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.

So I have kind of a curious question regarding army building:

What faction are the units in the Armored Battlegroup list? Astra Militarum, just because that's common sense? Armored Battlegroup as its own faction, even though there's no rules support for that? No Faction like a fortification, since they're in some sort of limbo?

Help me, Dakkadakka! You're my only hope!

Is it a standalone army,or a supplement?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(As in, can you play it with just those rules, or do you have to refer to a master codex)

You can play it by itself - it is a standalone army list that isn't in a codex.

Well then it sounds like it's it's own faction .

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Well then it sounds like it's it's own faction .

Where does it say that in the rulebook? It says units chosen from codexes belong to that faction, but ABG isn't in a codex.

It isn't. The last update for IA-1 was long before Factions were a thing.

So then is it No Faction as there are no rules for which faction it is?

Though, the latest Imperial Armor Vraks says the DKOK army list is DKOK faction and specifically NOT a supplement of Faction Astra Militarum. You can use that as precedent for your own House Rule.

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
Though, the latest Imperial Armor Vraks says the DKOK army list is DKOK faction and specifically NOT a supplement of Faction Astra Militarum. You can use that as precedent for your own House Rule.

Locally we've houseruled it as a supplement for Astra Militarum, because some of the things refer back to Codex:IG (such as the Special Operations special rule) and AM is the closest analogue in 7th.

You know, you could give more info for people to work with....

Armored Battlegroup is a Forgeworld army, found in Imperial Armour Volume 1, 2nd ed.
You may select any number of "imperial guard" tanks and get extra rules by playing them in this Army.

Now i don't know how updated IA1, 2nd Ed got, but by RaW, in the first place, Tanks from an "Imperial Guard Codex" no longer exists. As "Astra Militarum" is technically not an "Imperial Guard" army.

Asking about the resulting Faction, by RaW, would be quite hard if IA1V2 does not answer it itself... As such i would also agree that "they have no Faction", as the Units required no longer exist.

By that logic, the entire list is invalid.

No faction is for stuff like fortifications, applying it to whole army lists is silly.

Codex AM is functionally the same as IG and given it makes references to that codex then it's a supplement and has the same faction as it's parent.

You WILL have to make some house rulings to use this army list, as it's written for a previous edition, old master codex and has no recent FAQ

So RAW it simply doesn't function and the game breaks as soon as you add an ABG unit to your list.

-.-

A supplement would mean you just seamlessly use Catachan with Armoured Battlegroup in the same Detachment, which abuses the idea of a separate army list. The easiest way, and best in my opinion, is to treat it as a specific Faction that functions as Battle Brothers to its most similar codex and the interactions THAT codex has with other allies. This also allows Allied Detachments to come from that separate army list.

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
A supplement would mean you just seamlessly use Catachan with Armoured Battlegroup in the same Detachment, which abuses the idea of a separate army list. The easiest way, and best in my opinion, is to treat it as a specific Faction that functions as Battle Brothers to its most similar codex and the interactions THAT codex has with other allies. This also allows Allied Detachments to come from that separate army list.

This sounds like the best way to play it. The wording in the 7th rules has made using supplements awkward. Look like we won't be getting any more.

We can discuss house rules till the cows come home. What is RAW?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
We can discuss house rules till the cows come home. What is RAW?

You had it

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So RAW it simply doesn't function and the game breaks as soon as you add an ABG unit to your list.

-.-

If you want "pure RaW", it's going to have to be a Forgeworld FaQ, or Imperial Armour 1 THIRD Edition lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ah sorry, in more detail, you follow this Rule: (FW FAQ)

Armoured Battle Group Armies
When using the Allies Matrix (page 113, Warhammer 40,000 rulebook), Armoured Battle Group armies are treated as Imperial Guard armies when both selecting allies to fight alongside them and when using them as allies for another force. The exception to this rule is that they may ally with Imperial Guard armies as Battle Brothers.

But A) by RaW "Imperial Guard armies" no longer exist, or are a new Faction that you have no info on level of alliance. (There could be a RaW argument about how they are still "Armies of the Imperium", but it'd be a long stretch...)

B) The Allies Matrix (page 113, Warhammer 40,000 rulebook) no longer exists, invalidating the entire rule above...

C) "they may ally with Imperial Guard armies as Battle Brothers" pretty much same issue as with A) and B)

So you are going to have to go into HYWPI territory, as with so many other Forgeworld Units since "Astra Militarum" came out.
I'm sure everyone will agree to make the swap, even without full RaW support...

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
Though, the latest Imperial Armor Vraks says the DKOK army list is DKOK faction and specifically NOT a supplement of Faction Astra Militarum. You can use that as precedent for your own House Rule.

I don't think this is a good precedent. DKoK under the 6th edition allies rules specifically had stricter rules for allying than "normal" IG because of their specialist tactics and rabid hatred. IMO the "DKoK are their own faction" ruling is intended to reflect this fact and enforce a higher degree of separation between them and "normal" IG than you'd have from an armored battlegroup army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So RAW it simply doesn't function and the game breaks as soon as you add an ABG unit to your list.

Exactly. But this is the same kind of RAW as the old "models with helmets can't shoot or charge because RAW they have no eyes to draw LOS from" argument. Everyone knows it's stupid and the obvious RAI/HIWPI interpretation is that it doesn't work like that. So there are two choices:

1) They're an IG codex supplement based on their function, even if the words "codex supplement" are not explicitly used. That puts them under the "a codex and its supplements are a single faction" rule and gives them the IG faction. This conveniently also makes things like Preferred Enemy: IG work correctly instead of creating absurd situations where a PE:IG model gets the bonus against a codex LRBT but not an identical ABG LRBT. On the other hand it does allow you to mix ABG and codex units in a single detachment.

2) They're a separate faction, like the various other minor Imperial factions (inquisitors, etc), but are considered part of the Armies of the Imperium group on the allies matrix (even if not explicitly stated). This reverses the problems of the first option: you prevent "abuse" of the faction rule and mixing ABG units with codex units in a single detachment, but you break things like PE:IG.

IMO option #1 is the better one, as the "abuse" in army construction is less of a problem than having "IG" units that aren't actually IG.

That was our thinking as well, as far as house rules go.

We had a similar dispute yesterday until one of my friends asked the following question: "What book did you get point costs and special rules from?" I think that covers it well. There's already enough madness of this nature with this edition's codex proliferation.

Some of the rules come from Codex:AM, and the costs come from IAv1:2E