A
armybuilder at yahoogroup
Guest
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get a FREE REFINANCE QUOTE - click here!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/2CXtTB/ca0FAA/i5gGAA/IMSolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, email
armybuilder-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 5 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Replacing child unit's and Q's about options
From: "Timo Nevalainen" <tneva82@yahoo.com>
2. Re: Replacing child unit's and Q's about options
From: "Timo Nevalainen" <tneva82@yahoo.com>
3. Re: Replacing child unit's and Q's about options
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
4. Re: Replacing child unit's and Q's about options
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
5. Re: Future of Army Builder?
From: "hida_dragonbane" <ryuteki@msn.com>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 10:58:37 -0000
From: "Timo Nevalainen" <tneva82@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Replacing child unit's and Q's about options
> You might be able to utilize the "rept" attribute. I'm not certain
>of what
> you're trying to accomplish, but this would let you attach a
Mainly I guess just to do what IMO would be more logical. What I'm
trying to do is that formation has fixed amount of units. Some or all
can be upgraded to other unit. It would IMO be bit more logical if
number of upgrade's would be chosen from option panel. That's easy
part. What's not is getting unit count on unit list go up and down
respectivily.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 11:22:12 -0000
From: "Timo Nevalainen" <tneva82@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Replacing child unit's and Q's about options
> This is easy to do if the option is in the parent unit.
>The "upgrade"
> option would simply delete the standard option when selected.
Hmmm...Workable but would mean lots of option's...Is there way to
group option's in groups I wish? Like upgrade's to one, options(which
give you additional units in addition to those you originally had)
and so on? I seem to remember datafile which had system like that but
can't remember which it was if any.
> Hope this helps,
Sure.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 22:22:51 -0700
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Replacing child unit's and Q's about options
At 10:58 AM 4/10/2003 +0000, you wrote:
> > You might be able to utilize the "rept" attribute. I'm not certain
> >of what
> > you're trying to accomplish, but this would let you attach a
>
>Mainly I guess just to do what IMO would be more logical. What I'm
>trying to do is that formation has fixed amount of units. Some or all
>can be upgraded to other unit. It would IMO be bit more logical if
>number of upgrade's would be chosen from option panel. That's easy
>part. What's not is getting unit count on unit list go up and down
>respectivily.
Unfortunately, you're going to need to operate within the framework
provided by AB. This means you'll need to do things the way that AB
provides, whether or not it's the "optimal" way you'd like it to work.
Since the unit size is fixed, each child unit should be attached via a
separate option. The "rept" attribute is great for when you can have "up to
X" child units of a given type. For a fixed situation, separate options for
each is most appropriate.
If there are various units that can be selected for each child, one
possible solution would be to have each child unit attached via options in
a table attribute. The default selection for the table would be the default
child unit. The user could then use each table to pick an alternate child
unit for each slot.
Hope this helps,
Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (559) 658-6995
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 22:24:24 -0700
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Replacing child unit's and Q's about options
At 11:22 AM 4/10/2003 +0000, you wrote:
> > This is easy to do if the option is in the parent unit.
> >The "upgrade"
> > option would simply delete the standard option when selected.
>
>Hmmm...Workable but would mean lots of option's...Is there way to
>group option's in groups I wish? Like upgrade's to one, options(which
>give you additional units in addition to those you originally had)
>and so on? I seem to remember datafile which had system like that but
>can't remember which it was if any.
I'm not understanding this clearly. Please give me a more concrete example
of what you are striving for. Since I have no familiarity with the game
system in question, you'll have to give me all the details so I can try to
help.
Thanks, Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (559) 658-6995
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 05:02:19 -0000
From: "hida_dragonbane" <ryuteki@msn.com>
Subject: Re: Future of Army Builder?
And if I take an army of GW figures, and convert them to the nines to
the point where they DON'T look like the original figures...
(Especially for units that can have armor upgrades: change the heads,
change the weapons, add some armor, create a new standard...) they
are still legal, and you still have no clue what you are facing. This
is especially true of Chaos figures, which can really look like
almost anything, and heavy conversion is encouraged. If GW had any
sort of reasonable basis in their "you must buy our figs so your
opponent knows what he's facing", they would release figures suitable
for ALL GAME VARIANTS (light armor, heavy armor, no armor, one
weapon, weapon+shield, two weapons...) and converting a model would
be tournament illegal. Since conversion is not only encouraged but
actually required, GW shows themselves to be money-grubbing
parasites, who happen to have a decent game to abuse.
