These are chat archives for BSData/wh40k

25th
Oct 2017
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Oct 25 2017 00:40
....
5220 base points of aeldari
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Oct 25 2017 01:05
Scratch that, 6311 base
think I've got a solid core
that gives me decent obsec potential, can swap serpent guns as needed, and 6 CP to fuel the rest of the army
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Oct 25 2017 05:32
I thought it was all points from the codex... So you use index options at codex points...?
I mean, I don't think any items of Wargear completely disappeared from index to codex, so there must be codex points for all of it
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Oct 25 2017 07:09
I'm pretty sure it's Index options with Codex points as well based on the article.
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Oct 25 2017 08:04
aha
found the direct quote
"Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index).
They still gain all the army wide-bonuses for things like Chapter Tactics and can use Space Marines Stratagems and the like, so such venerable heroes still fit right in with the rest of your army."
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Oct 25 2017 08:04
yes, so once the Codex is out, you use Codex points.
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Oct 25 2017 08:04
neat, puts missile sniper autarch under 120pts I think
with psword/reaper/fusion pistol/bmask
Owlsbane
@Owlsbane
Oct 25 2017 08:13
Bit without
Soz.
But without the updated rules for Path of Command and the Banshee Mask.
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Oct 25 2017 09:15
yeah... actually re-reading that wording about a thousands times does cause a bit of trouble, specifically the bit which says: "use the datasheet from the index"
because that re-opens the "how do we differentiate between index options and codex options" debate
I was of the opinion that you use the Codex datasheet as a base and just add on the options from the index
but actually the RAW state that you use the INDEX datasheet if you want to use index options
but you can use Codex points for those options
now we have a headache, which was something we've previously ignored by saying "start with Codex and add options" - REALLY we should have both index and codex datasheets, but they can all use the same points values

fuckcadia or similar...

oh, that was interesting formatting
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Oct 25 2017 09:21
# is markdown for titles :P
but yeah, this is what i was saying before
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Oct 25 2017 09:21
so it would appear :+1:
:+1:
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Oct 25 2017 09:22
its mostly the autarch that has all his options stripped out in the codex, isnt it?
CloverFox
@CloverFox
Oct 25 2017 09:24
so, because the option for taking over 30 conscripts is no longer in the codex, can I take the index version and then take a blob of 50 (don't wanna do this btw, just sparking conversation)
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Oct 25 2017 09:25
no, its only for models that are modelled with options that are no longer present on the most recent datasheet (ie. in the codex)
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Oct 25 2017 09:27
yeah, so I don't know how many datasheets in the released Codex so far have lost options, but if you want to use any of those options you should use the Index version of the datasheet which is currently not available in Battlescribe
This issue is highlighted by the Autarch, but I have no idea how big of a problem it is across other catalouges
but, it does mean we need a separate entry for rifleman dreads
CloverFox
@CloverFox
Oct 25 2017 09:28
@GenWilhelm good point, forgot it mentioned models
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Oct 25 2017 09:28
rifle dreads are the same as normal dreads, no?
CloverFox
@CloverFox
Oct 25 2017 09:29
maybe have a seperate "old index units" cat?
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Oct 25 2017 09:29
my understanding is that the options are not in the codex... therefore, you have to use the index datasheet
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Oct 25 2017 09:30
yes, but what i mean is other than weapon options the unit didnt change
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Oct 25 2017 09:30
erm... shrugs
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Oct 25 2017 09:30
it has the same profile, same abilities, same power
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Oct 25 2017 09:30
I don't know
possibly
like I said, I don't know how big of a problem it is across all the codex released so far
it is particularly a problem for Autarchs
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Oct 25 2017 09:31
the reason i brought it up for C:AM was because of all the PL drops
CloverFox
@CloverFox
Oct 25 2017 09:31
do we need to look forward for this, since GW have changed unit profiles, ala wraith units +1T, if they had options changes and you wanted to use the old options, you'd need to use the old T value
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Oct 25 2017 09:31
an index CC (eg. with a shotgun) was 3 power, but a codex one is 2 power
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Oct 25 2017 09:32
yeah, well, reading the RAW again would suggest that you have to have separate entries if you want to use index options
this would allow the implementation of different PL's
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Oct 25 2017 09:33
yeah, its messy
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Oct 25 2017 09:33
and obviously points are ruled "most recent" throughout
so that is not a problem
it is horrible
As such, I'm going to wait until I have a codex IRL (ePub counts :wink: ) to look at before I start updating things
but I'm open to suggestions about how to handle the very obvious Autarch issue :smile:
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Oct 25 2017 09:50
I suggest you stick to the way we've done it in every other cat (as far as I know), put the Index options (at Codex points) all on one entry. PL and points are supposed to be functionally interchangeable so I see no problem in updating them to the Codex values.
