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.

Ghaz wrote:You're making up your own rules. Allies are a part of your army, whether you like it or not.

Correct. Flame away sister.

Currently Ghaz has cited rules and 1hadhq has cited his own opinion and made personal attacks.

I do not know what the intent of GW was when they wrote the marine codex. Rules as written in their current state, I see much more support for Ghaz' argument than 1hadhqs.

Vulkan twin-links Sister meltas and GK flamers. It's all one army, and his rule specifically allows it.

I think the point he may have been getting at is that there simply aren't 5th edition rules regarding allies. Where 4th edition had some guidelines spelled out, I, personally, cannot find allies in this current rulebook. I won't claim to know this as fact, simply that I haven't found it at this time.

At the same time, I can't find anything in the rules set that places any kind of limitation on allies. There is a broad statement regarding suggestions about how to choose your force but, unless I'm missing passages that are outside of the first two pages in the section regarding force organization, it actually seems you could pretty broadly pick and choose from a few.

Do I actually practice this wacky view? No. But support for both sides' positions is pretty minimal.

How is the ruling for allies in the WH and DH codex minimal? Nothing in 5th changes how those rules work, so nothing changes.

So I've been thinking about this for a while now.

Here's what I think.

A long long LONG time ago, the Sisters Codex said “A Witch Hunters army that includes…” in reference to Sisters being faithful.

Which in essence meant that all Sisters outside of a Witchhunters army were NOT faithful.

Because of me, GW relented and changed the wording to what it is now: “An army that includes…”

Thus, Sisters are always faithful.

So, how does this relate?

Well, right now Vulcan's entry is written broadly (not narrowly as above) and until FAQ'd to "narrowly" just be Marines in his army, everyone who joins his army gets his bonus.

Grats you for finding a loophole.

Now that you've found it, push to have it closed.

Proving you can be a douche does not mean you should be one...

I agree that it is a pretty BS move to make, but it would be interesting to exploit on occasion.

I'm not even sure it would be game-breakingly good, in this world of dual jet council eldar and nidzilla.

I might prove myself wrong if I ever field the list though.

Stelek wrote:Because of me, GW relented and changed the wording to what it is now: “An army that includes…”
...
Proving you can be a douche does not mean you should be one...

Sez the guy who takes sole credit for getting GW to FAQ the WitchHunters Codex... Cracks me the hell up.

And I fail to see how this is being a douche. It may be a tad powerful, but it is hardly the I Win button you've been brandishing around lately.

I disagree with how you are reading the rules. I believe you are not applying correct English to it and are actively looking to stretch the rules thus finding an advantage. There isn't "proof" as you call it, i.e page and line, because I cannot pull proof out of no where because all of you who support this rule stretching cannot read and understand basic English comprehension. This whole thread is just dumb - I just don't agree that your intrepation of the RAW is right.

stjohn70 wrote:

Stelek wrote:Because of me, GW relented and changed the wording to what it is now: “An army that includes…”
...
Proving you can be a douche does not mean you should be one...

Sez the guy who takes sole credit for getting GW to FAQ the WitchHunters Codex... Cracks me the hell up.

And I fail to see how this is being a douche. It may be a tad powerful, but it is hardly the I Win button you've been brandishing around lately.

Ok, I got Andy Hoare to FAQ that one line not long after the Codex came out.

None of the other playtesters saw a problem.

Who should I be sharing credit with from what, seven years ago? When I didn't know you, even.

Glad it's amusing.

Sisters get multiple weapons AND faith AND are 5 points cheaper than Marines; who don't get any of that.

Not an i-win button? Allright, sure seems like it's stupid powerful AND unintended.

I can't think of another combo you can throw down that is so chock full of 'hurray me and the bull I found'.

Gee. What a winning conversation this is.

lol, points Stelek in the direction of his Screw on Daemons thread...

Hmmm mmmm.

Gee, I submitted that to GW for FAQ resolution.

Have you submitted this to GW?

You say yes I'm driving down to your house and beating you up.

how would an SM (with vulkan) list with SoB allies look like? (assuming it's legal)

Its legal.

When I have the SM codex I will check. From a RAI POV it just sounds wrong.

G

RAI half the stuff comes across that way, but we play with RAW, not RAI. RAW says all of those weapons in an army he is in get the benefit, not just those fired by marines.

