A
armybuilder at yahoogroup
Guest
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
FREE Cell Phones with up to $400 Cash Back!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/_bBUKB/vYxFAA/i5gGAA/IMSolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, email
armybuilder-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 14 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Future of Army Builder?
From: "timothycolonna" <tcolonna@hotmail.com>
2. Re: Future of Army Builder?
From: "Jimi" <jimi@tubman.fsbusiness.co.uk>
3. Re: Future of Army Builder?
From: Glen <ringsnake@yahoo.com>
4. RE: Future of Army Builder?
From: "Hivemind" <hivemind@rogers.com>
5. RE: Future of Army Builder?
From: Regan Johnson <regan.johnson@lavalife.com>
6. Re: Betas and such
From: Colen McAlister <colen@wolflair.com>
7. Re: Future of Army Builder?
From: "Michael Nixon" <mnixon@telus.net>
8. Re: Future of Army Builder?
From: Webmaster <webmaster@blee.biz>
9. Re: Future of Army Builder?
From: Glen <ringsnake@yahoo.com>
10. Re: Future of Army Builder?
From: "Gene" <gcc@siegetower.com>
11. Re: Future of Army Builder?
From: "John L. Martin" <jlmartin@wi.rr.com>
12. Re: Future of Army Builder?
From: Eric Landes <eric@landesfamily.com>
13. RE: Future of Army Builder?
From: Regan Johnson <regan.johnson@lavalife.com>
14. Re: Future of Army Builder?
From: "Jimi" <jimi@tubman.fsbusiness.co.uk>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:25:26 -0000
From: "timothycolonna" <tcolonna@hotmail.com>
Subject: Future of Army Builder?
Since it has been well over a year since the last update to the Army
Builder program, 11-sep-2001 to be exact, Is there still life behind
the program, or has it gotten to the point where it will stay for a
while? Don't get me wrong Army builder is a great tool, but most
programs require regular maintenance updates for bugs, new features,
etc.
Also what are the plans for it once the GW army buildr hits the
shelves?
Thanks
Timothy
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:44:43 +0100
From: "Jimi" <jimi@tubman.fsbusiness.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Future of Army Builder?
> Since it has been well over a year since the last update to the Army
> Builder program, 11-sep-2001 to be exact, Is there still life behind
> the program, or has it gotten to the point where it will stay for a
> while? Don't get me wrong Army builder is a great tool, but most
> programs require regular maintenance updates for bugs, new features,
> etc.
The only thing I can think of that AB requires is a more user-friendly
manual of operation with regards to datafile creation.
> Also what are the plans for it once the GW army buildr hits the
> shelves?
Best to have said product hit the shelves first before running about like a
headless chicken. Afterall, how can you decide on the future of AB when its
rival hasnt even been released yet??
Jimi
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:10:40 -0600
From: Glen <ringsnake@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Future of Army Builder?
Probably the same thing that happened to the pcgen project after e-Tools
came out.
On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:25:26 -0000, timothycolonna <tcolonna@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Since it has been well over a year since the last update to the Army
> Builder program, 11-sep-2001 to be exact, Is there still life behind the
> program, or has it gotten to the point where it will stay for a while?
> Don't get me wrong Army builder is a great tool, but most programs
> require regular maintenance updates for bugs, new features, etc.
>
> Also what are the plans for it once the GW army buildr hits the shelves?
>
> Thanks
>
> Timothy
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, email
>
> armybuilder-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
--
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:36:00 -0500
From: "Hivemind" <hivemind@rogers.com>
Subject: RE: Future of Army Builder?
> > Also what are the plans for it once the GW army buildr hits the shelves?
I wouldn't fret overly much about the GW program displacing Armybuilder.
Remember, Armybuilder is designed as a generic army building program which
can be used for a multitude of systems. GW's program is customised for only
their 40K system, and the first edition, which was taken out of production,
was not overly great.
Hivemind
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:37:02 -0500
From: Regan Johnson <regan.johnson@lavalife.com>
Subject: RE: Future of Army Builder?
I really liked the first IAL, as long as I stuck with 40k. Once I wanted to
do anything else, it was inadequate, and I moved to AB.
