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.

Hello ladies and Gents.


I have another question for you all!

I have decided to expand my SOB army and add an ally in.

What would your choice be for them? I was thinking of Black Templars or Imperial Guard?


Also I have decided I fancy having a super heavy or forgeworld flyer for apoc games, painted in SOB colours. What would your choice for this be?


Fluff wise the Sisters have used flyers ( I believe it was in the Faith and Fire book) but I wasn't quite sure which ones!

Black Templars and IG are the obvious choice. They both work nicely in terms of background, and I can absolutely understand that it may be difficult choosing between the two. Perhaps you can base your choice on either what you think complements the other army well in regard to your playstyle, or you could go by what colours would look nice on the board.

What Order are you playing? What regiment of IG would you be thinking about?

As for fliers, they did have the Lightning Strike Fighter in Soulstorm, and I think that one looks absolutely snazzy thanks to the Aquila-shaped wings. If you can still get its original model rather than the (imho rather ugly) new Voss ...?



FW also has the Avenger, but whilst its background says that the Sisters like calling it in for support, it remains a Navy fighter with Navy pilots rather than a Sororitas unit.

GW fluff unfortunately never went into great detail regarding aerial support for the Sisterhood. All we have is a line about Sororitas fleets in the 2E Codex Imperialis, a couple drop pods in Citadel Journal #49, and the fact that our Seraphim would need a dropship to jump out of when you deep-strike them.

I would avoid Black Templars since they are still not Allies of Convenience. If you want flyers, IG is the way to go. Vendetta is just good.

pretre wrote:I would avoid Black Templars since they are still not Allies of Convenience.

The debate about that still wasn't resolved as it hinged so heavily on interpretation of the wording and people were moving in circles.

Or was this FAQ'ed in the meantime?

They'd certainly be a fluffy choice ...

It has not been resolved yet.

Hey guys

Thanks kindly for the replies!

My order is a custom one. They are painted orange with red tones. So fluff wise they definately are one of the lesser known ones lol

I may build little forces of both IG and I already have a few black templars to expand!

As for the Lightning, I was considering that one! so I think I may stick with that aswell as looking into the Avenger!

 Lynata wrote:
Or was this FAQ'ed in the meantime?

No. But, rather unhelpfully, people have gotten different responses from GW customer services about what the situation is.

The SOB get the Avenger in the fluff, and I think they ahve it in the FW rules so thatd be my choice. Its pretty awesome rules wise.

HerbaciousT wrote:The SOB get the Avenger in the fluff

Technically, they don't "get" it, FW just included a sentence about them liking to request this fighter as support from the Navy. Perhaps because the writer/s at FW may have adopted the idea that Sisters don't have their own airpower.
The only fighter that fluff said they used themselves was the Lightning in Soulstorm.

Which imho is still the bestest looking fighter of them all. <3

Troike wrote:No. But, rather unhelpfully, people have gotten different responses from GW customer services about what the situation is.

Different? Duh.

Were these responses quoted/posted somewhere? I'm curious!

I don't know why there's a dispute? Codex: Space Marines flat-out says that references to Codex: Black Templars in the rulebook apply to Codex: Space Marines armies that use Chapter Tactics (Black Templars). There's no addendum to state "Except the allies table" or anything.

I'd provide a page number, but I don't have a paper copy and the digital ones never match up with each other.

 Lynata wrote:
Were these responses quoted/posted somewhere? I'm curious!

'Fraid not. I just saw a few people on /tg/ saying that they'd emailed GW and been told to disregard the BT slot, and then I emailed them myself and got a response saying to use the BT slot.

The response they sent to me wasn't at all interesting, by the way. They bascially just said that they "recommend" that people still use the BT slot.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
I don't know why there's a dispute? Codex: Space Marines flat-out says that references to Codex: Black Templars in the rulebook apply to Codex: Space Marines armies that use Chapter Tactics (Black Templars). There's no addendum to state "Except the allies table" or anything.

It's not so clear cut. Some people interpret it differently, seeing the part where it say that BTs are now a part of Codex: Space Marines as meaning that they would use the SM part of the allies matrix, as per the rules of the allies matrix.

Hrff. Okay, thanks.

And yeah, there was a long debate about the exact interpretation of the rules, with quotes from the books: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/550588.page

How is the statement ambiguous?

CT:BT is a part of C:SM. The rule that says to use the Black Templar line on the allies matrix is in Codex: Space Marines.

By saying "You should use Space Marines on the list" and then ignoring that part of the Space Marine codex, you're saying "You should use Space Marines except when you don't want to."

And yet, evidently, many people do not agree. And neither can GW customer services, apparently.

Way I see it, we're just going to have to wait for an FAQ ruling for a definite answer, whenever that may be.

The way I see it, it's all just a matter of replacing words.

