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.

Illum:

Test case.

If I run an army with two CADs (let's call them A and B), and I've scribbled "black templar" in the force roster for both detachments, and I have 3 rhinos in B taken as fast attacks, may I deploy tactical marines in A in the rhinos of B?

What if I run an army with two CADs (let's call them C and D), and I've scribbled "Imperial Fists" on one, but "Ultramarines" on the other, again taking 3 rhinos in D as fast attacks.

May I deploy the imperial fist tactical marines from detachment C in the rhinos from detachment D?

In answering, make sure that you consider what GW said in the FAQs.

Yes, because all the Rhinos are from the same Faction (Space Marine).

 Traditio wrote:
If I run an army with two CADs (let's call them A and B), and I've scribbled "black templar" in the force roster for both detachments, and I have 3 rhinos in B taken as fast attacks, may I deploy tactical marines in A in the rhinos of B?

As a counter-question:

If I run an army with two CADs (let's call them A and B), and I've scribbled "Millennium Hand and Shrimp!" in the force roster for both detachments, and I have 3 rhinos in B taken as fast attacks, may I deploy tactical marines in A in the rhinos of B?



What you write on the top of the roster makes no difference to the rules they follow. You can call your force whatever Chapter you want. What defines which rules they follow is which version of Chapter Tactics they have.

insaniak wrote:What you write on the top of the roster makes no difference to the rules they follow. You can call your force whatever Chapter you want. What defines which rules they follow is which version of Chapter Tactics they have.

The 6th edition codex said the exact opposite. It literally said that what you scribbled at the top of the roster is what, in fact, counts.

To maintain your, peregrine's and Illum.'s argument, you essentially have to believe that GW made a conscious decision to make a change with respect how to determine which model is from which chapter in the 7th edition codex.

I find it more credible to say that they simply wanted to strip vehicles of chapter tactics but otherwise intended to keep things the same, but, because they are history buffs and not particularly good professional rules writers, ended up writing ambiguous and poorly written rules to express this.

@Traditio: Your hypothetical scenario does not change the fact that the context of the content on Page 189 of the 7th Ed. C:SM means (or at least heavily implies) that 'all models' refers to all models with the Chapter Tactics Special Rule. Also note the following quotes:

 insaniak wrote:
What you write on the top of the roster makes no difference to the rules they follow. You can call your force whatever Chapter you want. What defines which rules they follow is which version of Chapter Tactics they have.

 insaniak wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

"All models in the same detachment or formation must be drawn from the same chapter" (Codex: Space Marines, 7th edition, p. 189).

I guess that means no non-dreadnought vehicles in any space marine detachment, huh?

If you have even a single rhino or drop pod in your space marines army list(s), you ultimately agree with my interpretation of the rules.

You're retreading an argument that was hashed out quite comprehensively when the codex was released.

Yes, as the rules currently stand it is arguably illegal to include any vehicle without Chapter Tactics in a Space Marine detachment. Although as you've seen, there is some disagreement on interpretation of the rule you just quoted, with some people reading it as only requiring those models who have Chapter Tactics to be from the same Chapter... an interpretation that would seem to be backed up by several responses on the FAQ about vehicles in detachments.


So either vehicles are illegal in Space Marine detachments, or any model without Chapter Tactics is legal in Space Marine detachments... but either way, any model that doesn't have Chapter Tactics does not (ruleswise) belong to any specific Chapter.

It makes no sense of vehicles to be excluded from Detachments/Formations based on the fact that they don't have the Chapter Tactics rule, nor does it make sense to effectively treat them like they do have the Chapter Tactics Special Rule simply because you're interpretation of the Chapter Tactics information demands it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Traditio wrote:

insaniak wrote:What you write on the top of the roster makes no difference to the rules they follow. You can call your force whatever Chapter you want. What defines which rules they follow is which version of Chapter Tactics they have.

The 6th edition codex said the exact opposite. It literally said that what you scribbled at the top of the roster is what, in fact, counts.

Nobody cares about what 6th Edition says. We have a 7th Edition BRB and 7th Edition Space Marines Codex. 6th Edition has no bearing here. Please stop referencing it.

 Traditio wrote:
To maintain your, peregrine's and Illum.'s argument, you essentially have to believe that GW made a conscious decision to make a change with respect how to determine which model is from which chapter in the 7th edition codex.

I find it more credible to say that they simply wanted to strip vehicles of chapter tactics but otherwise intended to keep things the same, but, because they are history buffs and not particularly good professional rules writers, ended up writing ambiguous and poorly written rules to express this.

Regardless of what you believe, your interpretation seems to cause more problems than it solves.

