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.

So by your reckoning, I can take a unit of Crusaders from the Index entry, in an ADEPTUS MINISTORUM detachment?

Ignoring the entry in the AM Codex and the entry in the SoB Codex as there is no ADEPTUS MINISTORUM Codex.

Yeah, no.

The designers commentary clearly states if your model has an entry in A Codex use that Datasheet. That's any Codex, not just the one with the same name as the Index section. So if they put a new Primaris Psyker Datasheet in a new Codex: Guys With Bald Heads, you'd still have to use that entry. The Factions and Sub-Faction names are not relevant to the Datasheet name.

Also BattleScribe is not a valid rules source.

Take space marine and adeptus astartes

Or adeptus mechanicus and skitarii

It is clear the codex the rules come from. Their is no adeptus astartes or skitarii codexs or indexs.

They are factions from what can go in your army perspective but they dont have seperate codexs or their own distinct rules and points values

Astra telepthica does have a seperate index entry and that puts it in line with space marines, BA and Adeptus Mechanicus rather than adeptus astartes or skitarii but i ackowledge you have to apply common sense as GW make no RAW definition between the two

Skitarri have their own index entry,
Questorius Imperialis has its own entry,
Oficio Perfectus has its own entry,
"cult" mechancius has its own entry
Herritica astartes has its own entry seperate from Adeptus mechanicus
The list goes on and on and on
and this doesn't even mater, the point is moot. having its own index army list or even its own codex doesn't change that faction keywords are not weighted differently.
With your logic and if this rule did exists, you would have to make exceptions for all of those things. As they are in Army list names in the index that are not the army list names in the codexs'.

Its really a simple rule. Does the model have a datasheet in a codex,,, yes ,,,, or ,,,,, no .

Yeah, I'm gonna be a lone disenter here and state SoS can't take a Primaris Psycher as an HQ. I may be dead wrong, but I don't see anything official saying we can do this. You have to do some pretty good cheetah flips with the rules to make this work.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Yeah, I'm gonna be a lone disenter here and state SoS can't take a Primaris Psycher as an HQ. I may be dead wrong, but I don't see anything official saying we can do this. You have to do some pretty good cheetah flips with the rules to make this work.

The Battle Brothers rule explicitly tells you how to run a Primaris Psyker with Sisters of Silence. The shared <ADEPTUS ASTRA TELEPATHICA> faction keyword makes it legal.

It's no more "cheetah flips" than running a Blood Angels, Dark Angels and Space Wolves Librarian in a Supreme Command detachment using the <ADEPTUS ASTARTES> shared keyword.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Yeah, I'm gonna be a lone disenter here and state SoS can't take a Primaris Psycher as an HQ. I may be dead wrong, but I don't see anything official saying we can do this. You have to do some pretty good cheetah flips with the rules to make this work.

There is no question of whether or not they are allowed to.

the rule for detachments is that everything in the detachment must share a common keyword

All units belong to one or more of the many Factions that fight for dominance across the galaxy. A unit’s Faction is important when building a Battle-forged army because some Detachments require all units included in it to be from the same Faction. The Factions that a unit belongs to will be listed in the keywords section of its datasheet.For example,a Space Marine Captain has the IMPERIUM and ADEPTUS ASTARTES keywords,so belongs to both the Imperium and Adeptus Astartes Factions.This means that if a Space Marine Captain was part of a Detachment with the restriction that all units must be from the same Faction,all other units in that Detachment must either be from the Imperium Faction, or they must all be from the Adeptus Astartes Faction.

pg 240 BRB

Then each of the listed detachments show this restriction

:Allunitsmustbefromthesame Faction.

pg 243 - 245 BRB

Then this is augemented by the Battle Brothers rule in Chapter Approved 2018

All of the units in each Detachment in your Battle-forged army must have at least one Faction keyword in common. In addition ,this keyword cannot be CHAOS,IMPERIUM,AELDARI,YNNARI or TYRANIDS,unless the Detachment in question is a Fortification Network. This has no effect on your Army Faction

Thus we are given the restrictions on what can be put in a detatchment.
1. All units must share a keyword
2. Those keywords can not be CHAOS,IMPERIUM,AELDARI,YNNARI or TYRANIDS

If both of these are satisfied then your detachment is allowed.

So

SoS and Primaris Psycher share the Astra Telepathica Faction Keyword.
They are not trying to share CHAOS,IMPERIUM,AELDARI,YNNARI or TYRANIDS .
= allowed to be a detatchment.

