A
armybuilder at egroups.co
Guest
To unsubscribe from this group, email
armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 12 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Inheritance limits (was Re: Question about glob
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
2. Re: Latest edition 40k files
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
3. Re: Re: Scout Snipers
From: "Jimi" <james.tubman@blueyonder.co.uk>
4. Re: Inheritance limits
From: "Russell Sparkes" <rjs@inorbit.com>
5. RE: Re: Scout Snipers
From: "DiPonio" <DiPonio@voyager.net>
6. mordhime pirates?
From: wes <noelvh@bigfoot.com>
7. New Dwarves for ab file
From: "Harry Cullins" <arromanche@mindspring.com>
8. Re: Inheritance limits
From: "Russell Sparkes" <rjs@inorbit.com>
9. Re: Scout Snipers
From: "Tom " <tnnlynch@hotmail.com>
10. Re: New Dwarves for ab file
From: Mike Wood <balzemon@yahoo.com>
11. Re: Re: Inheritance limits
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
12. Re: Re: Scout Snipers
From: freds67@aol.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 04:17:18 -0800
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Inheritance limits (was Re: Question about glob
Colen - Please take a read of this and let me know if there is anything
you're aware of that would render my proposed solution invalid.
And in response to Russell....
Yuck!! This sure sounds like the classic case of a game designer out of
control with creative juices that are being left unchecked. I ran into this
with Clan War, but Ken was able to be reeled in a bit once he sanity
checked things with all the playtesters (there was a solid team doing
that). Tim is an unknown quantity in this regard.... :-(
I can now see why you went the path that you did. It was a logical
extension of the model already setup and working. But AB just isn't
designed to handle something of that magnitude. So, it's time to come up
with an alternative approach. Now if only I had some idea of what that
might be.... :-(
<pause while Rob spends quite awhile wracking his brain for a solution>
OK. Here is how I think you'll need to solve this. The problem is that you
need to have LOTS of options that are attached to just about every unit.
Most of those options will only be valid for a single race. The best way to
minimize overrunning the limit on options for each unit (not to mention
attributes) is to use a single option for each race that uses "more" to
chain to the race-specific options. The parent option would use "lglx" to
control whether it was available, and the chained optoins would be
available if the parent option is valid. For example, you'd have a single
option for the Orcs Warp Magic and use "lglx" to restrict its availability
properly. It would have separate "more" attributes for each Orc Spell.
The problem with this is that you now can't use "mirr". So we now have to
solve that one. This gets a little bit convoluted in concept, but I think
the solution is actually reasonably clean. Here goes...
Each spell is an option. Each spell assigns a specific type to the unit and
all child units via the "-child" qualifier on the "type" attribute. For
example, the Orc spell "Foo" would have the attribute "type:OrFoo-child".
Next, each leader unit would need to be assigned the type "Leader".
Third, each spell option would be assigned a conditional test of
"utyp:!Leader||OrFoo" that used the matching type that is assigned. For
example, if "type:OrXXX-child" is assigned, the "utyp" would specify type
"OrXXX" as the second dependency term. This would ensure that all
NON-leaders have the option available always (they don't have the "Leader"
type) and all LEADERS only get the option when they have the proper type to
satisfy the second dependency term. The net results is that Leaders would
only get the type when the parent unit has the option selected. Note that
this requires that the option that attaches the leader via "unit" must be
sequenced AFTER the Warp Magic spells so that the child units are properly
assigned types by the parent unit.
Lastly, all NON-leader units would have these options attached as "cost",
while the LEADER units would have the options attached as "auto". Since all
parent options will always be attached as "auto", it means that you'll need
two sets of parent options. The set for NON-leader units will contain all
of the "more" attributes attaching the options with "cost" nature. The
second set for LEADER units will contain all the "more" attributes with
"auto" nature. For example, the parent option for all Orc NON-Leader spells
would be attached as "auto". It would have attributes like
"more:OrFoo=cost". In contrast, the parent option for Ord Leader spells
would also be attached as "auto". However, it would have attributes like
"more:OrFoo=auto".
To make this easy to implement, you could have all the base Units attach
the proper parent options and have all the base Leaders attach THEIR proper
parent options. Then each of the real units will automatically inherit the
proper set of options and behave correctly.
To recap how this would work, consider the following. Unit X has Leader Y.
