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.

They just say Farseer. In the Windrider Host, he must take the upgrade. In the Seer Council, they must ALL take it or not.

So it seems that you can not take a Skyrunner Farseer in a Guardian Battle Host / Storm Host then?

To go against it though:

-as has been stated, it doesn't list named CM's as a replacement option, only captains.

False, whilst this is true for demi companies in the command where they do list the named CMs they still just list the generic Captain. Please read the thread as this was already covered. Also note the Farseer/Farseer Skyrunner example in the Eldar codex which proves having a differently named model doesn't effect the unit name which is what is listed in formations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 extremefreak17 wrote:
They just say Farseer. In the Windrider Host, he must take the upgrade. In the Seer Council, they must ALL take it or not.

So it seems that you can not take a Skyrunner Farseer in a Guardian Battle Host / Storm Host then?

No you absolutely can. Again read the actual examples even when you HAVE to take the Skyrunner, still only the unit (datasheets) name is given.Then restrictions tells you what upgrades are or aaren't allowed (in the windrider they tell you must take the upgrade).

You're also claiming that the generic Chapter Master can NEVER be taken in a Gladius where Calgary, Pedro etc can happily join in. Your stance is absolutely nonsensical.

 FlingitNow wrote:

To go against it though:

-as has been stated, it doesn't list named CM's as a replacement option, only captains.

False, whilst this is true for demi companies in the command where they do list the named CMs they still just list the generic Captain. Please read the thread as this was already covered. Also note the Farseer/Farseer Skyrunner example in the Eldar codex which proves having a differently named model doesn't effect the unit name which is what is listed in formations.

I'm sorry, I don't seem to be understanding you. Are you saying it does list named chapter masters as replacements, because I'm staring right at the book right now, and both the command captain and Demi-company captain only have named captain replacements. So what I said is absolutely not false sir.

They DO have named chapter masters AVAILABLE in the command group, which I pointed out as one of the "for" points in the exact post you quoted from.

Exactly join the Strike Force Command they are listed yet again only the Captain is listed. Also see the Eldar codex with Farseers vs Farseer Skyrunners it is absolutely 100% clear both RaW and RaI that a Chapter Master is still a Captain unit, just as a WGSL is still part of a blood claw unit without being a blood claw.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Exactly join the Strike Force Command they are listed yet again only the Captain is listed. Also see the Eldar codex with Farseers vs Farseer Skyrunners it is absolutely 100% clear both RaW and RaI that a Chapter Master is still a Captain unit, just as a WGSL is still part of a blood claw unit without being a blood claw.

Who are you talking to? You're aware that I think you should be able to take chapter masters by the rules, right?

no its not flign it now... we are told that captains by name are what we take.


by name, when you take a chapter master, you have taken a chapter master, RAW.

GW told you what was acceptable, everything they listed is a captain, non are CM's.

codex space marines follows the same rules as other codexes in that some upgrades change the unit composition. a data slate is a data slate no matter what codex it is in.

the NAME of the dataslate is irrelevant, what the unit is composed of is all that matters.

you can upgrade a captain to a CM, or a blood claw to a wolf srg,

that does not mean captains = CM, or that blood claws = wolft srgts, even though both data slates are called "captain" and "blood claws"

your assertions that captains and CM are the exact same thing by name is incorrect, they are two separate things despite having the same title to their dataslate.

you cannot say its a captain for the purposes of the formation, but then claim its a CM for orbital strike. its one of the other.

niv-mizzet wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Exactly join the Strike Force Command they are listed yet again only the Captain is listed. Also see the Eldar codex with Farseers vs Farseer Skyrunners it is absolutely 100% clear both RaW and RaI that a Chapter Master is still a Captain unit, just as a WGSL is still part of a blood claw unit without being a blood claw.

Who are you talking to? You're aware that I think you should be able to take chapter masters by the rules, right?

But you're claiming it is unclear when in fact it is 100% percent clear both RaW and RaI.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:
no its not flign it now... we are told that captains by name are what we take.


by name, when you take a chapter master, you have taken a chapter master, RAW.

