Imperial Fists Super Doctrine, WLTs, Relics & Stratagems

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

 Looks like Black Templar have access to use the Imperial Fists Superdoctrine, WLTs, Relics, and Stratagems again…

 

The statement that forbade us from benefiting from anything Imperial Fists related was an FAQ applied to Faith and Fury and was added to the Black Templar Index for 9th, however it is missing in this book. Applicable rules to this situation is when Faith & Fury was released, BT had access to IF unique everything until the FAQ was applied. Previous rules are overwritten when new ones are released, as such BT have access to IF rules (again).

[Valdr Fell-fist]

I feel like that’s an issue that both needs to and will be fixed by the first faq received for our supplement. It was a cheeky stretch when it was first made based on us only having a very thin index but now that we’ve got a more recent-and arguably, stronger- supplement than the Fists it’s more than cheeky in my opinion.

[Marshal Mattias]

Yeah, I mean it was previously resolved via an FAQ, which is a rules clarification for a frequently misunderstood scenario, not an errata, which is an actual rule change. So it's even harder to argue as legit, given our knowledge the of what came before.

 

I think it's just a matter of time before there is another FAQ to put an end to this misconception.

[Urkh]

Want it a designer's note? Not necessarily a rule, but it should be well understood that we can't do that.

[Medjugorje]

For me its clear that its not intended and I wont play that. But honestly...we dont have a superdoctrine and no stratagem for real melee buffs and :cussty WL-Traits. 

 

With the IF supp we could have +1A +1Save on a unit on a marker, could have an inbuild Transhuman or more CPs as WL-Trait and finally a bit better shooting options. 

[Sete]

Stop trying to cheese it. Its obvious we cant use it. Play Imperial Fists to acess those bonus.

[a_typical_hero]

For me its clear that its not intended and I wont play that. But honestly...we dont have a superdoctrine and no stratagem for real melee buffs and :cussty WL-Traits. 

 

With the IF supp we could have +1A +1Save on a unit on a marker, could have an inbuild Transhuman or more CPs as WL-Trait and finally a bit better shooting options. 

We don't have a super doctrine because everything gets a 5+ invul in every round along with mini transhuman. Keep your IF stuff, I'll take the Vow.

[Medjugorje]

honestly - I would prefer all IF stuff instead of our current vows when it would be just about power. Of course i prefer the vows and like i said ... we had this topic after after the IF Supplement.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

IF Is widely considered the weakest SM supplement.

[Tokugawa]

If any player in your meta want to stack BT vows together with IF doctrine, he is a pure bastard and I suggest don't become friend of him.

[SkimaskMohawk]

honestly - I would prefer all IF stuff instead of our current vows when it would be just about power. Of course i prefer the vows and like i said ... we had this topic after after the IF Supplement.

That's certainly a hot take. As bbf mentioned they're by far considered the weakest supplement, and also one of the weakest armies. They share the privilege of no top 4 performance in 9th with gsc, renegade knights, salamanders and tau.

[SirJyo]

Strats such as clearance protocols, and relics like the +1a banner are great for BT.

Assign a 3rd WLT.

 

Ofc I'm gonna abuse this until it's errata'd, there's at least one sweaty at my lgs who needs to be taken down a peg.

[Tokugawa]

If very strictly RAW, no matched play rules says BT is IF successor, too.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

We know the intent, so I wouldn’t do it at this point in time.

[Medjugorje]

IF Is widely considered the weakest SM supplement.

and so what? 

IF have better WL-Traits and a few okay stratagems. We dont have a single good  WL-Trait and the combination of IF WL-Traits and Stratagems would be better then one VOW.

If very strictly RAW, no matched play rules says BT is IF successor, too.

not true. There is a part in the IF Supp where you can read that each known IF successor can be played with this supp.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

BBF is, strictly RAW, correct. (RAI, clearly not.) Well, he might be if there isn't a day one BT FAQ, as at the moment the old Index is still on the website, so the restriction is extant.

 

The problem was that GW wrote the IF supplement rules too widely, so they applied to BT. I kinda think this may have been intentional at the outset, when we had no faith and Fury to even give us a hint of extra rules. But they should have put the exclusion in the FAQ for the IF supplement as well as the BT rules.

Edited November 9, 2021 by Brother Adelard

[SkimaskMohawk]

 

 

IF Is widely considered the weakest SM supplement.

and so what?

IF have better WL-Traits and a few okay stratagems. We dont have a single good WL-Trait and the combination of IF WL-Traits and Stratagems would be better then one VOW.

