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.

I've been having this argument with some people on one of those other forums.

The way i see it if you read the whole entry it says any unit with combat tactics loses combat tactics and instead all the meltas and flamers in your ARMY are twin linked. Not only units with combat tactics. Not only marine units. Anything in your army.

Really, by the text, there's no other way to play it. Score another in the "we assumed you'd understand the intent of our rules" category of GW rules design, and another in the probably-will-be-FAQed-one-way-or-another category.

see, to me the very fact that vulkan's rules are worded differently than all the other ones would imply intent. They all say "those with combat tactics lose it and gain [benefit x]". However, Vulkan's reads "anyone with combat tactics loses it. EVERYONE gains [benefit y]" You could say that the reason for this was to include vehicles, which I think is the case. However, GW did not phrase this in such a way as to include vehicles, but exclude whoever they wanted to exclude. Therefore, we find ourselves in this situation. Interesting concept to playtest? absolutely. Is it probably better than anyone intended? I think so. If I face this army in a tourney, will I find a way to make you share my pain? You betcha.

I struggle to comprehend how difficult it is to get an intern to scrounge through various forums, make up a list of potential FAQ/errata matter, get a conference call going with the person/persons that're ultimately in charge of the ruleset, and get crackin'. Chances are high it's a lot more complex than I'm making it out to be, and for their sake I hope so. But you never know.

So, I've heard it said in several other places "Rules in one codex do not affect rules in another codex." GW has consistently ruled this way, blah blah blah.

My personal response... if someone tells me that their allied witch hunter units are getting Stan's twin-linked bonus, I'm going to say "well, then I can use your locator beacons to deep strike on, since your codex says that ANY unit deep striking can avoid deviation when it deep strikes near them." If rules in your codex can benefit your allies, they can benefit your enemies too.

Taking a step back, it doesn't make sense that the Salamanders Forgefather would go through the trouble of upgrading the Sisters of Battle's flamers, hell, it seems unlikely the Sisters would let Space Marines TOUCH their holy instruments of the Emperor's purifying flame.

Correct, Charybdis.

Thing is, we know it's wrong.

It's simply GW making a bad rule again.

RAW is what counts in this subforum, fyi.

Only a douche would try this.

G

Took my new Space Marine codex around the store last night and asked this question. Everyone read it that the Instead meant it only applied to units that had Combat Tactics. Basically, I agree with GBF...............

Except it doesn't say that.

The way it's written it's clearly meant to apply to Dreadnoughts, for example. By your store's ruling, it wouldn't, which is "clearly not the intent".

Only the same would complain about someone playing clearly within the rules ... not some magic cylinder loophole.

Is there any limit on taking Vulcan? Like you need 1000 points of Marines or something?
If not, it might be kind of amusing to take him in an Inq army as a SM ally. Just Vulcan, and maybe some Stern Guard with combi-meltas, and a pile of Storm Troopers with flamers. (Can they take meltas?)

It's just a shame you can't take allied marines and Sisters at the same time. It would be amusing to take "Inquisitor Vulcan" and drop him into a power armor horde.

And GBF, how many times do you plan on posting that only a douche would play that way?

As long people keep trying to act like it is cool to abuse this rule.

G

The fact is it DOES say Combat Tactics, yet it doesn't say EXPLICITLY. It says (more or less, i don't have the codex in front of me) all units with combat tactics trade it for this ability. All units IN YOUR ARMY have master-crafted thunder hammers, and twin linked flamers/meltas. Now while it does say combat tactics, it also says: "In your Army". This means that if you use 1 force organization chart, all normal SM lose combat tactics and ALL space marines (normal, dark angels, blood angels, etc.) GAIN the master-crafted/twin-linked rule. As you will basically only have allied forces in Apocalypse, as you will have a bigger force to deal with, and because i believe apocalypse does not have Force Organization Chart Limitations. It still has a force organization chart, there is just no limit to how many units you need and there is no mandatory. Thus, in Apocalypse games, it works. In normal alliancing(friendly under 3000 point non-Apocalypse game) you must fit it into 1 pre-agreed force organization chart. If it goes over it doesn't apply. If it is under or meets the legal limit, then it applies. However, for non-Apocalypse games, you still need to find someone who will willingly face you with that (please excuse me) slightly or majorly(your choice) biased force, because i am sure every army will have AT LEAST 1 flamer, melta, or thunder hammer. As such, it applies to EVERYONE, but only if you a)play apocalypse OR b) Fit it into ONE force organization chart (not 2) OR c) you and your opponent decide to let you [though it is extremely unlikely].

It took 13 power dice to res up this thread from the dead.

G

But only 2 to determine that wierdo's first post makes no sense AND doesn't actually address the question at hand.

Please do not post in 'You Make Da Call' threads that are more than a few weeks dormant unless you have something incredibly meaningful to add to the previous conversation that was not previously addressed.


Locking thread now due to thread necromancy.