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.

While it not being written by the primary designers at GW might give it less weight than things written by them and they acknowledge as much, it still has more weight as to the official state of the rules than anything you write. Their statement that index dreadnought options are still valid is as official an answer as exists, whether you like it or not.

 TheWaspinator wrote:
Their statement that index dreadnought options are still valid is as official an answer as exists, whether you like it or not.

Correct, in your own games, with agreement from your opponent. All of that together is in the community document. But at no point in that document does it state that the way a model is modeled effects the rules it has in the game. I can understand how you are inferring that from the single sentence taken out of context with the rest of the document. But taken all together, it's simply not even possible.

This is especially true when you take into account that what is a significantly more reliable source is the actual rule book. Like... it's not even comparable how much more weight the rule book carries. If the Community website FAQ told you that all space marines had to have their skin painted purple to be used in the games it would be laughable nonsense because the rule book requires no such thing and the community page is not a source for rules errata. Requiring WYSIWYG or even implying that WYSIWYG has any bearing on the rules a model has access to is equally unsubstantiated.

But you see... I am not taking the community document on it's own. Or even a single sentence in a single question in a community document on it's own. I take all 4 relevant questions and compare them and back them with the rule book and the GT permissions.

I'm going to ask you again, besides your one cherry picked quote, and your assumption that something that hasn't been a rule in like... 5+ years is now suddenly a rule again, do you have anything else to support your position?

By the way, they have called that post an official document.





And no, that stuff about needing opponent consent is from a different question and is not part of the specific exception given to allow index datasheets in some circumstances, despite your insistence otherwise. The GT document also gives permission for those index datasheets.

 TheWaspinator wrote:
By the way, they have called that post an official document.

Hilarious reading comprehension at it's finest. I am going to go to sleep laughing my ass off about this post.

This will become rather more urgent and confusing with the release of the Eldar codex.

Autarchs' wargear options have been drastically reduced. Regular Autarchs and Autarchs with wings have no options whatsoever, and biker Autarchs can only replace a power sword with one of two weapons. Most people's Autarchs are no longer codex-legal. Can these still be used? With new point values?

Meanwhile other parts of the datasheet have changed. Autarchs' Path of Command ability is different now. But also the new codex doesn't actually give the text of the ability on the datasheet itself; it defines the ability at the beginning of the army list (like ATSKNF or Voice of Command) instead. Do Autarchs using the old weapon options use the old datasheet ability?

This is going to come up a lot more than with anything we've seen before because old Autarch options are simply much better than new ones, especially given the warlord trait that lets your warlord shoot characters (new Autarchs are a lot less shooty).

Whatever helps you sleep at night. Good luck finding anyone at GW supporting your position.

Dionysodorus wrote:
This will become rather more urgent and confusing with the release of the Eldar codex.

Autarchs' wargear options have been drastically reduced. Regular Autarchs and Autarchs with wings have no options whatsoever, and biker Autarchs can only replace a power sword with one of two weapons. Most people's Autarchs are no longer codex-legal. Can these still be used? With new point values?

Meanwhile other parts of the datasheet have changed. Autarchs' Path of Command ability is different now. But also the new codex doesn't actually give the text of the ability on the datasheet itself; it defines the ability at the beginning of the army list (like ATSKNF or Voice of Command) instead. Do Autarchs using the old weapon options use the old datasheet ability?

This is going to come up a lot more than with anything we've seen before because old Autarch options are simply much better than new ones, especially given the warlord trait that lets your warlord shoot characters (new Autarchs are a lot less shooty).

If anyone cares to go back and check, I called this.

I said it wasn't about dreads. I said with each new codex it was going to get worse and worse. I said the nid dex would create problems if the Eldar one didn't create them first.


To answer your question you have 2 options.

1) in all and any offcial way your codex datasheet replaces your index one. Those are the options you get,

2) if your opponent agrees to let you you can use the index datasheet. It still has all the correct keywords so it can sill use strategems, take relics, and get craftworld specific bonuses and you pay codex prices where ever there is a codex price tag available. But you are using the index datasheet and that means any other abilities or rules that are on the codex datasheet are lost as you use the index datasheet. You cannot combine them and take the best of both worlds.

 Lance845 wrote:

 TheWaspinator wrote:
By the way, they have called that post an official document.

