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.

I know in the book it says Imperial Army... I assume that elements of the Imperial army will come out in future editions of this series. However, the Imperial Guard has not changed much in technology or structure since the time of the crusading Legions. So would I be able to have a Legion detachment allied with my guard?

Given that 30k units are a bit unbalanced for 40k, your guard would probably be a bit weak - but I can't imagine anyone stopping you playing 40k guard in 30k for fluff reasons.

As an aside, the Army did change in organisation from 30k to 40k, but the organisational changes probably wouldn't affect the army list too much. 30k Army units were self contained combined-arms powerhouses (similar to SM chapters in terms of their ability to wage war unsupported). This was borked after about 50% of them turned traitor and caused untold havoc in the Emperor's back yard. He took their toys away from them after that.

Sorry if not really appropriate for YMDC...

stripeydave wrote:
Given that 30k units are a bit unbalanced for 40k, your guard would probably be a bit weak

Since when does "unbalanced" mean "overpowered?" It is entirely possible that the allied Guard would be too powerful.

No. A future Imperial Army list is not the same thing as Imperial Guard, and will probably be very different from the IG codex (just like the marine legion list is very different from C:SM). This is like asking whether you can take BA as battle brothers allies with Tau, since C:SM are battle brothers and BA are kind of like C:SM. The fluff is irrelevant, all that matters is the allies chart.

Now, you and your opponent could agree to a house rule that IG can replace IA, but how to do that appropriately is something for the proposed rules forum, not YMDC.

The rule of thumb concerning this is simple:
Talk to your opponent, or the organizations if it is a tournament, for permission if you want to use anything more then the basic rule book and approved 40K codex's.

Yes, of course, yes. The Imperial Army had not changed, and we will see the first list only in the fifth book, and as said the authors will not be a single sheet, but only add to the codex of the Imperial Guard.

 Darog wrote:
Yes, of course, yes.

Please cite the rules that allow you to do so.

I dont think you will get an asnswer here. There are no rules supporting yes or no. Only the fact that you are trying to join two armies from two seperate game systems. 30K and 40K are different game systems what ever way you look at it. It may not be as extream difference as say Deep striking some terminators into a middle of a fantasy battle, But the propect is the same.

You will have to Ask the TO or friends you are playing with to see if it is ok to use Codex: imperial Guard. Or Guard rules from one of the Imperial Armour Books.

I would not have a problem with it at all, As IG stat lines will hardly change when they actualy come out in 30K. And I think they will be slightly underpoweerd compared to 30k units. IG are the Heavy tank bringers in an Army. But in 30k Most armies are fielding Shadow sword killers.

 cerbrus2 wrote:
There are no rules supporting yes or no.

Of course there are rules, and they say no. The Heresy rulebook provides a very clear allies matrix, and IG are not on it. Therefore no army can take IG allies, and IG can not take any Heresy army as allies. This is about as "ambiguous" as asking whether Tyranids can take C:SM as allies.

30K and 40K are different game systems what ever way you look at it.

Not really. The rules are compatible, and you only have to ask for permission because they aren't technically designed to be played together. It's more like asking your friend to play a Planetstrike game.

 Peregrine wrote:

 cerbrus2 wrote:
There are no rules supporting yes or no.

Of course there are rules, and they say no. The Heresy rulebook provides a very clear allies matrix, and IG are not on it. Therefore no army can take IG allies, and IG can not take any Heresy army as allies. This is about as "ambiguous" as asking whether Tyranids can take C:SM as allies.

30K and 40K are different game systems what ever way you look at it.

Not really. The rules are compatible, and you only have to ask for permission because they aren't technically designed to be played together. It's more like asking your friend to play a Planetstrike game.

Your post contradicts itself. First you say they cant be played together because IG are not listed, (Imperial Army is though) that's fine. Then you say that the rules are compatible with 40K, a game that IG can ally with anyone bar nids.

