Basically, if I do not wish to buy an expensive Codex and am willing to not use all the extra rules that the Codex provides, can I just use the Index?
I know I can because GW hasn't put anything concrete other than "Codex entries are INTENDED to replace Index rules, but use whatever you want because it's 'your' game, blah, blah, blah"
But I'd like to know what the consensus or expectation is in your various groups.
In the past, I have been an advocate for only using the most current rules for any army/unit. However, with the release (and my purchase of) the Indexes, I am beginning to think that I should be able to chose which source I use as long as they are all official 8E rules.
Especially since most players will still have to refer to the Indexes for units that have yet to receive a codex update.
To clarify, I am not saying a player can "cherry-pick" units between Index and Codex to make a combination of the best units, but I think a player should be able to choose which book they use as a whole for their army. Because a $25 book with 5+ factions is a way better deal than a $40 book with 1 faction.
It will be expected that you have the latest unless anything else is stated, but I wouldn't deny anyone a game if they said they only play using the Index.
..as long as your opponent and play location is fine with it.
Tournaments definitely won't be fine with it.
Games in your local GW store... I would think not. Up to the store owner but they only exist to sell product so allowing people who refuse to buy the product to play there is a bit counterproductive. Probably an "it's fine this time but you should really buy it and this box of agressors and some paints and..."
Random pick-up games against whoever's in your FLGS... I can imagine them accepting it.
A mate who trusts you not to be min-maxing... totally fine.
I would be very surprised if someone refused to use the Code rules once theirs is released. On the other hand, units which don't have codex rules (e.g. rifle dreads) can still be used out of the index even where a codex exists.
Generally if a unit you're using is replaced in the Codex, most people would expect you to use the Codex. If it's not replaced, then you pretty much can only use the Index.
That said, if you have your own playgroup or an understanding opponent, talking it out is always an option. I personally find the indexes to be better overall until at least a few more codex releases; currently at best 3 armies get access to (essentially) free relics, more powerful stratagems, warlord traits, and spells.
I don't have any say in what rules you and your opponent agree to play with, Nor should I.
The only issue I see is given Gamers are such a "cowardly and superstitious lot" they'll assume you are using the index to gain some advantage over them and refuse to play you.
Example
Brimstone is getting a MASSIVE nerf in the upcoming Chaos book, choosing Index to dodge that nerf on your BS Spam list...
They've had their points increased by 1. It's irritating, but somewhat justified. I wouldn't call it "MASSIVE" though. They're probably still the best obj campers for chaos.
My only consideration would be to, as indicated above, use one or the other and not both. I think there will be a lot of Index-only players and groups around.
I do think there will be a serious mis-match with Codices being arguably much stronger than Indexes. With reduced costs, more wargear options, more traits and army-wide abilities etc., an Index army will struggle a bit - though perhaps not impossibly so.
This can also be very easily offset by allowing a small points or power consideration to the Index player if the players agree.
Example
Brimstone is getting a MASSIVE nerf in the upcoming Chaos book, choosing Index to dodge that nerf on your BS Spam list...
They've had their points increased by 1. It's irritating, but somewhat justified. I wouldn't call it "MASSIVE" though. They're probably still the best obj campers for chaos.
That's a 50% points increase. Imagine if Girlyman took a 50% points increase. It's pretty massive.
Example
Brimstone is getting a MASSIVE nerf in the upcoming Chaos book, choosing Index to dodge that nerf on your BS Spam list...
They've had their points increased by 1. It's irritating, but somewhat justified. I wouldn't call it "MASSIVE" though. They're probably still the best obj campers for chaos.
That's a 50% points increase. Imagine if Girlyman took a 50% points increase. It's pretty massive.
And for how many points they cost it is still a very marginal points increase. Running five 9x1 squads is only 45 more expensive, that isn't even a whole unit
ERJAK wrote: Only if the option doesn't exist in the new codex.
This is my only question about having to use both. I run a Rhino Primaris, but it's rules are not in the new codex from what I have seen, only in the Index.
Example
Brimstone is getting a MASSIVE nerf in the upcoming Chaos book, choosing Index to dodge that nerf on your BS Spam list...
They've had their points increased by 1. It's irritating, but somewhat justified. I wouldn't call it "MASSIVE" though. They're probably still the best obj campers for chaos.
That's a 50% points increase. Imagine if Girlyman took a 50% points increase. It's pretty massive.
It is also important to note that other daemons including pink horrors went down in points. But it is a pretty massive change to Brims. They are still super cheap and spamable, but now 90 points gets you 30 Brims instead of 45, and would get you 18 Blue, and 11 Pink horrors. In theory they probably also should have lost a point of toughness. But at least now it is a bit more of a choice.
I can also say that I would be hesitant to play against index only unless they were playing with any points changes that had been made to their army. But largely that would depend on the list. For a fun game, where armies are largely fluffy, I wouldn't care. If someone is min maxing, I'd rather have the current rules used.
I am also quite confused on how to play my thousand sons army when the chaos codex comes out. Now I know ahriman, scarab occult etc aren't in the book however some of the other units are such as tanks etc plus the psychic power's.
Now I have access to dark herticus in the index for ahriman but now dark herticus has been updated can I use the new table?
I would not want to use an index army against a codex army. For me either both are fully one or the other. So for now I'm not accepting codex opponents, but they can use the index version of the same army to play me. When my codex comes out I'll keep lists for both versions till everyone had their codex.
Silentz wrote: Haven't their Smites gone from d3 mortal wounds to 1 as well?
Yes, and this combined with the 1 pt hike is what's meant by a massive nerf to Brimstones. They have lost their offensive punch, effectively averages to half their "shooting", while the price increase makes taking more of them harder, effectively half their price increase.
So between half the shooting and 33% fewer of them, they've dropped considerably in value. Mind you, Conscripts are still the same cost for 4 shots each with commissar orders and the inability to lose too many of them due to guys getting shot in the head.
Personally, I think that if the rules for the unit as equipped is in the codex, you use the rules in the codex. If the unit as equipped is only available in the index, you use the index datasheet for it.
Can I combine units from the index and a codex into one army? The datasheets in the new codexes overwrite the same datasheets in the index books. You can certainly use units with updated datasheets alongside units from the index that have yet to be updated. Once a unit has been covered in the codex though, we assume you’re using the latest version.
This line means anything covered in the codex overwrites the index entry, thus making the index entry entirely invalid. The only index entries you can use are the ones that have "yet to be updated." This line means anything covered in the codex overwrites the index entry, thus making the index entry entirely invalid. The only index entries you can use are the ones that have "yet to be updated." So if you were hoping to use the index to keep your dakka venerable dreads, you're SOL. It also means for things like Wolf Lords that link to another index datasheet, you're forced to use the index datasheet for Captain instead of the codex one, because it's the latest rules for "Wolf Lord".
The intention is pretty clear that you use the Codex where appropriate.
