A
armybuilder at yahoogroup
Guest
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Small business owners...
Tell us what you think!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/IMSolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, email
armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. AB files for Battleground - ??? help?
From: "Keith" <elbandeedo@onebox.com>
2. Re: Sisters File in W40k v2.28 release
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
3. Re: Option/Item Conflicts
From: "Christepher McKenney" <blazetopast@hotmail.com>
4. mode; time?
From: Dragon2012@excite.com
5. Re: mode; time?
From: Dragon2012@excite.com
6. Re: Sisters File in W40k v2.28 release
From: Peter_Dunn@compuserve.com
7. RE: conflict groups - options v. items
From: "Richard C." <richard@qaviation.com>
8. Re: conflict groups - options v. items
From: "Daniel Rothman" <drothman.dmth94@gtalumni.org>
9. Re: Sisters File in W40k v2.28 release
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
10. Re: AB files for Battleground - ??? help?
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
11. Re: AB files for Battleground - ??? help?
From: Dragon2012@excite.com
12. Using "stat:" after using "base:"
From: "Stephen Chen" <chensk@engin.umich.edu>
13. Using stat: after using base:
From: "Stephen Chen" <chensk@engin.umich.edu>
14. Re: Feral Orks
From: Versif <petark@ntlworld.com>
15. Re: AB files for Battleground - ??? help?
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
16. Re: Re: mode; time?
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
17. Re: Using stat: after using base:
From: "Daniel Rothman" <drothman.dmth94@gtalumni.org>
18. Re: Feral Orks
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
19. Re: Using "stat:" after using "base:"
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
20. Re: Using stat: after using base:
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
21. Re: Using "stat:" after using "base:"
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
22. The Emperor's Champion
From: stevenjcox@cableinet.co.uk
23. Re: AB files for Battleground - ??? help?
From: Versif <petark@ntlworld.com>
24. Re: The Emperor's Champion
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
25. Deathwatch Ultramarines
From: "Daniel Rothman" <drothman.dmth94@gtalumni.org>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 11:46:06 -0000
From: "Keith" <elbandeedo@onebox.com>
Subject: AB files for Battleground - ??? help?
Gents, read the instructions. I couldn't find any reference to the
type of file i have (Datadef.WWII). What I DID find was that
according to the instructions, you can only import .ab and .zip
files. (which is pretty much as I suspected.) I found an interesting
little blurb about ABExport and zipping definition files. Is that my
answer? start AB Construction, use the ABExport and change
Datadef.WWII to say, BattleGround.ab, then import the file? Am I
completely lost? Should I just unplug my computer and give it to
someone else before I hurt myself? any ideas of where to find the
answer?
Thanks,
K2
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 12:44:19 +0100
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
Subject: Re: Sisters File in W40k v2.28 release
At 21:01 22/07/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>Couple of things when using the newly released v2.28 files.
>
>With the new C:CA SOB list I am having the following probs:
>
>1. Don't seem to be able to switch from standard to "Justice"
>immolator (TL -MM)
>
>2. With Seraphim it is only allowing me to upgrade one to HF option
>instead of 2
>
>3. Celestian Superior doesn't appear to be able to take Plasma pistol
>
>Do others have these probs or is it just me?
Just fixed.
>Secondly where can I find the v2.2a patch to update my v2.2 (Full
>Licence)
http://www.wolflair.com/
--
Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister, demandred@skrill.org
http://www.skrill.org/, http://www.incompetence-central.co.uk/
1 = 2, for large values of 1.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 08:03:04 -0400
From: "Christepher McKenney" <blazetopast@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Option/Item Conflicts
Rob said:
Since I haven't looked much at the WFB 6th Edition files, I don't know
whether the author had this "difficulty" or simply chose a method because it
made the most sense to him.
-----------------------
The reason my normal weapons do not conflict with my magical weapons has
been because it was not clear until recently that you could not buy a
special weapon if you had a magical weapon. But I use conflicts for
everything else - for example, armor and shields.
Christepher McKenney
WFBv6 ArmyBuilder Files Manager
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 12:50:16 -0000
From: Dragon2012@excite.com
Subject: mode; time?
I am trying to get a mode of mime. But how do you assign a time to
the unit? I tried Type but that didnt seem to work. I tried to load
up DBM files to see if that had an example but it is coming up as an
invalid AB file to import.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 14:12:38 -0000
From: Dragon2012@excite.com
Subject: Re: mode; time?
--- In armybuilder@y..., Dragon2012@e... wrote:
> I am trying to get a mode of mime. But how do you assign a time to
> the unit? I tried Type but that didnt seem to work. I tried to
load
> up DBM files to see if that had an example but it is coming up as
an
> invalid AB file to import.
let me qualify that a little further:
For example I want to do WWII: I define the mode as:
mode:1939="1939"-time=1939:1945
mode:1940="1940"-time=1940:1945
etc. to
mode:1945="1945"-time=1945:1945
Now on the units/options I have the lglx:
lglx:mode>=1940 for example for units 1941 and above. It is the only
way I could get it to work.
I tired the : mode:time>1940 and mode:time=1941 etc?
When I use the way that works it also doesnt show the units in the
*none* scenerio list? No big deal but I tried to make the 1944 the
default via the -rules and that didnt work.
Is there a way to eleminate the *none* from the senerio box?
How should this be done?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 14:59:42 -0000
From: Peter_Dunn@compuserve.com
Subject: Re: Sisters File in W40k v2.28 release
Thanks Colen.
To incorporate changes do I need to download v2.28 again then
reimport?
Regards
Pete
--- In armybuilder@y..., Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@s...>
wrote:
> At 21:01 22/07/2001 +0000, you wrote:
> >Couple of things when using the newly released v2.28 files.
> >
> >With the new C:CA SOB list I am having the following probs:
> >
> >1. Don't seem to be able to switch from standard to "Justice"
> >immolator (TL -MM)
> >
> >2. With Seraphim it is only allowing me to upgrade one to HF option
> >instead of 2
> >
> >3. Celestian Superior doesn't appear to be able to take Plasma
pistol
> >
> >Do others have these probs or is it just me?
>
> Just fixed.
>
> >Secondly where can I find the v2.2a patch to update my v2.2 (Full
> >Licence)
>
> http://www.wolflair.com/
>
>
>
> --
> Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister, demandred@s...
> http://www.skrill.org/, http://www.incompetence-central.co.uk/
> 1 = 2, for large values of 1.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 09:18:54 -0700
From: "Richard C." <richard@qaviation.com>
Subject: RE: conflict groups - options v. items
In the 6th edition WFB that problem doesn't seem to exist in the Dark Elf
army.
I hope that the following steps help.
In the item sections where your magic items are listed, make sure that in
the long skinny column on the upper-right side of screen the proper type of
weapon or item is chosen. For instance a 2-handed staff should be chosen as
a 2HW type (Normal Two Handed Weapon), or as a M2HW type (Magic Two Handed
Weapon), with the attribute "stat:St+1" or "stat:St+2" depending on the +1
or +2 for the strength bonus of the item.