Unit X is in Race A, so that means Warp Magic option set A1 is enabled via
"lglx". Option set A1 causes all of the spell options for race A to be
associated with link nature "cost". Since Unit X doesn't have the "Leader"
type assigned to it, all the options appear to the user.
Leader Y is also in Race A, so option set A2 is enabled via "lglx". Option
set A2 causes all the spell options for race A to be associated with link
nature "auto". However, since the Leader DOES have the "Leader" type and
does NOT have any of the spell-specific types assigned to it, NONE of the
spell options appear for the Leader.
When the user select spell Q for Unit X, the type "AAQQQ" (or whatever it
is) gets assigned to the parent unit. This causes the same type to be
assigned to the child unit. When the type is assigned to the child unit,
the condition specified by "utyp" is now satisfied for spell Q. This
results in the option becoming enabled and therefore selected for the child
unit Leader Y.
When the user deselects spell Q for Unit X, the inverse happens and the
option goes away from the child (Leader) unit.
In concept, this logic SHOULD work. However, I have not tried this and
there could be something messed up within AB that causes this to fail. If
so, then I probably have a bug to fix.
Please give this solution a try and let me know if it works. If anything
here isn't clear, let me know. I've tried to be a complete as possible in
my description, but it's a somewhat complex solution and it might not be
explained as well as I THINK it is. ;-) Let me know if this works!!!
Thanks, Rob
>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?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (650) 726-9689
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 16:32:29 +0000
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
Subject: Re: Latest edition 40k files
At 01:52 11/01/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>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.
Did you really mean 2 HQ, or 1 HQ and 1 Heavy Support?
--
'Not Colin' McAlister - License to Skrill
Email: demandred@skrill.org | Visit http://www.skrill.org/ today!
-----------------------------+------------------------------------
"Dovie'andi se tovya sagain" - Robert Jordan's Wheel Of Time
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 18:51:54 -0000
From: "Jimi" <james.tubman@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Re: Scout Snipers
> 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.
Its still movement as far as weapons are concerned.
> I think the battle reports are somewhat "edited" to spice them up
> without considering the effect they can have with your local rules
> lawyer.
Got nothing to do with 'rules lawyers' - more to do with GW employees not
following the rulebook produced by the company that pays their wages. Not
exactly a glowing endorsement of said rules when the staff openly ignore
them.
> Many of them talk about playing the scenario several times in
> a row.
Yup - they need the right result for their fixed games (ref Paul Sawyer's
game in the recent campaign)
> Not exactly a bad way to spend your "work" day.
I wouldnt mind doing it - I get paid to play fixed games using my own
creation of the rules, get my photo in White Dwarf doing some ridiculous
pose and have a dumb name so that the munchkins think I'm cool (Jimi
Fart-Pants has always been a favourite of mine - yes, my farts do stink
really bad).
As you said, not a bad way to spend your "work" day.
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: 4
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 22:15:14 -0000
From: "Russell Sparkes" <rjs@inorbit.com>
Subject: Re: Inheritance limits
--- In armybuilder@egroups.com, Rob Bowes <rob@w...> wrote:
> I can now see why you went the path that you did. It was a logical
> extension of the model already setup and working. But AB just isn't
> designed to handle something of that magnitude. So, it's time to
> come up with an alternative approach. Now if only I had some idea
> of what that might be.... :-(
>
> <pause while Rob spends quite awhile wracking his brain for a
> solution>
>
> OK. Here is how I think you'll need to solve this. The problem is
> that you ...
[ huge snip of very long description ]
Yep, I can see how that'd work (I had to read it twice... It's a
fairly neat way to do it (all things considered), Thanks!
I'm about to go O/S for a couple of weeks so I don't think I'll have
a chance to try it out before I go, but I'm pretty sure it will work.
I'll let you know as soon as I get a chance to try it.
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: 5
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 17:46:45 -0500
From: "DiPonio" <DiPonio@voyager.net>
Subject: RE: Re: Scout Snipers
This is answered in a Q&A on the GW website. #14 Under Vehicles.
(http://www.games-workshop.com/news/us/events/GT-2001-US/q-n-a/images/Vehicl
es)
Hope that helps.
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom [mailto:tnnlynch@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 10:09 PM
To: ab@support.wolflair.com
Subject: [AB] 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
To unsubscribe from this group, email
armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 17:59:33 -0500
From: wes <noelvh@bigfoot.com>
Subject: mordhime pirates?
I am trying to build a pirate army for a friend can some one send me a
good starting army list.
