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.

Simple question: if I bring Roboute Guilliman in the Oathsworn Detachment inside a War Convocation, can he be made my Warlord? The Oathsworn says it can never be my primary detachment, but would the War Convocation formation be my actual primary detachment and thus he can be chosen? I genuinely have no idea, so any help you can give is highly appreciated.

Whichever detachment has your warlord in is the primary detachment. Not choose a detachment to be primary then select your warlord from it

In this scenario both detachments would be considered primary

So no he can't be your warlord in that formation

Forgive me, but could you explain further? The main rule book makes it sound like you can only have one Primary Detachment. Where does it explain having multiples?

An Oathsworn detachment is essentially an Imperial Knights version of the Allied Detachment. You can't have a model from it be the Warlord.

I also feel like it's a little too cheeky to take Guilliman alone as an Imperial Knights detachment.

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
An Oathsworn detachment is essentially an Imperial Knights version of the Allied Detachment. You can't have a model from it be the Warlord.

I also feel like it's a little too cheeky to take Guilliman alone as an Imperial Knights detachment.

Why is that cheeky? He's allowed as a Lord of War in any imperial faction detachment.... and the oathsworn has a Lord of War slot.... I'm wanting a change to my war convocation gosh darnit!

Taking Rowboat that way is fine, he just can't be the Warlord.

Put simply it doesn't specify you can have more than one primary because you can have only one warlord.

Your primary detachment is the detachment with your warlord in.

In 99% if cases and all cases when the edition was first printed a model could only belong to one detachment

However now we have a model in two detachments

So what happens is your warlord in the detachment then it's your primary

pleasantnoodles wrote:

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
An Oathsworn detachment is essentially an Imperial Knights version of the Allied Detachment. You can't have a model from it be the Warlord.

I also feel like it's a little too cheeky to take Guilliman alone as an Imperial Knights detachment.

Why is that cheeky? He's allowed as a Lord of War in any imperial faction detachment.... and the oathsworn has a Lord of War slot.... I'm wanting a change to my war convocation gosh darnit!

Because it's an Imperial Knights formation that says all units must have Faction Imperial Knights. I don't see any mention of Guilliman being an Imperial Knight in his datasheet.

it's weird, cause the war convocation is a detachment, that would be the primary detachment, this also means that guiliman is actually in a war convocation detachment which can be used as a primary detachment.

In this case guliman can be the warlord.

Guliman is both in an oathsworn and a grand convocation. This means that his oathsworn cannot be used as a primary which is fine, but he is apart of a grand convocation which is.

Yes, he can actually be the warlord (as crazy as this sounds)

FYI: guliman can join any armies of the imperium detachment, regardless of their faction

Aspecti wrote:
Because it's an Imperial Knights formation that says all units must have Faction Imperial Knights. I don't see any mention of Guilliman being an Imperial Knight in his datasheet.

Combined Arms and Allied Detachments say all units must have the same or no Faction. In an Astra Militarum Combined Arms Detachment I don't see him having the Astra Militarum Faction. Is that cheeky too?

mchammadad wrote:
it's weird, cause the war convocation is a detachment, that would be the primary detachment, this also means that guiliman is actually in a war convocation detachment which can be used as a primary detachment.

In this case guliman can be the warlord.

Guliman is both in an oathsworn and a grand convocation. This means that his oathsworn cannot be used as a primary which is fine, but he is apart of a grand convocation which is.

Yes, he can actually be the warlord (as crazy as this sounds)

This is incorrect. Guilliman is in both the Oathsworn Detachment and the War Convocation. From 'The Primary Detachment':

"If you organise your army using the Battle-forged method, whichever Detachment contains your Warlord is your Primary Detachment."

Both the War Convocation and Oathsworn Deatchment contain your Warlord, which per the above makes them both your Primary Detachment. You have no permission to pick and choose which one of multiple Detachments containing your Warlord is the Primary Detachment.

I feel like this question is going to pop up a lot more common in games now..... needs an FAQ


also..... i feel like this war convocation is going to be in some serious legal limbo:

"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, within the
restrictions of the rules that follow. However, all of the units in your army must
belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more than one Detachment"

(From BRB: Detachments)

i know this rule is kinda irelevant cause of the three detachments in a single detachment thing. But would this mean that they would all be only war convocation since they can only pick one, hence they are only one detachment which nulls the other detachments.

(Since there is not a single clarification before the actual formation itself, you assume to use the BRB for their detachment?

