Login

Username:


Password:


Remember me



Forgot Password?




 Merchandise




"Use the newest rule" and the SM Codex

For discussing new rules and changes to the current rules, such as new homebrew datasheets for Apocalypse

"Use the newest rule" and the SM Codex

Postby LordMalekTheRedKnight » Sun Sep 21, 2008 3:03 pm

Hey all :)

back in the good old days, PH gave us the "use the newest rule" philosophy, which meant that previously identical items used the most recent rules when something got update. nowadays Jervis has turned this on its head, telling us that each codex should be treated as a stand-alone book - unless that is we want to houserule it.

personally, i prefer the old philosophy (40K has enough "WTF?" moments as it is, without different rules and statlines for the same pieces of equipment), so im going to carry on as i have been doing.

with this in mind, i would like some help compiling a list of all the items/rules that would be affected by this philosophy, once the new SM Codex is released.

of the top of my head:

- Assault Cannon - WH/DH
- Landraider (Transport Cap.) - WH/DH/BA/BT/DA/CSM
- LR Crusader (Transport Cap.) - BA/BT/DA
- POTMS - WH/DH/BA/BT/DA
- Rhino (Repair, Fire Points, Access Points) - ...
- Storm Shield/Praesidum Protectiva (Sv, handedness) - WH/DH/BA/BT/DA
- Psychic Hood - WH/DH/BA/DA/IG
- Smoke Launchers - ...
- Force Weapon - WH/DH
- Cyclone - BA/BT/DA
- Digital Weapons - WH/DH
- Terminator Armour (Relentless) - BT/DA/BA/CSM/DH
- ...

Special Rules:
- ATSKNF
- Combat Squads - DA
- Scoring Units - DA

please add more (and correct those ive already mentioned, if you spot any mistakes/if ive left anything out) and i will ammend this list. :)

also, what about Shotguns? should they all be S4? or only those in the Marine armies? in C: DA the excuse was that they used Manstopper rounds, but in C: BA this wasnt mentioned, and in the new SM Codex they are now S4 too...

what about:
Drop Pods?
Deathwind?
Combat Shields?
Master Crafted?
Narthecium? (Medi-pack?)
Servo Arm?
Servo Harness?
Signum?
Teleport Homer?
Dozer Blade? (Rough Terrain Modification)?
Hurricane Bolters?

ive got to go out now, but i will leave this with you and see what you come up with this afternoon.

cheers! :)

~ Tim
Last edited by LordMalekTheRedKnight on Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:14 am, edited 3 times in total.
8O :D OMG - Im a Dad - of THREE!! :D 8O
:) I am "LMTRK" on The Wizards Community and MTG Salvation
User avatar
LordMalekTheRedKnight
Lord Marmite
Lord General
 
Posts: 4876
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Stamford, Lincs, UK

Postby killmaimburn » Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:37 am

Do you mean affected by the old philosophy or the new.

I can only think of the 6 variants of they shall know no fear.
Termie armour if it was future graded blacktemplars wouldn't recieve +1 attacks for taking it (which then throws up a muddle about termie honours.
A bike has pretty much different rules in each codex (4th 5th and chaos)
With perils of being a machine spirit I think its usefull to note how many rules lawyers said that fire control didn't work as all landraiders used the latest rules..now that smurfs have the infernal spirit chaos don't get it retro reactivated to their 3rd ed brethren (us chaos folks were bitter about that before.. now we just see it as another laughable reason to dump the chaos codex like smelly squidgy stuff found under trees)
Last edited by killmaimburn on Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Barely even lurking..
ruffian4 wrote:Handy fellow, this kmb...Like Ahriman delving the paths of the webway ...
World of ME First try at Apoc Batrep WHAT/WHO is AOS?
User avatar
killmaimburn
Now Vanus Clade
 
Posts: 6581
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 12:00 am
Location: Nottingham, mid-land
Blog: View Blog (1)

Postby LordMalekTheRedKnight » Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:21 am

killmaimburn wrote:Do you mean affected by the old philosophy or the new.

by the old one, if you choose to follow it now.

killmaimburn wrote:I can only think of the 6 variants of they shall know no fear.

ooh thats a good one.

killmaimburn wrote:Termie armour if it was future graded blacktemplars wouldn't recieve +1 attacks for taking it (which then throws up a muddle about termie honours.