+--Redeemer--
--- In armybuilder@yahoogroups.com, "Dennis Main" <dennis.main@n...>
wrote:
> Guys,
> Hopefully this may answer a few ¡Æniggles¡Ç about GW. Having asked
quite
> a few managers, and tourney judges, about using non-GW figures the
> ¡Æstock¡Ç answer is that if we want to use other models/ figures
then it
> wouldn¡Çt be a GW Tourney because you¡Çre not using GW figures. The
> figures they released are meant to be represented by the stats they
> release in White Dwarf and Codex¡Çs/ Army lists. Annoying
> yes..expensive..YES (and meant to be for business purposes). If for
> arguments sake you had an army made up of ¡Æother manufacturers
> figures,¡Ç for as nice as they may be, your opponent wouldn¡Çt have
a
> clue as to what they are facing. Standardisation of units is another
> answer I get. As to the ¡Æcd¡Ç illustration then here¡Çs another¡Äto
> take part in most any competition you must have regulation
equipment, as
> in this case the units/ figures released by GW. Maybe this answers
some
> questions.
>
> Donnaghan.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: hida_dragonbane [mailto:ryuteki@m...]
> Sent: 07 April 2003 00:42
> To: armybuilder@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [AB] Future of Army Builder?
>
> Yes, that would be the LEAST they could do. I'd much rather they
> umbent their tightwad selves a slight bit more and weren't such
> nazi's about "must be pure GW", there are some DAMN nice models out
> there from other companies such as Reaper and Crocodile. To me,
it's
> just incredibly hypocritical. I mean, check out the White Dwarf
for
> what they consider to be the best paint jobs... they're pretty much
> ALL CONVERSIONS, aka NOT WHAT GW SELLS.
>
> Noone would go out and buy a CD player that only played CD's
created
> by, say, Arista Records, right? Arista would be heavily flamed for
> even CONSIDERING to push such an item. Why then does everyone
accept
> that the GW game system can ONLY be played with GW miniatures?
It's
> NOT like the miniatures are sold as part of the system, it's
> completely seperate. I'm rather disgusted that the tournament
system
> supports such strong-arm tactics, it's not like the MODEL affects
the
> game statistics and balance.
>
> Anyway, we've drifted heavily off-topic, so I'm going to stop my
rant
> here and move on. Thanks for listening.
>
> +--Redeemer--
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Get a FREE REFINANCE QUOTE - click here!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/2CXtTB/ca0FAA/i5gGAA/IMSolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, email
armybuilder-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 5 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Replacing child unit's and Q's about options
From: "Timo Nevalainen" <tneva82@yahoo.com>
2. Re: Replacing child unit's and Q's about options
From: "Timo Nevalainen" <tneva82@yahoo.com>
3. Re: Replacing child unit's and Q's about options
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
4. Re: Replacing child unit's and Q's about options
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
5. Re: Future of Army Builder?
From: "hida_dragonbane" <ryuteki@msn.com>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 10:58:37 -0000
From: "Timo Nevalainen" <tneva82@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Replacing child unit's and Q's about options
> You might be able to utilize the "rept" attribute. I'm not certain
>of what
> you're trying to accomplish, but this would let you attach a
Mainly I guess just to do what IMO would be more logical. What I'm
trying to do is that formation has fixed amount of units. Some or all
can be upgraded to other unit. It would IMO be bit more logical if
number of upgrade's would be chosen from option panel. That's easy
part. What's not is getting unit count on unit list go up and down
respectivily.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 11:22:12 -0000
From: "Timo Nevalainen" <tneva82@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Replacing child unit's and Q's about options
> This is easy to do if the option is in the parent unit.
>The "upgrade"
> option would simply delete the standard option when selected.
Hmmm...Workable but would mean lots of option's...Is there way to
group option's in groups I wish? Like upgrade's to one, options(which
give you additional units in addition to those you originally had)
and so on? I seem to remember datafile which had system like that but
can't remember which it was if any.
> Hope this helps,
Sure.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 22:22:51 -0700
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Replacing child unit's and Q's about options
At 10:58 AM 4/10/2003 +0000, you wrote:
> > You might be able to utilize the "rept" attribute. I'm not certain
> >of what
> > you're trying to accomplish, but this would let you attach a
>
>Mainly I guess just to do what IMO would be more logical. What I'm
>trying to do is that formation has fixed amount of units. Some or all
>can be upgraded to other unit. It would IMO be bit more logical if
>number of upgrade's would be chosen from option panel. That's easy
>part. What's not is getting unit count on unit list go up and down
>respectivily.
