Talk:Warhammer 40,000/7th Edition Tactics/Space Marines

Counter Tactics

I added a section for counter-tactics, since I sometimes want to know how to kill a prticularly troublesome unit or unit type and wading through individual unit examinations for "these work great against..." is annoying. So add what has worked for you against generic unit types or specific units that may be problematic for other players! Anyone think that devastators with RG tactics to scout up the board is viable (at least as viable as ultra multi-melta squad?)

Red Scorpions Chapter Tactics

Section says Sgts -> Apothecaries for free, but IA6 says +25 pts. Why the discrepancy? 70.114.142.75 21:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• There's an updated list of Chapter Tactics made at the dawn of the 6E Marines codex and also IA4 Second Edition which give you free Sarge->Apothecaries. IA6 is out of date. 23:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • BM of me not to respond sooner, but thanks for the infos. Grayswandir (talk) 02:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

"Teleporting" Units

Just raising discussion on the Damocles Rhino, since there is probably a conflict with RAI and RAW, depending on how you interpret bracketed statements and whether or not you take the whole statement into consideration. Word-for-word, it says: "Units arriving by Teleport (using Deep Strike)..." do not need to roll for scatter if they arrive within 12" of the Teleport Beacon. Now we all know there is no rule for "Teleporting" and that Deep Strike is how these units actually arrive on the tabletop, which is pretty much what the rule is saying with the bracketed statement.

However, then you can go in multiple paths of logic from there; you could then say that ALL Deep Striking units can therefore get the benefit, since there is no rules distinction between how units Deep Strike differently, whether they teleport, parachute, grapnel-line, jump-jet, dig tunnels etc etc. But that ignores the first line of the rule as written which says "Units arriving by Teleport", meaning you would be required to come up with a definition for what actually Teleports or not, which all players should be able to agree on. My group has always done it this way and we can only assume this is exactly how the rule was as intended, only this morning have I come to look at it any differently. If you take one extreme view of RAW, then no unit should be able to gain the benefit at all because no unit "Teleports" and it becomes an All or Nothing situation. How does anyone else look at the problem? --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 09:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Deepstriking by teleportation is roughly referenced in the Zones Mortalis game mode as "materialising from the warp" [HH1 p.171]. Thus, Daemons, Terminators and stuff like that "pop from thin air" would be considered to arrive by Teleport (and would benefit), while stuff arriving by Drop pod or Jump pack is another thing. Thallax, for example, need to be upgraded to teleport into a ZM game even though they already can Deep strike by being Jetpack infantry...if you ever play that. -- Zerghalo2 (talk) 06:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Iron Hands and It Will not Die

Ok so, this is getting ridiculous, and since I don't want to start an edit war, especially against someone who doesn't even bother to explain his reasoning to change things back, I am going to explain mine. Since it appears to me that the rules as are written are pretty obvious, but at the same time it seems that they aren't to everyone, I'm going to quote the codex word for word, so that there isn't any room for speculations. I'll try to be as brief as possible so bear with me. So, under the Chapter Tactics section it is specifically stated that "All models drawn from a given chapter benefit from that chapter's Chapter Tactics", but it immediatly clarify that "The rules will often refer to a model, character or unit by is 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". Now, this is pretty straightforward: Ultramarines Land Speeders cannot reroll rolls of 1s in the shooting phase when you enact the Devastor Doctrine, nor the Black Templars tank get Adamatium Will.

