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: Future of Army Builder?
From: "Timo Nevalainen" <tneva82@yahoo.com>
4. Re: Future of Army Builder?
From: VanMan4311@aol.com
5. Re: Future of Army Builder?
From: Steve Mansfield <steve@gametools.com>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 11:31:14 -0000
From: "Timo Nevalainen" <tneva82@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Replacing child unit's and Q's about options
> 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.
Ok. If it isn't possible that way then that's the way I do not do it.
Sigh.
> 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.
Hmmm...Getting ever closer. This give's nicely all but 2 thing I need
(well okay I don't techicly NEED them. One could do all they need
even before these but just would result in illegal armies
). Now it
works like I want except 2 things.
It allows to have say 3 attack bikes and 5 bikes...Ok it complains
but I prefer if it would prevent it. Okay I can be satisfied with
this so is it possible or do I just have to shrug it and be done with
this?
Second. Anyway I can have there 5 invidual bike unit at start or do
user have to click each invidually?
Par those 2 all work great so far...Thanks.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 11:35:48 -0000
From: "Timo Nevalainen" <tneva82@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Replacing child unit's and Q's about options
> system in question, you'll have to give me all the details so I can
>try to
> help.
Well example from option panel I would like to have:
===upgrades====
upgrade number #1
upgrade number #2
upgrade number #3
===Support formations===
Support #1
Support #2
Support #3
Basicly some way to get the number of option's to order by type so
they are not all bunched up in order AB does it. In what I'm aiming
at would be one like:
===basic units===
Predator
Land raider
Defiler
===Support units===
...
...
...
Just realised I can ease up the panel with rept command(thanks!) but
it would still be nice if I can have the basic units and support unit
choises separated with some lines on option panel. Like above.
Especially as those support units have same choises as basic units.
Other just pays more and other is required to have from beginning.
Hopefully that made it more clear.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 11:38:03 -0000
From: "Timo Nevalainen" <tneva82@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Future of Army Builder?
> actually required, GW shows themselves to be money-grubbing
> parasites, who happen to have a decent game to abuse.
Wanting to stay in business is money-grubbing parasites? Maybe you
want them to go to bankrupt but I prefer for them to stay up and
continue the support the game I play.
Similary. Does WoTC allow cards not produced by them in their MTG
tournaments?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 15:41:18 EDT
From: VanMan4311@aol.com
Subject: Re: Future of Army Builder?
In a message dated 4/11/2003 9:09:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
tneva82@yahoo.com writes:
> Wanting to stay in business is money-grubbing parasites? Maybe you
> want them to go to bankrupt but I prefer for them to stay up and
> continue the support the game I play.
>
There's a difference between good business tactics and bad business tactics.
GW has bad business tactics. Especially when it comes to pleasing the
shareholders. This is why they are money-grubbing parasites.
> Similary. Does WoTC allow cards not produced by them in their MTG
> tournaments?
>
There is quite a difference between CCGs and Miniature wargames. They're
generally sold in the same store but they aren't part of the miniature
wargaming hobby. Not even close.
Lets look at a similiar arguement. Long standing historical wargaming
companies do not produce every type of Sherman out there, but even if they
did, they would not stop you from bring a Sherman made by a different
manufacturer, but same scale.
Or an even more similar arguement: Every VOID tournament I've played in
(which were not run by i-kore, but were supported by them) we've been able to
have substitutions for miniatures, whether because it is OoP or not released
yet or just really expensive. It generally costs you victory points, or you
started out in the losers bracket, but you were allowed to play.
Games Workshop has strived to create a reputation that it doesn't exactly
care for the hobby it is a part of. And thus those of us who really do care
for this hobby lash back. It's not nice, but were all adults here, able to
keep it professional.
Brad
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 14:26:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Steve Mansfield <steve@gametools.com>
Subject: Re: Future of Army Builder?
> In a message dated 4/11/2003 9:09:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> tneva82@yahoo.com writes:
> > Wanting to stay in business is money-grubbing parasites? Maybe you
> > want them to go to bankrupt but I prefer for them to stay up and
> > continue the support the game I play.
>
> There's a difference between good business tactics and bad business tactics.
> GW has bad business tactics. Especially when it comes to pleasing the
> shareholders. This is why they are money-grubbing parasites.
Funny, when I look at GW's shapre price numbers (GAW, UK Stock Exchange, and
I'm a shareholder...), I see 2 straight years of increased share prices,
followed by a year of flat share prices during a time period when most companies
worldwide were seeing dropping prices during recession...
I'd say that the shareholders are plenty happy.
