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:

BossJakadakk wrote:
If you're not using it when they're the same faction, you never look at it to see they're bb anyway. GW could just have easily blacked out those boxes...

Which is how it was in the previous edition, so why did they change it?

I think the simple answer is "Armies of the Imperium". ...had they listed each Imperial Army out separately it would make sense to black out the boxes.

Doing it this way - you can have armies of different 'Factions' (which means you need to consult the Matrix) - and still easily understand where all Imperial armies stand at least. They're not the same 'Faction' but they are Battle Bros... etc.

This also leaves room for future 'Factions' like Deathwatch.

BossJakadakk wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

BossJakadakk wrote:
If you're not using it when they're the same faction, you never look at it to see they're bb anyway. GW could just have easily blacked out those boxes...

Which is how it was in the previous edition, so why did they change it?

Idk, does it matter? You still disregard it if you're looking at how units of the same faction interact. In both editions, it means nothing at all. I get that it's weird, but there doesn't have to be meaning for it. The paragraph above still says you're using the matrix just when determining how units from different factions interact. It could say BA to BA is happy fluffy bunnies but you'll never need to know what happy fluffy bunnies means.

Unless you want us to believe that they made a change to the chart for absolutely no reason whatsoever, then yes it does matter. For example, why make the chart show that Eldar are Battle Brothers with Eldar if they're not Battle Brothers? Just stating it 'doesn't matter' doesn't cut it.

 Ghaz wrote:

BossJakadakk wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

BossJakadakk wrote:
If you're not using it when they're the same faction, you never look at it to see they're bb anyway. GW could just have easily blacked out those boxes...

Which is how it was in the previous edition, so why did they change it?

Idk, does it matter? You still disregard it if you're looking at how units of the same faction interact. In both editions, it means nothing at all. I get that it's weird, but there doesn't have to be meaning for it. The paragraph above still says you're using the matrix just when determining how units from different factions interact. It could say BA to BA is happy fluffy bunnies but you'll never need to know what happy fluffy bunnies means.

Unless you want us to believe that they made a change to the chart for absolutely no reason whatsoever, then yes it does matter. For example, why make the chart show that Eldar are Battle Brothers with Eldar if they're not Battle Brothers? Just stating it 'doesn't matter' doesn't cut it.

That's pretty close to what I want you to believe, it's what I believe, it's not unbelievable. They decided against black boxes this time. Eldar can be battle brothers with Eldar on the matrix all they want, but you're not treating them as "battle brothers" because they are the same faction, so you're treating them as the same faction, because you have no reason to be looking at the ally matrix at all, as they do not have different factions. IOW, "it doesn't matter" cuts it just fine IMO

So you're just going to handwave away an inconsistency between the written rules and the matrix as being inconsequential. Yeah, I think we're done here if you're not willing to support your claims and instead just ignore anything that contradicts it.

This has been a part of my point since pretty much when 7th came out, and why I always considered the matrix as unit interaction between detachments(and until this FAQ random rule change; it didn't matter): they copy-pasted the written rules from 6th edition, then completely re-did the matrix and associated levels of alliance rules.

The written rules were written for a Time when you could only have 2 detachments: standard and allied. Allied could never be the same faction as your standard which also had to have your warlord(which had to be an HQ Character).

The rest of the army selection rules have now changed; and those written rules no longer function properly.

Well first, EVERY edition of 40K has had glaring inconsistencies... primarily why we are always eagerly awaiting FAQ - that said:

The Allies section of the rules, having just reread them have NOTHING to do with detachments... just dealing with how armies of different 'Factions' interact with each other - regardless of how you build the list and regardless of what sort of detachments you choose.

As for allies Matrix: again, 6th edition listed EVERY codex in the Matrix at which point it made sense to 'black out' the intersection of same codex - in 7th edition we have 'groupings', like "Armies of the Imperium" which make a LOT more sense with the current "Battle Bros" icon mechanic.

Could this ALL have been done better? ...this is 40K and the answer is yes.

 Ghaz wrote:
So you're just going to handwave away an inconsistency between the written rules and the matrix as being inconsequential. Yeah, I think we're done here if you're not willing to support your claims and instead just ignore anything that contradicts it.

