A
armybuilder at egroups.co
Guest
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hot off the press- summer's here!
School's out and it's sizzling hot. Whether you're planning a
graduation party, a summer brunch, or simple birthday party,
shop GreatEntertaining.com before your next celebration.
http://click.egroups.com/1/4473/3/_/36190/_/959767178/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this group, email
armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 11 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. older files
From: loki17701@earthlink.net
2. Re: older files
From: "Mathias Schreiber" <schreiber@freek-inc.com>
3. Some Complex Augmentation File ?s
From: hunton@hotmail.com
4. Re: Some Complex Augmentation File ?s
From: 'Not Colin' McAlister & The Skrills <demandred@skrill.org>
5. Re: Re: design problem
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
6. Re: Some Complex Augmentation File ?s
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
7. Re: Re: design problem
From: "Debbie Hunton" <hunton@hotmail.com>
8. Dark Angels and 40K white file
From: "Clinton Gann" <darkange@pacbell.net>
9. Re: Some Complex Augmentation File ?s
From: 'Not Colin' McAlister & The Skrills <demandred@skrill.org>
10. Re: Some Complex Augmentation File ?s
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
11. Re: Dark Angels and 40K white file
From: 'Not Colin' McAlister & The Skrills <demandred@skrill.org>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 14:34:46 -0000
From: loki17701@earthlink.net
Subject: older files
Does anyone have access or know of where I can access 2nd edition 40k?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 16:51:50 +0200
From: "Mathias Schreiber" <schreiber@freek-inc.com>
Subject: Re: older files
I´m still waiting for the english scans
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 20:27:59 -0000
From: hunton@hotmail.com
Subject: Some Complex Augmentation File ?s
Hey,
Don't know if anyone out there can help, but I figured it couldn't
hurt to ask...
I run an ongoing Warhammer campaign in my store, and am desperately
sick and tired of hand-checking 50-150 army lists every 3 months! So
I'm working to add our campaign additions to the Army Builder lists
for Warhammer Fantasy Battles.
So far, I can do most of the simple things (making dragons available
to all the races, for instance), but we have some more complex
things, which I really need help with:
1. We have footmen for all the races. Adding these is easy.
However, allowing them the option of taking a mount is hard, due to
the cost calcuation (i.e. add in all equipment and base cost, double
it, then add the value of the mount). Any ideas?
2. We allow some war machines to all races (special ones we've made
up). These use the above mentioned footmen as crew. I want to make
crew a required "child" unit, but how do I give the option of having
either human or dwarf or skeleton or... (you get the idea) as crew?
3. Oh, and how do I overwrite values in the main race files with
Warhammer (i.e. I need to dis-allow all races from having allies)? I
plan to make an augmentation file (like has been used to add the
rules from a White Dwarf article), but don't know how to use one to
make changes in the original files instead of just additions.
There are some other problems I'm facing, but these are the big ones,
and if I can find a way to solve these, I should be able to solve the
others.
I would appreciate any help anyone can give.
Thanks,
Debbie
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 22:21:46 +0100
From: 'Not Colin' McAlister & The Skrills <demandred@skrill.org>
Subject: Re: Some Complex Augmentation File ?s
One fine day in the middle of the night, hunton@hotmail.com got up to
write:
>1. We have footmen for all the races. Adding these is easy.
>However, allowing them the option of taking a mount is hard, due to
>the cost calcuation (i.e. add in all equipment and base cost, double
>it, then add the value of the mount). Any ideas?
Make the 'Mount' option the lowest priority (after all weapons, etc.)
then use the:
ucst:all*2
attribute. I think this won't include the cost of the mount.
>2. We allow some war machines to all races (special ones we've made
>up). These use the above mentioned footmen as crew. I want to make
>crew a required "child" unit, but how do I give the option of having
>either human or dwarf or skeleton or... (you get the idea) as crew?
You'll need to make one 'Add Crew' option for each race. Each option
should have (for example, the Undead):
legl:race=un // un = Race attribute for undead
unit:unZombie@per=3 // For 3 crew per machine
hide
Don't put the bits after // in...
