PDA

View Full Version : On the Leagality of some armies...



Obake123
08-01-2012, 19:38
It's easy to tell which Codexes and armies are "current", by which I mean they are the most modern version of their rules and therefore invalidate the previous sets of rules that may have come before.

For example, the Present Chaos Marine Codex, bland and uninspiing as it may be, clearly trumps the set of rules that was in teh 3.5 Codex.

What I would like to know is how the advance of Codexes impacts on armies that never get updated and are consigned to history.

Genestealer Cult Army for example. This was a genuine list which hasn't been preperly represented in the last two Tyranid Codexes. Since these sets of rules don't actually replace the Cult rulset with anything else, doesn't that make the 3rd Edition rule set the most recent and therefore most valid for this army.

Obviously some rules will have change and some flexibility on the part of an oponant may be necessary, but still...

Other armies that Spring to mind would be the Lost and the Damned and Feral Ork armies. How about Alpha Legion or any of the other Chaos Legions? THe specific rulesets for those were not updated in the new dex. Doesn't that make them the latest sets available. I'm sure those more familiar with the history of GW could list one or two more.

My question (at last) is this: To what extent would you consider thse rules viable? And would you consider playing against them in a 5th Edition settting?

Ok, that's two questions, but you get what I'm driving at!

Fawful
08-01-2012, 19:44
As far as legal goes, I'd say that every codex you can currently buy from GW is legal. This means that Genestealer cults and such are no longer tournament or GW store legal. Just like for example the squats. This doesn't mean that you couldn't just amend the rules from these books and make a custom list. If you use them unmodified you will most likely struggle against modern codexi.

As far as actually playing goes, discuss it with your opponent first. The same goes for all the forgeworld lists (sadly).

Lord Zarkov
08-01-2012, 20:22
The rule of thumb for rulesets that add to another one (like the IA Legion rules, or LATD) is that they're invalidated by a change in their base army (unless otherwise stated).

So the Legion rules were overwritten by 3.5 Ed C:CSM (which did in fact have it's own Legion rules) for Chaos, and 4th & 5th Ed C:SM for Loyalists.

LATD were overwitten by 4th Ed C:CSM and 4th & 5th Ed C:IG, etc

druchii
08-01-2012, 20:23
As far as actually playing goes, discuss it with your opponent first. The same goes for all the forgeworld lists (sadly).

This isn't actually different from anything else in 40k, though.

Remember no one is forced to play you or your army, and essentially can "veto" anything. The key is to find people have similarly open minds about what they will and will not play.

That being said, pretty much every codex/army list that obviously references older editions (like Lost and the Damned and Genestealer cults) is pretty open for "yeah, no thanks." Which I find completely different from a lot of FW armies/units (I mean besides the Hades Breaching Drill...).

d

Hrw-Amen
08-01-2012, 20:32
I really don't see this as an issue. I mean they are lists/codexs(ices) written and issued/sold by GW/FW at some point. Therefore they are legitimate at the time they are sold.

The whole thing with W40K or any other GW system is that it is a game with which you are supposed to have fun with your friends and/or like minded people. So really as long as you and the people you play against are having fun with whichever rule set or book you are playing then that is fine.

bildo
08-01-2012, 20:34
i would still count the sisters codex as store legal, the white dwarf versions are terrible, like everyone ignored the existance of the warriors of chaos white dwarf list that was out till the current army book

Radium
08-01-2012, 20:47
My question (at last) is this: To what extent would you consider thse rules viable? And would you consider playing against them in a 5th Edition settting?


They are as viable as you and your opponent are willing to make them work. I would certainly consider playing against them, but our group uses FW rules and lots of custom stuff as well. It just depends on what your opponents are like, and what they feel is okay in a game. Serious tournament players won't like the idea, but beer-and-pretzel players might be more open to it.

Egaeus
08-01-2012, 22:08
My question (at last) is this: To what extent would you consider thse rules viable? And would you consider playing against them in a 5th Edition settting?

I think the nature of the particular ruleset and it's source is going to determine is "viability". That is, if a particular army list relies on certain mechanics that no longer exist or function as they did previously then things can be problematic.

