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.

 vipoid wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

It's more like...

What if I bought the 6th ed Nid codex to a 7th game. But, I told you I would rather use the 5th ed codex Tervigon datasheet. Further, that it would be ridiculous for you to argue with me about it. "Absurd" I think was the word used before. Il pay 6th ed codex points for it's options where applicable. But the game systems are so similar that the one will translate strait over. The new publication replaces the old publication and if your using the new publication then you shouldn't be cherry picking options from the old publication. What if I wanted to use older Necron codex Overlords because so many more wargear options!

I don't understand why it's an unreasonable expectation that a player uses the most up to date rules as a baseline.

I don't understand this line of reasoning. No one is talking about using rules from older editions. Nor has anyone argued that you should be able to.

What people are saying is that the Indexes (i.e. 8th edition rules) contain some rules that do not appear in the corresponding 8th edition codices (also 8th edition rules).

Yes, you are expected to use the most up to date rules when playing (in this case the codex), except when you have an older model that appears in the index but not in the codex. In this case, you have explicit permission from GW to use the Index rules for that model.

We all know the indexes are nothing more then a way to get people to be able to start playing 8th. They were a way to convert 7th/6th ed rules to 8th ed until 8ths codexes showed up because 8th was fundamentally different from 7th/6th/5th. The fact that GW is even telling you you can use models that don't have a new datasheet in the codex is miraculous. (And also pretty awesome). But it's also unprecedented. These kinds of allowances have never been the case before.

Forge World Indexes do not state they need any opponent's permission to use the units within. That's not a relevant comparison. May have been that way in the past, but not so this edition. These units can be used, plain and simple.

Similarly no-one is talking about using a previous edition's rules. That isn't what anyone was saying. Using 8th unit rules in 8th is not comparable to the 6th in 7th example posted.

Using these two things to prop up an argument doesn't work, as neither are what is being posited.

What is the purpose of GW not putting models in the codex if they were in the index? There has to be some reason for it, especially if you can just go back to the index and just put it in the codex army anyway.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
What is the purpose of GW not putting models in the codex if they were in the index? There has to be some reason for it, especially if you can just go back to the index and just put it in the codex army anyway.

The Codexes only cover the currently-sold model range, whereas the Indexes provide rules for tonnes of legacy models and options no longer sold.

 Lance845 wrote:

We all know the indexes are nothing more then a way to get people to be able to start playing 8th.

Otherwise known as 'rules'.

 Lance845 wrote:
They were a way to convert 7th/6th ed rules to 8th ed until 8ths codexes showed up because 8th was fundamentally different from 7th/6th/5th.

Sure. But that still doesn't make them any less 'rules', if you see what I mean.

 Lance845 wrote:
The fact that GW is even telling you you can use models that don't have a new datasheet in the codex is miraculous. (And also pretty awesome). But it's also unprecedented. These kinds of allowances have never been the case before.

Serious question - has there actually been a requirement for this in the past? As in, aside from stuff like Squats, has GW ceased doing rules for units that had models?

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
What is the purpose of GW not putting models in the codex if they were in the index? There has to be some reason for it, especially if you can just go back to the index and just put it in the codex army anyway.

Their FAQ reason is

Are the rules changing?

Yes, many units’ rules in their codexes will alter from those in the indexes. Sometimes this is to better represent the miniatures and the background, sometimes to balance the game, and sometimes to better fit with the army’s new special rules in the codex itself. In all cases, these will then supersede the rules for that datasheet in the index book.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Forge World Indexes do not state they need any opponent's permission to use the units within. That's not a relevant comparison. May have been that way in the past, but not so this edition. These units can be used, plain and simple.

Similarly no-one is talking about using a previous edition's rules. That isn't what anyone was saying. Using 8th unit rules in 8th is not comparable to the 6th in 7th example posted.

Using these two things to prop up an argument doesn't work, as neither are what is being posited.