IllumiNini wrote:It makes no sense of vehicles to be excluded from Detachments/Formations based on the fact that they don't have the Chapter Tactics rule

I completely agree. To my mind, this is evidence that your interpretation is false.

nor does it make sense to effectively treat them like they do have the Chapter Tactics Special Rule simply because you're interpretation of the Chapter Tactics information demands it.

Except, I'm not. My interpretation is as follows:

Model A belongs to a given chapter if and only if it is part of a detachment of that chapter.

Model A, belonging to that chapter, may or may not have that the chapter tactics special rule and chapter tactics for that chapter.

You may deploy an imperial fist marine in an imperial fist rhino. You may not deploy an ultramarine in an imperial fist rhino (because different factions, for all intents and purposes). You also may not reroll 1s on that imperial fist rhino's stormbolter (because it doesn't have the CT special rule).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

IllumiNini wrote:6th Edition has no bearing here.

Except, it does. It provides an historical context. If what you are saying is true, then 7th edition marked a significant change from 6th edition.

If you don't want to claim that a significant change happened (other than stripping vehicles of the CT special rule), then the 6th edition codex assists us in establishing the RAI for the 7th edition codex.

Regardless of what you believe, your interpretation seems to cause more problems than it solves.

Like what?

 Traditio wrote:

IllumiNini wrote:It makes no sense of vehicles to be excluded from Detachments/Formations based on the fact that they don't have the Chapter Tactics rule

I completely agree. To my mind, this is evidence that your interpretation is false.

How does that mean my interpretation is false?

 Traditio wrote:

nor does it make sense to effectively treat them like they do have the Chapter Tactics Special Rule simply because you're interpretation of the Chapter Tactics information demands it.

Except, I'm not. My interpretation is as follows:

Model A belongs to a given chapter if and only if it is part of a detachment of that chapter.

Model A, belonging to that chapter, may or may not have that the chapter tactics special rule and chapter tactics for that chapter.

You may deploy an imperial fist marine in an imperial fist rhino. You may not deploy an ultramarine in an imperial fist rhino (because different factions, for all intents and purposes). You also may not reroll 1s on that imperial fist rhino's stormbolter (because it doesn't have the CT special rule).

I refuse to be bogged down by which Tactical Squad can embark no which Transport Vehicle because that's not the core issue we're debating here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Traditio wrote:

IllumiNini wrote:6th Edition has no bearing here.

Except, it does. It provides an historical context. If what you are saying is true, then 7th edition marked a significant change from 6th edition.

If you don't want to claim that a significant change happened (other than stripping vehicles of the CT special rule), then the 6th edition codex assists us in establishing the RAI for the 7th edition codex.

Again, we're talking about RAW, not RAI, so 6th Edition has no bearing and historical context and changes between editons means nothing.

 Traditio wrote:

Regardless of what you believe, your interpretation seems to cause more problems than it solves.

Like what?

Well for starters it doesn't actually solve the problem in the original post.

IllumiNini wrote:Again, we're talking about RAW, not RAI, so 6th Edition has no bearing and historical context and changes between editons means nothing.

I can only say that I am glad that GW hasn't taken the same attitude in their FAQs. In fact, their FAQ flat out says not to attend solely to RAW. "...we have to use a little common sense" (GW from the FAQs).

Well for starters it doesn't actually solve the problem in the original post.

It totally does. The rules specifically states, in the supplement, that all iron hands models gain the benefit of x, y and z special rules.

In the main rulebook, it's clear that the use of chapter tactics are restricted to the models that have the chapter tactics special rule.

Iron Hands rhinos, if you use the relevant supplement, have IWND.

Iron Hands rhinos in a gladius strike force battle company do not.

 Traditio wrote:

To maintain your, peregrine's and Illum.'s argument, you essentially have to believe that GW made a conscious decision to make a change with respect how to determine which model is from which chapter in the 7th edition codex.

Indeed. And that belief would be supported by the fact that the rules changed.

In 6th edition you chose a Chapter, and that choice defined which Chapter you were using.

In 7th edition, your Chapter is very specifically and clearly defined by which version of Chapter Tactics you have.



Historical precedent can be useful in some cases be useful where rules have remained more or less the same (not always, since GW quite often flip-flop on rulings between editions even when the rules in question remain the same). Where the rules have changed significantly, it really isn't as helpful.

