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.

So, I have a fair amount of unpainted space marines and was thinking about making them dark angles, or Templar, can't decide. But I notice that the older codices for the special space marine chapters are using a lot of the older rule sets and can't use certain new units, like stern-guard and vanguard and the like. And the drop pods in their codex lack the assault rule (i think) and are also only BS 2. So am I right in assuming that the rule book for say, the DA are as is and any new rules they applied to a general SM army? And anyone know if they plan on releasing updated codices?

I am bored at work and wondered if anyone else had similar questions. I am assuming of course they ignore the new rules since...they aren't in taht book, but was wondering how other people handle this.

All drop pods are BS2. And if you want you can use 4th eddition rules with 5th eddition regulations. Thats what I did with Codex CSM.

Yes, the DA, BA & BT codexes stand alone and do not incorporate anything from C:SM. The sapce wolf codex is an exception to this as many entries refer to the space marine codex.

If you want to play regular Dark Angels (i.e. not raven wing or death wing) then you can simply ignore the DA codex and use the new space marine codex.

You use what is in your own codex, No exceptions.

Codex: Dark Angels doesn't say to look to Codex: Space Marines, so you do not.

Dont be a campy codex jumper....

You want DA use the DA codex...
Painting up DA and using C:SM is plain lame...

P.S. It would only be fair to say im a DA fan boy!

play space Marines or Dark Angels not both

.... do what you want but only use one codex at a time (unless your playing as space puppies)... hard core fans only play their codex if you don't get worked up about such things feel free to right lists for any space marine codex ( hell you could even play them as chaos once in a while) ... I'm sure when codex dark eldar 5th edition finally comes out my eldar are going to used for them (ok I'll have to convert a little add some spikes not to much trouble compared to painting up 2000pts+ of new models)

The DA FAQ states you can use the new SM wargear with your opponent's permission. Assuming you are playing a friendly game I don't think it should be a big deal.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:The DA FAQ states you can use the new SM wargear with your opponent's permission. Assuming you are playing a friendly game I don't think it should be a big deal.

The DA FAQ is also Unofficial House rules. As for Friendly Games, in all my "Friendly Games", you play by the rules, not some god forsaken mish mash.

As for Friendly Games, in all my "Friendly Games", you play by the rules, not some god forsaken mish mash.

Sounds like fun

Paint em up any way you want, play them any way you want as long as your opponent is OK with it. As far as the color scheme goes, just say you made your own chapter. The spirit of the game is to have fun, not sped $500 and weeks of painting every time you want to make some wargear changes to a unit.

Gwar! is the local purist. I have a feeling his games aren't very "friendly". . . . But his rule help is usually spot on.

And what's wrong with Mish Mash!?

Uriels_Flame wrote:And what's wrong with Mish Mash!?

You want to use Codex: Ultrasmurf Wargear, so in return I win on a 1+. Both are the same thing.

Uriels_Flame wrote:Gwar! is the local purist. I have a feeling his games aren't very "friendly". . . . But his rule help is usually spot on.

And what's wrong with Mish Mash!?

I don't think Gwar is that good with the rules to be honest. RAW is not always the answer but he seems to think so.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:I don't think Gwar is that good with the rules to be honest. RAW is not always the answer but he seems to think so.

Yeah, because someone who thinks Holocaust is a Shooting attack and Scatters and that Nurgles Rot is cast in the Assault Phase, has any right to comment on my rules knowledge eh?

Gwar! wrote:

Afrikan Blonde wrote:The DA FAQ states you can use the new SM wargear with your opponent's permission. Assuming you are playing a friendly game I don't think it should be a big deal.

The DA FAQ is also Unofficial House rules. As for Friendly Games, in all my "Friendly Games", you play by the rules, not some god forsaken mish mash.

No, the FAQ's are Official House rules. Any answers that come from an officially designated answer location by GW are official. The difference is they are suggested clarifications, not text corrections. Text corrections are in the Errata.

There is no more requirement to play by pure RAW than there is to play by both RAW and RAI. Play whichever way you enjoy the game more, and seek out opponents that share your preferences.

Be aware though, that in forums like this when you ask a question the answer is typically going to be from the standpoint of "here is how the mechanic works as given in print". Once you understand how it works by RAW, feel free to change it to anything you want so long as your opponent agrees with the change.

RAW is always the best place to start but it cannot by any means answer all the problems with the rules.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:RAW is always the best place to start but it cannot by any means answer all the problems with the rules.

The main problem with people like you and Kaaihn is that you don't want to follow RaW even when it is clear, because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions of what a rule should do. THAT is what pisses me off.

I think that to live and die by RAW sucks the fun out of my Hammer-time right through the anus!

Globzog wrote:I think that to live and die by RAW sucks the fun out of my Hammer-time right through the anus!

Yeah, well I have fun by playing by the Rules. Why is your type of fun more valid than mine?

Gwar! wrote:

Afrikan Blonde wrote:RAW is always the best place to start but it cannot by any means answer all the problems with the rules.

The main problem with people like you and Kaaihn is that you don't want to follow RaW even when it is clear, because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions of what a rule should do. THAT is what pisses me off.

I always follow RAW when it is clear and concise, to do otherwise is tantamount to cheating. That said I have seen RAW disciples loophole the rules with the best of them.

