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.

Simply put, yes.

Another example would be Haemonculi; you can have up to three per HQ slot.

- Farseer Tahril

 Farseer Tahril wrote:
Simply put, yes.

Another example would be Haemonculi; you can have up to three per HQ slot.

- Farseer Tahril

The difference is in the wording and context. Haemonculi (and some other units) specifically state you can take X per slot and they all act independently. In the case of Space Wolves, the 2 HQ per slot is directly linked to the standard FOC, not the Ally FOC. I would not be surprised if this gets FAQ'd to being allowed, however.

If you insist that the allied detachment is the end all of end all FOC slot then every codex is in trouble as they only include entries for that codexes army list, not allied detachment entries.

Down that way lies madness!

TheTrans wrote:Going to say that is a really gak way of looking at, very un-friendly and if I was against an opponent that said 'no' to me running two in one (as the codex states) I'll tell them to jam it. Also as there is no GW definition for an army, any Force Org containing units from a given codex I would call an army.

You realise that essentially what you're saying here is that it's 'unfriendly' for your opponent to not just play it the way you think it should be played, right? What if your opponent thinks the same thing?

Without any specific definition from GW, it's up to the players to decide what the term 'army' refers to. Assuming that it means the entire army rather than a single part of it is no less valid than your interpretation.

Grugknuckle wrote:I'm with you TheTrans . But you'll find many users on Dakka who specifically hunt for conflicts, vagueness and lack of specificity in the various rules with the express purpose of limiting everyone's options.

And you'll also find many who look for those conflicts and such purely for the sake of getting a better understanding of the rules.

I play Space Wolves. I would much rather be able to apply the LotP rule when I use them as an allied detachment... but at the moment, there is as much support for it not applying as there is for it to do so.

Captain Antivas wrote:I am using a SW army, even as an allied detachment. Are they a collection of units chosen from Codex: Space Wolves? If the answer is yes then they get all the benefits of all rules in their codex, not just the ones you like and are ok with having to fight against.

Do you have a rules basis for assuming that being a 'collection of units from the codex' is sufficient to deem them an army?

 insaniak wrote:

I play Space Wolves. I would much rather be able to apply the LotP rule when I use them as an allied detachment... but at the moment, there is as much support for it not applying as there is for it to do so.

The best rules are the simplest rules. The simplest way to use LotP is to apply it to ALL space wolves lists all the time.

If, back in 5th Edition, I had proposed that LotP did not apply to a Space Wolves list because it wasn't "a Space Wolves Army", Dakka would have first scoffed at me and then pointed to the clause, "This codex has all the rules you need to field an army of Space Wolves." Because the definition of "a Space Wolves Army" wasn't even up for debate before allies came along. Clearly the intention was that LotP ALWAYS applied to Space Wolves in a Standard mission.

All of a sudden, 6th edition comes around and now suddenly "army" can mean several distinct things each with different consequences for the rules. Does GW clarify the meaning? Why not? Because the wording was just an oversight by whoever wrote the codex and rulebook. If a big change was intended, they would have (should have?) made that clear. By splitting hairs about "the English language", people are just fishing for nerfs - they're not trying to understand the rules any better.

Do you have a rules basis for assuming that being a 'collection of units from the codex' is sufficient to deem them an army?

I don't have my BRB in front of me, but IIRC under the rules for making an army list (probably around page 108 or 109) it says that all of the rules for fielding units from a given "army" are in it's codex. Besides that, I've already pointed out the relative passages that suggest that an "Army" is the combination of your primary detachment and your allied detachment.

 Grugknuckle wrote:
If a big change was intended, they would have (should have?) made that clear.

Sure, they should have. But would have? Not always, where GW is concerned.

Of course, the rules also don't always work out as GW intended. See allied Inquisitors and Assassins when Codex Daemon Hunters was released.

I don't have my BRB in front of me, but IIRC under the rules for making an army list (probably around page 108 or 109) it says that all of the rules for fielding units from a given "army" are in it's codex.

Which is not the same as saying that units from that army themselves comprise an army in their own right.

I can be in the army without being an army.

Its a codex saying this. Page seven.