...regan
Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
-----Original Message-----
From: Hivemind [mailto:hivemind@rogers.com]
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 3:36 PM
To: ab@support.wolflair.com
Subject: RE: [AB] Future of Army Builder?
> > Also what are the plans for it once the GW army buildr hits the shelves?
I wouldn't fret overly much about the GW program displacing Armybuilder.
Remember, Armybuilder is designed as a generic army building program which
can be used for a multitude of systems. GW's program is customised for only
their 40K system, and the first edition, which was taken out of production,
was not overly great.
Hivemind
To unsubscribe from this group, email
armybuilder-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:06:08 -0800
From: Colen McAlister <colen@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Betas and such
At 08:24 AM 3/30/2003 +0000, you wrote:
>Just curious, but how does one go about getting these magical beta
>versions of AB files. Such as the close to finished black legion one?
>Even if it is not 100% it is better than scrach paper.
They're available from the Downloads section of http://ab40k3.sytes.net/.
--
Colen McAlister (colen@wolflair.com)
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 18:34:50 -0800
From: "Michael Nixon" <mnixon@telus.net>
Subject: Re: Future of Army Builder?
> Probably the same thing that happened to the pcgen project after e-Tools
> came out.
Ah e-Tools. It makes me laugh, and cry, both at the same time.
I used it in class as an example of a software engineering project gone
awry, but nobody really
knew what it was. <shrug>
If one half the stuff that happened there happens on your project, it's
still really, really bad.
Design, staff, funding, and direction changes mid-stream. Blech!
Sometimes your purpose in life is simply to show others how not to do it, as
they say.
-Michael
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 19:45:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Webmaster <webmaster@blee.biz>
Subject: Re: Future of Army Builder?
Although GW is a mainstream manufacturer of miniatures
and they are taking another step into the realm of
electronics (aka pc gaming and pc software) I don't
think AB has much to worry about. It already has an
established consumer base, it is a generic program
that works for almost every known wargame known to man
currently in play, and GW's program is only going to
be working for GW game(s). I'm sure the GW one will
do decent because of the name and new kids will just
grab it when they get their first GW army but they'll
move to AB later on when they get experience. It is
like miniature paints, many (myself included) start
off with GW paints and then move onto Vallejo (the
good stuff) and also with brushes and so forth.
Thanks,
Jonathan
Chromiates Warhammer Forum (^Raven^)
http://users.boardnation.com/~raven
"Won't you come join us and have some fun?"
--- Michael Nixon <mnixon@telus.net> wrote:
> > Probably the same thing that happened to the pcgen
> project after e-Tools
> > came out.
>
> Ah e-Tools. It makes me laugh, and cry, both at the
> same time.
>
> I used it in class as an example of a software
> engineering project gone
> awry, but nobody really
> knew what it was. <shrug>
>
> If one half the stuff that happened there happens on
> your project, it's
> still really, really bad.
>
> Design, staff, funding, and direction changes
> mid-stream. Blech!
>
> Sometimes your purpose in life is simply to show
> others how not to do it, as
> they say.
>
> -Michael
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, email
>
> armybuilder-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 07:28:30 -0600
From: Glen <ringsnake@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Future of Army Builder?
GW has the right to tell the AB people to not use their
copyright. That's what TSR-Hasbro did to the open source
PCGEN project. They inflicted a death of a thousand cuts
on PCGEN by dragging them through all kinds of minutae about the d20
license.
So suddenly pcgen wasn't allowed to do die rolls any more.
You had to enter stats by hand instead of letting the computer do it for
you. All or most of the supplementary
material like Sword and Fist had to be yanked, etc...
Since GW doesn't have anything like an OGL they can just
order LoneWolf to stop supporting their products. Anyone
who's been gaming for long enough knows that GW would
do exactly that to anything that dares compete with their
own products.
On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 19:45:13 -0800 (PST), Webmaster <webmaster@blee.biz>
wrote:
> Although GW is a mainstream manufacturer of miniatures
> and they are taking another step into the realm of
> electronics (aka pc gaming and pc software) I don't
> think AB has much to worry about. It already has an
> established consumer base, it is a generic program
> that works for almost every known wargame known to man
> currently in play, and GW's program is only going to
> be working for GW game(s). I'm sure the GW one will
> do decent because of the name and new kids will just
> grab it when they get their first GW army but they'll
> move to AB later on when they get experience. It is
> like miniature paints, many (myself included) start
> off with GW paints and then move onto Vallejo (the
> good stuff) and also with brushes and so forth.
