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.

Small proofreading item: IA12 has the IA11 tag in the top listing of books.

 Carlson793 wrote:
Small proofreading item: IA12 has the IA11 tag in the top listing of books.

Fixed, and thanks.

FYI, anyone can hop into an article and fix stuff, although granted the wiki code used to create the tables can be quite confusing to someone who is unfamiliar with it (once you actually click 'edit' and see the code).

But if you spot any more errors and want to try your hand at fixing them, please feel free! It is very easy to revert back to an older version of the article if something gets screwed up.

UPDATED:

This time with all four FW Knights. I've adopted the following conventions.

- All are named "Knight Cerastus Castigator" rather than "Cerastus Knight Castigator" to keep all the Knight entries next to each other alphabetically.

- All have been given the army listing "Armies of the Imperium", instead of giving it a different listing for each army type. I imagine this will get more popular in future.

- Links are currently to the FW rules on their site as I can't copy them over to the Dakka server.

Updates for IA13 and general upkeep:

* Added IA13 to the list of IA books (Yak, could you add the cover image to the Dakka system?)
* Updated the Chaos section to reflect this.
* Updated the 'Obsolete' books - al the Vraks and Badab books are now obsolete from a units/lists point of view!!
* Added the Tau Y'vahra battle suit (Rules link is currently to the FW site)
* Changed the Marauder Bomber, Destroyer and Reaver and Warhound Titans to 'IMPERIAL' variant along with all the Knights, since they can be taken by all Imperial armies.
* Updated a lot of descriptions.

Regarding the Inquisitorial section, I'm not sure. What do you think? At the moment, it's only the Arvus and Inquisitor Lok. They don't have a LoW slot in an Inquisitorial Detachment so they can't take those. Also, the new GK codex has made the Inquisitorial LR Prometheus and Inquisitorial Valykire Squadron in IA2 (2nd) questionable - the description says they may be taken for Inquisitorial units in a GK army, which no longer exist.

Very nice, good work!

 ArbitorIan wrote:
Updates for IA13 and general upkeep:

* Added IA13 to the list of IA books (Yak, could you add the cover image to the Dakka system?)
* Updated the Chaos section to reflect this.
* Updated the 'Obsolete' books - al the Vraks and Badab books are now obsolete from a units/lists point of view!!
* Added the Tau Y'vahra battle suit (Rules link is currently to the FW site)
* Changed the Marauder Bomber, Destroyer and Reaver and Warhound Titans to 'IMPERIAL' variant along with all the Knights, since they can be taken by all Imperial armies.
* Updated a lot of descriptions.

I added the cover image of IA13.

I also noticed that we had 'Armour' spelled as 'Amour' 24 times in the article (fixed them all).

Both Tau Riptide variants on the IA website are still marked as being 'experimental', so I marked them as such (and colored them pink).

Instead of labeling Titans and stuff as 'IMPERIAL' maybe we should just go with AOTI (Armies of the Imperium), as that is the actual official designation these days?

Regarding the Inquisitorial section, I'm not sure. What do you think? At the moment, it's only the Arvus and Inquisitor Lok. They don't have a LoW slot in an Inquisitorial Detachment so they can't take those. Also, the new GK codex has made the Inquisitorial LR Prometheus and Inquisitorial Valykire Squadron in IA2 (2nd) questionable - the description says they may be taken for Inquisitorial units in a GK army, which no longer exist.

This is hugely problematic and it comes down to what you want the purpose of this list is supposed to be. Forgeworld should be putting out PDF updates to keep up with GW's codex releases but they're not…Worse than that, they just put out the revised IA4 that had new rules for Solomon Lok and *still* said that he was a choice for a Grey Knights army (months after the Inquisition book was already out and certainly in time for Forge World to have some inkling that GW was going to remove all Inquisition stuff from the new Grey Knight codex).

So ALL the IA Grey Knight vehicles are completely incompatible with the current codex (they have vehicle options and psychic powers that no longer exist and their point values are way off from the current codex) and clearly all the Inquisitorial stuff that is listed as being a choice for the Grey Knights should instead be a choice for an Inquisitorial detachment…I assume that FW will go ahead and make that fix at some point and time, but I guess if we're just sticking with what FW currently has listed, I guess we keep it as-is until they fix it and just mark those units as being not compatible with 7th edition?


----


Okay, so I marked the Grey Knight vehicles as being incompatible with the current codex (The Grey Knight Razorback, Land Raider, Dreadnought and Thunderhawk). I also noted that the Space Wolves Contemptor Dreadnought has similar (but less severe) issues with the new SW codex as well.

Wow, this is VERY handy! Knowing where to look for a specific item is good. One of my biggest complaints in regards to Forgeworld is that I can't always seem to find the right rules for different things very easily. This index is going to make that a lot easier. Certainly makes knowing which book to buy a lot easier.

 yakface wrote:
Both Tau Riptide variants on the IA website are still marked as being 'experimental', so I marked them as such (and colored them pink).
Instead of labeling Titans and stuff as 'IMPERIAL' maybe we should just go with AOTI (Armies of the Imperium), as that is the actual official designation these days?

Agreed. I've changed the IMPERIAL designation.

This is hugely problematic and it comes down to what you want the purpose of this list is supposed to be. Forgeworld should be putting out PDF updates to keep up with GW's codex releases but they're not…Worse than that, they just put out the revised IA4 that had new rules for Solomon Lok and *still* said that he was a choice for a Grey Knights army (months after the Inquisition book was already out and certainly in time for Forge World to have some inkling that GW was going to remove all Inquisition stuff from the new Grey Knight codex).

