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.

Hey folks!

Working on my first army list. A friend of mine built me a 2,000 point army, with post-chapter approved 2018 point costs. I am inputting it into BattleScribe so I can understand the army I'm building, and have run into an issue.

-He lists a Dreadnought with a Twin Autocannon & Twin Heavy Bolter as 100 points in total, using index values.
-Battlescribe lists a Dreadnought with a Twin Autocannon and Twin Heavy Bolter as 107 points.

I bought the Space Marine Codex, and the rulebook, and I have Battlescribe. I don't know how to research which of these is correct.

 Dashofpepper wrote:
Hey folks!

Working on my first army list. A friend of mine built me a 2,000 point army, with post-chapter approved 2018 point costs. I am inputting it into BattleScribe so I can understand the army I'm building, and have run into an issue.

-He lists a Dreadnought with a Twin Autocannon & Twin Heavy Bolter as 100 points in total, using index values.
-Battlescribe lists a Dreadnought with a Twin Autocannon and Twin Heavy Bolter as 107 points.

I bought the Space Marine Codex, and the rulebook, and I have Battlescribe. I don't know how to research which of these is correct.

Chapter Approved 2018 has a lot of points changes. Yes, GW expects you to pay for what should be free errata. A dreadnought with Index costs should be 120 points however. FWIW Battlescribe is correct.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Chapter Approved 2018 has a lot of points changes. Yes, GW expects you to pay for what should be free errata. A dreadnought with Index costs should be 120 points however. FWIW Battlescribe is correct.

That was unexpected; I didn't realize there was a third option.

You'll have to use:

Dreadnought - from CA2018
Twin heavy bolter - from Codex:SM
Twin autocannon - from Index:Imperium 1

107 points is correct.

BCB calculated a different loadout (2 Twin Autocannons).

In general: If you need to calculate points, you have to do the following:

First, check CA2018 if there's a point value listed
if not, check the Codex if there's a point value listed
if not, check the Index. If it's not there either, it's not a legal option.

note that all point values in CA2017 are no longer valid, as either CA2018 includes the updated point value from CA2017 or it was reverted back to Codex/Index values - therefore you no longer use that book for point values at all.

It's like a game with a game to figure out accurate points these days...

Jeez.

 whembly wrote:
It's like a game with a game to figure out accurate points these days...

Jeez.

And this is why a lot of people just give in and assume Battlescribe is correct! Can't blame them really.

 Stux wrote:

 whembly wrote:
It's like a game with a game to figure out accurate points these days...

Jeez.

And this is why a lot of people just give in and assume Battlescribe is correct! Can't blame them really.

true - the way they do it for AoS (one book with all the point values) is much better

nekooni wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 whembly wrote:
It's like a game with a game to figure out accurate points these days...

Jeez.

And this is why a lot of people just give in and assume Battlescribe is correct! Can't blame them really.

true - the way they do it for AoS (one book with all the point values) is much better

They should have listed all current values in Chapter Approved, would have made thing so much easier. Oh well!

nekooni wrote:
You'll have to use:

Dreadnought - from CA2018
Twin heavy bolter - from Codex:SM
Twin autocannon - from Index:Imperium 1

107 points is correct.

BCB calculated a different loadout (2 Twin Autocannons).

In general: If you need to calculate points, you have to do the following:

First, check CA2018 if there's a point value listed
if not, check the Codex if there's a point value listed
if not, check the Index. If it's not there either, it's not a legal option.

note that all point values in CA2017 are no longer valid, as either CA2018 includes the updated point value from CA2017 or it was reverted back to Codex/Index values - therefore you no longer use that book for point values at all.

Isn't it 110 points then? Imperium 1 has twin autocannon at 33 points, Chapter approved has dreadnought at 60, and codex has twin heavy bolter at 17?

If i remember correctly there was an oddity in CA17. Twin AC was 33 for GW and 30 for FW. I dont see any update for the twin AC in CA18, battlescribe says is 30, no matter if GW or FW. Not sure what the correct point cost is now.

 Dashofpepper wrote:

nekooni wrote:
You'll have to use:

Dreadnought - from CA2018
Twin heavy bolter - from Codex:SM
Twin autocannon - from Index:Imperium 1

107 points is correct.

BCB calculated a different loadout (2 Twin Autocannons).

