After reading through the new book, it hit me that apparently models without chapter tactics can't be included in the detachment.

For reference:

"All models drawn from a given Chapter benefit from that Chapter's Chapter Tactics rules, as described below. The rules will often refer to a model, character or unit by its Chapter; in all cases, this refers to a model, character or unit with the Chapter Tactics special rule that is drawn from the given Chapter."

"All models in the same Detachment or Formation must be drawn from the same Chapter."

Since the only vehicle that has chapter tactics are dreadnoughts, doesn't this mean that no vehicles aside from them can be included since they don't have the same chapter tactics as the rest of the models?

Just looking at RAW here. Am I missing something?

Vehicles can be fielded fine, just not as part of a detachment that includes models with CTs. RaW is broken here, they need the "or no CTs" clause found in factions for a CAD/AD...

All the models, including vehicles are supposed to be part of the same chapter. They just want all the same chapter tactics special rules to be from the same chapter in the same army.

RAW isn't broken. Nor does it need an FAQ.

"All models in the same Detachment or Formation must be drawn from the same Chapter."

Are the vehicles in question from another chapter?
No, they are not.
Are all models from the same chapter? Yes.

If A= a single chapter =legal

Then A + ___=A = a single chapter= legal

Yeah this already got smashed on in another thread.

But the sheer hilarity of it definitely deserves it own thread. This way we can show the next generation how we went from Rabbit Goulash wannabes to the tightest army evar, and then slid into muggledom with naught but dreadnaughts. (See what I did there? I spelled dreadnought wrong to make it funny!).


Also, I cook a mean Rabbit stew, but I would never season with primarch...

Sorry. Anyways.

Yes, RAW states that to join a Space Marine detachment you must have the same CTs. Since vehicles can only be granted the USE of certain CTs and never have the special rule themselves, they fail to meet the requirements of building a detachment.

People shouldn't even try to argue this argue this one! RAW tells you what to do, there is no other clear cut ruling, so we must play it RAW.

Why? Because I hate everything and I don't want you to play with your toys! Grrr!

No! Because it's a prime example of how even the best trained monkey can never write a codex, no matter how many people buy it to run x cheese unit!

Play it as RAI! But don't try to say that the rule makes sense the way it is. This needs to be brought up with GW and fixed. If we continue to fool ourselves and say oh its just a minor confusion caused by poor wording and we just play it as we want NOTHING will change.

The next codex will come out and DA players will be like "uh... Somehow I can't take terminators in a deathwing formation". Or something equally ridiculous.

Who fault will it be? Ours! Because we didn't hold the company as responsible for the mess in the first place.

I've already written a letter outlining this issue to GW and I encourage everyone to do the same. When Gary from customer service gets back to you in ten years and says oh its meant to be like this or you just read it wrong, tell him to shove it and demand the errata.

Like seriously guys. Go! Get typing!

FratHammer wrote:
RAW isn't broken. Nor does it need an FAQ.

"All models in the same Detachment or Formation must be drawn from the same Chapter."

Are the vehicles in question from another chapter?
No, they are not.
Are all models from the same chapter? Yes.

If A= a single chapter =legal

Then A + ___=A = a single chapter= legal

The same chapter is defined as the same chapter tactics. Same I have a tactical squad with Chapter Tactics (Ultramarines), can I take a predator in the same detachment? If you say yes that means the Predator has Chapter Tactics (Ultramarines), which I'm going to need a rule quote to support.

The reason this needs a FAQ as it is unclear what rules triggered by CTs a model without CTs benefits from as all the rules appear to be written with the assumption that all models have CTs. So are all the models missing CTs just typos or are the CT rules just poorly worded? My guess is the later.

FratHammer wrote:
RAW isn't broken. Nor does it need an FAQ.

"All models in the same Detachment or Formation must be drawn from the same Chapter."

Are the vehicles in question from another chapter?
No, they are not.
Are all models from the same chapter? Yes.

If A= a single chapter =legal

Then A + ___=A = a single chapter= legal

In all cases this refers to a model, character or unit with the Chapter Tactics special rule that is drawn from the given chapter.

Do vehicles have Chapter Tactics?

darkcloak wrote:
Yeah this already got smashed on in another thread.

But the sheer hilarity of it definitely deserves it own thread. This way we can show the next generation how we went from Rabbit Goulash wannabes to the tightest army evar, and then slid into muggledom with naught but dreadnaughts. (See what I did there? I spelled dreadnought wrong to make it funny!).


Also, I cook a mean Rabbit stew, but I would never season with primarch...

Sorry. Anyways.

Yes, RAW states that to join a Space Marine detachment you must have the same CTs. Since vehicles can only be granted the USE of certain CTs and never have the special rule themselves, they fail to meet the requirements of building a detachment.

People shouldn't even try to argue this argue this one! RAW tells you what to do, there is no other clear cut ruling, so we must play it RAW.

Why? Because I hate everything and I don't want you to play with your toys! Grrr!

No! Because it's a prime example of how even the best trained monkey can never write a codex, no matter how many people buy it to run x cheese unit!

Play it as RAI! But don't try to say that the rule makes sense the way it is. This needs to be brought up with GW and fixed. If we continue to fool ourselves and say oh its just a minor confusion caused by poor wording and we just play it as we want NOTHING will change.

The next codex will come out and DA players will be like "uh... Somehow I can't take terminators in a deathwing formation". Or something equally ridiculous.

Who fault will it be? Ours! Because we didn't hold the company as responsible for the mess in the first place.

I've already written a letter outlining this issue to GW and I encourage everyone to do the same. When Gary from customer service gets back to you in ten years and says oh its meant to be like this or you just read it wrong, tell him to shove it and demand the errata.

Like seriously guys. Go! Get typing!

A clear point to raise when writing the email is that you thought you were buying a quality product as GW claims to sell on quality (rather than price). Then point out refusal to either write rules clearly in the first place or support those rules with basic FAQs and Errata is not acceptable with a quality product.

above post exalted!

How to fix this conundrum?

Easy. Like so.

In all cases this refers to a model, character or unit that is from the Space Marine faction that the player has chosen to be of a specific chapter. Note that you cannot mix and match different Chapter Tactics within the same detachment.

Or even better!

Please note that this does not prevent you from taking vehicles (which have no CT) in a Space Marine detachment. Simply inform your opponent which Chapter the vehicle is drawn from and which detachment it is joining.

Done.

Hell, you guys should just pay me billions of dollars and I'll just run off with the money an... oh wait!

