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.

This came up in a thread a few months back, but I'd like to give this it's own thread.
How do generated units interact with command benefits? Be it by conjuring with a model from a formation or chaos boons or powers or whatever else there is.

I can't find a clear answer in the rules/faq for this. The closest to an answer is that a tervigon spawning new gaunts creates objective secured gaunts if it has ObSec.
But I'm pretty sure that's because of how that rule is worded, namely, a CAD has ObSec and that says that all TROOPS in that detachment gain ObSec.
Spawned gaunts from a troop tervigon would as count troops and thus gain ObSec. But then the same is true for an HQ tervigon, so I would assume they count as troops simply because that's what they are classified as.
So would be unrelated to the role of the tervigon in that latter case. Either way though, they would have to count as units from that detachment to gain ObSec in this manner.

*update*
Ghaz made me aware of the Wrath of Magnus faq which covers this situation as well, but is mutually exclusive with the Tervigon example.

Q: Do the units that are created count as Objective Secured if the Pink Horrors that spawned them had that rule? Are they a part of the Detachment that spawns them and therefore subject to all the rules of the Detachment?

A: No to both questions.

The Tervigon Faq came a month later so is more recent but that's not saying anything really.

How are people playing this?
Currently I'm wondering if a prince generated by a champion from the hounds of abaddon would gain +1 S when charging 8 or more inches.
I'm leaning towards counting it as a unit from that formation, especially considering the champ doesn't count as slain until the prince is slain.
The bonus applies to units from that formation, and I would argue that the prince is still a part of the formation and so would gain this buff.
I can't find any RAW that would swing this either way though.

Other examples would be conjured daemons from a sorcerer in a terminator annihilation force. By the same reasoning they would be able to fire twice.
Or daemon princes (generated by a boon) gaining ObSec from a chaos warband.

From the Wrath of Magnus FAQ

Q: Do the units that are created count as Objective Secured if the Pink Horrors that spawned them had that rule? Are they a part of the Detachment that spawns them and therefore subject to all the rules of the Detachment?

A: No to both questions.

You're most likely not going to find a consistent answer on this one.

Because there is no clear answer, I always assume that any spawned, conjured or somehow created new units are not part of any detachment and do not gain any bonuses. (unless stated like Gaunts spawned by Tervigons)
That is the easiest way to play it as you don't need support to not apply bonuses, but you do need a clear 'yes' to apply them

I was hoping for a RAW angle, but I wasn't expecting there to be a clear answer to this. I suppose I could add a "HIWPI" poll to see if there is at least a majority for either case.

The RAW angle I can think of is that units are taken as part of a detachment in the list building step. We have no indication that this can change throughout the game.

So in that regard, new units created are NOT part of any detachment.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/Errata/Warhammer_40000/Tyranids_EN.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjQ5buui5PTAhVI3GMKHfsbC0EQFggmMAE&usg=AFQjCNFudqHoMJEky-BPTwbnH0hE-bMUiw

If the Tervigons have OS from being troops the spawned units have OS. The FAQ answer specifies the command benefit is given to the spawned units.


Which of course goes against some of the other answers, like horrors.

The RAW is no, because the created units are not slots on FOC for a detacent, nor are they an unit in a formation. The Tervigons gaunt thing seems to be a special exception.

The units created by the pink horrors splitting are not generated by the pink horrors. They replace them. The pink horrors have to first not exist any more in order for the blues to show up.

I THINK that is the difference. The result is the blue/brimstone are slotless.

Tervigons actually generate new troops. So they maintain the slot of their creator.

I think the same thing goes for units created by psychic powers (such as for GSCs).

 Lance845 wrote:
The units created by the pink horrors splitting are not generated by the pink horrors. They replace them. The pink horrors have to first not exist any more in order for the blues to show up.

I THINK that is the difference. The result is the blue/brimstone are slotless.

Tervigons actually generate new troops. So they maintain the slot of their creator.