But that aside, if they're such money-grubbing parasites, why do you continue
playing the game?
> > Similary. Does WoTC allow cards not produced by them in their MTG
> > tournaments?
>
> There is quite a difference between CCGs and Miniature wargames. They're
> generally sold in the same store but they aren't part of the miniature
> wargaming hobby. Not even close.
But his comparison is still valid. Nobody says you can't play warhammer with
other folks' stuff on your own (I know plenty of folks who do), but they
prohibit it in *their* tournaments that *they* sponsor (at a loss, I would
point out...)
> Lets look at a similiar arguement. Long standing historical wargaming
> companies do not produce every type of Sherman out there, but even if they
> did, they would not stop you from bring a Sherman made by a different
> manufacturer, but same scale.
And how many of these companies run large-scale tournaments? (Honest question.
I don't know the answer)
> Or an even more similar arguement: Every VOID tournament I've played in
> (which were not run by i-kore, but were supported by them) we've been able to
> have substitutions for miniatures, whether because it is OoP or not released
> yet or just really expensive. It generally costs you victory points, or you
> started out in the losers bracket, but you were allowed to play.
I note that VOID also doesn't have the level of market share that GW does...
And I note you yourself point out that players are penalised for doing it.
> Games Workshop has strived to create a reputation that it doesn't exactly
> care for the hobby it is a part of. And thus those of us who really do care
> for this hobby lash back. It's not nice, but were all adults here, able to
> keep it professional.
> Brad
I disagree. They run ~20-30 tournaments worldwide every year (12 in North
America alone), at which they *lose* money at every one (on occasion they may
make a slight profit if the on-site store does well). They've created a
tournament system in which stores can run games for folks. They've resurrected
several smaller-scale games which were known money-losers because folks wanted
them (blood bowl, necromunda, talisman, etc.). They've revised rules for armies
due to player demand.
Frankly, I've seen players at GT's with non-GW models. In every case, the
player was still allowed to play, but their painting/appearance score was
tanked.
I will admit that GW has made bad decisions in the past. What company doesn't?
There's inherent risk in running a company. But do those bad decisions make
them money-grubbers? I'd say no.
Nonetheless, this discussion has fallen way off-topic...
--
Steve (That's Mr. Bugman to you, lad...)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
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: Future of Army Builder?
From: "Timo Nevalainen" <tneva82@yahoo.com>
4. Re: Future of Army Builder?
From: VanMan4311@aol.com
5. Re: Future of Army Builder?
From: Steve Mansfield <steve@gametools.com>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 11:31:14 -0000
From: "Timo Nevalainen" <tneva82@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Replacing child unit's and Q's about options
> 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.
Ok. If it isn't possible that way then that's the way I do not do it.
Sigh.
> 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.
Hmmm...Getting ever closer. This give's nicely all but 2 thing I need
(well okay I don't techicly NEED them. One could do all they need
even before these but just would result in illegal armies
). Now it works like I want except 2 things.
It allows to have say 3 attack bikes and 5 bikes...Ok it complains
but I prefer if it would prevent it. Okay I can be satisfied with
this so is it possible or do I just have to shrug it and be done with
this?
Second. Anyway I can have there 5 invidual bike unit at start or do
user have to click each invidually?
Par those 2 all work great so far...Thanks.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 11:35:48 -0000
From: "Timo Nevalainen" <tneva82@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Replacing child unit's and Q's about options
> system in question, you'll have to give me all the details so I can
>try to
> help.
Well example from option panel I would like to have:
===upgrades====
upgrade number #1
upgrade number #2
upgrade number #3
===Support formations===
Support #1
Support #2
Support #3
Basicly some way to get the number of option's to order by type so
they are not all bunched up in order AB does it. In what I'm aiming
at would be one like:
===basic units===
Predator
Land raider
Defiler
===Support units===
...
...
...
Just realised I can ease up the panel with rept command(thanks!) but
it would still be nice if I can have the basic units and support unit
choises separated with some lines on option panel. Like above.
Especially as those support units have same choises as basic units.
Other just pays more and other is required to have from beginning.
Hopefully that made it more clear.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 11:38:03 -0000
From: "Timo Nevalainen" <tneva82@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Future of Army Builder?
> actually required, GW shows themselves to be money-grubbing
> parasites, who happen to have a decent game to abuse.
Wanting to stay in business is money-grubbing parasites? Maybe you
want them to go to bankrupt but I prefer for them to stay up and
continue the support the game I play.
