Switch Theme:

Index Datasheets vs Codex Datasheets  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

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


Except that that makes no sense in context.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
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) .


They've already given an official answer, though.

 blood reaper wrote:
I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.



 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in us
Second Story Man





Astonished of Heck

Lance845 wrote:
 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.

Very true. The statement which allowed index datasheets was about "your games". And this has always been the case. You have been acting like this is not the case, though.

Lance845 wrote:
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.

It is piss poor and a straw man.

The quoted statement allowing for index use over codex was about MODELS, not builds or units. Seriously, do you have that much difficulty determining the difference between a unit and a model?

If I have a model which is legal under the Index, but not legal under the codex without proxying, how can I then "still use the old model" without referring to the Index?

Lance845 wrote:
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.

So, again, we ignore the statement which allows old models to be used with the old Index datasheet?

Or was the old Index never legal in the first place?

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





Wishing I was back at the South Atlantic, closer to ice than the sun

Actually, no they havent given an official answer. An official answer would be in the form of a FAQ or errata. What they have given is a commentary givin a framework within which there is a consistant formula by which to provide a cost for units.

GW retires models and ranges all the time by which to encourage us to buy more new models. Come on, there are peop.e on here that will argue until they are blue in the face that you cant use old metal terminators and must use the new 40mm based plastic kits. So the idea that GW will retire your models isnt far fetched.

I've already posted my opinion on this earlier. Talk to your opponent.

Cheers

Andrew

I don't care what the flag says, I'm SCOTTISH!!!

Best definition of the word Battleship?
Mr Nobody wrote:
Does a canoe with a machine gun count?
 
   
Made in us
Second Story Man





Astonished of Heck

 AndrewC wrote:
GW retires models and ranges all the time by which to encourage us to buy more new models. Come on, there are peop.e on here that will argue until they are blue in the face that you cant use old metal terminators and must use the new 40mm based plastic kits. So the idea that GW will retire your models isnt far fetched.

Actually they would be fine with the old metal terminators, so long as they were on 40mm bases. And there are some who would refuse a game for a Tactical Marine being on a 25mm base.

I do agree with you that there are some people who seem to be hard on things when GW isn't that hard on it, as evidenced by what has been quoted from GW (and hasn't been refuted).

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Gun Mage






They've already given an official answer, though.


Yep. For some reason though, people can't seem to understand the idea of a specific exception overwriting a general rule. Because yes, the post says that the standard assumption is to use the latest datasheet for a given model. It also says that you can use the index version for weapon options that don't exist in the newer one. This is not a contradiction, it's a general rule with an exception..
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 TheWaspinator wrote:

They've already given an official answer, though.


Yep. For some reason though, people can't seem to understand the idea of a specific exception overwriting a general rule. Because yes, the post says that the standard assumption is to use the latest datasheet for a given model. It also says that you can use the index version for weapon options that don't exist in the newer one. This is not a contradiction, it's a general rule with an exception..
It says options, not weapon options. Therefore Index Conscripts are legal because I don't have the option to take 50 in one squad in the codex.
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






 Charistoph wrote:
Lance845 wrote:
 Charistoph wrote:

It is piss poor and a straw man.

The quoted statement allowing for index use over codex was about MODELS, not builds or units. Seriously, do you have that much difficulty determining the difference between a unit and a model?

If I have a model which is legal under the Index, but not legal under the codex without proxying, how can I then "still use the old model" without referring to the Index?


Im vunna repeat this. Wysiwyg is not a rule. Your model can have no arms. Or illegal arms. What its equiped woth doesnt mater in terms of the rules. You can use your model. Wirh the codex datasheet. Or with your opponents agreement, any rules you want.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Gun Mage





 BaconCatBug wrote:
 TheWaspinator wrote:

They've already given an official answer, though.


Yep. For some reason though, people can't seem to understand the idea of a specific exception overwriting a general rule. Because yes, the post says that the standard assumption is to use the latest datasheet for a given model. It also says that you can use the index version for weapon options that don't exist in the newer one. This is not a contradiction, it's a general rule with an exception..
It says options, not weapon options. Therefore Index Conscripts are legal because I don't have the option to take 50 in one squad in the codex.

