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.


Are the rules changing?

Yes, many units’ rules in their codexes will alter from those in the indexes. Sometimes this is to better represent the miniatures and the background, sometimes to balance the game, and sometimes to better fit with the army’s new special rules in the codex itself. In all cases, these will then supersede the rules for that datasheet in the index book.


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.


Can I choose to use the rules and/or points for units from my index instead of the new ones in the codex once released?

In your own games, if you and your opponent agree, you can, of course, play with whatever rules you like.

In all future publications and official events though, it will be assumed that you’re using the most recent rules and Datasheets. It will also be assumed that you’re using the most up to date points for matched play, in this case, those included in the codex.

 lindsay40k wrote:
There's the 'general versus specific' metric. The general rule is that, if there are two datasheets, you use the most recently published version. In the specific case of a Dreadnought with the twin autocannon loadout that was allowed in previous editions and the Index but not the Codex: use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index).

I wonder, has there been a test case for this at the GT?

U02dah4 wrote:
Unfortunately it's unclear for several reasons.

Firstly those rulings all come from Warhammer community and therefore don't represent faq or errata. Essentially they become indications of RAI not RAW.

Secondly they contradict themselves

BA for example are told to use the index.
The index tells you to use the following SM datasheets
Which the community say are updated by codex SM and you are assumed to be useing the latest version of the data sheet eg the one in codex am
But the community then says BA don't need codex SM because they should use the index etc etc

If I have a Blood Angels, Dark Angels or Space Wolves army, will I need to buy Codex: Space Marines to use my army?

You don’t have to.

Other Space Marines factions not covered in the new codex will continue to use all the datasheets, rules and points values in the index until their own codex is released.

Rules for new models not covered in the index (like the upcoming Redemptor Dreadnought) will be available in the box with the model and matched play points for these units will be made available online.

 Ghaz wrote:

You don’t have to.

What don't you have to do? You don't have to buy Codex: Space Marines. Why? Because...

Other Space Marines factions not covered in the new codex will continue to use all the datasheets, rules and points values in the index until their own codex is released.

So Blood Angels, Space Wolves, etc. don't use Codex Space Marines for datasheets, rules and points values. What about new models like the Redemptor or Intercessors?

Rules for new models not covered in the index (like the upcoming Redemptor Dreadnought) will be available in the box with the model and matched play points for these units will be made available online.

So GW has been explicitly clear. Blood Angels use the index, not Codex: Space Marines.

 Lance845 wrote:
I stand corrected.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

You don’t have to.

What don't you have to do? You don't have to buy Codex: Space Marines. Why? Because...

Other Space Marines factions not covered in the new codex will continue to use all the datasheets, rules and points values in the index until their own codex is released.

So Blood Angels, Space Wolves, etc. don't use Codex Space Marines for datasheets, rules and points values. What about new models like the Redemptor or Intercessors?

Rules for new models not covered in the index (like the upcoming Redemptor Dreadnought) will be available in the box with the model and matched play points for these units will be made available online.

So GW has been explicitly clear. Blood Angels use the index, not Codex: Space Marines.

I stand corrected.

U02dah4 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

You don’t have to.

What don't you have to do? You don't have to buy Codex: Space Marines. Why? Because...

Other Space Marines factions not covered in the new codex will continue to use all the datasheets, rules and points values in the index until their own codex is released.

So Blood Angels, Space Wolves, etc. don't use Codex Space Marines for datasheets, rules and points values. What about new models like the Redemptor or Intercessors?

Rules for new models not covered in the index (like the upcoming Redemptor Dreadnought) will be available in the box with the model and matched play points for these units will be made available online.

So GW has been explicitly clear. Blood Angels use the index, not Codex: Space Marines.

I stand corrected.

Except thats a cherry pick from self same page your quoting from

"In all future publications and official events though, it will be assumed that you’re using the most recent rules and Datasheets. It will also be assumed that you’re using the most up to date points for matched play, in this case, those included in the codex."

While if you follow their direction the rules in the index itself in the BA section tells you explicitly to use the SM datasheets not the SM datasheets in the index. The current version of which is in codex SM.

As you say it also says you "don't have to" not you can't .

Which is where I come back to its not clear I understand and recognise ghaz''s interpretation as potentially valid under RAI from Warhammer community that you should only use index datasheets . I also recognise lances interpretation as valid under RAI as the community site is clear they update the datasheets. I also think there's a middle ground under RAI due to the "don't have to" and maybe you can do either so yes RAI in this instance seems unclear

RAW however as covered in detail in the tech marine thread is you use the SM datasheets which are now in the codex that is clear.

So if RAI is unclear and RAW is clear I go with RAW

 Lance845 wrote:
I get what your saying for forces that do not yet have a codex. I hear ya.

But in terms of forces that DO have a codex (which will be all of us eventually... and much faster then it has ever been in the past), do we agree that you have to use the codex datasheet?

Like... a upcoming example.

1) If Tyranid Shrikes are not in the codex then you are free to use the index datasheet for Shrikes. If Bone Swords points change in the codex then you pay codex prices using the codex profile for Index Shrikes Bone Swords.

2) If Hive Tyrants are in the codex then you have to use the codex datasheet for the HT. If the Codex HT does not have the option to take Massive Rending Claws then you are not allowed to use MRC with HTs.

 Lance845 wrote:

It's also a problem that will work itself out over time. We will all have codexes eventually. But in terms of forces that DO have a codex (which will be all of us much faster then it has ever been in the past), do we agree that you have to use the codex datasheet?

Like... a upcoming example.

1) If Tyranid Shrikes are not in the codex then you are free to use the index datasheet for Shrikes. If Bone Swords points change in the codex then you pay codex prices using the codex profile for Index Shrikes Bone Swords.

2) If Hive Tyrants are in the codex then you have to use the codex datasheet for the HT. If the Codex HT does not have the option to take Massive Rending Claws then you are not allowed to use MRC with HTs.

p5freak wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

It's also a problem that will work itself out over time. We will all have codexes eventually. But in terms of forces that DO have a codex (which will be all of us much faster then it has ever been in the past), do we agree that you have to use the codex datasheet?

Like... a upcoming example.

1) If Tyranid Shrikes are not in the codex then you are free to use the index datasheet for Shrikes. If Bone Swords points change in the codex then you pay codex prices using the codex profile for Index Shrikes Bone Swords.

2) If Hive Tyrants are in the codex then you have to use the codex datasheet for the HT. If the Codex HT does not have the option to take Massive Rending Claws then you are not allowed to use MRC with HTs.

I disagree with 2.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/07/05/codexes-your-questions-answered-july-5gw-homepage-post-2/

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.

If the HT has MRC in the index you can still use him with index points, because its the most recent points published.

 Lance845 wrote:

That quote is in the OP, along with 3 others from the same document that say that you are expected to use the most up to date Datasheet. If the most up to date Datasheet does not give you the option then you don't have it.

p5freak wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

That quote is in the OP, along with 3 others from the same document that say that you are expected to use the most up to date Datasheet. If the most up to date Datasheet does not give you the option then you don't have it.

Just because its missing in the most up to date datasheet (codex) doesnt mean you cant use it anymore.

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).

This clearly says you can still use the model with index points.

In the first question "Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models." requires that
1) you actually have the older model and
2) "In your games" can be read as the same as "In your own games, if you and your opponent agree, you can, of course, play with whatever rules you like."

This is backed by 3 other questions in the same document saying

1) In all cases, these will then supersede the rules for that datasheet in the index book.
2) The datasheets in the new codexes overwrite the same datasheets in the index books.
3) In all future publications and official events though, it will be assumed that you’re using the most recent rules and Datasheets.

 Lance845 wrote:

And the rest of the document makes it very clear that in your own personal games where you and your opponent agree you can do whatever you want. But in any game using official rules you don't get the option. Only the most recent datasheet and any of the rules on it matter. Which includes the options for wargear.

 doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

And the rest of the document makes it very clear that in your own personal games where you and your opponent agree you can do whatever you want. But in any game using official rules you don't get the option. Only the most recent datasheet and any of the rules on it matter. Which includes the options for wargear.

No, it doesn't make it clear. That is what you are reading into it, but it doesn't make it "very clear". It only makes it your interpretation. Another option is that they meant what they said about still being able to use your model in your games, which would presumably also mean "any game using official rules". Until we have a test case at a tournament that doesn't let you use the model, it looks like you do have permission to use the model despite what you say.

 Charistoph wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

And the rest of the document makes it very clear that in your own personal games where you and your opponent agree you can do whatever you want. But in any game using official rules you don't get the option. Only the most recent datasheet and any of the rules on it matter. Which includes the options for wargear.

No, it doesn't make it clear. That is what you are reading into it, but it doesn't make it "very clear". It only makes it your interpretation. Another option is that they meant what they said about still being able to use your model in your games, which would presumably also mean "any game using official rules". Until we have a test case at a tournament that doesn't let you use the model, it looks like you do have permission to use the model despite what you say.

True enough. As it is, the bigger tournaments tend to change some rules as it is in order to attract as many good players as possible, so using them as a benchmark for "official games" is a bit of a pointless task.

 lindsay40k wrote:
Again: has there been a test case, most likely a Dreadnought with a twin Autocannon?

 Lance845 wrote:
Yeah since the tournys more or less run on house rules it doesn't prove much of anything.

But, as to my argument being unclear,


1) In all cases, these will then supersede the rules for that datasheet in the index book.
2) The datasheets in the new codexes overwrite the same datasheets in the index books.

These statements are very definitive. They are VERY clear. There is no question as to their intent.

What is unclear to you about IN ALL CASES and OVERWRITE?

 doctortom wrote:


The part where it says you can still use your old models when there's a combination not used in the new codex. "You may still use your models" is equally clear, yet contradicts what you are saying here.


I am not saying your argument is incorrect, not that you weren't clear. You were clearly incorrect.

 Lance845 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:


The part where it says you can still use your old models when there's a combination not used in the new codex. "You may still use your models" is equally clear, yet contradicts what you are saying here.


I am not saying your argument is incorrect, not that you weren't clear. You were clearly incorrect.

"In your own games, if you and your opponent agree, you can, of course, play with whatever rules you like."

They have never said you were incapable of using your models. They said you needed your opponents agreement.

 doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:


The part where it says you can still use your old models when there's a combination not used in the new codex. "You may still use your models" is equally clear, yet contradicts what you are saying here.


I am not saying your argument is incorrect, not that you weren't clear. You were clearly incorrect.

"In your own games, if you and your opponent agree, you can, of course, play with whatever rules you like."

They have never said you were incapable of using your models. They said you needed your opponents agreement.

You said "1) In all cases, these will then supersede the rules for that datasheet in the index book.
2) The datasheets in the new codexes overwrite the same datasheets in the index books. "

You said "in all cases" - how do you get to use your models if "in all cases" you don't get to access the sheet that has the rules for your old model? You contradict yourself.

 Lance845 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:


The part where it says you can still use your old models when there's a combination not used in the new codex. "You may still use your models" is equally clear, yet contradicts what you are saying here.


I am not saying your argument is incorrect, not that you weren't clear. You were clearly incorrect.

"In your own games, if you and your opponent agree, you can, of course, play with whatever rules you like."

They have never said you were incapable of using your models. They said you needed your opponents agreement.

You said "1) In all cases, these will then supersede the rules for that datasheet in the index book.
2) The datasheets in the new codexes overwrite the same datasheets in the index books. "

You said "in all cases" - how do you get to use your models if "in all cases" you don't get to access the sheet that has the rules for your old model? You contradict yourself.

I do not. Officially, or in other words in any way in which the game is being played with legally supported rules, the datasheet replaces the index one and the index one is no longer valid. But "In your own games, if you and your opponent agree, you can, of course, play with whatever rules you like.".

The stance we have is, go set up a table and have fun. If you got the model and you want to use the index rules and your opponent is cool then have a ball. But when the codex is released with a updated version of the datasheet that new datasheet is there to replace the old one in all cases. In any official event you will be expected to use the most current datasheets. For the sake of balance, updating the model range, or more accurately representing the current fluff of the game the new datasheet is the only one that matters and the one you are assumed to be using.

You are allowed to house rule. The game is built with 3 ways to play and open is very specifically about you and your opponent doing whatever you like. In your own games you are welcome to mix and match whatever! But in matched the only legal datasheet is the most current.

You cannot bring options to Matched that do not exist on the most current datasheet. If you do it's not matched, it's open using most of matched plays rules.

 Lance845 wrote:
A quote taken out of context that ignores the rest of the document is meaningless.

 doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
A quote taken out of context that ignores the rest of the document is meaningless.

Which can also apply to what you are saying.

Tyran wrote:
Couldn't it be interpreted that you use the latest version for the model?

That meaning that the model determines the datasheet, not the other way around.

 Lance845 wrote:

Please explain. Which part is taken out of context? What part of the document am i ignoring?

 doctortom wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

Please explain. Which part is taken out of context? What part of the document am i ignoring?

Let's see, taking out of context is extrapolating from their comment that you can still use your old miniatures to it saying that you can't use them in any form of Matched Play or any game using "official rules", when it doesn't say that. It ignores that there's an entire question and answer about being able to still use your old models, and tells you exactly how to use your old models, despite the one sentence about them expecting you to usie the newer datasheet when applicable. Using THAT sentence to essentially deny their entire previous answer is taking that out of context. Go back and read your own first post. Tell us where in the paragraph about older models it states that it does not apply to matched play or to games using "official rules"; this time not just by making an assumption and wildly extrapolating so that you can just write off the entire answer to the section that apparently you don't liike.

Yes, many units’ rules in their codexes will alter from those in the indexes. Sometimes this is to better represent the miniatures and the background, sometimes to balance the game, and sometimes to better fit with the army’s new special rules in the codex itself. In all cases, these will then supersede the rules for that datasheet in the index book.

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.

Can I choose to use the rules and/or points for units from my index instead of the new ones in the codex once released?

In your own games, if you and your opponent agree, you can, of course, play with whatever rules you like.

In all future publications and official events though, it will be assumed that you’re using the most recent rules and Datasheets. It will also be assumed that you’re using the most up to date points for matched play, in this case, those included in the codex.

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.

 Lance845 wrote:

If you need your opponents permission it's not Matched. It's Open. Since that is the only criteria for Open. Since the new datasheet replaces the old IN ALL CASES, those options no longer exist. So for you to go back to the index and use the old options it has to be with your opponents permission. I.E. Open.

 doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

If you need your opponents permission it's not Matched. It's Open. Since that is the only criteria for Open. Since the new datasheet replaces the old IN ALL CASES, those options no longer exist. So for you to go back to the index and use the old options it has to be with your opponents permission. I.E. Open.

You don't need points for Open Play. Points can get used in Matched play. They mention how to handle points with the older models and the index; therefore, they are also talking about Matched Play.


EDIT: You also need opponent's permission if you want to use any Forge World models, since they aren't put out by GW proper. Are you going to insist that they also can only be used in Open Play, and not in Matched Play?

EDIT 2: Are you saying that you can never have a Matched Play game or a game with "official rules" if you have to ask your opponent's permission for something? That seems to be what you're saying. That's very sad if that's what you believe.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The OP knows the rationale for both sides of the argument, so what is this thread adding to the forum but a repetition of the bickering in other threads?

Ruin wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The OP knows the rationale for both sides of the argument, so what is this thread adding to the forum but a repetition of the bickering in other threads?

What are you adding to this thread?

This is the second such post you've made here which adds nothing. This is quite a key issue for many veteran players. Stop trying to sweep it under the rug like you're some kind of all-knowing being that OBVIOUSLY knows the answer and is unwilling to reveal it to us plebeians.

 TheWaspinator wrote:
The actual text doesn't put any "with your opponent's permision" qualifier on the ability to use those dreadnought weapons. It's a massive leap of logic to add that.

 TheWaspinator wrote:
It really doesn't say that. They're saying that you have to agree with your opponent to use an older version of something that has a newer version. That doesn't negate the specific exception given for things like dreadnought weapons.

Under your interpretation, the first question/answer is essentially pointless.

 TheWaspinator wrote:
You're making this absurdly more complicated than it is: they say you can use the index for options that don't exist in the codex. End of story.

 Lance845 wrote:

 TheWaspinator wrote:
You're making this absurdly more complicated than it is: they say you can use the index for options that don't exist in the codex. End of story.

You think it's LESS complicated to use options from one datasheet, using point values from a different book, to represent a model on a different datasheet as opposed to "The newest datasheet replaces the old one in all cases. Use the newest datasheet."?

THAT is absurd.

vipoid wrote:@Lance845 you seem to be taking the answer to one specific question (whether you can use points and rules from indices willy-nilly) and applying it across the board.

Gitdakka wrote:Lance845 what are you trying to achieve? As you can read in this thread it is possible to interperate the FAQ it in both ways. What you are saying is that some models that were in the index has to be invalidated (I think GW FAQ states that should not be the case), but why would this be beneficial for anyone? would it ruin the game for you if people could bring autocannon dreads that they have spent hours building and painting. It's not like any of these loadouts are broken.

You bring up examples of soda can marines for 1ppm but that is not really what we are discussing here is it? The rules options are not made up by players, they are clearly in the index with reasonable costs. And if a datasheet has loadout options with new points costs (like power fists for veteran bikers) the new adjusted points cost for the weapon has to be used as stated in FAQ.

doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 TheWaspinator wrote:
You're making this absurdly more complicated than it is: they say you can use the index for options that don't exist in the codex. End of story.

You think it's LESS complicated to use options from one datasheet, using point values from a different book, to represent a model on a different datasheet as opposed to "The newest datasheet replaces the old one in all cases. Use the newest datasheet."?

THAT is absurd.

Absurd or not, that is what you arre given permission to do, whether you like it or not (and apparently you don't).

As you quoted in your first post:

"Can I choose to use the rules and/or points for units from my index instead of the new ones in the codex once released?

In your own games, if you and your opponent agree, you can, of course, play with whatever rules you like.

In all future publications and official events though, it will be assumed that you’re using the most recent rules and Datasheets. It will also be assumed that you’re using the most up to date points for matched play, in this case, those included in the codex."

So, they have told you to use the points from the Codex for matched play. The same matched play that you were insisting (multiple times) that you can't use the older models in.

As for "in all future publications and official events", I would expect the publications to use the codex (though don't be surprised to see the Looted Wagon show up in White Dwarf the way it did for 7th...though I wouldn't mind if they returned to the older looted vehicle rules from 3rd), but as for "official events" everything will be up to the organizers of the specific events as to whether they allow older models like the autocannon dread. You take "assumption" as a blanket denial when in actuality it's up to the tournament organizers the way it always has been. They get to decide if you can use the older models using an index entry, just as they get to decide whether you get to use Forgeworld models and datasheets.

 Lance845 wrote:

doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 TheWaspinator wrote:
You're making this absurdly more complicated than it is: they say you can use the index for options that don't exist in the codex. End of story.

You think it's LESS complicated to use options from one datasheet, using point values from a different book, to represent a model on a different datasheet as opposed to "The newest datasheet replaces the old one in all cases. Use the newest datasheet."?

THAT is absurd.

Absurd or not, that is what you arre given permission to do, whether you like it or not (and apparently you don't).

As you quoted in your first post:

"Can I choose to use the rules and/or points for units from my index instead of the new ones in the codex once released?

In your own games, if you and your opponent agree, you can, of course, play with whatever rules you like.

In all future publications and official events though, it will be assumed that you’re using the most recent rules and Datasheets. It will also be assumed that you’re using the most up to date points for matched play, in this case, those included in the codex."

Did you just choose to ignore "that you’re using the most recent rules and Datasheets."? The datasheet is what gives you your wargear options. If the datasheet doesn't tell you you can bring a X then you don't have the option to equip it with X.

 Lance845 wrote:

So, they have told you to use the points from the Codex for matched play. The same matched play that you were insisting (multiple times) that you can't use the older models in.

As for "in all future publications and official events", I would expect the publications to use the codex (though don't be surprised to see the Looted Wagon show up in White Dwarf the way it did for 7th...though I wouldn't mind if they returned to the older looted vehicle rules from 3rd), but as for "official events" everything will be up to the organizers of the specific events as to whether they allow older models like the autocannon dread. You take "assumption" as a blanket denial when in actuality it's up to the tournament organizers the way it always has been. They get to decide if you can use the older models using an index entry, just as they get to decide whether you get to use Forgeworld models and datasheets.

I too hope looted wagons return. Actually I hope this test bed build-a-Landraider they are doing is the first step to some really awesome looted rules.

I don't take assumption on it's own. Taking the document as a whole, I combine it with

1) In all cases, these will then supersede the rules for that datasheet in the index book.
2) The datasheets in the new codexes overwrite the same datasheets in the index books.
3) In all future publications and official events though, it will be assumed that you’re using the most recent rules and Datasheets.

To see that as far as the rules are concerned, once that codex datasheet releases the index datasheet no longer exists as a rules entity. But, we have this section in our rulebook called open. Where the only rule is to agree to the terms of the match. So we cannot actually just tell you not to use any of the things we have published so, with permission, go do what you want.

 Lance845 wrote:

vipoid wrote:@Lance845 you seem to be taking the answer to one specific question (whether you can use points and rules from indices willy-nilly) and applying it across the board.

I don't know what you mean. I thought I was taking into account the answers to all the questions.

"Can I choose to use the rules and/or points for units from my index instead of the new ones in the codex once released?

In your own games, if you and your opponent agree, you can, of course, play with whatever rules you like.

In all future publications and official events though, it will be assumed that you’re using the most recent rules and Datasheets. It will also be assumed that you’re using the most up to date points for matched play, in this case, those included in the codex."

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
One question- how old is too old for weapon/model options?
I have the rules for making Noise Marine Terminators from 3.5 ed. and I made some models based on those rules. Are you saying that I can use them in a current 8th ed event? How about I use point costs for things no longer even in the latest edition's rules? Would you allow me to use squats based upon RTpoint costs?

It seems obvious to me that GW is saying that if there is a new(er) version of a model then that is the way it should be used. If the model or option you want is not available then it is not meant to be played in this edition. They also didn't want to be accused of "squatting" a model or option that is no longer available. So they said if you have it and can find someone who will let you use it then fine, feel free to do so.

Based on your interpretation of GW's statement then the TO would have to allow squats in at RT point costs in an 8th ed event. since that is the last time points were given for them. I think that it is understood by the general community that, unless an event says otherwise, all models and their associated point costs must come from the most recent edition of their rule set (be it book or data sheet or some other medium) within the current general rule set of the game itself. So, 8th ed Rule book = most recent book published under the 8th edition rules. If a model or option is note permitted under the latest publication of that model then it is not legal for an event under those current rules.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Where and when did GW say that?

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

I don't see a limitation on how out of date the model has to be in order to use the point cost from the index.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
From the OP:
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).

I don't see a limitation on how out of date the model is in order to use the point cost from the index.

