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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet another obstinate arguing in bad faith poster

Can we just leave them be? There's no benefit to carrying on. They've made their hilariously bad opinion known, no one is going to listen to them irl, and so functionally they're redundant.

Yet another person making personal attacks rather than addressing the actual rules question.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Basically all currently published rules apply to currently published Dex's.

Once the 9th Dex drops any current rules or errata no longer apply as those rules were not written for the new Dex.

GW has said that new rules make old ones invalid. So this would apply for a new Dex.

Any other statement to the contrary goes directly against what GW has said.

Can you cite a rule that says this?

Just look at the GW correspondence, they have said, several times that new rules make old ones invalid.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Just look at the GW correspondence, they have said, several times that new rules make old ones invalid.

Can you provide a link/quote to this? I'm having trouble finding anything in the actual rules that says this and the content validity guide doesn't make any mention of the balance dataslate.

(And please keep in mind that WHC articles/videos are not rules, often have errors, and are not relevant here.)

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
The simple answer is that there isn't a 9th ed guard book in the eyes of GW. The codex is not available for mass/individual purchase and they do not consider the 9th ed guard release as "released" until next year.

Do you have an actual rule for this or is it merely your personal opinion?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Utter nonsense, sorry. New Codex overwrites previous rules. All precedent points to this. Enjoy having zero opponents if you honestly insist on trying to have your cake and eat it.

New codex does not overwrite the universal matched play rules in the balance dataslate. There is no such rule and you continue to refuse to even attempt to cite anything to support your claim.

And "enjoy having no opponents" is not a rule. People being upset about what the rules are does not change what those rules say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If we’re playing that way, I’ll have Crusher Stampede with 9th Codex and only one of us will have a nice time!

Correct. Only one of us will have a nice time because you will be cheating. Unlike the guard dataslate buffs GW has explicitly published a rule that Crusher Stampede is no longer legal and continuing to use those rules would be blatant cheating, no different from deciding that all of your space marine bolters do mortal wounds instead of normal damage because you want a more powerful army.

For reference, page 2 of this document: https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/XTEpZheWFGC2pWI3.pdf

Good grief it’s blatantly obvious I’m aware of that publication. My whole point is it’s disallowed. Crikey. Guys, we got another p5/BCB, yayyy…

 DeathReaper wrote:

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Basically all currently published rules apply to currently published Dex's.

Once the 9th Dex drops any current rules or errata no longer apply as those rules were not written for the new Dex.

GW has said that new rules make old ones invalid. So this would apply for a new Dex.

Any other statement to the contrary goes directly against what GW has said.

Can you cite a rule that says this?

Just look at the GW correspondence, they have said, several times that new rules make old ones invalid.

New rules do make old rules invalid but not selectively only the ones they replace a new faq invalidates an old faq a new codex an old codex when GW released its new SM tank it didn't make the codex obsolete. FAQ are valid till GW change them which is why they release a new one a month or so after a codex release

A new codex doesn't invalidate a different rules source unless a rule in that codex says it does.



But in the spirit of honestly trying to challenge blatantly dumb logic reductio ad obserdum. Answer the below hypothetical useing your logic and it explains why your wrong



Hypothetically GW release a new Blood Angel codex how do you propose it works in relation to armour of contempt I see three equally wrong interpretations



1) This would mean blood angels don't benefit from armour of contempt but all other space marines would clearly as intended

2) Or are you arguing that only blood angel units from the blood angel codex would not benefit from armour of contempt but those from the SM codex would because this could not be more intended

3) or are you arguing that infact it overwrites the dataslate and all space marines lose armour of contempt this would be hilarious if gw did another SM codex run and every few weeks it switched off this has to be what was intended

Or 4) it doesn't overwrite anything all marines keep armour of contempt and your wrong.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Good grief it’s blatantly obvious I’m aware of that publication. My whole point is it’s disallowed. Crikey. Guys, we got another p5/BCB, yayyy…

Crusher Stampede is disallowed because the content validity document says so.

The balance dataslate is not mentioned anywhere in the content validity document and you still haven't provided any rule citation for why you think it is no longer valid.

Do you have any actual rule arguments to make, or just assertions without evidence and personal attacks?

Supersedence for this edition follows what has been done every edition prior: A Codex is released and followed by a number of rule supplements that are for that specific Codex (white dwarf, campaign books, FAQs, balance dataslates, etc). When a Codex is replaced with a new version the rule supplements become invalid. For documents that contain multiple factions (such as campaign books), only content relating to the superseded Codex is invalidated*.

