Digest Number 229

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/0/_/36190/_/975673552/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

To unsubscribe from this group, email

armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are 8 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1. A complex option cost question (Crucible)
From: "Russell Sparkes" <rjs@inorbit.com>
2. Re: {AB} The new vehicle Construction RUles
From: ice_age@hotmail.com
3. Re: A complex option cost question (Crucible)
From: "Russell Sparkes" <rjs@inorbit.com>
4. RE: Custom Vehicle
From: "Matthius" <Mathius@ticnet.com>
5. Re: A complex option cost question (Crucible)
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
6. Re: A complex option cost question (Crucible)
From: "Russell Sparkes" <rjs@inorbit.com>
7. Re: Custom Vehicle
From: "Russell Sparkes" <rjs@inorbit.com>
8. RE: Re: BFG Files
From: Scott Balfour <sbalfour@mindspring.com>


__________________________________________________ ______________________
__________________________________________________ ______________________

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 00:52:23 -0000
From: "Russell Sparkes" <rjs@inorbit.com>
Subject: A complex option cost question (Crucible)

This one is probably for Rob, but someone else may know...

The Warp Magic spells cost a variable percentage per model (rounded
up).

For example if the cost was 15% and each model is 9 pts, the option
would cost 2 pts (1.35 rounded up)

If you use ucst:base*1.15, you get the wrong answer because the
percentage is calculated on the entire unit, not model by model.
(so 20 models = (9+2)*20 = 220 as opposed to 9*20*1.15 = 207)

Is there any way around this or does Rob need to change the cost:
attribute to allow something like "cost:model*1.15-roundup"?

Cheers,
Russell.



__________________________________________________ ______________________
__________________________________________________ ______________________

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 00:59:06 -0000
From: ice_age@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: {AB} The new vehicle Construction RUles

--- In armybuilder@egroups.com, 'Not Colin' McAlister & The Skrills
<demandred@s...> wrote:
> One fine day in the middle of the night, ice_age@h... got up to
> write:
>
> >According to Tim Huckleberry, the idea is that only Chaos and
> >Imperial forces have access to the big, untitled list. Chaos also
> >has access to its own unique list. Everyone else uses their own
> >racial list only. So no Dark Eldar Guass cannons or Necron battle
> >cannons or IG Brightlances. This makes sense, although it still
> >allows things like Khorne-dedicated vehicles with Noise Marine
> >vehicle weapons, storm bolters for Chaos etc.
>
> I'd quite like to nail Tim Huckelbury's feet to the floor, and I
mean
> that in the nicest possible sense of the word. Someone ask him what
> weapons Orks are meant to get when they have a targetter, and what
> they pay for them?

I think the idea is that Orks can't get higher than BS 2, and so
can't get a targeter, in the same way that a targeter can't take your
Dark Eldar above BS 4. Orks would just twin-link everything
instead.
BTW, as far as I can tell both the targeter and souped-up engines are
completely useless, since in both cases there is a way to buy the
desired level without ever applying an upgrade. Buying BS 3 +
targeter is the same as buying BS 4, and upgrading from Lumbering to
Agile back in the "Work Out Speed" section can be done without ever
touching the souped up engines. You wouldn't even bother with
lumbering. Hell, you could go straight to Fast.

Keith Hann



__________________________________________________ ______________________
__________________________________________________ ______________________

Message: 3
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 01:02:10 -0000
From: "Russell Sparkes" <rjs@inorbit.com>
Subject: Re: A complex option cost question (Crucible)

--- In armybuilder@egroups.com, "Russell Sparkes" <rjs@i...> wrote:
[snip]
>
> Is there any way around this or does Rob need to change the cost:
> attribute to allow something like "cost:model*1.15-roundup"?

Sorry, obviously this would not be a solution.... Something else
would be required such as "cost:expr=$*1.15-roundup" where $ is the
model cost (following the theme of # = number of models :-)

We now return you to your regular program of arguing about the new
vehicle creation rules (*huge grin*)

Cheers,
Russell.



__________________________________________________ ______________________
__________________________________________________ ______________________

Message: 4
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 20:07:02 -0600
From: "Matthius" <Mathius@ticnet.com>
Subject: RE: Custom Vehicle

Okay my take on this whole mess... yes you have to take souped up engines
and then only get granted the fast rule to a normal sized vehicle correct?
How are you supposed to make a lumbering normal vehicle? Now stay with me
here. If that table was only to reflect the cost of the souped up upgrade
(Which I tend to think it does) then why have a listing for small and normal
for lumbering? This is what's causing a lot of the confusion. Okay let's say
take a Leman Russ... Normal Tank.. add Souped up engine.. makes it fast..
okay now its +20.... what if I want to make it Lumbering? tells me it's
+10.. then take Souped up engines now makes it Agile... +15...

