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.

Dude just enjoy your Elam Courbray rerolling charges with that Might Of Heroes. It's all legal.

I said this before and I’ll say it agin. The rules are a frame work to play your games. There is no one to enforce them or no punishment for changing them. They exist to allow you to play a game set in that setting. I place more importance on the setting than I do the rules.

GW has already stated in faqs that rai should be considered when making rules judgements. You can’t ignore it as much as we can’t ignore the raw. But the game has to function, be fun and, to me at least, fit the setting. If someone told me they were bringing a blacktmeplar successor army that allowed librarians then I would suspect they were being disingenuous to the setting in an attempt to gain an advantage. I don’t like that and that’s my logic. To me it makes more sense than obeying rules that detract from the game and clearly weren’t the intent of the rules writers.

U can and do disagree but it doesn’t make my stance any less valid than yours. There are no rules stating which aspect of the game is more important. I posts on here to be a voice of a different stance in case people come here and see only your type of interpretation of the game and get put off. Because some times, not so much this topic, things get very silly and it could well put off some people who are more relaxed about the game and more narrative driven. It should be fun for everyone.

U can disagree with my logic but that is, as was said, just an opinion. “My” understanding of the fluff is sound here too. The black templars are known for not tolerating psykers and it is well established in the fluff and rules that successor chapters follow the character of their parent chapters. To decide to take black templars and discard one of the major character traits of them goes against the fluff and makes me question why you’d do it. Is it for narrative reasons? And if so they had better be good to explain such a massive deviation, or is it to gain an in game advantage. More likely. In which case I don’t think I would enjoy a game against this person as the narrative doesn’t seem to be at all important to them is they would disregard it to have a more powerful army and increase their chance of winning.

So in summary, I’m not saying you are wrong but I can defend my position all day and this is genuinely how I would play it. Fluff trumps rules for me I’m afraid. But that doesn’t mean BCB that I go crazy and make one marine auto win every game. I use a series of checks and balances to avoid the types of ludicrous examples you come out with about what could happen if you “ignore” the rules. They are called “common sense” and fairness. Or not being a dick. It’s how I like to play and the winning or losing doesn’t really matter, it’s all about the story.

Except RAI is far, FAR murkier than RAW.

RAW can be understood by understanding the language and how it works.

RAI... There's a lot of guesswork involved. And that means there's every chance two people will have conflicting ideas, and neither is wrong.

It's fine to say "HIWPI, no Librarians for Successors", but that has to come with the caveat that it's NOT RAW.

What do the Tenets say about arguing RAW vs RAI again...?

 Ghaz wrote:
So what the rule says is against the intention of said rule? Sorry, but it's only your opinion that Black Templars successors shouldn't have Librarians, but the rules (and GW since there's been no FAQ to the contrary) say that Black Templars successors may take Librarians.

The intent of naming Regiments, Chapters, etc. of your own creation is to personalise your collections and not to enable players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect what units. It is also not intended to circumvent the restrictions on which units are able to be included in the same Detachment.

You're circumventing restrictions by using a custom chapter name. You can argue that the Designer's Commentary isn't an errata, but neither are the answers in FAQ entries. But both tell us what the designers had in mind.

Andykp wrote:
I can defend my position all day...

No, you really can't. Please provide evidence that GW has ever said that no Black Templars successor has ever had a Librarius. Otherwise you're just wasting our time trying to push your own headcanon over the actual rules.

nekooni wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
So what the rule says is against the intention of said rule? Sorry, but it's only your opinion that Black Templars successors shouldn't have Librarians, but the rules (and GW since there's been no FAQ to the contrary) say that Black Templars successors may take Librarians.

The intent of naming Regiments, Chapters, etc. of your own creation is to personalise your collections and not to enable players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect what units. It is also not intended to circumvent the restrictions on which units are able to be included in the same Detachment.

You're circumventing restrictions by using a custom chapter name. You can argue that the Designer's Commentary isn't an errata, but neither are the answers in FAQ entries. But both tell us what the designers had in mind.

Again, please read the actual rule in question as it has NOTHING to do with naming your own chapter. 'The Lost Librarius' is a rule specific to the BLACK TEMPLARS keyword, not the <CHAPTER> keyword.

 Ghaz wrote:

Andykp wrote:
I can defend my position all day...