If you want. We're basically rehashing an argument that has been done repeatedly in the past. The written rules say to use the matrix when determining how units with different factions interact. Ergo, you don't use the matrix when determining how units with the *same* faction interact. I'm not certain of the inconsistency I'm handwaving away. We're only told to even look at the thing if units have different factions. To reiterate someone else's point, that's "units" and not even "detachments." In the case of two BA detachments, the ally matrix would never be referenced. The words that are on the page beat out the fact that a picture exists. I'm not ignoring anything, I'm doing what the rules tell me to. Granted they don't explicitly say to not use the matrix if units are the same faction, but they only tell you it even exists to see how units from different factions interact. It says nothing about same-faction units, and since it doesn't tell to reference the chart for same-faction units, I don't.

I see your guys' side. I'm open-minded and will admit I'm wrong if they say it becomes detachment-dependent. I just won't play it that way until they do. Handwave away my (and others') interpretation all you want. Be done here all you want. It doesn't make your reading the end-all be-all.

 Gunzhard wrote:
As for allies Matrix: again, 6th edition listed EVERY codex in the Matrix at which point it made sense to 'black out' the intersection of same codex - in 7th edition we have 'groupings', like "Armies of the Imperium" which make a LOT more sense with the current "Battle Bros" icon mechanic.

And every other non-IoM Faction could have been blacked out on the 7th edition Matrix, so that doesn't really explain why they're listed as Battle Brothers.

 Gunzhard wrote:


I think the simple answer is "Armies of the Imperium". ...had they listed each Imperial Army out separately it would make sense to black out the boxes.

Doing it this way - you can have armies of different 'Factions' (which means you need to consult the Matrix) - and still easily understand where all Imperial armies stand at least. They're not the same 'Faction' but they are Battle Bros... etc.

This also leaves room for future 'Factions' like Deathwatch.

I think this is it as well. Even though the chart has "Eldar" being BBs with "Eldar" the fact that 2 detachments of Eldar are the same faction means we don't bother treating them as Allies. Faction A with Faction A are not Allies, but the same Faction. Faction A with Faction B are Allies, consult the chart.

GW made everyone BBs with themselves for 2 reasons: 1) so they could pile all Imperials together and 2) because GW thought it looks prettier than having dead space.
Although I wish they had done as Ghaz suggested and blanked out all non-IoM armies

-

 Ghaz wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
As for allies Matrix: again, 6th edition listed EVERY codex in the Matrix at which point it made sense to 'black out' the intersection of same codex - in 7th edition we have 'groupings', like "Armies of the Imperium" which make a LOT more sense with the current "Battle Bros" icon mechanic.

And every other non-IoM Faction could have been blacked out on the 7th edition Matrix, so that doesn't really explain why they're listed as Battle Brothers.

It's like you've never read any GW rules before haha... but seriously - when this book hit it seems pretty clear they wanted "Battle Bros" to be treated as if they were the same 'faction' - the description of Battle Brothers is worth reading - then people abused the Flesh Tearers Drop-Pod taxi and just finally - now - they decided to change that. So effectively - it "Didn't matter" - until now, when it actually does. They could have left it like that (battle bros icons) for consistency sake, and again, because of Armies of the Imperium - and who knows maybe some future Choas 'Faction' etc.

This way leaves an opening for future Factions.

I think you're being intentionally rigid when no actually GW rule source has ever been rigid. I also agree, it would be nicer if they'd used your concept.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
So, Yarium; are you saying that the Allies rules do not come into play when you are using CADs from 2 different factions and not using the Allied Detachment?

Not at all. Allies certainly come into play there, but NOT because you have two CADs. They come into play because you have models from two different factions. Remember, it's possible to have models from multiple factions within the same detachment! (The Skitarii/Knight/Mechanicus formation, for example)

It's also possible to have models that don't belong to any detachments (due to being Unbound)! If the rules only cover what happens between detachments, how do you govern what happens between a Tyranid Zoanthrope and a Tau Broadside when they're 1" from each other in an Unbound army?

