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.

Can super heavies only be used in apoc games?
?

In a standard game, anything that isn't in your codex is only going to fly if your opponent agrees to it.

Super Heavies require a separate Force Organisation Chart, so by default would need your opponent's agreement to play something other than a standard game, since a standard game only uses one FOC.

Unless you agree too it. Theoretically, they are pointed according to their capabilities - ie a Baneblade should be able to dish out as much damage as 500 points of forces, take 500 points of abuse, etc. This of course depends on die rolls and types of targets/weapons etc.

If you're going for tournament style play where you want to have perfectly balanced forces and a winner and a loser, I'd say stay away from them.

But if you just want to have a fun game with a big focus, then allow a player to have a superheavy and maybe design a scenario around it. Heck in the last 40k battle report, the Chaos Daemons player took one of each greater daemon, just because he asked the space wolf player if he could and he said yes. Don't be afraid to break some of the rules to have a fun game. Just make sure you both agree on the changes, and make sure you have fun with it - whether the Baneblade gets blown up by one lucky meltagun shot that causes a chain reaction or shrugs off 8 lascannons a turn and decimates your forces, just enjoy the destruction!

insaniak wrote:In a standard game, anything that isn't in your codex is only going to fly if your opponent agrees to it.

Super Heavies require a separate Force Organisation Chart, so by default would need your opponent's agreement to play something other than a standard game, since a standard game only uses one FOC.

I believe ForgeWorld is also legal.

Nope ForgeWorld rules are optional. The only rules which are valid for standard games of $0K are the BGB and the codexes, it's on one of the early pages of the BGB.

And yes i know ForgeWorld are owned by GW, but that makes no difference, it's a separate product pretty much exclusively for the use in Apocalypse games.

Aramoro

Aramoro wrote:Nope ForgeWorld rules are optional.

Optional in that you can take them if you feel like it. There are people out there who claim they're not legal, but there are also a vast number of people who claim they are legal (and i agree with them).

The only rules which are valid for standard games of $0K are the BGB and the codexes, it's on one of the early pages of the BGB.

Not that i know of. If you do find this clear restriction, feel free to post it. Otherwise, no.

And yes i know ForgeWorld are owned by GW, but that makes no difference, it's a separate product pretty much exclusively for the use in Apocalypse games.

Aramoro

Exclusively? Far from it. They mention time and time again what's to be used for 40k games. But you are correct that they're owned by GW and produce models and rules for 40k which don't appear in the standard codices.

Page 10 of the BGB, that tells you that you may use Codex's for additional rules. No where in that book does it say you can use Imperial Armour books. ForgeWorld are optional rules so you have to get your opponent to agree to allow you to use them in a normal game. For instance no one can refuse to let you use a Codex unit but can refuse to let you use Lucius Pattern Drop Pods.

Aramoro

Forgeworld units are no more legal than CC Services units.

Trying to pretend that page 10 doesnt mean anything opens the door for using Eldar units, Guard units and Necron units in the same army.

Page 10 means something? Are we reading the same book here?

First you have to understand the game 40K is defined by the BGB, all the rules you need are in there. Page 10 tells you that you can find the rules for your chosen army in the appropriate Codex book. Nowhere does it say that you can pick units from Imperial Armour books, or any other source. BGB and via that the Codex books are what's valid for a normal game of 40K.

Aramoro

Have you picked up your book and flipped to page 10? Go ahead, i'll wait.

I have indeed, I fail to see your point. Tell me where in the BGB that it explicitly says I can use Imperial Armour books.

Aramoro

P10 of the BRB is a full page picture.

Page 10 of mine has the 'Codexes' section of the rules. Your individual page numbers may vary. Look in the section 'What you will need' and then 'Codexes'

Aramoro

It's one of the few differences between the full rulebook and the AoBR one. Those rules are missing from the mini book.

Both my big and small rulebook have the same p10.

You're really grasping at very very short straws ridcully. Being deliberately obtuse is not helpful. Either make an argument which involves rules or stop arguing.

