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.

This was something I've been wondering, because the SM book shook things up with Chapter Tactics.

Basically, for the sake of illustration, let's say that I am building a 2000 points list, and want White Scars and Imperial Fists. The double FOC creates a new detachment, so could I take one primary detachment of White Scars and one Primary Detachment of Imperial Fists, instead of needing to ally them in?

Based upon the rules I've read *thus far*, the RAW answer appears to be yes you can, but I would like other input.

First, the relevant rules: BRB page 108-110 deals with the force organization chart, and how detachments are supposed to work
Next, the C:SM page 77 talks about how Chapter Tactics works for both primary and allied detachments.

BRB (pg. 110): "if you're playing a game of 2,000 points or more, you can take an additional primary detachment." Then it goes on to say that "All primary detachments must be taken from the same codex."

In C:SM (pg. 77): "When choosing a Space Marines detachment, whether primary or allied, choose one of the Chapters listed in this section. Mark the Chapter you choose for each detachment on your roster sheet.....You must let your opponent know what Chapter each detachment is from, and what abilities is has as a result."

Now based upon these rules, it would seem to me that you could have different CTs between different primary detachments. Technically speaking the Chapter Tactics are all contained within Codex: Space Marines, and thus would not violate the "must be taken from the same codex" rule.

Now, the one thing I was thinking was "But is there a special rule that makes CTs 'count as' different codices for the purposes of primary detachments?" Obviously, that is the case for allies, but I was unsure if Primary detachments were rolled into that as well. However, it is not mentioned that they count as different codices for primary detachments in the Chapter Tactics section. Rather, the explicit mention of differences is under the allies section on page 77. "For the purposes of Allies rules, these detachments are treated as if they were chosen from two different codexes and are treated as Battle Brothers."

This is the only time I can currently find an explicit mention that different CTs should be treated as different codices for the purposes of rules, and they specifically mention "For the purposes of Allies rules," which should mean it does not apply to primary detachments.


The result, it seems to me, is that your second primary detachment could have a different Chapter Tactics from the first primary detachment.

Thoughts? Am I missing anything that invalidates that line of logic?

No the Allies portion of the Chapter tactics rules; and the First paragraph of the Chapter tactics rules tell you first to choose your Chapter tactics, then that you treat allies as coming from a separate codex, and choosing a second set of chapter tactics are done with allies rules.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
No the Allies portion of the Chapter tactics rules; and the First paragraph of the Chapter tactics rules tell you first to choose your Chapter tactics, then that you treat allies as coming from a separate codex, and choosing a second set of chapter tactics are done with allies rules.

But you're not choosing them as "allies" when they're a primary detachment. Primary detachments and allied detachments are two different things in the BRB. And the first paragraph of Chapter Tactics doesn't use plural in such a way as to imply that all primary detachments should be the same CTs, it talks about marking each detachment separately.

If the rules said something like "treat all CTs as being different codices for the purposes of different detachments," then I would think it applies to primary and allied ones, but it says specifically "for the purposes of allies rules," which would mean for only allied detachments. Unless we consider primary detachments as "allies" then I feel like they don't fall under those specific rules involving allies.

When using a second force org, the two primary detachments have to be the same codex as well as two allied detachments.

 hyv3mynd wrote:
When using a second force org, the two primary detachments have to be the same codex as well as two allied detachments.

Yes, but what does same codex mean in the context of C:SM where you have Chapter Tactics. The only time they explicitly mention that you aren't supposed to count different CTs as part of the same codex is under the allies section where they mention the difference for the purposes of allies. They do talk about how each detachment has a different CT at the top of the CT page, but they never talk about how multiple primary detachments deal with CTs. The way the rules read, it does not sound like both primary detachments have to be the same chapter tactics, they simply need to both be from C:SM, aka. the same codex.

DogofWar1 wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:
When using a second force org, the two primary detachments have to be the same codex as well as two allied detachments.

Yes, but what does same codex mean in the context of C:SM where you have Chapter Tactics. The only time they explicitly mention that you aren't supposed to count different CTs as part of the same codex is under the allies section where they mention the difference for the purposes of allies. They do talk about how each detachment has a different CT at the top of the CT page, but they never talk about how multiple primary detachments deal with CTs. The way the rules read, it does not sound like both primary detachments have to be the same chapter tactics, they simply need to both be from C:SM, aka. the same codex.

