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:
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.

Therefore someone who has 50 Conscripts would need to use the Index datasheet as that is the latest datasheet which matches their squad.

You can't pick and choose, if one is ok, then EVERYTHING is ok.

Its an option that has been removed not a datasheet. As you have quoted the dreadnaught datasheet is in the codex.

The way they have worded it is that datasheets are replaced , so you grab a copy of your codex and index cross refrence the datasheet name (not options ) tear out any that have the same name as the codex . What you have left is what you can use . Any options that have gone are gone

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
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.

Therefore someone who has 50 Conscripts would need to use the Index datasheet as that is the latest datasheet which matches their squad.

You can't pick and choose, if one is ok, then EVERYTHING is ok.

First, he only needs to use the Index datasheet if he's trying to run a unit of conscripts with a unit size larger than what's in the codex.

Second, that's okay. The reason it's okay is that part of the process is that the opponent has to approve what you're wanting to do, so the opponent gets to approve whether you end up using squads of 50 conscripts using the old index datasheet. Odds are your opponent says "no" (or words stronger than that) and you can have a discussion about the conscripts then. There's a chance the opponent will say yes, so then you get to have fun with the large unit of conscripts. They sky hasn't fallen, you don't get dogs and cats living together because of this, and the world doesn't end.

BaconCatBug wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
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.

Therefore someone who has 50 Conscripts would need to use the Index datasheet as that is the latest datasheet which matches their squad.

You can't pick and choose, if one is ok, then EVERYTHING is ok.

Here is the quote:

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).

What part of that indicates the number of models in a unit? Did your Conscript box suddenly go from 50 models to 30?

ian wrote:Its an option that has been removed not a datasheet. As you have quoted the dreadnaught datasheet is in the codex.

The way they have worded it is that datasheets are replaced , so you grab a copy of your codex and index cross refrence the datasheet name (not options ) tear out any that have the same name as the codex . What you have left is what you can use . Any options that have gone are gone

Except for this:

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).

Yes but in an event it has to be the latest dataslate and that replaces the old one. I am focusing on matched play here

 Charistoph wrote:
What part of that indicates the number of models in a unit? Did your Conscript box suddenly go from 50 models to 30?

I no longer have the option of taking 50, therefore the most recent datasheet for a unit of 50 conscripts is the one in the index. Therefore I may take index conscripts.

This is the logic you are attempting to unleash. Your once again cherry picking and not including the part where they tell you that you must use the most recent Datasheet.

@ Ian (BCB snuck in a post before my reply went in.

Of course, if a specific event gives permission for the model with older options, then you can use the index for that. If it doesn't, you can't.

You're actually focusing on events here, not matched play. You might see all (or nearly all) events being matched play, but not all matched play games are events. GW instructed us how to calculate points for matched play for the older models (use most current costs even if using the index datasheet).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
What part of that indicates the number of models in a unit? Did your Conscript box suddenly go from 50 models to 30?

I no longer have the option of taking 50, therefore the most recent datasheet for a unit of 50 conscripts is the one in the index. Therefore I may take index conscripts.

This is the logic you are attempting to unleash. Your once again cherry picking and not including the part where they tell you that you must use the most recent Datasheet.

I addressed this - it's not "unleashed" unless there's mutual consent. You don't need to be going around carrying around a sign saying "The End is Nigh" for anyone wanting to follow their procedures.

Charistoph wrote: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).

I acknowledged what the event pack says. I also acknowledged that events basically run on house rules, so it's not a great source for the subject of this thread.

YMDC is about a lot of things, but THIS thread is about a pretty specific thing. So if your argument now is that it's some special snow flake house rule then great. We are in agreement that you getting to to take a dread with auto cannons is a house rule you and your opponents agree to. The basic rules is WYSIWYG doesn't exist. So the expected datasheet for that auto dread picture is either a) a mortis or b) the codex datasheet.

What are you arguing about anymore?

Its an event that uses matched play rules , so if you cant agree than the most offical way to play would be using the matched play rules used at an offical tourneyment that gw clases as "The Grand Tournament is a classic matched play event"

Its classic match play , i dont beleave that the community post states that its faq is for matched play ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You cant just say its a house rule


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The comunity post is no diffrent to an events pack its not listed on gamesworkshops faq page so if you going to ignore that you can also ingore the comunity page .

