Daemonhunter Codex:

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=&categoryId=§ion=&pIndex=0&aId=9800044a&start=1

Witch Hunter Codex:

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?aId=9800045a

You need to be a member to download them, but it's relatively easy to become one.

Several people have pointed out that the Daemonhunter Codex is missing two pages - specifically, the ones that list the Allies rules and the portion that defines which units are classified as "Grey Knights" and which are classified as "Daemons".

As to whether or not this is an intentional omission, it is hard to say. In addition, thanks to solkan for the following info:

solkan wrote:Having been bored enough to try downloading the various language versions around 5:00 before going to sleep:
1. French version is renumbered, and HAS the missing two pages.
2. Spanish version has the old page numbers, and is missing the two pages.
3. English, German and Italian versions have renumbered pages are are missing the two pages.
4. There is no Japanese version.

I guess we'll have to wait until tomorrow, since today's GW news says that they'll talk more about today's "great" release.

FURTHERMORE, it appears that there HAVE been minor changes made to the DH codex, specifically to the armory and weapon summary areas.

The following are the changes:

-"Carapace Armor" has been added to the armory.

-"HellPistol" has been added to the armory.

-"Bolter" has been added to the armory.

Under weapon's Summary, the following changes have been noted:

-"Heavy Flamer" has been changed from a Heavy weapon to an Assault Weapon.

Enjoy.

nice - an actual news / rumour bit about Daemonhunters & Witchunters that's not fluff pedantics or Adepta Sororitas boo-hooing!!!

and, I'm impressed that they released them this month. I mean, I know that's what White Dwarf said, but still, call me an optimistic pessimist...

thanks for the heads up, Fxeni!

Nice! Thanks for that

Allies section of DH dex is gone, I think.

No more Tarot / Mystics for Guard. SOB can still do their thing w/ guard, though.

Can't wait to get home and check if they are uploaded in the Spanish website too >_<

The page with the allies rules appears to be missing in both the Witchhunters and Daemonhunters PDF's. The Army List page appears to only be missing from Daemonhunters, which is a shame since that's the page with the definitions of Grey Knight and Daemon for that codex, and the squad psychic power rule.

Edit: Bah, the Witchhunter's rule was hidden in a sidebar, it's still there.

just because they are missing in the downloadable pdf does not mean that the old codex's are defunct. I would agree that if a single rule had been changed or updated this would be the case, as this would be a new codex, but this is not the case. This is simply a condensed representation of the actual codex.

Newer publications trump, but the internet argument of whether or not it "holds up" ... well, not something I'll participate in.

Suffice to say that the Witchhunters still has the BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE IMMORTAL EMPEROR OF MANKIND entry on page 16. The DH entry is removed. That dichotomy will tell the reasonable, and the average tourney FAQ writer / organizer, the clear intent. Occam'z Razor, please. Newest version of codex rules are online. For one, they left allies in, for the other they didn't. Let's not go inventing "oops" theories to explain away the obvious.


Also, it should bear note that DH allies are what enabled both Tarot and Mystics, arguably two of the bigger "breakers" to the guard.

I'm picking up what MVBrandt is dropping down...
still, whatever their intention, I'm interpreting this as one of two things:

a) they are going to try never revamping either of these books and have put them online to placate the fools who bought into them in the first place, stuck in their 3rd Edition suck-fest.

b) maybe, actually, will update them soon & this is just a stop-gap in the meantime since they don't offer them for sale anymore.

at this point, as an owner of sizeable DH & WH armies, I can honestly say I don't care if it's one or the other...or neither [go go combined Codex!]

and don't start up with the no-combined-codex drivel, because I've heard it & that doesn't mean I can't still want them combined!!!!!

It's funny that they renumbered the pages for the English PDF, but the Spanish PDF has the original page numbers so you can tell which pages are missing more easily.

It would be nice if GW just came out and said "Yes, we removed DH allies" instead of leaving it up to "Well, GW is incompetent enough to accidentally remove the allies rules"

I don't care either way, I just want GW to be straightforward instead of stealth-editing rules out.

I would welcome if Deamonhunters wouldn't have the options for allies anymore. It's just odd to see a bunch of elite terminators in the middle of a guard army.

Witchhunters, that's an another story. Battle Sisters, stronger than guardsmen but weaker than space marines, seem to be fitting as possible allies for both of these groups

Disclaimer (for all future news&rumour threads including Sororitas):
This is a news & rumour thread only for news & rumours. This thread is not meant to discuss the background and the current models of Sororitas, their existence at all, them being combined with Inquisition in one Codex or any other off topic whining.

You are free to copy this disclaimer if necessary

solkan wrote:It's funny that they renumbered the pages for the English PDF, but the Spanish PDF has the original page numbers so you can tell which pages are missing more easily.

So the Spanish pdf is online too? Great!

Ah, no fair. The French version of the PDF has the two missing pages.

I haven't been following the history of these codexes so please forgive if the following questions have been answered previously.

Are these codexes;

A) just scans of the original 3rd edition books?

B) scans with some sections chopped out?

C) revised to 5th edition standard with some sections dropped?

Thanks in advance...

B.

Killkrazy:

at first glance, B. I haven't really perused them thoroughly, though.

Kroothawk:

werd.

The PDF's aren't *just* scans, for two reasons:
1. The page numbers are different (in many languages).
2. You can actually select the text in Acrobat.

It's a scan of the rules part, now including Inquisitor's henchmen and all special characters (missing from the old German pdf).
Not included is background and modelling.

solkan wrote:The PDF's aren't *just* scans, for two reasons:
1. The page numbers are different (in many languages).
2. You can actually select the text in Acrobat.

So it's an edited OCR scan?

It's the same old dexes, which are now out of print, with the allies rules left out (except for witch hunters being able to take IG/SM allies, on page 16 of the WH dex).

Allies are gone. Hurray!

Erasoketa wrote:Can't wait to get home and check if they are uploaded in the Spanish website too >_<

Yes.

Los bajé hace un rato y se ven muy bien.

RUNE wrote:

Erasoketa wrote:Can't wait to get home and check if they are uploaded in the Spanish website too >_<

Yes.

Los bajé hace un rato y se ven muy bien.

Nice!

Estoy hasta los huevos de tener que tirar de mi codex WH en inglés xDD

RUNE wrote:

Los bajé hace un rato y se ven muy bien.

The bath has a rat and it goes very well.

Erasoketa wrote:

Estoy hasta los huevos de tener que tirar de mi codex WH en inglés xDD

I have fear eggs that fire my English WH codex



Translation service provided by filbert spanglish Inc.

filbert wrote:

RUNE wrote:

Los bajé hace un rato y se ven muy bien.

The bath has a rat and it goes very well.

Erasoketa wrote:

Estoy hasta los huevos de tener que tirar de mi codex WH en inglés xDD

I have fear eggs that fire my English WH codex



Translation service provided by filbert spanglish Inc.

Can you also provide subs for Mad Dok Grotsnik?

The Scotch, much like the Welsh, are a race that defy decoding!

I would have thought it was going to just be a straight copy of the books (and so didn't understand why anyone would be excited about this at all) but they actually made them worse by creating a situation where one book has a rule and the online version doesn't and not including any kind of explanation. Plus leaving out the hobby section and Mutant Apocalypse army list is lame. Kudos GW, you always surprise me with how I can't underestimate you enough.

You'd think they could have taken the 10 seconds to add the Assault Ramp rule in there for Witch Hunter Land Raiders but I guess that might imbalance something or whatever their piss poor argument is for leaving things outdated after a decade.

If anything, I'm encouraged they removed the allies heading...as this signals a probable acknowledgment of a game breaking combination by GW...which in of itself is a big deal . Sure, they could have spent time bringing A Cannons and Ramps into line with newer books but the removal of the allies page was a very simple change that has a great impact on the game (at this point). So in summary;

1. Free books to download
2. Allies rule removed which allowed for a game break


I consider this encouraging...

:(
Rhinos at 50points & I can take armoured fist squads! (oh, wait a minute, no I can't as they don't exist any more).

How lazy is this list?

The problem is that the free books are already owned by everyone that intends on playing those armies since they've been out for 10 years and are hideously outdated. Most people that run Sisters or Grey Knights do so out of interest in the story and models rather than gameplay. Few people are going to look at those expensive all metal forces and think saving $20 on a book is going to convince them to throw down money on the rest.

If they are going to remove allies for balance reasons I have no problem with that, but don't be sneaky about it and do a Stalin-esque re-write and pretend the rule was never there. Include a passage that explains the new direction and that your old book no longer is valid in that respect, not leave it up to an argument over which version of the book is correct every time. If they had time to edit out all that stuff they also could have added in rules for stuff that used to have them and were costed with those rules in mind like Land Raider Assault Ramps. It's one thing with old weapons or different invul saves on newer versions of Storm Shields or even 50 point rhinos with one fire point but the landraiders had that rule in 4th edition so giving it to them now is going back to the status quo. Leaving that out of an errata was stupid in the first place but this was a perfect opportunity to rectify that.

I don't understand why they hyped this up so much for something so lazy and half assed.

