Catalogue workers

[senpai514]

[MOD EDIT]: This is now part of wiki https://github.com/BSData/wh40k/wiki/Catalogue-Keepers - the version here is not current.

I know there is only a few of us compared to the number of army catalogues and we all volunteer to help maintain files when we have the available moment and from what I have seen most of the major contributors are here and tracking daily I thought it might be nice to keep track of who works on a particular catalogue as their primary armies and have "claimed" it so to speak. This could help to prevent someone different from working on the same file as you and possibly create commit errors if changes post at the same time (has happened to me a couple times) and allow you to update add or edit the way you have been doing a particular catalogue. As these are more often than not the armies we each play we would know them the best. This way we can give that person the chance to make the necessary changes

So if you guys are onboard add in below what your primary armies are that you look after

Catalogue	Author
Adepta Sororitas	Kangodo
Astra Militarum - codex
Astra Militarum - FW - Armoured Battle Group
Astra Militarum - FW - Death Korp of Krieg Assault Brigade
Astra Militarum - FW - Death Korp of Krieg Siege Regiment
Astra Militarum - FW - Elysian Detachment D-99
Astra Militarum - FW - Elysian
Blood Angels	Kangodo
Chaos Demons	NebSeele
Chaos Space Marines - Codex	NebSeele
Chaos Space Marines - Black Legion	NebSeele
Chaos Space Marines - Crimson Slaughter	NebSeele
Dark Angels	Thairne
Dark Eldar	Toreador13
Dark Eldar - Haemonculus Covens
Eldar - codex	capitaladot
Eldar - FW - Corsairs	capitaladot
Eldar - Iyanden
Fortifications and Stronghold assault	Kangodo
Grey Knights	amis92
Harlequin	Kangodo
Imperial Knights	Senpai514
Inquisition	Senpai514
Legion of the Damned	Senpai514
Militarum Tempestus
Necrons - codex	Kangodo
Necrons - FW - Dark Harvest	Kangodo
Orks - codex	Kangodo
Orks - FW - dread mob
Renegades & Heretics
Renagades & Heretics - FW - defenders of vraks
Renagades & Heretics - FW - Servants of Decay
Renagades & Heretics - FW - servants of Slaughter
Space Marines - codex	Senpai514
Space Marines - FW - Siege Assault Vanguard	Senpai514
Space Marines - Clan Raukaan	Senpai514
Space Marines - Sentinels of Terra	Senpai514
Space Wolves
Tau - codex	amis92
Tau - Farsight Enclaves	amis92
Tyranids	Randobar
Tyrants Legion - FW - Defenders of Badab

[NebSeele]

I'm currently focused on trying to get the CSM files up to date so they have the battle formations, shared profiles etc. I can keep an eye on the daemons one as well.

I'm not so familiar with the imperium, especially their FW and the newer stuff to be able to contribute.

[ghost]

I don't know how to do any changes or anything including how to report a bug like in the space marines its not listing hull points for some of the vehicles. I'd fix it myself except I don't know how to.

On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 7:04 PM, NebSeele notifications@github.com wrote:

I'm currently focused on trying to get the CSM files up to date so they have the battle formations, shared profiles etc. I can keep an eye on the daemons one as well.

I'm not so familiar with the imperium, especially their FW and the newer stuff to be able to contribute.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/BSData/wh40k/issues/351#issuecomment-55682021.

If at first you don't succeed, call in an air strike.

[ghost]

nevermind looks like someone else noticed and fixed already today

On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Jimmy Shelton sprints54@gmail.com wrote:

I don't know how to do any changes or anything including how to report a bug like in the space marines its not listing hull points for some of the vehicles. I'd fix it myself except I don't know how to.

On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 7:04 PM, NebSeele notifications@github.com wrote:

I'm currently focused on trying to get the CSM files up to date so they have the battle formations, shared profiles etc. I can keep an eye on the daemons one as well.

I'm not so familiar with the imperium, especially their FW and the newer stuff to be able to contribute.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/BSData/wh40k/issues/351#issuecomment-55682021.

If at first you don't succeed, call in an air strike.

If at first you don't succeed, call in an air strike.

[senpai514]

@Pohok I have already fixed missing hull points for the razorback, stormtalon and stormraven

@NebSeele Im glad your watching the chaos stuff last few fixes I had to get before you joined us. I don't mind it as I have copies of all the rulebooks in pdf or ebook formats. you working on the supplements too?

[ghost]

is there a guide that will teach me how to fix stuff that way I can just do it when I notice somethings missing? or do you want me to just send a message saying what's wrong?

On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Thommy notifications@github.com wrote:

@Pohok https://github.com/Pohok I have already fixed missing hull points for the razorback, stormtalon and stormraven

@NebSeele https://github.com/NebSeele Im glad your watching the chaos stuff last few fixes I had to get before you joined us. I don't mind it as I have copies of all the rulebooks in pdf or ebook formats. you working on the supplements too?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/BSData/wh40k/issues/351#issuecomment-55682738.

If at first you don't succeed, call in an air strike.

[senpai514]

@Pohok there is some good getting started info on the main page https://github.com/BSData/wh40k if you scroll down to the bottom. Of course don't be afraid to ask for help if you need it

[NebSeele]

@Senpai I am also going to include the supplements in the list for bug fixes and additions. I'll most likely add the formations to them once I have the vanilla codex done.

[Thairne]

Chalk up Dark Angels for me, I'm currently working on redoing the entire redundant data structure in the profiles. A commit with a conflict would be devastating ;)

[ghost]

I've marked everything I built and/or actively maintain. The files marked with an asterisk* are not particularly important to me - I only made them since they were related to the other stuff - so I'll continue to look after them, but equally I won't complain if someone else takes ownership.

[amis92]

I'm Tau author. I've added myself :)

EDIT: Actually I've done a table format :)

[Thairne]

We really need to get some load of Khambatta... :P I've just installed and configured BS at my workplace cough cough should help me get done with my DA sooner than later, so I can take over some of the minor dexes later.

[senpai514]

I'll be back up for @khambatta with the other codex space marines based catalogues (sentinels & raukaan) and Legion of the Damned. I'll grab Imperial Knights too while I'm at it just finished building my Lancer to team up with Gerantius.

[Randobar]

I´m looking for Tyranid Bugs and suggestions. Not that often but i think they need some love.

[Senpai]

Psst. @Senpai is not the same as @Senpai514. :)

[Kangodo]

I've taken a look at some of the datafiles. And how would you like it if we assign stuff to authors when people open an issue? Because with a lot of the recent changes the files are getting more complicated by the day, to the point where I am often afraid to change anything because it might break something.

An example would be #395 : The fix is easy, but @khambatta probably had a good reason to do it like that and I don't feel comfortable changing stuff at this point.

[ghost]

The thing to watch out for is if you fix a mistake, look for other instances of it. For example, the Sentinals of Terra and Clan Raukaan are both built from the same source file, so a bug in one is likely to show up in the other. Likewise with formations and units copied into them.

I am worried about making changes when the author might be working on the file at the same time.

[Toreador13]

Anyone else working on the Dark Eldar file? I have gotten about 1/3 of the way through it so far. Hoping to have something up tonight. At least the basics. Can work on formations and such later.

[senpai514]

I haven't seen the codex yet.

On Friday, October 3, 2014, Toreador13 notifications@github.com wrote:

Anyone else working on the Dark Eldar file? I have gotten about 1/3 of the way through it so far. Hoping to have something up tonight. At least the basics. Can work on formations and such later.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/BSData/wh40k/issues/351#issuecomment-57889626.

[Toreador13]

If no-one else speaks up, you should probably put me down for it ;)

[Toreador13]

Quick question, but is there anywhere we keep a standard? I am curious how people have been labeling formations. In the catalogue I was almost to the point of labeling them Formation: to keep them straight. I noticed some other people were doing "formation". Is there a standard way we should do things like that? I looked, and nothing is in the 40k Wiki, but maybe we could put some of the standards there so people could glance quickly at them while they are working if we don't have some other place yet.

[NebSeele]

I can't remember which post it was (and am unable to find atm), but a post on standards was brought up recently (and I think it was said that a universal standard is impossible for a few reasons).

As for formations, if these are the ones in the codex, then they'd be classed as formations (accessible via formation detachment in the roster editor). Apocalypse formations are Battle Formations to keep them separate for the meta's that forbid apoc formations in standard games.

[Toreador13]

Yep. I just noticed that one of the marine supplements someone had put quotes around the formations in the list so they stood out in the catalogue. Might just be a preference, but I was thinking about doing that in the name of the formation. Formation: Carnival of Pain just to make the catalogue easier to view, not necessarily for the users

[ghost]

I use "quote marks" for formations and 'apostrophes' for aopc battle formations. It puts them all together in the catalogue editor and it distinguishes things that share a name, like the two different versions of Green Tide.

You might want to mark Forge World units with [FW] or (FW), 'cos some places still exclude them.

[Toreador13]

That is what I must be seeing. FW should probably always be marked just for lack of confusion. I do agree with that. Even for places that do use them people are confused when making lists, and marking them with FW makes them stand out. the quotes and tics make sense. I may start off doing Formation: and Battle Formation: but will see about feedback. Haemonculus Covens have a bunch.

[ghost]

My pull for Eldar Corsairs was accepted, so please list me there.

[ghost]

I can also take Eldar if Magic8ball is no longer involved.

[ghost]

Perhaps asking Jon to add a unit type label in the interface would help? Alternatively, what about asking hin to make Formation a new unit type?

[ghost]

I strongly disagree with the "FW marking" and the 5 clicks it takes to get FW units to show up in the Space Marine file.

I woukd propose instead that pull requests in the future be rejected unless each new unit lists the book it comes from. Then, perhaps, a more sensible "disable FW" entry could be added to "(No category)" to hide those units from those bothered by their inclusion.

