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.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
Conversely, it doesn't say "IS THERE WARGEAR FOR YOUR MODEL THAT ONLY APPEAR IN THE WARGEAR OPTIONS SECTION IN THE INDEX VERSION OF ITS DATASHEET?"

It also doesn't say what a dice is in the rulebook. We can go all the way down the rabbit hole. At some point the rules of English have to apply, and "Wargear Options" is refering to the section of the dataslate called Wargear options, as proven by the examples given.

If we're going to point to the rules of English...

"ARE THERE WARGEAR OPTIONS FOR YOUR MODEL THAT ONLY APPEAR IN THE INDEX VERSION OF ITS DATASHEET?"

"Are there..." This is plural. It's referring to "options" with "wargear" being there to clue you in to which sort of options you're talking about. Now, if the sentence said something along the lines of "are there options in the wargear options section for you model...", then I would agree that we're only to look for options in that one specific section. Without wording restricting us to that single section of a datasheet, I will continue to look everywhere on a datasheet.

I mean... I'm also taking into consideration the context clue that the whole point of the flowchart is to allow us to use any model built under the index rules that can no longer be built under the codex rules. While they would need to clarify for people like BCB, it seems almost painfully obvious that they'd want us to be able to use the Splinter Pistol option. I know that some of the more... steadfast?... people on this rules forum like to completely ignore context clues and instead fixate on somewhat shaky semantic arguments, but I think this one is probably clear cut for the majority of players. At BEST, I'd grant that GW could clarify that default options are still options to placate people like BCB.

Just because the intent of the flowchart is something, it doesn't mean it actually does it.

The intent of giving marines T4 and 3+ save is to make them survivable, and we all know how that worked out. The intent might have been to let Banshees charge 15", but that isn't what the rule does.

The rules are the rules, regardless of what the context is. If GW want to fix it, they need to change the flowchart. It's that simple. You're free to make up or ignore rules as much as you want, but don't expect anyone else to agree with you.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Really? It says “WARGEAR OPTIONS” in all caps. We don’t know if it really means “wargear options”, which encompasses all options available including default, or “Wargear Options”, which would indicate only that section of the Index Datasheet.

Because of the examples shown, which indicate it means the Wargear Options section of the Datasheet.

I'll never understand why some people get so angry when the rules don't work the way they want them to.

This from the guy bent out of shape about the Facebook beta clarification in another thread.

Anyway, don’t attribute emotion in an attempt to deride and derail. Just make your points and cite your our rules. The subforum is for discussing rules, not creatively working around Rule One.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
Conversely, it doesn't say "IS THERE WARGEAR FOR YOUR MODEL THAT ONLY APPEAR IN THE WARGEAR OPTIONS SECTION IN THE INDEX VERSION OF ITS DATASHEET?"

It also doesn't say what a dice is in the rulebook. We can go all the way down the rabbit hole. At some point the rules of English have to apply, and "Wargear Options" is refering to the section of the dataslate called Wargear options, as proven by the examples given.

Since it wasn't dealing with what a dice is in the rulebook, that doesn't matter for what is and what isn't posted there. What I pointed out, though, is that what you are claiming is not posted there the way you say it is. Therefore, wargear options is open to interpretation. Most people I daresay would take it to mean any wargear that could be taken by the model, whether default gear or not. You choose to be more restricitve, but that does not mean that yours is the only way to read the statement. If everything had not been in all caps and they had said Wargear Options you might have a point, but as it stands you can not disprove that if refers to any wargear that the model in the index could have.

So you claim that Capital Letters means the rule doesn't work the way it's meant to, and people dare to call me unreasonable?

I make no claims whether it works the way It meant to or not, that's your own strawman argument. I merely point out that there's more than one way to interpret what they state. Both readings are interpretations of RAW. I'm just saying that you can't prove that the interpretation of RAW that you are not using isn't correct.



I do find your retreat to hyperbole and 30 wound marines whenever somebody mentions something and dragging in unrelated items like no mention of dice when it's not a subject at all that the topic is dealing with as you being unreasonable, however. That's not arguing in good faith.

BCB: As doctortom aptly notes, your interpretation of RAW is based on your interpretation of WARGEAR OPTION being Wargear Option and not wargear option. Since you can’t prove that to be true, you can’t rightly claim your interpretation to be the only correct interpretation. No need to attack the messenger just because there is a flaw in your argument.

