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.

Traditio is right.

In order to understand that it is helpfull to add a secret ingredient called "common sense".

The intention of the FAQ is clear.


Edit: just saw that Traditio already gave a hint regarding the secret ingredient. I advice you to try it out from time to time!

Aeri wrote:
Traditio is right.

In order to understand that it is helpfull to add a secret ingredient called "common sense".

The intention of the FAQ is clear.


Edit: just saw that Traditio already gave a hint regarding the secret ingredient. I advice you to try it out from time to time!

I don't think anyone is arguing that the INTENTION of the FAQ isn't "you cannot share drop pods between chapters". It's his ridiculous claim that it is supported by the rules as written, by misquoting said rules and pointing at the previous edition codex.
And you can't just handwave made-up and prove-to-be-false quotes and interpretations with "common sense". The FAQ is straight up changing the rules (which is fine for me, and I'm an Imperium player), it's not a "clarification" or "proving that Traditio provides serious arguments instead of pulling them out of darker places (e.g. the 6th edition codex)".

Aeri wrote:
Traditio is right.

In order to understand that it is helpfull to add a secret ingredient called "common sense".

The intention of the FAQ is clear.


Edit: just saw that Traditio already gave a hint regarding the secret ingredient. I advice you to try it out from time to time!

I'm sorry, but where does "common sense" tell us in any form in the CURRENT codex to treat other Chapter Tactics units as an Allied unit (note, the FW Shark chapter does not count)?

It does in the previous codex, but that was a the previous codex where Predators could not Squadron and Rhinos had the Role of Dedicated Transports.

"Common sense" tells us to use the current rules and apply their standards to the current question, and not to use previous standards which are outdated.

The problem with Traditio's argument is that he is using two outdated standards to resolve this question and ignoring current rules and standards for both Chapter Tactics, Allies, and Faction rules. Ignoring current standards is not "common sense".

Charistoph wrote:No, it doesn't. You even quoted it (though missed a capitalization with it).

This is precisely the grammatical pedantry that I'm talking about. This is precisely the mindset to which the FAQs are taking a sledge hammer.

Nothing about allies, just "an Allied Detachment"

I think we're done here.

At this point, you are quibbling over whether or not words are capitalized. As I said: this is what the FAQs are basically telling us not to do.

Use common sense, Charistoph.

The rule is perfectly clear. The same chapter cannot ally with itself. Different chapters can ally with each other. Why? Because they are different armies.

The intention of the rules writers is perfectly clear.

Allied Detachment refers to an actual thing though

Although it's consistent with your idea that "To Hit" also isn't a defined object in the rules, so that's a positive at least...

Traditio wrote:

Charistoph wrote:No, it doesn't. You even quoted it (though missed a capitalization with it).

This is precisely the grammatical pedantry that I'm talking about. This is precisely the mindset to which the FAQs are taking a sledge hammer.

Nothing about allies, just "an Allied Detachment"

I think we're done here.

At this point, you are quibbling over whether or not words are capitalized. As I said: this is what the FAQs are basically telling us not to do.

Use common sense, Charistoph.

The rule is perfectly clear. The same chapter cannot ally with itself. Different chapters can ally with each other. Why? Because they are different armies.

The intention of the rules writers is perfectly clear.

Use common sense yourself.

The "capitalization" point I was referencing was the fact that "Allied Detachment" is a proper noun, i.e., the actual name of a specific organization as opposed to a general organization of an detachment made up of units that are treated as Allies to the Warlord (technically, this last no longer exists as a definition).

In point of fact, if you look up "allied detachment" in the current rulebook, you will find that it is speaking only of the detachment organization that comes with the Restriction of "cannot have the Warlord".

If you look at the rules for Allies, nothing is stated about the relationships between Detachments, only how units from different Factions treat each other.

So, let go of your 6th Edition standards, read again through these sections on detachments and allies in the current rulebook and then read again, the section in the Space Marines codex and apply some common sense without applying things that do not currently exist.

