Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Repo info
Activity
  • 01:15
    rsimoes commented #1053
  • 01:08
    rsimoes commented #1053
  • 00:01
    OftKilted commented #1053
  • Sep 22 23:17
    rsimoes synchronize #1053
  • Sep 22 23:13
    rsimoes opened #1053
  • Sep 22 23:08
    rsimoes closed #1051
  • Sep 22 15:30
    nottsknight opened #1052
  • Sep 21 06:49
    rsimoes commented #1051
  • Sep 21 01:22
    OftKilted commented #1051
  • Sep 21 00:50
    OftKilted commented #1051
  • Sep 20 18:35
    rsimoes opened #1051
  • Sep 20 08:23
    BSDataAnon opened #1050
  • Sep 17 07:31
    BSDataAnon opened #1049
  • Sep 17 07:26
    BSDataAnon opened #1048
  • Sep 14 11:51

    rweyrauch on master

    Corrected Keeper of Secrets, ad… Added Daemon Prince of Nurgle Add files via upload and 4 more (compare)

  • Sep 14 11:51
    rweyrauch closed #1047
  • Sep 12 19:17
    cartag closed #1044
  • Sep 12 19:17
    cartag commented #1044
  • Sep 12 19:17
    cartag assigned #1044
  • Sep 12 19:16
    cartag closed #1039
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Ahh here we go this was the ticket where I reported the issue: and a picture of the gst example. BattleScribe/Desktop-Alphas#168
Instead of changing just the name one could use the same kind of constraints to modify the min/max values for the unit types.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
I feel like the current way is fine... ;)
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Shrug
Don’t forget that the rules give the option of using The specific levels at +/- 250 points. p.75 GHB 2017
eg 750 point Vanguard or 2750 point Warhost
OftKilted
@OftKilted
How does the proposal work for the chaos deities, and changing categories?
So, the ALLIES table is entirely managed in the gst?
Do we have a working example of what the proposal looks like with an actual force. Not just keywords inside the GST?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
It looks like we would have to put all of the Allegiance keywords into the gst if I’m understanding the proposal correctly.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Yes.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
So, main allegiance keywords in the GST, all secondary in the .CAT
Which then IE if there is a “battleline if” Or an allegiance ability that needs to be in the gst
Correction allegiance or is in the GHB or a battletome as an allegiance
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
yes, that sounds about right. Allegiance abilities don't need to be in GST, just the categories.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Okay ... so ... what is the Inspiring Presence shared Rule working off of?
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
general
OftKilted
@OftKilted
So, the category?
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
yes
I think that's what I did...
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Because if it isn’t the category ... it needs to be linkable for the “other generals” that aren’t using the SSE
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
There will still need to be an allegiance switch in the main force, to allow for sub- and parent allegiances.
and the battleline switches
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Okay. So an SSEG for Allegiance in the cat?
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
yes, as there is now
but it might only have two entries, cat allegiance and grand alliance allegiance
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Hmmmm
What’s the lift to change from how we’re doing this now ... to the new paradigm? And do we get rid of the PBF in this process?
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
I think we can repurpose the PBF picklist for the Allegiance abilities switching.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
“Allegiance Ability Switching”?
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Because any sub allegiance may use the alliance allegiance powers, so we need to have some way of switching it
unless we put it under allegiance....
which is an option
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Why wouldn’t we put it directly under Allegiance?
It’s potentially cleaner from describing an implementation perspective
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
yeah, proabbly.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Do you have to go all one or the other?
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
yes
and Grand Alliance picklists should move to the GST so we don't have to replicate them
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Hmmm ... if the pick lists are moving to the gst ... to keep the Allegiance Abilities out of the gst the PBF repourpose might be good
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
I'll try and do a proof of concept tonight
OftKilted
@OftKilted
No worries. It sounds positive, and potentially less overall work. We just need to manage the work in the GST
I’m assuming that “Allies” becomes the Primary type for the Allies?
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
no, you add a child detachment of the catalogue that you want to ally with.
tekton
@tekton
Does that move ally “validation” to the user and out of the cat/gst at that point?
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
sort of, but we should be able to at least flag when a user adds a unit which isn't allowed, based on keywords
OftKilted
@OftKilted
In theory ... if something is hidden, they wouldn’t be able to even see the unit
tekton
@tekton
I’m all for making it more on the user for that part- esp when it comes to narrative. The hidden part is a quasi validation which might be more intuitive anyway. So overall this (breaking up the cats) all sounds like copy-paste-hell with a huge payout at the end
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Not sure there is actually any copy paste really required
You could potentially do a duplicate of a cat, rename it and change the Guid ...