Tau Empire Codex 2013 | Army Builder Program
Dark Angels Codex 2013
Chaos Daemons Codex 2013
Chaos Space Marines Codex 2012

Warhammer 40k Forum Tau Online


Warhammer 40K Forum

Imperial Armour
Old 07 Dec 2007, 09:06   #1 (permalink)
Kroot Warrior
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: That little bit of land just above england known only to me and the Jawas as Scotland
Posts: 25
Send a message via MSN to the doctor
Default Imperial Armour

Are the imperial armour books' models legal to use in a normal games of 40K (the reason i ask is that apoc unit (land raider terminus, baneblade etc) technically cant be used in normal games (as per the apoc book rule) so can you use the baneblade in normal games but use the IA rules?) also can flyers be used ina normal games, they ar ein IA and apoc aswell
the doctor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07 Dec 2007, 09:32   #2 (permalink)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Manchester - UK
Posts: 666
Default Re: Imperial Armour

Yes, but you need your opponents permission first.

IA was designed to be used in 40k
Originally Posted by †Methelas†
Originally Posted by Kai
Originally Posted by †Methelas†
The Titan is not a human, therefore has no genitals!
My subtle diagram disagrees with you.
your "subtle" diagram contains Optimus Prime and Proffessor Farnsworth, it's heresy in it's own right!
Any similarities between your reality and mine are purely coincidental...
Kai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07 Dec 2007, 22:48   #3 (permalink)
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: West Los Angeles
Posts: 481
Default Re: Imperial Armour

Last time I checked (quite a while ago), the super-heavies require being in their own Force Organization Chart as well.
Hunt your preferred prey at Aliens vs Predator: The MUD (http://avpmud.com/)
Or play right now by pointing your MUD client or Telnet at "avpmud.com 4000"
Maine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08 Dec 2007, 02:33   #4 (permalink)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 8,194
Send a message via AIM to Vash113 Send a message via Yahoo to Vash113
Default Re: Imperial Armour

Most super heavies do indeed require their own detatchment.

However as for using them in games of 40k IA units need opponents permission but have been designed with 40ks rules in mind. However Apocalypse units can be used as well if your opponent agrees, that isn't what they were designed for but I imagine more people have access to the Apocalypse rules than they do the IA rules and to avoid confusion using one set might be the best way to go as long as all players involved agree and it would probably be a good idea to make sure both sides are using a super heavy of some sort.

After all if your going to be spending the money on a super heavy, even the new and cheaper Baneblade, you might as well use it.

Vash113 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11 Dec 2007, 15:33   #5 (permalink)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: Imperial Armour

The way it works now is Forge World have released an Imperial Armour Apocalypse book. This has a huge selection of their models (all current 40k stock that i can see that isn't in GWs apoc book) as datasheets. Plus it has some new formations to field.

So for apocalypse you now use this book.

So what about the old Imperial Armour books?
You can still use these, and the rules inside in normal 40k games. However as mentioned most super heavies need to be fielded as a 2nd detachment, so you're looking at over 2500pts... n

Now you have to ask yourself is there any point in AI 40k games when you can play Apoc at 3000pts? I think the answer is yes there is a point. AI 40k rules are based on 6x4 tables. For instance the hierophant in IA4 moves 6" and assaults 6". Which is fine for a 6x4 board. In apocalypse it moves 12 and can fleet 2D6 and assault 6" so it has to be played on at least 8x6" board.

But its not just the table size problem that gives AI 40k an edge over apoc, its also the fact that the rules are more detailled in AI. For instance the trygon in AI4 has detailled rules about deepstriking into enemy units and engaging them n combat straight away. The apoc rules for the trygon found in AI Apoc book just uses the deepstrike rules (ie. destroyed if lands on an enemy model). This is to scale up the game. In apoc you should be looking at fielding 3 trygons. Where as AI 40k 1 trygon is enough to do its job. AI4 also uses mass point rules to represent the toughness of the nids. Where as apoc has removed the mass points to speed things up.

If you want to play big games, you have the space and you're not fussed about winning, play apoc. Its fun.

If you want to play more competitive 2500pt+ games with multiple detachments which adhere to FOC rules, with lots of detail and special rules, and you like things to be more balanced play AI 40k.

Me?... I'll be playing apocalypse from now on.
Gareth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 Dec 2007, 15:06   #6 (permalink)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: On the Midnight Ocean
Posts: 26,404
Send a message via MSN to Wargamer
Default Re: Imperial Armour

That was a bullshit assessment.

