These are chat archives for BSData/wh40k

10th
Feb 2016
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 10 2016 05:43
So, after LVO and the ITC repeatedly changing rules and adding their own limitations, what is our opinion on adding an "ITC" option at the detachment-level for their own brand of rule-tweaks?
William
@whiskeyjuvenile
Feb 10 2016 05:43
sure
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 09:44
In your own words :P : Now, major tournaments may allow slightly different interpretation, but BSData needs to stay as close as possible to RAW to avoid misrepresentation. This isn't the ITC data project. People can mash up their lists however they want, and adjust rules to suit. But we need to keep the data files pure. No house rules. No reinterpretations. No custom "extension" of units or formations.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 12:45
Guys, could you have a look at #1832 despite me and cartag explaining i believe a conflict of ideologies has pushed some changes.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 12:53
It seems relatively cut and dried... It's designed to not go back to 2nd edition where 1 model could have every relic in the book ... Am I following?
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 12:55
In short as per RAW using the grammar provided, each relic can be taken once per army. each person can replace one weapon with one relic. except the stated exception.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 12:59
So
William
@whiskeyjuvenile
Feb 10 2016 13:00
so the shield eternal doesn't replace a weapon and there's been a debate as to whether you can take it along with another relic ever since the wargear was introduced
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 13:03
The and/or implies one of them per relic. The terminator armor rule is different
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 13:05
getting my book now >.< but on the war gear page it states: A model may replace ONE Weapon with ONE of the following:. One is singular to imply what they are inferring it would need to be EACH Weapon.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 13:10
@hisop And/or (also and or) is a grammatical conjunction used to indicate that one or more of the cases it connects may occur. For example, the sentence "He will eat cake, pie, and/or brownies" indicates that although the person may eat any of the three listed desserts, the choices are not exclusive; the person may eat one, two, or all three of the choices.
And/or - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And/or
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 13:10
The and/or is in relation to the bolt pistol and melee weapon and has no impact on the war gear clarification. in context: if i told you you could swap your bread and/or cheese for items on the fruit, veg or sweets section. but you may only swap one "food" for one "sweet" you wouldn't take two sweets...
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 13:12
So a sm in tactical armor can take 3, and one in terminator armor can take 1. If it is exactly as you have it written. I don't have the space marine rules
William
@whiskeyjuvenile
Feb 10 2016 13:12
no
whatever
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 13:15
Everyone can take 1, anyone not in terminator can also have the Armour.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 13:17
If it is listed as "bolter, bolt pistol and/or close combat weapon" then wouldn't it basically match the Wikipedia article? Let's say we replace it with you can replace one of their cake, brownies and/or pie?
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 13:17
the problem is you are reading it like this:
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 13:18
Again, I don't have the rules do I don't know the exact wording. I'm relying on you for the wording
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 13:18
The and/or is a separate statement. i will post wording now
blob
blob
There is no And/or under relics
only ranged gear and melee weapons.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 13:24
So, we're solid on the fact that they can replace one weapon (e.g. Bolter, Cc Weapon, bolt pistol) (one for one)
They can take from any of those lists.
But the relics are unique and can only be taken once per army
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 13:26
Yeah that is my interpenetration also, if you need the rules i have a link didn't post it as i was unsure if the gitter was subject to the same rules.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 13:26
So, I could replace my bolter for a melta, my cc with a power axe, my bolt pistol with a plasma pistol
William
@whiskeyjuvenile
Feb 10 2016 13:27
no because melta is a special weapon not a ranged weapon
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 13:27
Not what it says. It says hey can take from special issue wargear
Hey = I
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 13:28
special issue wargear is different to special weapons
William
@whiskeyjuvenile
Feb 10 2016 13:28
special issue wargear is like auspex, bike, jump pack
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 13:29
its like auspex and stuff and you dont need to swap for them it says "you may take".
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 13:29
Sorry. Not as familiar with sm. I'm thinking weapons on chaos chosen
So ... Is
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 13:30
Nobody has three weapons BTW even the chapter master starts with a boltpistol and chainsword and can swap one to a bolter.
It is complex hence the confusion.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 13:31
Ahh. CSM chosen have 3
William
@whiskeyjuvenile
Feb 10 2016 13:31
did they ever fix the "can't switch the bike's bolter" thing in RAW?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 13:31
Bolter, bolt pistol and cc weapon
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 13:32
Yeah i was always jealous as they got a bolter and +1 atack for two ccw's
William
@whiskeyjuvenile
Feb 10 2016 13:32
they're chaos honor guard only worse
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 13:32
Marines lost it after third.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 13:32
So they always get +1 attack in cc than their written profile. 2 base +1 for 2cc +1 charge
Group of 4 could easily be 16 attacks on the charge
And loose atsknf....
One weapon with one of the following ...
It's not "any weapon" it's one weapon
So is the interpretation I have 2 weapons in can replace one of them for one relic. And the other for a different relic.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 13:37
Or I have multiple weapons. I can replace one of them for a chapter relic
And one only. I.e. Max number of relics per model
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 13:38
the second.
One Weapon for One relic.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 13:39
I could see it both ways ... But I lean towards the second. But I could see both sets of interpretation. And we're not here as the ITC. We're just trying to do the best job we can
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 13:39
Check out the long post i made on the git hub issue.
#1832
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 13:45
Look at the book:
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 13:49
So, we're looking at the 'One for One' does not equal 'Two for Two'
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 13:49
Yes or it would say each for one.
if you look at the other sections for context.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 13:49
Or 'Any weapon with one of the items below'
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 13:49
yes.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 13:50
I'm good with that. If it gets FAQ'd then we should change it to what the FAQ states.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 13:50
Exactly, i have emailed the rules team at GW as im sure many have so fingers crossed.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 13:51
Oh, and in regards to ITC rulings, we may want to consider adding 'ITC' rulings in much the same way we do [FW]
If only because lots of people play in tournaments.
And we're here to provide a resource to the community.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 13:52
I have no opinion on it and just reiterated @efalsken 's words. to him :P
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 13:53
And adding the ability to 'turn that on' means that people are more likely to use it instead of an 'alternate army creation product'
that may have that set of rules.
That being said. It's merely something to consider.
(Without any guarantee of support) cough The catalog implementers have enough to do with getting the rulesets working RAW ... much less ITC.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 13:58
Too True, so should we recommend to @ddarz to revert the fix he did for #1832 ?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 14:01
Based on the general (conservative) consensus that this is a replacement that only allows (One Weapon) not (Any Weapon) for One item. Until it's FAQ'd go for the more conservative interpretation.
It's possible to 'make illegal lists' in BS, they just flag.
If that's the case though ... we should fix that in our other lists.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 14:05
Each codex has different wording, the confusion is centered on CSM as that was the least specific.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 14:05
"Chaos Artefact: A model can replace one weapon with one of the following. Only one of each Chaos Artefact may be taken per army" and the list includes 'multiple melee weapons' (i.e. Burning Brand of Skalathrax, Murder sword and black mace
So that is a 'one weapon with one of the following' as well.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 14:07
Yeah, all of the newer codexes include it.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 14:09
CSM is pretty old ... that's 2012.
But currently ... as written.... I could take multiple chaos artefacts...
(From a battlescribe perspective)
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 14:12
I see, i know Eldar and GK also KDK have the rule and there all 2015 Maybe we missed it? i will pass it to @Cartag .
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 14:13
I've been working with him in the Chaos:PtG and trying to clear out issues with C:CSM
But it does (potentially) make it more difficult from a catalog building perspective
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 14:14
Yeah, some codex's are just a pain :P
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 14:16
C:CSM p.91 (from 2012)
In C:PtG (path to glory) it specifically states only 1 artefact for your champion
(And it replaces a group of followers)
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 14:22

