If you go to a tournament, I don't know of any that allow you to not have a copy of your relevant codices. So, you're fine there, b/c you can't play w/out your codex anywho.

Next up ... if you're playing with your buddies, and you show them the e-mail, and the language differentials, and the various quoted customer service responses people have been getting, and they still don't let you ... well, not really your buddies.

I don't get the big flipout. The e-mail I quoted was sent to every organizer on the GT circuit. So, they're going to be run with allies allowed if you have the dex (which you needed anyway), and if your local friendly types have a problem w/ you doing it ... well, again. Friendly?

I'm not upset, just confused. I'm happy allies are still in, and that's great that GW is allowing that at their GT's. I just don't understand why they weren't included in the PDF? It says right in the email that they intentionally removed the allies section, but in the same sentence say using allies isn't disallowed. So why was it removed? Does anyone else here not see the double speak?

I think corporate speak is a better view to take on it. I doubt you'll find many people swearing that this is "perfect" in all ways ... there wouldn't have been the questions to begin with.

BUT, now that it's been cleared up to a functional degree, further angst beyond "wow that's silly" or your usual buddy-to-buddy type convo is probably just ... unintentional drama mongering. Key on "unintentional" ... not accusing you or criticizing you (or anyone else) at all ... just trying to point out the lack of any positive to be gained by continued "rabble" over the matter. GW doesn't really read or listen to forums, or consider them especially representative of their customer base.


We have enough data to make our rulings and choices as tourney goers/organizers, and as friends. There are plenty of other targets more worth chucking stones at ... and as I plow through the FAQ for my own event, I can think of about 20 off the top of my head :p

mikhaila wrote:I like the irony of how many people complain about a free codex.

Tom Kirby: So, how did putting the codices up on the web for free go over with gamers?

GW Staffer: They complained and groaned, called us unprofessional, said it was confusing to new gamers.

Tom Kirby: No more free codices then.

Luckily, GW doesn't really pay attention to people on the interwebs, so we are ok here.

Quoted for truth.

Who would have guessed that just omitting one essential page from the English DH rules scan (by mistake or to hide the soon to be obsolete allies rule) would create such a confusion about two "different Codices". One is the scan of the other, for Christ's sake. And without the modelling part and the background, noone can seriously start a DH or WH army now. And not having the 10box is not a reason for that, as 80% of the DH/WH beginners didn't have or need that box. It wasn't available at the Codex release and has an odd and not helpful choice of heavy weapons for Sororitas, so everybody needed extra miniatures in blisters anyway. And the blisters are still available.

"Use what you have." It doesn't get any clearer than that. Good job GW.

.

I have no idea as to the validaty of this email (A quick blurb on the site in the Astronomican entry for the PDFs would be an excellent solution), but the answer makes things playable and is prolly all we are going to get for noe. Since it A) expands the rules to people who otherwise could not as easily get ahold of them and B) totally destroys some of the awe-inspiring analaching that has been going on, I am for it. Good solution, jobs a goodun until such time as further errata/new revs come out. This is certianly better than the situation we had starting about .3 femtoseconds after the dang PDFs got put up in the first place. Certainly a step forward from that nonsense.

evilsponge wrote: I just don't understand why they weren't included in the PDF? It says right in the email that they intentionally removed the allies section, but in the same sentence say using allies isn't disallowed. So why was it removed?

Again, because the Allies rules will be removed from the next versions of these codexes... so they have removed them from the PDF's, for the sake of anyone starting an army now to try them out, while leaving them as legal for now for the sake of those with the actual codex and an existing army.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me, but I guess common sense is a virtue seldom seen these days.

mikhaila wrote:I like the irony of how many people complain about a free codex.

Tom Kirby: So, how did putting the codices up on the web for free go over with gamers?

GW Staffer: They complained and groaned, called us unprofessional, said it was confusing to new gamers.

Tom Kirby: No more free codices then.

Luckily, GW doesn't really pay attention to people on the interwebs, so we are ok here.

They would be acting like a normal business if the discussion had gone like thus:


Tom Kirby: So, how did putting the codices up on the web for free go over with gamers?

GW Staffer: Well, we pretty much effed-up by putting diverging copies at first so there was a lot of complaints...

Tom Kirby: What did you do?

GW Staffer: We actually listened to the customer and promptly corrected the mistake by putting up the full codices as PDFs and added a notice saying that we were sorry about the earlier mistake, that we understood the frustration about waiting 7 years for a new codex, that for reasons of not creating confusion updates like point cost could not be done on a PDF but that a new codex was coming in the next 6 months. Complaints went away very quickly. We actually got some thank you emails.

Tom Kirby: Good job!

But no, being monopolistic jerks, they just didn't give a damn, as usual...

Phil

MVBrandt wrote:I have no rulings that prevent the burning of other players' rulebooks. Unfortunately, that's illegal in the US one way or another.

It's a mistiminor at worst unless they become hot collectors items worth $1000 or more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

evilsponge wrote:

My point exactly. Either have them and keep the allies section, or disallow them and take the allies section out. Having two different versions of the same codex both legal is only going to frustrate and confuse non-WH players.

It's pretty obvious, the UK wants allies out, the US doesn't want to piss off customers. This is not a case of GW not knowing what it's doing, it's a case of one arm of GW disagreeing with another decision.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kirasu wrote:heh yeah.. all that "ruling" says to me is "use whatever codex you bought, who cares if its the right one.. we cant be bothered "

No, it says 'the UK changed the codex, the US tournament director disagreed so is ignoring them'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Luco wrote:"Use what you have." It doesn't get any clearer than that. Good job GW.

.

I know I'll be using my GK list from the Rogue Trader Reams of Chaos books. Now where did I put those squat thunderers...

JMO,but is there anything GW really could do in this instance that would keep people from complaining?

Option 1-Let books go OOP and provide no PDF support.

Result=People complain about not being able to get rules for WH/DH and/or mass hysteria ensues that "GW may be squatting Inquisition,GK,and/or SoB."

Option 2-Remove allies in PDF format and errata allies out of the existing DH/WH codices.

Result=Existing DH/WH players are po'd and complaining about a ton of useless models.

Option 3-Remove allies from the PDF format so players starting the armies don't buy useless models,but allow people with the old 'dex to use allies to keep them happy.

Result=This thread.

In all seriousness,I don't see what's so difficult and confusing about it. Use the rules you've got. If you didn't pay for a 'dex,then you can't use allies. Simple.

No matter how you spin it there should only be one codex for any army. I've seen plenty of Grey Knight armies that have zero allies.

G

In all seriousness,I don't see what's so difficult and confusing about it. Use the rules you've got. If you didn't pay for a 'dex,then you can't use allies. Simple.

Or one could argue the rule exist regardless of who owns which codex. Thats like saying the people who wasted money on the first edition DE codex can use it instead of the updated revised printing

Two different similar situations yet one is okay to use and one isnt?

Get control of your regions GW, plain and simple

The allies rule doesnt matter but it sets a bad precedence for the future

Black Blow Fly wrote:No matter how you spin it there should only be one codex for any army.

Exactly, I really don't think that is too much to expect.

Kirasu wrote:Thats like saying the people who wasted money on the first edition DE codex can use it instead of the updated revised printing

Why can't they?


Unless you're playing in an event that specifies certain books, you're free to use whichever version of a codex you happen to have.

Using the most current rules outside of organised events is a choice, not a requirement of the game.

People are annoyed because, on top of appearing to be released late, these exciting new PDF's which are supposed to tide everyone over end up being incomplete and worth slightly less than the effort to download them. It's a bit like volunteering to cater a vegetarian convention for free, making an announcement that you're going to cater for free, and then showing up to serve 100% real beef hot dogs and hamburgers and wondering why people are complaining about free food.

solkan wrote:People are annoyed because, on top of appearing to be released late, these exciting new PDF's which are supposed to tide everyone over end up being incomplete and worth slightly less than the effort to download them. It's a bit like volunteering to cater a vegetarian convention for free, making an announcement that you're going to cater for free, and then showing up to serve 100% real beef hot dogs and hamburgers and wondering why people are complaining about free food.

Hyperbole much?

They were never promoted as 'exciting new PDFs'

And they're not 'late' either. They were said to be coming sometime in June and... it's still June.

So GW is giving something away and people complain. Funnily enough most poeple can't do a good impression of a female dog.
So if free stuff doesn't work?
Charge harder.

Thats the lesson they will take away: we gave away free stuff and people complained. Same with Spearhead - free expansion, to bridge the gap to Apocalypse quite neatly, and people complain about "a gw scheme to get more money!!!" (well, duh)

Whatever. It really isnt anything to get worked up over, if you start a new army because you find out hte rules are online you wont be using allies as they are likely gone - and if you REALLY want to use allies then you can find a printed copy fairly easily.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:
I know I'll be using my GK list from the Rogue Trader Reams of Chaos books. Now where did I put those squat thunderers...

sigh. *rolls eyes*

ChrisCP wrote:So GW is giving something away and people complain. Funnily enough most poeple can't do a good impression of a female dog.
So if free stuff doesn't work?
Charge harder.

Oh come on!

GW changed the rules in these books with the PDFs, there was a whole thread identifying the changes and discussing them.

But now a different arm of GW says the changes don't apply. So people with $100s of Inquisition forces don't know what the rules for their army are.

I think the confusion and irritation is totally justified.

Yes its justified. Argue all you want. However, in the end just follow the simple ruling. If you own the codex, use it; if you dont own it use the Free PDF. Yes it sucks if you are using the Free PDF but hey, its free...you get what you paid for.

GW's practices suck sometimes...heck look at 8th ed fantasy...the next year will have people going this way and that about the rules changes. We still play the game, we still buy the products (unless its a free pdf ).

I would say lets move on to a new topic to argue about but that wont happen. So lets concentrate some energy on getting this mysterious email linked to dakka or where its coming from.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:So GW is giving something away and people complain. Funnily enough most poeple can't do a good impression of a female dog.
So if free stuff doesn't work?
Charge harder.

Oh come on!

GW changed the rules in these books with the PDFs, there was a whole thread identifying the changes and discussing them.

But now a different arm of GW says the changes don't apply. So people with $100s of Inquisition forces don't know what the rules for their army are.