I hope this helps to answer the question presented.
Thank You,
Richard S Christenson
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Bowes [mailto:rob@wolflair.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 11:58 PM
To: ab@support.wolflair.com
Subject: Re: [AB] conflict groups - options v. items
At 08:19 PM 7/24/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>all -
>
>so... is there any way to make items and options interact correctly
>through the use of the conflicts mechanism? I've been attempting to
>get a 2-handed magic staff to disable my optional great weapon
>(without generating a million and one types on the unit). Similarly,
>I've got units that must select a baseline hand weapon before they
>can get to a second hand weapon (hide & show combination) but again
>this isn't working out with magical hand weapons.
Conflict groups definitely work correctly between options and items. The
Mordheim and old WFB 5th Edition files use them extensively.
>In addition, neither items nor tweaks seems to be able to
>impact/override option selection or visibility, meaning I'm back to
>unit types again.
This is correct. Items and tweaks are independent of options, except for
conflict groups and the adding/deleting of types to a unit.
>I popped open the WFB and 40K files to have a look, and it appears
>the WFB author has the same difficulty, and Colen avoided the issue
>by making all conflict-groupy-thingies options.
Since I haven't looked much at the WFB 6th Edition files, I don't know
whether the author had this "difficulty" or simply chose a method because
it made the most sense to him. As mentioned above, the Mordheim and WFB 5th
Edition files rely on this extensively. I recommend checking those files
for examples. Also, a simple example of this can be found in the Tutorial
files included with AB.
Thanks, Rob
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 17:07:04 -0000
From: "Daniel Rothman" <drothman.dmth94@gtalumni.org>
Subject: Re: conflict groups - options v. items
--- In armybuilder@y..., Rob Bowes <rob@w...> wrote:
> At 08:19 PM 7/24/2001 +0000, you wrote:
> >all -
> >
> >so... is there any way to make items and options interact correctly
> >through the use of the conflicts mechanism? I've been attempting to
> >get a 2-handed magic staff to disable my optional great weapon
> >(without generating a million and one types on the unit).
Similarly,
> >I've got units that must select a baseline hand weapon before they
> >can get to a second hand weapon (hide & show combination) but again
> >this isn't working out with magical hand weapons.
>
> Conflict groups definitely work correctly between options and
items. The
> Mordheim and old WFB 5th Edition files use them extensively.
thanks for the pointer to the Mordheim files - stupid user difficulty
has now been corrected (well... this particular difficulty, if not
the stupid user..).
> >In addition, neither items nor tweaks seems to be able to
> >impact/override option selection or visibility, meaning I'm back to
> >unit types again.
>
> This is correct. Items and tweaks are independent of options,
> except for conflict groups and the adding/deleting of types
> to a unit.
yep. seems I'm back to either types, or using a less fancy display
> >I popped open the WFB and 40K files to have a look, and it appears
> >the WFB author has the same difficulty, and Colen avoided the issue
> >by making all conflict-groupy-thingies options.
>
> Since I haven't looked much at the WFB 6th Edition files, I
> don't know whether the author had this "difficulty" or simply
> chose a method because it made the most sense to him. As mentioned
> above, the Mordheim and WFB 5th Edition files rely on this
> extensively. I recommend checking those files
> for examples. Also, a simple example of this can be found in
> the Tutorial files included with AB.
>
> Thanks, Rob
thanks rob, and colen, and cristepher. seems cristepher made a
conscious decision to keep those items & weapons separate.
NOTE TO SELF: always check the tutorial files before spouting off.
thanks again,
daniel
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 18:06:36 +0100
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
Subject: Re: Sisters File in W40k v2.28 release
At 14:59 25/07/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>Thanks Colen.
>
>To incorporate changes do I need to download v2.28 again then
>reimport?
You'll need to wait until I release the v2.29 files later tonight.
--
Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister, demandred@skrill.org
http://www.skrill.org/, http://www.incompetence-central.co.uk/
1 = 2, for large values of 1.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 18:07:31 +0100
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
Subject: Re: AB files for Battleground - ??? help?
At 11:46 25/07/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>Gents, read the instructions. I couldn't find any reference to the
>type of file i have (Datadef.WWII). What I DID find was that
>according to the instructions, you can only import .ab and .zip
>files. (which is pretty much as I suspected.) I found an interesting
>little blurb about ABExport and zipping definition files. Is that my
>answer? start AB Construction, use the ABExport and change
>Datadef.WWII to say, BattleGround.ab, then import the file? Am I
>completely lost? Should I just unplug my computer and give it to
>someone else before I hurt myself? any ideas of where to find the
>answer?
Just move all the .wwii files into your /armybuilder/data/ directory.
They're not import files, you will have no chance of using 'Import files'
to import them
--
Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister, demandred@skrill.org
http://www.skrill.org/, http://www.incompetence-central.co.uk/
1 = 2, for large values of 1.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 17:18:47 -0000
From: Dragon2012@excite.com
Subject: Re: AB files for Battleground - ??? help?
--- In armybuilder@y..., "Keith" <elbandeedo@o...> wrote:
> Gents, read the instructions. I couldn't find any reference to the
> type of file i have (Datadef.WWII). What I DID find was that
> according to the instructions, you can only import .ab and .zip
> files. (which is pretty much as I suspected.) I found an
interesting
> little blurb about ABExport and zipping definition files. Is that
my
> answer? start AB Construction, use the ABExport and change
> Datadef.WWII to say, BattleGround.ab, then import the file? Am I
> completely lost? Should I just unplug my computer and give it to
> someone else before I hurt myself? any ideas of where to find the
> answer?
>
> Thanks,
>
> K2
Are you just trying to load the data files?
If so just copy each file datadef.wwII for example and paste the file
into the Armybuilder - "data" folder located in the Armybuilder
folder which is located in the "C" drive. You can find that by
double clicking "My computer" icon on the desk top.
Note I loaded these files and I had an error when I tried to run
them. I havent bothered to look what that error was or how to fix it
though.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 18:30:07 -0000
From: "Stephen Chen" <chensk@engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Using "stat:" after using "base:"
My problem is that I have a unit which may take an option that
adjusts one of its base stats. Let's call this stat1. So the option
merely has "base:stat1+1" as an attribute. Now, I have an item which
raises the value of another stat, stat2, by the value of stat1. In
theory, I just want to type "stat:stat2+(stat1)". This, however,
merely results in the original value of stat1 being added to stat2.
So, in this example, if stat1 = 3 and stat2 = 2 originally, then the
new value of stat2 shown by ab is 2/5, but I want it to be 2/6. Using
stat instead of base results in the same value of stat2 and stat1 =
1/2. This makes sense since stat and base are supposed to "work
identically." Is this how ab is supposed to treat this situation?