In the old codex the Machine Empathy paragraph, under the Iron Hands Chapter Tactics, specifically stated: "All Vehicles and Characters in this Detatchment have the IWND special rule (even though vehicles do not have the Chapter Tactics rule)" while in the new one it simply says: "Iron Hands Characters and Vehicles have the IWND special rule". So, to me it seems pretty clear that the IWND part, RAW, only apply to Dreadnought, as they are the only vehicles with Chapter Tactics and there is nothing that could make me think Iron Hands are an exception to the general rules. I don't know if this was a mistake from Games Workshop or they simply tought that, with the new vehicles rules under 7th edition and all the formations in the new codex it could become too overpowered, but if it is the first case it will surely be faqed soon; until that time, too, I think that this is the correct interpretation of the new Iron Hands Chapter Tactics. Am I missing something? Hekaloth (talk) 08:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'm with you Hekaloth, its pretty cut and dry who gets chapter tactics and who does not. Iron Hand vehicles don't have the chapter tactics rule, so don't get IWND. But Dreadnoughts do. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 10:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the feedback :) ok so i am going to edit the Chapter Tactics section...again. only hope this is the last f*****g time xD Hekaloth (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm also agree. Even more, rules say "When choosing an army you must make a note of which Chapter each unit with the Chapter Tactics special rule is drawn from". So, you don't play an Iron Hands army; you play a Space Marines army and some units inside the army (the ones with Chapter Tactics)will be Iron Hands.
• It seems simple enough to me, I don't know why some anons are so adamant about that not being the case that they'll change it without posting any evidence as to why they think that. -- Triacom (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually I just realized it is always the same anon, so we are probably dealing either with a troll or maybe with some faggot who can't accept that his/her army got "nerfed". Hekaloth (talk) 07:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep. I've already put a message into their talk page asking them to knock it off, and if they don't I'll put a message in on wikifag asking for them to get a temporary ban. -- Triacom (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• • I don't agree, I find this ruling vague. So, added a disclaimer that people should research it to better understand it and make their own ruling.
    • It's not a " Vague" ruling at all... It's exactly what the codex says. IN ALL CASES this only applies to units with the Chapter Tactics rule. What part do people not understand? Yes, the Chapter Tactic itself says that Characters and Vehicles gain IWND, but unless these units have the Chapter Tactic, how would they gain IWND? That's like saying units from Codex: Necrons can get IWND because they are Vehicles or Characters and don't need the Chapter Tactic rule for it to apply to them.--Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
      • The rule everyone is referring to is being used out of context. That rule is to clarify how to handle allies with different chapter tactics. So if you have white scars mixed with Iron hands in a unit, they are nulified. Also, it is to clarify that things like servitors don't get chapter tactics. The iron hands chapter tactics specifically states vehicles get it. Not only vehicles with chapter tactics, and not specifically dreadnoughts only. It seems clear to me, specific rules overule general rules. They would have worded it differently if it worked the way you state.
      • Actually no... If it worked the way you state it would have been worded as it was in the 6th edition. The way that it is stated makes no mention about detachments, merely unit types, and as an important secondary note: Venerable Dreadnoughts are not the same as Dreadnoughts, the same way a Terminator Sergeant is not the same thing as a Terminator. So by saying "Vehicle" it manages to encompass both. Now onto the context: the second paragraph makes no mention of allies, and specifically states: All models drawn from a given Chapter benefit from that chapters Chapter Tactics rule now that sounds fantastic until you read the following line where it goes on to state that in all cases this refers to models, characters or units with the Chapter Tactic rule... Nothing to do with allies as you put it, that just means there is no such thing as a "Chapter vehicle" if it doesn't have chapter tactics, if we followed the reasoning that because Iron Hands specifically refers to "'Vehicles'" then because most other Chapter Tactics refers to "'models'" in some way, you could have a Black Templars Whirlwind with Adamantium Will, a Salamanders LR Redeemer that rerolls fails to-wound with Flamers, Imperial Fist Predators that reroll building armour and 1s with Heavy Bolters... Truly if that were the case then it makes the effort of putting the Chapter Tactics rule on the models pages a bit redundant, if every model can take it according to your logic. But that takes us back to the earlier point where it makes clear "in all cases" that it is every model with the Chapter Tactics rule.--Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Also, if I may, I would like to point out a simple point: in 6th edition they bothered to specify that Iron Hands Vehicles would get the rule by adding a sentence after the rule itself that made them bypass the problem. Now Machine Empathy is exactly the same MINUS that vital sentence. Why would have they done that if not to take the rule away? Hekaloth (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• This whole issue is completely retarded in my eye. It's a CLEAR issue of entirely Misinterpreted RAW vs. RAI, and it's clear that in the rules for tactics, you DECLARE YOUR DETACHMENT to be of a specific chapter, and all vehicles are from that chapter. So in the Tactics it states that all "Iron Hands Vehicles", referring to all vehicles in an "IRON HANDS DETACHMENT". Even if RAW could somehow be turned into an Aborted Down Syndrome fetus of mis-understanding, it is extremely clear that RAI refers to the detachment, and anyone who says otherwise needs to have their head beaten in with the nearest copy of Imperial Armor. Evilexecutive (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "And all vehicles are from that chapter." No actually, never are vehicles specified to ever have been drawn from a chapter with the exception of the Iron Hands rules AFTER the section that says "in all cases this refers to a model, character or unit with the Chapter Tactics special rule that is drawn from the given chapter" and since vehicles aren't drawn from the chapter (only models with Chapter Tactics are) they wouldn't get the rule. -- Triacom (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This is going pretty bad. A faq could really help, but alas. Still, concerning the Detachment and Chapter thing, I would like to add a little piece of clarification to what Triacom has already stated, just to be perfectly clear: "When choosing an army, you must make a note of which Chapter each unit with the Chapter Tactics special rule is drawn from" and then "All models drawn from given Chapter benefit from that Chapter's Tactics rules, as described below". With this it is clear that Vehicles are not part of a Chapter for what concern Chapter Tactics; they are basically Chapterless, and rules don't give a fuck if you think (fluffwise) that they are. So, at the very core of it, when the rules then state that all models from a given Chapter benefit from the Chapter's Chapter Tactics, Vehicles (except for Dreads) are already out of the picture 'cause they are, as stated above, Chapterless, so to say. Hekaloth (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• • so we just delete other peoples views on here? Simply speaking louder and putting more time into this wiki makes you right? You guys are just repeating the same nonsense and it is simply wrong.

• • • Or you could actually read the rules. If someone kept insisting that Salamanders still got to reroll saves vs flame, they'd get deleted too. If all vehicles, even ones without Chapter Tactics, count as being from a chapter, then not only would they be Iron Hands vehicles for IWND, they would be Ultramarines models and get rerolls from combat doctrines, or be Imperial Fist models and get to reroll 1s on all the bolters on your transports. No one's arguing that they can take a Gladius full of free transports that also reroll all 1s to hit, so aside from the fact that it used to work that way, why are the Iron Hands insisting on getting benefits that aren't in the book? The rules simply don't say what you want them to say. Yeah, it worked that way before, but it doesn't now. You got nerfed, deal with it.
    • I don't even think it's a RAW vs RAI issue either. The drastically increased number of formations, particularly vehicle only formations, is a significant enough shift for the change to be warranted. If you still got IWND on non-dread vehicles, there would be no reason (outside of a Gladius) to take Skyspear, Storm Wing, Land Raider Spearhead, or the Suppression Force from any other chapter except maybe from Ultras or Fists, since by your reading they would apply to vehicles too. That's more than a third of the formations that would be forced to choose between being from a more limited set of chapters or being nothing. Also notice how the restriction against Storm Wing getting to be from a chapter isn't there anymore? Yeah, that was to prevent exactly this kind of abuse. The absence of that restriction along with the bit about the IH tactics applying to all vehicles both being removed strongly points to this not only being the correct interpretation, but also the intended one.

• • Still says in Clan Raukaan Supplement All vehicles, It's still legal to buy from GW use with 7th Edition. Just use that version instead.
    • Not actually the case. Also, you can sign your talk posts with --~~'~~ if you remove the ' --NewPhyrexian (talk) 02:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
    • If you're going to start quoting that other sources say that units without Chapter Tactics keep IWND then at least do us the favour of giving us the text or page number, otherwise you just come across as fabricating something to support your arguments, and trust us, you'll be found out quickly. No-where in the Clan Raukaan book does anything modify Iron Hands Chapter Tactics, and rules like March of the Ancients, Scions of the Forge and Gifts of the Gorgon all slide neatly alongside the codex (with the singular exception of referring to 6E Masters of the Forge), unless perhaps you are using an old iPad version that has a pop-up for an older rule... then good for you, a loophole doesn't win you the argument. If you have anything to debate, then debate it with points of FACT, we are giving you the actual lines and page references where the 7E codex is telling you #1: how units are drawn from a given chapter (ie: taking a note of all the units with Chapter Tactics) and then making sure they are all drawn from the same chapter. #2 where the rules for chapter tactics refer to models and/or units, they ALWAYS refer to models and/or units with the Chapter Tactics rule. I can even quote a third source for you: BRB p156 "unless stated otherwise, a model does NOT have a special rule" There is no more exceptions made for Iron Hands in 7E when there explicitly WAS an exception in the 6E codex. Just because they refer to "Iron Hands Vehicles" it is no different from any other chapter tactic referring to "Ultramarine units" or "Imperial Fist models" since the header of the Chapter Tactic section has already explained to you what/where chapter tactics are applied. Nobody gets a rule without having the rule. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 08:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
    • "so we just delete other peoples views on here? Simply speaking louder and putting more time into this wiki makes you right? You guys are just repeating the same nonsense and it is simply wrong" err...actually, no. We all have made our arguments and posted evidence that we are right, while there isn't even a post who gives a clear counter-argument. For us to take you seriously we need a clear reason. You can't simply state "I don't agree" and "you are wrong" and expect us to give you the benefit of the doubt: we simply can't. We are trying to use a rational discussion to explain ourself and through this resolve our disagreement, but you refuse (or simply can't) do the same and only point your feet like a child. Also (the reason why I posted this here and not above; also to make the whole post more easy to read), the thing you say about Clan Raukaan should refer to the Ironstone, am I correct? Yes, it says that "Tanks and Walkers within 6" of the bearer pass their IWND rolls on a 4+"...but what of it? Games Workshop stated that the Supplement is still legal, but it was still written for the 6th edition codex, when Tanks actually HAD IWND, so yeah, it says "tanks"; but nowhere in the book it says that you can give IWND to model who don't already have it (And, as stated by Dark Angel, unless stated otherwise a model does not have a special rule). You must take old codex with a grain of salt. Also, you are the only one who is continuing to argue and edit the page back even though we have more than clearly explained to you why you are in the wrong, and by doing so you're making all this situation ridiculous and degrading, even for us who are only trying to use dialectic with a deaf. Hekaloth (talk) 08:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • First, this is not just one guy doing this. I (squinky) am disagreeing with the whole premise of them not getting it will not die. I am not the guy posting about clan raukann that you keep pdeleting. Poor form on that too. I can't continue to argue with you, because I already have. We are at an impasse here. You guys are citing rules out of context that refer to another issue. They just don't apply. Do I need to start quoting rules out of context? I don't think that would even matter. How about this, Iron Hands chapter tactics says that vehicles get IWND....Bam. Now stop being jerks and allow a view other than yours.
  • It's just as jerky to say that we are all quoting rules out of context and change our edits, when we believe we are not in the wrong. Not only that but you can find the same debates on other forum sites, coming to the same conclusions that we have drawn here. Even if it were "out of context" it doesn't change what's actually written. If you need an official example, the codex even says that "an Ultramarines unit" refers to a unit with the Chapter Tactics rule drawn from the Ultramarines chapter full stop. That agrees with everything we have said here and is no less valid because the following sentence says that to join an Imperial Fist unit causes it to count as neither. You cannot ignore what is being said, because neither sentence fundamentally requires the existence of the other to make it work. Transpose that with "Iron Hands unit" and you get the same result. Being a vehicle doesn't change a thing. Now there may or may not be a FAQ on this matter, we cannot dispute if it comes to that. But again, you should have came to the table with evidence at the beginning rather than to-and-fro with a bunch of people with the same amount of source material as yourself, and bear in mind this was going on for nearly two weeks before the first counter-argument (I'm assuming that was you) actually got posted on this discussion page and any form of debate could actually take place. We can all see the words written on the page and what it actually says, again this is on other sites too. We can equally argue that you are the one creating false context, allowing you to ignore passages as they are written because you may think that if one part doesn't apply to you, then none of it does.--Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • You know, that (your last comment) actually made me realise that you did not understand even one of ours long, long, long and detailed arguments. I don't have any more words to waste, as Dark Angel already said more than enough, and even though I really would like to point out a lot of silly things I don't think it would benefit anyone. We had a pretty long discussion and I think I can say with confidence that the people which actually partecipated in it (or merely read it in a rational way) now can say to understand the rule in his entirety, and that was the whole point as to why I started this section. I think this is it. I am done, at least. Hekaloth (talk) 18:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I'll settle this debate, aside from Dreadnoughts Iron Hands have no vehicles. AT ALL. Full stop, they can include vehicles from the Space Marine book, but those are Space Marine vehicles, NOT Iron Hands vehicles. PERIOD. I have no idea how I could possibly make this any clearer, the only way a vehicle counts as part of a chapter is if it has Chapter Tactics (meaning dreadnoughts and dreadnoughts only). The codex says this under chapter tactics, we did NOT take it out of context in the slightest and anyone who continues arguing against this without providing evidence should have their posts deleted from the page, as they are OPINION, not fact. It does not matter if you think it's a debate of RAI vs RAW, the tactics page needs to go by RAW (you can include what the RAI probably should be but you cannot say RAI is what the rule is), if you still want to change it please cite one, just one source that helps your argument that has not already been disproved as everything anybody's brought up in favour of all vehicles getting IWND that hasn't been disproved can be summed up with "well I think..." as opposed to "I know because it says here..." -- Triacom (talk) 04:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• • Simply put, Iron Hand had a line in 6E specify that vehicles without chapter tactics are also included, but this line isn't presented in 7E codex. More over, Dreadnoughts have CT now, meaning this change was on purpose, not a slip. If dreadnoughts don't have CT, then I guess there is a reason for such long wall of obvious shit. Yeah, huge waste of time on fighting over this. The very existence of Techmarine is already enough to justify the nerf on IWND, not to mention the 4 attacks on dreads, formations that allows you to include 3 Thunderfire Cannon AND more tanks. Even they don't have IWND on tanks anymore, you still have bonus on fixing vehicles while have lower price on "MoTF"! Seriously, if anything, IH is the most buffed CT this edition, stop whining, and put those tanks to work.
• I think RAI, all vehicles get IWND. Doesn't mean that they benefit from Doctrines or that the other chapter's vehicles benefit from their tactics. I think GW, having said that the Iron Hands have self repair tech on their rhinos figured the intended effect of the rule would be clear. Just use common sense.
• Per the Sept 3rd Nova Open Tournament Faq "All Iron Hands Vehicles do benefit from the Iron Hand Chapter Tactics even if they do not have the Chapter Tactic Rule.

