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.

Jacksmiles wrote:So you're saying they don't believe that characters on bikes can be used? I haven't caught that impression - seems to me they've been saying that models with missing options and models missing entirely may use index datasheets.

When considering the entire statement, that's not hard to consider. Oddly enough, Bikes WERE a Wargear option at one point, and not considered a separate unit entirely. Not saying that is the case with the Index datasheets (mainly because my time with them has been limited).

Lance845 wrote:Again, I am pointing out that not only are you misreading Model by assigning it value it doesn't have, you are also misreading Options, the consequences of which leads to codex datasheets being nonsense because your interpretation of that single answer allows players to pick whichever datasheet they want willy nilly completely nullifying any attempt to balance as new documents are released.

Wait, a model isn't a miniature on the table? Where do you see this as a possibility? Models do not have Options? Some of those Options aren't Wargear that can be represented on the Miniature?

Oh, that's right, you think that the model only represents the datasheet, but have provided nothing which states this.

Lance845 wrote:They think that the word Model means "The model with it's specific wargear options modeled onto it." Which requires that the game has to have some kind of rule requiring players to acurately model the wargear in order to use those options. In the big example of the thread a dread with twin autocannons. Because the greyknight codex and space marine codex have a dreadnought datasheet that does not have twin autocannons as a option they argue that the most recent datasheet for a model with those bits on it is the index datasheet.

We have been over this, and you continue to ignore it. Some games do have rules requiring players to accurately model the wargear on the model. Sometimes it is because of the tournament rules, and sometimes it is because of the players themselves. GW is making allowances for this.

Lance845 wrote:When we pointed out that if that was the case then players could use any option they want from the index, including unnerfed conscripts who have the option to be taken as a 50 man unit instead of just 30 in the codex.

Which is a strawman as the number of models in a unit do not reflect options ON the model.

Lance845 wrote:Their response was that unit size is not a "option" because CLEARLY "Option" means wargear options and not options in the general sense.

A false statement and a deliberate misrepresentation at this point as it has been stated otherwise multiple times and you have been corrected multiple times. The Q&A specifically talks about options a model has. Adding more models to a unit does nothing to change Model #19/20.

Lance845 wrote:By pointing out that bikes are not wargear, and yet a option for a character in the index in the form of an entirely different datasheet I was proving that their interpretation of options was nonsense. Thus thier interpretation of Model is equally nonsense. Further backed by WYSIWYG not being a rule anywhere.

But that is but one of two categories provided for in the Q&A. When you cut half of the answer off, of course you are going to come to a different conclusion. Even more so when we are talking about the very half of the answer you are deliberately dropping off. Your response is disingenuous, especially when we really haven't been talking about it whatsoever.

Jacksmiles wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Options aren't limited to wargear options, but DO INCLUDE wargear options. Quit pretending that they don't.

So are you saying that you think players are equally able to bring 50 man unnerfed conscripts as they are twin auto dreads?

What you quoted says vehicles and Characters - are conscripts either?

Are you actually arguing that GW has given permission to go back to the index willy nilly as long as they have 1 or 2 keywords? Or did you miss the actual point being made? About what the word Options means.

doctortom wrote:

As a matter of fact, yes. Both require opponent's permission. Do I think you're equally likely to see permission goven for a 50 man unnerfed conscript unit as you are an autocannon dread? No, I don't. Any other silly examples you want to trot out? The same answer will probably apply to them also.

Please note that this also addresses BCB's main concern about playing "unnerfed" models vs ones that he claims have a semblance of balance - if your opponent thinks they're too unbalanced and overpowered, he can always say he doesn't want to give permission. You people should give your opponents some credit for common sense.

As long as you believe the most current datasheet for a model is based on it's wysiwyg options you need more support for your argument then your circular nonsense.

 Lance845 wrote:
As long as you believe the most current datasheet for a model is based on it's wysiwyg options you need more support for your argument then your circular nonsense.

It is hardly circular when there is a sentence which states it directly. A line is hardly circular.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
As long as you believe the most current datasheet for a model is based on it's wysiwyg options you need more support for your argument then your circular nonsense.

It is hardly circular when there is a sentence which states it directly. A line is hardly circular.

Is it really difficult for you to understand that your interpretation of the word "model" could be wrong? And that the ONLY truely RAW piece of evidence we have is the lack of WYSIWYG. Which means you need to prove your interpretation. If your proof of the sentence is the sentence itself... it's circular.

 Lance845 wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Options aren't limited to wargear options, but DO INCLUDE wargear options. Quit pretending that they don't.

So are you saying that you think players are equally able to bring 50 man unnerfed conscripts as they are twin auto dreads?

What you quoted says vehicles and Characters - are conscripts either?

