Does the Codex completely Supersede the Index?

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.

**kaotkbliss**

I remember reading somewhere stating that old options wouldn't be lost, that people would still be able to use old options no longer available such as the lascannon with twin-linked plasma cannons for the razorback that the original 2nd ed model came standard as.

**Audustum**

kaotkbliss wrote:
I remember reading somewhere stating that old options wouldn't be lost, that people would still be able to use old options no longer available such as the lascannon with twin-linked plasma cannons for the razorback that the original 2nd ed model came standard as.

The short answer is that GW gave contradictory answers on that and now it's an issue you should discuss with your opponent in advance.

**kaotkbliss**

My only speculation on this is that eventually in the future, GW plans to phase out the options as it would make people with old models have to buy new models (or start tearing apart their old ones) and 2, it would be cheaper (probably pennies per sprue, but that does add up) to mass produce sprues with less weapons on them.

**Spoletta**

kaotkbliss wrote:
My only speculation on this is that eventually in the future, GW plans to phase out the options as it would make people with old models have to buy new models (or start tearing apart their old ones) and 2, it would be cheaper (probably pennies per sprue, but that does add up) to mass produce sprues with less weapons on them.

Sprues come in standard sizes for ease of packing. Those weapons cost literally zero as long as they can find where to put them on the sprue.
Things that are no longer in the codex are options that the GW has no longer intention of supporting, and truth to be said, many of those options required you to scavenge multiple sprues or go bitz hunting.
Indices were made for the old players, codices are made for new players, if they want to phase out an option or model then they just make it so that new players never know of them. Expect those models/options to become illegal in one year top, simply because it would be unfair to new players to face something they don't have access to.

Remember, in GW's view the "New Player" does not kit bash, convert or anything, he just builds the models as they come out of the box, since the "New Player" comes from many other wargames where this is the norm.

**123ply**

Infantryman wrote:
MrMoustaffa wrote:
Epic tale of misadventure

Wow, I both loved that story and hated every word of it.

I had bumped into "Chapterhouse" references while bitz hunting the other day, and was wondering how the heck they got away with directly calling stuff out - for a moment I had hope thinking maybe GW had opened up a bit. LOL NOEP.

Thanks for filling me in, though!

M.

Chapterhouse won because GW was trying to sue them for things that didnt physically exist at the time like the tyrranocyte (which was just mentioned in fluff) instea of going for things like their "heresy era terminators"
According to 1d4chan anyway. Its believable becaude GW seriously would screw up that badly

**MrMoustaffa**

Lance845 wrote:
MrMoustaffa wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
TheWaspinator wrote:
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.

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

How nice of you to do selective quoting forgetting to show part where it says that entry on codex OVERWRITES identical name entry in index thus deleting it. You are not supposed to use entries in index that are in codex. You can only use entries in the index that have no equilavent in codex like rough riders. If entry exists in codex there is no more entry in index to use. Only latest entry exists. The one in codex.

How hard this simple thing can be?

Because if you ask GW on facebook they will repeatedly tell you to just reference the index options and you can take those as well. Go on facebook and ask yourself, you'll see.

For example, I asked them if Company Commanders for IG could still take shotguns and they said yes, just reference the index to see who can take what then use updated points costs (if any) in the codex. I also was told this was fine for demo charges and the like.

Hence why everyone hates this mess and wonders why the options didn't just stay in the codex to begin with.

Facebook is a crap source. Its such a crap source that facebook itself tells you not to trust it as a source and that your better of contacting the rules team, reading official faqs, and talking to your group.

The codex overwrites the index. You are expecred to be using the most current datasheet. The most current datasheet is rhe one that gives you your options. In your own games, with your opponents permission, you are welcome to use the index sheet instead.

I would agree, except when I tried to email GW directly to ask the rule team, they told me to post on facebook. Ergo, in lack of a clear FAQ or the like, I'm stuck using facebook.

Believe me I hate it just as much as you.

**Lance845**

MrMoustaffa wrote:
Lance845 wrote:
MrMoustaffa wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
TheWaspinator wrote:
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.

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

How nice of you to do selective quoting forgetting to show part where it says that entry on codex OVERWRITES identical name entry in index thus deleting it. You are not supposed to use entries in index that are in codex. You can only use entries in the index that have no equilavent in codex like rough riders. If entry exists in codex there is no more entry in index to use. Only latest entry exists. The one in codex.