This is really only going to matter when an option gets removed and sombody finds away to break the game by using a legacy option

ian wrote:Yes but in an event it has to be the latest dataslate and that replaces the old one. I am focusing on matched play here

The latest datsheet "for your model". For a Dreadnought with Autocannons, that is the Index version, correct?

BaconCatBug wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
What part of that indicates the number of models in a unit? Did your Conscript box suddenly go from 50 models to 30?

I no longer have the option of taking 50, therefore the most recent datasheet for a unit of 50 conscripts is the one in the index. Therefore I may take index conscripts.

This is the logic you are attempting to unleash. Your once again cherry picking and not including the part where they tell you that you must use the most recent Datasheet.

That's a politician's answer. You are answering a question I did not ask, but one you want to answer.

What part of options no longer in a kit indicates the number of models in a unit? Did your Conscript box suddenly go from 50 models to 30?

I am presenting something that GW has stated in their Community page in an FAQ format.

Lance845 wrote:

Charistoph wrote: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).

I acknowledged what the event pack says. I also acknowledged that events basically run on house rules, so it's not a great source for the subject of this thread.

YMDC is about a lot of things, but THIS thread is about a pretty specific thing. So if your argument now is that it's some special snow flake house rule then great. We are in agreement that you getting to to take a dread with auto cannons is a house rule you and your opponents agree to. The basic rules is WYSIWYG doesn't exist. So the expected datasheet for that auto dread picture is either a) a mortis or b) the codex datasheet.

What are you arguing about anymore?

That you are refusing to acknowledge what GW and the rest of us are saying. You are plugging your "ears" to try and deny what they have written and treat it as if it doesn't exist.

ian wrote:Its an event that uses matched play rules , so if you cant agree than the most offical way to play would be using the matched play rules used at an offical tourneyment that gw clases as "The Grand Tournament is a classic matched play event"

Its classic match play , i dont beleave that the community post states that its faq is for matched play?

Does the FAQ or Answer specify that it is only for the types of play besides Matched? Keep in mind, many, if not most, of the games here in the US will be Matched Play games, even just for the random hook-up at the LGS.

ian wrote:The comunity post is no diffrent to an events pack its not listed on gamesworkshops faq page so if you going to ignore that you can also ingore the comunity page.

The errata documents are hosted on the Community page. It is a post from a GW source. It is presented in an FAQ format. It looks like an FAQ, it acts like an FAQ, it must be a daemon, BURN IT!

Now, ANY game organizer (including the two players in a friendly game) can deny any GW FAQs to their pleasure (and often do for those who prefer the ITC format). All this FAQ that DoctorTom presented, and I just quoted a short while back, does is provide an official option for players to use the Index option if the model they are using only matches the Index version.

I stated this to Lance, I do believe that if you want to use the Index version instead of the Codex version, you MUST communicate this to either your opponent or the TO (depending on the type of game being played). It's not so much a question of permission (as even the FACTION can cause a person to be denied a game), but of communication with the game organizers. They then have the option to accept it for the game or not.

ian wrote:This is really only going to matter when an option gets removed and sombody finds away to break the game by using a legacy option

Not entirely. As I have been trying to inform Lance regarding is that some people either do not want to change their models, or cannot without purchasing more bits. This is where the WYSIWYG discussion started coming in to the thread.

The event looks like an offical game hosted by games workshop its called clasic matched play , its presented as rules and is consistant across events ah quick burn it ( not really helpfull)

Outside of a friedly game lagacy options are not considered to exsit and thats backed up by gw offical stance on there orginised non friendly games

 Charistoph wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

Charistoph wrote: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).

I acknowledged what the event pack says. I also acknowledged that events basically run on house rules, so it's not a great source for the subject of this thread.

YMDC is about a lot of things, but THIS thread is about a pretty specific thing. So if your argument now is that it's some special snow flake house rule then great. We are in agreement that you getting to to take a dread with auto cannons is a house rule you and your opponents agree to. The basic rules is WYSIWYG doesn't exist. So the expected datasheet for that auto dread picture is either a) a mortis or b) the codex datasheet.

What are you arguing about anymore?

