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.

Alerian wrote:

sourclams wrote:Yeah, I can sympathize with that opinion.

Short breakdown:

Vulkan's special rule grants its benefit to the entire army (including Land Speeders, Dreadnoughts, and Land Raiders toting melta/flamer gear). The loss of combat tactics is not the condition that allows the use of the special rule, as with Shrike, Khan, Lysander, and the other special characters.

Because of this, Combat Tactics is not the prereq for Vulkan's SR to work. It's linked to the weapon type. A Heavy Flamer on a Dreadnought takes the benefit, just like the flamer on a Tac squad. Therefore, Sisters allies are granted the benefit of his SR because they're wielding the types of weapons that benefit from Vulkan's rule.

There's a significant demographic that believes this isn't the case, but they really don't have anything to stand on by pure RAW.

just remember, Vulcan only twin links flamers and heavy flamers, meltas and multi meltas. He does not twinlink all flamer/melta type weapons, only those with the exact same name, according to RAW. So, only sisters with the appropriately named weapons get the bonus. For exaple, he does nothing for the Seraphim's flamer type pistols.

I would argue that this includes all weapons using the Flamer Template or a weapon with the Melta Rule. Just like the Avatar, I remember people arguing about if a Skorcha could hurt him or not because its not called a "Heavy Flamer" utter rubbish

Khan's rule does not say it applies only to marine dedicated transports. It says "all dedicated transports..."

If you let heston affect sisters, you would have to let Khan affect all transports.

For the record, I play a Vulkan based Salamander army, and I used Stormtrooper deamonhunter troops to help increase the number of scoring units I have. So don't try and say I'm afraid of facing that army because I AM that army.

I don't ding any army list for comp generally. In fact in every tounarment I've played I've never dinged anyone for sportsmanship because they've never tried to pull off something like this.

However, trying to use what is clearly a rules loophole (if you even interperate it as legal) to twin link a bunch of allied troops when both the rule and fluffy is clearly addressing space marines of the Salamanders Chapter is IMO poor sportmanship.

If I field a venerarable dreadnought and ask an oppenent to reroll on the damage table and he says no then RAW this is fine, but you had better believe I'll ding him on comp.

I agree with coredump.

I also don't believe it's a rules loop hole. We don't know what the intent of the designers was. I can think of some very fluffy reasons every unit in an army with Vulkan would have twin-linked stuff.

Um, from a fluff perspective, why wouldn't Vulkan do his thing to help make his allies' flamers/meltas more effective?

Failing to do so is, tactically, shooting himself in the foot.

I only ask this based upon the assertion that the fluff "clearly" indicates that Vulkan's benefit only applies to space marines of the Salamanders' chapter. (I won't even go into how this ignores GW's statement that you can use Vulkan's rules for any chapter you want.)

Fluff clear wasn't on GWs mind when they came up with the Chapter Traits. Take Shrike's for example why are Raven Guard faster than other marines? By fluff they are not. It would have made more sense to say they exchange for infriltrate and then Shirke have something on the lines of Snikrot's ambush rule.

coredump wrote:Khan's rule does not say it applies only to marine dedicated transports. It says "all dedicated transports..."

If you let heston affect sisters, you would have to let Khan affect all transports.

True there is no problem with saying the Sisters Dedicated Transports have this rule. However, since the Sisters unit itself does no have the rule, they would not be able to Outflank on their own or while embarked in said transport. As I mentioned before units with Outflank confer the ability on to their Dedicated Transports (RAW), their Dedicated Transport, however, does not confer any ability back to the unit. The rules just simply don't say it can go in reverse.

I guess I'm approaching this from a GT participant perspective. Part of the sportsmanship score factors in if you consider the army being based upon the fluff available.

Yes you can use any of the special space marine characters in any SM army. If I’m facing an army with two special characters in a GT the other guy better have a good reason to get the sportsmanship for army theme.

Vulkan is searching for objects; he has the ability to call in any of the Salamanders chapter. Therefore because the chapter REALLY wants these objects they are brining along the best equipment. That is why everything is twin linked. So far I’ve been to one Indy GT and played in 3 rough trader tournaments since the new Space Marine codex arrived, every tournament had at least 1 person trying to twin link flamers for sisters or stormtroopers, not once have the judges let them.