It is also rather ironic to see you arguing your interpretation is RAI by saying its how the rule is supposed to work.

No one has yet answered what the actual process is for taking what was default wargear in the Index.

Does it replace the default wargear in the codex?

Do you get it in addition to your default wargear from the codex?

 TheFleshIsWeak wrote:
No one has yet answered what the actual process is for taking what was default wargear in the Index.

Does it replace the default wargear in the codex?

Do you get it in addition to your default wargear from the codex?

You can't. You must use the most recent rules for your model, thus you use the Codex version. The Designers commentary allows you to use the Wargear Options section of the index rule, so the Haemonculus now has a Wargear Option (from the Index) saying "This model may take items from the Weapons of Torture and/or Tools of Torment lists."

The Tools of Torment list says "A model may replace a ranged weapon with a single weapon from this list:"

The Splinter Pistol is not on that list, so you cannot take a Splinter Pistol on a Haemonculus.

Sadly people are trying to argue the rule doesn't say what it says because they dislike it.

 TheFleshIsWeak wrote:
No one has yet answered what the actual process is for taking what was default wargear in the Index.

Does it replace the default wargear in the codex?

Do you get it in addition to your default wargear from the codex?

Simple. Build the model from the the Index datasheet. Then use the points values and rules as dictated by the Designers Commentary Flowchart.

 alextroy wrote:

 TheFleshIsWeak wrote:
No one has yet answered what the actual process is for taking what was default wargear in the Index.

Does it replace the default wargear in the codex?

Do you get it in addition to your default wargear from the codex?

Simple. Build the model from the the Index datasheet. Then use the points values and rules as dictated by the Designers Commentary Flowchart.

Which you aren't permitted to do. Otherwise I'd very much like my pre-errata Commissar please.

You can have all the pre-errata Commissar wargear you like.

 alextroy wrote:

Simple. Build the model from the the Index datasheet. Then use the points values and rules as dictated by the Designers Commentary Flowchart.

But that's not what the Flowchart says at all. It tells you to use the Codex datasheet if one exists (which it does). The Codex Haemonculus comes with a Splinter Pistol and Haemonculus Tools. You can't just pick and choose which bits of the datasheet you'll follow.

 TheFleshIsWeak wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

Simple. Build the model from the the Index datasheet. Then use the points values and rules as dictated by the Designers Commentary Flowchart.

But that's not what the Flowchart says at all. It tells you to use the Codex datasheet if one exists (which it does). The Codex Haemonculus comes with a Splinter Pistol and Haemonculus Tools. You can't just pick and choose which bits of the datasheet you'll follow.

How dare you suggest I can't ignore the rules when I don't like them! That is abuse of RaW!

You're right on the money here. Anything else is simply ignoring the rules.

 TheFleshIsWeak wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

Simple. Build the model from the the Index datasheet. Then use the points values and rules as dictated by the Designers Commentary Flowchart.

But that's not what the Flowchart says at all. It tells you to use the Codex datasheet if one exists (which it does). The Codex Haemonculus comes with a Splinter Pistol and Haemonculus Tools. You can't just pick and choose which bits of the datasheet you'll follow.

I didn't say don't use the Codex Datasheet. I said use the Index Datasheet to pick your wargear then use the rules as noted in the flowchart. That would mean you use the Codex Datasheet for model rules, the Codex weapon stats (unless the weapon is not in the codex), and the Codex points values (unless those are not in the Codex).

Skip the Haemonculus. How do you construct a Ministorum Priest?

1. The Index datasheet allows you to have a Pistol (Swap laspistol for item from the pistol list) and add an extra weapon from the list of choices (such as a Plasma Pistol).
2. The Codex Astra Militarum datasheet allows you to add an autogun and add a chainsword (both exclusive items form the add extra weapon list in the Index).

Can I give my Ministorum Priest a Plasma Pistol, Plasma Rifle, Autogun, and Chainsword? If I just add the Wargear Options from the Index to the Codex, I pick those options that were not even legal under the Index datasheet.

I think not. I think the Flowchart allows you to pick the options you could have had under the Index, not magically expanding to new options that didn't even exist. You use the Index datasheet to build out your options, then use the Codex to play the model.

 alextroy wrote:

I didn't say don't use the Codex Datasheet. I said use the Index Datasheet to pick your wargear then use the rules as noted in the flowchart.

The flowchart says that you have the wargear options from the Index.

The index does not give you the option to take a Splinter Pistol.

