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.

If I take an Army made up of Formations, is that army classed as Unbound or Battle-Forged?

In the BRB, pg 117, it says that Battle-forged armies must use Detachments but strictly speaking, Formations aren't a Detachment..?

Formations are Detachments (First sentence of 'Formations' in the 'Choosing Your Army' section of the rulebook),

Just seen it, thanks!

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.

technically if your army is made up of just formations you can claim its unbound or battle forged.

I don't read it that way. All that says to me is that if you have a formation amidst the chaos of an Unbound army the units in the formation keep their special rules for being part of the formation. It doesn't indicate that an army composed of just formations can claim to be Unbound.

there's no restriction or requirement as to how much of a part that can be.

it can be 0%

or 100%

or between, as all are part of the army.

as such it is possible to have an unbound army made up of just formations

just as it is possible to have a bound army made up of just formations.

A formation is a detachment, so are you saying that an army consisting of nothing but detachments can be considered as an Unbound army?

 Ghaz wrote:
A formation is a detachment, so are you saying that an army consisting of nothing but detachments can be considered as an Unbound army?

Technically yes. However, you would not gain any Command Benefits.

Unbound is take what you want. Battle-forged has a restriction of requiring everything in a detachment, and the bonus of getting Command Benefits.


Of course with an all Formation army, there are no Command Benefits, and regardless of Unbound or Battle-forged, you still get Formation bonuses.


So I'm really not sure what the point in claiming the army is Unbound serves.

I'm not sure we have a choice, but it is an argument of semantics and the end result is identical regardless... so I do not see a point in it either.

yeah honestly there is no point, as it has the same rules under either title at that point.