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.

 Charistoph wrote:

 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?

Datasheets prove all the rules for the units which are in turn made up of models. Again, there is no definition of model in this edition that assigns value to which option you put on it.

You could put a rock on the table. Without the datasheet to define it it has no permissions.

You can put a dreadnought with no arms on the table without the datasheet it has no permissions.

You can put a dread with any other combination of arms on the table and the datasheet that granys it permissions is still the one datasheet called dreadnought.


If it was an official faq document the errata section is rules the faqs are clarifications. All of which are official. Do you have an official rules document that explicitly provides an errata establishing that the option on the model define its datasheet? Do you have a official doc with a faq qiestion that clarifies the same?

 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.

Dude, you were misrepresenting someone's argument (mine) attempt to discredit it. Call that what you will, but it isn't arguing in good faith. I was not using circular logic in any way, shape or form.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 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.

Dude, you were misrepresenting someone's argument (mine) attempt to discredit it. Call that what you will, but it isn't arguing in good faith. I was not using circular logic in any way, shape or form.

Claiming that you can't use the models in matched play when they specifically mention how to calculate points for matched play isn't arguing in good faith either.

Also, people acting like the phrase "your games" inherently implies that what follows is not the baseline rules should not accuse others of logical fallacies. You are making a rules intent argument, not a RAW one.

Lance845 wrote:Datasheets prove all the rules for the units which are in turn made up of models. Again, there is no definition of model in this edition that assigns value to which option you put on it.

Datasheets provide all the rules for the units AND models. There is a definition of what options a model has on the datasheet. Sometimes the value of those options are on the datasheet (usually if Power-based), but most times the value of the options are in the database in the back (for the Points Values).

The Datasheet legend in the Primer also lists the Profiles of the MODELS. Unit Composition tells you what MODELS comprise the unit. The Wargear section covers the basic equipment the MODELS have. The Wargear Options section covers what changes we can make to the MODELS.

Lance845 wrote:You could put a rock on the table. Without the datasheet to define it it has no permissions.

You can put a dreadnought with no arms on the table without the datasheet it has no permissions.

Not the point of what I said. You are not listening. There is no representational relationship between the datasheet and models. The datasheet is the reference for the model (as well as the unit).

Lance845 wrote:You can put a dread with any other combination of arms on the table and the datasheet that granys it permissions is still the one datasheet called dreadnought.

But when "my model" is an "older model" Dreadnought with Autocannons which are "no longer provided in the kit" and the latest datasheet which allows the Dreadnought to use the Autocannons on the table is the Dreadnought Datasheet in the Index.

Lance845 wrote:If it was an official faq document the errata section is rules the faqs are clarifications. All of which are official. Do you have an official rules document that explicitly provides an errata establishing that the option on the model define its datasheet? Do you have a official doc with a faq qiestion that clarifies the same?

Errata, no. Apparently there is an FAQ, though. DoctorTom has referenced it, it was official (i.e. provided by GW), and you continue to ignore it.

Larks wrote:
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.

The Conscripts point has been brought up. To answer that is simple. The number of models in the unit has nothing to do with the options on the model. That is an option for the unit as a whole. This discussion is about the options on the models.

I am unfamiliar with the changes regarding the Commissar. I have neither Index nor Codex, and access is ridiculously limited for me. Could you elucidate?

 TheWaspinator wrote:
Also, people acting like the phrase "your games" inherently implies that what follows is not the baseline rules should not accuse others of logical fallacies. You are making a rules intent argument, not a RAW one.

According to the "The Most Important Rule" as written on page 180 you must try to interpret any ambiguities according to sensible intent in consens with your opponent. RAW.

Trying to read the rules strictly by the text like computer code or a legal scholar of strict constructionism while ignoring the intent is a violation of RAW.

Wonderwolf wrote:

 TheWaspinator wrote:
Also, people acting like the phrase "your games" inherently implies that what follows is not the baseline rules should not accuse others of logical fallacies. You are making a rules intent argument, not a RAW one.

According to the "The Most Important Rule" as written on page 180 you must try to interpret any ambiguities according to sensible intent in consens with your opponent. RAW.

Trying to read the rules strictly by the text like computer code or a legal scholar of strict constructionism while ignoring the intent is a violation of RAW.

