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've been banging my head on this question for a few days and I come to the halls of Dakka to find out the answer once and for all.

Is the Armoured Battle Group from Imperial Armour 1 2nd Ed. "40k approved"?

Now, I know what UNITS are "40k approved", but is the army list for the ABG?

If so, what can I point to in the book and say with confidence, "Yes good sir, this is 40k approved!"

Page 240 (with reference to page 7).

While IA is legal, not everybody is OK with it and you should talk to your opponent.

It's for two tournaments I'm interested in. I've asked the TO, but the reply I got was "Is it 40k approved?"


Yeah, the paragraph about Eternal war in 40k was the one I looked to also.

Page 240 states the list allows you to fight battles using the Eternal War missions in the BRB.

Most tournaments will have a list of approved armies.

From Golden Throne's website:
"Forgeworld rules are allowed only for 40k-Approved models."
http://goldenthronegt.com/?page_id=84#lists
I'd guess "no" on armored battle group. What tourney?

Most of these tourneys allow Forgeworld UNITS, but not Forgeworld ARMIES. I would ask again and have them make the distinction.

Yes, it is, according to IAv1:2E

@Unit: But what makes you say that with such certainty?

It is a 'legal army' just like any other Forgeworld item. So, ask the TO for permission if they allow 40k approved units, because the list is not a unit in all senses.

I doubt they would, as the ABG is a terribly designed army and one very few players take for the right reasons.

It's actually stronger than many think/pretend. Many lists out there today can handle some vehicles, but not the entire opposing army as vehicles.

rigeld2 wrote:
It's actually stronger than many think/pretend. Many lists out there today can handle some vehicles, but not the entire opposing army as vehicles.

But its not as strong as a standard IG list, or an IG list with an ABG ally. The ABG on its own is not a particularly strong list to use.

Anyways, its as legal or '40k approved' as all other FW products designed for standard play. Which means its only as legal as your area lets it be, so your TO will have to make the call.

There's no official stamp at the start of the list, but its laid out exactly like any codex using units from either IG or the book itself. I personally shouldn't think its a problem if you own the book and show the TO/your opponents.

rigeld2 wrote:
It's actually stronger than many think/pretend. Many lists out there today can handle some vehicles, but not the entire opposing army as vehicles.

Of course if your whole army is vehicles your only hope of winning 5/6 missions (or more, in many tournaments) is to table your opponent since you have no scoring units. And if you bring the weak scoring units the ABG list has access to your army starts looking a lot more like a generic mech vet list from the IG codex.

 Peregrine wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It's actually stronger than many think/pretend. Many lists out there today can handle some vehicles, but not the entire opposing army as vehicles.

Of course if your whole army is vehicles your only hope of winning 5/6 missions (or more, in many tournaments) is to table your opponent since you have no scoring units. And if you bring the weak scoring units the ABG list has access to your army starts looking a lot more like a generic mech vet list from the IG codex.

I get it - no matter what I say it's going to be called the weakest list ever, only taken by fluffy players.
I disagree - it's not top power, but it's not crap either.

edit: Also, unless they addressed the whole Warlord issue, ABG lists are illegal right now anyway.

The closest thing I could find is that if a model with the Company Command Tank special rule is used as a Warlord, it must generate its Trait on the ABG Trait list.
Of course that still does not give you permission to use a non-character model as your Warlord.

As with all Imperial Armour the rules concerning their use is this;



If you find yourself unable or unwilling to follow those rules (all of them), then perhaps 40K isn't for you.

@Steelmage: This question isn't about the 40k approved stamp. No Forge World base list (AFAIK) has a stamp on it. But as is pointed out earlier in the thread, on page 240 of IA:1 2nd ed. There is a sentence stating the list is intended for use in Eternal War 40k mission. However, this is not the same as having a 40k Approved stamp. Some tournaments state "40k approved" forge world is allowed and think that will cover all it needs to. Army lists from forge world create a case by case grey area.
----------------------------------------------------------
As for ABG. I also find it odd that they have characters(Tanks) that can only be used by the an ABG army that are, in fact, "40k approved". Doesn't this mean that the list has to be "40k approved" also. If ABG isn't "40k approved" then Steel Dog Alpha who is 40k approved and ABG only doesn't make any sense.

Lol Steelmage, read the thread before you post something like "maybe 40k isn't for you"

As for the question at hand, I think it's very much a case of simple oversight on the part of Forgeworld. They are notorious for omitting important info, yet create rules and models for a game with by far the biggest "rules lawyer" and RAW abiding community of players I've ever seen. If they've made an army of largely/entirely 40k approved units, then it'd be my opinion that the army list itself is also approved.

If you want a certain answer though, you can email them. I did, took them like two months but they replied with some rules clarifications for the Dread Mob list

rigeld2 wrote:
It's actually stronger than many think/pretend. Many lists out there today can handle some vehicles, but not the entire opposing army as vehicles.

In which case it likely has no scoring units. Those Leman Russ tanks that list is taking as troops can't score

Which is why the book straight up states that many scenarios are more difficult if you don't bring enough Armoured Fist squads to hod objectives. It is recommended that this be viewed simply as a challenge to be overcome.

Also it is 3/6 units with no scoring Scouring and Big Guns can have scoring vehicles...

 FlingitNow wrote:
Also it is 3/6 units with no scoring Scouring and Big Guns can have scoring vehicles...

Only FA and HS vehicles however, those Leman Russ tanks taken as Troops still aren't scoring many AB's won't have scoring units even in those missions, mine doesn't

Datajax wrote:@Steelmage: This question isn't about the 40k approved stamp.

Dakkamite wrote:Lol Steelmage, read the thread before you post something like "maybe 40k isn't for you"

You guys are both right.
I committed the sin of simply skimming the OP overly briefly, and then posting.

I apologize.

rigeld2 wrote:
I get it - no matter what I say it's going to be called the weakest list ever, only taken by fluffy players.
I disagree - it's not top power, but it's not crap either.

That's not what I said. I never said the ABG list was SoB-level weak, it's just not as scary as some people think when they first hear about it. It's just another average list that doesn't require any special treatment, and most of the complaints about how "overpowered" it is are based on an assumption that it somehow changes the normal rule that vehicles can't score.

edit: Also, unless they addressed the whole Warlord issue, ABG lists are illegal right now anyway.

What warlord issue? General overrules specific, the specific statement in the ABG list that a tank is your warlord overrules the general statement that a warlord is the highest-leadership character in your army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
Of course that still does not give you permission to use a non-character model as your Warlord.

This is only an "issue" if you take RAW well past the point of insanity and argue that a unit which is clearly intended to be the warlord doesn't have an implied exception to the "character only" rule. This is at the same level of reasonableness as arguing that models with helmets can not shoot because they can't draw LOS from their eyes.

The warlord issue that existed before (evidently) the most recent update.

The one you argued didn't exist at the time.
But that's irrelevant now.