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 I played a game at a recent tournament that was a bit of a mortar-off. The next day at home I realized that Elysian (Forgeworld) heavy weapon squads are a separate datasheet, and are actually 3 points cheaper than their IG counterparts.

So are their special weapon squads, command squads, and officers, and probably other things I haven't thought about yet.

I'd like this fixed but until it gets done, I might be running 5 heavy weapon squads with mortars for 159 points (I don't own enough for a sixth).

And if you want lots of cheap plasma, how about 3 Tallarn special weapon squads outflanking while 3 Elysian special weapon squads deep-strike, for another 288 points? That comes out to 36 plasma shots, and usually 18 plasma hits at point blank range.

This loophole works, right? What would you do with it?

If they're a seperate datasheet, then I guess technically you can take 3 of each. Same with the Russ; you can have normal Russes, Demolishers from the Index, Annihilators, Stygies Vanquishers and Conquerors without invalidating the rule of 3.

Celerior wrote:
So I played a game at a recent tournament that was a bit of a mortar-off. The next day at home I realized that Elysian (Forgeworld) heavy weapon squads are a separate datasheet, and are actually 3 points cheaper than their IG counterparts.

So are their special weapon squads, command squads, and officers, and probably other things I haven't thought about yet.

I'd like this fixed but until it gets done, I might be running 5 heavy weapon squads with mortars for 159 points (I don't own enough for a sixth).

And if you want lots of cheap plasma, how about 3 Tallarn special weapon squads outflanking while 3 Elysian special weapon squads deep-strike, for another 288 points? That comes out to 36 plasma shots, and usually 18 plasma hits at point blank range.

This loophole works, right? What would you do with it?

Yes, this works. Different datasheet means you can take an extra 3. This isn't a "loophole" or "RaW abuse", it's just how the rules works.

This gets absurd when it comes to Leman Russes.

Pask (Codex: Astra Copywritum)

3x Tank Commanders (Codex: Astra Copywritum)

9x Leman Russ Battle Tanks (Codex: Astra Copywritum)

9x Leman Russ Demolishers (Index: Imperium 2)

9x Leman Russ Annihilator (Index: Imperial Armour - Forces of the Astra Copywritum)

9x Leman Russ Conqueror (Index: Imperial Armour - Forces of the Astra Copywritum)

9x Leman Russ Stygies Vanquisher (Index: Imperial Armour - Forces of the Astra Copywritum)

9x Death Korps of Krieg Mars-Alpha Leman Russ Battle Tank (Index: Imperial Armour - Forces of the Astra Copywritum)

There is some debate on whether the "Leman Russ Demolishers" datasheet can still be taken (it depends on how you interpret "Does your model have a datasheet the codex?"), but you can take 58 Leman Russes in a Matched Play Army.

But taking 4 units of Flash Gitz is considered horrific and spammy and must be FORBIDDEN!

Also, don't forget the Rule of 3 is not an actual rule. It's a suggested limitation for Organised Play (aka Tournaments), where TOs can house rule whatever they want anyway. It's not a default rule for normal pick-up Matched Play.

Maybe you should check with the tournament organizer and see if it's legal as it's ultimately their decision. That way you know you won't get kicked out of the tournament for an illegal list.

Build your detachments legally and there’s no problem.

Heck, throw in a DKoK detachment and run 9 x 3 Mortars, why not?

(Also you can in no way still use the Demolisher Datasheet when the Codex now has all variants on one. There’s an updated sheet: use it. Just that guy being contrarian for a scrap I expect, but it needed pointing out that his statement is flawed, RAW)

 Ghaz wrote:
Maybe you should check with the tournament organizer and see if it's legal as it's ultimately their decision. That way you know you won't get kicked out of the tournament for an illegal list.

Well this isn't illegal list assuming tournament hasn't houseruled otherwise

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Build your detachments legally and there’s no problem.

Heck, throw in a DKoK detachment and run 9 x 3 Mortars, why not?

