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.

So since ad mech has two different books that are each lacking in themselves in my opinion can i field an unbound skitarii army and an unbound clut mechanicus army?

Unbound isn't a detachment, it's a way to build your army list. If you are playing an Unbound army list you take what ever models you want without detachments (with the option to still take formations)

So since you can take what ever models you want you can just take some skitarii models and some mechanicus models

 CrownAxe wrote:
Unbound isn't a detachment, it's a way to build your army list. If you are playing an Unbound army list you take what ever models you want without detachments (with the option to still take formations)

So since you can take what ever models you want you can just take some skitarii models and some mechanicus models

Indeed.

I believe there are a few options of Formations for them, and there are no default limits to the number of detachments you can take. I believe there is also a super-formation which involves a Formation of AdMech, a Formation of Skitaari, and an Imperial Knight Formation. And you can take those two Formations without the Imperial Knight's.

So, Unbound is not a requirement for fielding forces of multiple armies, just a way to take abnormal quantities of units without any detachment restrictions.

 Charistoph wrote:
I believe there is also a super-formation which involves a Formation of AdMech, a Formation of Skitaari, and an Imperial Knight Formation.

The War Convocation super detachment is a weird one in which the Cult Mechanicus and Imperial Knight requirements are actually detachments (specifically the Battle Congregation and Oathsworn detachments) instead of formations.

Also most things lacking from each in various formations or standard detachments in each book is covered by the other book.

You can take as many detachments as you want(outside of tournaments that specify otherwise).

Formations are the only detachments that are still detachments in an unbound list.

The whole list is either unbound or battleforged, never both.

Unbound is simply whatever Army List Entries you want to take.

Thanks for clearing this up for me gents much appreciated!

You could also take a CAD from CM, then add on formations from the Skitarii

Don't let Battle scribes programming short cuts get in into your head

Correction: unbound is a detachment, per the BRB. It is a detachment with no FoC or command benefits as noted in the BRB under "The Primary Detachment".

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Correction: unbound is a detachment, per the BRB. It is a detachment with no FoC or command benefits as noted in the BRB under "The Primary Detachment".

SJ

No it isn't, and you could not be more wrong.

 oldzoggy wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Correction: unbound is a detachment, per the BRB. It is a detachment with no FoC or command benefits as noted in the BRB under "The Primary Detachment".

SJ

No it isn't, and you could not be more wrong.

Cite and prove me wrong, as the tenets require.

SJ

7th rulebook wrote:...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.

Unbound Armies
The Unbound method is the easiest way to organise an army: simply use whichever units from
your collection you want. Besides being a quick way to get your models on the tabletop, the Unbound
method also allows you to try out exciting combinations in your army, such as fielding a whole force of
Tanks or Flyers, or even of special characters.

Battle-forged Armies
A player using the Battle-forged method must organise all the units they want to use into
Detachments

If unbound was a detachment then every unbound army would be battle forged.

Sure you could use this sentence out off context and claim that it is a detachment

Every army has a Primary Detachment

But once you read further down the paragraph it becomes obviously clear that this is just an other of GW's poorly chosen series of words in the rulebook.

Every army has a Primary Detachment. If you organise your army using the Battle-forged method,
whichever Detachment contains your Warlord is your Primary Detachment. 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. Of course, in an
Unbound army, these models are not bound by any Detachment restrictions and do not receive Command
Benefits.

"Every army has a Primary Detachment" & "is considered to be part of the Primary Detachment for all rules purposes"

This doesn't make Unbound a detachment, this is just a skrewy GW way to create a catch in the rules for "primary detachments" effects in the game.

So, it's your opinion unbound isn't a detachment, despite GW calling it such. Gotcha.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
So, it's your opinion unbound isn't a detachment, despite GW calling it such. Gotcha.

SJ

Please follow your own request and demonstrate where GW calls unbound a detachment. "Cite and prove me wrong, as the tenets require."

7th rulebook wrote:...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.

Unbound Armies
The Unbound method is the easiest way to organise an army: simply use whichever units from
your collection you want. Besides being a quick way to get your models on the tabletop, the Unbound
method also allows you to try out exciting combinations in your army, such as fielding a whole force of
Tanks or Flyers, or even of special characters.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
So, it's your opinion unbound isn't a detachment, despite GW calling it such. Gotcha.

