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.

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.

 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.

 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".

 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?

 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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:


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?

I'm aware that GW had the legal option for making those dreads at one point, and at the time encouraged kitbashing so that people could play those options. So yes, I'm aware of all that you state, just as I'm aware that people made conversions that gave perfectly legal combinations at the time. Gw chooses to not punish the people who did so. You should consider the same.

So as long as any person shows up with a conversion they can use whatever rules they like? This sounds a lot like you are saying they wrote a rule that requires the existence of WYSIWYG. Are you NOW trying to argue that the model needs to be actually modeled with twin autocannons in order to use the index datasheet? Because if so your argument is done. WYSIWYG is not a rule and that one statement doesn't suddenly make it so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:

So you tell them that the FAQs are there, and show them the FAQs. Since he knows the FAQs are there presumably he would factor the FAQs into his army list. Also, presumably, he would let the people he's playing with know about the FAQs and find out whether or not they've seen him. IOr are you suggesting that people make up separate army lists, one for using with the FAQ and one for using when not using the FAQ while playing? Or not even bother with the list that uses the FAQ, going with the answer "I haven't seen it on GW's page for FAQ's. Even though I know they've put out official FAQs, the page they're posted on is not an official GW news source, so I'm not playing with those until they're posted on the proper page."? There's definitely an attitude of being TFG with the way the two of you are treating the FAQs as somehow not valid.

People don't build their army list at the tournament. People don't show up to a planned event night intending to build a list there. By the time you arrive it's too late for that discussion to take place for the evening. I am not saying it's legal RAW. I am saying what is and is not a reasonable expectation for your opponent to know. If GW could choose to bury their FAQs in a sub basement, behind a locked door, inside of a rusty file cabinet with a sign on it that says "Beware of the Leopard". They might be official. They might be the RAW. But it's unreasonable to expect any given opponent to be aware.

 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.

Stop saying "by that logic" then using a different logic. Please? Unless you are GW it is not "by the same logic".

 Lance845 wrote:

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.

So you would be OK with me running DKoK as Brood Brothers using whatever IG tactics I want, since the restrictions on both are not located in the FAQs on GW's main page, and I can claim I didn't know about them?

 Lance845 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:


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?

I'm aware that GW had the legal option for making those dreads at one point, and at the time encouraged kitbashing so that people could play those options. So yes, I'm aware of all that you state, just as I'm aware that people made conversions that gave perfectly legal combinations at the time. Gw chooses to not punish the people who did so. You should consider the same.

So as long as any person shows up with a conversion they can use whatever rules they like? This sounds a lot like you are saying they wrote a rule that requires the existence of WYSIWYG. Are you NOW trying to argue that the model needs to be actually modeled with twin autocannons in order to use the index datasheet? Because if so your argument is done. WYSIWYG is not a rule and that one statement doesn't suddenly make it so.

Hello strawman argument!

Let's review.

Were autocannon dreads a legal option at one time? Yes.

Are there options for dreads before that they don't have now? Yes.

Did they or did they not lay down a procedure for using older models? Yes.

Were dreads with options not in the current box mentioned? Yes.

Therefore, you can use the index for dreads with weapon options supported in the index but not the current codex. Trying to claim that my argument is WYSIWYG and therefore is invalid because WYSIWYG isn't a rule is a strawman argument, is disingenuous and is irrelevant. GW established a process for using older models with options not available in the current codex. I really don't give a dam whether you want to call it WYSIWYG or not. It really doesn't matter because GW established a process for you do to this; if you want to call it WYSIWYG then all I have to do is point to the document to point out that GW has given us a process for handling WYSIWYG older models. The process for using the models exists whether or not you consider it to be dealing with WYSIWYG.

 Lance845 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:

So you tell them that the FAQs are there, and show them the FAQs. Since he knows the FAQs are there presumably he would factor the FAQs into his army list. Also, presumably, he would let the people he's playing with know about the FAQs and find out whether or not they've seen him. IOr are you suggesting that people make up separate army lists, one for using with the FAQ and one for using when not using the FAQ while playing? Or not even bother with the list that uses the FAQ, going with the answer "I haven't seen it on GW's page for FAQ's. Even though I know they've put out official FAQs, the page they're posted on is not an official GW news source, so I'm not playing with those until they're posted on the proper page."? There's definitely an attitude of being TFG with the way the two of you are treating the FAQs as somehow not valid.

People don't build their army list at the tournament. People don't show up to a planned event night intending to build a list there. By the time you arrive it's too late for that discussion to take place for the evening. I am not saying it's legal RAW. I am saying what is and is not a reasonable expectation for your opponent to know. If GW could choose to bury their FAQs in a sub basement, behind a locked door, inside of a rusty file cabinet with a sign on it that says "Beware of the Leopard". They might be official. They might be the RAW. But it's unreasonable to expect any given opponent to be aware.

