These are chat archives for BSData/wh40k

17th
Nov 2017
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Nov 17 2017 00:29
@FarseerVeraenthis interesting thing: that means you can combine the foot autarch's star glaive with other index weapons, since the star glaive is default wargear and not replaced
So you can actually give the guy a ranged weapon to shoot with
You want me to do the fix or let you handle it?
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 17 2017 01:39
@GenWilhelm we really think it means across factions now?
Cause I really don’t want to open that can of worms
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Nov 17 2017 01:45
i think that was the intention. cant find anything that affirms it one way or t'other, though
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 17 2017 01:51
Exactly
Which is why I said we should wait until confirmation
I know everybody’s gonna get all excited about this; however, we can’t go off half baked
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Nov 17 2017 01:56
the one this that's pushing me is the first control on the flowchart says a codex, rather than anything more specific
but that could be just a design decision to keep things easier to follow, rather than getting too wordy/lawyery
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 17 2017 01:58
would no surprise me it being the latter tbf
especially with @skonk's pointing out of the fact that gw is still clueless that they've established it accidentally
tekton
@tekton
Nov 17 2017 02:03
Just remember @GenWilhelm "If it seems to good to be true, it's probably the work of a demon"
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Nov 17 2017 02:03
so who should we thank? Skarbrand?
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 17 2017 02:04
my bet is masque
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Nov 17 2017 02:24
Bela'kor, because he has to be good for something
or just tzeentch himself, because change we can believe in
tekton
@tekton
Nov 17 2017 04:36
Why believe in the lesser of 9 evils, right?!
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Nov 17 2017 06:14
@WindstormSCR if you've got a few minutes to spare, feel free to update the CAT :smile: I don't know when I'll have time to do it myself...
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Nov 17 2017 06:14
I created a branch, but apparently cannot publish said branch
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Nov 17 2017 06:15
Really the only thing that needs updating is the Autarch no longer requires the index/codex switch
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Nov 17 2017 06:15
most of it is just tearing apart your nice selection logic (carefully)
I think I need contributor permissions or something
since it won't let me make the branch to do the merge from, or I'm doing something incorrectly
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Nov 17 2017 06:16
Ah, you might need to have your permissions updated, yes, I think you need to ask @amis92 to do it
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Nov 17 2017 06:17
I'm testing a fix right now, worst case I can just sent you the updated cat file
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Nov 17 2017 06:18
Yeah, that would work if my github sorts itself out - it was doing funny things the other day..
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Nov 17 2017 06:18
@FarseerVeraenthis thought regarding #1765 would be to retain the underlying option instead of replacing and just check on the relic itself?
could adjust that while I'm messing about with the autarchs anyhow
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Nov 17 2017 06:20
Well, that's fine for the power sword replacement, but you cannot do it for shuriken pistol replacement because that would give you an "extra" weapon
And since in 8th you can shoot all your weapons, not only is it not RAW to have both it would also give an unfair advantage
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Nov 17 2017 06:22
I think I see what you're getting at, you went replacement so people wouldn't look at the output and think they had two guns
I think what #1765 is getting at its that it's difficult to check for correct replacements visually, but if the selection logic is sound it's a non-issue
so I'll just triple-check that's all working when I remove the switches
and make it work if it doesn't
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Nov 17 2017 07:01
Q: Which, if any, Movement phase rules apply to a move made
with the Fire and Fade Stratagem?
A: All such rules apply.
aka: fuck off we don't want to open the can of worms, you sort it out
this one is particularly hilarious though:
Q: Can a Swooping Hawk unit use Fire and Fade to move
over an enemy unit and use the Swooping Hawk Grenade
Pack ability? If I use Fire and Fade on a Crimson Hunter,
will it crash due to not being able to move its minimum
distance? If a unit that can Fly uses Fire and Fade in a Fire
and Fury Battlezone, does it have to roll for the Burning Skies
special rule?
A: Yes in all cases.