I believe that the willingness of a player to play against such a list is going to depend heavily on the nature of the request. That is, if a player wants to play this kind of list because they think it will be something fun and different then it will probably be received much better than if the perception is that the player is doing it to exploit some kind of loophole(s) in the rules.

As some of the other posters have mentioned you can do whatever you want in a game...it's meant to be played for fun. Although from a player's perspective the idea that one is using the "most current and official" rules means a more consistent game (I don't want to use the word balanced because I don't think this is always the case) with fewer headaches from conflicting or confusing rules.

Wishing
08-01-2012, 22:50
From the point of view of "is this army list likely to be allowed in a tournament?" (since this is the only context in which "legality" actually has any meaning), I agree with Fawful that an army list is only considered current and thus "legal" if it is currently available for purchase from the shelf of a GW store (an exception being WD interim lists like the sisters one, being the most recent one and thus current even if that WD issue is not available). If a list is only available in a discontinued publication, then it can be considered no longer current, even if it has never been replaced by anything.

Charistoph
09-01-2012, 01:44
From the point of view of "is this army list likely to be allowed in a tournament?" (since this is the only context in which "legality" actually has any meaning), I agree with Fawful that an army list is only considered current and thus "legal" if it is currently available for purchase from the shelf of a GW store (an exception being WD interim lists like the sisters one, being the most recent one and thus current even if that WD issue is not available). If a list is only available in a discontinued publication, then it can be considered no longer current, even if it has never been replaced by anything.

Under this standard, Dark Eldar would have been illegal till recently. All their product had been pulled for a considerable time, as had the codex. I do believe it was available for custom order, though.

Born Again
09-01-2012, 02:03
If we say that Genestealer Cult lists are still ok to use as they haven't been replaced by another Genestealer Cult list, Space Marine players could still be using Codex: Ultramarines (hasn't been another Ultramarine codex) and have vehicles with armour values in the 20's.

solkan
09-01-2012, 04:30
Under this standard, Dark Eldar would have been illegal till recently. All their product had been pulled for a considerable time, as had the codex. I do believe it was available for custom order, though.

Given the state of the codex at the time, that would have been merciful. It wasn't that much better than the PDF codices since trying to win with it basically meant you had to ignore two thirds of the units.

hazmiter
09-01-2012, 05:23
I still have the eye of terror codex, Damn the gw for getting rid of the wulfen squads.

Surgency
09-01-2012, 07:09
i would still count the sisters codex as store legal, the white dwarf versions are terrible, like everyone ignored the existance of the warriors of chaos white dwarf list that was out till the current army book

Thats funny, because around here its pretty common knowledge that the local sisters player has a tough as nails army. Then again, he runs 3 exorcists, Celestine, and 8 rhino mounted melta squads

hazmiter
09-01-2012, 07:49
Oo Wtf, I've never come across that sisters build, I came across the priest, flagelant, repentia build

Chem-Dog
09-01-2012, 08:15
In all cases I'd much rather adopt a close-fit codex and run a "counts as" list. That way I can avoid all the problems associated with wonky costing, useless rules or equipment and general incompatibility across the editions.

hazmiter
09-01-2012, 08:18
I tried bringing the eye of terror list into the new rules system, but epicaly failed to do so, which means no traitor guard.

Still Standing
09-01-2012, 08:28
Oo Wtf, I've never come across that sisters build, I came across the priest, flagelant, repentia build

That's not a build, that's what you get when you sneeze on an army list.

Wishing
09-01-2012, 08:43
Under this standard, Dark Eldar would have been illegal till recently. All their product had been pulled for a considerable time, as had the codex. I do believe it was available for custom order, though.

That's quite interesting, I didn't know that. I hope, as you say, that it would still be available through mail order, otherwise it really starts to get confusing. If an army's books and miniatures are totally discontinued and not available except second-hand, then it makes no sense to consider it as part of the current game, since new players have no direct way of starting that army. It would be just like the Ultramarines codex mentioned above. I guess you can make an allowance for a small gap period before an update, where a new player might be told "this army isn't available right now, but will be very soon as it is getting a new release".

