These are chat archives for BSData/wh40k

13th
Feb 2016
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 13 2016 00:01
Hey guys, in #1528 IA:14 is the most recent version of the drill but it is intended for use with DKOK not general IG but i could do with a seccond opinion on the method i should use here.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 13 2016 00:09
Do we have a policy for non-GW model rules? Chapterhouse has their big Tau walker and publishes rules for it.... I kinda want to add it since it is available for purchase and has published rules....
http://chapterhousestudios.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=59&product_id=201
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 13 2016 00:15
@cartag : I had to do something similar in the new Tau codex. Some formations required models to bring a Transport and some formations said without transport. But then others had a combination of both. And the CAD allowed optional transport.... I ended up having to create duplicates of the infantry unit for "with Devilfish", "without Devilfish" and "optional Devilfish".
the new updates should help. I've been requesting "any ancestor is instance of ..." for quite a while now.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 13 2016 00:19
@efalsken I've never seen rules published for non-gw stuff. If we start doing that (however) where do we draw the line? Codex Angry Marines? it's a slippery slope.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 13 2016 00:19
it sure is, so I wanted to ask about it.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 13 2016 00:20
Being able to do 'multi-catalog' would fix the issue. But that would require a BS update.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 13 2016 00:20
@OftKilted agreed somewhat, however an "show unofficial" could be added if theirs demand,
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 13 2016 00:20
Chapterhouse is sorta a special case, but I'd think that realistically-balanced rules, updated for the current edition, product is actively sold and is able to be aquired....
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Feb 13 2016 00:20
Haven't chapter house all but stopped processing orders now?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 13 2016 00:21
They're back in business after fun lawsuits.
Unless the stopping is really recent.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 13 2016 00:21
yeah, they were gone for a while, but they survived and are producing again.
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Feb 13 2016 00:21
Last i heard they went very silent and people were having to goto paypal/banks for refunds. But this was probably ~6 months ago
Ahh cool :)
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 13 2016 00:21
They have new stuff, last I checked.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 13 2016 00:22
Anyone got the 7th edition "siege of vraks combo" i cant find it.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 13 2016 00:22
that was IIRC just after the lawsuits were wrapping up. They had to wait for GW to reimbuse their legal fees, etc.
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Feb 13 2016 00:22
It's probably been 6 months to a year since i last heard anything about them
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 13 2016 00:22
@hisop I do.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 13 2016 00:24
ahh good would you look into weather the drill mentioned in #1528 is apropriate for all IG armies or only for DKOK?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 13 2016 00:24
Sure! Let me grab the book :)
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 13 2016 00:24
I was also thinking of fortifications. There are some non-GW fortifications and scenery items coming out (soon) that will have rules. I think it would be cool to add them to Battlescribe. (not like Wargamma not being able to sell as an Aegis Defense Line) rather as a completely new product designed to go with GW's product lines. As long as they don't recast GW or infringe on any GW copyrights, it should be doable.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 13 2016 00:25
On chapterhouse the ruling was if it doesn't have a model GW cant stop them, hence the removal of all non model characters and units.
And generic things like terrain and munitions ect GW cant copyright.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 13 2016 00:26
Yes, but there's nothing in the Copyright Laws against creating entirely new fortifications as long as you don't call it an Imperial Bastion.
anyways.... non-GW-sourced-rules are coming. Forgeworld was the first, but they're not the only independent source for rules. this is only going to get more complicated.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 13 2016 00:27
Technically ... Imperial and Bastion ... even combined may not be copyrightable.
Craig Sniffen
@MasterSlowPoke
Feb 13 2016 00:27
Forgeworld is GW
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 13 2016 00:27
not when they first started publishing rules.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 13 2016 00:28
Regarding 'non-gw' data.
Craig Sniffen
@MasterSlowPoke
Feb 13 2016 00:29
forgeworld was always GW
Forge World was created in 1998, the Brainchild of John Stallard and headed by Paul Robins, the man responsible for the original Thunderhawk Gunship. It was announced to the public in the same edition of White Dwarf as the 3rd Edition of Warhammer 40,000. Forge World was originally created to design Warhammer Terrain (hence the name) and limited edition, large scale collectors edition models.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 13 2016 00:29
If we're going to do those, I highly recommend that we do a 'Hide' unofficial'. I know that we're considering NOT hiding forge world for groups that have few items. But for those who play at GW stores ... I don't want there to be list issues.
