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.

A quick questions: Does your summoned units counts as belonging to the detachment that summoned them? If they are not, then I guess that they do not belong to any detachment, and therefore would not get the Objective Secured special rule?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/597592.page

The consensus in the poll was that summoned units are detachment-less, and don't get benefits or penalties associated with detachments.

 erick99 wrote:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/597592.page

The consensus in the poll was that summoned units are detachment-less, and don't get benefits or penalties associated with detachments.

Thanks. Didn't see that poll. It seems like that poll is quite one-sided, and that is a good thing since that is the way I thought it should work as well

 erick99 wrote:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/597592.page

The consensus in the poll was that summoned units are detachment-less, and don't get benefits or penalties associated with detachments.

BWahahaha.... That "poll" could be used as a textbook example of biased writing. The person running the poll knew the results he wanted, and biased the 'options' to get that result.

That poll is a joke.

coredump wrote:

 erick99 wrote:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/597592.page

The consensus in the poll was that summoned units are detachment-less, and don't get benefits or penalties associated with detachments.

BWahahaha.... That "poll" could be used as a textbook example of biased writing. The person running the poll knew the results he wanted, and biased the 'options' to get that result.

That poll is a joke.

You don't already have him on your ignore list? Huh....

 erick99 wrote:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/597592.page

The consensus in the poll was that summoned units are detachment-less, and don't get benefits or penalties associated with detachments.

Although providing a basis for discussion the results of the poll are essentialy worthless from a RAW perspective. It was also clear that the OP was heavily biased.

There is nothing in the RAW that confirms or even suggests conjured units are detachment-less and don't get associated benefits or penalties. The issue could do with an FAQ to clear it up, or some clearer rule writing in the first place.

The poll may be biased and the poster a renowned anti-Daemon-Factory enthusiast, but the detachment thing is still fairly RAW. When a conjured unit is called upon to determine its detachment, the only answer that can be given is "I don't know". The rules don't explain what detachment it gets added to as you can now have multiple FOCs. Any thought of adding them to an existing detachment or creating a new one just for them or even leaving them detachmentless are all without RAW backing, as the only verifiable answer is N/A.

FAQ would dearly be needed to correct that, though the assumption that they simply have no detachment is not without reason. If you can't determine which detachment they belong to, you just assign them to detachment "?" where they receive no bonuses until someone is able to prove what bonuses it has. It would have been easier for them to say an entire Battle-Forged army has objective secured, yet they decided to make it detachment specific.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 erick99 wrote:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/597592.page

The consensus in the poll was that summoned units are detachment-less, and don't get benefits or penalties associated with detachments.

Although providing a basis for discussion the results of the poll are essentialy worthless from a RAW perspective. It was also clear that the OP was heavily biased.

There is nothing in the RAW that confirms or even suggests conjured units are detachment-less and don't get associated benefits or penalties. The issue could do with an FAQ to clear it up, or some clearer rule writing in the first place.

I linked it because it was the only previous discussion on the topic I was aware of, and I was hoping some RAW discussion (which the poll seemed to lack) would occur. A FAQ is definitely needed.

Kyutaru wrote:
When a conjured unit is called upon to determine its detachment, the only answer that can be given is "I don't know". The rules don't explain what detachment it gets added to as you can now have multiple FOCs. Any thought of adding them to an existing detachment or creating a new one just for them or even leaving them detachmentless are all without RAW backing, as the only verifiable answer is N/A.

This is a fair point. I think an FAQ is definitely needed to resolve the matter.

The point was made above that there's nothing in the rules to suggest summoned units go into a separate detachment. I don't think that's quite correct. The rules are clear that Combined Arms and Allied detachments must be chosen from a single faction. It would be weird then to be able to attach summoned Daemons to a Dark Angels detachment or whoever's out there summoning daemons besides Chaos Daemons because it's the end times and fluff be damned...

