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.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
It's like if Lego decided "Well, we don't want to force our customers to assemble our products, so we've decided to start selling each set as one big brick in the exact shape of the model."

Lego actually almost did that with Bionicle and Hero Factory. The worst was the Av-torians and Agori, who had some of the lowest piece counts ever for lego sets (and that is not an exaggeration, some of those sets had 7 pieces). Even now their "Constraction" builds are more like broken apart action figures rather than actual construction sets.

Those things were horrible.

I am looking at my OG Makuta, Takanuva and Toa Mata models gathering dust on a shelf (Is it okay to call them models? Ugh, adulthood...) and then the Hero Factory stuff and I am seeing all kinds of parallels with GW.

An example that leaps to mind is the old Space Marine Commander box (one of my favourite kits ever) and the new monopose Captain.

It's not even just that. GW at one point released a series of sets that were basically Warhammer Lords (Empire General, High Elf Noble, High Elf Mage, Orc Warbosses). It came with enough parts to build any variation of the thing you wanted (so great weapons, hand weapons, shields, lances, axes, etc) and even let you build two models out of the box just so you had the option to make a foot model or a mounted model. Price-wise, it was still much more expensive than converting your own out of plastic pieces (35 for 2 models vs 40 for a box of 8 knights), but at least they had all of the options (and looked badass to boot).

Sadly I think it was because they didn't sell nearly as well as mono-posed metal models of the time, GW never pursued that line of models later. Which is a shame since I would have loved to see something similar done for 40k (although technically the Tau Commander, Chaos Space Marine Terminator Lord and Space Marine Commander sets are all that).

 Elbows wrote:
Also, worth remembering...if you have a monopose model a 3rd party company will struggle to make simple resin bits which are plug-n-play. Not saying it's impossible to mod them, but it removes the ease of copying or selling "notMarine" components.

It was easy for me, because I detest bling so I just made my own stand in HQ dudes. I just completed my Lufgt Huron, Lias, Tyberos, Asterion, Shrike, and generic Leutenit with a Primarchs Wrath. I plan to make more just with the generic MK3 armor and bitz from FW.

Simple FAQ time, folks!

1. Do you own an autarch with wings/on a bike/other options? Do you own an apothecary on a bike? Do you own rough riders? Do you own <insert model> with <index datasheet>?
Yes. Congrats on the cool model!

2. Can you use this model in games of Warhammer 40K?
Yes, this model recently received rules in the index!

3. Does this model have recently updated, legitimate, and officially sanctioned rules supported by GW?
Yes, (see above) in its respective index.

4. Can I use the rules in the index if they're not in the codex?
Yes. Source: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/07/05/codexes-your-questions-answered-july-5gw-homepage-post-2/

5. But what if the tournament/event I want to attend has decided that index-only datasheets cannot be used?
That decision is entirely within the rights of the Tournament Organizers to make. It is an arbitrary decision with no official justification, but still it is their decision to make. Its similar to the decision to limit games to only 3 detachments. That's not in rules but they are free to run their events in this way. This is called a house-rule. While technically not endorsed in the official Warhammer 40k rule set or FAQ, it was specifically ok'd in the Age of Sigmar FAQ. So I think they won't mind if you do a bit of it in 40k!

6. But I still want to go to the tournament/event!!
If you support their codex-only policy or have no strong feelings one way or the other then go to the event! Have fun! If you think players should be allowed access to all the (officially sanctioned, recently updated, & legitimate) rules when playing 40k and it really bothers you that much, then don't go. Don't support the events the limit the game in ways you strongly believe are unhealthy for the community as a whole or that you find unenjoyable. Take a stand!

7. But I really want to use a certain datasheet from the index but have chosen to personally only use models from the codex!!!
Congrats on your conviction! I personally use only models for my tyranids that I think are cool such as 3rd ed. carnifexes, strangleweb and spikerifle termagants, and shrikes! If the model/options have rules in a datasheet in the codex or index, you're good to go! Using index-only datasheets is entirely your decision to make! Have fun!

8. But what I reallly want to do is use models with a datasheet in the index but not the codex, whilst pretending that there is some rules conflict or issue in doing so, and then complaining that this nonexistent problem that I have created for myself is somehow the fault of the faceless and awful GW-monster that we all love to rag on so much!!!!
Well, once again, that's your decision to make! The actions you have described are hypocritical and indefensibly dishonest but, hey! We all have our moral dilemmas and personality flaws we have to deal with!

