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.

That's mostly fine, but I'm not going to play against index brimstone horrors after the codex drops.

Martel732 wrote:
That's mostly fine, but I'm not going to play against index brimstone horrors after the codex drops.

Oh Em Gee stop being Tee Eff Gee </Sarcasm>

I think you'd have to think about why you'd use the previous entry.

For instance if they double the cost of a few units, saying, "oh, I'm going by index pricing for this brutally undercosted model," is kind of lame.

Codex is designed to update index. If there's an updated entry in the codex, go with that. You don't try and port 7th edition statlines to 8th edition, this is similar.

I will have to use the index for biker libbies, plas/las razors, and tl hf razors. But I doubt anyone will care.

 Arkaine wrote:
Conscripts are still the same cost for 4 shots each with commissar orders and the inability to lose too many of them due to guys getting shot in the head.

Well, IG hasn't got a new codex in a while. We can all hope something changes about them but this is not the right place for this discussion.

Martel732 wrote:
I will have to use the index for biker libbies, plas/las razors, and tl hf razors. But I doubt anyone will care.

You can't use them for plas/las razorbacks because the codex totally replaces it and the codex FAQ says you have to use the latest rules. Unless something changes, those models are 100% illegal to use now outside of the most casual of environments where "legality" doesn't matter anyway.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I will have to use the index for biker libbies, plas/las razors, and tl hf razors. But I doubt anyone will care.

You can't use them for plas/las razorbacks because the codex totally replaces it and the codex FAQ says you have to use the latest rules. Unless something changes, those models are 100% illegal to use now outside of the most casual of environments where "legality" doesn't matter anyway.

The codex also specifically calls out war gear options like rifle dreads, so yeah he can.

Great so every razorback I have is likely to be illegal when the codex drops. FU GW.

edit: okay, that's a relief.

I suspect I might be in some trouble in 9th, though.

 Marmatag wrote:
I think you'd have to think about why you'd use the previous entry.

For instance if they double the cost of a few units, saying, "oh, I'm going by index pricing for this brutally undercosted model," is kind of lame.

Codex is designed to update index. If there's an updated entry in the codex, go with that. You don't try and port 7th edition statlines to 8th edition, this is similar.

The difference is that GW did not format the Codices properly. They released 5 Indexes to update all units to 8th. These books were very reasonably priced, giving us hope that the inevitable Codices would also be reasonable.
But they are almost as expensive as the 7th ed Codices and as added insult, still require you to have the Index for a few units that haven't been updated

I'll buy the Codex for my army, no issue. But I cannot be expected to own all the rules for all the armies that I'll face, and thus how would I KNOW what units have been updated?
The Indexes could have been such a great way to have 90% of the rules for every army with the Codices being optional for A FEW extra rules.
So it boils down to this: I have no idea what my opponent has unless he brings all the relevant rules with him, and we spend way too long reviewing them instead of actually playing. And even then, how to I know those rules have been updated or not?

-

My take on it is, if both player's have a codex available then they should be using the codex rules( unless otherwise negotiated). If only one player has a codex available then I feel it's a bit cheap to have one person using updated info while the other isn't.

When I say having it available I don't mean having bought it, I mean it is on the market. Certainly you can find some way of getting the new rules for your army once they are released.

Its a Right bloody mess and no mistake.

IMO Index units should only really be used for legacy units / options that are not in the codex.

Using stuff that is just cheaper in the Index is poor form and I assume that in that case they use ALL the rules from the Index only. Even then its like ignoring the FAqs becuase its bad for my army.

Assume that sort of player would also object to the non Codex Blessed also using the new pts cost for Power Fists for ALL armies that use them,.

Agree with Galef though the Codex system is terrible as updates are massively spread out across multiple books.

 Galef wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I think you'd have to think about why you'd use the previous entry.

For instance if they double the cost of a few units, saying, "oh, I'm going by index pricing for this brutally undercosted model," is kind of lame.

Codex is designed to update index. If there's an updated entry in the codex, go with that. You don't try and port 7th edition statlines to 8th edition, this is similar.

