These are chat archives for BSData/wh40k

3rd
Apr 2018
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 00:17
well, min size three will solve the "unit of 10 with -3 to be hit" issue which was what was to my understanding making them more durable than ever intended
and the "10 reaper forewarning"
I personally prefer the "one scorpion forewarning"
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Apr 03 2018 06:43
Talking about detachments and the FOC, I think there are currently too many detachment options, you almost don't need to choose / sacrifice anything because you just choose another detachment
Patrol, brigade and battalion would have been enough I think
Price Van-Saint
@sk_Father_Price_twitter
Apr 03 2018 07:52
I dislike CP being tied to detach types .. but I don't see a better way other than flat 9 points per side
I do like the variety of detach types but they should offer other benefits than CP .. or come with a stratagem aligned to taking ... all fast attack? you get a 1CP deepstrike, all Heavy support you get a 2CP orbital bombardment ... all Elites, 2CP FnP ... etc.
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Apr 03 2018 07:59
Yeah, I agree, but then you're back towards formations...
Price Van-Saint
@sk_Father_Price_twitter
Apr 03 2018 08:05
I Liked formations ... (Regardless the Decurion hate and the sky of falling drop pods spam) they felt appropriate to my army ... Canoptek harvests and reclamation legions ... or Storm Talon Strike forces or ... etc. etc.
Currently my Necrons are arranged Exactly the same as space marines ... yes it's simplified play .. but I have monstrous spiders and shards of living gods lined up like good little space marines ... feels weird man
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Apr 03 2018 10:12
yup, I agree, somehow there needs to be a way of building an army that isn't a cookie cutter that's the same for every race
formations were that
but they were too powerful
because people abused them
I think what they should do is limit the number of different types of detachment, with more variability of option slots, and then allow different armies to modify the number of available slots to fit their fluff
overall - I really hope they don't go completely bonkers with the March FAQ/updates/changes
CloverFox
@CloverFox
Apr 03 2018 10:14
or allow the differnt force org charts, but without the silly free bonus' like free transports or +1 to the reanimation save
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Apr 03 2018 10:14
because, as @CrusherJoe has said, the game hasn't finished completely balancing itself out yet
@CloverFox yup, "it's Formations, Jim, but not as we know it"
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 10:15
the main problem with giving each faction unique FOCs is it's another layer of internal balance for each codex
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Apr 03 2018 10:16
having said all that, I wsa looking in the BRB and actually states that there WILL BE different detachments published in forthcoming books
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 10:16
there were new ones in CA, just not for matched play
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Apr 03 2018 10:16
really...??? (runs off to check CA)
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 10:17
yeah, planetstrike and stronghold assault
there's attacker and defender detachments for each of them
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Apr 03 2018 10:18
ah yes, I have seen them before
but discounted them
well, who knows what the March-now-April update will bring
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 10:20
"Spring FAQ"
not even April ;)
but yeah, im not expecting new stuff (a la CA), just some tweaks to shake things up a bit
Price Van-Saint
@sk_Father_Price_twitter
Apr 03 2018 10:51

"Spring FAQ"

last day of Spring 20th June - "ack!"

just in time for the Orks
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 10:58
isnt june supposed to be the next CA?
Price Van-Saint
@sk_Father_Price_twitter
Apr 03 2018 10:59
that's yearly in DEC I thought ... now where's that schedule

1: Codex Errata
A couple of weeks after the release of every codex

2: Big, Twice-a-year FAQs
Major game-wide questions will be answered on a biannual basis each March and September

3: Chapter Approved
(just like we did with the first Chapter Approved).

Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 11:01
ah yeah, it is annual
for some reason i had assumed it would be biannual like the FAQs
speaking of FAQs, arent we supposed to have the tau one by now?
or do bank holidays not count towards the 2 week schedule?
Price Van-Saint
@sk_Father_Price_twitter
Apr 03 2018 11:05
someone mentions plastic sisters and they dropped the clock .. GW now exists in some weird twilight zone between times ... .. basically so they can avoid paying rules writers any overtime
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 12:18
"Hey there's something costed wrong in tau codex"
Not going to say what ...
But ... there is.
Also
Wtf. I want to be in texas
No GBP conversions, no 2 week shipping, no 10% shipping charge.
Price Van-Saint
@sk_Father_Price_twitter
Apr 03 2018 12:19
Texas Forgeworld... only stocks the Biggest of things ... Warlord titans or GTFO
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 12:20
yeah, i saw that issue too. basically asking us to go and check the entire codex again
Price Van-Saint
@sk_Father_Price_twitter
Apr 03 2018 12:20
and is probably not counting int the included gear for the drone he thinks he has spotted
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 12:21
oh yeah, i hadnt even thought of that. WARGEAR NOT INCLUDED
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 12:21
Hey, at least I might SEE an emperor titan
I've yet to see one in the resin-flesh
Price Van-Saint
@sk_Father_Price_twitter
Apr 03 2018 12:21
"Hey you! .. peasant! ... no touchy the resin !"
going to make the bi-annual pilgrimage to Nottingham any time soon then ?
we could organise an event ... BSData maintainers vs. GW Rules lawyers ! ..
the winners get to see the next errata before it's released and make it work
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 12:25
I mean, they'd win.
They write the rules.
It'd be a game of I win.
Price Van-Saint
@sk_Father_Price_twitter
Apr 03 2018 12:26
yeah but for once it'd be based off games in their own front room rather than anecdotal stories from ITC events that someone on the community team was allowed to go see but not the actual writers !
"You ... You can do what to me ... three times ?? ... in the same assault phase ??!" ... "Mommy!"
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 12:27
oh please someone bring admech so you can abuse the awful RAW on their stratagem
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 12:27
whic hone
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 12:28
Skryerskull i think its called
Price Van-Saint
@sk_Father_Price_twitter
Apr 03 2018 12:29
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/740706.page
Yup, Scyerskull the never ending shooting phase
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 12:30
oh course dakka is all over it. why wouldnt they be?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 12:31
I wonder if it was used at adepticon at all
Kastalans shooting for days
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 12:31
i'd like to meet the TO that would allow it
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 12:31
I mean ... itd be a balancing decision
There's nothing obscure about it
So it's not like an interpretation ruling
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 12:32
but its so very clearly not intended to do that
Price Van-Saint
@sk_Father_Price_twitter
Apr 03 2018 12:33

I had to read it for myself

Use this Stratagem at any time to do one of the following:
reveal D3 hidden set-up markers (if your opponent is
using Concealed Deployment); identify a Mysterious
Objective anywhere on the battlefield; or shoot with an
ADEPTUS MECHANICUS unit from your army without
the penalties to your hit rolls from the Dawn Raid, Low
Visibility or Cover of Darkness rules.

