These are chat archives for BSData/wh40k

3rd
Mar 2016
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 03 2016 09:00
I think this depends if you think it is use full for your users and you are going to maintain it i leave it to you it depends on situation i find. For example i will go the extra mile for small codexes only updated every few years but something like SM with new rules every week i would not. for how to accomplish what you asked just add the same validation to each rule so "hide if less than three" that they would receive.
@SuperPranx
Also @SuperPranx are you working on #1940 or should i?
Ivan Milanov
@SuperPranx
Mar 03 2016 09:06
Not working on it at the moment and I probably won't be able to work on it for the next day or two, so you can take it if you have time
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 03 2016 09:06
Sure will do.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 03 2016 09:14
i think we should change the default filter too "is:issue is:open -label:"BattleScribe bug" "
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 03 2016 09:25
I use a bookmark for it
Ivan Milanov
@SuperPranx
Mar 03 2016 09:34
In that case you might want to remove the label from #1841 since it's only there until v1.16 comes out
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 03 2016 09:41
Thats my point, i dont want to see things that are issues that will only be resolved when 1.16 comes out, we should look at them again when it does, but now they clutter up the list of things i can actually fix :P
Ivan Milanov
@SuperPranx
Mar 03 2016 10:00
As long as we don't forget to change it back afterwards, it's ok with me :)
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 03 2016 10:00
Well its not like a big deal i just thought it may be usefull
It would be better if GH let you have "saved queries" like TFS
Then you could just have a button for it, but GH doesnt let you custimize the list AFAIK
Ivan Milanov
@SuperPranx
Mar 03 2016 10:04
Haven't used GH too much in projects, mainly SVN for version control and JIRA for issue tracking, and I can tell that the feature would be very helpful.
Btw, how long does it take to be added to the members list?
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 03 2016 10:06
Normally its very quick, i don't have permissions to add users but i may ask @amis92 to allow me in future when situations such as this where he is unavailable arise. until a member with sufficient privilege pops up its just a waiting game, sorry about that.
Ivan Milanov
@SuperPranx
Mar 03 2016 10:09
It's ok, I just wanted to know because I get very anxious when I have multiple changes for separate issues and I want to do several smaller commits, but I don't because it all goes in the same pull request in the end.
Thanks for the info :)
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 03 2016 10:16
I'm happy to help out in the meantime as long as you have documented each change, and it doesn't hit any Cat's currently being worked on (generally chaos and eldar i would contact there authors before doing anything for example as they are both doing extensive work) i would be happy to approve them, im normally always around as i'm at the office and working on GH anyway. Many other codex's are "un-managed" such as SW and I generally try to cover them and keep up to date or anything i manage (mostly small human dex's skitarii sisters GK etc) should be fine to push to in general as long as changes are documented for reference.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 03 2016 16:40
@penguin20000 @OftKilted can you check this? its IOS third time its been raised today? i thought it was fixed in todays release? #1951
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Mar 03 2016 16:41
I think i fixed that yesterday
He's talking about Ven Dreads
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 03 2016 16:42
Will you check on ios?
with todays release?
Hmm if it heps our version of SM is 50 and on appspot its 48, not sure if its taken it yet?
Your fix is in 50
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 03 2016 16:47
well 49
So just need to wait.
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Mar 03 2016 16:47
i can check ios
with out dev ones
*with our
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 03 2016 16:48
Nah your fix is V49 and release is still at v48, appspot just hasent updated yet.
Problem solved :)
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Mar 03 2016 16:48
ahh k :)
Simple
just the way i like it
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 20:08
G'day all.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 20:10
Good afternoon, so I hadn't seen any issues reported for the formation problem?
@Kohato (I"m currently listed as the Necron catalog maintainer, which is why I'm kinda grilling you)
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 20:11
