These are chat archives for BSData/warhammer-age-of-sigmar

23rd
Jan 2018
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 12:53
@/all, what is happening with this repo? What is still needed from BS to get it functioning for AoS? From what I can see (working on the Chaos cat), most stuff seems to be possible. The only thing I can currently find which is a problem is Battalion validation?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 12:56
It’s a combination of battalion validation and Allies validation
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 12:56
What's the issue with Allies validation?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 13:01
There isn’t any. The repo hasn’t been updated to handle Allies since prior to the release of GHB 2017. And unlike 40k, there are few FAQs tonhandle the “quasi-edge cases for Allies and Chaos” One of the workarounds that was done previously in the gst was the use of “Behemoth + Leader” (which in theory could be completely removed with the new category handling)
And communication is somewhat on the light side here.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 13:03
so it's not necessarily a case of Allies validation not being workabe?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 13:05
(Probably because Geedub has a solid basic tool for list building on the website, and a pretty solid app for list building.)
I’m not entirely sure that is is cleanly workable with the framework that was originally designed
As it wasn’t designed with the concept of Allies in mind.
Unlike how 40k was designed.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 13:07
Are the rules for Allies in GHB 2017? I should probably read them...
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 13:08
Yep ... and then you have to dig through the Warhammer Community site for “not-faq... FAQs” to handle the verbiage issues
Basically the problem stems from Faction names that don’t match keywords
Allies are built from Pitched Battle profile list names (at the bottom of the GHB profile)
Those “names” are lists of units, but in the case of Chaos often don’t match.
The Faction label
IE So, Disciples of Tzeentch is a Pitched Battle Faction list. But it isn’t a keyword. Tzeentch is the keyword. (Not Arcanite)
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 13:14
I see, it's referring to the book rather than the keyword
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 13:15
However to determine the Allegiance Abilities, If everything is keyword Tzeentch then you can use the Tzeentch Allegiance Ability (as you have a Tzeentch Army). The problem isn’t the Allegiance ability ... the issue is who gets to ally with whom
It’s not even the book.... because the list has units available to it that aren’t in the book
It’s a organized (in someone’s mind) list of units
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Jan 23 2018 13:17
the issue is that there are no "Faction" keywords like 40k
I hate that I'm saying that's the issue
because that in itself is an issue in 40k
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 13:17
Correct
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 13:17
Is it not referring to the other lists in the GHB?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Jan 23 2018 13:17
In AOS, any keyword can be a faction/allegience.
Fuck you can have an entire allegience of Slann
not that that'd give you anything
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 13:18
or are there models which are not in the GHB, but belong to the factions?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Jan 23 2018 13:18
Kind of
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 13:18
And Allegiances don’t give you the Pitched Battle Faction list
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Jan 23 2018 13:18
There are the old warscrolls on the website
for old armies like tomb kings/brettonia
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 13:18
And Forgeworld
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Jan 23 2018 13:18
^
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 13:19
It almost would@make sense to split the individual large grand alliances into pieces
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Jan 23 2018 13:19
In the cases other than death? I agree.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 13:19
In a quasi 40k fashion
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Jan 23 2018 13:20
Death has so many sub-factions that splitting them into their own books/alliances without more models/units would be terrible
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 13:20
that thought did cross my mind
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Jan 23 2018 13:20
Legions of Nagash seems like Grand Alliance Death 2.0
and looks great
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 13:20
Ignoring the Battalion and Allies validation tho, there's no reason that all the units can't be given proper profiles?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 13:21
And the new release of Nurgle Maggotkin tosses more fun into the mix
Not that I’m aware of. But with the changes to Battlescribe it might be worthwhile to do some gst tweaking first
Ie remove the behemoth And Leader category
As an example
Because it can Be validated with categories now
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 13:25
The validation looks overcomplicated and can probably be simplified.
It's already validating on categories, and should update both constraints if a unit has both categories anyway...
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Jan 23 2018 13:30
The validation was for before categories were changed the way they are I think
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 13:33
I personally don't like the numbered profile types, but if it's the convention then I can work with it.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Jan 23 2018 13:33
That is a ... temporary fix I think
until the actual ordering is fixed
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 13:34
it's alpha ordered isn't it? It seems to be in the 40k repo.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Jan 23 2018 13:35
Ideally. On mobile it's jumbled
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 13:36
looks alpha to me on mobile, but OK
android at least.