at ANY time ..
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 12:33
Use this Stratagem at any time to [...] shoot with an ADEPTUS MECHANICUS unit from your army
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 12:33
It's entirely intended to be used at any time. It's pretty clear.
But seems written for narrative games.
a simple switch to Use this Stratagem at the start of your shooting phase would fix it.
But that's errata, not a TO interpretation.
It's a dickcheese to use it, but it's not exactly unclear.
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 12:34
"before i deploy the last unit from my army, I'll spend all of my CP to shoot you ten times with my robots"
Price Van-Saint
@sk_Father_Price_twitter
Apr 03 2018 12:35
you know.. you could use this ... with ALL your CP ... in the deployment phase ... as each enemy unit arrives
JINX !
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 12:35
No
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 12:35
lmao
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 12:35
Can't repeat a strategem in the same phase
Price Van-Saint
@sk_Father_Price_twitter
Apr 03 2018 12:35
shit me ... great minds think alike
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 12:35
deployment isnt a phase
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 12:35
True, it does say any time
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 12:35
the once-per-phase rule even specifies that it doesnt apply during deployment
Price Van-Saint
@sk_Father_Price_twitter
Apr 03 2018 12:36
it's where strats can be used many times like Strike from the shadows and other reserves strats
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 12:36
As long as you deploy first
Plop kastallans down in the open field
And use it after every enemy deployment.
Or: How to become the most hated person at a tournament 101
but damn if it wouldn't be funny watching from the outside.
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 12:37
well abusing broken rules is the most effective way to get them fixed
Price Van-Saint
@sk_Father_Price_twitter
Apr 03 2018 12:37

wait for tears when you explain that he can't take saving throws .. because "It's not the shooting phase" ....

/me watches tables flip

Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 12:37
Or bandaided.
Abuse Cullexus and Guilliman? Instead of fixing the extremely wonky targeting rules, lets just make other characters not count for that range.
Price Van-Saint
@sk_Father_Price_twitter
Apr 03 2018 12:40
Ok, I see what that strat is supposed to do now ... "May shoot without those penalties ..." not " may shoot..." it's the vision enhancement not make a shooting attack ... man that's badly worded
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 12:41
Oh it's pretty clear what was intended.
but yea, as written ... shoot for days
Can you only make saving throws in teh shooting phase?
Or isn't that whenever wounds are assigned
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 12:42
no, its part of resolving an attack
hit, wound, allocate, save, damage
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 12:42
That's what I thought
Price Van-Saint
@sk_Father_Price_twitter
Apr 03 2018 12:45
I was just being an arse, I mean, it only lists those in the shooting phase ... and as the stratagem doesn't define it as "Make a shooting attack" or "Like in the shooting phase" .. and it's not actually in a phase at all, there's a very broken argument to say it just wounds automatically and no saves ... y'know .. if you were a real meany doodoo head

but
by the same logic ... and yes I'm massively overthinking this ... as it's outside of the game and doesn't specify ... you couldn't actually make the attacks in the first place ... for those same reasons ...