>3. Oh, and how do I overwrite values in the main race files with
>Warhammer (i.e. I need to dis-allow all races from having allies)? I
>plan to make an augmentation file (like has been used to add the
>rules from a White Dwarf article), but don't know how to use one to
>make changes in the original files instead of just additions.
Hmm. I don't think you can stop anyone from taking allies. Rob? You
could use an ally cost multiplier (acst) of about 1 million, to make all
allied units ridiculously expensive, I suppose.
--
'Not Colin' McAlister - License to Skrill
Email: demandred@skrill.org | Visit http://www.skrill.org/ today!
-----------------------------+------------------------------------
"Dovie'andi se tovya sagain" - Robert Jordan's Wheel Of Time
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 16:30:47 -0700
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Re: design problem
>Lets say itemA and itemB are allowed to "new" but itemB is not
>allowed to "new2", now I've tried using 'type:new-grand' with the
>option but 'ityp:new' under the item doesn't recognize it. I've
>tried
>using 'catg:xxx' as well, I've tried adjusting the priority too.
I *THINK* the problem is that you should simply be using "type:new" -
WITHOUT the "-grand" qualifier. The "-grand" qualifier indicates the parent
of the unit, which doesn't exist. If you specify without the "-grand", it
should modify the immediate parent unit (the one you want).
FYI: V2.0 will allow you to specify complex boolean expressions that allow
an item to be restricted based on combinations of types, regiments,
categories, etc.
Let me know if this doesn't work and I'll investigate it further for you.....
Thanks, Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (650) 726-9689
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 16:48:01 -0700
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Some Complex Augmentation File ?s
>1. We have footmen for all the races. Adding these is easy.
>However, allowing them the option of taking a mount is hard, due to
>the cost calcuation (i.e. add in all equipment and base cost, double
>it, then add the value of the mount). Any ideas?
Unfortunately, Colen's recommendation here was incorrect. *ALL* cost
calculations are performed *AFTER* all processing of options is performed -
it's a two-pass process. There is no way within AB to only apply a
multiplier to the entire unit EXCEPT a particular option - even with the
careful use of option prioritization. So, the solution is to do stuff in
the background so that the user SEES the proper NET behavior on the screen.
The simplest solution here is to simply assign the mount option at
half-cost, which is then doubled to the proper value. This is ugly to the
user, though. I recommend creating a hidden option called "Mount Rebate" or
some such. Chain to this option from the "Mount" option via
"more:rebate=auto". Give this hidden option a cost of half the normal Mount
cost and make it a NEGATIVE cost value. The net effect is that the Mount
LOOKS like it costs the full amount, but when it is added, the rebate cuts
the cost in half and THEN the cost gets doubled, resulting in no NET
doubling occuring for the Mount.
>2. We allow some war machines to all races (special ones we've made
>up). These use the above mentioned footmen as crew. I want to make
>crew a required "child" unit, but how do I give the option of having
>either human or dwarf or skeleton or... (you get the idea) as crew?
Do you want the user to SELECT the crew type or have it always be the crew
type for the native race? In the latter case, Colen's recommendation is
correct. You'll need a separate option for each child units. Each of these
options would be linked to the war machine unit, and each option would be
assigned "legl:race=xx". In the end, only the proper crew will appear for
the war machine. If the user can SELECT the crew type, you have two
choices. First, you can do as outlined above and omit the "legl" attribute
from the options - the user can then pick from the list. Alternately, you
can use the "list" attribute to let the user pick the crew from a list of
available units.
>3. Oh, and how do I overwrite values in the main race files with
>Warhammer (i.e. I need to dis-allow all races from having allies)? I
>plan to make an augmentation file (like has been used to add the
>rules from a White Dwarf article), but don't know how to use one to
>make changes in the original files instead of just additions.
There is no way to DELETE things from existing files, such as allies. The
simplest solution here is to create a new mode for your campaing rules (you
probably already have). Then, define a new composition rule-set for that
mode and select it by default for that mode. You can specify this
composition rule-set to impose a maximum limit of 0% allies. The net effect
is that any roster with allies will fail in the composition and validation
checks, automatically flagging the issue.
