Older armies in modern 40k?

[Guest]

Any reason I couldn't bring a detachment from the DH or WH codex for 7th edition play? Or the IG codex?

 

I've been thinking about it and it's difficult to justify in the rules why I could not do this. Is it just a taboo that prevents me from fielding them?

 

I'll admit, there is a pretty large appeal in simply keeping the same army and not switching when GW tries to release a new $50 book which I "must" buy to continue playing. Especially when they re-name my army as something else. There are also pretty large fluff appeals.

 

The whole FOC bit doesn't matter, as the DH and WH have clear battlefield roles and the detachment rules actually found in the 7th ed BRB (CAD and allied detachment), not the codex. So unless a local group specifically bans them, they shouldn't create rules conflicts.

[Guest]

Is this a serious question? Or are you just poking fun at pretre? 

It is serious, though I don't think I'll actually implement it. Pretre brings up a good point that the older rules don't really say they can't be used for the newer 40k. This wasn't really his point in that thread, but I think it's a subject worthy of a visit.

 

Given that GW never seems to have a set of fully updated books, is there any rules reason that outdated codexes are being banned? Or is it just a 40k player's taboo?

 

I'm mostly curious.

[cadaver2k]

Those are not current codex's and they have been replaced with new ones, that's why u can't.

[Guest]

Fine. You play 7th edition, I'll play 3rd. Rhino Rush and consolidate into assault all up in this place. I mean, it doesn't say I can't.

That's not what I mean.

 

I'm talking about playing 7th, but using an outdated codex, like the WH one. As written, the WH codex has the battlefield roles required to make a CAD, allied detachment, or unbound army within the current 7th edition rules. You'd play 7th and I'd play 7th. There wouldn't be an edition change.

 

It really isn't much different from a 5th ed codex getting matched up against a 7th ed codex. That would be the Dark Eldar, in example, for at least some of 7th edition (Or grey knights, for that matter).

 

Here's a list of codex by edition: http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Codices_%28List%29#5th_Edition

 

 

Those are not current codex's and they have been replaced with new ones, that's why u can't.

Do you have a rules citation which explains this one?

 

Is it within the "written" rules to use outdated material? Or is the reason we don't/can't is purely a player generated taboo?

[Guest]

I have a real hard time trying to figure out your thinking sometimes Pax. I don't mean to be rude, and please don't be offended, but are you autistic? 

Not sure I follow that one. Does me being difficult to understand indicate a particular illness/condition/lifestyle choice? Seems like even if I was of that particular "mindset," it shouldn't change the fact that you are having trouble following what I'm saying. Are you an ableist, perhaps? Anyway, that's probably a thread for the RoC section.

 

Does seem like if you can't follow my logic, perhaps you should either ask for clarification (over and over until you understand) or just not comment. And I don't mean that snide. This is just what I would do if I were you (And I do this a lot on the forum, if you haven't noticed). 

 

Anyway, the questions seem pretty simple. I could make it into yes/no questions if that works better for you. Here:

 

A) Are codex/supplements allowed in 40k if they are made for a previous edition of 40k? (Yes/No)

 

B) Is this because of something actually in the rules? (Yes/No)

 

That's the question, though it's two parts.

 

In a game like dungeons & dragons, the answer would be (a)No,(b)yes. With dungeons and dragons, it's a stupid question as 4th ed books work only with 4th ed books (they do allow some conversion).

 

40k on the other hand, releases each edition midway though the codex releases, ensuring that no edition has a complete set of current books. So, with 40k, asking if outdated material is legal for normal play does seem like a reasonable enough point to be clarified.

 

As far as I can tell, the rules don't actually include language that prevents previous material from being used. It is, more or less, only the players which dictate that previous incarnations of a rule cannot be used, as well as outdated material with no replacements. This is especially true now that GW has taken to renaming their armies with more copyright-able terms. 40k is a democracy of rules.