People know what rules there are for a tournament, including whether there are FAQs that apply. They would also have access to the tournament's own FAQ for what house rules they are going to apply. They will still apply whether or not you bother to read them. Bringing up tournaments as an argument for not using FAQs is a non-starter.

For a planned event, talk about the FAQ before the game. If it's beyond a friendly game, there should already have been some parameters such as FAQs established. If there are new FAQs, point it out before the event starts and find out whether they will apply. Then, the people will be aware. It's perfectly reasonable to expect FAQs to apply; there should really be the justification for them to be ignored.

I didn't realize thatt sticking the FAQs on a site which turns them up quickly if you bother using their search tool was the equivalent of burying them in a sub-basement behind a locked door inside of a rusty file cabinet with a sign on it that says "beware of the Leopard." :Exercising hyperbole just a wee little bit? facepalm: It doesn't suit you.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

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.

So you would be OK with me running DKoK as Brood Brothers using whatever IG tactics I want, since the restrictions on both are not located in the FAQs on GW's main page, and I can claim I didn't know about them?

The faq portion clarifies. The errata changes the actual rules. DKoK were never allowed to have IG tactics because DKoK are like blood angles, space wolves, and dark angles. They are a different army that just sonhappens to share datasheets. Without specific permission to use DKoK you cant use them for anything but themselves. I said that before the faq came out and the faq confirmed it.

 doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:


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?

I'm aware that GW had the legal option for making those dreads at one point, and at the time encouraged kitbashing so that people could play those options. So yes, I'm aware of all that you state, just as I'm aware that people made conversions that gave perfectly legal combinations at the time. Gw chooses to not punish the people who did so. You should consider the same.

So as long as any person shows up with a conversion they can use whatever rules they like? This sounds a lot like you are saying they wrote a rule that requires the existence of WYSIWYG. Are you NOW trying to argue that the model needs to be actually modeled with twin autocannons in order to use the index datasheet? Because if so your argument is done. WYSIWYG is not a rule and that one statement doesn't suddenly make it so.

Hello strawman argument!

Let's review.

Were autocannon dreads a legal option at one time? Yes.

Are there options for dreads before that they don't have now? Yes.

Did they or did they not lay down a procedure for using older models? Yes.

Were dreads with options not in the current box mentioned? Yes.

Therefore, you can use the index for dreads with weapon options supported in the index but not the current codex. Trying to claim that my argument is WYSIWYG and therefore is invalid because WYSIWYG isn't a rule is a strawman argument, is disingenuous and is irrelevant. GW established a process for using older models with options not available in the current codex. I really don't give a dam whether you want to call it WYSIWYG or not. It really doesn't matter because GW established a process for you do to this; if you want to call it WYSIWYG then all I have to do is point to the document to point out that GW has given us a process for handling WYSIWYG older models. The process for using the models exists whether or not you consider it to be dealing with WYSIWYG.

im trying to understand your actual criteria here.

Correct me if i am wrong.

You claim that they allow you to use index rules to represent old models that no longer have the options in the box.
Which means you need the actual model right? If not then the model stipulation is nonsense. Because it just says you can use whatever datasheet you want as long as you have a dread. If yes, then to what extent? How could you possibly tell if the option in question is not even a option that came in the box? Do you need the dread to be equiped with the option? Do you need some kind of chemical test to tell when the plastic was produced?

Spell it out. What are the actual requirments to use the index datasheet acording to you. What is everything the player needs to set the model down and legally use the index sheet. Right now, to me, it looks like your either saying the player requires nothing i.e. the codex datasheets are pointless. Or wysiwyg. Help me understand.

 Lance845 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:

So you tell them that the FAQs are there, and show them the FAQs. Since he knows the FAQs are there presumably he would factor the FAQs into his army list. Also, presumably, he would let the people he's playing with know about the FAQs and find out whether or not they've seen him. IOr are you suggesting that people make up separate army lists, one for using with the FAQ and one for using when not using the FAQ while playing? Or not even bother with the list that uses the FAQ, going with the answer "I haven't seen it on GW's page for FAQ's. Even though I know they've put out official FAQs, the page they're posted on is not an official GW news source, so I'm not playing with those until they're posted on the proper page."? There's definitely an attitude of being TFG with the way the two of you are treating the FAQs as somehow not valid.

People don't build their army list at the tournament. People don't show up to a planned event night intending to build a list there. By the time you arrive it's too late for that discussion to take place for the evening. I am not saying it's legal RAW. I am saying what is and is not a reasonable expectation for your opponent to know. If GW could choose to bury their FAQs in a sub basement, behind a locked door, inside of a rusty file cabinet with a sign on it that says "Beware of the Leopard". They might be official. They might be the RAW. But it's unreasonable to expect any given opponent to be aware.

