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.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
There are so many things wrong with that argument that no longer even know where to start anymore.

For everyone else, I highly recommend reading the actual Q&A page first (Found here: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/07/05/codexes-your-questions-answered-july-5gw-homepage-post-2/ ). It's a lot less confusing and ambiguous as people make it out to be.

With that, I'm out.

And yet I've referred to it several times now as evidence of my own statements. So not exactly.

We have Daemons in the new CSM Codex. With cheaper points. Yet it's not the Daemons codex nor does it say anything to that effect. So do Daemons players have to use the new rules, or can they continue using their own Index rules for 2 pt Brimstones that deal 1d3 smite damage?

Your answer to that will determine whether you also think that Rhinos in a Grey Knight codex affect Space Marines (codex legions like Ultramarines for example) that aren't Grey Knights. -_-

Except Daemons is not a codex that exists anymore. Grey Knights is. Space Marines is.

I don't understand this whole "Space Marines can't use Rhinos because its in the Grey Knight codex...???"

Anyway I see it the answer to the OP is no.

In the Index a World Eater army could take Berzerkers as troops.
The codex is now out however and if you want to make a World Eater army you get other options but cannot take Berzerkers as troops.

Tyel wrote:
I don't understand this whole "Space Marines can't use Rhinos because its in the Grey Knight codex...???"

Short version:

- GW declares that the newest stuff replaces the older ones with future publications. There's a new Rhino. Only Grey Knights can use it. To say otherwise is to say that since Chaos Daemons are still not replaced, as they are their own faction in the Index (fitting since it replaces their old also their own faction rules) then the new CSM Codex cannot be a replacement to the Chaos Daemons rules, which means they'll be using their Index rules instead which are a bit better in some regards.

- To claim that the CSM Codex is now the Daemons codex that replaces the Index rules is to claim that Daemons are no longer a faction and may not be played, which is preposterous on its own, especially given what's on the front cover of the Index: Chaos and what's inside the Chaos Daemons army rules section, as WELL as pg 4 of the Index: Chaos where it describes Chaos Daemons as indeed an entirely separate faction.

- Should you decide that said Daemons must use the latest Daemons rules from the Codex Heretic Astartes despite not actually being a part of the Heretic Astartes faction then it the same as saying that all current Space Marines must use the Rhino from Codex Grey Knights despite not actually being a part of the Grey Knights faction.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You always use the most recent rules. It's the only way the game can work, otherwise I could claim to want to use the points values from 3rd edition.

This is most likely intentional due to giving all Troops Objective Secured.

Except that doesn't work because we have multiple precedents here

1. Using updated point values for shared units/wargear is optional (blood Angels/dark Angels/space wolves and codex astartes)

2. Units that aren't updated in the codex carry over but use updated point values for gear and gain army wide rules.

Thus we have some weirdness going on with WE/EC. They are in the codex... But they were also called out as a us faction army in the index like DG/tsons. We all expect them to have a codex eventually. They also had a separate unit entry for their unique cult unit. All of which combines to obscure the issue.

So it's fairly clear to me it's some confusion due to CSM basically being stopgap part 2 for WE/EC till they get their own codex later.

The other alternative is they don't intended cult units to be usable as troops even in their own legion. Otherwise known as the "we really don't want to sell any rubrics or plague marines due to the outright better options, also we still hate CSM players and refuse to give them a single update that doesn't hurt them in the end" option.

SilverAlien wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You always use the most recent rules. It's the only way the game can work, otherwise I could claim to want to use the points values from 3rd edition.

This is most likely intentional due to giving all Troops Objective Secured.

Except that doesn't work because we have multiple precedents here

1. Using updated point values for shared units/wargear is optional (blood Angels/dark Angels/space wolves and codex astartes)

2. Units that aren't updated in the codex carry over but use updated point values for gear and gain army wide rules.

Thus we have some weirdness going on with WE/EC. They are in the codex... But they were also called out as a us faction army in the index like DG/tsons. We all expect them to have a codex eventually. They also had a separate unit entry for their unique cult unit. All of which combines to obscure the issue.

So it's fairly clear to me it's some confusion due to CSM basically being stopgap part 2 for WE/EC till they get their own codex later.