How does the argument of fluff hold up when using vulkan stand-in for another chapter?

The 4th company captain leading a crusade against a which infested planet, has had WH units seconded to him for years, and subsequently, they have been equipped in a fashion similar to the marines.

SeattleDV8 wrote:

Shrike78 wrote:

SeattleDV8 wrote:BRB pg. 87 Multiple detachment games
"Each detachment will be a seperate army, using it own force organisation chart."
This implies that the FOC is what determines what an army is.

Actually, the rule you quoted from the BRB applies to something different entirely, allies are different than detachments, which is why different words are used. Also there is no rule, that I can find, that states that you must take the 1 HQ and 2 troop choices normally required of a "real" FOC which seems to show that they are an augmentation to the normal force, rather than a separate force entirely.

Yes , you must have the compulsory 1 HQ and two Troops from the "parent "list, (WH codex Pg. 25) and still have the normal FOC limits along with the allies limits.
The fact that this rule deals with a different section still does not change the idea that FOC = army.

So are you saying that you must take a total of 2 HQ and 4 troop choices to field an allied contingent of anything?


If that is what you are saying, then you are wrong, as the page that has the rules for allies talks about the rules being there so you can"easily take a squad of soritas"(paraphrased but pretty much the same content)

Xerxes is right about the transport being the only thing that can Outflank.

Asugradinwa, I agree with the importance of having a solid background for the composition of ones army for a solid soft score. For instance, for an upcoming tournament, we're running a combined Salamanders/Deathwatch themed army. Vulkan's in it and the premise is simple: Vulkan wants an artifact being held by Xenos. It also has Pedro Kantor as a Chapter Master, the premise being he's helping Deathwatch. I would hope that my opponent would at least ask me about why my army looks the way it does before he deducts points for not being fluffy.

As far as the tournaments you've been to, I can't argue with that. I strongly disagree with their interpretation of the rule. In the words of the Supreme Court, "We're not final because we're right. We're right because we're final."

It's an interesting question, although not really a rules question, about when it's okay in comp terms to use a special character in different tournament environments.

I'm actually going to the extreme of painting up a 3rd company Raven Guard army because I want to use Shrike. I hope that even the most fluffy of the fluffy bunnies will have to concede that, if I'm fielding his company and I'm using a captain, fluff requires that I use Shrike.

Give me a backstory and a good game and I'll give you a perfect sportsmanship score.

Based on the nature of judges I doubt they'll allow Vulkan to twin link allied weapons, but it depends on the tournament.

I'm about to build a pure Salamanders army and I honestly wouldn't rule my Vulcan ability on any allies I take.

I agree with the people who say it makes no sense in the context of the fluff.

Vulcan doesn't magically make all flamers and meltas work better. He has the strings to pull to make all the Salamanders bring their best gear. Salamanders more than any other chapter are known for having more high quality masterwork weapons than any other chapter because they spend heaps of time crafting and maintaining weapons in their forges.

You can pull RAW and maybe get away with it, but unless you have come up with some story about why this counts as guy leading your army is making SOB and SM better with flamers and melta's and have painted your army something other than salamanders (lol) I don't see how you can claim to be very sportsman like.

lifeafter wrote:
Asugradinwa, I agree with the importance of having a solid background for the composition of ones army for a solid soft score. For instance, for an upcoming tournament, we're running a combined Salamanders/Deathwatch themed army. Vulkan's in it and the premise is simple: Vulkan wants an artifact being held by Xenos. It also has Pedro Kantor as a Chapter Master, the premise being he's helping Deathwatch. I would hope that my opponent would at least ask me about why my army looks the way it does before he deducts points for not being fluffy.

You know, I could write a story about why my army had lightsabers or that UFOs grabbed orks and deathwatch and brainwashed them to work together, and at the end of the day, all I've accomplished is attempting to justify something with text. I don't care if you get an A in your creative writing class, if you show up with two special characters from different chapters, it's pretty obvious that you're doing it to get special rules, and any story you write to justify it is just a sad excuse. If you can show me a post where, before the new codex came out, you said "I think it would be great if these two guys got together with the deathwatch", then ok, you had a theme. If you wrote this tripe after the codex came out in order to justify your combo, then who cares, it's not a theme, it's a cover-up.

