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.

Does my canoptek harvest units get a +1 rp roll if they're taken in addition to decurion, ie - not in a formation detachment?

Are they a part of a Detachment with the 'Ever-living' Command Benefit?

Veryance wrote:
Does my canoptek harvest units get a +1 rp roll if they're taken in addition to decurion, ie - not in a formation detachment?

Jeez. People really need to stop taking BattleScribe as actual rules. There is no "Formation detachment" outside of Battlescribe.
If the Canoptek Harvest is a legal choice for a Decurion detachment and you've selected it as such, all units in the CH will benefit from the Decurion detachment as is explained in the section where the Decurion detachment is described. It will tell you that - as an exception to the normal rules - these units are allowed to benefit from both the Formation and the detachment.

nekooni wrote:
There is no "Formation detachment" outside of Battlescribe.

Incorrect. All Formations are detachments. It is probably a good identifier when that same Formation can be taken as a choice for another Detachment.

 Charistoph wrote:

nekooni wrote:
There is no "Formation detachment" outside of Battlescribe.

Incorrect. All Formations are detachments. It is probably a good identifier when that same Formation can be taken as a choice for another Detachment.

I was obviously refering to the Detachment called "Formation" within BattleScribe. I know very well that Formations are detachments, still there isn't a detachment called Formation. And if you could drop the really rude "Incorrect" you've apparently grown to like so much that would be much appreciated.

nekooni wrote:

Veryance wrote:
Does my canoptek harvest units get a +1 rp roll if they're taken in addition to decurion, ie - not in a formation detachment?

Jeez. People really need to stop taking BattleScribe as actual rules. There is no "Formation detachment" outside of Battlescribe.

Bully for you for having an encyclopedic knowledge of the minutiae of warhammer rules, for the the rest of us who are new and learning, battlescribe is a godsend. That being said, warhammer rules are not the best written out there, so a lot of things warrant some discussion - hence the entire subsection of dakka dedicated to that very thing.

Anyway, since the decurion is broken into a separate category, I still am not sure if the auxiliary that I'm required to take benefits from the ever-living rule or not, as it only says "this detachment", which I guess is what I'm actually looking for clarification on.

The Decurion is a detachment.

But is decurion + aux the detachment, or decurion the detachment and aux is just out there?

Please see 'Choosing An Army', last paragraph in the 'Forces of the Necrons' section of the codex.

Veryance wrote:
But is decurion + aux the detachment, or decurion the detachment and aux is just out there?

The Decurion is the whole thing. Core plus command plus aux.

Thanks guys!

Veryance wrote:

nekooni wrote:

Veryance wrote:
Does my canoptek harvest units get a +1 rp roll if they're taken in addition to decurion, ie - not in a formation detachment?

Jeez. People really need to stop taking BattleScribe as actual rules. There is no "Formation detachment" outside of Battlescribe.

Bully for you for having an encyclopedic knowledge of the minutiae of warhammer rules, for the the rest of us who are new and learning, battlescribe is a godsend. That being said, warhammer rules are not the best written out there, so a lot of things warrant some discussion - hence the entire subsection of dakka dedicated to that very thing.

Anyway, since the decurion is broken into a separate category, I still am not sure if the auxiliary that I'm required to take benefits from the ever-living rule or not, as it only says "this detachment", which I guess is what I'm actually looking for clarification on.

I like BattleScribe, don't get me wrong. But it's a fanmade tool with fanmade repositories than simply aren't the rules, and some specifica of how BS treats certain things really mess with peoples perception of what the actual rules say - for example there's probably a ton of people out there who think that there's a "Fortification detachment" just because that's how Battlescribe handles it (they only do it that way to reduce maintenance work). And it leads to people simply not looking at the actual rules which would tell them that the only way to take a Fortification is to use a Detachment that has a Fortification slot. So taking three Canoptek Harvests with an ADL is simply not a Battleforged List but an Unbound one, for example.

That being said I've already answered your question. When you build a Decurion, anything that you choose as a Core, Command or Auxiliary choice is part of both the Decurion detachment and the Formation. But you're also allowed to take these Formations "solo", as their own Detachment outside of a Decurion. You can use this to build a list of a CAD and a Formation, or you can take this to build a full Decurion with it's choices and then another Formation as it's own detachment outside of the Decurion. I don't think that makes much sense in a Decurion, but it's possible.

nekooni wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

nekooni wrote:
There is no "Formation detachment" outside of Battlescribe.

