Switch Theme:

How long before Index entries are no longer valid?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






 thekingofkings wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
 thekingofkings wrote:
our gw no longer allows index if there is a codex for that force. Not sure thats the normal anywhere else.


No.. thats the opposite of everyone, some units are ONLY int he index's. And GW has said the newest datasheet is legal rules either via Codex or Index.


obviously its not the opposite of everyone or it wouldnt be that way here.


Figure of speech

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/24 01:02:18


   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Amishprn86 wrote:
 thekingofkings wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
 thekingofkings wrote:
our gw no longer allows index if there is a codex for that force. Not sure thats the normal anywhere else.


No.. thats the opposite of everyone, some units are ONLY int he index's. And GW has said the newest datasheet is legal rules either via Codex or Index.


obviously its not the opposite of everyone or it wouldn't be that way here.


Figure of speech


rgr, sorry, ..I was a bit of a thin-skinned A-hole.
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
That's more of a product of the time, since that was one of the 4th edition kits (where they still expected you to use bitz order to get all the parts you needed).


Nah you see this at boxes released in 7th ed as well so not relic of 4th ed alas. It's just way to get more sales forcing players to buy doubles.

2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in se
Swift Swooping Hawk





tneva82 wrote:
 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
That's more of a product of the time, since that was one of the 4th edition kits (where they still expected you to use bitz order to get all the parts you needed).


Nah you see this at boxes released in 7th ed as well so not relic of 4th ed alas. It's just way to get more sales forcing players to buy doubles.

Maybe that'd work if they sold Eldar Heavy Weapon sprues separately. Buying another War Walker for a Shuriken Cannon isn't happening, and even if I did that it'd only result in two walkers I can't give double Shuricannons instead of one.

Craftworld Sciatháin 4180 pts  
   
Made in au
Furious Raptor




Sydney, Australia

Given the recent engagement of the community, I'd wager if there's enough love and demand for the rules for the old models, once the Indexes are phased out, the remaining datasheets might end up in an errata section of these "Chapter Approved" books that they're going to release each year to tweak the rules.

I've certainly seen this happen numerous times over the last two decades in White Dwarf (and then the original Chapter Approved books which combined all of the special rules from White Dwarf into a book to allow people to access them). It's either touted as a trip down memory lane, or an interesting conversion project taken on by people who either don't want to track down legacy models, or like the idea and want to convert something out of the current range.

It's an easy, cheap way to keep the only rules not in codexes going without actually having to offer any support beyond reprinting them in a way that has the rules on the shelf without having to try and sell people an entire book for one unit.

That, or as others have said, eventually the only datasheets not in codexes (Rough Riders etc) will fall into a nice little errata PDF section on the website.
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





 Cream Tea wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
That's more of a product of the time, since that was one of the 4th edition kits (where they still expected you to use bitz order to get all the parts you needed).


Nah you see this at boxes released in 7th ed as well so not relic of 4th ed alas. It's just way to get more sales forcing players to buy doubles.

Maybe that'd work if they sold Eldar Heavy Weapon sprues separately. Buying another War Walker for a Shuriken Cannon isn't happening, and even if I did that it'd only result in two walkers I can't give double Shuricannons instead of one.


Well GW prefers you to buy 2 kits for 1. Double the cash.

2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





Anything that is Index only is probably on borrowed time. I would expect them to be eliminated fully come 9th edition.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




So, my view is that once all the codices for armies within each of the Indexes are released, we’ll start to see those Indexes disappear from the shelves. This is simply down to moving things forward as a game and business. GW will just want to promote their current range and game direction to everyone in store, and new players, rather than additionally promoting old and outdated stuff. It also causes problems for new players/players picking up a new faction when they have to consider both Codex and Index, both of which contain different rules and out of date rules due to errata’s and faqs.

I can also see the matched play side of things – especially tournaments, move towards a “codex only” the moment all codices are released/indexes are removed from sale.

The real draw afterwards would be within the narrative and open play game setups.

The only other option GW have, would be to ensure all Index only units (I.E Rough Riders, Khan on bike etc) would be updated yearly within Chapter Approved. I can see this potentially happening, however, I would be very surprised if they also included different datasheets for units that already exist, i.e to allow double autocannon dreads etc, as this would be a lot of maintenance and would not allow GW full freedom to move things forward. It would also just raise the question of “why don’t they just put it back in the codex as it’ll make things easier for themselves?”
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

IMHO codexes shouldn't be allowed in tournaments or other matched games unitl each army gets its own codex. They should be allowed only if both armies have a codex already or in friendly games if the player that own an army that only has the index allows the opponents to use the codex.

 
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





 Blackie wrote:
IMHO codexes shouldn't be allowed in tournaments or other matched games unitl each army gets its own codex. They should be allowed only if both armies have a codex already or in friendly games if the player that own an army that only has the index allows the opponents to use the codex.


Not sure players would be happy to have their codex unusable for that long And GW would obviously hate having no sales until all codexes are out. Assuming they ever get all out.

2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in gb
Malicious Mandrake




I don't get "valid", except in a tournament context - which I'm not interested in.

I still have Asdrubel Vect from his last codex, and field him as ruled for then. Noone's yet had a problem. Similarly, I have the indices, for the models I have, and will keep using them until there are newer rules for those models (some of the time) or the model falls apart.
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





Dallas area, TX

stroller wrote:
I don't get "valid", except in a tournament context - which I'm not interested in.

I still have Asdrubel Vect from his last codex, and field him as ruled for then. Noone's yet had a problem. Similarly, I have the indices, for the models I have, and will keep using them until there are newer rules for those models (some of the time) or the model falls apart.

By "valid", I mean still acceptable by the VAST majority of players without any special consent. For example, if you came to my LGS and put Vect on the table, people would assume you were using him as a generic Archon (or a Ravager/Raider if his is on his Dias). As soon as you declare him as Vect, players would ask you to provide the 8th edition rules for him (which there are none)
Even in 7th ed after Vect was omitted from the DE codex, yet his previous rules were still compatible unlike 8th, Vect was not "valid" in the sense that most players would allow him without prior discussion.

So while I see what you are saying about the context of tournaments, I would also say that in the context of a casual pick-up game, most players expect you to use the most recent rules located in the most recent publication of a given army.
Once all the Codices are updated, the Indexes will no longer be the most recent publication. Even if GW still prints the books (which they won't) the vast majority of casual players won't be ok with using out of date rules for pick-up games that were not prearranged. If GW does not support the Indexes, nor call them out as valid in an FAQ, then any Index options become "out of date" rules.

At that point the rules are only "valid" if you discuss them with your opponent prior to the game. Truly valid rules should need no such exemption.

-

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/10/24 18:05:59


   
Made in ca
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord






 Cream Tea wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
That's more of a product of the time, since that was one of the 4th edition kits (where they still expected you to use bitz order to get all the parts you needed).


Nah you see this at boxes released in 7th ed as well so not relic of 4th ed alas. It's just way to get more sales forcing players to buy doubles.

Maybe that'd work if they sold Eldar Heavy Weapon sprues separately. Buying another War Walker for a Shuriken Cannon isn't happening, and even if I did that it'd only result in two walkers I can't give double Shuricannons instead of one.


They actually did sell the heavy weapon sprue as a separate item, through their bitz order. Again the set was a product of it's time.

Gwar! wrote:Huh, I had no idea Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines posted on Dakka. Hi Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can I have an Autograph!


Kanluwen wrote:
Hell, I'm not that bothered by the Stormraven. Why? Because, as it stands right now, it's "limited use".When it's shoehorned in to the Codex: Space Marines, then yeah. I'll be irked.


When I'm editing alot, you know I have a gakload of homework to (not) do. 
   
