tag8833 wrote:1) What term should I use to describe the
ABG? Faction? Army List? Codex?
It's an army list from (presumably) the
IG faction. It functions the same way that every other army list does (remember that a codex
contains an army list along with the fluff/art/etc, the list of rules and point values is not a codex).
2) Our tourney is borrowing all the rules from BAO. 40k approved forgeworld units are allowed in, but this is a whole faction(?). How do I tell if it is 40k approved?
Everything
FW publishes is
40k approved now. The difference between approved and not-approved is obsolete now that 7th edition put
LoW units into the normal
FOC and all of the old rules from before the "
40k approved" designation have been updated to "
40k approved" status.
3) Most of the units are in the AM codex, but he's got to run them with all of the profiles, costs, and special rules out of the Forgeworld Imperial Armour Vol. 1: Second Edition book right?
Correct, just like
BA continue to use their rules for tactical squads even though tactical squads have newer and different rules in C:
SM. The
ABG list is an entirely separate army and uses all of its own rules and point values even if similar units in a different army have different rules. The only exception to this would be if something in the
ABG says "see Codex:
IG" instead of giving the complete rules/point cost/whatever. In that case you would refer to the current codex to find the appropriate rule.
In the case of the
ABG list this is both good and bad. Vendettas in the
ABG list (which are limited to 0-1 squadron) use the old rules and are better,
LRBTs still have the old higher point costs and are worse. Overall the differences probably balance out and it's just like playing an army from any other pre-7th army.
Its still a combined arms detachment, so gets command benefits right
Wrong question. A
CAD is determined by using the
FOC properly and meeting any other requirements, not by which army list it is chosen from. If an
ABG army follows the
CAD rules then it will be a
CAD and get all appropriate benefits. If it follows some other detachment rules (allied detachment, for example) it will receive those benefits. If it doesn't follow any detachment rules at all then it is an unbound army and follows the same rules as any other unbound army (and gets no command benefits).
4) He is quite concerned about Lumbering Behemoth. It is clearly a special rule in IA:1. I know that Lemun Russes lost it in the newest IG codex, but until Forgeworld updates their book, it is still there in ABG's, right? The way he asks makes me think he knows something about this that I don't know.
RAW it's kind of a mess.
RAI you should go back to the last known version of "lumbering behemoth", where it was FAQed at the beginning of 6th edition to simply grant the vehicle the "heavy" type. All the current codex did is remove the redundant special rule and just put it directly into the unit type.
Automatically Appended Next Post: tag8833 wrote:BAO rules, each detachment must be pure. No mixing and matching between supplements and primary codex.
In this case you'll need to ask the people who write the
BAO rules because now you're asking for help interpreting third-party house rules instead of the rules provided by
GW. In
YMDC we can only tell you what
GW's rules are, we can't decide what changes you want to make to the game.
