Switch Theme:

Eligibility of Psychic awakening books?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in hr
Fresh-Faced New User




As in the title, are factions that have 9th edition Codices eligible to use the Psychic awakening books?

Interested in Death guard at most - for example:

a) In the "War of the spider" the Death guard units get the Shock attack rule, but none is present in their 9th Codex - so do they get it or no?
b) stratagems, some are named the same in both books - are the ones that are in both books used as in their Codex entry while the ones unique to the War of the spider can be used as written there?
c) plenty other "conflicts" with duplicates in both books - what about those (relics, plague companies, etc. ) ?

In general, is there a statement by GW which defines how to use newer Codices with older edition supplements ( Psychic awakening, Vigilus, etc...) ?

Thanks!
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




Tacoma, WA, USA

If you are using a 9th Edition Codex, your Psychic Awakening content is null and void.
   
Made in hr
Fresh-Faced New User




Ok...but to quote myself:

"...is there a statement by GW which defines how to use newer Codices with older edition supplements ( Psychic awakening, Vigilus, etc...) ?"

So if you could point me to the direction of where I might get the same conclusion, that would be great
   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

From 'What is the Psychic Awakening?' on Warhammer Community:

The Psychic Awakening books act as a codex update for your armies.

So if the codex that Psychic Awakening is updating is no longer in use, then the update is no longer in use as well. If GW wanted to keep some of the Psychic Awakening rules, then those rules were integrated into the new codices as they are released.

'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in hr
Fresh-Faced New User




Yes, but again...a quote from the "War of the spider":

"This section is a supplement to Codex: Death Guard - you will need a copy of that book to use the rules in this section."

In doesn't state something like "This section is a supplement to Codex: Death Guard for 8th edition..."

So the question still stands, was there a statement by GW, because I searched high an low and couldn't find anything to support the fact 8th edition supplements aren't viable anymore - other than plain reason.
But then again, this isn't exactly a game of plain reason, but RAW...

P.S. i'd really like to go against Death guard with one less A when charged (or charging), but I need help in providing my reason...
   
Made in gb
Member of a Lodge? I Can't Say






Spoiler:
ThulsaDoom wrote:
As in the title, are factions that have 9th edition Codices eligible to use the Psychic awakening books?

Interested in Death guard at most - for example:

a) In the "War of the spider" the Death guard units get the Shock attack rule, but none is present in their 9th Codex - so do they get it or no?

IIRC, Shock Attack was the Death Guard version of the rules CSM/SM got to give them more attacks. DG got those attacks added in the 9th Ed Codex to their base profile.

Spoiler:
b) stratagems, some are named the same in both books - are the ones that are in both books used as in their Codex entry while the ones unique to the War of the spider can be used as written there?

The ones not included in the Codex are probably OK to use.

Spoiler:
c) plenty other "conflicts" with duplicates in both books - what about those (relics, plague companies, etc. ) ?

Always go Codex first for rules conflicts when comparing them to an outdated book.


Spoiler:
In general, is there a statement by GW which defines how to use newer Codices with older edition supplements ( Psychic awakening, Vigilus, etc...) ?

Thanks!

The issue with the PA books was that they were released right up until 9th came out and then AFAIK all of the 9th Ed Codexes included most of the PA content in them anyway.
TBH I wouldn't use the PA books for anything but name generators and mission packs if the army you are playing has a 9th Ed Codex as they are now outdated despite only being in the 8th Ed cycle for less than a year.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoiler:
ThulsaDoom wrote:

So the question still stands, was there a statement by GW, because I searched high an low and couldn't find anything to support the fact 8th edition supplements aren't viable anymore - other than plain reason.
But then again, this isn't exactly a game of plain reason, but RAW...

If someone is trying to use RAW as an excuse to use an outdated rulebook then they need to be hit with said rulebook.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/20 21:26:57


 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




They are a supplement to the codex at the time. They're not valid any longer, for those where the codex was updated. There is no need for a statement from gw on this.
   
Made in gb
Executing Exarch






ThulsaDoom wrote:
Yes, but again...a quote from the "War of the spider":

"This section is a supplement to Codex: Death Guard - you will need a copy of that book to use the rules in this section."

In doesn't state something like "This section is a supplement to Codex: Death Guard for 8th edition..."

So the question still stands, was there a statement by GW, because I searched high an low and couldn't find anything to support the fact 8th edition supplements aren't viable anymore - other than plain reason.
But then again, this isn't exactly a game of plain reason, but RAW...

P.S. i'd really like to go against Death guard with one less A when charged (or charging), but I need help in providing my reason...


I seem to recall GW stating this in no uncertain terms.