Then the Battle brothers restriction only applies to a detatchment, not a whole army. So attach that detachment to any army composed entirely of IMPERIAL units.

It's not about having a rule that allows them to do this, it is about not having a rule that disallows this. Also, the inclusion of this keyword IMO seems intentional (but we arn't talking about intentions here)
No where in the game does it say SoS can not be in a detatchment with an HQ in the same way every single other thing in the game can be.
What it does say is, that unlike every single other thing in the game (except the assassins i think) they do not REQUIRE an HQ to be in a vanguard detachment, (which is nice, but its also nice to have an HQ and +1 CP)

So, not even close to cheating, this is completely legit.

 Type40 wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
So in conclusion I assert that myself and battlescribe agree astro telepathica are their own faction having their own section and points in the index.

So you can use their own faction rules and points in an astro telepathica detatchment but not in an astra militarum detatchment where you would need to use the codex version due to the designers flowchart.

I interpret the designers flowchart as being model and faction specific because otherwise prior to the release of all the codexs you had a lot of problems with a model having a datasheet overwriteing other factions rules because of models feature in more than one faction with the same name and a litteral RAW interpretation would have resulted in some factions models getting keywords they couldnt use




You disagree with me because the sheets are similar and in justifying your decision you have come to the decision imperial knights are not a faction questor imperialis are and that their is no questor imperialis codex so index datasheets are not overwritten. I conclude that A you can't read B you are self evidently wrong and C need to apply a tiny amount of common sense. Codex imperial knights replaces the questor imparialis section of the index it explains the interaction in keywords in the forword at the start of the rules section of the codex

However I am not going to argue with you anymore as you have nothing substantive to back your position it causes a lot of problems with cross polination and your conclusion about imperial knights while RAW is entirely out there ..... and predicated on you struggleing to differentiate faction and keywords due to a litteral RAW interpretation.

We are not going to agree and I suspect noone will support your position of codex imperial knights not replaceing their codex equivalents

We are not going to agree

I think what is clear here is this

I interpret the designers flowchart as being model and faction specific because otherwise prior to the release of all the codexs you had a lot of problems with a model having a datasheet overwriteing other factions rules because of models feature in more than one faction with the same name and a litteral RAW interpretation would have resulted in some factions models getting keywords they couldnt use

You are interpreting something that is not written.
You are adding rules that do not exists to get yourself a small point advantage.

Second

you have come to the decision imperial knights are not a faction questor imperialis are and that their is no questor imperialis codex

I do not think this. I point out the absurdy of your assertation by using this example because it uses the same logic you are using to get the advantage. If we apply the "rule" you are implying exists, then my absurd example would be true. Even though no such rule exists.

Third

feature in more than one faction with the same name and a litteral RAW interpretation would have resulted in some factions models getting keywords they couldnt use

this is simply untrue.
GW has been vary careful to use different names for things like different factions rhinos (Null Maiden Rhino, Rhino, Chaos Rhino, Soritos Rhino and etc) or upon the release of the SM rhino including <variable> keywords so it would be able to be used by other factions. Or the CSM doing the same thing with <variable> keywords. The first releases of these things in Codex have ALL had these variable keywords, so you could take them and still be battle forged (not to mention in the early days of 8th this was as easy as the having the faction keyword of "IMPERIAL" a lot of the time). The same has been true with other similar things, like land raiders.
There has never been a point where replacing a model from the index with a new codex entries datasheet has stopped a faction from having access to it.

The simple rule is,
If it exists in a codex, it replaces the index. If multiples exist in multiple codex then you have options but the index entry is forever gone. That's what the FAQ says, there is no way around that. your insertion that factions would have been left out is just plain wrong, that has never happened, and if it would I am sure it would have been errata very quick.

You can't just make up new rules so that it works the way you want it to, (unless your opponent agrees of course). But that is that.

So I am sorry, without adding rules that don't exists, what you are saying is incorrect.

1)that is how I interpret it i ackowledge it is not writen i explain clearly why the RAW doesnt work why you need apply rai and how that rai is rationalised - you have no counter you just dismiss the argument

You ascribe self interest as a motive you are wrong I dont play that faction

2) you have clearly not understood my point you then acknowledge you make irrelevant absurd points that i disagree with and you disagree with this just clouds the argument and rather than undermine me makes you sound foolish.

