A
armybuilder at egroups.co
Guest
To unsubscribe from this group, email
armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Re: foll:race-must and leader attributes?
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
2. Re: Re: Augment and Race xx accu:
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
3. Re: Digest Number 262
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
4. Re: Line Breaks in Notes Printout?
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
5. Re: stargrounts 2
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
6. Mordheim v3.1 datafiles
From: "Manuel Pombeiro" <firepigeon@bigfoot.com>
7. Re: AB 2.1 Weirdness
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
8. Re: Question about glob:
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
9. Re: Line Breaks in Notes Printout?
From: "Daniel Casquilho" <danielc@earthlink.net>
10. RE: Scenarios
From: "sabrina akins-becker" <sabrina.akins-becker@eer.com>
11. Re: Digest Number 262
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
12. Re: Mordheim v3.1 datafiles
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
13. Re: Re: Dark Eldar Error (nope)
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
14. Re: Icons....double the pleasure?!?
From: "Richard Lonski" <richard.j2.lonski@mail.sprint.com>
15. That's what I need....more guns!
From: "Richard Lonski" <richard.j2.lonski@mail.sprint.com>
16. Re: That's what I need....more guns!
From: trent <felix@medford.net>
17. Re: Question about glob:
From: "Russell Sparkes" <rjs@inorbit.com>
18. Re: That's what I need....more guns!
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
19. Re: That's what I need....more guns!
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
20. Re: Re: Question about glob:
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
21. Re: Re: Question about glob:
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
22. Re: Question about glob:
From: "Russell Sparkes" <rjs@inorbit.com>
23. Inheritance limits (was Re: Question about glob
From: "Russell Sparkes" <rjs@inorbit.com>
24. AW: Scenarios
From: "Dieter Passchier" <Dieter.Passchier@Embdena.de>
25. Scout Snipers
From: David Wyatt-Millington <xaxier_uk@yahoo.co.uk>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 02:35:30 -0800
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Re: foll:race-must and leader attributes?
I've been buried this past week, so I'm struggling to get caught up. This
stuff required some serious thought and investigation on my part, so it
unfortunately dropped to low on the priority list. Thanks for your
patience.
>Within DBM it is possible to have up to 4 commands, each command is
>lead by a general (CinC, Sub or Ally). Each of these commands is
>assigned a break point (1/3 its Equivalent Elements(EE)) Currently in
>the original DBM file only the army break point is calculated (1/2
>total EE) and displayed on the printout roster using the Record Type
>Race xx accu attribute in the Core data file, I would also like to
>display the Break Points of each command in the same way.
>
>I can achieve all of the above BUT... not in an automatic way with
>suitable rule validation.
>
>The easiest way for me to show you is to upload the datadef.dbm and
>core.dbm and example army file to the files section (dbm.zip)
>
>Basically the follower EE is accumulated through the external
>attribute Lead into stat "Cmd" (this shows the number of EE available
>to the entire command led by this general. This works fine.
>
>The CinC is automatically given Command 1 and the Record Type Race xx
>within the Core.dbm file produces the correct Command 1 break point
>(1/3 ee for that comamnd (ie just the cinc ).
>
>When a Sub general is added then Command 1 is not an option but
>Command 2, 3 and 4 are, first problem how do I stop Command 2 (0r 3
>or 4) being taken by two seperate (but in the same list) sub generals
>(two seperate entries in unit list would achieve this but is not
>elegant and raises other problems with army of more than 4 generals
>available for selection!).
One solution is to use the "olmt" race attribute to restrict the roster to
only a single unit with "Command 1" assigned to it. Another option would be
to use "tlmt" or "ulmt" after having each of the Command options assign an
appropriate type to the unit.
>The only way I can then get the correct Command Break points to work
>is to provide an option for Command selection for EACH unit (this
>then sets the right stats to enable the Core.dbm race attribute to
>accu the stat.
Unfortunately, I can't think of any other solution to this. :-( It is easy
to display the accumulated break point for each command on the stat line
for each leader. However, there is no way that I can think of to have a
leader-specific break point be displayed as a roster-wide accumulation. The
two mechanisms are unrelated, so there is no way to coerce one into the
other easily. I guess that I'm not understanding why the command break
points must be listed separately from the stat line for the appropriate
leader units. Since I never thought of this need (and no one else has ever
requested it), it never made it into the product.
>The problem with this is that a follower can be allocated to a Sub
>general that sub general has been allocated command 2! but the unit
>could be allocated to command 3! so we have a unit whos general is
>Command 2 but the units EE is calculated for command 3!
Yep. It's ugly. Since the association between leader and follower is a very
loose connection, there is no formalized link that can be leveraged between
the two to perform further verifications. The notion of leaders/followers
is completely contained within each grouping and only pertains to
composition characteristics and stat accumulation. That's all that has been
needed thus far (i.e. that's all I thought of and/or people requested), so
nothing further was implemented.
>The ideal solution (hence my question about Foll:race-must and
>leaders) and derived stats is how can I enforce the following yet
>still use the Record Race attribute accu to display the command break
>points:
>
>1. "Followers" of a leader automatically assigned same Command (1
>from 4) as leader
Not possible within AB.
>2. Sub/Ally Generals same as above but can only be allocated a
>command that is not currently selected by another general (ie command
>2 3 or 4).
Can be controlled via "olmt", "tlmt", "ulmt", and a number of other
mechanisms to ensure a single instance of each.
>3. A unit should only be allowed to select a command that is
>currently allocated to a general (eg in example army file only 3
>generals are valid so comamnd 4 should never be displayed as an
>option!)
Not possible within AB. However, you COULD use a validation rule with
"trat" to ensure that any unit assigned "Command 4" requires that a leader
be assigned "Command 4". This would achieve the same net effect.
>Sorry for the length - but I have spent quite a few hours (ok days)
>trying to resolve this one!) and you expertise would be greatly
>appareciated in resolving this.
I wish I had better news for you on the above. The big issue is that you
are striving to have AB do something that it was never designed for. Within
AB, there are 4 levels of scoping. First is the unit level, wherein
extensive control can be asserted over behaviors. Second is the
parent/child relationship within a given top-level unit's context. A
moderate amount of control can be exercised at this level. Third is the
leader/follower scope, which is limited purely to composition issues, stat
accumulation, and basic inter-relationships (via "uldr"). Fourth is
roster-wide relationships, and the only form of control here is available
via validation attributes. Outside the scope of a parent/child relationship
(level 2), there is no way to FORCE any behaviors (e.g. option X doesn't
appear if no other unit has selected option Y yet). At that point, only
validation rules are available to act as a double-check that the user did
things correctly.
Thanks, Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (650) 726-9689
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 02:42:00 -0800
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Augment and Race xx accu:
At 09:38 AM 12/29/00 +0000, you wrote:
>Rob,
>
>Thanks again for the quick feedback.
This time it was anything but quick. :-(
>As you will see from the uploaded files (dbm.zip)- I have already
>calculated the command break points (4 of) into a seperate stat
>(com1b) which is then accu via the race xx attribute (augment tab).
FYI: I have added to the todo list the ability to have an assigned leader
attach a type on each of its follower units. This would allow
leader-specific behaviors to be defined on the followers, which is
currently not possible.
>BTW: I am lucky in that there are 5 accu stats available - I am
>already using all five can additional accu stats be added to the "to
>do" wish list - in addition to the support for calculations - also it
>may be a good hide to add a -show/-hide tag as if to many are
>available it will be become to unwieldly to cycle through on the AB
>UI - just a thought!
It's been added to the todo list.
Thanks, Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (650) 726-9689
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 02:54:39 -0800
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Digest Number 262
At 03:16 PM 1/4/01 +0000, you wrote:
> >Just a thought, another 5 composition groups for the reserves? There's
> >some racial attribute which allows you to add composition groups. Then
> >add a validation that checks the total points in various composition
> >groups against the allowed total.
>
>Unfortunately AB only supports 8 composition groups being used at once.
>That would make 10.
Correct. Prior to this moment, 5-6 comp groups was pretty standard, so
having 8 provided some extra breathing room, just in case. Oh well. :-(
>Also, I don't *think* (though I could be wrong) that
>you can say "Trp1+Trp2+Trp3 must be >= 2 and <= 6".