Are you actually arguing that GW has given permission to go back to the index willy nilly as long as they have 1 or 2 keywords? Or did you miss the actual point being made? About what the word Options means.

You mean "wargear" options. Do your conscripts have wargear that is missing from the codex datasheet but was on the index datasheet?

Also, you still haven't addressed how conscripts factor in at all considering the document says "vehicles and characters." They're not part of the argument.

doctortom wrote:

As a matter of fact, yes. Both require opponent's permission. Do I think you're equally likely to see permission goven for a 50 man unnerfed conscript unit as you are an autocannon dread? No, I don't. Any other silly examples you want to trot out? The same answer will probably apply to them also.

Please note that this also addresses BCB's main concern about playing "unnerfed" models vs ones that he claims have a semblance of balance - if your opponent thinks they're too unbalanced and overpowered, he can always say he doesn't want to give permission. You people should give your opponents some credit for common sense.

As long as you believe the most current datasheet for a model is based on it's wysiwyg options you need more support for your argument then your circular nonsense.

I'm sorry, how does this document even make sense if it's not about wysiwyg, whether or not "wysiwyg" is mentioned explicitly? They tell us how to use our model if it has wargear options no longer in the codex - how could it have wargear options without them being modeled on? The document is explaining how to use models you have built using wargear options that aren't in the codex datasheet.

Jacksmiles wrote:

I'm sorry, how does this document even make sense if it's not about wysiwyg, whether or not "wysiwyg" is mentioned explicitly? They tell us how to use our model if it has wargear options no longer in the codex - how could it have wargear options without them being modeled on? The document is explaining how to use models you have built using wargear options that aren't in the codex datasheet.

Because the model is a "Dreadnought". A Dreadnought has options based on it's datasheet. The datasheet defines what you can give it. You are not required to accurately model what options you have given it, and haven't been in several editions. The options are a rules entity, not a physical piece you stick to the model. To argue that it speaks of WYSIWYG requires proof that WYSIWYG exists in this edition. Find some proof.

 Lance845 wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

I'm sorry, how does this document even make sense if it's not about wysiwyg, whether or not "wysiwyg" is mentioned explicitly? They tell us how to use our model if it has wargear options no longer in the codex - how could it have wargear options without them being modeled on? The document is explaining how to use models you have built using wargear options that aren't in the codex datasheet.

Because the model is a "Dreadnought". A Dreadnought has options based on it's datasheet. The datasheet defines what you can give it. You are not required to accurately model what options you have given it, and haven't been in several editions. The options are a rules entity, not a physical piece you stick to the model. To argue that it speaks of WYSIWYG requires proof that WYSIWYG exists in this edition. Find some proof.

Okay, so you're asserting that GW writes rules under the belief that wargear is proxied and/or what is on the model doesn't matter. That's fine. But without accounting for wysiwyg, what is the purpose of this document at all? Because I agree with your earlier posts that a dread with dual autocannons can be plopped down and used with different gear on whatever paper you put your list on, wysiwyg isn't a rule. But what about if someone modeled a dread with dual autocannons and still wants to use the autocannons? Boom - this document tells us what to do.

If you want to say it's to let us know we can still use datasheets that aren't in the codices at all, well that's partially true, but we were already told that at the start of 8th, so it's completely unnecessary for them to write a new document and then, on top of that, include what to do if dread options on your model aren't in the codex datasheet.

Again - why did they include dreads as an example, in your opinion? I might have missed it, if so my bad for making you type it again in this thread, where there's so much typing already

I cannot believe this is still going on after 11 pages.

Jacksmiles wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

I'm sorry, how does this document even make sense if it's not about wysiwyg, whether or not "wysiwyg" is mentioned explicitly? They tell us how to use our model if it has wargear options no longer in the codex - how could it have wargear options without them being modeled on? The document is explaining how to use models you have built using wargear options that aren't in the codex datasheet.

Because the model is a "Dreadnought". A Dreadnought has options based on it's datasheet. The datasheet defines what you can give it. You are not required to accurately model what options you have given it, and haven't been in several editions. The options are a rules entity, not a physical piece you stick to the model. To argue that it speaks of WYSIWYG requires proof that WYSIWYG exists in this edition. Find some proof.

Okay, so you're asserting that GW writes rules under the belief that wargear is proxied and/or what is on the model doesn't matter. That's fine. But without accounting for wysiwyg, what is the purpose of this document at all? Because I agree with your earlier posts that a dread with dual autocannons can be plopped down and used with different gear on whatever paper you put your list on, wysiwyg isn't a rule. But what about if someone modeled a dread with dual autocannons and still wants to use the autocannons? Boom - this document tells us what to do.