The codex itself says you can use special characters as a template for Captain Shineypants of your own custom chapter.

There is no canon anymore. The rules say so. I can run Chapter Master Maximus Fisticus and Fist Captain Thunderhammer Rex for my custom chapter the Grognard Slayers and it's all legal.

The type of jacktards that would nuke somebody for playing a "power list" just because they followed the rules are the types that deserve the low soft scores.

I'm going to agree with Sourclams on this one.

And not that this is the place to defend my list, but if Deathwatch is a chapter made from pulling members of different chapters together, why should it be unfluffy that their chapter master is the chapter master of another chapter?

I do like the idea of soft scores, but I do not like them being based from opponent scores. That just leaves to much room for someone to enter in a baised score on the high or low end based on the game just played.

Thats why at my LGS, which I like doing this way, we have one person with a already pre fabricated comp score sheet walk around from player to player and score the list and theme. That way its one individual doing all the scores and for consistancy sake at least its all one persons opinion that is judging across the board.

The other benifit is this person also isnt even playing in the tournament so they should be as unbiased as you can reasonably get.

In the same vein, the comp scores and "soft" scores are there to reflect people who may not play the game cutthroat, but want to be rewarded for being quality hobbyists.

What if you saw a gorgeously painted Half-and-Half army with 3 Attack Bike squads and two Rhino-bound Tacticals led by Khan and 3 Assault Terminator squads headed up by Shrike? The background material is filled with incidences of chapters teaming up, and this is the exact combo that was presented in the SM codex fluff. Do you give that guy a low comp score because he's incredibly unfluffy, fielding the exact same army that GW itself wrote a short story for?

I don't see your half painted Battle Box list giving you any moral high ground.

Shrike78 wrote:

SeattleDV8 wrote:

Shrike78 wrote:

SeattleDV8 wrote:BRB pg. 87 Multiple detachment games
"Each detachment will be a seperate army, using it own force organisation chart."
This implies that the FOC is what determines what an army is.

Actually, the rule you quoted from the BRB applies to something different entirely, allies are different than detachments, which is why different words are used. Also there is no rule, that I can find, that states that you must take the 1 HQ and 2 troop choices normally required of a "real" FOC which seems to show that they are an augmentation to the normal force, rather than a separate force entirely.

Yes , you must have the compulsory 1 HQ and two Troops from the "parent "list, (WH codex Pg. 25) and still have the normal FOC limits along with the allies limits.
The fact that this rule deals with a different section still does not change the idea that FOC = army.

So are you saying that you must take a total of 2 HQ and 4 troop choices to field an allied contingent of anything?


If that is what you are saying, then you are wrong, as the page that has the rules for allies talks about the rules being there so you can"easily take a squad of soritas"(paraphrased but pretty much the same content)

WH Codex pg. 25 "Any compulsory chioces (such as the one HQ and the two Troops in a standard mission) must be fulfiled from the 'parent' list and not the WH list"

The allies are limited to 0-1 HQ; 0-1 Elite; 0-2 Troops and 0-1 Fast Attack. No heavys can be taken from the WH.

if you wanted an HQ and two troops from the WH then yes you would take a total of 2 HQs and 4 Troops.

EDIT: Removed post because it went far too off topic.

Marius X

lifeafter wrote:
And not that this is the place to defend my list, but if Deathwatch is a chapter made from pulling members of different chapters together, why should it be unfluffy that their chapter master is the chapter master of another chapter?

Wow, I don't even know where to start. Yes, Deathwatch is pulled from other chapters. But, they don't have other chapter's masters running them. A Chapter Master has so many responsibilities with their own chapter, they cannot simply abandon their chapter to go running off with some Inquisitor at the drop of a hat. The Deathwatch has their own master, who, at one time, came from another chapter, but whose full-time job is overseeing the Deathwatch.

sourclams wrote:
What if you saw a gorgeously painted Half-and-Half army with 3 Attack Bike squads and two Rhino-bound Tacticals led by Khan and 3 Assault Terminator squads headed up by Shrike? The background material is filled with incidences of chapters teaming up, and this is the exact combo that was presented in the SM codex fluff.