You're wrong on this one. Relationship terms can have up to 4 components in
the arithmetic expression, so you could easily say "trp1+trp2+trp3". To
require both conditions to be true, you would simply define TWO
relationships (one for ">=2" and the other for "<=6").
>Thirdly, there's no way
>to say "Apply this option only if the unit is of composition group X".
Sadly, you are correct. Is this actually useful on a more general level? If
so, I can definitely add this capability.
>Minor flaws
Unfortunately, they are only minor until the situation arises where you
need them, at which point they become not so minor flaws.
Thanks, Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (650) 726-9689
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 02:57:35 -0800
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Line Breaks in Notes Printout?
There is currently no way to force notes to appear on a separate line
within roster printouts. This was requested during the V2.0 development
cycle and didn't get added (there were WAY too many things to add and this
was one of the ones that missed the cut). It is definitely on the todo
list, so it will be added at some point.
Thanks, Rob
At 05:09 PM 1/5/01 +0000, you wrote:
>Hello All,
>
>I am attempting to build a data file and am new to this. Please
>forgive if this is an easy one and I missed it.
>
>I would like to get some notes to be on their own lines in the final
>roster printout. I can find how to force line breaks in the notes on
>the screen but not how to force line breaks in the notes on the print
>out. Can this be done? If so, how?
>
>Thanks
>
>Daniel
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (650) 726-9689
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 02:58:54 -0800
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: stargrounts 2
I am not aware of any files for StarGrunt, although I've looked at the
rules for the game and it should be relatively simple to create AB data
files for it. If you hear of anyone creating files for Stargrunt, please
let me know right away.
Thanks, Rob
At 06:32 PM 1/8/01 +0000, you wrote:
>does any body have a data file for stargrunts 2 from ground zeroe
>games
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (650) 726-9689
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 12:00:40 -0000
From: "Manuel Pombeiro" <firepigeon@bigfoot.com>
Subject: Mordheim v3.1 datafiles
Just to report some incorrections in the datafiles:
- the extra Academic Skills for wizards (Scribe, Mind Focus, etc and
even Warrior Wizard from the normal Academic list) only appear to a
wizard when Arcane Lore is selected (try it on the Eshin Sorcerer and
you will see what I'm talking about)
- the daggers cost 0 gc (and I'm not talking about the free dagger
here)
And this one is a maybe:
- on henchman groups is possible when you roll you get an advance
that the group already has and per, my group interpretation, of the
rules is possible to re-roll that but on the second roll if you get
another adavnce that was already, it's possible to choose the advance
you want, thus it is possible to choose Toughness or Wounds as a
skill advance for the henchman group, and the current datafile
doesn't allow this
We all appreciate you effort on this, and we all give you our best
wishes and keep up the good work.
Thanks in advance,
Manuel Pombeiro
firepigeon@bigfoot.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 04:08:58 -0800
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: AB 2.1 Weirdness
Ok folks, thanks to Brad's helpful example rosters, I figured out what the
problem is here. The roster is being loaded fine, but the warning is
causing AB to handle it a little differently from normal. Unfortunately,
the display initialization is being bypassed due to the warning, so you
don't see anything, even though your roster behaves as if it's all there
(it is - internally).
The simplest solution (until I release a patch) is to just save your roster
back out immediately after loading it in. When you load it again, it was
saved with the proper set of data files, so no error is reported and it
works perfectly.
Thanks, Rob
At 04:31 PM 12/30/00 -0700, you wrote:
>I have a Dark Eldar Roster (and a Space Marine roster I think) that was
>generated with AB 2.0 and 2.12 40K files. When I load the roster into 2.1
>and 2.13 (and I believe its the upgrade from 2.12 to 2.13 that causes the
>problem), It tells me the roster was created with a different version, that
>it loaded correctly, but while
>all the points are there, nothing shows up in the roster section.
>
>I'll go build the roster again, but I feel better complaining about it first
><G>.
>
>Regards,
>
>Brad
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (650) 726-9689
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 04:22:44 -0800
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Question about glob:
If you have two identical options on a unit, AB will randomly decide which
one is kept and which one is thrown away. It is illegal to have two
identical options on a unit, and AB checks for that when you load the
files. However, the "glob" mechanism bypasses all the standard safeguards
and file checks that are performed to ensure you have valid data files.
That's why you are getting the behaviors you're experiencing.
I recommend abandoning "glob" for this problem. Instead, create a basic
"trooper" unit and a basic "leader" unit. Then have all units inherit the
proper set of options from those basic units. This way, you can encapsulate
all the behaviors and all the complexity into a single pair of units. Then
all you have to do is specify who to inherit from for all your units.
Hope this helps,
Rob
At 04:10 AM 1/9/01 +0000, you wrote:
>(sorry if this appears twice - the first one wasn't quite complete
>
>I'm using glob:cost on a heap of options combined with lglx:race=??
>so that units taken as allies or mercenaries can have the appropriate
>options assigned to them. Each of these units can also have leaders
>assigned which must take the same option, so the glob also applies to
>the leaders. The Leaders are set up to mirr: each of the options,
>however I want the link type to be auto, not cost. The Leaders have
>each of the options linked in (via a clon option) as type auto.
>
>The strange thing is, some of the options on the Leader are appearing
>in Army Builder as if they were linked via cost and others as if via
>auto. Even wierder, if I pick two diffferent units, add a leader to
>each unit then check the available options for each leader - the link
>natures aren't consistent between the two (yet they use the same unit
>to clon from)!
>
>Is there some degree of random link order associated with glob?
>It seems that in some instances, the glob link is overriding the clon
>link type, yet in others it isn't and it appears somewhat random... I
>have noticed that its NOT random for the same unit type (ie. if I add
>a unit and leader twice, I get the same mix of link types for both)
>
>Any ideas? Is it just another stupid thing I'm doing?
>
>Thanks,
>Russell.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (650) 726-9689
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 15:38:39 -0000
From: "Daniel Casquilho" <danielc@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Line Breaks in Notes Printout?
Rob,
Thanks, I will look forward to future updates. Until then I will deal
with what I have (And I love what I have!)
Daniel
--- In armybuilder@egroups.com, Rob Bowes <rob@w...> wrote:
> There is currently no way to force notes to appear on a separate
line
> within roster printouts. This was requested during the V2.0
development
> cycle and didn't get added (there were WAY too many things to add
and this
> was one of the ones that missed the cut). It is definitely on the
todo
> list, so it will be added at some point.
>
> Thanks, Rob
>
>
> At 05:09 PM 1/5/01 +0000, you wrote:
> >Hello All,
> >
> >I am attempting to build a data file and am new to this. Please
> >forgive if this is an easy one and I missed it.
> >
> >I would like to get some notes to be on their own lines in the
final
> >roster printout. I can find how to force line breaks in the notes
on
> >the screen but not how to force line breaks in the notes on the
print
> >out. Can this be done? If so, how?
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >Daniel
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> Rob Bowes (rob@w...) (650) 726-9689
> Lone Wolf Development
www.wolflair.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 12:31:01 -0500
From: "sabrina akins-becker" <sabrina.akins-becker@eer.com>
Subject: RE: Scenarios
I don't know which ones you are talking about; but even introducing the 9
scenarios that ARE in the 6th ed RB would be useful - then you could have a
mention on the list what you used that roster for; in addition, the last
scenario (7 heroes) gives you all kinds of errors if you build the roster
using AB. LOL Any thoughts on this? Or in changing the "Scenario"
field/selection to "Alternate army lists"?
Lastly, what is "Custom" in v2.1? I click the tab, and there's nothing there
for WH6.
Sabrina
-----Original Message-----
From: armybuilder@egroups.com [mailto:armybuilder@egroups.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 5:35 AM
To: ab@support.wolflair.com
Subject: [AB] Digest Number 268
Message: 16
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 08:12:09 +0100
From: "Dieter Passchier" <Dieter.Passchier@Embdena.de>
Subject: Scenarios
Hello!
Is it possible to integrate the four poblished scenarios into the files for
Warhammer Fantasy? I know they were written for 5th edition but would be
helpful none the less.