Anyway my point is that it is pretty clear that only the newest publication covering that model is to be allowed in event play. So, you can not go back to the index and pluck out an option for say, a dreadnaught that is not an option for that dreadnaught in the most recent codex.

 doctortom wrote:
It's up to the organizers of the events to decide what they allow, just like it always has been. They can allow autocannon dreads from the index if they like, just like it's up to them to decide if they want to allow Forgeworld things like Grot Tanks or Death Korps of Krieg.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:That's my point. Even if it is in the index once a codex comes out that covers that base model then the datasheet doesn't matter for purposes of events running under 8th ed rules.

Even if, the 8th ed index data sheet said that a dreadnaught could have both arms be twin lascannons once a codex came out for your army that did not give that option you can't go back to the index and claim that you have a legal model. The codex datasheet overrides the index datasheet.

The quote that I used doesn't mean that you can use any model you have in an official event. It merely says that you can use it if you can find someone who will let you use it in casual play.

Charistoph wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
It's up to the organizers of the events to decide what they allow, just like it always has been. They can allow autocannon dreads from the index if they like, just like it's up to them to decide if they want to allow Forgeworld things like Grot Tanks or Death Korps of Krieg.

Exactly. And to add to that point, every friendly game has two organizers: the two people who are playing a game against each other.

 TheWaspinator wrote:
If you people want to ban those index-only weapons, that's your house rule. They specifically say that you can use those weapons in that post. The simplest interpretation is that they meant what they wrote without pulling in assumptions from other questions.

 Lance845 wrote:

 TheWaspinator wrote:
If you people want to ban those index-only weapons, that's your house rule. They specifically say that you can use those weapons in that post. The simplest interpretation is that they meant what they wrote without pulling in assumptions from other questions.

Ok. So following this logic. The simplest solition being they mean what they say. What do you think they meant by "In all cases, these will then supersede the rules for that datasheet in the index book."?

 doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 TheWaspinator wrote:
If you people want to ban those index-only weapons, that's your house rule. They specifically say that you can use those weapons in that post. The simplest interpretation is that they meant what they wrote without pulling in assumptions from other questions.

Ok. So following this logic. The simplest solition being they mean what they say. What do you think they meant by "In all cases, these will then supersede the rules for that datasheet in the index book."?

It means that you're not thinking about it right when you're using it to say that when they stated "Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index). They still gain all the army wide-bonuses for things like Chapter Tactics and can use Space Marines Stratagems and the like, so such venerable heroes still fit right in with the rest of your army." to actually mean "no you can't use those models since there's a new codex datasheet which won't let you". This despite them saying in relation to an updated codex " It will also be assumed that you’re using the most up to date points for matched play, in this case, those included in the codex.". You don't get to try to bludgeon everybody into accepting that you can't play models with old configurations when they clearly tell you that you can, and provide the method for you to be able to.

Publications in use: All current and in-print Warhammer
40,000 Index books and Codexes from Games Workshop
and Forge World, unless their release falls on the weekend of
the event. We expect you to use the most current datasheets
for your models – e.g. those found in a Codex rather than
an Index if a Codex is available for your army. This means
that you may use Faction-appropriate Index datasheets that
might not appear in your Codex (such as Chaplain on Bike).

 AndrewC wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 TheWaspinator wrote:
If you people want to ban those index-only weapons, that's your house rule. They specifically say that you can use those weapons in that post. The simplest interpretation is that they meant what they wrote without pulling in assumptions from other questions.

Ok. So following this logic. The simplest solition being they mean what they say. What do you think they meant by "In all cases, these will then supersede the rules for that datasheet in the index book."?

It means that you're not thinking about it right when you're using it to say that when they stated "Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index). They still gain all the army wide-bonuses for things like Chapter Tactics and can use Space Marines Stratagems and the like, so such venerable heroes still fit right in with the rest of your army." to actually mean "no you can't use those models since there's a new codex datasheet which won't let you". This despite them saying in relation to an updated codex " It will also be assumed that you’re using the most up to date points for matched play, in this case, those included in the codex.". You don't get to try to bludgeon everybody into accepting that you can't play models with old configurations when they clearly tell you that you can, and provide the method for you to be able to.

The problem with that is that you don't get to bludgeon everybody into accepting that you can use old out of date configurations when they tell you to use the most up to date publication. That argument cuts both ways.

Most games are a social contract, You both agree to specific rules and constraints when agreeing to play. Now in those negotiated conversations issues like rifle dreads and bike librarians can be easily covered. However in a tournament environment those negotiations don't exist and you need an accepted system in which armies are built. According to GW those are the most recent publications ie the codex and as such it would appear that legacy models wont be accepted. As I asked earlier has there been any rules packs issued under 8th from GW with army construction guides?

Cheers

Andrew


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just had a look at the latest publication from GW on their Grand Tourneys (which is what I should have done earlier)

Publications in use: All current and in-print Warhammer
40,000 Index books and Codexes from Games Workshop
and Forge World, unless their release falls on the weekend of
the event. We expect you to use the most current datasheets
for your models – e.g. those found in a Codex rather than
an Index if a Codex is available for your army. This means
that you may use Faction-appropriate Index datasheets that
might not appear in your Codex (such as Chaplain on Bike).

From reading thay legacy models can be used only if there is no datasheet in the Codex. So Rifle Dreads are not permitted under GWs own tourney system.

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:

Just had a look at the latest publication from GW on their Grand Tourneys (which is what I should have done earlier)

Publications in use: All current and in-print Warhammer
40,000 Index books and Codexes from Games Workshop
and Forge World, unless their release falls on the weekend of
the event. We expect you to use the most current datasheets
for your models – e.g. those found in a Codex rather than
an Index if a Codex is available for your army. This means
that you may use Faction-appropriate Index datasheets that
might not appear in your Codex (such as Chaplain on Bike).

From reading thay legacy models can be used only if there is no datasheet in the Codex. So Rifle Dreads are not permitted under GWs own tourney system.

Cheers

Andrew

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Outside of "I don't want my opponent to have fun", I'm curious as to people's motivation for trying to control what legacy models their opponent may use. There are rules. What's the issue?

 vipoid wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Outside of "I don't want my opponent to have fun", I'm curious as to people's motivation for trying to control what legacy models their opponent may use. There are rules. What's the issue?

Yeah, I'm puzzled by this as well.

I'm also puzzled about how this would be different from refusing to play against any other model, if you see what I mean.

 AndrewC wrote:
I can only speak for myself, but if I get a pick up game against someone I don't know I have a chance to anticipate what the ground rules are before hand. Much like last editions furore over the inclusion of FW models. No-one is going to be surprised by an oddball figure and rules.

As I said earlier, every game is a social contract everything in it is a negotiation as to what is acceptable. If you know beforehand that legacy models are prohibited then both sides are starting from the same position rather than adversarial positions.

There is, in all probability, no harm in using legacy models, just don't expect that as a default 'I get to use them regardless'

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
There is, in all probability, no harm in using legacy models, just don't expect that as a default 'I get to use them regardless'

 vipoid wrote:

I think what puzzles me is that some people seem to think that - in spite of GW explicitly making them legal - you should assume that they're illegal by default.

Not only that but there seems to be no real basis for this. For example, I can understand people not wanting to play against armies with, say, 3 Baneblades or whatever (either because they consider them overpowered or because they consider them boring).

However, it seems really strange to refuse to play against someone because his dreadnought is armed with 2 Autocannons or whatever.

And, yes, I'm well aware that you're within your rights to refuse any game for any reason. But, given that this applies just as much to games against lists you perceive to be fully legal, I don't see why this should be a factor.

*Shrugs.*

It just seems like a strange attitude to me.

 AndrewC wrote:
I can only speak for myself, but if I get a pick up game against someone I don't know I have a chance to anticipate what the ground rules are before hand. Much like last editions furore over the inclusion of FW models. No-one is going to be surprised by an oddball figure and rules.

As I said earlier, every game is a social contract everything in it is a negotiation as to what is acceptable. If you know beforehand that legacy models are prohibited then both sides are starting from the same position rather than adversarial positions.

There is, in all probability, no harm in using legacy models, just don't expect that as a default 'I get to use them regardless'

Cheers

Andrew

 doctortom wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
I can only speak for myself, but if I get a pick up game against someone I don't know I have a chance to anticipate what the ground rules are before hand. Much like last editions furore over the inclusion of FW models. No-one is going to be surprised by an oddball figure and rules.

As I said earlier, every game is a social contract everything in it is a negotiation as to what is acceptable. If you know beforehand that legacy models are prohibited then both sides are starting from the same position rather than adversarial positions.

There is, in all probability, no harm in using legacy models, just don't expect that as a default 'I get to use them regardless'

Cheers

Andrew

They do say if your opponent agrees with it, so you do get to have the negotiation. I'd expect people to make sure it's okay to bring a Forgeworld model too beforehand if someone wanted to do that. Not everyone is going to have had the oppotunity to know the Forgeworld rules since their stuff is more limited in distribution, and in both cases there could be a a lack of familiarity with the model in question that could make someone hesitant about it. Taking the time to discuss the model (showing him what it does, the points and such) will usually get the opponent to say "ok, cool".

I was just objecting to people stating outright that you can never have them in any official event (as that is up to the event organizer), and claiming that you can never use the models in matched play. That last one was a lie, given that they told you how to calculate the points for a legacy model in matched play.. Saying "make sure your opponent is okay with it" is just really part of the social contract. You don't get to go in with a "I get to use them regardless" attitude, buty someone who's going to take a blanket "I'm not going to let you play legacy models (or Forgeworld) no matter how reasonable the models are" is probably going to be a dick on other things as well and might not be someone you'd want to play with.

 Lance845 wrote:

It's more like...

What if I bought the 6th ed Nid codex to a 7th game. But, I told you I would rather use the 5th ed codex Tervigon datasheet. Further, that it would be ridiculous for you to argue with me about it. "Absurd" I think was the word used before. Il pay 6th ed codex points for it's options where applicable. But the game systems are so similar that the one will translate strait over. The new publication replaces the old publication and if your using the new publication then you shouldn't be cherry picking options from the old publication. What if I wanted to use older Necron codex Overlords because so many more wargear options!

I don't understand why it's an unreasonable expectation that a player uses the most up to date rules as a baseline.

 Lance845 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
I can only speak for myself, but if I get a pick up game against someone I don't know I have a chance to anticipate what the ground rules are before hand. Much like last editions furore over the inclusion of FW models. No-one is going to be surprised by an oddball figure and rules.

As I said earlier, every game is a social contract everything in it is a negotiation as to what is acceptable. If you know beforehand that legacy models are prohibited then both sides are starting from the same position rather than adversarial positions.

There is, in all probability, no harm in using legacy models, just don't expect that as a default 'I get to use them regardless'

Cheers

Andrew

They do say if your opponent agrees with it, so you do get to have the negotiation. I'd expect people to make sure it's okay to bring a Forgeworld model too beforehand if someone wanted to do that. Not everyone is going to have had the oppotunity to know the Forgeworld rules since their stuff is more limited in distribution, and in both cases there could be a a lack of familiarity with the model in question that could make someone hesitant about it. Taking the time to discuss the model (showing him what it does, the points and such) will usually get the opponent to say "ok, cool".

I was just objecting to people stating outright that you can never have them in any official event (as that is up to the event organizer), and claiming that you can never use the models in matched play. That last one was a lie, given that they told you how to calculate the points for a legacy model in matched play.. Saying "make sure your opponent is okay with it" is just really part of the social contract. You don't get to go in with a "I get to use them regardless" attitude, buty someone who's going to take a blanket "I'm not going to let you play legacy models (or Forgeworld) no matter how reasonable the models are" is probably going to be a dick on other things as well and might not be someone you'd want to play with.

It's more like...

What if I bought the 6th ed Nid codex to a 7th game. But, I told you I would rather use the 5th ed codex Tervigon datasheet. Further, that it would be ridiculous for you to argue with me about it. "Absurd" I think was the word used before. Il pay 6th ed codex points for it's options where applicable. But the game systems are so similar that the one will translate strait over. The new publication replaces the old publication and if your using the new publication then you shouldn't be cherry picking options from the old publication. What if I wanted to use older Necron codex Overlords because so many more wargear options!

 Lance845 wrote:
I don't understand why it's an unreasonable expectation that a player uses the most up to date rules as a baseline.

 vipoid wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

It's more like...

What if I bought the 6th ed Nid codex to a 7th game. But, I told you I would rather use the 5th ed codex Tervigon datasheet. Further, that it would be ridiculous for you to argue with me about it. "Absurd" I think was the word used before. Il pay 6th ed codex points for it's options where applicable. But the game systems are so similar that the one will translate strait over. The new publication replaces the old publication and if your using the new publication then you shouldn't be cherry picking options from the old publication. What if I wanted to use older Necron codex Overlords because so many more wargear options!

I don't understand why it's an unreasonable expectation that a player uses the most up to date rules as a baseline.

I don't understand this line of reasoning. No one is talking about using rules from older editions. Nor has anyone argued that you should be able to.

What people are saying is that the Indexes (i.e. 8th edition rules) contain some rules that do not appear in the corresponding 8th edition codices (also 8th edition rules).

Yes, you are expected to use the most up to date rules when playing (in this case the codex), except when you have an older model that appears in the index but not in the codex. In this case, you have explicit permission from GW to use the Index rules for that model.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
What is the purpose of GW not putting models in the codex if they were in the index? There has to be some reason for it, especially if you can just go back to the index and just put it in the codex army anyway.

 Lance845 wrote:

We all know the indexes are nothing more then a way to get people to be able to start playing 8th.

 Lance845 wrote:
They were a way to convert 7th/6th ed rules to 8th ed until 8ths codexes showed up because 8th was fundamentally different from 7th/6th/5th.

 Lance845 wrote:
The fact that GW is even telling you you can use models that don't have a new datasheet in the codex is miraculous. (And also pretty awesome). But it's also unprecedented. These kinds of allowances have never been the case before.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
What is the purpose of GW not putting models in the codex if they were in the index? There has to be some reason for it, especially if you can just go back to the index and just put it in the codex army anyway.

Are the rules changing?

Yes, many units’ rules in their codexes will alter from those in the indexes. Sometimes this is to better represent the miniatures and the background, sometimes to balance the game, and sometimes to better fit with the army’s new special rules in the codex itself. In all cases, these will then supersede the rules for that datasheet in the index book.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Forge World Indexes do not state they need any opponent's permission to use the units within. That's not a relevant comparison. May have been that way in the past, but not so this edition. These units can be used, plain and simple.

Similarly no-one is talking about using a previous edition's rules. That isn't what anyone was saying. Using 8th unit rules in 8th is not comparable to the 6th in 7th example posted.

Using these two things to prop up an argument doesn't work, as neither are what is being posited.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
What about the rifleman dread for grey knights? The auto cannon rules are there in the index for dreadnaughts and the grey knight index says to use the SM dreadnaught rules (also index) but the Grey Knight Codex does not give me the option to take auto cannons on either arm of my dreadnaught. If I were to put a rifleman dread on the table as part of a grey knight detachment would this be tourney legal (again ignoring TO perogative)?

 JohnnyHell wrote:
That's a hypothetical example, not a real one. And it still doesn't address the Autocannon Dread, a legacy Index option. It's not relevant to the discussion.

 Lance845 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
That's a hypothetical example, not a real one. And it still doesn't address the Autocannon Dread, a legacy Index option. It's not relevant to the discussion.

Absolutely it is. It's a datasheet from the same edition that has been replaced with a new datasheet in the codex. It's a Zoanthrope, in the same way that a Autocannon Dread is not a datasheet. A Dread is. Autocannons are just an option. If you wouldn't be comfortable with accepting the older supplement zoanthrope sheet instead of the codex one then why would people be comfortable accepting the index over the codex?

The issue is all the examples are hypothetical because GW has never double dipped in an edition before. Nobody would have accepted it as the baseline rules before there is no reason why it should be accepted now.

And in case people think I have a problem with the dread itself, I don't. I have a problem with the precedent this sets.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
What about the rifleman dread for grey knights? The auto cannon rules are there in the index for dreadnaughts and the grey knight index says to use the SM dreadnaught rules (also index) but the Grey Knight Codex does not give me the option to take auto cannons on either arm of my dreadnaught. If I were to put a rifleman dread on the table as part of a grey knight detachment would this be tourney legal (again ignoring TO perogative)?

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
What about the rifleman dread for grey knights? The auto cannon rules are there in the index for dreadnaughts and the grey knight index says to use the SM dreadnaught rules (also index) but the Grey Knight Codex does not give me the option to take auto cannons on either arm of my dreadnaught. If I were to put a rifleman dread on the table as part of a grey knight detachment would this be tourney legal (again ignoring TO perogative)?

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
What about the rifleman dread for grey knights? The auto cannon rules are there in the index for dreadnaughts and the grey knight index says to use the SM dreadnaught rules (also index) but the Grey Knight Codex does not give me the option to take auto cannons on either arm of my dreadnaught. If I were to put a rifleman dread on the table as part of a grey knight detachment would this be tourney legal (again ignoring TO perogative)?

For tourneys depends on organiser, of course. In my view there should be no reason why they wouldn't allow it, but some think like BCB and Lance and believe the Codex deletes all legacy variants from existence, despite GW's specifically mentioning older Dreadnought weapon options in their article.

 Lance845 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
What about the rifleman dread for grey knights? The auto cannon rules are there in the index for dreadnaughts and the grey knight index says to use the SM dreadnaught rules (also index) but the Grey Knight Codex does not give me the option to take auto cannons on either arm of my dreadnaught. If I were to put a rifleman dread on the table as part of a grey knight detachment would this be tourney legal (again ignoring TO perogative)?

For tourneys depends on organiser, of course. In my view there should be no reason why they wouldn't allow it, but some think like BCB and Lance and believe the Codex deletes all legacy variants from existence, despite GW's specifically mentioning older Dreadnought weapon options in their article.

But also supporting our interpretation in their own Tourney Guidelines.

 Lance845 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
What about the rifleman dread for grey knights? The auto cannon rules are there in the index for dreadnaughts and the grey knight index says to use the SM dreadnaught rules (also index) but the Grey Knight Codex does not give me the option to take auto cannons on either arm of my dreadnaught. If I were to put a rifleman dread on the table as part of a grey knight detachment would this be tourney legal (again ignoring TO perogative)?

For tourneys depends on organiser, of course. In my view there should be no reason why they wouldn't allow it, but some think like BCB and Lance and believe the Codex deletes all legacy variants from existence, despite GW's specifically mentioning older Dreadnought weapon options in their article.

But also supporting our interpretation in their own Tourney Guidelines.

 doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
What about the rifleman dread for grey knights? The auto cannon rules are there in the index for dreadnaughts and the grey knight index says to use the SM dreadnaught rules (also index) but the Grey Knight Codex does not give me the option to take auto cannons on either arm of my dreadnaught. If I were to put a rifleman dread on the table as part of a grey knight detachment would this be tourney legal (again ignoring TO perogative)?

For tourneys depends on organiser, of course. In my view there should be no reason why they wouldn't allow it, but some think like BCB and Lance and believe the Codex deletes all legacy variants from existence, despite GW's specifically mentioning older Dreadnought weapon options in their article.

But also supporting our interpretation in their own Tourney Guidelines.

Your "interpretation" is that you can't use older models in any form of matched play (and often borders on saying "at any time" , so your "interpretation" was already invalidated in the document you like quoting from.

 Lance845 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Your "interpretation" is that you can't use older models in any form of matched play (and often borders on saying "at any time" , so your "interpretation" was already invalidated in the document you like quoting from.

My interpretation is that gw expects players to use the latest publications as that is how they intend to continue to try to rebalance and update the game. If that means the new datasheet removes options then those options are gone for a reason (arbitrary or not). Refusing to use the latest datasheets undermines any effort gw makes towards that end and sets a precedent of confusion for every game where one player plays against someone they have never played with before, never being sure wjat rules are being used for the models. Which would be even worse for any new player coming in.

Basically its crap sportsmanship at the very least.

 doctortom wrote:
There isn't that much confusion with being able to tell someone "I have this model that isn't covered by the new codex, but is still covered by the index. It has these differences (you list the differences), and according to how GW told us to price it, the cost of the model is x. Are you okay with me using it?" isn't a great confusion. You show them the index entry, the points and talk about the differences. If they're truly a new player, you can use discretion and not drop that on them if they're still learning stuff. I'm sure those people will be just as confused when you bring in Forgeworld datasheets, and God forbid you try to run a Death Korps of Krieg or Elysian list. Just telling somebody no, you can't play it because you don't like that GW gave a way for people to play older models, ones that aren't game breaking, is a different matter.

 doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Your "interpretation" is that you can't use older models in any form of matched play (and often borders on saying "at any time" , so your "interpretation" was already invalidated in the document you like quoting from.

My interpretation is that gw expects players to use the latest publications as that is how they intend to continue to try to rebalance and update the game. If that means the new datasheet removes options then those options are gone for a reason (arbitrary or not). Refusing to use the latest datasheets undermines any effort gw makes towards that end and sets a precedent of confusion for every game where one player plays against someone they have never played with before, never being sure wjat rules are being used for the models. Which would be even worse for any new player coming in.

Basically its crap sportsmanship at the very least.

Yes, the interpretation that totally denies their section which includes "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)." I would dare say the crap sportsmanship (al least lies with that attitude much more than it does with GW working out an accomodation for people who still want to use old models that aren't covered by a new codex but are covered by the index (so no, it doesn't get you Vect, or Squats, but does get the autocannon dread and some other various and sundry things).

There isn't that much confusion with being able to tell someone "I have this model that isn't covered by the new codex, but is still covered by the index. It has these differences (you list the differences), and according to how GW told us to price it, the cost of the model is x. Are you okay with me using it?" isn't a great confusion. You show them the index entry, the points and talk about the differences. If they're truly a new player, you can use discretion and not drop that on them if they're still learning stuff. I'm sure those people will be just as confused when you bring in Forgeworld datasheets, and God forbid you try to run a Death Korps of Krieg or Elysian list. Just telling somebody no, you can't play it because you don't like that GW gave a way for people to play older models, ones that aren't game breaking, is a different matter, That' is showing crap sportsmanship there, at the very least.

 AndrewC wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
There isn't that much confusion with being able to tell someone "I have this model that isn't covered by the new codex, but is still covered by the index. It has these differences (you list the differences), and according to how GW told us to price it, the cost of the model is x. Are you okay with me using it?" isn't a great confusion. You show them the index entry, the points and talk about the differences. If they're truly a new player, you can use discretion and not drop that on them if they're still learning stuff. I'm sure those people will be just as confused when you bring in Forgeworld datasheets, and God forbid you try to run a Death Korps of Krieg or Elysian list. Just telling somebody no, you can't play it because you don't like that GW gave a way for people to play older models, ones that aren't game breaking, is a different matter.

To me this sums up how it should be. However there appears to be three camps here in this discussion.