However, I'd certainly be open to an opponent asking if we could use Indexes rather than Codexes. I often feel that 40k and Warhammer are best with the simple "beginner" army lists - 2nd, 3rd and 8th 40k, 4th, 6th WH and AoS.
I will buy the codices of the armies that I play and otherwise use the indices. Period.
Atm this will be Eldar kin and Necrons. They are lukily in one index.
Honestly, I'd borrow someone else's copy of the codex and note the changes made. Most people won't insist you bring the codex with you, but will insist that you be compliant with the updated rules.
ChargerIIC wrote: Honestly, I'd borrow someone else's copy of the codex and note the changes made. Most people won't insist you bring the codex with you, but will insist that you be compliant with the updated rules.
Yeah, and if there is a rules dispute, I'd want to see the rules, not someone's 'notes.'
kelewan wrote: I am also quite confused on how to play my thousand sons army when the chaos codex comes out. Now I know ahriman, scarab occult etc aren't in the book however some of the other units are such as tanks etc plus the psychic power's.
Now I have access to dark herticus in the index for ahriman but now dark herticus has been updated can I use the new table?
My understanding is that as Thousand Sons players we can use anything that isn't Legion-specific. So we won't have any Legion tactics, but we can use the new spells, stratagems, and warlord traits.
My main issue is that casual players may not know what units from which factions have been updated. As I play 40k and only 40K, no other table-top games, card games or even video game (#40KisLife) obviously I am going to find out which units are "the most recent". At the very least for the armies that I play But for casual players, it might to too daunting to do that research and most "entry-level" players may be content to just use the Index and forego the extra $40 investment.
I hate that GW has created a situation, yet again, that divides its player base. It also creates an issue when I get a game against someone who plays an army I am less familiar with (due to lack of interest in that particular faction). I have to take them at their word that their rules are the most "correct" version. If they are only using 1 Book (either the Index OR the Codex), I feel fine with trusting my opponent as they have the rules and can look them up.
The best solution, therefore, is to then consider Index rules "valid" until every single Codex is released and updates ALL units to a new version. All units in the Index should be valid, even if updated, however FAQ/Errata points changes should be considered mandatory too. Otherwise it is just too taxing to keep track of what units from which faction are updated or still from an Index.
It is also maddening that I bought the Marine Index TO KNOW MY ENEMY and now I am told that those sneaky Mon-Keigh have new rules and I'm not shelling out cash for 5 new $40 books when I have a book already that SHOULD cover all 5+ of those factions. However, this is getting a bit too much into my pet-peeve of Codecies being use to CHANGE all the rules rather than being a platform to ADD some new rules.
Slight tweaks are fine, but if I have an Index for my chosen enemy and more than 10% of it differs from the Codex (aside from ADDED rules) than I take issue with that. It's basically the same cluster^%#* of 7th edition where there were so many sources for rules that no one could feasibly own them all
I think you'd have to think about why you'd use the previous entry.
For instance if they double the cost of a few units, saying, "oh, I'm going by index pricing for this brutally undercosted model," is kind of lame.
Codex is designed to update index. If there's an updated entry in the codex, go with that. You don't try and port 7th edition statlines to 8th edition, this is similar.
Arkaine wrote: Conscripts are still the same cost for 4 shots each with commissar orders and the inability to lose too many of them due to guys getting shot in the head.
Well, IG hasn't got a new codex in a while. We can all hope something changes about them but this is not the right place for this discussion.
Martel732 wrote: I will have to use the index for biker libbies, plas/las razors, and tlhf razors. But I doubt anyone will care.
You can't use them for plas/las razorbacks because the codex totally replaces it and the codex FAQ says you have to use the latest rules. Unless something changes, those models are 100% illegal to use now outside of the most casual of environments where "legality" doesn't matter anyway.
Martel732 wrote: I will have to use the index for biker libbies, plas/las razors, and tlhf razors. But I doubt anyone will care.
You can't use them for plas/las razorbacks because the codex totally replaces it and the codex FAQ says you have to use the latest rules. Unless something changes, those models are 100% illegal to use now outside of the most casual of environments where "legality" doesn't matter anyway.
The codex also specifically calls out war gear options like rifle dreads, so yeah he can.
Marmatag wrote: I think you'd have to think about why you'd use the previous entry.
For instance if they double the cost of a few units, saying, "oh, I'm going by index pricing for this brutally undercosted model," is kind of lame.
Codex is designed to update index. If there's an updated entry in the codex, go with that. You don't try and port 7th edition statlines to 8th edition, this is similar.
The difference is that GW did not format the Codices properly. They released 5 Indexes to update all units to 8th. These books were very reasonably priced, giving us hope that the inevitable Codices would also be reasonable. But they are almost as expensive as the 7th ed Codices and as added insult, still require you to have the Index for a few units that haven't been updated
I'll buy the Codex for my army, no issue. But I cannot be expected to own all the rules for all the armies that I'll face, and thus how would I KNOW what units have been updated? The Indexes could have been such a great way to have 90% of the rules for every army with the Codices being optional for A FEW extra rules. So it boils down to this: I have no idea what my opponent has unless he brings all the relevant rules with him, and we spend way too long reviewing them instead of actually playing. And even then, how to I know those rules have been updated or not?
My take on it is, if both player's have a codex available then they should be using the codex rules( unless otherwise negotiated). If only one player has a codex available then I feel it's a bit cheap to have one person using updated info while the other isn't.
When I say having it available I don't mean having bought it, I mean it is on the market. Certainly you can find some way of getting the new rules for your army once they are released.
IMO Index units should only really be used for legacy units / options that are not in the codex.
Using stuff that is just cheaper in the Index is poor form and I assume that in that case they use ALL the rules from the Index only. Even then its like ignoring the FAqs becuase its bad for my army.
Assume that sort of player would also object to the non Codex Blessed also using the new pts cost for Power Fists for ALL armies that use them,.
Agree with Galef though the Codex system is terrible as updates are massively spread out across multiple books.
Marmatag wrote: I think you'd have to think about why you'd use the previous entry.
For instance if they double the cost of a few units, saying, "oh, I'm going by index pricing for this brutally undercosted model," is kind of lame.
Codex is designed to update index. If there's an updated entry in the codex, go with that. You don't try and port 7th edition statlines to 8th edition, this is similar.
The difference is that GW did not format the Codices properly. They released 5 Indexes to update all units to 8th. These books were very reasonably priced, giving us hope that the inevitable Codices would also be reasonable.
But they are almost as expensive as the 7th ed Codices and as added insult, still require you to have the Index for a few units that haven't been updated
I'll buy the Codex for my army, no issue. But I cannot be expected to own all the rules for all the armies that I'll face, and thus how would I KNOW what units have been updated?
The Indexes could have been such a great way to have 90% of the rules for every army with the Codices being optional for A FEW extra rules.
