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've noticed that the automated repair system stratagem says it can be used at the beginning of any turn in my codex but the data card says your turn when I was trying to heal my riptide at the start of my opponents turn. Unsure where to put things you find like this so I decided to leave it here.

Can you quote the rules in question? I'd be inclined to go with the Codex version as I've always seen the Datacards as a quick-reference resource only.

Ozomoto wrote:
I've noticed that the automated repair system stratagem says it can be used at the beginning of any turn in my codex but the data card says your turn when I was trying to heal my riptide at the start of my opponents turn. Unsure where to put things you find like this so I decided to leave it here.

I would say Codex overrides Data Cards

Trust GW to not even be able to do that right.

The codex says "at the start of any turn", so you can use it "at the start of any turn." Period. End of Discussion.

 Valkyrie wrote:
Can you quote the rules in question? I'd be inclined to go with the Codex version as I've always seen the Datacards as a quick-reference resource only.

Codex
"Use this Stratagem at the start of any turn. Pick a VEHICLE or BATTLESUIT model from your army. That model regains D3 lost wounds."

Data Cards
"Use this Stratagem at the start of your turn. Pick a VEHICLE or BATTLESUIT model from your army. That model regains D3 lost wounds"

Like I previously alluded to, the datacard could say to use it at the beginning of the Morale Phase and to restore 99 septillion wounds, it doesn't matter because the codex is what the rule are.

Wow, that is bad.

My way of playing it is that the data cards *should* be essentially photocopies of the codex, for quick reference. As such, I would follow the codex.

However, by RAW, what you have is two identically named rules with nearly identical but subtly different *options* available, as both are rules generated and thus legal (barring FAQ / errata on the subject) by GW.

#ruleslawyeringftw

As such, you’re hypothetically the player activating the ability, so you would choose which option to activate. In this case, “any turn” is more advantageous, so you might as well use that.

If one option said “your turn” and another option said “opponent’s turn” you could choose which option to activate.

#cheddahmanftw

I’d say it’s unintentional to give the player this option, but RAW is what RAW does.

Datacards are not rules resources. There is a certain level of unspoken framework that is required for the rules to work. Otherwise I can argue it never defines that dice need to be numbered 1-6, nor does it define what a "roll" is.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Datacards are not rules resources. There is a certain level of unspoken framework that is required for the rules to work. Otherwise I can argue it never defines that dice need to be numbered 1-6, nor does it define what a "roll" is.

i get what your saying but at the same time the guy has a legitimate gripe that two official GW products for the same rule are inconsistent. But I would say Codex takes precedence over the datacards.

Dismissing the alternate option on the Data card is a RAI argument.

“GW meant the rule to exist as it is in the codex.”

“GW meant the rule to exist as it is on the Data Card. The codex is a misprint.”

Without clarification from GW, both sides are equally valid and equally inaccurate. What we currently have is two valid, published rules with the same name and different effects. Happens all the time.

I either choose to activate Rule: Codex or I activate Rule: Data Card.

Again, strictly rules lawyering, and I’d play it by the codex because I believe the *intention* of the cards is to be a quick reference identical to the codex. But that is RAI, and not RAW, and I’m discussing RAW with my two valid option opinion.

Ice_can wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Datacards are not rules resources. There is a certain level of unspoken framework that is required for the rules to work. Otherwise I can argue it never defines that dice need to be numbered 1-6, nor does it define what a "roll" is.

i get what your saying but at the same time the guy has a legitimate gripe that two official GW products for the same rule are inconsistent. But I would say Codex takes precedence over the datacards.

Yeah every single 8th edition GW book other than Codex: Harlequins has needed errata. Codex: Space Wolves needed errata BEFORE IT WENT ON SALE, and their Big Book of Errata needed errata.

In short, Codex+FAQ/Errata are what the rules are, anything else is irrelevant.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Dismissing the alternate option on the Data card is a RAI argument.

“GW meant the rule to exist as it is in the codex.”

“GW meant the rule to exist as it is on the Data Card. The codex is a misprint.”

Without clarification from GW, both sides are equally valid and equally inaccurate. What we currently have is two valid, published rules with the same name and different effects. Happens all the time.

I either choose to activate Rule: Codex or I activate Rule: Data Card.

Again, strictly rules lawyering, and I’d play it by the codex because I believe the *intention* of the cards is to be a quick reference identical to the codex. But that is RAI, and not RAW, and I’m discussing RAW with my two valid option opinion.

