These are chat archives for BSData/wh40k

19th
May 2016
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
May 19 2016 05:17

Just to chime in, there is not much of a difference. Main point is that when you work on local branch (so you download, branch and work) it's easier to update from master in case you work a longer time and want to get changes which appeared after you created the branch. You can also push that branch and have everyone able to commit things.

That'd be useful when working on BS 2.0 files, for example - because whole org has access to that branch and everyone can commit to it parallel to master.

Forking is a bit more hassle in terms of git and GitHub, because you clone entire repo not only locally, but also online. You end up with your own personal copy.

Both enable pull requests. But for typical workflow, when you already are member and have access, branching is the way to go. Forking is most popular on GitHub 'cause you don't have to get any access/membership to start working and also quite often it's just a single or a couple pull requests for a lifetime (from single person).

I hope I cleared it up a bit, but seeing how much I've written, I'm not sure if it's not even more clogged now xD

Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 10:42
No that makes sense. I'll perhaps start using a branch myself.
Troy Graber
@tag8833
May 19 2016 14:07
@amis92 thanks for the clarifications. That helps a lot.
True_Hisop
@hisop
May 19 2016 15:12
Hey guys, i know i haven't been round much lately, (work eh?) but figured i would work on some issues, i opened sisters in 2.0 for the first time made a 1 line change and it seems to have resolved that ad 8000+ lines of change? normal for v2?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 15:13
What line did you change.
I, no joke, had the same thing happen when changing 3 lines in tyranids outside of 2.0
True_Hisop
@hisop
May 19 2016 15:15
There is currently an error in a dependency for Retributors it needs a child, (should be "veteran sister superior")
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 15:15
Did you net remove a line?
True_Hisop
@hisop
May 19 2016 15:15
Nope
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 15:15
or move a line from one spot to another?
True_Hisop
@hisop
May 19 2016 15:15
literealy only added that dependancy
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 15:16
It was likely at the top of the XML file.
and shifted everything down 1 line.
True_Hisop
@hisop
May 19 2016 15:16
the change is so large git hub is crashing when proccesing
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 15:16
Yea, it does :/
Only way to do it is to manually upload the file to github web to your fork or branch
then do a pull from there.
I moved a pair of hide conditionals in the nids codex from the entry link into the shared entry
which happened to be at the top of the file (or bottom)
and it shifted 9800 lines.
True_Hisop
@hisop
May 19 2016 15:17
Well it is "trying now" we will see
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 15:17
GL, I gave up on waiting on the app after a while last night and just did a pull from my fork.
True_Hisop
@hisop
May 19 2016 15:18
Yay forced it through :P
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 15:19
nice!
But yea - that many line changes makes you do a double take but after happening to me I can see why it might've happened.
True_Hisop
@hisop
May 19 2016 15:20
Yeah i re-downloaded and did it again to make sure :P
i couldnt belive it i thought id messed up somehow
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 15:20
Oh you had even more than me
14k on yours
True_Hisop
@hisop
May 19 2016 15:21
yup
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 15:21
I just merged mine, 9400 up/down
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 15:26
Just curious for those who had issues with number of changed lines, did you sync your copy after the Death from the Skies mass update was pushed? The one that changed all flyers to the new profile? Wonder if that had something to do with it.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 15:27
I'm bad - I delete and re-fork constantly.
So that wouldn't have been it for me
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 15:27
That's the only thing I can think of that would have done it
nm then
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 15:27
good idea though, that would definately account for it.
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 15:27
I admittedly go a bit overboard here, I have three folders, Dev, Test, and Prod.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 15:28
Hey, better safe than not. I just fork cause I know how and it makes sense to me. I'll fork - work on my changes, commit, pull, then delete the fork. Start over when I work on more
True_Hisop
@hisop
May 19 2016 15:31
I downloaded from GH and copied those files first before working.
And then when i saw i re-did it to make sure :P
Troy Graber
@tag8833
May 19 2016 15:37
OK next question in my Github education. I submitted a Pull from my Branch. Is there a process by which the Pull is approved and integrated, or is it already in the master?
