These are chat archives for BSData/wh40k

23rd
Aug 2018
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 23 2018 00:39

Legitimate curiosity ... the Sgt list says that you can take up to two items from list 1, and then up to one item from the following list.

Can you take a total of 3 Weapons?

Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Aug 23 2018 07:40
No. 1) with a 1:1 exchange ratio you would have to have three weapons to exchange in the first place, 2) it is either 2 from the top or 1 from the bottom, not 2 from the top AND 1 from the bottom :smile: as I read it anyway
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Aug 23 2018 07:41
In the CSM Codex, it is an explicit two from the top or 1 from the bottom. Because SM is missing that, it is possible to read it in such a way that you could assume they can get 3 weapons.
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Aug 23 2018 07:42
Although, now I read it again it is not explicitly stated that you can choose one from the top and one from the bottom...
Yeah, what @Mad-Spy said
👍
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Aug 23 2018 07:44
The 1:1 exchange is never explicitly stated. All it needs is for the top paragraph to explicitly state that you exchange 1 weapon for another.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Aug 23 2018 09:05
@amis92, you around?
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Aug 23 2018 09:05
Yeah
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Aug 23 2018 09:06
Can we lock #3435? I don't think he's going to agree with our implementation, no matter how long the argument goes on.
I was going to post the following:

I don't think we're going to reach a consensus here.

If, as @Wulfyn says, we accept the Dev Sgt can swap his boltgun for multiple items from the Sergeant Equipment list, then we also have to accept that, RAW, a Tactical Sergeant can take both 2 melee/pistols AND a rifle option if he gives up his boltgun and bolt pistol. This is also not an option under the current implementation.

However, if you look at lists created by top level players of the game, none of them are attempting to take 3 weapons on a Tac Sergeant, or 2 weapon swaps on a Dev Sergeant. It can be inferred that, at the highest level of competitive play, people believe that the intention is for a 1-for-1 swap. The last two Marines Codexes also explicitly limited Marine Sergeants to a 1-for-1 swap.

You are absolutely correct that it is ambiguous, but the implementation we have chosen follows precedent.

Until, and unless, GW tell us otherwise, this is what we are going with.

Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Aug 23 2018 09:09

RAW, a Tactical Sergeant can take both 2 melee/pistols AND a rifle option if he gives up his boltgun and bolt pistol. This is also not an option under the current implementation.

I'd even say that with this interpretation, he could take all three giving up just one item.

Regardless, yeah, we (us vs @Wulfyn) won't reach a mutual agreement.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Aug 23 2018 09:11
yes, exactly
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Aug 23 2018 09:11
I'm debating with myself what to change in Guidelines to protect us from future problems like that.
Any ideas?
To me it feels like the rules RAW are clear on 1:1 thanks to that Lists Box text "exhange one or more for an item". I just can't pinpoint a good source to support my argument.
I think we need to add something about precedents.
On the argument front, we may need to leverage the difference of exchange vs replace, where the first one is 1:1, and the second means any configuration. Do we have any appearances of rules that work other way?
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Aug 23 2018 09:16
I think we'll just have to say we're going with the existing precedent and the views of (what appears to be) the majority of the player base. If GW later FAQ it to be a one-to-many swap, then we'll change it as we would with any other FAQ.
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Aug 23 2018 09:17
Nah, can't do that. It's breaking Guideline 0.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Aug 23 2018 09:17
Then we need to change every implementation of a Marine Sergeant.
because they're all wrong.
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Aug 23 2018 09:18
Are they? Isn't the rule clear? I mean, I'm no native speaker, but I just can't see it being read any other way.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Aug 23 2018 09:21
The problem is trying to reconcile between the "replace his boltgun for items from" on the Dev Sgt, and the "exchange" wording on the wargear list page.
I'm pretty sure it's a copy/paste issue at GW's end. They took a Tac Sergeant's "replace boltgun and bolt pistol for items" and just deleted the "and bolt pistol", then forgot to change "items" to "an item".
That still doesn't solve the Tac Sgts can take 3 items issue.
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Aug 23 2018 09:35
I've read all datasheets that use Sergeant list.
I'm starting to actually agree with Wulfyn.
How are we currently on Sternguard Veteran front? It's the most amazing one.
He can take 2 boltguns?
One Special Issue (basic) then replace pistol for boltgun?
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Aug 23 2018 09:37
no, because you have to lose either both and get 3? selections, or just swap the pistol to get 1.
you can't swap only the boltgun and then separately swap the pistol.
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Aug 23 2018 09:37
No, only swap pistol for boltgun.
So he has SI boltgun and standard boltgun
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Aug 23 2018 09:38
well, in that case, why not.
:)
It is implemented that way.
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Aug 23 2018 09:44
Yeah. So it's most probably a copy-paste error, by looking at all options across codex. Not once is single weapons allowed to be replaced with multiples from Lists, except Devastator.