That certainly doesn't prove anything, particularly given the critical wording of "chosen," and an FAQ is needed, but to me it's a solid suggestion of intent. I actually assumed without thinking about it in playing against a Daemon army that summoned units would get Obj Sec and whatnot, but thinking about it more that would be weird. That said, I would not be shocked at all for GW to FAQ it that way, assuming they deigned to put out a FAQ.

- edit -

A friend pointed out: They're not in your detachment in terms of the pre-game written list construction, so that also supports them not being in the detachment and therefore not getting Objective Secured.

funny, I run a poll with every option i can think off... and its"biased"


anti demon... thats funny... sounds like people are just having hurt feelings that most people disagree with them...

I encourage whole heartedly for people to play D factories, good to know that there is no lack of unfocused hate for anyone who tries to ask a question on dakka though.

This has been argued in a couple of different places. I"ve supplied all of the relevant quotes other places so this is going to be much shorter.

The only rules support for adding the Summoned unit to a Detachment comes from this located in CHOOSING YOUR ARMY under the DETACHMENTS subsection, "all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more than on Detachment."

That is what proponents of Objective Secured Summoned units are using as justification. This has many associated problems.

Firstly, Context. The quoted rule is in reference to creating detachment and your army, specifically in creating a Force Roster. This does not govern Summoned Units or anything added to your army or under your control that wasn't purchased, ie Summoned Units and Buildings.

No permission is given to add a unit to a detachment. No permission is given to assign that unit a Battlefield Role. No permission is given to assign that unit to a FOC Slot. No permission is given to ignore Detachment Restrictions. No permission is given to apply Command Benefits. Faction rules and levels of Alliance are still in play, they are worded in such a way that they apply to even Summoned units, the BRB is explicit in this.

If a Chaos Daemons army is allowed to Summon Horrors and add them to their Detachment as a Troop Slot to benefit from Objective Secured, a Command Benefit for a Detachment. What happens when that Troop puts a CAD at 7 Troops, and is now illegal? What happens when a CAD with two HQ Slots full summons a Lord of Change?

What happens when an Eldar army with two farseers and a Warlock Council has a Warlock cast Possession and turn into a Bloodthirster? Now you have 3 HQs, an illegal Detachment and you have added a Chaos Daemons Faction unit to an Eldar Faction Detachment. This too is illegal. Is this now Unbound? Where is the permission for the double standard rules?

The list of problems goes on.


But, when we apply the rules for Conjured units as laid out in the BRB we have a unit that still possesses its original Faction, is not added to a Detachment, does not follow Detachment Restrictions or benefit from Command Benefits, and is governed by the levels of Alliance rules as they are Faction Dependent. They belong to the Army and are Scoring Units. In all examples it can follow all rules as written and works without problem.


Conjured Units are NonDetachment, NonFOC Slot, Scoring Units that belong to the Conjuring army. This follows all of the rules as laid out, the only possible conflict is the rule listed under "Choosing Your Army" which only applies to creating Detachments for the Force Roster. They were not choosen when creating your army, they were not put into a detachment, they were not given a battlefield role, they weren't given a FOC slot. If they are not a Troop Slot Unit that is part of a legal CAD or AD they do not benefit from Command Benefits of those Detachments such as Objective Secured.


The RAW and RAI are pretty clear, though an FAQ would certainly clear up any confusion and prevent people from trying to abuse the rules.

 easysauce wrote:
funny, I run a poll with every option i can think off... and its"biased"


anti demon... thats funny... sounds like people are just having hurt feelings that most people disagree with them...

I encourage whole heartedly for people to play D factories, good to know that there is no lack of unfocused hate for anyone who tries to ask a question on dakka though.

I agree with you on this one easysauce, but I too agree that the way you worded your poll was pretty silly. You basically stated in one of the options why you think it shouldn't be the one the person reading it chose it.. You did not provide this same derisive note with any of the other options, so I have to agree that it is slanted.

no the rules for the summond critters say they are just scoring. thats it Scoring.