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.

Has there been any GTs that have addressed this issue as yet?

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
From the OP:
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).

I don't see a limitation on how out of date the model is in order to use the point cost from the index.

Anyway my point is that it is pretty clear that only the newest publication covering that model is to be allowed in event play. So, you can not go back to the index and pluck out an option for say, a dreadnaught that is not an option for that dreadnaught in the most recent codex.

If it's not in the index, then you don't have an index datasheet for it, and most likely there are no point values that you can look up. for paying costs on either the models or the equipment. My index certainly doesn't have a squat in exo-armor on a bike; I'd certainly be using the Squats if they did have listings.

That's my point. Even if it is in the index once a codex comes out that covers that base model then the datasheet doesn't matter for purposes of events running under 8th ed rules.

Even if, the 8th ed index data sheet said that a dreadnaught could have both arms be twin lascannons once a codex came out for your army that did not give that option you can't go back to the index and claim that you have a legal model. The codex datasheet overrides the index datasheet.

The quote that I used doesn't mean that you can use any model you have in an official event. It merely says that you can use it if you can find someone who will let you use it in casual play.

It's up to the organizers of the events to decide what they allow, just like it always has been. They can allow autocannon dreads from the index if they like, just like it's up to them to decide if they want to allow Forgeworld things like Grot Tanks or Death Korps of Krieg.

 doctortom wrote:
It's up to the organizers of the events to decide what they allow, just like it always has been. They can allow autocannon dreads from the index if they like, just like it's up to them to decide if they want to allow Forgeworld things like Grot Tanks or Death Korps of Krieg.

Exactly. And to add to that point, every friendly game has two organizers: the two people who are playing a game against each other.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:That's my point. Even if it is in the index once a codex comes out that covers that base model then the datasheet doesn't matter for purposes of events running under 8th ed rules.

Even if, the 8th ed index data sheet said that a dreadnaught could have both arms be twin lascannons once a codex came out for your army that did not give that option you can't go back to the index and claim that you have a legal model. The codex datasheet overrides the index datasheet.

The quote that I used doesn't mean that you can use any model you have in an official event. It merely says that you can use it if you can find someone who will let you use it in casual play.

This.

Charistoph wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
It's up to the organizers of the events to decide what they allow, just like it always has been. They can allow autocannon dreads from the index if they like, just like it's up to them to decide if they want to allow Forgeworld things like Grot Tanks or Death Korps of Krieg.

Exactly. And to add to that point, every friendly game has two organizers: the two people who are playing a game against each other.

I agree with this too. TOs are more or less running on house rules based on what they do and do not allow. It's pointless to go to them for answers unless it's GW itself running the tournament.

In any game with a friend you are welcome to use whatever you want with everyone agreeing to do it.

If you people want to ban those index-only weapons, that's your house rule. They specifically say that you can use those weapons in that post. The simplest interpretation is that they meant what they wrote without pulling in assumptions from other questions.

 TheWaspinator wrote:
If you people want to ban those index-only weapons, that's your house rule. They specifically say that you can use those weapons in that post. The simplest interpretation is that they meant what they wrote without pulling in assumptions from other questions.

Ok. So following this logic. The simplest solition being they mean what they say. What do you think they meant by "In all cases, these will then supersede the rules for that datasheet in the index book."?

 Lance845 wrote:

 TheWaspinator wrote:
If you people want to ban those index-only weapons, that's your house rule. They specifically say that you can use those weapons in that post. The simplest interpretation is that they meant what they wrote without pulling in assumptions from other questions.

Ok. So following this logic. The simplest solition being they mean what they say. What do you think they meant by "In all cases, these will then supersede the rules for that datasheet in the index book."?

It means that you're not thinking about it right when you're using it to say that when they stated "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." to actually mean "no you can't use those models since there's a new codex datasheet which won't let you". This despite them saying in relation to an updated codex " 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.". You don't get to try to bludgeon everybody into accepting that you can't play models with old configurations when they clearly tell you that you can, and provide the method for you to be able to.