GW refers to the codex for rules, they don't refer to the decks of cards. FAQs are released for Codexes; they aren't releasing FAQs for the datacards. That would point out that your argument is incorrect.

Logically speaking, your assertion has no merit.

So far as I know, this is the only instance of Codex / Card inconsistency. As such, unless GW has addressed this unique instance, I can assert that it is intentional (even if I don’t believe that) to have two different rules, with the same name.

Rule book is a rules source. Codices are rules sources. Chapter approved is a rules source. The FAQ are rules sources, and they aren’t even physical items. Rules can exist in White Dwarf magazine. Rules can exist on websites. Rules can exist on tablets in PDF form.

But rules written on card stock are invalid? Is that specifically because of the card stock medium? Does it have something to do with not being in a book, or PDF file format? What is the reasoning for denying the existence of the two different rules that is NOT an RAI argument?

Both versions of the rule are functional, and not exclusive of each other. If Rule C (codex version) did not exist, then Rule D (Data card) would be valid, and vice versa. There is no reason to deny the use of either version of the rule. You could invoke either C or D at the start of your turn, and rule C at the start of your opponent’s turn.

Rule C has a distinct advantage over rule D, in that you can see the results of your turn before deciding if you want to spend CP repairing your suit. For example, if you kill everything that could attack that suit on your turn, spending the points to repair it would be unnecessary. Whereas Rule D makes you gamble. You don’t know at the start of your turn if you will eliminate the threats to your suit, so you’re choosing to buy an insurance policy that pays off if you fail to neutralize the threats to the suit, but is wasted if you do.

I feel that by RAW, the card is a published rules source by GW, and thus is valid for use. In this case, using the nearly identical version of the rule from the codex is simply more advantageous, so there’s little reason not to.

I would guess, however, that if the rule is addressed in an FAQ, that the ruling would be towards the more restrictive “own turn” version as GW generally avoids allowing a player to “interrupt” their opponent’s turn and typically words such actions as being available at the end of your own turn. Functionally identical, but it is their usual way of handling such rules.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Logically speaking, your assertion has no merit.

So far as I know, this is the only instance of Codex / Card inconsistency. As such, unless GW has addressed this unique instance, I can assert that it is intentional (even if I don’t believe that) to have two different rules, with the same name.

Rule book is a rules source. Codices are rules sources. Chapter approved is a rules source. The FAQ are rules sources, and they aren’t even physical items. Rules can exist in White Dwarf magazine. Rules can exist on websites. Rules can exist on tablets in PDF form.

But rules written on card stock are invalid? Is that specifically because of the card stock medium? Does it have something to do with not being in a book, or PDF file format? What is the reasoning for denying the existence of the two different rules that is NOT an RAI argument?

Both versions of the rule are functional, and not exclusive of each other. If Rule C (codex version) did not exist, then Rule D (Data card) would be valid, and vice versa. There is no reason to deny the use of either version of the rule. You could invoke either C or D at the start of your turn, and rule C at the start of your opponent’s turn.

Assert all you want. GW has released FAQ's for Codexes and Indexes. They have not released FAQ's for the datacards. By your logic, you could still use the rules on an old datacard even if the FAQ modified the same rule in the codex. Your claiming my assertion has no merit is a false claim, as the FAQs attest to. When we see GW release a FAQ specifically for the datacards then we can reevaluate your statement. Until then, any assertion that the datacards have the same validity as the Codex if the two differ is the assertion here that's without merit.

The FAQ refer to the codices, that’s true. It is irrelevant, but true. Your assertion about FAQ referring to codices but not data cards is irrelevant because this is a specific issue.

These are two separate and distinct rules, while to the best of my knowledge, all other data cards match their namesake in the codex, word for word.

In that case, they would be the same rule, and modifying one would modify the other.

But these are two *different* rules. Without specific faq/errata, they are similar but different rules. An faq/errata May come along that says to instead treat one as the other. It would make sense to do so.

Your FAQ “proof” is an attempt to create a general rule from no written basis (requirement for a RAW argument) because you say so. Because you believe a certain Intention is applicable to this scenario (RAI argument) which validates my claim that your assertion has no *merit* because there is no proof that your claim is supported by an actual written rule.

Whereas I can refer you to two separate pieces of non-exclusive rules text, and say that both are valid. In this way, I can prove the merit of my assertion through the existence of evidence supporting my claim.

