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.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

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

The concept of the Primary Detachment being a Detachment that a unit can only be one of would be a good example.

The Primary Detachment is not an organizational concept, but a status indicator. That status is that the Warlord is from that Detachment normally, but in the builds of Unbound, just that is the Faction the Warlord is from. This has connotations in regards to the Allied Detachment and some Special Characters still running around with a 6th Edition codex.

But in the end, the only thing an "Unbound Detachment" can refer to is either a Formation or the Warlord's Faction in an army list built using the Unbound method. This name is never stated in the rulebook, and is only a player shorthand at best, and should be listed as "Unbound detachment" to signify that it is not a formal name.

 Charistoph wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

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

The concept of the Primary Detachment being a Detachment that a unit can only be one of would be a good example.

The Primary Detachment is not an organizational concept, but a status indicator. That status is that the Warlord is from that Detachment normally, but in the builds of Unbound, just that is the Faction the Warlord is from. This has connotations in regards to the Allied Detachment and some Special Characters still running around with a 6th Edition codex.

But in the end, the only thing an "Unbound Detachment" can refer to is either a Formation or the Warlord's Faction in an army list built using the Unbound method. This name is never stated in the rulebook, and is only a player shorthand at best, and should be listed as "Unbound detachment" to signify that it is not a formal name.

So please cite where it say that in the BRB.

SJ

I'm gonna have a smartass moment here and point out something about the whole "Unbound Detachment" thing:

An "Unbound Detachment" does not exist. Unbound Armies exist (or specifically, an army built with the "Unbound Method" exist. From here on in whenever I say "Unbound Army" or "Battleforged Army", consider it to mean "an army build with the (insert type) method). An Unbound Army can contain a Primary Detachment and Formations, but you can never have an "Unbound Detachment" as nothing in the rules actually dictate that term, much less what it has.

All units in an Unbound army that shares a faction with the warlord is considered to be part of a "Primary Detachment" that otherwise offers no organizational restrictions or command benefits. If put in another way, you can never build an army with the "Skyhammer Annhilation Force Method". You can build an army with only Skyhammer Annhilation Force Formations (and it can be either unbound or Battleforged since Formations are allowed in unbound), but that is, by a strict reading of the rules, not a different "method" than the Unbound or Battleforged Method.

And now, off with the smartass cap.

So, you have no support for your argument. Noted.

SJ

Please cite the page number where the term "Unbound Detachment" shows up.

Sj is now just trolling. There's no other explanation. He proved himself wrong in the his post that I quoted earlier and he's still trying to argue the point.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

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

The concept of the Primary Detachment being a Detachment that a unit can only be one of would be a good example.

The Primary Detachment is not an organizational concept, but a status indicator. That status is that the Warlord is from that Detachment normally, but in the builds of Unbound, just that is the Faction the Warlord is from. This has connotations in regards to the Allied Detachment and some Special Characters still running around with a 6th Edition codex.

But in the end, the only thing an "Unbound Detachment" can refer to is either a Formation or the Warlord's Faction in an army list built using the Unbound method. This name is never stated in the rulebook, and is only a player shorthand at best, and should be listed as "Unbound detachment" to signify that it is not a formal name.

So please cite where it say that in the BRB.

Which part?

For the first two paragraphs, you already quoted it, and underlined half of it. In addition, a unit cannot belong to more than one Detachment, however the Primary Detachment is the Detachment your Warlord is in when using a Battle-Forged army build. So, your Warlord starts in two different Detachments. However, this Detachment has no more organizational structure than it does in Unbound, namely where the Warlord is. So, the designation of "Primary Detachment" is not an actual Detachment, but just an indicator of where the Warlord is.

As for the last part, I have already stated that this is not in the BRB.

The BRB specifically tells us, as I cited, that in an unbound army all models with the same faction as the Warlord are treated as being in the Primary Detachment for all rules purpose. Please show where in the BRB it states that a detachment is not a detachment.

SJ

You've just proven yourself wrong, again! Holy crap!

The BRB specifically tells us, as I cited, that in an unbound army all models with the same faction as the Warlord are treated as being in the Primary Detachment for all rules purpose.

It never actually says it is a detachment, only (as the bolded text in the quote says) treated as one.