If so, is there a way to implement this? Thanks in advance.
Steve
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 18:42:01 -0000
From: "Stephen Chen" <chensk@engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Using stat: after using base:
My problem is that I have an unit that takes an option that adjusts
the base value of a stat. Let's call that stat stat1. So, the item
merely has the attribute "base:stat1+1". Now there is an item which
the unit may take that modifies the value of another stat, stat2, by
adding the value of stat1. So, the item has an attribute "stat:stat2+
(stat1)". Now the problem is that stat2 is only being adjusted by
the original value of stat1. So, if stat1 = 3 and stat2 = 5
originally, then the AB entry will say that stat1 = 4 and stat2 =
5/8. However, I want it to say that stat1 = 4 and stat2 = 5/9. Is
this how the stat and base attribute are supposed to interact? If
so, how could I get around this? Thanks in advance.
Steve
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 19:58:08 +0100
From: Versif <petark@ntlworld.com>
Subject: Re: Feral Orks
In this article Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org> wrote
>Cybork Body shouldn't be there, but the Banna Wava wasn't in the original
>codex either - it was added as an afterthough in a Chapter Approved article.
>
Good point, I hadn't thought of that, being a thickie I simply compared
the WD wargear list to the one in AB. Just like them to forget it again.
>>The squighound doesn't appear as an option for slaverz.
>
>pop
I like my squighounds, all teeth and no brains.
>
>>AB won't let pigdoks in madboyz units take wargear (but does allow it in
>>the bodyguard).
>
>Competence--, that's odd.
I think I failed here, the madboyz pigdoks should be allowed to take
wargear, or your adding in some light humour and I'm brainlessly missing
it The latter is probably the case as my brain is practically non
functioning at the moment - never had it so good
>
>>The cost of squiggoths stays at 49 points irrespective of how small or
>>large they are, and the odd 9 points comes from the crew.
>
>I'm beginning to think I was drunk when I put the files together last time.
>Either that, or the Incompetence Gnomes have struck again.
I'll buy that, in the nicest possible way, you probably deserve to be
drunk with success after doing all of that so quickly
Cheers and as ever many thanks for the great work.
Grotfang, not so humble ork warlord.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 12:15:20 -0700
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: AB files for Battleground - ??? help?
In the "Getting Started" chapter, the section "Army Data Files" describes
the distinction between the definition and data files. In the section
"Installing Pre-Built Data Files", the last few paragraphs describe what
must be done if you need to manually copy the files into place (e.g. they
are in a standard Zip file). This starts at the paragraph beginning with
"The second way to install data files is to manually copy them into the
proper location."
Hope this helps,
Rob
At 11:46 AM 7/25/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>Gents, read the instructions. I couldn't find any reference to the
>type of file i have (Datadef.WWII). What I DID find was that
>according to the instructions, you can only import .ab and .zip
>files. (which is pretty much as I suspected.) I found an interesting
>little blurb about ABExport and zipping definition files. Is that my
>answer? start AB Construction, use the ABExport and change
>Datadef.WWII to say, BattleGround.ab, then import the file? Am I
>completely lost? Should I just unplug my computer and give it to
>someone else before I hurt myself? any ideas of where to find the
>answer?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 12:26:46 -0700
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Re: mode; time?
The "lglx" attribute is the proper method for constraining a unit to only
appear for a specific set of time periods. However, you can specify complex
boolean expressions in "lglx" attributes if you wish. For example, consider
the following:
lglx(time>=1940)&(time<=1942)&(race=zz)
The above attribute will limit the unit to only appear for the time periods
1940-1942. It will also only show the unit if the user is creating a roster
for race "zz". You can use complex boolean expressions to do things like
limit the unit to show up for a single race in 1940, but two additional
races beginning in 1941.
You can specify which mode to use as the default (replacing "none") by
using the "none" race attribute.
Hope this helps,
Rob
At 02:12 PM 7/25/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>--- In armybuilder@y..., Dragon2012@e... wrote:
> > I am trying to get a mode of mime. But how do you assign a time to
> > the unit? I tried Type but that didnt seem to work. I tried to
>load
> > up DBM files to see if that had an example but it is coming up as
>an
> > invalid AB file to import.
>
>let me qualify that a little further:
>
>For example I want to do WWII: I define the mode as:
>
>mode:1939="1939"-time=1939:1945
>mode:1940="1940"-time=1940:1945
>etc. to
>mode:1945="1945"-time=1945:1945
>
>Now on the units/options I have the lglx:
>
>lglx:mode>=1940 for example for units 1941 and above. It is the only
>way I could get it to work.
>I tired the : mode:time>1940 and mode:time=1941 etc?
>
>When I use the way that works it also doesnt show the units in the
>*none* scenerio list? No big deal but I tried to make the 1944 the
>default via the -rules and that didnt work.
>Is there a way to eleminate the *none* from the senerio box?
>How should this be done?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 19:53:13 -0000
From: "Daniel Rothman" <drothman.dmth94@gtalumni.org>
Subject: Re: Using stat: after using base:
<SNIP>
> Is
> this how the stat and base attribute are supposed to interact? If
> so, how could I get around this? Thanks in advance.
>
> Steve
Steve -
have you tried reversing their order of evaluation? If you ensure
that the base: is evaluated before the stat: then things should work
out the way you want. Although for a very different sort of system,
the files for Battletech have LOADS of examples of stat modifications.
daniel
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 20:22:35 +0100
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
Subject: Re: Feral Orks
At 19:58 25/07/2001 +0100, you wrote:
> >>AB won't let pigdoks in madboyz units take wargear (but does allow it in
> >>the bodyguard).
> >
> >Competence--, that's odd.
>
>I think I failed here, the madboyz pigdoks should be allowed to take
>wargear, or your adding in some light humour and I'm brainlessly missing
>it The latter is probably the case as my brain is practically non
>functioning at the moment - never had it so good
It wasn't immediately obvious why they couldn't get Wargear, until later
when I looked properly Fixed now.
--
Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister, demandred@skrill.org
http://www.skrill.org/, http://www.incompetence-central.co.uk/
1 = 2, for large values of 1.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 19
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 20:20:58 +0100
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
Subject: Re: Using "stat:" after using "base:"
At 18:30 25/07/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>My problem is that I have a unit which may take an option that
>adjusts one of its base stats. Let's call this stat1. So the option
>merely has "base:stat1+1" as an attribute. Now, I have an item which
>raises the value of another stat, stat2, by the value of stat1. In
>theory, I just want to type "stat:stat2+(stat1)". This, however,
>merely results in the original value of stat1 being added to stat2.
>So, in this example, if stat1 = 3 and stat2 = 2 originally, then the
>new value of stat2 shown by ab is 2/5, but I want it to be 2/6. Using
>stat instead of base results in the same value of stat2 and stat1 =
>1/2. This makes sense since stat and base are supposed to "work
>identically." Is this how ab is supposed to treat this situation?
