Iron Hands Vehicles and It Will Not Die

[KaptinDregzag]

It appears to me that vehicles in an Iron Hands force (like Rhinos and the like) no longer get "It Will Not Die" because they do not have Chapter Tactics. The old codex explicitly stated that they get it anyways, but the new codex does not seem to say this. Yes, Iron Hands Dreadnoughts get it as they have Chapter Tactics, but I can't find where other vehicles do. Am I reading this right?

[thepolytheist]

This is correct. Only Dreadnoughts get Chapter Tactics benefits now. No other vehicles have the rule, nor is it conferred upon them by any rule-granting shenanigans. IWND for Iron Hands tanks, speeders, and flyers is a thing of the past.

[DR.V]

I think they still have it, because the Machine Empathy part of their chapter tactics states that Iron Hands characters and vehicles have the IWND rule.
Now I take that as I am running an Iron Hands force and this rhino I bought as a DT for my Tack squad is an Iron Hand rhino so it should have IWND.
However I might just be trying to justify them having it in the last codex.

[Sonikgav]

I can personally see both arguments.

The problem comes when you take an all Vehicle Detachment like say the Land Raider Spearhead. Nothing in that detachment has Chapter Tactics so you cant assign any to it etc. I basically think this is GW's way of improving Dreadnaughts, and for Iron Hands it makes sense.

They gave them 4 attacks sure, but they also snuck in this for all those Iron Hands Armies that can run Dreads as Elite and Heavy.

[energongoodie]

I'm gonna play it as "iron hands characters and vehicles have the it will not die special rule" and I'm counting an iron hand vehicle as being in an iron hands detachment.

[Katharon]

It'll come up in an FAQ soon enough once enough people complain about their usual lack of clear writing.

[thepolytheist]

I think they still have it, because the Machine Empathy part of their chapter tactics states that Iron Hands characters and vehicles have the IWND rule.

Yes, but Rhinos etc. are not "Iron Hands vehicles." The Chapter Tactics rules are very clear that a unit does not count as an "Iron Hands _____" unless it is a ______, is in an Iron Hands detachment, AND has the Chapter Tactics special rule. No vehicles except Dreadnoughts in an Iron Hands detachment are Iron Hands vehicles.

Please re-read the Chapter Tactics rule if you think non-Dreadnought vehicles benefit from Chapter Tactics.

[Hendrik Booraem VI]

The new Codex Adeptus Astartes: Space Marines says clearly on page 190 "Iron Hands Characters and vehicles have the It Will Not Die special rule." There wouldn't be much point in phrasing it that way if you actually mean "Iron Hands Characters and vehicles with the "Chapter Tactics" rule have the It Will Not Die special rule."

So as far as I'm concerned, it hasn't changed anything.

EDIT: To expand on my reasoning, the old codex said, on page 77 "All models benefit from the appropriate Chapter Tactics for their detachment's Chapter, providing they have the Chapter Tactics special rule (emphasis mine).

However, the new codex says something slightly different. On page 189, it says "All models drawn from a given Chapter benefit from that Chapter's Chapter Tactics rules, as described below." Notice it no longer mandates that the unit entries have the "Chapter Tactics" special rule. "As described below" appears to refer to the actual entries for the Chapter Tactics, where the Iron Hands entry reads as I quoted in my original post.

So I'm pretty sure that Iron Hands vehicles still have It Will Not Die legitimately, and I'm not just rules lawyering.

[Hendrik Booraem VI]

Like I said, the change in the the entry for Chapter Tactics means the added sentence in the old codex is no longer necessary, since in the new codex Chapter Tactics aren't limited to just units with the Chapter Tactics special rule (evidently).

[Houghten]

It'll come up in an FAQ soon enough once enough people complain about their usual lack of clear writing.

It's been six months since the last time anything got FAQd, and not for lack of needing one. And what we got wasn't exactly comprehensive either.