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.

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

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

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

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

Bitter much?

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

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

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

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

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

IG suffered lot. They lost hood and mystics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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






-The answer is yes (LoL)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. BGB
2. Codices


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

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

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

But, I could be wrong....

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

Melissia wrote:I agree!

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

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

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

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

1. BGB
2. Codices

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

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

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

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

Exactly.

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

But, I could be wrong....

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

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

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

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

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

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



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



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



Thanks,



Brendan

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

It's all about perspective.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, I don't.

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

Melissia wrote:

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

No, I don't.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So is someone keeping tabs one way or the other?

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