Just remember, the rules on allies references MODELS not DETACHMENTS, and you'll be fine! As such, since both the Blood Angels and the Blood Angels drop pods are the SAME Faction in the SAME army, you can have them embarked on each other even if they're from different detachments.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
As for allies Matrix: again, 6th edition listed EVERY codex in the Matrix at which point it made sense to 'black out' the intersection of same codex - in 7th edition we have 'groupings', like "Armies of the Imperium" which make a LOT more sense with the current "Battle Bros" icon mechanic.

And every other non-IoM Faction could have been blacked out on the 7th edition Matrix, so that doesn't really explain why they're listed as Battle Brothers.

From a graphics point of view they may have not blacked things out simply for visual aesthetics. This kind of thing is done all the time. If you have pictures and print you arrange things and use content that is pleasing to the eye. I think you are fixating on the black boxes in the previous edition too much.

jeffersonian000 wrote:Factions are Battle Brothers with themselves. Per the BRB, Battle Brothers can be deployed in each other's non-dedicted transports. The GW ruling needs clarification as it specifically prohibits Battle Brothers from deploying in each other's transports. Without an errata or further clarification, different detachments of the same faction are still Battle Brothers and therefore cannot deploy in each other's transports. That is the reason why their ruling breaks their own rules and is causing issues.

No... that is not the case because of:

Gunzhard wrote:"Irrespective of the method you use to choose your army, this section tells you how models from different Factions fight alongside each other." ..."The Allies Matrix below shows the levels of alliance between units that have different Factions in the same army."

If they are the same Faction, then they are not accessing the Ally rules any more than Grimnar is accessing the Bike or Monstrous Cavalry rules, they simply do not apply. It is only when they are from different Factions, not Detachments, do the Ally rules come in to play.

Ghaz wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
As for allies Matrix: again, 6th edition listed EVERY codex in the Matrix at which point it made sense to 'black out' the intersection of same codex - in 7th edition we have 'groupings', like "Armies of the Imperium" which make a LOT more sense with the current "Battle Bros" icon mechanic.

And every other non-IoM Faction could have been blacked out on the 7th edition Matrix, so that doesn't really explain why they're listed as Battle Brothers.

I can think of one big case for this with two words: Genestealer Cults. When it was written, Genestealer Cults were a different Faction from Tyranids, but still used their chart. By placing this setup as is, they allowed new Factions with close ties to an existing one.

It didn't help that they continued a trend to contradict written rules at least once in a Draft FAQ to state otherwise with the Genestealer Cults, but that still doesn't dismiss the use of the in this manner.

Charistoph, you always find the best BRB quotes. thumbs up!

 Charistoph wrote:

I can think of one big case for this with two words: Genestealer Cults. When it was written, Genestealer Cults were a different Faction from Tyranids, but still used their chart. By placing this setup as is, they allowed new Factions with close ties to an existing one.

It didn't help that they continued a trend to contradict written rules at least once in a Draft FAQ to state otherwise with the Genestealer Cults, but that still doesn't dismiss the use of the in this manner.

I was just about to make the same point. It was to future-proof the game against minor factions like that, and I believe the 6th edition codex supplements were worded the same as well - they are different factions that occupy the same spot on the chart.

Ultimately, the rules only tell you to reference the chart if the units (not even Detachments, but units) have different factions. It doesn't matter if the chart has pointless information, you don't look at it until you have units in the same army that have a different Faction.

Now, I also think the FAQ answer is rubbish - it's not even remotely suggested in the rules that units can't start in allied transports, so it should have been an erratum. But if it helps to tone down super friends lists, then I'm happy.

 Cheexsta wrote:

Now, I also think the FAQ answer is rubbish - it's not even remotely suggested in the rules that units can't start in allied transports, so it should have been an erratum. But if it helps to tone down super friends lists, then I'm happy.

From Yarium in another thread:

 Yarium wrote:
The rules actually only say that Battle Brothers can embark in each other's transports, which means they are performing the in-game action of being on the table, and then getting into the transport, not starting the game already "embarked".

So from that point of view, it isn't only "remotely suggested that units can't start in allied transports", but flat out was never allowed in the first place.
BRB says BBs can "embark in" not that they can "deploy in"
Meaning that the FAQ is not a change, but a clarification.

