Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hi guys,
Is battlescribe up to date with the new Chapter Approved ?
I didn't buy CA approved yet, so I can't check.
Thanks in advance !

As far as I can tell, it is up to date with CA (no idea about BA and DA)

HOWEVER, battlescribe is renowned to having oddties in costs, so take it with a grain of salt.

it still charges me for nobs in boyz squads

Keep in mind that each data file is updated individually by volunteers, so they will not necessarily be revised at the same time.

Pretty sure Imperial Guard plasma guns are implimented wrong.
Only Tyranids have warlord traits included. There are lots of things that require double checking.

 davou wrote:
it still charges me for nobs in boyz squads

For me it charges 6 points same as any other. Isn't that how it is supposed to be? I have found battlescribe (if up to date) to be pretty darn reliable with points costs and rules. I can only think of a select few times it was wrong.

This isn't a CA issue, but Battlescribe still lists the full Index prices for the Nurgle Daemons, rather than the reduced prices seen in Codex: Death Guard. However, they are correct in the list for Death Guard. So if you are making a Daemons list in Battlescribe, you have to add a sub-force of Death Guard to get the correct prices for Nurglings, Plague Drones and Beasts.

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:

 davou wrote:
it still charges me for nobs in boyz squads

For me it charges 6 points same as any other. Isn't that how it is supposed to be? I have found battlescribe (if up to date) to be pretty darn reliable with points costs and rules. I can only think of a select few times it was wrong.

It charges me 17 points :(

Try updating your data files manually and telling it to erase old data, it usually solves such issues.

Most factions should have the updates for CA by now, if anything got missed or you notice other issues, simply put in a bug report through github or via the anon bug reporting tool after making sure you're using the right files and they are up to date.

The mobile format files have been entirely discontinued, for a number of reasons that I won't rehash, so don't continue to use those if they're the ones you're asking about.

A couple things worth knowing:

BSData volunteers/file authors try our best to follow strict RAW, but GW has made some cases of this quite confusing this edition. If you feel something is done incorrectly, please (politely!) make a case explaining your sequencing in an issue report, so we can follow the logic from start to finish and compare that to the documentation.

Ynnari is currently in purgatory because of some major problems with the python script that was bashing the different catalogs together. If you know python/XML enough to help us debug, we could use a hand!

you can always talk to us in real time and ask questions on Gitter.

You just cant depend on battle scribe for everything.

get the book and check your self is the only way to make sure you aint cheating your self or others.

 davou wrote:

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:

 davou wrote:
it still charges me for nobs in boyz squads

For me it charges 6 points same as any other. Isn't that how it is supposed to be? I have found battlescribe (if up to date) to be pretty darn reliable with points costs and rules. I can only think of a select few times it was wrong.

It charges me 17 points :(

Works fine for me, I'd try updating your repository or loading a new one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:
You just cant depend on battle scribe for everything.

get the book and check your self is the only way to make sure you aint cheating your self or others.

Ugh. Probably 75% of the people I play with don't even own a codex, they just use battlescribe.

I swear, there isn't a single marine player who actually owns the codex, and I've to explain to them all that chapter tactics only applies to infantry, bikes, and dreads.

It's especially annoying when they say, "I'm using "X" regiment/chapter/legion/craftworld rules, I think it does "Y". ", I respond with "Ok, what does the rule say." and they reply "Battlescribe just says this."

Considering how inaccurate GW is with its own rules, I would say battlescribe is about as accurate as one could expect it to be. Not great, but about as good as its source material.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Considering how inaccurate GW is with its own rules, I would say battlescribe is about as accurate as one could expect it to be. Not great, but about as good as its source material.

Now thats what i call edgy.

what exactly has been inaccurate lately. im sure there are errors as literally no one or company is ever perfect. (i know there are silliness afoot with the Germans but hasnt that always been the case in almost every edition?)

If I look at the points for my stormraven in my GK codex the cost is not correct anymore. I don't want to waste my money on CA so I'm kind of dependent on battle scribe to remind me of the correct cost.

I can't confirm for all the armies, but the Death Guard datasheets have definitely been updated with new CA points.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
If I look at the points for my stormraven in my GK codex the cost is not correct anymore. I don't want to waste my money on CA so I'm kind of dependent on battle scribe to remind me of the correct cost.

Well thats too bad.

you ether become a points thief and steal the information or just nut up and buy the book twice a year.

is it right is it wrong? thats for you and your group to decide.

You cannot depend on BS. Saying "I am not going to buy CA" should be grounds for rejection at tournies imo.

 Primark G wrote:
You cannot depend on BS.

I Really like this as a quote.

 Desubot wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Considering how inaccurate GW is with its own rules, I would say battlescribe is about as accurate as one could expect it to be. Not great, but about as good as its source material.

Now thats what i call edgy.

what exactly has been inaccurate lately. im sure there are errors as literally no one or company is ever perfect. (i know there are silliness afoot with the Germans but hasnt that always been the case in almost every edition?)

