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

24th
May 2018
Rick Weyrauch
@rweyrauch
May 24 2018 01:32
@/all I've resumed the QA pass on the Destruction catalogs. I've found a problem with unit points when including Destruction units as allies. See issue #405. I've created a checklist to help us track what catalogs have been fixed.
tekton
@tekton
May 24 2018 01:36
I’ll get to them in a few minutes then and wrap it up tonight
I tried it earlier today and didn’t have an issue, so what are you seeing?
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
May 24 2018 01:37
@rweyrauch that’s a known BS bug
Child detachments don’t calculate points correctly initially
Close and reload roster and it’ll fix
tekton
@tekton
May 24 2018 01:39
He said as allies so I just assumed he meant side by side not as a child force
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
May 24 2018 01:43
Wouldn’t surprise me if it’s the same bug though
tekton
@tekton
May 24 2018 01:44
@rweyrauch would it be possible get a little more detail on that one? i seem to be replicating things wrong or something
tekton
@tekton
May 24 2018 01:53
had to change versions of battlescribe to a slightly older one, i think i see it more now
Rick Weyrauch
@rweyrauch
May 24 2018 02:14
Steps to reproduce: Create a new roster and add an allied force. Add an allied unit to the roster and increase the size of the unit. The points do not increment.
The other catalogs (Chaos, Order and Death) work correctly. This is not a BS bug.
Or at least the other catalogs work around the BS bug correctly.
tekton
@tekton
May 24 2018 02:21
i got it, had to change bs versions
tekton
@tekton
May 24 2018 02:44
apparently i had done the grot wolf riders correctly...in the wrong cat... ./sadTrombone
Rick Weyrauch
@rweyrauch
May 24 2018 02:45
:smile:
tekton
@tekton
May 24 2018 03:09
@alphalas this setup is basically to get around the bs bug for calculations
tekton
@tekton
May 24 2018 03:47
my little android tablet is so upset over points done this way, lol
tekton
@tekton
May 24 2018 03:53
goin to wrap up bonesplitterz and call it a night
Rick Weyrauch
@rweyrauch
May 24 2018 03:53
That's the last one right?
tekton
@tekton
May 24 2018 03:54
yup
got distracted by the end of the washington/tampa bay hockey game ;)
Rick Weyrauch
@rweyrauch
May 24 2018 03:55
Last I looked the the Caps were up 3 with 4 to go in the 3rd.
Did not look worth watching at that point.
tekton
@tekton
May 24 2018 03:55
empty net goal sealed that game a couple minutes later
and now to decide if i care about seeing the finals in person in vegas...
tekton
@tekton
May 24 2018 04:08
semi afk, if there's anything else i'll get to it after a break from screens or in the morning
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
May 24 2018 15:11

@Mad-Spy asked for possibility of creating new repo for AoSv2 (I can). I'm not opposed to the idea, however it does introduce some problems. The way we handled 40k was the best we could come up with. Still, it did make some things unpretty:

  • Since it was a rename of wh40k=>wh40k-7th and then creating new wh40k, every link that originally pointed at say issue #3500, now was a dead link, and it'll be live again when current repo has that issue number.
  • All stars and watches in repo were kept in the old one, so people following it on github weren't moved to the new one.

My advice is, if you're going to support v1.0, new repo is the best possible idea. If not, I suggest simply continuing the work in the current one with one modification - you really want to change the gameSystemId, and possibly the name of the GameSystem file. That way, you'll minimize data crashes and enable having two system data side by side.

Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
May 24 2018 15:12
Alternatively, we just say that we're moving over to 2nd edition and no longer supporting 1st.
Rick Weyrauch
@rweyrauch
May 24 2018 16:44
I think we are going to want to support AoS 1st edition for a while yet. In order to do that we will likely have to follow the 40k model and create a new AoSv2 repo.
The two flavors of AoS will have to live side-by-side for a while.
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
May 24 2018 16:45
@rweyrauch here’s my question - WHY?
Doubling the workload on people who arguably are already stretched (no offense to anyone here, everyone is doing a bang up job) just seems stupid
If we were actually paid to do this I could see it
But the old40k repo was spilt off not so they could both be supported but so there was still legacy usability
The day the switch happened everyone understood the 7e repo was basically dead
Rick Weyrauch
@rweyrauch
May 24 2018 16:48
A couple of reasons: 1. AoSv2 does not exist yet. 2. We just finshed getting AoSv1 done to the point where it can be released. 3. The current AoSv1 can continue to be used.
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
May 24 2018 16:48
Sure
But we should no longer officially support AoS v1 after v2 goes live imo
You’re not looking at the long view
Yes v1 is about to go live in a useable state
Rick Weyrauch
@rweyrauch
May 24 2018 16:50
If we withhold the release for AoSv1 we have just spent the last 6 months staying busy. I'd like us to release for AoSv1 now and start work on AoSv2 as soon as the rules drop. How much support for AoSv1 is needed is up to community that uses it.
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
May 24 2018 16:50
Oh I’m not saying withhold it
It’s going live no matter what
What I’m questioning is why even keep the pretense of supporting it after v2 goes live
Rick Weyrauch
@rweyrauch
May 24 2018 16:51
I'm not advocating we support AoSv1 for long. A lot of changes have gone into it and getting some user feedback would be very helpful.
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
May 24 2018 16:51
The day v2 goes live v1 is basically dead to me
Only reason I still even think about 7e is because I play HH
tekton
@tekton
May 24 2018 16:52
:shipit:
alphalas @alphalas muttering about how diverging HH and WH40k was a mistake
Rick Weyrauch
@rweyrauch
May 24 2018 16:53
We don't have to support v1 after v2 goes live. If the there is an AoS community that wants to continue to play v1 - they can either support v1 work or not.
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
May 24 2018 16:53
K because it was sounding like you wanted us to keep supporting both
Which is no bueno
Rick Weyrauch
@rweyrauch
May 24 2018 16:55
No I do not want to support both. I too will drop v1 when v2 is available. However, if there is a core of AoS v1 that wants to continue to support the catalogs they can.
I am suggesting we release what we have done for v1 and start planning on how to support v2.
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
May 24 2018 16:56
That’s fair - I’m just wondering will we even need to diverge the systems
Because the more I read the WHC things the more this sounds like a 5->6 or 6->7 edition change rather then a 7->8 edition change
Like it sounds like the basic game is unchanged
tekton
@tekton
May 24 2018 16:58
so, ship tomorrow?
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
May 24 2018 16:59
And they said that all battletomes will be useable in v2
@tekton I think so
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
May 24 2018 17:00
We're shipping tomorrow whatever. The feedback from release will be valuable for doing 2nd Ed
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
May 24 2018 17:03
^this
Shipping v1 will happen
tekton
@tekton
May 24 2018 17:04
was hoping my putting off painting wasn't in vein last night ;)
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
May 24 2018 17:04
I’m questioning splitting v1 off from v2
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 24 2018 18:10
@alphalas @Mad-Spy Is there any merit to doing this the other way? For example, splitting off AoS-2017 as a fork from current AoS repo. Changing it to Warhammer-Age-of-Sigmar-Current ?
Well, changing our current repo to reflect that this is current only.?
It would require a wholesale change on the current Game System name to to something like AgeOfSigmar2017?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 24 2018 18:20
So, update GST Name to “AoS 2017”.
When v2.0 is released, fork the Repo to a “Warhammer AoS 2017” version that is no longer supported.
Work on the 2018 (or current) branch.
And potentially change the name “Warhammer Age Of Sigmar Current Edition”
For our current release?
tekton
@tekton
May 24 2018 18:27
Something to tie it to GHB17 seems like the better idea for the current one
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
May 24 2018 18:28
I don't think 'current edition' is right.
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
May 24 2018 18:30
I think it’s far more effort then it’s worth
tekton
@tekton
May 24 2018 18:32
I say the same thing about breathing some mornings
Rick Weyrauch
@rweyrauch
May 24 2018 18:36
Given what has been made public about v2. We know that warscrolls are not changing (same attributes, etc). So the v2 release is not an entirely new game like the change from 40k-7th to 40tk-8th.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 24 2018 18:38
This is true. But we are looking at a points change and potentially a how to compose your Army change.
Rick Weyrauch
@rweyrauch
May 24 2018 18:38
Until we have the v2 in hand will we know specifically what must be changed. Once we know that the way to support v2 will be clearer.
Points are the easy part, army composition potentially much more work. Again we have to wait for the release to know for sure.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 24 2018 18:40
A fork at the point where AoS splits into 2.0 could allow folks (especially those with forces that are now in an “unsupported” scenario.
Not have to request points support from us.
Rick Weyrauch
@rweyrauch
May 24 2018 18:43
^ this
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 24 2018 18:44
@Mad-Spy @alphalas Conceptually, the repo we are working on now is “Current Branch” ... it always would be “current branch” As the main points forks (or GHB editions come out) a fork of the repo at that time would be created and given a new “time based” repo ID. (Eg Ghb 2017)
The “forked repo” would stop being supported, but give folks a last “snapshot in time” for points for that no longer supported branch.
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
May 24 2018 18:46
@OftKilted yes I get the idea
I was there when 40k did it
I still don’t see the point here
I vote don’t do it
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 24 2018 18:47
The only serious reason that I’m even considering it would be for the Compendium armies ... that I fully expect to not get points for 2018
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
May 24 2018 18:48
Sure; but they’d still have their 2017 rules
Points I mean
I don’t see how that’s an issue
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 24 2018 18:50
Hmm. Fair point.
And would we update the catalogues for any future changes in the gst?
If necessary?
tekton
@tekton
May 24 2018 21:33
Sounds about right?
Feels like we're moving in to the realm of 4th edition 40k- feel free to use codexes from 3rd if you don't have an army yet...but maybe it's also deprecated...flip a coin to find out!
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
May 24 2018 22:24
To be fair that was always a thing until 8e came out
3e rebooted everything and until you got a new codex you used your old one
People were still using 3.5 DE dex in 6e before the DE book came out
Only armies that got non-codex updates were SoB and BA