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.

Given the fact that the last few codices have seen some things get cut (guard colossus, ork looted wagons, etc.), I was just wondering, why don't people just keep using them anyways, using the old codex as the source of the rules? I mean, people use stuff from outside of their current codices all the time - there's a deluge of secondary material to draw from (forgeworld, white dwarf, fandexes, etc. etc.). So why wouldn't old codices count?

There has long been the idea floating around that you can only use the most current version of a unit's rules (so, no using the old rules for a vendetta when you now have new rules for the vendetta), but if a new codex failed to give an old unit new rules, then wouldn't the old rules still stand? They weren't made obsolete, after all, they just weren't updated with everything else.

The only argument (other than cheesiness) is that the codex is permissive - it tells you what you can take, and if it doesn't say you can take it, then you can't. And that might have been true not too long ago where your options WERE rigidly defined by a codex. But now they're blatantly not. We live in a world of just sort of take whatever and it's all good. If you can have armies figuratively unbound by the constraints of the codex system, then why not literally?

Plus, most of this isn't even that cheesy anyways. If you can now take a phantom titan in your list and poop D-weapons on people, then would it really be so bad to keep fielding penal legionnaires or looted wagons?

I don't know. It seems an easy fix to all the complaining.

People probably would if they have a regular group, but you're basically looking at house rules at that point so acceptance in random games and tournaments just won't be there. The problem is that yet another fix is required - how many are we expected to make?

Two reasons:

1) Compatibility. Sure, taking Marbo from the old codex might work fine right now, but will it still work in 8th edition? Those old rules will never be updated, even by GW's pathetic standards of "updating", and eventually including them also means coming up with your own way of modifying them to work in the current game. And then of course there's the balance issue: imagine that the Colossus would have been 30 points more expensive in the current codex if it hadn't been removed because of the lack of a plastic kit. Now, by continuing to use the old rules for the Colossus, you're gaining an advantage over any player that only uses things with current point costs.

2) Officialness. Yes, it might seem kind of arbitrary at times, but when you're playing pickup games with random people it is important to have a shared version of the rules, including what is and isn't legal. And so Forge World rules/supplements/WD articles/etc are included because they are part of the game according to GW, fandexes and old rules are not included because they are not part of the standard game. And no, no matter how many times you keep trying to claim otherwise, FW/WD/etc are not in the same "officialness" category as fandexes, and there is nothing special about having the word "codex" on a book.

 Yonan wrote:
People probably would if they have a regular group, but you're basically looking at house rules at that point so acceptance in random games and tournaments just won't be there. The problem is that yet another fix is required - how many are we expected to make?

Agreed. Anything is fine if your opponent agrees, but it gets sticky for any pick-up game. It boils down to the usage/acceptance of house rules or not.

i personally wouldnt care if someone was using an old codex on its own but not mix and matching. If that were legal, for every honest player just having fun making an interesting list, there'd be 50 more that try to abuse the gak out of the system to make the most broken overpowered army ever, as a lot of wargear in current BRB rules could be crazy overpowered if they werent changed via FAQ or new codex.

Then theres the issue of same name wargear having different effects. Say i take Ghaz of the old ork codex, he has a 5++. Then i take a Warboss from the new one so i can get Da Lucky Stikk, and i buy Cybork for him....but now its a 6+ FNP.
Issues ensue.

Dooooooooomrider!!!

amanita wrote:but it gets sticky for any pick-up game.

But why would it have to?

Furthermore, stuff from an old codex is probably the most "legal" secondary material you can add. The rules say that codices have extra rules, and an old codex is still a codex.

I guess it's sort of the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence thing. Just because they didn't update the rules for something, does that mean it went away?

Vineheart01 wrote: there'd be 50 more that try to abuse the gak out of the system to make the most broken overpowered army ever, as a lot of wargear in current BRB rules could be crazy overpowered if they werent changed

Such as?

Remember, you can only use stuff if it hasn't been updated. You don't get to give your falcons their 4th ed holofields if they've been given updated rules (which they have).

Vineheart01 wrote: Then theres the issue of same name wargear having different effects. Say i take Ghaz of the old ork codex, he has a 5++. Then i take a Warboss from the new one so i can get Da Lucky Stikk, and i buy Cybork for him....but now its a 6+ FNP.
Issues ensue.

Seems easy enough.

The problem is if you cherry-pick all the goodies from past editions you could probably make a pretty overwhelming codex.

2nd Ed. Stealers, 3rd Ed. Tyrants, 4th Ed. Carnifexes, 5th Ed Tervigons, etc. If your opponent is okay with it and/or doing the same, no issues.

Once again, you're missing the point.