Gwar! wrote:

Globzog wrote:I think that to live and die by RAW sucks the fun out of my Hammer-time right through the anus!

Yeah, well I have fun by playing by the Rules. Why is your type of fun more valid than mine?

Because...

I think that to live and die by RAW sucks the fun out of my Hammer-time right through the anus!

I think playing with people that assume their house rules are RAI sucks the fun out of the game faster than anything.

At least with RAW it is possible to understand where someone is coming from.

RAI takes "common sense" that involves a lot of assUmptions that rarely involve logic, rules, or anything that can sway someone who does not already agree.


edited when I learned to type (yes it took that long).

Gwar! wrote:The main problem with people like you and Kaaihn is that you don't want to follow RaW even when it is clear, because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions of what a rule should do. THAT is what pisses me off.

You forgot a bit, I added it in italics.

I don't want to follow RaW (clear or not) if it doesn't fit with my opinion of how it should work, but if it is clear and my opponent and I don't agree on how it should work, I stick with the RaW.

That IS RaW. You know, the RaW that says we can change the rules to suit us better? Using custom rules to improve the game in places is completely valid and legal by RaW.

What pisses me off is when people insist they are entitled to a mechanic that isn't RaW that I don't agree to. If both players can't agree, you use RaW. If you find a player that you can't come to agreement with on something that matters to you, then don't play that person again.

My opinion is that the game is not written to the quality level of a game that uses a RaW only approach. Pure RaW in 40K is a sub-par game that can get ridiculously stupid. For example, I'm not going to tell someone they can't infiltrate a unit with Shrike during deployment because the RaW says you can't, when I believe this is just a product of poor quality writing. The same goes for all the clarifications in the official GW responses. I'll use all of them without complaint because they are from the official source of the game saying that is how a given mechanic was meant to work, regardless of how it ended up working in print. Or we can use none of them if my opponent disagrees, and then I probably just won't play that person again.

kirsanth wrote:I think playing with people that assume their house rules are RAW sucks the fun out of the game faster than anything.

At least with RAW it is possible to understand where someone is coming from.

RAI takes "common sense" that involves a lot of assUmptions that rarely involve logic, rules, or anything that can sway someone who does not already agree.


edited when I learned to type.

Most of the RAI (at least the ones my friends and I play) have evolved from a situation occurring in a game and everyone coming to a general consensus on how we should play it without hours of debate. This is what sucks the fun out of the game for us, I'm sure for some others as well. Less talkin', more killin'!

This is not to say that if someone new comes along to play and they have a different interpretation of said house ruling, we always are open to discuss changing it.

Kaaihn wrote:For example, I'm not going to tell someone they can't infiltrate a unit with Shrike during deployment because the RaW says you can't, when I believe this is just a product of poor quality writing.

And I would tell them they cannot, because that is what the rules say. If they don't like it, they are cheating, because the Rules are clear as day.

I came into this thread to find out what specific angles were the most grimdark (personally, obtuse angles get my vote) and all I got was off-topic Gwar baiting.

Sounds like a T-shirt.

Use either the DA codex (by which I mean dark angels) OR the Spess Marhien Codex, but not both.

Orkestra wrote:I came into this thread to find out what specific angles were the most grimdark (personally, obtuse angles get my vote) and all I got was off-topic Gwar baiting.

Sounds like a T-shirt.

Use either the DA codex (by which I mean dark angels) OR the Spess Marhien Codex, but not both.

I disagree. Right Angles are Clearly the most GrimDark. They have the most Skullz!

Globzog wrote:

kirsanth wrote:I think playing with people that assume their house rules are RAW sucks the fun out of the game faster than anything.

At least with RAW it is possible to understand where someone is coming from.

RAI takes "common sense" that involves a lot of assUmptions that rarely involve logic, rules, or anything that can sway someone who does not already agree.


edited when I learned to type.

Most of the RAI (at least the ones my friends and I play) have evolved from a situation occurring in a game and everyone coming to a general consensus on how we should play it without hours of debate. This is what sucks the fun out of the game for us, I'm sure for some others as well. Less talkin', more killin'!

This is not to say that if someone new comes along to play and they have a different interpretation of said house ruling, we always are open to discuss changing it.

That is my point, almost exactly.
House rules are fine, as such.
House rules masquerading as RAI causes issues.

Evolving rules to suit your gaming needs is not RAI. (I am certain there can be exceptions, but they are just that, exceptions)

Editing to add: Sorry for continuing to derail this. . . done with that now!

Orkestra wrote:
I came into this thread to find out what specific angles were the most grimdark (personally, obtuse angles get my vote) and all I got was off-topic Gwar baiting.

Sounds like a T-shirt.

Use either the DA codex (by which I mean dark angels) OR the Spess Marhien Codex, but not both.

Gwar ruins many threads. Apparently this okay.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:

Orkestra wrote:
I came into this thread to find out what specific angles were the most grimdark (personally, obtuse angles get my vote) and all I got was off-topic Gwar baiting.

Sounds like a T-shirt.

Use either the DA codex (by which I mean dark angels) OR the Spess Marhien Codex, but not both.

Gwar ruins many threads. Apparently this okay.

-looks at sig-
-looks at Troll's Afrikan Blonde's sig-

Nuff Said.

P.S. By Gwar Baiting, He means people trying to Bait me into flaming them.