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 read this page, http://elite40k.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/review-astra-militarum-in-75th-ed.html.

Based off this rule under the missions page for the draft FAQ Q: What books/codexes/supplements are the most current?
A: We recommend you use the latest published books that are in your collection – the copyright date (which is usually beneath the contents) will let you know which book is the most recent. Some older books might not work with the latest rules, and it’s up to you and your opponent to agree which to use.

And the precedent for the space wolves Iron priests. FAQ: http://www.spikeybits.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/13466183_1632421943745105_6218577468171529209_n.jpg

Apparently this will allow me to use the Imperial Armour rules for chimeras as opposed to Astra Militarum rules? Allowing me a 10 point cheaper chimera, with 5 firepoints, no hull lasgun arrays and the option of a 5 point autocannon upgrade. Is this correct?

Also, is it legal to mix an Imperial Armour and Astra Militarum list? I don't quite get how this works. (Assuming this isn't an unbound list)

You can if your opponent agrees to it.

Whether or not your opponent will agree to it is totally up to them. My guess is the majority will say "no" since when people see an Astra Militarium Chimera, they will expect it's using the Astra Militarium Codex's Chimera rules.

I would be inclined to say no, as forge world and games workshop are two separate things. When games workshop said use ypur most recent book, they will have meant out of their products not FW. I say this because we haven't seen any ruling on FW items and such in the Games Workshop FAQ. However, I do believe standard chimeras now can get access to auto cannons through one of the fw FAQ, I'm not sure which one though.

I'm inclined to agree with the above, however if you're using an alternative army list, such as the ABG from Imperial Armour, or you're using variants that are actually variants, such as the Manticore battery then it's a different story.

It comes down to only one question : did you agree with your opponent to use FW material? If the answer is yes, then yes, you can use the chimera from Imperial Armour 1 2nd edition (2012) without another consent from your opponent. The Astra militarum codex does not cancel out the Imperial Armour book even for units with the same name. If the IA book says you can include their Chimera as dedicated transport in an Imperial guard/Astra militarum army, then you can, even if there is already a Chimera profile in the Imperial guard/Astra militarum codex.

Codex Astra Militarum has a published date of 2014.
The Imperial Armour was published 2012, and FAQ'd 2013 (https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/resources/fw_site/fw_pdfs/Warhammer_40000/Imperial_Armour_Volume_One.pdf)

The Space Wolves DRAFT FAQ is specific to that Model within the Space Wolves.

Its quite obvious what the case is here - the latest rules are the rules in the Codex.

Otherwise you are opening up Eldar players to use the Old Overpowered Hornet, or Chaos Players to use the Blight Drone where its a Skimmer not a flier... Etc etc

The Rules for the Space Wolf opened up a can of worms for it, but only it. Personally I think its unfair to try to bend the rules to get what you want here.

Also - The title, "Astra Militarum FAQ - does this mean that I can do this?" is misleading. There is no, as of the writing of this, Astra Militarum FAQ

@ Gingerwerewolf. You confuse updated profile and alternative profile.

There was a chimera entry in the previous codex of Imperial guard (2008) and still the 2012 chimera profile from Imperial armor was not "replacing" it.
The FW book offers an alternative profile for the current GW codex. It doesn't matter that the GW codex is being updated. The FW book still offer an alternative profile, as it was doing for the 2008 codex.
For things to change, the Imperial armour itself would have to be updated with the alternative chimera entry being deleted.
That's how an IA book interacts with a GW codex.

Your other examples come from FW books in relation to each other. it's a different case. (It seems clear that the Apocalypse books are being replaced piece by piece by the regular IA, since the difference between apocalypse and non-apocalypse game is disappearing. So IA11 and IA13 do not offer alternative profiles to units that were in the Apocalypse books, but updated ones.)

 RenegadeKorps wrote:
@ Gingerwerewolf. You confuse updated profile and alternative profile.

There was a chimera entry in the previous codex of Imperial guard (2008) and still the 2012 chimera profile from Imperial armor was not "replacing" it.
The FW book offers an alternative profile for the current GW codex. It doesn't matter that the GW codex is being updated. The FW book still offer an alternative profile, as it was doing for the 2008 codex.
For things to change, the Imperial armour itself would have to be updated with the alternative chimera entry being deleted.
That's how an IA book interacts with a GW codex.

Your other examples come from FW books in relation to each other. it's a different case. (It is seems clear that the Apocalypse books are being replace piece by piece by the regular IA, since the difference between apocalypse and non-apocalypse game is disappearing. So IA11 and IA13 do not offer alternative profiles to units that were in the Apocalypse books, but updated ones.)