War Convocation on its own isnt a detachment, its a Formation made up of Detachments

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
War Convocation on its own isnt a detachment, its a Formation made up of Detachments

War Convocation on its own IS a Detachment, because all Formations are a special kind of Detachment. It's a Detachment made up of other Detachments.

mchammadad wrote:
I feel like this question is going to pop up a lot more common in games now..... needs an FAQ


also..... i feel like this war convocation is going to be in some serious legal limbo:

"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, within the
restrictions of the rules that follow. However, all of the units in your army must
belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more than one Detachment"

(From BRB: Detachments)

i know this rule is kinda irelevant cause of the three detachments in a single detachment thing. But would this mean that they would all be only war convocation since they can only pick one, hence they are only one detachment which nulls the other detachments.

(Since there is not a single clarification before the actual formation itself, you assume to use the BRB for their detachment?

No, this is a case of advanced overriding basic rules. When this rule was put in the main rulebook we did not have detachments made up of detachments (detachments made up of formations, formations made up of detachments, etc.); those came about in subsequent codexes and supplements. These would be explicitly stated exceptions to the rule of belonging to only one detachment. If you have a detachment made up of smaller detachments (let's say a detachment made up of smaller formations), a unit belonging to the smaller formation would also belong to the larger detachment. If it did not, then none of the smaller formations would ever be able to use the larger detachment rules if you didn't count them as also belonging to the larger detachment. This would make those detachments worthless if treated that way.


This means you couldn't have Bobby G as an Oathsworn detachment in a War Convocation and make him your Warlord, as he counts as belonging to both and there's a restriction from one that he wouldn't be able to be a Warlord.

There are many guilliman questions requiring an faq this is not one.

Warcon is 1 detachment made up three small detachments that why units get both set's of special rules

He cannot be your warlord

 doctortom wrote:

mchammadad wrote:
I feel like this question is going to pop up a lot more common in games now..... needs an FAQ


also..... i feel like this war convocation is going to be in some serious legal limbo:

"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, within the
restrictions of the rules that follow. However, all of the units in your army must
belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more than one Detachment"

(From BRB: Detachments)

i know this rule is kinda irelevant cause of the three detachments in a single detachment thing. But would this mean that they would all be only war convocation since they can only pick one, hence they are only one detachment which nulls the other detachments.

(Since there is not a single clarification before the actual formation itself, you assume to use the BRB for their detachment?

No, this is a case of advanced overriding basic rules. When this rule was put in the main rulebook we did not have detachments made up of detachments (detachments made up of formations, formations made up of detachments, etc.); those came about in subsequent codexes and supplements. These would be explicitly stated exceptions to the rule of belonging to only one detachment. If you have a detachment made up of smaller detachments (let's say a detachment made up of smaller formations), a unit belonging to the smaller formation would also belong to the larger detachment. If it did not, then none of the smaller formations would ever be able to use the larger detachment rules if you didn't count them as also belonging to the larger detachment. This would make those detachments worthless if treated that way.


This means you couldn't have Bobby G as an Oathsworn detachment in a War Convocation and make him your Warlord, as he counts as belonging to both and there's a restriction from one that he wouldn't be able to be a Warlord.

I know about the advanced overiding basics rule, but this did not come with the standard 'you count the detachment as all the detachments' rule because this was done in white dwarf.

If you look at the page in question it gives NO saying that this in itself is a formation that adds all other formations, and you cant speculate this because the crimson slaugher one (which is a formation in formations) states clearly that this is INDEED a formation with multiple formations.

The advanced rules will say that this list is legal due to being it's own ruling, but nowhere in it's ruling does it state that this formation includes all the other formations, along iwth no context page that states that this is a detachment that counts all the formations as part of the detachment

therefore, you ignore the ruling stating that you cannot be part of more than one formation and instead make all the units in ALL the formations as a single, primary detachment.

Those are the rules; and since there is, once again no prefix stating that they are one detachment that is ALL the detachments, this is a Grand convocation ONLY

Therefore, Guliman is only in a GRAND CONVOCATION, which means he CAN be your warlord.



(Remember, the begining part that states the special rules and detachment context is there to clarify that the detachment is multiple detachments combined, this does not because of it's nature (white dwarf)

you cant speculate on that



To show what i mean

Except he is not an imperial knight and thus cannot even be in the oathsworn detachment in the first place.

mchammadad wrote:
I know about the advanced overiding basics rule, but this did not come with the standard 'you count the detachment as all the detachments' rule because this was done in white dwarf.

If you look at the page in question it gives NO saying that this in itself is a formation that adds all other formations, and you cant speculate this because the crimson slaugher one (which is a formation in formations) states clearly that this is INDEED a formation with multiple formations.

