Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Since the DH codex (with updates) has been published by GW: http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1050287a_Codex__Daemonhunters without referencing allies and defining what a daemon is, is it safe to say that allied inquisitors and arguments about whether a demon prince is a demon are just bad memories?

DooDoo wrote:Since the DH codex (with updates) has been published by GW: http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1050287a_Codex__Daemonhunters without referencing allies and defining what a daemon is, is it safe to say that allied inquisitors and arguments about whether a demon prince is a demon are just bad memories?

No, since all you have to do is pull out your DH codex and say "Look, here are the allies rules".

Doesnt the most recent published official codex take precedent?

By the same brain-dead logic, I can say "HERR, but there's no Force Org chart, so I have an army of nothing but GKT and Land Raiders! Durp de durr!"

DooDoo wrote:Doesnt the most recent published official codex take precedent?

I would think so, as they've done this before. The Necron codex comes to mind as I know that one got a stealth update too. Plus, what is someone new to the game/army to think? The codex says nothing of the sort concerning allies, and it's the only official codex available from GW.

In short, their lack of communication will cause a great deal of arguments that could easily be solved by some openness concerning their actions.

Looking through it, it's pretty obvious it's not a "new publication", it's a select excerpt from the actual book. Note they didn't fix any of the old wargear or include the errata. Interesting that they did update the page number references though. I guess if this PDF were to override the real Codex, then Quixos and the rest of the fluff doesn't exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Honestly, I'm pretty sure they just dropped the allies page because they dropped the page containing all of the out of date references to 3rd edition rules and they wanted the borders at the edge of the pages to line up.

daedalus wrote:Looking through it, it's pretty obvious it's not a "new publication", it's a select excerpt from the actual book. Note they didn't fix any of the old wargear or include the errata. Interesting that they did update the page number references though. I guess if this PDF were to override the real Codex, then Quixos and the rest of the fluff doesn't exist.

No argument from me there, as it is an unfortunate mess as it stands now. Still, if I was just starting DH and this is what I had for my army what would I be forced to think?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

daedalus wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
Honestly, I'm pretty sure they just dropped the allies page because they dropped the page containing all of the out of date references to 3rd edition rules and they wanted the borders at the edge of the pages to line up.

It's as likely as any other reason I have to admit ;-)

Will this new ruling need to be built into the INAT or is clear enough on its face I wonder?

DooDoo wrote:Doesnt the most recent published official codex take precedent?

"Uploading" is not the same as "Publishing".

Gwar! wrote:

DooDoo wrote:Doesnt the most recent published official codex take precedent?

"Uploading" is not the same as "Publishing".

Fair enough. Is the PDF Daemonhunter codex on the GW website the official codex or not?

DooDoo wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

DooDoo wrote:Doesnt the most recent published official codex take precedent?

"Uploading" is not the same as "Publishing".

Fair enough. Is the PDF Daemonhunter codex on the GW website the official codex or not?

It has the same rules as the printed one as far as I know if that's what you mean.

But thats not true. They have included errata fixes in this new printing of the codex (see the entry for hellpistols that were originally listed as heavy weapons).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
See also the last page for the following text:

"Second Printing."

-shrug-

It's up to you really I guess.

Thats a cop out. Why are you not applying the same objective logic to this rules question as you to do others.

DooDoo wrote:Thats a cop out. Why are you not applying the same objective logic to this rules question as you to do others.

Because when I do, all I get are people screaming about TMIR and Flamebaiting me.

You want RaW? Fine. RaW, the Entire game is opponents permission only. If you want to play with no allies, fine. I want to play with allies, so I'll find someone else who wants to play with allies.

If you want to play the old Catachans and your opponent says ok, neither I nor J̸͓̱̹̮̤̇e̹̒ͤ̈́͆̊̾r̟̩̳̙̞͍̭vͯį͙̰̯̜̭̤͖ͤ͗s̶͙̝̿̂̄,̫̍ͬͣ̈́ͪ ̂͊͗҉̼̯͔͖͈͙D̡̤̰̥͓͈̣͗̒̓ę̻̝̳̬̹ͬ̐̂̋ͬ̇s̊t̵͂ͬ̏̂r̵o̸̙̹̹̰̱̪̣ͥ͆̄ͭͫ̆y̜̮̳̭̼͜ȩ͕̾͋ͨ̚r͂ͥ̿ͧ́͐̀҉̖͖̙̹̜̻̟ ̰̗̻̞͓̯͊ͧͅo̷͔̠̱̙ͦ͒̌͌̄̔̉f͖̟͙ ̛̖͊W̫͖͈̲̼̔́̋̈ō̼̯̝ͬ́r̦̜͚̩̳̤̟ͦͤl̬d̻̘̞̜̹͖ͧ̄ͅsͮ͏̻̤̰̮̘ is going to ninja stalk you and hit you with a club.

Let me try this one (same argument in the rumor thread):

I'm not going to prove or disprove allies, but I'm going to invalidate the PDF in general. Should cause the same desired effect.

First off, it should be the Third Printing now anyway, because I think that the actual print codex was the original second printing, if I'm not mistaken.