3) absolutely their was overlap between factions. crusaders in SoB and Astra militarum hell half the non SM marine datasheets were litterally carbon copies of other marine datasheets e.g. BA. Saying its not true doesnt dismiss the statement however given that their clearly is overlap i can only assume you are being deliberatly absurd and foolish again.

So having successfully refuted 0 of my points we can conclude my premise was correct.While we have established by your own admission that your arguments were deliberately absurd.

you then draw conclusions that I am makeing up rules and need to stick precisely to the rules as written even though we have established the RAW doesn't work in that way and you couldn't refute that. Only dismiss it and make an absurdly false statement that their is no overlap in data sheets between codexs.

Well done

Just out of interest are you related to BCB




Automatically Appended Next Post:
To the others yeah the issue is astra militarum have specific points that have been updated in chapter approved

Astra telepathica have specific points and rules these have not been updated since the index

the question is whether

When you follow the designers flow chart do you consider the answer to be yes their is an updated datasheet for my astro telepathica model in the astra militarum codex

Or no their is no astro telepathica codex myself and battlescribe fall in this category

If you include a primaris psyker in an AM detatchment we all agree there is an updated data sheet in the AM codex

SoS and Primaris psykers share keywords their is no question they can be in the same detatchment

for your counter to point 1
not sure what your motivation is if it isn;t for the advantage, but the rules are clearly written and they are not written how you say they are. In fact if we want to talk about RAI its quite clear that they are deliberately not written how you think they are... it wouldn't have been hard for GW to add 3 extra words to the the flow chart to make it say exactly what you want it to say.

for your counter to point 2.
Explain your point then, use references, use examples.
I demonstrated how a RAI or RAW that worked that way would cause all sorts of mayham, Why GW would deliberately leave one single exception and not write about it anywhere is beyond me, but if you have some special insight please stop inferring and show where it says that is the case and if you can do that, my absurd example holds true. You arn't the person who gets to decide what faction keywords count as "factions" and "sub-factions." You also arn't the person who gets to decide that a single army list in the index and not a single other one follows a rule that doesn't exist on paper (unless your opponent agrees of course).

for your counter to point 3.
Please show me one EXACT example where this "overlap," when using the RAW caused a faction to not have access to a model ? just one single example ? a concrete one, not just some reference to an entire codex. Even hypothetically I would like to see ONE unit that a faction no longer had access to because another factions codex was released and they would have had to use the datasheet from that new codex ? I literately can not find a single one (and i have been trying).

an absurd assertions warrants an absurd response. This an argumentative tool used to show fallacies in logic. If one proposes a system (i.e. a set of rules to follow [in this game a inferred RAI]) then another person can expand the scale of that system or apply it to another situation (i,e, what I did to the rule you presented) and if that shows what you are saying is absurd, then of course what I said was deliberately absurd, it was to demonstrate what you are saying is absurd. Simple logical discourse.

I have over and over and over again shown you that the RAW does work that way, unless you can show me some RAW that says it doesn't. You are adding clauses to the RAW that simply DO NOT EXISTS.
There is of course overlap in data sheets. What you fail to grasp is that when a codex releases rules for a model, that models entry in the index fails to be valid AS PER RAW. The flow chart says this quite clearly.

DOES YOUR MODEL HAVE A
DATASHEET IN A CODEX? > YES/NO
if YES then
USE THE CODEX VERSION OF YOUR
MODEL’S DATASHEET,

If you can somehow refute the RAW there by showing me an example that says otherwise, you would have an argument, but you have yet to do so.
You have only presented more and more inferences with nothing to back it up.

So stop pretending you arn't cheating and getting mad at us for calling you out on it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

When you follow the designers flow chart do you consider the answer to be yes their is an updated datasheet for my astro telepathica model in the astra militarum codex

The rules are permissive.
Does the game give you permission or say anywhere that a datasheet from a different army list is "another model" ? and if it does somewhere say that, all of those absurd examples become true.
Its not even a question about vague language in the rules. What you are asserting simply does not exist. A model is a model. You check the name of the model, and if it has multiple data sheets in many CODEXs then you have options. If it has a datasheet in the index and a seperate one in a codex the rules clearly state to ignore the one in the index. Its all right there in front of you, on the flow chart. It doesn't give any extra clauses, restrictions or specifications. Its one clearly written sentence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To convince everyone, you need to explain WHY it works the way you think it does, with actual references.

