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.

Except '1 Canoptek Spyder' isn't referring to a unit, nor is the reference that Happyjew posted. GW isn't consistent with these units, so there is no clear answer with the question at hand.

They're pretty consistent. What you have is more likely to be a typo than proof that every codex plus the brb is wrong

 jokerkd wrote:
They're pretty consistent. What you have is more likely to be a typo than proof that every codex plus the brb is wrong

Their consistent in that every single model unit goes by the model's name (i.e., 'Overlord' instead of 'Overlord unit'). I'm not saying that the rulebook is wrong, its just we have no way to show what their intentions were when they wrote '1 Captain', as there's evidence that both ways can be found in the rules.

 Ghaz wrote:
And I have an official codex with a Formation that calls for a model. So what proof do you have that its the codex that is wrong?

Codex is not wrong. I've just looked at Codex: Necron and I don't see "problem".
It still refers to Army List Entry not model name. Why? Because rules of Formations say so: Formation lists Army Lists Entries.

And I have a news for you! Codex Space Marines have the same "problem"!
Formation Strike Force Ultra
1 Venerable Dreadnought where Army List Entry is called "Venerable Dreadnoughts"

Reading list of Formation Army List Entries we have to think what they have in mind writing the "number": a "unit" or "model", but name always refers to Army List Entry.
We have "3 Tactical Squads" - we know that is 3 units of Army List Entry "Tactical Squad". Battle Demi-Company Formation
We have "3-5 Librarians" - 3-5 models of Army List Entry "Librarian" (ok may be read as 3-5 units of Librarians it is the same) Librarius Conclave Formation
We have "1 unit of Ironclad Dreadnoughts" - this one is clear 1 unit of Army List Entry "Ironclad Dreadnoughts" (must take unit of up to 3 models). Centurion Siegebreaker Cohort Formation
We have "1 Venerable Dreadnought" - this mean 1 model of Army List Entry "Venerable Drednoughts". Strike Force Ultra Formation

And here I'll try to show you what you do wrong

We know that Formation lists Army List Entries (rule say so) <- Important!
Canoptek Spyders allows you to buy additional two models in unit.
What does it mean: 1 Canoptek Spyder?
Can it be like I see it:
Unit of 1 model of Army List Entry Canoptek Spyders?
Or does it mean as you think:
1 model of Canoptek Spyder ?
Output is the same, but my interpretation is according to rules. Your interpretation contradict the rules.
And we know that writing 1 Canoptek Spyders because of plural form would mean 1 unit of Canoptek Spyders, and it is not what GW wanted in this formation.

And Battle Demi-Company:
1 Captain
How rules want you to see it:
1 model of Army List Entry Captain
or as you see it:
1 model of Captain
Here output is not the same, but still my interpretation is according to rules. Your interpretation is against the rules.

You persistently read it as model name, but you should read as an Army List Entry.

Or we can go rocky road and say that "3 Tactical Squads" refers to nonexistent Army List Entry (proper one is called Tactical Squad) and nonexistent model name (there is noone), so cannot be taken at all (but may be added in future DLC).

So I say: nothing allows you to think that Formation lists something else than Army List Entry.

 Ghaz wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
They're pretty consistent. What you have is more likely to be a typo than proof that every codex plus the brb is wrong

Their consistent in that every single model unit goes by the model's name (i.e., 'Overlord' instead of 'Overlord unit'). I'm not saying that the rulebook is wrong, its just we have no way to show what their intentions were when they wrote '1 Captain', as there's evidence that both ways can be found in the rules.

At least the Harvest's Special Rule indicates a single Spyder model by its language. The Space Marine formations don't give much help but anectdotal evidence of the Uniques that can replace them.

The Captain is also unique in that it is a unit whose whole model list can change names.

Hence, why I maintain that without any other actual direction, the Formations are specifying the unit, not the model. TOs and metas may prefer it another way, but that is up to them to communicate as such.

So we're just going to hand wave away the Grey Knights Brotherhood Formation that calls for '1 Grand Master' when there is no 'Grand Master' unit in the codex but is instead an upgrade for a Brother Captain unit.

You guys wouldn't be fun to play against :/

 danyboy wrote:



And I have a news for you! Codex Space Marines have the same "problem"!
Formation Strike Force Ultra
1 Venerable Dreadnought where Army List Entry is called "Venerable Dreadnoughts"

Reading list of Formation Army List Entries we have to think what they have in mind writing the "number": a "unit" or "model", but name always refers to Army List Entry.
We have "3 Tactical Squads" - we know that is 3 units of Army List Entry "Tactical Squad". Battle Demi-Company Formation
We have "3-5 Librarians" - 3-5 models of Army List Entry "Librarian" (ok may be read as 3-5 units of Librarians it is the same) Librarius Conclave Formation
We have "1 unit of Ironclad Dreadnoughts" - this one is clear 1 unit of Army List Entry "Ironclad Dreadnoughts" (must take unit of up to 3 models). Centurion Siegebreaker Cohort Formation
We have "1 Venerable Dreadnought" - this mean 1 model of Army List Entry "Venerable Drednoughts". Strike Force Ultra Formation

. Oh. Bad choice. The Strike Force Ultra IS limited to one Venerable Dread model. In this formation more than any other they really are talking the model not the unit. Bad call on the supporting evidence choice


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
And this is why units and models should not share names.

