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.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
2) Is it really that hard to remember how to spell 'Guilliman'?

Rowboat Girlyman is the best of the Primarks. But we all know that he was replaced by Alpharius mid Heresy anyway thanks to Poundland meddling.

But to get back on topic, the logic presented here that the page reference doesn't matter and you can just substitute rules from other codexes if the names happen to be similar is faulty and simply wrong. It's explicitly telling you to use the rule on that page, not some other page in some other book.

If they change wargear costs with future errata but a units entry specifically references a page within the codex defining its wargear, does that mean you can't use the most recent errata?

Bottom line they know x from librarius, the definition of librarius can evolve over time via errata or new releases.

If a book is misprinted with an incorrect page number on a units entry, would that mean it couldn't take any psychic powers despite the obvious mention it knows x from librarius.

Spoletta wrote:
The page reference in the bracket is just a commodity, let's not give it rule dignity.

Please show me in the rulebook where it says words in brackets are not rules.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
The page reference in the bracket is just a commodity, let's not give it rule dignity.

Please show me in the rulebook where it says words in brackets are not rules.

I find it highly interesting mr BCB that I get to say this to you.

There doesn't need to be a rule in the rulebook, it is called 'The English Language' and 'Sentence Structure'

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/punctuation/parentheses-and-brackets

Round brackets are used to separate off information that is not essential to the meaning of the rest of the sentence. If you remove the bracketed material, the sentence would still make perfectly good sense.

So no. There is no rule in the rulebook, as there does not have to be a rule in the rulebook.
Cause, as you have said in other threads, that's how the English Language works.

They are also used to give clarifications and additions to the previous sentence. The English language is vague enough to allow for the parenthesised text to be important. Would it be more "correct" to use a comma clause? Yes, but then so is using "he or she" instead of "they" and we all know how much Tumblr rage that causes.

In any case this is not a case where you can try and claim language backs up your case, because it simply doesn't.

Example:
Page 181 BRB: If a unit is entirely on or within any terrain feature, add 1 to its models’ saving throws against shooting attacks to represent the cover received from the terrain (invulnerable saves are unaffected).

By your logic, I can apply the cover bonus to invulnerable saves.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
2) Is it really that hard to remember how to spell 'Guilliman'?

Rowboat Girlyman is the best of the Primarks. But we all know that he was replaced by Alpharius mid Heresy anyway thanks to Poundland meddling.

But to get back on topic, the logic presented here that the page reference doesn't matter and you can just substitute rules from other codexes if the names happen to be similar is faulty and simply wrong. It's explicitly telling you to use the rule on that page, not some other page in some other book.

This 'redirect' thing comes up a lot and most don't seem to find it hard to update to the latest versions of things.

Hanging onto page numbers from stopgap books published before the Codex doesn't feel appropriate. The Indexes were designed to be temporary and page references are therefore necessarily mutable. Same for FW armies using Astra Militarum vehicles. Same for Marine things that get Codex traits and rules even though the Index doesn't include them. It also just feels like a weird way to get one over on someone even before a game, claiming a rules basis for hobbling their unit. That's just not even fun.

Korbee11 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
The page reference in the bracket is just a commodity, let's not give it rule dignity.

Please show me in the rulebook where it says words in brackets are not rules.

I find it highly interesting mr BCB that I get to say this to you.

There doesn't need to be a rule in the rulebook, it is called 'The English Language' and 'Sentence Structure'

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/punctuation/parentheses-and-brackets

Round brackets are used to separate off information that is not essential to the meaning of the rest of the sentence. If you remove the bracketed material, the sentence would still make perfectly good sense.

So no. There is no rule in the rulebook, as there does not have to be a rule in the rulebook.
Cause, as you have said in other threads, that's how the English Language works.

I present "Grinding Advance"

The Leman Russ tank's sturdy frame allows it to keep up a fearsome rate of fire even as it advances on the foe. If this model remains stationary or moves under half speed in its Movement phase (i.e. it moves a distance in inches less than half of its current Move characteristic) it can shoot its turret weapon twice in the following Shooting phase (the turret weapon must target the same unit both times). Furthermore, hit rolls for this model's turret weapon do not suffer the penalty for moving and shooting a Heavy weapon. The following weapons are turret weapons: battle cannon, eradicator nova cannon, exterminator autocannon, vanquisher battle cannon, demolisher cannon, executioner plasma cannon and punisher gatling cannon.

If brackets aren't rules I'm split-firing my second volley then, right?

No, that actually supports Korbee11's point:

"... it can shoot its turret weapon twice in the following Shooting phase ( the turret weapon must target the same unit both time.)"