This isn't an update, this is just a release of the codex online. Therefor there aren't any changes.

Want to talk about balance breaking rules? 50 point rhinos are broken. Repentia are broken. Dominions are broken. PAGK are broken. GK special rules are broken. =][= Chimeras are broken.

Meh, so are Dark Angels still - but play with what you got.

Uriels_Flame wrote:Meh, so are Dark Angels still - but play with what you got.

QFT...

there's other Codex books out there if you don't want to play a so-called ''broken'' army, if it can so be called...

I play three armies, as indicated by my signature. That is irrelevant, however, because my point was simply that Allies didn't break the rules because they were already friggin' broken.

Melissia wrote:This isn't an update, this is just a release of the codex online. Therefor there aren't any changes.

Want to talk about balance breaking rules? 50 point rhinos are broken. Repentia are broken. Dominions are broken. PAGK are broken. GK special rules are broken. =][= Chimeras are broken.

Yup. I didn't expect any changes at all but the fact that they left all that stuff the same (whatever I've played with this crap for years I'm used to it and have other armies so it doesn't really matter) but actually take out stuff without making any mention of it anywhere is just really irritating. A SCRIBD scan of the book is better than this since it doesn't cut out half the book which is sad.

Melissia wrote:I play three armies, as indicated by my signature. That is irrelevant, however, because my point was simply that Allies didn't break the rules because they were already friggin' broken.

...but, but MYSTICS and the TAROT

that doesn't mean it is any less tiring to hear the same broken record of complaint over and over and over...

have some patience & learn to accept the things that cannot be changed. maybe there is some enjoyment to be had in this game?

radical bob wrote:that doesn't mean it is any less tiring to hear the same broken record of complaint over and over and over...

have some patience & learn to accept the things that cannot be changed. maybe there is some enjoyment to be had in this game?

Apparently they CAN be changed as evidenced by them removing rules from the book.

touche, sir...

I guess we also must learn to accept the things that can be changed!


in either case, whining about how put-upon older Codices are is pretty unbecoming & for me at least, has gotten pretty old these past couple of months...

radical bob wrote:touche, sir...

I guess we also must learn to accept the things that can be changed!

Fair enough!

And I don't want to listen to your whining either. Stop whining about my posts, yes? Just skip them over if they bother you so much, just like I do with most posts like that.

Ixquic wrote:Yup. I didn't expect any changes at all but the fact that they left all that stuff the same (whatever I've played with this crap for years I'm used to it and have other armies so it doesn't really matter) but actually take out stuff without making any mention of it anywhere is just really irritating. A SCRIBD scan of the book is better than this since it doesn't cut out half the book which is sad.

And therefor my codex takes precedence, because it is an actual codex. So allies rules aren't removed.

Here's an idea.

LET'S STOP ALL OF THE WHINING AND DRAGGING OF THREADS OFF TOPIC!

How does THAT sound?

There's one person doing the dragging Alpha. You guys all know this...

I agree!

So, back on topic of the PDFs. Just because the PDF codex doesn't have the Allies rules-- in the DH version only, apparently-- doesn't mean that those rules are removed. Unless you're going to say that all physical copies of the codex are nullified and replaced by this, which I haven't seen any proof of.

H.B.M.C. wrote:There's only one person doing the dragging Alpha. You guys all know this...

I would certainly hope so.

H.B.M.C. wrote:There's one person doing the dragging Alpha. You guys all know this...

Yes, me. And I didn't even post in this one before now. That's how good I am.

High five Aggy! *raises arm*

filbert wrote:

RUNE wrote:

Los bajé hace un rato y se ven muy bien.

The bath has a rat and it goes very well.

Erasoketa wrote:

Estoy hasta los huevos de tener que tirar de mi codex WH en inglés xDD

I have fear eggs that fire my English WH codex



Translation service provided by filbert spanglish Inc.

I'm pondering about sigging this. Nice try btw xDDDDD

Melissia wrote:I agree!

So, back on topic of the PDFs. Just because the PDF codex doesn't have the Allies rules-- in the DH version only, apparently-- doesn't mean that those rules are removed. Unless you're going to say that all physical copies of the codex are nullified and replaced by this, which I haven't seen any proof of.

Yeah until there's an errata explaining that the removal was intentional or that this is now the only legal version of the codex I will continue to use the rules as written.

I think it's a safe assumption that the implication of the allies rule being removed from the online codex will be interpreted differently from region to region. Ultimately, the only thing that matters is how the specific tournament/region you are attending rules, not forcing others to your interpretation in an online community. Considering someone earlier stated that the page numbers were reordered, I do think this raises the strong possibility that either the new allies rule in the upcoming dex is removed....or game breaking mechanics (such as Inquisitor/Mystics) is removed.

I think this bodes well for a new DH on the horizon and I'm assuming this was simply a stop gap measure until the new dex hits shelves. Perhaps DH were forced back or they sold their existing stock quicker than anticipated.

Unfortunately, the hard copies of the codices are out of print. While you can use them all you want with anyone who will let you, GW didn't call the pdf's "copies" of the actual dexes. They stated they were actually releasing the dexes online. You can flog an old and outdated hard copy all you want ... it'll get you about as far as flogging an older marine dex. Newer copies are available and differ from the older copies ... just how it is.

It's to each their own, of course. Nobody can or will try to make you play "their" way if you don't want to.

PS - This is also all resolved if they do a better job of clarifying the change/exemption. That said, I don't know the value to swearing it's a typo and holding your dated codices in a death grip either. Things change.

I don't have to "flog" an old copy. I bought my codex from GW many years ago. And there's nothing indicating my old codex is out of date, now is there?

Mn, I agree that there will likely be no allies in a future codex-- and that allies will instead be left to supplements. But we're playing with the current codices, not some future dream codex that might come sometime next year if we're lucky.

Cool, thanks! My gf is starting a ssters army, she'll be psyched to see this without having to spend 25 bucks on it.

They are just a copy and as such both versions are currently legal. More to the point the printed codex is not a free product and they would have put slightly more effort into it's production. The only reason they did this was because it works out cheaper than just printing more.

Pretty much the codex is more valid as this is simply just a copy of that. Now if they simply said that it replaces the normal codex's rules then yes there would be no more allies.

But, everyone arguing over it is not going to provide any facts to validate if it takes precedence over the physical copy, all it will do is make the more dominant personality's opinion seem like a fact; as usual on the internet. So until then it's best to go with both versions as the valid and the parts the physical copy has that are missing from the virtual can be seen as a welcomed bonus to those that only have the virtual one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So simply to ask wouldn't this be easily solved by emailing them?

If people can't stick to the topic the thread will be locked.

They edited the books to their respective erratas. The original Daemonhunters codex didn't have Hellpistols and Bolters as wargear and their Heavy Flamer was mislabeled as a Heavy Weapon. The errata fixed this.
Nevertheless, these downloadable codecies have the "corrected" stats.

Mvbrandt has got it. The free .pdf is the current dex. Allies are gone. Or can other players use earlier edition dexes? Third edition orks ?

olympia wrote:The free .pdf is the current dex.

Prove it.

OK, how does GW releasing a codex online, being a more recent version, NOT make it more valid than the older edition? When the new BA codex came out in stores, no one cried that it did not invalidate the PDF codex. I am not seeing it here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean, this is just a successive rev. How does it NOT invalidate previous revs?

You're the one making the claim, you should prove your claim. It is not up to me to make your argument for you.

Just because they released a PDF version of a codex online doesn't mean that the physical copies are therefor completely nullified.

I think it's not going anywhere, but I have emailed them to at least get some confirmation.

Yes it was hard not to laugh

n0t_u wrote:I think it's not going anywhere, but I have emailed them to at least get some confirmation.

Yes it was hard not to laugh

Let's hope they answer. It'd be kinda stupid to remove allies from one book and not the other.

Hey, I'm fine with us using this codex as the new codex rendering the physical book illegal. There's no FOC anymore so I can field nothing but GKT and infinity Land Raiders at this point. Right? Oh, no, you won't let me do that? But there's no reference to it, just like allies! Oh, but I still have to play by the rules, even though they're not in the book? Well, in that case, I'll take my allied guard, thank you very much. Also, they didn't add PotMS back in for the Land Raider even though it was errata'ed, so it was a lazy FAQ job at best.

Daemonhunters explicitly states that it is the second printing. The online pdf in its entirety takes precedence over any print copies that exist.
The Daemonhunters book has some numbers changed, wargear added (as per errata), and overall is a different book.

daedalus wrote:There's no FOC anymore so I can field nothing but GKT and infinity Land Raiders at this point. Right?

Oh wow, that's INCREDIBLY lazy.

Melissia wrote:

daedalus wrote:There's no FOC anymore so I can field nothing but GKT and infinity Land Raiders at this point. Right?

Oh wow, that's INCREDIBLY lazy.