I think the confusion and irritation is totally justified.

Yeah, I know - for me, at least - that this is where I stand. I'm certain I'm in the strict minority here, but I built a combined SoB AND GK army... one that, when painted and finished, would probably be upwards of 4000 pts. Now if the PDF that was out now was the one we'd have to strictly adhere to, I'd have 2 armies of smaller size - and my sisters (about 800 pts worth) wouldn't even be playable in bigger scenarios!

Now I realize that is an inevitability what with the new codecies being created - and there's always apocalypse games - the fact remains that it isn't fair to the people that DON'T use inquisitors and their broken retinue to not be able to mix 'n match to make up for our 3rd ed codecies' shortcomings! This would be like telling an Eldar player "Sorry, guy - you can't use your Wave Serpents because foot-slogging eldar are more balanced in 5th ed!" or telling space marine players "Sorry, kids - the special chapter codecies are being put on ice - but don't worry! The Vanilla Marines Codex is still available to you! And we put it on PDF! How nice are we?!?!"

In conclusion, I'm thrilled with this ruling. I'll baby my hardcopy WH and DH codecies till they shrivel and die (or I get nice, new, shiny hardcopies of the 5th ed SoB and GK). But don't be upset, you non =][= players, that we are a little testy about our codex being shat on... let he who is without sin cast the first stone. If this was *YOUR* codex, would you be all sunshine and lemondrops, or would you be full of piss and vinegar, too?

insaniak wrote:

Neconilis wrote: But yes, do you truly not see the foolishness in having two different versions of a codex that are both legal?

Yup, it's bound to cause huge problems. I can see the news headlines now:

"This just in: A Warhammer 40000 player in Chicago, Illinois was today angered and confused when his opponent turned up at the table with a Daemon Hunters army that contained no allies!..."



Seriously, there are far bigger things in this hobby to get cranky about. It's a free codex.

Word.

The reason people are complaining about a free codex is because it's created a situation where it's ambiguous regarding what constitutes a legal army where there wasn't one before. If the codex was simply a scanned copy of the original it would be fine but now we have two different books that are both totally valid but have two different army selections. Even in this thread with the very clear GW response there are people trying to figure out a way to invalidate other people's armies where before it was totally clear so this is hardly a favor to Inquisition players (almost all of whom already own a book with actual art and a hobby section).

I agree 100% this is GW wanting to keep people who already own allied armies happy while stopping new players from buying stuff they won't be able to use when the new book comes out which is a nice sentiment. The problem arises in their typical closed door, super secret attitude where we have to assume this is their intent instead of them simply being straight with their customers and saying "Demon Hunters book is being released in the near future; allies will not be a part of it so enjoy it until it lasts and don't make any purchases that will no longer be legal."

Is it just me or are lots of WAAC powergamers who never bothered to buy the Daemonhunters codex disingenuously claiming to be upset about GWs 'confusing' policies? Just go buy it on ebay before the rush of frenzied mystics reliant IG players drive the price through the roof.

Damn we just been nerd served !

I'm definitely in a weird place about this.

1.) It's always nice to have a free army book released as a PDF

and

2.) It's sort of messed up to have 2 legal copies of an army book with different rules.

I think the best compromise would have been to release the same book, or alternately, to release what they did and indicate specifically that this release was a semi-complete teaser that can be used legally in games in lieu of the complete, paid book. Technically, they did the latter, but the explanation was a bit lacking.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:So people with $100s of Inquisition forces don't know what the rules for their army are.

I think the confusion and irritation is totally justified.

It's not that big a deal Kyoto. Unless they play only GKs or SoBs in a few months the people with $100s of Inquisition forces won't have an army any more.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Kid_Kyoto wrote:So people with $100s of Inquisition forces don't know what the rules for their army are.

I think the confusion and irritation is totally justified.

It's not that big a deal Kyoto. Unless they play only GKs or SoBs in a few months the people with $100s of Inquisition forces won't have an army any more.

What is that supposed to mean? :-P

I just got my SoB army stolen a few weeks ago and am trying to rebuild it from scratch and to be honest if its not legal to ally then it would/will make a big difference when I get to the point where I would consider adding forces other than just pure SoB.

Except it ISN'T an issue.

If it is a pickup game - explain to your opponent. If you cannto reach a solution then dont play. Simple.

If it is a tournament - ask the TO what they will allow.

Easy. Done. Sorted. Can the nerd rage stop now? They released a free PDF with almost-certainly-gone-in-new-book rules removed. They are not stopping you using your current book [remember, it is a TO that would have to stop it, not GW!] nor are they creating a minefield of confusion for people.

Also: chaos space marine codex removed entire playable armies when it was updated (notably any single god cult army, iron warriors with basilisk support, etc) - and it DID invalidate the previous book as far as any tournie or 99% of pick up gamers were aware.

Ivellos wrote:
What is that supposed to mean? :-P

I just got my SoB army stolen a few weeks ago and am trying to rebuild it from scratch and to be honest if its not legal to ally then it would/will make a big difference when I get to the point where I would consider adding forces other than just pure SoB.

I think he's saying that those people who do not use the Chamber Miltant entries (Sisters of Battle and Grey Knights ) from either codex won't have an army anymore. That is the Inquistorial Stormtroopers, Inquisitors, Daemonhosts and all that jazz.

This of course is when Grey Knights get their own dex and the same applies to Sisters.

MVBrandt wrote:Haha, thankfully the above is pretty clear cut, so I don't *HAVE* to "make a ruling." Allies are still good, so long as you own the darned dex

You see, after reading this, I got a bit of a chuckle...

what all you seem to be forgetting is the "Golden Rule"

GW does not HAVE to validate or invalidate ANYTHING pertaining to the rules of Warhammer 40k (edition regardless) because as they state, the rule book they sell you is a book of "Guidelines" moreso then "Rules".

They further this point in their "shrine of knowledge" page where they state that FAQ ruleings are more like "GWs Set of House Rules". The same can be said for this whole "Aliies" mess.

Now I will admit, this is an unprecidented move for GW, they are effectively stating "While we have updated the codex here online for free, the old one you purchased is still just as valid as it ever was" (which would, if used to set precidence, allow for people to use whatever edition, or version, of any codex they wanted whenever). If I were a TO, I would IGNORE THIS RULEING (even calling it a ruling is actually a bit far-fetched) as it does nothing but overcomplicate a should-be-simple situation. Especially if said tournement states "We are using the most current versions of codexes".

Mike, as I understand it, we are using the Most recent versions of codexes for the VA open, if such is true, then Allies should be disallowed. The Copyright date on the online dexes are far more recent then that of the printed codexes that include the rules for Allies in WH and DH armies.

That being said, should All gaming groups do this? Not by a long shot! Hell, GW Springfield (one of my local GWs) still lets players use certain old editions for their lists, and only require the player use ALL the rules from the old edition (for instance, a player wants to use 4th edition IG may do so, but will not get Valks/Vendettas or any other 5th edition goodness). Do I believe personally that people should be able to use whatever codex they want? Hell no! That creates WAY too much confusion and in many cases relies on old rules/mechanics that no longer exist in the current ruleset, and would not fit in to the 5th edition 40k world.

Tl:dr its best to make your decision on a case by case basis, and I'd recommend going one way or the other (instead of mixed, either house rule that Allies exist or don't exist) and use ONLY the "Can we use allies" as a basis. I think that Indy Circut SHOULD infact make a calling (and it should be the same across the board) and if they decide to allow allies, make it an INAT RULES CHANGE and NOT use this email as a basis for their decision, cause if the justification for why I'm playing against IG with Mystics is:

"Because GW sent out an email saying they did not want New material to over-ride old material of their paying customers"

then you'd best belive Doom-Rider will be appearing in my Nova Open list, I paid good money for that codex, and GW says my money's rules shouldn't be over turned just because Thousand Sons get AP3 bolters

~DAR

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except it ISN'T an issue.

If it is a pickup game - explain to your opponent. If you cannto reach a solution then dont play. Simple.

If it is a tournament - ask the TO what they will allow.

Easy. Done. Sorted. Can the nerd rage stop now? They released a free PDF with almost-certainly-gone-in-new-book rules removed. They are not stopping you using your current book [remember, it is a TO that would have to stop it, not GW!] nor are they creating a minefield of confusion for people.

I just wanted to step up to the box and mention this... sorry for picking you out of the crowd, nos, but you're the most recent person to devolve this discussion into a personal attack...

Sure, *FRIENDS* will be amicable to the situation and let you do whatever. That's what friends are for.

*STRANGERS* are just that - and walking into a game store, if I don't know you, I'd want to go by what is current in the rules... and the rules for =][= are vague right now. See, while I'm a super social adult with plenty of charisma to go around (some would say too much...), its genuinely hard for me to ask someone "Hey, you wanna play a pickup game of 40k?" I don't know why. Of all things, I guess wargaming nerds are intimidating to me - by the cloth of the hobby, I guess wargamers are designed to be 'elitists'... prolly the same reason I don't play FPS with people in the same room (oooooonly online...). I feel like I'm being judged on too many fronts that I'm not good at naturally - painting and modeling, mostly.

... this hobby is what I get for finishing up school as a secondary school History teacher... I just like war tactics, I guess...

The point is, some of us are embarrassed out of our skin to inquire about a pick-up game in the first place - and now people like you are expecting us to add the tag "Do you want to play? BTW if you don't adhere to my demands, I'm gonna walk"? A) That's pretty crummy gaming etiquette, IMO... B) we shouldn't be put in that position. *THAT* is what the "Nerd Rage" is about, and I think we just wish others would be more understanding. Again, put yourselves in our shoes.

/ box

You have a codex right? Whats the issue?

If you have a codex then you play whats in the codex. If you are starting from scratch from the PDf then use whats in the PDF. Problem...solution.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except it ISN'T an issue.

If it is a pickup game - explain to your opponent. If you cannto reach a solution then dont play. Simple.

If it is a tournament - ask the TO what they will allow.

Easy. Done. Sorted. Can the nerd rage stop now? They released a free PDF with almost-certainly-gone-in-new-book rules removed. They are not stopping you using your current book [remember, it is a TO that would have to stop it, not GW!] nor are they creating a minefield of confusion for people.

