A
armybuilder at yahoogroup
Guest
To unsubscribe from this group, email
armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 9 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Tau naming scheme
From: dhugues@caramail.com
2. Re: Newbie Help
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
3. Re: Composition group limit for new race?
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
4. Re: Limited combinations
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
5. IG Tank Varients Lost in current datafile set for 40K
From: kilbo98@yahoo.com
6. Re: IG Tank Varients Lost in current datafile set for 40K
From: "Shawn Campbell" <shawn@electricstitch.com>
7. Re: IG Tank Varients Lost in current datafile set for 40K
From: Ron Kilby <kilbo98@yahoo.com>
8. Re: IG Tank Varients Lost in current datafile set for 40K
From: "Shawn Campbell" <shawn@electricstitch.com>
9. Harlequins
From: "Shawn Campbell" <shawn@electricstitch.com>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 08:54:00 -0000
From: dhugues@caramail.com
Subject: Re: Tau naming scheme
I'm agree to not use specific race word, It's more simple for
everyone and specially for non english people ...
Dorian
--- In armybuilder@y..., "Shawn Campbell" <shawn@e...> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jimi" <jimi@a...>
>
>
> > > Is this preferred? How about this alternate...
> > >
> > > Crisis Shas'ui
> > > Broadside Shas'ui
> > > Fire Warrior Shas'la
> >
> > Dont use the race-specific words - it will only confuse us
mortals
>
> This was my thought in the first place. I have had requests for the
specific
> names and I wanted to get a general opinion.
>
> Thanks Jimi.
>
> Shawn 'Not Colen' Campbell
> shawn@e...
> http://www.electricstitch.com/ab_files (Bug reports and history)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 16:16:23 -0700
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Newbie Help
Shawn is conceptually correct with his suggestion, but he's got a few minor
problems with the specific implementation details.
If each school is assigned to its own item category, you can use the "spec"
local unit attribute to assign the appropriate categories to each wizard.
If a wizard can only select spells from one category from a list of
available categories, you can use options (one for each school) from a
single conflict group, where each option uses the "spec" attribute to grant
access to the selected school.
The use of types will work well if you collapse all schools of magic into a
single item category. You can then use "itst" on each item to filter which
spells are available. If a wizard can select from multiple schools, then
you can use options for the selection and assign a type to the wizard based
on the school selected. The "itst" can then check the unit type.
Hope this helps,
Rob
At 09:56 PM 10/10/2001 -0700, you wrote:
>Can you make each "school" an item category. Then assign each spell a
>"utyp". Now give each spellcaster "type" that matches the spells.
>
>You should get the 6 schools listed in the item screen and only spells that
>the spellcaster can have will be listed.
>
>Also, take a look at the Warhammer fantasy files. If each mage is restricted
>to one school, you can use the system shown their. (Basically, just one item
>group called "spells" and have options that give type to the unit and spells
>are utyp so only spells allowed are shown.)
>
>I admit, I haven't tried anything like this... but this is what came to the
>top of my head. I'd read through the documentation a bit too...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (650) 726-9689
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 16:19:06 -0700
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Composition group limit for new race?
Unfortunately, without any further contextual information, I don't think I
can offer any additional suggestions. Perhaps if you sent me more details
on the overall game mechanics that you are trying to model, I might be able
to come up with a more appropriate solution. Please send any such
information to me directly at helpdesk@wolflair.com (yes, it's an alias
that goes straight to me, but it helps me manage things better on this end).
Thanks, Rob
At 09:53 AM 10/11/2001 +0100, you wrote:
>I set up a Race with the first 8 composition groups...
>...and an Alllied Race consisting only of the 9th composition group?
>===
>Not very user-friendly IMHO. This would require that the user utilize the
>allied race mechanism for something completely different from its intended
>use. And what if you then discover you NEED to use the allies mechanism?
>===
>
>Actually it does work. Although it produces a validation error with the
>little graph, this doesn't seem to actually do any harm... it simply lists a
>missing percentage.
>
>As for using the allies mechanism for it's intended purpose, that seems to
>function fine as well. Obviously it's a little clunky, but it seems to
>work... aside from the validation error.