If you wanted a "competitive" 3,000 point army, Forgeworld is the last place you go! Forgeworld has always been about fielding really awesome units. More often than not, Forgeworld vehicles are overpriced for what they do (although later vehicles do seem to have reasonable price tags...). You don't take a Promethius to get some sort of "tactical edge", because a Crusader does everything it can, and more, and more efficiently, for less cost. Why do you take a Prometheus then? Because it is the sexiest Land Raider model you can buy.

If you want a competitive game, play Apocalypse. If you want something that will visually dominate the tabletop, but will be more than fair Rulewise, use Imperial Armour, and don't play as Tyranids. :
Farewell, Kangaroo Joe, you shall not be forgotten.

Originally Posted by Tom Norman
"Wargamer is never wrong, Frodo Baggins; he knows precisely the rules he means to."
Wargamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 Dec 2007, 15:14   #7 (permalink)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: Imperial Armour

But the models are the same in Apoc or IA. So playing imperial armour rules just because the models will "visually dominate" is a shit assessment.
Gareth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 Dec 2007, 15:28   #8 (permalink)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 742
Default Re: Imperial Armour

I for one like the IA40k rules much better then the Apoc rules. I understand the streamlined assessment and I agree with it. Still the old books did the units much more justice. Also as Wargamer stated, IA units aren't necessarily used in competitive environments. They're simply available if you're playing a large game and you want a great and different model.

In an open setting where anyone can sign up for a huge megabattle (my store had a 30 person one last year with close to 4000 points per person) Force Org Charts are nice to stop those 13 year old kids from bringing Six Crusaders against an Ork player. IA40k is nice in that your points level can still be high, restrictions are still in place, and yet you can still use characterful units.

Apoc is all about having fun, but at lower level Apoc games (3000 per side) I'd much rather use the old IA rules...
Exokan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 Dec 2007, 15:35   #9 (permalink)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Behind you
Posts: 19,399
Send a message via MSN to ForbiddenKnowledge
Default Re: Imperial Armour

Originally Posted by Gareth
But the models are the same in Apoc or IA. So playing imperial armour rules just because the models will "visually dominate" is a shit assessment.
I would imagine he means in a normal 40k game, you might see one FW model, which will visually dominate. But in Apoc, when each side has more baneblades than they do fingers, its a whole lot less impressive.

I wish the Apoc rules had been better thought out. As it stands, most stuff is vastly, sickeningly underpointed for what it can do, which is fine in a Baneblade vs baneblade way, but if you only have regular stuff, then you're getting the short end of the stick. The stuff that isn't has just gotten "streamlined" (read: Removal of anything characterful) and boring.

IA rules are by far better written, and only complicated to a 3 year old. GW would have been wise to use normal FW rules for them, and add in the funky turn/deployment and assets parts :

Apoc is all about having fun, but at lower level Apoc games (3000 per side) I'd much rather use the old IA rules...
Once you have played a basic Apoc game at 3k per side, you can clearly see it is not meant for that, it is meant for around 10-12k a side.
[quote]Thou shalt not crave thy neighbour

Originally Posted by Tim.
Rafe is damn sexy once he gets into his night attire.
ForbiddenKnowledge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 Dec 2007, 15:46   #10 (permalink)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: Imperial Armour

Very interesting points guys. I think everyone is right in their own way and it shows that the 40k game is fragmenting into different areas with different rules and different approaches, its all a little too grey atm....

Remember 3rd addition trial assault rules? Before a game you had to agree which set of rules you were playing. Either rulebook or trial assault rules. I'm seeing the same thing for 40k, but instead of variations for core rules, its variations on models... The FW AI Tyranid Rules are different to the Apoc rules. The AI Apoc rules for hellstrikes, are different to the GW Apoc book hellstrikes. GW apoc book trygon says use AI4, but the trygon in AI Apoc is different... all of a sudden we have messy situations...
Gareth is offline   Reply With Quote


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Imperial Armour? EmblazonedMauveGearbox Imperial Guard 2 20 Mar 2007 12:06
Imperial Armour and You Shasel_Aunat Tau 20 02 Oct 2006 22:01
Imperial Armour Delvaurius General 40K 7 09 Nov 2005 17:44
Old imperial armour 1? Master Lytaing Imperial Guard 5 16 Aug 2005 12:18
Imperial Armour Pazifist Tau 1 19 May 2005 20:34