I'm looking at page 5 of that index where it defines the different sections of a datasheet. Section 5 is "Unit Composition & Wargear" and does not include the word option anywhere. Section 7 is "Wargear Options". So no, squad size is not an "option".
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 TheWaspinator wrote:
I'm looking at page 5 of that index where it defines the different sections of a datasheet. Section 5 is "Unit Composition & Wargear" and does not include the word option anywhere. Section 7 is "Wargear Options". So no, squad size is not an "option".
So by that logic a Bolter isn't a shooting weapon because it doesn't include the word shooting?

The word "option" in the GW community post is clearly the colloquial meaning. Prove otherwise.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/21 00:15:47


 
   
Made in us
Gun Mage





No, you're the one trying to attach a meaning to a word that the datasheet description does not reflect. The burden of proof is on you.
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 TheWaspinator wrote:
No, you're the one trying to attach a meaning to a word that the datasheet description does not reflect. The burden of proof is on you.
I'm sorry, but you're the one claiming that the usage of "options" is a rules term. Provide proof for that assertion.
   
Made in us
Second Story Man





Astonished of Heck

Lance845 wrote:
 Charistoph wrote:

It is piss poor and a straw man.

The quoted statement allowing for index use over codex was about MODELS, not builds or units. Seriously, do you have that much difficulty determining the difference between a unit and a model?

If I have a model which is legal under the Index, but not legal under the codex without proxying, how can I then "still use the old model" without referring to the Index?

Im vunna repeat this. Wysiwyg is not a rule. Your model can have no arms. Or illegal arms. What its equiped woth doesnt mater in terms of the rules. You can use your model. Wirh the codex datasheet. Or with your opponents agreement, any rules you want.

But the entire statement about using "old models" IS about WYSIWYG, especially if it is addressing Dreadnoughts with outdated weapon options.

That YOU don't want to care about WYSIWYG doesn't mean some people don't. They want to use their models as they built them with the Wargear that they are built with. GW provided an out, you want to ignore it. That's all this thread is about.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






 Charistoph wrote:
Lance845 wrote:
 Charistoph wrote:

It is piss poor and a straw man.

The quoted statement allowing for index use over codex was about MODELS, not builds or units. Seriously, do you have that much difficulty determining the difference between a unit and a model?

If I have a model which is legal under the Index, but not legal under the codex without proxying, how can I then "still use the old model" without referring to the Index?

Im vunna repeat this. Wysiwyg is not a rule. Your model can have no arms. Or illegal arms. What its equiped woth doesnt mater in terms of the rules. You can use your model. Wirh the codex datasheet. Or with your opponents agreement, any rules you want.

But the entire statement about using "old models" IS about WYSIWYG, especially if it is addressing Dreadnoughts with outdated weapon options.

That YOU don't want to care about WYSIWYG doesn't mean some people don't. They want to use their models as they built them with the Wargear that they are built with. GW provided an out, you want to ignore it. That's all this thread is about.



It doesnt mater how i feel about wysiwyg. Or you. Or everyone. Every person in the world could build golden idols to it. It doesnt mater. Your personal feelings about a thing that is not a rule cannot be used to support a rule argument. Models are not required to be painted. And them being painted or not does not change the rules of the game. What wargear a model has attached to it does not impact what options it can take. The models datasheet does.

If this whole thing is about not having to swap arms because you enjoy wysiwyg then you came in here with no leg to stand on. Wysiwyg isnt a rule and no quote in a community announcment post is going to suddenly give wysiwyg rules alottments.

Sorry about the format on my last post btw. Typed on a phone. Formatting a multi quote without a mouse and keyboard is a fething nightmare.


As for options. I can opt to increase my unit size. That makes it an option. Its not a rules term because the things we have all been quoting are not actually rules. Remember the sources we have. The word option in that quote is literally the english word option as anyone older than 6 years old should be able to umderstand it.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Second Story Man





Astonished of Heck

 Lance845 wrote:
It doesnt mater how i feel about wysiwyg. Or you. Or everyone. Every person in the world could build golden idols to it. It doesnt mater. Your personal feelings about a thing that is not a rule cannot be used to support a rule argument. Models are not required to be painted. And them being painted or not does not change the rules of the game. What wargear a model has attached to it does not impact what options it can take. The models datasheet does.

If this whole thing is about not having to swap arms because you enjoy wysiwyg then you came in here with no leg to stand on. Wysiwyg isnt a rule and no quote in a community announcment post is going to suddenly give wysiwyg rules alottments.

