Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

jSewell wrote:

Killermonkey wrote:


Interesting. Does this mean that Iron hands just got the biggest stealth nerf ever with only dreads having IWND? I guess that thought that having all those free transports with the rule would be too broken? Between that and the removal of the master of the forge, meaning I can no longer take more than one "relic" vehicle my whole army just got entirely broken and shafted. /rerolling Crimson Fists

If it was intentional, they would have put "Iron Hands Dreadnoughts" but they put "VEHICLES"...

I don't care what little rule debacle is on the previous page, it says "Iron Hands vehicles" and the vehicles in an Iron Hands detachment are Iron Hands vehicles

Regardless of that besides landraiders who ever really used that rule?

ITs always been for the benefit of the smash masters with eternal warriors.

jSewell wrote:

Killermonkey wrote:


Interesting. Does this mean that Iron hands just got the biggest stealth nerf ever with only dreads having IWND? I guess that thought that having all those free transports with the rule would be too broken? Between that and the removal of the master of the forge, meaning I can no longer take more than one "relic" vehicle my whole army just got entirely broken and shafted. /rerolling Crimson Fists

If it was intentional, they would have put "Iron Hands Dreadnoughts" but they put "VEHICLES"...

I don't care what little rule debacle is on the previous page, it says "Iron Hands vehicles" and the vehicles in an Iron Hands detachment are Iron Hands vehicles

Yes, just like any unit that is in an Ultramarine Detachment is an Ultramarine. For example, in the Scions of Guilliman Chapter Tactic that reads: "If your army contains any Ultramarines units, you can choose..."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DJGietzen wrote:

 Runic wrote:

Well, RAW an IA entry that is to be used with Codex: Space Marines cannot be used with a Codex that has a different name?

No, its not about the codex name, its about unit factions. The new codex might have a new name but the units within it will still use the same old "space marines" faction just like units in codex: craftworlds still use the eldar faction. The IA units also have the "space marines" faction. In a detachment where the only restriction is "All units in this detachment must have the same faction or have no faction." or "All units in this detachment must have the Space Marines faction or have no faction." both units from IA with the "space marines" faction and units from codex: Adeptus Astartes with the "space marines" would be perfectly legal. The only potential problem I see is if there are detachments/formations with restrictions like the daemonkin codex that read "All units in this detachment must come from Codex: Adeptus Astartes: Space Marines."

Edit: Just saw a leak of the gladius strike force detachment. It only allows for units in the new codex, so no FW units can be used in it at all, but FW units will still be just fine in a CAD.

In case there is any doubt about this, the new codex is not called Codex: Adeptus Astartes: Space Marines. It's just Codex: Space marines. Says so on the copyright page, on the spine, and is so referred to on the Website and promotional material. In fact, it is never referred to, anywhere, as Codex: Adeptus Astartes [anything].

Since it's not news (or rumor) related I made a thread in Genera Discussion with a nifty pic here http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/652043.page

Here's the picture that speaks for itself (from top to bottom 7e SM, 6e SM, 7e Craftworlds, 6e Eldar):

 Talys wrote:

jSewell wrote:

Killermonkey wrote:


Interesting. Does this mean that Iron hands just got the biggest stealth nerf ever with only dreads having IWND? I guess that thought that having all those free transports with the rule would be too broken? Between that and the removal of the master of the forge, meaning I can no longer take more than one "relic" vehicle my whole army just got entirely broken and shafted. /rerolling Crimson Fists

If it was intentional, they would have put "Iron Hands Dreadnoughts" but they put "VEHICLES"...

I don't care what little rule debacle is on the previous page, it says "Iron Hands vehicles" and the vehicles in an Iron Hands detachment are Iron Hands vehicles

Yes, just like any unit that is in an Ultramarine Detachment is an Ultramarine. For example, in the Scions of Guilliman Chapter Tactic that reads: "If your army contains any Ultramarines units, you can choose..."