As to the purpose of the document, there has never been an edition in which an army has received 2 codex (or codex like) books in the same edition before. Since this is a new edition and there is no standard for how the one book with new datasheets interacts with the old book and older datasheets the document exists to explain what happens. We have 3 statements in that document that tell us that the codex datasheet overwirtes the index datasheets. That in all cases we are expected to be using the most current datasheet published for the model.

In all cases, these will then supersede the rules for that datasheet in the index book.
The datasheets in the new codexes overwrite the same datasheets in the index books.
In all future publications and official events though, it will be assumed that you’re using the most recent rules and Datasheets.

But one of those 3 also tells us that in our own game, with your opponents agreement, you are free to use whatever rules you and your opponent want to.

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

And the line about characters/vehicles/dreads and bikes gives us a guideline for how to do so. You use the most recently published points with the older datasheet.

The document tells us that in all cases the most current datasheet is the sheet we should be using. Index options require agreement from your opponent on a case by case basis.

If you plop down that dread from the picture I posted in a grey knight army you are expected to use the grey knight codex datasheet because that is it's most current datasheet. Which does not have the option to use twin autocannons. You can ask your opponent if it's okay if you use the index sheet instead. In any official event, tourneys, Konar campaign, whatever... GW expects you to use the codex. Which means twin autocannons are not an option (granting that tourneys are free to make up any rules they want as well).

Again, their argument is that WYSIWYG applies, and that the most current datasheet for THAT model IS the index because of the bits glued to it. When asked to prove that WYSIWYG exists they point to the quote about autocannon dreads. It's a circular argument with nothing to actually substantiate it.

If you want to say it's to let us know we can still use datasheets that aren't in the codices at all, well that's partially true, but we were already told that at the start of 8th, so it's completely unnecessary for them to write a new document and then, on top of that, include what to do if dread options on your model aren't in the codex datasheet.

I agree. Using datasheets in the index that are not even in the codex has never been a question. Everyone agrees your free to use those.

I really do understand your side, I've been reading 13 pages worth of it by this point. I just don't understand the point of the document outside of wysiwyg - being able to use whatever you want with opponent's permission has always and will always be a thing, whether they put it in a document or not.

To add to that, I feel the same of wysiwyg, though I don't force my friends to adhere to it - I just see it as something that will always be assumed unless told otherwise.

 Lance845 wrote:

If you want to say it's to let us know we can still use datasheets that aren't in the codices at all, well that's partially true, but we were already told that at the start of 8th, so it's completely unnecessary for them to write a new document and then, on top of that, include what to do if dread options on your model aren't in the codex datasheet.

I agree. Using datasheets in the index that are not even in the codex has never been a question. Everyone agrees your free to use those.

Not completely what I was saying. I'm still questioning why dreads were included. I think you answered in a higher part of your post though - they were included because this gives you a guideline on how to use them "in your games," "with your opponent's permission." As has been said, though, everything requires your opponent's permission, including even playing the game with them. So I honestly hate that bit about "permission." I'm gonna show up with what I show up with, and you can decline the game if you want - I could see myself changing the list a bit if you're really not up for forgeworld or autocannon dread today, but I won't change it everytime, so eventually you need to learn what it can do or I'll be the one declining games.

This also means you need permission to use chaplain on bike. With permission, you can use 50-man conscripts (even though this document doesn't apply to it). So because you need permission for anything, your reason for the document means it doesn't even need to exist in the way it does.

Jacksmiles wrote:
I'm still questioning why dreads were included. I think you answered in a higher part of your post though - they were included because this gives you a guideline on how to use them "in your games," "with your opponent's permission." As has been said, though, everything requires your opponent's permission, including even playing the game with them. So I honestly hate that bit about "permission." I'm gonna show up with what I show up with, and you can decline the game if you want - I could see myself changing the list a bit if you're really not up for forgeworld or autocannon dread today, but I won't change it everytime, so eventually you need to learn what it can do or I'll be the one declining games.

This also means you need permission to use chaplain on bike. With permission, you can use 50-man conscripts (even though this document doesn't apply to it). So because you need permission for anything, your reason for the document means it doesn't even need to exist in the way it does.

Saying you need permission to play the basic rules of the game is pointless. Nobody is forced to play the game. Explicitly stating that you need permission to go beyond the core rules of the game is not pointless.

This document exists to explain how one datasheet interacts with another datasheet of the same name. It's very clear. The newest datasheet applies. And twice it actually says it REPLACES it. So the old sheet, as far as rules are concerned, shouldn't even exist anymore.

In order for a modeled autocannon dread to have the index sheet be it's most current sheet the modeled options have to have some kind of significance as a rules entity. I can accept that as true if there was ANY evidence of it. That is what I am asking for. If there is ANY proof that WYSIWYG has rules significance then the whole statement changes meaning. But without it there is no way to read about models and datasheets except as I have been arguing. Until such time that there is a official document from GW that gives WYSIWYG some kind of place in the core rules of the game you cannot use it as an argument.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
As long as you believe the most current datasheet for a model is based on it's wysiwyg options you need more support for your argument then your circular nonsense.

