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.

DW new codex question:

formations "strategium command team" and "watch company" must both include kill team formations within them. Will the kill team retain it's command benefit while gaining the "upper layer" of strategium command team/watch company formations?

It's basically formations within formations, which is detachments within detachments, which is illegal.

7th ed ruleset says formations are a kind of detachments and that units cannot belong to more than one detachment at the same time. But if you rule it this way, the command team mentioned above cannot possibly exist; there are only two ways here
1/ if a unit that is within a kill team is ruled as part of a kill team formation => it belongs to two detachments at the same time = > game broken.
2/ if unit is ruled as being in a strategium team formation => it doesn't belong to the kill team any more => the kill team formation cannot exist as it doesn't include a mandatory unit => game broken.

Argument can also be made that kill teams are not formations, they are kill teams... let me know what you guys think.


quotes from rules as source:

7th ed ruleset, under "detachments":
"There is no limit to the number of Detachments a Battle-forged army can include and you can use any mixture of Detachments you have available, within the restrictions of the rules that follow. However, all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more than one Detachment. If you choose to use a Battle-forged army, you must tell your opponent what units belong to what Detachments and what Command Benefits each will receive (if any) before you start deploying your army."

7th ed ruleset, under "formations": "Formations are a special type of Detachment, each a specific grouping of units renowned for their effectiveness on the battlefields of the 41st Millennium. Whilst some Formations provide you with all the gaming information you will need to use them in your games, it is not uncommon for them simply to describe a number of special rules that apply when you include several specific units together. Instead of including a Force Organisation chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain. Unless stated otherwise, each individual unit maintains its normal Battlefield Role when taken as part of a Formation."


EDIT:

note that in chapions of fenris SW codex supplement there is a formation "champions of fenris", which has this special rule:
"The units in this Formation retain all of the special rules specified in the corresponding Formation datasheets. In addition, the following special rules apply:(...)"
it solves the formation within a formation conundrum there, but there is nothing like it for kill teams within formations in the DW codex (other than a paragraph above blackspear strike froce)
"Although units cannot normally belong to more than one Detachment, units from a Formation that is part of a Blackspear Strike Force are an exception. They count as part of both their Formation and the Detachment, and have all associated Command Benefits and special rules."


EDIT2: been thinking about this and my conclusion is that kill team retains it's benefits because codex overwrites basic rule set; otherwise it all simply breaks.
strategium command team/watch company formations doesn't necessarily have to be part of Blackspear strike force though.

I am too lazy to get into the nitty gritty of the RAW, but I firmly believe that yes they retain the benefits of being a kill team formation within a larger formation. I think its obviously RAI and codex rules override general rulebook rules anyways. Personally I think its obvious.

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:
I am too lazy to get into the nitty gritty of the RAW, but I firmly believe that yes they retain the benefits of being a kill team formation within a larger formation. I think its obviously RAI and codex rules override general rulebook rules anyways. Personally I think its obvious.

oh it's obvious alright if we're talking RAI, I didn't even notice the problem for some time. Speaking RAW though the only way it can work is through overwrite, which would be fine if there was actually something (over)written... as it was in champions of fenris.

Vargares wrote:

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:
I am too lazy to get into the nitty gritty of the RAW, but I firmly believe that yes they retain the benefits of being a kill team formation within a larger formation. I think its obviously RAI and codex rules override general rulebook rules anyways. Personally I think its obvious.

oh it's obvious alright if we're talking RAI, I didn't even notice the problem for some time. Speaking RAW though the only way it can work is through overwrite, which would be fine if there was actually something (over)written... as it was in champions of fenris.

In the same codex we have combat squading being available for veteran squads, but not shown on the entry for them as they are in codex space marines even though its the exact same mechanic. It was an over site obviously. Speaking of oversights how about the fun fact that the relic Bane Bolts of (insert name here) give a listing for stalker bolter profile when it is 100% literally impossible to equip a stalker bolter on any character in the entire codex who can take a relic.

I think its an oversight and anyone who claimed otherwise is silly.

Vargares wrote:
DW new codex question:

formations "strategium command team" and "watch company" must both include kill team formations within them. Will the kill team retain it's command benefit while gaining the "upper layer" of strategium command team/watch company formations?

