So I think everyone is freaking out over only a slight change. My group and I were looking at it, and we think you can still have units in reserves in each others transports... here is our argument.

Q: Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: No.

On another page...

Q: Can you clarify the term ‘deploy’?
A: ‘Deploy’ is a word for setting up a unit on the battlefield – this is something you do during deployment, but also when units arrive from Reserve and so on. ‘Deployment’ is the stage in ‘Preparing For Battle’ where the players set up their armies on the battlefield.

Note the bold. Given that deployment is specifically the preparing for battle stage, and the BB FAQ states that you may not use transports during DEPLOYMENT only... Then you are still able to otherwise DEPLOY units in shared transports through reserves. ala War convocation in pods.. Wraith in raiders... whatever have you is all still fine if deploying from reserves.

Figured I would let the internet hear our thoughts!

Cheers!

*EDIT* To clarify, we did peg the question back to GW to hopefully hear some further clarification, but wanted to see what the community thought of this interpretation if GW does not change what they said.
*EDIT 2* After talking with a few people on the forum a few points were made that prevent even the argument I present from working; AND I AGREE WITH THEM. So please be nice when you comment below =) Cheers!

Ask GW, not the internet.
They seem to be taking onboard questions and comments

 Ratius wrote:
Ask GW, not the internet.
They seem to be taking onboard questions and comments

We did as well... but the more people who read this, figure out their is a glimmer of hope and then go and like the question on Facebook, the more likely they will further clarify!

Glimmer of hope? They seem to be specifically trying to stop this brand of cheese.

What is worse, it could be misread.. considering nobody embarks during the deployment phase at all. They deploy inside of a transport. They may very well have thought the question was asked that way.

Ambiguity continues, imperials will continue to abuse battle brothers

Edit, see pg132 brb

No. Read the combined reserves rules. They state that during deployment you must specify if any units in reserve are embarked upon transports also in reserve. The FAQ explicity forbids this for battle brothers going in each others transports during deployment, so you still can't do it in the case of combined reserve units.

The intent, FAQ and RAW are very clear, this loophole just doesn't exist.

 Tonberry7 wrote:
No. Read the combined reserves rules. They state that during deployment you must specify if any units in reserve are embarked upon transports also in reserve. The FAQ explicity forbids this for battle brothers going in each others transports during deployment, so you still can't do it in the case of combined reserve units.

The intent, FAQ and RAW are very clear, this loophole just doesn't exist.

So both deploy and deployment specifically reference "setting up a unit on the battlefield". While in reserves nothing is on the battlefield. We did think of that and we don't see the prevention here, given that specific wording.

Really, folks?
The FAQ are meant to clarify the intend, the meaning of the rule. They're VERY clearly trying to say "no" when it comes to sharing transports outside of "I embark on this transport that is on the table". Deal with it.

That being said I hope they make it even more obvious, just to stop this kind of argument.

nekooni wrote:
Really, folks?
The FAQ are meant to clarify the intend, the meaning of the rule. They're VERY clearly trying to say "no" when it comes to sharing transports outside of "I embark on this transport that is on the table". Deal with it.

That being said I hope they make it even more obvious, just to stop this kind of argument.

Me too! Which is why we did ask for clarification. If not me, someone is going to try and find away to share transports.. better to hash this all out now while it is still in rough draft mode no?

 Grizzyzz wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
No. Read the combined reserves rules. They state that during deployment you must specify if any units in reserve are embarked upon transports also in reserve. The FAQ explicity forbids this for battle brothers going in each others transports during deployment, so you still can't do it in the case of combined reserve units.

The intent, FAQ and RAW are very clear, this loophole just doesn't exist.

So both deploy and deployment specifically reference "setting up a unit on the battlefield". While in reserves nothing is on the battlefield. We did think of that and we don't see the prevention here, given that specific wording.

Deployment still includes combining units and putting them in reserve. You can't just ignore the BRB and look only at the FAQ.

Perhaps ask for clarification this way:

"In regards to Battle Brothers sharing their transports during deployment, do you mean that a Culexus Assassin cannot arrive via a Drop Pod purchased by their Battle Brothers, the Space Marines?

If so, perhaps the FAQ should be stated as such;

Q: Can units that are Battle Brothers start the game embarked in each other's transports, including those held in Reserves?
A: No."

 Yarium wrote:
Perhaps ask for clarification this way:

"In regards to Battle Brothers sharing their transports during deployment, do you mean that a Culexus Assassin cannot arrive via a Drop Pod purchased by their Battle Brothers, the Space Marines?

If so, perhaps the FAQ should be stated as such;

Q: Can units that are Battle Brothers start the game embarked in each other's transports, including those held in Reserves?
A: No."

I agree a clarification such as this would prevent any misinterpretation.

You have to declare units being embarked on transports during the deployment phase, even if they are starting in reserve. Units cannot embark while they are in reserve. Reserve rolls occur before the movement phase, when you are legally allowed to embark.

I'm looking at it this way:
you couldn't use this method as you'd have to deploy the unit in a BB's transport, then disembark, which is specifically disallowed
it doesn't matter if it's the first turn, or the 4th, even pods count as transports, so you'd be in contravention of the FAQ, and BRB

Reserves are declared during Deployment.

Since allies can't be put in Transports at that point, they never can.

I do not have the rulebook I front of me sooo...... Isn't it; During deployment you choose to either place a unit in reserves or on the table, meaning placing a unit in reserves is a type of deployment.

GW would need to errata Battle Brothers then, as the the last bullet point states that Battle Brothers may embark on each others' transports. The FAQ rulling seems to be refering to Dedicated Transports, not non-Dedicated Transports. This one of the counter intuitive rulings I mentioned earlier, as if GW answered the wrong question.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
GW would need to errata Battle Brothers then, as the the last bullet point states that Battle Brothers may embark on each others' transports. The FAQ rulling seems to be refering to Dedicated Transports, not non-Dedicated Transports. This one of the counter intuitive rulings I mentioned earlier, as if GW answered the wrong question.

SJ

Yep my thoughts exactly. Makes much more sense.

They probably meant embark during the game all along.

Martel732 wrote:
They probably meant embark during the game all along.

What they meant and what they wrote might not be the same thing, but what they FAQ'd appears to confuse what they originally wrote rather than clarify.

SJ

Even though it is a bit weird and needs to be moved to Errata, not FAQ, I am happy with it. The "Fleshtearers Taxi Service" never made sense to me.