Hope this helps,
Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (650) 726-9689
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 04:44:25 GMT
From: "Debbie Hunton" <hunton@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Re: design problem
Rob,
This wasn't from me... you may want to double check this and resend it to
the correct poster.
BTW, you responded to my request for help on adding my campaign items to my
Warhammer files... I haven't had a chance to look at your reply yet,
but will do so tomorrow.
Thank you,
Debbie
>From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
>Reply-To: armybuilder@egroups.com
>To: armybuilder@egroups.com
>Subject: Re: [AB] Re: design problem
>Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 16:30:47 -0700
>
>
> >Lets say itemA and itemB are allowed to "new" but itemB is not
> >allowed to "new2", now I've tried using 'type:new-grand' with the
> >option but 'ityp:new' under the item doesn't recognize it. I've
> >tried
> >using 'catg:xxx' as well, I've tried adjusting the priority too.
>
>I *THINK* the problem is that you should simply be using "type:new" -
>WITHOUT the "-grand" qualifier. The "-grand" qualifier indicates the parent
>of the unit, which doesn't exist. If you specify without the "-grand", it
>should modify the immediate parent unit (the one you want).
>
>FYI: V2.0 will allow you to specify complex boolean expressions that allow
>an item to be restricted based on combinations of types, regiments,
>categories, etc.
>
>Let me know if this doesn't work and I'll investigate it further for
>you.....
>
>Thanks, Rob
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (650) 726-9689
>Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 05:35:54 -0000
From: "Clinton Gann" <darkange@pacbell.net>
Subject: Dark Angels and 40K white file
Greetings all,
I'm not sure what I might have done wrong however everytime that
I
have loaded the white files the size of my squads Dark Angel squads
gets limited to a max of eight. Have I done something stupid?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 02:45:39 +0100
From: 'Not Colin' McAlister & The Skrills <demandred@skrill.org>
Subject: Re: Some Complex Augmentation File ?s
One fine day in the middle of the night, Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
got up to write:
>
>>1. We have footmen for all the races. Adding these is easy.
>>However, allowing them the option of taking a mount is hard, due to
>>the cost calcuation (i.e. add in all equipment and base cost, double
>>it, then add the value of the mount). Any ideas?
>
>Unfortunately, Colen's recommendation here was incorrect. *ALL* cost
>calculations are performed *AFTER* all processing of options is performed -
>it's a two-pass process. There is no way within AB to only apply a
>multiplier to the entire unit EXCEPT a particular option - even with the
>careful use of option prioritization.
You are making the invalid assumption that the mount costs are
controlled via options. The last time I looked at the FB files, they
used the list: attribute to select a mount from, i.e. the actual option
cost 0 and the child unit cost the points. IIRC, whatever I suggested
doesn't multiply the cost of child units - I had some major annoyances
when making the 40K files with it.
>There is no way to DELETE things from existing files, such as allies. The
>simplest solution here is to create a new mode for your campaing rules (you
>probably already have). Then, define a new composition rule-set for that
>mode and select it by default for that mode. You can specify this
>composition rule-set to impose a maximum limit of 0% allies.
Or, indeed, to just not have an ally group (I think), using xbrk:.
--
'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: 10
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 00:46:11 -0700
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Some Complex Augmentation File ?s
> >>1. We have footmen for all the races. Adding these is easy.
> >>However, allowing them the option of taking a mount is hard, due to
> >>the cost calcuation (i.e. add in all equipment and base cost, double
> >>it, then add the value of the mount). Any ideas?
> >
> >Unfortunately, Colen's recommendation here was incorrect. *ALL* cost
> >calculations are performed *AFTER* all processing of options is performed -
> >it's a two-pass process. There is no way within AB to only apply a
> >multiplier to the entire unit EXCEPT a particular option - even with the
> >careful use of option prioritization.