Apparently, it does matter how you feel about WYSIWYG and how GW feels about WYSIWYG, because this whole discussion is about a WYSIWYG situation AND the options that were previously available in the Index (which were there because people had modeled for previously available Options).

Because you keep fighting against that quote that DoctorTom has used, you apparently do feel something about it since it specifically addresses this concept.

 Lance845 wrote:
As for options. I can opt to increase my unit size. That makes it an option. Its not a rules term because the things we have all been quoting are not actually rules. Remember the sources we have. The word option in that quote is literally the english word option as anyone older than 6 years old should be able to umderstand it.

Not even the same concept. One is the options A MODEL may take, not about the options of how many of a model A UNIT can take.

Why are there so many people here who like to conflate the rules regarding a model to being to a unit, and vice versa? A model and a unit are not the same level of interactions, so quit trying to conflate them as being the same thing.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/21 04:34:34


Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Gun Mage





And I would think that anyone older than 6 would understand that when GW says that we can still use those weapon options, they actually mean it.
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






Charistoph wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
It doesnt mater how i feel about wysiwyg. Or you. Or everyone. Every person in the world could build golden idols to it. It doesnt mater. Your personal feelings about a thing that is not a rule cannot be used to support a rule argument. Models are not required to be painted. And them being painted or not does not change the rules of the game. What wargear a model has attached to it does not impact what options it can take. The models datasheet does.

If this whole thing is about not having to swap arms because you enjoy wysiwyg then you came in here with no leg to stand on. Wysiwyg isnt a rule and no quote in a community announcment post is going to suddenly give wysiwyg rules alottments.

Apparently, it does matter how you feel about WYSIWYG and how GW feels about WYSIWYG, because this whole discussion is about a WYSIWYG situation AND the options that were previously available in the Index (which were there because people had modeled for previously available Options).

Because you keep fighting against that quote that DoctorTom has used, you apparently do feel something about it since it specifically addresses this concept.


Alright, there is a lot of misinterpretation here. I am going to take some space and clarify my positions on things.

First, me PERSONALLY on WYSIWYG.

I think it's important, and good sportsmanship to make what you have on the table clear to your opponent. That does not mean true WYSIWYG. It means if I have 1 Hivetyrant on the table modeled with wings and talons it could have any option on the hive tyrant datasheet including 2 sets of guns as long as I make it very clear to my opponent what it is equiped with. And that if I have 2 HT with wings and talons on the table but I want them to have different options then they damn well better have some very distinct markings on them so they are visually separable from each other and easily identifiable or they had better be equiped the same. The point of WYSIWYG is clarity. As long as everything is being done with clarity I don't care what part you glued to what.

Second, me PERSONALLY on Dreads and the index datasheet.

Were I to play with someone agreeing to use the index options I don't give a gak what Dread model they use to represent it. If it's on the right size base and roughly the right dimensions it could have a claw and a lascannon and I would be cool with it being equipped with twin autocannons or any other option on the datasheet. I don't care. I care about following the rules. If we agree that the index datasheet is the one being used by that unit then as long as the rules of that datasheet are being adhered to go nuts. Whether or not I would accept the index datasheet is entirely based on the given game.

Third, me and this thread.

WYSIWYG is not a rule. Even if you can interpret the quote from the community announcement post that has a FAQ but not a rules ERRATA as IMPLYING WYSIWYG it does not in any way make WYSIWYG a rules entity that has any bearing what-so-ever on the rules. Nothing I have said in this thread, at any point, has ever been about WYSIWYG. If that was unclear I apologize. Internalize it now. WYSIWYG is never in my mind when discussing rules in YMDC because YMDC is not a place for stuff you feel is a courtesy that should be a rule but isn't.

Maybe DrTom has been talking WYSIWYG at me and I haven't noticed. My bad if thats the case. But it's not a discussion that has any bearing here. Again, YMDC is about rules. And WYSIWYG isn't one. My argument is purely about the rules. Which Datasheets you are expected to use. Which datasheets you have allowance to use. And under which circumstances you have that allowance. Again, WYSIWYG isn't a factor. When I read...

Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models.


I don't read that to mean the model with those options attached. I read that to mean literally the older kit. Doesn't matter what arms you put on it. Just the fact that you have the older model that came with the bits. Again, PERSONALLY, I don't give a gak which kit you have and I would never hold any opponent to that kind of draconian bs. It has no bearing on ME for whether I would let you use the index or not. So if that is 1 of 2 stipulations then for me PERSONALLY it's down to 1 stipulation. Which is my agreement. YMMV and you may run into players who really do want you to have it perfectly WYSIWYG. But I don't read that sentence that way and I think it's a stupid thing to enforce on another player.


 Lance845 wrote:
As for options. I can opt to increase my unit size. That makes it an option. Its not a rules term because the things we have all been quoting are not actually rules. Remember the sources we have. The word option in that quote is literally the english word option as anyone older than 6 years old should be able to umderstand it.

Not even the same concept. One is the options A MODEL may take, not about the options of how many of a model A UNIT can take.

Why are there so many people here who like to conflate the rules regarding a model to being to a unit, and vice versa? A model and a unit are not the same level of interactions, so quit trying to conflate them as being the same thing.


Here is the question GW apparently decided was frequently asked.

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?


Note: That question doesn't talk about options on models. It doesn't mention weapons or wargear. It says options missing from the entire book that were present in the former book. Plain and simple options. It's important to remember what question they are answering when reading the answer.

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.


Now, if you wanted to take this answer as word for word literal law RAW, only vehicles and characters have the opportunity to go back to indexes (weird stipulation), but it seems to me that since this isn't an errata that what they actually are saying is any unit but that characters and vehicles are prime examples. And then they call out a vehicle and a character specifically as examples. If I, PERSONALLY, were going to let someone go back to the index, this "Character or Vehicle" nonsense wouldn't be something I would 'enforce" because it's incredibly arbitrary and stupid and also... not what I believe they are saying. But most importantly, it says that, answering the question, if you are missing options you can go back to the index and use the index DATASHEET.

Since the question wasn't about wargear, the options they are talking about are not wargear specifically. Since the size of your unit is an option, conscripts can use their index datasheet. Which means according to the datasheet, they can bring 50 of the fethers.

Please remember. I don't agree with this. I think you are expected to be using the most current datasheet. Which means the codex. The index is only an option with permission.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/10/21 08:43:39



These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

The entire WHC article is colloquial. This means you can't 'provide proof' and barking that at someone is nonsensical

It also means you can't possibly enforce it as hard RAW (it simply isn't) and claim it to be unambiguous proof that Legacy things can't be used in games. That's a reach and ignores part of the copy.

It's cute to try and push everything back on one side to prove, but it's not possible for either side in this case. If you interpret this article differently (even if that includes ignoring "Don't worry you can still use your models") there's literally no way to 'prove' the other camp wrong. So yeah, 'Prove it!' 'No you prove it!' - it can't achieve anything.

We've had this entire discussion in other threads with the same bickery outcome. This thread has done what I said early on... added nothing new, and just been repetitious.

FWIW for the example of the dear Autocannon Dread (obviously shorthand not a unit name, cmaaan) you can simply use the FW Index Astartes rules and play it as a Mortis Dread against Lance or BCB and you won't even need permission. Doesn't help in other cases, but just wanted to show the main yardstick in this 'debate' is covered elsewhere. Though you'll have to spend £16 on another book just to satisfy someone's passionate belief that a page in the book you already have in front of you is illegal to use. Go figure.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/21 09:54:40


 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in de
Nihilistic Necron Lord






Germany

 Lance845 wrote:

Since the question wasn't about wargear, the options they are talking about are not wargear specifically. Since the size of your unit is an option, conscripts can use their index datasheet. Which means according to the datasheet, they can bring 50 of the fethers.

Please remember. I don't agree with this. I think you are expected to be using the most current datasheet. Which means the codex. The index is only an option with permission.


You cant use 50 conscripts, because they are in the codex and the maximum number is 30. There is no autocannon dread in the codex, so you fallback to the index.
   
Made in us
Painlord Titan Princeps of Slaanesh




What do GK do about autocannon dreads? In the index it says refer to the SM entry. In my codex it doesn't allow autocannons on a dread. The SM entry in the codex has been superceded by the SM codex. Do I use the SM codex (assuming the autocannon dread is still in there) or am I to use an outdated index entry or am I just not allowed to field an autocannon dread anymore?
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
What do GK do about autocannon dreads? In the index it says refer to the SM entry. In my codex it doesn't allow autocannons on a dread. The SM entry in the codex has been superceded by the SM codex. Do I use the SM codex (assuming the autocannon dread is still in there) or am I to use an outdated index entry or am I just not allowed to field an autocannon dread anymore?