Made in au
Furious Raptor




Sydney, Australia

Is there a precidence being set with the Bonesinger rules being released as an online free-download PDF perhaps? The intention is, if you buy the re-release model you get the rules with it, but for those people with the legacy model (I think I have one in a blister pack somewhere) there's free rules online. I think this lends support to the idea that once the Indexes go out of print, the datasheets not supported in their parent armies codex(es) will be released online.

Time will tell I suppose.

I think the big danger to these veteran units will be if/when a new rules edition happens that invalidates the rules (like 7th to 8th did, or 2nd to 3rd... Yes I'm showing my age now).
   
Made in ca
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord






They tried this before when they released the Maleceptor/Toxicrene model; the rules were freely distributed on their website until Shield of Baal: Leviathan was released (I think that was the publication?)

EDIT: The bonesinger is less of an issue in that it could (and was originally intended to) be used as a Farseer, just an extremely fancy one. Alternatively, it could be a stopgap thing to re-release the old bonesinger temporarily because they might have a plastic one in the works.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/25 00:42:05


Gwar! wrote:Huh, I had no idea Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines posted on Dakka. Hi Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can I have an Autograph!


Kanluwen wrote:
Hell, I'm not that bothered by the Stormraven. Why? Because, as it stands right now, it's "limited use".When it's shoehorned in to the Codex: Space Marines, then yeah. I'll be irked.


When I'm editing alot, you know I have a gakload of homework to (not) do. 
   
Made in se
Swift Swooping Hawk





 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
 Cream Tea wrote:

Maybe that'd work if they sold Eldar Heavy Weapon sprues separately. Buying another War Walker for a Shuriken Cannon isn't happening, and even if I did that it'd only result in two walkers I can't give double Shuricannons instead of one.


They actually did sell the heavy weapon sprue as a separate item, through their bitz order. Again the set was a product of it's time.

Well, the kit makes more sense then. I bought some eldar heavy weapons online to alleviate my shortage anyway, so it's not a huge deal for me.

Craftworld Sciatháin 4180 pts  
   
Made in ca
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord






4th edition kits are notoriously lacking items since they generally assumed the owner would be converting stuff or be buying stuff from bitz order. Back then third party bitz makers were also few and far between so GW didn't have much of an issue.

That was a decade ago.

I remember that the 3.5 chaos codex specifically noted that they included the two-CCW option for the Chaos Dreadnought because they know someone will make a conversion for it, but (at the time) never intended to make the piece themselves. That is something that will NEVER happen nowadays.

Gwar! wrote:Huh, I had no idea Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines posted on Dakka. Hi Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can I have an Autograph!


Kanluwen wrote:
Hell, I'm not that bothered by the Stormraven. Why? Because, as it stands right now, it's "limited use".When it's shoehorned in to the Codex: Space Marines, then yeah. I'll be irked.


When I'm editing alot, you know I have a gakload of homework to (not) do. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Galef wrote:
I really just don't see GW supporting any options that are not in the Codices once all of them are out for 8th. Particularly once they stop selling the Indexes (which will happen as soon as all the Codices are updated).

So while certain options are legal at the moment (Autocannon Dreads, Bike Librarians, Reaper launcher and/or Warp Jump Generator Autarchs, etc), I have a feeling that as soon as the Index with those rules stops being for sale, GW will update the FAQs in a way the no longer addresses these options and just ignores that they ever existed.
We as a community will have to decide it the options are legal, which will lead to inevitable disagreement, especially if players cannot produce the rules for them or if once produced, those rules come into question since they are no longer sold by GW.

-

Which is why us on social media cannot let it happen. Let them know that we want these options.

Hell, I recommended that everyone with social media take to it and get GW to FAQ that calvary of all types (which is only so far Rough Riders and Chaos Steed HQ's) benefit from Regiment and Legion rules. Nobody did it yet, which is only going to further encourage the phasing out that may or may not happen.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: