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.

Commander Endova wrote:Well, Deamonhunters is valid for another month, and abusing the WH allies rules is a good way to get oneself labeled as TFG. YMMV.

Wise advice I've got one of those FGs. "LOL, I'll take an assassin and an inquisitor lord in my IG army. But you guys can't."

I've ALMOST refused to play with him. Allies were a stupid idea in the first place, and are a crutch for weak players to feel better than they actually are by taking random exotic options.

Anyway, I wouldn't allow non official allies in any game, but If I did, I'd take DE. Nice little addition to an IG army.

^Yeh, I agree. Im hating that most armies are on there own.

I can see why for simplicity but for creatity it kind of kills it.

IMPO not playing someone because they took a HQ or Elite choice that wasen't in their original codex is seriously stupid. I mean what are those 2 units going to make it impossible for you to win? are Inquisitors and assassins such die hard units that they make IG impossible to beat. The weak player who needs a crutch isn't the one who uses allies, it's the one who won't play the army because they're so afraid of Inquisitors and Assassins.

That's just my opinion though.

Kroothawk wrote:Planning, buying and painting a big expensive army that is legal for one month might lead to disappointment

And you can't force anyone to play against outdated cheese from 3rd edition.

QFT

Like I said, I guess that makes Necrons and their cheesy monoliths invalid until the next codex comes out.

To the OP, yes, it is perfectly legal for you to incorporate Daemonhunters or With Hunters into your army, as long as you use the rules provided. Two years ago, one of the finalists at 'Ard Boyz took a Dark Angels/Grey Knights army to 4th in the nation, and that was with two outdated and uncompetitive codexes.

This might be a completely crazy question, but IS Daemonhunters gone when Grey Knights come out? Now, before you roll your eyes, hear me out. They don't share the same name, which means that one's not necessarily an updated version of the other. Didn't they feel the need somewhere in the Eldar Codex to explicitly say that it replaced the Craftworld Codex, or am I hallucinating again?

Yes. It's gone.

Anyone who tries to argue that DH is still valid is TFG who just wants to continue fielding allies to cover up shortcomings within his own army.

GW have rarely actually stated that any particular codex is invalidated by a new release.

I do vaguely recall a mention of the Craftworld Eldar thing, but it would have been in an FAQ rather than in the codex.

The only other one I can think of that has been specifically ruled as being no longer usable due to a newer and different codes is Codex: Assassins.

Kanluwen wrote:Yes. It's gone.

Anyone who tries to argue that DH is still valid is TFG who just wants to continue fielding allies to cover up shortcomings within his own army.

Damn, lets not sound too bitter.