(New poster) As an Iron Hands player, I quite like the challenge involved with the loss. For me, the removal of the line about all vehicles whether or not they have the CT rule makes sense. Out of six games with the army, I have lost once, to a guy who took two riptides at 1200 points and it was bloody close. Against a variety of armies there's no challenge, so I get why it was done and I welcome the change. But then I play for fun and not competitively and will always let the opponent go back and do something they forgot the turn before. I get the feeling guys are arguing the other way simply because it's seen as a nerf. If it went the other way and was a boost, there would be a lot less resistance. Just adjust your expectations and make it work. As it stands, FNP 6+, IWND on characters and vehicles with the CT rule and +1 to blessing of the Omnissiah is a pretty good Chapter Tactic. Or play on hard mode: play Aurora Chapter, "undisputed masters of the armoured assault" with Ultramarines Chatper Tactics. My razorbacks and vindicators no longer have IWND. Its a shame but I have to accept it and move on.

• According to the updated ITC Faq. "Vehicles with the Space Marines Faction in an Iron Hands detachment benefit from the Machine Empathy special rule even if they do not have the Chapter Tactics special rule."

• • The Clan Raukaan Supplement has "The Ironstone" relic. It has the exact wording of "Friendly Clan Raukaan Tanks and Walkers within ..." and improves the IWND roll. Why would they put that in if the tanks didn't get the IWND rule to begin with?

