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 if I want to run a faction from the Space Marine codex I use the SM codex. But no conversion beamer option for tech marine in there. But the Imperium index does have that option apparently.

So what do I do and how do I figure out points costs?
Do I use all the points from the codex and then add on the cost of the weapon from the index?
Do I calculate all of the techmarine’s points cost from the index?
Or am I just plain not allowed to have a tech marine with a conversion beamer if I run any faction from the codex (ultra marines, iron hands etc)

Stavkat wrote:
So if I want to run a faction from the Space Marine codex I use the SM codex. But no conversion beamer option for tech marine in there. But the Imperium index does have that option apparently.

So what do I do and how do I figure out points costs?
Do I use all the points from the codex and then add on the cost of the weapon from the index?
Do I calculate all of the techmarine’s points cost from the index?
Or am I just plain not allowed to have a tech marine with a conversion beamer if I run any faction from the codex (ultra marines, iron hands etc)

You can't use the conversion beamer anymore because you are required to use the latest datasheet.

Of course, if you and your opponent want to house rule it, you can do whatever you want. I would recommend using Index rules and costs.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You can't use the conversion beamer anymore because you are required to use the latest datasheet.

So factions from Space Marine codex cannot use Index at all?
No tech marine on a bike either?

Stavkat wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You can't use the conversion beamer anymore because you are required to use the latest datasheet.

So factions from Space Marine codex cannot use Index at all?
No tech marine on a bike either?

You can use the Techmarine on Biker just fine. It doesn't have a codex entry so you use the Index entry. If something has a Codex entry you have to use the codex entry.

If you want to be full on "legal", slap your conversion beamer techmarine onto a bike.

Basically, the rules GW gave us and the way the game HAS to work in order to be functional at all, is you use the codex datasheet, if there is no codex datasheet, use the Index datasheet.

To say otherwise means you can use pre-nerf Commissars and Conscripts, which from both a RaW and common sense viewpoint is not acceptable.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Stavkat wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You can't use the conversion beamer anymore because you are required to use the latest datasheet.

So factions from Space Marine codex cannot use Index at all?
No tech marine on a bike either?

You can use the Techmarine on Biker just fine. It doesn't have a codex entry so you use the Index entry. If something has a Codex entry you have to use the codex entry.

Is this written somewhere? Sorry, I’ve been out of the hobby for awhile.

Stavkat wrote:
Is this written somewhere? Sorry, I’ve been out of the hobby for awhile.

Keep in mind some people are going to disagree. The page I link has two contradictory statements.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/07/05/codexes-your-questions-answered-july-5gw-homepage-post-2/

Can I combine units from the index and a codex into one army?
The datasheets in the new codexes overwrite the same datasheets in the index books. You can certainly use units with updated datasheets alongside units from the index that have yet to be updated. Once a unit has been covered in the codex though, we assume you’re using the latest version.

Emphasis mine.

Warhammer-community.com. Had no idea that was an official site lol! I’ve really been out of it for awhile.

Two contradictory statements huh, I see GW is still consistent with their inconsistency after all this time.

Stavkat wrote:
Warhammer-community.com. Had no idea that was an official site lol! I’ve really been out of it for awhile.

Two contradictory statements huh, I see GW is still consistent with their inconsistency after all this time.

Yup. They say "You can still use the old rules!" then in the next breath say "You can't use the old rules!".

Considering the only way that nerfs can stick is to forbid the use of old rules, it's the only logical way to go forward.

Welcome to the New GW, same as the Old GW.

I'm in the camp of using index for all unsupported options. They specifically mention Dreadnought weapon combos are still legal through the index, with codex points values.

This is all up to your opponent. If they disagree, it probably won't be a good game anyway.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
I'm in the camp of using index for all unsupported options. They specifically mention Dreadnought weapon combos are still legal through the index, with codex points values.

This is all up to your opponent. If they disagree, it probably won't be a good game anyway.

The problem with that reasoning is that I can claim then I can use the Commissar from the Index because it doesn't have the option for a power axe in the codex, and suddenly I now have an un-nerfed Commissar. Or say I don't have the "option" for taking 50 strong conscript blobs that can accept orders 100% of the time anymore, and now suddenly I have un-nerfed Conscripts.

If one exception is ok, then they all are.

Buuuuuuuut that's been hashed out in a thousand other threads so I'll leave it at that. Facts are laid out here and it's up to the individual to decide!

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
I'm in the camp of using index for all unsupported options. They specifically mention Dreadnought weapon combos are still legal through the index, with codex points values.

