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.

Wasn't really that dead a thread, I don't consider it Necromancy and over something of an interesting little puzzle at that.

The Restriction is very much based on which Faction the Unit is chosen from, not which Codex or Supplement, so the information you heard was correct. Couple this with the instructions informing us that Supplements are considered the same Faction as their mother Codex and we have permission to mix and match Supplement and Codex Units within a single Detachment. This creates a interesting and unique problem however as certain Restrictions within those Codex's or Supplements name the Detachment as part of the clause. Given that we have zero instructions on how to tell if something is a 'Farsight Enclave Detachment,' for example, and we now have Restrictions which technically can never be met.....

Yay, Game Workshop!

There is some advise that I will give people in this situation, the first most being simply avoid the problem by not having Mixed Detachments in the first place. If anyone does want to put both Codex and Supplement in a single Faction, at the very least decide at the List Building stage which type of faction it will be and obey the Restrictions accordingly. The vast majority of the times it is not much of an issue because we are going to want access to the Restricted Rules for both books, meaning the only way to proceed without clearly breaking one Restriction or the other would be two completely separate Detachments in the first place. Honestly though, I can't think of a very good and legal reason to combine detachments because it has to obey a Restriction in the first place.

Haven't used allies yet but wouldn't you just play an unbound army and go from there?

Actually it is good you bring that up, I am away from the Library right now so I can't get the exact wording so I need to ask:
Does it state that the Primary Detachment consists of all Units in the Warlord's Faction or does it state Supplement / Codex?

It could actually be a very damaging Rule for Unglued Armies, as it could force players to decide if their entire Army is going to be from one Book or the other. At the very least it would force them to ensure the models they selected from the other book do not violate any of the Restrictions put forth within the other. For example, it would be a bad idea to have a Tau Empire Warlord with a Command and Control Node in the same Army as the Eight as the moment they become the 'Primary Detachment' the Army has been fielded even though one of the Characters within has an illegal War-gear load out. It also raises the question if there would be a timing issue involved as well, the list is technically legal right up to the point a warlord is selected....

Personally:
I don't find the bonuses for being Battle-Forged to be all that great and the flexibility of Unglued Armies is much a lure to Narrative and Wacky Lists.
I have a concept which is nothing more then Building and a very lonely Tau Firebrand with a broom... actually might make it an Ethereal, those have even less combat ability!