has Termi Armour actually changed (besides the T.Hons, which were more of a package deal)?

it grants Relentless now, right? so i suppose that matches old RaI (?) by allowing Rapid Fire weapons to shoot at full range when moving (i would have allowed this with the older books anyway, so thats no biggie).

as to T.Hons... if you have T.Armour you have T.Hons, but T.Hons arent actually a rule for the Armour (just like how under 4th ed GKTs didnt get True Grit despite the USR overriding the version in the codex, as the bit that told us who got TG wasnt part of the rules for TG). this is similar to how Imperial ICs an CSM ICs get different basic equipment with the Armour - the Hons would be included in this loadout for BTs.

anyway, a lot of the time the models already have T.Hons, so the Armour doesnt actually do anything in this regard.

i think it would be OK to let BT keep their +1A until they get a new codex.

killmaimburn wrote:A bike has pretty much different rules in each codex (4th 5th and chaos)

they do? :?

killmaimburn wrote:With perils of being a machine spirit I think its usefull to note how many rules lawyers said that fire control didn't work as all landraiders used the latest rules..now that smurfs have the infernal spirit chaos don't get it retro reactivated to their 3rd ed brethren (us chaos folks were bitter about that before.. now we just see it as another laughable reason to dump the chaos codex like smelly squidgy stuff found under trees)

i wouldnt be giving anything POTMS that didnt already have it, just updating POTMS as a rule. i would update the Transport capacity of the LR, but not the cost/options/free upgrades/weapons etc. (just like i wouldnt give out cheap Rhinos as part of this exercise to DH/WH, but would make sure they all have the same firepoints, exits and Repair rule)

cheers for these initial thoughts - i will update the OP. :)

feel free to tackle any of the points in the OP (i know some of them need checking and some need finishing off in terms of who they apply to).

where do you stand on the shotgun issue, BTW?

cheers

~ Tim
8O :D OMG - Im a Dad - of THREE!! :D 8O
:) I am "LMTRK" on The Wizards Community and MTG Salvation
User avatar
LordMalekTheRedKnight
Lord Marmite
Lord General
 
Posts: 4876
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Stamford, Lincs, UK

Postby swordtart » Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:54 am

I can see the logic that Jervis is using. You diehards who play regularly, have several armies and probably most codices know what the lastest rule is. That knowledge is not necessarily universal.

Some of us play infrequently and only field a few armies. If I own an army built with an Nth edition codex I can play on equal (in the unbalanced randomness that is GW) terms with a friend with a different army and different codex (even an out of date one). We agree on the core rule set (1st - 5th) and if our particular codex clashes with the main rules, we will probably know and can agree beforehand what seems fair.

It would be extremely irritating to play with someone who insisted that the special rule that I had built my tactics on was interpreted diffrently in a new codex that I didn't have.

I think that is why devices that did practically the same thing have been given different names (e.g auspex and surveyor). When the new marine codex updates the rules to Auspex, the rules for surveyors don't change. IG shotguns are different to marine shotguns, there needn't be any justification for it, that's just the way it is.

We hope that when the codex was written it was balanced with all the codices then in existance. If that philosophy was followed then the balance will continue as each new codex is introduced. If not then the whole system is screwed anyway.

I am not sure that it is even necessary to update to the an armies new codex when it comes out if you want to play with the old one. What you cannot do is pick and choose from each one. If the new IG codex comes out making IG 4pts rather than 6 (please Jervis!!!) but binning doctrines, you can ither field an army of 6pt IG with doctrines or 4pt IG without.

As everyone keeps saying points cost is difficult to judge don't start trying to read across. How many points does a shotgun cost? A shotgun is a free upgrade to an 8pt hardened vet IG soldier who is usually equipped with a lasgun. A shotgun is a free upgrade to a 13pt DA scout who is usually equipped with a bolter. Clearly the bolter is a better weapon to the lasgun, all the same benefits but +1 str and 5 AP. The "free" shotgun should be comensurately better (and it indeed shares the +1 str over the guard model). Both are shotguns, the fact that manstopper rounds are explicitly mentioned is just fluff, the points cost is the cost for a capability, not a specific piece of kit. Even if they were identical the cost of a ranged weapon in the hands of a better marksman would be higher (in proportion to the cost of the soldier).