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Nov 17 2017 07:03
Yeah, I love the last one too :+1:
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Nov 17 2017 07:05
did you catch my comment about foot autarchs now getting to take two index weapons and the star glaive?
can lead to interesting things, like taking a power sword/relic for killing T3/T4 and saving the glaive for big stuff
or going double avenger cat / glaive for hanging around with dire avengers
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Nov 17 2017 07:15
Yeah that's kinda cool, I'm sure GW could have made it easier for everyone to understand though
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Nov 17 2017 07:23
success!
had to fork instead of branch
@FarseerVeraenthis it's up, I added the other FAQ changes while I was at it
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Nov 17 2017 08:36
👍
James
@skonk
Nov 17 2017 09:20
pretty expensive
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Nov 17 2017 11:08
@WindstormSCR your changes have been merged, thanks for the quick response! :+1:
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 17 2017 11:22
That tank is kinda underwhelming- cool but meh
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 17 2017 13:41
@skonk I saw that; it does nothing for anyone other then still be vague and not invalidate the Index.
James
@skonk
Nov 17 2017 13:41
it's the least vague thing the guy on there has ever said
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 17 2017 13:48
But it doesn’t say in all cases use Codex; it says if you have it
Which means, we still have to support index.
I get your frustration, it’s how people who want to run red scorpions or any of the other badab chapters feel because technically they can’t without running index only
Let me restate that it’s not that they run index only if that they don’t have any chapter tactics or anything else to set them apart – if you use the name characters, you can’t pick any new chapter tactics
Wow that was a vtt fail -.-
James
@skonk
Nov 17 2017 13:51
heh
with Red Scorpions, as I understand it you would pick a chapter tactic that you like (or think fits the fluff) and gain that set of rules but you wouldn't gain that chapters keyword so no access to their traits, relics, strats etc
a friend of mine actually runs them as his main army
he currently has a permanent part-hard due to the imminent release of the Culln Leviathan Dread
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 17 2017 13:54
You would think, yes - however because culln has keyword RS, you can’t have him in a detachment that’s anything but
Same thing as you can’t have crusader squads in a UM detachment
James
@skonk
Nov 17 2017 13:54
yeh the detachment would be entirely RS
but using the chapter tactic of your chose
choise^
choice^
feck my brain today (full of cold)
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 17 2017 13:56
That’s the thing though, RAW you don’t pick; because the only way you can pick is if you have entirely <chapter> keyword
I hear you - yesterday was no bueno for me health wise
James
@skonk
Nov 17 2017 13:56
the codex it's self says that if you arn't one of the listed chapters, use their parent chapters tactics
if the parent chapter is unknown, pick any you like
you dont change your keyword tho
you just gain the selected chapters tactic
and since you dont change keyword, the tactic is all you get, you dont get the stuff that requires the other keyword (relics, traits, strats)
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 17 2017 13:57
But see, there’s the rub
James
@skonk
Nov 17 2017 13:57
so while you may run for example the Ultramarines chapter tactic of falling back and shooting, you would still be entirely <Red Scorpions>
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 17 2017 13:58
It’s assumed that <chapter> is the only keyword that allows picking
Actually it’s pretty significantly pointed to
But anyway, RAW it’s nogo, RAI you’re correct
That’s the fun of this bullshit
James
@skonk
Nov 17 2017 13:59

“If your Chapter does not have an associated Chapter Tactic, use the Chapter Tactic of its founding Chapter. For example, Crimson Fists are a successor Chapter of the Imperial Fists, so should use the Chapter Tactic of the Imperial Fists. If you are unsure of a Chapter’s founding Chapter, either consult the background sections of our books or choose a Tactic from the table that best describes its character and fighting style.”

Excerpt From: Games Workshop Ltd. “Codex: Space Marines.” iBooks.

nothing on the page where thats from says anything about a <chapter> requirement
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 17 2017 14:00
In the rulesdescribed in this section we often refer to ‘Space Marines units’. This is shorthand for any ADEPTUS ASTARTESunit that has one of the following Faction keywords: <CHAPTER>,ULTRAMARINES,IMPERIAL FISTS,SALAMANDERS,WHITE SCARS, RAVEN GUARD,IRON HANDS,CRIMSON FISTS orBLACK TEMPLARS. A Space Marines Detachment is therefore one which only includes units with one of these keywords
Jesus formatting Batman
And the paragraph above the one you cited:
“If your armyis Battle-forged, all INFANTRY,BIKERand DREADNOUGHTunits in a Space Marines Detachment gain a Chapter Tactic, so long as every unit in that Detachment is drawn from the same Chapter. The Chapter Tactic gained depends upon the Chapter they are drawn from, as shown in the table opposite. For example, an ULTRAMARINESunit with the Chapter Tactics ability gains the Codex Discipline Tactic”
The big issue is the fact that Forge World gave things specific chapter keywords, without actually making rules for them.
