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.

So I have seen some contrary opinions. I want to throw this out there.

So In the Eldar Index/Codex there has been some changes to Banshee Masks and Path of Command.

With the ability to take an Index loadout for certain Autarchs if you have the model(s) you may find this.

A Warp Jump Generator Autarch as HQ with Path of Command and a Banshee Mask.

Some have said you keep the Path of Command as written in the Index and don't get the expanded benefit of the Codex version.
But would not that mean the Banshee Mask on the Autarch would then have the Index rules and not the Codex?

It seems silly that an item with the same name but updated rules would play by the old rules.
To me it seems that both the Banshee Mask and Path of Command would work the way it is written in the Codex (not the Index).

If GW had a sLaserCannon Merry-go-round and it had an Index Version. Later they make the sLaserCannon a standard weapon option in a Codex but the stats had changed a good bit. I think it is very odd to keep 2 sets of rules for an identically named game item.

What is your call? Do Autarchs from the Index get the expanded rules for Path of Command or not?

thanks

TheDesignerCommentary wrote: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.

the last line is the most important, as the Codex defines the mask as wargear, therefore they supersede the index. Similarly, the path of command ability and the accompanying text that stipulates when it is available has been replaced, so the new version supersedes the older (this isn't covered by the flowchart since it is a general ability instead of a specific, but falls under other FAQ rulings)

Edit: the core of the problem is really GW's halfway-house method of trying to implement a living ruleset. They want the benefits but don't want to ditch traditional publishing, with the extra snag of not wanting to provide model options they don't sell (courtesy the beating they got in court). Predictably they (I'm guessing but it's a well supported one) published the codexes intending to fully deprecate all non-supported options but had to do a quick take-back or patch when the backlash they got from older players and collectors was much more severe than anticipated.

Ideally they would just bite the bullet and have kept supporting the old options that they didn't currently have kits for, gradually adding them as kits were refreshed, then we wouldn't have had this tangled mess in the first place.

 WindstormSCR wrote:
Ideally they would just bite the bullet and have kept supporting the old options that they didn't currently have kits for, gradually adding them as kits were refreshed, then we wouldn't have had this tangled mess in the first place.

Send your complaints to Chapter House.

To the OP: The designers commentary is nice and clear about this.

So I am still finding players who think that the same piece of gear/Ability should have 2 different version of the rules.

One for the Index and one for the Codex.

I'm exasperated.

 admironheart wrote:
So I am still finding players who think that the same piece of gear/Ability should have 2 different version of the rules.

One for the Index and one for the Codex.

I'm exasperated.

Show them the official errata. If they still don't agree then there is no helping them.

 admironheart wrote:
So I am still finding players who think that the same piece of gear/Ability should have 2 different version of the rules.

One for the Index and one for the Codex.

I'm exasperated.

Well it's not like GW wouldn't have plenty of history of that!

The way I see it, if using an Index datasheet, anything actually getailed on that datasheet is what you should use, unless it is wargear or is specifically updated in a Codex.

For example, the Warp Jump Autarch has a different Path of Command rule than the Codex. As the rule is actually on the datasheet, you should use the Index version.
But if you are using wargear options from the Index for a Codex unit, say an Autarch Skyrunner with Banshee mask, you may use the Codex version.

If, however, a rule or access to certain things is listed on an Index datasheet, but not explicitly detailed on the datasheet, you must use the most recent version of those rules.
Space Marine librarian is a good example. The Index tells you it has access to the Librarius discipline, which has been updated in the Codex. Since the codex specifically says Psykers with access to Librarius may use the version in the codex, you use the version in the codex regardless of what the Index says.

-

 Galef wrote:
The way I see it, if using an Index datasheet, anything actually getailed on that datasheet is what you should use, unless it is wargear or is specifically updated in a Codex.

[Citation Needed]

Only wargear has permission to be updated, not special rules or anything else.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Galef wrote:
The way I see it, if using an Index datasheet, anything actually getailed on that datasheet is what you should use, unless it is wargear or is specifically updated in a Codex.

[Citation Needed]

Only wargear has permission to be updated, not special rules or anything else.