Kdk- "“ARTEFACTS OF SLAUGHTER

Only one of each Artefact of Slaughter may be taken per army. A model may take one of the following:”

Excerpt From: Games Workshop Ltd. “Codex - Khorne Daemonkin (eBook Edition).” Games Workshop Ltd, 2015-03-15T23:00:00+00:00. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright

“- The Brazen Rune… 15 pts

  • The Skull-helm of Khorne 3… 15 pts

  • The Blood-forged Armour 6, 7… 50 pts

A model may instead replace one weapon with one of the following:

  • Goredrinker 7… 30 pts

  • The Blade of Endless Bloodshed… 35 pts

  • Kor’lath, the Axe of Ruin 7… 60 pts”

Excerpt From: Games Workshop Ltd. “Codex - Khorne Daemonkin (eBook Edition).”

So... I'm voting for the one to one, not two to one
If not RAW, it appears to be RAI
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 14:49
Agreed
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 14:50
It definitely is /Fluffy/ to potentially have multiple artifacts.... but that sounds like we're looking 'Named Independent Character' levels ...
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 14:53
I mean the rule of cool is always the way among me and my friends, and if someone asked i would be like yeah that's okay, i mean my mates let me take chimera's with skitarii because and i quote "its stupid they have no transports" we also use an culexus assassin as a counts as pariah for the necron player.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 15:01
Take an 'Allied' detachment with the chimera, I believe they're classed as 'Battle Brothers' as I think they're listed as 'Armies of the Imperium'
And battle brothers can embark on each other's transports :+1:
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 15:03

Hey guys, I really don't mean to be difficult, just want to make 100% sure before reverting the work.

You say that we don't go with the 'meta' for the catalogues, but the (conservative) consencus mentioned baove is just that, a reddit thread which is far from conclusive itself. So I am trying to get to the bottom of this and find the RAW version. Would like to hear more opinions

I have the codex right here, both in print and digital (bear in mind the digital versions have some issues, see Eldar craftwold rangers having jetbikes, heh)
There are 3 points in the codex that concern the use of the relics:
The Entry for character who can take them (captains/masters, chaplains and librarians)
The short Chapter relics list on page 250
The full chapter relics list on page 453

Point 1 supports the case of more than one relic per model - " ...can take ITEMS from..."
Point 2 has the (not so) ambiguous wording of "switch one weapon for one relic". They way I read it is, switch one weapon for this, and my other weapon for that.
Point 3 makes no reference to swapping, just says that you can take one of each relic per army

From the above, I see nothing in C:SM to restrict taking multiple relics on one character. The BSData guidlines say to be permissive - and that is what I am aiming for. RAW it is supported as per the above points. RAI is that because other codexes don't allow it RAW, neither should C:SM. I can't agree with that.

I would also like to note that I am not debating this for any personal gain as seems to be inferred. I don't personally use relics

Finally and most importantly, the Kauyon and Mont'Ka books supports taking more than one relic on the same character. So there's that too
Which also lead me to the Tau codex, that also allows multiple signature systems on the same model - explicitly so! (page 75)

OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 15:03
I wouldn't have an issue with it personally. Heck ... I'm voting for Chaos Imperial Knight Households ...
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 15:04
sorry for the large post :)
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 15:04
Does the list of 'Items' include armor?
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 15:04
Point 1 refers in the context to the list and has nothing to do with a limitation on individual items or lists.
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 15:05
As in it just says you can take stuff from said lists? Yep agreed
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 15:06
Doesn't say "switch" it states categorically, "one weapon for one relic" one is singular in this instance in the english lanuage google "the use of one as singular or plural"
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 15:08
it actually says "replace"
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 15:08
The problem here is the way we speak the language, what you think "one Weapon for one relic" and what it actualy means in its dictionary definition are differet.
Replace unlike switch can be singluar or plural was my point.
And i didn't and would never use reddit as evidence :P
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 15:10
Referring to a dictionary to interpret such a thin ruling aptly demonstrates why GW needs some new rules writers ;)
Sorry, saw the reddit links above and scoured through them. apologies
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 15:10
Replace one weapon for one (other item) is different than replace 'any one weapon for one (other item)'
or replace 'any weapon for an item from the list'
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 15:12
So the sticking point is point 2 on page 250? What about the full list in the reference section?
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Feb 10 2016 15:12
The way i've always played it is a Captain can take two Relics because he has two weapons, he swaps each one for a relic
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 15:13
Unless specified explicitly (such as the tau codex) that indicates a replace one item with one other item. The question is: can this particular action be repeated.... i.e. can I do this replacement of one item for another item, and then do it again.
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 15:13
Nothing stops you from repeating an action as far as I know...
right?
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 15:13
I agree it could be clearer. but if you compare it to the other lists like i did on github it clearly differentiates.
The word "one" in its context as singular would.
Why would in all the 7th edition codex's be the only one unrestricted also? - just to add some RAI into this.
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 15:14
Tau is also unrestricted
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 15:15
Tau isnt 7th.
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 15:15
It's not???
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 15:16
So in KDK, it's RAI as one chaos artefact per character. And pretty darn close to RAW for replace one weapon with one from the list below.
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Feb 10 2016 15:16
It is now, kinda
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 15:16
What about the reprint, with the kauyon inclusions?
Also, craftworld eldar - also unrestricted, as far as I can tell
(referencing the digital version, will check the hard copy later)
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 15:17
Kauyon isn't 7th its just an expansion.
cartag
@cartag
Feb 10 2016 15:18
Tau did get a 7E printed codex though
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 15:18
yes but the codex got an update
so Tau is up to speed with 7th now
cartag
@cartag
Feb 10 2016 15:18
and in it, it only has ONE sentence beneath Signature Systems, not TWO like in C:SM or KDK
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 15:18
to support the 'Replace multiple items on a one to one basis' for the rule 2 implementation, it would be replace any weapon with an item from the list.
cartag
@cartag
Feb 10 2016 15:18
For Tau it just states "Only one of each Signature System can be taken per army." Full stop, no additional sentences. C:SM states "Only one of each Chapter Relic may be taken per army. A model may replace one weapon with one of the following:" Reading only one of the sentences is deliberately omitting information to try and make the codex say what you want it to say.
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 15:19
Sorry was that aimed at me?
I was referencing page 453
digital C:SM codex
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 15:19
Yep, sorry @ddarz
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 15:19
"Only one of
each of the following items may be chosen per army."
full stop, no additional sentences
cartag
@cartag
Feb 10 2016 15:20
"Only one of each Chapter Relic may be taken per army. A model may replace one weapon with one of the following:" was taken directly from the C:SM digital codex
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 15:20
yep on page 250
cartag
@cartag
Feb 10 2016 15:20
The Tau one, directly from their book
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 15:21
Please don't accuse me on trying to ommit information, I spelled it out quite clearly above in the large post, with page numbers
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 15:21
@cartag @ddarz So, "one weapon with one of the following" v.s. Multiple which would be "replace any weapon with one of the following"
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 15:21
or replace each weapon with one of the following.
ONE for ONE is singular i do not know how you can read it any other way please google the definition of one as a singular in a sentence. all other comparisons aside.
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 15:23
Yep I agree with you
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 15:24
So were all in agreement? (i hesitently ask?)
cartag
@cartag
Feb 10 2016 15:24
Page 453 wouldn't matter in it, as it states in each unit that can bring Relics that they can be chosen from the Chapter Relics list, meaning the list on page 250. Same place the tables are for Special Issue Wargear, Melee Weapons, etc. You don't select what relics you bring based off of page 453. That's a listing of them with profiles, fluffing out the entries.
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 15:24
weeeell... ;p
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 15:24
That being said, if that is how we're reading the rule ... then we need to fix the other codexes.
cartag
@cartag
Feb 10 2016 15:25
I am reading it as you are allowed ONE relic per model, based on how the C:SM book is written
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 15:25
Other codex's word it differently i think is the big point here.
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 15:25
Just gonna quickly check BA and DA codexes
cartag
@cartag
Feb 10 2016 15:25
Exactly. Tau mentions no restrictions, C:SM explicitly does, as does KDK.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 15:25
C:CSM p.91 "Chaos Artefact: A model can replace one weapon with one of the following. Only one of each Chaos Artefact may be taken per army" (And that's from 2012)
cartag
@cartag
Feb 10 2016 15:26
C:CSM is also a very old book, the oldest of the current books. How should that have any bearing on how the C:SM book is interpreted?
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 15:26
Hmm, anyone got the DA codex handy, it actually has different wording!
Agree with Cartag
cartag
@cartag
Feb 10 2016 15:27
DA says "Only one of each relic may be taken per army. A model may replace one weapon with one of the following:", same as C:SM "Only one of each Chapter Relic may be taken per army. A model may replace one weapon with one of the following:"
Only difference being "relic" instead of "Chapter Relic"
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 15:27
yep sorry my bad, same wording -
just put the side by side - I'm swamped with codecies at the moment
cartag
@cartag
Feb 10 2016 15:28
Arrrrrrrgh
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 15:28
However ... Codex: Crimson Slaughter specifically says that 'Krannon has 'Blade of the Relentless, Slaughterer's Horns and Daemon Heart'
cartag
@cartag
Feb 10 2016 15:28
and that is also 6E, before the newer 7E books came out
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 15:29
(pulling up KDK now)
cartag
@cartag
Feb 10 2016 15:29
BA is worded same as C:SM and DA
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 15:29
I am this close to walking over to WW to ask Phil
or whoever is around
cartag
@cartag
Feb 10 2016 15:30
KDK says can bring ONE weapon OR may take one relic armour
still restricting to one item
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 15:30
now THAT is quite specific
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 15:30
Krannon only has one artifact weapon. One armor, and an alternate item (the horns).
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 15:30
@ddarz Haha! , I think this will need to be assessed on a codex by codex basis clearly the SM codexes are in sync but the others less so.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 15:31
