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.

Spectral Ceramite wrote:
Never used battlescribe (always when I see it, I hate the format and points are usually off compared to the current codex or faq/chapter approved) however living codex's/rule books produced by GW would be awesome and worth subscription.

I have found the opposite to be case - people without battlescribe will often write their list without taking into account all the errata/FAQs and be horribly out of date. I prefer Battlescribe for that, and I generally require my opponents to make their list on Battlescribe so it's easy for me to check.

quentra wrote:

Spectral Ceramite wrote:
Never used battlescribe (always when I see it, I hate the format and points are usually off compared to the current codex or faq/chapter approved) however living codex's/rule books produced by GW would be awesome and worth subscription.

I have found the opposite to be case - people without battlescribe will often write their list without taking into account all the errata/FAQs and be horribly out of date. I prefer Battlescribe for that, and I generally require my opponents to make their list on Battlescribe so it's easy for me to check.

Agree to disagree.I don't care when playing with mates or a fun game but if they want to play serious I have everything printed that is GW approved. A non approved website that is riding on GW coattails is not something I would look at.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
It long, long, long past the time for the Codex to die and be replaced with a digital solution that can consolidate and update itself.

Like some kind of "digital codex"? YOUR LIVING IN A FANTASY WORLD MAN!

Codexes, even in a digital format, are still horrendous for gameplay.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
It long, long, long past the time for the Codex to die and be replaced with a digital solution that can consolidate and update itself.

Like some kind of "digital codex"? YOUR LIVING IN A FANTASY WORLD MAN!

Codexes, even in a digital format, are still horrendous for gameplay.

How subjective.

Spectral Ceramite wrote:

quentra wrote:

Spectral Ceramite wrote:
Never used battlescribe (always when I see it, I hate the format and points are usually off compared to the current codex or faq/chapter approved) however living codex's/rule books produced by GW would be awesome and worth subscription.

I have found the opposite to be case - people without battlescribe will often write their list without taking into account all the errata/FAQs and be horribly out of date. I prefer Battlescribe for that, and I generally require my opponents to make their list on Battlescribe so it's easy for me to check.

Agree to disagree.I don't care when playing with mates or a fun game but if they want to play serious I have everything printed that is GW approved. A non approved website that is riding on GW coattails is not something I would look at.

I have never seen Battlescribe take more than an hour or so from release to have all new points values updated. I would trust a Battlescribe list to be points accurate over a non BS list any day.

AnFéasógMór wrote:

Spectral Ceramite wrote:

quentra wrote:

Spectral Ceramite wrote:
Never used battlescribe (always when I see it, I hate the format and points are usually off compared to the current codex or faq/chapter approved) however living codex's/rule books produced by GW would be awesome and worth subscription.

I have found the opposite to be case - people without battlescribe will often write their list without taking into account all the errata/FAQs and be horribly out of date. I prefer Battlescribe for that, and I generally require my opponents to make their list on Battlescribe so it's easy for me to check.

Agree to disagree.I don't care when playing with mates or a fun game but if they want to play serious I have everything printed that is GW approved. A non approved website that is riding on GW coattails is not something I would look at.

I have never seen Battlescribe take more than an hour or so from release to have all new points values updated. I would trust a Battlescribe list to be points accurate over a non BS list any day.

As said agree to disagree. Moreover, I have a tablet with all updates, so if they really want serious business I would check that over BS. But each to own.

It's almost like digital codexes and battlescribe don't exist or something.

Spectral Ceramite wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:

Spectral Ceramite wrote:

quentra wrote:

Spectral Ceramite wrote:
Never used battlescribe (always when I see it, I hate the format and points are usually off compared to the current codex or faq/chapter approved) however living codex's/rule books produced by GW would be awesome and worth subscription.

I have found the opposite to be case - people without battlescribe will often write their list without taking into account all the errata/FAQs and be horribly out of date. I prefer Battlescribe for that, and I generally require my opponents to make their list on Battlescribe so it's easy for me to check.

Agree to disagree.I don't care when playing with mates or a fun game but if they want to play serious I have everything printed that is GW approved. A non approved website that is riding on GW coattails is not something I would look at.

I have never seen Battlescribe take more than an hour or so from release to have all new points values updated. I would trust a Battlescribe list to be points accurate over a non BS list any day.

As said agree to disagree. Moreover, I have a tablet with all updates, so if they really want serious business I would check that over BS. But each to own.