SJ

GW has never called it such. Unbound is an army list building type. It carries Detachments, at least the Primary, and any Formations included, but not all of the Unbound army is one detachment.

If I run Abaddon as my Warlord then run Crusader Squads, Necron Warriors, and Praetorian Squads Unbound, then the Primary Detachment will consist of one model, the Warlord Abaddon. The rest of the units will not be in a detachment as they are not in Formation.

If I add a Triarch Stalker unit for each pair of Praetorian Squads, then I can run them as a Judicator Battalion Formation, and so would have the Primary Detachment of Abaddon, however many Judicator Battalions I have units for, in detachment, and then Crusader Squads and Necron Warrior squads as not in a Detachment.

THE PRIMARY DETACHMENT
Every army has a Primary Detachment. If you organise your army using the Battle-forged method, whichever Detachment contains your Warlord is your Primary Detachment. 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. Of course, in an Unbound army, these models are not bound by any Detachment restrictions and do not receive Command Benefits.

I underlined it for you.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

THE PRIMARY DETACHMENT
Every army has a Primary Detachment. If you organise your army using the Battle-forged method, whichever Detachment contains your Warlord is your Primary Detachment. 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. Of course, in an Unbound army, these models are not bound by any Detachment restrictions and do not receive Command Benefits.

I underlined it for you.

SJ

Yes there is a primary detachment of sort in your unbound army. No where in that quote does it say that unbound is a detachment

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

THE PRIMARY DETACHMENT
Every army has a Primary Detachment. If you organise your army using the Battle-forged method, whichever Detachment contains your Warlord is your Primary Detachment. 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. Of course, in an Unbound army, these models are not bound by any Detachment restrictions and do not receive Command Benefits.

I underlined it for you.

SJ

Yes, that is what I said, Warlord's Faction models make up the Primary Detachment not an Unbound Detachment. Where does it place "Unbound" and "detachment" in sequence to make "Unbound Detachment"?

@jeffersonian000 you are falling into the "Fallacy of composition" trap.

A part of the whole is a Primary detachment. That doesn;t make the whole a primary detachment ( or a detachment )



Automatically Appended Next Post:
For example I am a human. The part of humans that pump blood around his body is a heart. I am not a heart nor a muscle

The same thing holds true for Unbound. I am Unbound. The part of me that shares the same faction as the warlord is a Primary detachment. I am not a primary detachment nor a detachment.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

THE PRIMARY DETACHMENT
Every army has a Primary Detachment. If you organise your army using the Battle-forged method, whichever Detachment contains your Warlord is your Primary Detachment. 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. Of course, in an Unbound army, these models are not bound by any Detachment restrictions and do not receive Command Benefits.

I underlined it for you.

SJ

You've essentially proven yourself wrong by quoting and underlining the exact thing that proves you wrong.

What that quote essentially said is that if you run an Unbound Army, then all models and units with the same Faction as your Warlord are grouped together and treated as a detachment with no FOC, Restrictions, or Command Benefits for the purposes of fulfilling the requirement for a Primary Detachment. Not that the operative idea there is that they are treated as a detachment rather than actually being a detachment.

There is no such thing as an 'Unbound Detachment' in the official rules of the game.

Yeah, no such thing as an Unbound Detachment. Unbound armies will have a Primary Detachment, but depending on army construction, that can be a small portion of your overall list.

Interestingly, you can create an army where multiple Formations count, for all rules purposes, as being part of the Primary Detachment.

Let's say I take the following Unbound List...
Tau Empire "Infiltration Cadre" Formation <- Warlord Here
Tau Empire "Infiltration Cadre" Formation
Tau Empire "Optimized Stealth Cadre" Formation
Tau Empire "Allied Advance Cadre" Formation
1 unit of Orks Gretchin

The army is Unbound and due to the Warlord being a Tau Empire model, ALL of the Tau Empire models across all four Formations count as being a part of the Primary Detachment. In that sense, each of those models is a part of two Detachments... the Primary AND their own Formation.

Weird. I wonder if this opens us up to bizarre shenanigans. Are there advantages to being part of a Primary Detachment? I can't think of any.

@Kriswall

That's a tricky situation because you're technically right. The main thing is that all the Tau units/models in that example would benefit from the Warlord Trait because of the whole primary detachment thing, but it could also be argued that it is not an Unbound Army, but a Battleforged Army with an Unbound component. The later interpretation is probably wrong given the RAW, but it opens up a whole new way of looking at the whole Unbound vs Battleforged thing.

