Thunder hammer for index Biker Lord?

[Dr_Ruminahui]

Well, psychic powers aren't "wargear" so the chart wouldn't seem to apply.  So I don't think there is any indication in the rules as to what occurs when you can take an index pscyher who has different power options than in the codex.

[Doom Herald]

Your argument against has too many conditions. It revolves around the assumption that the flowchart saying we can use old wargear list options for Codex units implicitly states we can not use new options for the same factions same named wargear list on Index units, that the datasheet includes all wargear options by name by saying they have access to the list, and it finally revolves around the Vigilus II book giving the wrong page numbers for what is updated in the first Codex. The argument for, merely needs the updated wargear list to counts as the most recent faction rules. To argue against makes more assumptions on behalf of GW than to argue for.

[Special Officer Doofy]

Perhaps this thread might be better placed in the rules forum.

 

Sounds like the people arguing for it are doing so just because they want the hammer on the bike lord. I think the argument for makes even more assumptions on GW's behalf. The whole reason they did the flowchart was so people's old models will still be table top legal without changing the models or replacing them. Not so years later when wargear rules change for new units you can saw off old unit's hands, put on new weapons, make up your own flowchart and cheese the game... Just my opinion though.

 

Either way I don't think it is game changing. Locally it won't matter, and if you bring it to a tournament and they say no then you can't use the hammer, simple as that.

[Dr_Ruminahui]

My basic assumption is that the rules are prescriptive - unless the rules say you can do something, you can't.  For example, the FAQ says that if a unit exits a table edge, it counts as destroyed.  Can I then knock my opponent's models off the table to remove them from the game?  No.  Why?  The rules don't say I can.

 

Likewise, I want to move a unit from one side of the table to another.  Can I do that?  Maybe - if there is a rules (like the Ork Da Jump power) that says I can, or if I can get there with the models movement (which is a different rule).  If there is no rule saying that I can - then no, I can't.

 

Here, we have Vigilus which provides new wargear lists in a section that says it updates the CSM v. 1 wargear lists.  It, however, doesn't list the wargear lists on the pages that it gives in brackets to list the section.  Now, from a prescriptive point of view, there are 2 possible results:

 

    1.  The way the rules are written, the Vigilus weapons lists only apply to Vigilus.  That is the strict RAW.

    2.  GW made a mistake in excluding the page number of the wargear list from the pages that update CSM v. 1.  Yes, this is an assumption, but a reasonable one - and note, if the assumption is wrong, that simply brings it back to the rules as written - that the Vigilus wargear lists only apply to the Vigilus units.

 

What you are doing is saying that unless the rules state otherwise, the Vigilus wargear lists update all Chaos wargear lists.  There are no rules anywhere that indicate this.  This is inventing your own rule because you want a certain result.  That is not the way the ruleset works.

[Doom Herald]

Of course, until there is an official answer, whatever the local game group or tournament says is what goes. I honestly don't plan to use a Index unit with Thunderhammer, I just don't see why we can't. The argument against is just that the flowchart doesn't say we can use new wargear options for Index units. Of course it won't. if the new unit had new wargear options, it would mean there would be a new datasheet which we would use. The option to take a weapon from the Melee Weapon list is not a new option; it has always been on the datasheet. You can say that we aren't explicitly told that a faction's new wargear list will add to that faction's previous same named wargear list, so we can't. But, to say so is to say a CSM player with the 2017 Codex and Vigilus Ablaze cannot use Thunderhammers. There is no way around that, with the rules as currently written. We know this is in fact not the case though because GW says we don't need the 2019 Codex to use all the rules and that with the first Codex, Shadowspear datasheets and Vigilus Ablaze, we have all the content of the 2019 Codex +.

 

Now, if we say that the new wargear list is a change to faction rules, this problem goes away. Admittedly, if there is a typo and it gets fixed that too could make this go away, but there are so many things we could just say are typos in the hope of being right. I would ask, a bit more seriously this time, if (on the same page as Vigilus II wargear list) Vigilus Ablaze had changed the way Death to the False Emperor works, the changes were carried over into the 2019 Codex, but the 2017 Codex and Index did not receive erata on the rule would you argue that the Index units still have to use the old Death to the False Emperor? The fact that they have it is on their datasheet, the definition is listed with faction rules, as are the wargear lists, and, in the case of the Index, the Dark Hereticus discipline (which we can use the updated list from later publications as a substitute for Index models).

 

You tell me that what I'm suggesting counters the spirit behind the Index/Codex flowchart, but that chart is not a critical piece to my argument. You are right, the big reason they did it was so that people with models they no longer manufacture can be used. However, I would say trying to use that to say you shouldn't make modifications is not what was intended either. Was there ever a model for a Lord on Bike/Juggernaut/Disc/Palanquin/Steed with dual lightning claws, or did that always have to be kitbashed? You can certainly do it with the Index.

 

On that note, I do not believe that the intent behind adding Thunderhammers to the Melee Weapon list was to give all CSM units with access to that list except specifically Index HQs the ability to have a Thunderhammer. Maybe it's from playing too much CSM, but even though GW says they don't want people to have to kitbash the units they field, kitbashing is still a necessary part for many Codex units. We have no HQ kits with Powermauls, yet by Codex we can use them and have relics that require them. Only one Chainaxe is in a Terminator kit, yet it's supposed to be the default weapon. Kitbashing is a part of playing CSM, if they really don't want us to kitbash to make a good unit, they shouldn't make it necessary.

[Doom Herald]

We are told to use the most current rules, I would count the new wargear list as the most up to date faction rules, similar to Psychic Powers. The wargear lists are after all with the other faction rules. Replace X with an item from the Melee Weapons list, well the hammers are on the most recent list.

 

To say you can and can't are both questionable, but I personally feel the case in favor is stronger. Until it is answered explicitly though, it is definitely best to ask your group or tournament organisers before using it. If you want to be completely cautious, don't use it. Outside of a rules lawyering perspective, from either side, it really shouldn't matter if you use the hammer but it will, unfortunately.

[Special Officer Doofy]

It's definately a Grey area. I'm still with Dr. R on this one, that the rules are prescriptive. There's too much going on in wh40k to be otherwise I feel. But agree to disagree! I refuse to play with people that abuse the index and unbalanced forge world models.

 

If I lost a game from my opponent's bike lord(s) having a thunder hammer over another weapon, then it was more likely I lost to the dice gods or a better player anyways haha.

[Special Officer Doofy]

To the OP, I had some time to kill last night at work and checked other forums and sites about index only units using new war gear list (and a couple that was about a chaos lord on bike using a thunder hammer specifically) and it was very split.

 

The people that wanted the index units with new codex wargear argued and cherry picked language used by games workshop to justify it and people who see it as opposite of the flowchart and rule breaking stuck their feet in the ground and insisted there needed to be more rules and clarification on it.

 

Wish I had something more helpful to tell you. I still say do what you want! A hobby isn't a hobby unless you're having fun.

[Syrakul]

I'm the OP and while I have made up my mind not to be said cherry picker (despite RAI wanting the thunderhammer) I will leave it off until a FAQ comes along. Much more interested posters here have continued their arguments and I do find it facinating reading. Thanks Dr_Ruminahui and Doom Herald especially for the lively debate.

 

I especially agree that the game is permissive, and if no direct explaination is found to allow it, one cannot assume as such.

[Special Officer Doofy]

Sorry if anything I said seemed offensive. Cherry picking might not have been the best analogy. Both sides are picking and choosing verbiage that suits their needs. It's such a Grey area and it sucks how alot of things in wh40k are left up to player's interpretation. But at least there are faq's that solve some of the issues. Do you do tournaments? I generally don't so it would not be as much as an issue for me.

[Syrakul]

Never played a tourney, I'd likely get wiped quickly! No offence at all.

[Doom Herald]

No offence was taken. Every consideration for rules interactions cannot be preemptively solved, but I do wish GW was a little more thorough with some of the CSM interactions. Debates tend to get a little heated and written words are often taken to be a little harsher than meant. As much as I hate the thought of losing some Index units, we might be a little better off when they eventually disappear.

[Special Officer Doofy]

Not necroposting, just giving an update to this thread as the exact example has been brought up in the fall 2019 FAQ that came out 27/9/2019. The errata for the core rulebook says:

 

"Q: Can an Index unit be equipped with a weapon from a codex

weapons list (i.e. a Chaos Lord on Bike being equipped with a

thunder hammer not previously available to them)?

A: No."

[Gederas]

Not necroposting, just giving an update to this thread as the exact example has been brought up in the fall 2019 FAQ that came out 27/9/2019. The errata for the core rulebook says:

 

"Q: Can an Index unit be equipped with a weapon from a codex

weapons list (i.e. a Chaos Lord on Bike being equipped with a

thunder hammer not previously available to them)?

A: No."

Hooray for contradictions from GW.

 

Because the post they have about Index Units says you use the most recent options for Wargear. Which means....

 

-sigh-

 

So stupid....

[Dr_Ruminahui]

 

Hooray for contradictions from GW.

 

Because the post they have about Index Units says you use the most recent options for Wargear. Which means....

 

 

I don't think it actually says that anywhere - it says that if they have wargear that has updated rules you use the updated rules, but I can't see anywhere it says that index units can take non-index options.  If it had, this thread would have been a whole lot shorter.

 

Now, it does say that a non-index unit can take index wargear - but there is nothing that makes that work the other way round.  So the latest FAQ doesn't make an inconsistency - rather it clarifies a point of debate.

 

Now, I can understand how people find that the ruling is unfortunate, but I don't understand how it is a surprise.

[Slave to Darkness]

 

 

The whole reason they did the flowchart was so people's old models will still be table top legal without changing the models or replacing them. Not so years later when wargear rules change for new units you can saw off old unit's hands, put on new weapons, make up your own flowchart and cheese the game... Just my opinion though.

 

 

Exactly.

[Slave to Darkness]

 

Not necroposting, just giving an update to this thread as the exact example has been brought up in the fall 2019 FAQ that came out 27/9/2019. The errata for the core rulebook says:

 

"Q: Can an Index unit be equipped with a weapon from a codex

weapons list (i.e. a Chaos Lord on Bike being equipped with a

thunder hammer not previously available to them)?

A: No."

Hooray for contradictions from GW.

 

Because the post they have about Index Units says you use the most recent options for Wargear. Which means....

 

-sigh-

 

So stupid....

 

But the indexes were for existing armys from previous editions, thunder hammer was never an option for chaos so shouldnt be an option for units that are not in the codex, and I say thatas a Chaos player who wants a Thuder Hammer lord on Steed of Slaanesh. 

[techsoldaten]

 

 

Not necroposting, just giving an update to this thread as the exact example has been brought up in the fall 2019 FAQ that came out 27/9/2019. The errata for the core rulebook says:

 

"Q: Can an Index unit be equipped with a weapon from a codex

weapons list (i.e. a Chaos Lord on Bike being equipped with a

thunder hammer not previously available to them)?

A: No."

Hooray for contradictions from GW.

 

Because the post they have about Index Units says you use the most recent options for Wargear. Which means....

 

-sigh-

 

So stupid....

 

But the indexes were for existing armys from previous editions, thunder hammer was never an option for chaos so shouldnt be an option for units that are not in the codex, and I say thatas a Chaos player who wants a Thuder Hammer lord on Steed of Slaanesh. 

 

Glad this has been cleared up.

 

I was never comfortable with the idea of Index units taking options from a newer Codex. Provides too much incentive to convert old models that are fine the way they are. Had a brief moment where I was staring at a Juggerlord and telling myself, don't do it! He looks great as he is!

 

The other thing I was hoping to see FAQed was smoke launchers. They are an ability and a previous FAQ says an ability can be used in an opponent's turn. Did not see any language about that, did I miss something?