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.

Formation based detachments such as the Necron decurion and the eldar war host have options in them that are single units that may be taken individually. These choices are NOT formations of their own! In order to be a formation, the unit MUST have the symbol for formations in the corner of their data slate. (The three skulls in a circle)

I have seen multiple people complaining about people taking the "formation" of one wraithknight so they are still battle forged. Your opponent cannot do this, because the wraithknight is a unit, not a formation. If you want a wraithknight, you are either going to be unbound,or have to add the wraith host formation at th very least.

I hope this helps.

Or take the core formation and then a wraithknight as an auxiliary within an eldar craftworld detachment

zerosignal wrote:
Or take the core formation and then a wraithknight as an auxiliary within an eldar craftworld detachment

Or multiple Wraithknights >.>

I am sure no one would do that.

Makumba wrote:
I am sure no one would do that.

Lol I think your faith in humanity is misplaced.

Makumba wrote:
I am sure no one would do that.

There are people that still can't figure out that formations aren't taken as part of a CAD detachment.

There are people that still think CAD means Battleforged Army (which is one of the causes of the above) instead of being a type of detachment in a Battleforged Army.

I can see people doing this because "A decurion is a formation of formations". Especially due to the "fluffy" name given to those single unit choices in the Decurion.

Interestingly enough one of the guys I play with did not realize that some of the actual formations could be taken on their own as a formation. He was under the impression the only way you could take them was as part of a Warhost/Decurion.

I don't think people really bother reading the army building rules.

At this point I don't think GW doesn't care, so long as they get the money.

nareik wrote:
I don't think people really bother reading the army building rules.

I think people just get (rightfully) confused with the army building rules.

They're not exactly simple or streamlined, or universal with many different codices having wildly different opportunities with formations, formations of formations, different force org charts, and allies throwing everything out of whack.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
If you want a wraithknight, you are either going to be unbound,or have to add the wraith host formation at th very least.

You missed the fact you can take one in the LoW slot of a normal Combined Arms Detachment. As such, these are the ways you can field a Wraithknight:

-LoW slot in a CAD (1 per CAD)
- As part of a Wraith host formation on its own, or attached to another CAD, Formations or other specific Detachment
- As part of a Wraith Host formation attached to a selection of other Formations in an Eldar War Host
- In an Unbound list

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Formation based detachments such as the Necron decurion and the eldar war host have options in them that are single units that may be taken individually. These choices are NOT formations of their own! In order to be a formation, the unit MUST have the symbol for formations in the corner of their data slate. (The three skulls in a circle)

I have seen multiple people complaining about people taking the "formation" of one wraithknight so they are still battle forged. Your opponent cannot do this, because the wraithknight is a unit, not a formation. If you want a wraithknight, you are either going to be unbound,or have to add the wraith host formation at th very least.

I hope this helps.

Unfortunately, you are incorrect. The formations specify one and only one unit. It is a formation made up of one unit. The unit is also the formation.

These types of formations are there mostly to easily fill out the mandatory auxiliary formation requirement.

I can understand how the abundance of new formations and methods of building an army can be confusing, but the writing was on the wall when 7th edition hit with the new "Detachments" method of building armies. Like it or not, this is the direction 40k is going in.

Me personally, I like having the option to get away from the standard CAD with xenos armies. It gives them more of a flavor of their own, fits the lore better, and differentiates them in playstyle from Imperium armies.

 Paradigm wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
If you want a wraithknight, you are either going to be unbound,or have to add the wraith host formation at th very least.

You missed the fact you can take one in the LoW slot of a normal Combined Arms Detachment. As such, these are the ways you can field a Wraithknight:

-LoW slot in a CAD (1 per CAD)
- As part of a Wraith host formation on its own, or attached to another CAD, Formations or other specific Detachment
- As part of a Wraith Host formation attached to a selection of other Formations in an Eldar War Host
- In an Unbound list

Both of you missed that in the warhost formation you can take a Single Wraithknight as a Wraithbone Contruct Auxillary. You dont even need the wraith host for a wraithknight. you can literally take 12 single wraithknights in a single Warhost (points allowing).