I'm not saying pick any unit from any codex ever. I'm saying always use the most current rules for a unit. Even if the most current rules don't happen to be in the most current codex.

In this case, stealers, tyrants, carnifices and tervigons all have new rules, so just use those. This is for things that got cut.

Ah, yeah for things that got cut i cant think of any that would cause major issues.

i was more thinking using options for unit that were removed, or old rules for current options.

 Vineheart01 wrote:
Ah, yeah for things that got cut i cant think of any that would cause major issues.

i was more thinking using options for unit that were removed, or old rules for current options.

I think that's such a darker side of grey you might as well play the older version vs older version with new unit NOT in old version modified to suit..
Rather than other way around.. Having old dex vs new dex in new rules would give way to some broken game play or balance issues....
Oh... Wait.... That's right..
But I still think modifying a new unit to old rules would be easier for everyone to remember at the very least.

Yeah.

I mean, there might be some things. Like bringing back Chenkov with respawning conscripts now that we have the new revolving battle missions, for example. I'm sure there's SOMETHING that might screw things up, but by and large OP stuff gets toned down, not removed entirely. Usually the stuff that gets the axe it seems are things that not very many people were using anyways.

Marbo excluded.

OK, I gotcha now. Seems reasonable enough. Still a 'house rule' for whatever that matters, which I'm perfectly fine with.

 Ailaros wrote:
Yeah.

I mean, there might be some things. Like bringing back Chenkov with respawning conscripts now that we have the new revolving battle missions, for example. I'm sure there's SOMETHING that might screw things up, but by and large OP stuff gets toned down, not removed entirely. Usually the stuff that gets the axe it seems are things that not very many people were using anyways.

Marbo excluded.

Imagine Chenkov respawning conscripts in the current codex. 2 point conscripts that respawn constantly
In all honestly, I kind of miss Chenkov. The next waves felt more hordy with a focus on getting boots out, suiciding and shooting and bringing more in. Made me really cold and callout
Not nearly as fun as the lost Al that let you do ambushes though.

Personally, I'd have no issue with it whatsoever. If you want to play something, play it, and don't let anyone stop you.

In the case of the IG artillery, there's this strange situation where the current Forge World rules for the units are identical to the version in the last codex, and yet people apparently refuse to play them, but 3 months ago would have done so against rules that are just as current and completely identical.

As for units like Doom of Malantai, Marbo or Al'Rahem, just go for it, I won't complain. As you point out in the OP, the game basically lets you use anything anyway, so why the hell not?

Well personally I suppose I wouldn't have a problem with it, as long as it was an obsolete unit you were talking about and not simply a more powerful version of a current unit (e.g. vendetta).

Also this made me lol

2) Officialness. Yes, it might seem kind of arbitrary at times, but when you're playing pickup games with random people it is important to have a shared version of the rules

Given your support of Forgeworld I find this appropriately ironic

KommissarKarl wrote:
Well personally I suppose I wouldn't have a problem with it, as long as it was an obsolete unit you were talking about and not simply a more powerful version of a current unit (e.g. vendetta).

Also this made me lol

2) Officialness. Yes, it might seem kind of arbitrary at times, but when you're playing pickup games with random people it is important to have a shared version of the rules

Given your support of Forgeworld I find this appropriately ironic

Why? FW is just as legal as Codex: Space Marines.

I would certainly play with units from an old codex that are now gone in a friendly game, as long as I knew it before we'd start to play. The only problem would be with pickup games, but well.

If FW is just as legal as codex space marines, then why isn't codex space marines as legal as FW? Why would an older codex be any less legal than a newer one when it came to things that weren't updated? Why should this create any problems in a pickup game?

It seems pretty hypocritical to say that the FW rules for the colossus are 100% okay should always be allowed, and then to turn around and say the colossus rules from the last guard codex are iffy, at best.

Outdated rules have been superseded by new rules. The older rules are less likely to play well with the current rules. Some will play well, some won't and they no longer get faq updates to clarify officialy how they should behave if there are problems. The confusion of what works and what doesn't makes it annoying to sort out for random games and tournaments.

It's not hypocritical to say "current forgeworld colossus rules are fine and outdated codex colossus rules are not" because the important factor is one is current and the other is not - amusingly, they're identical right? Forgeworld rules are official and haven't been superseded so work well with the current rules just like a codex - or at least, the ones that have been superseded are likewise as troublesome as the superseded codices and aren't what are talked about when "forgeworld" is discussed.

You could do it on a case by case basis with your group and I doubt they'd mind - they'd probably find it great, I would do this if I was still actively playing and damn straight Orks and 'nids could do the same. Ain't no one takin' Marbo! You can't expect house rules like this to go down well when you're playing strangers in pick up games, and definitely not in tournaments where rules are normally set beforehand to as much of a competetive baseline as you can get with 40k.

