@/all, I've just fixed #3036. I also changed all the warlord traits in the GST over to profiles as that seems to be how most people have them? Only Craftworlds (@FarseerVeraenthis) , Blood Angels (@Crowbar90) and GK (@tekton) don't.
so what we're saying is that either BS or GWApp are both either right or wrong depending on if they back up the position I have taken on something or not? ... that's some quantum level chess right there I reckon
@GenWilhelm - I understand that... I'm pointing out the irony of bugreps starting to come through quoting the other thing as a valid source of RAW ... just did not expect it to happen so soon ... it's going to be a "thing" soon enough tho
@amis92 Yeah .... RAPTGWA is already a 'thing' or 'will be a thing' on the AoS Battlescribe cats ... Just ask @Mad-Spy and the GW Azyr app ... (It's all about the Skaven ... 'bout that Skaven ... )
@GenWilhelm The 'increment by Maximum Number per Power-increment' is a substantially easier implementation than 'between X and Y the points cost Z' ... the AoS catalogs have that implementation because any increment over the initial model allotment ups the cost to the next increment.
I thought that was what was said was Difficult to do
Unless the request was to validate certain relics on specific models in multi-sub faction detachments
In that case, no cat does that, nor can it.
But in the case of allowing all WT and Relics as possible selections in multi-sub-faction detachments, Necrons currently allow it and Amis has stated he wants to do it to tau the next time he works on it