I believe you'd use the most up-to-date entry (in this case the SM Codex), *except* in cases where options in the index do not appear in the codex.

So if the dreadnought in the SM codex doesn't have the option of autocannons, you'd use the SM index version instead.

 blood reaper wrote:
I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.



 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in us
Painlord Titan Princeps of Slaanesh




So I have to check 4-5 places to see if I can even use my legacy model 1)GK codex > 2) GK index > 3) SM index > 4) SM codex > 5) SM index (if it isn't in the codex).

The steps go in that order since that's what the codex(s) and index(s) say to do, specifically check the SM index after the GK index.

That seems like a lot of work for someone to make sure that i spent the correct amount of points if there's any question.
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
So I have to check 4-5 places to see if I can even use my legacy model 1)GK codex > 2) GK index > 3) SM index > 4) SM codex > 5) SM index (if it isn't in the codex).


Hey, don't blame me. I'm not the one who decided to put the rules for a GK unit in an entirely different codex.

 blood reaper wrote:
I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.



 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






JohnnyHell wrote:The entire WHC article is colloquial. This means you can't 'provide proof' and barking that at someone is nonsensical


This true, and something i bought up in the very first post. But you CAN take it with other data to get an idea. Hence the GT rules posted by GW. Where yu are expected to use the most up to date datasheet.

It also means you can't possibly enforce it as hard RAW (it simply isn't) and claim it to be unambiguous proof that Legacy things can't be used in games. That's a reach and ignores part of the copy.

It's cute to try and push everything back on one side to prove, but it's not possible for either side in this case. If you interpret this article differently (even if that includes ignoring "Don't worry you can still use your models") there's literally no way to 'prove' the other camp wrong. So yeah, 'Prove it!' 'No you prove it!' - it can't achieve anything.

We've had this entire discussion in other threads with the same bickery outcome. This thread has done what I said early on... added nothing new, and just been repetitious.

FWIW for the example of the dear Autocannon Dread (obviously shorthand not a unit name, cmaaan) you can simply use the FW Index Astartes rules and play it as a Mortis Dread against Lance or BCB and you won't even need permission. Doesn't help in other cases, but just wanted to show the main yardstick in this 'debate' is covered elsewhere. Though you'll have to spend £16 on another book just to satisfy someone's passionate belief that a page in the book you already have in front of you is illegal to use. Go figure.


Again the point isn't the dread itself. I don't care about dreads. I care about the rules and allowances. This is going to keep cropping up as more and more codexes release. The Tau Commander and Crisis Suit kits don't come with a lot of their weapon options. If those options get cut in their codex you think this isn't going to blow up here again?

Leo_the_Rat wrote:What do GK do about autocannon dreads? In the index it says refer to the SM entry. In my codex it doesn't allow autocannons on a dread. The SM entry in the codex has been superceded by the SM codex. Do I use the SM codex (assuming the autocannon dread is still in there) or am I to use an outdated index entry or am I just not allowed to field an autocannon dread anymore?


Does the GK Codex come with a datasheet for Dreadnought? Then thats the datasheet you use. You can use it as a FW Mortis as has been pointed out. Google image search that datasheet. Print it out.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/21 16:51:23



These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Second Story Man





Astonished of Heck

 Lance845 wrote:
Charistoph wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
It doesnt mater how i feel about wysiwyg. Or you. Or everyone. Every person in the world could build golden idols to it. It doesnt mater. Your personal feelings about a thing that is not a rule cannot be used to support a rule argument. Models are not required to be painted. And them being painted or not does not change the rules of the game. What wargear a model has attached to it does not impact what options it can take. The models datasheet does.

If this whole thing is about not having to swap arms because you enjoy wysiwyg then you came in here with no leg to stand on. Wysiwyg isnt a rule and no quote in a community announcment post is going to suddenly give wysiwyg rules alottments.

Apparently, it does matter how you feel about WYSIWYG and how GW feels about WYSIWYG, because this whole discussion is about a WYSIWYG situation AND the options that were previously available in the Index (which were there because people had modeled for previously available Options).

Because you keep fighting against that quote that DoctorTom has used, you apparently do feel something about it since it specifically addresses this concept.


