A
armybuilder at yahoogroup
Guest
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get your FREE credit report with a FREE CreditCheck
Monitoring Service trial
http://us.click.yahoo.com/MDsVHB/bQ8CAA/ySSFAA/IMSolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, email
armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 13 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Advancing Tables
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
2. Re: Advancing Tables
From: "Jim Kiefer" <mageith@hotmail.com>
3. "Disp" attribute future?
From: "Woodrow Walton" <woodywalton@hotmail.com>
4. Re: "Disp" attribute future?
From: "Russell Sparkes" <rjs@inorbit.com>
5. Re: Re: Tau Files
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
6. Re: Re: Tau Files
From: "Shawn Campbell" <shawn@electricstitch.com>
7. Re: Re: "Disp" attribute future?
From: "Woodrow Walton" <woodywalton@hotmail.com>
8. AB datafile for WH40K 3rd edition
From: "whiteinblack" <whiteinblackii@yahoo.co.uk>
9. Re: Advancing Tables
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
10. Re: "Disp" attribute future?
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
11. Re: Re: "Disp" attribute future?
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
12. Re: AB datafile for WH40K 3rd edition
From: "Shawn Campbell" <shawn@electricstitch.com>
13. Re: Re: "Disp" attribute future?
From: "Woodrow Walton" <woodywalton@hotmail.com>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 12:54:38 -0700
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Advancing Tables
The only way that should happen is if the first (default) option is invalid
for the unit for some reason. Is the first option devoid of validity
constraints (e.g. utyp)?
If you believe there is an bug in AB, please send me the complete data
files and detailed instructions on how to reproduce the problem. I will
take a look at it for you.
Thanks, Rob
At 06:24 AM 9/25/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>No, I have that. I have a blank default. It only goes haywire when there
>is a champion which is a unit brought in by an option. Then it
>automatically advances to the 2nd option in the table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (650) 726-9689
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 20:50:00 +0000
From: "Jim Kiefer" <mageith@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Advancing Tables
It is valid because I can click backwards on it and make it go back to my
"none" default.
I am using both utyp and olgl, tho I tested all the combos and still
couldn't get rid of the advancing. Since then I have gotten rid of my
champions instead and don't have a separate output line for them.
I am also using the the glob: command for the tabl: option and limiting its
reference to certain unit types such as "champion" "Hero", etc. via the
olgl: command.
I will send you the paths from my programs tonight. Actually I was hoping
someone else had encountered this and there was something simple I was doing
or not doing.
Complete data files?
Jim K.
>From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
>Reply-To: armybuilder@yahoogroups.com
>To: armybuilder@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [AB] Advancing Tables
>Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 12:54:38 -0700
>
>The only way that should happen is if the first (default) option is invalid
>for the unit for some reason. Is the first option devoid of validity
>constraints (e.g. utyp)?
>
>If you believe there is an bug in AB, please send me the complete data
>files and detailed instructions on how to reproduce the problem. I will
>take a look at it for you.
>
>Thanks, Rob
>
>
>At 06:24 AM 9/25/2001 +0000, you wrote:
> >No, I have that. I have a blank default. It only goes haywire when
>there
> >is a champion which is a unit brought in by an option. Then it
> >automatically advances to the 2nd option in the table.
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (650) 726-9689
>Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 16:41:31 -0500
From: "Woodrow Walton" <woodywalton@hotmail.com>
Subject: "Disp" attribute future?
Is the intention that the "disp" attribute will at some point have a no
display option as well as its current "noprint"? If so, what is the
possible time line(a near or long term addition)?
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 23:20:56 -0000
From: "Russell Sparkes" <rjs@inorbit.com>
Subject: Re: "Disp" attribute future?
--- In armybuilder@y..., "Woodrow Walton" <woodywalton@h...> wrote:
> Is the intention that the "disp" attribute will at some point have
> a no display option as well as its current "noprint"? If so, what
> is the possible time line(a near or long term addition)?
>
If you dont want to see a unit, use the external Unit
attribute "hide". Am I misunderstanding what you're trying to do?
Cheers,
Russell.
----
Russell Sparkes - rjs@inorbit.com - http://www.freecfm.com/r/rjs
"Experience is what you get just after you needed it" - Unknown
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 00:01:14 +0100
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
Subject: Re: Re: Tau Files
At 20:19 23/09/2001 -0700, you wrote:
>Colen or Rob,
>
>What are the legalities of releasing the Tau files before the codex release?
>Is it okay, because it's released in the UK? Should I be waiting for the US
>release.
>
>I wouldn't mind some people with the codex to help beta-test the files
>before I make them public.
