Army builder unreliable ?

[Micolai]

Hey

When i mentioned army builder in my local GW store, the reply was that it is unreliable, and its more likely to get things wrong that on a written list.

Is this true or some kind of annoyance by staff about a independent program?

[jlong05]

I would ask for examples. Also, what game were you referring to for use. The Lord of the rings files are pretty solid, and the 40k files are in general good health. The files however are not Parton army builder. They are created separate by volunteers and if bugs exist and no one reports them, it's likely that the bugs don't get fixed as we don't know about them.

[Colen]

The overwhelming feedback we've had from users has been that even though the data files may not be perfect, using them is a huge leap forward for most people trying to build an army. By using Army Builder you're avoiding a huge number of problems, such as incorrectly adding up points costs, forgetting to obey game rules, and misunderstandings with the game, which affect many people.

Even if you have a lot of experience with the game, when you're tweaking your army for the umpteenth time, it's so easy to forget one little detail that makes things invalid. I remember reading about some Warhammer or 40k tournament that ran in the last year or two - of the top 5 finishers, none used Army Builder, and none of them had a valid list. If that's the situation for the top 5 players...

It's true that the data files for game systems aren't perfect and may have issues, which is why it's important to report such issues to the maintainers when found - that way they can be fixed in the next update.

Hope this helps!

[Mr_Rose]

From personal experience, AB and its volunteer data files is and was far more reliable than either of the "official" list building program's published (and long since abandoned entirely) by GW, and suffers from far less pointless flash.