Fair, here is a better example. In a world where Tyranids actually got a 7th ed codex there would have been a new datasheet for Zoanthropes. If that datasheet was different in any way from the Shield of Baal Leviathan Datasheet would you expect players to use the most recent 7th datasheet with the codex or would you be cool with them cherry picking the older datasheet that was released as a 7th ed document as an update to the 6th ed codex and using it as part of the 7th codex?

That's a hypothetical example, not a real one. And it still doesn't address the Autocannon Dread, a legacy Index option. It's not relevant to the discussion.

What about the rifleman dread for grey knights? The auto cannon rules are there in the index for dreadnaughts and the grey knight index says to use the SM dreadnaught rules (also index) but the Grey Knight Codex does not give me the option to take auto cannons on either arm of my dreadnaught. If I were to put a rifleman dread on the table as part of a grey knight detachment would this be tourney legal (again ignoring TO perogative)?

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
What about the rifleman dread for grey knights? The auto cannon rules are there in the index for dreadnaughts and the grey knight index says to use the SM dreadnaught rules (also index) but the Grey Knight Codex does not give me the option to take auto cannons on either arm of my dreadnaught. If I were to put a rifleman dread on the table as part of a grey knight detachment would this be tourney legal (again ignoring TO perogative)?

I would say categorically no. Grey Knights lose their Autocannon Dreads, even with the wiggle room given by the baffling contradictory GW statement.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
That's a hypothetical example, not a real one. And it still doesn't address the Autocannon Dread, a legacy Index option. It's not relevant to the discussion.

Absolutely it is. It's a datasheet from the same edition that has been replaced with a new datasheet in the codex. It's a Zoanthrope, in the same way that a Autocannon Dread is not a datasheet. A Dread is. Autocannons are just an option. If you wouldn't be comfortable with accepting the older supplement zoanthrope sheet instead of the codex one then why would people be comfortable accepting the index over the codex?

The issue is all the examples are hypothetical because GW has never double dipped in an edition before. Nobody would have accepted it as the baseline rules before there is no reason why it should be accepted now.

And in case people think I have a problem with the dread itself, I don't. I have a problem with the precedent this sets.

 Lance845 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
That's a hypothetical example, not a real one. And it still doesn't address the Autocannon Dread, a legacy Index option. It's not relevant to the discussion.

Absolutely it is. It's a datasheet from the same edition that has been replaced with a new datasheet in the codex. It's a Zoanthrope, in the same way that a Autocannon Dread is not a datasheet. A Dread is. Autocannons are just an option. If you wouldn't be comfortable with accepting the older supplement zoanthrope sheet instead of the codex one then why would people be comfortable accepting the index over the codex?

The issue is all the examples are hypothetical because GW has never double dipped in an edition before. Nobody would have accepted it as the baseline rules before there is no reason why it should be accepted now.

And in case people think I have a problem with the dread itself, I don't. I have a problem with the precedent this sets.

You're now quite literally inventing a scenario to try and back up your argument.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
What about the rifleman dread for grey knights? The auto cannon rules are there in the index for dreadnaughts and the grey knight index says to use the SM dreadnaught rules (also index) but the Grey Knight Codex does not give me the option to take auto cannons on either arm of my dreadnaught. If I were to put a rifleman dread on the table as part of a grey knight detachment would this be tourney legal (again ignoring TO perogative)?

In all cases the codex datasheet replaces the index. Your Grey Knight codex dread sheet is the legal one.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
What about the rifleman dread for grey knights? The auto cannon rules are there in the index for dreadnaughts and the grey knight index says to use the SM dreadnaught rules (also index) but the Grey Knight Codex does not give me the option to take auto cannons on either arm of my dreadnaught. If I were to put a rifleman dread on the table as part of a grey knight detachment would this be tourney legal (again ignoring TO perogative)?

