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.

Hey all,
I've done a bit of a search but couldn't find an answer, though this must have been asked before...

I'm starting to get into the gaming aspect of 40K rather than just the fluff. I'm having a real blind spot with Formations and whether they are bound or unbound, or if either of these apply at all.

If I get a force together made up of 3 formations, for the sake of argument one from each of the Eldar codices, is this unbound? Would they still get their formation special rules?

If the force is made up of 3 formations, all from one codex, is this battle-forged? Would they still get their formation special rules?

If in either of the above the forces in question fulfil the requirements for the combined arms detachment would they be battle-forged? Would they still get their formation special rules?

Any help you all could provide would stop me for using a cheese grater to get at the itch this is giving my brain....
W

The only requirement to have a battle-forged list that all of your units are in some form of a detachment. Formations are a kind of detachment so yes it would be battle forged. Combined Arms Detachments have nothing to do with battle forged.

And even if it were unbound you'd still get the formation bonuses,

 Weyrell wrote:
Hey all,
I've done a bit of a search but couldn't find an answer, though this must have been asked before...

I'm starting to get into the gaming aspect of 40K rather than just the fluff. I'm having a real blind spot with Formations and whether they are bound or unbound, or if either of these apply at all.

If I get a force together made up of 3 formations, for the sake of argument one from each of the Eldar codices, is this unbound? Would they still get their formation special rules?

If the force is made up of 3 formations, all from one codex, is this battle-forged? Would they still get their formation special rules?

If in either of the above the forces in question fulfil the requirements for the combined arms detachment would they be battle-forged? Would they still get their formation special rules?

Any help you all could provide would stop me for using a cheese grater to get at the itch this is giving my brain....
W

Formations are a type of detachment, just like Combined Arms Detachment is.
Your units cannot be in more than one detachment, and all of them have to be in a detachment for your army to be Bound.

And that's all there really is to it.

so
1) No, since all three are in a detachment each, that's a bound list.
2) Yes, for the same reason as above, that's bound.
3) You choose what detachment they are a part of. If you choose that X and Y units are a part of the Combined Arms Detachment, then they cannot also count towards the Formation.

I believe this is an accurate reference and it may help:

Just to throw this out there. You can choose to make an Unbound list of nothing but Formations. There is no reason to but it is an option.

So, OP.

1 and 2. Can be battle-forged or unbound. Battle-forged has a restriction that all units must be in a detachment (which you meet), Unbound has no (inherent) restrictions (again which you meet).
3. Units can only belong to a single detachment. If you have 3 formations giving you 4 troops, 2 HQ and an Elite, you would not have a CAD. To have a CAD you must have units as part of that detachment.

 Happyjew wrote:
You can choose to make an Unbound list of nothing but Formations.

Not really no.. a Formation is a type of Detachment, if everything is in a Formation then everything is in a Detachment meaning it's a Battle-Forged list.

When making an army you choose whether you want to make an unbound army or a battleforged army. this is before considering any formations/detachments or models.

Formations are a different kind of detachment.
When you make a battle-forged army. You choose to organize your models in any combination of detachments and formations. No model may be fielded outside of a detachment/formation. But you can mix and match any number of detachments/formations across the entirety of GW's range. Each detachment/formation provides certain special rules to the models within it. The restrictions to allies only apply once your on the table top itself. (except for things like the allied detachment ofc, that has a restriction on its faction.)

When you make an unbound army. You choose to organize your models "individually", across the entirety of GW's range. You may not use detachments. You may , however, choose to use any number of formations, which, again, will provide the models within any special rules that the formation specifies.

hurtmypony wrote:

I believe this is an accurate reference and it may help:

I was hoping this would already be up. Super useful.

It was posted already, and only covers battle-forged.

Because Unbound lets you build however you want. There wouldn't be any point in having a picture for it, really.

I think what confuses a lot of people is how the codex organizes units into battle field roles, such as troops and elites.

But then the newer detachments and formations don't use that at all. Currently the only time the battlefield role matters, is if your using a detachment similar to the combined arms detachment.

Like in the new eldar codex. Wratihguard may not be troops. But that doesn't stop you from using only wraithhost formations so that in the end, the only non wraith unit you have are the different spirit seers. While still being a battle-forged army.
Which, doesn't really say anything at all. Going battle-forged simply limited you to using multiple wraithhosts instead of just taking wraithguard and nothing else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 the_kraken wrote:
Because Unbound lets you build however you want. There wouldn't be any point in having a picture for it, really.

But that's the thing. Unbound doesn't mean you can build your list any way you want. It means you CAN'T use detachments, but MAY use formations. It's not complete anarchy lol.

Considering a battle forge army can take any number of CADs, what is the point of an allied detachement. The only diffrence is one less troop tax, but you only get 1/3 of everything else

 Flame-Rage wrote:
Considering a battle forge army can take any number of CADs, what is the point of an allied detachement. The only diffrence is one less troop tax, but you only get 1/3 of everything else

maybe you just want that one heavy support choice from another army. Now you just need to add 1 HQ and 1 Troop to get it instead of 2 Troops.

Roknar wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 the_kraken wrote:
Because Unbound lets you build however you want. There wouldn't be any point in having a picture for it, really.

But that's the thing. Unbound doesn't mean you can build your list any way you want. It means you CAN'T use detachments, but MAY use formations. It's not complete anarchy lol.

You could potentially build an Unbound army just as you would a Battle Forged army, detachment pattern and all. You wouldn't get the perks of a detachment, but you'd pretty much have one. You'd just have to declare your army as Unbound.

Unbound is supposedly meant for mixing and matching models of different factions so more people get a chance to play 40k regardless of what they have in their collection.

bullyboy wrote:

 Flame-Rage wrote:
Considering a battle forge army can take any number of CADs, what is the point of an allied detachement. The only diffrence is one less troop tax, but you only get 1/3 of everything else

maybe you just want that one heavy support choice from another army. Now you just need to add 1 HQ and 1 Troop to get it instead of 2 Troops.

I've used it once to get a tzeentch herald for the grimoire and get a nice cheap infiltrating objective secured troops choice. I wouldn't have been able to afford a second troops choice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 the_kraken wrote:

Roknar wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 the_kraken wrote:
Because Unbound lets you build however you want. There wouldn't be any point in having a picture for it, really.

But that's the thing. Unbound doesn't mean you can build your list any way you want. It means you CAN'T use detachments, but MAY use formations. It's not complete anarchy lol.

You could potentially build an Unbound army just as you would a Battle Forged army, detachment pattern and all. You wouldn't get the perks of a detachment, but you'd pretty much have one. You'd just have to declare your army as Unbound.

Unbound is supposedly meant for mixing and matching models of different factions so more people get a chance to play 40k regardless of what they have in their collection.

Yes, but like you said, you don't get the special rules, despite having the same units on the table. I for one see unbound lists as a means to do fluffy lists and/or campaigns. You know...forge the narrative *shudder*.
But mostly it's used to cherry pick the best units across various armies and build powerful armies, which is something I loathe. Like people seem to consider it normal to use knight titans in just about any army. I find that just plain wrong, but I don't blame GW for that.

Unbound lists are a great addition to the game, you just have to use them responsibly. As long as you play friendly games, the game is a lot more fun than people seem to make it out be on the forums.
But I'm starting to go dangerously off topic here