Chapter Master is the MODEL you have taken, Captain is the UNIT you have taken RaW. If you think the CM is a unit I would ask what page a CM unit's datasheets is found?

GW told you what was acceptable, everything they listed is a captain, non are CM's.

Chapter Masters are Captains. Just as Farseer Skyunners are Farseers. So why does the Eldar codex just list Farseer whenever you can a Farseer Skyrunner?

codex space marines follows the same rules as other codexes in that some upgrades change the unit composition. a data slate is a data slate no matter what codex it is in.

Yes they change the unit composition, they don't change what the unit is though.

the NAME of the dataslate is irrelevant, what the unit is composed of is all that matters.

Yet the rules tell you the name on the datasheets is the name of the unit (page 114 bullet 3 Codex Space Marines). So why are you claiming the name of the unit is irrelevant to what units can be taken in a Formation?

you can upgrade a captain to a CM, or a blood claw to a wolf srg,

Exactly and the Chapter Master is still part of a Captain unit just as the Wolfguard Squad Leader is still part of a Bloodclaw unit.

that does not mean captains = CM, or that blood claws = wolft srgts, even though both data slates are called "captain" and "blood claws"

No but as above the WGSL is still part of a blood claw unit as the CM is still part of a Captain unit. If a formation says you may take a unit of bloodclaws with no restrictions would you allow them to take a WGSL?

your assertions that captains and CM are the exact same thing by name is incorrect, they are two separate things despite having the same title to their dataslate.

you cannot say its a captain for the purposes of the formation, but then claim its a CM for orbital strike. its one of the other.

It is a Chapter Master model and a Captain UNIT. Are models and units really that confusing to you? If you don't understand the difference between models and units please go back and read the core rulebook several times, because trying to discuss the exact rules when you don't have any sort of handle on basics isn't going to get anywhere.

 FlingitNow wrote:

To go against it though:

-as has been stated, it doesn't list named CM's as a replacement option, only captains.

False, whilst this is true for demi companies in the command where they do list the named CMs they still just list the generic Captain. Please read the thread as this was already covered. Also note the Farseer/Farseer Skyrunner example in the Eldar codex which proves having a differently named model doesn't effect the unit name which is what is listed in formations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 extremefreak17 wrote:
They just say Farseer. In the Windrider Host, he must take the upgrade. In the Seer Council, they must ALL take it or not.

So it seems that you can not take a Skyrunner Farseer in a Guardian Battle Host / Storm Host then?

No you absolutely can. Again read the actual examples even when you HAVE to take the Skyrunner, still only the unit (datasheets) name is given.Then restrictions tells you what upgrades are or aaren't allowed (in the windrider they tell you must take the upgrade).

You're also claiming that the generic Chapter Master can NEVER be taken in a Gladius where Calgary, Pedro etc can happily join in. Your stance is absolutely nonsensical.

Then why under the Farseer entry is there this rule:

"Fleet (Farseer Only)"
By your reasoning, the Skyrunner Farseer also gains fleet.

 extremefreak17 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

To go against it though:

-as has been stated, it doesn't list named CM's as a replacement option, only captains.

False, whilst this is true for demi companies in the command where they do list the named CMs they still just list the generic Captain. Please read the thread as this was already covered. Also note the Farseer/Farseer Skyrunner example in the Eldar codex which proves having a differently named model doesn't effect the unit name which is what is listed in formations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 extremefreak17 wrote:
They just say Farseer. In the Windrider Host, he must take the upgrade. In the Seer Council, they must ALL take it or not.

So it seems that you can not take a Skyrunner Farseer in a Guardian Battle Host / Storm Host then?

No you absolutely can. Again read the actual examples even when you HAVE to take the Skyrunner, still only the unit (datasheets) name is given.Then restrictions tells you what upgrades are or aaren't allowed (in the windrider they tell you must take the upgrade).

You're also claiming that the generic Chapter Master can NEVER be taken in a Gladius where Calgary, Pedro etc can happily join in. Your stance is absolutely nonsensical.