Hilarious reading comprehension at it's finest. I am going to go to sleep laughing my ass off about this post.

I don't understand the source of mirth. Do please explain, as I'm just assuming you're ignoring Rule 1 now and mocking other posters.

 JohnnyHell wrote:


I don't understand the source of mirth. Do please explain, as I'm just assuming you're ignoring Rule 1 now and mocking other posters.

The source of mirth is that we (Me and Waspinator specifically) just had the discussion... within the last 30 minutes? about how invalid a source Facebook is including their admitting that you are better off talking to your play group then going to them for answers. Him not... remembering? Caring? Understanding? I don't know what.

It's hilarious.

The fact that he thinks he has an argument in a facebook post is hilarious. The whole bit is a pretty good joke.

It's alright, you don't have to get the humor. It's there though.

 Lance845 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:


I don't understand the source of mirth. Do please explain, as I'm just assuming you're ignoring Rule 1 now and mocking other posters.

The source of mirth is that we (Me and Waspinator specifically) just had the discussion... within the last 30 minutes? about how invalid a source Facebook is including their admitting that you are better off talking to your play group then going to them for answers. Him not... remembering? Caring? Understanding? I don't know what.

It's hilarious.

The fact that he thinks he has an argument in a facebook post is hilarious. The whole bit is a pretty good joke.

It's alright, you don't have to get the humor. It's there though.

So you are just mocking other posters? Should probably read the site rules as well as the 40K ones. It's Rule 1 you're looking for. Explain politely, don't just mock.

Anyway, what's wrong with what he posted? The WHC articles are an official publication that are taken as Rules, which you yourself are doing so don't disagree with. The FB post just reaffirms that, so regardless of 'validity as a rules source' it concurs with what we're all discussing... that the WHC article is part of the rules. So again: what's to laugh at?

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:


I don't understand the source of mirth. Do please explain, as I'm just assuming you're ignoring Rule 1 now and mocking other posters.

The source of mirth is that we (Me and Waspinator specifically) just had the discussion... within the last 30 minutes? about how invalid a source Facebook is including their admitting that you are better off talking to your play group then going to them for answers. Him not... remembering? Caring? Understanding? I don't know what.

It's hilarious.

The fact that he thinks he has an argument in a facebook post is hilarious. The whole bit is a pretty good joke.

It's alright, you don't have to get the humor. It's there though.

So you are just mocking other posters? Should probably read the site rules as well as the 40K ones. It's Rule 1 you're looking for. Explain politely, don't just mock.

Anyway, what's wrong with what he posted? The WHC articles are an official publication that are taken as Rules, which you yourself are doing so don't disagree with. The FB post just reaffirms that, so regardless of 'validity as a rules source' it concurs with what we're all discussing... that the WHC article is part of the rules. So again: what's to laugh at?

I wasn't aware that finding humor in another persons words was the same as mocking them.

If I called him an idiot, moron, illiterate, dunce. Well, that would be mocking him. I called him no such things. I said the post was hilarious. I said I would go to sleep laughing. It is. I will.

Whats wrong with what he posted is in the rules of YMDC. Rule #2 is the one your looking for. Which btw is the one I have been using to support my interpretation of a community announcement article that is not an official FAQ and is not found in the Errata and FAQ section. A quick read of page 6 and 7 will catch you up. What confirms it is other valid sources. The rule book, the single most valid source, does not support WYSIWYG. The GT standards support the article requiring you to use the most current datasheet. Facebook.... is meaningless.

You said:

"Hilarious reading comprehension at it's finest. I am going to go to sleep laughing my ass off about this post."

Good luck defending that as not mocking another site user's intelligence.

You are also claiming WHC is not a rules source because you think the main shop site's FAQ section is the only official one. That's patently untrue, as WHC is hosting the FAQ and Errata content now. So that argument doesn't hold water. Regardless of whether you ignore their FB posts or not. No-one is using that Facebook post as a rules source here, but their conversational post is reaffirming that WHC *can* and does provide Rules material.

Good luck arguing otherwise.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
You said:

"Hilarious reading comprehension at it's finest. I am going to go to sleep laughing my ass off about this post."

Good luck defending that as not mocking another site user's intelligence.