Hopping into a Rhino after the Battle starts is fine, but deploying in them "pre-battle" implies long-term planning amongst the 2 armies that I don't believe would often happen. Space marines have there own Drop Pods, so them wouldn't use another chapter's, nor would they "loan out" the Pods to non-Space Marines. Eldar and Dark Eldar may fight together just fine, but DE usually arrive from Commoragh, a city in the Webway that Eldar would prefer to avoid.

Grizzyzz wrote:So both deploy and deployment specifically reference "setting up a unit on the battlefield". While in reserves nothing is on the battlefield. We did think of that and we don't see the prevention here, given that specific wording.

Not true. Another FAQ presented them as being a bit different.

Deployment is part of the game setup.

Deploying is putting units on the board. This most often means during Deployment, but also includes Arriving From Reserves (including Outflank and Deep Strike).

If you pay attention to when these words are used in the rulebook, this coincides with this judgement.

guys, drop pod taxi is over. no more assassins in pods. no more grey knight purifier squads coming down on turn one in pods with no scatter nova aoe shenanigans, no more 60 skitarii with arc rifles coming down in pods. it is done. trying to say a clear faq just wasent 100 precent clear enough for your likeing wont change anything, and will make you look bad if you are still trying to get away with that.

Um, reserves is deployment. It's even spelled out in the text you pasted. It's dead Jim, let it go.

clively wrote:
Um, reserves is deployment. It's even spelled out in the text you pasted. It's dead Jim, let it go.

Ha, yeah people have well .. made their point.. I am still going to feel bad for my skitarri player friends. Pretty much dead in the water now.

I play skitarii. Eventually we will get transports of our own, so multiple wyverns dont just auto win vs us. Till then there is still rhinos, and though it wont help vs wyverns in the first turn, its good practice for when we do get vehicles.

 Orock wrote:
I play skitarii. Eventually we will get transports of our own, so multiple wyverns dont just auto win vs us. Till then there is still rhinos, and though it wont help vs wyverns in the first turn, its good practice for when we do get vehicles.

It's things like this that make me annoyed when people go "YAY! No more drop pod cheese!"

I brought some Chimeras or Rhinos so my spindly little T3 4+sv Skitarii dudes don't die all across the board to barrage/indirect fire if I'm unlucky enough to lose the first turn roll. Yes, there were broken things that people were abusing with regards to drop pods and such, but it doesn't mean you have to squash every other potential combo in the game. I used to run my Inquisition back in 5th with allied Chimeras (when they were only dedicated transports) and had to bunch them up behind the tank, hoping they didn't get picked off. It was silly, unfluffy, and pointlessly nerfing both units. I appreciate the fact that GW is communicating better with their fanbase, but this was heavy-handed.

If you want to swat a mosquito, you don't use a grenade.

DoW

Let's answer this.

I'm running a pure Space Marine army, meaning, say, all Ultramarines. Can I buy Drop Pods from a Cad for my Grav Cents bought from a Demi-Company?

Nope. You treat other detachments of the same faction as Battle Brothers. That means detachments without drop pods can't start in drop pods.

^ Yep. This is blatantly a no drop pods for BB things. You can still embark into a BB's dedicated transports and non dedicated transports. Just not during deployment.

As for the last BB bullet in the BRB, is says they may embark, not deploy, in a battle brothers transport.

So if I have an Eldar CAD with fire dragons and an allied detach with some serpents the FDs cant start in the serpents?

 Ratius wrote:
So if I have an Eldar CAD with fire dragons and an allied detach with some serpents the FDs cant start in the serpents?

Appears so! Definitely shakes up list building a bit doesn't it! Good thing flyers will have their own detachment now and not take up those fast attack slots!

 Yarium wrote:
Nope. You treat other detachments of the same faction as Battle Brothers. That means detachments without drop pods can't start in drop pods.

Do you have rules support for that? Because while the Allies Matrix shows factions as being Battle Brothers with themselves, the last sentence of the second paragraph of the allies rules says (emphasis mine), "Irrespective of the method you use to choose your army, this section tells you how models from different Factions fight alongside each other." Also the sentence immediately before the Allies Matrix: "The Allies Matrix below shows the levels of alliance between units that have different Factions in the same army."

 Grizzyzz wrote:

 Ratius wrote:
So if I have an Eldar CAD with fire dragons and an allied detach with some serpents the FDs cant start in the serpents?

Appears so! Definitely shakes up list building a bit doesn't it! Good thing flyers will have their own detachment now and not take up those fast attack slots!

ALSO... you can't bring the specific allied detachment of the same faction as your primary detachment... Just wanted to get this out there before someone screams about this. But I understand your intention!

You can in ITC.

 Grizzyzz wrote:

 Grizzyzz wrote:

 Ratius wrote:
So if I have an Eldar CAD with fire dragons and an allied detach with some serpents the FDs cant start in the serpents?

Appears so! Definitely shakes up list building a bit doesn't it! Good thing flyers will have their own detachment now and not take up those fast attack slots!

ALSO... you can't bring the specific allied detachment of the same faction as your primary detachment... Just wanted to get this out there before someone screams about this. But I understand your intention!

Actually i am viewing this differently now.

Allie chart says different faction right.

So this is my take.

Say you have an Eldar CAD and an Eldar Aspect host of say dragons. Because they are the same faction those dragons could use serpants from the CAD.

When would this not work? Take space marines.. Ultra CAD and white scar land raider formation. units from the Ultra CAD cannot deploy into the white scar landraiders because they are different chapters and thusly different factions.

Well, right now it's hard to say, because yeah - me saying you treat other detachments of the same faction as Battle Brothers is a short-hand, so I could be wrong. I don't use Facebook, so can anyone ask GW to clarify that point?

The philosophy of the design definitely seems to be treating other detachments are separate forces/armies that happen to arrive together at the same fight, no pre-planning. Hence; you can't start in someone else' transport. Theoretically, that same philosophy would mean you can't start Fire Dragons from one detachment and have them start in the Wave Serpent of another detachment.

On the other hand, maybe you're "more than battle brothers" with your own faction, and so it is allowed.

Currently, I'd bank on the former, but until they clarify the FAQ it could be the latter!

WEll they need to reqreite the allies section; currently the FAQ is clear enough.

They would have to state that different detachments use the Allies matrx even if they are the same faction.

 Yarium wrote:
Well, right now it's hard to say, because yeah - me saying you treat other detachments of the same faction as Battle Brothers is a short-hand, so I could be wrong. I don't use Facebook, so can anyone ask GW to clarify that point?

