Garrisons
It is quite possible that the given formation might end up in the same advanced location later in the game, reduced in size as the result of enemy action. Put another way, I think we can consider Garrisoning in advanced positions as a means of getting the players involved in the battle some time after it actually started. As an aside, older forum members will remember the extensive debate on garrisoning that culminated in the imposition of the limit on the number of formations that may start on OW.

Consequently I suggest that the concept of discarding units to permit a formation to Garrison actually *has* been rigorously tested, albeit under battlefield conditions; and is "fair" because the opponent is given advanced notice of the intention and starts his formations off at full strength (where these might have suffered some battle damage if we consider the game to be the continuation of the battle).

Starting in Transports
I believe it is this part that people are finding uncomfortable, and perhaps where we should concentrate the discussion.

I think the Wraithguard example is somewhat of a red herring; the Eldar lists all have Storm Serpents which can be used to deliver the upgraded Guardian formation to the same place; and at full strength as well!

A more reasonable example might be to consider how Orks can abuse the use of the Landa. For example buy a small mob, upgrade with 4x Dreadnoughts and discard the boys to fit inside - a 380 point air assault formation with 2x nobs, 2x grots and 4x dreadnoughts. Alternatively, buy 8x Killa cans for a 400 point air assault formation with 2x nobs, 2x grots and 8x Killa cans.

The issue with the above is that the Ork AV walkers cannot be transported by other means, so are much less likely to be able to get into the same advanced position (the Ork Drop Rock is currently unnofficial, and the Battlecruzer is slow and steady). Obviously the resulting air assault with up to 8x extra MW attacks will be very potent. However, the player has spent ~20% of his 3K total on two formations, and still runs the risk of the Landa being shot down. Also, the opponent knows the air assault is coming and can set up his forces to receive them.

So, are there any other 'abusive' examples in those lists with air-transports, how can they be 'abused' and what are the real concerns on "fairness"
(even though all is 'fair' in Love and war )

I'm finding myself generally agreeing with you Gavin; whilst these formation compositions are undoubtedly new and could provide surprises to opponents unfamiliar with the idea, like you I'm struggling to see them as "abusive".

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

IMO, the issue of whether any one specific example constitutes "abuse" or not is ultimately not worth debating at this point, because there doesn't seem to be agreement on whether the practice in general is within the rules. If it is, then lists must be take this into account with balancing and that is the time at which individual examples should be analysed. First I think we should establish unequivocally if it is actually "legal". This is where the sense of unfairness/abuse is coming from I think - not from "formation X is too powerful if you drop Y from it", but from "hey, I didn't think you could do that!". And clearly a significant number of people don't think it is right.

So, the rules:

As far as I can see, the garrison and war engine transport rules provide clear and explicit restrictions on a formation, and the units in a formation are explicitly defined in the army lists. Whatever your opinion on what the rules should say, there is no provision at all in the rules for being able to choose which units from the formation will be deployed. So, we must look to the army lists to determine what the make-up of a formation can be. Amongst the official lists, the Codex Astartes list in the rulebook has an explicit rule covering rhinos and drop pods (and, crucially, only these units - no leaving tacticals behind for example). Beyond this limited scope, it seems blatantly obvious to me that the units in the formation are determined according to the army list, and the only case where an official army list allows units to be omitted is the Ork Warband, which has a Boyz upgrade that comes with "optional" Grotz. In the absence of any other definition it must be assumed that "optional" means they may either included in the army roster or not, which in the context of a tournament implies that the choice is made at force construction, but beyond this I see no ambiguity.

So as far as I can see, the only way leaving guardians behind is legal in the rules as written is if the NetEA list has a rule specifically allowing it. Now, if people think that the rules are wrong and should be changed, overruled, etc, that is something else entirely. Personally it doesn't seem worth the confusion to make such a change - are there really widespread examples of where this should have been allowed to begin with, and are broken unless it is so? For example the issue of "I've only got 7 more bikes" - can this not be either handled on a case by case basis, or FAQ'd separately?

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

Ginger, I don't think that the wraithguard example is a red herring at all. The other deployment options cost more points (250pts minimum, for a single Storm Serpent) and can be nullified by the opponent quite easily. Finagled wraithguard+guardian fms are easily as good as a 300pt Aspect fm (Biel tan) and better than 2 175pt Aspect fms (Ulthwe) in a Vampire.

I think that it's an excellent example with which to debate the merits of allowing players to leave parts of a formation behind to gain a new deployment option. I for one would happily drop my 4 strong Warpspider fm in a Vampire and take the finagled wraithguard+guardian fm instead - it's easily as good in assault, if not better, only costs 100pts more AND gives me 2 support slots (instead of using one up). What's not to like?

Were I to do this, I'd also take a 'normal' airdrop squad to put in the landa isntead if i think the AA is too strong. If not, I pull the switch and use the miniumu squad as a backfield catcher.

_________________
My shifting projects

Just to go back to the idea of garrisoning a single Griffon.... LatD can currently do this and to the best of my knowledge current players don't take this option up. I certainly hadn't thought of it.

it's not so useful when the latd have access to lovely amounts of artillery anyway

_________________
My shifting projects

All it takes is the opponent to put your objectives away from the centreline and you can't hit the opponent's deployment zone anymore, rendering the lone megagriffon pretty useless looking. Can't see it as abusive.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

And IG haven't?

i was thinking of the 4 basalisk formation specifically. less of an investment, still dangerous.

_________________
My shifting projects

Perhaps it has but that isn't the issue being discussed here

Indeed but that has been tested as part of the development of the army list. Its not the same thing at all. In fact we're currently discussing deployment options that clearly haven't been tested so its the exact opposite of your example.

The rules aren't clear, as evidenced by the different practices people are stating they use. There is not going to be any unequivocal determination based on RAW because we are into the realm of implications, historical comments and interpretation.

This is going to require us to make a call, so examining the results is important.

Sounds as if it needs to be tested.