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.

 Ailaros wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote: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 Just because GW/FW are sometimes lazy in their updating doesn't mean I automatically have to accept all out of date rules.

Again, what made the rules out of date? Everything else depends on the rules being obsolete despite not having something that replaces them. Just because all of the current rules for something aren't in the same book doesn't mean they're not current.

And it does fatally weaken that one fallacious argument that people make for FW. It works like...

Me: Why is FW legal?

You: Because the rules are printed by GW for the purpose of being used in a game of 40k.

Me: Old codices were also printed by GW for the purpose of being used in a game of 40k.

You: Yes, but [reasons].

Me: So you're saying that being printed by GW for the purpose of being used in a game of 40k isn't enough to make rules legal?

You: Yes.

Me: So why is FW legal?

You: Because it was printed by GW for the purpose of being used in... oh... wait, you're right. Furthermore, I find you physically attractive. Let me buy you a pizza.

Wow you always come across as this "polite" when discusing something with people

As to answer the question asked by the OP, no I would not let an oppoenent use a unit from an older codex if a new codex had come out, and said unit where missing. The special rules applying to said unit will most likely be renderd unvalid or something along those lines OR they may even go against what applies in the current book for said army.

Again, I do not understand your point of view; it seems to be based on minutiae and legalese to loophole nonsense.

The current version of a given set of rules is legal, as GW has stated. Previous versions are not. Your entire argument is a logical fallacy because you are arguing that a unit removed from the newest ("current") version of a codex is still legal and trying to argue semantics by playing this "If only the Codex is legal, then Forge World is not. If Forge World is legal, then units not in the Codex are legal, ergo a unit from an older Codex is still legal".

That's not how rules work, but you argue in your condescending tone about how everything is a fallacy. Your argument is the fallacy because it fails to account for the fact that a 7th edition Codex invalidates a 4th edition Codex. Forge World doesn't factor into that discussion. A unit that was in the 4th edition Codex and is not in the 7th edition Codex was removed, and no manner of rules twisting and mincing words is going to prove it otherwise. The general opinion is that if there's a newer version of a book, it supersedes the older one, full stop. Not replace the things that are the same, but leaves the things that were changed untouched because they still exist in an older book.

You are deliberately being obtuse and ignoring anything that points out the utter ridiculousness of your statement.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Again, I do not understand your point of view; it seems to be based on minutiae and legalese to loophole nonsense.

The current version of a given set of rules is legal, as GW has stated. Previous versions are not. Your entire argument is a logical fallacy because you are arguing that a unit removed from the newest ("current") version of a codex is still legal and trying to argue semantics by playing this "If only the Codex is legal, then Forge World is not. If Forge World is legal, then units not in the Codex are legal, ergo a unit from an older Codex is still legal".

That's not how rules work, but you argue in your condescending tone about how everything is a fallacy. Your argument is the fallacy because it fails to account for the fact that a 7th edition Codex invalidates a 4th edition Codex. Forge World doesn't factor into that discussion. A unit that was in the 4th edition Codex and is not in the 7th edition Codex was removed, and no manner of rules twisting and mincing words is going to prove it otherwise. The general opinion is that if there's a newer version of a book, it supersedes the older one, full stop. Not replace the things that are the same, but leaves the things that were changed untouched because they still exist in an older book.

You are deliberately being obtuse and ignoring anything that points out the utter ridiculousness of your statement.

Im sorry what? Im assmuing your refering to Allaros?

Trondheim wrote:The special rules applying to said unit will most likely be renderd unvalid or something along those lines OR they may even go against what applies in the current book for said army.

Sure, which is rather an incentive not to take them. For example, the old techpriest says it costs 70 pts. for a chimera to ride in, so you'd have to pay more, and you can give them an honorifica imperialis, but because of the cost of the wargear and the cost of the techpriest, you'd be better off paying for multiple new techpriests than a single old one. And they don't get to pass out PotMS for that matter, either, and absorb an FO slot.

Likewise, I could buy things targeters, which makes no sense because you can ALWAYS pre-measure now, etc. etc.

I'm sure most things would be broken for the less-powerful. If it would bother you too much to take a unit that has half of their special rules that they can't even use anymore, well then yeah, don't buy old units.