Ok, well, I'm going to crack on with getting all the units to have a proper profile in Chaos, and then start worrying about all the validation issues.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 13:38
Not a big fan of the numbered profile types either
And the validation was for prior to working categories
I will say that splitting Chaos and Order into their component parts (instead of using the “40k index style” would allow easier workload sharing and validation. It could be handled much like 40k is now
Right now it’s a quasi Index style. But with two data points for validation
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 13:40
Validation would probably be more of an issue for us, but we could at least offload it to the user, like it is in 40k
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 13:41
And we will likely see more changes in GHB 2018
And hopefully some more clarity on how it is all supposed to fit together
I’m not sure that validation would be more horrible if broken into pieces.
Especially if broken into the Pitched Battle Faction lists. Or “Faction Keyword” Though Pitched Battle Faction Allies lists would be easier from an Allies validation perspective.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 13:45
I feel like it's work that doesn't really need to be done. 40k takes the route of passing the validation of whether a list is actually valid to the user. I don't really see the problem of doing the same here.
Splitting out the catalogues would go some way to making it easier for the user, because they would only have access to units which they should have access to when making multi-faction lists.
rather than the current model where effectively everything is available.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 13:46
That is the positive reason for splitting
And make it easier for them to do the self validation.
But understanding that something IS an ally ... allows validation for Allegiance Abilities
Because Allies don’t count against Allegiance Abilities
And use the Vanguard, Battlehost, Warhost in place of the 40K battalions
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 13:52
Or “formations”
The side piece is that the Warscroll Battalions have their own set of organization
Depending on the type of combat you’re using
Correction, type of calculation (open, Narrative, Matched Play)
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 13:55
which battalions are different in the different game types?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 13:56
So, open can have anything
Narrative typically uses “Warscroll Battalions” Or a defined set of units based on the battletomes, and Matched Play uses points
But Matched Play can also pay for Warscroll Battalions to gain the benefits of the Warscroll, but those Battalions also count against Matched Play unit totals
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 13:58
right, so Narrative is effectively Open.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 13:59
Effectively. However some people still use points for matches
Even when using Narrative
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 13:59
but don't care about composition?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 13:59
Yep
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 13:59
So, Open but you put a points limit in.
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Jan 23 2018 13:59
Has anyone ever raised the incorrect ordering of profiles on mobile to Jon? Is he aware?
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 14:00
@amis92, if it's still an issue, it's iOS only, because they appear to be alpha ordered on Android.
for the 40k cats at least.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 14:01
Should they be alpha ordered?
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 14:03
why shouldn't they be alpha ordered?
:)
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Jan 23 2018 14:03
^^
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 14:04
(Not that they shouldn’t be.... but ... why isn’t it a choice?)
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Jan 23 2018 14:06
Giving a choice is a lot of work from programming perspective
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 14:07
Reasonable
The only issue I could see with splitting the Grand Alliance lists is on the chaos side. As some units can be either Unaligned, Or chaos deity specific.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 14:11
Yes, but they don't move out of their Faction.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 14:13
And one can have a “Tzeentch Army” or a “Khorne Army” and they don’t need to count against “Allies points” because one is building a faction specific chaos Army
(Ie basically a “Grand Alliance Chaos Army ... That only has taken a single chaos deity)
This only matters for Allegiance Abilities.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 14:15
right, so it's a "Chaos" army then and you have to select Chaos as your Allegiance?
and you only get Chaos Allegiance abilities.
or am I misunderstanding?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 14:15
Either way, I’d recommend a read through the GHB to understand how they’re handling it. (And take a peek at the FAQs
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 14:15
because that's how I read it from the GHB
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 14:16
So, if everything in my Army (That isn’t an ally) can meet the requirement for an Allegiance ability. Then I can use either that ability or the generic
So, for example:
Slaves to Darkness Army that everything takes Mark of Tzeentch
I could choose:
Chaos Allegiance ability
Tzeentch Allegiance ability or
Slaves to Darkness Allegiance ability
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 14:18
but, if I understand it correctly, you only get to choose one set?
you can't mix and match?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 14:18
You only get one Allegiance ability
And you have to meet the requirements of the ability.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 14:19
I don't see a problem then.
You select an allegiance like you do now, and get the list of abilities available to that allegiance.
I don't think it should necessarily be on us to make sure that users are building valid lists based on allegiance.