The problem with both of those is they make vehicles benefit from CTs which is most likely the reason the vehicles don't have CTs. Hence my advised same CTs or no CTs clause just like CAD and same faction or no faction clause.

 FlingitNow wrote:
The problem with both of those is they make vehicles benefit from CTs which is most likely the reason the vehicles don't have CTs. Hence my advised same CTs or no CTs clause just like CAD and same faction or no faction clause.

How though? If so just add another note, Vehicles chosen this way do not benefit from Chapter Tactics unless stated otherwise.

Seriously Im not tryin to be vexatious...

How can we write that in there so it works? You give an example but could you please write it out as though you were re-writing the rule?

darkcloak wrote:
How can we write that in there so it works? You give an example but could you please write it out as though you were re-writing the rule?

All models in the same Detachment or Formation must be drawn from the same Chapter, with the exception of models that do not have the Chapter Tactics rule.

There's a few ways to fix it.

Simply adding chapter tactics can work, is quick and dirty. Then again this means hit and run dreadnoughts via white scars and first turn shrouding on vehicles for raven guard.

Another option is simply adding the "Chapter:" rule. Makes said vehicle part of a chapter.

The third is an FAQ that somehow corrects RAW without adding the above.

Then again, I starting bringing my CSM when I hear new marine were coming, so whatever.

I'm sorry I assumed

"All models in the same Detachment or Formation must be drawn from the same Chapter."

Was a quote from the new SM rulebook from the OP.

If it is, my statement is the quote to which you are referring. Using logic. An army must only have 1 chapter tactic, 1+ nothing= 1.

If the above quote is not the quote all of you are refuting, then provide the rules please and I will attempt to salvage the atrocity that it's gw's rules. If I can't, I'll happily join yall on the other side and laugh at all SM players.

All models in the same Detachment or Formation must be drawn from the same Chapter or no Chapter.

Or more correctly (but straying further from how it is currently written)

All models in the same Detachment or Formation must have thesame Chapter Tactics or no Chapter Tactics.

FratHammer wrote:
Using logic. An army must only have 1 chapter tactic, 1+ nothing= 1..

'All models must have the same...' is not the same as 'only 1 must be present'.

Models without Chapter Tactics do not have a Chapter. So they do not satisfy the requirement that all models come from the same Chapter. They can't, because they don't come from any Chapter.

What the rule is saying is that, if your chosen Chapter is Ultramarines, every model must have the Ultramarines Chapter Tactics. Models that don't have Chapter Tactics do not have the Ultramarines Chapter Tactics.

That's the problem.

If all models must have the same chapter tactic, then tell me what the chapter tactic of those two razorbacks in your detachment are. Are they the same?

"All models in the same Detachment or Formation must be drawn from the same Chapter."

Name what other chapter is present.

But again, models without a Chapter don't meet the requirement that "All models in the same Detachment or Formation must be drawn from the same Chapter." It doesn't say "... the same Chapter or no Chapter at all."

FratHammer wrote:
I'm sorry I assumed

"All models in the same Detachment or Formation must be drawn from the same Chapter."

Was a quote from the new SM rulebook from the OP.

If it is, my statement is the quote to which you are referring. Using logic. An army must only have 1 chapter tactic, 1+ nothing= 1.

If the above quote is not the quote all of you are refuting, then provide the rules please and I will attempt to salvage the atrocity that it's gw's rules. If I can't, I'll happily join yall on the other side and laugh at all SM players.

Faulty logic. "Not different" doesn't necessarily mean "the same". Take this example:

All objects in a basket must be drawn from the same fruit tree. In a basket of apples, can you take a potato?

The potato is not from a different fruit tree, but that does not mean it is from the same fruit tree.

How would they fix it? Simple: change "all models" to "all models with the Chapter Tactics special rule".

FratHammer wrote:
"All models in the same Detachment or Formation must be drawn from the same Chapter."

Name what other chapter is present.

There is only one Chapter present... but that's not the issue. The models without Chapter Tactics don't come from a Chapter. They are therefore not members of the same Chapter as the models with Chapter Tactics.

"All models in the same Detachment or Formation must be drawn from the same Chapter. Note that this limitation does not apply to models without the Chapter Tactics special rule."

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
"All models in the same Detachment or Formation must be drawn from the same Chapter. Note that this limitation does not apply to models without the Chapter Tactics special rule."

Ding! Winner!

An extra note perhaps?

"-for example vehicles that do not have Chapter Tactics."

Maybe even a Space Marine Joe example? Teehee!

And a time machine to go back and put that in the book?

All fruit in this basket must come from terra. All fruit in this basket came from terra.
What about that genestealer?
He's a fruit. From terra.

Given that the lines in question are taken from the chapter tactics special rules, i fail to see how they should read as affecting units that don't have the special rule in question.

It's not like models without CT are even mentioned, are they?

context matters and you're reading the rules for models with Chapter tactics and applying them to your whole army

 jokerkd wrote:
.

It's not like models without CT are even mentioned, are they?

Yes, that's the problem.

The rule isn't written to only affect models with Chapter Tactics. It's written to affect the entire formation.

 insaniak wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
.

It's not like models without CT are even mentioned, are they?

Yes, that's the problem.

The rule isn't written to only affect models with Chapter Tactics. It's written to affect the entire formation.

I just don't see why you would assume that.

the page is the explanation of the chapter tactics special rule. not the rules for forming an army

I assume that because it's what the rule says.

'All models in the same Detachment or Formation ...'

Not

'All models with Chapter Tactics in the same Detachment or Formation ...'

".......must be drawn from the same chapter"

where does it say that a unit without CT is not from a chapter?

"...The rules will often refer to a model, character or unit by its Chapter; in all cases, this refers to a model, character or unit with the Chapter Tactics special rule that is drawn from the given Chapter."

So if it doesn't have Chapter Tactics, it doesn't have a Chapter.

all that says is that, when the rules refer to "ultramarines units" it is referring only to those units that have the ultramarines CT.
Only when the rules specifically refer to a unit by it's chapter does this rule mean anything

technically, "All models in the same Detachment or Formation must be drawn from the same chapter" does not actually refer to a model, character, or unit by their chapter

How do you determine if models are from the same chapter without referring to their chapter?

I don't, but then it doesn't say "when YOU refer to units by chapter........"

If a rule hasn't specifically referred to a unit by its chapter, then that rule does not necessarily only refer to units with CT.

What does it refer to?

RAI are crystal on this; even though the RAW is fethed.

Yes you can take vehicles; I would still say no, they do not benefit from ct without the ct rule.

This is coming from a marine player that started a Sons of Medusae chapter in 5th(iron hands successor), so in 6th i had nice iwnd tanks, in 7th i only have iwnd dreads.

Vehicles(other than dreads) in a sm detachment are "generic sm vehicles"; they are of faction:sm(well i guess aa now), and therefore are effected by pe:sm/aa, and honestly the rules can continue to function fine if you only apply the ct rule to units that have it.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
RAI are crystal on this; even though the RAW is fethed.

Yes you can take vehicles; I would still say no, they do not benefit from ct without the ct rule.

This is coming from a marine player that started a Sons of Medusae chapter in 5th(iron hands successor), so in 6th i had nice iwnd tanks, in 7th i only have iwnd dreads.

Vehicles(other than dreads) in a sm detachment are "generic sm vehicles"; they are of faction:sm(well i guess aa now), and therefore are effected by pe:sm/aa, and honestly the rules can continue to function fine if you only apply the ct rule to units that have it.

Agreed. But some people believe it requires magical powers to understand English at any level beyond the purely literal.

Can't have some fun pointing out the rules we purchased don't work?

There is a good understanding that you should be able to include vehicles, but if there is a rules conflict of this magnitude then it's a great throwback to scream at GW for real FAQ's.

That's my whole purpose with this.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
RAI are crystal on this; even though the RAW is fethed.

Agreed. But some people believe it requires magical powers to understand English at any level beyond the purely literal.

And some people believe it requires the magical power of telepathy to understand what the writers intended to mean.

Threads like these can be useful. They confirm that this really is a case where the RAW are wrong. It's not us misunderstanding the rules, it's not us forgetting a key page, it really is a case of GW getting it wrong. Once we know that, we can safely add this case to our list of pre-game checks with new opponents (where we quickly mention which RAW we might ignore, just to make sure we're both on the same page).

There's also the fact that we humans are, well, human. We can be biased. We can think that the rules clearly intend something, we can think that it's clear as crystal, but we also know that we're human. We know that it could be our biases speaking. It's useful to touch base with a few other players to confirm that no, we're not being biased - the RAI really are as obvious as we think they are, and yes, the RAW really are as broken as we think they are.

Also, what Juraigamer says. It can be quite nice to poke a broken thing and to mock its brokenness, especially when it's an expensive broken thing whose producer isn't interested in fixing.

Mallich wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
RAI are crystal on this; even though the RAW is fethed.

Agreed. But some people believe it requires magical powers to understand English at any level beyond the purely literal.

And some people believe it requires the magical power of telepathy to understand what the writers intended to mean.

Threads like these can be useful. They confirm that this really is a case where the RAW are wrong. It's not us misunderstanding the rules, it's not us forgetting a key page, it really is a case of GW getting it wrong. Once we know that, we can safely add this case to our list of pre-game checks with new opponents (where we quickly mention which RAW we might ignore, just to make sure we're both on the same page).

There's also the fact that we humans are, well, human. We can be biased. We can think that the rules clearly intend something, we can think that it's clear as crystal, but we also know that we're human. We know that it could be our biases speaking. It's useful to touch base with a few other players to confirm that no, we're not being biased - the RAI really are as obvious as we think they are, and yes, the RAW really are as broken as we think they are.

Also, what Juraigamer says. It can be quite nice to poke a broken thing and to mock its brokenness, especially when it's an expensive broken thing whose producer isn't interested in fixing.

This!

RAW is wrong, and needs fixed. We all know how it's supposed to work, and good job to whoever caught this glaring error in the first place!

Another important note:

Since fortifications and lords of war don't have chapter tactics, when you take a CAD from the BRB... you can't take fortifications or lords of war as part of that detachment.

You know, that imperial bunker, aegis defense line or whatever LOW can't be included.

Hell, does this rule from the codex overrule playing unbound? Sure you can take whatever, but do they also have to all be the same chapter tactic?

 jokerkd wrote:
I don't, but then it doesn't say "when YOU refer to units by chapter........"

If a rule hasn't specifically referred to a unit by its chapter, then that rule does not necessarily only refer to units with CT.

The rule in question refers to chapters. Namely, that everyone has to have the same one . There is no way to apply that rule without referring to the chapter.

Unbound is easy enough; only your primary detachment and formations are detachments, therefore only the group you buy with your warlord or any given formations will have to all have the same ct.

And ultras can have a cad with a low: calgar.

 juraigamer wrote:

Hell, does this rule from the codex overrule playing unbound? Sure you can take whatever, but do they also have to all be the same chapter tactic?

The rule applies specifically to formations and detachments. Formations in am Unbound army would be bound by this rule as normal, but it doesn't apply to the entire army, because detachment rules (aside from formations) don't apply to Unbound.

 insaniak wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
I don't, but then it doesn't say "when YOU refer to units by chapter........"

If a rule hasn't specifically referred to a unit by its chapter, then that rule does not necessarily only refer to units with CT.

The rule in question refers to chapters. Namely, that everyone has to have the same one . There is no way to apply that rule without referring to the chapter.

Yes it refers to chapters. It doesn't refer to a unit by its chapter.

It may well imply you must refer to to units by chapter, but does not do so itself, if we're reading it literally

I'm not really sure how you think this changes anything.

Im trying to say that the rule does not actually define a chapter as only including units with CT, as this is the point of the thread.

The rule as written isnt referring to a unit by its chapter. "Iron hands models" is referring to models by their chapter. The rule in question literally does not do that

Actually rules do say that models with CT (x) do from from Chapter X, do you have any permission for any other type of model or unit to come from Chapter X? If not, they don't. That's how a permissive ruleset works.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Actually rules do say that models with CT (x) do from from Chapter X,

I dont have my book with me, but i believe it is more like "must come from chapter (x) it still doesn't define a chapter as only units with CT

do you have any permission for any other type of model or unit to come from Chapter X? If not, they don't. That's how a permissive ruleset works.

Can you define "chapter (x)" without referring to the rule to which we disagree on the meaning of?

"The Chapter Tactics special rule represents a group of rules that are specific to a given Chapter." Page 189

So here we KNOW CT(x) makes you part of Chapter X. Do you have any permission for anything else to be part of Chapter x?

jokerd, the rule requires all units to come from the same chapter, correct?

How do we know what chapter a unit comes from?

