bsdata / catalogue-development Goto Github PK

I have been creating the data files for Warlord Games new game: Warlords of Erehwon. I would like to get this listed under the BSData repo so the public will have it display on their list as available I have created my own repository and have the current version of the files hosted there.
https://github.com/the3dwargamer/WoEDatafiles

I am brand new to github and BS data creation. I am about 75-80% done with the data files. The catalogues finished are functional right now but there are just a few more factions I need to create still. Also some fixes/upgrades to perform on the existing files.

What further would I need to do so I can be shared on BSDATA? (besides actually finished the data files completely, estimate they will be completely done in 1 to 2 weeks)

I'm considering making a free website (w/ minimal ads to pay for hosting) for Warhammer 40k to be able to quickly search and filter units by keywords, features, and wargear, with some baseline data showing and maybe a bit "mathhammer" as well. I would want to keep this updated using the data generated by your team for 40k, but would like permission to use this data before I attempt any such endeavor. The entirety of it is still just thoughts in my head, so I have nothing concrete to demo in this regard. In the past I've done a character analyzer for the Everquest 2 MMO, but the data and math in this case is a much less guesswork.

@amis92

Is this still true?
Don't add compressed files (*.gstz, *.catz) - save them as *.gst and *.cat instead (Save as... in Files menu in Editors).
Source: https://github.com/BSData/catalogue-development/wiki/Data-Author-Guide#most-common-mistakes

I see a lot of compressed files when downloading.

Hi, I only do this every six months or so so I forget what to do - I made some changes in the data editor to Walking Dead files, committed them to the master, but they won't show up in the online data files. What did I do wrong?

It looks like a big project, but for Kill Team Detachments it would make more sense (to me) to make the Entry link on a per-model basis rather than per squad. This way you can define which model is which specialist. Also recommend adding the 'Leader' specialist.

For some reason my Github keeps adding Uncommited changes I did not make.
Usually it are only the Adepta Sororitas from 40k, but sometimes it includes a bunch of datafiles.

It then tells me that I made changes like this:
Old: <description>If the Cerastus Knight-Acheron opts to make a Run move rather than firing a weapon in the Shooting phase, it may move 3D6&quot;.</description>

New: <description>If the Cerastus Knight-Acheron opts to make a Run move rather than firing a weapon in the Shooting phase, it may move 3D6".</description>

It seems to do that with multiple "->" and '->'.
Any idea what causes this and how do I stop this? Because now I have to discard a lot of changes every time I want to commit a REAL change.

Hi, I have done the spanish version of https://github.com/BSData/deadzone
Its available at https://github.com/afcj/deadzone_es

First version of Test of Honour files are ready for submit. O Great Admins - can I have a repo for these files ;-)

Cheers
Dev

again I would like to upload my repo to BS - please invite me :-)

Hi, I am working on a new catalog and game system for The Walking Dead: March to War. Can you create a repository for this please?

All files are up to date with this TTcombat game.

Hi,

I'm interested in working on the Middle Earth Strategy Battle Game from GW that's released today - and think I can probably base it on the existing (sadly now abandoned) Hobbit edition.

I just wondered if there's a recommended/preferred way of doing this that won't upset/impact too much.

Option 1:

1. Work within the Hobbit.gst and update name, etc.

Option 2:

1. Create a new repo for the MESBG, rename the Hobbit.gst, and update names, etc.

I assume if I go with option 2 I should update the unique id of each component so that they don't clash with those from the Hobbit, or is that less important (i.e. only need to be unique within a game system)

Thanks in advance,

Ben

Would be great to include Skirmish since the rules are getting updated in 2019. Should be able to use the points from existing AOS repo and converting. All units applicable but only 4 'factions' as they are Grand Alliance based.

In /40k we have a lot of open issues.
These stay open because the last post asks for more feedback or wants to know if something is fixed.

I would like to propose a maximum waiting time for these kind of open issues.
If a user hasn't responded in 7 days, we can assume that the issue is fixed or that someone else will report the issue again with more clarification.

What do you think about this?
It's time to clean up those issues! :)

First of all, we now have 500 commits. Congratulations!

As to my question:
Lately I've been reading a lot of the Angry Marines and I was wondering how people would feel about it if I added a file for them?

