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.

I can't help but notice as I use Battlescribe that both of the daemon prince options (of Nurgle and standard) are available to DG. I've been attempting to find the logic in this using the flow chart provided by GW and the index. It would seem the crux of the argument breaks down to the rule in the CSM codex that states one cannot take the Thousand Sons or Death Guard keywords, but then there is an exception within the index itself which allows the Daemon Prince dataslate, that being the CSM dataslate.

So the question is, does the exception within the index override the general rule concerning choice of legions? I would think that it does, but I've heard others say it doesn't work that way. Why or why not?

We are told for units with a datasheet in a codex to use the codex rules, overriding index rules. The rules for <legion> in the codex take precedence over those in the index.

Vortenger wrote:
I can't help but notice as I use Battlescribe that both of the daemon prince options (of Nurgle and standard) are available to DG. I've been attempting to find the logic in this using the flow chart provided by GW and the index. It would seem the crux of the argument breaks down to the rule in the CSM codex that states one cannot take the Thousand Sons or Death Guard keywords, but then there is an exception within the index itself which allows the Daemon Prince dataslate, that being the CSM dataslate.

So the question is, does the exception within the index override the general rule concerning choice of legions? I would think that it does, but I've heard others say it doesn't work that way. Why or why not?

They are available to Death Guard because the index version is available to them, not the CSM version, which is not.

Also under no circumstances ever use Battlescribe as a rules source. They are riddled with bugs and when you try and report them they close ranks, edit your reports and shun you for being an outsider.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Vortenger wrote:
I can't help but notice as I use Battlescribe that both of the daemon prince options (of Nurgle and standard) are available to DG. I've been attempting to find the logic in this using the flow chart provided by GW and the index. It would seem the crux of the argument breaks down to the rule in the CSM codex that states one cannot take the Thousand Sons or Death Guard keywords, but then there is an exception within the index itself which allows the Daemon Prince dataslate, that being the CSM dataslate.

So the question is, does the exception within the index override the general rule concerning choice of legions? I would think that it does, but I've heard others say it doesn't work that way. Why or why not?

They are available to Death Guard because the index version is available to them, not the CSM version, which is not.

Also under no circumstances ever use Battlescribe as a rules source. They are riddled with bugs and when you try and report them they close ranks, edit your reports and shun you for being an outsider.

This is incorrect. According to the rules flowchart posted on Warhammer Community (page 6 of the Designer's Commentary - https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/warhammer_40000_designers_commentary_en-1.pdf) you would follow the following steps:

- Does the model have a datasheet in a codex? Yes, it actually has several - Daemon Prince, Daemon Prince of Chaos, and Daemon Prince of Nurgle are all potentially appropriate for this model. For these purposes, we are considering specifically the Daemon Prince datasheet.

- Are there wargear options for the model which only appear in the Index version of the datasheet? Well, the Index version of the datasheet has the following wargear options: 1 set of Malefic Talons, 1 (Hellforged Sword, Daemonic Axe, or second set of Malefic Talons), 0-1 Warp Bolter, optional Wings. The Codex version of the datasheet has exactly the same options.

You are therefore required to use the Codex version, and per page 116 of Codex: Chaos, DEATH GUARD cannot be used in place of the <LEGION> keyword. Therefore, a Death Guard detachment cannot use the Daemon Prince datasheet, only the Daemon Prince of Nurgle datasheet.

The only way to get a Daemon Prince model with the DEATH GUARD keyword is through the Daemon Prince of Nurgle datasheet in Codex: Death Guard.

The Datasheet in the Index is not the same datasheet as the one in the Death Guard codex. They don't have the same keywords or even the same Name. Otherwise you're arguing that Blood Angels have to use the Rhino entry from the Dark Angels codex, because both datasheets are called "Rhino".

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The Datasheet in the Index is not the same datasheet as the one in the Death Guard codex. They don't have the same keywords or even the same Name. Otherwise you're arguing that Blood Angels have to use the Rhino entry from the Dark Angels codex, because both datasheets are called "Rhino".

I agree that the datasheet in the Index isn't the datasheet in Codex: Death Guard - they even have different names.

Not sure what point you're trying to make by calling out the Rhino. The flowchart doesn't say the version of a datasheet in one codex overwrites the version in a different codex.

My point is that you can't use the Codex: Chaos Space Marine Daemon Prince datasheet in a Death Guard detachment, since that Daemon Prince has restrictions on which Legion it can take, and Death Guard is explicitly called out as not being an option. But if you want to to take a Daemon Prince in a Death Guard army, conveniently enough that's allowed - just take the Daemon Prince of Nurgle datasheet.

I was saying the same thing. The OP was thinking the Battlescribe entry was from the CSM codex, when it's not, it's from the Index.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I was saying the same thing. The OP was thinking the Battlescribe entry was from the CSM codex, when it's not, it's from the Index.

