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.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
As far ad the IA1 is still in print therefore its rules are legit:

Well, there are many other items and options in IA1 that are not found anywhere else(chimera autocannons, rocket pod sentinels, power lifters, conquerer, etc).

If you want to use the forgewold shaowsword that would be fine with me... as long as you have the FW model. If you tank isn't extra expensive resin you are using the most recent GW rules.

So how would you handle a Necron player who wanted to field the Escalation C'tan. Since it it still in print.
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-NO/40k-Escalation-EN

 oldzoggy wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
As far ad the IA1 is still in print therefore its rules are legit:

Well, there are many other items and options in IA1 that are not found anywhere else(chimera autocannons, rocket pod sentinels, power lifters, conquerer, etc).

If you want to use the forgewold shaowsword that would be fine with me... as long as you have the FW model. If you tank isn't extra expensive resin you are using the most recent GW rules.

So how would you handle a Necron player who wanted to field the Escalation C'tan. Since it it still in print.
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-NO/40k-Escalation-EN

Might as well add the Vault and Obelisk in that, too.

In the codex, Vault's powers changed to more random and generally less powerful form, but it gained the Orbs. Obelisk's field went from moderately effective and useful against FMCs, to something that is useless against FMCs and is mostly irritating to Flying Vehicles.

I don't know how the Kommissar is going to answer, but my answer earlier is that Escalation was intended to update codices with these units. For all intents and purposes these 3 are "5th Edition" codex entries in relation to what is currently available. That is simply how I see it.

But one other point would be that these are not from FW books nor FW models, but from the Citadel side of the company.

 oldzoggy wrote:
Lets ignore all the RAW en theory hammer.

Would anyone actually expect an opponent approve the following question: Hey I want to play this unit, but the previous rules where better so can I use them instead?

Or just ask this: "Can I use the rules for a unit from a currrent, in print rulebook sold by Games Workshop?".

The example of people cherry picking units from older codices isn't comparable because Games Workshop themselves still sell these rules. They have made any FAQ or Erratta that says, "The Warzone Mont'ka rules are the most current and thus to be used". A better comparison would be Chimeras from the Inquisition codex versus their newer, inferior counterparts in the AM codex. The AM codex contains the most current rules for "Chimeras" but a Inquisition player could be forgiven for wanting to use rules as presented in the rules he bought.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 oldzoggy wrote:
Lets ignore all the RAW en theory hammer.

Would anyone actually expect an opponent approve the following question: Hey I want to play this unit, but the previous rules where better so can I use them instead?

Or just ask this: "Can I use the rules for a unit from a currrent, in print rulebook sold by Games Workshop?".
.

You could, but omitting to mention that you have read the newer rules and and that you chose not to use them because they are not in your advantage would change a lot for me.
Especially if you don't bring the FW model and the FW book.

Well; like I had said: I would only allow the Forge World shadowsword if they had the forge world model(that thing was significantly more expensive cash-wise).

But for the escalation issue: I would be fine with all 3 as long as they are fielded as LOW slots like the escalation book says they are(as in not in a decurion, which is obviously only those units in that codex). You want to pay more than twice as much for a transcendent ctan with 2 stable powers and a choice of battlefield effect? Be my guest as long as it is in a CAD. The tessaract also has less versatility in powers and the obelisk is only av 12(and more expensive).

The best alternative is to both just chill, crack open a couple of beers and use whatever 'in-print' rules are currently available regardless of which came out first and try to have fun :-)

 oldzoggy wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 oldzoggy wrote:
Lets ignore all the RAW en theory hammer.

Would anyone actually expect an opponent approve the following question: Hey I want to play this unit, but the previous rules where better so can I use them instead?

Or just ask this: "Can I use the rules for a unit from a currrent, in print rulebook sold by Games Workshop?".
.

You could, but omitting to mention that you have read the newer rules and and that you chose not to use them because they are would change a lot for me.
Especially if you don't bring the FW model and the FW book.

Where does it say that the Mont'ka version replaces the IA version?

