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.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Except there is no unit "Autocannon dread". You can pick up your old model that you stuck auto cannons on, remember that WYSIWYG is not a rule, grab the codex datasheet, and pick your options that it says you are allowed to take.

 Lance845 wrote:
Except there is no unit "Autocannon dread". You can pick up your old model that you stuck auto cannons on, remember that WYSIWYG is not a rule, grab the codex datasheet, and pick your options that it says you are allowed to take.

Incorrect. Go back and read what you quoted in the first post of this thread:


"There are a few options that are missing in the codex that appear in the index: why is that? Does that mean I can’t use these models in my army anymore?

While the indexes are designed to cover a long history of miniatures, the codexes are designed to give you rules for the current Warhammer 40,000 range. There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index).
They still gain all the army wide-bonuses for things like Chapter Tactics and can use Space Marines Stratagems and the like, so such venerable heroes still fit right in with the rest of your army."

You pick up your old model, use the datasheet from the index and the most recent points published. As per GW's instructions. Saying you don't do this is not following GW's rules.

Here is a post from Games Workshop today confirming that yes, the community post we've been talking about means that autocannon dreads are still a valid option.

https://i.imgur.com/e7PFEMX.png

doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Except there is no unit "Autocannon dread". You can pick up your old model that you stuck auto cannons on, remember that WYSIWYG is not a rule, grab the codex datasheet, and pick your options that it says you are allowed to take.

Incorrect. Go back and read what you quoted in the first post of this thread:


"There are a few options that are missing in the codex that appear in the index: why is that? Does that mean I can’t use these models in my army anymore?

While the indexes are designed to cover a long history of miniatures, the codexes are designed to give you rules for the current Warhammer 40,000 range. There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index).
They still gain all the army wide-bonuses for things like Chapter Tactics and can use Space Marines Stratagems and the like, so such venerable heroes still fit right in with the rest of your army."

You pick up your old model, use the datasheet from the index and the most recent points published. As per GW's instructions. Saying you don't do this is not following GW's rules.

Lets spell this all out again since apparently it needs to be stated in full every time.

In YOUR GAMES with your opponents agreement, you can use whatever rules you want.

When a new datasheet is released you are expected to use the newest datasheet.

If that datasheet doesn't have the option, then you don't have the option.

You are free to use your model, with the latest datasheet, no problems.

You are free to use your model, with the old datasheet, with agreement from your opponent.

TheWaspinator wrote:Here is a post from Games Workshop today confirming that yes, the community post we've been talking about means that autocannon dreads are still a valid option.

https://i.imgur.com/e7PFEMX.png

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop are easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.

Facebook has been particularly bad about this with contradictory statements coming from the facebook account within the same day.

Facebook is meaningless.

Lance, why did you even make this thread?

You've clearly already made up your mind and have demonstrated time and again that you have no interest in hearing contrary opinions, nor any evidence that contradictsyour viewpoint.

So what exactly was the point?

Are you determined that you should be able to veto an opponent's models, and just wanted a thread to point them to as your 'proof'?

You're free to houserule away GW's statements that you can't use index dreadnought weapons if you want to, it doesn't change the fact that the official statement is that they are still completely valid.

 Lance845 wrote:

doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Except there is no unit "Autocannon dread". You can pick up your old model that you stuck auto cannons on, remember that WYSIWYG is not a rule, grab the codex datasheet, and pick your options that it says you are allowed to take.

Incorrect. Go back and read what you quoted in the first post of this thread:


"There are a few options that are missing in the codex that appear in the index: why is that? Does that mean I can’t use these models in my army anymore?

While the indexes are designed to cover a long history of miniatures, the codexes are designed to give you rules for the current Warhammer 40,000 range. There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.
Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index).
They still gain all the army wide-bonuses for things like Chapter Tactics and can use Space Marines Stratagems and the like, so such venerable heroes still fit right in with the rest of your army."

You pick up your old model, use the datasheet from the index and the most recent points published. As per GW's instructions. Saying you don't do this is not following GW's rules.

Lets spell this all out again since apparently it needs to be stated in full every time.

In YOUR GAMES with your opponents agreement, you can use whatever rules you want.

When a new datasheet is released you are expected to use the newest datasheet.

If that datasheet doesn't have the option, then you don't have the option.

You are free to use your model, with the latest datasheet, no problems.

You are free to use your model, with the old datasheet, with agreement from your opponent.