9. But what I reeeeeaaaaallllyyy want to do is have my selfish, whiny (but also anonymous) behavior validated in an online community that has become little more than a haven for hateful tirades, self-righteous complaining, and faux-victimization at the 'hands of the evil corporation'!!!!
Weeeelllll... 'HEAVY sigh' Go sit and stew, .

10. But isn't this "FAQ" just a thinly veiled insult directed at those portions of the 40k community whose behavior you (read: I) disagree with and find questionable, toxic, and destructive?
Oh its not thinly veiled at all! It is openly designed to piss them off and I hope it does!! I know its prolly a futile dream, but maybe some of them will quit 40k, burn their armies (and post videos of it on Youtube pleasepleaseplease), and go do something else they actually enjoy. One of the healthiest things GW has ever done was the way they released Age of Sigmar. It was like cutting off a gangrenous, infected limb. Its really risky, might just kill you, but if it works it will save your life. Good riddance to the nastiness that was that part of the WHFB community. I wish they'd done the same to 40k and cut out the worst of the rot in this community as well!

Peace out, Dakka! I'm gone!

When you've finished strawmanning, there are still some issues.

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

(Emphasis mine.)

I hope no players were stupid enough to buy one of the current Autarchs (or any other model in the same situation) and convert them.

pm713 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Cream Tea wrote:
Anyway, GW have said that you can still use Index entries that aren't in the codex.

It's not as clear as that, but that's discussed in other threads.

Thank Chapter House for the current state of No Model, No Rules.

Why?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Chapter+House+Games+Workshop

TL;DR Chapter House made 3rd party models but used GW's Trademarked names. GW Sued, Court Case went to hell, GW responded by throwing it's toys out of the pram and started renaming stuff by addling vowels or latin and giving everything adjective nounverb names because COPYRIGHT!

Sounds like GW's fault to me.

It unequivocally was games workshops fault, they had no real reason to sue other than being over zealous about copyrights they in fact did not own, chapterhouse was stupid for poking the bear, and since then gw has continued to water down the options in the books, when the indexs get phased out (and they will), a lot of armies will lose a lot of options.

bhollenb wrote:
Simple FAQ time, folks!

1. Do you own an autarch with wings/on a bike/other options? Do you own an apothecary on a bike? Do you own rough riders? Do you own <insert model> with <index datasheet>?
Yes. Congrats on the cool model!

2. Can you use this model in games of Warhammer 40K?
Yes, this model recently received rules in the index!

3. Does this model have recently updated, legitimate, and officially sanctioned rules supported by GW?
Yes, (see above) in its respective index.

4. Can I use the rules in the index if they're not in the codex?
Yes. Source: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/07/05/codexes-your-questions-answered-july-5gw-homepage-post-2/

How "nice" of you to make fake FAQ that tells incorrect information. Going to what GW actually says:

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.

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.

There. You were proven false. Now stop spreading lies to mislead new players. Now at home games you are free to of course decide otherwise but at tournaments etc you generally play by the rules. You presumably don't insist opponent cannot premeasure either just because you might have invented such a house rule.

Play Eldar and was not really a Fan of the Autarch. Just not enough Value for the points. And now really struggling to justify. But lots of good stuff in the codex.

 Formosa wrote:
It unequivocally was games workshops fault, they had no real reason to sue other than being over zealous about copyrights they in fact did not own, chapterhouse was stupid for poking the bear, and since then gw has continued to water down the options in the books, when the indexs get phased out (and they will), a lot of armies will lose a lot of options.

I actually have to agree with this, as the entire point of a legal team is to make sure that before you send out a cease and desist letter that it's within your legal rights to do so. While the situation did seem like it was initially in GW's favour, any good law person should have been able to see the possible flaw a mile away. This also voids the usual "they have to defend their IP" argument since the law doesn't force you to repeatedly send out false litigation.

Still though, Chapterhouse didn't earn any brownie points either since apparently they weren't exactly subtle about using GW stuff in their advertisement (the other third party sites at least had the common sense to try and hide it).

"Heads for futuristic Mongolian-inspired warriors (wink wink)" versus "Heads for White Scars." If IP protection was what GW was concerned about, if they simply took the time to explain in a non-adversarial way why they care about retaining their own product, I doubt that would have gotten as much hate. Making excuses like "It's the High Gothic Name" or "we don't want to scare newcomers with kitbashing" sounds like whiny excuse-making, or a cheater being caught sliding dms to his side chick.