So how is what I said "edgy" if the majority of your response just restates what my post said? in other words, no company is perfect, and we shouldn't expect BS to be either. Frankly, I'm sort of surprised it's as good as it is.

Hurricane bolter costs still seem to be wrong; points have been adjusted for the stormraven and the assault cannons, but not the hurricanes.

This has been mentioned briefly above but to elaborate a little.

The guys who created Battlescribe have nothing to do with the data files that allow you to use Battlescribe for the various games it supports, such as 40k. The 40k data files are maintained by a group of volunteers (though they take the responsibility pretty seriously) so for them to update the data files with any changes, they first have to get hold of the books/documents with the changes and then they have to spend the time making the changes to the files.

Some of the people who do this don't actually play the armies whos data files they maintain so won't be buying the books themselves and they rely on other people getting the correct info to them. Once the changes are made it then takes an amount of time for AppSpot to update with the changes so that users can download the updated files.

While they try to make sure that the data files are as correct as possible; they're only human and things can get missed or sometimes rules get interpreted wrongly (as happens with the players when playing too). So if you find problems you can go the GitHub issues page and report them and they will then either fix the issue or inform you if it's your mistake.

Now all this said; you should always check your lists against the actual GW publications, at least the first time you use the list; just to be sure everything is correct. But with the increased complexity in 8th edition when it comes to list building; I would trust BattleScribe based lists over pen and paper lists any day.

Skonk wrote:

Now all this said; you should always check your lists against the actual GW publications, at least the first time you use the list; just to be sure everything is correct. But with the increased complexity in 8th edition when it comes to list building; I would trust BattleScribe based lists over pen and paper lists any day.

This drives me totally insane. Why would make it more complicated is beyond my mental reach.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Considering how inaccurate GW is with its own rules, I would say battlescribe is about as accurate as one could expect it to be. Not great, but about as good as its source material.

Now thats what i call edgy.

what exactly has been inaccurate lately. im sure there are errors as literally no one or company is ever perfect. (i know there are silliness afoot with the Germans but hasnt that always been the case in almost every edition?)

So how is what I said "edgy" if the majority of your response just restates what my post said? in other words, no company is perfect, and we shouldn't expect BS to be either. Frankly, I'm sort of surprised it's as good as it is.

Sorry mate. i have no idea why i read your post as one of those typical anti gw passive aggressive they are always bad posts. i think dakka is bleeding over into my perception

 Primark G wrote:
You cannot depend on BS. Saying "I am not going to buy CA" should be grounds for rejection at tournies imo.

At a tournament I would want to see a book, be it codex or Ca yes.

For everything else tho Battlescribe is perfectly fine.

 Desubot wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
If I look at the points for my stormraven in my GK codex the cost is not correct anymore. I don't want to waste my money on CA so I'm kind of dependent on battle scribe to remind me of the correct cost.

Well thats too bad.

you ether become a points thief and steal the information or just nut up and buy the book twice a year.

is it right is it wrong? thats for you and your group to decide.

My point was/is that you claim the Codex is the best way to get your point total correctly calculated. My point is now you need more than just your Codex. You may also need an Index, a Codex and, CA and then you'd have to cross reference everything to make sure you are using the correct point cost for each model. That's a lot to just be casually carrying around to come up with lists on the fly.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
If I look at the points for my stormraven in my GK codex the cost is not correct anymore. I don't want to waste my money on CA so I'm kind of dependent on battle scribe to remind me of the correct cost.

Well thats too bad.

you ether become a points thief and steal the information or just nut up and buy the book twice a year.

is it right is it wrong? thats for you and your group to decide.

My point was/is that you claim the Codex is the best way to get your point total correctly calculated. My point is now you need more than just your Codex. You may also need an Index, a Codex and, CA and then you'd have to cross reference everything to make sure you are using the correct point cost for each model. That's a lot to just be casually carrying around to come up with lists on the fly.

If its casual then whatever you should still have the rules one way or another.

you cannot depend on one source that is updated by the community and expect it to be right.

the bare minimum you can do is at least cross check it and make sure the points are right. and even then it wont have all the rules exactly as they are in the book.

the extra books are a expected cost of the game you ether buy it, you steal it, quit, or just accept that you are playing with the wrong rules at times.

with all the negative and positive associations that go with it.

When using battlescribe although it is a gem, a little oddly shaped gemmed at that.

Check your books, double check the points, rules, and keywords.

With that being said, it looks to be updated however still check.

Does anyone know when the Blood Angels will be updated in BS? The last I see is V26. Cheers!

woby99 wrote:
Does anyone know when the Blood Angels will be updated in BS? The last I see is V26. Cheers!

You can always check on GitHub what's been pushed and compare to the previous release date here: https://github.com/BSData/wh40k/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed

#2023 was the BA update but has not yet been rolled into a release (I'd expect one as soon as the DA changes are in)