These are chat archives for BSData/wh40k

12th
Feb 2016
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 00:18
Anyone up that I can ping on github datafile management?
cartag
@cartag
Feb 12 2016 00:18
what about?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 00:18
So, puling files and leveraging the github app.
It appears to pull the entire WH40K data repository when just looking to pull a single file.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 00:46
So, without setting up a repository, can you create a local github sync and work off the local sync?
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 12 2016 04:31
[FW] After the unit name so it doesn't affect the alphabetization of units. If there are multiple sources of units (like [WEB] or [WD]) things can get pretty ugly with tags before the unit name.
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Feb 12 2016 08:44
@OftKilted you probably want to clone repo locally, create new branch, make changes in catalogue of your choice, commit them, push branch and make pull request. Indeed, you pull whole repo, there is no way to just work with single file.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 12 2016 08:59
@MasterSlowPoke are you going to look over SW then?
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Feb 12 2016 09:03

@OftKilted i watched this when i first started. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hs4PoNTwNAA

Luckily i use Git for work so it wasn't a completely new experiance for me.

But basically what @amis92 said :)
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 12 2016 11:33
Does anyone know if the Show/hide IOS bug is likely to be fixed in the new version?
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Feb 12 2016 11:34
not sure, does Jon know about it?
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 12 2016 11:34
I think @cartag raised it but i'm not sure, i will look
Cant test the alpha on IOS till i get home.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 12:09
@amis92 @penguin20000 I think I managed to get it setup nicely for the pull ... I think. And I added the iOS show hide issue query to the bs/alpha
is standard process to close out Issues prior to review
Or review then close out?
Or is review bypassed...
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 12 2016 12:13
I usually close an issue with a commit.
We have faith usualy :P
If its a complex issue or a big fix i ask for review but for small fixes on catalogs you manage its not normaly needed.
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Feb 12 2016 12:16
I've only been here a month or so, not asked for review on any of the things i've fixed. Not sure if anyone else has looked at the fixes i've done.
If anything got seriously broken it can just be reverted using Git :)
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 12:23
@hisop first attempt ... I think it went well. Just not entirely sure of the process. Not as concerned about the catalog. I worked really hard to break it prior to the branch pull request.
And found some minor issues in my initial fix that didn't scale, so I cleared that out.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 13:32
@amis92 <humor> But if we just go about encouraging all of those Imperial Knights players to use the forgeworld models .... we'll be causing brutal issues for the worldwide meta! Think of the players! ... wait ... </humor>
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Feb 12 2016 13:39
haha yeah, sometimes I wonder how big of an impact do our decisions have.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 13:42
I know that some people use our decisions as 'binding' in regards to creating their lists.
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Feb 12 2016 13:43
Oh yes, so many people will just take what the datafiles say/allow as gospel
They might not even have the actual codex
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 13:44
Which does make it interesting ... personally I want to create a personal branch with Imperial Knights with the Chaos Knight models ...
a
"Turned to Chaos Imperial Knight Household"
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 12 2016 13:44
I see it often used to resolve arguments such as the one above ^ "But battlescribe allows"
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Feb 12 2016 13:44
yup
BS should be treated the same as wikipedia in terms of using it as reference :p
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 13:45
But you have loads of people using it, and few supporting the data files.
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Feb 12 2016 13:45
Maybe slightly more trust than you would give wikipedia
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 12 2016 13:46
Wikipedia is actually very good with lots of references, most pages are locked down and additions need "approval"
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 13:46
Hey! I know that argument on the internet is right ... It says so in Wikipedia ... and I'm sure it's correct ... I wrote the article ...
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 12 2016 13:46
Go try and change George Bush to president of Tunisia and see how far you get :P
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Feb 12 2016 13:46
True
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 12 2016 13:47
In 2006 it was unreliable but if you compare the stuff on it to most other sorces often articles have hundreds of references from reputable sources.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 13:47
@hisop thanks for the assistance on the merge.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 12 2016 13:47
I only pressed a button :P you did all the work :)
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 13:49
Until you get to many of the more 'controversial' topics that for whatever reason haven't been locked. I try to stay away from those. Seriously ... <humor> How can anyone possibly not understand that the universe is riding on the back of a pair of turtles ... </humor>
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Feb 12 2016 13:49
or that the earth is flat...
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 13:50
Well it is a plate balanced on the back of the turtles. They're pretty coordinated I hear.
:-P
In other amazingly bright news ... the Horus Heresy Drop Assault game is massively amusing.
And we're presently all of the issues on one page! Whee!