For people who don't know what I am talking about:
Angry Marines are a /tg/ slash fanmade Codex that is really popular, not just to play but they are really famous on the internet.
The fanmade-Codex can be found here: http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Codex_-_Angry_Marines
I think it would be a good idea because:

1. There are quite some people who play it.
2. People will love us for adding them.
3. Because Angry Marines.

Question two: If I have permission to add them, to what level should I censor the gigantic amount of swearing in their Codex? Or should I include a 'not for children'-tag to their name?

Temper Maximus!

Hello.

I want to host in your awesome repository a new Game System for the game Harry Potter Miniatures Adventure Game of the company Knight Models. Is it possible? Now I already have uploaded the DC and Marvel Systems.

Regards.

Since this game is coming back, I'd like to make a repository for this. The entries are fairly basic, and I have already made an extremely simple version just to have something for the time being.

I have a couple of questions regarding cost limits.

I noticed that some users do not understand this field and sometimes just leave the field with its default value of '-1'. This leads to issues in roster validations as some of my rules are based on the cost limit ( eg for each 40 pts of the roster do X or Y ).

Questions:

• Is it possible to enforce the input of a cost limit ? Ideally even based upon the chosen force organization entry.

• Can a constraint / rule check be defined on the cost limit ? I tried but couldn't really find something ... One can add a check on the current points of the roster but that is not the same as once a couple of units are chosen then the rule validates - even with a cost limit of -1 => the 2 are not related. Ideally again I would like to put these rules per force organization type.

This is a polite request for someone to do a data folder for this fan-dex: https://img.fireden.net/tg/image/1518/48/1518481249843.pdf

It's someones homebrew of what the Mechanicum Tahgmata could look like in 8th edition. This is completely selfish of me to ask, so I'd understand if it was turned down. To anyone who would be kind enough to do it though, I thank you. Sorry if this wastes anyones time, and keep up the good work. It's always appreciated.

Good day. I am making files for the Warhammer Armies Project http://warhammerarmiesproject.blogspot.com/

To make my files publicly available I have to host them somewhere and then use the dataindexer if I am not mistaken. I wanted to ask where people host their files. The tutorial video mentions Dropbox but Dropbox does no longer offer public folders.

I could not find another thread to ask this question, so I made a new issue.
The numbers are made up and just as an example.

__When do we have to update the revision and who does it impact?

I thought of this when I was doing multiple updates some time ago.
On day 1 the file was released to public as revision 49
On day 2 I made a commit with changes, making it revision 50.
On day 2, in the evening, I made another commit and updated it to 51.
In the following week I made more changes and it ended as revision 56.
Then it was released as revision 56, so end-users suddenly went from 49 to 56.

But is this really needed?
The revision is important because it tells end-users (and their BS) that it's a newer file.
Does that also apply to the Github-branch and do I need to up the revision-number with every commit?
Or would it be enough to only update the revision once after each release.

For my example that would mean I only bring it to revision 50 after the release and then update without changing revision.
Or would this cause issues with other authors?

I looked around on the BSdata wiki but couldn't really find an answer.

There were some requests for hosting localized datafiles (BSData/bsdata#174, BSData/bsdata#199).
BattleScribe has no support for datafile localization.

There might be such support in future, but it's currently not even on a roadmap.

hello,

in the skaven cat there are two units in the core that dont count for points towards the allowance for core but points count for the army. is there a way to have them inside the core block but the points don't get included for core?

Let's start of in our new home with the first question(s)!

How exactly do we handle releases to the public?
Can anyone do it? Can I release, or is that an admin-only thing?
Whenever we want? Once every week (or two)? After a certain number of commits?

My idea would be to release every Sunday-evening if there are enough commits/changes.

I'm curious because I've added 9 units to a catalogue and changed another 10.
People are aching for those updates ;)

I just started work on adding the IA datasheets to the new w40k repository, but I don't have push access anymore (probably because of the rename stuff).

Can I get permission again?

Hello,

I'd like to create repo for Batman Miniature Game from Knight models.

So the discussion is taken from wh40k/#215. Let me quote:

@Kangodo wrote:

[...] The problem is that both the unit AND the Exarch-upgrade are options in the Entry Group.
It looks like this, with the min/max behind it.
Main Entry

Entry Group: 0/infinite

Models of 20 points: 5/10
Upgrade of 10 points: 0/1
The Main Entry asks the Entry Group what the minimum is, and the Entry Group says it's 0.
So the Main Entry tells you that the minimum amount of points is 0.