The problem with the argument that "X" is only allowed if both players agree to it, is outside of tournaments, any game is only allowed if both players agree to it.

For example, I can refuse to play against Imperial Guard, just as Bob can refuse to play against an army that is using an index, instead of a codex.

There is a legalese "RAW" way to read this and the layman's "RAI" way to read this.

What they want to say is "If you got this model with the old option, you can still use it. Just use the most up to date rules you can find for it".

But in pure rules terms, they can't really tell you to basically go carte blanche on the entire range of rules and start cherry picking the absolute best from multiple editions, that would kinda render new codexes moot. So that was their way of trying to say the above while still remaining somewhat rule-legal.

In practical terms, it all depends on where you go. Obviously Tournaments have their own rules and will dictate what will be allowed and what won't be. And if they don't a quick email is all that's needed (never show up to an event "assuming" anything). For other games, talking it out with your opponent usually suffices, but if someone is really miffed about it, it's good to have on hand a replacement unit. For entire armies "Squatted" like this, just build them knowing that you might never field them, but just for the sake of building them. 40k is vast enough that if you're just in it for the rules, you can probably find a good approximation somewhere else. For example in Fantasy I always wanted to run all minotaurs or all trolls, before I realized that running Ogres was basically that, but cheaper and more legal (even if I'm giving up some fancy rules like regeneration or +1 strength).

doctortom-just for clarities sake are you saying that a player can play a model option using the index that is not in the codex or that you can not use a model option not in the codex in regards to event play? (This is not about TO permission but about GW's statement)

 doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 TheWaspinator wrote:
If you people want to ban those index-only weapons, that's your house rule. They specifically say that you can use those weapons in that post. The simplest interpretation is that they meant what they wrote without pulling in assumptions from other questions.

Ok. So following this logic. The simplest solition being they mean what they say. What do you think they meant by "In all cases, these will then supersede the rules for that datasheet in the index book."?

It means that you're not thinking about it right when you're using it to say that when they stated "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." to actually mean "no you can't use those models since there's a new codex datasheet which won't let you". This despite them saying in relation to an updated codex " 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.". You don't get to try to bludgeon everybody into accepting that you can't play models with old configurations when they clearly tell you that you can, and provide the method for you to be able to.

The problem with that is that you don't get to bludgeon everybody into accepting that you can use old out of date configurations when they tell you to use the most up to date publication. That argument cuts both ways.

Most games are a social contract, You both agree to specific rules and constraints when agreeing to play. Now in those negotiated conversations issues like rifle dreads and bike librarians can be easily covered. However in a tournament environment those negotiations don't exist and you need an accepted system in which armies are built. According to GW those are the most recent publications ie the codex and as such it would appear that legacy models wont be accepted. As I asked earlier has there been any rules packs issued under 8th from GW with army construction guides?

Cheers

Andrew


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just had a look at the latest publication from GW on their Grand Tourneys (which is what I should have done earlier)

Publications in use: All current and in-print Warhammer
40,000 Index books and Codexes from Games Workshop
and Forge World, unless their release falls on the weekend of
the event. We expect you to use the most current datasheets
for your models – e.g. those found in a Codex rather than
an Index if a Codex is available for your army. This means
that you may use Faction-appropriate Index datasheets that
might not appear in your Codex (such as Chaplain on Bike).

From reading thay legacy models can be used only if there is no datasheet in the Codex. So Rifle Dreads are not permitted under GWs own tourney system.

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 TheWaspinator wrote:
If you people want to ban those index-only weapons, that's your house rule. They specifically say that you can use those weapons in that post. The simplest interpretation is that they meant what they wrote without pulling in assumptions from other questions.

Ok. So following this logic. The simplest solition being they mean what they say. What do you think they meant by "In all cases, these will then supersede the rules for that datasheet in the index book."?

