The differences between the codex and the IA book

[HackedDuck]

So i am just starting a guard army after considering playing them or dark Angels (I decided guard because I don't like heretics ;) ). Anyway I was looking through the codex when I saw some stuff going on about the forge world stuff so I looked up the book and immediately saw some changes from the origanal codex. (I'm not talking about the armoured battleground here). For example in the IA book chimeras have the option to take an autocannon or a twin linked heavy bolter over the multilaser, however they lose the lasgun arrays and I think some of the upgrades are more expensive. So which one do I use? Are there any other changes I missed or changes to other units?

[Bryan Blaire]

Whatever book you decide to build that detachment of your army from must all use the same book. For example, if I build a detachment and I use the FW army list, the entire detachment must be built using that list, I can't swap in even the same named stuff from a different army list for that detachment.

[WarriorFish]

The IA books are older than the codex, but you use whichever one you have so to speak. It's a bit difficult due to the age of the FW books but there is cross over, usually in the form of buying a unit the issue is generally when it's a unit that already exists in the Guard codex. I don't use the FW books for Guard so I'm sure someone else can provide some more detail, but my understanding is that there isn't that much of note these days. Mostly hear about Chimera autocannons and the Vanquisher with the co-axial I think.

 

Oh, and welcome to the Guard Duck :tu:

[HackedDuck]

Whatever book you decide to build that detachment of your army from must all use the same book. For example, if I build a detachment and I use the FW army list, the entire detachment must be built using that list, I can't swap in even the same named stuff from a different army list for that detachment.

I'm not talking about the separate army list the bit I'm talking about is to the front end of the book where it gives more units to use for the guard codex

 

For example for the chimera it says "the chimera is a dedicated transport for a codex:imperial guard army"

[ThatOneMarshal]

Well considering that GW just ruled that the lyanden supplement can be used with the new eldar book shows that you can use forgeworld stuff. Lyanden was written for codex: eldar but there's only codex: craft world eldar.

[Bryan Blaire]

So first, like always, discuss it with your opponent.

 

Second, I would make sure when I'm making my selections, I'm only using the one consistent entry from one book when building my army list. So in your example, the Chimeras for the entire army would only be either from C:AM or the IA book.

[WarriorFish]

Indeed, opponents would have every reason to be miffed if you cherry picked - if you take FW units then you should do so consistently. That goes a long way to helping and it's never a bad idea to be considerate when you're straying from the road somewhat.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Worth noting that Chimeras in IA are a good bit cheaper than in the Codex. Personally, what we did locally when we played 40K was take the Chimera from the Codex at the higher Codex cost, then allow the Autocannon as a 5pt upgrade. Seemed pretty fair to us.

 

For the other units such as Medusas, Hydra Turrets, etc we just took them in their respective slots as if they were a Codex unit. It's an expansion, same as IA3 for the Tau which doesn't have any Army List in it. The Army List in the IA book is pretty much specifically for running an Armoured Company. IIRC if you want stuff like Command Tanks, Co-Ax weapons and alternate shells, you still need to take that list as a Detachment.

[Ldorte]

I don't get the stigma around forgeworld stuff anymore, in a world where an Eldar player can take a Wraithknight for 290 ish points (which has a close combat D weapon and can run 3d6 in the shooting phase meaning it will kill most tanks in close combat in one turn, even superheavies.) and i have to pay 305 points for something as semi functional as a Malcador Defender with the lascannon sponsons upgrades why should we have to bend a knee to other armies over something as silly as autocannon turrets on chimera's (which are semi functional at best with bs3 anyway).

Nothing in that book is particularly powerful for the ridiculous points cost you have to pay for most of it and as such I would just do what you want (within reason) until Gamesworkshop can be bothered to fix the mess they have created.

I would say take this approach opponent by opponent though, if you are going up against someone who you know is going to field something reasonable and is a reasonable player themselves then discuss your army with them, what the forgeworld units do and what changes they make and hopefully reach a compromise. However if you come across someone like i did on saturday, who had decided that a fun list for everyone would be 2 normal knights and a Mechanicum Cerastus Knight-Atrapos and a Cerastus Knight-Lancer at an 850pts doubles tournament (although not as bad as the people who brought 2 warhounds with them) then by all means do as you please as at that point they have dug their own grave.

In short, if your opponent is nice and reasonable, be reasonable. If your opponent is one of those people who likes to field the most powerful combination of units regardless of how game breaking it is, do as you please as they will show you no quarter (although i would like to point out that we managed to table the team with four knights )

[Emicus]

The "FW stigma" as you call it is simple. There's strong-weak models in various books and factions. Marines might have strong characters where guard has access to cheap obsec that just wont die (completely) - by smashing those together you get an army that's stronger than the sum of it's parts. By mixing in FW you have a larger pool of strong units to choose from, and thus more able to create an even stronger roster.

​Malcador isn't great, no, but who takes Wraithknights when you can have FW Skathach Wraithknights instead? Or why take a Conclave to (mathematically) ensure Invisibility when you can just take Sevrin Loth? Perhaps an experimental Riptide (XV107 R'verna/XV109 Y'vahra) on crack is more up your alley?