>
>You are making the invalid assumption that the mount costs are
>controlled via options. The last time I looked at the FB files, they
>used the list: attribute to select a mount from, i.e. the actual option
>cost 0 and the child unit cost the points. IIRC, whatever I suggested
>doesn't multiply the cost of child units - I had some major annoyances
>when making the 40K files with it.
Sorry. When I simply saw the word "mount", I assumed horses and the like. I
did NOT realize that a "monster mount" was implied, especially since
generic "footmen" were the unit in question. You'll need to clarify this
issue for us if you continue to have problems, since this is clearly an
open issue.
> >There is no way to DELETE things from existing files, such as allies. The
> >simplest solution here is to create a new mode for your campaing rules (you
> >probably already have). Then, define a new composition rule-set for that
> >mode and select it by default for that mode. You can specify this
> >composition rule-set to impose a maximum limit of 0% allies.
>
>Or, indeed, to just not have an ally group (I think), using xbrk:.
That would get dangerous. I considered that, but it would result in there
being NO ally group. While this is conceptually "good", it's also BAD. If
there is no ally group, AB will put allied units in with other normal units
of their composition group (e.g. an allied character gets lumped into
characters). Since this does NOT preclude the user from taking allies, it
simply masks the problem, thereby making it a bigger issue to track (and
MANUALLY, too). By leaving an ally group with a limit of 0%, AB tracks
allies normally, and the use of allies will set of bells in the composition
and validation rules to be easily identified.
Hope this helps,
Rob
P.S. Don't you just love all these subtle little behaviors lurking in the
bowels of AB?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (650) 726-9689
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 10:38:53 +0100
From: 'Not Colin' McAlister & The Skrills <demandred@skrill.org>
Subject: Re: Dark Angels and 40K white file
One fine day in the middle of the night, Clinton Gann
<darkange@pacbell.net> got up to write:
>Greetings all,
> I'm not sure what I might have done wrong however everytime that
>I
>have loaded the white files the size of my squads Dark Angel squads
>gets limited to a max of eight. Have I done something stupid?
Always a possibility. What's more possible is that, like an idiot, I
changed the Veteran Sergeant and broke something. Which specific squads
are you talking about?
--
'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
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Hot off the press- summer's here!
School's out and it's sizzling hot. Whether you're planning a
graduation party, a summer brunch, or simple birthday party,
shop GreatEntertaining.com before your next celebration.
http://click.egroups.com/1/4473/3/_/36190/_/959767178/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this group, email
armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 11 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. older files
From: loki17701@earthlink.net
2. Re: older files
From: "Mathias Schreiber" <schreiber@freek-inc.com>
3. Some Complex Augmentation File ?s
From: hunton@hotmail.com
4. Re: Some Complex Augmentation File ?s
From: 'Not Colin' McAlister & The Skrills <demandred@skrill.org>
5. Re: Re: design problem
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
6. Re: Some Complex Augmentation File ?s
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
7. Re: Re: design problem
From: "Debbie Hunton" <hunton@hotmail.com>
8. Dark Angels and 40K white file
From: "Clinton Gann" <darkange@pacbell.net>
9. Re: Some Complex Augmentation File ?s
From: 'Not Colin' McAlister & The Skrills <demandred@skrill.org>
10. Re: Some Complex Augmentation File ?s
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
11. Re: Dark Angels and 40K white file
From: 'Not Colin' McAlister & The Skrills <demandred@skrill.org>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 14:34:46 -0000
From: loki17701@earthlink.net
Subject: older files
Does anyone have access or know of where I can access 2nd edition 40k?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 16:51:50 +0200
From: "Mathias Schreiber" <schreiber@freek-inc.com>
Subject: Re: older files
I´m still waiting for the english scans
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 20:27:59 -0000
From: hunton@hotmail.com
Subject: Some Complex Augmentation File ?s
Hey,
Don't know if anyone out there can help, but I figured it couldn't
hurt to ask...
I run an ongoing Warhammer campaign in my store, and am desperately
sick and tired of hand-checking 50-150 army lists every 3 months! So
I'm working to add our campaign additions to the Army Builder lists
for Warhammer Fantasy Battles.