Alright, there is a lot of misinterpretation here. I am going to take some space and clarify my positions on things.

First, me PERSONALLY on WYSIWYG.

I think it's important, and good sportsmanship to make what you have on the table clear to your opponent. That does not mean true WYSIWYG. It means if I have 1 Hivetyrant on the table modeled with wings and talons it could have any option on the hive tyrant datasheet including 2 sets of guns as long as I make it very clear to my opponent what it is equiped with. And that if I have 2 HT with wings and talons on the table but I want them to have different options then they damn well better have some very distinct markings on them so they are visually separable from each other and easily identifiable or they had better be equiped the same. The point of WYSIWYG is clarity. As long as everything is being done with clarity I don't care what part you glued to what.

Second, me PERSONALLY on Dreads and the index datasheet.

Were I to play with someone agreeing to use the index options I don't give a gak what Dread model they use to represent it. If it's on the right size base and roughly the right dimensions it could have a claw and a lascannon and I would be cool with it being equipped with twin autocannons or any other option on the datasheet. I don't care. I care about following the rules. If we agree that the index datasheet is the one being used by that unit then as long as the rules of that datasheet are being adhered to go nuts. Whether or not I would accept the index datasheet is entirely based on the given game.

Third, me and this thread.

WYSIWYG is not a rule. Even if you can interpret the quote from the community announcement post that has a FAQ but not a rules ERRATA as IMPLYING WYSIWYG it does not in any way make WYSIWYG a rules entity that has any bearing what-so-ever on the rules. Nothing I have said in this thread, at any point, has ever been about WYSIWYG. If that was unclear I apologize. Internalize it now. WYSIWYG is never in my mind when discussing rules in YMDC because YMDC is not a place for stuff you feel is a courtesy that should be a rule but isn't.

Maybe DrTom has been talking WYSIWYG at me and I haven't noticed. My bad if thats the case. But it's not a discussion that has any bearing here. Again, YMDC is about rules. And WYSIWYG isn't one. My argument is purely about the rules. Which Datasheets you are expected to use. Which datasheets you have allowance to use. And under which circumstances you have that allowance. Again, WYSIWYG isn't a factor. When I read...

Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models.


I don't read that to mean the model with those options attached. I read that to mean literally the older kit. Doesn't matter what arms you put on it. Just the fact that you have the older model that came with the bits. Again, PERSONALLY, I don't give a gak which kit you have and I would never hold any opponent to that kind of draconian bs. It has no bearing on ME for whether I would let you use the index or not. So if that is 1 of 2 stipulations then for me PERSONALLY it's down to 1 stipulation. Which is my agreement. YMMV and you may run into players who really do want you to have it perfectly WYSIWYG. But I don't read that sentence that way and I think it's a stupid thing to enforce on another player.

WYSIWYG used to be a factor. GW knows this, as they wrote the rules stating such and tournament enforced it after GW left it out of the rulebook. Some of the old kits did not carry any of the options, but they were still available options which people modeled by kit-bashing, Forgeworld, green-stuffing, or even 3rd party builds. Why would you NOT think that DoctorTom was talking WYSIWYG, as this can only pertain to WYSIWYG situations? A Dreadnought with Power Fist and Multimelta has no problem being modeled with the current options and provides no confusion or lack of clarity. A "Rifleman" Dreadnought would provide confusion and lack of clarity because those options are not currently available.

If it has no bearing on you if someone uses the index or not, because they want to be WYSIWYG, then why are you pursuing this? Why you started this thread has no bearing on why you are still contributing to it.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
As for options. I can opt to increase my unit size. That makes it an option. Its not a rules term because the things we have all been quoting are not actually rules. Remember the sources we have. The word option in that quote is literally the english word option as anyone older than 6 years old should be able to umderstand it.

Not even the same concept. One is the options A MODEL may take, not about the options of how many of a model A UNIT can take.

Why are there so many people here who like to conflate the rules regarding a model to being to a unit, and vice versa? A model and a unit are not the same level of interactions, so quit trying to conflate them as being the same thing.


Here is the question GW apparently decided was frequently asked.

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?


Note: That question doesn't talk about options on models. It doesn't mention weapons or wargear. It says options missing from the entire book that were present in the former book. Plain and simple options. It's important to remember what question they are answering when reading the answer.