yeah, I referenced that earlier in the discussion
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 15:31
Damnit, The tau win again!
cartag
@cartag
Feb 10 2016 15:31
Oft, nothing you say in regards to CSM, Crimson Slaughter, or Black Legion will have any affect on how the C:SM book relic selection is being interpreted. You can drop the line of reasoning, it does not play into it.
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 15:32
yeah, or Tau I guess :/
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 15:32
@cartag Just looking for parallel examples.
That could support the interpretation of 'one to one' being taken more than once.
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 15:34
So just to check, I recall reading in the BSData guidelines, that we should aim to be permissive, and rely on the players to police themselves, instead of enforcing ambiguous restrictions
Based on this guideline, should we not allow marine players to make their own minds up?
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 15:35
It isnt ambiguous. As per the neglish language it is clear.
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 15:35
well, ambiguous enough that players seem to be doing it
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 15:35
*English (in no way did that undermine my point :P )
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 15:35
hehehe too late!
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 15:35
@ddarz wait for it ... "Someone on the internet is wrong!"
The tool is designed to assist players in creating points valid lists. While it would be nice to have 'rules valid lists' that can be substantially more complicated to create.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 15:37
The same players who year on year get upset when FAQ's stop there ridiculous interpretations :P that let them make cheese fest units :P
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 15:37
on a somewhat related note, GW is hiring for a Rules writer
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 15:37
WOO NEW JOB!
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 15:38
I asked about the pay...it aint great
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 15:38
The first wise decision they have made in a while.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 15:38
:smile:
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Feb 10 2016 15:38
What is the pay?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 15:38
Sounds like 8th edition is right around the corner .... cough
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Feb 10 2016 15:38
Always bothered me that they don't advertise the pay
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 15:39
yeah there is a reason for that...
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 15:39
So i am going with "keep the status-quo" So reverting :P
Eldar 7th:
blob
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 15:41
Yeah ... a model can replace one with one of the following. no 'A model can replace any weapon with one of the following'
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 15:45
I just dont know how anyone can see "replace ONE weapon for" and go i will do that twice.
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 15:45
Lot's of people apparently :(
Out of curiosity, what do the large tournaments rule? (not that we really care)
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Feb 10 2016 15:46
Out of interest, was the wording different in 6th?
Not got my 6th Ed dex handy, could be that they changed the wording ever so slightly and no one has actually noticed apart from new players
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 15:47
I don't have my old codex to hand, will check
"A single model may only be armed with one item from the list of Chapter Relics."
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Feb 10 2016 15:47
They tweaked lots of the special rules from 6th to 7th & it's caught quite a few people out around here.
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 15:48
yep 1 relic - probably to limit the Iron hands Smash dude on a bike
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 15:48
That's the ITC current FAQ doc, and the specific rule for space marines.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 15:48
yep agreed i just checked itc also
looking now
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 15:49
and it did change yes, in 6th there was no restriction on multiple relics and yes it has slipped many people by (myself included initially).
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Feb 10 2016 15:50
ahh there we go then
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 15:50
Interestingly enough that is only listed for 'C:SM' not others.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 15:50
what would we do without wh40klib.ru eh?
penguin20000 @penguin20000 adds to bookmarks
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Feb 10 2016 15:50
:p
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 15:51
Haha
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Feb 10 2016 15:52
Not sure it has changed actually...
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 15:52
(Apparently it's enough of an issue that they had to be specific with Space Marine players ...)
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Feb 10 2016 15:53
6th.PNG
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 15:53
Everyone else is apparently reasonable.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 15:53
My bad :P it changed for GK (who i mainly play)
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 15:54
So ... as I read it, they could take armor indomitus ... and a weapon replacement?
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 15:54
yup
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Feb 10 2016 15:54
Looks that way
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 15:54
But per ITC, they could take one or the other.
Man ... I remember back in 2nd edition when you could tool up your IC and rock with every artifact in the codex.
whistles innocently
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 16:03
So, Eldar HQ's can take more than one remnant of glory then?
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 16:03
No > blob
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 16:04
Drat, I keep getting thrown off by the second list for the relics:
REMNANTS OF GLORY
Remnants of Glory are items of incredible rarity and power, each one an echo of
the ancient Eldar empire’s might. Only one of each of the following relics may be
chosen per army.
remn.PNG
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 16:05
@ddarz that's an interesting question. for example: Chaos Artefacts have the same verbiage .... but have notes: e.g. "Does not replace weapon"
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 16:06
Sorry @hisop on what page is that reference you posted
yeah the pciture is muddied further with Kauyon and Mont'ka
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 16:06
it only omits the limitation does not contradict it, also that is a reference list and not in the " building your army section"
Kauyon and Mont'ka are not a &th codex only a suppliment to a 6th codex.
7th
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 16:07
we got relic helmets, jumpacks, TWO (!) lightning claws that can be paired. And some weird white scars stuff that is just kit
it's just that I can't find it in the codex
the eldar codex that is
will check hard copy later
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 16:08
But it is an addon not a remake, on GW website it specifically states that you dont need to buy another codex you just get "additional rules and option"
The page for eldar is in the wargear section where you buy the gear just before the unit profiles, the same place we compared it for C:SM.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 16:11
I vote for replace "one weapon with one of the following:" to include items unless otherwise specified by 'Does not replace weapon'
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 16:12
Support.
AKA the status quo (pre change)
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 16:13
i.e. for C:SM, that would allow a swapout for the armor ... but only one 'weapon type' item?
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 16:13
Yes as it was yesterday.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 16:14
So, they could have the crazy cool armor ... and crazy cool weapon. But not two crazy cool weapons and crazy cool armor.
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 16:14
Sorry do you have a page number for that eldar bit? I can't find the damn thing (not that it really matters) and it's driving me nuts
Indomitous is sadly not that crazy anymore :(
no worries, found it! page 236
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 16:15
My physical copy is at home and i am at work :P
Ahh good :P
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 16:16
Aye so am I...luckily Github is part of the scenery
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 16:16
Yeah, same here.
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 16:17
So...who is going to tell the keepers of the Eldar codex that they have been doing it "wrong"?
penguin20000 @penguin20000 hides
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 16:17
And the Astra Militarum (Guard) keeper too
