Joewavridr Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 So don't know if this is the right forum for this question but here goes anyway. I want to create my own DA successor chapter but I don't want the restrictions of the DW and RW per se. Is this okay or should a successor follow the same codex rules as the parent chapter? Meaning can I use C:SM or do I need to use DA codex? I think I've got an initial breakdown for my force with both but I like the fact that I can use veterans that are not in TDA from C:SM instead of having to field DW. Some help would be greatly appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Anders Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 You can deploy company vets from all the normal "green-wing" companies. And I believe it doesn't matter as long as you say what codex you're using. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother-Librarian Hesperos Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 I would say, if it has nothing to do with the fluff use whichever codex you like. If fluff is important to you, I would say it depends on their stance with The Unforgiven. If they are chummy and in the know I would use C:DA, if they don't know their past I would use C:SM My two cents Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grotsmasha Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Which 'restrictions' are you referring too? Are they fluff or codex restrictions? Cheers, Jono Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joewavridr Posted October 5, 2012 Author Share Posted October 5, 2012 It's more of a fluff issue as I am unsure if all the Unforgiven field their 1st Companies the same as DA. Do successor's also only field their 1st Companies in only TDA and are their 2nd Companies all like the RW? It's really the whole only field TDA for 1st Company that I'm having an issues with I would like to field 1st Company Vets in PA when I choose to but the fluff and codex rules seem to prevent that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jehoel Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 I think that having the 1st company able to deploy in PA as needed would be well within reason. TDA is rather big, after all, and sometimes you just need to get into a tighter spot than TDA would allow. Just because the 1st company has access to TDA doesn't mean that they don't have access to PA. Everyone just remembers when TDA hits the ground more than when PA does. Edit: spelling errors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grotsmasha Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 It's more of a fluff issue as I am unsure if all the Unforgiven field their 1st Companies the same as DA. Do successor's also only field their 1st Companies in only TDA and are their 2nd Companies all like the RW? It's really the whole only field TDA for 1st Company that I'm having an issues with I would like to field 1st Company Vets in PA when I choose to but the fluff and codex rules seem to prevent that. Ahhhhh, ok. From a fluff perspective not all DA successors follow the DA Organisation. For example, my DIY, The Heralds of Devastation have a 1st Company that is the Death and Ravenwing combined with the 2nd Company being another battle company. As far as Codexs go, if you specifically want the Stern/Vanguard options take C:SM, but C:DA has Company Vets (that for your DIY could represent 1st Co.) that are Sternguard without special ammo AND/OR Vanguard without jumppacks. But the most important thing I can suggest is hold off on a decision for the moment, the new C:DA is rumoured to be on our doorstep. Cheers, Jono Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joewavridr Posted October 5, 2012 Author Share Posted October 5, 2012 Okay thanks I will hold off on any decisions on which codex to use while still developing my chapter of Unforgiven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.