I've never heard from GW regarding any aspect of anything at all. Unless
you're breaking a non-disclosure agreement, or putting an unreasonable
amount of data in the files
, there should be no problem. (disclaimer: IANAL)
--
Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister, demandred@skrill.org
http://www.skrill.org/, http://www.incompetence-central.co.uk/
1 = 2, for large values of 1.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 18:12:12 -0700
From: "Shawn Campbell" <shawn@electricstitch.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Tau Files
> I've never heard from GW regarding any aspect of anything at all. Unless
> you're breaking a non-disclosure agreement, or putting an unreasonable
> amount of data in the files, there should be no problem. (disclaimer:
IANAL)
I always knew you were anal. You don't need to be a lawyer to figure that
out.
Thanks. I'll go ahead and release the tau files as soon as they are ready.
Steven Cox is helping me beta-test them. They are nearly complete.
-Shawn
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 21:51:18 -0500
From: "Woodrow Walton" <woodywalton@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Re: "Disp" attribute future?
I am wanting to hide a child unit thats only purpose is to divert cost from
the parents comp group using the forc attribute. It doesn't need to be
visible.
>From: "Russell Sparkes" <rjs@inorbit.com>
>Reply-To: armybuilder@yahoogroups.com
>To: armybuilder@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [AB] Re: "Disp" attribute future?
>Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 23:20:56 -0000
>
>--- In armybuilder@y..., "Woodrow Walton" <woodywalton@h...> wrote:
> > Is the intention that the "disp" attribute will at some point have
> > a no display option as well as its current "noprint"? If so, what
> > is the possible time line(a near or long term addition)?
> >
>
>If you dont want to see a unit, use the external Unit
>attribute "hide". Am I misunderstanding what you're trying to do?
>
>Cheers,
>Russell.
>----
>Russell Sparkes - rjs@inorbit.com - http://www.freecfm.com/r/rjs
>"Experience is what you get just after you needed it" - Unknown
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 03:52:02 +0100
From: "whiteinblack" <whiteinblackii@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: AB datafile for WH40K 3rd edition
hi,
In an all infantry imperial guard army the datafile seems to require that I
take a compulsory "troops" unit that is non infantry(ie a unit that does not
require a command platoon selection).
not taking a unit of this nature gives the error "Validation: Composition
group 'troops' does not satisfy requirements (>=2unit <=6unit).
as far as i can tell the roster i'm making satifies all requirements laid
out in the codex.summarised here,
1 command HQ
1 platoon command section
3 infantry units attached to platoon command section.
I'm using AB version 2.2c
not a member of the mailing list.
is this something i'm doing wrong or a genuine bug?
all help appreciated.
LD.
Get your FREE credit report with a FREE CreditCheck
Monitoring Service trial
http://us.click.yahoo.com/MDsVHB/bQ8CAA/ySSFAA/IMSolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, email
armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 13 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Advancing Tables
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
2. Re: Advancing Tables
From: "Jim Kiefer" <mageith@hotmail.com>
3. "Disp" attribute future?
From: "Woodrow Walton" <woodywalton@hotmail.com>
4. Re: "Disp" attribute future?
From: "Russell Sparkes" <rjs@inorbit.com>
5. Re: Re: Tau Files
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
6. Re: Re: Tau Files
From: "Shawn Campbell" <shawn@electricstitch.com>
7. Re: Re: "Disp" attribute future?
From: "Woodrow Walton" <woodywalton@hotmail.com>
8. AB datafile for WH40K 3rd edition
From: "whiteinblack" <whiteinblackii@yahoo.co.uk>
9. Re: Advancing Tables
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
10. Re: "Disp" attribute future?
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
11. Re: Re: "Disp" attribute future?
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
12. Re: AB datafile for WH40K 3rd edition
From: "Shawn Campbell" <shawn@electricstitch.com>
13. Re: Re: "Disp" attribute future?
From: "Woodrow Walton" <woodywalton@hotmail.com>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 12:54:38 -0700
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Advancing Tables
The only way that should happen is if the first (default) option is invalid
for the unit for some reason. Is the first option devoid of validity
constraints (e.g. utyp)?
If you believe there is an bug in AB, please send me the complete data
files and detailed instructions on how to reproduce the problem. I will
take a look at it for you.
Thanks, Rob
At 06:24 AM 9/25/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>No, I have that. I have a blank default. It only goes haywire when there
>is a champion which is a unit brought in by an option. Then it
>automatically advances to the 2nd option in the table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (650) 726-9689
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 20:50:00 +0000
From: "Jim Kiefer" <mageith@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Advancing Tables
It is valid because I can click backwards on it and make it go back to my
"none" default.
I am using both utyp and olgl, tho I tested all the combos and still
couldn't get rid of the advancing. Since then I have gotten rid of my
champions instead and don't have a separate output line for them.
I am also using the the glob: command for the tabl: option and limiting its
reference to certain unit types such as "champion" "Hero", etc. via the
olgl: command.
I will send you the paths from my programs tonight. Actually I was hoping
someone else had encountered this and there was something simple I was doing
or not doing.
