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.
greatbigtree wrote: So is the battle primer... is it an invalid rules source? You can play your army from the Index... just ask the Orks. A codex is NOT a mandatory item for playing 40k. Just very convenient.
You could use the data cards in conjunction with an index list, could you not? The rules are self-contained on the cards. You could show them to an opponent as a valid rules source, could you not?
I can put Rough Riders on the table, despite their lack of existence in the Astra Militarum codex, can I not? The rules for Commissars are changed based on errata, are they not? The codex is not the be-all, end-all of rules for a faction.
Absolute fething insanity here.
1)The battle-primer is available as a downloadable. so the "cardstock" bit is both reaching(based on printed format in the box sets), and irrelevant.
2) No, you cannot use the datacards with an index list; anything in the index that is trumped by the codex must use the codex version; and there is no legal list outside of games where strategems do not apply that can be built entirely around datasheets and datasheet options that do not exist in the codex.
3) the cards are meant( in their own definition) to make the games easier to keep track of(mostly referring to tactical objectives 11-16).
4) Yes rough riders are available via the index, which means nothing to data cards; there is a statement within the official rules sources(FAQ, Designer's commentary, and Stepping into a new addition) that lay out exactly how this works.
5)Yes, errata to commissars are the most valid rules/ are you making a point here about rules changes that are specifically stated as flat-out rules changes mean something to your argument?
6)yes, and no. the most current codex is the valid source for the rules(stated by the people who write the rules).
Errata and FAQs clarify or change what is meant in those codices. Chapter Approved also is an official source that adds to or changes those rules. So; the codex; with, FAQ and Chapter Approved, is the be-all and end-all of the rules.
In short: everything about the data cards gaming accessory is meaningless without backup from the official sources.
So by the logic of 2 + 4, you can use rough rider from the index, but you can't use any stratagems on them, or in their army?
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
You're right to be suspicious, but I'm not going to prove it's invalid. You are!
The battle primer is...
Printed on Card Stock.
Intended as a quick reference, but can also stand alone.
Has rules that are similar, but not always identical to, the main rule book.
A valid rules source, despite not being identical to the Rule Book.
The Data Cards are...
Printed on Card Stock
Intended as a quick reference, but can also stand alone.
Has rules that are similar, but not always identical to, the codex.
A valid rules source, despite not being identical to the codex.
Because if the Battle Primer isn't valid... you have no written rules to support your position. And if the Battle Primer is valid... so is a Data Card.
Whan-whaaaan!
Wrong. The Battle Primer are the basic rules for Warhammer 40K, stated as so by Games Workshop, and distributed free online as well as the card stock. The data cards are not downloadable and not stated to be official rules that exist independently of the codex the datacards are meant for. You are incorrect with your assertion
greatbigtree wrote: There is no contradiction, because they are two separate rules, and not the same rule. Both can be activated and resolved, correctly, and independently.
According to GW, stratagems with the same name are the same and could only be used once. You could not use both the codex and the datacard version of the stratagem the same phase. You are again incorrect with another assertion
greatbigtree wrote: RAW, there are two nearly identical rules, but not the same rule. Like... Slow and Purposeful and Relentless from editions past. They had similar, but slightly different rules. Neither invalidated the other.
You don't have 2 different versions of Slow and Purposeful for the same army at the same time. You don't have 2 version of Relentless for the same army at the same time. Slow and Purposeful and Relentless have different names from each other, so are treated as separate rules. "Advanced Repair System" is treated as "Advanced Repair System" - they are treated as the same rule.
greatbigtree wrote: You claim that GW has said the other publications are rules, but has not stated that the datacards are rules. Please provide a reference. Until that point, this is a baseless claim and can be dismissed as such. You don't need to be told that rules are rules. They are the rules. You're given permission to use them. They are published rules. I don't understand the objection to the data cards being rules publications.
When you do so, you are greeted with the following text.
"Rules
The Warhammer 40,000 Battle Primer includes the Core rules for moving, shooting, fighting, using psychic powers and morale, along with an explanation of how datasheets work and a mission to get you started. It’s the essential foundation for playing games of Warhammer 40,000
Download your free PDF below."
So, there's your proof that the battle primer is official, containing the core rules. GW tells you these are the rules. Now, it's your turn to provide some similar statement to say that the Datacards are rules. Please provide a reference showing that Datacards have been FAQ'd. Assuming the datacards are FAQ'd when the Codex is FAQ'd is not good enough' you have to provide a statement somewhere that says the FAQ also updates the datacards. They have not said anything about this, so the datacards will not match the rules in the codex when those ruled are changed by a FAQ. That is the only other time we have a difference between the datacards and the codex. Please provide a reference stating that if the datacard reads differently than the codex, that you get to choose either version. You have done none of this yet.
greatbigtree wrote: There is no distinction that GW makes that are "official" rules, and unofficial rules.