The philosophy of the design definitely seems to be treating other detachments are separate forces/armies that happen to arrive together at the same fight, no pre-planning. Hence; you can't start in someone else' transport. Theoretically, that same philosophy would mean you can't start Fire Dragons from one detachment and have them start in the Wave Serpent of another detachment.

On the other hand, maybe you're "more than battle brothers" with your own faction, and so it is allowed.

Currently, I'd bank on the former, but until they clarify the FAQ it could be the latter!

I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong, the question should definitely be asked, but I believe this is just a symptom of how a Matrix works when both axes are the same list. At some point, those factions are going to overlap with themselves, so something has to go in that box. GW decided to put "Battle Brothers" in that overlap.

Exactly, they just need to clarify what it means to be battle brothers when your the same faction across multiple detachments. Once that errata is made then we are golden.

I think I can handle putting things into drop pods that are from the same detachment. Maybe my lists are too simple.

Martel732 wrote:
I think I can handle putting things into drop pods that are from the same detachment. Maybe my lists are too simple.

Sure it can be done. So many options for dedicated trasports etc. But what about non space marine armies.

For example an eldar list made up of an aspect host + falcon formation. Just as quick example.. can those aspects not use the falcons on deployment? They are the same faction, but different detachments.

Not saying its not possible to be done, it just starts limiting the puzzle piece formations that they made available.

Yes, because you are told to only use the allies matrix - and thus the status of "battle brothers" - when you are of differing factions.

 Grizzyzz wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I think I can handle putting things into drop pods that are from the same detachment. Maybe my lists are too simple.

Sure it can be done. So many options for dedicated trasports etc. But what about non space marine armies.

For example an eldar list made up of an aspect host + falcon formation. Just as quick example.. can those aspects not use the falcons on deployment? They are the same faction, but different detachments.

Not saying its not possible to be done, it just starts limiting the puzzle piece formations that they made available.

Even though i hate eldar, i'd like to think eldar can ride in eldar transports. But i understand the confusion.

I believe just making ALL drop pods dedicated transports and thus part of the unit you can buy them for, the problem would be solved.

Anyways, as mentioned before, I can understand that space marines wont lend their drop pods to just about any1, but an imperial guard commander who tells an eversor assassin to fu** off when he asks for a chimaera is just... weird ;-)

They are not part of the unit they are bought for. Ever. They are a separate unit ,whether DT or normal Transport. THis is a common misconception however.

 Yarium wrote:
Nope. You treat other detachments of the same faction as Battle Brothers. That means detachments without drop pods can't start in drop pods.

Incorrect. Ally rules only affect units from different Factions.

So long as the Drop Pods are from the same Codex, you are fine. So, no Wolf Drop Pods carrying Centruions, for example, but Iron Hands Drop Pods dropping Imperial Fist Centurions is technically fine.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
Nope. You treat other detachments of the same faction as Battle Brothers. That means detachments without drop pods can't start in drop pods.

Incorrect. Ally rules only affect units from different Factions.

So long as the Drop Pods are from the same Codex, you are fine. So, no Wolf Drop Pods carrying Centruions, for example, but Iron Hands Drop Pods dropping Imperial Fist Centurions is technically fine.

Does chapter tactics clarify anything about treating those models as if they are different factions?

 Grizzyzz wrote:
Does chapter tactics clarify anything about treating those models as if they are different factions?

It only states being able to take an Allied Detachment of the same Faction by having the Allied Detachment take different Chapter Tactics. Nothing about being Allies.

There is an exception to this, though, with the Forgeworld Chapter Tactic for the Carcharodons. They are Desparate Allies to Imperial Forces, including Space Marines.

Under detachments and formations

Q: Can an Unbound army use Dedicated Transports that are from a different codex? For example, could a Space Marine Tactical Squad take an Astra Militarum Chimera as its Dedicated Transport?
A: No.

If you can't do it in unbound with battle brothers, why could you do it between detachments?

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
Under detachments and formations

Q: Can an Unbound army use Dedicated Transports that are from a different codex? For example, could a Space Marine Tactical Squad take an Astra Militarum Chimera as its Dedicated Transport?
A: No.

If you can't do it in unbound with battle brothers, why could you do it between detachments?

The question you posted has to do with taking transport "X" as a Dedicated Transport. Nothing prevents you from taking a BA Rhino and an AM Vet squad and embarking them Turn 1. What is being disallowed is the Vet squad taking the Rhino as a Dedicated Transport and starting inside it.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
Under detachments and formations

Q: Can an Unbound army use Dedicated Transports that are from a different codex? For example, could a Space Marine Tactical Squad take an Astra Militarum Chimera as its Dedicated Transport?
A: No.

If you can't do it in unbound with battle brothers, why could you do it between detachments?

The question you posted has to do with taking transport "X" as a Dedicated Transport. Nothing prevents you from taking a BA Rhino and an AM Vet squad and embarking them Turn 1. What is being disallowed is the Vet squad taking the Rhino as a Dedicated Transport and starting inside it.

Right, it would be the same as taking a Land Raider Crusader as a Tactical Squad's Dedicated Transport. It simply isn't an option, but it is for Crusader Squads.

Nothing about using a regular Transport purchased as its own unit, so long as they aren't Allies.

I'm sure that GW will clarify this in the revised FAQ, but for fun, here's another point to consider:

Assuming models of the same faction as the primary detachment but in another detachment are 'the same army' and not 'battle brothers'...

In another answer on the FAQ they state that mixed-faction units count as a unit of each faction they are made up of. E.g. SM tac squad with attached Inquisitor counts as both a unit of faction Space Marines and also faction Inquisition.

As they count as a unit of faction space marines, are they therefore not Battle brothers and allowed in the pod?

Or because they also count as faction Inquisition they are battle brothers and can't go in the pod?

They've already clarified that this doesn't affect preferred enemy, so it doesn't seem like this 'counts as both factions' thing seems to actually affect anything rules wise...

Rubenite wrote:
I'm sure that GW will clarify this in the revised FAQ, but for fun, here's another point to consider:

Assuming models of the same faction as the primary detachment but in another detachment are 'the same army' and not 'battle brothers'...

In another answer on the FAQ they state that mixed-faction units count as a unit of each faction they are made up of. E.g. SM tac squad with attached Inquisitor counts as both a unit of faction Space Marines and also faction Inquisition.

As they count as a unit of faction space marines, are they therefore not Battle brothers and allowed in the pod?

Or because they also count as faction Inquisition they are battle brothers and can't go in the pod?

They've already clarified that this doesn't affect preferred enemy, so it doesn't seem like this 'counts as both factions' thing seems to actually affect anything rules wise...