The other alternative is they don't intended cult units to be usable as troops even in their own legion. Otherwise known as the "we really don't want to sell any rubrics or plague marines due to the outright better options, also we still hate CSM players and refuse to give them a single update that doesn't hurt them in the end" option.

to me BTW this says that GW doesn't intend to dop ECs and WEs within the next year and a half.

Anyway, the logical thing to do is to shoot GW a email and ask them. until then, I'm assuming the answer is "no" (because if GW says otherwise I'll be delighted) all this MEANS is that someone who wants to run bezerkers as his troops just needs to use a spearpoint detachment and lose some CPs. not that big a deal if it comes to it.

IFC_Casting wrote:
They also specifically mentioned they removed cult troops as being troops because they did NOT want them having ObSec.

Can you point me to where they said that please.

Thanks

plc

There's latest and there's being overly literal. The Grey Knight Rhino example is ridiculous. It will have a different Faction keyword anyway so there's no way a 'GK Rhino' overwrites a 'Space Marine Rhino'.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
There's latest and there's being overly literal. The Grey Knight Rhino example is ridiculous. It will have a different Faction keyword anyway so there's no way a 'GK Rhino' overwrites a 'Space Marine Rhino'.

This.

The latest rules for Space Marines are in the space marine codex, not the Grey knights codex. That argument is like saying an imperial guard power fist is cheaper so I am going to pay that cost for my space marine captain since it's the newest rules for it. (Once the ig codex comes out). That doesn't take into account a single guard with a powerfist sucks compared to a captain with one so yes, it makes since it's cheaper for the ig one. It's not as useful.

OK maybe that's not the best example but the point is you can't take stuff from one army and apply it to another. Doing so opens a pandoraa box of issues like what your saying with the Grey knights rhinos and do you honestly think that's what gw ment when they said that about use the latest data sheets? No, they mean use the latest for your army.

Index vs codex again, the index is allowed for you to grab units that have war gear and weapons that the codex is no longer giving as an option. If there was a load out that the new beserkers could not take that the old ones could then you could use the index if you wanted. But elite vs troop isn't a war gear option so no, sorry it's not doable.

With the formations rules like they are I don't understand the issue here. Is it you are trying to get more command points? Or is it your trying to get objective secure? Beserkers are amazing now in the new codex, you can get like 4 attacks when charging per model and 3 attack rounds per squad in the one assault phase, objective is secure sir because we "Blood for the blood God" ed all the little runts who were camping on it makes a lot more sense for a beserker than we are going to hold back and hold this because it's what the boss wants.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
There's latest and there's being overly literal. The Grey Knight Rhino example is ridiculous. It will have a different Faction keyword anyway so there's no way a 'GK Rhino' overwrites a 'Space Marine Rhino'.

Welcome to Dakka, where people take things overly literally in an effort to say Chaos doesn't get cool toys but then contradicts themselves by not applying the same rules to their own toys.

Azuza001 wrote:
The latest rules for Space Marines are in the space marine codex, not the Grey knights codex. That argument is like saying an imperial guard power fist is cheaper so I am going to pay that cost for my space marine captain since it's the newest rules for it. (Once the ig codex comes out). That doesn't take into account a single guard with a powerfist sucks compared to a captain with one so yes, it makes since it's cheaper for the ig one. It's not as useful.

So you're saying we shouldn't take rules from a codex that isn't for our own faction. Good, I agree in intent, but don't you see how silly that makes this now?

Azuza001 wrote:
OK maybe that's not the best example but the point is you can't take stuff from one army and apply it to another. Doing so opens a pandoraa box of issues like what your saying with the Grey knights rhinos and do you honestly think that's what gw ment when they said that about use the latest data sheets? No, they mean use the latest for your army.

So you're confirming that Brimstones still are 2 pts each and deal 1d3 mortal wounds with Smite since Chaos Daemons faction players are not permitted to use the updated sheets from a codex that isn't their army. You're also confirming that Thousand Sons are not permitted to use the new Rubrics, being their own faction and specifically called out for it, which means Rubrics are still troops that mega smite on a 10+, not on an 11+. You're ALSO confirming that none of the other Space Marine factions are permitted to use the updated rules sheets and are relegated to Index entries and expensive power fists. Correct?