WayneTheGame wrote:Your entire argument is a logical fallacy

Which fallacy?

I'm getting kind of tired of people throwing the f-word around without actually knowing what it means.

WayneTheGame wrote:you argue in your condescending tone about how everything is a fallacy

Because other people are committing real, actual logical fallacies. Which I've been identifying by name.

WayneTheGame wrote:because you are arguing that a unit removed from the newest ("current") version of a codex is still legal

Speaking of, how do you avoid the argument from ignorance fallacy that I've been talking about if you take the other side of that argument.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You're committing a real fallacy otherwise.

WayneTheGame wrote:A unit that was in the 4th edition Codex and is not in the 7th edition Codex was removed

You know, this one right here. This is an argument from ignorance.

WayneTheGame wrote:Your argument is the fallacy because it fails to account for the fact that a 7th edition Codex invalidates a 4th edition Codex.

Which fallacy? Please, actually back up what you're saying.

And why does a 7th edition codex invalidate the entirety of a 4th edition codex? You know, without arguing from ignorance.

WayneTheGame wrote:You are deliberately being obtuse and ignoring anything that points out the utter ridiculousness of your statement.

Name-call all you want (which, by the way, is an ad hominem fallacy, if you care), but it doesn't affect any of my reasoning or anything based on logic.

 Ailaros wrote:

Trondheim wrote:The special rules applying to said unit will most likely be renderd unvalid or something along those lines OR they may even go against what applies in the current book for said army.

Sure, which is rather an incentive not to take them. For example, the old techpriest says it costs 70 pts. for a chimera to ride in, so you'd have to pay more, and you can give them an honorifica imperialis, but because of the cost of the wargear and the cost of the techpriest, you'd be better off paying for multiple new techpriests than a single old one. And they don't get to pass out PotMS for that matter, either, and absorb an FO slot.

Likewise, I could buy things targeters, which makes no sense because you can ALWAYS pre-measure now, etc. etc.

I'm sure most things would be broken for the less-powerful. If it would bother you too much to take a unit that has half of their special rules that they can't even use anymore, well then yeah, don't buy old units.

The old Techpriest is 45 points. Since it's an IC, it can ride with modern veterans in a modern Chimera.

And I wasn't saying you could take the old Techpriest. I was saying you could take an honorifica on the new one, since the honorifica hasn't been updated.

Ah, but look at the new techpriest.

Where does it say that he has access to the armory? It doesn't.

The rules for the honorifica imperialis may still stand, but it's irrelevant if no one can take one.

 Trondheim wrote:
Im sorry what? Im assmuing your refering to Allaros?

Yes, sorry I mean Ailaros.

Ailaros, to confirm you are basically arguing that because it doesn't say anywhere that the new Codex invalidates the old one, that you can therefore use a unit that was in the old codex but removed from the new one? Because I'm really having trouble understanding what you are saying and what you are arguing, as well as the actual logical basis for said argument. It really sounds like you're saying you can use a unit from an old version of the book that was removed because there's nothing saying you can't? AKA the old "The rules don't say I *can't* do X" argument.

Let me be clear I'd have no problem with somebody wanting to use a removed unit from a previous edition of the book, but I really don't understand the justification that makes it "legal" to do so and it really comes off as "Ah but it doesn't say I can't".

 Ailaros wrote:
Ah, but look at the new techpriest.

Where does it say that he has access to the armory? It doesn't.

The rules for the honorifica imperialis may still stand, but it's irrelevant if no one can take one.

It says in the 3.5 edition armory that Imperial Guard characters may select from it. Where is that new rule superseded?

 Ailaros wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:Why do you do this, ignore almost all the content of what I've said and pick on one sentence? Either address the whole of my reasoning

I am addressing the whole of your reasoning.

So you just fail at reading comprehension then?

For you, the definition of "current" requires someone to be actively publishing it, right?

No. I may have slipped up at one point or another but I was mostly very careful to say "current rules" and not simple "current".

The rules become different (for example, not current) if they're not on sale.

No, I never said that. The rules don't become different if they are no longer for sale. However they are not the current version of the rules when the company that makes the rules and is actively updating and selling the rules removes them from all current publications.