The advanced rules will say that this list is legal due to being it's own ruling, but nowhere in it's ruling does it state that this formation includes all the other formations, along iwth no context page that states that this is a detachment that counts all the formations as part of the detachment

therefore, you ignore the ruling stating that you cannot be part of more than one formation and instead make all the units in ALL the formations as a single, primary detachment.

Those are the rules; and since there is, once again no prefix stating that they are one detachment that is ALL the detachments, this is a Grand convocation ONLY

Therefore, Guliman is only in a GRAND CONVOCATION, which means he CAN be your warlord.



(Remember, the begining part that states the special rules and detachment context is there to clarify that the detachment is multiple detachments combined, this does not because of it's nature (white dwarf)

you cant speculate on that

Do models in the Adeptus Mechanicus War Convocation which are also part of the Adeptus Mechanicus Battle Congregation therefore lose the Command Benefits of the Adeptus Mechanicus Battle Congretation because they're apparently actually only part of the Adeptus Mechanicus War Convocation? Does the same apply to the Formation Special Rules from the Skitarii Battle Maniple?

I mean, why are you even using the Force Organisation Charts for the Adeptus Mechanicus Battle Congregation and Oathsworn Detachments, when the models therein aren't even part of those Detachments, and therefore can't be required to conform to their Force Organisation Charts?

If we accept the rules saying that models can only belong to one Detachment are binding, what about the rule which says that Formations are made up of Army List Entries:

"Instead of including a Force Organisation chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain."

That must be binding also, because you say there's no rule in the Adeptus Mechanicus War Convocation Formation to say you can take Detachments and Formations as part of a Formation instead of Army List Entries. I guess it's an invalid Formation and we just can't take it at all!

Clearly you haven't thought your argument through; it's full of silly holes. The only way for it to actually work is to (ridiculously sensibly) assume the models are part of both their base Detachment/Formation AND the Adeptus Mechanicus War Convocation.

 n0t_u wrote:
Except he is not an imperial knight and thus cannot even be in the oathsworn detachment in the first place.

Have you looked at the Oathsworn Detachment and the rules for taking Guilliman in any Armies of the Imperium Detachment?

The Oathsworn Detachment has 1-3 Lord of War slots. Yes, the Detachment has a Restriction requiring all models to have the Imperial Knights Faction.

However, Guilliman is a Lord of War choice and the rules for taking him in Armies of the Imperium Detachments say he can be taken in any Armies of the Imperium Detachment regardless of Faction restrictions.

The sad thing about this is that if they did state that these are part of the grand convocation, then the entire formation is invalid

let me explain:

if they added the ruling, that it was a formation of formations and said that all the rules applied as both the grand convocation and their own individual formations, then you would have a glaring problem

because the very formation we are discussing (oathsworn) would stop the formation from ever being a primary detachment.

meaning the whole formation would have to have another detachment to be legal

white dwarf authors would of seen this cause of their contact with the rules group in GW. So it was most likely intentional that they did not add that.

Like i said.... this formation would be in legal limbo

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
Except he is not an imperial knight and thus cannot even be in the oathsworn detachment in the first place.

Have you looked at the Oathsworn Detachment and the rules for taking Guilliman in any Armies of the Imperium Detachment?

The Oathsworn Detachment has 1-3 Lord of War slots. Yes, the Detachment has a Restriction requiring all models to have the Imperial Knights Faction.

However, Guilliman is a Lord of War choice and the rules for taking him in Armies of the Imperium Detachments say he can be taken in any Armies of the Imperium Detachment regardless of Faction restrictions.

I see, all the rules I had been shown of him hadn't shown the regardless of faction stuff. So then he'd be able to join it freely, but not be the warlord as the knight was also unable to anyways.
Does this mean he becomes a super heavy walker with the other knight detachment too? Technically then if it did when he dies he'd be wrecked as vehicles aren't slain so there's a whole argument waiting there about if his armour of fate doesn't work if he's in the household detachment if that's the case.

mchammadad wrote:
The sad thing about this is that if they did state that these are part of the grand convocation, then the entire formation is invalid

let me explain:

if they added the ruling, that it was a formation of formations and said that all the rules applied as both the grand convocation and their own individual formations, then you would have a glaring problem

because the very formation we are discussing (oathsworn) would stop the formation from ever being a primary detachment.

meaning the whole formation would have to have another detachment to be legal

white dwarf authors would of seen this cause of their contact with the rules group in GW. So it was most likely intentional that they did not add that.

Like i said.... this formation would be in legal limbo

'

Wrong again. If we're looking at it in the same way the Necron Decurion, Space Marines Gladius etc. work (as we should) then it's not a matter of "all models belong to all Detachments". Models in the War Convocation from the Skitarii Battle Maniple or Cult Mechanicus Battle Congregation would not count as belonging to the Oathsworn Detachment, however they would count as part of the War Convocation.