People know what rules there are for a tournament, including whether there are FAQs that apply. They would also have access to the tournament's own FAQ for what house rules they are going to apply. They will still apply whether or not you bother to read them. Bringing up tournaments as an argument for not using FAQs is a non-starter.

For a planned event, talk about the FAQ before the game. If it's beyond a friendly game, there should already have been some parameters such as FAQs established. If there are new FAQs, point it out before the event starts and find out whether they will apply. Then, the people will be aware. It's perfectly reasonable to expect FAQs to apply; there should really be the justification for them to be ignored.

I didn't realize thatt sticking the FAQs on a site which turns them up quickly if you bother using their search tool was the equivalent of burying them in a sub-basement behind a locked door inside of a rusty file cabinet with a sign on it that says "beware of the Leopard." :Exercising hyperbole just a wee little bit? facepalm: It doesn't suit you.

It was a reference to an offical document put on disllay from a very popular book. Sorry you didnt get the humor. I didnt say it was raw. I said it was unreasonable to expect it. Thats my opinion. Its not raw. I dont expect anyone to agree or disagree with me on that point. I said thats how i feel.

Lance845 wrote:

 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.

Interesting. You are refusing to actually read anything that either I or DoctorTom have actually written. Do you realize that?

I brought up WYSIWYG because of precedence that used to be in place. Do you actually understand this concept that it was a past consideration? Apparently not, as you are saying I am considering this a rule for today from GW (which I have stated before, it is not).

However, you are not considering the fact that there are some people who do like to enforce it themselves (including tournaments), and GW may have actually wanted to give people a method of using them, as shocking as that actually is. Do you accept that as a premise?

If you do not, your response are just coming back as, "LALALA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU BECAUSE OF MY FINGERS IN MY EARS!"

Lance845 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
So as long as any person shows up with a conversion they can use whatever rules they like? This sounds a lot like you are saying they wrote a rule that requires the existence of WYSIWYG. Are you NOW trying to argue that the model needs to be actually modeled with twin autocannons in order to use the index datasheet? Because if so your argument is done. WYSIWYG is not a rule and that one statement doesn't suddenly make it so.

Hello strawman argument!

Let's review.

Were autocannon dreads a legal option at one time? Yes.

Are there options for dreads before that they don't have now? Yes.

Did they or did they not lay down a procedure for using older models? Yes.

Were dreads with options not in the current box mentioned? Yes.

Therefore, you can use the index for dreads with weapon options supported in the index but not the current codex. Trying to claim that my argument is WYSIWYG and therefore is invalid because WYSIWYG isn't a rule is a strawman argument, is disingenuous and is irrelevant. GW established a process for using older models with options not available in the current codex. I really don't give a dam whether you want to call it WYSIWYG or not. It really doesn't matter because GW established a process for you do to this; if you want to call it WYSIWYG then all I have to do is point to the document to point out that GW has given us a process for handling WYSIWYG older models. The process for using the models exists whether or not you consider it to be dealing with WYSIWYG.

im trying to understand your actual criteria here.

Correct me if i am wrong.

You claim that they allow you to use index rules to represent old models that no longer have the options in the box.
Which means you need the actual model right? If not then the model stipulation is nonsense. Because it just says you can use whatever datasheet you want as long as you have a dread. If yes, then to what extent? How could you possibly tell if the option in question is not even a option that came in the box? Do you need the dread to be equiped with the option? Do you need some kind of chemical test to tell when the plastic was produced?

Spell it out. What are the actual requirments to use the index datasheet acording to you. What is everything the player needs to set the model down and legally use the index sheet. Right now, to me, it looks like your either saying the player requires nothing i.e. the codex datasheets are pointless. Or wysiwyg. Help me understand.

It is rather rude to quote someone and then ask a question that is answered in the quote.

Here are the qualifications:

 doctortom wrote:
Were autocannon dreads a legal option {in the index}? Yes.

Are there options for dreads before that they don't have now? Yes.

Did they or did they not lay down a procedure for using older models? Yes.

Were dreads with options not in the current box mentioned? Yes.

DoctorTom laid it out pretty simply. I made a slight modification to fight the quoted statement that you are choosing to ignore.

And yes, they may not be "baseline rules", but neither are any of the FAQs "baseline rules". FAQs are statements of guidance and direction about the situations that arise. Oddly enough, that is exactly what DoctorTom has been quoting.

@charistoph

DrTom has already stated that his argument is not about Wysiwyg. I suggest you stop speaking for people who have explictly stated they are not using the same argument as you. Im not arguing about what you can do in your own games. As stated you can do literally anything in your own games with your opponents agreement.

 Lance845 wrote:
@charistoph

DrTom has already stated that his argument is not about Wysiwyg. I suggest you stop speaking for people who have explictly stated they are not using the same argument as you. Im not arguing about what you can do in your own games. As stated you can do literally anything in your own games with your opponents agreement.

And again you choose not to actually listen to what was written. Rather rude.

Just as a side note what site hosts the most recents FAQs talked about on page 8?

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Just as a side note what site hosts the most recents FAQs talked about on page 8?

The warhammer community site. There is no centralized list of faq/erratas there. You have to search for the article announcing the faq and then follow the link to the pdf document.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
@charistoph

DrTom has already stated that his argument is not about Wysiwyg. I suggest you stop speaking for people who have explictly stated they are not using the same argument as you. Im not arguing about what you can do in your own games. As stated you can do literally anything in your own games with your opponents agreement.

And again you choose not to actually listen to what was written. Rather rude.

I answered the only part of your post worth responding to in this discussion.

If you're straight-up insulting others again why do you expect them to listen to your arguments? Argue your case. Don't just argue or insult.


Interestingly, the 40K GT Event Pack has a muddy-as-hell paragraph reflecting the WHC article that has provoked this thread:

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).

This is incomplete as they should say that all FAQs and Errata apply too, bit of an ommission there. Oops. I've bolded one section, just for those who keep saying "you must use the most current datasheets". That's not what it said on WHC, and it's not what it says here. It says "latest datasheets for your models". Where is the "latest datasheet for a Dreadnought with quad autocannons"? That would be the Index. And yes, I *can* read the sentence after the one I bolded (as I know that will be the first response).

Note that they do insist on WYSIWYG (section highlighted in bold) for the tourney:

MODEL REQUIREMENTS
Playing exciting, atmospheric games with painted miniatures is a big part of our events at Warhammer World. With this in mind, all miniatures in your collection must be Citadel or Forge World miniatures, and be fully assembled, painted and based.Each model must completely and accurately represent its entry on your army roster (including all weapons
and equipment).

Furthermore, you need to contact us to let us know about any conversions you are planning on using, and provide us with photos of the models in question where possible. Don’t worry – we fully appreciate spectacular modelling skills, but we just want to make sure everything is super clear for your opponent so that no confusion can arise during games.
To protect everyone’s experience, we will politely ask you to
remove any models that don’t meet these standards.

This feels like something that should have been in the Rules themselves, but maybe WYSIWYG is so assumed at this point that the writers just didn't feel it necessary to include? It's just a thing that's understood at this point. I don't agree with their decision, but when paring down to the shortest document possible they may have jettisoned it for space reasons.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Interestingly, the 40K GT Event Pack has a muddy-as-hell paragraph reflecting the WHC article that has provoked this thread:

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).

This is incomplete as they should say that all FAQs and Errata apply too, bit of an ommission there. Oops. I've bolded one section, just for those who keep saying "you must use the most current datasheets". That's not what it said on WHC, and it's not what it says here. It says "latest datasheets for your models". Where is the "latest datasheet for a Dreadnought with quad autocannons"? That would be the Index. And yes, I *can* read the sentence after the one I bolded (as I know that will be the first response).

I'm not sure how GW is using the term "model" in this quote. It could mean generic model like all Dreadnaughts need to use that army's current dreadnaught data sheet or it could refer to a specific model that is owned by a player.

Honestly it could be read either way. I was hoping that the Chaplain on a bike example would provide a solution but I found that it is its own data sheet as opposed to putting a bike option under the chaplain model as they've done in past editions.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Interestingly, the 40K GT Event Pack has a muddy-as-hell paragraph reflecting the WHC article that has provoked this thread:

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).

This is incomplete as they should say that all FAQs and Errata apply too, bit of an ommission there. Oops. I've bolded one section, just for those who keep saying "you must use the most current datasheets". That's not what it said on WHC, and it's not what it says here. It says "latest datasheets for your models". Where is the "latest datasheet for a Dreadnought with quad autocannons"? That would be the Index. And yes, I *can* read the sentence after the one I bolded (as I know that will be the first response).

I'm not sure how GW is using the term "model" in this quote. It could mean generic model like all Dreadnaughts need to use that army's current dreadnaught data sheet or it could refer to a specific model that is owned by a player.

Honestly it could be read either way. I was hoping that the Chaplain on a bike example would provide a solution but I found that it is its own data sheet as opposed to putting a bike option under the chaplain model as they've done in past editions.

Yeah it totally can be read either way.

 Lance845 wrote:
@charistoph

DrTom has already stated that his argument is not about Wysiwyg. I suggest you stop speaking for people who have explictly stated they are not using the same argument as you. Im not arguing about what you can do in your own games. As stated you can do literally anything in your own games with your opponents agreement.

