Chapter approved and index options for autocannons

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.

**Lance845**

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
If all of the same weapon was the same cost across the board then CA would have just said that that weapon would be that price in 1 place and not repeat it over and over. I think that we can all agree that GW tries to save as much money (in this case printing) as they can whenever they can.
The fact that GW does list the same weapon in multiple places in the same publication that effects multiple codices says that the price is not grouped but rather the weapon prices are independent for each codex. Just because there is no weapon currently that has a different price for the same weapon does not mean that is, or will, always be the case.
GW took the time and effort to list a weapon adjustment to a weapon in one specific section of a large selection of lists. As a GK player I have the option of taking a dread with an autocannon per the index. The cost for the autocannon is listed in the index. Just because a specific codex now has a different cost for an autocannon does not automatically mean my autocannon is now the same. It could be that GW thought that units that specific codex needed an adjustment. You can't assume that GW meant for autocannons everywhere needed an adjustment.

P.S. sorry for the rambling - super bowl hangover.

Adeptus Astartes is not a codex or a army. It's a group of them. GW lists the same point changes over and over because they were listing by individual army. FW has one list for many armies that can all use it. A specific codex did not get it's points adjusted. All AA units got their points adjusted under the AA banner.

**Leo_the_Rat**

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree until GW makes a ruling one way or the other. I can see what you're saying I don't agree with your conclusion. I hope it's the same with you.

**RogueApiary**

Yeah, big ol nope on using the FW price. Deathwatch were paying 20 points for pfists until CA came and specifically dropped their cost to 12 points to match the SM Codex.

Sorry, but by choosing to use legacy models in the game, you accept the fact that GW is not supporting those models with anything but the barest of support and that even being able to bring them to a matched points game in the first place is a generous concession.

**Lance845**

RogueApiary wrote:
Yeah, big ol nope on using the FW price. Deathwatch were paying 20 points for pfists until CA came and specifically dropped their cost to 12 points to match the SM Codex.

Sorry, but by choosing to use legacy models in the game, you accept the fact that GW is not supporting those models with anything but the barest of support and that even being able to bring them to a matched points game in the first place is a generous concession.

The model isn't the wargear. The wargear prices are for all adeptus astartes.

**RogueApiary**

Lance845 wrote:
RogueApiary wrote:
Yeah, big ol nope on using the FW price. Deathwatch were paying 20 points for pfists until CA came and specifically dropped their cost to 12 points to match the SM Codex.

Sorry, but by choosing to use legacy models in the game, you accept the fact that GW is not supporting those models with anything but the barest of support and that even being able to bring them to a matched points game in the first place is a generous concession.

The model isn't the wargear. The wargear prices are for all adeptus astartes.

There's precedent for those being separate. Earthshaker cannons (wargear) on FW Models had the -2 AP instead of the -3 AP from the codex until it was updated specifically in the FW Index Errata. Likewise, the points cost for a stock Leman Russ hull and the wording on the Grinding Advance rule were different. FW stuff is it's own compartment for purposes of points/rules. There is no unified Adeptus Astartes wargear list, just like there is no unified Astra Militarum wargear list.

In any case, you should take the least personally beneficial interpretation of an ambiguous rules situation rather than hunting for loopholes in GW's well intentioned attempt to cater to people with legacy models. Just look at the dude trying to pack phantom Vexilia and extra power knives into Custodes Guard/Captain units where they don't belong because the Index 'allows' those options.

.

**Lance845**

Both of the examples you posted happened before they released the flow chart that tells us very specifically we should always use the most recently published datasheet/profile/price.

Also, both of the examples you posted were updated to bring them in line with the most recently published whatever. At this point you have to be actively ignoring the instructions we have been given to be using the index prices.

**RogueApiary**

Lance845 wrote:
Both of the examples you posted happened before they released the flow chart that tells us very specifically we should always use the most recently published datasheet/profile/price.

Also, both of the examples you posted were updated to bring them in line with the most recently published whatever. At this point you have to be actively ignoring the instructions we have been given to be using the index prices.

And you are making up a unified GW/FW wargear list to determine the most recently published price on Autocannons. You can argue the intent is for a unified list, but if you walked into a tournament with Earthshaker Carriages after the Codex, but before the Index errata update, guess what? You were using AP -2. And if you were bringing FW LR hulls between the Codex drop and CA, you were paying the higher FW points cost. Notice how the AM Codex's 'most recent' points cost did not carry over into FW? That goes both ways.

Frankly, I think the legacy gear and models need to be removed from matched play entirely to stop this silly gak.

**doctortom**

You mean the lists for Forgeworld as well as for GW in Chapter Approved, where they've set a cost for the weapons that are the same cost for people with the same ballistic skill using them?

**Lance845**

Fw and gw are not armys. There is no mechanical difference between gw produced units and fw produced units. The units and wargear produced by either label are all a part of the single armies unit/wargear lists for which they were made.

When fw tells you these units and wargear can be used as a part of any adeptus astartes army and then gw tells you that piece of wargear costs 30 points then if your taking that wargear as a part of any adeptus astartes army thats the price you pay.

The wargear is not specific to particular units. Its one piece of wargear for any army it qualifies for and any unit that has the option. Your drawing lines in the sand where you have no rule telling you to do so.

**JohnnyHell**

Lance845 wrote:
Fw and gw are not armys. There is no mechanical difference between gw produced units and fw produced units. The units and wargear produced by either label are all a part of the single armies unit/wargear lists for which they were made.

When fw tells you these units and wargear can be used as a part of any adeptus astartes army and then gw tells you that piece of wargear costs 30 points then if your taking that wargear as a part of any adeptus astartes army thats the price you pay.

The wargear is not specific to particular units. Its one piece of wargear for any army it qualifies for and any unit that has the option. Your drawing lines in the sand where you have no rule telling you to do so.

Agreed.