Sternguard

[Taranis]

I think that RAW is legal here. On the other hand I wouldnt bring a hard list based on it unless the opponent was warned/asking for it through his own actions(read jerk).

I don't care overly about winning, but a few people makes me want to stretch the rules(RAW) where I otherwise wouldn't. There is this one guy at our local club....

 

And I too believe that this "loophole" will be closed with a new FAQ.

[Deschenus Maximus]

We can speculate all we want about GW`s intents or beliefs WRT the non-competitive nature of the player base, the fact remains that RAW, all sternguards ARE scoring. Yes, this loophole will probably be closed next FAQ, but there is currently nothing to stop someone from doing it.

[SnorriSnorrison]

We can speculate all we want about GW`s intents or beliefs WRT the non-competitive nature of the player base, the fact remains that RAW, all sternguards ARE scoring. Yes, this loophole will probably be closed next FAQ, but there is currently nothing to stop someone from doing it.

 

Except my fist.

[Deschenus Maximus]

We can speculate all we want about GW`s intents or beliefs WRT the non-competitive nature of the player base, the fact remains that RAW, all sternguards ARE scoring. Yes, this loophole will probably be closed next FAQ, but there is currently nothing to stop someone from doing it.

 

Except my fist.

 

Oh, come now. Empty threats, and you know it.

[Taranis]

We can speculate all we want about GW`s intents or beliefs WRT the non-competitive nature of the player base, the fact remains that RAW, all sternguards ARE scoring. Yes, this loophole will probably be closed next FAQ, but there is currently nothing to stop someone from doing it.

 

Except my fist.

Would that be an Imperial Fist? :D

I started this tread to find out if it is legal. I have a very competitive gamer with multiple armies who last time we played insisted on his codex Eldar powers being usable on his dark Eldar allies, and tried to mix powers on single farseer from both codex AND brb.

He's the only bad apple in the barrel. Unfortunately It's a small barrel.....

[Deschenus Maximus]

I have a very competitive gamer with multiple armies who last time we played insisted on his codex Eldar powers being usable on his dark Eldar allies,

 

Aren't Eldar and Deldar Battle Brothers on the Allies matrix? If so, he was right.

[Taranis]

I have a very competitive gamer with multiple armies who last time we played insisted on his codex Eldar powers being usable on his dark Eldar allies,

 

Aren't Eldar and Deldar Battle Brothers on the Allies matrix? If so, he was right.

Also when a power refers to "eldar unit"?

Brb powers yes. No problem.

Some Eldar. No Thanks.

[Deschenus Maximus]

Also when a power refers to "eldar unit"?

Brb powers yes. No problem.

Some Eldar. No Thanks.

 

Ah well that's different. If the FAQ doesn't change the wording, then no, not allowed.

[SnorriSnorrison]

We can speculate all we want about GW`s intents or beliefs WRT the non-competitive nature of the player base, the fact remains that RAW, all sternguards ARE scoring. Yes, this loophole will probably be closed next FAQ, but there is currently nothing to stop someone from doing it.

 

Except my fist.

 

Oh, come now. Empty threats, and you know it.

 

Ah, I forgot how empty and serious jokes sound on the internet without adding a myriad of smily and winky faces. No hard feelings. ;)

 

I still think that RAW gives you no point here. It says all Sternguard in your army, however that army is chosen from C:SM and therefore the rule applies to those units, not any of those chosen from different codizes. Allies are an army within your army since they use a different codex.

 

 

 

Snorri

[Deschenus Maximus]

An "army" is composed of both Primary and Allied detachments, so I don't see where you are getting that from.

[CitadelArmyGuy]

I agree with Deschenus Max. Page 109: "If you wish, you may include one allied detachment for each primary detachment in your army."

 

Therefore Detachments are not Armies. Same reason why Blood Angels can only take one Death Company at 2000+ points, because they are 'One per Army' and not 'One per Detachment.'

 

Also, Vanillas and Blood Angels are the only codices who have Sternguard. No one else has them. This conversation literally only affects interaction between 2 codices, no more.

[SnorriSnorrison]

I agree with Deschenus Max. Page 109: "If you wish, you may include one allied detachment for each primary detachment in your army."

 

Therefore Detachments are not Armies. Same reason why Blood Angels can only take one Death Company at 2000+ points, because they are 'One per Army' and not 'One per Detachment.'

 

Also, Vanillas and Blood Angels are the only codices who have Sternguard. No one else has them. This conversation literally only affects interaction between 2 codices, no more.

 

Allied detachment are an army for the purpose of Pedro's rule as I see it. They are included in the main army but don't count as the main army regarding special rules because they are chosen from a different codex. Examples that support this view are Sanguinary Priests which technically could 'heal' their allies but don't confer FnP to other armies than Blood Angels which was basically the same thing before it was FAQ'd.

 

Now you raise a good point regarding the Death Company. Since we are drawing that extra detachment at +2000 points from the same codex, the example is not completely comparable to the issue discussed. It's an extension to the FOC you draw from your own codex rather than the allied detachment from C:SM.

 

2 armies, 2 codizes, teamed up don't equal one codex one rule.

What makes people think that a character from one book all of a sudden confers a special rule to models that are chosen from another codex unless it specifically says so in the rules? It doesn't say 'All sternguard squads, even allies, count as scoring', because GW wasn't thinking of 6th edition when they wrote C:SM.

 

That rule was always centred on C:SM and only because you have the ability to let other Marines fight at your side it doesn't expand to them as well. Something that obvious doesn't need an FAQ in my opinion, for the sake of the argument however, it does.

 

 

 

 

 

Snorri

[Phrack]

In the NOVAOPEN there was a 3-1 or 2-2 (Not sure how he did his last game) qualifier who had a Droppod Sternguard list. He took Pedro and BA I believe. A lot of combi-melta was thrown in that list! But they did allow Hold the Line! to make our sternguard counting.