Also: chaos space marine codex removed entire playable armies when it was updated (notably any single god cult army, iron warriors with basilisk support, etc) - and it DID invalidate the previous book as far as any tournie or 99% of pick up gamers were aware.

I dont see anyone bent out of shape in this thread. Its been quite civilised. Yesterday my gaming group decided we will use the PDF versions only since they are the latest. I encourage others to do so as well.

And at MVBrandt - you should seriously consider not allowing allies at your event since you have been billing it as a true competition.

G

The point is, some of us are embarrassed out of our skin to inquire about a pick-up game in the first place - and now people like you are expecting us to add the tag "Do you want to play? BTW if you don't adhere to my demands, I'm gonna walk"? A) That's pretty crummy gaming etiquette, IMO... B) we shouldn't be put in that position. *THAT* is what the "Nerd Rage" is about, and I think we just wish others would be more understanding. Again, put yourselves in our shoes.

Darn that GW for making you look for a pick up game!

IILeiBlazeII...no idea what you were trying to say there. I think I have had to much coffee this morning and to many reports to review.

Anyways I want to go back to the point. There is not a lot of confusion on what you should use. If you are playing someone who has DH/WH in a tournament or pick-up game, ask if they are using the codex or the pdf. Same goes for you. Problem solved, you/your opponent know what they are facing and whether you can use allies or not.

What I think is confusing is why GW made this move. Are they doing this right now as a stop gap until they correct it? Or is this permanent? Is some intern getting hammered because he dropped the ball. Just have to wait and see.

mikhaila wrote:The point is, some of us are embarrassed out of our skin to inquire about a pick-up game in the first place - and now people like you are expecting us to add the tag "Do you want to play? BTW if you don't adhere to my demands, I'm gonna walk"? A) That's pretty crummy gaming etiquette, IMO... B) we shouldn't be put in that position. *THAT* is what the "Nerd Rage" is about, and I think we just wish others would be more understanding. Again, put yourselves in our shoes.

Isn't this an issue regardless?

I mean, for one, some people (it's becoming alot more and more common) don't believe the GW FAQ holds water to a real game, and as such will begin a game under the impression that they can use your locator beacons, hit fast skimmers moving flat out on a 3+ with Goblet of Spite, and issue orders to their Sisters of Battle.... on the opposite spectrum, some people believe universal-FAQs like INAT are doctrine, and will disallow Meshing saves, and implement a host of INAT exclusive rulings that their opponent may have no idea where it was coming from...

case and point, this is nothing new. Its a confusing ruling by GW, big surprise there! Again, leave it to the LGS/GW or your Local Gaming Group to have their own set of rules and go by them. Its easier to have that pressure removed, and as long as people know the rules before the game starts, there should be no major issue. It is not difficult to ask a store owner to pick a set of rules, and act like the Authority figure in their own place of business.

Unless you mean like a Pick-Up-Game in the Mall/Library/public park, in which case, wth are you doing lugging your army around there anywho ;P

Black Blow Fly wrote:

I dont see anyone bent out of shape in this thread. Its been quite civilised. Yesterday my gaming group decided we will use the PDF versions only since they are the latest. I encourage others to do so as well.

And at MVBrandt - you should seriously consider not allowing allies at your event since you have been billing it as a true competition.

G

This post is a perfect example of why the free codex is not appreciated by a lot of people that play the armies.

Reading between the lines here, it sounds like they're kicking the ball to the TO's for whether to allow allies or not until the new codex comes out. Why make a universal decision when you can have hundreds of people make piece-meal ones?

Temujin wrote:Is it just me or are lots of WAAC powergamers who never bothered to buy the Daemonhunters codex disingenuously claiming to be upset about GWs 'confusing' policies? Just go buy it on ebay before the rush of frenzied mystics reliant IG players drive the price through the roof.

Holy crap, I didn't even think about that.

Selling Daemonhunters 'dex, with Mystics rules!

$10,000,000!
Cash only. Up front.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slackermagee wrote:Reading between the lines here, it sounds like they're kicking the ball to the TO's for whether to allow allies or not until the new codex comes out. Why make a universal decision when you can have hundreds of people make piece-meal ones?

It comes down to tournament organizers anyways. They decide y'know...
How the tournament is organized.

I think most people are P.O not because they removed allies but because it was done in what seemed like an underhanded 'kick-in-the-nuts' fashion.

They didn't adjust anything, didn't alter any rules, didn't incorperate the Errata or FAQ.
They just cut and paste and removed the ally rules.

From a business perspective this is how you piss off your market, from a public perspective this is basicly punching us in the figurative nutsack.

They said they were up at the start of the month in WD but didn't put them up till near then end. GW's blog spoke about them as if it was the full dex that was put up and then went on to talk about the great ally rules allow the blogger to put Stormtroopers in his IG army (WTF?!) and then every time people have asked if removing the rules was a mistake we get an assortment of answers in every flavour.

And GW hasn't said anything about it. They keep to them selves in their unscalable ivory tower pretending that all is right with the world.

Frazzled wrote:You have a codex right? Whats the issue?

If you have a codex then you play whats in the codex. If you are starting from scratch from the PDf then use whats in the PDF. Problem...solution.

It's not that, it's principles. It's principalities! Messing with my codex is like messing with my emotions!

I hears ya, but in this instance they aren't messing with it. if the allied rule is falling away in the future this is fine and saves some wailing and gnashing of teeth.

I still want to know what is massive about these PDFs (WD said they would be), or where I get all the "cool background" on Chaos from the PDFs that they said I would on the website?

A lot of people seem to be taking the "does not affect me, so who cares" response to the change in the allies and inducted "rules". Which, I guess, is normal. I can not wait to have these discussion on DE or Necrons when they get revamped.

More than anything, this thread just highlights the amount of people out there that aren't pirating the original codex, that has been online and in .pdf form for the last six years.

"Grrr this new .pdf doesn't have ally rules!"

Why not just steal the original? You guys have no qualms over "free" medium sharing, why not take the next step up and download with the big dogs?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kettu wrote:I think most people are P.O not because they removed allies but because it was done in what seemed like an underhanded 'kick-in-the-nuts' fashion.

They didn't adjust anything, didn't alter any rules, didn't incorperate the Errata or FAQ.
They just cut and paste and removed the ally rules.

From a business perspective this is how you piss off your market, from a public perspective this is basicly punching us in the figurative nutsack.

So you're a melodramatic queen. Check. Try not to get your panties in a bunch.

And GW hasn't said anything about it. They keep to them selves in their unscalable ivory tower pretending that all is right with the world.

They don't have to. They honestly don't care what you think, and until their profits take a hit they will continue to do whatever they feel like is best for their product. You're not that important.

Actually Kettu and all customers in general are very important.

G

Modquisition on. Gentlemen, politeness is required. Several posts have been violative of Dakka Rule #1: Be Polite.

This is a public warning. Posts after this will be viewed as intentionally violating Frazzled's warning. Just to be clear: thats bad.

I really cannot understand the confusion here.

1. They will not be making anymore witchhunter/daemonhunter codeci.

2. To allow new players to start these armies if they want to, they release a pdf version of the current codeci.

3. To not piss these people off who are starting these armies, they remove rules which may have resulted in them investing money where it would no longer be relevent.

4. They state that these new codeci do not override the old current one which still has rules for allies. These codeci exist to serve new-comers to the army.

If it's really that confusing, just pretend they are two different armies (or 4 different rather):

Witch Hunters
Which Hunters
Daemon Hunters
Demon Hunters

Frazzled wrote:

And, you know, the thing about a Pikachu... he's got lifeless eyes. Black eyes. Like a doll's eyes. When he comes at ya, doesn't seem to be living... until he bites ya, and those black eyes roll over white and then... ah then you hear that terrible high-pitched screamin'.

AgeOfEgos wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

And, you know, the thing about a Pikachu... he's got lifeless eyes. Black eyes. Like a doll's eyes. When he comes at ya, doesn't seem to be living... until he bites ya, and those black eyes roll over white and then... ah then you hear that terrible high-pitched screamin'.

I don't know which of you deserves bigger kudos, the one that posted the pic, or the one with the awesome Jaws quote. I'm feeling generous, so cookies all around! *throws cookies up into the air*

Jaws, keeping fat pasty guys out of the water for 30 years...

Just kick him hard in the nads and he will run away. He is a blowhard... Pikachu ya know.

G

Black Blow Fly wrote:Just kick him hard in the nads and he will run away. He is a blowhard... Pikachu ya know.

G

Then he will call his Dad:

Kroothawk wrote:
Then he will call his Dad:

.................*loses 2D6 Sanity points. .Goes dangerously close to indefinite insanity.*

Defiler wrote:More than anything, this thread just highlights the amount of people out there that aren't ADMITTING TO pirating the original codex, that has been online and in .pdf form for the last six years.

fixed your post. i really don't see what the issue is. if you want to use allies, spend $5 on ebay and buy the codex. if not, then spend NOTHING!!!

Temujin wrote:Just go buy it on ebay before the rush of frenzied mystics reliant IG players drive the price through the roof.

How exactly would they drive the price through the roof? If they're reliant on Mystics, they'll already own the book.


It's NEW players wanting Mystics, GK's, and SoB's that will drive the price up.

Hulksmash wrote:So are you gonna allow allies in guard/marine armies or not? I'm a vote for no

You dont get much of a vote. Its pretty clear that if one shows up with a codex, its not invalidated.

carmachu wrote:

Hulksmash wrote:So are you gonna allow allies in guard/marine armies or not? I'm a vote for no

You dont get much of a vote. Its pretty clear that if one shows up with a codex, its not invalidated.

It does sort of seem to me that some of the people railing against this ruling are doing so with the ulterior motive of getting allies banned for tourney play.

Whatever1 wrote:
It does sort of seem to me that some of the people railing against this ruling are doing so with the ulterior motive of getting allies banned for tourney play.

My local blackshirt told me this straight out - that this was being done because people were abusing the rules at tournaments. Repentia in Valkyries, that sort of thing - or so he said to me.

