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.

Well gosh, a common sense flowchart answer from GW:

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/warhammer_40000_designers_commentary_en-1.pdf

(last page)

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Well gosh, a common sense flowchart answer from GW:

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/warhammer_40000_designers_commentary_en-1.pdf

(last page)

Wow. And it even covers how to use options that have been updated in the codex but might not be on the latest codex sheet (the banshee mask for the autarch as an example). And it says "wargear options" so as to discourage the 50 man index Conscripts.

Also interesting that the flowchart doesn't say you need opponent's permission.

 doctortom wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Well gosh, a common sense flowchart answer from GW:

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/warhammer_40000_designers_commentary_en-1.pdf

(last page)

Wow. And it even covers how to use options that have been updated in the codex but might not be on the latest codex sheet (the banshee mask for the autarch as an example). And it says "wargear options" so as to discourage the 50 man index Conscripts.

Also interesting that the flowchart doesn't say you need opponent's permission.

To be fair, that 50-man-Conscript argument was always a red herring, as it has nothing to do with option on a model.

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/warhammer_40000_designers_commentary_en-1.pdf


Where is this from? I don't see it on the community page.

In any case nice to see some clarification and re-wording of the rules. I am genuinely happy they finally allow you to use the index wargear options. Venerable DakkaDread here I come!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:
To be fair, that 50-man-Conscript argument was always a red herring, as it has nothing to do with option on a model.

It was not a red herring and the fact it went out of its way to specify "wargear option" proves it wasn't.

So, twin autocannon dreads are still legal

 BaconCatBug wrote:
https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/warhammer_40000_designers_commentary_en-1.pdf


Where is this from? I don't see it on the community page.

In any case nice to see some clarification and re-wording of the rules.

It's from Warhammer Community. Look between the Necromunda header and 'Latest News & Features'.

It's pretty awesome that they've updated in such a way as to allow Legacy models with newer rules, thus avoiding 'un-nerfed Commisars' issues etc.

Yes, they actually put some thought into it. It's highly appreciated.


Did you notice for the Craftworlds FAQ, on the question about Dark Reapers vs Culexus Assassin, they actually bothered explaining the reasoning behind their answer? I'm not used to that either.

To be fair the Dark Reapers question was in the Index FAQ also.

It's more having an explanation for a decision that seems unusual, even if it was in the index. It's something they should try more.

Where is this mysterious Craftworlds FAQ?

Flowchart is at the end of the updated designers commentary.
Yay for sensible answers.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
Where is this mysterious Craftworlds FAQ?

It's where they're keeping all the other FAQs now

https://www.warhammer-community.com/faqs/

click on the 40k part to get to the 40k FAQS. It looks like this will be the way to get to the FAQs now instead of from the main GW site.

A direct link https://www.warhammer-community.com/faqs/?orderby=title&order=asc#items-warhammer-40000

or just use Ghaz's thread https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/736188.page

THANK fething CHRIST! Charistoph and Dr.Tom you guys were right. Finally GW put out a statement clearing up one of the many bullshitty things in 8th edition.

It's good that they released an official document to clear it up. Though it does make the changes to the Dreads options in the GK codex very strange.

Well everyone, best buy the indexes ASAP. When those go OOP it's gunna be a pain to get all your wargear options. Also, were back to an edition of needing multiple books to know whats going on with a single unit. GREAT!

OMG I'm so happy and I hope [MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius] in this thread who were so sure their interpretation of the rules was the only way it could possibly be take a minute to think about how wrong they were...

Cheers...

[edit]
Sorry for the tone of this post but reading pages after pages of people telling others that their interpretation of what was an amorphous rule was ironclad and the only possible interpretation of the rule bothered me more than it should have. I'm glad we finally have clarity. Again sorry for the snarky tone/response

 Lance845 wrote:
THANK fething CHRIST! Charistoph and Dr.Tom you guys were right. Finally GW put out a statement clearing up one of the many bullshitty things in 8th edition.

It's good that they released an official document to clear it up. Though it does make the changes to the Dreads options in the GK codex very strange.

Well everyone, best buy the indexes ASAP. When those go OOP it's gunna be a pain to get all your wargear options. Also, were back to an edition of needing multiple books to know whats going on with a single unit. GREAT!

Only because GW are cutting their own nose off to spite their face regarding the Chapter House lawsuits. They could have included these conversion options in the codex, but they would rather make the customer suffer than have anyone else make money making things they don't make.

bananathug wrote:
OMG I'm so happy and I hope [MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius] in this thread who were so sure their interpretation of the rules was the only way it could possibly be take a minute to think about how wrong they were...

Cheers...

You know the fact that this was changed to be the way it is proves the "you must use codex entry in its entirety" camp was correct in the first place?

No one cares who was correct in the first place.

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
No one cares who was correct in the first place.

Agreed. A petty stupid thing to jabber on about for anyone on any side of any argument.

The flow charts states things explicitly that the "FAQ" didn't (like calling out wargear specifically as something that transfers to the newer datasheet) and comes in a direct document from the designers not some community team hack whos making an announcement post. This is the new normal and it's established. Haul around multiple books so you can cross reference 2 datasheets at all time to know your war gear options. Welcome back to 7th.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
THANK fething CHRIST! Charistoph and Dr.Tom you guys were right. Finally GW put out a statement clearing up one of the many bullshitty things in 8th edition.

It's good that they released an official document to clear it up. Though it does make the changes to the Dreads options in the GK codex very strange.

Well everyone, best buy the indexes ASAP. When those go OOP it's gunna be a pain to get all your wargear options. Also, were back to an edition of needing multiple books to know whats going on with a single unit. GREAT!

Only because GW are cutting their own nose off to spite their face regarding the Chapter House lawsuits. They could have included these conversion options in the codex, but they would rather make the customer suffer than have anyone else make money making things they don't make.

bananathug wrote:
OMG I'm so happy and I hope [MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius] in this thread who were so sure their interpretation of the rules was the only way it could possibly be take a minute to think about how wrong they were...

Thanks for the kind words. Good advice for the hard copy of the indexes, but I would imagine that yo will still be able to buy electronic versions of them. I foresee a booming business for Index Xenos 1 for Autarchs with Banshee Masks

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You know the fact that this was changed to be the way it is proves the "you must use codex entry in its entirety" camp was correct in the first place?

Not necessarily. The Flowchart and the introduction to it no longer make a mention of needing opponent's permission, so that could be the change. Well, not to mention that it's only a wargear change now, and it spells out that you use current codex rules for equipment that are in the codex, even if the index had different rules for the older version. That part makes sense.

BaconCatBug wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
To be fair, that 50-man-Conscript argument was always a red herring, as it has nothing to do with option on a model.

It was not a red herring and the fact it went out of its way to specify "wargear option" proves it wasn't.

Because the number of models isn't an option on a model (which was specifically stated as a cause), hence red herring.

Lance845 wrote:THANK fething CHRIST! Charistoph and Dr.Tom you guys were right. Finally GW put out a statement clearing up one of the many bullshitty things in 8th edition.

Because we read what they wrote and took it like they meant it. It really isn't that difficult to consider.

Lance845 wrote:It's good that they released an official document to clear it up. Though it does make the changes to the Dreads options in the GK codex very strange.

Well everyone, best buy the indexes ASAP. When those go OOP it's gunna be a pain to get all your wargear options. Also, were back to an edition of needing multiple books to know whats going on with a single unit. GREAT!

Indeed. One thing we agreed on is that GW has been piss poor in dealing with the entire situation, and all this does is exemplify it.

 Charistoph wrote:
Because we read what they wrote and took it like they meant it. It really isn't that difficult to consider.

If I write "I dislike the taste of apples" and someone comes along as says "He meant he doesn't like the taste of kumquats", would you not agree that is a ridiculous statement to make? What GW "meant" was exactly what the wrote. They have now changed what they have written, thus changed the meaning.

Does it really matter? GW has settled the issue.

Who was right/wrong has no meaning any more c'mon people let it alone.

So now folk are arguing over who was right and who is now right? Jeez. Take this thread out back and shoot it... then spend 2CP and shoot it again...

 Charistoph wrote:

Lance845 wrote:THANK fething CHRIST! Charistoph and Dr.Tom you guys were right. Finally GW put out a statement clearing up one of the many bullshitty things in 8th edition.

Because we read what they wrote and took it like they meant it. It really isn't that difficult to consider.

To be clear, since apparently your one of the people who needs validation of your position in the previous argument, you were right that their intent was for index wargear to be used. Nothing in the previous FAQ clarified that it was wargear, or that those wargear options magically transferred to the codex datasheet, or that permission was not needed. We all had part of the picture and GW was gak at spelling it out so none of us had the whole of it. At no point did anyone in this thread argue that you were meant to use the codex GK Dread datasheet with the Index wargear options it was missing tacked onto it because that was not "what they wrote" and you could not have " took it like they meant it".

What they ended up giving us REALLY was that difficult to consider, considering NONE of us got it.

The argument was "Is the Index datasheet the correct datasheet for the model or the codex one". The answer, as it turns out, is both.

