These are chat archives for BSData/wh40k

16th
Nov 2017
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Nov 16 2017 14:30
@GenWilhelm, can you merge my PR?
please :)
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Nov 16 2017 14:32
:+1:
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Nov 16 2017 14:32
ta
this has been updated, look right down at the bottom
they made a graphic to explain which book you take your rules from (index vs codex)
basically, if the unit has a data sheet in the codex you use that; but if the index has wargear missing from the codex you use the wargear from the index with the data sheet from the codex....
so yeh, nice and simple
Also its worded as "DOES YOUR MODEL HAVE A
DATASHEET IN A CODEX?" - doesn't say it has to be a specific codex, just does the unit have a data sheet in A codex
which throws up issues with data sheets in for example the SM codex for units that are the same unit names as non-codex armies (i.e. blood angels etc)
James
@skonk
Nov 16 2017 17:20
and again opens up th
the argument that Thousand Sons should be using the data sheet for rubrics from the CSM dex
James
@skonk
Nov 16 2017 17:37
Also means we can have all the index wargear options added to the codex armies options; i.e. Combi-Weapons on Plague Marine champs
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Nov 16 2017 17:43
Well at least there's an official word?
CrusherJoe @CrusherJoe grimaces
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Nov 16 2017 17:43
I...guess?
James
@skonk
Nov 16 2017 17:44
oh and just to top it off....
it also says you can just fuck the codex entry off completely if u like and use the index version
ah maybe i mis-read that bit actuallyt
yeh so its just saying you can chose to use the index version of the wargear
short of it is that you always use the codex entry for the rules, but the wargear can come from either the codex or the index... or a mix of both. With the points taken from which ever publication is newer
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Nov 16 2017 17:51
....which is basically what we've all thought how it should be all along, right?
James
@skonk
Nov 16 2017 17:51
no
the way it was being done was to implement codex and index versions of the units as i understand it
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Nov 16 2017 17:52
Okay...it's how I thought it should be done then LOL
James
@skonk
Nov 16 2017 17:52
where as the above document suggests that 1 version is needed with the wargear options combining whats listed in both the codex and index
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Nov 16 2017 17:54
Right. Index entry is for wargear only.
James
@skonk
Nov 16 2017 17:58
yeh
James
@skonk
Nov 16 2017 18:04
also if you pick wargear from the index, but the wargear has rules that changed in the codex... you use the rules for the wargear from the codex
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Nov 16 2017 18:07
the argument with Thousand Sons tho is that they DO NOT have a codex yet. This is because you cannot pick legion 1kSons from Codex CSM.
so you still use index datasheets
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Nov 16 2017 18:07
Agreed
James
@skonk
Nov 16 2017 18:08
thats not what the graphic in the document says tho
it simply says does a unit have a data sheet in a codex
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Nov 16 2017 18:09
Does it have the correct Legion keyword?
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Nov 16 2017 18:09
but you cannot pick 1kSons Rubrics from CSM
so 1kSons DO NOT have a model in a codex
James
@skonk
Nov 16 2017 18:09
rubric marines do tho
rubric marines have an entry in "a" codex
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Nov 16 2017 18:10
....but not 1KSons rubric marines
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Nov 16 2017 18:10
you CAN NOT, i repeat, CAN NOT pick 1ksons rubrics.
i can pick black legion
i can renegades
i can pick night lords
but the book states no MODELS from the CSM codex can be 1kSons or Death Guard
ergo 1kSons Rubics are not from a codex
James
@skonk
Nov 16 2017 18:11
it also says TS cant use any of the rules in the book but then GW gave them permission to use the spells
the book its self clearly states they cant, gw overwrote that
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Nov 16 2017 18:12
a specific case scenario that GW has stated an exception to.
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Nov 16 2017 18:13
Which, to me, indicates that exception is the only one
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Nov 16 2017 18:14
you dont understand how much i WANT to be on your side of the argument as a 1ksons player. because i am still salty at the lack my army has
Yes I read the above, but direct picture links are useful things
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Nov 16 2017 18:26
The Soulburst change is pretty brutal for matched play
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Nov 16 2017 18:28
Yay, I get to rewrite the craftworld CAT...
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Nov 16 2017 18:29
That SB nerf was LOOOOOOOONG overdue
Out of Sequence actions are some bullshit
At least this way they're pretty much on par with AoF
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 16 2017 18:41
@CrusherJoe Isn’t that the way we did AM? Just have index wargear?
@FarseerVeraenthis also confirmed, the avatar can take relics – as dumb as that is
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Nov 16 2017 18:42
they talked about the avatar taking relics on stream, but i thought they were just mistaken
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Nov 16 2017 18:43
No he can't. It says he's not named but also changes the Relic text to exclude him
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 16 2017 18:44
Ok cool
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Nov 16 2017 18:44
@alphalas yes sir
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Nov 16 2017 18:51
Yup, as suspected, no relics for the Avatar :+1:
But I'm glad I didn't fully implement index rules, just the Autarchs to fix :smile:
Alex Baur
@acebaur
Nov 16 2017 19:21
What did they nerf with the soul burst?
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Nov 16 2017 19:24
You can only do it in your own turn
Owlsbane
@Owlsbane
Nov 16 2017 20:13
And also you can only soul burst one phase per turn. So if a unit already did a soul burst move then no other units are allowed to do a soul burst move until the player's next turn.
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Nov 16 2017 20:14
But they could shoot?
Owlsbane
@Owlsbane
Nov 16 2017 20:14
*a phase once, not one phase of course
So yeah, one unit may soul burst move, another may soul burst shoot, yet another soul burst psychic power, etc...
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Nov 16 2017 20:19
They got punched in the mouth, hard
Now you'll just see regular CWE more
Owlsbane
@Owlsbane
Nov 16 2017 20:19
Yeah well, I'd say they got pruned after the unnatural growth that was 7th edition end game.
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Nov 16 2017 20:20
I won't mourn it
Owlsbane
@Owlsbane
Nov 16 2017 20:20
Exactly
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Nov 16 2017 20:21
SfD was powerful, but imo this need might be a bit much. My hatred for hero hammer however makes me care little
As ynnari are hero hammer by default
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Nov 16 2017 20:28
I'm going to continue building and painting my dudes as craftworld and then buy the triumvirate so I can play ynnarii if I fancy a change
James
@skonk
Nov 16 2017 22:18
image.png
take it for what you will
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Nov 16 2017 22:19
well that agrees with the designers' commentary
James
@skonk
Nov 16 2017 22:20
and with my oppinion; but goes ag
goes against the general opinion in here
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Nov 16 2017 22:21
up until today, general opinion here was what WC said ~4 months ago about index v codex
James
@skonk
Nov 16 2017 22:22
thing is i had personally spoken to a number GW staff where the impression i always got from them was that they just assumed everyone was using the newer data sheet
it took me ages to get them to actually understand the issue
that how they had written everything, it was unclear at best and at worst indicated you couldny use the newer sheet
but my hammering on about this, on and off anyway, was cos if my discussion with GW folk making me think they didnt actually realise people wern't using the updated sheet
I've asked the 40k on FB to request what he said be actually added to the FAQ but no idea if he'l come back and read the thread
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 16 2017 22:33
If it’s put on the FAQ we’ll update it
#1414 needs updated now anyway
@GenWilhelm you wanna take care of that?
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Nov 16 2017 22:34
sure, theres not much to say now
its basically just the flow chart from the last page of the commentary
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 16 2017 22:34
Yeah
Well the old explanations mostly can go, at least