Azuza001 wrote:
Index vs codex again, the index is allowed for you to grab units that have war gear and weapons that the codex is no longer giving as an option. If there was a load out that the new beserkers could not take that the old ones could then you could use the index if you wanted. But elite vs troop isn't a war gear option so no, sorry it's not doable.

Elite vs Troop is an Army Rule option, not a datasheet or war gear option. Please cite the page where World Eaters army rules have been replaced with new ones. Mind you, Legion Tactics aren't Army Rules, for if they were, they'd replace the Heretic Astartes Army Rules as well. So we have an Index with army rules that prevent the nonsense I'm about to explain that for some reason you seem to think doesn't apply anymore.

Azuza001 wrote:
With the formations rules like they are I don't understand the issue here. Is it you are trying to get more command points? Or is it your trying to get objective secure? Beserkers are amazing now in the new codex, you can get like 4 attacks when charging per model and 3 attack rounds per squad in the one assault phase, objective is secure sir because we "Blood for the blood God" ed all the little runts who were camping on it makes a lot more sense for a beserker than we are going to hold back and hold this because it's what the boss wants.

Pretty sure people are simply looking for equality and fair treatment instead of being perceived as an underclass abused minority. If people want to be so snappy as to say that all old rules have been replaced then that includes the old World Eaters that state all units must have the mark of Khorne. The new rule for World Eaters armies does not exist or say such thing, and under Mark of Chaos alone will you find a statement that says World Eaters units have must have the Khorne keyword if they are able to do so. As Noise Marines are not able to do so, they are not required to be the mark of Khorne to join a World Eaters army. You may be able to argue for a Sorcerer who actually HAS the Mark of Chaos keyword which this rule pertains to but as Sorcerers cannot take the Khorne keyword... they also seem unable to do so. Nothing is stopping you from taking these units in a World Eaters army because there are no World Eaters army rules restricting what you may take. The only restrictions of any sort exist only in the Mark of Chaos keyword rules and aren't adamant about that being required to join. Plus, for any hypothetical Legion units who don't even have the Mark of Chaos, they wouldn't even care about this rule.



TLR version -- If you want to say quote lines from https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/07/05/codexes-your-questions-answered-july-5gw-homepage-post-2/ while ignoring lines like this "In all future publications and official events though, it will be assumed that you’re using the most recent rules and Datasheets" and then deciding for yourself when and how codex rules apply, then you're opening up loophole doors for others to exploit just so you can keep your toys working. Fact is, the Rhino datasheets in both the SM and Grey Knight codex replace the INDEX version of the Rhino as you've already claimed the Berzerkers do, as people claim the Rubrics do, as people claim the Daemons do. Yet all of them have differing circumstances about them and that simply cannot be the case. Then we have GW designers arguing that Dark Hereticus can be used in full because it's been updated globally for all users of the power pool, or in the SM version I'm sure you have your own power pool too, and playing games as such under those rules to add even more confusion to the pool. THEN we have Space Marine players that think they are the fanboy favorites and cite passages from rules that released when their Codex was the only one mentioning chapters by name and acting as though they're the only ones exempt from certain rules, because as you said it best Johnny:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
There's latest and there's being overly literal.

1.) Please cite where it states you may use rules from an older publication. The World Eaters legion rules are from an older publication and thus do not need to be "replaced". It simply disappears. Datasheets with specific Wargear Options were given an exception via the post here:

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.

Note the lack of mention of any other type of rules.

2.) Non "Codex: Space Marine" space marine armies were given an exception, posted here:

If I have a Blood Angels, Dark Angels or Space Wolves army, will I need to buy Codex: Space Marines to use my army?
You don’t have to. Other Space Marines factions not covered in the new codex will continue to use all the datasheets, rules and points values in the index until their own codex is released. Rules for new models not covered in the index (like the upcoming Redemptor Dreadnought) will be available in the box with the model and matched play points for these units will be made available online.

If your argument denies one, it denies another, as they're both from the same document. This also means that, yes, T-Sons and DG, by RAW do not get any of those datasheets replaced by the Chaos Codex, because they were not given explicit permission as of this writing.