>
> Thanks,
> Jonathan
> Chromiates Warhammer Forum (^Raven^)
> http://users.boardnation.com/~raven
> "Won't you come join us and have some fun?"
>
> --- Michael Nixon <mnixon@telus.net> wrote:
>> > Probably the same thing that happened to the pcgen
>> project after e-Tools
>> > came out.
>>
>> Ah e-Tools. It makes me laugh, and cry, both at the
>> same time.
>>
>> I used it in class as an example of a software
>> engineering project gone
>> awry, but nobody really
>> knew what it was. <shrug>
>>
>> If one half the stuff that happened there happens on
>> your project, it's
>> still really, really bad.
>>
>> Design, staff, funding, and direction changes
>> mid-stream. Blech!
>>
>> Sometimes your purpose in life is simply to show
>> others how not to do it, as
>> they say.
>>
>> -Michael
>>
>>
>> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this group, email
>>
>> armybuilder-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>>
>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>>
>>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, email
>
> armybuilder-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
--
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 10:04:56 -0800
From: "Gene" <gcc@siegetower.com>
Subject: Re: Future of Army Builder?
>
> Since GW doesn't have anything like an OGL they can just
> order LoneWolf to stop supporting their products. Anyone
> who's been gaming for long enough knows that GW would
> do exactly that to anything that dares compete with their
> own products.
>
===================
this will probably be almost impossible to enforce, seeing that the
Datafiles are not written by Lone Wolf, but by users not affiliated with
Lone Wolf. All LW COULD be made to do is ask end users not to use/write
datafiles for GW games, which in turn LW could not enforce. IF GW could
enforce this, they would have years ago.
Gene
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 08:53:31 -0600
From: "John L. Martin" <jlmartin@wi.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Future of Army Builder?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Webmaster" <webmaster@blee.biz>
> I don't
> think AB has much to worry about. It already has an
> established consumer base, it is a generic program
> that works for almost every known wargame known to man
> currently in play
I'm not so sure. Consider the problems www.warhammer40K.com had recently.
The following is taken from the letter they received from the GW legal
department:
====
* Acceptable army builders and roster makers must conform with the following
criteria:
a) the builder must not prevent the user from building an illegal army
("illegal" in this context meaning illegal in gaming terms)
b) the builder must not inform the user if they have built an illegal army
c) the builder must require the user to consult the relevant codex
d) the builder must not devalue the codex that it is derived from
e) the builder must not contain any text on the rules.
====
So basically, AB can violate A and B, plus depending on the interpretation,
listing stats as WS, BS, etc. contains text from the rules right? Not to
mention, listing that a Space Marine has a bolter or that something cuases
fear devalues the codex. Seems like you could fight it, but in a legal war
of attrition, who has the more money: GW or Lone Wolf?
I think AB is safe but IMO the survivability of the AB files may be in
doubt. As others have said on this group, making AB files is too difficult
for many AND if GW shuts down the distribution sites for the files then the
_program_ is useless. One also wonders if the "average" AB user could wade
through P2P file sharing and similar technologies to get "black market"
files.
My $0.02
John
E-mail & WM: jlmartin@wi.rr.com
URL: http://home.wi.rr.com/jlmartin
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should get too fond of it."
Robert E. Lee
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 07:21:59 -0800
From: Eric Landes <eric@landesfamily.com>
Subject: Re: Future of Army Builder?
At 08:53 AM 4/1/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Webmaster" <webmaster@blee.biz>
> > I don't
> > think AB has much to worry about. It already has an
> > established consumer base, it is a generic program
> > that works for almost every known wargame known to man
> > currently in play
>
>I'm not so sure. Consider the problems www.warhammer40K.com had recently.