I guess another way to look at it is that there is no logical way of determining which army lists are currently legal or not, and you just have to try and gauge the general consensus in GW circles and any relevant tournaments.

Still Standing
09-01-2012, 08:46
Well Codex Witch Hunters was pulled a long time ago, and the current WD book is not available to buy either. Does that make them not useable?

Wishing
09-01-2012, 10:59
If you were replying to me, then I specifically mentioned the sisters WD list in my original reply.

Leftenant Gashrog
09-01-2012, 15:33
If we say that Genestealer Cult lists are still ok to use as they haven't been replaced by another Genestealer Cult list, Space Marine players could still be using Codex: Ultramarines (hasn't been another Ultramarine codex) and have vehicles with armour values in the 20's.

That's just silly. Codex: Ultramarines may have been the last codex to have the word Ultramarines on the cover but it certainly isn't the last codex to have complete rules for fielding an Ultramarine force, the same can not be said for Genestealer Cults. Not to mention the fact he did specify the 3rd edition Genestealer Cult rules, there is a massive difference between allowing rules written for the 'current' ruleset vs allowing ones that weren't.

LSWSjr
14-01-2012, 12:20
I've talked to people about this a lot over the years and the opinion I've come to is, unless a Codex with the same name replaces it or GW says so, then it's still legal (also only 3rd Edition onwards for the person who mentioned Codex: Ultramarines, same goes for Codex: Angels of Death).

These include army addon variants or list which can be used but require the current Codices to use and may suffer for it, including: Codex: Armagedon, Codex: Eye of Terror, Codex: Craftworld Eldar, Codex: Catachans, Chapter Approved: Feral Orks, Chapter Approved: Mechanised Guard, Chapter Approved: Tyranid Seeding Swamps, Chapter Approved: Lost and the Damned, etc

They also include Codices who have been replaced by a new Codex, but the new Codex has a different name, such as: Codex: Daemonhunters and Codex: Tau. Sadly Codex: Sisters of Battle 5th in White Dwarf doesn't count as one of these as the Codex article specifically states that it replaces Codex: Witch Hunters.

Lastly there's the stand alone Codex that has never been replaced, Codex: Assassins, which was acknowledged by GW as being separate from Codex: Daemonhunters and Codex: Witch Hunters... meaning you only had to field an Inquisitor to have an Assassin if your army was also using Daemonhunter or Witchhunter allies and an Assassin, otherwise you could use Codex: Assassins without issues. Also according to Codex: Assassins, Sisters of Battle armies built using the recent White Dwarf articles can legally field an Assassin.

KarlPedder
14-01-2012, 15:24
This is why I don't build armies using variant lists I can be fairly certain wont get continued support. It's why as much as I love Kroot I never seriously considered building an army using the WD mercs list and I'm glad I didn't.

But then I fall into almost the complete opposite category to LSWjr, way I see it all those 3rd ed sub armies became obsolete as soon as the 4th/5th ed version of the core codex they were based on was released. And people who try to claim that Daemonhunters is still valid make me want to punch them in the throat......

Indeed I'd say it was the in need of throat punching people that are the reason that it was so explicitly stated that the SOB WD dex replaced Witchhunters....

The Death of Reason
14-01-2012, 15:45
That's just silly. Codex: Ultramarines may have been the last codex to have the word Ultramarines on the cover but it certainly isn't the last codex to have complete rules for fielding an Ultramarine force, the same can not be said for Genestealer Cults. Not to mention the fact he did specify the 3rd edition Genestealer Cult rules, there is a massive difference between allowing rules written for the 'current' ruleset vs allowing ones that weren't.

So untill recently, you denied playing against DE, Daemon-/Witchhunters and Necrons because they had 3rd ed. codexes that just weren't compatible with the current rules..? :D Heck, Tyranids aren't compatible with the current rules, and they were 'written for them' :rolleyes:

Playing 40K with a competitive 'rules-lawyery' mindset like this can only lead to frustration. The rules are written the day before deadline on some pub lavatory, they're subsequently FAQ'ed numerous times, as some random errand boy (or member of GW legal) is forced to decipher the unintelligible gibberish and guess what the whole point was in the first place - usually this results in even more head shaking from us customers, as we scramble for some evidence that the rules should make for balanced games, so we can name ourselves great generals.

