Deep strike Vs. Vehicles

[Gentlemanloser]

I know it's been played out, I just find it frustrating that people are trying to pass off houserules as how the games rules work.

 

Should Rites on a GK IC pass on to a unit in another Faction?  I don't know.  Maybe.  Maybe not.

 

But there's not a shred of rules to back saying it doesn't.

 

Houserules are great, I use many myself.  But we just need to admit that we're houseruling here, and not following the actual book rules.

 

And to be honest, I'm starting to get (I don't know, tired?) of all the houserules that are being thrown around, and pushed upon us like gospel.  You can only use two different Factions.  Can't use Unbound.  Can't use more than 3 transports.  Can't transfer Rites.  Can't use more than 2 DreadKnights.  Etc Etc.

 

If you get more fun utilising these houserules, great!

 

But they're not the way the game as shipped is supposed to play.

 

Unbound is just as legitimate as Battleforged.  Use as many Factions and Detachments as you like!

 

Anyway, it's late. Rant over. :)

 

Time for a beer?

 

/manhugz

[Reclusiarch Darius]

I don't think GW has enough grasp of its own rules for us to put much faith in their ability to FAQ. We shall see when the 7th edition FAQ finally comes out. But this issue isn't just restricted to our rinky little trick with Tiggy. This issue has implications across any BB Ally forces. 

 

If they don't address it in the FAQ, then I'm afraid we do have to houserule, because its an unavoidable issue in any game where people bring Allies and start putting them in eachothers units/transports. Who knows what tourneys might rule it as, but GW have made it clear they no longer care about the competitive scene, so its really event by event you'll find different version of 40k now. 

 

(shrug) We can replicate Tiggy with a 70pt Aegis+Comms Array anyway, so if at some later point this gets proven wrong, its not like we can't access re-rolls to Reserves. 

[Gentlemanloser]

We don't have to houserule RD.

 

Just play as per the RAW.

 

When you start comping, when/where do you stop?

 

Dev Cents in a Drop Pod is too much (Or Purifiers, etc).  Now no BBs can embark others Transports...

 

The only time we *have* to houserule is when the rules just planly don't work.  Like Denying a Power that doesn't target your unit.

 

The rules break here and you have to houserule to carry on playing.

[Izekael]

Rites applies to units part of a Nemesis Strike Force Detachment.

 

Are you part of the Nemesis Strikeforce Detachment?

 

it may not say you can't change but since it doesn't say you can by default you cannot

So you agree you *can't* leave the Detachment, if originally bought in it.

 

Do you still meet the requirement of Rites?

 

Yes.

 

Someone, anyone, *needs* to prove otherwise.

 

They really do, or can we please let this sink.

 

There is Zero rule support for changing Faction or Detachment, and Zero rule support for the loss of a Command Benefit.

 

Anything else is pure speculation until sown otherwise.

But out and non gk ic inq NSF units doesn't get rites same with a gk if into a non gk unit that unit doesn't get rites and since thay cannot all enter the game on turn 1 they come in turn two at regular ds rules. It is not rocket science. Zero rules means you can't do it, gw felt it would be a non issue. They should of know better, there are people who just cannot play by the rules and will try to exploit their way to a win.

 

There is support for all of what I said, go read the brb.

[Gentlemanloser]

I'm sorry, but what?

 

Edit: Also there's a massive difference between saying "my opinion is backed by the rules" and actually providing the rules that back your opinion.

 

There is, in fact, not a single part of the BRB that supports any of your above post.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

But out and non gk ic inq NSF units doesn't get rites same with a gk if into a non gk unit that unit doesn't get rites and since thay cannot all enter the game on turn 1 they come in turn two at regular ds rules.

 

"Non GK IC's, such as Inquisitors, do not benefit from Rites of Teleportation"

Yeah true...and?

"A GK attached to a non GK unit doesn't get Rites"

How exactly do you figure that? The GK Librarian (for the sake of argument) can't change faction, he has to belong to a detachment, and he can't change detachment. So...he never loses 'Rites'. You can only make a single Reserve roll for the combined unit, so when 'Rites' triggers, it finds a GK Librarian and works. Under the rules, 'Rites' doesn't care if the GK Librarian is solo or attached to another unit. 

 Zero rules means you can't do it, gw felt it would be a non issue.

 

But there are rules. Very clear rules about attaching IC's to units, or loading units into non-dedicated transports. Furthermore, there are clear restrictions around how Allies operate. In the case of Battle-Brothers, you are free to attach to Allied units both ways, and you can load Allied units into your non-dedicated transports and vice versa. So, all of that is 100% handled by the rules as written. 

 

The part we are debating is the implications those rules I just mentioned have on Command Benefits and other special rules. We know how USR's operate (they're a case by case basis, depends on the wording of the rule itself, some mention 'at least one model', others require the whole unit to have the rule by default or you can't use it etc). It's a grey area GW never considered. If they felt it was a non-issue, they'd forbid attaching Allied IC's to friendly units, or loading Allies into your Raven or Drop Pod. 

They should of know better, there are people who just cannot play by the rules and will try to exploit their way to a win. 

 

? I'd hardly say the epitome of power-gaming is combing 'Rites of Teleportation' with 'Gift of Prescience'. Its powerful, but Interceptor still ruins its day, and it doesn't make our expensive units any more survivable, it just gets them in enemy lines faster. There are a thousand other combos using Allies and abusing USR interactions which are far more powerful, look at TauDar or CSM+Daemons. 

There is support for all of what I said, go read the brb. 

 

Well I have and there isn't any support for your position. Perhaps if you provided page numbers or quotations, we'd have something to talk about. As is, you can't just appeal to authority and say 'just read the rulebook.' I have, it doesn't explain this grey area at all. 

[Izekael]

Faction requirements of the nsf and the fact a unit can only belong to one detachment. two rules that proves you wrong.

Let's add the fact that a detachment and the units in them have to be declared at the start of the game. You can add the of to the unit but they are still made up of two different detachments. Ic gets rites sm unit does not meet the requirements of the nsf so it does not get rites. Same the opposite way.

[Gentlemanloser]

 

 

Faction requirements of the nsf and the fact a unit can only belong to one detachment. two rules that proves you wrong.

 

I don't think you get the discussion at all...

 

 

Let's add the fact that a detachment and the units in them have to be declared at the start of the game.

 

Yes.

 

You GKGM is part of your NSF Detachment.

 

*And that can never change*

 

 

 

You can add the of to the unit but they are still made up of two different detachments. Ic gets rites sm unit does not meet the requirements of the nsf so it does not get rites. Same the opposite way.

 

The IC still has Rites.

 

How do you roll reserves for a combined unit?

 

Feel free to quote that section of the rulebook.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Faction requirements of the nsf

 

Well the Grey Knight Librarian is self-evidently of the faction Grey Knights

 the fact a unit can only belong to one detachment.

 

No disagreement. To further add to that point, no unit can change detachment or faction either, they have to belong to one and only one. 

two rules that proves you wrong. 

 

Well neither of those rules do. That's the issue. GW simply didn't write the rules to accomodate what happens when you combine Allied units from different factions and detachments. 

Let's add the fact that a detachment and the units in them have to be declared at the start of the game.

 

Which is perfectly fine and doesn't at all contradict the interpretation I have made. 

You can add the of to the unit but they are still made up of two different detachments.

 

Right...a single unit, but containing models from different factions and different detachments. 

Ic gets rites sm unit does not meet the requirements of the nsf so it does not get rites

 

Ah, nice try but that's not how the rules work. The GK Librarian cannot change faction or detachment, so he never loses 'Rites'. He is in Deep Strike Reserve, so when you check for 'Rites' to trigger on Turn 1, he is a valid unit to roll for in Reserve. 

 

This is the crux of the issue. You cannot make seperate Reserve rolls for the Allied IC and the unit he is attached to. You make a single roll for the whole unit. 

Same the opposite way. 

 

But how do you decide that? This is what I mean. Nowhere in the rules is there any means to measure whether a combined unit of models is one detachment or another. It's not like majority Toughness or Leadership, those are clearly handled in the rules as respectively "use the Toughness in majority, in the event of a tie use the highest" and "use the highest Leadership value available". There is no quantitative measure in the rules that says "if you have an Allied IC attached to a unit from your primary detachment, that's still just a unit from your primary detachment", or vice versa. 

 

I think there should be such a criteria, but GW have failed to provide one. Which leaves us in this odd situation where, despite their clear wording to the contrary, you can indeed have a unit that qualifies as being from two different detachments and/or factions. 

[Captain Coolpants]

Well I'd say in terms of the unit, it's mixed and has both factions as it doesn't say otherwise. But as for the special detachment rules, I'd say you forgo them if you mix a unit. I suppose it's a bonus for sticking with a single codex squad, instead of trying to get best of both worlds by mixing squads with other factions detachment or whatever to stack your bonus rules or cherry pick which you want to use.

 

I.e. You restrict your choices within a detachment to get a bonus, instead of choosing whatever units you want.

 

What would be the point is restricting the choices you make within a detachment for a bonus, when you can just take a second detachment/force/army/combined arms bla bla bla , just to spread the bonuses around by making mixed units... May as well just make them standard chapter tactics..

[Gentlemanloser]

So troops could lose objective secured if you attach an allied ic?

[Faithwing]

I think the crux of the back-and-forth on this thread is folks deciding how the rule is "meant" to be used (GK only, etc.), vs. folks trying to hammer out the inconsistencies of what the rule actually says and what that may entail. The rulebook and codex has been scoured at this point, so I don't think anything new will surface outside of some FAQs.

 

Til then, the RAW seems to support the full benefits of mixing units with the NSF. The big thing for me, is unlike other books, it doesn't specify that ALL models in each unit must have the GK faction. As RD pointed out, it's hardly a gamebreaker. If anything, people will just use it in tandem with Tigurius, and/or Devastator Centurions, which simply reduces us to a variant Space Marines list.