Thanks,
Dieter
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 18:16:01 +0000
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
Subject: Re: Digest Number 262
At 02:54 09/01/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>At 03:16 PM 1/4/01 +0000, you wrote:
>> >Just a thought, another 5 composition groups for the reserves? There's
>> >some racial attribute which allows you to add composition groups. Then
>> >add a validation that checks the total points in various composition
>> >groups against the allowed total.
>>
>>Unfortunately AB only supports 8 composition groups being used at once.
>>That would make 10.
>
>Correct. Prior to this moment, 5-6 comp groups was pretty standard, so
>having 8 provided some extra breathing room, just in case. Oh well. :-(
My new B5Wars files use all 8 in many situations, and would like to be able
to use 9 :O
>>Thirdly, there's no way
>>to say "Apply this option only if the unit is of composition group X".
>
>Sadly, you are correct. Is this actually useful on a more general level?
>If so, I can definitely add this capability.
I think this is the only place the 40k files would use it. I've never even
wondered if it was possible before.
>>Minor flaws
>
>Unfortunately, they are only minor until the situation arises where you
>need them, at which point they become not so minor flaws.
Exactly. We need psychics looking into the future at all times!
--
'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: 12
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 18:47:07 +0000
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
Subject: Re: Mordheim v3.1 datafiles
At 12:00 09/01/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>Just to report some incorrections in the datafiles:
> - the extra Academic Skills for wizards (Scribe, Mind Focus, etc and
>even Warrior Wizard from the normal Academic list) only appear to a
>wizard when Arcane Lore is selected (try it on the Eshin Sorcerer and
>you will see what I'm talking about)
Oops! I forgot whether I was using a capital or a small 'C' in
'Spellcastr'. Fixed in next version, ta for reporting it
> - the daggers cost 0 gc (and I'm not talking about the free dagger
>here)
Yep, will also be fixed in the next version.
>And this one is a maybe:
> - on henchman groups is possible when you roll you get an advance
>that the group already has and per, my group interpretation, of the
>rules is possible to re-roll that but on the second roll if you get
>another adavnce that was already, it's possible to choose the advance
>you want, thus it is possible to choose Toughness or Wounds as a
>skill advance for the henchman group, and the current datafile
>doesn't allow this
1. No basis in rules, but nevertheless: Imagine the horror a group of
normal henchmen with 2 wounds would cause. *shudder
2. "If a characteristic is at it's maximum, take the other option or roll
again." I think in this situation, you should roll again; certainly, that's
what I decided (and nobody on the mordheim list had a major problem with
it, at least) when I started writing the files.
>We all appreciate you effort on this, and we all give you our best
>wishes and keep up the good work.
Thanks!
--
'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: 13
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 18:30:39 +0000
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
Subject: Re: Re: Dark Eldar Error (nope)
At 02:51 09/01/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>--- In armybuilder@egroups.com, Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister
><demandred@s...> wrote:
> > At 18:27 08/01/2001 -0500, you wrote:
> > >The reaver jetbikes make no mention of giving any type of save.
>It only
> > >states that if you turbo boost, then your save is invulnerable.
> > >
> > >So, upon looking at that, the reaver jetbike should not give the
>archon
> > >riding it a +1 to his save. The statline would look more like 5
>(I) or
> > >something. To reflect that it becomes invulnerable when he turbo
>boosts.
> >
> > IIRC, didn't GW say "Oh yeah, Reaver jetbikes should give a +1
>save?"
>
>Not in any Chapter Approved or GW FAQ. Nothing from any unofficial
>source either. GW did state that the jetbikes give +1 Strength to
>all riders (factored into the Reaver's profile already), but
>accidentally left that piece of info out of the DE dex, and that
>might be what you're recalling.
That must be it. Fair enough, Reaver riders will stop getting their 4+ save
unless they already had it.
--
'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: 14
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 21:51:33 -0000
From: "Richard Lonski" <richard.j2.lonski@mail.sprint.com>
Subject: Re: Icons....double the pleasure?!?
--- In armybuilder@egroups.com, Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister
<demandred@s...> wrote:
> At 16:53 08/01/2001 +0000, you wrote:
> >Just a question.....
> >
> >When building a Chaos army, Armybuilder allows my to take a retinue
> >with Cypher. As part of the retinue, I can upgrade one model to an
> >Aspiring Champion. When I add wargear to the Aspiring Champion, I
can
> >make him an Icon Bearer and add a Chaos Icon of whatever Mark of
Chaso
> >I have given him. This means that I can have 2 banners in my army
(1
> >with the HQ and one with Cypher).
> >
> >Is this legal? I have found nothing to say it isn't, but it just
> >doesn't seems right.
>
> You have 2 retinues due to a special situation. There's nothing in
the
> rules about more than one Icon, so it's perfectly legal to have two
if you
> want. *shrug
>
The righteous will prevail.......it sounds like a good excuse to
purchase/paint another standard to me!! I'll be able to use it
someday.
Thanks
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 22:00:32 -0000
From: "Richard Lonski" <richard.j2.lonski@mail.sprint.com>
Subject: That's what I need....more guns!
I had another one for you. In the Chaos codex, it talks about a
combi-bolter incorporated into the dread's CCW arm. When you upgrade
the CCW to a missile launcher, Army Builder still indicates that a
combi-bolter is present.
Is this correct? Looking at the model, the bolter is build into the
shoulder and if you swap out for the missile launcher, it replaces the
entire shoulder as well as arm.
It would seem to me that you should lose the combi-bolter (although I
would like nothing better than to keep it.....huh, huh, can I , can
I, p..p..p...pleeezzzz?).
Or should I refer this to da Trolls?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 14:20:35 -0800
From: trent <felix@medford.net>
Subject: Re: That's what I need....more guns!
Richard Lonski wrote:
> I had another one for you. In the Chaos codex, it talks about a
> combi-bolter incorporated into the dread's CCW arm. When you upgrade
> the CCW to a missile launcher, Army Builder still indicates that a
> combi-bolter is present.
>
> Is this correct? Looking at the model, the bolter is build into the
> shoulder and if you swap out for the missile launcher, it replaces the
> entire shoulder as well as arm.
>
> It would seem to me that you should lose the combi-bolter (although I
> would like nothing better than to keep it.....huh, huh, can I , can
> I, p..p..p...pleeezzzz?).
Actually, if you look at the model, the combi-bolter is at the torso
of the dread - not on the arm like the loyalist one.
trent
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 22:30:34 -0000
From: "Russell Sparkes" <rjs@inorbit.com>
Subject: Re: Question about glob:
--- In armybuilder@egroups.com, Rob Bowes <rob@w...> wrote:
> If you have two identical options on a unit, AB will randomly
> decide which one is kept and which one is thrown away. It is
> illegal to have two identical options on a unit, and AB checks
> for that when you load the files. However, the "glob" mechanism
> bypasses all the standard safeguards and file checks that are
> performed to ensure you have valid data files.
> That's why you are getting the behaviors you're experiencing.
Fair enough I figured I was trying to do something I shouldn't be.
>
> I recommend abandoning "glob" for this problem. Instead, create
> a basic "trooper" unit and a basic "leader" unit. Then have all
> units inherit the proper set of options from those basic units.
> This way, you can encapsulate all the behaviors and all the
> complexity into a single pair of units. Then all you have to do
> is specify who to inherit from for all your units.
Fair enough - it will achieve the exact same result anyway (and keep
Army Builder happy) It's just heaps more work... Thanks Rob.
Cheers,
Russell.
----
Russell Sparkes, rjs@inorbit.com http://www.cfm-resources.com/r/rjs
"Experience is what you get just after you needed it" - Unknown
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 23:12:11 +0000
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
Subject: Re: That's what I need....more guns!
At 22:00 09/01/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>I had another one for you. In the Chaos codex, it talks about a
>combi-bolter incorporated into the dread's CCW arm. When you upgrade
>the CCW to a missile launcher, Army Builder still indicates that a
>combi-bolter is present.
>
>Is this correct? Looking at the model, the bolter is build into the
>shoulder and if you swap out for the missile launcher, it replaces the
>entire shoulder as well as arm.
Hmm.. I don't know. The text says "... a Dreadnought CCW incorporating a
twin-linked bolter in one arm ..." so it looks like you should indeed lose
it. I'll make the change in the next version. :O
>Or should I refer this to da Trolls?