-

I don't really get into the depths of RAW versus RAI arguments, but the way I look at this is that you can start the game in the vehicle from a different detachment as long as it's your faction. I would cite formations like the Ork blitz brigade to further my RAI claim. It's 5 battlewagons that gain scout. It gives specific rules for units that embark on them. The detachment itself is 100% incapable of bringing any units to embark on them. Same goes for the space marine land raider spearhead fornation.

The blitz brigade is for 7th edition and I wouldn't say it's outdated. Now granted it's pre- FAQ and errata so it's not concrete proof of anything, but I think it gives a solid basis for RAI

Combined Reserve Units
During deployment, when deciding which units are kept as Reserves, you must specify if any of the Independent Characters in Reserve are joining a unit, in which case they must arrive together. Similarly, you must specify if any units in Reserve are embarked upon any Transport vehicles in Reserve, in which case they will arrive together. In either case, when making a Reserve Roll (see below) for a combined unit, roll a single dice for the unit and/or its Independent Character/Transport vehicle.

I marked the part that the new ruling effects.

SJ

 Galef wrote:

 Cheexsta wrote:

Now, I also think the FAQ answer is rubbish - it's not even remotely suggested in the rules that units can't start in allied transports, so it should have been an erratum. But if it helps to tone down super friends lists, then I'm happy.

From Yarium in another thread:

 Yarium wrote:
The rules actually only say that Battle Brothers can embark in each other's transports, which means they are performing the in-game action of being on the table, and then getting into the transport, not starting the game already "embarked".

So from that point of view, it isn't only "remotely suggested that units can't start in allied transports", but flat out was never allowed in the first place.
BRB says BBs can "embark in" not that they can "deploy in"
Meaning that the FAQ is not a change, but a clarification.

Not true. For one, "deploy in" can only mean to "embark" otherwise, the only way you can get out of a Vehicle is if it Explodes. Even leaving a Wreck involves Disembarking. So, either "deploy in" means "embark" or your unit is trapped for most of the game.

On the other end, the FAQ is changing the rules, not clarifying as this is what is written in Battle Brothers:

Units from the same army that are Battle Brothers treat each other as ‘friendly units’ for all rules purposes. This means, for example, that units:

Everything listed after that is not an exhaustive list, but merely examples as it states. Too which I would then ask, "Can friendly units embark in Transports during deployment?" If Grey Knights cannot Embark on to Drop Pods, then neither can Ultramarines Embark on to Fast Attack Drop Pods from an Ultramarine detachment. This is clearly not the case, otherwise Storm Ravens would not be able to fly with anything Embarked, either, even from the same detachment (they are not Dedicated Transports). It would also be meaningless to make a point that Dedicated Transports can only have the unit they were purchased with start the game Embarked on them.

So, yeah, it is a change, and it is stupid not putting it in an Errata but rather as an FAQ House Rule.

 Cheexsta wrote:

Not true. For one, "deploy in" can only mean to "embark" otherwise, the only way you can get out of a Vehicle is if it Explodes. Even leaving a Wreck involves Disembarking. So, either "deploy in" means "embark" or your unit is trapped for most of the game.

Embark in clearly written as an action that takes place during the movement phase as per the BRB.
IMHO "Deploy Inside" it's closer to being "embarked" which is a state, not an action.

I don't see why you could not voluntarily disembark as per the BRB so long as legally allowed to embark via the Allies matrix (qualifications: battle brothers and during the movement phase)

 Brillow80 wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
Not true. For one, "deploy in" can only mean to "embark" otherwise, the only way you can get out of a Vehicle is if it Explodes. Even leaving a Wreck involves Disembarking. So, either "deploy in" means "embark" or your unit is trapped for most of the game.

Embark in clearly written as an action that takes place during the movement phase as per the BRB.
IMHO "Deploy Inside" it's closer to being "embarked" which is a state, not an action.

I don't see why you could not voluntarily disembark as per the BRB so long as legally allowed to embark via the Allies matrix (qualifications: battle brothers and during the movement phase)

Fixed the quote for ya.