Could we keep this discussion in the librarian thread?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Galef wrote:
The way I see it, if using an Index datasheet, anything actually getailed on that datasheet is what you should use, unless it is wargear or is specifically updated in a Codex.

[Citation Needed]

Only wargear has permission to be updated, not special rules or anything else.

No citation needed. If a datasheet says you use X and X is not on the datasheet (i.e. we need to refer to a different section for those rules) it only makes sense to use the most updated rules, whether wargear or not.
References to page numbers in said Index are irrelevant since rules get updated all the time over editions and those page numbers are often no longer valid.

So using the Libbie on bike example (sorry, it's the only example I can think of) the Index datasheet says you may use Librarius powers. The Codex has the only valid version of that discipline and specifically says "When generating powers, Psykers that have access to Librarius" which the Index Libbie does "may use the table below"
There is literally no reason to write the rule in that manner if it only applies to Codex Datasheets, therefore it must also apply to Index datasheets

This line of logic can, and indeed should, be applied to all Index vs Codex rules, not just the ones that have been specifically called out in Errata (wargear, points, etc).
If the rule is on the datasheet, use that rule (unless wargear). If the rule is referenced on the datasheet, but not ACTUALLY on the datasheet, you find the most updated rule.
Powers are rules, so you use the most recent.

-

Maybe they should be but they are not due to the writers not listing them in the errata.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Maybe they should be but they are not due to the writers not listing them in the errata.

Which I would argue don't need to be in the errata in the first place. Since the powers are not listed on the datasheet (just access to the discipline in general), the Errata would not make sense at all, since it specifically is telling you what to use when there is a conflict ON THE DATASHEETS.

If the powers were listed individually with their full description, the errata indeed would need to reference them. But only access to the discipline is on the datasheet.
GW obviously assumes the community is smart enough to not need their hand held (although admittedly this is a source for many rules debates)
And considering all the updated Disciplines direct you to use them for any Psyker that can access that Discipline, there is a further reason not bother mentioning powers in the Errata.

-

So you're saying that the list in the errata isn't exhaustive? I'm pretty sure that when someone says that they're correcting the mistake that they made they're usually going to cover everything they meant to cover originally.

RAI you may be correct but RAW I'm afraid I disagree with you.

That's fine. Luckily for me none of this affects my army whether someone agrees with me or not. I was just trying to help out the Marine players with some discussion points to get to use their Bike Libbies as they should be used.

By my reading of the RAW they can use Codex powers.

Putting RAW by your point and RAI by the opposing view does not make your point automatically correct and unassailable. You may be getting the RAW wrong.

 Galef wrote:
on that datasheet is what you should use, unless it is wargear or is specifically updated in a Codex..

-

Isnt it a printed fact that Power of Command was indeed specifically updated in a Codex. I see it updated in mine.

Swooping Hawk Grenade pack is updated in the Codex. It is NOT wargear, but an update to an ability. How is PoC not the same?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You see Ancient Doom and Battle Focus were 'common abilities' to many asuryanin units in the index.

The path of command was NOT. PoC was listed on the datasheets.

Ancient Doom and Battle Focus are worded differently in the Codex vs the Index.

So a WJ Autarch would get the new 'common' abilities from the Codex. I think everyone agrees.

Some are saying since PoC was written as an ability on the datasheet it is the old version.

HOWEVER in the Codex PoC HAS become a 'common ability to many Asuryanin" abilty and has changed from a datasheet entry to an armywide entry.

This is significant. It is now considered a common ability. Not to all units but to some.

Power of Command is no longer a datasheet entry, but a common ability.

By reason of a common ability, it should get the same treatment as battle focus and ancient doom does.

Just my thoughts, I know RAW and twisted by rules lawyers can be read however you want. But there is a New wording for PoC. It is a common ability in the current codex....not an index...I think this is how they changed the Autarch's ForceShield.....from an ability to a wargear. (except for the Peerless Ability save for the Skyrunner).

Totally different scenario because both Swooping Hawks and Autarchs were given datasheets in the codex to update them. Librarian on Bike was not.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Totally different scenario because both Swooping Hawks and Autarchs were given datasheets in the codex to update them. Librarian on Bike was not.

Librarian on Bike - index only.
Autarch with Warp Jump Generator - probably index only, which I assume based on it being used as an example.

Autarch and Librarian are different datasheets from these two.

Indeed, the Autarch with Warp Jump generator was not updated to the Codex. So to use it, you must use the Index datasheet.

However, he get to use the points/wargear form the codex, as well as any rules that are listed on his datasheet, but do not have the rule laid out on the datasheet.
For example: Ancient Doom is on the datasheet, but NOT the rule itself. You would need the Codex to find the relevant rule.
Path of Command, on the other hand, is spelled out on the Index datasheet, meaning you would need to use that version, not the Codex version.

-

 Galef wrote:
For example: Ancient Doom is on the datasheet, but NOT the rule itself. You would need the Codex to find the relevant rule.

It literally gives you a page reference.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Galef wrote:
For example: Ancient Doom is on the datasheet, but NOT the rule itself. You would need the Codex to find the relevant rule.

It literally gives you a page reference.

By the way: Is that still your core argument? The page reference given for convenience?

nekooni wrote:
By the way: Is that still your core argument? The page reference given for convenience?

I've explained the rules multiple times. If you don't understand it by now you never will.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:
By the way: Is that still your core argument? The page reference given for convenience?

I've explained the rules multiple times. If you don't understand it by now you never will.

You've at best explained your interpretation of the rules. Just answer the question and if necessary correct me if I am wrong about it being your core argument, please.

You see....the page number is irrelevant. As Battle Focus is worded differently in the Codex. So the WJ Autarch NOW ignores the page number and uses the updated Battle Focus found in the codex.

Why? It is a common ability. In the Index there are 2 common abilities to the army, but not all units. In the codex it has been expanded to 3 common abilities. ... the latter being Path of Command.

You see Path of Command is NO LONGER a specific ability. ala Force Field is no longer an ability but is NOW wargear.

If Path of Command WAS NOT a common ability as outlined in the codex then your argument would hold.

However It is NOW a common ability in the game. Just as the common ability of Battle focus references the codex with the change in wording...so to the line of thought is that the old specific datafax ability that has been added as a common ability would reference the codex as well.

Just try that on. Wrap you head around it for a sec. (go on you can do it )

We've explained several times why pages references are NOT hard rules, but rather there for convenience and convenience ONLY. This has been a common convention in 40K since forever. Rules get updated all the time and can often refer to page numbers that are outdated, or even in books that are no longer valid.

But you said it yourself:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you don't understand it by now you never will.

The bottom line here is that datasheet does not actually tell us to use rule X from the Index. It says we may use rule X, then references a page number for convenience. This is NOT telling use we must use the rule on that page, as that rule actually exists in the Codex, so we use that version.

-

While I agree with your premise (the page reference is irrelevant) I disagree with your conclusion. Index datasheets were made with index rules in mind. Therefore unless directed elsewhere you would apply all index rules as written. We have a designers comment that says that you should use the most recent costs (and rules) for war gear and some other specific items but that list is exclusive and therefore limited to those items specified.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
While I agree with your premise (the page reference is irrelevant) I disagree with your conclusion. Index datasheets were made with index rules in mind. Therefore unless directed elsewhere you would apply all index rules as written. We have a designers comment that says that you should use the most recent costs (and rules) for war gear and some other specific items but that list is exclusive and therefore limited to those items specified.

I agree if the rule is on the datasheet, meaning what the rule actually does, not just its name. If the rule is on the datasheet in name only, you should probably use the codex version. Remember that GW has given us permission to use the Index DATASHEETS and options that were not updated in a Codex. We don't really have permission to use other rules from the Index, unless those rules/options can ONLY be found in the Index (Twin Auto-cannons for Dreads, for example)

So for a WJ Autarch, Battle focus is on the datasheet by name, but not by rule. therefore you must use the Codex version (as that is the only version of BF that exists in the eyes of the rules)
PoC, however is actually on the Index datasheet by rule. Therefore, you would need to use the rule as it is on the datasheet, not the Codex version

This is my logic for Bike Librarians too. Access to the Librarius is on the Index datasheet (with a convenient, but otherwise irrelevant page reference), but since the discipline itself is not on the datasheet, you use the most current version of that discipline (and further support for this can be found in BOTH the Index and Codex for generating powers, but that's another thread)

-