I think the same thing goes for units created by psychic powers (such as for GSCs).

The hole in this, however, is that the BRB clearly states that ALL units maintain their Battlefield roles at all times, even in Unbound lists. Blue Horrors are Troops, even if they are on the board because of a Pink Horror dying.
I also think it is interesting that the Tervigon FAQ doesn't say that the Gaunts count as part of the same detachment, merely that they gain ObSec if the Tervigon was taken as part of a detachment that provides Obsec.

-

The tervigon gaunts still gain ObSec when the Tervigon is an HQ according to the faq.
If we look at the combined arms detachment, which they reference in the FAQ, it says that troops in this detachment (the CAD) have the ObSec rule.
So according to that faq, the gaunts don't care what spawned them. They count as troops regardless.
Moreover, they have to be part of the CAD in order to gain ObSec, being troops isn't enough.

Of course the wrath of magnus faq directly contradicts the gaunts counting as part of the CAD by saying the pink horrors aren't part of the detachment that spawned them.

However I found this on page 117:"A player using the Battle-forged method must organise all the units they want to use into Detachments."
And, p.118: "all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no units can belong to more than one Detachment."

The first doesn't refer to your army but it's implied I guess. Now I suppose the generated units aren't technically part of your army.
Your army being whatever makes up your army list. It's not much of a stretch though imho to include newly generated units into your army.
In that case they would require to be assigned to a detachment, so it would make sense to assign them to the detachment/formation that created them.

The magnus faq implies that they aren't part of your army, but I feel like the Tervigon faq makes more sense (and is more recent).
That one likewise implying they become part of your army.

Of course there's the counterargument that assigning them to the detachment that spawned them also subjects them to the limits of that detachment, so if you already have 6 troop choices in the army you wouldn't be able to summon any demons that would take a troop slot.

 Roknar wrote:
Of course the wrath of magnus faq directly contradicts the gaunts counting as part of the CAD by saying the pink horrors aren't part of the detachment that spawned them.

The FAQ actually refers to Blue and Brimstone Horrors due to the 'Split' rule. Pink Horrors do not have access to Malefic to 'spawn' more Pink Horrors.

 Roknar wrote:
... but I feel like the Tervigon faq makes more sense (and is more recent).

Its not a more recent ruling. It was taken word for word from the Tyranid Draft FAQ which predates the Wrath of Magnus book by at least four months.

I will put it as simply as this:

* As far as I know, we are not instructed by the rules which produce them to include any of these non-purchased units in the detachment whose units which brought them on to the table, no matter if it is a Tervigon, Pink Horrors, or Chaos Sorcerer.

* We are not instructed by any of the BRB rules to include created units in the detachment whose units brought them on to the table.

Therefore, any measure of doing so is adding rules doing so and following a concept of "well it doesn't say I can't" method. That's the RAW in a nutshell.

Still, it is rather ridiculous that they don't mention how it should be worked, and (aside from the lack of direction to do so) why would they not be part of the producing unit's detachment?

 Ghaz wrote:

 Roknar wrote:
Of course the wrath of magnus faq directly contradicts the gaunts counting as part of the CAD by saying the pink horrors aren't part of the detachment that spawned them.

The FAQ actually refers to Blue and Brimstone Horrors due to the 'Split' rule. Pink Horrors do not have access to Malefic to 'spawn' more Pink Horrors.

 Roknar wrote:
... but I feel like the Tervigon faq makes more sense (and is more recent).

Its not a more recent ruling. It was taken word for word from the Tyranid Draft FAQ which predates the Wrath of Magnus book by at least four months.

Uh yea, sorry. That's what I meant with the horrors, just had the pink horrors in mind when I wrote it.
I'm still going to count the nid faq as more recent. We have to assume they went through the draft FAQs before finalizing them.
They did change some things from the drafts, so we know they read at least some of them.

@ Charistoph: The rules don't cover how to handle generated units, but we have to treat the faqs as part of the rules too.
Normally I would agree and the Magnus FAQ would reinforce this, but then the tervigon faq exists.
The only way that makes any sense is if the gaunts count as being a part of the CAD.