I stated WYSIWYG shouldn"t matter, except that you keep dragging it back to WYSIWYG. If you want to pretend that using rules for older models is WYSIWYG because the older model is WYSIWYG for the options it used to be able to take then fine, treat it as WYSIWYG. It's really irrelevant because - as Charistoph points out and quoted - I laid out my criteria. Using older models that don't have options in the current box but that you can do with the index is fine. As a side note, though, I will stipluate that WYSIWYG isn't mentioned in the current rules, so if you want to treat it that way, then you don't have to have a WYSIWYG older model to play the options. You can make your choice as to whether WYSIWYG applies or not. I suspect that since there's an opponent's permission involved with getting to use the older models, I think you would find that most people will treat WYSIWYG as a de facto rule when considering whether to allow the older model to be used. If someone plops down a dread with (for arguments sake) two lascannons on it and says he wants to use it as an autocannon dread, people might be less likely to allow that than to allow someone who had a dread with actual autocannon arms. (Using the dread as an example here, it will probably also apply to things like warp jump generator aurarchs or jetbike autarchs with reaper launchers and the like after this weekend). So, even though WYSIWYG is not an actual 8th edition rule, it will probably come into play when people consider whether or not people give permission.

This, of course, is all irrelevant to the criteria that I laid out and Charistoph quoted to point out that you were ignoring what I was typing. I don't mind him speaking for me when he's accurately quoting me like that, so you do not need to be telling him to butt out of the conversation. I do find this amusing because you're telling him to not speak for others when you yourself decided to speak for BCB when I asked him if he plays using the FAQs (I still didn't get an answer from him, so I'm guessing he thinks you're speaking accurately for him or he just hasn't gotten around to replying).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Interestingly, the 40K GT Event Pack has a muddy-as-hell paragraph reflecting the WHC article that has provoked this thread:

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).

This is incomplete as they should say that all FAQs and Errata apply too, bit of an ommission there. Oops. I've bolded one section, just for those who keep saying "you must use the most current datasheets". That's not what it said on WHC, and it's not what it says here. It says "latest datasheets for your models". Where is the "latest datasheet for a Dreadnought with quad autocannons"? That would be the Index. And yes, I *can* read the sentence after the one I bolded (as I know that will be the first response).

I'm not sure how GW is using the term "model" in this quote. It could mean generic model like all Dreadnaughts need to use that army's current dreadnaught data sheet or it could refer to a specific model that is owned by a player.

Honestly it could be read either way. I was hoping that the Chaplain on a bike example would provide a solution but I found that it is its own data sheet as opposed to putting a bike option under the chaplain model as they've done in past editions.

You can say it can be read either way, but looking at what they said earlier:

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.

The mention of Dreadnought weapons that don't come in the box is a good indicator that they are talking about a model that's owned by a player, and that if you have a deread with weapons the don't come in the box now but are represented in the index, that you can use the index sheet for that Dread model. That's putting that one statement in context with the quote you're talking about. (and we know how Lance845 is insistent in making sure things are in their proper context. )

DrTom- I'm not sure that you can use a direct linkage between the 2 quotes since they come from different sources (1 the GT packet and the other from a FAQ about changes from 7th to 8th edition). I'm not saying there isn't a linkage just that it's not a given (at least to me).

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
DrTom- I'm not sure that you can use a direct linkage between the 2 quotes since they come from different sources (1 the GT packet and the other from a FAQ about changes from 7th to 8th edition). I'm not saying there isn't a linkage just that it's not a given (at least to me).

Fair enough, though I'd have to ask then that given they said you can play your old models and give dreads with weapons not currently in the box (or in the codex rules), how do you uphold the statement that they can use the old models with the older weapon options without using the index datasheet, especially since they already told you that you can use that for the older models?

Lance845 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
@charistoph

DrTom has already stated that his argument is not about Wysiwyg. I suggest you stop speaking for people who have explictly stated they are not using the same argument as you. Im not arguing about what you can do in your own games. As stated you can do literally anything in your own games with your opponents agreement.

And again you choose not to actually listen to what was written. Rather rude.

I answered the only part of your post worth responding to in this discussion.

No, you didn't. You gave an answer that had little relation to what I wrote or what DoctorTom has written, and completely ignored key points. You are ignoring the past in this conversation even though the document in question was specifically calling out the past. When it is pointed out, you go off on a tangent. Quite rude.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Interestingly, the 40K GT Event Pack has a muddy-as-hell paragraph reflecting the WHC article that has provoked this thread:

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).

This is incomplete as they should say that all FAQs and Errata apply too, bit of an ommission there. Oops. I've bolded one section, just for those who keep saying "you must use the most current datasheets". That's not what it said on WHC, and it's not what it says here. It says "latest datasheets for your models". Where is the "latest datasheet for a Dreadnought with quad autocannons"? That would be the Index. And yes, I *can* read the sentence after the one I bolded (as I know that will be the first response).