This is all up to your opponent. If they disagree, it probably won't be a good game anyway.

The problem with that reasoning is that I can claim then I can use the Commissar from the Index because it doesn't have the option for a power axe in the codex, and suddenly I now have an un-nerfed Commissar. Or say I don't have the "option" for taking 50 strong conscript blobs that can accept orders 100% of the time anymore, and now suddenly I have un-nerfed Conscripts.

If one exception is ok, then they all are.

Buuuuuuuut that's been hashed out in a thousand other threads so I'll leave it at that. Facts are laid out here and it's up to the individual to decide!

Commissar yes, but as pointed out multiple times, the number of conscripts in a unit is not an option for Characters or vehicles.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
I'm in the camp of using index for all unsupported options. They specifically mention Dreadnought weapon combos are still legal through the index, with codex points values.

This is all up to your opponent. If they disagree, it probably won't be a good game anyway.

The problem with that reasoning is that I can claim then I can use the Commissar from the Index because it doesn't have the option for a power axe in the codex, and suddenly I now have an un-nerfed Commissar. Or say I don't have the "option" for taking 50 strong conscript blobs that can accept orders 100% of the time anymore, and now suddenly I have un-nerfed Conscripts.

If one exception is ok, then they all are.

Buuuuuuuut that's been hashed out in a thousand other threads so I'll leave it at that. Facts are laid out here and it's up to the individual to decide!

And, has been pointed out repeatedly, what you are painting as a doom and gloom scenario still has to get opponent's permission, like any other model with older options that you no longer have. Odds are you will find opponents more willing to give you permision for things with euipment options you used to be able to use than you will for the 50 conscript blobs or the commissars.

But, they did give rules for using models with older options not available in the box now, and made a point in the originial question of saying these options aren't in the newer codex, so you can use the index for models with these older options. You just have to get your opponent's permission to use them.

No you have to use the latest data sheet conscripts have an updated data sheet so you can't use the index version it's only if it doesn't have an updated datasheet you can use the index entry eg rough riders

U02dah4 wrote:
No you have to use the latest data sheet conscripts have an updated data sheet so you can't use the index version it's only if it doesn't have an updated datasheet you can use the index entry eg rough riders

Only if you ignore the part where they said you can play things like dreadnoughts with weapon loadouts they used to have but no longer have. But, they said that, and told us how to do it - use the index sheet with the most recent costs, and get opponent's permission.

Don't start this one up again. It's already got ridiculous in a bunch of other threads. Please. Not again...

RIGHT. In summary, If you really want a C-beam use the biker techmarine. He's got +1t/w and bonus move for only 12 pts more anyway.

The question is answered. Don't NOBODY say conscripts again. :p

 MattKing wrote:
RIGHT. In summary, If you really want a C-beam use the biker techmarine. He's got +1t/w and bonus move for only 12 pts more anyway.

The question is answered. Don't NOBODY say conscripts again. :p

Good answer - it's probably an advantage to have him on a bike anyway since if he needs to move for a more advantageous shot it's easier that way.

I love it when there is a perfectly contradictory rules argument across multiple threads and people are like it's settled when blatantly it isn't.

If you try to use a non updated datasheet of a model that has been updated many people will not be happy and will consider it against the rules as evidenced by all the arguments in all the other threada on the issue.

Yes there is a stretched argument that you can that many people also subscribe to while contradictorily claiming 50 man conscript's are bad.

This a result of poor wording by GW there isn't a correct settled answer

But if you only take new data sheets or unaltered ones no one will argue and if you take altered ones half of players will argue seems like there is a hassle free option (which I would recommend both because it's my interpretation of the Raw and because a hastle free game is more enjoyable acknowledging that neither variant can claim to be right)

 doctortom wrote:
And, has been pointed out repeatedly, what you are painting as a doom and gloom scenario still has to get opponent's permission, like any other model with older options that you no longer have. Odds are you will find opponents more willing to give you permision for things with euipment options you used to be able to use than you will for the 50 conscript blobs or the commissars.

But, they did give rules for using models with older options not available in the box now, and made a point in the originial question of saying these options aren't in the newer codex, so you can use the index for models with these older options. You just have to get your opponent's permission to use them.

This of course only works for random pickup games. Leagues, tournaments etc follow rules thus if your opponent doesn't play that counts as 0-20 loss for him. IG player gets max points without even rolling a dice.