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Oct 25 2017 09:51
what to do about the fact that abilities have changed, and options are completely different?
I know what we've done for the other CAT's, but that doesn't mean we have to continue doing it if it is wrong...
CloverFox
@CloverFox
Oct 25 2017 10:14
power level and points are not interchangable imo, power level is on the datasheet, points are in teh codex and are mentioned in the "use the datasheet and points from 2 sources"
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Oct 25 2017 10:29
yeah, I tend to agree... although, that only applies to datasheets that lost options between index and codex. since if you have the same options in the codex as in the index you should use the codex datasheet.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Oct 25 2017 10:30
basically GW done fucked up.
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Oct 25 2017 10:31
uhuh
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Oct 25 2017 10:33
they should have just said, "sorry, your old stuff isn't legal anymore, move on". The shitstorm would have blown over in a couple of weeks and everyone would have got on with playing.
instead we have this dragged out "is it legal, is it not, how much should I pay" crap forever.
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Oct 25 2017 10:35
:+1: totally agree
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Oct 25 2017 10:52
@/all Is it possible to update the issue template to ask for the datafile version number?
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Oct 25 2017 10:53
oh man, i half joked about that a while ago
we'd need amis or Jon to update the appspot page to add another field to the bug report form
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Oct 25 2017 10:59
hehehehe!! its funny how the same things come up again
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Oct 25 2017 11:38
will it actually break if we don't add it there? At least we might get it for the ppl who log tickets directly to github?
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Oct 25 2017 12:07
oh yeah, we can add it to our own template no problem, but im just thinking that the majority of our reports come in via appspot
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Oct 25 2017 12:49
^this
For the most part the GitHub direct reports either have enough info or we can easily ask. The bsdataanons are the ones we’d really need it for
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Oct 25 2017 14:43
@ilaunchbury just because GW haven't said that old stuff isn't legal anymore (and to a certain extent that is ace because, it's a hobby afterall...), and we are in the situation we're in, doesn't mean we can ignore it. Technically RAW means we need to maintain an Index entry if there are any more changes than direct loss of options from index to codex. If there are PL changes, or (in the case of the Autarch) ability or profile changes, ON TOP of option changes then we need to have two entries, and we will HAVE to note one as the Index datasheet and one as the Codex.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Oct 25 2017 14:44
I'm not saying I wanted them to do that, I'm totally with you that we should be allowed to play with our old toys as much as the new ones. I'm just annoyed that they've made it so wishy-washy and ambiguous.
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Oct 25 2017 14:44
hopefully this won't require masses of work to be re-done for the CAT's that have already been released, but it means I will build the Craftworlds codex into the CAT slightly differently than the rest
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Oct 25 2017 14:44
and also they've made me have to do more work... :)
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Oct 25 2017 14:45
:+1:
fab
as long as we're on the same page then that's groovy
yes, hopefully it won't be loads of work, and I'm glad we're thinking about it now before I start updating my CAT ...!
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Oct 25 2017 14:48
so what we're saying is that if the PL has changed and the unit has Index-only options, then there should be a separate entry (labelled as Index) at the old PL value, right? Should it include all options, or just those that aren't available in the Codex?
CloverFox
@CloverFox
Oct 25 2017 14:50
only those that are on the datasheet, so no new codex abilities, options ect, i think
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Oct 25 2017 14:51
but if there are weapon options on the Index sheet, which are now in the Codex, then you should be using the Codex.
so only the options which aren't in the Codex should be there?
CloverFox
@CloverFox
Oct 25 2017 14:57
the entire datasheet needs to be in there, which is why imo (in an ideal worls, i know there are issues with bloat ect) there should be a seperate entry even for rifle dreds, as the faq states that the model uses the datasheet for rules, and the codex for points
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Oct 25 2017 14:58
however, in that specific case, the only difference is the weapon option. It didn't get any differences in abilities or profile.
I don't think....
CloverFox
@CloverFox
Oct 25 2017 15:02
true, there's no ideal situation for this, it works which is whats important
no ideal solution*
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Oct 25 2017 15:07
right, so, if the ONLY difference is some options, then you don't need two entries.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Oct 25 2017 15:08
but if you're making two entries, should we leave out Codex options from the Index entry?
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Oct 25 2017 15:08
If there is a difference, e.g. with the Autarch, where the same named abilities are different between the Index and the Codex, and there are some options that are only available in the Index, you need and Index entry that accurately represents the datasheet in the Index,AND one that accurately represents the Codex datasheet
yes
because if you're using the Index entry to take options that aren't in the Codex, you don't need the Codex options that you're not using...
