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.

Hi all,

So I was playing a game yesterday and an odd scenario came up:

I casually mentioned that I had a dual CAD list. My opponent said that, while he would overlook it for this game, he did not believe this was legal, though he accepted that you could take an allied or formation detachment. He said that our local GW manager agreed with him.

This sounded odd to me as I always thought you could take whatever detachments you liked as long as they were legal and came within the points allowance.

Am I missing something?

Only in Tournaments that don't allow it and other places that specifically ban it. It is legal according to the rulebook, anyone that says differently is using a House Rule.

Unless there's a house rule at the store, you aren't missing anything. Dual CAD is totally legal.

If you are playing a bound army, that army can be made up of as many Detachments as you wish (A CAD being a type of detachment)

Only houserules or your opponent can stop you, essentially.

Ok, cheers guys

"There is no limit to the number of Detachments a Battle-forged army can include and you can use any mixture of Detachments you have available..." -RB p118, 'Detachments'

"You can include any number and type of Detachments in a Battle-forged army provided you have sufficient units." -RB p120, 'Selecting Detachments'.

Your opponent either had no idea what he was talking about, or he was using house rules that he didn't bother to tell you about.

 Cheexsta wrote:
"There is no limit to the number of Detachments a Battle-forged army can include and you can use any mixture of Detachments you have available..." -RB p118, 'Detachments'

"You can include any number and type of Detachments in a Battle-forged army provided you have sufficient units." -RB p120, 'Selecting Detachments'.

Your opponent either had no idea what he was talking about, or he was using house rules that he didn't bother to tell you about.

^This, really.
I imagine they might have their heads in a 6th edition mindset still.
In 6th you could only take dual primary detachments (now CADs) at 2000+ points.
In 7th, as long as you fill the required amount (1HQ 2 troops in this case), you could take 1000 CADS providing it also fits inside your points limit.


You cannot however take an Allied Detachment (the rulebook's 1HQ 1 Troop) if it has the same faction as your Primary Detachment (the one with your warlord).
Your opponent may have been thinking Allied Detachment (again, from the rulebook) = allied detachment (or allies), the "slang" name for any detachment that's not your Primary.

Barring house rules and points limits, nothing.

Some people are still stuck in 6th Edition, it seems.

 Cheexsta wrote:
"There is no limit to the number of Detachments a Battle-forged army can include and you can use any mixture of Detachments you have available..." -RB p118, 'Detachments'

"You can include any number and type of Detachments in a Battle-forged army provided you have sufficient units." -RB p120, 'Selecting Detachments'.

Your opponent either had no idea what he was talking about, or he was using house rules that he didn't bother to tell you about.

"There is no limit to the number of Detachments a Battle-forged army can include"

It can't really be more explicit. Just show them the Rulebook.

For completions sake, Horus Heresy games using the Age of Darkness ruleset, still conform to the 6th ed style of one primary detachment and one allied detachment.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Cheexsta wrote:
"There is no limit to the number of Detachments a Battle-forged army can include and you can use any mixture of Detachments you have available..." -RB p118, 'Detachments'

"You can include any number and type of Detachments in a Battle-forged army provided you have sufficient units." -RB p120, 'Selecting Detachments'.

Your opponent either had no idea what he was talking about, or he was using house rules that he didn't bother to tell you about.

"There is no limit to the number of Detachments a Battle-forged army can include"

It can't really be more explicit. Just show them the Rulebook.

To be fair, while I agree with all the replies in this thread 99.95% it could actually be more explicit. It does not necessarily follow that from "There is no limit to the number of Detachments a Battle-forged army can include and you can use any mixture of Detachments you have available..." you can take a repeat of any given detachment. For example If I said "There is no limit to the number of shirts Jimmy can wear at once and Jimmy can wear any mixture of shirts he has available." it does not mean jimmy must be capable of wearing the same shirt twice.

Most of us never interpreted it that way because when 7th edition launched with just the 2 types of detachments it was clearly a silly interpretation. A new player picking up he book for the 1st time today and being presented with literally dozens of detachment options might not see it as silly.

While I agree 100% the intent is clear, you may take duplicate detachments, it is not explicitly stated.

 DJGietzen wrote:

To be fair, while I agree with all the replies in this thread 99.95% it could actually be more explicit. It does not necessarily follow that from "There is no limit to the number of Detachments a Battle-forged army can include and you can use any mixture of Detachments you have available..." you can take a repeat of any given detachment. For example If I said "There is no limit to the number of shirts Jimmy can wear at once and Jimmy can wear any mixture of shirts he has available." it does not mean jimmy must be capable of wearing the same shirt twice.

Most of us never interpreted it that way because when 7th edition launched with just the 2 types of detachments it was clearly a silly interpretation. A new player picking up he book for the 1st time today and being presented with literally dozens of detachment options might not see it as silly.

While I agree 100% the intent is clear, you may take duplicate detachments, it is not explicitly stated.

Any number of detachments without any specific limitation listed is rather explicit, don't you think?

Perfectly legal.

Charistoph wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

To be fair, while I agree with all the replies in this thread 99.95% it could actually be more explicit. It does not necessarily follow that from "There is no limit to the number of Detachments a Battle-forged army can include and you can use any mixture of Detachments you have available..." you can take a repeat of any given detachment. For example If I said "There is no limit to the number of shirts Jimmy can wear at once and Jimmy can wear any mixture of shirts he has available." it does not mean jimmy must be capable of wearing the same shirt twice.

Most of us never interpreted it that way because when 7th edition launched with just the 2 types of detachments it was clearly a silly interpretation. A new player picking up he book for the 1st time today and being presented with literally dozens of detachment options might not see it as silly.

While I agree 100% the intent is clear, you may take duplicate detachments, it is not explicitly stated.

Any number of detachments without any specific limitation listed is rather explicit, don't you think?

It's not explicit at all. It's very clear, but the ability to take two of the same detachment is implicit rather than explicit, but in order to be explicit it would need to actually say "Note you can take more than one instance of a given detachment, such as the Combined Arms Detachment."

Of course, this is referring to an undefined set (the set of all detachments available) so implicit rules are actually more appropriate than explicit ones here.

Aelyn wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

To be fair, while I agree with all the replies in this thread 99.95% it could actually be more explicit. It does not necessarily follow that from "There is no limit to the number of Detachments a Battle-forged army can include and you can use any mixture of Detachments you have available..." you can take a repeat of any given detachment. For example If I said "There is no limit to the number of shirts Jimmy can wear at once and Jimmy can wear any mixture of shirts he has available." it does not mean jimmy must be capable of wearing the same shirt twice.

Most of us never interpreted it that way because when 7th edition launched with just the 2 types of detachments it was clearly a silly interpretation. A new player picking up he book for the 1st time today and being presented with literally dozens of detachment options might not see it as silly.

While I agree 100% the intent is clear, you may take duplicate detachments, it is not explicitly stated.

Any number of detachments without any specific limitation listed is rather explicit, don't you think?

It's not explicit at all. It's very clear, but the ability to take two of the same detachment is implicit rather than explicit, but in order to be explicit it would need to actually say "Note you can take more than one instance of a given detachment, such as the Combined Arms Detachment."

Of course, this is referring to an undefined set (the set of all detachments available) so implicit rules are actually more appropriate than explicit ones here.

The general permission is explicit. You may take any number of detachments. The lack of restriction is implicit.

Why is general permission not considered explicit?

Because the general permission to which you are referring is not stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt, because it is not stated at all.
You're realizing this permission, to take two of the same detachment, exists because you are making a reasonable deduction.

 DJGietzen wrote:
Because the general permission to which you are referring is not stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt, because it is not stated at all.
You're realizing this permission, to take two of the same detachment, exists because you are making a reasonable deduction.

I'm sorry that "any number" isn't explicit enough for you. The only reason it would be inexplicit is if you were trained to see "any number" as anything but infinite.

Charistoph wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
Because the general permission to which you are referring is not stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt, because it is not stated at all.
You're realizing this permission, to take two of the same detachment, exists because you are making a reasonable deduction.

I'm sorry that "any number" isn't explicit enough for you. The only reason it would be inexplicit is if you were trained to see "any number" as anything but infinite.

In all fairness, DJGietzen isn't wrong. Explicitly stating that you can take multiples of the same detachment is unambiguous. Saying you can take any number of detachments leaves the door open for a "can I take multiples of the same" question.

Having said that, the BRB is very clearly worded. The only reason this is still an issue this far into 7th edition is that people already "know" how armies are built from previous editions. Confirmation bias trips them up and they can't understand 7th because it's a bid departure from 6th and older.

 Kriswall wrote:
In all fairness, DJGietzen isn't wrong. Explicitly stating that you can take multiples of the same detachment is unambiguous. Saying you can take any number of detachments leaves the door open for a "can I take multiples of the same" question.

That depends on your training. Courtesy almost demands asking if you can take more even with no limit stated, especially when there were limitations in the past. It's one of the reasons people instinctively put the "one" in "choose which to use".

The English is explicit. It is only we who put the ambiguousness in to it.