Nah, they're just rebalancing the fact that you can't take any infantry armed with heavy weapons anymore. Clearly.

i have to say i prefer my books over these PDF's.... at least they could have added in GK razorback, LR Reddemers and psycannon's for dreadnoughts. oh well GW fails again

daedalus wrote:Hey, I'm fine with us using this codex as the new codex rendering the physical book illegal. There's no FOC anymore so I can field nothing but GKT and infinity Land Raiders at this point. Right? Oh, no, you won't let me do that? But there's no reference to it, just like allies! Oh, but I still have to play by the rules, even though they're not in the book? Well, in that case, I'll take my allied guard, thank you very much. Also, they didn't add PotMS back in for the Land Raider even though it was errata'ed, so it was a lazy FAQ job at best.

"No no you can field literally nothing so you auto-lose every game" -douchebag at tourney

daedalus wrote:Hey, I'm fine with us using this codex as the new codex rendering the physical book illegal. There's no FOC anymore so I can field nothing but GKT and infinity Land Raiders at this point. Right? Oh, no, you won't let me do that? But there's no reference to it, just like allies!

Check the BRB pg87
Allies are not in the BRB

daedalus wrote:Oh, but I still have to play by the rules, even though they're not in the book?

Yes, you have to play by the rules in the BRB

daedalus wrote:Well, in that case, I'll take my allied guard, thank you very much.

You know very well how official tournaments are going to rule this situation where the current version of a codex omits something from a prior version. You can whine and complain on these forums all you want, but that's not going to change anything. In casual games, sure. You can take your allied guard and my Doom of Malan'tai will eat them from inside the Chimera, no saves allowed.

daedalus wrote:Also, they didn't add PotMS back in for the Land Raider even though it was errata'ed, so it was a lazy FAQ job at best.

This book is the second printing. It takes precedence over the first printing. Not intentionally adding errata is irrelevant. Omitting things from a second printing is relevant.

Yes, well, that's just one more reason to avoid them (as if I needed more).

Kroothawk wrote:Disclaimer (for all future news&rumour threads including Sororitas):
This is a news & rumour thread only for news & rumours. This thread is not meant to discuss the background and the current models of Sororitas, their existence at all, them being combined with Inquisition in one Codex or any other off topic whining.

You are free to copy this disclaimer if necessary

You have won.

I bow to you.

I'm pretty sure the Deamonhunters codex was ALREADY on its second print run (I know the Witchhunters one was and the GW errata references the DH second printing back when that was written up). I don't have a copy with me right now to check but considering that they didn't update any of the copyrights I have a suspicion that the "Second Print" is just left over from when they initially fixed some stuff and not necessarily a slam dunk "This is the only valid version."

I could be wrong so it would be nice if someone who has their copy handy could check the last page.

No, you're quite right. C:WH, at least, has a second printing with a few fixes. I know that for a fact, as I've seen both copies, AND the C:WH FAQ mentions it anyway.

The FAQ mentions the Heavy Flamer being changed to assault from heavy in the second printing. This, if it turns out was intentional, might be the third iteration of the codex.

n0t_u wrote:The FAQ mentions the Heavy Flamer being changed to assault from heavy in the second printing. This, if it turns out was intentional, might be the third iteration of the codex.

Indeed but if there is no version number and all the copyright and printing information is still the same how do we know which is MORE legitimate. They are both 3rd edition codices with all the same identifications.

Basically this is really sloppy and looks like they spent all of 10 minutes on it resulting in annoying arguments about which legal codex is MORE legal. I'm glad I'm starting to get back into videogames where I don't have to worry about whether or not I'm allowed to use stuff I bought and painted based on some nerd's outside the company's arbitrary decision.

grizgrin wrote:Cool, thanks! My gf is starting a ssters army, she'll be psyched to see this without having to spend 25 bucks on it.

Do your GF a favor and buy her the hard copies of Codex Witch Hunters (3rd) and Codex Adepta Sororitas (2nd edition). She will absolutely need the painting section of the 3rd ed Codex, the background of the 3rd and, as a plus the more extended background of the 2nd ed. Codex.

The pdfs are just the rules, not enough to actually play the army and know what the army is about. The modelling part of the 3rd includes the organisation and painting schemes (incl symbols) of all military and civil orders. The Grey Knight Codex pdf has some essential pages missing, e.g. the one page with allies, Grey Knight and Daemon definition. That's what the confusion about the right Codex in this thread is about.

Absolutionis wrote:
Check the BRB pg87
Allies are not in the BRB

daedalus wrote:Oh, but I still have to play by the rules, even though they're not in the book?

Yes, you have to play by the rules in the BRB

daedalus wrote:Well, in that case, I'll take my allied guard, thank you very much.

You know very well how official tournaments are going to rule this situation where the current version of a codex omits something from a prior version. You can whine and complain on these forums all you want, but that's not going to change anything. In casual games, sure. You can take your allied guard and my Doom of Malan'tai will eat them from inside the Chimera, no saves allowed.
This book is the second printing. It takes precedence over the first printing. Not intentionally adding errata is irrelevant. Omitting things from a second printing is relevant.

I think it's the Third Printing now, if I'm not mistaken.

I don't know very well how allies are going to be handled (enter 'Ard Boyz allies, which gave you the chance to take Vets and LR variants).

Lastly, page 87 DOES give the FoC as we know it, so you get partial credit, however, it says, and I quote:

The minimum and maximum numbers of each of these types of unit for each army are detailed on the force organisation chart of each army Codex book.

Shown on this page is an example of one such chart, which is the one used by most armies for standard missions

Emphasis mine. Ergo, from this, we can derive one of two possible (equally fun) outcomes:
Option 1
- PDF Codex can field anything freely with no FOC restrictions.
Option 2
- PDF "Codex" can not field anything because there is no FOC, and per the corollary of page 87, if the FOC is in every Codex, a "Publication" lacking a FOC is NOT a Codex. Ergo, the printed book remains valid and this makes for a keen reference.

Hilarious.


EDIT: Removed comma splice.

Looking at both versions, FAQ errata hasn't been added in some instances. P.20-21 of the DH codex has been omitted, thus removing "grey knight" terminology and "daemon" terminology. Two huge things that impact the GK. I think if this is in fact a true "revision" of the codexes then GW miss a perfect opportunity to update and incorporate the FAQ errata, etc. to fix these codexes. Bottom line IMHO, the actual copy of the codex still is valid.

PS: How do you explain the inconsistency of other countries getting those pages? WTF? GW if you are listening....take the time to make it all the same across all countries, make the appropriate changes, explain your stance on the whether these PDF's actually replace the printed codexes that we all own. It isn't hard...and would take like a day to pull all that together. EPIC FAIL!

Melissia wrote:Prove it.

Prove that the new version with updated stats is not?

EDIT: As for other countries getting the page in, unless there's a relatively quick update to the pdf a lá the Space Wolf FAQ then I'd just chalk it up to just a lack of consolidation between countries. Sweden (I think), for example, has a general 40k FAQ that makes all wargear options (Storm Shields, Assault Cannons, etc.) the same as their newer counterparts, and stuff like making regular Rhinos 35pts.

The Errata/FAQs still say they can ally, so this entire discussion is moot

Melissia wrote:The Errata/FAQs still say they can ally, so this entire discussion is moot

Unlikely. As the FAQs are just that, Frequently Asked Questions and by GW's own admission they are 'House Rules' (Except the Errata section).

So it is still up in the air what their intention and the end result will be. More properly, it will be up to the TO to advise on whether Allies will be allowed for DH. My gut is that most TOs will go RAW and say no, since there are no rules anymore for them in the most recently published codex.

You can now place that version of the DH codex on the shelf next to the other stacks of old codexes that aren't worth much anymore. Or try to Ebay it as OOP Golden Daemon Pro Painted Daemonhunters Codex.

The pdf makes mention of the Sustained Assault rules for Daemons. Should we allow Without Number Daemons as well?

pretre wrote:As the FAQs are just that, Frequently Asked Questions

Exactly. FAQs are a list of common questions and GW's answers to them.

I don't care what TOs think to begin with

bhsman wrote:The pdf makes mention of the Sustained Assault rules for Daemons. Should we allow Without Number Daemons as well?

Yes, all games with DHs must use the Sustained Assault scenario rules from the Main Rulebook.

Have fun finding it.

Well it only works for Nurglings so sure?

Melissia wrote:

pretre wrote:As the FAQs are just that, Frequently Asked Questions

Exactly. FAQs are a list of common questions and GW's answers to them.

The FAQ quote is very important and you kind of skipped half of it. GW says that these FAQs are not RAW

GW Site wrote:
What's the difference between Errata and FAQs?
...The Errata have the same level of 'authority' as the main rules, as they effectively modify the published material...
The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'. They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments (i.e. when you don't have a set of common 'house rules' with the other player). However, if you disagree with some answers and prefer to change them in your games and make your own house rules with your friends, that's fine.

M wrote:
I don't care what TOs think to begin with

Then don't post in a thread talking about what the official stance is. If you just play with friends, then it doesn't matter what version of the DH codex you use. -removed the mean-

I am guessing the majority of the people in this thread are wondering how the changes to DH/WH codexes in PDF form will affect them in Tournaments.

In which case, the TO opinion is VERY important.

pretre wrote:Then don't post in a thread talking about what the official stance is.