You are missing that the rule allowing multiple HQs per slot for a Space Wolf army deals specifically with the standard 1-2 Hq, 0-3 Elite, 2-6 Troop, 0-3 Fast Attack, 0-3 Heavy Support FOC. Was it intended to be this way probably not, and I would have no qualms if my opponent ran SW allies with 2 HQ per slot.

Here's another couple of ways to look at it.

1. Allowing a single HQ to have 2 models allows GW to sell more models, thusly I Imagine they'll side with the 2 for 1 meal deal.

2. (correct me if I'm wrong), but didn't in previous editions for certain missions there'd be a different force org chart (more elites, less heavy support blah blah), if that's the case, by peoples arguments you couldn't take leaders of the pack in that situation also.

3. Why all the hate on pups, when GK is out and about (excellent example on the lists forums, put up a guard/sw list, you have a couple of bites, put up a Drago-wing, everyone is like "oh yeah man that's awesome"), and crons with their cheap flyers and insta-glancing tanks to death....that was more of a rant at society in general...

Buuuut, stop ragging on the wolfies, over such a small issue, look at the Doom-flyer thing that has a S10 AP1 line that doesn't need a roll to hit...

TheTrans wrote:
1. Allowing a single HQ to have 2 models allows GW to sell more models, thusly I Imagine they'll side with the 2 for 1 meal deal.

By that logic, why not assume that GW will rule that allied detachments can take 7 HQs...?

2. (correct me if I'm wrong), but didn't in previous editions for certain missions there'd be a different force org chart (more elites, less heavy support blah blah), if that's the case, by peoples arguments you couldn't take leaders of the pack in that situation also.

The FoC issue is a red herring. The issue is that LotP applies to Space Wolf armies, and there is disagreement as to whether that means armies whose Primary Detachment is Space Wolves, or if it includes allied dtachments.

3. Why all the hate on pups, when GK is out and about (excellent example on the lists forums, put up a guard/sw list, you have a couple of bites, put up a Drago-wing, everyone is like "oh yeah man that's awesome"), and crons with their cheap flyers and insta-glancing tanks to death....that was more of a rant at society in general....

Nobody is hating on Space Wolves. Again, I play Space Wolves. But until GW clarifies this, I won't be taking double HQs in allied detachments, because the rules are unclear and I would rather err on the side of caution.

 insaniak wrote:

TheTrans wrote:
1. Allowing a single HQ to have 2 models allows GW to sell more models, thusly I Imagine they'll side with the 2 for 1 meal deal.

By that logic, why not assume that GW will rule that allied detachments can take 7 HQs...?

That's pure hyperbole. We're talking about a certain thing within a certain codex, running off a FoC, that allows 2 HQ choices to be squeezed into a Single HQ Slot.
All the contention around what an army consists of is needless rules-wankering about a point that in all honesty didn't need to come up..

I'll say my final ruling is, If your using wolves in any FoC, then you can take 2 HQ choices, per HQ slot, anyone that argues that when you pull out your list, by all means tell them [Something polite. Rule 1 violation removed MT11]

TheTrans wrote:
anyone that argues that when you pull out your list, by all means tell them to go edited out rule 1 violation...

Argues that by... Maybe asking you to support that with actual rules? An argument like that?

TheTrans wrote:
That's pure hyperbole.

No more so than assuming that GW would rule on this based on model sales in the first place.

All the contention around what an army consists of is needless rules-wankering about a point that in all honesty didn't need to come up..

The thing is, what you're seeing as 'needless rules-wankering' others are seeing as just reading the rules as they currently stand. Whether or not it is intended to work that way is anybody's guess right now. For what it's worth, I fully expect that GW will rule for the two HQ's, of they ever bother to rule on it at all... but I don't see it as being as clear cut as you apparently do.

I believe rule changing has been confirmed to look toward increasing model sales, and I believe there is excellent evidence to show this in the past for GW. Examples being, newer codex's seem to want/allow you to field more and more troops for the same point cos (Allies, 2 FoC at 2000pts), newer codex's being deemed more powerful, look at releases then look at "Power Armies" at armies played alot, or on the rise due to a recent codex re-release. So don't try to argue that fact in your favour as we know (this can turn into a separate rant) that GW are only in it for the Dollar dollar bill y'all.

