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

18th
Jun 2018
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jun 18 2018 00:56
Bleaurgh ... the Grand Alliance command traits ... even if they're named the same have different wording.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jun 18 2018 01:21
@/all I've added core support for the Realm Artefacts of Power via an SSEG that can be linked to the local catalog 'Artefacts' (profiles aren't in yet, but the names for the various artefacts are)
(And an entry in the GST that allows selection of your army's 'Realm of Origin' to support that SSEG ... currently in the 'Uncategorized section')
Select the realm or origin in the roster, and then the available artefacts for your realm are available in the 'Artefacts' selectors.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jun 18 2018 19:50
@/all Thoughts on modifying the current multiple Pitched-Battle templates into a single template that had a 'selector switch' that allowed one to change the list type on the fly to different 'Pitched Battle Levels' or 'Ignore Game Type'?
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jun 18 2018 22:09
I'm not sure that having all the conditionals in the Allies validation will be great...
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jun 18 2018 22:10
It could be done with a 'switch' to change the constraints based on the results of the 'Vanguard/etc.'...
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jun 18 2018 22:10
I know it can be done, I'm just not sure it's a good idea.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jun 18 2018 22:10
A 'Pitched Battle Options' group
It would help with the 'I want to play my basic force in a larger battle' issue.
Right now you're stuck with the single level validation.
One can't easily 'swap out' to different point level restrictions.
#494 is asking for basically that.
Either that, or we add an unvalidated option.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jun 18 2018 22:13
We had open play before and took it out...
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jun 18 2018 22:13
(Which is doable ... but allies are a thing in that as well.)
We did. But we also didn't have allies.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jun 18 2018 22:13
Because there's no way in BS to have a sliding scale of points validation.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jun 18 2018 22:14
Er ... I've done it previously.
I had a dynamic set of requirements that handled it pretty well actually.
the only issue that I could see is if one is doing hiding in regards to 'Instance of Allies'
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jun 18 2018 22:15
but surely that still required a set of break points?
because setting up a "25%" of points didn't work properly last time i tried it.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jun 18 2018 22:16
Oh, that ... good news is that for 'Matched Play' they're not chaining the points for allies.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jun 18 2018 22:16
changing?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jun 18 2018 22:16
for each of the game types.
It's still 200/400/500
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jun 18 2018 22:16
so you did mean changing, not chaining
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jun 18 2018 22:17
apparently my touch-typing skills were being poorly represented.
either that or auto-correct ftw.
I can set up a base test gst version. Last time I did it I actually did the manual 'set points' thing in the front of the roster.
And depending on what number you put there, changed the game type requirements.
And changed the name ... the bad part was that if you edited the gst after you did that it wiped the name change. So that didn't work well.
I was thinking more of a 'switch' option. Like - 'Matched Play Options > Choose One of : Vanguard/Battlehost/Warhost' and then a switch for the side options 'Pitched Battle Variations: +250 Points/-250 Points, Points Only (No Battlerole Limits)'
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Jun 18 2018 22:22
And potentially a 'None' option.
for the variations.
Depending on what you selected for the 'Matched Play Options' the limitations for the selectors would change.
The advantage moving to that would be that you only have to deal with 1 'Allies' listing ... instead of 3.