For tourneys depends on organiser, of course. In my view there should be no reason why they wouldn't allow it, but some think like BCB and Lance and believe the Codex deletes all legacy variants from existence, despite GW's specifically mentioning older Dreadnought weapon options in their article.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
What about the rifleman dread for grey knights? The auto cannon rules are there in the index for dreadnaughts and the grey knight index says to use the SM dreadnaught rules (also index) but the Grey Knight Codex does not give me the option to take auto cannons on either arm of my dreadnaught. If I were to put a rifleman dread on the table as part of a grey knight detachment would this be tourney legal (again ignoring TO perogative)?

For tourneys depends on organiser, of course. In my view there should be no reason why they wouldn't allow it, but some think like BCB and Lance and believe the Codex deletes all legacy variants from existence, despite GW's specifically mentioning older Dreadnought weapon options in their article.

But also supporting our interpretation in their own Tourney Guidelines.

 Lance845 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
What about the rifleman dread for grey knights? The auto cannon rules are there in the index for dreadnaughts and the grey knight index says to use the SM dreadnaught rules (also index) but the Grey Knight Codex does not give me the option to take auto cannons on either arm of my dreadnaught. If I were to put a rifleman dread on the table as part of a grey knight detachment would this be tourney legal (again ignoring TO perogative)?

For tourneys depends on organiser, of course. In my view there should be no reason why they wouldn't allow it, but some think like BCB and Lance and believe the Codex deletes all legacy variants from existence, despite GW's specifically mentioning older Dreadnought weapon options in their article.

But also supporting our interpretation in their own Tourney Guidelines.

Whilst simultaneously not being the GW Rules committee so not disproving ours! Amazing how that cuts both ways.

 Lance845 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
What about the rifleman dread for grey knights? The auto cannon rules are there in the index for dreadnaughts and the grey knight index says to use the SM dreadnaught rules (also index) but the Grey Knight Codex does not give me the option to take auto cannons on either arm of my dreadnaught. If I were to put a rifleman dread on the table as part of a grey knight detachment would this be tourney legal (again ignoring TO perogative)?

For tourneys depends on organiser, of course. In my view there should be no reason why they wouldn't allow it, but some think like BCB and Lance and believe the Codex deletes all legacy variants from existence, despite GW's specifically mentioning older Dreadnought weapon options in their article.

But also supporting our interpretation in their own Tourney Guidelines.

Your "interpretation" is that you can't use older models in any form of matched play (and often borders on saying "at any time" , so your "interpretation" was already invalidated in the document you like quoting from.

 doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
What about the rifleman dread for grey knights? The auto cannon rules are there in the index for dreadnaughts and the grey knight index says to use the SM dreadnaught rules (also index) but the Grey Knight Codex does not give me the option to take auto cannons on either arm of my dreadnaught. If I were to put a rifleman dread on the table as part of a grey knight detachment would this be tourney legal (again ignoring TO perogative)?

For tourneys depends on organiser, of course. In my view there should be no reason why they wouldn't allow it, but some think like BCB and Lance and believe the Codex deletes all legacy variants from existence, despite GW's specifically mentioning older Dreadnought weapon options in their article.

But also supporting our interpretation in their own Tourney Guidelines.

Your "interpretation" is that you can't use older models in any form of matched play (and often borders on saying "at any time" , so your "interpretation" was already invalidated in the document you like quoting from.

My interpretation is that gw expects players to use the latest publications as that is how they intend to continue to try to rebalance and update the game. If that means the new datasheet removes options then those options are gone for a reason (arbitrary or not). Refusing to use the latest datasheets undermines any effort gw makes towards that end and sets a precedent of confusion for every game where one player plays against someone they have never played with before, never being sure wjat rules are being used for the models. Which would be even worse for any new player coming in.

Basically its crap sportsmanship at the very least.

 Lance845 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Your "interpretation" is that you can't use older models in any form of matched play (and often borders on saying "at any time" , so your "interpretation" was already invalidated in the document you like quoting from.

My interpretation is that gw expects players to use the latest publications as that is how they intend to continue to try to rebalance and update the game. If that means the new datasheet removes options then those options are gone for a reason (arbitrary or not). Refusing to use the latest datasheets undermines any effort gw makes towards that end and sets a precedent of confusion for every game where one player plays against someone they have never played with before, never being sure wjat rules are being used for the models. Which would be even worse for any new player coming in.

