AB40k Maintainers

The digital codex force requisition tool allows you to take two chapter relics by replacing multiple weapons - this follows one of the two interpretations of the rules that are being discussed on various forums. Given that this is an official source, can we at least have the option in the AB40K file for replacing two weapons (bolt pistol and chain sword) with chapter relics? Also, the Armor Indomitus does not require a weapon replacement and is also allowed by GW to be purchased in addition to the up to two other relics which replace weapons.

Basically, since GW allows you to replace both stock weapons with a relic AND per the rules take the armor as well (since it isn't subject to the weapon replacement rules) shouldn't we have that option here?

I understand if this isn't your interpretation, but it is one supported by GW so it would be nice to at least have this option rather than being forced into the more restricted interpretation.

Regardless, thanks for the effort in getting this major update out!

Greg

At the very least make the armour indomitus equippable alongside one of the weapon relics.

I'm of the opinion that you can only replace 1 weapon for a chapter relic. But the armour is always available and should be

Akaiyou wrote:At the very least make the armour indomitus equippable alongside one of the weapon relics.

I'm of the opinion that you can only replace 1 weapon for a chapter relic. But the armour is always available and should be

I concur on this one.

Homer

My question then is, if you are the owner of a GW set of rules that clearly allows >1 relic (the e-codex allows not only both weapons to be replaced but also the armor - for a total of three) - why should I view that as not official? Why do we ignore that source of truth from the company and consider the question up in the air? The e-rules are being maintained a LOT more frequently than the printed book FAQs and allow us a way to get these sticky rules questions answered without relying on nebulous interpretations or hearsay.

gungagreg wrote:My question then is, if you are the owner of a GW set of rules that clearly allows >1 relic (the e-codex allows not only both weapons to be replaced but also the armor - for a total of three) - why should I view that as not official? Why do we ignore that source of truth from the company and consider the question up in the air? The e-rules are being maintained a LOT more frequently than the printed book FAQs and allow us a way to get these sticky rules questions answered without relying on nebulous interpretations or hearsay.

Are you quoting the rule from the epub version or the iPad version? I do not know if the epub is as updated as they keep the iPad version.

I have neither so I cannot make any sort of suggested ruling till I know that answer.

jlong05 wrote:Are you quoting the rule from the epub version or the iPad version? I do not know if the epub is as updated as they keep the iPad version.

I have neither so I cannot make any sort of suggested ruling till I know that answer.

The wording is the same in this particular case, what we have though is the Force Requisition tool included with the digital codex that does allow it. We've had instances - like the Apothecary upgrade question where it started preventing the Apothecary from getting upgrades (going so far as to invalidate selections such as a combi-weapon if the veteran with that upgrade was made into an Apothecary) to then allowing it - this would not be random and shows an official source clarifying and in this case changing to reflect their intent.

In the specific question here - chapter relics - what can be done is to link an image that shows what is allowed in the digital edition...that leaves you in a position with an example of an official source and me asking why are you willing to ignore it? Not owning it doesn't make it any less official.

gungagreg wrote:

Are you quoting the rule from the epub version or the iPad version? I do not know if the epub is as updated as they keep the iPad version.

I have neither so I cannot make any sort of suggested ruling till I know that answer.

The wording is the same in this particular case, what we have though is the Force Requisition tool included with the digital codex that does allow it. We've had instances - like the Apothecary upgrade question where it started preventing the Apothecary from getting upgrades (going so far as to invalidate selections such as a combi-weapon if the veteran with that upgrade was made into an Apothecary) to then allowing it - this would not be random and shows an official source clarifying and in this case changing to reflect their intent.

In the specific question here - chapter relics - what can be done is to link an image that shows what is allowed in the digital edition...that leaves you in a position with an example of an official source and me asking why are you willing to ignore it? Not owning it doesn't make it any less official.

Of course, an alternate explanation is that the tool with the iPod version is letting you create illegal lists to force you to know the rules. This is the fragmentation of the ruleset at its worst: you must own an iPod tablet in order to get the "most current" rules.

Homer

Given that the army creation tool from GW is less than stellar and clearly filled with issues already determined to be inaccurate per the rules that we would need a FAQ update for the print/iPad/epub books all bringing them inline with this creation tool. 

Honestly, if you have that tool, why not just use it instead of AB?

My question is generally rhetorical in nature because I already know the answer is that the builtin tool doesnt work right. using it to base your ruling makes little sense to me.

Because AB is better, by far for making a game list...the force org tool is better for playing around with individual units (more of a GUI interface so usability is high on an individual unit basis).

The challenge is I know I would prefer that AB were more loose - giving me more options to interpret the rules. I mean, AB is far from a source of legality - so where the interpretation is a little loose, why do we have to try to be tight in AB? It just makes it harder as a user to work with it when it doesn't do thing that I think most of us would agree it should - the bugs related to the Sgt's being the best example...for year's you could replace two items with melee/ranged weapons so you could have a plasma pistol and a power weapon, a combi-bolter and a bolt pistol - as AB is implemented now, you can't replace your bolter (except with a chainsword) and so if you buy a combi-bolter it replaces the bolt pistol.

