These are chat archives for BSData/wh40k

8th
Mar 2016
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 08 2016 09:47
Everyone look at #1980
IMHO its probably worth waiting till 1.16 when this should work as expected
But one of us should check it does and if it doesnt raise against the alpha.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 11:59
Waiting until 1.16 would probably be best.
I don't have any alpha builds installed so I can't test it there - anyone else? If not I can install one when I Get home today
Side note @hisop: #1981 apparently GW sent Tyther confirmation that the Dominus Maniple should require a unit of rangers, not vanguard. Should we consider that email a FAQ and change, or just add the option for either?
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 08 2016 12:03
@cartag hates taking email as in reality i could raise a bug about anything and say i got an email confirming it.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 12:04
I had Tyther attach the PDF and the actual email from GW UK
But yea - Email isn't as great as a FAQ :/
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 08 2016 12:05
Yup too easy to fake :P
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 12:07
Back to skitarri though - we should continue the discussion about changing the Dominus to force a single dunecrawler instead of allowing a unit.
Same with Canoptek Harvest/Retribution Phalanx.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 08 2016 12:08
Bah.
Arguments will ensue :P
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 12:10
Hah, true.
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Mar 08 2016 12:18
fyi i made the marine one only 1 Ven dread
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 12:19
Personally: As it should be :0
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Mar 08 2016 12:19
may have broken some other stuff when i did it but that was my own silly fault & seems all fixed now
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 12:19
I think I made the Dominus 1 Dunecrawler as well
Haha
I just made a 2nd shared entry for a single dunecrawler instead of a unit
easier than screwing around with possibly breaking the unit of dunecrawlers.
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Mar 08 2016 12:20
in the end i put a modifier on there.
if start collecting formation then max of 1
I don't like replicating stuff if it's not needed
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 12:21
Oh that'd work nicely.
Perhaps I'll change the dominus to that if I have time today - clean it up a bit
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 16:27
I have an app that lets me edit PDF as much as I like. It's also easy to fake, but too much trouble. Honestly though, something like that probably should have been spotted during production or in the 2 months since release by someone..... I'm leaning towards NOT allowing it as a rule. There are lots of examples of multi-kits that can be built either way, but with rules that specify that they can only be built one way.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 16:29
It was spotted by alot of people apparently - there are multiple forum threads asking why their box has rangers listed - but still no official response publicly by GW
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 16:30
Doesn't matter. the Tau box can build Breachers or Strikers, but the Datasheet specifies only Strikers.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 16:30
By box I meant datasheet.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 16:32
you mean in the other languages?? The Start Collecting datasheets are pretty simple. Most of the pics are for "expanding your army".
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 16:32
Nope, english
some boxes were shipped with datasheets saying vanguard
some with sheets saying rangers
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 16:32
oh.... that's odd
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 16:32
Tyther's email is the first "Response" from GW
but I still agree it's easy to fake and not exactly a public FAQ like it should be
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 16:33
GW has publicly stated that they won't do FAQs anymore.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 16:33
Oh really?
Well that ... is unfortunate
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 16:33
yeah. it's really unfortunate
basically "we care not about this thing called rules."
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 16:33
FORGE THE NARATIVE!
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 16:34
I predict that we will fork BSData/WH40k to BSData/WH40k-ITC before the end of the year.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 16:34
Makes sense when they throw in Unbound as an option in the brb
I would not be opposed to that.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 16:34
but we need ITC to double-down on fair rules and not mob-rules
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 16:35
Yea, there are a some that could use revising for sure
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 16:35
Adepticon Combat Patrol is a great example of a complete re-work to make 40k into something different, but still 40k.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 16:35
Haven't looked at them yet
penguin20000
@penguin20000
Mar 08 2016 16:35

GW has publicly stated that they won't do FAQs anymore.

I've seen this stated a couple of times in places is there a source?

Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 16:36
I saw the new Aussie system for list building, with a list "Value" thing going
nothing about rule FAQs though
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 16:36
every unit is bought model-by-model without formation strangeness.
blob
i have no idea what that is.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 16:36
Well that would definitely change things, back to basics.
lol. "Blob"
is what it's called apparently
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 16:37
as for the no-FAQs, it's supported by a lot of evidence..... the misprint in Mymeara 1st edition stood for 3 years.
