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.

Lance845 wrote:

 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.

I didn't say it IS a rule, that it WAS a rule. Because it WAS a rule, people built their models along those lines, and they want to be able to continue to use them as such. Many tournaments still have it as a rule as well. GW recognizes this as a fact, why do you not consider it in your assessment as well?

Regarding point 2, not necessarily. Most options that are currently in the Indecies and not now codified trend to follow what is in the box. Mostly it was the Characters and some specific Vehicles (aka the Dreadnought) which were the problem children as for several editions they were allowed options which did not come in their boxes. And many of those currently non-codified options weren't even really used (Hyperphase Swords for Necron Lords, for example).

Lance845 wrote:

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.

But those are not options on the miniatures themselves. Having 20 more models does nothing to change Conscript miniature #19. You are focusing too much on applying this to a UNIT, not the model. Changing an Assault Cannon to a Twin-linked Lascannon changes the model. Do you recognize the difference?

Lance845 wrote:

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.

Actually you were implying the rest of us were calling it an errata. By doing so, you were the one bringing it up.

Lance845 wrote:So the older kit doesn't even exist? lol.

Not from Citadel, but the older model options DID and were modeled for. These are the "older miniatures" the line is talking about. Something that you are choosing to deliberately ignore at this point.

Lance845 wrote: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.

Mr New Player likely won't have those "old miniatures", though, either. People who have been proxying their models instead of kit-bashing since 6th Edition won't have to worry about Index-only builds, and would have been using their codified model builds.

Now their friend who has been with the game since 4th Edition shows up with a "Rifleman" Dreadnought that starts shooting its modeled Autocannons at him. He explains it to him and shows the build from the Index because the Codex does not provide those options.

Simply put, the only people who will be concerned about this statement that DoctorTom has been presenting are those who have been around the game long enough to be thinking in terms of WYSIWYG, have been kit-bashing for years, AND still want to use those old models of theirs.

 AndrewC wrote:
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?

Speaking as a non-Marine player, could you maybe give a bit more detail?

As in, why would these old metal terminators not be legal in the first place?

 vipoid wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
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?

Speaking as a non-Marine player, could you maybe give a bit more detail?

As in, why would these old metal terminators not be legal in the first place?

Terminators used to be based on 25mm bases. Then they started putting them on 40mm bases when they went plastic. The old metal Terminator Captain model actually came with both a 25mm and 40mm base in the blister as well. GW's position has always been of the position that you use the base the model comes with.

And interactions with Terminators take on whole new dimensions when you change their base size that much.

 Charistoph wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

 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.

I didn't say it IS a rule, that it WAS a rule. Because it WAS a rule, people built their models along those lines, and they want to be able to continue to use them as such. Many tournaments still have it as a rule as well. GW recognizes this as a fact, why do you not consider it in your assessment as well?

Because it's NOT a rule. And what people want is very different from the rules we have. I want better terrain rules. I want Necron reanimation protocols to scale with the size of game instead of getting worse and worse the more points the game is. I want alternating activation's instead of IGOUGO. But I don't get to argue based on things I like or preference I have in a rules discussion about the actual game. Why would I consider personal preferences here?

Regarding point 2, not necessarily. Most options that are currently in the Indecies and not now codified trend to follow what is in the box. Mostly it was the Characters and some specific Vehicles (aka the Dreadnought) which were the problem children as for several editions they were allowed options which did not come in their boxes. And many of those currently non-codified options weren't even really used (Hyperphase Swords for Necron Lords, for example).

What does the popularity of the options have to do with anything?

Lance845 wrote:

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.

But those are not options on the miniatures themselves. Having 20 more models does nothing to change Conscript miniature #19. You are focusing too much on applying this to a UNIT, not the model. Changing an Assault Cannon to a Twin-linked Lascannon changes the model. Do you recognize the difference?

Again, it doesn't matter about the models. The question doesn't ask about them. You are inferring things that it does not explicitly say. You are applying things that are not rules into a rule discussion. It invalidates your entire argument.

Lance845 wrote:

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.

Actually you were implying the rest of us were calling it an errata. By doing so, you were the one bringing it up.

Don't tell me I was implying something. I was not. You might have read it that way. But thats not what I was saying. When I say it's not an Errata it's because what I mean is it's not an Errata. My first post says, its a community artical and not a faq or an errata... so great start. You seem to take a lot of unsaid things for granted as explicitly stated. Please stop.

Lance845 wrote:So the older kit doesn't even exist? lol.

Not from Citadel, but the older model options DID and were modeled for. These are the "older miniatures" the line is talking about. Something that you are choosing to deliberately ignore at this point.

