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.

After reading through the new book, it hit me that apparently models without chapter tactics can't be included in the detachment.

For reference:

"All models drawn from a given Chapter benefit from that Chapter's Chapter Tactics rules, as described below. The rules will often refer to a model, character or unit by its Chapter; in all cases, this refers to a model, character or unit with the Chapter Tactics special rule that is drawn from the given Chapter."

"All models in the same Detachment or Formation must be drawn from the same Chapter."

Since the only vehicle that has chapter tactics are dreadnoughts, doesn't this mean that no vehicles aside from them can be included since they don't have the same chapter tactics as the rest of the models?

Just looking at RAW here. Am I missing something?

Vehicles can be fielded fine, just not as part of a detachment that includes models with CTs. RaW is broken here, they need the "or no CTs" clause found in factions for a CAD/AD...

All the models, including vehicles are supposed to be part of the same chapter. They just want all the same chapter tactics special rules to be from the same chapter in the same army.

RAW isn't broken. Nor does it need an FAQ.

"All models in the same Detachment or Formation must be drawn from the same Chapter."

Are the vehicles in question from another chapter?
No, they are not.
Are all models from the same chapter? Yes.

If A= a single chapter =legal

Then A + ___=A = a single chapter= legal

Yeah this already got smashed on in another thread.

But the sheer hilarity of it definitely deserves it own thread. This way we can show the next generation how we went from Rabbit Goulash wannabes to the tightest army evar, and then slid into muggledom with naught but dreadnaughts. (See what I did there? I spelled dreadnought wrong to make it funny!).


Also, I cook a mean Rabbit stew, but I would never season with primarch...

Sorry. Anyways.

Yes, RAW states that to join a Space Marine detachment you must have the same CTs. Since vehicles can only be granted the USE of certain CTs and never have the special rule themselves, they fail to meet the requirements of building a detachment.

People shouldn't even try to argue this argue this one! RAW tells you what to do, there is no other clear cut ruling, so we must play it RAW.

Why? Because I hate everything and I don't want you to play with your toys! Grrr!

No! Because it's a prime example of how even the best trained monkey can never write a codex, no matter how many people buy it to run x cheese unit!

Play it as RAI! But don't try to say that the rule makes sense the way it is. This needs to be brought up with GW and fixed. If we continue to fool ourselves and say oh its just a minor confusion caused by poor wording and we just play it as we want NOTHING will change.

The next codex will come out and DA players will be like "uh... Somehow I can't take terminators in a deathwing formation". Or something equally ridiculous.

Who fault will it be? Ours! Because we didn't hold the company as responsible for the mess in the first place.

I've already written a letter outlining this issue to GW and I encourage everyone to do the same. When Gary from customer service gets back to you in ten years and says oh its meant to be like this or you just read it wrong, tell him to shove it and demand the errata.

Like seriously guys. Go! Get typing!

FratHammer wrote:
RAW isn't broken. Nor does it need an FAQ.

"All models in the same Detachment or Formation must be drawn from the same Chapter."

Are the vehicles in question from another chapter?
No, they are not.
Are all models from the same chapter? Yes.

If A= a single chapter =legal

Then A + ___=A = a single chapter= legal

The same chapter is defined as the same chapter tactics. Same I have a tactical squad with Chapter Tactics (Ultramarines), can I take a predator in the same detachment? If you say yes that means the Predator has Chapter Tactics (Ultramarines), which I'm going to need a rule quote to support.

The reason this needs a FAQ as it is unclear what rules triggered by CTs a model without CTs benefits from as all the rules appear to be written with the assumption that all models have CTs. So are all the models missing CTs just typos or are the CT rules just poorly worded? My guess is the later.

FratHammer wrote:
RAW isn't broken. Nor does it need an FAQ.

"All models in the same Detachment or Formation must be drawn from the same Chapter."

Are the vehicles in question from another chapter?
No, they are not.
Are all models from the same chapter? Yes.

If A= a single chapter =legal

Then A + ___=A = a single chapter= legal

In all cases this refers to a model, character or unit with the Chapter Tactics special rule that is drawn from the given chapter.