 Xerics wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
If you want a wraithknight, you are either going to be unbound,or have to add the wraith host formation at th very least.

You missed the fact you can take one in the LoW slot of a normal Combined Arms Detachment. As such, these are the ways you can field a Wraithknight:

-LoW slot in a CAD (1 per CAD)
- As part of a Wraith host formation on its own, or attached to another CAD, Formations or other specific Detachment
- As part of a Wraith Host formation attached to a selection of other Formations in an Eldar War Host
- In an Unbound list

Both of you missed that in the warhost formation you can take a Single Wraithknight as a Wraithbone Contruct Auxillary. You dont even need the wraith host for a wraithknight. you can literally take 12 single wraithknights in a single Warhost (points allowing).

36 actually. 3 Guardian Hosts, 12 Wraithbone Construct Auxiliary per Host.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Unfortunately, you are incorrect. The formations specify one and only one unit. It is a formation made up of one unit. The unit is also the formation.

Codex wrote:...a Force Organisation Chart whose slots are a combination of specific Formations AND Army List Entries instead of Battlefield Roles.

Bolded and caps for emphasis. In addition to this there is nothing in the Decurion style detachment that says everything is a formation.

 SilverDevilfish wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Unfortunately, you are incorrect. The formations specify one and only one unit. It is a formation made up of one unit. The unit is also the formation.

Codex wrote:...a Force Organisation Chart whose slots are a combination of specific Formations AND Army List Entries instead of Battlefield Roles.

Bolded and caps for emphasis. In addition to this there is nothing in the Decurion style detachment that says everything is a formation.

I may be misinterpreting the rule, as I don't have the Necron codex. However, I do have the Eldar codex. It has the same line you quoted from the Necron codex.

However, on Page 94, it also states:

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

To use the OP's example, the Wraithknight is listed under the formation "Wraith-Constructs", which allows for one Wraithknight, Wraithlord, or Hemlock Wraithfighter. The formation has the symbol for an auxiliary formation. As there is no unit entry for "Wraith-Constructs", and the formation can consist of only one unit, the single Wraithknight is both the unit as defined in its unit entry and a formation as defined in the Warhost.

The same situation exists in the Eldar codex for Rangers and the Necron codex for Deathmarks.

Does the Wraith-Construct have a 'Formation' icon (the three skulls in a circle)? If not, then a single Wraithknight/Wraithlord/Wraithfighter is not a detachment.

Reason I ask this is because I am the reverse (own Necron, don't own Craftworlds). I know that Deathmarks can be taken as an Auxillary choice, but they by themselves do not have a formation.

That formation (the wraith construct) ONLY exists as part of the war host. It cannot be added to any other detachment, nor is it a formation in and of itself. I know you can take a wraithknight as a LOW in a combined arms detachment. What you cannot do is field a single wraithknight as a formation alongside combined arms detachment of say dark eldar,and claim the battle forged bonuses. Outside of the war host, there is no wraith construct detachment. People think there is, that's why I posted this thread.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

 SilverDevilfish wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Unfortunately, you are incorrect. The formations specify one and only one unit. It is a formation made up of one unit. The unit is also the formation.

Codex wrote:...a Force Organisation Chart whose slots are a combination of specific Formations AND Army List Entries instead of Battlefield Roles.

Bolded and caps for emphasis. In addition to this there is nothing in the Decurion style detachment that says everything is a formation.

I may be misinterpreting the rule, as I don't have the Necron codex. However, I do have the Eldar codex. It has the same line you quoted from the Necron codex.

However, on Page 94, it also states:

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

To use the OP's example, the Wraithknight is listed under the formation "Wraith-Constructs", which allows for one Wraithknight, Wraithlord, or Hemlock Wraithfighter. The formation has the symbol for an auxiliary formation. As there is no unit entry for "Wraith-Constructs", and the formation can consist of only one unit, the single Wraithknight is both the unit as defined in its unit entry and a formation as defined in the Warhost.

The same situation exists in the Eldar codex for Rangers and the Necron codex for Deathmarks.

Okay now where does it say that Wraith-Constructs are a formation? Wraith-Constructs is a slot, and what can a slot be?

Codex wrote:...a Force Organisation Chart whose slots are a combination of specific Formations AND Army List Entries instead of Battlefield Roles.

They don't have to make an exception for the single choices because they are Army List Entries and thus are only belonging to a single detachment (The Decurion/Host/Whatever the Daemonkin one is).

^Thank you.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:That formation (the wraith construct) ONLY exists as part of the war host. It cannot be added to any other detachment, nor is it a formation in and of itself. I know you can take a wraithknight as a LOW in a combined arms detachment. What you cannot do is field a single wraithknight as a formation alongside combined arms detachment of say dark eldar,and claim the battle forged bonuses. Outside of the war host, there is no wraith construct detachment. People think there is, that's why I posted this thread.

Thank you. That definitely gives your OP more context.

SilverDevilfish wrote:They don't have to make an exception for the single choices because they are Army List Entries and thus are only belonging to a single detachment (The Decurion/Host/Whatever the Daemonkin one is).

I think you might be misunderstanding my argument. I am not arguing that a single Wraithknight constitutes a formation that can be taken in a CAD Battle-Forged detachment. I am arguing that, for the purposes of the Eldar Warhost, a single Wraithknight does constitute a valid auxiliary formation.

 TheNewBlood wrote:
I think you might be misunderstanding my argument. I am not arguing that a single Wraithknight constitutes a formation that can be taken in a CAD Battle-Forged detachment. I am arguing that, for the purposes of the Eldar Warhost, a single Wraithknight does constitute a valid auxiliary formation.

Yes, that's fine, much like a single C'tan being allowed in the Decurion.

Only people who I think will scream a single Wraithknight is battle-forged are the rules lawyers that twist and turn everything to their advantage.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:That formation (the wraith construct) ONLY exists as part of the war host. It cannot be added to any other detachment, nor is it a formation in and of itself. I know you can take a wraithknight as a LOW in a combined arms detachment. What you cannot do is field a single wraithknight as a formation alongside combined arms detachment of say dark eldar,and claim the battle forged bonuses. Outside of the war host, there is no wraith construct detachment. People think there is, that's why I posted this thread.

Thank you. That definitely gives your OP more context.

SilverDevilfish wrote:They don't have to make an exception for the single choices because they are Army List Entries and thus are only belonging to a single detachment (The Decurion/Host/Whatever the Daemonkin one is).

I think you might be misunderstanding my argument. I am not arguing that a single Wraithknight constitutes a formation that can be taken in a CAD Battle-Forged detachment. I am arguing that, for the purposes of the Eldar Warhost, a single Wraithknight does constitute a valid auxiliary formation.

Ah it's a lingo thing, then. What you're calling formations in this case are actually slots. Which of course, yeah you can do.

In other words. Decurion style detachments contain slots like an FOC, but unlike an FOC those slots can be taken up by a formation.

Anyone else as lost as I am?

 SilverDevilfish wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:That formation (the wraith construct) ONLY exists as part of the war host. It cannot be added to any other detachment, nor is it a formation in and of itself. I know you can take a wraithknight as a LOW in a combined arms detachment. What you cannot do is field a single wraithknight as a formation alongside combined arms detachment of say dark eldar,and claim the battle forged bonuses. Outside of the war host, there is no wraith construct detachment. People think there is, that's why I posted this thread.

Thank you. That definitely gives your OP more context.

SilverDevilfish wrote:They don't have to make an exception for the single choices because they are Army List Entries and thus are only belonging to a single detachment (The Decurion/Host/Whatever the Daemonkin one is).

I think you might be misunderstanding my argument. I am not arguing that a single Wraithknight constitutes a formation that can be taken in a CAD Battle-Forged detachment. I am arguing that, for the purposes of the Eldar Warhost, a single Wraithknight does constitute a valid auxiliary formation.