What TOs think is irrelevant to RAW, and quite frequently contradicts it.

FAQs are RAW. GW says you don't have to use them, but they're still RAW.

Something else I thought about; this isn't really even an actual publication. I can't find an ISBN anywhere for it. The copyright info is still identical too.

Until someone says on GW's site that the omission of Allies was intentional, but the FoC was not, I can't take it seriously.

Melissia wrote:

pretre wrote:Then don't post in a thread talking about what the official stance is.

What TOs think is irrelevant to RAW, and quite frequently contradicts it.

FAQs are RAW. GW says you don't have to use them, but they're still RAW.

Going to respond to any other points there, or just the one that you can misquote?

Melissia wrote:

pretre wrote:Then don't post in a thread talking about what the official stance is.

What TOs think is irrelevant to RAW, and quite frequently contradicts it.

FAQs are RAW. GW says you don't have to use them, but they're still RAW.

This. If TO stances are RAW, then we not only get allies, we get IG Vets per 'Ard Boyz.

daedalus wrote:Something else I thought about; this isn't really even an actual publication. I can't find an ISBN anywhere for it. The copyright info is still identical too.

Until someone says on GW's site that the omission of Allies was intentional, but the FoC was not, I can't take it seriously.

ISBN is not required. BA Codex didn't have a ISBN pretty sure when they did the Web Version. Errata don't either.

If you're going to wait for an official statement, you'll be waiting a while.

Melissia wrote:

pretre wrote:Then don't post in a thread talking about what the official stance is.

What TOs think is irrelevant to RAW, and quite frequently contradicts it.

FAQs are RAW. GW says you don't have to use them, but they're still RAW.

Except for the fact that they're the ones, y'know, running the tournament, and are the people who have the final authority on a rule decision where it's unclear.

I responded to everything in your post save the last sentence about how some people play tournaments and therefor care.

But if you play tournaments none of this matters anyway because it's up to the TO in the end, not GW. Therefor it's pointless to argue about it. Regardless of what's in this PDF, and the Errata/FAQs, TOs rarely play by pure RAW.

daedalus wrote:

Melissia wrote:

pretre wrote:Then don't post in a thread talking about what the official stance is.

What TOs think is irrelevant to RAW, and quite frequently contradicts it.

FAQs are RAW. GW says you don't have to use them, but they're still RAW.

This. If TO stances are RAW, then we not only get allies, we get IG Vets per 'Ard Boyz.

And here's where partial quoting makes debates difficult. I never said TO stances are RAW. I said TO stances are important because TOs will often decide based on the evidence.

In this case, the evidence is that GW updated the rules by removing sections. Intentionally or not.

pretre wrote:TOs will often decide based on the evidence.

HAH! No. Quite frequently they change RAW on a whim because of some misguided belief about balance due to their personal experience. Even the better TOs (which are rare) make a change from RAW because RAW itself isn't perfect.

pretre wrote:
And here's where partial quoting makes debates difficult. I never said TO stances are RAW. I said TO stances are important because TOs will often decide based on the evidence.

In this case, the evidence is that GW updated the rules by removing sections. Intentionally or not.

Indeed. However, if RaW the only way to handle the omission of the allies section is to assume they meant to kill off allies, how do we cope with the removal of the FoC section? We must assume with equal good-natured enthusiasm that they removed it intentionally.

solkan wrote:The PDF's aren't *just* scans, for two reasons:
1. The page numbers are different (in many languages).
2. You can actually select the text in Acrobat.

Really? That's great. I'm tired of having to manually drag text out of all of these PDF's I find lying around Scribd.

daedalus wrote:

pretre wrote:
And here's where partial quoting makes debates difficult. I never said TO stances are RAW. I said TO stances are important because TOs will often decide based on the evidence.

In this case, the evidence is that GW updated the rules by removing sections. Intentionally or not.

Indeed. However, if RaW the only way to handle the omission of the allies section is to assume they meant to kill off allies, how do we cope with the removal of the FoC section? We must assume with equal good-natured enthusiasm that they removed it intentionally.

I give up. Yes, the removal of allies and FOC means that GH are now unplayable. Yay! Oh wait, I mean, the updates to codexes mean nothing. Yay!

I'm done with WH/DH threads for a while. Watching trainwrecks is only so much fun for so long.

That's because they AREN'T updates.

pretre wrote:

I give up. Yes, the removal of allies and FOC means that GH are now unplayable. Yay! Oh wait, I mean, the updates to codexes mean nothing. Yay!

I'm done with WH/DH threads for a while. Watching trainwrecks is only so much fun for so long.

Hey, sorry man, I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just saying that you have to look at it equally. Can't argue intention on one missing page, and then quite literally the next page argue RAW.

Having been bored enough to try downloading the various language versions around 5:00 before going to sleep:
1. French version is renumbered, and HAS the missing two pages.
2. Spanish version has the old page numbers, and is missing the two pages.
3. English, German and Italian versions have renumbered pages are are missing the two pages.
4. There is no Japanese version.

I guess we'll have to wait until tomorrow, since today's GW news says that they'll talk more about today's "great" release.

Expecting consistency from GW is a recipe for disappointment.

Balance wrote:Expecting consistency from GW is a recipe for disappointment.

At least across coutry borders, yes. Just play according to your country's rulings and ask TOs in advance on how they're running it.

bhsman wrote:

Balance wrote:Expecting consistency from GW is a recipe for disappointment.

At least across coutry borders, yes. Just play according to your country's rulings and ask TOs in advance on how they're running it.

Do other miniature games have this problem with people not knowing if their army is even legal until some guy running a tournament arbitrarily rules in their favor?

I wouldn't know, I just play 40k.

Agreed.

daedalus wrote:Something else I thought about; this isn't really even an actual publication. I can't find an ISBN anywhere for it. The copyright info is still identical too.

Until someone says on GW's site that the omission of Allies was intentional, but the FoC was not, I can't take it seriously.

Remember when Codex: Demonhunters was first published, and suddenly people weren't sure whether Codex: Assassins was still legal?

Apparently Games Workshop doesn't.

Zut alors! Looks like I can still use mystics/tarots with the French version

Probably a misprint that'll get fixed tomorrow

bhsman wrote:

Balance wrote:Expecting consistency from GW is a recipe for disappointment.

At least across coutry borders, yes. Just play according to your country's rulings and ask TOs in advance on how they're running it.

I meant in a more general sense, that they tend to reverse decisions a lot. Look at the whole 'Specialist Games' thing, Black Gobbo, their podcasts, etc.

To add to some of this silliness: I still have the PDF for Lord Commander Solar Macharius released by GW on their website. Can I use him in my IG army? It has the same weight as these releases by GW.

The Spanish WH version is exactly the same than the printed version. Just the rules, no fluff, but the present pages are the same than in the book. The haven't even corrected the errata. The Heavy Bolters do still have the stats line of a Stormbolter (R24 S4 AP5 Assault 2)

The covered up the inducted allies rules in the new pdf.

Page 20 & 21, yea those pictures at the bottom are NOT in the original codex.

Not that I induct (lol, yea I ally, the rules that have totally vanished), but is there an FAQ for inducting now? or are we just supposed to look at the 'Ard Boyz FAQ or something?

daedalus-templarius wrote:The covered up the inducted allies rules in the new pdf.

Page 20 & 21, yea those pictures at the bottom are NOT in the original codex.

Not that I induct (lol, yea I ally, the rules that have totally vanished), but is there an FAQ for inducting now? or are we just supposed to look at the 'Ard Boyz FAQ or something?

God, wouldn't that be awesome. I'd love to pack Vets in with DH.

daedalus wrote:

daedalus-templarius wrote:The covered up the inducted allies rules in the new pdf.

Page 20 & 21, yea those pictures at the bottom are NOT in the original codex.

Not that I induct (lol, yea I ally, the rules that have totally vanished), but is there an FAQ for inducting now? or are we just supposed to look at the 'Ard Boyz FAQ or something?

God, wouldn't that be awesome. I'd love to pack Vets in with DH.

That's exactly what I was doing before I switched to just allying in terminators to my SM/BA forces.

Okay, so what makes either of these PDFs "massive"?

Alright, here's a thought: GW looked down from their mountain of gold and saw that all was not right. Some 50%-60% of armies in the 'Ard Boyz (less or more depending on the local scene) we're IG and about half of those were leafblower-esque monstrosities. I'd wager that closer to 70% of the IG lists held allies, not for power per se but simply as a way of abusing old rules with a fantastically powered new codex.

GW saw this, then freaked the hell out. The rushed through making PDF codices of not one, but both 'inquisition' books contrary to the large number of rumors pointing to a PDF release next year for WH and a proper book for GK. End result: they nuked the allies rules and totally thrashed a good number of other rules too. Different regions (presumably with different teams working on this) got different versions.

And so we stand here today, looking at the pieces of two old books and wondering what the hell the future holds in store for both of them. Hey, on the bright side this might mean that Necrons got the Q1 2011 slot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also: to prank some more on the topic of the missing FoC...

