These are chat archives for BSData/wh40k

8th
Sep 2016
Austin C.
@capitaladot
Sep 08 2016 17:34
@tag8833 you'd be doing the emperor's work to undo destructive, rules-deleting editing.
cartag
@cartag
Sep 08 2016 18:42
Trying to brainstorm how I'm going to implement something... with the new CSM supplement, any of the CSM formations can be brought as either Black Legion or Crimson Slaughter. Well, some of them can be CS, others can't due to VotLW limitations. As it stands now, there is a force check for if it is vanilla/BL/CS. I need to switch this to a per formation setting so the Chaos Lords from the units will have the right relic choices, and anything CS will have +1Ld. Any suggestions on how easiest implementation
I was thinking if taken as part of Black Crusade detachment, have it hide the normal roster level selection, and put a checkbox in the formations. If either is checked, it will apply rule to the units in the formation, but I don't want to do a dozen and a half condition checks
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Sep 08 2016 18:45
You may need to :/
Is the rule the same for that checkbox?
If it is you could put it on top level and only do 1 check
cartag
@cartag
Sep 08 2016 18:46
The difference being is that the sub formations can be taken in any supplement
So could do a Black Crusade detachment as vanilla, but have the Raptor Talon aux choice in it as Crimson Slaughter and a different one as Black Legion, the rest being vanilla
That's due to how they worded the supplements
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Sep 08 2016 18:59
Wel that's a pain in the ass
Shred entry "supplement choice"
Link to top level in each formation
Link the rule to the shared entry
Austin C.
@capitaladot
Sep 08 2016 19:10
We all know the pain of Space Marine unit bloat, but does any other faction approach the same level of complexity as Chaos Marines as they currently stand?
cartag
@cartag
Sep 08 2016 19:11
R&H
That file is a nightmare, logistically speaking
cartag
@cartag
Sep 08 2016 19:19
There's no way to search for selections in ancestor either, unfortunately
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Sep 08 2016 19:21
Blegh. That sucks. And yea cap. Csm, sm, r&h are the worst. Space wolves/ba are next since they are comparable with all of the myriad of space marine fw shit.
No knock on Jon and his product, but damned if I wouldn't drop money on a GW army manager comparable with all their codexes.
cartag
@cartag
Sep 08 2016 19:23
I just wish they'd go to they keyword system in 8E like they have with AoS
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Sep 08 2016 19:23
He'll make it a part of their digital codex files. And yea? That'd be amazing
cartag
@cartag
Sep 08 2016 19:24
Instead of specifying that you can bring zerkers when you have Kharn or a Khorne Chaos Lord, why not make it to where Zerkers are Troops if you have a KHORNE HERO in your roster? This way, Zhufor would set it
Fist of the Gods formation, it's 1 warpsmith, 3-5 Land Raiders, Vindicators, and Predators... why not 1 Warpsmith and 3-5 CHAOS TANK units
set the Rhino to CHAOS TRANSPORT keywords, not TANK, make Land Raider CHAOS TANK TRANSPORT
You want to bring a dedicated transport? Can bring one CHAOS TRANSPORT as dedicated. Includes Kharybdis, Storm Eagle, etc.
No more trying to update outdated rule sets when something new comes out, everything will be retrofitted into it after getting initial keywords.
Can include FW into formations as long as keywords match
Yes, I've given this a lot of thought
Austin C.
@capitaladot
Sep 08 2016 19:32
GW is bad at taxonomy. We know this.
Hell, they've even done such evils as special rules with the same name and different effects that don't supplant each other.
cartag
@cartag
Sep 08 2016 19:34
True, they're making a step in the right direction with AoS though. Check out the Daemons of Khorne for an example. The Herald has an ability where after he attacks, another BLOODLETTER unit can in the combat phase
this counts the Herald, Herald on Juggernaut, Blood Throne, Bloodcrushers, Bloodletters, or Skull Cannon
Austin C.
@capitaladot
Sep 08 2016 19:37
What you describe does sound much better, I agree.
cartag
@cartag
Sep 08 2016 19:38
This would make Daemon Engines something easily defined in the rules
hell, it could be defined now they just choose not to