Absence of evidence is not a proof. Absence of an FAQ in this case proves only that an FAQ has not been made. It is not proof of an opinion on the intended interaction between incongruities between codices and data cards.

 greatbigtree wrote:
The FAQ refer to the codices, that’s true. It is irrelevant, but true. Your assertion about FAQ referring to codices but not data cards is irrelevant because this is a specific issue.

These are two separate and distinct rules, while to the best of my knowledge, all other data cards match their namesake in the codex, word for word.

In that case, they would be the same rule, and modifying one would modify the other.

Where does it say to modify the datacards? The FAQ says it's for the Codex; it doesn't say it's for the Codex AND the Datacards. We are not told that the datacards are modifed. You can assume it, but they have made no statements about the datacards being FAQ'd along with the Codexes, or that if there's a difference between the Codex and the datacard that both apply. We are only told that the rules for the army are in the codex.

 greatbigtree wrote:
But these are two *different* rules. Without specific faq/errata, they are similar but[quote=greatbigtree 763670 10150764 87efa277e53f0d6766d3f3839460bcfe.jpg different rules. An faq/errata May come along that says to instead treat one as the other. It would make sense to do so.

We are told the rules for the army are in the codex. The datacards are there to help, but if there's a difference between the datacard and the codex, you go by the rules in the codex as those are the rules that we are told apply to the army. Just like when the Codex gets FAQ'd and some of the datacards no longer match the rules for the FAQ'd Codex.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Your FAQ “proof” is an attempt to create a general rule from no written basis (requirement for a RAW argument) because you say so. Because you believe a certain Intention is applicable to this scenario (RAI argument) which validates my claim that your assertion has no *merit* because there is no proof that your claim is supported by an actual written rule.

Ah, so my pointing out that there's no RAW for what you are claiming is trying to create a rule with no written basis? Hogwash. You haven't offered the proof that a datacard with a rule that differs from the same rule in the codex is an equal source that can be used instead of the rule in the codex. My example just helps point out the absurdity of your position.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Whereas I can refer you to two separate pieces of non-exclusive rules text, and say that both are valid. In this way, I can prove the merit of my assertion through the existence of evidence supporting my claim.

Absence of evidence is not a proof. Absence of an FAQ in this case proves only that an FAQ has not been made. It is not proof of an opinion on the intended interaction between incongruities between codices and data cards.

Actually you have nothing verifying that if the datacard differs from the codex you can use either. We do have a statement, however, that the rules for the army are in the codex. These rules can be modified by the FAQs that GW releases. There is no statement that a datacard with a rule that's written different from the codex is also a valid source to continue using. If there's a conflict, you HAVE to go with the rules in the codex as GW has stated those are the rules for the army.

Permissive ruleset. You are given permission to do things. There are two different permissions granted by virtue of being published rules.

There is no specific permission to use published rules, any more than I need specific permission to use different codices. All published rules are valid until made obsolete (new codex released, for example), they are modified (FAQ, for example) or are specifically discontinued (vehicle design rules, for example).

As I’ve already pointed out, rules can exist outside of the codex, such as in Chapter Approved, White Dwarf, publications by Forge World (arguably). This *proof* denies your assertion that rules can only exist in the codex.

The RAW support for my position is that in a permissive ruleset, I can / must use the rules as presented. We are presented with two options. Permission has yet to be recinded, therefore both options are valid.

Your example, again, creates a non-existent restriction, based solely on the opinion that codex rule overrides the rule presented on the card, when according to a permissive ruleset, you instead have two options until one is taken away.

If you could please quote your assertion that GW states that *only* the codex is to be used as a rules source (sorry index armies!) I would appreciate that so I can review your proof.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As condescending as this may sound, I’m arguing with the assumption that you are familiar with the concepts of “Permissive Rulesets” and are also aware of the differences between RAI and RAW, and how common sense does not necessarily apply to RAW arguments.

Except those datacards are not rules, any more than me scribbling "I win the game" on a post-it note is rules.

*IF* GW published a data card saying you had permission to immediately win the game... it would be rules.

Straw man is straw man, come on. Prove that the data card isn’t a rule published by GW! Prove that a hierarchy of rules exists, published by GW.

If you’re as serious about rules as you claim, you’ll need to be able to produce the rules to support your claim, BCB. Permissive Ruleset. RAW. My argument does not require “because I said so” to back it up. Do the same.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Permissive ruleset. You are given permission to do things. There are two different permissions granted by virtue of being published rules.

