A
armybuilder at egroups.co
Guest
To unsubscribe from this group, email
armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. RE: Scout Snipers
From: "DiPonio" <DiPonio@voyager.net>
2. RE: Scout Snipers
From: David Wyatt-Millington <xaxier_uk@yahoo.co.uk>
3. RE: Scout Snipers
From: "DiPonio" <DiPonio@voyager.net>
4. WFB Scenarios was (Re: Digest Number 269)
From: "Christepher McKenney" <blazetopast@hotmail.com>
5. AW: WFB Scenarios was (Re: Digest Number 269)
From: "Dieter Passchier" <Dieter.Passchier@Embdena.de>
6. Re: Scout Snipers
From: doublenot7@aol.com
7. RE: Scenarios
From: "sabrina akins-becker" <sabrina.akins-becker@eer.com>
8. Re: That's what I need....more guns!
From: "Richard Lonski" <richard.j2.lonski@mail.sprint.com>
9. Re: That's what I need....more guns!
From: "Richard Lonski" <richard.j2.lonski@mail.sprint.com>
10. Re: Inheritance limits (was Re: Question about glob
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
11. RE: Scout Snipers
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
12. Inheritance limits (was Re: Question about glob
From: "Russell Sparkes" <rjs@inorbit.com>
13. Re: Scout Snipers
From: "Jimi" <james.tubman@blueyonder.co.uk>
14. Latest edition 40k files
From: gjoe@acd.net
15. Re: Scout Snipers
From: "Tom " <tnnlynch@hotmail.com>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 08:01:09 -0500
From: "DiPonio" <DiPonio@voyager.net>
Subject: RE: Scout Snipers
No more stupid than if you let the sergeant of a devastator squad take a
heavy weapon.
The sergeant is there for leadership primarily, to organize the unit into an
effective fighting unit. How is he going to control the actions of the
squad if he is all nestled behind a sniper scope.
Hope you don't think I'm flaming. Just joining the conversation.
Paul.
-----Original Message-----
From: David Wyatt-Millington [mailto:xaxier_uk@yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 5:57 AM
To: ab@support.wolflair.com
Subject: [AB] 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
To unsubscribe from this group, email
armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:28:28 +0000 (GMT)
From: David Wyatt-Millington <xaxier_uk@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: RE: Scout Snipers
The different is that the Scout Choice in the Army
list say "Any Model in the Unit" not Marine which is
the usally statement. No dont think Flaming, that when
goes to a personal level. Me I think it a choice
between group that u play with. but i would like the
option in the Army Builder files so I dont have to
alter them. I always make sure my oppenent doesnt mind
about it, and if he does, I have a secondary Scout
Sergant on Hand.
> The sergeant is there for leadership primarily, to
> organize the unit into an
> effective fighting unit. How is he going to control
> the actions of the
> squad if he is all nestled behind a sniper scope.
____________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 08:24:50 -0500
From: "DiPonio" <DiPonio@voyager.net>
Subject: RE: Scout Snipers
Fair enough =]
Good Hunting,
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: David Wyatt-Millington [mailto:xaxier_uk@yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 8:28 AM
To: ab@support.wolflair.com
Subject: RE: [AB] Scout Snipers
The different is that the Scout Choice in the Army
list say "Any Model in the Unit" not Marine which is
the usally statement. No dont think Flaming, that when
goes to a personal level. Me I think it a choice
between group that u play with. but i would like the
option in the Army Builder files so I dont have to
alter them. I always make sure my oppenent doesnt mind
about it, and if he does, I have a secondary Scout
Sergant on Hand.
> The sergeant is there for leadership primarily, to
> organize the unit into an
> effective fighting unit. How is he going to control
> the actions of the
> squad if he is all nestled behind a sniper scope.
____________________________________________________________
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
To unsubscribe from this group, email
armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 09:48:27 -0500
From: "Christepher McKenney" <blazetopast@hotmail.com>
Subject: WFB Scenarios was (Re: Digest Number 269)
Sorry for the delay but I have been indisposed for a long time with an
illness and lack of laptop to use while I was in bed...
Dieter,
The big problem is twofold - 1) I have only two of them and 2) they were
designed with 5th edition in mind so the alternate army lists would need to
be designed all over again for the new point costs.