So it boils down to this: I have no idea what my opponent has unless he brings all the relevant rules with him, and we spend way too long reviewing them instead of actually playing. And even then, how to I know those rules have been updated or not?
-
No one expects you to buy all the codexes.
So it is the fear of being cheated that is driving this thread.
Crimson Devil wrote: So it is the fear of being cheated that is driving this thread.
Partly. But it is also the fear that I may be perceived as cheating because I may not want to buy an additional Codex to play a certain faction. It is also the fact that I desire to know almost all rules, but realistically cannot. 5 Indexes would have been possible, but 20+ Codices is not.
That would be ideal, but 40K is 40K and GW knows its customer base. They will sell $50 books all day long. You can't blame them for essentially printing money. They're in the business of selling stuff - the game is tertiary really to the sales aspect.
My take on it is, if both player's have a codex available then they should be using the codex rules( unless otherwise negotiated). If only one player has a codex available then I feel it's a bit cheap to have one person using updated info while the other isn't.
When I say having it available I don't mean having bought it, I mean it is on the market. Certainly you can find some way of getting the new rules for your army once they are released.
Martel732 wrote: I will have to use the index for biker libbies, plas/las razors, and tlhf razors. But I doubt anyone will care.
You can't use them for plas/las razorbacks because the codex totally replaces it and the codex FAQ says you have to use the latest rules. Unless something changes, those models are 100% illegal to use now outside of the most casual of environments where "legality" doesn't matter anyway.
It's funny that this post is so certain yet so wrong.
Martel732 wrote: I will have to use the index for biker libbies, plas/las razors, and tlhf razors. But I doubt anyone will care.
You can't use them for plas/las razorbacks because the codex totally replaces it and the codex FAQ says you have to use the latest rules. Unless something changes, those models are 100% illegal to use now outside of the most casual of environments where "legality" doesn't matter anyway.
It's funny that this post is so certain yet so wrong.
Martel732 wrote: I will have to use the index for biker libbies, plas/las razors, and tlhf razors. But I doubt anyone will care.
You can't use them for plas/las razorbacks because the codex totally replaces it and the codex FAQ says you have to use the latest rules. Unless something changes, those models are 100% illegal to use now outside of the most casual of environments where "legality" doesn't matter anyway.
Stop saying that. You opened a thread about this and I linked you the FAQ that specifically solved the case about units having different loadouts in the index vs the codex, with the Dreadnought example.
Use the most recent source material. Codex when appropriate, otherwise index. GW itself has said this numerous times, including in a FAQ and a few times on its blog.
Marmatag wrote: So far it seems like codex content could be freely published online.
Which would be great, except that books would still cost money. Free online content cannot be taken with you to the game store and flipped through to find a rule...
...because as soon as you have to buy a tablet to do so, the rules are no longer "free", they are the cost of the tablet...which can break or stop working or the battery can die.
Books are superior, but I don't want 20+ $40 books to exist for a single game. About a dozen $20-25 books would be more reasonable
Breng77 wrote:The codex also specifically calls out war gear options like rifle dreads, so yeah he can.
Prometheum5 wrote:
Corrode wrote: It's funny that this post is so certain yet so wrong.
And he keeps posting it, over and over again.
Galas wrote:Stop saying that. You opened a thread about this and I linked you the FAQ that specifically solved the case about units having different loadouts in the index vs the codex, with the Dreadnought example.
Can I combine units from the index and a codex into one army? The datasheets in the new codexes overwrite the same datasheets in the index books. You can certainly use units with updated datasheets alongside units from the index that have yet to be updated. Once a unit has been covered in the codex though, we assume you’re using the latest version.
This line means anything covered in the codex overwrites the index entry, thus making the index entry entirely invalid. The only index entries you can use are the ones that have "yet to be updated." This line means anything covered in the codex overwrites the index entry, thus making the index entry entirely invalid. The only index entries you can use are the ones that have "yet to be updated." So if you were hoping to use the index to keep your dakka venerable dreads, you're SOL. It also means for things like Wolf Lords that link to another index datasheet, you're forced to use the index datasheet for Captain instead of the codex one, because it's the latest rules for "Wolf Lord".
It's clear as day, so no, I am not wrong. Believe me, I wish more than anyone this wasn't the case. I liked using Venerable Dreads with Autocannon/Lascannon, but I can't now if I want to follow the rules and not cheat, and that makes me sad.
BaconCatBug wrote: It's clear as day, so no, I am not wrong. Believe me, I wish more than anyone this wasn't the case. I liked using Venerable Dreads with Autocannon/Lascannon, but I can't now if I want to follow the rules and not cheat, and that makes me sad.
From the same link, this also appears to be clear as day.
There are a few options that are missing in the codex that appear in the index: why is that? Does that mean I can’t use these models in my army anymore? While the indexes are designed to cover a long history of miniatures, the codexes are designed to give you rules for the current Warhammer 40,000 range. There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index).
They still gain all the army wide-bonuses for things like Chapter Tactics and can use Space Marines Stratagems and the like, so such venerable heroes still fit right in with the rest of your army.
Marmatag wrote: So far it seems like codex content could be freely published online.
Which would be great, except that books would still cost money. Free online content cannot be taken with you to the game store and flipped through to find a rule...
...because as soon as you have to buy a tablet to do so, the rules are no longer "free", they are the cost of the tablet...which can break or stop working or the battery can die.
Books are superior, but I don't want 20+ $40 books to exist for a single game. About a dozen $20-25 books would be more reasonable
-
I'd prefer both, with the Codex just providing more hobby content and marketed as a "Premium product". Maybe if I say it enough it'll become true .
GW has stated that you can use the Index to go play at your shop as long as your opponent gives the go ahead. I'm sure the vast majority of the people wouldn't care if you played with just the Index at the shop, so long as you keep in mind that people can choose not to play with you. For something more structured, though, you need approval from the governing body.
This is true regardless of anything to do with the Indexes and Codexes, and is a non-useful line of reasoning when it comes to discussing rules issues because it all just boils down to "Lol, do whatever."
This is true regardless of anything to do with the Indexes and Codexes, and is a non-useful line of reasoning when it comes to discussing rules issues because it all just boils down to "Lol, do whatever."
I disagree in this case, because while games like this have always boiled down to do whatever you want, GW is attempting to legitimize the ability to take models that are no longer supported in the latest datasheets to be used in the current rules. GW is essentially telling us "You don't need to homebrew rules to take your older models to a shop and get everyone's approval. We made the ruleset for you!" They would like you to use the most updated rules for the stuff, yes, but they leave an official option open to allow players to still use models they normally wouldn't be able to, so long as they get they go ahead.
BaconCatBug wrote: It's clear as day, so no, I am not wrong. Believe me, I wish more than anyone this wasn't the case. I liked using Venerable Dreads with Autocannon/Lascannon, but I can't now if I want to follow the rules and not cheat, and that makes me sad.
From the same link, this also appears to be clear as day.