Just one more of those discrepancies that have arisen, and something I noticed early on in this discussion.

But yeah, for Deployment, we may as well be back in 6th Edition, and if you include a Battle Brother IC in with a unit, it cannot start deployment in its Transport.

That REALLY puts a bigger crimp in some of the Allies for Detachment Special Rules.

I think I'd be okay with a ruling where if you have an attached IC as a chaperone, units can deploy in a transport belonging to the same faction as the IC, or the same faction as the squad.

It would add an awkward 65 point min 'tax' to a drop pod, potentially curbing their abuse in power gaming but still allowing a Chaplain to lead a squad of fervent Sisters into battle via drop pod, and also allow an Adeptus Mechanicus Techno Priest to accompany a Sororitas Command Squad in a Repressor. Fair and fluffy?

Rubenite wrote:
I think I'd be okay with a ruling where if you have an attached IC as a chaperone, units can deploy in a transport belonging to the same faction as the IC, or the same faction as the squad.

It would add an awkward 65 point min 'tax' to a drop pod, potentially curbing their abuse in power gaming but still allowing a Chaplain to lead a squad of fervent Sisters into battle via drop pod, and also allow an Adeptus Mechanicus Techno Priest to accompany a Sororitas Command Squad in a Repressor. Fair and fluffy?

The problem is whether you have a Chaplain in a Sororitas Command Squad or a Canoness in a Devastator Squad, the unit is still Battle Brothers with the Drop Pod, as well as being the same Faction.

And Battle Brothers cannot Embark in Transports during deployment.

True true, I was just wish listing a possible middle ground that might satisfy both sides of the 'rebalancing' angle

Can you still attach ICs(i.e a lord commisar) to a tactical squad and have them deployed in a rhino together (or a pod for that matter)?

peirceg wrote:
Can you still attach ICs(i.e a lord commisar) to a tactical squad and have them deployed in a rhino together (or a pod for that matter)?

In that example with a Lord Commissar and a Tactical Squad, no.

If IC and Tactical Squad are the same Faction though, then yes.

With the way some are swing this a ultra librarian concave is bared from joining a ultra CAD squad using a drop pod
As they are different formations some claimed they are BB even though they are the same faction

Oldmike wrote:
With the way some are swing this a ultra librarian concave is bared from joining a ultra CAD squad using a drop pod
As they are different formations some claimed they are BB even though they are the same faction

This has been discussed in this thread. The Allies rules (of which Battle Brothers is a part) apply only to units from different Factions.

Oldmike wrote:
With the way some are swing this a ultra librarian concave is bared from joining a ultra CAD squad using a drop pod
As they are different formations some claimed they are BB even though they are the same faction

What it does limit is people farming psychic powers by bringing ultra conclave + tiggy w/ any other space marine chapter..

I think the intention is that:

Space Marines with the same CT are one army and share as if they were one detachment. Especially if they actually are (eg Gladius).
Space Marines with different CTs are Battlebrothers to each other, including the restrictions that will bring.

At least that's HIWPI now. If Tiggy and the boys want to ride a drop pod they better find one in smurf colours or they're going to land real hard after the orbital insertion maneuver.

nekooni wrote:
I think the intention is that:

Space Marines with the same CT are one army and share as if they were one detachment. Especially if they actually are (eg Gladius).
Space Marines with different CTs are Battlebrothers to each other, including the restrictions that will bring.

At least that's HIWPI now. If Tiggy and the boys want to ride a drop pod they better find one in smurf colours or they're going to land real hard after the orbital insertion maneuver.

That's more restrictive than anything actually stated for this situation.

Different CTs are not currently listed as being Battle Brothers to each other. With one Forgeworld exception, they are all the same Faction. Just because different CTs can be in an Allied Detachment to a Codex Warlord, does not make them listed as Battle Brothers to each other. All it is doing is overriding the restriction listed in the Allied Detachment with a different one.

 Charistoph wrote:

nekooni wrote:
I think the intention is that:

Space Marines with the same CT are one army and share as if they were one detachment. Especially if they actually are (eg Gladius).
Space Marines with different CTs are Battlebrothers to each other, including the restrictions that will bring.

At least that's HIWPI now. If Tiggy and the boys want to ride a drop pod they better find one in smurf colours or they're going to land real hard after the orbital insertion maneuver.

That's more restrictive than anything actually stated for this situation.

Different CTs are not currently listed as being Battle Brothers to each other. With one Forgeworld exception, they are all the same Faction. Just because different CTs can be in an Allied Detachment to a Codex Warlord, does not make them listed as Battle Brothers to each other. All it is doing is overriding the restriction listed in the Allied Detachment with a different one.

Which is why I'm saying that it is what "I think the intention is". and that "it's HIWPI".

If my Chapter doesn't loan it's Drop Pod to an Inquisitor or a Rhino to Imperial Guardsmen, I'm not convinced the intention is for different Chapters to share them either. Again - and I'm not sure how I could make that clearer: What I think the RAI is & HIWPI.

I think different chapter tactic = battle brother, not same faction as well. Get your own damn drop pod.

Martel732 wrote:
I think different chapter tactic = battle brother, not same faction as well. Get your own damn drop pod.

Great, can we now stick to the rules, please?

"You can include models from any number of different Factions in the same army if you wish. Irrespective of the method you use to choose your army, this section tells you how models from different Factions fight alongside each other."
- BRB, ALLIES, emphasis mine

"The Allies Matrix below shows the levels of alliance between units that have different Factions in the same army."
- BRB, LEVELS OF ALLIANCE, emphasis mine

"Any Detachment with Space Marines Faction can be an XXX Detachment (...) An XXX Detachment retains the Space Marines Faction and is treated as a Space Marines Detachment (...)"
- Angels of Death Supplement, Chapter Detachments, where XXX = Chapter Name

Ultramarine Librarian is Space Marines Faction model
White Scars Drop Pod is Space Marines Faction model

They both are the same Faction models. There are no rules that allow you to use Allies Matrix at all.

 danyboy wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I think different chapter tactic = battle brother, not same faction as well. Get your own damn drop pod.

Great, can we now stick to the rules, please?

"You can include models from any number of different Factions in the same army if you wish. Irrespective of the method you use to choose your army, this section tells you how models from different Factions fight alongside each other."
- BRB, ALLIES, emphasis mine

"The Allies Matrix below shows the levels of alliance between units that have different Factions in the same army."
- BRB, LEVELS OF ALLIANCE, emphasis mine

"Any Detachment with Space Marines Faction can be an XXX Detachment (...) An XXX Detachment retains the Space Marines Faction and is treated as a Space Marines Detachment (...)"
- Angels of Death Supplement, Chapter Detachments, where XXX = Chapter Name

Ultramarine Librarian is Space Marines Faction model
White Scars Drop Pod is Space Marines Faction model

They both are the same Faction models. There are no rules that allow you to use Allies Matrix at all.

RAW is pretty clear, I agree. Space Marines are Space Marines, Chapter Tactics are just a special rule of Space Marines which interacts in a unique way with the Allied Detachment, but that's it.

RAW is clear, but the new FAQ pretty much ignores RAW in this instance, hence the discussion.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
RAW is clear, but the new FAQ pretty much ignores RAW in this instance, hence the discussion.

SJ

But the new draft FAQ doesn't ignore much RAW in this instance. It just says that battle brothers can no longer start embarked on each other's transports. So no GK Termies in an AM chimera during deployment.

The question is whether SM treat different chapters as being from the same faction, or if they treat each other as "allies" and thus are battle brothers. But the wording from the BRB and from SM Codex and Angels of Death make it somewhat clear that regardless of chapter tactics, SM treat each other as the same faction. So the FAQ ruling doesn't ignore RAW it simply DOESNT apply here as the two detachments would be part of the same faction. Now if one detachment had a separate codex (BA, SW, DA, etc) AND no mention of being a SM faction and/or has its own entry in the ally matrix, then their transports would fall under Battle Brother's rules for another SM detachment.

So IMO RAW, I can't put a GK Libby in a drop pod with some smurf marines, but there is no problem with a charamander captain riding in with them.

mch21689 wrote:
But the new draft FAQ doesn't ignore much RAW in this instance. It just says that battle brothers can no longer start embarked on each other's transports. So no GK Termies in an AM chimera during deployment.

And (aside from the Dedicated Transport) where in the rulebook does it state that Battle Brothers cannot Embark on a Transport during Deployment, any more than a unit from the same Faction?

 Ratius wrote:
So if I have an Eldar CAD with fire dragons and an allied detach with some serpents the FDs cant start in the serpents?

Factions cannot ally with themselves.

mch21689 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
RAW is clear, but the new FAQ pretty much ignores RAW in this instance, hence the discussion.

SJ

But the new draft FAQ doesn't ignore much RAW in this instance. It just says that battle brothers can no longer start embarked on each other's transports. So no GK Termies in an AM chimera during deployment.

The BRB grants permission for battle brothers to be embarked on non-dedicated allied transports. The FAQ changes that by saying they can't, which is pretty much the definition of ignoring RAW.

SJ

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Ratius wrote:
So if I have an Eldar CAD with fire dragons and an allied detach with some serpents the FDs cant start in the serpents?

Factions cannot ally with themselves.

Unless he has a third detachment of a different faction containing his warlord.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Ratius wrote:
So if I have an Eldar CAD with fire dragons and an allied detach with some serpents the FDs cant start in the serpents?

Factions cannot ally with themselves.

Unless he has a third detachment of a different faction containing his warlord.

No... Ally rules are for determining the interactions between units of different Factions (mostly). Detachments are not in consideration (mostly).

Note: I say mostly because there are a couple very specific cases where two units are from the same Faction book, but still treat certain cases as something other than Faction. See the Forgeworld Chapter Traits for the Charcadons for such an example.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Ratius wrote:
So if I have an Eldar CAD with fire dragons and an allied detach with some serpents the FDs cant start in the serpents?

Factions cannot ally with themselves.

You may not have an Allied Detachment which has the same faction as your primary detachment, if that's what you meant ?

Different space marine chapters must be taken as allied detachments which use the battle brothers rules:

"Allied detachments: if your primary detachment has the space marines faction, you can take an allied detachment (see warhammer 40,000: The Rules) with the Space Marines faction as long as it is drawn from a different chapter than your primary detachment" (Codex: Space Marines, p. 189, 7th edition).

This was more explicit in the 6th edition codex:

"Allies: A Space Marine detachment chosen from this codex that has one set of chapter tactics may ally with another space marine detachment chosen from this codex that has a different set of chapter tactics (Ultramarines and Raven Guard, for example). For the purposes of the Allies rules, these detachments are treated as if they were chosen from two different codexes and are treated as battle brothers" (p. 77).

Traditio wrote:
Different space marine chapters must be taken as allied detachments which use the battle brothers rules:

"Allied detachments: if your primary detachment has the space marines faction, you can take an allied detachment (see warhammer 40,000: The Rules) with the Space Marines faction as long as it is drawn from a different chapter than your primary detachment" (Codex: Space Marines, p. 189, 7th edition).

Not "must", but "can". In this specific case, they are discussing the actual detachment called "allied detachment".

I can have two Demi-Companies with two different Chapter Tactics, but they wouldn't be in the same Gladius.

They still are not allied to each other, though, even in an Allied Detachment.

 Charistoph wrote:

Traditio wrote:
Different space marine chapters must be taken as allied detachments which use the battle brothers rules:

"Allied detachments: if your primary detachment has the space marines faction, you can take an allied detachment (see warhammer 40,000: The Rules) with the Space Marines faction as long as it is drawn from a different chapter than your primary detachment" (Codex: Space Marines, p. 189, 7th edition).

Not "must", but "can". In this specific case, they are discussing the actual detachment called "allied detachment".

I can have two Demi-Companies with two different Chapter Tactics, but they wouldn't be in the same Gladius.

They still are not allied to each other, though, even in an Allied Detachment.

Absolutely not. Again, from 6th edition codex:

"Note that you may field models from two different chapters that have the same chapter tactics...in the same detachment. These chapters are so closely affiliated that they count as a single army on the battle field" (p. 77).

What this implies is that different chapter detachments do not constitute a single army. Therefore, allies.

Again, the language of p. 189 of the 7th ed codex strongly implies this.

Traditio wrote:

Absolutely not. Again, from 6th edition codex:

"Note that you may field models from two different chapters that have the same chapter tactics...in the same detachment. These chapters are so closely affiliated that they count as a single army on the battle field" (p. 77).

What this implies is that different chapter detachments do not constitute a single army. Therefore, allies.

Again, the language of p. 189 of the 7th ed codex strongly implies this.

Different codex and different detachment definitions. Codex Space Marines 6th Edition is no longer pertinent to resolving this discussion. The current codex edition is actually more explicit and proper to how detachments work with 7th edition then the 6th edition codex. The 6th Edition codex is operating on the assumption that there are only two different detachments available to an army in the game, because that is the standard that existed at the time.