But for the life of me I cant remember where I seen this.
Im not going to dig through all the various articles and FAQs so you'd have to do the leg work yourself. I have a hunch this was explained towards the very beginning of the edition and when the first two codex's dropped.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/772746.page#10378083 - My progress/failblog painting blog thingy

Eldar- 4436 pts


AngryAngel80 wrote:
I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "


 Eonfuzz wrote:


I would much rather everyone have a half ass than no ass.


"A warrior does not seek fame and honour. They come to him as he humbly follows his path"  
   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

ThulsaDoom wrote:
Yes, but again...a quote from the "War of the spider":

"This section is a supplement to Codex: Death Guard - you will need a copy of that book to use the rules in this section."

In doesn't state something like "This section is a supplement to Codex: Death Guard for 8th edition..."

So the question still stands, was there a statement by GW, because I searched high an low and couldn't find anything to support the fact 8th edition supplements aren't viable anymore - other than plain reason.
But then again, this isn't exactly a game of plain reason, but RAW...

P.S. i'd really like to go against Death guard with one less A when charged (or charging), but I need help in providing my reason...

Try looking at the date on the books.

'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in au
Frenzied Berserker Terminator





GW has never consistently said when a book is no longer valid. The argument has cropped up every now and then, with people saying "my codex from last edition is still valid because the current codex doesn't say it replaces it!".

The truth is that you have a supplement that is still currently available that says it adds rules to another codex, and is advertised as a supplement to that codex. The rules never tell you to look at when a book was published.

As an example, look at the errata for the Space Marine supplements from 8E. Those supplements are still valid, even though the base book has been replaced - they just have an errata document to add things like CORE keywords, etc.

While I don't think it's the intention to add WotS rules to 9E Death Guard, though, and I suspect most opponents would not allow you to do it. I think GW absolutely should add a line to the errata for that book to essentially delete the whole Death Guard section to avoid all doubt.
   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

 Cheex wrote:
As an example, look at the errata for the Space Marine supplements from 8E. Those supplements are still valid, even though the base book has been replaced - they just have an errata document to add things like CORE keywords, etc.

From 'The Codex Show' on Warhammer Community (emphasis added):

In addition to detailed lore on all the First Founding Chapters and some of their most famous successors (such as the Black Templars and Crimson Fists), the new codex is the biggest ever, with a whopping 98 datasheets covering all of the common units available to the armies of the Adeptus Astartes.

It will serve as a core book for future codex supplements that will formally reintroduce each Chapter’s bespoke units and Characters (we’ll have more on these later). Existing codex supplements such as that of the Ultramarines are still perfectly compatible with the new book, and we’ll be providing the Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Deathwatch, and Space Wolves with get-you-by rules so you’ll be good to go from the outset.

There has been no such statement for the Psychic Awakening books, therefore they're only applicable to rules which have not been updated via a 9th edition codex.

'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in gb
Member of a Lodge? I Can't Say






 Cheex wrote:
I think GW absolutely should add a line to the errata for that book to essentially delete the whole Death Guard section to avoid all doubt.

Yeah but then how would they sell overpriced books with naff all content?
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

ThulsaDoom wrote:
Yes, but again...a quote from the "War of the spider":

"This section is a supplement to Codex: Death Guard - you will need a copy of that book to use the rules in this section."

In doesn't state something like "This section is a supplement to Codex: Death Guard for 8th edition..."

So the question still stands, was there a statement by GW, because I searched high an low and couldn't find anything to support the fact 8th edition supplements aren't viable anymore - other than plain reason.
But then again, this isn't exactly a game of plain reason, but RAW...

P.S. i'd really like to go against Death guard with one less A when charged (or charging), but I need help in providing my reason...


No, no, you also need to apply plain reason.

The new Codex invalidates prior Death Guard rules, both Codex and PA. Thisbis understood and accepted by the community at large. If your pals are trying to pull a fast one and use the old supplement for a new book that’s silly. The DG previews even made mention of updating rules from PA like Plague Companies. Just tell your mates to use the current rules and stop playing silly buggers!

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in au
Frenzied Berserker Terminator





 Ghaz wrote:
 Cheex wrote:
As an example, look at the errata for the Space Marine supplements from 8E. Those supplements are still valid, even though the base book has been replaced - they just have an errata document to add things like CORE keywords, etc.

From 'The Codex Show' on Warhammer Community (emphasis added):

In addition to detailed lore on all the First Founding Chapters and some of their most famous successors (such as the Black Templars and Crimson Fists), the new codex is the biggest ever, with a whopping 98 datasheets covering all of the common units available to the armies of the Adeptus Astartes.

It will serve as a core book for future codex supplements that will formally reintroduce each Chapter’s bespoke units and Characters (we’ll have more on these later). Existing codex supplements such as that of the Ultramarines are still perfectly compatible with the new book, and we’ll be providing the Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Deathwatch, and Space Wolves with get-you-by rules so you’ll be good to go from the outset.