True_Hisop
@hisop
May 19 2016 15:38
BSData/wh40k#2192
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 15:38
BSData/wh40k#2192
You need to go there and Merge now
True_Hisop
@hisop
May 19 2016 15:38
its there, anyone with permission can merge it in
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 15:40
there ya go
True_Hisop
@hisop
May 19 2016 15:40
"fast as lightning
In fact, it was a little bit frightening"
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 15:40
:+1:
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 15:40
if you use Closes #2190 in the pull request or commit
It'll close the issue you opened or corrected too
Troy Graber
@tag8833
May 19 2016 15:43
OK Thanks.
Have we figured out how we are handling the Air Superiority Detachment?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 15:44
You can do that as part of the pull/commit when you put it in too, once you merge it gets processed automatically
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 15:44
Air Superiority detachment is already in the GST
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 15:44
Aye. KDK and CSM has great examples on how to do the flyer wings.
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 15:44
If you want to check the CSM or KDK files, you can see how I did them
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 15:44
C:SM now as well.
Troy Graber
@tag8833
May 19 2016 15:46
Ah, I missed that part. OK, creating the Flyer Wing Links now.
True_Hisop
@hisop
May 19 2016 15:49
Is anyone specificaly looking after SW i have something assigned to me for them and i dont want to mess if someone is looking after them.
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 15:49
@hisop There was an update to the Inquisition book that includes the prices listed in #2164
I have it in both PDF and ePUB
True_Hisop
@hisop
May 19 2016 15:50
Yes to the inquisition book i agree, not to IA:2
The FA unit cant be taken in that book
it is from IA:"
2
thus it uses the IA:2 rules
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 15:50
for the Valkyrie?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 15:51
I think @SuperPranx took over Space Wolves as caretaker.
True_Hisop
@hisop
May 19 2016 15:51
the valkarie dedicated transport follows the update. i aslo have it.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 15:51
He didn't add himself in the wiki though so i'm not positive
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 15:51
ah, nm, forget I said anything :)
I thought he had too @Kohato
True_Hisop
@hisop
May 19 2016 15:52
@SuperPranx want to take a look at #1265 ? or want me?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 15:52
I'll add him to SW and Tags to Orks in the wiki ... helps to have those things up to date.
True_Hisop
@hisop
May 19 2016 15:53
@cartag haha i will :P its confusing as hell though having two different profiles in once roster i wish FW would do updates.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 15:54
Hey, give them 10 years.
We just got GW to talk to us in public about rules and updates.
These things take time, like 40,000 years.
True_Hisop
@hisop
May 19 2016 15:55
Haha true!
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 15:58
Hopefully new CEO is less afraid of the internet and will release the death grip on their IP just a hair
True_Hisop
@hisop
May 19 2016 15:59
Well i think things are heading in the right direction the new public FAQ has done alot to restore my faith.
In regards to #2074 does adept of the armoury prevent you from taking a techmarine without another HQ?
"Adepts of the Armoury: For each HQ choice in your Detachment (not including other
Techmarines) you can include a Techmarine. These do not use up a slot on a Force
Organisation chart."
Troy Graber
@tag8833
May 19 2016 16:03
Where do we stand on FW Supplements that specify a specific source for rules. For instance the Dread Mob supplement specifies that you should get the Dakkajet rules from the White Dwarf that originally introduced it. There are newer rules in the ork Codex, and even newer rules in the Death from the Skies Supplement. Do we update the FW Supplement to use the newest rules?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 16:03
No.
Adepts only lets you take one without using a FOC slot
You can still take one as a regular (elite?) I would say
True_Hisop
@hisop
May 19 2016 16:03
HQ
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 16:03
HQ then
Silly me, I play xenos exclusivly
True_Hisop
@hisop
May 19 2016 16:04
They used to be elite
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 16:04
But yea, for each HQ that isn't a techmarine - you can take a Non FOC techmarine at normal cost is how I read that
As long as the Grey Knights book has techmarine as a normal HQ choice in the book I should say
for reference
arabviking
@arabviking
May 19 2016 16:06
I am bit out of the loop on when and how things get updated on Battlescribe. But have the angels of death and death from the skies been added yet?
True_Hisop
@hisop
May 19 2016 16:06
I think you can, its the full stop that throws me
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 16:06
Loading up the pdf - i'll give you my 3cents once it loads.
@arabviking Every now and then we push the full repo.
