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,

Just a really basic question, if I take an unbound detachment with a bunch of formations, do I still get the benefits of my formations?

For example, if I take a reclamatin legion, a canoptek harvest, but then throw in a ghost ark because why not, do I still have the benefits of the first two formations?

Yes. Unbound armies lose their Command Benefits (the special rules granted by CAD-style force organization charts) but not the special rules granted by Formations (which are just generally headed under "special rules").

You could make that army battle forged by just taking the ark as a DT to the warriors though

You can't mix unbound and bound detachments. An army is either unbound or bound. So you organise your units into detachments like formations or CADs etc. Or you can stick everything unbound. You can't have your cake and eat it.

 General Kroll wrote:
You can't mix unbound and bound detachments. An army is either unbound or bound. So you organise your units into detachments like formations or CADs etc. Or you can stick everything unbound. You can't have your cake and eat it.

Your are specifically given permission to use formations (and get their special rules) in unbound

 CrownAxe wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:
You can't mix unbound and bound detachments. An army is either unbound or bound. So you organise your units into detachments like formations or CADs etc. Or you can stick everything unbound. You can't have your cake and eat it.

Your are specifically given permission to use formations (and get their special rules) in unbound

Where?

In every single codex I own (that have formations) it states that you may ONLY use formations as part of a battle forged army. And in the BRB it gives you a stark choice, unbound OR battle forged.

 General Kroll wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:
You can't mix unbound and bound detachments. An army is either unbound or bound. So you organise your units into detachments like formations or CADs etc. Or you can stick everything unbound. You can't have your cake and eat it.

Your are specifically given permission to use formations (and get their special rules) in unbound

Where?

In every single codex I own (that have formations) it states that you may ONLY use formations as part of a battle forged army. And in the BRB it gives you a stark choice, unbound OR battle forged.

It's in the rules for Formations in the BRB

"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."

 CrownAxe wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:
You can't mix unbound and bound detachments. An army is either unbound or bound. So you organise your units into detachments like formations or CADs etc. Or you can stick everything unbound. You can't have your cake and eat it.

Your are specifically given permission to use formations (and get their special rules) in unbound

Where?

In every single codex I own (that have formations) it states that you may ONLY use formations as part of a battle forged army. And in the BRB it gives you a stark choice, unbound OR battle forged.

It's in the rules for Formations in the BRB

"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."

Good old GW contradicting themselves. It seems completely counter intuitive to be able to benefit from detachment rules in an unbound army. Especially when all the codices tell you to only select formations as part of a battle forged army.

 General Kroll wrote:
Good old GW contradicting themselves. It seems completely counter intuitive to be able to benefit from detachment rules in an unbound army. Especially when all the codices tell you to only select formations as part of a battle forged army.

Mind providing a rules quote to back up your claims that GW is contradicting themselves?

 Ghaz wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:
Good old GW contradicting themselves. It seems completely counter intuitive to be able to benefit from detachment rules in an unbound army. Especially when all the codices tell you to only select formations as part of a battle forged army.

Mind providing a rules quote to back up your claims that GW is contradicting themselves?

Sure :

Codex Harlequins, and Space Marines

"You can include formations presented in this section as part of a battle forged army"

So are they saying the formations in these codices can't be part of unbound lists? It seems so to me.

 General Kroll wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:
Good old GW contradicting themselves. It seems completely counter intuitive to be able to benefit from detachment rules in an unbound army. Especially when all the codices tell you to only select formations as part of a battle forged army.

Mind providing a rules quote to back up your claims that GW is contradicting themselves?

Sure :

Codex Harlequins, and Space Marines

"You can include formations presented in this section as part of a battle forged army"

So are they saying the formations in these codices can't be part of unbound lists? It seems so to me.

That is a permission, not a restriction. Nothing in that statement says you CAN'T use formation in unbound, nor does it say you can ONLY use formations in battleforged

Beaten to the punch and said better.

Why say it at all then? Surely if there's already a stipulation in the rule book, then there's no need to repeat it...and limit it to a single type of army (battle forged) when writing the codex.

It seems to me that by stating it here, they are making a clear delineation that the formations here are meant only for battle forged armies.

 General Kroll wrote:
Why say it at all then? Surely if there's already a stipulation in the rule book, then there's no need to repeat it...and limit it to a single type of army (battle forged) when writing the codex.

It seems to me that by stating it here, they are making a clear delineation that the formations here are meant only for battle forged armies.

If that is what it was trying to say it would have said so. It would have said "The formations can ONLY be taken in a battle forged army"

It doesn't say that though. It is only restating permission to take formations in battle forged armies (which may be redundant but that's what it's doing). It does nothing to restrict those formations from Unbound

 General Kroll wrote:
Why say it at all then? Surely if there's already a stipulation in the rule book, then there's no need to repeat it...and limit it to a single type of army (battle forged) when writing the codex.

It seems to me that by stating it here, they are making a clear delineation that the formations here are meant only for battle forged armies.

You do realise you're trying to examine GW under logic right?

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:
Why say it at all then? Surely if there's already a stipulation in the rule book, then there's no need to repeat it...and limit it to a single type of army (battle forged) when writing the codex.

It seems to me that by stating it here, they are making a clear delineation that the formations here are meant only for battle forged armies.

You do realise you're trying to examine GW under logic right?

I know, it's fun isn't it

 General Kroll wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:
Why say it at all then? Surely if there's already a stipulation in the rule book, then there's no need to repeat it...and limit it to a single type of army (battle forged) when writing the codex.

It seems to me that by stating it here, they are making a clear delineation that the formations here are meant only for battle forged armies.

You do realise you're trying to examine GW under logic right?

I know, it's fun isn't it

It can be, other times it can be IQ dropping.
Tread with caution Good Sir.

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:
You could make that army battle forged by just taking the ark as a DT to the warriors though

I did not at all think of that. That would make more sense ha.

Thanks all for answering my question!