People are being pedantic about the no model no rules thing and use of Index options. GW has advocated many times to use Index entries for options No longer supported. They Call out Rifle man dreads specifically, so the whole "codex entry supercedes Index" is clearly not intended. Ask your opponent. Any reasonable player will allow you.

I think it's a shame that GW chose to cut the codex options, limiting build and conversion possibilities.

On the other hand, I can understand. I mean, it's not like I was going to use this fantastic third-party model for my Autarch...



(Actually, I still am)

I like the autarch option for reroll 1s and possible CP Regen. The warlord traits in general are not great, so not losing out too much.

craftworld_uk wrote:
I think it's a shame that GW chose to cut the codex options, limiting build and conversion possibilities.

On the other hand, I can understand. I mean, it's not like I was going to use this fantastic third-party model for my Autarch...



(Actually, I still am)

Your Autarch appears to have mated with a Lictor.

craftworld_uk wrote:
I think it's a shame that GW chose to cut the codex options, limiting build and conversion possibilities.

On the other hand, I can understand. I mean, it's not like I was going to use this fantastic third-party model for my Autarch...

Spoiler:

(Actually, I still am)

It's the only option for the Exarch now though, so there's that.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
People are being pedantic about the no model no rules thing and use of Index options. GW has advocated many times to use Index entries for options No longer supported. They Call out Rifle man dreads specifically, so the whole "codex entry supercedes Index" is clearly not intended. Ask your opponent. Any reasonable player will allow you.

"Clearly not intended" when they flat out said it...Yeah right.

But of course if you assume you can use index datasheets as well as codex datasheets then IG players thanks, takes index commisar and ignores the FAQ that specifically addresses codex rather than index.

Can't have it both ways.

 vipoid wrote:

Your Autarch appears to have mated with a Lictor.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Skinnereal wrote:

It's the only option for the Exarch now though, so there's that.

Eh, has the spinner rifle gone?

I'm hoping I can get away with using the 'Autarch with jump generator' entry from the index for now. Would anyone here mind?

Also, side note, what's going on with the Storm Guardians blades/chainswords - same points but one is clearly better?

craftworld_uk wrote:

 Skinnereal wrote:

It's the only option for the Exarch now though, so there's that.

Eh, has the spinner rifle gone?

I'm hoping I can get away with using the 'Autarch with jump generator' entry from the index for now. Would anyone here mind?

Death Spinner, or a pair and blades. No other options now.
Go for it.

craftworld_uk wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Your Autarch appears to have mated with a Lictor.

Joking aside, that's a lovely model.

The rules are removed from the codex but the index weapon options remain legal per the faq.

calm your tits.

tneva82 wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
People are being pedantic about the no model no rules thing and use of Index options. GW has advocated many times to use Index entries for options No longer supported. They Call out Rifle man dreads specifically, so the whole "codex entry supercedes Index" is clearly not intended. Ask your opponent. Any reasonable player will allow you.

"Clearly not intended" when they flat out said it...Yeah right.

But of course if you assume you can use index datasheets as well as codex datasheets then IG players thanks, takes index commisar and ignores the FAQ that specifically addresses codex rather than index.

Can't have it both ways.

You use the most up to date rules and points. Those come from the codex. The unsupported options come from the Index, but still follow codex rules and points. In my example you use the Index dreadnought with updated points values from the Codex. In your example you can certainly use the Index commissar, but with the Codex rules and points.

My point was when people argue that because there is no rifleman dread options in the Codex proper, the entry does not exist anymore, as the Codex entry is most to date.

Seems to me like you can have any way you want.

 Khaine wrote:
What I don't get is they just did a made-to-order Autarch with an illegal kit (Reaper Launcher/Banshee Mask/Power Sword). Will they provide rules with that model?

Yeah, Made to Order and 8th edition are interesting bedfellows - I picked up Chaplain Xavier and Lord Solar Macharius from one of the early ones. Xavier (a Chaplain with Thunder Hammer) wasn't even usable in the Index, let alone the Codex. LSM might be usable as a Company Commander - I've not reviewed his equipment against the Codex options since picking up the book.

tneva82 wrote:

"Clearly not intended" when they flat out said it...Yeah right.

But of course if you assume you can use index datasheets as well as codex datasheets then IG players thanks, takes index commisar and ignores the FAQ that specifically addresses codex rather than index.

Can't have it both ways.

Yep, clearly. Not intended. Perhaps if you read the rest of the page you quoted earlier...

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).