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.

 doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
@charistoph

DrTom has already stated that his argument is not about Wysiwyg. I suggest you stop speaking for people who have explictly stated they are not using the same argument as you. Im not arguing about what you can do in your own games. As stated you can do literally anything in your own games with your opponents agreement.

I stated WYSIWYG shouldn"t matter, except that you keep dragging it back to WYSIWYG. If you want to pretend that using rules for older models is WYSIWYG because the older model is WYSIWYG for the options it used to be able to take then fine, treat it as WYSIWYG. It's really irrelevant because - as Charistoph points out and quoted - I laid out my criteria. Using older models that don't have options in the current box but that you can do with the index is fine. As a side note, though, I will stipluate that WYSIWYG isn't mentioned in the current rules, so if you want to treat it that way, then you don't have to have a WYSIWYG older model to play the options. You can make your choice as to whether WYSIWYG applies or not. I suspect that since there's an opponent's permission involved with getting to use the older models, I think you would find that most people will treat WYSIWYG as a de facto rule when considering whether to allow the older model to be used. If someone plops down a dread with (for arguments sake) two lascannons on it and says he wants to use it as an autocannon dread, people might be less likely to allow that than to allow someone who had a dread with actual autocannon arms. (Using the dread as an example here, it will probably also apply to things like warp jump generator aurarchs or jetbike autarchs with reaper launchers and the like after this weekend). So, even though WYSIWYG is not an actual 8th edition rule, it will probably come into play when people consider whether or not people give permission.

Look. I wasn't writing that question to you to be a dill weed. I am full blown done discussing WYSIWYG here. I don't want it in the thread. I was LITERALLY asking you to spell it out in the clearest way possible. For you to DEFINE the characteristics so there is no room for misinterpretation as to what you mean. I am asking for clarity. Not attacking you. Not being a dick. I was LITERALLY asking how exactly are you defining older model? How exactly are you enforcing the idea of "older model"?

This right here

I will stipluate that WYSIWYG isn't mentioned in the current rules, so if you want to treat it that way, then you don't have to have a WYSIWYG older model to play the options. You can make your choice as to whether WYSIWYG applies or not. I suspect that since there's an opponent's permission involved with getting to use the older models,

Is closer to what I was asking for. So if I have this correct, you think a person can use the older models with the older index options with their opponents permission? Asking to clarify.

This, of course, is all irrelevant to the criteria that I laid out and Charistoph quoted to point out that you were ignoring what I was typing. I don't mind him speaking for me when he's accurately quoting me like that, so you do not need to be telling him to butt out of the conversation. I do find this amusing because you're telling him to not speak for others when you yourself decided to speak for BCB when I asked him if he plays using the FAQs (I still didn't get an answer from him, so I'm guessing he thinks you're speaking accurately for him or he just hasn't gotten around to replying).

Christarpoh wants nothing more then to discuss WYSIWYG. I don't. I didn't answer for BCB I answered saying how I saw that situation. BCB can answer for himself if he feel like it. I never said "BCB is saying thus..."

I'm not looking for "right" but rather consistency. If I play at Bill's store with a list then I want to also be able to play that exact same list at Fred's and George's stores as well. What I really don't want to see is a feeder event playing one way and a different feeder to the same event playing a different way. All the players should be playing the same way while trying to achieve the same goal.

Just as a side note I hate that major league baseball doesn't do just that. The designated hitter rule should be used in either both leagues or neither league..

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Funnily, your attempted rebuttal of my last point reinforces it. Maybe WYSIWYG has been an assumed convention in the game longer than I thought, if it's been omitted for several editions?

Wysiwyg hasn't been an actual rule for something around a 1/4 of the life of the entire game.

There is no such thing as a assumed convention in a book of rules. You'll notice that the left most text on the very first page of the rules is "Tools of War" where they tell you you will need dice and some kind of ruler and that distances are measured in inches. If there was any kind of "assumed convention" that would be it.

 Lance845 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Funnily, your attempted rebuttal of my last point reinforces it. Maybe WYSIWYG has been an assumed convention in the game longer than I thought, if it's been omitted for several editions?

Wysiwyg hasn't been an actual rule for something around a 1/4 of the life of the entire game.

There is no such thing as a assumed convention in a book of rules. You'll notice that the left most text on the very first page of the rules is "Tools of War" where they tell you you will need dice and some kind of ruler and that distances are measured in inches. If there was any kind of "assumed convention" that would be it.