While I certainly hope that is the situation, I am doubtful of it. The old codex was very specific about the fact that vehicles did not have he chapter tactics special rule but still benefited from the IWND. The way it is worded now is also very specific in that when it talks about a chapter unit getting the bonus that it only means those with that special rule :-/

RAW only vehicles with Chapter Tactics (Iron Hands) are Iron Hands vehicles.



Apparently the Warlords Traits in WD are only for CF and BT; no other Chapter-specific traits are reported to be in it.

If Iron Hands vehicles dont get IWND, that's pretty lame. GW might be saving me a lot of me over the next 6 months.

jSewell wrote:

Killermonkey wrote:


Interesting. Does this mean that Iron hands just got the biggest stealth nerf ever with only dreads having IWND? I guess that thought that having all those free transports with the rule would be too broken? Between that and the removal of the master of the forge, meaning I can no longer take more than one "relic" vehicle my whole army just got entirely broken and shafted. /rerolling Crimson Fists

If it was intentional, they would have put "Iron Hands Dreadnoughts" but they put "VEHICLES"...

I don't care what little rule debacle is on the previous page, it says "Iron Hands vehicles" and the vehicles in an Iron Hands detachment are Iron Hands vehicles

 Talys wrote:

jSewell wrote:

Killermonkey wrote:


Interesting. Does this mean that Iron hands just got the biggest stealth nerf ever with only dreads having IWND? I guess that thought that having all those free transports with the rule would be too broken? Between that and the removal of the master of the forge, meaning I can no longer take more than one "relic" vehicle my whole army just got entirely broken and shafted. /rerolling Crimson Fists

If it was intentional, they would have put "Iron Hands Dreadnoughts" but they put "VEHICLES"...

I don't care what little rule debacle is on the previous page, it says "Iron Hands vehicles" and the vehicles in an Iron Hands detachment are Iron Hands vehicles

Yes, just like any unit that is in an Ultramarine Detachment is an Ultramarine. For example, in the Scions of Guilliman Chapter Tactic that reads: "If your army contains any Ultramarines units, you can choose..."

And for the fourth or fifth time, as per the image I posted of the actual rule in the actual codex; an "Ultramarines unit" is defined as a unit with the Ultramarines CTs. Just as an "Iron Hands unit" is a unit with Iron Hands CTs, an "Imperial Fists unit" is a unit with IF CTs etc etc. You can "not care" all you like, you can think it's stupid or unfair, but as written the rules have a specific definition and it has nothing to do with detachments.

Taking Iron Hands CTs for your army doesn't change the fact that other than Dreadnoughts no vehicles have the Chapter Tactics rule.

Now hopefully any rational, sportsmanlike opponent will ignore such idiocy and allow you to get IWND on all your vehicles, but if they decide to argue the point or if you play in a strict-RAW environment as many do, you have absolutely no basis in the actual rules to object when they deny it you.

Killermonkey wrote:
While I certainly hope that is the situation, I am doubtful of it. The old codex was very specific about the fact that vehicles did not have he chapter tactics special rule but still benefited from the IWND. The way it is worded now is also very specific in that when it talks about a chapter unit getting the bonus that it only means those with that special rule :-/

Actually, upon reread, I see the problem. However, it is not a solvable problem because of the ambiguity of the English language; specifically the conjunction, "and". Perhaps analyzing another language version would solve it, though.

The special rule reads, "Iron Hands characters and vehicles have the IWND special rule."

This COULD mean, "Iron Hands characters and Iron Hands vehicles have the IWND special rule." Or it could mean, "Vehicles and Iron Hands characters have the IWND special rule."

In the same way: "I like spicy wings and drumsticks". Do I like spicy hot wings and spicy drumsticks, or do I like drumsticks of any variety?

It's actually not possible to tell the intent of the speaker, except perhaps with context, because spicy or Iron Hands can be an adjective for the first OR both nouns. In context, for example, if you're choosing at a restaurant that doesn't serve spicy chicken except for hot wings, it'd be obvious.