You could, I suppose, but they're wrong so often it wouldn't really solve
anything. :O
--
'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: 19
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 23:14:15 +0000
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
Subject: Re: That's what I need....more guns!
At 22:00 09/01/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>I had another one for you. In the Chaos codex, it talks about a
>combi-bolter incorporated into the dread's CCW arm. When you upgrade
>the CCW to a missile launcher, Army Builder still indicates that a
>combi-bolter is present.
>
>Is this correct? Looking at the model, the bolter is build into the
>shoulder and if you swap out for the missile launcher, it replaces the
>entire shoulder as well as arm.
Update: Yes, I'm pretty sure it should be deselecting the combi-bolter.
There is a "deselect combi-bolter" command in the Missile Launcher option,
but unfortunately it deselects the wrong combi-bolter.
--
'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: 20
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 16:15:30 -0800
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Question about glob:
At 10:30 PM 1/9/01 +0000, you wrote:
> > I recommend abandoning "glob" for this problem. Instead, create
> > a basic "trooper" unit and a basic "leader" unit. Then have all
> > units inherit the proper set of options from those basic units.
> > This way, you can encapsulate all the behaviors and all the
> > complexity into a single pair of units. Then all you have to do
> > is specify who to inherit from for all your units.
>
>Fair enough - it will achieve the exact same result anyway (and keep
>Army Builder happy) It's just heaps more work... Thanks Rob.
Is it really heaps more work? This is how the Clan War stuff is
implemented, and it sure made the Clan War stuff VASTLY easier to manage. I
think Colen will definitely agree with this, since he's handled most
everything in the CW data files since I put the basic framework together.
I'd really like to understand how this adds heaps more work, since that
means I need to give serious thought to better ways of managing things for
a subsequent release.
Thanks, Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (650) 726-9689
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 21
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 00:46:06 +0000
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
Subject: Re: Re: Question about glob:
At 16:15 09/01/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>At 10:30 PM 1/9/01 +0000, you wrote:
> > > I recommend abandoning "glob" for this problem. Instead, create
> > > a basic "trooper" unit and a basic "leader" unit. Then have all
> > > units inherit the proper set of options from those basic units.
> > > This way, you can encapsulate all the behaviors and all the
> > > complexity into a single pair of units. Then all you have to do
> > > is specify who to inherit from for all your units.
> >
> >Fair enough - it will achieve the exact same result anyway (and keep
> >Army Builder happy) It's just heaps more work... Thanks Rob.
>
>Is it really heaps more work? This is how the Clan War stuff is
>implemented, and it sure made the Clan War stuff VASTLY easier to manage. I
>think Colen will definitely agree with this, since he's handled most
>everything in the CW data files since I put the basic framework together.
>I'd really like to understand how this adds heaps more work, since that
>means I need to give serious thought to better ways of managing things for
>a subsequent release.
Oh, yes. It's so nice just to add one option to the 'unit' base unit and
have it applied to all units. Inheritance Is Your Friend.
--
'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: 22
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 00:52:55 -0000
From: "Russell Sparkes" <rjs@inorbit.com>
Subject: Re: Question about glob:
--- In armybuilder@egroups.com, Rob Bowes <rob@w...> wrote:
> >Fair enough - it will achieve the exact same result anyway (and
> >keep Army Builder happy) It's just heaps more work... Thanks
> >Rob.
>
> I'd really like to understand how this adds heaps more work, since
> that means I need to give serious thought to better ways of
> managing things for a subsequent release.
Only that I've changed quite a few things in the Crucible files from
the way you set it up initially... Due to the Natives, Mercenaries
and Allies, Warp Magic got a bit more complicated. That's what I was
using glob for. I've gone and changed a heap of stuff to using glob
instead of the clon: stuff you originally had and now I will have to
change it again I guess it's not HEAPS more work - I'm just
lazy It's certainly heaps LESS work than it would've been without
clon. Don't take my petty grumbling so seriously
Cheers,
Russell.
----
Russell Sparkes, rjs@inorbit.com http://www.cfm-resources.com/r/rjs
"Experience is what you get just after you needed it" - Unknown
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 23
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 06:09:27 -0000
From: "Russell Sparkes" <rjs@inorbit.com>
Subject: Inheritance limits (was Re: Question about glob
--- In armybuilder@egroups.com, "Russell Sparkes" <rjs@i...> wrote:
> --- In armybuilder@egroups.com, Rob Bowes <rob@w...> wrote:
> > >Fair enough - it will achieve the exact same result anyway (and
> > >keep Army Builder happy) It's just heaps more work... Thanks
> > >Rob.
> >
> > I'd really like to understand how this adds heaps more work, since
> > that means I need to give serious thought to better ways of
> > managing things for a subsequent release.
Following on from the previous discussion (the inherited units are
working fine so far instead of glob, thanks...)
The maximum number of atributes is 100 (from ConstKit.rtf), so I can
have at most 100 mirr: attributes set for my leader Inheritor... I
think I'll be pushing it
If I split the inheritor into two and have about 60 mirr: attributes
in each one, then do two inhl: attributes for each leader unit, will
AB choke on it (assuming there's more than 100 attributes in total)?
The way the files work is:
I have a heap of options assigned (via cost) to the unit inheritor.
Each option is restricted by lglx:race=?? I also have the same
options assigned (via auto) to the leader inheritor combined with a
mirr: attribute for each option.
Does AB discard the mirr: attribute if there's no associated option
(having previously been discarded by lglx:race=??) or does it try to
load the whole lot and then discard the illegal ones?
I guess I'm asking where the limit is. Is it a limit on a loaded
unit, or a limit in the file format (or something else...)
Am I making sense?
Cheers,
Russell.
----
Russell Sparkes, rjs@inorbit.com http://www.cfm-resources.com/r/rjs
"Experience is what you get just after you needed it" - Unknown
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 24
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 08:14:44 +0100
From: "Dieter Passchier" <Dieter.Passchier@Embdena.de>
Subject: AW: Scenarios
I ment "Gravaines Quest", "Grudge of Drong", and the names of the other two
slip my mind. Here two armies are pitted together with lists for alternate
additional armies. That was great stuff. Unfortunately they don´t produce
these kind of packs anymore...
Take care,
Dieter
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: sabrina akins-becker [mailto:sabrina.akins-becker@eer.com]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 9. Januar 2001 18:31
An: armybuilder@egroups.com
Betreff: RE: [AB] Scenarios
I don't know which ones you are talking about; but even introducing the 9
scenarios that ARE in the 6th ed RB would be useful - then you could have a
mention on the list what you used that roster for; in addition, the last
scenario (7 heroes) gives you all kinds of errors if you build the roster
using AB. LOL Any thoughts on this? Or in changing the "Scenario"
field/selection to "Alternate army lists"?
Lastly, what is "Custom" in v2.1? I click the tab, and there's nothing there
for WH6.
Sabrina
-----Original Message-----
From: armybuilder@egroups.com [mailto:armybuilder@egroups.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 5:35 AM
To: ab@support.wolflair.com
Subject: [AB] Digest Number 268
Message: 16
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 08:12:09 +0100
From: "Dieter Passchier" <Dieter.Passchier@Embdena.de>
Subject: Scenarios
Hello!
Is it possible to integrate the four poblished scenarios into the files for
Warhammer Fantasy? I know they were written for 5th edition but would be
helpful none the less.
Thanks,
Dieter
To unsubscribe from this group, email
armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 25
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:57:18 +0000 (GMT)
From: David Wyatt-Millington <xaxier_uk@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Scout Snipers
First of dont flame me, and just pointing something
out.
In White Dwarf 252, Paul Sawyer took a Scout squad
with 4 Sniper Rifles and 1 Heavy Bolter, ie the
Sergeant was arm with a Sniper Rifle. As this was in a
battle report, I was thinking that maybe you could
take Scout Sergeant with a Sniper Rifle.
How about letting the Scout Sergeant choice from the
Scout Weapons and then it up to the player to decide
if 2 use them or not, with his oppenents. Personal
around here, we have decide to allow them, because it
seem's stupid having a Sniper Squad and the Sergeant
having a Bolt Pistol.