Page 189 proves that everything with those rules must be part of a specific chapter. Trouble is everything that is part of the chapter does not necessarily have to have those rules. Land Raiders do not have those rules but there is nothing to prevent my from drawing a land raider from that chapter when adding it to my detachment. If you want to say I don't have permission to draw a land raider from a given chapter because it does not have the chapter tactics rule I will need you to prove where I am given permission to draw units with the CT rule from a given chapter, The closest I can find is a requirement to name the chapter they are being drawn from if they have the CT rule. This inferred permission is no different then the inferred permission to draw them 'from the same chapter' as units already in a detachment.

So you agree CTs forces you to name the chapter they are drawn from yet don't see that they have permission to be drawn from that chapter? Also see my quote above.

 DJGietzen wrote:
Page 189 proves that everything with those rules must be part of a specific chapter. Trouble is everything that is part of the chapter does not necessarily have to have those rules. Land Raiders do not have those rules but there is nothing to prevent my from drawing a land raider from that chapter when adding it to my detachment. If you want to say I don't have permission to draw a land raider from a given chapter because it does not have the chapter tactics rule I will need you to prove where I am given permission to draw units with the CT rule from a given chapter, The closest I can find is a requirement to name the chapter they are being drawn from if they have the CT rule. This inferred permission is no different then the inferred permission to draw them 'from the same chapter' as units already in a detachment.

OK, you take a Land Raider. What Chapter is it from? Is it from the same Chapter as the rest of your detachment? How do you know?

 jokerkd wrote:
Im trying to say that the rule does not actually define a chapter as only including units with CT, as this is the point of the thread.

From the quote in the first post:

The rules will often refer to a model, character or unit by its Chapter; in all cases, this refers to a model, character or unit with the Chapter Tactics special rule that is drawn from the given Chapter."

So yes, the rules do define a Chapter as only including units with CT.


By that rule, any time that the rules say 'Chapter' they mean 'Chapter Tactics special rule that is drawn from the given Chapter'.


So if you are determining if all models in a formation are fro mthe same chapter, you check if they all have the same version of Chapter Tactics. There is no other method provided by the rules for allocating a model to any specific chapter.

Referring to a chapter is not the same as referring a to a unit by its chapter. The rule only applies when the book refers to a unit by its chapter.

The rules say models must be from the same chapter.
The rules say i can take a vehicle in the same formation as models with CT
The logical conclusion is that vehicles must be given a chapter.
The rules for CT do not restrict me from doing this as the rule only applies when the book refers to something by its chapter

jokerd, true or false - all units in a detachment must be from the same chapter.

True RAW

OK, next question. How do you know what Chapter a unit comes from?

You choose what chapter it comes from

 jokerkd wrote:
You choose what chapter it comes from

Do you have a rules quote to back that up?

Because the rule already quoted in this thread several times says that you determine the Chapter by looking at which Chapter Tactics they have.

All units in a formation must be drawn from the same chapter


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Paraphrased because I don't have my book and using my phone for quotes is annoying

 jokerkd wrote:
All units in a formation must be drawn from the same chapter

Correct. What chapter does a Land Raider come from? How do you know?

If all models from a detachment must have a chapter then any land raider in that detachment must have a chapter

 jokerkd wrote:
If all models from a detachment must have a chapter then any land raider in that detachment must have a chapter

You would think so, yes. The problem is that the rules don't actually give us any way to assign that land raider a chapter.

It's clearly an error, but it's broken as it currently stands.

 insaniak wrote:
... the rule already quoted in this thread several times says that you determine the Chapter by looking at which Chapter Tactics they have.

No such rule exists. There is a rule that states you determine what benefits a model receives based on what chapter its drawn from. There is a second rule that explains that when a rule refers to a unit, character, or model by its chapter, it is referring to a model, character, or unit drawn from the given chapter that has the chapter tactics special rule.

Unless I missed something people are either misquoting or misunderstanding the rules.

When putting space marines in detachments we have two additional requirements.

1) We must make note of what chapter from which units with the chapter tactics special rule are being drawn.
2) We must draw all units in the same detachment from the same chapter.

There are no rules for determining what chapter from which a unit is being drawn. Yes you can use the rules above to figure out from what chapter a unit has already been drawn. Key word there is 'already'... If we presume the ability to choose the chapter we are drawing them from for the 1st requirement, why cannot we presume the same for the second requirement?

Well if there are not rules for determining what chapter a unit is from, then... the whole book doesn't work? What?

 juraigamer wrote:
Well if there are not rules for determining what chapter a unit is from, then... the whole book doesn't work? What?

There are rules for determining what Chapter a model is from. It must be drawn from that Chapter AND it must have the Chapter Tactics special rule. Herein lies the dilemma. It's a pretty obvious oversight on GW's part, but from a current rules as written standpoint, any unit/model without the Chapter Tactics special rule is not defined as belonging to any Chapter and can therefore not be included in a Space Marines detachment or formation.

I can't imagine anyone actually enforcing this RaW though. This is just bad rules writing with no technical editing process.

Threads like this are why this forum has zero credibility.

I think it would also mean you cannot include servitors, not sure about TFC by the RAW

but obviously bad editing process.

Not that much of a surprised, for many years the idea of chapter did not have a specific rules set tied to it, this edition they have tied being in a chapter to having chapter tactics listed in the unit profile for the models in that unit.

Who here seriously expects SM players not to use vehicles now ?

I was merely responding to DJGietzen's claim that no rule exists

 Kriswall wrote:

This is just bad rules writing with no technical editing process.

Rule so bad we have additional points to demand reasonable FAQ's for said rules?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Threads like this are why this forum has zero credibility.

Care to explain your insulting comment?

The rules are poorly written. I don't think anyone is arguing that you SHOULDN'T be able to take a Rhino (for example) in a Space Marine Detachment. How does pointing out a critical, and almost certainly unintended, flaw in the latest Codex in any way, shape or form cause this forum to have zero credibility?

Keep in mind that I don't think anyone here is actually recommending you restrict things like Rhinos from play due to them not having a defined Chapter.

Its not a real flaw. There is nothing to support the idea that you can include units with the chapter tactics rule in a detachment, but cannot include those with out that rule.

 DJGietzen wrote:
Its not a real flaw. There is nothing to support the idea that you can include units with the chapter tactics rule in a detachment, but cannot include those with out that rule.

I take it you haven't read this thread and/or the codex in question then? It's pretty clear the RAW is nuts on this one.

No, I have.There is this common argument is that if a model, unit or character does not have the CT special rule it cannot be drawn from a chapter. This is faulty logic. A rule cannot refer to an "Iron Hands Rhino" because there is no Rhino unit, model or character with the CT rule. That does not mean that a Rhino cannot be drawn from the Iron Hands chapter.