What you said reads as you'd rather have the IF rules than the BT rules. Which is why we're confused, because the IF rules are terrible as standalone rules. Obviously if you meant all the IF stuff in addition to BT, minus the vows, then ya. Other than the invul of uphold, you can recreate a most of the vows through prayer or stratagem.

[Brother Kraskor]

Somewhat of a side-question. Vows are only available for a pure-BT army. Is this the case for equivalent rules in other chapters (I don't know the answer)? Because I was interested in making a Last Wall but if the BT portion can't have their Vows that's a dealbreaker.

[tvih]

Other chapters lose their "superdoctrine" when playing mixed Astartes, yes.

 

That aside why even open this pointless discussion about IF, when we bloody well know we can't use them? It was silly the last time, but utterly inane now.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

Other chapters lose their "superdoctrine" when playing mixed Astartes, yes.

 

That aside why even open this pointless discussion about IF, when we bloody well know we can't use them? It was silly the last time, but utterly inane now.

I Don't know why it keeps coming up now. But you have to admit, it's bad rules writing on GWs part that the only place this restriction is written is in a soon to be defunct FAQ. 

 

I can forgive a new player, who has just started and seen the IF supplement from thinking, correctly, that it covers BT models as well. Because, it does. GW accepted that interpretation was correct when they wrote the exclusion into the F&F FAQ. It should have been written into the BT supp as well as the IF FAQ.

[SkimaskMohawk]

Other chapters lose their "superdoctrine" when playing mixed Astartes, yes.

 

That aside why even open this pointless discussion about IF, when we bloody well know we can't use them? It was silly the last time, but utterly inane now.

Because if you play pick up games, then you need to get ready to add this to a pregame discussion. A lot of gaming communities have players that aren't great, but press for every rules advantage they can get and I assume you'd want to suss out any double-supplement BT lists before you've deployed everything.

[tvih]

 

Other chapters lose their "superdoctrine" when playing mixed Astartes, yes.

 

That aside why even open this pointless discussion about IF, when we bloody well know we can't use them? It was silly the last time, but utterly inane now.

I Don't know why it keeps coming up now. But you have to admit, it's bad rules writing on GWs part that the only place this restriction is written is in a soon to be defunct FAQ. 

 

I can forgive a new player, who has just started and seen the IF supplement from thinking, correctly, that it covers BT models as well. Because, it does. GW accepted that interpretation was correct when they wrote the exclusion into the F&F FAQ. It should have been written into the BT supp as well as the IF FAQ.

 

Of course it's bad rules writing, it's GW. Doesn't mean we have to be as inept as them. Even bringing it up is pretty much a case of "the rules didn't say I can't smash my opponent's model to bits with a hammer, therefore I can".

 

 

Other chapters lose their "superdoctrine" when playing mixed Astartes, yes.

 

That aside why even open this pointless discussion about IF, when we bloody well know we can't use them? It was silly the last time, but utterly inane now.

Because if you play pick up games, then you need to get ready to add this to a pregame discussion. A lot of gaming communities have players that aren't great, but press for every rules advantage they can get and I assume you'd want to suss out any double-supplement BT lists before you've deployed everything.

 

If someone even starts that discussion with the intention of using it in your game, you walk away. It's that simple. I'd rather not play at all than play against someone arguing for this case. Edited November 9, 2021 by tvih

[Sword Brother Adelard]

That's a bit presumptuous. If they genuinely don't know, because they're new. Then just walking away wouldn't help anyone. If they should know better, then yeah. 

Your hammer argument is just a typical example of reductio ad absurdum. 

[tvih]

It is RAA on purpose yes, because that summarizes the whole thread - absurd. A new player likely won't go looking for BT rules in the IF book unless someone tells them to. Threads like these are what give people those ideas to begin with. And especially with the release of the Codex no new player in their right mind would on their own go looking for rules from C:IF when there's a C:BT. Edited November 9, 2021 by tvih

[Sword Brother Adelard]

It is RAA on purpose yes, because that summarizes the whole thread - absurd. A new player likely won't go looking for BT rules in the IF book unless someone tells them to. Threads like these are what give people those ideas to begin with. And especially with the release of the Codex no new player in their right mind would on their own go looking for rules from C:IF when there's a C:BT.

Assumption is the mother of something.

 

What if a new player started with the IF book? then bought the BT book because they wanted to lean into the 8th company thing a bit more heavily? I can totally foresee a way that someone who didn't live their life on forums like this could read the rules, correctly, and come to the conclusion that both apply. 

 

The fault is not automatically the player's, if the system is badly written. Intent is the key.