No issues reported - It was something I noticed after adding Dominus.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 20:11
You added Dominus to where?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 20:11
No issue - I figured the maintainer would contact me if there was an issue
Sorry, after Adding dominus maniple to Skitarii
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 20:11
So, the dominus mantiple is already there.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 20:11
which also specifies a single model whereas a unit can be taken
Yea - I added it a couple weeks ago
So I went to the Necron Start collecting box
and saw it ALSO specified a single stalker - very clearly
So that was my first change
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 20:12
That's fine, I'm fine with that too. (I didn't actually create that formation)
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 20:12
the second came when I thought some more and noticed that the harvest in the codex specifies a single spyder
and the adaptive subroutines supports that logic
by saying "The Spyder"
and not "Any of the spyders"
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 20:12
It does, I'll agree. It indicates a single.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 20:13
So thats all those changes were, each leading to another really
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 20:14
That's cool.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 20:16
For the future, should I report them as issues with the suggested fixes - or continue the commit/pulls that I've been doing? I kind of just started throwing out pull requests from the get-go.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 20:16
At the least, the group appreciates having issues opened, so we can track and cross reference the provided solutions, with the fix being provided.
On the potential that the issue is that the issue being reported isn't actually accurate.
bleaurgh On the possibility that the issue reported is inaccurate.
Not that I've had the opportunity to check.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 20:19
Alright, noted. I put in a request to join the group but until then I'll stick with Issues for things.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 20:19
So, getting you added as part of the team would be solid.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 20:19
My thoughts too :)
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 20:19
I'll flag @amis92 so that he can take a look at your application.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 20:20
Solid, thanks much.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 20:20
But ensuring that we have eyes on stuff prior to submission and validation of the issues is good. We get lots of people reporting issues that turn out to not be issues. :)
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 20:23
Yea, I've looked at the issue discussions before submitting my changes to see if they'd been discussed - I see a lot of false positives, and never really though that there could be platform specific issues with it, but I see that a lot as well.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 20:25
For the Canoptek Harvest, there are arguments on both sides of the coin. i.e. 1 model = 1 unit according to the rules.(Hence 1 spyders is the same as 1 unit since every model is part of the unit, even if there is only one model in the unit.
The counterpoint being that it says '1 canoptek spyder' and that it indicates in the adaptive subroutines that it is 'the spider' not multiple.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 20:26
Yea, there is for Dominus Maniple as well.
Another counterpoint supporting the change - Judicator Batallion actually specifies a Unit of stalkers
Where Retribution Phalanx states 1 Stalker.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 20:27
The promotional picture actually had three spiders in the formation http://s1253.photobucket.com/user/Omegalith/media/image.jpg1_zpsjwrnzgz8.jpg.html
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 20:27
So there is a written difference between a single and a unit.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 20:28
In general, we try to have a 'liberal' interpretation ... within reason.
Or at least talk to the issue. (i.e. multiple relics for space marines as an example)
However, back to the rules 1 model = 1 unit.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 20:30
Right
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 20:30
While the 'Start Collecting' formations are ... unique, and cause lots of fun 'issues'
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 20:30
The rules also specify that models can never be part of multiple formations.
Which leads to the idea that a formation could have less models than a normal unit
Yea, they do ...
Really a general FAQ from GW would be golden.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 20:32