Pretty sure its RAW that vehicles dont need to have chapter tactics.

Ya'll looking to much into this. Not everything is a GW F..k up.

 DJGietzen wrote:
No, I have.There is this common argument is that if a model, unit or character does not have the CT special rule it cannot be drawn from a chapter. This is faulty logic. A rule cannot refer to an "Iron Hands Rhino" because there is no Rhino unit, model or character with the CT rule. That does not mean that a Rhino cannot be drawn from the Iron Hands chapter.

actually it does.

There is no entry for "iron hands tactical squad" because chapter is not part of the unit name, or datasheet entry.

Chapter is now defined as models having the chapter tactics rule for a specific chapter in the space marine codex.

So a tactical squad can have the chapter tactics rule, and you say its chapter tactics are iron hands so the squad belongs to the iron hands chapter because it has their chapter tactics. Its name does not become "Iron hands tactical squad" and its datasheet do not change, it is still just "tactical squad"

For a Rhino it is still a rhino in name, and for the datasheet but it does not have chapter tactics, so it does not belong to the chapter according to how the rules are written in the codex.

Of course it is listed as an option for an unit to buy one, and makes no sense to say its not part of the chapter, because fluff wise it is, but rules wise it is not. So rules wise there is this now dumb scenario where the non dreadnaught vehicles do not have chapter tactics, so by the rules they are not part of the chapter- because they lack chapter tactics which is the defining rule of being part of the chapter.

So yes as it stands from a rule stance a rhino/razorback/drop pod does not have chapter tactics, and is not part of the chapter despite what the fluff says and how it might be painted. Because chapter has been made into a rule, and the requirement for that rule is having chapter tactics, and these models do not have chapter tactics. Much like someone saying a drop pod does not have to remove its doors because thats a fluff statement and there is no rule, or the blood angels formation that states "once on the ground the sgts can triangulate their teleport homers" but thats not an actual rule and they can use them while embarked. There is no rule that currently allows SM vehicles (barring dreds) to be part of a chapter as per how chapter is defined in the rules.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Who here seriously expects SM players not to use vehicles now ?

Nobody. It's a discussion of a curious oversight in the rules, nothing more.

Doesent the first sentence read that all models are part of the same chapter?

blaktoof wrote:
Chapter is now defined as models having the chapter tactics rule for a specific chapter in the space marine codex.

You lost me here as this is the argument I am talking about. There is no such rule/definition in the codex.

All the codex says that if a rule says something like "Iron Hands Razobacks ignore crew shaken results." it means a Razoback with the chapter tactics special rule drawn from the Iron Hands chapter ignores crew shaken results. Since none of Razorbacks in the codex have the CT rule this made up 'rule' would not apply to them. If however this 'rule' said "Razorbacks drawn from the Iron Hands chapter ignore crew shaken results." then it would apply to them because there is no requirement they have the CT rule.

So, if you think the rule that says that the chapter is defined by chapter tactics doesn't mean that the chapter is defined by chapter tactics, which rule are you using to determine which chapter the unit is from?

 DJGietzen wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Chapter is now defined as models having the chapter tactics rule for a specific chapter in the space marine codex.

You lost me here as this is the argument I am talking about. There is no such rule/definition in the codex.

All the codex says that if a rule says something like "Iron Hands Razobacks ignore crew shaken results." it means a Razoback with the chapter tactics special rule drawn from the Iron Hands chapter ignores crew shaken results. Since none of Razorbacks in the codex have the CT rule this made up 'rule' would not apply to them. If however this 'rule' said "Razorbacks drawn from the Iron Hands chapter ignore crew shaken results." then it would apply to them because there is no requirement they have the CT rule.

Incorrect. This rule/definition is most certainly in the Codex. Page 189 of the new codex... "The rules will often refer to a model, character or unit by its Chapter; in all cases, this refers to a model, character or unit with the Chapter Tactics special rule that is drawn from the given Chapter."

 Kriswall wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Chapter is now defined as models having the chapter tactics rule for a specific chapter in the space marine codex.

You lost me here as this is the argument I am talking about. There is no such rule/definition in the codex.

All the codex says that if a rule says something like "Iron Hands Razobacks ignore crew shaken results." it means a Razoback with the chapter tactics special rule drawn from the Iron Hands chapter ignores crew shaken results. Since none of Razorbacks in the codex have the CT rule this made up 'rule' would not apply to them. If however this 'rule' said "Razorbacks drawn from the Iron Hands chapter ignore crew shaken results." then it would apply to them because there is no requirement they have the CT rule.

Incorrect. This rule/definition is most certainly in the Codex. Page 189 of the new codex... "The rules will often refer to a model, character or unit by its Chapter; in all cases, this refers to a model, character or unit with the Chapter Tactics special rule that is drawn from the given Chapter."

As i said before, referring to a chapter =/= referring to a unit by its chapter.
There is even an example of what it means by "referring to a unit by its chapter"

I am stuck on designating a vehicle by its chapter..... but than i assumed that being told you must do something was enough of a permission to do it. In a few threads I'm being told this is wrong but i havent seen a single publication agree

Where are you told that a vehicle must have a designated chapter?

 DJGietzen wrote:
Its not a real flaw. There is nothing to support the idea that you can include units with the chapter tactics rule in a detachment, but cannot include those with out that rule.

^^ This .

My grip with this forum is it could be an excellent place to discuss the rules in a practical meaningful way that would be very beneficial to all gamers. However it is mostly always an exercise in super restrictions that no one would ever actually apply in RL .

 insaniak wrote:
Where are you told that a vehicle must have a designated chapter?

You are given permission to take a vehicle in a formation with a character that has CT

Assuming you dont read the chapter tactics rules as intended, you are also told that all units in a formation must be from the same chapter

 Dozer Blades wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
Its not a real flaw. There is nothing to support the idea that you can include units with the chapter tactics rule in a detachment, but cannot include those with out that rule.

^^ This .

My grip with this forum is it could be an excellent place to discuss the rules in a practical meaningful way that would be very beneficial to all gamers. However it is mostly always an exercise in super restrictions that no one would ever actually apply in RL .

Nobody here is saying they'd apply the restrictions in real life. This is something you're adding in your mind. We're discussing how the rules, as written on the page, interact. How we would actually play the game is an entirely different matter. Nobody here has said they wouldn't actually allow SM Vehicles in an army list.