If you look, everywhere but possibly hq when they mean unit they say unit where the unit and the model overlap names.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord Corellia wrote:
You guys wouldn't be fun to play against :/

That depends on if they play this way, or if this is it's own separate game when you can't play 40k

 Lord Corellia wrote:
You guys wouldn't be fun to play against :/

I believe most of us are much more reasonable to play against(there are a few in ymdc that i would think twice about, but the majority just like the debate/discussion).

I myself play by the generally least advantageous reading of most contentious rules.

I handwave the spyder thing for reasons already given(i don't play crons, and the difference between unit and model name is a single letter+ grammar possibilities). The cm in a demi-company thing here is simply silly to me(the only thing that could show they may have meant model name in this bit is the lack of named chapter masters available, but even that could be anywhere from a fluff point about how those masters would only lead the captain of the company as an auxiliary as opposed to taking over his duties(since the demi company is fluffwise supposed to be from a single company in concept) to the old explanation that the chapter master model might just be a special captain).

The gk formation is the only formation that can inarguably be shown to have a model name specified(clearly spyder is argued, and eldar farseer could just be a clarification that that option it absolutely allowed: since the warlocks on jetbikes are also specified). Which itself could simply be intended as a restriction/requirement that wasn't listed in restrictions(i believe the suppression force formation may be the first to list a required minimum additional model(s) as a "restriction".

Breton wrote:
Oh. Bad choice. The Strike Force Ultra IS limited to one Venerable Dread model. In this formation more than any other they really are talking the model not the unit. Bad call on the supporting evidence choice

This is how I see it:
- number in Formation list
- possiblility of taking Dreads in squadrons
- other Formations list that allows to take squadrons of Vehicles (by saing "Unit of")
I understand that they meant 1 model, yet still directing to Army List Entry (because that is how Formations lists works).

It IS exactly the same as Canoptek Harvest Fromation. This wasn't example to contradict that kind of writing.
It is example of how you should read Formation lists. Rule tells you to read it as Army List Entry regardles if it points 1 model or 1 unit.

It is a matter of attitude. If you want to read it "wrong way" you will and call GW stupid. If you understand what is what (because of previous rules) you will read it the way it should be.

Also everything what Kommissar Kel said. +1

Yes I can see real problem in Grey Knight Brotherhood Formation.
Still, just because 1 codex has1 wrong writing is not an excuse to transfer this "bug" to any other Codex and use it as example to undermine the rules.

Venerable Dreadnoughts are no longer upgrades to normal Dreadnoughts; so doesn't really support the supposed rai argument for the Captain.

Imo:

RAW: yes, it can be upgraded to a chapter master, since it is in the captains army list entry.

RAI: no idea, but maybe we'll get a faq one day that will tell us.

Hiwpi: I'm not going to be making much use of the gladius, but I would allow my opponents to upgrade to chapter master.

 Crazyterran wrote:
Venerable Dreadnoughts are no longer upgrades to normal Dreadnoughts; so doesn't really support the supposed rai argument for the Captain.

It is argument that in ANY CASE you should read it as an Army List Entry not model name.
Some just say that because it is 1 Venerable Dreadnought not 1 Venerable Dreadnoughts it refers to model name not Army List Entry thus 1 Captain may suggest 1 model Captain.

Which is against the rules.

It's clear RAW that you can upgrade him to a CM.

Whether its RAI or not, we may never know...

I'd say the named exclusions are just representative that those guys are too busy to lead a company.

I just found out about this clarification on the FAQ released and I was shocked that chapter master can't be used in demi-company.

I've been letting my friend use his (in every list) for the past 2 years!! With no issue...it's not game breaking and quite surprising.

Today I just wanted to research this online and see if this was ever argued and lo and behold Dakka never disappoints lol

Does everyone that called this right feel vindicated once GW said 'no chapter master!' ?

Because my next question is...does this same ruling apply to every other formation that has a Captain requirement? I can't find a single formation that specifically allows a chapter master so does this mean only in CAD?

Holy necro batman!!

When a thread is almost two years old, best thing to do is start a new one.

Indeed, best to let sleeping threads lie. Thanks