 TheCustomLime wrote:
A better comparison would be Chimeras from the Inquisition codex versus their newer, inferior counterparts in the AM codex. The AM codex contains the most current rules for "Chimeras" but a Inquisition player could be forgiven for wanting to use rules as presented in the rules he bought.

Actually, inquisition players have to use the better version in C:I - they cannot use the C:AM version.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
A better comparison would be Chimeras from the Inquisition codex versus their newer, inferior counterparts in the AM codex. The AM codex contains the most current rules for "Chimeras" but a Inquisition player could be forgiven for wanting to use rules as presented in the rules he bought.

Actually, inquisition players have to use the better version in C:I - they cannot use the C:AM version.

But Codex:AM is newer so it therefore replaces a unit in a different book. Or at least that is how I understand the argument.

The generally accepted community response is to use the most recent version of a specific units rules as relates to a specific faction.

For example, the most recent version of the Chimera datasheet for the Inquisition is in Codex: Inquisition. The most recent version of the Chimera datasheet for the Astra Militarum is in Codex: Astra Militarum. You obviously have no permission to use the AM Chimera in an Inq Detachment. The Faction on the datasheet is wrong. Whoever brought that up did so as a red herring.

The most recent version of the Shadowsword datasheet for the Astra Militarum is in Warzone Damocles: Mont'ka.

To those of you who say that being required to by new rule books to play with existing models isn't fair... you might want to pick a new hobby. Chances are pretty good that your rulebook is going to be updated from time to time. The reality of this hobby is that there is a default expectation that you'll keep buying new rule books for your existing models forever.

Intentionally using an older version of a specfiic Faction's unit... regardless of whether or not its still in print... seems like poor sportsmanship. Don't be surprised if your opponents will be upset and stop playing you over time.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
A better comparison would be Chimeras from the Inquisition codex versus their newer, inferior counterparts in the AM codex. The AM codex contains the most current rules for "Chimeras" but a Inquisition player could be forgiven for wanting to use rules as presented in the rules he bought.

Actually, inquisition players have to use the better version in C:I - they cannot use the C:AM version.

But Codex:AM is newer so it therefore replaces a unit in a different book. Or at least that is how I understand the argument.

There are two different situations involved here. Some FW books allow their units to be used by a Codex army. The Inquisition and AM codices do not allow this function nor does one call the other's in to use.

It is this first case that is under discussion. The second case is already addressed by the rulebook and has been referenced.

 Kriswall wrote:
The generally accepted community response is to use the most recent version of a specific units rules as relates to a specific faction.

For example, the most recent version of the Chimera datasheet for the Inquisition is in Codex: Inquisition. The most recent version of the Chimera datasheet for the Astra Militarum is in Codex: Astra Militarum. You obviously have no permission to use the AM Chimera in an Inq Detachment. The Faction on the datasheet is wrong. Whoever brought that up did so as a red herring.

The most recent version of the Shadowsword datasheet for the Astra Militarum is in Warzone Damocles: Mont'ka.

To those of you who say that being required to by new rule books to play with existing models isn't fair... you might want to pick a new hobby. Chances are pretty good that your rulebook is going to be updated from time to time. The reality of this hobby is that there is a default expectation that you'll keep buying new rule books for your existing models forever.

Intentionally using an older version of a specfiic Faction's unit... regardless of whether or not its still in print... seems like poor sportsmanship. Don't be surprised if your opponents will be upset and stop playing you over time.

^^ This

How would players new to the hobby know which book is 'newer' given the datasheets and formation rules don't have a date?

What if I became aware of another set of rules once only I'd reached a torny yet had a perfectly valid rulebook in my possession for the unit on the table?

The thing about which detachment to take it in is a bit of a red herring. There are situations that exist for which the unit can be taken from either book into a standard CAD. So there is no way to say 'this formatoion only works with THIS version of the rules'.

Generally I'd side with the person bringing the army. It's his army. he got the element of surprise on Opp by taking something no one thought about. Stop whinging. War's usually unfair. Deal with it and return the favour the next time.