The War Convocation works fine; you simply cannot choose any model in the Oathsworn Detachment to be the Warlord.

Please, if you are going to post, can you give your argument some critical thought beforehand?

 n0t_u wrote:
Does this mean he becomes a super heavy walker with the other knight detachment too? Technically then if it did when he dies he'd be wrecked as vehicles aren't slain so there's a whole argument waiting there about if his armour of fate doesn't work if he's in the household detachment if that's the case.

This was discussed in another thread, and the conclusion I quickly reached was this would break the game.

For example, imagine trying to shoot Roboute Guilliman and being forced to use the 'Shooting at Vehicles' rules for a model without an armour value.

Oathsworn Detachment has none of the issues the Household Detachment does. It also says nothing about Guilliman being unable to be the Warlord. Since it is a part of the War Convocation formation, he could still be your Warlord (much like the Strike Force Command allowing him to be the Warlord).

This seems like the easiest way to add Roboute to any faction.

mchammadad wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

mchammadad wrote:
I feel like this question is going to pop up a lot more common in games now..... needs an FAQ


also..... i feel like this war convocation is going to be in some serious legal limbo:

"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, within the
restrictions of the rules that follow. However, all of the units in your army must
belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more than one Detachment"

(From BRB: Detachments)

i know this rule is kinda irelevant cause of the three detachments in a single detachment thing. But would this mean that they would all be only war convocation since they can only pick one, hence they are only one detachment which nulls the other detachments.

(Since there is not a single clarification before the actual formation itself, you assume to use the BRB for their detachment?

No, this is a case of advanced overriding basic rules. When this rule was put in the main rulebook we did not have detachments made up of detachments (detachments made up of formations, formations made up of detachments, etc.); those came about in subsequent codexes and supplements. These would be explicitly stated exceptions to the rule of belonging to only one detachment. If you have a detachment made up of smaller detachments (let's say a detachment made up of smaller formations), a unit belonging to the smaller formation would also belong to the larger detachment. If it did not, then none of the smaller formations would ever be able to use the larger detachment rules if you didn't count them as also belonging to the larger detachment. This would make those detachments worthless if treated that way.


This means you couldn't have Bobby G as an Oathsworn detachment in a War Convocation and make him your Warlord, as he counts as belonging to both and there's a restriction from one that he wouldn't be able to be a Warlord.

I know about the advanced overiding basics rule, but this did not come with the standard 'you count the detachment as all the detachments' rule because this was done in white dwarf.

If you look at the page in question it gives NO saying that this in itself is a formation that adds all other formations, and you cant speculate this because the crimson slaugher one (which is a formation in formations) states clearly that this is INDEED a formation with multiple formations.

The advanced rules will say that this list is legal due to being it's own ruling, but nowhere in it's ruling does it state that this formation includes all the other formations, along iwth no context page that states that this is a detachment that counts all the formations as part of the detachment

therefore, you ignore the ruling stating that you cannot be part of more than one formation and instead make all the units in ALL the formations as a single, primary detachment.

Those are the rules; and since there is, once again no prefix stating that they are one detachment that is ALL the detachments, this is a Grand convocation ONLY

Therefore, Guliman is only in a GRAND CONVOCATION, which means he CAN be your warlord.



(Remember, the begining part that states the special rules and detachment context is there to clarify that the detachment is multiple detachments combined, this does not because of it's nature (white dwarf)

you cant speculate on that



To show what i mean

No.

If you treat Gulliman as only in a Grand Convocation, then you are not treating him as being in the smaller formation. This means that absolutely none of the formations in the Grand Convocation provide their listed benefits to the units in them, as they can't count as being in those formations either if they count as being in the Grand Convocation.

But, formations do grant their benefits. This also means they grant their limitations. One limitation is that by taking Gulliman the way you are, he's in a detachment that is not allowed to be your primary detachment. It still applies when you take a smaller formation in a larger formation or detachment. If the limitations don't apply, as you want to state, then the benefits from those formations don't apply.

Here's a simple way to look at it. Was Gulliman taken in something that says he can't be in your primary detachment? (In this case, yes.) Does your War Convocation contain Gulliman? (Yes, if you've taken him that way). In that case you can't name the War Convocation as your primary detachment because Gulliman has the limitation on him. Either naming the War convocation the primary detachment goes, or Gullimann goes, or you have violated the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 n0t_u wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
Except he is not an imperial knight and thus cannot even be in the oathsworn detachment in the first place.