Apparently it "needs to be stated in full every time" because initially you stated that you could never use the old model with index rules in any game with "official rules", or in matched play, that you could only use the model in open play. That was disproved. In fact, you've gone out of your way to give the impression even at the top of this page in the thread with your "except there is no unit "auctocannon dread" answer that you can not use the model with index rules. It needs to be stated in full because you have come out attacking positions of people who said you can use the index, following GW's instructions. It needs to be stated every time because you make comments such as "But if some random dude showes up to the store with a list comprised of index datasheet options using codex rules he can expect to find very few/no games. Hes not following the rules as laid down by gw. " That is not saying "you are free to use your model, with the old datadheet, with agreement from your opponent", that is you saying there are no rules for being able to use it, and the guy showing up can go pound sand.

 vipoid wrote:
Lance, why did you even make this thread?

You've clearly already made up your mind and have demonstrated time and again that you have no interest in hearing contrary opinions, nor any evidence that contradictsyour viewpoint.

So what exactly was the point?

Are you determined that you should be able to veto an opponent's models, and just wanted a thread to point them to as your 'proof'?

As I said before, 1) this came up in tactica. It was about to bloom into this now 5 pages of arguments. These arguments don't belong in tactica. I started the thread to move it to the correct subforum and get the tactica discussion back on track.

2) I am happy to see evidence. Bring me some other valid evidence. I am happy to be proven wrong. Here

 Lance845 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

You don’t have to.

What don't you have to do? You don't have to buy Codex: Space Marines. Why? Because...

Other Space Marines factions not covered in the new codex will continue to use all the datasheets, rules and points values in the index until their own codex is released.

So Blood Angels, Space Wolves, etc. don't use Codex Space Marines for datasheets, rules and points values. What about new models like the Redemptor or Intercessors?

Rules for new models not covered in the index (like the upcoming Redemptor Dreadnought) will be available in the box with the model and matched play points for these units will be made available online.

So GW has been explicitly clear. Blood Angels use the index, not Codex: Space Marines.

I stand corrected.

Pg 1. This thread.

Bring me solid evidence that stacks against

1) In all cases, these will then supersede the rules for that datasheet in the index book.
2) The datasheets in the new codexes overwrite the same datasheets in the index books.
3) In all future publications and official events though, it will be assumed that you’re using the most recent rules and Datasheets.

and I would be happy to go with the rules.

I am not personally interested in vetoing anyones anything. If a store runs a warhammer night and they say "Wednesday is going to be 2k points. Build a list and get some games." It would be expected that each person who shows up on Wednesday with a 2k list is following the basic rules for list building. According to the entire document it's going to be codex replaces index and index only options won't be valid. Index datasheets that have not been updated can still be used out of the index.

The dread is the go to example of this. But I am not worried about the dread. I am not worried about how strong or weak or balanced it is. I am not worried about getting a perceived leg up on my competition. In THIS sub forum it's not about how I would play it (I use a few house rules personally that I think make the game more fun (terrain rules suck)). It's about what is allowed according to what we have.

This

Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index).

Does not hold up next to this

Are the rules changing?

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

this

The datasheets in the new codexes overwrite the same datasheets in the index books. You can certainly use units with updated datasheets alongside units from the index that have yet to be updated. Once a unit has been covered in the codex though, we assume you’re using the latest version.

and this

In all future publications and official events though, it will be assumed that you’re using the most recent rules and Datasheets. It will also be assumed that you’re using the most up to date points for matched play, in this case, those included in the codex.

especially considering this

In your own games, if you and your opponent agree, you can, of course, play with whatever rules you like.

Especially when backed by this

Publications in use: All current and in-print Warhammer
40,000 Index books and Codexes from Games Workshop
and Forge World, unless their release falls on the weekend of
the event. We expect you to use the most current datasheets
for your models – e.g. those found in a Codex rather than
an Index if a Codex is available for your army. This means
that you may use Faction-appropriate Index datasheets that
might not appear in your Codex (such as Chaplain on Bike).

It's not just autocannon dreads. Consider the Grey Knight Dread. In the index they are told to share the SM index datasheet. In their codex they are given completely different options from the SM codex and the index. Assuming GWs stance on how the codex datasheets change for the sake of balance, fluff, better represent the armies current state, the legal options for a GK dread are in the codex. Not the index.

I would be willing to bet that this debate is going to show up somewhere on this forum in a couple weeks when the nid codex shows up if not sooner with the eldar.

Please, if you have some evidence to counter the rising pile of evidence on my side, by all means, post it. I am happy to discuss it. Will stand corrected when you have some evidence that corrects me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:


Apparently it "needs to be stated in full every time" because initially you stated that you could never use the old model with index rules in any game with "official rules", or in matched play, that you could only use the model in open play. That was disproved. In fact, you've gone out of your way to give the impression even at the top of this page in the thread with your "except there is no unit "auctocannon dread" answer that you can not use the model with index rules.

Il explain this better for you.

The argument that people can use the Index datasheet for "Autocannon dread" in index because there is no datasheet for "autocannon dread" in the codex is a bad argument because "autocannon dread" isn't a datasheet anywhere.

There is a Datasheet called Dreadnought. On the datasheet you have options. In the index it has some options it doesn't have in the codex. And further in the Grey Knight codex it has different options yet again. The codex replaces the Index. The options are not themselves a datahseet. You cannot claim that there is a autocannon dread datasheet in the index because there isn't.

Here is something for those who think it is legal to stew over.

If the name of the datasheet doesn't matter, what's to stop me taking the un-nerfed Conscripts from the Index in blobs of 50? If you agree that the "latest datasheet for Dreadnoughts with X weapon options" is the Index and thus legal, what's to stop me also arguing that the "latest datasheet for Conscripts with a unit size of 50" is in the Index and thus legal?

We have a specific exception given for using old datasheets with different gear options. We don't have one for different unit sizes. Those are not comparable examples.

 TheWaspinator wrote:
We have a specific exception given for using old datasheets with different gear options. We don't have one for different unit sizes. Those are not comparable examples.

The exception that states you must use the latest datasheet?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Here is something for those who think it is legal to stew over.

If the name of the datasheet doesn't matter, what's to stop me taking the un-nerfed Conscripts from the Index in blobs of 50? If you agree that the "latest datasheet for Dreadnoughts with X weapon options" is the Index and thus legal, what's to stop me also arguing that the "latest datasheet for Conscripts with a unit size of 50" is in the Index and thus legal?

[Due to the excessive number of straw men in this thread, all smoking is hereby prohibited.]

To support BCBs argument here,

There are a few options that are missing in the codex that appear in the index: why is that? Does that mean I can’t use these models in my army anymore?

While the indexes are designed to cover a long history of miniatures, the codexes are designed to give you rules for the current Warhammer 40,000 range. There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.

Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index).

They still gain all the army wide-bonuses for things like Chapter Tactics and can use Space Marines Stratagems and the like, so such venerable heroes still fit right in with the rest of your army.

No where in that quote does it specify weapons or wargear. It says options. The size of the unit is an option.

 Lance845 wrote:
Nowhere in that quote does it specify weapons or wargear. It says options. The size of the unit is an option.

Exactly. You can't have one without the other. Since 8th is apparently the "common sense" edition, which makes more sense: Allowing people to ignore nerfs and rebalances, or ensuring all people use the most up to date and balanced units?

 Lance845 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:


Apparently it "needs to be stated in full every time" because initially you stated that you could never use the old model with index rules in any game with "official rules", or in matched play, that you could only use the model in open play. That was disproved. In fact, you've gone out of your way to give the impression even at the top of this page in the thread with your "except there is no unit "auctocannon dread" answer that you can not use the model with index rules.

Il explain this better for you.

The argument that people can use the Index datasheet for "Autocannon dread" in index because there is no datasheet for "autocannon dread" in the codex is a bad argument because "autocannon dread" isn't a datasheet anywhere.

There is a Datasheet called Dreadnought. On the datasheet you have options. In the index it has some options it doesn't have in the codex. And further in the Grey Knight codex it has different options yet again. The codex replaces the Index. The options are not themselves a datahseet. You cannot claim that there is a autocannon dread datasheet in the index because there isn't.

Oh, I get your argument. You want to ignore completely what they say about getting to use old models.

"While the indexes are designed to cover a long history of miniatures, the codexes are designed to give you rules for the current Warhammer 40,000 range. There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box[u] , or some characters on bikes, for example. "

GW specifically cites dreads with weapons that don't come in the box now as one of the types of older models this is for. This means that the process GW cites for using old models includes Dreads with weapons that no longer come in the box that you used to be able to do. This means that your argument here is worthless, as they have already cited older dreads with non-current weapons loadouts as an example of what this is to cover. You get to use the index to make an autocannon dread, use the most recent point costs, and then get to use it in a game where opponents agree to this. Claiming you can't do this is arguing in bad faith.

Lance845 wrote:Lets spell this all out again since apparently it needs to be stated in full every time.

