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.

Hey all,

I play thousand sons right now and do I have to use the rules and points costs for units such as forgefiend and rhino from the codex or index? Also would my characters in the thousand sons army use traits, physcic powers, etc from the dex or index?

Index - Nothing from the Codex can be Thousand Sons (or Death Guard).

You use the Index. Same as if you were playing Space Wolves or Blood Angels.

Except for the Dark Hereticus powers because GW specifically said we could use them.

 Arkaine wrote:
Except for the Dark Hereticus powers because GW specifically said we could use them.

[Citation Needed] An official FAQ please, not a facebook post or some fan article.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:
Except for the Dark Hereticus powers because GW specifically said we could use them.

[Citation Needed] An official FAQ please, not a facebook post or some fan article.

https://www.twitch.tv/warhammer

 Arkaine wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:
Except for the Dark Hereticus powers because GW specifically said we could use them.

[Citation Needed] An official FAQ please, not a facebook post or some fan article.

https://www.twitch.tv/warhammer

This is not an official FAQ or Errata. This is a twitch channel.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:
Except for the Dark Hereticus powers because GW specifically said we could use them.

[Citation Needed] An official FAQ please, not a facebook post or some fan article.

https://www.twitch.tv/warhammer

This is not an official FAQ or Errata. This is a twitch channel.

Only on planet Dakka would someone call the Official Games Workshop Twitch channel "not official".

It was stated by the representatives during their stream, the ones that are actually at GW and control this channel.

It's not "facebook" or "fan article". It's the company that makes the rules.

 Arkaine wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:
Except for the Dark Hereticus powers because GW specifically said we could use them.

[Citation Needed] An official FAQ please, not a facebook post or some fan article.

https://www.twitch.tv/warhammer

This is not an official FAQ or Errata. This is a twitch channel.

Only on planet Dakka would someone call the Official Games Workshop Twitch channel "not official".

It was stated by the representatives during their stream, the ones that are actually at GW and control this channel.

It's not "facebook" or "fan article". It's the company that makes the rules.

The rules for the game consist of the rulebooks and the official Errata. Unless it's in one of those, it's not part of the rules. This is how a game system works.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:
Except for the Dark Hereticus powers because GW specifically said we could use them.

[Citation Needed] An official FAQ please, not a facebook post or some fan article.

https://www.twitch.tv/warhammer

This is not an official FAQ or Errata. This is a twitch channel.

Only on planet Dakka would someone call the Official Games Workshop Twitch channel "not official".

It was stated by the representatives during their stream, the ones that are actually at GW and control this channel.

It's not "facebook" or "fan article". It's the company that makes the rules.

The rules for the game consist of the rulebooks and the official Errata. Unless it's in one of those, it's not part of the rules. This is how a game system works.

"According to me" <- you forgot this part

Games Workshop is free to disclose rules however they see fit, whether by facebook, twitter, twitch, Chapter Approved, White Dwarf magazine (remember how we had rules come from these?), and not simply the books and erratas. In fact, many of the questions in the FAQs aren't erratas. They're explanations of how things ALREADY WORK for ignorant people who misread their intentions. So no errata is required, GW has already established what they claim to be the manner in which you will interpret how the rule is read. They did the same thing when people had a question about whether Berzerkers get 1 additional attack from their Trait or 2 extra attacks (up to 3 with CP extra fight phases). They didn't post it in a FAQ, they posted it on their official Facebook page.


It's not GW's fault that people are constantly misrepresenting their rules.

This is how game systems work. They have to, otherwise they don't work at all. Otherwise I can claim the rules for AD&D Edition 2 apply to Warhammer 40k. You're free to house rule however you want, just like I am free to follow the rules without house rules.

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop are easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.

From the Tenets of You Make Da Call.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You use the Index. Same as if you were playing Space Wolves or Blood Angels.

and SW and BA use the Codex for generic units and point costs as the Codex Datasheet and point table overrides the Index one

for TS this is not much but a cheaper Hades Forgefiend or Defiler is still nice

 Ghaz wrote:

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop are easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.