There are a few options that are missing in the codex that appear in the index: why is that? Does that mean I can’t use these models in my army anymore? While the indexes are designed to cover a long history of miniatures, the codexes are designed to give you rules for the current Warhammer 40,000 range. There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index).
They still gain all the army wide-bonuses for things like Chapter Tactics and can use Space Marines Stratagems and the like, so such venerable heroes still fit right in with the rest of your army.
Seems pretty obvious, doesn't it?
Time for certain posters to stop banging that particular drum and move on...
I did have a discussion on this yesterday at my FLGS regarding Razorbacks.
In the index, there's the option for twin heavy flamer turrets on them, however in the new codex, that option is nowhere to be found in the Razorback entry.
A friend of mine has a couple of razorbacks for his Salamanders army that he's had for quite a long while (4+ years) that have converted twin heavy flamer turrets on them, and was noting that in the new codex, they're not legal any longer. I told him, at least in our local games, to just reference the index for any opponents that might have an issue with him using that option, but otherwise use the point costs and what-not from the new Marine Codex for everything else.
It's curious, as that option has been around for a long time on the Razorback, and it surprised me that it wasn't there any longer in the new codex.
Hopefully they'll FAQ it to add that option back in. Fingers crossed.
Oh you are permitted to make factual statements... you just haven't actually started yet.
GW explicitly and specifically gives permission to use rules for options that aren't available in the codex as long as they are in the index. In the rules of 40k, you can't do something unless given permission; and GW has done so.
Oh you are permitted to make factual statements... you just haven't actually started yet.
GW explicitly and specifically gives permission to use rules for options that aren't available in the codex as long as they are in the index. In the rules of 40k, you can't do something unless given permission; and GW has done so.
And they then rescind that permission a few lines after. So which is it? Is it an OR gate or an AND gate? Can you Charge after advancing, because the rules for charging say "Any of your units" can charge, despite the next line for charging saying you can't after advancing?
Here's a thought, has GW actually said you HAVE to or MUST use the updated Codex rules? I see a lot of quotes with "assumed to" and "should" but that kind of language implies that you still may use the older Index rules. As if it is just a suggestion, but that GW gives you permission to use whatever your opponent lets you use.
I still can't believe "older Index rules" are a thing here. The Indexes aren't even 4 months old yet.
BaconCatBug wrote: And they then rescind that permission a few lines after.
No, they didn't.
You're hopelessly reading the two lines as contradictory. Except... it doesn't make sense why you cannot comprehend that they don't actually contradict. Take the rifleman dread-- the codex does not have a quad-autocannon dreadnought build. Therefor, you use the index's quad-autocannon dreadnought.
That's the exact example that GW itself used, by the way. Reading comprehension is a thing, you know.
GW explicitly and specifically gives permission to use rules for options that aren't available in the codex as long as they are in the index. In the rules of 40k, you can't do something unless given permission; and GW has done so.
And they then rescind that permission a few lines after. So which is it? Is it an OR gate or an AND gate? Can you Charge after advancing, because the rules for charging say "Any of your units" can charge, despite the next line for charging saying you can't after advancing?
Try looking at this from the point of view of the intent of the rules. People were complaining that they have models that the codex invalidates. GW says, "Nah bro, you can still use those models and weapons!" We're directed to the Index for rules on how to use them.
It's not rocket science nor is GW intentionally trying to obfuscate their meaning. They're simply saying that if you have an older model with invalid options, those options are still valid. They specifically state on that page that the codex only has rules for current models and options. So if you have OLDER models and options, you have to look to the index on how to field them.
This is purely a company pandering to their older veterans and accommodating their dated models rather than telling the community to throw their antique dreadnoughts in the trash and buy a new one.
Indexes were merely a stopgap, so all armies got some sort of update going into the new edition.
That said, Codex rules trump Index rules, period - the only time you can use an index rule is when the Index model has equipment options the Codex doesn't; as linked in FAQ's previously.
Would I let someone use Index rules instead of Codex rules? Well - I'd have to ask what units and rules they're trying to use that were changed in the Codex...
I can only imagine its trying to use un-nerfed versions of nerfed units - and depending on the level of difference in power; as a casual player, I wouldn't really mind - but if you're bringing 600 points of Brimstones instead of the new 900 points they should be - yeah, feth that.
Arkaine wrote: Try looking at this from the point of view of the intent of the rules.
Down that path lies madness and nonsense. I agree the intent is to allow people to use it, but what they have said, in my opinion, disallows it. We need a clarification, especially since (assuming you are of the opinion you can use the older datasheet) it's unclear if you use only the index rules and points or mix and match.
Arkaine wrote: Try looking at this from the point of view of the intent of the rules.
Down that path lies madness and nonsense.
Prove it.
And no, don't do any of this "MY CONSCRIPTS ARE TOUGHNESS 20!1ONe" arguments you usually do. Try to present a GOOD argument instead.
This is one of the situations where GW has been open and explicit about intent. RAW and RAI both align, and that people disagree with your willfully obtuse interpretation of the RAW which you chose explicitly in order to cause trouble is not madness.
Arkaine wrote: Try looking at this from the point of view of the intent of the rules.
Down that path lies madness and nonsense. I agree the intent is to allow people to use it, but what they have said, in my opinion, disallows it. We need a clarification, especially since (assuming you are of the opinion you can use the older datasheet) it's unclear if you use only the index rules and points or mix and match.
I merely suggest looking at the intent because it makes it obvious WHY they made this decision and why it works this way.
And actually it's not unclear there either. They stated how it's to be done. You use the most updated rules for the points that are available and use the index for the outdated stuff in question, like the older weapons or upgrades or models.
So use the Codex for the dreadnought and the Index for the weapons the codex doesn't have. And if an FAQ comes out that updates the points yet again, use THAT over the Codex. Whatever's newer.
Arkaine wrote: Try looking at this from the point of view of the intent of the rules.
Down that path lies madness and nonsense.
Prove it.
You can't. You're not capable of it. But do try.
And no, don't do any of this "MY CONSCRIPTS ARE TOUGHNESS 20!1ONe" arguments you usually do. Try to present a GOOD argument instead.
My conscripts are Toughness 19, that's what I feel the intent was.
I feel the "intent" wasn't to make flamers the supreme Anti-Aircraft weapon of the 42nd Millennium, nor was the "intent" to make plasmaguns cause Razorbacks to be deleted from existance, or for Moving Plasma Cannons at Night to explode 50% of the time but that's what the rules say, so that's how you play it.
Intent is just a byword for "wanting to change things I don't like." I do not think it's fair on your opponent to try and spring house rules or other "intent" rulings on them.
BaconCatBug wrote: My conscripts are Toughness 19, that's what I feel the intent was.
Ergo, you have no argument, as usual.
Yeah, I didn't think so.
I see you ignored the rest of my post, but no matter. If you're arguing that you can use Older Rules in place of Newer Rules, then I want my super cheap 3rd edition Dark Lances please. I've said my piece, it's clear I am not in the popular kids club, so I'll be a good little Winston Smith and sit in my corner and remember not to wrongthink.
BaconCatBug wrote: My conscripts are Toughness 19, that's what I feel the intent was.
I feel the "intent" wasn't to make flamers the supreme Anti-Aircraft weapon of the 42nd Millennium, nor was the "intent" to make plasmaguns cause Razorbacks to be deleted from existance, or for Moving Plasma Cannons at Night to explode 50% of the time but that's what the rules say, so that's how you play it.
In this you are using intent to change the rules stated as opposed to using intent to understand why a contradiction or nonsensical rule is actually not a contradiction or nonsensical rule.
Intent is merely used for understanding why the rule exists, I'm not using it as a basis for the rule itself. For that, I merely need to point to what I quoted above from GW.
And if you do encounter two players with differing interpretations of the same rule, yet one makes more sense within the intent of the rule, then go with that one. <_< 99% of the time it's the one that's right.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaconCatBug wrote: I see you ignored the rest of my post, but no matter. If you're arguing that you can use Older Rules in place of Newer Rules, then I want my super cheap 3rd edition Dark Lances please. I've said my piece, it's clear I am not in the popular kids club, so I'll be a good little Winston Smith and sit in my corner and remember not to wrongthink.
Unfortunately all older editions are invalid in the newer edition because GW already said so. EVERYTHING has been updated and anything that isn't present in an index or codex now is considered incompatible with the new ruleset. They essentially told us months ago to chuck our old codices.
I didn't ignore the rest of your post; I cut it out for space. It added nothing new, regardless, being merely an extension of the rest of your rant. Adding hyperbole to hyperbole doesn't really prove your point.
If you were willing to give an honest read to the rules instead of the willfully obtuse behavior you're currently showing, you'd realize that the rules say, in more words, "use the codex when you can, otherwise use the index". Not all options are covered in the codex. GW understands this, and says "if you have the old options, use the index versions." For all other options, GW assumes the codex instead. There is no actual contradiction in these two statements.
Your posts come across as mean-spirited and spiteful even compared to mine.
kelewan wrote: I am also quite confused on how to play my thousand sons army when the chaos codex comes out. Now I know ahriman, scarab occult etc aren't in the book however some of the other units are such as tanks etc plus the psychic power's.
Until the codex comes out you get to "franken-codex". You use the codex rules wherever possible, and refer to the index when the unit doesn't exist yet. There are some Tzeentch units in the codex, and you'll use those where possible. When the TS codex comes out, you'll use that.
Seems like the issue of what is available in the codex vs index is pretty simple and straight forward, the codex is an update to the game and not a complete rewrite.
When you update a piece of software, or video game, you don't throw out all of the old rules and items. The new rules and items replace their equivalents and the rest of the old stuff stays as originally stated. It's not that difficult to understand, and it seems very much like that was GWs intent here, especially after the example they gave.
I don't care either way. Obviously the intent is for us to use the most recent rules and that's what will happen 99% of the time, but if someone wanted to play index rules, I'd play. I enjoy those games more than I do playing against a codex with my index anyways.
In the end, it's a game, and having fun is the most important part for me. I don't get paid to play 40k and it isn't my job. It's a game.
I would just like to point out that while a lot of people find it acceptable to ignore the codex right now (what with only 3 having officially came out), as time goes on the idea of "index only" is slowly going to become less accepted.
What I'm saying is don't build an entire army on this premise and expect it to still be viable or even usable once enough codexes drops, like the people who invested in a ton of gladius or scatbike armies only to have those rendered largely useless (or even completely unusable due to point costs ) in the new edition.
There is no contradiction. This is broken down easily into specific vs general.
We are told that in general, if a unit has an updated codex entry, that we are to use the codex instead of the index.
We are then told that in the specific case of a unit having an updated codex entry, but the unit has options that were legal under the index but invalidated by the codex, we may use the datasheet from the index instead.
If you try to argue that you can't use the index in that specific case because it "contradicts" the more general ruling, most of the damn game falls apart. Take assault weapons for instance. We are told that we cannot fire after advancing. However the more specific case of firing an assault weapon after advancing is allowed (although with penalty). It contradicts the more general ruling, but is allowed because it's applied to a more specific situation. Codex vs index is no different.
Developer notes have pointed out that you should cherry pick. However, not for abuse but because some units will never get inculded in ANY codex. The index is used as a giant catalog which will hold anything. So if you wanted lets say to use some model that is not in the codex but is in the index, you can include that datasheet into your army, even if the rest of your army is codex only.
As for abuse, a gentlemans agreement should prevent that.
Tsol wrote: Developer notes have pointed out that you should cherry pick. However, not for abuse but because some units will never get inculded in ANY codex. The index is used as a giant catalog which will hold anything. So if you wanted lets say to use some model that is not in the codex but is in the index, you can include that datasheet into your army, even if the rest of your army is codex only.
As for abuse, a gentlemans agreement should prevent that.
BaconCatBug wrote: So I am not permitted to make factual statements like "Once a unit has been covered in the codex though, we assume you’re using the latest version" anymore?
I have been completely upfront that it is contradictory, but I think that the way it is you have to satisfy all the restrictions, which means no Autocannons for Venerable Dreads. If GW ever release a statement to the contrary, I will spin on a fething dime and scream my praise from the rooftops.
Or am I supposed to let people form an incorrect conclusion?
May I please have an explicit prohibition on the posting of said factual statement, rather than veiled hints? I'm not trying to be insubordinate, I am just trying to prevent misunderstandings.
Your not though. They (GW) are saying if its in the index but not the codex use the index. Your saying if its not in the codex its not allowed. If your not going to add anything else to the thread besides repeating the same wrong interpretation why keep posting?
Way I see it, you've one of three options I'd be fine with.
Index and nothing but the Index. No using the Stratagems from the Codex if your just using the Index list.
Codex for mains, Index for conversions. We know the Indecies contain 'legacy' units that haven't or won't make the Codex. If your Index inclusion is just those legacy units, and not say a better version of Codex Entry #4968, no worries.
Example
Brimstone is getting a MASSIVE nerf in the upcoming Chaos book, choosing Index to dodge that nerf on your BS Spam list...
They've had their points increased by 1. It's irritating, but somewhat justified. I wouldn't call it "MASSIVE" though. They're probably still the best obj campers for chaos.
So basically, I have to spend at least half an hour prior to every game for the opponent to show me all their current rules so that I have an understanding of what their army can do. Great
Because there is no way I'll be able to own 20+ Codices at $40 each. Owning 5 Indexes made it easy to get an understanding of every faction. I have played this game for over 4 editions now and only knowing what your army does is never enough for a successful game. You need to know what your opponent's army can do.
This single edition has absolutely ruined competitive play for me (which is saying something considering how bad 7E was). Win or lose, a game is not fun when everything your opponent does is a "surprise". It is ok in casual games where both players have the time to talk about their armies, but in a TIMED tourney it is just unfair.