So far, I can do most of the simple things (making dragons available
to all the races, for instance), but we have some more complex
things, which I really need help with:
1. We have footmen for all the races. Adding these is easy.
However, allowing them the option of taking a mount is hard, due to
the cost calcuation (i.e. add in all equipment and base cost, double
it, then add the value of the mount). Any ideas?
2. We allow some war machines to all races (special ones we've made
up). These use the above mentioned footmen as crew. I want to make
crew a required "child" unit, but how do I give the option of having
either human or dwarf or skeleton or... (you get the idea) as crew?
3. Oh, and how do I overwrite values in the main race files with
Warhammer (i.e. I need to dis-allow all races from having allies)? I
plan to make an augmentation file (like has been used to add the
rules from a White Dwarf article), but don't know how to use one to
make changes in the original files instead of just additions.
There are some other problems I'm facing, but these are the big ones,
and if I can find a way to solve these, I should be able to solve the
others.
I would appreciate any help anyone can give.
Thanks,
Debbie
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 22:21:46 +0100
From: 'Not Colin' McAlister & The Skrills <demandred@skrill.org>
Subject: Re: Some Complex Augmentation File ?s
One fine day in the middle of the night, hunton@hotmail.com got up to
write:
>1. We have footmen for all the races. Adding these is easy.
>However, allowing them the option of taking a mount is hard, due to
>the cost calcuation (i.e. add in all equipment and base cost, double
>it, then add the value of the mount). Any ideas?
Make the 'Mount' option the lowest priority (after all weapons, etc.)
then use the:
ucst:all*2
attribute. I think this won't include the cost of the mount.
>2. We allow some war machines to all races (special ones we've made
>up). These use the above mentioned footmen as crew. I want to make
>crew a required "child" unit, but how do I give the option of having
>either human or dwarf or skeleton or... (you get the idea) as crew?
You'll need to make one 'Add Crew' option for each race. Each option
should have (for example, the Undead):
legl:race=un // un = Race attribute for undead
unit:unZombie@per=3 // For 3 crew per machine
hide
Don't put the bits after // in...
>3. Oh, and how do I overwrite values in the main race files with
>Warhammer (i.e. I need to dis-allow all races from having allies)? I
>plan to make an augmentation file (like has been used to add the
>rules from a White Dwarf article), but don't know how to use one to
>make changes in the original files instead of just additions.
Hmm. I don't think you can stop anyone from taking allies. Rob? You
could use an ally cost multiplier (acst) of about 1 million, to make all
allied units ridiculously expensive, I suppose.
--
'Not Colin' McAlister - License to Skrill
Email: demandred@skrill.org | Visit http://www.skrill.org/ today!
-----------------------------+------------------------------------
"Dovie'andi se tovya sagain" - Robert Jordan's Wheel Of Time
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 16:30:47 -0700
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Re: design problem
>Lets say itemA and itemB are allowed to "new" but itemB is not
>allowed to "new2", now I've tried using 'type:new-grand' with the
>option but 'ityp:new' under the item doesn't recognize it. I've
>tried
>using 'catg:xxx' as well, I've tried adjusting the priority too.
I *THINK* the problem is that you should simply be using "type:new" -
WITHOUT the "-grand" qualifier. The "-grand" qualifier indicates the parent
of the unit, which doesn't exist. If you specify without the "-grand", it
should modify the immediate parent unit (the one you want).
FYI: V2.0 will allow you to specify complex boolean expressions that allow
an item to be restricted based on combinations of types, regiments,
categories, etc.
Let me know if this doesn't work and I'll investigate it further for you.....
Thanks, Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (650) 726-9689
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 16:48:01 -0700
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Some Complex Augmentation File ?s
>1. We have footmen for all the races. Adding these is easy.
>However, allowing them the option of taking a mount is hard, due to
>the cost calcuation (i.e. add in all equipment and base cost, double
>it, then add the value of the mount). Any ideas?
Unfortunately, Colen's recommendation here was incorrect. *ALL* cost
calculations are performed *AFTER* all processing of options is performed -
it's a two-pass process. There is no way within AB to only apply a
multiplier to the entire unit EXCEPT a particular option - even with the
careful use of option prioritization. So, the solution is to do stuff in
the background so that the user SEES the proper NET behavior on the screen.