>The following is taken from the letter they received from the GW legal
>department:
>
>====
>* Acceptable army builders and roster makers must conform with the following
>criteria:
>
>a) the builder must not prevent the user from building an illegal army
> ("illegal" in this context meaning illegal in gaming terms)
>b) the builder must not inform the user if they have built an illegal army
>c) the builder must require the user to consult the relevant codex
>d) the builder must not devalue the codex that it is derived from
>e) the builder must not contain any text on the rules.
>====
Army Builder doesn't do any of this. The data files do. And Lone Wolf
doesn't distribute the data files. It's a subtle, but important, point.
What Games Workshop will probably do will be more subversive. Like not
allow army lists printed with Army Builder to be used in official
tournaments. (A tactic I've heard of before.)
E
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 10:28:42 -0500
From: Regan Johnson <regan.johnson@lavalife.com>
Subject: RE: Future of Army Builder?
That is a very reasonable tactic. They already do that with their
miniatures, so doing the same thing with software seems like a reasonable
next step. I don't think that GW can stop AB supporting their games, but
insisting that rosters be done by hand or by IAL is an interresting idea.
Other random thoughts:
How many people use unofficial, or wrong miniatures in their games?
Doesn't AB support addons so that I can customise the output for printing to
make it look like anything I want? Perhaps even the output from IAL?
What would GW do about things like Warhammer? Currently, there is no
official equivalent for Warhammer.
What about armies that are not (yet) officially supported by IAL, but are
real 40K armies?
What about bugs in IAL? If the printout says that an army costs 1400
points, but you 'know' it costs 1500 after doing the same army by hand,
which is right, and which gets into a tournament?
Could they use rules like that for things like RT tournaments?
...regan
Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Landes [mailto:eric@landesfamily.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 10:22 AM
To: ab@support.wolflair.com
Subject: Re: [AB] Future of Army Builder?
At 08:53 AM 4/1/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Webmaster" <webmaster@blee.biz>
> > I don't
> > think AB has much to worry about. It already has an
> > established consumer base, it is a generic program
> > that works for almost every known wargame known to man
> > currently in play
>
>I'm not so sure. Consider the problems www.warhammer40K.com had recently.
>The following is taken from the letter they received from the GW legal
>department:
>
>====
>* Acceptable army builders and roster makers must conform with the
following
>criteria:
>
>a) the builder must not prevent the user from building an illegal army
> ("illegal" in this context meaning illegal in gaming terms)
>b) the builder must not inform the user if they have built an illegal army
>c) the builder must require the user to consult the relevant codex
>d) the builder must not devalue the codex that it is derived from
>e) the builder must not contain any text on the rules.
>====
Army Builder doesn't do any of this. The data files do. And Lone Wolf
doesn't distribute the data files. It's a subtle, but important, point.
What Games Workshop will probably do will be more subversive. Like not
allow army lists printed with Army Builder to be used in official
tournaments. (A tactic I've heard of before.)
E
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=246920.2960106.4328965.1728375/D=egroupweb/S=17050590
80:HM/A=1513704/R=0/*http://www.gotomypc.com/u/tr/yh/cpm/grp/300_02F/g22lp?T
arget=mm/g22lp.tmpl>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=246920.2960106.4328965.1728375/D=egroupmai
l/S=:HM/A=1513704/rand=913478951>
To unsubscribe from this group, email
armybuilder-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 16:33:33 +0100
From: "Jimi" <jimi@tubman.fsbusiness.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Future of Army Builder?
> So basically, AB can violate A and B, plus depending on the
interpretation,
> listing stats as WS, BS, etc. contains text from the rules right? Not to
> mention, listing that a Space Marine has a bolter or that something cuases
> fear devalues the codex. Seems like you could fight it, but in a legal
war
> of attrition, who has the more money: GW or Lone Wolf?
AB doesnt violate anything in GW's books. The stand-alone AB program is as
much good as a chocolate fireguard. Only when you introduce datafiles does
AB function, and that function is based on the 'programming' within the
datafiles. Therefore, Wolflair is immune to GW's legal eagles.
> I think AB is safe but IMO the survivability of the AB files may be in
> doubt.
Only if GW's info is kept inside the GW-based datafiles.
> AND if GW shuts down the distribution sites for the files then the
> _program_ is useless.
Incorrect. AB would still function for non-GW datafiles.