So far I'm getting the impression however that the general concensus is to treat the tervigon FAQ as a a weird exception, courtesy of GW rules writing.

 Roknar wrote:
@ Charistoph: The rules don't cover how to handle generated units, but we have to treat the faqs as part of the rules too.
Normally I would agree and the Magnus FAQ would reinforce this, but then the tervigon faq exists.
The only way that makes any sense is if the gaunts count as being a part of the CAD.

We do not have to treat GW's FAQs as part of the rules any more than I have to treat ETC's or ITC's FAQs as part of the rules, they are clarifications without changing the written words. Even more so when they have been demonstrated to be contradictory in several other areas as well as this one. This lack of consistency only helps push the concept that they are not but their own house rules.

But that is why I specifically addressed the rules themselves and the BRB, and why I did not include them in the assessment.

Including them in the detachment is on the same level as denying Battle Brothers from embarking during deployment, something completely unsupported by any written statement of the rules and introduced from nothing but a whim. It may be a whim based on a certain level of practicality and logic, but doesn't change the fact that it is a whim.

 Roknar wrote:
I'm still going to count the nid faq as more recent. We have to assume they went through the draft FAQs before finalizing them.
They did change some things from the drafts, so we know they read at least some of them.

It doesn't matter if they changed every other question in the FAQ. The one question from the FAQ that your basing your arguments on predates the Magnus book by four months and was not changed because it has the exact same wording as the draft.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Roknar wrote:
@ Charistoph: The rules don't cover how to handle generated units, but we have to treat the faqs as part of the rules too.
Normally I would agree and the Magnus FAQ would reinforce this, but then the tervigon faq exists.
The only way that makes any sense is if the gaunts count as being a part of the CAD.

We do not have to treat GW's FAQs as part of the rules any more than I have to treat ETC's or ITC's FAQs as part of the rules, they are clarifications without changing the written words. Even more so when they have been demonstrated to be contradictory in several other areas as well as this one. This lack of consistency only helps push the concept that they are not but their own house rules.

But that is why I specifically addressed the rules themselves and the BRB, and why I did not include them in the assessment.

Including them in the detachment is on the same level as denying Battle Brothers from embarking during deployment, something completely unsupported by any written statement of the rules and introduced from nothing but a whim. It may be a whim based on a certain level of practicality and logic, but doesn't change the fact that it is a whim.

Err, they literally write the rules. So yes, we should treat them as part of the rules.
Doesn't help that they suck at writing them and don't know the difference between erratas and FAQs, but that's what we have this forum for.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Roknar wrote:
I'm still going to count the nid faq as more recent. We have to assume they went through the draft FAQs before finalizing them.
They did change some things from the drafts, so we know they read at least some of them.

It doesn't matter if they changed every other question in the FAQ. The one question from the FAQ that your basing your arguments on predates the Magnus book by four months and was not changed because it has the exact same wording as the draft.

It doesn't matter what was written in the draft FAQ. In january 2017, they read over the draft and decided that the tervigon question matched their vision of the game at that point in time, one month after the wrath FAQ. They could have changed their mind and said no, but they didn't.
That said, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the reality was more like " what? gaunts..objective secured? Yea sure, whatever."
We don't know that however, so we have to assume they meant gaunts to have ObSec, in january.

 Roknar wrote:
Err, they literally write the rules. So yes, we should treat them as part of the rules.
Doesn't help that they suck at writing them and don't know the difference between erratas and FAQs, but that's what we have this forum for.

Then you completely missed the point. The FAQs do not change the written rules. If they do not change the written rules, then we have contradictory rules which provide contradictory precedents to operate from with no logic to derive future understandings with.

If you want to go one direction or another locally, I frankly do not care. This forum has international use and is not well setup for local considerations. When I say something is RAW, I use the only thing I can be consistent with, the actual written rules. Anything else is House Rules, and that includes GW FAQs.