So ALL the IA Grey Knight vehicles are completely incompatible with the current codex (they have vehicle options and psychic powers that no longer exist and their point values are way off from the current codex) and clearly all the Inquisitorial stuff that is listed as being a choice for the Grey Knights should instead be a choice for an Inquisitorial detachment…I assume that FW will go ahead and make that fix at some point and time, but I guess if we're just sticking with what FW currently has listed, I guess we keep it as-is until they fix it and just mark those units as being not compatible with 7th edition?

Okay, so I marked the Grey Knight vehicles as being incompatible with the current codex (The Grey Knight Razorback, Land Raider, Dreadnought and Thunderhawk). I also noted that the Space Wolves Contemptor Dreadnought has similar (but less severe) issues with the new SW codex as well.

Agreed. I don't think we should be second guessing FW - if something doesn't work any more we should just mark it as so. I've also greyed out the GK Aquila Lander for the same reason (can be taken as a transport for an Inquisitor in the GK Codex).

We're not completely in sync with how we label our problems, though. As far as I can tell, these are the issues we commonly have:

1 - Questionable Legality - The unit is in a really old and OOP book, and we're not sure it it's 'legal' any more (Plague Ogryns, Terminus Ultra)
2 - Missing Options - The unit has some options which no longer exist in the Codex. I'm not sure this makes them 'unusable', just that one of their options won't work any more.
3 - Impossible Selection - The unit has a problem with selection rules because units got shifted (all the GK Inquisitorial stuff)
4 - Incompatible with Codex - The unit is actually broken and the rules don't work any more (GK vehicle psychic powers?)

How do we differentiate? Should 1 & 2 be labelled grey, as they're still useable, but 3 & 4 red, as they don't function any more without house rules?

Why not request this stickied at the top of the general topics sub forum? Its crazy handy.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
1 - Questionable Legality - The unit is in a really old and OOP book, and we're not sure it it's 'legal' any more (Plague Ogryns, Terminus Ultra)
2 - Missing Options - The unit has some options which no longer exist in the Codex. I'm not sure this makes them 'unusable', just that one of their options won't work any more.
3 - Impossible Selection - The unit has a problem with selection rules because units got shifted (all the GK Inquisitorial stuff)
4 - Incompatible with Codex - The unit is actually broken and the rules don't work any more (GK vehicle psychic powers?)

How do we differentiate? Should 1 & 2 be labelled grey, as they're still useable, but 3 & 4 red, as they don't function any more without house rules?

I think #1 is probably misleading terminology. 'Questionable legality' doesn't really accurately describe the situation. I think it would be better to 'grey' out anything whose rules are found in a book that is no longer available to buy and label them as 'rules out of print'.

For the other three options, Do we want to just label them with a single color (like red) and explain the issues individually in their comments column?

Or we could give each its own color for severity something like:

Yellow (mild severity) - options and/or points are wrong or don't exist in the current codex.
Orange (moderate severity) - units FOC/Codex isn't consistent with the new codex (Inquisitors in Grey Knights).
Red (extreme severity) - Unit has core rules that do not work with the current codex or 7th edition.

I just noticed, that the Eldar have the Phantom Titan listed as being in IA:Apoc 2 (with FWU:LoW). The GW Apocalypse expansion has the updated version.

 Happyjew wrote:
I just noticed, that the Eldar have the Phantom Titan listed as being in IA:Apoc 2 (with FWU:LoW). The GW Apocalypse expansion has the updated version.

Thanks, I've updated it!


---


Ian:

I added Damnos and Pandoras to the top list of source materials. They were both released in 2013, no?

I also added a summary of abbreviations for all the abbreviations used in the index that aren't already specified elsewhere. Wasn't 100% sure about: -NS-, though. Does that mean 'not specified'?

On a side note, would it be possible to get an article that lists the various Formations (both regular and Apocalypse) from both GW and FW?

yakface wrote:
I think #1 is probably misleading terminology. 'Questionable legality' doesn't really accurately describe the situation. I think it would be better to 'grey' out anything whose rules are found in a book that is no longer available to buy and label them as 'rules out of print'.

For the other three options, Do we want to just label them with a single color (like red) and explain the issues individually in their comments column?

Ok, so. I suggest the following

GREY - 'Rules out of print' or 'Missing opitions'. These units can be used, it's just that one of their options may no longer work, or their rules are hard to find. The unit actually isn't broken. I'd also do this for inconsistent points values, since just because X upgrade costs the FW unit slightly more/less than in the codex doesn't mean it can't be taken.

RED - 'Incompatible with codex' or 'Impossible selection'. These units cannot currently be used without house ruling something.

I've changed the red to dark red, so that the broken units don't 'pop' more than the regular white ones. Does this actually work, or is it just more annoying to look at??

yakface wrote:
Wasn't 100% sure about: -NS-, though. Does that mean 'not specified'?

Yes! Sorry, just wanted to fill in gaps...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
On a side note, would it be possible to get an article that lists the various Formations (both regular and Apocalypse) from both GW and FW?

Let's see when one of us has time. I've got a long plane journey coming up so.... maybe.

We've already got much of the structure in place!

I added the Obsidian Knight from Warzone Damocles to the Imperial Knight section as an 'Apocalypse Only' choice. Since it is an 'Armies of the Imperium' Apoc choice, does it need to be added to all the AOTI factions separately? Cause if so, I didn't do that.


I also added Warzone Damocles and Valedor entries up at the top to the list of books, even though Valedor doesn't have any actual unit entry datasheets (just formation style ones).

Update:

Removed the Necron Lords of War from the list that are in the new codex (Transcendent C'Tan, Obelisk & Tesseract Vault).

 yakface wrote:

Update:

Removed the Necron Lords of War from the list that are in the new codex (Transcendent C'Tan, Obelisk & Tesseract Vault).

Hurrah!

Also, Update:

Added the Deredeo into the SM section as Experimental Rules