You are also claiming WHC is not a rules source because you think the main shop site's FAQ section is the only official one. That's patently untrue, as WHC is hosting the FAQ and Errata content now. So that argument doesn't hold water. Regardless of whether you ignore their FB posts or not. No-one is us No Facebook as a rules source here, but their conversational post is reaffirming that WHC *can* and does provide Rules material.

Good luck arguing otherwise.

Don't waste time sitting here talking about it. If you want to report the post then report it. If you don't then don't. The mods will edit and sort it out as they do. Do what your going to do and get back to the subject of the thread. I am not threatened and I don't feel bad. It will be what the mods decide it is. Move on.

WHC is not hosting the FAQs and Errata. WHC is announcing them. No player is expected to go back through daily updates on the WHC site to dig through more and more articles to MAYBE find an article that MIGHT have a FAQ in it that COULD provide answers to questions about their book. In 2 years time no player will be expected to find that article as a rules source. The only source that matters for FAQs is the FAQ/Errata section on the main GW page. The idea that you think all future players are expected to dig through dozens to hundreds of articles to find answers is absurd to the highest possible degree.

we're not going anywhere useful with this tangent, so we'll end it here & now.

The problem with the facebook page is that is now contradicting itself. In its own rules section it says it is not official. Now one poster posting on behalf of GW says it is official.
There's no way to tell if there has been a policy shift (unlikely or they would have just removed the rule) or a special exception has been made (again unlikely or they probably would have stated as much).
As it is now I can't put any more weight into it than anyone would have done in the 90's with "I talked to a guy on the 40K help line". As far as I'm concerned until the facebook page removes its opening guideline anything said on the page is unofficial.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
The problem with the facebook page is that is now contradicting itself. In its own rules section it says it is not official. Now one poster posting on behalf of GW says it is official.
There's no way to tell if there has been a policy shift (unlikely or they would have just removed the rule) or a special exception has been made (again unlikely or they probably would have stated as much).
As it is now I can't put any more weight into it than anyone would have done in the 90's with "I talked to a guy on the 40K help line". As far as I'm concerned until the facebook page removes its opening guideline anything said on the page is unofficial.

To add to this with some new data.

When discussing the legality of using Codex Sub Faction specific benefits with Forgeworld armies someone posed the question to Facebook and got this response.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/120/740983.page

Source

But here is the official FAQ (pg 4 right column)

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/40K_8th_ed_Update_Imperial_Armour_Index_Forces_of_the_Astra_Militarum_ver_1.1.pdf

FAQs
Q: Can Death Korps of Krieg, Elysian Drop Troops or Renegades and Heretics Detachments use any of the Regiment-specific rules (Doctrines, Orders, Stratagems, Warlord Traits, etc.) in Codex: Astra Militarum?

A: No. Instead these units use the bespoke abilities and Orders that are described in Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum.

As you can see, Facebook doesn't know what the hell they are talking about. Anyone citing Facebook to support an argument is wasting their time.

That was already discussed - one of the Rules team chimed in later that day saying 'ah no' and the 40K page team deleted their post.

Lance845 wrote:

 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.

WYSIWYG is not dead, though. It may be gone from the baseline rules, and no one here is arguing it isn't, but it is a historical factor, a current tournament factor, and a factor involved.

I have not stated any wishes along this route. I have read the statement, and it is talking about a long history of models having options in the Index that they do not have in the Codex. This does not imply anything to a new user, but is about old players with old models. There is literally nothing else it can be talking about, as it is specifically about using miniatures, which are models.

Lance845 wrote:Models are representations of datasheets, not options.

I am going to need a quote on that one.

First off, Datasheets provide information for units and is used as a reference. For clarity:

Battle Primer wrote:Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models in that unit

Second, I don't see any instructions about pushing datasheets around the table or datasheets shooting datasheets. You push models around the table and have models shoot units. Units are made up of models. Units have options to add models to the unit, and models have the options to swap out their wargear. This is usually represented on the model for clarity and many people prefer to have their models WYSIWYG for such a purpose (yourself included).

Lance845 wrote: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.

Correction: They are for, "datasheets for your models". Don't just cut it off. That's cherry-picking, and you apparently hate cherry-picking.

Actually, the Death Guard, Imperial Guard, Adeptus Mechanicus, and Imperial Guard FAQs are just on the community site, not the errata section of the main GW site. The community site is totally the current source of FAQs.

