Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

HELLO. This is a thread for e maintenance of the Forge World & Apocalypse Rules Index - http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/Forge_World_and_Apocalypse_Rules_Index

Please post any errors, requests for updates, questions, etc. I'll try and keep it as up to date as possible...



Ian

I think article is the best, and put it in your sig, so that whenever we see people asking 'which is the most current FW ruleset' we remember you and check one of your posts, and find the link I'm sure others will put it in their sigs too.

If you had to pick a forum though, 40K general I think.

I didn't notice the Sonic dreadnoughts on here.

Are their rules basically completely illegal now? Has FW said anything about how to play their sonic dreadnoughts?

 Spellbound wrote:
I didn't notice the Sonic dreadnoughts on here.

Are their rules basically completely illegal now? Has FW said anything about how to play their sonic dreadnoughts?

The most recent set of rules for Sonic Weapons on Dreadnoughts was a Slaanesh warband Apocalypse Datasheet that GW put out at the peak of the original Apocalypse release. It's probably safe to consider their rules completely obsolete.

 Spellbound wrote:
I didn't notice the Sonic dreadnoughts on here.

Are their rules basically completely illegal now? Has FW said anything about how to play their sonic dreadnoughts?

Yes, the rules are in Apocalypse II under the data sheet for Slaanesh Lament of the Damned. It refers to upgrading 'Chaos Dreadnoughts' - a unit type that no longer exist.

How does the new 6ed Apocalypse affect old formations? Are all the old formations still valid?

 Spellbound wrote:
I didn't notice the Sonic dreadnoughts on here.

Are their rules basically completely illegal now? Has FW said anything about how to play their sonic dreadnoughts?

If you haven't already, it may be worth emailing FW to ask the question.

I'd agree with that - FW are often a lot more responsive.

Also, that's a great resource you've put together there, man. Really well done.

Now we just need one of those for "Vanilla" 40k, with all of the dataslates, digital editions and supplements out there.

Speaking of Apocalypse Obsolescence, I can't find rules for my Landraider Terminus Ultra, but the fethers still sell conversion bits for it!

Very nicely done. Forge World has stated they are working on a similar resource and will eventually update the pages for each kit with a link to the book with the current correct rules, but there is no timeline specifed for that project to be completed.

Skriker

@kronk

Land Raider Terminus Ultra rules are in
GW Apocalypse Reload page 16

Mik

 Lord Castellan Mik wrote:
@kronk

Land Raider Terminus Ultra rules are in
GW Apocalypse Reload page 16

Mik

I thought that was out of date and discontinued!?

 kronk wrote:

 Lord Castellan Mik wrote:
@kronk

Land Raider Terminus Ultra rules are in
GW Apocalypse Reload page 16

Mik

I thought that was out of date and discontinued!?

It is out of date and OOP.
You can probably still use the rules though. Just needs a bit of tweaking to make it 6th ed compliant.

I don't have that book anymore... Sad.

Skriker wrote:Very nicely done. Forge World has stated they are working on a similar resource and will eventually update the pages for each kit with a link to the book with the current correct rules, but there is no timeline specifed for that project to be completed.

Skriker

Really? Fantastic. If they ever actually get around to that, I'll update the chart. I imagine it'll only be for the vehicles they still sell, though..

Lord Castellan Mik wrote:@kronk

Land Raider Terminus Ultra rules are in
GW Apocalypse Reload page 16

Mik

I'll put this in away, even though Apocalypse Reload is out of date - just so we know where the rules actually are!!

---

ANYONE. Can anyone confirm if GW: Apocalypse (6th Edition) has the Datasheets for Reaver and Warhound Titans in it?

 ArbitorIan wrote:

Skriker wrote:Very nicely done. Forge World has stated they are working on a similar resource and will eventually update the pages for each kit with a link to the book with the current correct rules, but there is no timeline specifed for that project to be completed.

Skriker

Really? Fantastic. If they ever actually get around to that, I'll update the chart. I imagine it'll only be for the vehicles they still sell, though..