[Deschenus Maximus]

Allied detachment are an army for the purpose of Pedro's rule as I see it. They are included in the main army but don't count as the main army regarding special rules because they are chosen from a different codex.

 

The rulebook specifically states that Battle Brothers benefit from Allied abilities. See page 112.

 

Examples that support this view are Sanguinary Priests which technically could 'heal' their allies but don't confer FnP to other armies than Blood Angels which was basically the same thing before it was FAQ'd.

 

Yeah... and they FAQed it specifically because they didn't want BA Priests to boost their allies. Now, it may be an oversight that Pedro makes BA Sternguards scoring, but until they FAQ it, it's perfectly legal.

 

What makes people think that a character from one book all of a sudden confers a special rule to models that are chosen from another codex unless it specifically says so in the rules? It doesn't say 'All sternguard squads, even allies, count as scoring', because GW wasn't thinking of 6th edition when they wrote C:SM.

 

They didn't think of allies when they made any of the codexes. By your definition, NO abilities would be confered by allies... except page 112 SPECIFICALY say that they do.

[Daybreak]

They didn't think of allies when they made any of the codexes. By your definition, NO abilities would be confered by allies... except page 112 SPECIFICALY say that they do.

 

Plus, they were surely thinking of 6th edition when they wrote the SM FAQ, which doesn't block Pedro's ability from affecting allies (whereas it does block his +1A buff).

 

And please, stop saying "clearly," that's a horrible argument. I can just as easily say that GW "clearly" intends an interaction between Pedro and BA Sternguard since they wrote "Sternguard" and not "Sternguard from the SM Codex." Hell, I can even make up a story about how Pedro's resilience inspires the Veterans of BA, who are then filled with Crimson Fist style resolve to hold objectives.

 

People who refuse to play against a list like this are the worst sort of people in the hobby. I build a list according to the rules, and you don't like it because it doesn't agree with your interpretation of how the game should be played, so you refuse to play with me? That's worse than the WAAC behaviour that is so frequently deplored here. Besides, it's not like the Sternguard list is any good. It's a novelty list, one I built for storyline reasons, not because it's any good.

[CitadelArmyGuy]

Unrelated completely to the rules, and legality of the question. But if we want to find fluff commonality, lets look at what 'scoring' by the fluff means.

 

Page 123: "During a military campaign, the most powerful and specialised units assault the objectives and take them. They then forge ahead to the next objective, engaging the enemy... it is left to the grunts, the squads which make up the bulk of any fighting force, to dig in and consolidate any territorial gain, securing the objectives from any enemy attack."

 

So in general, Units which are scoring [by fluff] are either:

 

1) Units that compose the bulk of a fighting force

AND/OR

2) Units which the Commander designates within a fighting force that act as counter-attack security (ie outside the tactical scope of just one game)

 

There are two ways to make a Non-Troops Units scoring. You can make them "count-as" Troops so that you can take 6 of them (Dante, SM Captain on Bike, Belial, Haemonculi, Grimnar, etc etc). The other way is to say they 'become' scoring without altering their slot on the Force Organization (Kantor, GK Grand Master's Unyielding Anvil).

 

So to me, Characters that 'make them troops' are the ones who represent the fact that those Units are the 'bulk of their fighting force' (reason 1). Characters which only 'make them scoring' represent that Commander's operational command advice and employment of those unit types (reason 2)

[SnorriSnorrison]

Allied detachment are an army for the purpose of Pedro's rule as I see it. They are included in the main army but don't count as the main army regarding special rules because they are chosen from a different codex.

 

The rulebook specifically states that Battle Brothers benefit from Allied abilities. See page 112.

 

That's a really good find, man! I've overlooked this completely, which is kinda dumb when arguing against something. By that paragraph, I'll probably have to revoke my former statements. Good one!

 

I should really stop to argue with logic in GW rule issues. :woot:

 

And please, stop saying "clearly," that's a horrible argument. I can just as easily say that GW "clearly" intends an interaction between Pedro and BA Sternguard since they wrote "Sternguard" and not "Sternguard from the SM Codex."

 

Noted.

 

 

I build a list according to the rules, and you don't like it because it doesn't agree with your interpretation of how the gameshould be played how the rules say it should be played, so you refuse to play with me?

 

Fixed that.

Yes, because that's what people do. You read a rule, think about it and discuss, come to the conclusion that doing otherwise is against the rule and speak about it with your opponent. Even when you're wrong, if nobody can't come up with something that says otherwise(as Deschenus did), it's 'legit' for a game. If one can't agree for the love of God, even after considering the most important rule, you have a problem, that's as simple as it can be. If you can't agree over an issue, the whole game is stalled and it makes little sense to continue because the whole fun is taken out of it.

 

I'm no rules-lawyer. I don't rule- :lol: people to the ground because I have the rule-book. I play for fun, and fun only, and if a situation like above occurs, I'm on the 'most important rule'- side, always. Even if I've been playing it wrong every battle.

 

 

People who refuse to play against a list like this are the worst sort of people in the hobby.

That's worse than the WAAC behaviour that is so frequently deplored here. Besides, it's not like the Sternguard list is any good. It's a novelty list, one I built for storyline reasons, not because it's any good.

 

Spare me your judgement for you don't know me. Let's keep it civil.

 

 

 

 

Snorri

[Deschenus Maximus]

That's a really good find, man! I've overlooked this completely, which is kinda dumb when arguing against something. By that paragraph, I'll probably have to revoke my former statements. Good one!

 

I should really stop to argue with logic in GW rule issues. ^_^

 

Haha yeah. Better for one's sanity ;)