I love this post.

I have read all the responses. I am not responding to them individually... this post would be like... endless. Instead I am going to answer the entire side. Maybe bits and pieces of this don't apply to all of you. Sorry.

Your argument goes like this.

You believe that you have full rules permission to use a dreadnought or any other model with it's index datasheet instead of it's updated codex datasheet under the circumstances that it's the older model and/or it has the modeled options that are no longer allowed by the codex datasheet. You believe that this requires no permission from your opponent (beyond the general agreement to play a game/points/missions whatever...). You believe this is stated in this quote.

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.

We are going to call this Conclusion (A)

To support this position, you point out that this line

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).

means that when they say the word "Model" they mean the model with all it's options modeled onto it to accurately reflecting the war gear options it's taking.

We will call this Argument (B)

When you are asked to defend the idea that there is any rules allowance that says that a models modeled options have any value at all you reference this quote.

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.

(A).


So.. (A) is true because (B). And (B) has to be my interpretation because (A).

You also use the argument that "Well back in 4th edition WYSIWYG was a rule and Lots of people really like it. So..."

We will call this argument (-). As in null. Because it's irrelevant.

You might also use this!

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

Saying that the Model they use in here is the same thing.

Argument (C)

Or (A) is true because of (B) and (C). (B) and (C) have to be my interpretation because (A) gives me permission.

If you do not require (B) or (C) to support your interpretation of (A) then your just saying that you can take any model, put it down, and use any datasheet you feel like. Which logically would make GWs ongoing updates to the datasheets pointless. I can debate this if you want... but do you really need to?

This is a circular argument. Your argument cannot support itself. You need other evidence. Apparently DrTom posted some new FAQ? I missed it. I tried to look back and couldn't find it. If you wouldn't mind posting it again, I would really appreciate it. Hopefully it has some kind of bearing on supporting your interpretation of B or C. Because right now your claim that they are using Model in the way you think they are using model is not substantiated by anything.



------------------------------------------------


Now here's mine.

I have 2 conclusions.

1) You are expected as the baseline rules of the game to use the most up to date datasheet for any model. A model's modeled options have no value. Therefore a dreadnought is a dreadnought regardless of what bits you stick to it.

2) With your opponents permission, in your own games, your free to use any rules you feel like.

I will call these conclusion (Y) and (Z) respectively. They will each be supported separately.

Lets start with (Y).

To start, there is no rule in any rule book for FAQ/Errata PDF document that has any ruling requiring the use of WYSIWYG. It doesn't exist. (L)

This quote

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

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

says it. (M)

This quote

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

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

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

says it. (N)

This quote

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.

says it. (O)

This quote

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

is a repetition of (M)

Or in summary.

(L) being true, (M)(N)(O) = (Y)

Meanwhile.

(L) again.

This quote backed by (L)

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.

to mean that I clearly have a different definition of "in your games" than you. In that they mean games within your group of friends or whatever. Games not part of an official event. Games GW is not hosting. Games in which you can do whatever you want.(P)

And this quote

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

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

((N) again) supports my interpretation of (P)

in turn supporting my interpretation of (Z).

Or...

(L) and (P) being true, than (N) = (Z)

And if (Y) is true than it's really

(Y) and (L) means (P) which means (N) = (Z).

Do you see how my argument is linear? No piece of my evidence is self supporting? I go from the one truly RAW thing we have. A complete lack of WYSIWYG and I build on it.

Find me some support for (B) and (C). I would LOVE to see it.

I'm gonna say that if you need a post that long and formulas, your source maybe doesn't prove what you think.

This nonsense has been going back and forth for so long I don't even know what the original rules conflict was or who's for or against. Which means neither side has made a convincing argument for their position.

 Rolsheen wrote:
This nonsense has been going back and forth for so long I don't even know what the original rules conflict was or who's for or against. Which means neither side has made a convincing argument for their position.

Absolutely. As I posted pages ago it's impossible to 'prove' either way or 'disprove' the opposing view!

 Lance845 wrote:
I have read all the responses. I am not responding to them individually... this post would be like... endless. Instead I am going to answer the entire side. Maybe bits and pieces of this don't apply to all of you. Sorry.