If you say a model wouldn't have been usable, then tell us witch one. If you say a model being on a separate army list in the index makes it a different model. Then show us where it says that. You can't just make statements and expect us to go "oh of course" if you do not provide evidence.

You are asking me to prove to you that the rule you are proposing are talking about does not exist. You understand that it is impossible to prove something does not exist. The burden of proof lies with the person who is asserted that something does exist. So go ahead and show us actual evidence instead of inferences .

I can only repeatedly show you the rule that does exist, its up to you to show that your interpretation is correct, using evidence.

Even if you can show me one unit that couldn't have been used by a faction because of this flow chart and the FAQ, then we could get somewhere with your argument. Or if you can show us a rule that states what you are saying is true about different army lists in the index making them considered different models. Otherwise, the null stance, is to not believe in the the thing that you are asserting if you have no evidence for it. Its more logical for me to just follow the rules right in front of me. I can see them, I can read what they say. They are clear,. I can follow them and I have evidence for them (literally a sentence out of the errata).

1)Well now I am home and actually have my codexs
index imperium 2 pg 10-62 the astra militatarum section pts
on 142-143 wargear 144-145

Astra telepathica rules p104-107 PTS P159

These are blatantly different sections of the book and are denoted "Astra telepathica army list and Astra Militarum army list pg105 and pg110 respectively

Clearly separate lists while officio prefectus is whithin the astra militarum is pointed in the astra militarum points section and is not described as a separate army list

So yes as it is a seperate "Army list" (faction) it has a seperate faction and so yes is treated differently

Note in index 2 the army lists are:
Astra MIlitarum
Adeptus Mechanicus
Questor Imperialis
Adeptus ministorum
Astra Telepathica
Sisters of Silence
Officio Assassinorium
Inquisition

Other inclusions such as Fortifications and Officio Prefectorus are not given army lists again showing the difference

That is what makes astra Telepathica a faction its own rules pts and seperate army list not to mention section of the book.



2 the foreword you couldn't locate in codex imperial knights is pg 90 really not difficult to find new knights have questor allegience which can either be questor imperialis or questor mechanicus tieing up the previous keywords



3) You want one unit that had problems under your RAW interpretation Below this is 123 all units that at some point in 8th under that flow chart would have been unplayable in their respective factions because as soon as they were published in CODEX GK Or SM those models had codex data sheets with identical names but with different faction keywords codex trumps index as you say so you couldn't play the Dark angel dreadnought because the other codexs reissued it and didnt have the DA keyword - you seemed to struggle so here we go
Note this is just index imperium one


Well the following units all had problems
After gk Prior to BA DA SW DW
Dreadnought
Land raider Redeemer
Land Raider Crusader
Land Raider redeemer
Librarian in terminator Armour
etc etc

After SM prior to BA codex
Asault squad
Attack bike squad
Bike Squad
Captain
Captain in Gravis Armour
Captain in Terminator Armour
Captain on Bike
Chaplain
Chaplain in terminator Armour
Company Ancient
Company Champion
Comany Veterans
Devestator Squad
Dreadnought
Drop Pod
Etc etc

After BA and SM prior to release of DA
Dreadnought
Drop pod
Hellblaster Squad
Inceptor Squad
Intersessor Squad
Land Raider
Land Raider Crusader
Land Raider Exselsior
Land Raider Redeemer
etc etc

After SM BA DA prior to DW
Chaplain
Dreadnought
Drop pod
Land raider
Land Raider Crusader
Land Raider Redeemer
Librarian
Librarian in terminator armour
etc etc

After SM BA DA DW prior to SW
Apothecary
Assault Squad
Chaplain
Chaplain on bike
Captain
Captain in terminator Armour
Captain in Gravis Armout
Company Ancient
Company Chaplain
Company Veterans
Devestator Squad
Dreadnought Drop Pod
etc etc


So you wanted pages their you go

It is clear Astra telepathica is a seperate army list
It is clear that if a codex has a datasheet and that datasheet overrides data sheets in other Army list other than the codex is in it causes a lot of problems

Finally within Codex AM the relevant Astra Telepathica units are not in a seperate Astra telepathica section and aside from the keyword on the datasheet the astra telepathica isn't mentioned pg 84 the foreword cites rules for playing astra militarum not astra militarum and astra telepathica

It is therefore clear that the Astra Telepathica Detatchment should Play by Astra Telepathica Rules as it hasnt hasn't an updated codex.