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 16:18
Its being re-written atm by @efalsken (eldar) so its all good :P
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 16:19
Well ... we're all volunteers.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 16:19
I dont know who does guard, they must have done a good job as it doesnt get many bugs :P
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 16:19
(Either that or most people don't use guard ... )
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 16:20
hehe my thoughts
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 16:20
Most people who played guard now play taudar :P as its where the power went :)
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 16:21
...space wolves need to change too
and the DA
i dunno, seems everyone apart from C:SM have gone for multiple relics
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 16:23
Doesnt make it right :P
There have been bigger cross codex mistakes trust me :P
And did you check the AM dex to see if its rule is consistent?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 16:24
Question being, do items that "do not replace one of the characters weapons" count against the "Replace one Weapon with one of the following"
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 16:24
C:CSM and KDK enforce it.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 16:24
I blame @cartag for that.
And wording for KDK is explicit.
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 16:25
Feels like we have been arguing English language semantics (which @hisop states correctly)
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 16:25
Choose ARMOR or replace one weapon with one of the following.
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 16:25
aye, what happens with non-weapon replacing
some is just wargear
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 16:26
@OftKilted i would say not but the itc rules they do, RAW you can take them in adition to the one weapon
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 16:26
case inpoint the ridiculous cover-ignoring relic the white scars get
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 16:26
ITC however only applies that ruling to C:SM
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 16:26
as in the context of the restriction it limits the restriction of "one relic" to the clarification preceding "one weapon"
ICT is not always right is what i am trying to imply, they look to cover ambiguity where in doubt.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 16:28
They did the ruling to "clear up" an issue for the C:SM in regards to chapter relics.
Specifically in regards to their tournaments.
And ... in truth, we're arguing about how someone else should play the game.
We can only build the rules to the best of our understanding.
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 16:30
to further complicate the ITC thing, they use the word "Armed"
@OftKilted true
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 16:32
Well i am happy to amend SW and DA to the way SM is if you can revert @ddarz ?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 16:32
Definition Armed: equipped with or carrying a weapon or weapons.
So ... that leads to this limitation only affecting weapons, from the perspective of relic/artefact type items?
Unless otherwise specified. (i.e. KDK)
(which makes it easier potentially to handle in the scheme of armor/non weapon type 'special gear' (relic/artefact/eldar special stuff)
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 16:38
Unfortunately meanings of the word armed range from "weapons" to "specifically firearms" to "equipment intended to strengthen, EG arms, weapons Armour etc"
Also a general word for equipped: "The students came armed with their pocket calculators."
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 16:40
Absolutely, they were going to use them as weapons and beat the exam into submission.
And to think that here we are only armed with our wits, some dictionaries ... and a couple of codexes.
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 16:42
seems like we are back to arguing semantics
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 16:42
Yup
Can we stick with what we have got?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 16:43
We are arguing semantics. But if we're going to set a standard for one catalog. Then are we obligated to be consistent for all catalogs?
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 16:43
We know what the RAW is now, i will apply the same to all the listed and affected catalogs.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 16:43
KDK is specific, as an example ... and Tau doesn't have that wording.
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 16:45
well as said above by Cartag I believe, shouldn't it be on a per catalogue basis?
With the caveat that we should interpert the same wording the same way for each though
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 16:45
It was me :P
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 16:46
my abd
bad
damn
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 16:46
Or atleast i said the same
I will do all the SM codex's and will pass it on as a task for the eldar re- write.
that should cover us, would you re-vert ddarz?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 16:47
But C:CSM Supplement "Crimson Slaughter" creates 'Krannon' as a Chaos Lord with 'Blade of the Relentless, Slaughterer's Horns, Daemon Heart' ... however C:CSM:CS says "Any character in your CS detachment that can select Chaos Artefacts cannot select from those listed in C:CSM, but can instead select from the relics of the CS, presented opposite, at the points cost shown.
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 16:47
just rechecked Tau, they definetely don;t have the controversial "replace one for one" rule
To be frank, and again I apologise for playing devil's advocate, could ask around the group first, maybe get Senpai and Amis to weigh in? I don't disagree with you, but I would like to set it to rest once and for all, instead of having to change it all again later
in any case, it's not been released
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 16:50
Yup just waiting for them to weigh in.
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 16:51
:)
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 16:51
So, "one for one for a single item that replaces a weapon" + "additional items that don't replace weapons" except for codexes that are explicit e.g. KDK with 'Armor' OR 'replace one weapon with'
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 16:52
damn the gitter smilies are a bit too over expressive
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 16:52
The gitter tongue looks crazy .
@OftKilted yes so far anyhow.
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 16:52
I'm going through every forum/reddit/FB post I can find that references the issue - not conclusive by any means, but telling
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 16:53
So, what's the general consensus?
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 16:53
combos allowed
a quick google for "space marines multiple relics per model" in the last 12 months throws up tons of stuff
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 16:54
Haha most people on forums go looking for articles to try to prove there point thus the "consensus" is always skewed. people who think its entirely reasonable dont feel the need to go and shout at people about it :P
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 16:55
yep! There are never any happy users on forums
on the other hand, when the question is directly asked of a community, like a group say, the verdict is usually inconclusive
sigh* All I wanted to do was clear my assigned issues on github
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 16:58
The thing is if you were at my house and asked i would say go on why not. the combination of guys who think everything should be possible (because the rule of cool) and power gamers is entirely disproportionate on internet forums i find :P
I have had this battle again and again :P i got the list to 19 in december look now back to 38 :P
some of the stuff this guy came up with brought tears to my eyes
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 17:01
Step 1: Have CC weapon.
Step 2: 'Replace CC Weapon with relic'
Step 3: 'This item has 'does not replace a weapon rule'
Step 4: Still have CC weapon
Step 5: Replace CC weapon with Alternate Weapon relic from list.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 17:02
In battlescribe the "armour indominous" aka the exempt relic is on armour selection and doesnt even come into the weapons section
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 17:06
You could add:
Step 6: Still have a weapon that has not been swapped out
Step 7: 'Replace weapon with relic'
step 8: This item does not have 'does not replace a weapon' - Item replaced
Step 9: Do any other weapons exist that could be swapped out that haven't been already swapped? Yes? Repeat from step 6.
Else: End.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 17:08
It is already functioning the expected way in the SM dex if ddarz reverts (subject to further agreement) i will just emulate this.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 17:10
Sounds like a plan.
