Lance845 wrote: From what I can tell, you and DrTom are using that one sentence to both attempt to define model and give it permissions while it does no such thing in terms of defining a model.
This type of logical argument is called circular reasoning.
You have no evidence to support your interpretation of a model and there fore your evidence is every bit in need of evidence as your conclusion. It invalidates your entire argument.
It's the equivalent of saying
The bible is real because Noah's flood happened and we know Noah's flood happened because the bible says it happened.
Datasheets are representations of the models with their wargear modeled onto them because the statement says "older models" and older models had different wargear options.
It doesn't work. You need to provide evidence that modeled wargear matters.
No, it isn't. We are using "model" in this case to mean the same thing as "model" in the rules. You are using "model" to mean "unit" or "datasheet". You are the one improperly using terms here, even ignoring what you have quoted from the main rulebook.
"Models" cover two different aspects. One is the physical miniature used in play. The second is that they are an entity which is processed on the table.
A Datasheet provides the information in regards to the unit and the models within it, not a representation of them.
Another question for you, if someone presented you an FAQ to answer a question here in YMDC, would you claim that they were cherry-picking and making things up, or would you consider the FAQ to be a direction on how GW would prefer how you handle a rule?
Datasheets prove all the rules for the units which are in turn made up of models. Again, there is no definition of model in this edition that assigns value to which option you put on it.
You could put a rock on the table. Without the datasheet to define it it has no permissions.
You can put a dreadnought with no arms on the table without the datasheet it has no permissions.
You can put a dread with any other combination of arms on the table and the datasheet that granys it permissions is still the one datasheet called dreadnought.
If it was an official faq document the errata section is rules the faqs are clarifications. All of which are official. Do you have an official rules document that explicitly provides an errata establishing that the option on the model define its datasheet? Do you have a official doc with a faq qiestion that clarifies the same?
Lance845 wrote: This type of logical argument is called circular reasoning.
And this type of logical argument you're using here is called a straw man argument. There's plenty of evidence, you have just ignored it, something you admitted to in your previous response to me.
Thats a strawman. Making a comparison to something that is not the argument as though it is related when in fact it is not.
I am not making a strawman argument. The fact that your argument hinges on the idea that a models modeled options defines its datasheet permission is the very center of our debate.
Understand your logical fallacies before you start pointing fingers and crying wolf.
Dude, you were misrepresenting someone's argument (mine) attempt to discredit it. Call that what you will, but it isn't arguing in good faith. I was not using circular logic in any way, shape or form.
Lance845 wrote: This type of logical argument is called circular reasoning.
And this type of logical argument you're using here is called a straw man argument. There's plenty of evidence, you have just ignored it, something you admitted to in your previous response to me.
Thats a strawman. Making a comparison to something that is not the argument as though it is related when in fact it is not.
I am not making a strawman argument. The fact that your argument hinges on the idea that a models modeled options defines its datasheet permission is the very center of our debate.
Understand your logical fallacies before you start pointing fingers and crying wolf.
Dude, you were misrepresenting someone's argument (mine) attempt to discredit it. Call that what you will, but it isn't arguing in good faith. I was not using circular logic in any way, shape or form.
Claiming that you can't use the models in matched play when they specifically mention how to calculate points for matched play isn't arguing in good faith either.
Also, people acting like the phrase "your games" inherently implies that what follows is not the baseline rules should not accuse others of logical fallacies. You are making a rules intent argument, not a RAW one.
Lance845 wrote:Datasheets prove all the rules for the units which are in turn made up of models. Again, there is no definition of model in this edition that assigns value to which option you put on it.
Datasheets provide all the rules for the units AND models. There is a definition of what options a model has on the datasheet. Sometimes the value of those options are on the datasheet (usually if Power-based), but most times the value of the options are in the database in the back (for the Points Values).
The Datasheet legend in the Primer also lists the Profiles of the MODELS. Unit Composition tells you what MODELS comprise the unit. The Wargear section covers the basic equipment the MODELS have. The Wargear Options section covers what changes we can make to the MODELS.
Lance845 wrote:You could put a rock on the table. Without the datasheet to define it it has no permissions.
You can put a dreadnought with no arms on the table without the datasheet it has no permissions.
Not the point of what I said. You are not listening. There is no representational relationship between the datasheet and models. The datasheet is the reference for the model (as well as the unit).
Lance845 wrote:You can put a dread with any other combination of arms on the table and the datasheet that granys it permissions is still the one datasheet called dreadnought.
But when "my model" is an "older model" Dreadnought with Autocannons which are "no longer provided in the kit" and the latest datasheet which allows the Dreadnought to use the Autocannons on the table is the Dreadnought Datasheet in the Index.
Lance845 wrote:If it was an official faq document the errata section is rules the faqs are clarifications. All of which are official. Do you have an official rules document that explicitly provides an errata establishing that the option on the model define its datasheet? Do you have a official doc with a faq qiestion that clarifies the same?
Errata, no. Apparently there is an FAQ, though. DoctorTom has referenced it, it was official (i.e. provided by GW), and you continue to ignore it.
Larks wrote: I'm curious if anyone arguing for using index datasheets when codex 'sheets exist would be totally okay playing against 'Guard where the player is using index datasheets for Conscripts and Commissars?
I mean, the 50-man limit is no longer an option and the Index Commissar wasn't FAQ'd, so...
(Apologies if this is already brought up)
The point I'm making is, they wrote in that Q&A that YES, some options are changing, and that is to reflect balance, fluff or whatever. Things are changing, and yeah, it isn't always to your benefit. Just ask the DG players how fun it was to invalidate their biker armies? It happens, guys.
The Conscripts point has been brought up. To answer that is simple. The number of models in the unit has nothing to do with the options on the model. That is an option for the unit as a whole. This discussion is about the options on the models.
I am unfamiliar with the changes regarding the Commissar. I have neither Index nor Codex, and access is ridiculously limited for me. Could you elucidate?
TheWaspinator wrote: Also, people acting like the phrase "your games" inherently implies that what follows is not the baseline rules should not accuse others of logical fallacies. You are making a rules intent argument, not a RAW one.
According to the "The Most Important Rule" as written on page 180 you must try to interpret any ambiguities according to sensible intent in consens with your opponent. RAW.
Trying to read the rules strictly by the text like computer code or a legal scholar of strict constructionism while ignoring the intent is a violation of RAW.
TheWaspinator wrote: Also, people acting like the phrase "your games" inherently implies that what follows is not the baseline rules should not accuse others of logical fallacies. You are making a rules intent argument, not a RAW one.
According to the "The Most Important Rule" as written on page 180 you must try to interpret any ambiguities according to sensible intent in consens with your opponent. RAW.
Trying to read the rules strictly by the text like computer code or a legal scholar of strict constructionism while ignoring the intent is a violation of RAW.
I have read all the responses. I am not responding to them individually... this post would be like... endless. Instead I am going to answer the entire side. Maybe bits and pieces of this don't apply to all of you. Sorry.
Your argument goes like this.
You believe that you have full rules permission to use a dreadnought or any other model with it's index datasheet instead of it's updated codex datasheet under the circumstances that it's the older model and/or it has the modeled options that are no longer allowed by the codex datasheet. You believe that this requires no permission from your opponent (beyond the general agreement to play a game/points/missions whatever...). You believe this is stated in this quote.
There are a few options that are missing in the codex that appear in the index: why is that? Does that mean I can’t use these models in my army anymore?
While the indexes are designed to cover a long history of miniatures, the codexes are designed to give you rules for the current Warhammer 40,000 range. There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index).
They still gain all the army wide-bonuses for things like Chapter Tactics and can use Space Marines Stratagems and the like, so such venerable heroes still fit right in with the rest of your army.
We are going to call this Conclusion (A)
To support this position, you point out that this line
Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index).
means that when they say the word "Model" they mean the model with all it's options modeled onto it to accurately reflecting the war gear options it's taking.
We will call this Argument (B)
When you are asked to defend the idea that there is any rules allowance that says that a models modeled options have any value at all you reference this quote.
There are a few options that are missing in the codex that appear in the index: why is that? Does that mean I can’t use these models in my army anymore?
While the indexes are designed to cover a long history of miniatures, the codexes are designed to give you rules for the current Warhammer 40,000 range. There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index).
They still gain all the army wide-bonuses for things like Chapter Tactics and can use Space Marines Stratagems and the like, so such venerable heroes still fit right in with the rest of your army.
(A).
So.. (A) is true because (B). And (B) has to be my interpretation because (A).
You also use the argument that "Well back in 4th edition WYSIWYG was a rule and Lots of people really like it. So..."
We will call this argument (-). As in null. Because it's irrelevant.
You might also use this!
Publications in use: All current and in-print Warhammer 40,000 Index books and Codexes from Games Workshop and Forge World, unless their release falls on the weekend of the event. We expect you to use the most current datasheets for your models – e.g. those found in a Codex rather than an Index if a Codex is available for your army. This means that you may use Faction-appropriate Index datasheets that might not appear in your Codex (such as Chaplain on Bike)
Saying that the Model they use in here is the same thing.
Argument (C)
Or (A) is true because of (B) and (C). (B) and (C) have to be my interpretation because (A) gives me permission.
If you do not require (B) or (C) to support your interpretation of (A) then your just saying that you can take any model, put it down, and use any datasheet you feel like. Which logically would make GWs ongoing updates to the datasheets pointless. I can debate this if you want... but do you really need to?
This is a circular argument. Your argument cannot support itself. You need other evidence. Apparently DrTom posted some new FAQ? I missed it. I tried to look back and couldn't find it. If you wouldn't mind posting it again, I would really appreciate it. Hopefully it has some kind of bearing on supporting your interpretation of B or C. Because right now your claim that they are using Model in the way you think they are using model is not substantiated by anything.
------------------------------------------------
Now here's mine.
I have 2 conclusions.
1) You are expected as the baseline rules of the game to use the most up to date datasheet for any model. A model's modeled options have no value. Therefore a dreadnought is a dreadnought regardless of what bits you stick to it.
2) With your opponents permission, in your own games, your free to use any rules you feel like.
I will call these conclusion (Y) and (Z) respectively. They will each be supported separately.
Lets start with (Y).
To start, there is no rule in any rule book for FAQ/Errata PDF document that has any ruling requiring the use of WYSIWYG. It doesn't exist. (L)
This quote
Can I combine units from the index and a codex into one army?
The datasheets in the new codexes overwrite the same datasheets in the index books. You can certainly use units with updated datasheets alongside units from the index that have yet to be updated. Once a unit has been covered in the codex though, we assume you’re using the latest version.
says it. (M)
This quote
Can I choose to use the rules and/or points for units from my index instead of the new ones in the codex once released?
In your own games, if you and your opponent agree, you can, of course, play with whatever rules you like.
In all future publications and official events though, it will be assumed that you’re using the most recent rules and Datasheets. It will also be assumed that you’re using the most up to date points for matched play, in this case, those included in the codex.
says it. (N)
This quote
Are the rules changing?
Yes, many units’ rules in their codexes will alter from those in the indexes. Sometimes this is to better represent the miniatures and the background, sometimes to balance the game, and sometimes to better fit with the army’s new special rules in the codex itself. In all cases, these will then supersede the rules for that datasheet in the index book.
says it. (O)
This quote
Publications in use: All current and in-print Warhammer 40,000 Index books and Codexes from Games Workshop and Forge World, unless their release falls on the weekend of the event. We expect you to use the most current datasheets for your models – e.g. those found in a Codex rather than an Index if a Codex is available for your army. This means that you may use Faction-appropriate Index datasheets that might not appear in your Codex (such as Chaplain on Bike)
is a repetition of (M)
Or in summary.
(L) being true, (M)(N)(O) = (Y)
Meanwhile.
(L) again.
This quote backed by (L)
There are a few options that are missing in the codex that appear in the index: why is that? Does that mean I can’t use these models in my army anymore?
While the indexes are designed to cover a long history of miniatures, the codexes are designed to give you rules for the current Warhammer 40,000 range. There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example. Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index). They still gain all the army wide-bonuses for things like Chapter Tactics and can use Space Marines Stratagems and the like, so such venerable heroes still fit right in with the rest of your army.
to mean that I clearly have a different definition of "in your games" than you. In that they mean games within your group of friends or whatever. Games not part of an official event. Games GW is not hosting. Games in which you can do whatever you want.(P)
And this quote
Can I choose to use the rules and/or points for units from my index instead of the new ones in the codex once released?
In your own games, if you and your opponent agree, you can, of course, play with whatever rules you like.
((N) again) supports my interpretation of (P)
in turn supporting my interpretation of (Z).
Or...
(L) and (P) being true, than (N) = (Z)
And if (Y) is true than it's really
(Y) and (L) means (P) which means (N) = (Z).
Do you see how my argument is linear? No piece of my evidence is self supporting? I go from the one truly RAW thing we have. A complete lack of WYSIWYG and I build on it.
Find me some support for (B) and (C). I would LOVE to see it.
This nonsense has been going back and forth for so long I don't even know what the original rules conflict was or who's for or against. Which means neither side has made a convincing argument for their position.
Rolsheen wrote: This nonsense has been going back and forth for so long I don't even know what the original rules conflict was or who's for or against. Which means neither side has made a convincing argument for their position.
Absolutely. As I posted pages ago it's impossible to 'prove' either way or 'disprove' the opposing view!
Lance845 wrote: I have read all the responses. I am not responding to them individually... this post would be like... endless. Instead I am going to answer the entire side. Maybe bits and pieces of this don't apply to all of you. Sorry.
Your argument goes like this.
You believe that you have full rules permission to use a dreadnought or any other model with it's index datasheet instead of it's updated codex datasheet under the circumstances that it's the older model and/or it has the modeled options that are no longer allowed by the codex datasheet. You believe that this requires no permission from your opponent (beyond the general agreement to play a game/points/missions whatever...).
I think you need to stop at that point. Who is believing this? We've been saying you need permission. We also say, however, that the process, including asking permission, is part of the process established by GW for using the models, whether "official" or "unofficial" games. So, baseline, you need to get permission but they have a procedure you can use to use these older models which involves using the index datasheet when the model's options (or the entire model itself) isn't represented by a datasheet in the codex. You harp on "your games" as if it's not official, but "your game" is honestly any game you play in outside of a tournament, and tournaments have their own rules. So saying you can't use this in "baseline" games is really a meaningless and incorrect statement.
Lance845 wrote: I have read all the responses. I am not responding to them individually... this post would be like... endless. Instead I am going to answer the entire side. Maybe bits and pieces of this don't apply to all of you. Sorry.
Your argument goes like this.
You believe that you have full rules permission to use a dreadnought or any other model with it's index datasheet instead of it's updated codex datasheet under the circumstances that it's the older model and/or it has the modeled options that are no longer allowed by the codex datasheet. You believe that this requires no permission from your opponent (beyond the general agreement to play a game/points/missions whatever...). You believe this is stated in this quote.
You apparently have NOT read all the responses, or if you have, you have ignored what was written.
I never once said anything about "full rules permission to use a... model with it's index datasheet instead of it's updated codex datasheet", nor has anyone else who has argued against you this far. In fact, I have actually stated the baseline rules do not state this. I don't believe DoctorTom has ever stated anything about the baselines rules for his responses.
However, and this is where your argument falls flat, GW has provided an FAQ which DOES allow for it. FAQs do not change the rules, but are guidelines on how to handle specific situations. Guidelines are up to the users to enforce or ignore at their leisure.
That either makes this statement a demonstration of your deliberate unwillingness to actually read what others have written or your deliberate willingness to misrepresent what others have said. Either way, the above quote is a lie from you, sir.
Second time you have mentioned this new FAQ. I asked if you would mind reposting it. Ive looked back. I didn't see any new FAQ.
I can go back and pick out quotes from you Charistoph and Waspinator, And others saying you don't need any particular permission to use the index datasheet over the codex. There are 10 other pages of you guys making those arguments based on your definition "model" as a rules entity.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
U02dah4 wrote: It's about whether the data sheet has been updated so no I won't be fielding index commissar's but I will be fielding Rough riders.
To be honest GW were stupid not to include a list in the codex of permissable index datasheets it would solve half these problems
Also it hasn't provided an faq yet just community site further clouding things
Lance845 wrote: Second time you have mentioned this new FAQ. I asked if you would mind reposting it. Ive looked back. I didn't see any new FAQ.
I can go back and pick out quotes from you Charistoph and Waspinator, And others saying you don't need any particular permission to use the index datasheet over the codex. There are 10 other pages of you guys making those arguments based on your definition "model" as a rules entity.
You know he means the WHC article by "FAQ", and as it's the crux of your arguments too it's disingenuous to split hairs this way.
Lance845 wrote: Second time you have mentioned this new FAQ. I asked if you would mind reposting it. Ive looked back. I didn't see any new FAQ.
I can go back and pick out quotes from you Charistoph and Waspinator, And others saying you don't need any particular permission to use the index datasheet over the codex. There are 10 other pages of you guys making those arguments based on your definition "model" as a rules entity.
You know he means the WHC article by "FAQ", and as it's the crux of your arguments too it's disingenuous to split hairs this way.
I suspected thats what he meant, but he said it was new and sorted all this out. I couldn't find any links or anything. I figured there was a chance I just missed it. Wanted to give him the chance to show me something new.
I can go back and pick out quotes from you Charistoph and Waspinator, And others saying you don't need any particular permission to use the index datasheet over the codex. There are 10 other pages of you guys making those arguments based on your definition "model" as a rules entity. .
Go ahead and pick them out. I didn't say that, and there are others, yet you want to treat everybody as having said that. Using that to dismiss everybody's argument even if they didn't say that is arguing in bad faith.
I can go back and pick out quotes from you Charistoph and Waspinator, And others saying you don't need any particular permission to use the index datasheet over the codex. There are 10 other pages of you guys making those arguments based on your definition "model" as a rules entity. .
Go ahead and pick them out. I didn't say that, and there are others, yet you want to treat everybody as having said that. Using that to dismiss everybody's argument even if they didn't say that is arguing in bad faith.
No, I specifically said in my big post you last responded to
Maybe bits and pieces of this don't apply to all of you. Sorry.
.
On the other hand, you have always claimed the permission you need is the same as a person agreeing to sit down and play a regular game. You believe that the physical model with it's options attached grants the model the permission to use the older index sheets, and while you should check with your opponent if your list is okay, it's no different then bringing forge world or any other option.
I can go back and pick out quotes from you Charistoph and Waspinator, And others saying you don't need any particular permission to use the index datasheet over the codex. There are 10 other pages of you guys making those arguments based on your definition "model" as a rules entity. .
Go ahead and pick them out. I didn't say that, and there are others, yet you want to treat everybody as having said that. Using that to dismiss everybody's argument even if they didn't say that is arguing in bad faith.
No, I specifically said in my big post you last responded to
Maybe bits and pieces of this don't apply to all of you. Sorry.
.
On the other hand, you have always claimed the permission you need is the same as a person agreeing to sit down and play a regular game. You believe that the physical model with it's options attached grants the model the permission to use the older index sheets, and while you should check with your opponent if your list is okay, it's no different then bringing forge world or any other option.
I have said to tell the person you have an older model and wish to use the index rules as per GW's process, and is it okay with him. That's not the same as the permission I need is the same as a person agreeing to sit down and play a regular game. It goes beyond "want to play a game of 40K? Matched play? How many points?". I've also said to check with tournament organizers beforehand if you think you want to use such a model in a tournament. Your saying that I think permission I need is the same as a person agreeing to sit down and play a regular game either you not understanding the difference between asking specific permission about a unit and just going "want to play a game of 40K? Cool" is you actually ignoring what I'm saying and making something up.