Sabrina,
I will consider adding scenario-specific commands but the problem is that
each army book has multiple army lists in it and to add all the scenario
variants for each one would be cumbersome. But I will look into it as later
improvements (along with adding the Siege equipment). I need to get the
next version out with the Dwarf Book in it first.
Christepher McKenney
WFBv6 Files Manager
----Original Message Follows----
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
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 16:39:29 +0100
From: "Dieter Passchier" <Dieter.Passchier@Embdena.de>
Subject: AW: WFB Scenarios was (Re: Digest Number 269)
Hello!
I will play the Drong campaign with RH and will see if there is a great
difference between 5th and 6th edition. I assume, that there isn´t, but if
you are interested I´ll keep you informed. As of the books, I own three of
them and a friend of mine has the fourth. So if you are interested in the
stats, I could send them to you.
Take care,
Dieter
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Christepher McKenney [mailto:blazetopast@hotmail.com]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. Januar 2001 15:48
An: armybuilder@egroups.com
Betreff: WFB Scenarios was (Re: [AB] Digest Number 269)
Sorry for the delay but I have been indisposed for a long time with an
illness and lack of laptop to use while I was in bed...
Dieter,
The big problem is twofold - 1) I have only two of them and 2) they were
designed with 5th edition in mind so the alternate army lists would need to
be designed all over again for the new point costs.
Sabrina,
I will consider adding scenario-specific commands but the problem is that
each army book has multiple army lists in it and to add all the scenario
variants for each one would be cumbersome. But I will look into it as later
improvements (along with adding the Siege equipment). I need to get the
next version out with the Dwarf Book in it first.
Christepher McKenney
WFBv6 Files Manager
----Original Message Follows----
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
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
To unsubscribe from this group, email
armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 12:20:26 EST
From: doublenot7@aol.com
Subject: Re: Scout Snipers
In a message dated 01/10/2001 4:57:44 AM Central Standard Time,
xaxier_uk@yahoo.co.uk writes:
<< 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.
>>
You guys should really read the codex a little better. It clearly states
twice that this is NOT allowed. "Fat Bloke" Sawyer is just a cheater
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:44:06 -0500
From: "sabrina akins-becker" <sabrina.akins-becker@eer.com>
Subject: RE: Scenarios
Ah yes - I have all 5 of the campaign packs - Perlious Quest (Bret & WE),
Tears of Isha (HE & DE), Grudge of Drong (Dwarves & HE), Circle of Blood (TK
& Bret), and ?? with O&G & Empire. All but "Quest" were usable with at
least 2 other armies fighting the first one named. I've played "Quest" and
seen "Grudge" - both were lots of fun.
Sabrina
-----Original Message-----
From: armybuilder@egroups.com [mailto:armybuilder@egroups.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 5:57 AM
To: ab@support.wolflair.com
Subject: [AB] Digest Number 269
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
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 19:31:48 -0000
From: "Richard Lonski" <richard.j2.lonski@mail.sprint.com>
Subject: Re: That's what I need....more guns!
--- In armybuilder@egroups.com, trent <felix@m...> wrote:
> 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
I believe that it is actually in the shoulder....although there are 2
barrel looking things that extend from just below the right and left
torso sides.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 19:36:00 -0000
From: "Richard Lonski" <richard.j2.lonski@mail.sprint.com>
Subject: Re: That's what I need....more guns!
--- In armybuilder@egroups.com, Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister
<demandred@s...> wrote:
> 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.
>
I was afraid you were going to say that.....
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:35:44 -0800
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Inheritance limits (was Re: Question about glob
At 06:09 AM 1/10/01 +0000, you wrote:
>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
What?!?!? What on Earth are you doing with THAT many mirr attributes?
That's ridiculous! It sure sounds like the method you're using is far from
the best solution. Please explain to me what you're trying to accomplish
that has you solving it this way.
>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)?
It sure will choke on it. The limit is 100 attributes - TOTAL. If they come
from multiple places, they still exceed the limit.
>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?
The latter is done. AB has to load everything in first. THEN it can
determine which options are to be discarded due to lglx.
>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...)
The limit is when the unit is loaded in from the data files. The "lglx"
attributes are applied only when the unit is added to the roster (when the
race, mode, etc. are officially known for the unit). If you go over the 100
limit when the files are loaded, you're hosed.
>Am I making sense?
Yes, except that I can't understand why on Earth you are having to do
things with 100 attributes on every damn unit. That's clearly a solution
that needs work.