I sincerely hope a dozen people take this to the next GT and massacre all 5 opponents just so GW will take notice and do something about it. And it will take them at least 2 years to publish.

edited for beating a dead horse

Only a douche would do it.

G

I always believed that each codex was self contained with their rules. When speaking of army, it is referring to each codex's army, not the whole of 2 parts. Yes, this is the combined force you're using, but they are seperate entities. By seperating them into their own entities, you avoid things like daemons summoning from allied players icons, avatars making 2 opposing eldar armies fearless, res orbs allowing opposing necrons to WBB. With the example above, that is a loophole that could be seen as abusive and not what was intended for those rules. This is my opinion, however the fact that we are on this board discussing this topic with different opions means that what I say could be with a trace of truth. If questionable gaming situations come up, is it not best to side with the one that won't come with such a problem? For nothing but the sake of sportsmanship?

I actually noticed this rule last week when the camera shots of the new Codex were put online. I've been working on a list since. I'm trying to "port" my WH list over to SM using Vulkan, can't quite figure out a good way to use the mandatory two SM Troops slots (they get pricey fast) and I'm missing Exorcists. Land Speeders with 2 Multi-Meltas might be a way to go.

kadun wrote:I actually noticed this rule last week when the camera shots of the new Codex were put online. I've been working on a list since. I'm trying to "port" my WH list over to SM using Vulkan, can't quite figure out a good way to use the mandatory two SM Troops slots (they get pricey fast) and I'm missing Exorcists. Land Speeders with 2 Multi-Meltas might be a way to go.

and people play you where you come from? or is this an exercise to see what the list looks like?

thanoson wrote:When speaking of army, it is referring to each codex's army, not the whole of 2 parts. Yes, this is the combined force you're using, but they are seperate entities.

Except you have nothing to support that position. The rules have always talked of a single Force Organization chart as being a single army, not two.

RAW it's simple, either

a) every unit within your army gets their thunder hammers master crafted and their flamers/meltas twin linked.
b) only units that have combat tactics get these bonuses(that means any vehicle with a flamer or melta doesn't get the bonus, including but not limited to dreads and land raider redeemers)

atleast as far as vulkan's rules go, it seems most people happily accept that vehicles are meant to have the bonus (thus the unique wording), so I'm assuming option a is broadly accepted.

That just leaves how allied troops fit into a definition of "An Army", one thing of note I found was on page 87 of the new core rulebook under "Multiple detachment games" it says

Each detachment will be a seperate army, using it's own force organisation chart.

not conclusive by any means but it suggests to me that if part of your force exists outside your standard force organisation chart they are a seperate army. And conversely, if they are on the same chart, they are part of the same army.

which then leads to the codex witch hunters allies rules and how they operate with a force org chart of space marines. Sadly there isn't a whole lot here to clarify it, but personally I take the rules for using allied space marines within a witch hunters army (they cannot fill compulsary slots but do take up force org slots on the WH chart) and would apply that the other way, making Allied sisters of battle or witchhunters part of the space marine force org chart(this is how I've allways played it anyway, I had never thought you could get a 4th elites choice etc from it) and thus part of the army.

So I would say that yes allied witch hunter units (including sisters of battle) can get vulkan's special twin linking rule, but this definitely calls for an official ruling.

fullheadofhair wrote:

kadun wrote:I actually noticed this rule last week when the camera shots of the new Codex were put online. I've been working on a list since. I'm trying to "port" my WH list over to SM using Vulkan, can't quite figure out a good way to use the mandatory two SM Troops slots (they get pricey fast) and I'm missing Exorcists. Land Speeders with 2 Multi-Meltas might be a way to go.

and people play you where you come from? or is this an exercise to see what the list looks like?

Why wouldn't people play me?

RAW seems to be telling me that it can go either way, depending on how loosely you want to interpret it, and in which direction you want to be loose with your understanding. The word "Instead" is the clincher here, whose absence would improve our standings immensely. Because it says instead, but because it does not explicitly state that you exchange it, then you could say that it does or doesn't affect allied weapons. I would clarify with your opponent before the game, and not spring it on him last-minute like you're definitively of the right standing.