And now the balance is restored ... sanity can resume

Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 12:52
Suffice to say, it's terribly worded and has been called out since the codex was put out
i'm finding plenty of threads on it
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 12:52
yes. it's a wonderful exercise in RAW vs RAI
Price Van-Saint
@sk_Father_Price_twitter
Apr 03 2018 12:53
@Kohato had any fun with robot friends since release yet ?
in gaming terms I mean, not fiddling with bugreps
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 12:55
Games, no.
Been building and playing Farcry 5
Price Van-Saint
@sk_Father_Price_twitter
Apr 03 2018 13:07
I need a game ... played a team game with BA vs his kids Orks at the weekend .. but I had to hold back, not in for upsetting 11 yr olds with my murderbots
almost underestimated Orks though ... they krumped thru his death company like so much compost
while I sat back and laughed at his mewling meatsacks from the cover of my command building... I sent some wraiths and tomb blades to take some objectives in order to win the battle ... but didn't actually bloody my hands at all
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 13:13
Horde Orks are no joke.
Price Van-Saint
@sk_Father_Price_twitter
Apr 03 2018 13:15
yup, we educated him on "Da Jump" and next thing we knew there were boys and burnaboys everywhere ... (They toasted a baal pred and three kill kans took out the other one) ... More robotic laughing ensued
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 13:16
I played new tau vs orks for my last game. Very barely won with my flamer crisis team cleaning up the boyz
9d6 flamer hits vs horde. Yes please.
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Apr 03 2018 13:23
231pts by my calculations. Sure it was worth it? (sorry for my skepticism)
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 13:25
Probably not
I mean, it was ... I won
but probably not in a general list building sense
I think that list was Coldstar w/ Mont'ka trait, trip CIB and Advanced Targeting, 2 units of 3 crisis, 1 riptide, 2 broadside, 2 fireblades, and fire warrior chaff.
something like that
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 13:34
also, 207
for 3 triple flamer crisis suits.
vs 216 for 30 shoota boyz with big weapons
so ... mathhammer ... yep it was worth it lol
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Apr 03 2018 13:48
Yeah, right, forgot to remove default BCs from 'em ;D 207 it is. Well, indeed, I think it's a not-so-bad price. It's completely horde-focused and I think you need homing beacon to burn stuff after manta strike... How did you do that without one [HB]?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 13:50
Advanced and hid behind buildings turn 1.
Split between both units of boyz in case one Dajumped.
Not attacks, just chose a building to hide behind between both of them
Price Van-Saint
@sk_Father_Price_twitter
Apr 03 2018 13:56
yeah, his orks with Da jump did the same ... lose a turn of shooting to hide behind LoS and then run out and flambe'
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 15:48
Okay, so I've been thinking about relic validation in Space Marines, specifically with FW characters, and it's giving me a headache. Theoretically, anyone from IA can be a successor to any chapter, including BA and DA. Any bright ideas for an elegant solution to this?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 15:50
Successors do not get relics specific to chapters.
Should they? Debatable. But they do not.
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Apr 03 2018 15:51
^--
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 15:51
except with BA and DA they get access to a specific one
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 15:51
Right, if there is one that is solely for that successor, then yes.
My suggestion and self plug.
Look at necrons.
Select chapter, hide things based on that, or select Custom and then another drop down to select Custom Chapter Tactics.
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 15:52
does necrons validate across 4 catalogues?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 15:52
It's as clean and easy as you're gonna be able to get I think.
It doesn't, but should be able to.
Use Categories.
Assign Categories to shared relic entries.
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 15:52
ooh idea. add a sub-selection to the warlord to pick which book they are using
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 15:52
and validate on those. should carry cross cat.
That would work too
Also FW Characters have specific chapters don't they?
If you take a FW Character in a BA detachment, you lose chapter tactics.
Successor or no, the entire detachment is no longer BA
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 15:54
yes, but none of them are listed in a codex, so you can choose for them to be a successor to whichever chapter you like
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 15:55
Right, but Chapter X being successor to Chapter Y still means you're not entirely Chapter Y
which means no chapter tactics.
unless successors are called out specifically as allowing combined detachments like that
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 15:55
there are specific clauses to allow it in each codex
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 15:55
Gotcha
that's poopie.
If that clause is present then ...
don't validate based on IA.
Validate on your chapter tactics that you choose and then it's a trust system since we don't/can't change the <Chapter> keyword
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Apr 03 2018 15:57
Yeah FW actually confirmed that Gabe Angelos (BR CM) can use BT or any other CT
Since BR don’t have CT
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 15:58
That's so wonky
BA successor chapter can take UM Tactics and still be a BA successor.
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Apr 03 2018 15:59
Chalk it up to the fact that forgeworld can’t write rules
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 15:59
Until then, I suggest Hiding relics based on the chapter tactics chosen.
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 15:59
if you're a BA successor, you cant use anything from SM
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 16:00
Then add a no force org, "Successor Chapter Tactics"
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Apr 03 2018 16:00
It’s technically only a thing for the red scorpions and the blood ravens – they’re the only ones without definite original chapters IIRC
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 16:00
Ohh
I thought blood ravens was a BA successor
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Apr 03 2018 16:00
No
TSons man lol
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 16:01
Hmm
Add a Chapter selection for each of those
then a sub-menu to choose the tactics?
Then you can hide based on that chapter being chosen.
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 16:02
so how does my DA detachment know that i've picked Gabe as a BT successor, and not a DA one?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 16:02
hmm
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 16:02
thats the main point i was getting at
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 16:03
Ok
Super messy
Add IA characters as entries in each codex.
Give each character a shared dropdown for that codex
to choose any of the available chapters
Hide unless correct chapter chosen
It's messy, bloated, and requires a lot of editing
but it should? work
Or, GST SSE for each IA character, with specific SSEG for the successor choice in each cat file.
less bloat
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 16:05
what about my suggestion from earlier to add a sub-selection to pick which book you're a successor to?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 16:05
Then, in a DA detachment, you'd choose Gabe - and in gabe choose BT as a successor.
That'd work too I think
probably be cleaner too
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 16:06
i think that's cleaner, and requires a lot less editing
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 16:06
but you're right ... that's a damned mess.
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 16:57
my 0.02
if you go that route you're going to have to rip a lot of logic out later
because in every relevant edition FW has eventually made specific traits for each of their chapters
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 17:00
As long as it's easy enough to convert to book: IA ... it should be fine
Mostly because who the hell knows when IA: Fun times for the Dark Mechanicum is coming out.
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Apr 03 2018 17:00
I would totally pre-order a book named "Imperial Armour: Fun Times for the Dark Machanicum"
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 17:01
So while backtracking is bad ... waiting another year to do anything because a book might be coming is also bad
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 17:01
so my suggestion would be to keep it simple: leave chapter trait selection as it is, and put the onus on the user not to be taking illegal relics with FW characters
because here's part of the problem
to validate correctly
the FW detach would have to be a child of the SM detach
and we've spent how long telling people the reverse?
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 17:02
thats fixed now, it works either way
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 17:02
even if correct validation is present and the relic rule gets fixed, it'll take ages for people to go back to FW as child detach
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 17:02
but yeah, people may still be stuck doing it the original way
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Apr 03 2018 17:03
Wow
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 17:04
Stop posting shit I can't get to on a work pc. I have to go to my phone each time lol
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 17:04
because right now all I can think is for chapter-specific relics: "Set hidden to True if <FW IA Successor Character present> in Force + All child selections + all child forces"
