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

23rd
May 2018
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
May 23 2018 00:10 UTC
Yup definitely sounds like settra
Not sure I like that it sounds like settra is serving the dead though
But then again with the rumor that Khalida is coming back...
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 23 2018 01:24 UTC
And ... Open Play is removed.
tekton
@tekton
May 23 2018 03:57 UTC
I could have sworn I added all the categories to the Ironjawz...oh well, doing that now while I work on these. Still weird.
tekton
@tekton
May 23 2018 05:41 UTC
going to finish the bonesplitterz battalions in the morning i think...it's starting to get late and having to re-do a few things ate up time. was still weird the html and categories went missing.
Simon Barlow
@FreylisUK
May 23 2018 06:17 UTC
Awesome, thanks for removing it @OftKilted . If I have a bit of time on my lunch break today I might add battalion validation to my data files as it seems pretty straightforward.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 23 2018 10:32 UTC
Tzeentch/Skaven/Seraphon all have good examples.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 23 2018 14:31 UTC
@/all The Readme has been updated to put it more in-line with the (rather nice) 40k one. Are we going to 'archive' this current GHB 2017 release (like 40k did with 7e) when we dig back into the GW's AoS v2.0?
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
May 23 2018 14:32 UTC
Do we still need to write/steal from 40k some notes on multi-catalogue rosters?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 23 2018 14:33 UTC
@Mad-Spy Yeah ... we probably should write/steal notes on multi-catalog rosters.
Rick Weyrauch
@rweyrauch
May 23 2018 14:33 UTC
@/all I think we will need to archive the 1e files and create a new (copy) for 2e.
Not everyone will be playing 2e immediately.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 23 2018 14:34 UTC
@rweyrauch We're talking about the 1e (2017)?
Or are we talking about the current not the hotness version? (pre ghb 2017)
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
May 23 2018 14:35 UTC
40k needed massive rewriting because GW changed how units were represented in data sheets.
Rick Weyrauch
@rweyrauch
May 23 2018 14:35 UTC
Yeah. 1e equals GHB2017. 2e is the new stuff.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
May 23 2018 14:35 UTC
Hopefully, the second edition changes will mainly be around mechanics and new rules
and not as many changes to how units are represented.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 23 2018 14:36 UTC
However, we're looking at the likelihood of Compendium being completely depreciated.
Rick Weyrauch
@rweyrauch
May 23 2018 14:36 UTC
Agreed. Mostly new points.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 23 2018 14:37 UTC
And we're looking at new artefacts/traits/etc.
@Mad-Spy While you're probably correct in regards to data changes ... we're looking at substantial differences in points, possibly catalogues and artefacts and potentially allies (etc.)
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
May 23 2018 14:40 UTC
I'm not saying we shouldn't archive; we should, but hopefully the update won't be as extensive as was required for 40k
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 23 2018 14:40 UTC
Yeah ... me too.
I recall it being insane.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
May 23 2018 14:41 UTC
If they're deriving CP from included battalions, they're going to have to put the cost back down.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 23 2018 14:41 UTC
Well, we do know that no battalion will cost less than 50 points.
Rick Weyrauch
@rweyrauch
May 23 2018 14:41 UTC
We know the existing warscrolls are still valid. So the big changes are to points, magic, CA and artefacts.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 23 2018 14:45 UTC
It also looks like we will need to handle realm-specific artefacts/spells. Likely in the GST.
Rick Weyrauch
@rweyrauch
May 23 2018 14:55 UTC
Had a bit of time this morning to a quick QA pass on Destruction. I'll finish up the QA this evening. Things look good for the most part.
mdtm1g14
@mdtm1g14
May 23 2018 15:04 UTC
@Mad-Spy Why would they put battalion costs down if they provide a CP which gw are valuing at 50 points
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 23 2018 15:24 UTC
@mdtm1g14 they seriously upped the points from 2016 to 2017. All the new battalions have been somewhat cheaper.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
May 23 2018 15:32 UTC
@mdtm1g14, because they need people to take them. CP are the most valued commodity in 40k games as they drive access to stratagems.
If AoS command abilities are going to be purchased with CP, and CP are generated by having lots of battalions, then GW will want ppl to take them
mdtm1g14
@mdtm1g14
May 23 2018 15:33 UTC
Ahh I was going off the cost of the idoneth ones which are between 100 and 140 points and assuming the 50 point CP they make sense
tekton
@tekton
May 23 2018 15:39 UTC
oh hey, merge conflicts, this is fun...
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 23 2018 16:53 UTC
There has been a bunch of issue fixing going on ... :smile:
tekton
@tekton
May 23 2018 17:01 UTC
I had to basically stash a bunch of things so it was frustrating is all
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 23 2018 17:03 UTC
:(
Rick Weyrauch
@rweyrauch
May 23 2018 17:13 UTC
File version numbers do not merge well.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 23 2018 17:16 UTC
@rweyrauch yeah ... I’ve noticed that
I’ve even seen spaces causing problems
tekton
@tekton
May 23 2018 19:35 UTC
didn't we have a lable for post 2.0 release?
tekton
@tekton
May 23 2018 19:43 UTC
ah, it's a silo in the project, i see now
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 23 2018 19:49 UTC
If you have items that need to be in yet silo those items shouldn’t be closed, just moved to the silo.
So ... can allies benefit from Allegiance Abilities, If they meet the keyword requirements?
e.g. “All WIZARDS in a GRAND HOST OF NAGASH army know an additional spell from on of the Lores of the Dead.”
tekton
@tekton
May 23 2018 20:06 UTC
I don’t see why not?
Vampires getting tricky?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 23 2018 20:14 UTC
The question being that they’re allies.
The side issue being that if that is the case, then the spell lores for LoN would (currently) need to move to the GST (potentially) or a better form of cross catalog validation is kinda needed.
I think we really need to do “Allegiance:<Allegiance name>” as Categories in the gst (this separates them from straight-up keywords)