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.

Does a lord of war gain the benefit of the iron hands chapter tactics?


Does a knight lancer taken in a Codex: Space marine using iron hands chapter tactics gain the it will not die USR?

Support rules for yes:

Page 78, Codex:Space Marines

"All Vehicles and Characters in this Detachment have the It Will Not Die special rule ( Even though vehicles do not have the Chapter tactics special rule).

Cerastus Knight Lancer, forge world website:

"Other Armies of the Imperium Factions: A Cerastus Knight-Lancer may be taken as a Lords of War choice for any faction that is a part of the Armies of the Imperium (see the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook)."


There's a big debate on this over on 40k for grown ups but I was curious as to if anyone has emailed forge world and had a response.

Merci.

It would seem yes, the Cerastus is part of the detachment.

Just had this back from forge world.


Hi there.

The rules as written mean that a Cerastus Knight that is part of an Iron Hands Detachment would get the 'It Will Not die' special rule even though this may not have been conceived when the 40k rules for the Cerastus were published.


If there is anything further we can do to assist you, or if you have any queries about the information we have requested or provided, please telephone us.

Regards,
Forge World



Just as an FYI!

I would point out Tenet 2 in case you think that email was an argument:

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop are easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.

I am quite sure that was not your intent, but as we are in YMDC, i would refrain from posting emails (if we were in General or other it'd be fine)

However to answer the question, yes, all CAD-wide Rules would apply and the Lancer would get 'It Will Not die'

Please see attached as evidence but yes, I see your point.

See below:

wtnind wrote:
See below:

Thanks for going the extra mile to falsify my screenshot. It's things like that that cause people not to trust sources such as mine.

Please email forgeworld yourself and see the response you are met with.

This was my email FYI should anyone want to copy and paste it and send to fw.


Hey,


There appears to be a a rather intense debate as to whether or not a knight lancer taken as part of an Iron hands CAD would gain the it will not die special rule.

Please see the below two rules ;

"All Vehicles and Characters in this Detachment have the It Will Not Die special rule ( Even though vehicles do not have the Chapter tactics special rule)."

Page 78, Codex Space Marines.

Other Armies of the Imperium Factions: A Cerastus Knight- Lancer may be taken as a Lords of War choice for any faction that is a part of the Armies of the Imperium (see the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook).

Cerastus knight Lancer data set, Forge world website.

Looking at the 7th edition rulebook, I can see that a lord of war is part of the primary detachment so rules as written (and fluff wise as it makes sense for the Iron hands to make it tougher, to me) a knight lancer taken as a lord of war SHOULD gain the It Will Not Die USR.

Looking forward to your response!



Thanks



Simon





Sent from my iPhone

 Wilson wrote:

wtnind wrote:
See below:

That's for going the extra mile to falsify my screenshot. It's things like that that cause people not to trust sources such as mine.

Which was exactly his point as to why emails aren't valid.

Please do not make up "evidence" to support an argument. This is rules discussion forum, not fiction forum.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Please do not make up "evidence" to support an argument. This is rules discussion forum, not fiction forum.

To be fair, I don't think anyone was making up evidence - it was simply done to show why submitting a screenshot as evidence isn't supported by the tenets.

Wilson,

I have emailed Forgeworld for many different reasons, but never put it up in YMDC. As i said before:

 BlackTalos wrote:
in YMDC, i would refrain from posting emails (if we were in General or other it'd be fine)

Simple as. No one here will accept that email as "evidence for Rules". Most will probably even doubt whether it's genuine.
As Kilkrazy says: Emails are just "not allowed". Whether faked or real.

As for the main topic, you do not need such "evidence": I'm sure we all agree that a LoW taken as part of an Iron Hands CAD will have the "It Will Not Die" special rule

Sorry, I do not know what ymdc stands for. Also, I did not falsify an email to reinforce my opinion, I posted it as I found it helpful towards the discussion.


Edit: just worked it out, haha!

regardless of the email as it stands if the iron hands rule says that vehicles get it, and the lancer is a vehicle then ergo it would get the it will not die USR.

Things like this are the reason people dislike FW, they are even less tested and thought out than normal units.
Edit-

After looking at the entry for the lancer more closely its faction is "imperial knight" not space marine, and not from codex space marines and is only allowed to be taken as a LoW because of FW rules for it. Nothing changes the knights faction to "Space marines":Iron hands [the space marine faq tells us to pick a chapter for the detachment, this of course does not mean iron hands is its own faction but rather is just denoting that the space marines faction for this detachment has the iron hands chapter tactics- regardless space marines faction=/= imperial knights faction]

Normally a detachment can only have models of the same faction, this is one of the rare exceptions.

The knight despite being in the detachment is certainly not space marine faction.

I understand the knight does not have the chapter tactics rule but it does not even have the faction space marines, when the 6th edition space marines codex was written it was not possible in anyway to have models of a different faction in your detachment. With that stated always all the time all models in your detachment would be faction space marines at the time of the codex being written.

This is further compounded by when the imperial knights codex was written imperial knights were not LoW, and could not be taken as a LoW choice. In fact they still cannot, just the silly FW knights for some reason. So normally outside of FW nonsense [and yes if you play non imperial FW stuff is generally nonsense, they should just rename it imperial armor..oh wait they did ;0 or F XENOS LOLS, I digress..] you cannot even place a knight in the same detachment as space marines as knights are not LoW, no idea why FW did that, especially considering you can take 1-3 knights as a detachment so there is no need to make it LoW, just more brainless FW stuff...

Further showing this is just more incredibly poor rules writing by FW.

RAW the lancer is in the detachment, does not have chapter tactics, and is not space marines faction. However following the RAW it would receive it, seems silly a little but then again an Iron hands thunderhawk gunship gets IWND as well

RAI- As it is not space marines faction it cannot be an Iron Hands vehicle, even though it is in the same detachment I would not play it with IWND.

generally many forums/sites that discuss rules do not allow for emails to people to be included because many times in past history people would get an email that would say something, email again a few days later and get the opposite answer, or someone else would email and get a different (often opposite) answer.