Conscripts still carries the options for numbers, AND you can always field the other Conscripts in another unit (there is no limit on detachments in the base rules, after all). The codex does not provide for Dreadnoughts carrying Autocannons. It is talking about miniatures, which are models not units. Wargear is altered on the datasheet under "Wargear Options", so they are options. Therefore, different concept entirely.

 Lance845 wrote:
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.


Now, if you wanted to take this answer as word for word literal law RAW, only vehicles and characters have the opportunity to go back to indexes (weird stipulation), but it seems to me that since this isn't an errata that what they actually are saying is any unit but that characters and vehicles are prime examples. And then they call out a vehicle and a character specifically as examples. If I, PERSONALLY, were going to let someone go back to the index, this "Character or Vehicle" nonsense wouldn't be something I would 'enforce" because it's incredibly arbitrary and stupid and also... not what I believe they are saying. But most importantly, it says that, answering the question, if you are missing options you can go back to the index and use the index DATASHEET.

Since the question wasn't about wargear, the options they are talking about are not wargear specifically. Since the size of your unit is an option, conscripts can use their index datasheet. Which means according to the datasheet, they can bring 50 of the fethers.

Please remember. I don't agree with this. I think you are expected to be using the most current datasheet. Which means the codex. The index is only an option with permission.

Oddly enough, I don't think anyone but you has called this an errata, much less is treating it as one. At best, it would be an FAQ, which provides direction without actually changing the wording of the rules (and have stated such previously).

Autocannons were never available in a Citadel Dreadnought box, but they were part of, "a long history of {the} miniature". So, they are in the index, but not the codex. If you have a Dreadnought with Autocannons (because it was a thing a few years back) that you want to use the Autocannons with (because you want to be clear with your opponent), you would need to use the Index. I honestly do not see how one could see it in any other light.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






 Charistoph wrote:

WYSIWYG used to be a factor. GW knows this, as they wrote the rules stating such and tournament enforced it after GW left it out of the rulebook. Some of the old kits did not carry any of the options, but they were still available options which people modeled by kit-bashing, Forgeworld, green-stuffing, or even 3rd party builds. Why would you NOT think that DoctorTom was talking WYSIWYG, as this can only pertain to WYSIWYG situations? A Dreadnought with Power Fist and Multimelta has no problem being modeled with the current options and provides no confusion or lack of clarity. A "Rifleman" Dreadnought would provide confusion and lack of clarity because those options are not currently available.

If it has no bearing on you if someone uses the index or not, because they want to be WYSIWYG, then why are you pursuing this? Why you started this thread has no bearing on why you are still contributing to it.


I would not expect this thread to be about WYSIWYG because, as explained in my post you quoted, it's not a rule, and this forum is about rules. I have explained why I started this thread twice. Go back and read those posts. I continue to contribute to it because 1) I enjoy it and 2) As stated, this is going to continue to get worse and worse as each codex drops.


Conscripts still carries the options for numbers, AND you can always field the other Conscripts in another unit (there is no limit on detachments in the base rules, after all). The codex does not provide for Dreadnoughts carrying Autocannons. It is talking about miniatures, which are models not units. Wargear is altered on the datasheet under "Wargear Options", so they are options. Therefore, different concept entirely.


Dreads still carry options for weapons. Just not those weapons. Same way conscripts carry options for numbers but not THOSE numbers. You can assume they are talking about miniatures all you want. You can read it as [wargear] options if you feel like. But it's just adding words to that don't exist to the question.


Oddly enough, I don't think anyone but you has called this an errata, much less is treating it as one. At best, it would be an FAQ, which provides direction without actually changing the wording of the rules (and have stated such previously).

Autocannons were never available in a Citadel Dreadnought box, but they were part of, "a long history of {the} miniature". So, they are in the index, but not the codex. If you have a Dreadnought with Autocannons (because it was a thing a few years back) that you want to use the Autocannons with (because you want to be clear with your opponent), you would need to use the Index. I honestly do not see how one could see it in any other light.


I NEVER called this an errata. Any time in this thread that I have written the word errata it was in mentioning that this is NOT an errata.

So the older kit doesn't even exist? lol.

It's pretty easy to see it in another light. Try to imagine.... WYSIWYG isn't a hold over from edition lag. Imagine if you will. a new player with his friends who are all new players where their first and only experience is 8th edition. All they have to go by is the BRB and this community article.