David
____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Re: foll:race-must and leader attributes?
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
2. Re: Re: Augment and Race xx accu:
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
3. Re: Digest Number 262
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
4. Re: Line Breaks in Notes Printout?
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
5. Re: stargrounts 2
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
6. Mordheim v3.1 datafiles
From: "Manuel Pombeiro" <firepigeon@bigfoot.com>
7. Re: AB 2.1 Weirdness
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
8. Re: Question about glob:
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
9. Re: Line Breaks in Notes Printout?
From: "Daniel Casquilho" <danielc@earthlink.net>
10. RE: Scenarios
From: "sabrina akins-becker" <sabrina.akins-becker@eer.com>
11. Re: Digest Number 262
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
12. Re: Mordheim v3.1 datafiles
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
13. Re: Re: Dark Eldar Error (nope)
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
14. Re: Icons....double the pleasure?!?
From: "Richard Lonski" <richard.j2.lonski@mail.sprint.com>
15. That's what I need....more guns!
From: "Richard Lonski" <richard.j2.lonski@mail.sprint.com>
16. Re: That's what I need....more guns!
From: trent <felix@medford.net>
17. Re: Question about glob:
From: "Russell Sparkes" <rjs@inorbit.com>
18. Re: That's what I need....more guns!
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
19. Re: That's what I need....more guns!
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
20. Re: Re: Question about glob:
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
21. Re: Re: Question about glob:
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
22. Re: Question about glob:
From: "Russell Sparkes" <rjs@inorbit.com>
23. Inheritance limits (was Re: Question about glob
From: "Russell Sparkes" <rjs@inorbit.com>
24. AW: Scenarios
From: "Dieter Passchier" <Dieter.Passchier@Embdena.de>
25. Scout Snipers
From: David Wyatt-Millington <xaxier_uk@yahoo.co.uk>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 02:35:30 -0800
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Re: foll:race-must and leader attributes?
I've been buried this past week, so I'm struggling to get caught up. This
stuff required some serious thought and investigation on my part, so it
unfortunately dropped to low on the priority list. Thanks for your
patience.
>Within DBM it is possible to have up to 4 commands, each command is
>lead by a general (CinC, Sub or Ally). Each of these commands is
>assigned a break point (1/3 its Equivalent Elements(EE)) Currently in
>the original DBM file only the army break point is calculated (1/2
>total EE) and displayed on the printout roster using the Record Type
>Race xx accu attribute in the Core data file, I would also like to
>display the Break Points of each command in the same way.
>
>I can achieve all of the above BUT... not in an automatic way with
>suitable rule validation.
>
>The easiest way for me to show you is to upload the datadef.dbm and
>core.dbm and example army file to the files section (dbm.zip)
>
>Basically the follower EE is accumulated through the external
>attribute Lead into stat "Cmd" (this shows the number of EE available
>to the entire command led by this general. This works fine.
>
>The CinC is automatically given Command 1 and the Record Type Race xx
>within the Core.dbm file produces the correct Command 1 break point
>(1/3 ee for that comamnd (ie just the cinc
).>
>When a Sub general is added then Command 1 is not an option but
>Command 2, 3 and 4 are, first problem how do I stop Command 2 (0r 3
>or 4) being taken by two seperate (but in the same list) sub generals
>(two seperate entries in unit list would achieve this but is not
>elegant and raises other problems with army of more than 4 generals
>available for selection!).
One solution is to use the "olmt" race attribute to restrict the roster to
only a single unit with "Command 1" assigned to it. Another option would be
to use "tlmt" or "ulmt" after having each of the Command options assign an
appropriate type to the unit.
>The only way I can then get the correct Command Break points to work
>is to provide an option for Command selection for EACH unit (this
>then sets the right stats to enable the Core.dbm race attribute to
>accu the stat.
Unfortunately, I can't think of any other solution to this. :-( It is easy
to display the accumulated break point for each command on the stat line
for each leader. However, there is no way that I can think of to have a
leader-specific break point be displayed as a roster-wide accumulation. The
two mechanisms are unrelated, so there is no way to coerce one into the
other easily. I guess that I'm not understanding why the command break
points must be listed separately from the stat line for the appropriate
leader units. Since I never thought of this need (and no one else has ever
requested it), it never made it into the product.
>The problem with this is that a follower can be allocated to a Sub
>general that sub general has been allocated command 2! but the unit
>could be allocated to command 3! so we have a unit whos general is
>Command 2 but the units EE is calculated for command 3!
Yep. It's ugly. Since the association between leader and follower is a very
loose connection, there is no formalized link that can be leveraged between
the two to perform further verifications. The notion of leaders/followers
is completely contained within each grouping and only pertains to
composition characteristics and stat accumulation. That's all that has been
needed thus far (i.e. that's all I thought of and/or people requested), so
nothing further was implemented.
>The ideal solution (hence my question about Foll:race-must and
>leaders) and derived stats is how can I enforce the following yet
>still use the Record Race attribute accu to display the command break
>points:
>
>1. "Followers" of a leader automatically assigned same Command (1
>from 4) as leader
Not possible within AB.
>2. Sub/Ally Generals same as above but can only be allocated a
>command that is not currently selected by another general (ie command
>2 3 or 4).
Can be controlled via "olmt", "tlmt", "ulmt", and a number of other
mechanisms to ensure a single instance of each.
>3. A unit should only be allowed to select a command that is
>currently allocated to a general (eg in example army file only 3
>generals are valid so comamnd 4 should never be displayed as an
>option!)
Not possible within AB. However, you COULD use a validation rule with
"trat" to ensure that any unit assigned "Command 4" requires that a leader
be assigned "Command 4". This would achieve the same net effect.
>Sorry for the length - but I have spent quite a few hours (ok days)
>trying to resolve this one!) and you expertise would be greatly
>appareciated in resolving this.
I wish I had better news for you on the above. The big issue is that you
are striving to have AB do something that it was never designed for. Within
AB, there are 4 levels of scoping. First is the unit level, wherein
extensive control can be asserted over behaviors. Second is the
parent/child relationship within a given top-level unit's context. A
moderate amount of control can be exercised at this level. Third is the
leader/follower scope, which is limited purely to composition issues, stat
accumulation, and basic inter-relationships (via "uldr"). Fourth is
roster-wide relationships, and the only form of control here is available
via validation attributes. Outside the scope of a parent/child relationship
(level 2), there is no way to FORCE any behaviors (e.g. option X doesn't
appear if no other unit has selected option Y yet). At that point, only
validation rules are available to act as a double-check that the user did
things correctly.
Thanks, Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (650) 726-9689
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 02:42:00 -0800
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Augment and Race xx accu:
At 09:38 AM 12/29/00 +0000, you wrote:
>Rob,
>
>Thanks again for the quick feedback.
This time it was anything but quick. :-(
>As you will see from the uploaded files (dbm.zip)- I have already
>calculated the command break points (4 of) into a seperate stat
>(com1b) which is then accu via the race xx attribute (augment tab).
FYI: I have added to the todo list the ability to have an assigned leader
attach a type on each of its follower units. This would allow
leader-specific behaviors to be defined on the followers, which is
currently not possible.
>BTW: I am lucky in that there are 5 accu stats available - I am
>already using all five can additional accu stats be added to the "to
>do" wish list - in addition to the support for calculations - also it
>may be a good hide to add a -show/-hide tag as if to many are
>available it will be become to unwieldly to cycle through on the AB
>UI - just a thought!
It's been added to the todo list.
Thanks, Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (650) 726-9689
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 02:54:39 -0800
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Digest Number 262
At 03:16 PM 1/4/01 +0000, you wrote:
> >Just a thought, another 5 composition groups for the reserves? There's
> >some racial attribute which allows you to add composition groups. Then
> >add a validation that checks the total points in various composition
> >groups against the allowed total.
>
>Unfortunately AB only supports 8 composition groups being used at once.
>That would make 10.
Correct. Prior to this moment, 5-6 comp groups was pretty standard, so
having 8 provided some extra breathing room, just in case. Oh well. :-(
>Also, I don't *think* (though I could be wrong) that
>you can say "Trp1+Trp2+Trp3 must be >= 2 and <= 6".
