This is something I would never attempt in tournament play, but I wanted to see your thoughts off allying Sisters of Battle w/ marines lead by Vulkan He'Stan.

Would you as a player cry foul if I activate the "twin-linked melta/flamer" chapter tactic supplied by Vulkan on my sisters (ie: a rhino full of dominios w/ 4 flamers)?

The rules state the combat tactic applies to the "army", but I also know this argument was brought up involving guard players who gave their sister squads commands (and is generally not allowed). Also, this rule depends on weather "Army" consists of what is under your force organization chart, OR the race that you are playing (which I may even be leaning towards). There is No FAQ for any of this. What do you all think about toying with this rule?

Space marine units exchange the combat tactics rule for Chapter tactics.

So if your sisters for some reason had combat tactics, it would work.

Canonness Rory wrote:Space marine units exchange the combat tactics rule for Chapter tactics.

So if your sisters for some reason had combat tactics, it would work.

No exchange takes place with vulkan. You lose combat tactics, not exchange. It's not a requirement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fire_hive wrote:This is something I would never attempt in tournament play, but I wanted to see your thoughts off allying Sisters of Battle w/ marines lead by Vulkan He'Stan.

Would you as a player cry foul if I activate the "twin-linked melta/flamer" chapter tactic supplied by Vulkan on my sisters (ie: a rhino full of dominios w/ 4 flamers)?

The rules state the combat tactic applies to the "army", but I also know this argument was brought up involving guard players who gave their sister squads commands (and is generally not allowed). Also, this rule depends on weather "Army" consists of what is under your force organization chart, OR the race that you are playing (which I may even be leaning towards). There is No FAQ for any of this. What do you all think about toying with this rule?

All meltas and flamers (of various variants) become twin-linked.

As far as 'race' or 'army' would be the only hitch.

No, as a player, I would not cry foul. I play by the rules to the best of my ability.

Well, the problem is the next line starts off as "Instead." So, it is still an exchange.

EDIT: Also, wrong section of the forum.

sorry about that. Ill change the thread location

DarkHound wrote:Well, the problem is the next line starts off as "Instead." So, it is still an exchange.

Chapter Tactics: If you include He'stan then all units in your
army lose the Combat Tactics special rule. Instead, all
thunder hammers in your army will count as master-crafted,
and all flamers, heavy flamer, meltaguns and multimeltas
count as twin-linked. If more than one character in your
army has the Chapter Tactics special rule, you must choose
which version will apply.

I don't think in this instance that this is an exchange. You lose chapter tactics if you have it and all your stuff is twin-linked.

Unless, of course, you play that dreads and other units that don't have chapter tactics in a space marine army don't count as twin-linked.

I don't know of anyone personally that does that, but if you do then that is correct.

I agree with that statement.
The problem was that a member at GM argued that your "ARMY" only included those units native to the codex, allies don't count as a part of the "army".

Inquisitorial Allies are a legacy of 4th edition, they'll be gone soon enough.

EDIT: Legacy of 3rd Edition. Not 4th.

If it said something like "... units exchange the Combat Tactics rule, and in return [etc etc]..." then you'd have an argument for denying Allies the ability to use Vulkan's awesomeness. As it stands the RaW doesn't make twin-linking/ master-crafting a quid pro quo thing (i.e the units don't swap Combat Tactics for it, those that have Combat Tactics lose it and all the specified items in the army benefit) and as such we are free to enjoy twin-linked AP1 templates.

You mean a better argument than "It doesn't say I can't!"?

It's not a case of IDSIC, more a case of there not being a requirement for a unit to swap it's Combat Tactics rule quid-pro-quo for the twin-linking/ master-crafting and therefore an implicit suggestion that the only requirement to benefit is possession of the listed items.

We can sit here and debate the intent of the rule or rail against the careless employment of language by GW's game devs all day long, doesn't change the fact that according to RaW my Dominion's 4 flamers are all twin-linked if I ally them with a Vulkan army.

Except the GW developers haven't used the language carelessly, and hence have made no implicit suggestion that the only requirement to benefit is the possession of the listed items. The requirements to benefit are clearly membership in the same army, and possession of the same items. The Inquisitorial allies are not part of the same army, and therefore fail to meet one of the requirements for benefiting from the rule.

So yes, it does change the "fact" that "according to RaW" your Dominion's Flamers are all Twin-Linked, because that is neither a fact nor what the rules actually say. It means that if you're doing this without the informed consent of your opponent, you're cheating, as well as being unsportsmanlike by stooping to twist and obfuscate the rules for your own advantage.

Nurglitch wrote:Except the GW developers haven't used the language carelessly, and hence have made no implicit suggestion that the only requirement to benefit is the possession of the listed items.

There's no clause that says a unit has to give up Combat Tactics to gain the twin-linking/ master-crafting; in effect all that happens is your units lose Combat Tactics and the listed items gain a bonus because of it.

If they intended only Space Marine units to benefit then they were, at best, clumsy, and at worst negligent when they were writing up Vulkan's rule.

The requirements to benefit are clearly membership in the same army,

Are the Allies on my army list's FoC? Check!

and possession of the same items.

Do they have items of wargear named by Vulkan's rule? Check!

The Inquisitorial allies are not part of the same army, and therefore fail to meet one of the requirements for benefiting from the rule.

Explain how. They're on my FoC, they're part of the same detachment, they're friendly models... you're going to have to direct me to a passage in the BRB or one or other of the Codexes to convince me they're not part of the same army as Vulkan.

So yes, it does change the "fact" that "according to RaW" your Dominion's Flamers are all Twin-Linked, because that is neither a fact nor what the rules actually say.

You need to evince your assertions with RaW, because so far all you're doing is making specious statements with no backing. As things stand my Sisters and Grey Knights, and any other Allied units which have the required items of wargear, benefit from Vulkan's rule by dint of having those items. They don't lose Combat Tactics, but they don't have to.

It means that if you're doing this without the informed consent of your opponent, you're cheating, as well as being unsportsmanlike by stooping to twist and obfuscate the rules for your own advantage.

If you're going to make judgements like this you really need to provide evidence that your interpretation is the correct one according to the rules. Gwar! does it all the time; the difference being that perusal of the text usually bears out his responses. Be a bit more thorough.

This should be in YMDC, but it hinges on "Instead." All units lose Combat Tactics, and in its stead they get TL to all that stuff. I don't have Combat Tactics to lose, so I can't put anything in its place. Units without Combat Tactics still don't get the TL stuff. RAI and RAW.

I'll buy that; the swap is implied by "instead", good enough for me.

Just think, a bit less slop on the part of the writers would have saved us all a lot of time.

DarkHound wrote:This should be in YMDC, but it hinges on "Instead." All units lose Combat Tactics, and in its stead they get TL to all that stuff. I don't have Combat Tactics to lose, so I can't put anything in its place. Units without Combat Tactics still don't get the TL stuff. RAI and RAW.

? Units with combat tactics lose it. Instead every one in the army gets mastcrafted thunder-hammers and Twin Linked meltaguns, multimeltas, flamers and heavy flamers. You may not like it but allied units are part of the army so they also gain the effect.

As mention this will disappear in the coming months when the new WH and DH codex arrive (or may be just a single Codex Inquisitor)

Tri wrote:

DarkHound wrote:This should be in YMDC, but it hinges on "Instead." All units lose Combat Tactics, and in its stead they get TL to all that stuff. I don't have Combat Tactics to lose, so I can't put anything in its place. Units without Combat Tactics still don't get the TL stuff. RAI and RAW.

? Units with combat tactics lose it. Instead every one in the army gets mastcrafted thunder-hammers and Twin Linked meltaguns, multimeltas, flamers and heavy flamers. You may not like it but allied units are part of the army so they also gain the effect.

They haven't lost Combat Tactics though. All wargear listed becomes twin-linked/ master-crafted instead of the models armed with it having Combat Tactics.

It doesn't require a lot of mental backflips to get to it, and as stated previously it produces sensible RaW and RaI. You may not like it, but occasionally common sense must be allowed to prevail where 40K rules are concerned.

As mention this will disappear in the coming months when the new WH and DH codex arrive (or may be just a single Codex Inquisitor)

If by "coming months" you mean "at some point before 2045".

They don't need to lose it. Every one that does have it lose it. Then every one, in the army, gets mastcrafted thunder-hammers and Twin Linked meltaguns, multimeltas, flamers and heavy flamers


.... 2 weeks before the 6TH ED is released making the rules obsolete ....No real idea when they've been making noise it will be soon (possibly 2nd one after SW) ... so next year knowing them ^__^

Tri wrote:

As mention this will disappear in the coming months when the new WH and DH codex arrive (or may be just a single Codex Inquisitor)

I am very exited for the new edition, hopefully the penitent engines will get their well deserved upgrade. such a sweet model.

Back to the this chintzy rule.

DarkHound wrote:
This should be in YMDC, but it hinges on "Instead." All units lose Combat Tactics, and in its stead they get TL to all that stuff. I don't have Combat Tactics to lose, so I can't put anything in its place. Units without Combat Tactics still don't get the TL stuff. RAI and RAW.

If this is true then would that also mean that dreds, and other vehicles will not gain the benefit because they are not armed with combat tactics? If we are asked to incorporate the argument of implied meaning, then this rule was meant to apply to ALL units including vehicles not armed with the tactics. Marine units still loose the tactics, but ALL units (vehicles) gain the tactic. The question is and has been, do allied forces as a part of the force organization count as a part of the army?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tri wrote:
.... 2 weeks before the 6TH ED is released making the rules obsolete ....No real idea when they've been making noise it will be soon (possibly 2nd one after SW) ... so next year knowing them ^__^

what do you mean 2 weeks before 6th edition? 6th edition of what?

Frank Fugger wrote:They haven't lost Combat Tactics though. All wargear listed becomes twin-linked/ master-crafted instead of the models armed with it having Combat Tactics.

It doesn't require a lot of mental backflips to get to it, and as stated previously it produces sensible RaW and RaI. You may not like it, but occasionally common sense must be allowed to prevail where 40K rules are concerned.

So you have always played that dreads, speeders and other vehicles with melta and flamer weapons do not get twin linked?

And you state that's rai? I think it's the farthest thing from it.

And if it truly was an 'exchange', why is vulkan the only one that is worded explicity different than all the other special characters?

It doesn't make sense at all, especially from a rai standpoint...

Well the biggest difference I've noticed between Vulkan's entry and the other characters that have a rule that replaces chapter tactics is that all of the other abilities are a universal special rule from the BGB (Stubborn, Fleet, Outflank) while Vulkan's ability is something that is unique.
Unfortunately this looks into RAI too much and can only be objectified as conjecture. All in all though its something that should be noted.

imweasel wrote:
So you have always played that dreads, speeders and other vehicles with melta and flamer weapons do not get twin linked?

Nope. Way we play it everything in the army gets twin-linking/ master-crafting, Allies and all. What I'm doing is sorting through the rules to see if there's anything that says definitively yes or no either way.

And you state that's rai? I think it's the farthest thing from it.

This is a little murkier. Read any Salamanders fluff and you'll see why them having MCed Thunder Hammers and twin-linked Flamer/ Melta weapons is fluffy; hence the Salamanders IC having rules to that effect. Basically they favour these weapons. They also make a lot of their own gear and make it to artificer standard; which, unless they're suddenly in the business of crafting Meltaguns and Flamers for their Sisters allies or tweaking the Grey Knight Terminator's Thunder Hammers for them on the eve of a battle, does cast doubt over how RaI the Allies thing truly is.

And if it truly was an 'exchange', why is vulkan the only one that is worded explicity different than all the other special characters?

This I can't answer. Maybe the Codex writer fails at English? Maybe they needed to try and make it so's that Dreads and Speeders etc. would gain the benefit without losing a rule they don't have and didn't bother to factor in the effect it'd have on Allied units? Maybe they intended for every unit in the army (i.e every unit in the same detachment, including Allies) to have TL/ MC?

Fire_hive wrote:I am very exited for the new edition, hopefully the penitent engines will get their well deserved upgrade. such a sweet model.

Doing away with the requirement for a Priest is all that's needed; Penny Engines rawk

If this is true then would that also mean that dreds, and other vehicles will not gain the benefit because they are not armed with combat tactics? If we are asked to incorporate the argument of implied meaning, then this rule was meant to apply to ALL units including vehicles not armed with the tactics. Marine units still loose the tactics, but ALL units (vehicles) gain the tactic. The question is and has been, do allied forces as a part of the force organization count as a part of the army?

.... aaaaand we're back to needing to prove that Allies aren't part of the army. Nobody has been able to do it yet; the argument that they're Allies doesn't hold up, because they still use up FoC chart slots in my army list and are not seperate in any way. I can join my Inquisitorial ICs to friendly units, and indeed under RaW I HAVE to Summarily Execute an Inquisitor Lord who chooses to fail a Morale check (as he's entitled to do because of Iron Will) if the unit he joins includes a Commissar.