>
>
>...I recommend collapsing two very similar composition groups into one...
>
>I thought of that. I'm still looking at it. To be honest, at this stage the
>9th composition group looks the BETTER option.
>
>There are nine distinct groups and although any two can be lumped together
>for AB purposes there is no natural pair. The addition of a tenth group at a
>later date is unlikely, but I don't want a solution that won't allow one to
>be added.
>
>At the moment I'm looking at the possibility of switching Composition Groups
>and Races over. At the moment I'm still shoving it around, to see what works
>best on screen and paper.
>
>---Steven
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (650) 726-9689
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 16:24:23 -0700
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Limited combinations
You can probably achieve this with items using a brute-force approach, but
the combinatorics will be viscious, so I won't even offer the solution.
This is EXACTLY the kind of situation that elements were created to handle,
so I recommend using elements. For an example of how to do this, please
take a look at the WFB data files, where Dwarven runic items use this
technique.
Thanks, Rob
At 12:53 PM 10/11/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>Hi Folks,
>
>I'm working on some datafiles and I am trying to figure a way to
>restrict items. A unit can take up to three items from a category,
>thats easy to code. Now comes the hard part. The combinations of
>the items cannot be repeated between units.
>
>Anotherwords, the items are A, B, C, D, E and F.
>
>Unit #1 has items A, B and C
>
>no other units could take A, B, and C. They could take A and B, A
>and C, A, and D, etc, but not A, B, C.
>
>Any ideas how I would go about doing this?
>
>Chris
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (650) 726-9689
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 22:59:54 -0000
From: kilbo98@yahoo.com
Subject: IG Tank Varients Lost in current datafile set for 40K
Subject says it all.
Anyone else loose all of the different tank varients with the new
datafiles? My beloved Salamander Scout tank is no longer on it?
Will they be returned soon?
RK
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 17:21:33 -0700
From: "Shawn Campbell" <shawn@electricstitch.com>
Subject: Re: IG Tank Varients Lost in current datafile set for 40K
Faster than you think. You should really read the release notes...
(For release note history, visit the 40k3 datafiles website, link in sig)
Shawn 'Not Colen' Campbell
shawn@electricstitch.com
http://www.electricstitch.com/ab_files (submit bug reports and history)
> Subject says it all.
> Anyone else loose all of the different tank varients with the new
> datafiles? My beloved Salamander Scout tank is no longer on it?
>
> Will they be returned soon?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 19:28:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ron Kilby <kilbo98@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: IG Tank Varients Lost in current datafile set for 40K
Ah, under the settings menu.
Usually do, just missed version 3.0. Am I allowed
that?
Thanks
RK
--- Shawn Campbell <shawn@electricstitch.com> wrote:
> Faster than you think. You should really read the
> release notes...
>
> (For release note history, visit the 40k3 datafiles
> website, link in sig)
>
> Shawn 'Not Colen' Campbell
> shawn@electricstitch.com
> http://www.electricstitch.com/ab_files (submit bug
> reports and history)
>
>
> > Subject says it all.
> > Anyone else loose all of the different tank
> varients with the new
> > datafiles? My beloved Salamander Scout tank is no
> longer on it?
> >
> > Will they be returned soon?
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 19:40:43 -0700
From: "Shawn Campbell" <shawn@electricstitch.com>
Subject: Re: IG Tank Varients Lost in current datafile set for 40K
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Kilby" <kilbo98@yahoo.com>
> Ah, under the settings menu.
> Usually do, just missed version 3.0. Am I allowed
> that?
Sure, the new website should help too! It's not well known yet... but when
it is, it should make situations like this disappear.
Shawn 'Not Colen' Campbell
shawn@electricstitch.com
http://www.electricstitch.com/ab_files (Bug reports and history)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 20:21:30 -0700
From: "Shawn Campbell" <shawn@electricstitch.com>
Subject: Harlequins
Could someone with the harlequins CJ arcticle please contact me.