Lance845 wrote: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.

Mr New Player likely won't have those "old miniatures", though, either. People who have been proxying their models instead of kit-bashing since 6th Edition won't have to worry about Index-only builds, and would have been using their codified model builds.

Now their friend who has been with the game since 4th Edition shows up with a "Rifleman" Dreadnought that starts shooting its modeled Autocannons at him. He explains it to him and shows the build from the Index because the Codex does not provide those options.

Simply put, the only people who will be concerned about this statement that DoctorTom has been presenting are those who have been around the game long enough to be thinking in terms of WYSIWYG, have been kit-bashing for years, AND still want to use those old models of theirs.

So great. In summary, your entire argument hinges on the idea that WYSIWYG is something GW is writing rules allowances for in a not rules document in a edition that doesn't acknowledge WYSIWYG. So you have no argument then.

 AndrewC wrote:
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

Better question. What about legacy units that had options but do not have those options in the index or codex? For example, Shining Spear Exarchs used to be able to upgrade their Jetbike to have a Shuriken Cannon. Does this mean in order to use my model as WYSIWYG I'd have to use the 4th edition codex unit entry, with 8th edition points?

 Happyjew wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
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

Better question. What about legacy units that had options but do not have those options in the index or codex? For example, Shining Spear Exarchs used to be able to upgrade their Jetbike to have a Shuriken Cannon. Does this mean in order to use my model as WYSIWYG I'd have to use the 4th edition codex unit entry, with 8th edition points?

I don't know.

You see I'm of the opinion that a player wanting to use a legacy model should advise his opponent beforehand in the knowledge that his figure should/can only be used with his opponents consent. (This is ignoring that the entire game only takes place with opponents consent) The guidelines are just that, not rules.

So I have permission to use older models. As Lance pointed out WYSIWYG is no longer a rule. Neither is base sizes. I looked, I cannot find any reference to 'use the base it came with'. If someone else can please let me know the page.

So following from that and the earlier post where I mentioned the old metal termies a thought occurred. Its a legacy model, I have a datasheet for it, and its codex even, what stops me from placing down a unit of 25mm based termies. They are lower, smaller and take up less table space. It's a valid unit.

Can I walk into a pickup game place them on the table, say that they are legacy models and expect to use them?

As Happy asked can you expect to use a legacy model that predates 8th which contains options that isn't covered in the index.

Cheers

Andrew

GW is actually really bad in that particular area for rules writing. Since they don't define base size anywhere in the rules, it's a massive grey area that makes those 25mm terminators probably legal by RAW. Most people would probably want you to put them on 40s, but that I will admit is in the real of house rule.

If you put GW Terminator models on the table you can use GW Terminator models.

Slightly facetious answer, but really, unless someone has written additional event-specific rules requiring specific base sizes or model variants a Terminator is a Terminator. I don't think you'd struggle with any but the weirdest of the Rogue Trader options for regular Termy squads either. Only things like the Captain's Grenade launcher/fist won't be covered in the Codex, but you could use the Index version.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If you put GW Terminator models on the table you can use GW Terminator models.

Slightly facetious answer, but really, unless someone has written additional event-specific rules requiring specific base sizes or model variants a Terminator is a Terminator. I don't think you'd struggle with any but the weirdest of the Rogue Trader options for regular Termy squads either. Only things like the Captain's Grenade launcher/fist won't be covered in the Codex, but you could use the Index version.

With permission.

Once again, only if you need permission to do something GW officially has said we can do. Like it or not, those index weapon options are officially still legal.

 TheWaspinator wrote:
Once again, only if you need permission to do something GW officially has said we can do. Like it or not, those index weapon options are officially still legal.

Once again, The codex replaces the index, in all cases. If the codex datasheet exists you are expected to be using the most up to date sheet. Otherwise, as pointed out, players could just use the unnerfed Conscripts with 50 models and no rule restricting their orders.

 Lance845 wrote:
Because it's NOT a rule. And what people want is very different from the rules we have. I want better terrain rules. I want Necron reanimation protocols to scale with the size of game instead of getting worse and worse the more points the game is. I want alternating activation's instead of IGOUGO. But I don't get to argue based on things I like or preference I have in a rules discussion about the actual game. Why would I consider personal preferences here?

Because one of the main points is about this discussion is miniatures (aka models) that are old and used to be perfectly legal. And if it is in an FAQ atmosphere, it is allowable here.