That's their opponents and/or a TO's job.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 14:21
The side piece is how they define Army creation, you choose an Allegiance... the issue is that Allegiances don’t have ally lists
Pitched Battle Factions have Allies
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 14:22
yes, it works bottom up rather than top down like in 40k
you select an army list then choose an allegiance that fits, rather than selecting an allegiance and then building a list based on it.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 14:22
Allegiances don’t (unless you happen to have a Pitched Battle Faction That has the exact same name as your Allegiance... which is the case for most ... except for Chaos)
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 14:24
Allegiances are based on keywords, right?
not faction.
so, at the very least, you can select a <Grand Alliance> allegiance.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 14:27
Allegiances are based on keywords.
One can filter units available based on chosen Allegiance
Ie “can this unit be Tzeentch or Khorne”
But the list of Allies is entirely based on the Pitched Battle Faction
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 14:29
But do they count for the purposes of Allegiance selection?
allies?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 14:29
No
Allies are exempt
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 14:29
ok, so we can ignore them
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 14:30
However if you’re using a Grand Alliance: Chaos ... there is no ally list for “Grand Alliance Chaos” Allegiance
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 14:30
Sounds like the allegiance selection just needs updating to be based on keywords rather than faction?
so that the list of units provided is those which can be in that allegiance, not those which are in a particular faction?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 14:31
Allies only exist as an artifact of Pitched Battle Faction lists.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 14:31
but everything Chaos can be in a Grand Alliance Chaos list because they all have the CHAOS keyword?
so there are no allies?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 14:31
Some Allegiances have the same word as the Pitched Battle Faction list. Chaos (and several others) primarily don’t
Anything in a “Grand Alliance (chaos/death/order/Destruction” can be part of a Grand Alliance List
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 14:32
Ignore Pitched Battle lists.
Allegiances are strictly keyword based. If every model in the army has the same keyword, you can select an appropriate Allegiance, correct?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 14:33
If the key differentiator is Allegiance, then one basically works from least to most specific
Ie: Chaos, <Chaos Deity>
Though there are chaos > Brayherds, Slaves to Darkness
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 14:36
ok, so for each allegiance, there is a list of units (which is not necessarily a Pitched Battle Faction) which can make use of that allegiance.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 14:36
Skaven Skyre and Skaven Pestilins also
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 14:37
so the list of units which is available in the list builder should be the list of units which can be chosen to fit that allegiance, NOT the Pitched Battle Faction.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 14:40
Reasonable
There will be be duplication.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 14:41
not of the units themselves, just of the root selection entries.
and even then, not much.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 14:43
Items which can be Allegiance defined like Daemon Prince (of Khorne, Tzeentch, Nurgle, Slaanesh, Un-Marked)
There aren’t many. But Nurgle can also cover Pestilins
Though Pestilins can be entirely separate
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 14:44
They don't need duplicating, just need validation added to restrict the chaos god selection based on allegiance./
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 14:44
There is a quasi version of that in the current version
It just doesn’t handle the issue of Allies
So, Allegiances is the comparatively easy part.
It’s bringing Allies into the mix that wreaks havoc.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 14:45
but if allies don't count for allegiance anyway, who cares
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 14:47
I see your point, but users still need to be able to calculate them.
If I’m not working from choosing my Army from a Pitched Battle Faction list, then I don’t get Allies. (That Allegiances don’t have Allies comes up...)
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 14:49
again, I don't think it should be up to us to validate that.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 14:50
While we may not be doing the validation ... users will need to be doing the validation.
We can set it up to make Allegiance valid lists, they’d not much different than we can do now
How would we help them manage Allies?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 14:55
Right now the Warscroll builder has an “Allies Switch”
So, you select a Faction, and select an Allegiance. Choose your units
And choose “ally” or not
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 14:56
It wouldn't be difficult to implement a switch, but there's no way to validate on points value anyway.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 14:56
Not with how it is defined presently
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 14:56
you could do a two step selection, Allegiance and Allies, which would restrict the list appropriately.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 14:57
They basically ignore the validation for Allegiance and For Faction
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 14:58
I meant Allegiance and Faction.
So you select an allegiance, which limits to units which can have that allegiance, than a further selection of Faction, which limits it to that Faction and its allies.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 15:00
But Allegiance doesn’t matter for Allies.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 15:00
but it does for Pitched Battles.