Here, as per the rules of English Language, the parenthesis is being used in lieu of a conjunction. Even if the parenthesis shall not be there, as long as it is substituted by any conjunction, only for the sake of maintaining grammatical coherency, it will maintain its meaning.

Substitute parenthesis with any conjunction that logically connects the two independant clauses: and, but, however, although, etc, and the meaning of the phrase maintains itself.

 skchsan wrote:
No, that actually supports Korbee11's point:

"... it can shoot its turret weapon twice in the following Shooting phase ( the turret weapon must target the same unit both time.)"

Here, as per the rules of English Language, the parenthesis is being used in lieu of a conjunction. Even if the parenthesis shall not be there, as long as it is substituted by any conjunction, only for the sake of maintaining grammatical coherency, it will maintain its meaning.

Substitute parenthesis with any conjunction that logically connects the two independant clauses: and, but, however, although, etc, and the meaning of the phrase maintains itself.

The notion was that the sections within parentheses are not rules. That's what I'm arguing.

The bits within brackets blatantly are rules. Making a sentence make sense with or without the bracketed section is not the same as the rule meaning the same without the bracketed section. It needs both parts to function correctly, whatever the grammar.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The bits within brackets blatantly are rules. Making a sentence make sense with or without the bracketed section is not the same as the rule meaning the same without the bracketed section. It needs both parts to function correctly, whatever the grammar.

So they are rules but we should (according to you) throw out that bit on the index datasheet about powers and substitute new text pointing to a different book without any instructions to do so?

"In all future publications and official events though, it will be assumed that you’re using the most recent rules and Datasheets."
Instruction to do so. Indexing can become superseded by new publications.

Captyn_Bob wrote:
"In all future publications and official events though, it will be assumed that you’re using the most recent rules and Datasheets."
Instruction to do so. Indexing can become superseded by new publications.

No permission there to edit a datasheet.

The Librarius discipline isn't on a Datasheet.

The Codex updates the Librarius discipline.

Ergo 'Index Librarians' can use all the Codex powers, by the instructions GW have given us around 'most recent rules'.

Saying otherwise is ignoring GW's instructions.

Ok, lets assume index librarians can use codex psychic powers. What happens if a BA librarian on a bike casts wings of sanguinius ? The stratagem says his movement is increased to 12". But its already 14". How can it be increased to 12 if its already 14 ? What is its new movement value ? 12 or 14 ?

Korbee11 wrote:My two cents:

So, after reading the Index and the Heretic Astartes book, I would argue that the Index sheets totally have access to the psychic powers in the Codex.

Why?

First: When you look at the index entry for Magnus, it tell you he can take X powers from the Dark Hereticus Discipline (pg11)

The (pg11) is not part of Dark Hereticus. It is a referential note in the sentence (hence why it is in Brackets). If it were a restricting factor, it would say 'on page 11' in the actual rule. You should be able to remove the words in brackets and still have a functional sentence.

Second: The Heretic Astartes book also includes a 'Dark Hereticus' list of psychic powers. The Index entry says that Magnus can take powers from the Dark Hereticus Discipline. Well the Heretic Astartes book just so happens to include a Dark Hereticus Discipline. So, go ahead and pick from it.

Wrong. The fact Deathwatch needed special permission to use Codex one tells you everything you need to know - that you keep using Index one, unless allowed otherwise.

I must say, I like how DW getting a bone thrown for once and not being worse kind of SM is instantly rules-lawyered using obscure English language definitions (that obviously don't apply to rule verbiage, only to plain prose) as a "precedent" (instead of what it really is, an exception) to allow people fishing for whatever broken combo was banned by the Codex to double-dip and cherrypick even more explicitly no-go stuff on top of that

Marmatag wrote:This is a situation where the RAW crowd is being overly punitive.

Nope. It's the Index crowd wanting to have a cake and eat it too at the same time.

Especially seeing Codex psychic tables were intended for and balanced for Codex units, like p5freak pointed out. Adding deep strike or insane speed to casters might turn balanced powers into insanely broken combos, so any sane TO would rule you to use power set the unit was designed with, not whatever abusable mix you might come up with.

 Irbis wrote:

Especially seeing Codex psychic tables were intended for and balanced for Codex units, like p5freak pointed out. Adding deep strike or insane speed to casters might turn balanced powers into insanely broken combos, so any sane TO would rule you to use power set the unit was designed with, not whatever abusable mix you might come up with.

My question was not about showing possible balancing issues because BA have a librarian dreadnought which then can move 12 and fly. Which is insanely broken if you think about it, but its legal and no doubt that its intended.

Actually per the codex "Before the battle, generate the Psychic powers for Psykers (keyword) that can use powers from the Librarius discipline using the table below.