Incorrect. All Formations are detachments. It is probably a good identifier when that same Formation can be taken as a choice for another Detachment.

I was obviously refering to the Detachment called "Formation" within BattleScribe. I know very well that Formations are detachments, still there isn't a detachment called Formation. And if you could drop the really rude "Incorrect" you've apparently grown to like so much that would be much appreciated.

Ah, you were referring to "Formation" as a proper noun instead of a more adjective reference. This was not made clear in your statement.

It is sad that you find "incorrect" as rude. I have found it to be emotionally ambivalent. You have since applied an emotional context to it that is not intended. I find it better to use that than more emotionally charged phrases that uses explicatives, especially when such emotion is not desired or intended. Think it like a robot providing the answer. It is not my fault you usually do not like what comes afterward.

 Charistoph wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

nekooni wrote:
There is no "Formation detachment" outside of Battlescribe.

Incorrect. All Formations are detachments. It is probably a good identifier when that same Formation can be taken as a choice for another Detachment.

I was obviously refering to the Detachment called "Formation" within BattleScribe. I know very well that Formations are detachments, still there isn't a detachment called Formation. And if you could drop the really rude "Incorrect" you've apparently grown to like so much that would be much appreciated.

Ah, you were referring to "Formation" as a proper noun instead of a more adjective reference. This was not made clear in your statement.

I thought that's what the capital F was there for, as well as the quotation marks. But I'm not a native speaker, so that probably wasn't translating well to English.

It is sad that you find "incorrect" as rude. I have found it to be emotionally ambivalent. You have since applied an emotional context to it that is not intended. I find it better to use that than more emotionally charged phrases that uses explicatives, especially when such emotion is not desired or intended. Think it like a robot providing the answer. It is not my fault you usually do not like what comes afterward.

No, it is not "sad". It's simply how I feel about it, there's no need to pity me for it - that's pretty condescending on it's own.
If you truly wanted to provide an "emotionally ambivalent" response, why not leave out the entirely content-free "Incorrect." ? Let your argument speak for itself.
I'm also not sure why you think that I "usually do not like what comes afterward" though. It's the way you scoff at the other sides argument first and only then deign to present a counterargument, not the argument itself that I dislike about many of your posts. Which is exactly what your "Incorrect." is all about, even if you claim to be "a robot providing the answer". We both know you aren't, and we both know you do it mainly to get a rise out of the other side.

nekooni wrote:
I thought that's what the capital F was there for, as well as the quotation marks. But I'm not a native speaker, so that probably wasn't translating well to English.

It is at times used that way, true. But to be fair, a lot of auto-correct sneaks in to writing these days which is partly why I did not associate a proper noun aspect to it.

Along with that, if it was detachment called Formation, it would be written as "Formation Detachment" with both words capitalized, such as Combined Arms Detachment and Allied Detachment, for future reference.

nekooni wrote:

It is sad that you find "incorrect" as rude. I have found it to be emotionally ambivalent. You have since applied an emotional context to it that is not intended. I find it better to use that than more emotionally charged phrases that uses explicatives, especially when such emotion is not desired or intended. Think it like a robot providing the answer. It is not my fault you usually do not like what comes afterward.

No, it is not "sad". It's simply how I feel about it, there's no need to pity me for it - that's pretty condescending on it's own.
If you truly wanted to provide an "emotionally ambivalent" response, why not leave out the entirely content-free "Incorrect." ? Let your argument speak for itself.
I'm also not sure why you think that I "usually do not like what comes afterward" though. It's the way you scoff at the other sides argument first and only then deign to present a counterargument, not the argument itself that I dislike about many of your posts. Which is exactly what your "Incorrect." is all about, even if you claim to be "a robot providing the answer". We both know you aren't, and we both know you do it mainly to get a rise out of the other side.

Considering that you are attributing to malice something that is not regularly attributed as such, I do have to wonder why you would hate it so. The only logical answer is that what comes after is hated or undesired and it has happened on numerous occasions.

I do not use "incorrect" to get a rise out of someone. If a rise was desired from someone it would be far easier and more efficient to use explicatives and reference someone else's demeanor or parentage. I have noted it being used in english/american literature, theater, television shows, and movies by beings that were devoid of emotions (mostly robots/androids). Those who were offended by it were either expecting an emotional attachment to the information that followed or were just unhappy/disagreeable with the information itself. That is the reason I have used it, for the lack of emotional connection.