Faction can be made mandatory only in Pitched Battles.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 15:02
Allegiance Abilities still trigger and can be used for Open and Narrative (non-Matched Play)
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 15:02
right.
so, allegiance is always mandatory, and restricts your choice based on Keywords.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 15:04
Factions are where one chooses the fighting forces. Allegiances are the bonus one gets from fighting with units that have the same keyword
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 15:04
additionally, for the Pitched Battle Types, Faction is mandatory and further restricts the list based on the Pitched Battle Faction and its Allies.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 15:04
Faction is “mandatory” but could be “Grand Alliance Chaos”
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 15:04
No, like you said, Grand Alliance Chaos is not a Faction.
unless I've missed something?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 15:05
True, but choosing the Grand Alliance meets the “requirement” for a Faction
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 15:05
no, it meets the requirement for an allegiance
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 15:05
It just has no Allies
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 15:06
because everything in it will have the CHAOS keyword
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 15:06
But I could do an Allegiance:Chaos
And choose “chaos soup”
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 15:07
right, so there's no Faction to restrict you. Everything CHAOS is available
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 15:07
(Basically anything Grand Alliance Chaos)
So, it isn’t a Faction for Pitched Battles perse
But it behaves like one.
And that’s a valid choice for the Army
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 15:09
yes, ok, you'd have to have a "no Faction" choice.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 15:09
From a “requires a Faction” comment you made earlier
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 15:09
which is effectively "Grand Alliance Chaos"
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 15:09
Interestingly enough, “Chaos Soup” is also completely legitimate for Allegiance: “chaos deity”
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 15:10
yup
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 15:11
I could choose Allegiance Tzeentch, Choose no Faction (or equivalent to Faction:Grand Allegiance Chaos) and still meet a completely legit Allegiance just by choosing stuff with Tzeentch as a keyword
It just doesn’t allow me Allies
At least ... that’s my read
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 15:11
sounds legit to me
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 15:12
The complexity is validating Allies (both by the players ... and pitentiallly the app)
So, if you want Allies (as chaos) one needs to (as I envision it) know what Pitched Battle Faction list you’re working from
If allies don’t matter, then “Faction:GRand Alliance” is fine
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 15:14
without having any way to validate on points values, we're a bit stuck for now.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 15:14
The twitchiness is that this is really only a serious issue for Chaos. Almost everyone else is bog standard boring and Faction and Allegiance names are identical
You can do points max validation
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 15:14
you can easily restrict the selection list based on faction.
on a force entry?
oh yeah!
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 15:15
Some of it can be handled via the gst
It just needs to have the gst handled/Managed
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 15:16
in that case it's easy. Have an "Allies" category which applies to the Root Entry when the unit is an ally.
and restrict that category to X points.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 15:16
Which was why breaking the into Either Allegiance Or Factions would help
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 15:16
should be able to do it in the monolith
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 15:16
The issue is if you’re using a “switch” to define something as an ally and having that calculate
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 15:17
Doesn't need a switch, just a category.
and a duplicated root selection entry.
Are Ally Leaders still Leaders? I assume so?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 15:18
Nope
And Allied battleline isn’t battleline either
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 15:18
even better
behemoth?
or is it just keywords that hold over?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 15:19
Allies however Behemoths I believe still count against you
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 15:20
just checked GHB, Leader, Behemoth and Artillery still count.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 15:20

“Allied units are treated as part of the player’s army, except that they are not included when working out the army’s allegiance or the number of Battleline units in the army, and an allied model cannot bethe army general. However, note that allied units docount towards the maximum number of Leader, Behemoth and Artillery units that can be included in the arm”

Excerpt From
General's Handbook 2017
Games Workshop Ltd
This material may be protected by copyright.

P.76
So they count against, but battleline doesn’t count as battleline
And from a gst perspective, Warhost covers 2,500 points (and up)
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 15:22
ok, I won't get time to mock something up in Chaos today, but I'll see what I can do tomorrow.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 15:22
Or should
No worries, it’s been lying latent for over 6 months
Fortunately the battlescribe updates have gotten it into the ability to be fixed
I’d recommend that we do away with the Leader+Behemoth category as we can validate off of Behemoth and Leader individually now (as individual keywords)
Or categories
We may want to “expand” the core gst items, as Generals, Hero, Wizard, Priest, Totem (and a couple others are consistent across the game)
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 15:29
Yeah, I already added a Battalion ability. At some point, it will probably be worth converting every keyword to a category.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 15:36
Am I right in thinking that Battletomes supersede the Grand Alliance books?