But you agree that either way, it's not supposed to be there, as a Death Guard detachment doesn't have access to the Daemon Prince datasheet?

Not meaning to be rude, but your first post in this thread makes it look like you are of the opinion that Death Guard should have access to that datasheet. Just wanted to confirm we're on the same page.

Aelyn wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I was saying the same thing. The OP was thinking the Battlescribe entry was from the CSM codex, when it's not, it's from the Index.

But you agree that either way, it's not supposed to be there, as a Death Guard detachment doesn't have access to the Daemon Prince datasheet?

Not meaning to be rude, but your first post in this thread makes it look like you are of the opinion that Death Guard should have access to that datasheet. Just wanted to confirm we're on the same page.

It should have access to the Index one (Page 21, Index: Chaos, named "Daemon Prince") because the Index allows it to do so (Permission on page 57, Index: Chaos). It can't take the one from the CSM codex because you can't give DEATH GUARD to it.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Aelyn wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I was saying the same thing. The OP was thinking the Battlescribe entry was from the CSM codex, when it's not, it's from the Index.

But you agree that either way, it's not supposed to be there, as a Death Guard detachment doesn't have access to the Daemon Prince datasheet?

Not meaning to be rude, but your first post in this thread makes it look like you are of the opinion that Death Guard should have access to that datasheet. Just wanted to confirm we're on the same page.

It should have access to the Index one (Page 21, Index: Chaos, named "Daemon Prince") because the Index allows it to do so (Permission on page 57, Index: Chaos). It can't take the one from the CSM codex because you can't give DEATH GUARD to it.

The one from Codex: CSM supercedes the one as the one in the Index. As you have the same datasheet in both an Index and a Codex, the Codex version takes priority, and that one doesn't allow you to take the DEATH GUARD faction keyword (Codex: CSM, p116). The flowchart in the Designer's Commentary gives special dispensation to use the wargear available in the Index version, but choosing the Legion is not a wargear option.

Aelyn wrote:
The one from Codex: CSM supercedes the one as the one in the Index

Only for non-Death Guard. Otherwise you can argue that the Rhino in Codex: Dark Angels supersedes the one in Codex: Blood Angels, or that Space Wolves must take the one in Codex: Dark Angels. Or that Thousand Sons can no longer take Daemon Princes due to Codex: CSM, which is categorically untrue.

You use the latest rules for your model. The latest datasheet for a unit called "Daemon Prince" that wants to take the NURGLE and DEATH GUARD keywords is the one in the index.

BCB seems to have the correct answer to my original question.

My follow-up question would be why does the rule that allowed us the index version not also allow us to take the codex version? Seems to me the note on p. 57 of the index would indeed allow us to apply the DG keyword to the codex DP, and unless Captyn_Bob can cite a source, I don't see where all codex rules trump all index rules. I just see that we are supposed to use the most up-to-date version of a dataslate. The exception provided by the index does not seem to be nullified by newer rules? (this instance appears unique, as all other dataslates exist in the DG codex)

(Wording from Forces of the Death Guard: The Heretic Astartes datasheets listed...can be from the Death Guard legion. Those that have a <LEGION> keyword in their datasheet can replace it in all instances with Death Guard...)
If nothing erratas Forces of the Death Guard rules out of 8th edition, then it applies to the most current version of the Daemon Prince dataslate regardless of which codex that dataslate landed in, right?

Order of operations as I see it:

1. Choose CSM DP for DG detachment (Can't, p.116 legion rules)
2. Apply Exception from Index (Can, DG legion keyword now unlocked)
3. Fly around firing warp bolters and regretting the loss of DR

I am probably wrong, I'd just like to understand how the rules make it so.

edit: BCB's most recent reply makes so much sense. Otherwise Primaris marines are super schizophrenic as they have different wargear options in different chapters.

Vortenger wrote:
My follow-up question would be why does the rule that allowed us the index version not also allow us to take the codex version?

Because Codex: CSM explicitly forbids you from using the DEATH GUARD keyword in place of <LEGION>.

The Death Guard, Thousand Sons and Fallen deviate significantly in terms of organisation and fighting styles. As a result, you cannot choose one of these keywords when determining which Legion a unit in this codex is from.

You can use the Index version, but not the Codex version. Using the index version doesn't unlock codex wargear options, it's only using the codex version allows you to use the index wargear options.

I guess my error was in thinking that the index version ceased to be upon the release of the CSM DP, that the newer dataslate replaced the old whole cloth. But as you have pointed out, different armies use different rules, leaving the index entry as a baseline much more useful than I had previously realized.

My thanks!