Send it to noelvh@excite.com
thanks for the help.
Wes.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 00:46:21 -0000
From: "Harry Cullins" <arromanche@mindspring.com>
Subject: New Dwarves for ab file
Does anyone know when the new dwarves will be added to to Warhammer
ab
file? I have a game this weekend.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 00:53:08 -0000
From: "Russell Sparkes" <rjs@inorbit.com>
Subject: Re: Inheritance limits
--- In armybuilder@egroups.com, "Russell Sparkes" <rjs@i...> wrote:
> Yep, I can see how that'd work (I had to read it twice... It's
> a fairly neat way to do it (all things considered), Thanks!
>
> I'm about to go O/S for a couple of weeks so I don't think I'll
> have a chance to try it out before I go, but I'm pretty sure it
> will work. I'll let you know as soon as I get a chance to try it.
I did get a chance to try it - it works great. Thanks! I had to play
around with the Leader option tho. It's real nice to have it at the
top of the option list (since it would be used more than the Warp
options), so I added another high priority "Add Leader" option that
sets the "Lead" type. Then I moved all of the standard leader options
below the Warp spells set them to Auto (restricted by the type) and
hid them. Still looks the same, behaves totally different
Thanks,
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: 9
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 04:42:46 -0000
From: "Tom " <tnnlynch@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Scout Snipers
--- In armybuilder@egroups.com, "DiPonio" <DiPonio@v...> wrote:
> This is answered in a Q&A on the GW website. #14 Under Vehicles.
> (http://www.games-workshop.com/news/us/events/GT-2001-US/q-n-
a/images/Vehicl
> es)
>
> Hope that helps.
> Paul
>
http://www.games-workshop.com/news/us/events/GT-2001-US/gt-2001-us-q-
n-a.htm
Thanks! The Q&A was one I had not seen yet. I like the answer to
question 10, regarding the Army Selection:
"Yes[.] you can mix Terminator assault weapons in the squad. I can't
think where you could find empirical evidence of this except in a
battlereport, and we all know you can't trust them too far.".
Even GW slams the Battle reports for rules violations.
Thanks again,
Tom
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 21:16:52 -0800 (PST)
From: Mike Wood <balzemon@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: New Dwarves for ab file
--- Harry Cullins <arromanche@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Does anyone know when the new dwarves will be added to Warhammer
> ab file? I have a game this weekend.
I do believe that the keeper of the 6E files only recently (i.e.
this week) got a copy of the Dwarf Book and said he would be working
on it.
=====
Ba'alzemon
Warmaster FAQ Team
balzemon@yahoo.com
http://members.xoom.com/Balzemon
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 22:48:55 -0800
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Inheritance limits
At 12:53 AM 1/12/01 +0000, you wrote:
>--- In armybuilder@egroups.com, "Russell Sparkes" <rjs@i...> wrote:
> > Yep, I can see how that'd work (I had to read it twice... It's
> > a fairly neat way to do it (all things considered), Thanks!
> >
> > I'm about to go O/S for a couple of weeks so I don't think I'll
> > have a chance to try it out before I go, but I'm pretty sure it
> > will work. I'll let you know as soon as I get a chance to try it.
>
>I did get a chance to try it - it works great. Thanks! I had to play
>around with the Leader option tho. It's real nice to have it at the
>top of the option list (since it would be used more than the Warp
>options), so I added another high priority "Add Leader" option that
>sets the "Lead" type. Then I moved all of the standard leader options
>below the Warp spells set them to Auto (restricted by the type) and
>hid them. Still looks the same, behaves totally different
Yeah! There are lots of ways to skin cats with AB. It's just a matter of
figuring out some wacky way of side-stepping the limitations you're running
into. If you run into situations in the future where you're using a
boatload of something, it's quite likely there's an alternate way of
solving it. Sometimes it's not very easy figuring out what that alternative
IS, but it's usually out there.
Glad to be of help!! And thanks for checking this before you left. I was
expecting it would work, but I honestly wasn't certain. This solution is
really a serious test of all the AB internals, and I don't think I ever put
it through such a nasty test as this previously.
Thanks again,
Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (650) 726-9689
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 05:29:00 EST
From: freds67@aol.com
Subject: Re: Re: Scout Snipers
Hi there. I'm one of the 1% that can't view the 40k Q+A file... would
someone be so kind as to send me a text file version of it? Directly to me
would be cool, as to not clog up the list. Thanks!!!
