These are chat archives for BSData/wh40k

29th
Dec 2016
Troy Graber
@tag8833
Dec 29 2016 04:12
I wish I understood what GW was doing with Imperial Agents. On the day it officially releases the ebooks for SoB, Inquisition, Legion of the Damned are no longer for sale. Now they are back. It really is a mess they've made.
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Dec 29 2016 14:42
They were on the BL page the entire time, just buried I think
I agree though, it'd be so much easier if we could just get rid of the old stuff and use the new
Troy Graber
@tag8833
Dec 29 2016 14:53
On the GW Site the link to the black library site went away for a day or two. It wasn't there when I check at one point. I'll tackle the formations when I get time today in between my clients.
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Dec 29 2016 16:30
@alphalas my watchblade task force just arrived, I'll post a photo of the formation later :smile:
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Dec 29 2016 17:38
Sweet
Troy Graber
@tag8833
Dec 29 2016 18:18
Finished up the SoB formations. I'll start on Inquisition when I have time, unless you object.
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Dec 29 2016 18:24
If you want to lay the groundwork for it go ahead- I have a plan for a way to do the stupid formation that's ordo specific
Troy Graber
@tag8833
Dec 29 2016 19:37
Sure, No problem. I'm taking my Inquisition to a tourney Next Saturday, so I'm looking forward to being able to use battlescribe to refine my list.
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Dec 29 2016 21:59
Go for it - my project for tomorrow if my body is up to it is GK and the 2 new races from IA - once GK is done I'll inject the termie squad, the Sister squad, and the vet squad into Inq
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Dec 29 2016 22:16
Alright, I'll workshop this to everyone here - Grey Knights. Each grey knight has access to the melee weapons list, and one in five have access to the special weapons list. Can we get away with just having the list options as counters at the squad level, or should I keep it as each individual GK has to select?
Troy Graber
@tag8833
Dec 29 2016 22:17
I would make it model by model basis, but that is just me. I find it much nicer as a battlescribe user if it is 100% clear what each model has for wargear.
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Dec 29 2016 22:21

Right now, each squad has the option to select 5 different dudes (5 melee weapon options), then it has a counter for special weapons in the strike squad.

The terminators, however, have the same option of select from 5 options, but then have 3 add on options that actually adds a terminator with special weapon, instead of just adding a weapon counter

cartag
@cartag
Dec 29 2016 22:21
I'll second that. Given the options, having them individual works best.
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Dec 29 2016 22:24
that sounds pretty mental... I'm just fighting with the Warlock Conclave and Skyrunner options, they're easy by comparison!
I have also fixed the fortifications issue, and the dark eldar formations, and a couple of other things while I'm at it, but I'f not pulled yet
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Dec 29 2016 22:25
Ok, so then that's my second idea - condense the squad to one selection of grey knight, where each grey knight has access to a melee list, like how I did SoB, then the justicar, which also has access to the melee list, and a third selection for a gk w/ special weapon, who has access to the melee and special weapon list.
Plan is it'll reduce the current 8(!) selection options to 3, but there will be deeper options, individually
steve990
@steve990
Dec 29 2016 22:42
Hey guys, been having issues with authoring the files for Firestorm Armada - someone suggested I try here. The issue I'm having is that I'm trying to hide Selection entries if the points are 800 or less. I have a modification to set the entry to hidden if the condition of at most 800 points limit, but the entry is hidden no matter the points. Tried a bunch of other ideas, but none seem to work. Any ideas what might be wrong?
Troy Graber
@tag8833
Dec 29 2016 22:42
Check the "Shared" box.
steve990
@steve990
Dec 29 2016 22:43
It was checked by default. And when it's set to Points limit and roster it greys out the "filter by" area
Troy Graber
@tag8833
Dec 29 2016 22:43
Can you post a screen shot of the modifiers?
steve990
@steve990
Dec 29 2016 22:44
image.png
Troy Graber
@tag8833
Dec 29 2016 22:47
I would make it hidden by Default, and change it to visible if Points limit in Roster is at least 800, and see what happens.
steve990
@steve990
Dec 29 2016 22:48
I have tried that before. I'll try again to be sure
Yeah - same issue.
I even tried starting new lists and changing the point in the roster builder just in case. Same issue either way.
Troy Graber
@tag8833
Dec 29 2016 22:50
Same issue as in it never hides, or it never unhides?
steve990
@steve990
Dec 29 2016 22:50
Never unhides.
Troy Graber
@tag8833
Dec 29 2016 22:51
Check the "And All Child forces"
steve990
@steve990
Dec 29 2016 22:51
I've tried other variants like less than or greater than and it's either always hidden or always showing depending how I term it.
Still hidden either way with the "And All Child forces"
Troy Graber
@tag8833
Dec 29 2016 22:52
Bummer. I thought I solved it.
I'll run a similar experiment give me a sec.
steve990
@steve990
Dec 29 2016 22:53
I've had some other weird things like categories still linking to old ones when the files were updated, but I can solve those by hacking the xml of the cat files.
So not sure if it's a corruption, but I've tried recreation new Selection Entries and they do the same thing.
Troy Graber
@tag8833
Dec 29 2016 22:55
It works like a dream for me.
steve990
@steve990
Dec 29 2016 22:56
Could you save me the file you made and email it to me? I could look at the xml.
Troy Graber
@tag8833
Dec 29 2016 22:56
blob
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Dec 29 2016 22:58
the only thing I can see from the screen shots is that the "filter by" is different...
Troy Graber
@tag8833
Dec 29 2016 22:58
  <modifiers>
    <modifier type="set" field="hidden" value="true">
      <repeats/>
      <conditions>
        <condition field="limit::points" scope="roster" value="100.0" percentValue="false" shared="true" includeChildSelections="false" includeChildForces="false" childId="model" type="atLeast"/>
      </conditions>
      <conditionGroups/>
    </modifier>
  </modifiers>
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Dec 29 2016 22:58
first one says "anything" second says "model"
steve990
@steve990
Dec 29 2016 22:58
I've tried anything and model :/
Thanks tag
Troy Graber
@tag8833
Dec 29 2016 22:59
Does that XML work for you? Because I wonder if your XML closing tags are messed up somehow.
steve990
@steve990
Dec 29 2016 23:00
Soon tell... opening the file now.
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Dec 29 2016 23:02
(the supense is killing me...1)
steve990
@steve990
Dec 29 2016 23:03
Damn... looks good (changed back to what you had anyway) and it's the same issue...
<modifiers>
<modifier type="set" field="maxInRoster" value="1.0">
<repeats/>
<conditions/>
<conditionGroups>
<conditionGroup type="and">
<conditions>
<condition field="limit::points" scope="roster" value="800.0" percentValue="false" shared="true" includeChildSelections="false" includeChildForces="false" childId="any" type="greaterThan"/>
<condition field="limit::points" scope="roster" value="1200.0" percentValue="false" shared="true" includeChildSelections="false" includeChildForces="false" childId="any" type="atMost"/>
</conditions>
<conditionGroups/>
</conditionGroup>
</conditionGroups>
</modifier>
<modifier type="set" field="maxInRoster" value="2">
<repeats/>
<conditions>
<condition field="limit::points" scope="roster" value="1200.0" percentValue="false" shared="true" includeChildSelections="false" includeChildForces="false" childId="any" type="greaterThan"/>
</conditions>
<conditionGroups/>
</modifier>
<modifier type="set" field="hidden" value="false">
<repeats/>
<conditions>
<condition field="limit::points" scope="roster" value="800.0" percentValue="false" shared="true" includeChildSelections="false" includeChildForces="false" childId="model" type="atLeast"/>
</conditions>
<conditionGroups/>
</modifier>
</modifiers>
Sorry - should have formatted that
Troy Graber
@tag8833
Dec 29 2016 23:06
For the sake of Debugging I recommend you remove the other conditions, or create an entry with only this one condition.
steve990
@steve990
Dec 29 2016 23:07
Ok - I removed them. Same issues ( not that I expected removing them would assist outside debugging purposes)
There are other entries with the same setup that have the same issue in these files.
Troy Graber
@tag8833
Dec 29 2016 23:08
do the other conditions work?
steve990
@steve990
Dec 29 2016 23:08
From what I've noticed - yes
But I removed them now :)
Troy Graber
@tag8833
Dec 29 2016 23:09
Yeah. I'm just wondering if there is something wrong with the file.
steve990
@steve990
Dec 29 2016 23:11
This affects all of the Firestorm files ... something like 22 fleets / files
Troy Graber
@tag8833
Dec 29 2016 23:11
Is there a chance you haven't updated Battlescribe. One of the early 2.0 versions had this sort of problem.
steve990
@steve990
Dec 29 2016 23:12
Nope - to be sure that wasn't the issue I totally uninstalled BS and installed the latest 2.00.09 version
Troy Graber
@tag8833
Dec 29 2016 23:14
Hmmm... Not sure what the problem is.
steve990
@steve990
Dec 29 2016 23:15
Haha - that's been my headache over the last few hours... :)
Thanks for taking a look
Troy Graber
@tag8833
Dec 29 2016 23:15
I can pitch a user unfriendly workaround. you could have multiple Force entries. "Fleet <800" "Fleet >= 800"
steve990
@steve990
Dec 29 2016 23:17
Ughh - yeah, hoped not to go down that path. This is really frustrating as the files have been solid for months with little change in the game - now this.
Owlsbane
@Owlsbane
Dec 29 2016 23:55
Great work @FarseerVeraenthis ! I'll check it out when it gets put up.