Breaking stats - some ideas on a re-work

[IBBoard]

Actually no. The whole High Elf army in fact is affected by this.

I last played in 5th Ed and read some of 6th Ed. I didn't realise it was something that all High Elves had gained. I hope the Swordmasters gained something else instead.

Not super common but there are plenty of reasons to be able to show "multi-stats".

Fair enough. I'll ticket it so that we've got a record.

For clarity I think I prefer the contained ie champion approach. also means I can separate the equipment out as normal marines have a "swap bolter for x" option while he has a "swap bolter and/or pistol" for x or z or y or..."

Fair enough, and it does keep things neater. I'll ticket that as well.

Of course I'm still hoping to define "default" equipment that's not required. But that's another matter. I guess "pre-selected" would be a better word.

It's a separate topic really, but does the equipment replacement not handle that? Or is it that it works in some cases and we need to do the replace required equipment a bit better?

[snowblizz]

Actually no. The whole High Elf army in fact is affected by this.

I last played in 5th Ed and read some of 6th Ed. I didn't realise it was something that all High Elves had gained. I hope the Swordmasters gained something else instead.

That's why I'm telling you this.
I should have maybe used a better example, I forgot when typing that this was a "no change" for Swordmasters. They got an extra attack now. For a while there they where the buzz-saws of WH. Then of course they made units that could survive it etc etc.

For clarity I think I prefer the contained ie champion approach. also means I can separate the equipment out as normal marines have a "swap bolter for x" option while he has a "swap bolter and/or pistol" for x or z or y or..."

Fair enough, and it does keep things neater. I'll ticket that as well.

Excellent. Precisely what I *think* I need.

Of course I'm still hoping to define "default" equipment that's not required. But that's another matter. I guess "pre-selected" would be a better word.

It's a separate topic really, but does the equipment replacement not handle that? Or is it that it works in some cases and we need to do the replace required equipment a bit better?

Do we have a "pre-selection" beyond "you must take this item"? If I put required=true it doesn't always work, but I *might* not be putting all the constrains in correctly. Sometimes you can swap out the required equipment, and sometimes not.
It just feels much more logical to have the free standard stuff available and then you can replace these. Would cut down the number of options in the small window which right now tends to drown in them. As it doesn't show mutexed items. I like that way, but I'm just a vocal minority after all.

Ticket 78 is pretty much what I was thinking yes. "One of a group of items is a required option".
I haven't tried everything though, if I put required = true on all mutexed or equipmentslot:ed options? Or might I be crashing it then. I again found a couple of instances it really did not like, small stuff like completely impossible restrictions apparently.

I'm a bit rusty on the syntax though, even had to go back and check the Ork files how on earth I did the for x you can take y nr of options.

[IBBoard]

Do we have a "pre-selection" beyond "you must take this item"? If I put required=true it doesn't always work, but I *might* not be putting all the constrains in correctly. Sometimes you can swap out the required equipment, and sometimes not.

There is supposed to be a working combination of "required" and "replaceable using MutEx groups". There probably are some limits on it at the moment, but the ticket I linked to should be the one to fix it. The idea was that "required" made it a default selection and that either the initial selection or one of its MutEx replacements was then required. If there are multiple required items with the same mutex then only the first one is added by default and the other has to replace it. That's how Rollcall did it, but we can do it differently if necessary.

[IBBoard]

In case people aren't watching the commit messages go past, or the ticket comments (which are the same thing), here's some advanced warning: the next release should have the new stats in. I think Snowblizz has been playing with it already, but by using "unit member type" references you can now a) define a trooper type (e.g. "man" or "elf" or "ork") once and re-use him and b) give a unit multiple stat lines.

Hopefully there'll be a release this weekend for those who don't want to get hold of the bleeding-edge version from source control, but I need to update the HTML output first.

[snowblizz]

Do we have a "pre-selection" beyond "you must take this item"? If I put required=true it doesn't always work, but I *might* not be putting all the constrains in correctly. Sometimes you can swap out the required equipment, and sometimes not.

There is supposed to be a working combination of "required" and "replaceable using MutEx groups". There probably are some limits on it at the moment, but the ticket I linked to should be the one to fix it. The idea was that "required" made it a default selection and that either the initial selection or one of its MutEx replacements was then required. If there are multiple required items with the same mutex then only the first one is added by default and the other has to replace it. That's how Rollcall did it, but we can do it differently if necessary.

It seems that if I put in equipementSlots it ignores the "required" tag. Ie equipment which are required=true, and belong to an equipmentSlot won't be "preselected".

Edit: No, it is giving the item a min/max size tag that means it is no longer defaulted.

[IBBoard]

Interesting - Add it as a bug and I'll check it out. I don't know why it'd do that off the top of my head. I thought that the default selections were just based on whether it was required and whether it could be taken (based on other items that are already taken). The only thing I can think of would be a "required" item with a min of 0, which would be "taken" but the size of 0 would mean that the API would ignore it.