This is very frustrating for me, of course, having just bought a block of sisters to augment my Guard force as heavy infantry. Well, I could always go for that fourth army, right?

Then he is allowing people to cheat. Repentia are never allowed to be in any vehicle (C:WH p29).

So people are pissed off that they can't powergame now unless they spend $5 or so on the original codex on Ebay?

Boo-fething-hoo. NOBODY taking Inquis. with Mystics is doing it for fluff so good riddance to bad rubbish/cheaters.

Fateweaver wrote:
Boo-fething-hoo. NOBODY taking Inquis. with Mystics is doing it for fluff so good riddance to bad rubbish/cheaters.

Are you seriously equating people using legal units to fill holes in their army/shore up weaknesses (intentionally designed or not) with cheating? Is this where I bring out the doll and ask where the bad mystic touched you?

Is this still going on?

derek wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:
Boo-fething-hoo. NOBODY taking Inquis. with Mystics is doing it for fluff so good riddance to bad rubbish/cheaters.

Are you seriously equating people using legal units to fill holes in their army/shore up weaknesses (intentionally designed or not) with cheating? Is this where I bring out the doll and ask where the bad mystic touched you?

Yeah, I have to admit, that was a bit much.

It may be beardy/cheesy/pants, but it ISN'T cheating.

This is so FUBAR I'm just going to ask the Space Emporer for a ruling.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/450/115025.page#top

Fateweaver wrote:So people are pissed off that they can't powergame now unless they spend $5 or so on the original codex on Ebay?

Boo-fething-hoo. NOBODY taking Inquis. with Mystics is doing it for fluff so good riddance to bad rubbish/cheaters.

Let's see, saying that people using legal allies options are cheaters? Check.
Making unsubstantiated sweeping assumptions about the entirety of 40k players' army fluff? Check.
Ignoring the fact that there are other units than mystics that people take as allies? Check.

You're nuts.

Fateweaver wrote:So people are pissed off that they can't powergame now unless they spend $5 or so on the original codex on Ebay?

Boo-fething-hoo. NOBODY taking Inquis. with Mystics is doing it for fluff so good riddance to bad rubbish/cheaters.

I'm going to back up Fateweaver here.

I've seen plenty of WH/DH armies, and the ones that tend to take allies do it to shore up weakness in their army list. No problem there.

However, I know the difference between a few units of sisters in an IG army versus MYSTICS in an IG army, covered in squadroned up units of ridiculous fire power, meant to turn off the deep strike phase.

Let's not play coy here, I think we know all the people who are in arms are the ones running mystics.

Everyone else playing those books either owns the original, doesn't miss use the ally system (which come next year will be obliterated as per 5th edition trends) or plays casual with friends who don't mind allies.

Defiler wrote:Let's not play coy here, I think we know all the people who are in arms are the ones running mystics.

Is that so? I run a WH Inquisitor lord and Eversor. I guess I'm just as bad as those dirty users-of-units-to-try-to-win, and must be thrown out with them, eh?

So running GKnight termis as a counter charge or running a Callidus in an IG army is WAAC now?

Well, you got me, how could I ever doubt your superior understanding of us mere doll collectors and our flawed outlooks.

insaniak wrote:
Again, because the Allies rules will be removed from the next versions of these codexes... so they have removed them from the PDF's, for the sake of anyone starting an army now to try them out, while leaving them as legal for now for the sake of those with the actual codex and an existing army.

Ding Ding Ding!

I really don't get why this is so hard to grasp for people.

Because when GW invalidate a rule in an army that many people have built their army on it has not been invalidated till the next codex.

This is the first time GW has retroactively deleted a rule from a current codex. Especially two codices that won't have an update for three more months at the soonest, most likely five or more and a second one that won't come for another 2 or so years.

And really? Now that Sisters and Grey Knights are all but removed from circulation and are the most expensive armies to collect bare none I would be shocked to find the number of collectors doesn't drop sharply to the point where they could justify them being squatted.

Kettu wrote:This is the first time GW has retroactively deleted a rule from a current codex. Especially two codices that won't have an update for three more months at the soonest, most likely five or more and a second one that won't come for another 2 or so years.

Did you hear about that whole business where Hordes of Chaos was split into Daemons of Chaos, and GW invalidated the allies rule in the Beastmen army book? The obvious difference being that the Beastmen book wasn't two editions out of date, just one.

Kettu wrote:This is the first time GW has retroactively deleted a rule from a current codex.

Except they haven't...

Temujin wrote:

Kettu wrote:This is the first time GW has retroactively deleted a rule from a current codex.

Except they haven't...

So, publishing a codex, identical to the current print version, but with rules removed, isn't a deletion from a current codex?

YES, I KNOW I CAN STILL USE ALLIES (some guy on the internets told me so!), but it just seems silly to put out a partial codex in the first place to raise the questions at all.

If the concern was for future customers (who decide to get a non-print codex and start the most expensive armies in 40k... for some reason), why not leave the codexes unaltered and attach an editors' note.

This would a) clear up any rules concerns [mostly by not raising them in the first place]
b) allow existing players to play around with allies for the next few months if they hadn't wanted to drop 20$ on a codex they weren't going to use (a tactic that might spark interest when the real codexes do come out)
c) give new collectors and current players alike the tiniest of peeks into what GW has planned for Grey Knights and Witch Hunters.

Sadly, I think c) is the only thing that even concerned them- a) and b) probably never occurred to them at all.

Now I want Demolishers and Predators in my Tyranid army .... as allies .... to compensate for the weaknesses of the Tyranid Codex
Or how about a Rhino rush Genestealer army
Oh, and Terminator Squads for the Tau, Boss mobs in deepstriking Land Raiders, and the Dark Angels jet bike for everyone, and WBB for Kroot, and and wait...

BTW scanning a part of the Codex and distributing it for free is not a different Codex, not even a Codex, as noone can seriously play the army without having the full Codex, including background and the modelling pages.

ph34r wrote:

Defiler wrote:Let's not play coy here, I think we know all the people who are in arms are the ones running mystics.

Is that so? I run a WH Inquisitor lord and Eversor. I guess I'm just as bad as those dirty users-of-units-to-try-to-win, and must be thrown out with them, eh?

Kettu wrote:So running GKnight termis as a counter charge or running a Callidus in an IG army is WAAC now?

Well, you got me, how could I ever doubt your superior understanding of us mere doll collectors and our flawed outlooks.

Way to not actually read my post.

Bottom line is : GWS arbitrarily and sometimes purposefully removes options with no real warning. If you don't want to face that, then you're just naive. Or extremely new to the game.

I haven't read every post in the thread, so this already may have been brought up, but the way they've done this appears to me to be a situation where they don't want to print another run of books due to an upcoming revision, but they still want to make the rules available for the base army, and not completely screw their retailers at the same time by sticking them with books that nobody will buy since they can just download them for free. To achieve all goals they release a PDF of the rules omitting the allies rule so there is still at least one reason for people to buy out the remaining copies on retail shelves. It may not cause a large increase in sales over just releasing a 100% complete PDF but it may pacify both sides a bit (retailers and players) during the changeover as opposed to completely giving the finger to one or the other.

Remember that until GW makes an actual official statement you have to use the most current codex they have published. Sorry.

G

I don't consider posting an incomplete PDF online "publishing" an update, though.

Sidstyler wrote:I don't consider posting an incomplete PDF online "publishing" an update, though.

exactly.

For friendly games you'll you have to discuss it with whomever you are playing. It will be up to the discretion of the TO(s) at tournaments.

G

Of course you have to do the same for everything BBF.

Black Blow Fly wrote:Remember that until GW makes an actual official statement you have to use the most current codex they have published. Sorry.

G

Nope, not unless you are a) ina tournament that states so or b) want to play a piick up game agaisnt someone who wants you to.

Unless you can find a *rule* stating that, it remains just your opinion.

Sorry.

It is just that it could be more of an issue with these two codices. I can hear it now "Well I saw this this copy of an email on the Internets. It says I can do it !!"



G

I really doubt that will come up in conversation. Really.

Most people wil go "oh, you have the book, cool!" and play.

Blown out of all proportion, entirely so. Every game is, by definition, opponents consent - and this doesnt exactly add a lot to the conversation now, does it?

"can I play a game with you? I'm using the WH book using IG allies"

"Sure! Dont you like the PDF?"

"No, they removed allies so new players wouldnt buy a new army when it is likely being removed, but I love my IG vets that I have used for X years"

Hardly difficult.

Kroothawk wrote:Now I want Demolishers and Predators in my Tyranid army .... as allies .... to compensate for the weaknesses of the Tyranid Codex
Or how about a Rhino rush Genestealer army
Oh, and Terminator Squads for the Tau, Boss mobs in deepstriking Land Raiders, and the Dark Angels jet bike for everyone, and WBB for Kroot, and and wait...

BTW scanning a part of the Codex and distributing it for free is not a different Codex, not even a Codex, as noone can seriously play the army without having the full Codex, including background and the modelling pages.

If thats your stance you probbaly don't realize the gaping holes in either codex that do actually exist. Both Daemonhunters and Withc Hunters lack much in the way of long range shooting. A typical Witch Hunter army usually has no more then 3 units with anything over the range of 12" for all intents and purposes. When almost every unit in the army is equipped with rapid fire weapons as standard which can't shoot over 12 if you move then there is a problem. Having a few heavy weapon squads can alleviate that problem. Witch Hunters can take heavy bolters or the Exorcist tank all of which are found in the Heavy Support section. The other alternative is to take an Inquisitor with gun servitors which is pretty fragile unit. Daemonhunters are slightly better off since every unit can take a psycannon just about but they do not have the baility to combat squad say like marines and that leaves your unit sitting somewhere. Thats somewhere where those expensive Grey Knights aren't doing anything they are good at. Just some food for thought.

Holy gak... five pages of this bull, over 'allies'.

And people say I complain about everything. 'Least I have a point when I get on my soap box...

One codex per army is best codex.

Black Blow Fly wrote:One codex per army is best codex.

Two codex enter, one codex leaves!

Two codex enter, one codex leaves!

Defiler wrote:

ph34r wrote:

Defiler wrote:Let's not play coy here, I think we know all the people who are in arms are the ones running mystics.

