The difference between a missing fire arc and a misspelled "the" is that the former affects playtesting, while the latter does not. I wouldn't expect someone, nor require them, to submit a typo like that for approval. A typo that affects playtesting though needs to be, however, and given that you're the AC it's your responsibility to do so.



The God Machines rule was fixed after Glyn brought up the typo, the only change is I'm using the same wording that the Avatar crit is using for constancy.

The Corvus Assault Pod was removed from the Emporer Titans listing in the army list and I put Transport on each of them.

In order to have the weapons on the datasheets I needed to stat them as Characters, can't get around that.

The biggest difference at this point is that the weapons and upgrades are all in an upgrades table. Kyrt made a suggestion, I followed up and you never responded.

You're claiming resistance on my part but I'm changing things and working with the community here. I suggest you do the same instead of throwing your hands up and claiming abuse.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Apologies, when I checked earlier it still had your original wording but it seems that a hard refresh updated with the change. Regardless, you still haven't fixed the weapon surcharge rule or noted the number of weapons on the list entry for the titans, or made the distinction between carapace and arm slots on the titans.

What I want to see is this:

1. All AMTL SR appear EXACTLY as they appear in the AMTL PDF for consistency. This is simple copy and paste.

1a. All SR appear in the same location on the page, preferably at the top with the God Machines rule.

2. A section or table titled Scout Titan Weapons List containing the weapons listed in the AMTL PDF for Scout Titans

3. A section or table titled Battle Titan Weapons List containing the weapons listed in the AMTL PDF for Battle Titans

4. a section or table titled Scout and Battle Titan Upgrades containing the upgrades listed in the AMTL PDF.

5. Number of weapons and type allowed listed with the formation entry. This can either be listed under upgrades if you can enter plain text or as part of units column as a parenthetical in italics. Copy the wording in the AMTL PDF.

These are not unreasonable. These are simply required changes to maintain consistency and accurately display the AMTL list. If this cannot be done for any reason, I maintain my request to link to the AMTL PDF instead so as to avoid potential confusion.

_________________
-Vaaish

Giving Imperators/Warmongers transport (10) instead of a counts as Corvus is a problem as the infantry formation in the list is 0-1 per Corvus and the Emperor class titans should unlock one.

Either change it to be an actual Corvus (though If still prefer it so say counts as) or change the infantry text in the list so that they're 0-1 per Corvus, Imperator or Warmonger.

I'll be getting the TP printed and bound for games, like I did the previous one, but unless something changes I'll miss out the TP War Gryphons list and include the relevant pages from the AMTL list pdf instead as the TP version mangles the presentation and clarity.

What really needs to happen is a new weapon file is created called "leg bastions" that gets added to the Imperator and Warmonger. The question I have is whether it would need to get a special rule made for it that contains the verbage for the counts as and transport capacity that gets attached to the weapon like MW does currently or if that Special Rules section will support plain text.

If that section supports plain text, it should be pretty easy since we'd just need to create the "weapon" add -transport, and a line that says counts as a Corvus Assault Pod. If not, we should be able to do this if I understand how things are pulled in:



If we have to go the SR route we'd need this added too as leg-bastions.md:



We'd leave the transport number and type in the notes for the Warmonger and Imperator and the site should do the rest.

If you didn't want to bother with an extra SR, I think this would work too:



On a different note, to help you out Dave, I pulled the AMTL html file from github and updated the parts that are plain text to match the current AMTL PDF. I've attached the file for you.

I also noticed that since you've used CH to set up all the various AMTL weapons, you should split the forces document into two parts, AMTL Weapons and AMTL Units. I assume you can create a wrapper force that includes both of those if you want to pull it in as a single line instead of two separate ones.

_________________
-Vaaish

Using similar terminology and parlance throughout the rules is just good form for writing. Beyond clarity, it also makes things easier for me as I can pull from a "toolbox" of items already in the system. I'm not sure why you're hung up on this, if there's existing language for something that does exactly what you need it to do then why not use it? Why re-invent the wheel?



Confused here, as I think they do. If an special rules deals with an army list (God Machines) it's on the army list. If it deals with a unit or a special ability given to a unit it's on the data sheet (Void Shields). You don't need to know what Void Shields do when you're building an army list, hence they're with the datasheet.



Broke them out.



Broke them out.



Broke them out.



Added them to the upgrages column as a note.



Changed the Skitarii entry to reference the Emperors, it was the simplest.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

That only works if you assume the site is the primary location or singular location for the information. It's not and since the PDF should take precedence given that was what was submitted for review and received approved status you should match the PDF. The reason is to keep consistency with the PDF that people will use the site as a reference for. You want to keep things as close as possible to the original document to reduce confusion and to eliminate arguments over rules. If one person is using the PDF and someone else pulls up the site to check a rule, both should be in agreement. If they aren't you spark arguments over which is correct.



You have the VS and the "weapon mount" SR attached to the force instead of the intro. It means you have SR at the top of the page and buried at the bottom. There needs to be a single area for these.