So regardless of what page the index tells you to get psychic powers from. The codex tell you to use the table on pg. 202 to generate powers before the battle.

So a Index datasheet Librarian on a bike CAN use powers from the Codex. He is a Psyker (keyword) and can use powers from the Librarius discipline.

Wagguy80 wrote:
Actually per the codex "Before the battle, generate the Psychic powers for Psykers (keyword) that can use powers from the Librarius discipline using the table below.

So regardless of what page the index tells you to get psychic powers from. The codex tell you to use the table on pg. 202 to generate powers before the battle.

So a Index datasheet Librarian on a bike CAN use powers from the Codex. He is a Psyker (keyword) and can use powers from the Librarius discipline.

You're wrong. Designers commentary last page clearly tells us to us the index datasheet. The index datasheet tells us to use psychic powers from the index.

The Index Datasheet says to use the Librarius discipline. The Codex updates that. Job done.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The Index Datasheet says to use the Librarius discipline. The Codex updates that. Job done.

No. Read the designers commentary : "Use the following flowchart to determine which datasheet to use for your models. Note that regardless of
which datasheet you use, if you are playing a matched play game, or a game that uses a points limit, you should always use the most recently published points for your models and their weapons and wargear."

Doesnt say anything about psychic powers.

Good gods, people really hate people playing with their toys, don't they? That's about the most pedantic thing I've seen. Of course the Codex powers update the Index ones.

p5freak wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The Index Datasheet says to use the Librarius discipline. The Codex updates that. Job done.

No. Read the designers commentary : "Use the following flowchart to determine which datasheet to use for your models. Note that regardless of
which datasheet you use, if you are playing a matched play game, or a game that uses a points limit, you should always use the most recently published points for your models and their weapons and wargear."

Doesnt say anything about psychic powers.

Yup. You can't change the actual datasheet, only the weapon options, weapon rules and points. This is the same reason why Wolf Lords still use the Index datasheet.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Good gods, people really hate people playing with their toys, don't they? That's about the most pedantic thing I've seen. Of course the Codex powers update the Index ones.

I dont see anything in the designers commentary that says that the psychic powers are updated.

p5freak wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Good gods, people really hate people playing with their toys, don't they? That's about the most pedantic thing I've seen. Of course the Codex powers update the Index ones.

I dont see anything in the designers commentary that says that the psychic powers are updated.

The codex tells you that all your factions psykers use the codex table. Codex overrides index as we have to use the latest version of the rules.

The codex doesn't alter the index power list.

RAW: I agree with the "it's not updated" faction.
HIWPI: Feel free to use the full discipline.

Thoroughly enjoyed the brackets argument though (even though that argument was pretty idiotic). The concept of "stuff in brackets doesn't count" is quite fun (since it's so dumb).

Captyn_Bob wrote:

The codex tells you that all your factions psykers use the codex table. Codex overrides index as we have to use the latest version of the rules.

All codex psykers use codex powers. All index psykers use index powers. Index psykers are old school, they dont know the new stuff

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The codex doesn't alter the index power list.

But is it called the same discipline? (I don't have the new SM codex). It's Librarius correct?

Using Eldar as an example, the Index has 2 disciplines for Eldar: Runes of Fate for Farseers & Runes of Battle for Warlocks, Spiritseers, etc.
In the Index, there are only 3 powers in each discipline.
The Codex has both of these same disciplines, but with 6 powers each.

I cannot think of a situation with a Psyker that wasn't updated to the Codex, but if there was an Index only option (Like a Autarch with Warp jump generator), if it says that Psyker uses either Runes of Fate or Battle, you absolutely would use the CODEX version of that discipline as that is the most updated version
The Flow chart GW put out specifically uses the Autarch as an example. Even though you can take a Warp Jump Autarch, you use the points and rules updated in the Codex where possible (so you would use the Codex Path of Command rule)

So I'll rephrase my question:
Was the Discipline the Index Libbie on bike has access to updated in the Codex?
If the bike Libbie had access to Librarius in the Index and Librarius was updated in the Codex, you may use the Codex Librarius. No need for FAQ, GW has already provided the flow chart that confirms this

-

They have the same names. The index only has 3 powers whereas the codex has 6.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
They have the same names. The index only has 3 powers whereas the codex has 6.

Thank you. Then refer to the flow chart which says you may, nah MUST, use the updated points and/or rules where possible.
In this case, the Index Libbie on bike has Librarus, which was indeed updated. Ergo, you have access to all 6 powers

Official GW flow chart:
https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/IndexOrCodex.jpg

So you use the Index datasheet, which says you use Librarus. Since nothing gives you further permission to use the Index version of Librarus. you MUST use the Codes version

-