The one (1) exception that I am aware of is the 8th edition SM supplements. GW released FAQs that explicitly said that those supplements are not invalidated.

Trying to argue otherwise is bad faith.**


* For evidence of this aspect, review the "Content Validity Updates" document and notice the number of documents that have a mix of valid and invalid content because the codex they were referencing was updated.
** If you don't believe it's bad faith, try running the argument for 7th edition supplements / campaign books and realise that's exactly what you are trying to do here.

JakeSiren wrote:
Supersedence for this edition follows what has been done every edition prior: A Codex is released and followed by a number of rule supplements that are for that specific Codex (white dwarf, campaign books, FAQs, balance dataslates, etc). When a Codex is replaced with a new version the rule supplements become invalid. For documents that contain multiple factions (such as campaign books), only content relating to the superseded Codex is invalidated*.

Can you provide a rule citation for this?

Also, remember that the indirect fire exemption is found in the universal matched play rules section of the balance dataslate and is not part of the FAQ/errata for any specific codex.

Trying to argue otherwise is bad faith.**

Trying to apply one's personal opinions about how the rules should work instead of the printed text of the rules is arguing in bad faith. This supposed policy you're talking about does not exist in the rules.

* For evidence of this aspect, review the "Content Validity Updates" document and notice the number of documents that have a mix of valid and invalid content because the codex they were referencing was updated.

I agree. Let's review the content validity updates document, where GW has provided a list of which rules are invalidated at a given time or by the release of a given codex. The balance dataslate is not on there.

** If you don't believe it's bad faith, try running the argument for 7th edition supplements / campaign books and realise that's exactly what you are trying to do here.

It's not at all the same thing. The 7th edition books are invalid because they are no longer compatible with the current rules. The indirect fire exemption in the balance dataslate is perfectly compatible with the current rules, some people just believe that it shouldn't be applied.

U02dah4 wrote:
New rules do make old rules invalid but not selectively only the ones they replace a new faq invalidates an old faq a new codex an old codex when GW released its new SM tank it didn't make the codex obsolete. FAQ are valid till GW change them which is why they release a new one a month or so after a codex release

A new codex doesn't invalidate a different rules source unless a rule in that codex says it does.

Here is what you have backwards.

You need to show that using those rules from 8th Ed. is allowed with the 9th Ed. 'Dex, because the default is you can not do anything unless the rules tell you that you can (Permissive ruleset and all).

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Just look at the GW correspondence, they have said, several times that new rules make old ones invalid.

Can you provide a link/quote to this?

GW has maintained for years that only the most recent publication is valid.

Take the Psychic Awakening release for example, they state " As always, you and your opponent can play using whichever rules you agree on, but we recommend using the most up-to-date rules for your faction as indicated below"

So as always GW recommends using the most up-to-date rules.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/XTEpZheWFGC2pWI3.pdf?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=warhammer-40,000&utm_content=contentvalidityupdates

 DeathReaper wrote:
You need to show that using those rules from 8th Ed. is allowed with the 9th Ed. 'Dex, because the default is you can not do anything unless the rules tell you that you can (Permissive ruleset and all).

Easy:

Attacks made with Indirect Fire weapons by
Astra Militarum models are unaffected by any of the
Indirect Fire weapon rules presented above.

The rule makes no mention of being tied to a particular edition of the codex or release schedule and is the currently published version of the balance dataslate. In all standard matched play games the sentence "attacks made with Indirect Fire weapons by Astra Militarum models are unaffected by any of the Indirect Fire weapon rules presented above" applies just like anything else contained in the current balance dataslate.

Take the Psychic Awakening release for example, they state " As always, you and your opponent can play using whichever rules you agree on, but we recommend using the most up-to-date rules for your faction as indicated below"

So as always GW recommends using the most up-to-date rules.

And that is exactly what we are doing. The most up to date version of the balance dataslate clearly tells you that the penalty does not apply and therefore that is the rule. The rules "as indicated below" mention rules that were invalidated upon publication of the current codex but the balance dataslate is not on that list.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

** If you don't believe it's bad faith, try running the argument for 7th edition supplements / campaign books and realise that's exactly what you are trying to do here.