No, as it was previously mentioned each CT is considered a different codex. This means that no mater how you try to spin it they (two different CTs) are not permitted to be used in the same type of Detachment, regardless of how many of that type of detachment you have.

 Bausk wrote:

No, as it was previously mentioned each CT is considered a different codex. This means that no mater how you try to spin it they (two different CTs) are not permitted to be used in the same type of Detachment, regardless of how many of that type of detachment you have.

But where does it say that outside of the allies section? I'm trying to find the specific wording where it says that, but the rules on page 77 do not appear to make that distinction, except where they specifically spell out the exception for allies. The result is that, outside of allies, they are considered to be from the same codex (C:SM), albeit with the restriction that you cannot mix and match CTs *within* each detachment. And primary detachments are distinct detachments based on the BRB, just as allied detachments are distinct, the difference being that primary detachments have to be taken from the same codex.

That's what I'm looking for. A specific rule in C:SM outside of the allied section, which specifically says CTs are to be applied for ALL primary detachments in an army. The allied section talks about "ally with," and "For the purposes of allies rules," but Primary detachments are NOT allied, and so there needs to be a specific rule spelled out somewhere saying CTs apply across primary detachments.

"When choosing a Space Marines detachment, whether primary or allied, choose one of the Chapters listed in this section. Mark the Chapter you choose for each detachment on your roster sheet. All models benefit from the appropriate Chapter Tactics special rule....You must let your opponent know what Chapter each detachment is from, and what abilities it has as a result..."

So let's imagine that I have a Captain on foot, two tactical squads, a Captain on a bike, and two bike squads, and it somehow is 2000 points.

I divide them like so:
Primary detachment 1: Captain and two tactical squads - Imperial Fists CT
Primary detachment 2: Captain on bike and two bike squads - White Scars CT

Rules wise:
- I've got the basic units needed for each primary detachment (HQ + 2 troops)
- They are from the same codex (the only time that is NOT the case is when using allied detachments)
- They are not allies or allied detachments, but primary detachments, and do not trigger the allies section restrictions on C:SM page 77
- I have marked the Chapter I chose "for each detachment" on my roster sheet.
- And I let my opponent know that Primary Detachment 1 is using Imperial Fists and that Primary Detachment 2 is using White Scars, satisfying the "You must let your opponent know what Chapter each detachment is from," rule.

I've satisfied all the rules needed and broken none, unless there's something elsewhere from page 77 in C:SM that says something to the effect of "primary detachments must all use the same Chapter Tactics."

Your Second Primary Detachment in a double FOC is still considered to be your primary detachment (just a 2nd one in addition to the first).

Do you have permission to have multiple Chapter Tactics in one detachment? (Each primary detachment added together is your whole army, exclusive of allies)

Rorschach9 wrote:
Your Second Primary Detachment in a double FOC is still considered to be your primary detachment (just a 2nd one in addition to the first).

Do you have permission to have multiple Chapter Tactics in one detachment? (Each primary detachment added together is your whole army, exclusive of allies)

See, but the way the rules are written in the BRB, they appear to be separate detachments, within a single army, not two primary detachments under a single detachment in an army. Under the bigger games section they call it a second primary detachment. They don't mention it being a part of the first primary detachment. You're not simply doubling the FOC, you're getting another entire primary detachment, and it's treated as such and distinct from the first primary detachment, with the caveat that it must come from the same codex as the first, and the requirement that you take an HQ and 2 troops.

DogofWar1 wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:
Your Second Primary Detachment in a double FOC is still considered to be your primary detachment (just a 2nd one in addition to the first).

Do you have permission to have multiple Chapter Tactics in one detachment? (Each primary detachment added together is your whole army, exclusive of allies)

See, but the way the rules are written in the BRB, they appear to be separate detachments, within a single army, not two primary detachments under a single detachment in an army. Under the bigger games section they call it a second primary detachment. They don't mention it being a part of the first primary detachment. You're not simply doubling the FOC, you're getting another entire primary detachment, and it's treated as such and distinct from the first primary detachment, with the caveat that it must come from the same codex as the first, and the requirement that you take an HQ and 2 troops.

