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.

Its a simple question people:
My friend has is claiming that me using the Imperial Armour book for my Shadowsword is incorrect as my model is a GW model where as I am claiming that I can use the Imperial Armour variant.
I honestly do not know what the problem is as I rarely use it and the only difference is that the Command Tank upgrade in the IA edition is a 25 point upgrade that is actually useful where as the Command Tank upgrade in the Apocalypse book is a 200 point "Your LoW is now also a HQ choice" that has no real benefits.

In all honesty I think he is just a little salty because I nuked his Terminus Ultra the other day with it but that might just be me

Any help?

Generally you use the most recent book, which for the Shadowsword is War Zone Damocles: Mont'Ka.

Which IA book are you using?

beast_gts wrote:
Generally you use the most recent book, which for the Shadowsword is War Zone Damocles: Mont'Ka.

This.

Are they really so different?

axisofentropy wrote:

beast_gts wrote:
Generally you use the most recent book, which for the Shadowsword is War Zone Damocles: Mont'Ka.

This.

Are they really so different?

The Warzone Damocles is 550 points and has no weapons baring a Volcano Cannon. It costs 100 points per sponson set (max of two) and it cant have the hull mounted twin linked heavy bolters that come on the model. So no, I am not using that one.

@beast_gts: IA Book 2 Volume 2, the 2012/13 6th ed update.

 master of ordinance wrote:

axisofentropy wrote:

beast_gts wrote:
Generally you use the most recent book, which for the Shadowsword is War Zone Damocles: Mont'Ka.

This.

Are they really so different?

The Warzone Damocles is 550 points and has no weapons baring a Volcano Cannon. It costs 100 points per sponson set (max of two) and it cant have the hull mounted twin linked heavy bolters that come on the model. So no, I am not using that one.

@beast_gts: IA Book 2 Volume 2, the 2012/13 6th ed update.

You should check the points again. It's 455 points for the tank and 50 points for each pair of sponsons. And the rule gives you all the upgrades other than command tank.

I stand corrected, 50 points on an already overpriced tank for a pair of sponsons.

 master of ordinance wrote:
I stand corrected, 50 points on an already overpriced tank for a pair of sponsons.

Many players will have an issue with you using an older version of the rules when a newer version has been published.

Jup this ^ use the newest version. Also you don't want to do this. If you do a kunning ork player might just bring a lifta wagon with the old rules and the necron player might just fancy the escalation version of their c'tan...

So many questions.......

Isn't the shadowsword in IA1?

Are you also using the structure point rules? Drive Damaged?

One of the reasons super heavies are (slightly) more expensive now, is that they benefit from different rules in the later editions. like not automatically losing an additional 3 hull points on an explodes result. or destroyer weapons doing more than just one penetrating hit.

It's up to you and your opponent at the end of the day. he has every right to ask you to use the latest rules though. I would too. they are supposed to be the most balanced (lol) for the current edition. there have been like 3 different sets of rules for the shadowsword since IA1 2nd ed. IF i were to allow you to use the old points value, I would at the very least insist you use the weak ass destroyer weapon rules from the same book

master of ordinance wrote:

axisofentropy wrote:

beast_gts wrote:
Generally you use the most recent book, which for the Shadowsword is War Zone Damocles: Mont'Ka.

This.

Are they really so different?

The Warzone Damocles is 550 points and has no weapons baring a Volcano Cannon. It costs 100 points per sponson set (max of two) and it cant have the hull mounted twin linked heavy bolters that come on the model. So no, I am not using that one.

@beast_gts: IA Book 2 Volume 2, the 2012/13 6th ed update.

master of ordinance wrote:I stand corrected, 50 points on an already overpriced tank for a pair of sponsons.

Here's your issue. You're not interested in finding out what the actual rules are you're interested in having the most powerful tank. This is why your friend will get more sympathy than you.

Lets say for example I'm using an Eldar army but I don't want the Wave Serpent from Codex: Craftworlds because the shield is one use and only S6, would you be fine with that? What about when I declared my Banshees are using the power swords from the rulebook because "well they're just S3 and AP3" instead I'm using the second Ed ones that are S6 and modify your armour save by -3? Then my Ally Abaddon teleports in and I declare he's using the T6 2+ save on 2 dice added together version?

No you can't use an older version of the rules just because you like them better.

I think the friend needs to get himself a black codex assassin with vortex grenades lol

What Flingitnow said. What you're proposing to your friend is basically cheating, and he has every right to tell you to use the current rules. I have old metal Obliterators but I'm not asking my opponent if I could use the 3.5 edition rules for them, despite those being ridiculously more powerful than the current ones (something like 70 points for a S5 T5 model with far more weapon options and no restrictions on what I can use in what turn, compared to the 75 point things that have S and T 4 that has to change weapons every turn).

You're not entirely fairly comparing what the OP is suggesting though. He's not asking to take rules from a book which has since been replaced. Look, the book is on sale right now: http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-CA/Imperial-Armour-Volume-One-Second-Edition-Imperial-Guard Do you all think that IA: Volume One Second Edition is obsolete?

