Digest Number 558

[armybuilder at yahoogroup]

To unsubscribe from this group, email

armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are 4 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1. Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
From: stevenjcox@cableinet.co.uk
2. Re: AB File for D&D Chainmail
From: ThinkLibertarian@aol.com
3. 40k files- VDR
From: "Jester /Black Mambo" <bondage__69er@hotmail.com>
4. Re: 40k files- VDR
From: Ghazhkull_Thraka@dakkadakka.com


________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 18:21:27 -0000
From: stevenjcox@cableinet.co.uk
Subject: Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

I can't seem to post on the ab-files group (help!), so I'll post this
here for now.

Files for the Lord of the Rings game are now available - just pop
over to the ab-files group or hit auto-update in your software.

Any bugs, or improvements (these are my first files!), just let me
know.

Steve



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 22:01:43 -0000
From: ThinkLibertarian@aol.com
Subject: Re: AB File for D&D Chainmail

I tried 1 instead of 2 and it gives the same result: +0.

I'll email you the files directly.

Thanks,
Rich

--- In armybuilder@y..., Rob Bowes <rob@w...> wrote:
> I haven't tried this, but I *THINK* that the issue is you are
specifying a
> value of "2" for the "signed" field in the definition file. A value
of 2
> forces a "+" to be prepended to the stat value if it is zero, which
> overrides the mapping of a zero value to "-". If you switch to a
value of
> "1", I believe you will get the proper behavior. If not, it may be
a bug
> that I need to fix, in which case please send me the files and I'll
look at
> it myself.
>
> Thanks, Rob
>
>
> At 02:29 PM 10/31/2001 -0500, you wrote:
> >I hacked together a file for D&D Chainmail. It's the first time
I've
> >created an AB file from scratch.
> >
> >I guess my first question is, is anyone else doing one? I'd hate
to
> >duplicate our efforts.
> >
> >Anyway, I have a question:
> >
> >Ranged Attack (RAtt) is a signed stat, but it does not apply to
all
> >models, so I set 0.0=-. Unfortunately, when there's a zero in the
stat,
> >it is displaying +0 instead of -.
> >
> >Here's the line from the data definition file:
> >
> > RAtt | 4 | 0 | 0.0=- | 99.0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | .
| . | .
> >
> >Is there a workaround?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Rich
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> Rob Bowes (rob@w...) (650) 726-9689
> Lone Wolf Development
www.wolflair.com



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 3
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 10:32:08 +1100
From: "Jester /Black Mambo" <bondage__69er@hotmail.com>
Subject: 40k files- VDR

i am not quite sure if this a fault or not but the vehicle design rules
might be flawed.

The armour section has the increases for front side and rear and at the
bottom it has an option total.

Now is this suppose the reduce the price of the vehicle the more armour you
put on??????????? Like its 20pts cheaper to have a total armour value of 50
then having a total of 35.

That sists wrong in my mind but i don't have the rules so hey....

Kudos
aka Derranged Brazilian Ghetto Chihuahua
"There is more than two sides to a coin..."
-Path of the Jester



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 4
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 06:08:05 -0000
From: Ghazhkull_Thraka@dakkadakka.com
Subject: Re: 40k files- VDR

--- In armybuilder@y..., "Jester /Black Mambo" <bondage__69er@h...>
wrote:
> i am not quite sure if this a fault or not but the vehicle design
rules
> might be flawed.
>
> The armour section has the increases for front side and rear and at
the
> bottom it has an option total.
>
> Now is this suppose the reduce the price of the vehicle the more
armour you
> put on??????????? Like its 20pts cheaper to have a total armour
value of 50
> then having a total of 35.
>
> That sists wrong in my mind but i don't have the rules so hey....
>
I would suggest you pick up a copy of Codex Chapter Approved with the
VDR rules because the AB files are correct.



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

 

[bondage__69er at hotmail.]

> > then having a total of 35.
> >
> > That sists wrong in my mind but i don't have the rules so hey....
> >
>I would suggest you pick up a copy of Codex Chapter Approved with the
>VDR rules because the AB files are correct.
>

hey i fully intend to... if having a tank with the over all armour stats of
15 15 15 is cheaper than the humble 13 11 11 than i will have no quarrels
ruthelessly exploiting it.

Kudos

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

 

[demandred at skrill.org]

At 19:24 08/11/2001 +1100, you wrote:

> > > then having a total of 35.
> > >
> > > That sists wrong in my mind but i don't have the rules so hey....
> > >
> >I would suggest you pick up a copy of Codex Chapter Approved with the
> >VDR rules because the AB files are correct.
> >
>
>hey i fully intend to... if having a tank with the over all armour stats of
>15 15 15 is cheaper than the humble 13 11 11 than i will have no quarrels
>ruthelessly exploiting it.

Ignoring the illegality of having 15 armour on any side, let alone all
round, this is probably being caused by the 'open topped modifier'.
Open-topped vehicles with lots of armour are surcharged by 20 points for
being quite unusual; similarly, if a vehicle has very little armour, it
costs 20 points more to *not* be open-topped.


--
Colen 'Skrillboy' McAlister, demandred@skrill.org
http://www.skrill.org/, http://www.incompetence-central.co.uk/
1 = 2, for large values of 1.