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 12 2016 13:53
Yeah that was my goal :P
i want it under ten by monday, i will do the SW if @MasterSlowPoke doesnt want too.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 14:00
Interestingly C:D and C:KDK both handle the verbiage for Bloodletters differently, even though they both appear to be doing the same thing. But C:DE appears to be different entirely.
i.e. in C:D it looks like you're taking 20 Bloodletters and 1 blood reaper. (21 models) even though the points explicitly indicate that it's only 20. in C:KDK the wording is "Upgrade one Bloodletter to BloodReaper" which clarifies that.
(This is specifically for the catalogs).
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 12 2016 14:08
I had to do a re-arranging for this exact reason of the complete sisters codex
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 14:18
I'll have to take a look at the sisters codex.
See how you handled the issue, and then perhaps leverage that to clear up the Dark Eldar.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 12 2016 14:20
For characters it hides the previous profile and shows a new one.
for special weapons instead of adding a "weapon" to the squad i Add a model with said weapon.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 14:21
that sounds similar to c:de
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 12 2016 14:24
blob
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 14:24
What's amusing is that C:DE gives you the ability to take an 'Upgrade' cost to 'Trueborn' ... which changes the type from Troops to Elites. (Which BS can't do).
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 12 2016 14:24
I will take a look at that :P
May have an idea
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 14:25
So the catalog has them as two different options.
An 'Elite' choice for trueborn and a 'troops' choice for warriors
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 12 2016 14:26
Raise it as a BS bug if its a missing feature
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 14:26
But if you didn't have the codex, you wouldn't know ... and you'd be a confused user.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 12 2016 14:27
Well the tool is intended for people with the codex :P otherwise we will get a cease and desist from GW haha!
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Feb 12 2016 14:27
Yup
Surprised they've not tried yet tbh
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 12 2016 14:28
Kalabite trueborn doesnt have a minimum cost atm
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 14:28
I believe at one point they tried to go after Army Builder
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 12 2016 14:28
And maybe it should be "Kalabite warriors (trueborn)"
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 14:28
Well ... open an issue, and I'll take a peek at it over the weekend.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 12 2016 14:29
Will do
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 14:29
... and I don't even play DE...
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 12 2016 14:29
Okay there is lots of them :P
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 14:29
I've currently got more skin in the game for Chaos.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 12 2016 14:29
I will just do it :P
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 14:30
Not surprising there are a bunch of issues with the DE catalog.
I did some moving around for the djin blade and the parasite pistol.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 12 2016 14:31
Take a look at #1725 if you get a chance im not sure its fixable as is.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 14:33
Might be able to get around it by doing a show/hide?
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 12 2016 14:36
It is currently hidden, and the rule shows it if its an "instance of" war conv. the problem is on IOS the initial hide doesn't work so it shows regardless.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 14:40
So ... create it like we do forgeworld?
So, it does a hide for the normal models when selected, and shows the war convocation?
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 12 2016 14:41
For forgeworld we go "if show forgeworld = 0" there in no "is not war conv"
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 14:42
So, you can create a 'no type' listing for the War Convocation inside the Imperial Knights set.
Fortunately there aren't many models to add the logic to.
If you select the 'War Convocation' "rule" then it hides all the normal models and shows the war convocation variants with the 0 costs value for wargear.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 12 2016 14:44
But that logic would impact all users for an IOS bug making 3/4 of peoples lives harder for the other 1/4
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 14:44
Technically it shouldn't be available as a CAD ... just as an oathsworn detachment.
"The War Convocation is composed of a Cult Mechanicus Battle Congregation (1 HQ and 2 Troops minimum with the option for 6 more Troops, 0-4 Elites, 0-2 Heavy Support, and 0-1 Fortifications), a Skitarii Battle Maniple, and an Imperial Knight Oathsworn Detachment (1-3 Imperial Knights). Where the Formation goes entirely insane is in the Might of the Adeptus Mechanicus rule:
All weapon and wargear options taken by units in this Formation, including any Relics of Mars or Arcana Mechanicum, are free. Furthermore, all weapons with the Gets Hot special rule carried by a model in this Formation no longer has the Gets Hot special rule." http://atomicspud40k.blogspot.com/2015/05/adeptus-mechanicus-war-convocation.html
I haven't looked at hiding models for different deployment types.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 12 2016 14:46
But thats the point of the bug.
It IS already hidden for everyone, on IOS the hidding doesnt work properly the workaround is to show by deafault and hide after.
but i cant do that based on force type "not"
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 14:48
If hiding doesn't work ... then we have to tag @Jonskichov ? And escalate the issue as a BS bug?