Jimi
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
FREE Cell Phones with up to $400 Cash Back!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/_bBUKB/vYxFAA/i5gGAA/IMSolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, email
armybuilder-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 14 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Future of Army Builder?
From: "timothycolonna" <tcolonna@hotmail.com>
2. Re: Future of Army Builder?
From: "Jimi" <jimi@tubman.fsbusiness.co.uk>
3. Re: Future of Army Builder?
From: Glen <ringsnake@yahoo.com>
4. RE: Future of Army Builder?
From: "Hivemind" <hivemind@rogers.com>
5. RE: Future of Army Builder?
From: Regan Johnson <regan.johnson@lavalife.com>
6. Re: Betas and such
From: Colen McAlister <colen@wolflair.com>
7. Re: Future of Army Builder?
From: "Michael Nixon" <mnixon@telus.net>
8. Re: Future of Army Builder?
From: Webmaster <webmaster@blee.biz>
9. Re: Future of Army Builder?
From: Glen <ringsnake@yahoo.com>
10. Re: Future of Army Builder?
From: "Gene" <gcc@siegetower.com>
11. Re: Future of Army Builder?
From: "John L. Martin" <jlmartin@wi.rr.com>
12. Re: Future of Army Builder?
From: Eric Landes <eric@landesfamily.com>
13. RE: Future of Army Builder?
From: Regan Johnson <regan.johnson@lavalife.com>
14. Re: Future of Army Builder?
From: "Jimi" <jimi@tubman.fsbusiness.co.uk>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:25:26 -0000
From: "timothycolonna" <tcolonna@hotmail.com>
Subject: Future of Army Builder?
Since it has been well over a year since the last update to the Army
Builder program, 11-sep-2001 to be exact, Is there still life behind
the program, or has it gotten to the point where it will stay for a
while? Don't get me wrong Army builder is a great tool, but most
programs require regular maintenance updates for bugs, new features,
etc.
Also what are the plans for it once the GW army buildr hits the
shelves?
Thanks
Timothy
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:44:43 +0100
From: "Jimi" <jimi@tubman.fsbusiness.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Future of Army Builder?
> Since it has been well over a year since the last update to the Army
> Builder program, 11-sep-2001 to be exact, Is there still life behind
> the program, or has it gotten to the point where it will stay for a
> while? Don't get me wrong Army builder is a great tool, but most
> programs require regular maintenance updates for bugs, new features,
> etc.
The only thing I can think of that AB requires is a more user-friendly
manual of operation with regards to datafile creation.
> Also what are the plans for it once the GW army buildr hits the
> shelves?
Best to have said product hit the shelves first before running about like a
headless chicken. Afterall, how can you decide on the future of AB when its
rival hasnt even been released yet??
Jimi
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:10:40 -0600
From: Glen <ringsnake@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Future of Army Builder?
Probably the same thing that happened to the pcgen project after e-Tools
came out.
On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:25:26 -0000, timothycolonna <tcolonna@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Since it has been well over a year since the last update to the Army
> Builder program, 11-sep-2001 to be exact, Is there still life behind the
> program, or has it gotten to the point where it will stay for a while?
> Don't get me wrong Army builder is a great tool, but most programs
> require regular maintenance updates for bugs, new features, etc.
>
> Also what are the plans for it once the GW army buildr hits the shelves?
>
> Thanks
>
> Timothy
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, email
>
> armybuilder-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
--
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:36:00 -0500
From: "Hivemind" <hivemind@rogers.com>
Subject: RE: Future of Army Builder?
> > Also what are the plans for it once the GW army buildr hits the shelves?
I wouldn't fret overly much about the GW program displacing Armybuilder.
Remember, Armybuilder is designed as a generic army building program which
can be used for a multitude of systems. GW's program is customised for only
their 40K system, and the first edition, which was taken out of production,
was not overly great.
Hivemind
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:37:02 -0500
From: Regan Johnson <regan.johnson@lavalife.com>
Subject: RE: Future of Army Builder?
I really liked the first IAL, as long as I stuck with 40k. Once I wanted to
do anything else, it was inadequate, and I moved to AB.
...regan
Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
-----Original Message-----
From: Hivemind [mailto:hivemind@rogers.com]
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 3:36 PM
To: ab@support.wolflair.com
Subject: RE: [AB] Future of Army Builder?
> > Also what are the plans for it once the GW army buildr hits the shelves?
I wouldn't fret overly much about the GW program displacing Armybuilder.
Remember, Armybuilder is designed as a generic army building program which
can be used for a multitude of systems. GW's program is customised for only
their 40K system, and the first edition, which was taken out of production,
was not overly great.
Hivemind
To unsubscribe from this group, email
armybuilder-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:06:08 -0800
From: Colen McAlister <colen@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Betas and such
At 08:24 AM 3/30/2003 +0000, you wrote:
>Just curious, but how does one go about getting these magical beta
>versions of AB files. Such as the close to finished black legion one?
>Even if it is not 100% it is better than scrach paper.
They're available from the Downloads section of http://ab40k3.sytes.net/.
--
Colen McAlister (colen@wolflair.com)
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 18:34:50 -0800
From: "Michael Nixon" <mnixon@telus.net>
Subject: Re: Future of Army Builder?
> Probably the same thing that happened to the pcgen project after e-Tools
> came out.
Ah e-Tools. It makes me laugh, and cry, both at the same time.
I used it in class as an example of a software engineering project gone
awry, but nobody really
knew what it was. <shrug>
If one half the stuff that happened there happens on your project, it's
still really, really bad.
Design, staff, funding, and direction changes mid-stream. Blech!
Sometimes your purpose in life is simply to show others how not to do it, as
they say.
-Michael
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 19:45:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Webmaster <webmaster@blee.biz>
Subject: Re: Future of Army Builder?
Although GW is a mainstream manufacturer of miniatures
and they are taking another step into the realm of
electronics (aka pc gaming and pc software) I don't
think AB has much to worry about. It already has an
established consumer base, it is a generic program
that works for almost every known wargame known to man
currently in play, and GW's program is only going to
be working for GW game(s). I'm sure the GW one will
do decent because of the name and new kids will just
grab it when they get their first GW army but they'll
move to AB later on when they get experience. It is
like miniature paints, many (myself included) start
off with GW paints and then move onto Vallejo (the
good stuff) and also with brushes and so forth.
Thanks,
Jonathan
Chromiates Warhammer Forum (^Raven^)
http://users.boardnation.com/~raven
"Won't you come join us and have some fun?"
--- Michael Nixon <mnixon@telus.net> wrote:
> > Probably the same thing that happened to the pcgen
> project after e-Tools
> > came out.
>
> Ah e-Tools. It makes me laugh, and cry, both at the
> same time.
>
> I used it in class as an example of a software
> engineering project gone
> awry, but nobody really
> knew what it was. <shrug>
>
> If one half the stuff that happened there happens on
> your project, it's
> still really, really bad.
>
> Design, staff, funding, and direction changes
> mid-stream. Blech!
>
> Sometimes your purpose in life is simply to show
> others how not to do it, as
> they say.
>
> -Michael
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, email
>
> armybuilder-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 07:28:30 -0600
From: Glen <ringsnake@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Future of Army Builder?
GW has the right to tell the AB people to not use their
copyright. That's what TSR-Hasbro did to the open source
PCGEN project. They inflicted a death of a thousand cuts
on PCGEN by dragging them through all kinds of minutae about the d20
license.
So suddenly pcgen wasn't allowed to do die rolls any more.
You had to enter stats by hand instead of letting the computer do it for
you. All or most of the supplementary
material like Sword and Fist had to be yanked, etc...
Since GW doesn't have anything like an OGL they can just
order LoneWolf to stop supporting their products. Anyone
who's been gaming for long enough knows that GW would
do exactly that to anything that dares compete with their
own products.
On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 19:45:13 -0800 (PST), Webmaster <webmaster@blee.biz>
wrote:
> Although GW is a mainstream manufacturer of miniatures
> and they are taking another step into the realm of
> electronics (aka pc gaming and pc software) I don't
> think AB has much to worry about. It already has an
> established consumer base, it is a generic program
> that works for almost every known wargame known to man
> currently in play, and GW's program is only going to
> be working for GW game(s). I'm sure the GW one will
> do decent because of the name and new kids will just
> grab it when they get their first GW army but they'll
> move to AB later on when they get experience. It is
> like miniature paints, many (myself included) start
> off with GW paints and then move onto Vallejo (the
> good stuff) and also with brushes and so forth.