The current codex recognizes that there are numerous possible detachments representing numerous Factions and can be of any design. The current codex addresses the Allied Detachment ONLY. It is even capitalized in that section on Chapter Tactics.

 Charistoph wrote:

Traditio wrote:

Absolutely not. Again, from 6th edition codex:

"Note that you may field models from two different chapters that have the same chapter tactics...in the same detachment. These chapters are so closely affiliated that they count as a single army on the battle field" (p. 77).

What this implies is that different chapter detachments do not constitute a single army. Therefore, allies.

Again, the language of p. 189 of the 7th ed codex strongly implies this.

Different codex and different detachment definitions. Codex Space Marines 6th Edition is no longer pertinent to resolving this discussion. The current codex edition is actually more explicit and proper to how detachments work with 7th edition then the 6th edition codex. The 6th Edition codex is operating on the assumption that there are only two different detachments available to an army in the game, because that is the standard that existed at the time.

The current codex recognizes that there are numerous possible detachments representing numerous Factions and can be of any design. The current codex addresses the Allied Detachment ONLY. It is even capitalized in that section on Chapter Tactics.

Somebody should submit the question to GW for FAQ. I'm sure that my opinion will be vindicated, if it's answered. Again.

Are you really now saying your interpretation is always right just because a few of GW's FaQ answers were the same as your interpretation against the RaW?

Traditio wrote:
Somebody should submit the question to GW for FAQ. I'm sure that my opinion will be vindicated, if it's answered. Again.

You mean your opinion that the standard used in an old codex should supersede the standard used in the current codex?

Should I then have you use your Storm Shields as they were in 3rd and 4th Edition with their 4+ Invul only available in Assault, instead of the 3++ all the time they are treated today? Should your Rhinos only have the Role of Dedicated Transport instead of Fast Attack now?

 Charistoph wrote:

Traditio wrote:
Somebody should submit the question to GW for FAQ. I'm sure that my opinion will be vindicated, if it's answered. Again.

You mean your opinion that the standard used in an old codex should supersede the standard used in the current codex?

Should I then have you use your Storm Shields as they were in 3rd and 4th Edition with their 4+ Invul only available in Assault, instead of the 3++ all the time they are treated today? Should your Rhinos only have the Role of Dedicated Transport instead of Fast Attack now?

RAI is perfectly clear both in 6th and 7th. Black Templar and Ultramarines no more are the same "faction" than blood angels and space wolves belong to the same "faction." Yes, black templar and ultramarines have rules in the same codex, but the difference in chapter tactics indicates a difference of factions. Ultramarines + ravenguard =/= a single coherent army. Those are two completely different chapters, and, as such, constitute two separate, distinct, independent fighting forces.

You can argue about RAW if you want, but again, I'll simply recommend that you submit the question for GW FAQ.

If they bother to answer the question, I'll enjoy the occasion for yet more self-congratulatory smugness.

What you completely fail to understand is that most people on this board argue the rules as written. That's something you can do without input from GW and it doesn't rely on what we think GW might want us to do. Sure, RAI has always been a thing but you can nev let be sure it is actually what they wanted unless they answer in a FAQ.

An old Edition is never an indicator, it could always be a deliberate change. And the Allied Detachment is a specific detachment.
And let's not forget that the whole Battle brothers and transport thing is clearly an errata , a rule change, and not just a clarification . No-one I know ever argued it the way GW now ruled it.

You present your interpretation as 'fact' and based on the rules , which it isn't. It's an interpretation that might or might not be what GW intended.
The rules as written on this are clear, the rules as intended are decently clear, too - but literally the opposite of the written ones.

All that's left to do until a FAQ covers it is decide whether you want to play RAW or RAI.

nekooni wrote:
What you completely fail to understand is that most people on this board argue the rules as written. That's something you can do without input from GW and it doesn't rely on what we think GW might want us to do. Sure, RAI has always been a thing but you can nev let be sure it is actually what they wanted unless they answer in a FAQ.

An old Edition is never an indicator, it could always be a deliberate change. And the Allied Detachment is a specific detachment.
And let's not forget that the whole Battle brothers and transport thing is clearly an errata , a rule change, and not just a clarification . No-one I know ever argued it the way GW now ruled it.

You present your interpretation as 'fact' and based on the rules , which it isn't. It's an interpretation that might or might not be what GW intended.
The rules as written on this are clear, the rules as intended are decently clear, too - but literally the opposite of the written ones.

All that's left to do until a FAQ covers it is decide whether you want to play RAW or RAI.

To my mind, the issue has already been settled in the FAQ. As GW themselves said in the FAQ: "We have to use a little common sense here."

Instead of pedantic grammatical analysis and rules lawyering, what's called for is a general sense of what the rules are trying to effect, a general idea of what GW had in mind.

Ultramarines and ravenguard are not the same army. They are not intended to be the same army. Allies means "different (i.e., not the same) armies working together." GW has made itself abundantly clear in expressing this in the 6th and 7th edition codices. That's why you can't use Pedro Kantor as the HQ in an ultramarines detachment, or even an imperial fists detachment, for that matter.

And even discounting the 6th edition codex (which explicitly asserts that different chapters are related to each other as battle brothers), p. 189 of the 7th ed codex speaks volumes to me: "All models in the same detachment or formation must be drawn from the same chapter."

Why? Because different chapter = different army.

Again, in the words of GW:

"You have to use a little common sense."

Traditio wrote:
RAI is perfectly clear both in 6th and 7th. Black Templar and Ultramarines no more are the same "faction" than blood angels and space wolves belong to the same "faction." Yes, black templar and ultramarines have rules in the same codex, but the difference in chapter tactics indicates a difference of factions. Ultramarines + ravenguard =/= a single coherent army. Those are two completely different chapters, and, as such, constitute two separate, distinct, independent fighting forces.

You can argue about RAW if you want, but again, I'll simply recommend that you submit the question for GW FAQ.

If they bother to answer the question, I'll enjoy the occasion for yet more self-congratulatory smugness.

RAI and RAW in 6th had Black Templars and Ultramarines having separate positions on the Ally Chart, even when the 6th Edition codex came out. Salamanders and Ultramarines were in the same position on the Ally Chart, though, but still could field Allied Detachments to each other as Battle Brothers.

RAW states that the Chapter Tactics in the current codex that only address the specifically named "Allied Detachment", complete as a proper noun, as being affected by the Chapter Tactics rules. No mention of Battle Brothers or any other level of alliance is mentioned in this case, and no matter the Chapter Tactics, the Faction symbol on the Datasheet does not change. There is only one exception to this that I know of, and that is the Forgeworld Chapter Tactic for the Charcadons. This is actually quite clear.

