.

Lord Perversor wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
You did bring up an argument still to be had about the battlegroup and these slotless units: The Slots they don't use are the Battlefield role slots that the battlegroup itself also doesn't use.

So while they don't use HQ Slots, neither does the battlegroup(although if the "slotless rules" do apply based on an FOC being present than those rules even state that the unit that does not use the slot can be fielded in a detachment that doesn't have that slot to begin with).

So it is still: probably, yes. But now you also have a counter to that point.

quoting the rulebook.

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 if the formation don't show an specific Army list you can't add it as part of it even slothless entries.

Yes, that is what I said(in both posts).

Formations can't take them because Formations do not us an FOC at all.

As to the question of DTs and certain other units: The Formation specifies an Army List Entry that then itself Specifies that a DT or other Army List Entry can be taken as an option for that specified Army List Entry.

These particular entries grant the permission only via their own Entry(which of course is not on the Formation list.

Now, once again, the Battlegroup actually does have a FOC so the slotless rules do apply allowing these entries as part of the battlegroup as a whole but not any particular Formation(just like the Platton option).

 HANZERtank wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Ghaz, Perversor, I don't think we need to re-ignite this argument again

As for the OP, just note that this is a very touchy subject and a very divisive one at that. We've had a number of threads devolve into namecalling because of it. I'm sure at least one person will call me a nitwit and that the rules are clear as day for saying this.

My advice for you is to talk it over with your opponent and be the bigger man if he disagrees with you. Hopefully when they get to the IG in the FAQs, this one will be cleared up (unless they already got to the IG and I missed it).

Yeah, I've not seen an IG FAQ, so I thought I'd missed it because all the other imperium armies have had theirs I believe. So came here to try get some answers.

This reminds me that IG it's still a 6th edition codex and with 7th most of the codex entries refering to Army got changed to detachment.

About the FAQ i think IG and Tyranids may be next as they are still missing so just cross fingers for getting yours this week!!.

Nids got their FAQ.

The forum broke in half again. Business as usual.