No, you really can't. Please provide evidence that GW has ever said that no Black Templars successor has ever had a Librarius. Otherwise you're just wasting our time trying to push your own headcanon over the actual rules.

nekooni wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
So what the rule says is against the intention of said rule? Sorry, but it's only your opinion that Black Templars successors shouldn't have Librarians, but the rules (and GW since there's been no FAQ to the contrary) say that Black Templars successors may take Librarians.

The intent of naming Regiments, Chapters, etc. of your own creation is to personalise your collections and not to enable players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect what units. It is also not intended to circumvent the restrictions on which units are able to be included in the same Detachment.

You're circumventing restrictions by using a custom chapter name. You can argue that the Designer's Commentary isn't an errata, but neither are the answers in FAQ entries. But both tell us what the designers had in mind.

Again, please read the actual rule in question as it has NOTHING to do with naming your own chapter. 'The Lost Librarius' is a rule specific to the BLACK TEMPLARS keyword, not the <CHAPTER> keyword.

You're still using the custom keyword to circumvent a restriction on which units may be included, by claiming "hey, this doesn't apply to me because I'm using a custom keyword"

Except the restriction explicitly applies to BLACK TEMPLARS. Not those with the CT.

What is it called? Righteous Zeal?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Except the restriction explicitly applies to BLACK TEMPLARS. Not those with the CT.

What is it called? Righteous Zeal?

Semantics. You're still circumventing the restriction.

nekooni wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Andykp wrote:
I can defend my position all day...

No, you really can't. Please provide evidence that GW has ever said that no Black Templars successor has ever had a Librarius. Otherwise you're just wasting our time trying to push your own headcanon over the actual rules.

nekooni wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
So what the rule says is against the intention of said rule? Sorry, but it's only your opinion that Black Templars successors shouldn't have Librarians, but the rules (and GW since there's been no FAQ to the contrary) say that Black Templars successors may take Librarians.

The intent of naming Regiments, Chapters, etc. of your own creation is to personalise your collections and not to enable players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect what units. It is also not intended to circumvent the restrictions on which units are able to be included in the same Detachment.

You're circumventing restrictions by using a custom chapter name. You can argue that the Designer's Commentary isn't an errata, but neither are the answers in FAQ entries. But both tell us what the designers had in mind.

Again, please read the actual rule in question as it has NOTHING to do with naming your own chapter. 'The Lost Librarius' is a rule specific to the BLACK TEMPLARS keyword, not the <CHAPTER> keyword.

You're still using the custom keyword to circumvent a restriction on which units may be included, by claiming "hey, this doesn't apply to me because I'm using a custom keyword"

Funny when I use that argument I am the spawn of Satan but when you use it's hunky dory, eh?

It's not circumventing anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nekooni wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Except the restriction explicitly applies to BLACK TEMPLARS. Not those with the CT.

What is it called? Righteous Zeal?

Semantics. You're still circumventing the restriction.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. The rule prevents BLACK TEMPLARS from having PSYKERS. If my chapter is BOB'S PONY BRIGADE I can have PSYKERS, period.

You talk about RAI a lot.

The RAI on the circumventing thing is to stop you naming your Guard Regiment "Ultramarines" to gain the G-Man's buff.

 JNAProductions wrote:
You talk about RAI a lot.

The RAI on the circumventing thing is to stop you naming your Guard Regiment "Ultramarines" to gain the G-Man's buff.

And the RAI on the limitation is probably for it to be tied to the chapter tactic (which is my personal reason for not using that chapter tactic with psykers). Either way I end up with the same result, so that's HIWPI.

nekooni wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
You talk about RAI a lot.

The RAI on the circumventing thing is to stop you naming your Guard Regiment "Ultramarines" to gain the G-Man's buff.

And the RAI on the limitation is probably for it to be tied to the chapter tactic (which is my personal reason for not using that chapter tactic with psykers). Either way I end up with the same result, so that's HIWPI.

Except it's not the same result because you lose access to 5 different units.

Edit: This is also another thread that highlights that polls shouldn't be in YMDC, imho.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
You talk about RAI a lot.

The RAI on the circumventing thing is to stop you naming your Guard Regiment "Ultramarines" to gain the G-Man's buff.

And the RAI on the limitation is probably for it to be tied to the chapter tactic (which is my personal reason for not using that chapter tactic with psykers). Either way I end up with the same result, so that's HIWPI.

Except it's not the same result because you lose access to 5 different units.

