These are chat archives for BSData/wh40k

11th
May 2016
Jordan Millikan
@Millicant
May 11 2016 08:19

Hey guys, I need some advice from you veteran Catalogue designers.

I have several situations where a roster must contain "either entry A or entry B." So far, I've solved this by creating a dummy shared entry (min/max 1) that both Entry A and Entry B link to and setting the "min in Force" requirement on the shared dummy entry. This is inelegant since the name of the shared dummy entry shows up in the roster and is often irrelevant.

However, this solution is becoming untenable for me since there are also situations where the roster must contain "either entry A or entry C" meaning Entry A would need to have multiple dummy shared entries.

Any bright ideas on how to overcome this?

Jordan Millikan
@Millicant
May 11 2016 08:28
Follow-on to that: This is obviously in the era of BS 2.0a, so any suggestions that involve the use of the gamesystem/root are welcome.
True_Hisop
@hisop
May 11 2016 08:38
Im not going to say told you so:
penguin20000
@penguin20000
May 11 2016 08:50
?
Oh the dunecrawler?
True_Hisop
@hisop
May 11 2016 09:02
Yeah :P
penguin20000
@penguin20000
May 11 2016 09:02
Think they covered that in the main FAQs too to be honest
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 10:13
@hisop it would be helpful if their "FAQs" wouldn't contain blatantly false and misleading g information. ;-)
penguin20000
@penguin20000
May 11 2016 10:19
Some of the faq images in the main set last time we're wrong, they said to look at the accompaning text on each post
Ivan Milanov
@SuperPranx
May 11 2016 10:29
The question now is, if it says one unit, and that unit can take a Land Raider as a transport, can you take the Land Raider? I wouldn't ask them though because they just might say no :P
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 10:35
You can. You just can't load it with a battle brother unit prior to entry of the start of the game
Ivan Milanov
@SuperPranx
May 11 2016 10:55
I think that was always the case, when dealing with dedicated transports. The FAQ changes mostly affect putting battle brothers in regularly bought transports in a FOC, like putting your Cullexus assasin in a Drop pod.
penguin20000
@penguin20000
May 11 2016 10:56
Or Skitarii Rangers with the haywire guns in a marine pod
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 11:03
@penguin20000 @SuperPranx (I was actually joking regarding the 1 onager Dunecrawler vs 1 unit of dune crawlers ... ;-p
penguin20000
@penguin20000
May 11 2016 11:03
I seem to recall the same discussion about the Leman Russes
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 11:04
Well, we'd be fine if they wouldn't keep breaking the game with their horrible FAQs ;-)
Ivan Milanov
@SuperPranx
May 11 2016 11:06
It's evolving... much like tyranids would, to adapt to new challenges :P
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 11:10
its an interesting set of changes. Whatever happens next. And the release of an ePub version of the daemon codex was nice as the incursion variant. Some passing level of parity with the release of the wulfen edition for space wolves and not making daemon players buy space fleas infested publications.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 11 2016 14:44
@cartag I'd like you to know, that Conditional on Parent force option has changed the way I look at this catalog. There are SO many places I can consolidate information when I re-do this now!
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 14:45
I'm glad I could show you the proper ways of chaos so generated by @cartag :+1:
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 11 2016 14:46
Oh yea, this is great. I can see how to use it for improvements to the necron catalog too
cartag
@cartag
May 11 2016 14:46
I'm glad to hear that! You may want to check out how the Heldrake and Heldrake Flyer Wing are set up for use with other flyers. It's the most efficient method I could think of, and will be easy to link into the Air Superiority Detachment that way.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 11 2016 14:46
Yea I'll do that definately.
I should be done with the AOD Decurions today or tomorrow, so after that i'll look at the flyers.
cartag
@cartag
May 11 2016 14:47
Also, IIRC there were several instances in the SM file of redundant data. Things like a tank having multiple profiles that all contain the same info in various places rather than all linking to one. That's a more in depth look though.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 11 2016 14:48
Yea, that's spot on :/ I've noticed it already.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 14:48
@cartag Whats your take on the typhus question?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 11 2016 14:48
That's being saved for the 2.0 re-work though, unless that gets pushed back far enough that I get it done first.
Top priority is fixing the bugs I know of and getting teh decurions working right.
