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.

I would let my opponent use whichever one they wanted.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So I am not permitted to make factual statements

Oh you are permitted to make factual statements... you just haven't actually started yet.

GW explicitly and specifically gives permission to use rules for options that aren't available in the codex as long as they are in the index. In the rules of 40k, you can't do something unless given permission; and GW has done so.

 Melissia wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So I am not permitted to make factual statements

Oh you are permitted to make factual statements... you just haven't actually started yet.

GW explicitly and specifically gives permission to use rules for options that aren't available in the codex as long as they are in the index. In the rules of 40k, you can't do something unless given permission; and GW has done so.

And they then rescind that permission a few lines after. So which is it? Is it an OR gate or an AND gate? Can you Charge after advancing, because the rules for charging say "Any of your units" can charge, despite the next line for charging saying you can't after advancing?

Here's a thought, has GW actually said you HAVE to or MUST use the updated Codex rules?
I see a lot of quotes with "assumed to" and "should" but that kind of language implies that you still may use the older Index rules. As if it is just a suggestion, but that GW gives you permission to use whatever your opponent lets you use.

I still can't believe "older Index rules" are a thing here. The Indexes aren't even 4 months old yet.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
And they then rescind that permission a few lines after.

No, they didn't.

You're hopelessly reading the two lines as contradictory. Except... it doesn't make sense why you cannot comprehend that they don't actually contradict. Take the rifleman dread-- the codex does not have a quad-autocannon dreadnought build. Therefor, you use the index's quad-autocannon dreadnought.

That's the exact example that GW itself used, by the way. Reading comprehension is a thing, you know.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

GW explicitly and specifically gives permission to use rules for options that aren't available in the codex as long as they are in the index. In the rules of 40k, you can't do something unless given permission; and GW has done so.

And they then rescind that permission a few lines after. So which is it? Is it an OR gate or an AND gate? Can you Charge after advancing, because the rules for charging say "Any of your units" can charge, despite the next line for charging saying you can't after advancing?

Try looking at this from the point of view of the intent of the rules. People were complaining that they have models that the codex invalidates. GW says, "Nah bro, you can still use those models and weapons!" We're directed to the Index for rules on how to use them.

It's not rocket science nor is GW intentionally trying to obfuscate their meaning. They're simply saying that if you have an older model with invalid options, those options are still valid. They specifically state on that page that the codex only has rules for current models and options. So if you have OLDER models and options, you have to look to the index on how to field them.


This is purely a company pandering to their older veterans and accommodating their dated models rather than telling the community to throw their antique dreadnoughts in the trash and buy a new one.

Indexes were merely a stopgap, so all armies got some sort of update going into the new edition.

That said, Codex rules trump Index rules, period - the only time you can use an index rule is when the Index model has equipment options the Codex doesn't; as linked in FAQ's previously.

Would I let someone use Index rules instead of Codex rules? Well - I'd have to ask what units and rules they're trying to use that were changed in the Codex...

I can only imagine its trying to use un-nerfed versions of nerfed units - and depending on the level of difference in power; as a casual player, I wouldn't really mind - but if you're bringing 600 points of Brimstones instead of the new 900 points they should be - yeah, feth that.

 Arkaine wrote:
Try looking at this from the point of view of the intent of the rules.

Down that path lies madness and nonsense. I agree the intent is to allow people to use it, but what they have said, in my opinion, disallows it. We need a clarification, especially since (assuming you are of the opinion you can use the older datasheet) it's unclear if you use only the index rules and points or mix and match.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:
Try looking at this from the point of view of the intent of the rules.

Down that path lies madness and nonsense.

Prove it.

And no, don't do any of this "MY CONSCRIPTS ARE TOUGHNESS 20!1ONe" arguments you usually do. Try to present a GOOD argument instead.

This is one of the situations where GW has been open and explicit about intent. RAW and RAI both align, and that people disagree with your willfully obtuse interpretation of the RAW which you chose explicitly in order to cause trouble is not madness.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:
Try looking at this from the point of view of the intent of the rules.

Down that path lies madness and nonsense. I agree the intent is to allow people to use it, but what they have said, in my opinion, disallows it. We need a clarification, especially since (assuming you are of the opinion you can use the older datasheet) it's unclear if you use only the index rules and points or mix and match.

I merely suggest looking at the intent because it makes it obvious WHY they made this decision and why it works this way.

