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.

So I was reading around and I just learned that the Imperial Guard can Ally with Witch Hunters (now Sisters of Battle?) and daemon hunters (grey knights I believe?) and SM. Where can I find the rules for this and how do I know what from those Codexs I can bring as IG?

They can't. They could in older editions, though.

Testify wrote:They can't. They could in older editions, though.

Daw really? So we can't take Eversor Assassins anymore? :( :(

Only reason I'm confused is because it talks about IG and DH/WH in the FAQs still. But I guess the update to the other codex is what stopped it?

Farseer Mael Dannan wrote:

Testify wrote:They can't. They could in older editions, though.

Daw really? So we can't take Eversor Assassins anymore? :( :(

Only reason I'm confused is because it talks about IG and DH/WH in the FAQs still. But I guess the update to the other codex is what stopped it?

What FAQs are you looking at? I think you found some old ones.
None of the fifth codices (all of the current ones) have rules for allies.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Farseer Mael Dannan wrote:

Testify wrote:They can't. They could in older editions, though.

Daw really? So we can't take Eversor Assassins anymore? :( :(

Only reason I'm confused is because it talks about IG and DH/WH in the FAQs still. But I guess the update to the other codex is what stopped it?

What FAQs are you looking at? I think you found some old ones.
None of the fifth codices (all of the current ones) have rules for allies.

I was looking at this one:

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m470041a_FAQ_ImperialGuard_2009.pdf

I fully expect 6th ed to follow the pattern recently set by WHFB with rules for fielding allies and 40k equivalents to big monsters.

However, I guess the reason why this is not allowed now is that a combination of IG and SM put together by anyone with any decent grasp of the rules and the capabilities of units would be totally invincible. Imagine SM making up the assault units with terminators and assault marines with strong back-up units of land raiders,etc, then the IG handling the heavy support with Leman Russ squadrons and stuff like basilisks and heavy support teams. The combination would be vicious. It would be unbalanced.

Isengard wrote:I fully expect 6th ed to follow the pattern recently set by WHFB with rules for fielding allies and 40k equivalents to big monsters.

However, I guess the reason why this is not allowed now is that a combination of IG and SM put together by anyone with any decent grasp of the rules and the capabilities of units would be totally invincible. Imagine SM making up the assault units with terminators and assault marines with strong back-up units of land raiders,etc, then the IG handling the heavy support with Leman Russ squadrons and stuff like basilisks and heavy support teams. The combination would be vicious. It would be unbalanced.

Blob guard with sanguinary priests.
'nuff said

Farseer Mael Dannan wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Farseer Mael Dannan wrote:

Testify wrote:They can't. They could in older editions, though.

Daw really? So we can't take Eversor Assassins anymore? :( :(

Only reason I'm confused is because it talks about IG and DH/WH in the FAQs still. But I guess the update to the other codex is what stopped it?

What FAQs are you looking at? I think you found some old ones.
None of the fifth codices (all of the current ones) have rules for allies.

I was looking at this one:

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m470041a_FAQ_ImperialGuard_2009.pdf

Yeah, its a bit old.
The Witchhunter and Daemonhunter codices no longer exist.

Thanks everyone! I have seen the newest one and yea, it was a bit outdated. Oh well, I really just wanted an Assassin after reading IA 3. Oh well.

Farseer Mael Dannan wrote:Thanks everyone! I have seen the newest one and yea, it was a bit outdated. Oh well, I really just wanted an Assassin after reading IA 3. Oh well.

Just play Apocalypse!

Actually a lot of people still us the Witch Hunter codex, myself included. As long as it is not a tournament most people would be cool with you using allies from it. It really adds a lot of flexibility and diversity to the game instead of seeing the same static lists over and over again. You can find PDFs of the codex online in a lot of places or pic it up cheap on amazon or ebay. Also if you want to stick with current codex’ just play GK with Coteaz and all henchmen, which are really just guardsmen anyway.

Mr. S Baldrick wrote:Actually a lot of people still us the Witch Hunter codex, myself included. As long as it is not a tournament most people would be cool with you using allies from it. It really adds a lot of flexibility and diversity to the game instead of seeing the same static lists over and over again. You can find PDFs of the codex online in a lot of places or pic it up cheap on amazon or ebay. Also if you want to stick with current codex’ just play GK with Coteaz and all henchmen, which are really just guardsmen anyway.

I don't think I would ever willingly play GK

Farseer Mael Dannan wrote:

Mr. S Baldrick wrote:Actually a lot of people still us the Witch Hunter codex, myself included. As long as it is not a tournament most people would be cool with you using allies from it. It really adds a lot of flexibility and diversity to the game instead of seeing the same static lists over and over again. You can find PDFs of the codex online in a lot of places or pic it up cheap on amazon or ebay. Also if you want to stick with current codex’ just play GK with Coteaz and all henchmen, which are really just guardsmen anyway.

I don't think I would ever willingly play GK

That is probably a good thing. I would have a lot more respect for someone who played the old Witch Hunter or Daemon Hunters list over GK.

Mr. S Baldrick wrote:That is probably a good thing. I would have a lot more respect for someone who played the old Witch Hunter or Daemon Hunters list over GK.