• • • Just to be a devil's advocate, Clan Raukaan was published while the 6th edition codex was in circulation, which I believe did specify that vehicles without CT still get IWND.--The Forgefather (talk)

• I'm loathe to resurrect this old discussion, but the edits have already begun: the rules have changed. So now all --Insert Chapter-- Models in a --Chapter-- detachment gain all the rules we previously associated with Chapter Tactics. Though that can take us back to our original point over what constitutes an "Iron Hand Vehicle": (I.E: vehicle with the chapter tactics rule). However, the new Detachments also say that ALL units MUST be drawn from a particular Chapter, so "non" units (by our old argument) would not be able to be taken. Therefore the RAI is emphatically clear: ALL vehicles in an Iron Hands Detachment would gain IWND, otherwise they cannot be taken.--Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm well aware of the new changes made in Angels of Death, but I'm not reverting edits about it because I disagree with them. I reverted those changes because they added strikethrus to a tactics page, which is wholly unacceptable. It's better to just reformat the text to suit the new information, rather than fuck up a perfectly good; informative article, with lines that make the text hard to read.Evil Executive, CEO of Evil Incorporated (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
    • So is it clear now? I have seen both arguments....but it does seem weird that the included a relic that specifically works with vehicle IWND. I could understand before that that relic fell out of the argument because it was published before the new space marine codex....but now it is current. And with the new wording, it seems like they get IWND on all vehicles?
      • The intention is quite clear: ALL Vehicles (Tanks & Walkers) benefit from the Detachment rules, corroborated by the fact they copy-pasted the Relic rules which apply to all vehicles. The RAW is still as muddled as before, since a "Chapter vehicle" had a convoluted definition in the parent codex, and the rules still specifically apply to Chapter vehicles. But now we at least should be able to agree in the direction the RAI goes, even if GW only did it by accident or poor word choice.--Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 09:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I just got the latest print of the German Codex, not the supplement, "Codex Adeptus Astartes- Space Marines" (Softcover). In the chapter tactics it now clearly states, that all vehicles and independent characters of the Iron Hands do have the "It will not die" special rule. ("Alle Fahrzeuge und Charaktermodelle der Iron Hands haben die Sonderregel Es Stirbt nicht.", Page 190) - 14:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Models without Chapter Tactics in Units with Chapter Tactics

Question, how does that work out? For example, do Cenobyte Servitors get FNP if they have an attached Black Templar character? (Clearly they do not have the rule without a Black Templar IC, which seems fair given that they don't suffer from mindlock. and SM servitors need to be babysat as a rule of thumb.--NewPhyrexian (talk) 04:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

IIRC the Servitors can't leave Grimaldus anyway so it's kind of a moot point.--Newerfag (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

All characters can leave the unit through death. Also, Grimaldus is an IC and the SM codex doesn't have drone or wolf rules (so he can leave). In any event, the question is what happens when Grimaldus is there. --NewPhyrexian (talk) 05:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't get how this is so confusing, the rules specifically state that "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 if the servitors or any unit with a Space Marine character in it doesn't have the rule, then the Space Marine still does keep its chapter tactics rule as it's on a by-the-model basis, same with the servitors having keeping any rule that's applied to them, characters do not take that away unless it specifically says so. Also if the Space Marine has a rule like say crusader for example, then they don't lose that rule and can still use it even when they're not in a Space Marine squad. -- Triacom (talk) 05:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

So what then does mixing marines across chapter tactics do? Do Iron Hands Character keep their FNP, because it is a character level rule, and not a unit level rule? --NewPhyrexian (talk) 05:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Unless it's specifically stated to take their chapter tactics away (as I've seen people claim the other marine list does) you can mix all you want, and benefits can sometimes bleed over. Iron Hands characters keep their FnP rule just fine as it's on a by-the-model (or in this case character) basis and the rule says "that is drawn from the given chapter" to point out which rules the various marines get. These rules can sort of bleed over depending on which chapters you ally in, for example you can put Smashfucker in a Black Templars unit to give him the benefit of Crusader, since that's a rule that affects the entire unit (even models that don't have the crusader rules themselves), but he won't get Rage or Counter-attack if they take losses in the shooting phase (while the rest of the squad will) since those are rules that only affects specific models. The Black Templars on the other hand will gain no benefit from Smashfucker's Chapter Tactics. -- Triacom (talk) 06:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

After thinking about it, I think that a unit has the chapter tactics rule as long as it has at least one model in it with the chapter tactics rule and there is only one chapter tactics subrule. This the same logic that a unit is within a distance of something as long as one model in the unit is within that distance, and the particulars of the chapter tactics rule not letting a unit benefit from two chapter tactics at the same time. I'll have to look at the wording to determine how it works if a SM character is attached to a non-SM squad. Also, as a side note, I do like that GW has set themselves up to use the phrase Preferred Enemy (Adeptus Astrates)for Vets of the Long War in the CSM codex and be able to have targeted Hatred effects toward C:SM. --NewPhyrexian (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you get the idea that Chapter Tactics is a rule that applies to a unit, let's break it down: "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 are the servitors models with the rule? No, are they a character with the rule? No, are they a unit with the rule? No, so they won't get it. Even if they did somehow get it gameplay wise they are not technically drawn from a chapter (more like drawn from the Mechanicus and serving a chapter, you can only draw something from the chapter if it starts with that rule) and so would receive no benefit anyway, same with every other Non-Marine unit. The reason Black Templars can give Crusader to others is because Crusader says "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule..." Whereas Chapter Tactics does not. The reason Black Templars cannot give Rage and Counter-attack while giving Crusader is because those rules say "If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule, and that unit is charged, every model with the counter-attack special rule..." and Rage says "In a turn in which a model with this special rule..." One applies to everyone in the unit, the other two do not. -- Triacom (talk) 00:05, 21 June