There is no specific permission to use published rules, any more than I need specific permission to use different codices. All published rules are valid until made obsolete (new codex released, for example), they are modified (FAQ, for example) or are specifically discontinued (vehicle design rules, for example).

Read the "WARHAMMER 40,000 CODEXES" sidebar in the Datasheets section of the basic primer. There's where you have specific permission to use the codexes, that are described as the ultimate resource for your chosen army. Funnily enough, they make no mention of datacards being a resource for rules there when they talk about army specific rules.

 greatbigtree wrote:
*IF* GW published a data card saying you had permission to immediately win the game... it would be rules.

Straw man is straw man, come on. Prove that the data card isn’t a rule published by GW! Prove that a hierarchy of rules exists, published by GW.

If you’re as serious about rules as you claim, you’ll need to be able to produce the rules to support your claim, BCB. Permissive Ruleset. RAW. My argument does not require “because I said so” to back it up. Do the same.

There is a certain level of unspoken precedent/baseline/whatever you want to call it that is needed for the rules to work at all. Even I accept that. One is the answer to "What is a roll?", another is "Dice are numbered 1 to 6", another is "Dice must be fair." and another is "The rules are the Rulebook, Codexes and Indexes only."

 greatbigtree wrote:
*IF* GW published a data card saying you had permission to immediately win the game... it would be rules.

Straw man is straw man, come on. Prove that the data card isn’t a rule published by GW! Prove that a hierarchy of rules exists, published by GW.

If you’re as serious about rules as you claim, you’ll need to be able to produce the rules to support your claim, BCB. Permissive Ruleset. RAW. My argument does not require “because I said so” to back it up. Do the same.

Actually it's up to you to prove that the datasheets are valid for use when they contradict the codex.

Another nail in the coffin is the Datacards: T'au Empire product description from the online store (emphasis added):

25 Stratagems available to any Battle-forged T’au Empire army as found in Codex: T’au Empire, along with 3 Stratagems – Command Re-roll, Counter-Offensive and Insane Bravery – from the Warhammer 40,000 rules, available to any army

Nothing about unique stratagems, just those found in the codex plus the three from the main rulebook. The obvious misprint on the datacards is obvious.

@ DoctorTom. Please provide a page reference, or better yet a quote. This is formal argument, and there are processes and procedures!

The rules do not CONTRADICT each other. They are two distinct options, like shooting or advancing. The burden of proof here is shifted to the person claiming that a published rule is invalidated. In this case, you must prove that Rule D (rule on the data card) is invalid, regardless of the rule in the codex because they are different rules. I can prove they are different rules because they do not have the same words, and thus have different effects and results. Like shooting a bolt pistol or shooting a Plasma Gun. I have the option to use either option, unless prevented by another rule. Permissive ruleset.

@ BCB: the mutual understanding stance is irrelevant to this discussion, for the reason outlined above. Not two contradictions, two distinct options.

@ Both: To establish the battleground, are we denying that rules sources outsides the codices and rulebooks exist? Do we deny FAQ, Eratta, Chapter Approved, White Dwarf, and other publications by GW are rules?

I assert that all rules written and published by GW, regardless of medium, are valid, and that unless they are made obsolete, altered, or discontinued by GW, they are valid. I assert that valid rules exist outside of the code rule book, codices, and Indices. I’ve previously listed some examples of these additional sources.

Do we agree that 40k is a permissive ruleset? That the rules describe actions that the players are allowed to take, and that player may take those actions unless another rule specifically prevents that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ Ghaz: Is the “misprint” in the codex, or on the card? What was the *intended* Rule? Description of a product is not a rule, any more than the description of a model on the store is a rule. Talkin rules here!

 greatbigtree wrote:
@ DoctorTom. Please provide a page reference, or better yet a quote. This is formal argument, and there are processes and procedures!

