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.

all that says is that, when the rules refer to "ultramarines units" it is referring only to those units that have the ultramarines CT.
Only when the rules specifically refer to a unit by it's chapter does this rule mean anything

technically, "All models in the same Detachment or Formation must be drawn from the same chapter" does not actually refer to a model, character, or unit by their chapter

How do you determine if models are from the same chapter without referring to their chapter?

I don't, but then it doesn't say "when YOU refer to units by chapter........"

If a rule hasn't specifically referred to a unit by its chapter, then that rule does not necessarily only refer to units with CT.

What does it refer to?

RAI are crystal on this; even though the RAW is fethed.

Yes you can take vehicles; I would still say no, they do not benefit from ct without the ct rule.

This is coming from a marine player that started a Sons of Medusae chapter in 5th(iron hands successor), so in 6th i had nice iwnd tanks, in 7th i only have iwnd dreads.

Vehicles(other than dreads) in a sm detachment are "generic sm vehicles"; they are of faction:sm(well i guess aa now), and therefore are effected by pe:sm/aa, and honestly the rules can continue to function fine if you only apply the ct rule to units that have it.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
RAI are crystal on this; even though the RAW is fethed.

Yes you can take vehicles; I would still say no, they do not benefit from ct without the ct rule.

This is coming from a marine player that started a Sons of Medusae chapter in 5th(iron hands successor), so in 6th i had nice iwnd tanks, in 7th i only have iwnd dreads.

Vehicles(other than dreads) in a sm detachment are "generic sm vehicles"; they are of faction:sm(well i guess aa now), and therefore are effected by pe:sm/aa, and honestly the rules can continue to function fine if you only apply the ct rule to units that have it.

Agreed. But some people believe it requires magical powers to understand English at any level beyond the purely literal.

Can't have some fun pointing out the rules we purchased don't work?

There is a good understanding that you should be able to include vehicles, but if there is a rules conflict of this magnitude then it's a great throwback to scream at GW for real FAQ's.

That's my whole purpose with this.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
RAI are crystal on this; even though the RAW is fethed.

Agreed. But some people believe it requires magical powers to understand English at any level beyond the purely literal.

And some people believe it requires the magical power of telepathy to understand what the writers intended to mean.

Threads like these can be useful. They confirm that this really is a case where the RAW are wrong. It's not us misunderstanding the rules, it's not us forgetting a key page, it really is a case of GW getting it wrong. Once we know that, we can safely add this case to our list of pre-game checks with new opponents (where we quickly mention which RAW we might ignore, just to make sure we're both on the same page).

There's also the fact that we humans are, well, human. We can be biased. We can think that the rules clearly intend something, we can think that it's clear as crystal, but we also know that we're human. We know that it could be our biases speaking. It's useful to touch base with a few other players to confirm that no, we're not being biased - the RAI really are as obvious as we think they are, and yes, the RAW really are as broken as we think they are.

Also, what Juraigamer says. It can be quite nice to poke a broken thing and to mock its brokenness, especially when it's an expensive broken thing whose producer isn't interested in fixing.

Mallich wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
RAI are crystal on this; even though the RAW is fethed.

Agreed. But some people believe it requires magical powers to understand English at any level beyond the purely literal.

And some people believe it requires the magical power of telepathy to understand what the writers intended to mean.

Threads like these can be useful. They confirm that this really is a case where the RAW are wrong. It's not us misunderstanding the rules, it's not us forgetting a key page, it really is a case of GW getting it wrong. Once we know that, we can safely add this case to our list of pre-game checks with new opponents (where we quickly mention which RAW we might ignore, just to make sure we're both on the same page).

There's also the fact that we humans are, well, human. We can be biased. We can think that the rules clearly intend something, we can think that it's clear as crystal, but we also know that we're human. We know that it could be our biases speaking. It's useful to touch base with a few other players to confirm that no, we're not being biased - the RAI really are as obvious as we think they are, and yes, the RAW really are as broken as we think they are.

Also, what Juraigamer says. It can be quite nice to poke a broken thing and to mock its brokenness, especially when it's an expensive broken thing whose producer isn't interested in fixing.

This!

RAW is wrong, and needs fixed. We all know how it's supposed to work, and good job to whoever caught this glaring error in the first place!

Another important note:

Since fortifications and lords of war don't have chapter tactics, when you take a CAD from the BRB... you can't take fortifications or lords of war as part of that detachment.

You know, that imperial bunker, aegis defense line or whatever LOW can't be included.

Hell, does this rule from the codex overrule playing unbound? Sure you can take whatever, but do they also have to all be the same chapter tactic?

 jokerkd wrote:
I don't, but then it doesn't say "when YOU refer to units by chapter........"

If a rule hasn't specifically referred to a unit by its chapter, then that rule does not necessarily only refer to units with CT.

The rule in question refers to chapters. Namely, that everyone has to have the same one . There is no way to apply that rule without referring to the chapter.