It's basically formations within formations, which is detachments within detachments, which is illegal.

....

EDIT:

note that in chapions of fenris SW codex supplement there is a formation "champions of fenris", which has this special rule:
"The units in this Formation retain all of the special rules specified in the corresponding Formation datasheets. In addition, the following special rules apply:(...)"
it solves the formation within a formation conundrum there, but there is nothing like it for kill teams within formations in the DW codex (other than a paragraph above blackspear strike froce)
"Although units cannot normally belong to more than one Detachment, units from a Formation that is part of a Blackspear Strike Force are an exception. They count as part of both their Formation and the Detachment, and have all associated Command Benefits and special rules."


EDIT2: been thinking about this and my conclusion is that kill team retains it's benefits because codex overwrites basic rule set; otherwise it all simply breaks.
strategium command team/watch company formations doesn't necessarily have to be part of Blackspear strike force though.

I should note that "Formations in Formations" have been around since at least Strike Force Ultra was introduced, or maybe one of the Leviathan books (I can't remember which one came first), but they were first introduced in 6th Edition and have had the same standard written in them all since then. In each of those it gave specific permission to include all the special rules detailed in each of the corresponding Formation datasheets. None of these super-formations every stated that they were part of two detachments. The Decurion/Strike Force-style Choice Detachments also work on this principle, except they specifically note that each of the units are part of both the Formation detachment and the overall Detachment as well.

If such a caveat has not been noted for these super-formations anywhere in the book (they may not be specifically noted on the datasheet, but noted elsewhere due to GW formatting), then I can only operate under the standard that the listed Formations are unit lists only, and not including those Formations' Special Rules or Restrictions. It is the only possible result which does not cause a processing fault as noted by the detachment rules you have already quoted. Basic vs Advanced does not technically apply if they are not stating that the individual Formations continue as detachments or keep their Special Rules.

That having been said, it could have been an oversight by not including the caveat in the rules. They have missed a few caveats that were previously standard in codices in the last few years (Imperial Guard Platoons, Necron Night Scythes and Jump Infantry capacity, to name a couple). It also could be that caveat is in an odd place that neither you or anyone near you has noticed. GW is notorious for doing that with their rules.

I apologize, but since I do not have a copy of the book to reference, I cannot get in to the nitty-gritty very well.

All of the nesting egg detachments like eldar warhost, gladius, decision, etc that I have seen contain ruless in the section for the parent detachment that allows for the formations within that detachment to use both bonuses, they reference it is not normally allowed but that it is an exception. I would check the rules for the parent detachment.

 Charistoph wrote:

I should note that "Formations in Formations" have been around since at least Strike Force Ultra was introduced, or maybe one of the Leviathan books (I can't remember which one came first), but they were first introduced in 6th Edition and have had the same standard written in them all since then. In each of those it gave specific permission to include all the special rules detailed in each of the corresponding Formation datasheets. None of these super-formations every stated that they were part of two detachments. The Decurion/Strike Force-style Choice Detachments also work on this principle, except they specifically note that each of the units are part of both the Formation detachment and the overall Detachment as well.

If such a caveat has not been noted for these super-formations anywhere in the book (they may not be specifically noted on the datasheet, but noted elsewhere due to GW formatting), then I can only operate under the standard that the listed Formations are unit lists only, and not including those Formations' Special Rules or Restrictions. It is the only possible result which does not cause a processing fault as noted by the detachment rules you have already quoted. Basic vs Advanced does not technically apply if they are not stating that the individual Formations continue as detachments or keep their Special Rules.

That having been said, it could have been an oversight by not including the caveat in the rules. They have missed a few caveats that were previously standard in codices in the last few years (Imperial Guard Platoons, Necron Night Scythes and Jump Infantry capacity, to name a couple). It also could be that caveat is in an odd place that neither you or anyone near you has noticed. GW is notorious for doing that with their rules.

blaktoof wrote:
All of the nesting egg detachments like eldar warhost, gladius, decision, etc that I have seen contain ruless in the section for the parent detachment that allows for the formations within that detachment to use both bonuses, they reference it is not normally allowed but that it is an exception. I would check the rules for the parent detachment.