I think the issue it was quite clear cut, until somebody (more anal than I it would seem) called it up, you'd simply look over it, go "OH cool, pups can take 2 HQ choices in one slot". So when people saw Allies, they'd say "Oh sweet, its a secondary army with a restricted FoC, awesome" and thats the way it should of stayed, but then people pipe up and say "Oh well nowhere does it say the allied chart is/isn't an army, therefore you can't take a secondary choice in the 1 Slot".

Talked to my mates about it, the simply blinked at me and said, well of coarse you could take 2 HQ choices. Now as to GW ruling on it, is a tricky one, for starters they can be quite hit and miss with their FAQs which can be annoying given the wishy-washness of their rules sometimes, but if it wasn't expressly saying NO YOU CANT, I don't know where the issue is.

Here's a good one for you, If I take a space marine as an Ally with a master of the forge, which allows " If you include a MofF in your ARMY. Dreads blah blah HS and Elites" the key issue is here it says 'army', so therefore taking a MotF in a marine ally army, you will not be able to take a Dread as a HS, seems almost quite a punch to testes for MotF doesn't it..

TheTrans wrote:
I believe rule changing has been confirmed to look toward increasing model sales, and I believe there is excellent evidence to show this in the past for GW. Examples being, newer codex's seem to want/allow you to field more and more troops for the same point cos (Allies, 2 FoC at 2000pts), newer codex's being deemed more powerful, look at releases then look at "Power Armies" at armies played alot, or on the rise due to a recent codex re-release. So don't try to argue that fact in your favour as we know (this can turn into a separate rant) that GW are only in it for the Dollar dollar bill y'all.

The overall design philosophy trending towards larger games is not the same thing as making rulings based on what allows you to field a single extra model...

And that's ignoring the fact that the trend for larger games has, for at least 20 years now, been pushed as much by the players as by GW.

I think the issue it was quite clear cut, until somebody (more anal than I it would seem) called it up, you'd simply look over it, go "OH cool, pups can take 2 HQ choices in one slot". So when people saw Allies, they'd say "Oh sweet, its a secondary army with a restricted FoC, awesome" and thats the way it should of stayed, but then people pipe up and say "Oh well nowhere does it say the allied chart is/isn't an army, therefore you can't take a secondary choice in the 1 Slot".

It asn't actually quite that simple. When people started discussing allies, it brought up a number of different rules that apply to specific armies, which led to discussion of what does and does not constitute an 'army' so far as the rules are concerned. This is just one of the issues that came out of those discussions.

It's not people looking for specific ways to be difficult... it's people looking at the different things that are affected by a major change to the rules with no corresponding change to the way the codexes build army lists.

Talked to my mates about it, the simply blinked at me and said, well of coarse you could take 2 HQ choices.

Ah, excellent. So if it does ever come up at the table, I can simply point out that 'TheTrans's friends are ok with it, so go for broke.

Here's a good one for you, If I take a space marine as an Ally with a master of the forge, which allows " If you include a MofF in your ARMY. Dreads blah blah HS and Elites" the key issue is here it says 'army', so therefore taking a MotF in a marine ally army, you will not be able to take a Dread as a HS, seems almost quite a punch to testes for MotF doesn't it..

You've missed the distinction there.

An army that includes allies is an army. The issue that causes problems with the LotP is that it applies specifically to Space Wolf armies. If it simply said 'Your army may include 2 HQ choices for each slot' we wouldn't be having this discussion.

So yes, if you have a MotF in your army, and he has a rule that applies if the MotF is in your army, then that rule applies. If his rule only applied if he is included in a Space Marine army, then we're back to the same problem as the LotP.

 insaniak wrote:

I don't have my BRB in front of me, but IIRC under the rules for making an army list (probably around page 108 or 109) it says that all of the rules for fielding units from a given "army" are in it's codex.

Which is not the same as saying that units from that army themselves comprise an army in their own right.

I can be in the army without being an army.

It is page 108, under Codexes. The part you are missing is that they book uses 2 definitions for the word army. The context lets us know which one they are using. In this context "Space Wolves Army" is describing the army as defined on page 108.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Happyjew wrote:
The difference is in the wording and context. Haemonculi (and some other units) specifically state you can take X per slot and they all act independently. In the case of Space Wolves, the 2 HQ per slot is directly linked to the standard FOC, not the Ally FOC. I would not be surprised if this gets FAQ'd to being allowed, however.