From the Tenets of You Make Da Call.

Good thing these aren't emails.

That pertains to sources of information, not rules interpretations AS DESCRIBED BY GW ITSELF through official channels. No one is spoofing false information here, which is the intent of that quote. If you want evidence, you are free to watch the videos in question and subscribe to the channel. GW has been doing sample games for weeks now showcasing how this edition is supposed to be played and answering confusion as it comes up. This among those. They spoiled the Alpha Legion stuff on the same channel well before posting it on warhammer-community.

 Arkaine wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop are easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.

From the Tenets of You Make Da Call.

Good thing these aren't emails.

That pertains to sources of information, not rules interpretations AS DESCRIBED BY GW ITSELF through official channels. No one is spoofing false information here, which is the intent of that quote. If you want evidence, you are free to watch the videos in question and subscribe to the channel.

Please read the first sentence. "The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs."

In any case this debate is pointless because you are not actually willing to listen to new information.

And they're still not FAQs either...

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop are easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.

From the Tenets of You Make Da Call.

Good thing these aren't emails.

That pertains to sources of information, not rules interpretations AS DESCRIBED BY GW ITSELF through official channels. No one is spoofing false information here, which is the intent of that quote. If you want evidence, you are free to watch the videos in question and subscribe to the channel.

Please read the first sentence. "The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs."

In any case this debate is pointless because you are not actually willing to listen to new information.

Please read the owner of that quote. It's a dakka resident, not GW. Dakka does not decide the rules of the game, it merely sets the guides for how to discuss the rules of the game. Which means if you want to hide behind Dakka's allowances of what's permitted then there is literally no way to argue the point, despite you still being wrong about it and playing incorrectly.

Again, Dakka may not care for things that aren't FAQs but GW certainly does, and I wager the community as well.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
This is how game systems work. They have to, otherwise they don't work at all. Otherwise I can claim the rules for AD&D Edition 2 apply to Warhammer 40k. You're free to house rule however you want, just like I am free to follow the rules without house rules.

And in no way would the rules for AD&D have anything to do with Warhammer 40k, nor is an official sourcing for the same game system considered a house rule. White Dwarf magazine has repeatedly given players new rules to play with, new model and unit rules, and new special abilities, all of which are completely permissible to be used in the game. You're truly reaching by associating such a thing with AD&D rules which aren't even made by the same company, let alone belong to the same game. Yet if you wanted to talk about D&D, I could point out how Wizards regularly posts internet blog information, rules supplements, classes, artifacts, and clarifications, all of which are legal within their game system as well.

Your idea of how game systems work is antiquated.


Another example of a non-errata Rule Clarification that you won't be finding tournaments arguing with.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1875934666060497&id=1575682476085719&comment_id=1875952746058689&reply_comment_id=1875961916057772&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R9%22%7D

 Arkaine wrote:
Please read the owner of that quote. It's a dakka resident, not GW. Dakka does not decide the rules of the game, it merely sets the guides for how to discuss the rules of the game. Which means if you want to hide behind Dakka's allowances of what's permitted then there is literally no way to argue the point, despite you still being wrong about it and playing incorrectly.

Again, Dakka may not care for things that aren't FAQs but GW certainly does, and I wager the community as well.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
This is how game systems work. They have to, otherwise they don't work at all. Otherwise I can claim the rules for AD&D Edition 2 apply to Warhammer 40k. You're free to house rule however you want, just like I am free to follow the rules without house rules.

And in no way would the rules for AD&D have anything to do with Warhammer 40k, nor is an official sourcing for the same game system considered a house rule. White Dwarf magazine has repeatedly given players new rules to play with, new model and unit rules, and new special abilities, all of which are completely permissible to be used in the game. You're truly reaching by associating such a thing with AD&D rules which aren't even made by the same company, let alone belong to the same game. Yet if you wanted to talk about D&D, I could point out how Wizards regularly posts internet blog information, rules supplements, classes, artifacts, and clarifications, all of which are legal within their game system as well.

