Hero's of the Imperium- Elite assassin

[Lord_Tiamat]

I was recently reading the back of the 3rd edition rulebook, and i found out that i could include certain aspects into my space marine army. One of these units, was an Elite unit choice, the Imperial Assassin. Reading up, i found out i could include him in any space marine army, and he was looking as a valuble option. But i also heard that i can only have it in a witch hunter or Dameon Hunter army, and i already made up my mind that my army would be just a standard space rine army, and that if i do decide to choose an assassin, i have to use the 110 point on in the Daemon hunter codex? What do i do???

[wing5wong]

to use an assasin you will have to purchese an inquisito from the daemon hunters/witch hunters codex, then purchase an assassin.

[Sir Guppy]

well they never actually said that you cant take them from codex assassins still.

[ThirdDanScoota]

The 3rd ED rulebook is now outdated, sorry to say. Any rules regarding army lists are invalid and cannot be used. The Codecies have the info you need, and in this case, it is the Daemonhunters or Witchhunters Codecies, like Wing5wong stated.

[Mon£y]

as there is no replacement Codex: Assasins yet then you can still use the existing one. This states: assassins can be used in any spacemarine, imperial guard or sisters of battle army (wichhunters is a new army but is a replacement of sisters of battle) and thier codex uses them and counts as an elite choice. You may only have one assasin in your army.

Cost:

Vinicare: 110pts
Callidus: 120pts
Eversor: 95pts
Culexus: 105pts

[Mon£y]

Darkangles or any army that uses the 'We stand alone' trait can not use an assasin though

[ThirdDanScoota]

I'm curious, just how did you come to this conclusion? As i see it, the replacements are Daemonhunters and Witchhunters. The 3rd Edition rulebook is out of date in all regards to those lists. There is no Codex for Heroes of the Imperium because the above mentioned Codecies ARE it, i mean, just take a look at them - they both incorperate the HotE "special additional units", only they now have updated rules.

[LordSigmund]

yeah, there are new rules for assassins in the inquisitorial codices, therefore the previously printed rules in codex: assassins is outdated according to GW's rules, you cant use those rules

[ThirdDanScoota]

*Initiates victory dance*.. Oh, right sorry. Anyway, the easiest clue is, that the rules have been updated in the above mentioned Codecies, and therefore overule the old ones. Besides, the 3rd Edition rulebook is old and mouldy.

[Sir Guppy]

i still havnt seen anywhere it says you cant take assassins from codex assassins. just because the codexes happen to share the same troops doesnt mean they can no longer be taken from one. if it was another codex - ie a second codex assassins then ok but these are differnt forces.

anyway its not really much of a problem anymore as hardly anyone still has codex assassins. i personally dont like the rule of having to have an inqusitior just means you end up with some crap character in your force who is little better than a guard colonel.

[wing5wong]

ya but the inquisitor only cost 20 points... and he can be half decent

[Voyager_I]

sorry, 'fraid you'll have to go by the most recent rules for them.

[Dante]

GW decrees Codex Deamonhunter's rules for assassins have replace Codex:assassins.

(This was said before witch hunters was released)

[Wynter]

I love the vindicare Assassin, Ill be taking a shitty Inquisitor for him

[ThirdDanScoota]

Inquisitors are quite decent, but are great because of their retinue, Wynter. One of the most versitile units there are. Period.

[Sir Guppy]

i still hate inquisitors and this assassin rule, means you have to use by 2 elite choices or a HQ and an elite.

[Brother Wolf]

Well, I agree in that I loved only paying 110 to bring my Vindicare with my IG forces and being done with it. However the new rules are what they are. W/ Space Marines, bringing an Inquisitor Lord might seem lame, (you have to bring a lord because as an ally you can only take 1 elite. Since the assassin is an elite and you MUST have an inquisitor to take him, that means you must also take a lord and his minimum 3 henchmen), as an addition to an IG force, the Inquisitor is MUCH better than some Commissar who will bust a Lt for failing his Ld roll. So, you get a Character assault boost as well as bringing your favorite flavor of Assassin. I already have my Dawmonhunters inquisitor and henchmen read to go. Now I just need to tget that snazzy witchhunter Inquisitor with the plasmangun and sweet trench coat.