Fred
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 12 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Inheritance limits (was Re: Question about glob
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
2. Re: Latest edition 40k files
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
3. Re: Re: Scout Snipers
From: "Jimi" <james.tubman@blueyonder.co.uk>
4. Re: Inheritance limits
From: "Russell Sparkes" <rjs@inorbit.com>
5. RE: Re: Scout Snipers
From: "DiPonio" <DiPonio@voyager.net>
6. mordhime pirates?
From: wes <noelvh@bigfoot.com>
7. New Dwarves for ab file
From: "Harry Cullins" <arromanche@mindspring.com>
8. Re: Inheritance limits
From: "Russell Sparkes" <rjs@inorbit.com>
9. Re: Scout Snipers
From: "Tom " <tnnlynch@hotmail.com>
10. Re: New Dwarves for ab file
From: Mike Wood <balzemon@yahoo.com>
11. Re: Re: Inheritance limits
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
12. Re: Re: Scout Snipers
From: freds67@aol.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 04:17:18 -0800
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Inheritance limits (was Re: Question about glob
Colen - Please take a read of this and let me know if there is anything
you're aware of that would render my proposed solution invalid.
And in response to Russell....
Yuck!! This sure sounds like the classic case of a game designer out of
control with creative juices that are being left unchecked. I ran into this
with Clan War, but Ken was able to be reeled in a bit once he sanity
checked things with all the playtesters (there was a solid team doing
that). Tim is an unknown quantity in this regard.... :-(
I can now see why you went the path that you did. It was a logical
extension of the model already setup and working. But AB just isn't
designed to handle something of that magnitude. So, it's time to come up
with an alternative approach. Now if only I had some idea of what that
might be.... :-(
<pause while Rob spends quite awhile wracking his brain for a solution>
OK. Here is how I think you'll need to solve this. The problem is that you
need to have LOTS of options that are attached to just about every unit.
Most of those options will only be valid for a single race. The best way to
minimize overrunning the limit on options for each unit (not to mention
attributes) is to use a single option for each race that uses "more" to
chain to the race-specific options. The parent option would use "lglx" to
control whether it was available, and the chained optoins would be
available if the parent option is valid. For example, you'd have a single
option for the Orcs Warp Magic and use "lglx" to restrict its availability
properly. It would have separate "more" attributes for each Orc Spell.
The problem with this is that you now can't use "mirr". So we now have to
solve that one. This gets a little bit convoluted in concept, but I think
the solution is actually reasonably clean. Here goes...
Each spell is an option. Each spell assigns a specific type to the unit and
all child units via the "-child" qualifier on the "type" attribute. For
example, the Orc spell "Foo" would have the attribute "type:OrFoo-child".
Next, each leader unit would need to be assigned the type "Leader".
Third, each spell option would be assigned a conditional test of
"utyp:!Leader||OrFoo" that used the matching type that is assigned. For
example, if "type:OrXXX-child" is assigned, the "utyp" would specify type
"OrXXX" as the second dependency term. This would ensure that all
NON-leaders have the option available always (they don't have the "Leader"
type) and all LEADERS only get the option when they have the proper type to
satisfy the second dependency term. The net results is that Leaders would
only get the type when the parent unit has the option selected. Note that
this requires that the option that attaches the leader via "unit" must be
sequenced AFTER the Warp Magic spells so that the child units are properly
assigned types by the parent unit.
Lastly, all NON-leader units would have these options attached as "cost",
while the LEADER units would have the options attached as "auto". Since all
parent options will always be attached as "auto", it means that you'll need
two sets of parent options. The set for NON-leader units will contain all
of the "more" attributes attaching the options with "cost" nature. The
second set for LEADER units will contain all the "more" attributes with
"auto" nature. For example, the parent option for all Orc NON-Leader spells
would be attached as "auto". It would have attributes like
"more:OrFoo=cost". In contrast, the parent option for Ord Leader spells
would also be attached as "auto". However, it would have attributes like
"more:OrFoo=auto".
To make this easy to implement, you could have all the base Units attach
the proper parent options and have all the base Leaders attach THEIR proper
parent options. Then each of the real units will automatically inherit the
proper set of options and behave correctly.
To recap how this would work, consider the following. Unit X has Leader Y.
Unit X is in Race A, so that means Warp Magic option set A1 is enabled via
"lglx". Option set A1 causes all of the spell options for race A to be
associated with link nature "cost". Since Unit X doesn't have the "Leader"
type assigned to it, all the options appear to the user.