The Codex isn't even officially released yet, and we're quarreling over rules. I am willing to bet large sums that this will be FAQed forthwith upon the Codex's release.

kadun wrote:

fullheadofhair wrote:

kadun wrote:I actually noticed this rule last week when the camera shots of the new Codex were put online. I've been working on a list since. I'm trying to "port" my WH list over to SM using Vulkan, can't quite figure out a good way to use the mandatory two SM Troops slots (they get pricey fast) and I'm missing Exorcists. Land Speeders with 2 Multi-Meltas might be a way to go.

and people play you where you come from? or is this an exercise to see what the list looks like?

Why wouldn't people play me?

Because a lot of people will see it as rules abuse for whatever reason.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:

kadun wrote:

fullheadofhair wrote:

kadun wrote:I actually noticed this rule last week when the camera shots of the new Codex were put online. I've been working on a list since. I'm trying to "port" my WH list over to SM using Vulkan, can't quite figure out a good way to use the mandatory two SM Troops slots (they get pricey fast) and I'm missing Exorcists. Land Speeders with 2 Multi-Meltas might be a way to go.

and people play you where you come from? or is this an exercise to see what the list looks like?

Why wouldn't people play me?

Because a lot of people will see it as rules abuse for whatever reason.

G

I'm not directing this at GBF at all because I've never met the guy and I'm sure he's a decent sort.

But if people see this as a violation of RAI and decide not to play you because it's cheesed out ubarly overpowerared, they're probably the same type of clueless douches whose lackluster lists never win because they play for "fun". You're better off skipping them since they won't improve your game at all. You already know that you can beat the snot out of them with your half-optimized and still very fluffy list so why even bother with the misery that'll resolve the foregone conclusion anyways?

sourclams wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:

kadun wrote:

fullheadofhair wrote:

kadun wrote:I actually noticed this rule last week when the camera shots of the new Codex were put online. I've been working on a list since. I'm trying to "port" my WH list over to SM using Vulkan, can't quite figure out a good way to use the mandatory two SM Troops slots (they get pricey fast) and I'm missing Exorcists. Land Speeders with 2 Multi-Meltas might be a way to go.

and people play you where you come from? or is this an exercise to see what the list looks like?

Why wouldn't people play me?

Because a lot of people will see it as rules abuse for whatever reason.

G

I'm not directing this at GBF at all because I've never met the guy and I'm sure he's a decent sort.

But if people see this as a violation of RAI and decide not to play you because it's cheesed out ubarly overpowerared, they're probably the same type of clueless douches whose lackluster lists never win because they play for "fun". You're better off skipping them since they won't improve your game at all. You already know that you can beat the snot out of them with your half-optimized and still very fluffy list so why even bother with the misery that'll resolve the foregone conclusion anyways?

Because said person still smacked around a high grade tournie player with said fluffy under optimized list - of-course that was back in V3. Too many people make the assumption that a list that is full of character being played by someone who is just in it for fun is also weak. I play for fun and the background but I still want a good chance of winning. My I3 Salamanders (with my fav veteran sarge wielding a T/hammer) used the same list for ages and wiped many an over confident tournie player. Ah, 2 flamers and a combi flamer - still rolling lots of saves on that first round of shooting.

Just starting to play again and will see if it is still possible.

You're running the same list as always, which now happens to be very good, and people would see it as being weak because it's got a special character with great abilities? Either my reading comprehension is gone or yours is.

sourclams wrote:You're running the same list as always, which now happens to be very good, and people would see it as being weak because it's got a special character with great abilities? Either my reading comprehension is gone or yours is.

What I was saying was back in V3 I ran Init3 Salamanders, no special characters, and in it was a thunderhammer wielding veteran sarge. It also had melta and multimetltas in it. The list never changed - I used it against every opponent. I don't play tournies as I have met to many douches ( I particularly hate the ones who whine and complain about crap the rules and it is unfair to their army when they are winning). Yes I lost with it, but several active tournie players got smacked around with it.

I am saying that just because a list is background based and not optimized don't make the mistake of underestimating it. People like to win and will usually have a trick up their sleeve to compensate.

I am playing V5 to see if I like it. No salamanders (sold them), just generic marines and setting up a list for different point values. When happy, they will be my permenant non moving list.