I mean, the Lord w/ BP+PW, an Acolyte, a Warrior and a Sage is only 89pts. Add the Vindicare at 110 and you get an unstoppable sniper as well as a WS5 BS5 W4 character to send to the forefront of battle for the bargain price of 199pts.

[cfoley]

A lot of people are saying Codex assassins can't be used because GW has said Daemonhunters makes it out of date. Could someone tell me where? I do read most of the stuff GW publishes. I must have missed it.

[Brother Wolf]

Well, DH has been out for a long time and WH since then. In private games, you can do whatever you like. But if a new codex comes out, it supercedes any existing codicies or rules for Tournament play.

Codex: Assassins is technically no longer tournament legal and as such cannot be used in santioned play. If you're curious as to which Codicies are legal, check ou the FAQ's on the website and check for which ones are still for sale. This is the current list direct from GW:

UPDATE: Several FAQs that relate to Space Marines have been updated to take advantage of the material in the new Codex: Space Marines. These new FAQs are labeled as Version 4.1, and they replace their respective Version 4.0.1 documents. Note that only four of the FAQs were replaced, so Version 4.0.1 will be the latest version for the majority of FAQs below. Please check the list carefully to make sure you have the latest version of the documents you need.

Codex: Armageddon FAQ 4.1 (210 KB)
Codex: Eye of Terror FAQ 4.0.1 (186 KB)
Codex: Blood Angels FAQ 4.1 (500 KB)
Codex: Imperial Guard FAQ 4.0.1 (183 KB)
Codex Battlezone: Cityfight FAQ 4.0.1 (298 KB)
Codex: Necrons FAQ 4.0.1 (465 KB)
Codex: Chaos Space Marines FAQ 4.0.1 (471 KB)
Codex: Orks FAQ 4.0.1 (578 KB)
Codex: Daemonhunters FAQ 4.0.1 (186 KB)
Codex: Space Wolves FAQ 4.1 (630 KB)
Codex: Dark Angels FAQ 4.1 (640 KB)
Codex: Tau FAQ 4.0.1 (183 KB)
Codex: Dark Eldar FAQ 4.0.1 (182 KB)
Codex: Tyranids FAQ 4.0.1 (318 KB)
Codex: Eldar FAQ 4.0.1 (183 KB)
Codex: Witch Hunters FAQ 4.0.1 (270 KB)

Auxilliary codicies, such as Craftworld Eldar, are listed under their parent FAQ. Since Space Marines is brand new it has no FAQ and the Codex: Imperial Guard FAQ says nothing about Codex: Assassins and Codex: Catachans, I'd say that's strong evidence that they are no longer legal.

Again, it doesn't matter in personal games. You can have a Bloodthirster leading your Eldar and their Deathwatch Command Squad detachment if you like. Not that I would ever do such a thing.

[Sir Guppy]

Codex Catachans isnt legal now??? im pretty sure it is, they represent a much more specialised jungle fighting force that inthe guard codex.

[Brother Wolf]

Well, the buzz is that it's a grey area codex. I'm a Catachan player as well and my entire force is based around that codex. I've tried to shoehorn it in via the new codex and it's doctrines, but it's not the same. It definately looses some. However, I don't beleive the codex is in print anymore. Some stores might still have copies, but last I checked you couldn't buy one direct from GW. If they won't sell it, I doubt it's tourney legal anymore...

[cfoley]

From the above arguements, Codex: Assassins was never legal since you couldn't buy it. It was included in a White Dwarf issue. That is clearly nonsence.

The list of FAQs available is probably a good guide but the absence of a Catachan list indicates that the FAQs produced are simply not comprehensive.