Charistoph wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
A better comparison would be Chimeras from the Inquisition codex versus their newer, inferior counterparts in the AM codex. The AM codex contains the most current rules for "Chimeras" but a Inquisition player could be forgiven for wanting to use rules as presented in the rules he bought.

Actually, inquisition players have to use the better version in C:I - they cannot use the C:AM version.

But Codex:AM is newer so it therefore replaces a unit in a different book. Or at least that is how I understand the argument.

There are two different situations involved here. Some FW books allow their units to be used by a Codex army. The Inquisition and AM codices do not allow this function nor does one call the other's in to use.

It is this first case that is under discussion. The second case is already addressed by the rulebook and has been referenced.

Right but my problem is that Warzone Mont'ka is not a replacement for IA:1 nor does it say that it units supercede those of any other books. IA:1 2e is a valid rulebook still sold by GW and no FAQ or Errata states that Warzone Mont'ka units are replacements for any rules that came before them. The idea that publishing date=most official has no basis in the rules.

So is it fair that i insist he use the super heavy rules in IA1?

How does he resolve the structure points without using those rules?
If he uses one rule from that page, why not all? Because he wants an unfair advantage.

Unless he uses the destroyer, structure points, aNd damaged engine rules. He is picking and choosing what rules to follow and therefore cheating

Most tournaments will check your list in advance, and highlight any 'errors'. Several, including ITC, will list which version of the rules to use - the ITC rules are here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This is their Imperial Armor Unit Index.

 jokerkd wrote:
So is it fair that i insist he use the super heavy rules in IA1?

How does he resolve the structure points without using those rules?
If he uses one rule from that page, why not all? Because he wants an unfair advantage.

Unless he uses the destroyer, structure points, aNd damaged engine rules. He is picking and choosing what rules to follow and therefore cheating

IA1 has been Errated to update it to use HP.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
A better comparison would be Chimeras from the Inquisition codex versus their newer, inferior counterparts in the AM codex. The AM codex contains the most current rules for "Chimeras" but a Inquisition player could be forgiven for wanting to use rules as presented in the rules he bought.

Actually, inquisition players have to use the better version in C:I - they cannot use the C:AM version.

But Codex:AM is newer so it therefore replaces a unit in a different book. Or at least that is how I understand the argument.

There are two different situations involved here. Some FW books allow their units to be used by a Codex army. The Inquisition and AM codices do not allow this function nor does one call the other's in to use.

It is this first case that is under discussion. The second case is already addressed by the rulebook and has been referenced.

Right but my problem is that Warzone Mont'ka is not a replacement for IA:1 nor does it say that it units supercede those of any other books. IA:1 2e is a valid rulebook still sold by GW and no FAQ or Errata states that Warzone Mont'ka units are replacements for any rules that came before them. The idea that publishing date=most official has no basis in the rules.

However, given that the Shadowsword (and all the other plastic Baneblade variants) have had unchanged rules in three Games Workshop publications that are more recent than IA:1, it seems pretty clear which rules GW wants you to use. Apocalypse, Escalation and Mont'ka all have the same rules and points costs for the Baneblade variants. The only difference in Apocalypse is that it gives you the options to pay extra points to get the Command Tank and/or Commissariat Crew rules. Imperial Armour 1's rules are pretty clearly outdated imo, especially when we're talking about a model that's been given different rules that have been consistent over 3 successive publications.

Oh, and here's the other thing that the OP hasn't mentioned about the Imperial Armour variant - its listed as an Apocalypse Only unit. You don't even have permission to add it as a Lord of War to a Guard army.

 GoonBandito wrote:
Oh, and here's the other thing that the OP hasn't mentioned about the Imperial Armour variant - its listed as an Apocalypse Only unit. You don't even have permission to add it as a Lord of War to a Guard army.

Its on the Forge World list of Lords of War so yes you do

It's really simple.

Call it an Arkurian Pattern Stormsword. Use the rules for the Arkurian Pattern Storm Sword. Pay the proper points for the Arkurian Pattern Stormsword that comes from IA.
Mars Pattern = GW, GW rules.
Arkurian pattern is the FW Variant, use FW rules.