 Dozer Blades wrote:

^^ This .

My grip with this forum is it could be an excellent place to discuss the rules in a practical meaningful way that would be very beneficial to all gamers. However it is mostly always an exercise in super restrictions that no one would ever actually apply in RL .

There is absolutely nothing stopping you from adding how you would play it into the discussion, instead of just complaining that the discussion is currently more focussed on the actual RAW.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jokerkd wrote:
You are given permission to take a vehicle in a formation with a character that has CT

Assuming you dont read the chapter tactics rules as intended, you are also told that all units in a formation must be from the same chapter

That doesn't answer my question, though.

Saying that all models in a detachment must be from the same chapter is not the same as saying that all models must be assigned a chapter. It's just saying that the detachment can only include models with a chapter.


Look at it this way - There is a requirement to be driving a car in order to be served at the drive-through at Macdonalds. Does that grant me permission to drive, even if I don't have a licence?

Clearly not. What it means is that if I can't drive, I can't go through the drive through.


A restriction is not a permission.

You already have permission to include vehicles and CT models in the same formation

 jokerkd wrote:
You already have permission to include vehicles and CT models in the same formation

Yes, you do. Provided they are from the same Chapter.

So now you need a rule that assigns a chapter to your vehicles, in order for them to be eligible to join the formation.

And like i said, this is where we're stuck.

I read as saying they "must be from the same chapter".
You are tell telling me i should read it as "can only be from the same chapter" because you read it as a restriction as opposed to an instruction.

Kriswall wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Chapter is now defined as models having the chapter tactics rule for a specific chapter in the space marine codex.

You lost me here as this is the argument I am talking about. There is no such rule/definition in the codex.

All the codex says that if a rule says something like "Iron Hands Razobacks ignore crew shaken results." it means a Razoback with the chapter tactics special rule drawn from the Iron Hands chapter ignores crew shaken results. Since none of Razorbacks in the codex have the CT rule this made up 'rule' would not apply to them. If however this 'rule' said "Razorbacks drawn from the Iron Hands chapter ignore crew shaken results." then it would apply to them because there is no requirement they have the CT rule.

Incorrect. This rule/definition is most certainly in the Codex. Page 189 of the new codex... "The rules will often refer to a model, character or unit by its Chapter; in all cases, this refers to a model, character or unit with the Chapter Tactics special rule that is drawn from the given Chapter."

That only means that a rule that refers to a, for example, "Iron Hands Rhino" only refers to a Rhino that is both drawn from the Iron Hands chapter and has the Chapter Tactics special rule and does not refer to a Rhino, drawn from the Iron Hands chapter, that lacks the Chapter Tactics special rule. It does not mean that a Rhino cannot be drawn from the Iron Hand chapter.

insaniak wrote:Where are you told that a vehicle must have a designated chapter?

You are not. You are only told that all units in a detachment must be drawn from the same chapter and that units with the chapter tactics special rule must be drawn from a designated chapter. By logical extension those units that do not have the chapter tactics special rule must be drawn from the same chapter as those units that do have the chapter tactics special rule if both types of units are in the same detachment. If you have a detachment that contains no models with the chapter tactics special rule they are not required to be drawn from any chapter.

insaniak wrote:Look at it this way - There is a requirement to be driving a car in order to be served at the drive-through at Macdonalds. Does that grant me permission to drive, even if I don't have a licence?

Clearly not. What it means is that if I can't drive, I can't go through the drive through.


A restriction is not a permission.

This cuts both ways. A requirement that you order food at the McDonald's drive-through does not mean you can drive either. Why do we have permission to draw some units from a chapter but not others?

 jokerkd wrote:
I read as saying they "must be from the same chapter".
You are tell telling me i should read it as "can only be from the same chapter"

...which means the same thing.

Telling you that something must be from the same chapter to be in the formation is not permission to include something in the formation if it lacks that chapter denomination. It's a condition of entry.

...because you read it as a restriction as opposed to an instruction

...because it is.

See my Macdonalds analogy. A restriction is not a permission.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DJGietzen wrote:
By logical extension those units that do not have the chapter tactics special rule must be drawn from the same chapter as those units that do have the chapter tactics special rule if both types of units are in the same detachment.

Which rule are you using to assign a chapter to units that do not have Chapter Tactics?

This cuts both ways. A requirement that you order food at the McDonald's drive-through does not mean you can drive either.

That's pretty much my point, yes.

Why do we have permission to draw some units from a chapter but not others?

Because the rules are flawed?

Where is the permission to draw units with the chapter tactics special rule from a designated chapter?

 DJGietzen wrote:
Where is the permission to draw units with the chapter tactics special rule from a designated chapter?

You have that backwards.

The rule quoted at the start of the thread tells us that you determine the chapter by looking at which Chapter Tactics they have.

The drive thru analogy is flawed.

You are only allowed in the drive thru if you have a car. You are allowed in the drive thru. Therefore you have car

 insaniak wrote:
The rule quoted at the start of the thread tells us that you determine the chapter by looking at which Chapter Tactics they have.

It absolutely does not. The rule quoted at the start of the thread tells us that the use of a chapter name as an adjective by a rule describes whatever noun it is attached to as one with the chapter tactics special rule that is drawn from the named chapter. For example a rule that says "An Iron Hands vehicle..." refers to a vehicle, drawn from the Iron Hands chapter, that has the chapter tactics special rule.

 insaniak wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
Where is the permission to draw units with the chapter tactics special rule from a designated chapter?

You have that backwards.

The rule quoted at the start of the thread tells us that you determine the chapter by looking at which Chapter Tactics they have.

I believe it applies to CT models specifically

 jokerkd wrote:
The drive thru analogy is flawed.

You are only allowed in the drive thru if you have a car. You are allowed in the drive thru. Therefore you have car

You're allowed in the drive through if you have a car.


You can't ignore the restriction in one rule just because another rule doesn't include the same restriction.

We're told that all models in a detachment must be from the same Chapter.
We're told that a model's Chapter is determined by Chapter Tactics.

So a rule that allows a given model type to be chosen for a detachment will still be bound by those rules. Yes, you can select vehicles as part of a detachment... but the vehicles you select must be from the same Chapter as the rest of the detachment, because there is no rule that tells us to ignore that requirement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DJGietzen wrote:

It absolutely does not. The rule quoted at the start of the thread tells us that the use of a chapter name as an adjective by a rule describes whatever noun it is attached to as one with the chapter tactics special rule that is drawn from the named chapter. For example a rule that says "An Iron Hands vehicle..." refers to a vehicle, drawn from the Iron Hands chapter, that has the chapter tactics special rule.

