|
|
Post by Welsh Paul on May 11, 2012 4:53:51 GMT -5
I have a 2nd edition Witch Hunters codex which contains the "Allies" rule, allowing certain units from that codex to fight in an Imperial army.
Is this still allowed? I know that you are supposed to use the most recent codex for any rules, but this *is* the most recent Witch Hunters' codex; the Inquisition/Grey Knights are not Witch Hunters...
|
|
|
|
Post by RedsandRoyals on May 11, 2012 4:57:20 GMT -5
For friendly play, you'd have to ask your opponent to use the old codecies. Most of the time, though, I think you're out of luck. Allies got dropped from the GK codex, and Sisters don't have a codex, so it looks like you'll have to stick to Apoc to field IG and =I= units side by side.
Reds
|
|
|
|
Post by Welsh Paul on May 11, 2012 5:29:35 GMT -5
This is exactly my point - the GK codex is NOT a Witch Hunters codex. Ergo, isn't the 2nd edition still the most recent Witch Hunters' codex until GW deem fit to write a new one?
|
|
Pyrotechnics
Captain
Let the promethium burn it to a cinder!
Posts: 238
|
Post by Pyrotechnics on May 11, 2012 6:23:17 GMT -5
That is...an interesting point. I'd say it's still best to clear it with your opponent to avoid possible drama, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by RedsandRoyals on May 11, 2012 6:39:57 GMT -5
This is exactly my point - the GK codex is NOT a Witch Hunters codex. Ergo, isn't the 2nd edition still the most recent Witch Hunters' codex until GW deem fit to write a new one? Some might argue that the WD supplement GW spat out is the new Sisters codex. I think it's a piece of garbage, not a codex, but that's just me. Reds |
|
|
|
Post by Welsh Paul on May 11, 2012 6:55:15 GMT -5
That is...an interesting point. I'd say it's still best to clear it with your opponent to avoid possible drama, though. Indeed. The only reason I want to use it is to make use of an Assassin in games as my Elites slots are rarely filled and I think that it would add an interesting dimension to a DKoK army. |
|
|
|
Post by krasimirova on May 11, 2012 8:32:26 GMT -5
Not saying anything bad about you here Welsh..
So it is just to get access to the assassins that you wanna use the outdated rules..? That might be a problem for many people..
You'd be using the old assassin rules, not the updated ones in the GK codex right..?
DKoK has never had the option to be used as allies..
GW made a downloadable pdf of the witchhunters codex, in which they removed the allies section completly.. This was 1 of the reasons the leafblower build got changed, since now you couldn't have the dual mystic build anymore..
So IG has just as big a "right" to use allies as tau has to use tyranids or Chaos space marines have to use Grey Knight allies..
But if you play a friendly game and you both agree that you can bring any unit from any codex you want, i'd say it is 100% possible..
|
|
|
|
Post by Welsh Paul on May 11, 2012 8:57:18 GMT -5
GW made a downloadable pdf of the witchhunters codex, in which they removed the allies section completly.. This was 1 of the reasons the leafblower build got changed, since now you couldn't have the dual mystic build anymore.. Do you have a link? All I can find is the 2011 Sisters' FAQ. |
|
|
|
Post by krasimirova on May 11, 2012 10:29:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by WestRider on May 11, 2012 10:51:18 GMT -5
And, regardless of how much it sucks, that document does officially replace the Witch Hunters Codex. Allies are House Rules Only in 40K at this point, so if you can get your Opponents to agree, go for it, but don't expect it to fly in random pickup Games or Tournaments.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gerner on May 11, 2012 13:52:49 GMT -5
The version Krasimirova linked is outdated when they published the 5th edition in a white dwarf some months back.
There was no allies in that either.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pax Urbis Pax Imperi on May 11, 2012 15:13:24 GMT -5
I heard Allies will be allowed in 6th Edition. Personally, I seriously hope not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paimon on May 11, 2012 15:17:54 GMT -5
Why?
|
|
|
|
Post by RedsandRoyals on May 11, 2012 15:33:35 GMT -5
Because there's some game breaking potential when you pair up different faction. For example, if I recall correctly, Gzazghull's Special Rule 'Prophet of the WAAAAGH' makes ALL allied units fearless, as written. Not just Orks. Trust me here, I have three major armies and three minor ones that aren't really tabletop legal, and I've spent some time considering how to make some seriously nasty combinations on the table top if I ever get to throw them down in Apoc. Reds |
|
|
|
Post by Paimon on May 11, 2012 15:40:22 GMT -5
I see...
|
|
|
|
Post by krasimirova on May 11, 2012 15:50:48 GMT -5
The version Krasimirova linked is outdated when they published the 5th edition in a white dwarf some months back. There was no allies in that either. Yep.. But it is the last "Witch hunters Codex".. |
|
|
|
Post by Ymmot (M.I.A) on May 11, 2012 17:15:26 GMT -5
Because there's some game breaking potential when you pair up different faction. For example, if I recall correctly, Gzazghull's Special Rule 'Prophet of the WAAAAGH' makes ALL allied units fearless, as written. Not just Orks. Trust me here, I have three major armies and three minor ones that aren't really tabletop legal, and I've spent some time considering how to make some seriously nasty combinations on the table top if I ever get to throw them down in Apoc. Reds until it gets FAQed to state that it only works on orks like it logically should... but maybe it will be really broken and ruin the tournament scene and ultra competitive scene forever...huh, wouldn't that be nice...then the narrative gamers and the beer and pretzel types can go about posting whatever sort of army lists they want without getting flamed on the internet. Yeah right, that will never happen. |
|
|
|
Post by Peter Cooman on May 11, 2012 18:14:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by egon on May 12, 2012 4:44:00 GMT -5
Personally I'm not completly against allies, or at least not a few allied units.