 Charistoph wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

 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.

WYSIWYG is not dead, though. It may be gone from the baseline rules, and no one here is arguing it isn't, but it is a historical factor, a current tournament factor, and a factor involved.

I have not stated any wishes along this route. I have read the statement, and it is talking about a long history of models having options in the Index that they do not have in the Codex. This does not imply anything to a new user, but is about old players with old models. There is literally nothing else it can be talking about, as it is specifically about using miniatures, which are models.

Maybe you are not understanding what this discussion is about? Maybe I didn't make it clear? I apologize. I don't care what exceptions each individual tournament makes for their rules. I am not interested in what exceptions each individual makes for their own personal games. Neither of those things are relevant in YMDC unless specifically the subject of the thread. This thread is talking about the baseline rules and allowances and expectations. I understand that you believe they wrote a special little question for special little people that have been around for a big long time. Something they have never done, and something that they have no reason to do. Your going to need to back up that assumption with some other data. Otherwise you taking that one sentence on it's own is not enough to be credible to your argument.

Lance845 wrote:Models are representations of datasheets, not options.

I am going to need a quote on that one.

Page 174 of the core rule book. DATASHEETS.

Page 176 of the core rule book. Models and Datasheets. The rules and characteristics for all models, and some terrain features are presented on datasheets.

Those are all the pages that list rules in relation to models. You will notice it never making any requirements for the options to actually be modeled. You will notice that the datasheet provides all the rules for the model. The whole datasheet provides all the rules for the model. Including the options.

First off, Datasheets provide information for units and is used as a reference. For clarity:

Battle Primer wrote:Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models in that unit

Second, I don't see any instructions about pushing datasheets around the table or datasheets shooting datasheets. You push models around the table and have models shoot units. Units are made up of models. Units have options to add models to the unit, and models have the options to swap out their wargear. This is usually represented on the model for clarity and many people prefer to have their models WYSIWYG for such a purpose (yourself included).

Did you just say units have options to add models to the unit?

Like... conscripts adding enough models to build a 50 model unit?

When you can show me a rule requiring the options to be on there for clarity or that what "many people prefer" has any bearing on the actual baseline rules of the game you might have a leg to stand on. But they seem to be absent from the rules.

Lance845 wrote: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.

Correction: They are for, "datasheets for your models". Don't just cut it off. That's cherry-picking, and you apparently hate cherry-picking.

As you said, datasheets represent units. WHich are in turn composed of models. None of which require WYSIWYG.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheWaspinator wrote:
Actually, the Death Guard, Imperial Guard, Adeptus Mechanicus, and Imperial Guard FAQs are just on the community site, not the errata section of the main GW site. The community site is totally the current source of FAQs.

And I am sure those FAQs will make their way to the FAQ section soon enough. Are you seriously arguing that a player is expected to wade through the community site to look for articles that link to FAQs to get the latest rules? Or that the article itself is a valid FAQ for rules debate on it's own? Or even if it IS that you can cherry pick the one sentence while ignoring the question and the rest of the article? You will also note that the FAQs for those books you mentioned are linked to PDF documents like all the other FAQs. Besides an attempt to be obstinate because all your other arguments have been shot down hard is there any reason you decided to chime in with this comment? Are you just throwing more darts and the dartboard and hoping any of them stick? What exactly is the argument your making here?

 Lance845 wrote:
Maybe you are not understanding what this discussion is about? Maybe I didn't make it clear? I apologize. I don't care what exceptions each individual tournament makes for their rules. I am not interested in what exceptions each individual makes for their own personal games. Neither of those things are relevant in YMDC unless specifically the subject of the thread. This thread is talking about the baseline rules and allowances and expectations. I understand that you believe they wrote a special little question for special little people that have been around for a big long time. Something they have never done, and something that they have no reason to do. Your going to need to back up that assumption with some other data. Otherwise you taking that one sentence on it's own is not enough to be credible to your argument.

You may not care, but that doesn't mean that GW doesn't care (oddly enough). Old players bring new players in to the game. Old players have old models that they want to use. This sentence can only be an allowance for that situation. It doesn't mention anything about units, just miniatures, so that cannot be it.

 Lance845 wrote:

Lance845 wrote:Models are representations of datasheets, not options.

I am going to need a quote on that one.

Page 174 of the core rule book. DATASHEETS.

Page 176 of the core rule book. Models and Datasheets. The rules and characteristics for all models, and some terrain features are presented on datasheets.

Those are all the pages that list rules in relation to models. You will notice it never making any requirements for the options to actually be modeled. You will notice that the datasheet provides all the rules for the model. The whole datasheet provides all the rules for the model. Including the options.

You have quoted nothing that indicates that models represent datasheets. Your quote simply states that it carries the rules and characteristics. That is nothing about the model being the datasheet on the table.

 Lance845 wrote:

First off, Datasheets provide information for units and is used as a reference. For clarity:

Battle Primer wrote:Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models in that unit

Second, I don't see any instructions about pushing datasheets around the table or datasheets shooting datasheets. You push models around the table and have models shoot units. Units are made up of models. Units have options to add models to the unit, and models have the options to swap out their wargear. This is usually represented on the model for clarity and many people prefer to have their models WYSIWYG for such a purpose (yourself included).

Did you just say units have options to add models to the unit?

Like... conscripts adding enough models to build a 50 model unit?

When you can show me a rule requiring the options to be on there for clarity or that what "many people prefer" has any bearing on the actual baseline rules of the game you might have a leg to stand on. But they seem to be absent from the rules.

Yes, options to the unit. The statement that DoctorTom presented was about options for the MODELS. Do you understand the difference between a model in the unit in game terms? So far, your statements have indicated that you do not, but that you consider them to be the same thing.

A unit can add more models to the unit. A model can exchange a Weapon for another Weapon, or it can add additional Wargear to itself.

Can you present any datasheet option which states the UNIT gains a Wargear without giving it to a model first?

 Lance845 wrote:

Lance845 wrote: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.

Correction: They are for, "datasheets for your models". Don't just cut it off. That's cherry-picking, and you apparently hate cherry-picking.

As you said, datasheets represent units. WHich are in turn composed of models. None of which require WYSIWYG.

But it is allowable by the same statement DoctorTom has presented. Your choice to blind yourself to this concept because WYSIWYG is not in the baseline rules indicates that you are deliberately choosing to remain ignorant on this.

Here's a current example for you guys to ponder, the Eldar Autarch in the Codex is suppose to be missing access to wings yet GW have just put the winged model back up for sale. "Here you go guys a model you can't legally use anymore because you have to use the Codex"

Total Nonsense, feel free to use the indexes for models not in the Codex unless told by tournament organizers.

 Charistoph wrote:
The whole thing

This is going to be the last time I acknowledge any post in this thread that has anything to do with WYSIWYG as a rule without some rock solid evidence of it from GW to support the statements.

This thread is in YMDC presenting arguments about the expectations of the baseline rules. If HYWPI is to make use of WYSIWYG then thats just great. But this thread is not about what pleasantries you enjoy/expect/would like rules support for. And unless some rules show up requiring players to conform to WYSIWYG it will have no impact on any of the datasheets. I ignore WYSIWYG in this thread. It's not relevant. Unless you can support WYSIWYG with a explicit statement that comes from an official rules source (A rules Errata or a rule book) then it doesn't matter how you choose to read any given sentence in any given statement from any other source. Your single sentence has no value on it's own. It needs to be supported by other sources. None of you have any.

If you have an argument that is not based in WYSIWYG bring it forward. Would love to discuss it. But I won't waste any more time debating your edition lag.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rolsheen wrote:
Here's a current example for you guys to ponder, the Eldar Autarch in the Codex is suppose to be missing access to wings yet GW have just put the winged model back up for sale. "Here you go guys a model you can't legally use anymore because you have to use the Codex"

Total Nonsense, feel free to use the indexes for models not in the Codex unless told by tournament organizers.

A Autarch with Swooping Hawk Wings is a different datasheet from a standard Autarch. You are allowed to go to the index for units that do not have datasheets in the codex. It's no different from a Librarian on a Bike being a different datasheet from a librarian. That wasn't something up for debate. The GT permissions allow you to use Index datasheets for units not in the codex as well. That is not what is being debated.

What is being debated is what datasheet you are expected to use when the codex DOES update your datasheet. I.E. the greyknight codex gives a new datasheet for the dreadnought. The SM codex gives a different new datasheet for the dreadnought. The Imperial Guard codex gives a new datasheet for conscripts.

Pouring some fuel on this dumpster fire is this post in N&R:

Mandragola wrote:
In prep for the the UKGT heat last weekend a friend asked if he could still use his GK dreadnoughts with quad autocannons, using the options and points from the index (as twin autocannons don't have points in the codex).

He was told yes. That's about as "tournament official" as it gets.

 Lance845 wrote:


And I am sure those FAQs will make their way to the FAQ section soon enough. Are you seriously arguing that a player is expected to wade through the community site to look for articles that link to FAQs to get the latest rules? Or that the article itself is a valid FAQ for rules debate on it's own? Or even if it IS that you can cherry pick the one sentence while ignoring the question and the rest of the article? You will also note that the FAQs for those books you mentioned are linked to PDF documents like all the other FAQs. Besides an attempt to be obstinate because all your other arguments have been shot down hard is there any reason you decided to chime in with this comment? Are you just throwing more darts and the dartboard and hoping any of them stick? What exactly is the argument your making here?

"Soon enough" just isn't soon enough!

But seriously, it does seem like GW are purposely hosting the FAQ's on the warhammer community site now. Not long ago I was looking up a particular rule change that I knew had taken place weeks (if not months) before, but I couldn't find it anywhere. I was confused as hell, until I eventually found a forum poster saying that the updated rule was in FAQ 1.1... and the GW website version was still only 1.0. And this was many weeks after the FAQ had been updated.

This was when I learned to go to warhammer-community for FAQ's instead, as you can no longer trust that the GW website rules are even remotely up to date. I'd always assumed GW site would be the most up to date source for everything, up until that point.

So yeh, for FAQ's and Erratas, always use warhammer-community.

The only issue I have now, is that they don't actually have a shortcut to the rules on their site that I can find. You have to search for the right post. It's a pain. But it's still the only way to be sure you're getting the right rules.

 Lance845 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheWaspinator wrote:
Actually, the Death Guard, Imperial Guard, Adeptus Mechanicus, and Imperial Guard FAQs are just on the community site, not the errata section of the main GW site. The community site is totally the current source of FAQs.

And I am sure those FAQs will make their way to the FAQ section soon enough. Are you seriously arguing that a player is expected to wade through the community site to look for articles that link to FAQs to get the latest rules?

Since that is the place where GW is posting them now, then yes, he's seriously arguing it. I know it must be arduous on you to type in FAQ in the "search" area in order for you to "wade through" the site.

 Lance845 wrote:
Or that the article itself is a valid FAQ for rules debate on it's own? Or even if it IS that you can cherry pick the one sentence while ignoring the question and the rest of the article?

If you don't like "cherry picking the one sentence", then stop doing it. You're the one cherry picking one sentence while ignoring the question (which started with being about using older models, and gives a long answer - NOT one sentence - about how to use the old models). You also are explicitly told to use the index rules and most recent point costs - that covers using codex point costs for the weapons.


To answer a comment you had a couple of pages back - no, I wasn't arguing WYSIWYG. I was arguing the procedure laid out by GW for using older models. This is the procedure you were originally arguing can not be used in any official games and can not be used in matched play (despite the document telling you specifically how to calculate points for matched play). You still insist that the codex must be used in all cases, which is patently false given that they just gave a procedure for you to use index when a more recent codex does not have the options on your older model.


"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)."

This is referring to the older models. The reference to a datasheet here is using the datasheet from the index that has the older options on it. They go into this futher. Nobody is taking anything out of context referring to this. If anything you are the one taking things out of context with your "in all cases" talk . The document does not say "in all cases", and that statement is patently false given that they have lain out a procedure in the first place for using the index entry for options on older models that are covered by the index but not by the codex. That is one of my problems with your argument - the blatant distortion in your extrapolation of what they say so that it no longer allows you to do what they just took time out to explain how you can do it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Niiru wrote:

The only issue I have now, is that they don't actually have a shortcut to the rules on their site that I can find. You have to search for the right post. It's a pain. But it's still the only way to be sure you're getting the right rules.