Is that so? I run a WH Inquisitor lord and Eversor. I guess I'm just as bad as those dirty users-of-units-to-try-to-win, and must be thrown out with them, eh?

Way to not actually read my post.

Well, you said everyone pissed off played mystics, I showed you that you are wrong. Is something wrong?

ph34r wrote:

Defiler wrote:

ph34r wrote:

Defiler wrote:Let's not play coy here, I think we know all the people who are in arms are the ones running mystics.

Is that so? I run a WH Inquisitor lord and Eversor. I guess I'm just as bad as those dirty users-of-units-to-try-to-win, and must be thrown out with them, eh?

Way to not actually read my post.

Well, you said everyone pissed off played mystics, I showed you that you are wrong. Is something wrong?

i actually use grey knight termies and a grand master with my deathwing. when terminators are your "troops", you have to find something even more 1337 to fill those elite slots!

yet again, i don't see a problem. if someone has a physical 3rd edition codex, they get to use the ally rules. if not, then no. for tournies, i see this being enforced while friendly games get alot more leeway but is ultimately up to the discretion of the players.

*edit* i feel dirty contributing to this thread that should have ended a long time ago. hey mods, is there possibly anything that can still be added to this discussion? all i see are the same viewpoints being repeated over and over.. and over...

I also use GKT for DW but it is a small thing to lose in order to see Inquisitor/Mystics no longer allowed in IG armies. It is very over powered and has needed to go for a long long time.

long long... fun fun... me love you...



G

Black Blow Fly wrote:I also use GKT for DW but it is a small thing to lose in order to see Inquisitor/Mystics no longer allowed in IG armies. It is very over powered and has needed to go for a long long time.

long long... fun fun... me love you...



G

First off, I'm appalled to see this thing still going. Secondly, you're so desperate to remove Mystics that you'd throw out using GKT and Inducted Guard for DH even though you use some of those options yourself? I don't think I've ever even seen another IG player use Mystics, and I've been to Adepticon, Ard Boyz, and 10+ other local events in the St. Louis area in the last year. I'm not sure where this left you all with such a bad taste in your mouth other than just the idea of big scary internet lists are out there somewhere that you MIGHT run into, but really, there's a resolution for how to deal with it for the time being, everyone's sure allies will be going away in a small matter of time anyway; you've waited this long, why not just wait until GK gets their codex?

I've played against IG lists with mystics and GK lists with mystics, all in mere friendly games.

Frazz the term friendly is a mythic legend, much like the grail. The old wound dude... the old wound is acting up again...



G


Automatically Appended Next Post:

daedalus wrote:

Black Blow Fly wrote:I also use GKT for DW but it is a small thing to lose in order to see Inquisitor/Mystics no longer allowed in IG armies. It is very over powered and has needed to go for a long long time.

long long... fun fun... me love you...



G

First off, I'm appalled to see this thing still going. Secondly, you're so desperate to remove Mystics that you'd throw out using GKT and Inducted Guard for DH even though you use some of those options yourself? I don't think I've ever even seen another IG player use Mystics, and I've been to Adepticon, Ard Boyz, and 10+ other local events in the St. Louis area in the last year. I'm not sure where this left you all with such a bad taste in your mouth other than just the idea of big scary internet lists are out there somewhere that you MIGHT run into, but really, there's a resolution for how to deal with it for the time being, everyone's sure allies will be going away in a small matter of time anyway; you've waited this long, why not just wait until GK gets their codex?

Hey dude I did not mean to appall ya. So sorry! Here is a nice red rubber ball... so fun to play fetch with on a busy freeway!

G

By "this thing", I meant this topic like it's still a matter of debate, especially since it's now surviving at least two locked threads I can think of.

I think the reason it keeps going is because somehow GW managed to NOT unequivocally answer the question of which Codex is the legal one. They literally said both. Acknowledging the discrepancies between the two at the same time.

Le sigh.

Okay, then in that case, if your opponent has a PDF, there are no allies, otherwise he's built a list with allies in mind, potentially. Can't they both be legal? Your opponent is going to hand you an army list prior to the game, so it's not like there's any surprises. If it's a tournament, there will be a list of well-defined acceptable army lists, a la Adepticon, Ard Boyz, and any other tournament that is big enough to actually post rules online, so you know what you'll be going up against ahead of time. Nothing's actually really changed from prior to a week ago. Why is this not a settled issue?

I will not let anyone use allies in a friendly game.

G

Black Blow Fly wrote:Remember that until GW makes an actual official statement you have to use the most current codex they have published. Sorry.

Unless you're playing in an organised event, you can use whatever codex you feel like.

I've played games in the past against people whose codex has been updated but are still using the old one... generally just because they haven't had a chance to pick up the new one yet. It's not really an issue. An army that I would have happily played against a week ago doesn't suddenly become a crime against humanity just because GW released new rules this week.

Its the principle that counts and I think you are missing that point. I mean just how far would you let it go? One day Fred says he wants to use the old 4ed Chaos codex coz its a lot better and he tells me has a PDF for it ??

G

What I'm missing is why this is such a big issue.

You are, of course, perfectly entitled to refuse to play against someone using the printed DH codex. Just as you are entitled to refuse to play against someone wanting to play 2nd edition, or wanting to play a game without the FoC... or who is using Space Marines.

But there is no immutable set of laws graven in stone that govern Warhammer 40K and say 'Thou shalt only play with the most recent rules!'

That's a personal choice, not a requirement. But frankly, passing up a game on the basis that someone isn't using a downloadable version of a codex over the one they bought seems a little absurd.

Black Blow Fly wrote:Its the principle that counts and I think you are missing that point. I mean just how far would you let it go? One day Fred says he wants to use the old 4ed Chaos codex coz its a lot better and he tells me has a PDF for it ??

G

Maybe I would. I've never played against a 4E CSM codex, and my friend who plays CSM whines about how awesome it was in comparison.

andrewm9 wrote:If thats your stance you probbaly don't realize the gaping holes in either codex that do actually exist. Both Daemonhunters and Withc Hunters lack much in the way of long range shooting. A typical Witch Hunter army usually has no more then 3 units with anything over the range of 12" for all intents and purposes.

I would LOVE to have as much long range shooting with my Tyranids as DH and WH have! Can I now have a Demolisher or Basilisk squad? And a Land Raider for my HQ?

I still can't understand why so many people call the DH-pdf a Codex when it obviously is an incomplete scan with no FOC and a missing "Grey Knights special rule on page 10". Forgetting the FOC and the major special rule is not a "legal update invalidating the 3rd edition Codex".

Matter of fact:

(04:05:47 PM) Brad: would you want to try a game with the old CSM codex sometime?
(04:06:03 PM) John <omitted>: Yes and no
(04:06:23 PM) John <omitted>: why do you ask?
(04:06:33 PM) Brad: curious to see how it would perform.
(04:06:43 PM) John <omitted>: No idea
(04:07:13 PM) Brad: i'd probably run 5th ed IG against it, just to warn you, unless you wanted me to roll back to the 4E book i have to keep the point values similar
(04:08:52 PM) Brad: well, let me know. worst case, I could always go with the DH route. as I understand, there's a chance some of those special rules might actually function against their daemons.
(04:09:11 PM) John <omitted>: lol
(04:09:19 PM) John <omitted>: nah it's cool
(04:09:35 PM) John <omitted>: I'd like to try it some time but we are kinda booked tight till next week it seems

I'll let you know how it goes.

insaniak wrote:What I'm missing is why this is such a big issue.

It is a big issue its just for some reason you fail to recognize that. That is all there is to it.

G

Chaos Doesn't have a 5th ed dex bros...

Chaos Space Marines have...

2nd Edition Dex named "Codex: Chaos"

3rd Edition dex Named "Codex: Chaos"

3rd Edition 2nd Print dex named "Codex: Chaos Space Marines"

4th Edition dex named "Codex: Chaos Space Marines"


We DESPERATELY need a 5th edition codex, jerks...

My mistake. I knew there were 4 of them but I didn't realize there were two 3rd edition ones. Learn something new every day.
EDIT: Hehe, apparently the IG one I have was third edition also.

You kant use that one either, you bad bad boy !!



G

Black Blow Fly wrote:I will not let anyone use allies in a friendly game.

G

Then they aren't really friendly games, are they?

Exactly.

G

Black Blow Fly wrote:Exactly.

Black Blow Fly wrote:I will not let anyone use allies in a friendly game.

G

That has as much grounds in actual rules as saying "I will not let anyone use space marines in a friendly game".

Soo . . . we're not allowed to play with the printed codex in friendly games according to a number of people, as this appears to somehow be against the law and therefore punishable by death.

What if I want to play some RT with some friends because I never got the chance when it came out . . . is this punishable too, because that sure as Hell isn't the latest edition of RAWhammer 40K. Or maybe I want to play the 1990's version of French Monopoly, that is an old edition (as currency has changed) is this not allowed? Or maybe I want to watch the original version of Rollerball, not the remake, is this also punishable?

And I'm sorry if this seems off-topic or over the top, but this is just how silly your arguments seem to be about friendly play to me. Why on God's Green Earth can't people still play with the printed WH or DH Codex with Inducted things, or use allies in their other armies?



Oshova

2 Different discussions are going on here.


1. Friendly games.


2. Tournament types of games.



As for 1, sure you can basically do whatever you want.


However, for 2, you get a new codex, it invalidates the old one. Pretty simple. I mean, based on some arguments here, why can't I mix codexes till I get the strongest army I can create? I would love to take some unit choices out of the 3rd edition Ork Codex, or Armageddon....


As to some other posts. There are a lot of IG players that use Mystics, table wide hoods, and the Emp Tarot. It's everywhere, believe it.



Clay

See how simple that was ?

G

The thing is, the online pdf is not a "new codex".
It is part of the old codex, given away for free.

If you want, you can use the full codex, if you have it.
If you don't have it, here's most of the codex, for free!

There is only one codex here. It is just presented in two ways: one is the full version in print, and one is the version minus some pages, in pdf.

Saying that the partial version of the codex takes precedence over the actual version is complete nonsense and totally illegal from a rules standpoint.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Black Blow Fly wrote:See how simple that was ?

G

Primarch's assertions were simple, and wrong, yes!

So a Codex that basically changes an army's rules, is not new? The rules for Allies were left out, the pages were RE-NUMBERED. That means it was done intentionally.

When the Blood Angles PDF came out, did you demand to still use your 3rd edition book? No real difference here.



Clay

Primarch wrote:However, for 2, you get a new codex, it invalidates the old one. Pretty simple. I mean, based on some arguments here, why can't I mix codexes till I get the strongest army I can create? I would love to take some unit choices out of the 3rd edition Ork Codex, or Armageddon....

So I can tear the page with the FOC and all the Grey Knight special rules out of my printed Codex and you would accept that as the new legal Codex invalidating the old one?

Or, more blunt: Show me in your "new Codex" the Grey Knights special rule that every second unit refers to? You can't? Well, then it obviously is not the complete Codex!

Mixing units from all Imperial Codices to compensate for weaknesses was unfair from the start. It is quite obvious that GW will kill this unbalanced 3rd edition experiment as soon as we get new DH/WH Codices. Until then the allies rule is legal but not welcome to everybody. But all this is irrelevant for this discussion.

Ahhh, so the PDF isn't valid then? That's now your stance?



Clay

Primarch wrote:So a Codex that basically changes an army's rules, is not new? The rules for Allies were left out, the pages were RE-NUMBERED. That means it was done intentionally.

When the Blood Angles PDF came out, did you demand to still use your 3rd edition book? No real difference here.

The rules for allies were left out. So that people wouldn't be encouraged to make allies armies when the rules will likely be removed in the next version.
The rules for allies STILL EXIST in the full codex. They just don't give you part of the codex in the free version.
The pages were RE-NUMBERED because GW realized that it would look SLOPPY AND UNPROFESSIONAL to have a misnumbered pdf that is supposed to be a viable alternative to the full codex.

When the Blood Angels PDF came out, RULES ACTUALLY CHANGED. The book was re-written specifically for pdf. It was not the old codex, scanned, and renumbered.

If it was, you'd have a valid point here!

But it wasn't, and you are completely wrong! Good job!

Primarch wrote:Ahhh, so the PDF isn't valid then? That's now your stance?

It is an incomplete scan of a legal Codex with essential rules missing. That is not just a stance, but an obvious fact to everyone owning the complete Codex.

The Blood Angels was released as a new codex, whereas the Inquisition ones were released as the current ones, just free on the internet.

Oshova

Hmm, so I have heard that it was a mistake the pages were left out, seems that wasn't the case.

Either way, again, free to use whatever you want in friendly games of course.

In tournaments, the latest version is the legal version.



Clay

Please show me the Grey Knight special rules, referred to in every second unit in your "new Codex".

I hear that attempting to use the printed Codex gives you leprosy, and that every time you say 'Mystic', a starving child in Africa dies.

Primarch wrote:In tournaments, the latest version is the legal version.

So Grey Knights no longer have special rules?

Ok.

Primarch wrote:Hmm, so I have heard that it was a mistake the pages were left out, seems that wasn't the case.

Either way, again, free to use whatever you want in friendly games of course.

In tournaments, the latest version is the legal version.

The removal of allies is intentional. In friendly games you can use whatever you want.

In tournaments you can use the latest version (3rd edition, has never been updated) in either the full print form, or in the partial pdf form. Both are documents that describe the same rules that have never changed (the latest rules, the ones published in 3rd edition). One document describes only some of them. If you want the full rules, you must use the version with the full rules in it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

H.B.M.C. wrote:So Grey Knights no longer have special rules?

Ok.

Primarch clearly has a power of psychic implication which extends all the way from his opinion, based on nothing, to encompass the entire world of 40k players.

But he has a big heart - protecting all the starving African children from the frivolous and selfish use of Mystics.

Damn, I said Mystics!

Damn! I said it again!

I'm a horrible person.

Let's just call them "Those horrible units that the WAAC mafia uses damn I really hate those guys the other day I was walking down the street and got punched in the face and I saw the Daemonhunter book in his bag as he ran off we should probably just ban Daemonhunters"

Primarch is still trying to figure out, why the Grey Knight troops are subject to the special rules of the Inquisitor Lord (including every trooper being an independent character!)

Black Blow Fly wrote:I will not let anyone use allies in a friendly game.

G

Wow, what a jerk. I'm glad your dont play around me. I wouldnt play you in a friendly game, period.

I'd make a comment about the 'Wrecking Crew' here, but that'd just derail what is proving to be an excellently robust and thought-provoking topic.

Here is the problem. You say that I should point out the GK special rules, and that they don't exist in the PDF, so then since I can't point it out, does that invalidate the PDF as a legal codex?

Just curious, you can't have it both ways....



Clay

The PDF as is, is broken with regards to GK special rules. Technically it is unplayable by itself, and you would need the full text.

It's my opinion, not solely mine, but still, that the PDF is the newest and the legal dex. It's fine that you disagree, since as usual GW didn't clarify very well, and would have been better off mimicking the old Codex exactly.


But oh well, play it how you want is what I get from the thread, and it is what I will do.


Clay

Primarch wrote:
However, for 2, you get a new codex, it invalidates the old one. Pretty simple. I mean, based on some arguments here, why can't I mix codexes till I get the strongest army I can create? I would love to take some unit choices out of the 3rd edition Ork Codex, or Armageddon....

That's the issue at hand, this is not a "new codex" or any sort of update that renders the printed rules obsolete. It's just a hurried hack job. Every other language version of the codex contains those pages. When has GW ever released completely different rule sets for different countries?

And if we all settle down and think about it, what has really changed? In tournaments, the final decision ALWAYS rests with the TO. We have heard from the Indy folks in the OP of this thread, and from GW we have this (for what it's worth): http://ottawagamer.blogspot.com/2010/06/deamonhunters-codex-answer-from.html So in tournament games, absolutely nothing has changed. In friendly games, you always had the right to object to a particular unit. If you didn't like Inquisitors/Mystics/Psychic Hoods/Tarot, you were never forced to play that person. So again, nothing at all has changed.

It's much like the new Imperial Armor books. Some people feel these new units are opponent's permission only, while others claim they are now essentially add-ons for the codex. Of course, this distinction is completely meaningless. Regardless of your personal interpretation, in tournaments the TO will decide what you can use. In friendly games, everything is technically "opponent's permission only". Someone telling you to shove that seer council where the sun doesn't shine is being no less reasonable than refusing to play against allies.

Primarch wrote:It's my opinion, not solely mine, but still, that the PDF is the newest and the legal dex. It's fine that you disagree, since as usual GW didn't clarify very well, and would have been better off mimicking the old Codex exactly.

If the new PDF is the current legal copy, then all Daemonhunter armies are illegal as they have no force org chart, and no Grey Knight special rules.
Which way do you honestly think is better?

"The free version with parts removed replaces the original, making the PDF codex illegal to use in the process, effectively removing the entire codex from the game."

or

"The free version is an option that you may use. It is broken and requires reference to the original to use."


And keep in mind, GW said that the removal of allies was a mistake.

Fine, then you are saying the Codex that GW posted on their site is illegal then?



Just for clarification sake.



Clay

Did you not read the first post of the thread? The written codex and the .pdf are not mutually exclusive, and you can use whichever one you own. They never contradict each other on any point, one simply has a few pages missing.

And again, define "illegal". Legality is not defined by Games Workshop in any case.

Primarch wrote:Fine, then you are saying the Codex that GW posted on their site is illegal then?



Just for clarification sake.

The DH codex on the website is currently broken due to missing important rules. It is not sufficient to play by itself, so it is "illegal". Once the allies get added back in (At GW speed, a few months from now) it will be fully legal by itself, just like the full version.

I can't believe this has been going for 7 pages, why doesn't someone just email the Rules Boyz or post a question on GW's forums?

Ask the 'rules boyz'. That's a good one Kyoto.


Wasn't it Ghaz who said "Ask the Rules Boyz one question and you will get three answers - each one different and wrong."

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Ask the 'rules boyz'. That's a good one Kyoto.


Wasn't it Ghaz who said "Ask the Rules Boyz one question and you will get three answers - each one different and wrong."

Well there's always GW's official forums, though I have trouble finding them since the reorganization. Still I'm sure a niche company like GW would be happy to communicate regularly with their fans

Black Blow Fly wrote:It is a big issue its just for some reason you fail to recognize that. That is all there is to it.

So how about, instead of spamming the thread with clever one-liners that seem to serve no purpose other than to get people riled, you actually use this discussion to elaborate on just why you see it to be an issue.

Primarch wrote:In tournaments, the latest version is the legal version.

This is not automatically true.

The latest version is the legal version in a tournament whose rules package says to use the latest rules.

It's not at all uncommon for a TO to rule against using a latest release, most commonly because it's due out just before the event and people won't have enough time to get familiar with it.

It's also not too uncommon for a TO to disallow PDF or White Dwarf army lists.

In a tournament, the legal version of the codex is whichever one the TO says to use.

insaniak wrote:

So how about, instead of spamming the thread with clever one-liners that seem to serve no purpose other than to get people riled,

Ain't nothing wrong with one-liners, some of us work hard on them!

All GW has to do to make things right is re release the PDFs with all the original pages intact. Is that so hard to do? It's simple really. To me having two different codices available for one army that are not identical is a major issue and sets a bad precedent. We all know that GW development wants to get rid of the use of allies & the two existing PDFs were a step in the right direction. I don't understand why GW feels they must communicate this to the indy GT organizers rather than openly speak about this on their own website. Is this how you want GW to communicate to the general public in the future? I don't.

As far as friendly games go I am a competitive tournament player. I play pickup games against friends I consider competitive to playtest my lists. To me a fun game is a competitive game and I don't need these kind of issues surfacing at tournaments because of GW communication issues. Surely it is bound to come up & it will create some problems. Sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the real issue at hand is not going to get us anywhere positive when it comes to this particular matter. There are easy solutions such as I have suggested. Those these are my issues and how I would go about solving them.

G

insaniak wrote:

Black Blow Fly wrote:It is a big issue its just for some reason you fail to recognize that. That is all there is to it.

