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.

Space Marines
1x chapter master -HQ

2x 5 man Tactical squads - Troops

Imperial Guard
1x Commisar - HQ

2x 10 man IG squads - troops

Inquisition
1x coteaz - HQ

2x 3man henchmen squad - troops

Is this list an unbound list or can I have 3 detachments of CADs from different factions?

A Battle-Forged list contains any number of Detachments or Formations in any combination.

 Johnnytorrance wrote:
Space Marines
1x chapter master -HQ

2x 5 man Tactical squads - Troops

Imperial Guard
1x Commisar - HQ

2x 10 man IG squads - troops

Inquisition
1x coteaz - HQ

2x 3man henchmen squad - troops

Is this list an unbound list or can I have 3 detachments of CADs from different factions?

Well, first things first.
1. In order to take a regular Commissar, you must take a Command Squad (either CCS, or PCS).
2. Inquisition does not have Troops. Henchmen are Elites, and Coteaz does not have the ability to make them Troops.
So from that standpoint, yes the army is illegal.

However the following would be legal (and battle-forged):

Space Marines (CAD)
1x chapter master -HQ

2x 5 man Tactical squads - Troops

Imperial Guard (CAD)
1x Lord Commisar - HQ

2x 10 man IG squads - troops

Inquisition (Inquisition)
1x coteaz - HQ

2x 3man henchmen squad - Elites

You can't take a CAD of Inquisition because, as said above, they're not troops. There are no troops at all. You take the Inquisition Detachment that can be JUST an Inquisitor. No need for anything else. Everything else has already been said.

Also, there is no more Imperial Guard. I'm assuming you mean Astra Militarum. The old Codex: IG is outdated.

Imperial Guard will always be Imperial Guard. Astarte Militarum is a dumb name

And when the new Space Marine codex comes out with the title: Adeptus Astartes, they will still be Space Marines

 Galef wrote:
Imperial Guard will always be Imperial Guard. Astarte Militarum is a dumb name

And when the new Space Marine codex comes out with the title: Adeptus Astartes, they will still be Space Marines

After Khorne Daemonkin, nothing stops GW from editing a Space Marines with Imperial Guard in one book!

 Kriswall wrote:
Also, there is no more Imperial Guard. I'm assuming you mean Astra Militarum. The old Codex: IG is outdated.

The am codex would like to have a word with you. Even it tells you(on like page 2) that the Astra Militarum are also known as the Imperial Guard. So, yes, there is such a thing as the Imperial Guard, it is just that their official name is the Astra Militarum.

As for the commisar sans command squad... You can do that with an AM lord commissar right? I know that MT can fiend a CAD of 2 10 man squads of troops and a commissar.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Also, there is no more Imperial Guard. I'm assuming you mean Astra Militarum. The old Codex: IG is outdated.

The am codex would like to have a word with you. Even it tells you(on like page 2) that the Astra Militarum are also known as the Imperial Guard. So, yes, there is such a thing as the Imperial Guard, it is just that their official name is the Astra Militarum.

I thought we were discussing rules and not background. At any rate, it's best to use Astra Militarum when referring to the Codex and the Faction for several reasons. The best two reasons I can think of are making life easier for new players who may only ever know the army as Astra Militarum and making searching for answers easier. If I wanted an answer on an AM issue, I would search for AM and not IG. I would assume most IG responses are in relation to the prior codex.

In warhammer 40k, fluff equals rules.

While I can see your point as far as new players or search-terms apply, a draconian stance of "there is no such thing as ig" is false and older fw products/options (that are not invalidated by edition chage rules) still apply to am while they reference ig. A notable example is ia 1 second edition and the conquerer, it is over priced certainly but can still be added to an am russ squadron with no rules issues.
The rest of the special tanks also work just fine and you can read codex:ig as codex: am to field them.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
In warhammer 40k, fluff equals rules.

While I can see your point as far as new players or search-terms apply, a draconian stance of "there is no such thing as ig" is false and older fw products/options (that are not invalidated by edition chage rules) still apply to am while they reference ig. A notable example is ia 1 second edition and the conquerer, it is over priced certainly but can still be added to an am russ squadron with no rules issues.
The rest of the special tanks also work just fine and you can read codex:ig as codex: am to field them.

Fluff sure as heck doesn't equal rules. I don't even know where to begin with this sentence. Go pick up literally any Codex or Black Library book, read it and write down every bit of fluff that isn't supported in the rules. If we believed the fluff, a single Space Marine would be able to EASILY kill hundreds of Cultists with no practical danger to himself. The rules don't come anywhere close to supporting that situation. This is just one example. I'm sure I could come up with hundreds if I felt like it.

Does Codex: Astra Militarum reference the force known sometimes as "Imperial Guard" from a fluff standpoint? Yes. It absolutely does. However, making the arbitrary decision that any older source that reference Codex: Imperial Guard should now reference Codex: Astra Militarum is a house rule. It's a house rule that I think most people would be ok with, but it's still a house rule.

And some rules sources ABSOLUTELY become invalidated with Codex and Edition changes. If you disagree, explain to me how I'm supposed to field Deathwatch Marines using the White Dwarf article that references, what... the 2nd Edition Codex? The name of the Codex hasn't changed (yet... we all know it'll be Codex: Adeptus Astartes), but there is no more "Space Marine Armory", so you can't equip any of the Deathwatch Marines.

This sort of thing happens all the time. Forgeworld is generally pretty good about updating their sources with FAQs and Erratas, so I'm sure we'll see something sooner than later that equates IG to AM, but to assume that IG is AM requires at least minor house rulings.

It's a little more grey in the case of the Eldar. This is no current publication entitled "Codex: Eldar". Instead, we have two pubilcations... "Codex: Eldar Harlequins" and "Codex: Eldar Craftworlds". If an IA book tells me that I can take a unit in a "Codex: Eldar" army, which one do I choose? Let's take the Wasp Assault Walker Squadron from IA11 as an example. It says that a "Wasp Assault Walker Squadron is a Fast Attack choice for a Codex: Eldar army". How do you house rule this one? There is no simple "Codex: Eldar" anymore. If you say that we use Codex: Eldar Craftworlds, then you also have to include Codex: Eldar Harlequins. My gut tells me that most people would say these sorts of IA units are for Craftworlds and not Harlequins, but would have no logic or reasoning as to why.

Theirs also the New Ork Codex Coming out this week as well. It's called "The Bastard Red headed Step children of the 40k Universe" so from now on, no more orks, we are red headed step children or simply "bastards"