How hard this simple thing can be?

Because if you ask GW on facebook they will repeatedly tell you to just reference the index options and you can take those as well. Go on facebook and ask yourself, you'll see.

For example, I asked them if Company Commanders for IG could still take shotguns and they said yes, just reference the index to see who can take what then use updated points costs (if any) in the codex. I also was told this was fine for demo charges and the like.

Hence why everyone hates this mess and wonders why the options didn't just stay in the codex to begin with.

Facebook is a crap source. Its such a crap source that facebook itself tells you not to trust it as a source and that your better of contacting the rules team, reading official faqs, and talking to your group.

The codex overwrites the index. You are expecred to be using the most current datasheet. The most current datasheet is rhe one that gives you your options. In your own games, with your opponents permission, you are welcome to use the index sheet instead.

I would agree, except when I tried to email GW directly to ask the rule team, they told me to post on facebook. Ergo, in lack of a clear FAQ or the like, I'm stuck using facebook.

Believe me I hate it just as much as you.

Or you can read the whole community site codex announcement faq where 3 times they tell you the codex sheet overwrites the index sheet in all cases and that you are expected to be using the most current datasheet in all official events and that GW is assuming the use of the most current datasheets at all times. Also that in your own personal games, with your opponents permission, you can use whatever rules you like. A pointless thing to say, because no gak me and my friends can make up our own house rules

**vipoid**

Lance845 wrote:

Or you can read the whole community site codex announcement faq where 3 times they tell you the codex sheet overwrites the index sheet in all cases and that you are expected to be using the most current datasheet in all official events and that GW is assuming the use of the most current datasheets at all times.

Okay, that's an outright lie.

In the announcement you're referring to, GW give you explicit permission to use models and/or options from the Index when they do not appear in the codex.

**Lance845**

vipoid wrote:
Lance845 wrote:

Or you can read the whole community site codex announcement faq where 3 times they tell you the codex sheet overwrites the index sheet in all cases and that you are expected to be using the most current datasheet in all official events and that GW is assuming the use of the most current datasheets at all times.

Okay, that's an outright lie.

In the announcement you're referring to, GW give you explicit permission to use models and/or options from the Index when they do not appear in the codex.

Really? An outright lie?

1)

Are the rules changing?
Yes, many units’ rules in their codexes will alter from those in the indexes. Sometimes this is to better represent the miniatures and the background, sometimes to balance the game, and sometimes to better fit with the army’s new special rules in the codex itself. In all cases, these will then supersede the rules for that datasheet in the index book.

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.

3)

Can I choose to use the rules and/or points for units from my index instead of the new ones in the codex once released?
In your own games, if you and your opponent agree, you can, of course, play with whatever rules you like.

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.

What part did I lie about?

**AdmiralHalsey**

The Grey Area is of course [Aside from a perfectly good Starship from a rather good novel] the case of when a unit such as Rough Riders, or Shrikes, is _Not_ covered in the latest Codex and so the index is the latest source.

And the Greyer Area of, if a Liberian on Bike, is an entirely different datasheet and unit to a Librarian not on a bike, then is my Autocannon Dreadnought, or my Imperial Guard Special Weapons team with DemoCharges, not an entirely different unit.

I'm fairly sure it's been left vague and cheerful on purpose to encourage the max number of sales, and they'll drop the hammer on it later when it's been a while since they had rules, and we've all argued to death and upset each other over it anyway, and most people have been forced to stop using the old models because the Index points are intentionally higher than the Codex's to discourage the use of old options.

**Lance845**

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
The Grey Area is of course [Aside from a perfectly good Starship from a rather good novel] the case of when a unit such as Rough Riders, or Shrikes, is _Not_ covered in the latest Codex and so the index is the latest source.

This isn't grey at all. If they are not in the codex you are welcome to use the index sheet. You ALWAYS use the latest sheet.

And the Greyer Area of, if a Liberian on Bike, is an entirely different datasheet and unit to a Librarian not on a bike, then is my Autocannon Dreadnought, or my Imperial Guard Special Weapons team with DemoCharges, not an entirely different unit.

Also not a grey area. Wargear options are not themselves datasheets. A librarian on a bike is a datasheet that is distinct from a Librarian. There is no datasheet called "Autocannon Dreadnought". There is a datasheet called "Dreadnought" which currently has 3 versions. 1 in the index. 1 in the SM codex. 1 in the GK codex. The codex versions supercede the index versions in all cases and GW expects that you will be using the most current version for your army. Your most current datasheet tells you what wargear options you have.