Finding a BRB definition of "army" and proving that Allies don't count as part of it, or explaining (with RaW backing) how units from the same Codex without Combat Tactics can benefit without allowing Allies to do so, seems to be the only way to stop Sisters' weapons counting as twin-linked.

Fire_hive wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tri wrote:
.... 2 weeks before the 6TH ED is released making the rules obsolete ....No real idea when they've been making noise it will be soon (possibly 2nd one after SW) ... so next year knowing them ^__^

what do you mean 2 weeks before 6th edition? 6th edition of what?

I was referencing GW habit of releasing codex just before they release the next BGB intimately making the codex obsolete. All signs point to the next codex being soon but we've got 2-3 are also due soon. (Space Wolves being one)

I doubt we'll see an =][= Codex much before the middle of 2010. Both of the Inquisition Codexes are mostly used for Allies purposes at the moment, and as Allies they run fine even with cruddy 3rd Ed rules. There are far more popular armies awaiting updates and I'd wager they'll get releases first.

Wow, so much rage over "Yes, Vulkan Works with sisters."

You tell people that, though, and they don't believe you.

Instead they try and convince you that Allies aren't part of your army despite the fact that they quite blatantly are.

Nurglitch wrote:Inquisitorial Allies are a legacy of 4th edition, they'll be gone soon enough.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooes


That said, I'm rpetty sure "army" in those rules means your Space Marine army, allies not included.
Army as in Army List, you know?
Though I have to agree, the wording goes toward a "'yes".
RAW yes, RAI no, maybe?

InquisitorBob:

That is correct: the "army" reference in those refers to the Space Marine army. The 'wording', as you say, indicates unambiguously that allies do not benefit from Vulkan's rule.

Something to think about might be why the RAI suggests that the rule was not intended to be that way, while the RAW suggested that the rule is that way. The only evidence for RAI is, unsurprisingly, the rules as they are written. Likewise the meaning of the rules as they are written is fixed by the rest of the rules. Taken out of context, atomically, Vulkan's rule sure looks like it refers to the token army including units from the Space Marine army list and units from any allied list. But, given that the meaning of the term "army" has been fixed as mean the Space Marine army, that apparent meaning is false.

If I write a 1500pt army list and included some sisters of battle they are still part of the army. This is because allies become part of the army that's fielding them. It should also be noted even in larger games (10000+pts) you still are only allowed 1HQ, 1 Elite, 1 Fast and 2 Troop from DH and WH

Tri:

Yes and no. Yes, because the allied units are part of that combined Space Marine/Allied army, and no, because the allied units are not part of the Space Marine army. The rules in Codex: Space Marine refer to the latter and not the former. This distinction is what is commonly referred to as the type/token distinction, whereby the type of army that the rules refer to, the Space Marine army, is distinct from the specific or token army that you can make using Codex: Witch/Daemon Hunters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
More about the type-token distinction.

Nurglitch wrote:Tri:

Yes and no. Yes, because the allied units are part of that combined Space Marine/Allied army, and no, because the allied units are not part of the Space Marine army. The rules in Codex: Space Marine refer to the latter and not the former. This distinction is what is commonly referred to as the type/token distinction, whereby the type of army that the rules refer to, the Space Marine army, is distinct from the specific or token army that you can make using Codex: Witch/Daemon Hunters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
More about the type-token distinction.

Interesting but it doesn't change that its all thunder hammers, flamers, heavy flamers, meltaguns and multimeltas in the army gain the rule. Doesn't matter they've come from another codex. You only write one army list they are part of the army in my book.

Well i guess we can agree to disagree if you don't like it you can ether roll off or not play with me.

My point is that it does the conclusion that the rule applies to all the units in the army. It changes the conclusion from true, where it applies to all units in any token army, to false, where it applies to all units in the army type, the Space Marine army.

We can agree to disagree, but we already did that when we decided to post mutually exclusive opinions. Since this is a discussion forum, and not a game of 40k, I suggest we discuss the matter in order to reach the truth of the matter.

That's just it they are units in the army. Your limit is all units in Codex Space marine which is never mention.

Tri:

See Codex: Space Marines. Concerning which army the term 'army' refers to, see p.51 for special rules.

"The models in the Space Marines army use a number of special rules that are common to more than one unit, as specified in the individual entries that follow."

See p.127 for lists.

"The following pages contain an army list that enables you to field a Space Marines army and fight battles using the scenarios included in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook. It also provides you with the basic information you'll need in order to field a Space Marines army in scenarios you've devised yourself, or that form part of a campaign."

"The army list allows you to pick an army based on the troops that could be fielded by a Space Marines Battle Company, with attached support drawn from other companies in the Chapter."

"Before you choose an army, you will need to agree with your opponent upon a scenario and the total number of points each of you will spend. Then you can proceed to pick your army."

So no, it's not my "limit", it's a distinction made in the Codex itself, between the Space Marine army list, and the Space Marine army you can choose using that list.

Well case of the general rule being over ridden by the specific. Daemon hunters (& Witch Hunters)maybe included as allies within Space Marine (& Imperial Guard) armies. Since they are now part of the army, Vulkan hands round the better salamander equipment.

Tri:

No, this is not a case of a general rule being over-ridden by a specific rule, because the Allies rule is not a specific rule over-riding the general rule that the rules of Codex: Space Marine refer solely to units chosen from the Space Marine army list.

This is a case of Allied units being included in a token army, Space Marine units of which may be affected by special rules that apply to units chosen from the Space Marine army list.

Again the type/token distinction applies: the Allies rule allows some Daemon Hunter and Witch Hunter units to be included in armies otherwise chosen from the Space Marine and Imperial Guard army lists, not for those units to become parts of those army lists.

Nurglich, trype-token is all good and well, but 40k is a game where the consensus is often more important in making decisions...

So really, wouldn't it be a better idea to just do a bit of research, and see if someone has already tried this a a GT or something? and then to see if the tournament directors allowed it or not?

I guess it makes sense that the SM chaarcter would only affect SM units, otherwise we could apply any rule in any codex to any allies, unless they thought about specifically saying we can't.
If "army" isn't codex-specific, we could even have a canoness join a SM squad... o_O
Pretty sure we can't do that, right?

Nope; Allied ICs can join whatever units they want. Only thing is, with the Canoness (or indeed any Faithful IC), she can't make Tests of Faith while attached to a non-Sisters unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
We still need a definition of "army" as it applies to the models on the tabletop. This whole back-referencing nebulous terms from the Codex just don't cut it.

In other cases like this, where rules can apply to some models on the tabletop but not others, clear, unequivocal definitions are given. F'rinstance, the Daemonhunters' Codex has a clear definition of which units it means when it refers to "Daemons". That specificity doesn't exist with the word "army"; you can cut-paste all the instances of the word "army" you want from the Space Marine Codex, fact is the BRB uses the term "army" to represent all the models fielded by a single player countless times throughout the volume. Inb4 "Codex trumps Rulebook"; for this to be a valid argument you still need to provide text from an official source that unequivocally defines what the books mean when they say "army", and then you need to find more rulebook text that allows for Allied units to be excluded from this.


Look at it this way; I bring my Space Wolves to a Doubles tournament. No, even better; I bring my Meltaspam Mechvet list. My partner plays Salamanders. Do my Flamers and Meltaguns benefit from Vulkan's rule? If you think not, can you point me to something RaW-wise that disallows it?

Frank Fugger wrote:
Look at it this way; I bring my Space Wolves to a Doubles tournament. No, even better; I bring my Meltaspam Mechvet list. My partner plays Salamanders. Do my Flamers and Meltaguns benefit from Vulkan's rule? If you think not, can you point me to something RaW-wise that disallows it?

... please don't muddie this in your example your using two army yours and your friends (unless we're playing some wierd rules where half the FOC is given to each player)

Tri:

Frank Fugger isn't muddling anything.

The example he's giving is a logical extension of how token army lists interact with the type of army list they're drawn from. His mistake is then supposing that the term "army" refers only to the token army list that may be fielded, and that if this is the case, then all the units in a token army list composed of two Force Organization Charts can benefit from rules referencing the "army".

But the fact is that the term "army" is used semi-amphibolously to refer to both the army lists, and the armies that can be drawn from those lists. The quotes from Codex: Space Marine are instances of this use. I call the use of the term 'semi-amphibolous' because the context of the term is distinct and hence no confusion about its specific referents should be happening despite the same term being used in two different senses in the same rules document.

In other words, the rulebook gives clear and unambiguous definitions of the two senses of "army" in the section "Building an Army" (pp.viii-ix). This section sets the tone for the use of the term by 40k documents by referring to these two senses of the term "army".

In the type-sense, the rulebook says "However, most players soon decide to collect one particular army, such as Space Marines or Orks," and "Once you have chosen which army to collect...".

In the token-sense the rulebook says: "For example, every army must have a leader such as a Space Marine Captain or an Ork Warboss."

Codex: Space Marines simply fixes the senses of "army" to mean the specific type of army, the Space Marine army, and the specific token army, an army including Vulkan.

So, to recap: The rulebook establishes the dual use of the term, the Codex fixes the type-sense of the term to the Space Marine type of army, and Vulkan's rule references the type of army whose units may benefit from losing all instances of Combat Tactics, and gaining the Twin-Linked rule for all instances of the listed weapons. Allied Inquisitorial contingents are not part of the Space Marine army type, hence they do not benefit from Vulkan's rule.

Yeah, and this Token nonsense in which codex? I would love to read it.

If Nurglitch can't find evidence that supports his point, he creates it using strange "logical" inferences. I don't intend this as a flame of him personally, but his debate style is repetitive and incredibly circumlocuitous. Find any other thread with extensive rules argument and you'll see what I mean.

So to recap:

"Army" is not well defined as a game term, but the Inquisitor codices state that certain allies can be included in an "army" from a different parent list. In my opinion, the most literal reading lends itself toward 'Army' being a more inclusive term referring to the list as a whole.

You can't claim that a scenario that ignores or is not covered by the rules (as in a dual team tournament) can prove or disprove a rules argument. There are no rules for such a scenario, so then how can they possibly interact?

I really wish that this rule was usable because it would be such a fun army to play. I would have combined the sisters with Vulkan and formed a new chapter to break up the rough fluff surrounding the list.

With that said, I think our answer lies in pg 25 of the witch hunters codex stating,
"Witch Hunters units can be included as allies in any of the following codex armies".

The rule refers to "codex armies" in reference to the space marine, or IG codex, and, refers to the inclusion of Witch hunters in an army as "Allies". This means that though they ARE in fact included as part of the army (and the rule would normally apply), their "ally" status DOES separate them from them from the "codex ARMY". If the rule stated "they would be included in the codex army" then this would guarantee Vulkan's rule, but because they are included "as allies" in the codex army they would not gain any benefit bestowed by another codex.

Long story short, Witch hunters ARE a part of the army, but their ally name shields them from association with the codex rules. I am sorry if this is a poor, repetitive explanation.
All and all it is like throwing all the models into a shoebox called "Army", but the sisters are covered in a cellophane coating called "ally wrap" to ensure special rules don't rub off on them that aren't supposed to.

This is still not a guarantee, but this wording is as close to definitive proof as we are gonna get with this rule. I can see someone arguing the other way with this same statement, thus proving that a stone solid decision will never happen without GW holding our hands and telling us, but if you can use the statement above to prove you can confer Vulkan's rule in casual play, more power to ya.

If anyone can find an official GW ruling I would love to hear it, but until then, beef up your debate skills and just play.

If they're included in the army, then they're included in the army. That they have 'ally' status does not make them no longer a part of the army. Vulkan's rule says nothing about 'codex army', only 'army'. 'Codex army' is a qualifier that you made up.

I don't intend this to be rude, but often in these debates people cite definitive proof based on a critical rule interpretation that they made up. Case in point.

sourclams wrote:
I don't intend this to be rude, but often in these debates people cite definitive proof based on a critical rule interpretation that they made up. Case in point.

I agree with you. In the last post I even mentioned "I can see someone arguing the other way with this same statement". I was trying to address how someone could us the term "Ally" against Vulkan's rule, though the final ruling was still up for debate. It was food for thought, and to be honest, I would like to use the rule. I just don't want to instill a bias because of it.

Still, the point of my statement (sorry for being unclear), was the use of "Ally" and how it could shield them from "army" rule instances, while still being part of the force. There in, but their not. I feel like I'm going in circles.
It makes sense to me, but then again, I can't decide what the answer is myself.

P:S Your right; this is an interpretation, but then again, most laws in our justice systems are. Not saying I'm right, but GW needs to lock this down.

Sorry to bring this back up, but I wanted to weigh in. I'm getting back into the game after a few years away and was planning to run a Salamanders/Sisters army to make an army on the cheap since I've already got a decently sized Sisters army. I think the rules as written very clearly lend Vulkan's abilities to his allies, and pretty much any counter argument relies on some pretty gross parsing. That said, I can see that people on the other end might view that as a bit cheesy. In my opinion, it's not too hard to figure out why they wrote the rule as they did. If you look at the other characters' Chapter Tactics rules they all affect foot soldiers, conferring things like fleet or stubborn. In that case it makes sense to say "exchange" Combat Tactics for Chapter Tactics. For Vulkan they probably wanted his rule to apply to vehicles (which don't have Combat Tactics) as well, because all the Salamanders' weapons are skillfully crafted, not just their foot solders' weapons. For some reason they didn't feel the need to clarify it beyond that and just left it as "all <weapons> in the army". Now, unless your allies are actually being equipped by the Salamanders themselves it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for them to get the twin-linked bonus, so in that sense I'd say that the rule is broken and applying it "as written" clearly violates the intent. Just my 2 cents.

Amerikon wrote:I think the rules as written very clearly lend Vulkan's abilities to his allies, and pretty much any counter argument relies on some pretty gross parsing.

So put your money where your mouth is and provide a detailed critique of how these counter arguments rely on "pretty gross parsing". Provide some back-up to your claim.

Nurglitch wrote:

Amerikon wrote:I think the rules as written very clearly lend Vulkan's abilities to his allies, and pretty much any counter argument relies on some pretty gross parsing.

So put your money where your mouth is and provide a detailed critique of how these counter arguments rely on "pretty gross parsing". Provide some back-up to your claim.

So the basic argument for is very straightforward. The rule in the codex literally states "all thunder hammers in your army will count as master crafted, and all flamer, melta, etc count as twin-linked". Ask anyone what an "army" is and undoubtedly they'll tell you in some form or another that it is all the units that they're currently playing with. The counter arguments rely on pretty intense interpretations of what the word army means and whether or not the word "army" used in a codex overrides some other definition of "army" written in another codex. In particular, you wrote:

See Codex: Space Marines. Concerning which army the term 'army' refers to, see p.51 for special rules.

"The models in the Space Marines army use a number of special rules that are common to more than one unit, as specified in the individual entries that follow."

See p.127 for lists.

"The following pages contain an army list that enables you to field a Space Marines army and fight battles using the scenarios included in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook. It also provides you with the basic information you'll need in order to field a Space Marines army in scenarios you've devised yourself, or that form part of a campaign."

"The army list allows you to pick an army based on the troops that could be fielded by a Space Marines Battle Company, with attached support drawn from other companies in the Chapter."

"Before you choose an army, you will need to agree with your opponent upon a scenario and the total number of points each of you will spend. Then you can proceed to pick your army."

So no, it's not my "limit", it's a distinction made in the Codex itself, between the Space Marine army list, and the Space Marine army you can choose using that list.

You'd have to go through some pretty serious linguistic gymnastics to think that the use of the word army has any non-generic meaning. Why would the Space Marines codex contain anything other than rules to make a Space Marines army? If the sentence read "The following pages contain an army list that enables you to field a Space Marines army... and as part of your Space Marines army you can include allied units from Codex Daemonhunters and Codex Witch Hunters" would that make Vulkan's rule apply to allies? And certainly, Legion of the Damned are not troops that could be fielded by a Space Marines Battle Company or support drawn from other companies in the Chapter. Does that make them not part of a Space Marines army?

With that said, I think our answer lies in pg 25 of the witch hunters codex stating,
"Witch Hunters units can be included as allies in any of the following codex armies".

The rule refers to "codex armies" in reference to the space marine, or IG codex, and, refers to the inclusion of Witch hunters in an army as "Allies". This means that though they ARE in fact included as part of the army (and the rule would normally apply), their "ally" status DOES separate them from them from the "codex ARMY". If the rule stated "they would be included in the codex army" then this would guarantee Vulkan's rule, but because they are included "as allies" in the codex army they would not gain any benefit bestowed by another codex.

Nothing in this statement has any basis in the reality of the rules. If anything, by being included as an ally in an army you are now necessarily in that army. There's nothing in the main rulebook that applies any significance to allies and I'd be surprised if the term "codex army" is written anywhere outside of the two Inquisition codices. Let's take another example. If I take an IG army with Grey Knight allies and I choose Lord Creed as my HQ. Would his Tactical Genius rule (During deployment, choose a single infantry or vehicle unit in your army. That unit has the Scouts special rule for the duration of the battle.) not be applicable to they Grey Knights? Unlikely.

Basically, you can choose to determine the rule's meaning by simply reading the text of the rule ("all <weapons> in the army") or you can do all of this parsing and try to apply a very specific interpretation to general terms. All other things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the right one.

Now you've done it. Nurglitch is well known for his ability to spawn an incredibly circumlocutory "other meaning" out of what should be a straightforward rule.

Yes, by a strict RAW reading, Vulkan Sisters works.

Because that is somehow "too good" then we get the literary gymnastics that people go through to "prove" that it doesn't work.

WTB FAQ pst willing to pay 3x vendor and AH price!!1!

Fire_hive wrote:This is something I would never attempt in tournament play, but I wanted to see your thoughts off allying Sisters of Battle w/ marines lead by Vulkan He'Stan.

Would you as a player cry foul if I activate the "twin-linked melta/flamer" chapter tactic supplied by Vulkan on my sisters (ie: a rhino full of dominios w/ 4 flamers)?

The rules state the combat tactic applies to the "army", but I also know this argument was brought up involving guard players who gave their sister squads commands (and is generally not allowed). Also, this rule depends on weather "Army" consists of what is under your force organization chart, OR the race that you are playing (which I may even be leaning towards). There is No FAQ for any of this. What do you all think about toying with this rule?

Considering it says in the Witch Hunters book, that any model with the Adepta Sororitas Special rule cannot be included in a space marine army, makes it kind of tricky because you can't take; Seraphim, Dominions, Battle Sisters, Adepta Sororitas Heronies, Celestians, Retributers, or any other model that is allowed to use acts of faith. So that squad of Dominions can't exist.

So, actually this entire arugement is pointless because of that fact that you can't take Vulkan with most of the units that can use a melta gun or flamer (aka having the Adepta Sororitas special rule. Imolators, Inqusitorital Storm troopers, Penitent Engines, Priests, and Inqusitor Lords or Elite Inquisitors would be the only units that benefit by having Vulkan, but it would be so pointless do the fact the only way most of these units would benefit is by giving them a combi flamer, Imolators are already twin linked.

Kreedos wrote:
Considering it says in the Witch Hunters book, that any model with the Adepta Sororitas Special rule cannot be included in a space marine army, makes it kind of tricky because you can't take; Seraphim, Dominions, Battle Sisters, Adepta Sororitas Heronies, Celestians, Retributers, or any other model that is allowed to use acts of faith. So that squad of Dominions can't exist.

Where on earth does it say that? The rule is you cannot include SM in a WH army that includes any Adepta Sororitas units (aka Sisters of battle). No where are you restricted going the other way. (this includes DH Grey Knights who also can't field SM in their army but can be fielded with a SM army)

proof can be found on page 62 (of WH codex) that this is acceptable.

Where on earth does it say that? The rule is you cannot includ SM in a WH army that includes any Adepta Sororitas units (aka Sisters of battle)

Witch Hunters Codex, page 26, grey box on the side next to the Inquisitor Lord section, first paragraph.

"These units may not be chosen as any of the compulsory choices in an army and Allied Space Marine units may not be used if any Adepta Sororitas units are present in the army"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Where on earth does it say that? The rule is you cannot include SM in a WH army that includes any Adepta Sororitas units (aka Sisters of battle). No where are you restricted going the other way. (this includes DH Grey Knights who also can't field SM in their army but can be fielded with a SM army)

proof can be found on page 62 (of WH codex) that this is acceptable.

Grey Knights have few melta guns outside of Dreadnaughts or combi flamer/melta They have Psi Cannons and Incinerators, so allying him with Grey Knights would be pointless as well.

Kreedos wrote:

Where on earth does it say that? The rule is you cannot includ SM in a WH army that includes any Adepta Sororitas units (aka Sisters of battle)

Witch Hunters Codex, page 26, grey box on the side next to the Inquisitor Lord section, first paragraph.

"These units may not be chosen as any of the compulsory choices in an army and Allied Space Marine units may not be used if any Adepta Sororitas units are present in the army"

As in, if you use any Adepta Sororitas units in a Witch Hunters army then you can't use any of the Allied Space Marine choices, and vice versa. GKs in a DH army have the same restriction. However, that only counts if the army is built from the WH/ DH Codex; taking a Smurf army with Sisters and/ or Grey Knights as Allies is perfectly legal.

Grey Knights have few melta guns outside of Dreadnaughts or combi flamer/melta They have Psi Cannons and Incinerators, so allying him with Grey Knights would be pointless as well.

Grey Knight Terminators are WS5 and can take Thunder Hammers for free. On the charge a unit of 3 get 9 attacks (it's normally 6), assuming you don't upgrade the Brother-Captain's NFW. At WS5 they'll hit anything with a WS attribute on a 4+ at worst. Master-crafting allows you to reroll any that miss. Seems like a valid reason to take Allied GKTs in a Salamanders' list to me.

Grey Knight Terminators are WS5 and can take Thunder Hammers for free. On the charge a unit of 3 get 9 attacks (it's normally 6), assuming you don't upgrade the Brother-Captain's NFW. At WS5 they'll hit anything with a WS attribute on a 4+ at worst. Master-crafting allows you to reroll any that miss. Seems like a valid reason to take Allied GKTs in a Salamanders' list to me.

"Allied Space Marines may not be used if Grey Knights are present in the Daemonhunters force." page 21 of the Grey Knights Codex under the heading Allied Space Marines, bottom paragraph.

Grey Knight Terminators have the Grey Knight Special rule, so the above isn't possible.

Because, when you think about it, even using SM as a parent army, you refer back to the Daemon Hunters codex to choose your units and wargear, so thus "Allied Space Marines may not be used if Grey Knights are present" rule kicks in. It's not a special rule that's lost due to taking the parent army as space marines, it's a rule of the Codex when selecting any of the units that would have the Grey Knights special rule.

I don't see how this could be ignored, or where it gives you rules to take Allied Daemon Hunters or Witch Hunters without using the force organization charts and rules in each respective codex. This would mean you could ally IG and Space Marines too, if this was possible.

Only if the army is built from the DH Codex, in which case you couldn't take Vulkan.

If your army is built from the Space Marine Codex taking units, any units at all, including Sisters and Grey Knights, as Allies is fine.

The box-outs you're quoting comprise the rules for using Inducted Imperial GUard and Allied Space Marine units in a WH/ DH army. The rules for using WH/ DH as Allies in other armies are on p.25 of the WH Codex and p.21 of the DH Codex, under the heading "Using Witch/ Daemonhunters As Allies".

If your army is built from the Space Marine Codex taking units, any units at all, including Sisters and Grey Knights, as Allies is fine.

Where does it say that you can ignore the rule that Space Marines can't be present with any unit that has the GK or WH special rules?

Or, in what event do you lead up to this conclusion? As you just said you refer to the Force Organization share in either the WH or DH codex for what units you are allowed, so seeing as you refer to the codex for your units, you must also abide by that Codex's rule set.

Even if you would lose the WH special rule when taking Space Marines, it specifically says that you can't ally them in the first place. So, it's more of an assumption, that because they lose their special rule when being taken as allies, that you can indeed.

I believe that because of the way it's stated, you can't put them together, to make the WH, or GK rules disappear, so in fact you can't ally them at all.

"Allied Space Marines may not be used if Grey Knights are present in the Daemonhunters force"

Because of the ending "Deamonhunters force" it kind of leaves a loophole that one could say it's not the Daemonhunters force, but the Space Marines instead, and thus it's allowed to take them at that point. However, you are taking two forces, and thus you must abide by that rule, for the same reason you wouldn't gain the Space Marine special rules, or the Daemon Hunters would give the space marines theirs, also it states that one army can't use another armies wargear. This could be taken to signify that they remain two forces and fighting using their seperate codexes. They are two seperate forces, but taken into one army. This however could only be applied to the Daemonhunters army because the WH codex quotes and bases their ruleset on allies differently, because the Sisters would have to lose their special rule, and from what I said above, I don't think it's possible because you have to have a rule first, in order to lose it. Here's the Witch Hunter ally quote, their allowance to be allies is based on their special rule, instead of their title.

"Allied Space Marine units may not be used if any Adepta Sororitas units are present in the army."

This definition is much clearer, and states that Space Marine units and Adepta Sororitas can not be used together in any army that would include the two. This extends to using the Space Marine codex as the parent army as well.


So, after my big wall o text and long explanation, my opinion says you can never take Space Marines and Sisters, or GKs in the same army.

USING INDUCTED IMPERIAL GUARD OR ALLIED SPACE MARINE CONTIGENTS
explain use of allies
Allied Space Marines(sub heading of the above)
Allied Space marines may not be used if any (Grey Knights / Sisters of Battle) units are present in the army


So basically all your rules that stop SM army having Sisters of battle (/Grey Knights) in them stem from this while ignoring that this is all about using SM as the allies.

Tri wrote:USING INDUCTED IMPERIAL GUARD OR ALLIED SPACE MARINE CONTIGENTS
explain use of allies
Allied Space Marines(sub heading of the above)
Allied Space marines may not be used if any (Grey Knights / Sisters of Battle) units are present in the army


So basically all your rules that stop SM army having Sisters of battle (/Grey Knights) in them stem from this while ignoring that this is all about using SM as the allies.

I don't understand what you are saying, are you saying you can, or can't?

You really have got the wrong end of the stick on this one, haven't you?

The rules you're quoting pertain to the use of Allied Space Marine units in an army built from the Witch Hunters/ Daemonhunters Codex. There's a restrictive list of units you can take for your Allied Space Marine contingent within those two Codexes, and if your WH/ DH army includes units with the Adepta Sororitas or Grey Knights special rules you can't use Allied Space Marines at all. For example, if my Witch Hunters army consisted of an Inquisitor Lord and two units of Stormies, I could take Allied Space Marine units from the list on p.26. If my army consisted of a Canoness and two units of Stormies, I wouldn't be able to take Allied Space Marine units from the list on p.26 because the rules for taking Allied Space Marine units given on P.25 state that I can't take them if there are Adepta Sororitas units in my army, and the Canoness is an Adepta Sororitas unit. The same is true of the Daemonhunters Codex.

The rules that allow you to take Adepta Sororitas units and Grey Knights in a Space Marine army are on the box-outs on p.21 of the DH Codex and p.25 of the WH one; the little grey box on the far right of the page entitled "Using [x] Hunters As Allies". The only restrictions are that these Allies can't be used to fill out compulsory FoC slots (i.e, the 1 HQ and 2 Troops), only a limited number of Force Org slots are available to WH/ DH units taken as Allies, and no Heavy Support choices may be taken. That means I could make an army consisting of Vulkan, two Tactical Squads, 2 Sisters Squads and a unit of Seraphim, and it'd be perfectly legal.

Hell, I could make an army consisting of Vulkan, a Canoness and Celestian retinue, a unit of Elite Celestians, a unit of Elite Grey Knight Terminators, two Scout squads, two Sisters squads, two Grey Knights squads, a unit of Dominions and a unit of Fast Attack Grey Knights, and that would be legal. No special rules would need to be dropped, the Allied units would function exactly as stated in their Codex (i.e the Sisters would get their 4+ save against psychic powers and would be able to use Faith Points and the GKs would get The Shrouding, The Aegis, etc).

So yeah, to summarise; Allied Space Marines can't be used in a Witch Hunters/ Daemonhunters army that includes Sisters of Battle or Grey Knights, but Grey Knights and Sisters of Battle can be used as Allies in a Codex: Space Marines army thanks to the rules in the "Using [x] As Allies" box-outs.

Page 25 of the WH Codex

Using Witch Hunters with other army lists is the title of the section. This would mean that it's only rules for using Witch Hunters with other armies, and not about inducting other forces into the Witch Hunters army, because these rules are already stated on page 26.

This includes a section that is entitled

Allied Space Marines

In this section it states this;

"Allied Space Marines may not be used if any Adepta Sororitas units are present in the Witch Hunters force."

The Witch Hunters still have a force as I said in the previous post, and thus it counts as playing two armies, and using the two different codexes for units and wargear. Thus the rule still stands, and I don't see how you could ignore it, because it's in the section that you get all of your rules for allying using Space Marines as the parent or child. Aka, you can't just ignore the rest of the page and just read the Grey Box because of the fact that even though Space Marines are the parent army, they are still two seperate forces.

Kreedos wrote:

Tri wrote:USING INDUCTED IMPERIAL GUARD OR ALLIED SPACE MARINE CONTIGENTS
explain use of allies
Allied Space Marines(sub heading of the above)
Allied Space marines may not be used if any (Grey Knights / Sisters of Battle) units are present in the army


So basically all your rules that stop SM army having Sisters of battle (/Grey Knights) in them stem from this while ignoring that this is all about using SM as the allies.

I don't understand what you are saying, are you saying you can, or can't?

Sarcasm doesn't transmit well. You may use Grey Knights / Sisters of Battle in a Space Marine army because the rules for them not being use able can only be found as part of using rules for Space Marines as allies in a WH/DH army.

No, Allied Space Marines means taking Space Marines from the allies list and including them in a non-space marine army.

Sarcasm doesn't transmit well. You may use Grey Knights / Sisters of Battle in a Space Marine army because the rules for them not being use able can only be found as part of using rules for Space Marines as allies in a WH/DH army.

I wasn't using sarcasm, the way you stated what you said was just confusing, I wasn't meaning to offend.

Kreedos wrote:

Tri wrote:
Sarcasm doesn't transmit well. You may use Grey Knights / Sisters of Battle in a Space Marine army because the rules for them not being use able can only be found as part of using rules for Space Marines as allies in a WH/DH army.

I wasn't using sarcasm, the way you stated what you said was just confusing, I wasn't meaning to offend.

.... my sarcasm, at your use of rules, ignoring their context ....

.... my sarcasm, at your use of rules, ignoring their context ....

I wasn't ignoring their context, and pretty much everything you asked me to produce I answered with my opinion 5 posts up from this one. Page 25 is all about using Witch Hunters with other armies, thus all rules listed on the page cannot be ignored. Page 26 is about taking other armies into a Witch Hunters army. They're two seperate things, and in both of them it says that you can't take allied Space Marines with Adepta Sororitas units.

@Kreedos:
You can use DH/WH in three ways:
A. As an army in their own right.
B. As an army that includes allies from SM/IG books.
C. As allies themselves in an army made from an SM/IG book.

The rules you refer to are for case B, under the heading "Using Inducted Imperial Guard or Allied Space Marine Contingents." Case C uses the rules "Using Witch Hunters (or DH) as Allies" which allows units from the WH/DH list to be included in other lists - what we're discussing here.

The rules that say you cannot use allied space marines in the Case C army are to prevent you from taking "allies to your allies" if you see what I mean.

Kreedos wrote:

.... my sarcasm, at your use of rules, ignoring their context ....

I wasn't ignoring their context, and pretty much everything you asked me to produce I answered with my opinion 5 posts up from this one. Page 25 is all about using Witch Hunters with other armies, thus all rules listed on the page cannot be ignored. Page 26 is about taking other armies into a Witch Hunters army. They're two seperate things, and in both of them it says that you can't take allied Space Marines with Adepta Sororitas units.

Page 25 just says that if you bring WH units as allies those allies can't themself be drawn through the rules on page 26. They have to be WH units. No allying Inducted guards with space marines or vice versa.

Kreedos wrote:They're two seperate things, [b]and in both of them it says that you can't take allied Space Marines with Adepta Sororitas units.

In a Codex: Space Marine army, the Space Marines aren't Allied.

EDIT: Box out, p.25 of the WH Codex:

"In keeping with the many possibilities for the forces of the Ordo Hereticus to appear within Space Marine and Imperial Guard forces, Witch Hunters units can be used as Allies in any of the following Codex armies:

* Space Marines, including variant armies such as Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Black Templars, Salamanders and other loyalist Index Astartes Chapters.
* Imperial Guard and it's variants, such as Catachan Jungle Fighters and Armageddon Steel Legion
* Daemonhunters."

Then further down the box-out:

"If you have an existing Warhammer 40,000 army, this is the simplest way of incorporating an Inquisitor or a squad of Sisters Of Battle."



There are no restrictions on which units you can take as Allies in a Space Marines or Imperial Guard army, only what units you can use as Allies in a WH or DH army. I know of nobody else in the whole of 40K who's ever questioned the validity of taking Sisters or Grey Knights as Allies in a Space Marine army, but then again I've never seen someone get so confused over what are, after all, extremely straight-forward rules before either.

Frank Fugger wrote:

Kreedos wrote:They're two seperate things, [b]and in both of them it says that you can't take allied Space Marines with Adepta Sororitas units.

In a Codex: Space Marine army, the Space Marines aren't Allied.

Good point. Alright guys I give up, I gave a go, but it seems I'm wrong on this one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

"I know of nobody else in the whole of 40K who's ever questioned the validity of taking Sisters or Grey Knights as Allies in a Space Marine army, but then again I've never seen someone get so confused over what are, after all, extremely straight-forward rules before either.

Completely and utterly unnecessary in a friendly rules debate, I never tried to flame you or offend you, all I did was defend my side of the debate and even after I gave up and admitted I was wrong. What a jerkoff.

Rules from a codex are meant for that "army" (in this case the SM "army"). The fact allies might be taken doesn't mean the allies are granted access to each others codices.

Each codex is written from a particular point of view and as such the verbiage reflex this point of view. To always spell out "the Space Marine army" every time army is mentioned in the Space Marine codex would make the codex verbose and someone irritating to read.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:Each codex is written from a particular point of view and as such the verbiage reflex this point of view. To always spell out "the Space Marine army" every time army is mentioned in the Space Marine codex would make the codex verbose and someone irritating to read.

If they wanted to make a distinction, they would just define 'army' and 'Army' and use the appropriate capitalisation.

Kreedos wrote:Completely and utterly unnecessary in a friendly rules debate, I never tried to flame you or offend you, all I did was defend my side of the debate and even after I gave up and admitted I was wrong. What a jerkoff.

Would you like a cookie and a hug?

Would you like a cookie and a hug?

No, I'd rather just have a friendly intelligent rules debate instead of a rules debate consisting of insulting sarcastic jabs. When using the latter, the intelligent part of the rules debate goes out the window, and you're just left with a debate full of garbage and insults.

Here's to you and your lack of intelligence Frank. Oh, and I'll take the cookie, but I'll pass on the hug. Thanks

Kreedos wrote:No, I'd rather just have a friendly intelligent rules debate instead of insulting sarcastic jabs, when doing so the intelligent part of the rules debate goes out the window.

Then you need to not bimble into a thread and start yakking on about how your misconceptions regarding rules are correct, despite the fact that... like, every single person who responded told you you were wrong and explained to you why that was.

Here's to you and your lack of intelligence Frank.

COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY IN FRIENDLY RULES DEBATE BAWWW

Kreedos wrote:

Would you like a cookie and a hug?

No, I'd rather just have a friendly intelligent rules debate instead of a rules debate consisting of insulting sarcastic jabs. When using the latter, the intelligent part of the rules debate goes out the window, and you're just left with a debate full of garbage and insults.

Here's to you and your lack of intelligence Frank. Oh, and I'll take the cookie, but I'll pass on the hug. Thanks

Welcome to dakka, We all get things wrong (apart from Gwar! who is misinformed). Make sure you've got it right when people start questioning it. And when you get it wrong expect some criticism. If you think its unfair go to the little yellow triangle with a "!" in it and tell a mod. They'll ether agree with you, the poster, or tell you both to behave.


Now about that hug going spare?

No hug for you. You have Calgar as your avatar.

How about when you hear the back story?!?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/240925.page

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bimble nice word

Then you need to not bimble into a thread and start yakking on about how your misconceptions regarding rules are correct, despite the fact that... like, every single person who responded told you you were wrong and explained to you why that was.

More or less "Bimbling into a thread, and yakking on" are part of going into a forum and posting on one as far as I know. "Misconceptions reguarding rules" is pretty much the reason this section of the forums exist. Most of the people I responded to, and told me their side of why the rule was correct in their opinion, and then I gave my opinion, which is more or less the definition of a debate, which is another reason this section of the forums exist. In this particular debate, I gave my side of the argument and when brought evidence of my "misconceptions", I admitted I was wrong. Also, pointing out lack of respect is much different than BAWWWing, but hey I'll take it if I get a free cookie out of it, and Tri can get his hug, we all go home happy in the end.

So, as far as I knew, posting my views and debating an issue is why we write paragraphs on this internet forum. I'm so sorry to inconvenience you with my bimbling and what not, but you always had the freedom to not answer my posts. Apparently I outraged you personally to the point you felt you needed to be the hero of this thread, and save everyone from my tyrannical ways. Bravo good sir.

Now, I've got to look up what the hell bimble means.

Edit: 1. (mainly British) A gentle, meandering walk with no particular haste or purpose.

Thanks Tri, now I know the insults I'm up against, even though I technically can't walk into a forum.