cartag
@cartag
May 11 2016 14:49
@OftKilted looking now, and understood @Kohato
cartag
@cartag
May 11 2016 14:55
Given the way it's worded, that would also affect KDK cultists. A most conservative reading of the rules would be that any cultists taken in the same detachment would be able to change for plague zeds. Given that the CSM book came out at the start of 6E it's not surprising it's out of touch with current codex writing style.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 11 2016 14:56
Hey, gitter UI change.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 14:57
The new Crimson Slaughter (as I recall) said that you can't have any units with votlw other than Berserkers and Plague Marines in your army.
Or am I remembering that wrong?
cartag
@cartag
May 11 2016 14:58
@Millicant Can you give an example of what rules you're looking at to need that so I can get a better understanding of your desired outcome?
forgot Noise Marines @OftKilted
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 14:58
Do you have the wording for the votlw limitation?
yeah, I just remembered that you can't take rubric marines
cartag
@cartag
May 11 2016 14:59
RENEGADES OF THE DARK MILLENNIUM
No units in a Crimson Slaughter Detachment or Formation can
have the Veterans of the Long War special rule except Khorne
Berzerkers, Plague Marines and Noise Marines
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 14:59
I had blanked the Slaanesh out of my mind
So, is army defined as a collection of detachments?
cartag
@cartag
May 11 2016 15:00
It is now.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 11 2016 15:00
A battleforged one is.
an unbound army is not.
cartag
@cartag
May 11 2016 15:00
At the time of 6E, I'll have to look. I only played two games in 6E
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 11 2016 15:00
It would've had to have been back in 6e though
there was no unbound
so to make an army, you had to have a detachment.
cartag
@cartag
May 11 2016 15:01
Detachments weren't really a thing then though I thought
you had your FOC
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 15:01
So, one CAD with typhus, and adding Crimson Slaughter force
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 11 2016 15:01
*yea FOC
not detachment
Your army could have your FOC, Allied FOC right?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 15:02
You could have an allied FOC I thought?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 11 2016 15:02
h/o
bringing up a 6e rulebook
cartag
@cartag
May 11 2016 15:02
You could, but there weren't any formations at the time, no supplements, and no other army that had cultists
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 11 2016 15:02
Mine is at home
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 15:03
Isn't there a FAQ on rules from one formation/Formation not applying to other detachments/formations. Though this is an army wide rule.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 11 2016 15:04
oh god no bookmarks
damn you russian thieves!
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 15:04
Not a formation rule
cartag
@cartag
May 11 2016 15:05
brb, gotta hop in the shower
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 11 2016 15:06
detachments did exist as a concept.
in 63.
*6e
The FOC (the only thing available in 6e) required a Primary Detachment, and had a Fortification Deatchment and Allied Detachment listed as optional
so even in 6e, an army was still defined as legal when it was a collection of 1-3 detachments. (Primary + Fortification/Allied)
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 15:17
So, nominally speaking you can include Typhus in your army and make all Cultists Plague Zombies.
Since KDK doesn't give them "options" so to speak ... Does that mean you now have KDK Plague Zombies? Interesting ...
Fearless, FnP, Slow and Purposeful, Mark of Khorne, Blood for the Blood God...
cartag
@cartag
May 11 2016 15:21
that can't be right...
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 15:21
RAW it looks right?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 11 2016 15:21
what's typhus' rules/book?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 15:22
C:SM p.61
Any cultists in the same army as typhus can be nominated as plague zombies. They can't purchase upgrades.
And they can't shoot.
KDK cultists automatically get Mark of Khorne. It isn't an upgrade.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 11 2016 15:23
So, by that - as long as you have a detachment of CSM, and one of KDK
they are in the same army.
Is it? or is it a free upgrade.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 15:24
And they're influenced by Blood for the Blood God. Not a free upgrade. It's part of their base wargear
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 11 2016 15:24
Then yea ... it could've been done in 6th I would guess too
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 15:24
