Guest
Posts: n/a
|
To unsubscribe from this group, email
armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ There are 4 messages in this issue. Topics in this digest: 1. Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring From: stevenjcox@cableinet.co.uk 2. Re: AB File for D&D Chainmail From: ThinkLibertarian@aol.com 3. 40k files- VDR From: "Jester /Black Mambo" <bondage__69er@hotmail.com> 4. Re: 40k files- VDR From: Ghazhkull_Thraka@dakkadakka.com __________________________________________________ ______________________ __________________________________________________ ______________________ Message: 1 Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 18:21:27 -0000 From: stevenjcox@cableinet.co.uk Subject: Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring I can't seem to post on the ab-files group (help!), so I'll post this here for now. Files for the Lord of the Rings game are now available - just pop over to the ab-files group or hit auto-update in your software. Any bugs, or improvements (these are my first files!), just let me know. Steve __________________________________________________ ______________________ __________________________________________________ ______________________ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 22:01:43 -0000 From: ThinkLibertarian@aol.com Subject: Re: AB File for D&D Chainmail I tried 1 instead of 2 and it gives the same result: +0. I'll email you the files directly. Thanks, Rich --- In armybuilder@y..., Rob Bowes <rob@w...> wrote: > I haven't tried this, but I *THINK* that the issue is you are specifying a > value of "2" for the "signed" field in the definition file. A value of 2 > forces a "+" to be prepended to the stat value if it is zero, which > overrides the mapping of a zero value to "-". If you switch to a value of > "1", I believe you will get the proper behavior. If not, it may be a bug > that I need to fix, in which case please send me the files and I'll look at > it myself. > > Thanks, Rob > > > At 02:29 PM 10/31/2001 -0500, you wrote: > >I hacked together a file for D&D Chainmail. It's the first time I've > >created an AB file from scratch. > > > >I guess my first question is, is anyone else doing one? I'd hate to > >duplicate our efforts. > > > >Anyway, I have a question: > > > >Ranged Attack (RAtt) is a signed stat, but it does not apply to all > >models, so I set 0.0=-. Unfortunately, when there's a zero in the stat, > >it is displaying +0 instead of -. > > > >Here's the line from the data definition file: > > > > RAtt | 4 | 0 | 0.0=- | 99.0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | . | . | . > > > >Is there a workaround? > > > >Thanks, > >Rich > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- > Rob Bowes (rob@w...) (650) 726-9689 > Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com __________________________________________________ ______________________ __________________________________________________ ______________________ Message: 3 Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 10:32:08 +1100 From: "Jester /Black Mambo" <bondage__69er@hotmail.com> Subject: 40k files- VDR i am not quite sure if this a fault or not but the vehicle design rules might be flawed. The armour section has the increases for front side and rear and at the bottom it has an option total. Now is this suppose the reduce the price of the vehicle the more armour you put on??????????? Like its 20pts cheaper to have a total armour value of 50 then having a total of 35. That sists wrong in my mind but i don't have the rules so hey.... Kudos aka Derranged Brazilian Ghetto Chihuahua "There is more than two sides to a coin..." -Path of the Jester __________________________________________________ _______________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp __________________________________________________ ______________________ __________________________________________________ ______________________ Message: 4 Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 06:08:05 -0000 From: Ghazhkull_Thraka@dakkadakka.com Subject: Re: 40k files- VDR --- In armybuilder@y..., "Jester /Black Mambo" <bondage__69er@h...> wrote: > i am not quite sure if this a fault or not but the vehicle design rules > might be flawed. > > The armour section has the increases for front side and rear and at the > bottom it has an option total. > > Now is this suppose the reduce the price of the vehicle the more armour you > put on??????????? Like its 20pts cheaper to have a total armour value of 50 > then having a total of 35. > > That sists wrong in my mind but i don't have the rules so hey.... > I would suggest you pick up a copy of Codex Chapter Approved with the VDR rules because the AB files are correct. __________________________________________________ ______________________ __________________________________________________ ______________________ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ |
#1 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
> > then having a total of 35.
> > > > That sists wrong in my mind but i don't have the rules so hey.... > > >I would suggest you pick up a copy of Codex Chapter Approved with the >VDR rules because the AB files are correct. > hey i fully intend to... if having a tank with the over all armour stats of 15 15 15 is cheaper than the humble 13 11 11 than i will have no quarrels ruthelessly exploiting it. Kudos __________________________________________________ _______________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp |
#2 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
At 19:24 08/11/2001 +1100, you wrote:
> > > then having a total of 35. > > > > > > That sists wrong in my mind but i don't have the rules so hey.... > > > > >I would suggest you pick up a copy of Codex Chapter Approved with the > >VDR rules because the AB files are correct. > > > >hey i fully intend to... if having a tank with the over all armour stats of >15 15 15 is cheaper than the humble 13 11 11 than i will have no quarrels >ruthelessly exploiting it. Ignoring the illegality of having 15 armour on any side, let alone all round, this is probably being caused by the 'open topped modifier'. Open-topped vehicles with lots of armour are surcharged by 20 points for being quite unusual; similarly, if a vehicle has very little armour, it costs 20 points more to *not* be open-topped. -- Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister, demandred@skrill.org http://www.skrill.org/, http://www.incompetence-central.co.uk/ 1 = 2, for large values of 1. |
#3 |
|
|