I'm fairly sure it's been left vague and cheerful on purpose to encourage the max number of sales, and they'll drop the hammer on it later when it's been a while since they had rules, and we've all argued to death and upset each other over it anyway, and most people have been forced to stop using the old models because the Index points are intentionally higher than the Codex's to discourage the use of old options.

I don't understand what is vague about it.

**Darsath**

Lance845 wrote:
vipoid wrote:
Lance845 wrote:

Or you can read the whole community site codex announcement faq where 3 times they tell you the codex sheet overwrites the index sheet in all cases and that you are expected to be using the most current datasheet in all official events and that GW is assuming the use of the most current datasheets at all times.

Okay, that's an outright lie.

In the announcement you're referring to, GW give you explicit permission to use models and/or options from the Index when they do not appear in the codex.

Really? An outright lie?

1)
Are the rules changing?
Yes, many units’ rules in their codexes will alter from those in the indexes. Sometimes this is to better represent the miniatures and the background, sometimes to balance the game, and sometimes to better fit with the army’s new special rules in the codex itself. In all cases, these will then supersede the rules for that datasheet in the index book.

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.

3)
Can I choose to use the rules and/or points for units from my index instead of the new ones in the codex once released?
In your own games, if you and your opponent agree, you can, of course, play with whatever rules you like.

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.

What part did I lie about?

Huh. Good find. Might I ask where this was posted, though? (not saying it was fake. This really did just slip from my memory).

**Bharring**

How does that mesh with the FAQ about Riflemen Dreads?

**admironheart**

Audustum wrote:
kaotkbliss wrote:
I remember reading somewhere stating that old options wouldn't be lost, that people would still be able to use old options no longer available such as the lascannon with twin-linked plasma cannons for the razorback that the original 2nd ed model came standard as.

The short answer is that GW gave contradictory answers on that and now it's an issue you should discuss with your opponent in advance.

Can you imagine that guy brings in his old razorback that he has used in countless games. Stopped playing 40k.....then came back because it was touted that you were able to play your old miniatures in the new edition.
You sit down with your opponent and explain and show your GW model....and then the TOOL tells you he wont play you? He don't want to play vs your toys? wow....that is 'the definition' that guy.

**Peregrine**

admironheart wrote:
Can you imagine that guy brings in his old razorback that he has used in countless games. Stopped playing 40k.....then came back because it was touted that you were able to play your old miniatures in the new edition.
You sit down with your opponent and explain and show your GW model....and then the TOOL tells you he wont play you? He don't want to play vs your toys? wow....that is 'the definition' that guy.

Yeah, how unreasonable of people to allow someone to break the rules just because "that's how it worked in second edition". Sorry that the game changes over time, but that's how it is. Getting people to change the rules and allow you to bring your own custom units is a privilege, not something you are entitled to demand.

**admironheart**

But it is NOT a custom unit and there is GW rules in the index....so nothing that you said actually applied to my example! duh

and there was the whole 8th edition marketing that encouraged people to play with any model that GW has ever made or sold....they tried to cover most if not almost all in the index....Is that somehow breaking the rules, an outside privilege, a unique demand...they just freakin said you could play with that stuff!!!! and then they made rules for that stuff!! how hard does it get to connect the dots here.

**Scott-S6**

Bharring wrote:
How does that mesh with the FAQ about Riflemen Dreads?

That FAQ was on the same page.

Some people are taking them as being contradictory but they don't need to be. You use the newest version of the datasheet but you can use the index version where there is an option that the current datasheet doesn't have.

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.

**Crimson**

This has been finally settled:

**Galas**

Someone wants and be the first to come and say thats some stupid BS because it contradits how you wanted/tought it worked?

**Sgt. Cortez**

Galas wrote:
Someone wants and be the first to come and say thats some stupid BS because it contradits how you wanted/tought it worked?

Why? I thought that's how it worked all along. And personally I think that's the best way to rule it (aside from including the datasheets in the Codizes in the first place).

**Infantryman**

How does one contact GW through their FB anyways? Which one am I using - the 40k one? Wondering what I'd get if I asked directly about the Chimera.

On the upside, the heavy stubber from one Chimera box found a home on my standard Leman Russ.

M.

