Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Repo info
Activity
  • Oct 17 04:08
    BSDataAnon opened #1063
  • Oct 15 16:32
    cartag closed #172
  • Oct 15 16:32
    cartag commented #172
  • Oct 15 16:22

    cartag on master

    Round 1 of Bug Fixes Merge pull request #1062 from B… (compare)

  • Oct 15 16:22
    cartag closed #1062
  • Oct 15 16:22
    cartag opened #1062
  • Oct 15 16:22

    cartag on cartag

    Round 1 of Bug Fixes (compare)

  • Oct 15 16:22

    cartag on cartag

    (compare)

  • Oct 15 16:21

    cartag on cartag

    (compare)

  • Oct 15 16:21
    cartag closed #1061
  • Oct 15 16:20
    cartag opened #1061
  • Oct 15 16:19

    cartag on cartag

    Add files via upload (compare)

  • Oct 15 16:13

    cartag on cartag

    Round 1 of Bug Fixes Fixed Bat… (compare)

  • Oct 15 03:24

    cartag on master

    Round one fixes Merge pull request #1060 from B… (compare)

  • Oct 15 03:24
    cartag closed #1060
  • Oct 15 03:23
    cartag opened #1060
  • Oct 15 03:23

    cartag on cartag

    Round one fixes (compare)

  • Oct 14 01:27

    cartag on v2.1.3

    (compare)

  • Oct 14 01:23

    cartag on v1.50.10

    (compare)

  • Oct 14 01:23

    cartag on master

    Cities of Sigmar initial release (compare)

Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
I'm just going to knock something up now.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Chaos and death are the two that I could see causing issues. And my question is still on the What groupings do we want to do?
tekton
@tekton
Destruction is probably 80% or so at this point
Rick Weyrauch
@rweyrauch
A prototype that exercises all of the ideas, problems and solutions is very wise.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
So ... identified issues:
Battalions that cross catalogs (Sylvaneth & SCE battalions ... or mixed city battalions)
Rick Weyrauch
@rweyrauch
It may be best to finish up with the current plan and release something that is at least more useful than what currently exists.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Units that can fit into multiple (potential) catalogs. Or can be cross compatible between allegiance due to keywords
Rick Weyrauch
@rweyrauch
0
Simon Barlow
@FreylisUK
@rweyrauch I'll finish up the KO tonight and then move onto the DoK. Based on the discussion today I'll enter the Battalions as we are currently doing them, i.e. as purely informational with no validation.
I feel like I've opened up a massive can of worms with my musings!
OftKilted
@OftKilted
@Cupropituvanso How are Sylvaneth coming?
So, Allegiance and Artefacts/Spell lists are being painful ... based on the current proposed solution for keyword basing ... due to keywords being assigned to units that don’t have them normally ...
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
If only keyword visibility actually worked. :(
Simon Barlow
@FreylisUK
I also agree that it might be best to finish up with the current plan given we're most of the way there. If we can get the data up-to-date and include validation at least on a per-unit level, the file will at least be useful for everyone. It also buys us some more time to work out the best way of implementing Battalions.
Also, I wonder if, from an end-user's point of view at least, it might make the most sense to only split out factions into separate catalogues if they have a Battletome? There's nothing stopping us keeping the Grand Alliance catalogues either, which would at least provides a sensible home for the minor factions that don't have their own books.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
it's not so bad for Destruction and Order, because your allegiances are mostly nicely self-contained.
Simon Barlow
@FreylisUK
That's effectively what you have with the 40K files; Death Guard and Thousand Sons have their own books so are their own catalogues, but if I want to play World Eaters or Emperor's Children I have to use the Chaos Space Marines catalogue.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
They are their own catalogues because they significantly diverge in unit selection, not really because they have their own books.
they had separate catalogues while they were still all from the Index.
but I was planning to leave the minor factions in a big catalogue as suggested.
I said earlier, there are 33 allegiances for Chaos in Azyr.
but many of them are contained within others.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
True enough... and others have overlap. (Eg. Pestillins, Nurgle, Skaven)
Though, a Nurgle Army with Pestillins units isn’t optimal.
Simon Barlow
@FreylisUK
Ah, I didn't realise that they were split even when we only had Indexes.
I'll stop muddying the waters and crack on with the KO and DoK :smile:
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
@OftKilted, what's more strange is that in Azyr, Pestilens units in Nurgle armies can only take CHAOS artefacts and command traits, but all the "true" Nurgle units can take the new ones!
OftKilted
@OftKilted
So ... not entirely unusual
The only unit that I can see that could take the Nurgle Artefacts would be the Verminlord corruptor
Nothing else has the Nurgle Mortal or Nurgle Daemon Keywords in Pestillins
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Yes, I suppose so!
OftKilted
@OftKilted
And the Maggotkin/Nurgle Book has those as the keywords.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
ok, makes slightly more sense now.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
But a Nurgle Army with Pestillins, That has a Verminlord Leader
Basically as an “Grand Alliance Nurgle” Army
Much like the early Realmgate Wars books where the forces of Nurgle are all collaborating with a Verminlord
So ... as a QA ... having a Nurgle Army, and add in a “Child Nurgle force” of Pestillins
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Right, there's an example in the "multi-catalogue-test" branch. Only Brayherd, Monsters of Chaos and Everchosen are implemented.
Add Primary force of Pitched Battle (1000), then add a child force (which will be Allies).
currently there no denial of invalid allies, I'll try and look at that tomorrow. Allegiance only has to be selected in the primary.
Rick Weyrauch
@rweyrauch
@FreylisUK I will work on finishing up the abilities, weapon options, etc on the remaining minor factions. After that I will finish the SE.
Simon Barlow
@FreylisUK
Cool! I've added all the Sky-Ports and various other global rules to the KO now; I just need to work out how much validation I can feasibly do (i.e. certain Artycles allow extra Artefacts, for example).
@Mad-Spy Awesome! I'll try and take a look at it before the weekend.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
@Mad-Spy Well ... it seems to work pretty well, given what you've setup. I guess figuring out what would need to be pulled from allies, v.s. taken normally would be important.
Simon Barlow
@FreylisUK
Yep, it seems to work well. It's certainly less confusing for an end-user than having the Allies listed in the main roster list, and it makes it much easier to build rosters with Allies included as there is clear separation between what is in the main list and what counts as Allies.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Definitely an “education curve” especially in situations where I want to have units from multiple sources that all meet the same keyword. (E.G. Nurgle, Tzeentch, Skaven ... Or warscrolls that have multiple factions.) Right now I can have multiple forces in the roster, (which would allow something like “Guardians of Aleriel” with Sylvaneth and SCE) but the second force (not child force) still requires an Allegiance.
We may need to do “Max1 One Allegiance per Roster” Not just one Allegiance per Force.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
You have to do Allegiance per Force otherwise you can't give correct Relics to characters.
If a Battalion has cross-PBF members, then I think they'll have to be in the catalogue, but hidden unless the battalion is selected.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Fatesworn Warband?
Cupropituvanso Draco
@Cupropituvanso
I have created a new branch yesterday at tool a look at the actual order file.