Just to clarify, my single biggest complaint is that the release of each Codex makes the rule set as a whole increasingly inaccessible and complicated. Especially after the glimmer of hope that the Indexes gave at a CONDENSED ruleset.
Galef wrote: So basically, I have to spend at least half an hour prior to every game for the opponent to show me all their current rules so that I have an understanding of what their army can do. Great
Because there is no way I'll be able to own 20+ Codices at $40 each. Owning 5 Indexes made it easy to get an understanding of every faction.
I have played this game for over 4 editions now and only knowing what your army does is never enough for a successful game. You need to know what your opponent's army can do.
This single edition has absolutely ruined competitive play for me (which is saying something considering how bad 7E was). Win or lose, a game is not fun when everything your opponent does is a "surprise". It is ok in casual games where both players have the time to talk about their armies, but in a TIMED tourney it is just unfair.
Just to clarify, my single biggest complaint is that the release of each Codex makes the rule set as a whole increasingly inaccessible and complicated. Especially after the glimmer of hope that the Indexes gave at a CONDENSED ruleset.
-
So you owned every rules source in 7th? While I agree with the difficulty in knowing all the rules, this has always been true. I do wish codices were available in paperback for less. Really the biggest issue I see along the lines of surprise will be strategems because there are so many, and they may not come up often. Unit rules will be easy, especially with apps like battlescribe already having most of the rules available.
Galef wrote: So basically, I have to spend at least half an hour prior to every game for the opponent to show me all their current rules so that I have an understanding of what their army can do. Great
Because there is no way I'll be able to own 20+ Codices at $40 each. Owning 5 Indexes made it easy to get an understanding of every faction.
I have played this game for over 4 editions now and only knowing what your army does is never enough for a successful game. You need to know what your opponent's army can do.
This single edition has absolutely ruined competitive play for me (which is saying something considering how bad 7E was). Win or lose, a game is not fun when everything your opponent does is a "surprise". It is ok in casual games where both players have the time to talk about their armies, but in a TIMED tourney it is just unfair.
Just to clarify, my single biggest complaint is that the release of each Codex makes the rule set as a whole increasingly inaccessible and complicated. Especially after the glimmer of hope that the Indexes gave at a CONDENSED ruleset.
-
So you owned every rules source in 7th? While I agree with the difficulty in knowing all the rules, this has always been true. I do wish codices were available in paperback for less. Really the biggest issue I see along the lines of surprise will be strategems because there are so many, and they may not come up often. Unit rules will be easy, especially with apps like battlescribe already having most of the rules available.
I owned every Dex upto 6th - and then I gave up - the indices seemed to indociate a better way until they came out immediately and send no we will screw it all up with Codex's.
Just because something has "always been true" and it patentely has NOT - only in the last fewe editions does not make a thing to encourage, celebrate or endorse.
Galef wrote: So basically, I have to spend at least half an hour prior to every game for the opponent to show me all their current rules so that I have an understanding of what their army can do. Great
Because there is no way I'll be able to own 20+ Codices at $40 each. Owning 5 Indexes made it easy to get an understanding of every faction.
I have played this game for over 4 editions now and only knowing what your army does is never enough for a successful game. You need to know what your opponent's army can do.
This single edition has absolutely ruined competitive play for me (which is saying something considering how bad 7E was). Win or lose, a game is not fun when everything your opponent does is a "surprise". It is ok in casual games where both players have the time to talk about their armies, but in a TIMED tourney it is just unfair.
Just to clarify, my single biggest complaint is that the release of each Codex makes the rule set as a whole increasingly inaccessible and complicated. Especially after the glimmer of hope that the Indexes gave at a CONDENSED ruleset.
-
This wasn't really different in past editions either. Especially if you played against one of those armies that had a supplement or, god forbid, datasheets from different sources. My nids required at least three books (the Rulebook, the codex, and at least one supplement) and sometimes one or two datasheets back in 7th edition. And that's just if i only wanted to play vanilla Nids. If I wanted Forge World, Genestealer Cult, or other obscure stuff I'd have to lug around a full library of documents. Not to mention 7th edition created half a dozen new codexes and three times as much supplements. And then there were datasheets scattered in WD and in web bundles. And if owning more than 5 books is really that much of an issue, this edition had the least amount of books since perhaps Rogue Trader; even 3rd edition had more than 5 codexes.
Not to mention your opponent should be able to give you a quick rundown of his army anyways. If he lies, you weren't gonna get a good game even if you owned all of the codexes. Plus it's not like tactic discussions don't exist, and a lot of websites give a quick rundown of what each thing does and sometimes even give basic stats. Also it's not like the Indexes were gonna be the last edition of 40k ever. As long as you play this game and as long as GW exists, you'll, sooner or later, have to buy new books (unless they give the rules out for free). GW will never create the "final" version of this game.
This is nothing new. Not even remotely. If anything this is a good thing since it gives legacy units rules that at least exist. My chaplain got all of one game in before he got invalidated by the 4th ed Dark Angels codex, which no longer permitted DA Chaplains to take lightning claws.
Galef wrote: So basically, I have to spend at least half an hour prior to every game for the opponent to show me all their current rules so that I have an understanding of what their army can do. Great
Because there is no way I'll be able to own 20+ Codices at $40 each. Owning 5 Indexes made it easy to get an understanding of every faction.
I have played this game for over 4 editions now and only knowing what your army does is never enough for a successful game. You need to know what your opponent's army can do.
This single edition has absolutely ruined competitive play for me (which is saying something considering how bad 7E was). Win or lose, a game is not fun when everything your opponent does is a "surprise". It is ok in casual games where both players have the time to talk about their armies, but in a TIMED tourney it is just unfair.
Just to clarify, my single biggest complaint is that the release of each Codex makes the rule set as a whole increasingly inaccessible and complicated. Especially after the glimmer of hope that the Indexes gave at a CONDENSED ruleset.
-
So - and this is an honest question - the only place you ever learned about your opponent's army was from his codex? You didn't watch/read Battle Reports or read tactica posts on this forum? You didn't keep up with the tournament scene to keep an eye on what lists were doing well and what they could do? This seems disingenuous and more targeted at 'I don't want to spend money' rather than 'I need to know what my opponent is capable of'. There are a multitude of ways to be aware of the various capacities of all the armies without owning the codex.
Further more - how has 8th done anything that previous editions didn't do? They also had codexes that you would have needed to buy plus additional source material (WDs, campaign supplements, etc). That argument holds no weight because nothing has changed, codexes aren't a new development.
And finally GW acknowledged from jump street they'd be putting out codexes moving forward - they made no promises regarding the game being Index only nor even did they sell the Indexes as a product with any longevity.
Galef wrote: So basically, I have to spend at least half an hour prior to every game for the opponent to show me all their current rules so that I have an understanding of what their army can do.