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Jan 23 2018 15:38
Just saying – I’ll catch up and then get in on this conversation LOL
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 15:38
Not really
Both are valid
But in theory one should use the most recent Warscroll available
It’s based on publication date
The GHB actually supersedes Both from a points setup
Unless the battletome has a more recent publication date (and has updated the Pitched Battle Profile Faction list)
But points should always come from the most recent source
Ie battletome: Blades of Khorne supersedes Battletome:Khorne Bloodbound
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 15:41
that's fine. Just checking that i should ignore them. :)
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 15:41
Not everything is in the battletomes
But we shouldn’t worry about it if there are no points
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 15:43
I assume it's the same as 40k where they don't make the models any more? So they're only in the Index/Grand Alliance book, but not the more recent ones?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 15:46
Ie GHB is the key source, followed by stuff released after GHB
Pretty much everything in the GHB is in production
It’s the “not in the GHB” stuff that is out of production
The not in prod is the “Compendium units”
Which were part of the initial roll from WHFB to AoS
There was much angst at the removal of Compendium stuff from the GHB 2017
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 15:48
how long did it last though?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 15:48
They could still be used in Open and Narrative
But not pitched battles
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 15:49
I feel like they should do the same for 40k and just say that the Index is no longer valid.
for matched play, once a faction has a Codex
people would bitch for a bit, but at least it would be done.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 15:50
It’s a bit more loose than 40k
I have a list of “traits etc” that are consistent across the books.

Command Trait

Description
Abilities
Magic
Command Ability
Icon Bearer
Musician

Profile Types
Unit
Wizard
Weapon
Wound Table
Spell / Magic
Ability (Allegience) <- useless (battletrait)
Ability (Command)
Ability (Unit) <-
Artefact
Command Trait
Prayers
Scenery

Category Entries
Artillery
Battalion
Battleline
Behemoth
Fly
Hero
Leader
Magic
Monster
(Other)
Wizard
Priest
Monster
Spell
Spell (Attack)
Prayers
Totem
Unit
Scenery
Warmachines

Grand Allegiance:
Order
Chaos
Destruction
Death

Technically Wizards = Psykers but they’re base the same as a “unit”
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 23 2018 15:54
ok, caught up... lol
yeah, but the wizard profile has the cast/unbind within the profile for quick referance
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 15:55
Quasi irrelevant..... it’s a sub profile type
Or a “profile addition”
Basically in the reference it’s a “magic” field
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 15:57
yeah, if I was starting again, I'd make it a separate profile type.
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 23 2018 15:57
Also for allies, we can just create a new Allies for force entries
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 15:57
They’re technically keywords, that have an additional description field
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 15:57
which only has the spell details in it
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 15:57
We have an opportunity to start from “scratch”
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 15:57
@flakpanda, that's basically where we've got to :)
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 23 2018 15:58
Right, the original idea was to not bloat the unit with text of the magic user part. and just but cast/unbind in thje profile, and list and spells below
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 15:59
@flakpanda , an Allies keyword, which is restricted by points. and a duplicate Root Selection Entry which has Allies as the Primary category and has visibility based on Pitched Battle Faction selection.
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 23 2018 15:59
Yeah
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 16:00
If Unit and Wizard has the same Guid (with additional fields) and managing behemoths and leaders via actual categories not a combined Behemoth/Leader@type
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 23 2018 16:01
The only odd thing about using two catagories on them is the unit does so up under both leader and behemoth when printing the roster
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 16:02
Even though only one of them is the Primary?
that's a bug
surely
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 23 2018 16:03
ill double check. this may have been before primary was a thing
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 16:03
So, Behemoth isn’t something chosen
It’s a category
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 23 2018 16:04
its a unit type...
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 16:04
another problem is that we can't just delete Leader/Behemoth and then find the affected units, because the Data Editor doesn't jump to them.
like it does with other validation issues.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 16:04
You’re looking at a role concept.
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 23 2018 16:04
yeah, you have to word in reverse. go thru the cats first, then change the gst
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 16:05
it's a bug in the Data Editor if you ask me
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 16:07
And basically the entire categories section and primary types has changed since this was done. Basically the AoS stuff is pretty much from BS pre 2.0 launch...