No, there really is, in every rules system. Assumed convention, tribal knowledge, things omitted because of the authors' over-familiarity... these are all things in everything that has rules.

WYSIWYG is an assumed convention in 40K because people buy different models for different units, and model their units with different weapons.
Players generally expect to be able to tell at a glance what models represent and what they're armed with.
It may not be in the Rulebook but it is a wargaming convention.
Are you actually arguing otherwise?

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Funnily, your attempted rebuttal of my last point reinforces it. Maybe WYSIWYG has been an assumed convention in the game longer than I thought, if it's been omitted for several editions?

Wysiwyg hasn't been an actual rule for something around a 1/4 of the life of the entire game.

There is no such thing as a assumed convention in a book of rules. You'll notice that the left most text on the very first page of the rules is "Tools of War" where they tell you you will need dice and some kind of ruler and that distances are measured in inches. If there was any kind of "assumed convention" that would be it.

No, there really is, in every rules system. Assumed convention, tribal knowledge, things omitted because of the authors' over-familiarity... these are all things in everything that has rules.

WYSIWYG is an assumed convention in 40K because people buy different models for different units, and model their units with different weapons.
Players generally expect to be able to tell at a glance what models represent and what they're armed with.
It may not be in the Rulebook but it is a wargaming convention.
Are you actually arguing otherwise?

I am not arguing what any given individual does or does not enjoy, in a thread in the section of the forum about rules.

If you want to have that conversation I will, in PMs or in general discussion.

PLEASE post meaningful content that is within he bounds of the rules of the site - INCLUDING and ESPECIALLY RULE #1.

Thanks!

Leo_the_Rat wrote:I'm not looking for "right" but rather consistency. If I play at Bill's store with a list then I want to also be able to play that exact same list at Fred's and George's stores as well. What I really don't want to see is a feeder event playing one way and a different feeder to the same event playing a different way. All the players should be playing the same way while trying to achieve the same goal.

Just as a side note I hate that major league baseball doesn't do just that. The designated hitter rule should be used in either both leagues or neither league..

First off, there is zero consistency because there is no full tournament authority, not even from GW. There used to be two different professional baseball Leagues in the US, each with their own rules. There is also the NCAA which handles collegiate games, each individual state has a set of rules for the junior highs and high schools, and then there are the numerous little leagues which are not tied to any of them. Then consider there is the Olympic ruleset, the Nippon Professional Baseball Organization, and I think even Cuba has their own baseball league.

For 40K, in the US there is the ITC which is quite popular, but a lot of local tournaments run a variant off of there list. For a time the ETC were the European standards. But without some form of enforcement, there is no real capacity for such a consistent system.

Lance845 wrote:Wysiwyg hasn't been an actual rule for something around a 1/4 of the life of the entire game.

There is no such thing as a assumed convention in a book of rules. You'll notice that the left most text on the very first page of the rules is "Tools of War" where they tell you you will need dice and some kind of ruler and that distances are measured in inches. If there was any kind of "assumed convention" that would be it.

YMDC isn't just about the baseline rules, though. This is one of the biggest mistakes in your assessment. It is called You Make Da Call for a reason. RAW and HYWPI are both valid positions, provided you properly identify which is either.

Yes, the base rules do not consider WYSIWYG nor the possibility that one would not be using the options not presented in a codex based on builds available in the past.

However, GW can (and do) present directions and clarifications, and one of the directions they have provided is that you can use datasheets which are available for your models. For Dreadnoughts with Autocannons, that is the Index version.

Tournaments and individual players can accept or reject that direction at their discretion. But that does nothing to change the fact that direction exists. The issue that I have had with your statements is that you are deliberately ignoring that this direction exists (and why it exists) as well as you keep ignoring what anyone has said regarding it.

 Lance845 wrote:


This right here

I will stipluate that WYSIWYG isn't mentioned in the current rules, so if you want to treat it that way, then you don't have to have a WYSIWYG older model to play the options. You can make your choice as to whether WYSIWYG applies or not. I suspect that since there's an opponent's permission involved with getting to use the older models,

Is closer to what I was asking for. So if I have this correct, you think a person can use the older models with the older index options with their opponents permission? Asking to clarify.

I thought it was already clear.

"We expect you to use the most current datasheets for your model"

Do you have a dread with a weapon loadout not supported by the current codex but does have support in the index? Well, for [/b]that[b] model, the most current datasheet is the one in the index. It seems a simple concept that you are having great problems with. It doesn't only say most current datasheet. That sentence goes back to the beginning question about models with older options and them saying that yes you can play them. Though given the amount of qualification you want for what constitutes an older model - something you expect me to define more than GW has - I suspect someone might want to give you the Dreadsock test if it's an old metal dread they have.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:I'm not looking for "right" but rather consistency. If I play at Bill's store with a list then I want to also be able to play that exact same list at Fred's and George's stores as well. What I really don't want to see is a feeder event playing one way and a different feeder to the same event playing a different way. All the players should be playing the same way while trying to achieve the same goal.

Just as a side note I hate that major league baseball doesn't do just that. The designated hitter rule should be used in either both leagues or neither league..

First off, there is zero consistency because there is no full tournament authority, not even from GW. There used to be two different professional baseball Leagues in the US, each with their own rules. There is also the NCAA which handles collegiate games, each individual state has a set of rules for the junior highs and high schools, and then there are the numerous little leagues which are not tied to any of them. Then consider there is the Olympic ruleset, the Nippon Professional Baseball Organization, and I think even Cuba has their own baseball league.

And in Major League Baseball itself the American League and National League have different rules about using a designated hitter.

 Charistoph wrote:
For 40K, in the US there is the ITC which is quite popular, but a lot of local tournaments run a variant off of there list. For a time the ETC were the European standards. But without some form of enforcement, there is no real capacity for such a consistent system.

That was what I was alluding to. GW can make suggestions, but they can't say "you will play by these rules and only these rules". You see Adepticon and other places putting out their own FAQs on how they handle different situations. They're informed by what GW puts out, but aren't beholden only to the official rulings by GW. They put out what they think they need for their tournament. For something like this, if they haven't already addressed it in a FAQ for their tournament, send them an email and ask them. Odds are that for something like this it will then get added to their FAQ if it's not there already.

 Charistoph wrote:

Lance845 wrote:Wysiwyg hasn't been an actual rule for something around a 1/4 of the life of the entire game.

There is no such thing as a assumed convention in a book of rules. You'll notice that the left most text on the very first page of the rules is "Tools of War" where they tell you you will need dice and some kind of ruler and that distances are measured in inches. If there was any kind of "assumed convention" that would be it.

YMDC isn't just about the baseline rules, though. This is one of the biggest mistakes in your assessment. It is called You Make Da Call for a reason. RAW and HYWPI are both valid positions, provided you properly identify which is either.

Yes, the base rules do not consider WYSIWYG nor the possibility that one would not be using the options not presented in a codex based on builds available in the past.

However, GW can (and do) present directions and clarifications, and one of the directions they have provided is that you can use datasheets which are available for your models. For Dreadnoughts with Autocannons, that is the Index version.

Tournaments and individual players can accept or reject that direction at their discretion. But that does nothing to change the fact that direction exists. The issue that I have had with your statements is that you are deliberately ignoring that this direction exists (and why it exists) as well as you keep ignoring what anyone has said regarding it.

Yes. YMDC is for both RAW, trying to sort out RAI and HYWPI.

But I did not start this thread asking for HYWPI. And in the conversation I have been having I have consistently told you and others that HYWPI is all good and fine but has no bearing on the actual rules of the game. Here. In this thread. I am looking for as close to RAW as possible with the sources we have. Your posts on WYSIWYG have been trying to argue HYWPI as a foundation for a RAW interpretation of the documents we have. It is very reasonable that others do not accept your argument since it's founded on nothing but your personal preference.

I am not deliberately ignoring that that statement exists. I place that statement into the context of everything we have. Including the line about using whatever rules you want, with your opponents agreement.

You deliberately ignore the directions to use the most recently published datasheet. Or the 2 that tell you the codex one REPLACES he old one. As in the old one shouldn't even exist anymore because it... and I quote here "overwrites" the old one. Given direction that you can still play however you like in the edition about "3 ways to play. and playing however you enjoy" is great. But they also explicitly state that from THEIR point of view the codex datasheet is the correct one. The one expected to be used. The only one they will consider moving forward.

Searching for RAW, based on these not great documents, digging for RAI to form a foundation, IGNORING WYSIWYG because it doesn't exist in any official capacity, you are expected to use the codex datasheet. That means the options that were lost are lost. Unless your opponent decides to let you.

I just checked the ITC web site and there is nothing regarding this issue in their FAQ or general rules for army building.

 Lance845 wrote:

You deliberately ignore the directions to use the most recently published datasheet.

The most current datasheet FOR YOUR MODELS. A model with older options not covered by the most recent codex but covered by the index has the index as being its most recent datasheet. Losing the last phrase from the sentence changes the context a lot; you shouldn't be doing that.

 doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:


This right here

I will stipluate that WYSIWYG isn't mentioned in the current rules, so if you want to treat it that way, then you don't have to have a WYSIWYG older model to play the options. You can make your choice as to whether WYSIWYG applies or not. I suspect that since there's an opponent's permission involved with getting to use the older models,

Is closer to what I was asking for. So if I have this correct, you think a person can use the older models with the older index options with their opponents permission? Asking to clarify.

I thought it was already clear.

"We expect you to use the most current datasheets for your model"

Do you have a dread with a weapon loadout not supported by the current codex but does have support in the index? Well, for [/b]that[b] model, the most current datasheet is the one in the index. It seems a simple concept that you are having great problems with. It doesn't only say most current datasheet. That sentence goes back to the beginning question about models with older options and them saying that yes you can play them. Though given the amount of qualification you want for what constitutes an older model - something you expect me to define more than GW has - I suspect someone might want to give you the Dreadsock test if it's an old metal dread they have.

I don't expect any test because I don't consider how a model has been modeled to have any bearing on what model it is. There is no rule that says a weapon equates it to being a different rules entity. That would be WYSIWYG.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:I'm not looking for "right" but rather consistency. If I play at Bill's store with a list then I want to also be able to play that exact same list at Fred's and George's stores as well. What I really don't want to see is a feeder event playing one way and a different feeder to the same event playing a different way. All the players should be playing the same way while trying to achieve the same goal.

Just as a side note I hate that major league baseball doesn't do just that. The designated hitter rule should be used in either both leagues or neither league..

First off, there is zero consistency because there is no full tournament authority, not even from GW. There used to be two different professional baseball Leagues in the US, each with their own rules. There is also the NCAA which handles collegiate games, each individual state has a set of rules for the junior highs and high schools, and then there are the numerous little leagues which are not tied to any of them. Then consider there is the Olympic ruleset, the Nippon Professional Baseball Organization, and I think even Cuba has their own baseball league.

And in Major League Baseball itself the American League and National League have different rules about using a designated hitter.

 Charistoph wrote:
For 40K, in the US there is the ITC which is quite popular, but a lot of local tournaments run a variant off of there list. For a time the ETC were the European standards. But without some form of enforcement, there is no real capacity for such a consistent system.

That was what I was alluding to. GW can make suggestions, but they can't say "you will play by these rules and only these rules". You see Adepticon and other places putting out their own FAQs on how they handle different situations. They're informed by what GW puts out, but aren't beholden only to the official rulings by GW. They put out what they think they need for their tournament. For something like this, if they haven't already addressed it in a FAQ for their tournament, send them an email and ask them. Odds are that for something like this it will then get added to their FAQ if it's not there already.

Tournaments are not a great source. I agree. Everyone makes their own calls and all tourneys more or less run on house rules. You can only use GWs GT standards in conjunction with other data to help try to inform RAI. But taken on it's own it has no value.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I just checked the ITC web site and there is nothing regarding this issue in their FAQ or general rules for army building.

Email them a question about it then. Odds are you'll get an answer and they'll add it to either the FAQ and/or their general rules.

 doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

You deliberately ignore the directions to use the most recently published datasheet.

The most current datasheet FOR YOUR MODELS. A model with older options not covered by the most recent codex but covered by the index has the index as being its most recent datasheet. Losing the last phrase from the sentence changes the context a lot; you shouldn't be doing that.

As above. Weapons do not make it a different rules entity. A dreadnought is a Dreadnought is a Dreadnought. Even if they are all equipped differently. The most current datasheet for a Dreadnought for codex SM and Greyknights are in their codex.

There exists a gak ton of wargear that don't even HAVE bits to be modeled.

This interpretation you have only functions under the existence of WYSIWYG. It's not a thing.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Lance845 wrote:Wysiwyg hasn't been an actual rule for something around a 1/4 of the life of the entire game.

There is no such thing as a assumed convention in a book of rules. You'll notice that the left most text on the very first page of the rules is "Tools of War" where they tell you you will need dice and some kind of ruler and that distances are measured in inches. If there was any kind of "assumed convention" that would be it.

YMDC isn't just about the baseline rules, though. This is one of the biggest mistakes in your assessment. It is called You Make Da Call for a reason. RAW and HYWPI are both valid positions, provided you properly identify which is either.

Yes, the base rules do not consider WYSIWYG nor the possibility that one would not be using the options not presented in a codex based on builds available in the past.

However, GW can (and do) present directions and clarifications, and one of the directions they have provided is that you can use datasheets which are available for your models. For Dreadnoughts with Autocannons, that is the Index version.

Tournaments and individual players can accept or reject that direction at their discretion. But that does nothing to change the fact that direction exists. The issue that I have had with your statements is that you are deliberately ignoring that this direction exists (and why it exists) as well as you keep ignoring what anyone has said regarding it.

Yes. YMDC is for both RAW, trying to sort out RAI and HYWPI.

But I did not start this thread asking for HYWPI. And in the conversation I have been having I have consistently told you and others that HYWPI is all good and fine but has no bearing on the actual rules of the game. Here. In this thread. I am looking for as close to RAW as possible with the sources we have. Your posts on WYSIWYG have been trying to argue HYWPI as a foundation for a RAW interpretation of the documents we have. It is very reasonable that others do not accept your argument since it's founded on nothing but your personal preference.

I am not deliberately ignoring that that statement exists. I place that statement into the context of everything we have. Including the line about using whatever rules you want, with your opponents agreement.

You deliberately ignore the directions to use the most recently published datasheet. Or the 2 that tell you the codex one REPLACES he old one. As in the old one shouldn't even exist anymore because it... and I quote here "overwrites" the old one. Given direction that you can still play however you like in the edition about "3 ways to play. and playing however you enjoy" is great. But they also explicitly state that from THEIR point of view the codex datasheet is the correct one. The one expected to be used. The only one they will consider moving forward.

Searching for RAW, based on these not great documents, digging for RAI to form a foundation, IGNORING WYSIWYG because it doesn't exist in any official capacity, you are expected to use the codex datasheet. That means the options that were lost are lost. Unless your opponent decides to let you.

Which (to use your parlance) 'deliberately ignores' the passage starting "Don't worry, you can still use these models"... and so the thread repeats itself anew.

We're not breaking new ground.
The documents are ambiguous and support both views in different ways.
There is no absolute clear RAW here.
Why keep telling others they are wrong for disagreeing with your view, when you cannot present a cast-iron RAW case without ignoring text yourself? There is no hard RAW possible, only HIWPI. I get that you don't like that, but that's where we're at until such time as another GW publication officially corrects or clarifies the situation.

 Lance845 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:


This right here

I will stipluate that WYSIWYG isn't mentioned in the current rules, so if you want to treat it that way, then you don't have to have a WYSIWYG older model to play the options. You can make your choice as to whether WYSIWYG applies or not. I suspect that since there's an opponent's permission involved with getting to use the older models,

Is closer to what I was asking for. So if I have this correct, you think a person can use the older models with the older index options with their opponents permission? Asking to clarify.

I thought it was already clear.

"We expect you to use the most current datasheets for your model"

Do you have a dread with a weapon loadout not supported by the current codex but does have support in the index? Well, for [/b]that model, the most current datasheet is the one in the index. It seems a simple concept that you are having great problems with. It doesn't only say most current datasheet. That sentence goes back to the beginning question about models with older options and them saying that yes you can play them. Though given the amount of qualification you want for what constitutes an older model - something you expect me to define more than GW has - I suspect someone might want to give you the Dreadsock test if it's an old metal dread they have.

I don't expect any test because I don't consider how a model has been modeled to have any bearing on what model it is. There is no rule that says a weapon equates it to being a different rules entity. That would be WYSIWYG.

Well, there's your problem right there. They have an article on how to use older models, including older models with options you used to be able to use that have not appeared on the most recent codex datasheet. They spend time telling you that you can use those old models and how to use those old models. You don't credibly get to dismiss that because " I don't consider how a model has been modeled to have any bearing on what model " Given that they've told you exactly how to use older models, if it's a WYSIWYG issue then it's a WYSIWYG issue [b]that they tell you how to handle. You don't get to be an ostrich and claim they don't tell you how to handle it. You don't get to play ostrich, stick your head in the sand and go "Neener neener neener I can't HEAR you" merely because you don't like how they handled it. They did handle it; you don't get to pretend they didn't by manufacturing a bogus excuse.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Lance845 wrote:Wysiwyg hasn't been an actual rule for something around a 1/4 of the life of the entire game.

There is no such thing as a assumed convention in a book of rules. You'll notice that the left most text on the very first page of the rules is "Tools of War" where they tell you you will need dice and some kind of ruler and that distances are measured in inches. If there was any kind of "assumed convention" that would be it.

YMDC isn't just about the baseline rules, though. This is one of the biggest mistakes in your assessment. It is called You Make Da Call for a reason. RAW and HYWPI are both valid positions, provided you properly identify which is either.

Yes, the base rules do not consider WYSIWYG nor the possibility that one would not be using the options not presented in a codex based on builds available in the past.

However, GW can (and do) present directions and clarifications, and one of the directions they have provided is that you can use datasheets which are available for your models. For Dreadnoughts with Autocannons, that is the Index version.

Tournaments and individual players can accept or reject that direction at their discretion. But that does nothing to change the fact that direction exists. The issue that I have had with your statements is that you are deliberately ignoring that this direction exists (and why it exists) as well as you keep ignoring what anyone has said regarding it.

Yes. YMDC is for both RAW, trying to sort out RAI and HYWPI.

But I did not start this thread asking for HYWPI. And in the conversation I have been having I have consistently told you and others that HYWPI is all good and fine but has no bearing on the actual rules of the game. Here. In this thread. I am looking for as close to RAW as possible with the sources we have. Your posts on WYSIWYG have been trying to argue HYWPI as a foundation for a RAW interpretation of the documents we have. It is very reasonable that others do not accept your argument since it's founded on nothing but your personal preference.

I am not deliberately ignoring that that statement exists. I place that statement into the context of everything we have. Including the line about using whatever rules you want, with your opponents agreement.

You deliberately ignore the directions to use the most recently published datasheet. Or the 2 that tell you the codex one REPLACES he old one. As in the old one shouldn't even exist anymore because it... and I quote here "overwrites" the old one. Given direction that you can still play however you like in the edition about "3 ways to play. and playing however you enjoy" is great. But they also explicitly state that from THEIR point of view the codex datasheet is the correct one. The one expected to be used. The only one they will consider moving forward.

Searching for RAW, based on these not great documents, digging for RAI to form a foundation, IGNORING WYSIWYG because it doesn't exist in any official capacity, you are expected to use the codex datasheet. That means the options that were lost are lost. Unless your opponent decides to let you.

Which (to use your parlance) 'deliberately ignores' the passage starting "Don't worry, you can still use these models"... and so the thread repeats itself anew.

We're not breaking new ground.
The documents are ambiguous and support both views in different ways.
There is no absolute clear RAW here.
Why keep telling others they are wrong for disagreeing with your view, when you cannot present a cast-iron RAW case without ignoring text yourself? There is no hard RAW possible, only HIWPI. I get that you don't like that, but that's where we're at until such time as another GW publication officially corrects or clarifies the situation.

You keep saying I ignore it. I disagree repeatedly.

Are both of these lines in the document.

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

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

Are they related?

 Lance845 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Which (to use your parlance) 'deliberately ignores' the passage starting "Don't worry, you can still use these models"... and so the thread repeats itself anew.

We're not breaking new ground.
The documents are ambiguous and support both views in different ways.
There is no absolute clear RAW here.
Why keep telling others they are wrong for disagreeing with your view, when you cannot present a cast-iron RAW case without ignoring text yourself? There is no hard RAW possible, only HIWPI. I get that you don't like that, but that's where we're at until such time as another GW publication officially corrects or clarifies the situation.

You keep saying I ignore it. I disagree repeatedly.

Are both of these lines in the document.

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

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

Are they related?

Oh so you're now plucking two sentences, removing them from context, and claiming it proves something? Yeah that doesn't work.

 doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:


I don't expect any test because I don't consider how a model has been modeled to have any bearing on what model it is. There is no rule that says a weapon equates it to being a different rules entity. That would be WYSIWYG.

Well, there's your problem right there. They have an article on how to use older models, including older models with options you used to be able to use that have not appeared on the most recent codex datasheet. They spend time telling you that you can use those old models and how to use those old models. You don't credibly get to dismiss that because " I don't consider how a model has been modeled to have any bearing on what model " Given that they've told you exactly how to use older models, if it's a WYSIWYG issue then it's a WYSIWYG issue that they tell you how to handle. You don't get to be an ostrich and claim they don't tell you how to handle it. You don't get to play ostrich, stick your head in the sand and go "Neener neener neener I can't HEAR you" merely because you don't like how they handled it. They did handle it; you don't get to pretend they didn't by manufacturing a bogus excuse.

And thats YOUR problem right there. You are assigning value to the words based on a rule that does not and has not existed for a very long time. You need to take those answers into consideration with ONLY the current game rules. Because that document is not about the rules from 3rd or 4rth. They are about the rules for 8th. Where how a model has been modeled doesn't actually matter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Which (to use your parlance) 'deliberately ignores' the passage starting "Don't worry, you can still use these models"... and so the thread repeats itself anew.

We're not breaking new ground.
The documents are ambiguous and support both views in different ways.
There is no absolute clear RAW here.
Why keep telling others they are wrong for disagreeing with your view, when you cannot present a cast-iron RAW case without ignoring text yourself? There is no hard RAW possible, only HIWPI. I get that you don't like that, but that's where we're at until such time as another GW publication officially corrects or clarifies the situation.

You keep saying I ignore it. I disagree repeatedly.

Are both of these lines in the document.

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

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

Are they related?

Oh so you're now plucking two sentences, removing them from context, and claiming it proves something? Yeah that doesn't work.

I am not taking the one statement on it's own. I am reading the entire document. I am asking an actual question. Those are the 2 sentences in the entire page that give you allowance to not use the codex datasheet. Every other statement tells you the codex overwrites the index. Are those 2 statements related?

You quite literally took two sentences and put them together, in a different order.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
You quite literally took two sentences and put them together, in a different order.

Okay, does this help?

Are these 2 statements in the document?

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

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

Are they related?

I wasn't aware that the order mattered that much but if thats the case here you go.

The first sets out part of the very reason for the document (as otherwise everyone knows latest rules are current).

The second line is in a paragraph that says "We won't be writing new books taking your legacy models into account, and some may not be welcome at our events that need to be super on current brand. Use 'em, but they're not getting updated ever and won't be welcome at Warhammer World."

Not the same thing as "the default is that you cannot use your models, and you must beg your opponent to let you play them."

The 'opponent's permission' part is in relation to using Index rules instead of Codex for models aptly represented by the Codex.

But we've been over all of this, and you disagree, and won't change your view... so we're back to repeating.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The first sets out part of the very reason for the document (as otherwise everyone knows latest rules are current).

The second line is in a paragraph that says "We won't be writing new books taking your legacy models into account, and some may not be welcome at our events that need to be super on current brand. Use 'em, but they're not getting updated ever and won't be welcome at Warhammer World."

Not the same thing as "the default is that you cannot use your models, and you must beg your opponent to let you play them."

The 'opponent's permission' part is in relation to using Index rules instead of Codex for models aptly represented by the Codex.

But we've been over all of this, and you disagree, and won't change your view... so we're back to repeating.

Okay. How do you take this line.

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

in relation to this line

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

and this line

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

? (I made sure they were in order from top of page to bottom of page this time.)

Are you still basing your definition of a individual model by the options it has modeled onto it? Or is a Dreadnought a Dreanought? A Hive Tyrant a Hive Tyrant?

Please go read some of my earlier posts to save me repeating myself. Thanks!

From what I can tell, you and DrTom are using that one sentence to both attempt to define model and give it permissions while it does no such thing in terms of defining a model.

This type of logical argument is called circular reasoning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

You have no evidence to support your interpretation of a model and there fore your evidence is every bit in need of evidence as your conclusion. It invalidates your entire argument.

It's the equivalent of saying

The bible is real because Noah's flood happened and we know Noah's flood happened because the bible says it happened.

Datasheets are representations of the models with their wargear modeled onto them because the statement says "older models" and older models had different wargear options.

It doesn't work. You need to provide evidence that modeled wargear matters.

 Lance845 wrote:
From what I can tell, you and DrTom are using that one sentence to both attempt to define model and give it permissions while it does no such thing in terms of defining a model.

"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."

The entire first question/answer, so you don't say it was taken out of context. Look at what's bolded. You can use the models in your games - one example of the models being certain Dreadnought weapons that don't come in the box. They say that you can use the index datasheet with the most recent published points. This means that for dreads with weapon options not in the current codexx, and by extension any model with older options that they aren't supporting in the current codex (Eldar are going to go mining the Autarch entry), you get to use the index. They've laid it out right there. They state as an example dreads with weapon options not currently in the box, yet you refuse to acknowledge that this is something they cover. Your not being willing to treat the dread with the older options as something different from the dread in the newer codex completely ignores the entire purpose of the document - being able to play with options that aren't in the current codex. From the quotes, you get to use the index. You have said nothing that refutes that statement. You claim we are instructed that we have to use the most current datasheet, yet omit that it states the most current for the models, when they've acknowledged a process for using older models with options not on the current datasheet. This means they have made a de facto ruling that models with options on the index datasheet but not a more recent codex datasheet are treated as a different unit/ model than the current ones - they are models that use the index datasheet since that is the most current for the model. Trying to extract one statement to deny this when the entire document was set up for being able to use the older models is highly dubious. I don't think we've had anybody since col_impact try to argue that, though, so congratulations on joining an elite club.

 Lance845 wrote:
This type of logical argument is called circular reasoning.

And this type of logical argument you're using here is called a straw man argument. There's plenty of evidence, you have just ignored it, something you admitted to in your previous response to me.

 Lance845 wrote:
From what I can tell, you and DrTom are using that one sentence to both attempt to define model and give it permissions while it does no such thing in terms of defining a model.

This type of logical argument is called circular reasoning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

You have no evidence to support your interpretation of a model and there fore your evidence is every bit in need of evidence as your conclusion. It invalidates your entire argument.

It's the equivalent of saying

The bible is real because Noah's flood happened and we know Noah's flood happened because the bible says it happened.

Datasheets are representations of the models with their wargear modeled onto them because the statement says "older models" and older models had different wargear options.

It doesn't work. You need to provide evidence that modeled wargear matters.

No, it isn't. We are using "model" in this case to mean the same thing as "model" in the rules. You are using "model" to mean "unit" or "datasheet". You are the one improperly using terms here, even ignoring what you have quoted from the main rulebook.

"Models" cover two different aspects. One is the physical miniature used in play. The second is that they are an entity which is processed on the table.

A Datasheet provides the information in regards to the unit and the models within it, not a representation of them.

Another question for you, if someone presented you an FAQ to answer a question here in YMDC, would you claim that they were cherry-picking and making things up, or would you consider the FAQ to be a direction on how GW would prefer how you handle a rule?

 doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
This type of logical argument is called circular reasoning.

And this type of logical argument you're using here is called a straw man argument. There's plenty of evidence, you have just ignored it, something you admitted to in your previous response to me.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Thats a strawman. Making a comparison to something that is not the argument as though it is related when in fact it is not.

I am not making a strawman argument. The fact that your argument hinges on the idea that a models modeled options defines its datasheet permission is the very center of our debate.

Understand your logical fallacies before you start pointing fingers and crying wolf.

 Lance845 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
This type of logical argument is called circular reasoning.

And this type of logical argument you're using here is called a straw man argument. There's plenty of evidence, you have just ignored it, something you admitted to in your previous response to me.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Thats a strawman. Making a comparison to something that is not the argument as though it is related when in fact it is not.

I am not making a strawman argument. The fact that your argument hinges on the idea that a models modeled options defines its datasheet permission is the very center of our debate.

Understand your logical fallacies before you start pointing fingers and crying wolf.

The logical fallacy we're dealing with here is the logical fallacy that they established a procedure for being able to use old options no longer covered by the current codex. I provided evidence showing this included such things as weapons options not in the current box. They state you can use the index for this. The logical fallacy we are dealing with is your assertion that we can't use the index datasheet when we are instructed to do so. Everything else from you has been a side show.

I'm curious if anyone arguing for using index datasheets when codex 'sheets exist would be totally okay playing against 'Guard where the player is using index datasheets for Conscripts and Commissars?

I mean, the 50-man limit is no longer an option and the Index Commissar wasn't FAQ'd, so...

(Apologies if this is already brought up)

The point I'm making is, they wrote in that Q&A that YES, some options are changing, and that is to reflect balance, fluff or whatever. Things are changing, and yeah, it isn't always to your benefit. Just ask the DG players how fun it was to invalidate their biker armies? It happens, guys.