These are chat archives for BSData/wh40k

20th
Nov 2017
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Nov 20 2017 01:19
I noticed that today when I was on the metrorail
was going to fix it now but you got it then great
James
@skonk
Nov 20 2017 14:52
@alphalas remember the discussion we had the other day about Red Scorpions and I suggested GW probably just assumed people were picking a Chapter Tactic (even though the rules suggest maybe you shouldn't be)?
Read the very last paragraph of that
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 20 2017 14:52
Yup I saw
I’m glad they said that
I was actually about to post that here myself
James
@skonk
Nov 20 2017 14:52
its just funny that GW themselves basically don't read as much into the exact wording of rules than we do i guess
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 20 2017 14:53
Pretty much
But then again we knew that back when the first triumvirate came out, and having celestine in your army gave any model that could take relics in your army access to relics of the Ecclesiarchy; ANY model, including tyranids
James
@skonk
Nov 20 2017 14:55
lol
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 20 2017 15:04
And when someone pointed it out on the FB, GW was like oh, shit, yeah that’s a thing lol
Guillaume G.
@Nokhal
Nov 20 2017 15:08
Hello
Yes but Guard didn’t have the priest previously; so it’s not that simple.
How so ?
I fail to see an issue to accurately represent the possibility of how to field a priest.
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 20 2017 15:15
The point I was trying to make is that the priest in the Index is in the ministorum section, not the Guard section.
Guillaume G.
@Nokhal
Nov 20 2017 15:15
Index position doesn't matter for anything.
In newhammer lsit building
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 20 2017 15:16
Yes it does
You can still soup you are correct
Guillaume G.
@Nokhal
Nov 20 2017 15:16
Technically Tyranids have one act of Faith per turn.
But by far and large it has all been replaced by keywords.
RAW you select one faction keyword for your whole army (Like imperium), than one Faction keyword (the same or different) for each of your detachment.
Some Detachment give bonus to all selection inside them if they have some specific keywords.
But which index, codex, CA, FAQ, etc.. the rules are don't really matter (except for wargear options like "ranged weapon list" and costing).
James
@skonk
Nov 20 2017 15:18
I think part of the issue here is that some people find it hard to disconnect the datasheets for the books's rules
Guillaume G.
@Nokhal
Nov 20 2017 15:19
Understandable.
And that's I believe how 90% of casual player will paly the game.
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Nov 20 2017 15:19
@alphalas the only reason i think @Nokhal might be correct despite the obnoxious natur e of the argument is the index priest has the Astra Militarum keyword
Guillaume G.
@Nokhal
Nov 20 2017 15:20
Index priest were also specifically buffing conscripts for example.
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 20 2017 15:20
@WindstormSCR I understand that
Guillaume G.
@Nokhal
Nov 20 2017 15:20
And even back in 6th ed (haven't played 7th) they were buffing IG armies.
with allies chart
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 20 2017 15:21
Here’s the reason why I don’t want to change it - because @Nokhal already can do exactly what he wants, with how BS is built
James
@skonk
Nov 20 2017 15:21
IMO, as far as GW are concerned, if mutliple data sheets exist with the same unit name then they are the same unit regardless of which book they're in
Guillaume G.
@Nokhal
Nov 20 2017 15:21
alphalas : no, the price are wrongs
James
@skonk
Nov 20 2017 15:21
you then take, out of context of the book (and its rules) which ever data sheet is the newest
and thats what you use
Guillaume G.
@Nokhal
Nov 20 2017 15:21
Prices from the Soriritas Index are from Index
James
@skonk
Nov 20 2017 15:21
