These are chat archives for BSData/wh40k

26th
Jul 2017
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Jul 26 2017 00:30
then you'll defionitely like the iron kit
each marine's CCW in that is a belt-slung chainsword
with enough in the kit for all of them
tekton
@tekton
Jul 26 2017 00:32
excellent taps fingers together
MrRta1910
@MrRta1910
Jul 26 2017 00:42
I've just been made aware these units can be used by deathwath can use certain Primarines Marines:
• Aggressor Squad
• Primaris Captain
• Primaris Librarian
• Redemptor Dreadnought
• Reiver Squad
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Jul 26 2017 00:43
yep
tekton
@tekton
Jul 26 2017 00:43
See also linked PDF above :)
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Jul 26 2017 00:43
if you look closely in that PDF, the reiver pictured is actually in deathwatch colors
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Jul 26 2017 02:34
I actually hope when they do the deathwatch codex rather than just include the primaris units they keep the kill-team format but allow intercessors/reivers like they do bikes and terminators now
it would be a great story space to show the differences and conflicts and common bonds between old and new
Shuro
@Shuro
Jul 26 2017 07:03
Mhm, never knew Gitter. Interesting.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jul 26 2017 07:06
welcome
Shuro
@Shuro
Jul 26 2017 07:08
o7 Ready to serve.
M4uler
@M4uler
Jul 26 2017 07:15
:D
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jul 26 2017 07:43
Super, which armies do you collect?
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jul 26 2017 07:43
what, we have to collect an army to work here?
I just like the pretty pictures :)
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Jul 26 2017 07:43
I don't know if "collect" is the right word
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Jul 26 2017 07:45
Well, my battlescribe CAT is part of my collection I think...
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Jul 26 2017 07:45
I wrote this is 2009. It's still true:
Shuro
@Shuro
Jul 26 2017 07:46
I don't have any armies or anything, just here for bugfixing if I find something. (Like this Death Korps bug with the Centaur)
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Jul 26 2017 07:47
Yeah @alphalas and I maintain DKOK. He's in the midst of a pretty major upgrade to the DKOK cat (adding all the AM units to it that they can take now post-FAQ)
(admittedly I may be a bit behind, I got trapped in utter hell at work last week)
Shuro
@Shuro
Jul 26 2017 07:48
Better if it is done slow and careful than fast and with lots of bugs
Still don't think my push request was bad....it is literally just one changed line, but nvm.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jul 26 2017 07:50
if we fixed all the bugs in the first release, what would we do for the rest of our lives :D
Shuro
@Shuro
Jul 26 2017 07:50
Waiting for FAQ's and new Indexes. :grin:
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jul 26 2017 07:50
you have to carefully seed the bugs into the catalogue and wait for people to find them, like tiny surprises
Shuro
@Shuro
Jul 26 2017 07:50
Or.....gasp playing some matches.
Well, thats possible too I guess. :thumbsup:
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Jul 26 2017 07:51
I think I've played more games of 8th since the two weeks before official release than I did games of 7th all year
Because 8th is...really that fun
My Sisters don't suck anymore LOL
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jul 26 2017 07:54
@shuro, your request wasn't bad, it's just that alphalas is doing a massive update and merging the changes between branches is more work than for him to just fix it in his branch and merge the whole thing at once.
Shuro
@Shuro
Jul 26 2017 08:27
merging a oneliner patch shouldn't cause any problems, but maybe it does, yeah.
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Jul 26 2017 08:41
you'd be surprised
XML is funky like that
Shuro
@Shuro
Jul 26 2017 08:46
what does patching have to do with xml? Sorry, i come from a linux environment, diff & patch are commonly used.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jul 26 2017 08:46
Do we know if HTML tags in rules is getting fixed?
Shuro
@Shuro
Jul 26 2017 08:47
Ah yeah, these are annoying. Probably something because of the update to BS 2.x?
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Jul 26 2017 09:34
@ilaunchbury they're never getting "included". What we wait for now is Markdown support. Direct HTML is not expected to be supported. "Support" that was earlier was just a mistake (as is currently not handling newlines correctly - <br/>s shouldn't be there too).
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jul 26 2017 09:41
ok, thx/
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jul 26 2017 10:03
@/all, I've been having thoughts about improving maintainability for CSM, but it involves a shift of thinking on how rosters are created. if you have time, please take a look at #967 and leave any comments.
James
@skonk
Jul 26 2017 10:08
A few of the recent changes to the CSM stuff have made list building a little more fiddly than it was before
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jul 26 2017 10:10
Are you talking about the change to Marks?
James
@skonk
Jul 26 2017 10:10
no, actually not sure what changed with marks?
i mean things like adding special/heavy weapons to units of marines and such
was easier to click a numeric spinner button and set it to 1 or 2
rather than having to manually remove 2 marines, then add 2 special/heavy marines, then click each one and set the weapon
its gone from 2 clicks to 10+ clicks
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jul 26 2017 10:12
The guidelines for unit creation recommend that setup, so that each entry in the roster is its own model. Otherwise, you just see a load of models with the same equipment and profiles for the extra stuff.
James
@skonk
Jul 26 2017 10:14
it wouldnt be so bad if scribe's duplicate command worked on the model (which i thought the patch notes even said it did...) but it doesn't
so its a case of having to manually do this for every model you want to have a different weapon
it's just a faff when you have lots of units where you need to set these weapons up, and while im sure the guidelines were well intentioned... in practice, knowing which model has which weapon in the list really doesn't matter
in terms of list building workflow, it was a much quicker (i.e. better) workflow before imo
btw, the subfaction thing
isn't that how it already works?
the DG and TS cats only present the options directly listed under those factions in the book
and the units in those 2 factions that don't exist outside of their sections in the book arn't included in the CSM cat
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jul 26 2017 10:18
Yes, but those catalogues contain copies of the shared units.
James
@skonk
Jul 26 2017 10:18
ah right, such as brutes and pred's etc?
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jul 26 2017 10:18
yes
so any changes have to made multiple times.
James
@skonk
Jul 26 2017 10:19
I own a lot of chaos models
and I play DG, TS, CSM (black legion generally) and quite a lot of forgeworld stuff
so im kinda used to having to nest detachments with different cats
not sure if i like the idea though of having to do that even if i'm building a pure DG or pure TS list
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jul 26 2017 10:21
it's either that, or I merge those two back in to the main catalogue.
or leave it as is, obviously.
James
@skonk
Jul 26 2017 10:21
What we need is for keywords as a filter to be added as a feature to BS
let BS load up multiple cats and display all the units from them into a combined list in the side
then use keywords to filter that list to make it easier to find the unit you want
currently there are issues with all 3 of the above options
if everything is merged into the same cat, multiple nested detachments would still be needed because BS only lets you select a <Legion> keyword for the entire detachment
but the rules allow each unit individually to have a different legion
the current way of doing it works but for anyone new to BS the process is baffling as fuck :)
and splitting it down even further to remove all shared stuff would exacerbate the above issue
tbh, BS just isn't really built to handle 40k 8th edition
James
@skonk
Jul 26 2017 10:27
If I suddenly lost my job and had loads of spare time I'd just write my own list building app and base it all on keywords
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Jul 26 2017 10:29
@Shuro nice to see a TTS player in the wild :D
James
@skonk
Jul 26 2017 11:42
just wangled myself an early copy of the SM codex, if anyone wants any info from it
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Jul 26 2017 11:44
i'm interested to know the exact wording on chapter tactics, stratagems, traits, etc.
James
@skonk
Jul 26 2017 11:44
i'll snap some photos
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Jul 26 2017 11:45
i mostly want to know if every unit needs to have <chapter> and pick the same, or if you just cant have different chapters in the same detachment
James
@skonk
Jul 26 2017 11:46
every unit in a detachment needs to be of the same chapter to get the benefit of chapter tactics and such
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Jul 26 2017 11:47
can i include other imperium units, without invalidating that is basically what im asking
James
@skonk
Jul 26 2017 11:49
not to the same detachment
you can add other detachments with any imperium stuff you like tho
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Jul 26 2017 11:50
okay cool, so i need to move the stormtalons out of the IG battalion
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Jul 26 2017 11:59
top man :+1:
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Jul 26 2017 12:10
so if im reading this right, chapter warlord traits and relics can be in any detachment, but tactics and obsec are space marine detachments only
James
@skonk
Jul 26 2017 12:13
yeh it does seem the limit is only placed on the chapter tactics
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Jul 26 2017 12:14
what about strats, are they SM detachments only, or are they based on the warlord?
entire book
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Jul 26 2017 12:15
you're my new favourite person
James
@skonk
Jul 26 2017 12:18
few of the images are a little blurry, impossible to tell till I could see it on the computer but i think they should still be readable
the strats i would assume arn't limited
since most of them arn't chapter based
the ones that are seem to be "pick a <chapter> unit" or whatever
so should be usable even if it was a detachment with a mix of chapters in it
but they would only be usable on the correctly chaptered units
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Jul 26 2017 12:20
similar to relics then
James
@skonk
Jul 26 2017 12:21
so it seems there is still loads of flexibility to how you build your list; you could even forego chapter tactics and just mix the shit out of it and benefit from the strats, traits, psychic stuff
or if you go more fluffy and stick to detachments of a single chapter then you also get the tactics
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Jul 26 2017 12:21
ah, you need a SM detachment to unlock them
James
@skonk
Jul 26 2017 12:22
whats nice for me as a chaos player is assuming the CSM codex is the same, it fits right in with the fluff
generally a black crusade would contain small detachments from multiple legions
in the fluff i mean
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Jul 26 2017 12:23
yeah, hopefully its even more granular with the 4 powers getting their own gubbinz
KDK will be reborn dammit!
James
@skonk
Jul 26 2017 12:23
i assume the CSM dex will have black legion (like ultramarines) and then everything apart from DG, TS, EC and WE
and then i reckon DG, TS, Ec and We will get individual codexes
i hope that the 4 main legions all incorporate daemons tbh
again it would fit with the fluff
DG should get plague bearers and nurglins and stuff as part of it, thats my hope
we'l know if thats happening once the DG codex drops i guess
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Jul 26 2017 12:25
thats what i mean, have stratagems and traits and relics that are NURGLE
and then have more that are DG
so you can throw in some daemons, but you lose some DG specific stuff
James
@skonk
Jul 26 2017 12:26
in every fluff story when a legion attacks they always have that god's daemons there
so imo they should count as DG
basically, all 4 of those main legion should work like KDK did
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Jul 26 2017 12:27
yeah, i guess we'll have to wait and see how it plays out
James
@skonk
Jul 26 2017 12:27
yeh
I've combined all those pdf's into 1 so i've removed the smaller ones from that share
the big one is syncing now
i wont leave it shared for long tho so make sure you snag it so it can get shared around
Me myself and I.
@Entropy1986_twitter
Jul 26 2017 12:37
Just accidentally bought the know no fear box and a pack of devastators.
CloverFox
@CloverFox
Jul 26 2017 12:45
"accidentally"
James
@skonk
Jul 26 2017 12:45
is that one of the collector editions or something?
im not actually an SM player, i just bought the book so the friends who are SM players dont have to
altho i was given a small selection of marines last week so may try building a small force
Me myself and I.
@Entropy1986_twitter
Jul 26 2017 13:01
Yeah
cartag
@cartag
Jul 26 2017 13:08
The reason DG and TS were separated out in the first place were for the same reason Blood Angels and Space Wolves were from SM. They have their own army list, with their own restrictions. I don't hear imperium players hitching and moaning all the Fucking time like Chaos players do, that's part of the reason I stopped entirely. Given how HE seems to be going with things getting their own book, it is incredibly short sighted to move everything back together just to have it all apart again.
@ilaunchbury trust me when I say there was a reason it was split in the first place other than sheer novelty factor. The only reason I'm commenting now is I don't want to see everything I've done for BS be undone because you don't want to update two files instead of one
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jul 26 2017 13:19
@skonk do you have a picture if the points?
Of*
James
@skonk
Jul 26 2017 13:20
they're in the PDF
oh hang on, are they
no i missed em, i'll add them
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jul 26 2017 13:22
@cartag. I absolutely understand why they're split out now. I don't, however, think it's unreasonable to want to simplify maintenance for whoever maintains the files going forward, whether it's me, you, or anyone else. My intention was to motivate discussion of how we, as a community, could potentially improve things for everyone. We all have limited time to do this work and if not having to update the same unit in three places can be avoided, why shouldn't it be?
I'm not proposing to just change the way this works completely without input from everyone else and so far, it sounds like the general consensus is that it would be more of a pain in the arse than I had thought.
James
@skonk
Jul 26 2017 13:25
@flakpanda ive added them to pdf, should have synced by now
cartag
@cartag
Jul 26 2017 13:27
Basically right now BS doesn't use data in a format that is condusive to sub cats. If it used a database system it would be different, but with XML it just doesn't work well. Did you play chaos at the end of 7th? Remember the performance hit the CSM file took after TL came out? There's a reason for that. I had to set up all the artefacts, units, etc to show/hide based off a selection, and the performance took a massive hit
It took forever to load rosters or do anything with it due to the amount of stuff it had to chew through just to display army selections
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jul 26 2017 13:29
well, there we go then. As I haven't been around that long, I wasn't aware of the performance implications. If it's going to massively impact performance, then it's obviously a no go.
cartag
@cartag
Jul 26 2017 13:30
Sorry for being harsh, it's one of the reasons I stepped away. My mental health isn't that great right now and I'm trying to focus more on being well. Not an excuse, just trying to share an explanation. I'm working on it.
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jul 26 2017 13:32
Thank you @skonk
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jul 26 2017 13:33
no problem at all. You did most of the heavy lifting on this and I understand that you don't want to see it changed for no good reason.
Austin C.
@capitaladot
Jul 26 2017 13:50
@cartag if the xml cats could link to external files, xml could work fine. Managing each selection (unit, wargear, model, etc) as a separate document would make github work so much better.
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Jul 26 2017 13:52
@capitaladot that's an insanely simple and awesome idea.
Austin C.
@capitaladot
Jul 26 2017 13:52
Just have the damn editor load the contents of a directory.
It would take some other changes like all modifiers would have to be against links, so the application would have to reflect /introspect the contents of the links to list attributes, entities, etc, to modify.
@amis92 I am glad you see it that way.
Maybe it already does this.
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Jul 26 2017 13:55
I don't believe that BattleScribe will be able to make it happen soon, but I might. We just really, really need importing cats into cats.
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Jul 26 2017 13:56
or have a new file type that a cat can import from
Austin C.
@capitaladot
Jul 26 2017 13:57
Cat should probably just be a collection of links.
With attributes like labels and entities that modify the linked in entities.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Jul 26 2017 13:59
i think that's probably taking it too far. having a single file for every unit is going to add a load of extra data by the time you include headers
flakpanda
@flakpanda
Jul 26 2017 14:06
I've had a brief conversation with Jon about all this. And exteral linking, and even moving to SQL..
The way it currently is, BS references the memery hashes to look at things. So cross file linking (outside the GST) would be taxing on phones.
He has contemplated moving to a SQL format. That a future idea if he does it.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Jul 26 2017 14:26
I'd like keyword support first :/
It's still a pretty damn big part of 40k that has yet to grace the app
Keyword display as well as stop escaping HTML :/
I'm still not sure why he did that, it's a very ugly implementation
CloverFox
@CloverFox
Jul 26 2017 14:32
wasn't that because of the <> brackets being used in xml, eg <order>
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Jul 26 2017 14:33
We could've changed that rather and make it impossible to format larger rules
Things like Canticles or things with a table of results look terrible as a block of text
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Jul 26 2017 14:34
yeah, most people changed to (Faction) when we discovered that happened
now we cant even put line breaks in rules
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Jul 26 2017 14:35
Jon seems to have disappeared again too
Austin C.
@capitaladot
Jul 26 2017 15:04
Some sort of markdown would probably be better than html in text.
Appears I can't type string literal html entities in gitter. Ugh.
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Jul 26 2017 15:37
anyone have epubs of Faith &Fire, Hammer& Anvil, or Tales from The Dark Millennium?
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Jul 26 2017 15:37
@capitaladot you can, just escape it with ``:
`<code>`
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Jul 26 2017 15:37
trying to get my SOB reading on.
Austin C.
@capitaladot
Jul 26 2017 15:37
&gt;
Tried with triple backticks... single backticks it is.
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Jul 26 2017 15:38
triples are for blocks, they need to be on separate lines
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Jul 26 2017 15:38
also, if anyone has the audiobook for Red & Black that would also be fantastic.
Austin C.
@capitaladot
Jul 26 2017 15:44
@alphalas hit me up this evening, I think I have some of those.
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Jul 26 2017 19:36
so looking through that pdf
big jumpout to me is inceptors dropping in price by 45pts for the whole unit
maybe I'll use mine again
they were too pricey at 225/3
now at 180/3 they feel like a decent spot
plasma makes them 186/3
I'm not so enthused about relics being free, but that can always be fixed with an errata
now to figure out how the hell I plan to support the index and the codex simultaneously
Austin C.
@capitaladot
Jul 26 2017 19:42
How does that last thing follow? Does not the Codex squat the index?
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Jul 26 2017 19:44
some units only exist in the index, and BA/DA/ETC are explicitly allowed to choose which to use
for now at least
oh
oh good
they're assuming that the most recent version of a unit is being used, so I can just replace
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Jul 26 2017 20:02
looks like the official line is "you can use whichever if you're not codex SM, use the index for nonsupported units, and then we're going to assume that BA/DA/ETC are using latest rules"
tekton
@tekton
Jul 26 2017 20:14
Sounds right
James
@skonk
Jul 26 2017 20:35
Technically the relics arn't free, they cost you command points
the missing units is a major fuck up on GW's part imo
with this they throw the whole streamlining thing out of the window
but whats worse is they also imply that you can use wargear thats been removed in the codex by using the points cost and rules for in from the index data sheet for the unit who is taking the wargear
so not only do people need to fuck about with 2 books; but they also have to effectively mix part of an old data sheet into the new updated one
it all begs the question.... why the fuck not just put all this in the codex in the first place
tekton
@tekton
Jul 26 2017 20:42
my honest guess: Quarterly Earnings
James
@skonk
Jul 26 2017 20:42
I get the thing of not creating updated rules for models they don't actually sell; but for a lot of people converting stuff to actually make these missing models is part of the fun, drives some sales (several kits often being needed to make 1 model) and a lot of people have spend time, money and effort already to create these and now they're removing them............ or not, just making you faff about with multiple books
i dont see how them doing this can do anything but actually lose a number (albeit a very small number) of sales from people who otherwise would have for example, bought a pack of 3 bikes, and apothecary kit and what ever other bits they need all so they could build 1 character on a bike
it's also another situation where from here on there will be people who ever other game they play have to repeat the same old arguments when the guy they're playing against insists they can no longer use these models because they either don't know about the Q&A thing that allows them... or they're just being cunts.
btw none of this affects me like, I dont own anything the stuff they did this to :) but I can see them doing the same thing when the CSM book comes out
currently we can have lords and sorcs in power armour or termi armour, on a bike, disc, steed or palaquin; or with a jump pack
James
@skonk
Jul 26 2017 20:47
other than the armour type, they dont make models for any of them
Austin C.
@capitaladot
Jul 26 2017 21:00
This is all to spite third parties who fill in gaps in their model line. Who it actually hurts are their paying customers.
Austin C.
@capitaladot
Jul 26 2017 21:08
Fortunately, the Horus Heresy is staying in 7th, and the army lists offer a wide variety of whacky options for which models have never been made, e. g. Land Speeders with Volkite and Graviton Guns, not to mention the Ordo Reductor tanks for Mechanicum which are close to the 4th edition VDR in their breadth of options.
James
@skonk
Jul 26 2017 21:16
:)
MrRta1910
@MrRta1910
Jul 26 2017 23:00
Can we give the landraider achelies alpha pattern volkite sponsons option
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Jul 26 2017 23:11
Nope - Volkite is 30k only.
That option is also not in the index.
The ONLY volkite in 40k is the tartaros terminator sgt
There is ZERO Volkite in Index: Imperial Armour Adeptus Astartes
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Jul 26 2017 23:21
it might be in fires of cyraxus but who knows
Austin C.
@capitaladot
Jul 26 2017 23:23
If that vaporware ever comes out.
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Jul 26 2017 23:25
@skonk okay so maybe I missed it somewhere, but I downloaded your link that said "full book" and yet I can't find any troops choices in it other than Crusader Squads. Have I gone blind or temporarily insane?
(and I'm not complaining, it's awesome what you did there -- sharing is caring and I appreciate it)