Strong evedence does not prove that GW has "outlawed" the codex.

[ChunkyMrEvil]

The catachan codex doesn't fit with the new Imperial Guard codex, therefore I should think it's not viable. BTW can't you just use light infantry doctrines and stuff to represent your catachans?

[Brother Wolf]

Um, I have a copy of Codex: Assassins, so it was NOT a WD only thing. Besides, if it was in WD and worthwhile, it would've ended up in Chapter Approved if not in it's own Codex.

While I cannot purport to know all the inner workings of GW, the fact that we have 2 Hunters codicies with specific rules for Assassins combined with the old Codex: Assassins being out of print shoud be evidence enough that Codex: Assassins is no longer legal. As for Catchans, I'd base that on the same assumption. I still have it and I still plan on using it for friendly games. But I wouldn't attempt to make a GT army out of it.

My Catachans have 'rough riders' on Cold Ones, so they aren't legal in the new Catachan doctrine, (nor were they before as I recall), so I've simply created a new Deathworld Doctrine which allows Rough Riders. I think I chose Rough Riders, Ogryns, Jungle Fighters, Hardened Fighter and Special Weapon Squads.

[Mon£y]

@ cfoley. of course the codex: assassins was (but it looks like is no more) legal. chapter approved is released in white dwarf those are corrections and updates, the VDR rules were in wd, lots of special characters were. If gw publush it its legal until superceded. Simple

[cfoley]

yes, but it's not superceded. There is no new codex: assassins. The various inquisition codexes describe how to use assassins in an inquisition army. They also describe how to take allies from the inquisition lists. If you take an assassin from an inquisition list, it makes sense for him to be under orders from an inquisitor. I very much doubt that GW intended lots of armies to include an inquisitor and assassin with no other inquisition choices.

Since Codex assasssins has not been superceded and WH40K 4th ed is designed to work with 3rd ed codexes there is nothing to say that it is not legal unless GW have specifically stated so. If they have please point me in the right direction.

OK, rant over. Am I wrong avout the Codex assassins being bundled with a white dwarf (as a sepereate book)? I don't remember buying it seperately.

[peer]

"Q. Does Codex: Daemonhunters supercede Codex: Assassins?

A. Yes. The only way to include an Assassin in (for example) an Imperial Guard army is to have an Inquisitorial allied contingent which includes one."

Taken from a Daemonhunters FAQ that I sadly can't locate at the moment since GW's UK site seems to be down (for me at least).

[cfoley]

Just downloadad the FAQs for Daemon hunters and witch hunters. Both V4.0.1. I could not find your quote. Also, it was not in a Q&A style. Is this another FAQ?

[LordSigmund]

God people, you cannot use codex assassins. It's a set-in-stone GW rule that when new rules for something come out, the old ones become illegal. Check out the rules for any GW tourney, only the latest rules, which in this case are those in Codex: Daemonhunters, are applicable.

You aren't going to find a legal way of using them, that would be like using the 3rd Ed rulebook because no-one could find a GW quote for you anywhere that said specifically that the 4th Ed one replaced the 3rd Ed one and you weren't allowed to use your 3rd Ed rules anymore.

If you want to go by official GW rules then you cant use Codex: Assassins, no matter how much you whine, thats not to stop you from using it with your friends if you all agree on it. GW isn't the law, they can't force you to not use it, but don't expect to be able to use it in any official game.

[peer]

Yes cfoley, the quote I'm talking about is not in the new 4th edition FAQs.

[Sir Guppy]

BTW can't you just use light infantry doctrines and stuff to represent your catachans?

the doctrines leave out a lot that was in codex catachans, it really isnt the same. for example in codex catachans you could get tanks, but then you things like deathworld veterans, ambush rules, mines and other goodies that when fighting a jungle terrain was really usful. in my view codex catachans would represent a jungle deathworld with an extremely specalised force, where as codex guard doctrines would just represent a planet which happens to have a jungle.

