Gentlemanloser Posted October 27, 2017 Author Share Posted October 27, 2017 Check the faq i posted. They do not effect the use of chapter tactics, doctrines, crawftworld bonuses etc. "They still gain all the army wide-bonuses for things like Chapter Tactics" A much more encompasing example is the GK librarian. The change from index to codex includes Wargear (stormshield) Stats (bs and ws) Ability (rites. The smite nerf one) "1) Are The Codex DataSheets intended to overwrite Index one’s?" Yes. "2) What is the purpose of allowing the Index DataSheets?" GW have made a rod for thier own backs by only having codexes cover the existing model range. But not wanting to alienate players with models made from earlier game options. So they allow old models to stand using index rules. "3) Are the Codexes DataSheets functionally abridged versions of the Index DataSheets or are they functionally different DataSheets?" Funtionally different. Bs/ws 2+ codex librarians are functionally different to bs/ws 3+. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmonkeyman Posted October 27, 2017 Share Posted October 27, 2017 I think it's really funny you've managed to find a work around! Don't think it would actually work at a tournament - RAW though I think you are correct. (I'm not a guard player by the way) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claws and Effect Posted October 27, 2017 Share Posted October 27, 2017 don't play IG and don't personally care about summary Execution. In fact i support the nerf. So please drop the personal line. It has no place in the OR. My comment was meant as a general "you", not "you specifically". I apologize if that seemed like a personal attack. Not my intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted October 28, 2017 Author Share Posted October 28, 2017 All good! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ciler Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 The recent Astra Militarum FAQ has amended the Codex Commisars Summary Execution ability. The Index version of the Commisar has different options to the Codex version (power axes i belive), so it should still be possible to use an 'Index' datasheet Commisar instead of the Codex version (if you purchase a Power Axe). As the AM FAQ specifies the codex pages where the summary Execution ability is reworded, the abilities on the Index Commisar datasheet should be unchanged. Letting you use an Index Commisar with an unchanged Summary Execution rule. While feeling like a complete oversight, this should be an available option, shouldn't it? Actually, this is a case they had anticipated, there is no oversight. I was rereading the community page on this for another reason when I stumbled upon this : Are the rules changing? Yes, many units’ rules in their codexes will alter from those in the indexes. Sometimes this is to better represent the miniatures and the background, sometimes to balance the game, and sometimes to better fit with the army’s new special rules in the codex itself. In all cases, these will then supersede the rules for that datasheet in the index book. So, although you may be allowed to use an index datasheet for the purpose of using equipment options unavailable in the codex, an any case special rules will be that of the codex. To be honest, I feel their wording was overly convoluted and that it would have been clearer and simpler to say : "if your model is built with wargear that is not available in the codex, use the wargear entry from the index datasheet, and for everything else (stats, special rules, keywords) use the codex datasheet". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted October 31, 2017 Author Share Posted October 31, 2017 That would fix the issue. We now have a case though where the two commentary entries supply different rules. One says to use the codex datasheet for rules the other to use the index datasheet. I'd like to have twin auto dreads and allow them to choose a pyshic power, or have gk librarians with bs/ws 2+ and storm shields. So I'm easy either way. GW needed to release an official FAQ / Errata on this issue rather than leaving it with multiple contradicting designers commentaries. Until then. Ughh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Orlock Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 GW needed to release an official FAQ / Errata on this issue rather than leaving it with multiple contradicting designers commentaries.Indeed. I'd be more comfortable relying on this if it was on a revision controlled .pdf rather than in some random community blog entry mixed in with marketing materials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adeptus Posted November 1, 2017 Share Posted November 1, 2017 Can you use the index datasheet? Yes. Should you? Not if you want to actually play games in the wider community, lol! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ciler Posted November 1, 2017 Share Posted November 1, 2017 Indeed. I'd be more comfortable relying on this if it was on a revision controlled .pdf rather than in some random community blog entry mixed in with marketing materials. That's unlikely to happen though. I don't imagine that GW wants the indexes to be used in the long run. They allow it so as not to antagonise those players with "classic" armies and those that started a few years ago and put great expense in building their space marine death star on bike, but clearly their long term goal is codexes. Plus, they were probably expecting players to use common sense, and not what actually happened, which was players trying to abuse the codex to bypass rules and such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted November 1, 2017 Author Share Posted November 1, 2017 They should have kept all old options in the codex. I'd they drop any they will upset and alienate an amount of thier playerbase. I wonder if this will be addressed in Chapter Approved. What every route GW take, they are going to upset someone. Yeah Adeptus, just like us GK players who still want to use our twin auto dreads... Shouldn't be allowed in the wider community, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adeptus Posted November 1, 2017 Share Posted November 1, 2017 They should have kept all old options in the codex. I'd they drop any they will upset and alienate an amount of thier playerbase. I wonder if this will be addressed in Chapter Approved. What every route GW take, they are going to upset someone. Yeah Adeptus, just like us GK players who still want to use our twin auto dreads... Shouldn't be allowed in the wider community, right? Apples and oranges mate, and you don't need me to spell out why ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dam13n Posted November 1, 2017 Share Posted November 1, 2017 Seeing as this is now passing from a rules discussion into general chit-chat, I think it's time to call this one done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.