And this is a case where the rules have changed significantly. The rules defining your Chapter and the rules for Detachments have both changed quite a lot between 6th and 7th edition. So what the 6th edition codex had to say on the topic is completely irrelevant to discussion of how the rules work now.

 insaniak wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:
The codex makes very clear how to determine if a model is drawn from a particular chapter, i.e. it must have the Chapter Tactics special rule, and the FAQ simply clarifies the Iron Hands' chapter tactics do what they specifically state regarding vehicles.

Except it doesn't.


The FAQ states that all Iron Hands vehicles benefit from the rule regardless of whether or not they have Chapter Tactics... but the only way for a vehicle to be defined as an 'Iron Hands vehicle' is for it to have Chapter Tactics...


So the FAQ clarifies absolutely nothing.

Perhaps not by a strict RAW reading, but it should be sensibly evident they consider vehicles without the Chapter Tactics special rule taken in an otherwise Iron Hands detachment count as Iron Hands vehicles specifically for the purpose of Iron Hands Chapter Tactics.

Sure. It would just be nice if they actually used the FAQs properly, rather than answering with vaguely worded nonsense that doesn't address the actual issue.

rrll wrote:
well feth.

This is just another instance of GW having their heads up their asses.

But wtf do i know? I've only been playing rpgs and strategy games for 2 decades.

Sure, i mean why not? There is absolutely no reason to interpret it that way or anything to indicate that Iron Hands even should be the exception aside from the FAQ. but hey, who cares? And why not give wraithguard D templates and and make Death from the Skies tournament standard and hard nerf the worse codex in the game cause they think its funny?

I concede the point. I'm going to go throw all my mini's in a pile and burn them.

I guess this is how sports fans feel when a ref makes a bad call.

I know man you should just make the perfect game with no flaws cuz its so easy i dont know what you are waiting for.

Ignore this post my sleep deprieved mind badly misread Traditios' quoted post.

 Traditio wrote:
Illum:

Test case.

If I run an army with two CADs (let's call them A and B), and I've scribbled "black templar" in the force roster for both detachments, and I have 3 rhinos in B taken as fast attacks, may I deploy tactical marines in A in the rhinos of B?

What if I run an army with two CADs (let's call them C and D), and I've scribbled "Imperial Fists" on one, but "Ultramarines" on the other, again taking 3 rhinos in D as fast attacks.

May I deploy the imperial fist tactical marines from detachment C in the rhinos from detachment D?

In answering, make sure that you consider what GW said in the FAQs.

Since main rulebook draft faq has a question that has the answer for you:
Q: Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: No.

CAD a and b while from same chapter and faction are 2 seperate detachments that must obey the rules for battle brothers.

@Traditio: Writing rules to be followed strictly RAW is, I think, something that's a good thing because if we bring RAI into the picture, every single person who plays this game can have a different opinion of how the rule was intended to be used, meaning that there can be conflicts about how the rules should be applied. Whereas if we did strictly RAW when writing the rules as well as for official rulings, there's less room for arguments such as "But... but.. it's obviously intended this way...." sort of arguments.

rrll wrote:
well feth.

This is just another instance of GW having their heads up their asses.

But wtf do i know? I've only been playing rpgs and strategy games for 2 decades.

Sure, i mean why not? There is absolutely no reason to interpret it that way or anything to indicate that Iron Hands even should be the exception aside from the FAQ. but hey, who cares? And why not give wraithguard D templates and and make Death from the Skies tournament standard and hard nerf the worse codex in the game cause they think its funny?

I concede the point. I'm going to go throw all my mini's in a pile and burn them.

I guess this is how sports fans feel when a ref makes a bad call.

Well you want to be immature about it, burn your models, waste your money, go for it. I don't think you're going to get much sympathy on this matter here.

Miradorm wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
Illum:

Test case.

If I run an army with two CADs (let's call them A and B), and I've scribbled "black templar" in the force roster for both detachments, and I have 3 rhinos in B taken as fast attacks, may I deploy tactical marines in A in the rhinos of B?

What if I run an army with two CADs (let's call them C and D), and I've scribbled "Imperial Fists" on one, but "Ultramarines" on the other, again taking 3 rhinos in D as fast attacks.

May I deploy the imperial fist tactical marines from detachment C in the rhinos from detachment D?

In answering, make sure that you consider what GW said in the FAQs.

Since main rulebook draft faq has a question that has the answer for you:
Q: Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: No.

CAD a and b while from same chapter and faction are 2 seperate detachments that must obey the rules for battle brothers.

As true as this is, Traditio has assumed that such a scenario has any bearing on whether or not the rule in the original post (i.e. what's been said about the Iron Hands should be applied unilaterally), which it doesn't. Whether or not Battle Brothers can embark on each other's transports does not have any bearing on the issue at hand.