[amis92]

@capitaladot I don't understand what you mean by "unit type label" and "making formation new unit type"? What is "unit type" you refer to?

Your proposal to reject pull requests in case they don't contain some information would be correct, but it's not. We crave for more workforce, and anything we get from outside is a bonus. It's all free will, and we're not popular enough to reject meaningful additions. We all do it for free, as good as we can. If you want something better, do it yourself. If someone does something, and it's correct enough, we accept it.

@all

I do not like hiding FW, but I do see a point in it - SM is a mess with FW units. I'll link you all again to my BattleScribe UserVoice request to make Book field more meaningful. Imagine you could check what books to use for a given force, and only units from that book would show up. http://battlescribe.uservoice.com/forums/55066-general/suggestions/6312936-enhance-the-role-of-book-field

[Thairne]

I kind of agree with FW. I choose the other approach - display until hidden, for the very same old reason - keep things as is and give the user new options. But, after all, Senpai is the master of the cataloque and has the last word. Maybe as a compromise a "show all" check would help?

[senpai514]

Codex: Space Marines is unique as it can make 18 different armies with army wide rules and bonuses that apply to themselves each separately via the implementation of the Chapter Tactic rule when they redid the codex last year. And because of that with the mainstreaming of FW models becoming more popular for general use created a HUGE amount of variety for making an army. For this particular catalogue I believe this current setup will work best for the current features we have within Battlescribe.

Having to make additional clicks and selections is something you have to do in other army builder programs so nothing really specific to us (except we have all the models available to choose already while last I checked they still don't.) ;)

The hiding is used two-fold: it was the best way to help manage units and characters and units that are chapter tactic specific that are both codex and FW based. Codex hq's only need their Chapter Tactic selected (which Must be done anyway) to become visible (makes sense enough to only show what models you can legally use, cant run a salamander in an ultramarine army so no need to see him). FW HQ also have the show FW hq in addition to the chapter tactic. Since there are almost 50 separate choices for HQ's combined I saw this as the best way to manage the vast number of selections. As for the rest of the models I decided to follow the same pattern that was used to manage the hq's and chapter tactic rules so that a single system was being used to manage the "clutter" of force types between FW models and Chapter Tactic specific units which I still have a bit to do and add in for the different armies.

[senpai514]

@khambatta just wondering if you have seen IA4 Second Edition yet

I noticed that while I was updating Solomon lok for Inquisition that D-99 can not take any LOW as per pg 95. I have updated the catalogue accordingly.

[ghost]

@senpai514 the D-99 list is from IA4se: they cannot take Lords of War if they are the Primary Detachment. That's why each LOW has a modifier attached, setting Max=0 if the force has either 1x Warlord, or 1x Primary Detachment.

If the D-99 is the primary, no other detachment in your army can take an LOW either, but there's no way to make that happen.

[ghost]

Note for all - Fighter Aces got an update in "Shield of Baal: Leviathan". Now 35pts & available to any flyer or flying monstrous creature, any army. I do not know if that includes or excludes named/unique FMCs; the rule just says "any".

[senpai514]

Ahh I see tricky GW wording writers. My bad sorry. It seems after re-reading the book that the writers were still in the mindset of when it just used to be primary det and allied det before the intro of the CAD. But who knows with GW anyways lol

I'm still waiting to find a copy of shield of Baal to download for my library

On Wednesday, December 3, 2014, khambatta notifications@github.com wrote:

Note for all - Fighter Aces got an update in "Shield of Baal: Leviathan". Now 35pts & available to any flyer or flying monstrous creature, any army. I do not know if that includes or excludes named/unique FMCs; the rule just says "any".

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/BSData/wh40k/issues/351#issuecomment-65529108.

[ghost]

I've going to step down at this point. All the best :)

[Toreador13]

Sad to see you go! You did a huge amount of work!

[amis92]

khambatta - we'll miss you! Thank you for all the work you contributed.

[Kangodo]

We surely will, good luck and thanks for all the work!

[Kangodo]

A small update: I will not work on the "Necrons - FW - Dark Harvest" for now since it's such a big mess since the Necron Codex got released. Updates will happen when FW decides to bring out a massive FAQ.

[axisofentropy]

I'm all over the Adeptus Mechanicus Skitarii. You may assign me future issues.

[NebSeele]

Add the Khorne Daemonkin to the list of Chaos catalogues. I've working on an initial work on the codex, pending the full release this weekend.

[senpai514]

@amis92 for some reason I'm unable to edit original post to add in the new codex to the list

[amis92]

I don't know why. However seeing as this isn't really active issue (not an issue at all, actually), I will close it and move contents to Wiki - it's more fitting for such static content.

Anyone can edit wiki, so. I'll add Khorne Daemonkin on-the-air while at it.

[amis92]

Okay, moved: https://github.com/BSData/wh40k/wiki/Catalogue-Keepers

Feel free to edit it.