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.

considering the rules for formations specifically says the units in them gain the special rules for the formation if the formation is used in an unbound army I feel that you are 100% incorrect in saying that any clarification is needed.

it says right there "unbound, may use formations, and they get the special rules"

Do Command Benefits count as Special Rules?
While one could easily state a Rule of 'Models in an Unbound Fortifications Gain X' is more specific then a Rule of ' Unbound Models do not gain Y,' there still has to be a direct line proving that X and Y are the same thing.
Without that connection any Restriction preventing Y can still be obeyed while granting X.

JinxDragon wrote:
Do Command Benefits count as Special Rules?
While one could easily state a Rule of 'Models in an Unbound Fortifications Gain X' is more specific then a Rule of ' Unbound Models do not gain Y,' there still has to be a direct line proving that X and Y are the same thing.
Without that connection any Restriction preventing Y can still be obeyed while granting X.

Formations:
"Unlike other Detachments, Formations can also be taken as part of Unbound armies. If they are, their units maintain the special rules gained for being part of the formation"

Command Benefits:
"This section of the Detachment lists any special rules or benefits that apply to some or all of the models in that detachment. For example, the units in a CAD benefit from the Ideal Mission Commander and Objective secured special rules."

...yet specifically you do NOT gain any command benefits. Which is more specific. So you don't gain them.

I do not disagree that they are special rules, however they are a subset of all special rules, so the restriction is more specific than the allowance

..yet formations are a special type of detachments, so the formation rules allowance are more specific than the general detachment rules restrictions.

ie general rules restrict things, special things overcome the restrictions

This is for my clarification, not meant to be instruction or argumentative. This is my reading. If you see an error, be so kind as to point it out with a page number.

Here it is:

UNBOUND:
- You may take any model as many times you want as long as it's in your faction (codex or WD or whatever). Orks with Orks. AM with AM etc.
- You may take a Formation as a part of an unbound list.
- You may take "The Ork Warband" and it will retain "Boss of Da Waaagh!", "The Greenskin Hordes", and "Stampede." However you would lose "Stampede" if the Warboss is not taken as the Unbound Army's "Warlord." And you might lose "Boss of Da Waaagh!" since I don't know if it would count as your "Primary Detachment in an Unbound list.

BATTLE FORGED:
- You may have as many detachements as you want, as long as they adhere to that faction's FOC.
- One must be the "Primary Detachment"
- Some detachements gain (or lose) special Command Benefits based on the Battle Forged arrangement.
- Combined Arms Detachment receives "Objective Secured" and "Ideal Mission Commander" (IMC). However it must be the primary detachment to receive IMC.
- Allied Detachment receives "Objective Secured" and cannot be the primary detachment.
- Ork Warband Detachment receives "The Greenskin Hordes" and "Boss of Da Waaagh!" (BoDW!). However it doesn't receive BoDW! if it is not the primary detachment. Furthermore, it does not receive "Objective Secured" nor "Ideal Mission Commander." ... Much to my chagrin.

 doktor_g wrote:
- You may take any model as many times you want as long as it's in your faction (codex or WD or whatever). Orks with Orks. AM with AM etc.

There's no faction restriction. Take models from every Codex if you want in an unbound force.

- You may have as many detachements as you want, as long as they adhere to that faction's FOC.

Detachments come with their own FOC's. It has nothing to do with factions.

 doktor_g wrote:
.

Here it is:

UNBOUND:
- You may take any model as many times you want as long as it's in your faction (codex or WD or whatever). Orks with Orks. AM with AM etc.
- You may take a Formation as a part of an unbound list.
- You may take "The Ork Warband" and it will retain "Boss of Da Waaagh!", "The Greenskin Hordes", and "Stampede." However you would lose "Stampede" if the Warboss is not taken as the Unbound Army's "Warlord." And you might lose "Boss of Da Waaagh!" since I don't know if it would count as your "Primary Detachment in an Unbound list.

This actually brings up a good point, in unbound when you choose your Warlord and any models of the same faction are considered part of the primary detachment. This means if you have multiple ork formations, they will all be considered primary right?

blaktoof wrote:
..yet formations are a special type of detachments, so the formation rules allowance are more specific than the general detachment rules restrictions.

ie general rules restrict things, special things overcome the restrictions

No. In general rules provide permission. That is how the game is constructed.

You have not shown how the more specific rule is less specific.

detachments is not more specific than formations.

that's like looking in a codex and saying troops is more specific than tactical marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leerjawise wrote:

 doktor_g wrote:
.

Here it is:

UNBOUND:
- You may take any model as many times you want as long as it's in your faction (codex or WD or whatever). Orks with Orks. AM with AM etc.
- You may take a Formation as a part of an unbound list.
- You may take "The Ork Warband" and it will retain "Boss of Da Waaagh!", "The Greenskin Hordes", and "Stampede." However you would lose "Stampede" if the Warboss is not taken as the Unbound Army's "Warlord." And you might lose "Boss of Da Waaagh!" since I don't know if it would count as your "Primary Detachment in an Unbound list.

This actually brings up a good point, in unbound when you choose your Warlord and any models of the same faction are considered part of the primary detachment. This means if you have multiple ork formations, they will all be considered primary right?

yes, but the non formation orks cannot gain command benefits or restrictions as per the entry for detachments regarding unbound.

Erm, not what I stated. Try again

Rules governing ALL special rules are by definition more general than rules governing SOME special rules. Indisputable.

So your saying that you are wrong, got it.

blaktoof wrote:
So your saying that you are wrong, got it.

Your concession is accepted, as you have failed to follow the tenets

Got it.

If you have a battle forged army, your army is made of detachments.

A special subset of detachments is formations.

If you have an unbound army you take whatever you want and all models with the same faction as your armies warlord are considered to be in that same primary detachment, but as they are unbound they receive no command benefits or restrictions.

If you take a battleforged list models receive the command benefits for the detachment/formation they are bought from only.

Those are the rules for detachments in unbound and battleforged.

then we look at formations which is a special form of the general detachment.

Formations specifically word for word RAW says "Unlike other Detachments, Formations can also be taken as part of Unbound armies. If they are, their units maintain the special rules gained for being part of the Formation."

Therefore yes RAW you get them, and there is no valid argument for not receiving them.

If we look under command benefits it lists ideal mission commander and objective secured as "special rules" as neither of these rules are specifically listed in the special rules section we are left with their rules in the command section and the RAW under the rules for command section stating they are special rules therefore command benefits = special rules and RAW unbound can take formations and RAW formations in unbound retain their special rules.

There is no rational arguing with this plain RAW from the BRB.

I highly suggest you reread the rules as you seem to believe that formations are the general rule and detachments are special type of formation, which is not the case. It is actually RAW the opposite where the general rule is detachments, and the special circumstance/exception is formations.

No. In fact I specifically stated the opposite, never mentioning detachments as being more general. That is entirely your fabrication.

RAW all special rules of a formation are less specific than just those special rules that are command benefits. You most civically CANNOT gain command benefits.

You are making a different argument, one that ignores that command benefits are a dump set of all special rules, and thus more specific.

so you believe the raw, that is plainly written

Unlike other Detachments, Formations can also be taken as part of Unbound armies. If they are, their units maintain the special rules gained for being part of the Formation

For example, the units in a Combined Arms Detachment benefit from the Ideal Mission Commander and Objective Secured special rules.

in the rulebook, word for word is incorrect.

and the part that lists some command benefits and specifically says they are special rules, is incorrect.

I cant find any wording for dump special rules, or special special rules, or general special rules. Nor any reference anywhere that some special rules are more special then other less specific special rules.

A quote from any rules?