U02dah4 wrote:
It is therefore clear that the Astra Telepathica Detatchment should Play by Astra Telepathica Rules as it hasnt hadfd an updated codex.

Can you show me where in the rules or the Flowchart it says this?

The flowchart doesn't ask "Does your model have a datasheet in the Astra Telepathica codex?" it asks, and I quote, "Does your model have a datasheet in a codex?" A codex, not "the codex for it's faction that may not ever exist".

Please, one word answer, what is the answer to "Does a Primaris Psyker have a datasheet in a codex?" Simple Yes or No, please.

So BCB you think that prior to the release of the Space wolf codex Space wolfs couldn't use a drop pod or dreadnought because those data sheets had been published in other marine codexs and so overwrote the datasheet in the index without the SW keyword

If so thats Just the RAW argument I expect of you

however if not why is that different to Astra telepathica


I get where you come from a literal RAW perspective but like assault weapons not firing after advanceing or armour save boosting strats me and you will disagree that RAW has its limits and this is one

 BaconCatBug wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
It is therefore clear that the Astra Telepathica Detatchment should Play by Astra Telepathica Rules as it hasnt hadfd an updated codex.

Can you show me where in the rules or the Flowchart it says this?

The flowchart doesn't ask "Does your model have a datasheet in the Astra Telepathica codex?" it asks, and I quote, "Does your model have a datasheet in a codex?" A codex, not "the codex for it's faction that may not ever exist".

Please, one word answer, what is the answer to "Does a Primaris Psyker have a datasheet in a codex?" Simple Yes or No, please.

Don’t be simple, BCB, this is more nuanced than a one word answer. This questions is looking at whether an Index <Adeptus Astra Telepathica> Primaris Psyker is a different datasheet than a Codex <Astra Militarum> <Adeptus Astra Telepathica> Primaris Psyker.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Especially when both Astra Militarum and Adeptus Astra Telepathica were not the same army in the index.

U02dah4 wrote:
So BCB you think that prior to the release of the Space wolf codex Space wolfs couldn't use a drop pod or dreadnought because those data sheets had been published in other marine codexs and so overwrote the datasheet in the index without the SW keyword

If so thats Just the RAW argument I expect of you

however if not why is that different to Astra telepathica


I get where you come from a literal RAW perspective but like assault weapons not firing after advanceing or armour save boosting strats me and you will disagree that RAW has its limits and this is one

A Rhino with the SPACE WOLVES keyword is not the same datasheet as one with the <CHAPTER> keyword.

I see you didn't answer the question. "Does a Primaris Psyker have a datasheet in a codex?" Simple Yes or No, please.

And for the record this is why the Flowchart is such a bad idea, it causes more issues than it solves and GW should simply make the Indexes Narrative/Open Play only where the rules don't matter anyway.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Apple Peel wrote:
Don’t be simple, BCB, this is more nuanced than a one word answer. This questions is looking at whether an Index <Adeptus Astra Telepathica> Primaris Psyker is a different datasheet than a Codex <Astra Militarum> <Adeptus Astra Telepathica> Primaris Psyker..

Sorry buy what on earth are you talking about? The flowchart doesn't care what codex the models datasheet is printed in.

Also, using those angled brackets to represent keywords is a massive pet peeve of mine. It's totally incorrect.

U02dah4 wrote:
So BCB you think that prior to the release of the Space wolf codex Space wolfs couldn't use a drop pod or dreadnought because those data sheets had been published in other marine codexs and so overwrote the datasheet in the index without the SW keyword

If so thats Just the RAW argument I expect of you

however if not why is that different to Astra telepathica


I get where you come from a literal RAW perspective but like assault weapons not firing after advanceing or armour save boosting strats me and you will disagree that RAW has its limits and this is one

That is what makes astra Telepathica a faction its own rules pts and seperate army list not to mention section of the book.

Refrence please

the foreword you couldn't locate in codex imperial knights is pg 90 really not difficult to find new knights have questor allegience which can either be questor imperialis or questor mechanicus tieing up the previous keywords

Just like Astra Miltarus on the primaris psyker

Finally within Codex AM the relevant Astra Telepathica units are not in a seperate Astra telepathica section and aside from the keyword on the datasheet the astra telepathica isn't mentioned pg 84 the foreword cites rules for playing astra militarum not astra militarum and astra telepathica

Just like several other armies lists in the index

Space wolf codex Space wolfs couldn't use a drop pod or dreadnought because those data sheets had been published in other marine codexs

Both drop pods and dreadnaughts in the SM codex have <CHAPTER> (variable chapter tag, capable of being Space Wolves) meaning the new versions were compatible with the old army lists ... so no there were no problems with taking them.