The simplest solution here is to simply assign the mount option at
half-cost, which is then doubled to the proper value. This is ugly to the
user, though. I recommend creating a hidden option called "Mount Rebate" or
some such. Chain to this option from the "Mount" option via
"more:rebate=auto". Give this hidden option a cost of half the normal Mount
cost and make it a NEGATIVE cost value. The net effect is that the Mount
LOOKS like it costs the full amount, but when it is added, the rebate cuts
the cost in half and THEN the cost gets doubled, resulting in no NET
doubling occuring for the Mount.
>2. We allow some war machines to all races (special ones we've made
>up). These use the above mentioned footmen as crew. I want to make
>crew a required "child" unit, but how do I give the option of having
>either human or dwarf or skeleton or... (you get the idea) as crew?
Do you want the user to SELECT the crew type or have it always be the crew
type for the native race? In the latter case, Colen's recommendation is
correct. You'll need a separate option for each child units. Each of these
options would be linked to the war machine unit, and each option would be
assigned "legl:race=xx". In the end, only the proper crew will appear for
the war machine. If the user can SELECT the crew type, you have two
choices. First, you can do as outlined above and omit the "legl" attribute
from the options - the user can then pick from the list. Alternately, you
can use the "list" attribute to let the user pick the crew from a list of
available units.
>3. Oh, and how do I overwrite values in the main race files with
>Warhammer (i.e. I need to dis-allow all races from having allies)? I
>plan to make an augmentation file (like has been used to add the
>rules from a White Dwarf article), but don't know how to use one to
>make changes in the original files instead of just additions.
There is no way to DELETE things from existing files, such as allies. The
simplest solution here is to create a new mode for your campaing rules (you
probably already have). Then, define a new composition rule-set for that
mode and select it by default for that mode. You can specify this
composition rule-set to impose a maximum limit of 0% allies. The net effect
is that any roster with allies will fail in the composition and validation
checks, automatically flagging the issue.
Hope this helps,
Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (650) 726-9689
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 04:44:25 GMT
From: "Debbie Hunton" <hunton@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Re: design problem
Rob,
This wasn't from me... you may want to double check this and resend it to
the correct poster.
BTW, you responded to my request for help on adding my campaign items to my
Warhammer files... I haven't had a chance to look at your reply yet,
but will do so tomorrow.
Thank you,
Debbie
>From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
>Reply-To: armybuilder@egroups.com
>To: armybuilder@egroups.com
>Subject: Re: [AB] Re: design problem
>Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 16:30:47 -0700
>
>
> >Lets say itemA and itemB are allowed to "new" but itemB is not
> >allowed to "new2", now I've tried using 'type:new-grand' with the
> >option but 'ityp:new' under the item doesn't recognize it. I've
> >tried
> >using 'catg:xxx' as well, I've tried adjusting the priority too.
>
>I *THINK* the problem is that you should simply be using "type:new" -
>WITHOUT the "-grand" qualifier. The "-grand" qualifier indicates the parent
>of the unit, which doesn't exist. If you specify without the "-grand", it
>should modify the immediate parent unit (the one you want).
>
>FYI: V2.0 will allow you to specify complex boolean expressions that allow
>an item to be restricted based on combinations of types, regiments,
>categories, etc.
>
>Let me know if this doesn't work and I'll investigate it further for
>you.....
>
>Thanks, Rob
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (650) 726-9689
>Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 05:35:54 -0000
From: "Clinton Gann" <darkange@pacbell.net>
Subject: Dark Angels and 40K white file
Greetings all,
I'm not sure what I might have done wrong however everytime that
I
have loaded the white files the size of my squads Dark Angel squads
gets limited to a max of eight. Have I done something stupid?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 02:45:39 +0100
From: 'Not Colin' McAlister & The Skrills <demandred@skrill.org>
Subject: Re: Some Complex Augmentation File ?s
One fine day in the middle of the night, Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
got up to write:
>
>>1. We have footmen for all the races. Adding these is easy.
>>However, allowing them the option of taking a mount is hard, due to
>>the cost calcuation (i.e. add in all equipment and base cost, double
>>it, then add the value of the mount). Any ideas?
>
>Unfortunately, Colen's recommendation here was incorrect. *ALL* cost
>calculations are performed *AFTER* all processing of options is performed -
>it's a two-pass process. There is no way within AB to only apply a
>multiplier to the entire unit EXCEPT a particular option - even with the
>careful use of option prioritization.
You are making the invalid assumption that the mount costs are
controlled via options. The last time I looked at the FB files, they
used the list: attribute to select a mount from, i.e. the actual option
cost 0 and the child unit cost the points. IIRC, whatever I suggested
doesn't multiply the cost of child units - I had some major annoyances
when making the 40K files with it.
>There is no way to DELETE things from existing files, such as allies. The
>simplest solution here is to create a new mode for your campaing rules (you
>probably already have). Then, define a new composition rule-set for that
>mode and select it by default for that mode. You can specify this
>composition rule-set to impose a maximum limit of 0% allies.
Or, indeed, to just not have an ally group (I think), using xbrk:.
--
'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: 10
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 00:46:11 -0700
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Some Complex Augmentation File ?s
> >>1. We have footmen for all the races. Adding these is easy.
> >>However, allowing them the option of taking a mount is hard, due to
> >>the cost calcuation (i.e. add in all equipment and base cost, double
> >>it, then add the value of the mount). Any ideas?
> >
> >Unfortunately, Colen's recommendation here was incorrect. *ALL* cost
> >calculations are performed *AFTER* all processing of options is performed -
> >it's a two-pass process. There is no way within AB to only apply a
> >multiplier to the entire unit EXCEPT a particular option - even with the
> >careful use of option prioritization.
>
>You are making the invalid assumption that the mount costs are
>controlled via options. The last time I looked at the FB files, they
>used the list: attribute to select a mount from, i.e. the actual option
>cost 0 and the child unit cost the points. IIRC, whatever I suggested
>doesn't multiply the cost of child units - I had some major annoyances
>when making the 40K files with it.
Sorry. When I simply saw the word "mount", I assumed horses and the like. I
did NOT realize that a "monster mount" was implied, especially since
generic "footmen" were the unit in question. You'll need to clarify this
issue for us if you continue to have problems, since this is clearly an
open issue.
> >There is no way to DELETE things from existing files, such as allies. The
> >simplest solution here is to create a new mode for your campaing rules (you
> >probably already have). Then, define a new composition rule-set for that
> >mode and select it by default for that mode. You can specify this
> >composition rule-set to impose a maximum limit of 0% allies.
>
>Or, indeed, to just not have an ally group (I think), using xbrk:.
That would get dangerous. I considered that, but it would result in there
being NO ally group. While this is conceptually "good", it's also BAD. If
there is no ally group, AB will put allied units in with other normal units
of their composition group (e.g. an allied character gets lumped into
characters). Since this does NOT preclude the user from taking allies, it
simply masks the problem, thereby making it a bigger issue to track (and
MANUALLY, too). By leaving an ally group with a limit of 0%, AB tracks
allies normally, and the use of allies will set of bells in the composition
and validation rules to be easily identified.
Hope this helps,
Rob
P.S. Don't you just love all these subtle little behaviors lurking in the
bowels of AB?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (650) 726-9689
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 10:38:53 +0100
From: 'Not Colin' McAlister & The Skrills <demandred@skrill.org>
Subject: Re: Dark Angels and 40K white file
One fine day in the middle of the night, Clinton Gann
<darkange@pacbell.net> got up to write:
>Greetings all,
> I'm not sure what I might have done wrong however everytime that
>I
>have loaded the white files the size of my squads Dark Angel squads
>gets limited to a max of eight. Have I done something stupid?
Always a possibility. What's more possible is that, like an idiot, I
changed the Veteran Sergeant and broke something. Which specific squads
are you talking about?
--
'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
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________