Thanks, Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (650) 726-9689
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 20:12:24 +0000
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
Subject: RE: Scout Snipers
At 13:28 10/01/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>The different is that the Scout Choice in the Army
>list say "Any Model in the Unit" not Marine which is
>the usally statement. No dont think Flaming, that when
>goes to a personal level. Me I think it a choice
>between group that u play with. but i would like the
>option in the Army Builder files so I dont have to
>alter them. I always make sure my oppenent doesnt mind
>about it, and if he does, I have a secondary Scout
>Sergant on Hand.
As Jimi says, White Dwarf is often not particularly reliable as a source of
things like this. The order of feasibility goes:
Chapter Approved / GW FAQ / game designer says so (most reliable)
White Dwarf Battle Reports
Some Bloke You Met In The Pub
Roolzboyz
People you meet in pub are more reliable than Roolzboyz, since they'll
probably just pick randomly rather than using their amazing psychic powers
to work out what the wrong answer is.
--
'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: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 21:16:57 -0000
From: "Russell Sparkes" <rjs@inorbit.com>
Subject: Inheritance limits (was Re: Question about glob
--- In armybuilder@egroups.com, Rob Bowes <rob@w...> wrote:
> At 06:09 AM 1/10/01 +0000, you wrote:
>
> What?!?!? What on Earth are you doing with THAT many mirr
> attributes? That's ridiculous! It sure sounds like the method
> you're using is far from the best solution. Please explain to me
> what you're trying to accomplish that has you solving it this way.
The way you set the files up is (just in case you've forgotten):
Each race has a unit inheritor and a leader inheritor. Each Warp
Magic spell for that race is assigned to the unit inheritor via cost
and the leader inheritor via auto, combined with a mirr: attribute to
make sure the two always match for a given unit. It's a very neat
solution
However... There are some units (Orc Natives) that can be taken by
almost any army, and where possible, can have the host army's Warp
Magic cast on them. So I figured I'd need to link in EVERY Warp Magic
option to (almost) every unit and restrict each one with lglx...
Taking that one step further for Mercenaries and or Allies where I
can field units from almost any other army - and still have them be
affected by the Warp Magic of the host army, I need to extend the
original idea to include every Warp Spell for every race...
So instead of one inheritor for each race, I was heading towards one
inheritor...
But that's ridiculous (apparently.
Ideas?
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: 13
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 23:35:34 -0000
From: "Jimi" <james.tubman@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Scout Snipers
You missed a few steps out
> Chapter Approved / GW FAQ / game designer says so (most reliable)
> White Dwarf Battle Reports
> Some Bloke You Met In The Pub
Family pet
Amoeba specimen in laboratory
The contents of your hankerchief after blowing your nose
Lawyer
> Roolzboyz
Jimi
FREE 40k card buildings - http://www.crosswinds.net/~astronomican/
40k3 - http://www.egroups.com/group/40k3/info.html
40k Fluff - http://www.egroups.com/group/40k_fluff/info.html
Astartes - http://www.egroups.com/group/adeptus_astartes/info.html
Grey Knights - http://www.egroups.com/group/greyknightchapter/info.html
Imperial Guard - http://www.egroups.com/group/imperial-guard/info.html
Sons Of Russ - http://www.egroups.com/group/sons-of-russ/info.html
Unforgiven - http://www.egroups.com/group/unforgiven/info.html
VDR - http://www.egroups.com/group/gw-vdr/info.html
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 01:52:15 -0000
From: gjoe@acd.net
Subject: Latest edition 40k files
I have noticed this little bug while trying to build an Imperial
Guard Armoured Company. When assigning a commander to be mounted in
a tank, army builder counts this as two HQ choices. Has any body
else had this problem or should I merely end it all with bolter round
to the computer.
thanks Joe
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 03:08:50 -0000
From: "Tom " <tnnlynch@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Scout Snipers
> Yes he did. And he also disembarked a squad from a Rhino and shot
the
> squad's heavy weapon at an enemy.
I have always thought that disembarking from a vehicle (that
didn't move) was NOT considered movement. Hence if the vehicle was at
a stop you could deploy and fire heavy weapons. The rules (on page
81) state troops disembarking (from a vehicle that hasn't moved) can
move as normal.
I think the battle reports are somewhat "edited" to spice them up
without considering the effect they can have with your local rules
lawyer. Many of them talk about playing the scenario several times in
a row. Not exactly a bad way to spend your "work" day.