Or a 0-20 win because you tried to field an illegal model (better to clarify before hand on ignore the hastle)

tneva82 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
And, has been pointed out repeatedly, what you are painting as a doom and gloom scenario still has to get opponent's permission, like any other model with older options that you no longer have. Odds are you will find opponents more willing to give you permision for things with euipment options you used to be able to use than you will for the 50 conscript blobs or the commissars.

But, they did give rules for using models with older options not available in the box now, and made a point in the originial question of saying these options aren't in the newer codex, so you can use the index for models with these older options. You just have to get your opponent's permission to use them.

This of course only works for random pickup games. Leagues, tournaments etc follow rules thus if your opponent doesn't play that counts as 0-20 loss for him. IG player gets max points without even rolling a dice.

Leaques, tournaments, etc will have their own guidelines for what is permitted. You can always ask the tournament/ league organizers beforehand if the model would be permitted. They might allow some things (techmarine on bike) while not allowing some other things (50 man conscript blobs). If they allow it, you can play it.

Am I bad at reading or does this designer’s commentary from this month from war hammer community . com make it sound like one could take a conversion beamer with a tech marine?

Stavkat wrote:
Am I bad at reading or does this designer’s commentary from this month from war hammer community . com make it sound like one could take a conversion beamer with a tech marine?

That commentary update came out after the original post was made. At the time what I said in the first reply was correct. Now, the flowchart is correct. That is the nature of errata and updates.

Yup, it's good


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Stavkat wrote:
Am I bad at reading or does this designer’s commentary from this month from war hammer community . com make it sound like one could take a conversion beamer with a tech marine?

That commentary update came out after the original post was made. At the time what I said in the first reply was correct. Now, the flowchart is correct. That is the nature of errata and updates.

Nothing changed, it was just clarified better. It was always good to use, there was just confusion in the community.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Stavkat wrote:
Am I bad at reading or does this designer’s commentary from this month from war hammer community . com make it sound like one could take a conversion beamer with a tech marine?

That commentary update came out after the original post was made. At the time what I said in the first reply was correct. Now, the flowchart is correct. That is the nature of errata and updates.

Christ, relax. No one, other than yourself, cares about your personal position and whether it was right - your comment makes you come off as weirdly defensive.

I’m just happy GW clarified. And got too excited and didn’t notice the other thread on this before I posted. Lol.

Conversion Beamer here we come!

Jacksmiles wrote:
Yup, it's good


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Stavkat wrote:
Am I bad at reading or does this designer’s commentary from this month from war hammer community . com make it sound like one could take a conversion beamer with a tech marine?

That commentary update came out after the original post was made. At the time what I said in the first reply was correct. Now, the flowchart is correct. That is the nature of errata and updates.

Nothing changed, it was just clarified better. It was always good to use, there was just confusion in the community.

Well, one thing changed - they clarified that for equipment that is in the current codex you use the codex version of their rules, like for the banshee mask. But yes, the major purpose was to clear the confusion they helps create with their initial non-flowchart explanation.

 doctortom wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:
Yup, it's good


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Stavkat wrote:
Am I bad at reading or does this designer’s commentary from this month from war hammer community . com make it sound like one could take a conversion beamer with a tech marine?

That commentary update came out after the original post was made. At the time what I said in the first reply was correct. Now, the flowchart is correct. That is the nature of errata and updates.

Nothing changed, it was just clarified better. It was always good to use, there was just confusion in the community.

Well, one thing changed - they clarified that for equipment that is in the current codex you use the codex version of their rules, like for the banshee mask. But yes, the major purpose was to clear the confusion they helps create with their initial non-flowchart explanation.

Bah! Bah, I say!

Jacksmiles wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:
Yup, it's good


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Stavkat wrote:
Am I bad at reading or does this designer’s commentary from this month from war hammer community . com make it sound like one could take a conversion beamer with a tech marine?

That commentary update came out after the original post was made. At the time what I said in the first reply was correct. Now, the flowchart is correct. That is the nature of errata and updates.

Nothing changed, it was just clarified better. It was always good to use, there was just confusion in the community.

Well, one thing changed - they clarified that for equipment that is in the current codex you use the codex version of their rules, like for the banshee mask. But yes, the major purpose was to clear the confusion they helps create with their initial non-flowchart explanation.

Bah! Bah, I say!

Well, whether you use index or codex rules for the banshee mask was going to be a thorny issue that needed addressing; it's good that they're pretty much out in front of it.

But, at least we have what (should be) an undisputed answer to the OP's question now.