They have "search" at the opper right of the page - typing in FAQ will show the posts with FAQs attched. You'll still have to go through those for the most recent updates (though it looks like they display the articles by most recent first).

 doctortom wrote:
They have "search" at the opper right of the page - typing in FAQ will show the posts with FAQs attched. You'll still have to go through those for the most recent updates (though it looks like they display the articles by most recent first).

Except the community page is not a rules resource. By that logic I could make up my own PDFs and claim they are just as valid.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
They have "search" at the opper right of the page - typing in FAQ will show the posts with FAQs attched. You'll still have to go through those for the most recent updates (though it looks like they display the articles by most recent first).

Except the community page is not a rules resource. By that logic I could make up my own PDFs and claim they are just as valid.

Are you playing using the FAQs provided by the community page?

JohnnyHell wrote:Pouring some fuel on this dumpster fire is this post in N&R:

Mandragola wrote:
In prep for the the UKGT heat last weekend a friend asked if he could still use his GK dreadnoughts with quad autocannons, using the options and points from the index (as twin autocannons don't have points in the codex).

He was told yes. That's about as "tournament official" as it gets.

Interesting if true. But what some guy says his friend was told by... I don't even know who he asked from that quote, is not a great or reliable resource. For all we know he asked his question on facebook.

Niiru wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:


And I am sure those FAQs will make their way to the FAQ section soon enough. Are you seriously arguing that a player is expected to wade through the community site to look for articles that link to FAQs to get the latest rules? Or that the article itself is a valid FAQ for rules debate on it's own? Or even if it IS that you can cherry pick the one sentence while ignoring the question and the rest of the article? You will also note that the FAQs for those books you mentioned are linked to PDF documents like all the other FAQs. Besides an attempt to be obstinate because all your other arguments have been shot down hard is there any reason you decided to chime in with this comment? Are you just throwing more darts and the dartboard and hoping any of them stick? What exactly is the argument your making here?

"Soon enough" just isn't soon enough!

But seriously, it does seem like GW are purposely hosting the FAQ's on the warhammer community site now. Not long ago I was looking up a particular rule change that I knew had taken place weeks (if not months) before, but I couldn't find it anywhere. I was confused as hell, until I eventually found a forum poster saying that the updated rule was in FAQ 1.1... and the GW website version was still only 1.0. And this was many weeks after the FAQ had been updated.

This was when I learned to go to warhammer-community for FAQ's instead, as you can no longer trust that the GW website rules are even remotely up to date. I'd always assumed GW site would be the most up to date source for everything, up until that point.

So yeh, for FAQ's and Erratas, always use warhammer-community.

The only issue I have now, is that they don't actually have a shortcut to the rules on their site that I can find. You have to search for the right post. It's a pain. But it's still the only way to be sure you're getting the right rules.

GW is crap at updating FAQs. Has been happening for years. But since there is a a easily accessible section for rules errata I cannot expect any person I am playing with to know to search a separate web site for news articles to get their FAQs and errata. That's just unreasonable. We here on Dakka pool our collected knowledge and that way know more about where things are located then otherwise but this community is a very VERY small % of the people playing the game and it's fair to assume that not everyone checks the community site on any kind of regular basis. I am not saying the FAQs linked to in the community articles are not official FAQs (Note I said the the PDF documents they link to not the blurbs they write in their blog) but I just cannot expect my opponent would have any knowledge of them.

doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheWaspinator wrote:
Actually, the Death Guard, Imperial Guard, Adeptus Mechanicus, and Imperial Guard FAQs are just on the community site, not the errata section of the main GW site. The community site is totally the current source of FAQs.

And I am sure those FAQs will make their way to the FAQ section soon enough. Are you seriously arguing that a player is expected to wade through the community site to look for articles that link to FAQs to get the latest rules?

Since that is the place where GW is posting them now, then yes, he's seriously arguing it. I know it must be arduous on you to type in FAQ in the "search" area in order for you to "wade through" the site.

See above. GW has a place for them to go. GWs being a feth up about it. The docs are real. The expectation is unreasonable.

 Lance845 wrote:
Or that the article itself is a valid FAQ for rules debate on it's own? Or even if it IS that you can cherry pick the one sentence while ignoring the question and the rest of the article?