You're wrong on this one. Relationship terms can have up to 4 components in
the arithmetic expression, so you could easily say "trp1+trp2+trp3". To
require both conditions to be true, you would simply define TWO
relationships (one for ">=2" and the other for "<=6").
>Thirdly, there's no way
>to say "Apply this option only if the unit is of composition group X".
Sadly, you are correct. Is this actually useful on a more general level? If
so, I can definitely add this capability.
>Minor flaws
Unfortunately, they are only minor until the situation arises where you
need them, at which point they become not so minor flaws.
Thanks, Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (650) 726-9689
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 02:57:35 -0800
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Line Breaks in Notes Printout?
There is currently no way to force notes to appear on a separate line
within roster printouts. This was requested during the V2.0 development
cycle and didn't get added (there were WAY too many things to add and this
was one of the ones that missed the cut). It is definitely on the todo
list, so it will be added at some point.
Thanks, Rob
At 05:09 PM 1/5/01 +0000, you wrote:
>Hello All,
>
>I am attempting to build a data file and am new to this. Please
>forgive if this is an easy one and I missed it.
>
>I would like to get some notes to be on their own lines in the final
>roster printout. I can find how to force line breaks in the notes on
>the screen but not how to force line breaks in the notes on the print
>out. Can this be done? If so, how?
>
>Thanks
>
>Daniel
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (650) 726-9689
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 02:58:54 -0800
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: stargrounts 2
I am not aware of any files for StarGrunt, although I've looked at the
rules for the game and it should be relatively simple to create AB data
files for it. If you hear of anyone creating files for Stargrunt, please
let me know right away.
Thanks, Rob
At 06:32 PM 1/8/01 +0000, you wrote:
>does any body have a data file for stargrunts 2 from ground zeroe
>games
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (650) 726-9689
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 12:00:40 -0000
From: "Manuel Pombeiro" <firepigeon@bigfoot.com>
Subject: Mordheim v3.1 datafiles
Just to report some incorrections in the datafiles:
- the extra Academic Skills for wizards (Scribe, Mind Focus, etc and
even Warrior Wizard from the normal Academic list) only appear to a
wizard when Arcane Lore is selected (try it on the Eshin Sorcerer and
you will see what I'm talking about)
- the daggers cost 0 gc (and I'm not talking about the free dagger
here)
And this one is a maybe:
- on henchman groups is possible when you roll you get an advance
that the group already has and per, my group interpretation, of the
rules is possible to re-roll that but on the second roll if you get
another adavnce that was already, it's possible to choose the advance
you want, thus it is possible to choose Toughness or Wounds as a
skill advance for the henchman group, and the current datafile
doesn't allow this
We all appreciate you effort on this, and we all give you our best
wishes and keep up the good work.
Thanks in advance,
Manuel Pombeiro
firepigeon@bigfoot.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 04:08:58 -0800
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: AB 2.1 Weirdness
Ok folks, thanks to Brad's helpful example rosters, I figured out what the
problem is here. The roster is being loaded fine, but the warning is
causing AB to handle it a little differently from normal. Unfortunately,
the display initialization is being bypassed due to the warning, so you
don't see anything, even though your roster behaves as if it's all there
(it is - internally).
The simplest solution (until I release a patch) is to just save your roster
back out immediately after loading it in. When you load it again, it was
saved with the proper set of data files, so no error is reported and it
works perfectly.
Thanks, Rob
At 04:31 PM 12/30/00 -0700, you wrote:
>I have a Dark Eldar Roster (and a Space Marine roster I think) that was
>generated with AB 2.0 and 2.12 40K files. When I load the roster into 2.1
>and 2.13 (and I believe its the upgrade from 2.12 to 2.13 that causes the
>problem), It tells me the roster was created with a different version, that
>it loaded correctly, but while
>all the points are there, nothing shows up in the roster section.
>
>I'll go build the roster again, but I feel better complaining about it first
><G>.
>
>Regards,
>
>Brad
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (650) 726-9689
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 04:22:44 -0800
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Question about glob:
If you have two identical options on a unit, AB will randomly decide which
one is kept and which one is thrown away. It is illegal to have two
identical options on a unit, and AB checks for that when you load the
files. However, the "glob" mechanism bypasses all the standard safeguards
and file checks that are performed to ensure you have valid data files.
That's why you are getting the behaviors you're experiencing.
I recommend abandoning "glob" for this problem. Instead, create a basic
"trooper" unit and a basic "leader" unit. Then have all units inherit the
proper set of options from those basic units. This way, you can encapsulate
all the behaviors and all the complexity into a single pair of units. Then
all you have to do is specify who to inherit from for all your units.
Hope this helps,
Rob
At 04:10 AM 1/9/01 +0000, you wrote:
>(sorry if this appears twice - the first one wasn't quite complete
>
>I'm using glob:cost on a heap of options combined with lglx:race=??
>so that units taken as allies or mercenaries can have the appropriate
>options assigned to them. Each of these units can also have leaders
>assigned which must take the same option, so the glob also applies to
>the leaders. The Leaders are set up to mirr: each of the options,
>however I want the link type to be auto, not cost. The Leaders have
>each of the options linked in (via a clon option) as type auto.
>
>The strange thing is, some of the options on the Leader are appearing
>in Army Builder as if they were linked via cost and others as if via
>auto. Even wierder, if I pick two diffferent units, add a leader to
>each unit then check the available options for each leader - the link
>natures aren't consistent between the two (yet they use the same unit
>to clon from)!
>
>Is there some degree of random link order associated with glob?
>It seems that in some instances, the glob link is overriding the clon
>link type, yet in others it isn't and it appears somewhat random... I
>have noticed that its NOT random for the same unit type (ie. if I add
>a unit and leader twice, I get the same mix of link types for both)
>
>Any ideas? Is it just another stupid thing I'm doing?
>
>Thanks,
>Russell.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (650) 726-9689
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 15:38:39 -0000
From: "Daniel Casquilho" <danielc@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Line Breaks in Notes Printout?
Rob,
Thanks, I will look forward to future updates. Until then I will deal
with what I have (And I love what I have!)
Daniel
--- In armybuilder@egroups.com, Rob Bowes <rob@w...> wrote:
> There is currently no way to force notes to appear on a separate
line
> within roster printouts. This was requested during the V2.0
development
> cycle and didn't get added (there were WAY too many things to add
and this
> was one of the ones that missed the cut). It is definitely on the
todo
> list, so it will be added at some point.
>
> Thanks, Rob
>
>
> At 05:09 PM 1/5/01 +0000, you wrote:
> >Hello All,
> >
> >I am attempting to build a data file and am new to this. Please
> >forgive if this is an easy one and I missed it.
> >
> >I would like to get some notes to be on their own lines in the
final
> >roster printout. I can find how to force line breaks in the notes
on
> >the screen but not how to force line breaks in the notes on the
> >out. Can this be done? If so, how?
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >Daniel
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> Rob Bowes (rob@w...) (650) 726-9689
> Lone Wolf Development
www.wolflair.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 12:31:01 -0500
From: "sabrina akins-becker" <sabrina.akins-becker@eer.com>
Subject: RE: Scenarios
I don't know which ones you are talking about; but even introducing the 9
scenarios that ARE in the 6th ed RB would be useful - then you could have a
mention on the list what you used that roster for; in addition, the last
scenario (7 heroes) gives you all kinds of errors if you build the roster
using AB. LOL Any thoughts on this? Or in changing the "Scenario"
field/selection to "Alternate army lists"?
Lastly, what is "Custom" in v2.1? I click the tab, and there's nothing there
for WH6.
Sabrina
-----Original Message-----
From: armybuilder@egroups.com [mailto:armybuilder@egroups.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 5:35 AM
To: ab@support.wolflair.com
Subject: [AB] Digest Number 268
Message: 16
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 08:12:09 +0100
From: "Dieter Passchier" <Dieter.Passchier@Embdena.de>
Subject: Scenarios
Hello!
Is it possible to integrate the four poblished scenarios into the files for
Warhammer Fantasy? I know they were written for 5th edition but would be
helpful none the less.