Have you looked at the Oathsworn Detachment and the rules for taking Guilliman in any Armies of the Imperium Detachment?

The Oathsworn Detachment has 1-3 Lord of War slots. Yes, the Detachment has a Restriction requiring all models to have the Imperial Knights Faction.

However, Guilliman is a Lord of War choice and the rules for taking him in Armies of the Imperium Detachments say he can be taken in any Armies of the Imperium Detachment regardless of Faction restrictions.

I see, all the rules I had been shown of him hadn't shown the regardless of faction stuff. So then he'd be able to join it freely, but not be the warlord as the knight was also unable to anyways.
Does this mean he becomes a super heavy walker with the other knight detachment too? Technically then if it did when he dies he'd be wrecked as vehicles aren't slain so there's a whole argument waiting there about if his armour of fate doesn't work if he's in the household detachment if that's the case.

Actually he doesn't become a wreck. At 0 hull points Super heavy walkers suffer Catastrophic Damage and explodes, causing you to place an apocalyptic blast where they were, rolling for scatter then rolling on the Catastrophic Damage table on page 94 for strength and AP of the blast - anything close is getting hit by a strength D blast. Which may regenerate if Bobby G makes the roll to come back, which would mean he explodes again because he still has 0 hull points.

I wouldn't think that a regenerating explosion would be the best choice for a Warlord, though.

That debate is in another thread don't bring it here invulnerable guilliman and the game just crashing are equally valid

 doctortom wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
Except he is not an imperial knight and thus cannot even be in the oathsworn detachment in the first place.

Have you looked at the Oathsworn Detachment and the rules for taking Guilliman in any Armies of the Imperium Detachment?

The Oathsworn Detachment has 1-3 Lord of War slots. Yes, the Detachment has a Restriction requiring all models to have the Imperial Knights Faction.

However, Guilliman is a Lord of War choice and the rules for taking him in Armies of the Imperium Detachments say he can be taken in any Armies of the Imperium Detachment regardless of Faction restrictions.

I see, all the rules I had been shown of him hadn't shown the regardless of faction stuff. So then he'd be able to join it freely, but not be the warlord as the knight was also unable to anyways.
Does this mean he becomes a super heavy walker with the other knight detachment too? Technically then if it did when he dies he'd be wrecked as vehicles aren't slain so there's a whole argument waiting there about if his armour of fate doesn't work if he's in the household detachment if that's the case.

Actually he doesn't become a wreck. At 0 hull points Super heavy walkers suffer Catastrophic Damage and explodes, causing you to place an apocalyptic blast where they were, rolling for scatter then rolling on the Catastrophic Damage table on page 94 for strength and AP of the blast - anything close is getting hit by a strength D blast. Which may regenerate if Bobby G makes the roll to come back, which would mean he explodes again because he still has 0 hull points.

I wouldn't think that a regenerating explosion would be the best choice for a Warlord, though.

So he'd get the SD blast, but he still wouldn't be slain thus the armour wouldn't activate.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Oathsworn Detachment has none of the issues the Household Detachment does. It also says nothing about Guilliman being unable to be the Warlord. Since it is a part of the War Convocation formation, he could still be your Warlord (much like the Strike Force Command allowing him to be the Warlord).

This seems like the easiest way to add Roboute to any faction.

The Oathsworn Detachment says it cannot be your Primary Detachment. The Detachment with your Warlord in it becomes your Primary Detachment, and nothing tells us that Guilliman would stop being part of the Oathsworn Detachment when taken in a War Convocation, or that you could choose one of multiple Detachments your Warlord is in to be your Primary Detachment. Therefore your Primary Detachment would be both the War Convocation and the Oathsworn Detachment, which is not allowed.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Oathsworn Detachment has none of the issues the Household Detachment does. It also says nothing about Guilliman being unable to be the Warlord. Since it is a part of the War Convocation formation, he could still be your Warlord (much like the Strike Force Command allowing him to be the Warlord).

This seems like the easiest way to add Roboute to any faction.

The Oathsworn Detachment says it cannot be your Primary Detachment. The Detachment with your Warlord in it becomes your Primary Detachment, and nothing tells us that Guilliman would stop being part of the Oathsworn Detachment when taken in a War Convocation, or that you could choose one of multiple Detachments your Warlord is in to be your Primary Detachment. Therefore your Primary Detachment would be both the War Convocation and the Oathsworn Detachment, which is not allowed.

I reread it just in case. I was incorrect. Thanks for pointing that out.

I know it's not a faq but got a reply from games workshop

Honestly I won't be surprised if they release an FAQ disallowing Guilliman from being taken in any Imperial Knights Detachment.

You can include him he just can't be the warlord by the looks of it