If you don't like "cherry picking the one sentence", then stop doing it. You're the one cherry picking one sentence while ignoring the question (which started with being about using older models, and gives a long answer - NOT one sentence - about how to use the old models). You also are explicitly told to use the index rules and most recent point costs - that covers using codex point costs for the weapons.

the wargear options do not make one dreadnought different from another dreadnought in terms of which datasheet it has access to. The unit is "Dreadnought". This is not like a Librarian on a Bike vs a Librarian where his datasheet has not been updated.

To answer a comment you had a couple of pages back - no, I wasn't arguing WYSIWYG. I was arguing the procedure laid out by GW for using older models. This is the procedure you were originally arguing can not be used in any official games and can not be used in matched play (despite the document telling you specifically how to calculate points for matched play). You still insist that the codex must be used in all cases, which is patently false given that they just gave a procedure for you to use index when a more recent codex does not have the options on your older model.

I am really glad you decided to chime in on the WYSIWYG. Christoph has been claiming for a few pages now that your entire argument was based on WYSIWYG. I did say I didn't read it that way at one point but he has been persistent. Good to know.

So are you choosing to ignore the other questions where they say specifically that the codex supercedes the index datasheet? Or that you are expected to use the most up to date rules?

"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)."

This is referring to the older models. The reference to a datasheet here is using the datasheet from the index that has the older options on it. They go into this futher. Nobody is taking anything out of context referring to this. If anything you are the one taking things out of context with your "in all cases" talk . The document does not say "in all cases", and that statement is patently false given that they have lain out a procedure in the first place for using the index entry for options on older models that are covered by the index but not by the codex. That is one of my problems with your argument - the blatant distortion in your extrapolation of what they say so that it no longer allows you to do what they just took time out to explain how you can do it.

That would be the thing you guys cherry pick out of there while ignoring the rest of the document.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/07/05/codexes-your-questions-answered-july-5gw-homepage-post-2/

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.

Emphasis added by me. The document does in fact say "in all cases".

doctortom wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
They have "search" at the opper right of the page - typing in FAQ will show the posts with FAQs attched. You'll still have to go through those for the most recent updates (though it looks like they display the articles by most recent first).

Except the community page is not a rules resource. By that logic I could make up my own PDFs and claim they are just as valid.

Are you playing using the FAQs provided by the community page?

It would be perfectly reasonable if he wasn't.

 Lance845 wrote:

the wargear options do not make one dreadnought different from another dreadnought in terms of which datasheet it has access to. The unit is "Dreadnought". This is not like a Librarian on a Bike vs a Librarian where his datasheet has not been updated. .

Okay, let's give you the entire answer to the first question. I wouldn't want you to think I was taking it out of context.

"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[/u]. 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."

They are giving us rules for being able to play models with older options by using the index for those with older options. Your argument here is worthless as it does not address the fundamental issue that they are letting you play models with older options that you can't get in the current codex. You don't just say "use the codex, you can't play the older model" - that's not what they are telling us. Saying you can't use the index Dread sheet to make a dread with older options is pure malarkey.

 Lance845 wrote:
I am really glad you decided to chime in on the WYSIWYG. Christoph has been claiming for a few pages now that your entire argument was based on WYSIWYG. I did say I didn't read it that way at one point but he has been persistent. Good to know.

So are you choosing to ignore the other questions where they say specifically that the codex supercedes the index datasheet? Or that you are expected to use the most up to date rules?

I am choosing to take them at their word when they say I can play my older models. That means the process they have given - using the index datasheet with current prices for options - is valid for older models with options no longer available. The codex does not specifically superced the index datasheet in these circumstances, since they have told us to use the older datasheets for those situations. When they cite a dread with weapon options no longer in the box as one of the older models then give you rules to be able to use it, that means you can use it. The rest of your argument is pure sophistry trying to claim that somebody can't play an older model despite there having been established a method for doing exactly that.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
[

doctortom wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
They have "search" at the opper right of the page - typing in FAQ will show the posts with FAQs attched. You'll still have to go through those for the most recent updates (though it looks like they display the articles by most recent first).

Except the community page is not a rules resource. By that logic I could make up my own PDFs and claim they are just as valid.

Are you playing using the FAQs provided by the community page?

It would be perfectly reasonable if he wasn't.

Please explain. If you know there are FAQs available and you know where the FAQs are, how is is "perfectly reasonable" to not use them? For somebody insisting on RAW, that seems quite a reversal for you.