This new flow chart injects new information that both clears up what they were TRYING to say (and failed!) in their previous announcement post while spelling out specifically what it is you actually do with your rules in a new way that was never stated before.

Now let any portion of the argument pre flow chart roll over and die. It's pointless. It's done. If you have any ego about the previous discussion keep your butt hurt and your gloating over any perceived loss/win to yourself.

I think the most amusing part of all this is that if it is true that GW's goal is to only have rules for their current line, allowing and having superior options in the Index that are allowed is really just encouraging conversions of that line.

Of course, they really need to have some rules for older things or risk alienating a goodly portion of their player/fan base. Maybe they should just give up and trust that their superior castings will carry the day? (and maybe put out a larger range of conversion/bits packs and not charge an arm and a leg for them)

BaconCatBug wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Because we read what they wrote and took it like they meant it. It really isn't that difficult to consider.

If I write "I dislike the taste of apples" and someone comes along as says "He meant he doesn't like the taste of kumquats", would you not agree that is a ridiculous statement to make? What GW "meant" was exactly what the wrote. They have now changed what they have written, thus changed the meaning.

Hardly. That is a false comparison.

We have a statement to use the latest datasheets. We have another statement which says, use the latest datasheets that fit your model, and then gave an example of Dreadnoughts with outdated weapons. That statement was made months ago, and not recently. They have further clarified it now to make it so obvious so it makes it hard to be misinterpreted.

Lance845 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Lance845 wrote:THANK fething CHRIST! Charistoph and Dr.Tom you guys were right. Finally GW put out a statement clearing up one of the many bullshitty things in 8th edition.

Because we read what they wrote and took it like they meant it. It really isn't that difficult to consider.

To be clear, since apparently your one of the people who needs validation of your position in the previous argument, you were right that their intent was for index wargear to be used. Nothing in the previous FAQ clarified that it was wargear, or that those wargear options magically transferred to the codex datasheet, or that permission was not needed. We all had part of the picture and GW was gak at spelling it out so none of us had the whole of it. At no point did anyone in this thread argue that you were meant to use the codex GK Dread datasheet with the Index wargear options it was missing tacked onto it because that was not "what they wrote" and you could not have " took it like they meant it".

Why do people project so much? You apparently needed to be obnoxious about "congratulations", so who needs validation?

Yes, they were talking about wargear options because they were talking about old models. You know the little bits that we attach to the model? The statement giving the answer was very specific about those things in its example. It was only people who were blind to the presence of WYSIWYG and avoiding proxy still present in the community who kept missing it or deliberately ignoring it.

Lance845 wrote:What they ended up giving us REALLY was that difficult to consider, considering NONE of us got it.

None of YOU got it, DoctorTom and I understood it just fine.

Lance845 wrote:The argument was "Is the Index datasheet the correct datasheet for the model or the codex one". The answer, as it turns out, is both.

Nope, it still says to use the one that is appropriate to your model, albeit not spelled out that way. The answer allowing the Index version is, "But you can choose the index version for its wargear options". It doesn't say to only use the wargear options from the index version.

Lance845 wrote:This new flow chart injects new information that both clears up what they were TRYING to say (and failed!) in their previous announcement post while spelling out specifically what it is you actually do with your rules in a new way that was never stated before.

It only failed to say it to those who were not willing to consider WYSIWYG is still a thing in the community, and was pointed out in almost every single page of this thread.

Lance845 wrote:Now let any portion of the argument pre flow chart roll over and die. It's pointless. It's done. If you have any ego about the previous discussion keep your butt hurt and your gloating over any perceived loss/win to yourself.

You are the one who is appearing to have a problem about the previous discussion. I just don't like being misrepresented during the current one.

Just let it sleep, points been answered so who cares what your stances were previously.

Yeah, it's best to let it rest now.

Christoph wrote:

Lance845 wrote:
The argument was "Is the Index datasheet the correct datasheet for the model or the codex one". The answer, as it turns out, is both.

Nope, it still says to use the one that is appropriate to your model, albeit not spelled out that way. The answer allowing the Index version is, "But you can choose the index version for its wargear options". It doesn't say to only use the wargear options from the index version.

the big box at the bottom of the chart wrote:
For example, if you wished to use a Commissar with a Power Axe, you would check if the Codex has a datasheet for Commissars. It does, so you would use this datasheet - however, it does not support the wargear options which allow him to replace his power sword with a power axe, so you would use the Commissar wargear options from Index Imperium 2.

I have seen plenty of official resolution that created more scope for differing interpretation, but the accompanying commentary seems to see this issue up.