No, due to the fact models may have different weapon classes, it will not alter the At profile, as if you had it do that it might look like the model had an extra attack but if another model took a great weapon it would not only show the extra attack for the extra weapon but then also show the higher strength for the Great Weapon, so we have chosen to only show the basic stat line and force the user to track which model has what.

Comments? on how we addressed this issue

Can you treat each Maneater as separate sub entry? They would have to select each Maneater and put the items on them separately. Example would be 40k Tau Crisis suits.

Well that would still leave issue such a the unit wide armor upgrade application hard to make work, as well as the raw cost for command upgrades

Golgfag Maneater
 

Golgfag does not appear in the list for OK to accompany his maneaters.

dOUBLE pOST

To start with can we make it so that if you have "x" models in a unit of Maneaters, and you choose "x" of any combination of Extra Hand Weapon, Brace of the Ogre Pistols, or Ogre Pistol, that the extra attack be included in the profile like this (At: 4/5) ?

The system cannot generate that type of result. I agree that would be a better way, but since you have a single stat line for the trooper, the system cannot then count the weapons beyond the choices of 1 per, it then could not say ok I have 4 guys and they all took xhw so at a +1 to the At stat line. However, I will pass it along to the program creators "Lone Wolf", IE not me to see if they have an alternate method to calc as you suggest.

I've been pondering this and there is an alternate way to do it. I'm just not sure how much effort it would talk. A lot of 40k units allow each member to be customized differently so the 40k builders allowed you to add lines as well as increase the individual quantity on a given line. So for a command squad, you buy one stat line of one person, choose the gear for that person, then you can add another line (person) to choose different gear, and also then increase the quantity per line to say have 2 of each.

Another approach would be throwing an asterisk to denote that there are other rules that come into play and but otherwise keeping one generic stat line. That might just help to remember that you have a pistol on some models for +1A.

Will review 40K for ideas and code logic.

Great. I misspoke though. It was the Honor Guard under Space Marines that has this feature for so that the different CC options would be reflected in their file not the Command Squad.

I think that I have a course of action, look over this PDF example and let me know if this is what you idea was. Design-wise and code wise you can promote 1 model which renames itself Captain and adjust his AT stat. Then on each of the models you can select your loadout. The parent unit controls the armour choice unit wide

http://dl.dropbox.com/s/o1w0q7hfy9c4...er%20Build.pdf

The last unit "Mercenary Maneaters" looks good, though I noticed you have multiples of the guys with dual CCWs. Using that method can you increment the number so you have say 1 line for a vanilla guy, 2 S7 gw guys, and 2 A5 dual CCW guys or is it one line per guy?

System did not like it, the 40K guys have some real cool background coding to handle those issues. Will keep digging, but is this a step in the right direction? But I will keep plugging away and see if I can cheat the code and not have to deal with those background issues where model numbers restrict transports and stuff.

Yes, even at one line per guy it's still easier to see what the bonus stats are on each one.

Yeah, I used the background of the 40K honor guard code, and it did not have it where you adjust the child model number up. Like I said major kudos to the 40K guys on some awesome background code. Since my DoW Armybook, the Indy GT net version, my Maneaters are clones of OK Maneaters minus access to a lookout Gnoblar. We game it out they got eating being so far from home :) I will using it over the next few days see if it breaks, if not I expect a mid-month update for some DE fixes.

Fixed for 2.67

Ironblaster's are not Slow to Fire
 

Good Day
Ironblaster's are not Slow to Fire.
Thank You

The Ironblaster is not slow to fire as it is a chariot and not a war machine (war machine is where the slow to fire rule comes in). Instead, it can only shoot at it front arc as per the chariot rule.

The "fire the cannon in the same way as a normal cannon" is simply a mechanism to resolve the hits and wounds. If it too the same rules as a war machine then it should be permitted to shoot in the same arc and pivot.

Will review, however if it's not slow to fire then can you not say "stand and shoot" as charge declaration? Might want to read that as if it's a chariot and I am mounted in it and I have a bow, I get a stand and shoot declaration. Counter thoughts or other view jump in.

Ironfist and Bruiser
 

Good Day
When I equip my Bruiser with a magic weapon (Warrior Bane in this case) he loses the Parry save from his Ironfist. I cannot see any rule that states that this should happen.
Thank You

You only have a parry save when you have a hand weapon. A magic weapon is not a hand weapon. Review your BRB

So im equipping my Ogre Tyrant
Heavy Armour, Sword of Swift slaying, Dragonhelm, Greedy Fist, Giant breaker

Then when i add the Ironfist, i lose the 2+Ward save from the Dragonhelm and my 6+Ward save from my Greedy Fist

Fixed for 2.77

Authors note: The Ward Save with conditional situations causes allot of problems as many things modify it and sometimes it is hard when several variables get added into the mix.

Hunter - Ironfist is not AND its an OR
 

Hunter -
Sadly, the Ironfist cannot be taken in ADDITION to the other equipment. The army book states "one of the following"

I checked the FAQ as well.

If you select Nagash rules (lore of undeath) the undeath spells appear AFTER the blue
- Lore of Heavens -
heading.

Then
Lore of Heavens
appears directly after 6. Akar'aran... in white text again.

Hope that explains it.

Fixed