[indytims]

I think it's a general 'assumption' that you will use the most recent codex with the most recent rulebook - and this is only limited by the availability of the previous books from GW.

 

Can you order older codex books from GW? Or is there only one Necron codex available?

 

But yes, that would be an assumption. I can't recall seeing in the rulebook where it spells out which 'edition' or 'version' of a codex is valid, which might be because a lot of the newer 'current' codex books aren't yet available when the newest rules-set is released?

 

I dunno... to me, in every group and tournament I've played it, it was just 'assumed' that you would be expected to use the latest rules and supplements. Wouldn't it be a little chaotic if we could simply cherry-pick from units/rules from previous books to play in the current edition? Be that as it may, the core rulebook even mentions 'older codexes' on pg 116, which to the the average person could be interpreted to mean -any- older codex, I suppose.

[Guest]

But yes, that would be an assumption. I can't recall seeing in the rulebook where it spells out which 'edition' or 'version' of a codex is valid, which might be because a lot of the newer 'current' codex books aren't yet available when the newest rules-set is released?

 

I dunno... to me, in every group and tournament I've played it, it was just 'assumed' that you would be expected to use the latest rules and supplements.

 

I agree, 'Assumption' is the right word. In a society, you might go so far as to call it a taboo, or an unwritten rule.

 

Wouldn't it be a little chaotic if we could simply cherry-pick from units/rules from previous books to play in the current edition?

And yet, this has been coming up. Hence my desire for clarity on the subject.

[Guest Mr. Bigglesworth]

When has it come up?

[pretre]

When has it come up?

Only seems to be a problem pax has that I've seen.

[InfestedKerrigan]

How is the question Pax asks any different than any other game of theory hammer that gets hashed out here?  Why does his question(s) cause some to infer that he is mentally alterabled?  I'm confused by the responses more than the OP.

 

 

 

Pax, I believe that we have made a social agreement to utilize the most current rules available across the board.  That's why we show up with 7th edition rules in mind.  We assume we will be playing 7th.  We acknowledge that the publisher drops the ball quite often on both rules and release schedules.  As such, we deal with dated rules for some Armies, which may or may not benefit them (Templar getting dual heavies in 5 man Termie squads for a hot minute, as an example, or the way their Storm Shields worked), and we accept it as part of our social contract in playing GW's game.

 

If someone showed up to a tourny with a Build-A-Chapter Marine force, and tried to argue "The rules don't say I have to bring the 7th Edition Marine Dex," you will have TOs start having to print a "Here is the acceptable books to build your army with, sorry I have to spell it out guys" section on the advertisement.  Yes, large events already do that.  Large events are not your standard Tourny.  Stop being argumentative.  

 

I'd be playing 3.5 Chaos in a Samuel L Jackson minute if it didn't break the social contract.

[Guest]

How is the question Pax asks any different than any other game of theory hammer that gets hashed out here?  Why does his question(s) cause some to infer that he is mentally alterabled?  I'm confused by the responses more than the OP.

Glad I'm not the only one seeing this. Thank you very much for posting.

 

 

Pax, I believe that we have made a social agreement to utilize the most current rules available across the board.  That's why we show up with 7th edition rules in mind.  We assume we will be playing 7th.  We acknowledge that the publisher drops the ball quite often on both rules and release schedules.  As such, we deal with dated rules for some Armies, which may or may not benefit them (Templar getting dual heavies in 5 man Termie squads for a hot minute, as an example, or the way their Storm Shields worked), and we accept it as part of our social contract in playing GW's game.

 

If someone showed up to a tourny with a Build-A-Chapter Marine force, and tried to argue "The rules don't say I have to bring the 7th Edition Marine Dex," you will have TOs start having to print a "Here is the acceptable books to build your army with, sorry I have to spell it out guys" section on the advertisement.  Yes, large events already do that.  Large events are not your standard Tourny.  Stop being argumentative.  

 

I'd be playing 3.5 Chaos in a Samuel L Jackson minute if it didn't break the social contract.