 Lance845 wrote:

Regarding point 2, not necessarily. Most options that are currently in the Indecies and not now codified trend to follow what is in the box. Mostly it was the Characters and some specific Vehicles (aka the Dreadnought) which were the problem children as for several editions they were allowed options which did not come in their boxes. And many of those currently non-codified options weren't even really used (Hyperphase Swords for Necron Lords, for example).

What does the popularity of the options have to do with anything?

This issue coming up again. Seriously read what is quoted to understand the context.

 Lance845 wrote:
Again, it doesn't matter about the models. The question doesn't ask about them. You are inferring things that it does not explicitly say. You are applying things that are not rules into a rule discussion. It invalidates your entire argument.

What is a miniature? A model or a unit?

 Lance845 wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

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.

Actually you were implying the rest of us were calling it an errata. By doing so, you were the one bringing it up.

Don't tell me I was implying something. I was not. You might have read it that way. But thats not what I was saying. When I say it's not an Errata it's because what I mean is it's not an Errata. My first post says, its a community artical and not a faq or an errata... so great start. You seem to take a lot of unsaid things for granted as explicitly stated. Please stop.

Then please stop insinuating anyone else was calling this an errata. By insisting someone not treat it as an errata, you are implying/insinuating that someone is treating it as one. Go look it up in the thread where I first mentioned it. You were basically accusing others of treating it like an errata.

 Lance845 wrote:
So great. In summary, your entire argument hinges on the idea that WYSIWYG is something GW is writing rules allowances for in a not rules document in a edition that doesn't acknowledge WYSIWYG. So you have no argument then.

There are many clarifications and directions made in "not rules documents". They are called FAQs. FAQs are perfectly allowable for consideration, even though they don't actually change the written rules.

The document specifically calls out miniatures (aka models) which have "a long history" of many different options which are not currently in the kits. That makes this direction specifically towards players who have been part of that long history, not the new player.

But I think this boils down to this, and you should just be honest about it: "You do not accept the document to be a clarification and direction from GW". Would it really be so hard to just state this?

 Charistoph wrote:

But I think this boils down to this, and you should just be honest about it: "You do not accept the document to be a clarification and direction from GW". Would it really be so hard to just state this?

That statement is not how I feel. I accept the document as a whole. Not cherry picking out a single line, assigning value to it it doesn't have, and then extrapolating implications from the assumed value. You continue to have nothing that supports your stance. You just WISH GW would bring back some or any support for the idea of WYSIWYG. But they haven't. WYSIWYG died in the rules a few editions ago. It's dead, Jim. Let it go.

You're the one doing cherry picking. The most most recent data sheet clearly doesn't always override or they wouldn't have an entire question giving the scenario in which it can, weapon options, which they give as examples. The conscript thing is a strawman argument, since they do not give squad size as an example of something that you can use the older version of nor is it in the options section of the datasheet.

 TheWaspinator wrote:
You're the one doing cherry picking. The most most recent data sheet clearly doesn't always override or they wouldn't have an entire question giving the scenario in which it can, weapon options, which they give as examples. The conscript thing is a strawman argument, since they do not give squad size as an example of something that you can use the older version of nor is it in the options section of the datasheet.

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.


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.


Can I combine units from the index and a codex into one army?

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.


Can I choose to use the rules and/or points for units from my index instead of the new ones in the codex once released?

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

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.

Now. Some people believe that the first question and answer gives you a blanket justification to use any options that have been removed from a dataslate in any version of the game. I.E. A dread using gun options it doesn't have with the new stats/points costs/ etc etc...

But allow me to provide a counter argument.

In the first question "Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models." requires that
1) you actually have the older model and
2) "In your games" can be read as the same as "In your own games, if you and your opponent agree, you can, of course, play with whatever rules you like."

This is backed by 3 other questions in the same document saying

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.

An option on a datasheet is not itself a datasheet. If the new Dread datasheet does not have the option then, using the most up to date datasheet, you do not have the option. Of course, with permission from your opponent your dread could cost 1ppm and use whatever options you feel like. And if there is no up to date datasheet you can use the ones from the index using the most up to date point values for any options. A Librarian on a Bike for an example, is a different datasheet from a Librarian. So you can still bring a Librarian on a Bike using the Index.

Oh My!

Do you see that? I used every question that is relevant in the article without picking and choosing which parts support my argument and which don't. I take the single quote you rely on while ignoring the other ones and, taking into account the rest of the article AND the rules of the game, including what is NOT a rule (WYSIWYG) I decipher that yes, you can use index datasheets instead of codex ones... with your opponents permission.

But hey, did you happen to see this line?

In all cases, these will then supersede the rules for that datasheet in the index book.

Cause it seems to contradict this statement by you

The most most recent data sheet clearly doesn't always override

in no uncertain terms.