You keep asking us to quote the BRB as to why it is not a detachment, when you've already quoted it multiple times.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The BRB specifically tells us, as I cited, that in an unbound army all models with the same faction as the Warlord are treated as being in the Primary Detachment for all rules purpose. Please show where in the BRB it states that a detachment is not a detachment.

Right, they are treated as being the Primary Detachment, but unlike Battle-Forged, it is based on Faction, not on the Detachment.

In addition, the Primary Detachment, no matter Battle-Forged or Unbound, comes with no FOC, Unit List, Restrictions, or anything else that makes up the definition of an actual Detachment.

In addition, to repeat myself, "all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more than one Detachment." The Primary Detachment rules do not make any effort to override this like the Decurion, Strike Forces, etc, do.

So, again, the "Primary Detachment" is not an actual detachment, but a designation of which detachment your Warlord is in. In the cases of Unbound, this is altered to just designate the Faction.

So, no such thing as an "Unbound detachment", and there are some times when something is treated as something which isn't something that it is actually treated as, namely that the Primary Detachment is not an actual detachment in any form.

So, please cite where "detachment" is defined in the BRB such that the later use of the term "detachment" does not mean what the earlier term "detachment" is defined as.

SJ

I have the following army:

Commander Farsight <- Warlord
9X Crisis Suits
Daemon Prince of Khorne
Space Marine Librarius Conclave
Khorne Beserkers
10XDark Eldar Wyches

Can you show us a rule that puts any of these models into an Unbound Detachment? If it exists, then it shouldn't hard to find. Certainly nothing places the DP, Beserkers or DE into such a detachment

However what the rule you keep referring to says, if any other rule in the game says it effects the primary detachment, then it would effect only Commander Farsight and the Crisis Suits in this Unbound Army. It doesn't put any models into an unbound detachment.

You still haven't cited where it states there's an "unbound detachment". In an army made with the unbound method, it has a Primary Detachment, but not an "unbound" detachment.

The rulebook only defines a Primary Detachment as the one with your warlord in it. It doesn't define it as an "unbound detachment", only that it can exist in an army made by the unbound method.

So again, please cite where it says "unbound detachment".

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
So, please cite where "detachment" is defined in the BRB such that the later use of the term "detachment" does not mean what the earlier term "detachment" is defined as.

SJ

Look up the Detachment section of "Choosing Your Army".

Still waiting on a reference of "Unbound Detachment" in the rulebook and isn't just player shorthand.

Unbound detachment isn't even necessary.

SJ was correct that a "primary detachment" can be (a part of) the unbound portion of your list. I even said this on the first page of this thread.

His assertion that all of unbound, or even the indiviual factiins within unbound are always a detachment(s) is incorrect. Unbound only ever has a primary detachment and that is only when the warlord is drawn from that section of your list.

An unbound army that includes a formation(as there is no point in including any other type of detachment); and having that formation include your warlord, will result in an army with 1 detachment(the formation, and it is your primary), and then a bunch of army list entries/datasheets.

Doesn't seem like there is support for any sort of Detachment other than Formations in an Unbound list.

Unbound army lists are constructed from Formations plus any other models you choose. If a rule asks us whether or not a model is part of the army's Primary Detachment, we answer yes for any model that shares a Faction with the Warlord. Assuming the model isn't in a Formation, it's not actually part of a Detachment at all. We just treat it as though it is for all rules purposes.

This is one of those situations where X doesn't exist, but for all practical purposes, it might as well. The game is played as though X exists. It's kind of like US currency. In and of itself, it has no value. He just treat it as though it has value... so the system functions fine. Unbound models aren't part of a Primary Detachment... we just treat them as though they are so that the game continues to function.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Unbound detachment isn't even necessary.

SJ was correct that a "primary detachment" can be (a part of) the unbound portion of your list. I even said this on the first page of this thread.

His assertion that all of unbound, or even the indiviual factiins within unbound are always a detachment(s) is incorrect. Unbound only ever has a primary detachment and that is only when the warlord is drawn from that section of your list.

An unbound army that includes a formation(as there is no point in including any other type of detachment); and having that formation include your warlord, will result in an army with 1 detachment(the formation, and it is your primary), and then a bunch of army list entries/datasheets.

That last bit isn't quite right. If you have random extra units outside of the Formation who share a Faction with the Warlord, they are also treated as being part of the army's Primary Detachment. It wouldn't just be the models in the Formation.

My request for citations to support your position is per the forum tenets, which you are ignoring. Per the tenets, you need to prove your statement, not just state someone is wrong. I have cited support for my argument. I have not cited further support because my detractors have not responded in kind with citations of their own. If I were to post further citations, I can include that all units must belong to a detachment, or that while in an unbound army, detachment restrictions and command benefits are ignored. Or how about in order to even have a Primary Detachment (which is a requirement), you have to select the detachment to which your army's Warlord belongs to, or in the case of unbound, the faction to which your Warlord belongs becomes the Primary Detachment.

So, are you going to support your claim, or are you going to continue to ignore the forum tenets?

SJ

That would be the case if we were the ones to make an assertion, but you were the one who asserted that Unbound is a detachment by the statement of the rules, then told us to prove you wrong. Since you were the one who made this claim, burden of proof is on you. Because once again, nothing states that Unbound is a Detachment.

It's like you declared that some crows can be naturally pink and then asked us to prove that it's false by finding every single crow in existence and identifying their color, without actually bringing in a pink crow.

So I ask again, where does it say "unbound detachment" in the book.

EDIT: also I must point out that:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
My request for citations to support your position is per the forum tenets, which you are ignoring. Per the tenets, you need to prove your statement, not just state someone is wrong. I have cited support for my argument. I have not cited further support because my detractors have not responded in kind with citations of their own. If I were to post further citations, I can include that all units must belong to a detachment, or that while in an unbound army, detachment restrictions and command benefits are ignored. Or how about in order to even have a Primary Detachment (which is a requirement), you have to select the detachment to which your army's Warlord belongs to, or in the case of unbound, the faction to which your Warlord belongs becomes the Primary Detachment.

So, are you going to support your claim, or are you going to continue to ignore the forum tenets?

SJ

The bolded section is actually pertaining to Battle Forged Armies, not Unbound Armies. I am currently at work so I ask a third party (preferably that guy with the fabulous crown in his avatar) to double check this for me since i'm only 95% sure.

I can include that all units must belong to a detachment,

Wrong, you can't include this, From an Earlier post by oldzoggy:

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

Only the Battle-Forged method requires every unit to be in a detachment. The Unbound method has no such requirement and is the whole point of the method. This makes your stance wrong.

Even if the models that are the same faction as the warlord are in an actual Primary Detachment, the rest of the models belonging to a different faction are not in some entity called an unbound detachment. It doesn't exist and you can't prove it does exist.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
My request for citations to support your position is per the forum tenets, which you are ignoring. Per the tenets, you need to prove your statement, not just state someone is wrong. I have cited support for my argument. I have not cited further support because my detractors have not responded in kind with citations of their own. If I were to post further citations, I can include that all units must belong to a detachment, or that while in an unbound army, detachment restrictions and command benefits are ignored. Or how about in order to even have a Primary Detachment (which is a requirement), you have to select the detachment to which your army's Warlord belongs to, or in the case of unbound, the faction to which your Warlord belongs becomes the Primary Detachment.

So, are you going to support your claim, or are you going to continue to ignore the forum tenets?

I have referenced or quoted things to support them. You have ignored them or dismissed them, not the same thing.

When are you going to follow your own advice and provide where it states anything as an "Unbound Detachment"? The one or two quotes you have provided have not said anything to support your position, and we pointed them out at the time. Nothing in your large paragraph above supports the concept of an "Unbound Detachment". All they state is an Unbound army can have Detachments, which we have not argued against.

I have stated that the Primary Detachment is not an actual Detachment. This is because:
1) It does not have a Force Organization or Army list.
2) It is not listed as having any other components of a detachment.
3) A unit cannot belong to more than one detachment unless the detachment's rules specifically state, and the Primary does not.
4) It is specifically listed as a designation of either the Warlord's Detachment in a Battle-Forge Army or the Warlord's Faction in an Unbound Army, and never stated to be anything else.

Except that I did support my statement with a citation, to which the counter argument was just that I was wrong. Per tenets, you need to demonstrate why I'm wrong, not just say that I am wrong, hence my repeated requests for citations on your part.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Except that I did support my statement with a citation, to which the counter argument was just that I was wrong. Per tenets, you need to demonstrate why I'm wrong, not just say that I am wrong, hence my repeated requests for citations on your part.