Unfortunately, you're going to need to operate within the framework
provided by AB. This means you'll need to do things the way that AB
provides, whether or not it's the "optimal" way you'd like it to work.
Since the unit size is fixed, each child unit should be attached via a
separate option. The "rept" attribute is great for when you can have "up to
X" child units of a given type. For a fixed situation, separate options for
each is most appropriate.
If there are various units that can be selected for each child, one
possible solution would be to have each child unit attached via options in
a table attribute. The default selection for the table would be the default
child unit. The user could then use each table to pick an alternate child
unit for each slot.
Hope this helps,
Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (559) 658-6995
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 22:24:24 -0700
From: Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Replacing child unit's and Q's about options
At 11:22 AM 4/10/2003 +0000, you wrote:
> > This is easy to do if the option is in the parent unit.
> >The "upgrade"
> > option would simply delete the standard option when selected.
>
>Hmmm...Workable but would mean lots of option's...Is there way to
>group option's in groups I wish? Like upgrade's to one, options(which
>give you additional units in addition to those you originally had)
>and so on? I seem to remember datafile which had system like that but
>can't remember which it was if any.
I'm not understanding this clearly. Please give me a more concrete example
of what you are striving for. Since I have no familiarity with the game
system in question, you'll have to give me all the details so I can try to
help.
Thanks, Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (559) 658-6995
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 05:02:19 -0000
From: "hida_dragonbane" <ryuteki@msn.com>
Subject: Re: Future of Army Builder?
And if I take an army of GW figures, and convert them to the nines to
the point where they DON'T look like the original figures...
(Especially for units that can have armor upgrades: change the heads,
change the weapons, add some armor, create a new standard...) they
are still legal, and you still have no clue what you are facing. This
is especially true of Chaos figures, which can really look like
almost anything, and heavy conversion is encouraged. If GW had any
sort of reasonable basis in their "you must buy our figs so your
opponent knows what he's facing", they would release figures suitable
for ALL GAME VARIANTS (light armor, heavy armor, no armor, one
weapon, weapon+shield, two weapons...) and converting a model would
be tournament illegal. Since conversion is not only encouraged but
actually required, GW shows themselves to be money-grubbing
parasites, who happen to have a decent game to abuse.
+--Redeemer--
--- In armybuilder@yahoogroups.com, "Dennis Main" <dennis.main@n...>
wrote:
> Guys,
> Hopefully this may answer a few ¡Æniggles¡Ç about GW. Having asked
quite
> a few managers, and tourney judges, about using non-GW figures the
> ¡Æstock¡Ç answer is that if we want to use other models/ figures
then it
> wouldn¡Çt be a GW Tourney because you¡Çre not using GW figures. The
> figures they released are meant to be represented by the stats they
> release in White Dwarf and Codex¡Çs/ Army lists. Annoying
> yes..expensive..YES (and meant to be for business purposes). If for
> arguments sake you had an army made up of ¡Æother manufacturers
> figures,¡Ç for as nice as they may be, your opponent wouldn¡Çt have
a
> clue as to what they are facing. Standardisation of units is another
> answer I get. As to the ¡Æcd¡Ç illustration then here¡Çs another¡Äto
> take part in most any competition you must have regulation
equipment, as
> in this case the units/ figures released by GW. Maybe this answers
some
> questions.
>
> Donnaghan.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: hida_dragonbane [mailto:ryuteki@m...]
> Sent: 07 April 2003 00:42
> To: armybuilder@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [AB] Future of Army Builder?
>
> Yes, that would be the LEAST they could do. I'd much rather they
> umbent their tightwad selves a slight bit more and weren't such
> nazi's about "must be pure GW", there are some DAMN nice models out
> there from other companies such as Reaper and Crocodile. To me,
it's
> just incredibly hypocritical. I mean, check out the White Dwarf
for
> what they consider to be the best paint jobs... they're pretty much
> ALL CONVERSIONS, aka NOT WHAT GW SELLS.
>
> Noone would go out and buy a CD player that only played CD's
created
> by, say, Arista Records, right? Arista would be heavily flamed for
> even CONSIDERING to push such an item. Why then does everyone
accept
> that the GW game system can ONLY be played with GW miniatures?
It's
> NOT like the miniatures are sold as part of the system, it's
> completely seperate. I'm rather disgusted that the tournament
system
> supports such strong-arm tactics, it's not like the MODEL affects
the
> game statistics and balance.
>
> Anyway, we've drifted heavily off-topic, so I'm going to stop my
rant
> here and move on. Thanks for listening.
>
> +--Redeemer--
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/