It sounds like you're just going to do what you want anyway, because everyone is telling you why it isn't allowed, and all your replies start with "but".

Niexist wrote:
It sounds like you're just going to do what you want anyway, because everyone is telling you why it isn't allowed, and all your replies start with "but".

Because no one has been able to cite an actual textual rule that says anything in opposition to the argument I put forth in the OP.

It'd be nice if someone would pull an actual rule out of a rule book. Kel at least tried, but the allies section of C:SM specifically deals with allied detachments, not primary detachments.

Where is the rule in the BRB that says that the second primary detachment is somehow subservient to the first? It is tied, by the requirement that it come from the same codex, but those ties go both ways, and at no point does it appear that the 2nd primary detachment is subservient to the first. They are functionally interchangeable, separate, detachments, tied by the book known as a codex.

Where in C:SM does it specifically say that Chapter Tactics are always considered to be separate codices? It explicitly states that for allies detachments, but makes no mention for general cases. If anything, the fact they specifically carved out an exception for allied detachments under the allies section lends credibility to the idea that CTs are considered to be under the umbrella of Codex: Space Marines.

Where does it say in C:SM that ALL primary detachments must use the same chapter tactics? It constantly refers to "each detachment" or simply "detachment" not "primary detachments." You must use the same CT within each detachment, but you can have two detachments.

DogofWar1 wrote:

So let's imagine that I have a Captain on foot, two tactical squads, a Captain on a bike, and two bike squads, and it somehow is 2000 points.

I divide them like so:
Primary detachment 1: Captain and two tactical squads - Imperial Fists CT
Primary detachment 2: Captain on bike and two bike squads - White Scars CT

Rules wise:
- I've got the basic units needed for each primary detachment (HQ + 2 troops)
- They are from the same codex (the only time that is NOT the case is when using allied detachments)
- They are not allies or allied detachments, but primary detachments, and do not trigger the allies section restrictions on C:SM page 77
- I have marked the Chapter I chose "for each detachment" on my roster sheet.
- And I let my opponent know that Primary Detachment 1 is using Imperial Fists and that Primary Detachment 2 is using White Scars, satisfying the "You must let your opponent know what Chapter each detachment is from," rule.

I've satisfied all the rules needed and broken none, unless there's something elsewhere from page 77 in C:SM that says something to the effect of "primary detachments must all use the same Chapter Tactics."

This logic seems correct and I see nothing to argue against it in either book. Its clearly stated when taking a detachment (primary or ally) choose a Chapter. In a 2k+ game it says you may take an extra detachment. It doesn't say double the FoC of the first detachment it says "and additional primary detachment." You could by those rules choose a different chaper per detachment.

As far as allies go normally a codex cannot ally with itself. The section on allies in C:SM 6th allows the codex to ally with itself provided they use different chapter tactics. They count as different codexes for the Allies rule nothing more. At no point does it blanket say different chapters tactics count as different codexes

I am on DogofWar1's side until someone can provide a quote as to why you can't or dispute why the quotes he are using do not support this.

{Edit} Retracted, I'm making Strawmen {/Edit}

How about the english definition of the word 'ally'? Whether they are two primary detachments or not, they are of different forces so are still therefore allies. GW have not included the dictionary definition of the word ally because they assume you know what it means. You cannot twist a definition in the english language simply because the rulebook doesn't have the oxford dictionary definition within it. Otherwise I would count all my power swords as power axes and claim that the rulebook does not give a definition of the words sword or axe (but funnily enough the english language does).

Poly Ranger wrote:
How about the english definition of the word 'ally'? Whether they are two primary detachments or not, they are of different forces so are still therefore allies. GW have not included the dictionary definition of the word ally because they assume you know what it means. You cannot twist a definition in the english language simply because the rulebook doesn't have the oxford dictionary definition within it. Otherwise I would count all my power swords as power axes and claim that the rulebook does not give a definition of the words sword or axe (but funnily enough the english language does).

No you can't use a dictionary definition of Ally, because there is already a game definition.
The rulebook gives a clear meaning of what "ally" means in terms of the rules.
If there is no game definition (for example the sword/axe) then yes you can use a dictionary definition.

The game definition is the same as the dictionary definition (militarily). Forces from seperate armies eg: British and Americans or Salamanders and Ultarmarines. That's standard English language. You can't change the definition of the actual language the codex is written in or what is the point in it being written in that language (or any language) at all?

Poly Ranger wrote:
The game definition is the same as the dictionary definition (militarily). Forces from seperate armies eg: British and Americans or Salamanders and Ultarmarines. That's standard English language. You can't change the definition of the actual language the codex is written in or what is the point in it being written in that language (or any language) at all?

No, the game definition is on page 112.
The dictionary definition doesn't cover force organisation charts, an Allies Matrix or things like Desperate Allies, does it?

So when the game refers to allies, it is not refering to a dictionary term.

Allies matrix and desperate allies are terms not individual words. Terms can mean something utterly different to the words that make it up. Take 'class', many different definitions, one of which refers to a group of pupils, now the term 'class marks' refers to scores those pupils got not the pupils themselves. Now you wont find 'class marks' in the dictionary. Much like you wont find other terms in a dictionary. Otherwise they would be 100 times thicker than they already are.
So trying to say the definition of allies is not covered by our english language because some terms which include that word are not in the oxford dictionary is non-sensical.
The point of the spoken and written word is so that we can communicate effectively by understanding the definition of each of those words. Trying to change a definition of the english language so it suits your own needs just doesn't work because that is NOT the definition of the actual word and so trying to communicate that word with somebody else would fail and the entire system of communication through language breaks down. GW have not had to make this rule explicit because english language makes it explicit.
There is modelling for advantage and interpreting for advantage but changing the definition of language for advantage is a new one to me.

Poly Ranger wrote:
So trying to say the definition of allies is not covered by our english language because some terms which include that word are not in the oxford dictionary is non-sensical.

And when was this said? I never said any such thing.
I never said the word wasn't in the dictionary, nor have I tried to change it's meaning.

I've simply pointed out that if the rulebook defines a term, then that is the meaning you use, not a dictionary definition.
The dictionary meaning of the word doesn't matter if the rules have defined the meaning of that term

If i follow your logic, my models with Stealth would have to make a cautious and surreptitious action or movement, rather than get a +1 bonus to cover saves.

You said certain terms are not covered by the dictionary and used this to try and further your point. I explained why they are not in the dictionary. You are trying to change its meaning by saying forces fighting on the same side from different armies are not allies.
Again - there isn't dictionary definitions of terms, that is why the rulebook has to define them. There is a definition of allies however. Yes you use the rulebook for its definitions. And it explains that allies are from different armies, much like (in fact exactly like) the dictionary definition. No definition has been changed. Are two chapters from different armies? Yes they are. Therefore they are allies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
No the +1 cover save represents the scouts action or movement. Much like a blast marker represents an explosion rather than you having to employ tiny sticks of real dynamite.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just like the allied detachment represents ALLIES.

The issue is that the different chapters aren't from different armies, they're all part of the same army for game purposes.
RAW I haven't seen anything preventing two primary detachments having different CTs, though both Allied detachment would have to have the same CT.

_e

Poly Ranger wrote:
You said certain terms are not covered by the dictionary and used this to try and further your point.

No i didn't, go back and read what I actually wrote. I said you can't use a dictionary definition of a term when the rulebook already defines it.

Poly Ranger, you're changing the definition of "ally" as it is defined in the 40k rulebook. The 40k definition of ally is different from the English definition, that is very clear.

Consider "desperate allies." They are "allies" in 40k under the 40k definition of allies. Yet look at how they function. They are basically treated as enemies for everything except a few things. They can't really cooperate, or combine resources, and they can be targeted by each other under many circumstances (psychic powers, errant blasts). Under the English definition of "ally," desperate allies would likely not be considered allies, yet in the 40k book they are allies. That implies that the 40k definition of allies is different than the English one.

Consider, also, that you can have, within a single detachment, members of the Ultramarines and an Ultramarine successor chapter, such as Aurora chapter. They, at least fluff wise, and using your logic that we combine the 40k and English terms, would be "allies," yet in the game they don't follow the allies rules. So they are simultaneously allies and yet not allies, which is a problem.