Correction "special rule"
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 11 2016 15:24
If you had an allied detachment of Cultists.
KDK cultists I mean
unless KDK didn't exist in 6th
cartag
@cartag
May 11 2016 15:25
it didnt exist until last year
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 11 2016 15:25
Bah :/
I mean, RAI - I can't see it being intended to be used like that.
but RAW ... It fits.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 15:26
Khorne Crazed plague zombies. Now there's an image for you
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 11 2016 15:26
there's no muddled language, Typhus is in the same army as KDK Cultists via allie detachment or formation detachment.
It's pretty clear wording, just not intended I think.
And the KDK cultists would get anything that is listed as wargear on their datasheet
just couldn't purchase more - free or not.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 15:28
So Rage and Counter-attack, Fearless, FnP, Slow and Purposful and they get the Blood for the Blood God tools.
They can't use their wargear. They're low on brains and dexterity. And can't shoot. They just bludgeon people with their guns
cartag
@cartag
May 11 2016 15:29
It also directly references page 95, which is where the entry for cultists is. Would that affect KDK cultists since they are a different datasheet technically?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 15:29
They're
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 11 2016 15:29
Are the two datasheet's names the same
Cultist
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 15:30
"chaos cultists"
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 11 2016 15:30
Both are listed as that on their datasheets?
cartag
@cartag
May 11 2016 15:30
Both are named "Chaos Cultists" but the unit composition is different
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 15:30
That's KDK and the same for C:SM
cartag
@cartag
May 11 2016 15:30
10 models in CSM, 8 in KDK
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 11 2016 15:30
Hmm, given that it references a page number though, that's different.
That woudl imply he could upgrade a unit of cultists as defined on page 95.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 15:31
What doss it say in the digital version? (Which doesn't have page numbers)
cartag
@cartag
May 11 2016 15:32
Couldn't tell you. Arrrrrgh
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 11 2016 15:32
There's a digital version?
Thought those started with 7e
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 15:32
It's interesting.... Can Typhus upgrade ANY unit of Chaos Cultists, which includes the KDK and Hellbrute formation cultists, or just C:SM.
cartag
@cartag
May 11 2016 15:33
There were digital versions in 6E
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 15:33
There is an interactive iPad edition
No ePub
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 11 2016 15:33
the interactive ones would offer evidence to him being limited to csm cultists.
it would link to the csm cultist page.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 15:34
But they're still "Chaos Cultists" not something else.
cartag
@cartag
May 11 2016 15:34
But they're not the same unit
in terms of special rules and unit make up
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 11 2016 15:34
If Typhus didn't specify a page, I would agree
Take the new FAQ and the Ork Flamers clarification
cartag
@cartag
May 11 2016 15:35
blob
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 11 2016 15:35
they specifically point out that flamer is defined as a rulebook page, not a rule name.
Taking that, Typhus' rule defines his chaos cultists as a page number, not a unit name.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 15:36
however flamer is a weapon? Right?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 11 2016 15:36
Sure
cartag
@cartag
May 11 2016 15:36
a "Flamer" is a weapon profile, but there are flamer type weapons that certain units have immunity to
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 15:37
That's like Space Marine Captain with Jetpack
It's an Ork with a Flamer (or an Ork's Flamer)
I.e. A Flamer used by Ork
I still find the potential of RAW KDK cultist plague zombies amusing
cartag
@cartag
May 11 2016 15:40
Yes, but that's not a good way to interpret rules :P
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 15:40
Unit of "Chaos Cultists"
cartag
@cartag
May 11 2016 15:40
I go by the logic that whatever is the more restrictive ruling is the one that should be used, unless there is a FAQ or Errata demonstrating otherwise
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 11 2016 15:40
As dfined by page 95
cartag
@cartag
May 11 2016 15:40
This is a unit of chaos cultists, as listed on page 95.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 15:41
So, what does the interactive version say?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 11 2016 15:41
The interactive will link to the list entry for cultists.
its how those work.
tap the name, it goes to the list entry
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 15:43
So, can a hellcult cultists benefit?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 11 2016 15:44
The only ones that could benefit based on the rule written in the CSM book would be cultists as defined on page 95
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 15:44
They're in a different Dataslate, and don't refer back to page 95. But they're still "Chaos Cultists"
cartag
@cartag
May 11 2016 15:44
For Helcult, I would say so
but it's still same army
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 11 2016 15:44
and any formations that use thos esame cultists.
cartag
@cartag
May 11 2016 15:44
it's CSM, you can't bring Helcult as KDK
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 15:49
(Still funny!) I think it needs a FAQ though. Because Chaos Space Marines from KDK are still Chaos Space Marines from C:SM
cartag
@cartag
May 11 2016 15:49
No, they're not.
Unit size is still different
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 15:49
From a "hatred chaos space marines" perspective
cartag
@cartag
May 11 2016 15:49
That names a blanket term and would include the entire CSM book and the one unit from KDK
And in that case also, there's nothing explicitly defining CSM as one thing or another, unlike the Cultists reference to page 95 with this.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 15:50
It only covers the actual "Chaos Space Marines" not the cultists from C:SM ( I believe that is FAQ'd)
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 11 2016 15:51
@OftKilted - would you consider a Blood Angels tactical squad equal to a Space Marines tactical squad?
cartag
@cartag
May 11 2016 15:51
There are no cultists in C:SM
C:CSM there is, but Codex: Space Marines has none :P
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 15:51
Whee autocorrect on mobile
No, but they are still Space Marines
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 11 2016 15:52
No, they're not.
They're Blood Angels.
They are different Codexes.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 15:52
Are they labeled "Space Marines"? If they're not labeled as such then you're right. Both entries are labeled "Chaos Cultists"
cartag
@cartag
May 11 2016 15:53
But it specifically states "Any Chaos Cultist units (see the army list, pg 95)" in the description of the Plague Zombies rule
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 11 2016 15:54
Both are called "Tactical Squad" in their codexes.
Name doesn't mean they are the same.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 15:54
I believe that's it's ambiguous and should be faq'd. (Still amusing.)
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 11 2016 15:55
No it's not ... it's clear as day. In 10 words.
cartag
@cartag
May 11 2016 15:55
You only see that particular part regarding KDK as ambiguous because you want to when it's fairly plainly spelled out.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 15:56
Okay, given that we have people who were having an entire unit of marines throwing grenades at walkers prior to that being FAQ'd
cartag
@cartag
May 11 2016 15:56
Asked
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 15:58
It is a completely legitimate question. Whether or not it reflects only the specific ones from the C:CSM or all "Chaos Cultists" (which is brutally broken if so... But still funny)
And thanks for asking :+1:
cartag
@cartag
May 11 2016 15:58
Again, if it hadn't explicitly stated page number, I would agree with you
You're intentionally overlooking a big part of this
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 11 2016 15:58
Eh, it's as legitimate a question as: "Can Buildings Scout"
Just because it's asked doesn't mean it needs to be.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 15:59
Given that you have psychic powers that can move buildings ...
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 11 2016 15:59
So?
A psyker affecting terrain is a completely different idea than the building getting up and walking 6 inches because Khan conferred scout to it.
cartag
@cartag
May 11 2016 16:00
^
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 16:01
Just because it is "obvious" to you doesn't mean it is correct. I can agree that it is likely only affecting the c:CSM ones. But I can see valid arguments for both. (Look at the ITC ruling on Legacies of ruin and Chaos Knights in Daemonkin armies)
as an example
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 11 2016 16:02
There is no valid argument. "You can use the units as described on this page as zombies" .. That doesn't mean go buy another codex and use them.
IT means use the units described.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 16:04
The problem that you have is that it is using a parenthetical expression. Which invalidates your argument.

A parenthetical expression is an expression which is inserted into the flow of thought. It may be in the middle of a sentence or between sentences, but it does not deal directly with the topic at hand.

Some short parenthetical expressions like of course are set off by commas, but parenthetical expressions may also be set off by parentheses and dashes.

Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 11 2016 16:04
... ok I'm done.
back to C:SM work.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 16:05
(which is why it likely needs a FAQ)
cartag
@cartag
May 11 2016 16:09
Knights by datasheet can be included in KDK and include BftBG, I don't see why they needed to clarify. Legacies of Ruin shouldn't be able to be on anything KDK because IA13 specifically lists C:CSM as the units that can bring them.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 16:13
Yep. And to get bftbg you need daemon knight of Khorne. Which likely makes it a Daemonengine. And they can't take it either. But that isn't thebITC ruling (not that we do ITC rulings). But that is the type of argument were looking at here.
Is it funny fluffy? Sure. In a friendly game I'd be interested to see how they work. Sure. Is it something that is legit? Likely not.
And they faq'd the second sentence.
cartag
@cartag
May 11 2016 16:26
Fluff wise it does make it a daemon engine
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 16:28
But Daemon Engine isn't defined anywhere...even in IA:13
cartag
@cartag
May 11 2016 16:28
It says if it is controlled by a fell creature of the warp. If you check the section on titans it describes what turns one of them into a daemon engine
If it is a daemon and mechanical, it's a daemon engine
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 11 2016 16:29
Yep. Not matched by the ITC ruling and interpretations I've seen.
(And articles)
cartag
@cartag
May 11 2016 16:30
Good thing ITC doesn't make the rules.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 11 2016 17:22
first batch of C:SM fixes are in. Gladius, Anvil Strike Force, and Scarblade Strike force should all work correctly.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 11 2016 17:44
Well, they work in PC :/ show/hide bug is still preventing it from working right in ios though
cartag
@cartag
May 11 2016 18:24
You can do things backwards then. Instead of hiding by default and showing if it matches criteria, set it to show by default and hide if it matches criteria
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 11 2016 18:25
I was going to try that tonight when I work on them again
does that work on IOS?
just the hidden then show if is broken
cartag
@cartag
May 11 2016 18:32
Yup, one works the other doesn't.
I just confirmed CSM file is working with regard to supplements, you can check how they are set to show
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 11 2016 18:33
Ah perfect, I'll swap those around tonight then and re-upload.
Thanks!
cartag
@cartag
May 11 2016 18:37
No problem! Why do I feel like the go to guy for some things now? Lol
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 11 2016 18:40
Haha, I appreciate it. Nice to have that resource when revising catalogs.
Now we just nee 2.0 to drop and we can all come to you for those things too
cartag
@cartag
May 11 2016 18:43
If you want to check out what I've uploaded you can. I still need to update with the DftS and AoD detachment though
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 11 2016 18:45
Yea, once I finished my immediate fixes here I was going to start the conversion to 2.0. so probably next week sometime I'll be pulling down that branch to start work
really helps having all that done already!
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
May 11 2016 21:20
@cartag, it might be a good idea to write down some of those things into wiki maybe? (smiles as nicely as possible) :D
cartag
@cartag
May 11 2016 21:25
I can do that when I get home. Brain broke at work and it's hard to be productive when you burst out into tears for no fucking reason.
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
May 11 2016 21:26
Sure thing. Whenever you see fit :)
cartag
@cartag
May 11 2016 21:27
Lucky me though, they pushed my next appointment for meds from June back to October. guess it's a good thing I've not been a mental wreck for the past ten months. Wait a sec...
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
May 11 2016 21:27
;D doctors.