As for Forgeworld, I don't treat it differently because I let opponents know if I want to use Forgeworld stuff as it's something you can't buy through an independent store so isn't something I would assume the opponent would know the details about. You used to have to ask permission for Forgeworld stuff; I still see it at least as a common courtesy to talk to your opponent about stuff he might not know about. I guess you don't feel that way though. I am curious about the "or any other option" phrase at the end - what are you referring to there?
I can go back and pick out quotes from you Charistoph and Waspinator, And others saying you don't need any particular permission to use the index datasheet over the codex. There are 10 other pages of you guys making those arguments based on your definition "model" as a rules entity. .
Go ahead and pick them out. I didn't say that, and there are others, yet you want to treat everybody as having said that. Using that to dismiss everybody's argument even if they didn't say that is arguing in bad faith.
No, I specifically said in my big post you last responded to
Maybe bits and pieces of this don't apply to all of you. Sorry.
.
On the other hand, you have always claimed the permission you need is the same as a person agreeing to sit down and play a regular game. You believe that the physical model with it's options attached grants the model the permission to use the older index sheets, and while you should check with your opponent if your list is okay, it's no different then bringing forge world or any other option.
I have said to tell the person you have an older model and wish to use the index rules as per GW's process, and is it okay with him. That's not the same as the permission I need is the same as a person agreeing to sit down and play a regular game. It goes beyond "want to play a game of 40K? Matched play? How many points?". I've also said to check with tournament organizers beforehand if you think you want to use such a model in a tournament. Your saying that I think permission I need is the same as a person agreeing to sit down and play a regular game either you not understanding the difference between asking specific permission about a unit and just going "want to play a game of 40K? Cool" is you actually ignoring what I'm saying and making something up.
Great. Then as far as I can tell, with this statement, you and I are in agreement. This right here has been what I have been saying this entire time.
Lance845 wrote:Second time you have mentioned this new FAQ. I asked if you would mind reposting it. Ive looked back. I didn't see any new FAQ.
What new FAQ? I was referring to the direction that was DoctorTom provided that was in an FAQ format.
Lance845 wrote:I can go back and pick out quotes from you Charistoph and Waspinator, And others saying you don't need any particular permission to use the index datasheet over the codex. There are 10 other pages of you guys making those arguments based on your definition "model" as a rules entity.
Then present them. You have misrepresented me and others a few times already, even after being corrected.
U02dah4 wrote:It's about whether the data sheet has been updated so no I won't be fielding index commissar's but I will be fielding Rough riders.
And do Commissars have an option for the model in the Index that is not in the codex?
U02dah4 wrote:To be honest GW were stupid not to include a list in the codex of permissable index datasheets it would solve half these problems
Agreed. But they wanted to keep the codices up to date with the current kits. It helps reduce confusion for new players, but it makes things problematic for older players.
U02dah4 wrote:Also it hasn't provided an faq yet just community site further clouding things
The format was in FAQ, it is from an official GW source. It may not be a full Errata document, but that doesn't make it an FAQ.
I can go back and pick out quotes from you Charistoph and Waspinator, And others saying you don't need any particular permission to use the index datasheet over the codex. There are 10 other pages of you guys making those arguments based on your definition "model" as a rules entity. .
Go ahead and pick them out. I didn't say that, and there are others, yet you want to treat everybody as having said that. Using that to dismiss everybody's argument even if they didn't say that is arguing in bad faith.
No, I specifically said in my big post you last responded to
Maybe bits and pieces of this don't apply to all of you. Sorry.
.
On the other hand, you have always claimed the permission you need is the same as a person agreeing to sit down and play a regular game. You believe that the physical model with it's options attached grants the model the permission to use the older index sheets, and while you should check with your opponent if your list is okay, it's no different then bringing forge world or any other option.
I have said to tell the person you have an older model and wish to use the index rules as per GW's process, and is it okay with him. That's not the same as the permission I need is the same as a person agreeing to sit down and play a regular game. It goes beyond "want to play a game of 40K? Matched play? How many points?". I've also said to check with tournament organizers beforehand if you think you want to use such a model in a tournament. Your saying that I think permission I need is the same as a person agreeing to sit down and play a regular game either you not understanding the difference between asking specific permission about a unit and just going "want to play a game of 40K? Cool" is you actually ignoring what I'm saying and making something up.
Great. Then as far as I can tell, with this statement, you and I are in agreement. This right here has been what I have been saying this entire time.
No, it isn't. I'm saying that as long as you get permission you can use the index rules in any game. You insisted that it can't be used in "official" games and originally insisted that it couldn't be used in matched play. You are drawing distinctions between "your games" and "baseline rules" games, where baseline rules games can't use the procedure and I'm saying you can. I'm saying I can use the index datasheet for an autocannon dread, going through their procedure while you've been insisting that we're not allowed to look at the index datasheet despite having been told that we can. You haven't been saying that this entire time.
Lance845 wrote:
I can go back and pick out quotes from you Charistoph and Waspinator, And others saying you don't need any particular permission to use the index datasheet over the codex. There are 10 other pages of you guys making those arguments based on your definition "model" as a rules entity.
Then present them. You have misrepresented me and others a few times already, even after being corrected.
I will stipluate that WYSIWYG isn't mentioned in the current rules, so if you want to treat it that way, then you don't have to have a WYSIWYG older model to play the options. You can make your choice as to whether WYSIWYG applies or not. I suspect that since there's an opponent's permission involved with getting to use the older models,
Is closer to what I was asking for. So if I have this correct, you think a person can use the older models with the older index options with their opponents permission? Asking to clarify.
I thought it was already clear.
"We expect you to use the most current datasheets for your model"
Do you have a dread with a weapon loadout not supported by the current codex but does have support in the index? Well, for [/b]that[b] model, the most current datasheet is the one in the index. It seems a simple concept that you are having great problems with. It doesn't only say most current datasheet. That sentence goes back to the beginning question about models with older options and them saying that yes you can play them. Though given the amount of qualification you want for what constitutes an older model - something you expect me to define more than GW has - I suspect someone might want to give you the Dreadsock test if it's an old metal dread they have.
Dr.Tom arguing that the latest datasheet is based on WYSIWYG and therefore the index would be the current datasheet requiring no permission.
The quoted statement allowing for index use over codex was about MODELS, not builds or units. Seriously, do you have that much difficulty determining the difference between a unit and a model?
If I have a model which is legal under the Index, but not legal under the codex without proxying, how can I then "still use the old model" without referring to the Index?
Charistoph arguing the same.
TheWaspinator wrote: Once again, only if you need permission to do something GW officially has said we can do. Like it or not, those index weapon options are officially still legal.
Waspinator.
To reiterate your argument all spelled out.
Spoiler:
You believe that you have full rules permission to use a dreadnought or any other model with it's index datasheet instead of it's updated codex datasheet under the circumstances that it's the older model and/or it has the modeled options that are no longer allowed by the codex datasheet. You believe that this requires no permission from your opponent (beyond the general agreement to play a game/points/missions whatever...). You believe this is stated in this quote.
There are a few options that are missing in the codex that appear in the index: why is that? Does that mean I can’t use these models in my army anymore?
While the indexes are designed to cover a long history of miniatures, the codexes are designed to give you rules for the current Warhammer 40,000 range. There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index).
They still gain all the army wide-bonuses for things like Chapter Tactics and can use Space Marines Stratagems and the like, so such venerable heroes still fit right in with the rest of your army.
We are going to call this Conclusion (A)
To support this position, you point out that this line
Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index).
means that when they say the word "Model" they mean the model with all it's options modeled onto it to accurately reflecting the war gear options it's taking.
We will call this Argument (B)
When you are asked to defend the idea that there is any rules allowance that says that a models modeled options have any value at all you reference this quote.
There are a few options that are missing in the codex that appear in the index: why is that? Does that mean I can’t use these models in my army anymore?
While the indexes are designed to cover a long history of miniatures, the codexes are designed to give you rules for the current Warhammer 40,000 range. There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index).
They still gain all the army wide-bonuses for things like Chapter Tactics and can use Space Marines Stratagems and the like, so such venerable heroes still fit right in with the rest of your army.
(A).
So.. (A) is true because (B). And (B) has to be my interpretation because (A).
You also use the argument that "Well back in 4th edition WYSIWYG was a rule and Lots of people really like it. So..."
We will call this argument (-). As in null. Because it's irrelevant.
You might also use this!
Publications in use: All current and in-print Warhammer 40,000 Index books and Codexes from Games Workshop and Forge World, unless their release falls on the weekend of the event. We expect you to use the most current datasheets for your models – e.g. those found in a Codex rather than an Index if a Codex is available for your army. This means that you may use Faction-appropriate Index datasheets that might not appear in your Codex (such as Chaplain on Bike)
Saying that the Model they use in here is the same thing.
Argument (C)
Or (A) is true because of (B) and (C). (B) and (C) have to be my interpretation because (A) gives me permission.
If you do not require (B) or (C) to support your interpretation of (A) then your just saying that you can take any model, put it down, and use any datasheet you feel like. Which logically would make GWs ongoing updates to the datasheets pointless. I can debate this if you want... but do you really need to?
This is a circular argument. Your argument cannot support itself. You need other evidence. Right now your claim that they are using Model in the way you think they are using model is not substantiated by anything.
Lance845 wrote:
I can go back and pick out quotes from you Charistoph and Waspinator, And others saying you don't need any particular permission to use the index datasheet over the codex. There are 10 other pages of you guys making those arguments based on your definition "model" as a rules entity.
Then present them. You have misrepresented me and others a few times already, even after being corrected.
I will stipluate that WYSIWYG isn't mentioned in the current rules, so if you want to treat it that way, then you don't have to have a WYSIWYG older model to play the options. You can make your choice as to whether WYSIWYG applies or not. I suspect that since there's an opponent's permission involved with getting to use the older models,
Is closer to what I was asking for. So if I have this correct, you think a person can use the older models with the older index options with their opponents permission? Asking to clarify.
I thought it was already clear.
"We expect you to use the most current datasheets for your model"
Do you have a dread with a weapon loadout not supported by the current codex but does have support in the index? Well, for [/b]that[b] model, the most current datasheet is the one in the index. It seems a simple concept that you are having great problems with. It doesn't only say most current datasheet. That sentence goes back to the beginning question about models with older options and them saying that yes you can play them. Though given the amount of qualification you want for what constitutes an older model - something you expect me to define more than GW has - I suspect someone might want to give you the Dreadsock test if it's an old metal dread they have.
Dr.Tom arguing that the latest datasheet is based on WYSIWYG and therefore the index would be the current datasheet requiring no permission.
Nice cherrypick there, given the number of times I've said you ask permisison. Here the argument was you saying we're not allowed to go back and use the index datasheet for older options, and I point out that GW does let us use the index datasheet for older options. That's separate from whether or not you need permission from your opponent to use them in a game. But, nice that you want to misconstrue my arguments here. Way to misrepresent me. Given how you've misrepresented what other people have said (and been called out on) and how you've misrepresented what GW has said (and been called out on), I shouldn't be surprised.
Nice cherrypick there, given the number of times I've said you ask permisison. Here the argument was you saying we're not allowed to go back and use the index datasheet for older options, and I point out that GW does let us use the index datasheet for older options. That's separate from whether or not you need permission from your opponent to use them in a game. But, nice that you want to misconstrue my arguments here. Way to misrepresent me. Given how you've misrepresented what other people have said (and been called out on) and how you've misrepresented what GW has said (and been called out on), I shouldn't be surprised.
I have always said, all the way back in the very first post of this thread, that you are free to use whatever rules you want to use with your opponents agreement. If you agree with that requirement, what are you arguing about? And exactly what point were you trying to make in contention with that in that post?
Lance845 wrote:
I can go back and pick out quotes from you Charistoph and Waspinator, And others saying you don't need any particular permission to use the index datasheet over the codex. There are 10 other pages of you guys making those arguments based on your definition "model" as a rules entity.
Then present them. You have misrepresented me and others a few times already, even after being corrected.
I will stipluate that WYSIWYG isn't mentioned in the current rules, so if you want to treat it that way, then you don't have to have a WYSIWYG older model to play the options. You can make your choice as to whether WYSIWYG applies or not. I suspect that since there's an opponent's permission involved with getting to use the older models,
Is closer to what I was asking for. So if I have this correct, you think a person can use the older models with the older index options with their opponents permission? Asking to clarify.
I thought it was already clear.
"We expect you to use the most current datasheets for your model"
Do you have a dread with a weapon loadout not supported by the current codex but does have support in the index? Well, for [/b]that[b] model, the most current datasheet is the one in the index. It seems a simple concept that you are having great problems with. It doesn't only say most current datasheet. That sentence goes back to the beginning question about models with older options and them saying that yes you can play them. Though given the amount of qualification you want for what constitutes an older model - something you expect me to define more than GW has - I suspect someone might want to give you the Dreadsock test if it's an old metal dread they have.
Dr.Tom arguing that the latest datasheet is based on WYSIWYG and therefore the index would be the current datasheet requiring no permission.
The quoted statement allowing for index use over codex was about MODELS, not builds or units. Seriously, do you have that much difficulty determining the difference between a unit and a model?
If I have a model which is legal under the Index, but not legal under the codex without proxying, how can I then "still use the old model" without referring to the Index?
Charistoph arguing the same.
TheWaspinator wrote: Once again, only if you need permission to do something GW officially has said we can do. Like it or not, those index weapon options are officially still legal.
Waspinator.
Still yet to see where we have said, "you don't need any particular permission to use the index datasheet over the codex."
Lance845 wrote:To reiterate your argument all spelled out.
You believe that you have full rules permission to use a dreadnought or any other model with it's index datasheet instead of it's updated codex datasheet under the circumstances that it's the older model and/or it has the modeled options that are no longer allowed by the codex datasheet. You believe that this requires no permission from your opponent (beyond the general agreement to play a game/points/missions whatever...). You believe this is stated in this quote.
False. We have never said we have full rules permission. In fact I have stated the exact opposite at least twice now. We have said GW has granted permission through a clarification that is presented in an FAQ format. That is what we have said. You seem to have a bass-ackwards method of reading that ignores what people say or you are lying.
Nice cherrypick there, given the number of times I've said you ask permisison. Here the argument was you saying we're not allowed to go back and use the index datasheet for older options, and I point out that GW does let us use the index datasheet for older options. That's separate from whether or not you need permission from your opponent to use them in a game. But, nice that you want to misconstrue my arguments here. Way to misrepresent me. Given how you've misrepresented what other people have said (and been called out on) and how you've misrepresented what GW has said (and been called out on), I shouldn't be surprised.
I have always said, all the way back in the very first post of this thread, that you are free to use whatever rules you want to use with your opponents agreement. If you agree with that requirement, what are you arguing about? And exactly what point were you trying to make in contention with that in that post?
Okay, let's look back at the first post. You said.
In any game using the actual rules only the options and points and rules for the most up to date datasheet are legal. With opponents permission you can use the older index entries instead. But you are not allowed to pick and choose which dataslate you want to use to get the options you like.
I'm saying given what GW published for using older models, that in games using the actual rules you can use the index datasheets - though it is with opponent's permission it's legal to go through this process, which you refute. "Yo are not allowed to pick and choose which dataslate you want to use to get the options you like"... if you have a model with older options that aren't on the current datasheet, you can use the index datasheet as per GW's procedure, which does involve asking permission. You've stated elsewhere that we're not allowed to use the index datasheet. That is false; for the older options you use the datasheet, as you are using the most current datasheet for your models (said model being an older one with options not represented by the current datasheet). You are treating "any game using the actual rules" differently in these statements, trying to differentiate between GW using the phrase "your games" and "any game using the actual rules". I'm saying they've given you a procedure that covers "any game using the actual rules". Yes, the procedure involves asking permission, but it exists. Stop treating them as completely separate things. Every time you try to acknowledge you can use it with opponents permissioin, you stick in a corresponding sentence about "In any official game" or something similar though to claim that you can't use them in those games when you can - you act like either you're not allowed to ask permission for a game using the actual rules, or somehow the act of asking permission degrades the game so that it no longer counts as an "official game". You need to stop doing that as you can ask permission in "any game using the actual rules". As I've said many times (and apparently you keep ignoring), stop trying to draw artificial distinctions here that don't matter.
Nice cherrypick there, given the number of times I've said you ask permisison. Here the argument was you saying we're not allowed to go back and use the index datasheet for older options, and I point out that GW does let us use the index datasheet for older options. That's separate from whether or not you need permission from your opponent to use them in a game. But, nice that you want to misconstrue my arguments here. Way to misrepresent me. Given how you've misrepresented what other people have said (and been called out on) and how you've misrepresented what GW has said (and been called out on), I shouldn't be surprised.
I have always said, all the way back in the very first post of this thread, that you are free to use whatever rules you want to use with your opponents agreement. If you agree with that requirement, what are you arguing about? And exactly what point were you trying to make in contention with that in that post?
Okay, let's look back at the first post. You said.
In any game using the actual rules only the options and points and rules for the most up to date datasheet are legal. With opponents permission you can use the older index entries instead. But you are not allowed to pick and choose which dataslate you want to use to get the options you like.
I'm saying given what GW published for using older models, that in games using the actual rules you can use the index datasheets - though it is with opponent's permission it's legal to go through this process, which you refute. "Yo are not allowed to pick and choose which dataslate you want to use to get the options you like"... if you have a model with older options that aren't on the current datasheet, you can use the index datasheet as per GW's procedure, which does involve asking permission. You've stated elsewhere that we're not allowed to use the index datasheet. That is false; for the older options you use the datasheet, as you are using the most current datasheet for your models (said model being an older one with options not represented by the current datasheet). You are treating "any game using the actual rules" differently in these statements, trying to differentiate between GW using the phrase "your games" and "any game using the actual rules". I'm saying they've given you a procedure that covers "any game using the actual rules". Yes, the procedure involves asking permission, but it exists. Stop treating them as completely separate things. Every time you try to acknowledge you can use it with opponents permissioin, you stick in a corresponding sentence about "In any official game" or something similar though to claim that you can't use them in those games when you can - you act like either you're not allowed to ask permission for a game using the actual rules, or somehow the act of asking permission degrades the game so that it no longer counts as an "official game". You need to stop doing that as you can ask permission in "any game using the actual rules". As I've said many times (and apparently you keep ignoring), stop trying to draw artificial distinctions here that don't matter.
I am sorry if my exact wording was at any point confusing for you. Allow me to be VERY clear.
When I say "official rules", "Baseline rules", "official game", "actual rules", what I mean is the rules as placed down by GW requiring no more permission then setting up to play a game.
I am going to use the Konar Campaign as a good example of a GW official event that involves players playing their own games at home. In those events, you are expected to be using the most current datasheets. In those events permission for using index instead would not be allowed. Mostly meaningless, because if the 2 players involved want to do it anyway who is going to even enforce it? Right? But it IS what is expected, as layed down by GW.
If 2 players want to play a game, they are welcome to come to whatever agreement they want.
If GW hosts a Tournament, unless that tourny makes some kind of stipulation otherwise, GW expects the most current datasheet. In the case of the dread, it doesn't matter how old or what arms it has. The Datasheet Dreadnought is in the codex (for the armies that have a codex so far).
Automatically Appended Next Post: Or in other words.
If a grey knight player shows up to a store and puts down this model
That player is expected to be using the dreadnought datasheet from their codex.
They can, of course, ask for permission from their opponent to use the index datasheet instead.
Lance845 wrote: When I say "official rules", "Baseline rules", "official game", "actual rules", what I mean is the rules as placed down by GW requiring no more permission then setting up to play a game.