Given that there are no slots to fill (giggity giggity giggity goo, awlright), wouldn't that mean that you just don't get to field anything? No soup for you, inquisition. No soup for you.

I love that they took out allies/inducted troops and then left this on page 2:

A Daemonhunters army can also call upon a
vast array of allies and inducted troops. From lethal, acrobatic
Death Cultists, to mighty Dreadnoughts, to the unpredictable and
unnatural Daemonhosts, the army list presents an entire
spectrum of the Imperial war machine. If you’re looking for an
elite force that is so diverse that you will never exhaust the
possibilities offered by the army list, then this is the book for you.

Another strength of the Daemonhunters army list is the ease with
which it can be integrated with existing armies. If you already
have an Imperial army such as the Space Marines or Imperial
Guard, it can easily be incorporated into the Daemonhunters list.
For instance, a Space Marine player may choose to lead his force
into battle with a Grey Knight Grand Master and his Terminator
bodyguard, or an Imperial Guard player may choose to add a
couple of platoons of infantry to his Daemonhunters force.

Conversely, we also include rules that allow the opponents of the
Daemonhunters to take packs of Daemons in their force, and
even one of the fearsome and infamous Greater Daemons of
Chaos. After all, it is perfectly possible that a Dark Eldar Archon
or Imperial Guard Colonel has turned to the worship of Chaos
and has been rewarded with daemonic servants; precisely the
reason the Daemonhunters are fighting them in the first place!

Sure, there's no slots to fill, but by the section concerning the FoC in the BRB, every Codex has a FoC in it, so if this one doesn't, then by the rules, it's not a codex, and the old printed one still applies.

Or it's a codex that you can't field units from. A decorative codex. A wall flower codex. A sign from GW that its the Speehs Way or the Highway :p

I had a quick look through it. Personally I think it sucks that they removed the allies as now a daemonhunters army is even worse than it was before to the point of being barely playable, as they can no longer take inducted guard to supply much needed troops choices and cheap effective transports.

I understand that some players were including daemonhunters as allies in other armies, especially mystics with guard, but any tournament I've been to hasn't allowed this so really its of no concern to me.

I guess it all depends on how tournaments in your area are run.

Mookie.

daedalus wrote:Sure, there's no slots to fill, but by the section concerning the FoC in the BRB, every Codex has a FoC in it, so if this one doesn't, then by the rules, it's not a codex, and the old printed one still applies.

Or you could just use the standard FOC chart with it. As is intended. Or do you really need every little detail spelt out to you?

But I'm sure you know that, and are just trying to create drama where none exists.

Pretty sad they still haven't updated the stats of stormshields, assault cannons, or land raiders.

Oh well, I guess I will continue to use updated rules from other locations.

Kroothawk wrote:

grizgrin wrote:Cool, thanks! My gf is starting a ssters army, she'll be psyched to see this without having to spend 25 bucks on it.

Do your GF a favor and buy her the hard copies of Codex Witch Hunters (3rd) and Codex Adepta Sororitas (2nd edition). She will absolutely need the painting section of the 3rd ed Codex, the background of the 3rd and, as a plus the more extended background of the 2nd ed. Codex.

The pdfs are just the rules, not enough to actually play the army and know what the army is about. The modelling part of the 3rd includes the organisation and painting schemes (incl symbols) of all military and civil orders. The Grey Knight Codex pdf has some essential pages missing, e.g. the one page with allies, Grey Knight and Daemon definition. That's what the confusion about the right Codex in this thread is about.

I'll see what I can do about finding those for her, Kroothawk. That's the most useful suggestion ot come out of this train wreck of a thread. Of course, in defense of the internet community, if GW hadnt screwed the pooch quite so hard we might not be looking at this fething abortion here today now would we.

I think the fact that they went through the effort of renumbering the pages, pulling out the allies section and then covering it with some pictures is pretty telling. I guess we'll have to wait 3.5 years for them to officially make a statement.

Wait a minute. I thought this thread said that the FOC had been removed from the book? The copy I downloaded has an FOC, right on page 14 (as it is numbered in the document) bottom left.

Mn, that's what I read as well.

grizgrin wrote:Wait a minute. I thought this thread said that the FOC had been removed from the book? The copy I downloaded has an FOC, right on page 14 (as it is numbered in the document) bottom left.

And it has been removed from Daemonhunters. On page 14 of the Witch Hunter dex its there

"Within this PDF you'll find all the rules you need,
along with points values and force organisation information
to field them in your games."

Whoops, DH has no FoC, how can I believe anything GW ever writes again? Oh, a major typo too. Are GKs still Psykers? We lose the definition of what is a GK unit also.

The page numbering was most likely done automatically by whatever file they used to create this from, I like how the pages with the covered over inducted rules for DH are now "quote box purple".

Ah, ok. Thanks, anderwm9.

With these "new" free codex's I will be starting a new Gray Knights or SOB army.

Absolutionis wrote:They edited the books to their respective erratas. .

No, they didn't. Check out the inducted IG available on the online pdf and then check out the inducted IG available in the FAQ...................


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dave47 wrote:Remember when Codex: Demonhunters was first published, and suddenly people weren't sure whether Codex: Assassins was still legal?

Apparently Games Workshop doesn't.

And GW actually put out an FAQ on that........

GW must be completely slowed. They really managed to make an already bad codex, the one which had to grapple with the Necron dex for the crown of suck, even worse.

UltraPrime wrote:

daedalus wrote:Sure, there's no slots to fill, but by the section concerning the FoC in the BRB, every Codex has a FoC in it, so if this one doesn't, then by the rules, it's not a codex, and the old printed one still applies.

Or you could just use the standard FOC chart with it. As is intended. Or do you really need every little detail spelt out to you?

But I'm sure you know that, and are just trying to create drama where none exists.

I believe the point is that one creates a double standard by saying that the removal of the Allies rules was intended, but the removal of a FOC (which is necessary to correctly play the game) was a mistake.

I could just as easily argue that GW is going to give DH a special FOC allowing for free-form armies with no compulsory choices, and that the removal of the allies rule was an accident.

So until GW issues a statement one way or the other, we cannot make a determination about whether its is still acceptable to use Allies.

* Looks at page count ( five ).*
* Looks at arguments. *
* Shakes head and wanders off to open a new bottle of beer.*

Just to add some fuel to the fire.

Page two, (first page after the cover)

Under Bold title " Why collect a Daemonhunters army? "

Paragraph 2.

"Another strength of the Daemonhunters army list is the ease with
which it can be integrated with existing armies. If you already
have an Imperial army such as the Space Marines or Imperial
Guard, it can easily be incorporated into the Daemonhunters list.
For instance, a Space Marine player may choose to lead his force
into battle with a Grey Knight Grand Master and his Terminator
bodyguard, or an Imperial Guard player may choose to add a
couple of platoons of infantry to his Daemonhunters force. "

Still think allies are gone? There it is in your new .PDF. It looks like there is more research to be done. Until then I would assume since the codex states you can and doesn't provide rules and and F.A.Q.'s say you can then you would just refer to the hard copy for the actuall allies rules.

I wouldn't put too much importance into the pdf-release. They are just a minor gap filler quickly done (with obvious short comings).
They are not a full Codex, as modelling and background sections are missing. The armies stay mostly mail order only. So this obviously is not the big launch of these neglected army that some people thought or hoped.

Grey Knights are rumoured to come around January, Sororitas within 18 months. Grey Knights will get a completely new range of models including new units and plastic standards, less inquisition and new priorities. Sororitas will probably get many new models as well, a new emphasis on Ecclesiarchy, at least the Codex is in the works for some time as well. These are the big (and late) revival of these armies, even when both armies are currently able to win games if played well.

This is terrible. Right before the ard boyz finals also?

Do the guys that make these decisions even game? No FOC? etc.

Talk about leap before you look...

hyperviper6 wrote:Just to add some fuel to the fire.

Page two, (first page after the cover)

Under Bold title " Why collect a Daemonhunters army? "

Paragraph 2.

"Another strength of the Daemonhunters army list is the ease with
which it can be integrated with existing armies. If you already
have an Imperial army such as the Space Marines or Imperial
Guard, it can easily be incorporated into the Daemonhunters list.
For instance, a Space Marine player may choose to lead his force
into battle with a Grey Knight Grand Master and his Terminator
bodyguard, or an Imperial Guard player may choose to add a
couple of platoons of infantry to his Daemonhunters force. "

Still think allies are gone? There it is in your new .PDF. It looks like there is more research to be done. Until then I would assume since the codex states you can and doesn't provide rules and and F.A.Q.'s say you can then you would just refer to the hard copy for the actuall allies rules.

You could literally make the same argument about Sustained Assault or any other anachronisms in the book and you'd have the same result.

i really dislike this posting of the codexes as if it is any kind of solution or even something that the gaming community really asked for. both codexes i am sure still refer to adversaries rules which last i check are not allowed and not even included in the respective codexes. the rules didn't change they just edited out certain parts. Just eliminate the armies until you decide to bring out a new updated codex please GW.

tiny bit strange that it was so sloppily done but lets hold back on that until we see what they have to say tomorrow.