>If so, is there a way to implement this?
What priority are the options?
If you want it to work like that, the base:stat1+1 option will have to be
of a higher priority than the stat:stat2+(stat1) option. If it's of a lower
priority, then stat 1 will be added to stat 2, *then* stat 1 will be increased.
--
Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister, demandred@skrill.org
http://www.skrill.org/, http://www.incompetence-central.co.uk/
1 = 2, for large values of 1.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 20
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 13:10:44 -0700
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Using stat: after using base:
It's probably an issue of sequencing. You mix references to items and
options below, and that has an even bigger implication, so it's critical to
know what adjustments are associated with items vs. options.
Basically, the sequencing of options is controlled via the option category.
Options are sorted prior to evaluation. The sort uses the assigned category
as the primary key and the option name as the secondary key. THey are then
processed in that order. This means that options of category 1 are
processed before options of category 2. Within a given category, options
are processed in alphabetical order. When child units are involved and/or
the "more" attribute is used, things work a little differently. When an
option chains to another, the chained options are evaluated as part of the
evaluation of the parent option. Therefore, a child unit will be evaluation
when the option with the "unit" attribute is evaluated. Similarly, an
option with multiple "more" attributes will evaluate each of those chained
attributes in the exact sequence they are listed as attributes.
Then there is the issue of items. ALL items are evaluated BEFORE any
options are evaluated for a unit. In addition, items are evaluated in the
order they appear for the unit. Since the user can CHANGE that order, it is
impossible to rely on a fixed evaluation order for items. If items need to
trigger effects that must be sequenced, then the items need to assign types
to the unit and options using "utyp" should be used to impose the proper
sequencing.
The bottom line is that you are most likely not controlling the sequence of
evaluation appropriately for what you are trying to accomplish. The "base"
and "stat" attributes definitely work correctly. If you assign them to
options so they occur in the proper order, everything should work as you
want it to.
Hope this helps,
Rob
At 06:42 PM 7/25/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>My problem is that I have an unit that takes an option that adjusts
>the base value of a stat. Let's call that stat stat1. So, the item
>merely has the attribute "base:stat1+1". Now there is an item which
>the unit may take that modifies the value of another stat, stat2, by
>adding the value of stat1. So, the item has an attribute "stat:stat2+
>(stat1)". Now the problem is that stat2 is only being adjusted by
>the original value of stat1. So, if stat1 = 3 and stat2 = 5
>originally, then the AB entry will say that stat1 = 4 and stat2 =
>5/8. However, I want it to say that stat1 = 4 and stat2 = 5/9. Is
>this how the stat and base attribute are supposed to interact? If
>so, how could I get around this? Thanks in advance.
>
>Steve
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 21
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 13:48:52 -0700
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Using "stat:" after using "base:"
At 08:20 PM 7/25/2001 +0100, you wrote:
>At 18:30 25/07/2001 +0000, you wrote:
> >My problem is that I have a unit which may take an option that
> >adjusts one of its base stats. Let's call this stat1. So the option
> >merely has "base:stat1+1" as an attribute. Now, I have an item which
> >raises the value of another stat, stat2, by the value of stat1. In
> >theory, I just want to type "stat:stat2+(stat1)". This, however,
> >merely results in the original value of stat1 being added to stat2.
> >So, in this example, if stat1 = 3 and stat2 = 2 originally, then the
> >new value of stat2 shown by ab is 2/5, but I want it to be 2/6. Using
> >stat instead of base results in the same value of stat2 and stat1 =
> >1/2. This makes sense since stat and base are supposed to "work
> >identically." Is this how ab is supposed to treat this situation?
> >If so, is there a way to implement this?
>
>What priority are the options?
>
>If you want it to work like that, the base:stat1+1 option will have to be
>of a higher priority than the stat:stat2+(stat1) option. If it's of a lower
>priority, then stat 1 will be added to stat 2, *then* stat 1 will be
>increased.
As usual, Colen provides a clear, direct, PRACTICAL answer to the question
at hand. Meanwhile, Rob spouts off with all sorts of theory on how AB works
internally.
Use Colen's answer. If you want to know WHY Colen's answer applies, read my
answer.
Thanks, Rob
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 22
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 22:03:26 -0000
From: stevenjcox@cableinet.co.uk
Subject: The Emperor's Champion
Why is there an option for the 'new' or 'old' Emperor's champion? I
can see no difference between them.
Steve
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 23
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 23:05:39 +0100
From: Versif <petark@ntlworld.com>
Subject: Re: AB files for Battleground - ??? help?
In this article Keith <elbandeedo@onebox.com> wrote
>Gents, read the instructions. I couldn't find any reference to the
>type of file i have (Datadef.WWII). What I DID find was that
>according to the instructions, you can only import .ab and .zip
>files. (which is pretty much as I suspected.) I found an interesting
>little blurb about ABExport and zipping definition files. Is that my
>answer? start AB Construction, use the ABExport and change
>Datadef.WWII to say, BattleGround.ab, then import the file? Am I
>completely lost? Should I just unplug my computer and give it to
>someone else before I hurt myself? any ideas of where to find the
>answer?
Datadef.WWII id the data definition file for whatever WWII is,
presumably Battleground looking at your previous post. It belongs in the
Armybuilder data directory. You should also have a second file (or
possibly even more) xxx.WWII which should also be in the Armybuilder
data directory. Simply copy all the files with the extension .WWII into
your Armybuilder data directory and when you next start Armybuilder the
game system for Battleground will appear.
If you only have the datadef.WWII file then you are some files short!
It is better to get the files as a zip or ab and let Armybuilder sort it
out for you but copying the files manually where only a few are involved
is no great problem. I seem to recall I had to do this with the
gorkamorka or necromunda files.
Cheers
Grotfang, not so humble ork warlord.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 24
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 23:10:42 +0100
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
Subject: Re: The Emperor's Champion
At 22:03 25/07/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>Why is there an option for the 'new' or 'old' Emperor's champion? I
>can see no difference between them.
The new one takes up an HQ slot; the old one doesn't. Or possibly the other
way around.
--
Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister, demandred@skrill.org
http://www.skrill.org/, http://www.incompetence-central.co.uk/
1 = 2, for large values of 1.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 25
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 23:19:50 -0000
From: "Daniel Rothman" <drothman.dmth94@gtalumni.org>
Subject: Deathwatch Ultramarines
Colen -
I know it's not your favorite thing to hear but....
Ultramarine Deathwatch Kill Team Captains still have their command
squad option visible
Deathwatch Veterans in tac squads can take more DW ammunition options
(individually and collectively) than there are models in the unit
BTW, kudos on the validation in the cascaded vet units from the kill
teams - lots & lots of things that could've gone wrong there
I was confused for a time as to why the DWVet child didn't get its
hvyWpn & SpecWpn options disabled, but the DWKillTeam did - but I
feel better now
daniel
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Small business owners...
Tell us what you think!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/IMSolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, email
armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. AB files for Battleground - ??? help?
From: "Keith" <elbandeedo@onebox.com>
2. Re: Sisters File in W40k v2.28 release
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
3. Re: Option/Item Conflicts
From: "Christepher McKenney" <blazetopast@hotmail.com>
4. mode; time?
From: Dragon2012@excite.com
5. Re: mode; time?
From: Dragon2012@excite.com
6. Re: Sisters File in W40k v2.28 release
From: Peter_Dunn@compuserve.com
7. RE: conflict groups - options v. items
From: "Richard C." <richard@qaviation.com>
8. Re: conflict groups - options v. items
From: "Daniel Rothman" <drothman.dmth94@gtalumni.org>
9. Re: Sisters File in W40k v2.28 release
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
10. Re: AB files for Battleground - ??? help?
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
11. Re: AB files for Battleground - ??? help?
From: Dragon2012@excite.com
12. Using "stat:" after using "base:"
From: "Stephen Chen" <chensk@engin.umich.edu>
13. Using stat: after using base:
From: "Stephen Chen" <chensk@engin.umich.edu>
14. Re: Feral Orks
From: Versif <petark@ntlworld.com>
15. Re: AB files for Battleground - ??? help?
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
16. Re: Re: mode; time?
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
17. Re: Using stat: after using base:
From: "Daniel Rothman" <drothman.dmth94@gtalumni.org>
18. Re: Feral Orks
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
19. Re: Using "stat:" after using "base:"
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
20. Re: Using stat: after using base:
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
21. Re: Using "stat:" after using "base:"
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
22. The Emperor's Champion
From: stevenjcox@cableinet.co.uk
23. Re: AB files for Battleground - ??? help?
From: Versif <petark@ntlworld.com>
24. Re: The Emperor's Champion
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
25. Deathwatch Ultramarines
From: "Daniel Rothman" <drothman.dmth94@gtalumni.org>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 11:46:06 -0000
From: "Keith" <elbandeedo@onebox.com>
Subject: AB files for Battleground - ??? help?
Gents, read the instructions. I couldn't find any reference to the
type of file i have (Datadef.WWII). What I DID find was that
according to the instructions, you can only import .ab and .zip
files. (which is pretty much as I suspected.) I found an interesting
little blurb about ABExport and zipping definition files. Is that my
answer? start AB Construction, use the ABExport and change
Datadef.WWII to say, BattleGround.ab, then import the file? Am I
completely lost? Should I just unplug my computer and give it to
someone else before I hurt myself? any ideas of where to find the
answer?
Thanks,
K2
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 12:44:19 +0100
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
Subject: Re: Sisters File in W40k v2.28 release
At 21:01 22/07/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>Couple of things when using the newly released v2.28 files.
>
>With the new C:CA SOB list I am having the following probs:
>
>1. Don't seem to be able to switch from standard to "Justice"
>immolator (TL -MM)
>
>2. With Seraphim it is only allowing me to upgrade one to HF option
>instead of 2
>
>3. Celestian Superior doesn't appear to be able to take Plasma pistol
>
>Do others have these probs or is it just me?
Just fixed.
>Secondly where can I find the v2.2a patch to update my v2.2 (Full
>Licence)
http://www.wolflair.com/
--
Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister, demandred@skrill.org
http://www.skrill.org/, http://www.incompetence-central.co.uk/
1 = 2, for large values of 1.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 08:03:04 -0400
From: "Christepher McKenney" <blazetopast@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Option/Item Conflicts
Rob said:
Since I haven't looked much at the WFB 6th Edition files, I don't know
whether the author had this "difficulty" or simply chose a method because it
made the most sense to him.
-----------------------
The reason my normal weapons do not conflict with my magical weapons has
been because it was not clear until recently that you could not buy a
special weapon if you had a magical weapon. But I use conflicts for
everything else - for example, armor and shields.
Christepher McKenney
WFBv6 ArmyBuilder Files Manager
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 12:50:16 -0000
From: Dragon2012@excite.com
Subject: mode; time?
I am trying to get a mode of mime. But how do you assign a time to
the unit? I tried Type but that didnt seem to work. I tried to load
up DBM files to see if that had an example but it is coming up as an
invalid AB file to import.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 14:12:38 -0000
From: Dragon2012@excite.com
Subject: Re: mode; time?
--- In armybuilder@y..., Dragon2012@e... wrote:
> I am trying to get a mode of mime. But how do you assign a time to
> the unit? I tried Type but that didnt seem to work. I tried to
load
> up DBM files to see if that had an example but it is coming up as
an
> invalid AB file to import.
let me qualify that a little further:
For example I want to do WWII: I define the mode as:
mode:1939="1939"-time=1939:1945
mode:1940="1940"-time=1940:1945
etc. to
mode:1945="1945"-time=1945:1945
Now on the units/options I have the lglx:
lglx:mode>=1940 for example for units 1941 and above. It is the only
way I could get it to work.
I tired the : mode:time>1940 and mode:time=1941 etc?
When I use the way that works it also doesnt show the units in the
*none* scenerio list? No big deal but I tried to make the 1944 the
default via the -rules and that didnt work.
Is there a way to eleminate the *none* from the senerio box?
How should this be done?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 14:59:42 -0000
From: Peter_Dunn@compuserve.com
Subject: Re: Sisters File in W40k v2.28 release
Thanks Colen.
To incorporate changes do I need to download v2.28 again then
reimport?
Regards
Pete
--- In armybuilder@y..., Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@s...>
wrote:
> At 21:01 22/07/2001 +0000, you wrote:
> >Couple of things when using the newly released v2.28 files.
> >
> >With the new C:CA SOB list I am having the following probs:
> >
> >1. Don't seem to be able to switch from standard to "Justice"
> >immolator (TL -MM)
> >
> >2. With Seraphim it is only allowing me to upgrade one to HF option
> >instead of 2
> >
> >3. Celestian Superior doesn't appear to be able to take Plasma
pistol
> >
> >Do others have these probs or is it just me?
>
> Just fixed.
>
> >Secondly where can I find the v2.2a patch to update my v2.2 (Full
> >Licence)
>
> http://www.wolflair.com/
>
>
>
> --
> Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister, demandred@s...
> http://www.skrill.org/, http://www.incompetence-central.co.uk/
> 1 = 2, for large values of 1.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 09:18:54 -0700
From: "Richard C." <richard@qaviation.com>
Subject: RE: conflict groups - options v. items
In the 6th edition WFB that problem doesn't seem to exist in the Dark Elf
army.
I hope that the following steps help.
In the item sections where your magic items are listed, make sure that in
the long skinny column on the upper-right side of screen the proper type of
weapon or item is chosen. For instance a 2-handed staff should be chosen as
a 2HW type (Normal Two Handed Weapon), or as a M2HW type (Magic Two Handed
Weapon), with the attribute "stat:St+1" or "stat:St+2" depending on the +1
or +2 for the strength bonus of the item.