“Although units cannot normally belong to more than one Detachment, units from a Formation that is part of a Necron Decurion Detachment are an exception. They count as part of both their Formation and the Detachment, and have all associated Command Benefits and special rules.”

Excerpt From: Games Workshop Ltd. “Codex - Necrons (ePub).”

Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 20:33
Ahah, good eye.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 20:33
The model being part of more than one formation is to keep you from 'doublecounting'
I.E. I have a formation that requires 1-4 Bloodcrushers, and another formation that has a requirement of 0-3 bloodcrushers as part of formation that both can join into a detachment.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 20:34
Alright, makes sense.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 20:34
They are counted separately, that 1 required doesn't get the special benefits from the second one.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 20:36
Hmm, so would that allow multiple spyders to be taken in the unit - but only a single one be a part of the formation - which is allowed to grant adaptive subroutines?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 20:37
For example, the Gorepack requires 1-4 units of fleshhounds, and the Charnel Cohort allows 1-4. Gorepack fleshhounds get Hammer of Wrath, Charnel does not. But they have to be separate units, I couldn't count a single unit as being in both.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 20:38
Ah no, I don't think my example would work - because the others wouldn't be a part of the decurion detachment since they have no formation allowed in the detachment on their own.
That makes sense - for the gorepack I mean
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 20:39
No, the logic is that 1 Canoptek Spider (which is how it is listed on the datasheet) "May include up to two additional Canpotek Spyders"
So the 'Unit Composition' is 1 Canoptek Spyder ... which has an upgrade option of up to 2 canoptek spyders
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 20:41
That's where it breaks down for me - the Triarch Stalker is also a unit of 1
which is allowed to take additional
but the Judicator Batallion specifies a unit of stalkers and not 1 stalker.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 20:43
So, 1 Model = 1 Unit. But the model has an upgrade that allow it to take two.
RAW, I could see it being legitimate to take 1 Triarch Stalker (And include my additional two at 125pts each)
While it may not be RAI.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 20:45
The unit does, the model doesn't - The unit dataslate is "Canoptek Spyders" with a unit composition of "1 Canoptek Spyder"
so a formation requiring "1 Canoptek Spyder" would be different from a formation requiring "Canoptek Spyders"
Along with its special rule which would be non-functional with more than 1, as there is no written rule to decide which spyder to measure 12" from.
That shows 3 spyders, in the Canoptek Harvest.
Which is alignment with the 1 Canoptek Spyder (that I can upgrade with two additional)
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 20:47
The images can't be considered rules.
That shows 8 preatorians
when the minimum for 2 units would be 10
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 20:47
No, but 1 Canoptek Spyder is allowed per RAW to take an upgrade of 2 more.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 20:48
1 unit of Canoptek Spyders is.
each model has its own upgrade
Which also directly contradicts another formation in the book, the battalion stating 1 unit of stalkers, when the situation for that model is the same.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 20:51
So, as you can see there are arguments on both sides. And this is for players to determine how they should be interpreting this.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 20:51
Agreed, there is really no solid answer to it
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 20:52
We (in general) tend to provide a liberal interpretation, and will often document the controversy, and let people choose which path they will go.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 20:52
I'll go ahead and cancel the commits - I can see the reasoning for keeping it open.
Open for user interpretation I mean
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 20:53
You're right, there is no solid answer to it. But by enforcing a particular viewpoint we are implying that there is a specific answer.
From the spyders perspective, I can see it being valid from both regards. Even from the Stalker perspective, I can see it being valid in both regards.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 20:54
I'll submit a change for the Dominus then as well - to keep that open, as I created it for only a single model rather than the unit
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 20:55

“A Formation datasheet will list the Army List Entries which make up the Formation,”

Excerpt From: Games Workshop Ltd. “Codex - Necrons (ePub)"