Which brings us back to the question that still hasn't been answered - what other method do the rules give us for assigning a Chapter to something?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jokerkd wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
Where is the permission to draw units with the chapter tactics special rule from a designated chapter?

You have that backwards.

The rule quoted at the start of the thread tells us that you determine the chapter by looking at which Chapter Tactics they have.

I believe it applies to CT models specifically

Of course it does. If the model doesn't have Chapter Tactics, you can't determine its Chapter by looking at which version of Chapter Tactics it has.

Which leaves us with a model of indeterminate Chapter... And that model has no way of satisfying the rule that requires it to be the same Chapter as the rest of the detachment you want to put it into.

Again, you read it as a restriction, i read it as an instruction

Yes, that is indeed the problem...

 insaniak wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

It absolutely does not. The rule quoted at the start of the thread tells us that the use of a chapter name as an adjective by a rule describes whatever noun it is attached to as one with the chapter tactics special rule that is drawn from the named chapter. For example a rule that says "An Iron Hands vehicle..." refers to a vehicle, drawn from the Iron Hands chapter, that has the chapter tactics special rule.

Which brings us back to the question that still hasn't been answered - what other method do the rules give us for assigning a Chapter to something?

Real quick point of clarification. The entire chapter tactics page is written from the perspective of drawing units from a chapter, not assigning a unit to a chapter, but yes this is where I think the rules gap, if there is one in the RAW, exists. There is no permission to draw units from a chapter explicitly stated in this codex. Either this permission is inherent and therefor applies to both types of units (both units with the CT rule and those with out it) or it is not and with this codex you may only field a handful of formations.

 jokerkd wrote:
Again, you read it as a restriction, i read it as an instruction

Actually... it occurs to me that there's a bigger problem with this...

If you assume that the requirement for all members of the detachment to be from the same chapter is actually an instruction to treat all members of the detachment as being from the same chapter... then the rule becomes essentially meaningless. You would be able to have every single unit in the detachment with a different Chapter Tactics, and still count them as being all from the same Chapter.

Lol and i thought we'd finally just agreed to disagree

I don't follow you there insaniak.

jokerkd's contention was that this rule:

All models in the same Detachment or Formation must be drawn from the same Chapter

...is an instruction to consider all models in the detachment as being from the same Chapter.

This means that if you try to include a vehicle in, say, an Ultramarines detachment, that's fine, because all units in the detachment are considered to be Ultramarines, even if they don't have the Ultramarines Chapter Tactics.


But it would by extension also mean that you could include a unit with, say, the Imperial Fists Chapter Tactics in that same detachment, because all units in the detachment are considered to be Ultramarines, even if they don't have the Ultramarines Chapter Tactics.

Wouldn't the determination be made by what FOC it was purchased under and starts the game as a full and distinct part thereof, like the transports of a troop choice gaining the troop choice's Objective Secured? SM Flesh Tearers' DropPods bought as FA as non-dedicated transports would not gain the Objective Secured rule like a dedicated transport would.

Woo Hoo, follow jokerkd and DJGietzen's rules and we can have Pedro give Calgar +1 attack because he's a Crimson Fist! Yay

 insaniak wrote:
jokerkd's contention was that this rule:

All models in the same Detachment or Formation must be drawn from the same Chapter

...is an instruction to consider all models in the detachment as being from the same Chapter.

This means that if you try to include a vehicle in, say, an Ultramarines detachment, that's fine, because all units in the detachment are considered to be Ultramarines, even if they don't have the Ultramarines Chapter Tactics.


But it would by extension also mean that you could include a unit with, say, the Imperial Fists Chapter Tactics in that same detachment, because all units in the detachment are considered to be Ultramarines, even if they don't have the Ultramarines Chapter Tactics.

we are not given permission any where else to take two different CTs in a detachment. We ARE given permission to take non-CT models with CT models

 jokerkd wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
jokerkd's contention was that this rule:

All models in the same Detachment or Formation must be drawn from the same Chapter

...is an instruction to consider all models in the detachment as being from the same Chapter.

This means that if you try to include a vehicle in, say, an Ultramarines detachment, that's fine, because all units in the detachment are considered to be Ultramarines, even if they don't have the Ultramarines Chapter Tactics.


But it would by extension also mean that you could include a unit with, say, the Imperial Fists Chapter Tactics in that same detachment, because all units in the detachment are considered to be Ultramarines, even if they don't have the Ultramarines Chapter Tactics.

we are not given permission any where else to take two different CTs in a detachment. We ARE given permission to take non-CT models with CT models

Does this line give you permission to assign a Chapter to any unit you want or not? It certainly does not call out non-CT units so you can't treat them differently with this line.

 jokerkd wrote:
We ARE given permission to take non-CT models with CT models

Can you please quote the rule that refers to taking models without Chapter Tactics in a detachment along with models that have it?

Because it hasn't been presented so far in this discussion.

Half of the formations and detachments in the book allow you to take vehicles in the same detachment as units with CT.

or how about the fact that a unit with CT is permitted to take a dedicated transport that doesn't have CT

 jokerkd wrote:
Half of the formations and detachments in the book allow you to take vehicles in the same detachment as units with CT.

or how about the fact that a unit with CT is permitted to take a dedicated transport that doesn't have CT

Those imply you are supposed to have CT models and non-CT models in the same detachment. We all know this is the intent. Now do you have any rules that allow you to say a model without CTs can be assigned a Chapter? If so please quote those rules.

 jokerkd wrote:
Half of the formations and detachments in the book allow you to take vehicles in the same detachment as units with CT.

or how about the fact that a unit with CT is permitted to take a dedicated transport that doesn't have CT

Neither of which answers the question.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Woo Hoo, follow jokerkd and DJGietzen's rules and we can have Pedro give Calgar +1 attack because he's a Crimson Fist! Yay

Don't lump me in on that one. I never said that I agreed with jokerkd that 'all units must be drawn from the same chapter' was an instruction rather then a requirement. As far as I'm concerned there is no way to draw a Raven Guard unit from the Iron Hands chapter. For me its crystal clear. When you add a unit with CT to a detachment you must indicate what chapter it is being drawn from. This is your choice and this book presents you with 7 of them, unless the unit's datasheet has a chapter in brackets after the CT rule, then you only have 1 choice. Once that choice has been made it must be repeated for all other units in the same detachment.