So GW makes no distinction between every single "house rule" established for every single tournament and their own rules, expecting you to play by all tournament's FAQs as well as GW's own, even if those different FAQ's are contradictory? Saying they make no distinction between "official" and "unofficial" rules is hogwash.
Just to drop the mic on this, let's look at what GW actually says about the datacards on their website. For the datacards for Codex: T'au Empire, they state the datacards have:
"25 Stratagems available to any Battle-forged T’au Empire army as found in Codex: T’au Empire[u], along with 3 Stratagems – Command Re-roll, Counter-Offensive and Insane Bravery – from the Warhammer 40,000 rules, available to any army"
Note the bolded and underlined part. The datacards are said to be "as found in Codex: T'au Empire". Therefore, if there is a difference in the stratagem between the Codex and the Datacard, then by their own statement the datacard is in error because the datacard is supposed to be as it is found in the Codex. This means that if there is a difference you use the rule in the codex, not the datacard. By this statement you do not get to use a datacard that states lists the rule differently from the codex, despite how much you want to pretend that the datacard is a separate, equally valid resource. GW has just proved that that is not true, So, that means your assertion that you can use the datacard version of the Automated Repair System instead of the codex version since they read differently has no leg to stand on.
Hopefully that will shut the door on this silliness.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/13 14:52:56
I have several old AM models with Power Axes that I thought I was going to have to change out for Power Swords.
As to the rest?
Pretty sure I've made a reasonable case for the two-option opinion, backed by the concepts of Permissive Rulesets, and following the RAW. I have done this without resorting to name calling, attempting to use advertisements as "rules", nor insisting that a baseless "The INTENTION is that the codex is correct because I say so," argument.
I have dismissed the claim that a published "Aid" is not acceptable, as it is a rule published by GW and is as valid as all other "aids" as similar rules deemed valid. That they are PDF, cardstock, bound in a book or a slip of paper included with models, rules are rules are rules.
I have proven that the codex is not the only source for rules, because non-codex units can be used in battleforged armies (such as Rough Riders) per the linked document that Ghaz provided. This opens the door to non-codex rules being valid, as well as combining Codex rules with non-codex sources via rules for Legacy Models allowing Codex Dataslates to use wargear options from the Indices.
Sooo... I tried handling this with a bit of good humour, as arguing RAW is often ugly business. Wound up with insults, such is life.
My last point is this. A misprint is by definition a mistake. It could have happened in the codex, it could have happened on the card. RAW cares not for intention, as one of these rules shows the correct intended rule, and the other does not. Without resorting to an argument of intention, we can not accurately determine which version of the rule is correct. As such, both rules can and should be treated as correct, until such time as there is clarification. This can be done, without issue, and attempts to prevent one option or the other have no basis in a RAW argument.
When the description of the cards says that the cards have stratagems "as found in Codex: T’au Empire" you don't get to dismiss it ad mere published "aid" - it's a desription of contents of product. It tells you that they stratagems are supposed to be as they are in the Codex. It is as valid an "aid" as any other "aid" - if the "aid" contradicts the main source of rules that the aid is existing merely to keep you from having to look up the rule in the codex itself, then whatever "aid" it is would be invalid. (Note that FAQs don't count as "aids" in that fashion.) That you don't want to accept that is your problem. I also gave you your quotation where it states the battle primer are the core rules, but you don't want to accept that either,, instead wanting to claim there's no difference between the datacards and the Battle Primer. That is actually pretty sad.
" have proven that the codex is not the only source for rules" does not mean that anything can be a source for rules, or that the other sources (other than FAQs) override the codex as the source of rules when the two contradict. A general statement of rules being able to come from other sources does not prove that the datacards are a valid source when they contradict the codex, especially when we have statements from Games Workshop itself that the stratagems on the datacards are supposed to be what the rules are for the stratagems in the Codex. If there's a difference between the two, you have to use the Codex. If yo want to say that the codex is a misprint, you still have to play by that "misprint" until the Codex is FAQ'd to change the rule, since they have said the cards are supposed to be the rules that are in the codex. That means in fact we CAN accurately determine which version is correct - the Codex is correct. If it's eventually FAQ'd, then the FAQ'd version is correct. That's RAW. as well as RAI.