There has been no such statement for the Psychic Awakening books, therefore they're only applicable to rules which have not been updated via a 9th edition codex.

Just because GW has stated that one set of supplements is still valid with a new codex, doesn't mean that other supplements are not.

Psychic Awakening says that it is valid (because it tells us to apply those rules to the codex) and no statement has told us otherwise.

As much as I agree that it shouldn't be valid, I don't see any RAW reason why it isn't.
   
Made in gb
Member of a Lodge? I Can't Say






The rules previews for the 9th Ed DG Codex said which things from the PA book were added to the main Codex, just like every other 9th Ed Codex. IIRC things like Hateful Assualt/Shock Assualt were specifically mentioned as no longer being rules and that all armies that previously benefited from them would be getting a flat Attacks upgrade in their new Codex.
It's why people were so mad about PA since the books were invalid in less than a year in most cases.
   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

 Cheex wrote:
Just because GW has stated that one set of supplements is still valid with a new codex, doesn't mean that other supplements are not.

Basically it does. If the codex it applies to has been updated, then any supplements or updates for that codex are null and void without notice to the contrary.

 Cheex wrote:
Psychic Awakening says that it is valid (because it tells us to apply those rules to the codex) and no statement has told us otherwise.

As much as I agree that it shouldn't be valid, I don't see any RAW reason why it isn't.

Again, the sections of Psychic Awakening that update a codex which has been replaced with a 9th edition codex are no longer valid. There is no rules saying that the rules in Psychic Awakening apply to any other codices than those that they were written for.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/21 00:30:07


'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in au
Frenzied Berserker Terminator





 Ghaz wrote:
 Cheex wrote:
Just because GW has stated that one set of supplements is still valid with a new codex, doesn't mean that other supplements are not.

Basically it does. If the codex it applies to has been updated, then any supplements or updates for that codex are null and void without notice to the contrary.

Where are you getting this? I have not seen GW saying this anywhere, and you are making an assumption based on them saying the inverse (i.e. taking "X supplement is valid" to mean "all other supplements are invalid").

 Cheex wrote:
Psychic Awakening says that it is valid (because it tells us to apply those rules to the codex) and no statement has told us otherwise.

As much as I agree that it shouldn't be valid, I don't see any RAW reason why it isn't.

Again, the sections of Psychic Awakening that update a codex which has been replaced with a 9th edition codex are no longer valid. There is no rules saying that the rules in Psychic Awakening apply to any other codices than those that they were written for.

WotS says it adds rules to "Codex: Death Guard". It doesn't add rules to "Codex: Death Guard (2017)".

If I am misremembering this, please correct me and provide the actual wording.
   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

The rules tell us what we can do, not what we can't do. Please quote any rules that specifically say that once a codex has been replaced by a new codex, any supplements or updates for that old codex now apply to the new codex and can be used.

'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in us
Painlord Titan Princeps of Slaanesh




War of the Spider was written during 8th edition. The only codex Death Guard that was available was the 8th edition codex. Ergo WotS is meant to be used with the 8th edition Death Guard Codex. RAW the WotS book does not say this codex and all future codices it specifies the Death Guard Codex with the implication that it applies to the Codex in play at that time.

Otherwise people could pull out their favorite edition of a Codex and say the same thing you are saying, "This Codex doesn't say that it only applies to X edition. Therefore I can use it now."

Don't be TFG. Use some common sense and just play the game.
   
Made in au
Frenzied Berserker Terminator





 Ghaz wrote:
The rules tell us what we can do, not what we can't do. Please quote any rules that specifically say that once a codex has been replaced by a new codex, any supplements or updates for that old codex now apply to the new codex and can be used.

WotS tells us to add those rules to Codex: Death Guard. It doesn't need to specifically say that it applies to a codex after it has been replaced, because the replacement codex is still called Codex: Death Guard.
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 Cheex wrote:

Just because GW has stated that one set of supplements is still valid with a new codex, doesn't mean that other supplements are not.

Psychic Awakening says that it is valid (because it tells us to apply those rules to the codex) and no statement has told us otherwise.

As much as I agree that it shouldn't be valid, I don't see any RAW reason why it isn't.
Because the Psychic Awakening book can not be referring to a codex that was released after it was. War of the Spider was written during 8th edition. The only codex Death Guard that it can possibly be referring to is the 8th edition codex.

That is the RAW reason why it isn't valid anymore.

 Ghaz wrote:
The rules tell us what we can do, not what we can't do. Please quote any rules that specifically say that once a codex has been replaced by a new codex, any supplements or updates for that old codex now apply to the new codex and can be used.
Basically this. There has to be something that says it is allowed, Cheex.