Rulebook: "Find the row for the codex of your primary detachment on the left side of the matrix."
-> Find the row for Codex: Black Templars on the left side of the matrix
-> Notice that BT are now in C:SM
-> Open C:SM
Codex: "Some older publications may refer to Codex: Black Templars. For all rules purposes consider these references to instead refer to detachments from C:SM using the Black Templar Chapter Tactics special rule."
-> Notice that the Chapter Tactics rule does not say anything about allies
-> Find the row for Codex: Space Marines on the left side of the matrix (because that is the codex your primary detachment is using, see quote #1)

That was my reasoning, and I still think it makes at least as much sense as the other interpretation. But then again I've always been biased in favour of the alliance between BT and SoB that is now part of the Codex fluff.

There is no need to agree. There is no need to interpret.

C:BT is gone. So is their place in the Allies Matrix, as the places refer to Codices not to armies or sub-armies.

Black Templars are now part of C:SM. p.78 C:SM states that everything that refered to C:BT now refers to C:SM.

C:SM calls Sisters Allies of Convenience, so BTs are now AoC with Sisters.

To make sure that you will never fall back to any other idea, take this

and cross out everything containing a BT cross in your Allies Matrix.

Case closed. Have a nice day.

See how easy that can be?

But, Weltenwolf, you're completely ignoring the part of C:SM that tells you to just read that line on the allies matrix as "Space Marines with Black Templar Chapter Tactics".

Actually, it says "detachments from Codex: Space Marines with the Black Templar Chapter Tactics".

And as per the rulebook quote above, detachments from Codex: Space Marines use the Codex: Space Marines allies row.

"Black Templar Chapter Tactics" do not contain any rules changing the BRB's RAW.

It's not an overwrite, it's a redirect.

Instead of following "Black Templars" on the allies matrix to "Codex: Black Templars", you follow it to "Codex: Space Marines (Black Templars Chapter Tactics)".

That's the letter of the rule in C:SM. I don't understand why people think it's OK to ignore that.

Not gonna lie, I would like to see an FAQ ruling that Templars now use the Marine slot. BT/SoB is just such a great pairing, they synergise both in fluff and in gameplay.

It is a redirect in that it points you to an entirely different Codex.

There is no "Codex: Space Marines (Black Templars Chapter Tactics)", just like there is no "Codex: Space Marines (Iron Hands Chapter Tactics)".
All of these are part of Codex: Space Marines, so they use the C:SM ally row. Otherwise, the Iron Hands would not be a legal army to field, as they'd have no codex affiliated with them.

"Find the row for the codex of your primary detachment on the left side of the matrix."
-> Which codex do you use to play your army?

You say we are ignoring something, I say you are ignoring the above. Can you at least see why there is grounds for a debate based on interpretation of the wording, and how the argument came to persist for multiple pages in that other thread?

Not really, it completely baffled me.

C:SM(BTCT) has a different army list to any of the other chapters in the book. It has a troops choice and two HQ choices not available to, say, C:SM(IHCT).

Iron Hands are a legal army to field. Their army list is one of the army lists included in Codex: Space Marines.

Otherwise, you may as well say that Death Korps Siege Engineers and Minotaurs Siege Vanguard aren't legal armies to field since they don't have their own codices, but are army lists included in Imperial Armour 12.

If the different Chapter Tactics weren't to be treated as entirely different army lists, then they wouldn't be able to ally with each other, since the rulebook explicitly states that you can't ally with another army from the same codex.

Furyou Miko wrote:C:SM(BTCT) has a different army list to any of the other chapters in the book. It has a troops choice and two HQ choices not available to, say, C:SM(IHCT).
Iron Hands are a legal army to field. Their army list is one of the army lists included in Codex: Space Marines,

So they both use Codex: Space Marines, no?
That the BT list is different to any other Chapter is irrelevant - what matters is that it is part of C:SM, so by the BRB's RAW, you should use C'SM's ally row.

Furyou Miko wrote:Otherwise, you may as well say that Death Korps Siege Engineers and Minotaurs Siege Vanguard aren't legal armies to field since they don't have their own codices, but are army lists included in Imperial Armour 12.

As per page 108, the standard game uses codices exclusively, so DKoK and Minotaurs wouldn't have their own lists, they'd be using C:IG and C:SM respectively, and their associated ally rows. Page 108 also gives you the option to modify the army or use entirely homebrewed systems, however. So, if you are using Forge World rules, then you have begun "customising" the game already, and then you may just as well apply the Imperial Armour's rule on where in the Allies chart they fit in - contradiction averted!

Furyou Miko wrote:If the different Chapter Tactics weren't to be treated as entirely different army lists, then they wouldn't be able to ally with each other, since the rulebook explicitly states that you can't ally with another army from the same codex.

Then apparently they won't be able to ally with each other, just like - as per this rule - you couldn't have Valhallans with Cadian allies, or Ultramarines with Iron Hands allies.

