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.

2 replies so far from GW staff. Though no real answers so far.

From FW customer service:
Q:
"Okay reading page 132 of the New IG codex it says that Regiments without Doctrines can choose a Doctrine that fits. Does that include DKoK and Elysians?"

A:
Thanks for the reply, I don't see why not however I would like to mention that we are the customer service team, we are not permitted to offer any official response to rules questions or clarification that are requested. As we have a rules team the only official rules will come directly from this team and in time.

I will forward your question over to them but I would also suggest you contact them directly on gamefaqs@gwplc.com.

From the 40k Facebook page
Q:
Question about Regimental Doctrines and the FW Regiments of Death Korps of Krieg and Elysian Drop Troops. On page 132 of the new Codex it says that "If your chosen regiment doesn't have an associated doctrine," So neither DKoK or EDT have a doctrine, seems to fit. "You may pick the doctrine that you feel best represents your army."
So do DKoK and Elysians have access to Doctrines and Non-unique Stratagems, Relics, and Warlord Traits from the new codex? Or do they have to wait for a specific FW book for them or something like Chapter Approved? Is FW going to have anything like a Chapter Approved even?
A:
That’s a real good question. As we in the Community Team don’t write the rules, we can’t provide official answers to rules questions on this page. But what we can do is pass them over to the kind folks in the studio to see if it needs answering in a future FAQ.

I would say that they can't use codex doctrines because they are already a specific regiment with their own doctrines, since the army-wide rules they get in their index are basically doctrines already even if they are expecting better doctrines in the next IA.

They can use generic AM stratagems from the codex though, because they are AM.

You gotta hand it to the GW customer service guys, they are polite and manage to call it a good question!
Of course keeping a straight face when answering that question is easier in written contact. =]

Maybe a quick follow-up question - Why don't special marines like FW, BA, DA and GK get chapter tactics on top? They are chapters too!

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Why have you been such a stickler for doing exactly this in other threads (cf your belief quad Autocannon Dreads can't now exist) yet here you say people shouldn't use the latest Datasheet? You know GW have instructed players to do so. So why?

Because they are different situations and you know it. I have said from day one that Wolf Lords have to stick to using the Index entry despite there being a newer Captain entry, because the rule explicitly links to the Index entry, it's not a case of which is newer. The only time "which is newer" comes up is when you're using the actual datasheet of an actual unit that has had a replacement (i.e. Dreadnoughts, Rhinos etc). You're trying to rile me up so I shall instead ignore you from now on.

Noooo, I was asking a genuine question as I didn't understand your position, which seens contrary to your prior stances elsewhere. But if you thrive on adversity crack on, dude. I was querying your position, I wasn't impolite. If you feel attacked that's something you brought to the conversation. I challenged a position, and did not 'attempt to rile you'. That's not arguing in good faith ;-)

 Stephanius wrote:

Maybe a quick follow-up question - Why don't special marines like FW, BA, DA and GK get chapter tactics on top? They are chapters too!

Maybe if you bothered to read the thread you would realize that this has been answered. Please troll somewhere else.

Folks, please just keep in mind that Rule One around here is Be Polite. Thanks!

I'd let them use the psychic powers, updated data sheets and anything generic, but not any regimental abilities since they have their own rules for those.
Don't really see the point of not letting them do that other than being pedantic.

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
I'd let them use the psychic powers, updated data sheets and anything generic, but not any regimental abilities since they have their own rules for those.
Don't really see the point of not letting them do that other than being pedantic.

It's called following the rules of the game.

Do you also not see the point of making your opponent roll to hit with his guns, other than being pedantic?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
I'd let them use the psychic powers, updated data sheets and anything generic, but not any regimental abilities since they have their own rules for those.
Don't really see the point of not letting them do that other than being pedantic.

It's called following the rules of the game.

Do you also not see the point of making your opponent roll to hit with his guns, other than being pedantic?

Codexes: Your Questions Answered

Can I combine units from the index and a codex into one army?
The datasheets in the new codexes overwrite the same datasheets in the index books. You can certainly use units with updated datasheets alongside units from the index that have yet to be updated. Once a unit has been covered in the codex though, we assume you’re using the latest version.

