• Please note: In an effort to ensure that all of our users feel welcome on our forums, we’ve updated our forum rules. You can review the updated rules here: http://forums.wolflair.com/showthread.php?t=5528.

    If a fellow Community member is not following the forum rules, please report the post by clicking the Report button (the red yield sign on the left) located on every post. This will notify the moderators directly. If you have any questions about these new rules, please contact support@wolflair.com.

    - The Lone Wolf Development Team

New 40K and Mordheim files released!

R

rob

Administrator
Staff member
Code: 
> > Again, the AB files shouldnt have stuff that is illegal - it damages
>their
> > credibility. And after paying for AB and supporting it
>unconditionally, I feel
> > very strongly on this point.
>
>I must say, I didn't appreciate the strength of feeling on this :)
>
>I shall see what's what, and report back.

Here in the States, the 40K data files are now being used by MANY stores 
(and at many conventions) for validating army lists prior to tournaments 
and leagues. This number is increasing almost weekly. The 40K data files 
have an EXCELLENT reputation over here, and you have done such an excellent 
job that the majority of users view the data files as the "final word". I'm 
not saying this is necessarily the best thing (bugs creep in every now and 
then), but it is something you should definitely be aware of (and be PROUD 
of!).

Because of this, I agree with the others that including non-official rules 
mechanics in the standard data files is NOT a good thing. Is there another 
way in which those rules mechanics could be included so that they are 
available to the gamers who want them but can be precluded from tournament 
usage? I'm not sure if this is possible, but I would very much prefer that 
the integrity of the files remain at their current level.

Thanks for listening,
Rob

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com ([email]rob@wolflair.com[/email]))                                 (650) 726-9689
Lone Wolf Development                                      [url]www.wolflair.com[/url]
To unsubscribe from this group, email
armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com (armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com) eGroups.com Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/armybuilder
www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
 
Code: 
Hmmm. Here I am responding to myself. That CAN'T bode well for my mental 
state of mind. :-(

In any case, this message is directed primarily at Colen. Please don't take 
this issue too much to heart. I agree with your latest post about getting 
an official answer from GW and being done with it.

It is unfortunate that consistency in writing is often lacking within GW's 
rules. It appears they may be making progress since some of the travesties 
of the past, but there is clearly still room for improvement. I just want 
to see the use of Army Builder continue spreading, and the 40K data files 
are an integral part of that, due both to the popularity of the game and 
the quality of the files you've created.

Thanks for your continued efforts in keeping the files in such excellent 
shape! :-)

Thanks again, Rob


At 01:45 PM 3/25/00 -0800, you wrote:


> > > Again, the AB files shouldnt have stuff that is illegal - it damages
> >their
> > > credibility. And after paying for AB and supporting it
> >unconditionally, I feel
> > > very strongly on this point.
> >
> >I must say, I didn't appreciate the strength of feeling on this :)
> >
> >I shall see what's what, and report back.
>
>Here in the States, the 40K data files are now being used by MANY stores
>(and at many conventions) for validating army lists prior to tournaments
>and leagues. This number is increasing almost weekly. The 40K data files
>have an EXCELLENT reputation over here, and you have done such an excellent
>job that the majority of users view the data files as the "final word". I'm
>not saying this is necessarily the best thing (bugs creep in every now and
>then), but it is something you should definitely be aware of (and be PROUD
>of!).
>
>Because of this, I agree with the others that including non-official rules
>mechanics in the standard data files is NOT a good thing. Is there another
>way in which those rules mechanics could be included so that they are
>available to the gamers who want them but can be precluded from tournament
>usage? I'm not sure if this is possible, but I would very much prefer that
>the integrity of the files remain at their current level.
>
>Thanks for listening,
>Rob


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com ([email]rob@wolflair.com[/email]))                                 (650) 726-9689
Lone Wolf Development                                      [url]www.wolflair.com[/url]
To unsubscribe from this group, email
armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com (armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com) eGroups.com Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/armybuilder
www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
 
rob bowes ro-@wolflair.com wrote:
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/armybuilder/?start=762

> Here in the States, the 40K data files are now being used by MANY
stores
> (and at many conventions) for validating army lists prior to
tournaments
> and leagues. This number is increasing almost weekly. The 40K data
files
> have an EXCELLENT reputation over here, and you have done such an
excellent
> job that the majority of users view the data files as the "final
word". I'm
> not saying this is necessarily the best thing (bugs creep in every
now and
> then), but it is something you should definitely be aware of (and be
PROUD
> of!).