In YOUR GAMES with your opponents agreement, you can use whatever rules you want.

When a new datasheet is released you are expected to use the newest datasheet.

If that datasheet doesn't have the option, then you don't have the option.

You are free to use your model, with the latest datasheet, no problems.

You are free to use your model, with the old datasheet, with agreement from your opponent.

So games you play in a tournament aren't yours? Games that someone else organizes, but you play in are not yours? Hardly.

Simply put, EVERY game is up for agreement with your opponent and they can accept or reject ANYTHING you bring to the table, no matter how current it is, even in a tournament. Of course, you must accept the consequences of rejecting what your opponent brings, such as taking an automatic loss in a tournament or being ejected entirely.

Lance845 wrote:The argument that people can use the Index datasheet for "Autocannon dread" in index because there is no datasheet for "autocannon dread" in the codex is a bad argument because "autocannon dread" isn't a datasheet anywhere.

What a piss-poor argument. The phrase "autocannon dread" is talking about a Dreadnought with autocannons to differentiate it from other builds. This is an insane argument that demonstrates a lack of consideration and respect for what is being discussed and is a strawman distraction.

Lance845 wrote:There is a Datasheet called Dreadnought. On the datasheet you have options. In the index it has some options it doesn't have in the codex. And further in the Grey Knight codex it has different options yet again. The codex replaces the Index. The options are not themselves a datahseet. You cannot claim that there is a autocannon dread datasheet in the index because there isn't.

And in those cases where the wargear that a model was previously legally built is no longer represented in the codex datasheet, the index datasheet which DOES represent it can be used.

Or are you going to suggest that such a wargear representation was never legal in the first place?

 doctortom wrote:
You get to use the index to make an autocannon dread, use the most recent point costs, and then get to use it in a game where opponents agree to this.

I agree with this. In a game where opponents agree to this, you are welcome to do it. More power to you. It's just not the baseline rules of the game and you cannot expect opponents to agree.

 Lance845 wrote:
No where in that quote does it specify weapons or wargear. It says options. The size of the unit is an option.

Actually, if you look at the dataslates, Wargear Options are a separate section from squad size. Nowhere is the latter defined as an 'option' in game terms.

 vipoid wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
No where in that quote does it specify weapons or wargear. It says options. The size of the unit is an option.

Actually, if you look at the dataslates, Wargear Options are a separate section from squad size. Nowhere is the latter defined as an 'option' in game terms.

And nowhere does the webpage say that "options" is a rules term. For all we know it could be colloquial English.

 Lance845 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
You get to use the index to make an autocannon dread, use the most recent point costs, and then get to use it in a game where opponents agree to this.

I agree with this. In a game where opponents agree to this, you are welcome to do it. More power to you. It's just not the baseline rules of the game and you cannot expect opponents to agree.

There are a lot of things not in the baseline rules which are allowed for in other considerations. The FAQs are packed full of them.

A Dreadnought model with autocannons is not currently represented in the codex, but it is in the index, correct?

 Charistoph wrote:

Lance845 wrote:Lets spell this all out again since apparently it needs to be stated in full every time.

In YOUR GAMES with your opponents agreement, you can use whatever rules you want.

When a new datasheet is released you are expected to use the newest datasheet.

If that datasheet doesn't have the option, then you don't have the option.

You are free to use your model, with the latest datasheet, no problems.

You are free to use your model, with the old datasheet, with agreement from your opponent.

So games you play in a tournament aren't yours? Games that someone else organizes, but you play in are not yours? Hardly.

Simply put, EVERY game is up for agreement with your opponent and they can accept or reject ANYTHING you bring to the table, no matter how current it is, even in a tournament. Of course, you must accept the consequences of rejecting what your opponent brings, such as taking an automatic loss in a tournament or being ejected entirely.

Sure lets state the obvious. If you don't want to play a game you can pack up your toys and go home. Hey everyone, you are free to not play games for any reason. There is no law that enforces punishment upon you for not being willing to play.

Lance845 wrote:The argument that people can use the Index datasheet for "Autocannon dread" in index because there is no datasheet for "autocannon dread" in the codex is a bad argument because "autocannon dread" isn't a datasheet anywhere.

What a piss-poor argument. The phrase "autocannon dread" is talking about a Dreadnought with autocannons to differentiate it from other builds. This is an insane argument that demonstrates a lack of consideration and respect for what is being discussed and is a strawman distraction.