Similary. Does WoTC allow cards not produced by them in their MTG
tournaments?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 15:41:18 EDT
From: VanMan4311@aol.com
Subject: Re: Future of Army Builder?
In a message dated 4/11/2003 9:09:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
tneva82@yahoo.com writes:
> Wanting to stay in business is money-grubbing parasites? Maybe you
> want them to go to bankrupt but I prefer for them to stay up and
> continue the support the game I play.
>
There's a difference between good business tactics and bad business tactics.
GW has bad business tactics. Especially when it comes to pleasing the
shareholders. This is why they are money-grubbing parasites.
> Similary. Does WoTC allow cards not produced by them in their MTG
> tournaments?
>
There is quite a difference between CCGs and Miniature wargames. They're
generally sold in the same store but they aren't part of the miniature
wargaming hobby. Not even close.
Lets look at a similiar arguement. Long standing historical wargaming
companies do not produce every type of Sherman out there, but even if they
did, they would not stop you from bring a Sherman made by a different
manufacturer, but same scale.
Or an even more similar arguement: Every VOID tournament I've played in
(which were not run by i-kore, but were supported by them) we've been able to
have substitutions for miniatures, whether because it is OoP or not released
yet or just really expensive. It generally costs you victory points, or you
started out in the losers bracket, but you were allowed to play.
Games Workshop has strived to create a reputation that it doesn't exactly
care for the hobby it is a part of. And thus those of us who really do care
for this hobby lash back. It's not nice, but were all adults here, able to
keep it professional.
Brad
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 14:26:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Steve Mansfield <steve@gametools.com>
Subject: Re: Future of Army Builder?
> In a message dated 4/11/2003 9:09:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> tneva82@yahoo.com writes:
> > Wanting to stay in business is money-grubbing parasites? Maybe you
> > want them to go to bankrupt but I prefer for them to stay up and
> > continue the support the game I play.
>
> There's a difference between good business tactics and bad business tactics.
> GW has bad business tactics. Especially when it comes to pleasing the
> shareholders. This is why they are money-grubbing parasites.
Funny, when I look at GW's shapre price numbers (GAW, UK Stock Exchange, and
I'm a shareholder...), I see 2 straight years of increased share prices,
followed by a year of flat share prices during a time period when most companies
worldwide were seeing dropping prices during recession...
I'd say that the shareholders are plenty happy.
But that aside, if they're such money-grubbing parasites, why do you continue
playing the game?
> > Similary. Does WoTC allow cards not produced by them in their MTG
> > tournaments?
>
> There is quite a difference between CCGs and Miniature wargames. They're
> generally sold in the same store but they aren't part of the miniature
> wargaming hobby. Not even close.
But his comparison is still valid. Nobody says you can't play warhammer with
other folks' stuff on your own (I know plenty of folks who do), but they
prohibit it in *their* tournaments that *they* sponsor (at a loss, I would
point out...)
> Lets look at a similiar arguement. Long standing historical wargaming
> companies do not produce every type of Sherman out there, but even if they
> did, they would not stop you from bring a Sherman made by a different
> manufacturer, but same scale.
And how many of these companies run large-scale tournaments? (Honest question.
I don't know the answer)
> Or an even more similar arguement: Every VOID tournament I've played in
> (which were not run by i-kore, but were supported by them) we've been able to
> have substitutions for miniatures, whether because it is OoP or not released
> yet or just really expensive. It generally costs you victory points, or you
> started out in the losers bracket, but you were allowed to play.
I note that VOID also doesn't have the level of market share that GW does...
And I note you yourself point out that players are penalised for doing it.
> Games Workshop has strived to create a reputation that it doesn't exactly
> care for the hobby it is a part of. And thus those of us who really do care
> for this hobby lash back. It's not nice, but were all adults here, able to
> keep it professional.
> Brad
I disagree. They run ~20-30 tournaments worldwide every year (12 in North
America alone), at which they *lose* money at every one (on occasion they may
make a slight profit if the on-site store does well). They've created a
tournament system in which stores can run games for folks. They've resurrected
several smaller-scale games which were known money-losers because folks wanted
them (blood bowl, necromunda, talisman, etc.). They've revised rules for armies
due to player demand.
Frankly, I've seen players at GT's with non-GW models. In every case, the
player was still allowed to play, but their painting/appearance score was
tanked.
I will admit that GW has made bad decisions in the past. What company doesn't?
There's inherent risk in running a company. But do those bad decisions make
them money-grubbers? I'd say no.
Nonetheless, this discussion has fallen way off-topic...
--
Steve (That's Mr. Bugman to you, lad...)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/