/boggle

Wait, so you have less respect for someone who plays a current, legal codex version of their army?

pretre wrote:

Mr. S Baldrick wrote:That is probably a good thing. I would have a lot more respect for someone who played the old Witch Hunter or Daemon Hunters list over GK.

/boggle

Wait, so you have less respect for someone who plays a current, legal codex version of their army?

He prefers the old ed' and in consequence prefers people who play it. Nuff said

I miss the old deamonhunter/witch hunter codicies to btw... loved the whole allied part of it !

I get what he prefers. I just don't get looking down on someone for playing the current edition. That's kind of messed up.

pretre wrote:

Mr. S Baldrick wrote:That is probably a good thing. I would have a lot more respect for someone who played the old Witch Hunter or Daemon Hunters list over GK.

/boggle

Wait, so you have less respect for someone who plays a current, legal codex version of their army?

There actually is no such thing as a legal/illegal list, when it comes to casual play; it’s all whatever you opponent is willing to play against. GW has never officially said “this list is illegal don’t use it”. In tournaments, organizers can say what you can and can’t play, but otherwise it is up to individual players to decide for themselves. There are plenty of tournaments out there that won’t allow named characters, some allow forge world some don’t. This does not make them illegal. Here in the US there aren’t even any GW sponsored tournaments anymore so we are truly left to our own devices. I have even seen GW store managers say it is fine to play older codex’ in stores as long as the opponents are cool with it. I have also seen people at GWs and independent stores refuse to play against people with GK, BA, SW, and on a rare occasion IG. I wish people would lose the tournament mentality when it comes to casual gaming, it’s not about legal and illegal it’s about having fun. The most important rule is and always will be to have fun.

Non-sequitor.

It is a valid codex for 40k play produced by GW. The fact that you'll look down on someone who is playing the most recent valid codex is a bit weird.

Afterall, if they walk into a store and want to start an army they can't buy C:WH or C: DH, so all new players are worthy of less respect than players who were lucky enough to buy a previous edition's codex?

I have some sympathy for people who don't like or look down on GK players. It's a stupid codex.
Depends who you play though. If you're an oldish 4th ed army then I have more sympathy than if you're BA (just as stupid if not quite as OP) or SW (ditto), which I doubt Baldrick is.

pretre wrote:I get what he prefers. I just don't get looking down on someone for playing the current edition. That's kind of messed up.

Looking up at one group is not the same as looking down on another.

Joey wrote:I have some sympathy for people who don't like or look down on GK players. It's a stupid codex.
Depends who you play though. If you're an oldish 4th ed army then I have more sympathy than if you're BA (just as stupid if not quite as OP) or SW (ditto), which I doubt Baldrick is.

This is just silly though. Why is it the fault of the player that the codex is bad? I can understand they you don't like the codex, but how is that their fault? Maybe they are an old C: DH that just wants to be play at large events so uses C: GK. How the feth do you know?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Unit1126PLL wrote:

pretre wrote:I get what he prefers. I just don't get looking down on someone for playing the current edition. That's kind of messed up.

Looking up at one group is not the same as looking down on another.

Okay, now that is a great explanation. I wish he had said that instead of going off on 'legal vs illegal'.

pretre wrote:

Joey wrote:I have some sympathy for people who don't like or look down on GK players. It's a stupid codex.
Depends who you play though. If you're an oldish 4th ed army then I have more sympathy than if you're BA (just as stupid if not quite as OP) or SW (ditto), which I doubt Baldrick is.

This is just silly though. Why is it the fault of the player that the codex is bad? I can understand they you don't like the codex, but how is that their fault? Maybe they are an old C: DH that just wants to be play at large events so uses C: GK. How the feth do you know?

You don't. No one is making a charector evaluation here.

pretre wrote:Non-sequitor.

It is a valid codex for 40k play produced by GW. The fact that you'll look down on someone who is playing the most recent valid codex is a bit weird.

Afterall, if they walk into a store and want to start an army they can't buy C:WH or C: DH, so all new players are worthy of less respect than players who were lucky enough to buy a previous edition's codex?

It's not a matter of looking down on someone for playing a new codex, it is giving props to those who like to play a list without so many built in advantages. It is like when your friend tells you he has gone to the Super Bowl 10 times in a row in Madden. It is good, but you have a lot more respect for him if he does it on “all pro” mode as opposed to “easy”. You don't look down on him for playing easy mode, but give him mega props for stepping up.

As for the WH/DH lists you can still buy all of the models for both and you can still find the official GW pdfs for those lists on the internet for free.

Mr. S Baldrick wrote:It's not a matter of looking down on someone for playing a new codex, it is giving props to those who like to play a list without so many built in advantages.

Yeah, I misinterpreted your statement originally. My bad. You should have gone with the explanation first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:

Joey wrote:I have some sympathy for people who don't like or look down on GK players. It's a stupid codex.

No one is making a charector evaluation here.

You may not be making a character evaluation, but you have sympathy for people who don't like or look down on GK players because of their codex choice.

pretre wrote:Yeah, I misinterpreted your statement originally. My bad. You should have gone with the explanation first.

Its cool