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.

Problem is, it's also the Knights Faction symbol (see the faction section).

The symbols are identical, with no indication of which this is.

It's not really a problem, because Unit Entries DO have Battlefield Role icons and DON'T have Faction icons.

Interpreting the stamp as a Faction indicator not only goes against how all other Unit Entries are written, but also causes problems with Imperial Knights Detachments. If it's a Faction stamp and NOT a Battlefield Role stamp, then the Knight-Archeron doesn't have the Imperial Knights Battlefield Role and can't fill the mandatory or optional Imperial Knights Battlefield Role boxes of the Imperial Knights Detachment's force org chart. We know it can, so the stamp must be a Battlefield Role stamp.

 Kriswall wrote:
It's not really a problem, because Unit Entries DO have Battlefield Role icons and DON'T have Faction icons.

Here's a screenshot from IA:13
To help with copyright I won't say from which unit, but if you really want to know send a PM. See the problem?

I'll allow that sometimes units have a Faction stamp on their unit entry. Now you tell me how you know the Knight-Archeron has the Battlefield Role of Imperial Knight.

And before you say it's because it can be chosen for a Codex: Imperial Knights army, that doesn't do it. Fortifications can be chosen for an Imperial Knights army... there just aren't any slots on the only available Detachment to take one. This may change in the future. You need to demonstrate something on the unit entry specifically and explicitly stating the unit has the IK Battlefield Role.

 Kriswall wrote:
Now you tell me how you know the Knight-Archeron has the Battlefield Role of Imperial Knight.

I don't know, that's the problem.

We have a symbol that's used for both Faction, and Battlefield role. Both can be used in a unit entry.
You could be correct, I openly admit that, but I think you could be equally wrong. There's no clear indication of what that symbol is.

Well, if I'm correct, you can take a Knight-Archeron in an Imperial Knights Detachment OR as a Space Marine Faction Lord of War in a SM CAD.

If I'm wrong, you can't take a Knight-Archeron in an IK Detachment at all and you'd have to break a Detachment restriction to take it in a SM CAD.

Not to be a douche, but that's a pretty compelling argument that I'm right and the stamp that could possibly mean two things means the IK Battlefield Role and NOT the IK Faction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Having said that, GW REALLY needs to quit being ambiguous. You have to use too much context to figure these things out sometimes.

 Kriswall wrote:
Having said that, GW REALLY needs to quit being ambiguous. You have to use too much context to figure these things out sometimes.

No argument there.

Can you think of any other FW that have duel battlefield roles? Late 6th to 7th ideally, other than the Knights.

I can only think of the Knights, but to be fair, I'm pretty sure Imperial Knights is the only new "Other" Battlefield Role introduced thus far. I think we're likely to only see dual roles on units that can be taken as the "Other" in their own special detachment or as a traditional role in something like a CAD.

Chances are pretty good that this is unique to the FW Knights.

I'm just curious if there's any other unit with duel roles, and if they included stamps for both roles. Doesn't need to be an "other" role.

Sadly there's none like that in IA:13

I don't think there are any. To be honest, the whole Imperial Knights Battlefield Role is kind of stupid. They could have just made the Lords of War only and said the Imperial Knights Detachment has 1-3 LoW slots.

I think the IK Battlefield Role was GW trying to be "cool and new".

 Kriswall wrote:
It's not really a problem, because Unit Entries DO have Battlefield Role icons and DON'T have Faction icons.

Interpreting the stamp as a Faction indicator not only goes against how all other Unit Entries are written, but also causes problems with Imperial Knights Detachments. If it's a Faction stamp and NOT a Battlefield Role stamp, then the Knight-Archeron doesn't have the Imperial Knights Battlefield Role and can't fill the mandatory or optional Imperial Knights Battlefield Role boxes of the Imperial Knights Detachment's force org chart. We know it can, so the stamp must be a Battlefield Role stamp.

Weird. The copy I have of the Imperial Knight Acheron shows the 40k symbol, the LoW symbol, and the IK symbol, just like the Lancer, Castigator, and Magaera dataslates do. Not sure where you were going with that example, unless you mean there's a typo in the new FW book?

As to your position, I agree, the way the FW Knights are presented implies they are Faction: Imperial Armies, rather than Faction: Imperial Knights. As such, it does appear that when taken as a LoW, a FW Knight would literally be from that army's faction. [sarcasium]Go Pro Writing Team![/sarcasium]

SJ

Okay. So I have successfully stirred up a chunk of debate anyway. Now to thicken the broth.

In the Legacies description where it states the "Space Marine vehicle" restriction on eligible vehicles for a Legacy upgrade, we are assuming that it means Codex: Space Marines armies. But at the start of the Legacies section of the book it says "subject to the limits set out in the entries that follow, any vehicle in a Codex: Space Marines, Codex: Dark Angels, codex: Space Wolves or Codex: Blood Angels army; a Tyrant's Legion army as detailed..... may choose from the following..."

Now. There is a precedent for Blood Angels and Space Wolves being "Space Marines" from a rules perspective. Bane of Angels. But that grouping includes Grey Knights (who are not included on this list.

So how does the defining of "Space Marine vehicle" within the individual Legacy align with this? Does "Space Marine vehicle" follow the above definition? A vehicle in a Codex: [from above list] army? Because then the selected knight definitely qualifies. It is a vehicle selected specifically as a vehicle in a Codex: Dark Angels [or whatever] army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BTW: I emailed FW. Will copy and paste when it arrives.

Well, Space Marines Vehicle would normally refer only to a Space Marine Factions Vehicle.

If you take the Knight in a Space Wolves army, for example, it would be a Space Wolves Vehicle and strict RaW would not be eligible for the Legacies.

I suspect VERY, VERY strongly that this is just bad writing. I would definitely allow it in friendly play and would also allow it if I were a TO.

Actually, Grey Knights are Space Marines, per their Codex army rules (I.e., "Preferred Enemy: Space Marine" works on GK units). Just say'n.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Actually, Grey Knights are Space Marines, per their Codex army rules (I.e., "Preferred Enemy: Space Marine" works on GK units). Just say'n.

SJ

Grey Knights are Grey Knights. For the purposes of Preferred Enemy, they are also considered Space Marines. A Dreadknight is a Grey Knights Monstrous Creature and not a Space Marines Monstrous Creature for the purposes of Factions and building army lists. Otherwise, if they were really Faction Space Marines, I could just take Draigo as the HQ choice in my Ultramarines CAD.

Sounds to me like no faction is defined for the FW knights thus far, and therefore they are "no faction". This would make them usable in any army with slots for an appropriate battlefield role (hint that's just codex: imperial knights). It appears they have an additional rule which allows armies of the imperium factions to slot then as lords of war. They would still then have no faction, but could fill a slot in those armies.

Just like fortifications, this would make them friendly and allies, but not members of the the host faction. This would fit both fluff and not break any rules.

Conclusion, no legacies of glory :(.

deleted

Seems contentious enough then. People somewhat divided. I've never asked a rules question of Forgeworld before. What do you think the chances of getting answer from them will be?

It will take a few days, but they answer much much faster than GW.