Leader Y is also in Race A, so option set A2 is enabled via "lglx". Option
set A2 causes all the spell options for race A to be associated with link
nature "auto". However, since the Leader DOES have the "Leader" type and
does NOT have any of the spell-specific types assigned to it, NONE of the
spell options appear for the Leader.
When the user select spell Q for Unit X, the type "AAQQQ" (or whatever it
is) gets assigned to the parent unit. This causes the same type to be
assigned to the child unit. When the type is assigned to the child unit,
the condition specified by "utyp" is now satisfied for spell Q. This
results in the option becoming enabled and therefore selected for the child
unit Leader Y.
When the user deselects spell Q for Unit X, the inverse happens and the
option goes away from the child (Leader) unit.
In concept, this logic SHOULD work. However, I have not tried this and
there could be something messed up within AB that causes this to fail. If
so, then I probably have a bug to fix.
Please give this solution a try and let me know if it works. If anything
here isn't clear, let me know. I've tried to be a complete as possible in
my description, but it's a somewhat complex solution and it might not be
explained as well as I THINK it is. ;-) Let me know if this works!!!
Thanks, Rob
>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?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (650) 726-9689
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 16:32:29 +0000
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
Subject: Re: Latest edition 40k files
At 01:52 11/01/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>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.
Did you really mean 2 HQ, or 1 HQ and 1 Heavy Support?
--
'Not Colin' McAlister - License to Skrill
Email: demandred@skrill.org | Visit http://www.skrill.org/ today!
-----------------------------+------------------------------------
"Dovie'andi se tovya sagain" - Robert Jordan's Wheel Of Time
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 18:51:54 -0000
From: "Jimi" <james.tubman@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Re: Scout Snipers
> 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.
Its still movement as far as weapons are concerned.
> I think the battle reports are somewhat "edited" to spice them up
> without considering the effect they can have with your local rules
> lawyer.
Got nothing to do with 'rules lawyers' - more to do with GW employees not
following the rulebook produced by the company that pays their wages. Not
exactly a glowing endorsement of said rules when the staff openly ignore
them.
> Many of them talk about playing the scenario several times in
> a row.
Yup - they need the right result for their fixed games (ref Paul Sawyer's
game in the recent campaign)
> Not exactly a bad way to spend your "work" day.
I wouldnt mind doing it - I get paid to play fixed games using my own
creation of the rules, get my photo in White Dwarf doing some ridiculous
pose and have a dumb name so that the munchkins think I'm cool (Jimi
Fart-Pants has always been a favourite of mine - yes, my farts do stink
really bad).
As you said, not a bad way to spend your "work" day.
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: 4
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 22:15:14 -0000
From: "Russell Sparkes" <rjs@inorbit.com>
Subject: Re: Inheritance limits
--- In armybuilder@egroups.com, Rob Bowes <rob@w...> wrote:
> I can now see why you went the path that you did. It was a logical
> extension of the model already setup and working. But AB just isn't
> designed to handle something of that magnitude. So, it's time to
> come up with an alternative approach. Now if only I had some idea
> of what that might be.... :-(
>
> <pause while Rob spends quite awhile wracking his brain for a
> solution>
>
> OK. Here is how I think you'll need to solve this. The problem is
> that you ...
[ huge snip of very long description
]Yep, I can see how that'd work (I had to read it twice
... It's a fairly neat way to do it (all things considered), Thanks!
I'm about to go O/S for a couple of weeks so I don't think I'll have
a chance to try it out before I go, but I'm pretty sure it will work.
I'll let you know as soon as I get a chance to try it.
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: 5
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 17:46:45 -0500
From: "DiPonio" <DiPonio@voyager.net>
Subject: RE: Re: Scout Snipers
This is answered in a Q&A on the GW website. #14 Under Vehicles.
(http://www.games-workshop.com/news/us/events/GT-2001-US/q-n-a/images/Vehicl
es)
Hope that helps.
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom [mailto:tnnlynch@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 10:09 PM
To: ab@support.wolflair.com
Subject: [AB] 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
To unsubscribe from this group, email
armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 17:59:33 -0500
From: wes <noelvh@bigfoot.com>
Subject: mordhime pirates?
I am trying to build a pirate army for a friend can some one send me a
good starting army list.
Send it to noelvh@excite.com
thanks for the help.