The only reason I ask is because it seems to be called into question on boards.

 

For example, if a player brings a rules supplement which is clearly for a previous edition of 40k, does this break the "social contract" or is it something we disallow due to it not being current?

 

In a more specific example, the Imperial Knights have a WD only special character designed for a previous incarnation of the Imperial Knight codex. Is it still legal, or does it go the way of my WH zealots as they reference an outdated incarnation of the rules?

 

I only mention it because this was an example of the first time I recall on the Ordo boards where the stance of allowing outdated rules was pushed over our long standing stance of being opposed to fielding outdated rules.

 

I do agree that we have this social contract, though I was calling it a taboo in this thread. Social contract does sound better.

 

PS: I also love that 3.5 CSM codex.

[InfestedKerrigan]

I'd consider things like multiple Knights or Eldar as taboo.  The lists that make people go "should you be taking that?  Isn't that XXXXXX?"

[WestRider]

Yep. GW doesn't actually discuss Editions at all in the Rules themselves, or even in the publications. I just flipped through, but I can't find any reference to Edition numbers in any of the GW books on my shelf here. It's an area (one of many) where GW does make us rely on some mix of common sense and social contract, rather than explicitly ruling it.

 

The general consensus is that something is outdated and no longer valid if another Dex has come along covering more or less the same Units/Faction, even if the details may be changed. For example, there are newer Rules for most of the Units in both Factions that were covered in Codex: Daemonhunters, so that Dex is generally considered to be superseded, even tho it hasn't been specifically replaced by an updated Codex: Daemonhunters. Further, several of the Units that are described in Codex: DH no longer even function, because they interact with basic Rules in ways that just don't work anymore.

 

Gerantius, on the other hand, hasn't had a new set of Rules released, was always outside the Codex, and doesn't cause any contradictions or issues with Rules that have changed since his release. So he's generally still considered valid.

[InfestedKerrigan]

As for Supplements, I'm surprised GW considers Cities of Death legit still.  Or did last edition.  I guess core rules don't really change, it just...."enhances" them.  

 

As for Codex Supplements, I think this is a growing pain we will be going through as GW tests out this new method.  I think it is horse cock if the Marine Players get to keep their supplements, but Iyanden is out the window, but that's just like my opinion, man.  

 

 

I believe the IK character you mention is Apoc Games, I could be mistaken, though.  I don't pickup White Dwarfs.  That being said, let us assume he was usable in standard games.  He was written for a previous codex, so I want to say no, he isn't usable, just like the Black Templar Furioso isn't usable.  But Dataslates bring a new dynamic to the table.

 

How about Dataslates?  We have a new Chaos dex and a soon to be New DA dex.  Cypher was written aside from both of those, was he not?  Same with Belakor.  

[WestRider]

Gerantius was written for regular 40K. Patriarch Tybalt and The Obsidian Knight are Apoc. The Obsidian Knight is perfectly reasonable in regular 40K, but he was only released as an Apoc datasheet, while Tybalt is actually an Apoc Stratagem applied to one of your Knights, so really doesn't function well in regular 40K.

[Guest]

Gerantius, on the other hand, hasn't had a new set of Rules released, was always outside the Codex, and doesn't cause any contradictions or issues with Rules that have changed since his release. So he's generally still considered valid.

That would be the one. And I do agree, I don't think he creates rules conflicts. Then again, InfestedKerrigan isn't using 3.5 CSM because of any rules conflicts.

 

It's more the issue of allowing outdated content into our games of 40k, which isn't really part of the rules, as mentioned.  It's that social contract stuff. He is definitely an example of a model for a previous edition of a current codex, even if he's from a White Dwarf issue.

[Skkipper]

I will gladly play chaos 3.5 versus anyone!!!

[Guest Mr. Bigglesworth]

Correct the brb doesn't address and in fact it says just agree with your opponent what entry you are using implying the ability to play any codex.

 

With all that said it is a social contract that hasn't been challenged under any non garage hammer format, so yes it is legitimate to ask when has this come up? It was implied this foundation has been challenged before time and time again.

[InfestedKerrigan]

It was implied this foundation has been challenged before time and time again.

 

Where?

[Guest]

With all that said it is a social contract that hasn't been challenged under any non garage hammer format, so yes it is legitimate to ask when has this come up? It was implied this foundation has been challenged before time and time again.

For the most part, the updated codex is much stronger than the outdated one. So it really isn't a surprise that competitive gaming hasn't attempted to adopt or challenge the use of outdated books.

 

Though there was some debate regarding using the previous Eldar Codex over the Craftworld one. It is true that the main Eldar issues would disappear if they just stuck with the previous incarnation of the codex. Then the ITC can go back to it's ban on range D without pause.

 

As for the outdated material concept, I've had a few threads that mention it, but it was never the topic at hand, just a tangent, hence this thread.

 

Recently, I was talking to a powell's employee who had recently learned that outdated 40k editions don't retain their resale value like other games' past editions. Got me thinking about our editions again. (Also picked up Decent of Angels to read up on my DA).

[WestRider]

That would be the one. And I do agree, I don't think he creates rules conflicts. Then again, InfestedKerrigan isn't using 3.5 CSM because of any rules conflicts.

 

It's more the issue of allowing outdated content into our games of 40k, which isn't really part of the rules, as mentioned.  It's that social contract stuff. He is definitely an example of a model for a previous edition of a current codex, even if he's from a White Dwarf issue.

The 3.5 CSM Dex isn't out because of that, it's out because there are two more recent publications with the same title, covering the same Factions and (mostly) Units.

 

Flowchart time:

Is there a newer Publication with the same Title? If so, use the newest.

If no newer Publication with the same Title, is there a newer Publication covering more or less the same Units, the same Faction? If so, use the newest.

If neither of the above apply, are there any Rules that cause conflicts with the current Core Rules? If so, don't use it.

If it passes all three of the above, go ahead and use it.

 

So the 3.5 CSM Dex falls at the first hurdle, while Gerantius passes all of them, since his Publication was effectively Datasheet: Gerantius, which has not been replaced (either under the same name or something effectively the same), and he creates no Rules issues.

[Guest]

The 3.5 CSM Dex isn't out because of that, it's out because there are two more recent publications with the same title, covering the same Factions and (mostly) Units.

 

Flowchart time:

Is there a newer Publication with the same Title? If so, use the newest.

If no newer Publication with the same Title, is there a newer Publication covering more or less the same Units, the same Faction? If so, use the newest.

If neither of the above apply, are there any Rules that cause conflicts with the current Core Rules? If so, don't use it.

If it passes all three of the above, go ahead and use it.

 

So the 3.5 CSM Dex falls at the first hurdle, while Gerantius passes all of them, since his Publication was effectively Datasheet: Gerantius, which has not been replaced (either under the same name or something effectively the same), and he creates no Rules issues.

Page number?

[WestRider]

As this whole time, we're discussing a social convention, not RAW. I'm just trying to formalize the social convention for you.

[InfestedKerrigan]

The 3.5 CSM Dex isn't out because of that, it's out because there are two more recent publications with the same title, covering the same Factions and (mostly) Units.

 

Flowchart time:

Is there a newer Publication with the same Title? If so, use the newest.

If no newer Publication with the same Title, is there a newer Publication covering more or less the same Units, the same Faction? If so, use the newest.

If neither of the above apply, are there any Rules that cause conflicts with the current Core Rules? If so, don't use it.

If it passes all three of the above, go ahead and use it.

 

So the 3.5 CSM Dex falls at the first hurdle, while Gerantius passes all of them, since his Publication was effectively Datasheet: Gerantius, which has not been replaced (either under the same name or something effectively the same), and he creates no Rules issues.

 

The Black Templar Furioso passes all three of those tests.

[WestRider]

I've never even heard of it. Where's it from?