In the same way, if there were no vehicles with chapter tactics, it'd be pretty straight forward. But there are the dreadnoughts, so it's less straight forward, though, as has been stated, in context, had the rules writers intended it to be only dreadnoughts, they would have simply said so.

10 free vehicles would be a little much with IWND..... Wait what am I saying. 10 free vehicles is already a little much haha

The second interpretation of the 'and' causes all sorts of problems, though, as it would mean that as long as you have one model with Chapter Tactics (Iron Hands), every friendly vehicles would have IWND! i.e. Allied Mechanicus/Guard/Inquisitor/DA/BA/SW/GK/SoB/etc. vehicles gain IWND! and allied non-IH SM vehciles get IWND!, leading to things like allied Ultramarine/IF/RG/BT/etc. Dreads with IWND! or Landraiders with IWND!

Talys, I think your clarification points out the clearer way of writing pretty well- it's how you'd say it if you wanted to be clear. It's GW, so, heap o' salt regarding RAI, but RAW is pretty obviously just dreads and characters since other vehicles don't have the rule.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
The second interpretation of the 'and' causes all sorts of problems, though, as it would mean that as long as you have one model with Chapter Tactics (Iron Hands), every friendly vehicles would have IWND! i.e. Allied Mechanicus/Guard/Inquisitor/DA/BA/SW/GK/SoB/etc. vehicles gain IWND! and allied non-IH SM vehciles get IWND!, leading to things like allied Ultramarine/IF/RG/BT/etc. Dreads with IWND! or Landraiders with IWND!

That's just being facetious as you've always picked a single chapter tactic per Codex: Space Marine formations, which can only include Space Marine units and only of that one chapter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
it's GW, so, heap o' salt regarding RAI, but RAW is pretty obviously just dreads and characters since other vehicles don't have the rule.

Imo, they would have out "Iron Hands characters and dreadnoughts" if they meant for it to be only dreads

But if you choose the 'vehicles (not necessarily Iron Hands) and Iron Hands characters' interpretation, you don't care if they are Iron Hands vehicles so ALL friendly vehicles get IWND! if you have an Iron Hands model in the army, because it no longer only effects Iron Hands vehicles but instead any (friendly, as per ally rules) vehicle.

It's just a mess and I'm putting my money on it being an oversight while they changed the wording for the Ultramarines so it'd only affect infantry

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
Talys, I think your clarification points out the clearer way of writing pretty well- it's how you'd say it if you wanted to be clear. It's GW, so, heap o' salt regarding RAI, but RAW is pretty obviously just dreads and characters since other vehicles don't have the rule.

The problem is, I'm not so sure it's clear at all. Unless/until it's FAQ'd or there's some GW Battle Report or something else to contextualize, clarify or infer the meaning, people can read it any way they want and argue make circular arguments (as we've done here) til their heads explode. At the end of the day, if it's a tournament, clarify with the TO first; if it's a friendly game, give the IH player IWND or find another person to play with

Frankly, the Ultramarine and White Scars CTs are way deadlier anways, IMHO. And the previous (6e) codex is extremely clear (All vehicles and characters in the detachment), so from a practical perspective, I would always give it to the Iron Hands player.

I think RAI, what the rules writers wanted to say was, all vehicles and characters in the detachment like the old version, but since the other chapter tactics were adjusted to say, "Imperial Fists models...", "Salamanders models...", "White Scars models...", this one just follows the mold. It was also to prevent people from joining a different model into the IH unit and getting the buff.

Just my reading of it.

Except Ultramarines also effects Dreads, so theirs doesn't only effect Infantry.

You don't "take Chapter tactics Iron Hands" any more. You SELECT A UNIT WITH CHAPTER TACTICS and pick which chapter it is from. If you chose Iron Hands, then the Iron Hands Chapter Tactics apply.

Note that all units from the same detachment must choose the same chapter. This does not however, stop you from using all those little formations, with each one being a different chapter.