It is hardly circular when there is a sentence which states it directly. A line is hardly circular.

Is it really difficult for you to understand that your interpretation of the word "model" could be wrong? And that the ONLY truely RAW piece of evidence we have is the lack of WYSIWYG. Which means you need to prove your interpretation. If your proof of the sentence is the sentence itself... it's circular.

Is it really difficult for you to understand that when they use a dread with weapons not available in the current box as an example of an older model that you can use (with permission, as per their process), that you can in fact use the index datasheet for dreads that has those older options? They call it out in their answer, no circular reasoning involved there, yet like some variation of a Flat Earther you want to keep denying that it happens. All the proof we need is in that question and answer. There's no circular reasoning involved in it. There's no logical reasoning for you to be saying you don't get to use the index datasheet when we are told to use the index datasheet; that is a malfunction on your part.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

I'm sorry, how does this document even make sense if it's not about wysiwyg, whether or not "wysiwyg" is mentioned explicitly? They tell us how to use our model if it has wargear options no longer in the codex - how could it have wargear options without them being modeled on? The document is explaining how to use models you have built using wargear options that aren't in the codex datasheet.

Because the model is a "Dreadnought". A Dreadnought has options based on it's datasheet. The datasheet defines what you can give it. You are not required to accurately model what options you have given it, and haven't been in several editions. The options are a rules entity, not a physical piece you stick to the model. To argue that it speaks of WYSIWYG requires proof that WYSIWYG exists in this edition. Find some proof.

They tell you to use the most current datasheet for your model. If your model is a dreadnnought with autocannnons because it's an older model, according to the document you would use the most recent document - the index - that had a dreadnought with autocannon weapon options. This is what they mean by using the most current datasheet for your model. Hardly surprising given that the question was about options no longer available in the codex that used to be available. If we go with what you are saying, then their entire answer would boil down to "no, use the codex entry, you can't use the older options." Since they said the opposite of that, your answer and your reasoning behind your answer is completely flawed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Primark G wrote:
I cannot believe this is still going on after 11 pages.

That's because this thread has effectively been col_impacted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:


As to the purpose of the document, there has never been an edition in which an army has received 2 codex (or codex like) books in the same edition before.

Revision/updates to DE in 3rd edition, as well as Chaos Marines. Codex: Eldar and the Craftworlds codex-like supplement. There's probably other 3rd edition stuff I'm forgetting about even if you don't count all the Chapter spinoffs in different books.

Lance845 wrote:Is it really difficult for you to understand that your interpretation of the word "model" could be wrong? And that the ONLY truely RAW piece of evidence we have is the lack of WYSIWYG. Which means you need to prove your interpretation. If your proof of the sentence is the sentence itself... it's circular.

It is not difficult. However, you have not presented any documentation or demonstration in which my interpretation is false. You've made several claims as to what they are, but have brought nothing to support your assertions.

So, you are claiming that GW's statement is circular then? How interesting. All we are saying is take it for its word exactly as it states, but you are attributing other interpretations to it without actually presenting any actual documentation to support it.

Lance845 wrote:As to the purpose of the document, there has never been an edition in which an army has received 2 codex (or codex like) books in the same edition before. Since this is a new edition and there is no standard for how the one book with new datasheets interacts with the old book and older datasheets the document exists to explain what happens. We have 3 statements in that document that tell us that the codex datasheet overwirtes the index datasheets. That in all cases we are expected to be using the most current datasheet published for the model.

False. You are demonstrating a distinct lack of knowledge of the history of the game. It happened in 3rd Edition. There was the original document released with the rulebook because so much of the game changed. Then, they released codices for each army, even adding Necrons in for the first time as their own army. Furthermore, Chaos Marines, and I think Imperial Guard, also received a second codex at the tail end of 3rd Edition. The first Chaos Marines codex in 3rd Edition had Doomrider, the second one did not, but had an amazing system for customization (even if some parts were rather unbalanced).

Also keep in mind that GW often contradicts itself after setting up hard line limits. They may have stated 3 times that the Codex completely overrides the Index, but then they also include an exception. Ignoring the exception is also ignoring what they say. For example, talking about Movement but denying Advancement means you are actually ignoring what the rulebook says.

Until the 2 of you have proof of wysiwyg your interpretation of Model is unsubstantiated. Find some proof that doesnt rely on circular reasoning.

 Lance845 wrote:

In order for a modeled autocannon dread to have the index sheet be it's most current sheet the modeled options have to have some kind of significance as a rules entity. I can accept that as true if there was ANY evidence of it. That is what I am asking for. If there is ANY proof that WYSIWYG has rules significance then the whole statement changes meaning. But without it there is no way to read about models and datasheets except as I have been arguing. Until such time that there is a official document from GW that gives WYSIWYG some kind of place in the core rules of the game you cannot use it as an argument.