Instead..

Play 40K with a carefree attitude, enjoy it as a chance to parade your little toys around, and only use the outcome of the game to determine who buys the first round at the pub afterwards.

-

In short.. I'd never deny anyone to field some 'outdated' army list, instead I'd rather encourage it, and the variety it makes for. And should it prove unbalanced in the way that it takes fun from the game, then thats what house/tournament rules are for :)

Vipoid
14-01-2012, 17:09
My question (at last) is this: To what extent would you consider thse rules viable? And would you consider playing against them in a 5th Edition settting?


As others have said, I think the actual viability of a particular codex will depend on its ruleset. If it's using ancient mechanics that no longer exist, than it will be troublesome.

However, if one of my friends really wanted to use a genestealer cult or somesuch, I'd certainly be willing to give it a try, and help them update the ruleset where necessary.

Dpending on the codex in question, it might be easier to replace some or all of the units with similar ones from newer codices, rather than trying to use outdated stats and rulesets.

Buddha777
14-01-2012, 18:28
As others have said, I think the actual viability of a particular codex will depend on its ruleset. If it's using ancient mechanics that no longer exist, than it will be troublesome.

This is a major sticking point for me and why I wouldn't play someone not using the most current codex.

Take the 3.5 chaos dex. Nothing overpowered anymore about someone playing it but it has so many mechanics (minor psychic powers for instance) that just don't mesh with current 5th rules. I'm sorry but you must use the new chaos dex, no matter how much you want to use those awesomely converted Alpha Legion cultists.

It sucks when GW changes rules and models but that's the nature of the game. Sorry, if the WD sister of battle is awful it's simply too bad, that's the current rules. Just pray to the God Emperor you get a better dex soon (cough Tyranids cough).

Charistoph
14-01-2012, 18:36
I couldn't agree more for general tournament matches, or if time is limited and you can only have a quick game.

But for a friendly game where we talked about it before hand, I have no problem with it, and would even welcome it as a change of pace. I keep hearing about how people are bored over the game or their codex sucks, or every game is the same, etc, and usually these are the first people who refuse to change things up a little outside of the tournament when the game is purely for fun.

If nothing else, these situations are great for when you head to a tournament right after a new codex comes out and it hasn't been disected by the internet "know-it-alls". You face an army that you know the basics of, but many of the details have been changed.

LSWSjr
14-01-2012, 19:25
But then I fall into almost the complete opposite category to LSWjr, way I see it all those 3rd ed sub armies became obsolete as soon as the 4th/5th ed version of the core codex they were based on was released. And people who try to claim that Daemonhunters is still valid make me want to punch them in the throat......

*Covers throat*

Now taking the portion of the above quote I made bold, look at it this way then, Codex: Daemonhunters is a Codex about fielding an Ordo Malleus Inquisitorial force with generally lots of Grey Knight support, on the other hand Codex: Grey Knights is a Codex about fielding a Grey Knight force with a small amount of generic Inquisitorial support.

They're the opposite thing and to insist that Codex: Grey Knights is a logical evolution of the former is absurd, it would be like comparing a team of AFL players with a few former NRL players versus a team of NRL players with a few players from AFL, Cricket and Soccer.

Still Standing
14-01-2012, 19:38
LSWSjr might want to edit that Codex: Daemonhunters to Codex: Grey Knights before somebody tries to pick you up on it.

LSWSjr
14-01-2012, 20:25
LSWSjr might want to edit that Codex: Daemonhunters to Codex: Grey Knights before somebody tries to pick you up on it.

Done and thank you.

Dryaktylus
14-01-2012, 20:34
So untill recently, you denied playing against DE, Daemon-/Witchhunters and Necrons because they had 3rd ed. codexes that just weren't compatible with the current rules..?

No, he meant something different: 3rd edition rules (i.e. codices/army lists - you listed a few) are/were compatible with 4th or 5th. Codex Ultramarines was 2nd edition, the (official) list for GSC 3rd - so this comparison was indeed silly.