At best, you have the option to not take a Splinter Pistol.

 alextroy wrote:

Skip the Haemonculus. How do you construct a Ministorum Priest?

1. The Index datasheet allows you to have a Pistol (Swap laspistol for item from the pistol list) and add an extra weapon from the list of choices (such as a Plasma Pistol).
2. The Codex Astra Militarum datasheet allows you to add an autogun and add a chainsword (both exclusive items form the add extra weapon list in the Index).

Okay.

 alextroy wrote:

Can I give my Ministorum Priest a Plasma Pistol, Plasma Rifle, Autogun, and Chainsword? If I just add the Wargear Options from the Index to the Codex, I pick those options that were not even legal under the Index datasheet.

I'm not entirely sure. The Flowchart doesn't make it clear whether you can use the Index wargear options instead of the Codex ones or in addition to them.

 alextroy wrote:

I think not. I think the Flowchart allows you to pick the options you could have had under the Index, not magically expanding to new options that didn't even exist. You use the Index datasheet to build out your options, then use the Codex to play the model.

I hope you won't take this the wrong way, but I think you're going way too far into RAI here. It seems like you're basically ignoring the flowchart entirely and assuming it works how you want it to work, rather than going by what it actually says.

Now, I can understand you wanting to play it that way, but we're basically into house-rules at this point.

Also, I'm not sure the Priest example actually helps your case. If anything, it makes a lot more sense if you use the Codex datasheet, but then switch the Wargear Options box with the one from the Index datasheet. Now your Priest can have the Codex wargear options or the Index wargear options, but not both.

The flow chart gives additional options to the player in that it says that if a wargear option is not on the latest data sheet then you can go back to the index and choose a wargear option from the index.

So, if the codex offers wargear options A,B and, C but you want option D then you can take option D if it was a wargear option in the index.

Personally, I think that the term WARGEAR OPTION refers specifically to that part of the data sheet labelled with those words (albeit with lower case letters). As such a splinter pistol is not available to Haemonculi at this time.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
The flow chart gives additional options to the player in that it says that if a wargear option is not on the latest data sheet then you can go back to the index and choose a wargear option from the index.

So, if the codex offers wargear options A,B and, C but you want option D then you can take option D if it was a wargear option in the index.

Personally, I think that the term WARGEAR OPTION refers specifically to that part of the data sheet labelled with those words (albeit with lower case letters). As such a splinter pistol is not available to Haemonculi at this time.

Which clearly isn't intended since the whole point of the chart is to keep older models usable. That obviously is meant to include the default loadout.

The old default loadout was something you could choose to bring as wargear. That's an option you had. For your wargear.

It's the default loadout, which means it's the preselected option for your loadout.

An option.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree until GW gets off its butt and tells us what they meant.

The whole purpose of the flow chart is to allow players to use models they have already assembled and painted with wargear that is no longer available but was in the Index. Which I recall reading somewhere but can't seem to find anymore.


Use the Index wargear OR the Codex wargear (no mixing and matching of the two though!); use the Codex Rules - not the Index Rules; use the Codex points, unless it doesn't list them, in which case, use the Index points. Pretty straightforward really.

nekooni wrote:

Which clearly isn't intended since the whole point of the chart is to keep older models usable.

Serious question - did a Haemonculus model with a Splinter Pistol ever actually exist in the past (not counting Conversions)?

The current one has a Stinger Pistol. The previous one had a Liquifier Gun IIRC. And before that you had the really old models, one of which had cannon-looking weapon and the other appeared to be wielding an electric drill. I think one of those might be a Destructor and the other a Stinger. Neither of them resemble the Splinter Pistol the Archon model is wielding.

Actually that shouldn't matter. I say that because if you look, the Autarch didn't used to come with all the options for the model listed on its datasheet, but were options that you could have chosen to take. A lot of people converted models in the past to match up with rules at that time. These rules as set up for the people who used the rules in the past and had a model, either with the options already provided with the model then by GW, or models that had been converted to have the options that were viable at the time.

 TheFleshIsWeak wrote:

nekooni wrote:

Which clearly isn't intended since the whole point of the chart is to keep older models usable.

Serious question - did a Haemonculus model with a Splinter Pistol ever actually exist in the past (not counting Conversions)?

