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.

I will preface by saying I know battlescribe exists. I do not like it.

The AOS warscroll builder is damn near perfect for the game. It lets you setup everything for your army and even mark how many of each weapon in multi-weapon units.

Why does 40k not have this? Does anyone actually use the combat roster? Power level seems basically worthless if everything still has points. And it doesn't take into account using more expensive weapons.

AoS tried something new for GW which is taht all the warscrolls are free on their website and the points are free through the Warscroll builder.

It might be that we and they are still waiting to see the full impact of that change on their sales estimations and such. Hopefully it shows a positive angle which 40K might copy-cat next edition.

AoS is also simpler to make for that because most of the units only have a single price. What weapon they take has no effect on price; same for many of the upgrades taht only leaders get.

40K is a bit more complex because units get quite considerable stat and ability changes through upgrades and those upgrades shift around the points value.

The list builder for 40k would be orders of magnitude more complicated to maintain and program than warscroll builder, due to how much more option-dense 40k is.

To give you an example: My army in AOS is idoneth deepkin. Here's the units in the army and the options they have.

Namarti Thralls: 10 man, 20 man, or 30 man squad. You do not buy model to model in AOS.

Namarti Reavers: 10 man, 20 man. I don't think they go to 30.

Morsarr Guards: 3-man, 6-man, or 9-man.

Ishlaen Guards: Same as the Morsarrs.

Allopex: 1, 2, or 3 sharks in the unit. You have 2 choices of ballista on top of the each shark.

Akhelion King: 2 weapons options.

All the other characters: No options.

Leviadon: No options.

Honestly, I basically never even use the listbuilding tool, building a list is pretty easy. There's also only 4 unit types, which translate to basically HQ, Troops, Elites, and Lord of War in 40k terms. In my army, Thralls are always troops, and depending on which character you choose to make your Warlord, 1 other unit becomes troops (my usual army list unlocks the Reavers as troops as well).

List building just doesn't seem to be as much of a thing in AOS as it is in 40k. it certainly takes less time.

Compare that to what you would need to program even a fairly small army in 40k like Harlequins. You have to track what each individual trouper is holding, each individual biker, each HQ, and each vehicle, and it all affects their point cost.

the_scotsman wrote:


Compare that to what you would need to program even a fairly small army in 40k like Harlequins. You have to track what each individual trouper is holding, each individual biker, each HQ, and each vehicle, and it all affects their point cost.

We have battlescribe, so it's not like it can't be done.

I think that GW like selling books though. I've bought 5 codecies, 1 BRB, 2 indecies, 3 CA's, 1 Vigilus, and probably 5 PA's by the end of the PA cycle, before they start running off 2.0 codecies. Personally, I hate buying books. I also hate e-books and e-readers, but that's another problem. It would have been nice if we could have stuck to the index model, or even gone free datasheet PDFs like they did for apocalypse. I don't care about the lore section of the codex and all of that, and if I didn't have to buy a hundred dollars of books each year I'd still spend the money on wargaming, I'd just have a hundred more dollars of miniatures.

I do conceede that the books are probably more effective for them. Beyond the profits from selling books, pretty hardbacks with color photographs and long lore sections can catch people's eye and get them into the hobby and to buy new miniatures in a way that a black and white book or file of rules spreadsheets won't.

the_scotsman wrote:
...Compare that to what you would need to program even a fairly small army in 40k like Harlequins. You have to track what each individual trouper is holding, each individual biker, each HQ, and each vehicle, and it all affects their point cost.

To get an idea of how complicated this is pull up Battlescribe, try building a Deathwatch Kill-Team, and count the bugs/glitches.

From what I understand it's 'in progress' though I couldn't say how long that's been the case for at this point.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
...I do conceede that the books are probably more effective for them. Beyond the profits from selling books, pretty hardbacks with color photographs and long lore sections can catch people's eye and get them into the hobby and to buy new miniatures in a way that a black and white book or file of rules spreadsheets won't.

Yes, but telling people who have been in the hobby for years and gone through a number of edition changes "You must buy hundreds of dollars of hardback art-books or we won't give you your rules updates!" every couple of years when pretty much everyone else in the industry has made cheap/free digital rules available feels like they're just being obtuse.

SleeperAgent wrote:Does anyone actually use the combat roster?

Me. I play Power Level though.

So, for all of my purposes, Combat Roster and WYSIWYG is enough to build lists for me.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Me. I play Power Level though.

So, for all of my purposes, Combat Roster and WYSIWYG is enough to build lists for me.

This explains a lot about your views about the game...

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Me. I play Power Level though.

So, for all of my purposes, Combat Roster and WYSIWYG is enough to build lists for me.

This explains a lot about your views about the game...

They're just as valid as anyone else's.
Is that a problem?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
They're just as valid as anyone else's.
Is that a problem?

Only that those who play the least competitive mode probably shouldn't be speaking about the balance of the game.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
They're just as valid as anyone else's.
Is that a problem?

Only that those who play the least competitive mode probably shouldn't be speaking about the balance of the game.

Similarly, users who don't even play the game shouldn't either, in your eyes? I believe that's actually a few users who'd be unable to comment, I'm sure.
If you'd like to specify "Matched Play Only", by all means, make a thread to do so, but without that distinction, there's nothing to stop my commenting.

I play the game. I get as much say in it as anyone else. Quit gatekeeping, yeah?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Similarly, users who don't even play the game shouldn't either, in your eyes? I believe that's actually a few users who'd be unable to comment, I'm sure.
If you'd like to specify "Matched Play Only", by all means, make a thread to do so, but without that distinction, there's nothing to stop my commenting.