Can I choose to use the rules and/or points for units from my index instead of the new ones in the codex once released?
In your own games, if you and your opponent agree, you can, of course, play with whatever rules you like.

In all future publications and official events though, it will be assumed that you’re using the most recent rules and Datasheets. It will also be assumed that you’re using the most up to date points for matched play, in this case, those included in the codex.

Looks like they covered using the codex for the most up to date rules with this. Strange that you're not willing to go with it, given you quoted the appropriate sentence in a different thread.

So which Datasheet replaces a Dreadnought built using 'weapons that no longer come in the box?'

That is the problem:
We have been told to use the latest Datasheets found within the Codex's
AND
We have been told that we can still use Models built using options that have changed over time


These are conflicting instructions, and all debate over which is correct will depend entirely on which set of instructions you personally prefer.

 JinxDragon wrote:
So which Datasheet replaces a Dreadnought built using 'weapons that no longer come in the box?'

That is the problem:
We have been told to use the latest Datasheets found within the Codex's
AND
We have been told that we can still use Models built using options that have changed over time


These are conflicting instructions, and all debate over which is correct will depend entirely on which set of instructions you personally prefer.

It's only a problem if one player adopts a reasonable position and the other one says 'you can't play with your toys even though you have perfectly valid rules and GW has said that's OK'.

 JinxDragon wrote:
So which Datasheet replaces a Dreadnought built using 'weapons that no longer come in the box?'

That is the problem:
We have been told to use the latest Datasheets found within the Codex's
AND
We have been told that we can still use Models built using options that have changed over time


These are conflicting instructions, and all debate over which is correct will depend entirely on which set of instructions you personally prefer.

The instructions aren't mutually exclusive. If you have an old model with a build that isn't covered in the codex but can be done with the Index, they tell you that you can use the Index. You end up handling it as a different unit than the one in the codex.

My post was in relation to BaconCatBug, however, on using the Codex Astra Militarum entries as opposed to index entries with DKoK.

 doctortom wrote:
My post was in relation to BaconCatBug, however, on using the Codex Astra Militarum entries as opposed to index entries with DKoK.

The IA books override this, because GW don't acknowledge FW exist in their base rules.

Doctortom,
What’s the difference between a codex and an index book?
The indexes let you play with your Warhammer 40,000 army until the codex for your faction is released. The idea being that the rules for units in codexes eventually supersede the rules for them presented in the index books.

Can I combine units from the index and a codex into one army?
The datasheets in the new codexes overwrite the same datasheets in the index books. You can certainly use units with updated datasheets alongside units from the index that have yet to be updated. Once a unit has been covered in the codex though, we assume you’re using the latest version.

Can I choose to use the rules and/or points for units from my index instead of the new ones in the codex once released?
In your own games, if you and your opponent agree, you can, of course, play with whatever rules you like.

In all future publications and official events though, it will be assumed that you’re using the most recent rules and Datasheets. It will also be assumed that you’re using the most up to date points for matched play, in this case, those included in the codex.

Codexes: Your Questions Answered is filled with wording like this, all informing us to use the latest Datasheet for any Unit found within a Codex. The only reason we have even a slimmest argument to the contrary is a single reference to 'war-gear that no longer comes in the box' in the question that also talks about Datasheets that did not make it into the Index at all. We are the ones extending this half a sentence to the logical conclusion of 'Models with war-gear options that have changed between Index and Codex' in order to allow old war-gear options to be valid. While I am more then willing to continue using this to allow us to categorize such Models as 'Legacy,' I like duel plasma pistols myself, the number of questions being answered in the exact opposite way is problematic.

Thus, best case situation: We have been told conflicting information and simply choose what we like best
Worse case situation: We have to break off those arms and update that Dreadnaughts weapons even though it was specifically mentioned....

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
I'd let them use the psychic powers, updated data sheets and anything generic, but not any regimental abilities since they have their own rules for those.
Don't really see the point of not letting them do that other than being pedantic.