Miradorm wrote:
Since main rulebook draft faq has a question that has the answer for you:
Q: Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: No.

CAD a and b while from same chapter and faction are 2 seperate detachments that must obey the rules for battle brothers.

This has been discussed elsewhere, but to quickly correct you here you'll note the second paragraph of the Allies rules say the following (emphasis mine):

"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."

So an army made up of multiple detachments from the same Faction may have units from one detachment embark in another detachment's Transport vehicles, because they are not models from different Factions.

Miradorm wrote:Since main rulebook draft faq has a question that has the answer for you:
Q: Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: No.

CAD a and b while from same chapter and faction are 2 seperate detachments that must obey the rules for battle brothers.

Exactly.

And how do you know that they are different detachments which are related to each other as battle brothers?

Because you scribbled "Ultramarines" in one and "White scars" in the other.

And to make this easily visually detectable, you painted them different colors.

 Traditio wrote:

Miradorm wrote:Since main rulebook draft faq has a question that has the answer for you:
Q: Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: No.

CAD a and b while from same chapter and faction are 2 seperate detachments that must obey the rules for battle brothers.

Exactly.

And how do you know that they are different detachments which are related to each other as battle brothers?

Because you scribbled "Ultramarines" in one and "White scars" in the other.

And to make this easily visually detectable, you painted them different colors.

Because of the fact that the both have the Space Marine Faction, which means they are Battle Brothers regardless of what Chapter you scribble down on their sheets (i.e. Chapter has nothing to do with it). Again, who can embark on which transports has nothing to do with the issue in the original post.

IllumiNini wrote:Because of the fact that the both have the Space Marine Faction, which means they are Battle Brothers regardless of what Chapter you scribble down on their sheets (i.e. Chapter has nothing to do with it). Again, who can embark on which transports has nothing to do with the issue in the original post.

Clearly, I disagree. If you read the 7th ed codex in continuity with the 6th ed codex, it's obvious that different chapters count as different factions. If you don't want to "use common sense" and read the rules in the spirit in which GW has displayed in the FAQs, then so be it...

...

That said.

I agree with you: none of this has anything to do with the OP. The answer to the OP is obvious. Regardless of what he thinks the rules should say, it's obvious what they do say, and there's an obvious difference between the Iron Hands supplement and the 7th ed. codex. The Iron hands supplement specifies "all models," whereas the 7th ed. codex restricts itself to all models with the chapter tactics special rule.

Should this be revised in later editions? Yes. Should it be errata'ed? Most definitely. Are the rules unclear? Not in the least.

 Traditio wrote:
Clearly, I disagree. If you read the 7th ed codex in continuity with the 6th ed codex, it's obvious that different chapters count as different factions.

I'm going by the BRB which lists all Vanilla C:SM Chapters under the umbrella of the Space Marines Faction. Ignore that at your own peril, Traditio.

 Traditio wrote:
If you don't want to "use common sense" and read the rules in the spirit in which GW has displayed in the FAQs, then so be it...

Are you really going to have a dig at me about this because I don't conform with your views on this? I am using common sense - I'm using it to say that all Chapters that can be formed using the Vanilla C:SM are classified under the umbrella of one Faction - Space Marines - as per the BRB.

 Traditio wrote:
If you read the 7th ed codex in continuity with the 6th ed codex, it's obvious that different chapters count as different factions..

Probably a good idea to stop doing that, then.


The Faction is 'Space Marines'. All chapters covered by that book are the same faction.

insaniak wrote:The Faction is 'Space Marines'. All chapters covered by that book are the same faction.

Please explain to me, then, Insaniak, why, according to the 6th edition codex (and possibly the 7th edition codex; I don't remember right off hand), it specifies that you cannot have an allied detachment of the same chapter as your main force, and, furthermore, that this allied detachment operates according to the Battle Brothers alliance rules.

The RAI is perfectly obvious.

I apologize my very sleep deprieved mind seriously misread Traditios' post I replied to, my mind interpreted it as dedicated transport instead of the clear as day fast attack Rhino. So I again say sorry for those who had to waste time typing a reply to my mess up.

 Traditio wrote:

Please explain to me, then, Insaniak, why, according to the 6th edition codex (and possibly the 7th edition codex; I don't remember right off hand), it specifies that you cannot have an allied detachment of the same chapter as your main force, and, furthermore, that this allied detachment operates according to the Battle Brothers alliance rules.
.

Because that's how it worked in 6th edition codex...?

I'm really not sure what answer you're looking for, here. The 7th ed codex is not the 6th ed codex.

