Digest Number 887

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for Trying!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/KXUxcA/fNt...tFAA/IMSolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this group, email

armybuilder-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are 13 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1. Re: Windows XP
From: "Chris Beilby" <christopherbeilby@cox.net>
2. Re: Testing multiples of a type within a single unit
From: "Mr. Green" <mach_5@rocketmail.com>
3. Re: Composition Rule Sets
From: "atrahasis1982" <owen_bell@hotmail.com>
4. Re: Re: Composition Rule Sets
From: "Mr. Green" <mach_5@rocketmail.com>
5. Re: Composition Rule Sets
From: "atrahasis1982" <owen_bell@hotmail.com>
6. Re: Lizardmen File for Army Builder
From: "atrahasis1982" <owen_bell@hotmail.com>
7. Re: Lizardmen File for Army Builder
From: "Mr. Green" <mach_5@rocketmail.com>
8. Re: Composition Rule Sets
From: "atrahasis1982" <owen_bell@hotmail.com>
9. Re: Composition Rule Sets
From: "mach_5.rm" <mach_5@rocketmail.com>
10. Re: Re: Composition Rule Sets
From: "Mr. Green" <mach_5@rocketmail.com>
11. Re: Windows XP
From: Webmaster <webmaster@blee.biz>
12. Re: Composition Rule Sets
From: "atrahasis1982" <s0093653@sms.ed.ac.uk>
13. Re: Re: Composition Rule Sets
From: "Mr. Green" <mach_5@rocketmail.com>


__________________________________________________ ______________________
__________________________________________________ ______________________

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 07:57:35 -0400
From: "Chris Beilby" <christopherbeilby@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Windows XP


----- Original Message -----
From: "wombltj" <tjwomble@aol.com>
To: ab@support.wolflair.com
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 5:23 PM
Subject: Re: [AB] Windows XP


> Well, I don't know what happened, but a reboot fixed it - I should've
> known to try that first :^(.

Had you tried running it after installing but before restarting? Generally,
when you install something that changes the registry, you need to restart,
or it won't work properly.



__________________________________________________ ______________________
__________________________________________________ ______________________

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 10:33:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Mr. Green" <mach_5@rocketmail.com>
Subject: Re: Testing multiples of a type within a single unit

Okay, I've got each of the options assigning a different value to the
first of three stats. The three tables are in three different priority
categories (1,3,and 5), and there are two calc options set to priority 2
and 4. Everything is working fine except the validation. I'm using the
following external unit attribute:

lcmp:expr1[>|>=|=|<=|<]expr2{-msg=msg}{#when}{#mode}{#legal}

but it doesn't say how I can determine if two expressions are not equal to
each other, and the couple I tried haven't worked (ie, !(stat1=stat2),
(stat1<>stat2), and (stat1!=stat2)). Any suggestions?