For C:SM Skies and Angels are mostly done
All I have left is the relics to do
arabviking
@arabviking
May 19 2016 16:07
Understandably so. Look forward to when it has been fully implemented.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 16:07
I Believe all Angels of death formations are fully pushed out
but the flyer wings have not yet made it to public push
arabviking
@arabviking
May 19 2016 16:07
In the meanwhile, I will just build my list to 1620, and the rest 130 are for the new flier for SM :)
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 16:07
Oh shit, there was a new flyer.
Ok that's not in yet
*Adding that tonight.
arabviking
@arabviking
May 19 2016 16:08
Thunderhawk interceptor.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 16:08
Do me a favor and open up an issue on git for it and I'll get it added tonight when I get home
please and thanks :)
arabviking
@arabviking
May 19 2016 16:08
Aight.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 16:09
@hisop Tech Marine is a 90pt HQ choice in the codex.
To me - that rule means, that you can take the techmarine as an HQ choice.
Or for every Non techmarine HQ you have, you can take a techmarine at normal cost (90+) in the No Force Org Chart slot.
The full stop is a bit of a misnomer ... It applies only to the techmarines mentioned in the rule itself, meaning the ones taken if you have another HQ.
It definately could use a FAQ though
I'll post it on FB, they got back to Cartag quick enough, maybe we'll get an answer today
True_Hisop
@hisop
May 19 2016 16:15
Sounds good to me
We'll see what they say
True_Hisop
@hisop
May 19 2016 16:20
Great i will look forward to it.
There is no validation atm so whichever way it is i will fix it then, for now i will implement and close.
arabviking
@arabviking
May 19 2016 16:21
Done Earl.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 16:21
Yea, easy enough to add validation after. I'll let you know when they respond. Thanks @arabviking
14866 additions, 7343 deletions.
Again :/
I wonder what's causing that
True_Hisop
@hisop
May 19 2016 16:23
I think these files have never been opened in V2 and some of the data is organised differently.
so when it takes them in it re-arranges.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 16:23
Ohh you're working out of 2.0
Yea that could be it.
True_Hisop
@hisop
May 19 2016 16:24
You think i should re-vert to v1.5? i thught we had moved to prep for v2?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 16:24
No idea, I honestly thought 2.0 lists weren't compatible with 1.5
Only reason I hadn't moved on myself.
True_Hisop
@hisop
May 19 2016 16:25
Hmm let me look
I did say before :P
thats why i asked Haha
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 16:26
Haha
True_Hisop
@hisop
May 19 2016 16:26
" i opened sisters in 2.0 for the first time made a 1 line change and it seems to have resolved that ad 8000+ lines of change? normal for v2?"
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 16:27
If lists are compatible outside of the obvious rules linking from the GST not working ... I'll start working in 2.0
Hah, so y ou did.
True_Hisop
@hisop
May 19 2016 16:29
Nope :P
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 16:29
not working?
True_Hisop
@hisop
May 19 2016 16:29
Nope not even a little
Let me fix that :P
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 16:29
Well balls.
Good to know!
Thanks for breaking it in the name of science. :)
True_Hisop
@hisop
May 19 2016 16:34
Haha i will fix it when im home
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 16:34
Alright - if you need a backup, I have one at home from last night.
Ivan Milanov
@SuperPranx
May 19 2016 17:27
Hey guys. I didn't add myself as caretaker for Space Wolves as I can never be certain I would have time, as is the case with the past month and probably the following few. I have time to make minor changes from time to time and I try to stay up to date with current SW issues. So, @hisop, as long as I'm not assigned (or haven't assigned myself) to an issue, you can go ahead and take it.
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 18:43
V2 is drastically different from 1.15. There will be a lot of line changes, and I don't know if it will work properly with 1.15. The 2 branch is just for prep work, not for user facing changes yet
Troy Graber
@tag8833
May 19 2016 18:55
Do we have an ETA on V2?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 20:36
For anyone that sees this:
blob
Ignore it for now - @hisop is fixing it tonight.
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 20:36
^ that is what happens if you load a data file up in 2.0 and then try to save it and use it in 1.15
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 20:37
Yep. I just refreshed my fork without thinking so I got the 2.0 sisters and GK.