This is neither piss poor nor a straw man. A build is not a unit. Wargear options are not datasheets. If GW has a rule that says the latest published datahseet replaces the old one they are not specifiying every possible combination of wargear is it's own datasheet. The datasheet has a name. And if 2 datasheets share the same name for an army only the most current one is valid.

Lance845 wrote:There is a Datasheet called Dreadnought. On the datasheet you have options. In the index it has some options it doesn't have in the codex. And further in the Grey Knight codex it has different options yet again. The codex replaces the Index. The options are not themselves a datahseet. You cannot claim that there is a autocannon dread datasheet in the index because there isn't.

And in those cases where the wargear that a model was previously legally built is no longer represented in the codex datasheet, the index datasheet which DOES represent it can be used.

Or are you going to suggest that such a wargear representation was never legal in the first place?

Except for the 4 places where they say you are expected to be using the newer datasheet, that the older datasheet is not allowed, or that with your opponents permission you are welcome to do anything you want.

 Lance845 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
You get to use the index to make an autocannon dread, use the most recent point costs, and then get to use it in a game where opponents agree to this.

I agree with this. In a game where opponents agree to this, you are welcome to do it. More power to you. It's just not the baseline rules of the game and you cannot expect opponents to agree.

What do you mean by "baseline rules" here? In their rules they establish that you are allowed to do this and ask permission of your opponent. That applies to ANY game. If it's a tournament, you can ask the organizers beforehand if it's allowed. And, we have the indicationi that GW is allowing this in some of their tournaments - they've okayed Chaplain on a Bike. We don't know if Autocannon Dread will be okay for a tournament, but the facebook post today certainly suggests that it's okay for play. "Baseline rules" for this is, as per GW's rules, index rules with current costs if your opponent agrees to it. Can you expect opponents to agree? No, but you can hope. Given how vehement you have been on this I wouldn't expect or hope that you would give permission. But, these ARE the rules, and claiming they aren't "baseline rules" is you trying to delude yourself and others into thinking it's against the rules. It isn't.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:


This is neither piss poor nor a straw man. A build is not a unit. Wargear options are not datasheets. If GW has a rule that says the latest published datahseet replaces the old one they are not specifiying every possible combination of wargear is it's own datasheet. The datasheet has a name. And if 2 datasheets share the same name for an army only the most current one is valid.

You lie again They established with dreads with weapon options that they used to make but you can't do with the current codex as one example of older models you can still use by using the index and current costs. You ignore what they explicitly said.

 doctortom wrote:
You lie again They established with dreads with weapon options that they used to make but you can't do with the current codex as one example of older models you can still use by using the index and current costs. You ignore what they explicitly said.

And you ignore the instruction that requires you to use the most recent datasheet.

You guys have been hammering the same points now for a couple of pages. I think that you have each spelled out your points admirably but enough is enough.
I think we're going to have to wait for an official answer from GW as to whether they meant that it is OK to use index options for only normal (casual) games or event games (again ignoring the fact that the TO can do whatever he/she wants) .

As it is it's going to be up to individual TOs to decide what's what.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
You lie again They established with dreads with weapon options that they used to make but you can't do with the current codex as one example of older models you can still use by using the index and current costs. You ignore what they explicitly said.

And you ignore the instruction that requires you to use the most recent datasheet.

The most recent datasheet with the option is the index. They have given us the process for being able to use the old models - dreads with old weapons loadout being specifically given as an example - which uses the index sheet. I am following all of their instructions, not trying to interpret the one statement to hamstring everything else in their answer so that you can't do what they are clearly explaining you can do.

 doctortom wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
You lie again They established with dreads with weapon options that they used to make but you can't do with the current codex as one example of older models you can still use by using the index and current costs. You ignore what they explicitly said.

And you ignore the instruction that requires you to use the most recent datasheet.

The most recent datasheet with the option is the index. They have given us the process for being able to use the old models - dreads with old weapons loadout being specifically given as an example - which uses the index sheet. I am following all of their instructions, not trying to interpret the one statement to hamstring everything else in their answer so that you can't do what they are clearly explaining you can do.

And the most recent datasheet with the option to take 50 conscripts is the index too. Are you saying I can ignore nerfs and use superior Index rules?

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
You guys have been hammering the same points now for a couple of pages. I think that you have each spelled out your points admirably but enough is enough.
I think we're going to have to wait for an official answer from GW as to whether they meant that it is OK to use index options for only normal (casual) games or event games (again ignoring the fact that the TO can do whatever he/she wants) .

As it is it's going to be up to individual TOs to decide what's what.