Camp 1 says that the rules allow them to use legacy models and any problems are yours

Camp 2 says that the rules as provided only cover those models specifically mentioned in the codex and where there is no codex then you get to use the index, so any problems are yours take them up with GW.

Camp 3 says that everything is good as long as you discuss it with your opponent. Which is where I sit.

However GW in its own wisdom has decided that for their tourneys they do not want to have X number of players having discussions as to what models are permitted, and has ruled that legacy models are not permitted in their events. I think that Camp 1 should have a careful think about that as it indicates exactly where GW is going with this, because lets face it GW wants to sell kits to replace older figures, poses and characters. And nothing is better at selling kits that to invalidate every ones collections. Now I haven't the time to review army lists, and I'm not exactly sure that GW printed them, but were there any legacy models in the recent results?

Camp 2 also need to think about their position, especially if their armies haven't received a codex yet. "What goes around, comes around" Being obstinate about it isn't going to win you any friends or garner any more games.

Throwing accusations at each other is not going to resolve anything and will only entrench opposing positions.

Cheers

Andrew

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Indeed. Poor sportsmanship would be not letting an opponent field a model there are valid rules for, just because GW repackaged a kit or FW stopped selling an arm. Try and take out your opponent's models during the game, not before it. It's not even like the oft-mentioned Quad Autocannon Dread is game-breaking... you could legitimately field a Deredeo with no permission required, and that's a crazy old pile o' guns.

 AndrewC wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Indeed. Poor sportsmanship would be not letting an opponent field a model there are valid rules for, just because GW repackaged a kit or FW stopped selling an arm. Try and take out your opponent's models during the game, not before it. It's not even like the oft-mentioned Quad Autocannon Dread is game-breaking... you could legitimately field a Deredeo with no permission required, and that's a crazy old pile o' guns.

And good sportsmanship is discussing with your opponent before hand that you have a legacy model that you wish to use as opposed to simply placing it down and assuming that you can use it.

Whether or not a model is game-breaking, mediocre or just plain crap isn't the issue. Its the attitude behind the use of a figure when neither side is discussing what sort of game they want.

Cheers

Andrew

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Your "interpretation" is that you can't use older models in any form of matched play (and often borders on saying "at any time" , so your "interpretation" was already invalidated in the document you like quoting from.

My interpretation is that gw expects players to use the latest publications as that is how they intend to continue to try to rebalance and update the game. If that means the new datasheet removes options then those options are gone for a reason (arbitrary or not). Refusing to use the latest datasheets undermines any effort gw makes towards that end and sets a precedent of confusion for every game where one player plays against someone they have never played with before, never being sure wjat rules are being used for the models. Which would be even worse for any new player coming in.

Basically its crap sportsmanship at the very least.

Yes, the interpretation that totally denies their section which includes "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)." I would dare say the crap sportsmanship (al least lies with that attitude much more than it does with GW working out an accomodation for people who still want to use old models that aren't covered by a new codex but are covered by the index (so no, it doesn't get you Vect, or Squats, but does get the autocannon dread and some other various and sundry things).

There isn't that much confusion with being able to tell someone "I have this model that isn't covered by the new codex, but is still covered by the index. It has these differences (you list the differences), and according to how GW told us to price it, the cost of the model is x. Are you okay with me using it?" isn't a great confusion. You show them the index entry, the points and talk about the differences. If they're truly a new player, you can use discretion and not drop that on them if they're still learning stuff. I'm sure those people will be just as confused when you bring in Forgeworld datasheets, and God forbid you try to run a Death Korps of Krieg or Elysian list. Just telling somebody no, you can't play it because you don't like that GW gave a way for people to play older models, ones that aren't game breaking, is a different matter, That' is showing crap sportsmanship there, at the very least.

Indeed. Poor sportsmanship would be not letting an opponent field a model there are valid rules for, just because GW repackaged a kit or FW stopped selling an arm. Try and take out your opponent's models during the game, not before it. It's not even like the oft-mentioned Quad Autocannon Dread is game-breaking... you could legitimately field a Deredeo with no permission required, and that's a crazy old pile o' guns.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Who's talking about "Index Datasheet options using Codex rules"?

Who's talking about inventing rules? Or using models with no rules?

We're discussing using legacy options, with rules and points from an Index. Some get to benefit from e.g. Chapter Tactics or Tegiment bonuses *as GW has told us is appropriate*.

So what's your argument again? Because none of those points you're countering were being discussed or posited.

and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons

 Lance845 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Who's talking about "Index Datasheet options using Codex rules"?

Who's talking about inventing rules? Or using models with no rules?

We're discussing using legacy options, with rules and points from an Index. Some get to benefit from e.g. Chapter Tactics or Tegiment bonuses *as GW has told us is appropriate*.

So what's your argument again? Because none of those points you're countering were being discussed or posited.

Using the options for the dread in the index when the codex dread exists, with codex points (as the question you keep quoting tells you to). Index options with codex rules. You choose to take a dread, you reference the point values of the codex dread and then you grab index weapon options your datasheet (which supersedes the index in all cases) does not allow anymore.

and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons

I brought up examples of things for HIWPI. Several people assume I am here to ruin everyones fun apparently. I am not. I am pointing towards the evidence for the actual allowances in a game which is the only thing that carries any weight in YMDC.

 Lance845 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Your "interpretation" is that you can't use older models in any form of matched play (and often borders on saying "at any time" , so your "interpretation" was already invalidated in the document you like quoting from.

My interpretation is that gw expects players to use the latest publications as that is how they intend to continue to try to rebalance and update the game. If that means the new datasheet removes options then those options are gone for a reason (arbitrary or not). Refusing to use the latest datasheets undermines any effort gw makes towards that end and sets a precedent of confusion for every game where one player plays against someone they have never played with before, never being sure wjat rules are being used for the models. Which would be even worse for any new player coming in.

Basically its crap sportsmanship at the very least.

Yes, the interpretation that totally denies their section which includes "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)." I would dare say the crap sportsmanship (al least lies with that attitude much more than it does with GW working out an accomodation for people who still want to use old models that aren't covered by a new codex but are covered by the index (so no, it doesn't get you Vect, or Squats, but does get the autocannon dread and some other various and sundry things).

There isn't that much confusion with being able to tell someone "I have this model that isn't covered by the new codex, but is still covered by the index. It has these differences (you list the differences), and according to how GW told us to price it, the cost of the model is x. Are you okay with me using it?" isn't a great confusion. You show them the index entry, the points and talk about the differences. If they're truly a new player, you can use discretion and not drop that on them if they're still learning stuff. I'm sure those people will be just as confused when you bring in Forgeworld datasheets, and God forbid you try to run a Death Korps of Krieg or Elysian list. Just telling somebody no, you can't play it because you don't like that GW gave a way for people to play older models, ones that aren't game breaking, is a different matter, That' is showing crap sportsmanship there, at the very least.

Indeed. Poor sportsmanship would be not letting an opponent field a model there are valid rules for, just because GW repackaged a kit or FW stopped selling an arm. Try and take out your opponent's models during the game, not before it. It's not even like the oft-mentioned Quad Autocannon Dread is game-breaking... you could legitimately field a Deredeo with no permission required, and that's a crazy old pile o' guns.

Its not about power. Its not about the dread. Its about the legality of the options. Its not the first time a model has lost options. Its not the first time an entire model has been removed (whole swaths of characters no longer have rules. Where are necron pariahs?). If a buddy of mine made a Doomrider with perfectly balanced rules in our personal games i would enjoy seeing it on the table. But if some random dude showes up to the store with a list comprised of index datasheet options using codex rules he can expect to find very few/no games. Hes not following the rules as laid down by gw.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Who's talking about "Index Datasheet options using Codex rules"?

Who's talking about inventing rules? Or using models with no rules?

We're discussing using legacy options, with rules and points from an Index. Some get to benefit from e.g. Chapter Tactics or Tegiment bonuses *as GW has told us is appropriate*.

So what's your argument again? Because none of those points you're countering were being discussed or posited.

Using the options for the dread in the index when the codex dread exists, with codex points (as the question you keep quoting tells you to). Index options with codex rules. You choose to take a dread, you reference the point values of the codex dread and then you grab index weapon options your datasheet (which supersedes the index in all cases) does not allow anymore.

and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons

I brought up examples of things for HIWPI. Several people assume I am here to ruin everyones fun apparently. I am not. I am pointing towards the evidence for the actual allowances in a game which is the only thing that carries any weight in YMDC.

And ignoring the "Don't worry you can still use your models" that was the point of the article. You can't claim RAW is on your side whilst ignoring some of the rules written.

There is some consensus from other threads that the most current version of an Autocannon Dread is the Index Datasheet (as the Codex one doesn't have the options) and the Index points (as they're not in the Codex. Not the Codex Datasheet and Index options, if that's what's twisting your pickle?

 Lance845 wrote:
Except there is no unit "Autocannon dread". You can pick up your old model that you stuck auto cannons on, remember that WYSIWYG is not a rule, grab the codex datasheet, and pick your options that it says you are allowed to take.

doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Except there is no unit "Autocannon dread". You can pick up your old model that you stuck auto cannons on, remember that WYSIWYG is not a rule, grab the codex datasheet, and pick your options that it says you are allowed to take.

Incorrect. Go back and read what you quoted in the first post of this thread:


"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."

You pick up your old model, use the datasheet from the index and the most recent points published. As per GW's instructions. Saying you don't do this is not following GW's rules.

TheWaspinator wrote:Here is a post from Games Workshop today confirming that yes, the community post we've been talking about means that autocannon dreads are still a valid option.

https://i.imgur.com/e7PFEMX.png

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop are easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.

 Lance845 wrote:

doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Except there is no unit "Autocannon dread". You can pick up your old model that you stuck auto cannons on, remember that WYSIWYG is not a rule, grab the codex datasheet, and pick your options that it says you are allowed to take.

Incorrect. Go back and read what you quoted in the first post of this thread:


"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."

You pick up your old model, use the datasheet from the index and the most recent points published. As per GW's instructions. Saying you don't do this is not following GW's rules.

Lets spell this all out again since apparently it needs to be stated in full every time.

In YOUR GAMES with your opponents agreement, you can use whatever rules you want.

When a new datasheet is released you are expected to use the newest datasheet.

If that datasheet doesn't have the option, then you don't have the option.

You are free to use your model, with the latest datasheet, no problems.

You are free to use your model, with the old datasheet, with agreement from your opponent.

 vipoid wrote:
Lance, why did you even make this thread?

You've clearly already made up your mind and have demonstrated time and again that you have no interest in hearing contrary opinions, nor any evidence that contradictsyour viewpoint.

So what exactly was the point?

Are you determined that you should be able to veto an opponent's models, and just wanted a thread to point them to as your 'proof'?

 Lance845 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

You don’t have to.

What don't you have to do? You don't have to buy Codex: Space Marines. Why? Because...

Other Space Marines factions not covered in the new codex will continue to use all the datasheets, rules and points values in the index until their own codex is released.

So Blood Angels, Space Wolves, etc. don't use Codex Space Marines for datasheets, rules and points values. What about new models like the Redemptor or Intercessors?

Rules for new models not covered in the index (like the upcoming Redemptor Dreadnought) will be available in the box with the model and matched play points for these units will be made available online.

So GW has been explicitly clear. Blood Angels use the index, not Codex: Space Marines.

I stand corrected.

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).

Are the rules changing?

Yes, many units’ rules in their codexes will alter from those in the indexes. Sometimes this is to better represent the miniatures and the background, sometimes to balance the game, and sometimes to better fit with the army’s new special rules in the codex itself. In all cases, these will then supersede the rules for that datasheet in the index book.

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.

In all future publications and official events though, it will be assumed that you’re using the most recent rules and Datasheets. It will also be assumed that you’re using the most up to date points for matched play, in this case, those included in the codex.

In your own games, if you and your opponent agree, you can, of course, play with whatever rules you like.

Publications in use: All current and in-print Warhammer
40,000 Index books and Codexes from Games Workshop
and Forge World, unless their release falls on the weekend of
the event. We expect you to use the most current datasheets
for your models – e.g. those found in a Codex rather than
an Index if a Codex is available for your army. This means
that you may use Faction-appropriate Index datasheets that
might not appear in your Codex (such as Chaplain on Bike).

 doctortom wrote:


Apparently it "needs to be stated in full every time" because initially you stated that you could never use the old model with index rules in any game with "official rules", or in matched play, that you could only use the model in open play. That was disproved. In fact, you've gone out of your way to give the impression even at the top of this page in the thread with your "except there is no unit "auctocannon dread" answer that you can not use the model with index rules.

 TheWaspinator wrote:
We have a specific exception given for using old datasheets with different gear options. We don't have one for different unit sizes. Those are not comparable examples.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Here is something for those who think it is legal to stew over.

If the name of the datasheet doesn't matter, what's to stop me taking the un-nerfed Conscripts from the Index in blobs of 50? If you agree that the "latest datasheet for Dreadnoughts with X weapon options" is the Index and thus legal, what's to stop me also arguing that the "latest datasheet for Conscripts with a unit size of 50" is in the Index and thus legal?

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.

 Lance845 wrote:
Nowhere in that quote does it specify weapons or wargear. It says options. The size of the unit is an option.

 Lance845 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:


Apparently it "needs to be stated in full every time" because initially you stated that you could never use the old model with index rules in any game with "official rules", or in matched play, that you could only use the model in open play. That was disproved. In fact, you've gone out of your way to give the impression even at the top of this page in the thread with your "except there is no unit "auctocannon dread" answer that you can not use the model with index rules.

Il explain this better for you.

The argument that people can use the Index datasheet for "Autocannon dread" in index because there is no datasheet for "autocannon dread" in the codex is a bad argument because "autocannon dread" isn't a datasheet anywhere.

There is a Datasheet called Dreadnought. On the datasheet you have options. In the index it has some options it doesn't have in the codex. And further in the Grey Knight codex it has different options yet again. The codex replaces the Index. The options are not themselves a datahseet. You cannot claim that there is a autocannon dread datasheet in the index because there isn't.

Lance845 wrote:Lets spell this all out again since apparently it needs to be stated in full every time.

In YOUR GAMES with your opponents agreement, you can use whatever rules you want.

When a new datasheet is released you are expected to use the newest datasheet.

If that datasheet doesn't have the option, then you don't have the option.

You are free to use your model, with the latest datasheet, no problems.

You are free to use your model, with the old datasheet, with agreement from your opponent.

Lance845 wrote:The argument that people can use the Index datasheet for "Autocannon dread" in index because there is no datasheet for "autocannon dread" in the codex is a bad argument because "autocannon dread" isn't a datasheet anywhere.

Lance845 wrote:There is a Datasheet called Dreadnought. On the datasheet you have options. In the index it has some options it doesn't have in the codex. And further in the Grey Knight codex it has different options yet again. The codex replaces the Index. The options are not themselves a datahseet. You cannot claim that there is a autocannon dread datasheet in the index because there isn't.

 doctortom wrote:
You get to use the index to make an autocannon dread, use the most recent point costs, and then get to use it in a game where opponents agree to this.

 Lance845 wrote:
No where in that quote does it specify weapons or wargear. It says options. The size of the unit is an option.

 vipoid wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
No where in that quote does it specify weapons or wargear. It says options. The size of the unit is an option.

Actually, if you look at the dataslates, Wargear Options are a separate section from squad size. Nowhere is the latter defined as an 'option' in game terms.

 Lance845 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
You get to use the index to make an autocannon dread, use the most recent point costs, and then get to use it in a game where opponents agree to this.

I agree with this. In a game where opponents agree to this, you are welcome to do it. More power to you. It's just not the baseline rules of the game and you cannot expect opponents to agree.

 Charistoph wrote:

Lance845 wrote:Lets spell this all out again since apparently it needs to be stated in full every time.

In YOUR GAMES with your opponents agreement, you can use whatever rules you want.

When a new datasheet is released you are expected to use the newest datasheet.

If that datasheet doesn't have the option, then you don't have the option.

You are free to use your model, with the latest datasheet, no problems.

You are free to use your model, with the old datasheet, with agreement from your opponent.

So games you play in a tournament aren't yours? Games that someone else organizes, but you play in are not yours? Hardly.

Simply put, EVERY game is up for agreement with your opponent and they can accept or reject ANYTHING you bring to the table, no matter how current it is, even in a tournament. Of course, you must accept the consequences of rejecting what your opponent brings, such as taking an automatic loss in a tournament or being ejected entirely.

Lance845 wrote:The argument that people can use the Index datasheet for "Autocannon dread" in index because there is no datasheet for "autocannon dread" in the codex is a bad argument because "autocannon dread" isn't a datasheet anywhere.

What a piss-poor argument. The phrase "autocannon dread" is talking about a Dreadnought with autocannons to differentiate it from other builds. This is an insane argument that demonstrates a lack of consideration and respect for what is being discussed and is a strawman distraction.

Lance845 wrote:There is a Datasheet called Dreadnought. On the datasheet you have options. In the index it has some options it doesn't have in the codex. And further in the Grey Knight codex it has different options yet again. The codex replaces the Index. The options are not themselves a datahseet. You cannot claim that there is a autocannon dread datasheet in the index because there isn't.

And in those cases where the wargear that a model was previously legally built is no longer represented in the codex datasheet, the index datasheet which DOES represent it can be used.

Or are you going to suggest that such a wargear representation was never legal in the first place?

 Lance845 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
You get to use the index to make an autocannon dread, use the most recent point costs, and then get to use it in a game where opponents agree to this.

I agree with this. In a game where opponents agree to this, you are welcome to do it. More power to you. It's just not the baseline rules of the game and you cannot expect opponents to agree.

 Lance845 wrote:


This is neither piss poor nor a straw man. A build is not a unit. Wargear options are not datasheets. If GW has a rule that says the latest published datahseet replaces the old one they are not specifiying every possible combination of wargear is it's own datasheet. The datasheet has a name. And if 2 datasheets share the same name for an army only the most current one is valid.

 doctortom wrote:
You lie again They established with dreads with weapon options that they used to make but you can't do with the current codex as one example of older models you can still use by using the index and current costs. You ignore what they explicitly said.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
You lie again They established with dreads with weapon options that they used to make but you can't do with the current codex as one example of older models you can still use by using the index and current costs. You ignore what they explicitly said.

And you ignore the instruction that requires you to use the most recent datasheet.

 doctortom wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
You lie again They established with dreads with weapon options that they used to make but you can't do with the current codex as one example of older models you can still use by using the index and current costs. You ignore what they explicitly said.

And you ignore the instruction that requires you to use the most recent datasheet.

The most recent datasheet with the option is the index. They have given us the process for being able to use the old models - dreads with old weapons loadout being specifically given as an example - which uses the index sheet. I am following all of their instructions, not trying to interpret the one statement to hamstring everything else in their answer so that you can't do what they are clearly explaining you can do.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
You guys have been hammering the same points now for a couple of pages. I think that you have each spelled out your points admirably but enough is enough.
I think we're going to have to wait for an official answer from GW as to whether they meant that it is OK to use index options for only normal (casual) games or event games (again ignoring the fact that the TO can do whatever he/she wants) .

As it is it's going to be up to individual TOs to decide what's what.

 doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
You get to use the index to make an autocannon dread, use the most recent point costs, and then get to use it in a game where opponents agree to this.

I agree with this. In a game where opponents agree to this, you are welcome to do it. More power to you. It's just not the baseline rules of the game and you cannot expect opponents to agree.

What do you mean by "baseline rules" here? In their rules they establish that you are allowed to do this and ask permission of your opponent. That applies to ANY game. If it's a tournament, you can ask the organizers beforehand if it's allowed. And, we have the indicationi that GW is allowing this in some of their tournaments - they've okayed Chaplain on a Bike. We don't know if Autocannon Dread will be okay for a tournament, but the facebook post today certainly suggests that it's okay for play. "Baseline rules" for this is, as per GW's rules, index rules with current costs if your opponent agrees to it. Can you expect opponents to agree? No, but you can hope. Given how vehement you have been on this I wouldn't expect or hope that you would give permission. But, these ARE the rules, and claiming they aren't "baseline rules" is you trying to delude yourself and others into thinking it's against the rules. It isn't.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:


This is neither piss poor nor a straw man. A build is not a unit. Wargear options are not datasheets. If GW has a rule that says the latest published datahseet replaces the old one they are not specifiying every possible combination of wargear is it's own datasheet. The datasheet has a name. And if 2 datasheets share the same name for an army only the most current one is valid.

You lie again They established with dreads with weapon options that they used to make but you can't do with the current codex as one example of older models you can still use by using the index and current costs. You ignore what they explicitly said.

 doctortom wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
You lie again They established with dreads with weapon options that they used to make but you can't do with the current codex as one example of older models you can still use by using the index and current costs. You ignore what they explicitly said.

And you ignore the instruction that requires you to use the most recent datasheet.

The most recent datasheet with the option is the index. They have given us the process for being able to use the old models - dreads with old weapons loadout being specifically given as an example - which uses the index sheet. I am following all of their instructions, not trying to interpret the one statement to hamstring everything else in their answer so that you can't do what they are clearly explaining you can do.

 doctortom wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
You guys have been hammering the same points now for a couple of pages. I think that you have each spelled out your points admirably but enough is enough.
I think we're going to have to wait for an official answer from GW as to whether they meant that it is OK to use index options for only normal (casual) games or event games (again ignoring the fact that the TO can do whatever he/she wants) .

As it is it's going to be up to individual TOs to decide what's what.

Somebody just posted the GW answer in the last page or two about autocannon dreads for normal games

 Lance845 wrote:


And you ignore the other 4 citations from 2 sources. I can at least take your one quote, place it into the context of the whole document and understand what they were trying to say. But there is no justification you can come up with that allows the use of index datasheet options using a codex datasheet for official rules.

Baseline, btw, being the offcial, this is how we expect everyone to play, rules.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
And nowhere does the webpage say that "options" is a rules term. For all we know it could be colloquial English.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I think we're going to have to wait for an official answer from GW as to whether they meant that it is OK to use index options for only normal (casual) games or event games (again ignoring the fact that the TO can do whatever he/she wants) .

Lance845 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Lance845 wrote:Lets spell this all out again since apparently it needs to be stated in full every time.

In YOUR GAMES with your opponents agreement, you can use whatever rules you want.

When a new datasheet is released you are expected to use the newest datasheet.

If that datasheet doesn't have the option, then you don't have the option.

You are free to use your model, with the latest datasheet, no problems.

You are free to use your model, with the old datasheet, with agreement from your opponent.

So games you play in a tournament aren't yours? Games that someone else organizes, but you play in are not yours? Hardly.

Simply put, EVERY game is up for agreement with your opponent and they can accept or reject ANYTHING you bring to the table, no matter how current it is, even in a tournament. Of course, you must accept the consequences of rejecting what your opponent brings, such as taking an automatic loss in a tournament or being ejected entirely.

Sure lets state the obvious. If you don't want to play a game you can pack up your toys and go home. Hey everyone, you are free to not play games for any reason. There is no law that enforces punishment upon you for not being willing to play.