I'm not sure how GW is using the term "model" in this quote. It could mean generic model like all Dreadnaughts need to use that army's current dreadnaught data sheet or it could refer to a specific model that is owned by a player.

Honestly it could be read either way. I was hoping that the Chaplain on a bike example would provide a solution but I found that it is its own data sheet as opposed to putting a bike option under the chaplain model as they've done in past editions.

Considering it literally says, "the most current datasheets for your models, I don't know how it could be taken as just being a generic reference.

 Charistoph wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Interestingly, the 40K GT Event Pack has a muddy-as-hell paragraph reflecting the WHC article that has provoked this thread:

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).

This is incomplete as they should say that all FAQs and Errata apply too, bit of an ommission there. Oops. I've bolded one section, just for those who keep saying "you must use the most current datasheets". That's not what it said on WHC, and it's not what it says here. It says "latest datasheets for your models". Where is the "latest datasheet for a Dreadnought with quad autocannons"? That would be the Index. And yes, I *can* read the sentence after the one I bolded (as I know that will be the first response).

I'm not sure how GW is using the term "model" in this quote. It could mean generic model like all Dreadnaughts need to use that army's current dreadnaught data sheet or it could refer to a specific model that is owned by a player.

Honestly it could be read either way. I was hoping that the Chaplain on a bike example would provide a solution but I found that it is its own data sheet as opposed to putting a bike option under the chaplain model as they've done in past editions.

Considering it literally says, "the most current datasheets for your models, I don't know how it could be taken as just being a generic reference.

I can have multiple models of the same type in my collection (3 dreadnaughts) the quote could be referring to my having multiples of that same model (all the dreads) or a specific model within my dreads. To me it isn't unambiguous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
DrTom- I'm not sure that you can use a direct linkage between the 2 quotes since they come from different sources (1 the GT packet and the other from a FAQ about changes from 7th to 8th edition). I'm not saying there isn't a linkage just that it's not a given (at least to me).

Fair enough, though I'd have to ask then that given they said you can play your old models and give dreads with weapons not currently in the box (or in the codex rules), how do you uphold the statement that they can use the old models with the older weapon options without using the index datasheet, especially since they already told you that you can use that for the older models?

I'm not sure of the context of which type of game you are playing. An event is different from a casual night out but they need to cover each within the rule set. Also I'm not sure how they mean use the index until the codex is out in regards to specific models. I am starting Grey Knights. The index says that I may use the rules for a dreadnaught found in the SM index. Now my codex is out. It has a data sheet for Dreadnaughts that limits my selection of dreadnaught options to what is on that sheet. Is the SM index still valid since it has been replace by their codex? Can I use 2 superceded things for 1 model?

Let's say that I have a dread with an autocannon that I wish to play at an event (since casual games can house rule anything). The event does not state how they are going to handle legacy models before the event. The first question is can I bring that dread to the event as a legal model? If yes, then how do I determine its cost? If I go back to my index it doesn't have a cost. I have to go to the SM index. However, the SM index has been superceded by their Codex. Let's assume the autocannon is still available in the codex as an option. Let's also say that the cost of the dread in the codex is different from that in the index. Which cost do I use, the superceded index or the codex (remember that I'm not supposed to use the SM codex since that's not an option under either my codex or the FAQ answer being debated)?( I don't actually know if the costs are different in this instance but the question is still valid.)

In any event it would be nice for GW to explicitly spell out how they meant their statement in regards to tournaments and the legality of legacy models being used in them.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Interestingly, the 40K GT Event Pack has a muddy-as-hell paragraph reflecting the WHC article that has provoked this thread:

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).

This is incomplete as they should say that all FAQs and Errata apply too, bit of an ommission there. Oops. I've bolded one section, just for those who keep saying "you must use the most current datasheets". That's not what it said on WHC, and it's not what it says here. It says "latest datasheets for your models". Where is the "latest datasheet for a Dreadnought with quad autocannons"? That would be the Index. And yes, I *can* read the sentence after the one I bolded (as I know that will be the first response).

I'm not sure how GW is using the term "model" in this quote. It could mean generic model like all Dreadnaughts need to use that army's current dreadnaught data sheet or it could refer to a specific model that is owned by a player.

Honestly it could be read either way. I was hoping that the Chaplain on a bike example would provide a solution but I found that it is its own data sheet as opposed to putting a bike option under the chaplain model as they've done in past editions.

Considering it literally says, "the most current datasheets for your models, I don't know how it could be taken as just being a generic reference.

I can have multiple models of the same type in my collection (3 dreadnaughts) the quote could be referring to my having multiples of that same model (all the dreads) or a specific model within my dreads. To me it isn't unambiguous.