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Apr 03 2018 17:05
savage.gif
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Apr 03 2018 17:05
I'm so angry at the author for a complete and utter bullshit generalization of case, I don't even.
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Apr 03 2018 17:06
I’m right there with you @amis92
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 17:06
i might go dig out my old tau, just so i can be offended too
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 17:06
I'm selling my tau and I'm torn between laughter and offense.
My face is like an old theatre mask
Because ... 100% I started tau because gundams.
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 17:07
I think running that piece is a very large mistake for BoK
it's tone-deaf and not even that funny
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Apr 03 2018 17:07
Yeah, if there was more irony and/or simple humour, it could've changed the perception 180deg.
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Apr 03 2018 17:08
Agreed
But simple people who were touched in the bad place like @CrusherJoe eat it up
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 17:09
What about simple people who touched others in bad places.
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Apr 03 2018 17:09
Touched in the bad place by Tau*
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 17:10
Haha
My Tau always tried to do that in 7th ... could never actually be good with them ...
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Apr 03 2018 17:10
It’s the same reason there’s an umpa lumpa in the White House
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 17:10
but damn if I didn't like running 2 stormsurges.
Could never get steam with them in 8th though, and by the time codex came out I just lost my drive for playing them, though I still dig the suits.
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Apr 03 2018 17:12
Because people get butthurt then eat up tonedeaf bs like this
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 17:12
Yea nvm, half way through and this just seems more and more like whoever wrote it was paired against tau at every adepticon match and couldn't play well enough to do anything.
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Apr 03 2018 17:12
Yum
Yup*
It’s garbage writing aimed at people who seek bias confirmation
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 17:13
the more I try to make RG work in 8th, the more I find myself thinking "At least if I were playing Deathwatch the character of the models would make losing more fun"
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 17:14
Wow
and then at the bottom
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Apr 03 2018 17:34
But simple people who were touched in the bad place like @CrusherJoe eat it up
Hooooooold on now
I am far from "simple"
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 17:34
But you were touched in a bad place.
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Apr 03 2018 17:34
I've witnessed entire tournaments touched in a bad place
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 17:35
oooo, someone's making a nid list.
But ... those are valid requests. A rarity in issues these days!
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Apr 03 2018 17:37
I'm very curious to see what happens with the "99 Problems But a Drone Ain't 1" kind of lists
The problem I have with lists like that is that they aren't designed to win...they're designed to not lose.
And while we're on the subject I think this article is more aimed at the typical Tau player's online actions
If you've ever witnessed it, it's pure toxicity
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 17:41
.... yea... did you get to the bottom?
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 17:42
an equally toxic and unfunny article isn't the way to combat it or poke fun at it either
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Apr 03 2018 17:42
Oh the bottom was a bridge too far IMHO
Please note I'm not defending the article -- it is what it is
Also I think the Tau codex has plenty to offer a good general
I :heart: my Pacific Rim list but it's been on the shelf and will probably stay there unless the new IK codex dramatically fixes some things and makes Knights viable again. One can always hope...but hope is the first step (you know the rest)
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 17:47
The new IK codex has the Jr Emperor Titan.
Thats all the fixing I need.
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 17:47
<cries again in wraithknight>
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Apr 03 2018 17:47
Emperator, Jr. LOL
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 17:47
Titan Jr, 2 IKs, 3 Warglaives.
9CP
Done.
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Apr 03 2018 17:48
Unless they really wank it up and make the Castellan 800+ points
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 17:48
I imagine it will be base 450-500
then guns.
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Apr 03 2018 17:48
And a LOT of it will be what those guns are
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 17:48
28-30 wounds. Not too much more than regular knights.
Yea that'll be the point cost changer.
What will the weapons cost
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Apr 03 2018 17:49
If the not-plasma one is a scaled down Volcano Cannon? YES PLEASE OMG YES
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 17:49
It could be overcosted as hell though, i'll still buy it.
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Apr 03 2018 17:49
....yeah, I will too
No getting around it, I totally will
The problem with knights is....they're Apoc-grade platforms in a 40K game
And if you make them ROCK like they should they'd be OP as all hell
As they are they're too weak for Apoc...and too overpriced for 40K
The WK is the same thing
It needs a deep points discount
....and there ya go: "Things Joe never thought he would say, ever."
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 17:52
I think the issue with the WK, in 7th it was very strong for its cost, being a Jump MC
But now that it's far easier to kill knights, it really didn't need a points boost
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 17:55
it isn't even jump anymore
so none of the fun benefits like FLY
and if you charge it with anything non-infantry its shooting goes away
for a turn if its something it can't kill in CC in one round
example: bike captain
I can pound on him with fists or feet, but its unlikely that enough wounds will get through to do anything
and if I disengage said double-cannon WK, no more shooting
522pts of uselessness
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 18:05
Thats what I mean, it's not any different from an IK except it has to pay for its 5++ and has to give up dakka to do so.
Hey, @GenWilhelm 's working
Sidebar filled with Gen :p
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 18:07
yeah, its a bunch of annoying shit that's gonna break rosters
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 18:07
oh :(
That's unfortunate. It all seemed like good suggestions
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Apr 03 2018 18:07
So I’m listening to The Long War; mistake #1
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 18:07
trying to find a way around it just breaks stuff even more >_>
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 18:08
Also @WindstormSCR
WK can fall back and shoot
just like IKs can
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Apr 03 2018 18:08
Mistake #2; listening to Kenny fawning over nick navati
God damn poxwalker lists are broken
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 18:09
@Kohato sorry, you are correct, I mistook the infantry sectrion
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 18:09
8th ed WK is identical to an IK except they have to give up dakka to get a 5++
But I agree, it is overcosted for 8th
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 18:17
both are
even the landraider is
because GW gave too many things ways to make T8 not an issue
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 18:18
Land Raider as a transport seems to be useless now that Assault Vehicle no longer exists.
Unless you're carting terminators
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 18:18
or centurions (lol)
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 18:18
actually if it cost a bit less it would be fine as "giant razorback"
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 18:19
I suppose it could carry a centurion
Not that i've ever seen that done lol
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 18:19
well they cant ride in pods any more, so they dont have much choice :D
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 18:20
They could stand to lose a few pounds.
Hoof it.
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Apr 03 2018 18:31
Yo dawg, Kenny's just keeping keepin' it icy, dawg
I mean, if anyone took Centurions anymore
CrusherJoe @CrusherJoe eyes his on the shelf, looking at him accusingly
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 18:52
RG centdevs with an apothecary are amusing
especially with auspex scan
but beyond that not so much
@Kohato tbh what I'd rather see for the WK is a base 5++ then the scattershield improving that by 1 for its current cost
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 19:00
well, make it 50pts and then reduce the ghostglaive, along with the suncannon
and allow scattershield/heavy wraithcannon
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 19:22
@Kohato you want a laugh?
two heavy wraithcannons firing at a T7 vehicle average only 1 more wound than a suncannon....
despite one being str 6 and the other str 16
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 19:28
The magic of the new wound table :)
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 20:10
in a funny twist
guess what variant of the wraithknight comes closest to being worth it compared to equivalent points in fire prisms?
Twin Inferno Lance Skathach Wraithknight
640 = ~6.5 FPs
on the move and linked they do average of 16 vs T8
the inferno lance SWK does ~22 with guide alone