Did you see the part about

The datasheets in the new codexes overwrite the same datasheets in the index books.

or

In all future publications and official events though, it will be assumed that you’re using the most recent rules and Datasheets.

because that seems to me that in the very same article where they grant you permission to use index over codex, in your own games, with your opponents permission, that they expect you to use the codex datasheets in all official events (i.e. the GT) and future publications, which would include events like the recent Konar Campaign. Wanna know what else supports that? The GT standards they posted. Did you need another quote of that as well? Il dig it out again if you need it.

What have I cherry picked?

As for conscripts being a strawman, go read the question to the quote you live and die by. It doesn't ask about wargear. It doesn't ask about weapons. It says options in the book. The whole book. Any option in the book. Examples being like samples, they are a portion representative of the whole. They are not the whole. You choosing to IGNORE the question to the quote you cannot stop referencing is just further cherry picking on your behalf. Not only do you ignore the 3 other relevant questions on the page, you ignore the very question they are answering to your own quote.

You're cherry picking because you continue to ignore that they, in no uncertain terms, tell you to use the index version with those models. The general rule that you keep harping on clearly has exceptions.

And no, they don't say any option from the index. They say options "no longer represented in the Citadel range". Citadel means models. As in, model options. Unit size is not a model option.

 TheWaspinator wrote:
You're cherry picking because you continue to ignore that they, in no uncertain terms, tell you to use the index version with those models. The general rule has exceptions.

https://www.facebook.com/pg/Warhammer-40000-1575682476085719/about/?ref=page_internal

Thats a link to the GW facebook page. If you click "About" on the side bar you will see this block of text I quoted.

MORE INFO
About
You’ve found the official Warhammer 40,000 Facebook page: a community for fans of our miniatures hobby.
General Information
We want this to be a page that all Warhammer 40,000 fans can enjoy.
This is a Games Workshop community page and we have three simple rules that we need you to follow:

1. Be cool, be positive.
2. Please do not post links to websites of any sort other than games-workshop.com
3. Please use the wall for posting photos of Citadel Miniatures only.

And a quick note on rules questions - we can’t give you official answers. We’re not the Games Designers, they’re locked up in the studio. We might be able to give you some general advice or point you in the right direction but better to try and work it out with your gaming buddies.

To reiterate

And a quick note on rules questions - we can’t give you official answers. We’re not the Games Designers, they’re locked up in the studio. We might be able to give you some general advice or point you in the right direction but better to try and work it out with your gaming buddies.

Damn right I don't accept the facebook quote. Their facebook reps tell you not to accept them themselves.


There are exceptions, which I have stated over and over again. In your own games, with your opponents permission.

The baselines rules of the game expect the latest datasheets to be used. But, n your own games, with your opponents permission, there is an exception that you can use whatever rules you like.

Models don't have options that are relevant to the rules anymore and have not in years. WYSIWYG is not a rule. The arms it has on it is irrelevant to the rules of the game.

The Facebook people are still way more official than your twisted reading and attempt to apply restrictions to a piece of text that are clearly not intended if the text is to exist at all.

 TheWaspinator wrote:
The Facebook people are still way more official than your twisted reading and attempt to apply restrictions to a piece of text that are clearly not intended if the text is to exist at all.

No, they aren't. The facebook people are equally official to any fether who decides to weigh in on the subject including you and me. They are no better or worse a source of information and are capable of misreading and/or having no evidence to support whatever they decide to post in the moment.

Please, if you think you are able to use index datasheets in official events or even standardized game play then explain how your quote functions along with the rest of the article and the GT permissions.

Again, I can see how your quote fits in with the rest of my interpretation. There is an exception made for your own personal matches where everyone agrees. I read it right there on the page. It clearly allows you to do that.

How do you justify the use of options no longer in the codex when you are told you are expected to be using the codex? When the GT standards say you have to use the codex. When "in all cases" and so on and so forth are stated repeatedly in multiple sources?

If our interpretations were jig saw puzzle pieces you would notice that your interpretation doesn't fit within the confines of any other statement i.e. the little nub on one side is fitting but none of the other edges are lining up. Mine fits all sides. You get to use your options within the stated exceptions (one side fits in place) but when playing based on the standardized rules (another side), official events (there goes the 3rd) or tournaments (hey look, that piece goes right there) you need to use the most recently published datasheet.

You mean the GT standards that say you can still use the index for things not in the codex?

https://warhammerworld.games-workshop.com/warhammer-40000-grand-tournament/

 TheWaspinator wrote:
You mean the GT standards that say you can still use the index for things not in the codex?

https://warhammerworld.games-workshop.com/warhammer-40000-grand-tournament/

Not for things. For Datasheets. Are you really trying to cherry pick AGAIN?