[Brother Wolf]

Yeah, after a few games nobody ever wanted to face my Cats on their home turf again. Sad for me, but good for them. *grin*

BTW- Check out the GT Rules. I'm pretty certain it's in there if it's anywhere. I know for a fact that Imperial Armor vehicles are banned unless they also appear in a codex.

http://gt.us.games-workshop.com/Rule...GTRulebook.pdf
(Edit, page 3. 40K armies. Nowhere is Codex: Assassins listed)

Again, what you do among friends is entirely up to you. However, members of the Officio Assassinorum are DIRECTLY tired to the Inquisition Ordos and are under direct control, so it makes sense why they did it that way. All they did was bump up the cost of taking an assassin, (none of mine have EVER died in a game, EVER!), from 100+ to abotu 200. No biggie unless you're playing a 500pt game.

[cfoley]

Thanks Peer. It's a shame that GW have removed that information as it would clear up things for people like myself. I am now totally convinced that the rules are no longer official. They must have not deemed it necessary to comment on codex assassins any more because they knocked it on the head in 3rd ed wh40k.

Brother Armand, that is a good indication but I wouldn't use tournament rules to say what is official or not. They also say that all models MUST be painted. That's not an official WH40K rule. It's a tournament rule.

[LordSigmund]

The painting thing is a tournment rule, but the actual GAME rules from tournaments are what you should go off for officiality. They always use the most current and legal game rules in official GW tourneys with.

[cfoley]

Fair point but sometimes it's kind of hard to tell the difference. I think WYSIWYG is a good example. I don't remember seeing it in the rulebook but I could be wrong about that. Let's take the new codex space marines as an example.

The rules for taking weapons from the armoury are on page 22 and include: "All weapons and wargear must be represented on the model." This is directly after a description of how to choose weapons and wargear from the armoury. That's all it refers to.

The tactical squad entry (for example) has options for choosing assault and heavy weapons but says nothing about WYSIWYG, implying that the models don't have to be.

I know that this is a VERY petty example and I wouldn't have much patience with someone using a bolter model instead of a lascannon model every game. However, by going by the exact letter of the rules, I think I think this is the best analysis of the WYSIWYG rule (unless I have missed something).

BTW, what I said above is ridiculous and against the spirit of the rules. I would NEVER be so pedantic about the written rules. It's just an example used for the discussion.

[Brother Wolf]

But again, this goes back to the difference between playing among friends and playing at a shop or in a tourney. My friends and I have created so many house rules over the years that 3rd Ed. is unrecognizable. However, if I pack up my models and head down to a shop to play on a local game night, then I had better do my best to play within the current ruleset. If the shop doesn't care about paint, then the models don't need to be painted. However, I can bet you that the shop will care about the current rules and they will be certain to inform players of what they have to conform to in order to play in the shop.

It's just common sense.

[cfoley]

I have never played in a grand tournament and the only times I have played in a shop were with the shop's models. Tournaments and shops tend to have rules over and above the standard rules. They are a bit like house rules except they have to be adhered to whenever you play in the shop or tournament.

Let me explain my gaming circle. I have one opponent I play regularly; usually about once a week. I do have several other opponents but, unfortunately, I get together with them very infrequently. When we do, we usually arrange the mission and size of game over the phone before we meet. Since we play so infrequently it is more important to stick to the official rules. That way, there are no nasty surprises for either of us.

Besides, tournament rules are only valid for the duration of the tournament. That's why thay aren't in the rulebook or an online update.

[Brother Wolf]

But Tourney rules are based on what is "legal" during a particular tournament season, such as Codicies, Chapter Approved, etc. Again, what you do w/ you friedns and private game groups is entirely up to you. If you play against someone from outside that group, then there has to be a standard set of rules to abide by, such as what codicies can be used. If I showed up tomorrow at the store w/ an IG force I had built 2 years ago prior to DH coming out, I would be sent packing or asked to retool the army, (at which time I would be looking for models to borrow in order to get an Inquisitor on the table to back up my Assassin). However, since I have the DH codex and understand that GW's unwritten but oft spoken law is that new codicies overrule existing codicies as the situation warrants, I know not to show up w/ my assassin without an Inquisitor lord present...

