AB3.3 Tournament Output Option

Homer S · January 5th, 2011, 11:14 AM

I missed this during beta, sorry about that.

Is there or can there be an option for only summary points rather than detailed points costs? Compare it with how we have implemented a Competition Output.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tournament Output

Code:

Unlimited Pts - Dark Eldar Roster

Total Roster Cost: 130

Elite: Wracks (6#, 130 pts)
4 Wracks, 50 pts = 4 * 10 (base cost 10) + Liquifier Gun x1 10
   1 Acothyst, 20 pts
   1 Raider, 60 pts

Validation Report:
1. Dark Eldar Army: Kabal; c-1. File Version: 1.12.0.0 For Bug Reports/www.ab40k.org; b-1. Roster Options: Special Characters; a-1. Scenario: Normal Mission
Composition requirement 'HQ' not satisfied (0). Valid range 1-2.
Composition requirement 'Troops' not satisfied (0). Valid range 2-6.

Composition Report:
~[#n_HQ_]: 0 (1 - 2)
~[#n_Elite_]: 1 (0 - 3)
~[#n_Troop_]: 0 (2 - 6)
~[#n_Fast_]: 0 (0 - 3)
~[#n_Heavy_]: 0 (0 - 3)

Created with Army Builder® - Try it for free at http://www.wolflair.com

Quote:

Originally Posted by Competition Output

Code:

Unlimited Pts - Dark Eldar Roster

4 Wracks, 130 pts (Liquifier Gun x1)
   1 Acothyst
   1 Raider

Validation Report:
1. Dark Eldar Army: Kabal; d-1. Formatting: Competition Output; c-1. File Version: 1.12.0.0 For Bug Reports/www.ab40k.org; b-1. Roster Options: Special Characters; a-1. Scenario: Normal Mission
Composition requirement 'HQ' not satisfied (0). Valid range 1-2.
Composition requirement 'Troops' not satisfied (0). Valid range 2-6.

Composition Report:
~[#n_HQ_]: 0 (1 - 2)
~[#n_Elite_]: 1 (0 - 3)
~[#n_Troop_]: 0 (2 - 6)
~[#n_Fast_]: 0 (0 - 3)
~[#n_Heavy_]: 0 (0 - 3)

Total Roster Cost: 130

Created with Army Builder® - Try it for free at http://www.wolflair.com

Also, the Composition Report could use some help. I see you can always omit it though.

Homer

Colen · January 6th, 2011, 02:37 PM

Thanks for the note about the composition report, I'll see if I can fix this for the upcoming 3.3a bug fix update.

Regarding summary points - can you explain the advantage behind having a "summary format" that omits points costs? We're open to adding alternate formats to the 3 we already have, but I'm interested in the reasoning behind it.

Thanks!

Spack · January 7th, 2011, 08:54 AM

I think it's partly due to a lot of forums not allowing posting of lists with individual points costs for models and upgrades, but a single unit cost is ok. This helps to keep GW off the backs of the forums for posting too much detail. At present it's a pain to have to manually edit the output file each time to strip the units down to just a single cost per unit.

Homer S · January 7th, 2011, 10:41 AM

What Spack said.

Homer

Colen · January 14th, 2011, 12:30 PM

I'll put this on the to-do list - I hadn't really anticipated the tournament format being used for a "post on forums" way, since it doesn't include a lot of useful roster information, which is why there isn't an option like this so far.

Thanks.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Colen Senior Member Lone Wolf Staff Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 4,690 January 6th, 2011, 02:37 PM	Thanks for the note about the composition report, I'll see if I can fix this for the upcoming 3.3a bug fix update. Regarding summary points - can you explain the advantage behind having a "summary format" that omits points costs? We're open to adding alternate formats to the 3 we already have, but I'm interested in the reasoning behind it. Thanks!
#2

Homer S Senior Member Volunteer Data File Author Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 124 January 7th, 2011, 10:41 AM	What Spack said. Homer The only "hobby" GW is interested in is lining their pockets with your money.
#4