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.

When a model has rules printed in the Apocalypse book and rules printed in the regular army codex, can you pick which one you use in whatever game, or is it forced to be the newest printing of those rules, or is it regular codex for non-apoc games, and the apoc rules for apoc games?

Specifcally were looking at the Tesseract Vault for Necrons and the rules in the Apoc books seem MUCH better than the regular codex one, and were trying to see if maybe the rules were updated in one of the 2 books or what the situation here is.

Any rules references would help out a ton!

The Main Rulebook FAQ, very last question has your answer.

 Ghaz wrote:
The Main Rulebook FAQ, very last question has your answer.

The question wasn't about formations.

As a rule, you always use the most recent valid set of rules for a unit, so if a unit in the Apocalypse book has been updated you use the update.

 Imateria wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
The Main Rulebook FAQ, very last question has your answer.

The question wasn't about formations.

As a rule, you always use the most recent valid set of rules for a unit, so if a unit in the Apocalypse book has been updated you use the update.

GW themselves have recently come out and said you can use any rules you have available that you want to, but no mixing and matching. It was in one of the White Dwarves when the new Space Wolf Rune Priest was coming out, around the Curse of the Wulfen. Their ruling was you could run the old runepriest or the new runepriest dataslate but no mixing and matching options. I think the new Rune Priest had spiffy new weapons but the old Rune Priest had a better stat line or someting. I don't remember which one but I can check my WD stash when I get home and post the Issue.

 zeragrin wrote:

 Imateria wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
The Main Rulebook FAQ, very last question has your answer.

The question wasn't about formations.

As a rule, you always use the most recent valid set of rules for a unit, so if a unit in the Apocalypse book has been updated you use the update.

GW themselves have recently come out and said you can use any rules you have available that you want to, but no mixing and matching. It was in one of the White Dwarves when the new Space Wolf Rune Priest was coming out, around the Curse of the Wulfen. Their ruling was you could run the old runepriest or the new runepriest dataslate but no mixing and matching options. I think the new Rune Priest had spiffy new weapons but the old Rune Priest had a better stat line or someting. I don't remember which one but I can check my WD stash when I get home and post the Issue.

GW is not consistent about this. Such as much more recently (as in 2 weeks ago) they specifically said you have to use the codex entry of the Transcendent C'tan over the Apoc version of it.

As below, there is no way to take the Apocalypse Tesseract Vault datasheet outside of a game in which you are taking Apocalypse Formations, i.e. a game of Apocalypse. The Apocalypse Tesseract Vault is an Apocalypse Formation and does not have a Battlefield Role so cannot simply be slotted in to replace the Lord of War choice datasheet in Codex: Necrons.

 Imateria wrote:
The question wasn't about formations.

The datasheet in Apocalypse for the Tesseract Vault is an Apocalypse Formation, of the 'Super-Heavy Vehicles' type.

As a rule, you always use the most recent valid set of rules for a unit, so if a unit in the Apocalypse book has been updated you use the update.

Do you have a reference for that rule? To my knowledge it does not exist.