Yeah this is what I thought as well. They both come from valid source books, and are not the exact same unit as different options are being used. Seeing as how forgeworld stuff like Sicarans are used in my gaming group, I really don't see how I can't take these IA chimeras.

 Naix wrote:

 RenegadeKorps wrote:
@ Gingerwerewolf. You confuse updated profile and alternative profile.

There was a chimera entry in the previous codex of Imperial guard (2008) and still the 2012 chimera profile from Imperial armor was not "replacing" it.
The FW book offers an alternative profile for the current GW codex. It doesn't matter that the GW codex is being updated. The FW book still offer an alternative profile, as it was doing for the 2008 codex.
For things to change, the Imperial armour itself would have to be updated with the alternative chimera entry being deleted.
That's how an IA book interacts with a GW codex.

Your other examples come from FW books in relation to each other. it's a different case. (It is seems clear that the Apocalypse books are being replace piece by piece by the regular IA, since the difference between apocalypse and non-apocalypse game is disappearing. So IA11 and IA13 do not offer alternative profiles to units that were in the Apocalypse books, but updated ones.)

Yeah this is what I thought as well. They both come from valid source books, and are not the exact same unit as different options are being used. Seeing as how forgeworld stuff like Sicarans are used in my gaming group, I really don't see how I can't take these IA chimeras.

If your group use FW models.. You can take IA units, most are able to be taken in an AM list. Some are not, and have 2 different profiles and/or pts, the ones I can think of are, Chimera, Manticore, Hydra, Vendetta etc. Items like the beast hunter shell used by the vanquisher or commissar tank are only available in ABG not AM.

If you intend to take the Chimera variant in the OP, they must be from the ABG.

It says nothing about ABG. According to IA volume 1 second edition, they say: "A chimera armoured transport is a dedicated transport choice for a codex: Imperial Guard army.

Exactly, Naix, it doesn't have to be part of a ABG. The one found on page 64 is like an independent dataslate.

Codex: Astra Militarum

According to IA volume 1 second edition, they say: "A chimera armoured transport is a dedicated transport choice for a codex: Imperial Guard army.

It's an alternative profile to an entry in an outdated codex.

That doesn't make it invalid. The Astra Militarum is just the Imperial Guard renamed. It is the successor codex. No different than if Imperial armour volume II referenced the space marines.

By RAW it technically does. He's just pointing out that some people will be that anal about it.

Again there are many, many reasons for someone to refuse this, so it's good to talk it out with your opponent beforehand. Bringing it to a pick up game just using it straight up like that without telling your opponent will raise a few eyebrows, and when they check your rulebook there will be many, many of these things that he can point to that invalidates any claims you might have. A few words at the beginning can solve all of that.

 Naix wrote:
That doesn't make it invalid. The Astra Militarum is just the Imperial Guard renamed. It is the successor codex. No different than if Imperial armour volume II referenced the space marines.

It's a little different. GW still sells codex: Space Marines


Literally, called Codex Space Marines on the GW US Site, not codex Adeptus Astartes.

I get what you are saying though. Don't get me wrong, I'd actually prefer the cheaper Chimera myself, but some people will object for RAW reasons, to you using an entry from an out of print supplement for another out of print book, just to get a cheaper model.

an out of print supplement

It's not out of print.
https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-JP/Imperial-Armour-Volume-One-Second-Edition-Imperial-Guard
You might say furthermore that it is outdated because it was printed in another edition, but actually the book is effortlessly usable under 7th.

many reasons for someone to refuse this

There is only one, and it is the issue concerning the renamed codex, which is an exceptional case having nothing to do with the use of IA material. I know no opponent and no TO that would refuse to treat any mention of "Imperial Guard" as "Astra militarum", so it's not a problem in my area (we also use ITC rules, and they have made it clear in their FAQ). It may be so self-evident that it is why FW and GW have not said a word about it.

I must concede, Naix, that RAW you must ask your opponent if you can treat mentions of "Imperial guard" as being mentions of "Astra militarum" (but I'd be surprise someone would dare to refuse, though it's not impossible).

The AM codex defines IG as another name for AM. So there is an argument on equivalence.

Inquisition Chimera is still the old profile (fire points and no lasgun arrays) and points even though it has been more recently updated than the Astra Militarum.

A simple couple of questions that can be answered here -

Why do you want to do this? IE What advantage are you getting?

Why do you need to ask us to do it?

I think that if you answer the above questions honestly you will have your own answer.

I think that you already know that it may not go down well, so why are you asking for justification?

This is not about winning the argument on if you can or not, but on if you should try to game the system in this way.

Kenny P and Nosferatu1001 made good points.