Your idea of how game systems work is antiquated.


Another example of a non-errata Rule Clarification that you won't be finding tournaments arguing with.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1875934666060497&id=1575682476085719&comment_id=1875952746058689&reply_comment_id=1875961916057772&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R9%22%7D

The problem you don't seem to be grasping, and the reason that only official FAQs/Errata ultimately matter, is because GW giving an answer to a question is one thing, but if people aren't able to FIND that answer, then the answer is essentially meaningless.

For example, you mention something said on the twitch stream. You do know that if you're not a paid subscriber, its not possible to even go back and watch old streams? So someone saying 'hey XXX was said in this one twitch stream', what does that mean for most people who don't have a paid twitch subscription? There is literally no way for them to find that information, even if they wanted to.

Similarly, for that Facebook snippet. You mention that tournaments would not rule against that. But here's the thing, most tournaments print out (or otherwise have access to) all of GW's official FAQs/erratas. So when their judges need to see if something has been ruled on, they can look at those documents and find the answer, if it exists. Tournaments will NOT be scouring through Facebook posts looking for unofficial answers to collect, which means those answers will not be available to their judges, and if their judges happen to not be aware of said answer given on some Facebook page, then obviously they might give a totally different answer to the question.

Of course, if the tournament is making its own FAQ, then they'll probably go ahead and use that Facebook ruling to answer the question (because why not?), but until they actually go through the process of putting that question/answer into their tournament FAQ, having some ruling existing on a Facebook page somewhere is essentially useless to anyone involved in a tournament (except to cause arguments between players, some who have seen the post on Facebook and others who haven't).

Finally, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, GW is not a monolithic entity that always works in perfect synchronicity. Believe me when I say that the guys posting on FB or playing on Twitch are not necessarily the same people in charge of writing the official FAQs, and it has happened, many, many, many times in the past where an email/FB post/offhand comment from someone at GW about how things are supposed to be played has then later been totally reversed when the official FAQ/errata are released.

And that's the whole POINT of having official FAQs/Erratas. You need to have one source of information that people know is correct and official. Answers from twitch or Facebook are useful indicators of the LIKELY way that GW will end up ruling on that matter in the official FAQ/errata, but until you see the ruling in the official FAQ/errata, then you really need to take those answers with a grain of salt and also understand that you shouldn't expect other players to necessarily know about, or trust those answers.

 yakface wrote:
And that's the whole POINT of having official FAQs/Erratas. You need to have one source of information that people know is correct and official. Answers from twitch or Facebook are useful indicators of the LIKELY way that GW will end up ruling on that matter in the official FAQ/errata, but until you see the ruling in the official FAQ/errata, then you really need to take those answers with a grain of salt and also understand that you shouldn't expect other players to necessarily know about, or trust those answers.

I agree with most of what you said as well, something I've been attempting to illustrate but without the knack for finer explanations. I'm also not opposed to people failing to trust or understand or know about an answer, I merely responded to someone asking for that input and the person who asked for the source. It's one thing not to trust a souce, that's an example of not validating; it's another thing to actively invalidate the message based on your own preconceptions. The only person I wanted to answer was the original poster who has the information he needs to "Make Da Call" as to what he believes, doesn't believe, or wishes to verify himself. Even if you came to me at a tournament with a printout you claim is from a GW FAQ, I'd still verify the source myself. If these individuals don't want to, that's their own prerogative.

I've given my position and by your own it's challenging to add much else beyond what's already been stated. It would have been appreciable at least had the opposition not declared it null and void instead of open to skepticism.

 Arkaine wrote:

 yakface wrote:
And that's the whole POINT of having official FAQs/Erratas. You need to have one source of information that people know is correct and official. Answers from twitch or Facebook are useful indicators of the LIKELY way that GW will end up ruling on that matter in the official FAQ/errata, but until you see the ruling in the official FAQ/errata, then you really need to take those answers with a grain of salt and also understand that you shouldn't expect other players to necessarily know about, or trust those answers.