So how about, instead of spamming the thread with clever one-liners that seem to serve no purpose other than to get people riled, you actually use this discussion to elaborate on just why you see it to be an issue.

Primarch wrote:In tournaments, the latest version is the legal version.

This is not automatically true.

The latest version is the legal version in a tournament whose rules package says to use the latest rules.

It's not at all uncommon for a TO to rule against using a latest release, most commonly because it's due out just before the event and people won't have enough time to get familiar with it.

It's also not too uncommon for a TO to disallow PDF or White Dwarf army lists.

In a tournament, the legal version of the codex is whichever one the TO says to use.

True, but you are talking exception rather than rule. Most of the time, what I said is indeed true.



Clay

And when you say latest, remember, the latest version came out in 3rd edition. The PDF is exactly that, minus a section. The PDF is the current version, but is missing one rules part.

The latest version is not the truncated version to the exclusion of the full version.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Black Blow Fly wrote:All GW has to do to make things right is re release the PDFs with all the original pages intact. Is that so hard to do? It's simple really. To me having two different codices available for one army that are not identical is a major issue and sets a bad precedent. We all know that GW development wants to get rid of the use of allies & the two existing PDFs were a step in the right direction. I don't understand why GW feels they must communicate this to the indy GT organizers rather than openly speak about this on their own website. Is this how you want GW to communicate to the general public in the future? I don't.

Of course it's bad that GW released them without the page.
However, just because this happened, doesn't mean we need to all somehow have the reasoning and comprehension skills of kindergarteners, and forget about the full version and the GW answer stating the mistake and the foreign language versions showing the lack of mistake.

It doesn't magically make the full version disappear and suddenly become illegal in any manner.

Black Blow Fly wrote: To me having two different codices available for one army that are not identical is a major issue and sets a bad precedent.

So you've said. You still haven't explained why.

I don't understand why GW feels they must communicate this to the indy GT organizers rather than openly speak about this on their own website.

Perhaps because they realise that it's only in tournaments that this actually matters?

As far as friendly games go I am a competitive tournament player. I play pickup games against friends I consider competitive to playtest my lists. To me a fun game is a competitive game and I don't need these kind of issues surfacing at tournaments because of GW communication issues.

What sort of 'issue' are you expecting to arise at a tournament? You should be checking which rules are in use for the tournament beforehand.

Sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the real issue at hand is not going to get us anywhere positive when it comes to this particular matter.

I'm still waiting to hear what the issue is...

Primarch wrote:True, but you are talking exception rather than rule. Most of the time, what I said is indeed true.

But it's true because TO's choose to make it so, not because of some immutable law of the universe. There is nothing whatsoever stopping TO's from ruling that the printed codex is the version in use for their event.

Should we wait a few months and then see how many people get told they can't use their printed Daemonhunter* and Witch Hunter Codices?

I think it would be amusing to hear that conversation. Hopefully they don't use the word 'Mystic' too many times.

Damn! Did it again! Sorry poor African children...


*The caveat being if a new Daemonhunter comes out (but who are we kidding, there ain't gonna be a new Daemonhunter Codex; Grey Knight Codex on the other hand...).

H.B.M.C. wrote:'Mystic'

You're a monster!

ph34r wrote:
However, just because this happened, doesn't mean we need to all somehow have the reasoning and comprehension skills of kindergarteners, and forget about the full version and the GW answer stating the mistake and the foreign language versions showing the lack of mistake.

It doesn't magically make the full version disappear and suddenly become illegal in any manner.

A) I think most 40k players probably have reasoning and comprehension skills at a greater than kindergarten level. Name-calling doesn't make this thread any better

B) Where does this "GW answer" exist at? Imagine John Q. Gamestore-owner running a RTT. Where does he get guidance on how to apply the generally-accepted decision to use the most recent version of a codex?

C) Why doesn't it affect the "full" version? If GW released a WD codex for DH, would we be so flippant about ignoring that?

I understand that the "full" codex is still fully applicable- but I don't think it's unreasonable to raise questions about the how and why of GW's approach to releasing the english PDFs.

kartofelkopf wrote:B) Where does this "GW answer" exist at? Imagine John Q. Gamestore-owner running a RTT.

John Q. Gamestore-owner probably says "Wow... they released it on the web? Didn't know that!".

A) I think most 40k players probably have reasoning and comprehension skills at a greater than kindergarten level. Name-calling doesn't make this thread any better

It was an exaggeration. The point is everyone somehow forgets the important information that we have and decides to forget that the PDF is not a replacement or a new version or anything of the sort.

According to people in this thread, TOs have been given answers. I am not a TO, I have not received a personal answer. It would be good if GW put up the answer in an obvious place, but GW is GW.
Just because you have to ask to get clarification on an issue that is weighted towards the correct answer, doesn't mean that the answer doesn't exist.

As for C, if GW released a WD codex for DH that was exactly the same as the current codex, of course you should feel free to ignore it, especially if the only difference is something that they made a mistake on and then admitted to having made a mistake. Why would you assume a exactly-identical-except-for-a-mistake should supersede the print version? Even if it wasn't a mistake, why would it supersede the print version when it has no changed rules, only lesser content of the rules (that did not change)

I am not 100% happy with the way GW handled the release, but I AM 100% sure that the print copy is legal, and anyone that tells you otherwise is ignoring key facts.

kartofelkopf wrote: Imagine John Q. Gamestore-owner running a RTT. Where does he get guidance on how to apply the generally-accepted decision to use the most recent version of a codex?

Does he need guidance? It's his tournament, he can allow whichever rules he chooses.

If he really needs input to make a decision, all he needs to do is ask his local players which version of the codex they would prefer to see used.

....and thats the exact point.

In friendly games you can decide to use the PDF as the only "legal" (once you add the GK rules back in, of course...and the FOC....) codex for yourself, however you *cannot* dictate that other people dont use the printed version - except in your games. YOu can lay it as a condition of playing against you, some people will accede, some wont.

This isnt an issue, really. It's called "life" and people may decide not to play you for a number of reasons, including "I hate pink marines" and "not another cookie cutter IG list, yawn" - and they are all equally valid.

So "friendly games" cannot be used as a reason to "ban " the printed codex

Now, onto Tournies. Most that I have played in, including UK GT, either have a complete list by ISBN of books they DO allow, or simply state the most recent printed version (excluding released within 1 month) - but *shock!* it is up to the TO to decide this - this is ALL external to the game and not a "rule" you can point to. Again, meaning "tournaments" isnt a reason to disallow the printed codex - not generally in any case.

So, BBF et al - unless you can point to a BRB rule, somewhere, showing that you may only use your most recent codex, you only have your opinion that it is a big issue - and while your opinion is certainly not "wrong" it is certainly not 100% correct, as the majority of posters on here (and probably majority of people in real life, as well) see absolutely NO ISSUE with this.

If you can explain *why* it is a big issue [to you, remember, only to you] then please do so.

Primarch wrote:Fine, then you are saying the Codex that GW posted on their site is illegal then?

Once again here the proof that the pdf-file can't be tournament legal:

1.) Read the entry for Grey Knights standard troops on page 17. It says "Grey Knights are subject to the special rules detailed on page 10."
2.) On page 10 you find the entry for the "Ordo Malleus Inquisitor Lord" with the special rules psyker, iron will, and independent character. So RAW all Grey Knight troopers are independent characters, can always choose to pass or fail any morale or pinning check and may each select psychic powers from the Ordo Malleus Psychic Powers list. Quite impressive for troops.
3.) According to the pdf you are not limited by any FOC, so can field an army only composed of Dreadnoughts and/or Terminators and no HQ if you want, all RAW.
4.) Many more Grey Knight units are subject to the special rules detailed on page 8, so count as ... erm ... needle pistols????

Try that list on a tournament It is even more broken than with the allies rule.

GW's intention was to provide a free scan of the DH Codex. They left out all background and modelling pages (essential esp. for beginners) and the complete page with the allies rule. By that they also left out the FOC and the Grey Knight special rules, further messing things up by inconsequently renumbering the pages. So GW's intention was basically noble but they screwed up big time in execution.

In the current form, this pdf is not legal, not even a full Codex and certainly not replacing the Codex it tried to partly scan.

Kroothawk wrote:So GW's intention was basically noble but they screwed up big time in execution.

Is there some sort of award for doing that because GW must win that every fething year?

ph34r wrote:

Black Blow Fly wrote:I will not let anyone use allies in a friendly game.

G

That has as much grounds in actual rules as saying "I will not let anyone use space marines in a friendly game".

You say that like it would be a bad thing...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

H.B.M.C. wrote:

So Grey Knights no longer have special rules?

Ok.

Its a grey area.

Moving this to discussions as its not really news or a rumor at this point. Argue away ye scurvy dogs.

Kroothawk wrote:

andrewm9 wrote:If thats your stance you probbaly don't realize the gaping holes in either codex that do actually exist. Both Daemonhunters and Withc Hunters lack much in the way of long range shooting. A typical Witch Hunter army usually has no more then 3 units with anything over the range of 12" for all intents and purposes.

I would LOVE to have as much long range shooting with my Tyranids as DH and WH have! Can I now have a Demolisher or Basilisk squad? And a Land Raider for my HQ?

I still can't understand why so many people call the DH-pdf a Codex when it obviously is an incomplete scan with no FOC and a missing "Grey Knights special rule on page 10". Forgetting the FOC and the major special rule is not a "legal update invalidating the 3rd edition Codex".

You are joking right? Tyranid Warriors can take a relatively cheap gun thats STR 6 and 36" range with a blast template. Witch Hunters have precisely 3 weapons that are over 24". One of which is on their crappy Land Raider for which I must take a 35 point character with no gear at at least 1 other worthless guy. The other is the heavy bolter which can be taken in that same squad or on the Retributor Squad. The final one is the Exorcist which has a totally random number of shots as 48". Its also a heavy support choice.

Tyrnaids have the Hive Guard (Elite), the Harpy (Fast Attack), the Carnifex (Heavy), the Tyrannofex (Heavy), Hive Tyrant (HQ), Tyranid Warriors (troops), Shrikes (Fast Attack). These all have options for decent or better long range weapons.

