Digest Number 888

[armybuilder at yahoogroup]

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Rent DVDs Online - Over 14,500 titles.
No Late Fees & Free Shipping.
Try Netflix for FREE!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/YoVfrB/XP.FAA/uetFAA/IMSolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this group, email

armybuilder-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are 3 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1. Re: Composition Rule Sets
From: "atrahasis1982" <s0093653@sms.ed.ac.uk>
2. Re: Composition Rule Sets
From: "atrahasis1982" <s0093653@sms.ed.ac.uk>
3. Re: Testing multiples of a type within a single unit
From: Colen McAlister <colen@wolflair.com>


________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 22:53:10 -0000
From: "atrahasis1982" <s0093653@sms.ed.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Composition Rule Sets


> > You still need to add type:infantry to all the infantry units
> though

I've been sneaky
I've added an option us1inf that has

glob:incl
hide
usta:US=1
type:infantry

This as you can probably tell makes all units with US1 infantry.
Then all I had to do was find the few that defy this rule (ogres,
kroxigor, trolls) and make them infantry. While I was doing this I
realised that all US3 models are infantry too (aren't they?). So,
another option for us3inf was created. Job done.

However, for some reason its not working for Empire Archers (which
have US1, but are already type:skirmishers) I didn't think this
should matter, but apparently it does. They are assigned
type:infantry (I removed the hide to check) but don't trigger the
ReqInf type assignment option. It seems to work for gutter runners,
that have US1 and are also type:skirmishers. I can't work it out.

I've also implemented the 25 model limit on all units, using a
similar option. If I get the bug with the archers fixed, and find a
way to implement the 125 point model limit, that will be all of the
restrictions in place.



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 23:09:56 -0000
From: "atrahasis1982" <s0093653@sms.ed.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Composition Rule Sets

Problem with archers solved by making ReqInf Priority5
utyp:infantry condition wasn't satisified because the option
assigning the type:infantry was of equal priority.

Only the 125 point/model limit left to do.

Thanks again for all your help.



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 19:42:47 -0700
From: Colen McAlister <colen@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Testing multiples of a type within a single unit

At 10:33 AM 5/6/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>Okay, I've got each of the options assigning a different value to the
>first of three stats. The three tables are in three different priority
>categories (1,3,and 5), and there are two calc options set to priority 2
>and 4. Everything is working fine except the validation. I'm using the
>following external unit attribute:
>
>lcmp:expr1[>|>=|=|<=|<]expr2{-msg=msg}{#when}{#mode}{#legal}
>
>but it doesn't say how I can determine if two expressions are not equal to
>each other, and the couple I tried haven't worked (ie, !(stat1=stat2),
>(stat1<>stat2), and (stat1!=stat2)). Any suggestions?

Hmm... it appears there is no way to determine if two expressions are *not*
equal. Oops. :/

You can achieve the same result you want by using an option with uexp, like
this:

uexpstat1=stat2)|(stat1=stat3)|(stat2=stat3)

I.e. the option will be legal if any one of the stats is equal to another.
So, create an option with that 'uexp' attribute, add 'hide' and
'typeupChoice' (or similar) attributes to it, and assign that option to
the unit with the table options (make sure it's given a nature of 'auto',
and also that it has a lower priority than any of categories 1-5). Then the
unit can just test for the presence of type 'DupChoice' and, if it appears,
display a validation message.


--
Colen McAlister (colen@wolflair.com)
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________



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