Ravenwing bike squad sergeants question.

[FarFromSam]

Hey guys, I've painted up a list for adepticon assuming the RW sergeant could take items from the sergeants weapons list. However, I took a gander at the entry annndddd.... well it says melee and pistols, nothing about sergeants weapons...

 

So, after looking at the lists on here, most that have RW units have them loaded with combis or SB... so, what am I missing? Battle scribe also allows for combis, but the faq doesn't say anything either. I'm hoping this is an over sight on my end.

 

Thank you for your help

[FlamingDeth]

I don’t have books handy since I’m at work but if the option is available in the index then for the time being you can use it.

 

It’s a doofy problem that’s all over the place in the codex. It gets worse with things like scout bikes where DA don’t have any previous entries to draw from.

[FarFromSam]

So, if I pull them from the index, does that mean I use index points as well?

[FlamingDeth]

You’d use the index points for the weapon options, codex points for the unit itself.

[Bryan Blaire]

You’d use the index points for the weapon options, codex points for the unit itself.

I don't think that's quite right - my Designer's Commentary says "Note that regardless of which datasheet you use, if you are playing a matched play game, or a game that uses a points limit, you should always use the most recently published points for your models and their weapons and wargear."

 

And

 

"USE THE CODEX VERSION OF YOUR MODEL’S DATASHEET, BUT YOU CAN CHOOSE TO USE THE INDEX VERSION FOR ITS WARGEAR OPTIONS (NOTE THAT IF THE WARGEAR HAS RULES IN THE CODEX, THESE REPLACE THE INDEX RULES)"

 

That says to me that you can choose to use the Index Wargear options, but you use the rules from the Codex if the Wargear has them. It also means that you use the most recent points values for all the Wargear options if they are published in the Codex (or Chapter Approved, if those are more recent). You'd only use the Index points if the Wargear is something that hasn't had any points listed yet in a more recent publication of the Codex/Chapter Approved - so Combis and Storm Bolters would both use the Codex points, while the Twin Autocannon would still use the Index points value for Dark Angels units.

 

It's kind of a mess.

[ValourousHeart]

I don't think the issue is very complicated.

GW made a nice logic flowchart for it, on the last page of the designer notes.

 

Link

[Bryan Blaire]

It's not complicated. It IS a mess though.

[ValourousHeart]

Why are you trying to get this topic burned?

In the context of our posts messy and complicated are interchangeable.

Please keep this forum friendly and don't be argumentative.

[JJD]

Why are you trying to get this topic burned?

In the context of our posts messy and complicated are interchangeable.

Please keep this forum friendly and don't be argumentative.

I think Bryan is trying to say that whilst you are right and this system is not so complicated as to be unusable it is still far more complicated than there is any reason for it to be ie ‘a mess’.

 

If all options are to remain legal why not Put them in the codex.

[Bryan Blaire]

I think Bryan is trying to say that whilst you are right and this system is not so complicated as to be unusable it is still far more complicated than there is any reason for it to be ie ‘a mess’.

 

If all options are to remain legal why not Put them in the codex.

Nah, there's little complication to it at all. The concept and use isn't that complex or intricate.

 

It is however, when executed, untidy - you have to pull open several books, shift between them, figure out which one of them has the most recent publication date, has the options you need (which becomes especially dependent on how they do Chapter Approved - if points are updated in 2018, but not in 2019 and they don’t reprint the unchanged 2018 values, that’s an additional book or more books on top), if you are still a list writer on paper, you may have to note which source it came from so your opponent can reference that too, etc. It's relatively easy to do, it's just not clean - hence messy. And I even said, it's just a bit of a mess, it's not like designing a new experiment and referencing eight journals and two texts messy, but you can start to get books and papers everywhere.

 

The usage of the concept is just a bit messy, but it is fairly easy and straight-forward to understand. Concept = not complicated. Execution = a bit of a mess.

 

It's not like I didn't specifically use a definition of a word, only to be told that my word choice means the same as something else, when it doesn't. It's not like a response was needed, but one was given anyway - that's pretty much the definition of argumentative...

[JJD]

Concept = not complicated. Execution = a bit of a mess.

This is what I was trying to get across.

 

It frustrates me mainly as I can’t see any reason to do it this way but I think that is a subject of another thread.

Edited March 20, 2018 by JJD

[ValourousHeart]

From my point of view Mess, Messy, and Complicated were all interchangeable terms in this conversation.  I wasn't looking at it from a concept vs execution, but simply looking at it as here it is.  When there is a choice, there is only ever A or B, and it is always A, except when it is B.  A is the codex and B is the index.

 

It is my understanding that there are only 3 books/documents we need to consider for DA.  The Codex, the index, and the FAQ.  And if we only include units and upgrades from the codex, we can eliminate the index from that list.

 

I believe the reason that Bryan is describing this as a Mess, is because he is including "the most recent publication date" into the equation.  I could be wrong, but I don't remember reading that anywhere in this edition.

 

I, like I assume many of you, have enough random models in my collection that I could create a list that includes models from 10 or more codex/index/chapter approved and the BRB.  I will grant that having to flip through 10+ books during a game would be a mess.  But we could also make a list that only includes models and upgrades from C:DA, which would only be 1 codex and the BRB.

 

Because of that, I would argue that the Mess, if there is one, is of our own making.

 

 

 

It frustrates me mainly as I can’t see any reason to do it this way but I think that is a subject of another thread.

 

You right that is for another topic.  But in a nutshell, the reason those items and units are not in the codex is fallout from the Chapter House Lawsuit.

[Bryan Blaire]

Hey guys, I've painted up a list for adepticon assuming the RW sergeant could take items from the sergeants weapons list. However, I took a gander at the entry annndddd.... well it says melee and pistols, nothing about sergeants weapons...

I’d bet this all stems from not having combi-weapons and the like on bike sprues. I’d hope that GW gives us the options back with a new RW kit or accents that this is an easy weapon swap from another of their kits and puts the option directly in the Dex to end all this book flopping and carrying.