I hope this helps to answer the question presented.
Thank You,
Richard S Christenson
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Bowes [mailto:rob@wolflair.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 11:58 PM
To: ab@support.wolflair.com
Subject: Re: [AB] conflict groups - options v. items
At 08:19 PM 7/24/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>all -
>
>so... is there any way to make items and options interact correctly
>through the use of the conflicts mechanism? I've been attempting to
>get a 2-handed magic staff to disable my optional great weapon
>(without generating a million and one types on the unit). Similarly,
>I've got units that must select a baseline hand weapon before they
>can get to a second hand weapon (hide & show combination) but again
>this isn't working out with magical hand weapons.
Conflict groups definitely work correctly between options and items. The
Mordheim and old WFB 5th Edition files use them extensively.
>In addition, neither items nor tweaks seems to be able to
>impact/override option selection or visibility, meaning I'm back to
>unit types again.
This is correct. Items and tweaks are independent of options, except for
conflict groups and the adding/deleting of types to a unit.
>I popped open the WFB and 40K files to have a look, and it appears
>the WFB author has the same difficulty, and Colen avoided the issue
>by making all conflict-groupy-thingies options.
Since I haven't looked much at the WFB 6th Edition files, I don't know
whether the author had this "difficulty" or simply chose a method because
it made the most sense to him. As mentioned above, the Mordheim and WFB 5th
Edition files rely on this extensively. I recommend checking those files
for examples. Also, a simple example of this can be found in the Tutorial
files included with AB.
Thanks, Rob
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 17:07:04 -0000
From: "Daniel Rothman" <drothman.dmth94@gtalumni.org>
Subject: Re: conflict groups - options v. items
--- In armybuilder@y..., Rob Bowes <rob@w...> wrote:
> At 08:19 PM 7/24/2001 +0000, you wrote:
> >all -
> >
> >so... is there any way to make items and options interact correctly
> >through the use of the conflicts mechanism? I've been attempting to
> >get a 2-handed magic staff to disable my optional great weapon
> >(without generating a million and one types on the unit).
Similarly,
> >I've got units that must select a baseline hand weapon before they
> >can get to a second hand weapon (hide & show combination) but again
> >this isn't working out with magical hand weapons.
>
> Conflict groups definitely work correctly between options and
items. The
> Mordheim and old WFB 5th Edition files use them extensively.
thanks for the pointer to the Mordheim files - stupid user difficulty
has now been corrected (well... this particular difficulty, if not
the stupid user..).
> >In addition, neither items nor tweaks seems to be able to
> >impact/override option selection or visibility, meaning I'm back to
> >unit types again.
>
> This is correct. Items and tweaks are independent of options,
> except for conflict groups and the adding/deleting of types
> to a unit.
yep. seems I'm back to either types, or using a less fancy display
> >I popped open the WFB and 40K files to have a look, and it appears
> >the WFB author has the same difficulty, and Colen avoided the issue
> >by making all conflict-groupy-thingies options.
>
> Since I haven't looked much at the WFB 6th Edition files, I
> don't know whether the author had this "difficulty" or simply
> chose a method because it made the most sense to him. As mentioned
> above, the Mordheim and WFB 5th Edition files rely on this
> extensively. I recommend checking those files
> for examples. Also, a simple example of this can be found in
> the Tutorial files included with AB.
>
> Thanks, Rob
thanks rob, and colen, and cristepher. seems cristepher made a
conscious decision to keep those items & weapons separate.
NOTE TO SELF: always check the tutorial files before spouting off.
thanks again,
daniel
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 18:06:36 +0100
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
Subject: Re: Sisters File in W40k v2.28 release
At 14:59 25/07/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>Thanks Colen.
>
>To incorporate changes do I need to download v2.28 again then
>reimport?
You'll need to wait until I release the v2.29 files later tonight.
--
Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister, demandred@skrill.org
http://www.skrill.org/, http://www.incompetence-central.co.uk/
1 = 2, for large values of 1.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 18:07:31 +0100
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
Subject: Re: AB files for Battleground - ??? help?
At 11:46 25/07/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>Gents, read the instructions. I couldn't find any reference to the
>type of file i have (Datadef.WWII). What I DID find was that
>according to the instructions, you can only import .ab and .zip
>files. (which is pretty much as I suspected.) I found an interesting
>little blurb about ABExport and zipping definition files. Is that my
>answer? start AB Construction, use the ABExport and change
>Datadef.WWII to say, BattleGround.ab, then import the file? Am I
>completely lost? Should I just unplug my computer and give it to
>someone else before I hurt myself? any ideas of where to find the
>answer?
Just move all the .wwii files into your /armybuilder/data/ directory.
They're not import files, you will have no chance of using 'Import files'
to import them
--
Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister, demandred@skrill.org
http://www.skrill.org/, http://www.incompetence-central.co.uk/
1 = 2, for large values of 1.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 17:18:47 -0000
From: Dragon2012@excite.com
Subject: Re: AB files for Battleground - ??? help?
--- In armybuilder@y..., "Keith" <elbandeedo@o...> wrote:
> Gents, read the instructions. I couldn't find any reference to the
> type of file i have (Datadef.WWII). What I DID find was that
> according to the instructions, you can only import .ab and .zip
> files. (which is pretty much as I suspected.) I found an
interesting
> little blurb about ABExport and zipping definition files. Is that
my
> answer? start AB Construction, use the ABExport and change
> Datadef.WWII to say, BattleGround.ab, then import the file? Am I
> completely lost? Should I just unplug my computer and give it to
> someone else before I hurt myself? any ideas of where to find the
> answer?
>
> Thanks,
>
> K2
Are you just trying to load the data files?
If so just copy each file datadef.wwII for example and paste the file
into the Armybuilder - "data" folder located in the Armybuilder
folder which is located in the "C" drive. You can find that by
double clicking "My computer" icon on the desk top.
Note I loaded these files and I had an error when I tried to run
them. I havent bothered to look what that error was or how to fix it
though.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 18:30:07 -0000
From: "Stephen Chen" <chensk@engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Using "stat:" after using "base:"
My problem is that I have a unit which may take an option that
adjusts one of its base stats. Let's call this stat1. So the option
merely has "base:stat1+1" as an attribute. Now, I have an item which
raises the value of another stat, stat2, by the value of stat1. In
theory, I just want to type "stat:stat2+(stat1)". This, however,
merely results in the original value of stat1 being added to stat2.
So, in this example, if stat1 = 3 and stat2 = 2 originally, then the
new value of stat2 shown by ab is 2/5, but I want it to be 2/6. Using
stat instead of base results in the same value of stat2 and stat1 =
1/2. This makes sense since stat and base are supposed to "work
identically." Is this how ab is supposed to treat this situation?