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Aelyn wrote:
The one from Codex: CSM supercedes the one as the one in the Index

Only for non-Death Guard. Otherwise you can argue that the Rhino in Codex: Dark Angels supersedes the one in Codex: Blood Angels, or that Space Wolves must take the one in Codex: Dark Angels. Or that Thousand Sons can no longer take Daemon Princes due to Codex: CSM, which is categorically untrue.

You use the latest rules for your model. The latest datasheet for a unit called "Daemon Prince" that wants to take the NURGLE and DEATH GUARD keywords is the one in the index.

Technically, you're right that Space Wolves actually can't take a Rhino at the moment - the Index entry can only be used where it's not been printed in a Codex, and there is no Codex datasheet which allows the SPACE WOLVES faction keyword. It's a safe bet that this is simply because the Space Wolves codex has not been released as yet, and as such I would be happy to allow a Space Wolves player to use it (as a houserule, technically speaking) until the Codex comes out and they are given access to it.

However, if the Space Wolves codex comes out and doesn't have a Rhino datasheet in it, then yeah, that would mean they're not allowed Rhinos any more. It would be ridiculous for GW to do that, but there you go. Similarly, if the Thousand Sons codex doesn't include any sort of Daemon Prince datasheet, then yeah, they aren't allowed to take one any more.

Note that it doesn't indicate anywhere that a datasheet in one codex trumps a datasheet in a different codex, only that codexes trump the index. So your point around Rhinos being in both the Blood Angel and Dark Angel codexes doesn't appear to be relevant.

You do indeed use the latest rules for your model, and for a Death Guard player wanting to use a Daemon Prince, that's the Daemon Prince of Nurgle datasheet found in Codex: Death Guard. If you want to use a model called a "Daemon Prince", you have to use a datasheet which has been printed in a Codex, except that if there are specific wargear options which are only available in the Index, those are specifically grandfathered in through the flowchart on the Designer's Notes. But as we've already discussed, the choice of <LEGION> keyword is not a wargear option, so you have to use the rules from the codex and therefore can't make it DEATH GUARD.

Aelyn wrote:
You do indeed use the latest rules for your model, and for a Death Guard player wanting to use a Daemon Prince, that's the Daemon Prince of Nurgle datasheet found in Codex: Death Guard. If you want to use a model called a "Daemon Prince", you have to use a datasheet which has been printed in a Codex, except that if there are specific wargear options which are only available in the Index, those are specifically grandfathered in through the flowchart on the Designer's Notes. But as we've already discussed, the choice of <LEGION> keyword is not a wargear option, so you have to use the rules from the codex and therefore can't make it DEATH GUARD.

I disagree. The latest rules for a model called "Daemon Prince" that also has the NURGLE and DEATH GUARD keywords are in the Index, thus you use the index. "Daemon Prince of Nurgle" and "Daemon Prince" are two different datasheets.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Aelyn wrote:
You do indeed use the latest rules for your model, and for a Death Guard player wanting to use a Daemon Prince, that's the Daemon Prince of Nurgle datasheet found in Codex: Death Guard. If you want to use a model called a "Daemon Prince", you have to use a datasheet which has been printed in a Codex, except that if there are specific wargear options which are only available in the Index, those are specifically grandfathered in through the flowchart on the Designer's Notes. But as we've already discussed, the choice of <LEGION> keyword is not a wargear option, so you have to use the rules from the codex and therefore can't make it DEATH GUARD.

I disagree. The latest rules for a model called "Daemon Prince" that also has the NURGLE and DEATH GUARD keywords are in the Index, thus you use the index. "Daemon Prince of Nurgle" and "Daemon Prince" are two different datasheets.

The flowchart in the Designer's Notes states quite clearly how to deal with a datasheet which was printed in an Index and in a Codex. You use the Codex version, with an exception specifically for wargear that only appears in the Index. This does not allow you to take a choice of <LEGION> which is disallowed in the Codex datasheet.

Aelyn wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Aelyn wrote:
You do indeed use the latest rules for your model, and for a Death Guard player wanting to use a Daemon Prince, that's the Daemon Prince of Nurgle datasheet found in Codex: Death Guard. If you want to use a model called a "Daemon Prince", you have to use a datasheet which has been printed in a Codex, except that if there are specific wargear options which are only available in the Index, those are specifically grandfathered in through the flowchart on the Designer's Notes. But as we've already discussed, the choice of <LEGION> keyword is not a wargear option, so you have to use the rules from the codex and therefore can't make it DEATH GUARD.

I disagree. The latest rules for a model called "Daemon Prince" that also has the NURGLE and DEATH GUARD keywords are in the Index, thus you use the index.

The flowchart in the Designer's Notes states quite clearly how to deal with a datasheet which was printed in an Index and in a Codex. You use the Codex version, with an exception specifically for wargear that only appears in the Index. This does not allow you to take a choice of <LEGION> which is disallowed in the Codex datasheet.

The codex version doesn't apply to Death Guard armies, thus you can't use them.