Hilarious. You do realize that even a person wanting to play with Grey Knights would have had a hard time finding a game not so long ago. I could be denied a game just because I couldn't field a big enough army (true story). Even which FAQ set one will be used is part of setting up a current game.
Charistoph wrote: You do realize that even a person wanting to play with Grey Knights would have had a hard time finding a game not so long ago.
And that has any relevance to this discussion... how?
It really does boil down to two choices.
On the one hand, you have a game where you can ignore nerfs to units because of the "Index" and on the other you have a game that has a token attempt at balancing.
Charistoph wrote: You do realize that even a person wanting to play with Grey Knights would have had a hard time finding a game not so long ago.
And that has any relevance to this discussion... how?
The discussion for setting up a game. Lance is so concerned over one datasheet being a reason to drop a game, that he didn't seem to realize that whole armies have been a cause.
On the one hand, you have a game where you can ignore nerfs to units because of the "Index" and on the other you have a game that has a token attempt at balancing.
Which one do you pick?
It depends on what nerfs are being ignored. The only one I have seen GW (and by extension, DT and myself) suggest is Wargear Option access. You don't ignore the nerfs if they are to Points, Power, Abilities, unit sizes, or Profiles.
Charistoph wrote: It depends on what nerfs are being ignored. The only one I have seen GW (and by extension, DT and myself) suggest is Wargear Option access. You don't ignore the nerfs if they are to Points, Power, Abilities, unit sizes, or Profiles.
If you can use overwritten datasheets from index then yes you can. Nerf in codex only applies to entry in codex. Nerf in FAQ specifically refers to codex. So if I can pick up older datasheet then I can ignore nerfs. Of course then if entry gets new options I can't use them but small price to pay for getting index commisar.
More importantly, your (or anyones) opinion on the relative strength of one datasheet vs another datasheet is irrelevant.
The point is there is one datasheet you are expected to use and one you need an opponents permission to use. The most current datasheet is the one you are expected to use. In the case of the image I posted, it's the codex datasheet.
For whatever it's worth (basically nothing) I would have never denied a person a game because they couldn't field a large enough force. I would adjust my list to play with them. Even though it would probably screw me (Tyranids... beyond a certain point I just don't have enough points to field enough synapse to have a viable list). And I would generally be pretty happy to play anyones list that isn't obviously built to power game and screw me over.
But what I would do is pointless here.
What are you EXPECTED to do?
I just don't understand why you think THIS is the place to air your bitterness about the way you were treated in the past or why (if?) you think it justifies some kind of argument against the directions we have been given.
Charistoph wrote: You do realize that even a person wanting to play with Grey Knights would have had a hard time finding a game not so long ago.
And that has any relevance to this discussion... how?
It really does boil down to two choices.
On the one hand, you have a game where you can ignore nerfs to units because of the "Index" and on the other you have a game that has a token attempt at balancing.
Which one do you pick?
Where some people say it's nerfs to units, other people see GW deciding they can't be bothered to update models for options they used to allow before the Chapterhouse decision, then just decided to cut out options that aren't in the box. In many cases it doesn't have anything to do with a "token attempt at balancing". That you suggest it seems somewhat of a joke seeing as you still use the most recent point costs - the usual place people look at for balancing - so there should still be a "token attempt at balance" because of that. Not to mention the fact that there may be special unit-specific rules for the unit in the codex that you don't have in the index which you wouldn't be able to take advantage of by using the index datasheet.
The counterpoint to your qustion is this:
On the one hand, you have a game where you have the opportunity (with opponent's permission) to use just about any of your 40k models, even older ones with options you used to be able to get and on the other you have a game where you don't get the opportunity to use some of your models merely because GW didn't feel like updating their miniatures to include options they used to allow.
Which one do you pick?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lance845 wrote: More importantly, your (or anyones) opinion on the relative strength of one datasheet vs another datasheet is irrelevant.
The point is there is one datasheet you are expected to use and one you need an opponents permission to use. The most current datasheet is the one you are expected to use. In the case of the image I posted, it's the codex datasheet.
(*snip*)
What are you EXPECTED to do?
You're EXPECTED to use the most recent datasheet FOR YOUR MODELS. For an autocannon dread, that's the index datasheet. You're EXPECTED to ask permission if you want to use the older model - if the opponent is okay with it, fine, if not you don't get to play with it. That asking permission for older models is also part of expectations.
No, I am talking about units literally nerfed both RaW and "RaI", Conscripts and Commissars being the prime example. If you decide that the latest datasheet doesn't matter and you can continue to use the old Index datasheet, you're opening the door for people to use old, non-nerfed units and not even the RaI-Brigade here on Dakka would accept that.
doctortom wrote: On the one hand, you have a game where you have the opportunity (with opponent's permission)
Literally everything is with opponents permission. If I don't wanna play against a Knight, or against blue models, I can refuse to play them. We're talking about the bare minimum that can be expected when two people who have never met decide to play, that is the actual concrete rules, as written down in words. Not house rules, not flakey "with permission" rules. The actual rules.
doctortom wrote: On the one hand, you have a game where you have the opportunity (with opponent's permission) to use just about any of your 40k models, even older ones with options you used to be able to get and on the other you have a game where you don't get the opportunity to use some of your models merely because GW didn't feel like updating their miniatures to include options they used to allow.
Which one do you pick?
The latter, because that's what the rules say. It sucks but it's not unprecedented. Anyone who has ever owned Vect, Pariahs or a whole bunch of other models will attest to that. This is what "counts-as" is for.
Lance845 wrote: More importantly, your (or anyones) opinion on the relative strength of one datasheet vs another datasheet is irrelevant.
The point is there is one datasheet you are expected to use and one you need an opponents permission to use. The most current datasheet is the one you are expected to use. In the case of the image I posted, it's the codex datasheet.
(*snip*)
What are you EXPECTED to do?
You're EXPECTED to use the most recent datasheet FOR YOUR MODELS. For an autocannon dread, that's the index datasheet. You're EXPECTED to ask permission if you want to use the older model - if the opponent is okay with it, fine, if not you don't get to play with it. That asking permission for older models is also part of expectations.
EXCELLENT!
So we are back to this.
Spoiler:
Your argument goes like this.
You believe that you have full rules permission to use a dreadnought or any other model with it's index datasheet instead of it's updated codex datasheet under the circumstances that it's the older model and/or it has the modeled options that are no longer allowed by the codex datasheet. You believe that this requires no permission from your opponent (beyond the general agreement to play a game/points/missions whatever...). You believe this is stated in this quote.
There are a few options that are missing in the codex that appear in the index: why is that? Does that mean I can’t use these models in my army anymore?
While the indexes are designed to cover a long history of miniatures, the codexes are designed to give you rules for the current Warhammer 40,000 range. There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index).
They still gain all the army wide-bonuses for things like Chapter Tactics and can use Space Marines Stratagems and the like, so such venerable heroes still fit right in with the rest of your army.
We are going to call this Conclusion (A)
To support this position, you point out that this line
Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index).
means that when they say the word "Model" they mean the model with all it's options modeled onto it to accurately reflecting the war gear options it's taking.
We will call this Argument (B)
When you are asked to defend the idea that there is any rules allowance that says that a models modeled options have any value at all you reference this quote.
There are a few options that are missing in the codex that appear in the index: why is that? Does that mean I can’t use these models in my army anymore?
While the indexes are designed to cover a long history of miniatures, the codexes are designed to give you rules for the current Warhammer 40,000 range. There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index).
They still gain all the army wide-bonuses for things like Chapter Tactics and can use Space Marines Stratagems and the like, so such venerable heroes still fit right in with the rest of your army.
(A).
So.. (A) is true because (B). And (B) has to be my interpretation because (A).
You also use the argument that "Well back in 4th edition WYSIWYG was a rule and Lots of people really like it. So..."
We will call this argument (-). As in null. Because it's irrelevant.
You might also use this!
Publications in use: All current and in-print Warhammer 40,000 Index books and Codexes from Games Workshop and Forge World, unless their release falls on the weekend of the event. We expect you to use the most current datasheets for your models – e.g. those found in a Codex rather than an Index if a Codex is available for your army. This means that you may use Faction-appropriate Index datasheets that might not appear in your Codex (such as Chaplain on Bike)
Saying that the Model they use in here is the same thing.
Argument (C)
Or (A) is true because of (B) and (C). (B) and (C) have to be my interpretation because (A) gives me permission.
If you do not require (B) or (C) to support your interpretation of (A) then your just saying that you can take any model, put it down, and use any datasheet you feel like. Which logically would make GWs ongoing updates to the datasheets pointless. I can debate this if you want... but do you really need to?
This is a circular argument. Your argument cannot support itself. You need other evidence. Apparently DrTom posted some new FAQ? I missed it. I tried to look back and couldn't find it. If you wouldn't mind posting it again, I would really appreciate it. Hopefully it has some kind of bearing on supporting your interpretation of B or C. Because right now your claim that they are using Model in the way you think they are using model is not substantiated by anything.
Which means your last few responses were a whole pile of bs. Glad to see I wasn't "misinterpreting your argument" or whatever other nonsense you claim I was doing.
You need to provide proof that Model is being used the way you say it is.Try not to use circular reasoning this time.
Charistoph wrote: It depends on what nerfs are being ignored. The only one I have seen GW (and by extension, DT and myself) suggest is Wargear Option access. You don't ignore the nerfs if they are to Points, Power, Abilities, unit sizes, or Profiles.
If you can use overwritten datasheets from index then yes you can. Nerf in codex only applies to entry in codex. Nerf in FAQ specifically refers to codex. So if I can pick up older datasheet then I can ignore nerfs. Of course then if entry gets new options I can't use them but small price to pay for getting index commisar.
Apologies, I wasn't clear. If the nerf you are talking about is from the Wargear Options that appear on the model (such as no access to a Power Axe in Codex while having access in Index), then it is possible. However, if the nerfs were only in other areas, then no. If all the Options are the same, then one uses the Codex version.
Conversely, if the Codex Abilities carry a Buff, but only the Index version has the Wargear options of the model, then you will be using the Index version with the "nerfed" Abilities.
Lance845 wrote:More importantly, your (or anyones) opinion on the relative strength of one datasheet vs another datasheet is irrelevant.
Incorrect. It is relevant as they are part of two people organizing a game.
Lance845 wrote:The point is there is one datasheet you are expected to use and one you need an opponents permission to use. The most current datasheet is the one you are expected to use. In the case of the image I posted, it's the codex datasheet.
The point is that you need an opponent's permission to use either. The true difference is that you don't need to bring up the fact that you are using the Codex Datasheet, while you will need to bring up your desire to use the Index version. If you think we have said anything else, then you have been misreading what we have said.
It is the same with FAQ packs. I don't need to inform my opponent that I plan on using the GWFAQs, but I do need to inform my opponent that I plan on using the ITC format for the game.
Lance845 wrote:For whatever it's worth (basically nothing) I would have never denied a person a game because they couldn't field a large enough force. I would adjust my list to play with them. Even though it would probably screw me (Tyranids... beyond a certain point I just don't have enough points to field enough synapse to have a viable list). And I would generally be pretty happy to play anyones list that isn't obviously built to power game and screw me over.
But what I would do is pointless here.
What are you EXPECTED to do?
I just don't understand why you think THIS is the place to air your bitterness about the way you were treated in the past or why (if?) you think it justifies some kind of argument against the directions we have been given.
I wasn't using this as a place to air my bitterness. I was informing you about some of the standards by which I have seen people organize a game. By ignoring this direction from GW that DoctorTom has presented, you are indicating that you would equally reject a game because they aren't using the datasheet version you want them to use just as much as someone who would reject a game because of the ARMY (be it size or Faction) someone else wanted to use.
Lance845 wrote:The point is there is one datasheet you are expected to use and one you need an opponents permission to use. The most current datasheet is the one you are expected to use. In the case of the image I posted, it's the codex datasheet.
The point is that you need an opponent's permission to use either. The true difference is that you don't need to bring up the fact that you are using the Codex Datasheet,
What is the point of saying this? Can you really not understand that that has been stated repeatedly by us?
Lance845 wrote:For whatever it's worth (basically nothing) I would have never denied a person a game because they couldn't field a large enough force. I would adjust my list to play with them. Even though it would probably screw me (Tyranids... beyond a certain point I just don't have enough points to field enough synapse to have a viable list). And I would generally be pretty happy to play anyones list that isn't obviously built to power game and screw me over.
But what I would do is pointless here.
What are you EXPECTED to do?
I just don't understand why you think THIS is the place to air your bitterness about the way you were treated in the past or why (if?) you think it justifies some kind of argument against the directions we have been given.
I wasn't using this as a place to air my bitterness. I was informing you about some of the standards by which I have seen people organize a game. By ignoring this direction from GW that DoctorTom has presented, you are indicating that you would equally reject a game because they aren't using the datasheet version you want them to use just as much as someone who would reject a game because of the ARMY (be it size or Faction) someone else wanted to use.
Again, you take things from my words that I didn't say.
Lance845 wrote: More importantly, your (or anyones) opinion on the relative strength of one datasheet vs another datasheet is irrelevant.
The point is there is one datasheet you are expected to use and one you need an opponents permission to use. The most current datasheet is the one you are expected to use. In the case of the image I posted, it's the codex datasheet.
(*snip*)
What are you EXPECTED to do?
You're EXPECTED to use the most recent datasheet FOR YOUR MODELS. For an autocannon dread, that's the index datasheet. You're EXPECTED to ask permission if you want to use the older model - if the opponent is okay with it, fine, if not you don't get to play with it. That asking permission for older models is also part of expectations.
EXCELLENT!
So we are back to this.
Spoiler:
Your argument goes like this.
You believe that you have full rules permission to use a dreadnought or any other model with it's index datasheet instead of it's updated codex datasheet under the circumstances that it's the older model and/or it has the modeled options that are no longer allowed by the codex datasheet. You believe that this requires no permission from your opponent (beyond the general agreement to play a game/points/missions whatever...). You believe this is stated in this quote.
There are a few options that are missing in the codex that appear in the index: why is that? Does that mean I can’t use these models in my army anymore?
While the indexes are designed to cover a long history of miniatures, the codexes are designed to give you rules for the current Warhammer 40,000 range. There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index).
They still gain all the army wide-bonuses for things like Chapter Tactics and can use Space Marines Stratagems and the like, so such venerable heroes still fit right in with the rest of your army.
We are going to call this Conclusion (A)
To support this position, you point out that this line
Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index).
means that when they say the word "Model" they mean the model with all it's options modeled onto it to accurately reflecting the war gear options it's taking.
We will call this Argument (B)
When you are asked to defend the idea that there is any rules allowance that says that a models modeled options have any value at all you reference this quote.
There are a few options that are missing in the codex that appear in the index: why is that? Does that mean I can’t use these models in my army anymore?
While the indexes are designed to cover a long history of miniatures, the codexes are designed to give you rules for the current Warhammer 40,000 range. There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index).
They still gain all the army wide-bonuses for things like Chapter Tactics and can use Space Marines Stratagems and the like, so such venerable heroes still fit right in with the rest of your army.
(A).
So.. (A) is true because (B). And (B) has to be my interpretation because (A).
You also use the argument that "Well back in 4th edition WYSIWYG was a rule and Lots of people really like it. So..."
We will call this argument (-). As in null. Because it's irrelevant.
You might also use this!
Publications in use: All current and in-print Warhammer 40,000 Index books and Codexes from Games Workshop and Forge World, unless their release falls on the weekend of the event. We expect you to use the most current datasheets for your models – e.g. those found in a Codex rather than an Index if a Codex is available for your army. This means that you may use Faction-appropriate Index datasheets that might not appear in your Codex (such as Chaplain on Bike)
Saying that the Model they use in here is the same thing.
Argument (C)
Or (A) is true because of (B) and (C). (B) and (C) have to be my interpretation because (A) gives me permission.
If you do not require (B) or (C) to support your interpretation of (A) then your just saying that you can take any model, put it down, and use any datasheet you feel like. Which logically would make GWs ongoing updates to the datasheets pointless. I can debate this if you want... but do you really need to?
This is a circular argument. Your argument cannot support itself. You need other evidence. Apparently DrTom posted some new FAQ? I missed it. I tried to look back and couldn't find it. If you wouldn't mind posting it again, I would really appreciate it. Hopefully it has some kind of bearing on supporting your interpretation of B or C. Because right now your claim that they are using Model in the way you think they are using model is not substantiated by anything.
Which means your last few responses were a whole pile of bs. Glad to see I wasn't "misinterpreting your argument" or whatever other nonsense you claim I was doing.
You need to provide proof that Model is being used the way you say it is.Try not to use circular reasoning this time.
I've provided the proof before. You haven't credibly disproven that when they give as an example of a model with older options a Dread with weapons no longer in the box as something their process covers for running, and the process says use the index datasheet, that they in fact mean it when they say you can run a dread with older weapon options using the index datasheet. It was covered in your quotations in your first post. It's not circular reasoning. Being told how you can do something means you can do that thing. If you weren't busy ignoring or misrepresenting everybody (including the original document you quoted) you'd realize that.
I've provided the proof before. You haven't credibly disproven that when they give as an example of a model with older options a Dread with weapons no longer in the box as something their process covers for running, and the process says use the index datasheet, that they in fact mean it when they say you can run a dread with older weapon options using the index datasheet. It was covered in your quotations in your first post. It's not circular reasoning. Being told how you can do something means you can do that thing. If you weren't busy ignoring or misrepresenting everybody (including the original document you quoted) you'd realize that.
"It says Model as I think it says model because it grants the permission I think it does, and it grants the permission I think it does because they use Model the way I think they use Model."
A is true because of B and B has to be true because of A.
You have got nothing.Your arguments credibility is non-existent.
I've provided the proof before. You haven't credibly disproven that when they give as an example of a model with older options a Dread with weapons no longer in the box as something their process covers for running, and the process says use the index datasheet, that they in fact mean it when they say you can run a dread with older weapon options using the index datasheet. It was covered in your quotations in your first post. It's not circular reasoning. Being told how you can do something means you can do that thing. If you weren't busy ignoring or misrepresenting everybody (including the original document you quoted) you'd realize that.
"It says Model as I think it says model because it grants the permission I think it does, and it grants the permission I think it does because they use Model the way I think they use Model."
A is true because of B and B has to be true because of A.
You have got nothing.Your arguments credibility is non-existent.
"There are a few options that are missing in the codex that appear in the index: why is that? Does that mean I can’t use these models in my army anymore?
While the indexes are designed to cover a long history of miniatures, the codexes are designed to give you rules for the current Warhammer 40,000 range. There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range –certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box[/b, or some characters on bikes, for example. Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index).
They still gain all the army wide-bonuses for things like Chapter Tactics and can use Space Marines Stratagems and the like, so such venerable heroes still fit right in with the rest of your army."
When they give something as an example and refer to "these models", it's an example of using what procedure/rules they've lined out. There's no circular reasoning here to anybody who has even the slightest amount of common sense; something given as an example for a question - in this case dreads with weapons no longer in the box - that we are told is okay to use, then we take them at their word that it's okay to use, following the procedures they laid out to use it. You claining circular reasoning is a strawman argument, yet another misrepresentation of our arguments and is you arguing in bad faith.Not to mention being extremely myopic for claining you can't do what something they've just taken the time out to explain how you can.
And actually... lets follow this reason of yours all the way.
There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
If we just cut out the parts about the dread there to focus up on the characters...
There are a few options in the indexes for some characters that are no longer represented in the Citadel range - some characters on bikes, for example.