Yonan wrote:Outdated rules have been superseded by new rules.

In the case of looted wagons and sergeant bastonne, etc., no they haven't. There aren't new rules for them.

And all those people going on about how much they love logical fallacies, and how much GW publishing forgeworld matters couldn't really complain about unupdated rules from old codices. After all, like forgeworld books, an old codex is a book published by GW which explicitly says it has rules that are meant to be used in games of 40k. And you're using the most current version of the rules for that unit you can find.

 Ailaros wrote:

Yonan wrote:Outdated rules have been superseded by new rules.

In the case of looted wagons and sergeant bastonne, etc., no they haven't. There aren't new rules for them.

And all those people going on about how much they love logical fallacies, and how much GW publishing forgeworld matters couldn't really complain about unupdated rules from old codices. After all, like forgeworld books, an old codex is a book published by GW which explicitly says it has rules that are meant to be used in games of 40k. And you're using the most current version of the rules for that unit you can find.

Well, in case of Looted Wagons there -are- new rules.

As for using old stuff... I'm largely not against it if warned in advance, but it is not something that should ever be brought without discussing it with the opponent.

And saying that FW is as legal as C:SM is silly because GW still didn't even bother putting any mention of it in the 7th's BRB, even though they could. Until FW is mentioned by name in Codexes or BRB as a source of units and rules legal in every situation, it'll be a matter of gentleman's agreement. If I want to field FW units, I'll warn my opponent. If someone brings them without asking, I have all the rights to refuse to play with him. Then again I even warn in advance that I would be bringing a Knight or Baneblade so the opponent can take it into account when building a list, but still. I just think that unless it's explicitly stated in a 40k book that FW units are 101% regular game legal, then it should be discussed with the opponent rather than trying to enforce your own vision on how legal it actually is.

 thenoobbomb wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:
Well personally I suppose I wouldn't have a problem with it, as long as it was an obsolete unit you were talking about and not simply a more powerful version of a current unit (e.g. vendetta).

Also this made me lol

2) Officialness. Yes, it might seem kind of arbitrary at times, but when you're playing pickup games with random people it is important to have a shared version of the rules

Given your support of Forgeworld I find this appropriately ironic

Why? FW is just as legal as Codex: Space Marines.

So because something's legal we *have* to accept it? If I don't want to play against Forgeworld, I won't. If I don't want to play against Space Marines, I won't. As it happens I'm happy to play against both of them but I find the notion that people have to accept something just because someone else says so pretty objectionable.

KommissarKarl wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:
Well personally I suppose I wouldn't have a problem with it, as long as it was an obsolete unit you were talking about and not simply a more powerful version of a current unit (e.g. vendetta).

Also this made me lol

2) Officialness. Yes, it might seem kind of arbitrary at times, but when you're playing pickup games with random people it is important to have a shared version of the rules

Given your support of Forgeworld I find this appropriately ironic

Why? FW is just as legal as Codex: Space Marines.

So because something's legal we *have* to accept it? If I don't want to play against Forgeworld, I won't. If I don't want to play against Space Marines, I won't. As it happens I'm happy to play against both of them but I find the notion that people have to accept something just because someone else says so pretty objectionable.

You technically don't have to play against anything, that doesn't make refusing X but accepting Y any better; it's still a house rule (e.g. No FW even though it's legal) or personal preference (e.g. I refuse to play against superheavies). However, in regards to the OP, new codexes replace the old ones and invalidate it, regardless of whether the new one is better/worse, it's a replacement. You can play with something from an old book, but it's not legal in the sense of what's allowed; like anything else one group might not care, but another group (and any sanctioned event e.g. tournaments) might only allow the most current version of a codex.

Regardless, there are three things I think one would have to say.

1.) If you consider FW rules integral to the game because GW produces them, then you'd have to consider stuff in old codices that haven't been superceded by new rules to be just as integral to the game, because GW also produced them as well.

2.) If you don't consider FW integral to the game because it's secondary material, then you'd still consider old codices integral to the game, because they're still codices, unlike FW, white dwarf, etc.

3.) If you only believe that the most recent version of rules counts, then stuff in old codices is still fine, because absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. There are still are most current versions of rules, it's just that some rules are more recent than others.

4.) The only way something that got cut from a new codex wouldn't be available at all anymore is if you took a hard line that you can only use things that are in your codex as it is, right now.

But now we have dataslates and allies, etc. etc. And, of course, things like FW and WD as mentioned. If you're in favor of any of those things, then restricting against unupdated stuff in old codices doesn't really make sense.