When I say has the rule chapter tactics rule, I mean for the purposes of things like the cenobite servitor's relics of Helsreach, where it refers to Black Templars Units, which means a unit with the Black Templars Chapter Tactics rule. --NewPhyrexian (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, well that's even simpler, why would they lose that when joined by characters and vice versa? Maybe I'm just missing the question (would you mind repeating it?) because I'm not sure what's confusing about this. -- Triacom (talk) 02:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I probably should have finished my thought, the cenobites themselves aren't Black Templars, but Grimaldus is, so if Grimaldus is in the cenobit unit, the whole unit (cenobites and servitors) probably should get feel no pain. --NewPhyrexian (talk)] 04:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like I need to correct myself, in the new codex it says that if two models with two different chapter tactics are in the same unit they all lose it so you can't have a Black Templars character join another unit and vice versa (that would imply strategy and teamwork and we can't have that), but the Cenobites don't lose that rule because they don't get it from Chapter Tactics, it says "Firendly Black Templars units" so as long as Grimaldus is still alive they'll be a Black Templars unit since he's the one with the Chapter Tactics and he's the one who gets Feel No Pain, but now I finally see what you're asking and (stupidly) I'll have to say that if they're joined by a character from a different chapter, they wouldn't get FnP themselves since they're no longer a Black Templars unit, but they can still provide it to other Black Templars units. I'd also like to thank GW for some of the most stupidly obtuse rules ever created. -- Triacom (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a mess. They need some FAQ to answer what exactly it means to mix chapter tactics and to put in non-chapter tactics models into a unit with chapter tactics and visa versa. And given that Servitors are a thing, you can get into the mess with one core detachment. --NewPhyrexian (talk) 00:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thankfully it says that only models with chapter tactics take away the rule, so servitors wouldn't change anything since they don't have that rule, neither would other groups like Imperial Guard. -- Triacom (talk) 00:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess for shits and giggles, you could make a shooty servitor unit to benefit from the shooty combat doctrines as long as the tech marine is there. --NewPhyrexian (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Sadly no, they specify it's on a model-by-model basis so only rules that affect the entire unit would effect Servitors, so no bolter drill for them. -- Triacom (talk) 01:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Nor Dev or Tactical Doctrine, regardless of how you did it (through smurf chapter tactics or taking the codex formations) Dang. I'm still confused as to how exactly the chapter tactics negation rule is supposed to work, besides with things like the cenobyte servitors. --NewPhyrexian (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it's just written like that so you can't combine multiple characters in other units to get the best effects, for example putting BT characters in other units, so its more or less making you keep all the chapters to themselves. -- Triacom (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I can understand the desire to not have effects stack, but most of the time, it is a per-modal bonus that you don't lose (I think), or are actually conferrable. For example, Raven Guard shrouded effect is on a model basis, while of the chapter tactics only their double jump effect and the BT rage rules are based on chapter tactics units. Captain !Titus cares about smurf tactics squads. Lysander cares about Fist units, and Grimalus cares about BT units as does his cenobytes.--NewPhyrexian (talk) 03:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

No free HB for Devs

Hey all, I just removed all references to Free Heavy Bolters for Dev Squads, because that is untrue, given that price to kit out a Dev Squad with 4 HB hasn't changed. --NewPhyrexian (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Dedicated Transport changes

How do we want to handle the Dedicated Transport category getting removed? I'd vote to keep it there, given that even though you can take them as Fast Attack choices, generally you won't. And if you do, it's 90% because you are using it as a transport option for a battle brother. Does anyone want to do this for other tactics pages, or at least agree with me that someone should? --NewPhyrexian (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned in their unit entry which dedicated transports the units can take, but unless they are only DT's I don't think we need a DT section. -- Triacom (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I've been to and fro-ing with someone who keeps putting LRCrusaders in the DT section, but only with respect to Black Templars. Which is a bit redundant considering that the same information (ie that they are Troops) is available A: in the Crusader unit entry, and B: in the LRCrusader entry. They've put it back in twice though, I guess they haven't read the whole page, or the comments I made when I moved the section. I don't really want to be bothered by an edit war, it's just simply redundant information about a very situational use of a DT for only one unit...--Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Shrike

It seems to me that Shrikes special rule is being massively misunderstood. His rule permits him to attach to a squad of "only" jump troops before hitting the table, so as the rules for infiltrate go that clearly gives the squad the rule. The FAQ on infiltrating characters/units clears up general infiltration rules but Shrikes special rules (Codex rules) trump the BRB (and faq's that don't specifically mention codex-specific rules).

• To me your argument seemed based on ignoring certain words (like "only") within rules and then waving around the fact that "Codex trumps BRB" as if they're interacting in a conflicting manner -which they are not-. But in a roundabout way you may be right. FAQ says that Infiltrators and Characters without Infiltrate may not deploy together and vice versa, but Shrikes wording says that he may only join Jump Infantry units before deployment, basically modifying where he us placed prior to putting him on the table. So its not a rule conflict at all... Since he already is attached to them, the combined unit should then get deployed as normal, allowing Infiltration because at least one model in the unit has the rule.--Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 07:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I figure I might as well make this a little clearer as that's not quite what it says, FAQ says "An Independent Character without the Infiltrate special rule cannot join a unit of Infiltrators during deployment and vice versa." So technically you could say that since his rules state he joins before deployment he isn't joining during deployment and can therefore infiltrate a squad of Jump Infantry. -- Triacom (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

GW should really better write their effects that hack around rules. Jesus. --NewPhyrexian (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Back to basics then:

• Codex: “See, But Remain Unseen: Shrike has the Stealth and Infiltrate special rules. Before deploying, he may only join units of Jump Infantry.”
• FAQ: "An Independent Character without the Infiltrate special rule cannot join a unit of Infiltrators during deployment and vice versa."