Page 13 in the battle primer. I'm sorry you couldn't figure out where it was from the specific mention of what sidebar it was in the Datasheets section of the Battle Primer (a section that takes up only two pages in the primer). It's also obvious that by having to assert the need for a page reference that you have no interest in what the other side is saying, only trying to find ways to dismiss it by claiming it's "irrelevant" or that a "proper" reference isn't provided.

 greatbigtree wrote:
The rules do not CONTRADICT each other. They are two distinct options, like shooting or advancing

That's not true. One says during your @ BCB: the mutual understanding stance is irrelevant to this discussion, for the reason outlined above. Not two contradictions, two distinct options. At the start of your turn vs at the start of a turn. If it's the start of the opponent's turn, then there's a contradiction - one says you can do it, the other only has permission for you to use it at the start of your turn. Permission vs. not having permission is a contradiction. It's not two distinct options.

 greatbigtree wrote:
@ Both: To establish the battleground, are we denying that rules sources outsides the codices and rulebooks exist? Do we deny FAQ, Eratta, Chapter Approved, White Dwarf, and other publications by GW are rules?

Strawman argument - GW has stated that datasheets in other publicatons, FAQs, etc are rules. GW has not stated that the Datacards are rules that exist independent of the codex. They say the datasheets and the codex are the source of the rules. Note that Ghaz points out recent hype for the T'au codex that does not mention the datacards as being a source of the rules.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Do we agree that 40k is a permissive ruleset? That the rules describe actions that the players are allowed to take, and that player may take those actions unless another rule specifically prevents that?

A permissive ruleset assumes that you are getting your permission from rules that the game maker has said are the official rules. They have stated that the datasheets are official rules (those can appear in White Dwarf as well as in codexes). They have said that the FAQs are official. They have not said that the datacards are official rules that are independent of the codex and apply equally if there is disagreement between them.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ Ghaz: Is the “misprint” in the codex, or on the card? What was the *intended* Rule? Description of a product is not a rule, any more than the description of a model on the store is a rule. Talkin rules here!

The misprint is the card. The codex is stated to be the official rule.... as indicated by "25 Stratagems available to any Battle-forged T’au Empire army as found in Codex: T’au Empire, along with 3 Stratagems – Command Re-roll, Counter-Offensive and Insane Bravery – from the Warhammer 40,000 rules, available to any army", along with the other statements by GW about the codex having the rules you need for your army and the lack of mention of the datacards as being an official source that is allowed to contradict or to be able to overwrite the codex. FAQs overwrite a codex, datacards don't.

@ DoctorTom:

You're right to be suspicious, but I'm not going to prove it's invalid. You are!

The battle primer is...

Printed on Card Stock.
Intended as a quick reference, but can also stand alone.
Has rules that are similar, but not always identical to, the main rule book.
A valid rules source, despite not being identical to the Rule Book.

The Data Cards are...

Printed on Card Stock
Intended as a quick reference, but can also stand alone.
Has rules that are similar, but not always identical to, the codex.
A valid rules source, despite not being identical to the codex.

Because if the Battle Primer isn't valid... you have no written rules to support your position. And if the Battle Primer is valid... so is a Data Card.

Whan-whaaaan!

There is no contradiction, because they are two separate rules, and not the same rule. Both can be activated and resolved, correctly, and independently. RAW, there are two nearly identical rules, but not the same rule. Like... Slow and Purposeful and Relentless from editions past. They had similar, but slightly different rules. Neither invalidated the other.

You claim that I make a strawman argument. You claim that GW has said the other publications are rules, but has not stated that the datacards are rules. Please provide a reference. Until that point, this is a baseless claim and can be dismissed as such. You don't need to be told that rules are rules. They are the rules. You're given permission to use them. They are published rules. I don't understand the objection to the data cards being rules publications.

There is no distinction that GW makes that are "official" rules, and unofficial rules. You are given options on ways to play the game. You can play open, narrative, or matched. All rules are valid, though some rules only apply when playing certain styles of battle. GW has specified some rules as "Beta" rules that are being tested. Do you have a quote, claiming that the data cards are "Beta" rules and thus optional? GW does have an established means of indicating when rules are optional / experimental, and I am unaware of this being applied to this Data Card.

First off, if you're going to swim in the rules pond, be sure to bring rules. Advertising is not considered rules. So I'm going to push that off. How many times have units been described as unbeatable, or the bestest, or beyond compare, or godly, or any number of things? Advertisement is not rules any more than fluff is rules.

A misprint by definition is a mistake... one that could be made in the codex, or on the card. A RAW argument does not allow intention to become part of the debate. And the only source you've found that states the Codex is "more valid" somehow is in a source effectively as valid as Data Cards.

Gentlefolk, you create restrictions out of whole cloth, based entirely upon RAI. Which is great if you're looking at how you'd play it... but not RAW. Both rules can exist independent of the other. Neither is invalidated by the other's existence until such time as they are addressed through obsolescence, review, or elimination.

 greatbigtree wrote:
@ DoctorTom:

I don't understand the objection to the data cards being rules publications.