@Gingerwerewolf. What are you insinuating?

This is not about winning the argument on if you can or not, but on if you should try to game the system in this way.

Your distinction reminds me of the one between what is legal and what is just. Though I agree the distinction is important on a political level, I don't really see why in this context (=in playing 40K) someone "should not", morally speaking, take advantage of the material available to build the better list and crush the opponent with underpriced units. It's part of the game.

 RenegadeKorps wrote:
Kenny P and Nosferatu1001 made good points.

@Gingerwerewolf. What are you insinuating?

This is not about winning the argument on if you can or not, but on if you should try to game the system in this way.

Your distinction reminds me of the one between what is legal and what is just. Though I agree the distinction is important on a political level, I don't really see why in this context (=in playing 40K) someone "should not", morally speaking, take advantage of the material available to build the better list and crush the opponent with underpriced units. It's part of the game.

Im not aware that Im insinuating anything. Im trying to get people to agree and understand that what the OP is asking is quite obviously a bit dodgy

The thing is, it is quite obvious that this is something that were the book published now it would not contain such a different version of the Chimera. If it was in there at all, it would be the same as the current Chimera in the Astra Millitarum book.

The Rules are plain as day - you should always use the most up to date version of the rules for a unit. This is not an alternative version but and OLD version. Even the latest FAQ says its a no no.

If you are trying to use this, as the OP says, to save points, and gain advantages, when the rules say otherwise - then you are gaming the system. Yes I know that in an era of free Razorbacks and Rhino's that 10 points and a few Fire points isnt going to break the bank, but the answer is Solid. RAW don't use the old FW Rules. A Chimera's latest rule is in the Astra Millitarum book. Hell its also Codex Cadia with the Lasgun Array... Thats another more recent source.

What if I want to use the Trygon from the Anphelion book? In there it is a Gargantuan Creature. Im pretty sure its a lot better than the one in the Tyranid book

There is a subtle distinction. In this case you are taking advantage of the fact that a book has not been retroactively updated - compared to trying to find combos to make a super death star by scouring 3 different sources.

In one case an author has copied the latest rules and now, years later, his copy is coming under scrutiny now that the rules have changed
In the other the author hasnt seen that in a combination with 2 sources units, an amazing Deathstar is born.

This is one of the reasons why still Forge World has such a bad reputation for their rules. Their rules become out of date very quickly, and they dont update their rules nearly quickly enough. Also, to get their models to sell they are grossly underpriced. Why still, lots of Tournaments do not allow FW units.

I think there are some things I said earlier you did not understand, but I will say them again.

The thing is, it is quite obvious that this is something that were the book published now it would not contain such a different version of the Chimera. If it was in there at all, it would be the same as the current Chimera in the Astra Millitarum book.

But when the book was published then, there was already a chimera profile in the Imperial guard codex but still FW published an alternate profile for the chimera.
And they did it again with Imperial armour 13 (2014) where there is an alternate Predator's profile for the Chaos space marine codex (2012). One does not replace the other. Again, you have to understand the difference between alternative profile and updated profile.

Even the latest FAQ says its a no no.

Please send me a link, because I see nothing in the latest FAQ concerning IA1 2nd edition.
https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/resources/fw_site/fw_pdfs/Warhammer_40000/Imperial_Armour_Volume_One.pdf

What if I want to use the Trygon from the Anphelion book? In there it is a Gargantuan Creature. Im pretty sure its a lot better than the one in the Tyranid book

The Trygon's profile you are talking about was in Imperial armour 4 first edition. This book itself has been updated and is no longer valid for that reason, not because of the publication of a Tyrannid codex. In Imperial armour 4 2nd edition (2014), that GMC Trygon's profile has been deleted (though there is still a fluff section about the Trygon on pages 84-85). That's why you cannot play it.

I think FW makes the best looking models available (this does not mean that chinese recaster can't make a better resin cast). So I'm okay with them selling their product at the price they want. And the overpowered units come from GW now, not FW.

 RenegadeKorps wrote:
I think there are some things I said earlier you did not understand, but I will say them again.

But when the book was published then, there was already a chimera profile in the Imperial guard codex but still FW published an alternate profile for the chimera.
And they did it again with Imperial armour 13 (2014) where there is an alternate Predator's profile for the Chaos space marine codex (2012). One does not replace the other. Again, you have to understand the difference between alternative profile and updated profile.

Wait thats exactly what Im saying. So you would Agree were this book published now if it reprinted it, it would be the same as the Current Astra Millitarum book? So we agree? Whats your point?