Then why under the Farseer entry is there this rule:

"Fleet (Farseer Only)"
By your reasoning, the Skyrunner Farseer also gains fleet.

Are models and units really that confusing to you? If you don't understand the difference between models and units please go back and read the core rulebook several times, because trying to discuss the exact rules when you don't have any sort of handle on basics isn't going to get anywhere.

Farseer here refers to the model not the unit if it referred to the later the rule would make no sense. Formations however list the UNITS you may take.

It is not 100% clear both raw and rai or this thread wouldn't exist.

I personally think there's a stronger case for taking them then there is for not being able to take them, but I'm not going to try and tell people that disagree that they just can't read.

Fleet is listed as a USR on the Farseer data card. Units have data cards, not models.

Are models and units really that confusing to you? If you don't understand the difference between models and units please go back and read the core rulebook several times, because trying to discuss the exact rules when you don't have any sort of handle on basics isn't going to get anywhere.

LOOK I CAN PASTA TOO GUYS

niv-mizzet wrote:
It is not 100% clear both raw and rai or this thread wouldn't exist.

I personally think there's a stronger case for taking them then there is for not being able to take them, but I'm not going to try and tell people that disagree that they just can't read.

Just because some people can't read plain English doesn't mean something is unclear. Just check page 114. It states that each Datasheet is an army list entry. It says the name of the datasheet is the name of the unit (so we 100% KNOW there is no such thing as a Chapter Master unit). It also states that formations list the armylist entries you can take in them, and that restrictions is the thing that talks about what upgrades you cannot or must take.

There is absolutely no doubt RaW that a Chapter Master is part of a Captain unit and that the Demi Company lists the Captain UNIT as what can be taken. This is absolute 100% RaW. In terms of RaI the only evidence against is the lack of named CMs in a demi company yet there is the counter example in the Strike Force Command. Then we have codex Eldar which absolutely reinforces this with Farseers and Warlock Councils and their Skyrunner counterparts. So we know this is how they write the rules to work as they literally tell us this directly in the rules and there are clear examples in all other similar cases and not a single counter example.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 extremefreak17 wrote:
Fleet is listed as a USR on the Farseer data card. Units have data cards, not models.

Are models and units really that confusing to you? If you don't understand the difference between models and units please go back and read the core rulebook several times, because trying to discuss the exact rules when you don't have any sort of handle on basics isn't going to get anywhere.

LOOK I CAN PASTA TOO GUYS

Units have datasheets but yet again you show your inability to work the difference between units and models. What has special rules units or models? This should answer who they are referring to when they tell you a Farseer has fleet...

Seriously read the basic rulebook, learn the difference between models and units and what rules apply at what level. Then you can come back and either try to make a coherent argument or more likely (so if you actually understand the English) accept that the clear RaW and RaI answer is correct.

So the question is "Does "Captain" in the Demi-company, refer to the unit, or the model?"

If it refers to the unit, then the Captain can upgrade to be a CM.

If it refers to the model (which IMO based on the legal swaps is the case), then no it cannot upgrade to be a CM.

This is a similar issue as the Canoptek Swarm argument that got locked recently (similar, not the same).

 Happyjew wrote:
So the question is "Does "Captain" in the Demi-company, refer to the unit, or the model?"

If it refers to the unit, then the Captain can upgrade to be a CM.

If it refers to the model (which IMO based on the legal swaps is the case), then no it cannot upgrade to be a CM.

This is a similar issue as the Canoptek Swarm argument that got locked recently (similar, not the same).

So in your opinion the rules are wrong when they say "A Formation Datasheets will list the Army List Entries which make up the formation"? Your stance is that your opinion is more important than the rules? Is that correct?

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
So the question is "Does "Captain" in the Demi-company, refer to the unit, or the model?"

If it refers to the unit, then the Captain can upgrade to be a CM.

If it refers to the model (which IMO based on the legal swaps is the case), then no it cannot upgrade to be a CM.

This is a similar issue as the Canoptek Swarm argument that got locked recently (similar, not the same).