Thanks again for your help... this is so close to working!
Mark


--- Colen McAlister <colen@wolflair.com> wrote:
> At 04:40 PM 5/1/2003 -0700, you wrote:
> >Unfortunately, it's both from the same source. I've got a unit that
> can
> >take up to three options (out of lets say 12). The unit can have any 3
> it
> >wants, but they can't be the same.
> >
> >Now, to make things easy (or at least less cluttered), I've put the ten
> >options into tables, so the user simply has to click each table over to
> >the option he wants and he's done. The problem with this of course is
> >that it allows the user to select an option three times (once for each
> >table).
> >
> >I didn't think there was a way of limiting the number of times an
> option
> >is taken within a unit so I'm trying to figure out a way to do it with
> >types.
>
> After a long discussion involving complex mathematics here at Lone Wolf
> HQ,
> we have discerned a solution to your problem. It involves using three
> hidden stats.
>
> Let's say you have 10 possible options in your three tables - opt1,
> opt2,
> opt3, opt4, opt5, etc etc etc. opt1 should set stat1 to the value '1'
> (note
> that it sets the stat value, not adds to it). opt2 should set stat1 to
> the
> value 2. Opt3 should set stat1 to the value 3. And so on, until opt10
> sets
> stat1 to the value 10.
>
> You'll also need 5 option categories. Table1 should be category 1;
> Table2
> should be category 3; Table3 should be category 5. (Categories 1 through
> 5
> should be placed such that options from category 1 should be evaluated
> before options from all other categories, category 2 should be evaluated
>
> next, etc.)
>
> Now make two other options. Option Calc1 should be priority 2, so it is
> evaluated after Table1, but before Table2. Calc1 should set the value of
>
> Stat2 to Stat1. Similarly, option Calc2 should be priority 4, so it is
> evaluated after Table2, but before Table3. Calc2 should set the value of
>
> Stat3 to Stat1.
>
> In case it isn't entirely clear what this will do, let's go through the
> sequence of what happens.
>
> At the start, stat1, stat2 and stat3 are all 0. Table 1 has option 1
> selected, table 2 option 7 and table 3 option 1.
>
> Table1 is evaluated first. Option1 sets stat1 to 1.
> stat1 = 1
> stat2 = 0
> stat3 = 0
>
> Now Calc1 sets stat2 to stat1.
> stat1 = 1
> stat2 = 1
> stat3 = 0
>
> Now table2 is evaluated. Option7 sets stat1 to 7.
> stat1 = 7
> stat2 = 1
> stat3 = 0
>
> Now calc2 sets stat3 to stat1.
> stat1 = 7
> stat2 = 1
> stat3 = 7
>
> Finally table3 is evaluated. Option1 sets stat1 to 1.
> stat1 = 1
> stat2 = 1
> stat3 = 7
>
> Now all you have to do is use lcmp to compare the stats. If any two
> stats
> are the same, and they are not zero, then an option has been selected
> multiple times and you should show a validation error.
>
> Hope this helps. This email was brought to you by the number 12 and the
> letter 's'.
>
>
> --
> Colen McAlister (colen@wolflair.com)
> Lone Wolf Development
> www.wolflair.com
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, email
>
> armybuilder-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>


=====
Warhammer Club - Vancouver, BC
http://www.WCP-Vancouver.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


__________________________________________________ ______________________
__________________________________________________ ______________________

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 16:12:42 -0000
From: "atrahasis1982" <owen_bell@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Composition Rule Sets

>> The problem with this is users won't be able to use special units
>> that are only available in specific appendix armies (such as City
>> Guard for Dark Elves) unless you make them available in your
>> special list.
>
> I thought of doing it this way - Appendix lists aren't being used,
> so thats not a problem.

Now that I think about it though, Chaos uses the same method of
choosing which army to be as other races use for Appendix lists, so
its not possible to write a valid Chaos army without me adding rules
specifically.

I've got the following limits in place :

1 - Exactly 1 Hero
2 - Between 2 and 4 Core, special, rare units.
3 - At least 1 core
4 - 1 Special or Rare choice
5 - No more than one war machine (used ulmt:categ=mac-max@model=1)

That leaves :

6 - At least one infantry unit of at least 10 models.
7 - No unit larger than 25 models
8 - No single model more than 125 points
9 - No magic standards

6,7 and 8 are a problem because I can't see how to make the limits
apply to only one unit - I can tell AB that I want at least 10
infantry models, but not that they all must be in one unit.

9 I haven't really looked at yet, I'm going to try that now.

I had to start from scratch becaue I unthinkingly upgraded to the
new version of the files this afternoon when the automated message
came up ;(





__________________________________________________ ______________________
__________________________________________________ ______________________

Message: 4
Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 12:07:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Mr. Green" <mach_5@rocketmail.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Composition Rule Sets

> Now that I think about it though, Chaos uses the same method of
> choosing which army to be as other races use for Appendix lists, so
> its not possible to write a valid Chaos army without me adding rules
> specifically.

... and Chaos rears it's ugly head once again. All I can suggest is just
do it and tell people to ignore error messages like 'your general must be
a mortal in a mortal army' and 'you do not have enough core units' if they
are doing a beastmen or daemon army.

> That leaves :
>
> 6 - At least one infantry unit of at least 10 models.
> 7 - No unit larger than 25 models
> 8 - No single model more than 125 points
> 9 - No magic standards
>
> 6,7 and 8 are a problem because I can't see how to make the limits
> apply to only one unit - I can tell AB that I want at least 10
> infantry models, but not that they all must be in one unit.