You do realize that saying "agree to disagree" doesn't actually obligate anyone to do so, right? Also, only really pertinent to opinions. You made a factual claim, that points on Battlescribe are "usually off from the current codex." People are pointing out that that's factually incorrect.

for me they can go on forever faq the game,,, i didn't spend 1 single $ since the 7th edition was relesed so im fine np for me.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
It long, long, long past the time for the Codex to die and be replaced with a digital solution that can consolidate and update itself.

Like some kind of "digital codex"? YOUR LIVING IN A FANTASY WORLD MAN!

Codexes, even in a digital format, are still horrendous for gameplay.

How subjective.

I play a lot of games that use a lot of different ways to assist gameplay. I cannot think of an advantage Codexes provide that cards or apps or rosters don't do better. I just don't see what they have to offer anymore.

AnFéasógMór wrote:

Spectral Ceramite wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:

Spectral Ceramite wrote:

quentra wrote:

Spectral Ceramite wrote:
Never used battlescribe (always when I see it, I hate the format and points are usually off compared to the current codex or faq/chapter approved) however living codex's/rule books produced by GW would be awesome and worth subscription.

I have found the opposite to be case - people without battlescribe will often write their list without taking into account all the errata/FAQs and be horribly out of date. I prefer Battlescribe for that, and I generally require my opponents to make their list on Battlescribe so it's easy for me to check.

Agree to disagree.I don't care when playing with mates or a fun game but if they want to play serious I have everything printed that is GW approved. A non approved website that is riding on GW coattails is not something I would look at.

I have never seen Battlescribe take more than an hour or so from release to have all new points values updated. I would trust a Battlescribe list to be points accurate over a non BS list any day.

As said agree to disagree. Moreover, I have a tablet with all updates, so if they really want serious business I would check that over BS. But each to own.

You do realize that saying "agree to disagree" doesn't actually obligate anyone to do so, right? Also, only really pertinent to opinions. You made a factual claim, that points on Battlescribe are "usually off from the current codex." People are pointing out that that's factually incorrect.

I don't remember GW endorsing Battlescibe? so if they are not factual is on you tbh (if want to argue). The comment "agree to disagree' is a comment meaning I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree with what you are saying. It's like saying "yer, nah". The key word is "I"

Spectral Ceramite wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:

Spectral Ceramite wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:

Spectral Ceramite wrote:

quentra wrote:

Spectral Ceramite wrote:
Never used battlescribe (always when I see it, I hate the format and points are usually off compared to the current codex or faq/chapter approved) however living codex's/rule books produced by GW would be awesome and worth subscription.

I have found the opposite to be case - people without battlescribe will often write their list without taking into account all the errata/FAQs and be horribly out of date. I prefer Battlescribe for that, and I generally require my opponents to make their list on Battlescribe so it's easy for me to check.

Agree to disagree.I don't care when playing with mates or a fun game but if they want to play serious I have everything printed that is GW approved. A non approved website that is riding on GW coattails is not something I would look at.

I have never seen Battlescribe take more than an hour or so from release to have all new points values updated. I would trust a Battlescribe list to be points accurate over a non BS list any day.

As said agree to disagree. Moreover, I have a tablet with all updates, so if they really want serious business I would check that over BS. But each to own.

You do realize that saying "agree to disagree" doesn't actually obligate anyone to do so, right? Also, only really pertinent to opinions. You made a factual claim, that points on Battlescribe are "usually off from the current codex." People are pointing out that that's factually incorrect.

I don't remember GW endorsing Battlescibe? so if they are not factual is on you tbh (if want to argue). The comment "agree to disagree' is a comment meaning I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree with what you are saying. It's like saying "yer, nah". The key word is "I"

That's...that's the most nonsensical thing I've read all day. Whether or not GW has "endorsed" Battlescribe has literally zero bearing on whether the points values are accurate, nor does it magically make other people responsible for the factual correctness of your statement.

You claimed that Battlescribe usually has incorrect points values. You were wrong; they don't, and they are extremely quick to update them. That's not "on" anybody but you.

Nobody is saying you have to use BS of you don't like it. But if you make demonstrably false claims, expect people to correct you.

TeAXIIIT13 wrote:
Welcome to warhammer 40k 7th edition... oh wait, to play at a store in 7th you only “needed” 3 sources total, rulebook, and 2 codex’s. in 8th edition you do need about 7sources and you still would take longer to play, would t finish the game and argue over rules every 30 seconds. You only have tournaments and the power gamers to blame for ruining a perfectly good NARRATIVE game that’s original edition “rogue trader” was based off of dnd, a narrative game.