And actually it's not unclear there either. They stated how it's to be done. You use the most updated rules for the points that are available and use the index for the outdated stuff in question, like the older weapons or upgrades or models.

So use the Codex for the dreadnought and the Index for the weapons the codex doesn't have. And if an FAQ comes out that updates the points yet again, use THAT over the Codex. Whatever's newer.

 Melissia wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:
Try looking at this from the point of view of the intent of the rules.

Down that path lies madness and nonsense.

Prove it.

You can't. You're not capable of it. But do try.

And no, don't do any of this "MY CONSCRIPTS ARE TOUGHNESS 20!1ONe" arguments you usually do. Try to present a GOOD argument instead.

My conscripts are Toughness 19, that's what I feel the intent was.

I feel the "intent" wasn't to make flamers the supreme Anti-Aircraft weapon of the 42nd Millennium, nor was the "intent" to make plasmaguns cause Razorbacks to be deleted from existance, or for Moving Plasma Cannons at Night to explode 50% of the time but that's what the rules say, so that's how you play it.

Intent is just a byword for "wanting to change things I don't like." I do not think it's fair on your opponent to try and spring house rules or other "intent" rulings on them.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
My conscripts are Toughness 19, that's what I feel the intent was.

Ergo, you have no argument, as usual.

Yeah, I didn't think so.

 Melissia wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
My conscripts are Toughness 19, that's what I feel the intent was.

Ergo, you have no argument, as usual.

Yeah, I didn't think so.

I see you ignored the rest of my post, but no matter. If you're arguing that you can use Older Rules in place of Newer Rules, then I want my super cheap 3rd edition Dark Lances please. I've said my piece, it's clear I am not in the popular kids club, so I'll be a good little Winston Smith and sit in my corner and remember not to wrongthink.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
My conscripts are Toughness 19, that's what I feel the intent was.

I feel the "intent" wasn't to make flamers the supreme Anti-Aircraft weapon of the 42nd Millennium, nor was the "intent" to make plasmaguns cause Razorbacks to be deleted from existance, or for Moving Plasma Cannons at Night to explode 50% of the time but that's what the rules say, so that's how you play it.

In this you are using intent to change the rules stated as opposed to using intent to understand why a contradiction or nonsensical rule is actually not a contradiction or nonsensical rule.

Intent is merely used for understanding why the rule exists, I'm not using it as a basis for the rule itself. For that, I merely need to point to what I quoted above from GW.

And if you do encounter two players with differing interpretations of the same rule, yet one makes more sense within the intent of the rule, then go with that one. <_< 99% of the time it's the one that's right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I see you ignored the rest of my post, but no matter. If you're arguing that you can use Older Rules in place of Newer Rules, then I want my super cheap 3rd edition Dark Lances please. I've said my piece, it's clear I am not in the popular kids club, so I'll be a good little Winston Smith and sit in my corner and remember not to wrongthink.

Unfortunately all older editions are invalid in the newer edition because GW already said so. EVERYTHING has been updated and anything that isn't present in an index or codex now is considered incompatible with the new ruleset. They essentially told us months ago to chuck our old codices.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I see you ignored the rest of my post

I didn't ignore the rest of your post; I cut it out for space. It added nothing new, regardless, being merely an extension of the rest of your rant. Adding hyperbole to hyperbole doesn't really prove your point.

If you were willing to give an honest read to the rules instead of the willfully obtuse behavior you're currently showing, you'd realize that the rules say, in more words, "use the codex when you can, otherwise use the index". Not all options are covered in the codex. GW understands this, and says "if you have the old options, use the index versions." For all other options, GW assumes the codex instead. There is no actual contradiction in these two statements.

Your posts come across as mean-spirited and spiteful even compared to mine.

kelewan wrote:
I am also quite confused on how to play my thousand sons army when the chaos codex comes out. Now I know ahriman, scarab occult etc aren't in the book however some of the other units are such as tanks etc plus the psychic power's.

Until the codex comes out you get to "franken-codex". You use the codex rules wherever possible, and refer to the index when the unit doesn't exist yet. There are some Tzeentch units in the codex, and you'll use those where possible. When the TS codex comes out, you'll use that.

Seems like the issue of what is available in the codex vs index is pretty simple and straight forward, the codex is an update to the game and not a complete rewrite.

When you update a piece of software, or video game, you don't throw out all of the old rules and items. The new rules and items replace their equivalents and the rest of the old stuff stays as originally stated. It's not that difficult to understand, and it seems very much like that was GWs intent here, especially after the example they gave.