This is not actually supported by the rules. No where does it say it is limited to the standard FOC. Since the rules say you use the one in the book if your codex doesn't have rules for allies or fortifications then your argument means that no Space Wolf player can ever take 2 HQs for one slot. Again, as was already argued and won before, stop breaking the codex to try to prevent something you don't like, and please don't make up rules to do it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
You've missed the distinction there.

An army that includes allies is an army. The issue that causes problems with the LotP is that it applies specifically to Space Wolf armies. If it simply said 'Your army may include 2 HQ choices for each slot' we wouldn't be having this discussion.

So yes, if you have a MotF in your army, and he has a rule that applies if the MotF is in your army, then that rule applies. If his rule only applied if he is included in a Space Marine army, then we're back to the same problem as the LotP.

By your logic a BA/DA/SW/GK Dreadnought can be taken as a Heavy Support choice on the allied FoC chart as well if you include a MotF in the army. Is this your argument?

 Captain Antivas wrote:

By your logic a BA/DA/SW/GK Dreadnought can be taken as a Heavy Support choice on the allied FoC chart as well if you include a MotF in the army. Is this your argument?

Yes they can, until it is FAQ:ed.

My past stance on this issue:

Back on topic,

If you refer to page 109 under Partial Force Organisation charts, it tells you that if you codex does not have the the allied or fortification sections in your codex but it tells you to refer to the chart on pg 109.

Now if you refer to page 109 under Allied Detachments, the last paragraph tells you to reference page 112 regarding how armies and allies interact in more detail. Once you go to the section detailing how allies work together, we have a couple of references of army and army:

Levels of Alliance:

The allies matrix shows the levels of potential alliance between each army.

Battle Brothers:

This category covers the strongest of alliances, two or more armies striving for a common goal.

Now lastly if you reference page 81 of the SW codex, Space Wolves Army List you are told many different times that picking units from that army list is making a SW army:

The following army list enables you to field a Space Wolves army and fight battles using the scenarios included in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook.

Before you choose an army, you will need to agree with your opponent upon the type of game you are going to play and the maximum total number of points each you you will spend then you can proceed to pick your army.

This army list may of course be used in conjunction with other missions and scenarios that use the force organisation charts, allowing you access to different types of army for a different gaming experience.

So on the allies page of the BRB, they reference that allies are two separate armies. The army list section in the Space Wolves codex goes on time and time again that choosing units from that army list is making a Space Wolves army, with the additional provision that when used with special missions or force organizations charts, it is still a Space Wolves army. There are no entries in the Space Wolves codex for "allied detachments" nor is there in the Necrons codex, which would be the closest codex to 6th edition.

Simply put, allied detachments are made up of units chosen from a codex's army list which per the RAW make them an army of that codex. All rules of said codex apply to that allied detachment as an army of that codex, which in this case includes Leaders of the Pack.

As for the other issue brought up regarding the new FOC in the BRB somehow superceding the SW codex and thus not allowing LotP or that the Space Wolves codex FOC does not have the rules for Fortifications or Allied units, people really need to read the rules more carefully.

Page 109, Primary Detachments, last paragraph, last two sentences;

Sometimes a single choice on the Force Organization chart will allow you to select more then one unit. This will be explained in the appropriate codex, so be sure to read it carefully.

Page 109, Partial Force Organization Charts

If your codex contains the primary detachment section of the Force Organization chart, the allied detachment and fortifications sections will not be present, as individual codexes do not contain the rules for allied units or fortifications. If this is the case, it doesn't mean you can't use these elements of the chart, simply refer to the version presented here.

These two rules in conjunction show that,

1. You refer to codex SW regarding selecting more then one HQ unit per FOC slot, aka, LotP.
2. Just because the SW FOC, which includes LotP, does not have allied or fortifications on it, does not mean we can't use them.

 Captain Antivas wrote:
It is page 108, under Codexes. The part you are missing is that they book uses 2 definitions for the word army. The context lets us know which one they are using. In this context "Space Wolves Army" is describing the army as defined on page 108.