In the real world a shotgun is any smoothbore weapon, with a barrel of 24" or more with a less than 2" bore according to the legal definition. Generally it means a smooth bore gun firing shot (one or more round balls rather than a single bullet) A .410 is a shotgun used for ratting, a 12 bore is the smallest military bore used, but by military definitions there is a 40mm shotgun cartridge that can be used in grenade launchers. The word shotgun is therefore not indicative of a particular capability. The same is true for the GW use oof the word which is laible to be less rigorous rather than more so.

I know I have done the shotgun to death but the same arguments can be applied to most other kit in the codices.

Just my 2p
It is not who we are that defines us, it is what we do.
User avatar
swordtart
Veteran
Veteran
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2007 12:00 am
Location: Lincolnshire, UK

Postby LordMalekTheRedKnight » Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:49 am

swordtart wrote:I can see the logic that Jervis is using. You diehards who play regularly, have several armies and probably most codices know what the lastest rule is. That knowledge is not necessarily universal.

well GW certainly could do something about that (WD/flyers in stores & at events/FAQs online - heck, they could even re-release the Wargear book with individually punched pages so it can be kept up to date), but even if they dont, those of us that do have the information to hand should be encouraged to use it, IMO.

swordtart wrote:It would be extremely irritating to play with someone who insisted that the special rule that I had built my tactics on was interpreted diffrently in a new codex that I didn't have.

just to be clear, this isnt what im planning to do. i would like to create a reference sheet that shows which items get updated for which armies, and where possible, include these changes (on the back). when playing an opponent who could be affected by one of these changes, i would ask them whether they wanted to continue using the old rules, or try the new ones. if one of my own armies was affected, i would ask my opponent which version of the rules they wanted me to use.

swordtart wrote:We hope that when the codex was written it was balanced with all the codices then in existance. If that philosophy was followed then the balance will continue as each new codex is introduced. If not then the whole system is screwed anyway.

;)

also to be clear, the point of this exercise isnt to increase balance between armies, but to make things more consistent and reduce the number of "WTF?" moments.

i dont want to play a game where a DH Assault Cannon cannot Rend, and where a GK LR has different POTMs to one belonging to a DH Inq. in the same army.

swordtart wrote:I am not sure that it is even necessary to update to the an armies new codex when it comes out if you want to play with the old one. What you cannot do is pick and choose from each one. If the new IG codex comes out making IG 4pts rather than 6 (please Jervis!!!) but binning doctrines, you can ither field an army of 6pt IG with doctrines or 4pt IG without.

again, just to clarify: this list wouldnt be used in conjunction with any codex that has been updated (for example, im not suggesting anyone use the current SM codex with the changes in the one that is coming out in a couple of weeks). this is for armies that havent had their books updated, but share items with those that have.

swordtart wrote:As everyone keeps saying points cost is difficult to judge don't start trying to read across.

which is exactly why it probably wont matter too much if an army starts using the new rules for an item whilst paying the old cost. ;)

especially considering there will be both positive and negative changes on the list (and it would be "all or nothing" - a DH player cant say he wants the Rending Assault Cannon without having the limited range Psychic Hood too, for example).

swordtart wrote:The word shotgun is therefore not indicative of a particular capability. The same is true for the GW use oof the word which is laible to be less rigorous rather than more so.

but "Shotgun" is a game term. just like "Bolter" or "Landraider".

if something is going to be different, it needs to be something else ingame. like the "Astartes Grenade Launcher" - thats clearly a different ingame item to the "Grenade Launcher" used by IG/DH/WH, and i wouldnt try to update anything using its rules.

if there is a reason for something being different then that is fair enough. but why shouldnt an Inquisitor Lord or an IG Colonel be able to get their hands on a Shotgun of comparable hitting power to those used by SM Scouts?

remember:
- the SM codex is being updated next month but the IG codex isnt (if they were both updated at the same time and still given different stats then that would be a different matter)
- until the SM codex gets updated, they both use the same statline (so if there is no difference between an IG shotgun and a SM shotgun now, what is changing?)
- the Imperium uses STCs to make a lot of items, so standardisation isnt out of the ordinary (and is certainly better in logistics terms)
- the stats are broad with plenty of variation in the fluff being given the same number on the statline (for example, a weightlifter and a weakling would both be S3 in modern 40K), and the rules are merely representative of what is going on (each to-hit dice doesnt always track an individual bullet, not all Rapid Fire weapons actually have the same RoF fluffwise etc) - so even if there are differences between the shotguns fluffwise, this neednt mean they have different stats ingame

the main point though is the second one: if an IG shotgun is the same as a SM shotgun ingame, then they are the same. they shouldnt suddenly become different without good reason: if how shotguns are represented ingame is changed, then that change should apply to both. if them having the same statline was good enough before, then it should be good enough when that statline is updated. IMO, of course. :)

swordtart wrote:I know I have done the shotgun to death but the same arguments can be applied to most other kit in the codices.