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 20:49
Lol gen
Nid Line changes are more than all of the other recent commits combined
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 20:50
fucking warriors, how do they work?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 20:50
Tyranid Warriors?
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 20:50
yeah
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 20:50
Like ... fluff wise?
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 20:50
their weapon validation is a nightmare
at least in terms of UX
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 20:52
without seeing the rest it should be easy
"Ranged Weapon" Radio Choice > links to Melee/Basic Bio Weapons SSEG. "Melee Weapon" choice > links to melee Bio Weapons SSEG
Warrior (Heavy Weapon) option with the same things, except the ranged weapon only links to the Bio Cannons list
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 20:54
you'd add a separate model for the cannon option?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 20:54
Put a checkbox on the overall unit choice that increases in points per model in unit for toxin sacs, adrenal glands, and flesh hooks.
Yep
Just like Marine heavy weapons.
that's all it really is.
Max 0, increment by 1 for every <model> in unit
Without digging into the whole cat while i'm at work - that seems to me to be the easiest way to go about it.
The pair of scything talons is a single entry - you replace the pair.
And the devourer is a single entry - you replace the devouer
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Apr 03 2018 20:56
While we’re on this topic- I just had 2 TOs gripe at me about GSC HWTs
Can we please just make them be uniform with guard?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 20:57
O.o I figured they'd be copied directly from guard for ease of implementation
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Apr 03 2018 20:57
Because both the guys who just gave me a tounge lashing agree Guard is right
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 20:57
GSC follows RAW, guard follow common interpretation
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Apr 03 2018 20:58
@Kohato @GenWilhelm and I have a ongoing argument
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 20:58
there was a whole conversation about it when the issue was last raised
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 20:58
oh its one of those discussions
I gotcha
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Apr 03 2018 20:58
Yup
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 20:59
Well that aside as i'm leaving work now - Warriors should be an easy implementation as the above, if its layed out how my mind imagines it is ... but I don't have editor access here to really dig.
bbl
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Apr 03 2018 20:59
2 dudesmen form a hwt; @GenWilhelm seems to think that means you get a discount
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 20:59
there's no discount involved. you pay for the models in your army: a HWT is one model
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Apr 03 2018 21:00
But the squad size is 10 dudes
That’s black and white
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 21:00
Hmm, interesting. I'll take a look in an hour and let you know my 0.02 :D
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 21:00
not according to the datasheet it isnt
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Apr 03 2018 21:00
Yes it is
It’s still 10 guys
Just 2 share a base
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 21:01
regardless of how many "guys" there are, its only 9 models
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Apr 03 2018 21:01
@GenWilhelm you’re literally the only person I’ve ever met who interprets it like that
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 21:02
and yet it's the agreed RAW where i play
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Apr 03 2018 21:04
Like @Kohato said they’re the same as guard; can we please just make the implementation the same between all the cats?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 03 2018 21:07
@GenWilhelm Does the HWT have more wounds?
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 21:07
yes, it has 2
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 03 2018 21:07
And the rest of the folks in the unit? Just 1?
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 21:07
yep
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 03 2018 21:09
So, it's 8 models + 1 HWT that has 2 wounds.
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 21:09
correct
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Apr 03 2018 21:09
@OftKilted I’m uploading the wordings right now
Price Van-Saint
@sk_Father_Price_twitter
Apr 03 2018 21:11
oops hang on
weird copy pasta sticky pasteboard error
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 03 2018 21:11
I blame the Aelfs.
Price Van-Saint
@sk_Father_Price_twitter
Apr 03 2018 21:12
and that is how it should be ! :)
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 03 2018 21:12
Wet, Soul stealing thieves ....
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 21:13
You have to had paid for the 2 dudes, to have then before they form a heavy weapons team
if you dont have the 2 dudes then how can they form a team
Price Van-Saint
@sk_Father_Price_twitter
Apr 03 2018 21:14
yeah they read identical to me
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 21:14
because you dont "buy" the dudes. you only pay for models that are in the army
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 21:15
it says right there that 2 guys can form a tea'm
its clear as fuck
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 21:15
so 2 models become 1
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 21:15
if you dont pay for those 2 dudes, you aint got them to form the team
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 03 2018 21:15
So, the HWT, because it takes two guardsmen to create, costs 2x as much as a single guardsman ... plus weapon costs right?
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 21:15
yup
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 03 2018 21:15
Points costs are per guardsman?
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 21:16
costs 2 guys with standard loadouts
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 21:16
points costs are per model
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 21:16
yes
and you pay for 2 guardsmen
then they form a heavy weapons team
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 03 2018 21:16
So, unit is X.
(x being 10)
So, 2x = 1hwt
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Apr 03 2018 21:18
Correct
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 21:18
it couldnt be any clearer
of all the things to argue over this is one of the most ridiculous
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 03 2018 21:19
What does the points cost breakdown? do they have that?
Price Van-Saint
@sk_Father_Price_twitter
Apr 03 2018 21:19
all the data sheet says is "Buy 10 dudes" ... you can if you want, put a rubber band around 2 dudes and they can have big gun. it's not as complex as I've seen it before where it says replace with a 2 man model.
just cause that's what comes in the box
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 21:20
@OftKilted no, it just says 4 points per model
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Apr 03 2018 21:20
@OftKilted Unfortunately the only place heavy weapons team. Costs are listed is for the heavy weapons team squads
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 21:20
6 points in the case of veterans
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Apr 03 2018 21:20
Damn voice to text
Price Van-Saint
@sk_Father_Price_twitter
Apr 03 2018 21:22
Neophyte Hybrids MPU 10-20 PPM 5
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Apr 03 2018 21:25
I'll go even further:
Price Van-Saint
@sk_Father_Price_twitter
Apr 03 2018 21:25
guard have a specific line that goes after the points costs -
  • If models in these units form a heavy weaposn team, there is no additional points cost
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Apr 03 2018 21:25
  1. You pay for the Infantry Squad, it contains 10 dudesmen at 4 points each
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 03 2018 21:25
@GenWilhelm Can you explain how your math is working for me? A squad says it is 10. (1 sgt, 9 guardsmen)
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Apr 03 2018 21:26
  1. From those 10, which you have already paid 4 PPM for, 2 of them can form a HWT
....
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 21:26
you would obviously pay for the heavy weapon
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Apr 03 2018 21:26
Why did it change my 2. into a 1.?
dammit
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 21:26
but beyond the cost of the 2 dudes, you pay nothing extra for the HW team its self
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Apr 03 2018 21:26
Correct.
@skonk as usual your logic is unassailable
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 03 2018 21:27
I see that, I'm trying to understand @GenWilhelm
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 21:27
Because he sees it as you pay for what ends up on the table only
so because you dont field the 2 guardsmen, he thinks you dont pay for them
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 03 2018 21:27
I suppose it looks like the question is, where in the order of operations are the models 'points paid for'
What does the points list say for costs?
Price Van-Saint
@sk_Father_Price_twitter
Apr 03 2018 21:29
and also .. where in the points tables are these separate models "Heavy weapons teams"
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Apr 03 2018 21:30
I play guard and it would be to my advantage to pay 4 points less per Infantry Squad -- that's 24 points in a brigade -- but that's not how it works, unfortunately. You don't models/wounds/etc. for free
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 03 2018 21:31
It sounds like I have to buy a unit of 10, based on the picture above. https://flic.kr/p/233hjjm
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 21:31