Edit: This is also another thread that highlights that polls shouldn't be in YMDC, imho.

Sorry about that. Didnt realize this was gonna be such a heated thing. I wouldnt have put up a poll. I just wanted an answer so I didnt spend money on things I cant use. I see both aspects of it but it really does seem like if I took my chapter and decided that they use Black Templar tactics that would mean I would have to not have librarians. I would be required to use all rules that applied to Black Templars even if my paint scheme was different. Basically Im making a Black Templar army but I'm calling it something else so I can paint them differently. There fore no psykers yes?

 Achetan wrote:
Sorry about that. Didnt realize this was gonna be such a heated thing. I wouldnt have put up a poll. I just wanted an answer so I didnt spend money on things I cant use. I see both aspects of it but it really does seem like if I took my chapter and decided that they use Black Templar tactics that would mean I would have to not have librarians. I would be required to use all rules that applied to Black Templars even if my paint scheme was different. Basically Im making a Black Templar army but I'm calling it something else so I can paint them differently. There fore no psykers yes?

If you take the BLACK TEMPLAR keyword for <CHAPTER>, then no psykers. If you don't take BLACK TEMPLARS, you get psykers. You can use BLACK TEMPLARS and paint your models Neon Green and Pink for all the rules care. If you're not using a "proper" keyword you're already probably pretending rules work they way they don't actually work anyway, so you might as well make up more stuff while you're at it!

And don't worry, this is YMDC. The heated nature is part of its charm, honest!

So I went to the Warhammer 40k official facebook following this sites guide for submitting an FAQ question. The answer that I got was that if I take black templar chapter tactics but I dont have the Black Templar key word I can use psykers but I cant take Grimaldus for example as he cant be anythimg except a Black Templar. Heres the post for more detail. https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2177277475926213&id=1575682476085719&comment_id=2177428022577825¬if_t=feed_comment¬if_id=1542712649167576&ref=m_notif

 Achetan wrote:
So I went to the Warhammer 40k official facebook following this sites guide for submitting an FAQ question. The answer that I got was that if I take black templar chapter tactics but I dont have the Black Templar key word I can use psykers but I cant take Grimaldus for example as he cant be anythimg except a Black Templar. Heres the post for more detail. https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2177277475926213&id=1575682476085719&comment_id=2177428022577825¬if_t=feed_comment¬if_id=1542712649167576&ref=m_notif

Well [REDACTED] me with a [REDACTED], the Social Media Intern actually replied with a correct rules answer? That is indeed the correct answer (assuming you're pretending the Chapter Tactics work on non-Black Templar keyworded chapters).

Just as a heads up, Facebook and Emails aren't "allowed" here as per the Tenets (not trying to backseat moderate, just informing), and 95% of the time Facebook answers are wrong anyway.

What are you on about now? The rules expressly allow you to make up your own Chapters. Stop lying.

And to the OP, the rules on page 131 only call out BLACK TEMPLARS specifically, so even if it feels unfluffy you could have successors with Librarians. Whether you do is ultimately up to you, not what a random internet guy tells you.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
What are you on about now? The rules expressly allow you to make up your own Chapters. Stop lying.

Yes, you are correct. However, Chapter Tactics don't have any appreciable effect on models with Custom Chapters, RaW. No need to be rude.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
And to the OP, the rules on page 131 only call out BLACK TEMPLARS specifically, so even if it feels unfluffy you could have successors with Librarians. Whether you do is ultimately up to you, not what a random internet guy tells you.

I am glad you finally agree with me that Random People On Facebook aren't the arbiters of what the rules do or do not say!

Oh give over. Stop derailing threads. The Codex details how to use Tactics for custom Chapters and the whole world can follow it just fine. If you don’t understand it that doesn’t mean the instructions given can’t be followed.

(I know why you posted they don’t work RAW, I’m not stupid, but honestly... just give it a rest. So they missed out an explicit sentence saying “swap ULTRAMARINES for YOUR CHAPTER in all instances so the rules work to the total satisfaction of this one guy on the internet”... but we all understand exactly how to make it work. Stop derailing threads. Please. It’s boring.)

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Oh give over. Stop derailing threads. The Codex details how to use Tactics for custom Chapters and the whole world can follow it just fine. If you don’t understand it that doesn’t mean the instructions given can’t be followed.

