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.

Can you take one on the new auxiliary formations even if you don't take a core formation?

Yes, every formation, whether core or auxiliary is still a formation. You can take them without having to take a Hunter Contingent. You don't get the benefits from the Hunter or Dawn Blade Contingents obviously, but you can absolutely legally make your entire army list a CAD with one or more formations attached, make it nothing but formations, or make it all one single formation.

 GI_Redshirt wrote:
Yes, every formation, whether core or auxiliary is still a formation. You can take them without having to take a Hunter Contingent. You don't get the benefits from the Hunter or Dawn Blade Contingents obviously, but you can absolutely legally make your entire army list a CAD with one or more formations attached, make it nothing but formations, or make it all one single formation.

Indeed, just make sure that it actually IS a Formation by looking at the datasheets between the Lords of War Role units and the Armoury. Just because it is a Choice in a Contigent/Decurion/Strike Force/Warhost, does not necessarily make it a Formation.

I know a lot of people made this mistake when the Necron's Decurion came out, so it is good to be aware.

Charistoph wrote:

 GI_Redshirt wrote:
Yes, every formation, whether core or auxiliary is still a formation. You can take them without having to take a Hunter Contingent. You don't get the benefits from the Hunter or Dawn Blade Contingents obviously, but you can absolutely legally make your entire army list a CAD with one or more formations attached, make it nothing but formations, or make it all one single formation.

Indeed, just make sure that it actually IS a Formation by looking at the datasheets between the Lords of War Role units and the Armoury. Just because it is a Choice in a Contigent/Decurion/Strike Force/Warhost, does not necessarily make it a Formation.

I know a lot of people made this mistake when the Necron's Decurion came out, so it is good to be aware.

Can you give an example?

SJ

Star-God, Deathmarks and Flayed Ones in a Decurion are not Formations.

jeffersonian000 wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 GI_Redshirt wrote:
Yes, every formation, whether core or auxiliary is still a formation. You can take them without having to take a Hunter Contingent. You don't get the benefits from the Hunter or Dawn Blade Contingents obviously, but you can absolutely legally make your entire army list a CAD with one or more formations attached, make it nothing but formations, or make it all one single formation.

Indeed, just make sure that it actually IS a Formation by looking at the datasheets between the Lords of War Role units and the Armoury. Just because it is a Choice in a Contigent/Decurion/Strike Force/Warhost, does not necessarily make it a Formation.

I know a lot of people made this mistake when the Necron's Decurion came out, so it is good to be aware.

Can you give an example?

Ghaz gave some from the Decurion:

Ghaz wrote:Star-God, Deathmarks and Flayed Ones in a Decurion are not Formations.

Space Marines have their Command Choice Strike Force Command as just a Choice, not a Formation.

Eldar have Heroes of the Craftworlds, Living Legends, Outcasts, Engines of Vaul, and Wraith Construct Choices which are not listed as Formations.

For Dark Angels, it is the Inner Circle Choice which is not a Formation option.

I do not have access to the Kau'yon or Mont'ka, so I cannot go in to theirs, but the standard concept is in place and easy to extrapolate.

On a related note, was there a formation for Crisis suits and isn't Farsight Enclave still a valid book? Will there be an update to that?

Naw wrote:
On a related note, was there a formation for Crisis suits and isn't Farsight Enclave still a valid book? Will there be an update to that?

Retaliation Cadre.

Farsight Enclave is probably still technically valid, but this effectively replaces it.

Ah right, I knew that. Was looking for FE specific but that will do, especially since it comes with a commander.

Naw wrote:
On a related note, was there a formation for Crisis suits and isn't Farsight Enclave still a valid book? Will there be an update to that?

The FE supplement is no longer valid. Mont'ka is the new edition. Will there be another update to the supplement specifically, it was rumored Q1, but who knows at this point.

Mont'ka allows you to take ANY tau detachment as FE, with all the rules for it. So essentially you can have a CAD or any TE formation be FE

Specifically there are two main crisis suit formations.

Retaliation: Commander, 3 crisis, Riptide
*Name escapes me.. quick response idk*: stealth suits, 3 crisis, riptide

 Grizzyzz wrote:
The FE supplement is no longer valid.

Source?

Charistoph wrote:

jeffersonian000 wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 GI_Redshirt wrote:
Yes, every formation, whether core or auxiliary is still a formation. You can take them without having to take a Hunter Contingent. You don't get the benefits from the Hunter or Dawn Blade Contingents obviously, but you can absolutely legally make your entire army list a CAD with one or more formations attached, make it nothing but formations, or make it all one single formation.

Indeed, just make sure that it actually IS a Formation by looking at the datasheets between the Lords of War Role units and the Armoury. Just because it is a Choice in a Contigent/Decurion/Strike Force/Warhost, does not necessarily make it a Formation.

I know a lot of people made this mistake when the Necron's Decurion came out, so it is good to be aware.

Can you give an example?

Ghaz gave some from the Decurion:

Ghaz wrote:Star-God, Deathmarks and Flayed Ones in a Decurion are not Formations.

Space Marines have their Command Choice Strike Force Command as just a Choice, not a Formation.

Eldar have Heroes of the Craftworlds, Living Legends, Outcasts, Engines of Vaul, and Wraith Construct Choices which are not listed as Formations.

For Dark Angels, it is the Inner Circle Choice which is not a Formation option.

I do not have access to the Kau'yon or Mont'ka, so I cannot go in to theirs, but the standard concept is in place and easy to extrapolate.

But those are each unit selections.