BRB p214

To use a points limit, you will need to reference the points values, which are found in a number of Warhammer 40,000 publications, such as codexes. In these you will find the points costs for every model and weapon described in that book. Simply add up the points values of all the models and weapons in your army, and make sure the total does not exceed the agreed limit for the game.

(emphasis is mine)

Codex: Astra Militarum p142

Unit: Veterans | Points Per Model: 6
\
If models in these units form Heavy Weapons Teams, there is no additional points cost.

My army:
Veterans
1x Veteran Sergeant
7x Veteran
1x Veteran Weapons Teams

Points values:
9 models x 6 points per model = 54 points

Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Apr 03 2018 21:31
Guard has them called out separately because there’s a squad that is composed of just heavy weapons teams
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 03 2018 21:32
How do Models form Heavy weapons teams if you don't pay for the models?
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 21:32
"if models in these units form Heavy Weapons Teams, there is no additional points cost." <- how can you have these models if you didnt pay for them first?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 03 2018 21:33
It's not 'Model forms a weapon team'
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 21:33
i didnt pay for them because theyre not in my army
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 03 2018 21:33
But it takes two models to make one HWT.
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 21:34
you are willingly misinterpreting the rules for your own benefit
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 03 2018 21:34
Basically, it's a Scenic Base that has two guardsmen on it.
So ...
If models in these units form Heavy Weapons Teams,
Price Van-Saint
@sk_Father_Price_twitter
Apr 03 2018 21:35
nothing on the data sheet says anything about putting them on one base .... it just says take TWO MODELS ... and form them as a team
you could use a clothes peg or glue their hands together .. it's still 2 models
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 03 2018 21:36
Technically, you could have one carrying the gun, and the other a basket with the ammo.
Price Van-Saint
@sk_Father_Price_twitter
Apr 03 2018 21:37
basket of Ammo ? ... /sigh .. .we need to have words about your military jargon man :)
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 21:37
lol
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 03 2018 21:37
Well ... It's pretty stupid to bring ammo to a magic fight ...
Price Van-Saint
@sk_Father_Price_twitter
Apr 03 2018 21:38
images of Yogi and boo boo running down range with an LMG and a hamper of bullets
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Apr 03 2018 21:39
That’s just like for the longest time the FW heavy Flamer team for the DKOK Grenadier‘s didn’t come with a 60 mill base – it was two dudes on 25s
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 03 2018 21:39
So, this is a basing issue?
Does it list the HWT as having 2 wounds in the data sheet for the guardsmen unit?
Price Van-Saint
@sk_Father_Price_twitter
Apr 03 2018 21:41
yarp
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 03 2018 21:42
And a standard guardsman is 1 wound?
Price Van-Saint
@sk_Father_Price_twitter
Apr 03 2018 21:42
yarp
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 21:43
image.png
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 03 2018 21:44
If one is only paying for 9 models, how are you meeting the minimum squad size?
Price Van-Saint
@sk_Father_Price_twitter
Apr 03 2018 21:44
as @skonk says, order of operations -> buy squad of 9+1 ... then apply weapons and upgrades, see footnote where it says if do X then Y costs no extra
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Apr 03 2018 21:45
@OftKilted that’s what I keep asking
Price Van-Saint
@sk_Father_Price_twitter
Apr 03 2018 21:48
Well I've seen some shady writing from GW today (ScryerSkull) .. but that is not this, so on that note I'm gonna go walk the dog and get some sleep. laters peeps
Price Van-Saint
@sk_Father_Price_twitter
Apr 03 2018 21:49
oh, well ... Thanks @OftKilted ... like I needed sleep anyways dammit
curse my morbid fascination with clicking links before bed
here, right back at you
http://natethesnake.com/
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:00
@alphalas @GenWilhelm while intent may be patently obvious, to the point where the guard cat follows that intent. as keeper of GSC GenW can adhere to hidebound RAW if he so chooses. the crux of the issue is that whoever wrote this stuff at GW had an idea of how it works in their head but never clearly wrote it out, and now we have to deal with the consequences.
which means spam the GW FAQ email collectively until they include it in the spring FAQ
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 22:02
Without reading the back log of things
You pay for 2.
they turn into 1.
How do you get one without paying for 2
You don't ever subtract points from your list after paying for things.
There has never been a case for such behavior
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:02
thing is @GenWilhelm is correct that it's not a sequence, you don't pay then replace, you configure then total
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 22:03
You have to pay and replace.
2 become one
not instead of 2 you take 1
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:03
which is why relics specify that they cost the same as whatever they replace
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:03
the datasheet says 2 of the guys in the unit form the team, when you total up the costs you would include the 2 dudes who are a requirement of the unit
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:03
@Kohato yes two models become one, and the idiot that wrote the AM/GSC codexes should have included a doubled points cost for HWTs
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 22:04
So, RAW you would pay for only 8 in the squad then
not 9 right?
Since a HWT has no cost.
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:04
no additional cost, it is still a model in the infantry squad datasheet
therefore costs the 4
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 22:04
So how do you get 4.
If the HWT has no cost of it's own
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:05
because there are multiple other cases of mixed units only listing the unit name for model cost
see: Orks, Space Wolves, etc
and plenty of FAQ precedent there that oddly-named or different models in the same unit cost the same unless otherwise noted
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:06
sigh
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 22:06
Sure, but none of those involve 2 models of the unit forming a single model.
In all cases, the unit costs what is on the data sheet
plus weapons (in cases where weapons cost)
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:07
which is why pure, hidebound RAW GenW is correct. Is it dumb? absolutely. GW cannot write concise rules because the designers have a habit of making the mistake of "I assume the players will know my intent"
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 22:07
plus additional boys.
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:07
hes not correct
nor are you
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 22:07
On the datasheet, the squad consists of at base, 1 sergeant and 9 boys
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:07
the min requirement for the unit is 9 + serg
it states this at the top
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:08
then infantry squads can RAW never be fielded with HWTs, even better
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 22:08
Why not? You pay for 1 sergenat + 9 boys. 2 of those boys form a HWT
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:08
so even going by your argument here you'd have to increase the number of models in the unit after taking the HWT to hit the min reequirement
but that whole argument is nonsense anyway
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:08
because:
BRB p214
To use a points limit, you will need to reference the points values, which are found in a number of Warhammer 40,000 publications, such as codexes. In these you will find the points costs for every model and weapon described in that book. Simply add up the points values of all the models and weapons in your army, and make sure the total does not exceed the agreed limit for the game.
welp, that formatting is weird
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 22:09
Gitter :code:
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:09
that doesnt stop them costing
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:09
there is no "Buy the unit then configure"
you never pay then replace
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:09
you still have to adhere to what the unit's require
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 22:10
  • If models in these units form Heavy Weapons Teams, there is no additional points cost.
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:10
which is why IFS can RAW never be fielded with HWTs, the end result is invalid
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 22:10
It calls that out pretty clearly
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:10
here's one then
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 22:10
Models in the unit are forming the team. That seems to me that the models are there.
They are paid for
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:10
what's the 8th edition definition of a model
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:11
ok just stop this
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 22:11
Also gen - did that weapon config work?
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:11
use your brain for a moment
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 22:11
I see you committed
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:11
and ask yourself, wtf do you think GW intend?
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:11
@skonk I am, I am making ZERO assumptions
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:11
the datasheet is clear as day
and logically, the intent is clear as day too
so why are you eve arguing this?
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:11
which is very unfortunately the position that we all agreed to when writing these data files. that we would never be arbiters of intent if we could help it
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:12
there is no arbitration to be done, the datasheet is clear
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:12
to you
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 22:12
Yea ... I've always maintained and still do that the simple act of making validation we are arbiters
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 03 2018 22:12
Because apparently there is a group of folks on the internet who are wrong? Is it us ... or is it them ... ;)
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 22:12
but that's neither here nor there.
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:12
its a unit of 9 + 1 and 2 of them can form a HWT
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 03 2018 22:13
When do you pay for the 'Models' and for an HWT is that a 'single model' or 'two models' ...
the confusion is that it has a weapon profile of a 'single model'
not as two guys (or gals) shelepping a gun and ammo
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:13
because there is a single model that represents the team
well, a single base
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 03 2018 22:14
So, we're back to 'paying for models' and that 'model'
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:14
made up of 2 models
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 22:14
We can hope to high hell it's faqd I suppose.
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:14
yes, but there is no sequence
so its a single model
and paid for as a single model
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 22:15
That's the issue. If it's a single model, it's not valid unless you have 1 sergent plus 10 boys
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:15
whats happening here is that what you do is obvious and 1 or 2 people are applying silly logic to try to justify nonsense
the quote from the BRB doesnt say WHEN you add the points up
you could add it up before or after you form the team, but who cares, the datasheet says its 9 + 1 and 2 of them form the HWT, i dont see how it could be clearer
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 22:16
@GenWilhelm as my call to you has quickly scrolled - did that warrior logic work out? I saw you committed.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 03 2018 22:16
Yeah ... that's the question. When do you 'pay' for the models. Is it before or after you combine them and give them guns.
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:16
ok, then all scions should add an extra point to thier cost, because nowhere does it say replace refunds what you've already paid for. see the problem?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 22:16
I'm with you and alpha on this one.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 03 2018 22:16
I'm going to go back to daemons ...
At least they don't have to deal with the silly guns problem ...
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:16
I'm playing devil's advocate
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 22:16
What are scions differnt?
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:16
while I agree the guard cat operates as intended
that's still a deviation from true RAW
and should at least be recognized as such
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 03 2018 22:17
However, both implementations could be argued as valid.
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:17
@Kohato scions pay 1p for hotshots
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 03 2018 22:18
So, both implementations should be supported in the Guard Catalog, based on the implementation guidelines.
We're not 'rules lawyers'
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 22:18
So why wouldn't they pay for them if they're not taken?
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:18
i really dont think this counts as rules lawyering
the instructions on how the team is formed are clearly written on the datasheet
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 03 2018 22:19
Well, if a unit has to be 10 guardsmen. And you only have 9 models ... you've got a problem.
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:19
ok, step by step, and give me a chance to finish:
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 22:19
/em will wait.
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:27

Interpretation 1:
Assumption: Units are paid for when taken, then gear is replaced (not well supported by current rules text from BRB 214, which implies but does not specifically state this is done at end step)
Follow-up: nowhere does it say things being replaced refund what they replace.
Guard Squad: pay for 9 +1, two models that are not refunded per the follow-up form a single-model HWT and pay for a heavy weapon
Scion Squad: pay for 5, two models take plasmaguns, the hotshots they are equipped with by default ar not refunded either.
if replacements are refunded, then the HWT replacing two guardsmen refunds those guardsmen.
nowhere in the BRB is cost and replacement handled, just the order to tally up what your army is comprised of.

Interpretation 2:
Assumption: Units are paid for by contents at end of configuration
Guard Squad: take 9+1, configure with two models forming a single-model HWT, and take a heavy weapon. points costs calculated from end composition of 7 guardsmen, 1 serg, 1 HWT model. (HWT cost same as unit per Ork/SW FAQ)
Scion Squad: take 5, two models replace, squad is calculated as paying for equipped weapons only.

IN BOTH CASES the IFS winds up as an illegal unit due to only having 9 models, one of which is a HWT while the datasheet requires "9 guardsmen and one sergeant" a unique condition that is found nowhere else in the game to my knowledge. in other cases where units may be replaced, example aspect warriors, this is already called out in the upper datasheet block

James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:29
Nowhere on the datasheet does it say 2 guys are replaced by the HWT, it just says they form one
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 22:29
Exactly, why did replace get mixed into this
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:29
yet the HWT is a single model, with a single model profile
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Apr 03 2018 22:29
yeah replace is nowhere in this.
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:29
you could just leave the 10 models on and isolate 2 and say thats the team
but the kit comes with a model to represent it so they will assume u use that
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:30
kit doesn't actually, separate kit, which is why this is even stranger
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:30
well either way its still 10 dudes, 2 have just formed a hwt
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:31
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 22:31
HWS is a separate issue entirely
That's why it's called out that HWT doesn't cost extra in the Infantry squad
so that they CAN cost here.
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:32
You all completely missed the point my post was making
true raw is so snarled in on itself we can only use intent
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 22:32
That a HWT is 1 profile and is costed as a single unit in the points table
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:32
ive said a million times that RAW is always the persons interpretation of RAW
so RAW is inherently a nonsense
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:33
well, it will always be unless GW actually gets decent at writing rules
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:33
in the english lanmguage it will never happen
nor can i spell
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 22:33
I understood that woord
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:33
(im reaching over part built models to type)
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 22:33
Written as intended.
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:34
but in other languages a lot of the rules issues you see in english dont exist
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:34
It can be done, but it requires a set of skills I fear GW will never have
mainly that they have to make a set of explicit definitions of thier design language and then most importantly stick to them consistently
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:35
problem is the books are all written by different people
often 1 person writes an entire book
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:35
this is why standards documents exist, and we all know how easy those are :^)
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:35
which is why some books have clarification built into the rules and some dont
and that causes other issues
like, the main rules will say something
then a codex comes out and you apply the rule from the main rulebook
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:36
which is why what GW medically needs is a technical writer that knows a thing or two about design standards :(
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:36
but then a codex comes out that directly calls out that main rule book rule to say it must follow it
so people then start to think the books that dont call it out ignore it.....
i dont think 1 person is enough to check it all tbh
imo they just need way more eyes on it before it goes to print
and those eyes need to be in the heads of actual players in the real world
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 22:37
Deathmarks as troops as a painfully obvious example.
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:37
@/all I'll just leave this gem of the day here:
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 22:38
And that also means they have to listen to their testers
Because clearly they did not for necrons. Or their testers are blind idiots.
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:38
well the datasheets tell you what they are, anyone suggesting the costs table at the back takes priority is a plonker
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:38
@skonk I don't mean to check it all
I mean that before a page gets written they actually sit down and write a proper standards and requirements document. like we have for BS
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:39
you can legitimately play the game with nothing but datasheets, the costs at the back are only actually needed for 1 mode of play
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:39
does it suck to do? yeah, but then everyone is on the same page for "how to write X rule type"
its one of the reasons USRs were good back when they weren't in a race to the bottom to have as many units ignore as many of them as possible
because if two units had stealth, there was no ambiguity, they both worked the same
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:41
i miss USR's
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:41
"Things we never thought we'd be saying"
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 22:41
I miss some USRs
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:41
i like the idea of rules being written out on the datasheets like they are now
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 22:41
I'm a large fan of abilities on datasheets
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:41
but WHY THE FUCK give them all different names.... when they do the same damn thing
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 22:41
Flavor The Illusion of Flavor
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:41
what id do is....
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:42
I think that some abilities should be a USR that is reprinted on every sheet where it appears, but still sourced from the BRB
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:42
give them a name like they do now
and directly under it, write "This unit has xxxx" where it just tells you the name of the USR
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Apr 03 2018 22:42
@WindstormSCR lol ... yeah they still have issues with Azyr ...
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:42
manatstrike - this unit gains deepstrike.
then give the basic DS rule below that
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:43
yep
I mean, you could even achieve this in 8th without too much of an issue
just start doing it going forward and then when you come around to second printings of codexes readjust them
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:44
oh btw
strats that bring a dead model back
the main rule book says some spells and abilities let you add units of re-place dead units and you have to pay
"abilities" is a box on a datasheet
but do strats count as abilities?
someone in here mentioned the necron strat would costs points
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:45
now who's splitting hairs :P
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 22:45
Me
But a relic also does.
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:46
that's another for the FAQ pile
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:46
aye
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:46
I'm beginning to think they may spam-list my email address at this rate
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:46
ive sent em hundreds now
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:46
I'm averaging one collected mail per 3 days
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:47
personally, i think strats wont count towards the reserve point rule
justification being that you are paying some form of currency for it to happen
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:48
thing is
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:48
but i could see em going either way
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:48
tide of traitors explicitly calls out that it doesn't cost
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:48
same with boon table
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 22:48
With any cost at all, they're not worth taking.
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:48
but tide of traitors cant spawn a new unit
or re-place a dead one
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 22:48
Setting aside reserve points in an army that has absolutely ZERO other ways to use them is a terrible idea
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:48
its repopulating an existing unit
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:49
I went and grabbed my book, looking for the section now
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:49
the boon table can generate a spawn or damon prince but it replaces an existing model
so again, its technically not adding more units to your army
so i can see why those got clarification
the issue with the necron strat is that it basically lets the unit die
and then you put the dead unit back on
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 22:50
without full wounds.
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:50
well, bobby G doesn't cost extra
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:50
if that counts as an ability it will cost points
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 22:50
So you are paying for a gimped unit
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:50
but his is "instead of being slain"
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 22:50
Bobby G is instead of
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:50
yeh
so he never dies
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 22:50
same with celestine
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:51
raw yes you do but I think that's such an obvious one that anyone that argues otherwise is simply not worth playing against
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:51
i think its less oblivious than the guard thing :)
but yes i agree with you
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:52
lots of things are less obvious than the guard thing
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 22:52
Oh for sure, I wholeheartedly would use it without paying cost, and then pack up if someone tried to force it.
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 22:52
guard thing is still pants on head retarded, and the writer of that book should feel ashamed
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:54
got all my crons out on the table to remind me what i had
need to build these 2 forgebane sets
i cant actually remember what all these HQ's are.... they all kinda look alike
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 22:56
pics?
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 22:56
ill upload one
most of this came from a m8 so some of it's not built how i would have
2018-04-03 23.56.43.jpg
couple of custom hq models in there too
he build the tomb blades like they were pictured on the box :( so 1 of each gun
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 22:59
Left to right
Imhotek - Obyron, Orikan, Zandrekh , non named overlord, Non named Lord, Non named Lord ... or cryptek
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 23:00
yeh i think the end one is a cryptek
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 23:00
I think so too
not quite sure, but it looks like it from this angle
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 23:00
the one next to it i made myself to be a cryptek before i bought the proper one
but kept him to use as a lord
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 23:00
Ahh, alright
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 23:02
so i think i'll build the 2 units of immortals (dont think making any of them into deathmarks is needed)
probably both with tesla
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 23:02
good choiuce
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 23:02
cos my current 5 man unit is gauss
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 23:03
10 tesla w/ overlord is sexy
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 23:03
then i'll do 2 units of lychguard, 1 with sword/shield to go with my current 5
and maybe 5 with the spear things
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 23:05
never ran those before
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 23:05
same
CrusherJoe @CrusherJoe notes the smoke has cleared
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Apr 03 2018 23:08
So
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 23:08
So, about those HWT
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Apr 03 2018 23:08
Lots of discussion, no decisions/changes
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Apr 03 2018 23:24
The whole thing that started it up was 2 TOs that know I’m a BS Dev gave me a tounge lashing because of the GSC
Apparently there was a GSC player who abused it over the weekend
When confronted, “But BS said I can”
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Apr 03 2018 23:25
That happens to you, too?
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Apr 03 2018 23:26
Yup
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Apr 03 2018 23:26
Every thing that people dream of or want or find wrong they thing I can just, y'know, "fix it"
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Apr 03 2018 23:26
Kinda wish I hadn’t been so vocal about it lol
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Apr 03 2018 23:26
I tell them to raise and issue like everyone else LOL
Especially when it's a cat I don't work on/own
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Apr 03 2018 23:27
Well that’s why I brought it up
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 23:28
@Kohato yeah, making the cannon warrior/shrike its own entry has made the non-cannon UX much nicer, its just annoying that moving them into a group for easy validation will break the whole thing even worse
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Apr 03 2018 23:29
I've been asked about the Hybrid/HWT several times and I have just said, "It's not my cat, I can't change it."
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 23:36
Glad it worked out somewhat at leasat :)
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Apr 03 2018 23:36

Hey @/all - maybe we can alter a guideline about madly sticking to so-called RAW

I'm thinking about adding a clause that would explain that in corner cases, where there are no legal ways for a rule/replacement/etc. to work as written (RAW) [see the case of HWT where the RAW suggests you cannot field minimal unit because it's 9 models after replacement

we reserve the right to decide on the most logical/fitting/working-at-all resolution

WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 23:37
@alphalas "BS said I can" should be automatic disqualification of a valid rules position. he should be at least forced to make his case and argue the logic behind it to the TO
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Apr 03 2018 23:37
This^^^^
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 23:37
The TO should never take "A tool said I can" as a response.
regardless of the tool
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 23:38
I tell people this at my own shop
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 23:38
especially since Azyr has been shown to be incorrect at many times.
Francesco Venturoli
@Crowbar90
Apr 03 2018 23:38
The guideline change sounds good to me!
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Apr 03 2018 23:38
Oh don’t get it twisted
The TOs DQ’d his ass
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 23:38
Oh good
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 23:38
@amis92 works for me
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Apr 03 2018 23:38
I mean it sounds good n'all, but it doesn't solve the problem LOL
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 23:38
I hope we don't have to use it much or at all
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Apr 03 2018 23:39
But they were giving me a tounge lashing because it was a thing in BS
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 23:39
@alphalas then tell them it is a fuzzy point of rules contention and that they should add it to their guidelines sheet until it's FAQ'd
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 23:39
I find it funny that volunteers think they have a right to lash out at another volunteer
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Apr 03 2018 23:40
@WindstormSCR it’s really not though
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 23:40
I explained why RAW it doesn't function in either case, so the argument itself is moot
we only can go by intent
and that is in the hands of the catalog keeper
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Apr 03 2018 23:41
Since we’ve been standardizing stuff I was suggesting that we fix GSC to match the rest of the units that do the same thing
That way even if it’s wrong, it’s uniformly wrong
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 23:41
@GenWilhelm that sounds like a pretty valid request, what say you?
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Apr 03 2018 23:41
One of the lessons from basic I still carry with me
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Apr 03 2018 23:42
"Hey, at least we're consistent."
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 23:42
for my actual position and not devil's advocate: GSC being altered would make the tool more useful to most people, as afaik the majority play it as matching the guard cat implementation
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Apr 03 2018 23:43
If one person is wrong, either everyone helps fix his shit, or if that’s impossible everyone uniformly goes to the same status as the guy who’s shit is all fucked up
We are still a team
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 23:43
It certainly makes a better case for fairness and unity.
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Apr 03 2018 23:43
What absolutely crazy is I've never -- not once -- had anyone question or bring up the Guard version of the same issue
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 23:44
Yea it's wrong ... but no other guard/gsc player has an advantage
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 23:44
@CrusherJoe do me a favor?
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Apr 03 2018 23:44
And I'd dare say I've played in more tournaments in the last few months than anyone else here -- and every time I've played Guard
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 23:45
paste my 18:27 comment into the TO group
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Apr 03 2018 23:45
Certainly, @WindstormSCR
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 23:45
I want to know the reaction to finding out that pure raw an IFS can never field a HWT
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Apr 03 2018 23:45
So
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 23:45
;p
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Apr 03 2018 23:45
Yea ... I stay away from tounrmanets
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Apr 03 2018 23:46
I'm hesitant to, because I asked the ITC TO group that question months ago when it came up the first time and the consensus was, "How is this even a question?"
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 23:47
last time it wasn't quite so well laid out I think
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Apr 03 2018 23:47
I mean everyone was quite polite about it
I don't see a comment from you at 18:27
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 23:48
timesone difference
you on CST? you're an hour behind
so 17:27 for you
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Apr 03 2018 23:48
i mean, ive had the same explanation since the indexes came out, and the only RAW issue was ruled out by consensus
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Apr 03 2018 23:49
Got it. I'll post it and see what discussion takes place
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 23:50
point out I'm not the one raisding the issue but summarizing if you add my name in please :P
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Apr 03 2018 23:51

@alphalas said:

If one person is wrong, either everyone helps fix his shit, or if that’s impossible everyone uniformly goes to the same status as the guy who’s shit is all fucked up

That might also be a guideline. It's actually in the "fluff" of our guidelines that they are meant to provide consistency across catalogues.

If a similar option/selection/validation is already implemented in another place/catalogue, you SHOULD follow the same pattern for the sake of consistency. If the pattern might use an update, discuss this with fellow maintainers.

Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Apr 03 2018 23:54
Capture.PNG
Post made. I hope I presented in a non-offensive way.
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 23:56
I'll be curious to see the replies
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 23:57
i dont see the point of the question
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 23:57
I do
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 23:58
The HWT doesnt reaplce anything
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 23:58
I want to see what a decent cross-section of TOs arrives at when being presented with the full logic of the question
James
@skonk
Apr 03 2018 23:58
the logic in the question is wrong tho, its based on the false premise of the HWT replacing the 2 guardsmen
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Apr 03 2018 23:58
it must by definition, since the HWT is a different model