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.

 Galef wrote:
Yeah, I was going to bring that up too. How do you KNOW what datasheet is the most recent.
I mean, CA is doing a good job by actually listing the year on the title of the book, but models/boxsets don't exactly have release dates on them.

From page 124 of Chapter Approved 2018 (emphasis added):

This means that the points values for the units and items of wargear that appear in one of the tables below replace those that appear in books with an earlier publication date, and also take precedence over points-value lists that have no publication date at all.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Yeah, I was going to bring that up too. How do you KNOW what datasheet is the most recent.
I mean, CA is doing a good job by actually listing the year on the title of the book, but models/boxsets don't exactly have release dates on them.

From page 124 of Chapter Approved 2018 (emphasis added):

This means that the points values for the units and items of wargear that appear in one of the tables below replace those that appear in books with an earlier publication date, and also take precedence over points-value lists that have no publication date at all.

Yes, but my point was, how do you prove a particular publication was an EARLIER publication. Because while CA might have that verbage, the box set I just bought includes something else, that has no official release date.

Obviously we can Google release dates, but the dates should be on the product itself, which CA does have, so that's a step in the right direction
However, when a product continues to be sold by the manufacturer, it should be valid.
The easy-build Intercessors are still a purchasable item from GW, ergo, their rules contained within should also be valid. Or those rules should be removed and replaced with the "current" version. Or just removed entirely so you still have to get the Codex, most recent CA and potentially applicable FAQs.

And while we are on that, wouldn't it be far more valuable for the instruction booklet to state where the rules can be found?
Something like "The most currently rules can be found in Codex: X. Also see the latest Chapter Approved to see if points changes have been made for this unit"
That would set the expectation for newer players that this is a more serous commitment than just buying a $15 set of minis

-

You're going out of your way to create problems that don't exist. Chapter Approved always drops in December, so it's usually the last 40K book published for that year. Any points value lists published in 2018 or with no publication date would be superseded by Chapter Approved 2018. Any points value lists published in 2019 would not be affected by Chapter Approved 2018. Chapter Approved 2019 would supersede the points value lists found in Chapter Approved 2018.

Right. So anyone can use the easy-build Intercessor datasheet that contains 1 Sgt and 2 Intercessors, but use the CA2018 points values. It's not that big a deal, especially if they bought the 3 intercessors AFTER 2018.

Hypothetical situation: A new player gets a Codex + CA2018. Starts building their list and army. Then later buys the 3 Intercessor box and is provided with rules.
CA2018 says you use the points provided that overrides the Codex. This booklet isn't a codex, but is official GW rules
How do you explain to that player (with actual rules) that they cannot use the rules they just bought from GW?

We "know" the rules are older the CA2018 and even the SM codex, but aside from pointing out the copyright 2017, there really isn't hard proof against using the datasheet.
It even has limitations compared to the "current" one in that it cannot be any Chapter other than UMs, and the Sgt cannot take any optional melee weapon.
IMO, TOs should absolutely allow this.

-

You do realize that the points value lists include unit size as well?

Okay then, as a curious side note- Can one legally use the Black Legionnaires datasheet from Blackstone Fortress? This one isn't a "get you by" datasheet in the same way the others are as it's included to be able to use the BSF models in 40k as-is. I've seen local folks wanting to use it as cheapass troop choice for filling out that Battalion, though I'm dubious of this as CSM already have a datasheet in their codex.

 Grimtuff wrote:
Okay then, as a curious side note- Can one legally use the Black Legionnaires datasheet from Blackstone Fortress? This one isn't a "get you by" datasheet in the same way the others are as it's included to be able to use the BSF models in 40k as-is. I've seen local folks wanting to use it as cheapass troop choice for filling out that Battalion, though I'm dubious of this as CSM already have a datasheet in their codex.

You can use it. It even has different name, so there is no confusion. It is 'Black Legionaries', not 'Chaos Space Marines'. And good thing too, because otherwise it would supersede the codex datasheet, and all 'Chaos Space Marines' units would be restricted to two guys with a bolter and limited to including only one such unit in your army!

 Crimson wrote:
And good thing too, because otherwise it would supersede the codex datasheet, and all 'Chaos Space Marines' units would be restricted to two guys with a bolter and limited to including only one such unit in your army!