This PROVES that by options they do NOT mean wargear options since a bike is not a piece of wargear in any 8th edition document.
Therefore, if we are following your interpretation of this single sentence, everyone is free to go back and use 50 man unnerfed conscript units because they have an option on their datasheet they don't have anymore.
Lance845 wrote:The point is there is one datasheet you are expected to use and one you need an opponents permission to use. The most current datasheet is the one you are expected to use. In the case of the image I posted, it's the codex datasheet.
The point is that you need an opponent's permission to use either. The true difference is that you don't need to bring up the fact that you are using the Codex Datasheet,
What is the point of saying this? Can you really not understand that that has been stated repeatedly by us?
Because of this statement:
Lance845 wrote: When I say "official rules", "Baseline rules", "official game", "actual rules", what I mean is the rules as placed down by GW requiring no more permission then setting up to play a game.
Every single game that is not a tournament game requires opponent permission for everything (technically so do tournament games, but they lose out on the tournament scene if they refuse it). If someone can refuse a game on a fully legal codex army, then that is part of the "more permission {for} setting up to play a game".
Lance845 wrote:
Lance845 wrote:For whatever it's worth (basically nothing) I would have never denied a person a game because they couldn't field a large enough force. I would adjust my list to play with them. Even though it would probably screw me (Tyranids... beyond a certain point I just don't have enough points to field enough synapse to have a viable list). And I would generally be pretty happy to play anyones list that isn't obviously built to power game and screw me over.
But what I would do is pointless here.
What are you EXPECTED to do?
I just don't understand why you think THIS is the place to air your bitterness about the way you were treated in the past or why (if?) you think it justifies some kind of argument against the directions we have been given.
I wasn't using this as a place to air my bitterness. I was informing you about some of the standards by which I have seen people organize a game. By ignoring this direction from GW that DoctorTom has presented, you are indicating that you would equally reject a game because they aren't using the datasheet version you want them to use just as much as someone who would reject a game because of the ARMY (be it size or Faction) someone else wanted to use.
Again, you take things from my words that I didn't say.
Mainly because you seem to have difficulty parsing anything I say or deliberately choose to misrepresent what I did say.
You are saying one thing, "I would never refuse a game under these circumstances", but then also stating another later one, "I don't think this is a legal army to be playing with", which then implies, "I will not play against your army, because I think it is cheating using an FAQ I don't agree with." Your actions are speaking louder than your words.
doctortom wrote: You claining circular reasoning is a strawman argument, yet another misrepresentation of our arguments and is you arguing in bad faith.
You still don't seem to actually understand what a strawman is.
Both of your arguments require the existence of WYSIWYG. It's done until you can get some support for WYSIWYG that isn't this single vaguely WYSIWYG statement in a self referential argument.
If anyone else has anything new to bring to the table I'd love to see it. Otherwise were done here.
Lance845 wrote: Both of your arguments require the existence of WYSIWYG. It's done until you can get some support for WYSIWYG that isn't this single vaguely WYSIWYG statement in a self referential argument.
If anyone else has anything new to bring to the table I'd love to see it. Otherwise were done here.
I have the DOCUMENT YOU QUOTED IN YOUR FIRST POST saying you can do it! Like I said before, if you are going to treat it as a WYSIWYG argument then that document provides you the support right there for using WYSIWYG. If you can't accept that, then the problem is with you and not with the document they wrote.
I don't care what you think I "imply". Stick to what I actually said.
Oh, I have. I am referring to what you claim as what you said, and what you are actually providing for as an argument as your actions. You are claiming one thing, but arguing another. You claim to follow FAQs, but are arguing for ignoring one.
Lance845 wrote:Both of your arguments require the existence of WYSIWYG. It's done until you can get some support for WYSIWYG that isn't this single vaguely WYSIWYG statement in a self referential argument.
Considering the fact that being able "older models" can have nothing to do with a datasheet's age, I honestly don't know how one could actually consider the direction in it as anything but addressing a WYSIWYG concern. Your own attempt to explain what they meant by it did not correlate with what they have actually stated.
Maybe you should try stating what you feel that entire Q&A was actually addressing, while considering the specific example of the Dreadnought's Weapon Options. So far, you've been arguing more for ignoring it than actually addressing it.
Lance845 wrote: And actually... lets follow this reason of yours all the way.
There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
If we just cut out the parts about the dread there to focus up on the characters...
There are a few options in the indexes for some characters that are no longer represented in the Citadel range - some characters on bikes, for example.
This PROVES that by options they do NOT mean wargear options since a bike is not a piece of wargear in any 8th edition document.
Therefore, if we are following your interpretation of this single sentence, everyone is free to go back and use 50 man unnerfed conscript units because they have an option on their datasheet they don't have anymore.
Your argument has so many damn holes in it.
You don't see anything at all wrong with changing what they wrote and then saying the altered text proves your argument?
Why do you think they put it in the document? Honest question.
Lance845 wrote: And actually... lets follow this reason of yours all the way.
There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
If we just cut out the parts about the dread there to focus up on the characters...
There are a few options in the indexes for some characters that are no longer represented in the Citadel range - some characters on bikes, for example.
This PROVES that by options they do NOT mean wargear options since a bike is not a piece of wargear in any 8th edition document.
Therefore, if we are following your interpretation of this single sentence, everyone is free to go back and use 50 man unnerfed conscript units because they have an option on their datasheet they don't have anymore.
Your argument has so many damn holes in it.
You don't see anything at all wrong with changing what they wrote and then saying the altered text proves your argument?
I didn't "Change what they wrote" I focused in on the key components of the sentence I wanted to point out. I could acomplish the same thing by doing this
There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
Which says the same thing as
There are a few options in the indexes for some characters that are no longer represented in the Citadel range - some characters on bikes, for example.
The sentence only lacks a single extra example. The actual point of the sentence is wholly intact.
Lance845 wrote: And actually... lets follow this reason of yours all the way.
There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
If we just cut out the parts about the dread there to focus up on the characters...
There are a few options in the indexes for some characters that are no longer represented in the Citadel range - some characters on bikes, for example.
This PROVES that by options they do NOT mean wargear options since a bike is not a piece of wargear in any 8th edition document.
Therefore, if we are following your interpretation of this single sentence, everyone is free to go back and use 50 man unnerfed conscript units because they have an option on their datasheet they don't have anymore.
Your argument has so many damn holes in it.
You don't see anything at all wrong with changing what they wrote and then saying the altered text proves your argument?
I didn't "Change what they wrote" I focused in on the key components of the sentence I wanted to point out. I could acomplish the same thing by doing this
There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
Which says the same thing as
There are a few options in the indexes for some characters that are no longer represented in the Citadel range - some characters on bikes, for example.
The sentence only lacks a single extra example. The actual point of the sentence is wholly intact.
Correct, you took out one example of what they were saying to focus on a different example, in order to prove the omitted example isn't an example somehow. It's like if I took out the part about characters on bikes, and edited it to only mention dreadnoughts and vehicles, then came to the conclusion that characters on bikes can't legally be used at all.
The "actual point" of the sentence is both examples.
Lance845 wrote: And actually... lets follow this reason of yours all the way.
There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
If we just cut out the parts about the dread there to focus up on the characters...
There are a few options in the indexes for some characters that are no longer represented in the Citadel range - some characters on bikes, for example.
This PROVES that by options they do NOT mean wargear options since a bike is not a piece of wargear in any 8th edition document.
Therefore, if we are following your interpretation of this single sentence, everyone is free to go back and use 50 man unnerfed conscript units because they have an option on their datasheet they don't have anymore.
Your argument has so many damn holes in it.
You don't see anything at all wrong with changing what they wrote and then saying the altered text proves your argument?
I didn't "Change what they wrote" I focused in on the key components of the sentence I wanted to point out. I could acomplish the same thing by doing this
There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
Which says the same thing as
There are a few options in the indexes for some characters that are no longer represented in the Citadel range - some characters on bikes, for example.
The sentence only lacks a single extra example. The actual point of the sentence is wholly intact.
Correct, you took out one example of what they were saying to focus on a different example, in order to prove the omitted example isn't an example somehow. It's like if I took out the part about characters on bikes, and edited it to only mention dreadnoughts and vehicles, then came to the conclusion that characters on bikes can't legally be used at all.
You misunderstood my argument. I wasn't trying to prove that their example wasn't an example. I was proving that if they are going to read that sentence the way they are trying to argue it should be read that there are other allowances it provides that they are not paying attention to. They argued that "options" meant only "wargear options". That is not what that sentence says. It's not options a model can take. It's options missing from the codex that are available in the index. I.E. any choice a player has that has been changed by edit or omission.
They have decided that the word options ONLY means wargear. I am pointing out that they are wrong.
Lance845 wrote: And actually... lets follow this reason of yours all the way.
There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
If we just cut out the parts about the dread there to focus up on the characters...
There are a few options in the indexes for some characters that are no longer represented in the Citadel range - some characters on bikes, for example.
This PROVES that by options they do NOT mean wargear options since a bike is not a piece of wargear in any 8th edition document.
Therefore, if we are following your interpretation of this single sentence, everyone is free to go back and use 50 man unnerfed conscript units because they have an option on their datasheet they don't have anymore.
Your argument has so many damn holes in it.
You don't see anything at all wrong with changing what they wrote and then saying the altered text proves your argument?
I didn't "Change what they wrote" I focused in on the key components of the sentence I wanted to point out. I could acomplish the same thing by doing this
There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
Which says the same thing as
There are a few options in the indexes for some characters that are no longer represented in the Citadel range - some characters on bikes, for example.
The sentence only lacks a single extra example. The actual point of the sentence is wholly intact.
The point of the sentence is demonstrated better with the extra example, however. Seeing as you are choosing to warp what they say, though, I'm not surprised you don't see that the point isn't wholly intact.
You misunderstood my argument. I wasn't trying to prove that their example wasn't an example. I was proving that if they are going to read that sentence the way they are trying to argue it should be read that there are other allowances it provides that they are not paying attention to. They argued that "options" meant only "wargear options". That is not what that sentence says.
Well, for someone trying to prove that their example wasn't an example, you've spent a damn long time arguing in this thread that you can't do it when they gave it as an example.
And, once again, another misrepresentation - I haven't argued that "options" meant only "wargear options". You however, are chucking out wargear options as something that allows you to use the index datasheet, in contrast to what they say.
You misunderstood my argument. I wasn't trying to prove that their example wasn't an example. I was proving that if they are going to read that sentence the way they are trying to argue it should be read that there are other allowances it provides that they are not paying attention to. They argued that "options" meant only "wargear options". That is not what that sentence says. It's not options a model can take. It's options missing from the codex that are available in the index. I.E. any choice a player has that has been changed by edit or omission.
They have decided that the word options ONLY means wargear. I am pointing out that they are wrong.
So you're saying they don't believe that characters on bikes can be used? I haven't caught that impression - seems to me they've been saying that models with missing options and models missing entirely may use index datasheets.
Lance845 wrote: And actually... lets follow this reason of yours all the way.
There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
If we just cut out the parts about the dread there to focus up on the characters...
There are a few options in the indexes for some characters that are no longer represented in the Citadel range - some characters on bikes, for example.
This PROVES that by options they do NOT mean wargear options since a bike is not a piece of wargear in any 8th edition document.
Therefore, if we are following your interpretation of this single sentence, everyone is free to go back and use 50 man unnerfed conscript units because they have an option on their datasheet they don't have anymore.
Your argument has so many damn holes in it.
You don't see anything at all wrong with changing what they wrote and then saying the altered text proves your argument?
I didn't "Change what they wrote" I focused in on the key components of the sentence I wanted to point out. I could acomplish the same thing by doing this
There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
Which says the same thing as
There are a few options in the indexes for some characters that are no longer represented in the Citadel range - some characters on bikes, for example.
The sentence only lacks a single extra example. The actual point of the sentence is wholly intact.
The point of the sentence is demonstrated better with the extra example, however. Seeing as you are choosing to warp what they say, though, I'm not surprised you don't see that the point isn't wholly intact.
You misunderstood my argument. I wasn't trying to prove that their example wasn't an example. I was proving that if they are going to read that sentence the way they are trying to argue it should be read that there are other allowances it provides that they are not paying attention to. They argued that "options" meant only "wargear options". That is not what that sentence says.
Well, for someone trying to prove that their example wasn't an example, you've spent a damn long time arguing in this thread that you can't do it when they gave it as an example.
And, once again, another misrepresentation - I haven't argued that "options" meant only "wargear options". You however, are chucking out wargear options as something that allows you to use the index datasheet, in contrast to what they say.
Again, I am pointing out that not only are you misreading Model by assigning it value it doesn't have, you are also misreading Options, the consequences of which leads to codex datasheets being nonsense because your interpretation of that single answer allows players to pick whichever datasheet they want willy nilly completely nullifying any attempt to balance as new documents are released.
So you're saying they don't believe that characters on bikes can be used? I haven't caught that impression - seems to me they've been saying that models with missing options and models missing entirely may use index datasheets.
No.
They think that the word Model means "The model with it's specific wargear options modeled onto it." Which requires that the game has to have some kind of rule requiring players to acurately model the wargear in order to use those options. In the big example of the thread a dread with twin autocannons. Because the greyknight codex and space marine codex have a dreadnought datasheet that does not have twin autocannons as a option they argue that the most recent datasheet for a model with those bits on it is the index datasheet.
When we pointed out that if that was the case then players could use any option they want from the index, including unnerfed conscripts who have the option to be taken as a 50 man unit instead of just 30 in the codex.
Their response was that unit size is not a "option" because CLEARLY "Option" means wargear options and not options in the general sense.
By pointing out that bikes are not wargear, and yet a option for a character in the index in the form of an entirely different datasheet I was proving that their interpretation of options was nonsense. Thus thier interpretation of Model is equally nonsense. Further backed by WYSIWYG not being a rule anywhere.
Lance845 wrote: And actually... lets follow this reason of yours all the way.
There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
If we just cut out the parts about the dread there to focus up on the characters...
There are a few options in the indexes for some characters that are no longer represented in the Citadel range - some characters on bikes, for example.
This PROVES that by options they do NOT mean wargear options since a bike is not a piece of wargear in any 8th edition document.
Therefore, if we are following your interpretation of this single sentence, everyone is free to go back and use 50 man unnerfed conscript units because they have an option on their datasheet they don't have anymore.
Your argument has so many damn holes in it.
You don't see anything at all wrong with changing what they wrote and then saying the altered text proves your argument?
I didn't "Change what they wrote" I focused in on the key components of the sentence I wanted to point out. I could acomplish the same thing by doing this
There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
Which says the same thing as
There are a few options in the indexes for some characters that are no longer represented in the Citadel range - some characters on bikes, for example.
The sentence only lacks a single extra example. The actual point of the sentence is wholly intact.
The point of the sentence is demonstrated better with the extra example, however. Seeing as you are choosing to warp what they say, though, I'm not surprised you don't see that the point isn't wholly intact.
You misunderstood my argument. I wasn't trying to prove that their example wasn't an example. I was proving that if they are going to read that sentence the way they are trying to argue it should be read that there are other allowances it provides that they are not paying attention to. They argued that "options" meant only "wargear options". That is not what that sentence says.
Well, for someone trying to prove that their example wasn't an example, you've spent a damn long time arguing in this thread that you can't do it when they gave it as an example.
And, once again, another misrepresentation - I haven't argued that "options" meant only "wargear options". You however, are chucking out wargear options as something that allows you to use the index datasheet, in contrast to what they say.
Again, I am pointing out that not only are you misreading Model by assigning it value it doesn't have, you are also misreading Options, the consequences of which leads to codex datasheets being nonsense because your interpretation of that single answer allows players to pick whichever datasheet they want willy nilly completely nullifying any attempt to balance as new documents are released.
Your argument is nonsensical here, not the conequences of how I'm reading it (you haven't demonstrated that codex datasheets being nonsense with my interpretation). I'm reading model as it relates to the examples they have. It seems perfectly simple from it, and most people understand what they're saying. I can't help it if you're going to act like what they're saying is suddenly leading to dogs and cats living together - I'm going by their statements and their examples. If you have an interpretation that does not incorporate their example (which you do for the autogun dread), then it is your interpretation that has the problem as you are not accomodating what they say you can do.
Options aren't limited to wargear options, but DO INCLUDE wargear options. Quit pretending that they don't.
Options aren't limited to wargear options, but DO INCLUDE wargear options. Quit pretending that they don't.
So are you saying that you think players are equally able to bring 50 man unnerfed conscripts as they are twin auto dreads?
As a matter of fact, yes. Both require opponent's permission. Do I think you're equally likely to see permission goven for a 50 man unnerfed conscript unit as you are an autocannon dread? No, I don't. Any other silly examples you want to trot out? The same answer will probably apply to them also.
Please note that this also addresses BCB's main concern about playing "unnerfed" models vs ones that he claims have a semblance of balance - if your opponent thinks they're too unbalanced and overpowered, he can always say he doesn't want to give permission. You people should give your opponents some credit for common sense.
Jacksmiles wrote:So you're saying they don't believe that characters on bikes can be used? I haven't caught that impression - seems to me they've been saying that models with missing options and models missing entirely may use index datasheets.
When considering the entire statement, that's not hard to consider. Oddly enough, Bikes WERE a Wargear option at one point, and not considered a separate unit entirely. Not saying that is the case with the Index datasheets (mainly because my time with them has been limited).
Lance845 wrote:Again, I am pointing out that not only are you misreading Model by assigning it value it doesn't have, you are also misreading Options, the consequences of which leads to codex datasheets being nonsense because your interpretation of that single answer allows players to pick whichever datasheet they want willy nilly completely nullifying any attempt to balance as new documents are released.
Wait, a model isn't a miniature on the table? Where do you see this as a possibility? Models do not have Options? Some of those Options aren't Wargear that can be represented on the Miniature?
Oh, that's right, you think that the model only represents the datasheet, but have provided nothing which states this.
Lance845 wrote:They think that the word Model means "The model with it's specific wargear options modeled onto it." Which requires that the game has to have some kind of rule requiring players to acurately model the wargear in order to use those options. In the big example of the thread a dread with twin autocannons. Because the greyknight codex and space marine codex have a dreadnought datasheet that does not have twin autocannons as a option they argue that the most recent datasheet for a model with those bits on it is the index datasheet.
We have been over this, and you continue to ignore it. Some games do have rules requiring players to accurately model the wargear on the model. Sometimes it is because of the tournament rules, and sometimes it is because of the players themselves. GW is making allowances for this.
Lance845 wrote:When we pointed out that if that was the case then players could use any option they want from the index, including unnerfed conscripts who have the option to be taken as a 50 man unit instead of just 30 in the codex.
Which is a strawman as the number of models in a unit do not reflect options ON the model.
Lance845 wrote:Their response was that unit size is not a "option" because CLEARLY "Option" means wargear options and not options in the general sense.
A false statement and a deliberate misrepresentation at this point as it has been stated otherwise multiple times and you have been corrected multiple times. The Q&A specifically talks about options a model has. Adding more models to a unit does nothing to change Model #19/20.
Lance845 wrote:By pointing out that bikes are not wargear, and yet a option for a character in the index in the form of an entirely different datasheet I was proving that their interpretation of options was nonsense. Thus thier interpretation of Model is equally nonsense. Further backed by WYSIWYG not being a rule anywhere.
But that is but one of two categories provided for in the Q&A. When you cut half of the answer off, of course you are going to come to a different conclusion. Even more so when we are talking about the very half of the answer you are deliberately dropping off. Your response is disingenuous, especially when we really haven't been talking about it whatsoever.