It doesn't say I can't put my vehicle back on the table the turn after it explodes and use it again, but that doesn't mean I can do that.

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in au
Frenzied Berserker Terminator





Leo_the_Rat wrote:
War of the Spider was written during 8th edition. The only codex Death Guard that was available was the 8th edition codex. Ergo WotS is meant to be used with the 8th edition Death Guard Codex. RAW the WotS book does not say this codex and all future codices it specifies the Death Guard Codex with the implication that it applies to the Codex in play at that time.

Otherwise people could pull out their favorite edition of a Codex and say the same thing you are saying, "This Codex doesn't say that it only applies to X edition. Therefore I can use it now."

Don't be TFG. Use some common sense and just play the game.

I agree (edit: that it should not be considered valid). GW has always done codex supercession badly, with very few instances where they have explicitly said that a codex replaces all previous codexes and supplements (IIRC the 3.5E Chaos codex did say this, for example).

The difference here is that WotS is still a current publication that is still publicly available to purchase on GW's own website. If you were a new player who bought Codex: Death Guard and you saw that a supplement was available, what would lead you to believe that that supplement was invalid?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/21 01:28:26


 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

So GW wanting to make money on an outdated product surprises you?

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in au
Frenzied Berserker Terminator





 DeathReaper wrote:
So GW wanting to make money on an outdated product surprises you?

Irrelevant, no one here is championing GW's sales practices.

If a player uses Codex: Death Guard and a (currently available) supplement that references Codex: Death Guard, please point to me which rule they have broken. I'll be happy to be proven wrong here.

As yet, the "RAW" argument is that as soon as Codex: Death Guard (2017) was superceded, all references to it in any other publication since then cease to exist unless stated otherwise, but no one can seem to point to a rule that says this.

For absolute clarity, I do not think players should be using this supplement with Codex: Death Guard (2021) and will insist this to any opponent who tries to do so, but given that this supplement is still available for sale, I think GW absolutely should state via errata that it is no longer valid.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/21 06:06:17


 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Find me a rule saying that the codex it refers to, form 8th, is still the same codex now. Sharing a name isn't enough. The codex referred to in PA isn't the same as the one currently on sale.
   
Made in hr
Fresh-Faced New User




Also, the plot thickening with the dates, as the WotS got errata'd in the last wave, the date is 2.6.2021. which is what, half a year after the new DG Codex came out?

But also, no mention of DG changes in the errata, only the Custodes/Assassin changes, etc.

So common sense would be it is viable, just not for DG?

What about stratagems that aren't repeated in the DG Codex, do they work if WotS is the only place they are mentioned?
   
Made in gb
Member of a Lodge? I Can't Say






I'd like to point out that the PA books feature rules for multiple factions so even if faction A has been updated, faction B might still need the PA book for its rules. Dumb but that's GW.
Also, just because the FAQ for the PA book was added after the Codex was released doesn't mean the PA book is newer. That's just bad logic.
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 Cheex wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
So GW wanting to make money on an outdated product surprises you?

Irrelevant, no one here is championing GW's sales practices.

If a player uses Codex: Death Guard and a (currently available) supplement that references Codex: Death Guard, please point to me which rule they have broken. I'll be happy to be proven wrong here.
Except the current Codex: Death Guard is not the one referenced in the Psychic awakening books.

Do you have a citation stating that the Psychic awakening books reference the newest codex? (You do not because the current codex was not written at the time of the Psychic awakening books release, and as such can not make reference to it).

Just because two things have the same name does not mean they are the same thing.

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in au
Frenzied Berserker Terminator





What about the Book of Rust, which has supplements for Codex: Drukhari and Codex: Adeptus Mechanicus, despite being released before both? We "know" that those codexes were clearly supposed to come out before the supplements, but technically when they were released they referred to books that no longer exist. There's probably some obscure mention on WarCom about this, but is a player really meant to know every article posted on GW's official blog?

It's all well and good to say that GW intended for these supplements to apply to specific editions of a codex, and I agree with you, but nothing actually says this. That is my point - that GW should clarify when "Codex: Death Guard" is in fact not "Codex: Death Guard".
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 Cheex wrote:
That is my point - that GW should clarify when "Codex: Death Guard" is in fact not "Codex: Death Guard".

They did.

"Codex: Death Guard 8th Ed" (Released in September 2017 is ISBN #978-1788260053) which is not the same as "Codex: Death Guard 9th Ed" (Released in January 2021 is ISBN #9781839061370)


They also do not tell you how to roll dice or that your die must be numbered 1-6

You just have to keep up with the latest releases if you want to know what the current rules are.

Terrible system, but that is GW for you.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/21 22:12:26


"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: