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'm reading the new codex, but I can't find it: Does Imperial Guard no longer have the ability from the dataslate that says they ignore the -1/+1 to save for artillery?

Yes, that that was change meant to help the 8th edition book. The dataslate had a balance update for the 8th edition book, and those changes won't exist once the 9th edition book is out for public release.

No that change exists in the dataslate which is still legal and will exist until such time as they change the dataslate. The dataslate exists seperate to the content of the books and noone can know if it will be changed and what the changes will be

U02dah4 wrote:
No that change exists in the dataslate which is still legal and will exist until such time as they change the dataslate. The dataslate exists seperate to the content of the books and noone can know if it will be changed and what the changes will be

That… isn’t how things work. We have precedent that new Codex overwrites and disregards previous patches. It won’t apply once the new Codex is used.

U02dah4 wrote:
No that change exists in the dataslate which is still legal and will exist until such time as they change the dataslate. The dataslate exists seperate to the content of the books and noone can know if it will be changed and what the changes will be

The metawatch article yesterday, in the video they literally said the balance dataslate for Astra millitarum is only for the 8th edition book, not intended for the new book.

 jaredb wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
No that change exists in the dataslate which is still legal and will exist until such time as they change the dataslate. The dataslate exists seperate to the content of the books and noone can know if it will be changed and what the changes will be

The metawatch article yesterday, in the video they literally said the balance dataslate for Astra millitarum is only for the 8th edition book, not intended for the new book.

WHC articles are not rules and often contain errors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
No that change exists in the dataslate which is still legal and will exist until such time as they change the dataslate. The dataslate exists seperate to the content of the books and noone can know if it will be changed and what the changes will be

That… isn’t how things work. We have precedent that new Codex overwrites and disregards previous patches. It won’t apply once the new Codex is used.

We have precedent that FAQs only apply to the specific book they were written for, we have no such precedent for balance dataslates that make general rules about the game. This is what the indirect fire penalty says:

Attacks made with Indirect Fire weapons by
Astra Militarum models are unaffected by any of the
Indirect Fire weapon rules presented above.

This has no reference to a particular codex, only the ASTRA MILITARUM keyword which units in the new codex have. Until/unless GW changes the dataslate the penalty does not apply. They may choose to do so in the future but until they do it's merely speculation about a possible change, not current rules.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

 jaredb wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
No that change exists in the dataslate which is still legal and will exist until such time as they change the dataslate. The dataslate exists seperate to the content of the books and noone can know if it will be changed and what the changes will be

The metawatch article yesterday, in the video they literally said the balance dataslate for Astra millitarum is only for the 8th edition book, not intended for the new book.

WHC articles are not rules and often contain errors.

It's not an article. It's a video interview with the game designer where he specifically says the dataslate is just for the 8th Edition codex. That can't be misunderstood. Watch the video.

 jaredb wrote:
It's not an article. It's a video interview with the game designer where he specifically says the dataslate is just for the 8th Edition codex. That can't be misunderstood. Watch the video.

And it's still not rules.

When it's from the rules designers it is.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
When it's from the rules designers it is.

Not until it is published as actual rules.

Wow, this takes trolling to another level. New rules overwrite old rules.

 p5freak wrote:
Wow, this takes trolling to another level. New rules overwrite old rules.

What new rules are there? The new dataslate isn't out yet, the only rule that exists is the following:

INDIRECT FIRE WEAPONS
An Indirect Fire weapon is one that can target units that
are not visible to the bearer (e.g. mortars, smart-missile
systems, impaler cannons, etc.). If such a weapon targets
a unit that is not visible (i.e. no models in a target unit
are visible to the firing unit when you selected it as a
target), then each time an attack is made with that weapon
against that target this phase, worsen the Ballistic Skill
characteristic of that attack by 1 and add 1 to any armour
saving throws made against that attack.

Astra Militarum models are unaffected by any of the
Indirect Fire weapon rules presented above.

Unless there is a newer version of the dataslate that overwrites this version you seem to be making the argument that a new version of one book somehow invalidates rules printed in an entirely different place. This is not an FAQ that is attached to a specific book, it is a game-wide rule change that references a keyword that units in the new codex still have.

(HotE, on the other hand, is no longer valid because the prerequisite keyword no longer exists.)

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

Spoiler:

 p5freak wrote:
Wow, this takes trolling to another level. New rules overwrite old rules.

What new rules are there? The new dataslate isn't out yet, the only rule that exists is the following:

INDIRECT FIRE WEAPONS
An Indirect Fire weapon is one that can target units that
are not visible to the bearer (e.g. mortars, smart-missile
systems, impaler cannons, etc.). If such a weapon targets
a unit that is not visible (i.e. no models in a target unit
are visible to the firing unit when you selected it as a
target), then each time an attack is made with that weapon
against that target this phase, worsen the Ballistic Skill
characteristic of that attack by 1 and add 1 to any armour
saving throws made against that attack.

Astra Militarum models are unaffected by any of the
Indirect Fire weapon rules presented above.

Unless there is a newer version of the dataslate that overwrites this version you seem to be making the argument that a new version of one book somehow invalidates rules printed in an entirely different place. This is not an FAQ that is attached to a specific book, it is a game-wide rule change that references a keyword that units in the new codex still have.

(HotE, on the other hand, is no longer valid because the prerequisite keyword no longer exists.)

That "INDIRECT FIRE WEAPONS" is from "The balance dataslate" for 8th Ed.

The new AM book is 9th Ed., so anything for 8th Ed. does not apply.

 DeathReaper wrote:
That "INDIRECT FIRE WEAPONS" is from "The balance dataslate" for 8th Ed.

Um, what? That quote is taken from the Q4 2022 balance dataslate, published 10/20/22. Balance dataslates didn't even exist in 8th edition.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
That "INDIRECT FIRE WEAPONS" is from "The balance dataslate" for 8th Ed.

Um, what? That quote is taken from the Q4 2022 balance dataslate, published 10/20/22. Balance dataslates didn't even exist in 8th edition.

 jaredb wrote:
Yes, that that was change meant to help the 8th edition book. The dataslate had a balance update for the 8th edition book, and those changes won't exist once the 9th edition book is out for public release.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
That "INDIRECT FIRE WEAPONS" is from "The balance dataslate" for 8th Ed.

Um, what? That quote is taken from the Q4 2022 balance dataslate, published 10/20/22. Balance dataslates didn't even exist in 8th edition.

 jaredb wrote:
Yes, that that was change meant to help the 8th edition book. The dataslate had a balance update for the 8th edition book, and those changes won't exist once the 9th edition book is out for public release.

I'm not sure what your point there is. "It was meant to help the 8th edition book" is not a rule, it's speculation about the author's intent. And speculation about how the rules might change in a future dataslate has nothing to do with the state of the current rules: that the indirect fire exemption and AoC on vehicles both currently apply to both the 8th and 9th edition codices.

The point is that new content overwrites old content.

If something is put out for an 8th Ed. Dex, it does not work for anything but that 8th Ed. Dex.

Basically, New Codex = New rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The point is that new content overwrites old content.

Correct. When the new balance dataslate is released it will replace the current one. Until then it remains valid.

If you believe that it is invalid could you cite an actual rule by GW that this is the case? So far I've seen a lot of appeals to personal opinions about how the rules should work but not a single citation of an actual published rule by GW that the text of the balance dataslate is changed by the publication of a single codex.

If something is put out for an 8th Ed. Dex, it does not work for anything but that 8th Ed. Dex.

This is a universal matched play rule, not an FAQ for a specific book. If you somehow manage to get the ASTRA MILITARUM keyword applied to a space marine Whirlwind in the middle of a game it will immediately begin to ignore the indirect fire penalty even though it is a unit that has nothing to do with the 8th edition guard codex.

By your argument of design intent the 0-2 limit on aircraft, a rule that was intended to mitigate problematic ork and admech spam, would no longer apply to a newer version of either of those codices because the rule was "intended" to re-balance those books.

Utterly false equivalence, as the Aircraft limit is a patch to the BRB and Mission packs, not to Codexes.

The balance patch’s rules for an 8th Ed Codex do not apply to the new Codex. We’ve been through this in recent times resulting in the Codex and Supplement legality doc.

We’ve been round this dance on Dakka before and someone always stubbornly, dogmatically insists all previous FAQ apply and it’s… boring? Wrong? Futile? Destined to make you look very silly? Take your pick.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Utterly false equivalence, as the Aircraft limit is a patch to the BRB and Mission packs, not to Codexes.

So are the guard indirect fire exemption and AoC rules. They are found in the universal matched play rules section of the balance dataslate, not the codex FAQ/errata document. If they were found in the FAQ/errata document for the specific book I would agree that they would be no longer valid because that entire document is attached to a specific book, but that's not the case here.

We’ve been through this in recent times resulting in the Codex and Supplement legality doc.

This is a good point. If a specific sentence of the balance dataslate is supposed to be invalidated because of a particular codex release why is it not listed in the legality document? And, if it is not listed in that document, why are you assuming that it must be invalid?

The simple answer is that there isn't a 9th ed guard book in the eyes of GW. The codex is not available for mass/individual purchase and they do not consider the 9th ed guard release as "released" until next year.

In reality the old guard rules should continue to be used and maintained, as should the dataslate. TOs can ofc opt to make their own decision on which guard book is valid and then avoid the dataslate if they so choose.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Utterly false equivalence, as the Aircraft limit is a patch to the BRB and Mission packs, not to Codexes.

So are the guard indirect fire exemption and AoC rules. They are found in the universal matched play rules section of the balance dataslate, not the codex FAQ/errata document. If they were found in the FAQ/errata document for the specific book I would agree that they would be no longer valid because that entire document is attached to a specific book, but that's not the case here.

We’ve been through this in recent times resulting in the Codex and Supplement legality doc.

This is a good point. If a specific sentence of the balance dataslate is supposed to be invalidated because of a particular codex release why is it not listed in the legality document? And, if it is not listed in that document, why are you assuming that it must be invalid?

