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.

The new war host detachment has a rule I have not seen before allowing formations to be taken in a detachment rather than seperately. I'm confused by the wording though. If I take for example a guardian battlehost formation in the war host detachment: am I fullfilling the hq and 2 troop requirements of a reborn warhost with the farseer and guardian squads included in the guardian battlehost. Or do I have to take an HQ and 2 troop choices on top of the Guardian Battlehost?

Reborn Warhost it's a detachment in order to field it you need minimum 1x Hq and 2x Troops.

After that you are given some options you can further add single slot units into elites,troops,fast attack etc... or just buy a whole formation to field along the Reborn Warhost as part of it but without filling any of those slots.

I would say no to the OP's question. The reborn warhost has a minimum requirement of zero formations, but if you had zero formations you can still field the reborn warhost if you have one HQ and two troops from the detachment.

Conversely, having a formation in this war host and not having any other models/units would not fulfill the minimum requirements of the reborn warhost, as the battlefield roles in the formation do not fulfill battlefield roles in the reborn war host.

So the way I interpreted it was that formations don't allow you to exceed the FOC of the Warhost. If you take Aspect Warriors, for example, that eats all 3 of your Elite slots in the Reborn Warhost.

Thus, if you have a formation that has a HQ and 2 Troops, it does fulfill the FOC requirements of the Warhost. The units count both as part of the Warhost and as part of their formation (as explicitly stated in the Warhost's rules).

Audustum wrote:


Thus, if you have a formation that has a HQ and 2 Troops, it does fulfill the FOC requirements of the Warhost. The units count both as part of the Warhost and as part of their formation (as explicitly stated in the Warhost's rules).

I don't think that's quite how it works. Say for a minute you didn't take the reborn warhost at all, but you did take one formation. Your army will very small, only a few hundred points, but what will the battlefield roles of the units inside the formation be? They'll be troops, elites etc (whatever their role is). Yet this would still be a completely legit battle forged army.

In this case, if you take a reborn warhost and a formation within it, the units are part of both detachments (this is a special exception, normally not allowed by the BRB), but they either fulfill the battlefield role stipulated in the war host (in which case they are only part of the war host but not any formations), or else they fulfill the battlefield role of one of the formations, but not of the war host (although they would belong to both detachments, per this belonging to two detachments exception).

Just read the RESTRICTIONS part of the Detachment itself.

you must take 1 Hq and 2 troops, can optionally add up to 6 troops 3 FA, 3Hs ,3 E and 1 LW and any number of Formations.

You can also look it at this way: if the units in the formations also filled the detachment slots based on their battlefield roles, then many formations could actually never be taken, because some of them contain more than 2HQ, or 3 elites etc.
This shows that the troops/HQ you take in formations don't count towards the minima.

Warhanna wrote:

Audustum wrote:


Thus, if you have a formation that has a HQ and 2 Troops, it does fulfill the FOC requirements of the Warhost. The units count both as part of the Warhost and as part of their formation (as explicitly stated in the Warhost's rules).

I don't think that's quite how it works. Say for a minute you didn't take the reborn warhost at all, but you did take one formation. Your army will very small, only a few hundred points, but what will the battlefield roles of the units inside the formation be? They'll be troops, elites etc (whatever their role is). Yet this would still be a completely legit battle forged army.

It will absolutely be battle forged, but it will not be Ynnari and it will not get Strength from Death. Nothing in the supplement gives you permission to just declare any detachment of Aeldari to be Ynnari.

In this case, if you take a reborn warhost and a formation within it, the units are part of both detachments (this is a special exception, normally not allowed by the BRB), but they either fulfill the battlefield role stipulated in the war host (in which case they are only part of the war host but not any formations), or else they fulfill the battlefield role of one of the formations, but not of the war host (although they would belong to both detachments, per this belonging to two detachments exception).

There's nothing to support that interpretation is my problem. The rule says:

The Reborn Warhost is a special type of Detachment that can be included in any Battle-forged army. Unlike the Detachments show in Warhammer 40,000: The Rules, it has a Force Organisation Chart whose slots are a combination of Battlefield Roles and Formations from multiple Factions. However, it still has compulsory and optional elements, as well as Restrictions and Command Benefits, just like any other detachment.

Although units cannot normally belong to more than one Detachment, units from a Formation that is part of a Reborn Warhost are an exception. They count as part of both their Formation and the Detachment and have all associated Command Benefits and special rules.