Lord Castellan Mik wrote:@kronk

Land Raider Terminus Ultra rules are in
GW Apocalypse Reload page 16

Mik

I'll put this in away, even though Apocalypse Reload is out of date - just so we know where the rules actually are!!

---

ANYONE. Can anyone confirm if GW: Apocalypse (6th Edition) has the Datasheets for Reaver and Warhound Titans in it?

Yes, it does. But not the rules for the Warlord, unlike the previous incarnation of the rule set. Probably because GW doesn't sell it (and most likely won't. A complete warlord set would be a logistical and financial nightmare)

...or not...apparently, a Warlord is only 50% taller than a reaver, meaning a model would be about 24" tall.

An Eldar Phantom titan is approximately 22" tall, apparently, meaning that FW could have the manufacturing capabilities to produce and ship a Warlord.

The book might be out of print, but the rules still exist until they are replaced

In the Apoc 2nd ed version there are ZERO entries for Leman Russ tanks... does that mean we cant use them in Apoc

Mik

 ArbitorIan wrote:
HELLO

I'm in the middle of creating an index of where the most current rules are for FW models - thought it would be useful.

I started doing this as an article at http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/Forge_World_and_Apocalypse_Rules_Index - I'm still experimenting with various layouts and adding stuff, but it seems that the article system isn't really flexible enough with tables to make this look good.

So, if I make this into a forum post (to get a bit more flexibility), which forum should I put it in? Painting and Modelling? Rules Queries? 40k General? Or should I keep it as an Article.

Ian

The article system is actually way more flexible than a forum post (it can just be a bit more tricky to unlock that potential if you don't know how).

What are you trying to add that you find you can't?

We should definitely add pics of the cover of each book to this. I can help with that since I should have every one.


Also, this should go in 40k discussions...moving now.

Ok, so updated with the Terminus Ultra, the Titans, the Sonic Dreadnought and with most of the new apocalypse book and IA Apocalypse 3rd Edition. I should finish the orks part of this tonight.

Azazelx wrote:I'd agree with that - FW are often a lot more responsive.

Also, that's a great resource you've put together there, man. Really well done.

Now we just need one of those for "Vanilla" 40k, with all of the dataslates, digital editions and supplements out there.

Maybe when I'm REALLY bored, I'll get around to that. A complete listing of everything playable my each army would be useful..

yakface wrote:

The article system is actually way more flexible than a forum post (it can just be a bit more tricky to unlock that potential if you don't know how).

What are you trying to add that you find you can't?

We should definitely add pics of the cover of each book to this. I can help with that since I should have every one.


Also, this should go in 40k discussions...moving now.

Thanks, yak face. I've started filling in all the correct pictures.

I'm mostly looking for tabke formattig code. I'd like to...

- remove the borders, set them to 0pt or turn then invisible
- add a blank row for separation without having to type a little dash to make the row full height. Or make the dash invisible!!
- change text colour across a whole row

Any advice??

To make a blank cell, use this code instead of a dash, but replace the ( ) with < >:

(br clear="all"/)

That is basically a code that clears all formatting, which in this case creates a blank cell that fits the size of your table.

As for changing the font color of a row, what are you looking to do with that? Make like a header row?

 yakface wrote:


To make a blank cell, use this code instead of a dash, but replace the ( ) with < >:

(br clear="all"/)

That is basically a code that clears all formatting, which in this case creates a blank cell that fits the size of your table.

As for changing the font color of a row, what are you looking to do with that? Make like a header row?

I was going to grey out or 'red out' all the Obsolete books.

Any ideas on how to remove the borders - I think the table would be a LOT clearer without them!

this is brilliant. I can't tell you how many times I've gone to FW, admired a model and then been utterly clueless as to which book I'd be able to find rules in :(

you sir, have earned an exalt!

 ArbitorIan wrote:

I was going to grey out or 'red out' all the Obsolete books.