Options aren't limited to wargear options, but DO INCLUDE wargear options. Quit pretending that they don't.
So are you saying that you think players are equally able to bring 50 man unnerfed conscripts as they are twin auto dreads?
What you quoted says vehicles and Characters - are conscripts either?
Are you actually arguing that GW has given permission to go back to the index willy nilly as long as they have 1 or 2 keywords? Or did you miss the actual point being made? About what the word Options means.
doctortom wrote:
As a matter of fact, yes. Both require opponent's permission. Do I think you're equally likely to see permission goven for a 50 man unnerfed conscript unit as you are an autocannon dread? No, I don't. Any other silly examples you want to trot out? The same answer will probably apply to them also.
Please note that this also addresses BCB's main concern about playing "unnerfed" models vs ones that he claims have a semblance of balance - if your opponent thinks they're too unbalanced and overpowered, he can always say he doesn't want to give permission. You people should give your opponents some credit for common sense.
As long as you believe the most current datasheet for a model is based on it's wysiwyg options you need more support for your argument then your circular nonsense.
Lance845 wrote: As long as you believe the most current datasheet for a model is based on it's wysiwyg options you need more support for your argument then your circular nonsense.
It is hardly circular when there is a sentence which states it directly. A line is hardly circular.
Lance845 wrote: As long as you believe the most current datasheet for a model is based on it's wysiwyg options you need more support for your argument then your circular nonsense.
It is hardly circular when there is a sentence which states it directly. A line is hardly circular.
Is it really difficult for you to understand that your interpretation of the word "model" could be wrong? And that the ONLY truely RAW piece of evidence we have is the lack of WYSIWYG. Which means you need to prove your interpretation. If your proof of the sentence is the sentence itself... it's circular.
Options aren't limited to wargear options, but DO INCLUDE wargear options. Quit pretending that they don't.
So are you saying that you think players are equally able to bring 50 man unnerfed conscripts as they are twin auto dreads?
What you quoted says vehicles and Characters - are conscripts either?
Are you actually arguing that GW has given permission to go back to the index willy nilly as long as they have 1 or 2 keywords? Or did you miss the actual point being made? About what the word Options means.
You mean "wargear" options. Do your conscripts have wargear that is missing from the codex datasheet but was on the index datasheet?
Also, you still haven't addressed how conscripts factor in at all considering the document says "vehicles and characters." They're not part of the argument.
doctortom wrote:
As a matter of fact, yes. Both require opponent's permission. Do I think you're equally likely to see permission goven for a 50 man unnerfed conscript unit as you are an autocannon dread? No, I don't. Any other silly examples you want to trot out? The same answer will probably apply to them also.
Please note that this also addresses BCB's main concern about playing "unnerfed" models vs ones that he claims have a semblance of balance - if your opponent thinks they're too unbalanced and overpowered, he can always say he doesn't want to give permission. You people should give your opponents some credit for common sense.
As long as you believe the most current datasheet for a model is based on it's wysiwyg options you need more support for your argument then your circular nonsense.
I'm sorry, how does this document even make sense if it's not about wysiwyg, whether or not "wysiwyg" is mentioned explicitly? They tell us how to use our model if it has wargear options no longer in the codex - how could it have wargear options without them being modeled on? The document is explaining how to use models you have built using wargear options that aren't in the codex datasheet.
I'm sorry, how does this document even make sense if it's not about wysiwyg, whether or not "wysiwyg" is mentioned explicitly? They tell us how to use our model if it has wargear options no longer in the codex - how could it have wargear options without them being modeled on? The document is explaining how to use models you have built using wargear options that aren't in the codex datasheet.
Because the model is a "Dreadnought". A Dreadnought has options based on it's datasheet. The datasheet defines what you can give it. You are not required to accurately model what options you have given it, and haven't been in several editions. The options are a rules entity, not a physical piece you stick to the model. To argue that it speaks of WYSIWYG requires proof that WYSIWYG exists in this edition. Find some proof.
I'm sorry, how does this document even make sense if it's not about wysiwyg, whether or not "wysiwyg" is mentioned explicitly? They tell us how to use our model if it has wargear options no longer in the codex - how could it have wargear options without them being modeled on? The document is explaining how to use models you have built using wargear options that aren't in the codex datasheet.
Because the model is a "Dreadnought". A Dreadnought has options based on it's datasheet. The datasheet defines what you can give it. You are not required to accurately model what options you have given it, and haven't been in several editions. The options are a rules entity, not a physical piece you stick to the model. To argue that it speaks of WYSIWYG requires proof that WYSIWYG exists in this edition. Find some proof.
Okay, so you're asserting that GW writes rules under the belief that wargear is proxied and/or what is on the model doesn't matter. That's fine. But without accounting for wysiwyg, what is the purpose of this document at all? Because I agree with your earlier posts that a dread with dual autocannons can be plopped down and used with different gear on whatever paper you put your list on, wysiwyg isn't a rule. But what about if someone modeled a dread with dual autocannons and still wants to use the autocannons? Boom - this document tells us what to do.
If you want to say it's to let us know we can still use datasheets that aren't in the codices at all, well that's partially true, but we were already told that at the start of 8th, so it's completely unnecessary for them to write a new document and then, on top of that, include what to do if dread options on your model aren't in the codex datasheet.
Again - why did they include dreads as an example, in your opinion? I might have missed it, if so my bad for making you type it again in this thread, where there's so much typing already
I'm sorry, how does this document even make sense if it's not about wysiwyg, whether or not "wysiwyg" is mentioned explicitly? They tell us how to use our model if it has wargear options no longer in the codex - how could it have wargear options without them being modeled on? The document is explaining how to use models you have built using wargear options that aren't in the codex datasheet.
Because the model is a "Dreadnought". A Dreadnought has options based on it's datasheet. The datasheet defines what you can give it. You are not required to accurately model what options you have given it, and haven't been in several editions. The options are a rules entity, not a physical piece you stick to the model. To argue that it speaks of WYSIWYG requires proof that WYSIWYG exists in this edition. Find some proof.
Okay, so you're asserting that GW writes rules under the belief that wargear is proxied and/or what is on the model doesn't matter. That's fine. But without accounting for wysiwyg, what is the purpose of this document at all? Because I agree with your earlier posts that a dread with dual autocannons can be plopped down and used with different gear on whatever paper you put your list on, wysiwyg isn't a rule. But what about if someone modeled a dread with dual autocannons and still wants to use the autocannons? Boom - this document tells us what to do.
As to the purpose of the document, there has never been an edition in which an army has received 2 codex (or codex like) books in the same edition before. Since this is a new edition and there is no standard for how the one book with new datasheets interacts with the old book and older datasheets the document exists to explain what happens. We have 3 statements in that document that tell us that the codex datasheet overwirtes the index datasheets. That in all cases we are expected to be using the most current datasheet published for the model.
In all cases, these will then supersede the rules for that datasheet in the index book. The datasheets in the new codexes overwrite the same datasheets in the index books. In all future publications and official events though, it will be assumed that you’re using the most recent rules and Datasheets.
But one of those 3 also tells us that in our own game, with your opponents agreement, you are free to use whatever rules you and your opponent want to.
In your own games, if you and your opponent agree, you can, of course, play with whatever rules you like.
And the line about characters/vehicles/dreads and bikes gives us a guideline for how to do so. You use the most recently published points with the older datasheet.
The document tells us that in all cases the most current datasheet is the sheet we should be using. Index options require agreement from your opponent on a case by case basis.
If you plop down that dread from the picture I posted in a grey knight army you are expected to use the grey knight codex datasheet because that is it's most current datasheet. Which does not have the option to use twin autocannons. You can ask your opponent if it's okay if you use the index sheet instead. In any official event, tourneys, Konar campaign, whatever... GW expects you to use the codex. Which means twin autocannons are not an option (granting that tourneys are free to make up any rules they want as well).
Again, their argument is that WYSIWYG applies, and that the most current datasheet for THAT model IS the index because of the bits glued to it. When asked to prove that WYSIWYG exists they point to the quote about autocannon dreads. It's a circular argument with nothing to actually substantiate it.
If you want to say it's to let us know we can still use datasheets that aren't in the codices at all, well that's partially true, but we were already told that at the start of 8th, so it's completely unnecessary for them to write a new document and then, on top of that, include what to do if dread options on your model aren't in the codex datasheet.
I agree. Using datasheets in the index that are not even in the codex has never been a question. Everyone agrees your free to use those.
I really do understand your side, I've been reading 13 pages worth of it by this point. I just don't understand the point of the document outside of wysiwyg - being able to use whatever you want with opponent's permission has always and will always be a thing, whether they put it in a document or not.
To add to that, I feel the same of wysiwyg, though I don't force my friends to adhere to it - I just see it as something that will always be assumed unless told otherwise.
If you want to say it's to let us know we can still use datasheets that aren't in the codices at all, well that's partially true, but we were already told that at the start of 8th, so it's completely unnecessary for them to write a new document and then, on top of that, include what to do if dread options on your model aren't in the codex datasheet.
I agree. Using datasheets in the index that are not even in the codex has never been a question. Everyone agrees your free to use those.
Not completely what I was saying. I'm still questioning why dreads were included. I think you answered in a higher part of your post though - they were included because this gives you a guideline on how to use them "in your games," "with your opponent's permission." As has been said, though, everything requires your opponent's permission, including even playing the game with them. So I honestly hate that bit about "permission." I'm gonna show up with what I show up with, and you can decline the game if you want - I could see myself changing the list a bit if you're really not up for forgeworld or autocannon dread today, but I won't change it everytime, so eventually you need to learn what it can do or I'll be the one declining games.
This also means you need permission to use chaplain on bike. With permission, you can use 50-man conscripts (even though this document doesn't apply to it). So because you need permission for anything, your reason for the document means it doesn't even need to exist in the way it does.
Jacksmiles wrote: I'm still questioning why dreads were included. I think you answered in a higher part of your post though - they were included because this gives you a guideline on how to use them "in your games," "with your opponent's permission." As has been said, though, everything requires your opponent's permission, including even playing the game with them. So I honestly hate that bit about "permission." I'm gonna show up with what I show up with, and you can decline the game if you want - I could see myself changing the list a bit if you're really not up for forgeworld or autocannon dread today, but I won't change it everytime, so eventually you need to learn what it can do or I'll be the one declining games.
This also means you need permission to use chaplain on bike. With permission, you can use 50-man conscripts (even though this document doesn't apply to it). So because you need permission for anything, your reason for the document means it doesn't even need to exist in the way it does.
Saying you need permission to play the basic rules of the game is pointless. Nobody is forced to play the game. Explicitly stating that you need permission to go beyond the core rules of the game is not pointless.
This document exists to explain how one datasheet interacts with another datasheet of the same name. It's very clear. The newest datasheet applies. And twice it actually says it REPLACES it. So the old sheet, as far as rules are concerned, shouldn't even exist anymore.
In order for a modeled autocannon dread to have the index sheet be it's most current sheet the modeled options have to have some kind of significance as a rules entity. I can accept that as true if there was ANY evidence of it. That is what I am asking for. If there is ANY proof that WYSIWYG has rules significance then the whole statement changes meaning. But without it there is no way to read about models and datasheets except as I have been arguing. Until such time that there is a official document from GW that gives WYSIWYG some kind of place in the core rules of the game you cannot use it as an argument.
Lance845 wrote: As long as you believe the most current datasheet for a model is based on it's wysiwyg options you need more support for your argument then your circular nonsense.
It is hardly circular when there is a sentence which states it directly. A line is hardly circular.
Is it really difficult for you to understand that your interpretation of the word "model" could be wrong? And that the ONLY truely RAW piece of evidence we have is the lack of WYSIWYG. Which means you need to prove your interpretation. If your proof of the sentence is the sentence itself... it's circular.
Is it really difficult for you to understand that when they use a dread with weapons not available in the current box as an example of an older model that you can use (with permission, as per their process), that you can in fact use the index datasheet for dreads that has those older options? They call it out in their answer, no circular reasoning involved there, yet like some variation of a Flat Earther you want to keep denying that it happens. All the proof we need is in that question and answer. There's no circular reasoning involved in it. There's no logical reasoning for you to be saying you don't get to use the index datasheet when we are told to use the index datasheet; that is a malfunction on your part.
I'm sorry, how does this document even make sense if it's not about wysiwyg, whether or not "wysiwyg" is mentioned explicitly? They tell us how to use our model if it has wargear options no longer in the codex - how could it have wargear options without them being modeled on? The document is explaining how to use models you have built using wargear options that aren't in the codex datasheet.
Because the model is a "Dreadnought". A Dreadnought has options based on it's datasheet. The datasheet defines what you can give it. You are not required to accurately model what options you have given it, and haven't been in several editions. The options are a rules entity, not a physical piece you stick to the model. To argue that it speaks of WYSIWYG requires proof that WYSIWYG exists in this edition. Find some proof.
They tell you to use the most current datasheet for your model. If your model is a dreadnnought with autocannnons because it's an older model, according to the document you would use the most recent document - the index - that had a dreadnought with autocannon weapon options. This is what they mean by using the most current datasheet for your model. Hardly surprising given that the question was about options no longer available in the codex that used to be available. If we go with what you are saying, then their entire answer would boil down to "no, use the codex entry, you can't use the older options." Since they said the opposite of that, your answer and your reasoning behind your answer is completely flawed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Primark G wrote: I cannot believe this is still going on after 11 pages.
That's because this thread has effectively been col_impacted.
As to the purpose of the document, there has never been an edition in which an army has received 2 codex (or codex like) books in the same edition before.
Revision/updates to DE in 3rd edition, as well as Chaos Marines. Codex: Eldar and the Craftworlds codex-like supplement. There's probably other 3rd edition stuff I'm forgetting about even if you don't count all the Chapter spinoffs in different books.
Lance845 wrote:Is it really difficult for you to understand that your interpretation of the word "model" could be wrong? And that the ONLY truely RAW piece of evidence we have is the lack of WYSIWYG. Which means you need to prove your interpretation. If your proof of the sentence is the sentence itself... it's circular.
It is not difficult. However, you have not presented any documentation or demonstration in which my interpretation is false. You've made several claims as to what they are, but have brought nothing to support your assertions.
So, you are claiming that GW's statement is circular then? How interesting. All we are saying is take it for its word exactly as it states, but you are attributing other interpretations to it without actually presenting any actual documentation to support it.
Lance845 wrote:As to the purpose of the document, there has never been an edition in which an army has received 2 codex (or codex like) books in the same edition before. Since this is a new edition and there is no standard for how the one book with new datasheets interacts with the old book and older datasheets the document exists to explain what happens. We have 3 statements in that document that tell us that the codex datasheet overwirtes the index datasheets. That in all cases we are expected to be using the most current datasheet published for the model.
False. You are demonstrating a distinct lack of knowledge of the history of the game. It happened in 3rd Edition. There was the original document released with the rulebook because so much of the game changed. Then, they released codices for each army, even adding Necrons in for the first time as their own army. Furthermore, Chaos Marines, and I think Imperial Guard, also received a second codex at the tail end of 3rd Edition. The first Chaos Marines codex in 3rd Edition had Doomrider, the second one did not, but had an amazing system for customization (even if some parts were rather unbalanced).
Also keep in mind that GW often contradicts itself after setting up hard line limits. They may have stated 3 times that the Codex completely overrides the Index, but then they also include an exception. Ignoring the exception is also ignoring what they say. For example, talking about Movement but denying Advancement means you are actually ignoring what the rulebook says.
In order for a modeled autocannon dread to have the index sheet be it's most current sheet the modeled options have to have some kind of significance as a rules entity. I can accept that as true if there was ANY evidence of it. That is what I am asking for. If there is ANY proof that WYSIWYG has rules significance then the whole statement changes meaning. But without it there is no way to read about models and datasheets except as I have been arguing. Until such time that there is a official document from GW that gives WYSIWYG some kind of place in the core rules of the game you cannot use it as an argument.
The evidence is that they reference it specifically as an example, though you deny that evidence. It's not circular reasoning to believe there's a reason they do so. It stands to reason due to it being used as an example that they see a "model" as a sum total of wargear - though there is nothing that explicitly says so.
Considering you've said several times in this thread that this strict interpretation isn't how you play anyway, I honestly think everyone is just kind of repeating themselves and this could probably be let go to be a searchable thread for future questions for people to work it out, but I doubt the three main posters in here are going to sway either side and I haven't really seen much new in a few pages.
Lance845 wrote: Until the 2 of you have proof of wysiwyg your interpretation of Model is unsubstantiated. Find some proof that doesnt rely on circular reasoning.
Demonstrate conclusively that "older models" is not talking about "older miniatures" but "older profiles", and it will be evidence that it is circular reasoning.
In order for a modeled autocannon dread to have the index sheet be it's most current sheet the modeled options have to have some kind of significance as a rules entity. I can accept that as true if there was ANY evidence of it. That is what I am asking for. If there is ANY proof that WYSIWYG has rules significance then the whole statement changes meaning. But without it there is no way to read about models and datasheets except as I have been arguing. Until such time that there is a official document from GW that gives WYSIWYG some kind of place in the core rules of the game you cannot use it as an argument.
The evidence is that they reference it specifically as an example, though you deny that evidence. It's not circular reasoning to believe there's a reason they do so. It stands to reason due to it being used as an example that they see a "model" as a sum total of wargear - though there is nothing that explicitly says so.
Considering you've said several times in this thread that this strict interpretation isn't how you play anyway, I honestly think everyone is just kind of repeating themselves and this could probably be let go to be a searchable thread for future questions for people to work it out, but I doubt the three main posters in here are going to sway either side and I haven't really seen much new in a few pages.
That an interpretation of that statment that relies on wysiwyg existing. Its equally plausible that they are saying "hey tou guys with those older models with options that dont exist anymore. Your probably asking yourselves, are mu models now all built wrong? Was my care in building and painting wasted? Well not to worry! The index sheets do exist. In your own games use the index with the latest points and you can still field it that way! 8th is the edition about playing how you want to! Find some friends that agree and have a ball!"
And then that interpretation becomes even more likely when you take the rest of the document into consideration and consider that wysiwyg doesnt exist.
Their argument requires something not explicitly stated to suddenly become true through implication. Mine doesn't.
Lance845 wrote: That an interpretation of that statment that relies on wysiwyg existing. Its equally plausible that they are saying "hey tou guys with those older models with options that dont exist anymore. Your probably asking yourselves, are mu models now all built wrong? Was my care in building and painting wasted? Well not to worry! The index sheets do exist. In your own games use the index with the latest points and you can still field it that way! 8th is the edition about playing how you want to! Find some friends that agree and have a ball!"
And then that interpretation becomes even more likely when you take the rest of the document into consideration and consider that wysiwyg doesnt exist.
But WYSIWYG DOES exist, don't act like it doesn't. It may not be in the baseline rules, but GW knows it exists in many player's and tournament considerations.
We are not ignoring any part of the document in this consideration, either. We just recognize that GW makes a hard statement, and then adds exceptions to it later on.
Lance845 wrote: Their argument requires something not explicitly stated to suddenly become true through implication. Mine doesn't.
Your argument makes half of the statement, which is referring to Dreadnought Weapons, make absolutely no sense, though. And I think referring to "miniatures" and "older models" indicates that they are talking about such WYSIWYG considerations.
But WYSIWYG DOES exist, ]don't act like it doesn't. It may not be in the baseline rules, but GW knows it exists in many player's and tournament considerations.