It'
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 12 2016 14:49
That was my point i was aking if anyone had an alternate idea or the only solution was to wait for Jon :P
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 14:51
My idea is to hide it like we do for forgeworld :-) And make it a toggle to see.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 12 2016 14:51
i repeat "But that logic would impact all users for an IOS bug making 3/4 of peoples lives harder for the other 1/4"
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 14:52
humor But it will work fine for me. /humor
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 12 2016 14:52
Haha :P
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 14:52
<humor> It's not my fault they choose the wrong platform.</humor>
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 12 2016 14:53
I completely agree
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 14:54
Unfortunately (or fortunately) I can only test for the Operating System cases that I own.
So, I only have to deal with 1/2 of the issues. :smile:
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 12 2016 14:58
I have all three just not with me :P
( i won the ipad dont kill me)
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 15:00
@hisop It's all good ... I'm a mac and ios guy. Though I could VM a windows install I suppose. I go for IOS because it is easily updatable.
Question ... BSData/wh40k#1859 is it worthwhile to create a linked Obliterator profile that has the updated verbiage? I'd consider doing it as it would help me. (But I'm rather biased).
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 12 2016 15:02
I have an idea for it
not sure if it will work so i will try it out.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 15:03
Or ... in the description indicate that X weapons are twinlinked?
As part of the 'Obliterators Special Rules'?
The profiles then don't need to change, as the information is in the rule.
And other than the re-roll, they're identical to items already in codex.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 12 2016 15:05
Could do it that way or add a rule to the weapon that "if parent is obliterator + rule twinlinked"
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 15:07
It's easier to just put it in the 'Obliterator Weapons' rule.
then you don't have multiple case issues.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 12 2016 15:08
Can do its just wont apear on the profile.
Its kind of a compromise,
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 15:09
None of the items listed in the 'codex profiles section' have TL listed ... except for combi-bolter.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 12 2016 15:10
As they may or may not be depending on what takes them that was cartags point, short of having two of every gin the only way to add it to the profiles is with logic like that above.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 15:11
It's easier/faster to ensure that the reference is in the Obliterators Weapons rule.
And long term easier to maintain.
"The following Obliterator Weapons are Twin-Linked: Flamer, meltagun, plasma gun"
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 12 2016 15:13
Its weather its more useful to be in the profile for users or if the reference is convenient enough, i generally refer to profiles you see. its not alot of work to add three rules for "if parent is oliterator" is all im syaing :)
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 15:15
As a compromise until the decision is made that verbiage would help clarify. Your call. I would prefer not to seriously contradict our catalog maintainers.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 12 2016 15:15
True it is @cartag 's decision.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 15:16
If we start unrolling things like that, then we should expound on the fact that Daemon gives 'Fear' etc. .... it just becomes a somewhat slippery slope.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 12 2016 15:18
True, i probably go too far sometimes and make future work harder on myself :P i think your compramise is good.
Paste it as a comment in the bug.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 15:45
What do you think?
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 12 2016 15:46
Yup looks alright.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 12 2016 15:51
Ahh i see, he was hping for the profiles :P
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 16:12
Awesome. It's not a bug, it is a feature request.
Pardon me for being blunt. But the range weapon profiles in the back of the book don't list twin-linked anywhere either.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 16:18
I can think of multiple places that would need to be implemented. C:CSM, C:KDK, WH40K C:PtG ... and then managed from there.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 12 2016 16:24
Yeah thats what cartag referenced on the bug and i agreed.
cartag
@cartag
Feb 12 2016 16:34
:point_up: February 12, 2016 7:00 AM That's being updated in the new Daemon index. It is going to match what the KDK book does.
:point_up: February 12, 2016 7:46 AM In 1.16 we'll be able to set a condition to "Not Instance Of" unlike in 1.15 where we only have "Instance Of"
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 16:41
@cartag And cartag to the rescue! Woo! It's gonna be a good day.
@cartag thanks for the headsup. :) :+1:
cartag
@cartag
Feb 12 2016 16:52
@OftKilted do you play Daemons as well?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 16:53
...... :) :) :)
cartag
@cartag
Feb 12 2016 16:53
Would you mind giving that a look over, make sure everything is kosher before I upload?
or at least make sure I didn't break anything major in converting everything over from Entries to Shared Entries?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 16:54
It would be my pleasure!
cartag
@cartag
Feb 12 2016 16:54
gracias
the decurion is in there also, you may need to grab the latest wh40k.gst from git though if a new release hasn't been pushed
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 16:55
Ahh, that's no issue at all. I have the repository cloned on my home system.
cartag
@cartag
Feb 12 2016 16:55
:+1:
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 16:59
Argh ... sone of a beescuit ... adding files from mail not de hotness ...