Nowhere in there does it say they fulfill a role of one or the other. It says they belong to both, thus they have to stay in line with the restrictions of the Warhost if you want it to be part of the Warhost.

Lord Perversor wrote:
Just read the RESTRICTIONS part of the Detachment itself.

you must take 1 Hq and 2 troops, can optionally add up to 6 troops 3 FA, 3Hs ,3 E and 1 LW and any number of Formations.

I'm not actually sure how many formations you can take since they don't have a minimum or maximum cap, but I am darn sure you've got to stay in the FOC requirements of the Warhost if you want it to count as part of the Warhost.

fresus wrote:
You can also look it at this way: if the units in the formations also filled the detachment slots based on their battlefield roles, then many formations could actually never be taken, because some of them contain more than 2HQ, or 3 elites etc.
This shows that the troops/HQ you take in formations don't count towards the minima.

This is a good argument for RAI, but not for RAW. RAW all units count for both and as part of the Warhost they have to maintain the FOC. The only two formations that run into this issue are the Whispering Ghost Hall (one too many Elites) and the Seer Council (one too many HQ's) doing a quick glance.

This'll end up like the Tyranid unit with BS0 casting Psychic Scream if GW doesn't FAQ the book I think.

Audustum wrote:


This is a good argument for RAI, but not for RAW. RAW all units count for both and as part of the Warhost they have to maintain the FOC. The only two formations that run into this issue are the Whispering Ghost Hall (one too many Elites) and the Seer Council (one too many HQ's) doing a quick glance.

This'll end up like the Tyranid unit with BS0 casting Psychic Scream if GW doesn't FAQ the book I think.

RAW all units count as both factions, but where does RAW say all units count as their corresponding battlefield role in both detachments?

Another example, not from this book. You take a Combined Arms Detachment and a formation detachment, so your army has two detachments. If the CAD contains a troop choice, this doesn't fill the troop choice for the formation, and vice versa.

Warhanna wrote:

Audustum wrote:


This is a good argument for RAI, but not for RAW. RAW all units count for both and as part of the Warhost they have to maintain the FOC. The only two formations that run into this issue are the Whispering Ghost Hall (one too many Elites) and the Seer Council (one too many HQ's) doing a quick glance.

This'll end up like the Tyranid unit with BS0 casting Psychic Scream if GW doesn't FAQ the book I think.

RAW all units count as both factions, but where does RAW say all units count as their corresponding battlefield role in both detachments?

I literally just quoted this in the previous post. It says every unit counts as part of both detachments, thus it is bound by both detachments/formations. That means they're subject to the restrictions of both and the Warhost has FOC restrictions. The datasheets for those units in the formation you chose still have battlefield rolls.

Another example, not from this book. You take a Combined Arms Detachment and a formation detachment, so your army has two detachments. If the CAD contains a troop choice, this doesn't fill the troop choice for the formation, and vice versa.

Irrelevant. Neither the CAD nor any formation before the Warhost has rules like the Warhost.

Think of it this way then. The force org part is a core formation from the decurion that don't gain anything but the detachment rules. And the formations are auxilaries that require thereto be 0+.

With this in mind do units count towards only one formation?

With the reasoning being used 1/2 of the formations in the list can't be taken due to them needing more slots the available in the foc

RAW no unit can be part of more than one detachment.

They can only belong to one slot. So if you have them as the compulsory unit in a formation they cannot fill a slot in a different FOC.

That there is a special rule which allows for the formation to count as being in both allows them to receive the command benefits and special rules for the parent detachment, but does not allow them to fill more than one compulsory slot.


If it did the lack of any ruling on how that works(because that is not within the rules..). Would also create situations where you cannot take HQ or certain formations if you already have the max allowed HQ type units, as well as FA, Elite, and Heavy Support for the FOC associated with the detachment. Fortunately that is not how the rules work.

 skullzz wrote:
Think of it this way then. The force org part is a core formation from the decurion that don't gain anything but the detachment rules. And the formations are auxilaries that require thereto be 0+.

With this in mind do units count towards only one formation?

With the reasoning being used 1/2 of the formations in the list can't be taken due to them needing more slots the available in the foc

Actually it's just 2 by my count, not anywhere close to 1/2.

A decurion still requires all units to adhere to the restrictions of the primary formation and then further units to adhere to the restrictions of secondary formations. All units that want to gain benefits from the primary formation have to adhere to its restrictions.

