These are chat archives for BSData/wh40k

14th
Jan 2017
Boom goes the dynamite
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Jan 14 2017 00:58
boom
you do the emprah's work son
or abbadon's in this case
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Jan 14 2017 01:00
blob
what's going on here that its throwing max 0 error?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Jan 14 2017 01:02
Yo uhave 1 option of bh selected?
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Jan 14 2017 01:02
blob
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Jan 14 2017 01:03
hmm
I assume it says "1 selection in BH" of "Anything"
in pic 1
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Jan 14 2017 01:04
blob
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Jan 14 2017 01:04
Is "And Child Seelctions" set
in the 2 repeaters?
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Jan 14 2017 01:05
blob
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Jan 14 2017 01:06
I'm thinking it won't work with a "Group"
Since you can't select a group
you select the things in the group
So you can't have a selection of A Group, because you're not choosing it, you're choosing lascannon
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Jan 14 2017 01:07
adjust to lascannon?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Jan 14 2017 01:07
yea, especially if lascannon is the only choice
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Jan 14 2017 01:07
blob
so that now.
nope did not fix.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Jan 14 2017 01:08
yea, i'd think that works
well balls
is it a bug that it says "Select"
in that conditional field
"Repete 1 for every 1 selections in "Select"
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Jan 14 2017 01:10
that might be it - standby
i think it is - because going to change it locked up the editor
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Jan 14 2017 01:12
that's probably the ultimate cause
how to fix it if it's locking though ...
hmm
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Jan 14 2017 01:13
you know what i think it is? that bug @FarseerVeraenthis found of SEGs in SEGs fouling the raw code
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Jan 14 2017 01:14
ewww
so you'd need to dive into the cat likely
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Jan 14 2017 01:15
which means i'm gunna do the easier workaround - recreate the outer SEG in the SSG for the banehammer.
remove the need for SEG in SEG
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Jan 14 2017 01:48
there.
it's not perfect, but it's functional
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Jan 14 2017 02:21
functional is good
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Jan 14 2017 15:24
So, I have read FoC
Fluff is great - heresy era ultrasmurfs thrown into battle, Pokémon style is great; Scions being outpaced by Kasrkin, then responding in kind due to pride of being the schola's finest kicking in = awesome
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jan 14 2017 15:51
And yes, SEG in SEG should be avoided where possible :-)
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 14 2017 16:18
So I was thinking about this last night some. And I know Jon just released v2, but I started to ask myself "has BS become to limited for what we need". I brooded about it for a bit and thought yes it has. I am not saying abandon BS, but maybe we need to have a conversation with Jon about moving forward to 3 already with a huge back end overhaul. I am assuming 40k is most of BS's users, so I hate to force other game cat maintainers to be forced to change, but we might have too. Cross catalog linking is a band-aid for what we want unfortunately.
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Jan 14 2017 16:22
I think I agree
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 14 2017 16:23
@/all see last post
Forgot the "all" :/
The hoops we are looking at just to impliment the fall of cadia supplement should be proof enough of this.
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Jan 14 2017 16:27
And with the escape through the webway we all know there's more to come.
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 14 2017 16:27
The difficult time @FarseerVeraenthis had implementing all the new CSM factions.
cartag
@cartag
Jan 14 2017 16:28
That was me.
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 14 2017 16:28
And yes, there is more next book with the rumors of an elder triumvirate
Sorry, I mentioned you @cartag
Clocked wrong name on mobile
Clicked*
Meant*
All in all, we are looking at detachment hell going to try and implement everything for Gathering Storm
The game has evolved past the tools Jon created for it. That's exciting as a fan and player. I'm loathing it as a maintainer.
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jan 14 2017 16:32
Yah, I don't want to take credit for chaos :-)
cartag
@cartag
Jan 14 2017 16:33
I think that may be part of GW's end game, make their own tools for it. A database format may be better in the future, given the complexity they're implementing
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 14 2017 16:33
What are everyone's thoughts on this?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Jan 14 2017 16:34
Database structure would indeed be superior
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jan 14 2017 16:34
How shitty do we think the users will be about the new detachments not being implemented "properly" due to lack of cross cat linking?
cartag
@cartag
Jan 14 2017 16:35
I'll answer that question with another question: Have you SEEN our users?
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 14 2017 16:36
Agreed. To much relational database from across multiple codexes. Some users are going to bitch ether way. The real question is, can we impliment it PROPERLY until such time.
zopha
@zopha
Jan 14 2017 16:36
I think the same can be said for the Heresy. FW stuff is a pain in the ass to work with and I've only been working on it for a month. A database structure would be handy. Hopefully a bit more fault tolerant as well. Either way a manual would help.
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jan 14 2017 16:36
Yah... But would the really annoying people just push off or something?
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 14 2017 16:38
I wonder if Jon would be willing to talk with some of us this weekend sometime about this.
Do you mean leave BS @FarseerVeraenthis?
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jan 14 2017 16:56
Well yes, I wonder if the people who refuse to accept compromises ("the difficult ones") will stop using BS because it cannot handle Cadia properly...
