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.

What are the rules for using dataslates from older editions of the game? Are they strictly verboten, or am I allowed to run them?

Specifically, I'm looking at the Emperor's Children Warband from 4th or 5th edition that allowed my Terminators in the formation to take sonic blasters for free. It seems pretty OP, so I want to make sure it's legal before I do it.

The Emperor's Children Warband is an Apocalypse Formation.
As such is not legal in games of 40k (never has been).

Apocalypse Formation =\= Formation.

What I get for not paying attention.

What about in apocalypse games? Are thy legal there?

Yes. The basic rule of thumb for rules be legal is if it is the most current version of that rule. Simply being from previous editions does not make anything illegal.

 CrownAxe wrote:
Yes. The basic rule of thumb for rules be legal is if it is the most current version of that rule.

Although it's worth pointing out that this is a common convention , rather than an actual rule .

There's nothing in the rules that stops you from using an older publication just because a newer one came out.

 CrownAxe wrote:
Yes. The basic rule of thumb for rules be legal is if it is the most current version of that rule. Simply being from previous editions does not make anything illegal.

Oh boy, time to break out some "Mirage" Long Range Infiltration Units now that D weapons don't always ignore cover.
http://www.oocities.org/shinjukumouichido/pathfinderslongrangeinfiltration.pdf

Who wants to bet that the KX139 Ta'unar is going to be just over the 12" required to be inside the stealth field as they are probubly the only ones who remember this formation?

No one minds broken Apocalypse formations. It's Apocalypse.

 insaniak wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Yes. The basic rule of thumb for rules be legal is if it is the most current version of that rule.

Although it's worth pointing out that this is a common convention , rather than an actual rule .

There's nothing in the rules that stops you from using an older publication just because a newer one came out.

And is fairly common during transition from one edition to the next. Not everyone gets their new codex day 1. However by the same token, At a certain point an older unit entry may be both the newest version and so out of date as to be meaningless.

Just thinking out loud here on a similar note.. but has anyone else noticed that using older rules from FW is fine but you never see anyone using older codex rules.

For example orks have a stompa printed in their dex yet ITC events are fine with using the ia8 rules for stompas which are strictly better and cost less. Yet you never see anyone talk about using say.. vect from the previous dark eldar codex even though his rules are actually the most current for the character.

dominuschao wrote:
Just thinking out loud here on a similar note.. but has anyone else noticed that using older rules from FW is fine but you never see anyone using older codex rules.

For example orks have a stompa printed in their dex yet ITC events are fine with using the ia8 rules for stompas which are strictly better and cost less. Yet you never see anyone talk about using say.. vect from the previous dark eldar codex even though his rules are actually the most current for the character.

I think the reason for that is because the publication has not been overridden yet. For instance, Vect was overridden by the new DE codex, but the Stompa entry in the Ork codex doesn't override IA8 Stompa, only another IA8 would.

An interesting example would be the old Tau 'Mirage' formation for the 4e book, since it is stand alone (not in any book) like a dataslate, it is still the most current version and was not overridden when the 6e book came out, only a new Mirage formation would do so.

Or when the basic rules change so drastically the Mirage formation becomes unusable- i.e. there are no longer rules for Formations at all, or vehicles no longer have X or Y that's required for the formation etc.

Breton wrote:
Or when the basic rules change so drastically the Mirage formation becomes unusable- i.e. there are no longer rules for Formations at all, or vehicles no longer have X or Y that's required for the formation etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only rule missing is the Stealth Field Generator, as the special rule was pulled into the Stealth Suit. All of the other rules work just fine save for the 'units wholly within 12"' rule. By RAW that feature does not work, but the Stealth Field Generator is still referenced in the current book as the device that grants the Stealth Suits their stealthiness, and you can make a RAI assessment to get that working as well to grant Stealth and Shrouded, so long as you opponent agrees.

When a rule stops existing as an explicit rule is a good time to say the source has become too out of date to use.

However, I'll reiterate my "play with whatever stupid garbage you want in Apocalypse because Apocalypse is made for stupid garbage" stance.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
When a rule stops existing as an explicit rule is a good time to say the source has become too out of date to use.

However, I'll reiterate my "play with whatever stupid garbage you want in Apocalypse because Apocalypse is made for stupid garbage" stance.

Not really, the Mephrit Dynasty supplement expects a "C'tan Shard", however, the next month GW removed that from the codex and it no longer exists as an explicit rule. As such, I find your criteria lacking, unless you are saying GW made a brand new supplement out of date the month after release.

 Nilok wrote:
unless you are saying GW made a brand new supplement out of date the month after release.

Wouldn't be the first time.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Nilok wrote:
unless you are saying GW made a brand new supplement out of date the month after release.

Wouldn't be the first time.

Sad but true. Sometimes I really wish they had everyone on the same page, but at the same time, I am a bit worried it may be the wrong page.