I play the game. I get as much say in it as anyone else. Quit gatekeeping, yeah?

I've played at least a game of every edition since 3rd and from 3rd through 5th my playgroup proxied everything so I played every faction/army at least once. My being less experienced with 8th doesn't mean I can't provide insight into matched play's level of balance.

It's odd that you'd expect balance changes to be targeted at the players using the basic rules though. I can't think of a time where GW has ever primarily focused on your demographic in that regard...

I'd strongly suggest not getting into the PL v. points argument. It's only going to get messy and get the thread locked.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I'd strongly suggest not getting into the PL v. points argument. It's only going to get messy and get the thread locked.

Noted though I still think PL is more than a little silly and unbalanced given that certain wargear options cost more for a reason.

PL works fine if you dont play with Douches.

 ImperialArmy wrote:
PL works fine if you dont play with Douches.

How is using the rules as written a douche move? If you play using PL you accept all the nonsense that comes with it.

AnomanderRake wrote:I'd strongly suggest not getting into the PL v. points argument. It's only going to get messy and get the thread locked.

Agreed. It'd be nice if one could mention they play a certain way without people insinuating that they're a lesser player for doing so, but maybe that won't happen in the future.

Canadian 5th wrote:If you play using PL you accept all the nonsense that comes with it.

In that same vein, people who play by Matched Play rules accept all the OP and broken rules combinations?
Just making sure there's consistency here.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ImperialArmy wrote:
PL works fine if you dont play with Douches.

This is very true, but in all fairness, applies to all aspects of 40k and games in general.

Don't play with douches, period. Find the people you like, the ones who fit with your idea of a good time (whatever that may be!), and enjoy the game with them.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
In that same vein, people who play by Matched Play rules accept all the OP and broken rules combinations?
Just making sure there's consistency here.

I do. You generally have to accept the rules of the game you're playing in order to play it.

You can have house rules but those rarely travel well unless you're able to get them some traction on a national/international scale.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
We have battlescribe, so it's not like it can't be done.

You know how much Battlescribe would cost to make if you had to pay the volunteers? I imagine a fair bit. A lot of free labour goes into that.

AoS had an abysmal launch and needs support with things like free model rules to get and retain players. 40k has no such problem.

Edit: I didn't know the Cadian 5th was such an elitist Guard company. I would have thought that was more a Vostroyan thing.

It wouldn't cost that much, really. At the heart of things, an army builder is just a spreadsheet with a ui slapped on. The overwhelming majority of the work would be data entry into said spreadsheet, which is tedious but not exactly hard. The rest is pretty easy as far as the programming goes.

The only real issue would be the size, as GW would no doubt want a bunch of high quality images included for each unit, which would inflate the app's space requirement.

I imagine they haven't made one yet because they like selling books. Hardbacks make them money (as they're mostly recycled content, so are cheap to put together) and, perhaps more importantly for GW, look good on shelves and attract new players with their glossy pictures and quality-implying heft. They do love marketing their products as the luxury version, after all.

Personally I like quartermaster for my list building needs.

Why GW does not i think just comes down to they know it will be harder to charge the big money.
Just codex and bonus books for most factions cost more than all the rules for warmachine combined in there app.

Infinity builder works great as well so it does not need to be an expensive undertaking.

Considering what kind of program it’s probably something that can be done easily. The difficulty is the rules team coming up with or changing something to list design that would need a redo D:

 Trimarius wrote:
It wouldn't cost that much, really.

I never believe this when people say it. Things are expensive.

The Warscroll Builder was one of the random "free" crutches GW deployed when AoS was met with an underwhelming response. GW had a dead WHFB game...and an unproven AoS product so they propped it up with a number of free things to help encourage players adopt the game. GW has zero issue with sales of 40K and thus need to provide nothing free of charge.

 Sim-Life wrote:
AoS had an abysmal launch and needs support with things like free model rules to get and retain players. 40k has no such problem.

Edit: I didn't know the Cadian 5th was such an elitist Guard company. I would have thought that was more a Vostroyan thing.

If you're going to take a dig at me try reading my name correctly. Hint, the first word has nothing to do with 40k.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
They're just as valid as anyone else's.
Is that a problem?

Only that those who play the least competitive mode probably shouldn't be speaking about the balance of the game.

Right, because it's so much more competitive to play Optimizedlisthammer than it is to actually play the game.


Power Level encourages both fun and fluffy play and munchkin play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elbows wrote:
The Warscroll Builder was one of the random "free" crutches GW deployed when AoS was met with an underwhelming response. GW had a dead WHFB game...and an unproven AoS product so they propped it up with a number of free things to help encourage players adopt the game. GW has zero issue with sales of 40K and thus need to provide nothing free of charge.

Warscroll Builder came out quite a bit after points did, you know that right?

 Trickstick wrote:
You know how much Battlescribe would cost to make if you had to pay the volunteers? I imagine a fair bit. A lot of free labour goes into that.

And, I thank all of those volunteers so very much!

SG

 Kanluwen wrote:

Right, because it's so much more competitive to play Optimizedlisthammer than it is to actually play the game.


Power Level encourages both fun and fluffy play and munchkin play.

Let's just say there's a reason no tournament, ITC or otherwise, routinely uses PL.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Right, because it's so much more competitive to play Optimizedlisthammer than it is to actually play the game.


Power Level encourages both fun and fluffy play and munchkin play.

Let's just say there's a reason no tournament, ITC or otherwise, routinely uses PL.

Two of my FLGS' regularly run PL tournaments / events.