Imperial Fists Super Doctrine, WLTs, Relics & Stratagems

[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.

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.

I see you've kind of misunderstood. You want to parse intent and determine if you want to leave, before you waste too much time. As adelard says, maybe it's an innocent mistake where the new player doesn't have the understanding of the history of FAQs to give context and they quickly reformat things to be mono templar. And if it's someone trying to get a temporary boost, you don't want to spend the time unpacking, setting up terrain, rolling for mission, alternating deployment and possibly even taking first turn before you realize what's happening. Also to avoid how it looks by playing out your turn only to quit and pack up when you realize they'll get an extra boost to their first turn and maybe slightly better characters.

[tvih]

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.

At which point they would fall into the category of "not in their right mind" because if they were, they'd think to look it up or ask someone to confirm (which then should happen well before any pre-battle discussion). At which point you get threads like these that would just serve to confuse them for no reason because people just can't help but play devil's advocate over and over again.

 

But shame on me for expecting people to have even basic information gathering and processing capabilities. I was new once too, but finding out which book(s) I needed was hardly an insurmountable task, even if back then there were admittedly far fewer books. However, never have I had anyone try to use incorrect rules like that against me either, or witnessed it happen to others IRL for that matter. If anyone's been even slightly unsure what rule sources apply currently - whether they're new or been away from the hobby for a while - they've asked someone well in advance.

 

I see you've kind of misunderstood. You want to parse intent and determine if you want to leave, before you waste too much time. As adelard says, maybe it's an innocent mistake where the new player doesn't have the understanding of the history of FAQs to give context and they quickly reformat things to be mono templar. And if it's someone trying to get a temporary boost, you don't want to spend the time unpacking, setting up terrain, rolling for mission, alternating deployment and possibly even taking first turn before you realize what's happening. Also to avoid how it looks by playing out your turn only to quit and pack up when you realize they'll get an extra boost to their first turn and maybe slightly better characters.

If it's literally their first game, is a kid or other sufficiently alleviating circumstances, in real life I'd give them a break assuming they understand when I say it doesn't work that way - I never try to be "that guy" on purpose, no matter how my messages may come off here. But keep insisting you get to double dip and more likely than not off I go. As said above, even in a complex game like this you can be reasonably expected to find out beforehand which books apply. Getting some rules wrong happens to everyone, certainly me included (in fact almost certainly in a more than average number of times given my memory and focus problems). But getting an entire CODEX that applies wrong for not looking it up or asking... jeez. Yet as also said never have I had something like this happen because people at least around here locally can and do in fact find out such things even on their own.

 

All that said, yes, GW should make it clear to begin with in both publications - and their descriptions on the website for example - that C:IF does not apply to BT, but I simply don't think that them not doing so should give anyone a pass on not using their brain, high as it may be on plastic crack by then.

 

But also further "discussion" is hardly meaningful, insofar as it was to begin with. People will play devil's advocate 'til the stars die out just because, but nothing of value will come out of this at this point given both cases have been made. And for the new player scenario the first post - since for whatever reason it was created to begin with - should already have made it clear that it doesn't actually work like that, since we're clearly assuming new players aren't the sharpest tools in the shed.

[SkimaskMohawk]

You're absolutely right tvih, and your approach is what a reasonable person would be expected to do.

[Marshal Mattias]

There really should be no debate here, as the text in question is not listed in the Errata as a change; it was listed as a designer's note in the FAQ.

 

It was not a rules change.

 

It was perceived as a common misinterpretation of the rules, and a designers note was included to clarify this.

 

So *at best* are we arguing that now the the Faith&Fury rules are not the latest edition, that we are allowed to deliberately return to misinterpreting the original rule? I think not; nobody can seriously believe this and so far nobody has claimed this stance.

 

So are we just arguing over some incredibly dull situation that may technically exist in a theoretical circumstance?

 

I think we are better than this.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

The faith and Fury designers note was carried over to the index, so the issue is not that it's an 8th edition rule that didn't carry over. Its just one that may disappear when they delete the Index.

 

I don't understand why this question keeps coming up now, when we have a proper supplement.

 

It kind of made sense when all we had was the Index or F&F rules which were hardly the 'supplement tier' content GW promised. Even Goonhammer at the time GW issued the designers' note said it left is in a weird place, with half the rules of the other chapters. Whereas, simply leaving us with access to the founding legion relic strat, or double warlord trait strat from CS:IF would have been enough.

 

Its all entirely academic right now however. The index is still on the FAQs page, and still has the designers note. So, yeah, I think this can be closed?

[Charlo]

If someone told me they were using those rules I'd simply laugh and walk away

[Urkh]

Yah, can we close this nonsense?

[Marshal Mattias]

=][= Agreed. =][=