• Please note: In an effort to ensure that all of our users feel welcome on our forums, we’ve updated our forum rules. You can review the updated rules here: http://forums.wolflair.com/showthread.php?t=5528.

    If a fellow Community member is not following the forum rules, please report the post by clicking the Report button (the red yield sign on the left) located on every post. This will notify the moderators directly. If you have any questions about these new rules, please contact support@wolflair.com.

    - The Lone Wolf Development Team

[40K] Catachan units in IG armies

  • Thread starter Thread starter shawn at electricstitch.c
  • Start date Start date
S

shawn at electricstitch.c

Guest
Colen,

Using datafiles 2.30 I noticed the following issue with Imperial Guard.

Codex: Catachan says, "Catachan Command platoons may include 0-2 Assault
teams..."

Also it says, "Some Catachan units can be upgraded to Deathworld Veterans."

Also, "Any Catachan unit or character may be upgraded to a Deathworld
Veteran..."

I take this as meaning the IG army can take units as Catachan's. (If you
used Valahallan models, they'd be Valahallans). These Catachan units >may<
be upgraded to Deathworld Veterans.

With that said, the 2.30 datafile won't allow any Assault teams unless the
'Commander' is upgraded to Deathworld Veterans. The only requirement in the
codex is that they are Catachan's, not Deathworld Veterans. (I read this as
you should be using 'Catachan' models for the command platoon and not
another type (cadians, valahallans, etc.)

If I am wrong, please let me know otherwise it'd be great to fix this in
future datafiles. (a simple "catachan" check box would be enough or just let
it go unrestricted).

As always, thanks for all your hard work with programming the datafiles.

-Shawn
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Shawn Campbell [mailto:shawn@electricstitch.com]
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 12:34 PM
To: ab@support.wolflair.com
Subject: [AB] [40K] Catachan units in IG armies

Colen,

Using datafiles 2.30 I noticed the following issue with Imperial Guard.

Codex: Catachan says, "Catachan Command platoons may include 0-2 Assault
teams..."

Also it says, "Some Catachan units can be upgraded to Deathworld Veterans."

Also, "Any Catachan unit or character may be upgraded to a Deathworld
Veteran..."

I take this as meaning the IG army can take units as Catachan's. (If you
used Valahallan models, they'd be Valahallans). These Catachan units >may<
be upgraded to Deathworld Veterans.

With that said, the 2.30 datafile won't allow any Assault teams unless the
'Commander' is upgraded to Deathworld Veterans. The only requirement in the
codex is that they are Catachan's, not Deathworld Veterans. (I read this as
you should be using 'Catachan' models for the command platoon and not
another type (cadians, valahallans, etc.)

The model is not what counts, it is the codex from which you use the rules.
Simply using a catachan model for your commander in your normal IG army,
does not mean that you are allowed to take units of Catachans. However, if
you are saying that the book simply states that the models must be a
catachan model, then the 'catachan' units that you take also must just be
the model and you should continue to use the normal rules for the IG. Just
use the models. =]

Hope that helps.
TP


If I am wrong, please let me know otherwise it'd be great to fix this in
future datafiles. (a simple "catachan" check box would be enough or just let
it go unrestricted).

As always, thanks for all your hard work with programming the datafiles.

-Shawn




To unsubscribe from this group, email

armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 
From: "DiPonio" <DiPonio@voyager.net>

> The model is not what counts, it is the codex from which you use the
rules.

You'd have to read Codex: Catachans.

> Simply using a catachan model for your commander in your normal IG army,
> does not mean that you are allowed to take units of Catachans.

The Catachan Codex specifically has rules for taking Catachan units in a
normal IG army. Any unit can be made into a Catachan unit for free. The
Catachan unit may be upgraded to Deathworld Veterans for +3 pts.

> However, if
> you are saying that the book simply states that the models must be a
> catachan model,

It doesn't say that you have to use "Catachan" models, but I couldn't think
of any other way of "modeling" the fact that they are Catachans other than
using Catachan models

> then the 'catachan' units that you take also must just be
> the model and you should continue to use the normal rules for the IG.

A "Catachan" Command Platoon is allowed to take 0-2 Assault Teams from
Codex: Catachans. The Datafiles only allow the 0-2 assault teams if you
upgrade the "Catachan" command platoon to a "Deathworld Veteran" command
platoon. According to the Codex, they only have to be "Catachan" and not
"Deathworld Veterans."
 
At 09:33 13/08/2001 -0700, you wrote:
>Colen,
>
>Using datafiles 2.30 I noticed the following issue with Imperial Guard.
>
>Codex: Catachan says, "Catachan Command platoons may include 0-2 Assault
>teams..."
>
>Also it says, "Some Catachan units can be upgraded to Deathworld Veterans."
>
>Also, "Any Catachan unit or character may be upgraded to a Deathworld
>Veteran..."
>
>I take this as meaning the IG army can take units as Catachan's. (If you
>used Valahallan models, they'd be Valahallans). These Catachan units >may<
>be upgraded to Deathworld Veterans.

Indeed, hence the 'Deathworld Veteran' option on every Imperial Guard unit.

>With that said, the 2.30 datafile won't allow any Assault teams unless the
>'Commander' is upgraded to Deathworld Veterans. The only requirement in the
>codex is that they are Catachan's, not Deathworld Veterans. (I read this as
>you should be using 'Catachan' models for the command platoon and not
>another type (cadians, valahallans, etc.)
>
>If I am wrong, please let me know otherwise it'd be great to fix this in
>future datafiles. (a simple "catachan" check box would be enough or just let
>it go unrestricted).

Hmm, fair point.


--
Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister, demandred@skrill.org
http://www.skrill.org/, http://www.incompetence-central.co.uk/
1 = 2, for large values of 1.
 
Back
Top