That still doesn't solve the Tac Sgts can take 3 items issue.

Actually it seems it's Tacticals, Scouts, Company Veterans and Sternguard Veterans - all swap pistol and boltgun for items from Sarge list.

Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 23 2018 09:48
yeah, and if we're working on the 1:1 interpretation, then they can only take two
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Aug 23 2018 09:48
Yeah, we go with 1:1
We have a precedent in the form of #2 (regarding assuming some obvious typos, like "items" instead of "an item")

yeah, and if we're working on the 1:1 interpretation, then they can only take two

And from what I understand that's how it's implemented in all SM cats?

Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 23 2018 09:50
well most (if not all) of that stuff was fixed in errata
you'd have thought they would've fixed it by now if it was causing RAW issues
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Aug 23 2018 09:52
@GenWilhelm, I imagine it's because the vast majority of ppl treat it as the expected 1:1 and don't question it.
so play the "clear" RAI
it's the same as how everyone allows shooting Pistols in combat, and Assault weapons after Advancing, even though RAW it's not actually possible.
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 23 2018 09:54
well most people dont even know that's a RAW issue
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Aug 23 2018 09:54
exactly, because they play the intention, not the rule
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 23 2018 09:56
regardless, i think amis is right with the wording at the top of the wargear section. it says one or more items may be replaced with an item from the appropriate list, which implies a 1:1 exchange
so in this case, even though the devastator datasheet says "items", the wargear section still restricts it to "an item"
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Aug 23 2018 10:33
Actually, the easiest way for GW to solve the problem, would be to use punctuation properly...
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Aug 23 2018 10:34
I've closed the discussion on #3435 and I ask to not post anything further. I don't want to lock the conversation, because that'll imply passive-aggressive approach.
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Aug 23 2018 10:34
if the Wargear list header said "...exchange one (or more) of their weapons..."
you could explicitly interpret it as exchange one of their weapons for an item on the wargear list = 1:1 ratio, which is definitely the intention from GW. Otherwise, it would be explicitly stated, such as the Deathwatch Veterans where it says, "may replace their bolter with two options"
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Aug 23 2018 10:36
We've been there. There's not any better way to write this. It's against rules of English language to interpret in any other way, except maybe "all for one item", which clearly is not the intention due to usage of "items" in all context where more than one weapon is replaced.
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Aug 23 2018 10:37
there is that
either way, you can go 1:1 or 2:1, but not really 1:2
but yeah, this discussion is pretty tedious
in other news, I'm playing a 3 way 500 points battle on Friday against Necrons and Marines
do I take my (painted) Deathwatch - with a limited selection of possibly non-optimal weapons due to the (self-imposed (painted)) restriction
or do I take my Aeldari with a similar restriction who will be really quite squishy
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 23 2018 10:43
i love how benign RAW discussions inevitably devolve into semantics, grammar, and word definitions
amis92 @amis92 sighs
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Aug 23 2018 10:48
I mean, one can always see at as an interesting adventure and research into intricacies of language, but it does get tiring after your fact-based argument is thrown off with "you're wrong, because I think so".
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Aug 23 2018 10:52
yeah, it's interesting to a point, then it quickly gets boring
and tediuos
nice reply though, you can have a :heart:
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 23 2018 13:42
passive aggression intensifies
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 23 2018 13:46
It brings up the question of "Should we add the 'Won't Fix" label.
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 23 2018 13:47
i don't think anything will help the situation right now. if anything, that would only exacerbate things
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 23 2018 13:48
for at least 10 seconds it would feel really good.
Then I'd have second thoughts.
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 23 2018 13:48
yeah. not worth
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 23 2018 13:51
