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.

If you're referring to the Sister "codex", that's already been conceded that it can't easily be acquired. So your point is?

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
If you're referring to the Sister "codex", that's already been conceded that it can't easily be acquired. So your point is?

My point is that it can't be brought up by people arguing against, saying that even for SOB they know where to find the rules. Because they don't. You either concede the point or not, one side can't make a point, concede it, then bring it up again.

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Unlike GW armies where I know where to find the latest rules.

So why isn't this your fault? Why should TOs ban FW instead of you investing the effort in learning where the latest rules are? Why do we just assume that your lack of knowledge is some kind of sacred state that can not be disturbed?

It is very, very easy to know where the current rules are for every GW army. Even with the red herring of SoB most people know where to at least find the rules.

I would have no idea where to find any item of FW. They are scatted over many books and hard to know what the latest rules are (see the Elysian army example).

 motyak wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

 motyak wrote:

It is very, very easy to know where the current rules are for every GW army. Even with the red herring of SoB most people know where to at least find the rules.

I just clicked over to the GW site and I can't find where their rules are mentioned. It certainly isn't in the list of all items for that faction like it is for the other ones. Nor is it in 'books' like the others. Where would a new player get this knowledge?

Then apparently you didn't click on a specific army. If you click on "army essentials" et viola. There's the army book.

Well the GW AUS site must be broken then, because under the specific SOB tab in "armies" it isn't there, nor is it in essentials or the books tab under 40k. I can't even see an "army essentials" option.

It's like you didn't even read the post you quoted.

edit: Actually, nevermind me, I'm just in a bad mood and argumentative. Probably better if it just goes away.

 motyak wrote:

I don't understand, he said "most people know where to at least find the rules". I was asking how. You can't call it a red herring to ding the argument of the other side, and then hand wave and say "most people know where to at least find the rules" without saying how. I'm sure I could have misunderstood him, but that's just how it read to me. Can someone explain it so I can get it?

Did I say that most people know how to buy the latest rules?

When I am playing against a SoB player (who by tournament rules has to be playing with a copy of the latest rules) I know if he has a copy of them or not.

Here the thing though how do I know what is an update and what is a different list with the same name? How do I know what units are in which book? Why as a player is it fair to assume I should spend hours (or money) finding all this out just so you an run an obscure army? Or should I just that that every fw player will make the effort to ensure they use the current rules (chances are good many won't because the rules are updated in entirely different books)

Breng77 wrote:
Here the thing though how do I know what is an update and what is a different list with the same name? How do I know what units are in which book? Why as a player is it fair to assume I should spend hours (or money) finding all this out just so you an run an obscure army? Or should I just that that every fw player will make the effort to ensure they use the current rules (chances are good many won't because the rules are updated in entirely different books)

Why should I have to do all of this so that you can play SoB? Or BT? Why can't I just limit you to playing C:SM only if you want to have a marine army?

The answer of course is that it's part of the game, just like FW units/armies. Everything GW publishes for standard 40k should be allowed in tournaments, and "but it's too much work to learn about it" should not be an excuse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackmoor wrote:
When I am playing against a SoB player (who by tournament rules has to be playing with a copy of the latest rules) I know if he has a copy of them or not.

Great. Now do the same for FW rules and know if your opponent has the latest rules or not. So far the only complaint you've made is "I'm currently informed about X but not about Y, so instead of learning about Y I want to ban Y so I don't have to".

 Blackmoor wrote:

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
I do not follow other Army Codi and generally trust my opponent to show up with the right one for him. Is there some reason I should change that view?

If you were a tournament player you would know the answer to that question.

Quoted for truth. All it takes is one jerk to ruin your weekend. Eventually you'll run across one - it will change your opinion.

For everybody's benefit I have found a wiki site that lists all of the codices and IA books from most recent to oldest. Included is also a short note as to what is included in each IA book.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_(Warhammer_40,000) you must click on the "did you mean?" for the link to work properly.

Make of this what you will.

Very useful! Thanks Leo.

 Peregrine wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Here the thing though how do I know what is an update and what is a different list with the same name? How do I know what units are in which book? Why as a player is it fair to assume I should spend hours (or money) finding all this out just so you an run an obscure army? Or should I just that that every fw player will make the effort to ensure they use the current rules (chances are good many won't because the rules are updated in entirely different books)

Why should I have to do all of this so that you can play SoB? Or BT? Why can't I just limit you to playing C:SM only if you want to have a marine army?

The answer of course is that it's part of the game, just like FW units/armies. Everything GW publishes for standard 40k should be allowed in tournaments, and "but it's too much work to learn about it" should not be an excuse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackmoor wrote:
When I am playing against a SoB player (who by tournament rules has to be playing with a copy of the latest rules) I know if he has a copy of them or not.

Great. Now do the same for FW rules and know if your opponent has the latest rules or not. So far the only complaint you've made is "I'm currently informed about X but not about Y, so instead of learning about Y I want to ban Y so I don't have to".

Ok so since you know all this by hart please in the next hour (since you are apparently on) produce a list of all 40k approved units, and inI which book their most current rules are, as well as a list of 40k approved FW army lists and which book contains the most current list for each. Should be easy right it is no different than codices right?

Here I'll do the codex units for a few books....

Necrons- codex Necrons
Tau- codex tau
Eldar codex eldar
Daemons - codex chaos daemons
Sisters of battle - codex sisters of battle....

A bit different when all relevant units are found in one place.

Essentially my point is that I don't need to research where to find each codex unit, it is obviously in the codex for that army.

Breng77 wrote:
Ok so since you know all this by hart please in the next hour (since you are apparently on) produce a list of all 40k approved units, and inI which book their most current rules are, as well as a list of 40k approved FW army lists and which book contains the most current list for each. Should be easy right it is no different than codices right?

Why should I spend the extra time to write up something I already (mostly) have memorized? However long it takes learning that stuff is just part of wanting to play in a competitive tournament.

And I keep saying this, but coming from MTG this attitude is just absurd. If you went to a MTG tournament and tried to complain about being surprised by a card you didn't expect everyone would just laugh at you because it's your responsibility to learn everything in the game. Only in 40k is it acceptable to ban stuff because learning about it would be too hard.

A bit different when all relevant units are found in one place.

Except when they have supplements (like Tau and Eldar) and game-changing FAQs.

Essentially my point is that I don't need to research where to find each codex unit, it is obviously in the codex for that army.

I'm not denying that FW units take a bit more work to learn, but that doesn't justify banning FW players. If it's extra work you do the extra work, just like we don't ban all non-C:SM marine armies because it would be simpler if everyone just used C:SM.

Magic is a bad example.

1.) They have multiple formats, so it is completely acceptable for players not to know every card....they need only know those relevant to their format.

2.) Furthermore they rarely reprint the same card with completely different rules.

3.) They don't wholesale add 10 sets of cards to a format at once (which is what adding all FW would be)

4.) MTG sets are all widely available...FW would be equivalent to adding some limited release set that was expensive and online order only.

AS for Supplements...the eldar supplement has no units in it and 2 pages of rules. The Tau Supplement has a very few characters in it and no other units, hardly the same.

IT is far more than a bit of work....I assume that since you could not quickly jot down which lists are current from which books and which units that would be because even you don't know all of them...and you are far more vested in knowing than most people.

The more I think about it the best way to eventually add all FW would be to start just the newest book (or IA 1 send ed maybe) and not allow any books until they are updated. This would allow players to learn a little bit at a time.to learn each set of new rules.

Just saying that everyone should do the work when the work includes either illegal action (pdf copies of the books) or lots of money spent on books is also unreasonable.

Also why should you write it up....maybe it would help everyone better implement FW....but since you're unwilling to put in the effort but everyone else should....no double standard there.

TOs and players go spend money and learn what is where, but even though I know all this...I can't be bothered....

Breng77 wrote:
1.) They have multiple formats, so it is completely acceptable for players not to know every card....they need only know those relevant to their format.