The evidence is that they reference it specifically as an example, though you deny that evidence. It's not circular reasoning to believe there's a reason they do so. It stands to reason due to it being used as an example that they see a "model" as a sum total of wargear - though there is nothing that explicitly says so.

Considering you've said several times in this thread that this strict interpretation isn't how you play anyway, I honestly think everyone is just kind of repeating themselves and this could probably be let go to be a searchable thread for future questions for people to work it out, but I doubt the three main posters in here are going to sway either side and I haven't really seen much new in a few pages.

 Lance845 wrote:
Until the 2 of you have proof of wysiwyg your interpretation of Model is unsubstantiated. Find some proof that doesnt rely on circular reasoning.

Demonstrate conclusively that "older models" is not talking about "older miniatures" but "older profiles", and it will be evidence that it is circular reasoning.

Jacksmiles wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

In order for a modeled autocannon dread to have the index sheet be it's most current sheet the modeled options have to have some kind of significance as a rules entity. I can accept that as true if there was ANY evidence of it. That is what I am asking for. If there is ANY proof that WYSIWYG has rules significance then the whole statement changes meaning. But without it there is no way to read about models and datasheets except as I have been arguing. Until such time that there is a official document from GW that gives WYSIWYG some kind of place in the core rules of the game you cannot use it as an argument.

The evidence is that they reference it specifically as an example, though you deny that evidence. It's not circular reasoning to believe there's a reason they do so. It stands to reason due to it being used as an example that they see a "model" as a sum total of wargear - though there is nothing that explicitly says so.

Considering you've said several times in this thread that this strict interpretation isn't how you play anyway, I honestly think everyone is just kind of repeating themselves and this could probably be let go to be a searchable thread for future questions for people to work it out, but I doubt the three main posters in here are going to sway either side and I haven't really seen much new in a few pages.

That an interpretation of that statment that relies on wysiwyg existing. Its equally plausible that they are saying "hey tou guys with those older models with options that dont exist anymore. Your probably asking yourselves, are mu models now all built wrong? Was my care in building and painting wasted? Well not to worry! The index sheets do exist. In your own games use the index with the latest points and you can still field it that way! 8th is the edition about playing how you want to! Find some friends that agree and have a ball!"

And then that interpretation becomes even more likely when you take the rest of the document into consideration and consider that wysiwyg doesnt exist.

Their argument requires something not explicitly stated to suddenly become true through implication. Mine doesn't.

 Lance845 wrote:
That an interpretation of that statment that relies on wysiwyg existing. Its equally plausible that they are saying "hey tou guys with those older models with options that dont exist anymore. Your probably asking yourselves, are mu models now all built wrong? Was my care in building and painting wasted? Well not to worry! The index sheets do exist. In your own games use the index with the latest points and you can still field it that way! 8th is the edition about playing how you want to! Find some friends that agree and have a ball!"

And then that interpretation becomes even more likely when you take the rest of the document into consideration and consider that wysiwyg doesnt exist.

But WYSIWYG DOES exist, don't act like it doesn't. It may not be in the baseline rules, but GW knows it exists in many player's and tournament considerations.

We are not ignoring any part of the document in this consideration, either. We just recognize that GW makes a hard statement, and then adds exceptions to it later on.

 Lance845 wrote:
Their argument requires something not explicitly stated to suddenly become true through implication. Mine doesn't.

Your argument makes half of the statement, which is referring to Dreadnought Weapons, make absolutely no sense, though. And I think referring to "miniatures" and "older models" indicates that they are talking about such WYSIWYG considerations.

 Charistoph wrote:

But WYSIWYG DOES exist, ]don't act like it doesn't. It may not be in the baseline rules, but GW knows it exists in many player's and tournament considerations.

Here is the thing you don't seem to be able to understand. 100% of all players and events can all use WYSIWYG. All of them. Forever. Until it's an actual rule in the baseline rules, it's all just a house rule. Even if we pretend that right now we could say with 100% certainty that GW is both aware and gives a gak, they STILL haven't given enough of a gak to make an actual rule for it. Which makes everything to do with it unsubstantiated conjecture.

We are not ignoring any part of the document in this consideration, either. We just recognize that GW makes a hard statement, and then adds exceptions to it later on.

You BELIEVE GW makes a hard statement based on a implication you THINK is there that has no actual rule support.

 Lance845 wrote:
Their argument requires something not explicitly stated to suddenly become true through implication. Mine doesn't.

Your argument makes half of the statement, which is referring to Dreadnought Weapons, make absolutely no sense, though. And I think referring to "miniatures" and "older models" indicates that they are talking about such WYSIWYG considerations.

