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.

You're the one making the claim, you should prove your claim. It is not up to me to make your argument for you.

Just because they released a PDF version of a codex online doesn't mean that the physical copies are therefor completely nullified.

I think it's not going anywhere, but I have emailed them to at least get some confirmation.

Yes it was hard not to laugh

n0t_u wrote:I think it's not going anywhere, but I have emailed them to at least get some confirmation.

Yes it was hard not to laugh

Let's hope they answer. It'd be kinda stupid to remove allies from one book and not the other.

Hey, I'm fine with us using this codex as the new codex rendering the physical book illegal. There's no FOC anymore so I can field nothing but GKT and infinity Land Raiders at this point. Right? Oh, no, you won't let me do that? But there's no reference to it, just like allies! Oh, but I still have to play by the rules, even though they're not in the book? Well, in that case, I'll take my allied guard, thank you very much. Also, they didn't add PotMS back in for the Land Raider even though it was errata'ed, so it was a lazy FAQ job at best.

Daemonhunters explicitly states that it is the second printing. The online pdf in its entirety takes precedence over any print copies that exist.
The Daemonhunters book has some numbers changed, wargear added (as per errata), and overall is a different book.

daedalus wrote:There's no FOC anymore so I can field nothing but GKT and infinity Land Raiders at this point. Right?

Oh wow, that's INCREDIBLY lazy.

Melissia wrote:

daedalus wrote:There's no FOC anymore so I can field nothing but GKT and infinity Land Raiders at this point. Right?

Oh wow, that's INCREDIBLY lazy.

Nah, they're just rebalancing the fact that you can't take any infantry armed with heavy weapons anymore. Clearly.

i have to say i prefer my books over these PDF's.... at least they could have added in GK razorback, LR Reddemers and psycannon's for dreadnoughts. oh well GW fails again

daedalus wrote:Hey, I'm fine with us using this codex as the new codex rendering the physical book illegal. There's no FOC anymore so I can field nothing but GKT and infinity Land Raiders at this point. Right? Oh, no, you won't let me do that? But there's no reference to it, just like allies! Oh, but I still have to play by the rules, even though they're not in the book? Well, in that case, I'll take my allied guard, thank you very much. Also, they didn't add PotMS back in for the Land Raider even though it was errata'ed, so it was a lazy FAQ job at best.

"No no you can field literally nothing so you auto-lose every game" -douchebag at tourney

daedalus wrote:Hey, I'm fine with us using this codex as the new codex rendering the physical book illegal. There's no FOC anymore so I can field nothing but GKT and infinity Land Raiders at this point. Right? Oh, no, you won't let me do that? But there's no reference to it, just like allies!

Check the BRB pg87
Allies are not in the BRB

daedalus wrote:Oh, but I still have to play by the rules, even though they're not in the book?

Yes, you have to play by the rules in the BRB

daedalus wrote:Well, in that case, I'll take my allied guard, thank you very much.

You know very well how official tournaments are going to rule this situation where the current version of a codex omits something from a prior version. You can whine and complain on these forums all you want, but that's not going to change anything. In casual games, sure. You can take your allied guard and my Doom of Malan'tai will eat them from inside the Chimera, no saves allowed.

daedalus wrote:Also, they didn't add PotMS back in for the Land Raider even though it was errata'ed, so it was a lazy FAQ job at best.

This book is the second printing. It takes precedence over the first printing. Not intentionally adding errata is irrelevant. Omitting things from a second printing is relevant.

Yes, well, that's just one more reason to avoid them (as if I needed more).

Kroothawk wrote:Disclaimer (for all future news&rumour threads including Sororitas):
This is a news & rumour thread only for news & rumours. This thread is not meant to discuss the background and the current models of Sororitas, their existence at all, them being combined with Inquisition in one Codex or any other off topic whining.

You are free to copy this disclaimer if necessary

You have won.

I bow to you.