Lance845 wrote:

Lance845 wrote:The argument that people can use the Index datasheet for "Autocannon dread" in index because there is no datasheet for "autocannon dread" in the codex is a bad argument because "autocannon dread" isn't a datasheet anywhere.

What a piss-poor argument. The phrase "autocannon dread" is talking about a Dreadnought with autocannons to differentiate it from other builds. This is an insane argument that demonstrates a lack of consideration and respect for what is being discussed and is a strawman distraction.

This is neither piss poor nor a straw man. A build is not a unit. Wargear options are not datasheets. If GW has a rule that says the latest published datahseet replaces the old one they are not specifiying every possible combination of wargear is it's own datasheet. The datasheet has a name. And if 2 datasheets share the same name for an army only the most current one is valid.

Lance845 wrote:

Lance845 wrote:There is a Datasheet called Dreadnought. On the datasheet you have options. In the index it has some options it doesn't have in the codex. And further in the Grey Knight codex it has different options yet again. The codex replaces the Index. The options are not themselves a datahseet. You cannot claim that there is a autocannon dread datasheet in the index because there isn't.

And in those cases where the wargear that a model was previously legally built is no longer represented in the codex datasheet, the index datasheet which DOES represent it can be used.

Or are you going to suggest that such a wargear representation was never legal in the first place?

Except for the 4 places where they say you are expected to be using the newer datasheet, that the older datasheet is not allowed, or that with your opponents permission you are welcome to do anything you want.

 AndrewC wrote:
GW retires models and ranges all the time by which to encourage us to buy more new models. Come on, there are peop.e on here that will argue until they are blue in the face that you cant use old metal terminators and must use the new 40mm based plastic kits. So the idea that GW will retire your models isnt far fetched.

They've already given an official answer, though.

 TheWaspinator wrote:

They've already given an official answer, though.

Yep. For some reason though, people can't seem to understand the idea of a specific exception overwriting a general rule. Because yes, the post says that the standard assumption is to use the latest datasheet for a given model. It also says that you can use the index version for weapon options that don't exist in the newer one. This is not a contradiction, it's a general rule with an exception..

 Charistoph wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

It is piss poor and a straw man.

The quoted statement allowing for index use over codex was about MODELS, not builds or units. Seriously, do you have that much difficulty determining the difference between a unit and a model?

If I have a model which is legal under the Index, but not legal under the codex without proxying, how can I then "still use the old model" without referring to the Index?

Im vunna repeat this. Wysiwyg is not a rule. Your model can have no arms. Or illegal arms. What its equiped woth doesnt mater in terms of the rules. You can use your model. Wirh the codex datasheet. Or with your opponents agreement, any rules you want.

Reply by: TheWaspinator - click to view full reply 

96540

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/21 00:14:20

Post by: TheWaspinator

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 TheWaspinator wrote:

They've already given an official answer, though.

Yep. For some reason though, people can't seem to understand the idea of a specific exception overwriting a general rule. Because yes, the post says that the standard assumption is to use the latest datasheet for a given model. It also says that you can use the index version for weapon options that don't exist in the newer one. This is not a contradiction, it's a general rule with an exception..

It says options, not weapon options. Therefore Index Conscripts are legal because I don't have the option to take 50 in one squad in the codex.

I'm looking at page 5 of that index where it defines the different sections of a datasheet. Section 5 is "Unit Composition & Wargear" and does not include the word option anywhere. Section 7 is "Wargear Options". So no, squad size is not an "option".

Reply by: BaconCatBug - click to view full reply 

81759

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/21 00:15:28

Post by: BaconCatBug

 TheWaspinator wrote:
I'm looking at page 5 of that index where it defines the different sections of a datasheet. Section 5 is "Unit Composition & Wargear" and does not include the word option anywhere. Section 7 is "Wargear Options". So no, squad size is not an "option".

So by that logic a Bolter isn't a shooting weapon because it doesn't include the word shooting?

The word "option" in the GW community post is clearly the colloquial meaning. Prove otherwise.

Reply by: TheWaspinator - click to view full reply 

96540

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/21 00:29:22

Post by: TheWaspinator

No, you're the one trying to attach a meaning to a word that the datasheet description does not reflect. The burden of proof is on you.

Reply by: BaconCatBug - click to view full reply 

81759

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/21 00:50:42

Post by: BaconCatBug

 TheWaspinator wrote:
No, you're the one trying to attach a meaning to a word that the datasheet description does not reflect. The burden of proof is on you.

I'm sorry, but you're the one claiming that the usage of "options" is a rules term. Provide proof for that assertion.

Reply by: Charistoph - click to view full reply 

95922

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/21 01:32:32

Post by: Charistoph

Lance845 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

It is piss poor and a straw man.

The quoted statement allowing for index use over codex was about MODELS, not builds or units. Seriously, do you have that much difficulty determining the difference between a unit and a model?

If I have a model which is legal under the Index, but not legal under the codex without proxying, how can I then "still use the old model" without referring to the Index?

Im vunna repeat this. Wysiwyg is not a rule. Your model can have no arms. Or illegal arms. What its equiped woth doesnt mater in terms of the rules. You can use your model. Wirh the codex datasheet. Or with your opponents agreement, any rules you want.

But the entire statement about using "old models" IS about WYSIWYG, especially if it is addressing Dreadnoughts with outdated weapon options.

That YOU don't want to care about WYSIWYG doesn't mean some people don't. They want to use their models as they built them with the Wargear that they are built with. GW provided an out, you want to ignore it. That's all this thread is about.

Reply by: Lance845 - click to view full reply 

93221

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/21 01:59:36

Post by: Lance845

 Charistoph wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

It is piss poor and a straw man.

The quoted statement allowing for index use over codex was about MODELS, not builds or units. Seriously, do you have that much difficulty determining the difference between a unit and a model?

If I have a model which is legal under the Index, but not legal under the codex without proxying, how can I then "still use the old model" without referring to the Index?

Im vunna repeat this. Wysiwyg is not a rule. Your model can have no arms. Or illegal arms. What its equiped woth doesnt mater in terms of the rules. You can use your model. Wirh the codex datasheet. Or with your opponents agreement, any rules you want.

But the entire statement about using "old models" IS about WYSIWYG, especially if it is addressing Dreadnoughts with outdated weapon options.

That YOU don't want to care about WYSIWYG doesn't mean some people don't. They want to use their models as they built them with the Wargear that they are built with. GW provided an out, you want to ignore it. That's all this thread is about.

It doesnt mater how i feel about wysiwyg. Or you. Or everyone. Every person in the world could build golden idols to it. It doesnt mater. Your personal feelings about a thing that is not a rule cannot be used to support a rule argument. Models are not required to be painted. And them being painted or not does not change the rules of the game. What wargear a model has attached to it does not impact what options it can take. The models datasheet does.

If this whole thing is about not having to swap arms because you enjoy wysiwyg then you came in here with no leg to stand on. Wysiwyg isnt a rule and no quote in a community announcment post is going to suddenly give wysiwyg rules alottments.

Sorry about the format on my last post btw. Typed on a phone. Formatting a multi quote without a mouse and keyboard is a fething nightmare.


As for options. I can opt to increase my unit size. That makes it an option. Its not a rules term because the things we have all been quoting are not actually rules. Remember the sources we have. The word option in that quote is literally the english word option as anyone older than 6 years old should be able to umderstand it.

Reply by: Charistoph - click to view full reply 

95922

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/21 04:26:05

Post by: Charistoph

 Lance845 wrote:
It doesnt mater how i feel about wysiwyg. Or you. Or everyone. Every person in the world could build golden idols to it. It doesnt mater. Your personal feelings about a thing that is not a rule cannot be used to support a rule argument. Models are not required to be painted. And them being painted or not does not change the rules of the game. What wargear a model has attached to it does not impact what options it can take. The models datasheet does.

If this whole thing is about not having to swap arms because you enjoy wysiwyg then you came in here with no leg to stand on. Wysiwyg isnt a rule and no quote in a community announcment post is going to suddenly give wysiwyg rules alottments.

Apparently, it does matter how you feel about WYSIWYG and how GW feels about WYSIWYG, because this whole discussion is about a WYSIWYG situation AND the options that were previously available in the Index (which were there because people had modeled for previously available Options).

Because you keep fighting against that quote that DoctorTom has used, you apparently do feel something about it since it specifically addresses this concept.

 Lance845 wrote:
As for options. I can opt to increase my unit size. That makes it an option. Its not a rules term because the things we have all been quoting are not actually rules. Remember the sources we have. The word option in that quote is literally the english word option as anyone older than 6 years old should be able to umderstand it.

Not even the same concept. One is the options A MODEL may take, not about the options of how many of a model A UNIT can take.

Why are there so many people here who like to conflate the rules regarding a model to being to a unit, and vice versa? A model and a unit are not the same level of interactions, so quit trying to conflate them as being the same thing.

Reply by: TheWaspinator - click to view full reply 

96540

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/21 04:29:51

Post by: TheWaspinator

And I would think that anyone older than 6 would understand that when GW says that we can still use those weapon options, they actually mean it.

Reply by: Lance845 - click to view full reply 

93221

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/21 07:30:42

Post by: Lance845

Charistoph wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
It doesnt mater how i feel about wysiwyg. Or you. Or everyone. Every person in the world could build golden idols to it. It doesnt mater. Your personal feelings about a thing that is not a rule cannot be used to support a rule argument. Models are not required to be painted. And them being painted or not does not change the rules of the game. What wargear a model has attached to it does not impact what options it can take. The models datasheet does.

If this whole thing is about not having to swap arms because you enjoy wysiwyg then you came in here with no leg to stand on. Wysiwyg isnt a rule and no quote in a community announcment post is going to suddenly give wysiwyg rules alottments.

Apparently, it does matter how you feel about WYSIWYG and how GW feels about WYSIWYG, because this whole discussion is about a WYSIWYG situation AND the options that were previously available in the Index (which were there because people had modeled for previously available Options).

Because you keep fighting against that quote that DoctorTom has used, you apparently do feel something about it since it specifically addresses this concept.

Alright, there is a lot of misinterpretation here. I am going to take some space and clarify my positions on things.

First, me PERSONALLY on WYSIWYG.

I think it's important, and good sportsmanship to make what you have on the table clear to your opponent. That does not mean true WYSIWYG. It means if I have 1 Hivetyrant on the table modeled with wings and talons it could have any option on the hive tyrant datasheet including 2 sets of guns as long as I make it very clear to my opponent what it is equiped with. And that if I have 2 HT with wings and talons on the table but I want them to have different options then they damn well better have some very distinct markings on them so they are visually separable from each other and easily identifiable or they had better be equiped the same. The point of WYSIWYG is clarity. As long as everything is being done with clarity I don't care what part you glued to what.

Second, me PERSONALLY on Dreads and the index datasheet.

Were I to play with someone agreeing to use the index options I don't give a gak what Dread model they use to represent it. If it's on the right size base and roughly the right dimensions it could have a claw and a lascannon and I would be cool with it being equipped with twin autocannons or any other option on the datasheet. I don't care. I care about following the rules. If we agree that the index datasheet is the one being used by that unit then as long as the rules of that datasheet are being adhered to go nuts. Whether or not I would accept the index datasheet is entirely based on the given game.

Third, me and this thread.

WYSIWYG is not a rule. Even if you can interpret the quote from the community announcement post that has a FAQ but not a rules ERRATA as IMPLYING WYSIWYG it does not in any way make WYSIWYG a rules entity that has any bearing what-so-ever on the rules. Nothing I have said in this thread, at any point, has ever been about WYSIWYG. If that was unclear I apologize. Internalize it now. WYSIWYG is never in my mind when discussing rules in YMDC because YMDC is not a place for stuff you feel is a courtesy that should be a rule but isn't.

Maybe DrTom has been talking WYSIWYG at me and I haven't noticed. My bad if thats the case. But it's not a discussion that has any bearing here. Again, YMDC is about rules. And WYSIWYG isn't one. My argument is purely about the rules. Which Datasheets you are expected to use. Which datasheets you have allowance to use. And under which circumstances you have that allowance. Again, WYSIWYG isn't a factor. When I read...

Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models.

I don't read that to mean the model with those options attached. I read that to mean literally the older kit. Doesn't matter what arms you put on it. Just the fact that you have the older model that came with the bits. Again, PERSONALLY, I don't give a gak which kit you have and I would never hold any opponent to that kind of draconian bs. It has no bearing on ME for whether I would let you use the index or not. So if that is 1 of 2 stipulations then for me PERSONALLY it's down to 1 stipulation. Which is my agreement. YMMV and you may run into players who really do want you to have it perfectly WYSIWYG. But I don't read that sentence that way and I think it's a stupid thing to enforce on another player.

 Lance845 wrote:
As for options. I can opt to increase my unit size. That makes it an option. Its not a rules term because the things we have all been quoting are not actually rules. Remember the sources we have. The word option in that quote is literally the english word option as anyone older than 6 years old should be able to umderstand it.

Not even the same concept. One is the options A MODEL may take, not about the options of how many of a model A UNIT can take.

Why are there so many people here who like to conflate the rules regarding a model to being to a unit, and vice versa? A model and a unit are not the same level of interactions, so quit trying to conflate them as being the same thing.

Here is the question GW apparently decided was frequently asked.

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?

Note: That question doesn't talk about options on models. It doesn't mention weapons or wargear. It says options missing from the entire book that were present in the former book. Plain and simple options. It's important to remember what question they are answering when reading the answer.

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.

Now, if you wanted to take this answer as word for word literal law RAW, only vehicles and characters have the opportunity to go back to indexes (weird stipulation), but it seems to me that since this isn't an errata that what they actually are saying is any unit but that characters and vehicles are prime examples. And then they call out a vehicle and a character specifically as examples. If I, PERSONALLY, were going to let someone go back to the index, this "Character or Vehicle" nonsense wouldn't be something I would 'enforce" because it's incredibly arbitrary and stupid and also... not what I believe they are saying. But most importantly, it says that, answering the question, if you are missing options you can go back to the index and use the index DATASHEET.

Since the question wasn't about wargear, the options they are talking about are not wargear specifically. Since the size of your unit is an option, conscripts can use their index datasheet. Which means according to the datasheet, they can bring 50 of the fethers.

Please remember. I don't agree with this. I think you are expected to be using the most current datasheet. Which means the codex. The index is only an option with permission.

Reply by: JohnnyHell - click to view full reply 

10953

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/21 09:54:03

Post by: JohnnyHell

The entire WHC article is colloquial. This means you can't 'provide proof' and barking that at someone is nonsensical

It also means you can't possibly enforce it as hard RAW (it simply isn't) and claim it to be unambiguous proof that Legacy things can't be used in games. That's a reach and ignores part of the copy.

It's cute to try and push everything back on one side to prove, but it's not possible for either side in this case. If you interpret this article differently (even if that includes ignoring "Don't worry you can still use your models") there's literally no way to 'prove' the other camp wrong. So yeah, 'Prove it!' 'No you prove it!' - it can't achieve anything.

We've had this entire discussion in other threads with the same bickery outcome. This thread has done what I said early on... added nothing new, and just been repetitious.

FWIW for the example of the dear Autocannon Dread (obviously shorthand not a unit name, cmaaan) you can simply use the FW Index Astartes rules and play it as a Mortis Dread against Lance or BCB and you won't even need permission. Doesn't help in other cases, but just wanted to show the main yardstick in this 'debate' is covered elsewhere. Though you'll have to spend £16 on another book just to satisfy someone's passionate belief that a page in the book you already have in front of you is illegal to use. Go figure.

Reply by: p5freak - click to view full reply 

111146

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/21 12:45:59

Post by: p5freak

 Lance845 wrote:

Since the question wasn't about wargear, the options they are talking about are not wargear specifically. Since the size of your unit is an option, conscripts can use their index datasheet. Which means according to the datasheet, they can bring 50 of the fethers.

Please remember. I don't agree with this. I think you are expected to be using the most current datasheet. Which means the codex. The index is only an option with permission.

You cant use 50 conscripts, because they are in the codex and the maximum number is 30. There is no autocannon dread in the codex, so you fallback to the index.

Reply by: Leo_the_Rat - click to view full reply 

27903

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/21 13:01:28

Post by: Leo_the_Rat

What do GK do about autocannon dreads? In the index it says refer to the SM entry. In my codex it doesn't allow autocannons on a dread. The SM entry in the codex has been superceded by the SM codex. Do I use the SM codex (assuming the autocannon dread is still in there) or am I to use an outdated index entry or am I just not allowed to field an autocannon dread anymore?

Reply by: vipoid - click to view full reply 

53939

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/21 13:07:50

Post by: vipoid

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
What do GK do about autocannon dreads? In the index it says refer to the SM entry. In my codex it doesn't allow autocannons on a dread. The SM entry in the codex has been superceded by the SM codex. Do I use the SM codex (assuming the autocannon dread is still in there) or am I to use an outdated index entry or am I just not allowed to field an autocannon dread anymore?

I believe you'd use the most up-to-date entry (in this case the SM Codex), *except* in cases where options in the index do not appear in the codex.

So if the dreadnought in the SM codex doesn't have the option of autocannons, you'd use the SM index version instead.

Reply by: Leo_the_Rat - click to view full reply 

27903

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/21 16:05:02

Post by: Leo_the_Rat

So I have to check 4-5 places to see if I can even use my legacy model 1)GK codex > 2) GK index > 3) SM index > 4) SM codex > 5) SM index (if it isn't in the codex).

The steps go in that order since that's what the codex(s) and index(s) say to do, specifically check the SM index after the GK index.

That seems like a lot of work for someone to make sure that i spent the correct amount of points if there's any question.

Reply by: vipoid - click to view full reply 

53939

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/21 16:30:55

Post by: vipoid

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
So I have to check 4-5 places to see if I can even use my legacy model 1)GK codex > 2) GK index > 3) SM index > 4) SM codex > 5) SM index (if it isn't in the codex).

Hey, don't blame me. I'm not the one who decided to put the rules for a GK unit in an entirely different codex.

Reply by: Lance845 - click to view full reply 

93221

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/21 16:49:48

Post by: Lance845

JohnnyHell wrote:The entire WHC article is colloquial. This means you can't 'provide proof' and barking that at someone is nonsensical

This true, and something i bought up in the very first post. But you CAN take it with other data to get an idea. Hence the GT rules posted by GW. Where yu are expected to use the most up to date datasheet.

It also means you can't possibly enforce it as hard RAW (it simply isn't) and claim it to be unambiguous proof that Legacy things can't be used in games. That's a reach and ignores part of the copy.

It's cute to try and push everything back on one side to prove, but it's not possible for either side in this case. If you interpret this article differently (even if that includes ignoring "Don't worry you can still use your models") there's literally no way to 'prove' the other camp wrong. So yeah, 'Prove it!' 'No you prove it!' - it can't achieve anything.

We've had this entire discussion in other threads with the same bickery outcome. This thread has done what I said early on... added nothing new, and just been repetitious.

FWIW for the example of the dear Autocannon Dread (obviously shorthand not a unit name, cmaaan) you can simply use the FW Index Astartes rules and play it as a Mortis Dread against Lance or BCB and you won't even need permission. Doesn't help in other cases, but just wanted to show the main yardstick in this 'debate' is covered elsewhere. Though you'll have to spend £16 on another book just to satisfy someone's passionate belief that a page in the book you already have in front of you is illegal to use. Go figure.

Again the point isn't the dread itself. I don't care about dreads. I care about the rules and allowances. This is going to keep cropping up as more and more codexes release. The Tau Commander and Crisis Suit kits don't come with a lot of their weapon options. If those options get cut in their codex you think this isn't going to blow up here again?

Leo_the_Rat wrote:What do GK do about autocannon dreads? In the index it says refer to the SM entry. In my codex it doesn't allow autocannons on a dread. The SM entry in the codex has been superceded by the SM codex. Do I use the SM codex (assuming the autocannon dread is still in there) or am I to use an outdated index entry or am I just not allowed to field an autocannon dread anymore?

Does the GK Codex come with a datasheet for Dreadnought? Then thats the datasheet you use. You can use it as a FW Mortis as has been pointed out. Google image search that datasheet. Print it out.

Reply by: Charistoph - click to view full reply 

95922

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/21 17:01:33

Post by: Charistoph

 Lance845 wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
It doesnt mater how i feel about wysiwyg. Or you. Or everyone. Every person in the world could build golden idols to it. It doesnt mater. Your personal feelings about a thing that is not a rule cannot be used to support a rule argument. Models are not required to be painted. And them being painted or not does not change the rules of the game. What wargear a model has attached to it does not impact what options it can take. The models datasheet does.

If this whole thing is about not having to swap arms because you enjoy wysiwyg then you came in here with no leg to stand on. Wysiwyg isnt a rule and no quote in a community announcment post is going to suddenly give wysiwyg rules alottments.

Apparently, it does matter how you feel about WYSIWYG and how GW feels about WYSIWYG, because this whole discussion is about a WYSIWYG situation AND the options that were previously available in the Index (which were there because people had modeled for previously available Options).

Because you keep fighting against that quote that DoctorTom has used, you apparently do feel something about it since it specifically addresses this concept.

Alright, there is a lot of misinterpretation here. I am going to take some space and clarify my positions on things.

First, me PERSONALLY on WYSIWYG.

I think it's important, and good sportsmanship to make what you have on the table clear to your opponent. That does not mean true WYSIWYG. It means if I have 1 Hivetyrant on the table modeled with wings and talons it could have any option on the hive tyrant datasheet including 2 sets of guns as long as I make it very clear to my opponent what it is equiped with. And that if I have 2 HT with wings and talons on the table but I want them to have different options then they damn well better have some very distinct markings on them so they are visually separable from each other and easily identifiable or they had better be equiped the same. The point of WYSIWYG is clarity. As long as everything is being done with clarity I don't care what part you glued to what.

Second, me PERSONALLY on Dreads and the index datasheet.

Were I to play with someone agreeing to use the index options I don't give a gak what Dread model they use to represent it. If it's on the right size base and roughly the right dimensions it could have a claw and a lascannon and I would be cool with it being equipped with twin autocannons or any other option on the datasheet. I don't care. I care about following the rules. If we agree that the index datasheet is the one being used by that unit then as long as the rules of that datasheet are being adhered to go nuts. Whether or not I would accept the index datasheet is entirely based on the given game.

Third, me and this thread.

WYSIWYG is not a rule. Even if you can interpret the quote from the community announcement post that has a FAQ but not a rules ERRATA as IMPLYING WYSIWYG it does not in any way make WYSIWYG a rules entity that has any bearing what-so-ever on the rules. Nothing I have said in this thread, at any point, has ever been about WYSIWYG. If that was unclear I apologize. Internalize it now. WYSIWYG is never in my mind when discussing rules in YMDC because YMDC is not a place for stuff you feel is a courtesy that should be a rule but isn't.