Do vehicles have Chapter Tactics?

darkcloak wrote:
Yeah this already got smashed on in another thread.

But the sheer hilarity of it definitely deserves it own thread. This way we can show the next generation how we went from Rabbit Goulash wannabes to the tightest army evar, and then slid into muggledom with naught but dreadnaughts. (See what I did there? I spelled dreadnought wrong to make it funny!).


Also, I cook a mean Rabbit stew, but I would never season with primarch...

Sorry. Anyways.

Yes, RAW states that to join a Space Marine detachment you must have the same CTs. Since vehicles can only be granted the USE of certain CTs and never have the special rule themselves, they fail to meet the requirements of building a detachment.

People shouldn't even try to argue this argue this one! RAW tells you what to do, there is no other clear cut ruling, so we must play it RAW.

Why? Because I hate everything and I don't want you to play with your toys! Grrr!

No! Because it's a prime example of how even the best trained monkey can never write a codex, no matter how many people buy it to run x cheese unit!

Play it as RAI! But don't try to say that the rule makes sense the way it is. This needs to be brought up with GW and fixed. If we continue to fool ourselves and say oh its just a minor confusion caused by poor wording and we just play it as we want NOTHING will change.

The next codex will come out and DA players will be like "uh... Somehow I can't take terminators in a deathwing formation". Or something equally ridiculous.

Who fault will it be? Ours! Because we didn't hold the company as responsible for the mess in the first place.

I've already written a letter outlining this issue to GW and I encourage everyone to do the same. When Gary from customer service gets back to you in ten years and says oh its meant to be like this or you just read it wrong, tell him to shove it and demand the errata.

Like seriously guys. Go! Get typing!

A clear point to raise when writing the email is that you thought you were buying a quality product as GW claims to sell on quality (rather than price). Then point out refusal to either write rules clearly in the first place or support those rules with basic FAQs and Errata is not acceptable with a quality product.

above post exalted!

How to fix this conundrum?

Easy. Like so.

In all cases this refers to a model, character or unit that is from the Space Marine faction that the player has chosen to be of a specific chapter. Note that you cannot mix and match different Chapter Tactics within the same detachment.

Or even better!

Please note that this does not prevent you from taking vehicles (which have no CT) in a Space Marine detachment. Simply inform your opponent which Chapter the vehicle is drawn from and which detachment it is joining.

Done.

Hell, you guys should just pay me billions of dollars and I'll just run off with the money an... oh wait!

The problem with both of those is they make vehicles benefit from CTs which is most likely the reason the vehicles don't have CTs. Hence my advised same CTs or no CTs clause just like CAD and same faction or no faction clause.

 FlingitNow wrote:
The problem with both of those is they make vehicles benefit from CTs which is most likely the reason the vehicles don't have CTs. Hence my advised same CTs or no CTs clause just like CAD and same faction or no faction clause.

How though? If so just add another note, Vehicles chosen this way do not benefit from Chapter Tactics unless stated otherwise.

Seriously Im not tryin to be vexatious...

How can we write that in there so it works? You give an example but could you please write it out as though you were re-writing the rule?

darkcloak wrote:
How can we write that in there so it works? You give an example but could you please write it out as though you were re-writing the rule?

All models in the same Detachment or Formation must be drawn from the same Chapter, with the exception of models that do not have the Chapter Tactics rule.

There's a few ways to fix it.

Simply adding chapter tactics can work, is quick and dirty. Then again this means hit and run dreadnoughts via white scars and first turn shrouding on vehicles for raven guard.

Another option is simply adding the "Chapter:" rule. Makes said vehicle part of a chapter.

The third is an FAQ that somehow corrects RAW without adding the above.

Then again, I starting bringing my CSM when I hear new marine were coming, so whatever.

I'm sorry I assumed

"All models in the same Detachment or Formation must be drawn from the same Chapter."

Was a quote from the new SM rulebook from the OP.

If it is, my statement is the quote to which you are referring. Using logic. An army must only have 1 chapter tactic, 1+ nothing= 1.

If the above quote is not the quote all of you are refuting, then provide the rules please and I will attempt to salvage the atrocity that it's gw's rules. If I can't, I'll happily join yall on the other side and laugh at all SM players.