If so, is there a way to implement this? Thanks in advance.
Steve
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 18:42:01 -0000
From: "Stephen Chen" <chensk@engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Using stat: after using base:
My problem is that I have an unit that takes an option that adjusts
the base value of a stat. Let's call that stat stat1. So, the item
merely has the attribute "base:stat1+1". Now there is an item which
the unit may take that modifies the value of another stat, stat2, by
adding the value of stat1. So, the item has an attribute "stat:stat2+
(stat1)". Now the problem is that stat2 is only being adjusted by
the original value of stat1. So, if stat1 = 3 and stat2 = 5
originally, then the AB entry will say that stat1 = 4 and stat2 =
5/8. However, I want it to say that stat1 = 4 and stat2 = 5/9. Is
this how the stat and base attribute are supposed to interact? If
so, how could I get around this? Thanks in advance.
Steve
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 19:58:08 +0100
From: Versif <petark@ntlworld.com>
Subject: Re: Feral Orks
In this article Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org> wrote
>Cybork Body shouldn't be there, but the Banna Wava wasn't in the original
>codex either - it was added as an afterthough in a Chapter Approved article.
>
Good point, I hadn't thought of that, being a thickie I simply compared
the WD wargear list to the one in AB. Just like them to forget it again.
>>The squighound doesn't appear as an option for slaverz.
>
>pop
I like my squighounds, all teeth and no brains.
>
>>AB won't let pigdoks in madboyz units take wargear (but does allow it in
>>the bodyguard).
>
>Competence--, that's odd.
I think I failed here, the madboyz pigdoks should be allowed to take
wargear, or your adding in some light humour and I'm brainlessly missing
it
The latter is probably the case as my brain is practically nonfunctioning at the moment - never had it so good
>
>>The cost of squiggoths stays at 49 points irrespective of how small or
>>large they are, and the odd 9 points comes from the crew.
>
>I'm beginning to think I was drunk when I put the files together last time.
>Either that, or the Incompetence Gnomes have struck again.
I'll buy that, in the nicest possible way, you probably deserve to be
drunk with success after doing all of that so quickly
Cheers and as ever many thanks for the great work.
Grotfang, not so humble ork warlord.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 12:15:20 -0700
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: AB files for Battleground - ??? help?
In the "Getting Started" chapter, the section "Army Data Files" describes
the distinction between the definition and data files. In the section
"Installing Pre-Built Data Files", the last few paragraphs describe what
must be done if you need to manually copy the files into place (e.g. they
are in a standard Zip file). This starts at the paragraph beginning with
"The second way to install data files is to manually copy them into the
proper location."
Hope this helps,
Rob
At 11:46 AM 7/25/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>Gents, read the instructions. I couldn't find any reference to the
>type of file i have (Datadef.WWII). What I DID find was that
>according to the instructions, you can only import .ab and .zip
>files. (which is pretty much as I suspected.) I found an interesting
>little blurb about ABExport and zipping definition files. Is that my
>answer? start AB Construction, use the ABExport and change
>Datadef.WWII to say, BattleGround.ab, then import the file? Am I
>completely lost? Should I just unplug my computer and give it to
>someone else before I hurt myself? any ideas of where to find the
>answer?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 12:26:46 -0700
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Re: mode; time?
The "lglx" attribute is the proper method for constraining a unit to only
appear for a specific set of time periods. However, you can specify complex
boolean expressions in "lglx" attributes if you wish. For example, consider
the following:
lglx
(time>=1940)&(time<=1942)&(race=zz)The above attribute will limit the unit to only appear for the time periods
1940-1942. It will also only show the unit if the user is creating a roster
for race "zz". You can use complex boolean expressions to do things like
limit the unit to show up for a single race in 1940, but two additional
races beginning in 1941.
You can specify which mode to use as the default (replacing "none") by
using the "none" race attribute.
Hope this helps,
Rob
At 02:12 PM 7/25/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>--- In armybuilder@y..., Dragon2012@e... wrote:
> > I am trying to get a mode of mime. But how do you assign a time to
> > the unit? I tried Type but that didnt seem to work. I tried to
>load
> > up DBM files to see if that had an example but it is coming up as
>an
> > invalid AB file to import.
>
>let me qualify that a little further:
>
>For example I want to do WWII: I define the mode as:
>
>mode:1939="1939"-time=1939:1945
>mode:1940="1940"-time=1940:1945
>etc. to
>mode:1945="1945"-time=1945:1945
>
>Now on the units/options I have the lglx:
>
>lglx:mode>=1940 for example for units 1941 and above. It is the only
>way I could get it to work.
>I tired the : mode:time>1940 and mode:time=1941 etc?
>
>When I use the way that works it also doesnt show the units in the
>*none* scenerio list? No big deal but I tried to make the 1944 the
>default via the -rules and that didnt work.
>Is there a way to eleminate the *none* from the senerio box?
>How should this be done?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 19:53:13 -0000
From: "Daniel Rothman" <drothman.dmth94@gtalumni.org>
Subject: Re: Using stat: after using base:
<SNIP>
> Is
> this how the stat and base attribute are supposed to interact? If
> so, how could I get around this? Thanks in advance.
>
> Steve
Steve -
have you tried reversing their order of evaluation? If you ensure
that the base: is evaluated before the stat: then things should work
out the way you want. Although for a very different sort of system,
the files for Battletech have LOADS of examples of stat modifications.
daniel
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 20:22:35 +0100
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
Subject: Re: Feral Orks
At 19:58 25/07/2001 +0100, you wrote:
> >>AB won't let pigdoks in madboyz units take wargear (but does allow it in
> >>the bodyguard).
> >
> >Competence--, that's odd.
>
>I think I failed here, the madboyz pigdoks should be allowed to take
>wargear, or your adding in some light humour and I'm brainlessly missing
>it
The latter is probably the case as my brain is practically non>functioning at the moment - never had it so good
It wasn't immediately obvious why they couldn't get Wargear, until later
when I looked properly
Fixed now.--
Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister, demandred@skrill.org
http://www.skrill.org/, http://www.incompetence-central.co.uk/
1 = 2, for large values of 1.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 19
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 20:20:58 +0100
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
Subject: Re: Using "stat:" after using "base:"
At 18:30 25/07/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>My problem is that I have a unit which may take an option that
>adjusts one of its base stats. Let's call this stat1. So the option
>merely has "base:stat1+1" as an attribute. Now, I have an item which
>raises the value of another stat, stat2, by the value of stat1. In
>theory, I just want to type "stat:stat2+(stat1)". This, however,
>merely results in the original value of stat1 being added to stat2.
>So, in this example, if stat1 = 3 and stat2 = 2 originally, then the
>new value of stat2 shown by ab is 2/5, but I want it to be 2/6. Using
>stat instead of base results in the same value of stat2 and stat1 =
>1/2. This makes sense since stat and base are supposed to "work
>identically." Is this how ab is supposed to treat this situation?
>If so, is there a way to implement this?
What priority are the options?
If you want it to work like that, the base:stat1+1 option will have to be
of a higher priority than the stat:stat2+(stat1) option. If it's of a lower
priority, then stat 1 will be added to stat 2, *then* stat 1 will be increased.
--
Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister, demandred@skrill.org
http://www.skrill.org/, http://www.incompetence-central.co.uk/
1 = 2, for large values of 1.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 20
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 13:10:44 -0700
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Using stat: after using base:
It's probably an issue of sequencing. You mix references to items and
options below, and that has an even bigger implication, so it's critical to
know what adjustments are associated with items vs. options.
Basically, the sequencing of options is controlled via the option category.
Options are sorted prior to evaluation. The sort uses the assigned category
as the primary key and the option name as the secondary key. THey are then
processed in that order. This means that options of category 1 are
processed before options of category 2. Within a given category, options
are processed in alphabetical order. When child units are involved and/or
the "more" attribute is used, things work a little differently. When an
option chains to another, the chained options are evaluated as part of the
evaluation of the parent option. Therefore, a child unit will be evaluation
when the option with the "unit" attribute is evaluated. Similarly, an
option with multiple "more" attributes will evaluate each of those chained
attributes in the exact sequence they are listed as attributes.
Then there is the issue of items. ALL items are evaluated BEFORE any
options are evaluated for a unit. In addition, items are evaluated in the
order they appear for the unit. Since the user can CHANGE that order, it is
impossible to rely on a fixed evaluation order for items. If items need to
trigger effects that must be sequenced, then the items need to assign types
to the unit and options using "utyp" should be used to impose the proper
sequencing.
The bottom line is that you are most likely not controlling the sequence of
evaluation appropriately for what you are trying to accomplish. The "base"
and "stat" attributes definitely work correctly. If you assign them to
options so they occur in the proper order, everything should work as you
want it to.
Hope this helps,
Rob
At 06:42 PM 7/25/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>My problem is that I have an unit that takes an option that adjusts
>the base value of a stat. Let's call that stat stat1. So, the item
>merely has the attribute "base:stat1+1". Now there is an item which
>the unit may take that modifies the value of another stat, stat2, by
>adding the value of stat1. So, the item has an attribute "stat:stat2+
>(stat1)". Now the problem is that stat2 is only being adjusted by
>the original value of stat1. So, if stat1 = 3 and stat2 = 5
>originally, then the AB entry will say that stat1 = 4 and stat2 =
>5/8. However, I want it to say that stat1 = 4 and stat2 = 5/9. Is
>this how the stat and base attribute are supposed to interact? If
>so, how could I get around this? Thanks in advance.
>
>Steve
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 21
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 13:48:52 -0700
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Using "stat:" after using "base:"
At 08:20 PM 7/25/2001 +0100, you wrote:
>At 18:30 25/07/2001 +0000, you wrote:
> >My problem is that I have a unit which may take an option that
> >adjusts one of its base stats. Let's call this stat1. So the option
> >merely has "base:stat1+1" as an attribute. Now, I have an item which
> >raises the value of another stat, stat2, by the value of stat1. In
> >theory, I just want to type "stat:stat2+(stat1)". This, however,
> >merely results in the original value of stat1 being added to stat2.
> >So, in this example, if stat1 = 3 and stat2 = 2 originally, then the
> >new value of stat2 shown by ab is 2/5, but I want it to be 2/6. Using
> >stat instead of base results in the same value of stat2 and stat1 =
> >1/2. This makes sense since stat and base are supposed to "work
> >identically." Is this how ab is supposed to treat this situation?
> >If so, is there a way to implement this?
>
>What priority are the options?
>
>If you want it to work like that, the base:stat1+1 option will have to be
>of a higher priority than the stat:stat2+(stat1) option. If it's of a lower
>priority, then stat 1 will be added to stat 2, *then* stat 1 will be
>increased.
As usual, Colen provides a clear, direct, PRACTICAL answer to the question
at hand. Meanwhile, Rob spouts off with all sorts of theory on how AB works
internally.
Use Colen's answer. If you want to know WHY Colen's answer applies, read my
answer.
Thanks, Rob
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 22
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 22:03:26 -0000
From: stevenjcox@cableinet.co.uk
Subject: The Emperor's Champion
Why is there an option for the 'new' or 'old' Emperor's champion? I
can see no difference between them.
Steve
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 23
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 23:05:39 +0100
From: Versif <petark@ntlworld.com>
Subject: Re: AB files for Battleground - ??? help?
In this article Keith <elbandeedo@onebox.com> wrote
>Gents, read the instructions. I couldn't find any reference to the
>type of file i have (Datadef.WWII). What I DID find was that
>according to the instructions, you can only import .ab and .zip
>files. (which is pretty much as I suspected.) I found an interesting
>little blurb about ABExport and zipping definition files. Is that my
>answer? start AB Construction, use the ABExport and change
>Datadef.WWII to say, BattleGround.ab, then import the file? Am I
>completely lost? Should I just unplug my computer and give it to
>someone else before I hurt myself? any ideas of where to find the
>answer?
Datadef.WWII id the data definition file for whatever WWII is,
presumably Battleground looking at your previous post. It belongs in the
Armybuilder data directory. You should also have a second file (or
possibly even more) xxx.WWII which should also be in the Armybuilder
data directory. Simply copy all the files with the extension .WWII into
your Armybuilder data directory and when you next start Armybuilder the
game system for Battleground will appear.
If you only have the datadef.WWII file then you are some files short!
It is better to get the files as a zip or ab and let Armybuilder sort it
out for you but copying the files manually where only a few are involved
is no great problem. I seem to recall I had to do this with the
gorkamorka or necromunda files.
Cheers
Grotfang, not so humble ork warlord.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 24
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 23:10:42 +0100
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
Subject: Re: The Emperor's Champion
At 22:03 25/07/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>Why is there an option for the 'new' or 'old' Emperor's champion? I
>can see no difference between them.
The new one takes up an HQ slot; the old one doesn't. Or possibly the other
way around.
--
Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister, demandred@skrill.org
http://www.skrill.org/, http://www.incompetence-central.co.uk/
1 = 2, for large values of 1.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 25
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 23:19:50 -0000
From: "Daniel Rothman" <drothman.dmth94@gtalumni.org>
Subject: Deathwatch Ultramarines
Colen -
I know it's not your favorite thing to hear but....
Ultramarine Deathwatch Kill Team Captains still have their command
squad option visible
Deathwatch Veterans in tac squads can take more DW ammunition options
(individually and collectively) than there are models in the unit
BTW, kudos on the validation in the cascaded vet units from the kill
teams - lots & lots of things that could've gone wrong there
I was confused for a time as to why the DWVet child didn't get its
hvyWpn & SpecWpn options disabled, but the DWKillTeam did - but I
feel better now
daniel
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/