Even in a single set draft/sealed tournament, the smallest possible format you can have, you're talking about ~250 different cards. For standard, the most popular tournament format, it's around 750-1250 cards depending on when in the block cycle it is. And don't forget that each of those cards can potentially have their own rulings on how they interact with other cards, so you can't just assume that you'll just read the card text in the middle of the game and know everything.

And actually I'm being too generous to 40k here. The knowledge problem in MTG is much harder since you have to be able to do things like look at what lands your opponent has untapped and guess what they might have in their hand as a counter to your plan. In 40k all you have to be able to do is recognize when the rules someone is showing you aren't right.

AS for Supplements...the eldar supplement has no units in it and 2 pages of rules. The Tau Supplement has a very few characters in it and no other units, hardly the same.

It's still extra information to keep track of. The point is that there's a double standard where any difficulty in getting and memorizing information about non-FW units can be dealt with, but there's an endless list of excuses for why FW is just too much work.

IT is far more than a bit of work....I assume that since you could not quickly jot down which lists are current from which books and which units that would be because even you don't know all of them...and you are far more vested in knowing than most people.

You're missing the difference between "can't" and "won't". I could make a list of everything, but I'm not going to spend the time and effort on doing it because I know you're just hoping to "prove" that it's impossible to keep up with if I miss anything.

The more I think about it the best way to eventually add all FW would be to start just the newest book (or IA 1 send ed maybe) and not allow any books until they are updated. This would allow players to learn a little bit at a time.to learn each set of new rules.

Remember how you and others have complained about favoring certain armies? What do you think is going to happen when you only allow the most recent books where IG/Tau/Necrons (already very strong armies) get pretty much everything they have from FW but other armies are stuck waiting and hoping that FW will publish a book with their rules after the arbitrary cutoff point?

Just saying that everyone should do the work when the work includes either illegal action (pdf copies of the books) or lots of money spent on books is also unreasonable.

And just how do you think most people keep up with codex units?

Also why should you write it up....maybe it would help everyone better implement FW....but since you're unwilling to put in the effort but everyone else should....no double standard there.

And if I had any reason to believe that this is a sincere request for me to maintain a master list of FW rules that every TO can use I'd probably do it. But I think we both know that's not what it is.

Breng77 wrote:


Ok so since you know all this by hart please in the next hour (since you are apparently on) produce a list of all 40k approved units, and inI which book their most current rules are, as well as a list of 40k approved FW army lists and which book contains the most current list for each. Should be easy right it is no different than codices right?

Here I'll do the codex units for a few books....

Necrons- codex Necrons
Tau- codex tau
Eldar codex eldar
Daemons - codex chaos daemons
Sisters of battle - codex sisters of battle....

A bit different when all relevant units are found in one place.

Essentially my point is that I don't need to research where to find each codex unit, it is obviously in the codex for that army.

Black Templars - Codex: Black Templars, Warhammer 40,000 6ht edition Rule Book and Death From the Skies
Space Marines - Codex: Space Marines and Death From the Skies
Orks - Codex: Orks and Death From the Skies
Tau - Codex: Tau Empire and the Farsight Enclave Supplement
Eldar - Codex: Eldar and the Iyanden Supplement

Not so different after all, eh?

I keep up with codex units by playing against them. I don't own every codex and don't pirate them either.

 Peregrine wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
1.) They have multiple formats, so it is completely acceptable for players not to know every card....they need only know those relevant to their format.

Even in a single set draft/sealed tournament, the smallest possible format you can have, you're talking about ~250 different cards. For standard, the most popular tournament format, it's around 750-1250 cards depending on when in the block cycle it is. And don't forget that each of those cards can potentially have their own rulings on how they interact with other cards, so you can't just assume that you'll just read the card text in the middle of the game and know everything.

And actually I'm being too generous to 40k here. The knowledge problem in MTG is much harder since you have to be able to do things like look at what lands your opponent has untapped and guess what they might have in their hand as a counter to your plan. In 40k all you have to be able to do is recognize when the rules someone is showing you aren't right.