just because a book may have rules that go against using stuff in said book in a particular army, you are not using the rules from that book, just the data sheet
Guillaume G.
@Nokhal
Nov 20 2017 15:21
when they should be from AM codex
Also a priest can both have an IG relic AND a plasma weapon
which you can't do with current Battlescribe w40k catz
James
@skonk
Nov 20 2017 15:22
i.e. just because the CSM book says you cant use thousand sons with it, doesnt mean you cant use the rubric sheet. Because you are not using the CSM book to build you TS army, you are using the Index which is there the TS rules are. But you are just pulling the rubrics sheet alone out of the CSM book.
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Nov 20 2017 15:22
@Nohkal a thing to remember when arguing here is that its all sttrict RAW with a decent side of caution to avoid changing files too much
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 20 2017 15:23
^this
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Nov 20 2017 15:23
We also have the additional complication that we have decided to cater for people who don't have a Codex.
Guillaume G.
@Nokhal
Nov 20 2017 15:23
@WindstormSCR
That's specifically because the RAW were confussing that GW clarfied this
page 6
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Nov 20 2017 15:23
which GW still haven't cleared up properly.
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 20 2017 15:23
See that’s the thing
That’s still vague as fuck
Guillaume G.
@Nokhal
Nov 20 2017 15:24
What do you think is vague ?
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Nov 20 2017 15:24
Yes, we are aware, the problem is that GW can't even write a decent clarification
Guillaume G.
@Nokhal
Nov 20 2017 15:24
We can directly ask them for an official statement.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Nov 20 2017 15:24
and we'll get the "we'll pass that on to the rules writers"
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Nov 20 2017 15:24
FB posts count for nothing
Guillaume G.
@Nokhal
Nov 20 2017 15:24
they actually answer such queries now.
James
@skonk
Nov 20 2017 15:24
image.png
Guillaume G.
@Nokhal
Nov 20 2017 15:25
Yeah, how is that vague ?
The datasheet is the small grey box from the codex
everything else still follow the index
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Nov 20 2017 15:25
the problem with FB posts is you can ask the same question a week apart and get two entirely different answers
Guillaume G.
@Nokhal
Nov 20 2017 15:25
wargear if available is costed from the codex the datasheet is from
if not fallbackl to index
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 20 2017 15:26
@WindstormSCR is correct
Guillaume G.
@Nokhal
Nov 20 2017 15:26
the problem with FB posts is you can ask the same question a week apart and get two entirely different answers
Yeah, and they already stated that most recent answer is the correct one.
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 20 2017 15:26
As much as @skonk is annoyed by it, we do not go off FB comments
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Nov 20 2017 15:26
@Nokhal, what if my army doesn't have an Codex, and I only have an Index. How do I know what the updated price is?
Guillaume G.
@Nokhal
Nov 20 2017 15:27
And you shoudln'"t either as they are not aprt of official FAQ and pdf. However, they do provide arbitration on some very specific vaguer wording.
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 20 2017 15:27
If it is not specifically stated in a community post or in a pdf, we do not implement it
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Nov 20 2017 15:27
what they failed to address on P6 is where a datasheet is duplicated in a codex but not the same faction as the index
Guillaume G.
@Nokhal
Nov 20 2017 15:27
Like the new developper comment is basically in substance saying with a flowchart the content of the fb post
James
@skonk
Nov 20 2017 15:27
I think the designers commentary makes it pretty clear anyway
Guillaume G.
@Nokhal
Nov 20 2017 15:27