If rules that are not current are not valid, that means that something only has value or not based on if you can buy a new copy or not. This is a basic extrapolation.

A basically moronic extrapolation on your behalf. No, I never said not being current means something is not valid. I said not being in a current publication makes something not part of the current rules.

It could be a valid rule, just not a current rule, thus perfectly acceptable to not want to use it when you are playing by the "current rules".

Now, let's apply your argument generally, using analogies and examples.

I fething hate analogies, how about we stick to actual wargaming instead of abstracting it with things that have nothing to do with wargaming?

If I have a 2003 Honda Civic, and it comes with an owner's manual, and Honda stops making, selling, and distributing the 2003 Civic then, by your own argument, the owner's manual for my car becomes invalid just because Honda built a different car.

No, that's just fething stupid. I never said it became invalid. Don't make up moronic arguments. A car is not a set of rules for a game, the analogy is completely pointless.

By your own argument, nothing in an old math textbook is correct once they come out with a new textbook.

Another moronic analogy. I never said things in old publications being incorrect, simply that they do not represent the current rules. Also, a math book that gets a new version will probably have all the old text renewed, and a math book is nothing like rules for a wargame, the fact I have to point that out is fething silly.

Nothing in the Bible is useful or applicable or anything the moment nobody can buy a copy anymore.

Never did I say someone no longer published is not useful or applicable if it's no longer published.

Say it with me now, coz you really don't seem to understand:

The current rules, in my opinion, are the ones the makers of the rules are currently selling.

Notice how there's nothing about correctness, nothing about it being invalid, nothing about it being applicable or useful. Simply that they are not the current rules. It doesn't mean all books are invalid, it doesn't even mean all books are not current when they stop being published, I'm am talking very specifically about a wargame which is currently still being sold and updated by the writers of the rules.

Your analogies are completely fail.

What you're saying is that the rules themselves, or that the ideas themselves only exist in valid form based on the happenstance of economics. Truth is literally the byproduct of what is bought and sold.

No. I'm not saying that. Get some reading comprehension.

There is a lot of reasoning that you're skipping over by using your own definition of words.

You're skipping over so much logical reasoning that it's truly amazing. If you're talking about my definition of "current rules" then I'm sorry I explained quite clearly what and why I consider things to be "current rules" to avoid semantic discussions. Please elaborate on what I'm skipping over, as I covered all your points previously:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 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.

EDIT: Sorry if this post is a bit rude, but I find your lack of reading what I've written rude so I'm slightly losing patience.

No one is going to let me play with a Solitaire that has 12 attacks on the charge, wounding on 2+, ignoring all armor saves, and causing Instant Death on 6's.

Nor should they.

But that's what I could do with the most recent rules for them.

Great thread!
It's quite clear what most people would and wouldn't allow.
You cannot really put 'current' or 'latest' codex into a single definition that covers everything.
Nitpicking about everything that someone says is really childish.

I do not want older versions of units when they received new rules.
I do not want units that are intentionally removed.
It's that simple!

 DarknessEternal wrote:
No one is going to let me play with a Solitaire that has 12 attacks on the charge, wounding on 2+, ignoring all armor saves, and causing Instant Death on 6's.

Nor should they.

But that's what I could do with the most recent rules for them.

.... just once. Is it wrong if I would love to fight against somebody that brought this just once?

This thread kind of illustrates the main issue with GW's haphazard rules and codexes. They remove things on a whim, but your opponent can let you use it since the rules for something from 4th edition is still similar to 7th.

Yet another thing that requires you to chat with your opponent prior to playing; the only wargame of its kind to actually require hashing out what is and isn't allowed, what old unit you can bring if you want, what supplements are allowed, etc.

WayneTheGame wrote:
This thread kind of illustrates the main issue with GW's haphazard rules and codexes.

I thought this thread mostly illustrated Ailaros' failed attempts at logic

But yeah, the fact we''re having this discussion is due to GW themselves doing a creeping release cycle since 3rd edition. I'd personally love them to get out of the rut they've been in for the past 16 years.

At the end of the day, I'm happy to let someone try out an old unit in a friendly game and I'm also happy to play entire older editions of rules if I preferred them.