 God In Action wrote:
You're not entirely fairly comparing what the OP is suggesting though. He's not asking to take rules from a book which has since been replaced. Look, the book is on sale right now: http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-CA/Imperial-Armour-Volume-One-Second-Edition-Imperial-Guard Do you all think that IA: Volume One Second Edition is obsolete?

It may not be obsolete, but the most updated rules for the Shadowsword are in the War Zone Damocles: Mont'Ka book.

You should generally use the most updated rules when playing the most current base ruleset.

Bit harsh really to expect someone to spend £45 for the new rules for an expensive model, when they've already spent £59 for the rules for it.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 God In Action wrote:
You're not entirely fairly comparing what the OP is suggesting though. He's not asking to take rules from a book which has since been replaced. Look, the book is on sale right now: http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-CA/Imperial-Armour-Volume-One-Second-Edition-Imperial-Guard Do you all think that IA: Volume One Second Edition is obsolete?

It may not be obsolete, but the most updated rules for the Shadowsword are in the War Zone Damocles: Mont'Ka book.

You should generally use the most updated rules when playing the most current base ruleset.

I don't think this is the case or at least that simple when it comes to Forgeworld. Forgeworld have had different rules for vehicles covered in standard GW codices and these rules never made the codex rules obsolete. They are supplemental rules which used to require negotiations with your opponent before using them and really even though they are 40k approved now the situation has not changed, if your opponent doesn't want to play you you can't make him. I personally think it is entirely reasonable for you to use the rules from the re-released IA Vol1, after all why should you fork out money (a lot of money) for your rules to be pretty much dead on arrival. Forgeworld books are supplements and should be treated as such. I personally would find a new opponent this would never be an issue with the people I play with.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 God In Action wrote:
You're not entirely fairly comparing what the OP is suggesting though. He's not asking to take rules from a book which has since been replaced. Look, the book is on sale right now: http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-CA/Imperial-Armour-Volume-One-Second-Edition-Imperial-Guard Do you all think that IA: Volume One Second Edition is obsolete?

It may not be obsolete, but the most updated rules for the Shadowsword are in the War Zone Damocles: Mont'Ka book.

You should generally use the most updated rules when playing the most current base ruleset.

What if it was the reverse? What if Forgeworld had the most up recent printing for the Shadowsword. Do you make someone have to buy the an expensive forge world imperial armor book to use their GW unit?

There is no RAW for using the most recent rules, we just have to use common sense and community agreement (just like how we don't force Daemons and CSMs to use the more recent KDK entries). To me the most functional way is the treat FW as a seperate isolated rules entity (because that's what they are). So in this case you treat the FW Shadowsword and the GW shadowsword as different units (like how you treat KDK bloodletters and CD bloodletters as different units)

It is absolutely unfair to use only the rules you want for it though

Obviously you can play whatever edition of rules you want if you opponent agrees. But his opponent does not agree.

OP is taking advantage of 7th ed destroyer rules but doesn't want to pay the price of the 7th ed version of the unit.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
That KDK reference is completely irrelevant. You couldn't take the daemonkin units in a daemon army, even if you wanted to.

KDK bloodthirsters are not updates of the CD ones. They were released at the same time for two different armies

Sure you can use the better version of your tank.
But this should go both ways so I'll be using these rules for my liftra droppa wagons and I will be using my old ork codex for the rest of the units.

 jokerkd wrote:
It is absolutely unfair to use only the rules you want for it though

Obviously you can play whatever edition of rules you want if you opponent agrees. But his opponent does not agree.

OP is taking advantage of 7th ed destroyer rules but doesn't want to pay the price of the 7th ed version of the unit.

Or OP's opponent is trying to force OP to use worse rules because OP's opponent wants the advantage. Both sides has one player taking advantage of something. Neither side of this argument is fair.

That KDK reference is completely irrelevant. You couldn't take the daemonkin units in a daemon army, even if you wanted to.

KDK bloodthirsters are not updates of the CD ones. They were released at the same time for two different armies

No they weren't released at the same time. the CD dataslate came out two weeks before KDK came out

As a Guard player I can sympathize with your plight, I'd probably be ok with it, but that's something that you would have to clear with your opponent, and by the sounds of it he won't go for it. (Is this the same SM friend you've talked about before?)

 CrownAxe wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
It is absolutely unfair to use only the rules you want for it though

Obviously you can play whatever edition of rules you want if you opponent agrees. But his opponent does not agree.

OP is taking advantage of 7th ed destroyer rules but doesn't want to pay the price of the 7th ed version of the unit.

Or OP's opponent is trying to force OP to use worse rules because OP's opponent wants the advantage. Both sides has one player taking advantage of something. Neither side of this argument is fair.

I can't say what his opponents intentions are for sure. But the way OP explains it, the guy wants him to pay the current cost of the unit. Not use the worse rules. I am the one suggesting he should have to use the D weapon rules from the book he wants to take the unit from. The advantages OP gains from using 7th ed rules are much greater value than the 40pts he doesn't want to pay for the privilege.