Hehe :)

> Because of this, I agree with the others that including non-official
rules
> mechanics in the standard data files is NOT a good thing. Is there
another
> way in which those rules mechanics could be included so that they are
> available to the gamers who want them but can be precluded from
tournament
> usage? I'm not sure if this is possible, but I would very much prefer
that
> the integrity of the files remain at their current level.

It's not that the rules are non-official, just that they're unclear. I
can see two ways of including the rules like this...

1) Make a custom installer program that says "Do you want Scout
Sergeants to be able to have Sniper Rifles? etc." This would be
difficult, would probably cost money and might also inflate the size of
the files. I could write it myself, but then it wouldn't work properly
and would destroy people's hard disks :)

2) Keeping a seperate directory of files on a web site that says "And
if you want to have Sergeants with Sniper Rifles, go here".

Any thoughts, chaps?

To unsubscribe from this group, email
armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com (armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com) eGroups.com Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/armybuilder
www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
 
rob bowes ro-@wolflair.com wrote:
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/armybuilder/?start=765

> It is unfortunate that consistency in writing is often lacking within
GW's
> rules. It appears they may be making progress since some of the
travesties
> of the past, but there is clearly still room for improvement. I just
want
> to see the use of Army Builder continue spreading, and the 40K data
files
> are an integral part of that, due both to the popularity of the game
and
> the quality of the files you've created.

The Warmaster rules are much better, I have to say. At a glance, I
can't find any 'loopholes' or unclear items in them.

> Thanks for your continued efforts in keeping the files in such
excellent
> shape! :-)

Thanks :)

To unsubscribe from this group, email
armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com (armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com) eGroups.com Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/armybuilder
www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
 
Code: 
> 2) Keeping a seperate directory of files on a web site that says "And
> if you want to have Sergeants with Sniper Rifles, go here".

Go with this one - it gives the option for the power-gamers to have their own
files


Jimi

FREE 40k card buildings - [url=http://welcome.to/the_astronomican/]http://welcome.to/the_astronomican/[/url]

40k3 list - [url=http://www.egroups.com/group/40k3/info.html]http://www.egroups.com/group/40k3/info.html[/url]
40k Fluff list - [url=http://www.egroups.com/group/40k_fluff/info.html]http://www.egroups.com/group/40k_fluff/info.html[/url]
Astartes list - [url=http://www.egroups.com/group/adeptus_astartes/info.html]http://www.egroups.com/group/adeptus_astartes/info.html[/url]
Chaos list - [url=http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/40k-chaos]http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/40k-chaos[/url]
Grey Knights - [url=http://www.egroups.com/group/greyknightchapter/info.html]http://www.egroups.com/group/greyknightchapter/info.html[/url]
Guard list - [url=http://www.egroups.com/group/imperial-guard/info.html]http://www.egroups.com/group/imperial-guard/info.html[/url]
Sons Of Russ - [url=http://www.egroups.com/group/sons-of-russ/info.html]http://www.egroups.com/group/sons-of-russ/info.html[/url]
Unforgiven - [url=http://www.egroups.com/group/unforgiven/info.html]http://www.egroups.com/group/unforgiven/info.html[/url]
To unsubscribe from this group, email
armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com (armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com) eGroups.com Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/armybuilder
www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
 
> It's not that the rules are non-official, just that they're unclear. I
> can see two ways of including the rules like this...
>
> 1) Make a custom installer program that says "Do you want Scout
> Sergeants to be able to have Sniper Rifles? etc." This would be
> difficult, would probably cost money and might also inflate the size
of
> the files. I could write it myself, but then it wouldn't work properly
> and would destroy people's hard disks :)
>
> 2) Keeping a seperate directory of files on a web site that says "And
> if you want to have Sergeants with Sniper Rifles, go here".

Colen, not to sound like a broken record, but I don't think of this as
an instance that is ambiguous or unclear. I know under the scout squad
options section it says that any model may take a sniper rifle for +5
points, but the codex also states that if a squad can take weapon
upgrades, then only ordinary models can, not sergeants.

I've actually asked this question to a GW rep that I used to deal with
in making gaming orders for a store, and he pointed me back to that
page and stated "No, a sergeant cannot take a sniper rifle because of
page 5." The sniper rifle is a weapon upgrade.