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Oct 25 2017 15:10
good, you agree with me :)
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Oct 25 2017 15:10
the only time you use the Index datasheet is to play with options that are not available in the Codex. IF you do that, you have to sacrifice any specific updates that came with the Codex. You cannot benefit from updated rules AND all the options
:+1:
As far as I'm aware, this situation has not reared its head until now
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Oct 25 2017 15:12
It's kind of a problem with DG. They can't take JP Lords or Sorcs in Codex.
but the Index allows it, and they have slightly different weapon options.
However, they were always separate unit entries, so I didn't actually have to create a new one from scratch.
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Oct 25 2017 15:13
I bet if you take index Lords they are a pale comparison to Codex DG Lords - ??
yeah, that becomes an army issue more than a particular datasheet issue
the question there is "What units are available to my army" - the answers is either "just those in the Codex" or "anything referenced in the Codex or Index for that army". And GW have pretty much stated option 2
so DG can use Lords and Sorcs from the Index, but not the ones from the C:CSM Codex
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Oct 25 2017 15:15
you can't take twin pistols in the Codex.
no, definitely not CSM ones.
apart from that they are identical.
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Oct 25 2017 15:37
then DG can use those units, they just use the Index version of them :smile:
CloverFox
@CloverFox
Oct 25 2017 15:48
only of GW made a model for them
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Oct 25 2017 16:45
Just my 2c, but wouldn't the easiest way of handling things just be putting an [Index] suffix on units like the autarch entry then making a separate new one for the codex version?
No real need for multi-cat since the number of valid index options is always very small
I think the only other lost option was for swooping hawk exarchs
Arne Kreutzmann
@dragongame
Oct 25 2017 16:58
I like the idea of @WindstormSCR
Would clearly show where a unit is from
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Oct 25 2017 17:19
No
Tags have been phased out, and we’re not bringing them back
Arne Kreutzmann
@dragongame
Oct 25 2017 17:36
Why?
As I understand this I have multiple sources for the units ...
So for example Autach and Autach [Index]
So it‘s for simple visualization
We used to have tags – they were nothing but trouble; hence why the creation guidelines specifically says not to use them
Arne Kreutzmann
@dragongame
Oct 25 2017 17:44
Sorry 😐 but didn’t find anything about the tags in the guidelines. Just that FW is considered as normal and should therefor only be referenced by book and not by pre- or suffix.
I not directly affected, as my stuff ist either removed from the Codex (rough riders) or its rules moved to a FW unit (dakka dread)
It think this hole stuff with index and Codex is quite a mess by GW ... 😩
But I also have no idea how I would one could have done it differently 🤔
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Oct 25 2017 17:51
@alphalas I see no other option besides multi-cats that will reduce the confusion, aside from making it an equally confusing switch inside the unit to show/hide the correct options and profile
and show/hide are notoriously unreliable :(
CrusherJoe @CrusherJoe recalls having almost this exact same conversation...well...more than once.
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Oct 25 2017 18:06
@WindstormSCR show/hide work when you set the parameters correctly
But then again hiding Index options is no bueno either
For most things, just having the options available in the same entry will be fine. The autarch... idk yet
@dragongame the FW tag is what I’m talking about. We use to tag everything because of GW’s stupidity- but it looks bad in the UI, especially on mobile.
Arne Kreutzmann
@dragongame
Oct 25 2017 18:18
Okay
Thank you
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Oct 25 2017 18:34
We could have an index switch, I would like to compare the differences in real life before doing too much work though... Also, it really does come down to user experience, the CAT files are small enough that a couple of extra profiles probably won't cause much drama, and it requires exactly 0 thought to implement, so that's my fall back if the switch doesn't work
My point is that we definitely need a way of making selections from two different datasheets, and it is something that hasn't been a major problem before codex craftworlds
tekton
@tekton
Oct 25 2017 20:13
did my best to make it transparent in the GK file, but it's not super straight forward at times :(
random side question: anyone know of some good "hobby" shops in/around Las Vegas? I'll be there the last week of November and thought I'd drop by one while there...
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Oct 25 2017 21:11
interesting thought for today
Psychic powers don't appear to be locked to craftworld, only to "Asuryani"
so you could take eldrad in the -1CP aux detachment with pretty much any craftworld
Alex Baur
@acebaur
Oct 25 2017 21:13
Ugh, Eldrad
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Oct 25 2017 21:13
well, in my case "Eldrad"
I like the statline as a representation of the chief farseer of a craftworld
also a good way to get Illic in there for sniper support if you badly need it
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Oct 25 2017 21:22
assuming you want a different warlord than an index sniper autarch