For example, I loved the fact that you used to have the ability include a certain number of Kroot Mercenary units in most armies or that even the Guard could include Assassins and Deathwatch Killteams. It's just very fluffy.
To me, being able to include a small unit that is relativly good at what it's doing is not a gamebreaker for me. Having you guard army lead by an Inquisitor with his retinue or hiring a bunch of kroots to help in the jungle warfare or being assigned a Killteam when hunting a particularly dangerous Xeno foe is just cool.
It also gives you the ability to individualize your army quite a bit. Not just the same boring stuff over and over again. I would love to see something of the following:
"Any guard army may include ONE of the following units:
1 Deathwatch Killteam of 5-10 marines (rules on website)
1 Inquisitor Lord with retinue (rules on website)
1 of the following Kroot units (list of kroot units available, rules on website)
1 unit of Assassins. These are bought as a unit but may be deployed and played as seperate characters (1-3 Assassins, rules on website)
The attached units only follow their own special rules and special rules or abilities or wargear that benefits the parent army does NOT benefit the allied squad. So no bonus for regimental standards for Assassins, Inquisitors can't outflank with al'Raheem."
Might be a bit fiddly since you have to write all the seperate special rules, wargear sections and stuff for each allied unit but I'm one of those that remember the good old days when you could have 11 men Veteran squads, highly customized Last Chancers, lasguns for sergeants and more or less anyone could buy wargear.
After all, when it comes down to it, ONE squad of Deathwatch Marines or and Inq. with retinue isn't going to save a guard army if the rest of it (including the player) sucks.
|
|
|
|
Post by RedsandRoyals on May 12, 2012 11:05:54 GMT -5
I think Egon is exactly right. A limited deployment of specific unit types would be the perfect way to handle this. I actually wouldn't object to seeing the FOC modified to having an "Allies" slot, with a 0-1 or 0-2 cap, and each codex specifying what allies they could take.
I think the tricky part might be factions that don't particularly have any sort of allies they could reliably call on, such as Orks or DE. Perhaps they'd have the option to increase the FOC cap on their elites or fast attack or whatever instead? The two real dangers I can see are A) letting people just mash whatever units they want together, and B) determining allies based on fluff written by Ward.
Reds
|
|
|
|
Post by krasimirova on May 12, 2012 14:14:34 GMT -5
Draigo, 10 paladins with feel no pain and fully wound allocated, Allied with Eldar and with fortune cast on them.. Good fun right there..  |
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on May 13, 2012 10:53:40 GMT -5
Deathstrike missile, Vortex warhead. Orr... Commissar Sebastien Yarrick: Points: 500 WS: 10 BS: 5 S: D T: 4 I: 2 W: 7 A: 6 Ld: 10 Sv: 4+ Weapons: Claw, Bale Eye, Storm Bolter with Thunderbolt ammunition, frag grenades. Special Rules: Eternal Warrior, Preferred Enemy, Deep Strike. Implacable advance: Yarrick is an old, old man, and while the years have done nothing more than harden his bones, lengthen his teeth and grizzle his features, they have also left him with a determination to never hurry the neccesary business of killing his enemies. As such, Yarrick may never run. Unstoppable: Every time Yarrick takes a wound, roll a D6. On a 3+, he ignores the wound. In addition, if Yarrick should ever lose his last wound he destroys the planet, place him on his side. Continue rolling, once per turn, until a 3+ is rolled and Yarrick stands back up, screaming bloody defiance and leading a glorious charge. In addition, no attack may ever remove more than one wound from Yarrick. C'Tan, Vortex Grenade, Force Weapon - no. The C'Tan fears Yarrick too much, Yarrick will simply tear his way back into reality, and any attempt to rend his soul from his body is likely to reduce the planet you are standing on into a cloud of very hot gas, with a very annoyed Imperial Commissar standing in the middle of it. "In the grim darkness of the Far Future, there is Commissar Yarrick...": If Yarrick is on the field, all Imperial Guard units gain stubborn. In addition, so abjectly terrifiying and imposing is Yarrick's reputation, that all enemy units lose the following special rules: And They Shall Know no Fear, Stubborn, Fearless. Son of Ares: Whenever Yarrick charges, all friendly units on the field may re-roll failed to Hit rolls in close combat. Thunderbolt rounds: Thunderbolt bolts are special-issue for all Grammar Gestapo personel. As such, Yarrick has won several hundred thousand of these in heavy wagering with Rolling Thunder. Thunderfire rounds have AP1 and may re-roll failed to wound rolls. Old Man of War: All successful wounds against Yarrick must be re-rolled. "Damn you Thunder!": If both Rolling Thunder and Commissar Yarrick are on the field, then, for every unit killed by one, the other will gain an additional attack, as they attempt to outdo one another by means of escalating feats of inhuman violence and abject destruction. Bale Eye: Rng: 12" S: 6 AP2 Assault D6 |
|
|
|
Post by krasimirova on May 13, 2012 13:36:09 GMT -5
Legal units in regular 40K...
Ofcause you can make uber units that break the game, which is what happens most of the time when people start making their own units..
We are talking about allies here, and the potential combinations that might break the game..
|
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on May 13, 2012 14:08:53 GMT -5
Ofcause you can make uber units that break the game, which is what happens most of the time when people start making their own units.. I was assuming we were playing Apoc in this scenario. |
|
|
|
Post by RedsandRoyals on May 13, 2012 14:13:14 GMT -5
Ofcause you can make uber units that break the game, which is what happens most of the time when people start making their own units.. I was assuming we were playing Apoc in this scenario. Not necessarily, if Allies are included in 6th Ed. Reds |
|
Be my mirror, my sword and shield, My missionaries in a foreign field 
