These are chat archives for BSData/wh40k

12th
Apr 2016
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 12 2016 00:01
I believe we were waiting on the official FAQ on that.
It was one of the questions posted (among hundreds)
*Waiting on the official FAQ to see if it was answered I should say.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Apr 12 2016 08:54
@OftKilted a mixture of waiting and forgetting
i will fix it now in the meantime
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 12 2016 16:54
@ddarz why would the standard CAD be considered obsolete for C:SM?
cartag
@cartag
Apr 12 2016 17:32
@OftKilted I'm guessing because C:SM now have more formations and options than several armies combined. Anything you want to build with C:SM, you can probably do so more efficiently in formations.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 12 2016 17:33
However the standard CAD is part of the main BrB? As is the allied detachment
cartag
@cartag
Apr 12 2016 17:34
As of 3/30/16, C:SM has 41 formations to it alone.
Yeah, it is part of BRB, so is allied detachment
In this case, I considered "obsolete" in terms of you wouldn't bring it anymore vs it's not legal to brign anymore
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 12 2016 17:35
Yeah... I'm not disagreeing that they have entirely too many formations.
cartag
@cartag
Apr 12 2016 17:35
Space Puppies have 27
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 12 2016 17:36
Amusingly, (or not)
cartag
@cartag
Apr 12 2016 17:36
Daemons have 13, KDK have 9, C:CSM has (before revised supplements are released) 6
Tau have 24
Orks 20
Necrons 14
Blood Angels (who everybody bitches about not being up to par) has 16
Nids have 22
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 12 2016 17:40
There is supposedly a new Lord of war formation with the imperial knights coming with a new two knight game.
That will have a chaos space marine formation
cartag
@cartag
Apr 12 2016 17:42
and there's... 15? I want to say with the new supplements for CSM, but their basic units need reworked, not just have formations thrown at them
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 12 2016 17:43
Does that count IA13 or vraks for C:CSM? (Though that is more lost and the damned)
cartag
@cartag
Apr 12 2016 17:43
No, and neither of those have formations.
Vraks does contain detachments though
I can't remember if IA13 does for R&H though
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 12 2016 17:47
That's a bunch. Though vanilla CSM seems to get the short end of the stick it looks like
cartag
@cartag
Apr 12 2016 17:48
Never.
/sarcasm
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 12 2016 17:49
Chaos ... Overall has a lot of formations ... But that is split into loads of pieces and doesn't work in a big pool.
cartag
@cartag
Apr 12 2016 17:49
Vanilla CSM only has the oldest codex (3.5 years) and seems like it's power balanced for 5E. We don't want them to get too powerful. CSM is already beating Tau, Necrons, and everybody else, right?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 12 2016 17:50
Lash and oblits and blastmasters... FTW
cartag
@cartag
Apr 12 2016 17:50
Those 6 formations CSM does have? All from data slates. Not a single one is from a supplement that's been released yet.
Fallen Champions is the Cypher dataslate, Helcult, Mayhem Pack, and Murderpack are all from the Helbrute dataslate, Kranon's Helguard was released in Advent Calendar 2014 I believe, as was Kharn's Butcherhorde.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 12 2016 17:52
The Warhammer world supplement with the Fist of Khorne.
cartag
@cartag
Apr 12 2016 17:52
Those are all KDK
and are included in the 9 we do have
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 12 2016 17:53
All kdk? Only side note is they're "compatible" with CSM
cartag
@cartag
Apr 12 2016 17:53
in book we have 5
The only one that doesn't have to be all KDK is the Goreguard, which could technically be C:CD
meaning, the other three specify that the models must be KDK faction
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 12 2016 17:54
including the hell forged hunting pack
cartag
@cartag
Apr 12 2016 18:03
/nod
nm, the Goreguard says all Bloodthirsters have to be KDK. Doesn't specify on An'ggrath
And all but three models from HHP have to be KDK. The FW ones are the exceptions
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 12 2016 18:08
And neither the original Crimson 'laughter nor the black legion had detachments in the book
cartag
@cartag
Apr 12 2016 18:09
Correct
As it stands now, CSM do not have a single formation in dead tree format for them.
Apoc formations aren't factored in to any of the numbers above
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 12 2016 18:09
That will change this weekend.
Well from a supplement situation
Vanilla still has none
cartag
@cartag
Apr 12 2016 18:10
And we were the first codex printed for 6E.
BoLS just posted an editorial saying we don't need a new dex. This coming from an Imperial player. Who on Saturday is getting specialized decurions for five chapters of C:SM. In one book.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 12 2016 18:30
If we had more comprehensive formations, or a book of formations that provided clean alternatives, and methods of using the strengths of the codex, I might agree with him.
Formations/decurion type setups with solid back rules would be a great boon. (better than the boon table at least)
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 12 2016 18:32
Roll for a boon on a 6 you can take a good formation.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 12 2016 18:38
Says the guy with the 24 formations. And you're wrong. It's an 8, maybe a 9, possibly a 7. 6 is rather weak.
It depends on which Chaos god has decided you're their favorite.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 12 2016 18:42
38
I play tau and Necrons. 😆
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 12 2016 19:15
@Kohato Which are allies of convenience ... grumble
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 12 2016 19:16
I know. I love it. Lolol
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 12 2016 19:19
"For the greater good ..."
(said the brainwashed bluefaced xenos)
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 12 2016 19:21
All the while eating cornettos.
Our town is rather accident prone though.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 12 2016 19:22
No frozen deserts for you.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 12 2016 22:56
@amis92 #2092 appears to be a Battlescribe Bug flagging @Jonskichov
Ivan Milanov
@SuperPranx
Apr 12 2016 23:51
Not a BattleScribe bug, more of a missing feature :)
When you copy something that has links to some thing else you better check that the copied links still point to the right location. Seems someone didn't do the checking and subsequent fixing :)
Ivan Milanov
@SuperPranx
Apr 12 2016 23:53
Ah, sorry, hadn't seen this...
cartag
@cartag
Apr 12 2016 23:54
It's where all the alpha testing for 2.0 (no longer 1.16) is going on
Ivan Milanov
@SuperPranx
Apr 12 2016 23:56
Got it :+1: