The "Space Wolves Detachment" is from the old codex, where they were allowed twice as many HQ units compared to the standard FOC. It should be deleted, but that'll bork any rosters people've saved that use it.
I just saw #2181 and #2184. Didn't want to comment on the public github board, but @cartag, you are way out of order. This is a community, we've all put in countless hours producing this work for free, and I don't think it's too much to ask for people to show each other just a little respect. How long do you think things will last if we were all to start rewriting each others work?
Whoa, I was just trying to be helpful, there was no disrespect meant there, I'll just delete tehm
That wasn't me trying to rewrite your work, that was as a user trying to start out a Renegade army and finding it confusing as hell, albeit not explaining myself in the slightest and causing hurt feelings.
Since the SW detachment says 1 HQ and 2 Troops and gives no bonuses for taking it, I'd say the Wolves Unleashed is a better choice if you want to go with a loadout requiring more than 2 HQs. I say we remove it, but I don't know how such things have been handled in the past.
@efalsken re: #2143, I'd agree with you on Flyer Aces, that it is only part of the campaign. Flyer Ace special rules are contingent on multiple kills, spread out over the campaign, but I wouldn't consider Wing Leader to be that.
There are two sets of Flyer Ace style upgrades though in the new book. One is for head of Flyer Wings, similar to anything that a Champion in an infantry unit would get, a way to set them apart. The other is Flyer Ace, the one meant just for campaigns. The Wing one should be included IMO, the Flyer Ace not so much.
I want to create a branch before I do any work. I can't test my work with those files in place, so I'll delete them, but I'm worried that when I do a pull request from my new branch it will try to delete them for everyone, and somebody probably made those accidentally on purpose.
Ok @cartag I think I found the reason for my 18,000 changes. Apparently if you increment/decriment on a linked entry that goes to the very top of the XML file. I deleted those, now Github desktop has decided to crawl like an infant through molassass
@tag8833 try forking instead? That's how I do my work.
I'll fork - clone my fork to my desktop, make changes, commit to my fork, then do a pull request from the fork to the main.
Couple extra (quick) steps, but it is a good safety net.
Then I'll delete the fork and re-do it If there's been other commits since my last changes.
@Randobar Sorry - the fix for the tyrant guard issue is going to be 18,900 line changes (overall 5 line changes I think) - The reason being, when we attach a conditional to an entry link (like was on tyrant guard originally), it's at the very top of the file. I removed that and placed a hide conditional on the shared entry itself to fix the issue but that moved everything up one line.
Yea, I think you can do that tag, not positive though - again, only worked with Forks ... not that it's the best, just the only way I know how :p @cartag is my go-to for all things here, perhaps he would know.
Yeah, his review of my 1st round of git changes were that I should have been using branches, so I deleted my clone, and created a new one, and branched it, and there are not compressed duplicates in there. So I think I'm good to go with a branch for today. Baby-step style changes in case I screw something up.