An 'easy fix' would be to set the Entry Group at a min/max of 5 to 11 with a Default of the Models.
Min = 5 because you need at least 5 models.
Max = 11 because you can have a max of 10 models and the upgrade.
That would mean the Entry Group now replies with "I need at least 5 selections and my Default are the models, so that's 100 points." and the Main Entry would reflect this.

Someone that knows the Codex could probably do that in 15 minutes. If I were to do it, it would take hours because I had to look everything up in a PDF ;) Just to make sure I didn't make any mistakes.

@amis92 wrote:

While I'm here, I'll put forth an academic discussion.

(mind you it's not directed at anybody; rather a proposition)
I'm decidedly against such Grouping. I imagine a Group being a choice of similarly-weighted Entries. What I cannot stand are such Groups as mentioned above, where in single Group we buy both models and upgrades to them.

I'd see it two ways: either knock Exarch upgrade out of the group or turn upgrade Entry into Exarch entry, which would have the cost of model and upgrade, and represent an actual Exarch.

I prefer making such choices as they seem to look like: make a Group of models available in unit and set limits appropriately. Exarch is a model, not an upgrade in this scenario.

All this applies to units where leaders are optional upgrades.

Actually I think it should make it's way into catalogue-development.

Your thoughts?

Can I have the following repository added and be given write access.

Proposal to create a repository for Frostgrave: Ghost Archipelago

Hi! I want to create data files for BS's Warhammer Fantasy Battles 6th ed. Our WFB 6 community is growing bigger in Poland so we need to make rosters... fast using BS :)

I'd like to add a new repo that consists of a translation of warhammer 40k to brazilian portuguese.
I've create a python script that reads the cat files and replace the english texts with the portuguese translation. It uses the latest realease from wh40k repo.
The translation is made using Google Translator API, it create a dictionary file that can be edited by the comunity, helping to improve the translation accurancy.

Its address would be wh40kBR and name Warhammer 40k Brazil or Warhammer 40k BR.

Having this repo in the official BattleScribe Data would estimulate new contributors and certainly would make the warhammer 40k scenario stronger in Brazil.

Links
https://github.com/evertonpendragon/wh40kBR
https://github.com/evertonpendragon/wh40kPTBR/releases/download/v0.1.3/wh40kPTBR.bsi
https://github.com/evertonpendragon/wh40kBR/releases/download/v0.1.3/wh40kBR.bsr

Hi i wrote the data for Rumbleslam and i like to upload it

We've just released our first build of Middle-Earth, and it's all appearing nicely in the AppSpot listing and within BattleScribe.

I'd like to have the .bsi and .bsr artifacts added to our releases page in a similar way to Kill Team and 40k:

Obviously I could do it manually once the build has been created, but it looks like this is being done automatically via the build scripts in here - is that as simple as adding an appropriately updated version of the .appveyor.yml to our root like them, or is that something only major systems should really use?

I am so sorry if I am asking a stupid question or asking the wrong place, but here goes.

I am working a a complete set of files for the 15 mm game Patrol Angis. I have two forced so far. My question ism how do I add it to bsdata?

Would be nice if we could add a display/output sort number to items like ( selection entry, selection entry groups and shared rules ). Currently it seems that the display is simply done alphabetically.

This sort number should then be used for:

• selections - eg for a spell caster I want the spell groups to be displayed first as entry
• roster output - eg a unit profile should be displayed before any other profiles (like weapons )

For the moment I managed to obtain the above by using a little trick - starting the name with a space ensures that they get sorted first - but that only works for 1 item of course.

Thanks,

Steven

Hello,

I am a fan of the game Hail Caesar and while there are a few Warlord Games games on Battlescibe there is not yet one for Hail Caesar.

Hello. I am working on the War of the Ring repository, where you can take two types of Forces (Army and Allies, with allies limited to 25% of the total points).

There is however a catalogue (The Forgotten Kingdoms) which can only be taken as Allies. Do I have an option to limit this catalog to be taken only as Allies?

p.s. I posted this here as I think it's not just WotR-related, the answer can be useful in any other systems.