Witch Hunters have Inquistor Lord's retinue (HQ) for the Land Raider, single plasma cannon, and some heavy bolters. Its a fragile unit too. Inquisitor in the Elite spot with the same. Celestians ( a single heavy bolter for the squad), Vindicare (Elite, expensive, and only wounds on a 4+), Retributors (expensive and heavy bolters only, Heavy Support), Exorcist (1d6 shots, great unit, very best in the codex for long range shooting, heavy). There are no long range blasts or even short range blasts. I am discounting the single Orbital Strike as that must be targetted to a peice of terrain, is heavy support, and must come in from reserves.

Thats why I say Witch Hunters have serious gaps. You also must know that Witch Hunters have nothing like a Demolisher or Basilisk and they can't add them via inducted. Besides a demolisher is not long range at 24" and they can't add

I think the point of frustration here is that GW actually expended effort to cause this confusion. If they had been lazier, there would have been less problems.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:So GW's intention was basically noble but they screwed up big time in execution.

Is there some sort of award for doing that because GW must win that every fething year?

It's a self generated award awarded in house to the Studio. Primarily because the corporate side refuses to try for the "Noble Intentions" part. But GW is prone to single buttocks level work when it comes to web releases. I'm sure they'll never correct the DH issues in the PDF. But I could be wrong. After all they did update the BA PDF Codex to 5e semi quickly. So ya never know.

I, personally, will keep using the book I paid for. At least I will the one time each year I consider fielding my DH.



edit: removed inaccurate example of GW's incompetence.

Ayah frankly I don't actually see this as an issue. if you already have an army/codex you're set. If you don't know then you're starting off fresh and will be focused on GK/SOB anyway.

Kroothawk wrote:By that they also left out the FOC and the Grey Knight special rules, further messing things up by inconsequently renumbering the pages.

While the page numbers are indeed all over the place due to the renumbering after cutting stuff out, the Grey Knights rules are actually in the PDF, on the summary page at the end.

But you agree that RAW all Grey Knight standard troops (not Inquisition Guard) are composed of independent characters with strong psychic powers, as the pdf refers to page 10, not to Grey Knight armywide special rules Tournament organizers will not be happy

Insaniak I have stated what are my issues. Stop being so passive aggressive please.

G

ANd as have been pointed out your "Issues" are not big, as they affect a) a minority of players in *friendly* games only and b) dont affect tournaments at all.

Whatever your views on the PDFs validity over the printed codex, in a tournament your view is irrelevant - ONLY the TO counts.

kartofelkopf wrote:I don't think it's unreasonable to raise questions about the how and why of GW's approach to releasing the english PDFs.

I can only guess that the reason for removing allies was to forestall any negative feedback from people that start the army with the PDF codex, and then in X months when the DH get updated find all their inducted models unusable. Of course, with typical GW finesse and adroitness, in trying to solve one problem they create another.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kroothawk wrote:By that they also left out the FOC and the Grey Knight special rules, further messing things up by inconsequently renumbering the pages. So GW's intention was basically noble but they screwed up big time in execution.

The actually did number the pages sequentially, they just didn't update the text of the pages themselves. As for the Grey Knight rules, they are listed in the appendix on the very last page of the .PDF. Of course, there is nothing defining what a Grey Knight or a Daemon is (although that may be clarified in a FAQ IIRC).

We all know what is intended (RAI), but tournaments have to deal with RAW (you know, independent Grey Knight troopers with ultra psychic powers), and there is no line saying to whom those Grey Knight special rules in the summary apply.

If people seriously claim this pdf to be the updated and only legal DH Codex, then they have to accept this nonsense as well.

Black Blow Fly wrote:Insaniak I have stated what are my issues. Stop being so passive aggressive please.

G

Your issues seem to amount to not liking Inquisitors with Mystics. Which, of course, is your prerogative, but using the abbreviated .pdf to "justify" your refusal to play against them seems like very tenuous logic. What's perhaps more interesting is why you feel you need to justify your decision at all.

Its obvious a lot more than that... thanks basically for nothing. It is the principle here that is what is really important. Plus AS SAID it sets a very bad precedent.

G

This was posted on the GW "What's New" page today.

We recently made the Witch Hunters and Daemonhunters codexes available to download as PDFs. Since then, we've received a spate of emails asking questions about the difference between the PDFs and the original, printed copies. Rather than reply to you all individually, I thought I'd try to answer your questions here. Firstly, the rules for allied Space Marines and Inducted Imperial Guard were originally written to reference books that have since gone out of print, so we streamlined the rules required to allow players to collect an army of Daemonhunters or Witch Hunters. The Daemonhunters army list uses the Standard Force Organisation chart, which you'll find on page 87 of the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook. The other point that seems to be causing the most confusion is whether or not the PDF versions supersede the printed versions. They don't: you should feel free to continue to use whatever resources you have available to play your games with; the PDF does not overrule or invalidate the printed Codex book. Yes, this may mean that you and your opponent are using what are essentially different army lists for the same army but not every Inquisition force will comprise of the same elements (highly specialised and secretive forces that they are). And if you'd rather use the same one as your opponent, why not simply decide which version you collectively want to use and share the rules between one another? As for tournaments and gaming events, it's entirely up to the organisers to decide which version to use; it is after all their event.

for what it is worth.. bolded hightlighted by me for emphasis..

Excellent. Nice to see GW being responsive to queries.

Awesome. I wonder how many people at GW are groaining and wondering how their client base couldn't figure that out on their own.

Wow...8 pages griping about GW giving away something for free, and telling people that it's free so they don't "have" to use it.

Well it is good to see that GW made a public reply. That settles everything.

G

Black Blow Fly wrote:Well it is good to see that GW made a public reply. That settles everything.

G

Look Ma! An optimist!

I am literally rolling around on my allied models as I type this.

Kroothawk wrote:But you agree that RAW all Grey Knight standard troops (not Inquisition Guard) are composed of independent characters with strong psychic powers, as the pdf refers to page 10, not to Grey Knight armywide special rules Tournament organizers will not be happy

I think that most tournament organisers (and most players) will be bright enough to realise that the page numbers are whacked, and figure it out for themselves.

Seriously, I know it's popular on the interwebs to pretend that everybody in the real world is incapable of rational thought, but the human race isn't quite in such dire straights just yet.

Kroothawk wrote:We all know what is intended (RAI), but tournaments have to deal with RAW (you know, independent Grey Knight troopers with ultra psychic powers), and there is no line saying to whom those Grey Knight special rules in the summary apply.

There are various units in the army list which have a 'Grey Knights' rule. There is a list of 'Grey Knights' special rules in the summary.

Seriously, it's not rocket science.


Tournaments most certainly do not have to confine themselves to RAW. They work off whichever rules the TO feels fit to apply.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Black Blow Fly wrote:Insaniak I have stated what are my issues. Stop being so passive aggressive please.

It's not being 'passive aggressive' to ask someone to explain their stated viewpoint.

You've stated that you think having two versions of the codex causes 'issues',that it 'sets a bad precedent' and that it's about 'principles'...

You haven't explained what those issues are, what it's setting a bad precedent for, or which principles are involved and why...

See you are still be passive aggressive.... Asking repeated questions you know the answer to makes this obvious. I am not going to repeat what I have already stated just so you can ask again.

G

I missed those BBF what were they again? Especially in light of the GW statement on the website noted above which clarifies everything pretty well.
EIDT: I should note I do not have a GK/WH army nor mystics nor play guarda the moment and this effects me utterly not at all...

I am totally cool with the GW statement on their website. This is the way it should be done.

G

Word

@insaniak: Maybe you missed my point:
I am an advocate that the 3rd edition Codex is the only legal one. You need it to learn what the army is about (background), how to paint them (modelling) and how to unscramble the messed up scan of rules in the pdf. It is not difficult to unscramble, but my example was to show, that the pdf with RAW can't be a legal successor of the 3rd edition Codex and is not invalidating the latter for tournaments. And after my posting this example, the aggressive posts of the pdf being the only legal Codex stopped. Seems I made a point.

BTW personally I would never use allies outside Apocalypse games, as it is simply unbalanced in normal games, and GW knows it.

IMO, I think that the free PDF codices that have the stream-lined inducted allies rules may be a first ever instance of GW doing a beta test on a codex.

Wow, I don't usually do this because I haven't had much cause to do so, but Bravo to GW for actually backing up their product and handling their rules when there is a problem rather than waiving it off. Good show!

- Marty Lund

I'm glad that GW responded quickly to this issue. Gj GW.

Where the hell do you even download this thing? I can't find any PDF codices on GWs website, and I've been to pretty much every section. Link?

Main GW page, there are menu options in plain text under the colorful "Warhammer" etc menus (hard to see, for me at least). The last one is "Astronomican", click it. You'll come to a page organized by dates. On "This Month", hit the tiny green scroll bar till you find the entries for the codex you are looking for... You have to sign in, though. Oh, and note that if you don't sign in first you'll have to go through it all again. So I'm not sure a link would even work... Wow that is an awful website for actually finding anything.

If anyone has an easier way of finding it, please share, 'cause I'm kinda annoyed that it is going to be even more awful to access as time passes.

mlund wrote:Wow, I don't usually do this because I haven't had much cause to do so, but Bravo to GW for actually backing up their product and handling their rules when there is a problem rather than waiving it off. Good show!

- Marty Lund

Black Blow Fly wrote:I am totally cool with the GW statement on their website. This is the way it should be done.

G

I really hope my sarcasm scanner is broken cause if you guys are serious...

porkuslime wrote:

Yes, this may mean that you and your opponent are using what are essentially different army lists for the same army but not every Inquisition force will comprise of the same elements (highly specialised and secretive forces that they are). And if you'd rather use the same one as your opponent, why not simply decide which version you collectively want to use and share the rules between one another? As for tournaments and gaming events, it's entirely up to the organisers to decide which version to use; it is after all their event.

is effectively GW saying "Do what you want, we ain't touchin this"

No, its GW saying: we dont want to put allies rules in as they are going, but dont want to ACTUALLY say this as that would be giving information away about the existence of new books.

The secrecy around new releases hurts this - good idea, ok execution, usual big fuss over nothing from people on here...