Here is the thing you don't seem to be able to understand. 100% of all players and events can all use WYSIWYG. All of them. Forever. Until it's an actual rule in the baseline rules, it's all just a house rule. Even if we pretend that right now we could say with 100% certainty that GW is both aware and gives a gak, they STILL haven't given enough of a gak to make an actual rule for it. Which makes everything to do with it unsubstantiated conjecture.
We are not ignoring any part of the document in this consideration, either. We just recognize that GW makes a hard statement, and then adds exceptions to it later on.
You BELIEVE GW makes a hard statement based on a implication you THINK is there that has no actual rule support.
Lance845 wrote: Their argument requires something not explicitly stated to suddenly become true through implication. Mine doesn't.
Your argument makes half of the statement, which is referring to Dreadnought Weapons, make absolutely no sense, though. And I think referring to "miniatures" and "older models" indicates that they are talking about such WYSIWYG considerations.
I believe you do think that. But in order to PROVE IT you need to have evidence to support that interpretation.
I cannot prove that WYSIWYG doesn't exist in the same way that I cannot prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist. Things that don't exist don't leave behind empirical evidence to use as proof of their non existence. Asking me to supply the burden of proof on WYSIWYG would be madness.
YOU are the one saying that this thing is a real entity in the rules that needs to be observed by players in order to understand the document. The burden of proof is on you. You need to prove that WYSIWYG is something with any kind of mechanical weight in order for the statement to be read the way you want it to be read. Not, "The only way it makes sense to me is WYSIWYG so WYSIWYG has to be the way it has to be read!" Again, circular. Your conclusion can't be evidence for your evidence.
If tomorrow GW put out a Errata that said WYSIWYG was a real thing I would throw up a post in general saying "THANK fething CHRIST! Charistoph and Dr.Tom you guys were right. Finally GW put out a statement clearing up one of the many bullshitty things in 8th edition. WYSIWYG is not a bad idea and having some actual rules support for it is a great step forward!" But I would bet you money that GW is going to do no such thing. Because they also arn't fixing the RAW issues in their 8 pages of rules.
We have what we have and we have what we don't have. And one of the things we don't have is ANY rule in ANY capacity supplying rules for WYSIWYG or defining models by what bits you glued to it. So you need to take that gak right out of your head when reading their statements because IT DOESN'T EXIST.
We do have this :
All miniatures in your collection must be produced by Games Workshop and be fully assembled, painted and based. Each
model must fully represent what you have presented on your army lists.
Its from there event pack so if you want to play by gw event rules then its a rule . Ive only just come on at the end here but i dont think the quotes about using older models is from a faq either
Just had a quick look and it seems like all events require wysiwyg so ,it apears from gw stance that it is a rule they want to enfoce on any of there ofical events
ian wrote: We do have this : All miniatures in your collection must be produced by Games Workshop and be fully assembled, painted and based. Each model must fully represent what you have presented on your army lists.
Its from there event pack so if you want to play by gw event rules then its a rule . Ive only just come on at the end here but i dont think the quotes about using older models is from a faq either
Event guidelines, have been pointed out in the past, run on all kinds of special rules. Allowing forgeworld or not, allowing Lords of War or not. Tourneys are all basically house rules.
The quotes about older models is in the first post of the thread along with the 3 other relevent quotes to the discussion. It also has a link to the article if you care to give the source a read. Welcome to the gak storm!
Thank you will read now ,however because its in every events pack that must have some bearing that its not a special rule that they change depending on the event. Its more like a standard rule spread accross all events meaning that it shouldnt be brushed of as a house rule
ian wrote: Thank you will read now ,however because its in every events pack that must have some bearing that its not a special rule that they change depending on the event. Its more like a standard rule spread accross all events meaning that it shouldnt be brushed of as a house rule
Which is fair to an extent. The dispute at the moment... and really most of the thread, is that a models datasheet is defined by it's weapon options modeled onto it, or not. So if a grey knight player has a dread with twin autocannons on it (a available option in the index, but not allowed in the grey knight codex) that the "most current datasheet" would be the Index one. And thus a grey knight player would be able to take it using the index rules.
The link you are going to be reading stipulates that the codex datasheet supercedes the index one. That in all cases it replaces it, and that for all official events players are expected to use the codex instead of the index when available.
Basically, while the event pack adds on the additional rules for WYSIWYG it also clearly stipulates that a dread with twin autocannons in a grey knight army would be an illegal model.
But players playing at home don't need the event pack rules and nowhere in the standard matched play rules (in the book) is there any stipulation or definition of a model that says it's wargear options must be accurately represented on the model. Nowhere in the BRB or any of the index/codexes is there a requirement for it. And the free 8 page rules or the core rule book and a boo for your army list is all that is required to play.
Thank you that was a very helpfull summary.
Im not sure if you have seen my edit with the link . If players are going to use the community post as valid rules ,then its only fair to also use the community post stating that "The Grand Tournament is a classic matched play event" and using there events pack as a guide to what a clasic matched play game entails .
Now because you are at home then you are free to house rule how you want and thats was the implied intention i got from reading the post.
If you both players cannot agree then the search for a offical stance would invole reading all comunity post which would lead to the events pack which is gw stance on how the game should be played in a "competative, offical ,strict" so that would indeed mean no autocannon dreadnaught
ian wrote: Thank you that was a very helpfull summary.
Im not sure if you have seen my edit with the link . If players are going to use the community post as valid rules ,then its only fair to also use the community post stating that "The Grand Tournament is a classic matched play event" and using there events pack as a guide to what a clasic matched play game entails .
Now because you are at home then you are free to house rule how you want and thats was the implied intention i got from reading the post.
If you both players cannot agree then the search for a offical stance would invole reading all comunity post which would lead to the events pack which is gw stance on how the game should be played in a "competative, offical ,strict" so that would indeed mean no autocannon dreadnaught
Right. If 2 players agree they can use whatever rules they want. But the rules that are expected to be played are the most current. A models permissions are not defined by the bits you glue onto it. It's defined by it's most current datasheet. If you want to go the extra mile and be WYSIWYG from there that is all up to you. Also GW official events like the GT require it.
If you both players cannot agree then the search for a offical stance would invole reading all comunity post which would lead to the events pack which is gw stance on how the game should be played in a "competative, offical ,strict" so that would indeed mean no autocannon dreadnaught
Which is wrong because there is a Mortis dreadnought in the FW rulebook forces of the adeptus astartes with twin autocannons.
If you both players cannot agree then the search for a offical stance would invole reading all comunity post which would lead to the events pack which is gw stance on how the game should be played in a "competative, offical ,strict" so that would indeed mean no autocannon dreadnaught
Which is wrong because there is a Mortis dreadnought in the FW rulebook forces of the adeptus astartes with twin autocannons.
Which is irrelevant to this discussion because the Mortis is different in multiple ways.
First: It has to have matching weapons. One of the most popular loadouts used to be Twin Linked Lascannon and Autocannon, not dual autocannon. Second: It is Heavy Support, not Elite. Third: It can't be a Venerable Dread. Hitting on a 2+ is far more important this time around due to everyone and their brother having -1 to hit in some form.
Lance845 wrote: Until the 2 of you have proof of wysiwyg your interpretation of Model is unsubstantiated. Find some proof that doesnt rely on circular reasoning.
If you want to claim that this is all a WYSIWYG argument then all the proof we need is the document you quoted, which specifies dreads with weapon loadout no longer in the box (i.e. not supported by the new codex) as an example of a model you can use, then tells you specifically in the same answer that you use the index datasheet with it and current point costs. You don't go hunting through the other questions to cherry pick, you go with the answer they gave you. If you want to keep claiming it's circular reasoning, then it's GW's circular reasoning, not ours. GW says you can play models with older options, specificially citing dreads with older weapon loadouts, and says to use the index datasheet - there's nothing circular about that. The WYSIWYG is only that they are talking about models you have with the older options, and by the very fact of bringing this up they bring in WYSiIWYG. Your claim in a subsequent post about a different way it can "equally" be read to mean that no, you don't get those options and you don't get to use the index datasheet is completely ludicrous since they just finished telling you that for those models you use the older datasheet. Stick your fingers in your ears and continue to try to not listen to us, but you still have the fact that they said you use the index datasheets with those older models, which means any rationalization you come up with to say that you can't is wrong on the face of it.
If WYSIWYG wasn't a thing GW would sell generic Infantry, Tank and Stompy Thing kits with blank generic guns on and you'd just imagine they were Eldar Aspects, Death Guard with bolters, etc.
Wait. They don't. People make models with particular weapon loadouts then use the Datasheets that describe said models. People buy particular models to use their particular weapons and abilities. They scour eBay and bitz sites to find the right special weapon multiples that the sprue doesn't contain. Some magnetise enabling hotswapping to different loadouts, all the better to have on the mode exactly the weapons they want to use in the game.
WYSIWYG is there and part of the game whether there's a literal printed rule or not. Its an understood convention, it's part of the model range and people's habits. It's a silly tangent to say it isn't. Of course, in your own games Lance, you're free to not have models that represent their weapons and abilities... it's just that most people run fairly WYSIWYG. ;-)
But WYSIWYG DOES exist, ]don't act like it doesn't. It may not be in the baseline rules, but GW knows it exists in many player's and tournament considerations.
Here is the thing you don't seem to be able to understand. 100% of all players and events can all use WYSIWYG. All of them. Forever. Until it's an actual rule in the baseline rules, it's all just a house rule. Even if we pretend that right now we could say with 100% certainty that GW is both aware and gives a gak, they STILL haven't given enough of a gak to make an actual rule for it. Which makes everything to do with it unsubstantiated conjecture.
Oh, I understand that it is not in the baseline rules AND HAVE STATED THAT SEVERAL TIMES NOW, including what you qouted. This demonstrates either your unwillingness to listen or your deliberate attempt to misrepresent what I have stated.
FAQs are not baseline rules, though. The entire consideration of what has been presented was introduced in an FAQ format from an official GW source. We can include FAQs in our debates and are not restricted to only the baseline rules in YMDC.
The very fact that they are talking about older models indicates that, yes, we are talking about a WYSIWYG situation. Otherwise, they would have just told you to have it "count as" a proper loadout from the datasheet. They didn't say that, though. They said to use the latest datasheet "for your model", i.e. one in your possession.
Lance845 wrote:
We are not ignoring any part of the document in this consideration, either. We just recognize that GW makes a hard statement, and then adds exceptions to it later on.
You BELIEVE GW makes a hard statement based on a implication you THINK is there that has no actual rule support.
Wow, you really don't try to understand the context of what someone is talking about. Here's a demonstration:
Hard statement:
1) A model can be moved in any direction, to a distance, in inches, equal to or less than the Move characteristic on its datasheet.
2) Yes, many units’ rules in their codexes will alter from those in the indexes. Sometimes this is to better represent the miniatures and the background, sometimes to balance the game, and sometimes to better fit with the army’s new special rules in the codex itself. In all cases, these will then supersede the rules for that datasheet in the index book.
Exceptions:
1) When you pick a unit to move in the Movement phase, you can declare that it will Advance. Roll a dice and add the result to the Move characteristics of all models in the unit for that Movement phase. A unit that Advances can’t shoot or charge later that turn.
2) There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index).
Lance845 wrote:
Lance845 wrote: Their argument requires something not explicitly stated to suddenly become true through implication. Mine doesn't.
Your argument makes half of the statement, which is referring to Dreadnought Weapons, make absolutely no sense, though. And I think referring to "miniatures" and "older models" indicates that they are talking about such WYSIWYG considerations.
I believe you do think that. But in order to PROVE IT you need to have evidence to support that interpretation.
I cannot prove that WYSIWYG doesn't exist in the same way that I cannot prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist. Things that don't exist don't leave behind empirical evidence to use as proof of their non existence. Asking me to supply the burden of proof on WYSIWYG would be madness.
YOU are the one saying that this thing is a real entity in the rules that needs to be observed by players in order to understand the document. The burden of proof is on you. You need to prove that WYSIWYG is something with any kind of mechanical weight in order for the statement to be read the way you want it to be read. Not, "The only way it makes sense to me is WYSIWYG so WYSIWYG has to be the way it has to be read!" Again, circular. Your conclusion can't be evidence for your evidence.
If tomorrow GW put out a Errata that said WYSIWYG was a real thing I would throw up a post in general saying "THANK fething CHRIST! Charistoph and Dr.Tom you guys were right. Finally GW put out a statement clearing up one of the many bullshitty things in 8th edition. WYSIWYG is not a bad idea and having some actual rules support for it is a great step forward!" But I would bet you money that GW is going to do no such thing. Because they also arn't fixing the RAW issues in their 8 pages of rules.
We have what we have and we have what we don't have. And one of the things we don't have is ANY rule in ANY capacity supplying rules for WYSIWYG or defining models by what bits you glued to it. So you need to take that gak right out of your head when reading their statements because IT DOESN'T EXIST.
Well, then, I guess you should be prepared to say it because...
Lance845 wrote:
ian wrote: We do have this :
All miniatures in your collection must be produced by Games Workshop and be fully assembled, painted and based. Each
model must fully represent what you have presented on your army lists.
Its from there event pack so if you want to play by gw event rules then its a rule . Ive only just come on at the end here but i dont think the quotes about using older models is from a faq either
Event guidelines, have been pointed out in the past, run on all kinds of special rules. Allowing forgeworld or not, allowing Lords of War or not. Tourneys are all basically house rules.
The quotes about older models is in the first post of the thread along with the 3 other relevent quotes to the discussion. It also has a link to the article if you care to give the source a read. Welcome to the gak storm!
The official GW event pack does say it, no matter how unwilling you are to accept it, it is there. Remember, YMDC isn't only about the baseline rules, something you need to get over. We can include GWFAQs in the mix, and the Community page in question IS an FAQ (it just doesn't include an errata).
Never mind the fact that GW can acknowledge their customer's desires without bothering to actually having a hard and fast rule for it, either.
ian wrote:Thank you that was a very helpfull summary.
Im not sure if you have seen my edit with the link . If players are going to use the community post as valid rules ,then its only fair to also use the community post stating that "The Grand Tournament is a classic matched play event" and using there events pack as a guide to what a clasic matched play game entails .
Now because you are at home then you are free to house rule how you want and thats was the implied intention i got from reading the post.
If you both players cannot agree then the search for a offical stance would invole reading all comunity post which would lead to the events pack which is gw stance on how the game should be played in a "competative, offical ,strict" so that would indeed mean no autocannon dreadnaught
His summary was a little off. Here is the pertinent FAQ and Answer, it's only been quoted numerous times:
There are a few options that are missing in the codex that appear in the index: why is that? Does that mean I can’t use these models in my army anymore?
While the indexes are designed to cover a long history of miniatures, the codexes are designed to give you rules for the current Warhammer 40,000 range. There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index).
They still gain all the army wide-bonuses for things like Chapter Tactics and can use Space Marines Stratagems and the like, so such venerable heroes still fit right in with the rest of your army.
And the Even Pack does state this as well:
We expect you to use the most current datasheets for your models – e.g. those found in a Codex rather than an Index if a Codex is available for your army. This means that you may use Faction-appropriate Index datasheets that might not appear in your Codex (such as Chaplain on Bike).
Each model must completely and accurately represent its entry on your army roster (including all weapons and equipment).
Someone who has a Dreadnought with Twin-linked Autocannons would need to use the Index datasheet as that is the latest datasheet which matches their model.
Charistoph wrote: Someone who has a Dreadnought with Twin-linked Autocannons would need to use the Index datasheet as that is the latest datasheet which matches their model.
Therefore someone who has 50 Conscripts would need to use the Index datasheet as that is the latest datasheet which matches their squad.
You can't pick and choose, if one is ok, then EVERYTHING is ok.
Its an option that has been removed not a datasheet. As you have quoted the dreadnaught datasheet is in the codex.
The way they have worded it is that datasheets are replaced , so you grab a copy of your codex and index cross refrence the datasheet name (not options ) tear out any that have the same name as the codex . What you have left is what you can use . Any options that have gone are gone
Charistoph wrote: Someone who has a Dreadnought with Twin-linked Autocannons would need to use the Index datasheet as that is the latest datasheet which matches their model.
Therefore someone who has 50 Conscripts would need to use the Index datasheet as that is the latest datasheet which matches their squad.
You can't pick and choose, if one is ok, then EVERYTHING is ok.
First, he only needs to use the Index datasheet if he's trying to run a unit of conscripts with a unit size larger than what's in the codex.
Second, that's okay. The reason it's okay is that part of the process is that the opponent has to approve what you're wanting to do, so the opponent gets to approve whether you end up using squads of 50 conscripts using the old index datasheet. Odds are your opponent says "no" (or words stronger than that) and you can have a discussion about the conscripts then. There's a chance the opponent will say yes, so then you get to have fun with the large unit of conscripts. They sky hasn't fallen, you don't get dogs and cats living together because of this, and the world doesn't end.
Charistoph wrote: Someone who has a Dreadnought with Twin-linked Autocannons would need to use the Index datasheet as that is the latest datasheet which matches their model.
Therefore someone who has 50 Conscripts would need to use the Index datasheet as that is the latest datasheet which matches their squad.
You can't pick and choose, if one is ok, then EVERYTHING is ok.
Here is the quote:
While the indexes are designed to cover a long history of miniatures, the codexes are designed to give you rules for the current Warhammer 40,000 range. There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index).
What part of that indicates the number of models in a unit? Did your Conscript box suddenly go from 50 models to 30?
ian wrote:Its an option that has been removed not a datasheet. As you have quoted the dreadnaught datasheet is in the codex.
The way they have worded it is that datasheets are replaced , so you grab a copy of your codex and index cross refrence the datasheet name (not options ) tear out any that have the same name as the codex . What you have left is what you can use . Any options that have gone are gone
Except for this:
While the indexes are designed to cover a long history of miniatures, the codexes are designed to give you rules for the current Warhammer 40,000 range. There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index).
Charistoph wrote: What part of that indicates the number of models in a unit? Did your Conscript box suddenly go from 50 models to 30?
I no longer have the option of taking 50, therefore the most recent datasheet for a unit of 50 conscripts is the one in the index. Therefore I may take index conscripts.
This is the logic you are attempting to unleash. Your once again cherry picking and not including the part where they tell you that you must use the most recent Datasheet.
@ Ian (BCB snuck in a post before my reply went in.
Of course, if a specific event gives permission for the model with older options, then you can use the index for that. If it doesn't, you can't.
You're actually focusing on events here, not matched play. You might see all (or nearly all) events being matched play, but not all matched play games are events. GW instructed us how to calculate points for matched play for the older models (use most current costs even if using the index datasheet).
Charistoph wrote: What part of that indicates the number of models in a unit? Did your Conscript box suddenly go from 50 models to 30?
I no longer have the option of taking 50, therefore the most recent datasheet for a unit of 50 conscripts is the one in the index. Therefore I may take index conscripts.
This is the logic you are attempting to unleash. Your once again cherry picking and not including the part where they tell you that you must use the most recent Datasheet.
I addressed this - it's not "unleashed" unless there's mutual consent. You don't need to be going around carrying around a sign saying "The End is Nigh" for anyone wanting to follow their procedures.
Charistoph wrote:The official GW event pack does say it, no matter how unwilling you are to accept it, it is there. Remember, YMDC isn't only about the baseline rules, something you need to get over. We can include GWFAQs in the mix, and the Community page in question IS an FAQ (it just doesn't include an errata).
I acknowledged what the event pack says. I also acknowledged that events basically run on house rules, so it's not a great source for the subject of this thread.