Thus, under your analogy, I'm right. The Warhost is only different from a normal decurion because it has a FOC as its restrictions rather than something else. In order to gain the benefit of the Warhost, the primary, you have to adhere to its restrictions which means not violating the FOC.

blaktoof wrote:
RAW no unit can be part of more than one detachment.

They can only belong to one slot. So if you have them as the compulsory unit in a formation they cannot fill a slot in a different FOC.

That there is a special rule which allows for the formation to count as being in both allows them to receive the command benefits and special rules for the parent detachment, but does not allow them to fill more than one compulsory slot.


If it did the lack of any ruling on how that works(because that is not within the rules..). Would also create situations where you cannot take HQ or certain formations if you already have the max allowed HQ type units, as well as FA, Elite, and Heavy Support for the FOC associated with the detachment. Fortunately that is not how the rules work.

1. Specific overrides the general. You get permission here superseding the normal rule to have the units belong to both (as I quoted before).

2. The specific override gives them the benefits but also requires they adhere to all restrictions. The Warhost's restriction is a FOC.

You guys are gonna need some actual rules text to back yourselves up here because right now I'm the only one who quoted any.

The rules for saying that formation units do not take up force org slots is in the restrictions part of the reborn warhost detachment on of 126 of fracture of beil-tan.

Since it is pertinent to this discuss I will quote the rule (mods please let Mr know if it needs changed)


"This detachment must include at least one HQ choice and two Troops choices. It may include one more HQ choice, up to four more Troops choices, up to three Elites choices, up to three Fast Attack choices, up to three Heavy Support choices, on Lord of War choice, and any number of Formation choices. Only the datasheets listed here may be included in this Detachment."



Notice how formations is listed as additions to the Force Organization Chart. That means that those units in formations do not take up slots in the FOC.

 skullzz wrote:


Notice how formations is listed as additions to the Force Organization Chart. That means that those units in formations do not take up slots in the FOC.

Yes, but what I think Audustum is saying is you could take just one formation which already contains at least one hq and two troops, and just by that formation you now have passed the requirements for taking the reborn warhost, because he is saying that the hq unit in the formation satisfies the battlefield role requirement of the formation AND the reborn warhost, and the same for the troops choices etc.

Is that right, Audustum?

While I don't agree, I think the wording could have been better. But let's see if this helps. Page 126 explains how to choose units for the reborn warhost as we know. Let's also look at page 127, which shows 7 different tables of choices, all based on battlefield role except the last one which is formations. At the top of each of these tables, the text says: "ONE of the following ".

This means that to count as one choice in each of these tables, you would need to take one of the entries listed in each table. If you took one entry from the heavy support table listed as 'dark reapers', you now have taken one choice in the heavy support table out of a maximum of three allowed in the reborn warhost. You still can't take this detachment yet, because you have not met the minimum requirements.

Now you take a formation entry from the seventh table, say the 'Dire Avenger Shrine' listed. Whatever is actually contained in that, you have only selected one slot in the seventh table of the reborn warhost, of which you need a minimum of zero. You still can't take the detachment yet, because you haven't chosen 'ONE of the following' from the table labeled HQ, and 'ONE of the following' from the table labeled TROOPS (you must do this table a minimum of twice).

Does that help?

Warhanna wrote:


Yes, but what I think Audustum is saying is you could take just one formation which already contains at least one hq and two troops, and just by that formation you now have passed the requirements for taking the reborn warhost, because he is saying that the hq unit in the formation satisfies the battlefield role requirement of the formation AND the reborn warhost, and the same for the troops choices etc.

Which they do not according to the restrictions.
A Unit cannot fulfill the requirements for more than one role. It either fills the HQ/Troop requirement for the Detachment or it fills the requirements for the Formation.
The wording of the restriction section is pretty clear that formation are additional FOC (their own requirements) outside of the CAD-like FOC.

Warhanna wrote:

 skullzz wrote:


Notice how formations is listed as additions to the Force Organization Chart. That means that those units in formations do not take up slots in the FOC.

Yes, but what I think Audustum is saying is you could take just one formation which already contains at least one hq and two troops, and just by that formation you now have passed the requirements for taking the reborn warhost, because he is saying that the hq unit in the formation satisfies the battlefield role requirement of the formation AND the reborn warhost, and the same for the troops choices etc.