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 17:11
Meanwhile, Kauyon has a relic bolter that doesn't replace a weapon... so, anyone want to apply for that rules writer job yet?
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 17:13
exactly
Why can't they just have a living document for all the rules is beyond me...
oh wait - profits
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 17:16
If it's a relic bolter that doesn't replace a weapon ... that could give them 3 weapons. (Like chosen and Bolter/Bolt Pistol/CC weapon)
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 17:17
yep, the verdict was that it's worth the price because you keep the +1 attack from having a pistol and chainsword still
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 17:21
Well ... at least C:DE is clear "Only one of each Artefact of Cruelty may be taken per army. A model may take one of the following:"
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 17:28
C:GK is also specific "Relics of Titan ... "A model can take one of the following:"
C:GK is a 2014 codex, as is C:DE.
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 17:29
yep they are 7th ed
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 17:32
C:AS is also 'A Model can take one of the following:' in the Ecclesiarchy relics section
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 17:32
checked em earlier. They always get the short end of the stick
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 17:33
Interestingly enough, that may lean more towards the RAI side of things.
C:AS was 2013. It looks like stuff more recent than 2013 has moved to the one per model.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 17:36
The bug has been cleaned it was neither conducive or seemly in the public bug, further comments will be removed and the bug removed if arguments there flare up that is why we have gitter, i encourage discussion just lets look a little professional and keep it reasonable.
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 17:37
was about to thank you for clearing the comments on github
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 17:37
So, we're back to 1 for 1 on weapons + non-weapon 'relic types' i.e. armor
Unless explicitly specified.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 17:39
I'm sorry if you were offended, i don't think that was his intention he can just be blunt :P
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 17:40
No worries :) I was just a bit shocked to see such an accusation posted on the Github issue comment
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 17:40
Haha i just thought best do draw a line under it all :P
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 17:41
yeah good thinking :)
jesus, what are these emoticons smoking?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 17:41
BSData/wh40k#88
We've been dealing with this apparently since last year.
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 17:46
can of worms
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 18:05
Sanity check prior to submitting issue:
KDK says One of 'Artefact items of slaughter (which includes the blood forged armor)' ... 'A model may instead replace one weapon with one of the following: (Weapons of Slaughter)'
The current catalog allows both 'The Blood Forged Armor' + Weapons of Slaughter. But not Blood Forged + Artefact item of slaughter.
Submit indicating that it's not parsing the armor + weapon correctly?
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 10 2016 18:06
oh wow. you're not kidding. Quite the discussion going here. I notice that my name came up, but maybe the discussion is closed now?
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 18:06
I am not very familiar with KDK, but that seems to make sense. can't lump in armour with the weapons
hello :D Welcome to the GW rules writing apreciation society!
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 18:07
You're flagged as the Eldar fixer.
Yeah ... I did initial submissions for the Necron list and Dark Eldar back in 2012/2013 prior to the BS repository moving to Github (back when it was hosted on the forums on battlescribe.net ) and I'm getting back into the hobby.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 10 2016 18:11
Is it so hard to see that the codexes are different? I know for a fact that the Tau Signature Systems can all be taken at the same time on a single Commander. That's the entire way that Buffmander works and has always worked. His profile even says "may take selections from Signature Systems" (plural selections)
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 18:12
It's the 'Replace one Weapon with one item from the following'. Apparently we've been dealing with that since issue #88.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 10 2016 18:12
Craftworlds: the Spiritseer profile says "may take items from Remnants of Glory"
so in C:SM, it's just a blanket rule that isn't mentioned in the unit profiles? I don't own that codex.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 18:13
humor But we all know that Eldar cheat ... they take D weapons on shooty infantry .../humor
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 10 2016 18:13
:)
but it's the mini-D
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 18:14
The mini-D? That's ok then!
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 10 2016 18:14
lol
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 18:14
coughStupid eldar ... cough
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 10 2016 18:16
oh, I see, it's the use of the word "one" in the rule. IMHO, one is "1, singular". If it was implied to be allowed multiple times, once for each weapon, it would have used the word "each". It's the whole "how many weapons can a GC shoot" argument all over again.
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 18:16
so the debate was basically focused on one statement in the books (including Eldar): "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following..."
ah beat me to it
yep
any insight would be most welcome
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 10 2016 18:16
but that is in the relics section, not in the unit profiles?
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 18:16
yep
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 10 2016 18:16
what does the unit profile say?
in the relic section, it's clear that one weapon is replaced with one relic. It does not bear on how many times that rule can be tapped per model.
now if the model rule says it may take selections (plural) from Relics, then it clearly can.
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 18:18
Space marines: A Captain or Chapter Master may take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged
Weapons, Special Issue Wargear and/or Chapter Relics lists
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 10 2016 18:18
items. plural. seems legit to me
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 18:18
and that's my interpretation too
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 10 2016 18:18
The statement in Relics just means that "a relic must take the place of a single other weapon"
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 18:19
exactly (if it's a weapon, there's armour and wargear too)
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 10 2016 18:19
right
Might be useful to leave a "rule" entry as "hidden" hanging off of the relevant entry to explain our reasoning here.
be sure to mention the edition+page of all relevant rules, so when the new rules come out we can revisit it.
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 18:20
good idea, I'll sort it now
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 18:21
"A Captain or Chapter Master may take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged
Weapons, Special Issue Wargear and/or Chapter Relics lists" The 'Items' would only be 'exciting' and indicative if it was 'A Captain or Chapter Master may take items from the Chapter Relics list'"
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 10 2016 18:24
I prefer to err on the side of taking the simplest possible interpretation of each statement. It's clear that the model/unit datasheets have been getting simpler and more streamlined. This is the simplest possible interpretation rather than implying a constraint that isn't clearly spelled out.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 18:24
true enough.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 10 2016 18:25
e.g. the Tau Signature Systems and Eldar Artefacts don't take the place of weapons/armour, they are taken in addition to anything else. The SM Relics clearly take the place of otherwise-pre-selected wargear. That's the simplest interpretation of that rule.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 18:25
It isn't anywhere near as clear as many of the newer codecies (e.g. C:DE, GK, Necrons, C:AS)
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 10 2016 18:26
it's by far the most complicated of the codexes too.
I was so happy when I was doing the big Tau re-write that it wasn't C:SM.
Even the current Craftworlds is downright simple in comparison.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 18:27
We found that Tau actually didn't have the 'replace one' section. that was interesting.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 10 2016 18:27
because the systems don't "replace" anything on the basic model. They're additive.