**Wayniac**

So that clarification basically gives you the best of both worlds with zero drawbacks. You can take the improved codex datasheet, take your old weapons from the index, with zero penalties at all.

Guess I'm getting myself an Autarch w/Reaper Launcher. I can regain spent CP on a 6 and with the warlord trait that lets me target characters I'll sit in the backfield sniping with a rocket launcher all day.

This is opening Pandora's box; they can't have tested all the combos between new codex + index weapon options, and I think we're going to see abuses as a result. They should have just had the balls to say no, the index is superseded entirely, sorry if you have an old model feel free to count it as the current model.

**Martel732**

There is the drawback that any overcosted weapons systems in the index will never get updates.

**Unit1126PLL**

There is also the drawback that it's model based (though this is... necessarily hard to police). But essentially, it is intended for you to use existing models, not build a new one.

I.E. if I started Eldar today, I'd never get to use an Autarch with a reaper launcher as I never had the model, and converting a new one isn't following the latest rules in the Codex.

**Crimson**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
There is also the drawback that it's model based (though this is... necessarily hard to police). But essentially, it is intended for you to use existing models, not build a new one.

I.E. if I started Eldar today, I'd never get to use an Autarch with a reaper launcher as I never had the model, and converting a new one isn't following the latest rules in the Codex.

With all due respect, that is pants on head crazy. If I build a model, then I have a model, and then I use the rules that best suit that model. It doesn't matter when the model is built.

**Galas**

Wayniac wrote:
So that clarification basically gives you the best of both worlds with zero drawbacks. You can take the improved codex datasheet, take your old weapons from the index, with zero penalties at all.

Guess I'm getting myself an Autarch w/Reaper Launcher. I can regain spent CP on a 6 and with the warlord trait that lets me target characters I'll sit in the backfield sniping with a rocket launcher all day.

This is opening Pandora's box; they can't have tested all the combos between new codex + index weapon options, and I think we're going to see abuses as a result. They should have just had the balls to say no, the index is superseded entirely, sorry if you have an old model feel free to count it as the current model.

I can agree in the part about somethings need to go, to have a better balanced game.
But I disagree in the premise that it should exist some form of punishement for having models with weapons from past editions. This way everione is happy, and everyone can use their models. Whats bad about that?

**necrontyrOG**

Infantryman wrote:
How does one contact GW through their FB anyways? Which one am I using - the 40k one? Wondering what I'd get if I asked directly about the Chimera.

On the upside, the heavy stubber from one Chimera box found a home on my standard Leman Russ.

M.

What's wrong with the stubber on a Chimera? That's a 100% completely codex approved option.

**Unit1126PLL**

Crimson wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
There is also the drawback that it's model based (though this is... necessarily hard to police). But essentially, it is intended for you to use existing models, not build a new one.

I.E. if I started Eldar today, I'd never get to use an Autarch with a reaper launcher as I never had the model, and converting a new one isn't following the latest rules in the Codex.

With all due respect, that is pants on head crazy. If I build a model, then I have a model, and then I use the rules that best suit that model. It doesn't matter when the model is built.

I don't agree. I think the intent is to allow players with pre-existing models to use them, not to allow new players to build new models to use old rules that have since been superseded.

**Infantryman**

necrontyrOG wrote:
Infantryman wrote:
How does one contact GW through their FB anyways? Which one am I using - the 40k one? Wondering what I'd get if I asked directly about the Chimera.

On the upside, the heavy stubber from one Chimera box found a home on my standard Leman Russ.

M.

What's wrong with the stubber on a Chimera? That's a 100% completely codex approved option.

Are you sure? IDHMBWM but I definitely remember it and the HK missile no longer being listed as options anymore in the Codex.

M.

**necrontyrOG**

Infantryman wrote:
necrontyrOG wrote:
Infantryman wrote:
How does one contact GW through their FB anyways? Which one am I using - the 40k one? Wondering what I'd get if I asked directly about the Chimera.

On the upside, the heavy stubber from one Chimera box found a home on my standard Leman Russ.

M.

What's wrong with the stubber on a Chimera? That's a 100% completely codex approved option.

Are you sure? IDHMBWM but I definitely remember it and the HK missile no longer being listed as options anymore in the Codex.

M.

Looking at my codex now. Page 115, Chimera can take any Vehicle Equipment. Page 85, Vehicle Equipment. HK missile and stubber are there.