Don't know about the others but the eldar codex basically says the same thing as DW:

eldar: "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 the Detachment, and have all associated Command Benefits and special rules."

deathwatch: "Although units cannot normally belong to more than one Detachment, units from a Formation that is part of a Blackspear strike force are an exception. They count as part of both their Formation and the Detachment, and have all associated Command Benefits and special rules."

It's all good in eldar codex beacuse there are only 2 layers there, RAW is logical.
The thing is though, in DW codex you've got one layer more. There are formations that have to contain formations, which can make up the strike force detachment. So 3 layers. You can also use the 'formation within a formation' on its own, not as part of the blackspear strike force that contains the exception for the rules.

So RAW states that there is an overwrite for the first two top layers (?), while a few pages later there are two middle layers that have to contain a bottom layer (and can be used on their own without the overwrite).

At this point RAW breaks, because even if you state that the bottom layer units are part of the top layer, they are not part of the required bottom layer and therefore it can't exist, if the bottom layer can't exist then the middle layer can't exist either as the requirements are not met as well. If you say units form bottom layer formation are part of this formation, they are also a part of middle layer because it contains the bottom layer, and there can be no units that belong to more than one detachment unless stated otherwise.

The benefits are junctioned with the formation that the unit is part of (the unit has to be a part of detachment to get the benefits, it's a result of being a part of formation if I'm getting this right), so there is really no way to somehow "split" the benefits if one contains the other without breaking the RAW for detachments.

RAI, I think it's obvious they made a mistake there, forgot to include a paragraph as they did for SW.
RAW in DW codex though, this is a textbook paradox.

Vargares wrote:
So RAW states that there is an overwrite for the first two top layers (?), while a few pages later there are two middle layers that have to contain a bottom layer (and can be used on their own without the overwrite).

At this point RAW breaks, because even if you state that the bottom layer units are part of the top layer, they are not part of the required bottom layer and therefore it can't exist, if the bottom layer can't exist then the middle layer can't exist either as the requirements are not met as well. If you say units form bottom layer formation are part of this formation, they are also a part of middle layer because it contains the bottom layer, and there can be no units that belong to more than one detachment unless stated otherwise.

The benefits are junctioned with the formation that the unit is part of (the unit has to be a part of detachment to get the benefits, it's a result of being a part of formation if I'm getting this right), so there is really no way to somehow "split" the benefits if one contains the other without breaking the RAW for detachments.

RAI, I think it's obvious they made a mistake there, forgot to include a paragraph as they did for SW.
RAW in DW codex though, this is a textbook paradox.

It doesn't necessarily have to break. The Formations listed are set up the same as the unit list, and that is to what I was stating that if they don't get to include those lesser Formations' Special Rules/Restrictions, all it can be is a quick method of listing the units in a list that already exists and those lesser Formations do not count as Detachments at all.

I do think that either someone was asleep on the job or the Drunken Monkeys were allowed near the keyboard again, though, if these super-formations are not allowed to include the lessers' rules in them.

 Charistoph wrote:

It doesn't necessarily have to break. The Formations listed are set up the same as the unit list, and that is to what I was stating that if they don't get to include those lesser Formations' Special Rules/Restrictions, all it can be is a quick method of listing the units in a list that already exists and those lesser Formations do not count as Detachments at all.

I do think that either someone was asleep on the job or the Drunken Monkeys were allowed near the keyboard again, though, if these super-formations are not allowed to include the lessers' rules in them.

possibly, but my point is that those special command benefits are not even the root of the problem here. If set A has to contain set B and no elements from any set can belong to more than one set... it's just... error.

It's Drunekn Monkeys alright.

Vargares wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

It doesn't necessarily have to break. The Formations listed are set up the same as the unit list, and that is to what I was stating that if they don't get to include those lesser Formations' Special Rules/Restrictions, all it can be is a quick method of listing the units in a list that already exists and those lesser Formations do not count as Detachments at all.

I do think that either someone was asleep on the job or the Drunken Monkeys were allowed near the keyboard again, though, if these super-formations are not allowed to include the lessers' rules in them.

possibly, but my point is that those special command benefits are not even the root of the problem here. If set A has to contain set B and no elements from any set can belong to more than one set... it's just... error.

It's Drunekn Monkeys alright.

Formations do not have Command Benefits. As I said, the super-formation is not recognizing the lesser Formations as an actual detachment, but as a specific unit list already available.