It means that you're not thinking about it right when you're using it to say that when they stated "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." to actually mean "no you can't use those models since there's a new codex datasheet which won't let you". This despite them saying in relation to an updated codex " 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.". You don't get to try to bludgeon everybody into accepting that you can't play models with old configurations when they clearly tell you that you can, and provide the method for you to be able to.

The problem with that is that you don't get to bludgeon everybody into accepting that you can use old out of date configurations when they tell you to use the most up to date publication. That argument cuts both ways.

Most games are a social contract, You both agree to specific rules and constraints when agreeing to play. Now in those negotiated conversations issues like rifle dreads and bike librarians can be easily covered. However in a tournament environment those negotiations don't exist and you need an accepted system in which armies are built. According to GW those are the most recent publications ie the codex and as such it would appear that legacy models wont be accepted. As I asked earlier has there been any rules packs issued under 8th from GW with army construction guides?

Cheers

Andrew


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just had a look at the latest publication from GW on their Grand Tourneys (which is what I should have done earlier)

Publications in use: All current and in-print Warhammer
40,000 Index books and Codexes from Games Workshop
and Forge World, unless their release falls on the weekend of
the event. We expect you to use the most current datasheets
for your models – e.g. those found in a Codex rather than
an Index if a Codex is available for your army. This means
that you may use Faction-appropriate Index datasheets that
might not appear in your Codex (such as Chaplain on Bike).

From reading thay legacy models can be used only if there is no datasheet in the Codex. So Rifle Dreads are not permitted under GWs own tourney system.

Cheers

Andrew

Thanks for looking that up AndrewC. I am glad to see an official statement from GW on what is expected for Tourney play which should coincide nicely with Matched. Latest datasheets are expected. Not surprising at all, it's the same thing the FAQ says.

 AndrewC wrote:

Just had a look at the latest publication from GW on their Grand Tourneys (which is what I should have done earlier)

Publications in use: All current and in-print Warhammer
40,000 Index books and Codexes from Games Workshop
and Forge World, unless their release falls on the weekend of
the event. We expect you to use the most current datasheets
for your models – e.g. those found in a Codex rather than
an Index if a Codex is available for your army. This means
that you may use Faction-appropriate Index datasheets that
might not appear in your Codex (such as Chaplain on Bike).

From reading thay legacy models can be used only if there is no datasheet in the Codex. So Rifle Dreads are not permitted under GWs own tourney system.

Cheers

Andrew

Rifle dreads are permitted if FW models are allowed. There is a FW mortis dreadnought which uses the same weapons on both arms, one option is autocannons.

And that can be cleared up by answering one question. Where is the datasheet for a Mortis Dreadnaught?

If its in an Imperial Armour book then it is permitted. If it is a derivative model using a normal dreadnaught sheet from the codex, then for GW tourney events then I think you would be refused accordingly.

Cheers

Andrew

The mortis dreadnought is listed in the Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Adeptus Astartes

Then its acceptable because there is a datasheet for it. Provision has been made and you use the points and options contained in Imperial Armour. What you couldn't do is use an index entry superceeded by a codex entry because the options were better.

Cheers

Andrew

Outside of "I don't want my opponent to have fun", I'm curious as to people's motivation for trying to control what legacy models their opponent may use. There are rules. What's the issue?

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Outside of "I don't want my opponent to have fun", I'm curious as to people's motivation for trying to control what legacy models their opponent may use. There are rules. What's the issue?

Yeah, I'm puzzled by this as well.

I'm also puzzled about how this would be different from refusing to play against any other model, if you see what I mean.

 vipoid wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Outside of "I don't want my opponent to have fun", I'm curious as to people's motivation for trying to control what legacy models their opponent may use. There are rules. What's the issue?

Yeah, I'm puzzled by this as well.

I'm also puzzled about how this would be different from refusing to play against any other model, if you see what I mean.

Totally. Apart from 'being right on the internet' or "I don't want you to have fun", what's the actual harm in it?