Ok, I'm done ranting. Sorry you had to hear the same things over
again. I just don't want to have to hear from players on how their
selections are justified because the AB files allow you to do it. ;)

Chris

To unsubscribe from this group, email
armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com (armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com) eGroups.com Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/armybuilder
www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
 
Code: 
How about having AB flag them at the end of the print out as being not 
valid(or not valid for tournament).  People wanting to play with these 
options could just okay the none valid report.  People not wanting to use 
these rules could easily see that they are being used.  I think every one 
could handle that.  Maybe you and Rob could work some thing out in V.2 that 
would note whether an army was tournament legal or not.  In the tournament 
legal army, the rules would be followed EXACTLY they way they are written.  
Well, that's my thoughts.

Brikey


>From: "Colen 'Not Colin' McAlister" [email]demandred@skrill.org[/email] ([email]demandred@skrill.org[/email])
>Reply-To: [email]armybuilder@egroups.com[/email] ([email]armybuilder@egroups.com[/email])
>To: [email]armybuilder@eGroups.com[/email] ([email]armybuilder@egroups.com[/email])
>Subject: [AB] Re: New 40K and Mordheim files released!
>Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 14:31:44 -0800
>
>
>rob bowes [email]ro-@wolflair.com[/email] wrote:
>original article:[url=http://www.egroups.com/group/armybuilder/?start=762]http://www.egroups.com/group/armybuilder/?start=762[/url]
>
> > Here in the States, the 40K data files are now being used by MANY
>stores
> > (and at many conventions) for validating army lists prior to
>tournaments
> > and leagues. This number is increasing almost weekly. The 40K data
>files
> > have an EXCELLENT reputation over here, and you have done such an
>excellent
> > job that the majority of users view the data files as the "final
>word". I'm
> > not saying this is necessarily the best thing (bugs creep in every
>now and
> > then), but it is something you should definitely be aware of (and be
>PROUD
> > of!).
>
>Hehe :)
>
> > Because of this, I agree with the others that including non-official
>rules
> > mechanics in the standard data files is NOT a good thing. Is there
>another
> > way in which those rules mechanics could be included so that they are
> > available to the gamers who want them but can be precluded from
>tournament
> > usage? I'm not sure if this is possible, but I would very much prefer
>that
> > the integrity of the files remain at their current level.
>
>It's not that the rules are non-official, just that they're unclear. I
>can see two ways of including the rules like this...
>
>1) Make a custom installer program that says "Do you want Scout
>Sergeants to be able to have Sniper Rifles? etc." This would be
>difficult, would probably cost money and might also inflate the size of
>the files. I could write it myself, but then it wouldn't work properly
>and would destroy people's hard disks :)
>
>2) Keeping a seperate directory of files on a web site that says "And
>if you want to have Sergeants with Sniper Rifles, go here".
>
>Any thoughts, chaps?
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this group, email
>armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com ([email]armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com[/email])
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>You have a voice mail message waiting for you at iHello.com:
>[url=http://click.egroups.com/1/2377/2/_/36190/_/954196332/]http://click.egroups.com/1/2377/2/_/36190/_/954196332/[/url]
>
>-- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar!
>-- [url=http://www.egroups.com/cal?listname=armybuilder&m=1]http://www.egroups.com/cal?listname=armybuilder&m=1[/url]
>

______________________________________________________
To unsubscribe from this group, email
armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com (armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com) eGroups.com Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/armybuilder
www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
 
"chris stricker" skaven1-@aol.com wrote:
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/armybuilder/?start=777

> Colen, not to sound like a broken record,

Too late :)

> but I don't think of this as
> an instance that is ambiguous or unclear. I know under the scout
squad
> options section it says that any model may take a sniper rifle for +5
> points, but the codex also states that if a squad can take weapon
> upgrades, then only ordinary models can, not sergeants.
>
> I've actually asked this question to a GW rep that I used to deal with
> in making gaming orders for a store, and he pointed me back to that
> page and stated "No, a sergeant cannot take a sniper rifle because of
> page 5." The sniper rifle is a weapon upgrade.

I was on the phone to GW this afternoon, and they said yes, it would be
fine. I'm considering emailing one of the designers to get a final
answer on this...

