These are chat archives for BSData/wh40k

22nd
Aug 2018
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Aug 22 2018 16:57
JEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESUSSSSSS
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 22 2018 16:58
you rang?
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Aug 22 2018 16:58
/me is glad He’s not in charge of the marine cat right now
GOD DAMNIT MOBILE!
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 22 2018 16:58
lol. yeah, pretty much
i'm tempted to tell him that paying for battlescribe is optional and in no way connected to us or the data. but at the same time, i really want nothing more to do with that discussion
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Aug 22 2018 17:00
Yeah I’m not touching that with a 10ft pole
@amis92 can deal with it from here
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 22 2018 17:02
something something guidelines. something something might be legal.
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Aug 22 2018 17:02
Which issue?
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 22 2018 17:02
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Aug 22 2018 17:02
Putting “I’m not trying to be aggressive but” at the end of a SUPER confrontational comment is.... yeah doesn’t help bucko
Alex Baur
@acebaur
Aug 22 2018 17:05
PSA: Don't buy anything from FW if you live in Australia or the States
They've hiked the prices by around 20% for the US and over 30% for Aus
tekton
@tekton
Aug 22 2018 17:07
The US prices seemed about right for currency conversion as of 60 days ago, but I only checked a couple things
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Aug 22 2018 17:10
No they’re actually 20% higher
tekton
@tekton
Aug 22 2018 17:10
That’s silly
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Aug 22 2018 17:10
Yup
tekton
@tekton
Aug 22 2018 17:11
Though in line with GW prices, too- same markup
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Aug 22 2018 17:11
Plus remember, when FW listed the prices on the website, they include gb VAT
which is annoying because we technically don’t have to pay VAT because we’re out of country
So it’s their prices + vat, converted + 20% additional
tekton
@tekton
Aug 22 2018 17:13
Yalp
Alex Baur
@acebaur
Aug 22 2018 17:15
It makes no sense
They can't possibly think we are that stupid
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Aug 22 2018 17:16
Especially since now they’re shipping from a US warehouse the vat inclusion is just... wtf mate
Alex Baur
@acebaur
Aug 22 2018 17:22
Yeah it's lame
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Aug 22 2018 17:30

@alphalas and @GenWilhelm and @all actually:

when commenting please try not to respond with easily undermined statements like "interpretation", or "makes most sense", especially with non-anons. It's a leverage handed out ;) (and in case like this, where we have a lower constraint than argued, it's explicitly against Guideline 0)

Although I commend the peaceful way you'all responded, and restraining from heating the issue further :)
oh, that should be @/all
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Aug 22 2018 17:48
Yea, full stop: "I didn't pay for Battlescribe to have some anonymous "people" change the rules to their personal preference."
Fuck him,.
Politely refer him to the wiki to make his own data edits and move on.
If he comes in with that attitude there's nothing to be done to end it in any more of a rational way.
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Aug 22 2018 17:56
I try not to take that route. He's been wrong. People can be wrong. I've cleared it up. He didn't refer to it anymore. All's good. :) (I'm a ⚖ ;) )
tekton
@tekton
Aug 22 2018 18:02
@alphalas vat is supposed to be included unless you’re in country and paying for it in person- it’s a weird loop around I found out last time I was there and got VAT refunded at the airport
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Aug 22 2018 18:17
Lolwut?
How?
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Aug 22 2018 18:17
My first thought was "deathwatch veterans" but then I checked and it specifically says they can replace their bolt gun with two items from the list... Very exciting all round :smile:
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 22 2018 18:20
lol, Simon. that's what a year's hindsight will do :stuck_out_tongue:
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 22 2018 18:29
@amis92 The "Exchange One or More of their weapons for an item" is the implied "one for one" in English, where it is a 1:1 exchange for 1 or more items.
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Aug 22 2018 20:54
@OftKilted I don't understand what's the outcome of your message :o
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 22 2018 21:00
@amis92 It's in reference to BSData/wh40k#3435
I.E. a exchanging one item for an alternate item, and this can be done multiple times.
It would have been better said "Exchange one or more items for an alternate item on the list"
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 22 2018 21:09
Though, that doesn't particularly help much.
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Aug 22 2018 21:09
So you agree, but also think it could be written better?
Yeah, 'alternate' doesn't add much.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 22 2018 21:09
Yeah ... their verbiage sucks.
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Aug 22 2018 21:10
Honestly, I don't see it being written any better.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 22 2018 21:10
You an exchange one or more weapons for an item on a one to one basis.
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Aug 22 2018 21:10
But it's super-verbose, and it references a 'basis'. It's a word not to be found in rules of 40k.
I mean, it's obvious. It's the first person I've met who reads it otherwise. And I don't know if nativeness of English language changes anything - I'm not a native speaker.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 22 2018 21:12
You can exchange any weapon for an alternate item from the wargear list.
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Aug 22 2018 21:12
Now you imply you can exchange any weapon.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 22 2018 21:14
If models have the ability to swap out weapons, they can exchange any of their weapons for an item from the wargear lists below.
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Aug 22 2018 21:15
See, but the Sarge in question can exchange only his boltgun, and not his bolt pistol. You're overriding model's rules by "list box" rules now.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 22 2018 21:15
or any of those weapons
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Aug 22 2018 21:16
Yeah, better. But you still have that (1 or all?):1 issue with "any X for an item"
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 22 2018 21:16
have the ability to swap out a weapon or weapons, the can exchange it for an item from the wargear lists below.
Which isn't much better.
weapon or weapons, they can exchange each of them for an item from the wargear lists below
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Aug 22 2018 21:17
You might try all day and night, and I'm pretty sure it's a dead end. Natural language at it's best. No other way than use common sense combined with traditional understanding of grammar constructs.
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Aug 22 2018 21:18
gah... you guys.. I was just packing up to go to bed, and now I have to look up the rules
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 22 2018 21:18
I think that last one works pretty well.
@FarseerVeraenthis It's actually a semantics exercise in creating better verbiage for wording than is provided by the source.
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Aug 22 2018 21:19
Not really. Now you have exchanging "each", which although preceded by "may", still confuses whether you must exchange all of them (n:n) or any of them (m:m, m <= n), n - allowed number of weapons to be exchanged.
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Aug 22 2018 21:22
Actually it is dead simple.
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Aug 22 2018 21:23
Famous last words.
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Aug 22 2018 21:23
The Devastator Sgt. entry should say "bbb may exchange his boltgun for one of the items on the Sgt. Equipment list
"
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 22 2018 21:23
Basically like what they did for most entries in Kill Teams?
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Aug 22 2018 21:24
Yeah it seems they do get better with wordings, don't they. Kill Team is quite strict.
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Aug 22 2018 21:25
the problem has been caused by the fact they have copied the wording from the other Sgt. entries
and those entries allow the exchange of both the bolt pistol and boltgun
and then, since you have two things to exchange, you can exchange them for itemS on the sgt. list
another good option would be "... can replace his boltgun with an item from the Sgt. list"
I mean, the heading at the top of the Wargear list is pretty explicit
"If models in a unit have the option to exchange one or more of their weapons for an item from one of the SM Wargear lists..."
so it is definitely a 1:1 exchange relationship, definitely there is no way of saying it is a 1:several relationship
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Aug 22 2018 21:30
and 2:1 doesn't make sense, eg, why exchange you BG and BP for a Combi-Plasma when you only need to exchange one and can keep your BP...??
(or BG)
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 22 2018 21:30
The issue being that it indicates that you can take up to two items from the sgt .list? So is that a 1:2 exchange?
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Aug 22 2018 21:31
well, just because it says "up to two" simply means that you cannot choose more than two
if you have more than two weapons to exchange, you can only make two choices from that list
yeah, the Max limit on the list is two, but you can only reach that max if you have two (or more) items to exchange
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 22 2018 21:32
Yeah, would have been much better to just remove the 'or more'
I believe that would actually completely address the issue.
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Aug 22 2018 21:33
the problem there is that you introduce the possibility that units can only ever exchange ONE item
when, if you have two (i.e. more than one), you can exchange two
the ONLY exception to this is Deathwatch veterans, because their datasheet SPECIFICALLY says they may exchange their bolter for two choices from the equipment list
the other way to interpret the RAW is that the use of "items" simply recognises that there is more than one item on the Sgt. wargear list
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 22 2018 21:37
Well ... on bright notes at least they haven't filed an additional comment.
Is Herald's of Ruin still actually active? BSData/wh40k-heralds-of-ruin#136 ?
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Aug 22 2018 22:00