Unbound is easy enough; only your primary detachment and formations are detachments, therefore only the group you buy with your warlord or any given formations will have to all have the same ct.

And ultras can have a cad with a low: calgar.

 juraigamer wrote:

Hell, does this rule from the codex overrule playing unbound? Sure you can take whatever, but do they also have to all be the same chapter tactic?

The rule applies specifically to formations and detachments. Formations in am Unbound army would be bound by this rule as normal, but it doesn't apply to the entire army, because detachment rules (aside from formations) don't apply to Unbound.

 insaniak wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
I don't, but then it doesn't say "when YOU refer to units by chapter........"

If a rule hasn't specifically referred to a unit by its chapter, then that rule does not necessarily only refer to units with CT.

The rule in question refers to chapters. Namely, that everyone has to have the same one . There is no way to apply that rule without referring to the chapter.

Yes it refers to chapters. It doesn't refer to a unit by its chapter.

It may well imply you must refer to to units by chapter, but does not do so itself, if we're reading it literally

I'm not really sure how you think this changes anything.

Im trying to say that the rule does not actually define a chapter as only including units with CT, as this is the point of the thread.

The rule as written isnt referring to a unit by its chapter. "Iron hands models" is referring to models by their chapter. The rule in question literally does not do that

Actually rules do say that models with CT (x) do from from Chapter X, do you have any permission for any other type of model or unit to come from Chapter X? If not, they don't. That's how a permissive ruleset works.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Actually rules do say that models with CT (x) do from from Chapter X,

I dont have my book with me, but i believe it is more like "must come from chapter (x) it still doesn't define a chapter as only units with CT

do you have any permission for any other type of model or unit to come from Chapter X? If not, they don't. That's how a permissive ruleset works.

Can you define "chapter (x)" without referring to the rule to which we disagree on the meaning of?

"The Chapter Tactics special rule represents a group of rules that are specific to a given Chapter." Page 189

So here we KNOW CT(x) makes you part of Chapter X. Do you have any permission for anything else to be part of Chapter x?

jokerd, the rule requires all units to come from the same chapter, correct?

How do we know what chapter a unit comes from?

Page 189 proves that everything with those rules must be part of a specific chapter. Trouble is everything that is part of the chapter does not necessarily have to have those rules. Land Raiders do not have those rules but there is nothing to prevent my from drawing a land raider from that chapter when adding it to my detachment. If you want to say I don't have permission to draw a land raider from a given chapter because it does not have the chapter tactics rule I will need you to prove where I am given permission to draw units with the CT rule from a given chapter, The closest I can find is a requirement to name the chapter they are being drawn from if they have the CT rule. This inferred permission is no different then the inferred permission to draw them 'from the same chapter' as units already in a detachment.

So you agree CTs forces you to name the chapter they are drawn from yet don't see that they have permission to be drawn from that chapter? Also see my quote above.

 DJGietzen wrote:
Page 189 proves that everything with those rules must be part of a specific chapter. Trouble is everything that is part of the chapter does not necessarily have to have those rules. Land Raiders do not have those rules but there is nothing to prevent my from drawing a land raider from that chapter when adding it to my detachment. If you want to say I don't have permission to draw a land raider from a given chapter because it does not have the chapter tactics rule I will need you to prove where I am given permission to draw units with the CT rule from a given chapter, The closest I can find is a requirement to name the chapter they are being drawn from if they have the CT rule. This inferred permission is no different then the inferred permission to draw them 'from the same chapter' as units already in a detachment.

OK, you take a Land Raider. What Chapter is it from? Is it from the same Chapter as the rest of your detachment? How do you know?

 jokerkd wrote:
Im trying to say that the rule does not actually define a chapter as only including units with CT, as this is the point of the thread.

From the quote in the first post:

The rules will often refer to a model, character or unit by its Chapter; in all cases, this refers to a model, character or unit with the Chapter Tactics special rule that is drawn from the given Chapter."

So yes, the rules do define a Chapter as only including units with CT.


By that rule, any time that the rules say 'Chapter' they mean 'Chapter Tactics special rule that is drawn from the given Chapter'.


So if you are determining if all models in a formation are fro mthe same chapter, you check if they all have the same version of Chapter Tactics. There is no other method provided by the rules for allocating a model to any specific chapter.

Referring to a chapter is not the same as referring a to a unit by its chapter. The rule only applies when the book refers to a unit by its chapter.

The rules say models must be from the same chapter.
The rules say i can take a vehicle in the same formation as models with CT
The logical conclusion is that vehicles must be given a chapter.
The rules for CT do not restrict me from doing this as the rule only applies when the book refers to something by its chapter

jokerd, true or false - all units in a detachment must be from the same chapter.

True RAW

OK, next question. How do you know what Chapter a unit comes from?

You choose what chapter it comes from

 jokerkd wrote:
You choose what chapter it comes from

Do you have a rules quote to back that up?

Because the rule already quoted in this thread several times says that you determine the Chapter by looking at which Chapter Tactics they have.