> Ok, I'm done ranting. Sorry you had to hear the same things over
> again. I just don't want to have to hear from players on how their
> selections are justified because the AB files allow you to do it. ;)

I should work for GW, write their rules for them :)

To unsubscribe from this group, email
armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com (armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com) eGroups.com Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/armybuilder
www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
 
Code: 
> > but I don't think of this as
> > an instance that is ambiguous or unclear. I know under the scout
>squad
> > options section it says that any model may take a sniper rifle for +5
> > points, but the codex also states that if a squad can take weapon
> > upgrades, then only ordinary models can, not sergeants.
> >
> > I've actually asked this question to a GW rep that I used to deal with
> > in making gaming orders for a store, and he pointed me back to that
> > page and stated "No, a sergeant cannot take a sniper rifle because of
> > page 5." The sniper rifle is a weapon upgrade.
>
>I was on the phone to GW this afternoon, and they said yes, it would be
>fine. I'm considering emailing one of the designers to get a final
>answer on this...

This question has now been bumped up to the US GT official rules judge 
(note the singular) for HIS official interpretation. Jason is THE final 
arbiter for all rules interpretations for the GTs here in the States this 
year. So far, his answers to previous questions for the GTs have been great 
(i.e. clear and articulate - not a simple yes/no answer). Hopefully, I'll 
hear back from him soon on this question and I'll post his response here.

Thanks, Rob

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com ([email]rob@wolflair.com[/email]))                                 (650) 726-9689
Lone Wolf Development                                      [url]www.wolflair.com[/url]
To unsubscribe from this group, email
armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com (armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com) eGroups.com Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/armybuilder
www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
 
Code: 
> This question has now been bumped up to the US GT official rules judge 
> (note the singular) for HIS official interpretation.

Here's the latest about snipers from the GW message board on AOL :-

<quote>
Subject: 40K Answers
    Date: 3/28/00 11:50 AM Eastern Standard Time
    From: Tyranid
    Message-id: [email]20000328115044.01300.00001705@ng-md1.aol.com[/email] ([email]20000328115044.01300.00001705@ng-md1.aol.com[/email])

In Codex: Space marines, under the scout squadron, the text specifically 
states that ANY model in the unit may be given a sniper rifle.  On page 5, 
it states that unit sargeants may NOT be given unit upgrades.  Which one 
takes priority/ is correct?  I have my opinions (as does everyone else), but 
it is unlikely I will be able to convince anyone without an ->official<- 
ruling.
(Note please put this in the Q&A if you can, im so tired of hearing people 
fight over this.)
-------> The latter takes priority - the Sgt cannot be given a sniper rifle, 
for example (as he could then upgrade to Vet Sgt and Master Craft it!).  
Space Wolf Codex addresses this.
</quote>


Jimi

FREE 40k card buildings - [url=http://welcome.to/the_astronomican/]http://welcome.to/the_astronomican/[/url]

40k3 list - [url=http://www.egroups.com/group/40k3/info.html]http://www.egroups.com/group/40k3/info.html[/url]
40k Fluff list - [url=http://www.egroups.com/group/40k_fluff/info.html]http://www.egroups.com/group/40k_fluff/info.html[/url]
Astartes list - [url=http://www.egroups.com/group/adeptus_astartes/info.html]http://www.egroups.com/group/adeptus_astartes/info.html[/url]
Chaos list - [url=http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/40k-chaos]http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/40k-chaos[/url]
Grey Knights - [url=http://www.egroups.com/group/greyknightchapter/info.html]http://www.egroups.com/group/greyknightchapter/info.html[/url]
Guard list - [url=http://www.egroups.com/group/imperial-guard/info.html]http://www.egroups.com/group/imperial-guard/info.html[/url]
Sons Of Russ - [url=http://www.egroups.com/group/sons-of-russ/info.html]http://www.egroups.com/group/sons-of-russ/info.html[/url]
Unforgiven - [url=http://www.egroups.com/group/unforgiven/info.html]http://www.egroups.com/group/unforgiven/info.html[/url]
To unsubscribe from this group, email
armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com (armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com) eGroups.com Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/armybuilder
www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
 
Code: 
"jimi" [email]james.tubma-@cableinet.co.uk[/email] wrote: 
original article:[url=http://www.egroups.com/group/armybuilder/?start=785]http://www.egroups.com/group/armybuilder/?start=785[/url]

> Here's the latest about snipers from the GW message board on AOL :-
> 
> <quote>
> Subject: 40K Answers
>     Date: 3/28/00 11:50 AM Eastern Standard Time
>     From: Tyranid

This Tyranid being 'Tyranid Tim', presumably?