(Also you can in no way still use the Demolisher Datasheet when the Codex now has all variants on one. There’s an updated sheet: use it. Just that guy being contrarian for a scrap I expect, but it needed pointing out that his statement is flawed, RAW)

Where was the Demolisher variant in the index invalidated? If it doesn't have a newer datasheet with the same name then the index datasheet is still valid unless stated otherwise. Take Herald of Nurgle / Poxbringer as an example. GW FAQ'd the Herald of Nurgle recently even though the same model is used as a Poxbringer in the daemons codex. If the index version was to be considered no longer valid then they wouldn't have updated the rules after the codex release.

tneva82 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Maybe you should check with the tournament organizer and see if it's legal as it's ultimately their decision. That way you know you won't get kicked out of the tournament for an illegal list.

Well this isn't illegal list assuming tournament hasn't houseruled otherwise

When he says he's trying to 'get around a rule', then obviously he's not sure what he's doing is kosher for a tournament. Only the tournament organizer can tell him for sure.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
(Also you can in no way still use the Demolisher Datasheet when the Codex now has all variants on one. There’s an updated sheet: use it. Just that guy being contrarian for a scrap I expect, but it needed pointing out that his statement is flawed, RAW)

If I recall correctly, the model in the index is a 'Leman Russ Demolisher' while the model in the codex you refer to is a 'Leman Russ Battle Tank' with the demolisher cannon option.

RAW they're not the same; the index version is therefore still valid.

In a practical and likely RAI sense, yes, they are the same model, but that's not RAW.

Speaking as someone who has been playing 40K since 2nd ed- I really wish that GW had just said that when a codex comes out the index entries for that faction are no longer valid. I know that this would offend a lot of legacy model owners but I'm getting tired of "Can I use the index?" type questions. It would be so much simpler and cleaner just to make a break from the past and move on. If GW wanted to make legacy models usable in 8th they should have put them in a codex or make supplemental codices with those entries.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
(Also you can in no way still use the Demolisher Datasheet when the Codex now has all variants on one. There’s an updated sheet: use it. Just that guy being contrarian for a scrap I expect, but it needed pointing out that his statement is flawed, RAW)

If I recall correctly, the model in the index is a 'Leman Russ Demolisher' while the model in the codex you refer to is a 'Leman Russ Battle Tank' with the demolisher cannon option.

RAW they're not the same; the index version is therefore still valid.

In a practical and likely RAI sense, yes, they are the same model, but that's not RAW.

The first question on the flowchart is "Does Your Model Have A Datasheet In A Codex?". The Demolisher model does have one in the 'Leman Russ Battle Tank' datasheet.

But you can argue that my model does not. My Model is not a "Leman Russ Battle Tank" with a Demolisher Cannon, my model is a "Leman Russ Demolisher". What you're saying is like saying you can't use Tyranic War Veterans (which have to be kitbashed from other models) because the Sternguard Veterans datasheet exists.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
But you can argue that my model does not. My Model is not a "Leman Russ Battle Tank" with a Demolisher Cannon, my model is a "Leman Russ Demolisher". What you're saying is like saying you can't use Tyranic War Veterans (which have to be kitbashed from other models) because the Sternguard Veterans datasheet exists.

Right on time.

Honestly, there’s an updated Demolisher datasheet that describes a Demolisher. It just so happens the main variants are all back on one sheet again. Suck it up and stop trying to be smart for epeen points. It’s just tedious at this point.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Right on time.

Honestly, there’s an updated Demolisher datasheet that describes a Demolisher. It just so happens the main variants are all back on one sheet again. Suck it up and stop trying to be smart for epeen points. It’s just tedious at this point.

I mean... I'm rarely a defender of BCB, but here and now you're the one who instigated and is maintaining an e-peen points issue of this. While I agree in practical terms players should simply use the Leman Russ Battle Tanks datasheet in the codex (and anticipate if GW ever were to address it they would almost certainly force players to do so in that way), at present, whether you like it or not, if someone wanted to take a silly number of Leman Russ variants they could do so as BCB illutstrates.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
But you can argue that my model does not. My Model is not a "Leman Russ Battle Tank" with a Demolisher Cannon, my model is a "Leman Russ Demolisher". What you're saying is like saying you can't use Tyranic War Veterans (which have to be kitbashed from other models) because the Sternguard Veterans datasheet exists.