Tom
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. RE: Scout Snipers
From: "DiPonio" <DiPonio@voyager.net>
2. RE: Scout Snipers
From: David Wyatt-Millington <xaxier_uk@yahoo.co.uk>
3. RE: Scout Snipers
From: "DiPonio" <DiPonio@voyager.net>
4. WFB Scenarios was (Re: Digest Number 269)
From: "Christepher McKenney" <blazetopast@hotmail.com>
5. AW: WFB Scenarios was (Re: Digest Number 269)
From: "Dieter Passchier" <Dieter.Passchier@Embdena.de>
6. Re: Scout Snipers
From: doublenot7@aol.com
7. RE: Scenarios
From: "sabrina akins-becker" <sabrina.akins-becker@eer.com>
8. Re: That's what I need....more guns!
From: "Richard Lonski" <richard.j2.lonski@mail.sprint.com>
9. Re: That's what I need....more guns!
From: "Richard Lonski" <richard.j2.lonski@mail.sprint.com>
10. Re: Inheritance limits (was Re: Question about glob
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
11. RE: Scout Snipers
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
12. Inheritance limits (was Re: Question about glob
From: "Russell Sparkes" <rjs@inorbit.com>
13. Re: Scout Snipers
From: "Jimi" <james.tubman@blueyonder.co.uk>
14. Latest edition 40k files
From: gjoe@acd.net
15. Re: Scout Snipers
From: "Tom " <tnnlynch@hotmail.com>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 08:01:09 -0500
From: "DiPonio" <DiPonio@voyager.net>
Subject: RE: Scout Snipers
No more stupid than if you let the sergeant of a devastator squad take a
heavy weapon.
The sergeant is there for leadership primarily, to organize the unit into an
effective fighting unit. How is he going to control the actions of the
squad if he is all nestled behind a sniper scope.
Hope you don't think I'm flaming. Just joining the conversation.
Paul.
-----Original Message-----
From: David Wyatt-Millington [mailto:xaxier_uk@yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 5:57 AM
To: ab@support.wolflair.com
Subject: [AB] 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
To unsubscribe from this group, email
armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:28:28 +0000 (GMT)
From: David Wyatt-Millington <xaxier_uk@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: RE: Scout Snipers
The different is that the Scout Choice in the Army
list say "Any Model in the Unit" not Marine which is
the usally statement. No dont think Flaming, that when
goes to a personal level. Me I think it a choice
between group that u play with. but i would like the
option in the Army Builder files so I dont have to
alter them. I always make sure my oppenent doesnt mind
about it, and if he does, I have a secondary Scout
Sergant on Hand.
> The sergeant is there for leadership primarily, to
> organize the unit into an
> effective fighting unit. How is he going to control
> the actions of the
> squad if he is all nestled behind a sniper scope.
____________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 08:24:50 -0500
From: "DiPonio" <DiPonio@voyager.net>
Subject: RE: Scout Snipers
Fair enough =]
Good Hunting,
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: David Wyatt-Millington [mailto:xaxier_uk@yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 8:28 AM
To: ab@support.wolflair.com
Subject: RE: [AB] Scout Snipers
The different is that the Scout Choice in the Army
list say "Any Model in the Unit" not Marine which is
the usally statement. No dont think Flaming, that when
goes to a personal level. Me I think it a choice
between group that u play with. but i would like the
option in the Army Builder files so I dont have to
alter them. I always make sure my oppenent doesnt mind
about it, and if he does, I have a secondary Scout
Sergant on Hand.
> The sergeant is there for leadership primarily, to
> organize the unit into an
> effective fighting unit. How is he going to control
> the actions of the
> squad if he is all nestled behind a sniper scope.
____________________________________________________________
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
To unsubscribe from this group, email
armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 09:48:27 -0500
From: "Christepher McKenney" <blazetopast@hotmail.com>
Subject: WFB Scenarios was (Re: Digest Number 269)
Sorry for the delay but I have been indisposed for a long time with an
illness and lack of laptop to use while I was in bed...
Dieter,
The big problem is twofold - 1) I have only two of them and 2) they were
designed with 5th edition in mind so the alternate army lists would need to
be designed all over again for the new point costs.
Sabrina,
I will consider adding scenario-specific commands but the problem is that
each army book has multiple army lists in it and to add all the scenario
variants for each one would be cumbersome. But I will look into it as later
improvements (along with adding the Siege equipment). I need to get the
next version out with the Dwarf Book in it first.