Model has rules. Probably sub-optimal rules for a sub-optimal choice with sub-optimal Index points. What is actually the harm in a guy using such a model?

I can only speak for myself, but if I get a pick up game against someone I don't know I have a chance to anticipate what the ground rules are before hand. Much like last editions furore over the inclusion of FW models. No-one is going to be surprised by an oddball figure and rules.

As I said earlier, every game is a social contract everything in it is a negotiation as to what is acceptable. If you know beforehand that legacy models are prohibited then both sides are starting from the same position rather than adversarial positions.

There is, in all probability, no harm in using legacy models, just don't expect that as a default 'I get to use them regardless'

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
I can only speak for myself, but if I get a pick up game against someone I don't know I have a chance to anticipate what the ground rules are before hand. Much like last editions furore over the inclusion of FW models. No-one is going to be surprised by an oddball figure and rules.

As I said earlier, every game is a social contract everything in it is a negotiation as to what is acceptable. If you know beforehand that legacy models are prohibited then both sides are starting from the same position rather than adversarial positions.

There is, in all probability, no harm in using legacy models, just don't expect that as a default 'I get to use them regardless'

Cheers

Andrew

Do I get to choose which of your models I don't want you to bring? ;-)

It's just a weirdly adversarial start point, in my view. The Indexes have been available for months and the models for years so the "I couldn't anticiapate this" view isn't that watertight... even less so when I could bring a valid, current FW unit you'd have far less likelihood of knowing (owing to relative rarity of FW models/Indexes).

 AndrewC wrote:
There is, in all probability, no harm in using legacy models, just don't expect that as a default 'I get to use them regardless'

I think what puzzles me is that some people seem to think that - in spite of GW explicitly making them legal - you should assume that they're illegal by default.

Not only that but there seems to be no real basis for this. For example, I can understand people not wanting to play against armies with, say, 3 Baneblades or whatever (either because they consider them overpowered or because they consider them boring).

However, it seems really strange to refuse to play against someone because his dreadnought is armed with 2 Autocannons or whatever.

And, yes, I'm well aware that you're within your rights to refuse any game for any reason. But, given that this applies just as much to games against lists you perceive to be fully legal, I don't see why this should be a factor.

*Shrugs.*

It just seems like a strange attitude to me.

 vipoid wrote:

I think what puzzles me is that some people seem to think that - in spite of GW explicitly making them legal - you should assume that they're illegal by default.

I don't assume they're illegal by default. GW did not make them 'legal' in the sense that you are implying, but provided a solution to working out the points costs for loadouts that no longer appear in the codex. GWs own tourney rules by default tells you to use Codex for armies that have codexs'

Not only that but there seems to be no real basis for this. For example, I can understand people not wanting to play against armies with, say, 3 Baneblades or whatever (either because they consider them overpowered or because they consider them boring).

However, it seems really strange to refuse to play against someone because his dreadnought is armed with 2 Autocannons or whatever.

Is it? last edition Tau were all but ostracized by simply mentioning the word. And it's not a refusal, it's a base line in which a person can gauge a decision knowing where the line was drawn.

And, yes, I'm well aware that you're within your rights to refuse any game for any reason. But, given that this applies just as much to games against lists you perceive to be fully legal, I don't see why this should be a factor.

*Shrugs.*

It just seems like a strange attitude to me.

Again I think this is simply knowing where the line is drawn. If GW has said that this model is not accepting in their own tourneys a person will feel more confident about expressing their opinion about the use of a particular model.

Knowing where you stand and being confident about what you know helps some people in making decisions that are based more upon knowledge than gut feeling.

I don't think it's a strange attitude at all.

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
I can only speak for myself, but if I get a pick up game against someone I don't know I have a chance to anticipate what the ground rules are before hand. Much like last editions furore over the inclusion of FW models. No-one is going to be surprised by an oddball figure and rules.