We appear to be reading that page very differently then. Because what I'm seeing is a section that describes how you build an army... and in that context, the 'army' is the force that you play the game with, not just one part of it.

By your logic a BA/DA/SW/GK Dreadnought can be taken as a Heavy Support choice on the allied FoC chart as well if you include a MotF in the army. Is this your argument?

As the rules currently stand, yes, that would seem to be perfectly acceptable, and I would have no problem with an opponent doing so. I probably wouldn't do it myself, because there is still a certain amount of debate around as to just how special rules from one codex carry over to allies.

I may not agree with your interpretation, but at least you are consistent. That was a loaded question, admittedly. I see the usage as being two completely different definitions, as evidenced further by Tyr's notes on the matter.

TheTrans wrote:

All the contention around what an army consists of is needless rules-wankering about a point that in all honesty didn't need to come up..

Exactly. Rules wankering about what an army is because - boohoo! I hate rune priests, and I don't want you to have them anymore!

As a Space Wolves player, I side with Insaniak, at least until there's an FAQ from GW or an FAQ that a specific tournament uses.

As a non-SW player, I'm just arguing (how i see) RAW. I won't force it on my opponent however.

 insaniak wrote:

The thing is, what you're seeing as 'needless rules-wankering' others are seeing as just reading the rules as they currently stand.

The rules as they currently stand - in fact as they have always stood - is that there are conflicts between the current edition of the rule book and the rules in the old codecies. Players always grab the new rule book and then go out and try to "word-spanker" an old codex to suddenly change the meaning of everything. The argument about what constitutes an army is perfect example.

There is nothing at all in the rules to support the belief that the codex of your "army" is the codex of your primary detachment. Nothing. If anything, the strongest support is for the interpretation that every detachment is its own army because that's exactly how it was in 5th edition and most of the current codecies are full of rules written for 5th edition. The only reason to impose the more restrictive interpretation of "army" is prevent people from taking more space wolf characters. Why do that? Why not just let people build their army the way they want? It's not like they're trying to cheat. The codex says they can have two characters per HQ slot. It's right there in black and white on page 81.

Most people who play this game are not super close readers who are going to hash out the meaning of "army". Then they show up to play after spending thousands of hours and thousands of dollars on an army and some neck-beard refuses to play him because he has an extra rune priest. "It's not a space wolf ARMY!"

EDIT : Why did the profanity filter change it to "spanker" when it didn't pick up "wankering"? Maybe add this to the list of words to pick up? Insaniak?

And that rule is specifically tied into the 1-2 HQ requirement of a Primary Detachment. In fifth ed, if you took a second (read allied) detachment, it used the same FOC as the primary detachment. In 6th ed, allied detachment use a different FOC.

Isn't rules arguing fun?

 insaniak wrote:

We appear to be reading that page very differently then. Because what I'm seeing is a section that describes how you build an army... and in that context, the 'army' is the force that you play the game with, not just one part of it.

Yes. Your "army" is the force you play the game with. That is, your army is the combination of your primary detachment and your allied detachment and your fortification slot. But now we're back to the first question, which is "What kind of army do I have if my primary detachment consists of units from codex A and my allied detachment consists of units from codex B?" Let's look at the possible answers and see how they affect the issue in question;

Answer #1 : I have a Codex A and Codex B army. For example, my army is an Imperial Guard Army AND a Space Wolves Army. In this case, you now have two possible interpretations for the consequences to this argument.

1.A : Either LotP applies to both detachments because you have a space wolves army AND and imperial guard army.

1.B : Or, LotP does not play because you don't have a strictly Space Wolves Army. However, if you take this interpretation, then you do NOT have to obey LotP for wargear restrictions on a primary detachment either!

Answer #2 : I have an army, but it is niether a Codex A army, nor a Codex B army. It's just an army, or a mixed army with no codex descriptors. In this case, the LotP rule would not apply to either detachment since I don't have a "Space Wolves Army".

The problem I see is that by taking the more restrictive solutions, you actually open up more problems. In particular, with answer 1.B or answer 2, Leaders of the Pack only applies to armies of pure space wolves with no allies or fortifications! But if Leaders of the Pack does not apply to a primary detachment, then SW's could take identical characters (two identical thunderlords?) and this is certainly not RAI. Not to mention there would be a host of problems with other codecies. So the easiest, cleanest way to deal with this is option 1.A, which I advocate.

