These are chat archives for BSData/wh40k

23rd
Mar 2017
zopha
@zopha
Mar 23 2017 06:06
Stills of models from the video http://imgur.com/a/vOumx
So, movement value for units. Armour save modifiers. Charging units fight first. New moral syste.
Unless this is all a giant troll.
We think the Move value should come back. No more default unit types. Every model should have cool bespoke rules. Not only would that be more fun, but itโ€™ll mean you will only need to learn the rules for your models.
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Mar 23 2017 06:52
Yay! Straight back to 2nd ed! Special rules for everyone, even more rules bloat, what could be better!.... :cold_sweat:
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Mar 23 2017 08:36
Love the idea of command points. Fluffy build should be rewarded!
Movement value? Yes please. Now a tactical SM can move faster than a damn cultist.
Also I don't have to flick through the BRB to find how fast beasts move.. its on the data sheet.
Armour save mods can FINALLY make TDA viable again!
Not too sure about morale. That could be pretty brutal for larger units and force you to MSU.
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Mar 23 2017 09:04
That's quite funny, surely the decurion and associated benefits is "fluffy build support"...?? If they wanted to push that further, just get rid of "objective secured" for the CAD and Allied detachment and away you go...
And you still have to find the datasheet for the beasts, so you flick through a different book ;-)
Movement values can be a pain, but there are arguments both ways in play terms... From a CAT perspective that's a fair amount of updating, so I'm all for the present system ;-)
And yes, morale sounds well confusing already...!
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Mar 23 2017 09:50
I actually really like the battleshock system in AOS so I'm all for that moving to 40k
Then again I also play lizardmen which pretty much never break from battleshock
@FarseerVeraenthis dude just look at one of the old compendiums that are available to download for free. That will give you a much better idea of what 40K is going to I'm with @Thairne this is for the better
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Mar 23 2017 10:16
And @Thairne I think this just means we are going to see more leadership modification be commonplace โ€“ banners and the such
I welcome the possibility of squatting ATSKNF
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Mar 23 2017 10:31
You realise I have played since 2nd... ;-) so I'm just being difficult :-) although I have no idea about AoS...
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Mar 23 2017 10:31
As have I lol
Look it up man - I'm really hopeful
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Mar 23 2017 10:44
@FarseerVeraenthis yes, this is just flicking for a different thing - however I have an easier time memorizing what MY units do than what generl units do. It's just how I roll I spose... Oo
Plus that is another lever to balance stuff besides point costs. That fixed 6" is just strange... cultists move as fast as tempestus move as fast as a SM move as fast as tank at combat speed? Or a running Guardsman can keep up with a Tank?
I still think SM should be largely immune to battle shock. I can't imagine a SM breaking down and going "I cant take this anymore! This is too much! Brother Aphaestus lost an arm, I've only seen this 3 dozen times before! THE HORROR!"
Conscripts routing? Yes. Definately. But this also means you're not limited to 1-10, but can give conscripts a 6 and then add to that value through attached commissars - say commissar adds +10.
It's a bit like switching to other dice than D6. The morale range is pretty much free right now.
*then. So the conscripts only rout if you take an excess of 10 casualties - and then it only starts to increment slowly.
same with armour mods. Those all or nothing rolls are just too limiting... TDA falls dead to everything on a bad roll. With that, you can increase their armour so they can weather bolters like they should, yet still get their head blasted of by plasma.
you could even give them a 1+ save! So autoguns cannot even wound a terminator. Give plasma -3 upwards and you are ripping TDA a new one.
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Mar 23 2017 10:49
So, remember when most things moved 4", and eldar moved 6", nothing moved 3" or 5", so there was little separation back then... You could say that a tank moving at combat speed is moving cautiously / slowly while resolving fire solutions, so a guardsman proper legging it would be able to keep up...
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Mar 23 2017 10:50
and shoot at the same time as the tank. If the tank goes full throttle and the guardsman rolls a 6...
granted, tanks usually are not supposed to be fast. I'm more with the same movement for human and metahuman. Seems wrong.