The current one has a Stinger Pistol. The previous one had a Liquifier Gun IIRC. And before that you had the really old models, one of which had cannon-looking weapon and the other appeared to be wielding an electric drill. I think one of those might be a Destructor and the other a Stinger. Neither of them resemble the Splinter Pistol the Archon model is wielding.

This 11-piece plastic kit makes one Haemonculus equipped with an array of deadly surgical instruments and a splinter pistol.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-EU/Haemonculus-2017
No clue if that's accurate, I don't own one.

 doctortom wrote:
Actually that shouldn't matter. I say that because if you look, the Autarch didn't used to come with all the options for the model listed on its datasheet, but were options that you could have chosen to take. A lot of people converted models in the past to match up with rules at that time.

A lot of people converted DE special characters without models. Look where that got them.

nekooni wrote:

This 11-piece plastic kit makes one Haemonculus equipped with an array of deadly surgical instruments and a splinter pistol.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-EU/Haemonculus-2017
No clue if that's accurate, I don't own one.

Pretty sure it's a misprint. AFAIK the twiddly bit at the end of the barrel means it's a Stinger Pistol, not a Splinter Pistol.

So it appears we have two issues here:

1. Can a Haemonculus have a Splinter Pistol? Answer is no. Neither the Index nor the Codex allows. OP was confused by bad model weapon description on GW Website.

2. How exactly do you intergrate Index wargear possibilities with Codex datasheet default wargear and Wargear Options.

For question 2, I’m staying with build the model totally from either the Codex or build from the Index then translate to Codex for rules and points as the intention behind the flowchart.

 TheFleshIsWeak wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
Actually that shouldn't matter. I say that because if you look, the Autarch didn't used to come with all the options for the model listed on its datasheet, but were options that you could have chosen to take. A lot of people converted models in the past to match up with rules at that time.

A lot of people converted DE special characters without models. Look where that got them.

I know. Vect-less.

The lack of Vect (and the Doom of Malan'tai and some others I am sure aren't there but had rules in the past) in the Index is proof enough that the argument of "People had those models in the past therefore EVERY POSSIBLE COMBINATION must be possible, rules be damned" has no merit.

Pretty sure that one of the Tyranid Warrior old loadouts wasn't included in the index or codex either, but I can't remember which one. Might have been a Shrike loadout now I think about it.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The lack of Vect (and the Doom of Malan'tai and some others I am sure aren't there but had rules in the past) in the Index is proof enough that the argument of "People had those models in the past therefore EVERY POSSIBLE COMBINATION must be possible, rules be damned" has no merit.

Pretty sure that one of the Tyranid Warrior old loadouts wasn't included in the index or codex either, but I can't remember which one. Might have been a Shrike loadout now I think about it.

That's not proof. It's anecdotal evidence. It's also not particularly relevant as a lot of those units haven't had currently available models for a LONG time. There was an initial purge of out of print or otherwise unavailable units when 8th Edition first came out. The secondary purge is occurring as Codexes come out. In other words...

1. Purge #1 - 8th Edition Index Release - GW removes units with no currently available models. Example: Vect.
2. Purge #2 - 8th Edition Codex Release - GW removes options where the currently available model doesn't come with said option. Example: Splinter Pistol Haemonculus.

In order to avoid a player base rebellion, they're currently allowing pre-Purge #2 configurations to be used post-Purge #2. I'd expect that allowance to be removed at some point. It may not happen until 9th Edition hits, but it's almost certainly going to happen.

Your "proof" (quotes indicating that it's not proof), incidentally, isn't relevant because it covers Purge #1. We've been talking about Purge #2 in this thread.

 alextroy wrote:
So it appears we have two issues here:

1. Can a Haemonculus have a Splinter Pistol? Answer is no. Neither the Index nor the Codex allows. OP was confused by bad model weapon description on GW Website.

Just to clarify, this isn't right. The model for the Haemonculus was labelled as having a splinter pistol when it was actually holding a stinger pistol, but a splinter pistol was a piece of wargear that the Haemonculus was equipped with by default in Index Xenos 1.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The lack of Vect (and the Doom of Malan'tai and some others I am sure aren't there but had rules in the past) in the Index is proof enough that the argument of "People had those models in the past therefore EVERY POSSIBLE COMBINATION must be possible, rules be damned" has no merit.

Pretty sure that one of the Tyranid Warrior old loadouts wasn't included in the index or codex either, but I can't remember which one. Might have been a Shrike loadout now I think about it.

Who claimed that every possible combination must be possible? Or is this just another of your strawmen?