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 was really hoping for a solid answer, but it looks like it's clearly ambiguous. The rules people have ruled use the new Space Marine one, the majority of people here say use the old one, and RAW addicts say it's either a regular missile launcher or doesn't exist.

Lol, I think I'm picking option 5.

scuddman wrote:I was really hoping for a solid answer, but it looks like it's clearly ambiguous. The rules people have ruled use the new Space Marine one, the majority of people here say use the old one, and RAW addicts say it's either a regular missile launcher or doesn't exist.

Lol, I think I'm picking option 5.

It isn't ambiguous. By the Rules it does nothing. If you use the INAT FAQ, it's Heavy 2, some people play it as Heavy 1 because it is costed for Heavy 1.

Gwar! wrote:It isn't ambiguous. By the Rules it does nothing. If you use the INAT FAQ, it's Heavy 2, some people play it as Heavy 1 because it is costed for Heavy 1.

Thank you, Gwar!
I knew I had read this not too long ago, and was missing something.

Gwar! wrote:

scuddman wrote:I was really hoping for a solid answer, but it looks like it's clearly ambiguous. The rules people have ruled use the new Space Marine one, the majority of people here say use the old one, and RAW addicts say it's either a regular missile launcher or doesn't exist.

Lol, I think I'm picking option 5.

It isn't ambiguous. By the Rules it does nothing. If you use the INAT FAQ, it's Heavy 2, some people play it as Heavy 1 because it is costed for Heavy 1.

It does something, you just cant find it.

Hint: the old SW minidex had the same problem.

scuddman wrote:I was really hoping for a solid answer, but it looks like it's clearly ambiguous. The rules people have ruled use the new Space Marine one, the majority of people here say use the old one, and RAW addicts say it's either a regular missile launcher or doesn't exist.

Lol, I think I'm picking option 5.

Sorry man, but there literally are no rules.

Polonius wrote:

scuddman wrote:I was really hoping for a solid answer, but it looks like it's clearly ambiguous. The rules people have ruled use the new Space Marine one, the majority of people here say use the old one, and RAW addicts say it's either a regular missile launcher or doesn't exist.

Lol, I think I'm picking option 5.

Sorry man, but there literally are no rules.

Way back when I started in 3rd edition the rule of pdf codexs was to use the generic codex for all your wargear......I played Catachans and had to get an Imperial Guard codex for my wargear....... people that had Space wolves, and other Marine Chapters used the vanilla marine codex for their wargear as well..........

Hence I think you should use the CML in the new SM codex as it is the most generic and most people wont fight you over a vanila wargear option like they would if you claimed it from a different chapter.

No, it does not list the CML. The argument was about how to treat the situation, should it arise in the future, such that a weapon is not described at all in a codex, but a summary is given in the rulebook.

What about when it is described in neither, nor mentioned in a GW errata?
As is the case here.

I was initially advocating using the ML (as it's the less powerful version, making it less of a reach) but apparently some people/TO's have been using the Heavy 2 version, which is basically 2 ML shots.

I think it's reasonable to let it do something (although not necessarily RaW), but this is probably one of those situations that requires you to talk to your opponent beforehand.

ajfirecracker wrote:No, it does not list the CML. The argument was about how to treat the situation, should it arise in the future, such that a weapon is not described at all in a codex, but a summary is given in the rulebook.

SM Codex.... page 64...... I see a CML.

I stated in an earlier post that back in the day when people had PDF/ suppliment/ and WD armies they used the Vanilla Codex for their wargear......eg Catachans used the IG book for wargear, and most SM chapters refered to the vanilla (Ultramarine) Codex for their wargear.......

It worked 10 years ago it should still work now.

DJ Illuminati wrote:SM Codex.... page 64...... I see a CML.

Oddly enough, we are talking about the Blood Angels, or am I allowed to use the Eldar Codex with my Orks now?

The blood Angels codex no longer looks to the SM codex. Just because it workjed 10 years ago means nothing. 10 Years ago my Space Wolves could move 12" in a Rhino, disembark from the Front, Shoot their Bolters then Assault. Rules change. Get used to it.

Gwar! wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:SM Codex.... page 64...... I see a CML.

Oddly enough, we are talking about the Blood Angels, or am I allowed to use the Eldar Codex with my Orks now?

If your opponent agrees = yes

Didnt we forget this PDF/WD thingy is a patch, not the codex.
GW may release Codex BA someday, as announced in the WD "codex".....

1hadhq wrote:Didnt we forget this PDF/WD thingy is a patch, not the codex.
GW may release Codex BA someday, as announced in the WD "codex".....

No, it is a full Codex. It does not say to reference any other codex (ala Space Wolves) so you do not. End of Story.

Need the last saying ?

Its still a replacement, like it or not.

PS: He could field them as red marines using codex SM.

1hadhq wrote:PS: He could field them as red marines using codex SM.

But then you would lose all the Blood Angels Advantages.

The SW minidex specifically referes to Codex: SM, the BA Codex does not. So, no, you cannot look to C:SM for answers anymore than you can take non-generic C:CD daaemons in C:CSM (even though it worked that way years ago- new books and all that). And the SW entries like auspex now do nothing, BTW. Much like the BA cyclone ML, unless you can get an agreement otherwise. Arguing that "cyclone" is merely decriptive of ML might be viable, but since CML seems to be a defined weapon name (for a weapon that is not listed), by RAW it doesn't seem to work.

Gwar stated it as clearly as possible: It isn't ambiguous. By the Rules it does nothing. If you use the INAT FAQ, it's Heavy 2, some people play it as Heavy 1 because it is costed for Heavy 1.

jmurph wrote:The SW minidex specifically referes to Codex: SM, the BA Codex does not.

Until you read the H-K missile entry in the BA pdf-dex. Which points you to codex SM.

IMO the suggested solutions to the question which was subject of this thread do follow this line and either
aim at a unchanged CML ( BA-minidex ), a codex of the same edition and nearly identical basic concept (DA) with the same unchanged CML or straight to codex SM and its changed CML.

HWYPI answer:
I see a reason to put the BA into the boat of the other 4th ed marines, but wouldnt deny the use of 5th ed SM CML.

RAW answer: either GW deems it worth updating its pdf or we have to wait for the printed dex.

What's so different about this case and half the Dark Eldar weaponry? RAW, it has no effect, while it did when the dex was released.

I think you mean armory, Pika. I believe that all of the weaponry is still functional.

And this case is different in that:
A) The BA dex never referred to any particular CML
B) The CML is not an item whose effect has changed or the rules governing have changed, unlike wargear that affects outnumbering (for example)

1hadhq wrote:

jmurph wrote:The SW minidex specifically referes to Codex: SM, the BA Codex does not.

Until you read the H-K missile entry in the BA pdf-dex. Which points you to codex SM.

And the passage for CML is .... where?

Guys, let's not exhaust ourselves trying to find rules for something that simply doesn't have rules. GW forgot to put them in, and there is no rule, none, that allows you look outside the BA pdf to find them. There used to be rules, but back then, there were written rules that explained what was required and when to look outside. By RAW, there simply is no rule for a CML.

There's also no reason to be short or over the top in addressing those claims. Being right isn't an excuse to be condescending.