A
armybuilder at egroups.co
Guest
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/0/_/36190/_/977653928/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
To unsubscribe from this group, email
armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 6 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. VDR rules
From: Versif <petark@ntlworld.com>
2. Re: VDR rules
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
3.
From: "StarHawk" <starhawk@dreamseeker.org>
4. Re:
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
5. Unexpected IG Armoured Company Result
From: "Tom " <tnnlynch@hotmail.com>
6. Re: Rob - a few things for the to-do list
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 15:43:07 +0000
From: Versif <petark@ntlworld.com>
Subject: VDR rules
Colen,
I think there is a minor error in the points cost for the side armour
values. In the revised VDR pdf the points value for side armour 10 was
raised to 10 points (20 in total). This makes it the same cost as 11
point armour and Mike Major from the imperial guard egroups list
confirmed with Jervis that the value of the latter should be 15 points
(30 in total). The former is in the current VDR revision, the latter
will hopefully be added later
Cheers
Grotfang, not so humble ork warlord.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 16:23:01 +0000
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
Subject: Re: VDR rules
At 15:43 23/12/2000 +0000, you wrote:
>Colen,
>
>I think there is a minor error in the points cost for the side armour
>values. In the revised VDR pdf the points value for side armour 10 was
>raised to 10 points (20 in total). This makes it the same cost as 11
>point armour and Mike Major from the imperial guard egroups list
>confirmed with Jervis that the value of the latter should be 15 points
>(30 in total). The former is in the current VDR revision, the latter
>will hopefully be added later
Yep. I added the stuff from the updated files, then someone pointed out
that they had updated the updated ones without actually telling anyone
--
'Not Colin' McAlister - License to Skrill
Email: demandred@skrill.org | Visit http://www.skrill.org/ today!
-----------------------------+------------------------------------
"Dovie'andi se tovya sagain" - Robert Jordan's Wheel Of Time
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 17:16:05 -0500
From: "StarHawk" <starhawk@dreamseeker.org>
Subject:
I copied the info directly from CJ39. It lists its Type as Tank, Skimmer,
Fast and Speed as Agile. This article was published before the construction
rules. I would guess it is speed Agile or whatever speed the Falcon is, but
I don't know for sure. I would assume Heavy Support as well since all the
other Falcon variants (including the Falcon itself) are Heavy Support.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister" <demandred@skrill.org>
To: ab@support.wolflair.com
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: [AB] Re: CJ Tanks
> At 23:48 21/12/2000 +0000, you wrote:
>
> > Night Spinner
> > Points: 160
> > Armor (F/S/R): 12/12/10
> > BS: 3
> > Type: Tank, Skimmer, Fast
> > Size: Grav-Tank
> > Speed: Agile
>
> Is it Agile or Fast? It can't be both... and what composition group does
it
> live in? I assume Heavy Support.
>
>
> --
> 'Not Colin' McAlister - License to Skrill
> Email: demandred@skrill.org | Visit http://www.skrill.org/ today!
> -----------------------------+------------------------------------
> "Dovie'andi se tovya sagain" - Robert Jordan's Wheel Of Time
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, email
>
> armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 22:24:52 +0000
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
Subject: Re:
At 17:16 23/12/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>I copied the info directly from CJ39. It lists its Type as Tank, Skimmer,
>Fast and Speed as Agile. This article was published before the construction
>rules. I would guess it is speed Agile or whatever speed the Falcon is, but
>I don't know for sure. I would assume Heavy Support as well since all the
>other Falcon variants (including the Falcon itself) are Heavy Support.
I wonder if they forgot to take the "Speed: Agile" bit out from the
Scorpion super-heavy grav tank... well, it can be Fast and Heavy Support
for now. Ta
--
'Not Colin' McAlister - License to Skrill
Email: demandred@skrill.org | Visit http://www.skrill.org/ today!
-----------------------------+------------------------------------
"Dovie'andi se tovya sagain" - Robert Jordan's Wheel Of Time
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 05:47:04 -0000
From: "Tom " <tnnlynch@hotmail.com>
Subject: Unexpected IG Armoured Company Result
I didn't see this reported yet, so here goes...
When I gave my Commissar a Leman Russ Conqueror - he counted as a
heavy support slot as well as an HQ. Data file mistake or user error?