They would have never seen or heard a single statement on WYSIWYG. They would have no concept or expectation of it. They would not read that question with WYSIWYG in mind. They would be correctly following the rules.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

 Lance845 wrote:
JohnnyHell wrote:The entire WHC article is colloquial. This means you can't 'provide proof' and barking that at someone is nonsensical


This true, and something i bought up in the very first post. But you CAN take it with other data to get an idea. Hence the GT rules posted by GW. Where yu are expected to use the most up to date datasheet.

It also means you can't possibly enforce it as hard RAW (it simply isn't) and claim it to be unambiguous proof that Legacy things can't be used in games. That's a reach and ignores part of the copy.

It's cute to try and push everything back on one side to prove, but it's not possible for either side in this case. If you interpret this article differently (even if that includes ignoring "Don't worry you can still use your models") there's literally no way to 'prove' the other camp wrong. So yeah, 'Prove it!' 'No you prove it!' - it can't achieve anything.

We've had this entire discussion in other threads with the same bickery outcome. This thread has done what I said early on... added nothing new, and just been repetitious.

FWIW for the example of the dear Autocannon Dread (obviously shorthand not a unit name, cmaaan) you can simply use the FW Index Astartes rules and play it as a Mortis Dread against Lance or BCB and you won't even need permission. Doesn't help in other cases, but just wanted to show the main yardstick in this 'debate' is covered elsewhere. Though you'll have to spend £16 on another book just to satisfy someone's passionate belief that a page in the book you already have in front of you is illegal to use. Go figure.


Again the point isn't the dread itself. I don't care about dreads. I care about the rules and allowances. This is going to keep cropping up as more and more codexes release. The Tau Commander and Crisis Suit kits don't come with a lot of their weapon options. If those options get cut in their codex you think this isn't going to blow up here again?

Leo_the_Rat wrote:What do GK do about autocannon dreads? In the index it says refer to the SM entry. In my codex it doesn't allow autocannons on a dread. The SM entry in the codex has been superceded by the SM codex. Do I use the SM codex (assuming the autocannon dread is still in there) or am I to use an outdated index entry or am I just not allowed to field an autocannon dread anymore?


Does the GK Codex come with a datasheet for Dreadnought? Then thats the datasheet you use. You can use it as a FW Mortis as has been pointed out. Google image search that datasheet. Print it out.


It's cool you don't care about Dreads. It's but an example. One that you clearly do care about as you keep saying people can't use their models, but hey ho.

Also, I'm sure the Mods won't appreciate you condoning piracy of GW copyright material so best to drop that tangent. "Steal the relevant FW rules" isn't an appropriate response, especially if you already own a physical book with a page that amply describes said model.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/10/21 18:27:56


 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






Wasn't the mortis one of the datasheets they posted on the community site when they were talking about the release of the new books? Pretty sure your free to look up and use any datasheet GW has given to you for free.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

 Lance845 wrote:
Wasn't the mortis one of the datasheets they posted on the community site when they were talking about the release of the new books? Pretty sure your free to look up and use any datasheet GW has given to you for free.


And how would you get the points for Matched Play, the only place where this "you can't use your Index models!" whingery is likely to appear? ;-)

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






 JohnnyHell wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
Wasn't the mortis one of the datasheets they posted on the community site when they were talking about the release of the new books? Pretty sure your free to look up and use any datasheet GW has given to you for free.


And how would you get the points for Matched Play, the only place where this "you can't use your Index models!" whingery is likely to appear? ;-)


You would buy the forgeworld book? I don't understand the point of this question. He asked where he could get the datasheet. I told him him the easiest way to get it. On topic, the Grey Knights have a Dread datahseet in their codex. Thats the datasheet they use. If they gain access to other variants of dread from the Imperial Armor Index then they are also free to use those. That would be the most up to date datasheets. When Imperial Armor books get released "In the near future" those updated datasheets will replace the index ones.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





Wishing I was back at the South Atlantic, closer to ice than the sun

I'm curious about something, how far back do we go? There are guidelines outlining a framework for the consistant use legacy models.

We talked about the old metal termies? Would they be allowed in 8th? And if not why not?

Cheers

Andrew

I don't care what the flag says, I'm SCOTTISH!!!

Best definition of the word Battleship?
Mr Nobody wrote:
Does a canoe with a machine gun count?
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: