These are chat archives for BSData/wh40k

19th
Dec 2017
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Dec 19 2017 00:30
prettied up #1838 and added a few missing ones
just realised R&H and daemons shouldnt be on there
there we go
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Dec 19 2017 00:56
Oh, right, I just realized I need to do Krieg and Elysisans
Time to warm up the ol' copypasta
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Dec 19 2017 01:04
kreig and elysians are done @CrusherJoe
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Dec 19 2017 01:15
Oh really now
Got bored didya?
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Dec 19 2017 01:45
I did them when I did vanilla Guard
Oh wait you’re talking about the AM WLTs nvm
I’m dumb lol
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Dec 19 2017 02:05
Are you talking about Relics for DKK and Elysians?
...
What ARE you talking about?
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Dec 19 2017 07:46
working on it!
New units are in
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Dec 19 2017 08:01
freakin' screenshots. I need a full codex to work with...
Axis of Entropy
@axisofentropy_twitter
Dec 19 2017 08:11
I have one if you've any questions
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Dec 19 2017 08:12
:thumbsup:
which units to have Grim Resolve?
Unforgiven ability is gone, right?
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Dec 19 2017 08:22
nevermind, found an epub
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Dec 19 2017 10:04
@Thairne, poke it over this way, will you?
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Dec 19 2017 10:05
but... but that would be PIRACY! Gasp!
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Dec 19 2017 10:15
alright, mostly done.
If you insist on releasing... I'd need to to a total pass over the entire dex and after about 4h I need a bit of a break :P
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Dec 19 2017 10:16
im sure the users will be quick to inform you :P
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Dec 19 2017 10:16
yeah I'd rather pevent that forest fire in the first place :P
James
@skonk
Dec 19 2017 11:07
@alphalas has it on his dropbox i think
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Dec 19 2017 11:13
Yup
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Dec 19 2017 11:13
glad you're here, @Skonk. I don't like #2044. it feels like shenanigans to get something you shouldn't really have
James
@skonk
Dec 19 2017 11:14
Its as the rules are
Its a unit that the index allowed death guard to use
that is no longer in the codex
as per everything GW have said, missing units can still be used from the index
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Dec 19 2017 11:16
I know, I just don't like it :)
James
@skonk
Dec 19 2017 11:16
Oh dont get me wrong, im sure it wasn't what GW intended
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Dec 19 2017 11:16
I deliberately didn't delete the data from the file because I thought this was likely to come up at some point.
James
@skonk
Dec 19 2017 11:17
but them changing the name of the unit in the codex was a mistake because it allows for the above
I think i know why they did it tho
if the unit in the dg codex was the same name as the one in the CSM book, then CSM's would be able to use the newer one in the DG book which would cause issues with Legion names and stuff
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Dec 19 2017 11:19
whats the difference between your death guard daemon prince model and your death guard daemon prince of nurgle model?
James
@skonk
Dec 19 2017 11:19
the Death Guard version has a 5+ feel no pain, fixed legion name and uses a different spell school
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Dec 19 2017 11:19
i mean the model
not the rules
James
@skonk
Dec 19 2017 11:20
well there is a nurgle model but its an old finecast one with no wings
but there is no specific death guard model
the DG version of the unit has no access to a warp bolter for some reason tho
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Dec 19 2017 11:23
so if there's no difference in the model, you use the codex datasheet and can take any wargear options it had access to in the index
James
@skonk
Dec 19 2017 11:23
no
the units have different names
The Index and CSM codex has "Daemon Prince"; the Death Guard codex has "Daemon Prince of Nurgle"
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Dec 19 2017 11:24
it doesnt matter. the designers' commentary says "does your model have rules in a codex?" then "did it have access to wargear in the index that it doesnt in the codex?"
James
@skonk
Dec 19 2017 11:24
if thats the case it just makes it even more a mess :)
What GW have created here is a huge mess anyway. For example, a CSM player could actually use the Lord or Sorcerer data sheet from the Death Guard codex, because they have the same unit name and the DG ones are a newer publication. But since they have a fixed Death Guard keyword you would stop being a CSM detachment.
Or they could use the Daemons version of the datasheet but the same issue with keywords
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Dec 19 2017 11:27
but models that arent painted as death guard dont have a datasheet in the death guard codex
so they use the one in the CSM codex
James
@skonk
Dec 19 2017 11:27
The shenanigans thing here though is that the Index and CSM version of a Daemon Prince can get Warp Time; while the Death Guard codex version can't. But it's within the rules right now to give the Index version of the prince the Death Guard keyword to get a model with Warp Time inside a Death Guard detachment
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Dec 19 2017 11:28
but your death guard daemon prince model has rules in a codex, so you use the codex datasheet
James
@skonk
Dec 19 2017 11:28
the model has rules in multiple codexes
but thats not the issue; GW stated that if a UNIT is missing from the codex, you can use the unit from the index
so the unit names themselves are an issue
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Dec 19 2017 11:29
where did they say that?
James
@skonk
Dec 19 2017 11:30
in the community article before the very first codex came out and its been discussed endlessly in here since; I find it hard to imagine you don't already know this
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Dec 19 2017 11:31
but they have made it much clearer since then. it's models that dont have rules in a codex that can use the index version
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Dec 19 2017 11:31
I think gen's point is that they've overruled that with the Designer's Commentary update.
James
@skonk
Dec 19 2017 11:34
if thats the way your going to interpret it then you need to add warp bolter to the DG prince
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Dec 19 2017 11:35
that's the rub isn't it. There is no "Daemon Prince of Nurgle" in the Index, so he can't have a warp bolter.
James
@skonk
Dec 19 2017 11:36
your saying the unit name doesnt matter
the model has rules
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Dec 19 2017 11:36
the model had the option to take one in the index, so he should be able to in the codex
James
@skonk
Dec 19 2017 11:36
with what you both just said, since the model has rules in a codex u use them and the wargear for the model thats missing from the index
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Dec 19 2017 11:37
But name matters is @GenWilhelm’s point I think
James
@skonk
Dec 19 2017 11:37
i dont interpret this the same way tho; to me its still about the unit names.. but if you dont agree and say its this other way then the DG prince needs his bolter
if its about unit names then DG can still use the index prince
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Dec 19 2017 11:38
my point is unit name doesnt matter. the model has codex rules, so it uses the codex datasheet. it had wargear options in the index that arent in the codex, so it should also have access to those
James
@skonk
Dec 19 2017 11:40
Personally I dont think thats what GW think they have said, though I agree its as written
I think they assume people are considering the unit names rather than just the model
but either way, currently the rules allow something that scribe doesnt allow
the fact that previous to the infographic in the update pdf GW had always talked about missing units (not models) makes me think they have just worded it wrong on the pdf, but i guess we can only go with what they actually wrote, not what we think they meant
going on a model bases causes other issues, especially when the daemons codex hits and that has its own version of the daemon prince
but anyway, gonna go get some dinner :)
James
@skonk
Dec 19 2017 11:49
If I drove I'd jump in the car and go to warhammer word and hang around till i could actually talk to one of the idiots who keep making all these messes and directly ask them wtf they mean
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Dec 19 2017 11:52
what ever happened to that forum they were building to get quick answers to our rules questions?
James
@skonk
Dec 19 2017 11:52
probably realised it would be an endless task and knocked it on the head
James
@skonk
Dec 19 2017 12:38
Thinking more; you can't go by Model, it would make the whole thing go to shit. Any unit that uses a "Space Marine" model would suddenly have access to wargear that every other unit that uses a "Space Marine" model has (tactical squad, devastator, assault marine etc). You need the context of the Unit name to give you the correct restrictions.
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Dec 19 2017 12:44
i dont see how that's an issue. can you give an example?
James
@skonk
Dec 19 2017 12:45
different armies use the same models but with different wargear options
blood angels dont have grav for example (i think) but they use the same spare marine models, going by this interpretation would you not be merging unintended wargear into the mix?
or different units that use the same models
a dev squad uses a space marine model, so does a tactical squad. if you just went on what wargear a space marine has then you could load up a tactical squad with 4 lascanons
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Dec 19 2017 12:47
but the tactical squad says only one model can have a lascannon
James
@skonk
Dec 19 2017 12:47
but that same model has a unit that says it can have 4
you just said the unit doesnt matter, just the model
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Dec 19 2017 12:48
yes, the model has access to a lascannon, that doesnt mean you can override other restriction in the unit
James
@skonk
Dec 19 2017 12:48
that kinda is what you said tho
that model has wargear options that allow 4 lascanons
without the unit name in the mix you cant differentiate
the daemon prince of nurgle is a different unit a daemon prince, only 1 of those units say they can have a warp bolter
you said since its the same model, they both have a warp bolter
thats the same as my example with the marines
my example was just more extreme
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Dec 19 2017 12:51
no it isnt. your space marine doesnt have wargear that was in the index, but not in the codex
James
@skonk
Dec 19 2017 12:51
yes it does
the model its self if you are ignoring the unit name
the index has space marine models with grav
the blood angels dex has space marines without grav
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Dec 19 2017 12:52
there's at least two ways to have a space marine with a lascannon in the index
James
@skonk
Dec 19 2017 12:53
yes and you just said that the model gets that gear
if you dont use unit names then how can you differentiate
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Dec 19 2017 12:53
only if it's not available in the codex, which it is
James
@skonk
Dec 19 2017 12:53
a space marine with grav is not in the blood angels codex
but it is in the index
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Dec 19 2017 12:53
it is in the codex
James
@skonk
Dec 19 2017 12:55
well bad example then, last time i played em they didnt have access to it
but the point still stands
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Dec 19 2017 12:55
im still not seeing the issue
James
@skonk
Dec 19 2017 12:56
imagine if in the index there was a unit, specific to an army that had wargear that only that army can use
but the same models used in that unit are used in other armies, minus the wargear
possibly with different unit names
it will let armies use wargear not intended for use in that army
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Dec 19 2017 12:58
does the first army have a codex?
James
@skonk
Dec 19 2017 13:00
yes
er, no in this case
but one of the second lot does
my overall point is that surely you have to consider the unit names to compare what wargear is actually missing
if you were just looking at the model then it throws up all sorts of issues
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Dec 19 2017 13:01
okay, so the model from the first army doesnt have a datasheet in a codex
James
@skonk
Dec 19 2017 13:01
and as well as the unit names you also have to consider which faction keywords can be applied to those units
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Dec 19 2017 13:02
so like a "Space Marine Veteran" with a frag cannon
James
@skonk
Dec 19 2017 13:04
the model only way needs a bunch of stuff to get anywhere near working it out
what constitutes the "model"?
what if you dont use citadel odels?
what if you use converted stuff made up of multiple citadel kits?
what if you use heresay models?
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Dec 19 2017 13:05
if it was legal in the index, it should be legal when the army gets a codex
James
@skonk
Dec 19 2017 13:06
so with the above, there isn't really any such thing as a specific model for each unit. tactical marines devastators, assault marines etc are basically all the same Space Marine model but with different wargear options specified in the unit data sheet
so the wargear in the index for a space marine model is vast because it comes from multiple unit data sheets
if a codex then comes out that uses that same model, but lets says codex prohibits the use of i dunno, jump packs lets say, since that is now wargear that the model doesnt have in the dex but that model did get in the index (on assault marines) it would still have access to that wargear from the index
but since you aint looking at the unit names you could stick that jump pack on marines in a tactical squad
i know this is a silly arguement, but the point is you must use the unit names (and keywords those units can be given) to compare to the same unit in the index to work out if anything is "missing"
James
@skonk
Dec 19 2017 13:14
so regardless of the use the word "model" in the chapter approved, GW would surely apply that to the unit you are using that model to represent
rather than the model it's self
James
@skonk
Dec 19 2017 13:27
chapter approved should have said designers commentary there
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Dec 19 2017 14:57
technically correct
the best kind of correct!
James
@skonk
Dec 19 2017 14:59
:)
James
@skonk
Dec 19 2017 15:36
does anyone happen to have Legiones Astartes: Age of Darkness Army List (horus heresy red book thing) as an epub?
oh got em, alphalas has em
Axis of Entropy
@axisofentropy_twitter
Dec 19 2017 16:13
Unforgiven is replaced by Inner Circle. Black Knights get it now.
Axis of Entropy
@axisofentropy_twitter
Dec 19 2017 16:18

@Thairne here's my notes on rules changes: Jink is now 4++ (big improvement over 5++)

Azreal's 4++ aura now affects only Infantry and Bikers.

Sammeal on Sableclaw now protected by Character keyword.

Black Knights and all Deathwing units gained Combat Squad ability.

Black Knights gain Inner Circle (Fearless).

Dark Angels Chapter Ancient has slightly better banner than basic Space Marines; the last gasp attacks are 2+ WS/BS.

Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Dec 19 2017 17:03
Dear lord we need a bug reply that just says, "STOP TRYING TO CHEAT"
If you're playing DG, you DON'T get generic CSM models in your army, regardless of Index/Codex/Necronomicon/Scrolls Written on Human Flesh in Elf Blood
FFS
If you want a CSM model, use a CSM detachment or use the aux detachment
Someone PLEASE tell me WHY this is a concept that seems impossible to grasp?
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Dec 19 2017 17:06
lmao Joe. gotta find those loopholes
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Dec 19 2017 17:07
If anyone tries that shiz at WGC I'm just going to point at them and laugh. A lot. Then say, "Hahaha....NO."
I swear I'm going to get a sock and stick a block of cheese in it to smack people with
And when they complain I'll simply say, "Why? You're trying to hit me with a bag of cheese..."
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Dec 19 2017 17:08
yeah, you need to bring a single cultist from another legion to unlock generic CSM strats, then use chaos familiar to generate from dark hereticus
boom. morty and/or magnus have warptime
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Dec 19 2017 17:12
Yeah, I know
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Dec 19 2017 17:13
they should really make aux supp detachments not count for stratagems
oh wait, they have
i should really read the source before i unpack the roule
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Dec 19 2017 17:21
@crusherjoe RAI i completely agree with you, but strict RAW @skonk is correct, unit datasheets are defined by name, and as such the index DP is technically correct, the worst kind of correct
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Dec 19 2017 17:21
thats not what the DC says though
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Dec 19 2017 17:22
you don't want to go down the model hellhole @GenWilhelm , it leads no place good
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Dec 19 2017 17:23
thats what they said, though /shrug
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Dec 19 2017 17:23
the only way we have to define a unit in RAW is the name of its datasheet
this is why my personal line is "deprecation was a mistake"
but until GW unfucks themselves, and learns to actually write rules that aren't as full of holes as a block of swiss cheese, we should be impartial and 'draw the holes as well as the block'
then TOs can make whatever additional rulings they like to remove nonsense
I know i have a few i use with local events based on obvious RAI
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Dec 19 2017 17:29
i'd be interested to hear what those are
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Dec 19 2017 17:29
Mine?
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Dec 19 2017 17:30
yeah
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Dec 19 2017 17:30
The adjusted stuff:
barring of units that were meant as replacements but didn't quite replace: DG DP, couple SM units that have similar funky business, a clarification about some stuff in R&H (on mobile so I don't have the full list)
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Dec 19 2017 17:35
then a couple terrain houserules: 50% obscured regardless of distance provides cover, monsters and dreadnought-alikes being able to hit the second floor of ruins as long as they can get the physical model within 1" of the infantry they wish to fight (to solve some problems with local terrain peices)
Simple stuff to avoid bizzare list twisting and account for the tables at hand really
But ultimately those are houserules, just like my corsair codex (how i wish i could put that in here with a giant homebrew tag)
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Dec 19 2017 17:38
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Dec 19 2017 17:39
Haha
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Dec 19 2017 17:40
That's at an actual GW store btw :p
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Dec 19 2017 19:04
@axisofentropy_twitter thanks, I'll implement those right away
to stuff like this I can only reply with this image...
The Truth of the Lion.jpg
Loyality is it's own reward.
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Dec 19 2017 19:07
Strange how the DoW II cultists say the same thing occaisionally when you kill them....
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Dec 19 2017 19:07
oh
you didnt
you motherfucking just didnt
:P
and uh nope, no combat squads for Ravenwing knights...
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Dec 19 2017 19:26
am I crazy or is there a chapter champion for 60 pts in the points list but not actually in the codex?
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Dec 19 2017 19:35
wouldn't be the first time
or the first time something had a datasheet but no points
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Dec 19 2017 19:38
aw.
That's sad.
I almost hoped I'd started halluzinating... the fun to be had...
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Dec 19 2017 19:39
that's just tzeentch's blessings, ignore that
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Dec 19 2017 19:39
I personally would lean more to slaneesh.. if even getting killed gives you pleasure..
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Dec 19 2017 19:41
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Dec 19 2017 19:42
Full Auto.jpg
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Dec 19 2017 19:58
yeah, so, on the points/datasheet note - I can't find a datasheet for a Librarian with Jump Pack (perhaps I didn't look hard enough) so when I updated the Deathwatch last night I simply copied the Librarian entry and gave him a jump pack...
does anyone know where I can find a Librarian with Jump Pack datasheet?? Or is this a case of "hiding in plain sight" for a new model for Deathwatch??
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Dec 19 2017 20:00
DA has it as an equipment option
it even changes the profile and the PL of the data sheet
I THINK it was in the index like that too
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Dec 19 2017 20:01
hmmm.. in the DA part of the index you say...
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Dec 19 2017 20:01
and actually in the codex
grafik.png
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Dec 19 2017 20:02
oh, like that!!
I was looking for a specific "Lib w/ JP" datasheet
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Dec 19 2017 20:03
logical assumption to make :P
with all those bike guys and TDA guys..
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Dec 19 2017 20:05
right so, if i can be bothered, I'll have to update that entry
perhaps I'll wait fir a bug rep
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Dec 19 2017 20:10
that'S the spirit :P
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Dec 19 2017 20:11
:wink:
yeah, actually it looks like I have some work to do updating the Harlequins Codex to include warlord traits and Relics so I might do it at the same time
also, @CrusherJoe I made a little update to Space Wolves last night too...
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Dec 19 2017 20:12
Oh?
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Dec 19 2017 20:12
bashed (literally) the Wolf Guard Terminator to enable selection of a pair of claws and cyclone
for people who REALLY want multi-role terminators
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Dec 19 2017 20:14
Oh right on. I want to look at what you did and learn from it :)
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Dec 19 2017 20:14
jeez... don't look too hard
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Dec 19 2017 20:15
Well not too hard, but I do want to learn
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Dec 19 2017 20:15
it wasn't pretty, I basically applied the same logic as for the other terminators (i.e. w/o heavy weapons) to give a "wolf claw (pair)" option with modifiers to allow 0 choices from other selection lists
it is horrible
but it works
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Dec 19 2017 20:16
Sometimes that's all that matters
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Dec 19 2017 20:16
tbh, probably the best/only way to improve the SW CAT would be to re-write the selection lists specifically for which weapons each model can/can't replace with something else
then you just have two lists, similar to the "left hand" "right Hand" lists that we have used previously
that would remove all duplicate options
but moves (slightly) away from STRICT RAW
because you've re-grouped the lists away from the exact content from the Index
It will defnintely look more lovely on mobile if that is done
CrusherJoe @CrusherJoe nods
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Dec 19 2017 20:21
but the flip side is that everything might chnge when the codex drops..
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Dec 19 2017 20:21
Yeah...I'm thinking that since it works for now, we probably shouldn't change anything until the Wolftime
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Dec 19 2017 20:21
well to this date the dexes didn't change anything radical..
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Dec 19 2017 20:21
Er
The Codex drops
But: I don't think there will be much in the way of Radical Changes
Though there should be
And there had damned well better be a Leman Russ in it :)
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Dec 19 2017 20:23
erm... I know it is not an Imperial Codex, but to counter your statement - the Aeldari codex does not have an "Autarch weapons" or "Autarch Equipment" list
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Dec 19 2017 20:23
To counter what statement?
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Dec 19 2017 20:24
"Nothing radical" - like the complete removal of equipment lists
happened to the Aeldari codex
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Dec 19 2017 20:24
Oh
Well
Yes
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Dec 19 2017 20:25
but yes, looking at the C:SM lists it is not toally relevant :smile:
because they make models for all the options
so, we're 99% golden that the lists will stay in roughly the same format as they';re currently in
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Dec 19 2017 21:31
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Dec 19 2017 21:45
God damnit stop making mock apple commercials people
It’s bad enough apple won’t stop
Dirk Bachert
@Thairne
Dec 19 2017 21:46
I dont watch tv and use adblock
so I have no idea what you're talking about
ignorance is bliss :P
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Dec 19 2017 21:56
@FarseerVeraenthis there was no Lib with JP for deathwatch until the typo in CA
many think it was supposed to be the terminator librarian but it got typo'd
since we do have those
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Dec 19 2017 21:57
is it errata'd??
I just saw the bug report and "did it"
because really, I'm a bit of a maverick...
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Dec 19 2017 21:58
not that I can see yet
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Dec 19 2017 21:58
so, is it wrong??
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Dec 19 2017 22:03
at the moment, no!
but prepare to need to rip it out when GW goes "oops"
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Dec 19 2017 22:05
:wink:
I'm prepared
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Dec 19 2017 22:08
@Thairne are DA good for release?
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Dec 19 2017 22:08
@Thairne wtf did I just watch...?! I'm confused and slightly horrified
JasonRed3
@JasonRed3
Dec 19 2017 22:09
I'm not seeing the data file in the downloadable list. Was it pulled?
zopha
@zopha
Dec 19 2017 22:14
No. Appspot seems to take it down for several hours when a release is pushed out for a game system. be back on the list in awhile.
JasonRed3
@JasonRed3
Dec 19 2017 22:14
Ahhh, thank you. Appreciated.
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Dec 19 2017 22:14
#1706
Owlsbane
@Owlsbane
Dec 19 2017 23:05
@FarseerVeraenthis Just a dig at commercials from companies like Apple and such.
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Dec 19 2017 23:21
Basically watch any Apple keynote from the last 5 years or so and you’ll get it
Only thing that was missing was the “one more thing”