>
> Thanks,
> Jonathan
> Chromiates Warhammer Forum (^Raven^)
> http://users.boardnation.com/~raven
> "Won't you come join us and have some fun?"
>
> --- Michael Nixon <mnixon@telus.net> wrote:
>> > Probably the same thing that happened to the pcgen
>> project after e-Tools
>> > came out.
>>
>> Ah e-Tools. It makes me laugh, and cry, both at the
>> same time.
>>
>> I used it in class as an example of a software
>> engineering project gone
>> awry, but nobody really
>> knew what it was. <shrug>
>>
>> If one half the stuff that happened there happens on
>> your project, it's
>> still really, really bad.
>>
>> Design, staff, funding, and direction changes
>> mid-stream. Blech!
>>
>> Sometimes your purpose in life is simply to show
>> others how not to do it, as
>> they say.
>>
>> -Michael
>>
>>
>> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this group, email
>>
>> armybuilder-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>>
>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>>
>>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, email
>
> armybuilder-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
--
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 10:04:56 -0800
From: "Gene" <gcc@siegetower.com>
Subject: Re: Future of Army Builder?
>
> Since GW doesn't have anything like an OGL they can just
> order LoneWolf to stop supporting their products. Anyone
> who's been gaming for long enough knows that GW would
> do exactly that to anything that dares compete with their
> own products.
>
===================
this will probably be almost impossible to enforce, seeing that the
Datafiles are not written by Lone Wolf, but by users not affiliated with
Lone Wolf. All LW COULD be made to do is ask end users not to use/write
datafiles for GW games, which in turn LW could not enforce. IF GW could
enforce this, they would have years ago.
Gene
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 08:53:31 -0600
From: "John L. Martin" <jlmartin@wi.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Future of Army Builder?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Webmaster" <webmaster@blee.biz>
> I don't
> think AB has much to worry about. It already has an
> established consumer base, it is a generic program
> that works for almost every known wargame known to man
> currently in play
I'm not so sure. Consider the problems www.warhammer40K.com had recently.
The following is taken from the letter they received from the GW legal
department:
====
* Acceptable army builders and roster makers must conform with the following
criteria:
a) the builder must not prevent the user from building an illegal army
("illegal" in this context meaning illegal in gaming terms)
b) the builder must not inform the user if they have built an illegal army
c) the builder must require the user to consult the relevant codex
d) the builder must not devalue the codex that it is derived from
e) the builder must not contain any text on the rules.
====
So basically, AB can violate A and B, plus depending on the interpretation,
listing stats as WS, BS, etc. contains text from the rules right? Not to
mention, listing that a Space Marine has a bolter or that something cuases
fear devalues the codex. Seems like you could fight it, but in a legal war
of attrition, who has the more money: GW or Lone Wolf?
I think AB is safe but IMO the survivability of the AB files may be in
doubt. As others have said on this group, making AB files is too difficult
for many AND if GW shuts down the distribution sites for the files then the
_program_ is useless. One also wonders if the "average" AB user could wade
through P2P file sharing and similar technologies to get "black market"
files.
My $0.02
John
E-mail & WM: jlmartin@wi.rr.com
URL: http://home.wi.rr.com/jlmartin
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should get too fond of it."
Robert E. Lee
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 07:21:59 -0800
From: Eric Landes <eric@landesfamily.com>
Subject: Re: Future of Army Builder?
At 08:53 AM 4/1/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Webmaster" <webmaster@blee.biz>
> > I don't
> > think AB has much to worry about. It already has an
> > established consumer base, it is a generic program
> > that works for almost every known wargame known to man
> > currently in play
>
>I'm not so sure. Consider the problems www.warhammer40K.com had recently.