>     Message-id: [email]20000328115044.01300.00001705@ng-md1.aol.com[/email] ([email]20000328115044.01300.00001705@ng-md1.aol.com[/email])
> 
> In Codex: Space marines, under the scout squadron, the text
specifically 
> states that ANY model in the unit may be given a sniper rifle.  On
page 5, 
> it states that unit sargeants may NOT be given unit upgrades.  Which
one 
> takes priority/ is correct?  I have my opinions (as does everyone
else), but 
> it is unlikely I will be able to convince anyone without an
->official<- 
> ruling.
> (Note please put this in the Q&A if you can, im so tired of hearing
people 
> fight over this.)
> -------> The latter takes priority - the Sgt cannot be given a sniper
rifle, 
> for example (as he could then upgrade to Vet Sgt and Master Craft
it!).  
> Space Wolf Codex addresses this.
> </quote>

Excellent. Thanks for the info!
To unsubscribe from this group, email
armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com (armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com) eGroups.com Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/armybuilder
www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
 
rob bowes ro-@wolflair.com wrote:
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/armybuilder/?start=786
> Cool. I just got a reply from the US GT rules judge stating that the
Page 5
> rule overrides everything else, too. Two official statements from
separate
> parties sounds like a pretty solid ruling to me! :-)

W00t! I'll change it back in the next release.

Jimi, Rob, thanks for chasing this down. I've just made some chocolate
milkshake, if you want to come over you can have some :)

To unsubscribe from this group, email
armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com (armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com) eGroups.com Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/armybuilder
www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
 
Code: 
> Jimi, Rob, thanks for chasing this down. I've just made some chocolate
> milkshake, if you want to come over you can have some :)

I do accept emails with attachments  :P


Jimi

FREE 40k card buildings - [url=http://welcome.to/the_astronomican/]http://welcome.to/the_astronomican/[/url]

40k3 list - [url=http://www.egroups.com/group/40k3/info.html]http://www.egroups.com/group/40k3/info.html[/url]
40k Fluff list - [url=http://www.egroups.com/group/40k_fluff/info.html]http://www.egroups.com/group/40k_fluff/info.html[/url]
Astartes list - [url=http://www.egroups.com/group/adeptus_astartes/info.html]http://www.egroups.com/group/adeptus_astartes/info.html[/url]
Chaos list - [url=http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/40k-chaos]http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/40k-chaos[/url]
Grey Knights - [url=http://www.egroups.com/group/greyknightchapter/info.html]http://www.egroups.com/group/greyknightchapter/info.html[/url]
Guard list - [url=http://www.egroups.com/group/imperial-guard/info.html]http://www.egroups.com/group/imperial-guard/info.html[/url]
Sons Of Russ - [url=http://www.egroups.com/group/sons-of-russ/info.html]http://www.egroups.com/group/sons-of-russ/info.html[/url]
Unforgiven - [url=http://www.egroups.com/group/unforgiven/info.html]http://www.egroups.com/group/unforgiven/info.html[/url]
To unsubscribe from this group, email
armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com (armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com) eGroups.com Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/armybuilder
www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
 
Code: 
> This Tyranid being 'Tyranid Tim', presumably?

Yup - he runs the GW message board at AOL.


Jimi

FREE 40k card buildings - [url=http://welcome.to/the_astronomican/]http://welcome.to/the_astronomican/[/url]

40k3 list - [url=http://www.egroups.com/group/40k3/info.html]http://www.egroups.com/group/40k3/info.html[/url]
40k Fluff list - [url=http://www.egroups.com/group/40k_fluff/info.html]http://www.egroups.com/group/40k_fluff/info.html[/url]
Astartes list - [url=http://www.egroups.com/group/adeptus_astartes/info.html]http://www.egroups.com/group/adeptus_astartes/info.html[/url]
Chaos list - [url=http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/40k-chaos]http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/40k-chaos[/url]
Grey Knights - [url=http://www.egroups.com/group/greyknightchapter/info.html]http://www.egroups.com/group/greyknightchapter/info.html[/url]
Guard list - [url=http://www.egroups.com/group/imperial-guard/info.html]http://www.egroups.com/group/imperial-guard/info.html[/url]
Sons Of Russ - [url=http://www.egroups.com/group/sons-of-russ/info.html]http://www.egroups.com/group/sons-of-russ/info.html[/url]
Unforgiven - [url=http://www.egroups.com/group/unforgiven/info.html]http://www.egroups.com/group/unforgiven/info.html[/url]
To unsubscribe from this group, email
armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com (armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com) eGroups.com Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/armybuilder
www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top