OK, so I REALLY want to go all "grammar nazi" on the bug report;
1) because (in the wider context of the book as a whole and all the cases it must cover in one list) his logic is flawed, and as such his interpretation is nonsense,
2) he told amis he was wrong - when actually he was not - but also
3) because his "justification" at the end is a) not correct (it is physically impossible to be in two places at the same time, so there is no grey area with the statement he chose, trying to say something like "I lives in two house" is wrong) and b) not applicable to the usage case in question

Instead, I'm going to bed (late (again) - but at least I got my Dread nearly finished!!)

tekton
@tekton
Aug 22 2018 22:01
Dreads are important
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Aug 22 2018 22:02
....
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Aug 22 2018 22:02
I'll share a photo when it is finished, just have some purity seals and other fiddly bits to do
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Aug 22 2018 22:02
@amis92
Can we please just ban him? This is getting ridiculous
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Aug 22 2018 22:03
(wishes he hadn't just pressed refresh)
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Aug 22 2018 22:08
writes furisously
realises he cannot type well
or spell
deletes post, goes to bed

ignored :smile:

OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 22 2018 22:35
So .. is this from Index or from the standard Codex? The index is interesting in that there is delineation between using "an item" an "items" ... even for other models. For example "The Scout Biker Sergeant may replace his bolt pistol with an item from the Sergeant Equipment List" ... in the Index entry for Devastator Squad it says "Up to four Space Marines may replace their Boltguns with an item from the Heavy Weapons list." the immediate line above it for the Sgt Is replace his boltgun "with items" ...
If we are looking at the verbiage for consistency, then we would expect to see 'replace their Boltguns with items from the Heavy Weapons list.'
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Aug 22 2018 22:38
Just say that if he wants it to be made clear, ask GW to FAQ it and then lock the thread.
We're all agreed that we're not going to change it, right?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 22 2018 22:40
It appears from an index perspective that it's a copy-paste verbiage from the other Sgts. And an FAQ would be required, all of the other sgts that are getting 'items' from the sgt list are doing the many to many swap.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Aug 22 2018 22:41
Absolutely, they done borked it.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 22 2018 22:43
Is that the same verbiage (in the Index) that is used in the Codex?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 22 2018 22:53
Well, here's my Followup:
"Because the verbiage used is identical to ALL of the other Sgts that replace MULTIPLE items (e.g. Boltgun and Pistol) for items from the Sgt list.
It is a situation where GW did a copy-paste and didn't follow through on their verbiage update.
Please open an email to 40KFAQ@gwplc.com to request an FAQ clarification on their bad verbiage."
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 22 2018 23:14
In any case, I dropped them off an email requesting clarification to gw asking if my Devastator Sgt can have two pistols and a melee weapon by giving up the Boltgun.