At least conceptually
Without categories working, it was rather painful
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 23 2018 16:10
ok, they primary only shows them in that category now. so leader/behemoth can be removed and move towards just tagging it twice
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 16:10
ok, so we're left with the problem of finding them all, but it's not insurmountable.
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 23 2018 16:10
i pretty much was the only one working on AoS at the time... yeah, it was a pain in the ass
just time consuming @ilaunchbury :p
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 16:11
And I ran into the “categories don’t work properly” issue
Which only recently was resolved at core
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 23 2018 16:12
do you know if Jon added in the (not) hidden maniplulation of categories @ilaunchbury ?
for entries
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 16:12
So, are we looking to split stuff up into Allegiance lists? Or keep@with Grand Alliance like we’re using currently? With the huge conglomeration
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 16:12
I think we can do it with the Grand Alliance lists.
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 23 2018 16:13
^
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 16:13
@flakpanda, I don't think so. Duplicating RSEs isn't a massive problem though.
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 23 2018 16:14
wasnt really worried about dupping RSEs. more just hidding things based on categories for the amry alligiance
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 16:14
oh, that works.
it's already doing that in the current version
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 23 2018 16:14
granted it is all set up thru traditional triggers still
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 16:15
Also valid. “Faction: “Disciples of Tzeentch”
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 16:15
Ok, maybe not, but that definitely works.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 16:15
As a keyword
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 16:16
I'm not even going in to how much I dislike "Faction:" tagging on keywords
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 16:16
Without having Factions as actual keywords, it defines it for stuff that doesn’t match keyword and Allegiance
Allegiance is defined by keyword
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 23 2018 16:17
whats the issue with "Desciples of Tzeentch" again? it referances the table in the GHB2
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 16:17
It's a Pitched Battle Faction, not a Keyword
they are independent and we shouldn't conflate them
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 23 2018 16:18
What does the faction have to do with pitched battle?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 16:18
Yes, and as a category it could be filtered/easily acted on
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 23 2018 16:18
yeah, we just add it to the list
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 16:19
P.86 disagrees with that
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 23 2018 16:19
of? ghb
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 16:20
hmm, IMHO, I think they're just breaking their own conventions there.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 16:20
Though, they have issues between “Pitched Battle profile” and “Faction”
Which is where the language clarity issue comes in
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 16:20
KEYWORD styling should only denote keywords
but they've broken it by referring to a Faction in the same styling
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 16:21
They refer to both the “Brayherds” faction and the Brayherd Faction
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 23 2018 16:21
it also states "...usually appear as a keyword."
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 16:21
Plurality is assumed to be allowed
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 23 2018 16:21
so ther is some wiggle room
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 16:21
Brayherds (with an S) is the Pitched battle profile name. Brayherd is the keyword
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 23 2018 16:21
i think you are over thinking it, and should just roll with it
they include "s"s to keywords all the time in text to denote plure forms
refering to the group
BREYHERDS... TZEENTCH DAEMONS...
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 16:23
Actually, it’s Disciples of Tzeentch. And Daemon, Tzeentch
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 16:23
Ok, maybe we do put in PB: FACTION as a Category. I don't actually think it makes anything easier tho, because you still need to hide options based on a Faction selection option.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 16:24
But they can be used for Allies if we decide to work with it at a later date
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 23 2018 16:24
it adds another layer to DoT faction and MoN
it is what it is.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 16:24
we don't need it for allies. because allies aren't in the faction.
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 23 2018 16:25
@OftKilted fyi, i was refering to text within abilities and such... not faction names
what do you mean @ilaunchbury, we need to include it for those that have DoT allies
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 16:26
DoT?
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 23 2018 16:26
Decsiples of Tzeentch
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 16:27
Yeah ... it’s like I was saying. Allegiances don’t have Allies. Pitched Battle Faction lists have them.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 16:28
right, allegiance determines the keywords you can include in your army (excluding Allies).
Faction then further restricts that list based on the units actually available to the Faction, plus their Allies.