I believe you do think that. But in order to PROVE IT you need to have evidence to support that interpretation.


I cannot prove that WYSIWYG doesn't exist in the same way that I cannot prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist. Things that don't exist don't leave behind empirical evidence to use as proof of their non existence. Asking me to supply the burden of proof on WYSIWYG would be madness.

YOU are the one saying that this thing is a real entity in the rules that needs to be observed by players in order to understand the document. The burden of proof is on you. You need to prove that WYSIWYG is something with any kind of mechanical weight in order for the statement to be read the way you want it to be read. Not, "The only way it makes sense to me is WYSIWYG so WYSIWYG has to be the way it has to be read!" Again, circular. Your conclusion can't be evidence for your evidence.

If tomorrow GW put out a Errata that said WYSIWYG was a real thing I would throw up a post in general saying "THANK fething CHRIST! Charistoph and Dr.Tom you guys were right. Finally GW put out a statement clearing up one of the many bullshitty things in 8th edition. WYSIWYG is not a bad idea and having some actual rules support for it is a great step forward!" But I would bet you money that GW is going to do no such thing. Because they also arn't fixing the RAW issues in their 8 pages of rules.

We have what we have and we have what we don't have. And one of the things we don't have is ANY rule in ANY capacity supplying rules for WYSIWYG or defining models by what bits you glued to it. So you need to take that gak right out of your head when reading their statements because IT DOESN'T EXIST.

We do have this :
All miniatures in your collection must be produced by Games Workshop and be fully assembled, painted and based. Each
model must fully represent what you have presented on your army lists.

Its from there event pack so if you want to play by gw event rules then its a rule . Ive only just come on at the end here but i dont think the quotes about using older models is from a faq either

Just had a quick look and it seems like all events require wysiwyg so ,it apears from gw stance that it is a rule they want to enfoce on any of there ofical events

ian wrote:
We do have this :
All miniatures in your collection must be produced by Games Workshop and be fully assembled, painted and based. Each
model must fully represent what you have presented on your army lists.

Its from there event pack so if you want to play by gw event rules then its a rule . Ive only just come on at the end here but i dont think the quotes about using older models is from a faq either

Event guidelines, have been pointed out in the past, run on all kinds of special rules. Allowing forgeworld or not, allowing Lords of War or not. Tourneys are all basically house rules.

The quotes about older models is in the first post of the thread along with the 3 other relevent quotes to the discussion. It also has a link to the article if you care to give the source a read. Welcome to the gak storm!

Thank you will read now ,however because its in every events pack that must have some bearing that its not a special rule that they change depending on the event. Its more like a standard rule spread accross all events meaning that it shouldnt be brushed of as a house rule

"The Grand Tournament is a classic matched play event" from warhammer comunity website https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/07/31/octobers-gaming-events-announced/

This would imply that the rules in the events pack are for a standard match play

ian wrote:
Thank you will read now ,however because its in every events pack that must have some bearing that its not a special rule that they change depending on the event. Its more like a standard rule spread accross all events meaning that it shouldnt be brushed of as a house rule

Which is fair to an extent. The dispute at the moment... and really most of the thread, is that a models datasheet is defined by it's weapon options modeled onto it, or not. So if a grey knight player has a dread with twin autocannons on it (a available option in the index, but not allowed in the grey knight codex) that the "most current datasheet" would be the Index one. And thus a grey knight player would be able to take it using the index rules.

The link you are going to be reading stipulates that the codex datasheet supercedes the index one. That in all cases it replaces it, and that for all official events players are expected to use the codex instead of the index when available.

Basically, while the event pack adds on the additional rules for WYSIWYG it also clearly stipulates that a dread with twin autocannons in a grey knight army would be an illegal model.

But players playing at home don't need the event pack rules and nowhere in the standard matched play rules (in the book) is there any stipulation or definition of a model that says it's wargear options must be accurately represented on the model. Nowhere in the BRB or any of the index/codexes is there a requirement for it. And the free 8 page rules or the core rule book and a boo for your army list is all that is required to play.

