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.

In Imperial Armor 3 there is an entry for Tallarn Desert Raiders saying that pretty much any infantry unit in the Imperial Guard codex can be upgraded with some special rules for some points.
I caught some flak from the judge running the tournement because the IA book specifically says Imperial Guard Codex when I was using the Astra Militarum Codex.
Is this a legit concern I should have when going to tournaments or was this judge just being a little too black and white with the rules?

Check the FAQ on forgeworld website.

As of right now there is no FAQ for IA3 on the Forgeworld site.

That Judge is a piece of gsk to say Imperial Guards is not the same as Astra Militarium.

I do agree with Flich. That being said, next time see the tournament organizer before hand to clear up any issues.

 Filch wrote:
That Judge is a piece of gsk to say Imperial Guards is not the same as Astra Militarium.

Was IA3 published before or after the Astra Millivanilli codex?

Because if it was before, the the judge is perfectly within his rights to point out that the rules in IA3 were written with a different book in mind. It's not just about the name change... if Forgeworld haven't updated their rules to suit the new book, then I wouldn't automatically allow it in a tournament either.

 insaniak wrote:

 Filch wrote:
That Judge is a piece of gsk to say Imperial Guards is not the same as Astra Militarium.

Was IA3 published before or after the Astra Millivanilli codex?

Because if it was before, the the judge is perfectly within his rights to point out that the rules in IA3 were written with a different book in mind. It's not just about the name change... if Forgeworld haven't updated their rules to suit the new book, then I wouldn't automatically allow it in a tournament either.

IA3 2nd edition was published before the AM codex.

And yes, FW should get off their butts and update their rules for 7th edition.

Its a pretty tame rule though, and didn't really change between the conversion, so the TO could have easily waved this one across.

Because honestly, pretty much none of the Imperial Armour stuff can be taken for the AM, because pretty much nothing has been updated to say that IG=AM in Imperial Armour, and given that most units in IA are *for the IG/AM, that's actually pretty funny.

This was a short campaign at a LGS, so the judge and TO were the same person. There was no stink raised, just gave the rule a look over and pointed out that it said "Any of the following units from Codex: Imperial Guard may be upgraded" and I was technically using Codex: Astra Militarum.

Merdoc wrote:
This was a short campaign at a LGS, so the judge and TO were the same person. There was no stink raised, just gave the rule a look over and pointed out that it said "Any of the following units from Codex: Imperial Guard may be upgraded" and I was technically using Codex: Astra Militarum.

You might want to mention to him that by that rationale there are no IA units that the AM can take currently.

So I guess Longstrike's Preferred Enemy would have done nothing, as it is Preferred Enemy (Imperial Guard), not Preferred Enemy (Astra Militarum).

Am references that they are also called Imperial Guard, so it would still work. You could potentially argue that it also creates an equivalency that could be used to say AM == IG.

It is a fun fact that Elysians don't get orders now because they don't have Voice of command. Even better is the Company Comander is allowed to issue one additional order a turn (senior officer) but doesn't have voice of command letting him issue orders. I would say in the future you should always check when using older books (even if they are considered the most up to date)

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Am references that they are also called Imperial Guard, so it would still work. You could potentially argue that it also creates an equivalency that could be used to say AM == IG.

Yeah, anything that just refers to 'Imperial Guard' is fine, as AM are Imperial Guard. It's only specific references to Codex: Imperial Guard that are an issue.

 insaniak wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Am references that they are also called Imperial Guard, so it would still work. You could potentially argue that it also creates an equivalency that could be used to say AM == IG.

Yeah, anything that just refers to 'Imperial Guard' is fine, as AM are Imperial Guard. It's only specific references to Codex: Imperial Guard that are an issue.

Devil's Advocate question.

Why isn't Codex: Imperial Guard still a valid, current Codex? It was never replaced with a new edition of a publication called "Codex: Imperial Guard"? Is there wording in the new Codex: Astra Militarum telling us it's replacing the old Codex: Imperial Guard?

By the same token, why aren't Codex: Daemonhunters, Codex: Witchhunters, etc. still valid, current Codexes?

That's.... actually a really good question.

 Kriswall wrote:
Why isn't Codex: Imperial Guard still a valid, current Codex?

Player convention or tournament rules, for the most part.

With one or two exceptions (Codex: Assassins and Codex: Craftworld Eldar, for example) GW have never specifically ruledcodexes as no longer usable when a new book is released, even when the new book has the same name. So there is technically nothing at all stopping players from continuing to use old codexes... Although obviously the more unsupported editions a codex goes through, the more rules tweaks it's going to need to need to be fully functional.

 insaniak wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Why isn't Codex: Imperial Guard still a valid, current Codex?