Thanks,
Tom
AB rocks! Thanks Rob for a superior product and Colen (not Colin)
for some really unbelievable support. You wouldn't be planning a Palm
verison any time soon would you?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 22:25:40 -0800
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Rob - a few things for the to-do list
At 07:44 PM 12/20/00 -0800, you wrote:
> > What if you just assign the same type to the child units? The option
> > which does "type:foo" on the parent to turn off the option can also do
> > "type:foo-child", can't it?
>
>According to the debugger, there are two lines assigning type:foo to the
>parent, and none assigning it to the child. (I had forgotten when I
>wrote the first email that I had tried to deal with this for a while and
>then given up)
If the parnet unit with the child type assignment optoin is ALSO of type
"foo", then that unit ALSO assigned the type. Therefore, if you have a unit
and assign it two attributes of "type:foo" and "type:foo-child" (in THAT
order), then the unit will be assigned type "foo" TWICE. I forgot that
little detail.
As for the mechanism working, I just tested it out and it works fine. I
have a parent unit with two options attached and a child unit with no
options. The first option uses "unit" to attach the child to the parent.
The second option uses "chld:foo@stat=(stat)" and "type:foo-child". The
first option MUST be of LOWER priority than the second option - per my
instructions when you asked awhile back.
> > Unfortunately, I don't really understand what you are trying to
> > accomplish, so I'm not sure what to suggest as a solution. I also don't
> > understand what you would need as a new feature. Please provide an
> > example of what you want the user to see happen. From that, I can
> > usually figure out what is needed in AB.
>
>Here's the rule I'm trying to model:
>Reserves in this game have a cost reduction (you can choose 90% - 65%
>depending on how delayed they are) - I've already gotten that working.
>The army leader may choose an ability which guarantees that the reserves
>will arrive on the turn they are scheduled to arrive. This ability
>costs 50 points per 500 points of guaranteed reinforcements.
>
>I'd like to be able to track the number of regular units, so I'm moving
>the units to new composition groups depending on whether they're the
>leader's unit, or in reserve. That's why I tried to implement this by
>creating a composition group rule. If you can suggest a better way,
>please do.
This sounds really ugly to try and model. I honestly can't think of any
good ways to solve this off the top of my head. Perhaps Colen can think of
something???
I'm really buried at the moment, plus the holidays are upon us, so please
hit me up about this again after the first of the year. If I can, I'll try
to think up a better way to solve this problem then, but I'm at a loss
right now. :-(
Thanks, Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (650) 726-9689
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/0/_/36190/_/977653928/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
To unsubscribe from this group, email
armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 6 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. VDR rules
From: Versif <petark@ntlworld.com>
2. Re: VDR rules
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
3.
From: "StarHawk" <starhawk@dreamseeker.org>
4. Re:
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
5. Unexpected IG Armoured Company Result
From: "Tom " <tnnlynch@hotmail.com>
6. Re: Rob - a few things for the to-do list
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 15:43:07 +0000
From: Versif <petark@ntlworld.com>
Subject: VDR rules
Colen,
I think there is a minor error in the points cost for the side armour
values. In the revised VDR pdf the points value for side armour 10 was
raised to 10 points (20 in total). This makes it the same cost as 11
point armour and Mike Major from the imperial guard egroups list
confirmed with Jervis that the value of the latter should be 15 points
(30 in total). The former is in the current VDR revision, the latter
will hopefully be added later
Cheers
Grotfang, not so humble ork warlord.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 16:23:01 +0000
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
Subject: Re: VDR rules
At 15:43 23/12/2000 +0000, you wrote:
>Colen,
>
>I think there is a minor error in the points cost for the side armour
>values. In the revised VDR pdf the points value for side armour 10 was
>raised to 10 points (20 in total). This makes it the same cost as 11
>point armour and Mike Major from the imperial guard egroups list
>confirmed with Jervis that the value of the latter should be 15 points
>(30 in total). The former is in the current VDR revision, the latter
>will hopefully be added later
Yep. I added the stuff from the updated files, then someone pointed out
that they had updated the updated ones without actually telling anyone
--
'Not Colin' McAlister - License to Skrill
Email: demandred@skrill.org | Visit http://www.skrill.org/ today!
