Space Marines, Dual FoC & Transports

[Gentlemanloser]

Lets assume for the moment that an army using two Primary Detachments from Codex: Space Marines can use two different Chapter Tactics.

 

First, these aren't 'allies' with each other, being two Primary Detachments of the same Codex.

 

Secondly, IC's from either detachment should be able to join units from either Detachment as well, shouldn't they?

 

And the main question.  If you have an IC from one Primary Detachment attached to a unit from the other, can the combined unit embark a Transport vehicle from either Primary Detachment?

[Grey Mage]

I cant see a reason why not, looking over the page on chapter tactics and detachments it doesnt say anything about keeping the tactics the same for primaries and allies when the FOC replicates... despite what I remembered. So no, no reason they cant go in the same transport as the allies rules is the only thing that complicates the issue, and it wasnt written with this scenario in mind obviously.

[SvenONE]

Technically, I thought the codex says that using multiple chapter traits counts as coming from separate codices.  So that would stop you from being allowed to double force org with 2 separate chapter traits (as double force org says the Primary detachment must be from the same codex).

 

So all the questions you ask are easily answered as yes only because in the traditional application of the Double Force Org, you IC and your troops are all from the same codex, so they can join and leave every unit they can shake a stick at.

 

But like Grey Mage said, it doesn't look like it was written with this scenario in mind.  I'm still in the camp that says 2 different chapter traits are counted as two different codices.  I forget the exact wording in the C:SM codex, but this is something I found over on Pins of War which looks to be the rule lifted from the codex:

 

• Allies – “A Space Marine Detachment that has one set of Chapter Tactics MAY ally with another Space Marine Detachment with a different set of Chapter Tactics, Ultramarines and Raven Guard for example. For purposes of the Allies rules these allies are treated as being from two different codexes and are treated as Battle Brothers. Note that you may field models from two different chapters that have the same Chapter Tactics, such as Ultramarines and Praetors of Orpheus in the same detachment. These chapters are so closely affiliated that they count as a single army on the battlefield.”

To me this is saying: if you want 2 chapter traits, you have to go via the allies rules, not double force org.

[Gentlemanloser]

For the purpose of the allies rules.

 

It doesn't mention dual Primary detachments though. 

 

When I have time tonight I'll quote the rules for choosing the tactics on your Primary detachment.  No access to the Codex at work. :(

[SvenONE]

No need to look it up, I think you're right. I think it's a circumvention of the way the rule is intended to be used, but you aren't wrong in understanding the rule. Seeing as how they went through the trouble of stipulating how it works when they are allies (different codices), I would presume to think that is how it was intended when applying to double force org.

 

The primary detachment always seemed to me as a way of doubling the size of your primary detachment, however the language says you take a SECOND primary detachment, not expand your previous one's slots. If it was the case of expanding a primary detachment to include 2x the slots, then you'd be stuck with the CT you chose when forming it. However it doesn't, it says specifically second primary detachment. With the way that C:SM CTs are chosen, you choose it when creating your (in this case the second) detachment. It was written well over a year before C:SM came out and looks to me that it's another case of GW not really being able to grasp all of their own rules. Right now I feel that when you use the double force org like this you're essentially running 2 codices, as long as your opponent has no problem then who cares.

 

Until there's a FAQ (which there probably won't ever be) that says exactly how it can be treated you can do it. Be prepared to defend your case because I think other people will view it similarly to me, but through murky language (or lackthereof) you aren't wrong in doing it that way.