How about this:

The rules as written say you can enter any Battle Brother transport during deployment as long as long as you fulfill the regular requirements (e.g. limitations for dedicated transports).
The FAQ says you cannot deploy inside a BBs transport. It does not speak of exceptions, for example how Space Marine chapters are to be treated.

The spirit of the FAQ is that one specific organisation cannot deploy / enter the battlefield in transports of another organisation, not even when they're Battlebrothers.
The spirit of the Allied Detachment & Space Marine chapters is that they're different organisations and therefore may use the AD despite the normal limitations.

If you combine this it's pretty obvious that GWs intention is that Iron Hand Centurions cannot deploy in a Drop Pod from an Ultramarine detachment. That'd be a consistent ruling which makes sense fluffwise, too.

Word for word, however, the rules never say so. And "common sense", combined with "knowledge of the English language", tells us that "Allied Detachment" and "allied detachment" are clearly two different things as there's a thing named "Allied Detachment" and there are also detachments than can be allied to other detachments. These two things mean different things, it's that simple.

You can't defend all your claims, especially those that you base on clearly misquoted rules, with the "common sense & I was right in the past in some instances" defense.
Tomorrow you'll tell us that "Space Marine Chainswords clearly must be AP4 as they tear through guardsmen and the like with ease, and that it was common sense that a Chainsword would do so. Just ask GW, I'Ve been validated by GWs FAQ answers before."

This is actually pretty simple.

What Faction is a Tac Squad with Chapter Tactics (Ultramarines)?
What Faction is a Tac Squad with Chapter Tactics (Salamanders)?
What Faction is a Drop Pod, in an army with Chapter Tactics (Ultramarines)?
What Faction is a Drop Pod, in an army with Chapter Tactics Iron Hands)?
What do the allies rules deal with?

 Happyjew wrote:
This is actually pretty simple.

What Faction is a Tac Squad with Chapter Tactics (Ultramarines)?
What Faction is a Tac Squad with Chapter Tactics (Salamanders)?
What Faction is a Drop Pod, in an army with Chapter Tactics (Ultramarines)?
What Faction is a Drop Pod, in an army with Chapter Tactics Iron Hands)?
What do the allies rules deal with?

Common Sense questions that will give you common sense answers.

Unless you're playing the FW shark chapter, of course.

Where is the location of the FAQ everyone is referencing? I checked at the normal FAQ site here:

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Rules-Errata?_requestid=4218660

and do not see the questions/ answers people are quoting.

Thanks!

GW's Warhammer 40,000 Facebook Page.

zhutch wrote:
Where is the location of the FAQ everyone is referencing? I checked at the normal FAQ site here:

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Rules-Errata?_requestid=4218660

and do not see the questions/ answers people are quoting.

Thanks!

It's currently just a draft, they're asking for feedback for the FAQ on facebook. There's an ongoing thread in the news forum here that'll keep you updated:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/689814.page

GW releases more and more FAQ parts faction by faction and it'll probably take another two months or so for them to finish posting the draft in its entirety, releasing it bit by bit (faction by faction). So it's worth checking in every week or so for the latest one.

I'd guess the finished, official FAQ / errata thingy will end up on their page in mid summer or so.

In another post the question was asked, can an IC join a battle brothers squad during deployment? If this is the case, could the IC join a battle brother squad and embark in a transport of his own faction, or visa versa and would this then allow battle brothers to deploy in each others transport vehicles?

Maj.Lee Scrude wrote:
In another post the question was asked, can an IC join a battle brothers squad during deployment? If this is the case, could the IC join a battle brother squad and embark in a transport of his own faction, or visa versa and would this then allow battle brothers to deploy in each others transport vehicles?

The unit has both Factions, per another FAQ answer, so is both Battle Brothers and same Faction. Battle Brothers would prevent Embarking as much as a Jump Pack or Monstrous Creature would.