Maybe DrTom has been talking WYSIWYG at me and I haven't noticed. My bad if thats the case. But it's not a discussion that has any bearing here. Again, YMDC is about rules. And WYSIWYG isn't one. My argument is purely about the rules. Which Datasheets you are expected to use. Which datasheets you have allowance to use. And under which circumstances you have that allowance. Again, WYSIWYG isn't a factor. When I read...

Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models.

I don't read that to mean the model with those options attached. I read that to mean literally the older kit. Doesn't matter what arms you put on it. Just the fact that you have the older model that came with the bits. Again, PERSONALLY, I don't give a gak which kit you have and I would never hold any opponent to that kind of draconian bs. It has no bearing on ME for whether I would let you use the index or not. So if that is 1 of 2 stipulations then for me PERSONALLY it's down to 1 stipulation. Which is my agreement. YMMV and you may run into players who really do want you to have it perfectly WYSIWYG. But I don't read that sentence that way and I think it's a stupid thing to enforce on another player.

WYSIWYG used to be a factor. GW knows this, as they wrote the rules stating such and tournament enforced it after GW left it out of the rulebook. Some of the old kits did not carry any of the options, but they were still available options which people modeled by kit-bashing, Forgeworld, green-stuffing, or even 3rd party builds. Why would you NOT think that DoctorTom was talking WYSIWYG, as this can only pertain to WYSIWYG situations? A Dreadnought with Power Fist and Multimelta has no problem being modeled with the current options and provides no confusion or lack of clarity. A "Rifleman" Dreadnought would provide confusion and lack of clarity because those options are not currently available.

If it has no bearing on you if someone uses the index or not, because they want to be WYSIWYG, then why are you pursuing this? Why you started this thread has no bearing on why you are still contributing to it.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
As for options. I can opt to increase my unit size. That makes it an option. Its not a rules term because the things we have all been quoting are not actually rules. Remember the sources we have. The word option in that quote is literally the english word option as anyone older than 6 years old should be able to umderstand it.

Not even the same concept. One is the options A MODEL may take, not about the options of how many of a model A UNIT can take.

Why are there so many people here who like to conflate the rules regarding a model to being to a unit, and vice versa? A model and a unit are not the same level of interactions, so quit trying to conflate them as being the same thing.

Here is the question GW apparently decided was frequently asked.

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?

Note: That question doesn't talk about options on models. It doesn't mention weapons or wargear. It says options missing from the entire book that were present in the former book. Plain and simple options. It's important to remember what question they are answering when reading the answer.

Conscripts still carries the options for numbers, AND you can always field the other Conscripts in another unit (there is no limit on detachments in the base rules, after all). The codex does not provide for Dreadnoughts carrying Autocannons. It is talking about miniatures, which are models not units. Wargear is altered on the datasheet under "Wargear Options", so they are options. Therefore, different concept entirely.

 Lance845 wrote:

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.

Now, if you wanted to take this answer as word for word literal law RAW, only vehicles and characters have the opportunity to go back to indexes (weird stipulation), but it seems to me that since this isn't an errata that what they actually are saying is any unit but that characters and vehicles are prime examples. And then they call out a vehicle and a character specifically as examples. If I, PERSONALLY, were going to let someone go back to the index, this "Character or Vehicle" nonsense wouldn't be something I would 'enforce" because it's incredibly arbitrary and stupid and also... not what I believe they are saying. But most importantly, it says that, answering the question, if you are missing options you can go back to the index and use the index DATASHEET.

Since the question wasn't about wargear, the options they are talking about are not wargear specifically. Since the size of your unit is an option, conscripts can use their index datasheet. Which means according to the datasheet, they can bring 50 of the fethers.

Please remember. I don't agree with this. I think you are expected to be using the most current datasheet. Which means the codex. The index is only an option with permission.

Oddly enough, I don't think anyone but you has called this an errata, much less is treating it as one. At best, it would be an FAQ, which provides direction without actually changing the wording of the rules (and have stated such previously).

Autocannons were never available in a Citadel Dreadnought box, but they were part of, "a long history of {the} miniature". So, they are in the index, but not the codex. If you have a Dreadnought with Autocannons (because it was a thing a few years back) that you want to use the Autocannons with (because you want to be clear with your opponent), you would need to use the Index. I honestly do not see how one could see it in any other light.

Reply by: Lance845 - click to view full reply 

93221

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/21 17:26:39

Post by: Lance845

 Charistoph wrote:

WYSIWYG used to be a factor. GW knows this, as they wrote the rules stating such and tournament enforced it after GW left it out of the rulebook. Some of the old kits did not carry any of the options, but they were still available options which people modeled by kit-bashing, Forgeworld, green-stuffing, or even 3rd party builds. Why would you NOT think that DoctorTom was talking WYSIWYG, as this can only pertain to WYSIWYG situations? A Dreadnought with Power Fist and Multimelta has no problem being modeled with the current options and provides no confusion or lack of clarity. A "Rifleman" Dreadnought would provide confusion and lack of clarity because those options are not currently available.

If it has no bearing on you if someone uses the index or not, because they want to be WYSIWYG, then why are you pursuing this? Why you started this thread has no bearing on why you are still contributing to it.

I would not expect this thread to be about WYSIWYG because, as explained in my post you quoted, it's not a rule, and this forum is about rules. I have explained why I started this thread twice. Go back and read those posts. I continue to contribute to it because 1) I enjoy it and 2) As stated, this is going to continue to get worse and worse as each codex drops.

Conscripts still carries the options for numbers, AND you can always field the other Conscripts in another unit (there is no limit on detachments in the base rules, after all). The codex does not provide for Dreadnoughts carrying Autocannons. It is talking about miniatures, which are models not units. Wargear is altered on the datasheet under "Wargear Options", so they are options. Therefore, different concept entirely.

Dreads still carry options for weapons. Just not those weapons. Same way conscripts carry options for numbers but not THOSE numbers. You can assume they are talking about miniatures all you want. You can read it as [wargear] options if you feel like. But it's just adding words to that don't exist to the question.

Oddly enough, I don't think anyone but you has called this an errata, much less is treating it as one. At best, it would be an FAQ, which provides direction without actually changing the wording of the rules (and have stated such previously).

Autocannons were never available in a Citadel Dreadnought box, but they were part of, "a long history of {the} miniature". So, they are in the index, but not the codex. If you have a Dreadnought with Autocannons (because it was a thing a few years back) that you want to use the Autocannons with (because you want to be clear with your opponent), you would need to use the Index. I honestly do not see how one could see it in any other light.

I NEVER called this an errata. Any time in this thread that I have written the word errata it was in mentioning that this is NOT an errata.

So the older kit doesn't even exist? lol.

It's pretty easy to see it in another light. Try to imagine.... WYSIWYG isn't a hold over from edition lag. Imagine if you will. a new player with his friends who are all new players where their first and only experience is 8th edition. All they have to go by is the BRB and this community article.

They would have never seen or heard a single statement on WYSIWYG. They would have no concept or expectation of it. They would not read that question with WYSIWYG in mind. They would be correctly following the rules.

Reply by: JohnnyHell - click to view full reply 

10953

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/21 17:31:53

Post by: JohnnyHell

 Lance845 wrote:

JohnnyHell wrote:The entire WHC article is colloquial. This means you can't 'provide proof' and barking that at someone is nonsensical

This true, and something i bought up in the very first post. But you CAN take it with other data to get an idea. Hence the GT rules posted by GW. Where yu are expected to use the most up to date datasheet.

It also means you can't possibly enforce it as hard RAW (it simply isn't) and claim it to be unambiguous proof that Legacy things can't be used in games. That's a reach and ignores part of the copy.

It's cute to try and push everything back on one side to prove, but it's not possible for either side in this case. If you interpret this article differently (even if that includes ignoring "Don't worry you can still use your models") there's literally no way to 'prove' the other camp wrong. So yeah, 'Prove it!' 'No you prove it!' - it can't achieve anything.

We've had this entire discussion in other threads with the same bickery outcome. This thread has done what I said early on... added nothing new, and just been repetitious.

FWIW for the example of the dear Autocannon Dread (obviously shorthand not a unit name, cmaaan) you can simply use the FW Index Astartes rules and play it as a Mortis Dread against Lance or BCB and you won't even need permission. Doesn't help in other cases, but just wanted to show the main yardstick in this 'debate' is covered elsewhere. Though you'll have to spend £16 on another book just to satisfy someone's passionate belief that a page in the book you already have in front of you is illegal to use. Go figure.

Again the point isn't the dread itself. I don't care about dreads. I care about the rules and allowances. This is going to keep cropping up as more and more codexes release. The Tau Commander and Crisis Suit kits don't come with a lot of their weapon options. If those options get cut in their codex you think this isn't going to blow up here again?

Leo_the_Rat wrote:What do GK do about autocannon dreads? In the index it says refer to the SM entry. In my codex it doesn't allow autocannons on a dread. The SM entry in the codex has been superceded by the SM codex. Do I use the SM codex (assuming the autocannon dread is still in there) or am I to use an outdated index entry or am I just not allowed to field an autocannon dread anymore?

Does the GK Codex come with a datasheet for Dreadnought? Then thats the datasheet you use. You can use it as a FW Mortis as has been pointed out. Google image search that datasheet. Print it out.

It's cool you don't care about Dreads. It's but an example. One that you clearly do care about as you keep saying people can't use their models, but hey ho.

Also, I'm sure the Mods won't appreciate you condoning piracy of GW copyright material so best to drop that tangent. "Steal the relevant FW rules" isn't an appropriate response, especially if you already own a physical book with a page that amply describes said model.

Reply by: Lance845 - click to view full reply 

93221

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/21 17:53:58

Post by: Lance845

Wasn't the mortis one of the datasheets they posted on the community site when they were talking about the release of the new books? Pretty sure your free to look up and use any datasheet GW has given to you for free.

Reply by: JohnnyHell - click to view full reply 

10953

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/21 18:27:34

Post by: JohnnyHell

 Lance845 wrote:
Wasn't the mortis one of the datasheets they posted on the community site when they were talking about the release of the new books? Pretty sure your free to look up and use any datasheet GW has given to you for free.

And how would you get the points for Matched Play, the only place where this "you can't use your Index models!" whingery is likely to appear? ;-)

Reply by: Lance845 - click to view full reply 

93221

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/21 18:34:04

Post by: Lance845

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Wasn't the mortis one of the datasheets they posted on the community site when they were talking about the release of the new books? Pretty sure your free to look up and use any datasheet GW has given to you for free.

And how would you get the points for Matched Play, the only place where this "you can't use your Index models!" whingery is likely to appear? ;-)

You would buy the forgeworld book? I don't understand the point of this question. He asked where he could get the datasheet. I told him him the easiest way to get it. On topic, the Grey Knights have a Dread datahseet in their codex. Thats the datasheet they use. If they gain access to other variants of dread from the Imperial Armor Index then they are also free to use those. That would be the most up to date datasheets. When Imperial Armor books get released "In the near future" those updated datasheets will replace the index ones.

Reply by: AndrewC - click to view full reply 

18375

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/21 20:02:27

Post by: AndrewC

I'm curious about something, how far back do we go? There are guidelines outlining a framework for the consistant use legacy models.

We talked about the old metal termies? Would they be allowed in 8th? And if not why not?

Cheers

Andrew

Reply by: Charistoph - click to view full reply 

95922

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/21 20:06:30

Post by: Charistoph

Lance845 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

WYSIWYG used to be a factor. GW knows this, as they wrote the rules stating such and tournament enforced it after GW left it out of the rulebook. Some of the old kits did not carry any of the options, but they were still available options which people modeled by kit-bashing, Forgeworld, green-stuffing, or even 3rd party builds. Why would you NOT think that DoctorTom was talking WYSIWYG, as this can only pertain to WYSIWYG situations? A Dreadnought with Power Fist and Multimelta has no problem being modeled with the current options and provides no confusion or lack of clarity. A "Rifleman" Dreadnought would provide confusion and lack of clarity because those options are not currently available.

If it has no bearing on you if someone uses the index or not, because they want to be WYSIWYG, then why are you pursuing this? Why you started this thread has no bearing on why you are still contributing to it.

I would not expect this thread to be about WYSIWYG because, as explained in my post you quoted, it's not a rule, and this forum is about rules. I have explained why I started this thread twice. Go back and read those posts. I continue to contribute to it because 1) I enjoy it and 2) As stated, this is going to continue to get worse and worse as each codex drops.

I didn't say it IS a rule, that it WAS a rule. Because it WAS a rule, people built their models along those lines, and they want to be able to continue to use them as such. Many tournaments still have it as a rule as well. GW recognizes this as a fact, why do you not consider it in your assessment as well?

Regarding point 2, not necessarily. Most options that are currently in the Indecies and not now codified trend to follow what is in the box. Mostly it was the Characters and some specific Vehicles (aka the Dreadnought) which were the problem children as for several editions they were allowed options which did not come in their boxes. And many of those currently non-codified options weren't even really used (Hyperphase Swords for Necron Lords, for example).

Lance845 wrote:

Conscripts still carries the options for numbers, AND you can always field the other Conscripts in another unit (there is no limit on detachments in the base rules, after all). The codex does not provide for Dreadnoughts carrying Autocannons. It is talking about miniatures, which are models not units. Wargear is altered on the datasheet under "Wargear Options", so they are options. Therefore, different concept entirely.

Dreads still carry options for weapons. Just not those weapons. Same way conscripts carry options for numbers but not THOSE numbers. You can assume they are talking about miniatures all you want. You can read it as [wargear] options if you feel like. But it's just adding words to that don't exist to the question.

But those are not options on the miniatures themselves. Having 20 more models does nothing to change Conscript miniature #19. You are focusing too much on applying this to a UNIT, not the model. Changing an Assault Cannon to a Twin-linked Lascannon changes the model. Do you recognize the difference?

Lance845 wrote:

Oddly enough, I don't think anyone but you has called this an errata, much less is treating it as one. At best, it would be an FAQ, which provides direction without actually changing the wording of the rules (and have stated such previously).

Autocannons were never available in a Citadel Dreadnought box, but they were part of, "a long history of {the} miniature". So, they are in the index, but not the codex. If you have a Dreadnought with Autocannons (because it was a thing a few years back) that you want to use the Autocannons with (because you want to be clear with your opponent), you would need to use the Index. I honestly do not see how one could see it in any other light.

I NEVER called this an errata. Any time in this thread that I have written the word errata it was in mentioning that this is NOT an errata.

Actually you were implying the rest of us were calling it an errata. By doing so, you were the one bringing it up.

Lance845 wrote:So the older kit doesn't even exist? lol.

Not from Citadel, but the older model options DID and were modeled for. These are the "older miniatures" the line is talking about. Something that you are choosing to deliberately ignore at this point.

Lance845 wrote:It's pretty easy to see it in another light. Try to imagine.... WYSIWYG isn't a hold over from edition lag. Imagine if you will. a new player with his friends who are all new players where their first and only experience is 8th edition. All they have to go by is the BRB and this community article.

They would have never seen or heard a single statement on WYSIWYG. They would have no concept or expectation of it. They would not read that question with WYSIWYG in mind. They would be correctly following the rules.

Mr New Player likely won't have those "old miniatures", though, either. People who have been proxying their models instead of kit-bashing since 6th Edition won't have to worry about Index-only builds, and would have been using their codified model builds.

Now their friend who has been with the game since 4th Edition shows up with a "Rifleman" Dreadnought that starts shooting its modeled Autocannons at him. He explains it to him and shows the build from the Index because the Codex does not provide those options.

Simply put, the only people who will be concerned about this statement that DoctorTom has been presenting are those who have been around the game long enough to be thinking in terms of WYSIWYG, have been kit-bashing for years, AND still want to use those old models of theirs.

Reply by: vipoid - click to view full reply 

53939

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/20 20:10:12

Post by: vipoid

 AndrewC wrote:
I'm curious about something, how far back do we go? There are guidelines outlining a framework for the consistant use legacy models.

We talked about the old metal termies? Would they be allowed in 8th? And if not why not?

Speaking as a non-Marine player, could you maybe give a bit more detail?

As in, why would these old metal terminators not be legal in the first place?

Reply by: Charistoph - click to view full reply 

95922

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/21 20:14:13

Post by: Charistoph

 vipoid wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
I'm curious about something, how far back do we go? There are guidelines outlining a framework for the consistant use legacy models.

We talked about the old metal termies? Would they be allowed in 8th? And if not why not?

Speaking as a non-Marine player, could you maybe give a bit more detail?

As in, why would these old metal terminators not be legal in the first place?

Terminators used to be based on 25mm bases. Then they started putting them on 40mm bases when they went plastic. The old metal Terminator Captain model actually came with both a 25mm and 40mm base in the blister as well. GW's position has always been of the position that you use the base the model comes with.

And interactions with Terminators take on whole new dimensions when you change their base size that much.

Reply by: Lance845 - click to view full reply 

93221

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/21 20:30:31

Post by: Lance845

 Charistoph wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

WYSIWYG used to be a factor. GW knows this, as they wrote the rules stating such and tournament enforced it after GW left it out of the rulebook. Some of the old kits did not carry any of the options, but they were still available options which people modeled by kit-bashing, Forgeworld, green-stuffing, or even 3rd party builds. Why would you NOT think that DoctorTom was talking WYSIWYG, as this can only pertain to WYSIWYG situations? A Dreadnought with Power Fist and Multimelta has no problem being modeled with the current options and provides no confusion or lack of clarity. A "Rifleman" Dreadnought would provide confusion and lack of clarity because those options are not currently available.

If it has no bearing on you if someone uses the index or not, because they want to be WYSIWYG, then why are you pursuing this? Why you started this thread has no bearing on why you are still contributing to it.

I would not expect this thread to be about WYSIWYG because, as explained in my post you quoted, it's not a rule, and this forum is about rules. I have explained why I started this thread twice. Go back and read those posts. I continue to contribute to it because 1) I enjoy it and 2) As stated, this is going to continue to get worse and worse as each codex drops.

I didn't say it IS a rule, that it WAS a rule. Because it WAS a rule, people built their models along those lines, and they want to be able to continue to use them as such. Many tournaments still have it as a rule as well. GW recognizes this as a fact, why do you not consider it in your assessment as well?

Because it's NOT a rule. And what people want is very different from the rules we have. I want better terrain rules. I want Necron reanimation protocols to scale with the size of game instead of getting worse and worse the more points the game is. I want alternating activation's instead of IGOUGO. But I don't get to argue based on things I like or preference I have in a rules discussion about the actual game. Why would I consider personal preferences here?

Regarding point 2, not necessarily. Most options that are currently in the Indecies and not now codified trend to follow what is in the box. Mostly it was the Characters and some specific Vehicles (aka the Dreadnought) which were the problem children as for several editions they were allowed options which did not come in their boxes. And many of those currently non-codified options weren't even really used (Hyperphase Swords for Necron Lords, for example).

What does the popularity of the options have to do with anything?

Lance845 wrote:

Conscripts still carries the options for numbers, AND you can always field the other Conscripts in another unit (there is no limit on detachments in the base rules, after all). The codex does not provide for Dreadnoughts carrying Autocannons. It is talking about miniatures, which are models not units. Wargear is altered on the datasheet under "Wargear Options", so they are options. Therefore, different concept entirely.

Dreads still carry options for weapons. Just not those weapons. Same way conscripts carry options for numbers but not THOSE numbers. You can assume they are talking about miniatures all you want. You can read it as [wargear] options if you feel like. But it's just adding words to that don't exist to the question.

But those are not options on the miniatures themselves. Having 20 more models does nothing to change Conscript miniature #19. You are focusing too much on applying this to a UNIT, not the model. Changing an Assault Cannon to a Twin-linked Lascannon changes the model. Do you recognize the difference?

Again, it doesn't matter about the models. The question doesn't ask about them. You are inferring things that it does not explicitly say. You are applying things that are not rules into a rule discussion. It invalidates your entire argument.

Lance845 wrote:

Oddly enough, I don't think anyone but you has called this an errata, much less is treating it as one. At best, it would be an FAQ, which provides direction without actually changing the wording of the rules (and have stated such previously).

Autocannons were never available in a Citadel Dreadnought box, but they were part of, "a long history of {the} miniature". So, they are in the index, but not the codex. If you have a Dreadnought with Autocannons (because it was a thing a few years back) that you want to use the Autocannons with (because you want to be clear with your opponent), you would need to use the Index. I honestly do not see how one could see it in any other light.

I NEVER called this an errata. Any time in this thread that I have written the word errata it was in mentioning that this is NOT an errata.

Actually you were implying the rest of us were calling it an errata. By doing so, you were the one bringing it up.

Don't tell me I was implying something. I was not. You might have read it that way. But thats not what I was saying. When I say it's not an Errata it's because what I mean is it's not an Errata. My first post says, its a community artical and not a faq or an errata... so great start. You seem to take a lot of unsaid things for granted as explicitly stated. Please stop.

Lance845 wrote:So the older kit doesn't even exist? lol.

Not from Citadel, but the older model options DID and were modeled for. These are the "older miniatures" the line is talking about. Something that you are choosing to deliberately ignore at this point.

Lance845 wrote:It's pretty easy to see it in another light. Try to imagine.... WYSIWYG isn't a hold over from edition lag. Imagine if you will. a new player with his friends who are all new players where their first and only experience is 8th edition. All they have to go by is the BRB and this community article.

They would have never seen or heard a single statement on WYSIWYG. They would have no concept or expectation of it. They would not read that question with WYSIWYG in mind. They would be correctly following the rules.

Mr New Player likely won't have those "old miniatures", though, either. People who have been proxying their models instead of kit-bashing since 6th Edition won't have to worry about Index-only builds, and would have been using their codified model builds.

Now their friend who has been with the game since 4th Edition shows up with a "Rifleman" Dreadnought that starts shooting its modeled Autocannons at him. He explains it to him and shows the build from the Index because the Codex does not provide those options.

Simply put, the only people who will be concerned about this statement that DoctorTom has been presenting are those who have been around the game long enough to be thinking in terms of WYSIWYG, have been kit-bashing for years, AND still want to use those old models of theirs.

So great. In summary, your entire argument hinges on the idea that WYSIWYG is something GW is writing rules allowances for in a not rules document in a edition that doesn't acknowledge WYSIWYG. So you have no argument then.

Reply by: Happyjew - click to view full reply 

46128

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/21 21:06:42

Post by: Happyjew

 AndrewC wrote:
I'm curious about something, how far back do we go? There are guidelines outlining a framework for the consistant use legacy models.

We talked about the old metal termies? Would they be allowed in 8th? And if not why not?

Cheers

Andrew

Better question. What about legacy units that had options but do not have those options in the index or codex? For example, Shining Spear Exarchs used to be able to upgrade their Jetbike to have a Shuriken Cannon. Does this mean in order to use my model as WYSIWYG I'd have to use the 4th edition codex unit entry, with 8th edition points?

Reply by: AndrewC - click to view full reply 

18375

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/21 22:26:47

Post by: AndrewC

 Happyjew wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
I'm curious about something, how far back do we go? There are guidelines outlining a framework for the consistant use legacy models.

We talked about the old metal termies? Would they be allowed in 8th? And if not why not?

Cheers

Andrew

Better question. What about legacy units that had options but do not have those options in the index or codex? For example, Shining Spear Exarchs used to be able to upgrade their Jetbike to have a Shuriken Cannon. Does this mean in order to use my model as WYSIWYG I'd have to use the 4th edition codex unit entry, with 8th edition points?

I don't know.

You see I'm of the opinion that a player wanting to use a legacy model should advise his opponent beforehand in the knowledge that his figure should/can only be used with his opponents consent. (This is ignoring that the entire game only takes place with opponents consent) The guidelines are just that, not rules.

So I have permission to use older models. As Lance pointed out WYSIWYG is no longer a rule. Neither is base sizes. I looked, I cannot find any reference to 'use the base it came with'. If someone else can please let me know the page.

So following from that and the earlier post where I mentioned the old metal termies a thought occurred. Its a legacy model, I have a datasheet for it, and its codex even, what stops me from placing down a unit of 25mm based termies. They are lower, smaller and take up less table space. It's a valid unit.

Can I walk into a pickup game place them on the table, say that they are legacy models and expect to use them?

As Happy asked can you expect to use a legacy model that predates 8th which contains options that isn't covered in the index.

Cheers

Andrew

Reply by: TheWaspinator - click to view full reply 

96540

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/21 22:45:08

Post by: TheWaspinator

GW is actually really bad in that particular area for rules writing. Since they don't define base size anywhere in the rules, it's a massive grey area that makes those 25mm terminators probably legal by RAW. Most people would probably want you to put them on 40s, but that I will admit is in the real of house rule.

Reply by: JohnnyHell - click to view full reply 

10953

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/21 23:25:04

Post by: JohnnyHell

If you put GW Terminator models on the table you can use GW Terminator models.

Slightly facetious answer, but really, unless someone has written additional event-specific rules requiring specific base sizes or model variants a Terminator is a Terminator. I don't think you'd struggle with any but the weirdest of the Rogue Trader options for regular Termy squads either. Only things like the Captain's Grenade launcher/fist won't be covered in the Codex, but you could use the Index version.

Reply by: Lance845 - click to view full reply 

93221

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/22 00:08:12

Post by: Lance845

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If you put GW Terminator models on the table you can use GW Terminator models.

Slightly facetious answer, but really, unless someone has written additional event-specific rules requiring specific base sizes or model variants a Terminator is a Terminator. I don't think you'd struggle with any but the weirdest of the Rogue Trader options for regular Termy squads either. Only things like the Captain's Grenade launcher/fist won't be covered in the Codex, but you could use the Index version.

With permission.

Reply by: TheWaspinator - click to view full reply 

96540

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/22 00:17:12

Post by: TheWaspinator

Once again, only if you need permission to do something GW officially has said we can do. Like it or not, those index weapon options are officially still legal.

Reply by: Lance845 - click to view full reply 

93221

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/22 00:22:30

Post by: Lance845

 TheWaspinator wrote:
Once again, only if you need permission to do something GW officially has said we can do. Like it or not, those index weapon options are officially still legal.

Once again, The codex replaces the index, in all cases. If the codex datasheet exists you are expected to be using the most up to date sheet. Otherwise, as pointed out, players could just use the unnerfed Conscripts with 50 models and no rule restricting their orders.

Reply by: Charistoph - click to view full reply 

95922

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/22 05:29:05

Post by: Charistoph

 Lance845 wrote:
Because it's NOT a rule. And what people want is very different from the rules we have. I want better terrain rules. I want Necron reanimation protocols to scale with the size of game instead of getting worse and worse the more points the game is. I want alternating activation's instead of IGOUGO. But I don't get to argue based on things I like or preference I have in a rules discussion about the actual game. Why would I consider personal preferences here?

Because one of the main points is about this discussion is miniatures (aka models) that are old and used to be perfectly legal. And if it is in an FAQ atmosphere, it is allowable here.

 Lance845 wrote:

Regarding point 2, not necessarily. Most options that are currently in the Indecies and not now codified trend to follow what is in the box. Mostly it was the Characters and some specific Vehicles (aka the Dreadnought) which were the problem children as for several editions they were allowed options which did not come in their boxes. And many of those currently non-codified options weren't even really used (Hyperphase Swords for Necron Lords, for example).

What does the popularity of the options have to do with anything?

This issue coming up again. Seriously read what is quoted to understand the context.

 Lance845 wrote:
Again, it doesn't matter about the models. The question doesn't ask about them. You are inferring things that it does not explicitly say. You are applying things that are not rules into a rule discussion. It invalidates your entire argument.

What is a miniature? A model or a unit?

 Lance845 wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

Oddly enough, I don't think anyone but you has called this an errata, much less is treating it as one. At best, it would be an FAQ, which provides direction without actually changing the wording of the rules (and have stated such previously).

Autocannons were never available in a Citadel Dreadnought box, but they were part of, "a long history of {the} miniature". So, they are in the index, but not the codex. If you have a Dreadnought with Autocannons (because it was a thing a few years back) that you want to use the Autocannons with (because you want to be clear with your opponent), you would need to use the Index. I honestly do not see how one could see it in any other light.

I NEVER called this an errata. Any time in this thread that I have written the word errata it was in mentioning that this is NOT an errata.

Actually you were implying the rest of us were calling it an errata. By doing so, you were the one bringing it up.

Don't tell me I was implying something. I was not. You might have read it that way. But thats not what I was saying. When I say it's not an Errata it's because what I mean is it's not an Errata. My first post says, its a community artical and not a faq or an errata... so great start. You seem to take a lot of unsaid things for granted as explicitly stated. Please stop.

Then please stop insinuating anyone else was calling this an errata. By insisting someone not treat it as an errata, you are implying/insinuating that someone is treating it as one. Go look it up in the thread where I first mentioned it. You were basically accusing others of treating it like an errata.

 Lance845 wrote:
So great. In summary, your entire argument hinges on the idea that WYSIWYG is something GW is writing rules allowances for in a not rules document in a edition that doesn't acknowledge WYSIWYG. So you have no argument then.

There are many clarifications and directions made in "not rules documents". They are called FAQs. FAQs are perfectly allowable for consideration, even though they don't actually change the written rules.

The document specifically calls out miniatures (aka models) which have "a long history" of many different options which are not currently in the kits. That makes this direction specifically towards players who have been part of that long history, not the new player.

But I think this boils down to this, and you should just be honest about it: "You do not accept the document to be a clarification and direction from GW". Would it really be so hard to just state this?

Reply by: Lance845 - click to view full reply 

93221

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/22 05:40:31

Post by: Lance845

 Charistoph wrote:

But I think this boils down to this, and you should just be honest about it: "You do not accept the document to be a clarification and direction from GW". Would it really be so hard to just state this?

That statement is not how I feel. I accept the document as a whole. Not cherry picking out a single line, assigning value to it it doesn't have, and then extrapolating implications from the assumed value. You continue to have nothing that supports your stance. You just WISH GW would bring back some or any support for the idea of WYSIWYG. But they haven't. WYSIWYG died in the rules a few editions ago. It's dead, Jim. Let it go.

Reply by: TheWaspinator - click to view full reply 

96540

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/22 07:59:06

Post by: TheWaspinator

You're the one doing cherry picking. The most most recent data sheet clearly doesn't always override or they wouldn't have an entire question giving the scenario in which it can, weapon options, which they give as examples. The conscript thing is a strawman argument, since they do not give squad size as an example of something that you can use the older version of nor is it in the options section of the datasheet.

Reply by: Lance845 - click to view full reply 

93221

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/22 08:10:05

Post by: Lance845

 TheWaspinator wrote:
You're the one doing cherry picking. The most most recent data sheet clearly doesn't always override or they wouldn't have an entire question giving the scenario in which it can, weapon options, which they give as examples. The conscript thing is a strawman argument, since they do not give squad size as an example of something that you can use the older version of nor is it in the options section of the datasheet.

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.


Are the rules changing?

Yes, many units’ rules in their codexes will alter from those in the indexes. Sometimes this is to better represent the miniatures and the background, sometimes to balance the game, and sometimes to better fit with the army’s new special rules in the codex itself. In all cases, these will then supersede the rules for that datasheet in the index book.


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.


Can I choose to use the rules and/or points for units from my index instead of the new ones in the codex once released?

In your own games, if you and your opponent agree, you can, of course, play with whatever rules you like.

In all future publications and official events though, it will be assumed that you’re using the most recent rules and Datasheets. It will also be assumed that you’re using the most up to date points for matched play, in this case, those included in the codex.

Now. Some people believe that the first question and answer gives you a blanket justification to use any options that have been removed from a dataslate in any version of the game. I.E. A dread using gun options it doesn't have with the new stats/points costs/ etc etc...

But allow me to provide a counter argument.

In the first question "Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models." requires that
1) you actually have the older model and
2) "In your games" can be read as the same as "In your own games, if you and your opponent agree, you can, of course, play with whatever rules you like."

This is backed by 3 other questions in the same document saying

1) In all cases, these will then supersede the rules for that datasheet in the index book.
2) The datasheets in the new codexes overwrite the same datasheets in the index books.
3) In all future publications and official events though, it will be assumed that you’re using the most recent rules and Datasheets.

An option on a datasheet is not itself a datasheet. If the new Dread datasheet does not have the option then, using the most up to date datasheet, you do not have the option. Of course, with permission from your opponent your dread could cost 1ppm and use whatever options you feel like. And if there is no up to date datasheet you can use the ones from the index using the most up to date point values for any options. A Librarian on a Bike for an example, is a different datasheet from a Librarian. So you can still bring a Librarian on a Bike using the Index.

Oh My!

Do you see that? I used every question that is relevant in the article without picking and choosing which parts support my argument and which don't. I take the single quote you rely on while ignoring the other ones and, taking into account the rest of the article AND the rules of the game, including what is NOT a rule (WYSIWYG) I decipher that yes, you can use index datasheets instead of codex ones... with your opponents permission.

But hey, did you happen to see this line?

In all cases, these will then supersede the rules for that datasheet in the index book.

Cause it seems to contradict this statement by you

The most most recent data sheet clearly doesn't always override

in no uncertain terms.

Did you see the part about

The datasheets in the new codexes overwrite the same datasheets in the index books.

or

In all future publications and official events though, it will be assumed that you’re using the most recent rules and Datasheets.

because that seems to me that in the very same article where they grant you permission to use index over codex, in your own games, with your opponents permission, that they expect you to use the codex datasheets in all official events (i.e. the GT) and future publications, which would include events like the recent Konar Campaign. Wanna know what else supports that? The GT standards they posted. Did you need another quote of that as well? Il dig it out again if you need it.

What have I cherry picked?

As for conscripts being a strawman, go read the question to the quote you live and die by. It doesn't ask about wargear. It doesn't ask about weapons. It says options in the book. The whole book. Any option in the book. Examples being like samples, they are a portion representative of the whole. They are not the whole. You choosing to IGNORE the question to the quote you cannot stop referencing is just further cherry picking on your behalf. Not only do you ignore the 3 other relevant questions on the page, you ignore the very question they are answering to your own quote.

Reply by: TheWaspinator - click to view full reply 

96540

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/22 08:42:17

Post by: TheWaspinator

You're cherry picking because you continue to ignore that they, in no uncertain terms, tell you to use the index version with those models. The general rule that you keep harping on clearly has exceptions.

And no, they don't say any option from the index. They say options "no longer represented in the Citadel range". Citadel means models. As in, model options. Unit size is not a model option.

Reply by: Lance845 - click to view full reply 

93221

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/22 08:47:17

Post by: Lance845

 TheWaspinator wrote:
You're cherry picking because you continue to ignore that they, in no uncertain terms, tell you to use the index version with those models. The general rule has exceptions.

https://www.facebook.com/pg/Warhammer-40000-1575682476085719/about/?ref=page_internal

Thats a link to the GW facebook page. If you click "About" on the side bar you will see this block of text I quoted.

MORE INFO
About
You’ve found the official Warhammer 40,000 Facebook page: a community for fans of our miniatures hobby.
General Information
We want this to be a page that all Warhammer 40,000 fans can enjoy.
This is a Games Workshop community page and we have three simple rules that we need you to follow:

1. Be cool, be positive.
2. Please do not post links to websites of any sort other than games-workshop.com
3. Please use the wall for posting photos of Citadel Miniatures only.

And a quick note on rules questions - we can’t give you official answers. We’re not the Games Designers, they’re locked up in the studio. We might be able to give you some general advice or point you in the right direction but better to try and work it out with your gaming buddies.

To reiterate

And a quick note on rules questions - we can’t give you official answers. We’re not the Games Designers, they’re locked up in the studio. We might be able to give you some general advice or point you in the right direction but better to try and work it out with your gaming buddies.

Damn right I don't accept the facebook quote. Their facebook reps tell you not to accept them themselves.


There are exceptions, which I have stated over and over again. In your own games, with your opponents permission.

The baselines rules of the game expect the latest datasheets to be used. But, n your own games, with your opponents permission, there is an exception that you can use whatever rules you like.

Models don't have options that are relevant to the rules anymore and have not in years. WYSIWYG is not a rule. The arms it has on it is irrelevant to the rules of the game.

Reply by: TheWaspinator - click to view full reply 

96540

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/22 08:54:39

Post by: TheWaspinator

The Facebook people are still way more official than your twisted reading and attempt to apply restrictions to a piece of text that are clearly not intended if the text is to exist at all.

Reply by: Lance845 - click to view full reply 

93221

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/22 09:05:53

Post by: Lance845

 TheWaspinator wrote:
The Facebook people are still way more official than your twisted reading and attempt to apply restrictions to a piece of text that are clearly not intended if the text is to exist at all.

No, they aren't. The facebook people are equally official to any fether who decides to weigh in on the subject including you and me. They are no better or worse a source of information and are capable of misreading and/or having no evidence to support whatever they decide to post in the moment.

Please, if you think you are able to use index datasheets in official events or even standardized game play then explain how your quote functions along with the rest of the article and the GT permissions.

Again, I can see how your quote fits in with the rest of my interpretation. There is an exception made for your own personal matches where everyone agrees. I read it right there on the page. It clearly allows you to do that.

How do you justify the use of options no longer in the codex when you are told you are expected to be using the codex? When the GT standards say you have to use the codex. When "in all cases" and so on and so forth are stated repeatedly in multiple sources?

If our interpretations were jig saw puzzle pieces you would notice that your interpretation doesn't fit within the confines of any other statement i.e. the little nub on one side is fitting but none of the other edges are lining up. Mine fits all sides. You get to use your options within the stated exceptions (one side fits in place) but when playing based on the standardized rules (another side), official events (there goes the 3rd) or tournaments (hey look, that piece goes right there) you need to use the most recently published datasheet.

Reply by: TheWaspinator - click to view full reply 

96540

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/22 09:10:24

Post by: TheWaspinator

You mean the GT standards that say you can still use the index for things not in the codex?

https://warhammerworld.games-workshop.com/warhammer-40000-grand-tournament/

Reply by: Lance845 - click to view full reply 

93221

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/22 09:15:30

Post by: Lance845

 TheWaspinator wrote:
You mean the GT standards that say you can still use the index for things not in the codex?

https://warhammerworld.games-workshop.com/warhammer-40000-grand-tournament/

Not for things. For Datasheets. Are you really trying to cherry pick AGAIN?

We expect you to use the most current datasheets for your models – e.g. those found in a Codex rather than an Index if a Codex is available for your army. This means that you may use Faction-appropriate Index datasheets that might not appear in your Codex (such as Chaplain on Bike)

You didn't even cherry pick the quote correctly.

Let me try to cut you off before you get started on this again too.

Models are representations of datasheets, not options. WYSIWYG is not a rule. A Dread with twin autocannons modeled onto it or whatever is just a Dread datasheet as far as the rules are concerned. It's most current datasheet is in the codex, as they spell out for you in that quote you tried and failed to reference but did manage to link to.

Reply by: TheWaspinator - click to view full reply 

96540

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/22 09:20:17

Post by: TheWaspinator

Seriously, you're nitpicking me using the word "things"?

What is your point? The GT rule is basically a shorter version of the community post. It tells you to use the most current datasheet for a model. For autocannon dreadnoughts, that would be the index because the codex is not the most current datasheet for that model. They tell us as much in the community post when they discuss options.

Reply by: Lance845 - click to view full reply 

93221

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/22 09:24:52

Post by: Lance845

 TheWaspinator wrote:
Seriously, you're nitpicking me using the word "things"?

What is your point? The GT rule is basically a shorter version of the community post. It tells you to use the most current datasheet for a model. For autocannon dreadnoughts, that would be the index because the codex is not the most current datasheet for that model.

I wanted to make sure my answer was clear. I didn't want any confusion on your or anyone else part when I said there was an exception for "things" not in the codex. The "things" they make exceptiosn for are datasheets. Not wargear.

It's possible you posted while I was editing in the bit about the model being a representation of a datasheet and that it's weapons do not matter as a rules entity. I accept that I didn't put that in the post initially so you may have responded without seeing it. But to reiterate... your wrong. Autocannon dreadnought isn't a datasheet anywhere and there is no model for it. There are however models for Dreadnoughts and they do come with a bunch of bits so you can make them look all kinds of neat. The most current datasheet for Dreadnoughts is in the codex for Space Marines and Grey Knights. Spacewolves, Dark Angles, Blood Angles and the forgeworld chapters still rely on the index for their datasheets.

Reply by: TheWaspinator - click to view full reply 

96540

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/22 09:28:18

Post by: TheWaspinator

I saw it before posting, actually. I just don't agree with you. The community post clearly emphasizes that those models are valid distinct options, no matter what you think.

Reply by: vipoid - click to view full reply 

53939

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/22 09:29:20

Post by: vipoid

 Lance845 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If you put GW Terminator models on the table you can use GW Terminator models.

Slightly facetious answer, but really, unless someone has written additional event-specific rules requiring specific base sizes or model variants a Terminator is a Terminator. I don't think you'd struggle with any but the weirdest of the Rogue Trader options for regular Termy squads either. Only things like the Captain's Grenade launcher/fist won't be covered in the Codex, but you could use the Index version.

With permission.

I am so glad I don't have to play you in real life.

Reply by: Lance845 - click to view full reply 

93221

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/22 09:31:26

Post by: Lance845

 TheWaspinator wrote:
I saw it before posting, actually. I just don't agree with you. The community post clearly emphasizes that those models are valid distinct options, no matter what you think.

And all the rules of the game disagree with your interpretation. If you can find me any explicit statement in 8th edition that requires WYSIWYG as a rule for playing warhammer 40k I will concede to you. You only have 8 pages to look through. Good luck with that.

Reply by: TheWaspinator - click to view full reply 

96540

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/22 09:33:15

Post by: TheWaspinator

Oh, that's easy. We're even given explicit instructions.

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).

Reply by: Lance845 - click to view full reply 

93221

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/22 09:35:44

Post by: Lance845

 vipoid wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If you put GW Terminator models on the table you can use GW Terminator models.

Slightly facetious answer, but really, unless someone has written additional event-specific rules requiring specific base sizes or model variants a Terminator is a Terminator. I don't think you'd struggle with any but the weirdest of the Rogue Trader options for regular Termy squads either. Only things like the Captain's Grenade launcher/fist won't be covered in the Codex, but you could use the Index version.

With permission.

I am so glad I don't have to play you in real life.

K. I mean, I play mostly with all kinds of house rules. In fact most of my games at this point arn't even really 8th anymore it's Beyond the Gates of 40k. A much more enjoyable experience with better game play and better terrain rules.

But YMDC isn't for my preferences or the allowances I make with my opponents. This is where we talk about the actual rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheWaspinator wrote:
Oh, that's easy. We're even given explicit instructions.

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).

Did you miss the part where a FAQ on the community site is not a rules document? Do you see any statement in there that says my hive tyrant has to have devourers equipped to use devourers in the game? How did you score in reading comprehension on the SATs? Just curious.

Reply by: TheWaspinator - click to view full reply 

96540

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/22 09:44:49

Post by: TheWaspinator

It's more of a rules document than your ramblings and assumptions are.

Reply by: Lance845 - click to view full reply 

93221

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/22 09:51:06

Post by: Lance845

 TheWaspinator wrote:
It's more of a rules document than your ramblings and assumptions are.

Just like facebook... no it's not. There is a place on the GW website for official FAQs and rules Errata. That community announcement post isn't there and none of the questions in it are in any of the documents on that page. (I did mention this as being a very sarcastic "Great start" in my first post). While we can use it as a general guideline it needs to be backed by other sources to carry any kind of weight. Sources like the GT permissions which mirror the rest of the document you ignore and the rule book which doesn't support WYSIWYG.

Got anything else to try to support the idea that WYSIWYG has any bearing on the rules?

Reply by: TheWaspinator - click to view full reply 

96540

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/22 10:00:21

Post by: TheWaspinator

While it not being written by the primary designers at GW might give it less weight than things written by them and they acknowledge as much, it still has more weight as to the official state of the rules than anything you write. Their statement that index dreadnought options are still valid is as official an answer as exists, whether you like it or not.

Reply by: Lance845 - click to view full reply 

93221

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/22 10:10:40

Post by: Lance845

 TheWaspinator wrote:
Their statement that index dreadnought options are still valid is as official an answer as exists, whether you like it or not.

Correct, in your own games, with agreement from your opponent. All of that together is in the community document. But at no point in that document does it state that the way a model is modeled effects the rules it has in the game. I can understand how you are inferring that from the single sentence taken out of context with the rest of the document. But taken all together, it's simply not even possible.

This is especially true when you take into account that what is a significantly more reliable source is the actual rule book. Like... it's not even comparable how much more weight the rule book carries. If the Community website FAQ told you that all space marines had to have their skin painted purple to be used in the games it would be laughable nonsense because the rule book requires no such thing and the community page is not a source for rules errata. Requiring WYSIWYG or even implying that WYSIWYG has any bearing on the rules a model has access to is equally unsubstantiated.

But you see... I am not taking the community document on it's own. Or even a single sentence in a single question in a community document on it's own. I take all 4 relevant questions and compare them and back them with the rule book and the GT permissions.

I'm going to ask you again, besides your one cherry picked quote, and your assumption that something that hasn't been a rule in like... 5+ years is now suddenly a rule again, do you have anything else to support your position?

Reply by: TheWaspinator - click to view full reply 

96540

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/22 10:12:23

Post by: TheWaspinator

By the way, they have called that post an official document.





And no, that stuff about needing opponent consent is from a different question and is not part of the specific exception given to allow index datasheets in some circumstances, despite your insistence otherwise. The GT document also gives permission for those index datasheets.