Somebody just posted the GW answer in the last page or two about autocannon dreads for normal games

 doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
You get to use the index to make an autocannon dread, use the most recent point costs, and then get to use it in a game where opponents agree to this.

I agree with this. In a game where opponents agree to this, you are welcome to do it. More power to you. It's just not the baseline rules of the game and you cannot expect opponents to agree.

What do you mean by "baseline rules" here? In their rules they establish that you are allowed to do this and ask permission of your opponent. That applies to ANY game. If it's a tournament, you can ask the organizers beforehand if it's allowed. And, we have the indicationi that GW is allowing this in some of their tournaments - they've okayed Chaplain on a Bike. We don't know if Autocannon Dread will be okay for a tournament, but the facebook post today certainly suggests that it's okay for play. "Baseline rules" for this is, as per GW's rules, index rules with current costs if your opponent agrees to it. Can you expect opponents to agree? No, but you can hope. Given how vehement you have been on this I wouldn't expect or hope that you would give permission. But, these ARE the rules, and claiming they aren't "baseline rules" is you trying to delude yourself and others into thinking it's against the rules. It isn't.

Nobody is debating the use of index datasheets that have not been updated in a codex. If the index is all you got then everyone agrees they are legal by all the rules that have been handed down.

Again, facebook is nonsense.

The GT posting does not indicate any wiggle room for dreads. It says to use the codex datasheet.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:


This is neither piss poor nor a straw man. A build is not a unit. Wargear options are not datasheets. If GW has a rule that says the latest published datahseet replaces the old one they are not specifiying every possible combination of wargear is it's own datasheet. The datasheet has a name. And if 2 datasheets share the same name for an army only the most current one is valid.

You lie again They established with dreads with weapon options that they used to make but you can't do with the current codex as one example of older models you can still use by using the index and current costs. You ignore what they explicitly said.

And you ignore the other 4 citations from 2 sources. I can at least take your one quote, place it into the context of the whole document and understand what they were trying to say. But there is no justification you can come up with that allows the use of index datasheet options using a codex datasheet for official rules.

Baseline, btw, being the offcial, this is how we expect everyone to play, rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
You lie again They established with dreads with weapon options that they used to make but you can't do with the current codex as one example of older models you can still use by using the index and current costs. You ignore what they explicitly said.

And you ignore the instruction that requires you to use the most recent datasheet.

The most recent datasheet with the option is the index. They have given us the process for being able to use the old models - dreads with old weapons loadout being specifically given as an example - which uses the index sheet. I am following all of their instructions, not trying to interpret the one statement to hamstring everything else in their answer so that you can't do what they are clearly explaining you can do.

They didn't say the most recent datasheet with the option. They said the most recent datasheet, period.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
You guys have been hammering the same points now for a couple of pages. I think that you have each spelled out your points admirably but enough is enough.
I think we're going to have to wait for an official answer from GW as to whether they meant that it is OK to use index options for only normal (casual) games or event games (again ignoring the fact that the TO can do whatever he/she wants) .

As it is it's going to be up to individual TOs to decide what's what.

Somebody just posted the GW answer in the last page or two about autocannon dreads for normal games

No they didn't they posted a community guy posting on facebook, which btw, the facebook page itself says is not a source for official answers or rules.

doctortom- I meant that GW specifically answer which game format that they were referring to when they said that the index could be used in lieu of the more/most recent data sheet.

I can see both sides of the argument but both sides at this point are running into the same walls that were made pages ago.

It could be that they meant that legacy models in any game played or it could be that they meant that legacy models could be played only in a restricted format, casual pick up games for example.

Until they say nobody can claim that they have the one true answer.

 Lance845 wrote:


And you ignore the other 4 citations from 2 sources. I can at least take your one quote, place it into the context of the whole document and understand what they were trying to say. But there is no justification you can come up with that allows the use of index datasheet options using a codex datasheet for official rules.

Baseline, btw, being the offcial, this is how we expect everyone to play, rules.

When they specifically cite weapons options on dreads as one of the things, then that means that they mean for it to accomodate the legacy weapons options on dreads. Your "in the context of the whole document" is clearly ignoring that. When they cite something as an example of a legacy model you can still use, that means their rules cover being able to use that legacy model. If you want to pretend that you don't get to use it, that's your loss. Don't say there's no justification, however, when they've established rules exactly for what you are claiming they don't allow - the rules established covering what they've cited as an example.

Baseline "how we expect everyone to play" rules - you can use the index for legacy models with the most recent point costs, getting your opponent's permission. THAT is the baseline here.