Player convention or tournament rules, for the most part.

With one or two exceptions (Codex: Assassins and Codex: Craftworld Eldar, for example) GW have never specifically ruledcodexes as no longer usable when a new book is released, even when the new book has the same name. So there is technically nothing at all stopping players from continuing to use old codexes... Although obviously the more unsupported editions a codex goes through, the more rules tweaks it's going to need to need to be fully functional.

Haha... yeah. I was having a conversation with a friend the other day about the old White Dwarf rules for Deathwatch. They've never been replaced, but they're totally unusable at this point.

 Kriswall wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Am references that they are also called Imperial Guard, so it would still work. You could potentially argue that it also creates an equivalency that could be used to say AM == IG.

Yeah, anything that just refers to 'Imperial Guard' is fine, as AM are Imperial Guard. It's only specific references to Codex: Imperial Guard that are an issue.

Devil's Advocate question.

Why isn't Codex: Imperial Guard still a valid, current Codex? It was never replaced with a new edition of a publication called "Codex: Imperial Guard"? Is there wording in the new Codex: Astra Militarum telling us it's replacing the old Codex: Imperial Guard?

By the same token, why aren't Codex: Daemonhunters, Codex: Witchhunters, etc. still valid, current Codexes?

IIRC from when I read The AM codex is that All references to Codex: Imperial Guard are to be disregarded and instead point to Codex Astra Militarum (paraphrase). If someone has the codex please fact check since it has been a while since I read it.

 ace101 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Am references that they are also called Imperial Guard, so it would still work. You could potentially argue that it also creates an equivalency that could be used to say AM == IG.

Yeah, anything that just refers to 'Imperial Guard' is fine, as AM are Imperial Guard. It's only specific references to Codex: Imperial Guard that are an issue.

Devil's Advocate question.

Why isn't Codex: Imperial Guard still a valid, current Codex? It was never replaced with a new edition of a publication called "Codex: Imperial Guard"? Is there wording in the new Codex: Astra Militarum telling us it's replacing the old Codex: Imperial Guard?

By the same token, why aren't Codex: Daemonhunters, Codex: Witchhunters, etc. still valid, current Codexes?

IIRC from when I read The AM codex is that All references to Codex: Imperial Guard are to be disregarded and instead point to Codex Astra Militarum (paraphrase). If someone has the codex please fact check since it has been a while since I read it.

Negative. I have the codex, and while the term Imperial Guard is peppered throughout, there is no reference to a "Codex Imperial Guard".

 Kriswall wrote:


Haha... yeah. I was having a conversation with a friend the other day about the old White Dwarf rules for Deathwatch. They've never been replaced, but they're totally unusable at this point.

Isn't there some obscure Deathwatch Kill Team dataslate somewhere out there?

 SRSFACE wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:


Haha... yeah. I was having a conversation with a friend the other day about the old White Dwarf rules for Deathwatch. They've never been replaced, but they're totally unusable at this point.

Isn't there some obscure Deathwatch Kill Team dataslate somewhere out there?

Apocalypse Warzone: Damocles has a Deathwatch Apocalypse Formation. Other than that, nope. There has never been an update to the White Dwarf rules for standard games of 40k.

The Damocles formation is essentially just Sternguard, a Captain (I think) and some additional specialty ammo that kills Necrons dead. The wounds disable Reanimation Protocols.

 insaniak wrote:
With one or two exceptions (Codex: Assassins and Codex: Craftworld Eldar, for example) GW have never specifically ruledcodexes as no longer usable when a new book is released, even when the new book has the same name. So there is technically nothing at all stopping players from continuing to use old codexes... Although obviously the more unsupported editions a codex goes through, the more rules tweaks it's going to need to need to be fully functional.

But in this case it's more complicated since you're questioning whether the reference to C:IG refers to C:AM. You have two choices:

1) C:AM is separate from C:IG, in which case the IA13 rules can only apply to C:IG but C:IG is still a valid codex since no new IG codex ever replaced it.

2) C:AM is C:IG in the current edition, in which case the IA13 rules apply to C:AM and C:IG is replaced by C:AM and no longer valid.

Obviously option #2 is the one that functions best by RAI and causes the fewest conflicts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
Yeah, anything that just refers to 'Imperial Guard' is fine, as AM are Imperial Guard. It's only specific references to Codex: Imperial Guard that are an issue.