Christepher McKenney
WFBv6 Files Manager
----Original Message Follows----
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
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 16:39:29 +0100
From: "Dieter Passchier" <Dieter.Passchier@Embdena.de>
Subject: AW: WFB Scenarios was (Re: Digest Number 269)
Hello!
I will play the Drong campaign with RH and will see if there is a great
difference between 5th and 6th edition. I assume, that there isn´t, but if
you are interested I´ll keep you informed. As of the books, I own three of
them and a friend of mine has the fourth. So if you are interested in the
stats, I could send them to you.
Take care,
Dieter
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Christepher McKenney [mailto:blazetopast@hotmail.com]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. Januar 2001 15:48
An: armybuilder@egroups.com
Betreff: WFB Scenarios was (Re: [AB] Digest Number 269)
Sorry for the delay but I have been indisposed for a long time with an
illness and lack of laptop to use while I was in bed...
Dieter,
The big problem is twofold - 1) I have only two of them and 2) they were
designed with 5th edition in mind so the alternate army lists would need to
be designed all over again for the new point costs.
Sabrina,
I will consider adding scenario-specific commands but the problem is that
each army book has multiple army lists in it and to add all the scenario
variants for each one would be cumbersome. But I will look into it as later
improvements (along with adding the Siege equipment). I need to get the
next version out with the Dwarf Book in it first.
Christepher McKenney
WFBv6 Files Manager
----Original Message Follows----
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
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
To unsubscribe from this group, email
armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 12:20:26 EST
From: doublenot7@aol.com
Subject: Re: Scout Snipers
In a message dated 01/10/2001 4:57:44 AM Central Standard Time,
xaxier_uk@yahoo.co.uk writes:
<< 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.
>>
You guys should really read the codex a little better. It clearly states
twice that this is NOT allowed. "Fat Bloke" Sawyer is just a cheater
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:44:06 -0500
From: "sabrina akins-becker" <sabrina.akins-becker@eer.com>
Subject: RE: Scenarios
Ah yes - I have all 5 of the campaign packs - Perlious Quest (Bret & WE),
Tears of Isha (HE & DE), Grudge of Drong (Dwarves & HE), Circle of Blood (TK
& Bret), and ?? with O&G & Empire. All but "Quest" were usable with at
least 2 other armies fighting the first one named. I've played "Quest" and
seen "Grudge" - both were lots of fun.
Sabrina
-----Original Message-----
From: armybuilder@egroups.com [mailto:armybuilder@egroups.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 5:57 AM
To: ab@support.wolflair.com
Subject: [AB] Digest Number 269
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
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 19:31:48 -0000
From: "Richard Lonski" <richard.j2.lonski@mail.sprint.com>
Subject: Re: That's what I need....more guns!
--- In armybuilder@egroups.com, trent <felix@m...> wrote:
> 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
I believe that it is actually in the shoulder....although there are 2
barrel looking things that extend from just below the right and left
torso sides.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 19:36:00 -0000
From: "Richard Lonski" <richard.j2.lonski@mail.sprint.com>
Subject: Re: That's what I need....more guns!
--- In armybuilder@egroups.com, Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister
<demandred@s...> wrote:
> 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.
>
I was afraid you were going to say that.....
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:35:44 -0800
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Inheritance limits (was Re: Question about glob
At 06:09 AM 1/10/01 +0000, you wrote:
>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
What?!?!? What on Earth are you doing with THAT many mirr attributes?
That's ridiculous! It sure sounds like the method you're using is far from
the best solution. Please explain to me what you're trying to accomplish
that has you solving it this way.
>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)?
It sure will choke on it. The limit is 100 attributes - TOTAL. If they come
from multiple places, they still exceed the limit.
>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?
The latter is done. AB has to load everything in first. THEN it can
determine which options are to be discarded due to lglx.
>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...)
The limit is when the unit is loaded in from the data files. The "lglx"
attributes are applied only when the unit is added to the roster (when the
race, mode, etc. are officially known for the unit). If you go over the 100
limit when the files are loaded, you're hosed.
>Am I making sense?
Yes, except that I can't understand why on Earth you are having to do
things with 100 attributes on every damn unit. That's clearly a solution
that needs work.
