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.

The following quote from Codex: Necrons states that units in a Decurion detachment can belong to multiple detachments.

Although units cannot normally belong to more than one Detachment, units from a Formation that is part of a Necron Decurion Detachment are an exception. They count as part of both their Formation and the Detachment, and have all associated Command Benefits and special rules. If your Warlord is part of a Formation or an Army List Entry that makes up part of a Decurion Detachment, that entire Decurion Detachment is your Primary Detachment

Now one might be able to argue that the codex is only talking about formations within the Decurion and the Decurion itself, based on the next sentence:

They count as part of both their Formation and the Detachment, and have all associated Command Benefits and special rules.

However, I have found nothing that explicitly prohibits someone from taking a Decurion, and then making a CAD with the Warriors Immortals, and Overlord. The book does explicitly state that models in multiple detachments gain the special rules from both.

So, can you make a Decurion and have them also act as a CAD, giving them both Ever-Living and ObSec? (Note that this is clearly not RAI, and I don't think you should play it this way unless going up against TFG)

Your quote says "They count as part of both their Formation and the Detachment". The Detachment is referring to the Decurion Detachment. Nothing there gives permission to use those models in a completely seperate detachment such as a CAD.

You need permission to do a thing before you can do it.

This may help:

"Although units cannot normally belong to more than one Detachment, units from a Formation that is part of a Necron Decurion Detachment are an exception. They count as part of both their Formation and the Detachment, and have all associated Command Benefits and special rules."

Imagine I were looking at a Toyota for sale and said to the salesman, "I really like the Toyota I was looking at more than the other makes you have on offer. I'm just wondering if the car could come with any optional extras." The salesman wouldn't look at me and think I may have meant any of the other makes of cars available. That's how context carries over in English.

Zimko wrote:
Your quote says "They count as part of both their Formation and the Detachment". The Detachment is referring to the Decurion Detachment. Nothing there gives permission to use those models in a completely seperate detachment such as a CAD.

You need permission to do a thing before you can do it.

"Although units cannot normally belong to more than one Detachment, units from a Formation that is part of a Necron Decurion Detachment are an exception."
This gives explicit permission for units in a formation that is part of a Decurion to join multiple detachments.

"They count as part of both their Formation and the Detachment"
Obviously, this implies that formations are meant to benefit from their own rules, as well as those of the Decurion detachment. However, there is nothing says that I can't take units in a Decurion in a CAD as well.

Essentially, I am given direct permission to use units in multiple Detachments. Not a formation and a detachment (the next line is what gives you permission to do that), literally multiple detachments. Nothing prohibits me from doing this. Obviously, this is totally exploiting RAW, and One would truly have to be TFG to use this in an actual game, but I do believe RAW supports my position.

You're not exploiting RAW - you're cherry picking out a sentence and stripping it from the context of the paragraph surrounding it to come to a conclusion that, when read as a whole, is clearly not the case.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

Imagine I were looking at a Toyota for sale and said to the salesman, "I really like the Toyota I was looking at more than the other makes you have on offer. I'm just wondering if the car could come with any optional extras." The salesman wouldn't look at me and think I may have meant any of the other makes of cars available. That's how context carries over in English.

Yes, it's true that context implies otherwise, the operative word being implies. But you disregard the fact that I have direct permission to take the units in multiple detachments, etc. etc. Sorry but I'm currently pressed for time, I'll edit this later. See my previous post for a better explanation.

Anrakyr-the-Traveller wrote:

Zimko wrote:
Your quote says "They count as part of both their Formation and the Detachment". The Detachment is referring to the Decurion Detachment. Nothing there gives permission to use those models in a completely seperate detachment such as a CAD.

You need permission to do a thing before you can do it.

"Although units cannot normally belong to more than one Detachment, units from a Formation that is part of a Necron Decurion Detachment are an exception."
This gives explicit permission for units in a formation that is part of a Decurion to join multiple detachments.

"They count as part of both their Formation and the Detachment"
Obviously, this implies that formations are meant to benefit from their own rules, as well as those of the Decurion detachment. However, there is nothing says that I can't take units in a Decurion in a CAD as well.

Essentially, I am given direct permission to use units in multiple Detachments. Not a formation and a detachment (the next line is what gives you permission to do that), literally multiple detachments. Nothing prohibits me from doing this. Obviously, this is totally exploiting RAW, and One would truly have to be TFG to use this in an actual game, but I do believe RAW supports my position.

You can't just chop up a rule into parts you want to use and parts you want to ignore. The rule is:

Although units cannot normally belong to more than one Detachment, units from a
Formation that is part of a Gladius Strike Force are an exception. They count as part of
both their Formation and the Detachment, and have all associated Command Benefits
and special rules.

Sentence one is simply an intro to stating an exception to a rule, which sentence two explains: They gain the command benefits / special rules from both "The Detachment" - which is the Decurion/Gladius/... detachment and the Formation they're part of. That's it. It doesn't even talk about army list building, just that you build a Decurion from Formations, and all the units in every one of those Formations also gain the benefits from the Decurion detachment. Nowhere does it allow you to ignore any rule or to assign one unit to multiple detachments.

"The detachment" is singular, meaning you are only part of one, if you are part of the decurion detachment you have filled your one allotted detachment and can't be in a combined arms detachment too.

No. You don't get to pluck out key sentences from rules and ignore the context around them. The rules are not on a sentence by sentence basis. They are on a topic by topic basis.

That would be like saying I'm given permission to shoot at you with a ranged weapon that is in line of sight, and ignoring other context like the range of the weapon, if I'm snap firing, if I've already shot once, if it's even the shooting phase etc.

Several people made similar arguments based on me cherry picking the rules out of sentences, so I'll respond to them all here. My apologies for not making my position clear. I was not intending to pick out individual sentences, (in fact you can see that I printed the entire quote and based my argument on that in the original post) rather I was trying to respond to Zimko's argument by quoting the text, then following it with a sentence of analysis. The first quote and commentary were rebutting his comment that permission was not given, the second quote and commentary were my attempts to convey that the next sentence did not prohibit someone from taking units in two formations. However, I clearly overlooked something:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 roflmajog wrote:
"The detachment" is singular, meaning you are only part of one, if you are part of the decurion detachment you have filled your one allotted detachment and can't be in a combined arms detachment too.

You're right, I totally overlooked the wording. It's weird that the text contradicts itself like that, (saying multiple detachments and then using "the detachment") but you are correct. I believe this RAW, coupled with the clear context clues in the passage, do outweigh my own arguments. Therefore, I'm rescinding my argument, thanks everybody for disproving me! (I don't mean that sarcastically, I like learning from my mistakes)

Anrakyr-the-Traveller wrote:
You're right, I totally overlooked the wording. It's weird that the text contradicts itself like that, (saying multiple detachments and then using "the detachment") but you are correct. I believe this RAW, coupled with the clear context clues in the passage, do outweigh my own arguments. Therefore, I'm rescinding my argument, thanks everybody for disproving me! (I don't mean that sarcastically, I like learning from my mistakes)

It's not even a matter of singular versus plural; more correctly the use of "the" is a direct reference to the specific defined detachment in the previous sentence, as was pointed out in the first reply, my reply and subsequent replies.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines this very clearly, with the following example:

"We keep a dog. We are all fond of the dog.

The debate is through, there's no more need for clarification. I'm getting a mod to lock the thread, please don't post further. (But thanks, Mr. Shine)