SJ

The problem is your citation isn't saying what you think your are saying. You are just reading it wrong. The only way to prove to you that is to have you relearn how english works

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Except that I did support my statement with a citation, to which the counter argument was just that I was wrong. Per tenets, you need to demonstrate why I'm wrong, not just say that I am wrong, hence my repeated requests for citations on your part.

Fine, repeat it and underline where it says, "unbound detachment".

Again, Unbound armies can have detachments, no argument, especially with Formations being allowed to exist in full. But there is no such thing specifically stated as "unbound detachment" anywhere in the rulebook.

P.S.
Here let help you out. I will quote your quote and then highlight unbound and 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.

See? No literal statement combining both "unbound" and "detachment" in sequence.

Here is your citation:

Page 118, Under Detachments:

"Don't forget that detachments ARE ENTIRELY OPTIONAL and you can still select an army by taking models from your collection using the Unbound method"

I guess that means if they are optional then models don't have to be in one. Which means your whole premise of the Unbound Detachment which is still not defined anywhere in the BRB still fails to hold water.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Except that I did support my statement with a citation, to which the counter argument was just that I was wrong. Per tenets, you need to demonstrate why I'm wrong, not just say that I am wrong, hence my repeated requests for citations on your part.

SJ

In your very first post in this thread, you said this:

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".

No citation, no reasoning, nothing. So not only have you gone against the tenets of the thread, you've gone against what you told the rest of us to do in a later post. You then went on to cite the following quote about Primary Detachments.

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.

There are few things here:

-- This doesn't tell us anything about your mysterious 'Unbound Detachment' at all.
-- In the quoted case, the Primary Detachment isn't actually a detachment, but a more a collection of units that is treated as the Primary Detachment - a point that I have made at least twice and a few others have also made.

You then go on to ask me this:

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

You clearly ignored me as well as the very rule you quoted earlier about Primary Detachments because it is a prime example of something being treated as something else without actually being the thing it's being treated as.


From here, you've then blatantly ignored the evidence in front of you about the fact that an Unbound Detachment doesn't exist in any form. The Primary Detachment as defined by the only rule you've quoted (a.k.a the rule in the third quote in this post) doesn't say that is actually is a detachment (a point that has been reiterated many times and each time has been promptly ignored by you), and nor does is shed any light on this mysterious 'Unbound Detachment'. There is no evidence in the BRB that specifically tells us of the existence of an Unbound Detachment, and nor is there any that implies that.

Also, consider the fact that an Unbound Army can simply take whatever units it wants without any restrictions, bonuses, or Force Organisation Charts. If there was such a thing as an Unbound Detachment, then Unbound Armies would not exist since every Unbound list would fall under this Unbound Detachment you've claimed (without proof) exists and thus be a Battle-Forged Army.

As per the tenets and your own advice: Please provide proof that there is an Unbound Detachment in the current edition of the Warhammer 40,000: The Rules.

Note that we are not required to prove you wrong and/or provide citations since you have not actually provided any evidence of the existence of this Unbound Detachment.

I like how he ignored the fact he quoted a portion of the Battle Forged rules for Unbound.

Also, another thing that you "cited" but is actually wrong: Command Benefits and Restrictions are NOT ignored in Unbound; Formations retain both in Unbound.

And if you claim that every model in an "unbound" army is part of a much larger "unbound" detachment, then I must ask the following question:

In an unbound army who's warlord is Pedro Kantor, do Blood Angels Sternguards who are not part of any formations gain Objective Secured? Please explain why or why not.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Also, another thing that you "cited" but is actually wrong: Command Benefits and Restrictions are NOT ignored in Unbound; Formations retain both in Unbound.

Formations don't have Command Benefits.

 Ghaz wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Also, another thing that you "cited" but is actually wrong: Command Benefits and Restrictions are NOT ignored in Unbound; Formations retain both in Unbound.

Formations don't have Command Benefits.

*sprays water*

One technicality argument per thread!

But yeah I just read it again and it doesn't actually call it Command Benefits.

Saying I didn't cite followed by quoted my post where I cite is a bit fallacious, don't you think? And how about calling me out on my command benefits comment, only to be wrong yourselves?

Might want to rethink your own argument.

SJ

You haven't cited any evidence that supports you. You've only quoted things that have worked against you.

Whether you're trolling (which by now I suspect you are) or you really don't see it, please sit down and review the evidence against your standpoint.