I mean, it's not like any CMS army includes regular Chaos Marines anyway.

-

 Crimson wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Okay then, as a curious side note- Can one legally use the Black Legionnaires datasheet from Blackstone Fortress? This one isn't a "get you by" datasheet in the same way the others are as it's included to be able to use the BSF models in 40k as-is. I've seen local folks wanting to use it as cheapass troop choice for filling out that Battalion, though I'm dubious of this as CSM already have a datasheet in their codex.

You can use it. It even has different name, so there is no confusion. It is 'Black Legionaries', not 'Chaos Space Marines'. And good thing too, because otherwise it would supersede the codex datasheet, and all 'Chaos Space Marines' units would be restricted to two guys with a bolter and limited to including only one such unit in your army!

As above but note that the Black Legionnaires datasheet is limited to only one unit in your army so they won't really be doing too much to fill out their Battalion with it.

Happy to be proven wrong, but... has GW ever defined what constitutes "same datasheet"? I am not aware that they have, so until then I only have 2 principles for determining if a datasheet is useable:

1. Same = 100% identical. Used for principles such as the rule of 3, in that the sheet taken from a specific page of a book is the same no matter what combination of keywords/wargear is selected (5 ultramarine tacticals with a plasma gun is the same datasheet as 10 iron hands tacticals with a missile launcher).
2. Is there an official subsequent update from GW that references it is an update to the datasheet taken in principle 1 above? i.e the FAQ currently on Warhammer-community.com for Codex: Space Marines states that a) it is for Codex: Space Marines and b) references page numbers and specific unit entries.

ETB Intercessors fail to clash with either of these principles; the ETB datasheet is not identical (same named models, but with different unit composition and wargear options on a physically different datasheet from a different source), and I am not aware of a rules update in FAQ or CA form that references updating the ETB Intercessors datasheet.

FWIW, the GW site also refers to this set as having rules, and being for both new players and seasoned veterans. The idea that the set includes "starter rules to get you by" is a bit daft - are you only allowed to play with an army of these guys up until you buy a copy of Codex: Space Marines? Could I take them in a mixed Adeptus Astartes detachment if I only buy a copy of Codex: Dark Angels?

I think "same" here means "same title"

note the conquest sheets for those wanting them seem limited to "ultramarines".

as noted earlier, ask why people are looking to use them, if they are 'TFG' you have problems regardless, if they are using what came in a box because thats what they have got, if you want to play the game run with it, if not, don't your choice.

same as how no one can make you play against smurfs if you don't want to.

for my 2p worth, it would be worth having a publish date on every data card, in the footer of it, and the title of the publication next to it so you can see where and when anything comes from.

leopard wrote:
I think "same" here means "same title"

So now my Salamanders can never ride in their Rhinos now because I have to use Space Wolf Rhinos, which only allow Space Wolves inside.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

leopard wrote:
I think "same" here means "same title"

So now my Salamanders can never ride in their Rhinos now because I have to use Space Wolf Rhinos, which only allow Space Wolves inside.

so you see why taking anything literally in the 40k rules without applying more common sense than the writers did perhaps, just perhaps can occasionally cause a few very slight problems

in other news your Salamanders should be happy to walk anyway, have you seen what Space Wolves do to the inside of any vehicle? I mean really, no one deserves to be subjected to that, and don't get me started on whats under the back seat

leopard wrote:
I think "same" here means "same title"

note the conquest sheets for those wanting them seem limited to "ultramarines".

as noted earlier, ask why people are looking to use them, if they are 'TFG' you have problems regardless, if they are using what came in a box because thats what they have got, if you want to play the game run with it, if not, don't your choice.

same as how no one can make you play against smurfs if you don't want to.

for my 2p worth, it would be worth having a publish date on every data card, in the footer of it, and the title of the publication next to it so you can see where and when anything comes from.

The flipside of this is that if "same title" is enough, then there was a period of time where the easy build Primaris kits (Intercessors, Reivers, Aggressors, Redemptor) were the most recently released datasheets and therefore the only legal ones to use. I can't speak for every kit, but I'm reasonably sure that the Reiver set is comparable to the Intercessors (3 model squad, fixed wargear and fixed ultramarine faction keyword).