So in your opinion the rules are wrong when they say "A Formation Datasheets will list the Army List Entries which make up the formation"? Your stance is that your opinion is more important than the rules? Is that correct?

I don't recall saying RAW. Seeing as how I specifically said my opinion (despite using a common acronym), that should have been a clue I was talking about HIWPI. There are a number of rules, despite being very clear, people do not follow as written. Or have you forgotten about the 5th edition LOS issues, or currently non-Dread SM vehicles issue?

 Happyjew wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
So the question is "Does "Captain" in the Demi-company, refer to the unit, or the model?"

If it refers to the unit, then the Captain can upgrade to be a CM.

If it refers to the model (which IMO based on the legal swaps is the case), then no it cannot upgrade to be a CM.

This is a similar issue as the Canoptek Swarm argument that got locked recently (similar, not the same).

So in your opinion the rules are wrong when they say "A Formation Datasheets will list the Army List Entries which make up the formation"? Your stance is that your opinion is more important than the rules? Is that correct?

I don't recall saying RAW. Seeing as how I specifically said my opinion (despite using a common acronym), that should have been a clue I was talking about HIWPI. There are a number of rules, despite being very clear, people do not follow as written. Or have you forgotten about the 5th edition LOS issues, or currently non-Dread SM vehicles issue?

Yes RaW can cause problems and can differ from the actual rules. But here not only is RaW clear, the intent is clearly spelt out not only just by the fact they highlight such things in the rules I've listed but also all relevant examples either have no clarification (Kabalite Warriors to Trueborn) or clear clarification in the direction of RaW (Farseer, Warlocks, Aspect warriors and Exarch etc). I defy you to find a single example that clarifies a model change upgrade is restricted by default.

This argument is as bad as people claiming you couldn't take DTs in formations or that DTs in a formation aren't in that formation (like Aspect Host Wave Serpents). As with this case the rules are abundantly clear. Yes in a Demi Company you can't take thenamedCMs but in a strike force command you can and the Captain entry remains the same. They tell you that it is the army list entries that a Formation is referring to. They tell you a Chapter Master is a Captain ALE. It really is completely clear.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yes RaW can cause problems and can differ from the actual rules. But here not only is RaW clear, the intent is clearly spelt out not only just by the fact they highlight such things in the rules I've listed but also all relevant examples either have no clarification (Kabalite Warriors to Trueborn) or clear clarification in the direction of RaW (Farseer, Warlocks, Aspect warriors and Exarch etc). I defy you to find a single example that clarifies a model change upgrade is restricted by default.

This argument is as bad as people claiming you couldn't take DTs in formations or that DTs in a formation aren't in that formation (like Aspect Host Wave Serpents). As with this case the rules are abundantly clear. Yes in a Demi Company you can't take thenamedCMs but in a strike force command you can and the Captain entry remains the same. They tell you that it is the army list entries that a Formation is referring to. They tell you a Chapter Master is a Captain ALE. It really is completely clear.

I underlined where the disagreement is. You claim the intent is clear because other formations are clear. I don't think the intent is as clear as you make it out to be. As far as I'm concerned, since GW specifically says instead of taking "1 Captain" you can take "1 named Captain" - that in itself is implication that the intent is 1 Captain (model). Would I deny my opponent from playing with a CM? No. Would I run a CM? Again no. If I ran a tournament, it is something that would be clarified in an FAQ. I'm not claiming that RAW is wrong, or not clear - but only GW knows what GW intended. For all we know, next week they'll come out and say they meant "1 Techamrine". Also regarding Kabalite Warriors/Trueborn it would depend. If it said 1 unit of Kabalite Warriors, then yes. You could upgrade the unit to Trueborn (as it is still a Kabalite Warrior unit). If it said something like "1 unit of 10 Kabalite Warriors" or "1 unit of Kabalite Warriors*" (*unit must contain 10 Kabalite Warriors); then no, you can not upgrade them to Trueborn.

And as one of the few Eldar players in my group, none of us have considered running a Farseer Skyrunner in a Guardian Stormhost/Battlehost.

Simple question: armoured task force; can you take servitors with the techmarine?