Craig Sniffen
@MasterSlowPoke
Feb 13 2016 00:30
you might be thinking of armorcast, which originally called itself forge world before the GW subsidiary was created. they didn't make rules, but they made upscaled epic models on licence from GW
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 13 2016 00:30
I so remember the old Warhound ... it had crazy amounts of character.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 13 2016 00:30
ah... that's what I'm thinking of. But they did publish rules. I've got some ancient tanks that had their own rules.
back in the Epicast days
Craig Sniffen
@MasterSlowPoke
Feb 13 2016 00:31
regardless there's no reason that we should put fandex stuff in the main 40k depository
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 13 2016 00:32
I think if we did do it they should be hidden by default unless "show unofficial" is selected, unlike FW which is part of the game (weather people accept it or not) wich should be shown by default.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 13 2016 00:32
I'd argue that ITC reinterprets GW rules therefor not qualified for inclusion. Same for Angry Marines. But published+purchasable 3rd party products that have rules can be.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 13 2016 00:32
But i agree with @MasterSlowPoke also @MasterSlowPoke you looking over the DE bugs did you say?
Craig Sniffen
@MasterSlowPoke
Feb 13 2016 00:32
if you want to make a memory beta 40k github, go right ahead
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 13 2016 00:33
OR was it the Space wolves?
Craig Sniffen
@MasterSlowPoke
Feb 13 2016 00:33
I'm slowly working on wolves, got held up on an issue that I'll just ignore for now
hopefully it's fixed in 1.16
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Feb 13 2016 00:33
And I've got Craftworlds to continue working on.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 13 2016 00:34
Right i can leave the wolves then got some clean up for DE and IK to do.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 13 2016 00:36
@hisop Which DE bugs?
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 13 2016 00:37
No bugs :P
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 13 2016 00:38
I'm not seeing anything in the issues list. (other than the fact that there probably needs to have work done on the file.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 13 2016 00:38
Yet :P
Just clean up noted some minor issues with the minimum points and the formatting of unit upgrades (nothing major) so just clean up.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 13 2016 00:39
Ahh. I wasn't sure if I'd missed something when I was cleaning up the known issues.
I will say that there are likely profile issues with any characters that can take 'Artefacts of Cruelty' (other than the Succubus, which I fixed )
@hisop So ... what exactly are we looking at in regards to the Hades Breaching Drill? Updating the rules?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 13 2016 00:45
breaching drill special rules.tiff
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 13 2016 00:52
New Questi
Magna Lascannon 72" S10 AP1 Ord2, large blast ....
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 13 2016 00:57
Just need to check that the version in that book is only for DKOK.
You writing up the questoris? or want me?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 13 2016 01:01
dealers choice :-) I can do the knight.
I'm just trying to figure out why all of my descriptions seem to have vanished
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 13 2016 01:16
@hisop With the wording from FW ... I lean towards using the Siege of Vraks - Second edition.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 13 2016 01:25
@hisop Yeah, it's a completely different approach than IA2:2E ... it changes the type from a vehicle stat line, to an Infantry unit type and wounds and leadership.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 13 2016 10:24
Right and its not specific for DKOK?
Hmm i think its difficult, this is like back in 4th when the DA got new scouts.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 13 2016 10:29
THe problem i have is it doesn't say "this may be taken in a standard AM codex" which means theirs no premise to use this version of it outside of siege of vraks.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 13 2016 13:10
@hisop unless you want to be fluffy? The rules do seem simpler though.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 13 2016 14:18
Quick question: Do/should authors
Do their own
Rejoin from branches?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Feb 13 2016 14:24
i.e. Close-out their own pull requests?
True_Hisop
@hisop
Feb 13 2016 14:49
I generally sync straight to the repo avoiding a pull entirely so i guess there is no problem with closing your own pull. And i use DKOK when i play AM just havent done it for a while :P hence lack of new book :P