The difference is that GW did not format the Codices properly. They released 5 Indexes to update all units to 8th. These books were very reasonably priced, giving us hope that the inevitable Codices would also be reasonable.
But they are almost as expensive as the 7th ed Codices and as added insult, still require you to have the Index for a few units that haven't been updated

I'll buy the Codex for my army, no issue. But I cannot be expected to own all the rules for all the armies that I'll face, and thus how would I KNOW what units have been updated?
The Indexes could have been such a great way to have 90% of the rules for every army with the Codices being optional for A FEW extra rules.
So it boils down to this: I have no idea what my opponent has unless he brings all the relevant rules with him, and we spend way too long reviewing them instead of actually playing. And even then, how to I know those rules have been updated or not?

-

No one expects you to buy all the codexes.

So it is the fear of being cheated that is driving this thread.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
So it is the fear of being cheated that is driving this thread.

Partly. But it is also the fear that I may be perceived as cheating because I may not want to buy an additional Codex to play a certain faction.
It is also the fact that I desire to know almost all rules, but realistically cannot. 5 Indexes would have been possible, but 20+ Codices is not.

-

I'm not convinced this is a good system, either.

So far it seems like codex content could be freely published online.

That would be ideal, but 40K is 40K and GW knows its customer base. They will sell $50 books all day long. You can't blame them for essentially printing money. They're in the business of selling stuff - the game is tertiary really to the sales aspect.

My take on it is, if both player's have a codex available then they should be using the codex rules( unless otherwise negotiated). If only one player has a codex available then I feel it's a bit cheap to have one person using updated info while the other isn't.

When I say having it available I don't mean having bought it, I mean it is on the market. Certainly you can find some way of getting the new rules for your army once they are released.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I will have to use the index for biker libbies, plas/las razors, and tl hf razors. But I doubt anyone will care.

You can't use them for plas/las razorbacks because the codex totally replaces it and the codex FAQ says you have to use the latest rules. Unless something changes, those models are 100% illegal to use now outside of the most casual of environments where "legality" doesn't matter anyway.

It's funny that this post is so certain yet so wrong.

You might be missing some perks and bonus', but I'd play my codex army against your index army.

 Corrode wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I will have to use the index for biker libbies, plas/las razors, and tl hf razors. But I doubt anyone will care.

You can't use them for plas/las razorbacks because the codex totally replaces it and the codex FAQ says you have to use the latest rules. Unless something changes, those models are 100% illegal to use now outside of the most casual of environments where "legality" doesn't matter anyway.

It's funny that this post is so certain yet so wrong.

And he keeps posting it, over and over again.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I will have to use the index for biker libbies, plas/las razors, and tl hf razors. But I doubt anyone will care.

You can't use them for plas/las razorbacks because the codex totally replaces it and the codex FAQ says you have to use the latest rules. Unless something changes, those models are 100% illegal to use now outside of the most casual of environments where "legality" doesn't matter anyway.

Stop saying that. You opened a thread about this and I linked you the FAQ that specifically solved the case about units having different loadouts in the index vs the codex, with the Dreadnought example.

Use the most recent source material. Codex when appropriate, otherwise index. GW itself has said this numerous times, including in a FAQ and a few times on its blog.

 Marmatag wrote:
So far it seems like codex content could be freely published online.

Which would be great, except that books would still cost money. Free online content cannot be taken with you to the game store and flipped through to find a rule...



...because as soon as you have to buy a tablet to do so, the rules are no longer "free", they are the cost of the tablet...which can break or stop working or the battery can die.
Books are superior, but I don't want 20+ $40 books to exist for a single game. About a dozen $20-25 books would be more reasonable

-

Breng77 wrote:The codex also specifically calls out war gear options like rifle dreads, so yeah he can.

Prometheum5 wrote:

 Corrode wrote:
It's funny that this post is so certain yet so wrong.

And he keeps posting it, over and over again.

Galas wrote:Stop saying that. You opened a thread about this and I linked you the FAQ that specifically solved the case about units having different loadouts in the index vs the codex, with the Dreadnought example.