That KDK reference is completely irrelevant. You couldn't take the daemonkin units in a daemon army, even if you wanted to.

KDK bloodthirsters are not updates of the CD ones. They were released at the same time for two different armies

No they weren't released at the same time. the CD dataslate came out two weeks before KDK came out

Ok, so you think pointing that out changes the fact that neither of those datasheets are allowed to be used for the other armies. regardless of which came first, one set can only only be taken in CD armies, so a newer set that cant be taken in that army cannot replace them. You obviously cannot force a player to take a version of a datasheet that he is not even permitted to use

 jokerkd wrote:

That KDK reference is completely irrelevant. You couldn't take the daemonkin units in a daemon army, even if you wanted to.

KDK bloodthirsters are not updates of the CD ones. They were released at the same time for two different armies

No they weren't released at the same time. the CD dataslate came out two weeks before KDK came out

Ok, so you think pointing that out changes the fact that neither of those datasheets are allowed to be used for the other armies. regardless of which came first, one set can only only be taken in CD armies, so a newer set that cant be taken in that army cannot replace them. You obviously cannot force a player to take a version of a datasheet that he is not even permitted to use

Also remember that units can only use the rules for the Detachment's Faction that they are in, or in other words, the book they are being pulled from.

If one was pulling their detachment from an IA, it has to be consistent across the board for that detachment, meaning you can't use IA: 2's unit rules for a detachment built from IA: 1.

Super-Heavies are in a weird position, though. Certain Lords of War can be pulled from other books in to a full codex. It is at this point that the user collective have been setting the standard of "most recent rule" to avoid confusion. Honestly, if it has an Escalation version, I would prefer that be used myself, as it is not tied to a "factional" book and intended to be an expansion of the codices (Necrons, being an interesting exception).

Agreed.

My point is that the rules and cost of a shadowsword in the IA1 datasheet reflect the edition it was written for. The D weapon rules in IA1 are weak compared to the 7th ed rules, so the 7th ed version is costed accordingly

That's another thing, even if you're allowed to use cross-edition rules, you really shouldn't cherrypick the strongest rules for each one.

Like, a 3rd edition carnifex was a LOT Cheaper than it's current incarnation, but I can't say "Oh I wanna pay for the carnifex and biomorphs with 3rd edition costs, but then use the 7th edition rules for it". If your opponent agrees to using older rules, at least keep it consistent. If you use new rules, pay the new price. That's gaming 101.

I say as long as you aren't cherry picking and mixing matching rule sets (example: I want to use 5th ed C'tan shard rules in place of 7th ed C'tan shard rules but still use 7th ed necron codex for everything else and call it a bound list) it should be fine.

If you are only using the Shadowsword from the FW book and nothing from the War Zone Damocles: Mont'Ka. I'd say your just fine since you aren't "cross contaminating"

I'd even be fine with using two different ed of codexes as long as one isn't trying to mix and match the rule sets. (Example: Using 5th and 7th edition necron codex taking a decurion with only the 7th edition rules and then taking a CAD of 5th edition necrons. But this example can get very hard to keep which rules belong to which units and could be seen as a way of trying to cheat by switch which unit belong to which edition) but not opponents will agree to this.

Tl;DR: Don't cross a unit from one book with another book that has that unit as well to gain rules from the newer book and Vic-versa

 CrownAxe wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 God In Action wrote:
You're not entirely fairly comparing what the OP is suggesting though. He's not asking to take rules from a book which has since been replaced. Look, the book is on sale right now: http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-CA/Imperial-Armour-Volume-One-Second-Edition-Imperial-Guard Do you all think that IA: Volume One Second Edition is obsolete?

It may not be obsolete, but the most updated rules for the Shadowsword are in the War Zone Damocles: Mont'Ka book.

You should generally use the most updated rules when playing the most current base ruleset.

What if it was the reverse? What if Forgeworld had the most up recent printing for the Shadowsword. Do you make someone have to buy the an expensive forge world imperial armor book to use their GW unit?

There is no RAW for using the most recent rules, we just have to use common sense and community agreement (just like how we don't force Daemons and CSMs to use the more recent KDK entries). To me the most functional way is the treat FW as a seperate isolated rules entity (because that's what they are). So in this case you treat the FW Shadowsword and the GW shadowsword as different units (like how you treat KDK bloodletters and CD bloodletters as different units)

Sure, or borrow someones copy so they use the most recent rules.

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?

With any luck a new 7th edition Astra Militarum codex will be released at some point this year that includes all the Baneblade variants (Shadowsword, Hellhammer etc) as LoW.

Interestingly enough, when I build an Astra Militarum list using battlescribe, it uses the damocles ruleset for my Shadowsword. I can see both sides of the argument and it is more the fault of GW for making the rules for these things as clear as mud. I personally would have no issue with the OP using the imperial armour rules, since they are current and used, it is not as if they are an old set of rules no longer made/available. The rules for it in the damocles campaign are specific to that campaign, you can choose to use them or the imperial armour book as far as I'm concerned. Using rules from old and out of date codices is completely different.

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.