Thank you that was a very helpfull summary.
Im not sure if you have seen my edit with the link . If players are going to use the community post as valid rules ,then its only fair to also use the community post stating that "The Grand Tournament is a classic matched play event" and using there events pack as a guide to what a clasic matched play game entails .
Now because you are at home then you are free to house rule how you want and thats was the implied intention i got from reading the post.
If you both players cannot agree then the search for a offical stance would invole reading all comunity post which would lead to the events pack which is gw stance on how the game should be played in a "competative, offical ,strict" so that would indeed mean no autocannon dreadnaught

ian wrote:
Thank you that was a very helpfull summary.
Im not sure if you have seen my edit with the link . If players are going to use the community post as valid rules ,then its only fair to also use the community post stating that "The Grand Tournament is a classic matched play event" and using there events pack as a guide to what a clasic matched play game entails .
Now because you are at home then you are free to house rule how you want and thats was the implied intention i got from reading the post.
If you both players cannot agree then the search for a offical stance would invole reading all comunity post which would lead to the events pack which is gw stance on how the game should be played in a "competative, offical ,strict" so that would indeed mean no autocannon dreadnaught

Right. If 2 players agree they can use whatever rules they want. But the rules that are expected to be played are the most current. A models permissions are not defined by the bits you glue onto it. It's defined by it's most current datasheet. If you want to go the extra mile and be WYSIWYG from there that is all up to you. Also GW official events like the GT require it.

ian wrote:

If you both players cannot agree then the search for a offical stance would invole reading all comunity post which would lead to the events pack which is gw stance on how the game should be played in a "competative, offical ,strict" so that would indeed mean no autocannon dreadnaught

Which is wrong because there is a Mortis dreadnought in the FW rulebook forces of the adeptus astartes with twin autocannons.

p5freak wrote:

ian wrote:

If you both players cannot agree then the search for a offical stance would invole reading all comunity post which would lead to the events pack which is gw stance on how the game should be played in a "competative, offical ,strict" so that would indeed mean no autocannon dreadnaught

Which is wrong because there is a Mortis dreadnought in the FW rulebook forces of the adeptus astartes with twin autocannons.

Which is irrelevant to this discussion because the Mortis is different in multiple ways.

First: It has to have matching weapons. One of the most popular loadouts used to be Twin Linked Lascannon and Autocannon, not dual autocannon.
Second: It is Heavy Support, not Elite.
Third: It can't be a Venerable Dread. Hitting on a 2+ is far more important this time around due to everyone and their brother having -1 to hit in some form.

 Lance845 wrote:
Until the 2 of you have proof of wysiwyg your interpretation of Model is unsubstantiated. Find some proof that doesnt rely on circular reasoning.

If you want to claim that this is all a WYSIWYG argument then all the proof we need is the document you quoted, which specifies dreads with weapon loadout no longer in the box (i.e. not supported by the new codex) as an example of a model you can use, then tells you specifically in the same answer that you use the index datasheet with it and current point costs. You don't go hunting through the other questions to cherry pick, you go with the answer they gave you. If you want to keep claiming it's circular reasoning, then it's GW's circular reasoning, not ours. GW says you can play models with older options, specificially citing dreads with older weapon loadouts, and says to use the index datasheet - there's nothing circular about that. The WYSIWYG is only that they are talking about models you have with the older options, and by the very fact of bringing this up they bring in WYSiIWYG. Your claim in a subsequent post about a different way it can "equally" be read to mean that no, you don't get those options and you don't get to use the index datasheet is completely ludicrous since they just finished telling you that for those models you use the older datasheet. Stick your fingers in your ears and continue to try to not listen to us, but you still have the fact that they said you use the index datasheets with those older models, which means any rationalization you come up with to say that you can't is wrong on the face of it.

If WYSIWYG wasn't a thing GW would sell generic Infantry, Tank and Stompy Thing kits with blank generic guns on and you'd just imagine they were Eldar Aspects, Death Guard with bolters, etc.

Wait. They don't. People make models with particular weapon loadouts then use the Datasheets that describe said models. People buy particular models to use their particular weapons and abilities. They scour eBay and bitz sites to find the right special weapon multiples that the sprue doesn't contain. Some magnetise enabling hotswapping to different loadouts, all the better to have on the mode exactly the weapons they want to use in the game.

WYSIWYG is there and part of the game whether there's a literal printed rule or not. Its an understood convention, it's part of the model range and people's habits. It's a silly tangent to say it isn't. Of course, in your own games Lance, you're free to not have models that represent their weapons and abilities... it's just that most people run fairly WYSIWYG. ;-)

Lance845 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

But WYSIWYG DOES exist, ]don't act like it doesn't. It may not be in the baseline rules, but GW knows it exists in many player's and tournament considerations.

Here is the thing you don't seem to be able to understand. 100% of all players and events can all use WYSIWYG. All of them. Forever. Until it's an actual rule in the baseline rules, it's all just a house rule. Even if we pretend that right now we could say with 100% certainty that GW is both aware and gives a gak, they STILL haven't given enough of a gak to make an actual rule for it. Which makes everything to do with it unsubstantiated conjecture.

Oh, I understand that it is not in the baseline rules AND HAVE STATED THAT SEVERAL TIMES NOW, including what you qouted. This demonstrates either your unwillingness to listen or your deliberate attempt to misrepresent what I have stated.

FAQs are not baseline rules, though. The entire consideration of what has been presented was introduced in an FAQ format from an official GW source. We can include FAQs in our debates and are not restricted to only the baseline rules in YMDC.