Thanks,
Shawn 'Not Colen' Campbell
shawn@electricstitch.com
http://www.electricstitch.com/ab_files (Bug reports and history)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 9 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Tau naming scheme
From: dhugues@caramail.com
2. Re: Newbie Help
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
3. Re: Composition group limit for new race?
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
4. Re: Limited combinations
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
5. IG Tank Varients Lost in current datafile set for 40K
From: kilbo98@yahoo.com
6. Re: IG Tank Varients Lost in current datafile set for 40K
From: "Shawn Campbell" <shawn@electricstitch.com>
7. Re: IG Tank Varients Lost in current datafile set for 40K
From: Ron Kilby <kilbo98@yahoo.com>
8. Re: IG Tank Varients Lost in current datafile set for 40K
From: "Shawn Campbell" <shawn@electricstitch.com>
9. Harlequins
From: "Shawn Campbell" <shawn@electricstitch.com>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 08:54:00 -0000
From: dhugues@caramail.com
Subject: Re: Tau naming scheme
I'm agree to not use specific race word, It's more simple for
everyone and specially for non english people ...
Dorian
--- In armybuilder@y..., "Shawn Campbell" <shawn@e...> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jimi" <jimi@a...>
>
>
> > > Is this preferred? How about this alternate...
> > >
> > > Crisis Shas'ui
> > > Broadside Shas'ui
> > > Fire Warrior Shas'la
> >
> > Dont use the race-specific words - it will only confuse us
mortals
>
> This was my thought in the first place. I have had requests for the
specific
> names and I wanted to get a general opinion.
>
> Thanks Jimi.
>
> Shawn 'Not Colen' Campbell
> shawn@e...
> http://www.electricstitch.com/ab_files (Bug reports and history)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 16:16:23 -0700
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Newbie Help
Shawn is conceptually correct with his suggestion, but he's got a few minor
problems with the specific implementation details.
If each school is assigned to its own item category, you can use the "spec"
local unit attribute to assign the appropriate categories to each wizard.
If a wizard can only select spells from one category from a list of
available categories, you can use options (one for each school) from a
single conflict group, where each option uses the "spec" attribute to grant
access to the selected school.
The use of types will work well if you collapse all schools of magic into a
single item category. You can then use "itst" on each item to filter which
spells are available. If a wizard can select from multiple schools, then
you can use options for the selection and assign a type to the wizard based
on the school selected. The "itst" can then check the unit type.
Hope this helps,
Rob
At 09:56 PM 10/10/2001 -0700, you wrote:
>Can you make each "school" an item category. Then assign each spell a
>"utyp". Now give each spellcaster "type" that matches the spells.
>
>You should get the 6 schools listed in the item screen and only spells that
>the spellcaster can have will be listed.
>
>Also, take a look at the Warhammer fantasy files. If each mage is restricted
>to one school, you can use the system shown their. (Basically, just one item
>group called "spells" and have options that give type to the unit and spells
>are utyp so only spells allowed are shown.)
>
>I admit, I haven't tried anything like this... but this is what came to the
>top of my head. I'd read through the documentation a bit too...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (650) 726-9689
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 16:19:06 -0700
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Composition group limit for new race?
Unfortunately, without any further contextual information, I don't think I
can offer any additional suggestions. Perhaps if you sent me more details
on the overall game mechanics that you are trying to model, I might be able
to come up with a more appropriate solution. Please send any such
information to me directly at helpdesk@wolflair.com (yes, it's an alias
that goes straight to me, but it helps me manage things better on this end).
Thanks, Rob
At 09:53 AM 10/11/2001 +0100, you wrote:
>I set up a Race with the first 8 composition groups...
>...and an Alllied Race consisting only of the 9th composition group?
>===
>Not very user-friendly IMHO. This would require that the user utilize the
>allied race mechanism for something completely different from its intended
>use. And what if you then discover you NEED to use the allies mechanism?
>===
>
>Actually it does work. Although it produces a validation error with the
>little graph, this doesn't seem to actually do any harm... it simply lists a
>missing percentage.
>
>As for using the allies mechanism for it's intended purpose, that seems to
>function fine as well. Obviously it's a little clunky, but it seems to
>work... aside from the validation error.