Good luck finding someone who would play it the way you're insisting on playing it
isn't this thread a tad insane to have hit a 2nd page. The codex and the data card are the same thing. They don't even influence the game in a different way. "Use this stratagem at the start of any turn" & "Use this stratagem at the start of your turn" are the SAME thing. They do the same thing rules wise both occur at the start.
Why has this thread gone on for so long? It has devolved into RAW and RAI corrections and codex vs data card comparisons. Can we get a lock on this thread already.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/13 20:44:58
mhalko1 wrote: isn't this thread a tad insane to have hit a 2nd page. The codex and the data card are the same thing. They don't even influence the game in a different way. "Use this stratagem at the start of any turn" & "Use this stratagem at the start of your turn" are the SAME thing. They do the same thing rules wise both occur at the start.
While I agree that this thread is starting to get a little ridiculous, those are in fact not the same. Being able to use at the start of any turn allows one to use it at the start of an opponent's turn as well as your own.
mhalko1 wrote: isn't this thread a tad insane to have hit a 2nd page. The codex and the data card are the same thing. They don't even influence the game in a different way. "Use this stratagem at the start of any turn" & "Use this stratagem at the start of your turn" are the SAME thing. They do the same thing rules wise both occur at the start.
Why has this thread gone on for so long? It has devolved into RAW and RAI corrections and codex vs data card comparisons. Can we get a lock on this thread already.
Because those aren't the same thing? That's like saying roll to wound is the same as roll to hit. "Any" turn is not the same as "your" turn. Literally the first page of the Core Rules defines what a turn is.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/13 20:51:15
mhalko1 wrote: isn't this thread a tad insane to have hit a 2nd page. The codex and the data card are the same thing. They don't even influence the game in a different way. "Use this stratagem at the start of any turn" & "Use this stratagem at the start of your turn" are the SAME thing. They do the same thing rules wise both occur at the start.
Why has this thread gone on for so long? It has devolved into RAW and RAI corrections and codex vs data card comparisons. Can we get a lock on this thread already.
If you have a problem with a thread, then use the 'Alert Mod' function.
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
A lot of angst over a misprint/mismatch, and a lot RAI from the usual RAW crowd. Fun thread.
But yeah, go email GW and don’t indulge in a circular argument neither ‘side’ can prove. Will achieve more and vex you less.
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
JohnnyHell wrote: A lot of angst over a misprint/mismatch, and a lot RAI from the usual RAW crowd. Fun thread.
But yeah, go email GW and don’t indulge in a circular argument neither ‘side’ can prove. Will achieve more and vex you less.
My original intent of the post was to be an annoucnement of the misprint as I did not find any other mention of it online.
The riptide being 2+ /5+ (3+) and a natural abilty to do damage to itself makes one of the best candidates for the healing imo. I was going to use a riptides healing ptwice one game but didnt because of the data card. Especially since tau get very easy battalions
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/09/14 02:16:09
JohnnyHell wrote: A lot of angst over a misprint/mismatch, and a lot RAI from the usual RAW crowd. Fun thread.
But yeah, go email GW and don’t indulge in a circular argument neither ‘side’ can prove. Will achieve more and vex you less.
My original intent of the post was to be an annoucnement of the misprint as I did not find any other mention of it online.
The riptide being 2+ /5+ (3+) and a natural abilty to do damage to itself makes one of the best candidates for the healing imo. I was going to use a riptides healing ptwice one game but didnt because of the data card. Especially since tau get very easy battalions
Oh, no dig at the OP, more the posturing and warring that has erupted with no backup from actual rules. People who normally rely on RAW only are using sales copy as backup for an argument. People are making ‘definitive’ lists of rules sources that omit legitimate rules sources. It’s not a great discussion as it’s just become an odd spat. It’s a great catch by OP, but there wasn’t much to discuss.
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
For those in the future who find this thread via search, the 28-Sep-2018 T'au Empire FAQ clarified this:
DATACARDS: T’AU EMPIRE
Automated Repair System (Stratagem)
Change the first sentence of the rules text on this datacard to read:
‘Use this Stratagem at the start of any turn.’
BaconCatBug wrote: For those in the future who find this thread via search, the 28-Sep-2018 T'au Empire FAQ clarified this:
DATACARDS: T’AU EMPIRE
Automated Repair System (Stratagem)
Change the first sentence of the rules text on this datacard to read:
‘Use this Stratagem at the start of any turn.’
So what you’re saying is Datacards are now officially a rules source? :-D
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
Fun thread.