Is the only difference a Warp Bolter? Because if that's all this thread is arguing over... just pay for a Warp Bolter?

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Is the only difference a Warp Bolter? Because if that's all this thread is arguing over... just pay for a Warp Bolter?

Access to the dark hereticus powers

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The codex version doesn't apply to Death Guard armies, thus you can't use them.

Agreed. The codex version of the datasheet doesn't apply to Death Guard armies, therefore you can't use that datasheet in Death Guard armies. Thankfully you have a different datasheet suitable for the same model - the Daemon Prince of Nurgle.

If BCB's interpretation is correct, then all is well and we can move on. If Aelyn is correct, then there is no foreseeable reason my earlier assertions of keyword overrides would not work (unless they can cite a source saying the exception provided should not apply), and all is well and we can move on. In either case, it would appear the end result is the same. DG can have a Daemon Prince, and a Daemon Prince of Nurgle. All that is in question then is whether it is an Index DP or a codex DP, correct? I lean towards BCB's logic as otherwise unreleased armies suffer without extreme houseruling, and that doesn't seem like a wise design choice. Perhaps if the flowchart were amended to say 'does the datasheet appear in YOUR codex'?

@JohnnyHell This question is to resolve a conflict that developed during talk in the DG tactics thread a while ago, I'm just slow to ask because I have small children vying for my time. As to why one would want a standard DP, it isn't the warp bolter, no. It's having the Dark Hereticus discipline on a fast moving melee monster in a DG force.

edit: my. this thread is moving quickly.

The simplest solution is to call the Dameon Prince of Nurgle the Daemon Prince (of nurgle).
Then I get my warp bolter with no inter codex nonsense

Vortenger wrote:
If BCB's interpretation is correct, then all is well and we can move on. If Aelyn is correct, then there is no foreseeable reason my earlier assertions of keyword overrides would not work (unless they can cite a source saying the exception provided should not apply), and all is well and we can move on. In either case, it would appear the end result is the same. DG can have a Daemon Prince, and a Daemon Prince of Nurgle.

Nope. There is no permission for the Daemon Prince to have the DEATH GUARD keyword. The only thing you are allowed to take from the Index version of the datasheet is Wargear options which would not otherwise be available. Choice of <LEGION> is not a wargear choice.

Aelyn, reread Forces of the Death Guard on p. 57 of the Chaos Index. It gives permission. That rule has not been invalidated in any Codex.

I see your rule and raise you one exception. Do you raise, call, or fold?

It's arguments like this one and several others in the same vein that makes me wish that GW would just say once a codex is out that's all that you can use for that <keyword> army. Sorry legacy models but that's what has to be.

Vortenger wrote:
Aelyn, reread Forces of the Death Guard on p. 57 of the Chaos Index. It gives permission. That rule has not been invalidated in any Codex.

I see your rule and raise you one exception. Do you raise, call, or fold?

That is part of the Death Guard section of the Index. This section has been invalidated by the release of Codex: Death Guard. Unless you can show me where it gives you permission to import army selection rules from the Index? The only thing I can see that gives permission to import rules from the Index into an existing army's codex is the Designer's Commentary flowchart, and it only grants access to two things:
- Datasheets that have not been printed in a Codex.
- Wargear options which exist in the Index version of a datasheet, but not the Codex version of the same datasheet.

Also, page 116 of Codex: Chaos Space Marines:

The Death Guard, Thousand Sons and Fallen deviate significantly in terms of organisation and fighting styles. As a result, you cannot choose one of these keywords when determining which Legion a unit in this Codex is from.

So in this case, it's explicit that you cannot take the DEATH GUARD keyword - regardless of whether you can use army selection rules from the Index (which I would dispute anyway), the rule from the Index has been explicitly invalidated in a Codex.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
It's arguments like this one and several others in the same vein that makes me wish that GW would just say once a codex is out that's all that you can use for that <keyword> army. Sorry legacy models but that's what has to be.

Or actually include the earlier options in the new codex so you don't have to go back to the index to try to get them.

 doctortom wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
It's arguments like this one and several others in the same vein that makes me wish that GW would just say once a codex is out that's all that you can use for that <keyword> army. Sorry legacy models but that's what has to be.

Or actually include the earlier options in the new codex so you don't have to go back to the index to try to get them.

No Model, No Rules. Take it up with Chapter House.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
It's arguments like this one and several others in the same vein that makes me wish that GW would just say once a codex is out that's all that you can use for that <keyword> army. Sorry legacy models but that's what has to be.

Or actually include the earlier options in the new codex so you don't have to go back to the index to try to get them.

No Model, No Rules. Take it up with Chapter House.

I would hope it would spur them to having a model that can have options out there instead of limiting options previously around (Autarch being a prime example). Obviously it didn't work that way.