Guest Posted September 16, 2014 Report Share Posted September 16, 2014 A bit confused on the book's explanation of factions on page 118. It's pretty clear no more than 1 faction per detachment, but I'm having trouble getting a clear list of the factions, or just a clear definition of the faction concept. It does seem to hint that newer publications will be more clear on the faction concept, but that doesn't help me much. There is even a list of symbols with codex names on page 118, and no caption or reference in the paragraph to conclude if it's a pretty picture or if that's supposed to be the list of factions... In particular, I'm looking to see if I need an IG detachment to include my baneblade in normal play. As I read it, IG are no longer a faction, and this isn't addressed in the escalation supplement or it's FAQ. My MT, on the other hand, remain unclear if they are a faction of their own, or a secondary codex for the AM's faction. The allies section (page 126) seems to attempt to convey the information that should be defined in the faction rules, but seems to imply this is only the faction as it relates to allies. Use of a baneblade within the same detachment doesn't really apply to the ally rules, because the baneblade's inclusion is part of the same CAD. It goes on to further confuse things, by suggesting and then contradicting itself, that all the armies of the imperium are a single faction. I don't own the current AM codex and the IG codex isn't in use at present. I do own a bane blade and have a MT army. I also have a SM/DA army. Can this be my lord of war for a CAD of one of these armies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted September 16, 2014 Report Share Posted September 16, 2014 The terms Astra Militarum and Imperial Guard are used somewhat interchangeably in the AM Dex. I would extend that to older publications that are still valid as well, so the Baneblade can only be included in an AM CAD. The MT Codex clearly states that everything in it has the MT Faction on pg. 61. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 16, 2014 Report Share Posted September 16, 2014 The terms Astra Militarum and Imperial Guard are used somewhat interchangeably in the AM Dex. I would extend that to older publications that are still valid as well, so the Baneblade can only be included in an AM CAD. The MT Codex clearly states that everything in it has the MT Faction on pg. 61. So, either I build an AM CAD, or I can't field my baneblade? Really wish lords of war were their own detachment. I take it this means that orks can't include baneblades either... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted September 16, 2014 Report Share Posted September 16, 2014 At this point, LoW are only available as a slot in single-Faction Detachments, yes. If you want a Battle-Forged Army, you're going to have to take a CAD with the appropriate Faction or one of the Faction-specific Detachments for the appropriate Faction that includes a LoW slot. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 16, 2014 Report Share Posted September 16, 2014 At this point, LoW are only available as a slot in single-Faction Detachments, yes. If you want a Battle-Forged Army, you're going to have to take a CAD with the appropriate Faction or one of the Faction-specific Detachments for the appropriate Faction that includes a LoW slot. Alright, thanks. I suppose the other option is unbound... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonVilkee Posted September 16, 2014 Report Share Posted September 16, 2014 Embrace the unbound fun! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justjokin Posted September 17, 2014 Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 What a mess this game has become... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonVilkee Posted September 17, 2014 Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 No more of a mess than it has ever been... 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted September 17, 2014 Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 Yeah, seriously, no worse than 3rd edition. At least you don't have to remember multiple versions of the main rules and choose one before a game/event (I'm looking at you trial assault rules). 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justjokin Posted September 17, 2014 Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 I guess I'm just a little out of frame for that level of experience. I was introduced at 4th and enjoyed 5th and 6th... and 7th, as long as everybody pretended it was 6th.... 7th mechanics with a recognizable army list. I'll play. I'll roll my dice. I'll do my best with my list. But as far as having a clue on what is going on for the other side of the table... well I suppose the possibilities are unbound. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted September 17, 2014 Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 But as far as having a clue on what is going on for the other side of the table... well I suppose the possibilities are unbound. This has always been the biggest hurdle for 40k (except for a small amount of time at the beginning of 3rd): knowing your opponent's army. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 17, 2014 Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 This has always been the biggest hurdle for 40k (except for a small amount of time at the beginning of 3rd): knowing your opponent's army. 5th wasn't too bad for this, as you really only needed to own each codex (even just as a PDF). Owning them was cheaper and their was much less in the way of supplements for normal play. 6th and 7th have too many supplements. I'm constantly amazed how allowed supplements are in normal play, as opposed to the WD content of 3rd and 4th edition, which was often banned in events/casual play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busbina Posted September 17, 2014 Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 I ran an unbound list the other day. It wasn't super min-maxed, just a chaos list with out having to pay a cultist\nurgling tax. Worked really well, ObjSec is kinda over rated, being able to move fast and focus your fire is more important in maelstrom missions. I'm sure there are ways to abuse unbound, but none seem to be any worse than things you can do in a normal list. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonVilkee Posted September 17, 2014 Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 Yes busbina! So much yes! If someone abusess unbound they will abuse any restrictions with in an inch of their lives anyway! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted September 17, 2014 Report Share Posted September 17, 2014 5th wasn't too bad for this, as you really only needed to own each codex (even just as a PDF). Owning them was cheaper and their was much less in the way of supplements for normal play. 6th and 7th have too many supplements. I'm constantly amazed how allowed supplements are in normal play, as opposed to the WD content of 3rd and 4th edition, which was often banned in events/casual play. I don't know where you were playing, but WD was common place on the east coast during 3rd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 18, 2014 Report Share Posted September 18, 2014 I don't know where you were playing, but WD was common place on the east coast during 3rd. For third and forth, I was at bridgetown hobbies, Rainyday Games, and then WOW - Ordos Fanaticus players used to be much more strict with list building and were very opposed to spammy lists, min/max, and to use of special characters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.