Just my 2p

cheers for the reply, but to be honest, this isnt really what this thread is about: this thread assumes that the "use the newest rule" philosophy is accepted and adopted by both players, and is simply trying to compile a complete list - not discuss the merits of the philosophy itself.

with that in mind, i would greatly appreciate any help fleshing this list out. :)

cheers

~ Tim
8O :D OMG - Im a Dad - of THREE!! :D 8O
:) I am "LMTRK" on The Wizards Community and MTG Salvation
User avatar
LordMalekTheRedKnight
Lord Marmite
Lord General
 
Posts: 4876
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Stamford, Lincs, UK

Postby Baragash » Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:01 am

I think this is relevant:

Regarding the Storm Shield: my understanding is that the SS doesn't have a "handedness" in the new Codex. Now, whilst it specifically disallows gaining the bonus A in CC, this would seem to allow it to be combined with a 2H weapon (eg a Relic Blade).

Applying the most recent first approach this would overall the Armoury classification from older books (and allow things like Blessed Weapon and Protectiva).....
User avatar
Baragash
Sorceror
Sorceror
 
Posts: 1885
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:00 am
Location: London, UK
Blog: View Blog (21)

Postby LordMalekTheRedKnight » Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:11 am

Baragash wrote:Regarding the Storm Shield: my understanding is that the SS doesn't have a "handedness" in the new Codex. Now, whilst it specifically disallows gaining the bonus A in CC, this would seem to allow it to be combined with a 2H weapon (eg a Relic Blade).

Applying the most recent first approach this would overall the Armoury classification from older books (and allow things like Blessed Weapon and Protectiva).....

good point - i had missed that! i shall update the OP. :D

EDIT: looking at C: DH (one that still has the old rules for the Storm Shield), taking up 1 hand to use in CC wasnt part of the rules entry itself - but it is listed as a 1-handed weapon in the armoury (the rule for taking up 1 hand in CC despite not actually being a weapon is included as a noteon the armoury page).

however, in C: WH the entry for the Praesidium Protectiva does however include the rule.

i think its clear that the Storm Shield/Praesidium Protectiva need to be classed as 1-handed weapons for the purposes of choosing items from the armoury (for codex books that still have an armoury), just as they need to follow the same rules for being taken by units as listed in their appropriate entries. so who will be able to take a Storm Shield/Praesidium Protectiva wont change, and neither will the other weapons that can be taken with them.

for consistency's sake though i think that what needs to be updated across the board is what you can use with them (i.e. they dont take up a hand to use, but do prevent you gaining a bonus for 2 weapons).

curiously, Relic Blades in the new codex arent actually 2-handed weapons: they just stop you getting the attack bonus...

feel free to add any more!

cheers :)

~ Tim
Last edited by LordMalekTheRedKnight on Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
8O :D OMG - Im a Dad - of THREE!! :D 8O
:) I am "LMTRK" on The Wizards Community and MTG Salvation
User avatar
LordMalekTheRedKnight
Lord Marmite
Lord General
 
Posts: 4876
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Stamford, Lincs, UK

Postby Baragash » Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:49 am

LordMalekTheRedKnight wrote:i think its clear that the Storm Shield/Praesidium Protectiva need to be classed as 1-handed weapons for the purposes of choosing items from the armoury (for codex books that still have an armoury), just as they need to follow the same rules for being taken by units as listed in their appropriate entries. so who will be able to take a Storm Shield/Praesidium Protectiva wont change, and neither will the other weapons that can be taken with them.


Yeah, I got a bit excited about the change of classification and forgot how/where it is listed in the new Codex (replace BP and/or CCW list IIRC).