Basically its crap sportsmanship at the very least.

Yes, the interpretation that totally denies their section which includes "Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index)." I would dare say the crap sportsmanship (al least lies with that attitude much more than it does with GW working out an accomodation for people who still want to use old models that aren't covered by a new codex but are covered by the index (so no, it doesn't get you Vect, or Squats, but does get the autocannon dread and some other various and sundry things).

There isn't that much confusion with being able to tell someone "I have this model that isn't covered by the new codex, but is still covered by the index. It has these differences (you list the differences), and according to how GW told us to price it, the cost of the model is x. Are you okay with me using it?" isn't a great confusion. You show them the index entry, the points and talk about the differences. If they're truly a new player, you can use discretion and not drop that on them if they're still learning stuff. I'm sure those people will be just as confused when you bring in Forgeworld datasheets, and God forbid you try to run a Death Korps of Krieg or Elysian list. Just telling somebody no, you can't play it because you don't like that GW gave a way for people to play older models, ones that aren't game breaking, is a different matter, That' is showing crap sportsmanship there, at the very least.

 doctortom wrote:
There isn't that much confusion with being able to tell someone "I have this model that isn't covered by the new codex, but is still covered by the index. It has these differences (you list the differences), and according to how GW told us to price it, the cost of the model is x. Are you okay with me using it?" isn't a great confusion. You show them the index entry, the points and talk about the differences. If they're truly a new player, you can use discretion and not drop that on them if they're still learning stuff. I'm sure those people will be just as confused when you bring in Forgeworld datasheets, and God forbid you try to run a Death Korps of Krieg or Elysian list. Just telling somebody no, you can't play it because you don't like that GW gave a way for people to play older models, ones that aren't game breaking, is a different matter.

To me this sums up how it should be. However there appears to be three camps here in this discussion.

Camp 1 says that the rules allow them to use legacy models and any problems are yours

Camp 2 says that the rules as provided only cover those models specifically mentioned in the codex and where there is no codex then you get to use the index, so any problems are yours take them up with GW.

Camp 3 says that everything is good as long as you discuss it with your opponent. Which is where I sit.

However GW in its own wisdom has decided that for their tourneys they do not want to have X number of players having discussions as to what models are permitted, and has ruled that legacy models are not permitted in their events. I think that Camp 1 should have a careful think about that as it indicates exactly where GW is going with this, because lets face it GW wants to sell kits to replace older figures, poses and characters. And nothing is better at selling kits that to invalidate every ones collections. Now I haven't the time to review army lists, and I'm not exactly sure that GW printed them, but were there any legacy models in the recent results?

Camp 2 also need to think about their position, especially if their armies haven't received a codex yet. "What goes around, comes around" Being obstinate about it isn't going to win you any friends or garner any more games.

Throwing accusations at each other is not going to resolve anything and will only entrench opposing positions.

Cheers

Andrew

 doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Your "interpretation" is that you can't use older models in any form of matched play (and often borders on saying "at any time" , so your "interpretation" was already invalidated in the document you like quoting from.

My interpretation is that gw expects players to use the latest publications as that is how they intend to continue to try to rebalance and update the game. If that means the new datasheet removes options then those options are gone for a reason (arbitrary or not). Refusing to use the latest datasheets undermines any effort gw makes towards that end and sets a precedent of confusion for every game where one player plays against someone they have never played with before, never being sure wjat rules are being used for the models. Which would be even worse for any new player coming in.

Basically its crap sportsmanship at the very least.

Yes, the interpretation that totally denies their section which includes "Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index)." I would dare say the crap sportsmanship (al least lies with that attitude much more than it does with GW working out an accomodation for people who still want to use old models that aren't covered by a new codex but are covered by the index (so no, it doesn't get you Vect, or Squats, but does get the autocannon dread and some other various and sundry things).