Yeah I’m a “salty seventh” player, I never played in a tournament and my favourite and best army was orks and I loved them in 7th.

What 7th were you playing? You needed formations, campaign books, and supplements if you were certain armies, and rules issues in 7th were far longer then that.

Given the fluid nature of rules and the rate by which they get changed depending on how some tossed at a tournament exploited the system, they really should be offering a digital download with every purchase of a codex so that you can always have an updated version

Sumilidon wrote:
Given the fluid nature of rules and the rate by which they get changed depending on how some tossed at a tournament exploited the system, they really should be offering a digital download with every purchase of a codex so that you can always have an updated version

If you can connect to the internet and can afford a pad of sticky notes and a pen then you can update your codex whenever you want.

AnFéasógMór wrote:

Spectral Ceramite wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:

Spectral Ceramite wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:

Spectral Ceramite wrote:

quentra wrote:

Spectral Ceramite wrote:
Never used battlescribe (always when I see it, I hate the format and points are usually off compared to the current codex or faq/chapter approved) however living codex's/rule books produced by GW would be awesome and worth subscription.

I have found the opposite to be case - people without battlescribe will often write their list without taking into account all the errata/FAQs and be horribly out of date. I prefer Battlescribe for that, and I generally require my opponents to make their list on Battlescribe so it's easy for me to check.

Agree to disagree.I don't care when playing with mates or a fun game but if they want to play serious I have everything printed that is GW approved. A non approved website that is riding on GW coattails is not something I would look at.

I have never seen Battlescribe take more than an hour or so from release to have all new points values updated. I would trust a Battlescribe list to be points accurate over a non BS list any day.

As said agree to disagree. Moreover, I have a tablet with all updates, so if they really want serious business I would check that over BS. But each to own.

You do realize that saying "agree to disagree" doesn't actually obligate anyone to do so, right? Also, only really pertinent to opinions. You made a factual claim, that points on Battlescribe are "usually off from the current codex." People are pointing out that that's factually incorrect.

I don't remember GW endorsing Battlescibe? so if they are not factual is on you tbh (if want to argue). The comment "agree to disagree' is a comment meaning I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree with what you are saying. It's like saying "yer, nah". The key word is "I"

That's...that's the most nonsensical thing I've read all day. Whether or not GW has "endorsed" Battlescribe has literally zero bearing on whether the points values are accurate, nor does it magically make other people responsible for the factual correctness of your statement.

You claimed that Battlescribe usually has incorrect points values. You were wrong; they don't, and they are extremely quick to update them. That's not "on" anybody but you.

Nobody is saying you have to use BS of you don't like it. But if you make demonstrably false claims, expect people to correct you.

Hence the agree to disagree... I must be clearer... """""I"""""" agree to disagree. Its not an opinion for debate, it's my opinion. Think I need to emphasis, in my experience it has been not up to par and looking at points even now is off in a lot so """I""" disagree and I don't use it. I refer you to the angels song "No way.......it was a minor comment and you are turning it into a big argument???? I don't like it, I don't use it. No big deal?

Spectral Ceramite wrote:


Hence the agree to disagree... I must be clearer... """""I"""""" agree to disagree. Its not an opinion for debate, it's my opinion. Think I need to emphasis, in my experience it has been not up to par and looking at points even now is off in a lot so """I""" disagree and I don't use it. I refer you to the angels song "No way.......it was a minor comment and you are turning it into a big argument???? I don't like it, I don't use it. No big deal?

The fact that you keep insisting their points values are off when they aren't is really just making me wonder how accurate your lists are.

Again, nobody is saying you have to like it or use it. Just don't make false claims.

Or, you know, we can just do what people normally do and memorize the rule set and relevant changes. The 40k Community is the only group on the planet that acts like memorizing a couple hundred pages of data is impossible.

Spectral Ceramite wrote:
Read the first few comments and was meh... Buy a tablet and have all the downloads/keep up to date... Just sounds like whining to me.

Quoting myself (took out the pseudo controversial bit... ) but i agree. Its not hard.

Spectral Ceramite wrote:

Spectral Ceramite wrote:
Read the first few comments and was meh... Buy a tablet and have all the downloads/keep up to date... Just sounds like whining to me.

Quoting myself (took out the pseudo controversial bit... but i agree. Its not hard.

Or just on your phone.. i mean unless you are some kinda hipster with a flip phone still

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Are they still updating the ebooks?

Yes. GW has confirmed that the ebooks will be updated.


