I noticed that the iPad Army Builder army list viewer doesn't show runes applied to artillery and characters. Is that something you guys handle or Lone Wolf?

Can u provide n example as in both the printouts n roster viewer the items does show. For characteris even will adjust stats of the model if required

Here's a picture of the roster on my iPhone 4c running iOS 7.0.4. Roster was saved with version 3.4c #378 of Army Builder and newest Warhammer rules:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...2013.26.45.png

Here's a link to the .RST as well:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...ts%20-%202.rst

Everything appears fine in the desktop application. If I tap on the "Engineering Runes" label, it just flashes and nothing else happens. Same goes for any other runic "slot" (Talisman, etc).

Hope that helps!

Yes exactly what it needed to figure out why it is listed yet fails to show on the roster viewer app. Looks fine in print versions

If you change to standard view can you see the runes. I suspect it is a AB roster viewer issue and I am getting the same results in mobile view as well. I will post this along to the AB guys as a roster viewer issue.

Here are some bugs I've found so far. I was unsure where to post this, so I posted both in the Dwarf Release thread and in the Dwarf Bug Report thread. Hope this is helpful!

- I've noticed that the old descriptions of what the runes do seem to be missing in the top righthand box (under composition summery).
- Adding a shield to a Runesmith should cost 3pts, not 1 as listed (pg 90)
- "High King Thorgrim Grudgebearer" name is now simply "Thorgrim Grudgebearer" (pg87)
- Ungrim Ironfist is listed as having an Oath Stone, this is not correct, in addition, he should have the Deathblow and Slayer special rules which do not appear to be listed on his profile. (pg 53, 87)
- When Ungrim Ironfist is in list, Slayers do not have an option for a 100pt runic banner and cannot select the Banner of Lost Holds (pg 53, 58)
- Daemon Slayer is missing "Dragon Slayer" special rule (pg 45, 88)
- Slayers Unit will let you add a musician and standard bearer (with runic standard even) even when the unit is entirely upgraded to Giant Slayers (meaning 0 regular slayers available to upgrade to musician or standard bearer) (pg 92)

See replies

Fixed for 2.73

High King not High King he still is but fixed for 2.73

Deathblow has been added, and both Dragon and Daemon Slayer are already in his printout.
Fixed for 2.73

Make him the army general and the you need to then go to the Slayer unit and select Slayer King upgrade to make the slayer 100 runic banner show. And it only should allow for runic banner, not Banner of Lost Holds which is an heirloom, not runic standard. I need to remove it, as I also read it as they can take Banner of lost holds however on further review they cannot.
Fixed for 2.73

Fixed for 2.73

Well that is because you can have a Giant slayer be the standard bear and musician because any number of slayer can be upgrade so logic dictates that if you have no regular guys then one of the giant slayers can be the standard bearer and musician.

Ok this is due to the fact runes are now much more complex and display the rules in the footnotes of roster printouts, or Armybuilder Roster viewer for IOS not the composition box region. You can still right click on the runes in the item options section of Armybuilder 3 to see what they do.

[QUOTE=EdSteiner;177745]See replies


Make him the army general and the you need to then go to the Slayer unit and select Slayer King upgrade to make the slayer 100 runic banner show. And it only should allow for runic banner, not Banner of Lost Holds which is an heirloom, not runic standard. I need to remove it, as I also read it as they can take Banner of lost holds however on further review they cannot.
Fixed for 2.73

QUOTE]

So then by all accounts the BSB can not have the banner of the Lost Holds.

More bugs found
 

Not to be critical...:)

- Rune of Warding costs are 15/35/45, but when you choose them, the app calculates them at 10/50/125.
- Missing several Banner Runes when applying a magic standard to a Longbeard unit:

• Master Rune of Groth One-Eye
• Master Rune of Stromni Redbeard
• Master Rune of Valaya
• Master Rune of Grungni
• Rune of Stoicism

- Regular Slayers are no longer "Troll Slayers", but are just standard vanilla "Slayers"

Rune of Warding fixed for 2.73

• Master Rune of Groth One-Eye
• Master Rune of Stromni Redbeard
• Master Rune of Valaya
• Master Rune of Grungni

All of these runes are over 50 points so Longbeards cannot take them.

Rune of Stoicism

Fixed for 2.73

I like them as Troll Slayers but ok, back to normal slayers it is

Fixed for 2.73

[QUOTE=Ullr;177752]You folks are being too literal.

By literal interpretation, the Slayer King rule "...a single Slayer unit may take a runic standard worth up to 100 points" would mean they can't take the banner. And the BSB rule: "The Battle Standard Bearer can have a runic standard (no points limit)." The BoLH is listed as a "Magic Standard", thus, literally, the BSB can't take it either.

At 100 pts, the only units that could actually take it are the BSB (no pt limit on the Battle Standard) or the Slayer SB with Ungrim. That said, why would GW place such an item in the book if no one can use it?

I'd also like to refer you to pg 59 in the book under "Runic Magic":
"It is important to remember that an Ancestral Heirloom or runic item is no different from a magic item, and all the usual rules for magic items still apply."

So to my eye, that means that "runic" and "magic" are synonymous.

Not to be nit-picky, but I can choose multiple combinations of runes with the current build that push me over 50 pts. So if you're not even showing options that we can't use, then you'll need to hide the 3x RoSlowness and the 2x and 3x RoBattle as well. Not to mention hiding other runes as the point totals climb...you're climbing down a slippery slope, my friends. :)

It's probably easiest for you to just show all available runes and let the software prevent illegal combinations via point validation. To be honest, while I appreciate that you're trying not to give us options we can't use, I think it's better to show *all* options so that we don't sit and scratch our heads thinking, "Hmm...I could've SWORN I could take X rune on that item." Better to allow it as an option and have the validation rules permit or deny it.

Also, the Ironbreakers/Irondrakes suffer from the same problem.

I absolutely agree, but I figured other folks not as familiar with Dwarfs might get confused when the book doesn't match the software. :(

With regards to runes on units. It is easier to remove them from being shown then created a rule to enforce validation. Has to do with the ab creator interface.

However lets face it GW does very poor wording. Example under lord, rune lord/smith, n thane it is combination of runic items n heirloom stuff. If using your logic, why can my dragon slayer not take the heirloom weapon, it's a weapon after all n I can take a runic weapon. Because under dragon slayer entry it says may take runic weapon of 75 points.

I have to agree, I feel that the BSB and the Ungrim Slayer unit can have the Banner of the Lost Holds. I also feel that Dragon Slayer should be allowed to have heirloom weapons (slayer with the red axe would be awesome), but RAW and as you have said, it is a magic item, and while runic items count as magical, there is still a difference. I feel it should be RAI that heirlooms can be taken too, but we have to wait for GW's FAQ.

Again, we're being too literal. The entire second paragraph on pg 59 under Runic Magic spells it out about as clearly as you can. From the Dwarf's perspective, Runic items = magic items. Magic items = runic items.

Looking at the fluff for the magic weapons reinforces this even further:

The Hammer of Karak Drazh
"...It was struck with runes so that..."

Red Axe of Karak Eight Peaks
"...Struck with unique runes of vengeance..."

Magnificent Armor of Borek Beetlebrow
"...Who knows what runes were struck upon that gromril suit..."

etc.

Seems pretty clear to me that runic = magic = runic.

So why not just have them under the runes and call them "Runic Heirlooms" and why would things like Lord/Thanes/Runelords/simiths say that they can have runic AND heirloom items? I understand AND agree that they are allowed to be used. You must not know the people I know, because I know people who WILL say my list is illegal if I try to use them. Different people will see things differently.

RAI make more sense with the heirlooms, then RAW, but right now RAW is all we have. It isn't being too literal, it is reading the rules as they are written and only really having that to go by. I will guaranty that GW will FAQ them to be allowed and make it so people that I know will have to accept it.

Read the BSB rules. They state that if the BSB carries a runic (magic) banner, he/she cannot use any other runic OR Heirloom items.

Thus, the rules stating that the character can take "a combination of Ancestral Heirlooms and runic weapons, armour and talismans" is simply for clarification. That way, there's no argument as to whether I can wield the Red Axe AND 3x Runes of Warding if I want.