They won’t be valid once the book comes out. It was a patch for 8th Ed rules. Be dogmatic as you like but you won’t be right.

Yes, the way GW handles this stuff is subpar. It’s not really confusing. It is understood by 99% so consensus says your viewpoint isn’t correct, even if you’re technically-correct-best-kind-of-correct. Good luck trying to use new book and old patch. If we’re playing that way, I’ll have Crusher Stampede with 9th Codex and only one of us will have a nice time!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:
The simple answer is that there isn't a 9th ed guard book in the eyes of GW. The codex is not available for mass/individual purchase and they do not consider the 9th ed guard release as "released" until next year.

In reality the old guard rules should continue to be used and maintained, as should the dataslate. TOs can ofc opt to make their own decision on which guard book is valid and then avoid the dataslate if they so choose.

Absolutely, if using the old Dex keep using the patch. If using the new Dex don’t try and be a clown.

Following the rules as written is not being a clown

Trying to defend a rules argument by saying Dave says (insert name of designer) is. I mean I've certainly heard a designer state Tau players should be eliminated from the game - does that mean RAW they are.

We know from experience GW often change what is intended between release and faq you can see that in some the big balance changes ef votann.

Original Intention is irrelevant they are what they are for now and if to powerful GW will change the dataslate or faq that it doesn't apply

Till then it is what is

Utter nonsense, sorry. New Codex overwrites previous rules. All precedent points to this. Enjoy having zero opponents if you honestly insist on trying to have your cake and eat it.

Dudeface wrote:
The simple answer is that there isn't a 9th ed guard book in the eyes of GW. The codex is not available for mass/individual purchase and they do not consider the 9th ed guard release as "released" until next year.

Do you have an actual rule for this or is it merely your personal opinion?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Utter nonsense, sorry. New Codex overwrites previous rules. All precedent points to this. Enjoy having zero opponents if you honestly insist on trying to have your cake and eat it.

New codex does not overwrite the universal matched play rules in the balance dataslate. There is no such rule and you continue to refuse to even attempt to cite anything to support your claim.

And "enjoy having no opponents" is not a rule. People being upset about what the rules are does not change what those rules say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If we’re playing that way, I’ll have Crusher Stampede with 9th Codex and only one of us will have a nice time!

Correct. Only one of us will have a nice time because you will be cheating. Unlike the guard dataslate buffs GW has explicitly published a rule that Crusher Stampede is no longer legal and continuing to use those rules would be blatant cheating, no different from deciding that all of your space marine bolters do mortal wounds instead of normal damage because you want a more powerful army.

For reference, page 2 of this document: https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/XTEpZheWFGC2pWI3.pdf

Basically all currently published rules apply to currently published Dex's.

Once the 9th Dex drops any current rules or errata no longer apply as those rules were not written for the new Dex.

GW has said that new rules make old ones invalid. So this would apply for a new Dex.

Any other statement to the contrary goes directly against what GW has said.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Basically all currently published rules apply to currently published Dex's.

Once the 9th Dex drops any current rules or errata no longer apply as those rules were not written for the new Dex.

GW has said that new rules make old ones invalid. So this would apply for a new Dex.

Any other statement to the contrary goes directly against what GW has said.

Can you cite a rule that says this? So far I have seen a lot of personal opinions that it works this way but not a single rule.

Also, once again, remember that these are rules from the universal matched play rules section of the game-wide balance dataslate. They are NOT from the FAQ/errata for the specific 8th edition book. By your argument that a new codex invalidates any part of the balance dataslate that applies to it the 0-2 limit on aircraft also no longer applies to the 9th edition guard codex.

Since the new AM Codex is not out for general release many (if not all) tourneys are still using the old book. As such, the Dataslate is still useful as written. It should not apply to the new AM Codex, especially with the Game Devs going on record saying so. Folks can stamp their feet and point at the Dataslate if they try to use it with the new book, but I doubt any TOs would side with them. The TO of our local tourneys is quite chill, and has allowed an AM player to use the new book in an upcoming tourney. The AM player will not, however, be able to apply the Dataslate exceptions and inclusions that apply to AM while using the new book. An entirely reasonable judgement.

Once the new Codex goes on general release I expect to see a new Dataslate.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
It should not apply to the new AM Codex, especially with the Game Devs going on record saying so.

Can you provide an actual rule that says this?

Folks can stamp their feet and point at the Dataslate if they try to use it with the new book, but I doubt any TOs would side with them. The TO of our local tourneys is quite chill, and has allowed an AM player to use the new book in an upcoming tourney. The AM player will not, however, be able to apply the Dataslate exceptions and inclusions that apply to AM while using the new book. An entirely reasonable judgement.

I will agree that many people might consider this a good house rule to play by, but the game changes made by third-party TOs in their private events are not relevant in a discussion of what the actual rules published by GW say.

Yet another obstinate arguing in bad faith poster

Can we just leave them be? There's no benefit to carrying on. They've made their hilariously bad opinion known, no one is going to listen to them irl, and so functionally they're redundant.