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 20:38
And @tag8833, no word yet, you can get the alpha testing versions here: https://github.com/BattleScribe/Desktop-Alphas
That's what we've been using. It installs in a separate folder and uses separate data files. This way you can run both concurrently
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 20:39
yep. @cartag set up a branch for 2.0 work too, so if you work on converting to 2.0 you can upload the work there.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 19 2016 20:47
@cartag @hisop @amis92 @Kohato As we did the rollover for the flyers stuff after we did the initial split/change for the 2.0 data file, was the 2.0 beta branch updated?
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 20:48
..... fuck.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 20:48
Not sure, I ahven't touched it recently. I was going to start my conversion/overhaul of C:SM in 2.0 after I finished Skies of Death
I'll take that as a no.
Lol
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 20:48
You would be correct.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 19 2016 20:48
Glad to help.
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 20:49
Paging @amis92 for Flyer Profiles in the bs2prep branch
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 19 2016 20:49
Do we just want to discard the current 2.0 and do a re-update based on current?
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 20:49
Do you know how much work I put into the GST?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 19 2016 20:50
Is that going to be less work/more work?
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 20:50
All of the shared profiles are put into it.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 20:50
Oh god please do not scrap what he did
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 19 2016 20:50
facepalm
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 20:50
It will be way less work to add the new detachments in than to redo everything
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 20:50
It will be less work to add flyer profiles into the new gst.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 19 2016 20:50
I wasn't thinking gst, I was thinking secondary catalogs.
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 20:50
secondary catalogs won't be as bad, but the GST would be very detrimental to the progress
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 19 2016 20:50
sigh Well, at least we remembered we forgot prior to remembering that we need to remember?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 20:51
haha
Secondary will be easier
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 20:51
I'm loading it up now
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 20:51
only a couple changes that are easy to copy over.
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 20:51
had a panic attack at my horrible shitty job
I can't function there
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 20:51
where ya work?
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 20:51
so I came home, popped a couple valium, and am going to code to relax
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 20:52
sounds like the way to do it
Voting time for like ... the two of you online right now
Adding in Wing Leader
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 20:55
I would do Wing Leader as a special rule, linked to Flyer Wings
Troy Graber
@tag8833
May 19 2016 20:55
I left out wingleader. Was debating about how to implement it.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 20:55
Acceptable to attach the rule/table to the Gunship wing entry itself, or do you think it'd be beneficial to bang out a way to attach to 1 flyer and limit it to 1 per wing.
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 20:56
Since there will only be one (presumably) for each faction, you should only need the one wing
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 20:56
Not necessarily :/ There can be 1 wing leader per wing.
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 20:56
We don't need to specify in the roster which is which, it won't really do anything for roster development
Troy Graber
@tag8833
May 19 2016 20:56
You can change it at game time. It isn't pre-declared, right?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 20:56
One model in each
Flyer Wing can be upgraded to a Wing Leader at no additional
points cost.
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 20:56
Just link the rule to the flyer wing and you're set
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 20:56
Good enough for me
Oh balls.
I forgot I renamed Flyer Ace to Wing Leader.
then just deleted it.
Troy Graber
@tag8833
May 19 2016 20:57
I stand corrected. you specify when you create a flyer wing.
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 20:58
It's a 0 pt upgrade, and the old Flyer Ace isn't valid any more
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 20:58
There is apparently 18 links to "Flyer Ace" in this catalog.
Yea I know, that's why I deleted it.
but instead of using links to a single entry, C:SM is using so many dupliates I now get to hunt down 18 links to the old entry
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 20:59
Just delete the entries, the ones that reference will just spit out errors
easy to find that way :)
Troy Graber
@tag8833
May 19 2016 20:59
There is a new "Flyer Ace" but I think it only applies to the campaigns.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 20:59
Yea tag, that's why we're not adding it.
@cartag any way to pinpoint where? I now have 18 "Link must have a target that exists" errors with no pointers.
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 21:00
If you double click on them it should take you to the entry
Troy Graber
@tag8833
May 19 2016 21:00
@Kohato I already have people trying to used it at my tourney on Saturday.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 21:00
It does not :(
it just doesn't scroll
oh shit it does
... that's dumb
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 21:00
:)
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 21:00
why doesn't it scroll.
I'm a lazy man, SCROLL FOR ME!
and @tag8833 if they're not doing a campaign i'd rule it out
there is no way to legitamately track it
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 21:01
^
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 21:01
unless they're using it across your tourney sunday (like game 2 will use it for kills in game 1)
even then, pen/paper is best for that
Also ... C:SM has WAY too many fliers
Guess it's a good thing I deleted this, now I'm learning about way more flyers that I missed making wings for.
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 21:03
I haven't set up Flyer Wings for FW models, just throwing that out there
until there's a FW update, I say we hold off
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 21:04
Good enough reasoning for me.
I did it for the storm eagle but that's enough.
*Thunderhawk
the 400 dollar 2 ft long monstrosity
that cna transport a land raider.
because you need a transport for your transport.
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 21:06
Yo dawg...
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 21:06
yea pretty much
I'm still adamant on wanting to see a game of floorhammer
with a tau flyer wing of Mantas.
Oh hey, just 4 mantas rolling up. Gonna drop of 12 devilfish and 200~ fire warriors.
sorry, 16 devilfish
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 21:07
Flyer Wing detachment is 3 FW, not 4
so 12 is accurate
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 21:08
Oh I thought it was 2 to 4
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 21:08
That's how many models per Flyer Wing
the Air Superiority detachment is 1-3 Flyer Wings
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 21:08
Ohh
No, a manta holds 3 devilfish
*4 devilfish
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 21:08
I know WAY too much about this given that my armies collectively have 1 flyer
ah, nm
so 12 Mantas then
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 21:08
So 16 devilfish per flyer wing. If we're doing a whole detachment, lets round it to 52 devilfish.
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 21:08
fuck it, go all out
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 21:09
holy fuck
52 devilfish
58*
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 21:09
48
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 21:09
48
My math is bad.
No fuck it, 52, I'll fly a single manta as part of my cad.
If I have money for 12 mantas I'm sure I have money for a 13th
Troy Graber
@tag8833
May 19 2016 21:11
@Kohato Yeah, it is an example of the sort of BS people try to pull. I told them no chance. In fact in a pre-tourney poll we agreed 85% to ignore everything from Death from the Skies. It has not been well received in my local meta.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 21:12
I hear that a lot.
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 21:12
I have to wonder if so much of the vitriol against things like DftS is due to people just not wanting to even try it
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 21:12
I like the changes personally
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 21:12
Like what can you possibly lose by giving it a shot?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 21:12
I'm a bit bitter that necrons no longer have ANY form of skyfire
save an ageis line.
but overall I like the changes.
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 21:12
I'm a fucking Chaos player and even I am giving it the benefit of the doubt
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 21:12
yea you have a single flyer across 3 codexes.
My hats off to you and your chaos brethren.
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 21:13
and one of them doesn't even HAVE a flyer
Troy Graber
@tag8833
May 19 2016 21:14
@cartag I think most of them have tried it. I've played 3 games attempting to use it now. No thanks.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 19 2016 21:14
I'm waiting for them to AoS the system. cough
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 21:14
Nah, doubt that'll happen.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 19 2016 21:15
Meanwhile ... my Moonclan (Night) Goblins are coming along nicely!
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 21:15
The most we get in the form of a new edition in the next 2 years is a 7.5 that bundles the BRB + all the FAQ changes.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 19 2016 21:15
I
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 21:15
Sorry, BRB + FAQ + Skies of Death
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 19 2016 21:16
I'm hoping for some expansion in regards to what Chaos gets for non-daemons.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 21:16
Oh same. I just meant as in an 8th edition
I hope chaos is getting some love soon with the next supplement.
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 21:16
@tag8833 which parts did you try out with it? I'm honestly curious
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 19 2016 21:16
With them pulling most of the models, and the boxed set and whatnot being 'rolled back'
I have the suspicion that the C:SM with the cultists is a formation in some new book somewhere that just isn't out yet.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 21:17
C:CSM
C:SM is what I work on :p
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 19 2016 21:17
The real Space Marines. We don't go for some 'corpse emperor'
Troy Graber
@tag8833
May 19 2016 21:17
@cartag Dogfights, 2 of the missions, the new Ork ans space marine fliers (Proxies). Break turns, No BS adjustments. Flyer wings, and Attack patterns.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
May 19 2016 21:18
;-P
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 21:18
Those attack patterns are my favorite change honestly
I'll rarely see them used more than once a game, but seeing someone plan that out with 2 or 3 flyers is pretty awesome
Troy Graber
@tag8833
May 19 2016 21:19
@Kohato They just add extra rules like formations. Coupled with the reduction in Skyfire, and the fact that Eldar get bonuses across the board, and you've got a supplement that unbalances the game even more.
@Kohato also do you have any idea how to form up into an Attack pattern? is it just about distance? Angle? How do you define when a group of fliers is or isn't in a pattern?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 21:23
It's in the book.
Angle and Distance.
Troy Graber
@tag8833
May 19 2016 21:24
So it has to be exactly that angle?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 21:24
Kind of. I treat it like in the book
So, for one of them with 3 - It's an angled forward assault.
2-4" from left wingtip to the tail of the one in front.
As long as that is fulfilled, it works.
Troy Graber
@tag8833
May 19 2016 21:25
We used a midpoint base quadrant system. So to be in vigilance, the trailing flyer has to be in the lower right or lower left quadrant of the leading flyer.
It was the best we could do as a houserule.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 21:25
I'd be fine with that
but still within 2-6" for vigilance.
can't be 3 feet away and still in an attack patern.
Troy Graber
@tag8833
May 19 2016 21:26
Yeah, the distance is the only thing they specified.
I argued that the only thing that was important was the distance, and you could have 2 flyers side by side in Vigilance.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 21:27
As long as one is trailing behind the other.
Troy Graber
@tag8833
May 19 2016 21:27
But i got outvoted.
Its another set of rules that are unplayable out of the box. However you try to use them, you've got to house rule it. And that is really divisive for a community like mine.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 21:30
Unplayable is a bit of a stretch and overreaction ... but any supplement is able to be used or ignored as long as the group agrees
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 21:44
MWG is running it as if the attack pattern is diagonals, as long as it's behind and to the side, it counts. The ones that are side by side must be side by side.
So no side by side Vigilance
Vehemence could be a bit off center, as long as the spacing is right and the back two are even
Unmerciful would have to be in a straight line, etc
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 21:46
As with all rulings, it's up to a judge at the event, but it's still pretty easy to use.
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 21:48
so @tag8833, which rules are being used by your local meta? Just Flyer Wings and the Detachment? Attack Patterns? Some combo of everything?
Troy Graber
@tag8833
May 19 2016 21:48
We've been making a concerted effort to try everything.
So far i think we generally hate Dogfights, Attack Patterns, and the new rules for Unit Type.
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 21:49
Is there anything that has definitely been greenlit or ruled that it won't be used for most games? My group hasn't had any real discussions on it
Which unit type rules? The new type, agility, and pursuit?
or the loss of skyfire and the like?
Troy Graber
@tag8833
May 19 2016 21:49
I think the 2 new fliers are definitely greenlit
The loss of skyfire mainly, but also the nerf to ballistic skill for fighters.
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 21:51
that does do a lot to differentiate flyers though, so they don't all operate the same
Troy Graber
@tag8833
May 19 2016 21:52
Yeah, that sort of thing works fine in Narrative games, and Tournaments will make it work, but it is devastating to casual pickup games.
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 21:53
not necessarily for casual games
I have a simple rule for pickup games. If somebody wants to bring a shitload of cheese for a friendly game, i just don't play that person.
had the same philosophy for AoS, didn't understand the reason for points with what they were trying to do
Troy Graber
@tag8833
May 19 2016 21:55
It isn't really about Cheese per se. It is more about the game actually mattering. We all run friendly Take All Comer lists for pickup games.
Usually fliers are fine so long as they aren't spammed. Everyone has some anti-air in their friendly TAC lists.
But now there are entire codexes without anti-air options (Grey knights, Necrons). And there are
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 21:56
We have a guy here who will bring a Wraithknight for a 500 pt game and see nothing wrong with it
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 21:57
1) My overlord can sit on an ageis line just fine sir.
2) Ruling question
Troy Graber
@tag8833
May 19 2016 21:57
reserve manipulations available to some armies that other can't get.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 21:57
In Skies of death - the two space marine formations list their requirments as "1 Flyer Wing consisting of X"
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 21:57
I think I've gotten to the point where if my opponent isn't having fun, I don't have fun. It's no fun to kick puppies. Chaos has very little AA also. I think for KDK we have Soul Grinders, and that's it.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 21:57
Does that mean those two formations can be taken in the Arial detachment in place of a normal flying wing?
Troy Graber
@tag8833
May 19 2016 21:58
@Kohato reasonable people could disagree.
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 21:58
@Kohato No. This was something I was wrong about. There is nothing stating that for that particular detachment that models can be part of it and part of a formation
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 21:58
blob
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 21:58
That can be brought as a formation, but not as part of an Air Superiority detachment
Troy Graber
@tag8833
May 19 2016 21:58
Why not?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 21:59
Perfect, thanks Cartag.
Thats what I thoguht, was just making sure
Because tag - the detachment needs 1-3 flyer wings.
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 21:59
@tag8833 because it's a formation that makes up that particular Flyer Wing
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 21:59
not 1-3 formations ALSO consiting of a flyer wing
Troy Graber
@tag8833
May 19 2016 21:59
That is 1 Flyer wing.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 21:59
Right
but how do you make it
outside of that formation
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 22:00
so it's a formation before it's a flyer wing. There may be clarification later that allows it, but for RAW it's not possible to bring in a AS detachment
Troy Graber
@tag8833
May 19 2016 22:00
Why is it a formation before a flyer wing instead of the other way around?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 22:01
Because it's a data list entry for a formation.
This formation detachment consists of a flyer wing.
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 22:01
The books with Decurion style detachments say that the models can be part of both a formation and a detachment, but only for these specific choices. There is no such wording for the new detachment
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 22:01
The Arial Superiority detachment consists of 2-3 flyer wings.
models cannot belong to two detachments at once.
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 22:01
You can run the formation like you would the Air Superiority detachment, but you wouldn't get the special rules from it
Troy Graber
@tag8833
May 19 2016 22:04
Yeah OK. Lots of argument about this at the store on Tuesday.
blob
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 22:05
That's warhammer for you.
Troy Graber
@tag8833
May 19 2016 22:05
The other side was using that rule, but they were dropping a few words out of it I see.
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 22:06
So the Flyer Wings that are chosen from teh same Datasheet can be used in the AS detachment, but not ones that are part of a formation
In all games, I tend to go with the more restrictive ruling in cases like this. It makes it more fair for everybody if there is any ambiguity, and tends to be something everybody can agree on until there is clarification on it
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 22:07
That ruling is there to say that the formations can function as a flyer wing.
Because they are not from the same datasheet.
But not that formations can be used in the arial detachment.
Troy Graber
@tag8833
May 19 2016 22:07
They can also be multiple Flyer Wings which is weird.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 22:07
A formation?
Which ones are multiple flyer wings?
Troy Graber
@tag8833
May 19 2016 22:08
Yep. Like the Ork Air Armada.
It has 5 fliers, so it can be 2 Flyer Wings.
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 22:08
the Skwadron, 3 flyer wings
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 22:08
Ah, so that is 3 flyer wings then
As part of a formation.
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 22:09
That operates like the ASD, but different
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 22:09
Correct. Since it's still a detachment on it's own (All formations are)
Troy Graber
@tag8833
May 19 2016 22:09
But the Air Armada is an old formation not changed by DftS.
It had 5 fliers so can be 2 Flier wings.
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 22:09
but it's still a formation
Troy Graber
@tag8833
May 19 2016 22:10
Yep
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 22:10
Right.
So we're all in agreement, formations have flyer wings.
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 22:10
So the Air Armada isn't flyer wings, but it is a formation, and as such cannot be part of the ASD
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 22:11
^ a detachment cannot be part of another deatchment.
full stop.
every formation is its own detachment. ergo, no formations can be used in the Air Superiority detachment.
Troy Graber
@tag8833
May 19 2016 22:12
Yeah I'm in agreement with that.
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 22:12
Unless there was wording on the Air Superiority detachment saying it could be brought. And there isn't.
KDK Blood Host wording for example
blob
Troy Graber
@tag8833
May 19 2016 22:14
Its a new Concept. Something bigger than a unit but smaller than a detachment. I feel like a blind hippo could have designed a better FOC system.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 22:14
@arabviking - flyer's in, along with some other things I forgot. Death from the Skies should now be 100% for C:SM once the master gets pushed to blogspot.
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 22:15
@tag8833 it really is just a unit, much like squadrons of Vindicators in C:SM
Troy Graber
@tag8833
May 19 2016 22:15
It can be multiple units as well.
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 22:15
what can be
Troy Graber
@tag8833
May 19 2016 22:15
A flyer Wing.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 22:15
not can be. It is.
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 22:15
IF it is part of a formation
Troy Graber
@tag8833
May 19 2016 22:16
Yep.
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 22:16
There are no Flyer Wings currently in the game that are not formations that contain more than one type of model
Troy Graber
@tag8833
May 19 2016 22:16
Correct.
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 22:16
So it's basically giving a name to this:
blob
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 22:17
Oh I can't wait to see how much space I save by re-doing C:SM. With all the new stuff it's up to 3.7mb :(
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 22:18
Fortunately the ones users dl are all catz files, so they'll be much smaller
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 22:18
Oh yea, zipped it's down to like 300k.
Just 3.6mb is unwieldy when manipulating as a .cat
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 22:21
I can only imagine, my CSM file is 1.6MB
and somehow the R&H files are both almost as large as the CSM file.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 22:21
What, really?
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 22:21
yup
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 22:21
I mean I know how, but really
Likely filled with duplicated entries instead of links.
Exactly why C:SM is so large.
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 22:22
KDK is a svelte 605KB
CD 628 KB, Renegade Knights 44KB
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 22:22
Those sizes make me happy.
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 22:22
Same here
in the pants
Getting ready to sync the GST to bs2prep, updated it with the new AoD formations, the Air Superiority, Flyer profile, and correcting IDs for some other things. Bringing it up to v55.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 22:26
Cool
Thanks for that :) Once I finish C:SM relics I'll be moving on to the 2.0 version
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 22:27
I'm going to show you a really handy tip when you switch it over
do you use Notepad++ by any chance?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 22:27
I do
well not for cats.
but I do
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 22:27
Okay, this is going to be easy then lol
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 22:27
I just use the cat editor
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 22:28
When you get the files for bs2prep, load the GST into the new data editor, and find the IDs for things like the boltgun.
Do the same for your Boltgun ID in the C:SM book
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 22:28
ah, quick find/replace?
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 22:28
replace all in Notepad++ then just delete the shared profile in C:SM file
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 22:29
Good to know that will work
That'll lmake things super quick
thanks!
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 22:29
blob
^ All in the GST
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 22:30
Oh so nic
*nice
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 22:30
Shared rules too
and the Fortifications, so now you can set up one CAD and include your fortification instead of having a separate detachment for it
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 22:30
So here's a thought on some shared profiles.
Ever thought about adding Twin-Linked Duplicates?
So that the weapon itself on the roster HTML actually says Twin Linked.
Yea adding Fortifications in was one of my favorite.
so nice
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 22:32
I'm not sure on that with the Twin Linked. I'm willing to be outvoted though, I would like to leave it as accurate as possible with regards to RAW
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 22:32
Actually, nvm
I know how to add that
without adding it to GST.
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 22:33
You could add it into the CAT, or link the profile but then add a modifier to Type to append with ", Twin-linked"
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 22:33
^
yep.
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 22:33
but that will add a space between the last character in the Type and the comma
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 22:33
Link the profile.
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 22:33
I've tried it :)
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 22:33
Meh, that's fine with me.
I'll do that, keep the duplicated entries to a minimum
Oh I'm giddy at how streamlined this will be for 2.90
2.0 *
... well 2.9 too
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 22:34
What you may want to do then is make a separate entry for the TL weapon, then just reference it
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 22:35
Yep, I'll make the entry/link for TL and link the regular one then append the Twin Linked description
No additional data other than a link w/ modifier :)
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 22:42
yeah, but if you have to link and add the modifier more than say three times, it'll be more space efficient to make the new entry and link to it :P
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 22:43
That's true.
I'll see what's best when I get into it and probably ask you many more
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 22:43
And this is how you get a file down to 600k lol
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
May 19 2016 22:46
I anticipate it.
Though I'd be happy with 1.5mb given how big C:SM actually is, then Angels of Death, it's pretty much 2 codexes in one.
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 22:51
Silly me, you won't need to open the GST, then open the C:SM book... you can just open the C:SM. It will show you the shared profiles in it
cartag
@cartag
May 19 2016 23:02
You will need to delete the profile id listings for the old equipment though after you replace everything