That's the way it is now guys. Better get used to it. It's cut and dried, and no amount of rules lawyering will change the rules.

Guess I'll be running my Iron Hands with one of the already better chapter tactics then

 Talys wrote:
...I think RAI...

Yep, this has always been the flaw with GW- RAW is decipherable but often doesn't matter since there's so often a gap between that and intention. There are plenty of companies where they're consistent enough that RAW is assumed to be RAI, but not in this case...

 Kavish wrote:
You don't "take Chapter tactics Iron Hands" any more. You SELECT A UNIT WITH CHAPTER TACTICS and pick which chapter it is from. If you chose Iron Hands, then the Iron Hands Chapter Tactics apply.

Note that all units from the same detachment must choose the same chapter. This does not however, stop you from using all those little formations, with each one being a different chapter.

That's the way it is now guys. Better get used to it. It's cut and dried, and no amount of rules lawyering will change the rules.

Except, as I have stated, it could mean, "Iron Hands characters and [all] vehicles", as the "Iron Hands" adjective may or may not apply to "vehicles". Especially when you consider that the old chapter tactic read, "All vehicles and characters in this detachment".

Anyhow, I've put my two bits worth, and I'll just be repeating myself, so off to painting more Blood Angels and reading the new Codex.

And/but: - I *LOVE* the new codex. Even though a lot of the artwork from 6e has been moved to 7e, a lot of it has been made a lot larger. For instance, all the unit paintings for things like Chaplains, Librarians, etc. are now a half-page vertical instead of the old quarter-page. There's some really nice updated photography, the rules section in the new format (datasheets) is way easier to use, and it's just superior to the 6e codex in every way.

ALSO: New dev marines box ROCKS. I bought two, and am debating whether I want to buy 2 more :\ IknowIwanna... (but when will I ever get around to painting them, hehe)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@jSewell - Sok, I play my BA as vanilla successors 75% of the time

@spiralingcadaver - Yup! I agree. Oh well. More Dakka!

 Yodhrin wrote:

And for the fourth or fifth time, as per the image I posted of the actual rule in the actual codex; an "Ultramarines unit" is defined as a unit with the Ultramarines CTs. Just as an "Iron Hands unit" is a unit with Iron Hands CTs, an "Imperial Fists unit" is a unit with IF CTs etc etc. You can "not care" all you like, you can think it's stupid or unfair, but as written the rules have a specific definition and it has nothing to do with detachments.

Taking Iron Hands CTs for your army doesn't change the fact that other than Dreadnoughts no vehicles have the Chapter Tactics rule.

Now hopefully any rational, sportsmanlike opponent will ignore such idiocy and allow you to get IWND on all your vehicles, but if they decide to argue the point or if you play in a strict-RAW environment as many do, you have absolutely no basis in the actual rules to object when they deny it you.

Well, GW isn't the best of writing clear rules.

“all models in the same detachment or formation must be drawn from the same chapter.

Does that mean that that units without Chapter Tactics can't be taken, since they are not specified to be in THAT chapter?

In that case, RIP all vehicles and Legion of the damed along with 5 formations used in the Gladius Strike Force...

or?

"all models must be drawn from the same chapter" this means that where the choice is made (for units with the chapter tactics rule) you must choose the same chapter. Reading it any other way screws up the rules.

@ WindsofFury, Nope. The 1st time you take a unit with the chapter tactics special rule you must pick a chapter. All the units in the same detachment as that unit have to be from the same chapter. That means all other units, even those with out the chapter tactics special rule, in the detachment will technically have to be drawn from that chapter as well. You just can't choose a unit that is required to be drawn from a different chapter to be in the same detachment. If you have a space marine detachment with zero units with the chapter tactics rule in it then you will end up with a chapterless detachment. This can be done with at least two formations off the top of my head.

