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.

Do we know if the red terror is still legal? It looks like it.

Another monster for my list would make me very happy.

Looks like it's posted on the UK site, but how official does that make it? Is it as official as a rulebook errata/faq? Would it be allowed at Adepticon or the UKGT, for instance?

Email the event organizers.

I'll do that. Those were just examples though. Any data would be helpful.

Why would you think the Red Terror is legal? The old codex isnt legal anymore, and the Red Terror doesnt appear in the new one.

You might as well ask if you can use old codex biovores... hey thats not a bad idea!

Posted By hotflungwok on 09/15/2006 7:51 AM
Why would you think the Red Terror is legal? The old codex isnt legal anymore, and the Red Terror doesnt appear in the new one.

Maybe it's because said special characters are available on online on GW's website.

Because the RT entry is now available seperately on the GW-UK site, along with the Death Leaper and OOE.

This has nothing to do with 3rd ed...


The Death Leaper rules include the line, "These rules are in no way official and you should ask your opponent's permission before fielding the Death Leaper Lictor with these rules." But the other two do not.

So what does that mean?



Who knows...



For tournies, ask the organizer.
For friendlies, I dont' see anyone having a problem with it, but be sure to ask anyway.

As a general rule, if its not in the Codex, ask!

I'll err toward the side of caution and say screw it Init 3 sucks anyway.

It constantly angers me that GW will put rules out and then not stand by them enough to say "hey you can use these." They need to put "TRIAL" as a label on rules that are trial rules, and "OFFICIAL" on official rules, and that is bloody that. None of this 'sometimes legal, sometimes not,' bs.

GW doesn't dictate to tournament organizers as to what's "legal" and what's not. It's up to the tournament organizers to determine what's legal.

Makes sense, considering that GW wrote the rule sin the first place. <_<

For most friendly games, you coudl probably count on using one of the critters.

I'd LOVE to see Old One Eye in a 'Nid army across the table; that means that someone just overpaid for something that will never earn its points back.

Old One Eye that is a model I wish would come back, I mean honestly that damn thing looked nasty and funny at the same time. Plus the thing wouldn't go down, but unfortunately in 4th ed this unit would be a waste of time.

Posted By Longshot on 09/16/2006 1:23 AM
I'll err toward the side of caution and say screw it Init 3 sucks anyway.

It constantly angers me that GW will put rules out and then not stand by them enough to say "hey you can use these." They need to put "TRIAL" as a label on rules that are trial rules, and "OFFICIAL" on official rules, and that is bloody that. None of this 'sometimes legal, sometimes not,' bs.

I think we (the players) are the only ones who do that. If GW publishes a rule and it doesn't say anywhere on it that it is a trial or optional rule, then it's a rule that is used in every game of 40k except for tournaments who can always decide to disallow any rules they want (or make up their own).

But some players don't like certain rules/units so they keep saying: "where does it say its official?"

I'm so tired of it. If a rule is put out by GW for the game we play, then its a rule for the game we play. Why would they need to mark it as "official"?

They need to stamp things as official because they backbpedal and change it all the time. Storm of Chaos is a prime example. First it's 'official forever' then 'official, until, er, people feel like it not being official.' And so forth.

They waffle so much on things like this I would really love to see "OFFICIAL GW TOURNAMENT ARMIES AND RULES" that are the ones they endorse, so that tournament organizers can use that as a guideline. For this tourney season, such and such is legal, and that's it. If you want to ban something in your tourney, that's fine, but don't leave things dangling like SoC, internet rulesets that aren't available everywhere, and so forth.

Maybe that's asking too much, but I think it'd go a long way toward cutting down on the number of 'oh, you can't use that!' incidents that happen at tournaments.

Posted By Longshot on 09/17/2006 7:50 AM
They need to stamp things as official because they backbpedal and change it all the time. Storm of Chaos is a prime example. First it's 'official forever' then 'official, until, er, people feel like it not being official.' And so forth.

They waffle so much on things like this I would really love to see "OFFICIAL GW TOURNAMENT ARMIES AND RULES" that are the ones they endorse, so that tournament organizers can use that as a guideline. For this tourney season, such and such is legal, and that's it. If you want to ban something in your tourney, that's fine, but don't leave things dangling like SoC, internet rulesets that aren't available everywhere, and so forth.

Maybe that's asking too much, but I think it'd go a long way toward cutting down on the number of 'oh, you can't use that!' incidents that happen at tournaments.

The problem with that concept is that GW tournaments are run by different individuals or departments depending on what country they are in, and they use their own rules.

While the Storm of Chaos lists may not be legal for some (or all) GW tournaments, unless the lists themselves say otherwise they would be fully "official" in any pick-up game.

That's the whole point that everyone (including you, it seems) gets stuck on:

TOURNAMENTS DECIDE TO USE WHATEVER RULES/ARMY LISTS THEY WANT. Just because an army list isn't used in the current UK GT doesn't mean the list is any less "official" for pick-up games or in any other tournament (like the US GTs, for example). Rules for the game are rules for the game are rules for the game unless those rules are marked optional or trial.

Forgeworld rules? Yep, rules for the game produced by GW. Rules on the GW site? Yep, rules for the game produced by GW.

Unless any of those rules are marked as trial or optional, they are rules for the game produced by games workshop and are as official as any other rule printed by GW.

Whether or not any tournament decides to use any rule or army list has absolutely no bearing on whether the rule is "official" or not in the greater sense of the word.

I'm with you Yakface,

What more do we need? Even if GW revoke the rule in the future, so what. We just change with it. It's not like they keep printing reems of up to date errata is it?

Im a pre-law student and I have to say there are only two things that are ever so vague in life, interpretation of the United States Constitution, and by a vast gap, coming in at number two would be the 40k rulebook.

Honestly Yakface, I have never thought of it that way which I have to say is very fresh for the rules debates. I also believe very much that GW needs to pickup on the rules in their game. For example, they need to universalize their words for certain things (like the famed Furious Charge vs. Furious Assault, man was THAT fun for rules lawyers).

The key thing is that GW should use language that is consistent, this might be boring, it might be non unique, but it certaintly makes for easier rules itnerpretation. For example, the inability to snipe opponents, and people running in to pickup a gun from a heavy guy, its mixed with fluff. I must say that fluff is fun, its very fun to read. But mixing it WITH rules makes rules interpretation very hard. I know that the GW makers like to add in a whole lot of story, and fluff and stuff like that. BUt at some times this just seems inappropriate at times, especially when interlaced with the rules.

If a consistent format were used throughout the book then this would very simply be a decidedly smaller rules debate forum. Another great thing would be if they clearcly marked exceptions to a rule which would help us understand the framers intent behind writing a rule. Saying things like "EXCEPTION" Necron's can single out a unit with their barrage weapon, and may target IC's. Rather than forcing us to figure out these rules. or "NOTE" All units may only have one kind of backpack on them (thus eliminating tech marines with jump packs). Also "NOTE" When riding a bike, turbocharging does not negate the existance of the riders normal armor.

These sorts of things would make life MUCH easier