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.

Because if so this is going to upset a LOT of people. You can't even "use the index" like for Librarian on Bike because the codex will overwrite the index entry.

GW need to really take a long look at what actually made their business successful. It wasn't the quality of the rules I'll tell you that.

If a option isn't listed in the codex but in the index, you can take the option of the index with the more recent point values (In this case the Codex ones)
They answered this on a FAQ.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/07/05/codexes-your-questions-answered-july-5gw-homepage-post-2/

There are a few options that are missing in the codex that appear in the index: why is that? Does that mean I can’t use these models in my army anymore?
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).
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.

 Galas wrote:
If a option isn't listed in the codex but in the index, you can take the option of the index with the more recent point values (In this case the Codex ones)
They answered this on a FAQ.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/07/05/codexes-your-questions-answered-july-5gw-homepage-post-2/

There are a few options that are missing in the codex that appear in the index: why is that? Does that mean I can’t use these models in my army anymore?
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).
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.

Is that complicated? I suppose yes, because you are non stop making threads like this.

Funny, I am pretty sure the Dreadnought has an entry in the codex, thus making the Index entry invalid.

Nice edit there btw to remove the personal attack, but you were too slow.

It wasn't a personal attack. Just a reminder how you don't stop making threads like this about things you can easy find for yourself, but with clickbait thread titles and "sky is falling" OP's.
They specifically talk about how this apply to Dreadnoughts losing weapon options in the Codex and how you can use the Index to use those weapon options. Theres literally anything in that response that say that the Codex entry invalidates the Index one.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Galas wrote:
If a option isn't listed in the codex but in the index, you can take the option of the index with the more recent point values (In this case the Codex ones)
They answered this on a FAQ.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/07/05/codexes-your-questions-answered-july-5gw-homepage-post-2/

There are a few options that are missing in the codex that appear in the index: why is that? Does that mean I can’t use these models in my army anymore?
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).
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.

Is that complicated? I suppose yes, because you are non stop making threads like this.

Funny, I am pretty sure the Dreadnought has an entry in the codex, thus making the Index entry invalid.

Nice edit there btw to remove the personal attack, but you were too slow.

I dunno, you do seem to be teeing off a lot lately. Maybe take a breather?

Anyway, the FAQ quoted seems to override the Codex entry. It even specifically mentions weapon loadouts on Dreadnoughts.

Galas is correct. That's also why I can take the codex's cheaper Terminator Librarians but while still getting the superior Sanguine Discipline, as Blood Angels.

This used to be a Forgeworld only armament though... perhaps it's just going back to the FW books, exclusively.

The dual autocannon arms themselves are only made by FW, I'm certain it will still be available - via FW... so really no reason to freak out.

 Gunzhard wrote:
This used to be a Forgeworld only armament though... perhaps it's just going back to the FW books, exclusively.

The dual autocannon arms themselves are only made by FW, I'm certain it will still be available - via FW... so really no reason to freak out.

It's not even necessary to use a FW pattern Dreadnought, both of my Riflemen are Venerables and will remain so, per the FAQ.

You certainly can run your Riflemen as Mortis Dreadnoughts though, that would also be perfectly legal.

The codex only includes models they currently produce. Everything else is still in the index. The only reason AC Dreads aren't in the codex is because as you say, the Autocannons aren't included in any of the Dreadnought boxes.

 Gunzhard wrote:
The dual autocannon arms themselves are only made by FW, I'm certain it will still be available - via FW... so really no reason to freak out.

It's available via the Index, therefor it's completely legal even without an FW update.

This is a pretty disjointed ruling

They should have made those options illegal in Official Matched Play, but fine for Open.

Why did they create a new book that needed to reference the temporary one in some circumstances?

 heckler wrote:
Why did they create a new book that needed to reference the temporary one in some circumstances?

Prevents new players (who won't have access to previous loadouts hypothetically) from needing multiple books while discouraging them from buying anything not from GWs current range, but can still tell long term players their models haven't been invalidated while also convincing them the indices they bought weren't totally worthless.

did they at least nerf the assault cannon down to 4 or 5 shots instead of 6?

oops, misread ruling, sorry. Please ignore.

 Talamare wrote:
This is a pretty disjointed ruling

They should have made those options illegal in Official Matched Play, but fine for Open.

Actually they also mention that they assume they you will use the newest codex entry if it has one

I'm going to say until we have more information, in Matched Play you lose the option if you lost the option

Throwing it out there that I am more than happy to take off any rifleman dreads from the "sky-is-falling-no-wait-those-are-drop-pods-my-bad" crowd.
As for OP, take a breather, ok? Most of your topics come across as whinging/complaning or knee-jerk reactions. Take a break from 40k if you must.

 Talamare wrote:

 Talamare wrote:
This is a pretty disjointed ruling

They should have made those options illegal in Official Matched Play, but fine for Open.

Actually they also mention that they assume they you will use the newest codex entry if it has one

I'm going to say until we have more information, in Matched Play you lose the option if you lost the option

I honestly suspect that goes against GW, they seem to have a very "open" philophesy with regard to 8th edition. wheras in the past your codex was your army and that was it till the next editioin, GW seems to be moving away from that

BrianDavion wrote:

 Talamare wrote:

 Talamare wrote:
This is a pretty disjointed ruling

They should have made those options illegal in Official Matched Play, but fine for Open.

Actually they also mention that they assume they you will use the newest codex entry if it has one

I'm going to say until we have more information, in Matched Play you lose the option if you lost the option

I honestly suspect that goes against GW, they seem to have a very "open" philophesy with regard to 8th edition. wheras in the past your codex was your army and that was it till the next editioin, GW seems to be moving away from that

Yup, it's pretty clear from the FAQ that you can use options in the index instead of the codex, they neither mention, matched play or open play. So it obviously applies to all.

To me this seems very odd that they would remove options like this. Why not just keep them in the unit entry in the codex?

Seems like they are set on removing these kind of options long term, and this stop gap measure is just there to soften the blow.

 Talamare wrote:

 Talamare wrote:
This is a pretty disjointed ruling

They should have made those options illegal in Official Matched Play, but fine for Open.

Actually they also mention that they assume they you will use the newest codex entry if it has one

I'm going to say until we have more information, in Matched Play you lose the option if you lost the option

The FAQ specifically calls out dread weapons. If you don't think it applies to dread weapons then you're simply wrong.

"There are a few options that are missing in the codex that appear in the index: why is that? Does that mean I can’t use these models in my army anymore?
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).
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."

Which is why orks got Wazdakka and dark eldar got all their characters back!

Oh wait, sorry, this is only for space marines.

the_scotsman wrote:
"There are a few options that are missing in the codex that appear in the index: why is that? Does that mean I can’t use these models in my army anymore?
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).
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."

Which is why orks got Wazdakka and dark eldar got all their characters back!

Oh wait, sorry, this is only for space marines.

I mean, Space Marines never got back Captain Cortez or Chaplain Xavier.

GW are basing their "legacy" models from their 7th edition codexes, so if it existed in 7th, it can be taken. If it existed before that, there's no guarantee at all.

so this works both ways yeah? Playing Dark Angels, I would now refer to the new codex for points values like powerfists, etc? I wouldn't be able to take any of the new Primaris marines until the DA codex officially launches though.

 bullyboy wrote:
so this works both ways yeah? Playing Dark Angels, I would now refer to the new codex for points values like powerfists, etc? I wouldn't be able to take any of the new Primaris marines until the DA codex officially launches though.

Only if orks can too for their power klaws

"We wanna be treated as a fully separate faction with full rules support because we're really cool and distinct"

"...but we also want to have the best and most recent rules for any marine faction because we're pretty much the same amirite?"

It's only a matter of time before the Index become invalid. The old GW style, "use whichever version you want!" has caused soo much headache for them and they seem to be moving away from headache inducing behavior.

In either case, as already been stated - Forgeworld has you covered.

I have old harlequin models with laspistols and needle pistols. I have an old troupe master with a harlequin grenade pack. I have warlocks with laspistols.

Do I consult the imperial wargear as well to make these options take-able?

 bullyboy wrote:
so this works both ways yeah? Playing Dark Angels, I would now refer to the new codex for points values like powerfists, etc?

Yep. GW explicitly calls out DA, BA, and SW using the new codex's datasheets.

 Melissia wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
so this works both ways yeah? Playing Dark Angels, I would now refer to the new codex for points values like powerfists, etc?

Yep. GW explicitly calls out DA, BA, and SW using the new codex's datasheets.

Wonderful. We've gone back to the 3rd edition Minidexes idiocy again.

 Talamare wrote:
This is a pretty disjointed ruling

They should have made those options illegal in Official Matched Play, but fine for Open.

Or just let local TOs or groups of people playing decide what to do.

Its honestly not that big a deal. its two books in your bag. or you write it down or take photos of it on your phone or battle scribe and move on.

I have to say this makes the whole process really frustrating. having to check 2 indexes for the same army doesn't make fundamental sense.

Thank you battlescribe.

Yeah, this feels pretty convoluted. Codex should trump Index except in situations where the named unit doesn't exist in the Codex. Referencing Codex units with Index options, Index units with Codex options, and everything inbetween sounds like a major headache to track and verify.