I've seen "emails" from GW stating as much. but I don't know the source.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 16:39
That's it. Going all Daemons and moving to Age of Sigmar. ;-)
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 16:39
lol
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 16:39
Haha
I seriously thought about that before I bought tau with my tax return.
Then I played Daemons
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 16:39
"No FAQs == No Sale" ... Wait ... I'm buying the models ... Dang
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 16:40
I've gone over to Infinity for all of my day-to-day and competitive gaming.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 16:41
Had an interesting discussion about allies and the Genestealer cults. The "allies in the same way as tyranids" comment was interesting
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 16:42
just admit that 40k is inherently unbalanced racketeering rather than any form of a "fair game". having "points" really only reinforces the fiction of fairness.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 16:42
So ... Hates everything?
Wouldn't Allies in the same way as tyranids mean they are come the apocalpyse with all but themselves?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 16:43
While I can see that argument, the wording was identical to Deathwatch
"Allies in the same way as armies of the imperium"
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 16:44
so...... nids getting Chapter Tactics?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 16:44
With that though, there are alot more options to ally with
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 16:44
one big homosexual group orgy?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 16:44
I would assume RAI was they can ally with nids ...
I would see no logical reason why they couldn't.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 16:44
but within the same army, wouldn't that just be called a Formation???
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 16:44
Imagine that you leave the top line the same with the tyranids, and replace the other tyranid symbol with Genestealer cultists
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 16:45
I think the Nids already have that.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 16:45
Yea, that's how I'd assume it works @OftKilted
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 16:45
So it's a "they ally with tyranids" ... Effectively.
I still think that battle brothers is ridiculous.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 16:46
what, nids being battle brothers with other nids?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 16:46
3rd gen cultists in tyranocyte pods doesn't seem particularly fluffy
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 16:46
wow. I've never noticed before, but Black Library has absolutely none of the Tyranid Codex or campaign supplements for sale.....
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 16:46
No chaos daemons or chaos space marines either
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 16:47
Yep
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 16:47
every other army has one of their "Collection" sets
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 16:47
Main "proof" for the rumor
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 16:47
And they do (or did) have the leviathan ones
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 16:47
of the next two books being Nids/CSM
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 16:47
Yeah, but you have to search for Shield of Baal
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 16:47
No CSM until 2017 that's already known
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 16:48
probobably because they're going to get a complete rework
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 16:48
Haha really ... 2017
Give every other army a 7E codex, and let CSM rot since 2013
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 16:48
We should see a Tzeentch Daemonkin this year as a follow up on wulfen
That's my expectation.
So, anyone have any ideas for forcing or flagging lists that have units/models with more than two wounds?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 16:51
I saw that asked earlier, what's the reasoning?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 16:51
GW kill team enforcement
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 16:51
no
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 16:52
never actually played Killteam - So basically only models with 1W are allowd?
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 16:52
also no 2+ armour, no vehicles with combined AV of > 33 (or something like that)
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 16:52
Hmm, alright
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 16:53
I could see an option to hide a unit if selected, but it would affect soooooo many things and make maintenance a nightmare.
and it doesn't save people that much trouble.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 16:53
Which is why flagging it based off he formation
And not managing it in the catalog was my objective.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 16:53
nope.
formations not allowed in Kill team
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 16:54
Do we have any current Kill Team options in the game system or any catalog?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 16:54
Think "formation" based on the Kill Team "cad"
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 16:54
but we'd have to go through every unit and add "hide if kill team"
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 16:55
0-2 troops, 0-1 elites, 0-1 fast attack (Kill Team CAD)
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 16:55
I'm looking through the editor now
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 16:55
the options change too
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 16:55
I.e. Kill team formation
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 16:55
e.g. Captain cannot select Terminator Armor
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 16:55
I don't see any way to throw warnings based on W count or AV count.
other than what efalsken said.
Go through and hide each if KillTeam = 1
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 16:56
Which is where the flagging came into effect.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 16:56
If we were to do that, I'd suggest the same way Farsight Enclaves is done.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 16:56
Suggest it in #Alphas for the new version.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 16:56
And you can't have models with more than 3 wounds. (No nurglings)
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 16:56
Set the option in the "No Force Org" slot, and if included - hide everything you're supposed to hided
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 16:57
it should be simple to create a rules system to validate the list after-the-fact
yes, that's what Im saying would be a lot of work to maintain.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 16:57
Agreed.
