Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Repo info
Activity
  • 14:24
    BSDataAnon opened #1124
  • 13:29
    RedBishop777 opened #1123
  • 13:15
    RedBishop777 commented #1014
  • 13:11
    RedBishop777 opened #1122
  • 02:45
    Drakhalan commented #1117
  • Nov 18 23:29
    pinecones commented #1111
  • Nov 18 23:29
    pinecones closed #1111
  • Nov 18 23:12
    cartag unassigned #1111
  • Nov 18 23:11
    cartag assigned #1111
  • Nov 18 23:11
    cartag commented #1111
  • Nov 18 22:49
    cartag closed #1114
  • Nov 18 22:49
    cartag assigned #1114
  • Nov 18 22:48
    cartag closed #1115
  • Nov 18 22:48
    cartag commented #1115
  • Nov 18 22:48
    cartag assigned #1115
  • Nov 18 22:45
    cartag assigned #1116
  • Nov 18 22:45
    cartag commented #1118
  • Nov 18 22:45
    cartag assigned #1118
  • Nov 18 22:44
    cartag commented #1121
  • Nov 18 22:44
    cartag assigned #1121
Cupropituvanso Draco
@Cupropituvanso
Maybe it would be good to have a list who is working on what and in which branch.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
@/all, I have created a new branch (AoS-v2.0) which is now the main re-release branch. Only admins (currently me and @OftKilted) can commit to this branch. This means that any work should be done in a private branch and submitted via pull request into AoS-v2.0. This should allow us to ensure that nothing is broken while multiple authors are working on the same branch (this currently only applies to Order).
tekton
@tekton
Yay!
Rick Weyrauch
@rweyrauch
The Order branch is experimental and can be removed.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
if it's yours, then you should be able to delete it?
Cupropituvanso Draco
@Cupropituvanso
great :)
Simon Barlow
@FreylisUK
@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
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
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
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
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
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
The gametype exists for us as well.
Simon Barlow
@FreylisUK
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
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
Ugh... damn you GW!
Either way we're still doing more validation than either Azyr or Warscroll Builder :smile:
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
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
Just out of curiosity how close to done are seraphon?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
@
@alphalas Oh .... I believe folks are focusing on KO and the new lizard women in the order Faction. The horrible murder death kill ones ... and Sylvaneth ... which may or may not be the same thing ...
Once I get Death out of the way if they still need help (and if @Mad-Spy doesn’t need any help with chaos... Because Everyone Should all have a little Change ...) Incan see about helping out.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
@alphalas Do you want me to stand up a Dropbox repo for you To test out the TK for me?
I don’t have Death allegiance Abilities or Artefacts in yet.
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Sure I can totally do that
Looks like I’m gunna be snowed in next 2 days
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Uuuuf
So, do you need me to set up a repo for you? Or do you just want to pull the files yourself!
.. ignore the ! ... whee autocorrect
Or me mistyping a ?
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
I’ll just pull them down lol - just point me in a direction
OftKilted
@OftKilted
@alphalas You'll want death.cat and Age of Sigmar.gst from https://github.com/BSData/warhammer-age-of-sigmar/tree/Chaos-updates
They don't ally with anyone. So unless you're trying to pull units from a generic death alliance, that covers what you're working with.
We're moving to the AoS 2.0 branch ... so my next set of updates will likely end up there.
But that's just covering the legions of nagash, and then I'll get FEC profiles in.
And then I'll get the command traits and artefacts
Rick Weyrauch
@rweyrauch
Go ahead and start on the DoK @FreylisUK. I am back from holiday and will continue with the minor factions - those w/o battletomes.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
@/all, thanks to inspiration from @FreylisUK, I am now thinking that we should be able to split the catalogues along Allegiance/Faction lines and maintain Allies validation. I know we've all done a decent amount of work towards maintaining the monoliths, but are people amenable to changing tack at this stage?
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Having studied Azyr a bit as well, I'm thinking we should lose Pitched Battle Faction at the same time.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
@Mad-Spy what’s the plan?