YMDC is about a lot of things, but THIS thread is about a pretty specific thing. So if your argument now is that it's some special snow flake house rule then great. We are in agreement that you getting to to take a dread with auto cannons is a house rule you and your opponents agree to. The basic rules is WYSIWYG doesn't exist. So the expected datasheet for that auto dread picture is either a) a mortis or b) the codex datasheet.
Its an event that uses matched play rules , so if you cant agree than the most offical way to play would be using the matched play rules used at an offical tourneyment that gw clases as "The Grand Tournament is a classic matched play event"
Its classic match play , i dont beleave that the community post states that its faq is for matched play ?
Automatically Appended Next Post: You cant just say its a house rule
Automatically Appended Next Post: The comunity post is no diffrent to an events pack its not listed on gamesworkshops faq page so if you going to ignore that you can also ingore the comunity page .
This is really only going to matter when an option gets removed and sombody finds away to break the game by using a legacy option
ian wrote:Yes but in an event it has to be the latest dataslate and that replaces the old one. I am focusing on matched play here
The latest datsheet "for your model". For a Dreadnought with Autocannons, that is the Index version, correct?
BaconCatBug wrote:
Charistoph wrote: What part of that indicates the number of models in a unit? Did your Conscript box suddenly go from 50 models to 30?
I no longer have the option of taking 50, therefore the most recent datasheet for a unit of 50 conscripts is the one in the index. Therefore I may take index conscripts.
This is the logic you are attempting to unleash. Your once again cherry picking and not including the part where they tell you that you must use the most recent Datasheet.
That's a politician's answer. You are answering a question I did not ask, but one you want to answer.
What part of options no longer in a kit indicates the number of models in a unit? Did your Conscript box suddenly go from 50 models to 30?
I am presenting something that GW has stated in their Community page in an FAQ format.
Lance845 wrote:
Charistoph wrote:The official GW event pack does say it, no matter how unwilling you are to accept it, it is there. Remember, YMDC isn't only about the baseline rules, something you need to get over. We can include GWFAQs in the mix, and the Community page in question IS an FAQ (it just doesn't include an errata).
I acknowledged what the event pack says. I also acknowledged that events basically run on house rules, so it's not a great source for the subject of this thread.
YMDC is about a lot of things, but THIS thread is about a pretty specific thing. So if your argument now is that it's some special snow flake house rule then great. We are in agreement that you getting to to take a dread with auto cannons is a house rule you and your opponents agree to. The basic rules is WYSIWYG doesn't exist. So the expected datasheet for that auto dread picture is either a) a mortis or b) the codex datasheet.
What are you arguing about anymore?
That you are refusing to acknowledge what GW and the rest of us are saying. You are plugging your "ears" to try and deny what they have written and treat it as if it doesn't exist.
ian wrote:Its an event that uses matched play rules , so if you cant agree than the most offical way to play would be using the matched play rules used at an offical tourneyment that gw clases as "The Grand Tournament is a classic matched play event"
Its classic match play , i dont beleave that the community post states that its faq is for matched play?
Does the FAQ or Answer specify that it is only for the types of play besides Matched? Keep in mind, many, if not most, of the games here in the US will be Matched Play games, even just for the random hook-up at the LGS.
ian wrote:The comunity post is no diffrent to an events pack its not listed on gamesworkshops faq page so if you going to ignore that you can also ingore the comunity page.
The errata documents are hosted on the Community page. It is a post from a GW source. It is presented in an FAQ format. It looks like an FAQ, it acts like an FAQ, it must be a daemon, BURN IT!
Now, ANY game organizer (including the two players in a friendly game) can deny any GWFAQs to their pleasure (and often do for those who prefer the ITC format). All this FAQ that DoctorTom presented, and I just quoted a short while back, does is provide an official option for players to use the Index option if the model they are using only matches the Index version.
I stated this to Lance, I do believe that if you want to use the Index version instead of the Codex version, you MUST communicate this to either your opponent or the TO (depending on the type of game being played). It's not so much a question of permission (as even the FACTION can cause a person to be denied a game), but of communication with the game organizers. They then have the option to accept it for the game or not.
ian wrote:This is really only going to matter when an option gets removed and sombody finds away to break the game by using a legacy option
Not entirely. As I have been trying to inform Lance regarding is that some people either do not want to change their models, or cannot without purchasing more bits. This is where the WYSIWYG discussion started coming in to the thread.
The event looks like an offical game hosted by games workshop its called clasic matched play , its presented as rules and is consistant across events ah quick burn it ( not really helpfull)
Outside of a friedly game lagacy options are not considered to exsit and thats backed up by gw offical stance on there orginised non friendly games
Charistoph wrote:The official GW event pack does say it, no matter how unwilling you are to accept it, it is there. Remember, YMDC isn't only about the baseline rules, something you need to get over. We can include GWFAQs in the mix, and the Community page in question IS an FAQ (it just doesn't include an errata).
I acknowledged what the event pack says. I also acknowledged that events basically run on house rules, so it's not a great source for the subject of this thread.
YMDC is about a lot of things, but THIS thread is about a pretty specific thing. So if your argument now is that it's some special snow flake house rule then great. We are in agreement that you getting to to take a dread with auto cannons is a house rule you and your opponents agree to. The basic rules is WYSIWYG doesn't exist. So the expected datasheet for that auto dread picture is either a) a mortis or b) the codex datasheet.
What are you arguing about anymore?
That you are refusing to acknowledge what GW and the rest of us are saying. You are plugging your "ears" to try and deny what they have written and treat it as if it doesn't exist.
What you THINK GW is saying based on your interpretation that is in turn based on a rule that doesn't exist. If your interpretation of that answer cannot be read without the existence of WYSIWYG then somewhere... ANYWHERE... Wysiwyg has to be a rule. And if it's not... your reading it wrong.
Is there any chance we can get this locked? It's clear a handful of people are entrenched in their ideas and no amount of discussion is going to change it. It's simply turned into a semantics discussion and not a rules discussion. GW was a bit vague and until they make a clear statement, neither side is going to budge. This has just meandered into a "Nuh uh, I'M right" argument.
Charistoph wrote:The official GW event pack does say it, no matter how unwilling you are to accept it, it is there. Remember, YMDC isn't only about the baseline rules, something you need to get over. We can include GWFAQs in the mix, and the Community page in question IS an FAQ (it just doesn't include an errata).
I acknowledged what the event pack says. I also acknowledged that events basically run on house rules, so it's not a great source for the subject of this thread.
YMDC is about a lot of things, but THIS thread is about a pretty specific thing. So if your argument now is that it's some special snow flake house rule then great. We are in agreement that you getting to to take a dread with auto cannons is a house rule you and your opponents agree to. The basic rules is WYSIWYG doesn't exist. So the expected datasheet for that auto dread picture is either a) a mortis or b) the codex datasheet.
What are you arguing about anymore?
That you are refusing to acknowledge what GW and the rest of us are saying. You are plugging your "ears" to try and deny what they have written and treat it as if it doesn't exist.
What you THINK GW is saying based on your interpretation that is in turn based on a rule that doesn't exist. If your interpretation of that answer cannot be read without the existence of WYSIWYG then somewhere... ANYWHERE... Wysiwyg has to be a rule. And if it's not... your reading it wrong.
"There are a few options that are missing in the codex that appear in the index: why is that? Does that mean I can’t use these models in my army anymore?
While the indexes are designed to cover a long history of miniatures, the codexes are designed to give you rules for the current Warhammer 40,000 range. There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box[/b, or some characters on bikes, for example.
Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index).
They still gain all the army wide-bonuses for things like Chapter Tactics and can use Space Marines Stratagems and the like, so such venerable heroes still fit right in with the rest of your army."
Feel free to explain how an example of "certain Dreadnought weapons that don't come in the box"with the comment "you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models." witthout getting to use dreadnought with weapons that don't come out of the box. Based on the example you specifically can play a dread with weapons that don't come in the box if they're listed on the index. Your saying we're using circular reasoning is no different from saying the Earth is flat. We have evidence here that you're allowed to do it yet you want to state we can't.
Todosi wrote: Is there any chance we can get this locked? It's clear a handful of people are entrenched in their ideas and no amount of discussion is going to change it. It's simply turned into a semantics discussion and not a rules discussion. GW was a bit vague and until they make a clear statement, neither side is going to budge. This has just meandered into a "Nuh uh, I'M right" argument.
Charistoph wrote:The official GW event pack does say it, no matter how unwilling you are to accept it, it is there. Remember, YMDC isn't only about the baseline rules, something you need to get over. We can include GWFAQs in the mix, and the Community page in question IS an FAQ (it just doesn't include an errata).
I acknowledged what the event pack says. I also acknowledged that events basically run on house rules, so it's not a great source for the subject of this thread.
YMDC is about a lot of things, but THIS thread is about a pretty specific thing. So if your argument now is that it's some special snow flake house rule then great. We are in agreement that you getting to to take a dread with auto cannons is a house rule you and your opponents agree to. The basic rules is WYSIWYG doesn't exist. So the expected datasheet for that auto dread picture is either a) a mortis or b) the codex datasheet.
What are you arguing about anymore?
That you are refusing to acknowledge what GW and the rest of us are saying. You are plugging your "ears" to try and deny what they have written and treat it as if it doesn't exist.
What you THINK GW is saying based on your interpretation that is in turn based on a rule that doesn't exist. If your interpretation of that answer cannot be read without the existence of WYSIWYG then somewhere... ANYWHERE... Wysiwyg has to be a rule. And if it's not... your reading it wrong.
From this:
There are a few options that are missing in the codex that appear in the index: why is that? Does that mean I can’t use these models in my army anymore?
While the indexes are designed to cover a long history of miniatures, the codexes are designed to give you rules for the current Warhammer 40,000 range. There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index).
They still gain all the army wide-bonuses for things like Chapter Tactics and can use Space Marines Stratagems and the like, so such venerable heroes still fit right in with the rest of your army.
A datasheet doesn't care what you have in the box. WYSIWYG cares what is in the box. Can you present a case where caring what is in the box has no connection with WYSIWYG?
Firstly, conscripts at 50 strong is a non starter. The guidance that everyone refers to only calls out characters and vehicles. Conscripts are neither.
With regard to datasheets. GWs own guidelines are that you use the most recent datasheet that has been published. Now with regard to the autocannon dread, when you buy a unit you buy the base model first and then add the weapons (in this particular case) so buy default you should be using the codex datasheet as it is the most recent datasheet for that model.
Legacy models I have already are with discussion/apporoval of your opponent.
With regard to datasheets. GWs own guidelines are that you use the most recent datasheet that has been published. Now with regard to the autocannon dread, when you buy a unit you buy the base model first and then add the weapons (in this particular case) so buy default you should be using the codex datasheet as it is the most recent datasheet for that model.
Legacy models I have already are with discussion/apporoval of your opponent.
Cheers
Andrew
Correct.
1) You pick detachment.
2) You pick a keyword to define it
3) You fill FoC slots with the datasheets available to you.... the most current.
4) You choose options for the datasheets as you go.
As pointed out very early on, there is no datasheet Twin Autocannons Dreadnought
Lance845 wrote: As pointed out very early on, there is no datasheet Twin Autocannons Dreadnought
Nitpick: There is no ELITE SLOT or VENERABLE Twin Autocannons Dreadnought. FW have the Mortis, but it's HS and can't have BS2+, which is a massive disadvantage in this edition.
You're better off saying there is no Twin Lascannon/Autocannon dread datasheet, because there isn't that option anywhere anymore.
AndrewC wrote: With regard to datasheets. GWs own guidelines are that you use the most recent datasheet that has been published. Now with regard to the autocannon dread, when you buy a unit you buy the base model first and then add the weapons (in this particular case) so buy default you should be using the codex datasheet as it is the most recent datasheet for that model.
A slight correction, one of the GW's own guidelines are that you use the most recent datasheet FOR YOUR MODEL that has been published. For Dreadnoughts with Autocannons, that is the Index version.
AndrewC wrote: Legacy models I have already are with discussion/apporoval of your opponent.
As has been stated, that will always be the case. Oddly enough, Lance seems to think that we will not be doing that.
Charistoph wrote: A slight correction, one of the GW's own guidelines are that you use the most recent datasheet FOR YOUR MODEL that has been published. For Dreadnoughts with Autocannons, that is the Index version.
My Commissar is the model with the Index Summary Execution rule, therefore I get to use the Index Version of the Summary Execution rule, pre-errata, pre-codex.
Lance845 wrote: As pointed out very early on, there is no datasheet Twin Autocannons Dreadnought
Nitpick: There is no ELITE SLOT or VENERABLE Twin Autocannons Dreadnought. FW have the Mortis, but it's HS and can't have BS2+, which is a massive disadvantage in this edition.
You're better off saying there is no Twin Lascannon/Autocannon dread datasheet, because there isn't that option anywhere anymore.
More to tell, the Mortis Dreadnought is listed as "Mortis Dreadnought" in its datasheet, correct? Sure, you could use the Dreadnought with Autocannons as a Mortis, but not everyone has access to the Forgeworld document, and not everyone built their model to Forgeworld designs.
Charistoph wrote: A slight correction, one of the GW's own guidelines are that you use the most recent datasheet FOR YOUR MODEL that has been published. For Dreadnoughts with Autocannons, that is the Index version.
My Commissar is the model with the Index Summary Execution rule, therefore I get to use the Index Version of the Summary Execution rule, pre-errata, pre-codex.
AndrewC wrote: Legacy models I have already are with discussion/apporoval of your opponent.
As has been stated, that will always be the case. Oddly enough, Lance seems to think that we will not be doing that.
It's just a pointless distinction. You and your opponent could play with any house rule at any time. Great!
But one you seem to think we are not considering.
No, just not what this thread is about. I didn't start a thread in the rules discussion section of the forums so that we could debate whether or not is was possible to use any rule from any book and also the entire Propose Rules section of the forum and also anything a 5 yr old thinks is a good game mechanic so long as all players involved decide they are okay with it. What relevance does that have?
I really hope that from this day forward every time you post to YMDC you have a line somewhere in your post to the effect of "But also, if you and your opponent agree to it, the opposite is true. Or really anything! It's important to note in every rules discussion that house rules can/do exist and all players are literally free to do as they please. If everyone else doesn't also say this at all times they are omitting the fact of it from the discussion and it's worth bringing up constantly despite it's relevance, or lack there of, to the discussion at hand!"
I don't know how we would have ever gotten by without your contributions Charistoph. Thanks for being you.
AndrewC wrote: With regard to datasheets. GWs own guidelines are that you use the most recent datasheet that has been published. Now with regard to the autocannon dread, when you buy a unit you buy the base model first and then add the weapons (in this particular case) so buy default you should be using the codex datasheet as it is the most recent datasheet for that model.
A slight correction, one of the GW's own guidelines are that you use the most recent datasheet FOR YOUR MODEL that has been published. For Dreadnoughts with Autocannons, that is the Index version.
Here's the problem I have with that. GW has given guidelines to allow you to use models that were rendered obsolete by the new edition. But as long as that loophole is there unscrupulous players can continue to create models that are not available to others. For that reason I do believe that at some point in the near future GW will say that legacy models for codex datasheets will be removed from normal play.
AndrewC wrote: Legacy models I have already are with discussion/apporoval of your opponent.
As has been stated, that will always be the case. Oddly enough, Lance seems to think that we will not be doing that.
It's just a pointless distinction. You and your opponent could play with any house rule at any time. Great!
But one you seem to think we are not considering.
No, just not what this thread is about. I didn't start a thread in the rules discussion section of the forums so that we could debate whether or not is was possible to use any rule from any book and also the entire Propose Rules section of the forum and also anything a 5 yr old thinks is a good game mechanic so long as all players involved decide they are okay with it. What relevance does that have?
A discussion does not always go according to the dictates and desires of the instigator. I am under no requirement to give you only the answers you want, but I am under obligation to provide answers which fit the facts.
There has been guidance from GW regarding this situation which does allow for legacy models to be used as modeled. You have refused to listen to it and tried to deny what it states. The direction also includes some other unwritten protocols that we are also considering, but you have been treating us as if we are going to be surprising someone with a legacy model and a maniacal laugh to entrap our opponents in a game they do not wish to play. Never mind that we have all stated otherwise numerous times by now. That is what makes this not a pointless distinction.
If someone wanted to field a Forgeworld model against me, I expect them to inform me of that fact before the game begins. This is common courtesy and good sportsmanship. But your answers to our responses in GW's guidance on this indicates that we will not be practicing this. Hence why we are reminding you of this.
AndrewC wrote: With regard to datasheets. GWs own guidelines are that you use the most recent datasheet that has been published. Now with regard to the autocannon dread, when you buy a unit you buy the base model first and then add the weapons (in this particular case) so buy default you should be using the codex datasheet as it is the most recent datasheet for that model.
A slight correction, one of the GW's own guidelines are that you use the most recent datasheet FOR YOUR MODEL that has been published. For Dreadnoughts with Autocannons, that is the Index version.
Here's the problem I have with that. GW has given guidelines to allow you to use models that were rendered obsolete by the new edition. But as long as that loophole is there unscrupulous players can continue to create models that are not available to others. For that reason I do believe that at some point in the near future GW will say that legacy models for codex datasheets will be removed from normal play.
That may very well be the case. In fact, they have stated this in the codices, as Lance pointed out. However, they have also left an out that will exist until the Indicies are FAQ'd out. Note that this "loophole" is not intended for new models, but only for "older models" whose options were available in the 6th & 7th Ed codicies when the Indicies were written.
And unscrupulous players have always found ways to exploit the system. To which the answer has been, and always will be, deny them a game until they correct their ways. Don't allow them to hold your games hostage to their arrogance and narcissism. You have as much power as they do in that regard.
This is what's so entertaining about this forum, if the rule isn't decided within two pages you get dozens of pages of people banging their heads against a wall for the enjoyment of the rest of us. They're wrong about the rules, they know they're wrong but come the apocalypse they're not going to stop shouting from their soapbox.
Wow. And it even covers how to use options that have been updated in the codex but might not be on the latest codex sheet (the banshee mask for the autarch as an example). And it says "wargear options" so as to discourage the 50 man index Conscripts.
Also interesting that the flowchart doesn't say you need opponent's permission.
Wow. And it even covers how to use options that have been updated in the codex but might not be on the latest codex sheet (the banshee mask for the autarch as an example). And it says "wargear options" so as to discourage the 50 man index Conscripts.
Also interesting that the flowchart doesn't say you need opponent's permission.
To be fair, that 50-man-Conscript argument was always a red herring, as it has nothing to do with option on a model.
Where is this from? I don't see it on the community page.
In any case nice to see some clarification and re-wording of the rules. I am genuinely happy they finally allow you to use the index wargear options. Venerable DakkaDread here I come!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Charistoph wrote: To be fair, that 50-man-Conscript argument was always a red herring, as it has nothing to do with option on a model.
It was not a red herring and the fact it went out of its way to specify "wargear option" proves it wasn't.
Yes, they actually put some thought into it. It's highly appreciated.
Did you notice for the Craftworlds FAQ, on the question about Dark Reapers vs Culexus Assassin, they actually bothered explaining the reasoning behind their answer? I'm not used to that either.
THANK fething CHRIST! Charistoph and Dr.Tom you guys were right. Finally GW put out a statement clearing up one of the many bullshitty things in 8th edition.
It's good that they released an official document to clear it up. Though it does make the changes to the Dreads options in the GK codex very strange.
Well everyone, best buy the indexes ASAP. When those go OOP it's gunna be a pain to get all your wargear options. Also, were back to an edition of needing multiple books to know whats going on with a single unit. GREAT!
OMG I'm so happy and I hope [MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius] in this thread who were so sure their interpretation of the rules was the only way it could possibly be take a minute to think about how wrong they were...