Worked pre-Codex, doesn’t really work now
zopha
@zopha
Nov 17 2017 14:05
So because they have the words <RED SCORPIONS> and not the word <CHAPTER> means they can't be used?
James
@skonk
Nov 17 2017 14:06
this is one of those cases where i reckon, if we asked someone at GW they would just assume people are picking a chapter tactic
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 17 2017 14:06
Now; this all being said, outside of a tourney, I have practically zero problem with RS players picking a CT
@skonk you’re probably right
James
@skonk
Nov 17 2017 14:08
yeh, i think in the end, till its 100% clear it would be down to the tourny it's self to say what they want to allow
for RS, kinda hoping this Fires of Cyraxis book gives them something akin to codex rules
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 17 2017 14:08
Pretty much. Because straight RAW, it kinda dicks all the FW characters over
It should
Especially with how hard FW is going with RS stuff
James
@skonk
Nov 17 2017 14:09
perfect time to sort them out
also the Culln drednought imo could be as powerful as a primarch
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 17 2017 14:09
I wouldn’t be surprised if the other badab chapters got chapter rules in it too
Or he could just be a slightly better lev
But no I agree I’m hoping Cyraxus is C:SM for FW marines - they need it badly
James
@skonk
Nov 17 2017 14:10
what i mean is that a levithan dread is already pretty close in power to a primarch, making one a character and giving it an aura effect would put it even closer
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 17 2017 14:11
Because right now, the guard regiments got slightly fixed and brought in line, and we know corsairs aren’t coming for months
James
@skonk
Nov 17 2017 14:11
in terms of its own raw output i mean, currently it obviously comes no where close in terms of buffing an army
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 17 2017 14:11
True good point
James
@skonk
Nov 17 2017 14:12
i think a lot of admech players are hoping they get some transports out of it too
rules to use some of the 30k models, in 40k
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 17 2017 14:12
But corsairs, Elysians, and RS/BR/all the other badab chapters are kinda fucked right now
I do too, tbf
And volkite
I love me some volkite
James
@skonk
Nov 17 2017 14:12
yeh
i bought a friends admech off him earlier this week
we had a game of my DG vs his AdMech and i think it was the final straw
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 17 2017 14:13
Probably
James
@skonk
Nov 17 2017 14:13
he shot 4 units of kataphrons, 4 robots doing double shoot + mortal wounds and 2 dune crawlers at 1 unit of BLightlord Termies that had been buffed with spells and he killed a total of 1
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 17 2017 14:14
Even though apparently if you take the dagger of tushak on a officer of the fleet, you can get away with infiltrating <Imperium> units
James
@skonk
Nov 17 2017 14:14
next day he said he was selling em so i snaffled em to keep them in the group
oO
nasty
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 17 2017 14:14
Which could be super-useful for AdMech
James
@skonk
Nov 17 2017 14:17
it does seem that they suffer from lack of board control at the mo, transports or some additional infiltration could sort that out
James
@skonk
Nov 17 2017 14:19
i take it the officer of the fleet has no <regiment> ?
zopha
@zopha
Nov 17 2017 14:19
They don't have many transports in 30k except for the Triaros, it's a nice model so letting more people use it will be good.
James
@skonk
Nov 17 2017 14:19
they'd sell more models too so its in their interests
zopha
@zopha
Nov 17 2017 14:20
The same can be said for Custodes but they don't seem to be in any hurry to make 40k rules for them.
James
@skonk
Nov 17 2017 14:21
yeh its odd
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 17 2017 14:21
Yeah there’s actually a handful of guys I know who are just chomping at the bit for custodes 30k to translate over
zopha
@zopha
Nov 17 2017 14:22
Plenty of odd things. Like having ad mech and skitarii seperate armies for ages..
Could be they'll do it after they've released a good few of the 8th updated IA books.