In general: If you need to calculate points, you have to do the following:

First, check CA2018 if there's a point value listed
if not, check the Codex if there's a point value listed
if not, check the Index. If it's not there either, it's not a legal option.

note that all point values in CA2017 are no longer valid, as either CA2018 includes the updated point value from CA2017 or it was reverted back to Codex/Index values - therefore you no longer use that book for point values at all.

Isn't it 110 points then? Imperium 1 has twin autocannon at 33 points, Chapter approved has dreadnought at 60, and codex has twin heavy bolter at 17?

You're right , I missed that - but just like p5freak I'm not sure which value to use now. Hopefully they'll errata the autocannon entry, although I don't have high hopes for that one.

 p5freak wrote:
If i remember correctly there was an oddity in CA17. Twin AC was 33 for GW and 30 for FW. I dont see any update for the twin AC in CA18, battlescribe says is 30, no matter if GW or FW. Not sure what the correct point cost is now.

Good grief. This is me building my first army list. =p Using Battlescribe for the first time.

FWIW, I submitted a ticket to Github's data repository, who said they looked it up, and 110 is right - and that they'd fix it in the next release.

So it looks like we've all got a bit of egg on our face, because Twin Autocannons (for Index Imperium 1 Space Marines) were NEVER 30 points, only forge world models had them reduced to 30 points. Thus, the lack of inclusion in CA18 is not a bug, it's a feature and Index Imperium 1 Twin Autocannons have ALWAYS been 33 points and continue to be so.

Its weird that a mortis dreadnought with double twin AC is 135, and a regular dread with the same weapons is 126. They are the same, except for the battlefield role. The mortis is heavy support, the regular dread is elite.

Btw, battlescribe has already been updated.

nekooni wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 whembly wrote:
It's like a game with a game to figure out accurate points these days...

Jeez.

And this is why a lot of people just give in and assume Battlescribe is correct! Can't blame them really.

true - the way they do it for AoS (one book with all the point values) is much better

And that's how pretty much everybody likely thought it would work when it was found out points are at the back of the book as that would be only reason to do it like that. Ease of update. Now it's just as hard/easy to update if points were in the datasheet itself so all we end up is with more flipping of book...

It's as if GW decided to do it like AOS but then flipped opinion midway. Weird seeing that's one of the best things about AOS and they ignore that but copy worse aspects instead.

tneva82 wrote:
And that's how pretty much everybody likely thought it would work when it was found out points are at the back of the book as that would be only reason to do it like that. Ease of update. Now it's just as hard/easy to update if points were in the datasheet itself so all we end up is with more flipping of book...

It's as if GW decided to do it like AOS but then flipped opinion midway. Weird seeing that's one of the best things about AOS and they ignore that but copy worse aspects instead.

The rumour is that GW wanted to do away with points entirely, power level for everything and anything, but the playtesters threw a conniption and calmly explained how well that would go down (i.e. Poorly) and forced GW to add points as an afterthought.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
And that's how pretty much everybody likely thought it would work when it was found out points are at the back of the book as that would be only reason to do it like that. Ease of update. Now it's just as hard/easy to update if points were in the datasheet itself so all we end up is with more flipping of book...

It's as if GW decided to do it like AOS but then flipped opinion midway. Weird seeing that's one of the best things about AOS and they ignore that but copy worse aspects instead.

The rumour is that GW wanted to do away with points entirely, power level for everything and anything, but the playtesters threw a conniption and calmly explained how well that would go down (i.e. Poorly) and forced GW to add points as an afterthought.

Are you talking about Sigmar or 40k?

Because if 40k then I don't buy that for a second. They tried it with Sigmar and it exploded in their face.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
And that's how pretty much everybody likely thought it would work when it was found out points are at the back of the book as that would be only reason to do it like that. Ease of update. Now it's just as hard/easy to update if points were in the datasheet itself so all we end up is with more flipping of book...

It's as if GW decided to do it like AOS but then flipped opinion midway. Weird seeing that's one of the best things about AOS and they ignore that but copy worse aspects instead.

The rumour is that GW wanted to do away with points entirely, power level for everything and anything, but the playtesters threw a conniption and calmly explained how well that would go down (i.e. Poorly) and forced GW to add points as an afterthought.

And why do you keep bringing this up, off topic I might add, 18 months after this all went down (if it did) and with a solid release pattern of books all containing points and Matched Play rules released since? Heck, you moan about CA being paid-for erraata and points updates that should be free, but also say they want to drop points (this killing that annual per-player CA Tax)... which is it?

Take it to the right forum, dude.