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 23 2018 16:29
i dont think we are understanding each other here... in order for allies to be implimented, we have to include the DoT layer. this allows factions that have DoT allies to be selected. this does not mean we need to include it in the selectable list of alligiances
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 16:29
And if everything that has the same Allegiance is on the Pitched Battle Faction list they can have Allies
Not specifically the “DoT” layer. The Pitched Battle Faction piece. Technically one could manage it in reverse. At the core, the Pitched Battle Faction lists are specialization of the Allegiance
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 16:32
^^ This is what I have been saying
There is no "Disciples of Tzeentch" Allegiance. The DoT book says there is a "TZEENTCH" allegiance.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 16:32
And DoT is merely a specialization of Tzeentch
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 16:32
if everything in your army has the TZEENTCH keyword
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 16:33
(As a Pitched Battle Faction list)
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 16:33
yes, the DoT faction restricts the list of TZEENTCH units based on the Faction and their allies.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 16:33
Stop
This is DoT as in The GHB 2017, not DoT as in The battletome DoT
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 23 2018 16:34
also, not everthing with the TZEENTCH keyword is apart of the DoT
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 16:34
See page 91 in the 2017 GHB
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 16:34
There's no DoT allegiance in the GHB. That page lists the Pitched Battle list
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 16:35
^^ correct
So, it’s Allegiance:Tzeentch
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 16:35
There is no DoT allegiance ANYWHERE.
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 23 2018 16:35
ok, ive tries three ways to explain this now... i still havent had coffee or breakfast. ill be back in like 30 mins...
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 16:35
I'm going home. I'll catch up later.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 16:35
Cheers!
I need to grab lunch
@flakpanda Think of it like working with a set of Sieves.
The huge bucket covers “Chaos” we then filter to “Alliance: Tzeentch” this covers the breadth of units in chaos. If one further limits ones selection to the “Pitched Battle Faction List: Disciples of Tzeentch” one can use Allies
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 16:40
Much like a Venn diagram. The huge circle is Chaos, then inside that is the Tzeentch circle, and inside the Tzeentch circle is a smaller Pitched Battle Faction list choice of “Disciples of Tzeentch” and another one with that doesn’t intersect with DoT But is also inside the Tzeentch circle would be “Slaves to Darkness”
For some Alliances, the venn circle for the Alliance is identical to the venn circle for Pitched Battle Faction
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 16:49
For Alliance, substitute Allegiance
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 16:52
I’m probably getting autocorrect on mobile (which is where all the @ are coming from ... stupid mobile keyboard)
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 16:58
:)
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 17:00
So the Pitched Battle layer (or category) is needed if one is using Allies. The challenge is that Allegiance doesn’t apply to Allies... Units from more than one “Pitched Battle Faction” is selected, then Allies don’t apply.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 17:16
Not sure what you're saying. Are you talking about armies which have units from more than one PBF?
Under the same Allegiance?
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 23 2018 17:28
ok... now that ive had breakfast, have coffee, and read a couple things and pondered a bit, one thing i noticed... allegiance abilities have nothing to do with taking allies.
allegiance abilities look for faction keywords... allies look to Pitch Battle Faction Tables.
allies also referance those same tables
ie Brayherds have warherd allies
i can be alligned tzeentch, but not qualify for Desciple of Tzeentch allies because my army includes Archaon for example
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 17:32
@ilaunchbury yes, so if I take units from more than one PBF List, then Allies don’t apply. Even if they are legitimately under the same Allegiance
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 23 2018 17:32
yay layers! /s
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 17:32
(If those units are all in the main-not Allies list)
This particular issue is only an issue for a limited number of Allegiances.
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 23 2018 17:34
This is why i wanted Jon to move to a database backbone instead of xml...
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 17:35
However, there is interpretation that this should be extended. However the reference used was explicitly referencing Allegiance Abilities. Not Allies (on Warhammer Community) a while back
The issue is that this “clarification” isn’t really a clarification of Allies
It’s merely saying what we already know. That if one has an Army with Tzeentch (etc) as the Allegiance Trait ... then you can have anything that can match that keyword and not break Allegiance. (Ie the Grand Alliance Chaos Soup - Tzeentch flavored)
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 23 2018 17:41
this article seems irelivant, as we already know this
it doesnt deal with allies. we have to go by RAW unless otherwise told by GW.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 17:44
Yep. But what we’re seeing is using this article to expand allies
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 23 2018 17:44
We cant. It doesnt say that
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 17:44
Even though it isn’t FAQ’d
Yep. (Unless there is a faq I missed.)
I’m with you, and I know this.