From an entirely RAW perspective, their case has merit. I don't feel it has full merit for the Devastator Sgt, but it does potentially have merit for the Tac Sgt... but it brings in an interesting question if you go that route. IF I have a tac SGT, and they give up all their weapons, then I have them 'Buy a Bolt Pistol, and Power Fist' from the first 'take up to two from this list' and then 'buy back their Boltgun' ... would you have to pay for all of their gear again?
(the boltgun from the 'take up to one from' list.)
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Aug 23 2018 13:52
given you don't pay for a bolt pistol or boltgun, it's moot.
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Aug 23 2018 13:53
I think it's simple in terms of costs, you pay for what you end up with...?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 23 2018 13:53
well ... that is at least easier.
It does mean that the sgt has substantially more flexibility ... as they could take alternate weapon choices.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Aug 23 2018 13:54
but, what @amis92 said.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 23 2018 13:55
@Mad-Spy Yep ... didn't have the list of 'how much it all costs' up.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Aug 23 2018 13:55
:)
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Aug 23 2018 13:57
Oh, you! @GenWilhelm
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 23 2018 13:57
:x
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Aug 23 2018 13:59
@GenWilhelm , you ninjaed me.
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 23 2018 14:00
and amis, apparently :smile:
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Aug 23 2018 14:00
We're on 🔥
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 23 2018 14:02
what's the moot point around costs?
oh, i see. "buying" back their default gear
with the wording in the wargear section, i'm sold on the 1:1 interpretation. so exchanging bolter+pistol for 2+1 doesnt work
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Aug 23 2018 14:05
everyone in the world, except Wulfyn, apparently, understands that interpretation.
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 23 2018 14:06
i wasn't on board when i first heard it, but now it makes complete sense
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Aug 23 2018 14:06
I searched several forums, all the lists (that weren't done in BS) from a few major tourneys and no one is using it like that.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 23 2018 14:35
Correlation doesn't equal causation.
I'm not entirely sure that I'm on board with the general consensus.
Mind you, I also was rather contrary when it came to Necrons Wraiths and Necron Canptek Spyders ...
(I've come around since then ... honest.)
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 23 2018 14:37
what's up with wraiths and spyders?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 23 2018 14:38
7e formation .... 1 spyder and multiple wraiths.
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 23 2018 14:38
oh, i think i remember this
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 23 2018 14:39
Prior to faq'ing the Spyder had an option to take two additional spyders.
(as part of a unit of 3)
From a formation perspective, it was 'one spyder' that couldn't take the 'upgrades' to add the additional spyders. their image documentation ... implied multiple. And it was legal based on the model. But the formations were rather specific.
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 23 2018 14:42
yeah, i seem to remember that the formation's special rule made reference to the singular spyder as well
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 23 2018 14:45
I blame imperial sedition whisperin int othe ear of the faq designers, holding down the oppressed Xenos masses ...
It was a plot to undermine the true authority of the Necron Dynasties ... supported by the ignorant fleshbag faq makers ... adjusts halo #MankindShouldWelcomeTheirTrueCanpotekOverlords
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 23 2018 14:49
BLAM
heresy...
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 23 2018 14:55
So, the new version of Battlescribe in testing ... with the Library catalogs. What's the verdict?
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Aug 23 2018 14:56
It seems there's not much testing done.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Aug 23 2018 14:57
It's the next thing on my to do list now we have 0 tickets and I've got Tactics finished in Kill Team.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 23 2018 14:58
It would almost make sense to test it in a smaller scale, like KT? Pull the tactics to a library catalog, for example.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Aug 23 2018 14:59