That may be, but having the formatons listed separately from the requirements and the optional slots means that the formations don't fill any slots. If the units in formations could count toward minimums in the detachment, that would mean that all the units count toward the slots in the detachment, and you could never go above the number of slots that they specify. Since you can have formations that break this (especially if you take more than one formation) they can't count towards units filling slots. The formation where you take all 3 of the named characters by itself is listed as a formation that could be taken but exceed the maximum number of HQ slots, so that formation by itself should make it obvious that the units in the formation aren't counting toward filling any slots.

 doctortom wrote:

Warhanna wrote:

 skullzz wrote:


Notice how formations is listed as additions to the Force Organization Chart. That means that those units in formations do not take up slots in the FOC.

Yes, but what I think Audustum is saying is you could take just one formation which already contains at least one hq and two troops, and just by that formation you now have passed the requirements for taking the reborn warhost, because he is saying that the hq unit in the formation satisfies the battlefield role requirement of the formation AND the reborn warhost, and the same for the troops choices etc.

That may be, but having the formatons listed separately from the requirements and the optional slots means that the formations don't fill any slots. If the units in formations could count toward minimums in the detachment, that would mean that all the units count toward the slots in the detachment, and you could never go above the number of slots that they specify. Since you can have formations that break this (especially if you take more than one formation) they can't count towards units filling slots. The formation where you take all 3 of the named characters by itself is listed as a formation that could be taken but exceed the maximum number of HQ slots, so that formation by itself should make it obvious that the units in the formation aren't counting toward filling any slots.

That's a lot of conjecture in there, but I'm looking for rules quotes to support it. I will say your example falls flat though. The Yncarne is a Lord of War, not a HQ. As I said, it seems only 1 or 2 formations listed doesn't fit in the context of the Warhost.

The key language, at least as I see it, was:

The Reborn Warhost is a special type of Detachment that can be included in any Battle-forged army. Unlike the Detachments show in Warhammer 40,000: The Rules, it has a Force Organisation Chart whose slots are a combination of Battlefield Roles and Formations from multiple Factions. However, it still has compulsory and optional elements, as well as Restrictions and Command Benefits, just like any other detachment.

Although units cannot normally belong to more than one Detachment, units from a Formation that is part of a Reborn Warhost are an exception. They count as part of both their Formation and the Detachment and have all associated Command Benefits and special rules.

Look at the language here carefully. The Reborn Warhost "has a Force Organisation Chart whose slots are a combination of Battlefield Roles and Formations". So the formations are part of the Force Org. of the Warhost. Moreover:

Although units cannot normally belong to more than one Detachment, units from a Formation that is part of a Reborn Warhost are an exception. They count as part of both their Formation and the Detachment and have all associated Command Benefits and special rules.

This part here. It clearly says each unit counts as part of the formation and as part of the detachment. That means each unit has to obey the rules of both. That means they need to obey the Force Org.

I think RAI you're all absolutely right, but I think GW worded it wrong and broke it.

You need specific permission for the units to count as being part of the force org as well as the formation to say specific overrides general or codex overrides brb. Those are out true when they are explicit. There is no exit wording here.

Further if the reborn warhost embodies Battlefield Roles AND formations then the formation units cannot occult battlefield res by that wording.

If they did it would only embody battlefield roles. As any formation unit would also fill the corresponding battlefield roles for the FOC.

I'm pretty sure one of the Harlequins formations has more than 3 Elites in it, so clearly the formation doesn't have to fit within the FOC.

blaktoof wrote:
You need specific permission for the units to count as being part of the force org as well as the formation to say specific overrides general or codex overrides brb. Those are out true when they are explicit. There is no exit wording here.

Further if the reborn warhost embodies Battlefield Roles AND formations then the formation units cannot occult battlefield res by that wording.

If they did it would only embody battlefield roles. As any formation unit would also fill the corresponding battlefield roles for the FOC.

This isn't a permission thing, it's a restriction thing. I quoted the relevant language twice now. Explain where it's wrong if you think it is, but we're fairly well past the point of blanket statements.

Relevantly, again:

Although units cannot normally belong to more than one Detachment, units from a Formation that is part of a Reborn Warhost are an exception.

 Jimsolo wrote:
I'm pretty sure one of the Harlequins formations has more than 3 Elites in it, so clearly the formation doesn't have to fit within the FOC.

That's a RAI argument not a RAW argument. We addressed this twice already on this page.

