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.
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?
@cartag hates taking email as in reality i could raise a bug about anything and say i got an email confirming it.
I had Tyther attach the PDF and the actual email from GW UK
But yea - Email isn't as great as a FAQ :/
Yup too easy to fake :P
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.
Bah.
Arguments will ensue :P
Hah, true.
fyi i made the marine one only 1 Ven dread
Personally: As it should be :0
may have broken some other stuff when i did it but that was my own silly fault & seems all fixed now
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.
in the end i put a modifier on there.
if start collecting formation then max of 1
if start collecting formation then max of 1
I don't like replicating stuff if it's not needed
Oh that'd work nicely.
Perhaps I'll change the dominus to that if I have time today - clean it up a bit
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.
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
Doesn't matter. the Tau box can build Breachers or Strikers, but the Datasheet specifies only Strikers.
By box I meant datasheet.
you mean in the other languages?? The Start Collecting datasheets are pretty simple. Most of the pics are for "expanding your army".
Nope, english
some boxes were shipped with datasheets saying vanguard
some with sheets saying rangers
oh.... that's odd
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
GW has publicly stated that they won't do FAQs anymore.
Oh really?
Well that ... is unfortunate
yeah. it's really unfortunate
basically "we care not about this thing called rules."
FORGE THE NARATIVE!
I predict that we will fork BSData/WH40k to BSData/WH40k-ITC before the end of the year.
Makes sense when they throw in Unbound as an option in the brb
I would not be opposed to that.
but we need ITC to double-down on fair rules and not mob-rules
Yea, there are a some that could use revising for sure
Adepticon Combat Patrol is a great example of a complete re-work to make 40k into something different, but still 40k.
Haven't looked at them yet
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?
I saw the new Aussie system for list building, with a list "Value" thing going
nothing about rule FAQs though
every unit is bought model-by-model without formation strangeness.
i have no idea what that is.
Well that would definitely change things, back to basics.
lol. "Blob"
is what it's called apparently
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.
That's it. Going all Daemons and moving to Age of Sigmar. ;-)
lol
Haha
I seriously thought about that before I bought tau with my tax return.
Then I played Daemons
"No FAQs == No Sale" ... Wait ... I'm buying the models ... Dang
I've gone over to Infinity for all of my day-to-day and competitive gaming.
Had an interesting discussion about allies and the Genestealer cults. The "allies in the same way as tyranids" comment was interesting
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.
So ... Hates everything?
Wouldn't Allies in the same way as tyranids mean they are come the apocalpyse with all but themselves?
While I can see that argument, the wording was identical to Deathwatch
"Allies in the same way as armies of the imperium"
so...... nids getting Chapter Tactics?
With that though, there are alot more options to ally with
one big homosexual group orgy?
I would assume RAI was they can ally with nids ...
I would see no logical reason why they couldn't.
but within the same army, wouldn't that just be called a Formation???
Imagine that you leave the top line the same with the tyranids, and replace the other tyranid symbol with Genestealer cultists
I think the Nids already have that.
Yea, that's how I'd assume it works @OftKilted
So it's a "they ally with tyranids" ... Effectively.
I still think that battle brothers is ridiculous.
what, nids being battle brothers with other nids?
3rd gen cultists in tyranocyte pods doesn't seem particularly fluffy
wow. I've never noticed before, but Black Library has absolutely none of the Tyranid Codex or campaign supplements for sale.....
No chaos daemons or chaos space marines either
Yep
every other army has one of their "Collection" sets
Main "proof" for the rumor
And they do (or did) have the leviathan ones
of the next two books being Nids/CSM
Yeah, but you have to search for Shield of Baal
No CSM until 2017 that's already known
probobably because they're going to get a complete rework
Haha really ... 2017
Give every other army a 7E codex, and let CSM rot since 2013
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?
I saw that asked earlier, what's the reasoning?
GW kill team enforcement
no
never actually played Killteam - So basically only models with 1W are allowd?
also no 2+ armour, no vehicles with combined AV of > 33 (or something like that)
Hmm, alright
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.
Which is why flagging it based off he formation
And not managing it in the catalog was my objective.
nope.
formations not allowed in Kill team
Do we have any current Kill Team options in the game system or any catalog?
Think "formation" based on the Kill Team "cad"
but we'd have to go through every unit and add "hide if kill team"
0-2 troops, 0-1 elites, 0-1 fast attack (Kill Team CAD)
I'm looking through the editor now
the options change too
I.e. Kill team formation
e.g. Captain cannot select Terminator Armor
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
Which is where the flagging came into effect.
If we were to do that, I'd suggest the same way Farsight Enclaves is done.
Suggest it in #Alphas for the new version.
And you can't have models with more than 3 wounds. (No nurglings)
Set the option in the "No Force Org" slot, and if included - hide everything you're supposed to hided
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.
Agreed.
Just to implement, let alone maintain.
Which is why being able to have the "formation rules" do that validation would be great
I.e. If W > 3 Flag as invalid
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.
@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?
It's actually rather easy to do with a simple XML Validator.
I could see that as interesting ... If Formation = x then set upgrade cost = 0
It would be a stopgap (or permanent solution) that wouldn't require maintenance and would be universal to most armies.
the roster file is compressed XML. Rename it to .zip, extract, and then you can create an XML Validation.
Flag if model has more than 1 W, flag if more than 33AV total, etc.
(It's actually more than 3 wounds)
more than 3 then
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.....
I was looking at stuff in AoS, and talking about handling points costs since the units don't have points costs.
that's pretty simple. just leave the points as zero.
However there are point "tools" that calculate points
it's not "AOS" then.
Based on stat data.
Yea, You're right efalsken ...
still comes back to flagging so much
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
or be able to do a "on the fly calculation" set points = X+Y+Z * W/5 (as an example)
i hope so. but i'm not sure about that for this upcoming release.
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.
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.
?
Didn't we have a kind of type for them already?
In the update for Craftworlds, I'll push shortly. Nope. just a rule.
so it has Capacity, Access Points, and Fire Points as properties.
Does it have transport capacity?
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)
i added it to the 40k base set.
so it will be usable in all catalogs.
Well, once the profile exists, it's possible to update stuff.
just like I added the Psyker profile last month.
(What @efalsken said)
Oh, nvm then - time to go updating :)
here, I'll push the game system file now
Splitting saves is something that we might want to discuss.
You mean different saves in a unit?
Interestingly it might be worthwhile to add "save" to that list
No, the invuln vs normal. And some vehicles get s save.
there you go
do a pull and you'll get it. Game System v50
Ty efalsken, I'll grab that today and start going through transports.
also, if you haven't started using it, there's a new Psyker profile.
it's got Mastery Level and Allowed Disciplines.
I hadn't seen that, no. I'll conver those too when I see them.
The idea is one-place-to-look for your psyker disciplines and how many warp charges.
And Daemon Princes can be psykers ... But aren't always
so you can add the profile under the Demon Prince's Psyker option.
@OftKilted Not a bad idea - alot of things give invuln saves on vehicles
I experimented with Invl saves as a field. We tried it about 3 weeks ago.
it ended up breaking down pretty quickly.
Ah, fair enough
If "purchase mastery level" then use "dp-psyker" profile
easier than that... the model has the normal profile.... but you can add an additional profile for just the psychic powers.
The field is null, and then counts down from 6. So technically it's a "7"
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.
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
Oh, for #1957 ?
(Mark of Tzeentch as an example)
@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+"
being able to format the field would be nice
@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.
Yea - I agree, I opened that issue after a discussion with @OftKilted about changing Retribution Phananx and Canoptek Harvest
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.
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 :)
I'm unfamiliar with the catalog+army in question. just mentioning other existing+valid setups.
Most of the circumstances I've seen from a formation where it lists 1 (Model) the base formation minimum unit size is 1 model
Dominus Maniple for Start Collecting! Skitarri, if you care to delve into the discussion: but thanks for the examples.
Yes. but that also means you should not be allowed to add more than one.
I agree, if a formation lists 1 model and not 1 unit of model, it should not be allowed to include more than 1.
:+1:
I could see that. I've seen discussions (not just here) talking to both
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.
I took that position on all of the FW formations that weren't updated when Tau vehicles became squadrons.
like the Riptide.
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 :)
It is all units. Not "models"
Jump MC
but it used to be single riptide, now a unit of up-to-3 riptides.
Yea, just meant it's not a squadron since its not a vehicle
riptide wings are fun.
and mean
I used it as an example of where some of the older formations may need updating as the base codex gets changes.
Ahh, roger that.
and, @OftKilted: The datasheet clearly says "the unit may include up to X additional xxxxx". (usually)
“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
if the formation says "models" or "5 Wraiths".... that doesn't mean "5 units of up to 3 Wraiths per unit".
@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.
The issue is that even a single model is a "unit"
So since the formation says 1 spyder, does it mean 1 spyder only - or is taht spyder allowed to buy more spyders.
ah, so the formation is refering to "Spyder" but the codex uses "Spyder" for both the model name and the Unit name?
No, Canoptek Spyders is the unit
“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.”
Canoptek Spyder is the model
right. same name for both model + unit
is the Formation in the same book?
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.
then unless it specifies "a single Spyder" then it refers to the "Canoptec Spyder" unit, not to a single model.
So, Canoptek Spyders vs Canoptek Spyder.
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.
nope
it would specify "of one model" if it meant to be singular
oh....
1 Model = 1 Unit (per BrB)
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
where X is also a default-one-model unit?
Yep
Correct.
what does the fluff text support?
1 model.
the picture shows 3 models.
the formation rule supports 1 model.
fluff text from pictures supports multiple
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"
Based on the images from the "fancy version"
hold on....
of the Necron codex
yea, the images are from the collectors codex ( which btw, its superb if you haven't actually held it)
(pretty nifty it is)
The daemons collector edition is pretty spiffy if you ask me
Yea it looked really nice
Haven't had a chance to see that one in person yet though
It is.
my local shop doesn't do much stock unless it's a special order.
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.
Canoptek Spyders is the nam of the unit
Yea, Canoptek Spyders is the printed name of the unit's datasheet
But 1 Canoptek Spyders sounds horrible.
And to further the point, Judicator Batallion specifically mentions 1 unit of Triarch stalkers
which also has a default unit size of 1.
but it wasn't "1 unit of Canoptec Spyders"
where the Retribution PHalanx (Start Collecting formation) says 1 Triarch Stalker.
And it is impossible to buy 1 Canoptek Wraith. They come in a unit of 3
right. I think I'm with @Kohato now. The formation is like the Piranha Firestream that specifies "one Piranha" as the commander.
Right @OftKilted , so what @efalsken said earlier about piranahs rings true here
the Wraith formation is probably in a different book that predates the units-of-3?
Formations allow non-normal things
Look at the Command formations from the new ork decurion
All the models are forced into 1 unit
Nope, same codex. It isn't 3 wraiths, it's 1 unit of Canoptek wraiths
where they could normally not be purchased as such
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.
Yea, it spells it out more clearly, but to me, it still lends creedence to my argument.
but the Spyder is singular. 1-unit-of-only-1
Canoptek harvest is 1 Canoptek Spyder, 1 unit of Canoptek wraiths, 1 unit of Canoptek scarabs
Bingo.
that supports 1-unit-of-only-1
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
Which doesn't match the collectors edition for necrons from a visual perspective
not necessarily. Let's go over it.
So, my understanding is that models can't fight solo.
? What?
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
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.
That is a singular Stalker. not a unit of stalkers
However that singular stalker is a unit
another 1-unit-of-1
1-model is a valid unit size for the Stalkers, right?
Yep
Correct
the default size
the default size
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.
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.
The "Start Collecting" formations are meant to make the game interesting and a little more balanced at extremely-small game sizes.
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.
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.
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.
I definitely can see that for the starter formations
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.
no
Exactly.
My thoughts as well.
they're merely specifying 1-unit-of-1 with fewer words.
Given the cost of words, that level of clarity would have saved lots of issues.
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)
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
ITC isn't GW.
Right Oft, like I said, it shouldn't be used as a "They do it so we should", just a point of note.
Though being able to do "formation validation" or rule set validation would fix a bunch
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 .
And RAW, 1 Model = 1 Unit. And with the upgrades being for the unit ...
As written, it specifies a unit that does not exist.
The unit is Canoptek Spyders.
The model listed is Canoptek Spyder
@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.
Entire side note: you can edit posts here?
But it is 1-unit-of-1 in all 3 cases we've gone over above.
Hah, never knew.
I'll agree that I'm being pedantic in regards to the inquiry.
Yes, just press the up arrow or the "..." when you hover over a post.
Well fancy that.
That I agree I'm being pedantic? Or the fact that you can edit?
Being able to edit
@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.
For the lack of 3 or 4 words, there is potential lack of clarity.
tell me about it
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.
At least it's not like the Eldar codex I'm working on. There are some models with rules that are internally self-contradicting.
They're cheesy anyway ;-)
I haven't taken a look at that in a while, is it that bad?
Oh agreed, all of my lists contain 2 harvests.
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.
Best formation in the codex imo
..... Tau Hunter Contingent is one of the most balanced Detachments in the game.
I will agree that RAI appears to indicate 1 unit of 1 Canoptek Spyders
Haha, Balanced
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
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.
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
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.
We're arbiters either way if you take it that way.
@Kohato true enough.
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.
The only even convincing evidence that I've seen to contradict the 1 Canoptek Spyder is the formation document in the ultimate edition
i don't understand your last statement.
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
One could argue from that image is that the required size is 6 wraiths, 3 spyders, and 11 scarabs.
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)
Right.
And GW has corrected itself (the dominus maniple formation from the start collecting box as an example)
And there are numerous examples of SM and Tau force diagrams showing "formations" with incorrect units.
you cannot use that as RAW.
Assuming you mean #1981 @OftKilted
that's "narrative" according to GW.
Hell, the Judicator Batallion formation picture shows an illegal formation.
8 Praetorians, when there is a minimum of 2 units of 5.
Right.
among others.
@OftKilted I'll resubmit #1953 - I re-forked since then so the repository I committed that from is gone.
What is that picture of for the judicator battalion?
Emailing GW
1 stalker and 8 praetorians.
You can have between 5 and 10 praetorians ... Tha sounds legit to me
the formation is 2 units of praetoreans.
and 1 unit of stalkers
That's awesome. That would be bob and joe who were taking the picture and holding the flash unit for the camera ;-)
Two of my praetoreans are now receiving names on their bases.
Ty.
are you guys in Hobby Hangouts?
er... What's that?
I am not.
I am now.
you can join google hangouts of people just painting and doing hobby stuff.
Well, I've now requested.
Ahh. Book of faces stuff
I'm not admin.
No issues
@OftKilted #1983 is open, we good to merge it?
No.
I'm emailing GW.
Let's see what we get as a response.
Don't we not accept emails as faq since CS Reps will give contradicting information?
@hisop 's comment in #1981
I believe you've just submitted a sentence with a double negative.
Replace "Not Accept" with "refuse"