And the Army List Entry is what is listed when you are looking at Canoptek Spyders.
Can the dominus 'unit' take multiple dominus?
Nope, the Tech Priest Dominus as a unit composition of 1 Dominus, with no options to take multiple in the Army List Entry.
So, that doesn't need to be opened, as the 'Army List Entry' doesn't give the option of multiple Tech Priest Dominus' as an upgrade. It's always just one model.
Both the Spyders and the Stalkers on the other hand are a unit with a composition of '1 Canoptek Spyder' and '1 Triarch Stalker' with the option to increase their number.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 21:02
Sorry, the dominus maniple issue is the Warcraller
not the techpriest.
Sorry, Dunecrawler - not warcrawler.
It's listed as "1 Dunecrawler" on the datasheet, but a Unit of Dunecrawlers starts with 1, and can buy 2 more.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 21:04
Interesting.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 21:05
Yea, so it's the same exact issue as Retribution Phalanx and Harvest.
So if we're treating the formations as open to interpretation until a written FAQ is produced - I'd think it would be best to open that unit up to the normal upgrades.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 21:06
@hisop Any thoughts on the Start Collecting Skitarii, and the 1 Dunecrawler? With the 2 dunecrawler upgrade?
Hisop being the current maintainer of the Skitarii/Mechanicus.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 21:07
Ah thanks, good to know those if I'm looking to join.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 21:08
So, it would be 'Open to Interpretation' as long as it could be argued via RAW.
e.g. If the unit is a 'Unit of 1' that has an option (In the Army List Entry) to upgrade itself by X, then RAW, it would make sense to allow that, RAW. Until FAQ'd.
And this is because a Formation is a collection of Army List Entries.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 21:12
Good rule of thumb for these changes
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 21:12
(And unfortunately GeeDub isn't consistent with their language.)
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 21:13
Yea, a formation being defined as Army List Entries is a good thing to find, reading that I can completely see both sides.
No ... no they're not :/
So, pending @hisop 's thoughts, I'll get a change in for Dominus Maniple to adhere to that as well.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 21:14
I'd submit it as an issue, so we can talk about it.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 21:15
Alright
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 21:15
So, formations can also have specific restrictions on what it can include.
It is possible that in the formation restrictions, it might explicitly list it as a single of X.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 21:18
Which it does say "1 X" in both Start Collecting formations, and "1 Unit" in the batallion formation. But that could also just come back to inconsistent wording, like you said ... Geedubs...
And in the Harvest formation - "1 X, 1 Unit, and 1 Unit"
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 21:20
An army list entry will give you the number and type of models that form the basic unit. So, 1 of X implies 1 Army List Entry of X. As Formations are collections of Army List Entries.
Unless otherwise specified in the restrictions section of the formation.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 21:21
Right, so just inconsistant wording is what it comes down to.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 21:21
Bingo.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 21:21
Joy of Joys :/
I can see how that makes this job nice and fun.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 21:21
Based on that, I'm going to close your pull request, and not merge it? Does that seem reasonable?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 21:21
Perfectly
I'll throw an issue out for @hisop to look at on Dominus, but I'd say this logic applies there as well
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 21:28
I wonder if the Leman Russ from the Start Collecting Astra Militarium does as well....
it's an interesting set of questions to ponder.
But thanks for your enthusiasm :)
(Which is why merging prior to discussion can be painful and require rolling back changes.)
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 21:29
I'd assume its the same. Each of the dataslates in the start collecting box states only the models included - but I don't have the AM codex to be sure
haha
No problem - Been a while since I'd had a hearty discussion on nothing but 3 formations
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 21:30
But the Army List Entries for the models included may allow upgrades.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 21:30
Exactly - I assume it does, because I know Russ's can be fielded in units.
of more than 1.
Just not entirely sure how as I don't have that codex.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 21:31
i.e. I am not explicitly restricted to MSU for the warriors unless it says 10 Warriors.
Yeah ... donm
Dom'
Don't have that book either.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 21:33
My roomie has that, so I have access to it. Just Tau and Necrons for me.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 21:34
You might consider updating your join request.
And stick around here, we have good discussions on issues.
If you're interested in the bleeding edge for Battlescribe, I suggest joining https://gitter.im/BattleScribe/Alphas
Jon posts stuff on the alpha builds there.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 21:50
I'll do all 3 - thanks :) I saw there was a brand new Battlescribe in Alpha that's supposed to change alot, it'd be interesting to see that.
arabviking
@arabviking
Mar 03 2016 23:01
Any way I can add a single model my army list? My TO might allow the Obsidian knight, but he is not an option in knight formations on battlescribe.
So if I could add him as a single unit
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 23:03
Is it a lord of war choice for your army in a CAD?
arabviking
