1) don't make them 'primary'
2) make sure the battalion constraints on SSEs are not shared
2) make sure the battalion constraints on SSEs are not shared
and it all works
but as long as they have the right ones and none marked primary it works fine
Double counting battalions is also bad as the number of battalions determines the numbers of artifacts available
If, at some point, we’re going to do validation for number of artefacts, double counting is not the hotness
Ie counting the battalions twice
or are you just talking about the naming convention? All the battalions in Chaos are prefixed "Battalion:" in their name.
we can remove that easily
I see now in the image. I don't get that in my version, so I think we'll be fine.
At the top you can see categories: Battalion, Battalion
That being said, I’m not as big a fan of “Unit(Wizard)”
Are we going to do “Unit(Priest)”?
And “Ability(Command)”
Abilities (Battalion)
Battalion Abilities being flagged that these are Abilities from the Battalion isn’t a bad idea. I’m just more of a fan of calling them what they are.
And from an aggregate perspective, an ability is an ability.
I’ll defer to your judgment on the Abilities
Command Traits come from Allegiance though right?
While “Command/Unit/Battalion” Abilities are still Abilities (as are spells and prayers)
Defining their source could be helpful in understanding where something comes from and what gets access
I think that’s a good call.
Still more in line with making Wizards/Priests/Totems like psykers in 40k
The objective is to make the tool help players, and easy to understand what the opponent has when you read their list. Separating out the Ability sources will facilitate that. And due to constraints on how the data is presented probably will help clarification
I’d be behind that kind of move 100%
For wizards it’s under the “Magic” label.