All models in the same Detachment or Formation must be drawn from the same Chapter or no Chapter.

Or more correctly (but straying further from how it is currently written)

All models in the same Detachment or Formation must have thesame Chapter Tactics or no Chapter Tactics.

FratHammer wrote:
Using logic. An army must only have 1 chapter tactic, 1+ nothing= 1..

'All models must have the same...' is not the same as 'only 1 must be present'.

Models without Chapter Tactics do not have a Chapter. So they do not satisfy the requirement that all models come from the same Chapter. They can't, because they don't come from any Chapter.

What the rule is saying is that, if your chosen Chapter is Ultramarines, every model must have the Ultramarines Chapter Tactics. Models that don't have Chapter Tactics do not have the Ultramarines Chapter Tactics.

That's the problem.

If all models must have the same chapter tactic, then tell me what the chapter tactic of those two razorbacks in your detachment are. Are they the same?

"All models in the same Detachment or Formation must be drawn from the same Chapter."

Name what other chapter is present.

But again, models without a Chapter don't meet the requirement that "All models in the same Detachment or Formation must be drawn from the same Chapter." It doesn't say "... the same Chapter or no Chapter at all."

FratHammer wrote:
I'm sorry I assumed

"All models in the same Detachment or Formation must be drawn from the same Chapter."

Was a quote from the new SM rulebook from the OP.

If it is, my statement is the quote to which you are referring. Using logic. An army must only have 1 chapter tactic, 1+ nothing= 1.

If the above quote is not the quote all of you are refuting, then provide the rules please and I will attempt to salvage the atrocity that it's gw's rules. If I can't, I'll happily join yall on the other side and laugh at all SM players.

Faulty logic. "Not different" doesn't necessarily mean "the same". Take this example:

All objects in a basket must be drawn from the same fruit tree. In a basket of apples, can you take a potato?

The potato is not from a different fruit tree, but that does not mean it is from the same fruit tree.

How would they fix it? Simple: change "all models" to "all models with the Chapter Tactics special rule".

FratHammer wrote:
"All models in the same Detachment or Formation must be drawn from the same Chapter."

Name what other chapter is present.

There is only one Chapter present... but that's not the issue. The models without Chapter Tactics don't come from a Chapter. They are therefore not members of the same Chapter as the models with Chapter Tactics.

"All models in the same Detachment or Formation must be drawn from the same Chapter. Note that this limitation does not apply to models without the Chapter Tactics special rule."

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
"All models in the same Detachment or Formation must be drawn from the same Chapter. Note that this limitation does not apply to models without the Chapter Tactics special rule."

Ding! Winner!

An extra note perhaps?

"-for example vehicles that do not have Chapter Tactics."

Maybe even a Space Marine Joe example? Teehee!

And a time machine to go back and put that in the book?

All fruit in this basket must come from terra. All fruit in this basket came from terra.
What about that genestealer?
He's a fruit. From terra.

Given that the lines in question are taken from the chapter tactics special rules, i fail to see how they should read as affecting units that don't have the special rule in question.

It's not like models without CT are even mentioned, are they?

context matters and you're reading the rules for models with Chapter tactics and applying them to your whole army

 jokerkd wrote:
.

It's not like models without CT are even mentioned, are they?

Yes, that's the problem.

The rule isn't written to only affect models with Chapter Tactics. It's written to affect the entire formation.

 insaniak wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
.

It's not like models without CT are even mentioned, are they?

Yes, that's the problem.

The rule isn't written to only affect models with Chapter Tactics. It's written to affect the entire formation.

I just don't see why you would assume that.

the page is the explanation of the chapter tactics special rule. not the rules for forming an army

I assume that because it's what the rule says.

'All models in the same Detachment or Formation ...'

Not

'All models with Chapter Tactics in the same Detachment or Formation ...'

".......must be drawn from the same chapter"

where does it say that a unit without CT is not from a chapter?

"...The rules will often refer to a model, character or unit by its Chapter; in all cases, this refers to a model, character or unit with the Chapter Tactics special rule that is drawn from the given Chapter."

So if it doesn't have Chapter Tactics, it doesn't have a Chapter.