AS for Supplements...the eldar supplement has no units in it and 2 pages of rules. The Tau Supplement has a very few characters in it and no other units, hardly the same.

It's still extra information to keep track of. The point is that there's a double standard where any difficulty in getting and memorizing information about non-FW units can be dealt with, but there's an endless list of excuses for why FW is just too much work.

IT is far more than a bit of work....I assume that since you could not quickly jot down which lists are current from which books and which units that would be because even you don't know all of them...and you are far more vested in knowing than most people.

You're missing the difference between "can't" and "won't". I could make a list of everything, but I'm not going to spend the time and effort on doing it because I know you're just hoping to "prove" that it's impossible to keep up with if I miss anything.

The more I think about it the best way to eventually add all FW would be to start just the newest book (or IA 1 send ed maybe) and not allow any books until they are updated. This would allow players to learn a little bit at a time.to learn each set of new rules.

Remember how you and others have complained about favoring certain armies? What do you think is going to happen when you only allow the most recent books where IG/Tau/Necrons (already very strong armies) get pretty much everything they have from FW but other armies are stuck waiting and hoping that FW will publish a book with their rules after the arbitrary cutoff point?

Just saying that everyone should do the work when the work includes either illegal action (pdf copies of the books) or lots of money spent on books is also unreasonable.

And just how do you think most people keep up with codex units?

Also why should you write it up....maybe it would help everyone better implement FW....but since you're unwilling to put in the effort but everyone else should....no double standard there.

And if I had any reason to believe that this is a sincere request for me to maintain a master list of FW rules that every TO can use I'd probably do it. But I think we both know that's not what it is.

You miss the point again....it is not that memorizing what FW units do that is too difficult, it is that I have no reasonable way (without spending a bunch of money) of obtaining the new rules for units or even knowing if they may have been updated as FW does not provide a list of units in each codex (MTG provides all the rules for their cards online on their website.) Furthermore, when I go to my LGS I can expect to see MTG players with most of the good new cards...I cannot expect that with FW, so I would have limited chances to see the units in action, and really grasp what they do.

And actually yeah it is a sincere request that if you want people to start trying to use FW, putting some effort in on your behalf instead of expecting everyone else to do the work to humor you just makes sense. Heck you don't even need to do it in this thread, but if you created a blog or page detailing which units were updated in which books, which army lists are in which books, the most recent updates, which lists replace which. Perhaps even write up various units (if you were moved to do so) it would help immensely on FW exposure and I know I as a TO would be more tempted to include rules if I did not have to do a bunch of extra work for basically no personal gain (my players are generally not in favor of it, and perhaps if I could direct them to a place to learn about it, they might be more open.) to include said rules. But what you want is for everyone else to put the effort in so you can use your units. FWI, I couldn't "prove" its impossible because I would have no idea what the correct answers even are...so there is no way I could be like...ha ha, you missed x unit being updated here...that's the whole point...I don't know when things are updated or where...and I am not willing to spend the money to find that out.

Black Templars - Codex: Black Templars, Warhammer 40,000 6ht edition Rule Book and Death From the Skies
Space Marines - Codex: Space Marines and Death From the Skies
Orks - Codex: Orks and Death From the Skies
Tau - Codex: Tau Empire and the Farsight Enclave Supplement
Eldar - Codex: Eldar and the Iyanden Supplement

Not so different after all, eh?

Ummm...yeah yeah it still is two books at most, in most cases that re-print existing rules for say one unit from WD....quite a bit different than say IG FW with 7 or 8 books, and re-prints of the same unit in multiple books, and different army lists, which are re-printed in multiple books....

Let me put it this way if the FW books were organized as follows

IA 1: DKoK
IA 2 : Red Scorpions
IA3 : Elysian Drop troops

I.e. where each army had its own "codex" and that is where the rules were, and then maybe they added

IA6: Imperial Guard - containing units for IG, DKOK, Elysian Drop troops (only new and different units not those in the existing IA books)

It would make a whole lot more sense, the rules would be more organized, and easily accessable.

Heck if they just did not reprint stuff and I knew that say IA: 8 was where I looked for elysian units and the specific rules for models represented there it would be better.