Wes.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 00:46:21 -0000
From: "Harry Cullins" <arromanche@mindspring.com>
Subject: New Dwarves for ab file
Does anyone know when the new dwarves will be added to to Warhammer
ab
file? I have a game this weekend.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 00:53:08 -0000
From: "Russell Sparkes" <rjs@inorbit.com>
Subject: Re: Inheritance limits
--- In armybuilder@egroups.com, "Russell Sparkes" <rjs@i...> wrote:
> Yep, I can see how that'd work (I had to read it twice
... It's> a fairly neat way to do it (all things considered), Thanks!
>
> I'm about to go O/S for a couple of weeks so I don't think I'll
> have a chance to try it out before I go, but I'm pretty sure it
> will work. I'll let you know as soon as I get a chance to try it.
I did get a chance to try it - it works great. Thanks! I had to play
around with the Leader option tho. It's real nice to have it at the
top of the option list (since it would be used more than the Warp
options), so I added another high priority "Add Leader" option that
sets the "Lead" type. Then I moved all of the standard leader options
below the Warp spells set them to Auto (restricted by the type) and
hid them. Still looks the same, behaves totally different
Thanks,
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: 9
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 04:42:46 -0000
From: "Tom " <tnnlynch@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Scout Snipers
--- In armybuilder@egroups.com, "DiPonio" <DiPonio@v...> wrote:
> This is answered in a Q&A on the GW website. #14 Under Vehicles.
> (http://www.games-workshop.com/news/us/events/GT-2001-US/q-n-
a/images/Vehicl
> es)
>
> Hope that helps.
> Paul
>
http://www.games-workshop.com/news/us/events/GT-2001-US/gt-2001-us-q-
n-a.htm
Thanks! The Q&A was one I had not seen yet. I like the answer to
question 10, regarding the Army Selection:
"Yes[.] you can mix Terminator assault weapons in the squad. I can't
think where you could find empirical evidence of this except in a
battlereport, and we all know you can't trust them too far.".
Even GW slams the Battle reports for rules violations.
Thanks again,
Tom
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 21:16:52 -0800 (PST)
From: Mike Wood <balzemon@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: New Dwarves for ab file
--- Harry Cullins <arromanche@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Does anyone know when the new dwarves will be added to Warhammer
> ab file? I have a game this weekend.
I do believe that the keeper of the 6E files only recently (i.e.
this week) got a copy of the Dwarf Book and said he would be working
on it.
=====
Ba'alzemon
Warmaster FAQ Team
balzemon@yahoo.com
http://members.xoom.com/Balzemon
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 22:48:55 -0800
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Inheritance limits
At 12:53 AM 1/12/01 +0000, you wrote:
>--- In armybuilder@egroups.com, "Russell Sparkes" <rjs@i...> wrote:
> > Yep, I can see how that'd work (I had to read it twice
... It's> > a fairly neat way to do it (all things considered), Thanks!
> >
> > I'm about to go O/S for a couple of weeks so I don't think I'll
> > have a chance to try it out before I go, but I'm pretty sure it
> > will work. I'll let you know as soon as I get a chance to try it.
>
>I did get a chance to try it - it works great. Thanks! I had to play
>around with the Leader option tho. It's real nice to have it at the
>top of the option list (since it would be used more than the Warp
>options), so I added another high priority "Add Leader" option that
>sets the "Lead" type. Then I moved all of the standard leader options
>below the Warp spells set them to Auto (restricted by the type) and
>hid them. Still looks the same, behaves totally different
Yeah! There are lots of ways to skin cats with AB. It's just a matter of
figuring out some wacky way of side-stepping the limitations you're running
into.
If you run into situations in the future where you're using a boatload of something, it's quite likely there's an alternate way of
solving it. Sometimes it's not very easy figuring out what that alternative
IS, but it's usually out there.
Glad to be of help!! And thanks for checking this before you left. I was
expecting it would work, but I honestly wasn't certain. This solution is
really a serious test of all the AB internals, and I don't think I ever put
it through such a nasty test as this previously.
Thanks again,
Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (650) 726-9689
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 05:29:00 EST
From: freds67@aol.com
Subject: Re: Re: Scout Snipers
Hi there. I'm one of the 1% that can't view the 40k Q+A file... would
someone be so kind as to send me a text file version of it? Directly to me
would be cool, as to not clog up the list. Thanks!!!
Fred
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________