Audustum wrote:


Look at the language here carefully. The Reborn Warhost "has a Force Organisation Chart whose slots are a combination of Battlefield Roles and Formations". So the formations are part of the Force Org. of the Warhost. Moreover:

Although units cannot normally belong to more than one Detachment, units from a Formation that is part of a Reborn Warhost are an exception. They count as part of both their Formation and the Detachment and have all associated Command Benefits and special rules.

This part here. It clearly says each unit counts as part of the formation and as part of the detachment. That means each unit has to obey the rules of both. That means they need to obey the Force Org.

I think RAI you're all absolutely right, but I think GW worded it wrong and broke it.

You gave the quote that shows they don't count, but keep missing what they're saying.. The FOC is a ?combination of Battlefield Roles and Formations". The battlefield roles are thoseones that are listed and include the minimums for HQ and troops. The formations are listed as formations. They don't say that the formations serve as part of the battlefield roles, only that the detachment has battlefield roles AND formations.. That means the formations are in addition to the battlefield role slots, [/b]not part of[b] the battefield roles listed in the FOC. It's all one detachment, but there's no permission to use a unit in the formation to also fill a battlefield role that's not in the formation.

Audustum are you trying to argue that if you take a formation that contains 1 HQ and 2 Troops then you don't need to fulfil the requirements of the detachment? The ones which are clearly and plainly stated?

Units in the formations DO NOT count towards the basic detachment requirements.

edit: apologies, after saving and re-reading, that may sound harsh - and I forget people might not be native english speakers. However, the answer to the OP is a simple "No".

 doctortom wrote:

Audustum wrote:


Look at the language here carefully. The Reborn Warhost "has a Force Organisation Chart whose slots are a combination of Battlefield Roles and Formations". So the formations are part of the Force Org. of the Warhost. Moreover:

Although units cannot normally belong to more than one Detachment, units from a Formation that is part of a Reborn Warhost are an exception. They count as part of both their Formation and the Detachment and have all associated Command Benefits and special rules.

This part here. It clearly says each unit counts as part of the formation and as part of the detachment. That means each unit has to obey the rules of both. That means they need to obey the Force Org.

I think RAI you're all absolutely right, but I think GW worded it wrong and broke it.

You gave the quote that shows they don't count, but keep missing what they're saying.. The FOC is a ?combination of Battlefield Roles and Formations". The battlefield roles are thoseones that are listed and include the minimums for HQ and troops. The formations are listed as formations. They don't say that the formations serve as part of the battlefield roles, only that the detachment has battlefield roles AND formations.. That means the formations are in addition to the battlefield role slots, [/b]not part of the battefield roles listed in the FOC. It's all one detachment, but there's no permission to use a unit in the formation to also fill a battlefield role that's not in the formation.

I think you're mistaken. The quote you're referring to actually supports my position, not yours. Since the FOC is a combination, all units have to adhere to the restrictions of both. This is explicitly stated. Conversely, there is nothing explicitly saying you "add to" it. Remember, units count as both the Reborn detachment (which is subject to the FOC) and any formation. That's explicit in the rule. They thus have to adhere to the rules of both.

Although units cannot normally belong to more than one Detachment, units from a Formation that is part of a Reborn Warhost are an exception. They count as part of both their Formation and the Detachment and have all associated Command Benefits and special rules.

Silentz wrote:
Audustum are you trying to argue that if you take a formation that contains 1 HQ and 2 Troops then you don't need to fulfil the requirements of the detachment? The ones which are clearly and plainly stated?

Units in the formations DO NOT count towards the basic detachment requirements.

edit: apologies, after saving and re-reading, that may sound harsh - and I forget people might not be native english speakers. However, the answer to the OP is a simple "No".

You're fine, no worries.

I'm arguing that normally these things are separate, but this Detachment explicitly makes them NOT separate. Thus, units count both towards the FOC and any formations. It's explicit in the rule:

Although units cannot normally belong to more than one Detachment, units from a Formation that is part of a Reborn Warhost are an exception. [b]They count as part of both their Formation and the Detachment and have all associated Command Benefits and special rules.

Audustum wrote:

I think you're mistaken. The quote you're referring to actually supports my position, not yours. Since the FOC is a combination, all units have to adhere to the restrictions of both. This is explicitly stated. Conversely, there is nothing explicitly saying you "add to" it. Remember, units count as both the Reborn detachment (which is subject to the FOC) and any formation. That's explicit in the rule. They thus have to adhere to the rules of both.