Any ideas on how to remove the borders - I think the table would be a LOT clearer without them!

Okay, I've removed the borders from one of your tables to show you how it's done, and I've also colored one row of that table as well. Just 'edit' the article to see how it's done (although I'll give you heads-up here as well).

Basically, to remove the borders from the table, you just get rid of all the table formatting at the top of the table.

So instead of starting the table with a first line of:

{| border=“0” cellspacing=“0” cellpadding=“0” align=“left”


You instead just start the first line with:

{|


Although you'd want to keep the align="left" code if you wanted to align the text in the table either center or right (I believe left is default, though, without you having to do anything).

Personally I like having borders, but that's just me. There are other border types possible if you just don't like the style of those borders.


To add color to a row in the table, put this line right underneath the row separator. If you're unsure of what a row separator looks like, it is this symbol: |-

So you add this line below the row separator:

|-style="background:dark grey; color:red"


That allows you to change the color of the text and change also the background color of that row…making the background color 'dark grey' makes it match the standard Dakka theme background, although people using the 'work safe' theme (where the background is white) will see the background color as dark grey still.

if you don't want a background color at all, you can just get rid of that part of the code (and just keep the regular 'color' bit).

If you want to know what colors Dakka supports in the wiki, when editing any article page, just click on the 'text color' drop down menu and you'll see a list of them all.

Thanks again!

I've now got everything pretty much up to date and have turned the OP into an intro post. Maybe it's good to keep this thread going for errors/requests/corrections?

So I went ahead and started linking the FW PDF downloads right onto the page list (so you can click to download them right there).

I thought about just making the links go directly to the original FW links, but I think I'd rather make sure we always have a copy of them available even if FW deletes them, so I uploaded a copy to the article system for each and then made the links go there.


---


I started working to double-check your unit entries…have you cross referenced them with the work we did for Adepticon?

Mainly these two PDFs:

http://www.adepticon.org/14rules/201440Kapproved.pdf
http://www.adepticon.org/14rules/201440KLoWapproved.pdf

Should be pretty similar to what we have in your list, so its a good resource to use as a cross-reference to look for errors.

But I have a question to you about some fundamentals:


1) Did you want to include experimental PDFs? I noticed you included the R'varna battelsuit rules (which are still experimental). I went ahead and noted that as being experimental (marked it pink), but I'm just wondering is that something you want to keep up with (always adding the newest experimental version of the rules to this list)?

Personally, I'd think it is an easier/better idea just to leave experimental rules off the list until they are 'officially' published by FW.


2) I know that FW published their Lord of War update PDF which claims that certain rules for IA stuff are identical across different books…but the reality is, that just isn't the case lots of times. And it goes beyond just converting SPs to HPs (which is all FW acknowledges).

For example, just the first thing I looked at, the Marauder Bomber, their LoW update PDF says that the current rules are in IA: Aeronautica and IA: Apoc (3rd edition).

Yes, the rules in those two books are subtly different (the number of bombs it has and how it drops them changed between the two due to the new Apoc rules).

So my question is: do you want to follow FW's LoW update PDF blindly and say that those rules are identical when they aren't? Or should we just include a reference to the ACTUAL most current rules (IA: Apoc, 3rd edition).

Personally I think we should only be including the most current version of the rules, regardless of what FW thinks (because they are often wrong, even about their own stuff).

I mean, there are a few cases where two versions of a unit are exactly the same between two books (usually GW's Escalation and Apocalypse books), and I think it is okay to point to both versions if we've verified 100% that they're identical, but otherwise I feel like it is a disservice to send people looking to outdated rules when there is a more current version out there.

What do you think?


----


Also, we probably want to figure out what to do with the new Warzone books.