Cheers...
[edit]
Sorry for the tone of this post but reading pages after pages of people telling others that their interpretation of what was an amorphous rule was ironclad and the only possible interpretation of the rule bothered me more than it should have. I'm glad we finally have clarity. Again sorry for the snarky tone/response
Lance845 wrote: THANK fething CHRIST! Charistoph and Dr.Tom you guys were right. Finally GW put out a statement clearing up one of the many bullshitty things in 8th edition.
It's good that they released an official document to clear it up. Though it does make the changes to the Dreads options in the GK codex very strange.
Well everyone, best buy the indexes ASAP. When those go OOP it's gunna be a pain to get all your wargear options. Also, were back to an edition of needing multiple books to know whats going on with a single unit. GREAT!
Only because GW are cutting their own nose off to spite their face regarding the Chapter House lawsuits. They could have included these conversion options in the codex, but they would rather make the customer suffer than have anyone else make money making things they don't make.
bananathug wrote: OMG I'm so happy and I hope [MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius] in this thread who were so sure their interpretation of the rules was the only way it could possibly be take a minute to think about how wrong they were...
Cheers...
You know the fact that this was changed to be the way it is proves the "you must use codex entry in its entirety" camp was correct in the first place?
Agreed. A petty stupid thing to jabber on about for anyone on any side of any argument.
The flow charts states things explicitly that the "FAQ" didn't (like calling out wargear specifically as something that transfers to the newer datasheet) and comes in a direct document from the designers not some community team hack whos making an announcement post. This is the new normal and it's established. Haul around multiple books so you can cross reference 2 datasheets at all time to know your war gear options. Welcome back to 7th.
Lance845 wrote: THANK fething CHRIST! Charistoph and Dr.Tom you guys were right. Finally GW put out a statement clearing up one of the many bullshitty things in 8th edition.
It's good that they released an official document to clear it up. Though it does make the changes to the Dreads options in the GK codex very strange.
Well everyone, best buy the indexes ASAP. When those go OOP it's gunna be a pain to get all your wargear options. Also, were back to an edition of needing multiple books to know whats going on with a single unit. GREAT!
Only because GW are cutting their own nose off to spite their face regarding the Chapter House lawsuits. They could have included these conversion options in the codex, but they would rather make the customer suffer than have anyone else make money making things they don't make.
bananathug wrote: OMG I'm so happy and I hope [MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius] in this thread who were so sure their interpretation of the rules was the only way it could possibly be take a minute to think about how wrong they were...
Thanks for the kind words. Good advice for the hard copy of the indexes, but I would imagine that yo will still be able to buy electronic versions of them. I foresee a booming business for Index Xenos 1 for Autarchs with Banshee Masks
BaconCatBug wrote: You know the fact that this was changed to be the way it is proves the "you must use codex entry in its entirety" camp was correct in the first place?
Not necessarily. The Flowchart and the introduction to it no longer make a mention of needing opponent's permission, so that could be the change. Well, not to mention that it's only a wargear change now, and it spells out that you use current codex rules for equipment that are in the codex, even if the index had different rules for the older version. That part makes sense.
Charistoph wrote: To be fair, that 50-man-Conscript argument was always a red herring, as it has nothing to do with option on a model.
It was not a red herring and the fact it went out of its way to specify "wargear option" proves it wasn't.
Because the number of models isn't an option on a model (which was specifically stated as a cause), hence red herring.
Lance845 wrote:THANK fething CHRIST! Charistoph and Dr.Tom you guys were right. Finally GW put out a statement clearing up one of the many bullshitty things in 8th edition.
Because we read what they wrote and took it like they meant it. It really isn't that difficult to consider.
Lance845 wrote:It's good that they released an official document to clear it up. Though it does make the changes to the Dreads options in the GK codex very strange.
Well everyone, best buy the indexes ASAP. When those go OOP it's gunna be a pain to get all your wargear options. Also, were back to an edition of needing multiple books to know whats going on with a single unit. GREAT!
Indeed. One thing we agreed on is that GW has been piss poor in dealing with the entire situation, and all this does is exemplify it.
Charistoph wrote: Because we read what they wrote and took it like they meant it. It really isn't that difficult to consider.
If I write "I dislike the taste of apples" and someone comes along as says "He meant he doesn't like the taste of kumquats", would you not agree that is a ridiculous statement to make? What GW "meant" was exactly what the wrote. They have now changed what they have written, thus changed the meaning.
Lance845 wrote:THANK fething CHRIST! Charistoph and Dr.Tom you guys were right. Finally GW put out a statement clearing up one of the many bullshitty things in 8th edition.
Because we read what they wrote and took it like they meant it. It really isn't that difficult to consider.
To be clear, since apparently your one of the people who needs validation of your position in the previous argument, you were right that their intent was for index wargear to be used. Nothing in the previous FAQ clarified that it was wargear, or that those wargear options magically transferred to the codex datasheet, or that permission was not needed. We all had part of the picture and GW was gak at spelling it out so none of us had the whole of it. At no point did anyone in this thread argue that you were meant to use the codex GK Dread datasheet with the Index wargear options it was missing tacked onto it because that was not "what they wrote" and you could not have " took it like they meant it".
What they ended up giving us REALLY was that difficult to consider, considering NONE of us got it.
The argument was "Is the Index datasheet the correct datasheet for the model or the codex one". The answer, as it turns out, is both.
This new flow chart injects new information that both clears up what they were TRYING to say (and failed!) in their previous announcement post while spelling out specifically what it is you actually do with your rules in a new way that was never stated before.
Now let any portion of the argument pre flow chart roll over and die. It's pointless. It's done. If you have any ego about the previous discussion keep your butt hurt and your gloating over any perceived loss/win to yourself.
I think the most amusing part of all this is that if it is true that GW's goal is to only have rules for their current line, allowing and having superior options in the Index that are allowed is really just encouraging conversions of that line.
Of course, they really need to have some rules for older things or risk alienating a goodly portion of their player/fan base. Maybe they should just give up and trust that their superior castings will carry the day? (and maybe put out a larger range of conversion/bits packs and not charge an arm and a leg for them)
Charistoph wrote: Because we read what they wrote and took it like they meant it. It really isn't that difficult to consider.
If I write "I dislike the taste of apples" and someone comes along as says "He meant he doesn't like the taste of kumquats", would you not agree that is a ridiculous statement to make? What GW "meant" was exactly what the wrote. They have now changed what they have written, thus changed the meaning.
Hardly. That is a false comparison.
We have a statement to use the latest datasheets. We have another statement which says, use the latest datasheets that fit your model, and then gave an example of Dreadnoughts with outdated weapons. That statement was made months ago, and not recently. They have further clarified it now to make it so obvious so it makes it hard to be misinterpreted.
Lance845 wrote:THANK fething CHRIST! Charistoph and Dr.Tom you guys were right. Finally GW put out a statement clearing up one of the many bullshitty things in 8th edition.
Because we read what they wrote and took it like they meant it. It really isn't that difficult to consider.
To be clear, since apparently your one of the people who needs validation of your position in the previous argument, you were right that their intent was for index wargear to be used. Nothing in the previous FAQ clarified that it was wargear, or that those wargear options magically transferred to the codex datasheet, or that permission was not needed. We all had part of the picture and GW was gak at spelling it out so none of us had the whole of it. At no point did anyone in this thread argue that you were meant to use the codex GK Dread datasheet with the Index wargear options it was missing tacked onto it because that was not "what they wrote" and you could not have " took it like they meant it".
Why do people project so much? You apparently needed to be obnoxious about "congratulations", so who needs validation?
Yes, they were talking about wargear options because they were talking about old models. You know the little bits that we attach to the model? The statement giving the answer was very specific about those things in its example. It was only people who were blind to the presence of WYSIWYG and avoiding proxy still present in the community who kept missing it or deliberately ignoring it.
Lance845 wrote:What they ended up giving us REALLY was that difficult to consider, considering NONE of us got it.
None of YOU got it, DoctorTom and I understood it just fine.
Lance845 wrote:The argument was "Is the Index datasheet the correct datasheet for the model or the codex one". The answer, as it turns out, is both.
Nope, it still says to use the one that is appropriate to your model, albeit not spelled out that way. The answer allowing the Index version is, "But you can choose the index version for its wargear options". It doesn't say to only use the wargear options from the index version.
Lance845 wrote:This new flow chart injects new information that both clears up what they were TRYING to say (and failed!) in their previous announcement post while spelling out specifically what it is you actually do with your rules in a new way that was never stated before.
It only failed to say it to those who were not willing to consider WYSIWYG is still a thing in the community, and was pointed out in almost every single page of this thread.
Lance845 wrote:Now let any portion of the argument pre flow chart roll over and die. It's pointless. It's done. If you have any ego about the previous discussion keep your butt hurt and your gloating over any perceived loss/win to yourself.
You are the one who is appearing to have a problem about the previous discussion. I just don't like being misrepresented during the current one.
Lance845 wrote:
The argument was "Is the Index datasheet the correct datasheet for the model or the codex one". The answer, as it turns out, is both.
Nope, it still says to use the one that is appropriate to your model, albeit not spelled out that way. The answer allowing the Index version is, "But you can choose the index version for its wargear options". It doesn't say to only use the wargear options from the index version.
the big box at the bottom of the chart wrote:
For example, if you wished to use a Commissar with a Power Axe, you would check if the Codex has a datasheet for Commissars. It does, so you would use this datasheet - however, it does not support the wargear options which allow him to replace his power sword with a power axe, so you would use the Commissar wargear options from Index Imperium 2.
I have seen plenty of official resolution that created more scope for differing interpretation, but the accompanying commentary seems to see this issue up.
Lance845 wrote:
The argument was "Is the Index datasheet the correct datasheet for the model or the codex one". The answer, as it turns out, is both.
Nope, it still says to use the one that is appropriate to your model, albeit not spelled out that way. The answer allowing the Index version is, "But you can choose the index version for its wargear options". It doesn't say to only use the wargear options from the index version.
the big box at the bottom of the chart wrote:
For example, if you wished to use a Commissar with a Power Axe, you would check if the Codex has a datasheet for Commissars. It does, so you would use this datasheet - however, it does not support the wargear options which allow him to replace his power sword with a power axe, so you would use the Commissar wargear options from Index Imperium 2.
I have seen plenty of official resolution that created more scope for differing interpretation, but the accompanying commentary seems to see this issue up.
Which puts a lie to what is stated in chart. Putting it as "use the index version for its wargear options", is not the same as "use the index version's wargear options".
The first phrase indicates to use the whole old thing in order to use the small part. The second phrase indicates to use just the one part of the old thing instead of using all of it.
The chart says the first, while the box says the second. The initial statement which brought the numerous pages of this discussion supports the first phrase.
Its one page. The flow chart clearly tells you you always use the latest datasheet. Codex if its in the codex. Index if its not. You can use index wargear options if they are diferent from the codex datasheet, but your still paying codex points, using codex profiles, and using the codex datasheet.
On the SAME page they then clarify this incredibly easy to read and understand flow chart with multiple examples.
You know what... Im done now. Charistoph, good luck with your reading.
So am I using only the "wargear options" from the index or do I also use the default wargear from the index?
For example, a codex Autarch comes with a star glaive, plasma grenades, and a forceshield (per the errata), and has no options. An index Autarch comes with a shuriken pistol and sunburst grenades, and has a bunch of options.
If I want to bring an Autarch with two avenger catapults, does this Autarch also have a star glaive, plasma grenades, and a forceshield? Or does he instead have a shuriken pistol and sunburst grenades? If the former, is it no longer possible to bring an Autarch with a fusion pistol, since you wouldn't have a shuriken pistol to swap for it?
Dionysodorus wrote: So am I using only the "wargear options" from the index or do I also use the default wargear from the index?
For example, a codex Autarch comes with a star glaive, plasma grenades, and a forceshield (per the errata), and has no options. An index Autarch comes with a shuriken pistol and sunburst grenades, and has a bunch of options.
If I want to bring an Autarch with two avenger catapults, does this Autarch also have a star glaive, plasma grenades, and a forceshield? Or does he instead have a shuriken pistol and sunburst grenades? If the former, is it no longer possible to bring an Autarch with a fusion pistol, since you wouldn't have a shuriken pistol to swap for it?
Only the options that are missing from the codex. The actual datasheet you use is the codex one.
Dionysodorus wrote: So am I using only the "wargear options" from the index or do I also use the default wargear from the index?
For example, a codex Autarch comes with a star glaive, plasma grenades, and a forceshield (per the errata), and has no options. An index Autarch comes with a shuriken pistol and sunburst grenades, and has a bunch of options.
If I want to bring an Autarch with two avenger catapults, does this Autarch also have a star glaive, plasma grenades, and a forceshield? Or does he instead have a shuriken pistol and sunburst grenades? If the former, is it no longer possible to bring an Autarch with a fusion pistol, since you wouldn't have a shuriken pistol to swap for it?
Only the options that are missing from the codex. The actual datasheet you use is the codex one.
So, to be clear, your vote is that all foot Autarchs have a star glaive and none have a shuriken pistol, and so you can no longer take a fusion pistol either since you don't have a shuriken pistol to swap for it even though you'd have the option to make that swap if you had a shuriken pistol?
Dionysodorus wrote: So am I using only the "wargear options" from the index or do I also use the default wargear from the index?
For example, a codex Autarch comes with a star glaive, plasma grenades, and a forceshield (per the errata), and has no options. An index Autarch comes with a shuriken pistol and sunburst grenades, and has a bunch of options.
If I want to bring an Autarch with two avenger catapults, does this Autarch also have a star glaive, plasma grenades, and a forceshield? Or does he instead have a shuriken pistol and sunburst grenades? If the former, is it no longer possible to bring an Autarch with a fusion pistol, since you wouldn't have a shuriken pistol to swap for it?
Only the options that are missing from the codex. The actual datasheet you use is the codex one.
So, to be clear, your vote is that all foot Autarchs have a star glaive and none have a shuriken pistol, and so you can no longer take a fusion pistol either since you don't have a shuriken pistol to swap for it even though you'd have the option to make that swap if you had a shuriken pistol?
I dont know those datasheets.
What i am saying is what the flowchart says. Once you reach that bottom most box 1) do you have a newer datasheet then the index one? Yes. Then thats the one you use. 2) are their options on the index sheet that are not on the codex sheet? Yes. Then pull those weapon options over from the index and use them.
Does that end up breaking some gak? Yeah. Probably. GW didnt write the codexes taking the indexes into consideration. Shock and awe, now there are inconsistencies.
Lance845 wrote: What i am saying is what the flowchart says. Once you reach that bottom most box 1) do you have a newer datasheet then the index one? Yes. Then thats the one you use. 2) are their options on the index sheet that are not on the codex sheet? Yes. Then pull those weapon options over to the index and use them.
Actually the bottom-most box of the flow-chart says to use the index version for its weapon options.
The bottom box of the page with the flow-chart says something else entirely, to only use the Wargear options. The example in the bottom box is not part of the flow-chart.
Lance845 wrote: What i am saying is what the flowchart says. Once you reach that bottom most box 1) do you have a newer datasheet then the index one? Yes. Then thats the one you use. 2) are their options on the index sheet that are not on the codex sheet? Yes. Then pull those weapon options over to the index and use them.
Actually the bottom-most box of the flow-chart says to use the index version for its weapon options.
The bottom box of the page with the flow-chart says something else entirely, to only use the Wargear options. The example in the bottom box is not part of the flow-chart.
So do you follow the instructions or the example?
Im not gunna debate your inability to understand the flowchart.
Lance845 wrote: What i am saying is what the flowchart says. Once you reach that bottom most box 1) do you have a newer datasheet then the index one? Yes. Then thats the one you use. 2) are their options on the index sheet that are not on the codex sheet? Yes. Then pull those weapon options over to the index and use them.
Actually the bottom-most box of the flow-chart says to use the index version for its weapon options.
The bottom box of the page with the flow-chart says something else entirely, to only use the Wargear options. The example in the bottom box is not part of the flow-chart.
So do you follow the instructions or the example?
Im not gunna debate your inability to understand the flowchart.
Because you can't without misreading it or misrepresenting it.
Lance845 wrote: What i am saying is what the flowchart says. Once you reach that bottom most box 1) do you have a newer datasheet then the index one? Yes. Then thats the one you use. 2) are their options on the index sheet that are not on the codex sheet? Yes. Then pull those weapon options over to the index and use them.
Actually the bottom-most box of the flow-chart says to use the index version for its weapon options.
The bottom box of the page with the flow-chart says something else entirely, to only use the Wargear options. The example in the bottom box is not part of the flow-chart.
So do you follow the instructions or the example?
Im not gunna debate your inability to understand the flowchart.
Because you can't without misreading it or misrepresenting it.
Because it's a waste of time debating the written word with someone who can't or won't read.
Lance, if you are not going to debate something, you probably shouldn't have three consecutive post saying you are not going to debate it...
As for the whole flowchart versus text question, is it inconceivable to follow both?
What they are telling you, clearly or not, is that you can still use your models that conform to the Index wargear options with the Codex data sheet. Does it really matter how you get to the end result as long as you get there and use the proper point values and rules for the model?
alextroy wrote: Lance, if you are not going to debate something, you probably shouldn't have three consecutive post saying you are not going to debate it...
As for the whole flowchart versus text question, is it inconceivable to follow both?
What they are telling you, clearly or not, is that you can still use your models that conform to the Index wargear options with the Codex data sheet. Does it really matter how you get to the end result as long as you get there and use the proper point values and rules for the model?
The issue that comes up (aparently) is two fold.
First, reasonably, wargear on a model is limited by the wording of its options. If a character comes with a melee weapon and a pistol in the index with the option to exchange its default pistol for a different one then that model is limited to only ever having one pistol. Pistol a or pistol b. If in the codex it has no pistol by default, how do you exchange/limit its wargear? If your just saying pay the points for the pistol then whats the limit on how many of what options can they take? A model with 100 pistols is broken. In the other direction without a pistol equiped to exchange how do you get permission for any pistols? Reasonably you could just port over the whole wargear set up including base equipment. Thats hiwpi but i am unsure if its strictly raw. It could be though.
Second, if you decide for whatever reason that you use the whole index datasheet then changes to rules like commisars abilities are no longer changed. You circumvent nerfs by using older datasheets with different actual rules. This, of course, is total nonsense. Why anyone would think this is what happens is beyond me.
JohnnyHell wrote: How you're still managing to complicate this is beyond me...
I didnt complicate gak. Someone else asked about their autarchs or whatever. It seems super simple to me. You always use the most current datasheet. You can grab missing wargear options from the index and use them with the most current points values and profiles. Its about as simple as it can be to me.
Lance845 wrote: Remember the part where i said im not gunna debate your inability to understand the flowchart? That was direcred to you. Not your argument. You.
Everyone else seems to understand. You not being able to figure it out is your problem. Someone else might be able to help, but i refuse.
So you admit to that being an ad hominem, even though I gave you an opportunity to challenge the argument?
Odds are even that I was learning to read flow charts before you were learned how to walk (admittedly, my elementary school did start me a little early). I can follow the lines of the flow. It is as easy as a Candyland game to follow a flowchart.
Nothing I have stated lately is regarding the actual flow of the diagram, it is between the instructions within the flowchart and the example given.
I can also tell the difference between an instruction and an example.
I can also tell the difference between a direction to use something for a reason, and a direction to use part of something. Do you?
Either address it or don't bother to answer it. Don't just only attack a person.
I am under no requirement to give you only the answers you want, but I am under obligation to provide answers which fit the facts.