See what I mean? The e-codex is no worse than the printed codex in terms of the quality of writing...but hell, it is from GW and it at least can be updated more frequently...the ONLY real argument against it as a source that I see is that it isn't universally available...but when you're left in this nebulous world of rules interpretations then shouldn't you use whatever is out there???

gungagreg wrote:Because AB is better, by far for making a game list...the force org tool is better for playing around with individual units (more of a GUI interface so usability is high on an individual unit basis).

The challenge is I know I would prefer that AB were more loose - giving me more options to interpret the rules. I mean, AB is far from a source of legality - so where the interpretation is a little loose, why do we have to try to be tight in AB? It just makes it harder as a user to work with it when it doesn't do thing that I think most of us would agree it should - the bugs related to the Sgt's being the best example...for year's you could replace two items with melee/ranged weapons so you could have a plasma pistol and a power weapon, a combi-bolter and a bolt pistol - as AB is implemented now, you can't replace your bolter (except with a chainsword) and so if you buy a combi-bolter it replaces the bolt pistol.

See what I mean? The e-codex is no worse than the printed codex in terms of the quality of writing...but hell, it is from GW and it at least can be updated more frequently...the ONLY real argument against it as a source that I see is that it isn't universally available...but when you're left in this nebulous world of rules interpretations then shouldn't you use whatever is out there???

So I highlighted some key points you have to help illustrate my responses.

First, I would disagree that 'most of us would agree it should' as you have indicated it is a very highly discussed item right now with multiple people on both sides of the camp. The 40k datafiles for AB have always tried to stay on the STRICT RAW standpoint whenever possible. That means that we strictly adhere to Rules as Written regardless of when we see stuff that is mostly clear was intended another way. As has been pointed out, the interpretation is accurate to RAW but may have been intended otherwise based on the Force Org Tool. Only when GW provides an update to the RAW in the iPad, epub and/or print codexes though will we know for sure which interpretation is actually correct. However taking a strict view is preferable as it eliminates the broarder view and a limitation would generally be more acceptable later on if we have to expand on access, versus retract access because we were originally overly broad in interpretation.

For the second point, I just wanted to state that while something may/may not have been possible in the past, does not mean it would now be posisble in the current codex. Lots of freedoms we use to have in design have been overly simplified in more recent releases and this generally eliminates options we have come to expect. Remember that RAW is the defining rule used for the datafiles. What 'is' allowed now, not what was allowed before.

The explanation makes sense, just make the armour of indomitus available in the next patch and lets call it a day until the FAQ clarifies the 1 for 1 swap.

Also funny thing is by RAW in the dark angels codex, no one can take dual lightning claws. As it only allows you to replace 1 weapon for a lightning claw. Not both

I had implied that a free exchange allows the default loadout to be a bolt pistol and a chainsword as a "standard option". This would then allow both to be upgraded from the wargear tables.

Not that pictures replace RAW, but pages 134 and 135 of the new codex clearly depict images of Sergeants and Vet Sergeants with two upgraded weapons. Page 134 depicts a sgt with a grav-pistol and a power fist while page 135 depicts a veteran sgt with a storm bolter and a power axe. This would imply that a free exchange of a bolter for a chainsword would allow selection from both the ranged and melee table, and arguably the chapter relic list as well.

I've seen big mistakes in the 'pictures' section in codexes before.

If i recall correctly in the previous chaos codex there was some weird shit with the army list selection and it started a huge debate over on dakka.

Point being, it seems whoever takes the pictures, apparently is just a photographer and his job is to make the pictures look good, not necessarily to stay accurate to the written rules.

fenrick wrote:I had implied that a free exchange allows the default loadout to be a bolt pistol and a chainsword as a "standard option". This would then allow both to be upgraded from the wargear tables.

Not that pictures replace RAW, but pages 134 and 135 of the new codex clearly depict images of Sergeants and Vet Sergeants with two upgraded weapons. Page 134 depicts a sgt with a grav-pistol and a power fist while page 135 depicts a veteran sgt with a storm bolter and a power axe. This would imply that a free exchange of a bolter for a chainsword would allow selection from both the ranged and melee table, and arguably the chapter relic list as well.

As I read the codex, this is allowed for veteran sergeants, sadly not for Techmarines.

jlong05 wrote:I do not know if the epub is as updated as they keep the iPad version.

I emailed Black Library about this, and they responded saying that the ePub/Mobi files are updated whenever there's a bug found or an FAQ released.
Case in point, the "Riptide" in the original release of the Farsight supplement (for those who never saw it, one of Crisis Suits in "the Eight" was mis-labled as a Riptide).

Personally I think the e-release of supplements is a good thing since it means a lot of people can proof-read it, send annoying rules-questions to GW and then when the book is sent to the printers, it's 99% bug-free.