Was 'this combo' presented as an example of what you could do within the rules? Or was it a story about White Scars and Raven Guard working together? I don't have much of an issue with people running allied parts of their army, because, as you say, this is represented all the time in the fluff. But, when it is done as an excuse to get two special characters into an army, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I enjoy games that are about working strategy and tactics on the tabletop, not about finding trick combos with special rules.

Do you give that guy a low comp score because he's incredibly unfluffy, fielding the exact same army that GW itself wrote a short story for?

It really depends. If it is obvious to me that my opponent made this combination in order to use the special characters, I don't care what the story is, because, as I said above, you can use creative writing to justify anything. If it really seems like my opponent really is more about this exact fluff, then maybe not. But, let's say you're really into White Scars and Raven Guard. Do you really need to field both Khan and Shrike? Couldn't you run the fluffy combination of armies without either? Or perhaps with just Khan to get the force org modification? I'd have a lot more respect for someone who did that than I do for the guy using a thinly-veiled cover story in order to get as may special rules into his army as possible.

I'm basing all of this from pages 42-43 of the Space Marines codex.

Redbeard wrote:Do you really need to field both Khan and Shrike?

Sure, if you really think that strike forces led by Shrike and Khan are going to commit to battle while Shrike or Khan stay home playing armchair general. I guess you could try to play 'Calgar's Triumph' at the Battle of the Sepulchre without Marneus Calgar too, if you were so inclined.

Couldn't you run the fluffy combination of armies without either? Or perhaps with just Khan to get the force org modification?

This combination is in the fluff. The Hunt for Voldaris/An Alliance is Forged/The Taking of Mankara. I don't know how much more fluffy you can get than by assembling an army based on the fluff.

I'd have a lot more respect for someone who did that than I do for the guy using a thinly-veiled cover story in order to get as may special rules into his army as possible.

A "thinly-veiled cover story" that GW wrote and printed in the relevant codex alongside rules saying it's quite peachy to create your own chapter variants based on their printed special characters as a template.

Why does "fluff" have to equate to "suck" in the minds of everybody that doesn't like playing a competitive list?

Ok, that one combination is in the fluff.

I would still consider it to be a list designed for the special rules, more than anything else. In my experience, 99% of people who would run that combination would do it because the rules rock, and 1% would do it because they read a cool story and decided they wanted to represent that. And that's just how I would see it.

Like I said above, I'd rather play a strategy game, rather than a 'find the cool combo characters' game. If I wanted a combo-oriented game, I'd play Magic:The Gathering, which not only does combos better, but is considerably better balanced. I acknowledge that bringing two special characters is legal - but regardless of how fluffy it is, it all seems like WAAC gaming to me. If you want to do it at a gladiator-style tournament, more power to you. If you do it at a normal RTT with comp or sportsmanship scores, expect to be docked.

Webbe: wow, your right, i still would say take the normal flamers though because with the points saved from that you might be ably to put in a few more normal flamers (i am assuming there is a deacent difference between the prices)

It states for the characters that you need to choose which chapter tactics are going to prevail - on an army basis.

I fail to see the issue of having Vulcan and Shrike as only fleet or masterwork/twin linked would be added to your army.

It is then a bit of a waste of points to add two special chapter tactics guys.

I REALLY dont think they should be aided by Vulkans ability, but I'd go with a judges call without a peep....the wording certainly could be interpreted that way.

In friendly games I'd prolly not play against the guy....as the combo isnt very friendly, its almost exploitive IMHO.

Sourclams, or anyone else....can you quote for me the exact rule that says you can apply the rules for an army to any allies taken with that army?

asugradinwa wrote:If I field a venerarable dreadnought and ask an oppenent to reroll on the damage table and he says no then RAW this is fine, but you had better believe I'll ding him on comp.

Why would you ding him on comp for a rules issue?

Of course this whole thread is basically the tired old 'you're a bad person if you don't play the way I think you should play' argument.

Have to hate bullies.