True, I can't see a way to do what you want here either. I can think of a
way to do this is you wanted any unit of at least 10 models, but I can't
think of one for just infantry, since there's no common method used to
distinguish infantry from other units. They are lumped into the same
'regiment' category as knights, monsters, and other unit types, and while
some have been given the type 'infantry' many others have not. I suppose
I could fix that (going through every file and adding type:infantry to all
the infantry units), and I may in the future, but it's pretty low on my
priorities right now.

> 9 I haven't really looked at yet, I'm going to try that now.

Maybe try an augmentation to set spec:-stnd on all units? I'm not sure if
that'd work off hand.

> I had to start from scratch becaue I unthinkingly upgraded to the
> new version of the files this afternoon when the automated message
> came up ;(

I hate it when that happens. My advice is back everything up in a
separate folder (I keep a wf6 folder inside my armybuilder folder for
files I'm currently modifying).

Mark

=====
Warhammer Club - Vancouver, BC
http://www.WCP-Vancouver.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


__________________________________________________ ______________________
__________________________________________________ ______________________

Message: 5
Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 19:22:49 -0000
From: "atrahasis1982" <owen_bell@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Composition Rule Sets


> ... and Chaos rears it's ugly head once again. All I can suggest
> is just do it and tell people to ignore error messages like 'your
> general must be a mortal in a mortal army' and 'you do not have
>enough core units' if they are doing a beastmen or daemon army.

I might go to the effort of adding some conditions to make Chaos
work properly - just depends on how much University work I have to
avoid



> They are lumped into the same 'regiment' category as knights,
> monsters, and other unit types, and while some have been given the
> type 'infantry' many others have not.

I noticed that...
Supposing their was a type:infantry attribute for every infantry
unit, would there then be a way to do it?

>
> > 9 I haven't really looked at yet, I'm going to try that now.
>
> Maybe try an augmentation to set spec:-stnd on all units? I'm not
sure if
> that'd work off hand.

This one's sorted - see my (very) recent post for details.

> I hate it when that happens. My advice is back everything up in a
> separate folder (I keep a wf6 folder inside my armybuilder folder
> for files I'm currently modifying).

I only really need to copy cr.wf6, don't I? I assume their aren't
many changes made to that file these days.




__________________________________________________ ______________________
__________________________________________________ ______________________

Message: 6
Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 19:24:48 -0000
From: "atrahasis1982" <owen_bell@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Lizardmen File for Army Builder

--- In armybuilder@yahoogroups.com, "Mr. Green" <mach_5@r...> wrote:
> The book isn't getting released in my area (Vancouver, Canada)
until later
> in May. I'll be releasing the files shortly after that.

How much later in May? I would certainly be prepared to send you a
copy (I could have done so 6 weeks ago) in return for your hard work
maintaining the files.

On a side note, will Valten be added at that time, sooner, or not at
all?



__________________________________________________ ______________________
__________________________________________________ ______________________

Message: 7
Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 12:53:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Mr. Green" <mach_5@rocketmail.com>
Subject: Re: Lizardmen File for Army Builder


> How much later in May? I would certainly be prepared to send you a
> copy (I could have done so 6 weeks ago) in return for your hard work
> maintaining the files.

I don't know the specific release date. All I've heard is 'late May', so
it will probably be in the last week of May.

> On a side note, will Valten be added at that time, sooner, or not at
> all?

I will try to get him in sooner. I've got that White Dwarf already, I
just got so excited about the Cult of Ulric list that I completely forgot
about him

Mark


=====
Warhammer Club - Vancouver, BC
http://www.WCP-Vancouver.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com



__________________________________________________ ______________________
__________________________________________________ ______________________

Message: 8
Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 19:15:18 -0000
From: "atrahasis1982" <owen_bell@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Composition Rule Sets


> 9 - No magic standards
<---snip--->
> 9 I haven't really looked at yet, I'm going to try that now.

This one turned out to be really easy :

ilmt:count=0-categ=stnd-mode=zzz

I used mode=zzz for my mode because it then automagically takes
advantage of some of the warhammer skirmish rules in place (ie no
requirement for a specified general etc).