Interestingly enough it also means that unbound armies will have use 1 set of chapter tactics, or maybe just unbound armies with a space marine warlord ... can't remember. Cause all units with the same faction are treated as 1 detachment if memory serves.

That's stretching it a bit I reckon. Only units with CT can choose a chapter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"Make a note of which chapter each unit with the chapter tactics special rule is drawn from"

Hey guys, just thought i might help clear this up.

It seems to be saying that any iron hands vehicles get IWND (wow!) as well as their characters; so as long as the vehicles in question are in the same detachment/formation as a model with the 'chapter tactics (iron hands) special rule.

The vehicle itself doesn't need the chapter tactics rule, just one model in it's detachment.
The codex assumes any vehicles taken are therefore from the chapter which took them - many of the new formations list vehicles among them as 'compulsory' alongside units which have the 'chapter tactics' rule.
Keeping that in mind, looking at the 5th and 6th sentence of the first paragraph of the 'chapter tactics' page reads; "all models in the same detachment or formation must be drawn from the same chapter."
See the juxtaposition? formations with compulsory vehicles but can't choose non-chapter tactics vehicles in formations?... ?

The only logical conclusion is that vehicles assume the chapter of whatever the formation they are chosen for already is.


So a traditional CAD is looking fairly tasty for an iron hands army?

Except that in order to benefit from the Chapter Tactics, you have to have the Chapter Tactics rule.

By the logic mostly being used against IH, "all models in the same detachment or formation must be drawn from the same chapter" means we can't even take vehicles in from our codex because they don't have chapter tactics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kavish wrote:
"all models must be drawn from the same chapter" this means that where the choice is made (for units with the chapter tactics rule) you must choose the same chapter. Reading it any other way screws up the rules.

That's not RAW though!!!1!!111!!

There were too many issues with it where low(like Knights) were getting the upgrade by joining the army or really any low getting that upgrade for free(80 points from FW) was a bit much. In addition I can see them toning it down with the level of vehicle spam that is possible in this codex, instead they clarified the rules for everyone and how they interact with each other etc. in return its +1 to FNP which is huge, especially with cmd squads going to elites and blood Angels being a thing.... Overall I would call it a wash for iron hands, also with how much better dreads are now I can see it still coming up often.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
RAW only vehicles with Chapter Tactics (Iron Hands) are Iron Hands vehicles.



Apparently the Warlords Traits in WD are only for CF and BT; no other Chapter-specific traits are reported to be in it.

Super lame. BT already get more special characters than all the founding chapters (save for Ultramarines), and now they have special units that are actually worthwhile.

A little bit of extra juice for the Salamanders would have been nice. I like our chapter tactics and all, but I feel like I'm gnawing on bones here. None of the new changes are particularly great for my army.

 Leth wrote:
There were too many issues with it where low(like Knights) were getting the upgrade by joining the army or really any low getting that upgrade for free(80 points from FW) was a bit much. In addition I can see them toning it down with the level of vehicle spam that is possible in this codex, instead they clarified the rules for everyone and how they interact with each other etc. in return its +1 to FNP which is huge, especially with cmd squads going to elites and blood Angels being a thing.... Overall I would call it a wash for iron hands, also with how much better dreads are now I can see it still coming up often.

Since when has GW balanced their rules around FW stuff though? The IWND was WAY more fluffy than the FNP stuff... especially in the result of chapter master builds (even more so) than vehicle centric ones

Pretty interesting - Althenian Armourlost on Warseer

GW News app saying supplementary codexes are still legal?

Hi all

On the GW news iPhone app this morning there is a section on 'Sentinels of Terra' in which it is touting this supplementary codex for sale. It very clearly specifically says "All of this content is completely compatible with the new Codex:Space Marines' (though the Planetstrike and Cities of Death stratagems included in the book are designed for older editions of these rules.)"

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?409925-GW-News-app-saying-supplementary-codexes-are-still-legal&p=7464806&viewfull=1#post7464806

Has someone the Warhammer app and can confirm the information?