That you are refusing to acknowledge what GW and the rest of us are saying. You are plugging your "ears" to try and deny what they have written and treat it as if it doesn't exist.

What you THINK GW is saying based on your interpretation that is in turn based on a rule that doesn't exist. If your interpretation of that answer cannot be read without the existence of WYSIWYG then somewhere... ANYWHERE... Wysiwyg has to be a rule. And if it's not... your reading it wrong.

Is there any chance we can get this locked? It's clear a handful of people are entrenched in their ideas and no amount of discussion is going to change it. It's simply turned into a semantics discussion and not a rules discussion. GW was a bit vague and until they make a clear statement, neither side is going to budge. This has just meandered into a "Nuh uh, I'M right" argument.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

Charistoph wrote: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).

I acknowledged what the event pack says. I also acknowledged that events basically run on house rules, so it's not a great source for the subject of this thread.

YMDC is about a lot of things, but THIS thread is about a pretty specific thing. So if your argument now is that it's some special snow flake house rule then great. We are in agreement that you getting to to take a dread with auto cannons is a house rule you and your opponents agree to. The basic rules is WYSIWYG doesn't exist. So the expected datasheet for that auto dread picture is either a) a mortis or b) the codex datasheet.

What are you arguing about anymore?

That you are refusing to acknowledge what GW and the rest of us are saying. You are plugging your "ears" to try and deny what they have written and treat it as if it doesn't exist.

What you THINK GW is saying based on your interpretation that is in turn based on a rule that doesn't exist. If your interpretation of that answer cannot be read without the existence of WYSIWYG then somewhere... ANYWHERE... Wysiwyg has to be a rule. And if it's not... your reading it wrong.

"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[/b, 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."

Feel free to explain how an example of "certain Dreadnought weapons that don't come in the box"with the comment "you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models." witthout getting to use dreadnought with weapons that don't come out of the box. Based on the example you specifically can play a dread with weapons that don't come in the box if they're listed on the index. Your saying we're using circular reasoning is no different from saying the Earth is flat. We have evidence here that you're allowed to do it yet you want to state we can't.

It's not circular, it's stated.

 Todosi wrote:
Is there any chance we can get this locked? It's clear a handful of people are entrenched in their ideas and no amount of discussion is going to change it. It's simply turned into a semantics discussion and not a rules discussion. GW was a bit vague and until they make a clear statement, neither side is going to budge. This has just meandered into a "Nuh uh, I'M right" argument.

Fair enough.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

Charistoph wrote: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).

I acknowledged what the event pack says. I also acknowledged that events basically run on house rules, so it's not a great source for the subject of this thread.

YMDC is about a lot of things, but THIS thread is about a pretty specific thing. So if your argument now is that it's some special snow flake house rule then great. We are in agreement that you getting to to take a dread with auto cannons is a house rule you and your opponents agree to. The basic rules is WYSIWYG doesn't exist. So the expected datasheet for that auto dread picture is either a) a mortis or b) the codex datasheet.

What are you arguing about anymore?

That you are refusing to acknowledge what GW and the rest of us are saying. You are plugging your "ears" to try and deny what they have written and treat it as if it doesn't exist.

What you THINK GW is saying based on your interpretation that is in turn based on a rule that doesn't exist. If your interpretation of that answer cannot be read without the existence of WYSIWYG then somewhere... ANYWHERE... Wysiwyg has to be a rule. And if it's not... your reading it wrong.

From this:

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 datasheet doesn't care what you have in the box. WYSIWYG cares what is in the box. Can you present a case where caring what is in the box has no connection with WYSIWYG?

Im out and wish i had never got in

Firstly, conscripts at 50 strong is a non starter. The guidance that everyone refers to only calls out characters and vehicles. Conscripts are neither.

With regard to datasheets. GWs own guidelines are that you use the most recent datasheet that has been published. Now with regard to the autocannon dread, when you buy a unit you buy the base model first and then add the weapons (in this particular case) so buy default you should be using the codex datasheet as it is the most recent datasheet for that model.

Legacy models I have already are with discussion/apporoval of your opponent.

Cheers

Andrew

Wait, did GW's official tournament packet allow index weapons on codex units, provided you use the most recent points cost?

xmbk wrote:
Wait, did GW's official tournament packet allow index weapons on codex units, provided you use the most recent points cost?