Your argument goes like this.

You believe that you have full rules permission to use a dreadnought or any other model with it's index datasheet instead of it's updated codex datasheet under the circumstances that it's the older model and/or it has the modeled options that are no longer allowed by the codex datasheet. You believe that this requires no permission from your opponent (beyond the general agreement to play a game/points/missions whatever...).

I think you need to stop at that point. Who is believing this? We've been saying you need permission. We also say, however, that the process, including asking permission, is part of the process established by GW for using the models, whether "official" or "unofficial" games. So, baseline, you need to get permission but they have a procedure you can use to use these older models which involves using the index datasheet when the model's options (or the entire model itself) isn't represented by a datasheet in the codex. You harp on "your games" as if it's not official, but "your game" is honestly any game you play in outside of a tournament, and tournaments have their own rules. So saying you can't use this in "baseline" games is really a meaningless and incorrect statement.

 Lance845 wrote:
I have read all the responses. I am not responding to them individually... this post would be like... endless. Instead I am going to answer the entire side. Maybe bits and pieces of this don't apply to all of you. Sorry.

Your argument goes like this.

You believe that you have full rules permission to use a dreadnought or any other model with it's index datasheet instead of it's updated codex datasheet under the circumstances that it's the older model and/or it has the modeled options that are no longer allowed by the codex datasheet. You believe that this requires no permission from your opponent (beyond the general agreement to play a game/points/missions whatever...). You believe this is stated in this quote.

You apparently have NOT read all the responses, or if you have, you have ignored what was written.

I never once said anything about "full rules permission to use a... model with it's index datasheet instead of it's updated codex datasheet", nor has anyone else who has argued against you this far. In fact, I have actually stated the baseline rules do not state this. I don't believe DoctorTom has ever stated anything about the baselines rules for his responses.

However, and this is where your argument falls flat, GW has provided an FAQ which DOES allow for it. FAQs do not change the rules, but are guidelines on how to handle specific situations. Guidelines are up to the users to enforce or ignore at their leisure.

That either makes this statement a demonstration of your deliberate unwillingness to actually read what others have written or your deliberate willingness to misrepresent what others have said. Either way, the above quote is a lie from you, sir.

It's about whether the data sheet has been updated so no I won't be fielding index commissar's but I will be fielding Rough riders.

To be honest GW were stupid not to include a list in the codex of permissable index datasheets it would solve half these problems


Also it hasn't provided an faq yet just community site further clouding things

Second time you have mentioned this new FAQ. I asked if you would mind reposting it. Ive looked back. I didn't see any new FAQ.

I can go back and pick out quotes from you Charistoph and Waspinator, And others saying you don't need any particular permission to use the index datasheet over the codex. There are 10 other pages of you guys making those arguments based on your definition "model" as a rules entity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

U02dah4 wrote:
It's about whether the data sheet has been updated so no I won't be fielding index commissar's but I will be fielding Rough riders.

To be honest GW were stupid not to include a list in the codex of permissable index datasheets it would solve half these problems


Also it hasn't provided an faq yet just community site further clouding things

Agree.

 Lance845 wrote:
Second time you have mentioned this new FAQ. I asked if you would mind reposting it. Ive looked back. I didn't see any new FAQ.

I can go back and pick out quotes from you Charistoph and Waspinator, And others saying you don't need any particular permission to use the index datasheet over the codex. There are 10 other pages of you guys making those arguments based on your definition "model" as a rules entity.

You know he means the WHC article by "FAQ", and as it's the crux of your arguments too it's disingenuous to split hairs this way.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Second time you have mentioned this new FAQ. I asked if you would mind reposting it. Ive looked back. I didn't see any new FAQ.

I can go back and pick out quotes from you Charistoph and Waspinator, And others saying you don't need any particular permission to use the index datasheet over the codex. There are 10 other pages of you guys making those arguments based on your definition "model" as a rules entity.

You know he means the WHC article by "FAQ", and as it's the crux of your arguments too it's disingenuous to split hairs this way.

I suspected thats what he meant, but he said it was new and sorted all this out. I couldn't find any links or anything. I figured there was a chance I just missed it. Wanted to give him the chance to show me something new.