although, there's something here.....
C:SM Relics must replace something...... So you're going to have to either buy something to replace, or replace a default wargear item.
that's either going to be easy-simple or impossible depending on how you've built the catalog.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 18:29
Yeah ... depending on how you've rolled the catalog.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 10 2016 18:30
The biggest problem I've got with the Tau codex, is that it still doesn't enforce that you've bought+paid for TL Fusion Blasters (and used up 2 slots) before buying the Fusion Blades.
bah. I just hacked it. done with that and pushing it now.
I figured out how I could do it quick and easy.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 18:35
@OftKilted
So Weapons that a GC can fire is 'All of them, and at different targets' right?
(basically the same as Super Heavy Walkers)
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 10 2016 18:45
yes
because in English dictionary "Each" is "one or more"
the confusion is that the GC inherits the rules for MC which says "two, at the same target" and gets redefined to say "except that it can shoot each of its weapons at different targets".
confusing since MC puts 2 constraints into one statement, and then modifies that statement with one statement that isn't clear which constraint it is modifying. So best rule of thumb is that it modifies all of the constraints in the original statement. and replaces the original statement in its entirety.
I don't like that, but it's the only thing that makes sense given the Stormsurge's profile.
They should have just given it a Multi-tracker and avoided the whole issue.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 18:52
I would also support
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 10 2016 18:54
I just pushed the Tau Fusion Blades change.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 18:54
The allowance of multiple with some disclaimer
Under itc they only allow one per model.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 10 2016 18:55
as above, this isn't the ITC data file project.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 18:55
I have a nice metaphor around sweets above :p
I agree wholeheartedly.
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 18:55
I was reading reading recently about backlash to the heavy handed way the ITC treated the new Tau
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 18:56
And would not change anything based know there ruling.
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 18:56
happily, no ITC at Warhamemr World where I play
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 18:56
On* sorry public transport plus phone = auto correct
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 10 2016 18:56
ITC gutted the Hunter Contingent and made it completely useless rather than adding 1 clarifying statement.
They could have added "at the same target" and avoided ALL of the confusion regarding Coordinated Firepower.
but imho, the statement in C:SM regarding Relics replacing one bit of wargear is exactly that. If you want to put the Shield Eternal AND Sword of Baddassness on the same guy, then he's just that much bigger of a target.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 18:59
Found it.
The and/or is in relation to the bolt pistol and melee weapon and has no impact on the war gear clarification. in context: if i told you you could swap your bread and/or cheese for items on the fruit, veg or sweets section. but you may only swap one "food" for one "sweet" you wouldn't take two sweets...
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 18:59
I thought the 'All remaining models from the formation' would include the drones ... so they'd go off the board when the pirahanas.
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 18:59
Yeah to be fair it's hardly a game changer worth getting worked up over
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 18:59
But still choice and disclaimer sounds like a plan.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 10 2016 19:00
@OftKilted: Except that the rules on formations are pretty funky when comined with the detaching-drones rule. The drones, after disembarking form a new unit that is not part of the original formation.
so they also don't gain any of the formation's original rules.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 19:01
<humor> Dang Tau cheezieness ... </humor>
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 10 2016 19:02
The Firestream nerf was in the cards and I agree with it. Rediculous that you can ferry in unlimited drones, denying a chance for the enemy to shoot or even to Interceptor .... yeah. That's just too much.
imho, We will see major tournaments allowing Unbound (no Come the Apoc) probably in the next 12 months.... just for Forgeworld units/models.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 10 2016 19:10
lol. nice just copy-pasting our chat into the BS data file.....
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 19:11
Yeah sorry about that
it's an interim solution till I get back to a desktop
Then I will clean it up. Again, my apologies
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 19:13
Also should show both points rather than bias to one :p
Since 2 vs 3 is not a concensus made haha
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 19:15
I will do my best to write out both cases, please be patient, it has been a long day
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 10 2016 19:15
doesn't need to explain the whole debate, just the justification for the current implementation. If more explanation is necessary, then a GitHub wiki page. (like on wikipedia discussions)
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 19:15
I thought it interesting that multiple relics hearkens back to the days of 2nd edition, with superpowered IC's running around the field. And the more recent codex lay out 'you can buy one'
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 10 2016 19:18
Just a "we left it open to interpretation", as on one side one for one was considered absolute in the warmer sectionon the other the and/or on the selection
Page for relics and other lists
But you know not written on my phone badly due to potholes...
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 19:20
I know it's not 'directly 40K' but any thoughts on BSData/wh40k-path-to-glory#8
It's more of a 'how to do this' kind of discussion.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 10 2016 19:22
looks like a selection group inside of Champion or like I do in the Corsairs file, Champion (type1), Champion (type 2), etc.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 19:23
However, you don't get access to alternate champions until specific things happen. i.e. your hero is turned into a spawn and you get to roll a new hero ... OR you get 'Daemonhood' and are turned into a demon prince
So, while it's important to have your champion, you don't want folks starting out assuming that they immediately get 'one of the hero options' or 'daemon prince'
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 10 2016 19:25
MaxSelections = 0, Modifier MaxSelections = 1 if has seelction of ....
BSdata cannot track ongoing game status.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 19:25
Yeah, that's easy enough. The issue probably should be split into two.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 10 2016 19:26
original roster state only.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 19:26
At any one point, you can only have one champion.
If you get the 'spawnhood' roll, then you add a 'retinue/follower' of 'Chaos Spawn' and then roll up a new champion.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 10 2016 19:26
unless you mean like "between games" in an experience upgrade thing.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 19:27
That's an 'inbetween game' thing.
It doesn't happen mid-game.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 10 2016 19:27
battlescribe can't do it.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 19:27
That I know, it can't do the migration, it would require you to 'add a chaos spawn to your list of followers' and then 'make a new hero'
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 10 2016 19:27
or you can add a new detachment-level entry to add "experience points" or "experience flags" to the roster to unlock additional choices.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 19:28
Which is probably needed, to mark 'Favor Points'
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 10 2016 19:29
you should probably move this to https://gitter.im/BSData/wh40k-path-to-glory
but I don't have permissions to create such a room.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 19:29
I was more looking for thoughts, as there isn't one of those.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 10 2016 19:29
you can also ask in https://gitter.im/BSData
That's for general support.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 19:30
I've been chatting with @cartag about it, as he's the current maintainer.
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 19:30
hey guys, I've put something together. Shall I post it here for you to check before I commit it?
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 10 2016 19:31
sure
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 19:31