Just to implement, let alone maintain.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 16:58
Which is why being able to have the "formation rules" do that validation would be great
I.e. If W > 3 Flag as invalid
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 16:59
right, as a software engineer, you're using the word "formation" incorrectly here. There's nothing fancy in Battlescribe to support that. What you're asking for is a validation rules-engine for list validation that can be layered over the roster after it's already been built.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:00
@efalsken, I have no idea how to create validation rules (I assume it's in the actual JAR file), but would it be feasable to create that ruleset, tie it to a "No Force Org" option and then just have battlescribe spout out warnings?
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:00
It's actually rather easy to do with a simple XML Validator.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:00
I could see that as interesting ... If Formation = x then set upgrade cost = 0
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:00
It would be a stopgap (or permanent solution) that wouldn't require maintenance and would be universal to most armies.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:00
the roster file is compressed XML. Rename it to .zip, extract, and then you can create an XML Validation.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:00
Flag if model has more than 1 W, flag if more than 33AV total, etc.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:01
(It's actually more than 3 wounds)
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:01
more than 3 then
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:02
but you'd also have to flag every upgrade that gave a model more than 2W, flag every upgrade that gives a model a 2+ armour save, flag every upgrade that gives a model better than a 4++ invul save, flag every Vehicles that has a combined armour (Front+Side+Rear) of 33 or greater.....
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:02
I was looking at stuff in AoS, and talking about handling points costs since the units don't have points costs.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:02
that's pretty simple. just leave the points as zero.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:03
However there are point "tools" that calculate points
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:03
it's not "AOS" then.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:03
Based on stat data.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:03
Yea, You're right efalsken ...
still comes back to flagging so much
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:04
we need to have one repository that is RAW first. Once the new version of BS is released, we'll be able to layer a new game file over it that can add only point-costs to each unit in the base game. etc.
so we can do things like AOS + Demons + MyPoints
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:05
or be able to do a "on the fly calculation" set points = X+Y+Z * W/5 (as an example)
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:06
i hope so. but i'm not sure about that for this upcoming release.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:06
Not likely.
Ideally, one could set "different point rules" in the formation ... And depending on which was chosen it would change costs. RAW, Method 1, method 2
Well at least I wasn't overlooking anything obvious for the Kill Team formation.
To easily handle the validation one would almost need to split up standard and invuln saves.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:09
yeah. another one of those things that will be easier once we get the new update.
BTW: I created a new 40k Profile type for Transports.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:10
?
Didn't we have a kind of type for them already?
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:10
In the update for Craftworlds, I'll push shortly. Nope. just a rule.
so it has Capacity, Access Points, and Fire Points as properties.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:11
Does it have transport capacity?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:11
I wish we could get all the catalogs to parity
Because I love that idea. It'd be great to see that on all of them
(The transport profile)
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:11
i added it to the 40k base set.
so it will be usable in all catalogs.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:12
Well, once the profile exists, it's possible to update stuff.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:12
just like I added the Psyker profile last month.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:12
(What @efalsken said)
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:12
Oh, nvm then - time to go updating :)
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:12
here, I'll push the game system file now
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:13
Splitting saves is something that we might want to discuss.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:13
You mean different saves in a unit?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:13
Interestingly it might be worthwhile to add "save" to that list
No, the invuln vs normal. And some vehicles get s save.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:14
there you go
do a pull and you'll get it. Game System v50
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:14
Ty efalsken, I'll grab that today and start going through transports.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:15
also, if you haven't started using it, there's a new Psyker profile.
it's got Mastery Level and Allowed Disciplines.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:15
I hadn't seen that, no. I'll conver those too when I see them.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:16
The idea is one-place-to-look for your psyker disciplines and how many warp charges.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:16
And Daemon Princes can be psykers ... But aren't always
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:16
so you can add the profile under the Demon Prince's Psyker option.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:16
@OftKilted Not a bad idea - alot of things give invuln saves on vehicles
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:17
I experimented with Invl saves as a field. We tried it about 3 weeks ago.
