Jump to content

Competative Sisters Allied with Vulkan


Autarch-Andrew

Recommended Posts

As i posted previously, until you can show a rule that specifies what a "chapter" is in in-game terms, and not in fluff terms, then your assertion is utterly incorrect.

I think it might be in the index under the heading 'Bleedin' Obvious'. :)

 

Meh. If people want to make this an exploit, go ahead. It won't happen across the table in any game I am playing.

 

RoV out.

So allow me to make sure I have this strait RoV.

 

Your saying because the title of the rule has "Chapter" in the name, that it can only be applied to a SM chapter?

 

And you dont see any problem with that and are stating its RAW?

 

And so if I looked at Telions "Eye of Vengeance" rule, and in a game stated that since I hadnt yet acted agressively towards my opponent, let alone killed a model he couldnt use it because there was no "Vengeance" to be had, I could be correct?

 

Or am I off the mark here?

It's not an exploit as Sisters of Battle units are fragile compared to Marine units, and they take up FOC slots that could be better used on Marines units with more utility and/or better states at a lower price. A Sister's "Acts of Faith" has limited effect as allies to a Marine army since the most faith point a non-Sister army can have through allies is 7 (8 if you take a Litanies of Faith on a Canoness or Palatine). What they bring is the ability to take two meltaguns or 2 flamers in each of four FOC slots as well as a combo of up to 4 meltaguns ot flamers in one FOC slot; not the best deal out there, but legal.

 

SJ

It's not an exploit as Sisters of Battle units are fragile compared to Marine units, and they take up FOC slots that could be better used on Marines units with more utility and/or better states at a lower price. A Sister's "Acts of Faith" has limited effect as allies to a Marine army since the most faith point a non-Sister army can have through allies is 7 (8 if you take a Litanies of Faith on a Canoness or Palatine). What they bring is the ability to take two meltaguns or 2 flamers in each of four FOC slots as well as a combo of up to 4 meltaguns ot flamers in one FOC slot; not the best deal out there, but legal.

 

SJ

Yes, but the origonal topic was that Vulkan would be added to a SOB army, wich isnt legal.

 

As to the other way around, your right... its limited, and expensive. Its a bit of a glass jaw tactic.

Gentlemanloser's post is well written, but still fails to address the fact that it is Chapter Tactics, and SoB are not a Chapter. It is part of the rule. Changing the name of the rule is not on, because it is part of the rule as written.

 

That's a fluff arguement.

 

It would be like claiming Seraphim can't "Hit and Run" as they use Jump Packs and aren't running, or a Callidus Assassin can't use "A Word in your Ear" versus Necrons, as they don't have Ears...

 

The name of the rule isn't part of the rule. It's just it's name. Saga of the Bear doesn't mean the SW with it is actually a Bear. :cuss

Had a through look through the rules again last night.

 

As it turns out, I was under the impression that Vulkan's rules said "his army" when it really says "your army".

 

Changes a fair bit of things.

So I guess technically you can do it by the rules.

 

Still you'll cop a massive hit in Army Composition scores in a tournament. Not really worth it at the end of the day.

Why? It's not unusual for SM and SoB to fight together.

Fluff has nothing to do with an army composition score (or at least it shouldn't). Taking an optimised Vulkan list is already fairly powerful. Adding sisters into the mix just pushes those boundaries further.

 

In an Australian tournament a list including the two is likely to score a 1, maybe a 2 out of 5 (at least that's what I'd mark it if one showed up at one of the tournaments that I run).

 

You could potentially cop a hit on sportsmanship since whilst I now lean towards the rules saying it is possible, it's still fairly loosely worded to gain the benefit.

If theres a comp score then sportsmanship shouldnt include the opponents list- thats kinda crazy.

The hit on sports is from trying to use a fairly loosely worded ruling to gain the benefit. I'm not saying you would get hit on sports but as you can see by the debate on here, it is possible that your opponent would class it as a bending of the rules to gain bonuses that in their mind, you shouldn't really have.

If theres a comp score then sportsmanship shouldnt include the opponents list- thats kinda crazy.

The hit on sports is from trying to use a fairly loosely worded ruling to gain the benefit. I'm not saying you would get hit on sports but as you can see by the debate on here, it is possible that your opponent would class it as a bending of the rules to gain bonuses that in their mind, you shouldn't really have.

I suppose its just my philosophy- either its cheating, in wich case the person needs to stop Now or its not, in wich case Ill just have to deal with it.

Meh, I though Comp scoes should be all about 'fluffy' lists. And not what your oppoent thinks is too powerful a combo.

 

I'm glad I don't go to any tournaments. :)

 

I'd probably mark my opponents sportmanship down, for being a goit and marking my compostion down based on thier dislike of a legit in game rule.

 

I don't like the Skulltaker, Flamers or a DP of Nurgle (far too powerful for thier costs), but I wouldn't mark a Daemon army down if they chose to use them over nurglings...

I suppose its just my philosophy- either its cheating, in wich case the person needs to stop Now or its not, in wich case Ill just have to deal with it.

I don't disagree with your philosophy, but it's hard to tell if it's legal or not. After all, we've just had a several page debate about its legality. Whilst I now agree that their is more information supporting it then against, I still feel that it's like someone trying to get a benefit that the designers never intended.

 

Meh, I though Comp scoes should be all about 'fluffy' lists. And not what your oppoent thinks is too powerful a combo.

 

I'm glad I don't go to any tournaments. :P

 

I'd probably mark my opponents sportmanship down, for being a goit and marking my compostion down based on thier dislike of a legit in game rule.

 

I don't like the Skulltaker, Flamers or a DP of Nurgle (far too powerful for thier costs), but I wouldn't mark a Daemon army down if they chose to use them over nurglings...

So how can you mark someone down for sportsmanship when you don't even understand how the concept relates in a warhammer tournament? If you did, you would understand that army composition is used by tournaments to mark individual armies based on their power. This means that if someone does well throughout their games but has an uber build army list, but happens to get the same amount of wins as say someone used an outdated codex that is significantly weaker, who is the better general? Clearly the person with the weaker list as they have achieved the same results without the benefit of "training wheels". Also wherever possible, army composition is actually marked by a panel of experienced player who are not actually playing in the given tournament. the reason for Army Composition is to prevent tournament from degenerating into playing against the same few armies and lists over and over again.

 

It is only a few tournaments like Ard Boys that don't use army composition and where you face off commonly against lists like this.

 

I feel sorry for you that you think you're glad that you don't go to tournaments. If you did, you'd realise that the majority of people there are just there to have fun. All of my most enjoyable games have been at tournaments against a variety of lists. The thing that made them most memorable was the great player on the other side of the table.

 

Edit: This is based on my experiences of the way tournaments are run here in Australia, both as a player and as a tournament Organiser, which isn't necessarily the same as in other parts of the world.

Army Composition scores are the most nonsensical thing ever and I am hugely glad and relieved they have been removed from the majority of tournaments.

 

Codexes should be written and balanced correctly, not individual army lists. You don't take an army to lose and everything is fair game if it is in the book. I go to tournaments to test myself against the best builds and the strongest generals, not to see 5 tactical squads in Rhinos face off against 100 Ork Boyz.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.