As I said earlier, every game is a social contract everything in it is a negotiation as to what is acceptable. If you know beforehand that legacy models are prohibited then both sides are starting from the same position rather than adversarial positions.

There is, in all probability, no harm in using legacy models, just don't expect that as a default 'I get to use them regardless'

Cheers

Andrew

They do say if your opponent agrees with it, so you do get to have the negotiation. I'd expect people to make sure it's okay to bring a Forgeworld model too beforehand if someone wanted to do that. Not everyone is going to have had the oppotunity to know the Forgeworld rules since their stuff is more limited in distribution, and in both cases there could be a a lack of familiarity with the model in question that could make someone hesitant about it. Taking the time to discuss the model (showing him what it does, the points and such) will usually get the opponent to say "ok, cool".

I was just objecting to people stating outright that you can never have them in any official event (as that is up to the event organizer), and claiming that you can never use the models in matched play. That last one was a lie, given that they told you how to calculate the points for a legacy model in matched play.. Saying "make sure your opponent is okay with it" is just really part of the social contract. You don't get to go in with a "I get to use them regardless" attitude, buty someone who's going to take a blanket "I'm not going to let you play legacy models (or Forgeworld) no matter how reasonable the models are" is probably going to be a dick on other things as well and might not be someone you'd want to play with.

 doctortom wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
I can only speak for myself, but if I get a pick up game against someone I don't know I have a chance to anticipate what the ground rules are before hand. Much like last editions furore over the inclusion of FW models. No-one is going to be surprised by an oddball figure and rules.

As I said earlier, every game is a social contract everything in it is a negotiation as to what is acceptable. If you know beforehand that legacy models are prohibited then both sides are starting from the same position rather than adversarial positions.

There is, in all probability, no harm in using legacy models, just don't expect that as a default 'I get to use them regardless'

Cheers

Andrew

They do say if your opponent agrees with it, so you do get to have the negotiation. I'd expect people to make sure it's okay to bring a Forgeworld model too beforehand if someone wanted to do that. Not everyone is going to have had the oppotunity to know the Forgeworld rules since their stuff is more limited in distribution, and in both cases there could be a a lack of familiarity with the model in question that could make someone hesitant about it. Taking the time to discuss the model (showing him what it does, the points and such) will usually get the opponent to say "ok, cool".

I was just objecting to people stating outright that you can never have them in any official event (as that is up to the event organizer), and claiming that you can never use the models in matched play. That last one was a lie, given that they told you how to calculate the points for a legacy model in matched play.. Saying "make sure your opponent is okay with it" is just really part of the social contract. You don't get to go in with a "I get to use them regardless" attitude, buty someone who's going to take a blanket "I'm not going to let you play legacy models (or Forgeworld) no matter how reasonable the models are" is probably going to be a dick on other things as well and might not be someone you'd want to play with.

It's more like...

What if I bought the 6th ed Nid codex to a 7th game. But, I told you I would rather use the 5th ed codex Tervigon datasheet. Further, that it would be ridiculous for you to argue with me about it. "Absurd" I think was the word used before. Il pay 6th ed codex points for it's options where applicable. But the game systems are so similar that the one will translate strait over. The new publication replaces the old publication and if your using the new publication then you shouldn't be cherry picking options from the old publication. What if I wanted to use older Necron codex Overlords because so many more wargear options!

I don't understand why it's an unreasonable expectation that a player uses the most up to date rules as a baseline.

Because sometime people have older models with older equipment like a rifleman dread.

 Lance845 wrote:

It's more like...

What if I bought the 6th ed Nid codex to a 7th game. But, I told you I would rather use the 5th ed codex Tervigon datasheet. Further, that it would be ridiculous for you to argue with me about it. "Absurd" I think was the word used before. Il pay 6th ed codex points for it's options where applicable. But the game systems are so similar that the one will translate strait over. The new publication replaces the old publication and if your using the new publication then you shouldn't be cherry picking options from the old publication. What if I wanted to use older Necron codex Overlords because so many more wargear options!