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 17 2017 14:23
Possibly
James
@skonk
Nov 17 2017 14:24
i wish they'd give chaos rules for more of the 30k stuff but with that i get that they want some differentiation between SM's and CSM's. +CSM get a bunch of stuff unique to them
but when its basically the 30k version of the same 40k army i dont get why they wouldn't get more rules out to use them in both games
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 17 2017 14:26
My guess is they still barely know what they’re doing
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Nov 17 2017 14:27
#1768 what an entitled little shit
I don't know what to feel about FB comments, they're useful for friendly games, but are sometimes so contradictory that you wonder if its just an on the spot guess
James
@skonk
Nov 17 2017 14:30
I've said this before but the guy on FB often gets stuff wrong
i've replied to plenty of his posts correcting his mistakes
but in this case
i have personally spoken to at least 3 GW staff members and in all cases they basically just assumed everyone was already using the updated data sheet
his reply to my question on FB reads like he actually went and spoke to people before he replied (it took him a couple of hours to reply) - with the "we would say" bit
but i get that some folk will want to see it actually in an FAQ document before accepting it
i have requested they add it but i dont know if he'l even see the reply; tempted to email them
zopha
@zopha
Nov 17 2017 14:33
Email them anyway.
James
@skonk
Nov 17 2017 14:35
there are some other interesting things too btw
GW stance is that a datasheet is only the same datasheet (from multiple books) if the unit name is the same
now, with death guard we have a usable daemon prince sheet in the index which has a warp bolter option
but the daemon prince in the codex has a different datasheet name
so we still dont get warp bolters
but, the daemon prince in the index has permission to be given the Death Guard keyword and is still valid for use
so i guess technically we should now have 2 daemon prince entries to chose from?
the index one not having discustingly resilient tho :(
James
@skonk
Nov 17 2017 14:57
and the index version having access to the dark hereticus spells
CloverFox
@CloverFox
Nov 17 2017 15:14
so, on those twin macro cannons, they ignore stealth on stealthsuits/ghostkeels as they have fly, do you reckon that's intended?
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 17 2017 15:21
probably not
but shrugs
how long did it just take us to establish FW can't write rules? lol
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Nov 17 2017 16:38
its also 720 points for lascannon, plasma and the macro accel
very underwhelming compared to the fellblade/falchion/etc
the void shields are the only reason it might be considered, but the fact the macro-accelerators are worse than the masotodon's skyreaper battery is absolutely mystifying
CloverFox
@CloverFox
Nov 17 2017 16:58
i'm gonna be facing one in dec, i'll let ya know how it performs
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Nov 17 2017 16:59
depends on how well the damage output is utilized I guess
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 17 2017 17:08
Yeah it strikes me as underpowered too
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Nov 17 2017 17:09
now we just need an IA xenos FAQ :(
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Nov 17 2017 17:16
tbh after looking at new and old profiles, I have no idea why spectres aren't D3 hits on diffuse
non-auto
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Nov 17 2017 18:18
Can I just throw a small spanner in the works, what do we do about the warp jump generator Autarch... Technically, he doesn't have a codex datasheet, so you have to use the index datasheet, and path of command is not wargear, so does WJG Autarch the new rule or not...?!
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Nov 17 2017 18:38
Oy
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Nov 17 2017 18:44
this is why we cant have nice things
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Nov 17 2017 18:44
@FarseerVeraenthis it does say use most updated rules and rules for wargear separately from
The wargear lists issue in the original ref
So I'd assume rules with the same name change, as does wargear with the same name
The same would apply to SM entries like Capt. On bike if the aura rules changed, same name, use the new
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Nov 17 2017 21:28
It's sad that we're actually having to discuss this
Or maybe I'm just wired up wrong or something
As that's exactly the way I thought it should be done the whole time
The Index entries are basically just for wargear once a Codex comes out
CloverFox
@CloverFox
Nov 17 2017 21:30
I was unsure of the rules changing tbh, since they are on teh datasheet themselves, and the wording stated you use the datasheet for everything except the points
but now its pretty clear you use the new rules aswell, unless there is literally no replacement in the codex
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Nov 17 2017 21:37
@CrusherJoe no, whats sad is that GW never ran across this problem or even considered the number of wrinkles and took this long to address it, and even then didn't address it very well
CloverFox
@CloverFox
Nov 17 2017 21:45
well not to worry, as the gw army builder will be coming soon which will clear it all up, #justasplanned
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Nov 17 2017 22:20
You mean have just as many update issues as the AoS app?
Its got a mishmash of GHB1 and GHB2