This PDF is missing the FoC chart. The only global ruleset that contains reference to the FoC is the BRB at page 87.
Page 87 DOES give the FoC as we know it, however, it says, and I quote:

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

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

Hilarious. Can we drop it now?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DooDoo wrote:Doesnt the most recent published official codex take precedent?

Last but not least, what sort of publication lacks a ISBN? Look for it. It's not there. Even if it were, I bet it would be the same as the original book.

Allies are not just omitted: they are replaced by other artwork.

Codex Pages for Witch Hunters
Original PDF
24 14 Army List
25 15 Allies in Original || Inquisitor painting in PDF
26 16 HQ page with IG/SM[/code]

In Daemonhunters, it skips straight from Armoury to HQ, no Army List or Allies pages.

Homer

It looks like the rules for IG and SM to take these forces as allies have been removed.

What is likely is:

* GW won't FAQ this, ever.
* Dakka / INAT will decide this issue based on how many of the Grand Poohbah Council run with Inquisitor hoods.

"I need psychic defense." [ rules change ]

Flip a coin. Most of the Imperial players I've seen in my local area were running Inq's as a cheesy psychic defense without possessing either codex. They'll continue to do so, as printing a PDF is like, hard. My gut feeling is no allies from these half-dead codices -- but that opinion is largely irrelevant in whatever games you're playing. Including them is now going to be RAW from printed codex which you can no longer purchase new, that's been superseded by a PDF. Good luck with that, Señor WAAC.

Same thing for squeezing in the Grey Knights HQ choices + retinue in a 40-termie Space Marine army.

And really ... "uploading is not publishing" ?? C'mon, this is a ridiculous comment for a purveyor of web-distributed FAQs.

If you can use your Allies based army, I'm firing up my Alaitoc from Craftworld:Eldar. Oh wait, maybe a Genestealer cult! They are OOP... same as Dh/WH.

But wait, Dh/WH aren't OOP, they are superceded by the PDF's, just like Blood Angels were. Use the PDF versions or you are not following the most recent version of your Codex.

Homer

P.S. Did anyone in the UK phone up GW to see if they were just left out?

If you can use your Allies based army, I'm firing up my Alaitoc from Craftworld:Eldar. Oh wait, maybe a Genestealer cult! They are OOP... same as Dh/WH.

+1, Homer

Time to check the next game flea market for the Lost and the Damned. The floodgates are open!

Except the BA Codex was a new codex.

This isn't.

Gwar! wrote:Except the BA Codex was a new codex.

This isn't.

If i was to print this codex off, and compare it to one purchased off the shelf, would they be the same?

jbunny wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Except the BA Codex was a new codex.

This isn't.

If i was to print this codex off, and compare it to one purchased off the shelf, would they be the same?

Well, look at the codex covers for a start.

That's kind of a hint, no?

And if any of you wanted to actually run those armies against me, I'd be 100% okay with that. I might even try to find a copy of C: Catachans and play along, since nothing's said it's invalid either. My problem is, as you can see from my earlier post, that they released a full army reference that isn't a codex, and thus invalidates nothing. You can't infer that the allies page missing is significant without also inferring that the FoC missing is just as significant and in the same way. You gotta either give me allies or not be surprised when I show up with 20 Heavy choices.

If we use the 3rd Ed. Codex: Assassins replacement by Codex: Demonhunters as precedent, it seems likely that Games Workshop wants us to use the new rules, but they value the illusion of player freedom more than they value the harsh tournament-level consistency necessary to tell us when a Codex becomes invalid.

By the way, how awesome is it that we're basically having the same rules debate on Dakka as we did a decade ago when the Demonhunter rules were first released? "If Games Workshop wanted to invalidate the old Assassin rules they would have explicitly said so!"

No, they're not.

If the DH pdf overrides the DH codex, then DH are literally unplayable.

Gwar! wrote:

jbunny wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Except the BA Codex was a new codex.

This isn't.

If i was to print this codex off, and compare it to one purchased off the shelf, would they be the same?

Well, look at the codex covers for a start.

That's kind of a hint, no?

Cover looks the same, but I seem to remember something aobut judging a book by it's cover.... hmm how does that go again.

jbunny wrote:Cover looks the same, but I seem to remember something aobut judging a book by it's cover.... hmm how does that go again.

The very common English idiom "don't judge a book by its cover" is a metaphorical phrase which means "don't determine the worth of something based on its appearance".

"The Worth" is not the same as "The Content".

Perhaps you should brush up on your English Idioms before making yourself look like a bit of a fool, eh?

THe content is not the same. At least two pages, containing special rules for Grey Knights, are missing. The PDF is unplayable because many special rules are undefined in it.

Gwar! wrote:

jbunny wrote:Cover looks the same, but I seem to remember something aobut judging a book by it's cover.... hmm how does that go again.

The very common English idiom "don't judge a book by its cover" is a metaphorical phrase which means "don't determine the worth of something based on its appearance".

"The Worth" is not the same as "The Content".

Perhaps you should brush up on your English Idioms before making yourself look like a bit of a fool, eh?

Oh I know what it means. I was pointing out that just because the two covers look the same, does not mean they are the same book. look at the Chaos Space Marine Codex from 4th. It had like 4 printings and the cover never changed. If you go through page by page then the one online will not match the one bought in a store. Therefore they are not the same book.