 Lance845 wrote:


I can go back and pick out quotes from you Charistoph and Waspinator, And others saying you don't need any particular permission to use the index datasheet over the codex. There are 10 other pages of you guys making those arguments based on your definition "model" as a rules entity. .

Go ahead and pick them out. I didn't say that, and there are others, yet you want to treat everybody as having said that. Using that to dismiss everybody's argument even if they didn't say that is arguing in bad faith.

 doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:


I can go back and pick out quotes from you Charistoph and Waspinator, And others saying you don't need any particular permission to use the index datasheet over the codex. There are 10 other pages of you guys making those arguments based on your definition "model" as a rules entity. .

Go ahead and pick them out. I didn't say that, and there are others, yet you want to treat everybody as having said that. Using that to dismiss everybody's argument even if they didn't say that is arguing in bad faith.

No, I specifically said in my big post you last responded to

Maybe bits and pieces of this don't apply to all of you. Sorry.

.

On the other hand, you have always claimed the permission you need is the same as a person agreeing to sit down and play a regular game. You believe that the physical model with it's options attached grants the model the permission to use the older index sheets, and while you should check with your opponent if your list is okay, it's no different then bringing forge world or any other option.

 Lance845 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:


I can go back and pick out quotes from you Charistoph and Waspinator, And others saying you don't need any particular permission to use the index datasheet over the codex. There are 10 other pages of you guys making those arguments based on your definition "model" as a rules entity. .

Go ahead and pick them out. I didn't say that, and there are others, yet you want to treat everybody as having said that. Using that to dismiss everybody's argument even if they didn't say that is arguing in bad faith.

No, I specifically said in my big post you last responded to

Maybe bits and pieces of this don't apply to all of you. Sorry.

.

On the other hand, you have always claimed the permission you need is the same as a person agreeing to sit down and play a regular game. You believe that the physical model with it's options attached grants the model the permission to use the older index sheets, and while you should check with your opponent if your list is okay, it's no different then bringing forge world or any other option.

I have said to tell the person you have an older model and wish to use the index rules as per GW's process, and is it okay with him. That's not the same as the permission I need is the same as a person agreeing to sit down and play a regular game. It goes beyond "want to play a game of 40K? Matched play? How many points?". I've also said to check with tournament organizers beforehand if you think you want to use such a model in a tournament. Your saying that I think permission I need is the same as a person agreeing to sit down and play a regular game either you not understanding the difference between asking specific permission about a unit and just going "want to play a game of 40K? Cool" is you actually ignoring what I'm saying and making something up.

As for Forgeworld, I don't treat it differently because I let opponents know if I want to use Forgeworld stuff as it's something you can't buy through an independent store so isn't something I would assume the opponent would know the details about. You used to have to ask permission for Forgeworld stuff; I still see it at least as a common courtesy to talk to your opponent about stuff he might not know about. I guess you don't feel that way though. I am curious about the "or any other option" phrase at the end - what are you referring to there?

 doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:


I can go back and pick out quotes from you Charistoph and Waspinator, And others saying you don't need any particular permission to use the index datasheet over the codex. There are 10 other pages of you guys making those arguments based on your definition "model" as a rules entity. .

Go ahead and pick them out. I didn't say that, and there are others, yet you want to treat everybody as having said that. Using that to dismiss everybody's argument even if they didn't say that is arguing in bad faith.

No, I specifically said in my big post you last responded to

Maybe bits and pieces of this don't apply to all of you. Sorry.

.

On the other hand, you have always claimed the permission you need is the same as a person agreeing to sit down and play a regular game. You believe that the physical model with it's options attached grants the model the permission to use the older index sheets, and while you should check with your opponent if your list is okay, it's no different then bringing forge world or any other option.

I have said to tell the person you have an older model and wish to use the index rules as per GW's process, and is it okay with him. That's not the same as the permission I need is the same as a person agreeing to sit down and play a regular game. It goes beyond "want to play a game of 40K? Matched play? How many points?". I've also said to check with tournament organizers beforehand if you think you want to use such a model in a tournament. Your saying that I think permission I need is the same as a person agreeing to sit down and play a regular game either you not understanding the difference between asking specific permission about a unit and just going "want to play a game of 40K? Cool" is you actually ignoring what I'm saying and making something up.

Great. Then as far as I can tell, with this statement, you and I are in agreement. This right here has been what I have been saying this entire time.

Lance845 wrote:Second time you have mentioned this new FAQ. I asked if you would mind reposting it. Ive looked back. I didn't see any new FAQ.

What new FAQ? I was referring to the direction that was DoctorTom provided that was in an FAQ format.

Lance845 wrote:I can go back and pick out quotes from you Charistoph and Waspinator, And others saying you don't need any particular permission to use the index datasheet over the codex. There are 10 other pages of you guys making those arguments based on your definition "model" as a rules entity.

Then present them. You have misrepresented me and others a few times already, even after being corrected.

U02dah4 wrote:It's about whether the data sheet has been updated so no I won't be fielding index commissar's but I will be fielding Rough riders.

And do Commissars have an option for the model in the Index that is not in the codex?

U02dah4 wrote:To be honest GW were stupid not to include a list in the codex of permissable index datasheets it would solve half these problems

Agreed. But they wanted to keep the codices up to date with the current kits. It helps reduce confusion for new players, but it makes things problematic for older players.

U02dah4 wrote:Also it hasn't provided an faq yet just community site further clouding things

The format was in FAQ, it is from an official GW source. It may not be a full Errata document, but that doesn't make it an FAQ.

 Lance845 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:


I can go back and pick out quotes from you Charistoph and Waspinator, And others saying you don't need any particular permission to use the index datasheet over the codex. There are 10 other pages of you guys making those arguments based on your definition "model" as a rules entity. .

Go ahead and pick them out. I didn't say that, and there are others, yet you want to treat everybody as having said that. Using that to dismiss everybody's argument even if they didn't say that is arguing in bad faith.

No, I specifically said in my big post you last responded to

Maybe bits and pieces of this don't apply to all of you. Sorry.

.

On the other hand, you have always claimed the permission you need is the same as a person agreeing to sit down and play a regular game. You believe that the physical model with it's options attached grants the model the permission to use the older index sheets, and while you should check with your opponent if your list is okay, it's no different then bringing forge world or any other option.

I have said to tell the person you have an older model and wish to use the index rules as per GW's process, and is it okay with him. That's not the same as the permission I need is the same as a person agreeing to sit down and play a regular game. It goes beyond "want to play a game of 40K? Matched play? How many points?". I've also said to check with tournament organizers beforehand if you think you want to use such a model in a tournament. Your saying that I think permission I need is the same as a person agreeing to sit down and play a regular game either you not understanding the difference between asking specific permission about a unit and just going "want to play a game of 40K? Cool" is you actually ignoring what I'm saying and making something up.

Great. Then as far as I can tell, with this statement, you and I are in agreement. This right here has been what I have been saying this entire time.

No, it isn't. I'm saying that as long as you get permission you can use the index rules in any game. You insisted that it can't be used in "official" games and originally insisted that it couldn't be used in matched play. You are drawing distinctions between "your games" and "baseline rules" games, where baseline rules games can't use the procedure and I'm saying you can. I'm saying I can use the index datasheet for an autocannon dread, going through their procedure while you've been insisting that we're not allowed to look at the index datasheet despite having been told that we can. You haven't been saying that this entire time.

 Charistoph wrote:

Lance845 wrote:
I can go back and pick out quotes from you Charistoph and Waspinator, And others saying you don't need any particular permission to use the index datasheet over the codex. There are 10 other pages of you guys making those arguments based on your definition "model" as a rules entity.

Then present them. You have misrepresented me and others a few times already, even after being corrected.

 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.

Dr.Tom arguing that the latest datasheet is based on WYSIWYG and therefore the index would be the current datasheet requiring no permission.

 Charistoph wrote:

It is piss poor and a straw man.

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

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

 Lance845 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Lance845 wrote:
I can go back and pick out quotes from you Charistoph and Waspinator, And others saying you don't need any particular permission to use the index datasheet over the codex. There are 10 other pages of you guys making those arguments based on your definition "model" as a rules entity.

Then present them. You have misrepresented me and others a few times already, even after being corrected.

 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.

Dr.Tom arguing that the latest datasheet is based on WYSIWYG and therefore the index would be the current datasheet requiring no permission.

Nice cherrypick there, given the number of times I've said you ask permisison. Here the argument was you saying we're not allowed to go back and use the index datasheet for older options, and I point out that GW does let us use the index datasheet for older options. That's separate from whether or not you need permission from your opponent to use them in a game. But, nice that you want to misconstrue my arguments here. Way to misrepresent me. Given how you've misrepresented what other people have said (and been called out on) and how you've misrepresented what GW has said (and been called out on), I shouldn't be surprised.

 doctortom wrote:

Nice cherrypick there, given the number of times I've said you ask permisison. Here the argument was you saying we're not allowed to go back and use the index datasheet for older options, and I point out that GW does let us use the index datasheet for older options. That's separate from whether or not you need permission from your opponent to use them in a game. But, nice that you want to misconstrue my arguments here. Way to misrepresent me. Given how you've misrepresented what other people have said (and been called out on) and how you've misrepresented what GW has said (and been called out on), I shouldn't be surprised.

I have always said, all the way back in the very first post of this thread, that you are free to use whatever rules you want to use with your opponents agreement. If you agree with that requirement, what are you arguing about? And exactly what point were you trying to make in contention with that in that post?

Lance845 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Lance845 wrote:
I can go back and pick out quotes from you Charistoph and Waspinator, And others saying you don't need any particular permission to use the index datasheet over the codex. There are 10 other pages of you guys making those arguments based on your definition "model" as a rules entity.

Then present them. You have misrepresented me and others a few times already, even after being corrected.

 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.

Dr.Tom arguing that the latest datasheet is based on WYSIWYG and therefore the index would be the current datasheet requiring no permission.

 Charistoph wrote:

It is piss poor and a straw man.

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

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

Charistoph arguing the same.

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

Waspinator.

Still yet to see where we have said, "you don't need any particular permission to use the index datasheet over the codex."

Lance845 wrote:To reiterate your argument all spelled out.

You believe that you have full rules permission to use a dreadnought or any other model with it's index datasheet instead of it's updated codex datasheet under the circumstances that it's the older model and/or it has the modeled options that are no longer allowed by the codex datasheet. You believe that this requires no permission from your opponent (beyond the general agreement to play a game/points/missions whatever...). You believe this is stated in this quote.

False. We have never said we have full rules permission. In fact I have stated the exact opposite at least twice now. We have said GW has granted permission through a clarification that is presented in an FAQ format. That is what we have said. You seem to have a bass-ackwards method of reading that ignores what people say or you are lying.

 Lance845 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Nice cherrypick there, given the number of times I've said you ask permisison. Here the argument was you saying we're not allowed to go back and use the index datasheet for older options, and I point out that GW does let us use the index datasheet for older options. That's separate from whether or not you need permission from your opponent to use them in a game. But, nice that you want to misconstrue my arguments here. Way to misrepresent me. Given how you've misrepresented what other people have said (and been called out on) and how you've misrepresented what GW has said (and been called out on), I shouldn't be surprised.

I have always said, all the way back in the very first post of this thread, that you are free to use whatever rules you want to use with your opponents agreement. If you agree with that requirement, what are you arguing about? And exactly what point were you trying to make in contention with that in that post?

Okay, let's look back at the first post. You said.

In any game using the actual rules only the options and points and rules for the most up to date datasheet are legal. With opponents permission you can use the older index entries instead. But you are not allowed to pick and choose which dataslate you want to use to get the options you like.

I'm saying given what GW published for using older models, that in games using the actual rules you can use the index datasheets - though it is with opponent's permission it's legal to go through this process, which you refute. "Yo are not allowed to pick and choose which dataslate you want to use to get the options you like"... if you have a model with older options that aren't on the current datasheet, you can use the index datasheet as per GW's procedure, which does involve asking permission. You've stated elsewhere that we're not allowed to use the index datasheet. That is false; for the older options you use the datasheet, as you are using the most current datasheet for your models (said model being an older one with options not represented by the current datasheet). You are treating "any game using the actual rules" differently in these statements, trying to differentiate between GW using the phrase "your games" and "any game using the actual rules". I'm saying they've given you a procedure that covers "any game using the actual rules". Yes, the procedure involves asking permission, but it exists. Stop treating them as completely separate things. Every time you try to acknowledge you can use it with opponents permissioin, you stick in a corresponding sentence about "In any official game" or something similar though to claim that you can't use them in those games when you can - you act like either you're not allowed to ask permission for a game using the actual rules, or somehow the act of asking permission degrades the game so that it no longer counts as an "official game". You need to stop doing that as you can ask permission in "any game using the actual rules". As I've said many times (and apparently you keep ignoring), stop trying to draw artificial distinctions here that don't matter.

 doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Nice cherrypick there, given the number of times I've said you ask permisison. Here the argument was you saying we're not allowed to go back and use the index datasheet for older options, and I point out that GW does let us use the index datasheet for older options. That's separate from whether or not you need permission from your opponent to use them in a game. But, nice that you want to misconstrue my arguments here. Way to misrepresent me. Given how you've misrepresented what other people have said (and been called out on) and how you've misrepresented what GW has said (and been called out on), I shouldn't be surprised.

I have always said, all the way back in the very first post of this thread, that you are free to use whatever rules you want to use with your opponents agreement. If you agree with that requirement, what are you arguing about? And exactly what point were you trying to make in contention with that in that post?

Okay, let's look back at the first post. You said.

In any game using the actual rules only the options and points and rules for the most up to date datasheet are legal. With opponents permission you can use the older index entries instead. But you are not allowed to pick and choose which dataslate you want to use to get the options you like.

I'm saying given what GW published for using older models, that in games using the actual rules you can use the index datasheets - though it is with opponent's permission it's legal to go through this process, which you refute. "Yo are not allowed to pick and choose which dataslate you want to use to get the options you like"... if you have a model with older options that aren't on the current datasheet, you can use the index datasheet as per GW's procedure, which does involve asking permission. You've stated elsewhere that we're not allowed to use the index datasheet. That is false; for the older options you use the datasheet, as you are using the most current datasheet for your models (said model being an older one with options not represented by the current datasheet). You are treating "any game using the actual rules" differently in these statements, trying to differentiate between GW using the phrase "your games" and "any game using the actual rules". I'm saying they've given you a procedure that covers "any game using the actual rules". Yes, the procedure involves asking permission, but it exists. Stop treating them as completely separate things. Every time you try to acknowledge you can use it with opponents permissioin, you stick in a corresponding sentence about "In any official game" or something similar though to claim that you can't use them in those games when you can - you act like either you're not allowed to ask permission for a game using the actual rules, or somehow the act of asking permission degrades the game so that it no longer counts as an "official game". You need to stop doing that as you can ask permission in "any game using the actual rules". As I've said many times (and apparently you keep ignoring), stop trying to draw artificial distinctions here that don't matter.

I am sorry if my exact wording was at any point confusing for you. Allow me to be VERY clear.

When I say "official rules", "Baseline rules", "official game", "actual rules", what I mean is the rules as placed down by GW requiring no more permission then setting up to play a game.

I am going to use the Konar Campaign as a good example of a GW official event that involves players playing their own games at home. In those events, you are expected to be using the most current datasheets. In those events permission for using index instead would not be allowed. Mostly meaningless, because if the 2 players involved want to do it anyway who is going to even enforce it? Right? But it IS what is expected, as layed down by GW.

If 2 players want to play a game, they are welcome to come to whatever agreement they want.

If GW hosts a Tournament, unless that tourny makes some kind of stipulation otherwise, GW expects the most current datasheet. In the case of the dread, it doesn't matter how old or what arms it has. The Datasheet Dreadnought is in the codex (for the armies that have a codex so far).




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or in other words.

If a grey knight player shows up to a store and puts down this model



That player is expected to be using the dreadnought datasheet from their codex.

They can, of course, ask for permission from their opponent to use the index datasheet instead.

 Lance845 wrote:
When I say "official rules", "Baseline rules", "official game", "actual rules", what I mean is the rules as placed down by GW requiring no more permission then setting up to play a game.

Hilarious. You do realize that even a person wanting to play with Grey Knights would have had a hard time finding a game not so long ago. I could be denied a game just because I couldn't field a big enough army (true story). Even which FAQ set one will be used is part of setting up a current game.