But I don't know that, when they put out a new book short of pirating it or buying it I have no idea if they updated rules for old units, in those books.

The closest analog from GW is Death From the Skies and right on the GW site it tells me what is in it

Storm Raven for SM and Templars
Updates for the flyers from Black Templars, Blood Angels, Dark Eldar, Grey Knights, Imperial Guard, Necrons, Orks and Space Marines.

Done, now I know what units to expect in the book. it Could be a little more clear, but they also updated the codex FAQs with those flyer changes as well, so I know what they are even if I don't buy the book.

I did find a listing just like you want it's linked in my last post

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_(Warhammer_40,000 just click on the "did you mean?" and you'll have what you want.

Here I'll do the codex units for a few books....

Necrons- codex Necrons
Tau- codex tau
Eldar codex eldar
Daemons - codex chaos daemons
Sisters of battle - codex sisters of battle....

A bit different when all relevant units are found in one place.


Wow, they guy lied to me when he said he had some kind of update or supplement on his IPAD with different rules... I mean its not on your list......

Where as this came from one page...

Imperial Armour Volume Three Second Edition - The Taros Campaign Tau & Elysian Drop Troops 2013
Imperial Armour Volume 12: The Fall of Orpheus Necrons, Minotaurs & Death Corps of Krieg ISBN TBA 2013
Imperial Armour Volume One Second Edition - Imperial Guard Imperial Guard ISBN XXX December 2012
Imperial Armour Aeronautica Update and compilation of fliers and anti-aircraft units for 6th Edition release of Warhammer 40k ISBN 978-190796495-4 July 2012
Imperial Armour Volume 11: The Doom of Mymeara Imperial Guard, Space Wolves & Eldar ISBN 978-1-907964-16-9 2012
Imperial Armour Apocalypse Second Edition Companion volume to Warhammer 40,000 Apocalypse, containing new battle formations as well as new Apocalypse-compatible game statistics for several Forge World models ISBN 978-1-907964-67-1 2011
Imperial Armour Volume Ten - The Badab War - Part Two Siege Vanguard Assault 2011
Imperial Armour Volume Nine - The Badab War - Part One The Tyrant’s Legion ISBN 978-1-84154-995-8 2010
Imperial Armour Volume Eight - Raid on Kastorel-Novem Elysian Drop Troop, Raven Guard & Orks ISBN 978-1-84154-977-4 2010
Imperial Armour Apocalypse II Companion volume to Warhammer 40,000 Apocalypse, containing new battle formations as well as new Apocalypse-compatible game statistics for several Forge World models ISBN 978-1-84154-976-7 2009
Imperial Armour Volume Seven - The Siege of Vraks Part three Forces of the Inquisition & Chaos Renegades ISBN 978-1-84154-955-2 2009
Imperial Armour Volume Six - The Siege of Vraks Part two Death Korps of Krieg & Chaos Renegades ISBN 978-1-84154-910-1 2008
Imperial Armour Volume Five - The Siege of Vraks Part one Death Korps of Krieg, Dark Angels & Chaos Renegades ISBN 978-1-84154-851-7 2007
Imperial Armour Volume Four - The Anphelion Project Tyranids, Imperial Guard & Space Marines ISBN 1-84154-784-0 2006
Imperial Armour Volume Two - Space Marines & Forces of the Inquisition Space Marines & Forces of the Inquisition ISBN 1-84154-509-0 2004

Thanks to Leo_the_Rat...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_(Warhammer_40,000 just click on the "did you mean?" and you'll have what you want.

The fact that an encyclopedia has to be consulted just to figure out what IA books contain what units and which non-sequential volumes are current demonstrates exactly why FW is a problem (at least with respect to complexity).

Thanks for that. Now tell me where are the current rules for Thudd guns? Lucius Pattern Drop Pods? Any other FW unit?
How about any GW IG tank? It's in Codex Imperial Guard of course.
How about any GW marine squad? It's in C:SM of course.