As no one has ever complained about non-ultramarine squads of more than 3 models, I'm confident that the consensus is that these are not the same based on name alone.

Insularum wrote:

leopard wrote:
I think "same" here means "same title"

note the conquest sheets for those wanting them seem limited to "ultramarines".

as noted earlier, ask why people are looking to use them, if they are 'TFG' you have problems regardless, if they are using what came in a box because thats what they have got, if you want to play the game run with it, if not, don't your choice.

same as how no one can make you play against smurfs if you don't want to.

for my 2p worth, it would be worth having a publish date on every data card, in the footer of it, and the title of the publication next to it so you can see where and when anything comes from.

The flipside of this is that if "same title" is enough, then there was a period of time where the easy build Primaris kits (Intercessors, Reivers, Aggressors, Redemptor) were the most recently released datasheets and therefore the only legal ones to use. I can't speak for every kit, but I'm reasonably sure that the Reiver set is comparable to the Intercessors (3 model squad, fixed wargear and fixed ultramarine faction keyword).

As no one has ever complained about non-ultramarine squads of more than 3 models, I'm confident that the consensus is that these are not the same based on name alone.

basically the point I made a while back, there is a bit more to this than the title and the release date, the set of rules simply isn't that tightly written sadly

leopard wrote:

Insularum wrote:
The flipside of this is that if "same title" is enough, then there was a period of time where the easy build Primaris kits (Intercessors, Reivers, Aggressors, Redemptor) were the most recently released datasheets and therefore the only legal ones to use. I can't speak for every kit, but I'm reasonably sure that the Reiver set is comparable to the Intercessors (3 model squad, fixed wargear and fixed ultramarine faction keyword).

As no one has ever complained about non-ultramarine squads of more than 3 models, I'm confident that the consensus is that these are not the same based on name alone.

basically the point I made a while back, there is a bit more to this than the title and the release date, the set of rules simply isn't that tightly written sadly

Indeed this is my stance as well.
If these sets are the "same" datasheet, then prior to the Codex, the easy-build 3-man unit WAS the only legal datasheet as it would override the one in the Index at the time.
This is just silly not only because it limited units to only 3, but non-UMs couldn't take Intercessors at all during this time.

So clearly anyone saying the Codex (or rather CA2018) Intercessor datasheet takes precedence over the easy-build, also must agree that just prior to the Marine Codex release, only UMs had access to Intercessors and only 3 per unit. And that's just silly.
Actually, I think the easy-build Intercessors may have been released at the same time as either the Index or the Codex, meaning that datasheet was NEVER valid in the first place.

I think given all that evidence, we can safely assume the intent is that the easy-build datasheet is not meant to be the same as the Index/Codex/CA datasheet. And therefore is a valid choice for UM detachments.

-

or you simple "must" agree to use a bit of common sense, not try to extract the urine and enjoy the game.

personally for a local game, fill your boots, but if you use that easy build/Conquest! data sheet have the decency to use it for all of that unit type, they allow smaller units, but remove most of the options, seems a fair trade off personally.

the game rules are written a lot tighter than they used to be, but still quite some way short of how tightly they should be written for what you pay for them.

Can't see that changing any time soon so not worth worrying over, there is not a lot outside the very basic mechanics thats 100% black and white here, perhaps GW should sell 'liquid common sense"?

If only. Some of the more beserk crazy train conversations around here would be avoided with some Liquid Common Sense. A couple of thin coats of it.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If only. Some of the more beserk crazy train conversations around here would be avoided with some Liquid Common Sense. A couple of thin coats of it.

sod thin coats, I work with someone I want to drown in the stuff

leopard wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If only. Some of the more beserk crazy train conversations around here would be avoided with some Liquid Common Sense. A couple of thin coats of it.

sod thin coats, I work with someone I want to drown in the stuff

You’ll need a good dousing in Common Sense Primer for that...

 JohnnyHell wrote:

leopard wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If only. Some of the more beserk crazy train conversations around here would be avoided with some Liquid Common Sense. A couple of thin coats of it.

sod thin coats, I work with someone I want to drown in the stuff

You’ll need a good dousing in Common Sense Primer for that...

I see where I'm going wrong very clearly now