 RenegadeKorps wrote:
Please send me a link, because I see nothing in the latest FAQ concerning IA1 2nd edition.
https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/resources/fw_site/fw_pdfs/Warhammer_40000/Imperial_Armour_Volume_One.pdf

Even the OP says - its in the Main Rulebook FAQs on the Facebook page. Use the latest Rules

 RenegadeKorps wrote:

The Trygon's profile you are talking about was in Imperial armour 4 first edition. This book itself has been updated and is no longer valid for that reason, not because of the publication of a Tyrannid codex. In Imperial armour 4 2nd edition (2014), that GMC Trygon's profile has been deleted (though there is still a fluff section about the Trygon on pages 84-85). That's why you cannot play it.

Ok fair point. However the fact that it has no rules in the book, by your logic, means that the 1st edition of the books rules are still valid?

 RenegadeKorps wrote:

I think FW makes the best looking models available (this does not mean that chinese recaster can't make a better resin cast). So I'm okay with them selling their product at the price they want. And the overpowered units come from GW now, not FW.

Naaa Single models afrom FW are overpowered, UNITS from GW are overpowered

Wait thats exactly what Im saying. So you would Agree were this book published now if it reprinted it, it would be the same as the Current Astra Millitarum book?

No. On the contrary, I suggested that FW feels very confortable to update its own units without considering the GW version.

I'm saying that in 2012 FW published a different chimera profile for the one already existing since 2008 in the GW codex. As the two were coexisting then, so the two coexist now, and so would they in the future (except in the event that FW update its book and delete altogether the alternative profile). So the two profiles are valid then and now and for ever regardless of how many times GW updates its chimera.

by your logic, means that the 1st edition of the books rules are still valid?

By my logic, the book called ''Imperial armour 4'' has been updated and only the second edition can be used. The old version can be put in a museum (or a garbage).

 RenegadeKorps wrote:

Wait thats exactly what Im saying. So you would Agree were this book published now if it reprinted it, it would be the same as the Current Astra Millitarum book?

No. On the contrary, I suggested that FW feels very confortable to update its own units without considering the GW version.

I'm saying that in 2012 FW published a different chimera profile for the one already existing since 2008 in the GW codex. As the two were coexisting then, so the two coexist now, and so would they in the future (except in the event that FW update its book and delete altogether the alternative profile). So the two profiles are valid then and now and for ever regardless of how many times GW updates its chimera.

Absolute rubbish! Stating that the Forge World Chimera and the Imperial Guard Chimera are different when they share the same model is absolutely rubbish. 1 Model = use the latest rules.

 RenegadeKorps wrote:

by your logic, means that the 1st edition of the books rules are still valid?

By my logic, the book called ''Imperial armour 4'' has been updated and only the second edition can be used. The old version can be put in a museum (or a garbage).

No because following your rules - the Rules have never been updated thus the old rules are still valid. Thats your point. No Update means I can still use them.

Are you trying to Troll me? Is that what this is?

@ Gingerwerewolf: Everyone here knows the OP wants to use the superior rules in the IA book, he's not hiding anything. Which is why we constantly point out either justifications as to why he can do it and possible arguments against why he can't.

@ RenegadeKorps: He's just trying to start a fight where there isn't one.


In the end, there are many reasons for both (although not all people will see it that way) and, again, I would really, really suggest just talking it out with your opponent. If your opponent gives permission, then by all means go ahead. If you didn't talk it over with your opponent, he has every right to be cross with you if it turns out you were using rules different than those he had expected (It is technically his responsibility to check with you too, but this is trivial enough that most normal people would not bother).

The other thing is you'll find that most people will be cool with you for using those kind of rules if you just ask. I certainly would be (I think the current Chimera rules are crap to push the Taurox, whose model I think is crap). If you find someone who violently disagrees with you on this, chances are during the course of the game he's gonna complain about something else too. That is one game that's probably not gonna be a lot of fun to begin with.

Are you going to play Imperial Armor 4 or Astra Militarum?

For that specific detachment containing Imperial Armor 4, you can use the undercosted chimeras.

For the specific detachments not under imperial armor 4, you have to use the regular chimera.

I dont think you can play Astra Militarum and just sneak in IA4 lower cost chimeras.

Please let me know how a judge rules on this question at your flgs or itc tournament.

maybe I should subscribe to your post to see how you break the game with your rules lawyering.

 CadianGateTroll wrote:
Are you going to play Imperial Armor 4 or Astra Militarum?

For that specific detachment containing Imperial Armor 4, you can use the undercosted chimeras.

For the specific detachments not under imperial armor 4, you have to use the regular chimera.

I dont think you can play Astra Militarum and just sneak in IA4 lower cost chimeras.