 Charistoph wrote:
It is at times used that way, true. But to be fair, a lot of auto-correct sneaks in to writing these days which is partly why I did not associate a proper noun aspect to it.

Along with that, if it was detachment called Formation, it would be written as "Formation Detachment" with both words capitalized, such as Combined Arms Detachment and Allied Detachment, for future reference.

A detachment called Formation wouldn't be written "Formation detachment"? So the correct wording for a detachment called Gladius Strike Force wouldn't be called a "Gladius Strike Force detachment"? That sounds - wait for it - incorrect. But hey, technically a CAD would be a Combined Arms Detachment detachment, wouldn't it?

Considering that you are attributing to malice something that is not regularly attributed as such, I do have to wonder why you would hate it so. The only logical answer is that what comes after is hated or undesired and it has happened on numerous occasions.

I do not use "incorrect" to get a rise out of someone. If a rise was desired from someone it would be far easier and more efficient to use explicatives and reference someone else's demeanor or parentage. I have noted it being used in english/american literature, theater, television shows, and movies by beings that were devoid of emotions (mostly robots/androids). Those who were offended by it were either expecting an emotional attachment to the information that followed or were just unhappy/disagreeable with the information itself. That is the reason I have used it, for the lack of emotional connection.

I'm not sure what you're refering to as "numerous occasions". I've replied in such a way only once before, and I think I apologized back then for overreacting. Nor have I ever stated that I'd "hate" something, dislike is much different from it - I rather prefer you not misrepresenting what I've said.

I'm sure you're bright enough to know that using "explicatives" and referencing "someone else's demeanor or parentage" - in short: insulting people - is against the rules and would earn you at least warnings if not a timeout from the board, so it wouldn't be "easier". You should also be smart enough to differentiate between fiction and reality, and to realize a movie or a book does not necessarily show how real people behave or react.

But let me get back to my initial request: Do me a favor and drop the "Incorrect." - it adds nothing of value to any discussion at all, and your argument should (and usually does) speak for itself. There's really no need for it.

nekooni wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
It is at times used that way, true. But to be fair, a lot of auto-correct sneaks in to writing these days which is partly why I did not associate a proper noun aspect to it.

Along with that, if it was detachment called Formation, it would be written as "Formation Detachment" with both words capitalized, such as Combined Arms Detachment and Allied Detachment, for future reference.

A detachment called Formation wouldn't be written "Formation detachment"? So the correct wording for a detachment called Gladius Strike Force wouldn't be called a "Gladius Strike Force detachment"? That sounds - wait for it - incorrect. But hey, technically a CAD would be a Combined Arms Detachment detachment, wouldn't it?

Not as a full proper noun. Not to mention the OP's use of it would not make sense as a proper noun, as they were already identified as discussing the Canoptek Harvest and was indicating the difference between being a Choice of the Decurion and not.

So, worrying about something completely different was rather pointless and another reason I misunderstood the direction you were talking about.

nekooni wrote:

Considering that you are attributing to malice something that is not regularly attributed as such, I do have to wonder why you would hate it so. The only logical answer is that what comes after is hated or undesired and it has happened on numerous occasions.

I do not use "incorrect" to get a rise out of someone. If a rise was desired from someone it would be far easier and more efficient to use explicatives and reference someone else's demeanor or parentage. I have noted it being used in english/american literature, theater, television shows, and movies by beings that were devoid of emotions (mostly robots/androids). Those who were offended by it were either expecting an emotional attachment to the information that followed or were just unhappy/disagreeable with the information itself. That is the reason I have used it, for the lack of emotional connection.

I'm not sure what you're refering to as "numerous occasions". I've replied in such a way only once before, and I think I apologized back then for overreacting. Nor have I ever stated that I'd "hate" something, dislike is much different from it - I rather prefer you not misrepresenting what I've said.

I'm sure you're bright enough to know that using "explicatives" and referencing "someone else's demeanor or parentage" - in short: insulting people - is against the rules and would earn you at least warnings if not a timeout from the board, so it wouldn't be "easier". You should also be smart enough to differentiate between fiction and reality, and to realize a movie or a book does not necessarily show how real people behave or react.

But let me get back to my initial request: Do me a favor and drop the "Incorrect." - it adds nothing of value to any discussion at all, and your argument should (and usually does) speak for itself. There's really no need for it.

No. I will not. This is your problem, not mine. You are the one who thinks there is intended malice where there is none. Review your own thoughts and emotions and rectify the problem there, for that is where it lies.