SJ

Yes, they are. Not all of the Auxiliary choices in a Decurion are formation. Some of them are just units. The same applies to the other super detachments such as the Gladius, etc.

jeffersonian000 wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 GI_Redshirt wrote:
Yes, every formation, whether core or auxiliary is still a formation. You can take them without having to take a Hunter Contingent. You don't get the benefits from the Hunter or Dawn Blade Contingents obviously, but you can absolutely legally make your entire army list a CAD with one or more formations attached, make it nothing but formations, or make it all one single formation.

Indeed, just make sure that it actually IS a Formation by looking at the datasheets between the Lords of War Role units and the Armoury. Just because it is a Choice in a Contigent/Decurion/Strike Force/Warhost, does not necessarily make it a Formation.

I know a lot of people made this mistake when the Necron's Decurion came out, so it is good to be aware.

Can you give an example?

SJ

I believe the symbol you need to look for to tell if its a stand alone formation is the 3 heads in a circle? I need to look again. But yes, Ghaz is right. Some auxiliary are formations and some are just a fill in unit that you can take as part of a Tau contingent or similar decurian

Ghaz wrote:

 Grizzyzz wrote:
The FE supplement is no longer valid.

Source?

I guess we can sit here and argue all day that technically nothing says the old FSE:supplement is invalid. However, its very clear that Mont'ka rules for FSE do not align with the older supplement, and therefore would overrule the older supplement where the rules do not align. Which is about all of them... so for the sake of language IMO, makes the old supplement invalid.

 Grizzyzz wrote:
However, its very clear that Mont'ka rules for FSE do not align with the older supplement, and therefore would overrule the older supplement where the rules do not align.

Again, source?

 Ghaz wrote:

 Grizzyzz wrote:
However, its very clear that Mont'ka rules for FSE do not align with the older supplement, and therefore would overrule the older supplement where the rules do not align.

Again, source?

My source is Mont'ka .. ?

There are clear rules that are written differently..

FSE:sup -

FSE is a detachment that follows all the normal detachment rules etc etc

crisis suits can be taken as troops - but you must have one 3 man crisis team

characters can take sig systems.. and riptides are allowed too

listing of all the "eight" as standalone HQ choices

Mont'ka -

FSE is special. ANY TE detachment can now be an FSE force and follow all the rules there of

crisis suits are troops period. no requirement to take one squad of 3 or any at all

super unfortunate right now.. however, characters can take sig systems, HOWEVER it does not list the caveat for riptides, so they do not have access to ECPA currently

listing for "the eight" is its own formation which includes all of them

So explain to me how the old FSE supplement is still valid, rather then just ask me for a source?

So you've not provided anything that says that the old Farsight Enclaves supplement is no longer valid and you've not provided anything that says newer rules override older rules.

The same source that tells us the current Eldar codex supersedes the previous codices.

 Ghaz wrote:
So you've not provided anything that says that the old Farsight Enclaves supplement is no longer valid and you've not provided anything that says newer rules override older rules.

And you have still not provided any information that says I am wrong.. guess we are at an impasse.

Additionally, what is there to gain by fighting for the validity of the old supplement?

I'm not the one making unfounded claims. You said that the Farsight supplement is no longer valid. What says it is no longer valid? You said newer rules override older rules. What says that newer rules override older rules?

You're the one who's making unsupported statements, not me. All I'm doing is asking you to actually support your claims, which so far you've failed to do.

 Ghaz wrote:
I'm not the one making unfounded claims. You said that the Farsight supplement is no longer valid. What says it is no longer valid? You said newer rules override older rules. What says that newer rules override older rules?

You're the one who's making unsupported statements, not me. All I'm doing is asking you to actually support your claims, which so far you've failed to do.

The Mont'ka updates the FE rules, FE CAD now only requires 2 single model Crisis units as troops. Plus changes to "The Eight" formation.
I would say that invalidates anything older.

Except where does GW state that? They don't, and that's the whole point. GW never comes out and tells us what rules are current and which have been replaced by newer rules. They leave it up to the players, and different play groups will have different opinions on the matter. Declaring a book invalidates another is just a house rule.

 Ghaz wrote:
Except where does GW state that? They don't, and that's the whole point. GW never comes out and tells us what rules are current and which have been replaced by newer rules. They leave it up to the players, and different play groups will have different opinions on the matter. Declaring a book invalidates another is just a house rule.

Do you still use 6th edition rulebook?

 Ghaz wrote:
Except where does GW state that? They don't, and that's the whole point. GW never comes out and tells us what rules are current and which have been replaced by newer rules. They leave it up to the players, and different play groups will have different opinions on the matter. Declaring a book invalidates another is just a house rule.

So I can build an army out of a CAD of 5th edition Necrons plus a Decurion detachment? Cool. Welcome back 3++ resurrecting bargelord, full power tesla annihilation barges, and cheap Scythes with min warrior troops. Say hello to the Canoptek Harvest and the Destroyer Cult.

And you totally missed the point I see. Do you have a written rule that says I can't? As long as both players agree, then yes I can.

I'm sure if both players agreed you could use 2nd edition eldar.

Ok, didn't realize Mont'ka contains rules for FE. Thought it only had the formations.

 Ghaz wrote:
And you totally missed the point I see. Do you have a written rule that says I can't? As long as both players agree, then yes I can.

If a player says he can use an older source than the most current, then so can I.

Players refrain from doing this precisely so I cannot similarly mix/match older codexes with newer codexes.

Naw wrote:
I'm sure if both players agreed you could use 2nd edition eldar.

Ok, didn't realize Mont'ka contains rules for FE. Thought it only had the formations.

I can recommend the War Zone Damocles Limited Edition issue, contains everything from Kauyon and Mont'ka and you get all the updated rules and formations in a separate book.

Or then I will just use my original supplement and print the formations from the net? If there is no new content, why bother re-buying the book?

Speaking of the enclaves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHAqoM7gclg