The very fact that they are talking about older models indicates that, yes, we are talking about a WYSIWYG situation. Otherwise, they would have just told you to have it "count as" a proper loadout from the datasheet. They didn't say that, though. They said to use the latest datasheet "for your model", i.e. one in your possession.

Lance845 wrote:

We are not ignoring any part of the document in this consideration, either. We just recognize that GW makes a hard statement, and then adds exceptions to it later on.

You BELIEVE GW makes a hard statement based on a implication you THINK is there that has no actual rule support.

Wow, you really don't try to understand the context of what someone is talking about. Here's a demonstration:

Hard statement:

1) A model can be moved in any direction, to a distance, in inches, equal to or less than the Move characteristic on its datasheet.

2) 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.

Exceptions:

1) When you pick a unit to move in the Movement phase, you can declare that it will Advance. Roll a dice and add the result to the Move characteristics of all models in the unit for that Movement phase. A unit that Advances can’t shoot or charge later that turn.

2) 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).

Lance845 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Their argument requires something not explicitly stated to suddenly become true through implication. Mine doesn't.

Your argument makes half of the statement, which is referring to Dreadnought Weapons, make absolutely no sense, though. And I think referring to "miniatures" and "older models" indicates that they are talking about such WYSIWYG considerations.

I believe you do think that. But in order to PROVE IT you need to have evidence to support that interpretation.

I cannot prove that WYSIWYG doesn't exist in the same way that I cannot prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist. Things that don't exist don't leave behind empirical evidence to use as proof of their non existence. Asking me to supply the burden of proof on WYSIWYG would be madness.

YOU are the one saying that this thing is a real entity in the rules that needs to be observed by players in order to understand the document. The burden of proof is on you. You need to prove that WYSIWYG is something with any kind of mechanical weight in order for the statement to be read the way you want it to be read. Not, "The only way it makes sense to me is WYSIWYG so WYSIWYG has to be the way it has to be read!" Again, circular. Your conclusion can't be evidence for your evidence.

If tomorrow GW put out a Errata that said WYSIWYG was a real thing I would throw up a post in general saying "THANK fething CHRIST! Charistoph and Dr.Tom you guys were right. Finally GW put out a statement clearing up one of the many bullshitty things in 8th edition. WYSIWYG is not a bad idea and having some actual rules support for it is a great step forward!" But I would bet you money that GW is going to do no such thing. Because they also arn't fixing the RAW issues in their 8 pages of rules.

We have what we have and we have what we don't have. And one of the things we don't have is ANY rule in ANY capacity supplying rules for WYSIWYG or defining models by what bits you glued to it. So you need to take that gak right out of your head when reading their statements because IT DOESN'T EXIST.

Well, then, I guess you should be prepared to say it because...

Lance845 wrote:

ian wrote:
We do have this :
All miniatures in your collection must be produced by Games Workshop and be fully assembled, painted and based. Each
model must fully represent what you have presented on your army lists.

Its from there event pack so if you want to play by gw event rules then its a rule . Ive only just come on at the end here but i dont think the quotes about using older models is from a faq either

Event guidelines, have been pointed out in the past, run on all kinds of special rules. Allowing forgeworld or not, allowing Lords of War or not. Tourneys are all basically house rules.

The quotes about older models is in the first post of the thread along with the 3 other relevent quotes to the discussion. It also has a link to the article if you care to give the source a read. Welcome to the gak storm!

The official GW event pack does say it, no matter how unwilling you are to accept it, it is there. Remember, YMDC isn't only about the baseline rules, something you need to get over. We can include GW FAQs in the mix, and the Community page in question IS an FAQ (it just doesn't include an errata).

Never mind the fact that GW can acknowledge their customer's desires without bothering to actually having a hard and fast rule for it, either.

ian wrote:Thank you that was a very helpfull summary.
Im not sure if you have seen my edit with the link . If players are going to use the community post as valid rules ,then its only fair to also use the community post stating that "The Grand Tournament is a classic matched play event" and using there events pack as a guide to what a clasic matched play game entails .
Now because you are at home then you are free to house rule how you want and thats was the implied intention i got from reading the post.
If you both players cannot agree then the search for a offical stance would invole reading all comunity post which would lead to the events pack which is gw stance on how the game should be played in a "competative, offical ,strict" so that would indeed mean no autocannon dreadnaught

His summary was a little off. Here is the pertinent FAQ and Answer, it's only been quoted numerous times:

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.

And the Even Pack does state this as well:

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).

Each model must completely and accurately represent its entry on your army roster (including all weapons and equipment).

Someone who has a Dreadnought with Twin-linked Autocannons would need to use the Index datasheet as that is the latest datasheet which matches their model.