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.

SisterSydney, I exalted your post because you made a distinction between a main battle tank and a tank destroyer... something even some of my Soldiers fail to do. Thank you for observing my pet peeve!

- J

 necrondog99 wrote:
SisterSydney, I exalted your post because you made a distinction between a main battle tank and a tank destroyer... something even some of my Soldiers fail to do. Thank you for observing my pet peeve!

Thank you. Your positive feedback inspired me to rant about this at length in another thread, , lecturing all who'd listen about APCs vs. IFVs vs. MBTs vs. SPGs vs. tank destroyers.

Actually, it could be considered up for debate. Black Templars and Sisters of Battle still can't be battle brothers depending on interpretations of RAW..

Specifically, its the fact that the SM codex it states that older publications referring to 'Codex: Black Templars' should, for all rules purposes, instead refer to the Black Templars in the C:SM.

Since the the BRB is an 'older publication', and specifically lists Black Templars as a distinct faction, it means they keep their own Allies matrix separate from standard Space Marines.

That is, of course, unless they've dropped an errata to change that in either C:SM or BRB. But I haven't seen anything.

Really derpy, sure, but there you have it. Feel free to ignore it as you will, but be aware of the conversation.

I've heard that people who have emailed GW about it have been told to forget the Templars Allies Matrix and to use the Marines one instead, so it sounds like they are now Allies of Convinience. Hopefully my own email to them about this has been answered, I'll let you know if it has once I can check.

thanks for the update

Well thats good news - hopefully they will put it in the FAQ - what email are you using - I will add to it if only to help with the chances of getting it official

E-mails to GW are worth about as much as e-mails to me. That is, nothing.

 Mr Morden wrote:
thanks for the update

Well thats good news - hopefully they will put it in the FAQ - what email are you using - I will add to it if only to help with the chances of getting it official

Sadly, no reply in my email inbox, and it's been a while. But then, they also took a while to get back to me about those Seraphim Superior models. Maybe they're just really busy. But yes, please contribute. This'll be properly resolved once we have an FAQ ruling.

As for the email, it's just their customer services one. It's on their website, on the top and to the right.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
E-mails to GW are worth about as much as e-mails to me. That is, nothing.

Why? They're the ones who make the game. And their customer services is likely in contact with the people who wrote the rules.

 Troike wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
E-mails to GW are worth about as much as e-mails to me. That is, nothing.

Why? They're the ones who make the game. And their customer services is likely in contact with the people who wrote the rules.

Well, a couple of reasons. One, unlike FW (who actually give an answer) if GW replies it is most likely to say "Thank you, we will take this under consideration and if necessary put it in the FAQ.". Two, (not relevant in this forum) but e-mails from GW are easily spoofed so you could have three people post a "legitimate" e-mail with different answers (which is why e-mails are not to be relied on in YMDC).

 Happyjew wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
E-mails to GW are worth about as much as e-mails to me. That is, nothing.

Why? They're the ones who make the game. And their customer services is likely in contact with the people who wrote the rules.

Well, a couple of reasons. One, unlike FW (who actually give an answer) if GW replies it is most likely to say "Thank you, we will take this under consideration and if necessary put it in the FAQ.". Two, (not relevant in this forum) but e-mails from GW are easily spoofed so you could have three people post a "legitimate" e-mail with different answers (which is why e-mails are not to be relied on in YMDC).

Not to mention that you get different answers to the same question from customer support. Not very reliable...

EDIT: Not to mention that the example in this case directly violates the rules of Codex: Space Marines.

Hmmm, interesting. Just got a reply, and the customer services person said that they "recommend" that they still hold their current position. However, they also said that if it ever changes, it'll be in an FAQ. So not a final ruling apparently. And a case of them giving conflicting replies, given my mentioning of others recieving the opposite answer.

Welp, looks like all there is to do is email them about it a lot, then, hopefully resulting in an FAQ addressing the matter.