With my Dark Angels I only use my Codex

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

TeAXIIIT13 wrote:
Welcome to warhammer 40k 7th edition... oh wait, to play at a store in 7th you only “needed” 3 sources total, rulebook, and 2 codex’s. in 8th edition you do need about 7sources and you still would take longer to play, would t finish the game and argue over rules every 30 seconds. You only have tournaments and the power gamers to blame for ruining a perfectly good NARRATIVE game that’s original edition “rogue trader” was based off of dnd, a narrative game.

Yeah I’m a “salty seventh” player, I never played in a tournament and my favourite and best army was orks and I loved them in 7th.

What 7th were you playing? You needed formations, campaign books, and supplements if you were certain armies, and rules issues in 7th were far longer then that.

You didn’t “need” formations (every Codex had at least 1), you didn’t “need” campaign books (they were optional for those that wanted to play narrative campaigns) and you didn’t “need” supplements (again optional). I played 7th straight out the box, no changes no stupid tournament or itc rules changes, yeah I house rules a bit (mainly using 6th’s D table). Honest question though, if 7th was so broken at its core like everyone claims, 1: why did no one ever say the same about 3rd-6th? They we the same rules with minor tweaks every time.
2: why does heresy 1st edition use the so called “broken at its core” 7th as its foundation and why does no one complain that heresy is broken when the only “changes” (I’ve read every word side by side in the heresy and 7th edition rulebooks) are 1 psychic power, the way armies are constructed and the fact you can use all of your grenades in close combat (which until the 7th edition FAQ’s was what everyone did anyways so wasn’t really a change?

1) Because 7th wasn't a minor tweak. Formations and the Psychic phase broke the game in half.

2) Heresy 1st edition is Marines Vs Marines, so there isn't much problem with balance.

So all GW needs is to make a perfectly balanced game with precise and unambiguous rules while not ever publishing any clarifications or balance changes.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
1) Because 7th wasn't a minor tweak. Formations and the Psychic phase broke the game in half.

2) Heresy 1st edition is Marines Vs Marines, so there isn't much problem with balance.

I recall there being some problems once those cool IG guys came out and admech.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
1) Because 7th wasn't a minor tweak. Formations and the Psychic phase broke the game in half.

2) Heresy 1st edition is Marines Vs Marines, so there isn't much problem with balance.

It was a minor tweak, psychic powers didn’t “break” the game (power gamers that abused them did) and I never mentioned balance, I mentioned people claiming the core rules were broken, how does “it’s marines vs marines and therefore balanced” mean that the core of the rules isn’t broken? If the core of the rules (the same core rules since 3rd) how does making it balanced mean the core isn’t broken? Here’s a plank that’s snapped in half with bricks on either end, if we make sure the same amount of bricks are on both sides then the plank is fixed, it’s magic!

Again I was an ork player and you want to talk to me about balance?

I haven't done it in 8th yet, but for 7th I snipped the pages I needed from my codex (E-book), and for what allied stuff I used the most (Inquisitors and such). I put them in a PDF, which I printed out. came out to an 11 page packet. From there, if I added a unit from another codex, I'd print out the pages I needed. So most games I had the Main Rules (mini when possible), my rules packet, and maybe 1-3 extra supplements.

sfshilo wrote: there is this new fangled thing called battlescribe that exists, crazy I know. I play other game systems that don't have answers, it's annoying. (Looking at you Dropfleet.....)

I hardly ever have a book out when I play, it's there in case I forget something or need to check on a rules conundrum.

quentraI wrote:have found the opposite to be case - people without battlescribe will often write their list without taking into account all the errata/FAQs and be horribly out of date. I prefer Battlescribe for that, and I generally require my opponents to make their list on Battlescribe so it's easy for me to check.

i use Battlescribe also and find it to be quite good. all i bring to games is my printed army list from BS (which will have all updated points values and rules accounted for) and a Battle Primer since I'm still new to 8th Ed. Codex is in my bag but i havent needed to take it out yet.

its a great help to me too being new to the game as it wont let me over equip units, take too many etc or just generally build my army wrong

i even found a problem with an entry in BS and posted up about it on the github. got a response almost straight away and a user has been assigned to fix it.

so i think its a great idea and works very well. The day GW follow this method I will happily jump on board but until then I'll stick with BS

Solution: Don't play 40K, and subsequently don't post threads about it?

 Elbows wrote:
Solution: Don't play 40K, and subsequently don't post threads about it?

"Man, these gas prices are so high, it's kind of ridiculous"

"Well, don't drive the car you spent 20 grand on. It's that simple."

That's what that sounds like.