 

The true stories are usually the sad ones.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Well I'd say in terms of the unit, it's mixed and has both factions as it doesn't say otherwise. But as for the special detachment rules, I'd say you forgo them if you mix a unit. I suppose it's a bonus for sticking with a single codex squad, instead of trying to get best of both worlds by mixing squads with other factions detachment or whatever to stack your bonus rules or cherry pick which you want to use.

I.e. You restrict your choices within a detachment to get a bonus, instead of choosing whatever units you want.

What would be the point is restricting the choices you make within a detachment for a bonus, when you can just take a second detachment/force/army/combined arms bla bla bla , just to spread the bonuses around by making mixed units... May as well just make them standard chapter tactics..

Respectfully, that's just your opinion dude . The rules don't support that interpretation at all. In fact, the rules actively support cherry picking USR's and handing them out to Allies or even in-faction IC's joining a unit (check out the different between Scout and Infiltrate as just one example).

So troops could lose objective secured if you attach an allied ic?

As just one example of what I mean. GW never thought through Allies properly in 6th, and 7th has only reinforced my opinion they do zero playtesting or even think through Allies.

I think the crux of the back-and-forth on this thread is folks deciding how the rule is "meant" to be used (GK only, etc.), vs. folks trying to hammer out the inconsistencies of what the rule actually says and what that may entail. The rulebook and codex has been scoured at this point, so I don't think anything new will surface outside of some FAQs.

FAQ is needed, ASAP. In its absence though, it is up to us to find an interpretation that doesn't require even more ad-hoc rulings to justify. Occam's Razor etc.

If anything, people will just use it in tandem with Tigurius, and/or Devastator Centurions, which simply reduces us to a variant Space Marines list.

Our codex might as well be a giant billboard saying 'Ally Codex: Do NoT Go Alone". They literally removed anything resembling flexibility or reliable anti-tank. When they start nerfing psycannons, you know we're just not cut out for the big leagues. It sucks.

[Faithwing]

Agreed. 40k has become a personal tabletop game like D&D. The playing field is so convoluted, and not thought out very well at all, it's basically coming to the discretion of the players involved, and what they are tired of seeing/dealing with. I'm seeing a lot more small, homebased groups forming that can issue rules, not even crazy house rules so that they can have a good time. Alot of games I see are similar to the hashing out of a legal contact (LoW? Superheavy? More than 1 book? Unbound?), the list goes on with stuff people run through before a contest can be agreed upon.

 

This is basically what tabletop RPGs are. A group of players operating within the existing rules, but simply disqualifying certain things in standard games (superheavies, etc.) in an effort to ensure everyone can enjoy themselves.

 

On a further off note, one thing that honestly super pisses me off is the general inconsistencies between the books. It may be a small point, but why is it that SoB, GKs can only get 1 relic per bro? Meanwhile, other books can swap weapons, and just stack goodies on 1 guy as much as they like? It should be one way, or the other for all books. It creates a certain standard. This type of unfairness is really effing wack, and I honestly wonder what GW's opinion of its own game actually is.

[Everon]

Reason why is gw noticed things were getting quite op so v7 is the nerf edition. When it comes back to those dexs expect to see it fixed to single relics as well

[Faithwing]

Only SW and GK are back-to-back books in the new edition.. SW get the buddy deal, GK get the last call leftovers.

[Brom MKIV]

SW only get 1 relic per character although it's loosely worded so open to interpretation. It's the supplements that don't have restrictions at all. Although after looking at the wording I'm starting to wonder if those weren't intended to be restricted also. Consider that the relics section might have been intended to be a replacement for the parent dex's relics list with all the parent restrictions. Again rules clarity is an issue. That said I'm for allowing multiple relics as long as they're not mixed from multiple books. It's rarely if ever game breaking and makes for awesome but expensive characters.

[Faithwing]

Don't SW have the same relic wording as Codex Marines? Replacing a weapon, then dropping points to stack on something that doesn't replace a weapon (Armour of Russ)? Everyone I know who operates those books rolls with 1-2 relics per dude, and it's never even questioned.

 

As you said, the wording is loose. That's kind of what I'm getting at. SoB, and GK don't have loose wording. '1 model may take 1 of the following:'. There's no wiggle room there for RAW, yet these other books wiggle their way onto the greener side, because they have an opening to do so. Relics aren't an army specific thing, but rather a new submechanic present in all post 6th books. GW should be consistent with how this can be utilized across all fronts.

[Brom MKIV]

Absolutely agree, consistency is needed. People see what they want to see though. Does the not replace clause invalidate the only take one part? Probably not but open to interpretation. I say let the kid have it. This game has become more about abusing loop holes and loose wording than strategy. Personally I try to avoid the former and develop the latter. If there's a tournament then follow the TOs rules. Don't roll in with something sketchy because your gonna get dinged or have a tedious day arguing semantics. If it's lgs than why not agree to multiple relics?  games a game.