LordMalekTheRedKnight wrote:curiously, Relic Blades in the new codex arent actually 2-handed weapons: they just stop you getting the attack bonus...


:?: GW aren't dropping "handedness" now are they? Instead listing the no bonus attacks clause in all cases you can't (which makes no sense as a weapon would need the 1-handed classification to give you the bonus under RAW IIRC).

Also S6 PW and 3+ Invulnerable seems a no-brainer for a SM hero.
User avatar
Baragash
Sorceror
Sorceror
 
Posts: 1885
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:00 am
Location: London, UK
Blog: View Blog (21)

Postby LordMalekTheRedKnight » Mon Sep 29, 2008 12:06 pm

Baragash wrote:Yeah, I got a bit excited about the change of classification and forgot how/where it is listed in the new Codex (replace BP and/or CCW list IIRC).

take WH for example:
a Heroine can take a Praesidium and an Eviscerator.

this was true when the codex came out, and is still true now. the differences are:
- the Inv save is now 3+
- the Inv save can be used all the time, not just in CC
- using the Eviscerator in CC doesnt stop the model using the Inv Save at the same time

a Heroine still cant take a Praesidium, Bolt Pistol and Power Weapon however, as the Armoury limits still apply. even if she could, she couldnt get any benefit from using both hands in CC, as she cannot get the +1A bonus for 2 weapons (and cannot strike with more than one of her weapons at a time anyway).

that seems about right. :)

Baragash wrote: :?: GW aren't dropping "handedness" now are they? Instead listing the no bonus attacks clause in all cases you can't (which makes no sense as a weapon would need the 1-handed classification to give you the bonus under RAW IIRC).

quite a few weapons are listed with no handedness specified these days, leading to all sorts of arguments. :(

Started with Eldrad's staff in the latest Eldar Codex, IIRC (same time they dropped the Armoury...).

~ Tim
Last edited by LordMalekTheRedKnight on Mon Sep 29, 2008 12:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
8O :D OMG - Im a Dad - of THREE!! :D 8O
:) I am "LMTRK" on The Wizards Community and MTG Salvation
User avatar
LordMalekTheRedKnight
Lord Marmite
Lord General
 
Posts: 4876
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Stamford, Lincs, UK

Postby Baragash » Mon Sep 29, 2008 12:46 pm

LordMalekTheRedKnight wrote:Started with Eldrad's staff in the latest Eldar Codex, IIRC (same time they dropped the Armoury...).


I don't have an issue with the loss of the Armoury, and I don't think that's the problem. What Design lack is an STC approach to rules writing....ie a consistent process.

A lot of errors that get highlighted seem to me to be avoidable if they had a simple step-by-step process:
Write new rule
Define when it comes into play
X-reference against restrictions that apply in that phase
Define who it effects
X-reference against restrictions on actions/targeting/wound allocation etc
And so forth (this isn't remotely exhaustive, just a brainstormed - or hairbrained if you prefer :P - example).

Part of a process for new weapons would include a define handedness step.

Or even a bullet point list of restrictions/permissions from each section to check against.

It seems to me they write a rule and then rely on their own memory of the system being correct.
User avatar
Baragash
Sorceror
Sorceror
 
Posts: 1885
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:00 am
Location: London, UK
Blog: View Blog (21)

Postby LordMalekTheRedKnight » Mon Sep 29, 2008 12:54 pm

Baragash wrote:I don't have an issue with the loss of the Armoury, and I don't think that's the problem. What Design lack is an STC approach to rules writing....ie a consistent process.

of course: i didnt mean that the problem was caused by the loss of the Armoury - its just that it happened at the same time. for example, if GW had kept the armoury but put all weapons in one list (without mentioning handedness) then we would be in the same position. they should have included handedness somewhere, or stated a blanket assumption that all weapons are of a certain handedness unless noted otherwise.

Baragash wrote:It seems to me they write a rule and then rely on their own memory of the system being correct.

im not even sure if they care whether or not they get the rules right. afterall, we can houserule whatever we like. :roll:

~ Tim
8O :D OMG - Im a Dad - of THREE!! :D 8O
:) I am "LMTRK" on The Wizards Community and MTG Salvation
User avatar
LordMalekTheRedKnight
Lord Marmite
Lord General
 
Posts: 4876
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Stamford, Lincs, UK




Return to 40K Rules Development




 Social Links