And before anyone accuses me of being a SM fanboy, I have 49 Plague Marines (this number is significant for a reason), 7 Plague Terminators, a Nurgle Helbrute, a Nurgle Land Raider, and at least 2 Nurgle Lords/sorcerers (I modelled them to be interchangable). My opponents field the entire spectrum of Loyalist Space Marines. My argument is nerfing my own army the most.

Again, I highly recommend people actually going to read the document (found here: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/07/05/codexes-your-questions-answered-july-5gw-homepage-post-2/ ) and make your conclusions after reading it. A lot of the fearmongering and confusion stems from people hearing others say things on the internet, making up their minds, THEN going to the document to cherrypick words to fit their conclusion, rather than have their conclusion being informed by the document.

Again, nowhere in the document says that you get to use every single rule from a past publication; the exception is only for models without an option in a datasheet and the "big three" loyalist space marine armies that have yet to receive their own codexes yet. Also do note that, as per the YMDC rules, even that document does not technically count as an official source (it is neither a FAQ or a sourcebook) so technically it should be ignored in it's entirety. But before anyone rushes to claim that everything I said above is thus made moot, it also means that there is no official documents giving permission to use legacy rules of any kind if that is the case (and thus means still no World Eater Berserker Troops).

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
1.) Please cite where it states you may use rules from an older publication. The World Eaters legion rules are from an older publication and thus do not need to be "replaced". It simply disappears. Datasheets with specific Wargear Options were given an exception via the post here:

Please cite where it states the World Eaters legion rules are in the Index. It does not. It states the World Eaters Army Rules are in the Index. The Codex has neither of these, no legion rules or army rules, nothing even dictating what may be brought as part of a World Eaters detachment.

The World Eaters Army Rules place them on the same level as the Heretic Astartes Army Rules and the Chaos Daemons Army Rules. Where does it say that World Eaters as a faction have been completely replaced? Just because they are present in the Codex for access to Heretic relics and stratagems? Daemons are likewise "present" in the Codex. Does that mean Chaos Daemons Army Rules have also disappeared, according to you? Has the entire Chaos Daemons faction been relegated to just four units without proper rules or psychic powers plus a bunch of "old" Index datasheets that haven't yet been updated? All because the new Codex eradicates any rules that previously existed?

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
2.) Non "Codex: Space Marine" space marine armies were given an exception, posted here:

This is precisely the literal-minded favortism that has sparked this debate to begin with. That entire message was posted when Codex: Space Marines were the ONLY faction with a codex. Likewise, it doesn't matter if Non Codex: Space Marines factions have an exception, which you'll even see I mentioned above so thank you for repeating my arguments and making things known that were already known and accounted for, because I wanted him to answer 'yes' to each of my propositions. It establishes the basepoint for contradiction to follow later.

Thousand Sons being RAW using the Index for example confirms that we don't lose Rubrics as Troops nor the imposed penalty given to the Codex versions because we ignore those.

I highly recommend you stop posting the document that we've been discussing repeatedly in these threads, the document I even QUOTE from above, because people keep being selective on what they want to read from it and what they want to ignore. Either you accept the entire document or you can stop selectively citing only single paragraphs from it when there are others that support my reasoning. Such as the one that supports FUTURE publications overriding PAST publications.

--

What I feel you are failing to understand is that I'm catching people in a contradiction where they believe one thing but then change their tune for another. So to establish the basis of each of your arguments, we must first establish where your beliefs lie and show how they are contradictory to themselves.

 Arkaine wrote:

Azuza001 wrote:
The latest rules for Space Marines are in the space marine codex, not the Grey knights codex. That argument is like saying an imperial guard power fist is cheaper so I am going to pay that cost for my space marine captain since it's the newest rules for it. (Once the ig codex comes out). That doesn't take into account a single guard with a powerfist sucks compared to a captain with one so yes, it makes since it's cheaper for the ig one. It's not as useful.

So you're saying we shouldn't take rules from a codex that isn't for our own faction. Good, I agree in intent, but don't you see how silly that makes this now?

 Scott-S6 wrote:
Why is this silly? It's far from the first time that there has been different datasheets for the same model in different codexes.

