These are chat archives for BSData/wh40k

11th
Mar 2016
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 11 2016 02:13
@SuperPranx I see you're doing a nice bit of wolves work - feel free to take the issue I have assigned to myself, I have been swamped at work and haven't had time to put it in.
Ivan Milanov
@SuperPranx
Mar 11 2016 06:27
@Kohato No problem. I'd be happy to take over :) I have a 'day off' today, so I think I'll be able to handle it in the afternoon.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 11 2016 11:41
Hah, day off - I miss those :/ I haven't been able to take one in quite a while.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 11 2016 11:47
I know that feeling
Ivan Milanov
@SuperPranx
Mar 11 2016 12:33
A quick question. Does the new Wolf Lord Krom from the CotW book override the old one from Sanctus Reach: Stormclaw?
I would say yes, but I'd like confirmation before I remove the old one.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 11 2016 12:36
Yes.
Codex states that the new rules override the old bar the iron priest (due t the white dwarf)
Ivan Milanov
@SuperPranx
Mar 11 2016 12:39
Ok, thanks :)
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 11 2016 13:38
@hisop I thought the indication was that you could use either set of rules based on the WD comment that it's a personal preference?
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 11 2016 13:38
hence the term "bar" the iron priest.
as it was specifically mentioned that its Datasheet worked that way.
The codex contradicts this but i think RAI is clear.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 11 2016 13:39
Ahh well, looks like you're tossing the space puppies a bone then.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 11 2016 13:40
Well i would suggest you read both, my head almost exploded :P
Its just such a stupid contradiction
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 11 2016 13:40
I'll skip the fur and stick with daemons. Thanks! ;-)
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 11 2016 13:41
Also @SuperPranx i added Krom i was sure?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 11 2016 13:41
Still think we shouldn't be working within RAI.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 11 2016 13:42
BSData/wh40k@32dd59a
I agree, RAI should only help to reinforce RAW
But i will show you
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 11 2016 13:44
And given that 'Wolf Lord Krom' and 'Krom Dragongaze' are two separate instances ... having both (with an exclusion that you can't have both) would make sense from a rules perspective. (and playing a specific scenario from a book)
Ivan Milanov
@SuperPranx
Mar 11 2016 13:44
New Krom was there he just wasn't an HQ.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 11 2016 13:46
So ... it appears to say that you can choose X or you can choose Y. Implication that you would just need to be consistent in your list.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 11 2016 13:47
Nope
"Either instead of or alongside"
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 11 2016 13:47
blob
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 11 2016 13:47
So you could use both in the same list.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 11 2016 13:47
"Replaces the Datasheet" isn't mutually contradictory to "It's your choice"
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 11 2016 13:47
"alongside"
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 11 2016 13:48
So, having both available as Ironpriests. (not named character)
So, what did the fix for Krom do? remove him from the catalog?
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 11 2016 13:50
Shrugs
Ask @SuperPranx
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 11 2016 13:50
I suppose that you could technically do this for any of the supplements. 'It's your choice' covers alot of ground. And leans very much towards the 'permissible' side of interpretations.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 11 2016 13:50
Why any of the supplements?
This was specifically in response to Curse.
(the BOLS article)
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 11 2016 13:51
If they say "its your choice" like this one does.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 11 2016 13:51
"You can absolutely use whichever version of the rules you see fit"
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 11 2016 13:52
Yes, for COTW.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 11 2016 13:52
Emails man
I could send you an email spoofing my address telling you you get free guns on orks if they are pink.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 11 2016 13:53
It cometh from the mouth of GW. Thus we heareth the words of the blessed prophets. For they can speak no wrong </s>
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 11 2016 13:53
(Which if you'd said red would've been believable)
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 11 2016 13:53
Red ones shoot faster.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 11 2016 13:54
And i have a set of GW emails that contradict each other literally "you can take that" and "no sorry you cant" they are not a rule source.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 11 2016 13:55
1) eMails are easily faked and have given contradiction
2) That emails was a response specifically to COTW, so taking that answer and saying "It's Your Choice" to any supplement published is simply incorrect. You can't take someone's words from one sentence and apply it to anything you can think of.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 11 2016 13:55
So, you list both, and then put in your notation.
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 11 2016 13:56
I could get my mate to make up house rules for me without the email wait :P
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 11 2016 13:56
Oh! I'll sign up for that!
True_Hisop
@hisop
Mar 11 2016 13:57
We house rule loads of things, find i makes the game better to just do whatever.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 11 2016 13:57
AoS has loads of folks doing 'House Rules/FAQs'
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 11 2016 14:07
It seems to be fairly consistent to see those. ... Now that would be interesting. Adding the ability to 'overlay' without changing the baseline file. Hmm.
Ivan Milanov
@SuperPranx
Mar 11 2016 14:33
@OftKilted I removed the old Krom and replaced him with the entry that was already there.
Ivan Milanov
@SuperPranx
Mar 11 2016 17:17

I'm working on the Strike Force Daggerfist for the Space Wolves #1968 and I'm starting to notice a pattern in some of the shared entries for units. For example, the Wolf Guard Terminators as a shared entry have their maxSelections set to 1. Now when building the formation I used entry groups for the separate groups of units. One for Murderfang, one for the unit of Wolf Guard and one for the unit of WGT. On the groups I set the default choice and the min/max selections. For WGT I have min and max set to 3, but the roster editor says that I have too many choices of WGT and that I need to have max 1 unit.

In previous such cases (mainly named characters) I just remove the min and/or max limitation on the shared entry for the unit and I enforce the constraint on the entry group within the formation itself.

Am I doing this ok or am I doing something wrong? Asking because I noticed that there are formations that have entries that link to the unit entry and expect the shared unit entry itself to enforce the constraint. This is also one of the reasons for #1995.

Ivan Milanov
@SuperPranx
Mar 11 2016 17:24
I'm afraid that setting the maxSelections to -1 on the WGT shared entry might break some formations that were built around this premise, so I'll need to re-check all of them.
Ivan Milanov
@SuperPranx
Mar 11 2016 19:20
P.S. I'll return the old Krom as well. I discussed it with the local rules expert.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 11 2016 19:22
What did they have to say about the change/removal?
@SuperPranx regarding Krom
Ivan Milanov
@SuperPranx
Mar 11 2016 19:25
Old Krom goes in his specific formation. New Krom for new formations that mention him explicitly. Both available as HQ choices in CAD and the like.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 11 2016 19:26
Interesting. He had a specific old formation? Any thoughts on flagging a warning if you try to choose both?
Or at least a "notification message"
Ivan Milanov
@SuperPranx
Mar 11 2016 19:49
Error if he has more than one Krom in the entire army. You have to choose which one you want, after all. We dont want any temporal paradoxes
:)
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Mar 11 2016 20:01
Good Choice. Let's not inform the inquisition.