 DJGietzen wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Woo Hoo, follow jokerkd and DJGietzen's rules and we can have Pedro give Calgar +1 attack because he's a Crimson Fist! Yay

Don't lump me in on that one. I never said that I agreed with jokerkd that 'all units must be drawn from the same chapter' was an instruction rather then a requirement. As far as I'm concerned there is no way to draw a Raven Guard unit from the Iron Hands chapter. For me its crystal clear. When you add a unit with CT to a detachment you must indicate what chapter it is being drawn from. This is your choice and this book presents you with 7 of them, unless the unit's datasheet has a chapter in brackets after the CT rule, then you only have 1 choice. Once that choice has been made it must be repeated for all other units in the same detachment.

So what rule are you using to choose a Chapter and what rule limits models with CTs to picking 1 chapter?

@Flingitnow. When choosing and army you much make a note of which chapter each unit with the CT rule is being drawn from. The wording of this rule prohibits drawing a single unit from multiple chapters simultaneously. Even if it did not, a unit containing models drawn from two different chapters counts as neither so its a moot point as a tactical squad drawn from both the iron hands chapter and the raven guard chapter would not be referenced by any rules that refer to iron hands units nor would they be referenced by any rules that refer to raven guard units.

 DJGietzen wrote:
@Flingitnow. When choosing and army you much make a note of which chapter each unit with the CT rule is being drawn from. The wording of this rule prohibits drawing a single unit from multiple chapters simultaneously. Even if it did not, a unit containing models drawn from two different chapters counts as neither so its a moot point as a tactical squad drawn from both the iron hands chapter and the raven guard chapter would not be referenced by any rules that refer to iron hands units nor would they be referenced by any rules that refer to raven guard units.

So is being drawn from the same as having CTs? Or can Marneas Clagar be drawn from the Crimson Fists Chapter? Also could you actuallyanswer the questions I asked in the previous post?

 FlingitNow wrote:
So is being drawn from the same as having CTs?

No, being drawn from a chapter is not the same as having the chapter tactics special rule. Its a quality of a unit that has no inherent value.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Or can Marneas Clagar be drawn from the Crimson Fists Chapter?

"If a unit's datasheet contains a Chapter in brackets after the Chapter Tactics special rule the unit must always be drawn from this chapter."

 FlingitNow wrote:
So what rule are you using to choose a Chapter...]

This is where I think the rules gap, if there is one in the RAW, exists. There is no permission to draw units from a chapter explicitly stated in this codex. Either this permission is inherent and therefor applies to both types of units (both units with the CT rule and those with out it) or it is not and with this codex you may only field a handful of formations. For the sake discussion we assume the permission to draw a unit from a chapter of my choice when adding it to a detachment exists .

 FlingitNow wrote:
...and what rule limits models with CTs to picking 1 chapter?

"When choosing an army you must make a note of which Chapter each unit with the Chapter Tactics rule is being drawn from." The wording of this rule prohibits drawing a single unit from multiple chapters simultaneously. Even if it did not, a unit containing models drawn from two different chapters counts as neither so its a moot point as a tactical squad drawn from both the iron hands chapter and the raven guard chapter would not be referenced by any rules that refer to iron hands units nor would they be referenced by any rules that refer to raven guard units.

This is where I think the rules gap, if there is one in the RAW, exists. There is no permission to draw units from a chapter explicitly stated in this codex.

Your very next paragraph disagrees with you:

"When choosing an army you must make a note of which Chapter each unit with the Chapter Tactics rule is being drawn from." The wording of this rule prohibits drawing a single unit from multiple chapters

So here not only am I seeing permission for units with CTs to bedrawn from a Chapter but a requirement to pick one. Where issuch pepermission for nonCT units?

 insaniak wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
Half of the formations and detachments in the book allow you to take vehicles in the same detachment as units with CT.

or how about the fact that a unit with CT is permitted to take a dedicated transport that doesn't have CT

Neither of which answers the question.

You don't consider datasheets part of the rules?

 jokerkd wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
Half of the formations and detachments in the book allow you to take vehicles in the same detachment as units with CT.

or how about the fact that a unit with CT is permitted to take a dedicated transport that doesn't have CT

Neither of which answers the question.

You don't consider datasheets part of the rules?

You are correct that the formations have slots that either require or allow for vehicles to be taken as part of them. That still doesn't allow you to ignore the rule that requires everything in a detachment or formation to be drawn from the same chapter. This is the problem. Those vehicles, aside from dreadnoughts, cannot be currently labeled as part of a chapter.

 FlingitNow wrote:

This is where I think the rules gap, if there is one in the RAW, exists. There is no permission to draw units from a chapter explicitly stated in this codex.

Your very next paragraph disagrees with you:

"When choosing an army you must make a note of which Chapter each unit with the Chapter Tactics rule is being drawn from." The wording of this rule prohibits drawing a single unit from multiple chapters

So here not only am I seeing permission for units with CTs to bedrawn from a Chapter but a requirement to pick one. Where issuch pepermission for nonCT units?

No, a requirement to do something when X happen is not permission for you to cause X to happen.

You must make a note of the Chapter they are drawn from. How are you not making a note of the chapter they are drawn from from?

Requiring you make a note of the chapter they are drawn from does not give you permission to draw them from a chapter in the 1st place. Much the same way requiring that you roll your Rs when speaking Spanish does not cause you to be able to speak Spanish or requiring you to exit the building when the fire alarm is pulled does not give you permission to pull the fire alarm. Or to bring it back to 40k terms, requiring that you snap fire all your weapons when your vehicle moves at cruising speed does not give you permission to move your vehicle at cruising speed.

Making a note is picking a Chapter though. That is the point.

"When choosing an army, you must make a note of which Chapter each unit with the Chapter Tactics special rule is drawn from."

If the unit doesn't have the chapter tactics special rule, you're not making a note of it.

No, making a note of what you picked is not picking. When you draw units from a chapter you inevitably have to pick which chapter you are drawing them from.

 DJGietzen wrote:
No, making a note of what you picked is not picking. When you draw units from a chapter you inevitably have to pick which chapter you are drawing them from.

Cool beans. I disagree but see where you're coming from. However your interpretation still leads to me being able to put Calgary and Pedro in the same detachment as I've no instructions on how to draw units from chapter (outside of the posted rule you disagree on). But hey you can take nonCT units that way.

Either way RaW is very broken.

Which seems like a good place to give this one a rest...

To summarise: rules are broken, but we all know what they meant. If in doubt, discuss with your opponent.