Complete data files?
Jim K.
>From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
>Reply-To: armybuilder@yahoogroups.com
>To: armybuilder@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [AB] Advancing Tables
>Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 12:54:38 -0700
>
>The only way that should happen is if the first (default) option is invalid
>for the unit for some reason. Is the first option devoid of validity
>constraints (e.g. utyp)?
>
>If you believe there is an bug in AB, please send me the complete data
>files and detailed instructions on how to reproduce the problem. I will
>take a look at it for you.
>
>Thanks, Rob
>
>
>At 06:24 AM 9/25/2001 +0000, you wrote:
> >No, I have that. I have a blank default. It only goes haywire when
>there
> >is a champion which is a unit brought in by an option. Then it
> >automatically advances to the 2nd option in the table.
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (650) 726-9689
>Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 16:41:31 -0500
From: "Woodrow Walton" <woodywalton@hotmail.com>
Subject: "Disp" attribute future?
Is the intention that the "disp" attribute will at some point have a no
display option as well as its current "noprint"? If so, what is the
possible time line(a near or long term addition)?
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 23:20:56 -0000
From: "Russell Sparkes" <rjs@inorbit.com>
Subject: Re: "Disp" attribute future?
--- In armybuilder@y..., "Woodrow Walton" <woodywalton@h...> wrote:
> Is the intention that the "disp" attribute will at some point have
> a no display option as well as its current "noprint"? If so, what
> is the possible time line(a near or long term addition)?
>
If you dont want to see a unit, use the external Unit
attribute "hide". Am I misunderstanding what you're trying to do?
Cheers,
Russell.
----
Russell Sparkes - rjs@inorbit.com - http://www.freecfm.com/r/rjs
"Experience is what you get just after you needed it" - Unknown
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 00:01:14 +0100
From: Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister <demandred@skrill.org>
Subject: Re: Re: Tau Files
At 20:19 23/09/2001 -0700, you wrote:
>Colen or Rob,
>
>What are the legalities of releasing the Tau files before the codex release?
>Is it okay, because it's released in the UK? Should I be waiting for the US
>release.
>
>I wouldn't mind some people with the codex to help beta-test the files
>before I make them public.
I've never heard from GW regarding any aspect of anything at all. Unless
you're breaking a non-disclosure agreement, or putting an unreasonable
amount of data in the files
, there should be no problem. (disclaimer: IANAL)--
Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister, demandred@skrill.org
http://www.skrill.org/, http://www.incompetence-central.co.uk/
1 = 2, for large values of 1.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 18:12:12 -0700
From: "Shawn Campbell" <shawn@electricstitch.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Tau Files
> I've never heard from GW regarding any aspect of anything at all. Unless
> you're breaking a non-disclosure agreement, or putting an unreasonable
> amount of data in the files
, there should be no problem. (disclaimer:IANAL)
I always knew you were anal. You don't need to be a lawyer to figure that
out.
Thanks. I'll go ahead and release the tau files as soon as they are ready.
Steven Cox is helping me beta-test them. They are nearly complete.
-Shawn
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 21:51:18 -0500
From: "Woodrow Walton" <woodywalton@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Re: "Disp" attribute future?
I am wanting to hide a child unit thats only purpose is to divert cost from
the parents comp group using the forc attribute. It doesn't need to be
visible.
>From: "Russell Sparkes" <rjs@inorbit.com>
>Reply-To: armybuilder@yahoogroups.com
>To: armybuilder@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [AB] Re: "Disp" attribute future?
>Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 23:20:56 -0000
>
>--- In armybuilder@y..., "Woodrow Walton" <woodywalton@h...> wrote:
> > Is the intention that the "disp" attribute will at some point have
> > a no display option as well as its current "noprint"? If so, what
> > is the possible time line(a near or long term addition)?
> >
>
>If you dont want to see a unit, use the external Unit
>attribute "hide". Am I misunderstanding what you're trying to do?
>
>Cheers,
>Russell.
>----
>Russell Sparkes - rjs@inorbit.com - http://www.freecfm.com/r/rjs
>"Experience is what you get just after you needed it" - Unknown
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 03:52:02 +0100
From: "whiteinblack" <whiteinblackii@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: AB datafile for WH40K 3rd edition
hi,
In an all infantry imperial guard army the datafile seems to require that I
take a compulsory "troops" unit that is non infantry(ie a unit that does not
require a command platoon selection).
not taking a unit of this nature gives the error "Validation: Composition
group 'troops' does not satisfy requirements (>=2unit <=6unit).
as far as i can tell the roster i'm making satifies all requirements laid
out in the codex.summarised here,
1 command HQ
1 platoon command section
3 infantry units attached to platoon command section.
I'm using AB version 2.2c
not a member of the mailing list.
is this something i'm doing wrong or a genuine bug?
all help appreciated.
LD.