I found I was being quite clear why it was silly, you didn't quote the part where I explained that. The entire post is one set and each quote is merely to highlight relevant pieces of info as they become pertinent to the explanation. It meant that Daemons didn't have to accept their nerfs from the new Codex. They could continue using the Index if, as the quote you selected was attempting to establish, a person were claiming that we must reject changes from a codex that is not our own faction.

 Scott-S6 wrote:
Rhino datasheet in the GK codex is completely independent to the Rhino datasheet in the SM codex or can you cite anything to say that newer codexes for a faction overide older codexes for a different faction?

All pertinent info can be found here:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/07/05/codexes-your-questions-answered-july-5gw-homepage-post-2/

"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."

Which leaves the question, what overwrites what then? Identical datasheets overwrite each other, you're saying? Oh, I see, you're telling me that because GK and SM have DIFFERENT datasheets. Meaning they are NOT the same datasheets, despite having the same NAME. Though it does leave one kind of subjective on where it says that you have to have the same faction as the codex to update considering Daemons apparently have model updates in this new codex?

"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."

I see, it's clear, we must overwrite entries with the same datasheets. But didn't you just say that two identically named datasheets can in fact be DIFFERENT datasheets? Well, the Chaos Index has two identically named Khorne Berzerker entries. Only one of those "same datasheets" was overwritten. Guess what the other one classifies Berzerkers as? Troops. Oh but surely we can't use such an outdated index entry... after all, all the existing rules vanished into void and ---

"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."

O_O Wait, so I CAN use outdated datasheets? AND they still benefit from army wide-bonuses??? World Eaters Berzerker Troops confirmed.

 Arkaine wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
1.) Please cite where it states you may use rules from an older publication. The World Eaters legion rules are from an older publication and thus do not need to be "replaced". It simply disappears. Datasheets with specific Wargear Options were given an exception via the post here:

Please cite where it states the World Eaters legion rules are in the Index. It does not. It states the World Eaters Army Rules are in the Index. The Codex has neither of these, no legion rules or army rules, nothing even dictating what may be brought as part of a World Eaters detachment.

The World Eaters Army Rules place them on the same level as the Heretic Astartes Army Rules and the Chaos Daemons Army Rules. Where does it say that World Eaters as a faction have been completely replaced? Just because they are present in the Codex for access to Heretic relics and stratagems? Daemons are likewise "present" in the Codex. Does that mean Chaos Daemons Army Rules have also disappeared, according to you? Has the entire Chaos Daemons faction been relegated to just four units without proper rules or psychic powers plus a bunch of "old" Index datasheets that haven't yet been updated? All because the new Codex eradicates any rules that previously existed?

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
2.) Non "Codex: Space Marine" space marine armies were given an exception, posted here:

This is precisely the literal-minded favortism that has sparked this debate to begin with. That entire message was posted when Codex: Space Marines were the ONLY faction with a codex. Likewise, it doesn't matter if Non Codex: Space Marines factions have an exception, which you'll even see I mentioned above so thank you for repeating my arguments and making things known that were already known and accounted for, because I wanted him to answer 'yes' to each of my propositions. It establishes the basepoint for contradiction to follow later.

Thousand Sons being RAW using the Index for example confirms that we don't lose Rubrics as Troops nor the imposed penalty given to the Codex versions because we ignore those.

I highly recommend you stop posting the document that we've been discussing repeatedly in these threads, the document I even QUOTE from above, because people keep being selective on what they want to read from it and what they want to ignore. Either you accept the entire document or you can stop selectively citing only single paragraphs from it when there are others that support my reasoning. Such as the one that supports FUTURE publications overriding PAST publications.

--

What I feel you are failing to understand is that I'm catching people in a contradiction where they believe one thing but then change their tune for another. So to establish the basis of each of your arguments, we must first establish where your beliefs lie and show how they are contradictory to themselves.

Your argument still fails to grasp the basic fact that there is nothing allowing legacy rules. That part is a complete fabrication since you are unable to cite a source, whereas I cited an exception. Remember, 40k is permissive, not "I can do it because it didn't say I can't".

As for being selective, your argument outright states "This is precisely the literal-minded favortism that has sparked this debate to begin with. That entire message was posted when Codex: Space Marines were the ONLY faction with a codex." to dismiss the SPECIFIC permission given to those three codexes. Since your entire argument is based around the fact that they don't have specific permission, as detailed in this quote:

 Arkaine wrote:

IFC_Casting wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:
If people wanna argue that the troop datasheet is replaced rather than separate from the cult legion ones then all the SM players except the Grey Knights can't ride in their transports.

..Of course a datasheet is replaced when a new one is released.

There are two of them in the Index, in separate sections, with specific legion construction rules, troop slots, and World Eater specific keywords. None of which has been replaced in the new codex. If a datasheet universally replaces old ones, the new datasheets for transports do as well and by the codex bans the special snowflake SM factions from using theirs until they get their own codex allowing them to use their Legion keywords once again with those datasheets.

The topic title should be "No Rhinos as Dark Angels".

Also if you insist that article only pertains to Space Marines, read the article title. It's "CodexES: your questions answered", plural. Unless there had been a second space marine codex released since then, I doubt the document, in it's entirety, is refering solely to the space marine codex. It even has the picture of all four codexes (one of which hasn't even been released yet) as the title picture.

As for Chaos Daemons having their datasheets replaced, yes. More or less. That's what today's FAQ did. The only exception for Chaos Daemon players is so that they didn't have to purchase the CSM codex to play (again, not my conjecture, they stated it on the post for the Errata).

@ Scott-66: There isn't a separate datasheet for Grey Knights in the Index. If he told you otherwise then it was a fabrication. The Grey Knights section tells you to go grab the SM datasheet and just give it added rules.

On a related note, I just noticed something. Only Chaos Space Marines have "Army rules". At least the Space Marine's different factions don't. They have a section dedicated to them, but nothing that says "Army rules". This, of course, opens up a lot more interpretations but at least gives a precedence that, no, what applies to "Army rules" certainly do not apply to armies that had (had being the keyword here) their own codexes last edition.

Again, I would highly recommend all parties to read through the documents carefully, as a lot of what's being said here are going off of conjecture, heresay and flat out fabrication.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Your argument still fails to grasp the basic fact that there is nothing allowing legacy rules. That part is a complete fabrication since you are unable to cite a source, whereas I cited an exception. Remember, 40k is permissive, not "I can do it because it didn't say I can't".

And you failed to understand what I already established in the final line. YOU TRIGGERED MY TRAP CARD!!! You're claiming the legacy rules don't exist. Well, Daemons are in the new codex. I guess their entire legacy rule section doesn't exist now.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
As for being selective, your argument outright states "This is precisely the literal-minded favortism that has sparked this debate to begin with. That entire message was posted when Codex: Space Marines were the ONLY faction with a codex." to dismiss the SPECIFIC permission given to those three codexes. Since your entire argument is based around the fact that they don't have specific permission, as detailed in this quote:

Oh not at all, sweetheart, my argument is intended to be as preposterous as it sounds so that people will argue against it and seal themselves into a fate worse than death: admitting they are contradicting themselves. You also are claiming specific permission here for something posted to Warhammer-Community. Please cite what FAQ or Rulebook these "specific permissions" can be found in. Since I know you'll argue the point, I'll just skip ahead and trigger the trap card early... would this then mean that Thousand Sons do in fact receive the Dark Hereticus discipline, even though it was never added to the actual FAQ?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/08/13/daemons-and-thousand-sons-in-codex-chaos-space-marines-aug-13gw-homepage-post-2/

Just to spare you the time it takes to right the insults, I am perfectly fine either way you judge it. One way I'm right about a contradiction, the other way you benefit me while simultaneously ignoring Dakka's FAQ/Rulebook shtick.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Also if you insist that article only pertains to Space Marines, read the article title. It's "CodexES: your questions answered", plural. Unless there had been a second space marine codex released since then, I doubt the document, in it's entirety, is refering solely to the space marine codex. It even has the picture of all four codexes (one of which hasn't even been released yet) as the title picture.

