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.

Hey guys,

I've had this argument with a couple of friends (purely theoretical since we always run Battle-Forged lists) about whether or not an Unbound Army can include Detachments (and not just formations). Now, I've read over the Detachment rules and the only mention of Detachments being disallowed in Unbound Armies is under Formations on Page 121 which says the following:

Unlike other Detachments, Formations can also be taken as part of Unbound armies (page 117). If they are, their units maintain the special rules gained for being part of the Formation.

Now, I've read through the details for the Unbound method (yes, all two paragraphs of it) and it makes no explicit mention of Detachments being disallowed which, to my mind, means the above quote is referencing a restriction that doesn't exist. The way Detachments are talking about seem to imply that Unbound Armies do not contain Detachments at all, but there seems to be no reason given and no explicit rule that says that cannot be included.

So my question is this:

Where in the BRB does it supposedly say that Detachments cannot be taken as part of an Unbound Army? Or if they can be taken, where does it say that they do not receive their command benefits?

Or is the above quote from Page 121 the rule that defines this restriction?


Cheers guys

If you have read the two paragraphs detailing Unbound armies, then you already read were it states that Unbound armies do not benefit from the detachment command benefits. The line you quoted highlights where formations different from detachments.

SJ

@SJ: In those two paragraphs, it doesn't actually say that I cannot take Detachments. It doesn't set that restriction. The way it's worded suggests that the writers assumed that detachments would not be taken rather than actually making it a restriction.

So far as I can see you can organise your Unbound army into detachments if you wish, but you simply won't receive any command benefits:

"Of course, in an Unbound army, these models are not bound by any Detachment restrictions and do not receive Command Benefits."

And:

"Don’t forget that Detachments are entirely optional and you can still select an army by taking any models from your collection, as discussed in the Unbound method – it just means that none of the models in your army receive Command Benefits."

So you can take them...you can even call them detachments, but they would be exactly the same models, units and rules that they would be unbound.

Not sure why there is even a question about this...it doesn't matter what you call them.

 Mr. Shine wrote:
So far as I can see you can organise your Unbound army into detachments if you wish, but you simply won't receive any command benefits:

"Of course, in an Unbound army, these models are not bound by any Detachment restrictions and do not receive Command Benefits."

And:

"Don’t forget that Detachments are entirely optional and you can still select an army by taking any models from your collection, as discussed in the Unbound method – it just means that none of the models in your army receive Command Benefits."

I thought the first quote there was specific to the way they defined the primary detachment, but I can see how it would apply to detachments (but not formations) in general.

 JimOnMars wrote:
So you can take them...you can even call them detachments, but they would be exactly the same models, units and rules that they would be unbound.

Not sure why there is even a question about this...it doesn't matter what you call them.

I don't understand your post.

 IllumiNini wrote:
I don't understand your post.

If you take 2 HQs, 6 Troop units, 3 fast, 3 heavy, and 3 elites, they would behave the same way if you took a combined arms detachment or if you took those same models unbound. You don't get the benefits such as warlord traits either way.

You put your models on the table. You move them. roll dice. put them away. It is mathematically identical if you use a CAD or use those same models unbound. There are no rule differences.

What is there to not understand?

 JimOnMars wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:
I don't understand your post.

If you take 2 HQs, 6 Troop units, 3 fast, 3 heavy, and 3 elites, they would behave the same way if you took a combined arms detachment or if you took those same models unbound. You don't get the benefits such as warlord traits either way.

You put your models on the table. You move them. roll dice. put them away. It is mathematically identical if you use a CAD or use those same models unbound. There are no rule differences.

What is there to not understand?

Consider taking a CAD with all the force organisation slots filled, then to fill the remaining points I take some random units that do not form a Formation or Detachment. The purpose of the original question is to ask whether or not something like this is a legal Unbound Army.

 JimOnMars wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:
I don't understand your post.

If you take 2 HQs, 6 Troop units, 3 fast, 3 heavy, and 3 elites, they would behave the same way if you took a combined arms detachment or if you took those same models unbound. You don't get the benefits such as warlord traits either way.

You put your models on the table. You move them. roll dice. put them away. It is mathematically identical if you use a CAD or use those same models unbound. There are no rule differences.

What is there to not understand?

Well, a CAD has ObSec. That's a pretty big difference. If you take just one more unit than you have slots for, or a different faction unit that is not in it's own formation or detachment, your CAD loses ObSec. That is what the rules for unbound are saying.

SJ

It loses ObSec under any conditions, as soon as the player announces "I am playing an unbound army."

At that point all CAD-based rules vanish no matter what you take in the individual detachments.

The BRB does not specifically disallow you from taking the models that make up a given Detachment, it simply says that any benefit gained by the Detachment are lost if any model(s) in the army do not properly fit into a Detachment.

Take this Eldar Combined Arms Detachment For Example:

HQ- Farseer on bike
Troops- 2x 5 Windriders
LoW- WraithKnight

All those models fit perfectly into a CAD, gaining ObSec and WL trait rerolls.
Now let's say I wish add another WK without adding any other units. My LoW slot is full, and I cannot add a second in the same Detahcment, meaning the 2nd WK is Not in any Detachement. My army instantly becomes "Unbound" and I lose all benefits listed from the CAD.