I've literally just finished merging them into the GST, so no. :smile:
It's going to be major rework whatever happens.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 23 2018 14:59
Well, your lack of future planning seems problematic :wink:
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Aug 23 2018 15:00
:tongue:
Personally, I'm more excited about being able to add additional options into SSEGs from the link.
No more conditionals for "sergeant/captain-only" options.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 23 2018 15:01
i.e. Multiple defaults for SSEGs?
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Aug 23 2018 15:02
I'd say that we should start an effort to enhance repos for 2.02 at the time when Jon says here's a done/ready beta, now test and I'll fix whatever comes up.
To minimize the time span when we have 2.02 files and there's no public 2.02 for users.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Aug 23 2018 15:02
If you have a "standard" list, and one unit can take an additional item (like Captains can take Relic blades, for example), you can add the Relic blade to the link, rather than having to put it in the SSEG and hide it.
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Aug 23 2018 15:10
Who is going to "own" the libraries for SM? i.e. who decides on how Tac Marines, etc. get implemented?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 23 2018 15:19
@Mad-Spy You won't need owners any more ... because the libraries will be "In the cloud ..."
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Aug 23 2018 15:23
Oh ok, so we can have more fights over how to implement shared units. :smile:
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 23 2018 15:25
It's kindof like Wikipedia edits ...
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 23 2018 15:25
right, but wikipedia has moderators :stuck_out_tongue:
should probably just be maintained by the main catalogues that borrow from it - i.e. SM, DA, & BA
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Aug 23 2018 15:26
Right, I'm off to start my KT campaign. Laters!
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 23 2018 15:26
have fun!
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Aug 23 2018 15:27
but whose implementation is right!! ;)
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 23 2018 15:27
Cheers! Have fun storming the castle!
@Mad-Spy Whomever is doing the Chaos Space Marines implementation.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Aug 23 2018 16:42
Make Thairn do it all I say.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 23 2018 16:52
So, is anyone getting on the 'Adeptus Mechanicus Battle Robot' train?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Aug 23 2018 16:52
what about my Buster Man lookalikes?
I have 4 of them.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 23 2018 16:53
Of the Warlords?
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Aug 23 2018 16:53
?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 23 2018 16:54
Sorry ... 'Adeptus Titanicus' ... Titanicus ... Mechanicus ... It's all robos.
Earl Bishop
@DrTobogganMD
Aug 23 2018 16:54
ohhhh
Yea that's different lol
Not I
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 23 2018 16:59
I'm ... not entirely sold. It takes up as much storage space and table space as a standard 40K/AoS game.
And it isn't a fast game like Kill Team/Shadespire/(maybe necromunda)
I am looking forward to Kill Team: Rogue Trader
tekton
@tekton
Aug 23 2018 17:00
It’s a simple game, if you’re looking to eat the board game crowd to come over (or battle tech to come back) it’s semi decent
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Aug 23 2018 17:24
Me either, I'm not jumping on the bus, too expensive and not enough interest for me, plus card buildings don't tend to last long in my experience - no matter how careful you are with them
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 23 2018 18:17
@FarseerVeraenthis It didn't look like card buildings when I was seeing stuff. It kinda looked like large plastic monopoly buildings.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 23 2018 18:23
And the sprues look like shrunk down versions of the current sector imperialis terrain
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Aug 23 2018 19:52
perhaps I don't know what I'm looking at then :smile: that wouldn't surprise me
I think the main thing for me is that I had the original Adeptus Titanicus when Epic was a thing, and it was coold with the Orks and Imperials but there was not much longevity
apart from the fact it took a really loooong time to play massive battles if you got carried away with bringing EVERYTHING
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 23 2018 19:54
@FarseerVeraenthis Yeah ... and with the 1e you could play Tyranids ... and then the updated 2e version ... that went away ... kinda sad.
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Aug 23 2018 19:55
yup
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 23 2018 19:55
Still have the metal models associated with them.
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Aug 23 2018 19:55
I just don't see the on-going support for the game for the future
and since it can only be played with itself, I don't see it as anything more than a flash in the pan on-off
(I mean, I might be wrong, but I'm happy with the synergy of playing 40K and Kill Team)
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 23 2018 19:56
The Synergy between KT and 40K is cool ... and the addition of GSC being cross compatible between KT and Necromunda is pretty awesome IMO
And GST works nicely with the Deathwatch: Overkill box...
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Aug 23 2018 20:00
uhuh
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 23 2018 20:00
(for the expansions)
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Aug 23 2018 20:00
yeah, you get a board with DW:Overkill don't you..??
I wonder what size that is
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 23 2018 20:02
You do get a board with it. It seems to be multiple 11.5" squares. I'll check when I get home.
The Necromunda boards in combination with these looked pretty awesome http://deathraydesigns.com/product/deadbolts-derelict-corridors-bundle/
It’s Zone Mortalis walls made from mdf
And they’re connectable
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Aug 23 2018 20:05
groovy
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 23 2018 20:05
Instead of getting the resin Forgeworld ones.
Which are crazy heavy.
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Aug 23 2018 20:06
I have the original necromunda
so I've not bought nto the new version
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 23 2018 20:09
The new one is pretty nice, the plastic terrain is solid. They have a 2D version that comes in the box and rules to move to 3D in the first Gang Wars expansion.
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Aug 23 2018 20:11
@OftKilted I’ve played on the FW ZM tiles
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 23 2018 20:11
If you haven’t taken a look yet, there is a nice rules compilation pdf that is over on the. /r/Necromunda thread here : https://www.reddit.com/r/necromunda/comments/8l8jup/rules_compilation_2017_edition/
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Aug 23 2018 20:11
They’re pretty, but terrible
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 23 2018 20:12
@alphalas awwww
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Aug 23 2018 20:12
Since the walls are cast into the tile, there’s minimal customization
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 23 2018 20:13
It sounds like the customizable mdf version is a potential winner then?
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Aug 23 2018 20:13
And if you’re not paying attention when you set it up it’s really easy to make it almost impossible to navigate and actually do things
Quite possibly yes
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 23 2018 20:14
The mdf one actually was designed with the necromunda board tiles in mind.
They have a pic of the tiles setup, and their ZM walls configured ... it's pretty cool.
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Aug 23 2018 20:21
thanks for the compliation thread :smile:
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Aug 23 2018 20:50
image.png
Here is my dreadnought
Actually I'm really happy with how he turned out :smile:
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 23 2018 20:55
Nice, I’d recommend using a piece of poster board as the seamless backdrop for the photo.
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Aug 23 2018 21:04
yeah, I don't have any to hand right now, and I literally just finished him and wanted to get some photos :-)
that's a fresh bit of palette pad, which does a commendable job :smile:
I have thought about getting one of those pop-up photo boxes from amazon, but not sure if it is worth the bother - does anyone here really go for it with their miniature photos????
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 23 2018 21:08
They’re ... okay.
Their only advantage is they give you a diffused light on the object
The issue is needing one large enough to support what you’re taking a picture of
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Aug 23 2018 21:14
righto
I have a lush (I think so at least) Sony A6000 and I'd love to use it a bit more
but I'm not totally sure if I can be bothered with the faff
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 23 2018 21:32
The advantage for using them is that you can use non-strobe lighting as your light source (ie a standard bright lamp)
And don’t need to run an additional diffuser on the strobe or light source