I'm pretty sure the Deamonhunters codex was ALREADY on its second print run (I know the Witchhunters one was and the GW errata references the DH second printing back when that was written up). I don't have a copy with me right now to check but considering that they didn't update any of the copyrights I have a suspicion that the "Second Print" is just left over from when they initially fixed some stuff and not necessarily a slam dunk "This is the only valid version."

I could be wrong so it would be nice if someone who has their copy handy could check the last page.

No, you're quite right. C:WH, at least, has a second printing with a few fixes. I know that for a fact, as I've seen both copies, AND the C:WH FAQ mentions it anyway.

The FAQ mentions the Heavy Flamer being changed to assault from heavy in the second printing. This, if it turns out was intentional, might be the third iteration of the codex.

n0t_u wrote:The FAQ mentions the Heavy Flamer being changed to assault from heavy in the second printing. This, if it turns out was intentional, might be the third iteration of the codex.

Indeed but if there is no version number and all the copyright and printing information is still the same how do we know which is MORE legitimate. They are both 3rd edition codices with all the same identifications.

Basically this is really sloppy and looks like they spent all of 10 minutes on it resulting in annoying arguments about which legal codex is MORE legal. I'm glad I'm starting to get back into videogames where I don't have to worry about whether or not I'm allowed to use stuff I bought and painted based on some nerd's outside the company's arbitrary decision.

grizgrin wrote:Cool, thanks! My gf is starting a ssters army, she'll be psyched to see this without having to spend 25 bucks on it.

Do your GF a favor and buy her the hard copies of Codex Witch Hunters (3rd) and Codex Adepta Sororitas (2nd edition). She will absolutely need the painting section of the 3rd ed Codex, the background of the 3rd and, as a plus the more extended background of the 2nd ed. Codex.

The pdfs are just the rules, not enough to actually play the army and know what the army is about. The modelling part of the 3rd includes the organisation and painting schemes (incl symbols) of all military and civil orders. The Grey Knight Codex pdf has some essential pages missing, e.g. the one page with allies, Grey Knight and Daemon definition. That's what the confusion about the right Codex in this thread is about.

Absolutionis wrote:
Check the BRB pg87
Allies are not in the BRB

daedalus wrote:Oh, but I still have to play by the rules, even though they're not in the book?

Yes, you have to play by the rules in the BRB

daedalus wrote:Well, in that case, I'll take my allied guard, thank you very much.

You know very well how official tournaments are going to rule this situation where the current version of a codex omits something from a prior version. You can whine and complain on these forums all you want, but that's not going to change anything. In casual games, sure. You can take your allied guard and my Doom of Malan'tai will eat them from inside the Chimera, no saves allowed.
This book is the second printing. It takes precedence over the first printing. Not intentionally adding errata is irrelevant. Omitting things from a second printing is relevant.

I think it's the Third Printing now, if I'm not mistaken.

I don't know very well how allies are going to be handled (enter 'Ard Boyz allies, which gave you the chance to take Vets and LR variants).

Lastly, page 87 DOES give the FoC as we know it, so you get partial credit, however, it says, and I quote:

The minimum and maximum numbers of each of these types of unit for each army are detailed on the force organisation chart of each army Codex book.

Shown on this page is an example of one such chart, which is the one used by most armies for standard missions

Emphasis mine. Ergo, from this, we can derive one of two possible (equally fun) outcomes:
Option 1
- PDF Codex can field anything freely with no FOC restrictions.
Option 2
- PDF "Codex" can not field anything because there is no FOC, and per the corollary of page 87, if the FOC is in every Codex, a "Publication" lacking a FOC is NOT a Codex. Ergo, the printed book remains valid and this makes for a keen reference.

Hilarious.


EDIT: Removed comma splice.

