Huxley presents a problem...

[kirkbushell]

I was messaged today with someone working on Cygar, about Huxley 1.

Huxley 1 is basically two warcasters in one and so is rather unique in the current dataset. This presents a problem for all the fields in the current data structure, as there's basically:

• Two stat lines
• Two sets of model advantages
• Two sets of weapons
• Two sets of abilities

The issue here is that changing the current data structure would require all warcasters (present and future) to follow that structure for a rare edge case. This would introduce complexity for just a record or two in the dataset. That's obviously not ideal, so this is my idea:

1. Introduce a new optional property for warcasters called "battleConfiguration".
2. The value for battleConfiguration should reference the -other- configuration record.
3. For identifiers, Huxley would be shown as essentially two different warcasters, but linked together via battleConfiguration. So each warcaster entry would be identified as huxley1-groundAssault and huxley1-skyStormer
4. We can then link the two together based on the huxley1 identifier, and know from the identifiers alone that they have two different configurations.

I also feel that the feat and spell racks, despite the same for both, should be included in both entries. This allows for the future option that different warcaster configurations may have different spells or feats available to them.

What do you think?

[Jim-with-a-J]

It's times like this that you can really feel sorry for the app developer, when he made possibly sensible choices and then the customer showed up with "Look at this, she's three casters in a unit!" or "these guys have concentric rings for health!" or "You're going to love this: new battlegroup limitations!"

The multiple card thing would also apply to the legacy dragoons too. The Circle one might have been called Morag? It's been a while. The app splits these up into 'cards' and 'models', so a card can be linked to multiple models (works for dual models like these, or character units).

[jmichaelscott6c]

The dragoons, and character units are a good point. What if the optional tag just refers to the stats for the components of the unit? So Huxley's card would have the multi-card optional property ['ground_assault', 'sky_stormer'] that would reference those specific stat lines.