Funny how a document not central to Space Marines mentions, specifically, Index: Imperium 1, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Deathwatch, Grey Knights, Codex: Space Marines, Other Space Marines factions, the upcoming Redemptor Dreadnought, the Terminus Ultra Land Raider, Space Marine Stratagems, Chapter Tactics.... and also mentions Death Guard twice. Moving on.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
As for Chaos Daemons having their datasheets replaced, yes. More or less. That's what today's FAQ did. The only exception for Chaos Daemon players is so that they didn't have to purchase the CSM codex to play (again, not my conjecture, they stated it on the post for the Errata).

Which highlights the issue that began before TODAY ever did. An issue so REAL that GW had to establish FAQ errata rule changes to accommodate the grave error on their part. Yet how easy it is to say in hindsight that they were always meant to be like this, yet when challenged repeatedly on these forums PRIOR to these FAQs it was a clear dismissal and insistence that one must still use the "most updated datasheets" with all the point and smite nerfs attached to Brimstones.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
@ Scott-66: There isn't a separate datasheet for Grey Knights in the Index. If he told you otherwise then it was a fabrication. The Grey Knights section tells you to go grab the SM datasheet and just give it added rules.

Wow, way to go and provide proof that you don't even read the arguments of the people you try to disprove. I'm the one that actually pointed out that Grey Knights use the same entry as the Space Marines did. Thanks for simply confirming what I've already said while slighting me in the process.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
On a related note, I just noticed something. Only Chaos Space Marines have "Army rules". At least the Space Marine's different factions don't. They have a section dedicated to them, but nothing that says "Army rules". This, of course, opens up a lot more interpretations but at least gives a precedence that, no, what applies to "Army rules" certainly do not apply to armies that had (had being the keyword here) their own codexes last edition.

Ding ding, point highlighted finally. We have no entries for Night Lords, Alpha Legion, Black Legion, yet we do have four unique entries for cult legions that rival our other factions of the same Index. An omen of what's yet to come or pure coincidence? Time shall tell... (I'm joking, it's almost blatantly obvious World Eaters get a codex next year with Angron's release).

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Again, I would highly recommend all parties to read through the documents carefully, as a lot of what's being said here are going off of conjecture, heresay and flat out fabrication.

Roger that general, sir! The troops have been doing just that thus far, sir! I know you're used to typing "heresy" an awful lot but it's actually "hearsay" in this instance.

GENERAL IN THREAD WARNING TIME!

RULE #1 is a REAL THING here.

A REAL IMPORTANT THING.

In the Index Chaos Heretic Astartes, World Eaters, Death Guard, Thousand Sons, and Emporer's Children are ALL seperate entries and it doesn't matter that it references pages that other armies have access to.

So if you run a Death Guard Army you run it out of the Index points, and all. BECAUSE those are the most recent datasheets, and points published for a Death Guard Army. Codex Chaos Space Marines does not have a Death Guard Army entry anywhere.

So even if they have some of the same units the Death Guard Army rules specifically tell you what units and from what pages to use.

What you CANNOT do is run a Death Guard Army from the Index (IE Plague Marines as troops) and then use the Codex Chaos Space Marines Plague Marine datasheet, and points.

Edit: And really if you compare points, and options between the two anybody who has a problem with someone running a Index Death Guard Army just has issues because the Codex ones are far better, and cheaper.

Given he's resorted to deconstructing me as a person rather than deconstructing my argument (as per forum rules), I think we're all done here.

The only thing I've done thus far has been point out the instances where my statements have been rejected, a new statement or meaning invented, then that statement knocked to arrive at the same conclusion as my original statement. This is misrepresentation and makes it quite easy for the quoter to be dismissive. Many of the arguments being claimed against me are the same ones I established earlier in the thread while they feature a misrepresentation of my position to make them. I'm okay either way, just please be clear on what we can/cannot do and I'll just continue what I've been doing and shrink the visibility list.

This seems like a non issue.

If you want to have an all berzerkerz army you can, you just do t get Obj secured, which you weren't getting from the index rules anyways.

You lose some CPs, and gain cult specific traits, relics, etc.

If you want Obj secure you take CSM khorne squads.

If you run a deathguard army or TSons army you use the index as those army lists reference specific units and pages. IIRC the current codex references those armies cannot use the codex.

blaktoof wrote:
This seems like a non issue.

If you want to have an all berzerkerz army you can, you just do t get Obj secured, which you weren't getting from the index rules anyways.

You lose some CPs, and gain cult specific traits, relics, etc.

If you want Obj secure you take CSM khorne squads.

If you run a deathguard army or TSons army you use the index as those army lists reference specific units and pages. IIRC the current codex references those armies cannot use the codex.

Agreed, what was the issue here again?

Reading through all the back and forth, not sure if anyone mentioned that first off, GW has responded many times on Facebook saying that berzerkers are indeed elites only now. Don't have a link, scroll through comments. I'd expect an FAQ/erratta to clearly state this.

Second, Gw erratta'd the points and rules for the demons changes into the index so the arguments about whether csm Codex overrides demons index are all moot.

vladicov wrote:
Reading through all the back and forth, not sure if anyone mentioned that first off, GW has responded many times on Facebook saying that berzerkers are indeed elites only now. Don't have a link, scroll through comments. I'd expect an FAQ/erratta to clearly state this.

Second, Gw erratta'd the points and rules for the demons changes into the index so the arguments about whether csm Codex overrides demons index are all moot.

Can i get a link fam?

Looked on their fbook page, didnt see anything suggesting bezerkers are not troops in a world eaters detachment.

https://www.facebook.com/Warhammer-40000-1575682476085719/

 Dayknight wrote:

Looked on their fbook page, didnt see anything suggesting bezerkers are not troops in a world eaters detachment.

https://www.facebook.com/Warhammer-40000-1575682476085719/

Yeah, there is nothing suggesting puppies aren't troops either, or Squats aren't troops.

I could list literally an infinite number of things that aren't troops in a world eaters detachment, what's your point?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Dayknight wrote:

Looked on their fbook page, didnt see anything suggesting bezerkers are not troops in a world eaters detachment.

https://www.facebook.com/Warhammer-40000-1575682476085719/

Yeah, there is nothing suggesting puppies aren't troops either, or Squats aren't troops.

I could list literally an infinite number of things that aren't troops in a world eaters detachment, what's your point?

This made me literally laugh out loud. Points for you sir.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Dayknight wrote:

Looked on their fbook page, didnt see anything suggesting bezerkers are not troops in a world eaters detachment.

https://www.facebook.com/Warhammer-40000-1575682476085719/

Yeah, there is nothing suggesting puppies aren't troops either, or Squats aren't troops.

I could list literally an infinite number of things that aren't troops in a world eaters detachment, what's your point?

Somebody just suggested that GW had pointed out on their fbook page numerous times that bezerkers are elites only now. I asked for links, didnt get any and provided my own. Maybe if you had read one comment prior you might have seen that lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dayknight wrote:

vladicov wrote:
Reading through all the back and forth, not sure if anyone mentioned that first off, GW has responded many times on Facebook saying that berzerkers are indeed elites only now. Don't have a link, scroll through comments. I'd expect an FAQ/erratta to clearly state this.

Second, Gw erratta'd the points and rules for the demons changes into the index so the arguments about whether csm Codex overrides demons index are all moot.

Can i get a link fam?

You and your boy toy azuza fail reading class today. Go have a seat

go and look on the GW FB page, the post about the FAQ's for the chaos book. read the comments. post is from Aug 13. it's asked about a bazillion times.

"Warhammer 40,000 Hey Fredrik - as it stands, Bezerkers are an Elite choice in the new Codex. Of course, you can still take armies of them with the Vanguard Detachment from the rulebook. If this changes, you wil hear about it here first."

After reading it all, I'm with Arkaine. Khorne Berzerkers have 2 entries in the Index, one as elites, one as Troops. As far as I am concerned, I'd consider the Berzerker entry in the Codex to replace the Elite entry in the Index, but not the Troops one in the WE army part of the Index. Unless GW explicitly and specifically answers this question differently, that would be my reading of the rules. The FB question was not specific enough for me, it seems like a cookie-cutter answer from someone who glanced at the Codex when answering it, without looking at the Index and what this means for WE, DG, EC and TS.

Anything else makes no sense to me at this point. If in the DG codex Plaguemarines would be classified only as Elites for a DG Detachment, that would change my understanding of what GW wants the rules to say.

Edit: note I do not have a CSM army, so I have no horse in this race.