Please read this line:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/07/05/codexes-your-questions-answered-july-5gw-homepage-post-2/

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.

This line means anything covered in the codex overwrites the index entry, thus making the index entry entirely invalid. The only index entries you can use are the ones that have "yet to be updated." This line means anything covered in the codex overwrites the index entry, thus making the index entry entirely invalid. The only index entries you can use are the ones that have "yet to be updated." So if you were hoping to use the index to keep your dakka venerable dreads, you're SOL. It also means for things like Wolf Lords that link to another index datasheet, you're forced to use the index datasheet for Captain instead of the codex one, because it's the latest rules for "Wolf Lord".

It's clear as day, so no, I am not wrong. Believe me, I wish more than anyone this wasn't the case. I liked using Venerable Dreads with Autocannon/Lascannon, but I can't now if I want to follow the rules and not cheat, and that makes me sad.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's clear as day, so no, I am not wrong. Believe me, I wish more than anyone this wasn't the case. I liked using Venerable Dreads with Autocannon/Lascannon, but I can't now if I want to follow the rules and not cheat, and that makes me sad.

From the same link, this also appears to be clear as day.

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.

 Galef wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
So far it seems like codex content could be freely published online.

Which would be great, except that books would still cost money. Free online content cannot be taken with you to the game store and flipped through to find a rule...



...because as soon as you have to buy a tablet to do so, the rules are no longer "free", they are the cost of the tablet...which can break or stop working or the battery can die.
Books are superior, but I don't want 20+ $40 books to exist for a single game. About a dozen $20-25 books would be more reasonable

-

I'd prefer both, with the Codex just providing more hobby content and marketed as a "Premium product". Maybe if I say it enough it'll become true .

GW has stated that you can use the Index to go play at your shop as long as your opponent gives the go ahead. I'm sure the vast majority of the people wouldn't care if you played with just the Index at the shop, so long as you keep in mind that people can choose not to play with you. For something more structured, though, you need approval from the governing body.

Mortarion's Herald wrote:
so long as you keep in mind that people can choose not to play with you.

This is true regardless of anything to do with the Indexes and Codexes, and is a non-useful line of reasoning when it comes to discussing rules issues because it all just boils down to "Lol, do whatever."

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Mortarion's Herald wrote:
so long as you keep in mind that people can choose not to play with you.

This is true regardless of anything to do with the Indexes and Codexes, and is a non-useful line of reasoning when it comes to discussing rules issues because it all just boils down to "Lol, do whatever."

I disagree in this case, because while games like this have always boiled down to do whatever you want, GW is attempting to legitimize the ability to take models that are no longer supported in the latest datasheets to be used in the current rules. GW is essentially telling us "You don't need to homebrew rules to take your older models to a shop and get everyone's approval. We made the ruleset for you!" They would like you to use the most updated rules for the stuff, yes, but they leave an official option open to allow players to still use models they normally wouldn't be able to, so long as they get they go ahead.

 Arkaine wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's clear as day, so no, I am not wrong. Believe me, I wish more than anyone this wasn't the case. I liked using Venerable Dreads with Autocannon/Lascannon, but I can't now if I want to follow the rules and not cheat, and that makes me sad.

From the same link, this also appears to be clear as day.

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.

Seems pretty obvious, doesn't it?

Time for certain posters to stop banging that particular drum and move on...

I did have a discussion on this yesterday at my FLGS regarding Razorbacks.

In the index, there's the option for twin heavy flamer turrets on them, however in the new codex, that option is nowhere to be found in the Razorback entry.

A friend of mine has a couple of razorbacks for his Salamanders army that he's had for quite a long while (4+ years) that have converted twin heavy flamer turrets on them, and was noting that in the new codex, they're not legal any longer. I told him, at least in our local games, to just reference the index for any opponents that might have an issue with him using that option, but otherwise use the point costs and what-not from the new Marine Codex for everything else.

It's curious, as that option has been around for a long time on the Razorback, and it surprised me that it wasn't there any longer in the new codex.

Hopefully they'll FAQ it to add that option back in. Fingers crossed.

Take it easy.

-Red__Thirst-