[Uleat]

I haven't been ignoring this one..my online time is limited and I've attempted twice to respond to it - without luck...


You can set bitmasks up to represent just about anything..but, looking specifically at the expansion value chart posted (re-posted) above:

Kunark has a bit value of 1 and a bitmask of 1.


A standard ordinal bitmask will usually exclude 0 from its rankings due to the fact that the lowest provable ranking value is 1 - there is no 0's column
in bit representation.

To convert an ordinal bit ranking to bit position, yes, a simple (1 << (ord_val - 1)) should be used. For cases of 0, you would simple prove it by
checking (bool)ord_val == false or ord_val == 0.

SIDENOTE: You can create a positive mask for validating greater than the ordinal ranking by using (~0 << ord_val). C++ doesn't implement bit rotations,
so there is no chance of a wrap-around with a standard bit shift.


In the case of Kunark, converting the 'value' to a bit position in the coded example does indeed produce 0x02 where the mask is 0x01.

However, look at what is being considered: CanUseAlternateAdvancementRank

Since the transformation reflects a greater than positional value, and there is a 'false' return methodology, you really don't want that condition
to be true for an exclusionary check.


There's a lot of systems that I'm not up-to-speed with - this being one of them.

But, looking at what is defined and what is being checked, I think that particular code snippet is correct. That's not to say that there may not be
issues elsewhere (these guys are pretty sharp and usually catch logic errors pretty quick.)