it ended up breaking down pretty quickly.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:17
Ah, fair enough
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:17
If "purchase mastery level" then use "dp-psyker" profile
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:18
easier than that... the model has the normal profile.... but you can add an additional profile for just the psychic powers.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:18
The field is null, and then counts down from 6. So technically it's a "7"
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:18
so it's just an Entry for "purchase mastery level" and then under that another "Daemon Prince" Profile.
i have no idea what you mean about "7"
@Kohato: There are a few examples of formations in Tau, like Piranha Firestream that allows multiple squadrons, but then uses 1 unit of only 1 Piranha for a special purpose.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:20
So, a save is a roll of D6. (I.e. You can't roll a 7) but if you give someone an invuln save of +1 they go to 6
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:21
Oh, for #1957 ?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:21
(Mark of Tzeentch as an example)
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:21
@OftKilted: I guess.... but that's why it didn't work nearly as well as we thought. it's not easy to increment/decrement. It required users to understand a whole new way of reading the field since we couldn't "format" the field to make it clearly a "2+"
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:22
being able to format the field would be nice
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:22
@Kohato: yes. just FYI in case it helps. In the Piranha Firestream, I had to extract a single Piranha from the Piranha Squadron unit and then link it into the Squadron unit so I could include only-one-piranha in the Piranha Firestream Formation.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:22
Yea - I agree, I opened that issue after a discussion with @OftKilted about changing Retribution Phananx and Canoptek Harvest
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:23
Same with some formations that specify "without transport" or "with transport"..... so I ended up having to duplicate a few units to enforce transports or whatnot.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:23
I believe it is correct as is (I made it in the first place), so I just closed the issue, I don't like clutter :)
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:24
I'm unfamiliar with the catalog+army in question. just mentioning other existing+valid setups.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:25
Most of the circumstances I've seen from a formation where it lists 1 (Model) the base formation minimum unit size is 1 model
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:25
Dominus Maniple for Start Collecting! Skitarri, if you care to delve into the discussion: but thanks for the examples.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:25
Yes. but that also means you should not be allowed to add more than one.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:26
I agree, if a formation lists 1 model and not 1 unit of model, it should not be allowed to include more than 1.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:26
:+1:
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:26
I could see that. I've seen discussions (not just here) talking to both
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:26
the ability to "Purchase" additional models for a unit is a unit option, not a model option - it says that the unit may include additional models for x points, not this model may purchase more models.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:27
I took that position on all of the FW formations that weren't updated when Tau vehicles became squadrons.
like the Riptide.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:28
I'd still love to convince you @OftKilted to edit the necron catalog to reference 1 model allowed, but i've come to accept it's a debated topic.
Riptide isn't a vehicle :)
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:28
It is all units. Not "models"
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:28
Jump MC
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:29
but it used to be single riptide, now a unit of up-to-3 riptides.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:29
Yea, just meant it's not a squadron since its not a vehicle
riptide wings are fun.
and mean
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:30
I used it as an example of where some of the older formations may need updating as the base codex gets changes.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:30
Ahh, roger that.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:30
and, @OftKilted: The datasheet clearly says "the unit may include up to X additional xxxxx". (usually)
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:30

“The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into ‘units’.”

Excerpt From: Games Workshop Ltd. “Warhammer 40,000 7th Edition (Dec 2015 Update).” Games Workshop Ltd

Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:30
if the formation says "models" or "5 Wraiths".... that doesn't mean "5 units of up to 3 Wraiths per unit".
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:31
@efalsken That's not the issue - the argument is that, we'll use canoptek harvest as an example
The formation says 1 spyder
the default/minimum unit size is 1 spyder and per the rule oft just listed, all models are unit
*Units
so the spyder unit can pay to include more than 1 spyder.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:32
The issue is that even a single model is a "unit"
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:32
So since the formation says 1 spyder, does it mean 1 spyder only - or is taht spyder allowed to buy more spyders.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:32
ah, so the formation is refering to "Spyder" but the codex uses "Spyder" for both the model name and the Unit name?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:32
No, Canoptek Spyders is the unit
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:32
“In Warhammer 40,000, we represent this by grouping models together into units. A unit usually consists of several models that have banded together, but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a rampaging monster, is also considered to be a unit in its own right.”
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:32
Canoptek Spyder is the model
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:32
right. same name for both model + unit
is the Formation in the same book?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:33
I'm of the camp that these are separate, if a formation lists 1 Canoptek Spyder, it means 1 and only 1.
yes.
Point of proof - in the same book, another formation lists 1 Unit of Triarch Stalkers
whereas the triarch stalker also has 1 model as the default size.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:33
then unless it specifies "a single Spyder" then it refers to the "Canoptec Spyder" unit, not to a single model.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:33
So, Canoptek Spyders vs Canoptek Spyder.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:33
so the book clearly diferentiates between singular models and singular units.
It says: 1 Canoptek Spyder, 1 Unit of Canoptek Wraiths, 1 Unit of Canoptek Scarabs
which to me - says 1 and only 1 spyder.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:34
nope
it would specify "of one model" if it meant to be singular
oh....
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:35
1 Model = 1 Unit (per BrB)
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:35
Right, it doesn't say 1 unit of one model @efalsken
It says 1 model
and ALSO another "1 Unit of X"
so it clearly differentiates between the two
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:35
where X is also a default-one-model unit?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:35
Yep
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:35
Correct.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:35
what does the fluff text support?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:36
1 model.
the picture shows 3 models.
the formation rule supports 1 model.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:36
fluff text from pictures supports multiple
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:36
The formation rule mentions "Units within 12" of THE spyder"
which to me says, there can only be one. or it woudl say "any of the spyders"
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:36
Based on the images from the "fancy version"
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:36
hold on....
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:36
of the Necron codex
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:37
yea, the images are from the collectors codex ( which btw, its superb if you haven't actually held it)
(pretty nifty it is)
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:37
The daemons collector edition is pretty spiffy if you ask me
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:37
Yea it looked really nice
Haven't had a chance to see that one in person yet though
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:37
It is.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:38
my local shop doesn't do much stock unless it's a special order.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:38
In this case, Canoptec Spyder is the name of the unit ... also the name of the model profile. But if they go to the point of mentioning "1 unit of...." for all the other units, and also to use words like "the Spyder" in the rule text ..... I think that clearly indicates that they mean for only 1 Spyder model.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:38
Canoptek Spyders is the nam of the unit
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:38
Yea, Canoptek Spyders is the printed name of the unit's datasheet
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:38
But 1 Canoptek Spyders sounds horrible.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:38
And to further the point, Judicator Batallion specifically mentions 1 unit of Triarch stalkers
which also has a default unit size of 1.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:39
but it wasn't "1 unit of Canoptec Spyders"
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:39
where the Retribution PHalanx (Start Collecting formation) says 1 Triarch Stalker.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:39
And it is impossible to buy 1 Canoptek Wraith. They come in a unit of 3
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:39
right. I think I'm with @Kohato now. The formation is like the Piranha Firestream that specifies "one Piranha" as the commander.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:39
Right @OftKilted , so what @efalsken said earlier about piranahs rings true here
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:39
the Wraith formation is probably in a different book that predates the units-of-3?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:39
Formations allow non-normal things
Look at the Command formations from the new ork decurion
All the models are forced into 1 unit
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:40
Nope, same codex. It isn't 3 wraiths, it's 1 unit of Canoptek wraiths
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:40
where they could normally not be purchased as such
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:40
also, the Piranha Formation specifies "one Piranha" and "three units of piranhas" in the same formation so it's super-extra-clear that they form 4 units and one of those must be a single piranha by itself.
ok. then you can select as many wraiths as you like.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:41
Yea, it spells it out more clearly, but to me, it still lends creedence to my argument.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:41
but the Spyder is singular. 1-unit-of-only-1
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:41
Canoptek harvest is 1 Canoptek Spyder, 1 unit of Canoptek wraiths, 1 unit of Canoptek scarabs
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:41
Bingo.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:41
that supports 1-unit-of-only-1
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:42
Which would then hold true to the Retribution Phalanx being 1 Triarch Stalker, 1 Unit of Necron Warriors, 1 Necron Overlord, and 1 Unit of Canoptek Scarabs
1 and only 1 triarch stalker
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:42
Which doesn't match the collectors edition for necrons from a visual perspective
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:42
not necessarily. Let's go over it.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:43
So, my understanding is that models can't fight solo.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:43
? What?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:43
They have to be in a unit
You can have a unit of one model for powerful models
BrB (models & units section)
Under "forming a unit"
So, de-facto 1 model = 1 unit
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:48
Which is where I'm coming from. As the upgrade is for "the unit" and models have to fight in a unit, as they can't fight outside of a unit you can choose upgrades for the unit.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:48
That is a singular Stalker. not a unit of stalkers
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:48
However that singular stalker is a unit
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:48
another 1-unit-of-1
1-model is a valid unit size for the Stalkers, right?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:49
Yep
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:49
Correct
the default size
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:49
yes. so it is 1 unit of 1
especially in these starter formations.
The Tau Burning Dawn starter box did the same thing. 1-unit-of-1 for like 3 different units.
They're meant to not allow you to add more to the formation. Once you buy more models, you're supposed to use the codex formations.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:50
Right - that was what sparked this. It should be forced to be a single model, not allowing more than 1 in the unit since it lists clearly: 1 Stalker and not 1 Unit of stalkers like it does in the Judicator Batallion.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:51
The "Start Collecting" formations are meant to make the game interesting and a little more balanced at extremely-small game sizes.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:51
Which then lead to looking at the Canoptek Harvest - which is a codex formation that says the same thing: 1 Spyder, not 1 Unit of spyders.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:51
I'll point out that you can't have a model on the field that isn't in a unit
Even if it is a unit of one.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:51
sure. but 1 model is still a valid unit size.
The formation is meant to be ONLY the models in the box.
you're not supposed to add anything else to it. No buying another stalker and adding it in and still using the same formation.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:52
I definitely can see that for the starter formations
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:52
Which goes to the meat of the question: In a formation listing a single model as a unit (1 Canoptek Spyder, 1 Dunecrawler, 1 Stalker), should you be allowed to purchase additional models as per the Unit rules in the codex.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:52
no
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:52
Exactly.
My thoughts as well.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:53
they're merely specifying 1-unit-of-1 with fewer words.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:53
Given the cost of words, that level of clarity would have saved lots of issues.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:54
Not that we should follow ITC for the catalogs, but they make a point of clarifying 1 spyder only for necrons in their FAQ.
I imagine they will for the start collecting boxes if they ever see tournament play (some of the formations are pretty damn nice)
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:55
omg.... if GW could write 2 more words, Tau would have 2 or 3 more viable competitive formations/detachments. but for lack of those 2 words, we got nerfed
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:55
ITC isn't GW.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:55
Right Oft, like I said, it shouldn't be used as a "They do it so we should", just a point of note.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:56
Though being able to do "formation validation" or rule set validation would fix a bunch
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:56
right ITC isn't. But in this case, I believe that as poorly as GW's choice of words are, the RAW supports the RAI .
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 17:57
And RAW, 1 Model = 1 Unit. And with the upgrades being for the unit ...
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 17:58
As written, it specifies a unit that does not exist.
The unit is Canoptek Spyders.
The model listed is Canoptek Spyder
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 17:59
@OftKilted you're taking it too far. They're specifying 1 model. Yes, it must be in a unit. That's the "between the lines" part. They specified "1 model" and you're supposed to extrapolate that as "how can I legally include one of these models, oh, there's the unit that contains it".
Yes, it's unclear and poorly worded.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 18:00
Entire side note: you can edit posts here?
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 18:00
But it is 1-unit-of-1 in all 3 cases we've gone over above.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 18:00
Hah, never knew.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 18:00
I'll agree that I'm being pedantic in regards to the inquiry.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 18:00
Yes, just press the up arrow or the "..." when you hover over a post.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 18:00
Well fancy that.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 18:01
That I agree I'm being pedantic? Or the fact that you can edit?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 18:01
Being able to edit
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 18:01
@OftKilted If the Tau Hunter Contingent had added "at the same unit" to the Coordinated Firepower rule, then no questions or votes of over-powered-ness would have been necessary.
GW seems to think that black ink is a lot more expensive than any other and like to leave words out.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 18:02
For the lack of 3 or 4 words, there is potential lack of clarity.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 18:03
tell me about it
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 18:03
For which, we need to err on one side or the other. I would like to err on the side of RAI in these cases and force the variousu formations to have a single model unit.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 18:03
At least it's not like the Eldar codex I'm working on. There are some models with rules that are internally self-contradicting.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 18:04
They're cheesy anyway ;-)
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 18:04
I haven't taken a look at that in a while, is it that bad?
Oh agreed, all of my lists contain 2 harvests.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 18:04
The RAW is at best questionable. I think the RAI is clearly 1-unit-of-1. The RAW can support that. Therefore we should update those formations.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 18:04
Best formation in the codex imo
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 18:05
..... Tau Hunter Contingent is one of the most balanced Detachments in the game.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 18:05
I will agree that RAI appears to indicate 1 unit of 1 Canoptek Spyders
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 18:05
Haha, Balanced
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 18:05
Tau are boss at shooting-1-thing and shooting it dead.
an army of 15 things to shoot will still sweep it. It encourages your opponent to play a more distributed list rather than the big-hammer death-star list that works well against other opponents.
Tau are meant to be anti-death-star
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 18:07
so to close the #1957 entirely I guess, can we agree to change the two necron formations in question @OftKilted
Dominus Maniple for Skitarri already reflects a single forced model, and Space Marines forces a single Dreadnaught as well so neither of those need to be changed.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 18:08
I agree that it's RAI, but I can still see that it can be argued by RAW
but if we're doing RAI, that hen makes us arbiters and rule creators/interpreters. Much like ITC
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 18:10
that's not what I'm saying
I'm saying that in this case, the RAI is clear and the RAW can read to support it without mental gymnastics.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 18:11
We're arbiters either way if you take it that way.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 18:11
@Kohato true enough.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 18:11
A decision is being made in either case, but that decision should be reflected in ALL catalogs to be uniform - and as @efalsken said, RAI is clear and RAW can easily be read to support it.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 18:14
The only even convincing evidence that I've seen to contradict the 1 Canoptek Spyder is the formation document in the ultimate edition
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 18:20
i don't understand your last statement.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 18:23
http://i1253.photobucket.com/albums/hh594/Omegalith/image.jpg1_zpsjwrnzgz8.jpg Has the formation info from the Necron collectors edition
The formation size indicator, Canoptek wraiths can go from 3-6 wraiths
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 18:27
One could argue from that image is that the required size is 6 wraiths, 3 spyders, and 11 scarabs.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 18:28
And Canoptek Spyders go from 1 - 3 models in the unit.
Counterpoint is that there are 4 scarabs on a base and 11 bases worth of scarabs in that picture. (Unit size goes from 3 bases to 9 bases)
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 18:30
Right.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 18:31
And GW has corrected itself (the dominus maniple formation from the start collecting box as an example)
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 18:32
And there are numerous examples of SM and Tau force diagrams showing "formations" with incorrect units.
you cannot use that as RAW.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 18:32
Assuming you mean #1981 @OftKilted
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 18:32
that's "narrative" according to GW.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 18:33
Hell, the Judicator Batallion formation picture shows an illegal formation.
8 Praetorians, when there is a minimum of 2 units of 5.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 18:34
Right.
among others.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 18:35
@OftKilted I'll resubmit #1953 - I re-forked since then so the repository I committed that from is gone.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 18:37
What is that picture of for the judicator battalion?
Emailing GW
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 18:37
1 stalker and 8 praetorians.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 18:38
You can have between 5 and 10 praetorians ... Tha sounds legit to me
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 18:38
the formation is 2 units of praetoreans.
and 1 unit of stalkers
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 18:39
That's awesome. That would be bob and joe who were taking the picture and holding the flash unit for the camera ;-)
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 18:39
Two of my praetoreans are now receiving names on their bases.
Ty.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 18:40
are you guys in Hobby Hangouts?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 18:40
er... What's that?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 18:40
I am not.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 18:41
I am now.
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 18:41
you can join google hangouts of people just painting and doing hobby stuff.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 18:41
Well, I've now requested.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 18:41
Ahh. Book of faces stuff
Eric Falsken
@efalsken
Mar 08 2016 18:41
I'm not admin.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 18:42
No issues
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 19:02
@OftKilted #1983 is open, we good to merge it?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 19:03
No.
I'm emailing GW.
Let's see what we get as a response.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 19:03
Don't we not accept emails as faq since CS Reps will give contradicting information?
@hisop 's comment in #1981
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 08 2016 19:06
I believe you've just submitted a sentence with a double negative.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 08 2016 19:06
Replace "Not Accept" with "refuse"