Please let me know how a judge rules on this question at your flgs or itc tournament.

maybe I should subscribe to your post to see how you break the game with your rules lawyering.

Get a grip. Astra Militarum are one of the least competitive armies out there, autocannon chimeras with more firepoints arent going to break anything. Imperial armour 4 is not being used, I'm not sneaking anything in. I'm using Imperial Armour 1 second edition. It is a valid addition to the ruleset. The chimera in IA1 is no less valid than any other unit in IA1 unless you mean to invalidate the whole book.

Also to address the point, they are not identical units. The autocannon upgrade has never been available to a standalone AM/Guard codex. As for my motivations, it's primarily to be able to use autocannons. Thanks for ascribing various motivations to me btw. TQVM.

I also have no intentions to spring this on anyone. This is just for my usual gaming group, in which we already use forge world models. Not trying to 'sneak' this in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gingerwerewolf wrote:

 RenegadeKorps wrote:

Wait thats exactly what Im saying. So you would Agree were this book published now if it reprinted it, it would be the same as the Current Astra Millitarum book?

No. On the contrary, I suggested that FW feels very confortable to update its own units without considering the GW version.

I'm saying that in 2012 FW published a different chimera profile for the one already existing since 2008 in the GW codex. As the two were coexisting then, so the two coexist now, and so would they in the future (except in the event that FW update its book and delete altogether the alternative profile). So the two profiles are valid then and now and for ever regardless of how many times GW updates its chimera.

Absolute rubbish! Stating that the Forge World Chimera and the Imperial Guard Chimera are different when they share the same model is absolutely rubbish. 1 Model = use the latest rules.

Incorrect. There is a chimera autocannon turret produced by forgeworld.

Absolute rubbish! Stating that the Forge World Chimera and the Imperial Guard Chimera are different when they share the same model is absolutely rubbish. 1 Model = use the latest rules.

At last we found the problem : you don't recognize the concept of alternate profile.

Stating that the Forge World Chimera and the Imperial Guard Chimera are different when they share the same model

Having the same model is irrelevant, especially in this the case of an alternative profile lol. That's the point: same model, two profiles. (There are many example, like the CSM Relic Predator, etc.) Maybe you should stay away from FW material, just sayin'.

No because following your rules - the Rules have never been updated

Books are updated, which upgrades profiles. In the case of that GMC Trygon profile, it has been "updated" to not be part of the game anymore.

@CadianGateTroll

Imperial Armor 4

We are talking of Imperial armor 1, so please...
The first part of this book contains additional units and alternative profiles for Imperial guard/Astra militarum. The second part of the book contains a special detachment.
We are here concerned with the first part of the book, not the second.

Please let me know how a judge rules on this question at your flgs or itc tournament.

In the case of ITC, they allow the alternative weapon choices at least. Same thing for the alternate Manticore profile. So notice that they do not think the alternative FW profile is being altogether cancelled out by the GW publication.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WtVTNc_S7Wwg8np3RaI_uINihEQPIQHEyMxvZ6Jxlwk/pubhtml


My point is only that when a FW book says : "this unit is an x choice for x army", then this unit is an x choice for x army, and can be used as such. If they feel like an Errata is need because of a recent update, they will make one. Otherwise, it stays the same.
I think I have faithfully answer Naix's original question so that he can now feel conformable to use the alternative profile.

Cheers everyone!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for the new name (Astra militarum vs. Imperial guard), many thought the new name for the Eldar codex made the Iyanden supplement unusable because the latter referred to Codex:Eldar, not Codex: Eldar Craftworlds. RAW they seemed to be right. Well, GW said the supplement is still valid.

 Gingerwerewolf wrote:

 RenegadeKorps wrote:

Wait thats exactly what Im saying. So you would Agree were this book published now if it reprinted it, it would be the same as the Current Astra Millitarum book?

No. On the contrary, I suggested that FW feels very confortable to update its own units without considering the GW version.

I'm saying that in 2012 FW published a different chimera profile for the one already existing since 2008 in the GW codex. As the two were coexisting then, so the two coexist now, and so would they in the future (except in the event that FW update its book and delete altogether the alternative profile). So the two profiles are valid then and now and for ever regardless of how many times GW updates its chimera.

Absolute rubbish! Stating that the Forge World Chimera and the Imperial Guard Chimera are different when they share the same model is absolutely rubbish. 1 Model = use the latest rules.

So which rules do I use for my Blood Angels Rhinos, the one in the Blood Angel codex, or the one in the Space Marine Codex (which was released afterwards)? After all they share the same model, and according to you I'm supposed to use the latest rules for that model.