There isn't that much confusion with being able to tell someone "I have this model that isn't covered by the new codex, but is still covered by the index. It has these differences (you list the differences), and according to how GW told us to price it, the cost of the model is x. Are you okay with me using it?" isn't a great confusion. You show them the index entry, the points and talk about the differences. If they're truly a new player, you can use discretion and not drop that on them if they're still learning stuff. I'm sure those people will be just as confused when you bring in Forgeworld datasheets, and God forbid you try to run a Death Korps of Krieg or Elysian list. Just telling somebody no, you can't play it because you don't like that GW gave a way for people to play older models, ones that aren't game breaking, is a different matter, That' is showing crap sportsmanship there, at the very least.

Indeed. Poor sportsmanship would be not letting an opponent field a model there are valid rules for, just because GW repackaged a kit or FW stopped selling an arm. Try and take out your opponent's models during the game, not before it. It's not even like the oft-mentioned Quad Autocannon Dread is game-breaking... you could legitimately field a Deredeo with no permission required, and that's a crazy old pile o' guns.

 AndrewC wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
There isn't that much confusion with being able to tell someone "I have this model that isn't covered by the new codex, but is still covered by the index. It has these differences (you list the differences), and according to how GW told us to price it, the cost of the model is x. Are you okay with me using it?" isn't a great confusion. You show them the index entry, the points and talk about the differences. If they're truly a new player, you can use discretion and not drop that on them if they're still learning stuff. I'm sure those people will be just as confused when you bring in Forgeworld datasheets, and God forbid you try to run a Death Korps of Krieg or Elysian list. Just telling somebody no, you can't play it because you don't like that GW gave a way for people to play older models, ones that aren't game breaking, is a different matter.

To me this sums up how it should be. However there appears to be three camps here in this discussion.

Camp 1 says that the rules allow them to use legacy models and any problems are yours

Camp 2 says that the rules as provided only cover those models specifically mentioned in the codex and where there is no codex then you get to use the index, so any problems are yours take them up with GW.

Camp 3 says that everything is good as long as you discuss it with your opponent. Which is where I sit.

However GW in its own wisdom has decided that for their tourneys they do not want to have X number of players having discussions as to what models are permitted, and has ruled that legacy models are not permitted in their events. I think that Camp 1 should have a careful think about that as it indicates exactly where GW is going with this, because lets face it GW wants to sell kits to replace older figures, poses and characters. And nothing is better at selling kits that to invalidate every ones collections. Now I haven't the time to review army lists, and I'm not exactly sure that GW printed them, but were there any legacy models in the recent results?

Camp 2 also need to think about their position, especially if their armies haven't received a codex yet. "What goes around, comes around" Being obstinate about it isn't going to win you any friends or garner any more games.

Throwing accusations at each other is not going to resolve anything and will only entrench opposing positions.

Cheers

Andrew

In my personal games im camp 3. Happy to discuss everything. But ymdc isnt for what you would allow around your own table. My stance here, in this sub forum, is to follow gws rules. Which again, camp one likes to ignore 3 answers and the tourny rules to quoute the single sentence over and over as though it makes the stack of other quotes disappear.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Indeed. Poor sportsmanship would be not letting an opponent field a model there are valid rules for, just because GW repackaged a kit or FW stopped selling an arm. Try and take out your opponent's models during the game, not before it. It's not even like the oft-mentioned Quad Autocannon Dread is game-breaking... you could legitimately field a Deredeo with no permission required, and that's a crazy old pile o' guns.

And good sportsmanship is discussing with your opponent before hand that you have a legacy model that you wish to use as opposed to simply placing it down and assuming that you can use it.

Whether or not a model is game-breaking, mediocre or just plain crap isn't the issue. Its the attitude behind the use of a figure when neither side is discussing what sort of game they want.

Cheers

Andrew

But it is... you absolutely can discuss and agree or disagree on HIWPI in YMDC. Just never present HIWPI as RAW if it isn't.