 Traditio wrote:
Please explain to me, then, Insaniak, why, according to the 6th edition codex (and possibly the 7th edition codex; I don't remember right off hand), it specifies that you cannot have an allied detachment of the same chapter as your main force, and, furthermore, that this allied detachment operates according to the Battle Brothers alliance rules.

The RAI is perfectly obvious.

I'm not Insaniak, but your claim is ridiculous. 6th Edition rules have no authoritative bearing when the discussion is concerned with 7th Edition rules. Allies and Allied Detachments have completely changed in 7th from how they worked in 6th. It's not a relevant or valid comparison.

The 7th Edition codex makes it explicitly clear that both detachments are of the same Faction:

"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."

Both are clearly stated as being the Space Marines Faction. There is no breaking them down into Chapter Tactics-specific factions.

The 7th Edition makes no mention of Battle Brothers either, because as I quoted above, the Allies rules only care about interactions between models from different factions. Nothing to do with detachments.

 Traditio wrote:

insaniak wrote:The Faction is 'Space Marines'. All chapters covered by that book are the same faction.

Please explain to me, then, Insaniak, why, according to the 6th edition codex (and possibly the 7th edition codex; I don't remember right off hand), it specifies that you cannot have an allied detachment of the same chapter as your main force, and, furthermore, that this allied detachment operates according to the Battle Brothers alliance rules.

How many times do we have to tell you that 6th Edition has no bearing here? Just stop.

 Traditio wrote:
The RAI is perfectly obvious.

Again, I don't know how many times we have to tell you about RAW vs RAI...

insaniak wrote:Because that's how it worked in 6th edition codex...?

I'm really not sure what answer you're looking for, here. The 7th ed codex is not the 6th ed codex.

Going to make me pull out my 7th ed codex, huh? Alright, Insaniak:

P. 189, 7th edition codex:

"If your primary detachment has the space marines faction, you can take an allied detachment...with the space marines faction as long as it is drawn from a different chapter than your primary detachment."

Explain that.

As I said: RAI is perfectly obvious.

 Traditio wrote:

insaniak wrote:Because that's how it worked in 6th edition codex...?

I'm really not sure what answer you're looking for, here. The 7th ed codex is not the 6th ed codex.

Going to make me pull out my 7th ed codex, huh? Alright, Insaniak:

P. 189, 7th edition codex:

"If your primary detachment has the space marines faction, you can take an allied detachment...with the space marines faction as long as it is drawn from a different chapter than your primary detachment."

Explain that.

As I said: RAI is perfectly obvious.

If they are normally different factions anyways, why does it have to specify that you can do this?

IllumiNini wrote:Again, I don't know how many times we have to tell you about RAW vs RAI...

There is no such thing as RAW apart from RAI. The literal sense of a passage is whatever it is that the author intended to mean by saying or writing it.

If I say that it's raining cats and dogs, and you look outside and only see rain, you can't come back at me and say: "Hey, words as spoken. Forget words as intended!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CrownAxe wrote:If they are normally different factions anyways, why does it have to specify that you can do this?

Convenience. Would you really feel like listing out all of the different SM chapters (and successor chapters) in the BRB when you could express yourself in a more summary manner in the codex?

For anyone who isn't intentionally trying to break the game (namely, me), the rules are perfectly clear.

 Traditio wrote:

IllumiNini wrote:Again, I don't know how many times we have to tell you about RAW vs RAI...

There is no such thing as RAW apart from RAI. The literal sense of a passage is whatever it is that the author intended to mean by saying or writing it.

If I say that it's raining cats and dogs, and you look outside and only see rain, you can't come back at me and say: "Hey, words as spoken. Forget words as intended!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CrownAxe wrote:If they are normally different factions anyways, why does it have to specify that you can do this?

Convenience. Would you really feel like listing out all of the different SM chapters (and successor chapters) in the BRB when you could express yourself in a more summary manner in the codex?

For anyone who isn't intentionally trying to break the game (namely, me), the rules are perfectly clear.

The BRB just says Imperium of Man. Your quote doesn't make it any more convent as it's already as convenient as it gets.

CrownAxe wrote:The BRB just says Imperium of Man. Your quote doesn't make it any more convent as it's already as convenient as it gets.

This only strengthens my point.

Therefore Astra Militarum, Blood Angels, Space Wolves and Vanilla Marines (of whatever chapters) count as one faction. They aren't even battle brothers.

Therefore, the FAQ doesn't prevent drop-podding mechanics (or whatever it was).

Unless, of course, you attend to the obvious RAI...

...in which case you must admit that Ultramarines and Imperial Fists are just as much battle brothers and different "factions" as Imperial Guard are from Sisters of Battle.