(Disclaimer)
There is currently some ambiguity whether a single model can take more than one relic from the space marines relic list.

The current C:SM codex makes the following statements:

In an applicable unit pofile (e.g. captain, page 289 of the digital codex) :
"A Captain or Chapter Master may take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged
Weapons, Special Issue Wargear and/or Chapter Relics lists."

On the wargear list entry (page 250 of the digital codex):
"Only one of each Chapter Relic may be taken per army. A model may replace one weapon
with one of the following:"

Additionally the Full Relic entry (page 453 of the digital codex) states:
"The sacred artefacts of the Adeptus Astartes are items of incredible rarity,
bestowing great power upon the Space Marines that carry them. Only one of
each of the following items may be chosen per army."

Given the above statements, two interpertations have emerged:

The first interperts the statement "A model may replace one weapon with one of the following..." as meaning that a model may replace only ONE weapon with ONE relic. Therefore, a single model can only have one relic at any given time.

The second interperts the staments above as meaning that a model may replace each of it's weapons with a (different) relic. So a space marine captain can replace a bolt pistol with the Shielt Eternal, and his the chainsword with a Burning blade. The basis for this interpertation is the unit entry, which states "items" may be taken from the list. And that the "replace one weapon with one of.." statement to be specifically referring to the requirement of repalcing an exisisting weapon.

The issue is further complicated by the existence of non-weapon relics, such as armour and wargear such as that added by supplements.
With no official FAQ on the matter, the decision rests with the player.

thanks, sorry for the size
Please let me know if I have forgotten any points
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 10 2016 19:34
I would only add something about the "replace one weapon" constraint as to imply the loss of the "replaced" wargear rather than constraining a model to only 1 relic at a time.
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 19:34
to interpretation 1?
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 10 2016 19:34
the second
oh, it's there
nevermind then. it's at the end of the second interpretation.
Shield is spelled wrong.
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 19:36
(embarassment) sorry it was rushed
:(
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 10 2016 19:36
thanks for doing it!
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 19:36
no worries :) is it good to go?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 19:37
The additional interpretation is that you can have both "the 'Does not replace a Weapon relic" I.E. (the armor) and One Weapon relic. (that replaces the weapon)
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 19:38
ah good point
I mention armour at the bottom but will expand it to explicitly state the sword & shield case
done
sigh, next time I will let the guy who put up the issue in the first place take the heat
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 19:41
"The issue is further complicated by the existence of non-weapon relics, such as armour and wargear such as that added by supplements, including the existence of relics that 'do not replace a weapon'."
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 10 2016 19:41
thanks!
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 19:41
revised third point:
The issue is further complicated by the existence of non-weapon relics, such as armour and wargear, such as those added by supplements, which do not replace weapons. This creates a third intermediate case, where only one relic weapon is allowed in combination with a non-relic weapon. So in the case of the Vanilla codex, a model would be able to take the Armour Indomitus and replace a single weapon also.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 10 2016 19:42
:+1 thumbsup
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 19:42
+1
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 10 2016 19:42
:+1:
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 19:43
It could also lead to the complexity of taking lots of 'does not replace a weapon' relics
(e.g. Space WOlves and the thunder cavalry of doom)
BSData/wh40k#230
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 19:44
The Raven Guard relics are designed to stack :/ relic jump pack with relic lighting claws (there are 2) and a relic helm....
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Feb 10 2016 19:44
and the armour
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 19:45
oh yeah the armour of shadows
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Feb 10 2016 19:45
:)
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 19:45
why u do dis GW???
ok, making the commit, thanks for the help guys!
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Feb 10 2016 19:45
for the monies
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 19:47
Apparently in the 'SM Army builder' in the iBook enhanced edition allows you to take multiple relics. (at some point it did anyway)
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 19:47
...
lol
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 19:52
Apparently there have been a number of them with "Force Requisition interactive collection manager" functionality. (Apparently it has issues)
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 19:53
Internally I know that they are cursing the day they signed the deal with apple books
apparently there are tons of 'exclusivity' arrangements for the book content. And the tool chain is horrendous
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Feb 10 2016 19:54
Not surprising
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 19:55
The tool works reasonably well. They're explicitly choosing a landscape format. I've seen their issues with ePubs ...
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Feb 10 2016 19:56
The new format epubs can be a right pain
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 19:56
They have 'backgrounds'
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Feb 10 2016 19:56
yeah
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 19:56
yeah at the same time expansive and claustrophobic - kinda hard to put my finger on it
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Feb 10 2016 19:56
Calibre doesn't like them at all
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 19:57
I've had luck with sumatra
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Feb 10 2016 19:57
I'm finding myself having to use calibre to compress the images to bring them under 100MB limit for Google play books
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 19:57
Calibre works alright with the Mobile version. Not the tablet version.
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Feb 10 2016 19:57
then read them on my tablet
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 19:58
I've had trouble with getting the new ones under 100MB, any tips?
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Feb 10 2016 19:58
But i'll check Sumatra out :)
^^
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 19:59
Ahh. it's a windows e-reader.
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Feb 10 2016 19:59
Calibre has a "Compress images losslessly" option in the tools menu when you edit the ePub
Choose your percentage and leave it to do it's thing.
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 19:59
oho, maybe I should update my isntallation! Thanks:)
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Feb 10 2016 20:00
Worked a charm on the Kayon and Montka books
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 20:00
Have you tried Aldiko, as well as Moon+ on android?
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Feb 10 2016 20:01
Think i looked at Moon+ not sure why i didn't go with it tbh
Guess i like having them "in the cloud" easily accessable with Play Books
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 20:02
yeah it's handy, syncing the page u were last on and all that
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Feb 10 2016 20:02
Yeah, especailly if you use multiple devices
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 21:00
@ddarz Based on my reading, the Pinion Guard Demi-Company is explicitly a Raven Guard Formation?
@ddarz "Interestingly, the Captain may be swapped out for a multitude of Characters in the SM codex, suggesting that while the Talon is exclusive to Raven guard, the Pinion can see more widespread usage." http://indexastartes.blogspot.com/2015/10/raven-guard-new-detachment-formations.html
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 21:10
yeah i think it is only the talon sf that is exclusive
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 21:13
And ... hooray for space marine complications?
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 21:20
Normally I would say that this is why I switched to 30K. But after this weekend's release of Book 6, it has also become amazingly complicated.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 10 2016 21:20
Batrayal at Calth boxed set is still easy!
ddarz
@ddarz
Feb 10 2016 21:29
that is true!