The part you cut out was trying to indicate a difference between "deployed in" and "embarked". This doesn't work, though, because of this, the very first passage of Disembarking in the Transport rules:

Disembarking
A unit that begins its Movement phase embarked upon a vehicle can disembark either before or after the vehicle has moved (including pivoting on the spot, etc) so long as the vehicle has not moved more than 6".

Basically, if you are not embarked (the past tense of "embark" or "embarking"), you cannot disembark. Disembarking can be done voluntarily or involuntarily if the Vehicle is Wrecked. The unit is not disembarked if the Vehicle Explodes, however, but goes through a slightly different process which does not include the term "disembark".

Deploying a unit in a vehicle circumvents the embarking process (which you cannot do outside of the movement phase). Rather than embarking the unit onto the vehicle, deploying a unit in a vehicle puts the unit directly in a state of 'embarked upon' the vehicle.







The player has the ability to assign the status 'embarked upon' this or that vehicle while sorting out reserves. But no actual embarking takes place. That would require a movement phase.

So now you are trying to claim that Come the Apocalypse units can begin the game embarked?

Yeah this took a strange turn...

Not really; it is the logical progression when people want to ignore context and expect the rules to be written with exact verbiage.

There is a reason that the term "rules-lawyer" is pejorative; the rules are never written to the exacting standards of law.

 Gunzhard wrote:
Yeah this took a strange turn...

Indeed.

The BRB tells us that Battle Brothers can embark on each other's transports as if they were the same faction, and that while in reserves the player can decide which units are embarked on which transports including combined units. The draft FAQ has repeated pointed out that no, GW did not mean for us to embark Battle Brothers in other's transports while in reserve, especially combined to units. Hince threads like this in multiple forums.

SJ

I think it just goes to show that GW is very lax in writing it's intent. According to the FAQ, it seems that BBs were never intended to be able to start the game in a different factions transports. The same can be said for grenades only being 1 per unit during assault.

Hopefully the draft FAQs with be incorporated into 8th ed.

 Galef wrote:
I think it just goes to show that GW is very lax in writing it's intent. According to the FAQ, it seems that BBs were never intended to be able to start the game in a different factions transports. The same can be said for grenades only being 1 per unit during assault.

Hopefully the draft FAQs with be incorporated into 8th ed.

I disagree... according to the rulebook it seems very clear that BBs were very much intended to be able to start the game in a different (BB) factions transport. It's only - now - after glaring abuse (the Flesh Tearers taxi service) that they realize that was a mistake.

Kommissar Kel wrote:Not really; it is the logical progression when people want to ignore context and expect the rules to be written with exact verbiage.

There is a reason that the term "rules-lawyer" is pejorative; the rules are never written to the exacting standards of law.

Oh I do agree... but we are not even on topic anymore.

 Gunzhard wrote:
I disagree... according to the rulebook it seems very clear that BBs were very much intended to be able to start the game in a different (BB) factions transport. It's only - now - after glaring abuse (the Flesh Tearers taxi service) that they realize that was a mistake.

Well, there's enough ambiguity in the rulebook's use of terms and words that what is Intended is not necessarily clear. I have a feeling that the "taxi service" thing isn't what they were worried about, but rather that it made no sense that a unit of Guardsmen could survive the deployment process, but that is entirely a matter of personal opinion.

What I am looking forward to is that with GW returning to the older style of White Dwarf and being more interactive with their customer base than before, it will be easier to determine what they intended or not. If a White Dwarf comes out with a Battle Report where they state something as happening, and no one thought this to be the case, it'll turn a lot of heads and show us some of a rule's intention.

col_impact wrote:
Deploying a unit in a vehicle circumvents the embarking process (which you cannot do outside of the movement phase). Rather than embarking the unit onto the vehicle, deploying a unit in a vehicle puts the unit directly in a state of 'embarked upon' the vehicle.

Yes, and no.

For clarity, it circumvents the actual Movement Phase requirements and timing, but that is all it circumvents. It does not circumvent the other restrictions that come with embarking, such as unit type and size. To do more is to add to the rules without permission, or the alternative is to disconnect the "deploy in" from "embarking" completely which leads to problems with disembarking I have already addressed.