Looking at both versions, FAQ errata hasn't been added in some instances. P.20-21 of the DH codex has been omitted, thus removing "grey knight" terminology and "daemon" terminology. Two huge things that impact the GK. I think if this is in fact a true "revision" of the codexes then GW miss a perfect opportunity to update and incorporate the FAQ errata, etc. to fix these codexes. Bottom line IMHO, the actual copy of the codex still is valid.

PS: How do you explain the inconsistency of other countries getting those pages? WTF? GW if you are listening....take the time to make it all the same across all countries, make the appropriate changes, explain your stance on the whether these PDF's actually replace the printed codexes that we all own. It isn't hard...and would take like a day to pull all that together. EPIC FAIL!

Melissia wrote:Prove it.

Prove that the new version with updated stats is not?

EDIT: As for other countries getting the page in, unless there's a relatively quick update to the pdf a lá the Space Wolf FAQ then I'd just chalk it up to just a lack of consolidation between countries. Sweden (I think), for example, has a general 40k FAQ that makes all wargear options (Storm Shields, Assault Cannons, etc.) the same as their newer counterparts, and stuff like making regular Rhinos 35pts.

The Errata/FAQs still say they can ally, so this entire discussion is moot

Melissia wrote:The Errata/FAQs still say they can ally, so this entire discussion is moot

Unlikely. As the FAQs are just that, Frequently Asked Questions and by GW's own admission they are 'House Rules' (Except the Errata section).

So it is still up in the air what their intention and the end result will be. More properly, it will be up to the TO to advise on whether Allies will be allowed for DH. My gut is that most TOs will go RAW and say no, since there are no rules anymore for them in the most recently published codex.

You can now place that version of the DH codex on the shelf next to the other stacks of old codexes that aren't worth much anymore. Or try to Ebay it as OOP Golden Daemon Pro Painted Daemonhunters Codex.

The pdf makes mention of the Sustained Assault rules for Daemons. Should we allow Without Number Daemons as well?

pretre wrote:As the FAQs are just that, Frequently Asked Questions

Exactly. FAQs are a list of common questions and GW's answers to them.

I don't care what TOs think to begin with

bhsman wrote:The pdf makes mention of the Sustained Assault rules for Daemons. Should we allow Without Number Daemons as well?

Yes, all games with DHs must use the Sustained Assault scenario rules from the Main Rulebook.

Have fun finding it.

Well it only works for Nurglings so sure?

Melissia wrote:

pretre wrote:As the FAQs are just that, Frequently Asked Questions

Exactly. FAQs are a list of common questions and GW's answers to them.

The FAQ quote is very important and you kind of skipped half of it. GW says that these FAQs are not RAW

GW Site wrote:
What's the difference between Errata and FAQs?
...The Errata have the same level of 'authority' as the main rules, as they effectively modify the published material...
The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'. They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments (i.e. when you don't have a set of common 'house rules' with the other player). However, if you disagree with some answers and prefer to change them in your games and make your own house rules with your friends, that's fine.

M wrote:
I don't care what TOs think to begin with

Then don't post in a thread talking about what the official stance is. If you just play with friends, then it doesn't matter what version of the DH codex you use. -removed the mean-

I am guessing the majority of the people in this thread are wondering how the changes to DH/WH codexes in PDF form will affect them in Tournaments.

In which case, the TO opinion is VERY important.

pretre wrote:Then don't post in a thread talking about what the official stance is.

What TOs think is irrelevant to RAW, and quite frequently contradicts it.

FAQs are RAW. GW says you don't have to use them, but they're still RAW.

Something else I thought about; this isn't really even an actual publication. I can't find an ISBN anywhere for it. The copyright info is still identical too.

Until someone says on GW's site that the omission of Allies was intentional, but the FoC was not, I can't take it seriously.

Melissia wrote:

pretre wrote:Then don't post in a thread talking about what the official stance is.

What TOs think is irrelevant to RAW, and quite frequently contradicts it.

FAQs are RAW. GW says you don't have to use them, but they're still RAW.

Going to respond to any other points there, or just the one that you can misquote?