Reply by: Lance845 - click to view full reply 

93221

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/22 10:15:00

Post by: Lance845

 TheWaspinator wrote:
By the way, they have called that post an official document.

Hilarious reading comprehension at it's finest. I am going to go to sleep laughing my ass off about this post.

Reply by: Dionysodorus - click to view full reply 

112594

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/22 10:16:15

Post by: Dionysodorus

This will become rather more urgent and confusing with the release of the Eldar codex.

Autarchs' wargear options have been drastically reduced. Regular Autarchs and Autarchs with wings have no options whatsoever, and biker Autarchs can only replace a power sword with one of two weapons. Most people's Autarchs are no longer codex-legal. Can these still be used? With new point values?

Meanwhile other parts of the datasheet have changed. Autarchs' Path of Command ability is different now. But also the new codex doesn't actually give the text of the ability on the datasheet itself; it defines the ability at the beginning of the army list (like ATSKNF or Voice of Command) instead. Do Autarchs using the old weapon options use the old datasheet ability?

This is going to come up a lot more than with anything we've seen before because old Autarch options are simply much better than new ones, especially given the warlord trait that lets your warlord shoot characters (new Autarchs are a lot less shooty).

Reply by: TheWaspinator - click to view full reply 

96540

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/22 10:16:46

Post by: TheWaspinator

Whatever helps you sleep at night. Good luck finding anyone at GW supporting your position.

Reply by: Lance845 - click to view full reply 

93221

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/22 10:18:50

Post by: Lance845

Dionysodorus wrote:
This will become rather more urgent and confusing with the release of the Eldar codex.

Autarchs' wargear options have been drastically reduced. Regular Autarchs and Autarchs with wings have no options whatsoever, and biker Autarchs can only replace a power sword with one of two weapons. Most people's Autarchs are no longer codex-legal. Can these still be used? With new point values?

Meanwhile other parts of the datasheet have changed. Autarchs' Path of Command ability is different now. But also the new codex doesn't actually give the text of the ability on the datasheet itself; it defines the ability at the beginning of the army list (like ATSKNF or Voice of Command) instead. Do Autarchs using the old weapon options use the old datasheet ability?

This is going to come up a lot more than with anything we've seen before because old Autarch options are simply much better than new ones, especially given the warlord trait that lets your warlord shoot characters (new Autarchs are a lot less shooty).

If anyone cares to go back and check, I called this.

I said it wasn't about dreads. I said with each new codex it was going to get worse and worse. I said the nid dex would create problems if the Eldar one didn't create them first.


To answer your question you have 2 options.

1) in all and any offcial way your codex datasheet replaces your index one. Those are the options you get,

2) if your opponent agrees to let you you can use the index datasheet. It still has all the correct keywords so it can sill use strategems, take relics, and get craftworld specific bonuses and you pay codex prices where ever there is a codex price tag available. But you are using the index datasheet and that means any other abilities or rules that are on the codex datasheet are lost as you use the index datasheet. You cannot combine them and take the best of both worlds.

Reply by: JohnnyHell - click to view full reply 

10953

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/22 10:32:09

Post by: JohnnyHell

 Lance845 wrote:

 TheWaspinator wrote:
By the way, they have called that post an official document.

Hilarious reading comprehension at it's finest. I am going to go to sleep laughing my ass off about this post.

I don't understand the source of mirth. Do please explain, as I'm just assuming you're ignoring Rule 1 now and mocking other posters.

Reply by: Lance845 - click to view full reply 

93221

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/22 10:37:21

Post by: Lance845

 JohnnyHell wrote:


I don't understand the source of mirth. Do please explain, as I'm just assuming you're ignoring Rule 1 now and mocking other posters.

The source of mirth is that we (Me and Waspinator specifically) just had the discussion... within the last 30 minutes? about how invalid a source Facebook is including their admitting that you are better off talking to your play group then going to them for answers. Him not... remembering? Caring? Understanding? I don't know what.

It's hilarious.

The fact that he thinks he has an argument in a facebook post is hilarious. The whole bit is a pretty good joke.

It's alright, you don't have to get the humor. It's there though.

Reply by: JohnnyHell - click to view full reply 

10953

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/22 10:51:33

Post by: JohnnyHell

 Lance845 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:


I don't understand the source of mirth. Do please explain, as I'm just assuming you're ignoring Rule 1 now and mocking other posters.

The source of mirth is that we (Me and Waspinator specifically) just had the discussion... within the last 30 minutes? about how invalid a source Facebook is including their admitting that you are better off talking to your play group then going to them for answers. Him not... remembering? Caring? Understanding? I don't know what.

It's hilarious.

The fact that he thinks he has an argument in a facebook post is hilarious. The whole bit is a pretty good joke.

It's alright, you don't have to get the humor. It's there though.

So you are just mocking other posters? Should probably read the site rules as well as the 40K ones. It's Rule 1 you're looking for. Explain politely, don't just mock.

Anyway, what's wrong with what he posted? The WHC articles are an official publication that are taken as Rules, which you yourself are doing so don't disagree with. The FB post just reaffirms that, so regardless of 'validity as a rules source' it concurs with what we're all discussing... that the WHC article is part of the rules. So again: what's to laugh at?

Reply by: Lance845 - click to view full reply 

93221

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/22 10:58:16

Post by: Lance845

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:


I don't understand the source of mirth. Do please explain, as I'm just assuming you're ignoring Rule 1 now and mocking other posters.

The source of mirth is that we (Me and Waspinator specifically) just had the discussion... within the last 30 minutes? about how invalid a source Facebook is including their admitting that you are better off talking to your play group then going to them for answers. Him not... remembering? Caring? Understanding? I don't know what.

It's hilarious.

The fact that he thinks he has an argument in a facebook post is hilarious. The whole bit is a pretty good joke.

It's alright, you don't have to get the humor. It's there though.

So you are just mocking other posters? Should probably read the site rules as well as the 40K ones. It's Rule 1 you're looking for. Explain politely, don't just mock.

Anyway, what's wrong with what he posted? The WHC articles are an official publication that are taken as Rules, which you yourself are doing so don't disagree with. The FB post just reaffirms that, so regardless of 'validity as a rules source' it concurs with what we're all discussing... that the WHC article is part of the rules. So again: what's to laugh at?

I wasn't aware that finding humor in another persons words was the same as mocking them.

If I called him an idiot, moron, illiterate, dunce. Well, that would be mocking him. I called him no such things. I said the post was hilarious. I said I would go to sleep laughing. It is. I will.

Whats wrong with what he posted is in the rules of YMDC. Rule #2 is the one your looking for. Which btw is the one I have been using to support my interpretation of a community announcement article that is not an official FAQ and is not found in the Errata and FAQ section. A quick read of page 6 and 7 will catch you up. What confirms it is other valid sources. The rule book, the single most valid source, does not support WYSIWYG. The GT standards support the article requiring you to use the most current datasheet. Facebook.... is meaningless.

Reply by: JohnnyHell - click to view full reply 

10953

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/22 11:03:52

Post by: JohnnyHell

You said:

"Hilarious reading comprehension at it's finest. I am going to go to sleep laughing my ass off about this post."

Good luck defending that as not mocking another site user's intelligence.

You are also claiming WHC is not a rules source because you think the main shop site's FAQ section is the only official one. That's patently untrue, as WHC is hosting the FAQ and Errata content now. So that argument doesn't hold water. Regardless of whether you ignore their FB posts or not. No-one is using that Facebook post as a rules source here, but their conversational post is reaffirming that WHC *can* and does provide Rules material.

Good luck arguing otherwise.

Reply by: Lance845 - click to view full reply 

93221

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/22 11:09:46

Post by: Lance845

 JohnnyHell wrote:
You said:

"Hilarious reading comprehension at it's finest. I am going to go to sleep laughing my ass off about this post."

Good luck defending that as not mocking another site user's intelligence.

You are also claiming WHC is not a rules source because you think the main shop site's FAQ section is the only official one. That's patently untrue, as WHC is hosting the FAQ and Errata content now. So that argument doesn't hold water. Regardless of whether you ignore their FB posts or not. No-one is us No Facebook as a rules source here, but their conversational post is reaffirming that WHC *can* and does provide Rules material.

Good luck arguing otherwise.

Don't waste time sitting here talking about it. If you want to report the post then report it. If you don't then don't. The mods will edit and sort it out as they do. Do what your going to do and get back to the subject of the thread. I am not threatened and I don't feel bad. It will be what the mods decide it is. Move on.

WHC is not hosting the FAQs and Errata. WHC is announcing them. No player is expected to go back through daily updates on the WHC site to dig through more and more articles to MAYBE find an article that MIGHT have a FAQ in it that COULD provide answers to questions about their book. In 2 years time no player will be expected to find that article as a rules source. The only source that matters for FAQs is the FAQ/Errata section on the main GW page. The idea that you think all future players are expected to dig through dozens to hundreds of articles to find answers is absurd to the highest possible degree.

Reply by: reds8n - click to view full reply 

5394

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/22 11:18:37

Post by: reds8n

we're not going anywhere useful with this tangent, so we'll end it here & now.

Reply by: Leo_the_Rat - click to view full reply 

27903

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/22 12:03:47

Post by: Leo_the_Rat

The problem with the facebook page is that is now contradicting itself. In its own rules section it says it is not official. Now one poster posting on behalf of GW says it is official.
There's no way to tell if there has been a policy shift (unlikely or they would have just removed the rule) or a special exception has been made (again unlikely or they probably would have stated as much).
As it is now I can't put any more weight into it than anyone would have done in the 90's with "I talked to a guy on the 40K help line". As far as I'm concerned until the facebook page removes its opening guideline anything said on the page is unofficial.

Reply by: Lance845 - click to view full reply 

93221

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/22 19:24:51

Post by: Lance845

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
The problem with the facebook page is that is now contradicting itself. In its own rules section it says it is not official. Now one poster posting on behalf of GW says it is official.
There's no way to tell if there has been a policy shift (unlikely or they would have just removed the rule) or a special exception has been made (again unlikely or they probably would have stated as much).
As it is now I can't put any more weight into it than anyone would have done in the 90's with "I talked to a guy on the 40K help line". As far as I'm concerned until the facebook page removes its opening guideline anything said on the page is unofficial.

To add to this with some new data.

When discussing the legality of using Codex Sub Faction specific benefits with Forgeworld armies someone posed the question to Facebook and got this response.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/120/740983.page

Source

But here is the official FAQ (pg 4 right column)

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/40K_8th_ed_Update_Imperial_Armour_Index_Forces_of_the_Astra_Militarum_ver_1.1.pdf

FAQs
Q: Can Death Korps of Krieg, Elysian Drop Troops or Renegades and Heretics Detachments use any of the Regiment-specific rules (Doctrines, Orders, Stratagems, Warlord Traits, etc.) in Codex: Astra Militarum?

A: No. Instead these units use the bespoke abilities and Orders that are described in Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum.

As you can see, Facebook doesn't know what the hell they are talking about. Anyone citing Facebook to support an argument is wasting their time.

Reply by: JohnnyHell - click to view full reply 

10953

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/22 23:05:10

Post by: JohnnyHell

That was already discussed - one of the Rules team chimed in later that day saying 'ah no' and the 40K page team deleted their post.

Reply by: Charistoph - click to view full reply 

95922

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/23 00:28:25

Post by: Charistoph

Lance845 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

But I think this boils down to this, and you should just be honest about it: "You do not accept the document to be a clarification and direction from GW". Would it really be so hard to just state this?

That statement is not how I feel. I accept the document as a whole. Not cherry picking out a single line, assigning value to it it doesn't have, and then extrapolating implications from the assumed value. You continue to have nothing that supports your stance. You just WISH GW would bring back some or any support for the idea of WYSIWYG. But they haven't. WYSIWYG died in the rules a few editions ago. It's dead, Jim. Let it go.

WYSIWYG is not dead, though. It may be gone from the baseline rules, and no one here is arguing it isn't, but it is a historical factor, a current tournament factor, and a factor involved.

I have not stated any wishes along this route. I have read the statement, and it is talking about a long history of models having options in the Index that they do not have in the Codex. This does not imply anything to a new user, but is about old players with old models. There is literally nothing else it can be talking about, as it is specifically about using miniatures, which are models.

Lance845 wrote:Models are representations of datasheets, not options.

I am going to need a quote on that one.

First off, Datasheets provide information for units and is used as a reference. For clarity:

Battle Primer wrote:Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models in that unit

Second, I don't see any instructions about pushing datasheets around the table or datasheets shooting datasheets. You push models around the table and have models shoot units. Units are made up of models. Units have options to add models to the unit, and models have the options to swap out their wargear. This is usually represented on the model for clarity and many people prefer to have their models WYSIWYG for such a purpose (yourself included).

Lance845 wrote:I wanted to make sure my answer was clear. I didn't want any confusion on your or anyone else part when I said there was an exception for "things" not in the codex. The "things" they make exceptiosn for are datasheets. Not wargear.

Correction: They are for, "datasheets for your models". Don't just cut it off. That's cherry-picking, and you apparently hate cherry-picking.

Reply by: TheWaspinator - click to view full reply 

96540

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/23 01:41:16

Post by: TheWaspinator

Actually, the Death Guard, Imperial Guard, Adeptus Mechanicus, and Imperial Guard FAQs are just on the community site, not the errata section of the main GW site. The community site is totally the current source of FAQs.

Reply by: Lance845 - click to view full reply 

93221

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/23 02:12:15

Post by: Lance845

 Charistoph wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

But I think this boils down to this, and you should just be honest about it: "You do not accept the document to be a clarification and direction from GW". Would it really be so hard to just state this?

That statement is not how I feel. I accept the document as a whole. Not cherry picking out a single line, assigning value to it it doesn't have, and then extrapolating implications from the assumed value. You continue to have nothing that supports your stance. You just WISH GW would bring back some or any support for the idea of WYSIWYG. But they haven't. WYSIWYG died in the rules a few editions ago. It's dead, Jim. Let it go.

WYSIWYG is not dead, though. It may be gone from the baseline rules, and no one here is arguing it isn't, but it is a historical factor, a current tournament factor, and a factor involved.

I have not stated any wishes along this route. I have read the statement, and it is talking about a long history of models having options in the Index that they do not have in the Codex. This does not imply anything to a new user, but is about old players with old models. There is literally nothing else it can be talking about, as it is specifically about using miniatures, which are models.

Maybe you are not understanding what this discussion is about? Maybe I didn't make it clear? I apologize. I don't care what exceptions each individual tournament makes for their rules. I am not interested in what exceptions each individual makes for their own personal games. Neither of those things are relevant in YMDC unless specifically the subject of the thread. This thread is talking about the baseline rules and allowances and expectations. I understand that you believe they wrote a special little question for special little people that have been around for a big long time. Something they have never done, and something that they have no reason to do. Your going to need to back up that assumption with some other data. Otherwise you taking that one sentence on it's own is not enough to be credible to your argument.

Lance845 wrote:Models are representations of datasheets, not options.

I am going to need a quote on that one.

Page 174 of the core rule book. DATASHEETS.

Page 176 of the core rule book. Models and Datasheets. The rules and characteristics for all models, and some terrain features are presented on datasheets.

Those are all the pages that list rules in relation to models. You will notice it never making any requirements for the options to actually be modeled. You will notice that the datasheet provides all the rules for the model. The whole datasheet provides all the rules for the model. Including the options.

First off, Datasheets provide information for units and is used as a reference. For clarity:

Battle Primer wrote:Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models in that unit

Second, I don't see any instructions about pushing datasheets around the table or datasheets shooting datasheets. You push models around the table and have models shoot units. Units are made up of models. Units have options to add models to the unit, and models have the options to swap out their wargear. This is usually represented on the model for clarity and many people prefer to have their models WYSIWYG for such a purpose (yourself included).

Did you just say units have options to add models to the unit?

Like... conscripts adding enough models to build a 50 model unit?

When you can show me a rule requiring the options to be on there for clarity or that what "many people prefer" has any bearing on the actual baseline rules of the game you might have a leg to stand on. But they seem to be absent from the rules.

Lance845 wrote:I wanted to make sure my answer was clear. I didn't want any confusion on your or anyone else part when I said there was an exception for "things" not in the codex. The "things" they make exceptiosn for are datasheets. Not wargear.

Correction: They are for, "datasheets for your models". Don't just cut it off. That's cherry-picking, and you apparently hate cherry-picking.

As you said, datasheets represent units. WHich are in turn composed of models. None of which require WYSIWYG.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheWaspinator wrote:
Actually, the Death Guard, Imperial Guard, Adeptus Mechanicus, and Imperial Guard FAQs are just on the community site, not the errata section of the main GW site. The community site is totally the current source of FAQs.

And I am sure those FAQs will make their way to the FAQ section soon enough. Are you seriously arguing that a player is expected to wade through the community site to look for articles that link to FAQs to get the latest rules? Or that the article itself is a valid FAQ for rules debate on it's own? Or even if it IS that you can cherry pick the one sentence while ignoring the question and the rest of the article? You will also note that the FAQs for those books you mentioned are linked to PDF documents like all the other FAQs. Besides an attempt to be obstinate because all your other arguments have been shot down hard is there any reason you decided to chime in with this comment? Are you just throwing more darts and the dartboard and hoping any of them stick? What exactly is the argument your making here?

Reply by: Charistoph - click to view full reply 

95922

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/23 04:36:47

Post by: Charistoph

 Lance845 wrote:
Maybe you are not understanding what this discussion is about? Maybe I didn't make it clear? I apologize. I don't care what exceptions each individual tournament makes for their rules. I am not interested in what exceptions each individual makes for their own personal games. Neither of those things are relevant in YMDC unless specifically the subject of the thread. This thread is talking about the baseline rules and allowances and expectations. I understand that you believe they wrote a special little question for special little people that have been around for a big long time. Something they have never done, and something that they have no reason to do. Your going to need to back up that assumption with some other data. Otherwise you taking that one sentence on it's own is not enough to be credible to your argument.

You may not care, but that doesn't mean that GW doesn't care (oddly enough). Old players bring new players in to the game. Old players have old models that they want to use. This sentence can only be an allowance for that situation. It doesn't mention anything about units, just miniatures, so that cannot be it.

 Lance845 wrote:

Lance845 wrote:Models are representations of datasheets, not options.

I am going to need a quote on that one.

Page 174 of the core rule book. DATASHEETS.

Page 176 of the core rule book. Models and Datasheets. The rules and characteristics for all models, and some terrain features are presented on datasheets.

Those are all the pages that list rules in relation to models. You will notice it never making any requirements for the options to actually be modeled. You will notice that the datasheet provides all the rules for the model. The whole datasheet provides all the rules for the model. Including the options.

You have quoted nothing that indicates that models represent datasheets. Your quote simply states that it carries the rules and characteristics. That is nothing about the model being the datasheet on the table.

 Lance845 wrote:

First off, Datasheets provide information for units and is used as a reference. For clarity:

Battle Primer wrote:Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models in that unit

Second, I don't see any instructions about pushing datasheets around the table or datasheets shooting datasheets. You push models around the table and have models shoot units. Units are made up of models. Units have options to add models to the unit, and models have the options to swap out their wargear. This is usually represented on the model for clarity and many people prefer to have their models WYSIWYG for such a purpose (yourself included).

Did you just say units have options to add models to the unit?

Like... conscripts adding enough models to build a 50 model unit?

When you can show me a rule requiring the options to be on there for clarity or that what "many people prefer" has any bearing on the actual baseline rules of the game you might have a leg to stand on. But they seem to be absent from the rules.

Yes, options to the unit. The statement that DoctorTom presented was about options for the MODELS. Do you understand the difference between a model in the unit in game terms? So far, your statements have indicated that you do not, but that you consider them to be the same thing.

A unit can add more models to the unit. A model can exchange a Weapon for another Weapon, or it can add additional Wargear to itself.

Can you present any datasheet option which states the UNIT gains a Wargear without giving it to a model first?

 Lance845 wrote:

Lance845 wrote:I wanted to make sure my answer was clear. I didn't want any confusion on your or anyone else part when I said there was an exception for "things" not in the codex. The "things" they make exceptiosn for are datasheets. Not wargear.

Correction: They are for, "datasheets for your models". Don't just cut it off. That's cherry-picking, and you apparently hate cherry-picking.

As you said, datasheets represent units. WHich are in turn composed of models. None of which require WYSIWYG.

But it is allowable by the same statement DoctorTom has presented. Your choice to blind yourself to this concept because WYSIWYG is not in the baseline rules indicates that you are deliberately choosing to remain ignorant on this.

Reply by: Rolsheen - click to view full reply 

105865

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/23 05:21:55

Post by: Rolsheen

Here's a current example for you guys to ponder, the Eldar Autarch in the Codex is suppose to be missing access to wings yet GW have just put the winged model back up for sale. "Here you go guys a model you can't legally use anymore because you have to use the Codex"

Total Nonsense, feel free to use the indexes for models not in the Codex unless told by tournament organizers.

Reply by: Lance845 - click to view full reply 

93221

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/23 05:43:33

Post by: Lance845

 Charistoph wrote:
The whole thing

This is going to be the last time I acknowledge any post in this thread that has anything to do with WYSIWYG as a rule without some rock solid evidence of it from GW to support the statements.

This thread is in YMDC presenting arguments about the expectations of the baseline rules. If HYWPI is to make use of WYSIWYG then thats just great. But this thread is not about what pleasantries you enjoy/expect/would like rules support for. And unless some rules show up requiring players to conform to WYSIWYG it will have no impact on any of the datasheets. I ignore WYSIWYG in this thread. It's not relevant. Unless you can support WYSIWYG with a explicit statement that comes from an official rules source (A rules Errata or a rule book) then it doesn't matter how you choose to read any given sentence in any given statement from any other source. Your single sentence has no value on it's own. It needs to be supported by other sources. None of you have any.

If you have an argument that is not based in WYSIWYG bring it forward. Would love to discuss it. But I won't waste any more time debating your edition lag.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rolsheen wrote:
Here's a current example for you guys to ponder, the Eldar Autarch in the Codex is suppose to be missing access to wings yet GW have just put the winged model back up for sale. "Here you go guys a model you can't legally use anymore because you have to use the Codex"

Total Nonsense, feel free to use the indexes for models not in the Codex unless told by tournament organizers.

A Autarch with Swooping Hawk Wings is a different datasheet from a standard Autarch. You are allowed to go to the index for units that do not have datasheets in the codex. It's no different from a Librarian on a Bike being a different datasheet from a librarian. That wasn't something up for debate. The GT permissions allow you to use Index datasheets for units not in the codex as well. That is not what is being debated.

What is being debated is what datasheet you are expected to use when the codex DOES update your datasheet. I.E. the greyknight codex gives a new datasheet for the dreadnought. The SM codex gives a different new datasheet for the dreadnought. The Imperial Guard codex gives a new datasheet for conscripts.