__________________________________________________ ______________________
__________________________________________________ ______________________

Message: 9
Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 20:01:10 -0000
From: "mach_5.rm" <mach_5@rocketmail.com>
Subject: Re: Composition Rule Sets


I just thought of something else you can do... create a new file (go
file | new, then select wf6) and save it as whatever you want
(mystuff.wf6 or something). Put your augmentations in there and then
just make sure you don't 'delete files not included in the latest
update' when you download the wf6 updates.

Mark

> > I hate it when that happens. My advice is back everything up in a
> > separate folder (I keep a wf6 folder inside my armybuilder folder
> > for files I'm currently modifying).
>
> I only really need to copy cr.wf6, don't I? I assume their aren't
> many changes made to that file these days.



__________________________________________________ ______________________
__________________________________________________ ______________________

Message: 10
Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 12:51:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Mr. Green" <mach_5@rocketmail.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Composition Rule Sets

> > They are lumped into the same 'regiment' category as knights,
> > monsters, and other unit types, and while some have been given the
> > type 'infantry' many others have not.
>
> I noticed that...
> Supposing their was a type:infantry attribute for every infantry
> unit, would there then be a way to do it?

Create a new option. Call it 'infantry requirement' or something. Add
the following attributes:

glob:incl
hide
utyp:infantry
usiz:min=10
type:ReqInf

This option will attach itself to all units in the game, as long as they
are of type 'infantry' and have at least 10 models in them. Units that
meet these requirements will be given the type 'ReqInf'. Now, all you
have to do is require that the army have at least one unit of type
'ReqInf' and you're good to go.

You still need to add type:infantry to all the infantry units though

> I only really need to copy cr.wf6, don't I? I assume their aren't
> many changes made to that file these days.

Yep, if you're only making changes to cr.wf6, that's the only one you need
to backup.

Mark


=====
Warhammer Club - Vancouver, BC
http://www.WCP-Vancouver.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


__________________________________________________ ______________________
__________________________________________________ ______________________

Message: 11
Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 14:47:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: Webmaster <webmaster@blee.biz>
Subject: Re: Windows XP

Hi,
I too run AB 2.2c on a laptop that has XP but I
haven't experienced the problem you have Jeff. Wish I
did so I'd be able to help you but it works perfectly
fine on my system. Only problem I ever had was with
the Path to Glory datafile but that was fixed ages
ago. I'm not sure what could be causing the problem.
Sorry I can't help.

Thanks,
Jon

--- wombltj <tjwomble@aol.com> wrote:

---------------------------------
Hello,
I just tried to install Army Builder 2.2c on a laptop
running XP
(actually, I upgraded from AB 1.x), but I can't get AB
2.2c to run.
When I launch it I get the splash screen (with the
version #, etc...)
then I get two windows - the main AB window, and a
second window
sitting on top of it that is empty (though it has the
same blue
marble background as the AB window.

Has anyone seen this before?

Thanks for any help,
Jeff


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

To unsubscribe from this group, email

armybuilder-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.



__________________________________________________ ______________________
__________________________________________________ ______________________

Message: 12
Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 21:47:54 -0000
From: "atrahasis1982" <s0093653@sms.ed.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Composition Rule Sets


> Create a new option. Call it 'infantry requirement' or
something. Add
<---snip--->
> You still need to add type:infantry to all the infantry units
though

Yeah I know. Can't even use US instead, as Ogres and the like are
US3 infantry.
Would creating a new option in a similar vein not allow me to
implement the other limits? ie attach an option toobig to units that
exceed 25 models and require that there be 0 units with toobig (and
similarly for 125 point single model limit etc)?





__________________________________________________ ______________________
__________________________________________________ ______________________

Message: 13
Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 15:31:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Mr. Green" <mach_5@rocketmail.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Composition Rule Sets


> Yeah I know. Can't even use US instead, as Ogres and the like are
> US3 infantry.
> Would creating a new option in a similar vein not allow me to
> implement the other limits? ie attach an option toobig to units that
> exceed 25 models and require that there be 0 units with toobig (and
> similarly for 125 point single model limit etc)?

Sounds like that should work.

Mark


=====
Warhammer Club - Vancouver, BC
http://www.WCP-Vancouver.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


__________________________________________________ ______________________
__________________________________________________ ______________________



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/