I just wish if they were going to stapgap the fact that the books are OOP, they had just posted the whole dang thing exactly as it was. Least everyone knew where the problem areas were with the print copies. Eh, well; if wishes were fishes.

My fishies are stronger than your fishies.

Your need to prove fishie strength is a sad, sad statement all on it's own.

grizgrin wrote:Your need to prove fishie strength is a sad, sad statement all on it's own.

Hey, my jokes are lame, but they are not sad. Because at least I'm laughing

Touche, I will give you that. So 18 months or tomorrow and wee find out WTF wih this new codex, huh? I'm voting for tomorrow.

I'm voting for eighteen months. I bet we'll get what effectively amounts to (pardon my Texan) jack diddly squat.

They're also spam. Police yourselves, people.

OT: isn't the standard FOC already in the BRB? I know that in my LGS at least you'd get laughed out of the store for trying some of these outlandish rules-lawyering travesties. Accuse GW of incompetence all you want, but if I were them I'd do the same thing; throw the PDF out there and let a bunch of basement dwelling neckbeards with nothing better to do edit it for me. XD

Hey, a guy can dream, eh? But 18 months is probably more realistic, I admit.

Ninja'd

sucks that they removed the allies.. but I do prefer the 1 book per army idea. Hopefully when they get redone some day they'll just include some of the allies stuff as part of the list ... like you can take a 0-1 marine squad as troops, or IG platoon.. or whatever.

Hmm... let's see, new Daemon models coming out real soon. What's a huge thorn in a Daemon players side, especially when playing against IG. Yeah, I believe the removal of the Allies rules was completely intentional.

Thank god they removed allies. The inquisitor and mystics broke the IG codex. The IG were tough enough, but then add a character that gives them a extra shooting phase. I will be looking forward to seeing all these mech vet lists have vulkan drop pod, demon, chaos, and anything else that can deepstrike rip the $#% out of the list. that codex was not written thinking that there was going to be vendettas, demolishers, hydras, and medusas. I can't wait and see how IG now do at ard boyz finalz without their precious inquisitor. To all the IG players, i hope you had fun playing yatzee since now you actually have to play 40k.

specia_k_squared wrote:Thank god they removed allies. The inquisitor and mystics broke the IG codex. The IG were tough enough, but then add a character that gives them a extra shooting phase. I will be looking forward to seeing all these mech vet lists have vulkan drop pod, demon, chaos, and anything else that can deepstrike rip the $#% out of the list. that codex was not written thinking that there was going to be vendettas, demolishers, hydras, and medusas. I can't wait and see how IG now do at ard boyz finalz without their precious inquisitor. To all the IG players, i hope you had fun playing yatzee since now you actually have to play 40k.

Bitter much?

just a tad, but who isn't who has played a competent IG player. I only think that it is a good thing for the game that they got rid allies. I realize that mech vet is still going to be a tough list, but now they actually have to worry about some opponents other than bike rushes or white scar lists.

Sorry if my tl;dr missed this question already being asked. But, does this mean that my printed and paid for versions are obsolete?

AvatarForm wrote:Sorry if my tl;dr missed this question already being asked. But, does this mean that my printed and paid for versions are obsolete?

Probably not. I can't see too many players expecting you to use a pdf over your actual codex.

For tournaments, it will be at the TO's discretion, but again I would expect that they'll mostly continue to allow the printed codex.

IG suffered lot. They lost hood and mystics.

I'm using my printed codex, and if the other player doesn't like it I can smack them with it

Well first of all, I planned on my rebirth of my pure daemonhunters army at an utmost perfect time.

On topic, it is nice to know that after watching people take GW's FAQ's and all non-errata content so unseriously because they are not erratas, that as soon as soon as they release something that hints at the IG losing something, they jump on the bandwagon to bring IG down because they need to be weaker.

At first glance, this is a rerelease that omitted a lot of pages from both books, the fact that the allies pages were omitted as well is an easy mistake, and an easy fix to the current competitive community (yet, very sloppy).

Allies are gone, and neither side (IG players vs. non IG players) should be bitter in any way.

IG players, take this as a chance to show your friends that you REALLY are better than them.

Non-IG players, if you really think this is as much of a kick to the unmentionables as you think it might be, challenge us again. The IG now stand alone and without the Inquisition, will they still prevail?






-The answer is yes (LoL)

Most IG players don't use it anyway. It only hurt the DH players.

Monster Rain wrote:They're also spam. Police yourselves, people.

OT: isn't the standard FOC already in the BRB? I know that in my LGS at least you'd get laughed out of the store for trying some of these outlandish rules-lawyering travesties. Accuse GW of incompetence all you want, but if I were them I'd do the same thing; throw the PDF out there and let a bunch of basement dwelling neckbeards with nothing better to do edit it for me. XD

There's an example FOC in the BRB. It specifically tells you to see your appropriate codex for your army's FOC. I imagine this is so that if they ever wanted a non-standard FOC for an army, it wouldn't be a problem (such as SW having 2 HQ's per slot, etc).

Honestly, I'd laugh at anyone who tried to deny IG their allies on the basis of missing pages that leave out quite a bit more than just the Allies rules.

I would never deny a DH or IG player use of their allies based on this "update"

Might I point out that, in the rules-interaction stack, going LIFO, you have:

1. BGB
2. Codices


Given that a codex overrides the BGB when the rules are contradictory, I present exhibit #2:

WH40k is an Inclusive rule set, not an exclusive one. The rules are based on, and the gameplay built around, what you CAN do, and will only present exceptions, not outright prohibitions.

Based on this, a codex which excludes a Force org chart will default to the chart listed in the BGB, itself, since the check will go from the Codex to the book, itself. Lack of an object doesn't override the presence of another object...

But, I could be wrong....

On a more related note, it's cool that they posted the defunct books online, but they could have cleaned that prom date up just a bit more.

Melissia wrote:I agree!

So, back on topic of the PDFs. Just because the PDF codex doesn't have the Allies rules-- in the DH version only, apparently-- doesn't mean that those rules are removed. Unless you're going to say that all physical copies of the codex are nullified and replaced by this, which I haven't seen any proof of.

I agree with Melissia on this. As long as the codices are not updated to a new edition or are explicitly told to overrule the old ones, I will still play my SM with my GKT and PAGK. Nothing says my book is useless (apart from all the old rules that make the models useless )

Ugh. Glad to see the internet drama machine is still churning. We've known for months that allies are going bye-bye. As far as it not being a kick in the pants to the IG? You're kidding yourself. The Mystics sitting next to a Medusa or some Manticores was a huge part of what made the Leafblower so dangerous. Then again, it's the nature of people with broken units to say that they aren't broken and they are just awesome players. God-Falcons in 4th Ed come to mind.

Dronze wrote:Might I point out that, in the rules-interaction stack, going LIFO, you have:

1. BGB
2. Codices

Indeed you might, as has been before, but then you'd be wrong. Kindly refer to page 87 of your hardback rulebook. The diagram says "Example". Also, please note in the text, the only rule stating what chart you use is "The minimum and maximum numbers of each of these types of unit for each army are detailed on the force organisation chart of each army Codex book."

There are exactly 0 provisions about using the example chart in the rulebook. If you want to houserule it that way, that's fine, but it's not a full codex and as such, not the one I'm using.

Dronze wrote:
Given that a codex overrides the BGB when the rules are contradictory, I present exhibit #2:

WH40k is an Inclusive rule set, not an exclusive one. The rules are based on, and the gameplay built around, what you CAN do, and will only present exceptions, not outright prohibitions.

Exactly.

Dronze wrote:
Based on this, a codex which excludes a Force org chart will default to the chart listed in the BGB, itself, since the check will go from the Codex to the book, itself. Lack of an object doesn't override the presence of another object...

But, I could be wrong....

You would be right if it said "Default Force Org Chart", rather than "Example".

Monster Rain wrote:Ugh. Glad to see the internet drama machine is still churning. We've known for months that allies are going bye-bye. As far as it not being a kick in the pants to the IG? You're kidding yourself. The Mystics sitting next to a Medusa or some Manticores was a huge part of what made the Leafblower so dangerous. Then again, it's the nature of people with broken units to say that they aren't broken and they are just awesome players. God-Falcons in 4th Ed come to mind.

Hey, the only competitive thing I ever allied in my IG army was an inquisitor with hood to shut down Eldrad lists. I can still do that. Also, I feel like falcons are still the most indestructible transports in the game, and that's coming from an IG player.

I'd really like to see someone try and stop another player from using their printed DH or WH Codex.

Just got an email from GW regarding Daemon Hunter and Witch Hunters for the Ardboyz tournament finals.

Flag this messageDemonhunters and Witchhunters in the Ardboyz finalsThursday, June 24, 2010 8:44 AM
From: "Brendan Bell" <brendan.bell@games-workshop.com>Add sender to ContactsTo: undisclosed-recipientsHello,



There have been a number of questions regarding Demonhunters and Witchhunters and allies for the 2010 40K Ard Boyz Finals.



