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.

Good morning all,

I would like to include the current flavour of the month into my army. The Skyhammer Annihilation Force. However the twist is I don't want to abuse it with a tonne of grav and wondering why I have lost all my friends. I play Salamanders and, as such, think it is befitting to fill the dev squads with multi meltas. Now as it stands, due to the wording of Vulkans rule, they are a different detatchment so would not benefit from his master crafting goodness.

My question is twofold. If I took an unbound list with the Skyhammer does it still count as a separate detachment. I know this be the case in a CAD as the rules are very clear, not so clear on the properties of unbound though.

Question two, if I would still not benefit from Vulkans rule, I believe that taking the Skyhammer with ultramarine tactics is the closest I can get to what I want. Twin linked turn one, re-rolling ones turn two with the tactical doctrine (will also use a signum to boost one up). Is there any other/better solution to this issue that you have found (I think people with Pedro have similar issues with sternguard so your input is greatly appreciated here.)

Kind regards

Remember what rulebook says:
CHOOSING YOUR ARMY -> ARMY SELECTION METHODS
"The two main ways of organising an army are the Unbound method and the Battle-forged method. Both players need not use the same method."
You shouldn't surprise your opponent with different method.

I personally don't know how Formations work in Unbound armies.
To answer your question rules says:
"If you used the Unbound method, then once you choose your Warlord, every model in your army that has the same Faction as your Warlord is considered to be part of the Primary Detachment for all rules purposes."
All Space Marines in Vulkan's army will be in his Detachment, The Forgefather rule should work. But Formation is separate Detachment so The Forgefather rule shouldn't work on them

Nope the Primary detachment isn't a proper detachment otherwise you couldn't include Vulkan and say Pedro in unbound, also it would prevent you from taking any formations in unbound of the same faction as your warlord as units can't belong to two detachments. So I'd say Vulkan's rule doesn't work at all in unbound, so your best option (as is always the case with the Skyhammer) is to go UMs.

Question 2, yes, you can bring formations and keep all of their special rules. Don't got my hard copy handy, but...

BRB> choosing your army>command benifits> 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"

 FlingitNow wrote:
Nope the Primary detachment isn't a proper detachment otherwise you couldn't include Vulkan and say Pedro in unbound, also it would prevent you from taking any formations in unbound of the same faction as your warlord as units can't belong to two detachments. So I'd say Vulkan's rule doesn't work at all in unbound, so your best option (as is always the case with the Skyhammer) is to go UMs.

Somewhat correct.

Formations will always be separate detachments. Unbound does not change this (Gladius can, though). So since Vulkan cannot belong to a Skyhammer Formation, that Formation cannot be the Primary so long as Vulkan is Warlord.

However, non-Formation Devastators would benefit from a non-Formation Vulkan, since they are all in the same Detachment.

Charistoph wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Nope the Primary detachment isn't a proper detachment otherwise you couldn't include Vulkan and say Pedro in unbound, also it would prevent you from taking any formations in unbound of the same faction as your warlord as units can't belong to two detachments. So I'd say Vulkan's rule doesn't work at all in unbound, so your best option (as is always the case with the Skyhammer) is to go UMs.

Somewhat correct.

Formations will always be separate detachments. Unbound does not change this (Gladius can, though). So since Vulkan cannot belong to a Skyhammer Formation, that Formation cannot be the Primary so long as Vulkan is Warlord.

However, non-Formation Devastators would benefit from a non-Formation Vulkan, since they are all in the same Detachment.

So the primary detachment is a detachment right? That is what you're saying.

And we're told that all models with the same faction as Vulkan are part of this detachment. The models in the Skyhammer have the same faction as vulkan and thus belong to 2 detachments, thus it is illegal to field the skyhammer. Also your interpretation makes all battle forged lists illegal as what ever detach,went you nominate as the primary detachment will force all those units contained to be part of the primary detachment and whatever detachment they were bought for.

 FlingitNow wrote:
So the primary detachment is a detachment right? That is what you're saying.

That is what the rules state.

Though, admittedly, the concept of "Primary Detachment" is more a designator than an actual "detachment", and used more to identify the Warlord and make certain restrictions come in to play.

 FlingitNow wrote:
And we're told that all models with the same faction as Vulkan are part of this detachment. The models in the Skyhammer have the same faction as vulkan and thus belong to 2 detachments, thus it is illegal to field the skyhammer. Also your interpretation makes all battle forged lists illegal as what ever detach,went you nominate as the primary detachment will force all those units contained to be part of the primary detachment and whatever detachment they were bought for.

Didn't say it wasn't stupid in literal translation, just how it is written.

Though, admittedly, the concept of "Primary Detachment" is more a designator than an actual "detachment", and used more to identify the Warlord and make certain restrictions come in to play.

If it is just a designation rather than a proper detachment then nothing in unbound gets Vulkans rules, and the game works. Or the entire game breaks...

Certainly there is no interpretation that allows you to have some marine models in your army get the benefit and others not in an unbound army.