It's not at all the same thing. The 7th edition books are invalid because they are no longer compatible with the current rules. The indirect fire exemption in the balance dataslate is perfectly compatible with the current rules, some people just believe that it shouldn't be applied.

So, the 7th supplements are completely invalid because there are some rules that are no longer compatible with the current rules? So exactly like:

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:
(HotE, on the other hand, is no longer valid because the prerequisite keyword no longer exists.)

Thank you for making the point for me.

JakeSiren wrote:

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

** If you don't believe it's bad faith, try running the argument for 7th edition supplements / campaign books and realise that's exactly what you are trying to do here.

It's not at all the same thing. The 7th edition books are invalid because they are no longer compatible with the current rules. The indirect fire exemption in the balance dataslate is perfectly compatible with the current rules, some people just believe that it shouldn't be applied.

So, the 7th supplements are completely invalid because there are some rules that are no longer compatible with the current rules? So exactly like:

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:
(HotE, on the other hand, is no longer valid because the prerequisite keyword no longer exists.)

Thank you for making the point for me.

We are not talking about HotE. The rules in the universal matched play section have no compatibility issues whatsoever.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

** If you don't believe it's bad faith, try running the argument for 7th edition supplements / campaign books and realise that's exactly what you are trying to do here.

It's not at all the same thing. The 7th edition books are invalid because they are no longer compatible with the current rules. The indirect fire exemption in the balance dataslate is perfectly compatible with the current rules, some people just believe that it shouldn't be applied.

So, the 7th supplements are completely invalid because there are some rules that are no longer compatible with the current rules? So exactly like:

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:
(HotE, on the other hand, is no longer valid because the prerequisite keyword no longer exists.)

Thank you for making the point for me.

We are not talking about HotE. The rules in the universal matched play section have no compatibility issues whatsoever.

Everything in that document falls under the "UNIVERSAL MATCHED PLAY RULES" header (there aren't any other centred headers, so context remains as "UNIVERSAL MATCHED PLAY RULES" throughout). And you have literally pointed out a rule that has a compatibility issue.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
You need to show that using those rules from 8th Ed. is allowed with the 9th Ed. 'Dex, because the default is you can not do anything unless the rules tell you that you can (Permissive ruleset and all).

Easy:

Attacks made with Indirect Fire weapons by
Astra Militarum models are unaffected by any of the
Indirect Fire weapon rules presented above.

The rule makes no mention of being tied to a particular edition of the codex

Spoiler:

or release schedule and is the currently published version of the balance dataslate. In all standard matched play games the sentence "attacks made with Indirect Fire weapons by Astra Militarum models are unaffected by any of the Indirect Fire weapon rules presented above" applies just like anything else contained in the current balance dataslate.

Take the Psychic Awakening release for example, they state " As always, you and your opponent can play using whichever rules you agree on, but we recommend using the most up-to-date rules for your faction as indicated below"

So as always GW recommends using the most up-to-date rules.

And that is exactly what we are doing. The most up to date version of the balance dataslate clearly tells you that the penalty does not apply and therefore that is the rule. The rules "as indicated below" mention rules that were invalidated upon publication of the current codex but the balance dataslate is not on that list.

So nothing about being able to be used with 9th Ed.?

Then it cant be used for it, as what is published, by GW's admission is for only currently released rules, and that is the 8th ed AM dex.

So what you posted is for 8th Ed. not 9th.

 DeathReaper wrote:
So nothing about being able to be used with 9th Ed.?

Then it cant be used for it, as what is published, by GW's admission is for only currently released rules, and that is the 8th ed AM dex.

So what you posted is for 8th Ed. not 9th.

Then by that argument so is the entire document. Guard don't have the exemption to the indirect fire penalty anymore but they also don't have the indirect fire penalty anymore at all because the dataslate no longer applies to them. They don't have the 0-2 limit on flyers either, which I suppose will be of great value to all two people who like Valkyries.

Or do you have a rule citation that the document as a whole applies to rules that are released later, except for this one specific sentence which does not?

Once 9th Ed. has all their 'Dex's it will be totally obsolete, yes. (Since is is an 8th Ed. Document).

They will need to update it for each of the 9th Ed. 'Dex's when they all finally drop.

I also note he couldn't answer the BA codex armour of contempt question.

U02dah4 wrote:
I also note he couldn't answer the BA codex armour of contempt question.

There is not a new BA codex, that is the answer to that...