 IllumiNini wrote:
@Kriswall

That's a tricky situation because you're technically right. The main thing is that all the Tau units/models in that example would benefit from the Warlord Trait because of the whole primary detachment thing, but it could also be argued that it is not an Unbound Army, but a Battleforged Army with an Unbound component. The later interpretation is probably wrong given the RAW, but it opens up a whole new way of looking at the whole Unbound vs Battleforged thing.

There is no such thing as "a Battleforged Army with an Unbound component". You're army is either Unbound or Battleforged. I included the Gretchin specifically to cement the fact that the army is Unbound.

 IllumiNini wrote:
@Kriswall

That's a tricky situation because you're technically right. The main thing is that all the Tau units/models in that example would benefit from the Warlord Trait because of the whole primary detachment thing, but it could also be argued that it is not an Unbound Army, but a Battleforged Army with an Unbound component. The later interpretation is probably wrong given the RAW, but it opens up a whole new way of looking at the whole Unbound vs Battleforged thing.

If any part of the army is Unbound, the whole thing is Unbound (so doesn't gain Command Benefits). In order to be Battleforged, every unit in the army must be part of a detachment.

Hence why I said:

...you're technically right.

I was responding to this part...

... it could also be argued that it is not an Unbound Army...

It could be argued that the Moon is made of cheese. You'd never win that argument, but I suppose you could make it. Same thing applies. An army containing units chosen outside of any Detachment is Unbound. This isn't a grey area of the rules.

All I was trying to say that you are right that an army is either Battle-Forged or Unbound (with no other official options), but the rest if my post is simply an alternative, Unofficial way of thinking about it.

In other words: I was never arguing the rules, but simply proposing an additional way of thinking about Unbound lists.

 IllumiNini wrote:
All I was trying to say that you are right that an army is either Battle-Forged or Unbound (with no other official options), but the rest if my post is simply an alternative, Unofficial way of thinking about it.

In other words: I was never arguing the rules, but simply proposing an additional way of thinking about Unbound lists.

I get that, but it's a misleading line of thought, so it's best avoided. A new player could read this forum, read 'a Battleforged list with Unbound elements' and think they would get Detachment Command Benefits for the 'Battleforged portion'. They wouldn't. It's best to clearly differentiate between Battleforged and Unbound. I understand what you're getting at, but not everyone will. New players especially have a hard enough time wrapping their heads around concepts like Detachments, Formations and Allies. Muddying the discussion with 'Unofficial' interpretations makes it harder for them to learn what they need to know to build a valid list.

 Kriswall wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:
All I was trying to say that you are right that an army is either Battle-Forged or Unbound (with no other official options), but the rest if my post is simply an alternative, Unofficial way of thinking about it.

In other words: I was never arguing the rules, but simply proposing an additional way of thinking about Unbound lists.

I get that, but it's a misleading line of thought, so it's best avoided. A new player could read this forum, read 'a Battleforged list with Unbound elements' and think they would get Detachment Command Benefits for the 'Battleforged portion'. They wouldn't. It's best to clearly differentiate between Battleforged and Unbound. I understand what you're getting at, but not everyone will. New players especially have a hard enough time wrapping their heads around concepts like Detachments, Formations and Allies. Muddying the discussion with 'Unofficial' interpretations makes it harder for them to learn what they need to know to build a valid list.

Fair enough. I guess that's that, then!

 IllumiNini wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

THE PRIMARY DETACHMENT
Every army has a Primary Detachment. If you organise your army using the Battle-forged method, whichever Detachment contains your Warlord is your Primary Detachment. 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. Of course, in an Unbound army, these models are not bound by any Detachment restrictions and do not receive Command Benefits.

I underlined it for you.

SJ

You've essentially proven yourself wrong by quoting and underlining the exact thing that proves you wrong.

What that quote essentially said is that if you run an Unbound Army, then all models and units with the same Faction as your Warlord are grouped together and treated as a detachment with no FOC, Restrictions, or Command Benefits for the purposes of fulfilling the requirement for a Primary Detachment. Not that the operative idea there is that they are treated as a detachment rather than actually being a detachment.

There is no such thing as an 'Unbound Detachment' in the official rules of the game.

Please cite an example in 7th Ed where something is treated as being, but does not count as being.

SJ