@arabviking
Mar 03 2016 23:05
It is complicated
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 23:05
The obsidian knight is a legendary lord of war choice
arabviking
@arabviking
Mar 03 2016 23:05
ahh
I want to use him in of the formation/detachment for knights.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 23:05
Add an additional formation of type unbound with knights and you should be able to add him
I'm not sure his rules let him be chosen in a standard formation
What formation?
arabviking
@arabviking
Mar 03 2016 23:06
Yeah, that was the issue, but he said yes.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 23:06
Clarify who said yes?
arabviking
@arabviking
Mar 03 2016 23:06
Me and him read the part about "any knight" so we thought, why not the obsidian knight
The tournament organizer.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 23:06
What formation?
arabviking
@arabviking
Mar 03 2016 23:07
Either baronial court or the household detatchment.
ahh, i see what you guys did
Makes sense, as the obsidian knight acutally doesn't have a battlefield role.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 23:11
He's a legendary unique
Looking for his Dataslate
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 23:17
It is in the mon't ka book : here's the reference "Obsidian Knight (Warzone Damocles: Mont'Ka)[edit]
Only present in a mission in Mont'Ka, and unlike Gerantius there is no indication if he should be able to be taken in a Knight Detachment or as a Lord of War choice for other armies.
He is a Knight Paladin and comes with a few extra rules: WS/BS6 and With Preferred Enemy and Hatred (Tau) means that bluberries will get blended. BS6 also means far more accuracy with that Battlecannon, while his 3++ Ion Shield allows him to tank hits like a champ.
Bear in mind, despite his improved stat-line and as mentioned before, he doesn't "fit" anywhere in a Knight Detachment and therefore can't get any Heirlooms or fit in any formations."
So, if you were to take him he would have to run as a standalone lord of war choice
@arabviking did that help?
arabviking
@arabviking
Mar 03 2016 23:20
Well not really, all though I do understand the train of though.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 23:21
So, he's a unique character and could be taken as a LoW choice. Just not as part of a household. Not what you were looking for.
arabviking
@arabviking
Mar 03 2016 23:22
Why would be allowed to taken as an LoW for an army?
By that logic, he would be able to taken in any detachment and formation that says "any knight can be used in X".
and that LoW stuff is from the last codex, it doesn't exist anymore, except for FW knights
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 23:23
No, by LoW there is a single slot choice that can be taken as a LoW for an army.
In a CAD
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 03 2016 23:23
Obsidian knight: "Only present in a mission in Mont'Ka, and unlike Gerantius there is no indication if he should be able to be taken in a Knight Detachment or as a Lord of War choice for other armies."
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 23:23
So, 1 HQ, 2 troops, 1 LoW (primary detachment)
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 03 2016 23:24
IF your TO allow him you can add it to your own version of the IK codex for personal use but as per the rules there is no way to take him outside mont'ka
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 23:24
You could do him as an unbound force choice as a legendary
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 03 2016 23:26
No you cant, not without a custom sheet
You would essentialy be proposing using rules from a specific mission like the ork cannon thing for a "normal" game
It is a leap, some TO's may allow it as in reality its just another knight, but as per the rules there is no premis for taking him outside that mission and in essence it would be considered homebrew
blob
@Kohato @OftKilted
arabviking
@arabviking
Mar 03 2016 23:30
Exactly hisop. That is why I told my TO that if he was sure if I could take him or not. Because I already thought that he wouldn't be allowed, as I only found in the mission and apoc.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 03 2016 23:30
Okay, so if you agree whats the discusion on? im lost :P
arabviking
@arabviking
Mar 03 2016 23:30
I agree with you 100%
I was disagreeing with Oftkilted
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 23:31
@hisop does the onager allow additional "upgrade" units (like the canopek spyder)
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 23:31
I think he was confirming that his TO was wrong.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 03 2016 23:31
Ahh right occupational hazard i just roll with it
Nope
arabviking
@arabviking
Mar 03 2016 23:31
tbh, I want the TO to be right, because I want to run the knight, lol.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 23:32
Haha, Knights ARE fun @arabviking
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 03 2016 23:32
I want it so bad to i feel your pain the obsidian is my favorite.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 23:32
Thanks! I was suggesting workarounds for your issue. Not actively proposing it. 😋
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 23:33
@hisop We're at a crossroads for the Dunecrawler (and stemming from that, Canoptek Harvest, as well as other Start Collecting Formations)
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 23:33
Just do a total unbound list.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 23:33
Haha, If a TO allows an unbound list, might as well go crazy
arabviking
@arabviking
Mar 03 2016 23:35
I am running a imperial knights only highlander lsit for the tourney, as it has the biggest prize support, don't need to win the tourney, just need to beat all the other higlander lists in rankings.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 03 2016 23:35
For dunecrawler: the unit is called "Dunecrawlers" not "Dunecrawler" so it is solatary
can you show me the canotep example is it in codex?
arabviking
@arabviking
Mar 03 2016 23:36
Ohh, that is the issue, that you can take multiple dunecrawlers in a unit in that formation?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 23:37