They literally have DIFFERENT rules for the SAME forge world model in some cases (including different point values):

• Deathstorm Drop Pod (WZ: Damnos vs. IA: Apoc, 3rd Ed)
• Necron Pylon (WZ: Damnos vs. IA: Apoc, 3rd Ed)
• Chaos Greater Brass Scorpion of Khorne (WZ: Pandorax vs. IA: Apoc ,3rd Ed)
• Imperial Marauder Bomber (WZ: Pandorax vs. IA2, 3rd Ed)


And I have no idea if there is anything like that in the new WZ: Damocles book either.

 yakface wrote:
So I went ahead and started linking the FW PDF downloads right onto the page list (so you can click to download them right there).

I thought about just making the links go directly to the original FW links, but I think I'd rather make sure we always have a copy of them available even if FW deletes them, so I uploaded a copy to the article system for each and then made the links go there.

Fantastic - I wasn't aware we could upload PDFs to the articles, but good idea. I'll have a look if I still have some of the ones FW is missing (like the updated DKoK files which aren't available any more)

 yakface wrote:
I started working to double-check your unit entries…have you cross referenced them with the work we did for Adepticon?
Mainly these two PDFs:
http://www.adepticon.org/14rules/201440Kapproved.pdf
http://www.adepticon.org/14rules/201440KLoWapproved.pdf
Should be pretty similar to what we have in your list, so its a good resource to use as a cross-reference to look for errors.

I had literally no idea about this. That would have made the work a bit quicker! I'll try and cross-reference - I built this list by going through the books in order of release so it should be pretty accurate, and I imagine they'll match up, but I'll check.

 yakface wrote:

1) Did you want to include experimental PDFs? I noticed you included the R'varna battelsuit rules (which are still experimental).

Hmm. I guess the reason for the list, first and foremost, is to answer the question "Where can I find rules for X unit?". In this case, we probably should include experimental rules (marked pink as you say) but I know this could be a pain to keep up to date. How many experimental rules are there at the moment? The FW site only lists the R'Varna but also has listings for lots of units which have since been updates in another book (Repressor, Fire Raptor). I haven't checked if these are identical entries yet. Is it worth including these? Not sure....

 yakface wrote:
2) I know that FW published their Lord of War update PDF which claims that certain rules for IA stuff are identical across different books…but the reality is, that just isn't the case lots of times. And it goes beyond just converting SPs to HPs (which is all FW acknowledges).

Personally I think we should only be including the most current version of the rules, regardless of what FW thinks (because they are often wrong, even about their own stuff).

I mean, there are a few cases where two versions of a unit are exactly the same between two books (usually GW's Escalation and Apocalypse books), and I think it is okay to point to both versions if we've verified 100% that they're identical, but otherwise I feel like it is a disservice to send people looking to outdated rules when there is a more current version out there. What do you think?

I agree. I ignored the LOW update's assertions that the models are the same, checked the books, and included the most up-to-date source.

In some cases, I listed two sources but only when I've gone and checked that they are definitely both legal. Sometimes this gets fuzzy - for example the Malcador variants have an extra sponson option in IA: Apoc (3rd), but other than this they are identical to IA:2 (2nd). Since taking the Malcador as listed in IA2 would still result in a legal model, I've included both as legal sources of rules.

I was trying to avoid a situation where someone already who owns IA:2 feels that they can't use their Malcador until they buy IA: Apoc (3rd), which isn't true.

Does that seem sensible, or do you think it confuses things?

 yakface wrote:
Also, we probably want to figure out what to do with the new Warzone books.

They literally have DIFFERENT rules for the SAME forge world model in some cases (including different point values):

I have no idea what to do about this! Are the rules in the Warzone books only for use in that Warzone, or presented as general rules for all of 40k? Maybe we could include in the description that there is a 'Damnos Variant'?

On what basis do we decide that these books don't count as official updates?

------

Questions on formatting

- I noticed you've formatted the titles a bit better and added more. Do we need both the gold bars AND the section titles? At the moment, there are two 'Adepta Sororitas' headings, two 'Chaos' headings, etc.
- For IA Updates, maybe we don't need them to appear in the Sources section. It seems weird to come up with a code for, say, the U: Irrilyth so that people can browse back to the top and figure out that this means the Irrilyth update, and then go and download it. Would it be better to put the link for updates right there in the main list wherever they are required?