The Finals will use the printed rules that were used in the first two rounds; you will be able to use allies.



Thanks,



Brendan

And yet, if the new .PDFs had been printed with something added that the IG/DH/WH players *loved*, they'd be fighting for the legitmacy of the .PDFs, not against it.

It's all about perspective.

You mean, if the PDFs were actually revisions instead of just blatant copies that happen to be incomplete, people might actually support it? If they actually included the Errata/FAQs into the pdf, if they included updates to make the PDFs more than just a basic copy/paste job, if they actually put effort into it?

Gee whiz willy wonkers batman, them WH/DH players sure are mean!

Melissia wrote:You mean, if the PDFs were actually revisions instead of just blatant copies that happen to be incomplete, people might actually support it?

You don't call it a "revision" when you omit a part of something and revise other parts to make it seem more seamless (page numbers)? For instance, if you're writing a paper, and you omit two or three paragraphs before you turn it in, that's not a "revision" of the original? Hm, odd.

Melissia wrote:If they actually included the Errata/FAQs into the pdf, if they included updates to make the PDFs more than just a basic copy/paste job, if they actually put effort into it?

Changing page numbers so that it is obvious they meant to omit the pages are more than basic copy and pasting.

Melissia wrote:Gee whiz willy wonkers batman, them WH/DH players sure are mean!

I wasn't saying anything about them being mean. Simply the fact that people are arguing for something because they like it the way it is. I guess Blood Angels players should have been able to use 3rd Edition Codices (or was it 2nd?) this whole time, even though their codex was released in .pdf format. Just because you don't agree doesn't make it less legit. If they had added something you loved, you'd be fighting to make it legit. It's hypocritical.

puma713 wrote:You don't call it a "revision" when you omit a part of something

No, I don't.

This is not a new version of the codex, this is the same codex with some pages missing. And if you want to judge GW based on their ability to write papers, I assure you they'd fail miserably.

Melissia wrote:

puma713 wrote:You don't call it a "revision" when you omit a part of something

No, I don't.

This is not a new version of the codex, this is the same codex with some pages missing. And if you want to judge GW based on their ability to write papers, I assure you they'd fail miserably.

Except they aren't "missing". It's not like they copied the Codex and said "Whoops! We forgot the allies part!" They purposely adjusted the page numbers around the omissions. That's pretty blatant.

lol keep believing that it's "just missing pages" and maybe it'll come true

BlueDagger wrote:lol keep believing that it's "just missing pages" and maybe it'll come true

Keep believing they're intentionally removed. Certainly if they intended to remove allies they should have removed allies, instead of kept it in in part, many different variations of it scattered over the globe, and even shattering the usability of one of the two codices. And if you think GW is too incompetent to do it consistently over the globe, then why do you think GW is competent enough to intend to remove Allies in the first place when they have nothing to gain by it?

I keep looking over these threads and no one can figure out what this means.

The allies page isn't the only thing missing from these books, also missing is much of the background about the inquisition and the SoB/GK. These are just stripped down 'pure rules' codexes that haven't changed, it's just an e-release....but no one can figure out if the rules actually changed.

starbomber109 wrote:I keep looking over these threads and no one can figure out what this means.

The allies page isn't the only thing missing from these books, also missing is much of the background about the inquisition and the SoB/GK. These are just stripped down 'pure rules' codexes that haven't changed, it's just an e-release....but no one can figure out if the rules actually changed.

It's not even a complete list of rules. Try finding the Grey Knight rule.

Wow. That 'further discussion' today was about the most underwhelming thing I think I've seen for a while.

So is someone keeping tabs one way or the other?

I'm +1 they have/will pull allies. Email seems to say that is what is meant.

Melissia wrote:

starbomber109 wrote:I keep looking over these threads and no one can figure out what this means.

The allies page isn't the only thing missing from these books, also missing is much of the background about the inquisition and the SoB/GK. These are just stripped down 'pure rules' codexes that haven't changed, it's just an e-release....but no one can figure out if the rules actually changed.

It's not even a complete list of rules. Try finding the Grey Knight rule.

The one that says "See page 3 for all Grey Knight rules."?

And in your earlier post you said that they had different versions all over the globe. Which ones are different?

puma713 wrote:And in your earlier post you said that they had different versions all over the globe. Which ones are different?

From earlier in the thread:

solkan wrote:Having been bored enough to try downloading the various language versions around 5:00 before going to sleep:
1. French version is renumbered, and HAS the missing two pages.
2. Spanish version has the old page numbers, and is missing the two pages.
3. English, German and Italian versions have renumbered pages are are missing the two pages.
4. There is no Japanese version.

I guess we'll have to wait until tomorrow, since today's GW news says that they'll talk more about today's "great" release.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Uriels_Flame wrote:So is someone keeping tabs one way or the other?

I'm +1 they have/will pull allies. Email seems to say that is what is meant.

Nope, the email responses that have been given to us state that allies are still legal. One of htem was posted earlier in this thread.

Uriels_Flame wrote:So is someone keeping tabs one way or the other?

I'm +1 they have/will pull allies. Email seems to say that is what is meant.

At this point, there's really anyone's guess. Their further elaboration on DH/WH today was an ad for Stormtroopers. No comment on allies, no new FAQs, no new news. Insaniak pointed out in the YDMC thread that if doesn't really matter at this point because you can either house rule it one way or the other in your group for friendly games, and for Tournaments, it's up to whatever whim the TO operates on. I've discussed with my group and they're all for me keeping allies, so I've stopped caring about this. Wake me up when they actually announce a new (for real) codex.

Melissia wrote:

puma713 wrote:And in your earlier post you said that they had different versions all over the globe. Which ones are different?

From earlier in the thread:

solkan wrote:Having been bored enough to try downloading the various language versions around 5:00 before going to sleep:
1. French version is renumbered, and HAS the missing two pages.
2. Spanish version has the old page numbers, and is missing the two pages.
3. English, German and Italian versions have renumbered pages are are missing the two pages.
4. There is no Japanese version.

I guess we'll have to wait until tomorrow, since today's GW news says that they'll talk more about today's "great" release.

The French version does not have the "Allies" pages.

Then your post contradicts what numerous people who have downloaded it have said. Check both versions, DH and WH.

Melissia wrote:Then your post contradicts what numerous people who have downloaded it have said. Check both versions, DH and WH.

No, they're right. I see it now.

Mn. A lot of people missed the induction rules in the WH codex, too. It's hidden in a little side bar.

Even so, the latest iteration of a codex is usually the correct one. I don't think it's ever happened before that a Codex has been discontinued, reprinted differently and then we're left wondering which one to use.

The only hanging evidence, to me, is that the French version still has the allies in it. Now, to me, that is not overwhelming. Some say, "Well they may have just forgotten! Look it's still in the French version!"

But what is more believable? Them forgetting the Allies in -every- .pdf but the French one? Or forgetting to omit the Allies out of the French one?

Occam's Razor - the simplest answer is most often the correct one. It seems to me that they may have simply missed the French version, or maybe the Leafblower isn't being abused in tournament play in France. I don't know. But it's more believable that they forgot one, rather than all the others that they didn't forget.

Was it a sloppy job? Yes. They left inducted units. So you get to induct other armies, but the DH can't ally. But were allies meant to be removed? I believe so.

Edit: And it might be important to note that the WH French version does not include them, though it does have the inducted unit sidebar.

puma713 wrote:Even so, the latest iteration of a codex is usually the correct one.

If that is the case, then DH is unplayable.

Melissia wrote:

puma713 wrote:Even so, the latest iteration of a codex is usually the correct one.

If that is the case, then DH is unplayable.

Why? Because it doesn't have an FoC chart? That's being a bit obtuse.

No, because it lacks the definition of many special rules.

Melissia wrote:No, because it lacks the definition of many special rules.

Which ones? You're not giving me much to go on here.

Edit: And now, I check the French version of the DH and it has 23 pages, not 25 and allies is gone.

There's some issue with the French download page or something. Ten minutes ago, I downloaded a 25-page version with allies. Now, there's a 23 page without them.

Edit: my link didn't take you to the French version.

Also, GW is telling people who call them to use the printed version rather than the PDF because the printed version is incomplete. Gwar confirmed this. *shrug*

Guys, can you take the argument to "You Make Da Call"? News and Rumors is not the place for this bickering. This thread is to take note of the pdf. availability and changes to the DH codex, not to the interpretation of them.

Melissia wrote:Also, GW is telling people who call them to use the printed version rather than the PDF because the printed version is incomplete. Gwar confirmed this. *shrug*

I'm surprised Gwar! confirmed anything about calling GW. He detests calling them. He calls them glorified box-packers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fxeni wrote:Guys, can you take the argument to "You Make Da Call"? News and Rumors is not the place for this bickering. This thread is to take note of the pdf. availability and changes to the DH codex, not to the interpretation of them.

And we're discussing the changes to the DH codex, are we not?

Anyway, as it stands right now, none of the versions, foreign or domestic, have allies in them, WH or DH. WH still have inducted units, but those are different.

I dont know if this has been mentioned yet but apparently thse two PDFs are all the Ordos will be getting for at least another year.