So what exactly was your point? If the rules are compatible as you stated then why are the Allies from 40k not compatible?

On page 144 of the HH book, It states that you should only take armies from the 4 legions. it then goes on to say that it is down to you on how strict you wish to be when taking armies from other legions. It then goes on to say that may also play your own version of the events. In other words If you are given permission then you can use what ever you want.

But as of your comment on there are rules and the rules say No. Even though the Imperial Army is listed. And technically Guard are the imperial army. So again its down to a decision for TO or fellow players to allow IG as the IA. As i cant see writting seperate rules for them untill such time as Alpha legion is heavily involved in the plot.

No they can't ally. Simply said they are not in the allies matrix and I don't see any FAQ covering this.

 cerbrus2 wrote:
Your post contradicts itself. First you say they cant be played together because IG are not listed, (Imperial Army is though) that's fine. Then you say that the rules are compatible with 40K, a game that IG can ally with anyone bar nids.

There is no contradiction. Being compatible with 40k does not mean that every army can take allies from the standard 40k codices. For example, Tyranids are obviously part of standard 40k even though they are excluded from the whole allies part of the game.

So what exactly was your point? If the rules are compatible as you stated then why are the Allies from 40k not compatible?

Because compatibility and having the allies you want to take are not the same thing.

And technically Guard are the imperial army.

No they are not, just like C:SM are not the same as the legion list. The Imperial Army is an entirely separate army list which will appear sometime in the future.

 Peregrine wrote:

 cerbrus2 wrote:
Your post contradicts itself. First you say they cant be played together because IG are not listed, (Imperial Army is though) that's fine. Then you say that the rules are compatible with 40K, a game that IG can ally with anyone bar nids.

There is no contradiction. Being compatible with 40k does not mean that every army can take allies from the standard 40k codices. For example, Tyranids are obviously part of standard 40k even though they are excluded from the whole allies part of the game.

So what exactly was your point? If the rules are compatible as you stated then why are the Allies from 40k not compatible?

Because compatibility and having the allies you want to take are not the same thing.

And technically Guard are the imperial army.

No they are not, just like C:SM are not the same as the legion list. The Imperial Army is an entirely separate army list which will appear sometime in the future.

Comparing the Tyranids allying with the C:SM is not a fair comparison. The Imperial Guard is descended from the Imperial Army. While not as powerful as the Imperial Army was, technically, the Imperial Guard would have similar structure and technology nonetheless. Besides that, 30k is not as powerful playing 40k armies.

This post was never about trying to break anything. Just a question for a hobbyist wanting a new project to work on.

 Bongfu wrote:
The Imperial Guard is descended from the Imperial Army. While not as powerful as the Imperial Army was, technically, the Imperial Guard would have similar structure and technology nonetheless. Besides that, 30k is not as powerful playing 40k armies.

That is fluff, not rules. Rules-wise they are two entirely different army lists.

Sadly the 40k rules are hardly clear, concise, and logical, and your going to run into both grey areas and areas where RAW can take the game in absurd directions.

The Law used to be like this, and it led to terribly absurd situations that ended up thwarting the very function of the law ~ which is why they now incorporate whats essentially Rules as Intended into it. In this case, poorly written rules can thwart the function of the game, which is to have a good time.

When you encounter such an issue, ask yourself this;

~does it make sense for X to happen as opposed to GW's specific rules?

If that is the case, then just ask your opponent or tournament organiser if they are ok with your 'breaking' GW's rules. If the above statement is in fact true, then this is a great litmus test as to if someone is worth playing or not.

What you don't do is ask YMDC because good god theres some frothing nerd rage and "RAW AT ALL COSTS" here on occasion.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Sadly the 40k rules are hardly clear, concise, and logical, and your going to run into both grey areas and areas where RAW can take the game in absurd directions.

Except in this case the rules ARE clear. The allies matrix leaves absolutely no room for ambiguity, and the only "problem" is the same as the "problem" that Tyranids can't ally with C:SM.

~does it make sense for X to happen as opposed to GW's specific rules?

And the answer is no, it doesn't. The Imperial Guard is NOT the same thing as the Imperial Army, just like Blood Angels are not the same thing as Space Wolves.

Honestly, I imagine it takes a special breed of person to look at that allies chart and not say "bs".

If an Imperium faction wants to ally with another Imperium faction that seems like common sense to me.

But like I said, litmus test ~ I'd play it, certain others wouldn't, so I reckon Bongfu knows who is worth playing and who is not. I've slapped together a Looted Wagon of a formidable size which serves double duty, both as a vehicle for the game, and my own personal litmus test ~ you should probably consider your army in the same way Bongfu.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Honestly, I imagine it takes a special breed of person to look at that allies chart and not say "bs".

I think you need to learn the difference between RAI and "I don't like this rule". If you want to house rule that marine legion players can take IG allies feel free to do so, but it is NOT what the rules say or intended to say. It's no different than making a house rule that Tyranids can ally with C:SM.

If an Imperium faction wants to ally with another Imperium faction that seems like common sense to me.

No it doesn't. The heresy-era marine legions and modern-era IG never even existed at the same time. So not only is it clearly against the rules it's also against the fluff.

But like I said, litmus test ~ I'd play it, certain others wouldn't, so I reckon Bongfu knows who is worth playing and who is not. I've slapped together a Looted Wagon of a formidable size which serves double duty, both as a vehicle for the game, and my own personal litmus test ~ you should probably consider your army in the same way Bongfu.

So your litmus test is "break the rules and refuse to play against anyone who doesn't let you do it"? Not that I'm really surprised, given your previous threads insisting that you're entitled to MFA if it helps you win.

 Peregrine wrote:


I think you need to learn the difference between RAI and "I don't like this rule". If you want to house rule that marine legion players can take IG allies feel free to do so, but it is NOT what the rules say or intended to say. It's no different than making a house rule that Tyranids can ally with C:SM.

Who said anything about RAI and the allies chart? I think GW fethed that one up real good, so whatever they 'intended' when they made Dark Eldar able to ally with Slaneesh daemons and Tyranids with nobody is of no importance to me.

I make no secret of the fact that I consider it to be "RAW > RAI > Common Sense" in all areas of the game.

No it doesn't. The heresy-era marine legions and modern-era IG never even existed at the same time. So not only is it clearly against the rules it's also against the fluff.

I do believe that the Warp has the power to drop people in a different time as well as a different place. I also don't find any issue with the representation of non Space Marine soldiers as Imperial Guard.

 Dakkamite wrote:
I make no secret of the fact that I consider it to be "RAW > RAI > Common Sense" in all areas of the game.

So why are you posting in YMDC? If you want to argue about what the rules should be instead of what they actually say there's an entire forum for you to do it in: proposed rules.

I do believe that the Warp has the power to drop people in a different time as well as a different place.

And on the scale of the whole game such an event would be about as frequent as Tyranids allying with C:SM.

I also don't find any issue with the representation of non Space Marine soldiers as Imperial Guard.

Why not? The Imperial Guard is an entirely different organization, and it is pretty likely that the future Imperial Army list will be as different from the IG list as the space marine legion list is from C:SM.

And on the scale of the whole game such an event would be about as frequent as Tyranids allying with C:SM.

Who cares? It's our personal army fluff, it can be whatever it likes.

Why not? The Imperial Guard is an entirely different organization, and it is pretty likely that the future Imperial Army list will be as different from the IG list as the space marine legion list is from C:SM.

It's humans with ray guns, close enough IMO

So why are you posting in YMDC? If you want to argue about what the rules should be instead of what they actually say there's an entire forum for you to do it in: proposed rules.

Why shouldn't I post here? Absolutely nothing wrong with "if its not permitted by the rules, homerule it in" as a reply to this thread.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Who cares? It's our personal army fluff, it can be whatever it likes.