what they failed to address on P6 is where a datasheet is duplicated in a codex but not the same faction as the index

how is that an issue ???

James
@skonk
Nov 20 2017 15:27
regardless of the FB comment. The FB thing just clears up the issue of the Troops vs Elite roles
Guillaume G.
@Nokhal
Nov 20 2017 15:27
Do they have different faction keywords ?
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Nov 20 2017 15:27
take the enginseer, there are now two distinct datasheets for the same model
Guillaume G.
@Nokhal
Nov 20 2017 15:28
Most recent take precedence and erase the index, save for wargear options.
An example would be the officer of the fleet. Elysean specifically refer to the index version. A new one has been released in AM, meaning that with AM codex, elysean infantry can't get free reroll from him anymore.
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Nov 20 2017 15:29
example: CSM book explicitly forbids its rubric entry for being from 1K sons
James
@skonk
Nov 20 2017 15:29
you're not building your Thousand Sons army from the CSM dex
Guillaume G.
@Nokhal
Nov 20 2017 15:29
Yes,; you are using the idnex for that.
James
@skonk
Nov 20 2017 15:29
you are just using the updated datasheet, out of context from the rest of the book
Guillaume G.
@Nokhal
Nov 20 2017 15:30
yeah, exactly. RAI, RAW, RAD.
James
@skonk
Nov 20 2017 15:30
as the designers commentary states, if the unit has a datasheet in "A" codex.. u can use that datasheet
Guillaume G.
@Nokhal
Nov 20 2017 15:31
Yeah, for open play for example.
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Nov 20 2017 15:31
@skonk RAI is clear and I let someone do that last week, but GW doesn't seem to understand the need for official clarity vs waffling facebook comments
Guillaume G.
@Nokhal
Nov 20 2017 15:31
For amtched play, you are assumed to have all the latest index, faqs and codex
James
@skonk
Nov 20 2017 15:31
this isnt about a FB comment
this is about the published designers commentary
the designers commentary is clear on it
the only issue with the TS was that the codex data sheet is an Elite unit, not a Troop. That's what the FB comment is clearing up.
Guillaume G.
@Nokhal
Nov 20 2017 15:32
The datasheet state them as being elite.
James
@skonk
Nov 20 2017 15:32
the Index TS rules, which is what your army is built from, says Rubrics are Troops
Guillaume G.
@Nokhal
Nov 20 2017 15:32
yeah.
James
@skonk
Nov 20 2017 15:32
so as per the PDF you can use the Rubrics sheet in the codex, and as per the indexl TS army rules, Rubrics are troops in a TS army
Guillaume G.
@Nokhal
Nov 20 2017 15:33
So ? Where is the Issue ,
?
James
@skonk
Nov 20 2017 15:33
we could delete the FB comment from existence and what i said above would still apply.
Guillaume G.
@Nokhal
Nov 20 2017 15:33
You can, thanks to a RULE that apply to a detachment, override a specific datasheet properiety
that's basically how most of FW armies are built too.
With elysean overriding faction keywords with their own for example.
Agreed, FB is only useful as litigation over RAW and an indication of future FAQ at best. But the FAQ on units is crystal clear to me, and I don't see a conflict between RAD, RAI and RAW.
Which was NOT the case before the pdf
(Elysean officer of the fleet for example).
I mean, do anyone here really disagree that a priest can't carry both a plasma weapon and an AM relic ?
If so, how to I make it happen in Battlescribe ?
Guillaume G.
@Nokhal
Nov 20 2017 15:42

I realize that a lot of people are confused due to the sudden breaking of "one army = one codex, even if the same units appears twice in different codex, it's two different units" to the giant "Use keywords for everything" that befit much more a digital, online gaming system than the good old "your codex is enough to play your army" we all have been using for years.

If you are playing casual open play, then your codex and the free online basic rules is enough to play. And this is what most "casual" players will have.

But for matched play, for the asperger nerds that actually lawyer about rules, it is now a giant clusterfuck of codex, index and faqs, indicating that GW should clearly short their shit out and publish some kind of official centralized, up to date corpus of rules in a digital format that take precendence over codex themselves. However, how to use them is now pretty clear since the latest FAQ, and Battlescribe should reflect that.