 Ailaros wrote:
There are still are most current versions of rules, it's just that some rules are more recent than others.

Really. Really?
"my rules are recent, they just brought out 3 'recenter' editions in the last ten years."

If you play with rules people expect you to use the latest ones.

"Recent" is not a synonym for "current".

The current E-Type Jaguar was made 50 years ago. They've made other Jags more recently, but they're not E-Types. They're other Jags. If you want an E-Type, though, the most current version is also one that wasn't built very recently.

Likewise, the Star Spangled Banner is very old, but it's still the most current national anthem of the United States, regardless of how many other songs have been written since then.

You say it yourself. Play with the latest rules. If the current codex doesn't have the latest rules for something, then you have to default to the most recent version that does.

Hmm.

I'm not having great fun imagining deploying Saint Praxedes against a modern army...

 Ailaros wrote:
Regardless, there are three things I think one would have to say.

1.) If you consider FW rules integral to the game because GW produces them, then you'd have to consider stuff in old codices that haven't been superceded by new rules to be just as integral to the game, because GW also produced them as well.

I'm not really sure why I'd have to. Just because GW/FW are sometimes lazy in their updating doesn't mean I automatically have to accept all out of date rules.

2.) If you don't consider FW integral to the game because it's secondary material, then you'd still consider old codices integral to the game, because they're still codices, unlike FW, white dwarf, etc.

Again, not sure why accepting a current codex means I have to accept all things that are codices. The typical etiquette for pick up games is to use the rules as GW currently sells them. GW doesn't sell the old codices anymore.

3.) If you only believe that the most recent version of rules counts, then stuff in old codices is still fine, because absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. There are still are most current versions of rules, it's just that some rules are more recent than others.

Accepting only current publications is different to accepting the most recent version of a particular rule. The rule is obsolete, hence why it is not in the current publications. Just because it might be the most recent version of a rule doesn't mean it's a current rule, it just means it's the most recent, if the rule is no longer in a current publication that means the entire rule is obsolete.

4.) The only way something that got cut from a new codex wouldn't be available at all anymore is if you took a hard line that you can only use things that are in your codex as it is, right now.

Or a hard line that you will only use current publications from GW or FW or whatever.

I think it's fair to say anything that is no longer sold by GW probably isn't a great idea to expect to be accepted in a pick up game. You can house rule older publications in if you want and playing among friends you can do whatever you want. Eventually you reach the point where a unit may be quite out of date or when it was removed it may have needed an update. The Colossus is NOT a great example because the rules for it in the out of date publication are the same as the rules in a current publication.

But now we have dataslates and allies, etc. etc. And, of course, things like FW and WD as mentioned. If you're in favor of any of those things, then restricting against unupdated stuff in old codices doesn't really make sense.

Well, for one, I'm NOT for dataslates and allies (in their current form). But I still don't see the direct parallel with being happy with current publications vs having to be happy with the most recent version of a rule even if the rule as a whole is obsolete.

I'm not against house ruling in older models. Doesn't really bother me. I'm happy to play older editions and play games GW doesn't sell anymore. But I don't think it's a great option for pick up games and I don't see why I should feel I MUST allow it just because I also allow X, Y and Z (which are current publications).

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The Colossus is NOT a great example because the rules for it in the out of date publication are the same as the rules in a current publication.

This, as I said before, is the one that really confuses the hell out of me. There are apparently people who are refusing to play Colossi on the basis that 'it's Forgeworld' (which, to be honest, is a bad reason in my opinion to refuse something), despite the rules being absolutely identical. How stupid do you have to be to appreciate that if the rules are the same, just in a different book, the unit is the same. The 'all FW is OP' argument falls down when you consider this, and yet there are still people apparently refusing to play against the units that, three months ago, they wouldn't have batted an eyelid at. It's crazy.

 Paradigm wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The Colossus is NOT a great example because the rules for it in the out of date publication are the same as the rules in a current publication.

This, as I said before, is the one that really confuses the hell out of me. There are apparently people who are refusing to play Colossi on the basis that 'it's Forgeworld' (which, to be honest, is a bad reason in my opinion to refuse something), despite the rules being absolutely identical. How stupid do you have to be to appreciate that if the rules are the same, just in a different book, the unit is the same. The 'all FW is OP' argument falls down when you consider this, and yet there are still people apparently refusing to play against the units that, three months ago, they wouldn't have batted an eyelid at. It's crazy.

There is such a thing as common sense you know. I doubt any reasonable person would refuse if you said "I know the rules for this aren't in the codex any more but they're in an Imperial Armour book with identical statline and points cost, is that alright?", regardless of the group's stance about Forgeworld.