------



Done some updating on 40k-approved units. Most were additions to this list from the Adepticon PDF, but I noticed a couple of oddities in the Adepticon list...

- The Adepticon PDF lists Atlas Recovery Tank as HQ - it is Elites according to IA1 (2nd)
- The Adepticon PDF lists Land Raider Terminus Ultra as appearing in IA: Apoc (2013) - it does not.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

Fantastic - I wasn't aware we could upload PDFs to the articles, but good idea. I'll have a look if I still have some of the ones FW is missing (like the updated DKoK files which aren't available any more)

Just FYI, forge world doesn't actually tend to take down their PDFs even when they remove the link. Often times you can google search and still find the old PDF even though there is no link to it on their site.

Hmm. I guess the reason for the list, first and foremost, is to answer the question "Where can I find rules for X unit?". In this case, we probably should include experimental rules (marked pink as you say) but I know this could be a pain to keep up to date. How many experimental rules are there at the moment? The FW site only lists the R'Varna but also has listings for lots of units which have since been updates in another book (Repressor, Fire Raptor). I haven't checked if these are identical entries yet. Is it worth including these? Not sure....

There are a bunch of PDFs on FW's download page which are essentially out of date. When we emailed them (as part of compiling that list for Adepticon) they basically said that there were certain links that couldn't seem to take down...I don't understand how that could happen, but what do I know?

So anyway, I definitely don't think we want to bother including PDF links for stuff that is no longer relevant unless you can see a reason to do so.

Of the PDFs we don't have up in our article yet:


• The Chapter Tactics PDF is still used and probably should be noted as such for those SM Badab characters that have chapter tactics that refer back to that PDF (I haven't done that yet).

• The IG Stormblade PDF is a current fix (over IA1, 2nd edition) and should be updated in the article to say so.

• The Repressor PDF is old (pre-IA2, 2nd edition) and is essentially outdated.

• The Heavy Artillery Carriage Update is nearly a match with what is in IA1, 2nd Ed, but it lacks the 'immobile artillery' rule on the PDF (so isn't as complete as what is in IA1, 2nd Ed.

• The IG Rapier update is 100% a match with what is in IA1, 2nd Ed. from what I can tell.

• The SM Rapier is outdated (wrong point value) compared to IA2, 2nd Ed.

• I think the psyker update PDF is still only used by the Farseer from IA11 (Bel-Annath).

In some cases, I listed two sources but only when I've gone and checked that they are definitely both legal. Sometimes this gets fuzzy - for example the Malcador variants have an extra sponson option in IA: Apoc (3rd), but other than this they are identical to IA:2 (2nd). Since taking the Malcador as listed in IA2 would still result in a legal model, I've included both as legal sources of rules.

I was trying to avoid a situation where someone already who owns IA:2 feels that they can't use their Malcador until they buy IA: Apoc (3rd), which isn't true.

Does that seem sensible, or do you think it confuses things?

I get where you're coming from and I understand the desire to help people out, but I think if there are *any* changes at all, then it is really bad to have people still thinking that they have the most current rules.

For example, somebody may look at this list and *think* they have the most current rules for the Malcador because they have IA:2, not even realizing that they have the option to take sponsons. So yeah, the fact that IA:2 doesn't have sponson options means someone using those rules will be taking a 'legal' model, but you're also not letting people know that there is a difference that they aren't getting to know about.

Ultimately this is your rodeo, but IMHO, you should only include multiple sources if they are a 100% exact match, down to the very last detail.

I have no idea what to do about this! Are the rules in the Warzone books only for use in that Warzone, or presented as general rules for all of 40k? Maybe we could include in the description that there is a 'Damnos Variant'?

On what basis do we decide that these books don't count as official updates?

Well, maybe the best option is to have two separate listings for those particular cases. Just call one: 'Marauder Bomber (Imperial Armour)' and the other one 'Marauder Bomber (Apocalypse)'?