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Simple question: armoured task force; can you take servitors with the techmarine?

While I'm sure i agree with your answer, that is actually a more reasonable question imo

 Happyjew wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yes RaW can cause problems and can differ from the actual rules. But here not only is RaW clear, the intent is clearly spelt out not only just by the fact they highlight such things in the rules I've listed but also all relevant examples either have no clarification (Kabalite Warriors to Trueborn) or clear clarification in the direction of RaW (Farseer, Warlocks, Aspect warriors and Exarch etc). I defy you to find a single example that clarifies a model change upgrade is restricted by default.

This argument is as bad as people claiming you couldn't take DTs in formations or that DTs in a formation aren't in that formation (like Aspect Host Wave Serpents). As with this case the rules are abundantly clear. Yes in a Demi Company you can't take thenamedCMs but in a strike force command you can and the Captain entry remains the same. They tell you that it is the army list entries that a Formation is referring to. They tell you a Chapter Master is a Captain ALE. It really is completely clear.

I underlined where the disagreement is. You claim the intent is clear because other formations are clear. I don't think the intent is as clear as you make it out to be. As far as I'm concerned, since GW specifically says instead of taking "1 Captain" you can take "1 named Captain" - that in itself is implication that the intent is 1 Captain (model). Would I deny my opponent from playing with a CM? No. Would I run a CM? Again no. If I ran a tournament, it is something that would be clarified in an FAQ. I'm not claiming that RAW is wrong, or not clear - but only GW knows what GW intended. For all we know, next week they'll come out and say they meant "1 Techamrine". Also regarding Kabalite Warriors/Trueborn it would depend. If it said 1 unit of Kabalite Warriors, then yes. You could upgrade the unit to Trueborn (as it is still a Kabalite Warrior unit). If it said something like "1 unit of 10 Kabalite Warriors" or "1 unit of Kabalite Warriors*" (*unit must contain 10 Kabalite Warriors); then no, you can not upgrade them to Trueborn.

And as one of the few Eldar players in my group, none of us have considered running a Farseer Skyrunner in a Guardian Stormhost/Battlehost.

So we agree RaW is clear (and works) correct? We also know every single other similar example works the way RaW says. So RaI is as clear as itcan be. There is just as strong an RaI argument that marines are T10 as one for not taking a CM in the Strike Force Command or Demi company.

So if it said a unit of 1 Captain it would be awkwardly worded but but I would agree there was an argument that they meant to preclude the Chapter master. They don't they say 1 Captain. Do any of your Eldar players believe you can take a Farseer Skyrunner in a Seer Council or Wind Rider Host? If they do then that completely destroys your notion that the CM is unavailable to the Demi Company.

Yes, as the Seer Council gives permission, and the win rider host requires it. You are basing RAI on other formations. I'm basing it on the formation options. As such, RAW don't agree with me. But it would not be the first time.

 Happyjew wrote:
Yes, as the Seer Council gives permission, and the win rider host requires it. You are basing RAI on other formations. I'm basing it on the formation options. As such, RAW don't agree with me. But it would not be the first time.

They tell you Captain is the unit name. In all other cases where you have an upgrade model they still put the datasheet unit name. In the very same codex there are as many examples where a generic Captain can be taken in a Formation including named CMs as not. I'm not basing my RaI solely on other formations though looking for similar rules interactions with a more clear outcome is a great way to work out RaI. I'm also looking at what they say and how they write things.

How would you expect them to write a Demi Company to allow a CM upgrade on a Captain?

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Yes, as the Seer Council gives permission, and the win rider host requires it. You are basing RAI on other formations. I'm basing it on the formation options. As such, RAW don't agree with me. But it would not be the first time.

They tell you Captain is the unit name. In all other cases where you have an upgrade model they still put the datasheet unit name. In the very same codex there are as many examples where a generic Captain can be taken in a Formation including named CMs as not. I'm not basing my RaI solely on other formations though looking for similar rules interactions with a more clear outcome is a great way to work out RaI. I'm also looking at what they say and how they write things.