-----------------------------+------------------------------------
"Dovie'andi se tovya sagain" - Robert Jordan's Wheel Of Time
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 17:16:05 -0500
From: "StarHawk" <starhawk@dreamseeker.org>
Subject:
I copied the info directly from CJ39. It lists its Type as Tank, Skimmer,
Fast and Speed as Agile. This article was published before the construction
rules. I would guess it is speed Agile or whatever speed the Falcon is, but
I don't know for sure. I would assume Heavy Support as well since all the
other Falcon variants (including the Falcon itself) are Heavy Support.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister" <demandred@skrill.org>
To: ab@support.wolflair.com
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: [AB] Re: CJ Tanks
> At 23:48 21/12/2000 +0000, you wrote:
>
> > Night Spinner
> > Points: 160
> > Armor (F/S/R): 12/12/10
> > BS: 3
> > Type: Tank, Skimmer, Fast
> > Size: Grav-Tank
> > Speed: Agile
>
> Is it Agile or Fast? It can't be both... and what composition group does
it
> live in? I assume Heavy Support.
>
>
> --
> 'Not Colin' McAlister - License to Skrill
> Email: demandred@skrill.org | Visit http://www.skrill.org/ today!
> -----------------------------+------------------------------------
> "Dovie'andi se tovya sagain" - Robert Jordan's Wheel Of Time
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, email
>
> armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 22:24:52 +0000
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
Subject: Re:
At 17:16 23/12/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>I copied the info directly from CJ39. It lists its Type as Tank, Skimmer,
>Fast and Speed as Agile. This article was published before the construction
>rules. I would guess it is speed Agile or whatever speed the Falcon is, but
>I don't know for sure. I would assume Heavy Support as well since all the
>other Falcon variants (including the Falcon itself) are Heavy Support.
I wonder if they forgot to take the "Speed: Agile" bit out from the
Scorpion super-heavy grav tank... well, it can be Fast and Heavy Support
for now. Ta
--
'Not Colin' McAlister - License to Skrill
Email: demandred@skrill.org | Visit http://www.skrill.org/ today!
-----------------------------+------------------------------------
"Dovie'andi se tovya sagain" - Robert Jordan's Wheel Of Time
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 05:47:04 -0000
From: "Tom " <tnnlynch@hotmail.com>
Subject: Unexpected IG Armoured Company Result
I didn't see this reported yet, so here goes...
When I gave my Commissar a Leman Russ Conqueror - he counted as a
heavy support slot as well as an HQ. Data file mistake or user error?
Thanks,
Tom
AB rocks! Thanks Rob for a superior product and Colen (not Colin)
for some really unbelievable support. You wouldn't be planning a Palm
verison any time soon would you?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 22:25:40 -0800
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Rob - a few things for the to-do list
At 07:44 PM 12/20/00 -0800, you wrote:
> > What if you just assign the same type to the child units? The option
> > which does "type:foo" on the parent to turn off the option can also do
> > "type:foo-child", can't it?
>
>According to the debugger, there are two lines assigning type:foo to the
>parent, and none assigning it to the child. (I had forgotten when I
>wrote the first email that I had tried to deal with this for a while and
>then given up)
If the parnet unit with the child type assignment optoin is ALSO of type
"foo", then that unit ALSO assigned the type. Therefore, if you have a unit
and assign it two attributes of "type:foo" and "type:foo-child" (in THAT
order), then the unit will be assigned type "foo" TWICE. I forgot that
little detail.
As for the mechanism working, I just tested it out and it works fine. I
have a parent unit with two options attached and a child unit with no
options. The first option uses "unit" to attach the child to the parent.
The second option uses "chld:foo@stat=(stat)" and "type:foo-child". The
first option MUST be of LOWER priority than the second option - per my
instructions when you asked awhile back.
> > Unfortunately, I don't really understand what you are trying to
> > accomplish, so I'm not sure what to suggest as a solution. I also don't
> > understand what you would need as a new feature. Please provide an
> > example of what you want the user to see happen. From that, I can
> > usually figure out what is needed in AB.
>
>Here's the rule I'm trying to model:
>Reserves in this game have a cost reduction (you can choose 90% - 65%
>depending on how delayed they are) - I've already gotten that working.
>The army leader may choose an ability which guarantees that the reserves
>will arrive on the turn they are scheduled to arrive. This ability
>costs 50 points per 500 points of guaranteed reinforcements.
>
>I'd like to be able to track the number of regular units, so I'm moving
>the units to new composition groups depending on whether they're the
>leader's unit, or in reserve. That's why I tried to implement this by
>creating a composition group rule. If you can suggest a better way,
>please do.
This sounds really ugly to try and model. I honestly can't think of any
good ways to solve this off the top of my head. Perhaps Colen can think of
something???
I'm really buried at the moment, plus the holidays are upon us, so please
hit me up about this again after the first of the year. If I can, I'll try
to think up a better way to solve this problem then, but I'm at a loss
right now. :-(
Thanks, Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (650) 726-9689
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________