Noobie2k7
14-01-2012, 20:38
I'd happily play someone that wanted to use some old list that;s mostly forgot about as it's refreshing and a great change of pace. So long as their not just using an old codex of anything that's been directly updated. Like trying to use a 3rd ed tyranid codex just cause the new one sucks. But if they want to run some old lists then tis cool with me. As soon as i have the money to support more than 1 army i'm going to start on a little chaos renegades list from IA 9-10.

Leftenant Gashrog
14-01-2012, 22:52
So untill recently, you denied playing against DE, Daemon-/Witchhunters and Necrons because they had 3rd ed. codexes that just weren't compatible with the current rules..? :D


Also a silly comment. Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition was not followed by 4th edition but by the well named "3.5 edition", it would have been perfectly fitting for GW to have done the same with 40k 4th & 5th edition. Those codicies may have been left behind by codex creep and relegated to direct sales but all of them were still available and officially endorsed by GW right up until being replaced, unlike the 2nd edition codices which were all removed from sale the minute 3rd edition hit the shelves due to the complete incompatibility with the new rules.

But hey if someone seriously wants to field a force from Codex Ultramarines under the current rules I'd happily let them, how they expect to win with 30pt Space Marines who can't fire their guns because they aren't defined under the modern rules.. (no 'rapid fire' or 'assault' for guns in pre-3rd edition, not to mention Plasma Weapons, Heavy & Storm Bolters etc calling for the use of dice GW no longer sell and whose use it not covered by 3rd, 4th or 5th edition rulebooks..)

addendum: incase anyone is confused by the "2nd edition" on the cover of most Dark Eldar codices that refers to the codex itself not the edition it was released for.

hazmiter
15-01-2012, 05:03
Is say if someone wants to play alpha legion cultists, then let them use the stats line from eye of chaos codex.
And on that topic, eye of terror has a horrifying unit in it!!!
*gasp* space wolf dc, the wulfen....... Is it wrong of me to want to see Ba dc and wulfen have at it.......... It would be a death match......

KarlPedder
15-01-2012, 07:12
*Covers throat*

Now taking the portion of the above quote I made bold, look at it this way then, Codex: Daemonhunters is a Codex about fielding an Ordo Malleus Inquisitorial force with generally lots of Grey Knight support, on the other hand Codex: Grey Knights is a Codex about fielding a Grey Knight force with a small amount of generic Inquisitorial support.

Perhaps the issue here is I'm not an imperial player I don't think every tiny little fluff faction that has ever existed needs it's own army list and while not perfect the GK list can through using Corteaz feild a viable Inq list not exactly the same but hell existing armies often get invalidated to some extent or the other when they get a codex update just because they changed the name to GK doesn't make Daemonhunters some kind of special snowflake.

In the context of the current rules set Daemonhunters is a freaking nightmare with it's allies and such pulled from armies that have both been updated at least once since Daemonhunters was released.

lantzkev
15-01-2012, 07:42
(no 'rapid fire' or 'assault' for guns in pre-3rd edition, not to mention Plasma Weapons, Heavy & Storm Bolters etc calling for the use of dice GW no longer sell and whose use it not covered by 3rd, 4th or 5th edition rulebooks..)

I've still got them if you really need em, and one of the distance artillary die is still included in the dice cube GW sells.

GrimZAG
16-01-2012, 05:36
aaaahhhh Feral Orks... What happened to you? Where did you go?

Lyonator
16-01-2012, 05:45
Eye of Terror got the axe just as soon as I'd finished collecting my 'Furnteef Kumpanee"
and had converted most of it.
(13th company counts-as. Orks in power armor, squigs for wolves... )
cough*AnyonefromGWreadingthis?Bringthemback*cough

hazmiter
16-01-2012, 06:25
@lyonator, I'd totally go for bring back the spacewolves 13th great company, in all its hairy glory.
Best thing was that the wulfen looked awesome.

Noobie2k7
16-01-2012, 06:35
It's all about the Ulthwe effectively being able to field infinite warlocks so long as you have enough points :P