James
@skonk
Nov 20 2017 15:43
The thing with 2 distinct datasheets for 1 unit (the engineseer was it?) - thats a bit like chaos having "Daemons" Daemons Princes and "Heretic Astartes" Daemon Princes. Basically they both apply to the same unit and technically you could use which ever you like. But they have different sets of Faction Keywords and thats what restricts which army you use them with. So lets say the Guard Engineseer was better for some reason, you could totally pick that one for your AdMech list... but then your detachment would cease to be an AdMech detachment due to using a datasheet with the wrong and you'd lose a bunch of rules.
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Nov 20 2017 15:44
Actually, I think the point @alphalas is making, is that you can already take a priest as you want, without having to change the datafile
Guillaume G.
@Nokhal
Nov 20 2017 15:44

@FarseerVeraenthis

you can already take a priest as you want
You can't, and the point value for the Adeptus Ministorum catalog are illegal.

AM priest lack wargear options from index
Sister of battle priest lack extra wargear options from AM, and is costed with the index and not the AM codex, in clear contradiction with the rules.
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 20 2017 16:00
@Nokhal I’m not changing the sisters one, period
I might change the Guard one
Guillaume G.
@Nokhal
Nov 20 2017 16:01

@skonk

but then your detachment would cease to be an AdMech detachment due to using a datasheet with the wrong and you'd lose a bunch of rules.

Your CULT MECHANICUS detachement is illegal only if a unit is missing the CULT MECHANICUS keyword.

Let's do some RAW, and you'll notice there is no issue whatesover either.

Let's suppose that for the example, Enginseer could use some exclusive index options, like upgrade their pistol to a bolt pistol, costed 0 points in the index wargear.

DOES YOUR MODEL HAVE A DATASHEET IN A CODEX?

YES => two codex actually.

ARE THERE WARGEAR OPTIONS FOR YOUR MODEL THAT ONLY APPEAR IN THE INDEX VERSION OF ITS DATASHEET?

YES => Said bolt pistol, only in the index

USE THE CODEX VERSION OF YOUR MODEL’S DATASHEET, BUT YOU CAN CHOOSE TO USE THE INDEX VERSION FOR ITS WARGEAR OPTIONS (NOTE THAT IF THE WARGEAR HAS RULES IN THE CODEX, THESE REPLACE THE INDEX RULES)

You can field two versions of your Enginseer :
-The AM version without CANTICLES OF THE OMNISSIAH. The bolt pistol option is available (from the index) but cost 1pts (AM prices).
-The AdMec version with CANTICLES OF THE OMNISSIAH. The bolt pistol option is also available. As AdMech codex has no price for it, index prices are used (0pts).

@Nokhal I’m not changing the sisters one, period

Why ?

Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 20 2017 16:02
Because I’m still not convinced
I understand what you and @skonk are saying
Guillaume G.
@Nokhal
Nov 20 2017 16:02
What part do you disagree with ? Pricing ?
because that's literally the only changing thing.
for sisters
James
@skonk
Nov 20 2017 16:02
He's not convinced you should be using a data sheet from a book that's not specifically for your army I think?
Guillaume G.
@Nokhal
Nov 20 2017 16:03

But...

DOES YOUR MODEL HAVE A DATASHEET IN A CODEX?

James
@skonk
Nov 20 2017 16:03
you know, me going on about rubrics... I don't even play thousand sons :)
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 20 2017 16:04
@Nokhal look, I get what you’re saying.
Guillaume G.
@Nokhal
Nov 20 2017 16:04
Then why the hell is the forge world repressor available in the catalog then ? It's for in a book about space marines.
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 20 2017 16:04
Just stop
Guillaume G.
@Nokhal
Nov 20 2017 16:04
@alphalas
But ?
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 20 2017 16:05
Look, I’ve told you what will make me change my mind
Guillaume G.
@Nokhal
Nov 20 2017 16:05
Official FAQ.
This is damn official FAQ
I understand your point of view of "Sister priest are in the same book as sister, why the hell should I use the Imperial guard priest".
Well, because Keywords and 8th ed.
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Nov 20 2017 16:07
Is there any chance you could be a bit less angry... Everything seems quite shouty to me...
Guillaume G.
@Nokhal
Nov 20 2017 16:08
I'm sorry If I appear so.
Maybe the caps copypasted from the PDF ?
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Nov 20 2017 16:09
Uhuh, that was pretty shouty :wink:
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Nov 20 2017 16:09
No, the pushy tone of your arguments since the beginning.
Guillaume G.
@Nokhal
Nov 20 2017 16:10
Because the issue have been closed off with a wrong reason.