Except that Codex: Space Marines explicitly states that you can have Ultramarines with Iron Hands allies.

Can you give me the exact rule quote?
In that case, I believe policy for contradictions was that the Codex overrides the rulebook in that regard.

There is no contradiction as to which allies row the BTs should use, though. The Codex says that BT are now C:SM detachments - they'd occupy the same row as any of the other C:SM detachments with Chapter Tactics, unless said Chapter Tactics say something else.

Chapter tactics give you completely diffrent army lists and you can ally them with each other as a special rule introduced in C:SM. However, the ally matrix speaks not about army lists, but about codices, therefor whatever armylist you chose from C:SM it always uses the C:SM spot in the matrix. Doesn't matter if it's bt, um, ih, if, sala or scars.
So allying sisters with bt as AoC is legal by RAW.
Have waited long enough to see my girls roast the xenos bastards thoroughly so my boys in black can chop them up, to let anyone spit in my soup because they "intepret" the rules differently.

Any spelling/grammar mistakes contained in this post are property of samsungs tablet branch & sleep deprivation.

 Lynata wrote:
It is a redirect in that it points you to an entirely different Codex.

There is no "Codex: Space Marines (Black Templars Chapter Tactics)", just like there is no "Codex: Space Marines (Iron Hands Chapter Tactics)".
All of these are part of Codex: Space Marines, so they use the C:SM ally row. Otherwise, the Iron Hands would not be a legal army to field, as they'd have no codex affiliated with them.

"Find the row for the codex of your primary detachment on the left side of the matrix."
-> Which codex do you use to play your army?

You say we are ignoring something, I say you are ignoring the above. Can you at least see why there is grounds for a debate based on interpretation of the wording, and how the argument came to persist for multiple pages in that other thread?

Sorry, but the text written in the C:SM is a clear reference saying: STOP USING THE BLACK TEMPLARS CODEX. Anything beyond that is guessing and supposition, so unless FAQed BTs should still be using their row in the Allies table. I can easily see why people are curious and arguing the point since GW seldom makes things like this very clear when writing their rules and they leave things open to question. If in C:SM they had written the line everyone is quoting and then added one little line: This does not apply to the Allies table and Black Templars still use the table as presented OR Please ignore the BT row/column in the Allies table and use the generic Space Marine row instead. Instead the wording is such that it is clear that we need to stop looking back to the Black Templar's codex, but what about the allies? Pretty typical 40k situation really. So I get both positions, but that which focuses on the codex references and leaves the BT part of the allies table the same is the stronger argument given the RAW in C:SM.

Skriker

 Skriker wrote:

 Lynata wrote:
It is a redirect in that it points you to an entirely different Codex.

There is no "Codex: Space Marines (Black Templars Chapter Tactics)", just like there is no "Codex: Space Marines (Iron Hands Chapter Tactics)".
All of these are part of Codex: Space Marines, so they use the C:SM ally row. Otherwise, the Iron Hands would not be a legal army to field, as they'd have no codex affiliated with them.

"Find the row for the codex of your primary detachment on the left side of the matrix."
-> Which codex do you use to play your army?

You say we are ignoring something, I say you are ignoring the above. Can you at least see why there is grounds for a debate based on interpretation of the wording, and how the argument came to persist for multiple pages in that other thread?

Sorry, but the text written in the C:SM is a clear reference saying: STOP USING THE BLACK TEMPLARS CODEX. Anything beyond that is guessing and supposition, so unless FAQed BTs should still be using their row in the Allies table. I can easily see why people are curious and arguing the point since GW seldom makes things like this very clear when writing their rules and they leave things open to question. If in C:SM they had written the line everyone is quoting and then added one little line: This does not apply to the Allies table and Black Templars still use the table as presented OR Please ignore the BT row/column in the Allies table and use the generic Space Marine row instead. Instead the wording is such that it is clear that we need to stop looking back to the Black Templar's codex, but what about the allies? Pretty typical 40k situation really. So I get both positions, but that which focuses on the codex references and leaves the BT part of the allies table the same is the stronger argument given the RAW in C:SM.

Skriker

Rulebook, p.113 "Find the row for the codex of your primary detachment [...]" Codex you use as a Black Templar is C:SM. No guessing, no supposition. There is no C:BT anymore, so the place in the matrix with the Malteser Cross is vacant, cross it out.

Except that you're still ignoring the fact that C:SM outright states that Codex: Space Marines with Black Templars Chapter Tactics is Codex: Black Templars. I have yet to see anything that states that this is, in fact, not true. Just a lot of bluster about how it's not really a codex, even though it says it is.

Not You Make Da Call people. Take the argument elsewhere and focus on the OP.

I recommend Guard for allies cause they can provide you with whatever you need for whatever situation. And vehicles can be in squadrons so the one heavy/fast slot thing can be somewhat circumvented.