I'll finetooth comb it this evening :)
cartag
@cartag
Feb 12 2016 17:02
I'm more worried about any big glaring bugs, like forgetting to link a unit after it's switched to Shared Entry, that kind of thing lol
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 17:03
What's killing me is not being able to find a reasonable guide to paint the Plaguebearers like the white and purple one on p78 of the C:D
codex:daemon
I have some ideas ...
(about the paint scheme) but I'd like to see what they were doing.
@cartag I'll stare at it and get back to you on it this evening. I have to put out some DirectAccess fires. And we will have it gtg :)
cartag
@cartag
Feb 12 2016 17:59
Use this one instead. Found a few issues.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 18:23
Got it.
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Feb 12 2016 20:04
Ok found out why the Imperial Stronghold isn't showing up, it has a hide modifier hanging off it.
Also if a unit has a Category of "Battle Formation" how/where do i get that to appear in Battlescribe?
BSData/wh40k#1806 the "Imperial Stronghold" is listed as a Battle Formation
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Feb 12 2016 20:15
Nvm, found it, need to choose Apocalypse as the force type :)
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 20:24
@amis92 BSData/wh40k#1265 "In the Legacies description where it states the "Space Marine vehicle" restriction on eligible vehicles for a Legacy upgrade, we are assuming that it means Codex: Space Marines armies. But at the start of the Legacies section of the book it says "subject to the limits set out in the entries that follow, any vehicle in a Codex: Space Marines, Codex: Dark Angels, codex: Space Wolves or Codex: Blood Angels army; a Tyrant's Legion army as detailed..... may choose from the following..." - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/625841.page#7408148
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 20:37
@penguin20000 Perhaps the Imperial Stronghold was previously an Apocalypse formation? that has been moved to standard?
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Feb 12 2016 20:37
Not sure where the Stronghold is listed tbh
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 20:38
Well ... if you do a google search for Stronghold Assault Codex ... you're likely to find something useful. ;)
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Feb 12 2016 20:39
I Have the Stronghold Assulat book ;)
Looks like it was in Warzone Armageddon
The original author added it to the file :)
So that solves that mystery
Currently fixing BSData/wh40k#1807
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 20:40
So it isn't in the stronghold assault book?
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Feb 12 2016 20:40
Then i need to do some real work :(
Nope
The "Strongpoint" is
Craig Sniffen
@MasterSlowPoke
Feb 12 2016 20:42
ok, if I need to set a modifier on a unit if it's taken in a specific formation, how would I go about that
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 20:43
I believe that is an issue that we ran into with Imperial Knights? And the war convocation?
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Feb 12 2016 20:45
It's in the 6E Apocalypse book.
Craig Sniffen
@MasterSlowPoke
Feb 12 2016 20:46
I'm looking at how the gladius does it, and I'm trying to adapt it
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 20:46
I know.
@penguin20000 Which is why I asked for the assistance from someone who has the alternate resource.
Craig Sniffen
@MasterSlowPoke
Feb 12 2016 20:48
what's is "parent category" defined as?
troops, etc?
no that doesn't make sense
I need to make drop pods free if the formation is "the blackmanes"
Craig Sniffen
@MasterSlowPoke
Feb 12 2016 21:06
how about what "direct parent"
on a modifier
cartag
@cartag
Feb 12 2016 21:18
If you do Direct Parent, Instance Of, it should allow you to choose the formation
Craig Sniffen
@MasterSlowPoke
Feb 12 2016 21:33
it doesn't look like it's triggering
I have Formation -> Unit -> Transports
transports is a link to an entry group
I'd like to hide it and show an alternate entry group with a free drop pod in it
that seems like the best way to do it after looking at the war convo
cartag
@cartag
Feb 12 2016 21:35
Why do a separate group, just set the drop pod with a modifier of set points to 0 if criteria are met?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 21:36
@cartag :+1:
Craig Sniffen
@MasterSlowPoke
Feb 12 2016 21:37
I tried doing that but couldn't get the criteria right
cartag
@cartag
Feb 12 2016 21:37
can you copy the data file into here so I can take a look at it?
Craig Sniffen
@MasterSlowPoke
Feb 12 2016 21:37
sure
need to set points to 0 if in "the blackmanes" formation
formation id is b465-8f76-111c-4aa2
cartag
@cartag
Feb 12 2016 21:41
For which unit?