The language of the rules either presents a conflict (you may not choose a warlord with the same faction a formation it is not apart of in an unbound list) that can reasonbly be handled with playing as many would agree are the rules as intended, that all models of the same faction as your warlord except those in formation, count as your primary detachment in an unbound army.

Or another reasonable inturpritation is that, in an unbound army, models with the same faction as your warlord count as being part of the primary detachment for all rules purposes and retain thier rules from the formation datasheet but are only in a single detachment.

I would play it as option 2, its a more interesting interoritation.

The 3rd valid interpretation is that all models with the same faction as the warlord count as part of the Primary Detachment, but this is just a moniker for rules thatreferspecifically to the Primary Detachment and has nothing to to with detachments much like the Allied Detachment has nothing to do with allies. This follows all RaW and doesn't break Battleforged armies (as both of your interpretations do).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So in summary your options are:

1) The language of the rules presents a conflict (you may not choose a warlord with the same faction a formation it is not apart of in an unbound list) that can reasonbly be handled with playing as many would agree are the rules as intended, that all models of the same faction as your warlord except those in formation, count as your primary detachment. Thus Unbound is the only legal way to play and you can NEVER have units from more than one Codex chapter in the same army

2) Another reasonable inturpritation is that models with the same faction as your warlord count as being part of the primary detachment for all rules purposes and retain thier rules from the formation datasheet but are only in a single detachment. This requires inventing rules out of thin air. Also Unbound is the only legal way to play and you can NEVER have units from more than one Codex chapter in the same army

3) The 3rd valid interpretation is that all models with the same faction as the warlord count as part of the Primary Detachment, but this is just a moniker for rules thatreferspecifically to the Primary Detachment and has nothing to to with detachments much like the Allied Detachment has nothing to do with allies. This follows all RaW and doesn't break Battleforged armies (as both of your interpretations do). No rules are broken or invented. You can play battleforged armies and can mix chapters in Unbound. However detachment wide bonuses don't work as you don't take detachments in Unbound.

Obviously number 3 makes the most sense to me other players may real that it is illegal to play Battleforged armies and thus may choose options 1 or 2.

I thought it was clear we where only dscussing the unbound rules and clauses. I have edited my post.

We're talking about how the Primary Detachment works. Why would you treat it differently in Unbound and Battleforged? How do you treat it in Battleforged

 FlingitNow wrote:
We're talking about how the Primary Detachment works. Why would you treat it differently in Unbound and Battleforged? How do you treat it in Battleforged

No, I'm talking about what models are in your primary detachment. Why would I treat it differently? Because how what models are in a primary detachment is determined differently depending on if the army was created using the battle-forged method or the unbound method. I treat them differently because that's what the rules require me to do.

 DJGietzen wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
We're talking about how the Primary Detachment works. Why would you treat it differently in Unbound and Battleforged? How do you treat it in Battleforged

No, I'm talking about what models are in your primary detachment. Why would I treat it differently? Because how what models are in a primary detachment is determined differently depending on if the army was created using the battle-forged method or the unbound method. I treat them differently because that's what the rules require me to do.

Oh sorry didn't think there was any confusion as to what models qre in your primary detachment. For a battleforged army this is all the models that are in the same detachment as your Warlord. In Unbound this is all the models that share the same faction as your warlord.

So with that cleared up. Is the primary detachment a detachment that triggers all detachment rules (and thus makes battleforged an illegal way to build an army), or is it simply a designation that applies to certain models/units based on your Warlord section (hence does not trigger detachment based rules and we can play battleforged but Unbound armies don't benefit from detachment based rules excepting formations)?

I don't understand your question. How would anything mentioned in this thread 'make battleforged an illegal way to build an army'?

 DJGietzen wrote:
I don't understand your question. How would anything mentioned in this thread 'make battleforged an illegal way to build an army'?

Models cannot be in two detachments. Yet, a Warlord must start in a detachment. This means that they are in both the Primary detachment and whatever Detachment they were purchased in.

But as I said earlier, Primary is more of a designation than an actual Detachment. It doesn't have an actual FOC or unit list, just the requirement of the Warlord.

The 'primary detachment' is just a designation to denote which detachment contains the army's Warlord. It's not an actual detachment as it doesn't have a Force Organization chart, Command Benefits, etc.

Ah, I see. A primary detachment is not a type of detachment. It is a quality a detachment might have not unlike having a collar is quality a shirt might have. The statement that Mike is wearing a collared shirt tells us 2 facts. 1st that Mike is wearing a shirt, and 2nd that it has a collar. The same is true for unbound armies. The statement that all models that share a faction with your warlord count as being in your primary detachment tells us 1st all those models count as being in a detachment, and 2nd that it is a primary detachment.

Primary Detachment doesn't have to relate to a detachment. It relates to a grouping of models. In a Battleforged army your Primary Detachment refers to the group of models in the same detachment as your Warlord, in Unbound it refers to the group of models with the same Faction as your Warlord.

So in essence think of the Primary Detachment as the "Primary Collection", and that the use of the word Detachment has no relation to the detachment rules, much like the Allied Detachment has nothing to do with the Allies rules.

So saying these models are in my primary detachment does not mean those models are in a detachment.