I don't understand what your getting at but you have lost the plot with your level of hyperbole. Just stop with the crazy strawmen arguments as it really discredits what ever point your trying to make.

1 GW still sell Tyranic war vets https://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Ultramarines-Tyrannic-War-Veterans

2 What does kitbashed or not have to do with which dataslate?

My apologies. Replace the example with Veteran Bikers and Bike Squads then.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
My apologies. Replace the example with Veteran Bikers and Bike Squads then.

I personally think the example of the Daemonic Heralds is the best to demonstrate that index datasheets are valid until they either a) Are replaced with a datasheet of the same name, or b) we are told are invalid otherwise.

Most of the Daemon Heralds got a rename in the codex. So from Herald of Nurgle (Index) to Poxbringer (Codex). One would have assumed that the Herald of Nurgle datasheet was invalidated with the Poxbringer datasheet, however several months after the release of the Daemons codex GW released a FAQ for the Chaos Index that updated the aura ability on each of the Daemonic Heralds which demonstrates that GW consider the index datasheet to still be valid.

This is the same situation with the "Leman Russ Demolisher". There is no "Leman Russ Demolisher" datasheet in the codex, so the index version is still valid.

Yes it needs an faq till then RAW its not the same so you can

Although why youd want to when executioners are so much better

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Right on time.

Honestly, there’s an updated Demolisher datasheet that describes a Demolisher. It just so happens the main variants are all back on one sheet again. Suck it up and stop trying to be smart for epeen points. It’s just tedious at this point.

I mean... I'm rarely a defender of BCB, but here and now you're the one who instigated and is maintaining an e-peen points issue of this. While I agree in practical terms players should simply use the Leman Russ Battle Tanks datasheet in the codex (and anticipate if GW ever were to address it they would almost certainly force players to do so in that way), at present, whether you like it or not, if someone wanted to take a silly number of Leman Russ variants they could do so as BCB illutstrates.

Totally down with most of iwhat he wrote but the idea there isn’t an updated Demolisher Datasheet is pure nonsense.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Right on time.

Honestly, there’s an updated Demolisher datasheet that describes a Demolisher. It just so happens the main variants are all back on one sheet again. Suck it up and stop trying to be smart for epeen points. It’s just tedious at this point.

I mean... I'm rarely a defender of BCB, but here and now you're the one who instigated and is maintaining an e-peen points issue of this. While I agree in practical terms players should simply use the Leman Russ Battle Tanks datasheet in the codex (and anticipate if GW ever were to address it they would almost certainly force players to do so in that way), at present, whether you like it or not, if someone wanted to take a silly number of Leman Russ variants they could do so as BCB illutstrates.

Totally down with most of iwhat he wrote but the idea there isn’t an updated Demolisher Datasheet is pure nonsense.

I can see the reasoning for BCB saying to use the index Demolisher to bypass the rule of three, but I'd refuse to use it/play it because it's a pretty gakky "gotcha!" to pull that only WAAC arse holes would use.

Give them enough time and they will come up with using Keywords instead of "Datasheet".

"You can take at most 3 non-Troop units that share a Keyword that is not one of the generic Keywords such as VEHICLE or INFANTRY".

Yes you can do it. The Rule of Three is a beta rule, and will probably be refined.

 Marmatag wrote:
Yes you can do it. The Rule of Three is a beta rule, and will probably be refined.

Why do people keep saying this? Rule of Three is NOT a beta rule. Never has been, never will be. It's a recommendation (so not even a rule) for Organised Matched Play.

what BCB said. It's a suggestion, not a rule.

If you want to play matched play at home or at a club with mates/colleagues/ ect. then you decide if you guys or gals want to use the rules. In a tourney however it all depends on the TO and what they say

I don't understand why squadrons are a thing in the Astra Millicheese codex anyway. This is 8th edition with spearhead detachments, outrider detachment. Squadrons were never needed in the first place.

Now it just gives Guard an eldar like here is a "rule" everyone else has to follow and here is how we ignore this "rule."