@Kangodo wrote

Tactical Marines Squad

Entry Group Marines 5/10

Entry: Tactical Marine 4/9
Entry Group 1/1 Sergeant

Sergeant 0/1 (default)
Veteran Sergeant 0/1

Heavy Weapon with a min/max-modifier that looks to the amount of selections in 'Entry Group Marines'

That last line brings me to another question from BSData/wh40k-9e#261 which is kind of related:
How do you prefer to do upgrades, on model or on unit-level?
On model-level is 'more correct', but in my experience it's really slow and annoying to add the things you want since you have to select every model and its weapons. It also causes the roster-view to be extra long.
On a unit-level means the model might not correctly replace it's old weapon, but it's much faster to create lists.

@senpai514 wrote:

Some would be fine one way on unit level but others would be better model level depending on how many models can take upgrade much like the difference between an assault squad and then vanguard vet squad.

@Kangodo wrote:

See Grey Knights (2014) for reference.
Strike Squad: As I did it before: Weapons on unit-level. Not 100% correct, but clear and easy.
Purgation Squad: Still on unit-level, but improved since I could make 8 entries. I do dislike the wordy options, makes it quite confusing on my phone.
Terminators: Weapons on unit-level, cannot make each entry because there are 20 combinations.
Paladins: Upgrades on model-level because there are too many combinations that are too important to create on unit-level.

So which of these units do you prefer?

Hi, I am somewhat new to Github so please bear with me if I say something stupid.

I started updating the data files for "Galeforce 9s - Tanks" and would like to commit the changes to the "official" repo. So I put in a pull-request, but as far as I can see, the last activity in there has been in July of last year.

What would be my logical next step to make my additions available to the community? Is it sensible to replace the Repo entirely?

Any help / explanation of how to proceed in a case like this would be much appreciated. :)

Thanks in advance
Cheers Nicolas

Hi there,

I would like to open a new repo for 'Kings of War - Vanguard'.

Thanks :-)

Hey there,

Not sure if this is the right place or not. I would like to open a new repository for the game Rogue Planet. I'm not sure if it will get much traffic, but I made the catalogue and would like to release it.

Thoughts?

http://www.wargamevault.com/product/139359/Rogue-Planet

For the game 'Vanguard' we have a number of 'common and rare items' that can be taken by ANY model within the roster so I defined 2 shared selection groups which are then assigned to each model.

Some of those items can influence the stats of a unit - eg ' a rare mount' would increase the speed of the model with 2.

I have a profile type 'warband member' which includes those stats and which are assigned to each model.

I would have hoped that I could have added a modifier to the 'items' which would allow me to update the profile but this does not seem possible ?

I did some further checks and I could only achieve this it seems by adding a modifier to the actual model - at that point I can access the profile type type ... But even then I am not allowed to 'increment' the stat as it is not considered to be a number ( all stats seem string ).

Obviously adding the modifier directly to the model is very very cumbersome as I would have to add it to ALL members in ALL warbands for EVERY item that potentially could be selected ...

Am I missing something ? Is there a way to achieve this within the current system ?

Thanks

A few suggested updates to the Wiki:

Added Repositories: (I would like to work on these)

• Warlord Games > Test of Honour
• Spartan Games > Uncharted Seas

Moving repositories:

• Deadzone > Mantic Games
• Warpath > Mantic Games

Open questions:

• Spartan Games no longer exists. Most of the game systems now sit with Wayland Games (who also produce Wild West Exodus - possibly restructure these together) - Only the Halo Games did not transfer over tmk - source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHJ3eoXhxAg
• Fantasy Flight Games do all listed Star Wars games as well as Rune Wars - would it make more sense to move these all under a Fantasy Flight Games label? (I appreciate this causes some issues for the likes of Warhammer Diskwars but again I'd look for that under FFG ahead of GW).

*Disclaimer - I'm new to this community so apologies if this is the wrong way to go about things. I read through what I could find and made a best guess.

That means using newest Roster and Data Editors, and GitHub Desktop app.

Hello, I have written a new game data for battlescribe, I would like to upload it so everyone can use it. What do I have to do for it? It is Freebooter´s Fate #2.

Hello, i wrote a catalog for the Game frebooters fate #2 and i would like to post it

Hi,
I created everything for an old tabletop and would like to include it into BS.
How may I do this?

I would like to add a new repo for FFGs Star Wars X-wing Second Edition. I have the core set converted already and will be working on the rest throughout the week.

Regards.

Hi, I would like to contribute and create a new repo for warhammer 6th edition