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 14 2017 16:57
Maybe. I don't really know of other Android solution for army lists. iOS has quartermaster.
cartag
@cartag
Jan 14 2017 16:58
They'll post about how 1.15 was better, how we expect them to pay for Cadia implementation (IDFK), then keep using it anyway because they just like to bitch
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 14 2017 16:59
They only bitch about 1.15 being better because they didn't have to pay $2/year
Even a panhandeler could do that.
cartag
@cartag
Jan 14 2017 17:03
Nevermind the fact that they can use it for free
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 14 2017 17:04
^
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jan 14 2017 17:35
The only other way to implement Cadia is to have a brand new CAT that includes everything that is referenced in it... Which means a lot of duplication, but from a user perspective will be transparent... That will be great for the users but a little bit more work for us to maintain...
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 14 2017 17:36
So the space Marines cat 7 times? That's basically what it will be.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Jan 14 2017 17:43
Welcome to cadia :/
As it stands. I say we add the rules and a custom rule saying how to build one in unbound
Fuck it.
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 14 2017 17:43
Lol
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Jan 14 2017 17:43
There's no way to do all of cadia in the current bs
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Jan 14 2017 17:44

guys those mindgames are fun, but ultimatively.. just games.
Did you even consider the work required to basically completely rewrite BS? It just is not feasible to happen.
GW can put out screwyou-rules WAY WAY faster than a one man company can adapt. Besides, BS is not only for 40k, but a platform in which to base the data on.
Short story cut short:
Either we make it work or we don't. Looking for Jon as a savior is not possible, at least in that kind of change.
Cross-Cat linking is something that will beed to be done at some time, but that will take months at least.

So... yes, as Kohato said it times and times again, we have to jump loops as do the users.

Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jan 14 2017 17:45
Yes, but I don't think you need quite the same volume of things for the cadia cat, that entry that was shared before didn't have the entire SM cat on it... Did it...?
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 14 2017 17:45
Correct, and I wasn't suggesting an easy or quick solution. I fully understand what it would take to overhaul what we need.
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Jan 14 2017 17:46
an entire new cadia cat for the detachments... would work. Huge amounts of duplicate entries, but that would solve our problem.
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 14 2017 17:46
And it isn't everything, but it is all the units from those codexes
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Jan 14 2017 17:46
yeah I was referring all that database-instead-of-xml thingies
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Jan 14 2017 17:46
Well. Who wants to build a cadia cat :smile:
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Jan 14 2017 17:47
I could do the mechanicus part obviously
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jan 14 2017 17:47
So, work with me here, how does the GST link to all the CAT files? Could we do a GST for Cadia??
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Jan 14 2017 17:47
just a lot of copy&pasting
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Jan 14 2017 17:47
Keep in mind that all of fw for each of those cats is required
Legacies and what not
It will be a gigantic file
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Jan 14 2017 17:47
fw? Is fw officially allowed?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Jan 14 2017 17:47
Why wouldn't it be
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Jan 14 2017 17:48
well.. in theory....
well yeah, that would be part of the copy&paste job
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Jan 14 2017 17:48
You can bet your ass users will want it
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jan 14 2017 17:48
And yes @Kohato that's why I've not suggested a cadia cat before, it is very likely to have performance issue...
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Jan 14 2017 17:49
Could try it. And then give up and just say to use unbound
If it don't work
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Jan 14 2017 17:49
well lets see and get the horse from the right side
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jan 14 2017 17:49
And some kinda second GST wouldn't work??
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Jan 14 2017 17:49
the main problem we have is that it is not only cross dex, that is what admech does all the time
the big problem we have is validating the min/max for the FOC
unbound is the solition that says FUCK FOC
cadia.cat is the solution that breaks mobile devices via performance and would be very clunky
it, for now, needs to be a single force with cross codex entries
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Jan 14 2017 17:51
I tried to stave off the reddit crowd
With a post. So hopefully they give us time
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Jan 14 2017 17:52
tbh
they can kiss my ass with their complaining
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Jan 14 2017 17:52
Agreed
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Jan 14 2017 17:52
as soon as someone starts berating me for investing my free, voluntary time into a hobby project they can bitch and moan all day or do the stuff themselves
they paid for bs as a plattform, not for our data
we are in no way obliged to do anything, even if they have that sense of entitlement
I'm currently thinking about some kind of cadia.cat light that just has the entries with pts and no rules.. but I don'T think that would work that well either
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Jan 14 2017 17:58
wait
what if... what if we...
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Jan 14 2017 17:58
I think points, but no rules
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Jan 14 2017 17:58
hmmm.... what if we add a extra entry to the afflicted codex units
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Jan 14 2017 17:58
No rules is a-ok by me
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Jan 14 2017 17:59
like tactical has an entry "troop", "max in rooster 6", linked from the gst so BS can validate the FOC that way
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Jan 14 2017 17:59
No rules would have same performance issues
The performance issues comes from the number of entries and groups
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Jan 14 2017 17:59
that way we could use multi detachment like admech and do the validation that way
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Jan 14 2017 17:59
Which you'd still need to have
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Jan 14 2017 18:00
basically a knock off on how you'd validate arcana mechanicum cadia relics to be unique in your roster
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 14 2017 18:01
yay the can of worms Fall of Cadia is! /s
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Jan 14 2017 18:03
I think that might actually work.. a bit of effort to do since it affects every entry in every cat that is affected by cadia...
we could even modify the max/min in roster by detachment
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Jan 14 2017 18:05
That wouldn't be bad if it works
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 14 2017 18:05
But then how do you enforce 2-4 HQs?
Across wvwrything
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Jan 14 2017 18:05
entry "HQ" linked from the GST into every HQ that can be used in a grand convo
set max in roster 4
set min in roster 2
the entry linked to the HQ must be present 2 times
which will happen if you select 2 HQ's from a convo
basically to the FoC logic via constraints
*redo
I'll try a quick mockup and see it that works...
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Jan 14 2017 18:14
grafik.png
grafik.png
I'm some glorious bastard :D
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Jan 14 2017 18:16
? Isn't that just an unbound list?
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Jan 14 2017 18:16
exactly
that forces you to have 2 HQs
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Jan 14 2017 18:17
Ahh
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Jan 14 2017 18:17
Oh I see
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Jan 14 2017 18:17
That would work nicely
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Jan 14 2017 18:17
if you create a grand convocation detachment you can set the roster minmax to the corresponding value
and therefore enforce the FoC that way via multiple detachments
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Jan 14 2017 18:18
That's a good thought
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Jan 14 2017 18:18
So just build off unbound, but call it the convo
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Jan 14 2017 18:18
nope
you'd still need a detachment to set the min/max
otherwise you'd require the min/max in every detachment available
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Jan 14 2017 18:18
You make a detachment but min max roster not force
Then add via unbounded
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Jan 14 2017 18:19
and the detachment modifies the HQ requirement in roster, so a CAD or something else will not be affected
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Jan 14 2017 18:19
Still will need an instructional entry. It that'd work
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Jan 14 2017 18:19
you set the HQ entry in the gst to min 0 max -1 and then set those in your cat when the approriate detachment was chosen
no need for unbound ;)
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Jan 14 2017 18:20
Oh ok
But wouldn't you still need to have multiple instances of that detachment for each codex?
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Jan 14 2017 18:21
yes
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Jan 14 2017 18:21
Meaning multiple min2per roster?
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Jan 14 2017 18:21
nah a roster is your entire list
you're thinking force
force = detachment, roster = list
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Jan 14 2017 18:22
But wouldn't each detachment add another min2 per roster constraint?
Or would they not add up/auto validate?
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Jan 14 2017 18:23
grafik.png
2 unbound detachment for quick testing with 2/4 in roster
Ill try and implement it correctly-- please dont fudge up the gst now :D
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Jan 14 2017 18:26
Ok cool
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Jan 14 2017 18:28
ah shucks, you cannot have a modifier for a constraint defined in the gst... that makes it a bit more clunky
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Jan 14 2017 18:47
hm nope.. good idea, but not possible via BS I fear...
problem is you do not have a condition for constraints
only for modifiers
if you do not have a cadia detachment, you do not want that kind of validation, only in 2 instances right now
so you need to make sure that you do not use this min/max in general, only for those 2
you cannot set conditions on constraints, therefore it is always active
so setting that in the GST is out of the window
if you want to set that in the cat, you run into a similar problem
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 14 2017 19:01
So how is the best way to set up the FoC detachments currently? Are we still looking at creating its own catalog?
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Jan 14 2017 19:02
hold your boat.. still working on it... confused since it should work, but doesnt....
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 14 2017 19:03
Just asking :p
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Jan 14 2017 19:05
I dont understand... anyone mind helping me out?
grafik.png
somehow the set to min/max in roster don't fire...
zopha
@zopha
Jan 14 2017 19:07
Might be clunky but you could set a no force org option and let the user set
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 14 2017 19:07
Are the roster/parent constrains conflicting? I know they shouldn't be but...
zopha
@zopha
Jan 14 2017 19:07
Sorry, half an idea I typed out earlier
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Jan 14 2017 19:07
the constraints are fine, when I remove the modifiers it works
but for obvious reasons that would be bad
seems like the instance of force returns false in that case...
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jan 14 2017 19:09
It sure off the top of my head. I'm also out of the house for the day.
Idk if we still do have the default hidden issue
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Jan 14 2017 19:12
turning around to not instance of doesnt work either. Heh.
BS bug again it seems, since neither condition returns true..
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Jan 14 2017 19:23
we need a quick bugfix if we want to implement it that way.
grafik.png
grafik.png
proof of concept... It works.
HQ from Cult Mech, Troops from Skitarii
if the condition on the set min/max in roster would work, I could implement it and be done. However since they don't they'd break every other detachment.
We need a bugfix for that rather asap
I feel pretty damn smart right now :D
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Jan 14 2017 20:44
Damn @FarseerVeraenthis
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jan 14 2017 20:49
Yes lovey duck how can I be of assistance?
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Jan 14 2017 21:09
I was just commenting on all the bugs you're slaying