Grugknuckle wrote:Exactly. Rules wankering about what an army is because - boohoo! I hate rune priests, and I don't want you to have them anymore!

This sort of comment does nothing productive for the discussion. Do I need to point out a third time that I have a Space Wolves army? My interpretation hurts my own army choices.

Grugknuckle wrote:There is nothing at all in the rules to support the belief that the codex of your "army" is the codex of your primary detachment. Nothing.

There is also nothing in the rules to support the idea that each detachment is treated as a separate army, rather than just as a detachment in the complete army on the table.

Hence the disagreement as to which way to play it. For some of us, the preferred option in a case like that is to default to the most restrictive option, as that provides the least potential abuse of what could be an unintentional loophole.

If anything, the strongest support is for the interpretation that every detachment is its own army because that's exactly how it was in 5th edition and most of the current codecies are full of rules written for 5th edition.

How the rules worked in 5th edition is completely irrelevant to how they work now. 5th edition didn't include Allies, and the Multiple Detachment rules have been completely re-written.

5th edition Multiple Detachment rules specified that each detachment was a separate army. The 6th edition version doesn't... in fact, it actually refers to both Primary detachments as being from 'your army'. Likewise, the 'Choosing Your Army' section refers simply to building a single army. There is nothing in there that suggests that each detachment is still treated as a separate army... You have one army, that can be comprised of multiple detachments.

Most people who play this game are not super close readers who are going to hash out the meaning of "army". Then they show up to play after spending thousands of hours and thousands of dollars on an army and some neck-beard refuses to play him because he has an extra rune priest. "It's not a space wolf ARMY!"

At what point did I say that I would refuse to play someone for taking an extra rune priest in their army?

The whole point of rules discussion here is to foster a better understanding of the rules. That potentially helps those people who aren't 'super close readers' by pointing out potential areas where people interpret the rules differently.

But the fact that someone argues for a particular interpretation of the rules has no bearing on how they will handle the situation if it comes up at the table. For myself, I'm aware of the issue, thanks to hashing it out online. I'm also aware (for the same reason) that some players interpret it differently. So if I use my own Space Wolves as an allied force, I'll only take a single HQ per slot. If an opponent shows up for a game with doubled HQs, I'll discuss the issue to find out if they're aware of it, and then most likely just get on with the game, because it's not a big enough issue to warrant stopping a game over.

Grugknuckle wrote:Yes. Your "army" is the force you play the game with. That is, your army is the combination of your primary detachment and your allied detachment and your fortification slot. But now we're back to the first question, which is "What kind of army do I have if my primary detachment consists of units from codex A and my allied detachment consists of units from codex B?"

As I've discussed previously, for my money the army you have is defined by your Primary detachment, because the Primary detachment is, you know, the Primary detachment.

You know Insaniak, I pointed out the sections of the rules from the 6th edition allies section that refers to two seperate armies.

I also pointed out in the SW codex several instances that point out that choosing units from the army list constitutes making a SW army.

Lastly I pointed out the sections in the new rulebook that take into account the FOC charts in individual codexes are not like the new ones and how to rectify those situations.

No offense man, but I can lead a horse to water but I can't make it drink.

 insaniak wrote:

Grugknuckle wrote:Exactly. Rules wankering about what an army is because - boohoo! I hate rune priests, and I don't want you to have them anymore!

This sort of comment does nothing productive for the discussion. Do I need to point out a third time that I have a Space Wolves army? My interpretation hurts my own army choices.

It's not really you that I'm referring to insaniak. I know your heart is in the right place. It's most everyone else who I'm talking about - particularly the people who say, "Come on! Space Wolves are already OP!"

Those people exist. Don't deny it.

 Grugknuckle wrote:
It's not really you that I'm referring to insaniak. I know your heart is in the right place. It's most everyone else who I'm talking about - particularly the people who say, "Come on! Space Wolves are already OP!"

Those people exist. Don't deny it.

We only say it because [insert army that has a 5th ed codex here] are already OP. Maybe before releasing a new edition GW should update all of their codexes first.