They have formations as something separate from the battlefield roles, explicitly in the rule itself. That's why they say battlefield roles AND formations. You fill battlefield roles (the FOC portion) or you fill the formations. This is shown by their breaksown - the units you can take for the battlefield roles, then the formations you can take. They list formations as something in addtion to the battlefield roles, not as something subject to the battlefield roles. They also say you may take any number of formations. For what you're saying to be true, they would need to say any number of formations as long as the available slots for the FOC chart are not filled up. They don't say that.

Audustum wrote:


I think you're mistaken. The quote you're referring to actually supports my position, not yours. Since the FOC is a combination, all units have to adhere to the restrictions of both. This is explicitly stated. Conversely, there is nothing explicitly saying you "add to" it. Remember, units count as both the Reborn detachment (which is subject to the FOC) and any formation. That's explicit in the rule. They thus have to adhere to the rules of both.

It is explicitly stated the opposite of your stance. You keep saying what we quote supports you but it does not.
In the restrictions section it says that "It MAY INCLUDE one more ..., one lord of war choice, and any number of Formation choices."
If you go back further in the rules you would see "However, it still has compulsory and optional elements, as well..."
The formations are clearer listed under optional elements out side of the FOC.

GW included those words you are hung up on to make the point that this is an unusual detachment that has a FOC and can include formations that typically would be a Formation detachment when taken beside a FOC.

I have tried seeing it from your point but if they meant for the formations to fill the FOC they would not have included any that would break this (Seer Council [1 to many HQ], or Gegorach's Revenge [4 to many elites]).

 doctortom wrote:

Audustum wrote:

I think you're mistaken. The quote you're referring to actually supports my position, not yours. Since the FOC is a combination, all units have to adhere to the restrictions of both. This is explicitly stated. Conversely, there is nothing explicitly saying you "add to" it. Remember, units count as both the Reborn detachment (which is subject to the FOC) and any formation. That's explicit in the rule. They thus have to adhere to the rules of both.

They have formations as something separate from the battlefield roles, explicitly in the rule itself. That's why they say battlefield roles AND formations. You fill battlefield roles (the FOC portion) or you fill the formations. This is shown by their breaksown - the units you can take for the battlefield roles, then the formations you can take. They list formations as something in addtion to the battlefield roles, not as something subject to the battlefield roles. They also say you may take any number of formations. For what you're saying to be true, they would need to say any number of formations as long as the available slots for the FOC chart are not filled up. They don't say that.

The formations are certainly optional, but that doesn't change the fact that it says each unit is part of a formation (if you take one) and the Reborn Warhost. Since the unit has dual-citizenship it has to obey both sets of restrictions.

 skullzz wrote:

Audustum wrote:


I think you're mistaken. The quote you're referring to actually supports my position, not yours. Since the FOC is a combination, all units have to adhere to the restrictions of both. This is explicitly stated. Conversely, there is nothing explicitly saying you "add to" it. Remember, units count as both the Reborn detachment (which is subject to the FOC) and any formation. That's explicit in the rule. They thus have to adhere to the rules of both.

It is explicitly stated the opposite of your stance. You keep saying what we quote supports you but it does not.
In the restrictions section it says that "It MAY INCLUDE one more ..., one lord of war choice, and any number of Formation choices."
If you go back further in the rules you would see "However, it still has compulsory and optional elements, as well..."
The formations are clearer listed under optional elements out side of the FOC.

GW included those words you are hung up on to make the point that this is an unusual detachment that has a FOC and can include formations that typically would be a Formation detachment when taken beside a FOC.

I have tried seeing it from your point but if they meant for the formations to fill the FOC they would not have included any that would break this (Seer Council [1 to many HQ], or Gegorach's Revenge [4 to many elites]).

As I said, it's certainly optional, but the units belong to both the formation and the Warhost. That means they're bound to the same restrictions. Whatever intent GW had in including that language, that's the plain meaning of it. As we know, RAW is different than RAI sometimes.

I'll say for a third time that I think you're both right as far as RAI goes, but looking at it pure RAW I don't think it's allowed. I would definitely submit lists doing it in advance to your TO for sign-off. I have a feeling that will be the ultimate resolution of this argument too, unfortunately: it's one of those things you have to ask your gaming group/TO.