I don't care about what's the simplest. I care about accuracy and consistency between documents with the same information. Give me access to the site and I'll have this fixed before evening. Speaking of... is there an issue with the HTML I supplied in my previous post? It has everything already set up as it should be to match the AMTL list and unless github isn't telling me everything, should just be copy paste for you to update.

I really don't understand why this is so hard. Your job shouldn't be to rewrite and tweak or decide to go off in a different direction because you think it was easiest. You should uphold the integrity of the list as it appears regardless of your personal thoughts on the matter. At the very least you should consult the AC before making changes to lists under his charge. If you don't want to be bothered with that, give me a way to update the files myself.

_________________
-Vaaish

So... change the document? Again, you're reinventing the wheel and don't need to.



There's a difference between special rules, you don't need to know what Void Shield do when making a list. They would be handy when you're looking at stats though. Every other list is using the same pattern, I'm not going to write custom logic for AMTL.



Sorry, but I do. What you described would be equivalent to adding "Transport Compartment" to a Chimera's weapons, and then adding a note on the unit further explaining what that means. All this can be accomplished in five words on the army list and Transport on the Titans.

It's also an army list restriction, so should be on the army list. Transport is a unit special ability, so put it on a unit. Don't create a weapon, put a unit special ability on it, and then add a note to the unit explaining the whole thing.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

No. The PDF drives the site. It's the prior art and what's been through the approval process. Remember you're the guy who doesn't seem to want to add the errata because that change would trigger more testing yet unalaterally decided to put the AMTL list into the site however you pleased regardless of changes or confusion it introduced.



That's a narrow view. Folks may not need them there when building a list, but they will need them for reference. It makes little sense for you to force them to search two separate areas for a similar information type. it's Bad UX and bad design to have them split.



then you misunderstand me, because that's basically what you did with the Corvus Assault Pod anyway. Let's cut to the chase here. Just give me a yes or no answer.

Will you fix the AMTL list SR, layout, and wording to match the APPROVED PDF list or give me the ability to do so myself?

_________________
-Vaaish

Vaaish, I'm not sure if you are aware but Dave has likely put in a ton of effort to get the list generation tool to the point where it seems to have mostly eliminated the *complete headache* of managing and publishing the NetEA lists. Also, he seems to be doing his best to make the unconventional AMTL work in the tool. Understandably you want the published list to be the best it possibly can be, however there must surely be a compromise that gets the list in the tool without giving Dave significant extra work. I think that would be best result for the NetEA community.

_________________
Uti possidetis, ita possideatis.
May your beer be laid under an enchantment of surpassing excellence for seven years!
An online epic force creator: Armyforge

To be frank, I really like Daves PDF version. When using the AMTL-PDF list you have to constantly switch through the pages, during the game and list creation, as there is no single-page reference sheet. Neither for points nor for profiles.

I understand the reasoning on both sides, though. Is it possible to add another "Type"? So instead of "Character" (which feels wierd) we can have something like "n/a"? As long as there are no differences concerning the content in the approved AMTL PDF and the "Daves online PDF" I can see no real problem here.

_________________
My blog - A man without a mountain of unpainted lead is no real man!

It's unnecessary. "Character" in EA effectively just means "upgrade"

I'm quite aware he's put a lot of effort into this, and I appreciate the effort. However, effort alone isn't enough to say do what you want or close enough. Looking through the code on github, I'm entirely unconvinced that the is any software reason the AMTL list can't be set up to mirror the PDF and, in fact, I think most of the changes I require are wording changes so the SR match up or adding in things like "carapace only" that are missing.

I've already supplied a formatted HMTL file that aligned most of the issues Dave has been reticent to change to match the AMTL list and I'm totally willing to make the adjustments so Dave can concentrate on other things and I can ensure the AMTL list is correct without asking for a ton of changes.



I agree, the issues I'm bringing up are content differences between the AMTL PDF. For instance, the "War Griffons Epic Tournament Special Rules" is supposed to be analogous to the list construction rules in the AMTL PDF, however it's completely different in wording, missing parts, and named in such a way that it only applies to the Tournament scenario when it should be a general special rule.



I'd have no issues if the Tournament pack list was like your link there, elsmore, because it keeps the wording and SR intact.

_________________
-Vaaish

Typos:
In the Titan notes:
May step over units and pieces of terrain that that are lower lower than the unit’s knees and less than 2cm wide.Take away one "lower"

Reaver titan Rocket launcher has FwA should be FxF

Eldar:
Wave Serpent notes:
Transport. May transport one Wraithguard unit or two infantry units (except Support Weapon Platforms) without Jump Packs or Mounted; Wraithguard count as two units each.Take away "one Wraithguard unit" or the last sentence.

Vampire Raider Notes:
Not sure about this one but in the last compendium Wraithguards took up 2 transport spaces...

At point 5.4 The Warhound crit should read:

Staggering blow. The Warhound immediately staggers a full d6cm in a random direction and takes an extra point of damage. If this move takes the titan into impassable terrain or another unit it can’t move over then it stops immediately and is destroyed. Any units moved over or contacted take a hit on a d6 roll of 6+ (make saving throws for the units normally).

The red sentence is missing and crucial. The first "Staggering blow" isnt't that important.