I just take umbrage, firstly with people either not reading what I've written or extrapolating things I never said from what I wrote... and secondly that "because you accept blah you should also just accept this".

It's all just lines drawn in the sand, they are NOT arbitrary lines drawn in the sand, but at the end of the day it's just where you decide to draw yours. Accepting FW is a completely separate line in the sand to accepting rules from older publications.

Actually his logic is just fine. He just has an error in one of his premises. The error being the assumption that rules published for one rules set should be used for another. It's the exact same mistake GW makes with their model of updated rules without first updating all the codexes, so there is precedent for this type of thinking.

The other issue is that, at it's core, there's no such thing as "legal" in a game that isn't directly connected with actual people actually playing with it. If something is "legal" in the rules but no one ever uses it or plays it that way, then it's irrelevant to play. And if something is against the rules, but people play with it anyway, then that's more relevant to play than the "legal" rules that no one uses.

So should you use old codexes? Sure. It likely can't make the game any worse at this point. There's a certain Chaos codex from a previous edition that's pretty much the best version of the army list they've ever put out. Anyone choosing the current one over that is definitely missing out and choosing the inferior product.

Unit1126PLL wrote:It says in the 3.5 edition armory that Imperial Guard characters may select from it. Where is that new rule superseded?

Right. So, this is a massive cop-out, but old rules and old units are sort of different for the purposes of this discussion.

If we're talking about using old rules (that aren't strictly associated with units), then one could ask why can't guard armies still use doctrines? Or like the other guy was saying, why not use 2nd ed cards? I'm sure we could compile a list of classes of rules that were never updated, but were simply omitted.

And that's also an interesting conversation. I mean, why not?

I guess the only thing I'd comment on here is that it is a bit out of scope of the OP. I was more concerned with people being upset that units that they have models for and liked to play got chopped out, and to provide a solution to that particular problem.

frozenwastes wrote:The error being the assumption that rules published for one rules set should be used for another.

Well, not strictly an error when it comes to "should" statements. Regardless of if they should or not, the argument is that they can. Or, well, could.

In any case, there is certainly a cultural thing going on here, as I mentioned in the OP. You can come up with reasons to exclude old stuff, but like any reasoning, you've got to apply it consistently. Personally, I don't use stuff from old codices, but I also don't use forgeworld, or white dwarf stuff, or allies, or dataslates, or stuff from escalation, etc. etc.

But if one is more "with the times" and wants to be able to use all of the deluge of supplemental material GW has been putting out, then it really, really doesn't make sense to disallow perfectly legal units that have nothing wrong with them except the date they were printed, while on the other hand reaching out to allow all this other stuff. Why rant and rave to get your particular supplimental thing added, and then rant and rave to stop someone else from doing the same? Especially when there aren't really reasonable ground to justify it.

Now sure, if we were talking about a rules set that claimed that it was balanced and rigid and wanted to tamp down on player choices as much as possible, and insisted that everyone play a shallow game with narrowly-defined rules, then yeah, I agree, it would seem rather out of place. But it's 40k we're talking about here.

As Paradigm has been noting the particularly curious example of the colossus, which is exactly the same in both the old codex and current forgeworld. Why should one be disallowed out of hand and the other fought mercilessly to preserve? The apparent hypocrisy is a little irritating, to be honest.

 frozenwastes wrote:
So should you use old codexes? Sure. It likely can't make the game any worse at this point.

At this point this is true of far too many things in 40k.

"Should X be allowed? Why not, it's not any worse than Y"

40k these days is a bit like worrying about getting a scratch on the rear bumper of your car.... after you just crashed head first in to a brick wall.

 Ailaros wrote:

As Paradigm has been noting the particularly curious example of the colossus, which is exactly the same in both the old codex and current forgeworld. Why should one be disallowed out of hand and the other fought mercilessly to preserve? The apparent hypocrisy is a little irritating, to be honest.

The Colossus is a one off.

In a friendly game, with a close knit group, go for it. By all means, sit down, discuss, and do. There is no way, however, that you should expect to be able to do this outside of those very specific circumstances. There are myriad reasons not to use old rules. Confusion, lack of availability, difficulty to acquire, no existent, or useless relics from old editions, etc. It's far too complicated. What if some one is using 3rd edition rules, not knowing (or deliberately) that there are 4th edition rules. Imagine the morass the game would be.