Does that explicitly say I haven't fielded as CAD? No, not really, but it does say that when constructing a list using the Unbound method, units ARE NOT organized into Detachments. So as soon as 1 model cannot fit into a Detachment it becomes Unbound and ALL of the models get kicked out of their detachment. Formations are the only exception.
--
Out of curiosity, what would be the point of claiming that you have still fielded a Detachment? I am unaware of any rule where this would matter.

It matters for models with rules that refers to a specific Detachment.

The only one off the top of my head that I can remember is Pedro Kantor giving Sternguards ObSec through his own special rule. I'm sure there are others that specify detachment.

Selecting a Warlord requires a detachment, hince why unbound specifies grouping like faction models and naming the faction with the Warlord as Primary Detachment.

SJ

 Galef wrote:
Out of curiosity, what would be the point of claiming that you have still fielded a Detachment? I am unaware of any rule where this would matter.

Ultimately it doesn't matter in the slightest because they don't get the Command Benefits and the Primary Detachment rules override anything you could say about a CAD in an Unbound list being the Primary Detachment.

It's simply a case of curiosity on my part. I just wanted to know if, despite their complete an utter redundancy, whether or not detachments such as CAD's could be taken as part of an Unbound Army.

I say the only real thing that may prevent you from taking a non-primary detachment in unbound is one sentence at the end of the Formations Rules description, where it says that:

"Unlike other Detachments, Formations can also be taken as part of Unbound armies."

However this is only a implication, not a hard fast rule.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I say the only real thing that may prevent you from taking a non-primary detachment in unbound is one sentence at the end of the Formations Rules description, where it says that:

"Unlike other Detachments, Formations can also be taken as part of Unbound armies."

However this is only a implication, not a hard fast rule.

Yeah, my thoughts on the wording of this are that it seems to imply there's another rule (which is missing from the BRB or somewhere sneaky) that disallows them, though I am OK with this particular reference being the rule that bans them. One other thing that's giving me pause is that if the following:

(1) If they are banned in Unbound Armies, why bother having the rule which states that Unbound Armies do not receive the Command Benefits of Detachments?

(2) If they're not banned:
(i) Why have a rule that says/implies that they are?
(ii) Why doesn't the Primary Detachment rule specify: "In the case where no detachments are taken in an Unbound Army.... < etc etc etc >"

 IllumiNini wrote:

It's simply a case of curiosity on my part. I just wanted to know if, despite their complete an utter redundancy, whether or not detachments such as CAD's could be taken as part of an Unbound Army.

And the answer would be 'no'.

If you read the start of the 'Army Selection Methods' section, it seems quite clear to me that you either have an Unbound army, or you have a Battle Forged army which is comprised of a number of Detachments.


Likewise, the Detachments section states in the introduction that this section is for creation of Battle Forged armies.


So Battle Forged armies are comprised of Detachments, Unbound armies are not (Your Warlord's Faction counts as being your 'Primary Detachment' even though there is no actual detachment present).

 insaniak wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:

It's simply a case of curiosity on my part. I just wanted to know if, despite their complete an utter redundancy, whether or not detachments such as CAD's could be taken as part of an Unbound Army.

And the answer would be 'no'.

If you read the start of the 'Army Selection Methods' section, it seems quite clear to me that you either have an Unbound army, or you have a Battle Forged army which is comprised of a number of Detachments.


Likewise, the Detachments section states in the introduction that this section is for creation of Battle Forged armies.


So Battle Forged armies are comprised of Detachments, Unbound armies are not (Your Warlord's Faction counts as being your 'Primary Detachment' even though there is no actual detachment present).

But this is my part of my point: It's never explicitly mentioned that you are strictly disallowed from taking detachments in Unbound Armies until Page 121 when it talks about Formations, and even then, it's written in such a way that it sounds like it's referencing a rule that doesn't exist. Even on Page 117, it essentially describes Unbound Armies as being able to take whatever you want, which - if the ban wasn't there - could very well be a full CAD and a random extra Heavy Support Choice that doesn't fit into a detachment. People (including a mate of mine who I game with regularly) keep telling me re-read everything because it's "Clearly Stated There" when in truth the ban is only ever mentioned (not solidified as a rule, mentioned) on Page 121.

What I'm saying is that, despite the fact that I'm OK with the ban (not that it really affects me anyway since I almost exclusively run Battle-Forged), the ban is not only redundant because the model won't receive the Command Benefits anyway, but it also relies on one relatively poorly written line on Page 121.

I suspect that the problem is that you're looking for a prohibition when what you should be looking for is permission.

You can't take Detachments in an Unbound army for the same reason you can't take a Furioso in a Dark Angels army... It's just not listed as an option.

Again, the Detachments section very specifically states that these rules apply to Battle Forged armies. There is no permission to apply those rules to an Unbound army.

 insaniak wrote:
I suspect that the problem is that you're looking for a prohibition when what you should be looking for is permission.

That's probably it. It just strikes me as odd/annoying that it's never explicitly said properly.

In that case, it also begs the question as to why the excerpt from Page 121 is worded like it is as well as why they bother saying that units in an Unbound Army don't receive Command Benefits, but that's probably being way too nit-picky haha

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:I say the only real thing that may prevent you from taking a non-primary detachment in unbound is one sentence at the end of the Formations Rules description, where it says that:

"Unlike other Detachments, Formations can also be taken as part of Unbound armies."

However this is only a implication, not a hard fast rule.

And the Primary Detachment rules already address this. The only way to not have a Primary Detachment, Battle-Forged or Unbound doesn't matter, is to not have a Warlord. If you can get away without a Warlord, then this is possible, but not many game modes allow for that.