No.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AndrewC wrote:

With regard to datasheets. GWs own guidelines are that you use the most recent datasheet that has been published. Now with regard to the autocannon dread, when you buy a unit you buy the base model first and then add the weapons (in this particular case) so buy default you should be using the codex datasheet as it is the most recent datasheet for that model.

Legacy models I have already are with discussion/apporoval of your opponent.

Cheers

Andrew

Correct.

1) You pick detachment.
2) You pick a keyword to define it
3) You fill FoC slots with the datasheets available to you.... the most current.
4) You choose options for the datasheets as you go.

As pointed out very early on, there is no datasheet Twin Autocannons Dreadnought

 Lance845 wrote:
As pointed out very early on, there is no datasheet Twin Autocannons Dreadnought

Nitpick: There is no ELITE SLOT or VENERABLE Twin Autocannons Dreadnought. FW have the Mortis, but it's HS and can't have BS2+, which is a massive disadvantage in this edition.

You're better off saying there is no Twin Lascannon/Autocannon dread datasheet, because there isn't that option anywhere anymore.

 AndrewC wrote:
With regard to datasheets. GWs own guidelines are that you use the most recent datasheet that has been published. Now with regard to the autocannon dread, when you buy a unit you buy the base model first and then add the weapons (in this particular case) so buy default you should be using the codex datasheet as it is the most recent datasheet for that model.

A slight correction, one of the GW's own guidelines are that you use the most recent datasheet FOR YOUR MODEL that has been published. For Dreadnoughts with Autocannons, that is the Index version.

 AndrewC wrote:
Legacy models I have already are with discussion/apporoval of your opponent.

As has been stated, that will always be the case. Oddly enough, Lance seems to think that we will not be doing that.

 Charistoph wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
Legacy models I have already are with discussion/apporoval of your opponent.

As has been stated, that will always be the case. Oddly enough, Lance seems to think that we will not be doing that.

It's just a pointless distinction. You and your opponent could play with any house rule at any time. Great!

 Charistoph wrote:
A slight correction, one of the GW's own guidelines are that you use the most recent datasheet FOR YOUR MODEL that has been published. For Dreadnoughts with Autocannons, that is the Index version.

My Commissar is the model with the Index Summary Execution rule, therefore I get to use the Index Version of the Summary Execution rule, pre-errata, pre-codex.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
As pointed out very early on, there is no datasheet Twin Autocannons Dreadnought

Nitpick: There is no ELITE SLOT or VENERABLE Twin Autocannons Dreadnought. FW have the Mortis, but it's HS and can't have BS2+, which is a massive disadvantage in this edition.

You're better off saying there is no Twin Lascannon/Autocannon dread datasheet, because there isn't that option anywhere anymore.

More to tell, the Mortis Dreadnought is listed as "Mortis Dreadnought" in its datasheet, correct? Sure, you could use the Dreadnought with Autocannons as a Mortis, but not everyone has access to the Forgeworld document, and not everyone built their model to Forgeworld designs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
A slight correction, one of the GW's own guidelines are that you use the most recent datasheet FOR YOUR MODEL that has been published. For Dreadnoughts with Autocannons, that is the Index version.

My Commissar is the model with the Index Summary Execution rule, therefore I get to use the Index Version of the Summary Execution rule, pre-errata, pre-codex.

1) That is an Ability, not an Option, is it not?

2) How is that modelled?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
Legacy models I have already are with discussion/apporoval of your opponent.

As has been stated, that will always be the case. Oddly enough, Lance seems to think that we will not be doing that.

It's just a pointless distinction. You and your opponent could play with any house rule at any time. Great!

But one you seem to think we are not considering.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
Legacy models I have already are with discussion/apporoval of your opponent.

As has been stated, that will always be the case. Oddly enough, Lance seems to think that we will not be doing that.

It's just a pointless distinction. You and your opponent could play with any house rule at any time. Great!

But one you seem to think we are not considering.

No, just not what this thread is about. I didn't start a thread in the rules discussion section of the forums so that we could debate whether or not is was possible to use any rule from any book and also the entire Propose Rules section of the forum and also anything a 5 yr old thinks is a good game mechanic so long as all players involved decide they are okay with it. What relevance does that have?