That gives several trains of thought.

1. Core rules Trump Everything: During deployment, Shrike cannot join a unit without Infiltrate, full stop, as the base rules for Infiltrate say as much, so he can only deploy alone as there are no infiltrating jump infantry. Meaning his rule is broken.
2. Codex Trumps Core rules: Normally infiltrators cannot join units without the rule, but Shrike is given an exception because he is explicitly allowed to join jump infantry prior to deployment. Whether they can Infiltrate or not is a separate matter.
3. No Conflict: As separate units are deployed separately on the tabletop, units are only "joined" by being placed in coherence at deployment. Obviously that means that non-infiltrating cannot physically be placed in coherency with infiltrating units since it breaks deployment rules for the non-infiltrating unit, however Shrike may join a unit of jump infantry before the deployment step even begins (along with determination of warlord traits and psychic powers), hence can get around the rule that way.

So let's see where this takes us.--Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The way I see it the core rules say he can't join them during deployment meaning he would need to just need to start in your deployment zone like a normal guy or he can infiltrate on his own can join up with a scout squad or a unit that just came down with deep strike.

So here's what was pointed out to me, "may only" is not the same as "may" meaning that saying he can't do something isn't the same as saying he can do something else. He "may only join units" would be great if it wasn't for the "only" part of that sentence, so because it does not say "Before deploying, he may join units of Jump Infantry" he actually cannot join units of Jump Infantry before deployment because there's nothing that says he can. -- Triacom (talk) 08:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I can't really argue there, the logic is sound that the "only" really screws up the rule as written. The excruciating thing is that it's almost painfully obvious what the rule was intended to do, but GW's clumsy grasp of sentence construction manages to insert rules that literally have no function. We have only one RG player in my group, we're giving them the benefit of the doubt and using the intended rule. But I guess tourneyfags will have to wait until a FAQ comes out, which might never come considering GW's frequency of errata.--Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 11:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's really frustrating when it's so clear what the rule is supposed to be, why is the "only" part in that sentence? It would work perfectly fine otherwise. Furthermore I don't get why infiltrating characters can no longer infiltrate with units, was that really so game-breaking that it needed to be changed? -- Triacom (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it's got more to do with fluff and sensibility. It would be a bit odd if you could infiltrate forward a squad of Terminators or Centurions simply by adding a supposedly light-recon character. I'd certainly be complaining if someone could suddenly be able to infiltrate a squad of wraithguard right up next to my units after seeing how I deployed. I'm content with the restriction as is, as long as the exceptions (such as Shrike) make sense. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Infiltrate isn't always sneaking up on the enemy though, it can also mean lying in wait for your opponent to arrive, in a narrative sense of course. If they wanted to really embrace that, it would make more sense to have multiple types of Infiltrate (Lying in Ambush or Alpha Strike with different units being exclusive to one or the other), for example if you want to Infiltrate Terminators, you choose a spot on the table (write it down, but don't tell your opponent) where that unit is hiding, let them fully deploy, then place your unit there and only there when it comes time to deploy them (or the most minimum distance away if they can't deploy there for some reason). Besides, you can still get massive amounts of squads to Infiltrate so long as you get the Master of Ambush Warlord Trait, whereas if you have a character it'll cost more, and they can only Infiltrate one squad as opposed to the free Warlord Trait letting you get three. -- Triacom (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

A lot of explanations are needed when justifying ICs granting their rules to their squads, like Shadowsun confering Shrouded & Stealth to stuff that wouldn't normally have it, like Broadsides, but it can happen. And on the rulebook, Infiltrate's USR description talks about troops sitting concealed for days, so that'd be the most common scenario, even if someone argues you can't hide because of scanners. Say, HH Ravens infiltrating Land Raiders (lol) can pull it off argumenting they were buried, waiting underground. Infiltrating a Spartan with Terminators because someone added an IC, totally legal. -- Zerghalo2 (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Units that take up no slots - in formations?

An interpretation on how slotless units find their way into detachments/formations, I'm specifically referring to the Damocles Command Rhino, but theoretically this could be any unit that takes up no FOC slot and how it fits in. The BRB p121 says that "these units can be included in any detachment, even if all the slots of the appropriate battlefield role are filled with other units, or if the detachment has no slot for their battlefield role, but they must still adhere to any restrictions detailed on the Detachment and its own Army List Entry" Therefore, a Damocles Rhino is a 0-1 HQ choice that takes up no slot, so should we be able to squeeze one (and only one because of the restriction in it's Army List Entry) into an army? Seeing as how a formation is a type of detachment and one still needs to be a primary detachment, there shouldn't be a problem inserting a slotless unit into a formation that wasn't intended to include it. The only relevant restriction I can find the Gladius Strike Force is that the force can only be made up of the listed Datasheets, but from what I can tell; a List Entry is not the same as a datasheet, and those datasheets are simply the make-up of the formations... and because slotless units count as being a part of the formation for all rules purposes, a Damocles be added to a Demi-Company and get Objective Secured or be added to an Armoured Task Force to gain the repair bonus or ignore shaken/stunned results.

I'm putting this here mostly because I was thinking about it, but I wanted to hear any dissenting/agreeing opinions before we go altering the main article. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

That sounds right to me anyway as it's still a 0-1 choice in its own unit entry rather than saying 0-1 per detachment. -- Triacom (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• I don't completely agree with this. I mean, I completely agree with the 0-1 per detachment and the fact that you could squeeze it in a Gladius, but I don't think it would get the special rule of any Detachment he is attached to since, as you put it, it seems to me that the Damocles was intended to function as a back up to your army, instead as a part of the army itself and, although it is "attached to" a Detachment/Formation, it still isn't a part of it, as a Detachment/Formation is a really specific "formation" (could not find another word :p) intended to function only by itself. At least this is the impression I got, but as I don't have the actual rules for the Damocles I could be missing something and my reasoning could be completely off the mark Hekaloth (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
• I see what you mean; a "formation" is defined as a specific type of detachment (and not the other way around) which was why I raised the issue... If we looked at it from a wider angle: the rules say these units are part of the detachment for all rules purposes and will gain any appropriate command benefits therefore we could say that they don't get any formation specific special rule since a "formation" is by definition, a special case and doesn't provide command benefits in itself, except for the overarching "decurion"-style command benefit of the Gladius... Which in the case of the Damocles means little, since the vehicle doesn't have Chapter Tactics to use doctrines, but at least it's in the detachment? --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 07:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I would say yes, absolutely, since, as I understand it, it still needs to be attached to a Detachment/Formation to be actually used. The 0-1 was probably made exactly for this: make sure that it needs to be attached. Otherwise it would have been a Formation in itself and you could have spammed it like in an unbound army while not actually being one (although I don't think it would have gained any Command Benefit, so maybe I'm reading too much into this). Anyway; as you say, as it is actually part of the Gladius Strike Force, if it was a model with Chapter Tactics I think it would even get to use Doctrines. Actually, I would threat it exactly as a special kind of Strike Force Command, as it can be easily compared to that entry. Again, I'm not sure this is actually right but, as always with Forgeworld, we need to be imaginative in how to interpret their rules in regard to the ones released by Games Workshop (at least until they make a FAQ). Hekaloth (talk) 08:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Cleaning up the Supplement Section

I've moved the units out of the supplement section into their appropriate heading under unit analysis. When Formations start becoming known I'd suggest also moving them to the "Formations" heading as well. This might leave the "Angels of Death Supplement" section a bit threadbare, but I also reckon that the Sentinels of Terra, Clan Raukaan and Kauyon rules are getting rolled into it, so if we're careful about duplicated material, we can end up with a neater, easier to read, supplement section in the long run.--Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 07:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

New FAQ?

I'm seeing edits made referencing some new FAQ for the Space Marines, however I'm having a hard time finding it myself, it's not on GW's page, it's definitely not on Black Library's page, so would anyone mind directing me to it? -- Triacom (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Warhammer 40,000 Official Facebook page, currently in first draft so things could be subject to change.--Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 04:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Decurions and Formations

In the Decurion overviews it is stated that Decurion detachments are made up of formations, and that (and I quote) “you can also include any of the Formations presented in this section as part of a Battle-Forged army.” Nowhere, not in any of the rules or FAQs, does it say that only applies to the formations that have specific datasheets. So, by that reasoning, you should be able to independently use formations like the Strike Force Command from a Gladius Strike Force or the Infantry Platoon from a Cadian Battle Group as allied formations in any battle-forged Imperial Army, right? They just don't have any special rules or command benefits to go with them.

Re-read the overviews of the Gladius and the like: "Unlike the Detachments shown in Warhammer 40,000: The Rules, it has a Force Organisation Chart whose slots are a combination of specific Formations and Army List Entries instead of Battlefield Roles." Not everything in it is a formation, some things are just Army List Entries.

Now look at the actual Formations. Notice how they all actually use the word "Formation"? Does Strike Force Command use the word "Formation" anywhere? Is there anything anywhere in the rules that calls it a formation? No. There is no rule which states that it is a formation, so it's not one.

Look at the Formations section of the codex: "Formation datasheets are identified by this symbol." If it doesn't have the symbol, it's not a Formation, per that section. Does the Strike Force Command have that symbol? Nope. It's a Command choice for the Gladius, not a formation.

If it has a force organization chart then it isn't a formation. It's as simple as that and on page 121, stating that formations state exactly what they're comprised of and that's how they differ from detachments. -- Triacom (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Cleaning up the entire page

Do you guys think it would be nice if we could condense a chapter, its specific detachment (like the ones in Angels of Death), and its chapter tactics/warlord traits/objectives into a collapsible section like we did for the Space Marine Legion thing? It would make things so much more condense and comprehensive. --24.150.89.120 02:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)