Aramoro

My rulebook has no "What you will need" section.

"What you will need" is on p.vi of my rulebook. It isn't in my small rulebook, but it isn't one of the actual page numbers of the rulebook either so hardly matters.

@AramoHow is pointing out that p10 doesn't exist count as being obtuse? You really appear to have seen through my clever guise of stupidity to cleverly ask to me counter your point or go home. Try quoting the page/passage, then at least i could look for myself.

Assuming you don't have a passage that clearly forbids use of IA, and allows use of other rules sources such as errata, here's what i'm saying.

Forge World is owned by GW. The rules and models are for use in Warhammer 40000.

Then go for page 86, It's references picking your army from the Codex books.

40K is permissive, if it doesn't say you can do something you can't. It doesn't say you can use Imperial Armour books so you cannot.

Aramoro

So we use errata because GW says we can, but we can't use IA because GW says we can? That makes perfect sense. I'm glad we cleared that up.

GW haven't said you can use ForgeWorld. Yes ForgeWorld is owned by GW but that is not tacit permission.

In casual play it's really irrelevant, use what ever pattern drop pods you like etc but don't expect to turn up to a GW Games day and play with that same army as it wouldn't be legal.

Aramoro

Aramoro wrote:GW haven't said you can use ForgeWorld. Yes ForgeWorld is owned by GW but that is not tacit permission. Also the GW errata are not official and mostly clarifications and not rules changes. You do not have to use them.

In casual play it's really irrelevant, use what ever pattern drop pods you like etc but don't expect to turn up to a GW Games day and play with that same army as it wouldn't be legal.

Aramoro

I'm too quick. I think you'll find all GW errata is actually official and 100% of it is rules changes. You do have to use them.

Regular 40k games are what matter. Tournaments can make whatever calls they want. Just because IA isn't declared legal for a tournament doesn't rule them out of standard games.

I realised my mistake, the FAQ's are not binding but the Errata's are.

The point is still valid though. Where does it say that you can choose units from Imperial Armour books in the Rulebook.

Aramoro

Aramoro wrote:but the Errata's are.

I don't see how they can be by your logic.

The errata's are from the publisher of the rulebook and change the wording of the rulebook. ForgeWorld books are produced by ForgeWorld and not Games Workshop. They are owned by Games Workshop and logo the book accordingly now but they are not Games Workshop.

My logic hasn't changed.

Aramoro

You're arguing that you can only go by what's written in the BRB, which by extension tells you to go by the codices. You argue that errata is fine because the publishers tell you to use it, but IA isn't fine because the people telling you you can use it aren't publishers of the main rulebook?

They're still part of GW. What they write and produce is to be used in Warhammer 40000. GW isn't suing itself over misleading claims. They don't include side notes against using FW rules in the BRB or limit FW models to apocalypse scenarios.

Agree to disagree if you must, but you're not proving IA isn't legal in Warhammer 40000 because it's not in the BRB.

Indeed we have to agree to disagree. Imperial Armour units can only be used with your opponents consent because they're not in the Codexes.

Aramoro

Before starting a game you'll have to agree with your opponent on how to play. Just like you agree on a points limit, you should agree on what units you're allowed to use. Generally, codices are what counts. If you suddenly want to ban your opponent from using something in his codex, they too will start banning you from using stuff from yours. If you want to use additional units, then you'll need to allow your opponent to use some as well, or come to an agreement. It would be unfair for you to be allowed to use a heap of additional units, while your opponent is confined to a (possibly outdated) codex. No matter if you think it's legal or not, you're coming to an agreement to play. Nothing stops your opponent from declining to play against you because of your (in their eyes) unfair demands.

Tournaments will have their own rules, but in friendly games you're coming to an agreement with your opponent before the game on how to play.

Jeez,

40k is a beer and pretzels game, providing my opponent comes up with decent stat line and a good reason ill let them put their gerbils, cats, budgies, aunties and mobile phones in the game.

For a non tourney game If you and your opponent agree then anything goes codex, FW, or pets...........................