You can also discuss and agree or disagree on RAW. For example, you think you have the correct take on RAW here, and I disagree. It's tough to try and pull RAW from a very clunking written community article, but that's what this thread (and the other umpteen threads that have already beaten this dead horse deader) wants to do.

I've outlined HIWPI, and also what I feel the RAW (such as it is here) is. I've not added in extra emotive stuff like 'unsporting', trying to claim disadvantage because someone hasn't memorised every old unit, etc. that are red herrings. They weren't adding anything to your supposed RAW take, as they're not things the rules deal witH.

It also doesn't 100% matter what a GW Tournament has ruled, as In this case it's largely designed to avoid models they don't sell now featuring on WHTV or in White Dwarf, for marketing and branding reasons. It's not for any sportsmanship, rules or balance basis. It's purely to make they can ensure what they present in coverage is on current brand. And why not.

I've been a tad snarky in my early posts, because I sensed the thread would go this way. You asked a question, having done your research and knowing full well there's a valid opposing view, with only a clunky bit of text separating the sides. You then post every other post telling people they're wrong. This has been done already, and didn't need a new thread. It's not adding to the discussion, merely repeating it. Is there any need to keep this back and forth going?

Now do excuse me, I'm off to pack up my fully-permitted-without-permission and ridiculous Spartan up for a game...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AndrewC wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Indeed. Poor sportsmanship would be not letting an opponent field a model there are valid rules for, just because GW repackaged a kit or FW stopped selling an arm. Try and take out your opponent's models during the game, not before it. It's not even like the oft-mentioned Quad Autocannon Dread is game-breaking... you could legitimately field a Deredeo with no permission required, and that's a crazy old pile o' guns.

And good sportsmanship is discussing with your opponent before hand that you have a legacy model that you wish to use as opposed to simply placing it down and assuming that you can use it.

Whether or not a model is game-breaking, mediocre or just plain crap isn't the issue. Its the attitude behind the use of a figure when neither side is discussing what sort of game they want.

Cheers

Andrew

Taking that post alone misses the post it was replying to. I check even if I'm using permitted, no permission needed models if I feel a game could be unfun for my opponent. I just can't understand this rabid appetite some people have for disallowing models due to a tenuous reading of an article, that ignores "don't worry you can still use these models" in the very same article. It's a narrow reading that isn't very fun, and it bugs me.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Your "interpretation" is that you can't use older models in any form of matched play (and often borders on saying "at any time" , so your "interpretation" was already invalidated in the document you like quoting from.

My interpretation is that gw expects players to use the latest publications as that is how they intend to continue to try to rebalance and update the game. If that means the new datasheet removes options then those options are gone for a reason (arbitrary or not). Refusing to use the latest datasheets undermines any effort gw makes towards that end and sets a precedent of confusion for every game where one player plays against someone they have never played with before, never being sure wjat rules are being used for the models. Which would be even worse for any new player coming in.

Basically its crap sportsmanship at the very least.

Yes, the interpretation that totally denies their section which includes "Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index)." I would dare say the crap sportsmanship (al least lies with that attitude much more than it does with GW working out an accomodation for people who still want to use old models that aren't covered by a new codex but are covered by the index (so no, it doesn't get you Vect, or Squats, but does get the autocannon dread and some other various and sundry things).

There isn't that much confusion with being able to tell someone "I have this model that isn't covered by the new codex, but is still covered by the index. It has these differences (you list the differences), and according to how GW told us to price it, the cost of the model is x. Are you okay with me using it?" isn't a great confusion. You show them the index entry, the points and talk about the differences. If they're truly a new player, you can use discretion and not drop that on them if they're still learning stuff. I'm sure those people will be just as confused when you bring in Forgeworld datasheets, and God forbid you try to run a Death Korps of Krieg or Elysian list. Just telling somebody no, you can't play it because you don't like that GW gave a way for people to play older models, ones that aren't game breaking, is a different matter, That' is showing crap sportsmanship there, at the very least.