I really hope that from this day forward every time you post to YMDC you have a line somewhere in your post to the effect of "But also, if you and your opponent agree to it, the opposite is true. Or really anything! It's important to note in every rules discussion that house rules can/do exist and all players are literally free to do as they please. If everyone else doesn't also say this at all times they are omitting the fact of it from the discussion and it's worth bringing up constantly despite it's relevance, or lack there of, to the discussion at hand!"

I don't know how we would have ever gotten by without your contributions Charistoph. Thanks for being you.

 Charistoph wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
With regard to datasheets. GWs own guidelines are that you use the most recent datasheet that has been published. Now with regard to the autocannon dread, when you buy a unit you buy the base model first and then add the weapons (in this particular case) so buy default you should be using the codex datasheet as it is the most recent datasheet for that model.

A slight correction, one of the GW's own guidelines are that you use the most recent datasheet FOR YOUR MODEL that has been published. For Dreadnoughts with Autocannons, that is the Index version.

Here's the problem I have with that. GW has given guidelines to allow you to use models that were rendered obsolete by the new edition. But as long as that loophole is there unscrupulous players can continue to create models that are not available to others. For that reason I do believe that at some point in the near future GW will say that legacy models for codex datasheets will be removed from normal play.

Cheers

Andrew

Lance845 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
Legacy models I have already are with discussion/apporoval of your opponent.

As has been stated, that will always be the case. Oddly enough, Lance seems to think that we will not be doing that.

It's just a pointless distinction. You and your opponent could play with any house rule at any time. Great!

But one you seem to think we are not considering.

No, just not what this thread is about. I didn't start a thread in the rules discussion section of the forums so that we could debate whether or not is was possible to use any rule from any book and also the entire Propose Rules section of the forum and also anything a 5 yr old thinks is a good game mechanic so long as all players involved decide they are okay with it. What relevance does that have?

A discussion does not always go according to the dictates and desires of the instigator. I am under no requirement to give you only the answers you want, but I am under obligation to provide answers which fit the facts.

There has been guidance from GW regarding this situation which does allow for legacy models to be used as modeled. You have refused to listen to it and tried to deny what it states. The direction also includes some other unwritten protocols that we are also considering, but you have been treating us as if we are going to be surprising someone with a legacy model and a maniacal laugh to entrap our opponents in a game they do not wish to play. Never mind that we have all stated otherwise numerous times by now. That is what makes this not a pointless distinction.

If someone wanted to field a Forgeworld model against me, I expect them to inform me of that fact before the game begins. This is common courtesy and good sportsmanship. But your answers to our responses in GW's guidance on this indicates that we will not be practicing this. Hence why we are reminding you of this.

AndrewC wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
With regard to datasheets. GWs own guidelines are that you use the most recent datasheet that has been published. Now with regard to the autocannon dread, when you buy a unit you buy the base model first and then add the weapons (in this particular case) so buy default you should be using the codex datasheet as it is the most recent datasheet for that model.

A slight correction, one of the GW's own guidelines are that you use the most recent datasheet FOR YOUR MODEL that has been published. For Dreadnoughts with Autocannons, that is the Index version.

Here's the problem I have with that. GW has given guidelines to allow you to use models that were rendered obsolete by the new edition. But as long as that loophole is there unscrupulous players can continue to create models that are not available to others. For that reason I do believe that at some point in the near future GW will say that legacy models for codex datasheets will be removed from normal play.

That may very well be the case. In fact, they have stated this in the codices, as Lance pointed out. However, they have also left an out that will exist until the Indicies are FAQ'd out. Note that this "loophole" is not intended for new models, but only for "older models" whose options were available in the 6th & 7th Ed codicies when the Indicies were written.

And unscrupulous players have always found ways to exploit the system. To which the answer has been, and always will be, deny them a game until they correct their ways. Don't allow them to hold your games hostage to their arrogance and narcissism. You have as much power as they do in that regard.

This is what's so entertaining about this forum, if the rule isn't decided within two pages you get dozens of pages of people banging their heads against a wall for the enjoyment of the rest of us. They're wrong about the rules, they know they're wrong but come the apocalypse they're not going to stop shouting from their soapbox.