I don't understand why it's an unreasonable expectation that a player uses the most up to date rules as a baseline.

I don't understand this line of reasoning. No one is talking about using rules from older editions. Nor has anyone argued that you should be able to.

What people are saying is that the Indexes (i.e. 8th edition rules) contain some rules that do not appear in the corresponding 8th edition codices (also 8th edition rules).

Yes, you are expected to use the most up to date rules when playing (in this case the codex), except when you have an older model that appears in the index but not in the codex. In this case, you have explicit permission from GW to use the Index rules for that model.

 Lance845 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
I can only speak for myself, but if I get a pick up game against someone I don't know I have a chance to anticipate what the ground rules are before hand. Much like last editions furore over the inclusion of FW models. No-one is going to be surprised by an oddball figure and rules.

As I said earlier, every game is a social contract everything in it is a negotiation as to what is acceptable. If you know beforehand that legacy models are prohibited then both sides are starting from the same position rather than adversarial positions.

There is, in all probability, no harm in using legacy models, just don't expect that as a default 'I get to use them regardless'

Cheers

Andrew

They do say if your opponent agrees with it, so you do get to have the negotiation. I'd expect people to make sure it's okay to bring a Forgeworld model too beforehand if someone wanted to do that. Not everyone is going to have had the oppotunity to know the Forgeworld rules since their stuff is more limited in distribution, and in both cases there could be a a lack of familiarity with the model in question that could make someone hesitant about it. Taking the time to discuss the model (showing him what it does, the points and such) will usually get the opponent to say "ok, cool".

I was just objecting to people stating outright that you can never have them in any official event (as that is up to the event organizer), and claiming that you can never use the models in matched play. That last one was a lie, given that they told you how to calculate the points for a legacy model in matched play.. Saying "make sure your opponent is okay with it" is just really part of the social contract. You don't get to go in with a "I get to use them regardless" attitude, buty someone who's going to take a blanket "I'm not going to let you play legacy models (or Forgeworld) no matter how reasonable the models are" is probably going to be a dick on other things as well and might not be someone you'd want to play with.

It's more like...

What if I bought the 6th ed Nid codex to a 7th game. But, I told you I would rather use the 5th ed codex Tervigon datasheet. Further, that it would be ridiculous for you to argue with me about it. "Absurd" I think was the word used before. Il pay 6th ed codex points for it's options where applicable. But the game systems are so similar that the one will translate strait over. The new publication replaces the old publication and if your using the new publication then you shouldn't be cherry picking options from the old publication. What if I wanted to use older Necron codex Overlords because so many more wargear options!

No, it's not more like that. GW provided a mechanism for using the older models using the index. They didn't provide a mechanism for using the older models using the 5th edition rules when you're playing a 7th edition game. The situation's completely different. That said, if you and your opponents agree, you can use 5th edition rules for it, or use the 3rd edition The Lost and the Damned list to represent Squats or whatever.

As for using older Necron Codex Overlords, to they have those wargear options in the index? If so, knock yourself out. If not, talk to your opponent, but there's a difference between something that GW has given you a method of using the older model and a method where they haven't. You are treating the rifledread situation the same way you are treating the stiuation of the older codex Overlord, when they're not the same situation. It is disingenuous for you to try to present both as the same situation.

 Lance845 wrote:
I don't understand why it's an unreasonable expectation that a player uses the most up to date rules as a baseline.

It's unreasonable to expect a player to never get to use his older models when GW has has told us exactly how we can use those older models. It isn't reasonable when you lie about being able to use the older models (you stated multiple times that they can not be used in matched play when GW provided a statement of how to calculate points for them in matched play. It isn't reasonable for you to claim that any argument for using the models is "taken out of context" when it isn't, and the only taking things out of context is your taking the statements out of context to claim that you can never use the index datasheet for older models with configurations that you can't get in the codex list when GW had just spent the time explaining how you can.