C:SM questions

[Lysimachus]

Ok, couple of quick questions:

 

1. Re: Chapter Tactics/Battleforged/Detachments

 

Am I right in thinking that you could have a Battleforged army with multiple Detachments and each Detachment could benefit from a different Chapter Tactic?

 

So let's say for example, you could have a 2k army that includes:

 

an Ultramarines Battalion Detachment for your troops and Warlord (for versatile troops and gaining the Warlord Trait for getting the CPs back),

 

a Black Templars Vanguard or Outrider Detachment (3 Assault units led by a Chaplain, gaining rerolls to Charge and Fight)

 

and a Raven Guard Spearhead Detachment (3 Dev squads led by a Lt or cheap Captain, gaining the -1 to hit rolls, plus rerolls for hit or wound)

 

So each Detachment can benefit from the CT that will be most helpful to their specific role?

 

2. Chapter Relics: don't seem to have their own points costs? So if you took a Burning Blade, it only costs the pts for a regular power sword? Or an IH Character with a power axe could upgrade to the Axe of Medusa for free?

Edited July 29, 2017 by Lysimachus

[Eddie Orlock]

Ok, couple of quick questions:

 

1. Re: Chapter Tactics/Battleforged/Detachments

 

Am I right in thinking that you could have a Battleforged army with multiple Detachments and each Detachment could benefit from a different Chapter Tactic?

 

...

 

So each Detachment can benefit from the CT that will be most helpful to their specific role?

Yes. Keep in mind that the matched play rules make reference detachment numbers w.r.t. game size as an option for event organisers that might curtail such notions.

2. Chapter Relics: don't seem to have their own points costs? So if you took a Burning Blade, it only costs the pts for a regular power sword?

Yes, unless you so replaced a master crafted weapon.

[Gentlemanloser]

For matched play don't you need to have the same faction keyword for all detachments?

 

I'm assuming that a keyword 'imperial' detachment doesn't grant chapter tactics.

 

And that the keyword 'chapter um' is classed as a different keyword to 'chapter bt'.

 

Unless this is specifically covered in codex sm.

[Harleqvin]

Only in a detachment does the faction matter.

You can literally take two detachments. One being Ultramarines, and the other detachment can be Chaos World Eaters.

Faction only matters within a detachment. Not your army.

 

 

 

 

Something I'm wondering is, did they fix Plasmaguns on vehicles in C:SM? Like does a final roll of a one still outright slay a Razorback firing an overcharged PlasmaGun?

[Deadnaughty]

Only in a detachment does the faction matter.

You can literally take two detachments. One being Ultramarines, and the other detachment can be Chaos World Eaters.

Faction only matters within a detachment. Not your army.

 

 

 

 

Something I'm wondering is, did they fix Plasmaguns on vehicles in C:SM? Like does a final roll of a one still outright slay a Razorback firing an overcharged PlasmaGun?

Actually page 214 of the Rulebook, (Match making section, Choosing Armies) says that all units in an army must share a keyword.

 

For matched play don't you need to have the same faction keyword for all detachments?

 

I'm assuming that a keyword 'imperial' detachment doesn't grant chapter tactics.

 

And that the keyword 'chapter um' is classed as a different keyword to 'chapter bt'.

 

Unless this is specifically covered in codex sm.

Chapter tactics only checks the detachment, so that must contain only units with the relevant <Chapter>

So yes your army can include multiple detachments of different chapters that all get their respective Chapter trait.

 

The 'downside' is that the captain from detachment 1 can't provide re-rolls to a marine from detachment 2 (unless they share the same <Chapter>)

[Harleqvin]

In a detachment all units must share the same keyword.

Not all the detachments within the army.

Only in a detachment is the faction limitation.

So you can use world eaters in one detachment, and ultramarines in the other detachment within an army.

They don't share bonuses, as bonuses effect a faction.

 

You can literally do this.

[Deadnaughty]

In a detachment all units must share the same keyword.

Not all the detachments within the army.

Only in a detachment is the faction limitation.

So you can use world eaters in one detachment, and ultramarines in the other detachment within an army.

They don't share bonuses, as bonuses effect a faction.

 

You can literally do this.

In open play yes, in matched play you cannot.

 

page 214 of the Rulebook, (Match making section, Choosing Armies) says that all units in an army must share a keyword.

[Harleqvin]

Oh my gosh....

How Did I not remember that. I've read over that page several times.

My apologies!

Somehow I totally failed to remember that in a straight up normal Matched Play game. Only thing I can think of is that the detachment part of the rules kept outshining it in my mind.

But as said, I failed on that, my apologies, mate!

Edited July 30, 2017 by Harleqvin

[Harleqvin]

Deadnaughty, if you have a C:SM codex, can you tell me if a PlasmaGun overcharge still outright slays a Razorback on a final roll of a 1 when it shoots?

[Deadnaughty]

Nope, I dont have the codex.

And don't worry the edition is still new, mistakes happen :p

[Harleqvin]

Yeah. All that matters is that people don't be turds about it.

Which we haven't ={D>

 

And groovy. Hopefully someone will look on this and be able to give an answer to whether they did something about it with the new datasheets in the codex or some such.

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

Deadnaughty, if you have a C:SM codex, can you tell me if a PlasmaGun overcharge still outright slays a Razorback on a final roll of a 1 when it shoots?

No plasma on the Razorback in the codex, unless my eyes are growing dangerously dim.

[Withershadow]

Plasma didn't change, so the model still dies on overheat. Even Russes who have special rules to mitigate overheats still eat 6 wounds, so it makes zero sense for razorbacks to be in any way exempt.

[Gentlemanloser]

But keyword chapter um is different to keyword chapter bt.

 

So in matched play you cannot include both in your army.

[Withershadow]

But keyword chapter um is different to keyword chapter bt.

 

So in matched play you cannot include both in your army.

False. Both have Astartes and Imperium tags so can be in the same army.

[Gentlemanloser]

Nope. I was wrong.

 

Units have to share keywords. Not detachments.

 

Nothing to see here!

Edited July 31, 2017 by Gentlemanloser

[Harleqvin]

Yeah. For full on Matched Play, the army as a whole must share a keyword, so Black Templar and ultramrines is ok because they share Imperium.

In just open play you can use Matched points, and do like what I was taking about earlier, but that's because open play you can choose to not use any particular rules.

 

 

And yeah, I actually had been thinking about my razorback question. They stated the codex books would have the datasheets corisponding to the kit and the razorback kit has no las/dual plasma bits. So it wouldn't have been in the C:SM book....

But we can still use a razorback las/dual PlasmaGun but using any new points cost if there is new points, but as you said it will still die. I new the rhino Primaris and LR Excelsior wasn't in the codex because of this and didn't even think about the las/dual plasma.....

 

Thanks, mate!

 

 

I find it annoying as I thought FW still made their las/dual plasma turret.

Edited July 31, 2017 by Harleqvin

[OutlawSixActual]

has there been any scuttlebutt on whether or not combi-grav is gone for good on sergeants, or was that an oversight?

[Eddie Orlock]

Something I'm wondering is, did they fix Plasmaguns on vehicles in C:SM? Like does a final roll of a one still outright slay a Razorback firing an overcharged PlasmaGun?

We all remember that rule-fishing is proscribed around here, right? Let's have no further words on this subject now that we've all been reminded here.

has there been any scuttlebutt on whether or not combi-grav is gone for good on sergeants, or was that an oversight?

This might be a thing to look for in the N&R section of the forum.