[cfoley]

"But Tourney rules are based on what is "legal" during a particular tournament season"

Then there shouldn't be a need for them at all.

Actually, "based on" but not quite the same. The WYSIWYG used in tournaments is "based on" the WYSIWYG from the rulebooks/codexes (to use my above example).

I know I can do whatever I want with my friends, which we take advantage of sometimes. That doesn't stop me from wanting to know the correct rules for the game which peer has helpfully shown me in this case.

EDIT: On the subject of you can do whatever you want with your friends: If you really want, you can use tournament rules with them, and there is nothing I can do to stop you.

[Voyager_I]

Not to be rude, but you're horribly misinterpreting things. Tournament rules are not a sperate entity. The current official rules are the tournament rules. They were just being called tournament rules because that's where you'll see them enforced the strictest. And WYSIWYG is in place as an official rule. It's not necessary in a friendly game, but it is in any game adhering to official rules (such as tournaments). This is further demonstrated by the fact that a normal tactical squad (10 men, 1 heavy weapon, 1 special weapon) costs me $25, and a devastator squad (5 men, 4 heavy weapons) cost me $35.

[ThirdDanScoota]

*Gives Voyager_I a buscuit* - Indeed. The current rules in any rulebook, Codex or whatnot are the official rules to use in basically ALL battles, however it isnt as important in a simple match with a friend. Its basically common courtesy, and also the correct way of doing it.

[cfoley]

"Tournament rules are not a sperate entity. The current official rules are the tournament rules. They were just being called tournament rules because that's where you'll see them enforced the strictest."

Did you read that somewhere or is it an assumption you made?

[ThirdDanScoota]

I do not understand your resistance on some of the issues around here. We are, infact, SUPPOSE to be playing the game pretty much exactly how the rulebook and Codexies dictate. House rules make it more convenient, but deviate from how we are SUPPOSE to be playing the game. Period.

EDIT: Say i were to go out and buy a video game. I play it, but it gets boring. So i add an unofficial mod. I have just decided to violate playing the game "properly" for the reward of maybe more fun. See what i'm getting at? Not following the rules in the rulebook is deviating from the proper way of playing it, however in certain environments some rules (such as WYSIWYG) arent neccessary, and it can be more conveniant by ignoring it.

[cfoley]

ThirdDanScoota, that is my point of view entirely. You just summed it up in a nutshell.

I am all for making house rules and, yes, most of the time they do deviate from the official rules. Not always, though. The "house rules" for my terrain just point to certain parts of the rulebook and explain how much cover they provide, difficult terrain or not, impassible to tanks/infantry, etc. Anyway, that's beside the point.

I am not trying to resist issues. All I am trying to do is find out what the official rules are. With the asassins, I genuinely thought that the codex was legal. I had not read that it was obsilete and nobody could tell me where GW had said so, until peer kindly gave me a reference.

I currently think that tournament rules are not official game rules for the reasons I gave above. Nobody has told me where GW has said that the Tourney rules are to be incorporated into the official game rules. You may well be right, but please tell me where they wrote it. Then there will be nothing to argue over.

[ThirdDanScoota]

I'm not entirely sure of where it is stated, but the Tournaments use the same rules as any other game, only they enforce rules far more strictly (such as WYSIWYG) and use "Tournament missions". Thats it. They use the same rules, its just more official and set out a bit differently.

[Voyager_I]

Precisely. You pretty much always have to decode GW's rules. Most of what they say is perfectly logical, just stated in the least intelligible manner humanly possible. If they wanted to be any harder to understand, they'd have to invent their own language...

[edit]...or better yet, invent several of their own langauges and switch randomly between them mid-sentences.[edit]