It's pretty simple. You do not have to own the data cards to play 40K. The rules are in the codex for the army. The data cards are only a supplemental gaming accessory.

Data cards are nothing more than a aid to make the game easier.

So is the battle primer... is it an invalid rules source? You can play your army from the Index... just ask the Orks. A codex is NOT a mandatory item for playing 40k. Just very convenient.

You could use the data cards in conjunction with an index list, could you not? The rules are self-contained on the cards. You could show them to an opponent as a valid rules source, could you not?

I can put Rough Riders on the table, despite their lack of existence in the Astra Militarum codex, can I not? The rules for Commissars are changed based on errata, are they not? The codex is not the be-all, end-all of rules for a faction.

 greatbigtree wrote:
So is the battle primer... is it an invalid rules source? You can play your army from the Index... just ask the Orks. A codex is NOT a mandatory item for playing 40k. Just very convenient.

You could use the data cards in conjunction with an index list, could you not? The rules are self-contained on the cards. You could show them to an opponent as a valid rules source, could you not?

I can put Rough Riders on the table, despite their lack of existence in the Astra Militarum codex, can I not? The rules for Commissars are changed based on errata, are they not? The codex is not the be-all, end-all of rules for a faction.

Absolute fething insanity here.

1)The battle-primer is available as a downloadable. so the "cardstock" bit is both reaching(based on printed format in the box sets), and irrelevant.

2) No, you cannot use the datacards with an index list; anything in the index that is trumped by the codex must use the codex version; and there is no legal list outside of games where strategems do not apply that can be built entirely around datasheets and datasheet options that do not exist in the codex.

3) the cards are meant( in their own definition) to make the games easier to keep track of(mostly referring to tactical objectives 11-16).

4) Yes rough riders are available via the index, which means nothing to data cards; there is a statement within the official rules sources(FAQ, Designer's commentary, and Stepping into a new addition) that lay out exactly how this works.

5)Yes, errata to commissars are the most valid rules/ are you making a point here about rules changes that are specifically stated as flat-out rules changes mean something to your argument?

6)yes, and no. the most current codex is the valid source for the rules(stated by the people who write the rules).
Errata and FAQs clarify or change what is meant in those codices. Chapter Approved also is an official source that adds to or changes those rules. So; the codex; with, FAQ and Chapter Approved, is the be-all and end-all of the rules.

In short: everything about the data cards gaming accessory is meaningless without backup from the official sources.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
So is the battle primer... is it an invalid rules source? You can play your army from the Index... just ask the Orks. A codex is NOT a mandatory item for playing 40k. Just very convenient.

You could use the data cards in conjunction with an index list, could you not? The rules are self-contained on the cards. You could show them to an opponent as a valid rules source, could you not?

I can put Rough Riders on the table, despite their lack of existence in the Astra Militarum codex, can I not? The rules for Commissars are changed based on errata, are they not? The codex is not the be-all, end-all of rules for a faction.

Absolute fething insanity here.

1)The battle-primer is available as a downloadable. so the "cardstock" bit is both reaching(based on printed format in the box sets), and irrelevant.

2) No, you cannot use the datacards with an index list; anything in the index that is trumped by the codex must use the codex version; and there is no legal list outside of games where strategems do not apply that can be built entirely around datasheets and datasheet options that do not exist in the codex.

3) the cards are meant( in their own definition) to make the games easier to keep track of(mostly referring to tactical objectives 11-16).

4) Yes rough riders are available via the index, which means nothing to data cards; there is a statement within the official rules sources(FAQ, Designer's commentary, and Stepping into a new addition) that lay out exactly how this works.

5)Yes, errata to commissars are the most valid rules/ are you making a point here about rules changes that are specifically stated as flat-out rules changes mean something to your argument?

6)yes, and no. the most current codex is the valid source for the rules(stated by the people who write the rules).
Errata and FAQs clarify or change what is meant in those codices. Chapter Approved also is an official source that adds to or changes those rules. So; the codex; with, FAQ and Chapter Approved, is the be-all and end-all of the rules.

In short: everything about the data cards gaming accessory is meaningless without backup from the official sources.

So by the logic of 2 + 4, you can use rough rider from the index, but you can't use any stratagems on them, or in their army?