Thanks,
Dieter
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 18:16:01 +0000
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
Subject: Re: Digest Number 262
At 02:54 09/01/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>At 03:16 PM 1/4/01 +0000, you wrote:
>> >Just a thought, another 5 composition groups for the reserves? There's
>> >some racial attribute which allows you to add composition groups. Then
>> >add a validation that checks the total points in various composition
>> >groups against the allowed total.
>>
>>Unfortunately AB only supports 8 composition groups being used at once.
>>That would make 10.
>
>Correct. Prior to this moment, 5-6 comp groups was pretty standard, so
>having 8 provided some extra breathing room, just in case. Oh well. :-(
My new B5Wars files use all 8 in many situations, and would like to be able
to use 9 :O
>>Thirdly, there's no way
>>to say "Apply this option only if the unit is of composition group X".
>
>Sadly, you are correct. Is this actually useful on a more general level?
>If so, I can definitely add this capability.
I think this is the only place the 40k files would use it. I've never even
wondered if it was possible before.
>>Minor flaws
>
>Unfortunately, they are only minor until the situation arises where you
>need them, at which point they become not so minor flaws.
Exactly. We need psychics looking into the future at all times!
--
'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: 12
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 18:47:07 +0000
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
Subject: Re: Mordheim v3.1 datafiles
At 12:00 09/01/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>Just to report some incorrections in the datafiles:
> - the extra Academic Skills for wizards (Scribe, Mind Focus, etc and
>even Warrior Wizard from the normal Academic list) only appear to a
>wizard when Arcane Lore is selected (try it on the Eshin Sorcerer and
>you will see what I'm talking about)
Oops! I forgot whether I was using a capital or a small 'C' in
'Spellcastr'. Fixed in next version, ta for reporting it
> - the daggers cost 0 gc (and I'm not talking about the free dagger
>here)
Yep, will also be fixed in the next version.
>And this one is a maybe:
> - on henchman groups is possible when you roll you get an advance
>that the group already has and per, my group interpretation, of the
>rules is possible to re-roll that but on the second roll if you get
>another adavnce that was already, it's possible to choose the advance
>you want, thus it is possible to choose Toughness or Wounds as a
>skill advance for the henchman group, and the current datafile
>doesn't allow this
1. No basis in rules, but nevertheless: Imagine the horror a group of
normal henchmen with 2 wounds would cause. *shudder
2. "If a characteristic is at it's maximum, take the other option or roll
again." I think in this situation, you should roll again; certainly, that's
what I decided (and nobody on the mordheim list had a major problem with
it, at least) when I started writing the files.
>We all appreciate you effort on this, and we all give you our best
>wishes and keep up the good work.
Thanks!
--
'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: 13
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 18:30:39 +0000
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
Subject: Re: Re: Dark Eldar Error (nope)
At 02:51 09/01/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>--- In armybuilder@egroups.com, Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister
><demandred@s...> wrote:
> > At 18:27 08/01/2001 -0500, you wrote:
> > >The reaver jetbikes make no mention of giving any type of save.
>It only
> > >states that if you turbo boost, then your save is invulnerable.
> > >
> > >So, upon looking at that, the reaver jetbike should not give the
>archon
> > >riding it a +1 to his save. The statline would look more like 5
>(I) or
> > >something. To reflect that it becomes invulnerable when he turbo
>boosts.
> >
> > IIRC, didn't GW say "Oh yeah, Reaver jetbikes should give a +1
>save?"
>
>Not in any Chapter Approved or GW FAQ. Nothing from any unofficial
>source either. GW did state that the jetbikes give +1 Strength to
>all riders (factored into the Reaver's profile already), but
>accidentally left that piece of info out of the DE dex, and that
>might be what you're recalling.
That must be it. Fair enough, Reaver riders will stop getting their 4+ save
unless they already had it.
--
'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: 14
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 21:51:33 -0000
From: "Richard Lonski" <richard.j2.lonski@mail.sprint.com>
Subject: Re: Icons....double the pleasure?!?
--- In armybuilder@egroups.com, Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister
<demandred@s...> wrote:
> At 16:53 08/01/2001 +0000, you wrote:
> >Just a question.....
> >
> >When building a Chaos army, Armybuilder allows my to take a retinue
> >with Cypher. As part of the retinue, I can upgrade one model to an
> >Aspiring Champion. When I add wargear to the Aspiring Champion, I
can
> >make him an Icon Bearer and add a Chaos Icon of whatever Mark of
Chaso
> >I have given him. This means that I can have 2 banners in my army
(1
> >with the HQ and one with Cypher).
> >
> >Is this legal? I have found nothing to say it isn't, but it just
> >doesn't seems right.
>
> You have 2 retinues due to a special situation. There's nothing in
the
> rules about more than one Icon, so it's perfectly legal to have two
if you
> want. *shrug
>
The righteous will prevail.......it sounds like a good excuse to
purchase/paint another standard to me!! I'll be able to use it
someday.
Thanks
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 22:00:32 -0000
From: "Richard Lonski" <richard.j2.lonski@mail.sprint.com>
Subject: That's what I need....more guns!
I had another one for you. In the Chaos codex, it talks about a
combi-bolter incorporated into the dread's CCW arm. When you upgrade
the CCW to a missile launcher, Army Builder still indicates that a
combi-bolter is present.
Is this correct? Looking at the model, the bolter is build into the
shoulder and if you swap out for the missile launcher, it replaces the
entire shoulder as well as arm.
It would seem to me that you should lose the combi-bolter (although I
would like nothing better than to keep it.....huh, huh, can I , can
I, p..p..p...pleeezzzz?).
Or should I refer this to da Trolls?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 14:20:35 -0800
From: trent <felix@medford.net>
Subject: Re: That's what I need....more guns!
Richard Lonski wrote:
> I had another one for you. In the Chaos codex, it talks about a
> combi-bolter incorporated into the dread's CCW arm. When you upgrade
> the CCW to a missile launcher, Army Builder still indicates that a
> combi-bolter is present.
>
> Is this correct? Looking at the model, the bolter is build into the
> shoulder and if you swap out for the missile launcher, it replaces the
> entire shoulder as well as arm.
>
> It would seem to me that you should lose the combi-bolter (although I
> would like nothing better than to keep it.....huh, huh, can I , can
> I, p..p..p...pleeezzzz?).
Actually, if you look at the model, the combi-bolter is at the torso
of the dread - not on the arm like the loyalist one.
trent
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 22:30:34 -0000
From: "Russell Sparkes" <rjs@inorbit.com>
Subject: Re: Question about glob:
--- In armybuilder@egroups.com, Rob Bowes <rob@w...> wrote:
> If you have two identical options on a unit, AB will randomly
> decide which one is kept and which one is thrown away. It is
> illegal to have two identical options on a unit, and AB checks
> for that when you load the files. However, the "glob" mechanism
> bypasses all the standard safeguards and file checks that are
> performed to ensure you have valid data files.
> That's why you are getting the behaviors you're experiencing.
Fair enough
I figured I was trying to do something I shouldn't be.>
> I recommend abandoning "glob" for this problem. Instead, create
> a basic "trooper" unit and a basic "leader" unit. Then have all
> units inherit the proper set of options from those basic units.
> This way, you can encapsulate all the behaviors and all the
> complexity into a single pair of units. Then all you have to do
> is specify who to inherit from for all your units.
Fair enough - it will achieve the exact same result anyway (and keep
Army Builder happy) It's just heaps more work... Thanks Rob.
Cheers,
Russell.
----
Russell Sparkes, rjs@inorbit.com http://www.cfm-resources.com/r/rjs
"Experience is what you get just after you needed it" - Unknown
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 23:12:11 +0000
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
Subject: Re: That's what I need....more guns!
At 22:00 09/01/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>I had another one for you. In the Chaos codex, it talks about a
>combi-bolter incorporated into the dread's CCW arm. When you upgrade
>the CCW to a missile launcher, Army Builder still indicates that a
>combi-bolter is present.
>
>Is this correct? Looking at the model, the bolter is build into the
>shoulder and if you swap out for the missile launcher, it replaces the
>entire shoulder as well as arm.
Hmm.. I don't know. The text says "... a Dreadnought CCW incorporating a
twin-linked bolter in one arm ..." so it looks like you should indeed lose
it. I'll make the change in the next version. :O
>Or should I refer this to da Trolls?
