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

6th
Mar 2018
Simon Barlow
@FreylisUK
Mar 06 2018 10:30
@Cupropituvanso I'm currently working on the KO in a private branch. If nobody has picked up the DoK yet I will likely move onto them next.
@OftKilted Thanks for the clarification. I'm guessing the Battalions are just going to be informational then? I was wondering if there was a way of implementing them the same way the 40K datafile handles Detachments, but I don't know if BS can filter at the roster creation level. Even so, it would require a reworking of the current structure, so it may be more hassle than it's worth.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Mar 06 2018 10:39
Force Entries can't contain links to RSEs or SSEs, so that won't work, I'm afraid.
If that's what you mean
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Mar 06 2018 10:47
You could technically do it with Unit Name keyword constraints, but it would make the selection list when picking your roster type incredibly long.
Simon Barlow
@FreylisUK
Mar 06 2018 11:12
Yeah, I figured without any filtering it would just be an ever-increasing list, and would get unwieldy.
It would work if we split the factions out into their own catalogues, i.e. the same way Formations were done in 7th Edition 40K. They have a catalogue per force, and then list the Formations in the Force Org slots.
Anyway, I'll keep it purely informational for now as described above, and we can chew that over another time :smile:
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Mar 06 2018 11:16
Yeah, that could work. But we still would need to work out a good way to do Ally validation
One day, we'll hopefully get inheritance/import in catalogues, so we'd be able to put all the units in a hidden "Grand Alliance" catalogue, and link them to Allegiance catalogues with an appropriate Primary category.
Simon Barlow
@FreylisUK
Mar 06 2018 11:20
Could you do it on keywords? In the 8th Edition 40K files they have the concept of 'gametype' which is were we would list Open Play, Pitched Battle, etc. that would set the points limit for allies. We already know the main faction keyword because we're in that catalogue, so if we add another force that is a different catalogue can we check if they are valid allies and flag an error if they go above points?
Apologies for all the questions on this; I'm trying to work through it logically in my head but I don't know enough about the internal workings of BS yet.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Mar 06 2018 11:21
The gametype exists for us as well.
Simon Barlow
@FreylisUK
Mar 06 2018 11:23
I guess then the question remains whether or not we could use the keywords to then sort out what is a valid ally or not across multiple forces within the same roster.
I can see why you've arrived at the solution you did!
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Mar 06 2018 11:24
There's an additional wrinkle in things like "Grand Host of Nagash" where the units don't have that keyword by default, because it's only applied if you choose that allegiance!
Simon Barlow
@FreylisUK
Mar 06 2018 11:25
Ugh... damn you GW!
Either way we're still doing more validation than either Azyr or Warscroll Builder :smile:
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Mar 06 2018 11:30
hmm, this is very interesting. This could work.
It means that the Force Entries would need to move to the individual catalogues, but you could make an "<Role>-Ally" primary category which is the only option in a sub-force and give that as a Primary on the current ally entries, but retain the Allegiance visibility switch....
we might not even need to move the force entries actually.
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Mar 06 2018 19:51
Just out of curiosity how close to done are seraphon?