Ah it's a lingo thing, then. What you're calling formations in this case are actually slots. Which of course, yeah you can do.

In other words. Decurion style detachments contain slots like an FOC, but unlike an FOC those slots can be taken up by a formation.

Exactly! Their have been a number of posts where someone said they were blasted by a space marine army with three wraithknights because of the way the new war host formation works. I wanted to let everyone know that is not the case.

 Ratius wrote:
Anyone else as lost as I am?

TL;DR the Decurion style detachments are a special snowflake detachments that act like an FoC but the slots can be filled by a formation. Confusion occurs because different terms are used to refer to those slots by different people.

You make take multiple Wraithknights within the Decurion style detachments but this does not make Wraith-Constructs itself a formation and you cannot use Wraith-Constructs to make a Battleforged army of nothing but Wraithknights (for example).

Also it probably bears repeating (and this isn't directed at you Ratius).

CAD =/= Battleforged.

You do not take a formation in a CAD, you take a formation in a Battleforged army. A CAD is a type of detachment taken in a Battleforged army and has NOTHING to do with formations.

Ugh, people let us try to use the correct language for this stuff. People are using "formation" this and that like it hasn't been defined and that is what causes problems.

Here are the important quotes;

The Craftworld Warhost is a special type of Detachment that can be included in any Battle-forged army.

Notice that the Craftworld Warhost is a detachment.

Unlike the Detachments shown in Warhammer 40,000: The Rules, it has a Force Organisation Chart whose slots are a combination of specific Formations and Army List Entries instead of Battlefield Roles.

It can include Formations OR Army List Entries

Specifically, it consists of a Windrider Host (his Farseer Skyrunner and his Warlock Skyrunner, his three units of Windriders and his Vyper), a Dire Avenger Shrine (three of his Dire Avenger units), a Heroes of the Craftworlds Army List Entry (Prince Yriel), and a Wraith-constructs Army List Entry (his Wraithknight).

Now we see that the Wraith-constructs Auxiliary choice which can be a single wraithknight is an Army List Entry.

What else is the an army list entry? Those are the units you can select field within a detachment or formation. They are listed in datasheets in the codex.

The funniest part about this debate is not only is there absolutely no permission to field a Wraith-constructs Army List Entry as it's own formation or detachment and not only has then been specifically points out in the example of how to use this but it is further disallowed by the rules later in the section in the only part of the codex that actually gives you permission to use Auxiliary Army List Entry choices.

For each Core choice you must include between one and twelve Auxiliary choices, in any combination

People just wanted to abuse the new wraithknight more and didn't bother reading army construction rules at all. There isn't anything vague about it as it even goes so far as to tell you you cannot take these without the Craftworld Warhost detachment. They don't even list these army list entries in the datasheets or formations sections in an additional effort to avoid confusion. This is literally just like a LoW or HS slot which they have given you a list of the specific units you can field.

You can't take extra wraithknights as part of a CAD because they themselves are not a formation. On the other hand with being able to use multiple LoW why would you ever take CAD over multiple Jump, 6W, T8, D throwing Gargantuan Creatures?

 Xerics wrote:
You can't take extra wraithknights as part of a CAD because they themselves are not a formation. On the other hand with being able to use multiple LoW why would you ever take CAD over multiple Jump, 6W, T8, D throwing Gargantuan Creatures?

Because there are a number of VERY hard counters to 5-6 wraithknight lists. I myself play 3 different army lists which would average 2-3 dead wraithknights on the first turn, that is not exactly a formula to win 7+ GT matches.

Additionally that is not a legal list in ITC events which is one of the most common tournament rules packages.

nareik wrote:
I don't think people really bother reading the army building rules.

As Blacksails noted, it's not simply just because people didn't read them, but rather that they're exceedingly poorly explained, and are a very radical departure from previous editions (often allowing for things that older editions went out of their way to not allow).

I find most people, even often relatively experienced tournament gamers, often still don't quite fully understand them. Hell, occasionally I myself get mucked up by them.