G

Where do you get that from, BBF?

I don't play games, I just buy books because I like reading them and making theoretical lists. So I have zero vested interest.

But from a purely game design stand-point, I'm surprised no one has brought up Dogs of War in WHFB. My understanding was that to play a race you needed the appropriate Codex and a Big Book. Maybe some dice and templates. That's it. Needing multiple books for one army kind of broke that, and the reason (in my estimation) they did it to begin with was because they wanted to add flavor to each Codex or they felt they might be lacking (a side note is they might have wanted to try and force players to buy extra Codices). But it's incredibly difficult to balance an individual race, as you've seen by some becoming vastly OP or very weak depending on the release. Adding in units from another Codex and trying to estimate all the synergies there made it so much more difficult. So in WHFB a Codex is a Codex and I think that's going to be the future of them. They'll probably fluff out a race if they feel it needs more this or that, OR, more likely, just let it suck for a while.

Getting back to 40K, I think the same applies. Except 40K has, IMHO, a lot more individual unit special abilities. I can't imagine a Dogs of War concept in 40K. Even pretending it made sense lore-wise, but imagine Orks with Leman Russes or Tau with Assault Termies. Those weaknesses balance out the race. And it's a pretty damn fragile balance as it is. IG is one of the newest, and some say most balanced, Codices. Having it be able to function 100% on its own AND be able to pull from another Codex just from a purely mathematical, logical stand-point seems contrary to balance. If it's balanced by itself, adding more unit options certainly isn't going to make it under-balanced, it's going to do the opposite.

That's funny, I have no vested interest either. I don't use allies anymore outside of apocalypse anyway. But I see a lot of people who really despise the Allies rules grasping at whatever they can to try and toss them away and claim they're out of the game forever. This is no different than when C:IG was released, when people tried to use THAT to claim Allies rules were destroyed forever, too. People who hate Allies will always do this, until GW actually makes an official statement to remove them.

People don't hate allies themselves, they hate the broken exploitation of outdated rules that comes along with the DH codex. I don't think anyone cares if you take a Leman Russ or a Valkyrie. Just tone down the mystics and a few other things and it'll be fine.

Melissia wrote:That's funny, I have no vested interest either. I don't use allies anymore outside of apocalypse anyway. But I see a lot of people who really despise the Allies rules grasping at whatever they can to try and toss them away and claim they're out of the game forever. This is no different than when C:IG was released, when people tried to use THAT to claim Allies rules were destroyed forever, too. People who hate Allies will always do this, until GW actually makes an official statement to remove them.

Which they don't do. GW doesn't come out and say, "Oh hey, by the way, Allies are gone." I think releasing a .pdf Codex in which every iteration of it has allies removed is as an official statement as they're going to give, outside of a new, bound codex.

Which is funny considering GW tells people to use the printed codex because the pdf one is missing some parts.

Monster Rain wrote:People don't hate allies themselves, they hate the broken exploitation of outdated rules that comes along with the DH codex. I don't think anyone cares if you take a Leman Russ or a Valkyrie. Just tone down the mystics and a few other things and it'll be fine.

So what constitutes outdated so that we may consider it "broken exploitation".

I mean, I certainly got sick of facing Nob Bikers back in the day and felt that the wargear options certainly allowed exploitation of the wound allocation rules, but as it was "the rules" there wasn't much I could do about it.

You mean I just have to wait some arbitray time until I can say people can't use it anymore beacuse its too old?

Is it the fault of a DH/WH player that their codex is 10+ years old and they should be some how -more- punished because of it?

Game balance isn't punishment, and Nob Bikers aren't broken.

This isn't balance.

Another email from GW:

The new PDF is up for the people who do not have access to buy the codex anymore. The missing Alies section in the U.S format is indeed a mistake. And whichever one the tournament/event organizer says to use is the one that we have to abide by. I know that for our tournaments we will be using the Physical codex and NOT the PDF. I hope this helps!

Thanks!

John Hollingsworth
Customer Service Specialist

Wait, GW is actually taking a stance on something?

Melissia wrote:Which is funny considering GW tells people to use the printed codex because the pdf one is missing some parts.

A GW customer service rep. In other words, someone who takes your phone orders.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

daedalus-templarius wrote:Another email from GW:

The new PDF is up for the people who do not have access to buy the codex anymore. The missing Alies section in the U.S format is indeed a mistake. And whichever one the tournament/event organizer says to use is the one that we have to abide by. I know that for our tournaments we will be using the Physical codex and NOT the PDF. I hope this helps!

Thanks!

John Hollingsworth
Customer Service Specialist

Again, a customer service rep. Funny he didn't mention the fact that -every- .pdf except France has this omission. That and all the pages were renumbered. Funny they would've gone to the trouble to renumber them, not wonder why they had to renumber them because they were missing pages and then published it without them, with the numbers reformatted around them for every book except France.

Not saying that it couldn't happen - anything is possible - but improbable.

Melissia wrote:Wait, GW is actually taking a stance on something?

A GW customer service rep is, yes. But if GW backed up everything their customer service reps said over the phone or in an e-mail, they'd have a lot of explaining to do.

puma713 wrote:

Melissia wrote:Which is funny considering GW tells people to use the printed codex because the pdf one is missing some parts.

A GW customer service rep. In other words, someone who takes your phone orders.

Actually this would be the third time someone has said this.

Melissia wrote:

puma713 wrote:

Melissia wrote:Which is funny considering GW tells people to use the printed codex because the pdf one is missing some parts.

A GW customer service rep. In other words, someone who takes your phone orders.

Actually this would be the third time someone has said this.

I have an e-mail from a GW service rep that says I can make my power armour a 1+ save. That's cool, right?

My point is until you see it from GW (good luck trying to convince anyone that a GW service rep is the face of rules for GW), then what they've actually posted is the latest and legal version.

When or if they come out with another .pdf with the allies pages included, then it'll be settled.

It's already settled. The physical PDFs take precedence, and indeed that is how GW is doing it in its own tournaments because the PDFs are incomplete and has things removed by mistake.

Melissia wrote:It's already settled. The physical PDFs take precedence, and indeed that is how GW is doing it in its own tournaments because the PDFs are incomplete and has things removed by mistake.

So you heard from a random customer service rep, right? Where is an official stance that it was removed by mistake?

Where is there an official stance that they were removed on purpose? There's more evidence to the contrary than there is for it.

Melissia wrote:Where is there an official stance that they were removed on purpose? There's more evidence to the contrary than there is for it.

lol you're kidding right? So, the evidence for them being removed is:

They're removed in every country except France and the page numbers have been reassigned to make it seem like they were never there.

And the evidence for them being removed by accident is:

They're in the French version and a customer service rep said, through an e-mail, yes it was a mistake.

The "official" stance that they were removed on purpose? The fact that they're not there. That is the official stance until you hear otherwise. If they come out tomorrow and say, "Whoops, we made a mistake. We meant to keep allies in." then that's their official stance. Until you hear otherwise, however, what they've published -is- their official stance.

Your personal opinion on why they aren't there is not itself proof.

Melissia wrote:Your personal opinion on why they aren't there is not itself proof.

That's not my "personal opinion". The pages for allies aren't there. Period. Whether or not that was intended is beside the point. As of right now, they're out. That's not an opinion. Their official stance, until they say otherwise (besides someone who simply wears a GW polo and jots down your phone order), is that they're gone. I'll be playing it however the TO's decide - which anyone in a tournament setting will be as well.

Knowing the tournaments around here, they'll be out, since the tournaments around here usually follow GW publications to the letter.

I'd like to see someone prove which one is more "legal" when they have the exact same copyright and version information.

This will be up to whether or not the TO has a bug up his ass about allies or not more than anything else.

Ixquic wrote:I'd like to see someone prove which one is more "legal" when they have the exact same copyright and version information.

This will be up to whether or not the TO has a bug up his ass about allies or not more than anything else.

It will depend on whether or not the TO is an IG player or not.

True and it's why tournaments involving Games Workshop games are really a waste of time.

Melissia wrote:Where do you get that from, BBF?

If I told you I would have to kill ya.



G

These PDFs will usher in a whole new era of no one playing these armies, the likes of which no one has ever seen before!

ShumaGorath wrote:These PDFs will usher in a whole new era of no one playing these armies, the likes of which no one has ever seen before!

Hah! That was worth a laugh.. Here's internetscat with your prize.

Melissia wrote:It's already settled. The physical PDFs take precedence, and indeed that is how GW is doing it in its own tournaments because the PDFs are incomplete and has things removed by mistake.

The email that was posted here says the exact opposite. The PDfs are just for those who don't have access to the codex. For everyone else, keep using the codex.


Yes, it's not exactly an 'official' answer... but it's the closest we're going to get. And shouldn't really matter anyway. As I already pointed out elsewhere, tournaments will continue to use whichever version of the rules they choose. For friendly games you can continue to use whichever version of the rules you and your opponent agree on. So this whole episode is just a storm in a teacup... there's absolutely no need to be getting all worked up over it.

I think it's time to give this a rest.