And at that point if anyone complains, then be sure to check their entire army for WYSIWYG.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 GoonBandito wrote:
Oh, and here's the other thing that the OP hasn't mentioned about the Imperial Armour variant - its listed as an Apocalypse Only unit. You don't even have permission to add it as a Lord of War to a Guard army.

Its on the Forge World list of Lords of War so yes you do

Which is where? I can't see that pdf document in their download section anymore. And the description text for the Shadowsword model on their Webstore says the rules for the Shadowsword can be found in Warhammer: Apocalypse, not Imperial Armour 1.

 GoonBandito wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 GoonBandito wrote:
Oh, and here's the other thing that the OP hasn't mentioned about the Imperial Armour variant - its listed as an Apocalypse Only unit. You don't even have permission to add it as a Lord of War to a Guard army.

Its on the Forge World list of Lords of War so yes you do

Which is where? I can't see that pdf document in their download section anymore. And the description text for the Shadowsword model on their Webstore says the rules for the Shadowsword can be found in Warhammer: Apocalypse, not Imperial Armour 1.

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/resources/fw_site/fw_pdfs/Warhammer_40000/Forge_World_Lords_of_War_Choices_for_Warhammer_40,000_Escalation.pdf

Interesting that you have to direct link the document, rather the be able to access it in the list of their current FAQ's and errata. Is it still considered current?

Also doesn't the very first paragraph on that document say that WH40k Escalation is the publication that has the most up-to-date rules for the Shadowsword?

The following is a list of Forge World models that should be considered Lords of War choices and may therefore be taken using the guidelines detailed in Warhammer 40,000: Escalation, along with the publication in which the model’s most up to date rules can be found."

Well, would you look at that

 jokerkd wrote:
" The following is a list of Forge World models that should be considered Lords of War choices and may therefore be taken using the guidelines detailed in Warhammer 40,000: Escalation, along with the publication in which the model’s most up to date rules can be found."

Well, would you look at that

Yes it says they are lords of war. And then says can there for also be used in Escalation.

It aslo says something else that you seem to be ignoring

 jokerkd wrote:
It aslo says something else that you seem to be ignoring

That the pdf lists the most up to date rule for the unit?

Yes it says IA:2e, their for FW considers IA:2e to be the most up to date rules for the Shaodowsword thus you can use those rules.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
A better comparison would be Chimeras from the Inquisition codex versus their newer, inferior counterparts in the AM codex. The AM codex contains the most current rules for "Chimeras" but a Inquisition player could be forgiven for wanting to use rules as presented in the rules he bought.

Actually, inquisition players have to use the better version in C:I - they cannot use the C:AM version.

But Codex:AM is newer so it therefore replaces a unit in a different book. Or at least that is how I understand the argument.

There are two different situations involved here. Some FW books allow their units to be used by a Codex army. The Inquisition and AM codices do not allow this function nor does one call the other's in to use.

It is this first case that is under discussion. The second case is already addressed by the rulebook and has been referenced.

Right but my problem is that Warzone Mont'ka is not a replacement for IA:1 nor does it say that it units supercede those of any other books. IA:1 2e is a valid rulebook still sold by GW and no FAQ or Errata states that Warzone Mont'ka units are replacements for any rules that came before them. The idea that publishing date=most official has no basis in the rules.

Which places it in the first case. The second case is between faction codices.

But if the person is using a Mont'ka Detachment, they really should use the rules presented in that document. If they are not, then it can vary. The reference to using it as a LoW per the FW errata is a good place to start.

Charistoph wrote:
But if the person is using a Mont'ka Detachment, they really should use the rules presented in that document. If they are not, then it can vary. The reference to using it as a LoW per the FW errata is a good place to start.

The original poster has not said that he was using it in a Mont'ka detachment in this particular instance.

 God In Action wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
But if the person is using a Mont'ka Detachment, they really should use the rules presented in that document. If they are not, then it can vary. The reference to using it as a LoW per the FW errata is a good place to start.

The original poster has not said that he was using it in a Mont'ka detachment in this particular instance.

Nor has it been stated they weren't, hence the condition.