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Mar 23 2017 10:52
The difference between blindly legging it and "tactical advance"...
We can play all day, what move would you have for guard, then marines, then eldar...?
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Mar 23 2017 10:54
uh I'm not a game designer. I just appreciate the principle.
I'd slow down guard a little, keep SM where they are and speed up eldar by an inch each
so by the end of the game eldar get basically a free movement in distance
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Mar 23 2017 10:55
So, 5/6/7... That's a fair point but is it enough separation given how moves are not always measured super accurately...?
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Mar 23 2017 10:56
if you go harder than that you risk upsetting things big. An inch difference is kind of a big distance already
now if you'd switch to metric which ahs smaller increments..
you can add to charge/run (sm+1, eldar +2) to further separate without fucking too much with the baseline
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Mar 23 2017 10:57
And with the 1+ save - there is always the chance that autogun shot goes through a weak spot, like a helmet lens, which 1+ wouldn't allow...
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Mar 23 2017 10:57
that chance is really, really small though
which again is the fallacy that D6 has
just not enough possibilities
I'D totally support going to D12, doubling every value as a baseline and have double the granularity
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Mar 23 2017 10:58
(I'm agreeing with all your points btw, just providing discussion ;-))
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Mar 23 2017 10:58
or do you think that of 6 autogun shots one should penetrate TDA? From the front? Which is only possible through the lense
I love to discuss, keep coming :P
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Mar 23 2017 10:59
Hehehe ๐Ÿ˜Š
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Mar 23 2017 10:59
you could make the same argument about an autogun hitting the viewing slit on a rhino, hitting the lense of the SM driving, immobilizing the vehicle :P
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Mar 23 2017 11:00
Yup, so, that's true, a little silly, but I'm sure there are other weaknesses in the Armour that might just be found in an unlucky situation...
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Mar 23 2017 11:00
1/6 is just way too likely. And TDA needs help badly.
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Mar 23 2017 11:00
True
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Mar 23 2017 11:01
you could go 2+, reroll if not modified
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Mar 23 2017 11:01
Perhaps they stay on 2+, but get to roll their 5+ save as well... Or yes, a re-rollable if not modified
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Mar 23 2017 11:01
lunchtime!
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Mar 23 2017 11:02
Hehehe! Not for me, nearly time for my German lesson though...
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Mar 23 2017 11:02
I'm off for 3+ on 2d6 ;)
All for*
@FarseerVeraenthis you should remember that
I really hope this means tanks move to toughness space
Base*
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Mar 23 2017 11:07
yeah, there's too big of a gap between monstrous creatures and vehicles right now
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Mar 23 2017 11:07
3+ on 2D6 would be groovy
Because the beauty of that was lascannons were like -5 to your armor save iirc - so meant you had to roll a seven on 2d6 for terminators, while you would have no save for marines
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Mar 23 2017 11:10
And yes, that was cool back when they had Armour modifiers...
They're coming back
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 23 2017 11:11
I'm a fan of moving toward some sigmar aspects
Battleshock is great
Assault phase based on who charged first? Fits perfectly
Move values, Ok that'll be a pain to learn for everyone but that works.
And god damn, if CSM ever complains again about getting no updates
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Mar 23 2017 11:17
Or DA glares at @Thairne
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 23 2017 11:19
Haha. DA could probably use an update
Though I really want a necrons update.
Necrons vs Nids, the other theatre of war.
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Mar 23 2017 11:20
Nah, we need at least 3 more for vanilla SM and another for SW before we get round to anyone else
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 23 2017 11:21
my DG buddy will be happy mortarion is copming though
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Mar 23 2017 11:22
yeah, the leaks from a while back are finally being confirmed :D
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 23 2017 11:22
I despise nurgle models. The rot and shit is just disgusting to me. But god damn if power scythes are the most BA weapons.
Mortarion is gonna look cool
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Mar 23 2017 11:24
yeah, gore is not a good way to show death and decay imo. unless it's used sparingly it loses all its impact
flayed ones are way more unsettling to me than any of the nurgle models simply because it's a stark contrast to the rest of the necron styling
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 23 2017 11:27
Yea, i'll agree on that.
I don't own any flayed ones, they don't fit.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 23 2017 11:34
So
The death guard video
on the community site
"Removed by User" lol
That damn duncan leaking things
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Mar 23 2017 12:37
@GenWilhelm you been reading a little too many regimental standards?
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Mar 23 2017 12:37
** Paraphrased for religious realignment.
yeah maybe
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Mar 23 2017 12:38
Lol
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Mar 23 2017 14:15

NO GLARING! We really could use one. Seriously.

and you can never have to many RS. Those things are simply glorious!*

  • deviation of this stated fact will be considered as heresy and punished as such
Francesco Venturoli
@Crowbar90
Mar 23 2017 14:15
Guys, I'm looking at #3578, I saw that every unit which can take a Mark has its own Mark entry (which affects profile) and Dark Apostles also have a link to a shared Marks of Chaos entry (which does not affect the profile). A quick fix would be the removal of the link to the shared entry, but I think it would be better if every unit linked to that one instead of having its own duplicate
Is there a good reason not to make this change? Compatibility with existing rosters maybe?
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Mar 23 2017 14:18
IIRC each unit pays a different price for each mark, and different marks are mandatory for different legions
Marks of Chaos and VotLW are the two big sticking points in the CSM file
Francesco Venturoli
@Crowbar90
Mar 23 2017 14:22
That's right, but wouldn't it be possible to change price/hidden/mandatory in a single shared entry and link that one?
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Mar 23 2017 14:22
i think that's what's going on atm
yeah, all the marks are linking to shared entries, which have all the logic for the legions stuff
and then the cost is set by modifiers on the link in the model entry
looks like the shared entry group is identical to the MoC group in the dark apostle
Francesco Venturoli
@Crowbar90
Mar 23 2017 14:25
Yes, the thing I was pointing out is that every model/squad has its own entry group for marks which links to the individual marks
Since there is a shared entry group, I was thinking about linking that one in all units
I was just asking if I could do it or if I should avoid it for some reason :)
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Mar 23 2017 14:27
i think the shared group is for independent characters, since they look like they have the same costs for each mark
i think its most likely the apostle was missed when this was all updated
Francesco Venturoli
@Crowbar90
Mar 23 2017 14:31
quite the opposite, the apostle is the only one using that shared group
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Mar 23 2017 14:31
really? that is a supprise
wow yeah, the only link to that group in the whole file is the dark apostle
Francesco Venturoli
@Crowbar90
Mar 23 2017 14:33
that's what looked weird to me :P
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Mar 23 2017 14:33
good catch
yeah, if the shared group isnt doing anything then get rid of it
Francesco Venturoli
@Crowbar90
Mar 23 2017 14:34
I'll see if I can get it to work using the shared group then link it in the other units
if I can't I'll just remove it
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Mar 23 2017 14:35
maybe want to ask @cartag before you go changing too much
I'm not familiar with all the ins and outs of the file, there's probably a good reason its set up a certain way
Francesco Venturoli
@Crowbar90
Mar 23 2017 14:37
ok, I'll wait for @cartag 's opinion before committing :) i'm working on another branch just to be sure I'm not messing this up
cartag
@cartag
Mar 23 2017 14:38
The marks are picky with how BS processes them. Some of the time they need to be set up as duplicates because it won't work otherwise.
There are a lot of things in it I wish I could optimise but can't sure to BS limitations currently.
Francesco Venturoli
@Crowbar90
Mar 23 2017 14:41
Oh, I see
Mind if I try to fiddle around a bit? I'll send a pull request if I seem to get it working so you can check on it!
cartag
@cartag
Mar 23 2017 14:46
I have a bunch of changes I'm working on to slim down file size and really don't want to redo them with a new file. I'll try to get it all up tonight
Francesco Venturoli
@Crowbar90
Mar 23 2017 14:47
Ok, don't worry. I can wait, no pressure!
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Mar 23 2017 20:18
"A CAD is a formation" - Tournament Organiser
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 23 2017 20:19
Hahaha
Jesus do people not read the brb
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Mar 23 2017 20:20
I dont even know what to say
at this rate I think he might accept my CAD as ynnari instead of craftworlds
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 23 2017 20:22
Haha
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Mar 23 2017 20:23
yep, he just said ynnari CAD is a-okay
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 23 2017 20:23
... is he an idiot?
Ask him what unit in the ynnari faction is a troops choice
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Mar 23 2017 20:24
dunno, he seemed pretty switched on when i played him the other day
well i'm not going to complain about getting free soulburst in my army that has no infantry
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 23 2017 20:25
Haha
I feel bad for your opponents
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Mar 23 2017 20:26
you guys play tau dont you?
im thinking about allying in some riptides but im not 100% sure
Justin Dee
@IdleMuse
Mar 23 2017 21:59
Hello. Is anyone here familiar enough with the 40k catalogue general format to give me some insight? Just trying to read through it and figure out why stuff was done the way it is.
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Mar 23 2017 22:00
Start with what catalogue you talk about, different people maintain different stuff :D
Justin Dee
@IdleMuse
Mar 23 2017 22:00
Well the question I have right now is kinda common to all of them
Specifically, I can see that all units are linked to a hidden entry relevant to their FOC slot
Troops, etc
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Mar 23 2017 22:02
That's for specific implementation of detachments - castellans, the CM ones, etc
Justin Dee
@IdleMuse
Mar 23 2017 22:03
Okay, so only particularly necessary because of complex logic elsewhere?
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Mar 23 2017 22:04
Correct
Otherwise ancillary hence why hidden
Justin Dee
@IdleMuse
Mar 23 2017 22:05
Cool, cheers. Still learning this stuff
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Mar 23 2017 22:05
(so are we all... :wink: )
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Mar 23 2017 22:05
Pretty much
Justin Dee
@IdleMuse
Mar 23 2017 22:13
Any clue what the 'Collective' flag does on entries?
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Mar 23 2017 22:14
it makes them group together. its best only to use it on entries that dont have any options, or options that must be take on every model
Justin Dee
@IdleMuse
Mar 23 2017 22:15
Oh, I see, so, for instance, when rendering lists, they'd appear at the bottom, as is common with weapon profiles?
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Mar 23 2017 22:17
multiple selections will appear as "2x Entry" rather than 2 separate entries
Justin Dee
@IdleMuse
Mar 23 2017 22:17
Okay, I see.
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Mar 23 2017 22:19
easier to show than explain
collective.png
Justin Dee
@IdleMuse
Mar 23 2017 22:19
Ahhh
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Mar 23 2017 22:19
the terinators are not collective, but the space marines wargear is all collective
Justin Dee
@IdleMuse
Mar 23 2017 22:19
it is clearer when looking at the desktop roster editor
too used to the mobile app!
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Mar 23 2017 22:20
haha, i only use the mobile app for testing. its just so much easier on desktop
Justin Dee
@IdleMuse
Mar 23 2017 22:22
Hmm
Force Entries can be marked as Hidden
but
this appears to do nothing?
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Mar 23 2017 22:23
yeah, we dont know either
Justin Dee
@IdleMuse
Mar 23 2017 22:23
hehe. So I have to have a generic Force entry even if I only want catalogue-specific ones?
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Mar 23 2017 22:24
yeah, looks like it
Justin Dee
@IdleMuse
Mar 23 2017 22:37
I'm not really sure I'm understanding the difference between Selection Entries and Shared Selection Entries
Is it just that shared ones can be linked to?
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Mar 23 2017 22:38
Yup
Means that you can save lines of code for duplicate stuff
Justin Dee
@IdleMuse
Mar 23 2017 22:38
Is there a downside to just making everything Shared then? This seems to be the way a lot of the 40k catalogues are done
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Mar 23 2017 22:39
technically yes, practically no
Justin Dee
@IdleMuse
Mar 23 2017 22:39
:P okay then
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Mar 23 2017 23:13
Technically no, really.
Jon's said we should have no reason to not used shared
Also, Logan, great movie.