With such a drastic change wording, I can only assume that RAI also coincides with what is written as well. I think you need to get your head out of 6th Edition, both rulebook and codex. Any FAQ answer will (supposedly) be based on current concepts (or ones in testing).

And since you are so bugged by it, why do you not submit the question instead of insisting others do it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:
Why? Because different chapter = different army.

Again, in the words of GW:

"You have to use a little common sense."

No where does it currently state or suggest a different chapter is a different army, unless their Faction symbols are different (as in the case of the Angels and Wolves).

"You have to use a little common sense."

And please be careful of calling someone pedantic and rules lawyering. It can be considered offensive.

Charistoph wrote:RAI and RAW in 6th had Black Templars and Ultramarines having separate positions on the Ally Chart, even when the 6th Edition codex came out. Salamanders and Ultramarines were in the same position on the Ally Chart, though, but still could field Allied Detachments to each other as Battle Brothers.

RAW states that the Chapter Tactics in the current codex that only address the specifically named "Allied Detachment", complete as a proper noun, as being affected by the Chapter Tactics rules. No mention of Battle Brothers or any other level of alliance is mentioned in this case, and no matter the Chapter Tactics, the Faction symbol on the Datasheet does not change. There is only one exception to this that I know of, and that is the Forgeworld Chapter Tactic for the Charcadons. This is actually quite clear.

With such a drastic change wording, I can only assume that RAI also coincides with what is written as well. I think you need to get your head out of 6th Edition, both rulebook and codex. Any FAQ answer will (supposedly) be based on current concepts (or ones in testing).

And since you are so bugged by it, why do you not submit the question instead of insisting others do it?

Charistoph:

P. 189 of the current codex flat out says that different SM chapters can ally with each other in a given army, but that the same chapter cannot ally with itself.

Therefore, different chapters = different armies = different factions.

It's that simple.

Again: "We need to use a little common sense."

Traditio wrote:

Charistoph wrote:RAI and RAW in 6th had Black Templars and Ultramarines having separate positions on the Ally Chart, even when the 6th Edition codex came out. Salamanders and Ultramarines were in the same position on the Ally Chart, though, but still could field Allied Detachments to each other as Battle Brothers.

RAW states that the Chapter Tactics in the current codex that only address the specifically named "Allied Detachment", complete as a proper noun, as being affected by the Chapter Tactics rules. No mention of Battle Brothers or any other level of alliance is mentioned in this case, and no matter the Chapter Tactics, the Faction symbol on the Datasheet does not change. There is only one exception to this that I know of, and that is the Forgeworld Chapter Tactic for the Charcadons. This is actually quite clear.

With such a drastic change wording, I can only assume that RAI also coincides with what is written as well. I think you need to get your head out of 6th Edition, both rulebook and codex. Any FAQ answer will (supposedly) be based on current concepts (or ones in testing).

And since you are so bugged by it, why do you not submit the question instead of insisting others do it?

Charistoph:

P. 189 of the current codex flat out says that different SM chapters can ally with each other in a given army, but that the same chapter cannot ally with itself.

Therefore, different chapters = different armies = different factions.

It's that simple.

Again: "We need to use a little common sense."

See, that's the point I was trying to make: No, the rulebook doesn't say what you claim it does.

You've misquoted the rule by using "allied detachment" instead of "Allied Detachment" which is clearly, unmistakenly refering to the detachment called "Allied Detachment" and how it interacts with other detachments. It doesn't speak of e.g. two Combined Arms Detachments that are allied to each other. that's like claiming that, since you cannot use an "Allied Detachment" with the same faction as the Combined Arms Detachment, you cannot have two Combined Arms Detachments of the same Chapter. That's the only logical conclusion to interpreting it the way you do (totally ignoring the capital letters in "Allied Detachment"), and saying "no, you cannot have two detachments of the same chapter" really doesn't say "common sense" to me.

That being said I agree that the RAI - based on what they changed in the "FAQ"/Errata - is that different Chapters shouldn't share transports - just like SW and BA are limited in how they use each others transports.But that has literally NO basis in the rules as written at all. They changed the rules, and the logical conclusion to that change is that it SHOULD apply to different Vanilla Chapters, too - but that's purely based on the Errata/FAQ.

There's 6 billion different versions of common sense on the planet. In other words, there's no such thing as common sense.

Traditio wrote:
P. 189 of the current codex flat out says that different SM chapters can ally with each other in a given army, but that the same chapter cannot ally with itself.

Therefore, different chapters = different armies = different factions.

It's that simple.

Again: "We need to use a little common sense."

No, it doesn't. You even quoted it (though missed a capitalization with it).

ALLIED DETACHMENTS
If your Primary Detachment has the Space Marines Faction, you can take an Allied Detachment (see Warhammer 40,000: The Rules) with the Space Marines Faction as long as it is drawn from a different Chapter than your Primary Detachment.

Nothing about allies, just "an Allied Detachment", nor are Faction or Army ever stated. Notice how "Allied Detachment" is capitalized as a proper noun? Why define it that way when just simply "allies" may apply?

You are taking the 6th Edition codex and trying to overlay it's reasoning and judgement on to the current codex. As I said earlier, this is no different than trying to push Storm Shields as being 4++ in Melee only. Previous standards only apply when using that previous book.

Again: "We need to use a little common sense."

Traditio is right.

In order to understand that it is helpfull to add a secret ingredient called "common sense".

The intention of the FAQ is clear.


Edit: just saw that Traditio already gave a hint regarding the secret ingredient. I advice you to try it out from time to time!

Aeri wrote:
Traditio is right.

In order to understand that it is helpfull to add a secret ingredient called "common sense".

The intention of the FAQ is clear.


Edit: just saw that Traditio already gave a hint regarding the secret ingredient. I advice you to try it out from time to time!

I don't think anyone is arguing that the INTENTION of the FAQ isn't "you cannot share drop pods between chapters". It's his ridiculous claim that it is supported by the rules as written, by misquoting said rules and pointing at the previous edition codex.
And you can't just handwave made-up and prove-to-be-false quotes and interpretations with "common sense". The FAQ is straight up changing the rules (which is fine for me, and I'm an Imperium player), it's not a "clarification" or "proving that Traditio provides serious arguments instead of pulling them out of darker places (e.g. the 6th edition codex)".

Aeri wrote:
Traditio is right.

In order to understand that it is helpfull to add a secret ingredient called "common sense".

The intention of the FAQ is clear.