I agree with most of what you said as well, something I've been attempting to illustrate but without the knack for finer explanations. I'm also not opposed to people failing to trust or understand or know about an answer, I merely responded to someone asking for that input and the person who asked for the source. It's one thing not to trust a souce, that's an example of not validating; it's another thing to actively invalidate the message based on your own preconceptions. The only person I wanted to answer was the original poster who has the information he needs to "Make Da Call" as to what he believes, doesn't believe, or wishes to verify himself. Even if you came to me at a tournament with a printout you claim is from a GW FAQ, I'd still verify the source myself. If these individuals don't want to, that's their own prerogative.

I've given my position and by your own it's challenging to add much else beyond what's already been stated. It would have been appreciable at least had the opposition not declared it null and void instead of open to skepticism.

If you go back and look at how you presented the information in this thread, I don't think you can blame anyone for their responses to what you posted. You initially just said the answer (which you had heard on a twitch stream) as though it was fact, without even mentioning how or where you got that answer from. Then when you were challenged as to where that answer was from, you just posted a link to twitch, which again people without a paid subscription can't even check the validity of your claim.

Instead, if from the start you had said: "on GW's twitch stream they did answer this question and said XXX, but obviously that's just their twitch stream, so take that answer with a grain of salt" then you probably would have gotten a VERY different response. And that's really the point. While its fine in this forum to express opinions on what you think the designers' likely intent is, or to mention answers given from GW via FB, twitch or email, while those are all useful for deciding how YOU (as an individual) might choose to play, its important to always make a clear distinction between those things which are unofficial and those things which are official, especially for people that like to play using just the official sources that GW themselves publishes. When we simply refer to an answer given by GW via twitch, FB, etc. like its the absolute answer on par with the official answers given in the official FAQ, then we only help to muddy the waters and make people MORE confused (instead of less confused).

I have to agree with yakface here (well, I don't have to but I do). The example of the Facebook page that was posted, I can not see that post personally. I am on my phone, I do not have a Facebook account, I don't want one, and if it wasn't for it being posted here I would never have known about it. I give gw props for trying to be more open and take direct questions and answer them in a more timely manner, but if they have not put it in an easy to find location where they put all their other answera (Errata and FAQ) then it may as well not be there. It's like that bad joke from Hitch hikers guide to the Galaxy. It was posted in the basement of sub building c of complex D for the last week, I don't know why no one saw it. . .

Thanks yak! +1

Azuza: I feel like GW doesn't do that because they expect it to be "so obvious". Any of these citings could simply be called rule explanations or interpretations from GW, how they would play it. They seem so stuck on the concept that it's blatantly obvious that we rarely get any official clarifications unless the issue becomes a big deal.

So I know you guys seem to not like anything that isn't a rulebook or an FAQ. But can we put this Dark Hereticus issue to rest with an internet post?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/08/13/daemons-and-thousand-sons-in-codex-chaos-space-marines-aug-13gw-homepage-post-2/

"Secondly, if you’re a Thousand Sons player, you may have noticed that the Dark Hereticus discipline in the new codex is larger than the one in the Index. Don’t worry – the discipline isn’t being replaced and you won’t need to get Codex: Chaos Space Marines to keep using it. Similarly, if you have Codex: Chaos Space Marines, you’re welcome to use the expanded Dark Hereticus powers with your Thousand Sons Psykers. If you’re a Daemons player, this change also applies to Be’lakor."

The point is you cannot expect players to search through videos on a different PR website from the one that hosts the actual rules to find a ruling. You also cannot expect every person you play with to have sat around watching GW PR videos and expect their knowledge of those videos content to have the same clarity or carry the same weight as a document on a website that you could print out and bring to the game with your rule book.

If it's not in the official documents and it's not in the rule books then it doesn't exist.