Indeed. Poor sportsmanship would be not letting an opponent field a model there are valid rules for, just because GW repackaged a kit or FW stopped selling an arm. Try and take out your opponent's models during the game, not before it. It's not even like the oft-mentioned Quad Autocannon Dread is game-breaking... you could legitimately field a Deredeo with no permission required, and that's a crazy old pile o' guns.

Its not about power. Its not about the dread. Its about the legality of the options. Its not the first time a model has lost options. Its not the first time an entire model has been removed (whole swaths of characters no longer have rules. Where are necron pariahs?). If a buddy of mine made a Doomrider with perfectly balanced rules in our personal games i would enjoy seeing it on the table. But if some random dude showes up to the store with a list comprised of index datasheet options using codex rules he can expect to find very few/no games. Hes not following the rules as laid down by gw.

Who's talking about "Index Datasheet options using Codex rules"?

Who's talking about inventing rules? Or using models with no rules?

We're discussing using legacy options, with rules and points from an Index. Some get to benefit from e.g. Chapter Tactics or Tegiment bonuses *as GW has told us is appropriate*.

So what's your argument again? Because none of those points you're countering were being discussed or posited.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Who's talking about "Index Datasheet options using Codex rules"?

Who's talking about inventing rules? Or using models with no rules?

We're discussing using legacy options, with rules and points from an Index. Some get to benefit from e.g. Chapter Tactics or Tegiment bonuses *as GW has told us is appropriate*.

So what's your argument again? Because none of those points you're countering were being discussed or posited.

Using the options for the dread in the index when the codex dread exists, with codex points (as the question you keep quoting tells you to). Index options with codex rules. You choose to take a dread, you reference the point values of the codex dread and then you grab index weapon options your datasheet (which supersedes the index in all cases) does not allow anymore.

and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons

I brought up examples of things for HIWPI. Several people assume I am here to ruin everyones fun apparently. I am not. I am pointing towards the evidence for the actual allowances in a game which is the only thing that carries any weight in YMDC.

 Lance845 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Who's talking about "Index Datasheet options using Codex rules"?

Who's talking about inventing rules? Or using models with no rules?

We're discussing using legacy options, with rules and points from an Index. Some get to benefit from e.g. Chapter Tactics or Tegiment bonuses *as GW has told us is appropriate*.

So what's your argument again? Because none of those points you're countering were being discussed or posited.

Using the options for the dread in the index when the codex dread exists, with codex points (as the question you keep quoting tells you to). Index options with codex rules. You choose to take a dread, you reference the point values of the codex dread and then you grab index weapon options your datasheet (which supersedes the index in all cases) does not allow anymore.

and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons

I brought up examples of things for HIWPI. Several people assume I am here to ruin everyones fun apparently. I am not. I am pointing towards the evidence for the actual allowances in a game which is the only thing that carries any weight in YMDC.

And ignoring the "Don't worry you can still use your models" that was the point of the article. You can't claim RAW is on your side whilst ignoring some of the rules written.

There is some consensus from other threads that the most current version of an Autocannon Dread is the Index Datasheet (as the Codex one doesn't have the options) and the Index points (as they're not in the Codex. Not the Codex Datasheet and Index options, if that's what's twisting your pickle?

This has no bearing on the debate, but I am so stealing the phrase 'twisting your pickle'.

Well, the way I see it, this truly is ambiguous. We definately have permission to use models that lost their whole datasheet when their codex was released (like the chaplain on a Bike, as the GW tourney rules say).

We have permission to use the most recent rules for a model. I think the difference of opinion is what they mean by “model.”

The “yes you can use riflemen dreads” argument seems to me to be that a rifleman dread specifically is a model that no longer has rules in the codex. The most recent datasheet that lets you play the model “rifleman Dreadnought” is the index datasheet, so you use the index datasheet and just play it.

The “no you can’t use riflemen dreads” argument seems to me to be that a Dreadnought is a model, various weapon combinations are not seperate models. In this case, that would mean that a riflemen dread is just a dread, the same “model” as a fist/ML dread. As the Dreadnought has a Codex datasheet, you can’t use the index datasheet. So since the codex datasheet doesn’t allow for dual autocannons, you can’t legally field a rifleman dread.