You're saying that it is a good house rule because it's fluffy. I'm pointing out that it's about as "fluffy" as Tyranids allying with C:SM. So if you want to play legion + IG allies I expect you to also support a house rule for those Ultramarines blue Tyranids.

It's humans with ray guns, close enough IMO

No it isn't. Or should I be able to ally Black Templars with my Tau as battle brothers? After all, I can take C:SM as battle brothers, and they're both just power armor with bolters.

Why shouldn't I post here? Absolutely nothing wrong with "if its not permitted by the rules, homerule it in" as a reply to this thread.

Because YMDC is asking about what the rules actually say. You could post "if you don't like it, house rule it" in every single thread in this forum and the only thing you would be contributing to would be your post count. If you want to discuss house rules then take it to the proposed rules forum.

Can I be a dick about it?

If you insist, theres nothing I can stop you.

Theres no point getting into an argument with you over this. You've proven on numerous occasions that you will never back down or accept if your incorrect no matter what the other guy says. At best, just latch onto some 'technicality' like an angry squig and stay there until the other side gives up out of frustration, and at worst, "nah I'm right because I say I am." Case in point ~ when your 'accepted convention' was rejected by 76% of voters. Twice.

My advice still stands. If its not ok by the book, homerule it so it is, and use it as a litmus test to weed out people who you probably don't want to play against.

 Dakkamite wrote:

Can I be a dick about it?

Oh good, that's very mature and polite.

At best, just latch onto some 'technicality' like an angry squig and stay there until the other side gives up out of frustration, and at worst, "nah I'm right because I say I am.

Yeah, that "technicality" like "the allies matrix clearly says that you can't". I suppose it's also a "technicality" if I insist that your bolters are STR 4, or that playing with 2000 points in a 1500 point game is not allowed?

Case in point ~ when your 'accepted convention' was rejected by 76% of voters. Twice.

Yeah, in a biased poll where you hid the fact that you were doing it to gain an in-game advantage and not to make a cool model, and presented my side in the poll as "exactly a Rhino, no compromise" instead of "roughly Rhino size". And then ignored the fact that the replies were much less in favor of you, despite claiming that "count the yes/no replies" was a valid method in the thread where the replies happened to favor you.

If its not ok by the book, homerule it so it is, and use it as a litmus test to weed out people who you probably don't want to play against.

Just like how I should insist on a house rule that I can play with 500 more points than you and claim some ridiculous moral high ground if you won't accept my house rule?

Yeah yeah keep coming up with the excuses and the strawmen Peregrine.

The poll was 100% on your 'convention' about Looted Wagon size and 0% on what me or anyone else intended on doing with the wagons after making them. People spat on your bogus convention. That is the truth of the matter.

Someone wanting to play with IG and HH Marines is totally the same as "feth you I'm going to use a bigger army deal with it." Whatever you say man.

I actually came in here to apologise for being a bit overly harsh, but you know what? You've reminded me exactly why I said that stuff and I stick by it.

 Dakkamite wrote:
The poll was 100% on your 'convention' about Looted Wagon size and 0% on what me or anyone else intended on doing with the wagons after making them.

And that's exactly the point. You pretended that your MFA was really just about bringing a cool model. If you had clearly said "I want to make a huge looted wagon to hide my troops behind, can I" you would probably get very different results.

Someone wanting to play with IG and HH Marines is totally the same as "feth you I'm going to use a bigger army deal with it." Whatever you say man.

Yes, it really is. It is blatantly against the rules, and you're really getting into TFG territory if you demand that someone allow you to do it or you'll assume your ridiculous moral high ground and refuse to play against them. Just like demanding that your opponent allow you to take allies that are not permitted by the allies matrix.

Now, it would be reasonable to politely request a house rule to let you do it, but that's not at all the same thing as your "litmus test".