Or we could email the FW guys about it (they're pretty good at getting back to you, although I wonder with all the site upheaval going on with GW right now if they're swamped).

Or we can just literally stick with whichever one was released last, even though it doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense in some cases for GW to put out rules for something and then have FW 'override' it a few months later.

Questions on formatting

- I noticed you've formatted the titles a bit better and added more. Do we need both the gold bars AND the section titles? At the moment, there are two 'Adepta Sororitas' headings, two 'Chaos' headings, etc.
- For IA Updates, maybe we don't need them to appear in the Sources section. It seems weird to come up with a code for, say, the U: Irrilyth so that people can browse back to the top and figure out that this means the Irrilyth update, and then go and download it. Would it be better to put the link for updates right there in the main list wherever they are required?

I can get rid of the text in the gold bar, although I like having the gold bar as a separator, so maybe I'll just leave it there as a visual motif.

I don't think we actually need to keep the PDF updates as a separate listing, I think we definitely could just make the abbreviation into the link to the PDF...and in that case I think we can definitely shorten the names of some of those update abbreviations (since people can just click on them to figure out what they are we can make them all super-short IMHO).

Done some updating on 40k-approved units. Most were additions to this list from the Adepticon PDF, but I noticed a couple of oddities in the Adepticon list...

- The Adepticon PDF lists Atlas Recovery Tank as HQ - it is Elites according to IA1 (2nd)
- The Adepticon PDF lists Land Raider Terminus Ultra as appearing in IA: Apoc (2013) - it does not.

Yeah, it's easy for mistakes to slip through, so don't be surprised if you find a few errors in the Adpeticon list (but please let me know so I can get them fixed for next year).


---


But I have another question to you about overall format:


Do you really see value in keeping the units separated out by 'type' (HQ, Fast Attack, etc)?

The reason I ask is because I think most people go searching by 'name' of a unit not by unit type, so by splitting them all into different little sections, it makes it harder (IMHO) to find the unit you're looking for.

That's why for Adepticon we just split them into a PDF for standard units and a PDF for Lords of War/Apoc units.

What do you think about doing that (just having basically two groups of units per faction...standard and LoW)? We can add a column to the mix that tells you what FOC the unit comes from, but the list wouldn't be broken up like that.

Also, one other option we could do (although it would be time consuming) is to add a column for each unit to show which books in the past it has been in...so if you want to go check out the older rules for something, you'd know where to look. Do you think that would be useful or a waste of time?

Finally, right now the 'army' column is quite big because you haven't really abbreviated the faction names at all. At the very least I think we could abbreviate the 'main' factions and just include a 'key' of abbreviations somewhere, so make Space Marines into 'SM', Imperial Guard into 'IG', etc...we could still spell out the wackier IG army list names, but that would save some space.

OR, one other option on that front: we could make a separate wiki page for each abbreviation, that way we can make each and every faction name super-abbreviated, but they'd be clickable. And if you clicked on it, it would take you to a page which just said basically what the abbreviation means (unfortunately the glossary system like we have in the forum doesn't work in the articles, so that's the best we could do).

----


Edit: Although right now it looks like the article system has crashed or something...I wonder if we did it?

 yakface wrote:
I get where you're coming from and I understand the desire to help people out, but I think if there are *any* changes at all, then it is really bad to have people still thinking that they have the most current rules.

Fair point, let's go with that as the rule. I'll remove the offending references.

Well, maybe the best option is to have two separate listings for those particular cases. Just call one: 'Marauder Bomber (Imperial Armour)' and the other one 'Marauder Bomber (Apocalypse)'?

Looking through Damnos and Pandorax, none of the units in there are given the Lords of War stamp, and none of them are suitable for regular 40k. All the unit profiles listed are ONLY for use in Apocalypse. So, currently, if you want to include a Marauder Bomber in your 40k force as a Lord of War, IA:Apoc (3rd) is the only legal source of rules.