(I know why you posted they don’t work RAW, I’m not stupid, but honestly... just give it a rest. So they missed out an explicit sentence saying “swap ULTRAMARINES for YOUR CHAPTER in all instances so the rules work to the total satisfaction of this one guy on the internet”... but we all understand exactly how to make it work. Stop derailing threads. Please. It’s boring.)

And then you come to the whole "no witches" thing and replace Black Templar with you custom chapter name since we should care about consistency.

Hey, I don’t write the rules. Naming the Regiment/Chapter rules was a daft decision in the first place. The Traits system where some Chapters had to take a certain Trait was way less prone to tripping over itself. But hey, it’s not impossible to figure out so let’s not pretend it is. It works just fine unless you’re determined to “well ackshually, technically” it.

nekooni wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Oh give over. Stop derailing threads. The Codex details how to use Tactics for custom Chapters and the whole world can follow it just fine. If you don’t understand it that doesn’t mean the instructions given can’t be followed.

(I know why you posted they don’t work RAW, I’m not stupid, but honestly... just give it a rest. So they missed out an explicit sentence saying “swap ULTRAMARINES for YOUR CHAPTER in all instances so the rules work to the total satisfaction of this one guy on the internet”... but we all understand exactly how to make it work. Stop derailing threads. Please. It’s boring.)

And then you come to the whole "no witches" thing and replace Black Templar with you custom chapter name since we should care about consistency.

Except it isn't explicitly called out to do it there, so he gets his Librarian and Elam to reroll charges. Problem solved!

I think we all need to just accept that we can all play the game the way we enjoy and it’s fine. The guy asking the original question has an answer of the company who wrote the rule so that’s great. Everything else is just noise from random internet guys. Even if the forum doesn’t accept the answer as gospel that’s just dakka rules so there we go. Everyone’s happy.

Now I really want someone to paint up a Bob's Pony Brigade chapter

You can put Librarians in it, I don't care.

Andykp wrote:
I think we all need to just accept that we can all play the game the way we enjoy and it’s fine. The guy asking the original question has an answer of the company who wrote the rule so that’s great. Everything else is just noise from random internet guys. Even if the forum doesn’t accept the answer as gospel that’s just dakka rules so there we go. Everyone’s happy.

So what exactly is the point of this board then?

People seem to think casual players don't follow the rules. I am a "casual" player. While I use the matched play rules, I don't play in tournaments or used optimized lists. That doesn't mean I just ignore the rules when they don't suit me. That isn't what "casual" means.

Nice strawman that nobody said...

 BaconCatBug wrote:
People seem to think casual players don't follow the rules. I am a "casual" player. While I use the matched play rules, I don't play in tournaments or used optimized lists. That doesn't mean I just ignore the rules when they don't suit me. That isn't what "casual" means.

casual

adjective
1. relaxed and unconcerned. "a casual attitude to life"

That doesn’t sound like you.

nekooni wrote:

Andykp wrote:
I think we all need to just accept that we can all play the game the way we enjoy and it’s fine. The guy asking the original question has an answer of the company who wrote the rule so that’s great. Everything else is just noise from random internet guys. Even if the forum doesn’t accept the answer as gospel that’s just dakka rules so there we go. Everyone’s happy.

So what exactly is the point of this board then?

Well i thought I could get an answer here and while this board was arguing I relized there may be away to just get an answer from GW directly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Achetan wrote:
So I went to the Warhammer 40k official facebook following this sites guide for submitting an FAQ question. The answer that I got was that if I take black templar chapter tactics but I dont have the Black Templar key word I can use psykers but I cant take Grimaldus for example as he cant be anythimg except a Black Templar. Heres the post for more detail. https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2177277475926213&id=1575682476085719&comment_id=2177428022577825¬if_t=feed_comment¬if_id=1542712649167576&ref=m_notif

Well [REDACTED] me with a [REDACTED], the Social Media Intern actually replied with a correct rules answer? That is indeed the correct answer (assuming you're pretending the Chapter Tactics work on non-Black Templar keyworded chapters).

Just as a heads up, Facebook and Emails aren't "allowed" here as per the Tenets (not trying to backseat moderate, just informing), and 95% of the time Facebook answers are wrong anyway.

If you say so. I just know that this website showed me how to get that answer. And its certaintly more concise then anything this board has given. So ill take the seal of aproval from the companies facebook page wich has tons of rules questions that they answer or let the community answer and then pin the correct ones when two opposing answers are given.