As to allowing Forgeworld, thus we should allow old rules, that's hogwash. It like saying we should allow marijuana because we allow tobacco.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
No one is going to let me play with a Solitaire that has 12 attacks on the charge, wounding on 2+, ignoring all armor saves, and causing Instant Death on 6's.

Nor should they.

But that's what I could do with the most recent rules for them.

Where can I find these rules please?

But this is a good example of why we don't use the most recent of any given rules.

If you have a tight group, sure, chat it out and allow it. At the end of the day there is nothing stopping you. But t will not be accepted in many places.

My $0.02.

 Ailaros wrote:
As Paradigm has been noting the particularly curious example of the colossus, which is exactly the same in both the old codex and current forgeworld. Why should one be disallowed out of hand and the other fought mercilessly to preserve? The apparent hypocrisy is a little irritating, to be honest.

Because it's purely a coincidence that the rules are the same in both sources. Let's say FW publishes a new edition of the rules and, since they're no longer tied to duplicating the codex rules, they remove the hull HB/HF (since it doesn't appear on the FW Colossus model). Now you're no longer using the current rules for the unit if you use the old codex, and those old codex rules will never be updated. From this you can conclude that the old codex rules being "current" is just a temporary state, and they should not be considered valid rules anymore.

Now, if you were to ask to use the old codex instead of IA1 to provide a copy of the rules that would be a reasonable thing to do, since we know they're both the same. But the permission to use the Colossus is granted by the current FW rules, not the obsolete codex that just happens to contain the same text.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ailaros wrote:
Why rant and rave to get your particular supplimental thing added, and then rant and rave to stop someone else from doing the same? Especially when there aren't really reasonable ground to justify it.

Because the deciding factor is what is part of the standard game of 40k according to GW. Supplements/FW/dataslates/etc are part of the standard game. Old and obsolete codices are not part of the standard game. The only way the two are in any way "equivalent" is that they're both rules that are not a current-edition codex. But that fact has no relevance to anyone but you, since your "codex vs non-codex" line is a purely arbitrary one that exists only in your own imagination. What you're really asking here is why people don't play by the rules of Ailaros-40k, when it's perfectly obvious that Ailaros-40k is the only reasonable way to play the game and everyone else is wrong.

Peregrine, don't forget his main argument seems to be:

#1 If only things in the current codex are allowed, then Forgeworld/dataslates/WD aren't allowed, because they aren't in the Codex.

#2 If Forgeworld/dataslates/WD is allowed, then there are things not in the current codex that are still allowed, ergo a unit from a previous version of the codex that isn't in the current codex is allowed, since the Codex alone doesn't determine what's allowed (because see #1)

Which while I get the point is a ridiculous argument, akin to the Chewbacca Defense.

At the end of the day, this is about figuring out what models to put on the table for a game and what rules to use.

There's not really much of a wrong answer here. And appealing to the authority of the rules doesn't really do much as there's simply no reason to think that doing so will give you a pleasing game. It's now far too contingent on a great many factors to rely on GW's game designers to point you towards the fun. Relying on something that is fundamentally about selling you models to provide you a good game experience is probably a bad idea.

So i say blow it wide open. Use what you want and whatever rules you and your opponent can agree to. GWs designers may be professionals at making marketing tools they can pass off as games, but if you're goal is good game play that you'd enjoy, ignoring their current work and going for what you know you like is probably more likely to get you to good gaming.

Eye of Terror campaign book. That was a good product about mashing different armies together in a way that made sense and afforded a lot of opportunities for creativity without it being the callous "buy these unbound formations" and "everyone can summon daemons now, so you best get some of those!" that we see today.

---

Farseer Anath'lan wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
No one is going to let me play with a Solitaire that has 12 attacks on the charge, wounding on 2+, ignoring all armor saves, and causing Instant Death on 6's.

Where can I find these rules please?

3rd edition Harlequin army list.

I would very much like to use my old Deredeo as intended. I don't have the new SM codex but it's been a while since you could actually have a dread with a missile launcher and DCCW.