And if people are going to be that anal about the wording of rules, then I'd just as soon not be playing them, as they'll find any number of other things to bellyache about besides my magic items.

If there weren't 10 players in my area, I wouldn't play them, but they are all that way. Just look at the Brets Wyrm Lance: gives the model a Breath Weapon, but it actually states that it can't be used in combat in the item description, so it can't be used that way and GW hasn't FAQed it otherwise. Yes Runic Items are magical in nature and thusly classified as magic, but the AB does specify between both runic items and heirlooms. RAW the Banner of Lost Holds is a Heirloom item and not a runic item, yes it has runes on it, but it isn't class as runic, and actually classified as a magical item. basically we agree to disagree, and that is that.

Sorry this is off topic.....

Then why did the author make a clear example of Lord/Runelord/Runesmith/Thane and use very clear wording "May take a combination of any Ancestral Heirlooms, runic weapons, armour, talismans of up to point value x.

And then just as clearly on Daemon slayer, dragon slayer, master engineer say either may take runic weapon, for the slayers or may take runic weapons, armour, talismans in the case of the engineer. If we are to then say well its a magic weapon under heirlooms my slayer should be able to take it. Piss poor wording on GW's part.

With regards to the Banner of Lost Holds. RAW very strictly followed would restrict the banner from the BSB as its not a runic banner, I choose to make one RAI in that one issue because clearly a Thane via his magic rules can have access to Ancestral Heirloom, and again while it does not state under BSB subsection make take A.H. I, as the file author made a honest evaluation of the rules. When it was brought about the fact several users not seeing the Slayer King rule is in place in this file version. Reason, you must meet several roster requirements for it to be valid and again I as the coder, took time to limit what is valid so even user error, and a poor opponent's who fail to check.

First off, I greatly respect and appreciate the time and effort you and your associates put into making the ArmyBuilder data files for us. I don't argue to be a pain in the ass or to prove superiority. I do so in the hopes of making the files and the game as accurate as possible for everyone else using them. That way we can avoid problems for folks like Ullr and his opponents.

I think I now understand the confusion here, and the logic that the army book author used when writing things as he did. I believe Ed and I are on the same page here, but let me explain my thoughts and we'll compare.

Ancestral Heirlooms are unique, highly revered items passed down for millennia. As such, these items are (and should be) likely possessed solely by the aristocracy of the Dwarf people. Hence, when the army list entry for Lords/Thanes/Runelords/Runesmiths says, "May take a combination of Ancestral Heirlooms and runic weapons, armour and talismans...", it inherently implies how special the Heirlooms are. Lords and Thanes are clan rulers, and the Runemasters are held in VERY high regard by Dwarf society in general. As such, they've earned the right to carry such precious artifacts of the Dwarf people.

Now compare that to the Slayer characters, who are limited to "runic weapons". Given that a Slayer's entire purpose of going into battle is to die a glorious death, I sincerely doubt that the Dwarf aristocracy would consent to letting a precious Heirloom item enter the battlefield knowing that its wielder is most likely going to die in solo combat. So in that regard, I can understand why the "Heirloom" has been omitted from their entries. The runic items available to champion-class Dwarfs, while being primarily restricted by points available, would also not be "allowed" to carry such precious items into combat, as they don't have the pedigree to have earned such an honor.

So then yes, I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that only Lords/Heroes which explicitly list the availability of Heirlooms can carry them. Otherwise, no, they can't.

Regarding the BoLH, I believe that only the BSB should be able to carry it, as a Slayer unit would not likely be granted such a boon. As Ed points out, it's poor wording on GW's part to not include Heirlooms in the description of the BSB. However, given that the BSB can only be a Thane, then through the rules for the character himself he should be allowed to carry the BoLH. So it's really a simple extension of logic that would allow it to happen.

I concur with entire viewpoint.

I think the next major issue is the 'faction' that feel "I can place a Rune of Forging and a Rune of Burning on a cannon, and then place a Rune of Forging and Runes of Burning (x2) on a second cannon" to get around the pride issue. And again GW poor writing say Rune of fire. Blah Blah........Flaming attacks multiples of this rune have no further effect, which one side reads as well I can take more then one, even though it provide no effect. And other that feel well if it has no further effect then you cannot take more then one. I choose to code it along the strict reading of if it has no further effect you cannot take it again beyond it value.

Even worse is this.

A unit with a runic standard with Rune of Slowness IE. '-D6" charge distance' and say my BSB who is in the unit has runic standard with Rune "x" and Rune "y" and also Rune of Slowness. Now if I charge that unit do I roll a -D6" for the unit banner and -D6" from the BSB banner. Now then that is 2D6" off my charge distance, where as if you have Rune of Slowness (x2) it is roll 2D6 and use the highest value as the "x" value to subtract from charge distance. GW has had several issues with failing to identify which modifiers can stack and which cannot.

Hmm...I hadn't thought along those lines. But then, I'm not a "dick-you-over" kinda player either.

My $0.02 is that if the rules state that "multiples of this rune have no further effect", then you should be allowed to take additional runes. After all, if you couldn't take multiples, then why would they explicitly mention that situation? On the other hand, "have no further effect" could also be interpreted as not affecting ANYthing, be it granting special rules to the weapon, or affecting the Rule of Pride either.

Unfortunately, I'd vote to allow for multiples of a rune, at the same cost, which would indeed get around Rule of Pride. I don't like it, and I don't agree with it, but given the way the rules are written, it's hard to argue otherwise. This is also given the fact that other runes, such as Rune of the Furnace, doesn't mention anything about multiples. So I would argue that those that do mention it can be duplicated, and those that don't, can't.

As to RoSlowness, I'd rule that only one of the runes takes effect. That's because the RoSlowness states: "Any foes charging a unit including a standard bearing a Rune of Slowness...". So you could have 50 of them in the unit, but it's irrelevant; you're still charging A unit containing A standard bearing the rune.

As to whether their effects would stack, i.e., roll 2d6 and take the highest, I'd say yes. First, because RAW state "A second Rune of Slowness means...", versus the RoSanctuary which states "A standard bearing two Runes of Sanctuary...". So apparently the presence of multiple runes would stack, though I'm sure it's not the intent. However, if you're going to do that, you're essentially paying 70 points for the effects of a 50 rune stack that you'll probably only use once or twice in a game. If you want to do that, knock yourself out.

I've seen that a lot of the bugs are fixed in ver. 2.73. When will we be able to get this said version. Ty

Fiery Ring/runic weapon error has been reported and fixed for 2.73

When you select the Silver Horn of Vengeance, your Runic Weapon becomes greyed out. If you select a Runic Weapon and then select the Silver Horn, you get a warning stating "Too many Enchanted Items".

The Silver Horn is an Enchanted Item, and a Runic Weapon is a Magic Weapon.

When giving a Hammerers unit champion a Runic Weapon, the Rune of Striking is 10 points, but after clicking the check box it becomes 20 points.

In the "Available Units" list, Ironbreakers are listed as "140/#+140" instead of 14/#+140.

Fixed for 2.73

Fixed for 2.73

Fixed for 2.73

Thursday/Friday in case any others are reported.

Just in time for my Tournament!! Thank You!!

Miners missing Underground Advance under "Unit Options". Shows in Unit Details pane though. Not sure if you intended for it to show under Unit Options. I figured as a special rule, it'd need to be there.

Ungrim's "Dragon Slayer" rule shows up butted against the end of "Slayer King" in the Unit Details pane. Kinda blends in with the other rules, so you might miss it if you're not looking for it carefully.

When the roster is printed/ or in IOS ArmyViewer it will display under the unit entry.

When the roster is printed/ or in IOS ArmyViewer it will display under the unit entry.

I will add a line break so it displays more clearly.

First of all let me thank you for the great work you've been doing with the data file for WH Fantasy. I've been using AB for some time now, and canot praise enough your hard work.

Would it be possible to include White Dwarf Grombrindal (as described here on Games Workshop's site) as an unnoficial unit?

Thank you!

I think I can and to use him you would have to selected allow unoffical units. If I get it to work I will post it as an errata in the Dwarf fileset notes.

I have my AB program fully updated but named units like Grimm Burlokkson and Belegar Ironhammer are unavailable- is there a fix in the works or am I the only one having this issue?