It's called following the rules of the game.

Do you also not see the point of making your opponent roll to hit with his guns, other than being pedantic?

Believe it or not, some of us play this game for fun. I don't see the big deal about letting my opponent use the updated data sheets. I wouldn't let them choose a doctrine since they basically already have their own, but the other generic stuff I'm good with. I want my opponent to have fun too and I honestly can not fathom how letting them do this would in any way be cheating. It's a game where we want to have fun. Allowing them this is more fun for both of us.

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
Believe it or not, some of us play this game for fun. I don't see the big deal about letting my opponent use the updated data sheets. I wouldn't let them choose a doctrine since they basically already have their own, but the other generic stuff I'm good with. I want my opponent to have fun too and I honestly can not fathom how letting them do this would in any way be cheating. It's a game where we want to have fun. Allowing them this is more fun for both of us.

Why is one OK and the other isn't? Serious question, explain your reasoning. Why are you, personally, the ultimate arbitrator of what is and isn't acceptable?

If you want to make up House Rules, go right ahead, but that isn't what YMDC is for discussing (that's Proposed Rules), nor can you ever expect others to use your house rules.

Let's go back to the facts:
The IA books tell you to use the Index, they do not mention the codex at all.
Because they are Forge World books and explicitly link to the Index (like Space Wolf Wolf Lords do, or Various Deathwatch entries do), you must use the Index rules.
Therefore you do not benefit from any of the special rules found in the Codex.

These are the facts and rules as laid out by the rulebooks. If you wish to house rule them, go ahead, much like I can house rule my Conscripts to have 30 wounds, but don't expect anyone outside your group to agree to it.

Can you drop the 30 Wounds things? It's as boring as the T20 thing and as much of a strawman.

Because I'm not convinced it isn't raw to allow the data sheets. The rest of course is just me being a nice guy. The data sheets are expressly given permission to be used though as they are the most updated ones.

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
Because I'm not convinced it isn't raw to allow the data sheets. The rest of course is just me being a nice guy. The data sheets are expressly given permission to be used though as they are the most updated ones.

Only if you're using the codex. DKoK don't use the codex.

This is where the disconnect is on RAW. I'm not sure I agree with you or not there. Any time something says to see the index, and the index has been updated, then I believe you use the most recent.

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
This is where the disconnect is on RAW. I'm not sure I agree with you or not there. Any time something says to see the index, and the index has been updated, then I believe you use the most recent.

By that logic then Wolf Lords use the Codex.

Totally agree. Though if you don't own the Codex because you're waiting for the proper Space Wolf Codex you're free to use the Index profiles and points (unless your opponent is a completely unfun being).

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
My post was in relation to BaconCatBug, however, on using the Codex Astra Militarum entries as opposed to index entries with DKoK.

The IA books override this, because GW don't acknowledge FW exist in their base rules.

Nope. IA books refer back to the index. The quotes I gave above say that it's okay to use the latest datasheets from the codex instead of the index (barring, of course, any configuraton for a unit you might want from an index datasheet that you can't do with a corresponding codex datasheet). It doesn't matter that you think GW doesn't acknowledge FW exists; what they said still applies in the case of FW lists referring back to index entries. Therefore, IA books don't override it.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
This is where the disconnect is on RAW. I'm not sure I agree with you or not there. Any time something says to see the index, and the index has been updated, then I believe you use the most recent.

By that logic then Wolf Lords use the Codex.

I wasn't aware the space marine codex had wolf lord data sheet.
A better comparison would be that the space wolves use the landraider profile from the codex.

From FW:

That was singularly not useful (for right now, at least).

Not sure that even the answer helps if we don't know what question you asked and how you worded it.

"We'd like to sell you another product so won't fix this product."

This is great news.

Source (scroll way down)

Found this. It's relevant, but I imagine it won't completely solve the issue at hand.

Kolden wrote:

Source (scroll way down)

Found this. It's relevant, but I imagine it won't completely solve the issue at hand.

Please read the Tenets of YMDC. Facebook is not a valid source.