Kreedos wrote:So, as far as I knew, posting my views and debating an issue is why we write paragraphs on this internet forum. I'm so sorry to inconvenience you with my bimbling and what not, but you always had the freedom to not answer my posts. Apparently I outraged you personally to the point you felt you needed to be the hero of this thread, and save everyone from my tyrannical ways. Bravo good sir.

I think what actually happened was I made a comment about you being dense and you got a bit emotional about it. It's all over now, though, thank God. We can go on with our lives.

Hey, everyone is getting very off topic. If you want to continue issuing personal criticism you can open a thread in the General discussion board.
This thread strictly pertains to the use of Allying sisters in a SM force and whether Vulkan's rules apply.

If you are new to this tread, this is the original post.

Fire_hive wrote:This is something I would never attempt in tournament play, but I wanted to see your thoughts off allying Sisters of Battle w/ marines lead by Vulkan He'Stan.

Would you as a player cry foul if I activate the "twin-linked melta/flamer" chapter tactic supplied by Vulkan on my sisters (ie: a rhino full of dominios w/ 4 flamers)?

The rules state the combat tactic applies to the "army", but I also know this argument was brought up involving guard players who gave their sister squads commands (and is generally not allowed). Also, this rule depends on weather "Army" consists of what is under your force organization chart, OR the race that you are playing (which I may even be leaning towards). There is No FAQ for any of this. What do you all think about toying with this rule?

I don't want to be rude, but this last page has been completely off topic.

As a general recap, the arguments focus has drawn down to defining weather "allies" are a part of the "army".
THX


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ALRIGHT I found a NEW clue!... maybe...

This is another rule I found in the WH codex that has similar wording to Vulkan's. I am posting this text in order to provide another example of "army" allies rule wording, while steering away from the sharp stigma Vulkans rule has attained. Its not perfect, but it may help.

Here me out with this example... if I ally 750pts of sisters with 1500pts of SM (total 2250), can I equip a "sacred Banner of the Order Militant"?

TEXT rule for Sacred Banner of the Order Militant: "... may only be used in an army of 2000pts or more". (pg.22)
TEXT rule for Vulkan "all thunder hammers in your army will count as master-crafted..."

Now... my question is; can I apply the sacred banner to my allies sisters successfully?
Allow me to explain:
If the term "army" only applies to the codex in which the rules where written (or units purchased), then I only have a 750pt Sisters army and logic deems that I cannot use the banner. If the sisters are in fact a part of the army then the banner can be applied (as well as Vulkan's rules).

If the example posted is only applicable to one instance but not another, please explain how the applied uses of army are different. Hope this will help discern a solution... or I may be about to get spammed.

Here's my take on the situation.

Taken from page 93 of the SM codex, under Vulkan's entry.

"Chapter Tactics: If you include He'stan then all units in your army lose the Combat Tactics special rule. Instead all thunder hammers in your army will count as master crafted, and all flamers heavy flamer, meltaguns multimeltas count as twin-linked."

The word "Instead" leads one to believe this is an exchange, so because the fact the Sisters never had the Combat Tactics special rule, they can't exchange it, or "Instead" take the Chapter Tactics rule.

Just to cover my ass, page 51 under combat tactics.

"A non-fearless Space Marine unit with this special rule can choose to automatically fail any morale check it is called upon to take."

It specifically says only Space Marines can have combat tactics in the first place, so not being able to ever have it in the Sisters part of the army, makes it so you can't make the exchange.

Kreedos wrote:The word "Instead" leads one to believe this is an exchange, so because the fact the Sisters never had the Combat Tactics special rule, they can't exchange it, or "Instead" take the Chapter Tactics rule.

You might note that every other guy that lets you swap out CT explicitly states it's an exchange.

Vulkan doesn't - all units lose Combat Tactics and all of the weapons listed gain benefits. There is no connection between those two things. The aim might ofc have been only to allow the benefits to SM vehicles, but...

Kreedos wrote:Here's my take on the situation.

Taken from page 93 of the SM codex, under Vulkan's entry.

"Chapter Tactics: If you include He'stan then all units in your army lose the Combat Tactics special rule. Instead all thunder hammers in your army will count as master crafted, and all flamers heavy flamer, meltaguns multimeltas count as twin-linked."

The word "Instead" leads one to believe this is an exchange, so because the fact the Sisters never had the Combat Tactics special rule, they can't exchange it, or "Instead" take the Chapter Tactics rule.

Just to cover my ass, page 51 under combat tactics.

"A non-fearless Space Marine unit with this special rule can choose to automatically fail any morale check it is called upon to take."

It specifically says only Space Marines can have combat tactics in the first place, so not being able to ever have it in the Sisters part of the army, makes it so you can't make the exchange.

Yes it is an exchange NO one has combat Tactics every one gets better weapons.

Now if it said "squads with combat Tactics lose this ability but gain better weapons" or "all weapons from codex SM are made better", you'd be right

But it doesn't its all weapons in your army and when you take sisters and Knights as allies they are part of your army.

It seems more of a loophole

RAW doesn't state you can, and leaves a debatable loophole

RAI says that all of the other Chapter Masters use the word "Exchange" and it's just worded a bit differently in Vulkan's entry, but the same in every respect. Thus it's meant for Vulkan's entry to be the same.

I'd go with the RAI on this one because the RAW is unclear, RAW doesn't solve every problem, that's why RAI exists.

Best thing is just not do it, because most opponents will try and deny you using Vulkan as such, especially in a tournament enviorment. You can debate the loophole as much as you want, but unless you want to take the chance of not being able to use it because some of your opponents don't agree with the ruling, I wouldn't take him at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TheGreatAvatar wrote:

Tri wrote:
But it doesn't its all weapons in your army and when you take sisters and Knights as allies they are part of your army.

You're taking the rule from the SM codex out of context to apply it to allies. The codex is written in terms of the SM army and thus the wording is with respect to the Space Marine army. Allied rules are a means of two different armies being able to be fielded at the same time. It doesn't permit rules from one to apply to rule of another.

And more to the point... it doesn't state the affect applies to allies, now does it?

Going to agree with this one.

Tri wrote:
But it doesn't its all weapons in your army and when you take sisters and Knights as allies they are part of your army.

You're taking the rule from the SM codex out of context to apply it to allies. The codex is written in terms of the SM army and thus the wording is with respect to the Space Marine army. Allied rules are a means of two different armies being able to be fielded at the same time. It doesn't permit rules from one to apply to rule of another.

And more to the point... it doesn't state the affect applies to allies, now does it?

No doesn't mention allies but since it effects all of that weapon type in the army, and Allies (while we have them) are part of the army, It still works. It may well be a mistake but till its addressed by GW Allies are part of the army and have there weapons upgraded. RAI you can argue to your hearts content.

It doesn't specifically state anywhere that it works, find me an official faq that says you can take Vulkan and Sisters together, and he gives them twin linked.

You assume it works because of your view on the subject.

It's possible VIA RAW, but it's also not possible too. I don't see how you can just saw that you can ignore the exchange because you didn't have it in the first place.

That's like saying, I'm going to trade you my Diamond for your Emerald, But I didn't have a Diamond in the first place, thanks for the Emerald.

Using common sense, and RAI both together, this issue is pretty clear. It's just a clever loophole/exploit.

Also, they aren't a part of the army, they are two seperate armies taken under one army as the parent and one as the child, they gain none of the shared rules for either army, and use seperate codexes to determine their wargear and unit choices. This alone should be enough to say that one army's codex can't gain an ability from the other's unless it specifically states that "Any squad joined with this unit gains X ability."

Also, you can't deny this wouldn't be allowed in a tournament of any respectability and magnitude.

There's no need for a FAQ when the rules already allow it. It's an exchange. Models with 'Chapter Tactics' lose them in exchange for all of the thunder hammers in the army being mastercrafted and all of the flamer and melta weapons in the army become twin-linked. Nothing says that what you're receiving in exchange for 'Chapter Tactics' only applies to those models who gave up their 'Chapter Tactics'. Quite the contrary, it specifically says it applies to the entire army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kreedos wrote:Also, you can't deny this wouldn't be allowed in a tournament of any respectability and magnitude.

The INAT FAQ v2.2 is compiled for the Adepticon tournament, one of the largest and most respected independent tournaments around and they specifically address this in their FAQ. It is allowed.

Ghaz wrote:There's no need for a FAQ when the rules already allow it. It's an exchange. Models with 'Chapter Tactics' lose them in exchange for all of the thunder hammers in the army being mastercrafted and all of the flamer and melta weapons in the army become twin-linked. Nothing says that what you're receiving in exchange for 'Chapter Tactics' only applies to those models who gave up their 'Chapter Tactics'. Quite the contrary, it specifically says it applies to the entire army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kreedos wrote:Also, you can't deny this wouldn't be allowed in a tournament of any respectability and magnitude.

The INAT FAQ v2.2 is compiled for the Adepticon tournament, one of the largest and most respected independent tournaments around and they specifically address this in their FAQ. It is allowed.

+1

Ghaz wrote:There's no need for a FAQ when the rules already allow it. It's an exchange. Models with 'Chapter Tactics' lose them in exchange for all of the thunder hammers in the army being mastercrafted and all of the flamer and melta weapons in the army become twin-linked. Nothing says that what you're receiving in exchange for 'Chapter Tactics' only applies to those models who gave up their 'Chapter Tactics'. Quite the contrary, it specifically says it applies to the entire army.

This is debatable enough to make it not exactly set in stone, like Calgar's God of War rule. Until an official FAQ comes out, that says it's allowed, I can't agree that it's outright allowable.

Just for the record, I'm a WH/SM player myself, so I'd love for this rule to be true, but I'm not a big fan of exploits in RAW.

You burned my ass with the INAT Faq though. Touche good sir. Apparently I'm off my game today

Ok different tact why do you not think that allied WH and DH are not part of the army?

It's only 'debatable' because some people refuse to believe what's clearly written in the rules. There's no need for a FAQ that says "... yes, the rules say exactly what they say and that's what they were intended to say..."

Tri wrote:Ok different tact why do you not think that allied WH and DH are not part of the army?

Ok let me try my hand at this one.

In the grey box in the WH codex, page 25 under using Witch Hunters as Allies.

"Witch Hunters units can be included as allies in any of the following Codex armies..."

They are stated as allies, thus not part of the actual Space Marine army.

No where in the grey box on page 25 does it say you treat the allies as part of the army for any respects.

They only use their wargear and units from each seperate codex

"When using allied or inducted troops, only the basic versions of these troop types published in the appropriate codex can be used"

This is making reference to troops, but shows a signifigant split between the two armies by saying they are Allied Or Inducted.

Just like, one country is allied to another, this doesn't make them part of the same country, it just means they fight together. Just like a country, the codexes don't share resources between either, and no special rules can be gained from one codex to the other. Such as the fact Space Marines can't gain any of the WH special rules and WH can't gain any of the Space Marine rules. Why should they be able to lose something that they didn't have in the first place, to gain something in return. To quote the old saying "Nothing in life is free". Space Marine rules are meant for the Space Marine army and vice versa.

They are two seperate forces that are fighting together, but doesn't nessessarly make them part of the same army.

Also there's nothing clear about this rule, or it wouldn't be asked or debated as much as it is.

They both fill a SINGLE Force Organization chart, therefore they are a SINGLE army. It's that simple.

Ghaz wrote:They both fill a SINGLE Force Organization chart, therefore they are a SINGLE army. It's that simple.

But they can gain nor take away anything from each other.

You can't take a unit of Sisters in a SM rhino, or any of the wargear choices from the SM codex, in fact you can't take anything from the SM codex, unless you're attached to a unit that would confer such ability.

The only ability that can be construed as a special rule that applies to the entire army is Vulcan. It's obvious the rule is broken and it's an exploit, why would this be allowed just because RAW says it's possible if you read it a certain way?

And how is that relevant? It's an army wide ability. It affects the whole army.

Just like how Imperial Guard officers can order around Cannonesses and Grand Masters.

So? Are you going to claim that a Space Marine Assault Squad does not consists of Space Marines just because they don't have the option to take a Rhino? Now you're just making excuses because you know you don't have a leg to stand on.

Kreedos wrote:
Ok let me try my hand at this one.

In the grey box in the WH codex, page 25 under using Witch Hunters as Allies.

"Witch Hunters units can be included as allies in any of the following Codex armies..."

They are stated as allies, thus not part of the actual Space Marine army. (Not really it just calls them allies and says that they are include in the codexs armies ... wait they are include in the army, yay!)

No where in the grey box on page 25 does it say you treat the allies as part of the army for any respects. (see above)

They only use their wargear and units from each seperate codex

"When using allied or inducted troops, only the basic versions of these troop types published in the appropriate codex can be used"

This is making reference to troops, but shows a signifigant split between the two armies by saying they are Allied Or Inducted. (talking about allied SM and IG not about allied WH)

Just like, one country is allied to another, this doesn't make them part of the same country, it just means they fight together (UK OK? How about USA?). Just like a country, the codexes don't share resources between either, and no special rules can be gained from one codex to the other (says You. Allies are an such an example of codex sharing units). Such as the fact Space Marines can't gain any of the WH special rules and WH can't gain any of the Space Marine rules (which special rules we talking about Sister of battle rules only work on themselves any way. How ever war gear like the book of st. Lucius do). Why should they be able to lose something that they didn't have in the first place, to gain something in return. To quote the old saying "Nothing in life is free" (Free? All the space Marines just lost Combat tactics). Space Marine rules are meant for the Space Marine army and vice versa. (making things up again)

They are two seperate forces that are fighting together, but doesn't nessessarly make them part of the same army.(but they are allies in a SM army)

Also there's nothing clear about this rule, or it wouldn't be asked or debated as much as it is.

Add to the above

Ghaz wrote:So? Are you going to claim that a Space Marine Assault Squad does not consists of Space Marines just because they don't have the option to take a Rhino? Now you're just making excuses because you know you don't have a leg to stand on.

No, not really saying that at all. I'm debating to debate at this point. Tri asked me to state my arguements on why I think they're two seperate armies, and so I did, even if I'm completely wrong or not. Much like a criminal defense attorney, which is how I feel at the moment. haha

It's obvious I'm outnumbered here, and the end of the debate was the fact pointed out that the INAT faq states that it's allowed. I didn't have a leg to stand on at that point. Although not all players agree with faqs and whatnot, and like I said I'm not a big fan of most exploits, but with the mounting evidence and people against me, I have to succumb to the crowd, even if I don't completely agree with it myself.

Thus, I'll bend to the collective will and agree. WH or DH would gain Vulcan's ability. I still however, I still think it's a sort of exploit/loophole.

But in all honesty, I'm happy to be wrong in this situation, because I've got 3000 pts of WH and around 1500 pts of SM, I'll be buying Vulkan and exploiting the hell out of this till it's fixed.

Kreedos wrote:

Ghaz wrote:So? Are you going to claim that a Space Marine Assault Squad does not consists of Space Marines just because they don't have the option to take a Rhino? Now you're just making excuses because you know you don't have a leg to stand on.

No, not really saying that at all. I'm debating to debate at this point. Tri asked me to state my arguements on why I think they're two seperate armies, and so I did, even if I'm completely wrong or not. Much like a criminal defense attorney, which is how I feel at the moment. haha

It's obvious I'm outnumbered here, and the end of the debate was the fact pointed out that the INAT faq states that it's allowed. I didn't have a leg to stand on at that point. Although not all players agree with faqs and whatnot, and like I said I'm not a big fan of most exploits, but with the mounting evidence and people against me, I have to succumb to the crowd, even if I don't completely agree with it myself.

Thus, I'll bend to the collective will and agree. WH or DH would gain Vulcan's ability. I still however, I still think it's a sort of exploit/loophole.

But in all honesty, I'm happy to be wrong in this situation, because I've got 3000 pts of WH and around 1500 pts of SM, I'll be buying Vulkan and exploiting the hell out of this till it's fixed.

3000pts but you can only take 1HQ and 1 Elite and 1 Fast and 2 Troop no matter how many points you play.

"Witch Hunters units can be included as allies in any of the following Codex armies..."

it just calls them allies and says that they are include in the codexs armies ...they are include in the army, yay!

To be honest, if you think about it, its not too much of an exploit (at least IMO). A full SOB force lead by Vulkan would be stupid, but ally FOC rules are very restricting.

A. Sisters will not have access to as many faith points (maxing out at 7 tops); points which can only be used on the sisters themselves.
B. they are reduced to taking up to 1 HQ, 1 elite, 0-2 troops, 1 fast attack, and 0 heavy. That means that at MOST an army with Vulkan will have one squad of Dominions OR a unit of seraphim not both. All other units are troops or troops with holy hatred.
C. immolators are already twin-linked.
D. Seraphim flamers and melta weapons are already twin-linked.
E. A regular SM tactical squad can already take a flamer/meltagun, and a multi-melta. The majority of Sisters units simply allow 1 more flamer/meltagun, and no multi-melta.
F. all manner of combi-meltaflamer weapons given to SOB vets can also be access by sergeants (for cheaper may I add).

All and all, the only unit that could really add cheapness to a SM force is the dominions, but at the cost of loosing your seraphim (who are already all TL).
With ALL that in mind put your fears of a super powered god-force of an army to rest. Sisters don't offer much more power than a regular SM force can muster. The main benefit of sisters remains generally the same... equipping BoSL, cheaper units, and tar-pitting enemies.

I just wanted to combine me and my friends forces into one for fun.
If anyone has additional Ideas keep them coming, but thanks for all the input so far.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ghaz wrote:

Kreedos wrote:Also, you can't deny this wouldn't be allowed in a tournament of any respectability and magnitude.

The INAT FAQ v2.2 is compiled for the Adepticon tournament, one of the largest and most respected independent tournaments around and they specifically address this in their FAQ. It is allowed.

Out of this entire forum debate I want to give special props to Ghaz for providing this retort (nothing personal Kreedos) but... well played Ghaz.

Ghaz wrote:They both fill a SINGLE Force Organization chart, therefore they are a SINGLE army. It's that simple.

No. They are two separate armies fighting together, hence allies. Just because they fight together doesn't mean the two armies use the same rules. Each army has its own rules as defined by THEIR codex.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:

Ghaz wrote:They both fill a SINGLE Force Organization chart, therefore they are a SINGLE army. It's that simple.

No. They are two separate armies fighting together, hence allies. Just because they fight together doesn't mean the two armies use the same rules. Each army has its own rules as defined by THEIR codex.

Are you saying they don't use up slots in one force organization chart?

Also, just because they are fighting together doesn't mean they don't use some of the same rules.

And are you saying that special rules in one codex can't ever affect another army?

Interesting...

TheGreatAvatar wrote:

Ghaz wrote:They both fill a SINGLE Force Organization chart, therefore they are a SINGLE army. It's that simple.

No. They are two separate armies fighting together, hence allies. Just because they fight together doesn't mean the two armies use the same rules. Each army has its own rules as defined by THEIR codex.

Wrong. As has already been quoted once in this thread, from page 21 of Codex Daemonhunters:

Daemonhunters units can be included as allies in any of the following Codex armies...

As it clearly states, they're "... in the army... " and not "... alongside the army... " Nor do the rules say that an entire army has to use the same rules or even come from the same codex. The only thing that defines an army is that they occupy a SINGLE Force Organization chart which they most definitely do.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:

Ghaz wrote:They both fill a SINGLE Force Organization chart, therefore they are a SINGLE army. It's that simple.

No. They are two separate armies fighting together, hence allies. codex.

I have posted this example once before, but if indeed sisters are "two separate armies" when allied with SM then the answer following the question below would be "no". (NOTE: i generally hate using examples that are slightly out of context, but I feel this may be sufficient).

Hear me out with this example... if I ally 750pts of sisters with 1500pts of SM (total 2250), can I equip a "sacred Banner of the Order Militant"?

TEXT rule for Sacred Banner of the Order Militant: "... may only be used in an army of 2000pts or more". (pg.22)
TEXT rule for Vulkan "all thunder hammers in your army will count as master-crafted..."

Allow me to explain:
If the term "army" only applies to the codex in which the rules where written (or units purchased), then I only have a 750pt Sisters army and logic deems that I cannot use the banner. If the sisters are in fact a part of the army then the banner can be applied (as well as Vulkan's rules).
I'm simply saying that if army rules like this are dedicated to the codex (and not the FOC), then point requirement rules should be codex dedicated too.

If you disagree with the claim/logic, please explain how the applied uses of "army" are different between rules. Hope this will help... or I may be about to get spammed.

Fire_hive wrote:If the term "army" only applies to the codex in which the rules where written (or units purchased), then I only have a 750pt Sisters army and logic deems that I cannot use the banner. If the sisters are in fact a part of the army then the banner can be applied (as well as Vulkan's rules).
I'm simply saying that if army rules like this are dedicated to the codex (and not the FOC), then point requirement rules should be codex dedicated too.

Some are... The two WH special characters, for instance, can only be fielded in a WH army of at least 1500 points. edit: not all WH codex, but WH as parent list at least.

The banner is limited to "an army" and a Heroine's Retinue could certainly be bought as allies to IG/SM. But since it only works on SoB I don't see anyone crying about it as opposed to Vulkan.

Fire_hive wrote:

TheGreatAvatar wrote:

Ghaz wrote:They both fill a SINGLE Force Organization chart, therefore they are a SINGLE army. It's that simple.

No. They are two separate armies fighting together, hence allies. codex.

I have posted this example once before, but if indeed sisters are "two separate armies" when allied with SM then the answer following the question below would be "no". (NOTE: i generally hate using examples that are slightly out of context, but I feel this may be sufficient).

Hear me out with this example... if I ally 750pts of sisters with 1500pts of SM (total 2250), can I equip a "sacred Banner of the Order Militant"?

TEXT rule for Sacred Banner of the Order Militant: "... may only be used in an army of 2000pts or more". (pg.22)
TEXT rule for Vulkan "all thunder hammers in your army will count as master-crafted..."

Allow me to explain:
If the term "army" only applies to the codex in which the rules where written (or units purchased), then I only have a 750pt Sisters army and logic deems that I cannot use the banner. If the sisters are in fact a part of the army then the banner can be applied (as well as Vulkan's rules).
I'm simply saying that if army rules like this are dedicated to the codex (and not the FOC), then point requirement rules should be codex dedicated too.

If you disagree with the claim/logic, please explain how the applied uses of "army" are different between rules. Hope this will help... or I may be about to get spammed.

Army is a singular thing. I'm not sure how people are being so pedantic about it. So I figured I'd look in the Rulebook, go to Organizing a Battle, and see if they 'defined' an army. Of course they don't explicitly state it but your biggest clue on it is pg 87, as I'd figure that might clue me in on this subject, to quote
"Each detachment will be a separate army, using its own force organization chart."

So an Army is something using a Force Org chart. Simple logic enough.

(I'm glad to see the exchange argument gone as it was silly, it _couldn't_ be an exchange, as the crux of that argument is "does this apply to vehicles" if it does apply then no exchange could ever happen. vehicles can't give it up in order to gain twin linking.)

Gwar! wrote:Yeah, and this Token nonsense in which codex? I would love to read it.

Type/Token are terms from formal semantics. Sometimes useful converting from language to logic but english is too fuzzy to rely on them.

Wikipedia-copypasta:

The type-token distinction is a distinction that separates an abstract concept from the objects which are particular instances of the concept. For example, the particular bicycle in your garage is a token of the type of thing known as "The bicycle." Whereas, the bicycle in your garage is in a particular place at a particular time, that is not true of "the bicycle" as used in the sentence: "The bicycle has become more popular recently." In logic, the distinction is used to clarify the meaning of symbols of formal languages.

This is quite simple why are you still arguing this

Vulkan He'Stan makes all "X" weapons in army better but no one gets combat tactics.


"Witch Hunters(/Daemon Hunters) units can be included as allies in any of the following Codex armies..."

Any units chosen in this way are allies in the army. So are part of the army (so Vulkan hands round the better guns) and they are allies.

Are there any restrictions to allies? they've a limit on the number and type of units they can take; They do not count as any of the compulsory choices taken on the FOC.

So where does it say they're not counted as part of the "army"?

strange_eric wrote:
(I'm glad to see the exchange argument gone as it was silly, it _couldn't_ be an exchange, as the crux of that argument is "does this apply to vehicles" if it does apply then no exchange could ever happen. vehicles can't give it up in order to gain twin linking.)

Every page or so someone tries to reintroduce it. Then it has to be explained away with 4 or so posts. If there is a key issue its the schizophrenic meaning of "army". All other points have been taken care of.
(but ya a definitely agree with you)

Army (ar mee):

1. The units in one's Force Organization Chart.

2. A collection of units whose rules belong to the same Codex, or whose rules are a subset of Codex.


Some people here are arguing that definition 1 has primacy, and others are arguing that definition 2 comes first. That would seem to draw the lines here, and also explains why we have people who are no longer speaking to each others' points because they're saying different things with the same word.

Whenever my club has doubles tournaments we always state that the two halves of a doubles pairing are separate Armies, such that we side-step all these sorts of questions.



I think the more important question to ask other than all this other tat is:

Is this really so difficult a question for GW to just answer?

Either they intended the Vulkan rule to work with ANY models in the same FOC, or it was intended only to work for the Salamanders. Even a summary ruling would be better than silence at this point as I've been hearing this bloody question since the newest SM Codex was released...

I completely agree. Until a ruling is made, I will use Vulkan sighting the INAT FAQ v2.2, withour FOC RAW army definition.
I'm not planning on tornament use of this, but most people I play are fairly cool about this stuff if you convince them that it is not cheese.

The DH codex actually makes a explicit distinction between the "parent" list (army to ally with) and the Daemonhunters list (page 21 of the Codex: Daemonhunters).

Also, the DH codex itself states the "Codex armies" listing Space Marines as one of those armies. Nothing in the DH codex permits the allied units to use the parent codex rule just that units from the DH codex can join units from the parent list of acceptable allied armies.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:The DH codex actually makes a explicit distinction between the "parent" list (army to ally with) and the Daemonhunters list (page 21 of the Codex: Daemonhunters).

Right. The codices are different.

Also, the DH codex itself states the "Codex armies" listing Space Marines as one of those armies.

And an army is a Force Org Chart.

Nothing in the DH codex permits the allied units to use the parent codex rule just that units from the DH codex can join units from the parent list of acceptable allied armies.

And you just completely made that up.

TheGreatAvatar:

Not to mention that Codex: Space Marines defines a Space Marine army as one that's chosen from the Space Marine list.

OK everyone!!!

I have emailed GW about this clarification to Vulkans rule to hopefully put this whole thing to rest for everyone. With great humility I have to say we Need GW to give us an answer, because we aren't reaching a consensus any time soon.
If/when I receive a response pertaining to this thread, I promise (as the original poster) to paste their response verbatim (word for word) back onto this board. The response should get back within 3 business days of its request (which I made 30 min ago).

NOTE: Because I will not be receiving any official pfd. or other file proving this is GW's legitimate documentation, you will have to take this upcoming post with a grain of salt as to weather you choose to believe it. I pride myself on my professionalism on this and all forums, and worst case scenario... email them yourself. Maybe they will figure to post something finally on their website.

Thank you for all your posts, so far. I always appreciate you input.

What email address did you use?

LOL good luck bro, I've e-mailed them about 3 seperate rules issues about 4 months, 2 months and 1 month ago respectively, and I haven't got anything back.

Darn. This is the first email I've sent to them. We'll see.
I WANT THIS ANSWERED. If it doesn't I don't know about all of you, but I'm reverting back to using the INAT FAQ v.2.2 ruling they gave for their independent torments (they said yes). At least they had the bullocks to give their loyal members a straight answer.

Nurglitch wrote:TheGreatAvatar:

Not to mention that Codex: Space Marines defines a Space Marine army as one that's chosen from the Space Marine list.

You have a pg number for reference?

I can't seem to find that in my codex.

Thanks in advance!

imweasel:

Try reading the thread.

Kreedos wrote:LOL good luck bro, I've e-mailed them about 3 seperate rules issues about 4 months, 2 months and 1 month ago respectively, and I haven't got anything back.

thx for the grim heads up.

Nurglitch wrote:imweasel:

Try reading the thread.

I found that in my space marine codex, but I don't believe that supports your argument.

So what you are saying that I can't take any allies at all. Ever. Interesting.

No, I'm not saying that. Try reading what I wrote.

Nurglitch: What you wrote is filled with the usual back-breaking rhetorical gibberish that you typically make up when trying to argue a specious rule interpretation.

The only definition of 'army' that GW has given us is to vaguely link it to the Force Org chart. Their willingness to use terms like 'Army', 'Codex', 'List', and 'Force' interchangeably pretty much invalidates any attempt to define it as narrowly as opponents to the issue are attempting to, and the BTAotIEoMK rule in the WH/DH codex overrides any assertion regardless.

The most literal reading says it works. The fluff justification is irrelevant.

sourclams wrote:

Nothing in the DH codex permits the allied units to use the parent codex rule just that units from the DH codex can join units from the parent list of acceptable allied armies.

And you just completely made that up.

Actually, no. Where in the DH codex does it permit the units define within to use rules defined within another codex? I'll help you out...it doesn't. The rules on page 21 of DH only states the units from the codex can be allied with units from another codex. Allied is never defined, so, based on the idea of the rules being permissive, allied units do not share codex rules. Yes, they may share a single FO since that's what the allied rule does permit.

You made up your conclusion based on a premise that you also made up.

It's really that simple.

Nurglitch wrote:No, I'm not saying that. Try reading what I wrote.

What you wrote makes no sense whatsoever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TheGreatAvatar wrote:Actually, no. Where in the DH codex does it permit the units define within to use rules defined within another codex? I'll help you out...it doesn't. The rules on page 21 of DH only states the units from the codex can be allied with units from another codex. Allied is never defined, so, based on the idea of the rules being permissive, allied units do not share codex rules. Yes, they may share a single FO since that's what the allied rule does permit.

Where in the world do you get that the DH codex is the end all be all? You don't think there might be another rule in a different codex that would allow that?

imweasel:

And yet you previously claimed that I held the following opinion: "So what you are saying that I can't take any allies at all. Ever. Interesting." So which is it?

Nurglitch wrote:imweasel:

And yet you previously claimed that I held the following opinion: "So what you are saying that I can't take any allies at all. Ever. Interesting." So which is it?

That was the best 'guess' I could make on the gibberish you were writing is all.

Sorry if what you wrote in an attempt to support your position just made no sense whatsoever.

What about it didn't make sense to you?

TheGreatAvatar wrote: Allied is never defined, so, based on the idea of the rules being permissive, allied units do not share codex rules.

Damn... now that I realize I've never seen a difinition of "friendly" in WH40K I can no longer use the Book of St. Lucius! I mean, I can't be sure it means "units in my army" or "units on my side", it could mean "cute fluffy bunny kind of friendly".

imweasel wrote:
Where in the world do you get that the DH codex is the end all be all? You don't think there might be another rule in a different codex that would allow that?

What rule is written in codex A that applies the units defined in codex B? The rules written in the SM codex apply to the units defined within it, no other unit. That's the reason to have a codex.

I already said it, but making up a definition based on a premise you also made up, and then repeating it, definitely doesn't make it true.

Still.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:What rule is written in codex A that applies the units defined in codex B?

Any and all rules which aren't specifically stated to apply exclusively to the models in Codex A.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:What rule is written in codex A that applies the units defined in codex B?

Quite a few, even if most of them are about hurting the enemy. If you don't like it you're free to not use codex-specific weapons against my army unless they're specifically allowed to affect units from another codex.

I'm going to sound like a noob, but to benefit from the chapter tactics special rule, isn't it required that you have the combat tactics rule in the first place

Some of the Chapter Tactics rules do replace a unit's Combat Tactics with some other rule. Vulkan's Chapter Tactics means that units with Combat Tactics lose it, and the entire army gains Twin-Linked on the selected weapons.

Given that the rule is Chapter Tactics, though, one might at first glance presume that it only affects members of that Chapter, rather than any allied units.

Nurglitch wrote:Some of the Chapter Tactics rules do replace a unit's Combat Tactics with some other rule. Vulkan's Chapter Tactics means that units with Combat Tactics lose it, and the entire army gains Twin-Linked on the selected weapons.

Nurglitch has it right.
With that said, the debate is centered around what defines an army.
Either army refers all units in a single force organization chart, OR it refers to the units of a respective codex, or codex army.

With that said, please disregard the use of fluff as arguments. Even if each special character represents a different SM chapter, any player is within their right to use these characters to define their own chapter and play style.

Please note that the previous sentence was not directed toward anyone, but a friendly general request, and a side note to new members of this discussion. : )


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Little lord Fauntleroy wrote:I'm going to sound like a noob, but...

Don't worry about it. Speak your mind, and if a point has been covered previously, we'll quickly get you up to speed.

From the ard boyz rulez:

"What you should bring:
Your army (not armies)"

Meaning you can only bring 1 army. If allied sisters/DH counted as a seperate army than you technically couldn't use them in ard boyz.

Another reference:
"No more than 2500 points can be used in the selection of an army"

So if sisters/dh do in fact count as a seperate army does that mean I can bring 2500 points of guard and 2500 points of allied sisters?

Sweet, thanks for the insight nurglitch. I'll try and pull that when I go to semis.

Its not that hard, an army is everything you bring to the table.

For 'Ardboyz, I'd call the TO running that semi-final. The TO has the final say on any question about rules. Answers from GW Rules boys, INAT Faq, or 12 pages on YMDC, still get trumped by what the local TO rules at the tournament. It's a lot easier to call first, than to show up with your army and pre-concieved ideas of how you want the rules to work, and spend 1/2 hour of the first game arguing about it.

wow you take everything too litterally mikhaila.
Obviously I wasn't going to bring 5k pts to ard boyz and expect to play with it.

It was just referencing that GW states that you have 1 army not multiple when you bring allies.

Which would in fact make vulkan work with allies.

Timmah wrote:wow you take everything too litterally mikhaila.
Obviously I wasn't going to bring 5k pts to ard boyz and expect to play with it.

Hello....pot, have you met kettle? Weren't you just pointing out the Nurglitch how literal he is?

whitedragon wrote:

Timmah wrote:wow you take everything too litterally mikhaila.
Obviously I wasn't going to bring 5k pts to ard boyz and expect to play with it.

Hello....pot, have you met kettle? Weren't you just pointing out the Nurglitch how literal he is?

I do not believe so...

Nurglitch wrote:Some of the Chapter Tactics rules do replace a unit's Combat Tactics with some other rule. Vulkan's Chapter Tactics means that units with Combat Tactics lose it, and the entire army gains Twin-Linked on the selected weapons.

Given that the rule is Chapter Tactics, though, one might at first glance presume that it only affects members of that Chapter, rather than any allied units.

Except for the fact that at second glance you would not find any rule saying it only affects members of that chapter.

Timmah wrote:wow you take everything too litterally mikhaila.
Obviously I wasn't going to bring 5k pts to ard boyz and expect to play with it.

It was just referencing that GW states that you have 1 army not multiple when you bring allies.

Which would in fact make vulkan work with allies.

You think everything is about you?

That was a pretty generic statement made by many people over and over. Wasn't talking to you, as much as talking in the thread.
Anyone heading to an 'Ardboyz tournament is going to be playing a lot of different players from different shops, and rules may be played differently. It's always easier to call and talk to the TO before the tournament, rather than show up, and try to continue some 12 page YMDC while playing game 1.

How you play the game at home may not be how the game is being played the day of the Tournament. Since the TO has the final say, a quick phone call might save you a lot of grief.

imweasel:

So you don't believe the title of the rule is a part of the rule? Because a second glance will tell you as much as the first, that the rule is "Chapter Tactics", not "Army Tactics".

Nurglitch wrote:imweasel:

So you don't believe the title of the rule is a part of the rule? Because a second glance will tell you as much as the first, that the rule is "Chapter Tactics", not "Army Tactics".

No, the title is not part of the rule. Otherwise why did they write your entire army (not chapter) in the rule itself...

Oh no. . .
*flashes of Terminator Armor rules*

RUN AWAY!!!!!

Timmah wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:imweasel:

So you don't believe the title of the rule is a part of the rule? Because a second glance will tell you as much as the first, that the rule is "Chapter Tactics", not "Army Tactics".

No, the title is not part of the rule. Otherwise why did they write your entire army (not chapter) in the rule itself...

A question we can't answer. Maybe the writer thought that 'army' and 'chapter' were interchangeable, or maybe he mean't 'army' instead of 'chapter' on purpose.

RAW has evolved into a logic system that isn't shared by the guys writing GW's rules. Which is why these threads go for so many pages with no consensus, just people shouting at each other over and over. GW does not use words the same way on a consistant basis, we all know this, and it's part of the problem with their rules, or maybe the problem occurs when we apply RAW logic to them.

RAI would be as follows:

Vulkan being raised as a good curteous kid, would bring enough twin linked flamers/melta guns for everyone and would happily share them with is sisters/inquisitor allies.

He's such a nice guy.

mikhaila:

I certainly agree with you that the RAW approach is stupid, but I have to disagree about the inconsistency and usability of the rules. The 5th edition rules are an incredible improvement on the 4th edition rules in terms of consistency, structural information, and iteration of the game's 'logic'.

I wish I had the link, but reading the YMDC forum reminds me of that priest in Father Ted who visits and declares various parts of Ted's cottage to be shoddy and falling apart as he smashes them apart. The fans seem less interested in figuring out how the rules work, than trying to mash them into preconceived notions of how they should work.

I remember getting back into the Hobby around the end of 4th edition and re-learning the rules, and being shocked to find out what I expected to be a morass was actually pretty clear and concise. I think it was because I applied the same methodology of close reading to the rules that I was required to apply in my work as a graduate student, rather than giving the rules a once over and then relying on 2nd hand information to form my opinions about the quality of the rules.

When 5th edition was published, I was very pleasantly surprised to see that many of the problems with 4th that I had identified over on Warseer's 40k Rules forum as being actual problems with the rules, rather than end-user incomprehension, had been re-worked in the manner that I recommended.