The simplest way to resolve this problem is to recognize that the English definition of "ally" is not one and the same with the 40k tabletop rules definition of "ally."

It's kind of like how not everything that flies in 40k is a flyer. Screamers of Tzeentch fly, but they don't follow the flyer rules.

You used allies matrix and desperate allies as not covered in the dictionary, this is because these are terms not individual words. The individual word Ally IS covered by a definition in the english language however.
And as I've said before, the rulebook definition of ally is the same, so forces from different armies are allies.

Poly Ranger wrote:
You used allies matrix and desperate allies as not covered in the dictionary, this is because these are terms not individual words. The individual word Ally IS covered by a definition in the english language however.
And as I've said before, the rulebook definition of ally is the same, so forces from different armies are allies.

What definition are you using for army? According to the rulebook, allies are part of your army.

_e

Poly Ranger wrote:
You used allies matrix and desperate allies as not covered in the dictionary, this is because these are terms not individual words. The individual word Ally IS covered by a definition in the english language however.
And as I've said before, the rulebook definition of ally is the same, so forces from different armies are allies.

So Aurora Chapter and the Ultramarines must use allied rules?

Desperate allies is a term. But lets consider it a minute. During the penninsular war, Spain and Britain became allies. At first the spanish did not meet the agreements of supply they made with the british forcing some units to get into fisticuffs with their spanish allies. Wellington also couldnt trust the spanish to turn up when they claimed they would or indeed even stay on the battlefield. Yet for all intents and purposes they were considered allies. Much as you would consider desperate allies in 40k.
Your point about the ultramarine successor chapters is a good one however. I hadn't thought about that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hmmm that does indeed create a problem like you said.
Apart from successor chapters counting in the same force I honestly cant see any difference between english language ally and 40k ally. There are many alliances in history which fit all tiers of the 40k alliance system.
However, the successor chapter issue does demonstarate a difference in that regard, you are right.

 DogofWar1 wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
You used allies matrix and desperate allies as not covered in the dictionary, this is because these are terms not individual words. The individual word Ally IS covered by a definition in the english language however.
And as I've said before, the rulebook definition of ally is the same, so forces from different armies are allies.

So Aurora Chapter and the Ultramarines must use allied rules?

No, they use the same CT, as of this:

Robin Cruddace (C:SM pg 77) wrote:Note that you may field models from two different Chapters that have the same Chapter Tactics (such as Ultramarines and [Aurora Chapter]) in the same detachment

 ace101 wrote:

 DogofWar1 wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
You used allies matrix and desperate allies as not covered in the dictionary, this is because these are terms not individual words. The individual word Ally IS covered by a definition in the english language however.
And as I've said before, the rulebook definition of ally is the same, so forces from different armies are allies.

So Aurora Chapter and the Ultramarines must use allied rules?

No, they use the same CT, as of this:

Robin Cruddace (C:SM pg 77) wrote:Note that you may field models from two different Chapters that have the same Chapter Tactics (such as Ultramarines and [Aurora Chapter]) in the same detachment

I know, I was making a point about how his definition of allies couldn't work in the context of 40k rules.

 DogofWar1 wrote:

 ace101 wrote:

 DogofWar1 wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
You used allies matrix and desperate allies as not covered in the dictionary, this is because these are terms not individual words. The individual word Ally IS covered by a definition in the english language however.
And as I've said before, the rulebook definition of ally is the same, so forces from different armies are allies.

So Aurora Chapter and the Ultramarines must use allied rules?

No, they use the same CT, as of this:

Robin Cruddace (C:SM pg 77) wrote:Note that you may field models from two different Chapters that have the same Chapter Tactics (such as Ultramarines and [Aurora Chapter]) in the same detachment

I know, I was making a point about how his definition of allies couldn't work in the context of 40k rules.

Granted

After reading the Chapter Tactics section throughly, i have to move to the camp that asserts that the x2 FOC has to have the other CT in the ally detachment(s). It states that if you want another CT group, they must be treated as a seperate codex, which must be brought using the ally rules (at least they are BB). The paragraph under the Allies section of Chapter Tactics is pretty clear.