Craig Sniffen
@MasterSlowPoke
Feb 12 2016 21:43
drop pod
cartag
@cartag
Feb 12 2016 21:48
Aha, now I think I see what we're trying to do... ok, what you may want to do is add a link to the Drop Pod to the units themselves. Have a modifier on that to Hide, with a condition of the parent category being equal to 0 of "The Blackmanes"
Then set a modifier to Hide on the Transport entry group to Hide, with a condition of "parent category equal to 1 of 'The Blackmanes'"
Craig Sniffen
@MasterSlowPoke
Feb 12 2016 21:49
that's basically what I was trying to do with the transports entry group, I'll give it a shot with those conditions
cartag
@cartag
Feb 12 2016 21:49
This way there's no need to route it through the Transport group, and you can add the points modifier off of the Drop Pod entry there
If the formation does only drop pods, that will be the easiest way to go
Craig Sniffen
@MasterSlowPoke
Feb 12 2016 21:50
You could take anything, just that drop pods are free
cartag
@cartag
Feb 12 2016 21:50
oh... hmmm
holy crap, this actually worked!?
blob
blob
Ok, so you can have a "Parent Category" condition nested down at least four levels and it will work. That is bad ass.
Craig Sniffen
@MasterSlowPoke
Feb 12 2016 21:55
but does that apply to other formations in that force?
that was the problem that I had when I tried that first
cartag
@cartag
Feb 12 2016 21:56
It would affect ANY drop pods under the category of that formation
So if the only rule is that any drop pods taken by that formation are free, it works
Scrap what I said at first
you don't need to do a separate entry for each. All you need to do is the one modifier and one condition I shared in the first pic
Just ignore what I said here: :point_up: February 12, 2016 2:48 PM
see it applies to other formations if you take the blackmanes
unless maybe I have an old version of battlescribe, I should check that
what I'm guessing is happening is it's looking at the parent category, which is "Formation", seeing that it has a Blackmanes, so any pods in the same Force as a Blackmanes detachment are free
what we need to do is have it look at the parent entry, and see if if is blackmanes
cartag
@cartag
Feb 12 2016 22:05
If you don't have The Blackmanes formation in the roster, it will leave them at 35 pts
Craig Sniffen
@MasterSlowPoke
Feb 12 2016 22:07
yeah
the formation doesn't make all drop pods free for everyone in any formation, just the ones in that specific formation
cartag
@cartag
Feb 12 2016 22:08
yeah, i get that, I just didn't realize it had that side effect of making others free too
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 22:53
@cartag do you think the drop pod idea might work for the war conclave?
cartag
@cartag
Feb 12 2016 22:55
war conclave?
cartag
@cartag
Feb 12 2016 23:01
Actually, screw it, I have an easy answer. Make a link to the Drop Pod entry, set a modifier to 0 pts on each one of the units that can be part of that formation. Set it to hide if it's not a part of it. Leave the 35 pt drop pod there, rely on people being smart enough to select the right one. For the short term it'll work
cartag
@cartag
Feb 12 2016 23:14
The wording of it states that they MAY take a drop pod for 0 points. By technicality, having both in there (0 pts and 35 pts) is just giving them the options the codex contains XD
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 23:18
@cartag the adeptus mechanicus war conclave with the imperial knights IOS bug
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Feb 12 2016 23:27

@OftKilted

@amis92 BSData/wh40k#1265 "In the Legacies description where it states the "Space Marine vehicle" restriction on eligible vehicles for a Legacy upgrade, we are assuming that it means Codex: Space Marines armies. But at the start of the Legacies section of the book it says "subject to the limits set out in the entries that follow, any vehicle in a Codex: Space Marines, Codex: Dark Angels, codex: Space Wolves or Codex: Blood Angels army; a Tyrant's Legion army as detailed..... may choose from the following..." - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/625841.page#7408148

so, what did you want to ask here?

OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 23:34
@amis92 it is possible that the legacies doesn't apply at all to the imperial Knights based on the surrounding text in the section
I was going over the older open issues, and thought it interesting (I run imperial Knights as well, so I was curious) :-)
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 12 2016 23:40
The IOS bug, is a BS bug and working around it is just that, it can just wait for the new version with the "not instance of"
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 12 2016 23:48
@hisop true enough. It isn't going to kill anything to wait :smile: I was just considering other ways around the issue
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 12 2016 23:52
I think i would just end up "re-doing" it the simple way (when it worked) so its like double work for me :P
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Feb 12 2016 23:58
@OftKilted well that's exactly the point. As it's "possible that [they] don't apply", it's not clear and as such the option should be allowed, as stressed in mentioned issue.