Me personally no. the Codex is the current rules so you should be playing to them.

 captain bloody fists wrote:
Me personally no. the Codex is the current rules so you should be playing to them.

The index is also the current rules.

 Melissia wrote:

 captain bloody fists wrote:
Me personally no. the Codex is the current rules so you should be playing to them.

The index is also the current rules.

I believe the Captain here is answering the question in the OP not the nonsense from the last couple of pages.

Fair. Easy to lose track of in this kind of conversation.

I don't care either way. Obviously the intent is for us to use the most recent rules and that's what will happen 99% of the time, but if someone wanted to play index rules, I'd play. I enjoy those games more than I do playing against a codex with my index anyways.
In the end, it's a game, and having fun is the most important part for me. I don't get paid to play 40k and it isn't my job. It's a game.

Only the most current codex will be acceptable.

Unless you are playing a game with your buddies who let you use the index instead.

I am sorry you wasted your money.

I would just like to point out that while a lot of people find it acceptable to ignore the codex right now (what with only 3 having officially came out), as time goes on the idea of "index only" is slowly going to become less accepted.

What I'm saying is don't build an entire army on this premise and expect it to still be viable or even usable once enough codexes drops, like the people who invested in a ton of gladius or scatbike armies only to have those rendered largely useless (or even completely unusable due to point costs ) in the new edition.

There is no contradiction. This is broken down easily into specific vs general.

We are told that in general, if a unit has an updated codex entry, that we are to use the codex instead of the index.

We are then told that in the specific case of a unit having an updated codex entry, but the unit has options that were legal under the index but invalidated by the codex, we may use the datasheet from the index instead.

If you try to argue that you can't use the index in that specific case because it "contradicts" the more general ruling, most of the damn game falls apart. Take assault weapons for instance. We are told that we cannot fire after advancing. However the more specific case of firing an assault weapon after advancing is allowed (although with penalty). It contradicts the more general ruling, but is allowed because it's applied to a more specific situation. Codex vs index is no different.

Developer notes have pointed out that you should cherry pick. However, not for abuse but because some units will never get inculded in ANY codex. The index is used as a giant catalog which will hold anything. So if you wanted lets say to use some model that is not in the codex but is in the index, you can include that datasheet into your army, even if the rest of your army is codex only.

As for abuse, a gentlemans agreement should prevent that.

 Tsol wrote:
Developer notes have pointed out that you should cherry pick. However, not for abuse but because some units will never get inculded in ANY codex. The index is used as a giant catalog which will hold anything. So if you wanted lets say to use some model that is not in the codex but is in the index, you can include that datasheet into your army, even if the rest of your army is codex only.

As for abuse, a gentlemans agreement should prevent that.

This. So much this.

Exalted sir.

Take it easy.

-Red__Thirst-

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So I am not permitted to make factual statements like "Once a unit has been covered in the codex though, we assume you’re using the latest version" anymore?

I have been completely upfront that it is contradictory, but I think that the way it is you have to satisfy all the restrictions, which means no Autocannons for Venerable Dreads. If GW ever release a statement to the contrary, I will spin on a fething dime and scream my praise from the rooftops.

Or am I supposed to let people form an incorrect conclusion?

May I please have an explicit prohibition on the posting of said factual statement, rather than veiled hints? I'm not trying to be insubordinate, I am just trying to prevent misunderstandings.

Your not though. They (GW) are saying if its in the index but not the codex use the index. Your saying if its not in the codex its not allowed. If your not going to add anything else to the thread besides repeating the same wrong interpretation why keep posting?

Depends, really.

Way I see it, you've one of three options I'd be fine with.

Index and nothing but the Index. No using the Stratagems from the Codex if your just using the Index list.

Codex for mains, Index for conversions. We know the Indecies contain 'legacy' units that haven't or won't make the Codex. If your Index inclusion is just those legacy units, and not say a better version of Codex Entry #4968, no worries.

Just Codex. Self explanatory.

Lancelot185 wrote:

 Talamare wrote:
Depends on if you're using it to be WAAC

Example
Brimstone is getting a MASSIVE nerf in the upcoming Chaos book, choosing Index to dodge that nerf on your BS Spam list...

They've had their points increased by 1. It's irritating, but somewhat justified. I wouldn't call it "MASSIVE" though. They're probably still the best obj campers for chaos.

Their damage output got hit too .