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.

So I can't decide between Imperial Fists or Salamanders which is making me think, why don't I just do both.

Has anyone had experience running formations/ detachments with different chapter tactics in the same force?
Would Fists and Salamanders work well together?

Why not just run them as the same detachment? Or are you trying to run them separately just for the two Chapter Tactics?

I mean if you pick the right units for each tactic it would be all fine and dandy. But in the face of having to run 2 HQ's, and having to make one of the Chapter Strike Forces much smaller than the other when the points get big, I'd just jam them into one force.

G.A

 General Annoyance wrote:
Why not just run them as the same detachment?

All models in the same Detachment or Formation must be drawn from the same Chapter. You can't have two different Chapter Tactics in one Detachment or Formation.

I meant that as just ditch the second tactic and run them together under one tactic, painted differently.

I'd recommend picking one to stick with, or emphasizing one and grabbing a small allied contingent of the other. Trying to come up with multiple detachments every game when you're playing an army with such expensive minimum requirements is going to be a constant headache.

 General Annoyance wrote:
I meant that as just ditch the second tactic and run them together under one tactic, painted differently.

The Codex Astartes does not support such a course of action.

Heretic.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I'd recommend picking one to stick with, or emphasizing one and grabbing a small allied contingent of the other. Trying to come up with multiple detachments every game when you're playing an army with such expensive minimum requirements is going to be a constant headache.

That's what I was thinking. Maybe I should just do a force of each and use them separately.

Could always paint them as Salamanders and Imoerial Fists, use them in the same detachment with Ultramarines Chapter Tactics, to represent them falling back on their codex training while crusading together.

 Traditio wrote:


The Codex Astartes does not support such a course of action.

Heretic.

Crap, he's onto me. Back to the warp gate!

I've run IF and Black Templars together for quite a while now, they are suitably different in optimisation for it to actually work quite well, but it does mean you have to play exclusively to their specific strengths with no room for middle ground.

Fist/Saladmongers does not really mesh well as they emphasise basically the same thing, close range firepower with a stubborn streak, just using different tools.

One thing I'll make particular mention of is you cannot have two or more chapter traits in the same unit i.e. via independent characters - they cancel out.

That said, if you do Salamander Bikes with fisty centurions it could work.

<Full disclosure, I only run pure Ultramarines, so this is a theoretical>

It should be easier to do then in the past. With formations, you have less of a tax to deal with. Just take a formation that suits the force, and built to that. The individual formations can take the CT that suits them best.

There are a number of downsides:
Can’t really mix HQs around, due to how they nullify chapter tactics.
You will probably not be able to take advantage of any of the larger meta-formations, due to point restrictions. So while you might have a Salamander demi co and a Imperial Fists 1st co TF, you will not get the benefits of the Gladius.
From a modeling POV, what color are you going to paint that new model? Which side needs that hobby dollar and drop pod more? Maintaining and expanding both armies to flexible forces is more of an investment. Unless you have the willpower to cap it at a certain point (Emperor knows I don’t)

All that said, if it’s what you want, go for it! It might not be 100% optimal, and restrict your list building a bit, but should look cool and be fun. If I were in your shoes, I’d work on a hybrid drop list. The Salamanders I’d keep in orbit. Everything DS’ing or in pods. Run the ‘Fists as either an entrenched gunline, or a mech force rolling up the table. Salies do their melta/flamer close in thing, while the ‘Fists take advantage of tank hunting devs and bolter drilling tacs to take and hold ground.

 Nevelon wrote:

From a modeling POV, what color are you going to paint that new model? Which side needs that hobby dollar and drop pod more? Maintaining and expanding both armies to flexible forces is more of an investment. Unless you have the willpower to cap it at a certain point (Emperor knows I don’t)

This is the biggest issue I guess, as I'm also building up a 30K force alongside them to use some of the fancy FW tanks and stuff for both games. Having to buy 2x Spartans etc is a bit too rich.

Modelling wise I'm sort of dreading having to paint all that yellow but at least I can use mostly stock models for my Fists, if I go Salamanders then the painting is probably easier but I just know I'm going to have to model scaled cloaks and loincloths on everything.
Theme wise they are both cool Legion/Chapters and I like both of their Primarch's although there seems to be more chance of Vulkan popping up in 40K than Dorn at the minute.
Rulewise I like both of their chapter detachments from Angels of Death and like their nicely thematic bonuses.

Choices are so difficult sometimes.

Paint them alpha legion, you could run them as Dark Eldar and still not be technically wrong