Yea, let me snap a picture of the Harvest and then the spyder page
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 03 2016 23:37
You cant as its not a unit :P
But that is the issue im atempting to resolve yes
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 23:37
and it is Dunecrawlers in the codex
arabviking
@arabviking
Mar 03 2016 23:37
I see the issue now, nice.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 23:37
with a default unit size of 1 dunecrawler
arabviking
@arabviking
Mar 03 2016 23:37
I have the codex, 2 sexc
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 03 2016 23:38
There is no such unit as "Onager Dunecrawler" (got the codex in hand), only a model. the unit is "Onager Dunecrawlers".
arabviking
@arabviking
Mar 03 2016 23:38
Unit entry (as in the back of the codex) is singular form, but the dataslate is plural.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 03 2016 23:39
Not a "unit entry" that is a misleading term borrowed from 4th
It is a profile for an individual dunecrawler
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 23:39
It's not a unit entry. Formations are collections of Army List Entries
arabviking
@arabviking
Mar 03 2016 23:39
profile, yes.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 03 2016 23:39
The unit entry or dataslate is for "dunecrawlers"
arabviking
@arabviking
Mar 03 2016 23:40
But nice to know, such wording are easy to foget.
I remember seeing a lot of discussion about the canoptek spyder wording.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 03 2016 23:40
Yes it causes many issues, many of us have played for 4 or 5 editions atleast.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 23:40
IMG_0920.JPG
IMG_0921.JPG
Dunecrawler is the same way - formation states 1 dunecrawler, but the unit is "Dunecrawlers
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 03 2016 23:41
Exacly so its not an issue
I remember this isse
arabviking
@arabviking
Mar 03 2016 23:41
Indeed.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 03 2016 23:41
MY best friend plays necrons
arabviking
@arabviking
Mar 03 2016 23:41
I remember fielding two spyders, didn't do it maliscously, just thought everything was fielded in units.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 23:41
I agree - It should be limited to 1 model. @OftKilted also brought up that the formation lists the page of the Canoptek Spyders (the unit), so that the unit which allows more to be purchased is true.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 03 2016 23:42
We saw this when the book came out, i would dig through the bugs to find the last time it was brough up but i CBA as its several hundred back :P
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 23:42
I'm on the camp that 1 model listed in formation means 1 model - but I could see from Kilted's side too
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 23:42
I'm on the Formations are collections of army list entries side.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 23:43
I main Necrons as well and my bud plays Skitarri, so thats what brought this up initially :)
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 03 2016 23:43
@arabviking i do that kind of stuff all the time even at tournaments especialy when a book is new.
arabviking
@arabviking
Mar 03 2016 23:43
I try to stay updated
But an hour a day isn't even enough anymore.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 23:43
And there is no army list entry that is "Canoptek Spyder" there is Canoptek Spyders.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 23:43
@arabviking It's pretty easy to get lost in how much is in this game
arabviking
@arabviking
Mar 03 2016 23:43
Podcast, blogs, discussions, list building.
The game has starting to release stuff in such a fast pace since around Harlequins release.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 03 2016 23:44
@OftKilted But no-where in any book has it ever stated that, and there is a "canotep spyder" several of them make up a unit of "canotep spyders" this was how the entire of RT and second edition worked.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 23:44
And the unit is a single model. I.E. Minimum size composition "1 Canoptek Spyder"
It isn't. The unit size is 1 Canoptek spyder.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 23:45
My reasoning for being single model means single model, no additional allowed would be the harvest rule stating "The Spyder", not "Any of the Spyders"
for Adaptive Protocols
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 23:45
But it has an upgrade that allows it to take two more
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 03 2016 23:45
So you admit "1 Canotep spyder" exists? i got the impression it was a magic force that comes together and only exists in a unit
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 23:45
*subroutines
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 03 2016 23:45
I know i am never a person but only people in singular form :P
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 23:46
Yes, 1 Canoptek Spyder exists as the minimum unit size for "Canoptek Spyders"
arabviking
@arabviking
Mar 03 2016 23:46
The english language is tricky
dice means both plural and singular now.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 23:46
Another one to bring into this though - Retribution Phalanx states 1 Triarch STalker
but Judicator specifically states 1 Unit of Triarch Stalkers
Dice is 1 damnit! :smile:
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 23:47
Which also is the same from that regards. I can see it both ways. But we don't have a faq for it.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 03 2016 23:47
No A SPyder makes up a unit it is not only the singular version of the group
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 23:47
1 die. Multiple dice
arabviking
@arabviking
Mar 03 2016 23:48
It is used both now.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 03 2016 23:48
IF you so wish i can find many things in the books that "do not have there own page"
Like an apothacary.
Has no page
Has no entry
But is individual
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 23:49

“FORMATIONS

Formation datasheets are identified by this symbol. The rules for Formations can be found in Warhammer 40,000: The Rules. A Formation datasheet will list the Army List Entries which make up the Formation, any restrictions

True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 03 2016 23:49
A red scorpians list can use an apotacary as a sergeant, but it has no page so clearly it cant.
Well that was good english.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 23:50

“upon what it may include, and any special rules the Formation’s units gain.”

Excerpt From: Games Workshop Ltd. “Codex - Necrons (ePub).” Games Workshop Ltd

So, a formation includes army list entries, and the rules for the army list entries are in the entry.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 03 2016 23:52
Can you define army list entries as per GW rules
arabviking
@arabviking
Mar 03 2016 23:52
Guys, I can save you a lot of brainpower, there is no consistency in GW.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 03 2016 23:53
Too late now man
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 23:53
Haha, can has been opened.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 03 2016 23:53
BTW i veto any change to this
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 23:53
It was a change to enforce it.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 03 2016 23:53
But i am intrested to see if i can be convinced
Ahh yeah enforced .
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 23:54
Currently the catalog allows multiple spyers, and multiple stalkers in the Retribution PHalanx
so my commit was to stop that
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 23:54
Do you really want me to copy the entire army list entry section from the codex?
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 03 2016 23:55
I am reading it, and its scetchy at best
Im telling you now we will never agree
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 23:56
"Each Army List Entry describes a unit of Citadel Minatures"
The formations in question are not using a unit
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 03 2016 23:56
But i am also going to point out i have never met a player or gone to a tournament that disagreed with this and 1 stalker/spider/crawler
If your determined to push on with this @OftKilted i will submit evidence tommorow but just got off from 16 hours.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 23:57
I firmly believe that it can be interpreted both ways.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 03 2016 23:58
Page battle maniple
64 skitarii
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 03 2016 23:58
As such, I vote that we leave the more permissive option available.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 03 2016 23:58
"unit of dunecrawlers"
why would this one entry if it did not mean one as per what comes in the box differ?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 03 2016 23:58
Same as Judicator Batallion vs Retribution Phalanx: Unit of Stalkers vs 1 Stalker.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 03 2016 23:59
They are different for a reason
RAI is not in question
And RAW "could" by some be interpreted differently