"Unit X is nice, but Y from Forgeworld is so much better there's no point in taking X". It's those units that people don't like, the ones who amp the power level even further. If you decide to take terribad FW units that hamper yourself, people won't complain - but it's generally assumed you won't.

[Ldorte]

The forgeworld stigma only exists because people see the word "forgeworld" and cry but you have to look at each unit subjectively, I understand people getting upset about broken or overpowered units but not everything in the various forgeworld books is broken. There's a difference between fielding a 55pt salamander in a guard army because you like the look of the tank and taking some crazy tau battlesuit in a tau army.

 

I'm not arguing for overpowered units (or even against), just that people look beyond "it's forgeworld therefore it is pay to win".

[Emicus]

Easier to "ban" things wholesale than doing the work to create an entirely new 'value' system to work in conjunction with points (since points obviously doesn't work properly).

​Just look at Unbound, it's hated like the plague and that's at least in-house, not boutique models shipped (for most people) halfway across the globe from Ol' England for exorbitant sums.

​Edit: and no, I don't "cry" when I see the word Forgeworld, thankfully I'm not that broken.​ If you like the look of a unit I suggest you talk with your mates, use it as a proxy for a Codex model - problem solved. However if it's the *rules* you want, then you can get into the whole debate on whether it's good/bad/FW is overpowered/whatever to justify why it's OK.

Also perhaps ask yourself, if it's the rules and not the model, if "FW is better" actually applies...

[WarriorFish]

Emicus nails it, and it's important to remember that the people that think this aren't necessarily wrong for it. How many people select FW units because they are better, or fill a niche? That's almost the reason FW bits exist, aside from the cosmetic modelling stuff.

Like most things it comes down to intent, and how that intent is interpreted (arguably the latter being more important). The best thing to do is to talk things over with your opponent and most should be fine once they realise that you're not taking these units just because they're "better" - when there's a knee jerk reaction to something education is always the best solution

[Ldorte]

Easier to "ban" things wholesale than doing the work to create an entirely new 'value' system to work in conjunction with points (since points obviously doesn't work properly).

 

​Just look at Unbound, it's hated like the plague and that's at least in-house, not boutique models shipped (for most people) halfway across the globe from Ol' England for exorbitant sums.

Interestingly enough whilst at the tournament over the weekend we were discussing with an eldar player an alternative system they apparently use in some of the tournaments in France whereupon each tier of points values for armies (500,1000,1500,2000 etc) is assigned a set number of monstrosity points so 2 for 500 and 6 for 1500 for example. Different types of unit monstrous creatures, gargantuan creatures, super heavies, super heavy walkers etc are assigned a monstrosity value (so 6 for a gargantuan creatures for example) thereby limiting what can be taken in lists without affecting the current points system and bringing the game more in line with what it used to be. I would love to see something like that over here.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Eh. I have yet to find anything in FW's selection that's worse than the Codices, but then I haven't played 40K in most of a year now because the game is a mess. IMO, comparing Codices in 40K is like having an Ork Beauty Contest. Yes you can do it, but the selection is just going to be various shades of awful.

[Emicus]

You may be interested in a system called Community Comp, an Australian system that does just that. I don't like it myself, but many people swear by it.

[Ldorte]

You may be interested in a system called Community Comp, an Australian system that does just that. I don't like it myself, but many people swear by it.

Thanks, looks interesting.

[duz_]

Community comp systems are no fun.

You're better off with wholesale bans as the decisions are arbitrary and rarely is the whole system revised to consider new codexes.

 

Currently community comp penalises guard for taking squadrons of wyvrens (but not multiplesure of) as well as having 3+ Leman russes?

 

Last time I had more points with a tank based list than a friends riptide tau list....

[WarriorFish]

I agree, I've only ever seen comp systems that replace one set if imbalance with another. More to the point, I've never seen one that didn't have biases depending on what armies the author plays... Better to go all or nothing so at least everyone is operating at the same level, such as it is.

[Ulrik_Ironfist]

I'll weigh in on this. So, I've seen people get their knickers in a twist about proxying. If you don't have it you can't use it. They're the same ones who get antsy when you don't play WYSIWYG. If you do anything that deviates from "Core" WH40K, they get their skivvies knotted and cry. Because it means you're going outside the box to find units that you like and want to use.

 

I like the Vulture, and own 2, because for my playstyle, it works better than the Valkyrie, or the Vendetta (no wasted troop capacity).

 

The Myth that FW is pay to win is baseless. The in game cost of FW's most expensive thing, the Warlord Titan, is 4k points at it's most effective. If you're opponent fields it, you can theoretically put 4k on the table, and it will be more than he can kill in 7 turns. FW Titans look cool, but outside of really cheesy games, campaign scenarios, or Apoc games, you'll never see it fielded, which will be 98% of the time. Also, when you think about it, FW's IA books are woefully behind the pace of the current codecies,and in most cases are still operating on 5E points and balance, which is mostly poop in 7E.

 

I don't play tournaments, because that's where fun goes to die (for me). I play to have fun, not to compete. I don't care if my models win painting competitions, I don't care if I'm better at it than others. I want to stand around a dang table and play army men with my friends.