 Arkaine wrote:
So I know you guys seem to not like anything that isn't a rulebook or an FAQ. But can we put this Dark Hereticus issue to rest with an internet post?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/08/13/daemons-and-thousand-sons-in-codex-chaos-space-marines-aug-13gw-homepage-post-2/

"Secondly, if you’re a Thousand Sons player, you may have noticed that the Dark Hereticus discipline in the new codex is larger than the one in the Index. Don’t worry – the discipline isn’t being replaced and you won’t need to get Codex: Chaos Space Marines to keep using it. Similarly, if you have Codex: Chaos Space Marines, you’re welcome to use the expanded Dark Hereticus powers with your Thousand Sons Psykers. If you’re a Daemons player, this change also applies to Be’lakor."

And what does the top of the page say?...

 Lance845 wrote:
The point is you cannot expect players to search through videos on a different PR website from the one that hosts the actual rules to find a ruling. You also cannot expect every person you play with to have sat around watching GW PR videos and expect their knowledge of those videos content to have the same clarity or carry the same weight as a document on a website that you could print out and bring to the game with your rule book.

If it's not in the official documents and it's not in the rule books then it doesn't exist.

No, I'm fairly sure that's not the point that allen was getting at with his question. If you're talking about yak's early stuff, you're being redundant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:
So I know you guys seem to not like anything that isn't a rulebook or an FAQ. But can we put this Dark Hereticus issue to rest with an internet post?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/08/13/daemons-and-thousand-sons-in-codex-chaos-space-marines-aug-13gw-homepage-post-2/

"Secondly, if you’re a Thousand Sons player, you may have noticed that the Dark Hereticus discipline in the new codex is larger than the one in the Index. Don’t worry – the discipline isn’t being replaced and you won’t need to get Codex: Chaos Space Marines to keep using it. Similarly, if you have Codex: Chaos Space Marines, you’re welcome to use the expanded Dark Hereticus powers with your Thousand Sons Psykers. If you’re a Daemons player, this change also applies to Be’lakor."

And what does the top of the page say?...

Spoiler:

But these rules are not in the errata. They only added the Daemons rules to the errata. If having a picture on a website turns it into an errata, please let me know so I can use this knowledge for good!

Plus wasn't it your own post that said only rulebooks and FAQs are accepted?

 Ghaz wrote:

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop are easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.

From the Tenets of You Make Da Call.

And the header makes the entire article an errata...

 Ghaz wrote:
And the header makes the entire article an errata...

 Ghaz wrote:

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop are easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.

From the Tenets of You Make Da Call.

Please point to the word errata.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In fact...

 Ghaz wrote:
And they're still not FAQs either...

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also no one actually answered my question... is this acceptable now and has the issue been confirmed?

No Because as you pointed out it's not in the document.

As I pointed out you shouldn't be surfing the community site for an article that has a single line supporting intent.

There is a way to get to the list of FAQs/Errata. If it's not in the rule book or on that list then it's unreasonable for you to expect your opponents to be aware of it. When GW updates the FAQ AGAIN with that exception it will be fine. Until then I would personally accept it because it makes no difference to me. But it's also not in the actual rules of the game.

 Lance845 wrote:
As I pointed out you shouldn't be surfing the community site for an article that has a single line supporting intent.

I do no such thing! I merely check it daily for updates like the ones we receive on Legion previews. This is brand new information in written context from a GW website.

I anticipated the rules lawyers wouldn't accept it which is why I'm posing the question. I was quite adamant about that fact being spelled out, as I couldn't accept someone who only likes to communicate via links to be clear of their intent. It makes it too easy to backpedal when it turns out to be wrong.

The Quest Continues!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
There is a way to get to the list of FAQs/Errata. If it's not in the rule book or on that list then it's unreasonable for you to expect your opponents to be aware of it.

Though this part confuses me as it seems you are implying that Erratas count and the page I linked, per Ghaz's own argument, should count as an Errata.