If one of your models has Autocannons, then you are going to want to use the most recent datasheet that allows a Dreadnought to carry Autocannons. That happens to be the Index version, not the codex version.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
DrTom- I'm not sure that you can use a direct linkage between the 2 quotes since they come from different sources (1 the GT packet and the other from a FAQ about changes from 7th to 8th edition). I'm not saying there isn't a linkage just that it's not a given (at least to me).

Fair enough, though I'd have to ask then that given they said you can play your old models and give dreads with weapons not currently in the box (or in the codex rules), how do you uphold the statement that they can use the old models with the older weapon options without using the index datasheet, especially since they already told you that you can use that for the older models?

I'm not sure of the context of which type of game you are playing. An event is different from a casual night out but they need to cover each within the rule set. Also I'm not sure how they mean use the index until the codex is out in regards to specific models. I am starting Grey Knights. The index says that I may use the rules for a dreadnaught found in the SM index. Now my codex is out. It has a data sheet for Dreadnaughts that limits my selection of dreadnaught options to what is on that sheet. Is the SM index still valid since it has been replace by their codex? Can I use 2 superceded things for 1 model?

Let's say that I have a dread with an autocannon that I wish to play at an event (since casual games can house rule anything). The event does not state how they are going to handle legacy models before the event. The first question is can I bring that dread to the event as a legal model? If yes, then how do I determine its cost? If I go back to my index it doesn't have a cost. I have to go to the SM index. However, the SM index has been superceded by their Codex. Let's assume the autocannon is still available in the codex as an option. Let's also say that the cost of the dread in the codex is different from that in the index. Which cost do I use, the superceded index or the codex (remember that I'm not supposed to use the SM codex since that's not an option under either my codex or the FAQ answer being debated)?( I don't actually know if the costs are different in this instance but the question is still valid.)

In any event it would be nice for GW to explicitly spell out how they meant their statement in regards to tournaments and the legality of legacy models being used in them.

If a tournament does not make a statement regarding it, then go by what GW has said. What they have said, per the document that DoctorTom has presented and also the one on the Event page, is to go by the most recent datasheet that fits the model.

You can't get in touch with the people running the event before showing up to play? In that case you can ask before the event if they'll allow it, but have a backup plan in case they don't (which is most likely what you'd do for any of your games where you didn't know who you were going to be playing). The model's legal if the event organizers give it permission - as it is for any event (tournament or whatever). As for what costs you use, you follow the instructions and use the most up to date costs even though you're using the index entry.

It makes sense for GW actually not saying what they meant for their statement in regards to tournaments - they are leaving it up to the tournament organizers to decide for their own tournaments. They aren't forcing the decision either one way or the other.

I find the TO can do whatever they want a bit disingenuous. Of course a TO can declare that bolt pistols are going to be heavy 24 weapons for his event and GW would have no say in that matter. In effect you are reducing events to the level of casual play with that argument.

My statement/question is more about the baseline of what to expect at a tournament. GW's rules set should be telling both the organizers and the players how to run/play in an event. While it would be ideal if every rule were crystal clear from its inception that isn't reality. GW should state what it means when it makes an ambiguous or confusing rule as soon as possible so that guidance can be given.

This debate has gone on for 9 pages, so far, and I still feel that the question is unresolved. Maybe it's just me, but I doubt it. TOs should certainly address this issue when they announce their event but GW should do it so that the TOs don't have to and so that there is consistency within the GT and lesser circuits.

It's because it's unresolvable from given info to suit all occasions at once. Both the WHC article and GW's own 40K GT pack aren't clear enough for either camp to declare they are 100% correct.

The WHC article seems to skew more toward 'do what you like', though some still read it as 'NO OLD DREAD NO'.

The GT pack seems to me to err more toward 'current models pls we have to put this on WHTV and sell stuff to Little Timmy', but there's still wriggle room.

Neither gives a definitive answer. Does it really need to though?

We've established TOs can do as they please, so they could disregard anything or ban any model they like. They likely wouldn't make Bolt Pistols into Heavy 24, or Conscripts T20/50W ...but they could decide to play 'Codex only Dreads', for example.

If not at a tourney you just chat to your opponent in advance, and if they're someone you enjoy gaming with there's nothing unresolvable here. If you really can't figure something out amicable with your opponent then you're probably not the kind of person they want to play. Play someone else who doesn't care you Dreadnought has 4 Autocannons and a sub-optimal cost.

Ultimately, if the aim of the thread was to be right on the internet, ummm, 'twas the wrong topic to choose!

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If you're straight-up insulting others again why do you expect them to listen to your arguments? Argue your case. Don't just argue or insult.