Thanks, Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (650) 726-9689
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 20:12:24 +0000
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
Subject: RE: Scout Snipers
At 13:28 10/01/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>The different is that the Scout Choice in the Army
>list say "Any Model in the Unit" not Marine which is
>the usally statement. No dont think Flaming, that when
>goes to a personal level. Me I think it a choice
>between group that u play with. but i would like the
>option in the Army Builder files so I dont have to
>alter them. I always make sure my oppenent doesnt mind
>about it, and if he does, I have a secondary Scout
>Sergant on Hand.
As Jimi says, White Dwarf is often not particularly reliable as a source of
things like this. The order of feasibility goes:
Chapter Approved / GW FAQ / game designer says so (most reliable)
White Dwarf Battle Reports
Some Bloke You Met In The Pub
Roolzboyz
People you meet in pub are more reliable than Roolzboyz, since they'll
probably just pick randomly rather than using their amazing psychic powers
to work out what the wrong answer is.
--
'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: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 21:16:57 -0000
From: "Russell Sparkes" <rjs@inorbit.com>
Subject: Inheritance limits (was Re: Question about glob
--- In armybuilder@egroups.com, Rob Bowes <rob@w...> wrote:
> At 06:09 AM 1/10/01 +0000, you wrote:
>
> What?!?!? What on Earth are you doing with THAT many mirr
> attributes? That's ridiculous! It sure sounds like the method
> you're using is far from the best solution. Please explain to me
> what you're trying to accomplish that has you solving it this way.
The way you set the files up is (just in case you've forgotten):
Each race has a unit inheritor and a leader inheritor. Each Warp
Magic spell for that race is assigned to the unit inheritor via cost
and the leader inheritor via auto, combined with a mirr: attribute to
make sure the two always match for a given unit. It's a very neat
solution
However... There are some units (Orc Natives) that can be taken by
almost any army, and where possible, can have the host army's Warp
Magic cast on them. So I figured I'd need to link in EVERY Warp Magic
option to (almost) every unit and restrict each one with lglx...
Taking that one step further for Mercenaries and or Allies where I
can field units from almost any other army - and still have them be
affected by the Warp Magic of the host army, I need to extend the
original idea to include every Warp Spell for every race...
So instead of one inheritor for each race, I was heading towards one
inheritor...
But that's ridiculous (apparently
.Ideas?
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: 13
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 23:35:34 -0000
From: "Jimi" <james.tubman@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Scout Snipers
You missed a few steps out
> Chapter Approved / GW FAQ / game designer says so (most reliable)
> White Dwarf Battle Reports
> Some Bloke You Met In The Pub
Family pet
Amoeba specimen in laboratory
The contents of your hankerchief after blowing your nose
Lawyer
> Roolzboyz
Jimi
FREE 40k card buildings - http://www.crosswinds.net/~astronomican/
40k3 - http://www.egroups.com/group/40k3/info.html
40k Fluff - http://www.egroups.com/group/40k_fluff/info.html
Astartes - http://www.egroups.com/group/adeptus_astartes/info.html
Grey Knights - http://www.egroups.com/group/greyknightchapter/info.html
Imperial Guard - http://www.egroups.com/group/imperial-guard/info.html
Sons Of Russ - http://www.egroups.com/group/sons-of-russ/info.html
Unforgiven - http://www.egroups.com/group/unforgiven/info.html
VDR - http://www.egroups.com/group/gw-vdr/info.html
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 01:52:15 -0000
From: gjoe@acd.net
Subject: Latest edition 40k files
I have noticed this little bug while trying to build an Imperial
Guard Armoured Company. When assigning a commander to be mounted in
a tank, army builder counts this as two HQ choices. Has any body
else had this problem or should I merely end it all with bolter round
to the computer.
thanks Joe
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 03:08:50 -0000
From: "Tom " <tnnlynch@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Scout Snipers
> Yes he did. And he also disembarked a squad from a Rhino and shot
the
> squad's heavy weapon at an enemy.
I have always thought that disembarking from a vehicle (that
didn't move) was NOT considered movement. Hence if the vehicle was at
a stop you could deploy and fire heavy weapons. The rules (on page
81) state troops disembarking (from a vehicle that hasn't moved) can
move as normal.
I think the battle reports are somewhat "edited" to spice them up
without considering the effect they can have with your local rules
lawyer. Many of them talk about playing the scenario several times in
a row. Not exactly a bad way to spend your "work" day.
Tom
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________