To demonstrate, the ITC FAQ generally has greater primacy here locally amongst most of the local stores because that is what is used for most of the LGS' tournaments. The GW FAQ does little to affect this. But I do not use the ITC's FAQs when making RAW declarations. I might for suggestions on How You may Want To Play It, but that is as far as I go.

Roknar, the Final official FAQs came out in November, not January.

The Magnus FAQ came out in December, one month AFTER the final FAQs

 CrownAxe wrote:
Roknar, the Final official FAQs came out in November, not January.

The Magnus FAQ came out in December, one month AFTER the final FAQs

The Main Rulebook FAQ came out in November. The remainder of the FAQs came out in January.

 CrownAxe wrote:
Roknar, the Final official FAQs came out in November, not January.

The Magnus FAQ came out in December, one month AFTER the final FAQs

I'm going with what's written on their errata page right now. They have the tyranid FAQ as january 2017 and Magnus as December 2016.
Actually I just checked on warhammer digital and that has the nid faq as 20th of january and the magnus faq is missing entirely.
They point to the same URL though, the nid faqs that is.

The FAQs are found at the 'Rules Errata' link at the bottom of the Games Workshop web store main page.

 Ghaz wrote:
The FAQs are found at the 'Rules Errata' link at the bottom of the Games Workshop web store main page.

Yes, those are the ones I based the thread on. I just remembered that they have recently opened the digital site and wanted to check what's going on there.
I would have given preference to the newer site ( and more sensible place for erratas imo), but the erratas there just lead to the same pdfs as the ones from the GW store site.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I suppose the only sensible thing to do here is to treat the two contradicting faqs to cancel each other out and just fall back on the BRB, which tells us not to include them in any detachments. As Charistoph said, there is nothing that gives us permission to include them in the BRB and without the tervigon faq there's no reason to believe they should be.

The only reason to give the tervigon faq any credibility over the magnus faq is recency, which is a very weak argument. Moreso given the draft faqs and GW's history. Just apply the two faqs in their specific situations and otherwise ignore them.

 Ghaz wrote:
The FAQs are found at the 'Rules Errata' link at the bottom of the Games Workshop web store main page.

And the files are called "Updates" with sections of "Errata", "Amendments", and "FAQ". The "Errata" changes the written words of the rules. The "Amendments" adds to the words of the rules. The "FAQ" offers interpretations on how to play it. This is the literal statements of GW regarding these documents.

Charistophe,

FAQS are not GW's house rules or GW's mere interpretations on how to play a rule. FAQs are THE answer to rule ambiguity.





The Frequently Asked Questions section reveals in a Q and A format official rule answers/judgments to rule queries/issues. If there is a conflict between the written rule in the book and the answer in the FAQ, the written rule is a mistake and the FAQ wins out, since it reflects the updated official Rules As Intended from GW that overrides the written rules.

 Roknar wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
The FAQs are found at the 'Rules Errata' link at the bottom of the Games Workshop web store main page.

Yes, those are the ones I based the thread on. I just remembered that they have recently opened the digital site and wanted to check what's going on there.
I would have given preference to the newer site ( and more sensible place for erratas imo), but the erratas there just lead to the same pdfs as the ones from the GW store site.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I suppose the only sensible thing to do here is to treat the two contradicting faqs to cancel each other out and just fall back on the BRB, which tells us not to include them in any detachments. As Charistoph said, there is nothing that gives us permission to include them in the BRB and without the tervigon faq there's no reason to believe they should be.

The only reason to give the tervigon faq any credibility over the magnus faq is recency, which is a very weak argument. Moreso given the draft faqs and GW's history. Just apply the two faqs in their specific situations and otherwise ignore them.

I'd go with the Magnus FAQ ; going with the Tervigon FAQ has unintended side effects if you use that.

I voted no, but with the exception that if it specifically states yes (e.g. Tervigons and their babies) then it's a yes.