>The following is taken from the letter they received from the GW legal
>department:
>
>====
>* Acceptable army builders and roster makers must conform with the following
>criteria:
>
>a) the builder must not prevent the user from building an illegal army
> ("illegal" in this context meaning illegal in gaming terms)
>b) the builder must not inform the user if they have built an illegal army
>c) the builder must require the user to consult the relevant codex
>d) the builder must not devalue the codex that it is derived from
>e) the builder must not contain any text on the rules.
>====
Army Builder doesn't do any of this. The data files do. And Lone Wolf
doesn't distribute the data files. It's a subtle, but important, point.
What Games Workshop will probably do will be more subversive. Like not
allow army lists printed with Army Builder to be used in official
tournaments. (A tactic I've heard of before.)
E
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 10:28:42 -0500
From: Regan Johnson <regan.johnson@lavalife.com>
Subject: RE: Future of Army Builder?
That is a very reasonable tactic. They already do that with their
miniatures, so doing the same thing with software seems like a reasonable
next step. I don't think that GW can stop AB supporting their games, but
insisting that rosters be done by hand or by IAL is an interresting idea.
Other random thoughts:
How many people use unofficial, or wrong miniatures in their games?
Doesn't AB support addons so that I can customise the output for printing to
make it look like anything I want? Perhaps even the output from IAL?
What would GW do about things like Warhammer? Currently, there is no
official equivalent for Warhammer.
What about armies that are not (yet) officially supported by IAL, but are
real 40K armies?
What about bugs in IAL? If the printout says that an army costs 1400
points, but you 'know' it costs 1500 after doing the same army by hand,
which is right, and which gets into a tournament?
Could they use rules like that for things like RT tournaments?
...regan
Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Landes [mailto:eric@landesfamily.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 10:22 AM
To: ab@support.wolflair.com
Subject: Re: [AB] Future of Army Builder?
At 08:53 AM 4/1/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Webmaster" <webmaster@blee.biz>
> > I don't
> > think AB has much to worry about. It already has an
> > established consumer base, it is a generic program
> > that works for almost every known wargame known to man
> > currently in play
>
>I'm not so sure. Consider the problems www.warhammer40K.com had recently.
>The following is taken from the letter they received from the GW legal
>department:
>
>====
>* Acceptable army builders and roster makers must conform with the
following
>criteria:
>
>a) the builder must not prevent the user from building an illegal army
> ("illegal" in this context meaning illegal in gaming terms)
>b) the builder must not inform the user if they have built an illegal army
>c) the builder must require the user to consult the relevant codex
>d) the builder must not devalue the codex that it is derived from
>e) the builder must not contain any text on the rules.
>====
Army Builder doesn't do any of this. The data files do. And Lone Wolf
doesn't distribute the data files. It's a subtle, but important, point.
What Games Workshop will probably do will be more subversive. Like not
allow army lists printed with Army Builder to be used in official
tournaments. (A tactic I've heard of before.)
E
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=246920.2960106.4328965.1728375/D=egroupweb/S=17050590
80:HM/A=1513704/R=0/*http://www.gotomypc.com/u/tr/yh/cpm/grp/300_02F/g22lp?T
arget=mm/g22lp.tmpl>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=246920.2960106.4328965.1728375/D=egroupmai
l/S=:HM/A=1513704/rand=913478951>
To unsubscribe from this group, email
armybuilder-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 16:33:33 +0100
From: "Jimi" <jimi@tubman.fsbusiness.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Future of Army Builder?
> So basically, AB can violate A and B, plus depending on the
interpretation,
> listing stats as WS, BS, etc. contains text from the rules right? Not to
> mention, listing that a Space Marine has a bolter or that something cuases
> fear devalues the codex. Seems like you could fight it, but in a legal
war
> of attrition, who has the more money: GW or Lone Wolf?
AB doesnt violate anything in GW's books. The stand-alone AB program is as
much good as a chocolate fireguard. Only when you introduce datafiles does
AB function, and that function is based on the 'programming' within the
datafiles. Therefore, Wolflair is immune to GW's legal eagles.
> I think AB is safe but IMO the survivability of the AB files may be in
> doubt.
Only if GW's info is kept inside the GW-based datafiles.
> AND if GW shuts down the distribution sites for the files then the
> _program_ is useless.
Incorrect. AB would still function for non-GW datafiles.
Jimi
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/