Edit: just saw that Traditio already gave a hint regarding the secret ingredient. I advice you to try it out from time to time!

I'm sorry, but where does "common sense" tell us in any form in the CURRENT codex to treat other Chapter Tactics units as an Allied unit (note, the FW Shark chapter does not count)?

It does in the previous codex, but that was a the previous codex where Predators could not Squadron and Rhinos had the Role of Dedicated Transports.

"Common sense" tells us to use the current rules and apply their standards to the current question, and not to use previous standards which are outdated.

The problem with Traditio's argument is that he is using two outdated standards to resolve this question and ignoring current rules and standards for both Chapter Tactics, Allies, and Faction rules. Ignoring current standards is not "common sense".

Charistoph wrote:No, it doesn't. You even quoted it (though missed a capitalization with it).

This is precisely the grammatical pedantry that I'm talking about. This is precisely the mindset to which the FAQs are taking a sledge hammer.

Nothing about allies, just "an Allied Detachment"

I think we're done here.

At this point, you are quibbling over whether or not words are capitalized. As I said: this is what the FAQs are basically telling us not to do.

Use common sense, Charistoph.

The rule is perfectly clear. The same chapter cannot ally with itself. Different chapters can ally with each other. Why? Because they are different armies.

The intention of the rules writers is perfectly clear.

Allied Detachment refers to an actual thing though

Although it's consistent with your idea that "To Hit" also isn't a defined object in the rules, so that's a positive at least...

Traditio wrote:

Charistoph wrote:No, it doesn't. You even quoted it (though missed a capitalization with it).

This is precisely the grammatical pedantry that I'm talking about. This is precisely the mindset to which the FAQs are taking a sledge hammer.

Nothing about allies, just "an Allied Detachment"

I think we're done here.

At this point, you are quibbling over whether or not words are capitalized. As I said: this is what the FAQs are basically telling us not to do.

Use common sense, Charistoph.

The rule is perfectly clear. The same chapter cannot ally with itself. Different chapters can ally with each other. Why? Because they are different armies.

The intention of the rules writers is perfectly clear.

Use common sense yourself.

The "capitalization" point I was referencing was the fact that "Allied Detachment" is a proper noun, i.e., the actual name of a specific organization as opposed to a general organization of an detachment made up of units that are treated as Allies to the Warlord (technically, this last no longer exists as a definition).

In point of fact, if you look up "allied detachment" in the current rulebook, you will find that it is speaking only of the detachment organization that comes with the Restriction of "cannot have the Warlord".

If you look at the rules for Allies, nothing is stated about the relationships between Detachments, only how units from different Factions treat each other.

So, let go of your 6th Edition standards, read again through these sections on detachments and allies in the current rulebook and then read again, the section in the Space Marines codex and apply some common sense without applying things that do not currently exist.

How about this:

The rules as written say you can enter any Battle Brother transport during deployment as long as long as you fulfill the regular requirements (e.g. limitations for dedicated transports).
The FAQ says you cannot deploy inside a BBs transport. It does not speak of exceptions, for example how Space Marine chapters are to be treated.

The spirit of the FAQ is that one specific organisation cannot deploy / enter the battlefield in transports of another organisation, not even when they're Battlebrothers.
The spirit of the Allied Detachment & Space Marine chapters is that they're different organisations and therefore may use the AD despite the normal limitations.

If you combine this it's pretty obvious that GWs intention is that Iron Hand Centurions cannot deploy in a Drop Pod from an Ultramarine detachment. That'd be a consistent ruling which makes sense fluffwise, too.

Word for word, however, the rules never say so. And "common sense", combined with "knowledge of the English language", tells us that "Allied Detachment" and "allied detachment" are clearly two different things as there's a thing named "Allied Detachment" and there are also detachments than can be allied to other detachments. These two things mean different things, it's that simple.

You can't defend all your claims, especially those that you base on clearly misquoted rules, with the "common sense & I was right in the past in some instances" defense.
Tomorrow you'll tell us that "Space Marine Chainswords clearly must be AP4 as they tear through guardsmen and the like with ease, and that it was common sense that a Chainsword would do so. Just ask GW, I'Ve been validated by GWs FAQ answers before."

This is actually pretty simple.

What Faction is a Tac Squad with Chapter Tactics (Ultramarines)?
What Faction is a Tac Squad with Chapter Tactics (Salamanders)?
What Faction is a Drop Pod, in an army with Chapter Tactics (Ultramarines)?
What Faction is a Drop Pod, in an army with Chapter Tactics Iron Hands)?
What do the allies rules deal with?

 Happyjew wrote:
This is actually pretty simple.

What Faction is a Tac Squad with Chapter Tactics (Ultramarines)?
What Faction is a Tac Squad with Chapter Tactics (Salamanders)?
What Faction is a Drop Pod, in an army with Chapter Tactics (Ultramarines)?
What Faction is a Drop Pod, in an army with Chapter Tactics Iron Hands)?
What do the allies rules deal with?

Common Sense questions that will give you common sense answers.

Unless you're playing the FW shark chapter, of course.

Where is the location of the FAQ everyone is referencing? I checked at the normal FAQ site here:

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Rules-Errata?_requestid=4218660

and do not see the questions/ answers people are quoting.

Thanks!

GW's Warhammer 40,000 Facebook Page.

zhutch wrote:
Where is the location of the FAQ everyone is referencing? I checked at the normal FAQ site here:

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Rules-Errata?_requestid=4218660

and do not see the questions/ answers people are quoting.

Thanks!

It's currently just a draft, they're asking for feedback for the FAQ on facebook. There's an ongoing thread in the news forum here that'll keep you updated:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/689814.page

GW releases more and more FAQ parts faction by faction and it'll probably take another two months or so for them to finish posting the draft in its entirety, releasing it bit by bit (faction by faction). So it's worth checking in every week or so for the latest one.

I'd guess the finished, official FAQ / errata thingy will end up on their page in mid summer or so.

In another post the question was asked, can an IC join a battle brothers squad during deployment? If this is the case, could the IC join a battle brother squad and embark in a transport of his own faction, or visa versa and would this then allow battle brothers to deploy in each others transport vehicles?

Maj.Lee Scrude wrote:
In another post the question was asked, can an IC join a battle brothers squad during deployment? If this is the case, could the IC join a battle brother squad and embark in a transport of his own faction, or visa versa and would this then allow battle brothers to deploy in each others transport vehicles?

The unit has both Factions, per another FAQ answer, so is both Battle Brothers and same Faction. Battle Brothers would prevent Embarking as much as a Jump Pack or Monstrous Creature would.