Interestingly, the 40K GT Event Pack has a muddy-as-hell paragraph reflecting the WHC article that has provoked this thread:

I did not insult anyone. I said I wasn't going to waste any more time debating his edition lag. WYSIWYG isn't a rule, hasn't been a rule for several editions, and I won't debate any of the merits of WYSIWYG as a rule entity until GW posts some rock solid support for WYSIWYG from an official source (a rule book or an errata).I read his post. It was a whole lot of "But I like WYSIWYG and Other people like WYSIWYG and WYSIWYG was a rule a really long time ago!" I.E. meaningless to the point of this thread.

It's not muddy. It's very clear. You are expected to use the codex datasheets where available. You can use a Index sheet for a unit that has not been updated yet.

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).

This is incomplete as they should say that all FAQs and Errata apply too, bit of an ommission there. Oops. I've bolded one section, just for those who keep saying "you must use the most current datasheets". That's not what it said on WHC, and it's not what it says here. It says "latest datasheets for your models". Where is the "latest datasheet for a Dreadnought with quad autocannons"? That would be the Index. And yes, I *can* read the sentence after the one I bolded (as I know that will be the first response).

Note that they do insist on WYSIWYG (section highlighted in bold) for the tourney:

Tournaments also require paint. Also not a baseline rule of the game.

MODEL REQUIREMENTS
Playing exciting, atmospheric games with painted miniatures is a big part of our events at Warhammer World. With this in mind, all miniatures in your collection must be Citadel or Forge World miniatures, and be fully assembled, painted and based.Each model must completely and accurately represent its entry on your army roster (including all weapons
and equipment).

Furthermore, you need to contact us to let us know about any conversions you are planning on using, and provide us with photos of the models in question where possible. Don’t worry – we fully appreciate spectacular modelling skills, but we just want to make sure everything is super clear for your opponent so that no confusion can arise during games.
To protect everyone’s experience, we will politely ask you to
remove any models that don’t meet these standards.

Yup. They rule it for clarity.

This feels like something that should have been in the Rules themselves, but maybe WYSIWYG is so assumed at this point that the writers just didn't feel it necessary to include? It's just a thing that's understood at this point. I don't agree with their decision, but when paring down to the shortest document possible they may have jettisoned it for space reasons.

Except it was absent from 6th and 7th ed also. Do you think 7th rule book was "pared down to the shortest document possible"?

 Lance845 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If you're straight-up insulting others again why do you expect them to listen to your arguments? Argue your case. Don't just argue or insult.


Interestingly, the 40K GT Event Pack has a muddy-as-hell paragraph reflecting the WHC article that has provoked this thread:

I did not insult anyone. I said I wasn't going to waste any more time debating his edition lag. WYSIWYG isn't a rule, hasn't been a rule for several editions, and I won't debate any of the merits of WYSIWYG as a rule entity until GW posts some rock solid support for WYSIWYG from an official source (a rule book or an errata).I read his post. It was a whole lot of "But I like WYSIWYG and Other people like WYSIWYG and WYSIWYG was a rule a really long time ago!" I.E. meaningless to the point of this thread.

It's not muddy. It's very clear. You are expected to use the codex datasheets where available. You can use a Index sheet for a unit that has not been updated yet.

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).

This is incomplete as they should say that all FAQs and Errata apply too, bit of an ommission there. Oops. I've bolded one section, just for those who keep saying "you must use the most current datasheets". That's not what it said on WHC, and it's not what it says here. It says "latest datasheets for your models". Where is the "latest datasheet for a Dreadnought with quad autocannons"? That would be the Index. And yes, I *can* read the sentence after the one I bolded (as I know that will be the first response).

Note that they do insist on WYSIWYG (section highlighted in bold) for the tourney:

Tournaments also require paint. Also not a baseline rule of the game.

MODEL REQUIREMENTS
Playing exciting, atmospheric games with painted miniatures is a big part of our events at Warhammer World. With this in mind, all miniatures in your collection must be Citadel or Forge World miniatures, and be fully assembled, painted and based.Each model must completely and accurately represent its entry on your army roster (including all weapons
and equipment).

Furthermore, you need to contact us to let us know about any conversions you are planning on using, and provide us with photos of the models in question where possible. Don’t worry – we fully appreciate spectacular modelling skills, but we just want to make sure everything is super clear for your opponent so that no confusion can arise during games.
To protect everyone’s experience, we will politely ask you to
remove any models that don’t meet these standards.

Yup. They rule it for clarity.

This feels like something that should have been in the Rules themselves, but maybe WYSIWYG is so assumed at this point that the writers just didn't feel it necessary to include? It's just a thing that's understood at this point. I don't agree with their decision, but when paring down to the shortest document possible they may have jettisoned it for space reasons.

Except it was absent from 6th and 7th ed also. Do you think 7th rule book was "pared down to the shortest document possible"?

Funnily, your attempted rebuttal of my last point reinforces it. Maybe WYSIWYG has been an assumed convention in the game longer than I thought, if it's been omitted for several editions?