Citation for "AM = IG"? If C:AM is not the same as C:IG then why should references to IG now point to AM? And what is an IG model/unit/etc other than a model/unit/etc taken from an IG codex or supplement?

 insaniak wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Am references that they are also called Imperial Guard, so it would still work. You could potentially argue that it also creates an equivalency that could be used to say AM == IG.

Yeah, anything that just refers to 'Imperial Guard' is fine, as AM are Imperial Guard. It's only specific references to Codex: Imperial Guard that are an issue.

However if you have an equivalency relation, you can subsitutue IG for AM and still be valid. So Code: AM is also equivalent to Codex: IG , making everything work happily together.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Am references that they are also called Imperial Guard, so it would still work. You could potentially argue that it also creates an equivalency that could be used to say AM == IG.

Yeah, anything that just refers to 'Imperial Guard' is fine, as AM are Imperial Guard. It's only specific references to Codex: Imperial Guard that are an issue.

However if you have an equivalency relation, you can subsitutue IG for AM and still be valid. So Code: AM is also equivalent to Codex: IG , making everything work happily together.

The issue is that the rules present no equivalency. We all KNOW this to be the case, but at no point anywhere does a rule say that C:AM was intended to replace C:IG.

It depends on whether we need a rule to say it, as Code: Name is NOT a rule as such, or whether an equivalency found within the codex is sufficient. there is an equivalence made and fairly early on.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It depends on whether we need a rule to say it, as Code: Name is NOT a rule as such, or whether an equivalency found within the codex is sufficient. there is an equivalence made and fairly early on.

Ultimately, the question becomes...

How do we know which publications are current?

Is it as simple as "If GW currently publishes it, it's current"? I would say no. At least, I would say that this doesn't match with general player convention.

Example... Are the units from from Stormclaw current and playable under 7th Edition? I think most people would say yes as the rules were written for 7th... BUT, the box is out of print, so it's not a current GW publication." If we allow old, out of print publications, what's our cut off point?

I think we can all agree that currently published materials are current and active. The main question is older materials that have never been replaced with similarly named new publications.

Codex: Necrons (5th)? Codex: Necrons (7th) has the same name and so replaces it.

Codex: Imperial Guard? Codex: Astra Militarum has a different name, but is pretty obviously intended to replace it (requires us to make a judgment call).

White Dwarf article with Deathwatch rules? No new updated publication, but newer core rules more or less make the Deathwatch rules unplayable. So are the Deathwatch rule active, but waiting on an update or FAQ?

If you keep going, you get more and more issues.

Codex: Kroot Mercenaries? Are they still active? Vehicle Design Rules?

You are all over thinking it. If the TO honestly said you can't use tallarns because IA13 (whatever number it was, I forgot) said IG not AM, he is being TFG. AM is IG and IG is AM, anything else is just looking for workarounds and exploits.

 Brennonjw wrote:
You are all over thinking it. If the TO honestly said you can't use tallarns because IA13 (whatever number it was, I forgot) said IG not AM, he is being TFG. AM is IG and IG is AM, anything else is just looking for workarounds and exploits.

Brennon... this is YMDC. It's not a forum about coming up with a common sense answer. It's a forum about coming up with a RaW supported answer.

There is no RaW support to equate Codex: Imperial Guard with Codex: Astra Militarum. There's tons of common sense support, but no actual rules support. There is simply no mention in any GW publication anywhere that references to Codex: Imperial Guard are to be changed to Codex: Astra Militarum. An Errata is needed.

The TO made the correct RaW call, but it was probably the wrong call to make as it most likely goes against how the rules are intended to be played. It also alienates reasonable players and might have the unintentional side effect of driving away future players. Having said that, IG=/=AM, so I would have checked with the TO before fielding the list to be safe.

Well if I couldn't use something in IA3 with my C:AM because it refers to C:IG, I would just run C:IG instead. If C:AM did not replace C:IG then C:IG is still legal.

 Lord Scythican wrote:
Well if I couldn't use something in IA3 with my C:AM because it refers to C:IG, I would just run C:IG instead. If C:AM did not replace C:IG then C:IG is still legal.

Yeah, that was kind of my point. As a community, we generally agree that C:IG was replaced by C:AM... but has GW ever actually said that anywhere?

If your opponent says "I'm using the most recent release of C:IG to make my army list", is there actually anything, anywhere you can point at to demonstrate that C:IG is no longer a valid source?