Reply by: JohnnyHell - click to view full reply 

10953

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/23 14:08:06

Post by: JohnnyHell

Pouring some fuel on this dumpster fire is this post in N&R:

Mandragola wrote:
In prep for the the UKGT heat last weekend a friend asked if he could still use his GK dreadnoughts with quad autocannons, using the options and points from the index (as twin autocannons don't have points in the codex).

He was told yes. That's about as "tournament official" as it gets.

Reply by: Niiru - click to view full reply 

57123

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/23 15:33:48

Post by: Niiru

 Lance845 wrote:


And I am sure those FAQs will make their way to the FAQ section soon enough. Are you seriously arguing that a player is expected to wade through the community site to look for articles that link to FAQs to get the latest rules? Or that the article itself is a valid FAQ for rules debate on it's own? Or even if it IS that you can cherry pick the one sentence while ignoring the question and the rest of the article? You will also note that the FAQs for those books you mentioned are linked to PDF documents like all the other FAQs. Besides an attempt to be obstinate because all your other arguments have been shot down hard is there any reason you decided to chime in with this comment? Are you just throwing more darts and the dartboard and hoping any of them stick? What exactly is the argument your making here?

"Soon enough" just isn't soon enough!

But seriously, it does seem like GW are purposely hosting the FAQ's on the warhammer community site now. Not long ago I was looking up a particular rule change that I knew had taken place weeks (if not months) before, but I couldn't find it anywhere. I was confused as hell, until I eventually found a forum poster saying that the updated rule was in FAQ 1.1... and the GW website version was still only 1.0. And this was many weeks after the FAQ had been updated.

This was when I learned to go to warhammer-community for FAQ's instead, as you can no longer trust that the GW website rules are even remotely up to date. I'd always assumed GW site would be the most up to date source for everything, up until that point.

So yeh, for FAQ's and Erratas, always use warhammer-community.

The only issue I have now, is that they don't actually have a shortcut to the rules on their site that I can find. You have to search for the right post. It's a pain. But it's still the only way to be sure you're getting the right rules.

Reply by: doctortom - click to view full reply 

105443

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/23 15:59:03

Post by: doctortom

 Lance845 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheWaspinator wrote:
Actually, the Death Guard, Imperial Guard, Adeptus Mechanicus, and Imperial Guard FAQs are just on the community site, not the errata section of the main GW site. The community site is totally the current source of FAQs.

And I am sure those FAQs will make their way to the FAQ section soon enough. Are you seriously arguing that a player is expected to wade through the community site to look for articles that link to FAQs to get the latest rules?

Since that is the place where GW is posting them now, then yes, he's seriously arguing it. I know it must be arduous on you to type in FAQ in the "search" area in order for you to "wade through" the site.

 Lance845 wrote:
Or that the article itself is a valid FAQ for rules debate on it's own? Or even if it IS that you can cherry pick the one sentence while ignoring the question and the rest of the article?

If you don't like "cherry picking the one sentence", then stop doing it. You're the one cherry picking one sentence while ignoring the question (which started with being about using older models, and gives a long answer - NOT one sentence - about how to use the old models). You also are explicitly told to use the index rules and most recent point costs - that covers using codex point costs for the weapons.


To answer a comment you had a couple of pages back - no, I wasn't arguing WYSIWYG. I was arguing the procedure laid out by GW for using older models. This is the procedure you were originally arguing can not be used in any official games and can not be used in matched play (despite the document telling you specifically how to calculate points for matched play). You still insist that the codex must be used in all cases, which is patently false given that they just gave a procedure for you to use index when a more recent codex does not have the options on your older model.


"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)."

This is referring to the older models. The reference to a datasheet here is using the datasheet from the index that has the older options on it. They go into this futher. Nobody is taking anything out of context referring to this. If anything you are the one taking things out of context with your "in all cases" talk . The document does not say "in all cases", and that statement is patently false given that they have lain out a procedure in the first place for using the index entry for options on older models that are covered by the index but not by the codex. That is one of my problems with your argument - the blatant distortion in your extrapolation of what they say so that it no longer allows you to do what they just took time out to explain how you can do it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Niiru wrote:

The only issue I have now, is that they don't actually have a shortcut to the rules on their site that I can find. You have to search for the right post. It's a pain. But it's still the only way to be sure you're getting the right rules.

They have "search" at the opper right of the page - typing in FAQ will show the posts with FAQs attched. You'll still have to go through those for the most recent updates (though it looks like they display the articles by most recent first).

Reply by: BaconCatBug - click to view full reply 

81759

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/23 16:07:05

Post by: BaconCatBug

 doctortom wrote:
They have "search" at the opper right of the page - typing in FAQ will show the posts with FAQs attched. You'll still have to go through those for the most recent updates (though it looks like they display the articles by most recent first).

Except the community page is not a rules resource. By that logic I could make up my own PDFs and claim they are just as valid.

Reply by: doctortom - click to view full reply 

105443

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/23 16:22:15

Post by: doctortom

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
They have "search" at the opper right of the page - typing in FAQ will show the posts with FAQs attched. You'll still have to go through those for the most recent updates (though it looks like they display the articles by most recent first).

Except the community page is not a rules resource. By that logic I could make up my own PDFs and claim they are just as valid.

Are you playing using the FAQs provided by the community page?

Reply by: Lance845 - click to view full reply 

93221

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/23 17:21:07

Post by: Lance845

JohnnyHell wrote:Pouring some fuel on this dumpster fire is this post in N&R:

Mandragola wrote:
In prep for the the UKGT heat last weekend a friend asked if he could still use his GK dreadnoughts with quad autocannons, using the options and points from the index (as twin autocannons don't have points in the codex).

He was told yes. That's about as "tournament official" as it gets.

Interesting if true. But what some guy says his friend was told by... I don't even know who he asked from that quote, is not a great or reliable resource. For all we know he asked his question on facebook.

Niiru wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:


And I am sure those FAQs will make their way to the FAQ section soon enough. Are you seriously arguing that a player is expected to wade through the community site to look for articles that link to FAQs to get the latest rules? Or that the article itself is a valid FAQ for rules debate on it's own? Or even if it IS that you can cherry pick the one sentence while ignoring the question and the rest of the article? You will also note that the FAQs for those books you mentioned are linked to PDF documents like all the other FAQs. Besides an attempt to be obstinate because all your other arguments have been shot down hard is there any reason you decided to chime in with this comment? Are you just throwing more darts and the dartboard and hoping any of them stick? What exactly is the argument your making here?

"Soon enough" just isn't soon enough!

But seriously, it does seem like GW are purposely hosting the FAQ's on the warhammer community site now. Not long ago I was looking up a particular rule change that I knew had taken place weeks (if not months) before, but I couldn't find it anywhere. I was confused as hell, until I eventually found a forum poster saying that the updated rule was in FAQ 1.1... and the GW website version was still only 1.0. And this was many weeks after the FAQ had been updated.

This was when I learned to go to warhammer-community for FAQ's instead, as you can no longer trust that the GW website rules are even remotely up to date. I'd always assumed GW site would be the most up to date source for everything, up until that point.

So yeh, for FAQ's and Erratas, always use warhammer-community.

The only issue I have now, is that they don't actually have a shortcut to the rules on their site that I can find. You have to search for the right post. It's a pain. But it's still the only way to be sure you're getting the right rules.

GW is crap at updating FAQs. Has been happening for years. But since there is a a easily accessible section for rules errata I cannot expect any person I am playing with to know to search a separate web site for news articles to get their FAQs and errata. That's just unreasonable. We here on Dakka pool our collected knowledge and that way know more about where things are located then otherwise but this community is a very VERY small % of the people playing the game and it's fair to assume that not everyone checks the community site on any kind of regular basis. I am not saying the FAQs linked to in the community articles are not official FAQs (Note I said the the PDF documents they link to not the blurbs they write in their blog) but I just cannot expect my opponent would have any knowledge of them.

doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheWaspinator wrote:
Actually, the Death Guard, Imperial Guard, Adeptus Mechanicus, and Imperial Guard FAQs are just on the community site, not the errata section of the main GW site. The community site is totally the current source of FAQs.

And I am sure those FAQs will make their way to the FAQ section soon enough. Are you seriously arguing that a player is expected to wade through the community site to look for articles that link to FAQs to get the latest rules?

Since that is the place where GW is posting them now, then yes, he's seriously arguing it. I know it must be arduous on you to type in FAQ in the "search" area in order for you to "wade through" the site.

See above. GW has a place for them to go. GWs being a feth up about it. The docs are real. The expectation is unreasonable.

 Lance845 wrote:
Or that the article itself is a valid FAQ for rules debate on it's own? Or even if it IS that you can cherry pick the one sentence while ignoring the question and the rest of the article?

If you don't like "cherry picking the one sentence", then stop doing it. You're the one cherry picking one sentence while ignoring the question (which started with being about using older models, and gives a long answer - NOT one sentence - about how to use the old models). You also are explicitly told to use the index rules and most recent point costs - that covers using codex point costs for the weapons.

the wargear options do not make one dreadnought different from another dreadnought in terms of which datasheet it has access to. The unit is "Dreadnought". This is not like a Librarian on a Bike vs a Librarian where his datasheet has not been updated.

To answer a comment you had a couple of pages back - no, I wasn't arguing WYSIWYG. I was arguing the procedure laid out by GW for using older models. This is the procedure you were originally arguing can not be used in any official games and can not be used in matched play (despite the document telling you specifically how to calculate points for matched play). You still insist that the codex must be used in all cases, which is patently false given that they just gave a procedure for you to use index when a more recent codex does not have the options on your older model.

I am really glad you decided to chime in on the WYSIWYG. Christoph has been claiming for a few pages now that your entire argument was based on WYSIWYG. I did say I didn't read it that way at one point but he has been persistent. Good to know.

So are you choosing to ignore the other questions where they say specifically that the codex supercedes the index datasheet? Or that you are expected to use the most up to date rules?

"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)."

This is referring to the older models. The reference to a datasheet here is using the datasheet from the index that has the older options on it. They go into this futher. Nobody is taking anything out of context referring to this. If anything you are the one taking things out of context with your "in all cases" talk . The document does not say "in all cases", and that statement is patently false given that they have lain out a procedure in the first place for using the index entry for options on older models that are covered by the index but not by the codex. That is one of my problems with your argument - the blatant distortion in your extrapolation of what they say so that it no longer allows you to do what they just took time out to explain how you can do it.

That would be the thing you guys cherry pick out of there while ignoring the rest of the document.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/07/05/codexes-your-questions-answered-july-5gw-homepage-post-2/

Are the rules changing?
Yes, many units’ rules in their codexes will alter from those in the indexes. Sometimes this is to better represent the miniatures and the background, sometimes to balance the game, and sometimes to better fit with the army’s new special rules in the codex itself. In all cases, these will then supersede the rules for that datasheet in the index book.

Emphasis added by me. The document does in fact say "in all cases".

doctortom wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
They have "search" at the opper right of the page - typing in FAQ will show the posts with FAQs attched. You'll still have to go through those for the most recent updates (though it looks like they display the articles by most recent first).

Except the community page is not a rules resource. By that logic I could make up my own PDFs and claim they are just as valid.

Are you playing using the FAQs provided by the community page?

It would be perfectly reasonable if he wasn't.

Reply by: doctortom - click to view full reply 

105443

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/23 17:38:27

Post by: doctortom

 Lance845 wrote:

the wargear options do not make one dreadnought different from another dreadnought in terms of which datasheet it has access to. The unit is "Dreadnought". This is not like a Librarian on a Bike vs a Librarian where his datasheet has not been updated. .

Okay, let's give you the entire answer to the first question. I wouldn't want you to think I was taking it out of context.

"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[/u]. 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."

They are giving us rules for being able to play models with older options by using the index for those with older options. Your argument here is worthless as it does not address the fundamental issue that they are letting you play models with older options that you can't get in the current codex. You don't just say "use the codex, you can't play the older model" - that's not what they are telling us. Saying you can't use the index Dread sheet to make a dread with older options is pure malarkey.

 Lance845 wrote:
I am really glad you decided to chime in on the WYSIWYG. Christoph has been claiming for a few pages now that your entire argument was based on WYSIWYG. I did say I didn't read it that way at one point but he has been persistent. Good to know.

So are you choosing to ignore the other questions where they say specifically that the codex supercedes the index datasheet? Or that you are expected to use the most up to date rules?

I am choosing to take them at their word when they say I can play my older models. That means the process they have given - using the index datasheet with current prices for options - is valid for older models with options no longer available. The codex does not specifically superced the index datasheet in these circumstances, since they have told us to use the older datasheets for those situations. When they cite a dread with weapon options no longer in the box as one of the older models then give you rules to be able to use it, that means you can use it. The rest of your argument is pure sophistry trying to claim that somebody can't play an older model despite there having been established a method for doing exactly that.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
[

doctortom wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
They have "search" at the opper right of the page - typing in FAQ will show the posts with FAQs attched. You'll still have to go through those for the most recent updates (though it looks like they display the articles by most recent first).

Except the community page is not a rules resource. By that logic I could make up my own PDFs and claim they are just as valid.

Are you playing using the FAQs provided by the community page?

It would be perfectly reasonable if he wasn't.

Please explain. If you know there are FAQs available and you know where the FAQs are, how is is "perfectly reasonable" to not use them? For somebody insisting on RAW, that seems quite a reversal for you.

Reply by: BaconCatBug - click to view full reply 

81759

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/23 17:52:50

Post by: BaconCatBug

I see you're cherry picking again, and ignoring the line about using the most up to date datasheets. At this point it's fair to say you're arguing for the sake of arguing.

Reply by: Lance845 - click to view full reply 

93221

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/23 17:59:13

Post by: Lance845

 doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

the wargear options do not make one dreadnought different from another dreadnought in terms of which datasheet it has access to. The unit is "Dreadnought". This is not like a Librarian on a Bike vs a Librarian where his datasheet has not been updated. .

Okay, let's give you the entire answer to the first question. I wouldn't want you to think I was taking it out of context.

"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[/u]. 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."

They are giving us rules for being able to play models with older options by using the index for those with older options. Your argument here is worthless as it does not address the fundamental issue that they are letting you play models with older options that you can't get in the current codex. You don't just say "use the codex, you can't play the older model" - that's not what they are telling us. Saying you can't use the index Dread sheet to make a dread with older options is pure malarkey.

 Lance845 wrote:
I am really glad you decided to chime in on the WYSIWYG. Christoph has been claiming for a few pages now that your entire argument was based on WYSIWYG. I did say I didn't read it that way at one point but he has been persistent. Good to know.

So are you choosing to ignore the other questions where they say specifically that the codex supercedes the index datasheet? Or that you are expected to use the most up to date rules?

I am choosing to take them at their word when they say I can play my older models. That means the process they have given - using the index datasheet with current prices for options - is valid for older models with options no longer available. The codex does not specifically superced the index datasheet in these circumstances, since they have told us to use the older datasheets for those situations. When they cite a dread with weapon options no longer in the box as one of the older models then give you rules to be able to use it, that means you can use it. The rest of your argument is pure sophistry trying to claim that somebody can't play an older model despite there having been established a method for doing exactly that.

I would be interested to hear your take on a question I posed to Waspinator that he never answered.

Please, if you think you are able to use index datasheets in official events or even standardized game play then explain how your quote functions along with the rest of the article and the GT permissions.

Again, I can see how your quote fits in with the rest of my interpretation. There is an exception made for your own personal matches where everyone agrees. I read it right there on the page. It clearly allows you to do that.

How do you justify the use of options no longer in the codex when you are told you are expected to be using the codex? When the GT standards say you have to use the codex. When "in all cases" and so on and so forth are stated repeatedly in multiple sources?

If our interpretations were jig saw puzzle pieces you would notice that your interpretation doesn't fit within the confines of any other statement i.e. the little nub on one side is fitting but none of the other edges are lining up. Mine fits all sides. You get to use your options within the stated exceptions (one side fits in place) but when playing based on the standardized rules (another side), official events (there goes the 3rd) or tournaments (hey look, that piece goes right there) you need to use the most recently published datasheet.

To reiterate, I believe you are allowed to use the index options, with the codex prices, in your own games, with your opponents permission. But that the baseline rules of the game require you to be using the most up to date datasheets. This is backed by these quotes.

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.


Are the rules changing?

Yes, many units’ rules in their codexes will alter from those in the indexes. Sometimes this is to better represent the miniatures and the background, sometimes to balance the game, and sometimes to better fit with the army’s new special rules in the codex itself. In all cases, these will then supersede the rules for that datasheet in the index book.


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.


Can I choose to use the rules and/or points for units from my index instead of the new ones in the codex once released?

In your own games, if you and your opponent agree, you can, of course, play with whatever rules you like.

In all future publications and official events though, it will be assumed that you’re using the most recent rules and Datasheets. It will also be assumed that you’re using the most up to date points for matched play, in this case, those included in the codex.

https://warhammerworld.games-workshop.com/warhammer-40000-grand-tournament/

Publications in use: All current and in-print Warhammer 40,000 Index books and Codexes from Games Workshop and Forge World, unless their release falls on the weekend of the event. We expect you to use the most current datasheets for your models – e.g. those found in a Codex rather than an Index if a Codex is available for your army. This means that you may use Faction-appropriate Index datasheets that might not appear in your Codex (such as Chaplain on Bike)

Can you explain how your interpretation fits within the confines of the entire document? Or does it only work if you take the one question entirely on it's own?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
[

doctortom wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
They have "search" at the opper right of the page - typing in FAQ will show the posts with FAQs attched. You'll still have to go through those for the most recent updates (though it looks like they display the articles by most recent first).

Except the community page is not a rules resource. By that logic I could make up my own PDFs and claim they are just as valid.

Are you playing using the FAQs provided by the community page?

It would be perfectly reasonable if he wasn't.

Please explain. If you know there are FAQs available and you know where the FAQs are, how is is "perfectly reasonable" to not use them? For somebody insisting on RAW, that seems quite a reversal for you.

Because it's not just about what he knows. If he shows up at a store for a warhammer night where everyone is supposed to show up with a 2k list I would expect that he showed up with a list that meets all criteria he is aware of. But it would be super unreasonable to expect anyone else in his FLGS to have been keeping up to date with a daily news blog. His opponents could very reasonably not have the most current FAQs and his games could very reasonably not factor them in.

Reply by: doctortom - click to view full reply 

105443

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/23 18:44:35

Post by: doctortom

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I see you're cherry picking again, and ignoring the line about using the most up to date datasheets. At this point it's fair to say you're arguing for the sake of arguing.

So, a spurious swipe instead of answering the question I asked you? Classy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
I would be interested to hear your take on a question I posed to Waspinator that he never answered.

Please, if you think you are able to use index datasheets in official events or even standardized game play then explain how your quote functions along with the rest of the article and the GT permissions.

Again, I can see how your quote fits in with the rest of my interpretation. There is an exception made for your own personal matches where everyone agrees. I read it right there on the page. It clearly allows you to do that.

How do you justify the use of options no longer in the codex when you are told you are expected to be using the codex? When the GT standards say you have to use the codex. When "in all cases" and so on and so forth are stated repeatedly in multiple sources?

If our interpretations were jig saw puzzle pieces you would notice that your interpretation doesn't fit within the confines of any other statement i.e. the little nub on one side is fitting but none of the other edges are lining up. Mine fits all sides. You get to use your options within the stated exceptions (one side fits in place) but when playing based on the standardized rules (another side), official events (there goes the 3rd) or tournaments (hey look, that piece goes right there) you need to use the most recently published datasheet.

To reiterate, I believe you are allowed to use the index options, with the codex prices, in your own games, with your opponents permission. But that the baseline rules of the game require you to be using the most up to date datasheets. This is backed by these quotes.

I've actually given answers that apply to your question. I justify the use of options no longer in the codex by the fact that GW has provided a method for using older models with options not covered by the current codex. If you're not using older models, then certainly you chould be using the current codex. As they have provided a method for using older models, and the method involves using the index datasheet with the options, then I am fully justified in using the index datasheet to play those older models. This includes dreadnoughts with weapons options no longer available (as that is one of the examples cited for using this procedure). Therefore, "in all cases" is most emphatically NOT "all cases", since we have established a case here where you do in fact use the index datasheet (although with the most recent costs).

I think the problem is your insistence on "baseline rules of the game". When you say "in your own games", which you say is where you believe you are allowed to use the index options, you are ignoring the fact that any game you are in is "your own game". Yes, you need opponents' permission if it's a friendly game. If it's a tournament you need to check with the tournament organizer to see if they're okay with it. Your "baseline game" statement is irrelevant, it's whoever is in charge of the game (you and your opponent, or the tournament organizers) who determine if it's allowed. You can pretend it's not a baseline rule when in fact it's a baseline procedure, something GW has enacted for anybody who would like to use their older models. It's a perfectly valid procedure which you seem to want to try to ignore by saying it's only in "your own games".

Reply by: Lance845 - click to view full reply 

93221

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/23 19:01:05

Post by: Lance845

 doctortom wrote:

I've actually given answers that apply to your question. I justify the use of options no longer in the codex by the fact that GW has provided a method for using older models with options not covered by the current codex. If you're not using older models, then certainly you chould be using the current codex. As they have provided a method for using older models, and the method involves using the index datasheet with the options, then I am fully justified in using the index datasheet to play those older models. This includes dreadnoughts with weapons options no longer available (as that is one of the examples cited for using this procedure). Therefore, "in all cases" is most emphatically NOT "all cases", since we have established a case here where you do in fact use the index datasheet (although with the most recent costs).

I think the problem is your insistence on "baseline rules of the game". When you say "in your own games", which you say is where you believe you are allowed to use the index options, you are ignoring the fact that any game you are in is "your own game". Yes, you need opponents' permission if it's a friendly game. If it's a tournament you need to check with the tournament organizer to see if they're okay with it. Your "baseline game" statement is irrelevant, it's whoever is in charge of the game (you and your opponent, or the tournament organizers) who determine if it's allowed. You can pretend it's not a baseline rule when in fact it's a baseline procedure, something GW has enacted for anybody who would like to use their older models. It's a perfectly valid procedure which you seem to want to try to ignore by saying it's only in "your own games".

So your argument is if you have that specific kit then you can use the index to represent the options that that specific kit came with.

Are you aware that no citadel produced dreadnought kit ever came with twin autocannons?

Reply by: doctortom - click to view full reply 

105443

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  @ 2017/10/23 19:06:34

Post by: doctortom

 Lance845 wrote:
[

doctortom wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
They have "search" at the opper right of the page - typing in FAQ will show the posts with FAQs attched. You'll still have to go through those for the most recent updates (though it looks like they display the articles by most recent first).

Except the community page is not a rules resource. By that logic I could make up my own PDFs and claim they are just as valid.

Are you playing using the FAQs provided by the community page?

It would be perfectly reasonable if he wasn't.

Please explain. If you know there are FAQs available and you know where the FAQs are, how is is "perfectly reasonable" to not use them? For somebody insisting on RAW, that seems quite a reversal for you.