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 23 2018 17:45
not that i know of. again we go RAW unless otherwise noted
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 23 2018 17:52
so those that have a faction keyword and a Pitched Battle Table name in common are easy and just need to tack on allies. For those that dont however, we need to add the extra layer.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 18:03
I think that for starters we might want to consider how Allies should look with the model @ilaunchbury is proposing
And then build out the pieces, and potentially start from scratch
After doing a rework of the gst
If We can make chaos work in the model, then in theory everything else should
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 18:10
Technically we don’t need “units with data” merely units with the appropriate categories
To test off o
Of
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 18:11
I'll do a mock up tomorrow night. I might have something tonight depending what time I get back.
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 23 2018 18:11
yeah, for allies all we need to do is create duplicate Root Shared Sntries and categorize them as such, then they can be visable/hidden based on xyz
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 18:12
I’m interesting in seeing the mock-up with you’ve got planned :+1:
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 18:13
@flakpanda, that's the plan
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 18:50
@OftKilted, do you have a reference for the multiple PBFs disable Allies rule?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 18:58
Well. Allies are specifically associated with PBFs
But give me a minute
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 19:03
“A player can spend some of their points on allied units. The Pitched Battle profile for each faction lists the allegiances of the allied units you cantake. Allied units can have a different allegiance to the rest of the army.” P76
Factions and Allies on p86 also reference that ““Some factions include a list of allies. For example,the BRAYHERDfaction can have Chaos Gargants, Monsters of Chaos, Thunderscorn and Warherds as allies. In a Pitched Battle, you can spend some of the points for your army on a faction’s allies without changing the army’s allegiance. For example, a BRAYHERDBattlehost could include 400 points of Chaos Gargants, Monsters of Chaos, Thunderscorn, and/or Warherds, and still have the BRAYHERDSallegiance. This would allow the BRAYHERDunits in the Battlehost – but not their allies – to use Brayherd allegiance abilities. Additionally, any Bestigors and Ungor Raiders in the army would count as Battleline units.”
The issue with the verbiage on p.76 is that the Allegiance names don’t match the fact they they’re using Pitched Battle Faction names
(It only works when identical)
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 19:24
The main “problem” is when Allegiance names don’t align with Faction names (this being a primarily chaos issue). So as an example... one could choose “Khorne” for Allegiance. However there is no “Khorne Allegiance Table” but there is a “Blades of Khorne” similarly, There is no “Nurgle Allegiance” Table.... but in the base ghb 2017 There is Both Daemons(with an FAQ’d Allies Table) of Nurgle, and Nurgle Rotbringers ... both of which have different Allies tables.
Perhaps I’m reading more into this ... maybe the Nurgle Maggotkin Book “fixed” this issue?
But we haven’t seen a faq to it.
I suppose under the “some factions include a list of Allies” could be read that if the faction you’ve chosen to pull your core Army from doesn’t have a list of Allies you don’t get any.
However also in alignment (or at least potentially so) would be Khorne Aligned Slaves to Darkness for Khorne. But Slaves to Darkness has its own Allies list.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 19:40
I feel like they mean Factions not Allegiances but are terrible at rules.
For allies
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 19:49
And the bright news is that Maggotkin of Nurgle “fixes” the Allegiance issue
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 19:54
Nurgle Allies: Khorne, Brayherds, Chaos Gargants, Everchosen, Slaanesh, Slaves to Darkness (excluding Marked with Tzeentch), Warherds
And Nurgle now covers mortal and Daemon Nurgle
So, implication (but not FAQ’d) would be that the Warhammer Community Post changing DoT and BoK to Tzeentch and Khorne is their chosen path
Which would be a huge fix.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 20:13
The only side note that we need to be aware of is that there are units which are in “Factions” that are not in the Allies list. Daemons of Chaos ones to mind ... (Soul Grinder, Harpies, Daemon Prince, Be’lakor)
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 20:51
Do you mean not in the PBF list?
Or that they only have allies and are not allies to anyone else?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 20:52
They have neither allies, nor are in any allies list
There’s a couple like that
The only one that it looks like on the table is that Everchosen can ally with them.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jan 23 2018 21:10
Yeah because Everchosen can Ally with all Chaos.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jan 23 2018 21:25
Daemons of Nurgle and Nurgle Rotbringers appears to have been wrapped into “Nurgle Maggotkin” however their Allies list literally states “Nurgle Allies:”