See the confusion? Sheesh... sooo many holes in this thing... If Lumbering
wasn't intended for Normal or Small Vehicles why have a point cost? Why have
a point cost for War Machine to move "normal" or "fast"... sheesh... I can
put a battlecannon shell right through that hole...

Anyway, just pointing more junk out.. not really arguing with anyone.. just
complaining.. thanks,

Matthius


-----Original Message-----
From: DiPonio [mailtoiPonio@voyager.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 9:24 PM
To: ab@support.wolflair.com
Subject: RE: [AB] Custom Vehicle


I have been able to create any of the DE vehicles listed, have not tried
the sissy eldar ones though.

Although they cost WAY more to create yourself than to just buy out of the
codex

just adding more email to the pile....D
-----Original Message-----
From: trent [mailto:felix@medford.net]
It isn't agile, I think.

ok, but what about the eldar/dark eldat vehicles...

trent






To unsubscribe from this group, email

armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com


eGroups Sponsor


To unsubscribe from this group, email

armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com



[This message contained attachments]



__________________________________________________ ______________________
__________________________________________________ ______________________

Message: 5
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 18:22:29 -0800
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: A complex option cost question (Crucible)

First, are you sure that the behavior you are getting with "ucst" is not
what Tim intended? Have you asked him? He took a look at the original files
and didn't flag any cost calculation errors, so I just want to be sure
before you change everything. :-)

Second, the proper solution for what you are asking for is to use two
hidden stats. The first stat would have the percentage multiplier assigned
to it. The second stat should use a calculation with the proper rounding
control on it, multiplying the unit cost (which is thankfully fixed for
Crucible units) by the percentage. Then you can use the proper "cost"
attribute on an option to set the cost equal to the value of the second
hidden stat.

Hope this helps,
Rob


At 12:52 AM 12/1/00 +0000, you wrote:
>This one is probably for Rob, but someone else may know...
>
>The Warp Magic spells cost a variable percentage per model (rounded
>up).
>
>For example if the cost was 15% and each model is 9 pts, the option
>would cost 2 pts (1.35 rounded up)
>
>If you use ucst:base*1.15, you get the wrong answer because the
>percentage is calculated on the entire unit, not model by model.
>(so 20 models = (9+2)*20 = 220 as opposed to 9*20*1.15 = 207)
>
>Is there any way around this or does Rob need to change the cost:
>attribute to allow something like "cost:model*1.15-roundup"?
>
>Cheers,
>Russell.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (650) 726-9689
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com


__________________________________________________ ______________________
__________________________________________________ ______________________

Message: 6
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 03:06:22 -0000
From: "Russell Sparkes" <rjs@inorbit.com>
Subject: Re: A complex option cost question (Crucible)

--- In armybuilder@egroups.com, Rob Bowes <rob@w...> wrote:
> First, are you sure that the behavior you are getting with "ucst"
> is not what Tim intended? Have you asked him? He took a look at
> the original files and didn't flag any cost calculation errors, so
> I just want to be sure before you change everything. :-)
>
> Second, the proper solution for what you are asking for is to use
> two hidden stats. The first stat would have the percentage
> multiplier assigned to it. The second stat should use a
> calculation with the proper rounding control on it, multiplying
> the unit cost (which is thankfully fixed for Crucible units) by
> the percentage. Then you can use the proper "cost"
> attribute on an option to set the cost equal to the value of the
> second hidden stat.
>
> Hope this helps,
> Rob
>

Cool, thanks Rob. I'll check with Tim, however it does disagree with
what is actually written in the rulebook and the difference in costs
can become large on a big unit.

Cheers,
Russell.



__________________________________________________ ______________________
__________________________________________________ ______________________

Message: 7
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 04:07:06 -0000
From: "Russell Sparkes" <rjs@inorbit.com>
Subject: Re: Custom Vehicle

Colen, (chuckle) you thought the Marine Scout Seargent and the sniper
rifle was bad... this sounds much, MUCH worse. Good Luck!
I'm glad it's you and not me! <*grin*>

Russell.



__________________________________________________ ______________________
__________________________________________________ ______________________

Message: 8
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 00:36:29 -0700
From: Scott Balfour <sbalfour@mindspring.com>
Subject: RE: Re: BFG Files

From: Jon Beatty [SMTP:noj@bigfoot.com]
<snip>
as soon as I get
a chance to get the files "bug" free I'll post them up.
<end snips>

So, the Tyranids won't be included?

(It's a little jest people.)


Cheers
Scott
sbalfour@mindspring.com

Colorado Springs 40K - http://www.egroups.com/group/cs40k/info.html






__________________________________________________ ______________________
__________________________________________________ ______________________