How would you expect them to write a Demi Company to allow a CM upgrade on a Captain?

1 Chaplain, Captain or Chapter Master.

Similar to the Grey Knight's "Grey Knights Brotherhood" formation, which calls for a Grand Master (which is an upgrade for Brother-Captains).

 Happyjew wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Yes, as the Seer Council gives permission, and the win rider host requires it. You are basing RAI on other formations. I'm basing it on the formation options. As such, RAW don't agree with me. But it would not be the first time.

They tell you Captain is the unit name. In all other cases where you have an upgrade model they still put the datasheet unit name. In the very same codex there are as many examples where a generic Captain can be taken in a Formation including named CMs as not. I'm not basing my RaI solely on other formations though looking for similar rules interactions with a more clear outcome is a great way to work out RaI. I'm also looking at what they say and how they write things.

How would you expect them to write a Demi Company to allow a CM upgrade on a Captain?

1 Chaplain, Captain or Chapter Master.

Similar to the Grey Knight's "Grey Knights Brotherhood" formation, which calls for a Grand Master (which is an upgrade for Brother-Captains).

Why on earth would they pit CM in the formation? It would be literally meaningless as it would not refer to any army list entry in the codex.

So you believe it is illegal to have Chapter master EVER in a Gladius? Only the named ones?

You see that's the difference with our perspectives. I've looked at all the evidence and rules to work out my interpretation. You've picked an interpretation and the desperately tried to find evidence to support it...

If you don't want to see something there is little I can do. RaW is 100% clear the CM is allowed. 100% of precedence agrees the CM is allowed. If that isn't enough for you then you aren't interested in working out the rules only in pushing your made up rules.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Yes, as the Seer Council gives permission, and the win rider host requires it. You are basing RAI on other formations. I'm basing it on the formation options. As such, RAW don't agree with me. But it would not be the first time.

They tell you Captain is the unit name. In all other cases where you have an upgrade model they still put the datasheet unit name. In the very same codex there are as many examples where a generic Captain can be taken in a Formation including named CMs as not. I'm not basing my RaI solely on other formations though looking for similar rules interactions with a more clear outcome is a great way to work out RaI. I'm also looking at what they say and how they write things.

How would you expect them to write a Demi Company to allow a CM upgrade on a Captain?

1 Chaplain, Captain or Chapter Master.

Similar to the Grey Knight's "Grey Knights Brotherhood" formation, which calls for a Grand Master (which is an upgrade for Brother-Captains).

Why on earth would they pit CM in the formation? It would be literally meaningless as it would not refer to any army list entry in the codex.

So you believe it is illegal to have Chapter master EVER in a Gladius? Only the named ones?

You see that's the difference with our perspectives. I've looked at all the evidence and rules to work out my interpretation. You've picked an interpretation and the desperately tried to find evidence to support it...

If you don't want to see something there is little I can do. RaW is 100% clear the CM is allowed. 100% of precedence agrees the CM is allowed. If that isn't enough for you then you aren't interested in working out the rules only in pushing your made up rules.

I've already agreed with RAW. I've also stated both HIWPI, and how I would rule it in a tournament. There are formations that list the basic model/unit, and give permission to upgrade them (Seer Council), there are formations that list the basic model/unit and requires an upgrade (Windrider Host). There are formations that specifically call out the upgraded model (Grey Knights Brotherhood). And then there are those that are silent (Demi-Company). I'm not pushing my view as being right. I'm pointing out that based on other formations, as well as the Demi-Company itself, there is probable intent for Captain only.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Simple question: armoured task force; can you take servitors with the techmarine?

Simple question: Is a Captain a Chapter Master?

From wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Simple question: armoured task force; can you take servitors with the techmarine?

Simple question: Is a Captain a Chapter Master?

He can be, if you pay the points

If you can upgrade a Captain using the unit options, what stops you from adding Spiders to a Harvest.

If it says Captain, it must be a Captain. If it says 1 spider, it is one spider.

There seems to be a person or persons that gained the rage and zealot special rules in real life in here. Time to abandon thread.