Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
I'm curious about this one. I've read a few posts which have refenced 'chapter approved' rulings/FAQs, but I can't say 've come across them or that they've been highlighted as official rules documents. To my knowledge only BRB, Codex and GW FAQs are true rules documents, though specifics can be imposed by tournament organisers (might specify they use inat and such).
So who are 'Chapter Approved' and is there a 'Chapter Approved' website somewhere with a list of their rulings?
Something of an a-side, but this arose due to the Necron 5th Ed. FAQ saying:
Q. When do you remove Necrons that fail their WBB roll?
A. Necrons who fail their WBB roll are removed unless you intend to use a Monolith portal to teleport the unit during the current move.
And an apparent CA FAQ saing:
Q. If Necrons fail their WBB roll are they removed or do they remain there to try again next move?
A. When a Necron has either failed a WBB roll or is ineligible to take one at the start of the Necron turn it is deemed to be destroyed and is removed, unless you intend to use a Monolith portal to teleport the unit during the current move. If for some reason you change your mind about using the portal, they are removed immediately.
They don't contradict one another, but the CA FAQ has thrown in an extra rule that doesn't appear in the codex or 5th Ed FAQ, so I was wanting to check if it had any actual relevance.
For the record, I don't play necrons, I was just curious.
Chapter Approved were books filled with errata, faqs, senarios and special rules gathered together that GW published every now and then but haven't released a new one in quite awhile. Most of CA's FAQ is outdated due to it being released prior to 5th edition and most of the codexes it covers have had new codexes released.
Warhammer 40k: Blood Angels, Imperial Guard, Grey Knights, Space Lizards (wolves), Kroot, Witch Hunters, Dark Eldar
Warhammer: Lizardmen, Empire, Vampire Counts, Brettonians, High Elves, Skaven
Not just specific books, things in white dwarf, things form the website etc, i.e. anything official from GW. GW have gone through two very different stages when it come to rules.
In the nineties they would publish a rule book and a codex. They might then publish a mini codex with adapted versions of an army list that referred to the original (like the craftworld eldar book). They would also make some major adjustments via FAQs in white dwarf or online. If they felt like it they may release some new character or unit and put rules for that into white dwarf or an online article, generally under the title 'chapter approved' (at times grouped together and released as chapter approved compilations). On top of that there were codexs like the =I= books that mixed in other codexs and contained adversary lists. Finally they may throw in an expansion, with a few more units or possibly a campaign book. You were left in a situation where you could be playing a game with two codex's, a couple of white dwarfs, a supplement and a printed off FAQ open, desperately searching for the right rules, working out which one superseded which and generally getting confused, and that was just one player. It was also pretty much impossible to balance the game for a proper competitive style tournament.
Anything was official if it had the Chapter Approved stamp on was official.
People got cross.
Then GW had an epiphany. They decided to cut all that. Each army was to have one codex that would have no effect on other codexs. Supplements would contain new rules or force charts, but no new armies. White dwarf what not release rules for new units, especially when they'd not finished making models for all the codex units yet (that would be left to forgeworld who would be excluded from mainstream games). FAQ's would stop changing broken rules and just concentrate on making clear the wording of the codexs. All the extra rules were removed form the website. Any rubbish rules and new units will have to wait for the next codex for the sake of simplicity. LOTD and its ilk were dropped, alternative armies in the back of books like the Chaos SM book were dropped. The Inquisitor books became a relic of a past age.
Only the Codexs BRB and printed supplements in that order are official (with FAQs clarifying but adding nothing)
People got cross
Now we have forgotten how complex it got, how irritating it was to play someone who had a white dwarf you missed, or read an FAQ you'd not planned on which drastically altered the game we miss the flexibility, the random surprises like Cypher appearing in a white dwarf article. We miss our old frankenstain monster lists. It also seems GW have forgotten too. This month they released a who supplement via WD and rules for a new unit. They seem to be presenting it as a new idea, something exciting, when its what they used to do all the time.
Hopefully now GW can get a good balance between uniformity and speed of release. Pretty sure people will get cross though.
Ah ok, so does that mean that the CA rules are no longer valid?
Taking the example of the 'cron rule, the CA FAQ is the only place I can find anything saying downed 'crons are removed if not elidgible for WBB (the codex and FAQ only say to remove them if they fail a WBB roll). I guess 'crons are maybe an exception in that their codex is still older than the CA FAQ, so would the CA article still stand? or were they somehow 'officially made invalid' when 5th came out?
Its a game lets keep it fun!
For Michigan Apoc news and meetups.. www.mi40k.com
True, just because they aren't valid doesn't mean I'd not let people use them, you just can't be sure people will. The only problem with old rules is it takes a lot of work and correction to sort out the numerous rules issues that crop up, but then you've got a necron army so you should be used to that ;-)
well it's not my necron army, so no. I play eldar and CSM, so while they're both 4th ed they're still pretty self-contained (tho the nightspinner rules have just changed that situation a little).
I certainly wouldn't not let someone play their army, as in the kroot example, but i was idly flicking thru the 'cron codex as a couple of my friends were playing and couldn't find anything that said necron units which weren't elidgible for WBB were removed. The only reference to removing them is if they fail a WBB roll, my 'necron friend' told me i was wrong, but the only thing we could find that said necrons are removed if they can't attempt a WBB is the old CA FAQ. I hadn't come across CA before and teh FAQ was hosted on a url like.. www.somethingcompletelyrandom.com, so i wasn't exactly convinced of it's validity as an accurate rules document.