Or you could do research online, ask around waht various units can do and what the army rules are, etc.
Hell, 1d4chan actually has a fairly good tactical advice section.
Can I combine units from the index and a codex into one army? The datasheets in the new codexes overwrite the same datasheets in the index books. You can certainly use units with updated datasheets alongside units from the index that have yet to be updated. Once a unit has been covered in the codex though, we assume you’re using the latest version.
This line means anything covered in the codex overwrites the index entry, thus making the index entry entirely invalid. The only index entries you can use are the ones that have "yet to be updated." This line means anything covered in the codex overwrites the index entry, thus making the index entry entirely invalid. The only index entries you can use are the ones that have "yet to be updated." So if you were hoping to use the index to keep your dakka venerable dreads, you're SOL. It also means for things like Wolf Lords that link to another index datasheet, you're forced to use the index datasheet for Captain instead of the codex one, because it's the latest rules for "Wolf Lord".
There are a few options that are missing in the codex that appear in the index: why is that? Does that mean I can’t use these models in my army anymore?
While the indexes are designed to cover a long history of miniatures, the codexes are designed to give you rules for the current Warhammer 40,000 range. There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index).
They still gain all the army wide-bonuses for things like Chapter Tactics and can use Space Marines Stratagems and the like, so such venerable heroes still fit right in with the rest of your army.
Same source, just the other part of it that you often seem to miss.
In 5th/6th I came really close to owning every Codex, but then had to give up because of the introduction of $50 hardback books released like every other week. The indexes showed a glimmer of those days returning.
The issue with using BatReps and reading online tactics is that people get stuff wrong all the time. I cannot tell you how many times I was able to SUCCESSFULLY point out to my opponent that they were using their own army's rules wrong because I had read their faction's Codex/FAQ backwards and forwards. This became harder and harder to do in 7E and I eventually had to give up trying, often finding out AFTER a game that an opponent was not properly adhering to the rules. I actually lost a tourney because of this.
When the rules are overly complex and require multiple sources, it becomes too easy to accidently overlook something. I have no doubt that my experiences were accidental, but that doesn't make the outcome of the games any less frustrating.
Seems pretty straight forward to me.
You have the index.
Where the Codex has the same datasheet it overwrites it.
Where it doesn't mention anything it doesn't.
So if in the codex the points cost or stats has changed then you should use those. If the unit isn't mentioned just use the index.
If you are paranoid about your opponent getting rules wrong just insist they bring their codex along. I think that has always been a reasonable expectation.
As I see it, I can buy the Codecies for my main armies and then have the Indecies for armies I play irregularly or only ever as attached allies to my main forces.
Indecies have the advantage that I'm more likely to diversify and buy some models I like that aren't members of my main army, since I can ally them in and have the rules without having to actually start another army. Codecies have detail, stories and pretty pictures, and they're entirely dedicated to the armies that I like.
And, as far as things go, I just accept what my opponent tells me his or her army does. If they have it a little wrong, it's not a big deal. I think it's pretty obvious if they're trying to cheat.
Tyel wrote: Seems pretty straight forward to me. You have the index. Where the Codex has the same datasheet it overwrites it. Where it doesn't mention anything it doesn't.
So if in the codex the points cost or stats has changed then you should use those. If the unit isn't mentioned just use the index.
If you are paranoid about your opponent getting rules wrong just insist they bring their codex along. I think that has always been a reasonable expectation.
I agree with that rules layout and it is indeed a reasonable expection....
However, what if a player does not have a copy of their Codex, or even knows that there is one out for their faction? What if I just don't buy mine when it is released? These are situations that may happen. That is my issue with the current Index/Codex system (and also I plainly stated that I didn't want to buy a bunch of extra books, so I was not being disingenuous)
It will also suck when GW eventually discontinues production of the Indexes once enough Codices are released. Builds like Autocannon Dreads and Bike Librarians that are "legal" will cease to have accessible rules for players who are just getting into that faction. How long before those builds become "illegal"?
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: As I see it, I can buy the Codecies for my main armies and then have the Indecies for armies I play irregularly or only ever as attached allies to my main forces.
This is what I thought at first too. I was actually really excited about it. I knew that rules would be added, but I thought that at least the basics would remain the same. But it is starting to look like each new codex may change the rules to such an extent that units overwritten from their Index may be so unrecognizable, that my purchase of said Index was pointless. Hopefully I am wrong and this is just me blowing off some hot air. Wouldn't be the first time, probably not the last.
Galef wrote: So basically, I have to spend at least half an hour prior to every game for the opponent to show me all their current rules so that I have an understanding of what their army can do. Great
Because there is no way I'll be able to own 20+ Codices at $40 each. Owning 5 Indexes made it easy to get an understanding of every faction.
I have played this game for over 4 editions now and only knowing what your army does is never enough for a successful game. You need to know what your opponent's army can do.
This single edition has absolutely ruined competitive play for me (which is saying something considering how bad 7E was). Win or lose, a game is not fun when everything your opponent does is a "surprise". It is ok in casual games where both players have the time to talk about their armies, but in a TIMED tourney it is just unfair.
Just to clarify, my single biggest complaint is that the release of each Codex makes the rule set as a whole increasingly inaccessible and complicated. Especially after the glimmer of hope that the Indexes gave at a CONDENSED ruleset.
-
So you owned every rules source in 7th? While I agree with the difficulty in knowing all the rules, this has always been true. I do wish codices were available in paperback for less. Really the biggest issue I see along the lines of surprise will be strategems because there are so many, and they may not come up often. Unit rules will be easy, especially with apps like battlescribe already having most of the rules available.
I owned every Dex upto 6th - and then I gave up - the indices seemed to indociate a better way until they came out immediately and send no we will screw it all up with Codex's.
Just because something has "always been true" and it patentely has NOT - only in the last fewe editions does not make a thing to encourage, celebrate or endorse.
Sure when many books took 5 years to get updated and cost $25 it was much easier to own them all. But even the most competitive players I know never actually owned all the books, they just had access to the rules. I agree that a switch to hard back books made know all the rules harder because of cost, but as soon as events began allowing FW, and GW started publishing Digital only content in 7th all that was out the window anyway. So I'm just unclear how 8th was the final straw. Because you thought it would only have 5 books? My only wish is that they would release gamers edition codices with not fluff, and just rules in soft cover format. That would be super affordable and better for most people that just want the rules.
Galef wrote: It will also suck when GW eventually discontinues production of the Indexes once enough Codices are released. Builds like Autocannon Dreads and Bike Librarians that are "legal" will cease to have accessible rules for players who are just getting into that faction. How long before those builds become "illegal"?
Long enough for them to make it into Forge World as 'relic' entries, just as they did with the 2nd and 3rd edition Chimeras with autocannons. (Chimeraxes? I forget what they were called by GW. Forge World just lets them be chimeras with autocannons.)
Tyel wrote: Seems pretty straight forward to me.