I know personally that I assumed the “no” argument was the obvious one, but now I think I see both sides. It really does look like it comes down to what a “model” is, and there’s no official definition on that. In any case, I’m not going to turn someone down if they want to use a rifleman dread, but this is an interesting thread.

 Lance845 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Your "interpretation" is that you can't use older models in any form of matched play (and often borders on saying "at any time" , so your "interpretation" was already invalidated in the document you like quoting from.

My interpretation is that gw expects players to use the latest publications as that is how they intend to continue to try to rebalance and update the game. If that means the new datasheet removes options then those options are gone for a reason (arbitrary or not). Refusing to use the latest datasheets undermines any effort gw makes towards that end and sets a precedent of confusion for every game where one player plays against someone they have never played with before, never being sure wjat rules are being used for the models. Which would be even worse for any new player coming in.

Basically its crap sportsmanship at the very least.

Yes, the interpretation that totally denies their section which includes "Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index)." I would dare say the crap sportsmanship (al least lies with that attitude much more than it does with GW working out an accomodation for people who still want to use old models that aren't covered by a new codex but are covered by the index (so no, it doesn't get you Vect, or Squats, but does get the autocannon dread and some other various and sundry things).

There isn't that much confusion with being able to tell someone "I have this model that isn't covered by the new codex, but is still covered by the index. It has these differences (you list the differences), and according to how GW told us to price it, the cost of the model is x. Are you okay with me using it?" isn't a great confusion. You show them the index entry, the points and talk about the differences. If they're truly a new player, you can use discretion and not drop that on them if they're still learning stuff. I'm sure those people will be just as confused when you bring in Forgeworld datasheets, and God forbid you try to run a Death Korps of Krieg or Elysian list. Just telling somebody no, you can't play it because you don't like that GW gave a way for people to play older models, ones that aren't game breaking, is a different matter, That' is showing crap sportsmanship there, at the very least.

Indeed. Poor sportsmanship would be not letting an opponent field a model there are valid rules for, just because GW repackaged a kit or FW stopped selling an arm. Try and take out your opponent's models during the game, not before it. It's not even like the oft-mentioned Quad Autocannon Dread is game-breaking... you could legitimately field a Deredeo with no permission required, and that's a crazy old pile o' guns.

Its not about power. Its not about the dread. Its about the legality of the options. Its not the first time a model has lost options. Its not the first time an entire model has been removed (whole swaths of characters no longer have rules. Where are necron pariahs?). If a buddy of mine made a Doomrider with perfectly balanced rules in our personal games i would enjoy seeing it on the table. But if some random dude showes up to the store with a list comprised of index datasheet options using codex rules he can expect to find very few/no games. Hes not following the rules as laid down by gw.

That last sentence of yours is a lie. That entire article was about how to play with legacy models. He can show up with index models. He discusses it with his opponent the legacy models to make sure his opponent is okay with it (which, really you should go with anything unusual - legacy models, some limited thing GW puts out as a convention only thing with rules most people wouldn't know about, Forgeworld stuff, etc). If the opponent's okay with it, then he uses them. If not, he gets to fall back on plan b and go with a list not using them. Tournaments will have their own rules; you check with them beforehand to see how their rules handle it. "We assume you are using the most recent sheets" does NOT automatically mean that the legacy models won't be able to be used at tournaments; it only means that GW is not presuming to tell the tournaments that they HAVE to accept the legacy models. It's up to tournaments to decide what rules they want to use for their tournaments; they could decide, for example, that all lists can only contain HQ and troop choices. Silly, yes, but that's their right as T.O.'s to choose what rules to have in effect. But, the rules as laid down by GW are that you can use legacy models with permission. You claiming that the guy isn't following the rules is completely wrong, just as wrong as you were when you claimed you can never use legacy models in matched play when they stated how to calculate points for legacy models to use in matched play.