Stating :

Not touching it till it’s addressed in a faq.

WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Nov 20 2017 16:11
When trying to convince soneone of a viewpoint, it helps to try and understand the opposing viewpoint and reasons behind it instead of continuously ramming the argument down someone's throat
Guillaume G.
@Nokhal
Nov 20 2017 16:11
While the very reason of the issue is because of FAQ.
Then please explain your viewpoint.
For now the only explanation given is "Priest are next to sisters of battle in the index".
Which has nothing to do with army building in 8th ed and is explicitely against the RAW and hence a house rule.
Make of that what you will, i'm maintening my own catalog anyway due to Keywords
cya
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Nov 20 2017 16:15
If you weren't such an asshole I'd be more inclined to actually read your blocks of text. Don't let the door hit you on the way out
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Nov 20 2017 16:20
:wave:
(jerk)
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Nov 20 2017 16:26
There's a way to get your point across and sadly, that was not it.
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Nov 20 2017 16:49
the dude is just a complete asshat
look at his new comment #1785
fwiw the guard entry probably does need changing, but I'm tempted to ask @alphalas to leave it in place purely to cause this shithead more rage
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Nov 20 2017 16:58
Do you guys have ANY idea how hard it was to keep my mouth shut during that entire exchange??
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Nov 20 2017 16:59
IMHO, it looks like the Priest should have been in both cats from the beginning.
But alphalas agreed to fix it and the guy carried on.
CrusherJoe @CrusherJoe just read the latest comment on #1785
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Nov 20 2017 17:11
Holy shit that guy can suck a fart out of my ass
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Nov 20 2017 17:26
@CrusherJoe thanks, I just had tea come out my nose
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 20 2017 17:27
Yeah
I’m glad I just kept closing the app on my phone
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 20 2017 17:29
I’m having a terribad morning, that guy was just icing on the cake
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Nov 20 2017 17:36
Don't Tell Me What I Can't Do.gif
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Nov 20 2017 17:38
@alphalas have a very funny blogpost to cheer you up
(if you like chemistry as a subject even on the amateur level, that blog is well worth reading)
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Nov 20 2017 17:40
@WindstormSCR 1. You're welcome for the tea shower, all part of the service. :) 2. That blog post was solid gold. Thank you for sharing.
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Nov 20 2017 17:41
the other "things I won't work with" are pretty great too
my other favorite being "The sand bucket won't save you this time"
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Nov 20 2017 17:41
Also, is it wrong that I found Bane to be a sympathetic character?
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Nov 20 2017 17:42
no, that's the point, he starts out as a boogeyman but winds up as a sympathetic mirror to batman
and yes, apparently there is a chemical that will burn sand and concrete at room temperature
tekton
@tekton
Nov 20 2017 17:42
that was pretty great, thank you
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Nov 20 2017 17:43
now we know what the imperium probably uses in its flamers
or what the banewolf uses
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Nov 20 2017 17:46
OMG
At seven hundred freaking degrees, fluorine starts to dissociate into monoatomic radicals, thereby losing its gentle and forgiving nature.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Nov 20 2017 17:48
you know something is bad when it burns things at ~90 kelvin
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Nov 20 2017 18:08
That’s pretty good
Reminds me of something I shared with @CrusherJoe before-
zopha
@zopha
Nov 20 2017 18:12
mmmm, coffee.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Nov 20 2017 23:14
wtf? why is it red.

@Nokhal "doing the job you are supposed to do but won't"

Well then. Pack it up boys. Sounds like we're on strike from a job that pays a non-zero sum!

As an aside, the ever-faithful mega has let me down :( Nids pdf is nowhere to be seen.Anyone found one?