I guess we could include Marauder Bomber (Pandorax) as an Apocalypse-only option under the 'Apocalypse' unit type that some armies still have?

I can get rid of the text in the gold bar, although I like having the gold bar as a separator, so maybe I'll just leave it there as a visual motif.

Maybe a gold bar as the last line of each table, thus preserving the separation but not giving two titles?

I don't think we actually need to keep the PDF updates as a separate listing, I think we definitely could just make the abbreviation into the link to the PDF...and in that case I think we can definitely shorten the names of some of those update abbreviations (since people can just click on them to figure out what they are we can make them all super-short IMHO)..

DONE!

Do you really see value in keeping the units separated out by 'type' (HQ, Fast Attack, etc)? The reason I ask is because I think most people go searching by 'name' of a unit not by unit type, so by splitting them all into different little sections, it makes it harder (IMHO) to find the unit you're looking for.

I can see the logic there. If the most useful thing for people is to have it searchable by name then that makes sense. I think, like the Adepticon PDF, we should still list the unit type in a new column, though.

Finally, right now the 'army' column is quite big because you haven't really abbreviated the faction names at all. At the very least I think we could abbreviate the 'main' factions and just include a 'key' of abbreviations somewhere, so make Space Marines into 'SM', Imperial Guard into 'IG', etc...we could still spell out the wackier IG army list names, but that would save some space.

OR, one other option on that front: we could make a separate wiki page for each abbreviation, that way we can make each and every faction name super-abbreviated, but they'd be clickable. And if you clicked on it, it would take you to a page which just said basically what the abbreviation means (unfortunately the glossary system like we have in the forum doesn't work in the articles, so that's the best we could do).

I've gone through and made lots of them abbreviations. We could go the whole hog and make them ALL abbreviations, and include a column for Notes separately? Or is that too far?

_________

Have made these changes to Adepta Sororitas, to see what it looks like (using white line as separator instead of gold bar). What do you think?

 ArbitorIan wrote:

Looking through Damnos and Pandorax, none of the units in there are given the Lords of War stamp, and none of them are suitable for regular 40k. All the unit profiles listed are ONLY for use in Apocalypse. So, currently, if you want to include a Marauder Bomber in your 40k force as a Lord of War, IA:Apoc (3rd) is the only legal source of rules.

I guess we could include Marauder Bomber (Pandorax) as an Apocalypse-only option under the 'Apocalypse' unit type that some armies still have?

Seems like a good compromise. Although I think I'd like to email FW as well and see what the hell they have to say about it.

Maybe a gold bar as the last line of each table, thus preserving the separation but not giving two titles?

I've gone through and added the gold bar back in, just without the text in it (so we don't have duplicate section names).

I think it makes it easier to read, but we can red of it if you like the other way better.

I've gone through and made lots of them abbreviations. We could go the whole hog and make them ALL abbreviations, and include a column for Notes separately? Or is that too far?

Yeah, I think that is probably the way to go. Go with complete abbreviations for all the army types, and then put a key for all the abbreviations in the 'notes' at the top of the table. And yeah, having a separate column for additional 'notes' is probably the way to go as well.

UPDATES

- Changed 'Imperial Guard' to 'Astra Militarum (Imperial Guard)'
- Added Griffon, Medusa and Bombard to the list as these are now FW-only units.

Updated for IA4, 2nd edition:

• Added IA4 (2nd) to the list of IA books.
• Added Detachment D-99 to the list of variant IG armies.
• Removed Solomon Lok from the IG section (as he is GK and Inquisitorial only).
• Added/updated Solomon Lok & Major Markus Durra to the GK section.
• Added/updated Red Scorpion units (Commander Carab Culln, Dreanought-Brother Halar & Veteran Sergeant Haas) in the SM section.
• Added/updated all the Tyranid units.


Question: Are you intending to add an Inquisitorial detachment section? Because there are a few IA units (Aquila Lander, Solomon Lok, etc), that can be taken as part of an Inquisitorial detachment.