Timmah:

They wrote "army" in Chapter Tactics for the same reason that Terminator Armour references "Terminators": the use of the term has been fixed by the scope of the title. The rules under the title Terminator Armour refer to models equipped with Terminator Armour, while the rules under Vulkan's version of Chapter Tactics refers to models in that Space Marine army.

Another example of GW being consistent in the way they treat information, and [some] end-users consistently misunderstanding it...

Nurglitch wrote:
Timmah:

They wrote "army" in Chapter Tactics for the same reason that Terminator Armour references "Terminators": the use of the term has been fixed by the scope of the title. The rules under the title Terminator Armour refer to models equipped with Terminator Armour, while the rules under Vulkan's version of Chapter Tactics refers to models in that Space Marine army.

Another example of GW being consistent in the way they treat information, and [some] end-users consistently misunderstanding it...

Didn't we already go over this and agree that the title is broad and encompassing and the rules in the wording are more specific. I am pretty sure we did.

Anyways I don't know why we are getting into this as chapter tactics has absolutely nothing to do with vulkans rules.

Also see my RAI post.


Btw just because something is improved, that doesn't make it good. (for example I am a better hockey player than I was 5 years ago but that doesn't mean I still don't suck at the game.)

but I have to disagree about the inconsistency and usability of the rules

Nurglitch, agreed that 5th is a big improvement over 4th. My point wasn't about rules, as much as it was about 'words', and how they can have many meanings. The rules are written much the way we all talk. Taking 'army' as an example:

"Hey, nice Army" (This collection of models is painted well.)
"What army did you bring?" (What list will you be using tonite?)
"What army do you collect?" (What codex do you like to use to choose the models you buy?)

Allies are never defined as being anything ... however the rules for them state that allies are used as part of your army.

"Using Which Hunters as Allies
in keeping with the many possibilities for the forces of Ordo Hereticus to appear within Space Marine and Imperial forces, Which Hunter's (/Daemon Hunter's) units can be included as allies in any of the following codex armies: ...."

Important part here "units can be included as allies in any of the following codex armies". They are included in the army, not as well as or along side.

"Which Hunters are here to hunt witches."
"Which Hunters? Daemon Hunters, I would imagine."
"No, not Daemon Hunters, Which Hunters."
"Yes, Daemon Hunters are which Hunters are here, right?"
"No, Daemon Hunters are not Which Hunters, and Which Hunters are the Inquisitional faction that are here to hunt witches!"
"Which what, exactly?"
*BLAM!*
"Silence, heretic."

Nurglitch wrote:"Which Hunters are here to hunt witches."
"Which Hunters? Daemon Hunters, I would imagine."
"No, not Daemon Hunters, Which Hunters."
"Yes, Daemon Hunters are which Hunters are here, right?"
"No, Daemon Hunters are not Which Hunters, and Which Hunters are the Inquisitional faction that are here to hunt witches!"
"Which what, exactly?"
*BLAM!*
"Silence, heretic."

"You shot me!"
"Okay, moving on-"
"You shot me right in the arm! Why would you-" *BLAM!*
"Right."

Nurglitch wrote:imweasel:

So you don't believe the title of the rule is a part of the rule? Because a second glance will tell you as much as the first, that the rule is "Chapter Tactics", not "Army Tactics".

Except when you continue reading it states army. And it's specifically worded differently than any other chapter tactics rule out there. You don't think that tells you something?

Sure I do. I think that it tells me that "army" refers to the Space Marine army, and that the bonus is applied to all the models bought from that army list.

When confronted with simple logic, Nurglitch often puts his fingers in his ears and screams that he can't hear you.

I often call him out on his BS.

It's why I'm on his ignore list.

Nurglitch wrote:Sure I do. I think that it tells me that "army" refers to the Space Marine army, and that the bonus is applied to all the models bought from that army list.

That's not raw. It's your opinion and a thin one at that.

Nope, it's what the rules state. I've justified this opinion elsewhere in this thread, so all that's left is for you to justify why you think it is otherwise, or show me how my justification somehow fails some important metric.

Was it similar to how you justified that a "special type of tank shock" is not a tank shock? If so, I think we can all safely pass.

Danny Internets:

Wow, that's pathetic even for you.

Then I suppose we can take that as a yes, smile politely, chuckle, and move along.

Sure, if you want to show the depth of your intellectual dishonesty, go right ahead.

Otherwise, if you're serious about discussing rules, then either show me where I'm wrong or STFU.

Nurglitch wrote:Nope, it's what the rules state. I've justified this opinion elsewhere in this thread, so all that's left is for you to justify why you think it is otherwise, or show me how my justification somehow fails some important metric.

Because you never justified that the word 'army' only refers to the space marine codex. It never 'states' it anywhere.

I Missed that in the codex. Got a page number where it defines army as 'the space marine codex only'?

Otherwise, if you're serious about discussing rules, then either show me where I'm wrong or STFU.

Unfortunately it looks like a number of other people have already risen to that entertaining yet trivial challenge. Rather than quoting them, feel free to scroll up.

imweasel:

Here's the citations, from p.2 of the thread.

Nurglitch wrote:Tri:

See Codex: Space Marines. Concerning which army the term 'army' refers to, see p.51 for special rules.

"The models in the Space Marines army use a number of special rules that are common to more than one unit, as specified in the individual entries that follow."

See p.127 for lists.

"The following pages contain an army list that enables you to field a Space Marines army and fight battles using the scenarios included in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook. It also provides you with the basic information you'll need in order to field a Space Marines army in scenarios you've devised yourself, or that form part of a campaign."

"The army list allows you to pick an army based on the troops that could be fielded by a Space Marines Battle Company, with attached support drawn from other companies in the Chapter."

"Before you choose an army, you will need to agree with your opponent upon a scenario and the total number of points each of you will spend. Then you can proceed to pick your army."

So no, it's not my "limit", it's a distinction made in the Codex itself, between the Space Marine army list, and the Space Marine army you can choose using that list.

And where does that say that allied models can't be a part of the army like their codex says? It doesn't. It doesn't say anything about allies at all. Witch Hunters are a part of the army because their codex says that they are. Where does Codex Space Marines say that they're not? None of your quotes say any such thing.

Nurglitch's quotes only prove that one definition of "army" is Space Marines only - however the main book talks about an army being one FOC, and as Ghaz pointed out it does not exclude Allies.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Nurglitch's quotes only prove that one definition of "army" is Space Marines only - however the main book talks about an army being one FOC, and as Ghaz pointed out it does not exclude Allies.

You are forgetting that if nurglitch can prove one definition of something proves his way, it is then the only definition.
He did something similar in the terminators/terminator armour thread.

I gave him this simple example to show him his error. (which he ignored)

All water is wet
Everything that is wet is water.

Tri wrote:Allies are never defined as being anything ... however the rules for them state that allies are used as part of your army.

"Using Which Hunters as Allies
in keeping with the many possibilities for the forces of Ordo Hereticus to appear within Space Marine and Imperial forces, Which Hunter's (/Daemon Hunter's) units can be included as allies in any of the following codex armies: ...."

Important part here "units can be included as allies in any of the following codex armies". They are included in the army, not as well as or along side.

Wait a moment.

If this quote is always true, it seems to read that allies are not part of an army.
They are units that can be included as allies to an army.
That is not the same thing.

Unless I am mistaken, this may be a debate Nurglitch and Gwar! would be on the same side of.

I need to go read more.

Your reading is slightly in error.

The way the quote reads is "allies in".

The way you have quoted it as "allies to".

"Allies in" is an inclusive term, meaning that they are part of the army. "Allies to" is a slightly less inclusive term, that could mean alongside or along with but not necessarily as a part of.

I only point this out because it could save you some confusion of starting from a very similar but slightly different point of view.

Then I suppose we can take that as a yes, smile politely, chuckle, and move along.

Traders have an old saying that I absolutely love, "There's a fool in every market. If you don't know who it is, it's probably you."

I play Salamanders, and want to eventually have Inquisitorial support (because I lo-o-o-ove the Inquisition)

Here is my confusion: Stanford philosophy aside, where has GW said that the word 'army', when used in a Character's
Special Rule, applies to the specific force from which he/she comes (the codex in which he/she is printed in) and NOT
to the 'army' that is detailed in my FOC?

If you can provide me a reference, I will accept your answer.

Until then, I am going to field the Inquisitorial allies, and not feel any need to specifically inform my opponent beforehand.

jimsolo wrote:I play Salamanders, and want to eventually have Inquisitorial support (because I lo-o-o-ove the Inquisition)

Here is my confusion: Stanford philosophy aside, where has GW said that the word 'army', when used in a Character's
Special Rule, applies to the specific force from which he/she comes (the codex in which he/she is printed in) and NOT
to the 'army' that is detailed in my FOC?

If you can provide me a reference, I will accept your answer.

Until then, I am going to field the Inquisitorial allies, and not feel any need to specifically inform my opponent beforehand.

The rules are inclusive not exclusive, in other words, if the rules don't say it then it ain't it. The burden of proof is on you: Where does it state that the units from any other codex can assume rules from another codex? Allies permit fielding *hunter units with other armies, specific tally, occupying slots in the FO chart. That's it. Nothing is stated about sharing of rules or the like.

Avatar:

The rule states that it applies to the army. The allied units are included in the army. Therefore the rule applies to the allied units.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism

TheGreatAvatar wrote:
The rules are inclusive not exclusive, in other words, if the rules don't say it then it ain't it. The burden of proof is on you: Where does it state that the units from any other codex can assume rules from another codex? Allies permit fielding *hunter units with other armies, specific tally, occupying slots in the FO chart. That's it. Nothing is stated about sharing of rules or the like.

The Allies rules say they're included in my army.

Vulkan's rules say it affects specific weapons in my army.

That's pretty cut and dry.

I've posted this before, but never got any kind of feedback so I'm posting it once more.

This is another rule I found in the WH codex that has similar wording to Vulkan's. I am posting this text in order to provide another example of "army" allies rule wording, while steering away from the sharp stigma Vulkans rule has attained. Its not perfect, but it may help.

If I ally 750pts of sisters with 1500pts of SM (total 2250), can I equip a "sacred Banner of the Order Militant"?

TEXT rule for Sacred Banner of the Order Militant: "... may only be used in an army of 2000pts or more". (pg.22)
TEXT rule for Vulkan ----------------------------------"all thunder hammers in your army will count as master-crafted..."

Allow me to explain:
If the term "army" only applies to the codex in which the rules where written (or units purchased), then I only have a 750pt Sisters army and logic deems that I cannot use the banner. If the sisters are in fact a part of the army then the banner can be applied (as well as Vulkan's rules).

If the example posted is only applicable to one instance but not another, please explain how the applied uses of army are different.

Fire_hive if you take any WH or DH units as allies they caount as part of the army they've joined to. As such if the army is 2000pts or more you may take the banner.

Fire_hive wrote:If I ally 750pts of sisters with 1500pts of SM (total 2250), can I equip a "sacred Banner of the Order Militant"?

TEXT rule for Sacred Banner of the Order Militant: "... may only be used in an army of 2000pts or more". (pg.22)
TEXT rule for Vulkan ----------------------------------"all thunder hammers in your army will count as master-crafted..."

The DH/WH books make a difference between "army" and "hunter army" for some things. The special characters may only lead a 'Hunter army of the right size, for example. That banner could be carried by the bodyguards of a Canoness even if allied to another army.

But the banner won't spark a fight anyway as it only works for SoB. ;-)

Spetulhu wrote:

Fire_hive wrote:If I ally 750pts of sisters with 1500pts of SM (total 2250), can I equip a "sacred Banner of the Order Militant"?

TEXT rule for Sacred Banner of the Order Militant: "... may only be used in an army of 2000pts or more". (pg.22)
TEXT rule for Vulkan ----------------------------------"all thunder hammers in your army will count as master-crafted..."

...That banner could be carried by the bodyguards of a Canoness even if allied to another army. But the banner won't spark a fight anyway as it only works for SoB. ;-)

It's not about starting a new debate as much as defining what allies means in an army. So if you can piggyback the points off the SM army to grant point restricted items for the sisters codex, then would it provide evidence that sisters and SM are integrated into a grand ARMY (not just side by side), and thus be able to piggyback rules from the SM codex applying to the "army" as well? The use or application of this rule as a tactic is not important, only how the term "army" is used.

Thank you for your response though .

And the problem that keeps getting hit, is that the word "army" is used differently in different parts of the rules. GW rules, especially those written years ago, were not written with RAW in mind.

mikhaila wrote:And the problem that keeps getting hit, is that the word "army" is used differently in different parts of the rules. GW rules, especially those written years ago, were not written with RAW in mind.

I do agree with that point, but in this case non of us knows which definition to apply at what time, and GW is too busy counting cash to answer any of our questions or offer any assistance. Its obvious that that people feel strongly about this topic.

Somebody go to a T ornament and bug a judge about this.