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)

You didn't even cherry pick the quote correctly.

Let me try to cut you off before you get started on this again too.

Models are representations of datasheets, not options. WYSIWYG is not a rule. A Dread with twin autocannons modeled onto it or whatever is just a Dread datasheet as far as the rules are concerned. It's most current datasheet is in the codex, as they spell out for you in that quote you tried and failed to reference but did manage to link to.

Seriously, you're nitpicking me using the word "things"?

What is your point? The GT rule is basically a shorter version of the community post. It tells you to use the most current datasheet for a model. For autocannon dreadnoughts, that would be the index because the codex is not the most current datasheet for that model. They tell us as much in the community post when they discuss options.

 TheWaspinator wrote:
Seriously, you're nitpicking me using the word "things"?

What is your point? The GT rule is basically a shorter version of the community post. It tells you to use the most current datasheet for a model. For autocannon dreadnoughts, that would be the index because the codex is not the most current datasheet for that model.

I wanted to make sure my answer was clear. I didn't want any confusion on your or anyone else part when I said there was an exception for "things" not in the codex. The "things" they make exceptiosn for are datasheets. Not wargear.

It's possible you posted while I was editing in the bit about the model being a representation of a datasheet and that it's weapons do not matter as a rules entity. I accept that I didn't put that in the post initially so you may have responded without seeing it. But to reiterate... your wrong. Autocannon dreadnought isn't a datasheet anywhere and there is no model for it. There are however models for Dreadnoughts and they do come with a bunch of bits so you can make them look all kinds of neat. The most current datasheet for Dreadnoughts is in the codex for Space Marines and Grey Knights. Spacewolves, Dark Angles, Blood Angles and the forgeworld chapters still rely on the index for their datasheets.

I saw it before posting, actually. I just don't agree with you. The community post clearly emphasizes that those models are valid distinct options, no matter what you think.

 Lance845 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If you put GW Terminator models on the table you can use GW Terminator models.

Slightly facetious answer, but really, unless someone has written additional event-specific rules requiring specific base sizes or model variants a Terminator is a Terminator. I don't think you'd struggle with any but the weirdest of the Rogue Trader options for regular Termy squads either. Only things like the Captain's Grenade launcher/fist won't be covered in the Codex, but you could use the Index version.

With permission.

I am so glad I don't have to play you in real life.

 TheWaspinator wrote:
I saw it before posting, actually. I just don't agree with you. The community post clearly emphasizes that those models are valid distinct options, no matter what you think.

And all the rules of the game disagree with your interpretation. If you can find me any explicit statement in 8th edition that requires WYSIWYG as a rule for playing warhammer 40k I will concede to you. You only have 8 pages to look through. Good luck with that.

Oh, that's easy. We're even given explicit instructions.

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).

 vipoid wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If you put GW Terminator models on the table you can use GW Terminator models.

Slightly facetious answer, but really, unless someone has written additional event-specific rules requiring specific base sizes or model variants a Terminator is a Terminator. I don't think you'd struggle with any but the weirdest of the Rogue Trader options for regular Termy squads either. Only things like the Captain's Grenade launcher/fist won't be covered in the Codex, but you could use the Index version.

With permission.

I am so glad I don't have to play you in real life.

K. I mean, I play mostly with all kinds of house rules. In fact most of my games at this point arn't even really 8th anymore it's Beyond the Gates of 40k. A much more enjoyable experience with better game play and better terrain rules.

But YMDC isn't for my preferences or the allowances I make with my opponents. This is where we talk about the actual rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheWaspinator wrote:
Oh, that's easy. We're even given explicit instructions.

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).

Did you miss the part where a FAQ on the community site is not a rules document? Do you see any statement in there that says my hive tyrant has to have devourers equipped to use devourers in the game? How did you score in reading comprehension on the SATs? Just curious.

It's more of a rules document than your ramblings and assumptions are.

 TheWaspinator wrote:
It's more of a rules document than your ramblings and assumptions are.

Just like facebook... no it's not. There is a place on the GW website for official FAQs and rules Errata. That community announcement post isn't there and none of the questions in it are in any of the documents on that page. (I did mention this as being a very sarcastic "Great start" in my first post). While we can use it as a general guideline it needs to be backed by other sources to carry any kind of weight. Sources like the GT permissions which mirror the rest of the document you ignore and the rule book which doesn't support WYSIWYG.

Got anything else to try to support the idea that WYSIWYG has any bearing on the rules?