>
>
>...I recommend collapsing two very similar composition groups into one...
>
>I thought of that. I'm still looking at it. To be honest, at this stage the
>9th composition group looks the BETTER option.
>
>There are nine distinct groups and although any two can be lumped together
>for AB purposes there is no natural pair. The addition of a tenth group at a
>later date is unlikely, but I don't want a solution that won't allow one to
>be added.
>
>At the moment I'm looking at the possibility of switching Composition Groups
>and Races over. At the moment I'm still shoving it around, to see what works
>best on screen and paper.
>
>---Steven
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (650) 726-9689
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 16:24:23 -0700
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Limited combinations
You can probably achieve this with items using a brute-force approach, but
the combinatorics will be viscious, so I won't even offer the solution.
This is EXACTLY the kind of situation that elements were created to handle,
so I recommend using elements. For an example of how to do this, please
take a look at the WFB data files, where Dwarven runic items use this
technique.
Thanks, Rob
At 12:53 PM 10/11/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>Hi Folks,
>
>I'm working on some datafiles and I am trying to figure a way to
>restrict items. A unit can take up to three items from a category,
>thats easy to code. Now comes the hard part. The combinations of
>the items cannot be repeated between units.
>
>Anotherwords, the items are A, B, C, D, E and F.
>
>Unit #1 has items A, B and C
>
>no other units could take A, B, and C. They could take A and B, A
>and C, A, and D, etc, but not A, B, C.
>
>Any ideas how I would go about doing this?
>
>Chris
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (650) 726-9689
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 22:59:54 -0000
From: kilbo98@yahoo.com
Subject: IG Tank Varients Lost in current datafile set for 40K
Subject says it all.
Anyone else loose all of the different tank varients with the new
datafiles? My beloved Salamander Scout tank is no longer on it?
Will they be returned soon?
RK
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 17:21:33 -0700
From: "Shawn Campbell" <shawn@electricstitch.com>
Subject: Re: IG Tank Varients Lost in current datafile set for 40K
Faster than you think. You should really read the release notes...
(For release note history, visit the 40k3 datafiles website, link in sig)
Shawn 'Not Colen' Campbell
shawn@electricstitch.com
http://www.electricstitch.com/ab_files (submit bug reports and history)
> Subject says it all.
> Anyone else loose all of the different tank varients with the new
> datafiles? My beloved Salamander Scout tank is no longer on it?
>
> Will they be returned soon?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 19:28:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ron Kilby <kilbo98@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: IG Tank Varients Lost in current datafile set for 40K
Ah, under the settings menu.
Usually do, just missed version 3.0. Am I allowed
that?
Thanks
RK
--- Shawn Campbell <shawn@electricstitch.com> wrote:
> Faster than you think. You should really read the
> release notes...
>
> (For release note history, visit the 40k3 datafiles
> website, link in sig)
>
> Shawn 'Not Colen' Campbell
> shawn@electricstitch.com
> http://www.electricstitch.com/ab_files (submit bug
> reports and history)
>
>
> > Subject says it all.
> > Anyone else loose all of the different tank
> varients with the new
> > datafiles? My beloved Salamander Scout tank is no
> longer on it?
> >
> > Will they be returned soon?
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 19:40:43 -0700
From: "Shawn Campbell" <shawn@electricstitch.com>
Subject: Re: IG Tank Varients Lost in current datafile set for 40K
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Kilby" <kilbo98@yahoo.com>
> Ah, under the settings menu.
> Usually do, just missed version 3.0. Am I allowed
> that?
Sure, the new website should help too! It's not well known yet... but when
it is, it should make situations like this disappear.
Shawn 'Not Colen' Campbell
shawn@electricstitch.com
http://www.electricstitch.com/ab_files (Bug reports and history)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 20:21:30 -0700
From: "Shawn Campbell" <shawn@electricstitch.com>
Subject: Harlequins
Could someone with the harlequins CJ arcticle please contact me.
Thanks,
Shawn 'Not Colen' Campbell
shawn@electricstitch.com
http://www.electricstitch.com/ab_files (Bug reports and history)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/