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.

The title says it all.

1. The entry for a Space Marine Captain says that it has the option to replace the bolt pistol and/or chainsword with several options. Can I use this to trade out the bolt pistol for one weapon from the list, and the chainsword for another (to, for example, have a Captain armed with a Relic Blade and a Storm Shield?)
2. As in their entry for the Space Marine Army list, Chapter Masters do not have Mounted Assault, taking a Chapter Master Mounted on a bike DOES NOT allow you to take full strength biker squads as troops. Is this correct?
3. If I make a Chapter Master Relentless through some means, such as giving him a bike or terminator armour, can he move and fire his Orbital Bombardment?
4. If a codex has specific limitations on the number of non-unique characters your army can include, and you are using multiple FOC, do these limitations apply to the entire army, or just the FOC in question? For example, in the Tau Codex it states that your army must include 1+ units of Fire Warriors. Does that mean that in a double FOC game I could run 1 unit of Fire Warriors and 3 units of Kroot, or would have I have to run a second unit of Fire Warriors if I wanted to use the second FOC? Along those lines, do limitations brought by special characters or purchased rules only apply in the FOC they are included in (running a Tau list with Commander Farsight, one would be unable to take Kroot or Vespid Squads. Would this apply to the second FOC?).

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Not sure, haven't the codex to hand. I think the rules on orbital bombardment require you to not move in rather than it being heavy weapon related.

1. Yes
2. Correct, Chapter Master doesn't have that rule.
3. See page 41 of the BRB.
4. Not entirely sure, personally I'd say you'd need one per Primary Detachment.

1) Yes that is correct.

2) If they do not have it listed as a rule, they do not get it.

3) Only if the orbital bombardment does not require him to remain stationary.

4) The limitations apply per detachment. This is because each codex refers to 'Army' as an army from their own codex. and if you have 2 detachments you have 2 armies from a single codex.

 DeathReaper wrote:
... and if you have 2 detachments you have 2 armies from a single codex.

What are you basing that on?

The rules for multiple detachment games last edition referred to each detachment as a separate army. That distinction no longer exists. The multiple detachment rules for 6th edition instead refer to both detachments as comprising your army (singular).

 insaniak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
... and if you have 2 detachments you have 2 armies from a single codex.

What are you basing that on?

Basing that on the language of each codex.

a single army list is an army, as the context of the codexes says.

2 FoC's are two army lists and thus two armies

Where do any of the codexes cover multiple detachment games?

 insaniak wrote:
Where do any of the codexes cover multiple detachment games?

They don't, that is why the context of 'Army', in any given codex, refers to a single Force Org Chart.

Right. For a single force org chart force... because that's all the codex is dealing with.

And so when you are building a multiple detachment force, you refer to the multiple detachment rules in the rulebook. And in that context, 'army' refers to the entire force.

Well, considering the line "your warlord can be from either of the primary detachments in your army" when talking about bigger games (Pg 110, middle of second paragraph), two primary detachments is still one army.

Orbital Bombardment requires the Chapter Master to not move in the movement phase. Even being relentless he could not use it if he moves.

Something to consider: you can only take two detachments from the same codex if the point limit is at or above 2000 points. Otherwise, you can only take allies, which must be from a different codex.

 insaniak wrote:
Right. For a single force org chart force... because that's all the codex is dealing with.

And so when you are building a multiple detachment force, you refer to the multiple detachment rules in the rulebook. And in that context, 'army' refers to the entire force.

Codex Trumps BRB.

Where there is a conflict.

There is no conflict here, because the codex is only dealing with single force org chart games.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Right. For a single force org chart force... because that's all the codex is dealing with.

And so when you are building a multiple detachment force, you refer to the multiple detachment rules in the rulebook. And in that context, 'army' refers to the entire force.

Codex Trumps BRB.

I'm sorry, where's the conflict in rules?

The Definition of Army. That is the rules conflict.

There is no conflict.

The codex lets you build an army from a single force org chart.

The multiple detachment rules alter those rules, to let you build an army from multiple detachments.

It's in the rulebook that redefines the force org, there is a notation specifying that multiple primary detachments are "your army", thus ONE army. I already laid out the page number and the exact quote regarding this as well. This shouldn't be a discussion anymore.

The BRB tells you to ignore the FoC in the codex if you are doing anything it doesn't allow you to do. Taking multiple FoC is one of those things.

 insaniak wrote:
There is no conflict.

The codex lets you build an army from a single force org chart.

The multiple detachment rules alter those rules, to let you build an army from multiple detachments.

and you still have two armies on the field, as you have 2 HQ's minimum, and 4 Troops minimum.

Army, in the context as written in the codex SM, refers to a single SM Force Org chart.

 DeathReaper wrote:
and you still have two armies on the field, as you have 2 HQ's minimum, and 4 Troops minimum.

No, you don't, because neither the codex definition nor the rulebook definition allows you to field more than one army.


If you're going to claim that the codex over-rides the multiple detachment rules, then it is impossible to ever field more than a single detachment chosen from a single codex. No second detachment for large games, and no allies, since none of the codexes allow you to do so.

Except there is a specific allowance in the BRB to field Allies and the like. P109 left column, bottom graph has the details.

So? The codex trumps the rulebook, remember?

It does, but the allowance to field Allies and the like are not in conflict with a BRB rule.

Ah. So the codex dictates the FOC, but only when it suits the argument. Gotcha.

When I field Space Marines and Space Wolves I have two armies that make up my army. Confusing? Sort of. I can have an army of Space Marines and an army of Space Wolves together; but I command the combination of the two forces, which is also an army.

The book gives two definitions for army, and we must refer to context to see which definition is used. However, never does it say that two detachments from the same codex are different armies. If I take one detachment with Kantor and another with Vulkan any flamers/thunder hammers/meltas in the Kantor detachment are twin-linked (or any units in Vulkan's detachment get Pedro's rule whichever I choose). The rules simply do not support your claim DeathReaper.

Insaniak, please read the rulebook entry on Allies and the Force Organization chart. Page 109 of the BRB, bottom left of the page, under the heading PARTIAL FORCE ORGANISATION CHARTS, reads: "If your codex contains the primary detachment section of the Force Organisation chart, the allied detachment and fortification sections will not be present, as individual codexes do not contain rules for allied units or fortifications. If this is the case, it doesn't mean you can't use these elements of the chart, simply refer to the version presented here."

There is no conflict between the codex FOC and the BRB FOC, because the BRB gives a clear and precise set of instructions on how to circumvent the incongruity. If you fail to read that, it could probably get kind of confusing. Reading comprehension FTW, right?

 FoxPhoenix135 wrote:
There is no conflict between the codex FOC and the BRB FOC, because the BRB gives a clear and precise set of instructions on how to circumvent the incongruity. If you fail to read that, it could probably get kind of confusing. Reading comprehension FTW, right?

Indeed... since I'm not the one who has been claiming that there is a conflict...