Index or Codex? When to use what.

[Damo1701]

 

 

You're miss-reading your source.

 

The chapter champion has a datasheet in the codex, therefore the codex applies. You can use index datasheets for stuff that doesn't have a codex entry in the codex (e.g. chaplain on bike).

 

As for the autocanon dread, it is also not available anymore, unless you take the mortis pattern from the FW index.

Quote from source:

"There are a few options that are missing in the codex that appear in the index: why is that? Does that mean I can’t use these models in my army anymore?

While the indexes are designed to cover a long history of miniatures, the codexes are designed to give you rules for the current Warhammer 40,000 range. There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.

Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index).

They still gain all the army wide-bonuses for things like Chapter Tactics and can use Space Marines Stratagems and the like, so such venerable heroes still fit right in with the rest of your army."

 

 

It's very clear. If Wargear options have changed from index to codex, then you can still use the index options as long as you use the most points for said gear from the most recent publication it appears in.

 

In the case of the thunder hammer, it's the codex. In the case of twin autos, it's the index.

That covers the issue of wargear, but fails to address that of the base model - which we know is relevant because that's typically the case of the chaplain on bike.

 

Could I use the centurion devastators from the index (the base model is cheaper) and use the codex equipment ?

 

In order to prevent derailing a thread, I thought I would start here.

 

I've seen people questioning how to use both Index Imperium 1 and Codex Space Marines side by side.

 

On a personal level, I found the answer straightforward.

 

If you have a model from a previous edition that is no longer valid in Codex: Space Marines, you use the entry in the index.  Now, how does this stack with working out points for Matched Play?

 

Simple!

 

You look at your entry in the index and codex, comparing base points costs.

 

You write down the cost from Codex: Space Marines.

 

Wargear options; check the index and Codex.  If there is a deviation and your model is legally equipped according to the Index, but not the Codex, write down the wargear from the Index, BUT use the points (if listed) from Codex: Space Marines.

 

The only time to use the points values from Index Imperium 1 is where an option has been completely removed from the codex.

 

It's not really any different than using a Forgeworld book.  For example, as Dreadnoughts can no-longer ride in drop pods, but you have modelled your standard drop pods to carry dreadnoughts, you use the Forgeworld Index for a source of points.  Again, where points may differ from the Codex and Index, always use the codex, as it is the most recent.

 

If/when Chapter Approved drops, and it changes some points of Imperial weaponry for Space Marines, we would be expected to use that for the changed ones, unless you wish to write in your codex.

 

I hope that I've explained it clearly enough.  If not, I have no problem trying again.

[Brother Casman]

This is *exactly* how I go about the process.

[Ciler]

Great, now how do you reconcile that with the other part of that quote that always gets left behind ?

 

 

Can I combine units from the index and a codex into one army?
The datasheets in the new codexes overwrite the same datasheets in the index books. You can certainly use units with updated datasheets alongside units from the index that have yet to be updated. Once a unit has been covered in the codex though, we assume you’re using the latest version.

 

Can I choose to use the rules and/or points for units from my index instead of the new ones in the codex once released?
In your own games, if you and your opponent agree, you can, of course, play with whatever rules you like.

In all future publications and official events though, it will be assumed that you’re using the most recent rules and Datasheets. It will also be assumed that you’re using the most up to date points for matched play, in this case, those included in the codex.

When you use the wargear options from the old datasheet, can you claim you're using the most recent rules ?

 

As I've said in the other thread, I would be delighted for your reading to be the correct one : "any model that's invalid in the codex can be played through the index regardless of why it is now invalid (missing wargear, missing datasheet, missing wargear options)". But I am simply not convinced that that is the case because the only examples that have ever been given are of the first two cases (dreadnought weapons and characters on bike) and even the first one of those contradict the "most recent datasheet" principle. 

 

We'll know better when the lists for the grand tournament are released.

Edited August 23, 2017 by Ciler

[Damo1701]

Codex = What GW do, or will sell.

Index = no model left behind unlike previous edition changes.

 

What is causing you an issue?

 

Codex: Honour Guard only have Power Axe, boltgun, bolt pistol and grenades.

 

Index: Honour Guard can swap axe for power sword, power lance, power maul, or relic blade.

 

Good sportsmanship says the index options were modelled before the edition change.

 

Other example:

 

Chapter Champion:

 

Codex: no options to change.

 

Index: options for change.

 

Points?

 

Where points do not appear in the Codex, you use the index.

 

Edit:

 

In official events you can't use the old Index options though, since it says Rules, Datasheets and Points must be the most recent.

Funnily enough, while the Datasheet might omit options, any Tournament Organiser who wants decent attendance should stick by GW's inclusion of legacy units/models/options.

 

If you are a tournament player, always check with the TO.

 

If you are a regular gamer, then anybody who asks can be shown whatever it is you wish to show them to prove your model/loadouts is still legitimate.

Edited August 23, 2017 by Damo1701

[Medicinal Carrots]

Datasheet in the Index but not the Codex -> Use the Index Datasheet and most recent points published

Datasheet in the Codex but not the Index -> Use the Codex

Datasheet in both, and all wargear options are the same -> Use the Codex

Datasheet in both and the Index has different options -> Use either one, but use the most recent point values for the options you chose

 

Examples:

A Chaplain on a bike is in the Index but not the Codex. Use the Index datasheet, and Codex points (unless choosing an option that doesn't have points in the Codex)

A non-Primaris Lieutenant is in the Codex but not in the Index. Use the Codex for all purposes.

A Stormraven is in the Index and Codex. It has different transport rules (Codex version can't carry Redemptors), but all wargear options are the same. Use the Codex for all purposes.

A Venerable Dreadnought is a datasheet in both, but the Index has options the Codex doesn't. If you take a twin heavy flamer, twin autocannons, etc that aren't in the Codex, you use the Index datasheet. You use the Codex points for everything that's there, and the Index points for the twin autocannon.

 

You use the most recent points and rules for the units and wargear you select.

[Ciler]

Datasheet in both and the Index has different options -> Use either one, but use the most recent point values for the options you chose

See, that's where I think the argument goes off the rail, because they explicitly say "use the most recent datasheet", so you can't use "either".

 

But then your autocanon dreadnought is out of the question, despite the fact that they name it as an example.

 

So i don't know, but clearly the problem is there : you can't simultaneously "use the most recent datasheet" and "use options from the index datasheet".

[Arkangilos]

They say use most recent data sheet unless a model is built in a way that the new data sheet cannot be used, you then use the old one, because your model would be valid with the old one. The whole point was to allow you to keep using models that were valid.

Essentially if a unit *can* use he most recent one, *use* the most recent one.

 

A autocannon dread *cannot* so use the old one. It's not that hard.

[Arkangilos]

The points are not part of the data sheet, so you use most recent points based on the points page. If the points page does NOT include wargear, then the "most recent" would be the points from the index.

I cannot see how anyone cannot claim that the example THEY provided doesn't fit. They gave the example, they know what is allowed.

[Claws and Effect]

 

Datasheet in both and the Index has different options -> Use either one, but use the most recent point values for the options you chose

See, that's where I think the argument goes off the rail, because they explicitly say "use the most recent datasheet", so you can't use "either".

 

But then your autocanon dreadnought is out of the question, despite the fact that they name it as an example.

 

So i don't know, but clearly the problem is there : you can't simultaneously "use the most recent datasheet" and "use options from the index datasheet".

 

 

So you're saying Games Workshop pulled a bait and switch and/or blatantly lied to us? 

 

Because the stated intent of the Indexes is so you could use ANY model you currently own, while the Codex only includes options contained within the package you bought a unit in. Example: Sternguard Sergeants can't take a thunder hammer because the box does not come with one in it. 

 

By your logic, Games Workshop said "Here's a book that ensures none of your models are invalidated" and then less than 2 months later said "Okay, any wargear options not in this book are invalidated." 

 

If what you're implying is indeed the case, it very much flies in the face of GW's recent track record (though it's what I would expect out of the GW of a decade ago). 

 

If true, how many people had large chunks of their armies invalidated overnight? 

[Ciler]

They say use most recent data sheet unless a model is built in a way that the new data sheet cannot be used, you then use the old one,

Where ? Where ?

 

See the complete quote above : "Once a unit has been covered in the codex though, we assume you’re using the latest version"

I don't see an "unless..."

[Ciler]

 

So you're saying Games Workshop pulled a bait and switch and/or blatantly lied to us? 

 

Because the stated intent of the Indexes is so you could use ANY model you currently own, while the Codex only includes options contained within the package you bought a unit in. Example: Sternguard Sergeants can't take a thunder hammer because the box does not come with one in it.

No, I am not.

 

I am saying that I find "use the most recent datasheet when it exists" difficult to reconcile with "but it's OK to use old options". Nothing else.

 

As for what GW allows, we should see their tournament lists soon enough and we can check then whether any includes an index valid/codex invalid model.

[Damo1701]

 

 

They say use most recent data sheet unless a model is built in a way that the new data sheet cannot be used, you then use the old one,

Where ? Where ?

 

See the complete quote above : "Once a unit has been covered in the codex though, we assume you’re using the latest version"

I don't see an "unless..."

"We assume..."

 

It's just that. GW assuming you've ripped models apart.

 

Well, if you have a model/unit that is valid in the index but not the Codex, guess what...

 

The most recent rules for that unit is the index.

[Arkangilos]

""There are a few options that are missing in the codex that appear in the index: why is that? Does that mean I can’t use these models in my army anymore?

While the indexes are designed to cover a long history of miniatures, the codexes are designed to give you rules for the current Warhammer 40,000 range. There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.

Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index)."

 

That is the "unless". Use some critical thinking skills.

 

Use the most recent *unless* "you have these older models" in which case, "you can still use all of these" by using "the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index)."

 

So you see, they laid it out clearly. If you have a model using an old layout, as given by THEIR OWN EXAMPLE, you can use the old options.

[Arkangilos]

I mean literally, all of the above is the exact same thing as saying, "use the most recent options unless you have the old loadouts that used to be perfectly legal"

 

It's a synonym.

Edited August 23, 2017 by Arkangilos

[Ciler]

Then why go through a convoluted statement, and take additional pain later on to say "use the most recent datasheet" if a simple "use the index for everything that doesn't fit the codex" was enough ?

 

And please do mind your tone : "use some critical thinking", I do actually. I'm the one looking at the whole picture and not just my personal self interest here. I play marines, I'd be perfectly happy with having all my "outdated" models made legal again.

[Arkangilos]

We are looking at the whole picture. We are using what they said, word for word. They said very clearly that if the model you built has options in the index but not in the codex, use the index.

[Mileposter]

While we're overthinking the FAQ, we can take a look at it another way: "Can we use our Index-legal models?" we asked. GW didn't say "you can use X of them but not Y.". They said "You can still use all of these in your games" with no segregation. "All of these", not "some of these". Since there was no segregation in the answer, why assume there's segregation in the application of the answer?

[Ciler]

While we're overthinking the FAQ, we can take a look at it another way: "Can we use our Index-legal models?" we asked. GW didn't say "you can use X of them but not Y.". They said "You can still use all of these in your games" with no segregation. "All of these", not "some of these". Since there was no segregation in the answer, why assume there's segregation in the application of the answer?

Certainly. And as I said, I would lean that way myself.

 

But as we know, rule wrangling - especially on the competitive scene - is never handled that way.

[Damo1701]

 

While we're overthinking the FAQ, we can take a look at it another way: "Can we use our Index-legal models?" we asked. GW didn't say "you can use X of them but not Y.". They said "You can still use all of these in your games" with no segregation. "All of these", not "some of these". Since there was no segregation in the answer, why assume there's segregation in the application of the answer?

Certainly. And as I said, I would lean that way myself.

 

But as we know, rule wrangling - especially on the competitive scene - is never handled that way.

 

 

Ok... I'm now a bit confused as to your point here.

 

Are you somebody who wants to take part in tournaments, who has Index legal/Codex illegal models, or, are you somebody who wants to stop people using Index legal/Codex illegal models?

 

Games Workshop have quite clearly stated that for models without a Codex entry, you CAN use the Index entry.  Games Workshop have also said that you use the most up-to-date points source to represent your models in Matched Play.

 

There is NOTHING ambiguous about that ruling.  

 

When GW assumes the most up to date rules are being used, they have stated the sources of those rules for the models at hand.

 

Now, what different Tournament Organisers get up to with their own hosted events has only affected other scenes in a somewhat negative manner, in my experience.  ITC, for example, feel they can write rules and FAQs better than GW, and these somehow become Gospel when people are discussing rules and their/other sources interpretations are questioned.

 

What we need to remember is that Tournament Organisers can place ANY restrictions on THEIR OWN events that they like.  That, however, DOES NOT affect the casual scene in any way, shape, or form.  Unless people are netlisting.

 

There is no wrangling required with anything that I've seen in this thread, or other places where the question has been brought up.

 

There is a simple Golden (Throne) Rule to remember when writing an army list.

 

Use the most recent rules for THAT model.

 

So, if an option doesn't exist in the Codex, but it does the Index, use the index for the rules.  Always use the Codex for the points, unless an entry has been omitted.  Like, for example, the Dreadnought Twin Autocannon.

 

We were promised, categorically, that legacy models would be supported into 8th edition.  The Index has done that.  The Codex has only updated datasheets to what's in the box.  

[Ciler]

 

 

While we're overthinking the FAQ, we can take a look at it another way: "Can we use our Index-legal models?" we asked. GW didn't say "you can use X of them but not Y.". They said "You can still use all of these in your games" with no segregation. "All of these", not "some of these". Since there was no segregation in the answer, why assume there's segregation in the application of the answer?

Certainly. And as I said, I would lean that way myself.

 

But as we know, rule wrangling - especially on the competitive scene - is never handled that way.

 

 

Ok... I'm now a bit confused as to your point here.

 

Are you somebody who wants to take part in tournaments, who has Index legal/Codex illegal models, or, are you somebody who wants to stop people using Index legal/Codex illegal models?

That shouldn't matter, my point is precisely that I'm trying to look at this regardless of which answer would be preferential to me. But yes, I have a somewhat extensive collection of models invalidated by the codex, so I'd be delighted if I could demonstrate without any doubt that those are totally playable.

 

 

 

Games Workshop have quite clearly stated that for models without a Codex entry, you CAN use the Index entry.  Games Workshop have also said that you use the most up-to-date points source to represent your models in Matched Play.

[...]

We were promised, categorically, that legacy models would be supported into 8th edition.  The Index has done that.  The Codex has only updated datasheets to what's in the box.  

Yes. And despite that early and commendable statement, they have also repeatedly said "we expect you to use only the most recent datasheet" which is fine for chaplain bikers but voids certain options for models like the company champion, etc.

 

 

How do you justify to someone using an old datasheet (for its options only) when a newer one exists ? That's my point.

[Damo1701]

Simple: The most recent datasheet for my Chapter Champion with Thunder Hammer is the one from Tue Index.

 

That's the point. You use the most recent datasheet for your model.

 

Same goes for Sternguard Sergeants equipped with Thunder Hammers, and anything else that has changed between Codex and Index publication.

[Ciler]

Simple: The most recent datasheet for my Chapter Champion with Thunder Hammer is the one from Tue Index.

 

That's the point. You use the most recent datasheet for your model.

 

Same goes for Sternguard Sergeants equipped with Thunder Hammers, and anything else that has changed between Codex and Index publication.

That just flies in the face of this :

 

Can I choose to use the rules and/or points for units from my index instead of the new ones in the codex once released?

[...]

In all future publications and official events though, it will be assumed that you’re using the most recent rules and Datasheets.

Because you're clearly picking and choosing the rules (wargear options) from the index over the codex ones. Or are we considering that options aren't part of the rules (which altogether opens another can of worms)?

 

It is certainly not "simple", no.

[Mileposter]

Or are we considering that options aren't part of the rules (which altogether opens another can of worms)?

It would seem that no, they are not. If options - which are part of a datasheet - were part of the rules, they would not need to say rules and Datasheets. They would only need to say 'rules'. Points costs are not included in these datasheets, for example, and thus would be covered by 'rules'. Thus, a Thunder-hammer wielding Sternguard Sergeant would be using his most recent Datasheet (index) and rules (Codex).

 

I wonder if the debate over this interpretation stems from our mentality regarding the models. What I've seen written in posts over a lot of these forums suggests that many of us think of the rules first, models second. Many seem to create their models to fit the rules to the utmost. Helps us play with WYSIWYG armies, tournament style reinforces it, etc.

 

But the statement that GW makes, with comments like "use the most recent Datasheet for your model" (emphasis mine) suggests that in some fashion, the rules come second to the model. Perhaps this is an attitude change from GW to help foster more friendly game environments? Obviously, this sentiment cannot be taken to its logical extreme (I modeled my Terminator with an Eldar Scatter Laser, I can use it!), so I dunno. I'm mostly babbling at this point, but it is an interesting phrasing that expresses a different intent.

[Damo1701]

 

 

Simple: The most recent datasheet for my Chapter Champion with Thunder Hammer is the one from Tue Index.

 

That's the point. You use the most recent datasheet for your model.

 

Same goes for Sternguard Sergeants equipped with Thunder Hammers, and anything else that has changed between Codex and Index publication.

That just flies in the face of this :

Can I choose to use the rules and/or points for units from my index instead of the new ones in the codex once released?

[...]

In all future publications and official events though, it will be assumed that you’re using the most recent rules and Datasheets.

Because you're clearly picking and choosing the rules (wargear options) from the index over the codex ones. Or are we considering that options aren't part of the rules (which altogether opens another can of worms)?

 

It is certainly not "simple", no.

It is totally simple.

 

An assumption can be changed into knowledge by using the official, published rules for your models in question.

 

The most recent rules and datasheets are what they are. The most recent rules for a Sternguard Sergeant with Thunder Hammer options is in the Index. His profile and points is in the Codex.

 

I'm honestly not getting what the confusion is at all...

 

Unlike the change from 2nd edition to Third edition, which required most collectors to massively remodel their armies, GW have attempted to prevent this by saying that all legacy models are game-legal coming from all editions after 3rd.

 

Ignoring Forge World specific chapters with Segeants as Apothecaries for now...

[Mileposter]

Taking another moment to play my own Devil's Advocate - points are not included on a Datasheet, and so are included in the 'rules' part of the statement 'rules and Datasheets'. However, Power Level is on the Datasheet - which leads to the suggestion that if you're running a Sergeant with a Thunderhammer, you would be required to use the Power Level of that Datasheet, if it has changed.

 

This is an interesting scenario.