You have the index.
Where the Codex has the same datasheet it overwrites it.
Where it doesn't mention anything it doesn't.
So if in the codex the points cost or stats has changed then you should use those. If the unit isn't mentioned just use the index.
If you are paranoid about your opponent getting rules wrong just insist they bring their codex along. I think that has always been a reasonable expectation.
I agree with that rules layout and it is indeed a reasonable expection....
However, what if a player does not have a copy of their Codex, or even knows that there is one out for their faction? What if I just don't buy mine when it is released?
These are situations that may happen. That is my issue with the current Index/Codex system (and also I plainly stated that I didn't want to buy a bunch of extra books, so I was not being disingenuous)
It will also suck when GW eventually discontinues production of the Indexes once enough Codices are released. Builds like Autocannon Dreads and Bike Librarians that are "legal" will cease to have accessible rules for players who are just getting into that faction. How long before those builds become "illegal"?
-
This is not exactly a new problem (or really a problem at all). It's just like how a new player would find out about their army's new codexes in past editions; they go to GW's website and see which codex or index is advertised for their army. A player using a 5th edition Necron codex during 7th edition is no different than a SM player using the Imperium 1 Index. And when the indexes are discontinued, they will still be legal. It's not like the indexes will all simultaniously vanish from existence the moment GW pulls them from print. The only drawback is new players won't have access to these unless they pay for a second hand copy of the index, but again this isn't a new issue; how many people used the Skyhammer Annhilation Force before it was printed in Angels of Death despite not buying the actual bundle?
For years we wandered in the wilderness, beseeching the almighty GW for guidance and insight into the deepest mysteries of the BRB.
Then, a new age dawned, a golden light from heaven came in the shape of official word and reactive discussion, ambiguity became a thing of the past as GW actually answered specific questions with specific answers.
However, nobody could have predicted the coming of the even denser and more intractable hobbyist...
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: As I see it, I can buy the Codecies for my main armies and then have the Indecies for armies I play irregularly or only ever as attached allies to my main forces.
This is what I thought at first too. I was actually really excited about it. I knew that rules would be added, but I thought that at least the basics would remain the same. But it is starting to look like each new codex may change the rules to such an extent that units overwritten from their Index may be so unrecognizable, that my purchase of said Index was pointless.
Hopefully I am wrong and this is just me blowing off some hot air. Wouldn't be the first time, probably not the last.
-
Having seen and faced the Space Marine codex, I don't think it's a big deal. A few things were added, but datasheets are available in the unit boxes, and a few costs were adjusted for balance reasons.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: As I see it, I can buy the Codecies for my main armies and then have the Indecies for armies I play irregularly or only ever as attached allies to my main forces.
This is what I thought at first too. I was actually really excited about it. I knew that rules would be added, but I thought that at least the basics would remain the same. But it is starting to look like each new codex may change the rules to such an extent that units overwritten from their Index may be so unrecognizable, that my purchase of said Index was pointless. Hopefully I am wrong and this is just me blowing off some hot air. Wouldn't be the first time, probably not the last.
-
Having seen and faced the Space Marine codex, I don't think it's a big deal. A few things were added, but datasheets are available in the unit boxes, and a few costs were adjusted for balance reasons.
I have not yet. and I am glad to hear that it is mostly points changes. That is what the Codex should be used for: to adjust points, add <Chapter Tactic> equivalents, stratagems, traits etc. What worries me (again, hopefully for no reason) is the actually rules changes, like the Horrors change in the CSM Codex. First of all, why are Daemons in the CSM codex? Does this mean there are 2 valid entries since most would assume Daemons get updated in the Daemons Codex? Secondly, the points did need to change, but they also changed the way they cast Smite for Horrors. It's not a big change, but it sets precedent for further changes that a player may not be aware of if they merely have the Index.
Presumably the Daemons that appear in Codex: CSM will be subtly different from that of the one in Codex: Daemons, just like Daemon Princes were before.
I haven't looked into the CSM dex yet, but in the Chaos Index there's two separate entries for T-Sons and Plague Marines, one in the normal CSM section and one in the Legions section. There was only a subtle difference; the ones in the Legion section were locked into their legion's keyword rather than have <LEGION>. This might mean that GW is intentionally separating the two depending on which army it's being fielded in, and thus the unit might have different bonuses. Gameplay wise they will still broadly be the same role, but have subtle differences in the coming future.
Galef wrote: In 5th/6th I came really close to owning every Codex, but then had to give up because of the introduction of $50 hardback books released like every other week.
The indexes showed a glimmer of those days returning.
The issue with using BatReps and reading online tactics is that people get stuff wrong all the time. I cannot tell you how many times I was able to SUCCESSFULLY point out to my opponent that they were using their own army's rules wrong because I had read their faction's Codex/FAQ backwards and forwards.
When the rules are overly complex and require multiple sources, it becomes too easy to accidently overlook something. I have no doubt that my experiences were accidental, but that doesn't make the outcome of the games any less frustrating.
-
Right but you've said 8th ruined competitive play with Codexes which still makes no sense because they existed in previous editions. I still cannot grasp that you'd rather do no research because it COULD be wrong than at least using the available free resources to prep yourself for competitive play. I'll be 100% honest, what I see isn't a competitive attitude to begin with. If your goal is to be a competitive player you balance your time and resources to do the best preparation you can. You check with the local gaming store and check out their open copies, you watch battle reports, read articles, you do what you have to.
Galef wrote: In 5th/6th I came really close to owning every Codex, but then had to give up because of the introduction of $50 hardback books released like every other week. The indexes showed a glimmer of those days returning.
The issue with using BatReps and reading online tactics is that people get stuff wrong all the time. I cannot tell you how many times I was able to SUCCESSFULLY point out to my opponent that they were using their own army's rules wrong because I had read their faction's Codex/FAQ backwards and forwards.
When the rules are overly complex and require multiple sources, it becomes too easy to accidently overlook something. I have no doubt that my experiences were accidental, but that doesn't make the outcome of the games any less frustrating.
-
Right but you've said 8th ruined competitive play with Codexes which still makes no sense because they existed in previous editions. I still cannot grasp that you'd rather do no research because it COULD be wrong than at least using the available free resources to prep yourself for competitive play. I'll be 100% honest, what I see isn't a competitive attitude to begin with.
I agree it's the same as 7E, but the difference is that you only had to do the research on the "flavor of the month" faction that got released. Wiping everything away and starting fresh (while needed) makes it incredibly more difficult to "stay updated". The Indexes were a great answer to this. Only 5 books and your back on track. But how many Codices are they releasing at a time now? Like 4 a month. How am I supposed to keep up with that if, *IF* the changes are dramatically divergent from the indexes? To clarify, I do not think competitive plat is ruined in 8th, but the experience is ruined for me because of the increased level of uncertainty that never existed (for me) before.
they'll assume you are using the index to gain some advantage over them and refuse to play you.
.