Well the following units all had problems
After gk Prior to BA DA SW DW
Dreadnought
Land raider Redeemer
Land Raider Crusader
Land Raider redeemer
Librarian in terminator Armour
etc etc

After SM prior to BA codex
Asault squad
Attack bike squad
Bike Squad
Captain
Captain in Gravis Armour
Captain in Terminator Armour
Captain on Bike
Chaplain
Chaplain in terminator Armour
Company Ancient
Company Champion
Comany Veterans
Devestator Squad
Dreadnought
Drop Pod
Etc etc

After BA and SM prior to release of DA
Dreadnought
Drop pod
Hellblaster Squad
Inceptor Squad
Intersessor Squad
Land Raider
Land Raider Crusader
Land Raider Exselsior
Land Raider Redeemer
etc etc

After SM BA DA prior to DW
Chaplain
Dreadnought
Drop pod
Land raider
Land Raider Crusader
Land Raider Redeemer
Librarian
Librarian in terminator armour
etc etc

After SM BA DA DW prior to SW
Apothecary
Assault Squad
Chaplain
Chaplain on bike
Captain
Captain in terminator Armour
Captain in Gravis Armout
Company Ancient
Company Chaplain
Company Veterans
Devestator Squad
Dreadnought Drop Pod
etc etc

Literately everything you listed here either has a different name to the one released later, has a compatible <Variable> keyword or had multiple CODEX datasheets (not succumbing to the codex removes index datasheet rule) and thus allowing teach one to be used it in both a synergistic and compatible way.
Literately everything here replaced the Index entry.

Again, there is not a single time the new datasheet stopped you from using it in the previous army list from the index or otherwise.

So that points a flop
I am pretty sure your not going to find something but you can keep looking.

So, either provide references that prove that for some reason the faction keyword of Astra telepathica is somehow a "special" faction keyword, with some kind of rule that says so.
or provide a refrence that breaks the "If A model has an entry in A codex then use that data sheet instead" from the flow chart.

p.s.

.The Factions that a unit belongs to will be listed in the keywords section of its datasheet.For example,a Space Marine Captain has the IMPERIUM and ADEPTUS ASTARTES keywords,so belongs to both the Imperium and Adeptus Astartes Factions.

BRB pg 240
I think its quite clear that ALL the faction keywords on a data sheet represent what FACTIONS a unit belongs to. With no special weight put on any one keyword or another. But if you can find something that says "the army list in the index is it's faction and everything else is a subfaction which means the models listed here are not the same" then I am willing to entertain the argument, however, pg 240 literately says the opposite.
p.p..s. you still don't explain what the difference between questor mechanicus and imperial knights is compared to astra telepathic without anything more then "its obvious and I inferred it." got to show us in writing or the final page of the BRB FAQ/Errata flow chart still stands.

No to the variable because at the time as now the FAQ was clear I can not use the chapter variable to for example allow grey knights to take BA units by changing that variable to grey knights or by calling my astra militarum units blood angels.

to just above yes astra telepathica is just like others armies in the codex thats the point

your point above it im not sure what you mean their is no reference to astra telepathica in the foreword of astra militarum or imperial knights codexs

You want a specific reference to my Assertion that what makes astra Telepathica a faction its own rules pts and seperate army list not to mention section of the book. Ok index imperium index 2 pg104-107, pg159 to evidence those things and then u02dah4 this forum for the assertion based on those things depending on which you meant

It's pretty clear at this point that everybody except one person has a clear understanding of how this works.

We can probably just stop here.

Guys, this isn't rocket science,
This literally one of the most clear and brief rules in the entire game.
It is one sentence. if it was supposed to be different I am pretty sure GW would add the 4 words to make it work how you think it does. "If A model has a datasheet in A codex then use the data sheet from the codex"

NOT "If A FACTION has a CODEX then use the datasheet from the codex"
If it said that,,,, then, well it would do what you want it to do, and a bunch of other crazy stuff, like having the ability to play a Questorius Imperialis detatchment with only what was in the index.

How about you try this.
Try and codify the rule you are attempting to propose exists in a way that makes sense,

Format = If <this> then <this>. and then check to see if anywhere in the game says that, or if it says something completely different ?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
So BCB you think that prior to the release of the Space wolf codex Space wolfs couldn't use a drop pod or dreadnought because those data sheets had been published in other marine codexs and so overwrote the datasheet in the index without the SW keyword

If so thats Just the RAW argument I expect of you

however if not why is that different to Astra telepathica


I get where you come from a literal RAW perspective but like assault weapons not firing after advanceing or armour save boosting strats me and you will disagree that RAW has its limits and this is one

A Rhino with the SPACE WOLVES keyword is not the same datasheet as one with the <CHAPTER> keyword.

I see you didn't answer the question. "Does a Primaris Psyker have a datasheet in a codex?" Simple Yes or No, please.

And for the record this is why the Flowchart is such a bad idea, it causes more issues than it solves and GW should simply make the Indexes Narrative/Open Play only where the rules don't matter anyway.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Apple Peel wrote:
Don’t be simple, BCB, this is more nuanced than a one word answer. This questions is looking at whether an Index <Adeptus Astra Telepathica> Primaris Psyker is a different datasheet than a Codex <Astra Militarum> <Adeptus Astra Telepathica> Primaris Psyker..

Sorry buy what on earth are you talking about? The flowchart doesn't care what codex the models datasheet is printed in.

Also, using those angled brackets to represent keywords is a massive pet peeve of mine. It's totally incorrect.

An astra militarum detatchment one does.
An astra telepathica detatchment one does not.

Just as with enginseers I would have told you that the Astra militarum had a codex datasheet prior to the admech codex release while the admech codex did not prior to the admech codex release (Side note same name same model almost same rules different points)

I also note that you didn't answer my question because you know that by your RAW interpretation space wolves wouldn't have been able to take a dreadnought or drop pod prior to their codex release and even you think that's silly which is why you think the flow chart was a bad idea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Type40 wrote:
Guys, this isn't rocket science,
This literally one of the most clear and brief rules in the entire game.
It is one sentence. if it was supposed to be different I am pretty sure GW would add the 4 words to make it work how you think it does. "If A model has a datasheet in A codex then use the data sheet from the codex"

NOT "If A FACTION has a CODEX then use the datasheet from the codex"
If it said that,,,, then, well it would do what you want it to do, and a bunch of other crazy stuff, like having the ability to play a Questorius Imperialis detatchment with only what was in the index.

How about you try this.
Try and codify the rule you are attempting to propose exists in a way that makes sense,

Format = If <this> then <this>. and then check to see if anywhere in the game says that, or if it says something completely different ?

You say its simple but you haven't been able to disprove my points about it causing a lot of historic problems#
its very simple like assault weapons and advancing - it doesn't work you cant do it
its very simple like +1 to your armour save their is no such thing as armour save
its very simple like super heavy robot guilliman ok its simpler that one

but my point is a pure RAW interpretation has caused 100+ problems in this instance as highlighted neither you or BCB have managed you argue against that. Yes that less of a problem now as their are more codexs but the process hasn't changed.

relying on GW to get perfect wording all the time well it doesn't work as in the above examples and so occasionally when something cause a lot of problems under RAW you have to use a little RAI BCB will never except that hence why people argue with him in a lot of threads

if you apply the exact same flow chart based on army lists you have no problems - is their a BA codex no then I follow the index is their an SW codex no I follow the index is their a BA codex yes I use that unless i need index wargear. That tells me a little RAI here is a good thing

Do we have an official definition of a “model?”

U02dah4 wrote:
No to the variable because at the time as now the FAQ was clear I can not use the chapter variable to for example allow grey knights to take BA units by changing that variable to grey knights or by calling my astra militarum units blood angels.

If thats what you think the FAQ is telling you, then you clearly need to read it again. You clearly do not have a grasp on the point it was trying to make p.s. Grey knights and blood angels do not have <chapter>, They have GREY KNIGHTS and it is perfectly legal for them to take the SM rhino and replace the <chapter> with GREY KNIGHTS (what'd you know, its the exact same)

to just above yes astra telepathica is just like others armies in the codex thats the point

Great, I'll be playing a index data sheet only questerious imparalis list then ? whats the difference ?

your point above it im not sure what you mean their is no reference to astra telepathica in the foreword of astra militarum or imperial knights codexs

There is no reference to and index army list in any forward. So, ya, my point you have no references saying that Astra telepathica's faction keyword is somehow "special" and makes them "more" then other faction keywords. Get this refrence, and you have a point, otherwise your just blowing air about an inference you made.

You want a specific reference to my Assertion that what makes astra Telepathica a faction its own rules pts and seperate army list not to mention section of the book. Ok index imperium index 2 pg104-107, pg159 to evidence those things and then u02dah4 this forum for the assertion based on those things depending on which you meant

Yes, just like every single other thing in the index's ,,, where does it say it gets special treatment ? and if it works that way, I am totally bringing my index datasheet questerous imperialis ? it either all works the way you suggest or none of it does... and literally nothing in the game says it does. You are making MAJOR inferences based on the organization of the index NOT based on what the rules actually say.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
The only reason i havn't been able to disprove the "historic problems# " is because you don't understand why their wern't any... dude, learn the game XD . Literally no problems have arised from your methods.

please refrence this magical FAQ section that says the <chapter> keyword on a rhino couldn't be used for the index factions (be sure to check dates XD). Literally never been a problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Listen, you cheat if you want to, i am done with this.

The RAW says what it says. If you don't like that, thats on you. But if you ever show up at my and you are being TFG and try to score a point advantage by willfully ignoring one of the most clear and straightforward rules in the game, you can be sure I wont be playing with you.

Again, Its not my job to prove anything to you, The rule you are proposing does not exist, you are proposing it does. I ask for evidence you only provide inferences, theories and assumptions.

I cant prove that something doesn't exist,,, thats not how proof works. So you can either find the RAW to support what your saying, or its clear that you are jumping through hoops to get around how it actually works.

I am out. Enjoy your extra 8 pts


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Apple Peel wrote:
Do we have an official definition of a “model?”

.Each unit has a data sheet that lists the characteristics,wargear and abilities of the models in that unit

BRB pg 174

Models exist in a Unit represented by a data sheet

1.Unit Name Models move and fight in units, which can have one or more models.Here you’ll find the name of the unit.

BRB pg 174

Models that are in units have a name.

Name = unit = 1 or more models

Same name, same unit, same model(s).

Codex releases with the same Name as something in the index =
Codex release with the same specified unit as the index =
Codex release with the same specified models in the unit .

The BRB says nothing about what army list the datasheet came out of for identification. The only thing specified is Name.

As quoted earlier
A faction in this game is ANY keyword that appears on the datasheet next to"faction keywords" from BRB pg 240
Not sure what rule demonstrates that Factions rely on an army list ? The only rules i can find about factions rely on "faction keywords"
The index and codex's are an organizational tool for us to easily access relevant datasheets... they are not some kind of extra attachment to the datasheets themselves. If they were, it would have been specified (like in older editions where the game refereed to CHARACTERISTIC PROFILES connected directly to a CODEX, this edition has no rules that specify this where an edition like 5th does, in fact this edition is full of rules about how everything is separated into DATASHEETS irrelevant of their codex or army list. In fact

where do you find datasheets?Well,when you buy a box of Citadel Miniatures they’ll be in the box with them,and they are also present in codexes

BRB 8th
Clearly unconcerned with any mechanics related to where you find a datasheet. The important mechanics outlined in the BRB is that mechanically, to play, you need a datasheet, where you get it, it doesn't care.
v.s.

Each model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that
lists the value of its characteristics. At the back of this
book, and in the Codex books for each army, you will
find profiles for many races and creatures.

BRB 5th

Clearly concerned with where you find the Character Profiles. 5th edition cared that you got the character profiles from a codex.

are we really sugesting that if I get my Datasheet out of a box that means its somehow an Out of the box - primaris psyker v.s. a astra telepathica index army list primaris psyker v.s. a astra militarum primaris psyker ?
Where you get the datasheet would have no bearing on the game if it wasn't for the flow chart rule in the FAQ,
Only the NAME on the datasheet and its Keywords come into play for identifying a unit and therefor a model..if the faction keywords fit your detatchment, you are good to go. If it doesn't too bad you can't use that unit and therefor the models within it.
then if there are more then one Codex with the same named datasheet, you can pick which one you want to use because they are all valid.
then as per the FAQ/Errata of 8th BRB , if a data sheet is in an index and also in a codex, it clearly states, use the one in a codex.
Its not confusing, its one sentences that literately says that.

Datasheets are explained right in the BRB

This doesn't appear to be going anywhere constructive. Moving on.