I have forgeworld units that I've played using old rules because I didn't realize an update came out in a book a year later. Adepticon does a large listing showing the current rules which is helpful once a year when it's current. There is a reason they don't do a 7 page "where to find the rules" document for GW units. They're all in the applicable codex.

To pretend that there isn't a difference is being purposely obtuse.

 grotblaster wrote:

To pretend that there isn't a difference is being purposely obtuse.

We're not pretending that there isn't a difference, we're pointing out that there's instances of the same in Codices that you purpousefully ignore, which is dishonest.

Other than the farsight and Iyanden expansions, what instances of the same in codices are you referring to? In those cases you are using a supplement that has all the rules for available units in your army listed together for that supplement.
The Iyanden supplement doesn't replace rules for units listed in Codex Eldar if you're playing codex Eldar.

 grotblaster wrote:
Other than the farsight and Iyanden expansions, what instances of the same in codices are you referring to? In those cases you are using a supplement that has all the rules for available units in your army listed together for that supplement.
The Iyanden supplement doesn't replace rules for units listed in Codex Eldar if you're playing codex Eldar.

Digital and paper codex's?

And these have been shown to have some quite significant differences in rules from time to time. Pre FAQ;s.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 grotblaster wrote:

To pretend that there isn't a difference is being purposely obtuse.

We're not pretending that there isn't a difference, we're pointing out that there's instances of the same in Codices that you purpousefully ignore, which is dishonest.

There are not instances, there is one instance...Death From the skies. In which codex rules are currently printed outside the normal codex (i.e. same unit different rules.). Whereas this is commonplace with FW units. Furthermore there is no case where the entire army list for a codex has been printed somewhere not in that codex. The Farsight supplement only contains a few special characters, and some wargear, no additional other units or new rules for existing units. I.e. if I have my Tau codex, I always have the updated rules, I don't need farsight. Not true for FW, where I may have my army list, and then in an entirely different book it gets re-printed.

"Other then"

"Except for"

"In this one exception"

Really???


It's beginning to sound like "Well yeah, but.....that's the way it is and yous guys and yous rules can just suck it up since we don't care whats yous say is true. Wes likes its our way"

Yes I did mean the spelling as intended. It's an example of "purposely obtuse"

RIght because one book, is obviously the same as the Mess FW makes with their rule printing...obviously...

I have a feeling I might regret posting in this thread but here but here is goes. Also if I miss that this argument was made earlier in this 52 going onto 53 page thread. I'm sorry, I didnt want to read every single page.

I understand each side of the argument on this but if GW allows FW to make official products then it should be allowed. Also as a FW user I make sure I always have the current rules on me so that if there is any questions I have it there. So it really just comes down personal responsibility to the player playing FW. Also if you're worried about FW and rules, the TO should make sure people have their up to date rules, it goes for both sides, not just FW.

 Deacis657 wrote:
Also as a FW user I make sure I always have the current rules on me so that if there is any questions I have it there. So it really just comes down personal responsibility to the player playing FW. Also if you're worried about FW and rules, the TO should make sure people have their up to date rules, it goes for both sides, not just FW.

While this is true, it creates a Lot more work for a TO to make sure of this (they don't rely on player responsibility to write lists that are the correct point values, either- honest mistakes happen all the time).

For an example of just such an honest mistake, there is one just a few posts above yours:

 grotblaster wrote:
I have forgeworld units that I've played using old rules because I didn't realize an update came out in a book a year later. Adepticon does a large listing showing the current rules which is helpful once a year when it's current. There is a reason they don't do a 7 page "where to find the rules" document for GW units. They're all in the applicable codex.

The amount of work for a TO to check that players are using the most up-to-date version of rules for any particular FW unit is crazy. Hence, AdeptiCon's amazing list. But most tournaments just don't have that kind of resources to put behind organizing what the most current rules are for units. FW needs to do it... and until they do, FW use in tournaments is not going to be nearly as widespread as it would be otherwise- simply because of the massive work a TO needs to do to allow it.

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Yes I did mean the spelling as intended. It's an example of "purposely obtuse"

Admitting it to yourself is the first step on the road to change.