You could, I suppose, but they're wrong so often it wouldn't really solve
anything. :O
--
'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: 19
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 23:14:15 +0000
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
Subject: Re: That's what I need....more guns!
At 22:00 09/01/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>I had another one for you. In the Chaos codex, it talks about a
>combi-bolter incorporated into the dread's CCW arm. When you upgrade
>the CCW to a missile launcher, Army Builder still indicates that a
>combi-bolter is present.
>
>Is this correct? Looking at the model, the bolter is build into the
>shoulder and if you swap out for the missile launcher, it replaces the
>entire shoulder as well as arm.
Update: Yes, I'm pretty sure it should be deselecting the combi-bolter.
There is a "deselect combi-bolter" command in the Missile Launcher option,
but unfortunately it deselects the wrong combi-bolter.
--
'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: 20
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 16:15:30 -0800
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Question about glob:
At 10:30 PM 1/9/01 +0000, you wrote:
> > I recommend abandoning "glob" for this problem. Instead, create
> > a basic "trooper" unit and a basic "leader" unit. Then have all
> > units inherit the proper set of options from those basic units.
> > This way, you can encapsulate all the behaviors and all the
> > complexity into a single pair of units. Then all you have to do
> > is specify who to inherit from for all your units.
>
>Fair enough - it will achieve the exact same result anyway (and keep
>Army Builder happy) It's just heaps more work... Thanks Rob.
Is it really heaps more work? This is how the Clan War stuff is
implemented, and it sure made the Clan War stuff VASTLY easier to manage. I
think Colen will definitely agree with this, since he's handled most
everything in the CW data files since I put the basic framework together.
I'd really like to understand how this adds heaps more work, since that
means I need to give serious thought to better ways of managing things for
a subsequent release.
Thanks, Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (650) 726-9689
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 21
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 00:46:06 +0000
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
Subject: Re: Re: Question about glob:
At 16:15 09/01/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>At 10:30 PM 1/9/01 +0000, you wrote:
> > > I recommend abandoning "glob" for this problem. Instead, create
> > > a basic "trooper" unit and a basic "leader" unit. Then have all
> > > units inherit the proper set of options from those basic units.
> > > This way, you can encapsulate all the behaviors and all the
> > > complexity into a single pair of units. Then all you have to do
> > > is specify who to inherit from for all your units.
> >
> >Fair enough - it will achieve the exact same result anyway (and keep
> >Army Builder happy) It's just heaps more work... Thanks Rob.
>
>Is it really heaps more work? This is how the Clan War stuff is
>implemented, and it sure made the Clan War stuff VASTLY easier to manage. I
>think Colen will definitely agree with this, since he's handled most
>everything in the CW data files since I put the basic framework together.
>I'd really like to understand how this adds heaps more work, since that
>means I need to give serious thought to better ways of managing things for
>a subsequent release.
Oh, yes. It's so nice just to add one option to the 'unit' base unit and
have it applied to all units. Inheritance Is Your Friend.
--
'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: 22
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 00:52:55 -0000
From: "Russell Sparkes" <rjs@inorbit.com>
Subject: Re: Question about glob:
--- In armybuilder@egroups.com, Rob Bowes <rob@w...> wrote:
> >Fair enough - it will achieve the exact same result anyway (and
> >keep Army Builder happy) It's just heaps more work... Thanks
> >Rob.
>
> I'd really like to understand how this adds heaps more work, since
> that means I need to give serious thought to better ways of
> managing things for a subsequent release.
Only that I've changed quite a few things in the Crucible files from
the way you set it up initially... Due to the Natives, Mercenaries
and Allies, Warp Magic got a bit more complicated. That's what I was
using glob for. I've gone and changed a heap of stuff to using glob
instead of the clon: stuff you originally had and now I will have to
change it again
I guess it's not HEAPS more work - I'm just lazy
It's certainly heaps LESS work than it would've been without clon. Don't take my petty grumbling so seriously
Cheers,
Russell.
----
Russell Sparkes, rjs@inorbit.com http://www.cfm-resources.com/r/rjs
"Experience is what you get just after you needed it" - Unknown
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 23
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 06:09:27 -0000
From: "Russell Sparkes" <rjs@inorbit.com>
Subject: Inheritance limits (was Re: Question about glob
--- In armybuilder@egroups.com, "Russell Sparkes" <rjs@i...> wrote:
> --- In armybuilder@egroups.com, Rob Bowes <rob@w...> wrote:
> > >Fair enough - it will achieve the exact same result anyway (and
> > >keep Army Builder happy) It's just heaps more work... Thanks
> > >Rob.
> >
> > I'd really like to understand how this adds heaps more work, since
> > that means I need to give serious thought to better ways of
> > managing things for a subsequent release.
Following on from the previous discussion (the inherited units are
working fine so far instead of glob, thanks...)
The maximum number of atributes is 100 (from ConstKit.rtf), so I can
have at most 100 mirr: attributes set for my leader Inheritor... I
think I'll be pushing it
If I split the inheritor into two and have about 60 mirr: attributes
in each one, then do two inhl: attributes for each leader unit, will
AB choke on it (assuming there's more than 100 attributes in total)?
The way the files work is:
I have a heap of options assigned (via cost) to the unit inheritor.
Each option is restricted by lglx:race=?? I also have the same
options assigned (via auto) to the leader inheritor combined with a
mirr: attribute for each option.
Does AB discard the mirr: attribute if there's no associated option
(having previously been discarded by lglx:race=??) or does it try to
load the whole lot and then discard the illegal ones?
I guess I'm asking where the limit is. Is it a limit on a loaded
unit, or a limit in the file format (or something else...)
Am I making sense?
Cheers,
Russell.
----
Russell Sparkes, rjs@inorbit.com http://www.cfm-resources.com/r/rjs
"Experience is what you get just after you needed it" - Unknown
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 24
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 08:14:44 +0100
From: "Dieter Passchier" <Dieter.Passchier@Embdena.de>
Subject: AW: Scenarios
I ment "Gravaines Quest", "Grudge of Drong", and the names of the other two
slip my mind. Here two armies are pitted together with lists for alternate
additional armies. That was great stuff. Unfortunately they don´t produce
these kind of packs anymore...
Take care,
Dieter
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: sabrina akins-becker [mailto:sabrina.akins-becker@eer.com]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 9. Januar 2001 18:31
An: armybuilder@egroups.com
Betreff: RE: [AB] Scenarios
I don't know which ones you are talking about; but even introducing the 9
scenarios that ARE in the 6th ed RB would be useful - then you could have a
mention on the list what you used that roster for; in addition, the last
scenario (7 heroes) gives you all kinds of errors if you build the roster
using AB. LOL Any thoughts on this? Or in changing the "Scenario"
field/selection to "Alternate army lists"?
Lastly, what is "Custom" in v2.1? I click the tab, and there's nothing there
for WH6.
Sabrina
-----Original Message-----
From: armybuilder@egroups.com [mailto:armybuilder@egroups.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 5:35 AM
To: ab@support.wolflair.com
Subject: [AB] Digest Number 268
Message: 16
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 08:12:09 +0100
From: "Dieter Passchier" <Dieter.Passchier@Embdena.de>
Subject: Scenarios
Hello!
Is it possible to integrate the four poblished scenarios into the files for
Warhammer Fantasy? I know they were written for 5th edition but would be
helpful none the less.
Thanks,
Dieter
To unsubscribe from this group, email
armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 25
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:57:18 +0000 (GMT)
From: David Wyatt-Millington <xaxier_uk@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Scout Snipers
First of dont flame me, and just pointing something
out.
In White Dwarf 252, Paul Sawyer took a Scout squad
with 4 Sniper Rifles and 1 Heavy Bolter, ie the
Sergeant was arm with a Sniper Rifle. As this was in a
battle report, I was thinking that maybe you could
take Scout Sergeant with a Sniper Rifle.
How about letting the Scout Sergeant choice from the
Scout Weapons and then it up to the player to decide
if 2 use them or not, with his oppenents. Personal
around here, we have decide to allow them, because it
seem's stupid having a Sniper Squad and the Sergeant
having a Bolt Pistol.
David
____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________